November 18, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[4:02] Okay, good evening all. Uh, welcome to the city of Boulder Planning Board meeting for November 18th, 2025. Um, we are calling our meeting to order. We have uh um planning board member George Boon online and uh the four five of us here at the dis and uh ML Robos is absent. Um our first order of business is public participation. This is where any member of the public either online or in the room may speak to any item as they wish other than are uh two public hearing items. Um so uh and Vivian uh online here will help guide us through the um guidelines for

[5:00] public participation. Vivian. >> Great. Thank you Mark and good evening everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Waldridge and I'll just run through these. Um so first of all just letting everybody know that the city has engaged with community members in the past to create these um rules I can call them or vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political pers perspectives. And we have more information about this vision um on our website. Next slide, please. Thank you, Thomas. Um and I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder Revised Code. Previous slide, please. um and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision. And

[6:00] all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Um, and we ask that all participants in person and online um, introduce themselves using their first and last name for the public hearing or open comment. Um, if you are joining us online, I see we have a couple of people. Um, you can let us know that you wish to speak if you're online by raising your virtual hand. You can find it at the bottom of your screen on the menu bar or um by using the reactions button um which you'll then see a menu pop up and you can find the virtual hand. Um so Thomas let me know that there's nobody in person who has signed up to speak for open comment. Um I can't see if there's

[7:02] you know if there people in the room but maybe just double check and then we can also move to online. I don't see anybody with their hand raised for open comment either though. >> Thank you, Vivian. Yes, we have nobody signed up here in the room for open comment. Um, but if there's anyone joining us online, this is your opportunity and please go ahead and raise your hand if you'd like to speak. >> Okay. Um, >> I think we have none. So, >> yeah, we can move on. >> You chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. That closes out uh um agenda item number two, public participation. Um we have no item number three is approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve tonight. We do have three sets of minutes that I know Thomas would be appreciative of, uh early feedback if we have any before our next meeting. So, uh just as a point of order there, um item number four is callup

[8:00] items. Item number 4A is a call-up item, a non-conforming use review to expand the existing congregate care use by 449 square ft located in the RL1 zone where such use is not allowed pursuant to table 61. The expansion involves an increase of 0.57% floor area to enclose an existing outdoor covered walkway. The callup period expires on November 20th, 2025. The address is 970 Aurora Avenue. So, this is an opportunity for any uh board member to ask questions of staff or to express a desire to call this item up. Do we have any questions or comments? I'm looking right, I'm looking left, I'm looking online. Okay. Um, seeing none,

[9:01] hearing none. Uh, we will that item is not called up. Um, we go move on to our first public hearing item. Uh and these are two related public hearing items. But our first one is agenda item 5A, which is a public hearing and consideration of the following related to an area of land at 5399 Kowani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road. Uh the first item is action on proposed Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan BBCP land use map designation change on the 19 acre portion of the property west of 55th Street from low density residential to park urban or other PK uo LUR 2025-00008

[10:02] eight. And the second item, recommendation on a petition to annex an approximately 24.04 acre area of land at 5399 Kowani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road, including 55th Street rightway with an initial zoning of public P on 23.6 6 acres and an initial zoning of residential low to RL2 on a 0.44 acre portion of the right of way. This is heard under LUR2025-00003. So, uh Shannon is going to give us uh the staff presentation. Uh we'll ask clarifying questions uh of uh Shannon and staff. Then we'll hear from the applicant, which happens to be the city. Um, and we

[11:00] can ask clarifying questions of them. Then we'll have our public hearing. And then we'll move on to uh board deliberation in terms of a recommendation to city council regarding this annexation and map land use change. So Shannon, take her away. Oh, before before we go on, um this is not a quasi judicial item, but does any uh board member have any potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to this property and annexation? Okay, hearing none. Great. We can move on. Thank you, Shannon. [clears throat] >> All right. Great. Good evening, board. Can everyone hear me? Okay. All right. Awesome. Okay. So, um I'm Shannon Mohler with the city of Boulder planning department. I'll take you through um the staff presentation. Um so, as you said,

[12:01] it's a proposal for a BBCP land use map change and as well as an annexation and to initially zone the property at 5399 Kuwani and 5697 South Boulder Road, historically known as the Hogan Pankos property. So, this proposal is to allow for the property to be annexed into the city limits with a land use designation and a zoning that's consistent with the future land uses of this city-owned property. So, we'll take a quick look at the required processes, history of the property, the existing site and surroundings, summary of the proposal, key issues, and conclude with the staff recommendation. Um, so as you noted, this proposal does involve these two review processes. So, the first is the BBCP land use map change that's proposed to change the land use to the PKU. Um, this can be considered concurrently with a proposed annexation as we're doing tonight. And the criteria are

[13:00] those in appendix B attached to the BBCP. And so, this process uh requires approval by both planning board and city council. And then the second part of the review is the annexation and initial zoning. This includes review of the state um statutes and BBCP policies and planning board makes a recommendation to city council whether or not the annexation should be approved and the zoning that should be applied. So both the BBCP land use map change and the annexation and initial zoning will then go to city council at a future public hearing. In terms of public notification, the site was posted and public notification provided per code. Some public comments were received on this item which primarily included concerns regarding flooding and with the future development of the property. And the written public comments were included in the board's packet. So looking at the property history, um, prior to the city ownership of the property, multiple development

[14:00] applications have been reviewed on the property since the early 2000s. Uh throughout the 2000s and the 2010s, there were various concept plans, annexation and site review applications were reviewed. Uh most recently in 2017, public hearings were held on a request for annexation and a concept plan that would have been to develop 117 residential units on the property. Planning board recommended denial of that application and following the city council hearing, the application was withdrawn. So following withdrawal of that application, city council held multiple discussions about the future of this property and ultimately moved forward with the city purchase of the property. In 2019, the city designated future uses on the property um approved by ordinance 8349 and that established the property as being used partially for parks and recreation, partially for flood mitigation, and partially for open space.

[15:00] And so here we can see the areas of the property and the future uses established by ordinance 8349. So the blue and the western 19 acres was for flood mitigation and park uses and the 3 acres east of 55th street in the green were designated for open space. Since 2019, this property has been city-owned, but the city's land use map and boundaries have not been updated to reflect these intended uses on the site as established by this ordinance. More recently, the city has engaged in a planning process to explore the growing demand for pickle ball and tennis courts in the community due to closure of some private tennis facilities. The resulting court system plan identified the East Boulder Community Park as well as the Hogan Pancos property as a potential location for additional courts and Boulder Parks and Wreck has been involved in community engagement, site analysis, and conceptual planning for this property. Since the property is not

[16:01] located in city limits right now, annexation is necessary to bring the site into the jurisdiction of the city for the extension of utilities and land use review and permitting processes. So tonight's proposal doesn't include review or approval of any specific development plans. So there would be additional land use review processes that would be required for a future proposal on this property. So, now that we've talked about the history of the site and where we are now, we'll look more closely at this site in context and within the city's regulatory framework. So, the site again is just southwest of the East Boulder Rec Center. It's north of South Boulder Road and bisected by 55th Street. So, the proposal would include annexation of a little over 21 acres of city-owned property and about 2 acres of 55th Street right ofway. And here you can see um again some photos of the site which

[17:00] has been historically used for grazing and agricultural purposes. Um the property is almost entirely surrounded by city annexed land which is shown in the light shaded areas including the residential areas of Kwad and Meadows to the west, Green Belt Meadows to the south, uh Peacock Place to the southeast, and the community center to the northeast. The site contains some areas of 100 and 500year flood planes and some small areas of conveyance and high hazard zones. As part of the annexation process, a wetlands map is required to establish the mapped wetlands regulatory boundaries for all properties that are brought into city limits. Wetlands mapping and functional evaluations and an ecological report were prepared by the applicant and the wetlands mapping shown here would be adopted with the annexation ordinance if approved. The mapped wetlands toward the southern portion of the property are high

[18:00] functioning with a 50-ft buffer and the cattail wetlands toward the north side of the site are low functioning and they would have a 25 ft wide buffer zone. Um touching briefly on the ecological report that was prepared and included in the packet. The site was evaluated for the presence of and habitat for wildlife and presence of and habitat for wildlife including threatened and endangered species such as the prebels meadow jumping mouse-colored bat, ut ladies treses orchid, and prairie fringed orchid. The report concluded that the portion of the site west of 55th didn't include any areas for critical habitat and didn't find any evidence of these species. Higher quality habitat is present east of 55th, which is a designated open space area managed by open space mountain parks. Lastly, the site was also examined for prairie dogs. Prairie dogs were not observed and the older burrows were found to be collapsing. So no prairie

[19:00] dogs were found to be currently living on the property. So moving to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the property is located in area 2 of the BBCP, which is the area now under county jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered. The underlying BBCP land use designation is lowdensity residential on the western portion of the property reflecting the land use that was in place while the property was under private ownership and it's designated open space acquired on the eastern portion of the property for the part that is uh managed by open space. So tonight's proposal includes that land use map change request for the part west of 55th to change it from low density residential to park urban and other. Um so this change is proposed to reflect the city's acquisition and designation of this portion of the property for future flood mitigation and parks and w p purposes by ordinance 8349.

[20:04] Here you can see the existing zoning. Um, the property is under Boulder County zoning right now in unincorporated Boulder County. It's zoned RR rural residential and SR suburban residential, which are for lowdensity residential areas. Um, within the city, the property is adjacent to the publicly zoned land of the East Boulder Community Center and it's also adjacent to residential zoned land to the west and the south. So, the proposal includes annexation and an initial zoning designation of public shown in the purple on the bulk of the site on the city-owned properties. The public zoning district allows a limited number of uses by right, primarily those in the community, cultural, and educational use categories such as open space, park, and wreck purposes. Um, additionally, there is a small

[21:00] portion of 55th Street Ride ofway that's proposed to be annexed south of the city-owned property. If you can see it there, it's very small. This portion of the 55th Street rightway is proposed to be annexed to close the gap between the area of 55th to the north and the south. And this is just to allow for clarity of maintenance and permitting responsibilities in this area. Um, a zoning district has to be applied to all land that's annexed into the city. So, this area is proposed to be zoned RL2 residential O2 to be consistent with the properties to the east and the south. So, moving on, we'll do a quick look at a summary of the proposal and the key issues. So staff identified these three key issues for tonight um which are consistency with annexation policies and state statutes, consistency of the proposed land use map change with the applicable applicable criteria and lastly the consistency of the proposed

[22:03] public and RL2 zoning districts with the criteria in the BRC. So for key issue one um is a proposed annexation consistent with state statutes and BBCP policies. Uh staff reviewed the annexation petition for compliance with state statutes. This includes requirements for contiguity with city limits and other requirements for the petition and the annexation map. Staff found the application is consistent with the statutory annexation requirements. Um staff also reviewed the proposal against BBCP policies and found it to be consistent with several policies including those listed on this slide. And so overall the annex annexing the property is intended to fulfill the purpose of the site as designated upon purchase in 2019 established by ordinance 8349. The annexation allows for the extension of city utilities, allows the city to

[23:00] plan any recreation use as part of and in coordination with the community center land use approvals, and would allow for this city to be the approving authority for any land uses on the site consistent with the land uses designated through that ordinance. Um, moving to key issue two, the BBCB land use map change again is proposed to update the land use map west of 55th from lowdensity residential to park urban and other. Park urban and other is for public lands used for a variety of active and passive recreational uses or flood control purposes. A land use map change can be considered concurrently with an annexation request and it's considered under the criteria on this slide. Staff found the proposal was consistent with these criteria and the change again is intended to reflect the city's acquisition and designation of this part of the property for future flood mitigation and parks and wreck purposes.

[24:01] Uh the proposed land use map change is consistent with several BBCP policies that encourage the multi-purpose use of public lands, compatibility of adjacent land uses, urban open lands, floodplane management, and city parks and wreck uses on the property. And lastly, for key issue three, when a property is annexed, a zoning district needs to be established consistent with 9218 in the Boulder Revised Code. So as noted in the prior slide, this application does include that land use map change request. The review of the concurrent zoning proposal assumes approval of that land use map change request. So the proposed public zoning on the bulk of the site encompasses the city-owned properties east and west of 55th and the portion of 55th between the city-owned properties. It's shown there in purple. Um so staff found the public zoning district is appropriate for this site. It allows consistency with the zoning of the adjacent city-owned um

[25:01] community park. It's consistent with the BBCP land use designations of park urban and other and open space acquired. And it's consistent with the goals, policies, and and objectives of the BBCP. The proposal also includes zoning for that portion of 55th Street south of the city owned properties. This portion of 55th Street rightway is again being just annexed to close the gap. Um along 55th Street to allow for clarity of maintenance and permitting responsibilities in the rightway. So the property and the right of way to the east and south are zoned RL2 and designated lowdensity residential in the BBCP. So staff found that the proposed RL2 zoning district is appropriate for this portion of the ride ofway and it allows for consistency with those adjacent properties. So with that um staff recommends these two motions for approval of the BBCP land use map change and a recommendation

[26:01] to city council to approve the proposed annexation and initial zoning. Um, and happy to take any questions before turning it over to the applicant team. >> Great. Thank you, Shannon, for that good proposal. [clears throat] And, uh, so now we move to uh clarifying questions. I said proposal, I meant presentation. Anyway, thank you. Um, uh, anyone have clarifying questions for staff? And George, you're just going to have to holler out. Um, I'm looking. Okay. Okay. Did someone rate Kurt, did you raise your hand? Oh, Claudia. Okay, great. >> Had a historical question, and that is why was there no land use map change request submitted at the time the city purchased this property or again during

[27:00] the 2020 midterm update of the comp plan? And similarly, why was this property not annexed at that time of purchase? >> Yeah, that that's a great question. I wasn't involved in that process, so I I can I can only guess as to why, but we're doing it now. So um >> sounds >> I mean, yeah, maybe we should do all the questions at once. I'm not sure who to ask when what >> um the land use map changes can only be processed at certain times either through an update process of the boulevard comp plan or an association with a reszoning or an annexation or adoption of an area plan. So none of those things happened at the time that the property was purchased. So that's why it wasn't changed at that time, but I don't know if it was considered during one of the following comp plan updates, maybe the midterm update. Um, but I

[28:01] think changes during that time for that type of update were kind of limited in scope. So that might be the reason. >> Anything? No. Kurt, >> thank you again for the presentation. Um, and this may be a question for the applicant, but my question is about the funding that was used to purchase the land and the implications of the use based on that. Um, because there are restrictions as you know in the charter. So, do you have information about how much of the different funds went into the purchase and how that relates to then the amount of land that's divided? Yeah, I think the applicant team could speak more to that question. Yeah. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Okay. Um, anyone else? Nope. Okay. Um,

[29:04] checking George. Okay. Um, great. That uh closes out that portion and we're ready for the um applicant to come uh give us their presentation and just be sure and turn on your mic there on the podium. Thank you. And introduce yourself. Thanks. >> Hi, I'm Tina Dalton. I work for the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department as a senior city planner. Um and thank you Shannon for doing that great presentation. you u covered most of the technical details. Um I do know that in the memo it did mention some of the project too. So I'll just run through a little bit of that. If you give me a moment to share my screen. >> Is that better?

[30:08] Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Tonight we're um talking about what um was formerly known as the Hog Panost property. Um and with this annexation um what we're looking at is a really unique opportunity to be able to expand park space. Um, and we know the area that we'll be looking at mostly for parks and recreation, um, is going to be shared with flood and utilities. And that is really a common use of how we, um, use park space in our system. There's two separate processes that we're going to talk about. Um, so tonight really just looking at quickly what um, we're talking about tonight is that city purchase in 2018 and then city council defined the funding and uses in the in 2019. So, that ordinance 8349 um was appropriated from funds, and I don't have those numbers, but Alli's

[31:00] helping me look those up, but it did come from open space fund, permanent parks and recreation fund, and that storm water and flood management utility fund. Um and the purchase of that, it was originally purchased through general fund and then those funds were used um [clears throat] to ultimately repay that fund and then um that rolled into designating it partially for parks and recreation, partially for open space um and partially for flood mitigation. Um and so that brings us all the way to today. There's some gaps in there that I'll show you um what we've been doing in the meantime, but 25 to 26 is really just looking at this annexation, land use, and zoning. And then the upcoming public meetings is we're here today. And then there are two city council meetings that will come um following that. Um and then if we look at what the park planning um process is, is in 2022 we did a parks and recreation department plan. And what that did is it just it

[32:00] told us uh that we wanted to do a court system plan to look at what the level of service was for our community. And so the outcome of that that was we did need additional pickle ball and tennis courts. And that pushed us into looking at the Eastb Community Park site. um that was a site is one of six urban parks in the city that could actually handle or be feasible for tennis or pickle ball courts. Um then we started looking at the um Hogan Pankos property that is adjacent to that property. Um and looking at that that unique opportunity to a follow through with what city council had directed um for the use and the opportunity to expand the park system. Um so after um tonight um what we would if if it is annexed and the and land use and zoning is changed um we will then continue that planning um in development and the design

[33:00] development process. So this is just kind of a a quick snapshot and then letting you know that if this is approved tonight um there would be a future site review. So once we take that concept plan, go through design development, it would go through site review and come back to the planning board and then we would be able to fill in a lot of the blanks and some details of what that development in particular would mean for that property. So, this is just a little picture um of what those processes look like together and this is just a quick peek um just to give you an idea of what we're looking at in that concept plan and what you and I I'm kind of bringing this up not because we want to discuss it tonight necessarily, but I know there was some um text in the memo about it. So, what you'll see at the top of that screen is there are five existing tennis courts. Three of those tennis courts are going to be converted to uh pickle ball. Two will remain tennis. And then in the

[34:00] middle of the screen, you see those two red boxes. That would be the eight tennis courts that would potentially be on this um project that we would go through the development of after this process if it approved. So um during the concept plan, we had two engagement windows. Um and so that with community participation and it was host we hosted those to really better understand from the community perspective what the concerns are. Once annexation zoning and land use are approved we will work diligently with OSMP and flood utilities and the community to follow through with the city council guidance for that defined use through the research studies engagements and step and engagement. We understand um a lot of the concerns about the flood plane, wetlands, wildlife and the threatened endangered species. Um the design development documentation that we would continue with after this process um would really address those

[35:03] and add the technical details that you might be looking for and that would come back to you in that site review. So, just kind of looking through um what we're talking about tonight is we're not really intended to look at, you know, uh the development plans because we're not submitting that with this process. So, we're just kind of focusing tonight on that annexation, zoning, and land use. And that's all I have for you. So, do you have the answer to that question? >> Great. And uh board member Nordback, will you repeat just the question about the funding to make sure I answer it specifically? >> Yeah. So my understanding is that the property was originally purchased using open space money, parks money, and storm and >> sure >> floodwater money. And at least with regards to parks and open space, there are restrictions in the charter on how that money then can be used. So, I just

[36:02] wanted to verify that the division of the property into Whoops. into the parks and storm water use west of 55th and the open space to the east of 55th is a and the the amount of land being allocated that way is appropriate based on the amount of funding that was provided. >> Yep. I really appreciate you being uh clear. So, the three acres today, >> could you introduce yourself? >> Hi, folks. Thank you for that. My name is Ally Rhodess and I serve as the director of parks and recreation for the city of Boulder. So, this purchase uh was completed in October of 2019 and although the actual purchase price was $5 million from the general fund based on negotiations with the property owner, there were later um transaction made to provide certain protections as outlined in the city charter for so $30,000 was afforded the purchase from the open space fund and that's for the 3 acres east of uh 50 fth which takes those

[37:00] three acres were that were in that triangle to the right of 55th and offering them the protections in the open space um which basically provides protections around both uh for really around disposal requiring certain um steps requiring the OSBT and then for parkland it wasn't specific to acreage and it $10,000 was afforded over all of the site which affords those same protections and designates it when funds are used from the permanent parks and recreation fund for the charter that does puts a designation on the property as parkland, which means it now has to follow the um disposition protocols in the charter. And so there was no specific acreage for the $10,000 from the permanent parks and recreation fund. It was intended to line with the 19 acres west of 55th Street. >> Okay. But the total purchase price you said was 5 million, right? So you you talked about it sounds like $40,000

[38:00] worth. So that's a long ways from five million. >> I can read to you directly from the memo. The purchase price at that time was based on negotiations with the previous property owner. As a result, staff then appro completed evaluation of the property for purchase by the storm water and flood management utility open space parks fund based on the pro that property was undevelopable and then 22 acres were valued in alignment with comparable undeveloped outlaw land in Boulder County. comparable land prices per acre sold in recent years ranged between 5 and 11,000 per acre. This higher end range has typically been irrigated activated uh active agricultural land while not appropriate for viable agricultural use and more prime for flood mitigation and ecological restoration. The expected value of the property would be about 8,000 per acre. Thus, the total cost of 19 acres recommended to be purchased by storm water and flood management utility is 152,000 and then OSMP in the parks and recreation piece for 10,000. I can

[39:01] keep reading if you like, but I think that gets to your question. >> Can I com on this a little bit because I >> I have written down exactly the same question. And so, so what it sounds like happened is in the moment and which was kind of this urgent moment and it was a it was a convoluted and and interesting time uh to have a land use issue. We took $5 million of general fund money and we said, "Mr. land owner, developer, here's this. Now the city owns it." Okay. Then subsequently like when you use a quick claim deed or something you say hey you have to give value some proportional value but it's it the the proportional value was um determined by the land use after the subsequent

[40:02] purchase because then it was no longer developable was it was worthless. It didn't particularly have open space values. So, as a consequence, the money from storm water, sewer, parks, and open space is proportional to the use, but it has almost nothing to do with the original $5 million purchase price. >> And perhaps I confused things by adding that $5 million purchase price, but I just wanted to be accurate. And I think something that would be helpful to add is just the next steps from that to help further explain um board member McIntyre's point is that the next steps are staff will develop a plan for the maintenance of the property pending further consideration of subsequent open space, flood control, and parks and recreation projects. Staff will remove structures and debris from the property, prepare the land for designated future uses, blah blah blah. >> Okay. So if if your if I'm just guessing

[41:02] I'm guessing I this is not an informed comment. I was just >> but this is the question. If if your assessment is Mark's uh summation of this is correct then that answers my question that >> and that was correct. >> That sounds about accurate based on my recolleation of a pre- pandemic activity. And I just want to acknowledge that that pre2020 activity is not as clear as post2020 activity. But it sounds 90% right. And if it's important, we can dig dig deep and follow up. I think it's pretty accurate. And I wonder if I'm actually seeing >> Hel straight. >> I was hoping Hela would help. >> Yeah. I what what Ally described is correct in in how the money was distributed and there was an appropriation ordinance passed that said the following funds from the open space tax dollars from the park funds and from the stormwater funds are going to be used um expended for the purchase of this property. And then it also

[42:01] describes how the property is going to be used. And it includes land designated as open space on the map and attachment B to the ordinance. That's the area west of 55th. Shall be managed in a manner that's consistent with open span space lands as described in the city charter. Land designated as parks and recreations on the map in attachment B shall be managed in a manner consistent with parks land purchased with funds from the permanent parks and recreation fund as described in city ch in the city charter and land designated as stormwater and flat management on the map shall be managed in a manner consistent with the purposes designated in in chapter 115 stormwater and flat management utility as that may be amended from time to time. So the the appropriating ordinance then designates how the areas of the properties may be used and >> for the area that's for storm water and parks land. It says that the storm water purpose is dominant which I think is

[43:01] reflected in the much higher amount that came from the stormwater facility but that there's also some park use that's not inconsistent with the stormwater use of the property. And can I just add because I'm looking at that same memo, the graphic in your lower left screen right now is the one that is in that ordinance. So you can see that there's the designated open space land which is green >> and the colllocated storm water and park purposes which is one of the beauties of um how utilities and parks and recreation can work together is that those recreation purposes can colllocate with storm water in a beautiful way. Laura, >> I I just wanted to add the ordinance is this ordinance 8349. It says what money came from what fund and it's the what what Hela just read basically. So Kurt and and also just to add on to your question or just to clarify because of the way they structured it and what we're doing tonight there is

[44:02] there is not a disposal issue with the open space property because it's going to remain the open the OS- A designation on that little funny shape is going to remain that's going to remain under open space and mountain parks and we're not disposing of it or anything like that. Is that correct? >> Correct. The green section that east of 55th will remain um managed by open space mountain parks. >> Okay. Yeah. And I guess at that point since the city had already purchased it with general funds, now the city was the owner and they could define the this the sale price however they wanted for the different parts. and they defined it in a way that was very I guess beneficial to these funds. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Other uh clarifying questions for the applicant.

[45:02] >> Laura, >> hi. Thank you again for that presentation. My first question is that picture of the two deer. Is that real? [laughter] >> Did somebody actually capture that shot? That's amazing. >> Yes. >> Wow. That's like a award-winning photo right there. That's amazing. Um, and I did have one other question. You mentioned that this property uh when the if the if it is approved tonight and through city council for annexation with the zoning and the land use that the um proposal for the the two tennis courts or the eight tennis courts, >> sorry, the two squares that are eight tennis courts >> that that would go through site review. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. So there, so I just want to be clear that that means there would be another opportunity for public comment. And I think that's the thing that the neighbors are most concerned about is if something's going to be built there that that's when they'd want to comment. >> Correct. We've um and through our public process for that concept plan, we have

[46:00] been listening to those comments, understanding them um and looking at the sources and resources. So, as we go through design development, we'll really start to put kind of the engineering details to that to ensure that we're not impacting those ne negatively impacting those neighbors. >> Thank you, >> Claudia. >> Can I follow up on that, Laura? Um, I'm also interested in this question of what would go through future reviews? Um, and what is the basis for for proposed tennis courts going through review? Is that because it reaches a certain acreage that that triggers a site review? Well, there's an adjacent site review for the East Boulder sub community plan. So, um the code says that if you have property in common ownership and one of them abuts, um an existing approval, you have to in effect bring that new property into it. So, any future um disturbance or development of this property would require an amendment of some sorts. So, these eight courts would require site review amendment to bring it into the site review that uh

[47:01] controls the East Boulder Rex. >> Okay. And so in theory then any development on these 19 acres would trigger the same thing. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I just clarify Charles? I might have misheard you. Did you say the East Boulder sub community plan or the East Boulder Community Park site? >> East Boulder Rec Center. >> East Boulder Rec Center. Okay. Thank you. >> Um I have one. This was probably for this staff versus that staff, but um the RL2 segment that we are um discussing tonight is really only the street. So even though Yeah, it's it's just the street is the designation is the only portion that's designated RL2 that isn't currently RL2. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh just to follow up, there really aren't any ra practical ramifications though to what the zoning is for right of way, right? It's it's really just to

[48:03] make the map simpler. >> That's correct. Yeah, we we're just looking at, you know, what makes sense for that area of ride ofway in terms of the zoning. Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks. And there there is a potential application. Not that that's likely in this particular occasion anytime soon, but when right ofway is vacated, state law determines on to what property it occurs and then that property already has a zoning designation should that occur. Laura, >> um I was going to ask what what is the property to the west of that piece of right ofway that is unanexed and is not part of this proposal? I assume it's private property, residential in the county. Okay, thank you. >> I have a followup on that one too because I was curious about that parcel.

[49:00] Um, does the land use map change and initial zoning of the 19 acres here have any impact on future annexation and development proposals of that remaining area 2 rectangle? I mean, not especially in the in the sense that it establishes um new land use and zoning in the district. But again, I think the uses that are being, you know, proposed for this site are very specific and again looking at it as an extension of that um existing site review for the East Boulder Rec Center. So I think we would have to evaluate it um at the time that it came in for annexation and and what type of development would be proposed to see what would be appropriate for it. >> Okay. But there's nothing deterministic in >> Okay.

[50:01] >> Okay. Last call. Oh, Mason. Okay. Uh, pretty much all my questions have been asked, but related to that property, was was that neighbor offered annexation as a part of this process as well? I know that some that sometimes occurs with neighboring properties. No, not as part of that this application. Um, over the years in talking with the neighbor there, I don't think that there's been a real interest in pursuing annexation on their behalf. Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Sorry, one more question. And um I don't know whom this is to, but it's about the wetland map and the the proposed wetland map actually shows the buffer extending into the street into 55th Street. Does that have any ramifications

[51:02] for how the street is designed or used or anything like that? The street is already there. Um, so I think it it might have ramifications and I would I would want to look at the wetland standards again, but it might have ramifications if anything was proposed to be constructed on the street, but we could take a look at this while the meeting goes on. I mean, technically we're approving the wetland map, but we're also not I'm not an expert in wetlands, so um I don't know that there's any room to change it anyhow, I guess. So, maybe it's more a matter of curiosity, so it's that's okay. Thank you.

[52:00] Okay, I think unless someone's going to stop me or shout something out, um that closes the uh presentation by the applicant and we're going to move on to our public hearing and um Thomas I don't know if anyone I see one person online. >> Yeah, and we do have one person registered to speak in person. So, Katherine Sunball, this is your opportunity. If you would like to step up to the podium and give your comment, you'll have three minutes. >> Hi, I'm Katherine Sunball >> and and you know, yeah, there you go. Get it right. >> Katherine Sunball. I live in Green Belt Meadows. I live on 5419 a leaning away and I have Prebles Meadows jumping mice living on my property. But that's not what I want to talk about. Um, I have been talking with um, Elliot Hood, who's the regent with CU,

[53:02] about doing a botanic gardens on the property in partnership with CU and hopefully the city. And the financing for the project comes from the descendants of the soldiers in the San Creek massacre. They want to contribute money to this project to and it would be based on a Cheyenne story about the prebble jumping mouse and the leopard frog as being very sacred in their [clears throat] culture. So I wrote um Regent Hood the follow-up email to read to you. The neighborhoods surrounding the East Boulder Recre Center have been working with Fred Mosscada, Southern Arapo and Chester White Men, Southern Cheyenne from the Southern Cheyenne and Arapo tribes in Oklahoma and with Rick Williams with the peoples of the sacred land. We have been working for years to

[54:01] partner with the descendants of the soldiers that trained at the Fort Chambers um to finance a botanic garden at Hogan Panos to not only create a living sponge to soak up groundwater and prevent flooding, but to create a uniquely bolder experience of telling the Cheyenne story about the federally threatened Rebels Meadow Jumping Mouse and the federally endangered leopard frog as the foundation of the Botanic Garden experience. Also, Boulder Community Health has a pathways program. We are working with them to create an experience that supports their land-based mental health programs and open space. We are hoping that these efforts inform how we recreate the experience at the Bedhanic Gardens. Again, we are working with the Southern Cheyenne leader Chester Whiteman to create the pathways experience. When it was announced that CU was going to build tennis courts on the wetlands

[55:02] that we have been working for more than 30 years to protect, the community has now attracted funding to tell the story of betrayal instead of the documentary showing truth and reconciliation targeted for the Sundance Film Festival. We have the funding for either film from the descendants of the soldiers who want to correct the influence of their ancestors on shaping Boulder and the mentality that would pave over what remains of the prebels and the leopard frogs um habitat representing at CU tennis courts. Of course, it is preferred that we don't need to do this. Instead, we preferred to feature a documentary at the Sundown Film Festivals of CU and the city of Boulder working together with the neighborhood and the descendants of the soldiers to tell a very internationally important story of the

[56:00] community working with the Arapo and Cheyenne to recover the endangered species and create the botanic. >> We're going to have to I'm sorry. I don't want to cut you off, but but your your your three minutes is up. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. No, no, thank thank you very much and that for joining us. >> Very interesting. >> And >> and you can you can also send us that email if you would like. >> Um Boulder Planning Boardboulder.gov. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And as far as our online participants, we have one attendee. I'm not sure if they would like to speak, but if you would, now is your opportunity to go ahead and raise your hand. Otherwise, we can wrap up the public hearing and pass it back to the board chair for deliberation. And seeing no raised hands,

[57:00] >> thank you. >> Okay, great. Thank you. That will close the public hearing. Um, I appreciate the comments from the room here. That was interesting. Um, and now we'll move on to um board deliberations. And um Shannon, if you can I hope you have all three issues on one slide, but if not, we can rotate back and forth. Okay. So, um as Laura was just reminding me very helpfully, um so, uh we have two pieces of business before us and that that one

[58:02] is a recommendation to council and one is an actual vote. uh and uh on the change in the uh land use. So, but the three the three key issues are here before us and obviously this whole thing is intertwined and interrelated. So, um uh I propose as as we've been doing as of late is to uh whoever whatever board member is ready first to actually address the three key issues and um before we move on to motion making, but just um give us your thoughts and comments on uh the key issues as they've been presented to us. And I'm looking left and looking right. Anybody well prepared or still need a moment?

[59:03] just in the name of expediency. And normally I go last, but I'll go first to um because as I um uh as as I studied this packet and and I have um I don't have any conflict of interest. to just have some history with this and being around during this time and uh thinking a lot about uh this property over the years and its um its potential uses and the way it came to be purchased and everything. So um uh the first issue uh is the proposed annexation consistent with the BBC policies and state law. Yes, I think uh both the applicant and the city have uh have have uh done all their homework in that regard and is consistent there. Um and I think that the uh item two the uh

[60:02] land use um map change uh is completely um uh meet it meets the applicable criteria and is appropriate land use change. Um and the um uh the the proposed initial zoning of the of the property should council uh go forward with the annexation of P for um the public area and the RL2 on the street is consistent with both uh BBCP goals and the Boulder revised code. I'm in essence I'm all for this and uh look forward I hope that we uh we approve it. So who's ready? Mason. Um don't have I'm just going to go ahead and read my um basically I just agree with everything that you said but I'll just go ahead and read what I wrote. So

[61:01] the annexation is consistent with state law and our BBC policies. Um, I tend to focus a lot on our need for housing, but it's pretty clear from everything that I read this packet that not the site is not suited for that purpose. Um, so I do believe that shifting land use to park, urban or other, lets us safeguard the critical habit and provide flood mitigation for surrounding neighborhoods. It also supports new recreational facilities for the community, which is another important need. Um the initial zoning proposal uh.3 is appropriate given our acquisition's goals and the site's constraints. In balance with housing, environmental and recreational needs, this plan gets it right to protecting what matters and responsibil responsibly expanding public amenities where possible. For all these reasons, I support staff's recommendations. >> Great. Thank you, Mason

[62:01] Kurt. Hi. Yeah, I agree with what um Mark and Mason have said. I think that the annexation is consistent with state statutes and the BBCP. Uh in terms of the annexation, my biggest question had to do with the wetland map, which obviously is very crucial here because so much of it is wetland and there's a lot of there's a lot of contradictory wetland maps that we saw. Um and but unfortunately, I am not qualified to um to determine like you know what is a high functioning wetland and what is a low functioning wetland and so on. So, I trust the wetland assessment um that was that was given us on that. Uh and um yeah, I think that the proposed BBCP land use map changes are appropriate and that the zoning of public for most of it and RL2 for the very small bit of

[63:02] rightway uh is consistent with the zoning standards in the B build boulder revised code. So I will be supporting this. >> Thanks Kurt. Laura, Claudia, >> I didn't raise my hand. So, if you want to, Claudia, >> I don't I didn't see you raise your hand either, so Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Um I I can go. So, um I I want to acknowledge that annexation is not just a criteria based decision, but it's also a negotiation between the city and the property owner. And at this point, the city is the property owner. So, it's a bit weird to think of the city negotiating with itself. Um, but of course, the city is comprised of many facets and represents multiple interests. So, I do think it's appropriate to ask not just does this proposal meet the applicable criteria, but also should would should we be seeking anything else in annexation to better provide community benefit. And so

[64:01] this was the thing that I thought about a lot with this proposal because normally when we think of community benefit with an annexation as we all know we first and foremost want housing that that's an established policy. It's in the BBCP and it's our established practice. Um and there are a lot of people who were hoping that this site would be developed as housing. Um but that that is a decision that has already been endlessly well maybe not endlessly it did come to an end. Um but in a very prolonged manner uh litigated through the city process and um you know are we going to second guess that that was this decision that was arrived at after years of hearings and study and and I come to the conclusion that no that would not be appropriate for us to try to relitigate that. For one thing we are not in a position to go back and re-examine all those years worth of evidence and hearing record and testimony. Um, and for another, a city cannot function if every decision is reopened

[65:00] at subsequent stages just because some folks think that the outcome or the process was less than ideal. You have to be able to go forward. So, while I might wish that a few things had been done differently, um, this hearing tonight does not for me rise to the level of needing to correct an injustice or undo a dangerous precedent, I do think it's time to put this one behind us. Enough community resources have been expended. The proposed land use and zoning are compatible with the surrounding area and intended uses and in particular in conjunction with the East Boulder Community Center and Park. Um, as my colleagues have pointed out, the additional community benefits that it provides. I won't go back through that. And I do hear from the applicant that they are being very mindful of community input and that when the site plan is developed, that will go through site review. It will adequately consider flood water management. Um, I'm assuming it will adequately consider any noise impacts and buffering from those courts if those are built and any alternate proposals that might be out there. Um, so I am going to be supportive of this

[66:01] proposal and my answer to these three questions is all yes. >> George actually had his hand up. So I'm gonna George, I'm going to call on you and then >> Oh yeah, sure. I'll I'll be quick. Uh, ditto to um exactly what Mason said. I I I think I think you put it very well um along with the other board members, but but particularly Mason's comment resonated with me. That's it. >> Great. Thanks, George. Claudia, >> last but not least, I hope um I'm really glad actually that Laura spoke before me because I think she put a wrapper on a lot of the things that I've been considering in this proposal. Um, I think the annexation certainly meets state standards. In terms of the BBCP requirements for land use map changes and subsequent zoning, I've really been struggling, I think, with a lot of circularity here that's that's come up in the process. Um, and I just want to spell a little bit of of that out even though I I will support this in the end. We're being asked to annex and zone to

[67:02] fulfill the purpose of this site as it was defined in that 2019 ordinance. Um but the requirements of that ordinance were not and still are not consistent with the BBCP land use map. Um and that's why we're here tonight. So um we're coming into compliance um and we're making up compliance at the same time. I think yes, the BBCP supports flood plane management and storm water control. Those are important uses of this site. I think there is community benefit in providing space for a land inensive recreational need and I think it makes sense to accommodate that use next to an existing recreation center. So that that uh court system plan that parks and wreck has been working on I think is is really good in its conclusions about using this site. Um, and I wouldn't actually want to see additional suburban style housing development here as the BBCP land use map currently um, anticipates. But at the same time, I think how we got here

[68:00] is not great. And so where I come down on all of this is yes, I would support the land use map change, the annexation, and the reasonzoning as it's proposed here. But I think there's a lot in the historical process, including how this land was valued for internal purchase in the city with designated funds that has really overdetermined the possible outcomes here. So I will support it, but I just want to note that aspect of the history of the site. >> Thank you, Claudia. And I I want to add on to Claudia and Laura's comments in in the sense that no uh there were very few people happy with exactly how this purchase went down, how funds were maneuvered, how this whole thing came about. And I want to say that the issues before us tonight are limited. And and that's just part of the nature of city processes that once one thing is done

[69:00] then you do another thing and you you can't go back in time. And so I I think we are all uh dealing with the question at hand which doesn't mean that we don't have thoughts and concerns and feelings about both past processes. And I want to speak to a future process because there were there are some questions about well you know how many tennis courts and will there be a clubhouse and etc etc and and there will be neighbor opposition to the tennis courts. There will be neighbor opposition to this as being parkland. simply just want to say that um uh there will be plenty of public process, but uh this there will come an instance where uh the good of the community must weigh uh heavier than specific neighbor

[70:00] concerns. And hearing neighbor concerns is an important aspect of all city processes. But uh this is public. The designation we're creating tonight is public. It is for the residents of Boulder and the broader community. And um I would just uh anticipate that we're going to we will have other opportunities to weigh in on um exactly how this will be uh developed inside review processes and so forth. and and and uh and again I hope that uh uh that because of all the resources that went into this and all the housing that wasn't developed um we end up with a really great broad public good out of this property. So that's any anyone else want to add any other concluding comments? Laura?

[71:00] >> Uh well I just want to thank all of my fellow board members. I think all the comments were well considered and well said. And I also want to thank our our public testimony tonight and I was not aware of the proposal for the community botanical garden before reading the emails and hearing your testimony. I don't know anything about it beyond what's been presented. Um but I'm sure that our parks department will consider that carefully and be in communication with you. Thank you. >> I concur. Okay. Um, having uh done all of those things and uh we've all responded to the key issues for discussion. Um, is anyone prepared? And you can put the motion language up there. Thank you, Shannon. Perfect. Okay. Anyone uh ready to make a motion? Okay, Laura, >> I move. Do you want me to do both of them at the same time? >> No, let's let's do one at a time. I move to approve the proposed Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map change for the 19 acre portion of the property

[72:00] west of 55th Street known as 5399 Kowani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road from low density residential to Park Urban and other incorporating the staff memorandum and findings of fact pertaining to case number LUR2025-00008. eight. >> I second. >> Um, Laura, as motion maker, any additional comments you would like to speak to your motion? >> No, thank you. I think we've said it all. >> Anyone else have comments on the motion? Okay. Um, seeing no other comments, we'll go to a vote. I'm going to go from left to right. Mason. Yes. >> Laura, >> yes. >> Claudio. >> Yes. >> Kurt, >> yes. >> George, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. Okay. So, that passes unanimously.

[73:00] Laura, >> I move to recommend to city council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 5399 Kowani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road, including 55th Street Ride ofway with an initial zoning of public on 26, sorry, excuse me, 23.6 6 acres and an initial zoning of residential low 2 on a44 acre portion of rightaway under case number LUR 2025-00003 incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact >> I second >> I do not need to speak to it >> okay thank you neither do I want to speak to the motion okay um I'm going to start with George this time and go the other way just to mix it up. George, >> yes. >> Kurt, >> yes. >> Claudia, >> yes. >> Laura, >> yes. >> Mason, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. Okay, those both of those

[74:03] motions uh pass unanimously. Congratulations to the applicant. Uh thanks to applicant and staff for um uh great concise presentations and answering our questions. And that closes out that agenda item 5 A and 5B in record time. It is 71. Okay. Okay. Um we move on to uh yes. Okay. I have a I have a uh a suggestion of a break. So it is uh 127. 18.

[79:56] 19. I'm going to call our meeting back to order and hope that um

[80:03] we get this uh done without any additional technical difficulties. We've had a little bit of Zoom issue here, but I'm so I'm calling the meeting back to order. The um uh the agenda item here is matters from the planning board, planning director, and city attorney. And under 6A is our uh council letter discussion. And so um I just had a little talk with Thomas and Laura has graciously agreed to help facilitate this um kind of mix of ideas and planning and um uh figuring out what we want to do in our letter to council. So I'm going to turn it over to Laura. Uh, and I but I hope that folks have come uh at least partially prepared with ideas, thoughts about topics for a letter to council and um and if they're

[81:02] prepared, you can go ahead and send them to Thomas. >> Doesn't look like you're recording. Oh, hang on. >> There we go. We're back recording. Sorry for the technical difficulties to anyone who's joining us. And let's uh get started, I guess. Back to you, chair. >> Okay, we are um back at 7:33 for the November 18th, 2025 planning board meeting. We are on to item 6A which is the um uh under matters the planning board letter to council. Um and as we started off uh we were turning this over to Laura uh to help us uh through the logistics of this and facilitate this. And um now I'm going to

[82:02] turn it over to you and I'm going to take my email that I had drafted and send it to Thomas in advance. And if anyone else wants to do the same, now is the time to do it. Take it away, Laura. >> Okay. Thank you, Mark. Um I just want to acknowledge I agreed to help facilitate this section, but I am also going to participate and I will try to distinguish clearly when I'm doing which if it's not clear. And Mark, you are still chair, so you can take back control of this meeting at any time for any reason. Well, if you get out of line, I will. >> All right. >> Um, but I I wanted to say this is professionally facilitated, but for free. So, Okay. >> All right. Challenge accepted. Okay. So, um I'm delighted to try to help us work through this. As you know, we have a letter to write to council. I want to uh just remind us all and also for anybody watching the video or online, uh let you know what the parameters are that we're working with here. Um, so, uh, boards and commissions often send an annual

[83:01] letter to council, not every year, but this year we were invited, but with specific, uh, guard rails basically. Um, we are told that the priorities for this year for city council for their work plan will be limited in number and they are expected to be completed in 12 months or less because this is basically a council that's only together for one more year before the next election cycle. So looking at um do we have suggestions for small things that staff can complete in 12 months or less and they should be aligned with citywide strategic plans or existing department plans for each board and commission. So we can't go too far off piece here. We need to be aligned with the work of the planning department um and some kind of small chunks. So my thought for facilitating this is let's just first get a sense of what are all the topics that people think might be appropriate for fulfilling this mission of what we should say to council for their work plan for the next year. Um get a list and then uh I'll walk us through a

[84:00] process to prioritize that list as a group uh through a voting and ranking process. But first I want to get a sense of how many board members have something that they might want to put on the list. Who has at least one topic they want to put on the list? one. >> Yeah. I have a a kind of a clarifying question. So So what you outlined to me sounds very tactical in nature. Is that the is that what we understand this letter to be? Because we're the planning board and my concern is is that um we should be looking out into the future and I guess that's the question. a 12-month cycle for the planning board, like you get nothing accomplished, right? >> Well, I I can give you my answer, but I would invite staff to also answer that or or anybody else on the board, which is I think as planning board, we are entitled to send a letter to council whenever we want about whatever we want. And if we want to talk about long range planning priorities, we can do that. But

[85:01] for this particular letter, council has asked all the boards and commissions, not just us, to think about is there some small thing that they can put into their well, they didn't say some small thing. They said something that we can recommend that would go into their work plan which is how they basically put in requests to to staff basically to say please work on this this year and we want you to accomplish it this year. So I think we are looking at things that we think staff can accomplish a project in a year or less to be useful for this work plan. Now, that doesn't mean we can't also advise council about longer range things if that is our desire or think about something long range where maybe there's a piece of it that could be accomplished this year, but it's a longer range thing in total. That would be my answer, but anybody else? >> Charles, >> no, I think that's that's that's absolutely correct. And that tracks with the direction that we were given from council to focus on a one-year cycle kind of based on where they are in their election cycle. Right now, it's only

[86:01] going to be a one-year work program since we have an election again next year. So, I think that's what's behind the um request for a 12 month um set of priorities. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Mark. I would just want to say so when someone gives you an invitation to provide input in a particular format in a partic regarding a particular in a particular way. I I think you'll do better to acknowledge their request. I do also want to say like for example past planning boards have recommended things like we need to do area plans for every commercial area in the city and I don't think they expected that to get done in one council work plan but they expected that that could rise to the top of let's get this ball rolling. So we could do something like that as well. occurred >> and I fully agree with uh George's

[87:00] concern but my interpretation is that these are projects or ideas that where the the work would be 12 months or less but hopefully the implications the effects of it would go on for a long time. So, it would be long-term planning in my view, but just long-term planning where the work to put it into effect would be um within a 12-month period. >> Yeah, Mark. >> Um, and I just want to point out that things that are seem strategic and interminably long sometimes end very quickly. And I think parking minimums have been a discussion in the city for years and years and years. And we had many processes and planning board and planning development staff had a two two-year process on this. state law came along and to comply with state law and

[88:03] just to make things easy, we eliminated parking minimums and and in fact it concluded actually very quickly which sometimes points to we can actually do things quickly if we choose to. So um yeah, some big things can get done eventually in a short way, small time. >> George, does that answer your question? And does that lead you? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's that's fine. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think that's fine. Yeah. >> Okay. So, from our initial poll, it looks like pretty much everybody has something that they might want to suggest for this letter. So, great. Let's build this list together. So, if everybody, if you haven't sent it to Thomas, please go right ahead. And Thomas, if you could compile all of that into one document and give each item a number for us, that would be fantastic. I'm not so sure about the item numbers because there's quite a list, but I do have a document going. >> It's great. We can we can number them as we go if we want.

[89:00] >> I'm not sure which are necessarily one item and which are a list of items. Um I do have a document going with uh everything I have so far in the order that I've received it. If you would like me to go ahead and share that. >> And could you uh label which board member sent which items? I've got that. >> And then we can always do your best at numbering and we can always reumber them if we want to split things up or chunk things together, that kind of thing. >> Well, this is the >> this is the list. Okay. >> We would be going up to maybe >> it might be like 20 items or so. >> 20 to 30 lines right here. >> Okay. All right. Well, we'll we'll do our best to to work through this. So, what I would propose since we have so many items is that each board member walk through your items quickly but clearly, you don't have to pitch us, but make sure that's clear that we understand what the items are and then we can start narrowing down and I have a process for that. Okay. So, uh Kurt, do

[90:02] you want to go ahead and walk us through and we'll number your items as we go. >> Sure. So, the first one is site review process streamlining and clarification as we all probably know. And um Carl Ger not too many years ago uh did some site review >> zoom zoom in a little. There we go. Thank you. >> Did uh significant changes to the site review process. Part of the goal there was to streamline the process. Uh but there there were a lot of other things that were added and I think the streamlining didn't in my view really happen. And we also still, as we've seen recently, we still have these ambiguities about the how um area plans and the land use map interact with site review. And so the idea of this is to grapple with some of those and try to

[91:00] clarify and also simplify the process. This may not be a 12-month process. Uh, any questions? >> Um, I I might have a proposal to kind of combine that with one of mine. I can either do that now if you're comfortable or we can just keep moving. >> Why don't I go through the rest of these and then maybe Yeah, when we get to yours we can talk about that. Great. >> Sounds good. Uh the next one is um as we know in certain areas of the city you can build fourth and fifth stories under the community benefit criteria but it's a discretionary process. In fact, we almost always approve that and I would like to suggest considering changing that, a process to change that to allow that to be a byite uh a right um as long as you contribute the

[92:02] community benefit. So not changing the requirements but changing eliminating the process the discretionary process that's associated with it. So that's number two. Uh number three we we know that there's a lot of concern as there should be about water use and um and u water intensive landscaping and their state laws about nonfunctional turf and so on. And the the as it things currently stand in a lot of zone districts, we basically require nonfunctional, not necessarily turf, but non-functional space in the form of front and side setbacks. And so what I'm suggesting here is a process to consider reducing those in order to reduce water usage and also pesticides and fertilizer use.

[93:01] So that's three. Uh the next one as we've seen both with Balsson B Alpine Balsam project and with the Frasier Manor project and possibly others. Our design and construction standards are getting in our own way. We are trying to avoid building streets consistent with the DCS because they don't achieve what we want it to achieve. And so this idea is to update the DCS including particularly changing the street design standards so that they actually are consistent with what we want to achieve and we don't have to do this endun sort of that we've been seeing of building private streets in order to avoid having to comply with the DCS. Uh the next one it was really motivated by the project and I should have gotten

[94:00] the address but it was an industrial project a spec industrial project that was being built in Northeast Gun Barrel and for some singlestory light industrial use. Um and there was some discussion about the TDM requirements. There's zero bus service nearby. there was there's uh some some bike paths and there was discussion about connection to the bike paths and so on. But in looking at that, it felt like we were going to be requiring the developer to put a bunch of money into TDM that really was not going to be able to achieve much in the way of VMT reduction uh because it's just not a site that allows for that. And so the idea is to provide some mechanism whereby in situations like that where a location just is not well

[95:02] set up unfortunately for for significant amount of transit use or walking or whatever to provide a an uh inloo fund and inlue payment uh that the developer could make where those funds then could be used in parts of the city where you could achieve much more in the way of VMT reduction because it has transit, it has good bike and ped connections and so on. Uh the next one is um to change some of our private open space requirements uh into not not getting rid of them but changing them to public open space requirements because I feel like we have a lot of

[96:00] requirements that say, "Oh, you have to have 60 square feet or whatever of private open space, which you know is fine, but it doesn't build community. It doesn't use space very efficiently because a lot of those spaces may be used very very infrequently. Um, and if that same amount of space, you know, times 60 square feet times 60 units or whatever, if that were aggregated into public open space, all of a sudden you have a little pocket park or something that to me would be a a better use of of space where, you know, more people could use it. And more importantly, it would help to create community in a way that I feel that the private open space requirements don't. Can I ask a clarification question? Um, when you say private open space and public open space, you're talking about in a residential development like people's little balconies or little

[97:00] plots that are attached to their units. And you're saying that instead of that, you would have more communal open space, but it would still be private to that development. It wouldn't be like a public park. >> It could be either. It could be either. I mean, in in in my ideal world, it would actually be a public park. You would be required, you know, to have a public access easement, for example, on this. That's something that could be discussed. >> Okay. Could we change the wording just a little bit to make it clear and say for residential projects? So number six, for residential projects, change private open space requirements to communal open space. >> Sure. >> Or shared open space. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah, Thomas, >> I don't know. I mean, I I guess Yeah, I I didn't think about that, but I I guess the only place where we have those open space requirements is for residential. >> Okay. So, Thomas, this is for number six. So at the beginning of number six, could you change it to say at the very beginning for residential projects

[98:09] and then change the word public to shared if that's okay with you, Kurt? >> Yes. >> And then that could be either public or still private the development. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Please keep going. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Sure. >> Okay. And my last one, it was motivated by looking at the response to first of all the Marshall fire and also the Eaton fire, I think it's called, in in Los Angeles where these devastating disasters happened and the the governing entities, whether you know the city or the county or whatever, were kind of caught flat-footed and immediately people were claiming hammering to, you know, rebuild and um

[99:01] and wanted to get back to their lives the way they are, which is totally understandable response. But there there was an opportunity there to potentially do some largecale changes. Like one of the things that I was thinking about was what if you wanted you to put in a um a a a um ground source heat uh system, a um district heating system in an area. Well, you the time to plan for that is not right after, you know, a devastating fire or devastating flood happens. It's in advance when you can really think about it and go through all the processes and so on. And I'm concerned that, you know, we are one of the most

[100:00] disasterprone uh cities in in Colorado. And I'm concerned that we're going to be caught flatfooted sort of in the same way when and if not not if when a disaster inevitably happens. And so my my hope and and it's not very wellformed but my hope is to provide some kind of sort of pre-meta planning so that we can think about when a disaster happens how at that time we don't know when it where it will happen you know the extent that sort of thing but how do we then plan then can so to kind of get ahead of it and think about what are the kinds of things we might want to change at that point, institute and so on. Uh so I don't know if that's clear, but I just I don't want us to get in this same trap of having a disaster and then

[101:02] immediately sort of feeling under the gun to get people rebuilding again and not have the opportunity to think. It it's it's like a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, right? And um and so how do we pre-plan so that we're a little bit more ready for when that inevitably happens? >> So I I think that concept is it's clear to me. If anybody else has questions about it, >> it's clear. If we were going to put this in the letter, I think we'd want to reward this, but I think for the purposes of understanding your concept, I think it's clear. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hey, Mason, are you ready to walk us through the ones that you have on here and help let's help us number them as well? >> And Thomas, if you could give it um don't restart the numbering. Make this one number eight. >> And it's just one. >> Okay. >> I just drafted. >> It's just one. Okay. >> So, >> yeah. So, similar to what Kurt said

[102:01] about streamlining the process, when I was thinking about how we might streamline the process, having pre-approved housing plan sets would be a good idea. Um, I wrote a lot of detail here. I will not read it. Um, but the long and short is that you could have a set of pre-approved designs um with included incentives or equity access uh portions of that that would perhaps guarantee timelines and reduce the cost associated with certain types of development. Uh I would generally want to focus this towards infill uh multi-unit buildings etc. But of course that's all up for negotiations. Does that make sense? >> Yes. Thank you. Very efficient. Okay, we can scroll down to the next person. And again, this is just the initial let's understand what all is on the table and then we'll have more discussion. Mark, so we're going to

[103:00] start with number nine here. So I have uh like Mason, I have one item uh and that one item is um is my exposure during the last this last council election is lots and lots of discussion from all the candidates uh about um middle housing and I and I I catch us sometimes getting caught up in are we talking missing middle we talking middle income doesn't matter we don't have middle anything. Um, and we we're getting less of it. and uh and and as a consequence in in this 12-month cycle, I'm proposing that we can with a quick engagement cycle engage with both the development community and residents in regard to updating and modestly revising our current code and inclusionary housing fees and reusing I

[104:02] I'm missing an and there. reusing and revisiting the completed nexus study of our inclusion inclusionary housing fees. So, we've had a middle income housing strategy for going on 10 years that's done very little and it's very little result um very few units. And then we had the nexus study which came to planning board claimed came to council and council on a narrow rejection rejected modifying our inclusionary housing fees uh based on that nexus study. And I think a um a new council uh may be willing to revisit that. And so I'm not asking for a new study. I'm asking for an update and then co comb through Title 9 regulations to eliminate specific barriers for middle type housing. And again, I think this is a

[105:00] topic we've been over and over and over before, but I'm hopeful that with a new council and a one-year time frame, we can actually uh instead of punting and deferring, we could actually have this council uh make serious modifications. >> Mark, can I ask you a question? >> Yes. >> So, if I'm understanding correctly, there's basically two things here. There's the combing through the code to get rid of any barriers which is pretty straightforward and then the second thing is about how do we fund it and as I recall that nexus study the concept was maybe shifting some existing funding from lowincome products to towards more funding for middle- inome products >> and and again I I actually went back tried to find the nexus study and all my planning board packets anyway I got lost this afternoon and I punted myself um in in terms of finding that But it I believe there was a also a component of modifying the inclusionary housing fees so that uh ownership and middle type

[106:02] housing uh would potentially have a reduced um a reduced fee as opposed to uh because it right now um a a middle- inome housing project still pays into the inclusionary housing fees. So Brad's looks like he's going to corre address me. Correct it. >> Well, yeah, just and clarification. So, uh, are you talking about the re relatively recent housing and uh, human services development impact fee, affordable development impact fee, which is often called the inclusionary fee or >> fee. So, our iH inclusionary housing fees. >> Yeah. >> Right. Are are we saying the same thing? >> I I think so. there. You're not talking about the inloo >> versus having affordable housing on site. You're not talking about the in >> No, I'm not talking about >> You're talking about the fee that

[107:00] everybody pays >> that. So, developers choose to pay into our inclusionary housing program in cash in lie of developing on site. >> Okay. Is that the fee you're talking about? Okay. >> Because there's also the >> We're not talking about the one on scrapes. No. Well, yeah. or or commercial or industrial or anybody. Okay. >> I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about our >> the uh >> the inloo fees. >> Yeah, the inloo fees. Yes. >> So So >> yeah, I didn't remember when So >> actually because we're trying to just build the list. So I think I think the concept is clear that that your thing here is revisiting both how we fund middle-income housing in Boulder and are there any code barriers to producing middle-income housing in Boulder? And you're putting both of those in one item. >> Yes. >> Okay. And we don't have to go into the revisiting the memo now of what what that was. I was just trying to remember. I I took us down that pathway and I'm

[108:01] sorry. Okay. Any other questions for Mark about what this concept is that we might want to recommend in this letter? >> I I'm I'm sorry to belabor the point, but the the Nexus study is tied to the development impact fee. So, we might want to change the the reference there to the inloo inclusionary housing fees. >> Okay. >> Wasn't there a nexus study for that as well, though? Like there's a there's a nexus study that justifies the inclusionary housing fee which is separate from the development. >> There may have been. I I'm just trying to help help you all avoid people conflating the two. >> Yeah. Well, we we will definitely if we choose this one, make sure the wording is precise. Gotcha. Good flag for us, Brad. Thank you so much, >> Mark. Anything else on this one? No, thank you. >> Okay, then I'm going to go ahead and call on myself just since this is the order received and try to go through it pretty quickly. Claudia, did you have some to contribute? I don't think they're on the list yet. >> Ready to go when you came. >> Okay. Trying to listen and also send things over. [laughter]

[109:00] >> Okay. All right. Do you need us to take a quick break so that you can Okay. I I will just go through mine quickly. So first I have a question for staff which is to our knowledge and maybe we don't know the answer is the landmarks process being revamped this year 2026. I know there was some talk of do revisiting the landmarking process. >> I think it's the historic preservation plan the 10-year historic preservation plan. >> I see. Okay. So it's not the actual landmarking process that's being revamped. It's the historic preservation plan. >> That was my understanding. that was scheduled to be done in 2025 and now I believe is still planned for 2026. But I think that that sort of the way the comp plan leads up to and and leads into land um

[110:01] code changes. I think that the historic preservation plan potentially could lead into changes to the actual historic preservation code, not which includes the landmarking process. >> Okay, thank you. I'm going to take a brief pause because we've lost our list. Mark has stepped out of the room and Claudia is also doing something. So, it seems appropriate to just take a really quick break to let everybody like reassemble. So, maybe let's take 3 or 4 minutes. 06. 806. Is that okay with folks? All right. We're We're just going to take a little pause. >> Yeah. just didn't have anything in a readable

[111:50] mine and Thomas, you can delete that question about his landmarks being revamped this coming year and move the next paragraph up to number 10.

[112:03] So this is this is a small thing at least it seems relatively small but it has come up a few times that we have a project where we have a site review that involves a potentially landmarkable structure but the structure has not actually been landmarked. And one of the options for site review is that we can as part of our um conditions on the project. We can condition a project so that the property owner has to voluntarily apply for landmarking as one of our conditions. I have always been troubled by this um because we are then doing that without having input from the landmarks board about whether that structure actually merits us prioritizing that above other types of community benefits that we might receive in a site review. You know, for example, the Silver Saddle Motel, they had a landmark structure, they had environmental benefits, they had land

[113:00] that they donated to a school, and they had um some other affordable housing, right? So I would really love it if the process could be revamped um so that planning board gets that input from the full landmarks board not just from staff but from the landmarks board about what is the value of that historic structure before it goes through site review so that the planning board we are making a decision about whether to require landmarking as part of our community benefit based on an understanding of the value of that structure and I know that you know we've talked about this with Hela. There there are some process hiccups to work through. I I would love to see that be a priority to figure that out. So, I'm putting this one up for consideration. It's not the biggest thing, but it's been a hiccup in the past. Um I'll move on to the next one. So, if you could put a number 11 on the next sentence there, better understanding. This also came up in the silver saddle process that um the developer was proposing putting affordable housing

[114:02] units, permanently affordable housing units into a landmark structure. And my main objection to that was I didn't understand and I have some assumptions about the burdens that that puts on those future property owners of that affordable housing when they have to maintain those structures as historic structures and their equity can't rise because they're part of our affordable housing program. So I would love to have staff better define for us what are the benefits and burdens for affordable housing owners of affordable housing units if their structure is landmarked because we have put affordable housing into landmark structures in the past I think without a very good understanding of that. So that's my number 11. Uh moving down would be number 12. I am fascinated by the fact that for the first time that I can recall in my time in Boulder, we are doing an identical statistically valid BBCP survey and the

[115:00] same survey went up on BH heard Boulder for community input. And I would love to see a formal evaluation of um what kind of input did we get from the different types of surveys? How were the answers different? like if we had just had be heard boulder versus the stat the statistically valid survey are we getting different answers from those two different tools and what lessons can we draw about how to better use those qualitative tools like be heard bolder um because my suspicion is that you're not going to get the same analysis of results from those two tools um so I'd love to see some kind of formal evaluation of that and put that on the work plan um my number 13 and this is the one I was going to suggest potentially combining with Kurt is we just did this site review update and do some kind of evaluation look back at that and see are the new criteria working as we have hoped are you know one of the reasons why we did that update was because we got input from the development community that they wanted more regularity more

[116:01] predictability less subjectivity in site review are they happy with what they got so I'd love to see some kind and and at the time that we adopted those criteria there was um uh an intention declared by staff that yes, there would be some kind of evaluation of how well that's working. And so I think this might be a good time to do it since those are 2 years old. Um and then my number 14 is very similar. We did a bunch of code updates in 2023 for affordable housing and ADUs. I'd love to know, are we getting more of those products as a result of those code changes? It might be a little early for that, but um are we seeing any results from those code changes? So those are mine. All right, back to facilitation mode. George, >> tell us about your um so so mine is about area plans. Um as I mentioned, sort of I I view planning board as a strategic role as well as tactical and um I I think we need to we need to be

[117:02] championing area plans. um and at least bringing them to council and having them understand what they are and potentially um putting together a process where they begin to select the next things that they want to go after. I chose Diagonal Plaza as an example of um something that uh was rushed and now we've got this um luxury uh apartments that have been put up there um because uh the community kind of pleaded a housing need. Um I urge you guys um and council to look at the cost of these apartments um now that they've been and what they're marketing them for. it's it's um it's pretty high. Uh and we need an area plan, I think, in that area as well as potentially others um to really create a strategic vision

[118:02] of what we're trying to accomplish. Um so that's what that's saying. Um I have others uh but um in a in an effort to try to distill what's most what I think is most critical um that's one of them. >> Thank you, George. And then uh Claudia is next and George if you want to add more to the list you can. Um I'll I'll talk about how we are going to prioritize this in just a minute. >> Sure. Thank you. >> So Claudia. Okay. So in making my list I was going for some bigger themes and issues and less on prescription for how things are done. Um I think in theory that's why we are putting things on the work plan for staff. >> Thomas, can you scroll down so we can see that? [laughter] I'm just giving you my preface though, Kurt. >> Great. Okay. >> Um, [laughter] so again, not a lot of prescription here, but um, yeah, the the idea being of course that things on the work plan

[119:00] staff will study and identify the best approaches. Um, a lot of what I've been thinking about um is related to creating higher quality neighborhoods with an emphasis on multi-unit housing in the areas that we're adding it since that's a lot of what we are dealing with here on planning board. So, some things on my mind have been single stair reform. Um, I'm not familiar with the details of the state law that's coming into effect soon, but I think this is critical for designing more livable multi-unit projects and especially um multi-unit homes for families. I've been thinking a lot about this concept of over retailing um and dealing with what is emerging as a a glut of commercial and retail spaces in our built environment. We've had a lot of discussions about this in various site reviews on this board. I think we differ in how we'd like to see the problem addressed, but I think we do have some agreement that vacant ground flooror spaces are a bad outcome um in

[120:01] areas that are redeveloping. And I don't see that problem going away in the near term. So I think that would be worth some council and staff attention. >> Hey Thomas, can you zoom in please? Sorry to interrupt. Of course you >> Yeah. >> squinting super hard. >> I've been thinking um about shading and cooling um and how we design landscapes and building sites. um particularly I think this is kind of the flip side of some of the work that has been happening around um firewise landscaping, water-wise landscaping. So starting to think about city programs and site design criteria that create andor protect high quality and high impact landscaping in more urban environments. And then a topic that council dealt with at least in passing in the last year which is um figuring out more how we do investments in the public realm and how

[121:00] we fund those investments. So we as planning board uh through site review and area plans we have some capacity to address the public realm in areas of new development and redevelopment but that's a very limited reach when you look at the context of the whole city. Um, and I know that in the last year, city council researched a public realm tax. They did not find strong enough support to run it. But I would like us as a board to encourage them to continue looking for ways to improve and maintain our public spaces, those spaces uh that connect our neighborhoods that connect our developments going forward. Thank you, Claudia. Okay. So, let me just describe a little bit of the process I would suggest for narrowing this down. Um, and and George, if after you hear me describe this process, you want to add more to the list, you certainly are welcome to do that. Um, or if you want to stick with just the one item that you think is most important, that's fine, too. So, so there is a wellestablished and mathematically

[122:01] validated facilitation tool called N over3. And this is a tool that is used for sorting large lists and prioritizing large lists. It's similar to dot voting. Um, but the idea is that uh whatever the number of items on your list is, that's your n and you divide that by three. And so in this and that's the number of votes that you would get. So in this case, if we have 19 items on the list, you divide that by three, everybody would get either six or seven votes. I would say let's go with six. Um, and then each one of us would vote for the top six things from this list that we think should be in this year's letter to council. Doesn't necessarily mean that we think that it is the most important thing for planning board forever, but in our judgment by whatever criteria we want to use, we think it's the right thing for this letter. Right? That will cut. So if we we um we each gets six votes and then we will take the top third of the list, right? So the top six

[123:00] vote getters. Now we have a list of six and if we need to do it again, we do it again and over three vote again and then that will show us our top two to three items, right? And then from there we can have a discussion about how many items do we want to put in this letter and who's going to write them. But that is a way to to get a really clear sense of the group of where people's priorities lie. And usually everybody will end up with at least one of their top priorities making it into the top list. Does that seem like a good process for figuring out what goes in our letter to council? We can also if we don't like the results of the vote and we want to argue and say, "Well, I really think we should also talk about this," we can have that discussion as well, but it will at least give us a good sense of where the sense of the group lies. Does >> that process work for people? >> I have one clarification about an item before we >> Yes. >> go on but but first to answer your question. Yes, that sounds good. My

[124:00] specific question is about um Claudia's item regarding single stair. My understanding was that has to happen in the next I I asked about the the deadline for this and I can't remember what it was but it's within a year year. >> Yeah, it's it's state law and my best recollection um is that uh it's mid2027 or end of 2027. There was a little bit of time. So we will be doing it you know regardless. So that might be happening anyhow in which case >> December 27 Charles is quick on the draw. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yes, Mark. >> Following on to the single sare question. Does the state law is it like parking you shall do at least this or is it like graywater you can do this if you want or you can opt out entirely? >> Pretty sure it's a thou must. Yeah.

[125:03] >> So, would it be fair to say that that item is on staff's work plan for next year anyway? >> Okay. So, we could still have it in our letter to uplift it and put an exclamation point on it so people could vote for it if you think that that's something you want to do or you could not vote it for it because it's going to happen anyway. So, but Claudia, I think we all agree with you that that's a really important item. I also before we start voting on the list want to give us the opportunity if there are any items that we would we have had second thoughts about and want to strike from our own list or if we want to combine items and so Kurt I want to suggest combining yours and mine together into one item. >> Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. >> Maybe putting your part because your part is sort of an evaluation putting it at the beginning of the item and also >> if it were to actually happen at the beginning of the process. >> Yep. So, Thomas, can you put our list back up? >> I just emailed it to everyone on the board. I can also put it back up, but

[126:01] I'm thinking it's going to be >> Yes, that's fantastic. So that we can scroll around. Love it. Great idea. Um, it hasn't come through for me yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Um, if you could go ahead and display that list whenever you're ready. We could also potentially put it like in a shared document so that we could all look at it and see changes as they happen. Maybe that's >> I think we're not allowed to all work on it together, but we could watch it in real time is what you're saying. Yeah. >> Thomas, can you put the list back up on the screen? Yeah, I'm I can't do both of these. Um,

[127:02] at the same time, I was making sure it went through on email. >> Gotcha. I did get it. I think we have received it. So for number one, could you please add the word evaluation so that it reads site review process evaluation, streamlining and clarification that I think like that's sufficient for me, Kurt, if that's good for you. And then on my list, if you scroll down to my list, you can strike uh number 13. and just take it off entirely. That is I'm not going to I don't think we need to bother reumbering. Don't bother because the numbers are still unique. >> Can I ask Kurt a question about number one? >> Of course. >> Um, didn't we recently go through a

[128:01] process where we talked about streamlining the site review? Am I remembering this? This was like last year. Well, there was a major rework of it. Um, Laura was saying it was within the last two years. I thought it was longer ago than that. >> I think it was 2023, but I could look at the code update. >> It was our first it was in my first year. It in fact, >> it was one of our very first meetings that went seven hours. >> So, I'm wondering how this is different. >> I mean, we worked on it then, but it was adopted in 2023 according to the >> Oh, okay. updates page. There is, if anybody didn't know, there is a page called uh um planning and development code changes for the city of Boulder where you can see a list of every single thing that they have changed for the past like seven years. >> Oh, interesting. >> That's amazing. >> Wow. >> Yeah, >> we should send that out to us. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> So, it was 2023 is when it was actually

[129:00] adopted, but you're right, Mark, that we we worked on it for like two years before it was adopted. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, well that's a good question. No, Mason. So my understanding of sort of the history of that process was it was started by a previous council and there were I guess you would say some competing goals. Um, and so there was not full consensus on really doing a a thorough streamlining and um then a new council came on towards the end of the process and there was some push as I recall to kind of start again with the new council priorities and they decided no, you know, this we need to to close this off.

[130:02] And but it wasn't really consistent with the goals of the city even at the time that it ended. and a and that staff did an amazing job dealing with sort of this these these competing needs and pressures and political interests and so on. Um, but really it felt like it because it was started under different premises and with different goals, it didn't it it wasn't it wasn't skating to where the puck was going. It wasn't even really skating to where the puck was. It was skating to where the puck was before the last pass kind of. Um, and I will also add, Mason, you may be remembering we did a process simplification and code cleanup this

[131:00] year and that did touch upon the site review criteria, but it wasn't a major overhaul. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, are there any other items on anybody's list? >> So, um, I I I added one thing and this I just threw together pretty quickly. it needs to be massaged. But I think Claudia's uh point brought up um an interesting topic that we've been talking a lot about at Planning Board um that I I know we we we need to figure out how to address as a city, which is this ground floor commercial. Why it's being built, what's being built, h and when it's being built, how to make sure that it gets activated, right? Um and there are there are different carrot and stick um strategies. These are some of them. But the reality is what I want to say here is um we need we need council direct staff to look into methods of activation of this space um

[132:00] both the carrot and the stick side as well as what Claudia is saying about how much of this space should be built. Um so uh that's that's the idea here. Um, I can get into more detail or less detail. Um, but I wanted to put it up there because I thought your point Claudia was an interesting one and this is sort of a different view on the same theme. >> Okay. So, just just to make sure it sounds like George and Claudia, you both agree that these are different items that Claudia your item is more about should we be building as much commercial and George's is more about if it is built, how do we activate it? I I mean I would be happy to combine the items if it's not prescriptive what approaches take and I'm trying to identify a problem here that we've been dealing with a lot as a board that I think deserves a round >> I I agree with you Claudia I don't know that there there are different items I just kind of threw this together um but I agree with you that that it could conceptually be combined um as an area of focus

[133:02] >> I think if this if this is identified as a topic that we as a board want to put in the letter. I would be happy to work out the the framing of it in the actual drafting of that letter. >> Okay. It does seem like it could be one thing where you do an evaluation of how to better activate ground floor retail and then if we still have too much, how do we, you know, retool what we require so we're not requiring as much of it. So, if folks are okay or amendable, I'm going to suggest that for the purpose of this vote, um, we make this one item around ground floor retail. Mark, >> I'm gonna dissent and because I um I think George's is fine and I I think he's done a good job saying what he wants to do there which is very prescriptive and and to me we have a much more basic problem that

[134:01] Claudia's addresses which is are we uh requiring an over an an abundance of ground level retail that we shouldn't. That's one question. What to do with it? What shape is it? Is it white box? Is it what are we telling landlords to do? Lease rates? It's like that's a that's a very different question to me. So, um and I think they're two different questions. Well, uh, let me let me just I'm going to step out of the facilitation role and participate here to say that as as a planning board member, I do think that they are related because one of the questions that I have is, you know, why are these spaces vacant? Are they vacant because there's too much or are they vacant because they're not activated correctly? Right? Are we do we have the wrong incentives, the wrong um

[135:01] sizes of spaces, the wrong locations? Right? So to me, this is more of a like the first step would be an evaluation of why do we have too much vacant retail and then we go to the solutions which are activating what we've got and cutting back on creating excess. >> I I agree with that perspective, Laura. I I think that that's that that's I I I threw this in there, but to your point, right, I think the first question is um Claudia's question, which is what are we building? Why are we building it? Is it too much? Is it too little? And then why are the reasons why these spaces aren't getting occupied? Um and there are a lot of reasons behind that that need to be understood so that we can create good policy to make sure the spaces that we are building are getting activated. I do think it's all kind of one animal that starts with evaluation. So, if folks are okay, I would propose that we combine this into a more simplified version um that starts with evaluation. So, Thomas, could you cut this?

[136:03] >> I'm going to I'm going to protest again and I'll simply say one is about code and code requirements. The other is much about >> I just I don't want you to get caught up in the detail of my thing. Oh, wait. Let me defend. The detail of my thing is >> Hang on. Hang on, George. George, let's let Mark finish speaking. >> Yeah, I just want to be I want to be very I don't know if Mark's hearing me. The detail of my thing doesn't matter. We could reword this a million different ways or not word it at all because I think to the point is what is what Laura is saying. I'm happy to delete this because I don't want to be prescriptive. I just wanted to throw out some examples. So that that's all that's I I just wanted you to understand that that I'm not trying to be prescriptive here. I just threw out some examples. >> Okay. So Mark, I'm going to make a suggestion and we'll see if this meets your needs. But if you want to speak now, please go right ahead. I I I simply want to say that I support us evaluating

[137:01] code requirements versus market based marketbased solutions or forcing people into solutions that we really don't have a business even talking about. So Claudia's question is are we requiring too much? That's a good question. I think beyond that we are we are drifting out of what our code requires and into prescribing whether is George George's detail or not prescribing what it is that we expect um these landlords to do with this space and I'm not interested in that. So that's that's my concluding remark. >> Okay. Thank you Mark. That's very helpful for understanding where where your thoughts are coming from. So, let's let's leave this one alone for now. Um, Thomas, can you scroll back up to

[138:00] Claudia's statement? Um, ground floor commercial requirements over reattailing and or project level versus zoning district level mixing abuses. Um, George, if you feel George and Claudia, if you both feel like this can encompass this idea of evaluating why we have vacant ground flooror retail and problem solving about it, maybe we just add those words. So, Thomas, if you could just add to number 17 um at the beginning, evaluate uh evaluate potential causes of vacant ground flooror retail and consider changes to ground floor commercial requirements. That's That's already there. That's

[139:00] already there. The ground floor commercial retirement. Does that Does that meet >> Yeah. the need? >> I I would for for me I would add on to evaluate policies that the city could implement to um activate these spaces. Right. So that's to to Mark's point, maybe that's what he disagrees with. Um, but I think these are handinhand issues. There are causes and there are and as a city we have ability to make policies in order to change the outcome um to what we want to see as a planning board and as a city. >> Okay. So, I'm going to just out of respect for our time here tonight, go ahead and add this um as a potential piece of this and then if this does get selected, then we can do some word smmithing together. Okay. So, um put

[140:00] Thomas, if you could put a period at the end there, district level mixing of uses and then say consider policy changes to better activate ground floor retail. George, does that fit the need? Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. >> And then does 20 go away >> and then I think >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. All right. Anybody else want to potentially strike one that you put on the list and now are reconsidering once you've seen the magnitude of the whole list? Okay, we now have 18 items on our list divided by three. that is six votes per person. So, um keeping in mind that item number what was it 14 that I had submitted went away.

[141:02] All right, folks. Take a couple minutes, choose your top six, and when you have your list of six, give your numbers to Thomas. And Thomas, if you could help us compile that. >> Can you Thomas, can you email this list because I can't see the whole thing. >> Oh, yeah. >> It's he did email it. >> I emailed it before. >> Okay, Greg. Got it. Perfect. Thank you. >> Last 10 minutes. Yeah. >> Just the new changes that we just made won't show up, but they're pretty minor. Just keep in mind that number 14 has been combined with number one and then the changes that you and Claudia made. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I'm um Laura, are we what are we doing with our selection of six? We're noting. >> Okay. So, here here's the process. >> Emailing Thomas. >> Either email Thomas or put it in the chat, but pick the numbers of your top six. Okay. >> Okay. >> Knowing that we will probably cut this down one more time. >> Sure. >> We're probably not going to send a letter with six items, but pick your top

[142:00] six. And so just so we're clear because now we've we've changed numbering in the document that we're looking at versus the document that's there. Right? So 14 is gone. >> We didn't we did not change any numbers. >> We just eliminated one. >> You just eliminated 14. Got it. Got it. Thank you. That's that's helpful. >> What was originally number 13? >> 13. Yeah. I apologize. It's number 13. Unlucky number 13 has been stricken. >> But all the rest of the numbers remain the same. >> So choose your top six. take a couple minutes >> and I think if you guys just want to verbally say the numbers as well that might work. >> Okay. And I'll I'll keep let's do that. That's a great suggestion, Thomas. So, pick your top six and then we'll read out our numbers. >> Yeah. Yeah. Wait. Put a hold on it and then we'll wait till everybody's ready >> for the family.

[143:31] Should we maybe just put stars by the ones as they come in? So, what I think I'm going to do is I have put it made a page with each number

[144:00] and as people read off their top six, I'm going to put your initials by that number and then we'll be able to compile from there. >> Like a spreadsheet only just tick marks. >> Exactly. Except I'm not going to use tick marks. I'm going to use your initials so they can go back and say it was Kurt, it was Claudia, it was Mark. >> Okay. >> Um Wow. Okay. I'm so glad you're helping us with this tonight. >> And >> I'm glad you're glad. It's always a bit of a muddle, but we'll get there. >> I apologize if I'm picking 14 or 13. Which am I picking? Sorry. [laughter] >> Uh, strikeout 13. >> Okay. >> 13 has now been combined with number one. >> With number one. >> Yeah. It's around site review. So just adding an evaluation component to number one. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Wait, I I was voting for 13. The 13 is

[145:00] gone or is it >> 13 has been struck and that's now number one. It's combined with number one. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, if you want to go back and look at site review, >> still putting it next to your name. Okay, >> that's fine. It's number one now. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yep. Were we reading them out or just sending them over to? >> Uh, not yet. Hang on. Everybody pick your six and then we'll um I'll check in and and see when we're all ready. Okay. I'm not ready yet. So, I can't facilitate if I'm trying to do the exercise, too.

[146:48] Has

[147:00] everybody picked their six? Who needs more time? >> Ready to go. >> Everybody ready? Okay. Hey, George, let's start with you. >> Okay, >> so read off the numbers slowly. 1 7 9 10 15 17. >> Thank you, George. That is six verified. Hey, let's go to Kurt next. 1 2 4 6 17 18. Thank you, Kurt. Hang on one second. I'm just counting. One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay. Thank you, Kurt. Claudia, four,

[148:00] six. 9 15 17 and 18. >> Correct. Thank you, Claudia. That is six. Mark one, four, >> please. Wait, pause. >> Okay. >> I'm still recording, Claudia. >> Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. No. >> Um, go ahead. >> Okay. I'll I'll start over again. 1 4 8 9 17 18. >> Thank you, Mark McIntyre. Mason. >> One 2 8 9

[149:01] 11 17. >> Thank you, Mason. Okay. And mine are 1, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 17. All right, thank you everybody. So, we have some clear top choices here. Uh, number one got five out of six. Number nine got five out of six. Number 17 got all six of us. Those are our clear top three. If we want to keep going down the list, we have one, two, three, four items that got three members each. And those are number four, number eight,

[150:00] number 15, and number 18. So we have three kind of top winners and four that are tied for the next place. And so our top winners were site review evaluation streamlining and clarification number nine which was uh Mark's idea about missing middle housing evaluation and number 17 which is the Claudia George combo about groundf flooror commercial requirements. Okay. So, um, and then the the PE the ones that were tied for the next place. Let's look at those, too, just in case we want to throw one or more of those in. Number four was updating the DCS. Number eight was the pre-approved housing plan sets program. Thank you, Mason. Number 15 is uh George's idea about prioritizing area plans. And number 18 was landscaping

[151:00] designs for shading and cooling. I see Brad has approached the mic. >> Yeah. Can I give you a quick update on the DCS? We do have that on the work plan uh item. And by we, I mean the city. Um mostly led by I say transportation and mobility. Um but we also have had to make a decision to push that out a year just with lots of other work plan priorities that kind of sorted out as we did work planning this last month or so. Yes. Um my question is when you when we talk about the DCS is a very big thing and actually updating specific chapters can be a big task. So were you talking about uh the chapter uh Kurt was referring to or was the DCS undergoing a monumental overhaul? >> Oh yeah, thank you for clarifying that. Maybe I didn't read what number was that one again? Um that was so I didn't

[152:00] actually refer to the chapter and I should have but I was really referring to chapter two which is the transportation standards >> the street design standards. >> Um it the goal was a comprehensive review. So I you know maybe maybe this is more discreet. So I'll I'll just leave it at that then. >> Yeah. Thanks. Well, given that I am perfectly happy and would be Yeah, be I think that number four then should be stricken struck. >> Okay, we can take we can take that >> stroke number. [laughter] >> This meeting just got a whole lot more interesting. >> Strike out. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. And I'm just making one quick note to myself here and then I will um make a suggestion. Can I say something in the meantime? >> I uh number 15. No, number What was yours? Mark >> nine.

[153:00] >> Nine about missing middle. I I feel that that's an extremely important thing to be dealing with. I did not vote for that simply because I felt like a lot of the changes may be contingent on changes that will be happening in the comp plan, including the changes to the land use map descriptions and the um yeah the land use map descriptions and potent and the land use map itself and potentially some policies. So my only concern about that is that this coming year could be a little bit premature and we might go through that and then possibly have significant changes as a result of the comp plan and really be in the position where we sort of need to do it again based on those. You know, I I I'm not defending my item

[154:00] or encouraging. I think that's a that's very valid point. On the other hand, I think that the BBCP shouldn't be confused with our code and inclusionary housing requirements and the kind of numerical dollar figures that drive developers decisions to build luxury student housing and uh permanently affordable units with BHP and there's nothing in the middle. And you know in my discussions with developers and stuff it's that it's not the BBCP that is driving this this this der of product in the middle. It is it is um specific code requirements. >> Okay. Well that's very helpful because I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. >> What are we trying to get to here? How many >> Yeah, great question. So our charge was to um submit our ideas. We didn't have a

[155:02] specific number that is required. In fact, we're not required to write a letter at all, but we are encouraged to keep it to under two pages. And um so we can decide how many items we want to put on the list, right? And again, the the way that council will use this letter is to inform their thinking about their work plan. So there's power in only including a few things because it puts more emphasis. On the other hand, there's also power in including more things because it might trigger somebody's idea that they want to advocate for. So I think it is really up to us how many items we want to put on it. And we know that we feel really strongly about three items as a board that there are three items that all of us thought were rising to that top level. But we don't have to be bound by our vote results, right? This is non-binding. It's really up to us. So I >> and for better or for worse it seemed like from those examples that staff sent us and thank you for asking for those though in there there were like a couple

[156:00] of high priorities and then a few additional priorities which seems to me like a pretty good way to structure it. >> Yeah. I I imagine as we think about these, even if we were to limit it to just the seven that are currently highlighted on this page now, could probably find a way to structure it to maybe include all these. For instance, number eight could be rolled into number one, having, you know, predefined approved plans as part of streamlining site review perhaps, um, etc. So I think it might be worth rather than spending more time trying to narrow down further to really take this list and go back and think about it for a further discussion. We could we could also give the drafter some dis I'm sorry I didn't anyway. We should also we could also give the drafter some discretion as they start to write this and say I I just we don't have enough information or

[157:01] I can't quite get my head around this particular item, you know. Um and and give them some leeway in terms of what to combine or not to combine or what to include or what to just say. These are also things that we thought were important. >> Yeah. And I'm um so one one way that we could do this from here, right, we we have two more meetings and and the last meeting we get to do as much word smithing as we want because we have all night according to Charles. Um we can have a drafting party and uh liquor may or may not be involved. But um one way that we could go from here is just to say, "Hey, we have we have seven things. Let's do a draft a draft write up of all seven in a paragraph or less. Bring it back to the next meeting and then decide where to go from there. If we want to include all of them, combine some of them, drop some of them. Right. I do want to point out though that staff have an extremely busy year this year, especially in the planning department

[158:00] with the BBCP update. they're doing a lot and uh in 2026. And so I think we want to be a little bit modest in what we might think could go on the work plan, but it it is also a great point that George made about planting seeds for the future and having a long-term perspective and maybe trying to define some small piece of it that could move forward in the next year if it's something that we think is quite quite good. So, what do folks think about the idea of just going ahead and having each of these seven items written up maybe individually by the person who proposed them and then we bring them back for the next meeting? Yeah. And then Claudia and George, you could work together on the one that you you combined if you so choose. >> Uh, yeah, be happy to. >> And Laura, we actually combined you and I combined one, too. >> Yeah, I think ours is pretty straightforward. But yeah, we could work together on ours as well. I think as long as we're not >> having three people talking about the same topic is my understanding from Hela.

[159:01] Okay. Chair McIntyre, is there anything more that you would like from me in terms of facilitation of this item? >> Sue, um, were you thinking we would select drafters tonight? >> I was thinking that each person would individually draft what they proposed. >> Oh. with the exception that if one was combined those two people would work together. >> I see. >> So we're doing the we're doing the seven. Is that the plan? >> The seven. So they are number one about site review. Kurt and I will work on that. >> Number >> you want just you want to just assign these names and and just put it in Thomas. Could you put that in email for us that way that we have it? >> Let's do it. So number one with p pertaining to site review is Laura and Kurt. Number eight as pertains to the uh we struck four because it's in the work plan already. Yep. Four gets struck. Number eight, which pertains to the pre-approved housing plan sets. That's Mason. You've pretty much already

[160:00] written it up, but feel free to modify and try to maybe get it down to a paragraph. Okay. Uh number nine, this is yours, Mark. Okay. Number 15, this was George and uh oh, this is prioritizing area plans. So, George, this was you. >> Yeah. >> Number 15. >> 17 is Claudia and George about uh ground floor retail. And uh 18, that's you Claudia, landscape design. Okay. All right. And then what's our >> [laughter] >> big ideas. >> Yeah. >> Pays to think big. >> Three things to write up. Good for you. >> Thomas, could you please give us a deadline of when we need to get this to you so you can get it into the packet for our next meeting. >> We send our individual pieces to Thomas by >> need to be packet since we're still

[161:01] drafting. I don't >> I'm not sure if it needs to be since we won't be making changes. Well, but we're going to need to be able to see it at that meeting to discuss it. So, >> could could it go out the Monday before the meeting and we could discuss it at the agenda meeting in its whatever form it is. So, if we said the Friday before the Tuesday, >> let let's give Thomas a little more time than one day to put it together. So, maybe by the that Thursday before the 2nd, what's that date? >> That would be Thanksgiving. Oh, the Wednesday then before or the Tuesday. >> I'm a little sensitive to packing this in because of travel coming up over the Thanksgiving week. So, uh, >> is there a way that we can acknowledge the break week? >> Can we just How about by the end of this week, right? Because it's just a paragraph or two that you have to send. So, if we send to Thomas by the end of

[162:01] this week, that work everybody. Okay. By close of business Friday, Thomas, we'll each get our individual pieces to you to compile. Please. And you just have to put it in a document. You don't have to write a letter or anything. Just put it all in one document for us. Okay. >> Just >> that we do need to include in the packet. Do you Does anybody have feedback? >> What do you think? Since we're still drafting it, is that just something that if people need more time, we could compile live kind of like we just did with this. >> Um I I think one of the next posted agenda should include the letter drafting again just like you did for this one. Um, I think it you can certainly supplement the packet later, but everybody is going to want some time to review probably and maybe prepare

[163:02] suggestions they want to make during the next meeting. So, it it really kind of comes down to that. >> Okay, sounds good. Whatever works best for you. What? But so the Monday, Thomas, I the Monday the fir December 1st or we're meeting on the 2nd. Monday, December 1st. Again, we're sending you paragraphs. You're just putting them in a you're not editing. You're just putting them in a document and then would it be a packet addendum that he could send out Monday afternoon? I I just think you >> Yeah. I I I agree in general with Mark too. >> Okay. So by by Monday morning, the day before the meeting. >> Sure. >> Like >> 10:00. >> Yeah. >> 10 o'clock Monday the 1st. >> 10:00 a.m. December 1st >> is our deadline. Okay. >> All right. >> And so I'm sorry. The plan is to have more discussion on the 2nd as well as

[164:01] the 16th, >> I think. So I think just want to make sure. >> Yeah. I think that'll make the 16th go a lot smoother. >> Yeah. ML have feedback although she's ML might have some thoughts to add. >> Yes, absolutely. I think we should take advantage of every opportunity we have and get it right. Okay. So, I'm just going to summarize what I think the plan is. So, we have assigned who's going to write each a just about a paragraph for each of these items. We're going to send them 00 a.m. December 1st. And if folks are amendable, I might just write up a little memo of what these things are and send that to Thomas and he can compile them inside that memo. Right. So that it's people reading it who see it will know what these paragraphs are, why we're doing it. Right. Right. So I'll just put some framing around that. I'll send that to Thomas along with my one paragraph >> and uh that's all going to be compiled

[165:00] by Thomas for our meeting on the second. And then on the 2nd, our goal will be to finalize what topics are going in the letter and choose two people to tidy it up. And then on the 16th, we can do any last edits. Sound like a plan? >> Sounds good. >> All right, back to you, Chair McIntyre. >> Okay, Laura, thank you so much for doing that. I I know I would have been much more flustered, so that's great. Uh any other matters from the um director or the city attorney? >> Nothing from me. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Nothing for me. Thanks. >> Wow. Okay. All right. Um I feel like we everyone's clear on when our next meeting is and in fact what the main topic is. Uh any other debrief, comment, anything from the board?

[166:02] Okay. All right. We are done before 9 58 and we are adjourned. Thank you very much everyone. >> Thanks everybody.