October 15, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:03] I just hit record okay great um well we're going to get started I know Mark is absent uh Mason should be joining us online shortly other than that we have a full board um so call the meeting to order uh for October 15th for the boulder planning board um guess the first thing we'd like to go into is uh public participation great thank you Thomas for showing the slides good evening everybody my name is Vivian Castro wridge and I'll be taking you through the rules for part public participation at the planning board meeting um so the first thing I wanted to share is just that the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations and this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and board commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages identity lived

[1:00] experiences and political perspectives and we have more information about this productive atmosphere's Vision on our website next slide please and for tonight I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision and these will all be upheld during this meeting first all remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to City business second no participant shall threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person third obscenity racial epit and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise imped the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited and participants are required to identify themselves by first and last name and uh think we don't have an issue with that at the moment so I'll just remind people if that becomes an issue later on what to do about it and we'll have open comment um once I'm done explaining this and that is for community members who

[2:02] are joining us in person or online to share any comments related to matters not on the agenda later not related to the public hearings because you'll have a chance to speak to those during the public hearing uh point in the agenda um and so if you can raise your virtual Hand by clicking on it at the bottom of your screen and we'll not to call on you or by going to the reactions button and then finding that rais hand uh button so we can I think move into this open comment section of the meeting which I mentioned is for um matters not related to the public hearing items and I'll just give it a couple of seconds and see if anybody with us tonight wants to speak during open comment looks like we don't have anybody so back over to you chair okay thank you um we don't have any minutes to approve

[3:01] nor do we have any call-ups or continuation so I'm going to go ahead and um read off our first public hearing item that we have on the agenda uh this public hearing and planning board for consideration of the following items as part of the implementation of the East Boulder subc Community Plan number one um first we'll hear about the amendments to the east Boulder sub community plan um including the 55th and arapo station area to align East Boulder land use plan connections plan and place types diagram with the refined vision for the East Boulder areas of change and additional supporting information number two uh a recommendation to city council regarding proposed ordinance 8669 amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 by adopting form based code standards uh for parts of East Boulder moving the form based code from appendix m to chapter 9914 form based code BRC

[4:03] 1981 revising rezoning and trip reduction standards for East Boulder and setting forth related details um so with that I will uh pass it on to staff for their presentation good evening uh planning board uh you are off to a quick start you C me off guard there uh we are very excited to bring forward uh what is essentially the implementation of uh a lot of hard planning leading up to the adoption a couple years ago in fact right as I was starting as a side note uh to the uh East Boulder subc Community Plan and this is an ambitious plan in that it tries to um really balance

[5:00] um what I've kind of described as not the low hanging fruit not the middle hanging fruit but some high hanging fruit of trying to um balance some Community Values particularly around densification and around the balance between historic uses particularly industrial uh and related uses and the potential for housing uh we know that that is a uh a tough needle to thread and through the public input that we've gotten through the processes going all the way back to the original planning processes but also then more recently through the implementation through these uh zoning changes um we we hope to be finding that balance where we uh want to preserve and allow and even uh encourage the thriving of many of the historic uses but also set the stage for transition over time so that uh housing in particular can be added but also thoughtful Redevelopment of industrial

[6:01] should the land owners want that should that be appropriate uh city building is not an overnight thing so this is really part of a 10 20 30e vision and uh you would all be helping set that stage for that gradual uh transition over time we do want to acknowledge too that you've gotten some letters in the last day or two uh from Property Owners out there we're going to try to parse some of um what we think are misunder ings on some of the points and then you know create a a a opportunity to then talk through others of those as well and with that I think I'm turning it over to Kathleen thank you okay good evening um I'm Kathleen King I'm a principal planner in comprehensive planning thanks for having us tonight um it's great to be here in person I haven't been in person in a while so it's lovely to see people in

[7:01] 3D um I'm excited to be here to work on an important step in the implementation of the East Boulder sub community plan I am joined by Christopher Johnson and Sarah horn um who are here and then we also have um colani pooa and Garrett Slater online um for questions should those arise and then um also joining us virtually and presenting this evening as well is our wonderful project consultant Leslie oberholzer from kod metrics okay so um as you're aware we have a pretty robust package to go through tonight um we're going to do a staff presentation about a third of the way through we'll break for some clarifying questions should you have those um and then we'll take us through the rest of it um more time for any questions from the board we'll do the public hearing

[8:00] um and then go into deliberation sound good okay all right so um as I just mentioned we're going to break the the uh presentation into two two big chunks and so here I wanted to provide maybe a little Clarity for everyone because we received some feedback over the last few days and I think there's maybe confusion about what's included in the sub community plan um versus what is a code update or for an amendment to the code um so the East Boulder subc Community Plan amendments are pretty limited we're revising three diagrams based on feedback that we've received during this process and then we're adding um two elements to support future implementation of the plan so these amendments are are really valuable because our code includes criteria that requires projects in this area to be consistent with the plan so we want to keep this up to date make sure that it reflects the latest thinking

[9:00] and then um the real focus and and kind of the heart of um this project that we're currently working on are the code amendments so we've made um some significant updates to the form based code and Leslie is going to review those and then there's some other revisions that KJ is going to walk through um and those are a little bit on the cleanup end of code changes to align all of these different bits and pieces so we don't have conflicts or challenges in the future when they go into effect all right so um key issues for the board to keep in mind um does the board support recommended amendments to the east Boulder subc commmunity plan and then additionally does planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and the East Boulder subcommunity plan okay so I'm going to start with um the sub community plan and I know many

[10:02] of you were involved in that process we began working on the East Boulder sub community plan in 2019 um it didn't wrap up until 2022 there was a international pandemic in the Mist but um everybody got through the process and really despite all of the kind of challenges of the time there was great engagement throughout the subc community planning process we got a lot of really good feedback and I believe that the sub community plan overall has had good support and buyin from community members during that process we heard a lot from the community about the types of uses that they want to see in these different East Boulder neighborhoods we heard a lot about what those neighborhoods should look and feel like and we heard heard an overwhelming support for finding ways to maintain spaces for small and local businesses in this area and so um Additionally you know one of the biggest changes that's

[11:01] included in the plan and um was discussed throughout the course of the planning process was support for integrating residential homes into mixed use neighborhoods in East Boulder so the Amendments that I'm going to go through are still in line with these major components of the plan and um I think you'll also find that the form-based code and the updates being proposed for the form based code are also really working to implement these supported features okay and then um just for everybody and anybody listening online um as a reminder East Boulder is one of 10 subcommunities the area of the city that we're talking about is generally north of Arapaho and east of Foothills okay um so the first amendment that we're going to look at is the East Boulder sub community plan land use map so this map is intended to guide future

[12:02] land uses and is considered when properties in the area are looking at rezoning so this um is the map included in the plan and the area that we're amending is along 55th Street north of the rail tracks the area includes 11 Parcels um one of those Parcels is owned by um Boulder County and it houses the Sheriff's Office so um that's just sort of a note that that might be one that is unlikely to experience significant change in the near term but the designation in the subc community plan is mixed use to or Transit oriented development and this is a designation that was actually created for this plan to help guide Redevelopment at Major hubs for transportation or along Transit corridors to include primarily attached residential with with a mix of other

[13:00] uses that would be able to take advantage of that great Transit access so the other place that you see this designation and I can't if I um I scroll my arrow over the map it's not showing up on your screen but um if you look to the um southern end of that map the other place that you'll see this applied is 55th in Arapaho um this is that 55th in arapo station area and the city is right now continuing to work with RTD C do and other local municipalities to support bus Rapid Transit along East arapo with the regional Hub at that intersection so the amendment to the land use plan um might look familiar to some folks who were involved in the subc community planning process this amendment revises the designation for those 11 Parcels to uh mixed use industrial

[14:00] designation and that um land use description instead of being primarily residential focused is primarily industrial but supports integration of other commercial and residential uses and still comes with the explicit intention to evolve to a more walkable mixed use neighborhood um I said it might look familiar because um this version of the land use plan was actually one of the proposed scenarios that we looked at during the subc community planning process and at one point we had received feedback from policy makers at the time to extend the Tod designation along 55th um during Community engagement for this recent um zoning effort and the East Boulder zoning project we continueed to hear concerns about this area along 55th north of the tracks not having the robust Mobility options envisioned for a mixed use Tod area and wanting to be cons assistant across the

[15:00] flat iron business park with a primarily industrial designation so that's that first change and so you'll see the next Amendment just realigns that place types diagram included in the subc community plan to be consistent with that land use change so in the 2022 plan a place type of innovation to with a primarily residential component um is applied for those parcels and then in the amendment this has changed to destination workplace So the subc commmunity plan describes flat iron Business Park which includes um the series of parcels as continuing to offer high quality light industrial flex and office spaces to support local businesses but the neighborhood will also evolve to inspire Innovation encourage active Lifestyles and create a local destination District that exemplifies exemplifies a finely tuned

[16:02] work life balance new retail restaurant and shopping options will support a more active district and allow area workers to walk or bike short distances to meals drinks and shopping so staff finds that the amendment is aligned with the vision described in the sub community plan for this area and I would also note um that while the designation doesn't direct Redevelopment that is primarily residential you'll see in the code updates that the option for including residential components in a project in this area is still there and would be supported by both the code and the plan okay so I will move to connections um this is the connections plan from the East Boulder subc Community Plan and this network was planned in step with those land uses um because East Boulder today is mostly industrial we have a lot of um really large blocks not a lot of access

[17:01] through neighborhoods and this connections plan recommends a few new connections to break areas into walkable blocks and provide more access through those changing neighborhoods as we began translating this connections plan into the form based code and those regulating plans there were two areas where we identified some revisions that would be necessary so these are the Valmont Park West neighborhood and the 55th and a rapaho station area so those are in the red boxes um we're going to look at Valmont Park West First this neighborhood is located on the west side of Elmont Park so um if you've been to like Vision Quest Brewery or Spark Theater that's the neighborhood that we're looking at here and you can see in the original subc community plan we had proposed two new Street Connections in the area one a which provides north south access from Street to Sterling Drive and then 1B

[18:02] which creates a new East West Street about a block North of the Goose Creek Trail and the proposed amendment to the sub community plan revises the 1A connection and this is intended to more equitably distribute RightWay needs for New Street connections and then um instead of proposing a new vehicular bridge over the creek the one-end connection that you see here um takes advantage of an existing Bridge that's out there and uses this as a pedestrian bicycle bridge to complete that north south access over the creek the second area where we're proposing some amendments is the 55th and Arapaho station area again the focus of the new connections here is to create walkable blocks deliver more access into and through this neighborhood to support the changing uses and the connection that we're going to be amend is 1e which

[19:00] is a new North South Street just west of 55th um as we further studied these connections and in planning for the implementation of the East Arapaho Transportation plan we're striving to consolidate access and reduce curb Cuts along arapo so this new proposed 1q will connect that 1e connection to an already existing a access point along AR rapo um we did still feel that having a pedestrian and Bicycle Connection in this location was important so 1M would also be an amendment to the plan um all of these connections plan amendments were recently shared with the transportation Advisory Board and um they supported these amendments okay um so this is one of the items that's being added to the subc community plan I've mentioned the Arapaho br project a couple of times um

[20:01] C do calls this the Colorado 7 project so our rapo is State Highway 7 and um we are planning for bus Rapid Transit that will connect Boulder All the Way East to Brighton so the city's been working with C do and RTD to advance this effort and the project has completed preliminary engineering so to help facilitate the installation of plan facilities along this Corridor staff has recomend commending adding these cross-sections for East arapo to the plan these are consistent with the facilities that were included in the East rapo Transportation plan and referenced in the subc community plan but this um provides a greater level of detail that's helpful um as we continue to work towards implementation and then um finally the last amendment is the addition of a recommended rezoning diagram and um this diagram is really

[21:03] intended to just be a helpful reference to property owners and staff as projects consider rezoning the project team evaluated zones whose uses would most closely align with the recommendations of the East Boulder subc Community Plan um but this is not a resoning it does not change the Zoning for any of these properties if Property Owners want to Main maintain their current zoning they can if they want to pursue a different rezoning they can go through that process this is really just intended to be a reference to say if you want to align the future use of your property with the sub community plan recommendations here are zones to consider that offer the best match okay and then um as a reminder the 55th and Arapaho station area plan is an appendix item to the subc community plan

[22:01] so we went through that document and updated any diagrams or language um so that it's consisted with the recommended amendments I've gone through for the subc community plan and we can break there and go through any questions folks have about the subc community plan amendments before we get into code updates couple of clarifying questions uh the recommended resoning map that you just showed us does that map assume approval of the land use plan and place type amendments that we're also looking at at this time yes okay thank you and yeah that's it for clarifying I think uh thank you I have a question about the proposed change to connection one a so my first question is that existing

[23:04] Bridge that's there is that public is that private yeah oh looks like Christopher has the answer oh yes we have Garrett online as well um it is today a vehicular bridge is it publicly owned or privately owned I'll look to Garrett yes Garrett Slater Capital project manager for the transportation and mobility department good to be with you this evening and that is a publicly owned Bridge maintained by the city great okay and so the connection as shown the proposed connection one in would be pedestrian bicycle only so would the bridge then become restricted to pedestrians and bicycles yes

[24:00] yes I'm looking at my screen at Garrett to confirm yes yes that's correct yeah we would we would change the ability for vehicle access uh to no longer um be permissible such that only pedestrians and cyclists could access it okay great thank you um and then one other Transportation related question the proposed crosssections for rapo that you showed similar cross-sections were presented at Transportation Advisory Board a few months ago and there was discussion about how the bike lane the protected bike lane may not be built at the same time as the transit Lane gets installed and so I had concerns about well what do

[25:03] bikes do then if if the outside Lane becomes a a a bus lane and there's no bike lane would bikes be allowed on the bus lane and I I talked to Jean Sanson about it and from transportation and mobility and she said the answer was yes so Garrett can you can you confirm that yes so I I can confirm directly to to answer your question Kurt that similar to the way things operate on 28th street today where we have the the business access and Transit Lane that is currently signed for cyclist um and they're welcome to use that lane so they chose so choose the same would be true as the bus lane is implemented on a rapole which we are hoping to be in place as soon as this time next year

[26:01] 2025 um additionally we are going to be starting construction on a multiuse path upgrade project to convert the existing sidewalks along Arapaho up to multi-use path grade facility through the majority of the corridor not the entirety and that project will be moving forward early in 2025 so cyclist would also have the option to travel along uh an upgraded facility off of the street great thank you appreciate it um I have more connections questions um just back to that uh area that Kurt was asking about is that the only access off of Old Pearl that goes north into those businesses is across that bridge so the other way to get um get into that neighborhood would be 47th

[27:00] Street right and then you're going through basically what is um very congested parking areas and it seems like those businesses that uh are along that currently along that uh Creek that are accessed by that are going to miss U are going to lose a significant access point were they okay with this I can I can try to uh speak to that ml So So currently that that uh bridge that exists there um does allow for vehicular movement but it's really only used as a service access so there's really there's not business um or uh a lot of vehicular traffic that that crosses that bridge today um to access those businesses those are accessed through 47th or Sterling Drive and then you know through

[28:00] those driveways the the connection 1B that is proposed is that as those areas were to redevelop over time 1B would be developed more as a traditional local street that would provide greater access to those future locations and um so yes that bridge is currently the only axis off old Pearl going north uh except for 47th which is which is a you know more a a true um street that that connection that bridge right now uh is basically yes the access off Pearl Street but it it um accesses into a parking area in the back there um particularly for those you know loading areas and service areas that kind of thing right so the other option uh would be to come in through Sterling Drive and those other locations right um just curious how did those U business owners in that area react to this idea of losing that bridge well again the the bridge would not be

[29:00] converted to a full pedestrian and bicycle condition until future Redevelopment at some point so it's um it's a it establishes the vision for what that bridge would would do but there would not be an immediate change to that um until some point in the future once Redevelopment occurs okay uh second question about the um uh new connections so there was a piece of that that talks about um on large lots that you want to create uh pedestrian excuse me pedestrian um opportunities across them and you identified sort of this area and the um one at the South End uh what about the large lots that are the flat iron Business Park area are they subject to this connections planning or is it only these areas in red that are going to be um given Direction around how to

[30:01] accommodate that no I think I think you're referring to um and Leslie overol we'll get into this a bit more as we review the form-based code updates but oh there's a um there is a provision in the proposed form base code that addresses larger lot conditions I think it's above two acres or five acres I'd have to you know reference that but essentially their the the goal is and the notion is that we can't fully design and develop all of the connections at this moment and so if a larger parcel parcel were to redevelop at some point in the future there would be a process to establish where those connections are appropriate where pedestrians um you know can connect across that and create those midblock um sections but that that is within the form based code so any area that is subject to the form based code and would fall under those regulations that would apply so so yes would apply to the business park in the future so that's addressed in another area in the code yes okay um I think those are the only questions

[31:01] I have at this point thank you so much uh Laura thank you um and hi Kathleen it's great to see you back I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person um so I have some questions about the uh the changes along 55th Street would you mind bringing up that diagram again uh not for the connections plan but for the land use plan oh sure yeah yeah uh the change from Yes uh from um to back to Industrial yes um so first question is a process question you know when we adopted the East Boulders Side Community Plan both planning board and Council had to agree on changes to the plan that we adopted is does that still hold true with these amendments that we both have to agree on the proposed changes yes okay good to know um so so this change here it says in the

[32:01] text that the proposed amendment would still allow for future development with a similar capacity for residential units as originally anticipated in the subc commmunity plan adopted in 2022 which showed this area as um I think Innovation to residential yeah and I'm I guess I'm a little confused by that because the last time we saw this plan um I don't think that you were able to be there Kathleen but the discussion was that that staff wasn't really expecting any residential really in the part of flat irons's business park that is um shown as destination office and even the Main Street Live work and that the production of residential was expected to come from this Innovation Tod residential and so I guess I'm curious to know what impact do you folks expect on the amount of residential not just what's possible but what would actually be developed if this change goes through and this is no longer Innovation to

[33:01] residential I might ask you to speak to thanks Laura um it's Christopher here um I will have to stare into my crystal ball of the market a bit and try to determine you know what would would or could happen um so so as far as the statement in the in the memo it is correct that the capacity or the allowance for residential in this area really is unchanged um and so the possible projection on the number of units um that could be produced is is still there um it is it is true that you know current property ownership uh within the business park is is primarily focused on uh Innovation uh types of uses light industrial research and development those kinds of things and and there doesn't appear to be a strong interest uh for residential from that particular property owner but um the business park is not uh you know is not a Comm completely homogeneous group

[34:01] while um the property ownership uh does does vary within there there are different property owners and some of them may still be interested in in pursuing a residential opportunity at some point in the future um we we do believe that that certainly the area around 55th and arapajo that still will be identified as that to residential is likely to be the source of of uh you know and the location of fure future residential also I would say adjacent to Valmont Park in the Valmont Park East and West neighborhoods as well um and so we you know we wanted to are trying to you know strike a balance and we received more recent uh uh comments and feedback from City Council in particular around um you know making sure that we are balancing the opportunities for residential but also the opportunities for the continuation uh and um reinvestment into those business and and IND type of uses as well okay thank you for that and I just

[35:02] I just want to just to put a fine point on it in the East Boulder subc Community Plan that we adopted the conceptual scenario for the flat irons Business Park in particular not Valmont east and west and not the station area but for flat irons's Business Park states that um it would anticipate in this conceptual scenario of almost 1,200 units of housing I think it's 1170 units of housing if we change this back to Industrial do you still think that we could get 1170 units of housing out of Flat Iron's Business Park the the possibility to achieve that is is definitely still there um depending upon you know which of those Parcels or which of those properties would redevelop uh it depends again it's going to depend on the market it's going to depend on the particular property owner and their Redevelopment uh interest um but certainly there could be as as many as that many um units there there could be something less there could conceivably be something more than

[36:00] that as well I think when those projections were prepared we took you know a fairly conservative approach too um you know thinking about the types of properties and the types of parcels that would redevelop at some point over time uh so it we did we did not make those projections based on the entirety of the business park you know converting to residential at some point in the future so there's I'd say that's a conservative estimate and we could still come close to that okay thank you is that it Laura yeah okay uh Mason abely quick question um I might have missed it in reading through the study but there's a section on page 61 uh of the East Boulder sub community plan that says projects for future study um do you know about when that future study would occur this is focusing on like The Pearl way with uh

[37:03] area yeah but let Let's uh we're going to pull up the sub community plan so I can kind of remind myself which project you're referencing yeah like there's one called 2A network connection between Pearl Street and pearl Parkway oh okay yeah um I might ask Garrett to speak to uh future planning for Pearl Parkway yeah right now we don't have any plans for future study of pearl Parkway East of Foothills um so that's um not in the plan at the moment um but appreciate the feedback uh and we'll certainly bring that into consideration that was only question that has been asked great any other

[38:00] clarifying questions before we go to the next go just one more process question um we have a little bit of description of uh stakeholder engagement in our packet uh that led to some of these amendments and just noting like one difference between what we're seeing here in the East uh Boulder subc Community Plan that was passed ahead of it is that subcommunity plan was generated by a pretty I think wide ranging group of stakeholders um including you know Property Owners business Community but also um housing Advocates residents of the area Etc um and to what extent were some of those earlier uh groups consulted in this I know that we got a lot of feedback from business owners from um property owners in the area but uh what about that kind of broad-based feedback that we got at the subcommunity planning stage during this process you're asking yes

[39:02] correct thank you um well I might um Jump Ahead to another slide because I've got some of that outlined let's see here um so we did uh you know this this particular project um was more technical in nature and certainly we got a really wide range of input and a wide range of participation as we work through the subc community plan um but for this project um we used a couple of of different methods for engagement we had focus group meetings uh early in this process to hear from community members about um interests such as housing um um so the four focus groups were um property owners in the area business owners in the area housing Advocates um

[40:00] and um both a a kind of combination of Mobility Advocates and Mobility providers folks like um um B cycle and and things like that um so those were the focus group members we had three technical advisory committee meetings so those folks um because this is this implementation project is such a um can be a little bit in the weeds of the code changes um we engaged with a group of local um Architects and designers we really needed their um input um they offered a lot of time and really helpful feedback as we work through the code update so um that was a great group we also had a online business questionnaire um about um the spaces the types of spaces um that um business owners and folks that work in these neighborhoods

[41:00] um need and how um their space functions um what types of components of their space they would need to support the types of services that they offer to the community and our project team went door Todo throughout um some of these neighborhoods to get feedback on that and that was um really helpful to the code updates but also I think gave us a our team a better understanding of how those businesses are perceiving change in the neighborhoods and um things that they were concerned about so that was certainly a helpful exercise we held um Virtual Office hours for anyone in the community who wanted to provide feedback um certainly there was the project website we had a couple of meetings with folks and members of the boulder chamber um and and then a um series of board and Council meetings

[42:00] further clarifying on that thank you for this slide um was there um any kind of a matrix that was made to show where these opinions and desires or conflicts showed up because it it seems from the um input that we're seeing that not everybody's on the same page and so I'm just curious as to uh what drove how did you get to the conclusions um given that there were disperate opinions um we don't have a matrix that aligns the code changes with Community feedback um in your packet there was an engagement summary that described those different events and what we learned from them right um how the feedback maybe you're asking like how the feedback was weighted from different user groups how did it over how did it

[43:02] overlap or did it converge or did it diverge um and where the hot spots where the hot spots um I think you know some of that will come through as we as we talk through some of the code changes and and what we learned from the community and how that was incorporated in the code um but I I think we all thought about the feedback that we received from all of these different groups pretty critically and we took a microscope to the code to really think about some of the proposed changes um and it was all you know useful about what's working what's not working what are people worried about um so we took all of it you know really to heart I think thank you one more followup on this issue was the fundamental motivation that the that the feeling was that we needed or wanted less emphasis on

[44:04] residential overall or was it more that that particular location was not so appropriate for residential I would say it was um the latter I don't think there's less emphasis on residential I think um the feedback that we got throughout this process is that the business park as a place should be treated pretty consistently and have consistent expectations from one end to the other okay so it was about consistency across flat iron Park not something tied to 55th Street per se that's is that what you would say yeah I would I would agree with that and I I think um also primarily thinking about the you know the components that contribute and support IM mixed use neighbor neighborhood over time in the amenities that are desired the area

[45:00] around 55th in arapo with pending Transit improvements and the multi-use path that Garrett was just speaking to things like that that area really has um has or will have more of the bones to support that type of a mixed use and residential component in the future whereas the area that's north of the railroad tracks does not have as many of those amenities and so it made sense to staff as as we continued to look at this more and really kind of dive into the the intent of the subc commmunity plan to be more strategic about where residential might best be supported and might best be located so I think it's a combination of treating the business park kind of as a whole but also understanding some of the limitations that currently exist along 55th um in in that particular area further north and if I can just build on on their two comments uh Brad Mueller director Planning Development for those online um I think it's useful too to remember that

[46:00] the very essence of the plan the original subc commmunity plan is to create the potential for housing as well uh or specifically the potential for that so back to the setting the table for those OP for that opportunity over over what is likely to be an extended period And I think what we heard Council give as feedback this summer was an acknowledgement and agreement that this particular geography around the flat irons industrial park in particular um didn't need to have that same level of of potential in the way that it was originally envisioned and was sympathetic to the idea that much of the existing built environment there had um provided some of that balance that that's being sought for maintaining Industrial in the city and still creating that potential and as one of the two of these said I can't remember Christopher I think gave the opinion that there still is on the balance of that area the potential for some of the

[47:02] uh housing numbers that Laura was asking about so just wanted to add to that great uh Laura I saw your hand pop up but then pop down do you do you have a question or no okay great um why don't we go to the second part of the presentation sounds great okay we're going to move to code amendments so um this project is an implementation project that's called out in the sub community plan to both revisit the form-based code and to apply it to East Boulder mixed use neighborhoods so we began this project last year and have been working through all the intricacies of the code um with the community as I described um I kind of already went through this slide but just giving a shout out to that technical advisory committee that gave a lot of their time and energy we really appreciate them um and then I think with

[48:00] that I will turn it over to um Leslie um to go through uh the major features of the form based code that are before you tonight for consideration so uh Leslie is joining us virtually and um Leslie you can just uh say next and I will click through the slides you sounds good um thanks very much for having me tonight um this is an exciting um kind of culmination of a lot of work over a long period of time um and and a new baby to boot um so I'm here to talk uh specifically about the form based code and the and the revisions that we've made um I know that you have uh heard about uh many of the revisions so I'm going to try to focus on what has changed but we thought thought it would be helpful to just um go back to kind of square one and talk a

[49:00] little bit about what form-based code is and how it's used here um so a form-based code is a series of clear standards that can be objectively reviewed by staff for a simpler approval process um we aim to not include shoulds we aim to not have um sort of subjective language um or goals or um you know state stat Ms that are sort of soft language that can be interpreted multi multiple ways in a form-based code um just as a type of code that can allow for simpler approval simpler and hopefully quicker approval process um for the applicant but at the same time what we're doing is we're also um requiring a sort of higher level of design design standards the form based code for um Boulder Junction came out of um a design Excellence initiative with the city um and so the idea here was

[50:02] that we wanted to sort of improve um the design quality of the buildings make sure that they were high quality sort of permanent buildings um that we can be proud of um but at the same time um provide for this objective review process and this is Across the Nation um sort of the purpose of form based code um the code is organized around building types um and frontages that are applied to fairly specific Geographic locations and the idea here is that those building form um building forms are meant to uh focus on the connection between the public space usually the street um often time poos or Open Spaces as well um but that connection between the buildings and the street the sort of idea that we're creating human scale buildings um with a high sort of level of pedestrian friendliness um the idea that you're making sure that it's comfortable for somebody to kind of walk by that building and um there's a high

[51:02] level of permeability um between the inside of the building and the public space of the sidewalk or the open space um the result of this um kind of more prescriptive code as I said is a higher level of predictability in terms of the scale and the form of new developments um and when the form is clearly defined then buildings can accommodate more of a variety of us us es um so in our case the zoning District that's applied to the parcel defines the list of allowed uses on the site and I think that that's something that's really important to keep in mind here the form based code is essentially an overlay um on top of the existing zoning district and that recommended um set of zoning districts that uh Kathleen presented earlier would allow for um a wide variety of uses or the existing zoning District can be retained um and those uses would be allowed um within any new developed

[52:01] buildings um so the code does actually offer um often guide sort of the location of those uses but it doesn't Define the form base code does not define which uses are allowed next please so as uh Kathleen mentioned we've been working on the form based code for a while now and a major component of this this update was not just to add uh East Boulder in but also to sort of look at how the code had been functioning up up to this point and what revisions we might be able to make um and so we heard from our technical advisory committee um who included applicants um as well as community members um and then we also had some pretty uh lengthy discussions with the development review staff and what we found was that the form based code was functioning quite well in terms of the predictability um that people were able to sort of use the very specific um and

[53:03] measurable regulations um these objective regulations to have easier conversations um between the designers and staff um but also between the clients of the designers um so it made it sort of easier to sort of figure out what was expected um in the areas uh also applicants and community members said that it it does work to prevent some of that um sort of quote unquote bad architecture or those sort of issues that we found occurring um through that design Excellence initiative next please so when would the form based code in East Boulder kick in um the idea here is that the current zoning and um current zoning regulations um would not apply um would would apply um if you had a PUD or an approved site review in place um that

[54:02] PUD and that site review that we have approved would continue to rule that site um if you were continuing the use of your existing building um if you were to adaptively reuse your existing building and if you were to do any sort of moderate exterior modifications or expansions and additions you would follow your current um regulation the current zoning and the current regulations the form based code would apply if um the major exterior modifications um more than 30% of the facade um and then at that point only the design and materials requirements which step in and if you were to expand your building by 60% of the floor area um now this is I just want to note here that at one point we were looking at a smaller addition number and we decided to go back to the original so the 60% of the floor area is the number that was in

[55:00] the pilot form based code and that has been retained and continued um in the new version and then if you were to uh redevelop the site and construct a new building the form base code would apply next please so the locations where the form base code would apply um are noted in the appendix L of the uh land use code the city of Boulder land use code um that's this map that you see here um it's noting uh Boulder Junction phase one and Alpine Balsam were the first two areas where the form base code applied and then East Boulder has four areas of change um with within the East Boulder subc Community Plan area um where the form base code would apply and those are noted here um I just want to uh to to show that um East Boulder is approximately five times larger than the area of Alpine

[56:02] Balsam and Boulder Junction Phase 1 combined um but the sort of beauty of the form based code is that we were able to add in the East Boulder area and even fairly um significantly modify some aspects we've added a building type and we've added a a frontage type and we've added base types um without significantly increasing the size the overall um length of the form base code um so it's a pretty great tool for applying to multiple different areas and it has shown its flexibility because um East Boulder is a quite a different area from Alpine Balsam and is different as well from Boulder Junction so how does the form based code work um I'm just going to talk a little bit about the kind of the structure of the form base code and as I said before it essentially overlays the current zoning District um it replaces the form and intensity modules

[57:02] um if you're familiar with your current code um those requirements are replaced by the form-based code but the use module is retained so uses are handled um from the C current zoning District the form base code has four components um the first component is the regulating plan and the regulating plans are developed uh here for East Boulder and for Boulder Junction and Balsam very specifically to the plans that were in place for those areas so in East Boulder the uh regulating plans were developed based on the place types diagrams um in the subcommunity plan uh the regulating plans locate where the building types are allowed so you can see the key on the Le hand side of the slide um the color coding tells you which building types are allowed where very fairly specifically and those lines are matching the existing um property boundaries um in the area the regulating plan also defines uh

[58:02] Frontage types for each street so each street is designated as either an A or a B Street um and then a C Street is a new designation for East Boulder um the regulating plan also defines where other kinds of connections like the multi-use paths that are defined in the connections plan or new posos um as well as outdoor space types um and then the other sections of the code um 2 three and four um provide for the regulations within the regulating plan so the second section is all about site design and that establishes the requirements for the posos and outdoor space types that are defined on the regulating plan next slide please and then the building types um Define the requirements for building forms or the building types that are shown on the regulating plan um for each one of the building types there's a set of three three tables um that establish

[59:00] the requirements for the building sighting um the building height uh building roof types um and the transparency and entrance requirements in the facade um requirements section and then the building design section section four applies a set of design standards to all of the building types um and th that is where things like building facade materials building massing um windows and like the depth of Windows balconies and other Design Elements um that you might normally see in a set of design guidelines but these are design requirements um associated with each one of those kinds of facade elements so that is uh how the the form based code functions and what the kind of components of it are next please so the um the memo outlined um most of

[60:00] the updates to the form based code um we did create uh a series of General updates um based on those uh comments from the technical advisory uh committee um some that were focused on simplifying the form based code as much as possible in the pilot for example um we had ab and C we had A&B frontages and then we also had other types of front edges so we just combined all of those into just the ab and C frontages um we did locate relocate um the form based code or it's proposed to be relocated to chapter 24 uh chapter 14 excuse me uh chapter 14 as opposed to being an appendix um to the land use code um we've also increased the flexibility in the design elements um and we talked a little bit about this um at our previous meeting um some of that flexibility was really focused on the cost of development using the form based code and making sure that we were figuring out um ways to um in include cost savings while not reducing the

[61:01] design Excellence along sort of major corridors um we also included some outdoor space updates which I'll talk to you about in just a minute um that those would apply uh to any form based code uh area um and then we also included some uh regulations that are specific to East bould or some updates that are specific to east east Boulder including of course the new regulating plans for those areas um new Provisions for production uses which I'm going to talk about um as well as the larger site design standards that um were referred to earlier um those larger site design standards are really about um taking some of those larger Parcels um there in a couple of different locations there's uh one in the uh station area as well as some in the flat iron Business Park um and allowing those larger blocks to be broken up into smaller blocks and defining you know whether or not those are a b or c frontages and the

[62:00] possibility of using different building types um and incorporating other outdoor space types uh within those locations so the larger site design standards so let me dive into a couple of these um more specifically um next please um so this is a slide that you've seen um in terms of outdoor space types one of the things that we heard um from many of the community members um in fact some the residents that attended some of our focus group meetings um were that they wanted to see more landscape and outdoor space types more sort of relief from the street wall um for uh all of the buildings in the new areas um so one of the sort of opposite uh requirements that we heard or complaints that we heard was that the posos from Boulder Junction sort of broke up the space so much that um it made for buildings uh to have a very small floor plate um and it

[63:00] made them a little bit more expensive because they had to include um veneer on all sides facades on all all sides that were sort of treated as kind of high quality facades so East Boulder being a larger area larger in um scale and scope um does not have that sort of breaking up of the longer buildings but in order to kind of accommodate that smaller scale along the sidewalk we've Incorporated Street skate plazas and Courtyards um and the idea here is that there would be uh more space for activities Gathering activities Mobility hubs um and also more visible landscape and trees and kind of outdoor spaces and people sort of meeting and Gathering outdoors and also that it would reduce the visual impact of those longer buildings um additionally next please in terms of outdoor space um one of the other comments that we heard a lot was um that we wanted more playgrounds to be incorporated into all

[64:00] of these developments um the existing outdoor space types all listed uh playgrounds as allowed um within the outdoor space types um but what we've done is we've kind of clarified the requirement for those outdoor spaces we've reorganized the section A little bit to make it easier to see what is required um and to make it easier to see and note that there's an exception for small developments um and an opt option to count existing parks within walking distance but they must be within walking distance and they must meet one of the outdoor space type requirements um we also um defined that uh for larger residential developments uh that two outdoor space types would be required instead of just one and then in exchange what we did was we added some new options that a courtyard of, 1600 sare ft or larger or a playground that is a minimum 1400 Square ft with equipment uh located on site could be

[65:00] used for one of those outdoor space types and the idea here is that we're kind of incentivizing those playgrounds um to be uh used because they are the smallest area um of any of the outdoor space types um and they provide such an amenity for a residential building um so that's a major component a major change and those do apply to um all of the form base code areas next please specific to East Boulder um we heard that uh we we originally had a rapo Avenue as a type a frontage um and we heard from several um different uh stakeholders that they were concerned that we were sort of focusing um that a frontage on a higher U vehicular traffic area um and so what we've done on the regulating plan for the station area is

[66:01] sort of flipped and reorganized the area to call out 55th Street as the a frontage so at a smaller scale 55th Street being um the kind of front um a rapo is treated as a type B Frontage um which is still a high level of treatment it still has a high level of um materials requirements a high level of transparency and entrance requirements um but then uh type c frontages um have that sort of lower level of driveway access um that would be where we would want our driveways to occur and so we've sort of reorganized the regulating plan um for the station area um based also on some of the transportation connections discussions um so that is uh another change that has been made next please and in terms of supporting business and production uses this is a slide that

[67:01] you've seen already um I just want to draw your attention to um a couple of these items um first off let's just say that the form based code applies only to the areas of change within East Boulder and so the rest of the East Boulder area is um maintained as those kinds of uh business and production uses um there's continued flexibility for uh existing building expansion so we have U maintained that 60% floor area expansion as stated earlier um and thirdly that uh futur Zone districts allow for flexible uses so we have Incorporated and and suggested that even if somebody does reone um all of those sort of industrial and light manufacturing uses are uh included in those um mu4 and mu2 uh zoning districts um so I'm going to talk to you about the last two uh revisions that were made um so we did create the workshop building and a service base um

[68:02] and uh then I'll talk to you a little bit about some minor revisions that we made to the production space requirement so next please so the workshop building type is new um for East Boulder um it is meant to accommodate those sort of industrial um production uses um as well as um R&D and other types um of service uses that would need uh garage doors and sort of higher Florida Florida ceiling Heights um the survey that Kathleen mentioned was specifically to get at what are the needs for the smaller um production and business um type uses um in the service base so we Define the service base it is allowed to be used on any building um on a type- C Frontage if a type-c frontage exists um just to encourage the uh these kinds of

[69:03] spaces um and it is allowed on all frontages for the workshop building and the workshop building is allowed throughout the flat iron Business Park um it's allowed through the Western edges of the um station area and it's allowed on the outer edges of the Valmont Park East and West um areas so it's a fair very significant portion um of the East Boulder area next please um supporting the business and production uses was also um implemented through this required production business space um specific to East Boulder um that 10% of the ground story area of buildings that are 15,000 square feet or more um would be required to incorporate production business space um it must be

[70:01] located in either a service spacee with the garage doors or a shop front base um the spaces are meant to be a wide variety of sizes um but smaller in scale so anywhere from 500 square feet to 5,000 square feet one of the changes that we made to this requirement um originally we listed the allowed uses um within the production business space um and in order to sort of open it up to if there was a mistake or some use that was missing um we wanted to list what was more clear to us which was the prohibited uses so uh residential uses excuse me public and institutional uses retail sales all of those kinds of uses are not allowed in the production business space now again this is a very small amount of the ground story floor area of these buildings um but it is meant to sort of uh note that we want to provide these sort of small scale

[71:00] incubator spaces for businesses production businesses um in order to make sure that this was functioning um and again you know we'll need to revisit this as we move forward but another revision that we made was to sort of Define a little bit more clearly how that 10% of the ground floor area and what buildings over 15,000 square F feet meant um so we removed the automobile parking um from those calculations and we also removed ground story residential from those calculations so if you had ground story residential um then you wouldn't need to um Supply this um if it occupied the the full percentage of the area so it's only sort of those commercial um spaces that would be converted to production business space just 10% of them and then next slide um finally in terms of housing opportunities uh we would be remiss if we didn't mention this um and uh this has not really

[72:01] changed uh since you were presented at last um but just to note um that the residential uh requirement is maintained that was started in the um pilot code um and is applied to uh Boulder Junction and Alpine bosom and now applies to um East Boulder however in East Boulder it applies only to the general a row building um it does not apply to the workshop building um and what you can see here on these three regulating plans so the bottom larger plan is the regulating plan for the station area all the light blue areas have General buildings required uh within them and so all of those light blue areas the residential requirement would kick in um if they were to redevelop um in the two uh regulating ples that you see on the top um those two smaller plans the green areas um allow for uh general or row

[73:02] building these are the Parkside residentials Place type and the residential requirements would apply there um but the dark blue areas uh allow for either the General Building or the workshop building and then the red is the workshop building only um so the blue dark blue areas could have the residential use requirements but the uh Workshop areas um in red would not have that requirement apply to them so I just wanted to clarify that next please s great Leslie I'm G to take over and let your voice have a break uh after all of that it's uh it's a lot of information um planning board I just have a couple of additional slides to wrap things up here um we we obvious and and I know you are aware of several uh comments and letters that have been

[74:00] submitted in the last 24 to 48 hours um with some uh feedback about some of the proposed changes um I did want to take a moment to just try to provide some clarification um and uh clear up maybe any misunderstandings or um uh or just uh oversight of some of the regulations um as they are currently proposed and some of the changes we've made since June um I want to start with just highlighting the fact that Leslie uh Leslie mentioned this earlier but I just want to um reinforce that if a site has an existing PUD or site review approval the form-based code does not apply that existing approval supersedes the form-based code um so if there were to be significant change or uh Redevelopment of those areas the default would be to go through the site review amendment process um it is possible that if a property owner was interested in leveraging the form based code and some of the some of the predictability and the opportunities afforded within it um

[75:01] it is possible that they could resend and remove that PUD approval and then move forward with the form based code um so that um in in some ways and I would say in many uh locations the form based code uh will be an option uh for people to opt into um and I will just note that in this particular part of the city um puds and site review approvals are extend so most of the properties in East Boulder already have some level of a existing zoning approval that would um that would apply uh there were some comments around non non-conforming uses and structures as as we've mentioned a few times tonight uh the existing underlying zoning is what governs uses and that is not proposed to change so uh there should not be any non-conforming use um issues that would be created through the um through the adoption of the form based code and then structures can be maintained and modified up to that 60% of additional floor area or

[76:02] changes to the facade up to 30% um those those things can all happen under existing zoning so again only until you would cross a um a substantial modification to the property only until you cross that threshold uh would the form base code potentially apply then going forward uh message uh comments around R&D research and development uses um and some concerns around making sure that we're allowing for those types of things within the form based code the as Leslie was just referring to the workshop building type was really invented for those kinds of uses it is a very flexible building form a lot of the materials that are allowed are very flexible the floor to floor Heights um which tend to need to be much taller for those types of R&D and Industrial types of uses um they're very very flexible up to 24 ft on the ground floor and up to 18 ft on the other two floors so uh We've included and tried to accommodate

[77:00] um you know really the range of innovation and production uses that occur today um or could occur in the future um through the form base code uh Leslie just went through the required residential just reaffirmed that it only applies to the general and row building types uh if they are over 15,000 square ft so if they're less than that there is no residential requirement and it only applies to those are um directly around 55th in arapo and uh properties that are immediately adjacent to Valmont Park and then finally the production business space Also Leslie uh referred to that and we we have attempted to staff has really attempted to try to strike a balance between the community and uh board and Council interest in continuing the opportunity for these small uh affordable industrial and creative Industries uh in this particular area so we're balancing that interest also then with the realities of the market and trying to lease those types of spaces so the um what we are

[78:01] proposing in the form based code we feel like is a very modest requirement with a lot of flexibility um for a wide variety of uses going forward uh the thank you I'm using the wrong one um the then there are just there are three other really quick code uh amendments that are associated with this that I just want to refer to just so you're aware uh back in 22 uh you may not remember but when the subcommunity plan was adopted we also adopted ordinance language to introduce new criteria into uh section 9219 for rezoning really the the goal of that was to pump the breakes a little bit on any rezonings um for this time period while we were working to develop new code regulations and actually get them into the land use code so if the ordinance to adopt uh the form based code is approved by city council we are also then recommending to remove those criteria that are currently in the rezoning uh

[79:01] section that are related specifically to uh East Boulder next slide uh also related is section 9922 which are the trip generation requirements for the mu4 rh6 and rh7 Zoning districts and I know you are um intimately aware with of these just because of the Alpine balom project that came through and I know there was some discussion around the appropriate reduction in trip generation for that particular project um here if we left that section Alone um if someone were to rezone to say mu4 and East Boulder which that is one of the recommended Zone districts if and if somebody was interested in using that the current standard of a 55% trip reduction that applies to Boulder Junction would also apply to East Boulder which we feel like is an unfair burden um particularly because of the LA of Transit infrastructure at the moment in East Boulder so our proposal is to um include

[80:01] language that would allow for a 20% trip reduction in East Boulder if a property were to be res rezoned to one of these three Zone districts and redeveloped next slide and then finally there are just some general clerical updates and revisions throughout the code as as Leslie mentioned we're planning to move the form base code out of the appendix M into chapter 14 and so all of the various references that are in the code um would need to be corrected and and changed to make sure that we're referencing the new uh section 9-14 language as opposed to appendix M and I believe that is all we have and so we will give it back to you chair um for any discussion um any clarifying questions on that part of the presentation before we uh move to discussion um on the Jon uh on the last the

[81:02] revisions to the section generate trip generation yes um is there language in there that um basically requires revisiting that once the Easter rapo bus rapid transit system is in service rather than saying it might and it should and it or there currently is not any language that references um you know any anything associated with that but I think uh as you know um we have a a wonderful code Amendment team that keeps a close eye on a lot of these things and we're constantly reviewing and and making updates and revisions and there is still some discussion around a possible General improvement district in this particular location particularly around 55th and arapajo and if that were to happen then I believe we would definitely be revisiting these standards um and making those updates at that time

[82:00] um but right now our community Vitality department is going through really an audit of all of our Improvement districts throughout the city and so um that uh possibility in the future is is is still out there a little way so we'll wait to hear more about um the work that Community Vitality is doing before moving forward with anything like that so it's an organic process rather than having it be a requirement that when better trans Transit comes to the site we will look at that that's correct and Hela I don't know if you there's any um perspective you would have in terms of introducing that type of language into the code if that would be appropriate or if that causes um possible conflicts in the future which I would anticipate might happen yeah I would I would caution against including something like that just because I think it's easily missed um to be updated but I wanted to point out that another work plan item that's in progress is updates to the parking code changes and TDM

[83:00] requirements and I think that might be another opportunity to look at this section again with some additional work looking at what might be possible in different areas and to update it at that time got it thank you um call on people on just a second I I I want to follow up on that uh which was around the proposed 20% trip reduction verse what was was in the plan 55% I mean that similar to Alpine Balsam right that that's quite a jump from where um I thought we landed as a community are you concerned at all around Community feedback given the the change in that have have have has this this been kind of broadly discussed with the stakeholders um Beyond just the businesses that are there and the land

[84:02] Property Owners I would say not not in a broad um perspective with the community and also the the 55% um application you know was really specific to Boulder Junction itself um particularly because of the location of the of the transit station of the general Improvement districts that exists there um so really what we're what we're trying to balance here and um and be reasonable about is that you know these a couple of these Zone District zone districts could be appropriate for East Boulder at some point in the future if someone uh so chose to to move forward with them we were concerned about leaving it alone and having that 55% but at the same time as you mentioned there was interest as part of the subc commmunity plan process to explore TDM and and really think about how we can limit some of the trip generation uh in the area so that's why we felt um through consultation with our transportation and Mobility colleagues

[85:01] that that 20% was a reasonable um starting point and certainly could be you know reassessed at some point in the future and uh chairman Boon if I can add to that too my way of thinking about it and and the way I've kind of reconciled that is it's kind of a recognition of just math as well so you take an area like um Boulder Junction and recognize that there's quite a few Transportation options in a fairly confined space and then you contrast that just intuitively the math of a much bigger area and the net of trying to do that in a much bigger area with limited Transportation options today the 55% starts to not make sense and the 20% as as Christopher alluded to um after reconsulting with Transportation experts seemed like a good place to land uh this conversation will not go away right we we know that uh to ell's point

[86:00] that there's further refinement in the next couple of years but it did seem like the right Landing point at this point in in history and so that's why we're making making that uh recommendation at this time and to be very transparent one of the things that we are preliminarily understanding in our review of TDMs in the context of the broader uh amps work plan item is how do we actually Implement and how do we actually enforce that over multiple years so we want to create some we want to create an environment that's realistic and yet we can grow from as we learn more over the next few years okay thank you uh Claudia you're not ready yet uh Kurt just a follow up on what Brad said now that he's sat down um my understanding is currently Boulder Junction has zero bus service

[87:02] right and yet it was built with this 55% reduction in mind I believe it still functions so would that not indicate that this 55% reduction is possible even in the absence of that high level of Transit service I don't know if Garrett's still on the line or maybe even Charles has insight into this or others but um I think the latest uh feedback that we've gotten on uh Boulder Junction is that it may not or barely does kind of meet that threshold and and this is when you do kind of point in time studies as to whether we're meeting that or not this kind of generated that question of okay how do we monitor this how do we monitor it on going how we require enforce or how do we manage enforcement of that is it a study every 10 years that seems an

[88:01] inadequate so you know we are kind of opening up that question but I I don't feel I can say with confidence unless other staff can speak to it that we feel 100% conf confident that that is happening at this point at poer Junction we think we can get there and you know once we do get the bus back and the rail will be much better odd so hell has gotten something yeah I can add a little bit to that just based on um what Chris has talked to us about and maybe you remember it from our conversation around Boulder Junction but this requirement hasn't actually been implemented on an individual development basis because in Boulder Junction we do have districts and every property has joined the district subject to this so over the district the same goal exists but it applies districtwide and it's a little bit easier to meet and some properties that are able to to meet

[89:00] higher standards can average out with properties that can't meet the same type of trip reduction so it's it's not been applied individually yet so that's part of what we're struggling with thank you uh Laura and then Mason after that thank you George um well first I just wanted to say thank you for that presentation extremely informative I really appreciate it especially the explanation at the end about um some of the comments that were received and you answered some of my questions around the you know the housing requirements the production business space requirement the non-conforming status uh how R&D fits in um re really useful thank you so much uh just a couple questions left um a lot of the letters that we received mentioned that they were were concerned about floor Heights and needing um larger floor Heights and I think in the packet

[90:01] and in your presentation you said that uh taller floors are allowed especially in that Workshop building I think you said um do I have that right do you feel like there's still a misunderstanding out there about fluorides uh yes Laura you are you are correct that the workshop building allows for quite a bit of flexibility in terms of floor height so it it allows for a maximum of three stories but all the way up to our height limit of 55t so um if you start to average that out the the the the ground floor has a maximum floor height of up to 24 feet and then the floors above could be up to 18 feet floor to floor so um obviously there's going to need to be a little bit of trade-offs because if you do the math that adds up to something more than 55 so there are some trade-offs there but we have Incorporated uh a lot of flexibility into that Workshop building um I should also note there is also some flexibility within the code that allows for a full height single story section

[91:02] so something like a theater or an aerospace hanger or you know these kinds of things where you might need a 40 foot tall volume within a single building uh a portion of a building is allowed to do that through the form base code okay thank you and do you feel like that that meets the concerns that you heard from Property Owners around floor Heights or do you think there's still some lingering concern out there we we do believe that that is sufficient um the General Building form you know is a more traditional type of of building that would allow up to four or five stories um there the floor Heights there's um still quite a bit of flexibility on the ground floor because we want to have open and inviting kind of commercial spaces at the ground floor as you go up um then those floor Heights uh I believe the maximum is 12 feet floor to floor I'd have to double check that but um that's a bit more of a traditional building format okay thank you and then my other

[92:00] question for this uh portion I'm a little bit confused about what triggers what you talked about how there there are certain um thresholds where the form based code gets triggered and I understand that and you also talked about the zoning will be maintained um unless the I guess unless the owner asks for a zoning can you explain how those two things work together is the form base code completely separate from the zoning yeah I will attempt to answer that and then certainly Hela can uh can chime in and Leslie as well but um uh I think Leslie used the uh used the analogy of the form based code essentially acts as an overlay and um as you know the the currently induced cone code in our Zone districts have three different components uh use intensity and keep me honest form thank you um uh

[93:02] and so the form based code uh uh overlay essentially replaces the form and intensity standards but the use standards continue to be governed by the underlying zoning so that might be IG industrial General it might be you know mixed use four Etc so the zoning that exists out in East Boulder today will continue to be maintained the form based code would govern the form and intensity of uses um on those sites but the use itself is still governed by by The Zone District I I feel like I'm still a little confused and maybe it's because I the form base code is new since the East Boulder subc commmunity plan but when we worked on the subc commmunity plan I think we did talk about zoning and we did talk about Place types are the place types which are used to guide the form-based code regulating plans are those already

[94:01] consistent with the underlying zoning or is there anything going on with the place types and the regulating plans that would not be consistent with the underlying zoning yeah Kathleen and I can tag team this one so I'll let you start I might even ask Leslie to jump in as well but yes so for the East Boulder subc Community Plan the place types diagram and the place types performance standards do include recommended uses um and I think the way if I remember correctly those are broken up are um describes uh supported or allowed uses on ground floors and then on upper stories so it does kind of break down within a building we would um prefer to see um retail and commercial on the ground floor and residential above things like that so those are include in the place type performance standards um and then I will ask Leslie maybe to

[95:00] describe how that has been used to um interpret both the recommended zoning diagram and the form base code sure just in in terms of uses um we did a a pretty intensive look at all of the city's existing zoning districts and the uses that were allowed within them and frankly most of the zoning districts allow a very wide range of uses um the recommended zoning districts that we included which really is amounts to um mu2 and mu4 um being allowed in those kinds of more you know traditional mixed use locations um those those zoning districts are very consistent with the uses that are listed in the place types um there are a couple of little um sort of picky things um that we talked with uh uh staff about and I think that we came to the conclusion that it was pretty comfortable the only item that is

[96:02] a little bit inconsistent was the IG zoning but the IG zoning absolutely allows for residential um if it's consistent with the plan and therefore the plan would then allow for the residential to exist so I would say that the uses that are in the existing zoning districts match up very well with the place types um and then the form based code really only manages how the uses occur within the buildings so what occurs on the ground floor and the upper floors and that is very consistent with the place types as well so there's it it's pretty it's pretty tightly managed um by the subc commmunity plan Place types thank you and so I I think I get that I'm GNA forget it by tomorrow but for I think for tonight I can hold on to it um so if a property owner if there was a trigger where they had to use the form-based code because they want to redevelop you know larger than 15,000 square feet that does not trigger

[97:02] necessarily A rezoning is what you're saying they don't have to rezone if the form base code kicks in yes that is that is correct they could reone they have a choice to either maintain their existing zoning and redevelop under that or they could choose to rezone if they were interested in doing that if there were particular uses that were not allowed and their underlying zoning and they wanted to change that they could do that but the form base code uh could apply to either one of those situations okay got it so the reasoning is voluntary even when the form based code kicks in mandatory okay thank you correct thank you that's it thank you go ahead uh Mason thank you um so I'm going to perhaps start with my more naive question um so I don't see anywhere mentioned so I see it mentioned in the East Boulder uh subc community plan but not

[98:02] in the form based code that we want to emphasize Green Building practices is including something like incentive like a density bonus or expedite permitting or fee reductions or anything like that appropriate to put into formas base code if Green Building practices or standards are met or exceeded Brad or Charles you might also be able to weigh in on this a bit but um you know any any kinds of um uh Green Building practices or other types of you know kind of per performance building uh aspects um some of those are are likely to already be required through our energy code updates and other um Cod code updates that have been uh past recently or are coming in the future um uh but as far as Within the form based code itself uh it it does not include any incentives for those particular

[99:01] items uh this is Brad and I'll defer to Charles if he has some thoughts first but I can add to that okay I'll um I'll just add that uh in response to that that generally speaking and and I am generalizing but generally speaking zoning is going to deal with the walls out and the building codes which include energy code and maintenance and all those types of things are going to deal with uh W or be dealt with the walls in type of uh situation is dealt with with those codes so we wouldn't we wouldn't want to try to uh typically do that through zoning is is the best explanation yeah I think that's really well said Brad and I think we've been intentional about making sure that we're consolidating all of those standards into the energy code when we update it so that's that's been an intentional move over time awesome thanks for the uh education there that

[100:01] makes sense um are there any plans to be to track the displacement of uh industrial businesses due to Redevelopment could you repeat that I'm sorry are there any plans to track uh the potential displacement of industrial businesses due to Redevelopment that's a great question um I don't know that we've had a a conversation about um tracking it within Redevelopment but our economic Vitality um group does sort of maintain a a list of businesses that leave um the city and they try to follow up and find out why they've left and and sort of what the drivers of um that migration are um and so I'm sure as we um as the city goes through the

[101:01] the process of updating the economic Vitality strategy some of those conversations will uh come up so like they might say um like would we be able to tell that it's because of the decisions we're making here tonight or would the is there some kind of survey where you know the potential responses be limited to something not necessarily inclusive by what we're talking about tonight I might ask Brad to weigh in on on how we would consider that or or qualify that yeah thank you U I guess I want to uh make sure I understand the context of the question is it really you know do we plan to or is the me a mechanism to monitor the effect of this code change change or or policy change am iacking correctly on that yeah I guess where this this question is coming from is you know we received a

[102:02] lot of comments uh from community members and business owners uh concerned about the impact of these changes on our industrial business mix and I was just wondering if there was a way to track it to be able to tell if those concerns are founded or if you know yeah I think the short answer to that uh board member is that um it fundamentally is is not possible to track that we're talking about changes that take place over years and decades um and there are a great number of externalities that that are hard to capture um such as market conditions Trends in real estate uh personal preference of a couple property owners and such I think the key metric for us is being responsive to what uh um Property Owners do know about their uh needs and intentions moving forward and being responsive to that and that's certainly some of the context for um the

[103:00] iterative process that has resulted in the Amendments that we're bringing for you to to you this evening um and then I think to some of the earlier comments there is a broader um relationship with the business communities through Community um Vitality through Economic Development um function in the city manager's office and such um to have awareness around that uh we also have Partners throughout the community the Chamber of Commerce Etc who are a constant check and balance that as as well but you know to to give a fine point answer to your and an honest answer to your question um we really haven't devised and hadn't anticipated a a precise mechanism for monitoring that sure um let's see here just kind of uh Laura a lot of my questions were answered by your presentation so again really good presentation one that I had

[104:02] that I don't think was addressed was there was a uh question about if there should be a provision for flood mitigation and this was around the uh floor height selection um thinking that there might be need to have some sort of um uh provisions to allow for some flexibility of flood mitigation is needed I didn't see anything of that nature in the uh form base code yeah I don't think we made any specific edits uh related to flood mitigation just partly because that is um you know those are regulations that are uh managed through um a sort of different set of um code requirements the um I'm just looking the the the base types um so you know obviously flood mitigation and any any potential restrictions related to that are going

[105:01] to be um most applicable to the ground floor and the ground story height um uh allowances currently uh for the shop front base are between 12 and 24 feet so that's a lot of flexibility and and variety there um within the stoop base it is uh per building type so that's going to be anywhere from sort of uh you know around the 12 to 15 foot range and then for the service base um again 12 to 24 feet so I think we've accommodated a fair bit of uh you know variety and flexibility within the uh ground story height that could be responsive to any kind of you know flood mitigation or impacts that would um could be here a lot of sound thanks um and then I was following the discussion around um

[106:01] the uh how uh Parcels currently under u a site review approval or PUD um can use that uh going forward I'm wondering for those that uh don't if they can opt into say review process uh no so if the if the form based code uh overlay is you know is applied uh and there are properties that do not have a existing approval then at whatever point in the future that they were redeveloped or substantially changed then the form based code would be the default regulations to apply okay that's all my questions thank you great any other questions Claudia I think I'm ready and Mason I'm actually really glad that you

[107:00] concluded with that question because that was one of my um questions and that is why does the form-based code take away the option of concept and sight review for properties yeah it's it's partly um it's partly I think uh intended to provide a more predictable and and straightforward process both for the applicant and for St half review quite honestly um and relieve some of the burden associated with a discretionary review through concept and Insight review uh the you know the other opportunity here and the and and the reason that it was um form based code was initially introduced as a pilot and is now you know being carried forward is is that um when you start to have two overlapping sets of rules and regulations it can cause a lot of confusion and a lot of challenges and so you know that's why when it does apply we try to stick to it um and not provide for the optionality to to Choose Your Own Adventure um so to

[108:00] speak H I don't know if you have anything to add to that yeah I just wanted to point out that when we first adopted the form based code there were there was a lot of nervousness about it being much you know more black and white than the discretionary review standards and at the time we created some very broad exception standards and they have not been taken away so essentially every standard in the form based code other than the 55 would height liit because that's charter-based can be modified um and and the most broad exception standard is that you would just have to find that what's proposed is still consistent with the intent and goals of the applicable subcommunity plan and that there would not be adverse impacts to neighbors and nearby prop properties more than would be expected under the form-based code standards so it's it's a pretty discretionary standard to Grant

[109:00] those exceptions I might ask the board to indulge a a kind of philosophical point I make every year or two and so some of you have heard this and some of you haven't but when we work to craft codes um it is a natural creative tension between predict ility and uh creativity we want to code and this is not just what we want this is what the community wants it's what policy makers want is something that is predictable enough to to know what is required but also allows flexibility for for creativity and so we're always working with that creative tension when bringing forth codes what you're seeing with the effort of the form base code though is to move a little bit more towards the predictability side so when we talked about it being prescriptive um it's more of the well if you check enough boxes then you've met the requirement go on your way as opposed to

[110:00] more in the middle or the other extreme which we you know move away from which is well anything's possible but you have to go through these questions and interations with staff and hearing bodies and things like that um so this is responding to that um request that came out of public policy uh discussions and public input of boy in this area with the uh East Boulder subc Community there would be a benefit to uh to being a little bit more on that prescriptive side on that more predictable side so that's what we allude to when we're talking about simplifying in that context and just know that we're always very conscientious of of how we're working that balance but hopefully that gives some context if I could add just one more on top of that because I don't think we've stated it explicitly um form based code to to date is only applied to areas where we've done that detailed planning of a subc community plan or an area plan

[111:00] so there's the predictability for the applicant and staff but also the intention is that it delivers for the community um all of the kind of description and and um feeling and aesthetic that people have described and have been documented in those plans um through these regulations so I don't think we had mentioned that before so I just wanted to make sure that was clear any question so I'm I'm grappling here with I what I see is kind of too possibly contradictory or maybe just things in productive tension um between the land use plan amendments that were being asked to consider to the east Boulder sub community plan um but also the regulating plans that we are being

[112:01] asked to approve as part of the form-based code update um and specifically here in the area of the flat irons Business Park the the R&D businesses there um it seems like the the land use plan amendments that we're looking at um are you know being made to kind of Ensure the continuity of that General Industry use in that area and to support that and at the same time we're hearing from property owners in the business Community um some problems that they're having with this General Building type in the form-based code particularly around the requirements for you know that 50% residential requirement and the 10% ground floor production requirements and I'm just I'm curious um what is the intent here behind sort of moving that East Boulder sub community plan in One Direction you know you could if we put it in terms of like backwards and forwards going back as it were to that General industrial zoning um but then

[113:02] also advancing this mixing of of housing requirements and kind of light industrial production space requirements into the form-based code is that a deliberate kind of thing at at Cross purposes with each other yeah it's it's a great question and it and it highlights I think one of the one of the missed opportunities that staff had to better communicate what the rules really are are are saying so particularly as you're referencing the regulating plan um for flat irons's Business Park that allows for either the General Building form that carries the residential requirement or this new workshop building type that is um is capable of being a fully non-residential type of of building so we've introduced that Workshop building type um to really address the the needs um for additional reinvestment Redevelopment into new innovation and business Industries in

[114:00] this particular area and also we've maintained the opportunity to utilize that General Building form in in the case um of a property owner within the business park that might be interested in doing a residential project they would be able to leverage that um that General Building form uh the the General Building form I I would say also is slight incentivized in terms of the amount of floor area that you could generate out of that um with up to five stories and 55 feet as opposed to only the three stories in the workshop building it's it's a very subtle way we're trying to encourage and and nudge people in that direction but there is definitely um there is not a residential requirement for the business park through that Workshop building good anybody else uh Kurt uh thanks I had missed uh until tonight the

[115:00] fact that any property with an existing PUD or site review approval is exempt from the form base code right completely and they can fully redevelop and maintain as a a a site review Amendment for example like demolish the building and build a completely new building and still do that under site review is that correct that's correct okay there is one um standard that does apply it there is an additional standard essentially kind of a discretionary standard imposed on top of the site review criteria and it says that to the extent practicable projects must be compatible in terms of height Mass scale orientation architecture and project configuration with the form based code standards so that the vision that's created there can also be

[116:00] considered as part of the site review project but it's not as strict as the form based code would apply okay that's helpful and so you said that a very large number at least of the properties in the in East Boulder are have existing puds or cite review do we have like a map of that I do have a map of that nice um Kathleen if you are able to scroll yeah if you scroll down to the bottom there should be um uh the last hidden slide will

[117:03] yeah I think yeah I think that I think that works fine so just to try to orient uh folks a little bit you can see um the center of the map is 55th Street running north south a rapaho is uh towards the bottom and so you can see the sort of station area the St area has some parcels that in the blue indicate a prior approval of a of a PUD or site review um there are some parcels there in the in the station area that do not have an existing approval and then as you move um North on 55th the the business park is essentially a a conglomeration of of various uh PUD approvals over the years and then the Valmont Park East and West locations um also for the most part are covered with prior approvals so as Hela was mentioning the um the Redevelopment opportunities in those locations they

[118:01] the the default would be for them to proceed under a site review amendment process um if they were to do that there the you know there's an additional layer of um criteria related to um uh you know attempting to sort of meet the intent and the spirit of the form based code but essentially they would act as guidelines as opposed to Reg regulations um or if the property owner was able to resend that PUD without affecting any other properties that might um also be subject to that same PUD they could do that and then they'd be starting from scratch and they could utilize the form based code do you have any expectation just from talking to property owners and developers and Architects and so on would if if somebody has an old you know tilt up industrial building for example but they've got an existing PUD or site

[119:01] review approval would they prefer to use the form based code would they prefer to just go through side review do you have any sense for I'm I'm wondering yeah if this whole thing is kind of moot well I yeah it's a great question I think I I would say as of today there's probably a lot of hesitation um you know from from existing property owners and I think it's just because they're they're still digesting all of this and it's a new it's a new thing right and it um potentially would result in something different than what they currently currently have so I do think there's probably some trepidation right now um what I do hope is that over time people recognize the benefits of the form based code in terms of its predictability in terms of process and review of applications and and ultimately approvals that it actually is a benefit to to a possible Redevelopment um I will also note that for the most part the zoning that exists in this area

[120:00] is IG or industrial general which has a relatively low F allowance um and the form base code would substantially increase the amount of developable floor area in these in these locations so um we believe that there's benefits from the actual outcomes of the of the development itself but also in the process as well if I may too I'll come back to something I said uh when introducing this item which is that we recognize that this is setting the table for what might be a long um term evolution of a decade or decades and that's how cities do sometimes naturally evolve and the time frame in which it happens and and you know it's about about setting momentum and setting the state uh setting the stage you're familiar I'm sure with the old uh adage of when is the best time to plant a tree well yesterday when's the second best time

[121:01] today and that really applies to these kinds of foundational policy uh and then the implementation for it is we we we need to find the balance between today's realities and conditions on the ground and yet Propel that forward and and it may it may be faster or it might evolve after year three five five and 10 uh but we think this is the right balance based on feedback and the very hard work of the Outreach initially great great thank you okay um let's try to get some final questions in then we got to get to public too and then we have time to talk it through as a board so uh ml go ahead um so and following up with um what has just been said the fif it seems to me like the 50 Fifth Street quarter is where we have the opportunity to have the most influence the other areas that we are proposing to do change are seem to be in

[122:03] a PUD is that is that observation correct is the cross-hatched area of that map you showed where the puds were yeah the the that blue blue uh area within within the map so I would say at least um in the short term yes I would say the within the 55th and arapo station area um has the most uh Parcels that are currently not covered by an existing approval to where form based code would apply I was um also thinking about the 55th Street Corridor where you're proposing the land use change uh actually for the most part everything that's north of the railroad is already everything that's blue and which is almost the entire map is PUD correct okay that's right got it thank you mhm okay uh Laura uh thank you sorry I lost my zoom controls there for a second uh too many

[123:01] windows open I wanted to follow up on one of Claudia's uh questions in that area along 55th Street north of the railroad tracks that um is proposed to be changed from what is currently in the plan which is mixed use Tod land use and to residential Place type and change it back to Industrial General if it remain mixed use to with a to residential Place type could it have that Workshop building type in it that Workshop building type that that can be completely industrial commercial with no residential in it Leslie I'll let you um you know chime in as well but but the the challenge with with that is that then you create a uh in the subc commmunity plan you would have two different areas with the same place type of that to residential but if you're north of the tracks you get the workshop building if you're south of the tracks you don't and so um it it would

[124:02] cause it wouldn't be a direct uh translation of the intent of the subc commmunity plan into the regulation so that's in part uh you know why we're proposing the the shift to mixed use industrial and back to that destination workplace Place type is because that the intention and the description of that within the sub commmunity plan uh provides for that flexibility of either industrial uses or residential but but the way it is now what's in the plan right now is the mixed use to and to residential does that land use and place type allow for that Workshop building type no it doesn't currently it does not okay okay thank you yeah all right uh any last questions KT quick I have one question about something that was called out in the packet but I don't but you didn't talk about it it was the

[125:02] change to the the designation or whatever of posos it was not clear to me whether posos were intended to allow Motor Vehicles or not because in different places it seemed to say different things Leslie I'm going to defer to you on that one uh oh I'll try to pull it up as well we we very specifically I think actually hel may be able to answer we very specifically allowed um vehicles that would be allowed on a sidewalk um the way that we worded it was to make it consistent with sidewalks in other locations um and so because of the way that um the city currently defines what's allowed on a sidewalk we wanted to make sure that that was consistent on the posos and that we didn't allow something different on the poso so that if it changed for what's

[126:01] allowed to be um on a sidewalk it would be consistent with the posos so that brings in micro Mobility as well as allow uses where that would be possible in sidewalk areas or for the city to to designate accordingly as as seems appropriate but it's not generally intended to allow Motor Vehicles okay not cars trucks blah blah blah okay thank you all right great um we'll have time to talk things through or call up on staff if we need to why don't we uh switch over to the public participation on this item great um hello everybody my name is Vivian Castro wridge I'll be helping with the public hearing tonight uh we'll start with comments from people who are joining us in person in the chambers and then go to testimonies from Members

[127:01] joining us online um but I'd like to read a few instructions first a second here okay um so the board recently adopted a new rule that allows pulling of time during public hearings I will explain how it works uh tonight even if we don't particularly anticipate it each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation of up to three minutes three or more people may pull their allotted time so one speaker can speak for five minutes to pull time all the people pulling time must be present in person in the physical meeting room or present electronically when the spokesperson is called to speak speakers with pool time must identify the people they are pulling time with by first and last name when called upon to speak so they can be called upon to confirm their presence and willingness to pull their speaking time so that's it for pooling time um and then just to please request all speakers from the public to

[128:00] introduce themselves giving your name and address and also to let us know if you're officially representing a person entity group homeowners association Etc to state that for the record as well um and also there are a couple people online for whom we cannot see your full name I've sent you a message asked you to send me your full name through the Q&A if you plan on getting testimony tonight uh so first Thomas if you can let me know if there's anybody online sorry in person rather yes we do have one person here in person uh that is approaching the podium great so each person will have three minutes yes um go ahead and step up please state your name and address for the record there's a small button on that microphone can you hear me now yeah now it's live it named Andrew fauler great thank you all right it's good okay uh good evening um

[129:00] so Andrew faulon director of development with biomed realy uh for those of you who are not familiar with biomed realy uh we're a real estate platform that offers Real Estate Solutions in the life science Industry our tenants include ABY Amgen thermofisher and and range in scale we own and operate about a million square feet in flat iron Park uh it's about 50% of flat iron but it's sprinkled throughout flat iron Park um we provide Real Estate Solutions long-term capital investment and ongoing management support for the R&D ecosystem so that our tenants can focus on what they do best curing cancer blindness and Etc I'm here tonight on behalf of those tenants um as many of the proposed changes will impact our ability to support and grow their R&D ecosystem our four primary concerns with the current draft were summarizing hen heart's uh 14 October 2024 letter include mandatory housing mandatory production business space the fact that R&D is disregarded uh in the

[130:02] non-conforming status of existing buildings we met with um Christopher Johnson and Brad Mueller this morning uh to sorry to discuss these concerns further um appreciate your guys' time while it's unfortunate this communication came so close to this meeting we appreciate the collaboration and believe we can address the concerns uh with some revision to the form based code in particular uh we were encouraged by Bradon KJ's assertion that the form based code would regulate form and character while zoning regulates uses however through the document we see contradictions to this where form uh base code reaches over into regulating and prescribing uses to dive a little further into the four um concerns that I listed earlier first with mandatory housing we understand staff does not intend to change the underlying zoning uh flat iron Park and does not int to use form based code to impose use restrictions however the current

[131:00] proposed code imposes many use restrictions and relies on convoluted exceptions many of which have unintended architectural impacts which I'll discuss later and relate to the workshop building types that we've discussed to be consistent with staff's intent and the intent of the form based code the draft should be updated to exclude use restrictions rather than relying on these Nar exeptions also given the lack of clarity on zoning we'd also like to see an explicit statement that changes are not being made to the IG zoning designation uh second in regards to the production space business we understand the intent is not to require production space business and R&D developments and the production space was intended for residential buildings this is not consistent with the current language in the form base code and should be update updated to clarify uh third in regards to uh R&D we understand that the intent is to classify R&D buildings under the workshop uh that's the end

[132:01] of is that the end of three minutes yeah that's the end of your three minutes if you want to finish up your your last sentence or two that'd be great sure I'll just say with R&D um sorry with the workshop building types there are some architectural concerns understand some of these might have been typos in the last version um so hopefully can be updated and consistent with the ended r&t use thanks yeah thank you great thank you now we'll move to our online participants and if you can go ahead and raise your virtual hand I'll call on you and then just remember to introduce yourself and your address we'll start with Jordan Bunch you have three minutes you should be able to see the timer on your screen please go ahead thank you very much my name is Jordan Bunch I'm a partner with Holland and Hart uh 1800 Broadway 300 Boulder Colorado 80302 and we represent biomed reality these comments I'm making this evening are in addition to the letter which I sent him yesterday and which I believe

[133:01] is included in your packet our first want to address residential uses throughout the process of implementing the East Boulder subc Community Plan one of the biggest reoccurring issues has been the question of whether residential use will be mandatory or optional it's been repeatedly stated that housing would be optional in industrial areas but it's not quite clear that that's the case case in this draft we understand through Communications earlier today that planning staff believes that this has been addressed because the workshop business building type does not require housing however that's not clear in the code language and even if it was exempting one building type does not fully address our concerns or follow what has been the historic and repeated direction that housing be optional carving out a single building type only creates one narrow path to optionality and is based entirely on the ability of the developer to conform to that one building type which may not be compatible with the lot on which the building sits or the needs of the R&D industrial or biomedical user further

[134:00] this approach creates the potential for unintended but negative consequences for example it does not address a scenario in which a modification to a building causes it to lose the protection of the non-conforming use status and simultaneously not comply with the workshop building type this will cause owners who need to make Minor Adjustments to a building for the benefit of the R&D industrial or biome iCal user to fall outside of the protections and either have to implement housing or scrape and rebuild the entire building in order to make it comply with the workshop business type similarly the narrow exception does not protect the owners of existing buildings from facing potentially expensive Redevelopment scenarios if a non-conforming use status is lost because the building was vacant for a year in between industrial users all of these concerns are easily addressed by reverting to a true optional housing position in industrial areas um next I want to address production business space as we noted in our letter we have concerns about the 10% requirement based on subsequent conversations with staff we understand that this requirement may only have been

[135:00] intended for housing developments and requiring them to integrate certain commercial industrial uses as drafted however this applies across the board and that should be clarified if the true intent is just to limit it to residential developments um I do note um as as has been noted throughout the evening that the process for Drafting and sisting Fe back for the version of the code in front of you has been rushed U the code is nearly 100 pages long several uh additional materials were not provided until the agenda for this meeting was posted and that didn't afford a good opportunity for review and um discussion and meaningful feedback with the staff which we have appreciated so given the scope of the of these open issues we encourage you to table this matter in order to allow additional analysis and engagement with staff rather than sending it on to city council thank you thank you for your testimony would anyone else like to speak please raise your virtual hand and I can call on

[136:01] you Jonathan singer please go ahead you have three minutes planning board and uh staff members my name is Jonathan singer I'm the senior director of policy programs with the boulder chamber and rather than belabor the points that that have been made I wish to Echo the concerns and IDE that have been brought forth by both by both alland and Hart as well as biomed realy I believe that everybody here is working in good faith to get to a good point to allow for maximum flexibility to ensure that there's the correct mix of industrial commercial housing in this in this area I appreciate also uh Brad and everyone else uh working with us uh this morning to address some of those issues and ensuring that we're going to work together to make sure that we can clarify any details that need clarification and what our major ask here at the boulder chamber after being major Partners in the East Boulder sub community plan from from its real outset

[137:02] is to make sure we can codify and clarify what has been discussed today in terms of what it looks like for flexibility as opposed to prescriptiveness so look forward to the conversation today and um once again we Echo those sentiments and and look forward to working with staff and the planning board to ensure that we can correct the right eyes and cross the right teeth thank you thank you for your testimony uh I would just ask if others wish to speak to go ahead and raise your hand so that we have an idea of how many more people would like to provide testimony and we can just call on people efficiently people a few more seconds awkward silence okay count to five or so okay looks like no other hands oh we

[138:02] have um one more makeing koh's please go ahead so good evening planning board um I just want to make one comment in regard to the I guess response to the Holland and Har comment and that of the realy company in early June I went to my Yale reunion and I saw um the CEO of Blackstone who's a friend of mine from my undergraduate days Steve schwarzman and they've just invested $650 million in the last two years along 55th and I think that's where the comments are coming from that gosh don't make us do uh residential there but let me just say that focusing New Growth as the East

[139:01] Boulder subc Community Plan has done on infill with residential can enhance the walkability and connectivity of our 15minute town centers including that at Arapaho and 55th it's a strategy that the existing Boulder Valley comp plan since 2015 already has called for quote higher density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in proximity to multimodal corridors and Transit centers close quote that's from the 2015 bbcp at page 47 paragraph or section 2.16 and just this year the governor signed a number of housing related bills aimed to address the housing shortage that's House Bill 24-3 uh 13113 that requires local governments including Boulder to set housing density

[140:01] goals within a quarter mile of bus lines and half mile of Light Rail stations to allow new housing development in Boulder despite the clear intention expressed in the bbcp 10 years ago zoning allowing higher densities adjacent to corridors and Transit centers has yet to be implemented 55th fulsome north of vmont 19th Street much of Broadway Iris balam arapo Table Mesa Drive and South Boulder Road remain zoned except for the occasional commercial node for low density housing so with the East Boulder sub community plan I think it would be a huge mistake to follow the direction of the commercial interest here and to reduce the probability that there's going to be housing that is built in these areas that now are devoted to ig I

[141:02] think it would be a mistake to do this and I hope that you won't go with what is suggested on page 13 of the packet to roll back the opportunity of housing in this area thanks so much thank you for your testimony ly seagull please go ahead nothing with Blackstone they were just bought by Vanguard um rental back Securities are the destruction of the economy housing prices going up so much people being evicted they Blackstone sets it up so you you have to evict someone to be able to raise the rent um and then we have this incredible housing

[142:00] crisis people are evicted they get on drugs they get homeless they get on the street they get in the mental care situations it's so costly to their kids and to everything El to the whole system collapses whatever you do if you have any housing in the industrial areas somehow it's probably going to be Blackstone they've taken over so much of the housing markets in Boulder um Golden West and Lotus and a lot of University Housing and um this is just predatory um basically hedge fund style housing that's increases the wealth um inequity

[143:00] and collapses the economy of Boulder so that's my advice thanks thank you anybody else wish to provide testimony tonight for this item if not just want to give deep appreciation for community members joining us in person and online tonight thank you over to you chair thanks thanks Vivian and thanks again for the public and participating with that um I I suggest it's 8:25 um why don't we reconvene at 8:35 um to discuss and move forward on this public hearing item okay

[144:19] e e

[145:19] e e

[146:19] e e

[147:19] e e

[148:19] e e

[149:19] e e

[150:18] e e

[151:18] e e

[152:18] e e

[153:18] e e e

[154:39] got a few more people reconvening in here Mason just popped on um we're just missing ml I'll give her one more minute and then we'll get

[155:03] going um when ml uh when ml comes back um maybe do you guys want to respond you want to respond at all to any of the public comment um was there anything that you guys wanted to respond to or no before we get started the the only thing I might um uh respond to was I believe a comment from uh Jordan Bunch from Holland and Hart in a reference to um feeling like this code preparation was rushed and that um there hadn't been a proper time to review the materials the draft the current draft of the form base code that's before you tonight was posted to the uh project website on September 19th and we provided notification to all the property owners and stakeholders uh that

[156:01] it was available and then we um knowing that it is a very long and it's very technical we posted uh some summary information of the changes that had been made since June and FAQ or frequently asked questions um uh sort of summary document and some additional um materials those were posted to the website the following week on September 27th and they were also notified that those were available so um Staff feel like we've uh you know taken the appropriate measures um since since June since the first review of the of the first draft to make those changes and continue to engage with stakeholders and and provide the materials as soon as possible thanks that was that was very helpful appreciate that um can would you mind putting up the questions if that's Thomas who has control of the screen or if it's and while we're doing that Kurt

[157:01] said he had a few uh just quick follow-up questions yeah well um there are a few things that didn't get talked about but I think are new changes this first one is one that a public comment sorry one of the emails that we got got referenced which is related to the midblock pathways and the whole thing was a little vague to me but my question my main question I guess is why aren't we just showing lines on the TMP the way we ordinarily do in order to show where midblock Pathways should go as opposed to this mechanism through the formase code Leslie could you speak to the mid block Pathways yes

[158:01] absolutely um so most of the pasos all of the pasos on um Alpine balam and Boulder Junction were defined through the planning process um in East Boulder uh we noticed that there were several large Parcels uh that didn't have any kind of a poo noted through them and I think part of that was a little bit of push back from the number of poos that were um required in Boulder Junction especially at 30 Pearl and um there's there are costs associated with that kind of complete division um with no building allowed um um so the midblock uh Pathways were meant to be a more flexible tool to allow those Pathways to be located um with a little bit more

[159:01] flexibility on the site and they do allow uh buildings to extend over them um so they're just a kind of light poo um and again they give flexibility to the developer um and and the other part of it is it's quite possible that a couple of parcels might get combined and then that could trigger the need for uh a midblock pathway as well um and we don't have that information until those Parcels are combined um into one development does that make sense yes so the main difference I guess from what we ordinarily draw in the TMP is as I understand it that these can have buildings over them that's the that's the main difference they just don't they don't have as many standards um required um the poos have lighting and and pavement

[160:03] and such and and I don't think we included that level of um standard in the mid block Pathways okay thank you uh next question is about the large site requirements which refer to common ownership or control I don't know what that means for instance if they're two adjoining Parcels with owned by different llc's but they have the same members is that common ownership or control what is there a clear that's common control what sorry I would consider that to be under common ownership and control and not same ownership but if the underlying ownership is the same then it's under the same control and that's how it's been we have similar Provisions um for when a site review is required and that's how it's been applied in the past so do you even know

[161:00] who the members of an LLC are I mean that's not public so it's it just seems a little vague you're okay with that well it's we currently have it in the code as as a standard it's and it's been used then way oh so the ter same terminology is used for y oh I see okay okay great um final question is about the 30% facade replacement uh threshold so I have a building I'm replacing 31% of the facade in that case the form-based code applies to to the project but does it apply to the full facade then or just the 31% that I'm

[162:00] replacing it would require to the whole facade then the whole facade okay okay thank you um I think these questions are probably similar enough that we can each each member can probably speak to them um together um unless people have a different way that they want to approach this that would be my suggestion at least the first go around and then if we need to if we feel the need to parse them out beyond that we can certainly do that um everyone's okay with that uh maybe someone wants to um go first George just a clarifying question if I could yeah thank you so is this divided the same way that our presentation was divided where the first question is about the land use changes to the sub community plan and the second question is the proposed ordinance is about the

[163:00] form based code yes that's correct and then I guess just a reminder that um planning board would approve the amendments to the subcommunity plan and related to the form-based code planning board's action is uh recommendation to council thank you anyone want to go first Kurt um well I'll start with number one I guess I may reserve the right to pass on number two for the moment um for the most part I support the recommended amendments to the east Boulder subc Community Plan the exceptions are the change to the land use uh in um the along 55th Street in the uh in the area of of flat iron Park uh I don't support

[164:01] that change um because I think that it would um it would remove a significant amount of potential housing there that I think was part largely part of the intent of the entire plan uh I don't think that that is the ideal place for housing If I Ran the Circus I would put housing along South Boulder Creek and KOA Pond and not along 55th but I do feel that it's important to have it in the area I think that that as I said that was part of the intent so I don't support that change I also I support the change to um the connections plan along 50 uh sorry along Arapaho I don't support the change as

[165:01] proposed um to the the connection I think it's 1A um I I feel that that would inconvenience significantly inconvenience pedestrians trying to get between that area Sterling Court area and Goose Creek The Goose Creek path uh it would make you go quite a ways out of the way it also I it seems like it's an odd um choice to if there is going to be a street in there which there there is the the new East West Street um it it seems like making the uh Motor Vehicles go all the way around to that new Street off of 47 Street as opposed to using that existing Bridge it doesn't make

[166:01] sense to me so I'm not supportive of that connections change yeah ml I'll go next because um you've made it very easy Cur I I would agree with both of your um statements regarding the land use change from to uh residential on the 55th Street north of the railroad uh it seems to me that removing um the current uh zoning on that puts the burden on the two on the west velmont and the um project around the Tod around arapo which are smaller businesses smaller entities um to carry the housing burden and

[167:02] um I think if the idea is to create walkable neighborhoods and create destinations and Community um I think we need that connection that takes us from the North and South uh across the site so I I will not be supporting the land use change along 55th um secondly um I think I totally agree as well with the connections at the old Pearl Street and that bridge I think that that bridge well I know that that bridge serves a significant number of businesses um along there and that is I think part of the uh area that the plan um emphasizes to support kind of the funky area of this East Boulder subc commmunity plan those industrial areas are where a lot of those murals and some

[168:02] of the um smaller businesses are located that uh having that bridge access I think is is important it would it would I think add a dimension of complexity to the reality of um being a small business there that would be unnecessary so those would be my two my two thoughts um furthermore back on the land use um issue I think by taking away yeah I think the burden falls on the on the smaller sites and I think that bridge again brings up the point that these are small businesses there and we don't I I wouldn't want to make it harder for small businesses to remain in this area thank you uh looks like Laura was next thank you um and thank you Kurt and ml for making it easy for me so I also do not support the land use change along 55th Street um

[169:00] I have a whole speech prepared I'll try to keep it brief but you know um the East Boulder subc Community which as was pointed out in the presentation was one of 10 sub communities in Boulder it's almost entirely Industrial and Commercial and about half of it was not identified as an area of change in the East Boulder sub community plan most of it will remain Industrial and Commercial with absolutely no residential the only residential that's there now is the recent project that used to be called water view is now weather vean um and there's San Lazaro which is actually in the county um and hopefully will be annexed but right now that housing is not part of uh the city of Boulder so there's very little housing there and that was one of the key goals of the East Boulder subc Community Plan it was to take a single-purpose industrial area and evolve it as Brad said evolve it over time and hopefully fairly gently in a way that honors the existing businesses that are there but when these properties do redevelop we want to shape

[170:00] what that future looks like um and we want to shape a future that is not the same as the current Trend trajectory we did Analyze That current Trend trajectory in the East Boulders commity planning process and decided that's not what we want we want more residential there in particular we don't need to live with the mistakes of our past in which we strictly separated uses and created these islands of car dependent residential totally separate from the islands of commercial and Industrial and I do think that that 55th Street Corridor as ml said is essential to connecting the residential up by vmont on either side of the park and the residential down on arapo those are the boundaries of our subc community and then 55th goes right through the heart that is the Central north south Connection in the East Boulder subc Community and it's a wonderful place for increasing our Transit and increasing our our residential capacity in this sub Community um you know I'll say what I said last meeting planning is Destiny and that's what we're trying to do with this sub community plan is gently evolve

[171:02] towards the future that we see that is more integrated and more mixed use and I'm very concerned that if we go back to an industrial General um uh land use for that area on 55th Street and we allow that Workshop building type that can be done completely with no housing that's what we're going to get and and basically the land owners many of them have told us that's what they want and they don't want to have to do Residential um but again this this gradual change is only about if they redevelop and if they redevelop over a certain size it doesn't they can even expand their current uses um they don't have to have residential unless they redevelop to to more of a maximum buildout and what I don't want to see happen is these old smaller buildings that are ripe for re of velopment get redeveloped to their maximum buildup potential their maximum Envelope as an industrial use that will probably never change because as some of our commenters pointed out the specs for those

[172:01] buildings are wildly different from what you want for residential and we all know it's extremely hard to repurpose uh an office building or an industrial building once it's already built and make it residential so we have the opportunity now we're going to lose it if we don't take it in this subc community planning process so I I don't want to go backwards with that I I would not support that land view change um as far as the second question around the proposed ordinance I think it's very good I think staff have done great work I do think that I heard staff if I'm understanding correctly have addressed a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the property owners they probably want more flexibility but I do think that staff has has made a good compromise and introduced enough flexibility um you know nobody's going to get everything that they want but it but it's a we're in a good place I think with this ordinance the one change that I might suggest and I would like to see how other um board members react to this before potentially proposing um a recommendation on this is that uh trigger with a 30% facade um

[173:02] change that if a property owner has to replace 30% of the facade that that then triggers the whole facade has to be redone according to the form baseed code I do think that's too stringent I'm not personally super concerned about the look of the community I'm more concerned about um the functionality and I don't like the idea that old buildings are going to get brand new expensive facades on a building that that then encourages that building to remain in place and not redevelop right like once you've invested a lot of money in an existing structure it becomes that much harder to to redevelop it even if other parts of the structure are falling apart it just changes your calculation so I don't I don't want to force Property Owners to invest in shiny new facades on Old buildings so I I might propose removing that provision entirely about how having a trigger for a certain percentage of of the facade Redevelopment triggers a facade Redevelopment which is different than a building Redevelopment thank you those are my comments thanks Laura uh

[174:04] Mason yeah so I also don't support the change of the land use on flat irons p park along 55th Street for all the same reasons that been mentioned I definitely can't beat what Laura just said with C ml uh I am going to differ quite a bit on the bridge north of pearl that Kurt NL mentioned um that just happens to be exactly where my favorite uh music venue in town is roots music project and I bike uh that area quite often that Bridges right next to the bike lane it makes perfect you uh sense to uh have that be a bike and pedestrian only access point um when there are cars using it along with pedestrians um and bikes it becomes dangerous and there are other access points for the cars along the front edge of that building um so it won't restrict access and if anything

[175:02] it'll make it a more vibrant and safe area for people to visit the various breweries the distillery that's there and the uh music venue that's there as well um so I wholeheartedly support um that bridge change um as far as number two um really happy with the outdoor space adjustments uh it simplifies it gives greater flexibility and it could lead to more activated public spaces including ones that provide amenities for the community so really appreciate you all taking those changes um I also appreciate all the work that um you all put into making it more simple and flexible and really you know getting towards that balance that that Laura just spoke so eloquently to um and Laura I would I would support your suggestion should you propose the uh facade Amendment and I do think we

[176:00] should continue to look for redundancies or over prescriptive areas in the code that can be reduced I know that you all have heard many commments about you know we should be able to reduce the language in here by 25% or so um from other folks um like on city council um so or I appreciate that suggestion and I think that we should continue to look to to um simplify our code because I do believe that leads to more um creativity in our built environment that's all I got great Mason thanks uh Claudia thanks I'm trying to update my comments here in real time as I listen to my colleagues so please bear with me if I'm disorganized um regarding the connections plans in the subcommunity plan um I read these proposals as supportive of bike and pedestrian movement echoing a bit what my colleague Mason just talked about I'm actually happy with these

[177:01] suggestions um but open to listening to amendments if others want to make those um I think the most the the Crux of the matter here on amending the subc commmunity plan as we've all been talking about um are the land use changes in the area of the flat iron business park there on 55th Street and I just want to recognize here that the flat iron Business Park and the R&D uses that have clustered there really are an important part of our local economy here and I think the issues raised by both City staff in their proposed updates to the land use plan and by the property owners in response to the form-based code housing requirements um do make a lot of sense at the same time I am concerned that the stakeholder engagement in this phase of the East Boulder planning process um seems to have favored whether intentionally or not these property owners and not the broader set of voices that made housing

[178:02] front and center in the East Boulder subc Community Plan um and I think that the agreement on the housing vision for this area how much housing where that housing could and should be that came out of this very robust Community process is really quite fresh at this point um so like Kurt and ML and Laura and Mason I do not at this time support the land use changes being proposed here that would reduce the potential the likely potential for housing here um a few comments on proposals to update the form-based code um I do appreciate the addition of the courtyard and playground as um allowable outdoor space types I think that's a good addition when we are talking about adding housing in areas like this um I appreciate the requirements for adding internal circulation patterns in these

[179:00] larger sites that we just had a little discussion of um and in response to Laura's um question whether we might consider supporting some changes to that exterior facade modification trigger um I actually had a note um um to bring that up myself so yes I would be interested in hearing um a proposed um Amendment or recommendation on that front I may have more comments as discussion goes on but that is what is highlighted here on my notes for now great um I'll be brief uh like my colleagues I uh am not supportive of the land use change as it relates to the flat iron Business Park um appreciate the the input there from the public uh but similar to what Claudia said I I think this is a broader conversation um and I'm not sure that was reflected in the latest

[180:00] update um in in general outside of that on number two uh generally in favor the the one area I don't want to be redundant with anybody uh so the one area that um I'd like us to have a little more discussion on if anyone else is interested is around that um reduction down to 20% of the trips generated by development just because I think if we don't codify something a little bit more aggressive here um I I think the the the goal was to create you hear a lot about 15minute neighborhoods and um densification um but along with that become the benefit of you know we're going to increase traffic on the roads no matter what as it relates to these developments and I just think 20% is too too too small a goal and I think we can

[181:00] do better I I understand the 55% may not be practical or achievable um without um brt um that being said I I do think we we could we could get to you know 20% as just as our arbitrary is 30% 30% just sounds a whole lot better to me as a goal and what we're trying to achieve relative to 15minute neighborhood so that that's what I would say around that um outside of that I generally agree with what my colleagues have said as it relates to the bridge I I I don't I don't have enough of a perspective on how it um so I just kind of abstain from that comment and let my colleagues who who know better probably figure that one out um Okay so C so I talked about Kyoshi 1 I didn't talk about Kyoshi 2 yeah uh so let me go ahead with that and uh first of all I'll agree with George that really a 20%

[182:00] reduction from the it um trip generation numbers should be an absolute Baseline in Boulder I mean that that is what we every um uh traffic study that we get as part of a site review predicts at least a 20% reduction so that that seems like it's pretty weak sauce to only ask for 20% I think 55% yeah may be a little ambitious but something in the middle I would definitely support uh a few other things so overall I think that there's a lot of great changes in the code I appreciate some of just the cleanups I appreciate moving that out of an appendix which which was really awkward um and uh yeah a lot of the simplifications and so on there are a few uh things that I want to highlight well the big ones are the requirement

[183:02] for included residential develop uh residential space in larger projects and especially the production business requirement if I think that's the right term uh yeah production business space um I have a lot of concern about trying to mix these kinds of uses within a building I I just don't know how well that works uh certainly you know trying to make 50% of a building residential when the rest of it is doing you know some kind of maybe lab work or um with you know working with chemicals or uh doing something that could be somewhat noxious or whatever to me that doesn't really make sense I I I would I certainly

[184:03] support having requiring um or or strongly encouraging resident both residential uses and production business uses in developments but within the same building the requirement as I understand it that it be within the same building really gives me pause I would be much more amenable to it if it for example on large sites if if the requirement were that there be a building you know with certain fraction of the total floor area that was residential for example and a building that was production business so getting mixed use in in different buildings but ju I'm I'm not a builder I'm not an architect wait for ML to weigh in um but

[185:02] mixing those within the single building to me seems really problematic uh I agree with Laura that the the 30% facade replacement uh triggering a full full fac bring the full facade up to the fase code is problematic one other thing I would like to highlight for the board is that there's a requirement that in East Boulder in the East Boulder area uh if you're building residential of more than a 100 units uh two outdoor spaces are required if less than 100 units or 100 units or fewer I guess uh it's only one outdoor space I'm certainly support uh outdoor spaces I think the adding playgrounds in as a as an outdoor space type is fantastic we'd love to see more

[186:02] playgrounds however my concern is the 100 unit threshold because we've just changed a lot of the site review thresholds to move away from unit-based thresholds and this is kind of moving back to a unit it is moving would be moving back to a unit-based threshold and so I would rather see it based on floor area for example or lot size or something like that I have a process question yeah are we going to we're making recommendations to council are we trying to coales around something or are we just giving a bunch is it more like a a concept review where we're just giving a bunch of comments and they'll be wrapped up and delivered off yeah Brad Mueller planning director I don't have a good answer for you I'm going to let others uh provide

[187:01] some of that but but do you have an answer but I have an answer um to the second key question the uh ordinance uh is recommendations obviously Consolidated recommendation is what you would be voting on we as we always do cake comments and those get passed on as well but I did uh I did want to interject a procedural points so if if I may on uh the first one so certainly respecting and and uh deferring to any decision that the board makes but I did want to just clarify that uh unlight ordinances the sub area plans have to be of the exact same Nature by planning board and Council and as it uh relates to the housing along 55th I I I do want to remind you that was a very specific point of direction that Council gave us um to

[188:00] have that change made to take out that housing now there's a chance they may change their mind but if they don't that would result in them adopting that amendment in particular than us having to come back to you and finding a way to reconcile those those competing decisions at that point so I uh I'm not again obviously uh defer and and acknowledge whatever decision the board makes tonight but I did want to just point out that procedural nature and the fact that that was a very specific request of council that we were responding to can I question not so much on the other plan elements yes please can I ask a question on that point Brad Brad I went back and watched that October 6th council meeting and I did not see that direction from Council could you help us understand was that a unanimous vote by Council say or or a a majority vote by Council saying take out the housing along 55th Street was that like one or two council members was it

[189:01] done in a public meeting was it done offline like how did you get that direction from Council it was in a public meeting and it was a majority and actually Christopher looked at that and can speak to the very specific yeah it was the um we held a study session with City Council on June 13th um so you can uh certainly go back in and review the the recording um during the study session you know there were comments that were made about uh the concerns from Council of requiring residential in an area that is you know primarily um currently Innovation and business uses but also intended to be be so going forward um I did uh at the time I asked a very specific question question because I wanted to make sure that staff had very clear Direction around you know if the concern was around requiring residential alog together or was it just in specific locations and the uh comment that came

[190:00] back from four different council members was that they were open to uh open to considering and maintaining a residential uh requirement in particular areas where it might make more sense and we took that to to be those areas that are adjacent to Valmont Park and in the station area but um for the uh kind of primary Innovation and business areas that are a residential requirement was a step too far okay thank you that's helpful I do have a comment about that but I don't want to jump the Q thank you um did that answer your question before before we have comments um on process so on number one just so I'm clear what are you looking for specifically a motion to adopt and then um potential amendments to that motion depending on how we feel as a board yeah

[191:01] it would be a motion um and it could be a motion where you don't approve all of the proposed amendments but some of them okay and on on the second one you're just looking for some Consolidated recommendations um maybe some just general tally of uh you know majority recommendations or or even a few minority recommendations so you understand sort of where the board stands is that correct yes okay if if you want to suggest some changes then okay I would I would recommend that you kind of you describe them don't draft them tonight okay great that's that's super helpful um so with that said uh Laura you had a you had a comment yeah I guess my my comment and and I appreciate Brad and Christopher your clarifications on where that Direction came from about the 55th Street Corridor my comment is four council members is not a majority and then my other comment

[192:02] is I would like to since this was a unanimous uh Feeling by planning board um I would still be inclined to make this um decision tonight with this recommendation intact that we not include that change to the 55th Street area and then let Council see that proposal in its entirety and in its detailed form because the we're not saying that you must build housing in this area we're saying if you redevelop over a certain size threshold then there is a trigger right so it's not every Redevelopment so I I think it's worth sending it to council to think about the specifics that we have heard tonight and and and just to clarify Laura um they can still redevelop per their zoning under underneath their existing zoning they just can't go beyond that that that's correct right that's the way that would be set up in IG I would defer to staff

[193:00] on that sorry George can you repeat that question Laura said in the future if they wanted to redevelop that that would ultimately fall into the the form based code but that's only if they wanted to go outside of their existing IG zoning right is that the way it would it would yeah would it would be only if they wanted to go outside their existing uh PUD or site review approval so it's very it's very likely that the form based code would not apply if they remained within that context so if they just as an example if they tore down a 50,000 foot building and they wanted to rebuild a 50,000 foot building but you know under that same zoning conceptually that would not trigger anything uh around the form based code or the housing thing if they didn't want it to that is correct if they had an existing PUD or site review approval that allowed for that 50,000 foot building the form based code would not apply okay so they

[194:01] could they could modernize in IG to support their existing uses without triggering um the housing and the and the form based code yes that is correct all right that's that's helpful to understand and and if if if you don't mind I I wanted just to clarify the the comment of the four council members so um I believe there was eight council members present that evening and the four that spoke to that particular item um they didn't necessarily vote on that you know so it wasn't a vote of four council members there were just four council members that actually made comments to that item or to that topic specifically and that was they all agreed on on that approach and just to build on that Council does sometimes do a straw pull on such things things for whatever reason they didn't that night I would say that was a point in some of the history of the new council members they were learning of that option so the reason we took that as Direction was the nodding of heads and not disagreeing

[195:01] from the other four just again for context and clarity thank you thank you that's helpful I'm not faulting staff for taking that as Direction I'm just thinking about what we should do as a planning board given that we unanimously felt different from what you heard that night and I just hate to um make an assumption that Council would feel the same seeing what we're seeing hearing the details that we're hearing um and knowing how we as a planning board felt about it I'd like to give them that opportunity to hear that yeah and just to comment and call myself I agree with you Laura from the standpoint of um you we're getting pretty granular here and so it may may be that when they get into the same granularity they might come to the same conclusion I'm not sure they they have yet or not um but uh we can decide that as a board um okay with that said uh does anyone

[196:00] want to make any additional comments otherwise uh maybe someone wants to make a motion um and then we can follow that with subsequent emotions to uh amend if we need to do Laura uh I will make the motion if there are no more comments please do um could staff please put the suggested motion language up for number one uh I moved to approve amendments to the east Boulder subc Community Plan including the 55th and arapo station area plan to align East Boulder land use plan connections plan and place types diagram with refined vision for East

[197:00] Boulder areas of change and additional supporting information second okay um now that Curtis seconded is there any discussion well I'll be proposing an Amendment as you folks have probably guessed okay but I think I already spoke to um my main thoughts about this motion um well maybe you I mean maybe you want to go ahead and propose that uh you we voting on that motion first and then making the amendment or we making the amendment now just yeah you should move to amend now okay so Laura do you wanna sure I will I will move to amend uh one exception which is that the areas shown as um mixed use to land use and Innovation Tod residential Place type in the adopted East Boulder sub community plan shall

[198:00] remain unchanged second all right any other discussion on that do we want to go ahead and vote on that then there's no discussion on the amendment on the Amendment yeah okay Claudia yes Kurt yes ml yes Mason yes Laura yes and I am also a yes okay does anyone want to make any additional amendments uh yeah I think there's probably not support for this but I'll make the uh motion to amend the uh motion can I interrupt uh there was a proceed Cal thing I think we did not get a second on the motion for Amendment we did second we didn't catch it thanks okay yeah y um to uh remove the change to connection 1A in the

[199:02] connection plan I'll second that can can you just um for just to help for clarity what what do you what are you trying to achieve through that just out of just clarification well uh I'm trying to I I don't I don't support the change to as I expressed I don't support the change to the connection plan because I think that it would be um it would it would uh decrease the accessibility for people walking especially because if you're going from the East uh Sterling Court area to for instance trying to go eastbound on the Goose Creek path then you have to walk instead of walking pretty directly to this to the Goose Creek path on as the connection is currently shown in the connections plan you have to walk west to go across the existing bridge and then back East um so

[200:03] and Mason said something about uh needing or liking having that bridge there I think that in the connections plan as it's shown the bridge would still be there but there would be an additional multi-use path connection to further east to the Goose Creek The Goose Creek path so it would be another non-vehicular Bridge uh actually believe if I could clarify that it's it's actually as um as it's currently shown in the plan it is it is not a um secondary multi-use path Bridge it is a full vehicular multimodal Bridge of which transportation and Mobility has informed us that that is very far out on any kind of capital Improvement list and

[201:00] and so essentially it would create a redundancy of the two Bridges as it's currently shown which is partly why we're we're recommending that change um to utilize the existing Bridge as opposed to building a new one uh okay I was trying to figure that out on the diagram and it was the resolution was poor and I okay let me let me pull that up because what I would ideally like to do is change leave the connections the way they're shown except change the connection type on that new connection from a vehicular connection to a multi-use path or some sort of non-vehicular connection to make it so that the bridge could be much simpler and cheaper um but I probably need to get to it in order to be able to describe that

[202:01] well I take it back do do you wanna you want to kind of look into that a little bit C and we can go to anybody else that has any amendments yeah okay um does anyone else have any amendments they want to make but you you should be acting on this motion to amend before you entertain any new motion to amend oh this motion to amend because it was second it already Yes okay true okay unless you you all agree to let Kurt and ml withdraw their motion to amend when you say we all have to agree do you mean we have to vote on that or we can just say okay I guess anybody who objects could could object as a point of order does anyone object on on on um curtain ml uh um removing that at the moment so I would request to temporarily remove this okay okay and if anyone can

[203:01] tell me what page that diagram is on that would help um in the meantime are there any other amendments that anyone wants to make in this section uh Kurt it's on page 14 in the packet the connections plan well it seems like that's the only amendment that we're trying to make in addition would it be too disruptive for me to suggest a two-minute bio break while Kurt looks at that uh um sure okay go for it I for one will take advantage I'll be right back okay we'll we'll uh we'll we'll take a two-minute break and 26

[204:30] in session oh can I can I ask a quick question about this bridge Christopher can I ask a quick Qui question about this bridge yes please I also have some information a an existing when it crosses the creek is that an existing Bridge or is that a proposed Bridge no that's proposed one yeah one a that extension of Sterling Court essentially all the way south and then across the Goose Creek Greenway to Pearl Street that would be a new road

[205:02] connection and as proposed it's a it's like a fullon bridge as proposed it's a full-on bridge that's right it's a local street right and so the existing bridge is approximately 300 ft to the West so 300 FTS roughly a block and that is proposed to remain as is no that's proposed to be just a pedestrian proposed to be converted ultimately to pedestrian and bicycles but the physical structure of the bridge would would remain so but it's only proposed to remove auto traffic once this other bridge is built uh no it actually the auto traffic would only be removed once the areas to the north uh are redeveloped so it would it would continue to allow for vehicular access for the time being until such point in the future when those properties happen to be redeveloped and then that's when the Transportation uh connections are

[206:01] implemented so there would just that one bridge that one Bridge timing wise is out there somewhere not not attached to Redevelopment or anything else the new the new brid or the way it's the way it's currently shown you're asking um cor correct that would that would be a coordination between uh you know as a city Improvement and um in association with a Redevelopment that would be responsible for building the rest of the street okay thank you but the the bridge itself would be a significant cost um that likely would be some type of um Capital Improvement borne by the city so right now it's it's it's being proposed as that that that new brid quote unquote new bridge is being removed from the plan yes okay that's right that's our that's the current proposal do you want to add back a bridge and if so what kind of bridge right exactly it's in your power with you are we back in okay uh so

[207:04] I move that proposed connection 1n be removed from the connection plan and that the southern part of connection 1A be changed from a street to an off street bike pit Facility by by facility what do you mean a bridge I'm using the terminology in the connections plan of trying to be clear so in in this case because it crosses Goose Creek it would be a bridge it would be a path and then a bridge does anyone want to second

[208:05] that that make sense okay that's easy all right great um any other amendments before we uh return back to the original M motion to uh vote on that now that we have that one amendment in place so shall we vote on the original motion I believe it was Laura who made it and Kurt seconded it um Claudia are we voting right now we're voting all right yes Kurt yes ml yes Laura yes Mason yes and I'm a yes as well okay um so that concludes our motion making for um number one and now number two we've been

[209:01] asked to uh consolidate our general feedback and if there are particular things that we want to highlight um now would be the time to talk that through anybody want to go first Kurt well I I raised the question of both the 50% residential requirement and the production business requirement in large buildings and I just like to see if there are similar concerns from other members of the board or if I'm alone on this um can somebody on staff clarify is the is the intent of the production on ground floor to create space for small businesses

[210:01] yes thank you oh what what are you trying to do with production I fully support both including residential uses and the production business space my concern specifically is about trying to include them in the same building and I'm just not convinced that that is going to work architecturally structurally programmatically and so on does it make sense that the market would work that out nobody's going to build something they can't sell or use if they're required to build it that's that's what this is saying is this in fact saying that you have to build production space in with residential the requirement is that 10%

[211:03] of nonresidential ground floor area so residential uses on the ground floor or parking are exempt from this so any remaining floor area that is non-residential 10% of that in in the general and workshop building fors um would be required to be set aside as production business space so the the goal is that that particular area has a has a slightly more refined or limited set of uses that could go into that space with the intention of providing um you know small and affordable locations for Creative Industries and other types of prediction uh production uses and that's and that's the one that had the definition that said what production space isn't is that correct that's right yeah we we've identified a few things that are not appropriate to go into there to try to leave the you know the the universe of other options open obviously it will still need to be

[212:01] consistent with the underlying zoning as an approved use okay got it ml's asking if I feel that the omissions are clear enough that's that's not my my objection is not about the uses per se it's about whether it would make sense structurally I it's it's it's essentially saying you take your building and maybe you're really trying to build a lab building or all the you know some of those will be Workshop type I realize to which this doesn't apply but some of them you might want a different or an office building or something and now you're trying to put in 50% of it be residential or 10% of the ground floor be production

[213:01] business again I'm not an expert in this I just have deep concerns about whether that works usually what we hear from applicants when we have tried to do this kind of mixed use with within a building unless it's a 4 over one building or something like that um what we've heard is that it it's problematic from a structural standpoint from an architectural standpoint from Ju Just As I said a programmatic standpoint because you know you've got somebody planing wood or whatever in the on the first floor and then there are other people trying to write code on the second floor or whatever it I I just have concerns about that so I can I'll make a comment and then I'll call on Laura I think um I think I I hear your

[214:00] concern um I I'm sort of in in favor of what's proposed and it's only because I I think that will all just get organically figured out like I I I don't I don't I don't think that's a a real issue when it comes to the practicality of how real estate is used um it'll get figured out the the landlord is not going to put a tenant that's going to um put in noxious fumes so that it affects the upstairs residen and and and so on and so forth like that that will all get sorted out through the process and and I think the the real benefit of what they're trying to accomplish is some small affordable spaces that we're going to probably lose through this process if we don't have mechanisms like that and if ultimately the landlord has to subsidize a bit of this space to get it rented because it's not as marketable as something that might stand alone as Workshop space um because they're going to have to put restrictions on noise and

[215:02] fumes and all kinds of things I think that's okay because ultimately right now we've got tenants in this area that are paying 12 bucks a foot and those guys are going to be gone no matter what but maybe you'll get some space that might be 20 bucks a foot or 30 bucks a foot and may not be $50 a foot um so that would be that would just be my sort of commercial landlord lens on things um as a practical matter but I'm you know it's just an opinion can I just ask a followup question do you feel the same about the residential requirement then too I I do I mean I think I mean I think that's the whole that's the whole and Laura probably knows knows Us best and maybe she has a different opinion than I do but that's the whole Crux of the East Boulder subc Community Plan it is a bit of a malange of of uses and to a certain extent it's going to be experiment but to a certain extent it will sort itself out um because those uses the only way

[216:03] that that if they get forcibly built together to a certain extent they'll forcibly have to coexist um and work out that's my thought but you know I I don't think we have a good we don't when we when we went through this process I remember as a board we were asking for examples of a lot of this stuff and we really didn't have any so some of this is theoretical on what we're trying to accomplish in the East Boulder subcommunity plan so I don't know that anyone has concrete you know success stories around this St type of stuff um but Laura I don't want to take up too much air time Laura you you have your hand up thank you um so I agree with you George that this is partially an experiment I also agree with you George that that this was one of the key things that we wrestled with was how do we allow Redevelopment and not force out small businesses how do we make sure that there is existing space um and

[217:02] provision for those small businesses to remain and I think this is a really creative solution to that problem um for the uh the production pardon me I'm for I'm forgetting the term that staff used but those production spaces Within redeveloping buildings um and I also agree with George that it you know if it doesn't make sense for a land owner then they're just not they're either not going to redevelop or they're going to sell to somebody else who wants to redevelop something different um I also wanted to point out that um uh I think there is a provision an exemption in the code that maybe staff would like to speak to that if the um property owner can show that the uses are incompatible because of some kind of a safety issue like noxious fumes then they can get an exemption and not have to provide the required residential in that building because the uses are incompatible I don't know if staff want to point out that section yeah hell is um pulling up that

[218:02] specific code reference but yes we did we did recognize that there could be a situation where a property may have uh environmental contamination or there might be an adjacent use that is is um you know really really incompatible with a residential uh use and so we did want to make sure that there was a um an exception made or a or at least a process for us to follow that would allow for a project to be redeveloped and not include residential if it could be proven out that there were these other extenuating circumstances that would really prevent that from from happening and and be safe for people to occupy that space does uh anyone have any other comments okay I'm noodling on this if I could say a few words sure because I I

[219:01] did start out sharing Kurt's concern um particularly about um some of the problems that could arise trying to mix housing with some of these industrial uses as much as we would like housing outcomes I know that we do have those exceptions um in the code that are laid out for housing if it's deemed to be incompatible for reasons like environmental safety um you know some of the commentary that we did receive from the property owners as well discussed issues like security um and being able to finance these kinds of developments as mixed um and so I know that those issues are out there as well and so I'm you know if there's feedback that we can send to to city council to say if there are if there are other forms of exceptions that possibly need to be considered um when talking about this mixing you know maybe one of them is is you know can there still be this requirement for the 50%

[220:01] residential but perhaps it is a separate building on the same site something like that um you know I don't know what the actual answer is but some of these issues raised about um building security insurance and the like when you start to mix uses um they do ring true and so I I would be comfortable flagging that going forward to say that that 50% housing requirement is important to this board um but if there are other ways to allow for some flexibility to achieve that that would be I think helpful can can I ask a question ml was about to make a comment and then I I'll go to your question okay um I just I just want to um agree with what Laura had said before about I think this is a really um unique solution to the the desire to retain small businesses and I think sometimes we

[221:01] forget that part of our both Boulder Valley comp plan and plans in general um to encourage Innovation and you know we've heard about how do we do this how do we do this and I I I do think that the market will figure this out and it's not an architectural or structural problem per se I think we can figure this out and I appreciate that the um that the option has been put on the table because it does I think it does open up a door that we don't very often open which is for Real Innovation rather than it's a word but there's no way to get there and you've given us a path so thank you very much Laura thank you I I wanted to ask staff you know in reference to what Claudia was saying um as a colloquy does the current code AS written require it to be 50% of housing on upper floors or could people do some of these Creative

[222:00] Solutions that are being suggested like have a separate building that has the residential and the production business space in it it's not required to be in the same building if if it's one building that triggers the requirement then it would have to be met in that same building if if it's not a larger development but generally that's not a requirement that it is within one building that's interesting go ahead I might also add Laura too that and Hela mentioned this earlier that there is um there there's a very um generous exception process within the form based code that if you could prove through that um form based code review that you were um that you were being consistent with the goals of the subc commmunity plan and and um uh you know overall intention of the form based code there could be some relief given or there could be consideration of you know

[223:01] those uses being located in one building versus another that type of thing particularly if you're talking about a large site with multiple um structures so it sounds like there is some flexibility already built in yeah yes I believe so thank you go ahead Kurt okay I misunderstood that that was exactly what I was aiming for was that sort of horizontal separation and I did not when in reading it I didn't realize that that was an option so if it is that's great I'm happy thank you all right awesome um I I I'll I'll provide some feedback and see if there's anyone that supports that um similar to Alpine Balsam I would I would I would move that in the East Boulder form-based code areas that at least 30% of trips generated by the development shall be by alternative modes or avoided um I think you know I've already kind of stated my my my point on that so I don't think anyone um needs to hear that again um

[224:01] but I'm curious if there's anyone else that's supportive of that I would support that yeah yes yes same and ml nodded her head too okay so so that's that's unanimous feedback from the board um other thoughts there's the 30% facade replacement [Music] change um I know Laura was concerned about that Laura do you have proposed wording I do I I want to check him with the board so I looked at the what is the section of the form based code that deals with this and it is section 9145 C2 if I'm reading this right and the trigger is not it's about facade additions or replacement any facade being added or replac shall meet the form based code if any of the following

[225:01] things happen and it actually has four triggers so I wanted to run this by the board and see do we want to suggest removing all four triggers or just the 30% one so the first trigger is if new exterior facades are added as a result of the addition of any floor area so any bump out any new floor area that requires a new facade triggers the whole building I think to to have to meet the form base code or I guess the new facades have to meet the form based code I guess that's a question for staff is it the whole building or just the new facades just the new facad just the new facades so like if there's a bump out or a new piece of the building added those facades would have to meet the form base code which I don't think is necessary if it's an old building I think they could match the the um current condition replacement of 30% or more of the exterior facade which we already talked about is the second trigger the third trigger is replacement or addition of 30% or more of the windows on the exterior facade and the fourth trigger

[226:01] is replacement or addition uh to any door or balcony located on any exterior facade I personally would be find getting rid of all four triggers and say they don't have to bring the facades up to Cod if it's just a piece of the building uh just to clarify so on that last one any door or balcony triggers an entire upgrade of the facade is that is that the way it's intended does sound that is the way it's written it's not actually been applied yet we've not had a a form based code applied to an existing building yet is that the way okay so that's the way it's written can you like a clarification for staff before we talk it out which is can you guys describe the intent and and why it's important to you I think that would be helpful for us for our

[227:02] discussion I think the intent was to create triggers when changes were made that likely would involve a bigger work effort bigger renovations and I think this is what was envisioned might might have other bigger changes behind it um but but as I said we haven't actually seen it in practice and I just me looking at it I think it's worth looking at right now whether those are the right triggers great jie it looked like you were going to say something um I think that number two is about any facade being added or replaced shall meet it under any of the following circumstances I'm I'm afraid that this may have gotten modified so it

[228:01] it it was to the the original intent was to say if you're adding a new facade um or you're sort of tearing down a new facade then then it should be replaced because it's the same triggers as the one below which is the sort of more standard that if the facade exists within the the build two zone of the frontage setback um then that building is contributing to the district and should have to meet all of the standards of any of the any of the other existing buildings um it's not and it's not just um materials but it's also um transparency and you know all of those other kind of elements um that make a facade more pedestrian friendly so um I think number two was intended to be um new facades that are added so it's I number two meaning sorry just to clarify because we don't have something up in front of us uh number two being the

[229:02] 30% uh C2 well yes it it has all four of those triggers that I talked about George I'm actually really confused about the difference between two and three so could we maybe pull the language up so everybody can see what I'm looking at on my screen this is the actual it's on page 47 of the packet it's the actual code language is it I I think it's 45 of the packet am I WR oh for me it's 47 but maybe it's 45 it's I'm see 47 I see 45 who knows maybe we downloaded at different times but 9-1 14-5 section c 2 and three I can share if if it's help that would be great that would be super helpful oh I can't I'm not allowed just one second I'll give you uh Shar permission Thomas is very

[230:01] strict as he should be about who gets permission to share I can't share either co-host so you should have um sharing permission now how was that um yes and if you could scroll down so that we can see uh two and three together okay this is what's confusing to me and I confess I'm just looking at this in detail now number two is facade additions or could could you just maybe describe the difference between two and three so the intent was that facade additions are Replacements so if somebody is adding a facade um or holy like replacing a facade that they would need to meet the code um and I think the

[231:01] triggers were put in place for facade replacement so um these triggers are what are what are being considered facade replacement um number three is was meant to um be specific to if the facade exists or will be constructed within the frontage set bat then they should be replacing everything and it should meet um all of the standards Hela am I am I reading this correctly um and that that was the original intent but it it seems like it's gotten modified um I I don't know if it's been modified but it it applies three applies both if the facade exists within the frontage setback or will be constructed I think I still don't

[232:01] understand the difference between a replacement facade or a facade that will be constructed because they both talk about new exterior facades added as a result of the addition of any floor area I I think there's some overlap um Laura I think in certain circumstances both could apply and in others maybe they wouldn't both apply like if and if a Assad doesn't have a a frontage setback requirement for example then it could still be triggered through some of the standards and two so does number three also apply to a building renovation right like it's an old building and they want to install two additional doors or change the location of two doors then that old building would have to be brought up to the facade requirements on that

[233:00] facade yes yeah and for number three that applies to the entire facade says the fac OD requirements shall be met so that makes it sound to me like it's the entire facade the fa yes the facade that exists or will be constructed within the frontage set back so let's say it's an old industrial building that doesn't have very many windows and they want to put in two new doors then they might have to punch a whole bunch of new windows in to meet the transparency requirements yeah I would be fine nixing both of these I I am not about forcing developers and I'm sorry I'm being a little blunt because it's late at night and we have another item to get to but I I don't really see I mean I understand that it would make the district look nicer and look more consistent but I don't to me it doesn't

[234:01] make sense to require all of this um exterior work um on an old building that is um you know might or might not get redeveloped at some point in the future just making people invest a lot of money in an old building when they want to do a small modification or a small change I I would be fine moving to get rid of both two and three in this section but I don't know if there's a downside I'm not seeing like is the main purpose here just to for visual consistency on bringing old buildings up to look like they're part of the new District um yes I would say so um I'd like to make a comment on this um so I think the fundamental difference between two and three is that three talks about it being within a frontage set within a frontage setback number two doesn't talk about it

[235:01] being within a setback so I think that's a fundamental difference between the two um and I don't I I would be um inclined to keep two and a and get rid of all the rest so when you're doing a new facade here here is it and when you're doing a new facade in the setback here is what you do so keep a a on both of them and get rid of all the other that really does lead to you know expense and complexity as um Laura was pointing out but it seems like when you're adding a new facade um as a result of an addition and both of them say that the only difference is that one's in a setback and one isn't so I I think that they are unique in a in an interesting way and I I would just remove b c and d and both of them because I think that those are a little

[236:02] um cumbersome but then wouldn't that result in some weird Frankenstein buildings where you've got basically an old building and then it has like a little addition that has fancy facad on it that don't match the original facades well it might be might be similar to landmarks areas where you you actually differentiate the the old building from the new edition right or like the or like what we did last meeting with the uh building next to the Boulder Theater right so it does talk about a does say new exterior facade it doesn't say a piece of a facade um you know even though addition is part of it it's just I I think the b c and d are a little ex extraneous um if we're looking to streamline things around these what's going to trigger you to replace your

[237:02] facade well or maybe get rid of both of them but I I would say at at the least clean them up to only be a for both two and three can live with that if that's what makes sense to the other board members with more experience in architecture and real estate than I have I would support getting rid of all of them including a on both I think it makes sense in the the context of historic preservation to distinguish between the building that was built the part of the building that was built in 1900 and the part that was added in 2024 and that's the purpose of that kind of Distinction in the historic preservation realm here nobody cares if you're adding a little bump out nobody cares whether it the building was built you know what part of the building was built before form base code and what part was built after form based code I think we can just get rid of it so I I'll make a comment on that I I I agree

[238:00] with ML because if someone is going to the expense of putting an addition on a building the rest of that building is probably going to stay for a really long time and so I if you're going to if you're going to modernize your facility enough where you're you're adding an addition why not add an addition that complements the area I I don't I don't think the cost of matching an old facade versus doing new transparencies and form based code is going to be a whole lot different um but either way whether we like it or not if someone's investing in creating an addition on a building the rest of that building is going to stay so are we just adding more you know to something that is doesn't necessarily belong long term or do you have an opportunity at least to enhance that area that the building owner is adding

[239:01] on to so that would be my only rebuttal to that I completely agree with removing DNC they make no sense to me as far as B goes um doesn't sound like they're support for that but I will make an argument for it does not the way this is written I that's what is unclear so any facade being added or replace shall meet the applicable site building design requirements replacement for 30% or more of the exterior facade material that to me reads that you're only going to change the facade if if you if you if you Crest over that 30% threshold let's say you're you're redoing two sides of a of an equally sided building so you're you're doing 50% of that facade then the way this reads to me it doesn't read to me that you replace all the facade it it reads to me that because you've tipped that threshold you're going to replace that 50% with the new thing so that's is that the way

[240:02] it's intended that's different than what Hela had said so I'm trying to understand what so I'm I apologize this is not the section of the code that I assumed that we would dive in deep on um and this is actually original language from the pilot I went back and kind of looked um to the difference between two and three is that two triggers the site standards the building sighting standards and the building design standard so the building design um related to materials and um you know window types and balconies and such so it's it's triggering those two sections whereas number three is triggering the facade requirements for the building type so that's the difference between the two that's why there's two different ones oh that's very helpful Leslie thank you yeah I'm so sorry that I couldn't tell you that from day no you mean you

[241:01] don't know every single line of this code backwards and forwards in the entire history should is is is be intended to replace the entire facade or just the facade that's being replaced if it's north of 30% any facade being added or replaced shall meet the site and building design requirements so if it is being replaced if they replace 30% or more of the exterior facade material then that means that the facade is being replaced and it must meet the building design requirements which would be materials the facade meaning the entire facade of the building the facade it it's it's the whole facade I think you're saying different things when you say whole facade I think George is saying the entire wraparound of the entire building and I think Leslie you're saying just the one face right just the one face so like the East Elevation or the North elevation so if there so let's let's say it's the East elevation of the building

[242:00] and they were placing 30% of the brick cladding on the building then they would have to bring that entire facad up to every standard including how many windows are in it and what the balconies are is that what I'm yes yeah based on number three I'm fine understanding that a little better so so just to just to rephrase it from my own head because I'm getting confused so let's say you're looking at the facade of the building one facade of the building if you're replacing 30% of that facade in this case it would trigger that entire face to be brought up to the form base code yes okay thank you I'm okay REM moving that can we maybe I I don't want to cut discussion off but I would suggest maybe we take a straw poll on how many people want to remove the two sections entirely and how many people want to leave the A's like ml suggested and that George uh

[243:01] supported let's let's do that um removing entirely uh you want to just Show a show a hands can we do that yeah oh no I'm not removing en you're G to remove entirely all right all right I'll throw myself in okay we're good I think I think we're all I I don't see I don't see uh I didn't see Mason but Mason are you raising your hand no I actually like the idea of having um I I like the idea of you know keeping uh opportunities am I on mute no you're not we're listen to okay keep keeping opportunities uh for you know uh having the building stay but having the new additions you know meet um you know additional developments around it I think it'll create some interesting buildings and some continuity even if it does create a

[244:01] little bit of Frankenstein I'm actually Frankenstein so I kind of like the idea of keeping a but all right so so Mason likes the idea of keeping a in but otherwise you're fine removing b c and d is that right yeah 100% um I I kind of feel this I'm going to reverse my straw pole position I I kind of feel that same way because now that now that you I'll reverse as well Mason you got so and I can live and you can live with that as well so a so so Claudia so so it's it's four for the A and two for complete removal but either way removal of b c and d and if I can ask to clarify keeping a means the entire would have to be yeah on both two three and the entire facade would have to be brought up to standards versus just the portions that are modified from my perspective I I thought we were talking about only the area the only the

[245:00] addition yeah I think we're talking about new exterior facades that's what a talks about so new exterior facades if you're adding any of those those new exterior facades have to meet the form base code in both two and three so we're keeping we're keeping 9145 c2a and we're keeping 945 C 3A but we're getting rid of the BC and D on both two and three that's that's right can I just add I'm still on two I still don't know what it means to meet the applicable site and design building design requirements that seems extremely Broad to me uh so that that remains a concern so I don't think we need to beat all of this out tonight but I think staff is aware that we're raising concerns about this and hopefully you'll look at it and

[246:01] think about it a little more okay um I think that's that's hopefully pretty clear um other feedback that people want to consolidate on this before moving on Kurt yeah I raised one other point about the threshold of 100 units in East Boulder for requiring two outdoor spaces and my concern that it's a unit not not a concern about requiring to outdoor spaces but the fact that it's a unit-based uh threshold when we know that unit based thresholds tend to encourage larger more expensive units I would support asking staff to revisit this to change the trigger from a unit-based trigger to a size based trigger I also support that and I think I flagged that in our June discussion as

[247:00] well yeah I'm I'm I'm I think that makes a lot of sense I agree okay so that's unanimous support for that anything else um do you want any further clarification or advisement from us or are you okay with everything that we've just ConEd yeah you haven't actually made a motion oh a motion on the recommendation yeah okay does anyone me to make a motion on the recommendation I'll make the motion so I move that we recommend adoption of proposed ordinance 8669 amending Title 9 land use code brc1 1981 by adopting form-based code standards for parts of East Boulder

[248:01] moving the form-based code from appendix M to chapter 9 UM 14 form-based code Boulder Revised Code 1981 revising rezoning and trip ruction standards for East Boulder and setting forth related details SI okay um should we vote on that c should do we need to add something just noting our yes additional recommended changes would it be kosher to just move to amend to add the recommendations discussed at the planning board meeting on Tuesday October 15th or something like that do we have to resmar all of what we just talked about does Staff feel like they can describe that in the Moto Council what what that was and have good understanding okay

[249:03] great okay so Laura you're making that uh Amendment you guys is this meeting being recorded yes yes okay okay I didn't I don't see a notification but okay I see it okay good okay then I move to amend to incorporate the recommendations discussed by planning board at the meeting on Tuesday October 15 anyone second second second Mason seconded great uh Claudia yes Kurt yes ml yes Mason yes Laura yes and I'm yes as well um I will return to the motion that Claudia made and Kurt seconded um Claudia yes Kurt yes ml yes Mason yes

[250:00] Laura yes and I'm also a yes okay that concludes uh this portion of our agenda it is past 10 o' we have one more agenda item it sounds like it's going to be relatively brief does anyone oppose um continuing into that no no I just want to just real brief thank you thank you thank you to staff who and Consultants who worked on the East Boulder subc Community Plan and the form based code that was her culian and thank you thank you so much for a great job great okay uh moving on um public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on proposed easement agreements for existing encroachments from several private properties onto Wonderland Lake Parkland um great thanks so much uh chair I'm pleased to introduce Regina

[251:01] ellner she's kind of a special guest she's with sorry um before before you start I just wanted to um uh we have uh any disclosures on um the board ml does sorry yes hi um so I wanted to disclose that I know people that are were on that map um their property was subject to this process they are not part of the they did not sign the um uh the agreement and they weren't required to or what for whatever reason they're not on this list um and I believe I can exercise an unbiased opinion in my role on planning board anybody else thanks ml um sorry Charles go ahead uh Regina ellner from Parks and Recreation will present staff's analysis tonight so Regina take it away great and let me share my screen

[252:01] really quickly all right actually there we are all right can everyone see that screen great thank you so much all right I will try and go quickly through this presentation um thank you very much again my name is Regina ellar I'm the senior manager for natural resources for Boulder parks and recreation and I am here tonight to talk to you about a project I've been working on for about 18 months around encroachments on Wonderland Lake Park um there we go I'm going to talk a little bit about our project background and process I'll talk with you specifically about the revocable easement agreements which uh planning board has purview for and then as well quickly go through the next steps um in

[253:02] this project so just quickly this was all in your uh packet uh planning board's purview why I'm here this evening to speak with you is that per our recommendations from or our conversation with city attorney's office these revocable easement Agreements are considered a partial disposal of Park property according to section 162 of the charter they there needs to be an advisory recommendation from the planning board on these revocable easement agreements and so I've provided some uh suggestion Mo motion language here and that'll be again at the end of the presentation as as well quickly a little bit of a project timeline here we began this project back in January of 2023 where we hired a survey consultant to do a property line evaluation around Wonderland Lake Park um we sent a flyer

[254:02] to it all of our adjacent neighbors to let them know of this project getting underway um to become available to answer any questions we did that property line evaluation in the spring of 2023 regenerated that report um and then in July of 2023 we really started the initial Outreach um to specific Property Owners um as well as HOAs um and to discuss what what those encroachments are um and how to how we wanted to move forward with resolving that through October through the end of 2023 um we I really developed a a criteria by which we were able to evaluate all of the encroachments that really helped us to determine which um which kind of Remedy alternative that we have and I'll talk a little bit about those specifically here in a couple of minutes um and then since really the beginning of this year through about

[255:01] July I've been working with individual Property Owners to negotiate a variety of different agreements and also to in some cases work towards removal of the encroachment so the project area here you see the map the lines in red are the property boundaries that we evaluated there's approximately 10,000 linear feet of property boundary that we evaluated we've got a about 200 private property owners of this area that we identified we identified or our Consultants rather identified 52 different encroachments these encroachments really um span scopes scale size everything that you can think of um anything from as small as 10 square feet to um over 2,000 square feet uh and those encroachments can be temporary simply storing personal private property on city property up to

[256:02] some permanent um improvements and the permanent improvements are actually the ones that we're here to talk about this evening as as I mentioned before we evaluated we created a set of eight criteria by which we evaluated each of these encroachments that really helped to as I mentioned determine sort of which bucket of Remedy alternative that these um encroachments fell into eight of those really is what we are kind of terming asserting City ownership those are encroachments where it's minor Landscaping things that if we were to remove or have the adjacent property would to remove it would cause greater disturbance to the public property than would be desirable and so this is really just an agreement for with that private that adjacent property owner that um

[257:00] whatever that Improvement is is on city property and the city is sort of asserting that ownership that should we choose to remove it in the future because it is on city property that we would we would do that approximately 19 of those encroachments we've asked for them to be removed and we've given folks a deadline um to remove that these are things that are um relatively temporary in nature or things like Landscaping improvements along those lines and so that would be a removal of um again a request of removal and we've had some really good success in getting those resolved by that deadline we have have a fairly significant number um of agreements that we are negotiating where we are negotiating a revocable license agreement these are agreements that do not transfer any property rights um they are simply a license to use the park

[258:01] property um they have a term they cannot be uh transferred to successors on the property um there are approximately 18 of those those are for encroachments um primarily those are offline fences so property line fences that unfortunately were not placed on the property lines um and so basically that agreement allows that fence to remain in place until one of three things happens either the sale of the property um the uh substantial reconstruction of that fence so if that fence comes to the end of its useful life it needs to be replaced or the homeowner decides to replace it a wooden fence with a metal fence whatever that at that time of that fence replacement that that be placed back onto uh the accurate property line and then the third is that um per City Charter we can only allow for these private uses for up

[259:01] to 20 years so that's around those revocable license agreements what we're really here again as I mentioned to talk about are these revocable easement agreements um which were included in your packet we really have um there are five encroachments but two of those encroachments basically span a property boundary so there are two adjacent properties that both benefit from that encroachment um so they're actually seven agreements um and so we're actually here to tonight to talk about five of them I'm still in negotiations with the that final set of two Property Owners um but wanted to move forward with the rest of these as well right now and so I will tell you a little bit more about each of or sort of what these revocable easement are so here I've shared with you some photographs of these these encroachments like I said what we have are per that um

[260:02] evaluation criteria realistically these are encroachments that were likely original to construction of the private property um at subse to the time that the park property was dedicated per the subdivision plot back in the' 70s so these were all likely um or most were likely part of that original construction of the of the private property we believe that removal of any of these encroachments um would likely pose a significant risk to that private property things like that you can see on the left hand side of your screen here um are retaining wallet that obviously is holding um kind of keeping that that slope that cut slope um away from the private property or this other on the right hand side it's a retaining wall that actually um is goes right between two private properties and extends out

[261:00] onto the private private excuse me public property um and then the one in the center is actually it's a retaining wall that Jets out onto the private or the public property and the two trees that you see um that are being supported by that retaining wall those are actually public trees and so remove um working with our city Foresters we understand that removal of that retaining wall would cause significant damage to those public trees um and we would likely lose those mature public trees and since that's not desirable um that that is why we would like to engage in this easan agreement with these different land owners um the agreement terms these are a little bit obviously they're easement agreements so they are different than the license agreements they can be transferred um between property owners and their successors there's no defined end date um but we want to engage uh

[262:02] engage in these in easement agreements simply because we want to as the city maintain the underlying property ownership so such that if a Redevelopment of the properties were ever to occur that these easements were no or these encroachments were long no longer structurally necessary that they could be removed off of city property and that that underlying ownership would remain with the city as I mentioned tonight we are really talking about these five um revocable easement agreements the addresses are here um and a a small description of what the encroachment is um and and really the purpose of that encroachment um like I said one is to really preserve the health and stability of those mature public trees um there's actually one where it's just roof drainage from their property because they have um setbacks of less than 5

[263:01] feet and so that roof drainage is coming onto the P public property and then the other the last two um you actually saw them in those previous slides were the retaining wall That's obviously holding back the cut slope and then the retaining wall that goes between two adjacent private properties as well next steps obviously I'm here this evening with you all um to talk about those uh easement agreements um all of these agreements have to go to City Council um I apologize I forgot to mention that our parks and recck Advisory board has has been updated multiple times throughout the course of this project um they we had a discussion item with our parks and recre Advisory board at their July meeting and then they took action on both the license agreements um and the revocable easement agreements at their September meeting

[264:01] approving both of those um so we are here with planning board to receive your recommend or to engage in this conversation with you all per that City Charter language um and then we are scheduled for city council action via their consent agenda on November 7th for both the revocable license agreements as well as those revocable easement agreements all of this is kind of culminating in developing a standard operating procedure for Public Lands encroachment um there is code within the BRC that talks about uh encroachments onto public rights way and um into public easements but it does not uh necessarily cover other public properties so this is really a procedure that we want to work with our other Land Management uh departments across the city osmp utilities Greenways to make sure that we are continuing to handle

[265:02] encroachments across our public lands uh efficiently effectively um and and transparently so I sped through that really quickly because it's way past my bedtime um but I would love to answer any questions you may have um I'm happy to answer any of those questions at this time thank you so much Regina for staying up with us tonight and for that presentation um quick question about what we're looking at tonight um why would the city not assert ownership in these cases that you have put in front of us as they did in some other cases yeah so for these in easements in particular and the encroachments in particular um the reason that we aren't choosing to assert ownership on those is that we believe that these encroachments are really benefiting the private property they are not benefiting the city property um and so wanting to again

[266:05] just because of that benefit and really uh outlining the um the liability the responsibility um and those different pieces and making sure that that is clear thank you appreciate that and then does the uh does the easement um negotiation that you've made what how does maintenance figure into that does does it allow for maintenance um does it require maintenance what what happens with maintenance of those features in the future it it it puts those maintenance requirements onto that that adjacent private propert property so that they are maintaining those retaining walls if they need to be repaired reconstructed those different um different things like that that that is a responsibility that is outlined in that easan agreement for the grantee of these agreements okay so similarly does um is the property owner required to

[267:00] maintain them or can they decide oh we're just going to let that go in the future um I I I guess realistically they they could choose to let that go um but then it does create a liability issue I believe for them um and but I if that makes sense I I don't know that and again because these encroachments are benefiting their property these are not encroachments that the city has been maintaining um and and we don't want to be maintaining them um I I think in the best interest of their private properties it would be in their interest to continue to maintain them okay thank you and I I also wanted to thank you for your last slide talking about next steps in this process because that was my other question I assume that there are actually many more of these kinds of situations on open space lands and in utility rights of ways Etc um just given the nature of the boundaries of those spaces so I'm really happy to see that

[268:00] process going forward that's all I have to say thanks thank you does oh yeah go ahead Anna uh yes hi Regina thank you for your presentation I just have a question you mentioned that you were still in negotiation with two of the owners um so what what are the um issues that need to be negotiated it seems like you've got kind of a pretty straightforward requirements um the it it's just a to be frank it's a disagreement of about who who they feel should be responsible for that encroachment responsible in that we've got we've got our fence out here and we're now being told it's not in our property who's responsible for what the

[269:00] fact that the fence is there so um the last the final agreement that I'm still working on is another retaining wall that is between two adjacent private property owners um and and so without getting into too many details it's just a uh continued discussion about who should be responsible for the long-term maintenance of that that retaining wall that again is not benefiting the public property right okay I I understand that thank you thank you for your presentation as you mentioned the private property owners are getting significant benefit from these encroachments was any consideration given to asking for compensation from the property owners to the city for that benefit yeah no that's a a fabulous question and so we we did discuss that um and I think

[270:01] that that is something going forward that I think we would take into account um realistically a lot of these um encroachments are are they predate the current ownership and in particular for these easement agreements um are are likely a result of that original construction and so we felt that in all you know Equity transparency because this was not any action of those um any action of those current land owners that we did not want to be punitive for them because again this is a benefit that they are receiving but it was not through any action of their own um so that is why we have chosen not to ask for uh compensation for this particular set of AG these particular sets of agreements I think in the future that is part of our lessons learned and we may uh evaluate that slightly

[271:02] differently thank you any other questions any feedback uh that we have I I thought you personally I thought your presentation was great I I don't have any questions or feedback I I really appreciate you uh informing us about the process and um I'm sure it's interesting and complex dealing with different Property Owners to say the least uh Laura um I just wanted to appreciate the work that you have done thank you for the very clear presentation really appreciate your approach being very systematic very transparent very communicative with the property owners every step of the way uh this seems like a model job so I just wanted to appreciate that and then just a funny comment is um I'm familiar with uh another situation of encroachments I saw the word encroachments on our agenda and I thought oh gosh this is going to be hard because of the situation I'm familiar with which is in California flood control levies that are protecting

[272:02] areas along Riverbanks are basically made out of compacted dirt and sometimes you have property owners that have actually built onto the levy have dug Wine sellers into the L like excavated into the levy swimming pools in the levy like um much much harder situations so I'm glad this was relatively easy um and and again thank you for the great job that you have done and I think it does set a model great thank you so much you all right um unless Regina you have any other comments um we'll let you go to bed and appreciate your your presentation thank you Hela do we need a motion I think this is actually scheduled for a public hearing oh okay sorry um do we have uh any public comment on these easements I don't see anybody in the

[273:00] room but if there's anybody online that would like to give their comment on this please go ahead and raise your hand we have nobody else left with us all right except for Hela George and Lynn and I don't see Lynn's hand going up yet so do we need uh to make a motion yes please it can be found on page 283 of the packet right thank you I can also bring up a slide if you'd like with that language on there front of her she can she can make the motion I'll make the motion so I move to recommend to city council approval of revocable easement agreements between the city of Boulder and the owners of the following Wonderland Area Properties in order to ensure that City Park's property is managed in a manner that is consistent with city of Boulder applicable laws policies and regulations 3824 Orion Court 3851 Orion Court 3920 Newport Lane

[274:01] 3934 Promontory court and 3926 prary Court second oh loris second it great um let's vote Claudia yes Kurt yes ml yes Laura yes Mason yes and I'm also yes all right thank you Regina yeah Kurt I just want to make one comment um following up on the the compensation issue I really appreciate that hopefully going forward we will be getting some compensation obviously these are properties on Wonderland Hill there are a bunch of very valuable properties and um you know there the so it's people owning Pro valuable properties who are getting additional B basically additional public benefit um and so I am concerned about

[275:00] the equity implications of that and so I'm glad that in the going forward um we will try to work out some sort of compensation agreement so I appreciate that yeah um Regina I I would like to also point out a different side of that which is through no action by the homeowners right they're caught in a situation where they have to tangle with the city and um you know I'm sure that that's not an easy thing for anybody right the city or the people so I would a on the side of um make it easy make it nice you know this is our city we all pay taxes um and I wouldn't necessarily go first with what can we get out of it in so much as there's been a mistake made and let's acknowledge that and let's put it in writing to see how we move forward thank you yeah well said ml I I

[276:00] support that as well anybody else comments all right thir times the charm thank you Regina thank you all all right uh any matters I do have a few matters so thanks for indulging just a little bit more of the meeting uh as always thank you so much for your time and energy as what we acknowledge is volunteer work and uh all the work and effort getting into this couple things wanted to remind you of the comprehensive plan kickoff this Saturday from 1 to 44 at the um Dairy Center uh obviously not required but uh might be a very good and certain a good introduction to the whole process as well as seeing kind of public engagement and what one form of that looks like there's much more to come uh so certainly excited if you can join us for that and understanding if you can't uh do want to also point out real

[277:01] clearly to the Joint uh planning board and council meeting that's been scheduled for November 14th uh we do need to have a quorum of planning board to make that successful so um you know please mark your calendars uh well in advance and if you can let us know well in advance if there's going to be a problem with you attending that'll help us avoid any um challenge in finding out that we don't have a quorum at the last minute with Council and um Brad Brad on that so that's the week we don't have a planning board that's on the 12th there is no planning board scheduled for that week there is planning board on the 12th we had moved we had canceled the November 5th planning board meeting and scheduled a special meeting for the 12th Okay so we've got two we've got two planning board meetings that week correct yeah okay

[278:02] um it would it would be nice to just make sure that people can make both of those and maybe maybe we have some feedback as a board I I I don't know about anybody else but I I um I might have might have a problem with with two nights in a in a row in a week so um just putting that out there yeah and understood and understand it's a a lift um as you can imagine behind the scenes there was a lot of having to reconcile calendars and all that good stuff uh both vertically and horizontally on the calendar about how to make that work and the timing between meetings and all that uh noticing and all uh what is the subject of this joint um meeting that is the oh help me out uh Thomas it is the area three planning Reserve service area expansion Community needs study authorization so Council will been asked uh it's something that only Council makes uh inquiry on on the step one

[279:02] which we've described to you which is a technical study they simply accept that or like suppose in theory don't accept it what this introduces is then the potential of step two which is the needs assessment for area three and so the joint meeting allows for a single presentation of course but also for the public to come one time and give feedback on that so you will hear public testimony at that point but you will not be asked to vote on it you'll be asked to vote on it separately as a separate body on a subsequent meeting and then Council will vote on it separately as a separate body in a separate one as well so there is a need for the two bodies to vote on them separately but we're trying to create an efficiency by having uh the meeting and testimony especially I suppose the efficiency for the public as much as for you as board members to have that joint uh testimony that that night

[280:00] hopefully that makes sense just since if we have meetings on the 12th and the 14th my only request would be that we get the material atals obviously as early as possible I know you always get materials as early as possible anyhow but um particularly then just so that we have time to go through them yeah Fair request and Thomas maybe you can help me pass that on to Christopher certainly yeah the uh at least the uh materials for the council joint Meeting those will be available well before the meeting um because they'll be because we do the liary packet yes so you'll have the ADV extra advantage of that what do you know what project is scheduled for the 12th on the 12th we have uh we have two public hearings and no other items scheduled we have the natural medicine ordinance update to meet state law and

[281:00] then we have a concept review for 777 Broadway and I'm not sure if Brad has any insight as to the complexity of yeah the psilocybe in natural medicine one does have a kind of a a Time sensitivity because of the state law going into effect at the beginning of the year and any opportunity for local engagement uh pretty much needs to happen before the end of the year I can't remember what the Broadway one is but you can you can be sure that the uh applicants want that as soon as possible yeah um and the meeting so we don't have a meeting on the 5th is that correct that's correct that meeting was canceled that meeting was canceled so we have a meeting on the 12th we have a meeting on the 19th what about the 26th that's Thanksgiving week right there's nothing scheduled there's nothing scheduled so we only have so we only have two meetings that month plus the the city count the Joint City Council and planning correct okay understand

[282:01] thanks sorry Sorry Brad it's great no we appreciate these you know impact folks so that's why we wanted to bring it up now yeah I then the last thing I'll bring up is just uh a recognition that um we we did not get the uh anticipated Retreat uh scheduled we went back in the records and found out that in a May meeting there had been a retreat committee set up of uh U curtain and Mark um certainly on us to get that scheduled but it seems appropriate that we kind of get that ramped up again and maybe set schedule some time with you and uh I think we typically would have that be what you Thomas and Charles and and then the two of you um so if that's agreeable we'll we'll go ahead and get that ramped up great I think the retreat is planned tentatively for Thanksgiving week no

[283:06] kidding just had to throw that out so uh that concludes my comments thanks Brad my office used to do office parties in the evening thanks thanks uh anybody else have anything else just a question oh no ml go I have the matter that I put out into the email about the yes I can speak to that oh cool um so just to refresh everybody's memory this was a question that ml brought up some time ago about uh making a land acknowledgement statement at the beginning of board's commission the only uh you know certainly in Concept in principle everybody appreciates and supports that that's a a core City value um the only question is um

[284:00] consistency with what other boards and Council are doing that so we are they continue to be some discussions that has not been lost on us uh but discussions with CMO or among City manager's office about how best to do that and not create inconsistencies across the board so if I can uh ask you to indulge on just waiting a little bit longer on that I'll I'll try to get that pinned down I appreciate that and especially as indigenous day as declared by the city was yesterday um I did I did attend that and dance with the indigenous people and see Nicole there and oh great and wondered about it and thought huh wonder what happened so thank you for thanks for the reminder and I send a Tickler out shortly after that so okay thank you do we have support for that from the indigenous Community have we verif well I would anticipate if if there's I mean I I I

[285:01] think implicitly we know we do because the city has adopted a land ackowledgement statement it's on many emails it's um it is uh presented and read in in certain circumstances I think the question on the table is just simply the frequency and consistency of you know verbally doing that on multiple meetings okay and in the discussions that was expected to be or there was there was agreement that it would be appropriate to do it at all board meetings no that's what I don't know yet that's that's the conversation I'm trying to understand from got City manager's office yeah thank you but this to so to clarify so the sentiment and you know the uh understanding and support from indigenous tribes and such is well established a long time ago I guess is the best way of saying

[286:02] that seemed Laura Laur question good question uh I just wanted to uh offer the opportunity to highlight and boost up something that ml had raised around boards and commission's chair training and I was unaware that that is actually available for anyone to attend um and then also that it will be recorded if people want to view it which seems like a really great idea given that um you know sometimes people have to chair a meeting unexpectedly um or or we don't know who the chair is going to be the chair and vice chair next year and so people getting training in advance if they're interested seems like a good idea and so I don't know if staff want to give the date and time for that um in case anybody's interested because it is coming up at the end of the month I would have to pull up the email that I forwarded to the board list again to get was it Laura October 29th I think it's

[287:00] October yeah that's what I have it's to 6:30 pm and it'll be online I I am supportive of ml's comments too I I mean it would be more effective going forward to do that right after the boards and commissions are selected um because sharing meetings for half a year and then having the training is not that efficient yeah I I will have to admit I was a little confused about the I I did think all and I don't know if you know this H do do all the boards and commissions select chairs at the same time of the year I got kind of the sense from the clerk's office that they're at different times throughout the year in their response on that yeah that's the impression I got I I don't know the answer to that so I think that might have been the answer uh generally yes I think board

[288:00] members have to be appointed by April and then every once in a while not all boards are fully staffed right way but yeah we'll we'll try to understand that better from the clerks it does seem like a really nice Innovation to record it so that last year's training is available and then you can do a new one each year as you update things and we learn and we grow we learn and grow um any final thoughts anybody okay uh I think we're adjourned thanks everyone and for those remaining in the room with some you good night everybody