June 18, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Great. And Vivian, I'll pass it over to you. For public participation. Thank you. Chair, and Thomas is just going to pull up the slides and I'll go through them. But just wanna start start out by thinking community members for being with us at the Planning Board meeting tonight. and I will just read some rules of decorum for public participation for tonight's meeting. So we don't have any public hearing items. We have open comment at the beginning of the meeting, where members from the public can speak to other issues, not on the agenda. So I'll just go through through these. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. and we want our community members to know that the vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have a lot more detail on this vision on our website

[1:08] next slide, please. I don't know if you can do presentation mode. and the following are examples of rules of deform found in the Boulder Revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. and these will all be upheld during this meeting. First, st 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 emphasis. It's another speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using 1st and last name so that we can call on you using those next slide, please. and just quickly, in case you're not familiar, we're in the Zoom Webinar format. So when we call for people to speak or interested to speak. You can hover your mouth or finger over the bottom of your screen where you see this phrase.

[2:04] Hand icon. And if you're joining by phone you can do the same thing. Raise your hand using start next slide. And these are just showing a few more ways to get to that icon. so that those are the rules decorum for public participation. And now we'll go into the open comment. If that's okay. So please raise your hand. If you wish to share any comments with the planning board, and each person would have 3 min to speak. and I'll just give folks a few few seconds to see if any hands are raised. Looks like we don't have anyone who wishes to speak at this time. So back over to you, chair. Okay, thanks. Well, there's no one here, but we have everyone here in attendance, which I think is

[3:01] 1st in a while, so we'll just jump quickly into. We have 2 sets of minutes to approve. I don't know if anyone has any commentary, or if anyone would like to make a motion to approve the 1st set of minutes from April 16, th 2024. Move move to approve second progress. Kurt. Seconds. I'm gonna go ahead and just do a quick roll call of the people that were there. Laura. Yes. I'm sorry. Mark. Yes, and now yes. Kurt. Yes, Claudia. yes. Mason, yes, and myself. George. Yes, so that is approved. We'll go to the next set of meeting. Minutes. Lost my packet here. Second.

[4:01] lost my connection. Does anyone want to make a move to approve that second set of meeting minutes move to approve. Second. okay, and I'll do the same roll call. Kurt. Yes. Ml. yes, Mark. Yes. Laura. Okay, Claudia. Yes, Mason. Yes. and I approve as well. Okay, great. That is, concludes the approval of the meeting minutes. And now I think we're jumping straight to matters. But before we get into matters I know Helen had something she wanted to quickly mention. Yeah, I am very excited to introduce Christy Fitch to you all tonight. She's joining us virtually, and she is a new attorney with our office, and she'll be joining Laurel and I in working with the planning department and advising the planning board. Christy is coming from Adams County, where she's worked as a land-use attorney, for I believe, at least 7 years, and has lots of experience working with boards.

[5:08] so expect her to be watching for a little while, and then sitting in the seat. Good evening, everyone. I'm excited to get to work with y'all coming up and like Hella said, I'll be filling in. I think my 1st meeting is in August, so you'll see me around. Great welcome. Welcome. Welcome! Alright! I think we only have one matters. Item, if we want to go ahead and have staff introduce it, and we'll go from there all right. Hello, planning board members. My name is Sarah Horn, and I am a planner on the comp planning team, and I'm here tonight with Kj. Christopher Johnson, the comprehensive planning manager. And I'm going to start this presentation really quickly. And then we'll get started.

[6:02] Okay. you were okay. So it's my 1st time in front of you tonight. I'm very glad to be here with you, and I am here to talk about the east boulder zoning update. And the last time you heard about this project Kathleen King was in front of you. there is no chance I can fill her shoes, but I am helping her with this project, and we'll keep moving it forward while she's gone. And like I said a minute ago, we have an amazing team, Christopher Johnson. I'm the comp planning manager. And then there are several other colleagues that are here online, and they might chime in in the discussion portion of the presentation, and just as a quick reminder, Kathleen was before you and I, October of 2023, to describe the project and to discuss some areas in the city where form based code has been applied to date and to go over some of the challenges, benefits, and areas where improvements could be made. She identified and talked about some of those. And then she came back in March of this year to discuss the zoning strategy. And tonight our focus is the draft form based code updates.

[7:11] So in terms of our agenda, I'm gonna go over the East Boulder subcommunity planning process and how its recommendations have directed the proposed changes we're going to present to you tonight. Then Kj will discuss the draft form based code updates in more detail, and once he's finished. I'll quickly touch on next steps, and then we'll open it up for questions and discussion. So just to quickly reorient everyone to the area. East boulder is one of the 10 sub communities in the city. On the left side of the screen you see it outlined in black, and then the zoom in on the right just touches on the Boundaries Foothills, Parkway on the west, the airport to the North Valmont City Park, and the power plant to the east and Arapaho Avenue to the south. and within these boundaries the East Boulder Subcommittee planning process took place over a three-year timeframe from 2,020 to 2022. It included extensive community engagement and developed a vision for the future of the area

[8:06] and based on this vision, the plan lays the groundwork to provide a good environment for business and industry, especially small scale, industrial and manufacturing spaces, life sciences and technical office space to introduce housing opportunities in locations that have traditionally been strictly employment focused to celebrate and support East Boulder's unique character and to foster better connections via planned regional transit facilities within East Boulder to the city and the larger region. 4 areas of change were also identified as part of the planning process. These are locations where the community anticipates the greatest amount of change over time. They're highlighted in blue on the screen. and to facilitate and direct change in these areas to be consistent with the community's vision. Recommendations, including the consideration of form based code, were developed to again enhance the unique character of East Boulder to nurture housing opportunities and to promote a more economically resilient walkable place

[9:03] in tandem with the subcommunity plan, adoption and related to the areas of change. The comprehensive plan land use map was also updated to better align with the vision. For East Boulder. the land use map updates were made in locations only within the areas of change, and you can see them highlighted in red on the screen. the updates included, adding mixed use transit, oriented development, which you see in the pink, purple hatch within those red lines, and then mixed-use industrial, which is the gray hatched area within those red boundaries. and there were no land use changes made in any other locations in the East Boulder subcommittee plan on the land, use on the Comp plan, use on the comprehensive plan land use map. So along with that quick overview of how we got here. I just want to quickly review the process to date. In addition to adopting the subcommunity plan and the Boulder Valley Boulder Valley comprehensive plan land use updates. We also updated the transportation master Plan connections plan

[10:00] to better align with the subcommunity a plan. And then all 3 of these documents now talk to each other and are headed in the same direction. So that brings us to now working on the 1st major implementation step to help realize the vision and the of the East Boulder subcommittee plan and tie together all the previous planning work, the future zoning strategy and form-based code Updates. And, as I mentioned earlier when Kathleen Kathleen came to you last time, she talked about the draft zoning strategy which includes strategic edits to the Use tables to better align with the subcommunity plan and creating a roadmap to apply new zone districts in the areas of change as properties come online with substantial redevelopment or new new development proposals. And tonight we want your feedback on the second item, the form based code updates so to help inform your discussion in terms of engagement. We've held 4 focus group meetings early in the process. We had 3 technical advisory committee meetings, and we held our last last week to review this public review draft. We conducted a business survey earlier this spring to understand how people are using their spaces, especially small manufacturing and maker spaces. I held virtual office hours 2 weeks ago, and we posted the public review draft on the project website on May 28, th and it will be up for comment until this Friday

[11:18] and some of the requests and desires or desires we're addressing through the form-based code updates that we've gotten through feedback are providing more process predictability providing more flexibility to accommodate creativity and manufacturing spaces. and to provide spaces for micro mobility. Those are just a few of the requests we've gotten, and then some of the concerns with the form based code that we've heard are the 10% allocation of 1st floor for production space. That's 1 of the suggestions we're making floor, height and building articulation requirements, and Kj. Will talk a little bit more about those in a minute, and then residential requirements. Understanding of those could be optional in certain areas.

[12:00] and then in terms of Council feedback. We met with them last Thursday to discuss the draft, and they mentioned a few things, and some of these to help inform your discussion include, like I just mentioned, that we got from community feedback the residential requirements. They'd like us to revisit these in the primary office and light industrial areas, and they think that while we should revisit them they may be appropriate in the primary Dod areas. They mentioned code complexity and flexibility. They want us to continue to streamline the requirements potentially be a bit less prescriptive in areas. And some members thought the change from 60 to 40% redevelopment to kick in the form based code might make it more difficult for adaptive reuse, and some members were interested in that. The rezoning process. One member was concerned that it might add unnecessary complexity, complexity to the process, as people will have to go forward with the zoning request, change along with the form based code. So they were concerned about that the call up procedure. They were more comfortable with the increase to 2 planning board members for callups, but they do are of the opinion that it should be a majority of members, so the process becomes more administrative generally over time.

[13:10] There was a concern about open space and density, just thinking about the fact that we're not seeing open space increase commensurate with the addition of new residents. So to try to balance that more in the future. Frontage designations were another item, that there was concern, that the highest design requirements face heavy vehicle streets, and there was concern about that, and maybe they should be more focused on pedestrian bicycle oriented areas. And then the Fbc check-in. There was a request that maybe we check in on the Fbc. At within a certain time period, or after a certain number of projects are completed, to make sure it's doing what we want it to do and to be able to make adjustments. And then the final item that I'll talk about is alternative compliance with the Fbc currently, within the areas of change. Redevelopment must comply with the Fbc. And there are some members that would like us to explore an option where there could be an off ramp to use site review instead.

[14:06] And just to note staff have concerns around the additional code, complexity and potential administrative burden that would result from this type of setup, and we can talk about that more during the discussion, if you'd like. So, keeping all of that in mind, I just threw a lot at you quickly. Our key question for you as Kj. Walks you through the draft updates in just a moment is, do you have questions or comments on the draft form based code updates, as they relate to the East Boulder subcommunity plan recommendations that were listed in your memo, and with that I'll turn it over to Kj. To walk you through the changes. Thank you, Sarah. Good evening. Planning board and one additional member that that is part of our team. Her name is Leslie Oberholzer. She's our consultant from coda metrics who really did the lion share of the work on Updating the form based code. Unfortunately, she's traveling tonight. So she's not here with us. So I'm gonna do my best to fill her shoes and provide some more details on the proposed updates within the form based code.

[15:06] So the 1st thing I wanna start with is just to remind everybody, really what the intent of the form based code is in that it is, really intended to create more predictable outcomes. And that's related to the overall building, massing scale, the permeability of the building addition of transparency and windows, etc. it's organized around building types and frontages. So it's really it's it's really trying to describe how the building is designed to relate to the public realm at the street level and other defined outdoor spaces. It does not entirely ignore uses, which is sometimes a common misconception. When the form is clearly defined, the buildings, then, are able to accommodate a variety of of uses, and the form based code has an opportunity to guide where, in a building, those uses might be most appropriate. The other thing is really, the the code is intended to assist with the implementation of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. So, for example.

[16:09] through the Site Review process, there are requirements to be consistent with any adopted plans that are in place. The form based code as more intended to be more of an administrative review is those those recommendations from the plan are sort of built into the code, so that we're capturing that through the process as opposed to through a more discretionary process. If that makes sense next slide. So where where the form based code would apply. So, as Sarah mentioned, the 4 base code is is proposed to only apply to those areas of change that were identified in the subcommittee plan. So that's around the 55th and Rap Host station area, Belmont Park, east and west, and then the flat Irons Business Park, the rest of the East boulder sub community plan area would remain under its existing zoning structure and continue forward. The form based code implements, the place types. So that is sort of that, was this new idea that was introduced within the Subcommittee plan that's really intended to try to bridge the gap between our land use designations within the comprehensive plan, which are very, very broad, and then ultimately the zone districts which are much more detailed. So the place types describe

[17:20] that mix of uses, the types of sort of outcomes and design character that we're that we're looking for. The other thing that's unique about East Boulder is that, as Kathleen explained back in March, we're proposing an approach where future rezonings would, and future redevelopment would need to be consistent with a proposed zoning map. So rather than proceeding with a city initiated rezoning process right now where we would change the zoning to properties that are in place. we would essentially create a future zoning map that would be amended and added to the East Boulder Subcommittee plan, so that only when a property owner actually initiates a redevelopment project. They would then come into compliance with that future zoning map. And I can. I'm more than happy to go into more details on that

[18:12] another clarification. And and I think it's really important to to describe this, as we've heard some feedback from, you know, from community members and others about questions of, when would the form base code apply? Right now, the way that this is proposed is that if the form based code was adopted tomorrow. Essentially, nothing changes to that existing property. Their existing zoning still applies, their existing uses are still conforming. Everything continues forward. So you know, existing properties can continue the use of those properties, they can adaptively reuse their structure. So even the if the structure is not being modified, there's no requirement to come into compliance with the form based code. You can actually do some fairly moderate and extensive modifications to the structure as well. So right now, there is a there's an allowance for up to a 40% addition to a structure adding 40% of floor area to that building without triggering the form based code. So that would just be

[19:13] run through the existing zoning and site site process. So only when you exceed all of those things. So we're talking about a modification or expansion of a pro of a property beyond 40% or an entirely new construction. So the demolition of it of an existing structure and redevelopment. That is, when the form based code would actually kick in and apply. So the the East boulder sub community plan. And really the form based. Code is intended to implement those recommendations which include not only kind of the broad goals around uses within the plan, but also some of the more physical outcomes related to new streets. multi use path connections and other those other types of

[20:01] connections that are identified here in the connections plan, and then also are now then incorporated into the regulating plans for the 4 base code which I'll touch on in just another slide. The other component is these place types that I described earlier. So if you remember, from the subcommunity plan, this is where we start to try to describe kind of the organization of the types of uses within that larger within those larger areas of change, try to create a little bit more granularity and identify where those where those types of uses are most appropriate within the buildings themselves as well. So those those concepts and those ideas are now kind of incorporated into the form based code itself. So moving into the regulating plans which are really kind of the the fundamental. Yeah, you know, opportunity to describe what is expected of a property going forward, the regulating plans themselves, they define which building types are appropriate. We've also created something. A new thing called a base type, which I'll touch on in a minute, and those are also described

[21:12] within the regulating plans. They also identify the type A B or C frontage. So that is essentially just a description of the side of the building that is facing a street, whether it be a primary street or sort of a back of house or alley condition. And then the design requirements that are related to that. So those type A B and C frontages sort of set the framework for the types of materials, the type of architectural design that would be required for those different frontages, and then also just locate some key elements geographically. So what you what you're looking at here is the regulating plan from the 55th and Arapaho station area. You can. I? You can see in those sort of dark purple lines along Conestoga and at the corner of 55th and Arapaho. Those are the identification of where the storefront building and storefront base would be required. So those are areas anticipated to be an intended to be more sort of ground floor, retail and commercial type of activity, more pedestrian, oriented. You can see the difference in the color where? In the light blue area that

[22:23] that is from the place type diagram. That's the innovation, dod place type. And so there is a general building form that would apply there on the western side. That's the innovation to non residential. So there's a option to put in a it's called the workshop building form, that is, would allow for a fully non residential structure. So an office type of building or research and development or light manufacturing. And then you can also see the the finer green grid of streets that is being proposed. So yeah, if you're all you know, familiar with the area, it's fair, fairly suburban, and nature large lots, some very few sort of street connections and cul de sacs. The regulating plan begins to introduce how that begins to break down into a into a more walkable type of neighborhood over time as those properties would redevelop.

[23:16] The last thing I'll touch on here is that the general building form, which is for the lighter blue area the Tod area allows for a height up to 5 stories, and the maximum 55 feet, which is you know, the the height limit within the city of boulder that applies everywhere except for on the south side of Arapaho, where there's a limitation to only 4 stories because of that adjacency to the existing residential neighborhood that is, to the south, there for Belmont Park, east and west, a broad mix of different things that would be allowed again, aligning with the place type designations in the subcommunity plan primarily focused on a residential mix of type of uses that are adjacent to the park. So the east Side, there on the diagram on the left and the or the west side there on the diagram on the right

[24:08] additional uses allowed within the workshop building and workshop base. So again, that's intended to really apply to these more industrial and light manufacturing or other types of in business and industry type of uses that applies to the hands-on industrial place type new streets again mapped as well. And then I did wanna identify along the Goose Creek, Greenway a requirement for an enhanced paseo, which is kind of a enhanced design for multi use path and other pedestrian types of amenities along that Goose Creek Path. That also would be an extension to a very similar enhanced paseo that was included within the recent amendments for the phase. 2 of Boulder Junction, which is just on the western side of Foothills Parkway there. So trying to create a connection between these 2 plans and these 2 visions for areas that have somewhat similar character in terms of what they are today and what they're envisioned to be tomorrow.

[25:13] So the final regulating plan is for the flat Aaron's business park. Here you can see that the and if you recall the innovation to D Place type extended north of the rail road tracks from that station area and applies to the portion of the business park that is, along 55th Street, anticipated to become a future transit corridor, so wanted to be able to capture that. That's where the general building form would apply, and potentially, if there were larger redevelopments, there would be a requirement for residential along that corridor. For the rest of the area, the eastern 2 thirds of the of the business park in that darker blue area. You can see. That's the destination workplace and the main street live work place types from the plan. That's where we would allow the option to do a general building form and and include residential or the workshop building type which would allow for those non residential and business and industry uses.

[26:13] There's a additional multi-use path connection that is shown through the area along the creek, additional street connections. And then one new thing that was introduced into the form based code specifically for east Boulder is that there are, because of the nature of this existing conditions out there with some large parcels, we introduced. Some new regulations around large sites. So if those were to redevelop, so these would be areas that are greater than 4 acres. There's some additional requirements on overall size of block length. then introduction of new streets. So even though those those new connections whether they be pedestrian or vehicular connections, are not explicitly shown on the regulating plan. If there were a larger site to redevelop there would be the opportunity to to think about that in a more robust way and and show those, and and ultimately implement those through the through the project

[27:15] the base types that I mentioned. So these work hand in hand with the with the overall building type framework. So basically, these are kind of plug and play into the overall building framework. There is a storefront base, which, as as you would expect, is really intended to provide more of that kind of commercial retail type of type of experience and amenity along the street level. It's essentially at grade. There's requirements for a lot of glazing and transparency into those areas. It's allowed in any location across across all these areas of change in the form base code, but would be required at those those key areas that were identified in the regulating plans. The general basis is kind of the workhorse of of the form. Base code, you know, allows for a variety of different types of uses, and then specifically for East Boulder. We introduced this new workshop base

[28:13] that's really identified for these business and industry type of uses, light manufacturing, and particularly those that may need vehicular access on the ground floor, so that workshop base allows for things like roll up garage doors and driveways in order to be located on those frontages. Another thing that was heard really throughout the sub community plan process and through some of the console early consultations with others on the existing form based code and also this is this has come up actually in the Boulder Junction discussions as well is, how do we? How do we improve the existing code to introduce more articulation at the ground level, and in particular create some additional spaces for pedestrians and other micro mobility types of types of uses.

[29:05] So the proposed regulations within the updated form based code introduce some some rules around creating roof terraces and other types of things within the building itself. creating these courtyards sort of, you know, mid block or long, longer front edges, introducing streetscape plazas. There's there's a lot more flexibility, for where the the front of the building can be located relative to the street. So again, trying to allow for greater flexibility for the building to step back, create those spaces for outdoor dining. and you know, mobility hubs and other types of things as well like that. The other thing I did want to. Let's see, I had one other point I was gonna mention on this one which I'm now losing. But it'll come back to me in a moment. Let's go to the next slide.

[30:00] The other. So another comment that we heard really throughout this process and and related to, related to the existing form based code that's in place is, how do we address some of the development costs related to development under the form based code? Currently, there's some pretty high standards for certain types of materials and other kinds of things, especially on those key frontages. So we've especially in a place like East Boulder. We want to provide greater flexibility for a variety of different architectural styles and materials. So we've introduced some greater flexibility. There's fewer frontage requirements, particularly on those facades that are not facing primary streets. We've lowered some of the window and entrance requirements again, particularly on those facades that are maybe facing a side street or are not visible from the street and also introduce a lot more flexibility in terms of some of the materials that can be used. We've also introduced a few changes to the for just to the review procedures again, to try to streamline that process, reduce some of those costs. So the some of the application submittal requirements have been

[31:11] scaled back just a little bit in terms of the level of detail that's provided. In particular, there was a there was a requirement for a really high level of detail on the windows that were being proposed, that quite frankly at the time of review, the architecture is just not that developed. And so we were. We were really asking for more information than would be appropriate at that at that time. Sorry. So key key element, of course, of the sub community plan is, how do we envision East Boulder, evolving over time and starting to introduce housing opportunities into what has primarily been a fairly one dimensional you know, non residential type of type of area. So right now, the way as proposed, the the future zone districts. Map includes zones that allow for residential uses.

[32:04] We've also carried forward the requirement for larger buildings to include a portion of residential uses. This is actually an existing requirement within the form based code that applies to Boulder Junction, and so particularly within those to D areas, going ahead and carrying over that requirement for for larger buildings to incorporate residential and really the the requirements for residential are limited to where housing is allowed by the Zone district there, and where the building type would would require that knowing that there is a desire to continue to re retain those production type of uses in this area. So we're not looking to entirely change east boulder over into a residential area. That's that's certainly not the desire of the plan, and it's not the desire of these proposed updates. So finally, I will. I believe this is my second to last slide. So we've talked also a lot about how do we continue to support business and production uses in East Boulder, going forward a couple of different things just as a reminder. The form based code only applies to those areas of change. So really, the vast majority of East Boulder will continue to exist and move forward as as it does today.

[33:21] We've continued that exist that flexibility for existing buildings and existing uses to expand up to 40% under their existing zoning. Again under their existing rules. So no form based code requirements. the future zone districts that are in that map, or that we would be applying, going forward in a redevelopment scenario provide a very wide variety and flexibility for the types of uses, so they envision and anticipate this combination of both residential and some of these light manufacturing types of things going forward. Also created that that workshop building and base. And then we've introduced a new requirement that would only apply to East boulder for the product, the requirement to provide production space on the ground floor and so on the next slide. I'll speak to that briefly.

[34:11] So what? What that is is on projects, redevelopment projects that are greater than 15,000 square feet. There would be a requirement to introduce 10% of that ground floor area to be considered production business space. There are some design requirements, related to that that production space. So certain building heights would have to, or floor to floor heights of that ground floor would have to be met. The allowance for garage, door openings and other kinds of things and the spaces themselves. We wanna make sure that these are relatively small so that they can hopefully support smaller local businesses, retain and retain some affordability in a redevelopment scenario, and also then there would be a a list of allowed uses that could go into those that production business space which is actually pretty pretty wide, ranging from, you know, kind of these

[35:04] food and and beverage oriented types of production spaces, art studios, and workshops. Any of the industrial classification within our current code within our current use. Code. Vehicular repair and rental service those kinds of those kinds of things. The survey that we did with local businesses that Sarah mentioned earlier really provided us with some critical information from those tenants of what are what are the physical aspects or characteristics of the space that they would really need in a future redevelopment for them to be able to utilize a space like that. And with that I'll go back to Sarah. Yeah. Engaging. And then just really quick. Sorry. Okay, next steps. So really, quickly, just before we get to the discussion, I'd like to just go over the next steps. So you know where we are. As I mentioned earlier, the public review draft has been posted to the website, and it will be up until this Friday, and we'll continue to collect feedback and make refinements over the summer, and we'll be back in the fall with a final set of recommendations

[36:09] recommended updates which will include an amendment to the Subcommittee plan, and that will be include adding that future zoning map that Kj. Was talking about that will direct the zoning for redevelopment and new development. And that will require both planning board and Council approval, and there will also be an ordinance to amend Title 9 to update the form based code, the use table and any other relevant sections that we find we need to update as we're moving through this process with Hela, our esteemed attorney, who has helped us amazingly through this process and that, will require planning board, recommendation and council approval. And so just a reminder of our key question for you. Do you have questions related to the form based code and the recommendations, as they relate specifically to the recommendations of the East Boulder subcommunity plan. So that's our question for you. And whenever you're ready.

[37:03] Chairman Boone, great question for you on how this would be most helpful. So I guess the 1st question is, do you want should we should we offer? Should we ask any clarifying questions? I'm sure there's lots of conversation to be had. But maybe before we go into that conversation, if people didn't understand anything, or if they have a specific clarifying question and not commentary, but questions. I think that might be helpful for everyone, and then and then we can go into comments from the different board members. So I don't know if anyone has any clarifying questions. Kurt, you wanna start. We just price go down the line this way, so go ahead. Sure sounds good. I have number of questions. Thank you for all the presentation. Thank you for the the memo and all the documentation. There's a lot there. There's a lot of details.

[38:00] with regards to the rezoning and the future zoning map. So the difference from the current scheme is that 1st of all, the rezoning would under a redevelopment, the rezoning would be required right as opposed to currently you could redevelop under your current zoning or potentially change the zoning. and you also wouldn't have an option of which zoning consistent with the land use map you chose that that yes, that's correct. So under under the the current proposal that future zone district map would be would be included within the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan, and if a if a significant redevelopment or new development came forward they would need to be consistent with that future zoning view. Future zoning map. You know, the intent really is to move this area and move boulder towards the the recommendations of the plan, and if if so, in some cases the existing zoning would remain so, for example, there are some locations that are currently zoned as Ig or industrial general, which that could that could be perfectly consistent with the plan and would carry forward. But there are other areas that might be Ig today that we've envisioned as

[39:19] of a transit oriented development in the future. So those may be more appropriate than to be rezoned upon redevelopment into something like mixed use for okay, great sounds. Good. I have a couple of questions about the place. What are they called? The not the place types, the the the maps of East Boulder. the regular regulating plans, maybe. Yeah. The regulating plans. Thank you. So the 1st one is about basically about the 55th in Arapaho area you are showing. especially the corner of 55th in Arapaho as

[40:00] pedestrian oriented. You know, the with the storefront. Storefront type right at that corner. Is that gonna work? I mean, Arapaho, is this giant giant car sewer? Right? Yeah. 55th is also giant, and I don't know what. How are we gonna deal with it? So yeah, a couple a couple of thoughts related to that. So the you know, the the regulating plans, and really the the sub community plan have a 20 or so year time horizon, right? So anticipating that there will be changes to some of those roadways in the future that may make them more pedestrian and and bicycle friendly as an example. As far as Arapaho in particular. There's, you know, studies for bus rapid transit along Arapaho, and ultimately that location at 55th in Arapaho is there would be brt stations on the

[41:00] West side and the east side of that of that intersection. So anticipating that there would be a number of people, you know, boarding and and and getting off the bus at that location, adding and and creating those storefront type of uses at that corner is really the intention your comment does echo a comment that we received from you know from city Council, though as well that in some cases some of the storefront locations are are currently applied to areas that are today primarily vehicular oriented. And whether or not that is an appropriate location for those. So that's certainly something we're we're willing to take another look at. Okay. thank you. And then for the regulating plan. Sorry around Sterling, you showed 3 stories, both you. So you showed 4 stories, a long sterling. and then to the north of through that area, and then also to the south along Goose Creek, only 3 stories. Why? Why? Only 3 stories.

[42:06] That's in part, because those sort of reddish tan areas are identified in the in the subcommunity plan as the hands on industrial areas. So that's really intended to, you know, continue to maintain this kind of smaller scale, business and and industry type of uses rather than, say, a 5 story residential structure in that particular location. The the residential components in the Valmont Park, east and west areas are really more focus on the adjacency right to the park there and that green location. But can't you have small scale uses in a 5 story building? You could, conceivably, but I think you know, as far as just the overall sort of consistency with the subcommittee plan. And if you look at those place type descriptions in the Subcommittee plan that hands on industrial area was identified as being something that was slightly less intense than some of the the Dod areas.

[43:01] Welcome. So I have 2 more questions then kind of relating to the the the nexus with transportation. The 1st is about the the the plate, the street types. ABC, and the facade types I'm trying to understand. So we currently we have A and B, and we're adding, C, I'm trying to understand how these connect to like. whether they're more car oriented streets, whether they're more closer, and Paseo's are separate. But whether we're getting more into sort of a vooner, for I don't. I don't quite understand how those relate, and partly this is motivated by the notion that we're going to allow garages. Those garage fronts now only on place type C, which I kind of had in my head as a

[44:03] a more pedestrian friendly street. So can you clarify? Yeah. Yeah, so the type A and B and C frontages essentially define what? What those design characteristics are of the building as it faces that that that street right. That frontage in in particular, the the workshop base and the allowing those garage doors that would currently as proposed, that would be allowed on a type C frontage, or, you know, really a frontage that that doesn't have that primary street visibility. The type c frontages that in the the rollup doors or the garage doors that are allowed within that workshop base are really intended for actual driveway vehicle access, so that would be either access to a parking garage that's within a building, or if it happened to be a you know, vehicle service type of use it would. It would provide that access to that area.

[45:01] The rollup doors that we, I think, are starting to, you know, see? Frequently related to cafes and restaurants and other things like that. Those are. Those are perfectly allowed within some of those other base types on either a type or A or B frontage. So it it's easy to get confused, but those roll up doors from a experiential standpoint are still allowed on those frontages, but the true sort of garage door openings with vehicular access would be relegated to those secondary frontages on the type. C, so am I right in saying that the frontage type ABC has no, it's or completely orthogonal to the character of the street in terms of it's experience for different modes. Not entirely, you know. We. We fully recognize that we want to create and and apply the type a frontage. So those highest level of of design requirements to those areas that are gonna be most experienced by particularly pedestrians and and create those spaces, create those experiences.

[46:10] We are dealing with, you know, an area that has traditionally been very car oriented. And so we are trying to sort of reconcile this challenge of the primary corridors that today tend to be vehicular, but could in the future be more pedestrian, oriented and balance. Where? Where is it most appropriate to have those type? A or B frontages? Again, your your comments are kind of echoing. Some things we heard from Council and others as well, that maybe those type a frontages aren't as appropriate along, say 55, th which is a very car dominated frontage today. Maybe some of those internal. smaller, more pedestrian focused streets would be better for some of those conditions. Okay, that's helpful. Can I ask one more? Okay, thank you? So in in Boulder Junction, we basically.

[47:05] we're we're creating some new streets so we could do them. The way we wanted in Alpine balsam, we were largely create. We're largely going to be creating new streets within the internal area in East Boulder, especially in the Flatiron Park area. There's Central Avenue, and there's Flatiron Parkway, and both of them are really big, wide streets, I think maybe originally designed well, partly originally designed because that way, because that was what you did in 19 78, or whenever that was built. but also maybe with the the notion of running Semis through there, or whatever. But they're not appropriate for the kind of form and experience that we want to create there. What can we do

[48:02] as part of the form based code? I mean, it requires more than four-maced code. But how? What can we do as part of the form based code to fix that narrow the streets or calm them, or whatever. Yeah, it's a, it's a great question. And I do think it's something that we are. You know, we're challenged with in terms of in areas where form based code has applied before we've the city has owned a lot of that land, or or at least, you know, held some control over how those areas redeveloped. And so we were able to shape how some of those outcomes really really came to be, although there were, there were requirements and other expectations that were established in the form based code. And so we, kinda you know, we had to follow our own rules through that. So in East boulder. And, as we, you know, if we consider form based code for the second phase of Boulder Junction, these are things that we'll have to reconcile in terms of the city doesn't own any land in these areas. So it's going to. You depend on private redevelopment over time. So there will be this condition where there's interim improvements that are made on a sort of parcel by parcel basis. But as far as a holistic re envisioning of the street is not something that's likely, you know, to be anticipated.

[49:16] So there are some requirements within the form based code that are related to sidewalk location and street tree location and those kinds of things, the requirement to follow our current Dcs standards that also require separated sidewalks and other more pedestrian amenities along street sections. Those would also apply and be required as part of any kind of individual redevelopment. So they would have to bring the street up to, you know, up to those those regulations as as these projects come online over time. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.

[50:00] I have sort of big, overarching questions. And can you explain the relationship between base types and place types between base types and place types correct? Sure. So the the place types, those were defined in the subcommittee plan. So they, you know, they provide general guidance on the future character of the area. The base types are within the form based code and are really intended to. If you remember, within, this is, gonna get confusing. If you remember, within the place types of the sub community plan those diagrams that showed the sort of difference of uses on the ground floor versus what might be allowed on the second or 3rd or 4th or 5th floor. So the base type is intended to start to introduce that concept on a on a regulatory level, so that the base type, both from a physical form and design perspective, but also in terms of the types of uses that might be most appropriate in those locations start to get applied. So the specifically like the shop front base that would require some of those more retail or commercial type of opportunities.

[51:10] Those are focused in certain areas. It you could use the shop front base anywhere you want, but it might be required in certain locations. Same thing with the workshop base, which is more for those you know, business and industry type of uses. They might be required under a certain building form, but they could also potentially be used in other locations as well, so it's it's our. It's our best attempt to try to take that concept of the subcommunity plan and then build that into code requirements that would be part of a development review in the future. So one of the I think interesting characteristics of place types was that they evolved in section. And does this base type accommodate that so that you don't get a building that doesn't

[52:01] do that place type evolution it it does. It starts to introduce that I would say that we've for purposes of, I think you know, ease of administration for for staff. But also, you know, just thinking about how market forces react and trying not to be too prescriptive. I would say that the base types in the proposed code are more flexible than what's being shown in the subcommittee plan. So we as staff already sort of made that assumption that we needed to back off that specificity just a little bit. But it does introduce the notion of a difference of type of uses on the ground floor versus things that are happening up above. So it does introduce that notion of that vertical mix of uses in addition to just a mix of uses on the ground. How do you introduce a notion at the code scale. Well, some of some uses are some uses would be required, or would be limited in terms of what you could go what you could put into one of those base types. But also, you know, just the the physical nature of those base types might also guide the types of uses that would be best accommodated in there. The workshop building is a good example. So you you necessarily

[53:18] probably wouldn't use that workshop building base type unless you were anticipating, either as a as an existing property owner or a future tenant, you know, if you, if you already had ideas about the types of uses that would go into that you would use that workshop base if you knew that you wanted to support and promote and incorporate those more business and industry type of uses. If that makes sense. Because I think one of the inherent values with the place type strategy in the East Boulder subcommunity plan was that you would get a mix and a diversity, and you would not get a monoculture. And if this doesn't translate

[54:02] to the base types. you know we couldn't. We could end up with all the same kinds of uses above the ground floor, because it doesn't talk about the stratification and and added complexity that was anticipated in that. So I I think it does. I think it. Yeah, I think it does accomplish what you're talking about. And I, you know. One other example I can point to is that the the residential requirement that would apply in certain locations and under the general building form. The requirement is only 50% of the floor area. So conceivably you could have a project that would have business or industrial type of uses on the ground floor. You could have 2 stories of office, and then you could have 2 stories of residential above that. so that would all be allowed and accommodated through the code right?

[55:00] I'll get back to that. But another question. Looking at the regulating plan. how do those regulating plans accommodate what currently exists. So again, the form based code is is really forward looking, and would only apply if there's a redevelopment or a substantial modification of a building more than 40% of the floor area. So they they anticipate and accommodate all of those existing uses that are on the ground today. So by just by adopting the form based code and the application of those regulating plans. It does not create any nonconformities or issues until such time in the future, when a redevelopment proposal would come forward. So there's no There's no referring back to what exists as part of what gets created in the future. Well, in in part, because actually, a lot of the recommendations and the place types from the Subcommittee plan are reflective of what's on the ground today and and what we wanna carry forward in terms of future vision for this area as as really this kind of funky mix of

[56:12] you know, small maker spaces and other kinds of things, but then also allowing for those opportunities to introduce residential. So it really starts with the community process from the plan then documented in the plan. And now we've carried those ideas forward into the regulating plans and into the code. Yeah, I'm thinking about the main street up in that Belmont, I guess from the Belmont exactly. And there there was a study done to document the cultural conditions that exist there did that get incorporated into into the either the base types or regulatory plan. I didn't see any any kind of a reference to. There are

[57:06] layers of existing things that may not manifest in a footprint sure did that show up yeah, it's really difficult to you know incorporate those those kind of intangibles. And the and the sort of organic nature of how these areas evolve over time into the code. And so what we've attempted to do is create a structure that allows for that type of thing to occur today and into the future. So the the allowed uses the flexibility in terms of the design of those structures, all of that is kind of built into the code itself to allow those things to happen going forward, and then related to that social infrastructure study in particular, that area. You know, there's there's a number of different programs and concepts that are starting to be generated by our community vitality team. And you know, these are projects that are starting to take shape and will be worked on over the next couple of years. And so we think there's other additional opportunities through some programming, more of the sort of soft side of things, not the not the architectural side, but those soft side of programs to be able to support those types of uses, and that that

[58:16] just that interesting mix that that occurs over time. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Because sometimes, when we put lay a plan on something, all the minutia that made it so wonderful, you know, kind of vanishes. So I have one last question. Sorry, mark so well. No, I think you might have answered it. How the face, how the Fbc implements, the place types! I think you've already answered that. So that was my question. Number 3, Mark, you are up. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, I'm kind of going in order. As I came across these. So they range from kind of very small to

[59:07] giant conceptual questions. On page this is on. Every time I refer to a page number. It's a Pdf. Of the packet. So page 20, I'm not sure exactly what what that is under East number 2, East Boulder place types the packet says, creating varied architectural outcomes and varied roof lines. Da specifically, how does the new code encourage varied roof lines? And is there any allowance for a pitched rough to equal the same height that we allow for screening right now. Building height is measured to whatever point it is, but with a flat roof, and then the screening go up a really long way.

[60:01] So and again, maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but a Pitchdroff is is is a whole nother animal. So does does implementation of the form base code in this area? Allow for roof lines, varied roof lines that actually can equal the height of screening. Yeah. Good, good question at its most base. Basic in terms of the varied roof lines and the massing of the building. There are some new requirements related to those upper floors. Essentially sort of scaling back or setting back from from the frontage. So your experience as a pedestrian on the ground floor might only be a 3 story building, even though it might go up 5 stories above you. So trying to introduce those kinds of requirements so that you as an again, as an experience. From the street you might see a 2 story section. You might see a 3 story, a 4 story section, but you rarely would get sort of the full volume of the building

[61:06] as far as the pitch roof condition. We we have talked about that, and and certainly that is something that we've discussed within within the staff team. And and we recognize the the desire for some of that architectural variability. Right now, the the code does not allow, as far as I'm aware, of pitch roofs to be able to extend above that 55 foot height limit. I know there's a limit of any occupable space that can't go above that. There are a few exceptions within the charter, if I remember correctly, for things like clock towers and a few other kind of elements. Exactly. Yeah. So I do think it's it's it's it's open for discussion. I do think that also, it's probably a larger community. Question about, you know, is that something that we we as a community would would be supportive of? I know that that 55 foot high limit is is you know, is a sensitive subject for a lot of folks. And hell! It'd be great if you've got any information on that.

[62:15] I I was gonna add something in the form based code. We actually have a requirement that mechanical equipment be incorporated into the building unless the building cannot function properly if it's incorporated into the building. So there's a little bit of a higher standard on what's within the building, and what can be on the roof. Okay. okay. that's a varied answer. But all right. Okay, on page. Can I just ask a colloquy on that. So, Mark, you, were talking about a pitched roof. and and, Christopher, you answered it in terms of a 55 foot high building. But what about a building. That's a 3 story building or a 4 story building. Sure. Could the pitch roof encompass what would otherwise be on the roof? Yes, so to answer your question. Yes, you're right. I was. I was considering a, you know, building 4 or 5 story building. Going up to that maximum height. I will note that the workshop building that is

[63:16] allowed in some areas for those non residential uses that has a height story limit of 3 stories. But it does not have any additional foot height limit so other than the 55 feet. So conceivably you could have a very sort of architecturally interesting building with 3 stories in it, and some varied roof, pitches, and other architectural elements that could conceivably extend up to up to 55 feet. Great. Thank you. On page 26, we talk about clarifications and cleanup and back earlier this year. So what I'm gonna get into is the relationship between these bowler subcommunity place types, the underlying or overlaying zones.

[64:08] Right? The, the the zoning and the allowed uses. Does does the implementation of form based code? And your note here that to clean up remove unnecessary standards, reorganize sections for user navigation, clean up inconsistencies does. When earlier this year, we were given our consultants. Really nice summary of what uses are allowed in a given zone, and that and that real, those nice one page summaries of what's allowed in a given zone. Suddenly. It was easy for me to see inconsistencies and stuff that was wacky. You can have a hotel and a hostel in a given zone, but you can't have a bed and breakfast. It's like, stop, you know. You can grow crops, but you can't grow plants. It's like what you know, so does does this. Adoption.

[65:05] the form, a form based code. I couldn't find where where these cleanups and removing unnecessary standards, etc, are, are they here? And I'm just missing them. It's they they are there, but it's part of a separate component. So the when Kathleen was, it was before you in March we talked about kind of the 1st step of this, which was that future zoning map. And then we are proposing a couple of strategic use table updates to try to better match the outcomes and the recommendations of the plan plan with with some of those with some of the proposed zone districts and uses. So in, you know, as an example, I think, in Ig. A brewery and restaurant, or a brewery or distillery is allowed, but it can't have a restaurant, you know. So those are the kinds of things that we'd like to clean up. So we would bring back what what we're anticipating doing in the fall when we come back after we've been able to gather all the information from yourselves and council and and from the community

[66:07] is we would have a full package of items. So the form based code being one of them, those use table updates being a second component. And then we would also have to amend the subcommittee plan to add that future reason, future zoning map. So there's kind of 3 pieces that that we would need to bring forward as part of a full package of regulatory updates in the future. Okay, thank you. I'm I would look forward to some of those, some of those cleanups in the draft attachment. A. I guess this is page 20, pdf, page 26, street frontage types. So we say, we want to potentially allow larger developments to create their own regulating plans, using a set of guiding regulations. So I'm I'm all for

[67:04] More flexibility, more creativity in streetscapes and street cross sections. And this kind of stuff. However, you know, we're we continue to struggle with the legacy of puds. And so is this just is this just kind of opening up to another way to have a future set of well, this big development decided, they wanted to do this, and we let them do it. And now, 20 years later. We're like pulling her out, going, trying to find pass agreements, etc. So my question would be. is is this a good thing that is more flexible. Or is it? Or is it really we? We just need to concentrate on having clarifying our code and having people adhere to the code. Yeah, it's it's a great question. We, you know. As a matter of fact, we, an earlier draft of the code updates had

[68:04] a much more detailed process actually defined for these large sites which I mentioned earlier in the presentation that are larger than 4 acres. we actually peeled that back through work with Charles's team and on the Development Review side, because we were nervous about establishing a a pud light type of type of process. So what we've done instead is within within the code. And I could, I could find the specific reference. But rather than establishing a new process that is related to that we basically just define some. Some very sort of basic framework for block links can be no longer than 350 feet. You must identify type A and B frontages. You know the sort of checklist of things that would ultimately need to be done as part of a larger site redevelopment. Ultimately that would be, you know, approved, and that that development approval would carry forward. I think there would be less less of of an issue with

[69:07] individual agreements, or, you know, if one piece of the property redevelops it affects all the other pieces of the property, that kind of thing. So really, we've just tried to establish this baseline framework that's going to add the pedestrian connections or vehicular connections that are necessary. But the site itself can evolve over time and individual pieces could be could be redeveloped. You know, in separate from from one another and independent of one another. Okay. a mundane one, then a big one, and I'll be done. Okay, Paseo, under Paseo design on page 62, you mentioned non-motorized vehicles. So with the advent of page 62 of the packet, with the advent of ebikes, etc. There! There are fewer and fewer

[70:02] vehicles that are that are notarized, truly not motorized, and I understand why I think your intention was motorized like cars, motorcycles. etc. But I think that that needs a does that need attention in terms of a definition of a non motorized vehicle. Or do you really want pedestrian like walking? I yeah, that's a that's a really I commend your attention to detail I have to say. That is, that's a great point. I do think that we should define that to be more clear about what that is. The paseos really are intended to be more of a pedestrian experience as opposed to a multi use path that can serve more of a transportation related purpose. And so I think we'll we'll need to take a closer look at that, and and either introduce a new definition, or, or, you know, add some detail to that to make sure that it's clear.

[71:01] Okay? All right, final one. And I want to ask this as a question, because I think this is something for discussion later. Would you agree with Mr. Painter's characterization, Mr. Painter, of the attorney of Holland and Hart, representing the largest landowner in Flat Arms industrial park. Would you agree with his characterization of of what Council's intention and and the East Boulder subcommittee plans. Intentions were around the the what I interpret as a new requirement a requirement rather than a advocacy for or incentive sent it for, anyway. Do you you agree with his? The way he's characterized things in his letter that he sent late this afternoon. Well, regardless of my personal opinions, based on the the process that Kathleen led through, you know, for 3 years through the subcommittee process. Obviously multiple meetings with yourselves and city council throughout that process.

[72:14] She was. You know she's the lead of this project, and was through the beginning, up through March or April when she left for parental leave. So all of the sort of history of the subcommittee planning process carried through the beginnings of this project and ultimately led to these, to these recommendations that are before you. you know, we we went back and we reviewed a lot of the meeting tapes even before 2022 as Mr. Painter alluded to. And and we you know, our staff interpretation, and the and the direction that we received from council at that adoption, hearing in October was to ensure that there was flexibility for con continuation of business and industry uses.

[73:00] but that there was also an important interest in introducing residential into these areas, and in particular the the anticipated future transit areas. So we brought forward a proposal. It appears that you know, perhaps we have received some some comments and concerns, both from community members and and also from council, that we may have gone a step too far. But as far as What what Staff's interpretation of the direction was, and what our interpretation of the subcommittee plan was was that this was an appropriate proposal at this time. Okay, thank you. Or if I don't really have, I don't really have much time. Ok, I have just a couple questions related to Dunk Dump, residential, big surprise. So could you remind me when we did the East Boulder Subcommittee plan, and we adopted it. What was the estimate of how many housing units it would produce under the place? Types?

[74:02] Oh. I seem to recall it was around 5,000. I was gonna say, 5,000. I I do have the plan in front of me. I could pro right here on page 14, opportunity by the numbers, potentially up to 5,000 new homes and potentially an additional 3,000 jobs of what is there today. And I think what I'm hearing from the staff presentation and from the packet is that there's been a little bit of a backing away from requiring residential in the place types. You know the place types used to have 2 place types that required housing above the 1st floor, and that was the neighborhood TOD. Place type. Sorry, not the neighborhood, the innovation Tod residential. So the pink on the western edge of the flat irons business park and then extending into the station area, and then also the parkside residential. Both of those had required only housing, housing, and only housing, or potentially some parking as well in the

[75:08] innovation, Dod, residential, but housing above the 1st floor. And it sounds like that's no longer the case that that has not been carried through into what is before us now with the form based code. Am I understanding that correctly? Well, we have carried forward the requirement for residential uses in new projects that are greater than 15,000 square feet in those areas, or the parkside residential areas. So it's it, you know, it kind of depends on how you would look at it. If if it's an existing use today, and you wanted to continue that existing, use and even expand your project or expand the structure up to 40%, you could still continue to do that under existing zoning and regulations there would be no residential requirement, really, only in the case of that full redevelopment scenario. If the project were larger than 15,000 square feet, that's when a 50% residential requirement would would apply.

[76:09] So so it's been changed then. So instead of it being everything above the 1st floor has to be residential, it's half of it would have to be residential, but only if it's a larger project over 15,000. That's correct. Yeah, there's a little bit of additional flexibility there. Okay? And have you done any calculations on how the new form based code, what you expected to produce in terms of housing, to compare to what was expected before. Yeah, we we haven't done any additional land use scenario testing. I I will say that when we did those original estimates as part of the sub community plan, as I understand it, we. We did not anticipate residential within the Flat Islands business park area, so those numbers would still hold true, even if we made some adjustments to where those residential requirements might apply in the future. So even on the main Street live work, you weren't

[77:01] counting any. Live correct as as I understand it. Yes. okay? And that. And is that, including the innovation Dod area to the to the west on the west edge, it does. Yeah, okay. that that you were not counting on that to be resident, correct, that we were not, including that in those original estimates. So really, we were focused on the station area and the some of the other areas of change. But for the for the most part the entirety of the business park was not included in in those estimates, so that 5,000 units you were expecting it to come out of just the station area and the park side. Residential. Correct? Okay. I must have missed that during the process. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Great Claudia. I'm just gonna listen for now. Mason. A couple small things in the East Boulder Subcommittee planned. These areas are mentioned as as how does it say

[78:02] areas proposed for land use changes and updates. There are 2 smaller parcels, I think, to the southwest like a repose? 63, rd that I didn't see in this. Am I just being silly, or are they not being considered at this time? Those areas. I believe that was an error in that diagram. So those those areas are not included in the areas of change. If you're yeah, if you're looking all the way out East at 63rd in Arapaho. Great cool. I was reading the playground space part of this, and it talked about I know one of the challenges is trying to make sure that we have spaces or families and kids to to feel comfortable. You know, playing outside. And there's a requirement for a playground space every 200 units of housing. And this so that's that's within the project itself. So if there's a large building say.

[79:05] that has 200 units. They have to put on playgrounds somewhere. That that's yes. That's that's what's currently proposed in the code. Okay. could imagine. Go ahead. So was the second part of your question, or the unasp part. So if I have 3 buildings that are 100 units each. then we have no playgrounds. Is that? Yeah, if they if they were 3 individual sites and 3 individual projects, correct that that would not apply, then great, that that makes sense. How was that 200 unit number chosen? I. You know, we just we use certain best practices. Research of, you know. Generally the the number of units and anticipation of the you know, size of households and number of children that might be produced through a through a development of that size.

[80:10] Okay. I'd love to have more education there, just because I don't have those best practices, you know, under my belt. Or really even, I mean, I understand the words that you're saying, but I don't have any context for that to have deep meaning for me. There was another part about trees. more questions about how numbers were chosen. in the yards. Let's see here, see my notes for streets. It was like every 100 or 1,000 square feet, which is basically every 32 feet squared, roughly and then for yards and setbacks it was every 1,500 square feet there should be a tree where possible. I think it's I forgot the exact wording. How are those numbers selected?

[81:01] Well, the let's see, the the street side ones would be more based on some of our existing Dcs standards of, you know, the spacing of trees along along streets, and so anticipating that. And then, knowing that we wanna continue to introduce landscape and shade and other things into some of those hardscape plaza or areas that are adjacent to the roadway. That's where we came up with that 1,500 square feet to have, you know, still have a requirement, but somewhat less of a requirement than a street State Streetcape Street tree requirement. So it's fair to say, that's just consistent with with other work. Right? I'm sorry if I missed this in your presentation. Is the. Is there a similar process for getting exceptions to this? Coming to the planning board? Or, yeah, there, there is an existing exceptions process and hello! I don't know if you actually you probably know that process better than I. Or if the illustrious Charles Farrow would like to

[82:05] opine on that. Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna look it up real quick. There is an exception process, and it's actually pretty broad. I think there there are several ways to get an exception granted, and one of them might only require a demonstration that the intent of the regulation is still being met in a different way, and then there are some exceptions where we have a historic building, or where something's not really possible to do. But I'll look it up, and we do have that set up. Okay. let's see, I would just like learn more about that. And my last question, I'm sorry I do have 2 more questions. So I know that there's the new zoning, and this is just me being new. I'm not super familiar with it. Has there been any effort to simplify the overlay, the the zoning associated with this. Now that this is an added complexity, ye yeah, it's a good. It's a good question. So we had an option. You know, as we started this process to develop the form based code and and then apply the the new underlying zoning, because the underlying zoning is what really establishes what uses are allowed within those form based code areas.

[83:24] The, we had an option to actually create a new zone district, and we politely declined to do that in part because of the complexity of the land use code as it exists today. So we, you know, we reviewed our existing zone districts compared them against the recommendations of the plan. And that's partly why we're proposing to use zone districts that are already on the books. But make a few minor tweaks to the uses that are allowed, so that they better align with the recommendations of the plan, and and wouldn't have, you know significant impacts in those same zone districts if they're applied in other locations across the city.

[84:02] And I saved my worst for last. This is essentially a hairbrained question. But I was wondering if you had any examples of large industrial buildings that have residential in it. as like a potential guide for how successful that is, or how maybe unsuccessful it is. It's a good question. I can't think of any in Boulder specifically, and we can. We can speak to our code consultant because I my suspicion is, she may have some some ideas of of other examples in other cities where those exist. and on top of that I'm wondering if where my mind went, which is again, maybe a naive place. But where my mind went was, we're we're losing. It seems, a fair amount of our industrial stock and other areas of town, and that's largely due to just how much can be charged per square foot. Right? So I was wondering if maybe, having the mix would lead to longevity of industrial uses because there's an opportunity to get

[85:09] or square footage. There wouldn't be as much desire. But I don't know if that's I don't think you're too far off base. I mean, I I think what we're what we're anticipating or what we're hoping for is that the market responds in a way that there are redevelopment opportunities that continue to support these types of business and industry uses, and at the same time start to introduce residential into this area. It's it's possible that if those 2 things were mixed within a single project, the the residential revenue can help to offset some of the cost for some of those non and non residential types of spaces. In particular, to just thinking about the the proposed requirement for that business production space. You know, we were intentional about trying to keep those spaces relatively small. So rather than having to bring in a national chain tenant. You know, making sure that they're small and and hopefully then affordable enough for local and small entrepreneurs to come in and occupy those spaces.

[86:13] Thank you, that's all I have. and I can, Mason, I can follow up on your question. I've looked up the exception section, and I wanted to mention. You didn't see that amongst the form based code you reviewed because there is a section in the code that kind of sets up the review process for form based code. And that's where it's located. It's in Section 9, 2, 16. And the broadest exception is. And it's an exception that can be granted if what's proposed is consistent with the goals and intents of the adopted area plan applied to the area, and the proposed exception will not create an adverse impact on residents of the development or surrounding properties beyond what would ordinarily be expected through implementation of the form based code. So there's a pretty broad standard to apply, and then 3 more possible exception

[87:02] exceptions, one. If there would be negative impact on the historic character of a landmark or building within a historic district one. In case the code would result in a violation of Federal or State law that wasn't anticipated when drafting, and the last one is when there is a condition of the property that was not created by the applicant that makes compliance impracticable. Great? super quick! Yeah. I guess I was gonna ask, does anyone have any other clarifying questions besides Mark? But, Mark, you can go ahead. And in the presentation there was mention of a majority of planning board members required to call up an item that was just in reference to East Boulder subcommittee plan or form based code areas areas operating in correct just under the form based code, right cause. The you know, the long term intention is for form based code to eventually become more of an administrative review. And so I think Council was expressing that you know, desire for a majority of planning board members to be able to call those up.

[88:20] Okay, thank you if if I, if I might just clarify a comment I made earlier as well, colony was able to confirm that. And in fact, we did include some residential units within that total anticipated or estimated number of units for the Flat Islands business park within the Subcommittee plan. So I wanted to clarify the record on that. The assumption that we included within those estimates was approximately a thousand units within the Flat Islands business park as a whole so again, that residential would if if we were to change the the code as it's currently proposed now to remove that requirement residential would still be allowed within that area. And so we certainly could still see a realization of of some or even all of those units going forward.

[89:12] Thank you. Oh, yeah. yeah, I do. I do have a follow up. Go. Yeah, yeah. Thanks. I am very sorry to be dense and a little slow on this, but could we pull up the map of the whole area, and could you just walk us through? I say us, I mean me, could you walk me through where residential is allowed. and where you would anticipate that 50% to kick in? What would make that 50% kick in in those areas where it's allowed other than just a building size and a base type that's governed by the I'm just getting a little confused of how all that overlays, and where we think we can actually get some residential

[90:00] go ahead and pull up the regulating plans. That'll be yeah. We'll we'll we'll flip through each of the regulating plans and see if we can detail this. So we'll starting with the station area plan. So basically, everything that you see in light blue. And let me just let me just double check that really quickly, too. just need to pull this up on my side so the light blue that were the renovation Dod and residential, and the neighborhood Dod. That's right. So every everything that you see on the screen and in the 55th and Arapaho Station area regulating plan. Everything that's in the light blue would require the general building form. and if that new development were to be larger than the 15,000 square foot threshold, then 50% would be required to be residential.

[91:10] So the only way they could get around it is by building a lot of tiny separate buildings. That would be one way, potentially yes. Yes, or or if there was an existing structure that had a non residential type of use, and they just repurpose that structure or potentially added to it that kind of thing. So those uses could continue forward in that way. But if there was a full redevelopment, then that residential component would would apply. Okay, so the next one let me see. So I believe in the in both Belmont Park, east and west there is an option to either use the general form which would also continue to carry that residential requirement. Or you could use the workshop building form which allows for that smaller scale 3 story non-residential building. The one exception to that is the green areas

[92:06] which are the park side residential. Those require both either the general building form or the row building form, and those both have a residential requirement for them. So in the green, if they redevelop, residential is required for 50%, if it's over 15,000 square feet, and in the rest of the areas they could use a building form where residential is not required. That is correct. And actually, I believe, let me just double check on the row building form quickly. because I believe that may only allow residential above the ground floor. But let me just double check.

[93:00] Hmm, hmm! That one may also have the 50% residential. I would have to confirm on the row building. Form a little bit if I can. I chime in here as I'm reading it on the row building type. All frontages and stories allow all uses consistent with chapter 9, 6. Yeah, that's what I was reading as well. So that's why that's that's something I'm gonna wanna follow up with our code consultant on on that question. So in that the row building type, they don't have the 50% requirement. If they're over 15,000 square feet. That's what I wanna follow up on, because I think the expectation is that within that row building form that that would be a residential use. Okay? Or conceivably a a, you know, a non residential use on the ground floor, but certainly above above the ground floor. The intention would be for that to be residential.

[94:00] Okay? And so even the the areas that are in the sort of purple color that were the main street live work in the East Boulder subcommunity plan. Those will not necessarily contain any residential upon redevelopment. They would not necessarily require residential within future redevelopment. They would have the option of either using that smaller 3 story workshop building type, or they'd be encouraged potentially to use the 5 story general form so that additional height, additional intensity, might might be of interest to somebody, but then that would also carry the residential requirement useful to know. Thank you. And then the last one in the business part currently as proposed, everything that is in the light blue would be limited to that general form with the residential requirement. Okay, thank you. Light blue is

[95:00] the western. The western. 3? rd Yeah. Yeah. The yeah. The western 3, rd right along, 55th there. and then on the yeah. So light blue, the western wood wider as currently proposed. Yes, if it's over a certain size threshold, yeah, but not the stuff to the east farther. That is correct. Yes, and that includes that eastern edge along the creek there, that was envisioned as being, I think, the main street live work. Yes, also correct. That would choose. That would include the option to use the 3 story workshop building or the 5 story general building. Okay? So if they want the taller building. Then they have the thank you other questions before we get into commentary. just following up a little more on Laura's excellent questions.

[96:01] Do we have any kind of modeling, then of what? And I know it's very difficult. But what the residential production actually would be under this, the current scheme. We you know we haven't. We haven't run any additional land use scenario tests, but we we fully expect that it would be in line with what the recommendations of the plan would be so we still would anticipate. You know, in that in that 5,000 unit range, conceivably across this whole area over time. Thanks. I'm going to suggest that we take a quick 5 min break so see? Yeah. Why don't we get back here at 7 45. So 8 min and then, at which time I think what we'll end up doing is maybe time capping our commentary for 1st round for kind of 4 to 5 min each each member. And then if we've got a follow up we'll do that.

[97:05] Okay, great. We'll see everybody back here at 7, 45. I like to find it. Anybody out of that.

[112:36] Here, what's the limit? I don't think there's anybody on All right, we're going to reconvene. We had dinner delivered during break. So people are eating on video. That's why. think a nice, efficient way would be to provide you back

[113:02] comments from each board member for each board member, not to try to be redundant. But if they agree with something that somebody else has said, please share that as well like everyone to try to keep their comments to about 4 min each. We'll do a second round if they if we need to. I'm gonna try to cut people off at 5 min, and then again, people will have unlimited time if they wanna make comments. But I wanna try to be fair to everyone and make sure that everyone gets to put in their 2 cents. not necessarily gonna go down the line. But if there's someone that wants to go first.st Laura is gonna go first.st Great. So in reading this, my primary concern was, of course, for residential, because that's 1 of the things that. I really appreciated about this plan. And I I just wanna commend staff. I think that you have done an excellent job of balancing the concerns around preserving light industrial space, providing flexibility and also trying to ensure that we do get some residential production out of this. That was one of the main themes of the East Boulder sub community plan was trying to

[114:13] create new neighborhoods that have that funky industrialness that still preserve the character of the neighborhood, but that bring bring more people in to appreciate the artistic and funky and industrial nature of this area, and and be customers for those businesses, and and provide just a more mixed use neighborhood. So I think you've done a great job. I really appreciate the walkthrough that you did of showing how this the regulating plans and the base types and the zoning combine to make make this vision really a reality. And I think that was a big challenge. And I think you rose the occasion. I just wanna say Thank you, and I'm very pleased with the result, and those are my comments, for now alright, anybody want to go next.

[115:00] Shock. I'm out. Thank you. So thank you very much. You know, I really appreciate the challenge in trying to codify place. I think that was the leap you were asked to make, because the East Boulder subcommunity plan was based on place types. and necessarily those were articulated in the community supplant in 3 dimensions. That's my questions about how do we? How do we make that happen? My concern? Well. and and that you're branching out to say it isn't just a code that's going to help hold this in place. It's going to be these other additional. I think I commend that I think that that's a a holistic way to begin to attend to a community plan, because that's a really big task. So my main concern is

[116:01] And you know, I ask for this in so many different ways, all the time understanding how the impacts of the information of the processes that we put into place. What are the impacts to our goals around work? How much, how many jobs are we bringing into town? Since we don't have a in that flat iron area. I mean, we saw I was understanding when we 1st reviewed the East Borough sub community plan that that strip along the creek. There was really going to be focused on residential. And now to see that they that they don't have to put any residential in there, if they don't, you know. given the threshold you've put out there. I think it would be really important to be to find ways to project. What are the impacts if this is built out

[117:01] with. and we've already heard from that one project and that developer that owns all they don't do housing. What happens if they build it all out in living science buildings, and we don't get a single drop of residential. What happens if we only get residential and other? Let's let's articulate the extreme edges and see if if the things that we are proposing the codification is. Gonna in fact, where are we gonna land? We know we won't hit the extremes. But it's good to know, because we we speculate. And we think we're upholding our values. The intent of this community plan to create a community. And are we gonna miss the mark? So that that would be the concern that I would put on the table? Is to start analyzing the consequences of some of these things that we're putting together. Otherwise, a brilliant job you're doing. You're doing great work. Thank you so much.

[118:05] Alright. Someone else. Sure I can go. Thanks. Yeah. I had 2 main concerns. One was regarding the the, the change to how we're regulating the residential. But and I I came into this meeting, I guess pretty concerned about what was being proposed, but I feel significantly better now, and so at least, at least, as things stand, I would support what's being proposed with the threshold of the 15,000 square foot building and the the the base types, and that whole the whole scheme. My biggest concern, as maybe was indicated by my questions, is about the relationship to the transportation system, and how we deal with these existing roads, streets

[119:02] that are just very unfriendly. The design and construction standards doesn't really help us a lot there, partly because it explicitly says it's a minimum. Standard. And so it doesn't really provide any mechanism, for instance, for narrowing a street that was constructed originally too large. And so I think that there's more work to be done there, certainly, with regards to the design construction standards. But maybe I I would like to see us think about how we can also incorporate some of that into what we're doing here with the form based code. But overall, I think it's a great job. I can go next. So I don't have too many commentaries. agree generally with what Ml. Said, which is, and I thought it was highlighted with Laura's questions around

[120:02] just understanding a little bit better. I think, for for us and for our comfort with it when it comes back to really have some some clarity. I think it will help with the community sort of just understand what kind of outcomes you know, we we think we will actually be able to achieve. We can do a little bit more work on that. I think that would be helpful. I thought Mason had some really interesting questions that highlighted some other things that are worth being investigated, you know, around. especially around we talk about housing and uses and something that's near and dear to a lot of us around, sort of making sure that we're bringing in families, and we have spaces to accommodate those. The question around playgrounds is that the right number? Doesn't feel like it is to me. Certainly, when you start having multiple buildings within the same project. So I I would ask that if we have best practices around that to highlight it, and if not, maybe maybe there's an opportunity to go back and take another look at that, along with sort of the open spaces that those provide. There is one other area

[121:06] we talk about sort of alternative uses to to residential. And I know, and even in one of those areas around sort of that, that 10% usage. I gotta actually find my note on that ground research and development. I just I wanna make sure that when when we talk about research and development, it isn't just code for someone to put an office space in and I don't know if that's super clear, at least in here. But I'd asked to to really clarify that. So we don't get sort of Trojan horse class a office and spaces that are really targeted for light industrial. But those are my thanks. I actually want to start building on something that George mentioned. And again, Mason's questions about the the playgrounds. It brought up this issue of outdoor spaces

[122:04] to me. And I share your concerns that that that's not the right number, potentially even way to regulate that. And I'm just curious. If there is a way we can think about outdoor space needs in this area. based more on things like square footage, residential square footage as we've gone to, and other portions of the code to try to disincentivize, having fewer units. larger units, etc. But to really look at providing for different unit footprints that are going to get us that space. The other thing that's on my mind after this discussion is how we are looking at the the A B and C building frontages and streets in this plan, and I am somewhat concerned that you know those highest design standards are being put on what really are car- oriented streets, where they may have a a larger effect on a pedestrian landscape if they are put on some of those secondary streets. So really thinking about what we're trying to do.

[123:09] When we talk about what the front of a building is what the back is. I would really hate to see some of these paseos and smaller alleyways that are being planned in become kind of the the real dumping ground for backsides of buildings when they actually could be very nice community spaces and passageways. So I concur with folks here that this is great work, and the overall goals are really important to bring certainty and simplification to redeveloping the East Boulder subcommittee area. I think the the real question, though here is is this is the mandate to require housing for me, the real? That this is the heart of the question is,

[124:04] how do you do that without creating some, some really strange, potentially strange, outlying situations. Because when we think about housing, when I think about housing, and I think about mixed use. I think about second and 3rd floor above A, a shop of some kind, a small manufacturing space R&D. Center. Whatever it might be. I think about the East coast, and even the midwest of the Us. And older areas that were developed in the early 20th century and stuff brick buildings 2 and 3 stories tall. That's that's like cool, mixed use, you know, lofts, etc. when I think about requiring residential in a 120,000 square foot life sciences. You know laboratory which there's there's many potentials for that in the Flatlands Industrial Park that doesn't feel like the kind of mixed use

[125:06] that that I think about. And nor do I think that the BBC thinks about which I'll just quote the city will preserve existing industrial areas as places for industry and innovation. and will pursue regulatory changes. Better allow for housing the city will encourage redevelopment and infill to contribute to place making, and and the placing. So when I think about 55th and Arapahoe, and I think about a lot of housing there. that's that's that's great. When I think about again, 20 units tacked onto the side of a giant life sciences building like we did the concept review for the other day. That doesn't feel so great at all. So I think that's the tension there between these boulder sub communities plan of goals for housing our whole community's goal for more housing and more mixed use and place making, and then interjecting a use

[126:10] into a space that I don't know if we're ever going to overcome the character of flat Irons Industrial Park. It. It is an industrial park, and I don't know what threshold, what requirement is right for demanding residential inside inside a building that may have a really just incompatible use in terms of even terms of these life sciences building. We've been reviewing really tall. So you know, 2 floors, but they're 45 feet tall, or whatever. And again, it's just. It's like the mix of uses there feels super incongruous, and I'm not a cheerleader for this. What I perceive to be a bubble in the Life Sciences building market. Not at all. I'm a housing cheerleader, but I just that feels this the way this is.

[127:07] Come about. It doesn't feel like it feels like there could be some really bad outcomes. Yeah, I'll jump on the bad morning. Great job, really. Great presentation easy to follow, and really great work on putting this together, I think the thing I liked most about it is how much flexibility there appears to be in this while meeting the goals at stake goals of the plan. I feel like the flexibility really is going that that I like so much is going to rely a lot on how this interacts with the the zoning updates. I know that one, at least in in my reading preparing for this. The one issue that I saw people keep commenting on with form based codes is that it can add a lot of complexity if the isn't. If it isn't thoughtfully integrated with Euclid zoding and land use.

[128:07] So I know that you guys are thinking about that. I know you guys will do a good job with it, but just wanted to point it out. That's really important. Playground's been talked about by a couple other folks. I agree with the comment that maybe square footage is a better way to go to try to incentivize the right thing. You know. I was just looking at some rough back of the envelope numbers, and if you assume a 800 square foot per unit, 200 units comes out to 160,000 square feet. I don't know how many buildings we're going to get of that size, and I don't know if my math is reasonable in my assumptions. But I feel like that's almost 3 times the size of what I would expect when you start thinking about. You know, 30 kids at a school uses one playground. anyway. I'm going to build on Kurt's comment.

[129:02] And kind of nitpick on the courtyard requirement along with Rapa ho! And 55th I like that, but it does only work. If there are major changes to those roads. So I'm not fully attuned to what plans there are there. But I feel like you can't have one without the other. Otherwise it's just not gonna make much sense. And I would like to see courtyards and store franges and all that along those roads. So I'm interested in hearing more on that development. And then, I guess, just as for my follow up for my own personal education. If you do find that example on industrial residential mixes. And hopefully, maybe additional information on how that impacts the longevity of industrial stock. I'd be excited to to learn more about that, and I think others would be, too. I feel like that's

[130:00] Part of the fears of our community is losing the industrial stock. So if this can be an incentive in terms of helping the longevity of that stock, I think people would would appreciate knowing that. That's all. I got great any follow up final thoughts from anybody. I'll just second something that Claudia said which was try marked, too, and I didn't bring up in mind was. I don't know whether I fully agree that, you know. degrading the material standards along sort of the B and C facades. Necessarily I don't. I don't know that that's driving a major amount of cost. But there could be long term major benefit to not maybe maybe maybe taking another look at that. So just wanted to support that anybody else. Kurt. I had a bunch of other just very minor, some of them. We've just typos and stuff like that. Would it be appropriate to just send them by email? Yeah, Helen says, yes, great

[131:02] anybody else? Oh, thanks. Guys really appreciate you walking us through that alright that closes that portion. I think all that's left is any additional matters. Items from anybody. Brad, I don't know if you have anything. Well, excuse me, Brad Muller, planning and development services I did for the big audience we have here. you know, as we embark in the summer it it can be tempting to imagine that there's a little bit of a lull, but I will assure you that the amount of activity that we're still seeing come in both on specific projects that you see. But also these planning projects are ramping up quite considerably, and

[132:00] we're very mindful of the fact that the update to the comprehensive plan is going to be kicking off this fall Christopher's entire team. And indeed, the whole department is very mindful and ramping up for that. So there's a a lot of work in the background that's being done both reacting to the applications that are coming in, that you see more frequently than the administrative items, but a whole lot on the administrative side, too. So we appreciate all the good work that the teams are doing, and appreciate your support in that regard, too, and you can anticipate quite a bit more in that regard other than that. Just appreciate your time. And thank you again for your understanding about our our food situation. Please take food home and thank you as always, for your service. Any questions for me. It's like there might be. Yeah, Kurt. Bye. I have a question. My understanding is that the State prohibition on occupancy limits goes into effect. July first.st Is that

[133:08] yeah? And we've functionally not been enforcing on that. So we've made some we've done some internal coordination on what that means in terms of follow up when we get complaints, what it looks like. In our documentation and things online. So those are getting updated. We will be going back to council with some code updates which you'll obviously see before them. The dates are a little fluid right now. They're in the fall. And you know, essentially, because it already is known law at the State level. It's not a time. Sensitive thing that we get those done. We just want to get that clean up. Taken care of. Okay, so we're not. Actually, we won't be actually in violation of the no, I mean, it's unenforceable law at this point that we've got on the books. So yeah, that's true. Also for a little bit, with adus and a little bit with.

[134:05] well, I think that's it for now. But we've we've got other State laws that will be making adjustments to the transit. Ordered communities will require action over time. We've got a good year and a half on that. We've got some state opportunities for psilocybin medical considerations as well. So th, that's part of what I'm alluding to in terms of the teams being very busy, and that includes Helen company. There's a lot that's being brought to the attorney's office for regular review. So everybody's keeping busy. Great. Thank you. If we have no other additional items, I just wanna touch on our calendar next meeting is July 16.th that's our only other meeting in July, and then it's August 6.th

[135:00] So we don't have. We have some pretty decent breaks, as it relates to myself. I don't know whether I'll be at the July 16th meeting, but either way I'll be remote in a pretty far way time zone, so I'll need someone else to share it. I don't think we should remotely chair if we don't have the opportunity to, so I don't know if Mark, you'll be available. Okay, so Mark will. Mark will take on that responsibility. Anybody else have any comments as far as schedule goes, or things that we should be aware of for the 16, th or maybe for the 6.th George, we do actually have a meeting scheduled for July 23rd as well. we do. Yeah, there's a public hearing currently scheduled for that meeting. Oh, that's I'm looking at the website. I don't see it on the website. Okay, we'll need to get our website updated to reflect that. Then. okay. I still have it in yeah, 16th and 23, rd yeah, I'm just looking at the upcoming events, which may be what the public's looking at.

[136:04] Alright. So the 23rd I'll be in the same situation. I don't know. Okay. Good. Okay, great. I did have one other thing I forgot. I wanna congratulate Sarah for her 1st successful presentation in front of you. So you know that's always a it's always a milestone. So we appreciate that. And we appreciate her and her stepping in and helping while Kathleen's been out a little bit. So thanks. alright, thanks everyone. Unless anyone else than anything else. So we'll turn on the meeting. Thanks.