Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

here. Yes.

Last time you had to formally go to it. Um, so the group requested uh that we come back and this is the design document. It's flashing 2026 for unknown reasons. Um but uh you ask that we come back kind of we don't have a formal presentation. We have the document. Uh we're happy to go through it chapter by chapter if there's specific things that you want to look at. Uh we incorporated uh plan commission's feedback from the last couple of meetings at the end of last year. We also did uh another couple of weeks of public engagement. uh we only got about four responses on the survey and we didn't get any other uh feedback of the other mechanisms as well. Um so we tried to incorporate a lot of that uh to the extent that we could. There were some things that we couldn't people asking us to reinstate the 1% growth ordinance, people asking us to annex Globe Park, things like that. So um so we incorporated as much as we can. Obviously, um the design document, there's a couple of things that we still need to add in. Uh and the designer right now is doing a very hard proof, uh read of the whole document, uh which we did a little bit as well. So, the intent is to come back for formal consideration and do our public hearing for adoption on the 18th of Feb of March. We're sorry, 18th of February. Um and then we would take it to council on the 17th. But I think a lot of that just depends on how the conversation goes tonight and if there's substantial changes, how quickly our designer can turn things around.

17th of March to go to council. Yes, we picked the best days to go to council.

I would also highlight like so staff recommended um another goal uh to really emphasize the characteristics um detailed in our form zone um code that was adopted and you know continued support for that. Um, but ultimately, you know, planning commission, if you feel comfortable with where the draft is at and that, you know, the changes that you request or any discussion from tonight, um, that you feel comfortable be able to consider those, um, as kind of a a recommendation, um, as we finalize it for your public hearing. If you're not comfortable, um, we'll continue to work on that and, you know, see about moving that meeting. But ultimately tonight, you know, I think it's a are you comfortable with a go no-go decision to bring this to for your consideration in a formal adoption hearing. Um, so but that's ultimately your, you know, part. So staff, you know, we have our recommendations. Um, and but it's, you know, your document. So, um, that's tonight's conversation. and any additional, you know, things that you want to see. Um, major things, you know, but little things we we are comfortable that we could get you a final document for that adoption hearing

on that schedule that Matt mentioned.

Yeah. And it's worth noting that extra goal that came out of Carl's team kind of going through a couple of test cases for utilizing this document for a development review case. Uh, seeing how it went and that was something that was requested of us by city council. Uh so that kind of resulted in some tweaks to language and then the additional cooling. So uh we've used it a little bit and are happy with where it's going at the staff level. So yeah, I guess I look look to the group if you want to tackle by chapter if you want to tackle large topics easy either way. Is there a a preference on the commission about um whether we go chapter by chapter or whether we do it more topically?

I had a just a a process question which was like when I read through half of the document full disclosure not read the entire thing yet. Um, but when I read through the first 50 pages, I I found a number of like just mechanical typographical things that I would want to suggest, but those are pretty like nitpicky. And so would would be better just to send like a doc to you with Yeah. Okay.

And unfortunately, we're working out of a PDF right now is the easiest way for us to communicate with the designer. But if there's broad trends that you see like you know Oxford commas would be one just you know make sure that there's Oxford commas then you know we'll go back and and take care of that don't have to call out every instance. So if you see trends of just right you know this you know we can incorporate that into our final uh review. Yeah. Okay. I've been thoroughly ragged by my colleagues for Oxford usage nonusage. Maybe another process question. Um, have has it been determined whether we're approving this or adopting this? And you're adopting and council is approving per state statute.

Excellent. We've sent it out to all of our adjacent jurisdictions within three miles as required as well to get their feedback. Any feedback? I just sent it this morning. Okay. So, we'll we'll hear

we gave them two weeks and told them the public hearing's coming up as well. Um, which was also a fun time to realize that Lakewood is actually adopting their comprehensive plan on almost the same schedule. Uh, and we have not seen any of that either. So, of a good opportunity to reach out to them. And I I will say from it usually um you send that and get comments back um especially when there's a future land use map um and looking at that with you know our plans on our borders versus our neighbors and at the you know Golden does not have um we are not adopting a future land use map as part of this plan. Um and so you know we we don't anticipate um you know comments to you know come back in any level of concern. um knocking on wood of course, but um that's usually when you see um potential comments back coming from other jurisdictions is when there's some you know discrepancy in future land use map plans um on those borders, but um Golden we don't have that issue. So

yeah, but the intent would be we'd have any comments that we do get on the 18th. Um Jeffco has reached out to us specifically about South Golden Road um because they're in the process of figuring out how much housing they can put on that corridor. Um and so Carl and I are going to be meeting with to kind of talk. I think their strategy is much more targeted than our strategy for South Golden Road. Um and we're curious to also hear about their transportation assumptions and plans because that has a huge impact for us. So good. I'm glad you guys are involved. That's that's excellent. Great. And you might see that in more detail at a, you know, neighborhood level plan, um, rather than at the comprehensive plan, which

yeah, it would basically overlap with kind of the South Colon Road neighborhood. To answer your question, I I think chapter by chapter would be probably my preference just kind of going I mean, I've got tabs on mine, so I can kind of follow along. Okay, we'll go through. So, does that does that work? Good. Does everybody like our happy couple cover photo? Do you know who that is? No, I know some of them and I stripped some of the council members out and previous photos. I I was told that this is a former planning commission member. Is it? Oh, nothing. I'll ask Brick. Bricks never said anything. So,

okay. I maybe I don't know. This is an actual photo in Golden. Yeah. This is down in That's a playground Eagle Ridge next to. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, we uh yeah, that we we've avoided that classic planning issue of like here's your photo from France uh kind of thing. So, all right, I approve it.

I even hyped up a hog back to get a photo uh for economic development. So, we'll have an acknowledgements page. We have had a note from the mayor, but so the chapter page. Um these pictures obviously all sync up with cover photos um that we'll have for each chapter as well. Um so we have our introductory chapter local photo I think it's the south table um actually north table. So yeah chapter one and again I think to point so yeah like any hard typo stuff we're were on that. So, um, if there's content changes pending for chapter one.

Yeah. Page seven. Cool. Sorry. Double here. Sorry. And are these should we do PDF page numbers or document page numbers? They generally align. Since I don't have a PDF, I will be telling you what I'm seeing. Yeah. No, they generally align through like some sort of miracle that we did not actually point them. Um, it was always planned. As you can see, we need a better quality photo per the designer. Um, it was surprisingly difficult to find a photo of this plant's cover. So, anyway,

um, just the the last paragraph, it says, "When utilizing the plan, these values are guides to ensure that no recommendation is made that would significantly clash with the overall intent of the stated Golden Vision 2030 values." that kind I was like we want val we want recommendations that wouldn't clash. I feel like we would want recommendations that are in harmony with the uh overall intent of the Golden Vision 2030 and continue to promote those values rather than like just assuming like hoping that they don't clash. I feel like just Yeah. Maybe um that are in alignment with Yeah. something like that or support. Yeah. Sure. I will admit I stole this verbatim from actually Golden Vision 230. So I will uh I

we can always do better. I know exactly. It's a you know old document. So we'll update that. So in alignment or in harmony uh something along those lines. Yeah. Thank you. Promote. Yeah. Same paragraph. Um uh first sentence has GV space 2030. Second sentence has GB no space 2030. And that's that's that inconsistency kind of runs throughout as well. Sure. Good catch for I mean I know it's small but it should probably be no space. Um I find in my transportation planner roots sometimes spaces highway.

Yeah. The definition in the at the top of that has it no spaces. Yeah. That's an easy page. Um, it you can go off there. Go ahead. Page five of the dock. Um, uh, let's see. Second lesson's um, brewery located outside downtown Golden. Do we want to say outside downtown Golden or adjacent to or when we say outside it sort of makes it seem like it's not part of the community in my in my read

it kind of is downtown Golden isn't it? I mean not within the city right I think that's probably what you're intending city limit versus like a place you know census designated place kind of thing. Yeah, we can change it. I think and it's interesting because like the economic development study that we did or the economic uh analysis, they went through the same thing and they include they ultimately decided to include cores and they no it's not us but let's be real. So impactful. Yeah. It really is downtown. But I think it'll also with level setting of what can we can we vision for that brewery and the answer is so

yeah there's no there's no but there's definitely they're obviously here they are golden okay other comments on chapter one know who this guy and his kid is um guiding principles on page eight that um paragraph you've got two twos ironically. I see it. Yeah. Okay.

And that sentence doesn't actually grammatically make sense. Our two structural principles are again I will uh fix the sins of past planning documents here. Okay. Page 11 of the doc and this this is kind of systemic um im the images that are included don't none of them are captioned. Yeah. Um and this one is maybe I started thinking about it, it's the most

Yeah,

it's not clear what it's saying, right? I mean, I I I read the narrative. The narrative is accurate. It talks about what relocation of certain business, but the the I mean, picture the pictures in general outside of the intro section and just what's the character of Golden. I think, you know, this one stuck out to me. You know, why why are we showing there? Why why isn't there a caption that describes what it is? It feels a little I mean, in I guess that's a bit of a reflection on the document as a whole of let's not use I mean let's use images and do the work to tell if and attribute them and put captions or not use them as filler, right? I mean that's one that's one easy fix. I don't I don't know what everybody else feels.

I was wondering the same thing about that same image. Wondering because it's because Miner's Alley is what's written about, but Meyer is what's featured and maybe we want to privilege what's present versus what's past. Yeah, we could look at putting captions on the photos. I think that's fair. And obviously, we included this one because it's showing the highlight. This is an example of there used to be downtown daily service businesses and now there are not. And I think we all know that, but a reader, we can make that clear. They can help tell the story. Yeah. Yeah. What is considered central golden?

The middle roughly. There's a central neighborhoods plan that's like downtownish and everything roughly down to the high school. It's a very nebulous concept for sure. Um, but the reason I use the central golden neighbor, we try to use that whenever we're talking about that downtown and like adjacent neighborhoods. And I think the folks that live in the neighborhoods closer to the high school consider themselves still part of that like central golden kind of component. And so we I think generally thinking of the city of north of 58 that central part to kind of fossil trace and then everything sprawling out to the south.

I think the technical boundary if I remember is Rimrock Road along south golden road is kind of that um southern edge of the central neighborhoods. I when I first started there is a neighborhood map for the city and it's like 75 neighborhoods which I think practically is nobody views the city as like 75 distinct neighborhoods and a lot of that's more like there's a PUD that is a neighborhood subdivision.

Yeah. Whatever it may be, sorry. Anything else on chapter one, pages 14 and 15? Um,

wondering if there could be some sort of description about I mean I I I mean I know where those statements came from that are capturing each of the photos, but but they seem a little um like they're hanging out there with with without like an anchor. There's there's not a description of I mean like it it's alluded to that it's public engagement, right? But then when it comes to what's written, I wonder if we would want to say something about, you know, featured below R. Sure. Um,

we could add something to the bottom of page 13, I think. You know, to be, you know, we point blank ask people uh what they love about this city and like, you know, this is what we heard from the community. Um, this was, you know, again, I'll be We shamelessly kind of borrowed this from Crested Beth and they had some language too of like, you know, there's the plan and the way we view ourselves, but this is like the way people view Yeah. our community. So, I think that's what we tried to to capture here. We finally got the photos, I think, to hopefully clos more closely match here.

Some of these are a little challenging. We found just to have a photo that really hits on it. Sure. go out and take a photo. So maybe on 13 since the paragraph that's there refers to indigenous people and historically then another paragraph that sort of link it I would probably put it below that introduce the photo.

Yeah, I'll do that. The indigenous paragraph was specifically requested by ready the task groups to add that. So I think we can add we can tweak this page to make all that flow appropriately. Maybe they need quotes. Oh yeah from people. Yeah. Just make it clear. Yeah, we could add quotes. I don't know if this is an actual word or not, but on page 13, the heading is this area has been home to indigenous people since time immemorial. Is that an actual word? I

think so. I think it's just kind of going back is meant to indicate kind of pre current history, pre something like that. Another recommendation throughout would be to decide if you want the paragraphs to be left justified or Yeah. that with the designer. Yeah. Because some are indented and some are and then whether or not there's a space between paragraphs. Yeah. And that'll be a stuff that'll get flagged on the proofread for sure.

Yeah. Um, on page nine, I really appreciate this presentation that really gives a good capsule summary about plans and so on.

I think it's a is a good way of starting the making the connection between comprehensive plan and everything else. So, that was a nice a nice addition and presentation of that. Just surprised how many plans we've done. Yeah, I really like how chapter one is and how it kind of sets the framework for everything else. So yeah, we have some nitpicks, I think, but you guys did a really good job putting Yeah, I'm not hearing anything too concerning. And I just actually caught myself. Thought I caught all this

on that same page, page um nine. Um is it the 2025 parks and recreation master plan or will it be the 2026? That is a good question. And because they adopted the open space component last year and now they're still doing the parks component. So we could change it to like 25 to 26.

I I don't even want to tell you what the plan the date on this plan in my files is labeled. Have to update that after. Okay. Page. Other comments on chapter one? Move on to chapter two. Thanks.

I don't have anything until page 20. So, if someone's got something sooner, um, let's see if I can on page Oh, it's 20. Sorry. You go first then.

On page 20, um, first paragraph, uh, development cases is the term. And then I think throughout the rest of the text the word is proposal. And I wonder if that would be if it would be helpful to just use proposal throughout because that's what people are actually doing, right? They're they're proposing a development um just for ease of reading and just consistency. And then development cases is also written down in the first paragraph under preliminary platting. Cool. Well, uh

I mean that that that might be a terminological difference that you want to set aside, but No, I think you're finding that staff is clearly it's a interchangeable word for us. So, uh we'll change it to proposal because you're right because you're recognizing that they are proposals. And mine isn't necessarily an edit or anything else. is just I I caught that uh the comprehensive plan will incorporate a future housing action plan. Yeah. Um and so since it's going to incorporate the housing action plan that will go through the same process as the comprehensive plan, we'll have to adopt it and then the council will approve it.

Yeah. So anything that would be so like a neighborhood plan or anything that's kind of a component. Yeah. and talking with Lauren McKini. We're she's wrapping up the technical addendum to the housing needs and strategies assessment and that has to provide the legal basis for the housing action plan. And so we're tech we're assuming we're going to get consultant support later in the year and our team will kind of help on public engagement and integration into the plan. Okay. Um that's the goal. I think we're also kind of waiting because Jeffco is starting to take a little bit more of a leadership role on housing and so we're trying they're in the process of doing some formal policy work. Lauren's trying to get a sense of like where they're going before we do our local thing.

Nice. We participated in the Dr. Cog housing process that they're doing right now, but ultimately did not find that they were providing a lot of value uh to the city. uh it was more focused on larger communities and as happens with Dr. Cog efforts at times we're kind of on the edge of their thinking and we don't always get as much attention as we would give ourselves and just for everyone that Dr. August is the Denver Council, Denver Regional Council of Governments. Sorry. No, I just not an actual doctor. Um, and just a uh

a note on the uh the H&A. Um, I plan to bring that um send it out to planning commission um uh after kind of the comprehensive plan part um along with that addendum um and have uh Lauren also join to uh preface that. I just figured um rather than sending it I know we we've talked about it just um only one 100page document to review by planning commission at a time. Thank you.

But we're generally we're hitting all the milestones thus far that we have to under state rules right now for uh preparing all these things. So that's the most important part I suppose better regulatory perspective. Um, also on page 20 on the right hand column, the third bullet point, the example of a proposed vacation seems pretty esoteric to me.

This is another one where we stole it from the current comp plan. We do use it, but I think we can maybe revise the language. Um because there are instances where it's like if somebody were to ask like can we get rid of this alley if there can we get rid of this road connection we would want to make sure it's not impeding future projects. I'm I'm just not sure that vacation is a I understand the use in this context, but I'm not sure I'm not sure that it's very necessarily clear for

a lot of people. And I I'll I'll speak to this one specifically. So in the vacation of ride-of-way criteria um under chapter 1850 um alignment or um come you know uh I I can pull up the specific criteria but it does talk about alignment with the comprehensive plan. Um and so I think when we looked at that it's kind of a vague criteria and what does that really mean? And I think we're using this opportunity to say, well, you know, it doesn't, you know, block off a future connection to a a subdivision that the PL the city was planning on or some other like, you know, piece there. Um, just since the the criterion, the actual zoning code is not doesn't give us a lot of guidance. So, we were trying to add just a little piece

for when we do have to invoke that particular one. You just feel like people who are going to be reading this aren't going to understand what vacation means, right? Yeah. some other example or third or something. Yeah, Carl, I mean, I think your explan explanation some of the things you added public right away just building it out might bridge the concept. Okay. Like Hawaii or something for this new sidewalk.

Other comments anybody has for Chapter two. I really appreciate the graphics on page 22. I think they're really helpful and it's kind of a one stop way to interpret, you know, if I was thinking about a proposal, how it might do or not do one of these things. So, Kudos to the design team there. We've been very happy with the graphic design that they did for this part.

And I think staff is anticipating that this, you know, takes it out of a binary choice and gives it a little bit more, you know, a spectrum of competing values and just, you know, hopefully make that process a little bit um clearer when that decision is made. Chapter 3. Uh my comment is on page 31. Um, it's supposed to talk about the historic preservation program report and the uh the core values and key WP themes are all about the water supply and water demand.

That's weird. They don't Sorry, they have it. Sorry. I'm sure that they do. It's just I caught that. So, when I was putting the report into it was a tricky thing because it's not really a plan. It's a just report. So, aren't like adopted values per se and what Lauren Simmons is working on right now I think is more the

more the manifestation of that stuff but I know we wanted to at least capture that as the basis uh in here and well past kind of moves forward an embarrassing one and then Anyone else has anything? Page 33, just some of the dates of the plans are inconsistent. Yeah, this is one where we asked them to update the graphic and now you actually update the graphic. Um, yeah. So, I caught that myself. Perfect.

On page 28, do we need to define CAPA or has it been defined above? Good question. I said as somebody who doesn't know what keer is, please don't ask me what kepper is. We'll define that.

I think it's I'm not sure. And then the other comment I had for this chapter was in each of these plans or at least in most of them in the last paragraph, the last sentence or the second to last sentence, it says something like proposed developments and users of the plan must I wonder if we that should be like set like bumped out and called out so that people who are drafting a proposal can can know what they're going to be held accountable to. um to propose developments and users should consult the whatever plan for specific guidance.

I mean seemed like that was that that's consistent language for each of the it is. Yeah. And I wonder if that would be helpful. Yeah, I think I think you're right. We'll find a way to highlight it whether it's highlighting or spacing. Uh and to follow up the commission for accreditation of park and recreation agencies of course as we all know on page 29 it's maybe the same the problem you had pointed out it's the sustainability strategic plan but then the oh TMP yeah the right two shaded boxes have tmp sorry one sec which uh

uh page 29 working too fast here. 29. I think you're

sorry. That's so weird. All right. Another general a general typographical comment was just to go through to make sure there's either decide that there's going to be two spaces after a period or one space after a period.

Another thing you found that my colleagues have raped me. Yeah. Yeah, just to be clear, I'm an Oxford comma guy. So, I'm not apparently

and I'm a two spaces guy. Other comments on chapter 3 on page 33 in the main paragraph at the top where there's the parenthetical statement policy not regulatory documents. Do we should that parenthetical statement be actually after these plans versus the comprehensive plan? Because it's the it's the plans that it's referring to are policy, not regulatory documents. Right.

I mean, I would argue just take it out. That's even better, right? Yeah. I think this whole document is policy not regulatory. So I think we need to flavor the point here. Yeah. Okay.

Ready to move on to chapter 4? Let's do it. A nice example of photos we can pull from drone footage that we shoot when we go out every once in a while.

Jen, did you have something? I Yeah, mine was further down, but I can certainly Why are you calling me out specifically? Do you know that I'm gonna say already? No, I don't. Oh, so I'm gonna But you've been a great lead for

Oh, well, I'm going to bring up what we discussed back on what, November 5th. Um, so it used to be goal H5, now it's goal H6. Um, I think we had talked about modifying this to kind of have it be support context sensitive construction of diverse housing types because I, you know, I don't know that we like just want to have a whole bunch of housing, you know, at any cost all over the city. I think we need to make sure that it's the right type of construction um, in different areas of the city.

The notes I had were that staff needs further guidance on what that means because I think context can be challenging in our zone in our form based code provides some of that integration with the existing neighborhood. So I think if there's something specific that we want to either encourage or avoid we we could use guidance from the commission. I just think the goal is written is not something I think I think we need to further refine it uh personally but that I would love to hear what my other commissioners have to say.

The goal came about at the request of council. So I think yeah there is a balancing act. I think they want to see more housing construction but I think they would want to see that context as well. I think we can add that.

And I might just also offer from, you know, when this might come into play from a reszoning um criteria or a special use, but like there are additional regulatory criteria that planning commission may consider um when looking at that. Um, so while the goal itself could be more broad, some of that additional criteria might help um, you know, with that context sensitivity. Um, but also if you know you would feel more comfortable with just a, you know, I I think from staff's perspective, we have that support through the regulatory criterion. we could show that or add a little bit more context um in the the planning commission adoption packet to say you know here's the places where um you know you might be able to lean on that context sensitivity through existing criteria in the code but also welcome a conversation from planning commission if they would like more more you know things added to this uh goal specifically Can you speak a little more about your concerns?

Sure. Um, so it it says support construction of diverse housing types across all income levels and housing types. I could see a scenario where this goal uh kind of dominates and I I know there's other criteria we used to evaluate but I could see a scenario where this goal essentially leads us down a path where we are um you know and and I feel like we already are in a lot of ways having these conversations of you know having a bunch of uh you I think infill is good but again I I think that it needs to be contextsensitive and I you know there's we have the formbbased code for this reason and I think that those are our uh kind of our guard rails at this time but I think that you know there could be a scenario where this goal would support the removal or expansion of you know development in in form areas. I I think that we just need to all be aware of of uh you know where where this could take us without maybe having some sort of other consideration in place. I you know and maybe this is unfounded and maybe we have another bunch of other things to protect us from you know a bunch of I don't know large duplexes all over the place. Um, but you know, I would I would rather kind of talk about it a little bit more here so we can lean lean back on it in the future.

Could we just simplify the wording of that goal and just say support construction of diverse housing period? Does that

we could um the income levels was requested by ready um so that's one thing that we put in and just tell you that as as background um and I think housing types was again I think that was really intended to recognize all the different form types that we have now where it's not just multifamily it's not just single family it's the diversity of the form types that our envisions and allows.

What if we replace support with um thoughtfully consider proposals for the construction of diverse? I mean, is that sort of what you're getting at? Like it's it's putting some kind of like pause around just supporting. Yeah, I mean that would be better. Um yeah, I just I think this is a very important goal. We need to get it right.

Yeah, I don't have a I don't have a smart to propose. I agree with the concern. I agree context is could be an important word to plant in there because it's I think it deserves to be more explosive. I just thought that was support construction. It is it's all it is a bit presumptive like that would that if if proposed comes in and leads with that that there's an incumbency that everything else falls in line. So yeah I I I didn't read it with that the first time. So I think it needs a scrub. I don't maybe need to I don't know if we're the ones to edit it but I yeah that resonates with with me everything that's come up.

Do you have a suggestion for I don't have a Not I don't have a smart

but I I I think we're you know support is kind of a very strong word. Is that what we want? Is is there something else instead of like adding the context sensitive piece in there? I don't know. I mean I think you're right. Like there's maybe having some other wording proposals that would be a better fit. If I might offer another place like we plan commission could say no please change this goal. Another place might be adding just another bullet point under that because I think in some of those those are additional action pieces and that might be a place where you could have you know when evaluating um you know development proposals or something um consider context sensitivity and you know some of those considerations as well. So, you know, it doesn't modify the goal per se, but it does add a rounding uh bit for um that consideration as another potential piece. But, you know, I just to offer that as a potential place for um a modification, but

I would feel I think that's a reasonable suggestion, but I would want the the line underneath to be a little bit stronger then and say ensure that context is considered or some or something like that. I I I would

I think we just want the bullet points underneath are actions that we take to achieve that goal. So if it's so I think if we're talking policy language, we want to put it in and whether or not we can we can go back and see uh see if there's a way we can tie in um to some of the language that we've put here uh within the chapter. Um, I'm sure we if the word if support is so kind of what I'm hearing is support sorry uh support and adding some amount or some language around context And I guess leaning into having form based outcomes perhaps where there's not form based zoning. Is that the right way to put that?

In our PEDs basically. I mean I feel like and I would even refer back to form based zoning because that's I would refer back to like neighborhood context. I think that's because again form-based zoning I think that we're already starting to kind of explore what other things could look like in those areas and I you know we have to really understand what the current you know neighborhood architecture looks like. Um and I think that when we're encouraging new housing or supporting construction of new housing in these areas like we also have to consider the houses that currently exist. That's kind of my point.

Is it architectural or is it larger? Because we could tie it back into the neighborhood plans. I just worry because context is a nebulous term and I don't want staff and the commission. So, somebody's like, "Well, of course I need the context of the neighborhood." Like, I'm a single family home that everybody doesn't like the aesthetics of. Um, but if we want to tie into more of a how things are built, how the housing and just how the neighborhood envisions itself and knowing that our neighborhood plans are slightly on the older side, but I still think found a lot of value in them. Okay, that could be another alternative as well.

Another suggestion would be potentially um rather than maybe context sensitivity with a consideration of context Um therefore it doesn't you know maybe weight that priority but it does potentially expand that aperture. So we do look at context when making these decisions without necessarily um weighting it towards you know one outcome or another. But at least it's a having that into the broader consideration um would be another place. I just, you know, I think in some of these places adding I'll let planning commission continue to their deliberation. What if um like a word was added in that was sort of a qualifier like support um inform construction or thoughtful construction or appropriate construction

and then I would probably just get rid of across all income levels and housing types. Sounds like that was asked for by ready though. Well, but it's already included in goal H4. Yeah. Sorry. No, I was going to say this just the same. I mean, rather than modifying construction, it's absent in H4 support workforce housing, parallel construction on H6. Is it better support diverse housing types just to solve the support? I mean, is it a question about support or construction? And now when I look at H4, I wonder if it's construction.

Oh, so H4 should be support construction. No, I'm say take it take it out of H6. Oh, just support diverse housing types.

Yeah. I don't know. I'm I'm thinking out loud. I'm trying out. What's the difference? Is it support that's a problem or construction that's a problem? Maybe it's both. I don't know. as this alternative phrase. What about encourage development? I mean, it's it's I don't know. Yeah, I'm just thinking it out. I mean, we're we're searching for solutions, developments, neck. I don't know. So, kind of what what Carl and I are hearing right now is revising something to kind of qualify, maybe that's not even the right word, uh, that term support, but I think just supporting within the context of the neighborhood seems like not just tying it to architectural outcomes, although that is part of it. Um, and and then having some recognition of the kind of how H4 and H6 are combined. I think staff can go back and take a crack unless there's a specific edit that folks want, we can take a crack at it,

but I don't know if it'd be easy to send something out before. I mean, unless whatever discussion we need, but if coming back with the staff will come back with the draft, it' be better. And sorry, this is another photo that hopped out to me in the same context. Is this

when I look at the photo in context with the goals, it's it feels like that's that we're pitching a sol that the image pitches a solution and I don't think that's I think that's not accurate. So, I found the goals I find the photos when they're nested, you know, when they're nested in the graphic design with the goals even more problematic. And I can't remember how many there are, but I think you have Yeah, this is the coal. I think we tried because a lot of our rental support like for our supports for the other stuff like this is

No, I know I mean I get it. in one day, but again reading it as a an applicant, I'm trying to figure out if there's if this is, you know, if I'm my development ideas fitting golden, it's this immed, you know, it's I think it's misplaced and and is there a particular type of photo you would want to I wouldn't use I wouldn't use a photo in any of the goal pages as a starting point from a design standpoint. if you want to use it to to move it into the front matter discussion of that's a good point those other housing solutions and you know what's been going on that could be used.

I think you're right. I mean I think that any photo you use sort of you know sway or leans leans the context. Yeah. It's part of the visual story. Yeah. It's it's associated with Yeah. do that. And uh Matt, I did like your idea of tying it back to the neighborhood plan potentially. So like I I think that that should be on the table, one of the things that you're kind of thinking through because I'm not super familiar with every single neighborhood plan. Neither am I.

Or very many of them at all except for the one that I helped adopt. Um so yeah, I think that might be worth um as part of an evaluation of any new housing to kind of call back to the neighborhood plan too.

For sure. Yeah, I think that's a a great point. I think with this, you know, reading goal H4, um I think the specific call out to workforce housing and affordable housing like that is intentional to call out those AMIs. Um and I think yeah, we'll definitely I think calling out the neighborhood plans is probably the way to go with uh revising H6. Yeah, it'll be interesting because it's all cyclical because a lot of our neighborhood plans were like we don't like the outcomes we're getting. So that was why we did the form based code. But I think the the reason why they didn't like the outcomes they were getting is pretty well captured in those plans. So

are the goals and the actions are we had this conversation a few meetings ago. Um are they shall or shoulds? They are uh well they're not. Yeah. So none of them are shalls. They're things for really staff to do. Um, so I guess they're shallows in that way, but they're not like a shallow for a developer per se. Okay. Okay.

Then a quick conversation about H5 because it's absent the bullets. I mean, I get I get the conversation and well, it's not imperative. I guess it's still a goal, but secure a funding source, a city-based funding source. of all those that reads as a pretty big imperative. I expected to see more build out of that. But yeah, I mean that's one that council asked us to put in because they are I think they're tackling that right now. Figure out how they want to fund that local affordable housing trust fund. I mean maybe

we could put something in of like support city, you know, I mean like really do it. Yeah, I think it's fine to put that in there if that's if Yeah, if it's a it's a top down leadership role, I would put that bullet in here. It was one of those weird ones where it kind of like blends between goal and action. It's like it's so big it has to be recognized, but at the same time it speaks for itself. Um, you know, it's like we should do this and council is moving towards doing it. It was really an active conversation parallel to the time of this

comprehensive plan was being talked about and reviewed and so on separately that was an active conversation. It may be a good example of a goal that we modify when we bring the housing action plan because I assume we will have much more robust conversation about funding mechanisms in that plan and then we could either we know it by then or it's we tweak it for like how we're going to move forward on that. And again it deserves a bit it deserves a couple of bullets just building out what you we almost move down the second bullet from H4 to H5. Talk about

we could Yeah. But I think you know specifically I think the way workforce and affordable housing is the financing is layered in a lot of projects uh there was a request to kind of specifically call out how we have to call that out but I agree that we can probably just duplicate it um or something along those lines. Yeah, I can see if McKenna has any additional uh

perspectives that we can I apologize on housing goal H6. Uh the second bullet does talk about uh consistency with neighborhood plans. I would still ask you kind of think about what that initial sentence uh says and if there's any way to kind of just clarify um the goal we identified development regulations. the second bullet point under H6 you said or sorry writing um listening simultaneously

yeah maybe it is maybe it is uh yeah that the the construction that's supported is consistent with the neighborhood plans but I mean that's essentially the form code we could pull that up into the goal language itself is that what you're looking to do um potentially yeah I mean I would feel more comfortable with it that way. Okay. It's almost as if diverse housing and consistency or consideration of the context is are almost equal.

Yeah. Themes. Yeah. I mean obviously we don't want to support like just run away like every any and every development and so I think we can kind of clarify that but we just want to avoid getting into a situation where somebody could use use our own words against us I think neighborhood plans are specific enough to car staff leverage we're just going to make everybody read like 3,000 pages of planning documents before they submit a proposal to the city. You better get to know Golden. Exactly. I mean, honestly, it's probably not the worst thing that ever happened. Make him a podcast.

Do you have anything on housing? Yes. Funny you should ask. I would love to hear it.

Speaking of using our own words against us, um I want to flag a concern I had on uh page 43, the kind of the intro to housing in Golden. um as it's written right now, it kind of risks implying that certain populations are less desirable to the city and that we're trying to exclude them. Um and I know that that's not true about the city of Golden. Um but I think it reads that way and it could come across as saying like especially the word intentional policies. I mean that to me sounds very accusatory that the city of Golden is intentionally trying to keep out other races. So this is another instance where ready asked us to verbatim add this and I don't think that was their intent. I think it was more to recognize the way the mortgage industry and real estate industry traditionally made it more difficult for residents of color uh to live in specific neighborhoods. Um

which has nothing to do with the city of Golden.

I don't think that's 100% accurate. I think every city has had to deal with that. Um I think it's I think it's it's something that every city's dealt with at some point. I can certainly go back to ready and go back to their their staff leaison and relay these concerns and we find a way to kind of word it because I agree kind of as a forwardlooking statement and that's kind of where we're at in this chapter. We don't want we don't want to make it sound like this is a current problem that we are addressing, but I think the stats that they quote are are accurate and that, you know, home ownership is more of a challenge for for people of color. Um, so I think I did work with them on the specific language.

Yeah. I mean, I just that last paragraph to me doesn't belong in the comprehensive plan. Okay. Um, and I know that there are some stats being cited, but you know, again, this is for the city of Golden, and I found that this whole page is talking about the state and the county stats and not necessarily city of Golden. So, I would recommend that we try and stay focused on our city when we're talking about these things. And there may not be statistics for that, but

and I think to Matt's point, it's, you know, how do we add context for a future looking? But there are, you know, examples I came across and I'll I'll go double check and find it, but in the um platting and generally it was the 19504s and 50s of which we do have subdivisions coming in at that time. It was either written into their covenants and I found a plaque with a specific note that these houses shall only be sold to members of the Caucasian race. Yeah, that's from the 40s and 50s,

not held anymore. But you know, I think these are we see these in in the planning that they are echoes of the past that these barriers of segregation while they're not intentionally anymore, but they are, you know, continued forward in a number of cases. And so, you know, I think it's how to write this in a way that does, you know, also acknowledge that past because it is in golden.

Yeah. I I just think we need to try and make sure that the tone aligns with our goals and not accuse the city of intentionally keeping people out. I just that it just doesn't I'm not feeling good about the city of Golden when I read that.

I don't I don't read on that. Um I mean, I don't I read it more historically. I mean, it brings up a lot of questions. So, I'm not I think the bigger question is does the contextualization fit because that that there is but I mean that's systemic in this document. I mean just to make the conversation bigger if it's if if it's in or out my you know whether it belongs in this document I think is a bigger question just to recontextualize each section or not. I mean rather than like I said I appreciate Carl's they are facts are they facts that influence the future we should probably be reading we should go your question makes me want to read reread the whole document and be more systemic about that because there's a lot of contextual It's a question of how much to be contextualize and I don't know maybe that's the conversation to have rather than about this particular one. It probably could be, you know, maybe building it out if it is fact-based that might help the concern, right? But then the question is if it is factual per for Carl's point of view, it is is relevant context and again I think that needs to be we can't I wouldn't I would suggest that we don't you know that that needs to be systemic that we don't edit in and out things that in history we're comfortable with our company. Right? That's a better question.

I I did a similar impression when I read the text. Um this section and then the section up above that uh relates to um the original inhabit inhabitants of this land. Both both comments I think are important contextually. It did feel a little bit like somebody said, "Hey, we need to add a thing. Let's add the thing." Felt a little bit shoehorned and And I'm not sure because that's kind of what happened, right? You know.

Yeah. I mean, again, I think it's good stuff and it's trying to figure out where it is, but I think we can find ways to contextualize it and keep it factual if that's where folks want to go because I agree it is it's abrupt. I was trying trying to find a good spot for that that language that they wanted to have added and balancing that. So we can uh we can reassess. I mean the if we want to keep that language and how we where it goes. Another way to approach it would be instead of trying to like weave that narrative throughout is just to have like kind of a declarative statement somehow. It talks about history almost belongs like towards the top. Yeah. Yeah. Like a

the history saying this is kind of what what was what is our our intentions. I wonder if that would be I I like that idea and just kind of have because I think that it's not just housing, right? It's like there's a lot of things in this document that we're trying to change errors of our past and I you know I think someone said it like we want to look forward to the future. That's what this document is, right? Well, it's a plan while also understanding like we're there were some bad things. There were a lot of bad things that happened in the past like

we can acknowledge that and also say like these the what's in this document is is looking to you know rectify or like move past and and you know make it better um for everyone or something. I don't know. Yeah, I think I think you're right. Maybe I don't know how many places it is in the document. I think there's only two real things in this vein that we asked to add. So we can what I'm hearing is we could move that and the indigenous community statement kind of into a historical paragraph discussion in chapter one.

Yeah. And I think chapter one is having it up front might be okay place to if that's

that's what we want to do. We can do Yeah, I think one of my comments last time was kind of along those lines of like there's a lot of like framing things here and like a lot of statewide context contextualization. So, you know, how important is that? You know, if if you're I don't know just question page 44. Sorry to go back a little bit. Uh second paragraph, it starts with the thriving communities and community development divisions.

I'm guessing that means that should be the city's thriving communities and community development division. Uh yeah. Is that right? That said, okay, because then it refers to the division in the last sentence on the second half of that page. Oh, we could make a division staffs. Yeah, city staff.

I know. Painful to go backwards, but I just wanted Other comments on chapter 4 or comments on the topic of housing? Moving on to chapter 5. Is there anything that we or anybody was looking to include in particularly in regard to our relationship with the school lines that don't see here that that we should take a much harder attack and challenge their assertion that they are exempt from local

zoning. Definitely. Definitely. They do what they do. And I think that is the opposite of city management's perspective right now. Elijah, you don't want to I'm not going to say you don't want to get in on that. I mean, we just renewed ours, but I mean I think that's an evergreen comment that we get and it would require force of Elijah going to court. That's what I mean. Job security. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I'll go with you for moral support. So the way Rick puts it is we we choose not to keep Elijah employed. We choose collaborative if not perfect relationship with minds. So

yes.

So even if we suggest that it's probably not you are welcome to suggest it. I think it may be stripped out by city council. I don't know. We've got new council members. I think that would be pretty substantial change. Um, if you're looking for other places where there might be like an insertion of a ready recommendation on page um 49, I know I'm going in the opposite direction. Uh page 49 center column starting with investment in communities can cause displacement.

Yeah. Just just to flag that. Okay.

Yeah. Great. Okay.

Chapter six. I'd like to chat about the goals if uh that's okay with everyone. Do it. True.

Um I I really want this I want more economic development goals. Maybe not even goals but like expanding ones we have. Um I think we talked about this also in uh October, November. Um but you know we have a visitor-based economy and there's you know you guys do a lot of marketing to market the city. Um, you know, we just talked about how Kors is, you know, while it's not in the city limits, it's a huge player. Um, is there any way we can kind of associate some, you know, goals or, uh, I don't know, what do we call those bullets underneath?

Implementation actions. I mean, we could do so we could take like the work that Baxter and our new economic development manager do where it's like they're going they're partnering with the Chamber of Commerce and with Golden Civic Foundation on events and um we're host we could put something in here about events although I'd probably get tomatoes thrown at me. Um but um we could also put in like just the work that they do like we could recognize that and continue to you know attend events and represent the city and blah blah blah.

And I think it's more of like create Yeah. like creating because a lot of their work you know it's creating the relationships for like when there's a business that comes out of mines or wants to come into golden they know that it's out there and they can kind of bring them in. So uh we can definitely add some of that. I think I went back to my notes from last time. So as as well um but we had suggested that resource intensive land uses be limited to like data centers for example. Um I added some language and I think is it somewhere in there? Not in the goals. Okay,

it's in I think it's on page 63 at the beginning where we really talk about kind of our mission of economic development but then also of because really our overall economic vitality and development mission is we

we're not just like doors open we'll take an Amazon warehouse we'll take an AI data center we'll take anything that comes we really want to like we try to cultivate um opportunities that are consistent with the city's values and like take advantage of our location and partnerships with you know research institutions stuff like that. Um we could be more blunt about that. Um, I also because I mean I have my my own personal opinions about a lot of those larger types of resource intense uses and I tried not to put in language. I was like, "Don't even talk to us, Amazon. Don't even talk to us AI data center." Cuz

I know in my own area of Denver, there is a data center in Globeville, which is very small compared to like I think the perception folks have, but also putting in here that when it comes to annexation, when it comes to like bringing in a business, because we have businesses a lot of times be like, "Oh, we need all this water." And we're just like,

can't help you. We're pretty conservative and that's what we try to reflect where it's like we've been very conservative about how we allocate our resources whether it's your annexing whether it's your locating a business um since we control at least our water um and I think we're finding the limits like other communities have of what XL like we've lost developments because XL drags its feet um

and that's not unique to us. So, um, so I don't know. I tried to put it in there, but I also didn't want to just like go out and be like, "Don't talk to us if you're this specific type of business." Because there could be ways in the future that something like that that could be a resource intense use that we would want to encourage, but I'm definitely open that I've missed the mark on that. So, if there's additional language or if we want to put it in the goal versus um if we want to find a different home for the concept, we can definitely do that.

I'm just thinking how is staff going to use the comprehensive plan when they're evaluating an application? Are they going to go into the intent of e economic development and kind of I think this is more you know this kind of came about largely because we wanted and why one of the original comments was this seems too manufacturing and like commercial industrial focused

and part of it is because it kind of was because we didn't want to get into a situation where we were replacing those economic drivers for the city um with only housing and then not providing um the re the kind of the amenities that would be expected for housing. Um so I think and that's what our the that economic contribution analysis really showed like our economy is incredibly diverse. it kind of punches above its weight for a community of our size. And so having those commercial areas, whether it's like corporate circle or up north, like having those smaller spaces, we wanted to maintain those. Um, but I think when you get into like water planning and electric plan, like electric coordination with Excel, the zoning stuff, that's going to fall more onto our regulatory documents and onto the water our our water planning where it's we know pretty much how much we have, where we're going to allocate it to, how we we want to assume. Um, we've talked, you know, our our deputy public works director came from Vale and he's like, you know, the way we used to do our water planning is they would box out like we know we want in this, you know, we have a future area that we want like a degree of specific type of business. We're going to box out future water demand in our planning for that. He's like we could move in that way. We don't do that right now. But I think you would find we're not like coming to here where somebody's like, "Well, I'm bringing a cool new business." And I think a good example recently would be like maker spaces. We really wanted one, but we lost it to our mata um just because we didn't have the space for it. Um and that was a pretty recess low, but um but we weren't really like these goals. I

think this is more it could be more like how this group functions because we don't have like an economic development plan per se. So kind of capturing the work that they do and how it integrates um with land use and development. But from a regulatory standpoint, it's probably going to be different plans and different standards. If that's a rambling enough answer, I'll ramble along with

Thank you. No. Um, we'll ramble on. No. Um, and this is a bit of the work the planning commission did back with phase three in the overhaul of chapter 1828, our use chapter. We did, um, define data centers specifically, and then we limited those, um, as special use permits in C2 um, and then limited in M1, permitted in M2. So, those are our industrial zones. So you know from that perspective we would certainly look at resource intens intensitivivity. Um and also I think the the overall criteria that comes along with those um you know and I think from our perspective we're to get one you know we'll see where XL is with their capacity. Um, you know, I think there's just some practical factors that limit, you know, these hypotheticals coming ever really to fruition in front of you. But I think from a regulatory perspective, you know, we did add those provisions into the use chapter. Um, and then were we to get a reasoning, I think we're I'm comfortable that, you know, we have the tools to be able to say yes or no to something, um, depending on the context of it. So, and you know, the all those other goals that it comes up with. So, Yeah, that makes me feel more comfortable.

Elizabeth, it'd be worth adding a sentence in the beginning to position it. Economic development just the way described everybody described here that it's focused. So, economic development isn't just jobs or employment size, right? Um but this is is considering it that way and then as are the recommendations. So where my head is at is it's there are other important economic development factors, right? Like like visitorship and tourism. We're just choosing not to focus on those. And I I say that and I wouldn't be doing my job as a OE appointee from the state to not kind of make that point. We've you know the state has said economic development grant money to support foothills to support miners to you know we've been direct recipients of it and that's not acknowledged and maybe it doesn't need to be because we're we're defining it very specifically and very and I mean I think it's a little is a very it's a very definition, right? And we can choose to do that. I'm not saying we rewrite the whole chapter to make it big, but I think it's worthy of a I think it needs a sentence right up front to say these are the factors that matter for Golden because we're taking a very small slice of economic development relative to planning. I'm also trying to unpack all my different hats here and focus in on it and maybe so I can I can get on board with what we've done, but I think, you know, a sense of contextualizing is important because it's not only measurements that we

and you can see my uh placeholder here where I need to talk with Derek with our new community marketing manager and talk about that visitor based economy and it's been going slow just because he's getting his board set up but I think we and that board's taking a kind of a wider perspective of it's not just oh we're just supporting like downtown marketing it's no we are supporting like a wider perspective that's events that's our businesses that are here It's tourism. It's the visitation. Maybe they don't have planning direct planning manifestations. I mean, the way you've captured the other Yeah. local organizations that are involved in that. Yeah.

You know, I'm trying to Yeah. figure out does it does it live in a world where we need to address those things because they have planning impacts. It's not clear, right? Maybe it's okay to be focused. I I like actually where you're going because I I mean I'm also thinking about small businesses and, you know, like Sure. I think we should if we're not talking about goals specifically planning related then at least acknowledging that you know again providing context for providing context for our housing we should provide context for you know our economic development and and kind of where we are with you know the visitor based economy and and marketing and how you know

I I think just one other uh added point of context so we've been drafting a lot of this without a economic development manager in Um and they are coming on board this next month. Um and so this is a place where the date before we're into it after this. Yeah. The point being that as we go forward like this is a place where they might have you know places where they want to add in more robust things but at this time like do we want to put too many words in their mouth per se? Like I think it's an opportunity that we haven't had during this drafting process that we will have coming forward this next year as well. So just a piece there.

So an opportunity to potentially revisit and amend the plan, you know, if they come up with So what I take So what I take, Kevin, is we'll move that community marketing and visitor based economy discussion that I need to build out with Derek and I'm meeting with him early next week. Um, we'll build that out. We'll put that kind of in this front end section and we'll talk a little bit more about the organizations and just the partnerships that are part of that same as the the partnership here. So my my question was simply tiny. There is enough time to capture Gideon.

Yeah, we'll yeah. Yeah, I'll work with Derek and Rick and Baxter to get something pulled together because they've been largely the ones helping me write this chapter to date. We can improve it,

but I would see. But to cough, I think you'll see like the economic development program is going to probably expand and change a little bit once we have this new leader in. So here you go. This is the hard economic development work in this photo. It's challenging to find photos even from the chamber. didn't have a lot of good photos I could share.

Seems like we're moving on to chapter seven, I think. So, it's my second favorite chapter, Kevin. You know, Yeah. I mean, I I didn't follow that. I mean, I didn't like, you know, down in the weeds on this a couple of goals at it when I appreciated the work. I I didn't go through the exercise of, you know, distilling all that and, you know, giving you a concrete goal. So, I'm I guess I need to lean on everybody else to kind of reflect on my town in the weeds versus what are good higher level.

And I think Lauren tried to strike a good balance of what uh I think she heard obviously we heard and we we we process everything. we heard from the last conversation that she's looking at what what can kind of live in the comprehensive plan and that's she's doing a lot of this work simultaneously what could potentially be pulled into that pass forward effort uh from more regulatory standpoint as well um so I think that's the balance that she tried to strike and again did we strike that balance could we not

I mean just you know bold swass and I'll I'll let others pick up it's I mean I I did the concept metric came up as something everybody liked here in part of it. I don't know if I found that explicitly and again there are this is this is a section kind of like what J noticed in economic development. It's it's this has very few little buildout and again that's that's a question where it doesn't need it but it it doesn't have as much as many bullets as some of our other sections. So when you say metrics, you're talking like implementation actions under goals or

I just remembered from our conversation I had it it was part of the you know oh that's an important concept to bake into here because that's you know how you measure impact or success or failure to do better. Yeah, I think to Matt's point also like I think the balance that you know Lauren was trying to strike you know given that we have parallel efforts going that we didn't want one to get over at its skis ahead of some a lot of the engagement and you know public feedback that we're expecting on the other one. So I think that's just another, you know, component of that.

But to Matt's point, did was that balance struck? I can definitely get more context. It was help was very helpful to have Lauren here at our last discussion uh since she's the expert, but I can kind of go back to her and uh we can get some more context on kind of where she's thinking some of this stuff would live and pass forward if there's metrics or if we need to build some of these back in the comp plan, we can sort that out.

Yeah, I think these are all great goals and I think they're all very important. So, I don't, you know, if there's any action items that we can associate with them, I I would really encourage that. Um, for goal number one in particular, you know, I think I I would like to, you know, have a a bullet underneath, maybe like consider incorporating uh, you know, uh, architectural styles from historic overlays into the form zone overlays or something like that. I think we had talked about that. I don't one of our many many conversations um having a special kind of overlay district or uh something like that for the historic areas. Um but

that's a good filter. I think that I mean it makes me also want to make sure and have everybody or Matt staff in particular read these for the same the same scrutiny we were paying to have economic development. Do they have specific planning manifestations? You just identified ones. Others are

more broad, right? They're just context about historic preservation education. Is that I mean that's probably front matter stuff. Yes, we're going to rely on is that a planning specific endeavor or are we leaning on parallel boards to you know some of the other citations in there? I mean what what really are the planning distill it better to what where the overlap is between like style and form right? Yeah.

Yeah. Similarly on goal number six I mean I really like that like how do we get there? Like what are some what are some uh kind of action items and tools? Um how how do we focus on the rehabilitation of historic structures? um how do we keep people in their homes and help them, you know, keep the um existing housing stock and scale? Like I think that's incredibly important. I think preservation is something that uh past council and certainly current council uh really values. So I don't know if there's any kind of

Yeah, we'll go back because obviously we want any action to perfectly align given we want the perfectly aligned with what she's doing right now. But uh I think we can definitely put stuff in because I imagine there's implementation actions that we could attach to all these goals. There's comments on moving to chapter eight. This is a chapter obviously that is veryly addressing state requirements and we added tried to add yeah under state statute basically all those bullet points on page 74 like yeah this is what we're we're doing as required. We got some feedback on this one where people were like you're encouraging like green field redevelopment and I'm like well we're we're legally required to talk about stuff within the three mile boundary. So we could clarify that um for sure because it was obviously not the intent. I think the language itself was pretty uh skeptical at most of the annexation and it really ties in with the annexation report that council adopt actually does this board adopt that

we we approve it at least or yeah review it we yeah so like a lot of that stuff we stole and continued our our theme of we're very conservative when it comes to annexation we're not going to take you unless there's like a real good reason and that reason is usually fiscal so or interesting use so um so I think the lang the language to me at least read more cleareyed than yes we're trying to just have a bunch of green field annexation driven growth

and to clarify that council does adopt or you know approve the report um this last year uh there weren't really any changes So we have to send it to council annually. Um we did that without plan commission input because the report basically just changed the year but not any substance. Sorry we skipped you as a chat box. And again it's worth pointing out there's a lot of elements in this chapter also uh the city simultaneously doing a water efficiency plan. Um, and this plan is all the water stuff has been signed off by public works. And um, again, I know we talked about it last time, but there is a uh there is a line that our water attorneys have uh, told us for how much we discuss publicly uh, to avoid having problems from a water rights perspective. So, uh, the state legislation does give some leeway to that and we've leaned into that leeway, um, to really follow our attorney's guidance on the water stuff. Um, so I'm not trying to be koi. If you have any specific water questions I can't answer, but generally I think you find there's a little chapter or discussion in here, but I mean the city's been pretty heavily curtailing its outdoor water use uh through efficiency measures for a number of decades now. And uh uh indoor water use has been kind of going down by virtue of our more diversified, more multifamily housing. Uh that's been kind of our

predominant construction style for a number of years. So there's usually lower indoor water use associated with multifamily or multi plug in. Thanks, man. You can always tell when your Dell laptop starts to get old cuz this thing was at 100% charge an hour and a half ago. It's already ready to bite it. Yeah, that's the only problem with sitting over here. Thank you. Thanks Elijah. I appreciate it.

Cozy app. Are there other comments um in relationship to the chapter 8 from the public or Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I just want to confirm there's no comments on chapter 8. Okay. Hearing

I'll take it for how much effort we put into meeting the states requirements. 10 out of 10. Yeah. And then chapter nine is really a compilation. It's compilation Andrew stuff. Yeah. I mean just bold struck. It seemed like this one was not quite ready for prime time. I mean there's there a bunch of question marks. Page 93. Historic preservation still has four goals. I mean, this is just housekeeping, right? I mean, there's

Yeah, they should have done all this stuff and I've given it all to them. So, this is another embarrassment for me of they did not seem to incorporate everything. Um, but we flagged all this previously, so they they just didn't it. I mean, the importance of it is to map it to value change, right? Yeah. I mean really where racing the new goals will be uh the transportation land use uh community neighborhood and commute and oh yeah and parks and open space integration and then communities and neighborhoods. Those are goals that are not elsewhere in the plan but everything else should 100% just align uh with what the uh what we've already discussed in the chapters.

Right. I mean I guess the yeah I agree the problem or question was with is with things like question marks as if there was a goal or a goal that didn't distill up to well it's it's miss it's missing from some of the other ones like on page 92 goal H5 but that would be the problem right if for some reason we didn't do you need help from us Matt no that should be designer did Just housekeeping. Yeah. Yeah, that's a housekeeping thing.

And then from a design perspective, are in this chapter, are the little target um icons and the boxes with checks for the actions are they going to be replicated through the other chapters as well, or is that just something that's consistent for this? No, we should probably get rid of the target. And I guess it was helpful to have the implementation action. I mean, we could get rid of a target because it says goal. Yeah. Um, but I think um, we could add something. I I appreciate that they wanted to make clear and I whether or not it's like a check box. It's like not done, right? That's like like wow, these are all done. Yeah, mission accomplished. Should be a blank box.

I'm going on vacation. So, um, but yeah, I think we can change the graphic design for the implementation action, but I think it is just kind of since there wasn't a lot of discussion obviously, we just kind of dived into like we we can we could add something on page 89 to be like, you know, underneath each goal are implementation actions. I think we we could clarify that.

Yeah. And I I think just looking at this and you know one of the the values of this chapter is that you have all those goals in one place rather than flipping from chapter to chapter. And I I wonder, you know, revisiting a little bit the question about the housing goal number six, if the goal land use number 10, you know, with those two compared next to each other, if there's, you know, if that if that helps there, you know, or, you know, if we can maybe circle that up a little bit on, you know, housing goal six. Yeah. um with that one just to as a since they're now almost on the same page.

Yeah, I think we also want to get something where it's like if a development proposal does come in, they just want to have like a short form. Um yeah, I think it's really since we don't have the uh the zoning code now requirement of like you have to show how you comply with the comprehensive plans more just almost like a a way to make it easier for folks to see all the goals in one spot.

Just Just from a process standpoint, has council looked at this and provided feedback yet? Um because I I guess I I envisioned a scenario, especially with new council, um that they're going to read after we adopt this. So, they're going to read this and then have some changes. Um it might be worth getting their initial thoughts in a study session first. Maybe you have already. We did a study session with the old council. Um I think council I mean I guess I don't know legally how that works. if we get stuck in the loop with changes.

I know in the past like the most recent the 2017 comp I think it was 2017 um council made amendments to it kind of not on the fly necessarily but they were making amendments to that comp plan during the public hearing and depending how this process plays out it might look similar to that it might look a little bit different just kind of depends on when different things are finished. Okay. But that's within their right to do so. So it doesn't come back. So maybe that's the conversation we have. We'll cross that bridge if it happens. I mean,

we're hoping that especially with the continuity of council member Kinski moving from planning commission that, you know, we'll have that continuity that, you know, we have a a clean adoption. Yeah. And Rick's already met with new counselors and kind of gotten them up to speed on our department, what we're doing, stuff like that. Um I know Sandra's been at meetings um in nursing care though. So just to rephrase the possibilities there could be another study session with the new council of parallel I don't think we're anticipating

parallel but you're not you don't you're not envisioning that. Okay. At this time, we have not heard from any particular member that they are have a level of discomfort um given the conversations that they would ask for a pause in this process. I think they're all apprised of where we're at and you know where we're going and they trust and they trust plan. I think generally fair enough. We're doing all the heavy lifting. Given that chapters nine is maybe supposed to be that section of the plan where applicants might just flip to to make sure they're dotting all their eyes, do we need to restate the value themes somewhere at the top here or am I am I am I missing that it's there?

Well, we definitely, you know, for some saying includes the goals rooted public feedback and foundational values. Uh I think it says, yeah, we refer to chapter one for an overview of gold vision 2030. Okay. No space. Uh so yeah,

given that we make you know that there are references to those um I think that question about whether the values might be restated here just for easy reference and we do for each goal we've we connect it to relevant value themes. Right. Well, that's that's what I'm referring to that So, we've said val ABC, whatever. Um, it seems like it makes to have those repeated.

We could easily just replace the graphic on page 89 with Yeah. That's great. Yeah. Super minor. Does it did I again had a reaction to the It's not an emoji, but the symbol for historic preservation was the only one that brought me pause. I mean the cardart. Yeahart. I did it. Yeah. I was spitting on it for a bit. It's not Yeah. I just wanted anybody else spit on it. We can take a look at that icon. I Well, I think we'll have another I don't think it interesting. Oh, it included. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, we can we can change that one.

I like it. I mean, I don't dislike it, but I think it is basically Yeah, there's already two houses, so I don't know what you would put in there. Yeah. No, I don't either. I don't know. Like I said, it just How about angle evaluated? We do not recommend a change after finding nothing better. We'll put a link to farmhouse.

Uh page 93. Okay. Um just for consistency sake, page 89, last sentence, last line. Chapter 3 chapter should be capitalized. I'm sure that's stuff that you're going to catch, but just because it's right there. That's the thing our design is going to catch. You're right. Making them proof read. It's the weirdest thing with proof reading. No matter how many eyes you have on the thing, chances are, you know,

this is the proof rate. We did a proof read and it was embarrassing. So, uh, this is the pro partially proof read version. Could we then move back then to talk about kind of process from this point to the point? Sure.

Um the the proposal is that we would do a public hearing as early as the 18th. Correct. you we talked about a second date a week later date

and I know if we wanted to do if we want to change this I know commissioner would be there I mean I think uh we're we can always change we want to make sure planning commission's comfortable I think council's wanting to see that like their strategic plan's quarter one right now so we still have play within that so if we push a couple of weeks it's not a big deal but I think we've advertised days just because the lead time on the informer is so early. We've advertised the 18th. Obviously, we can advertise another date, but um but to your point, we would have to hold a public hearing. We've requested our adjacent jurisdiction um stuff. Uh city attorney has advised us that we need to advertise the public hearing and the golden transcript. Uh state statute specifically calls out a newspaper. Um which I found hilarious. I was talking to somebody Arizona today to place this ad. Um so um but um so I think that's those are the kind of the the statutory requirements for adopting this but I think if we if we need to shuffle it around we are getting kind of tight for council date following up assuming that there were no further changes amendments that you had at hearing but um but typically we'd want about two weeks because we will push on social media and weekly updates and stuff of like this is your last opportunity provide feedback um to the public. So

um but if we need to shuffle dates here and there.

So what I guess the the question for the commission is what do we feel we need in order in order to be ready um to feel prepared to do a public hearing. Um my thought is that this the study sessions and so on have been the the place for u discussion of substantive issues or changes or recommendations for changes and that sort of thing that the public hearing is doesn't seem to be the appropriate time for us to be talking about it significant change to what's presented. Um but I want us to be confident that we feel this is the plan that should go forward by the time we get to the public hearing. Um, and I don't one one suggestion that or thought that I had is that it I think it would be helpful it would be helpful to me hopefully to other people if we could have a a follow-up memo from the two of you that just outlines kind of the major topics that we've gone through tonight. um so that we're able to kind of focus in on that, be thinking about it, and then um coming back up with, you know, your suggested changes or revisions and that sort of thing.

Yeah, I've got notes. Uh and I think beyond just like the the smaller you know directed changes like the it seems like beyond the like change this to that obviously we're going to implement those but like the I guess the the larger conversations we can talk about how we incorporated that. Um I mean is that a workable um kind of piece of process anyway for for the commission?

I think so. I mean, it feels like the only item we may need to chew through is the H4 through the housing goals that that we won't have we won't we may have to do that during the hearing if it discuss and edit as part of our process. if we don't if we don't have time to do another study session.

I I do feel like two weeks is very quick, especially if we haven't received comments yet from adjacent jurisdictions and in case there's changes like I you know having an actual complete final this is it document in two weeks whether or not I'm here. I mean I it just feels like a very very fast turnaround time especially with all these like nitpicky things that we caught tonight. Can the editor really you know turn that around that quickly? You know, I I don't know. I' I've just I would rather give you more time than less.

It's actually a lesson only. Uh yeah, I mean I could make it work Slate's basically ready to go on this from a design perspective. So if we want to push it, we can makes my life easier. So I I think that's just from the logistics side like staff if we couldn't meet that deadline then we would be making that call to push this to your first meeting of uh March just from that logistics what if we could get it done you know that would be just planning commission if you feel comfortable like if we can get it done would you be willing to consider

from just a public notice because we're we're not doing like a separate public engagement process we're treating this as there's this is a public hearing like this is where you can kind of come and give your last input it and having the um because we've got stuff scheduled uh right now with communications. So I would say if we if we just want to push then let's just make that decision to push tonight would be the most helpful. Um it's a procedural question. I'm trying not trying to make it more complicated but if it was part of the agenda we will walk through certain amounts whether or not could it be continued with that? How how does continuation work with respect to notification you continue hearing?

Yeah, just need a publish notification for the next the continued hearing of course new there's timing. Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes.

I think that would be electronic notice through our our standard channels. I don't think that would be a rehearing of the the notice of the year you're at this hearing and it has been continued to the next meeting is usually yeah the planning commission could always open the hearing and then continue it. Yeah. Take public comments at night and see if there's any substantive feedback that needs to be addressed to do to do that on the 18th and then to do it on potentially. Yeah, I that's that's certainly an idea and I trust you all to you know we we had a really good conversation tonight so you know

you know where I'm at. Would you want the So we could probably by the end of the week or Monday get that summary of outstanding things that we're going to address them. Is that if that's workable then that would help us in terms of being able to I think that's probably workable on the office. Who's who's going to be here on the 18th? I'm I'm not Oh, I'm not either. Yeah. Everyone else is I think I'll be here.

Yeah. I'm intending to be. I'm other I'm headed out to take care of some family issues out of town. So, I'm intending to be, but there's some unknowns. I don't know. Yeah. I'd really like for nearly all of us to be present if possible. Yeah, that's kind of why you asked. I want to be sure that we felt like we had the collective high mark present for that conversation. We know at this point that two of us will not be here, right? Potentially three and potentially just and it might even be more graceful just to say we would

yeah for for planning purposes I just yeah I'm I leaving leaving tomorrow and I don't have a determinant return but I'm hoping I need to be back here for lots of things I'm motivated to get back but I don't know well we'll hope that you're back but you're right maybe that's not how we ought to plan for it um well we have like a revised copy. That's the intent to get it turned around as part of your packet. That would go on the 11th.

But if we just want to view it, I mean, we could continue with this as we're calling the January draft. We could continue with that for the sake of the public hearing and then have that extra time to incorporate public feedback. Any other discussion and then bring forward the final version at a second public hearing at your March first March meeting. Then that would probably give us time to it probably be early April for council. That's fine. I like that approach personally.

Mhm. That gives you guys flexibility. It kind of gives us the flexibility. It gives the public a valid opportunity to know that if they provide feedback at that meeting that there's a chance it could get incorporated. Yeah. So open it up plan for a continuation to the fourth and then Okay. All right. I'll tweak our luggage. That will be fourth. your first day. Y

and then we'll probably be targeting the April 7th council. Is there lead time so long? And to clarify, it was open up the public hearing on the 18th of this month and then continue to the 4th for potentially your final determination. That that makes sense to me. Okay. Yeah. Discussion about items can yeah can happen on day 18 totally new content to digest once and then Ross does that mean that you still want that summary of things we discussed by week weeks end or

I think by Monday would be because yeah we would have even if we move forward I guess too many versions of this in my mind um yeah I think I could probably I'd still do that same time frame because we would want to move forward with incorporating all this just to get it off of our design plate. What I was just to be clear what I was suggesting is not a changes incorporated in the full document. Yes. But but a shorter two or three page thing that said you know these are these are the major topics that we're working on.

Okay. And this is kind of where we're going. This is how we're going to incorporate these changes. And I think we, you know, obviously goal H six is the the big one that I think everyone will want to make sure that we have, you know, thriving communities and, you know, their input on any changes to that one as well. Um, and we'll have kind of any change and then an explanation I think is, you know, specific to that one. A lot of the other ones were more technical. I think that's

is that helpful? I mean, is part of the process helpful for folks to have that chance to look at it before we open it up on the 18th? Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was a lot of work.

I just before you put your jacket on. Um, sorry. Yeah,

Commissioner Frasier reminded me. So, I did send out the revised um work plan um that was reformatted into the council template. Um I did add a goal number seven um with as time allows uh to update on any um state legislation um that might come forward that impacts land use or or zoning regulations. So, um, you know, I feel like I incorporated those, um, pieces that planning commission had mentioned. Um, I will also note like the original memo had more of a narrative format. Council likes bullet points and brevity. Um, so, but if there's any changes, um, by all means, um, I wasn't planning to bring it back for another study session. I was just going to say please email um you know Commissioner Frasier and myself um you know with any questions and you know we feel confident that we can make those and incorporate them into the draft that goes up to council. So just as a a follow to the email that you got earlier this week.

Thank you. If there are going to be only if there four or five of us here, do we want to continue operating as we are and do an election for that? So that will open up a public hearing. We will need an election to um um elect a a chair and a vice chair, I believe. But I can review the uh our bylaws of whether or not we could do maybe just a temporary election and then a re reelection with more members.

Yeah, just for other other information purposes, another board in another city, but bylaws did indicate that it had to be done at the first meeting annually, but knowledge that appointments could happen. We moved it to a date certain in future. I don't know if our particular to an extent just to add possible knowledge out there. That's it might that might be

it just we haven't had any regular business meeting since the beginning of the year. So that's we're our first available would be the uh the public hearing. So we could certainly open up uh so if you would like to nominate yourself by all means let us know. Anything else that um people would like to discuss or need to discuss tonight? Not this evening. Not city business related.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Good discussion.