Good morning.

Welcome uh to the downtown review board meeting November 4th, 2025.

The downtown review board meets monthly to review downtown development applications using the downtown Colorado Springs form-based code regulating plan.

The downtown review board is comprised of nine members appointed by city council.

Board members are community volunteers with expertise across a wide variety of disciplines.

Each member acts independently, carefully assessing all the evidence presented to make their decision.

As a reminder, if you do want to make public comment, please choose to sign up at the doors.

And Salange will ask you to call roll at this time.

Board Member Nolette.

Board Member Kuzman, here.

Board Member Coates.

Here.

Board Member Hensler, here.

Board Member Lord.

Uh I'm here, but uh one of the things, because I'm not going to be able to participate in the entire meeting.

So I would like to indicate that I won't be uh voting on today's uh action.

And if one of our alternative board members like Tara is able to participate, then she should be voting in my place.

Thank you.

Board member Friesma.

Here.

Acting Chair Mikulas.

Here.

Board member Pence.

Here.

Board Member Sokol.

Here.

Board Member Luciano.

Here.

Thank you.

We have nine members present.

Thank you.

I don't see any changes or postponements to the agenda.

And uh that being true, I'm gonna ask for communications from the team.

Morning, Mr.

Chair, Ryan Tiefer Tiller, Urban Planning Manager.

I do have just a handful of quick communications for you this morning.

Uh first off, happy election day.

Hopefully everyone got their ballots in.

Uh uh, it's always a good thing to do here.

Um, I also want to introduce Charlie Rose.

Charlie, if you'd wave your hand over there.

Charlie's one of our new admin techs that will occasionally help out um Melissa and Solange on some of our meeting broadcast and agenda preparation uh duties.

So uh welcome Charlie to our DRB.

Um I also just want to briefly mention that um within the last month or two uh you heard a presentation on efforts to update the downtown experience downtown plan with the new Elevate Downtown Plan.

Uh that was presented to City Council at their work session last week on October 27th.

Lots of good dialogue.

Um if the board is interested, the video of that should be up online.

You can uh take that in and hear what kind of input uh city council members had um to uh the efforts to update the downtown plan.

Um lastly, there's a reasonable chance we might cancel the December DRB meeting.

Um currently don't have any action items that will need uh your attention, so we might um end up canceling that and picking back up in January.

But keep it on your calendars for now, just in case uh we'll be sending a communication within the next couple of weeks to confirm uh cancellation or not.

That's all I have, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, thank you, Ryan.

Um, we're gonna move to the approval of the minutes of last month's board meeting.

So I'll look for a motion regarding the minutes.

I can make a motion.

I was just reading through them again.

Oh, I guess maybe I have to read that officially.

I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes for the October 7th, 2025 downtown review board meeting as presented.

I second that.

Board member Lord, how do you vote?

Uh I'm gonna have Tara uh because I'm not gonna be able to participate in the whole meeting, so Tara needs to be uh voting in my place.

Melissa Wetsky, senior uh analyst.

So Tara could not vote in your place, Chair Lord, for the purpose of the minutes, but um, Chair Lord, if since you were at the last meeting, you could vote.

Uh yes, I'll vote.

I I'll go ahead and vote in favor.

Yes.

I'll look to city attorney just to make sure we're on the same page.

Correct.

Hi, Young Jin City Attorney's Office.

Uh, yes, I think because Chair Lord was here for the prior meeting, he can vote on the minutes.

However, for the rest of the items, he will not be uh fully attending the meeting.

Um, so he will not be counted uh for that portion.

And um just a clear clarification point.

If needed to establish a quorum, then uh the alternate member terrapins can step in.

If we have a quorum without the presence of an alternate, we do not need to tag her in for uh lack of a better term.

And um I don't see an abstain button on the screen, but I was not here last time, so I'll be abstaining.

Thank you for future clarification.

Uh there will not be an abstain button on your tablets.

Uh staff will do that accordingly as you guys announce that.

Thank you.

I I would be the same, Lisa.

I didn't attend last week either or last month.

I'll be abstaining as well.

The motion passes with five votes in favor.

Thank you.

I see no items on the consent calendar unless I'm missing something here.

So no need to read the consent calendar agenda here.

I do want to just communicate the general flow for any items presented in our meeting today.

Um city staff will present the item and read it into record.

The applicant will have an opportunity to present, and then we will open up public comment for those in support of the item.

After that, we will open up public comment for those in opposition.

There'll be an opportunity for applicants to respond or rebut to the uh comments and public comment will be closed or brought up to the dais for discussion.

So that's how this will flow today.

Um, do we have any items called off the consent?

Okay.

No.

And seeing no unfinished business, um, I want to just begin moving towards our new business items for today.

As a matter of comment, if there are any board members who have reason to provide comments, disclosures, or recusals from this item after it is read into record, uh, you can keep that in mind.

Read it in.

Go ahead and read the writer uh item into record.

Item 8A Z O N E 25026, a stone map amendment consisting of 8.27 acres for the two blocks bound by North Nevada Avenue, East St.

Rain Street, North Weber Street, and East Flat Avenue from R1 6R50R to FBZ T2A.

Your presenter is Ryan Turfer Teler.

Item A B, L U P L 25-0012 establishment of this district 11, Palmer High School line use plan for proposed civic uses consisting of 8.27 acres located on the two blocks bound by North Nevada Avenue, East St.

Rain Street, North Weber Street, and East Flat Avenue.

Item 8C, S U B D 25-0076, an ordinance vacating the public right-of-way known as East Boulder Street, consisting of approximately 0.92 acres located between North Nevada Avenue and North Weber Street.

Okay, at this time I'd like to invite uh city staff to come and present on the item.

And before we do that, I just want to ask one more time if there are any members who have any reason for disclosure or recusal from this item.

Yes, Troy Coates.

Umce I represent the the DDA board here, uh, wanted to disclose uh our company does own an adjacent property across Nevada on the corner of Nevada and Boulder Street.

Um again, I I I don't see where that's gonna impact any of my decisions to make here.

Um I guess if the if it comes up that there's something said that I think it will, then I I could recuse myself at that point.

But I I think as of this my understanding of everything, I feel like I can be impartial and it uh won't impact my decisions.

Um I would like to state uh a couple things.

One, I also am the liaison to city planning commission, so I will be seeing this item today as a D downtown Review Board member as of which I'm the liaison from planning commission, and then I will see be seeing this again in December when it comes to planning commission.

Um, and so I've taken that into consideration, right?

As I think about this issue and how I make my decisions based on the criteria.

Um, but I don't think it will impact my decision to vote on this twice.

Um also I wanted to state for the record that my firm is engaged in another project with School District 11, who's our client, but um, it has nothing to do with the Palmer High School project, and I don't um feel that that impacts my ability to make an impartial decision on this issue as it is presented today.

I am a commercial broker and I represent a property at 116 East Boulder just across Nevada.

Um we recently took it off of the market for sale, but it's still attached to another property that I have uh listed for lease at 409 North Tejone, and the lot could still theoretically be sold.

So I stand to benefit financially through a commission.

And speaking with the city attorney, I think it's probably best if I recuse myself.

So thank you for those comments, disclosures, and recusals.

I'll just ask the question.

Uh, without Chair Lord present, we still have a quorum for this item without refusal.

I believe we do.

Uh Ryan T for so I'll I'll try to answer that.

So yeah, we have um Chair Lord is going to recuse because he can't participate all morning.

Uh I believe he's still online, but I'm sure he'll drop off shortly.

Um Bob Nolette, Commissioner, um sorry, board member Nolette is not available uh obviously today.

And then with uh board member Luciano's recusal that leaves us with six voting members in talking to the city attorney's office this morning.

Um I don't believe our alternate board member Pence is um to participate, but I I'd look at uh uh Young to clarify that if I'm wrong.

Correct, Youngstream City Attorney's Office.

Uh the alternate alternate member is um more than welcome to sit in the meeting, but she uh cannot participate as a voting member, as we do already have a quorum.

That is it.

Okay, understood.

Um Bobby Mikless, Downtown Review Board.

Appreciate the comments, disclosures, and input from council uh Ryan, please continue with your presentation.

Okay.

I will do that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Again, Ryan T.

Pertiller, Urban Planning Manager with the city's planning department.

Um I have the pleasure of presenting this project to the board today.

Uh it's pretty exciting investment in uh Palmer High School in downtown Colorado Springs.

Um, there are three applications in front of you today.

I have a relatively brief slide deck that I'm going to run through describing the site, the project, the three applications, their criteria, the analysis and consideration that the city has conducted to evaluate these applications.

Um I'll state just right off the bat, this is a um uh not only an exciting project, but a unique project as it relates to the downtown review board.

This is the first time in uh since 2009, since the form-based zone was created in 2009, where we have formally processed a request to rezone into the form-based zone uh from non-form-based zone to the form-based zone.

So uh this is a new application type, a zone change that the DRB has not yet seen.

It is described in the regulating plan as something that you have uh the responsibility to review and make a recommendation on.

Um, but ultimately all three of these applications will require city council action.

So they will go from the DRB to as board member Hensler mentioned to planning commission next month and then on to city council, uh, which we expect to occur in January.

So again, uh exciting project, but also fairly unique.

And um noting that if the board ever has any questions during my presentation, feel free to interrupt.

I'm happy to do what I can to answer them.

Um the last comment I'll make before moving on is uh there's uh extensive information in the agenda packet today.

Uh not only a relatively lengthy staff report describing the project and the applications, but uh I believe a dozen or so uh attachments or exhibits um uh covering a wide range of issues from traffic studies to stakeholder comments to uh project statements and and other information.

So again, feel free to interrupt at any point.

And with that, I will just jump right in.

Um the site uh covers two um standard city blocks on the northeast corner of downtown Colorado Springs.

Uh the sites bound by Nevada, Platt, Weber, and St.

Vrain.

Um, it is just over eight acres in size total, and currently it's made up of three different zone districts R16, R5, both of which are residential zone districts, as well as a small property that has the OR or office residential zone district.

Um obviously the proposed land use is uh to improve the existing high school to a uh significantly better uh uh educational civic use uh through significant new construction that is essentially underway today uh already.

They have uh school districts begun demolition efforts uh as I'm sure you've all seen uh on campus.

Um there are three applications associated with the project, the zone change, the right-of-way vacation, uh, which is to vacate East Boulder Street between Nevada and Weber, uh, and then a land use plan, which really illustrates how the um site would be redeveloped uh should the applications be approved.

I will note that there is a fourth application that was submitted shortly after these three that's currently going through administrative review.

That is a form-based zone development plan.

That application um will likely include multiple warrants.

Uh, at this point in time, it does illustrate the need for multiple warrants from form-based standards.

So, should these three applications get approved and the site becomes part of the form-based zone, that form-based zone development plan will ultimately come back before the downtown review board for review and evaluation of the warrant requests.

Um let's see.

So uh I've kind of already spoke uh a little bit about the nature of the application, uh, the fact that uh the applicants are requesting the vacation of Boulder Street to create what they call a consolidated campus, uh, which would allow not only future structural improvements um just to the north and south of the current right-of-way, but would also allow for the creation of a new um outdoor athletic facility, a track and field and athletic field that uh would otherwise not fit on the site without the vacation of right-of-way.

The image on this slide is um from the third sheet or last sheet of the land use plan.

It is uh referred to as phase two of the campus development, which uh is really kind of the the third phase ultimately showing full full build out of of their current plans.

Um additional note, I kind of already alluded to the fact that this project's relatively unique uh as far as the typical projects that the downtown review board sees, and that it includes a uh zone change request into the form-based zone.

Another unique element of this project is that the uh quote developer is School District 11, uh a public school district and public school districts in the state of Colorado have uh certain rights and authorities uh directly uh allotted to them by state statutes.

Um building permit requests can be either granted directly from the state or through Pikes Peak Regional Building as a certified issuer of state permits.

Um those building permits are not routed to the zoning office.

So the planning department actually does not see building permit applications for public school district projects.

However, um public school districts and through their authority from the state do not have the ability to vacate or utilize public right-away without uh local um approval.

So uh knowing that and wanting to be a good partner with the city and comply with zoning regulations and standard process as much as possible.

Uh, that led to the school districts submitting these three applications as if they were a private developer uh and following as many of our standard procedures and regulations as possible.

But I did just want to um uh make sure the board understood that this is a public school district project, and they are uh working to accomplish the higher goal of public education in the state of Colorado.

Um the applications were submitted this summer in the middle of June.

It's they've gone through three rounds of review.

So each time those submittals have been noticed.

Well, the initial submittal was noticed publicly, but it was routed all three times, they were routed to uh a wide range of um city technical review agencies like traffic engineering, uh landscape review, public works engineering, utilities, fire, uh, parks and recreation, et cetera.

And each time uh through those three reviews, city staff has pointed out items that needed to be improved or resolved, and the applicant has done a great job in addressing those comments, updating the plans, and making resubmittals in a timely fashion.

There are still a uh a small number of minor technical items uh that remain on at least a couple of the applications, um, but the uh list has been reduced from uh a fairly lengthy number of technical items to uh a very small number at this point.

Um I did mention public notice.

Um as far as our formal public notice process, we uh took those steps, sent postcards to surrounding property owners within a thousand feet of the site at time of submittal, and again, roughly two weeks prior to today's meeting.

Uh that totaled over 300 postcards mailed.

Uh, we've also asked uh required the um school district to post the site with posters.

I believe we've actually done six posters, one for each block face along Platt, Weber, St.

Vrain, and Nevada to make sure that if people are driving by the site uh or work in the area uh that they have the opportunity to know that these applications are under review and how they can learn more about the project and uh submit comment should they wish to.

Um, in addition to our standard public notice process, the school district has had a robust um public engagement effort.

Uh and there's a lot more detail in my staff report about this, but they created a steering committee made up of key stakeholder groups.

They've had multiple public open houses with uh pretty good attendance um uh to uh keep everyone informed about what they're proposing and different options that are considered and and how the process is moving forward.

Uh there's been lots of information on the district 11 website and discussions uh on social media through email and mailings.

Uh, there's also been discussions, obviously at school board about the project, which are obviously public meetings as well.

Um, and there have been a number of targeted stakeholder uh meetings with students, faculty, alumni, business, residents, other key stakeholder groups in the area.

Um, like I said, I I tried to expand on this a bit in the staff report.

I'm sure you'll hear more about it from the applicants during their presentation.

Um as far as the open houses and some of the public engagement, I will just say there was a lot of discussion and evaluation of different concepts.

This was early on in the process, including the uh quote consolidated campus concept, which includes the vacation of right-away.

Um there was also public input on uh the removal of a few houses along the north edge of the campus that are within the Weber Wasatch Historic District, um, and certainly some uh specific dialogue between the applicants and some historic preservation advocates and neighborhood advocates in the area.

Um obviously there was stakeholder discussion about um transportation needs and connectivity along Boulder and uh as well as integration of future community partners, uh, whether that's someone like uh the YMCA that could partner on uh recreational opportunities on campus or early connections.

Uh, there's been talked about with uh child care services and other things.

Um the school district has been very intentional about trying to integrate their education purposes and efforts with downtown and the community that downtown offers.

Um so there's been a lot of stakeholder engagement on a wide range of different issues.

Um significant, as I already mentioned, significant agency review from all our key review agencies.

Again, there's more detail in the staff report, but I just want the board to understand that um unique project uh and it's gone through quite a uh um of detailed technical review on a wide range of issues.

Probably the most significant uh that had the most effort was the review of the boulder vacation and the potential or even real traffic impacts that uh that change would um would result in.

Um, specifically with the original submittal, a traffic study that was completed in April of 2025 was submitted and reviewed by the city's traffic engineers and public works staff.

Um, and then as uh the board probably knows, um the school district was granted, and their contractor was granted a temporary permit to close boulder between Nevada and Weber for demolition and construction purposes.

Um that occurred um, I want to say it was like August, but I might be wrong.

I'm sure the applicant can verify when that closure first took place.

But but shortly after the closure, uh the temporary construction closure took place.

New traffic counts were collected, and a new updated traffic study was completed in September of 2025 that not only projected how people would respond to a closed boulder, but it actually documented uh what roads were being used, what intersections were uh experiencing additional delay and other impacts.

Um both those analyses were um studied closely uh from our traffic engineer.

I do have uh the city's terraffic engineer Todd Frisbee in the audience today.

Should the board have any specific questions about traffic impacts uh related to the uh boulder closure?

Um I will mention the last bullet point is uh uh actually the last two bullet points, allude to some proposed conditions of approval that you'll see in the staff report as well as in uh your system as far as um optional motions.

Those conditions of approval allude to um specific info input from public works and traffic engineering regarding um the need for the school district to cooperate and participate with the city in the years ahead regarding um future traffic impacts from some work that's expected along the Platte corridor, and potentially should the school district ever decide to dispose of the campus, the desire for the city to re um regain the right-of-way that's currently proposed for vacation.

So uh on some level, a reverter of that uh that land to come back to the city should it not be used for public school purposes in the future.

Um, the tool and the mechanism to um implement these three conditions of record is still a little in flux.

We're expecting it to probably take the form of an IGA or intergovernmental agreement between the city and district 11.

But that um the actual language and details of that IGA are still in flux, and we hope to have more um more of those details fleshed out by the time this goes to city council in January.

Um of the other required elements that we review as part of uh staff's review is compliance with plan COS, the city's comprehensive plan.

Um, and again, there's more significant analysis in the staff report, but I'll just say uh the site is located within the downtown um area of uh plan COS and uh it complies with a number of different chapters and goals and actions uh within plan COS.

Um, so I've just very quickly we'll go through the three specific applications and the review criteria associated with those.

Um then I'll wrap up my my presentation.

So thanks for bearing with me.

Again, the first application is the zone change to uh change the zone from R16, R5 and OR to the form-based zone.

It's the first time that's been requested since the uh form-based zone was adopted in 2009.

It does require hearings in front of the DRB planning commission and ultimately city council.

Um, the T2A sector is a transitional sector, has a maximum building height of four stories.

Um, it does encourage through design guidelines, transitions to lower um density, a smaller bulk and scale type uses outside of the form-based zone.

Um, and as I mentioned before, there is a development plan that's currently under review that really spells out the uh um describes the details of the proposed um structural development.

The two images just show the existing zone on top.

Uh again, uh a mix of R16 and R5 primarily, and then what the zone map would look like uh in the lower right image showing the form-based zone extending up north of Platte and east of Nevada to cover the two blocks that are owned by School District 11.

Um I'm not going to go through the 10 criteria for a zone change.

There is significant analysis within the staff report.

Ultimately, after review, uh city staff has determined that the application criteria are met for the zone change.

There is one technical modification.

Second of the three applications is the vacation of public right-of-way.

Uh the area proposed for vacation is a 100 by 400 foot stretch of East Boulder.

Um, we will be retaining utility easements.

There's some underground utility infrastructure in the area that would be retained as part of the vacation plat and vacation ordinance.

A portion of those utility easements could later be vacated should the needs of utilities and the city be met.

Um, I don't think the entire hundred foot wide stretch is needed for that utility easement, but but that can be determined at a later date.

Umce the right-of-way is vacated, uh, the county assessor assigns ownership to surrounding property owners based on the origin of where the land came from initially.

This land was dedicated to the city in 1871 as part of the original town plat.

Um if vacated, the uh campus would be able to implement what's been referred to as the consolidated campus for Palmer High School.

Um, there has been significant city and stakeholder input regarding the implications of the vacation.

Ultimately, and again, there's significant analysis in the staff report.

Um staff is finding that the criteria may be met or could be met if the three conditions um included in the staff report are implemented.

I will though point out, and and again, I go into detail in the staff report.

These criteria, and I I should advance to the next slide where you can actually see the criteria, are relatively subjective.

Um, there was a lot of internal discussion, particularly about criteria number one.

Is there if the vacation could be approved if the right-of-is no longer needed for public transportation purposes?

And really a lot of great robust conversation about what does it really mean to be needed for public transportation purposes.

Um we looked at a number of different studies.

Um, the Platte Corridor study was analyzed, the um envisioned shooks run study was also considered.

Um ultimately, as I said, staff determined the application could meet the criteria with the three conditions of approval and multiple technical modifications.

Uh the third and final application is the land use plan.

Again, it really just illustrates um the land uses, development intensities, access points, those types of things uh uh should the other two applications be approved.

Um the plan shows three phases, phase one A and one B, and then a phase two, which is the ultimate uh plan for the campus.

Um, as I've said uh more than once, a development plan is currently under review, and that that essentially is a development plan showing how phase one A would be built out.

Um I guess I should note that phase one B does include some additional demolition to allow for the track uh construction, and uh then the phase two would show the new athletic building as the primary change along the eastern edge north of the boulder right-away alignment.

Uh again, there are multiple criteria for review of a land use plan and and after extensive analysis and consideration, staff found that the uh application criteria for the land use plan are met and that they're uh with two technical modifications again described in the staff report.

Um, I'm not gonna go through these.

We have provided optional motions both to approve or deny for all three applications, as well as the tech the conditions of approval and technical modifications uh for all three applications.

You will have three separate votes for the project, one on each of the three applications, um, but really they are dependent on each other.

Um you really can't approve the land use plan if you're not also going to support the uh right-of-way vacation uh, for instance.

Um with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

And as I said, I do have um some other resources in the audience from specific topic experts should you want to ask questions at this time.

Hi, Ryan.

Yeah, I have a question.

Yeah.

My good.

Yeah.

Um one of the conditions of approval is that the school district would allow public egress over the property if the space is unused for construction or permanent D11 activities.

Do you know at what point in the development according to the different land use stages that would meet that requirement of permanent D11 activity?

It's a great question.

Um I think that potentially public access across the vacated boulder right-of-way could be provided as part of phase 1A, not as part of phase one B or phase two as sure as described on the land use plan.

But to be honest, even there is probably going to be internal discussion and debate about the public's ability to use that alignment, even if phase one A is fully implemented.

It might be more of a situation of prior to completion of 1A, like you know, next year or whatever, if if the south the portion of the site south of Boulder is more or less complete, but they haven't made hardscape improvements or put up bollards or gates along the boulder alignment.

Um, you know, perhaps that's a time when there's still public opportunity to use that right away.

So I don't know that I have a solid answer to that question, but I will I will say absolutely if if phase one B or two have been implemented, then that condition is essentially moot at that point.

And staff is certainly available to answer additional questions after the applicant's presentation or and or after public comments.

Yeah, Bobby Mikolas, downtown review board.

Question for you, Ryan's same question, just different way.

I'm trying to understand the definition of permanent school district 11 activities.

And I'm thinking all the way from a classroom that's activated during the day to a corner that is where a tree lives or something like that.

Is there any further color you can put into that on how we're understanding permanent activity?

I'd like to be able to provide additional detail on that, but at this point, I think that's still being negotiated and discussed between the city and the school district.

Any further questions from the board for city staff.

Okay, thank you, Ryan.

I'd like to invite the uh applicant to come and present.

Good morning, uh, Mr.

Chair and uh uh members of the board.

Uh my name is Chris Lieber.

I'm with NES, and uh I'm part of the uh the project team.

And uh uh what I'd like to begin with is uh just uh a statement about um the uniqueness of this application, the uniqueness of this project and and and opportunity.

Uh on one hand, it's fairly unusual for one public uh agency to bring forth a uh uh a development application.

Um it's certainly unique in uh in uh the uh uh expansion, uh potential expansion of the form-based zone.

Uh but I think what uh really is most important is that this uh this uh major investment um uh we believe is is fantastic uh for our downtown.

Uh we believe it's fantastic uh investment in neighborhoods uh uh surrounding uh downtown.

And most of all, it's uh a tremendous investment in our youth uh and in our future.

Uh our project team is with us uh here this morning.

And so uh Jessica Wise uh with the D11.

Uh Jennifer Hotling is with us also with the with D11.

Uh Brian Calhoun with RTA Architects.

Um, I believe online.

We have uh uh Gabriela uh Brhmia with Perkins and Eastman, also part of the architectural uh team, uh John Schwab with JPS Engineering.

John Schwab with JPS Engineering.

Of course, I'm here representing planning and landscape architecture with NES.

And we also have Lyle DeVries with FHU, who is our traffic consultant joining us.

And so we've had over 40,000 different touch points.

That's with uh e-newsletters, uh, both with the downtown partnership, uh, but also with uh through through CONO through newsletters that have gone out to um uh uh through through D11 uh to students, uh to teachers, uh to parents, and and beyond.

Um we've conducted over 24 different uh focus groups uh along the way.

Um we've had six uh public uh public meetings, public hearings.

Uh this uh item has presented on six different occasions uh to the D11 school board um and uh and and so on.

And it is really through that process uh that has shaped the alternatives that has been selected.

Uh it's shaped the design in in in many, many ways.

For our presentation this morning, I'd really like to tackle this uh if we may in three different parts.

Uh, first of all, I want to invite uh Jessica to come up and talk a little bit about D11 uh and the really the why and and what what are the project goals uh that need to be uh uh uh the opportunity to achieve.

Uh Brian Calhoun will come up and talk a little bit about the master plan and uh that vision, and then I will come back up and really address uh the three entitlement uh applications.

Uh so with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jessica Wise, please.

Good morning.

Hi.

It's great to be here this morning.

Um my name is Jessica Wise.

I'm the executive director of engagement for the Colorado Springs School District 11, really I like to say.

Um I want to start with just a note of humility.

It's uh it's a tremendous honor to be presenting to this board.

Uh one, because I'm bored of presenting to my own board.

We get to do that a lot.

Uh this is a little bit different.

But two, it's not lost on us that we are the only school district that you would entertain at your meetings because we are the school district that serves your downtown corridor, and we take that really seriously.

And I hope you see today that this project takes that really seriously.

Um, my goal for this morning is to at a high level walk you through the how and the why we got to this vision for Palmer High School and where we are today.

And of course, um, I'm sure I'll miss something, so please ask questions when we get to that place.

And um, and even afterwards, if it's appropriate, if you want to continue to follow up with questions, I have resources and other opportunities for you to learn more so I don't take up all of your time this morning.

So um with the idea of vision, uh when I woke up this morning, my four-year-old could tell I was just like a little bit nervous.

And you know, he said, Mommy, what's going on?

And I said, you know, big morning, and he learned the word aspire at school yesterday.

Um, so shout out to his preschool.

Um, and so he said, Mommy, just aspire to it.

And I and I said, Well, what do you aspire to?

And he said, I aspire to eat cake for dinner.

So this morning we're aspiring to Palmer High School and this vision, and I just want to kind of carry that through as we're talking through this.

So, next slide, please.

Oh, I have it.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Got it.

Um, Palmer High School, and I I appreciate um Ryan for having this in his presentation that this plot was established in 1871.

For those of you who don't know, uh although I'm sure you do, Palmer High School is our oldest school in the history of Colorado Springs.

The original part of General Palmer's planning for this city.

Um he's got that great quote about what he wants Colorado Springs to be, and part of it is a place for learning for schools.

I always love to say General Palmer knew early on when he was settling this part of the West that he had no ambitions for Colorado Springs to be just another Western output on the on a pioneer's travel to California.

He wanted people to stop and stay and live and develop a home in Colorado Springs, and he knew that education was the heart of that.

And therefore, we had the original Colorado Springs School, um, which has since developed over the years.

So the building you're looking at on your slides right now, of course, is the modernization that was built in 1939.

I want to also point to that, because it seems that every 50 to 70 years or so, this district and our city in partnership with the district has said it's time to reinvest in education at the heart of our city.

So Palmer made the flagship school, and then in 1939, people came together again and said that school is no longer serving students at the heart of Colorado Springs.

It's time to do something else.

And so, you know, we all have our own uh artistic proclivities.

I liked the Romanesque building that was the old Colorado Springs High School.

This mid-century modern building certainly fits other people's uh subjective uh desires.

But the point remains, right?

It's they decided in 1939 that students in the city needed something else, and we've hit another point in the history of public education in Colorado Springs where we believe it's time to reinvest.

And so that's what we're doing.

Why are we doing that?

Um, I wanna, I would have really wanna hit this point home.

The school district, first of all, if you don't know, is doing this with their own money.

We have a hundred million dollars from a COP that we are putting into this project.

We did not ask the taxpayers for this.

Why?

A few years ago, we had a change in leadership in School District 11.

Superintendent Michael Gall came into the district, and what he saw from the outside was a school district that was following the trajectory of too many urban school districts.

We were allowing the bleed to the suburbs to happen and not paying attention to what was going on at the heart of our city.

In school district 11, we live and die by what goes on in downtown.

We are downtown, we are the heart of our city.

If we're going to revitalize School District 11, if we're going to reinvest in public education, we have to do something big and bold.

We have to aspire to something really different.

We can't just be doing the same thing.

For the past 30 years, District 11 has watched enrollment go to suburban school districts on our borders, and we have to do something to change that.

So this is that big bold investment.

This is not an investment in I love them, and we will, and we do continue to invest in Doherty High School, for example, on our northeast border with District 20 and District 49, or Coronado High School border with uh in our sorry, on our west side that borders uh district 20 and Manitou District 14.

We could make investments there, but that's not the heart of our district.

The heart of our district is downtown with Palmer High School.

It's where it all started, and that's where we believe we need to plant our flag and say this matters.

This matters not just to us, it matters to our city.

Because if we don't have great education at the heart of our city, we're abandoning it.

We need a place where people can learn, can live, and can thrive while they're working.

And all of that comes together in this new investment in Palmer High School.

So I I want to just emphasize how seriously we take this investment, how much it means to us, and that we didn't stop to ask others, can you help us with this?

We said we have to do this, and we really hope that others will come along because this really matters to the future of our district and our downtown.

So that's where we started.

The other thing I want to put an emphasis on, uh, that Ryan already pointed out with the timeline is we didn't start with the design.

We started by listening.

Because if we're gonna do something really big and bold, that doesn't just come from telling people what's gonna transform their educational experience or telling people what's gonna transform their experience of learning downtown.

We had to listen to what was needed from our students, from our dedicated staff, and from the community.

Um, and of course, you you all, if you've experienced Palmer, you might know they have a very robust alumni association, so also from our alumni who care so much about the school.

And we did several months of listening of focus groups, as Chris pointed out, of different types of engagement, knowing that everyone engages in a different way in 2025.

And we came to six priorities for this campus that we heard from the community.

Academic excellence, founded in the IB philosophy, community engagement, which is a lot of what I've been speaking about so far today, arts and cultural enrichment as a downtown campus, athletics, health, and well-being, which we'll talk a little bit about, preservation of history and tradition, which I've already touched on, um, and then healthy and high performance building.

And then healthy and high performance building.

I just want to make a few notes about each of those things.

Healthy and high performance building.

Palmer High School currently has no air conditioning.

That's tough in 2025.

And a three-story building, the third floor is basically uninhabitable in the first few months of school because it's so hot that students can't focus.

Again, this project could have been retrofitting an old building with new air conditioning.

That's not transformative.

That's not changing the way that students learn.

And that's not making a commitment to improve and activate our downtown campus.

Athletics, health, and well-being.

Palmer High School is the only district 11 high school that doesn't have a full-size track and field.

Our main stadium is and will always be Gary Berry.

We're not looking for performance necessarily.

We're looking for opportunity for students that they can find at any other high school and trying to figure out how that looks and works at a downtown campus because that's complicated.

And Chris is going to talk a little bit more about that today.

The one I really want to focus on first is the IB philosophy.

And you know, I know we always speak in education ease.

So if you're unfamiliar with IB, most simply, um, IB framework is built around the learner, right?

And so it's teaching kids to engage in interpl interdisciplinary approaches, to engage in the world, to think about how to be an agent of their own learning through a variety of learning styles that are provided to them.

Um, and it's making them globally engaged citizens, right?

Activating their world.

What better place to be engaged in IB learning than in the heart of a downtown, where you have at your fingertips access to so many opportunities.

We have not been capitalizing that on Palmer.

Instead, we've had a building that's corridors and classrooms that are windowless, that are below grade, students are in the basement.

Uh not promoting engagement in any way, shape, or form.

In an IB building, you might often see flexible learning spaces where furniture is moving and students are moving in and out, where students are crossing each other throughout the day to interact and share what was learned in one space and take it into another.

Um, you might in a downtown cap campus imagine a place where IB learning is something that we've actually transformed to the thought of IB Inside Out, where we're learning in the school and then pushing students outside to activate that learning, as well as bringing people in to activate it with them.

None of that happens at Palmer in its current state because of the physical limitations of the building.

Um we are looking for a new learning experience that gives teachers and the IB philosophy the flexibility they deserve to activate this learning and make it happen for our students.

It's also an invitation to the community to be part of the learning with us downtown.

We see so many opportunities for how does Palmer become this space of intergenerational learning, of community learning where we can have business members inside and we can be pushing our students into places downtown as well.

Um, just briefly once more, I've already really touched on this.

There's my Romanesque building that I really like, if you haven't seen it before.

Um I love this photo of um of them playing Badman here on the lawn because I think it really speaks to how a school should always be embedded in and be part of a community.

A school, especially a downtown school, should not really be in isolation.

Palmer has faded into the background, separated on three different city blocks at this point.

Our students have a hard time finding themselves and finding themselves and locating themselves downtown, figuring out how to access it and orient with it.

We want to bring Palmer back into prominence downtown.

We want to visually signpost to everyone.

This is an educational space.

It's a space you're welcome in, and it's a space that should be engaged with, not a space that should be shrinking back from its location.

Um so maybe we won't be playing badminton in Acacia Park.

Maybe it's pickleball.

I don't know, Acacia Park is not mine to comment on or develop, but I think to that point, we need to be working in and with and of that community, and that's part of our one of our goals for this project.

Speaking of that, the downtown master plan, of course, elevate downtown is something that we've been thinking about and engaging with how does education fit into that space?

What role should education play in downtown?

And that's the conversation we want to keep having for a very long time, regardless of land use plans or right-of-way vacations.

That we know this is a very big vision.

We know this is a change.

But of all the listening we've done with our staff and with our students, we have heard resoundingly a desire for the reinvigoration of this campus, a desire to reinvest in downtown.

It's a I can commit to you that this design has come from our community.

Our students believe in it, our staff believe in it, and we're really proud of it.

And so we really appreciate you hearing this today.

Um, a favorite poet of mine, Ovid, um, he wrote the Metamorphoses.

He's an ancient Roman poet, and he has this line about um how hum animals look down at the ground.

Men were given a face so they can look up at the sky.

We're not going to debate the biological or anatomical correctness of that, ancient Rome.

But I love that because I think it so embodies what we're doing today.

We're not trying to keep looking down as a school district and trudging through the same small decisions.

We're trying to look up at the community around us and think about what movement forward will be beneficial to us all.

That's our attitude, and that's what we're bringing to you today.

And we really appreciate you entertaining this from District 11.

So, Brian, I pass it to you.

Uh, thank you, Jessica.

Uh, appreciate that.

That's a great uh introduction.

We've got a rendering.

We'll show that again.

So my name's Brian Calhoun.

I'm with RTA Architects uh together with Perkins Eastman.

We were retained about a year and a half ago to begin a master planning process.

And we we started hearing the inspiration, the uh desire to transform, to re-energize, to do something different, to breathe new life into Palmer High School.

And as architects do, we began by diagramming the site.

Uh, the site illustration is on the screen before you, and it it jumps out at you that this is a segregated campus.

It's split on multiple lots and parcels.

Uh, think a little bit about the life of a student on a daily basis who's going to Palmer High School.

You've got my son was a freshman, my daughter was a freshman at Palmer High School.

Um, they all have PE.

They move between the main building to Earth's Field, two blocks to the east every day.

1,100 students are moving in and around all the downtown intersections, which brings vibrancy and life, but it is also dangerous, and it's a logistical challenge.

It's a challenge for the school to manage and maintain.

It's a challenge for truancy.

It's a challenge for safety and security.

So think about that daily life of a student, but also think about what happens when uh there's an incident downtown and the school goes into lockdown to protect the students.

You've got kids in four, six places.

Uh, they all have to stay where they're at.

They can't move freely back and forth.

Um, these are daily management issues that the school faces and that we were challenged with as we were looking for a solution.

The through the process, we came up with a consolidated campus solution.

Uh, this is the the final master plan that was approved by the the Board of Education District 11.

And it shows a number of things that we did to address some of these challenges that lay before the school as it exists today.

First, we heard loud and clear that history and tradition matter, it matters a lot to alumni, to the community, to downtown.

So we really leaned into the idea of preserving the 1939 building.

That's the building that engages the intersection of Platte and North Nevada.

So we're preserving that historical context, the front nine, as it's uh belovedly called.

Those are the front doors to the school.

Everybody in the school knows the front nine.

It's it's a big part of the school and the school culture, and we wanted to make sure that we maintain that.

But it needed to be transformed.

And so we're keeping the exterior of the building largely the way it is, but transforming the interior to give the school a new heart of the school, common and public spaces that don't exist in Palmer currently.

They have no large gathering public spaces in that building today at all.

And this transformation would give them that.

On the east side of the campus, along Weber, uh, the yellow block is a new academic building.

Phase 1A includes a three-story academic building that really creates an opportunity for new educational spaces.

The double-loaded old corridors in the building today are not flexible.

They do not allow multiple modes of learning.

They don't encourage different sizes of educational opportunities.

They're classrooms that are one size.

It's one size fits all today.

And we wanted to transform that learning environment to have breakout spaces, small group gathering spaces, project-based learning spaces, large group presentation spaces, all that can be accommodated through the new three-story academic building that's on the east side.

This campus also includes on the top right corner, the northeast corner, is the athletic complex.

Currently, if you're not familiar, ERPS Gym is two blocks to the east.

That includes a pool, weight room, athletic support facilities, locker rooms, all that kind of stuff.

Right now, all the students in PE go two blocks to that building, go two blocks back.

Most of them make it back, some decide to take the afternoon off.

Those kind of things happen.

And if if you're really creating removing barriers, creating opportunities, consolidating all those functions on a single campus is the ideal.

That also includes providing opportunities for a practice football field and a full track.

Palmer High School would be the only high school in the district that does not have that.

The current track at Palmer on Earth's Field is square.

It's not, it's not regulation length.

It's substandard in every possible way that you can imagine, as well as the football field.

So this would bring those amenities to this site and give them those full uh functionality.

We do recognize the funding limitations and logistics.

We can't realize all of these pieces initially.

So the master plan does look at phasing uh a phased implementation to these improvements on the campus.

Uh, this is phase one A, which is what is currently begun.

Uh, it does include renovations in the 1939 portion of the building to reimagine those spaces to create large public areas to create a heart of the school that doesn't exist.

It includes the three-story academic building along Weber Street, and this uh also includes the closure of Boulder, is what we're proposing.

Uh, and it does that to create an opportunity for a larger footprint, a consolidated area where all these functions can come together.

If you close Boulder, it does a number of things.

It really improves student safety.

It creates a definable boundary around the outside of the school that they can control and maintain and manage on a reasonable basis, and it creates public spaces that are protected of outdoor areas in the center of this campus for students to have outdoor space that's more than just the tiny little courtyard that they they have today.

Phase one B would be the next phase.

Phase one B is is big in that it includes potentially a fourth floor on the academic building.

The building's being designed so it could have one more floor added to the top.

It includes the addition of the practice football field and the all-weather track that surrounds the field.

And there's really only one way to put a full-size field on the Palmer campus.

It has to sit on top of Boulder.

There is no other way that this can fit on this site.

This illustration also shows the homes on the north side of the site along St.

Vrain.

There's four structures that currently exist along that street.

And we've superimposed the track in the football field so you can see the relationship of those homes to this football field.

It should also be noted that it was requested through this development plan process that a 20-foot fire access be uh maintained or provided between the existing school and the track.

So that would actually take this track that's shown in the master plan and move it another 20 feet north.

So that you know would certainly the footprint overlaps with the footprint of those homes that are on the north side of the parcel today.

I think it's important to emphasize as well that this master plan is not an enlargement of the school.

The capacity of the school is even reduced from what the capacity of the current building is.

Uh, school enrollment across the city are are beginning to decline.

We don't see that trend uh changing significantly.

So it would be designed to accommodate approximately the number of students that are in the school today.

There's about 1,100 students at Palmer High School today at the high watermark, 10, 12 years ago, uh it had over 2,000 students at Palmer High School.

We don't see 2,000 students coming back to the downtown school, but we do want a school that's vibrant and relevant and right-sized.

And this master plan uh does check those boxes.

Through this process, we looked at a number of options.

We put out design concepts for feedback and comment through the number of meetings that we had, the significant stakeholder engagement uh that both Jessica uh and Ryan alluded to.

And we looked at different scenarios.

The one on the left here uh creates uh new courtyard in the center of the southern block that really seeks to create a heart of the school that's internal and inwardly focused.

Uh, we did move the gym to the north block because we recognize the logistical challenges of having the main gym for the school be two blocks away.

So explored those options.

The center option explored the idea of vacating boulder.

And what does that do?

What does that create in terms of campus atmosphere, campus life, opportunities for outdoor space, expanded outdoor uh areas for learning and for students, and that received a lot of positive feedback.

And then the scheme on the right, we explored the idea of bridging over boulder.

So maybe we don't vacate boulder, maybe we bridge over the street, and we looked at that as an option.

And the option right on the right got a lot of conversation and feedback, but it wasn't the bridge that people were liking, it was the field.

Because a school, you need a field for all kinds of things.

You need it for band, you need it for athletics, you need it for PE.

There's so many things that the school does through the course of the day that require a field.

They saw that field space and they're like, yeah, we we want the field.

And that was an aha moment for us when we realized to have a fully functioning ideal school environment that tried to live up to the vision that was painted for D11.

We had to have all these amenities, and they had to be consolidated and on one campus.

And that's what led to the idea of vacating Boulder, bringing the football field up, putting the track on this site.

We dropped it on the site to see if it could fit, and it can work.

And that was kind of a revelation for us that this really can be the transformative concept that everyone is looking for.

We wanted to respect the history and tradition.

Uh, this is the bell.

Uh, this is the original bell from the Romanesque building.

Currently, there's tradition, there's been a long-standing tradition.

Freshmen ring the bell in when they come to Palmer and they ring it out when they graduate.

We wanted to make sure that that was celebrated.

So it's it's at the center of campus.

We wanted to create campus-like, uh, even a higher ed-like atmosphere to uh with outdoor space opportunities.

So this is the courtyard looking at the new academic building.

This is the west side of it.

That building really opens up and takes advantage of the Pikes Peak views.

This is a unique location and on the planet uh in Colorado.

We have tremendous views.

We need to celebrate Pike's Peak, and we're trying to do that through the through the architecture.

This is uh the north side of the new academic building.

What you're looking at here would be the portion of Boulder Street that would be vacated.

We wanted to design a building that really engaged with the neighborhood, the architecture, the color, the forms, wanted to reach out and respect the history and tradition and the context.

We wanted to create a civic place.

We wanted the entry, and this is the second entry, the front nine would still be facing Acacia Park.

On the other side of the school, we wanted to create a significant civic entry and civic place that is welcoming, it's open, it's inviting, it welcomes students, and it it uh creates uh opportunities that don't currently exist with the school.

And we'll continue.

The uh the elevation along Weber Street uh respects the urban environment, speaks to the unique location that Palmer High School is downtown.

And I wanted to just mention the steering committee.

We we did reach out, we wanted stakeholders to be part of this entire process.

Not only did we have a very robust public engagement process, but we engaged alumni, we have neighbors, we have downtown leaders, we have sit uh city representation that all worked with us through this process to come up with this design solution.

So at this point, I want to turn it over to Chris Lieber.

Review the applications.

Thank you, Brian.

So for the last portion, uh again, Chris Lieber with NES for the record.

For the last portion uh of our presentation, want to focus in on the specific applications that are before you for your uh consideration.

And I'll do them in the in the order of land use plan, uh, the rezone and vacation.

Um but then as uh as uh Ryan alluded to, there actually are two other uh applications that uh will be working their way uh through the through the process.

Um one of those, of course, is the development plan.

Uh and then the other uh would be a replatting uh of the property.

And I'll talk a little bit uh about that.

Um but those are again additional applications.

Uh we do believe uh certainly that the development plan will be coming before you.

Uh there are uh several warrants uh that would be uh necessary uh for that.

Um and so uh again this uh my portion of the presentation will stay fairly high level based on those uh applications.

And again, all of this is reflective of the three uh phases that um uh that Brian went into uh uh detail uh on.

Um we've talked a lot about uh neighborhood uh uh and uh kind of stakeholder uh context, uh, but we also have a tremendous amount of planning context uh in which that we have looked at in in great detail.

And whether that's uh plan uh COS, whether that's uh digging into some of the more details uh around uh downtown uh market uh assessment, uh whether it's uh even uh looking for clues from uh the state of the downtown uh presentation.

It's really interesting how education and this relationship between education and downtown uh fits together uh really really uh seamlessly.

Uh and then when we look at uh the downtown master plan experience uh downtown uh master plan, uh the again the relationship uh and the vibrancy that's the students bring uh to businesses within that particular area.

Uh the relationship uh between uh all of our our our uh primary civic uh spaces are all really called out, whether it's Colorado College, whether it's the city auditorium, Pikes Peak Center, uh, or Palmer High School, they all play this uh critical and very important uh role.

Uh we would be naive if we didn't talk a little bit about some of the uh the issues, uh some of the topics that we've heard a lot about uh on this uh on this journey.

Um I want to begin by, and I will address each of these kind of as we move our way through the presentation.

Uh Brian alluded to student safety, and it is a very significant uh uh uh topic, a very significant area of concern uh for the district, and this project is intended to uh uh uh address that.

Uh we've looked at in great detail uh traffic, and we've had the luxury of not only doing a traffic study that projected what the implications of a closed boulder might be, uh, but also uh with the closure for construction to be able to actually go out and take traffic counts and and measure and understand what are those uh traffic uh habits or um uh uses that are taking place.

Uh we've looked at we've looked at parking, uh we've looked at uh the zoning in in great detail.

I'll talk about why uh the proposal for FBZ uh T2 zoning, uh a lot about uh pedestrian safety.

Uh we early on uh reached out, had conversations about emergency response, trying to understand what's uh what would be the impact uh to UC Health, what would the impact be to fire or other emergency uh services?

Uh we talked uh uh a lot about uh the St.

Varane uh uh houses and those uh uh four uh units uh that are there today.

Uh the Platte Corridor study uh has come up, certainly a comment that has come from uh from public works and um uh some of the conditions uh of approval that uh the city has uh suggested are directly in response uh to that plat corridor study.

Uh and the questions about uh if plat is under construction, uh what what might a detour uh look like uh because boulder has been talked about as one potential uh option uh for that.

We talked a lot about uh met with uh uh uh students, parents, talked about uh bus and and uh bus drop off uh where parent drop off uh might uh might occur.

And then I'll also uh very importantly trying to understand some of the potential business impacts uh that might come with with the a vacation.

So uh diving into the uh the land use uh plan.

Uh I want to I'll keep these fairly uh fairly high level, but uh the the majority of the improvements are focused on the southern uh southern block.

Uh the the most significant piece of that is the addition of the new academic wing, but it also includes uh really complete renovation of the 1939 uh building.

Um it would include uh some improvements to uh to the boulder corridor, and then also um uh the development of geothermal wells on the north side of Boulder, uh which uh sit within, if you see uh kind of that trapezoidal uh the handle, if you will, uh identified there in that uh in red.

Uh that also will be on an interim basis uh of a field, multi-use field, but underneath that field uh will be the geothermal um uh wells.

Uh also uh as part of phase one significant uh streetscape improvements around the perimeter uh of uh of the building, primarily focused again on that south uh that south end.

Talked a little bit about phase one B.

That primary piece is the uh inclusion of uh track and and field on the northern on the northern portion.

Uh as you can imagine, with each of these phases, we're giving a lot of thought to how parking uh might happen, parking might uh occur.

And uh in phase one, uh there are no changes to existing uh parking.

That's phase one A.

Uh phase one B where the tennis courts are located, that's along Weber Street that uh we would look at uh implementing uh, if you will, uh kind of interim or temporary uh parking uh conditions.

So that would be part of that phase uh one B.

And then when we move to phase two, that really includes uh the addition of the main gymnasium uh with swimming pool, fitness rooms, little locker rooms, and so on and so forth.

And uh, and at that time uh there will be other uh parking uh considerations uh that would be would be needed and necessary.

Uh I would also be remiss though if I didn't say that at each of these phases, we would anticipate uh development plans that would really dig into the details uh um and look at compliance with the FBZ uh uh zoning, particularly from a streetscape from a uh building presence along along those uh along those right-of-ways.

So kind of talking, uh let's uh dive into parking uh here uh momentarily, and uh let me frame this uh first uh by saying uh one of the things we've realized is Palmer High School is unique when it comes to its parking demands.

When you think about other high schools, uh it is our urban high school.

And so we have a much much larger uh percentage of students that are walking uh to school, finding alternative ways uh to get to school.

The other thing that's happening if you look nationally uh and at trends kind of across the board.

Um I know when I was when I turned 16, I could not wait to get my driver's license, and all of my friends were all in line.

That's that's changing, and we're seeing more and more students uh that are or uh uh young folks that are waiting until they're 18 or 21 years old uh before they're getting that uh that driver's license.

That's a change in dynamic or demographics that certainly uh Palmer High School uh is experiencing uh as well.

And I think then you couple that with just the cost of owning a car, the cost of transportation, all of those uh economic reasons are really changing uh the dynamics.

So when we look at uh uh parking requirements specifically within the FBZ uh zone, uh we're looking at a a uh requirement of one space for every 750 uh square feet, and uh so we meet and actually exceed that uh that parking that results in a demand of 400 spaces, and uh we're able to provide uh with 1A as well as when we look at 1B uh over that uh over that amount.

Uh the district has uh several uh different parking uh locations uh available and uh whether that's 1A or 1B existing parking to the north that you may be familiar with.

They also have two lots on just on the other side of Weber uh street, and um you'll see here one, you know, uh parks 41 cars, the other 44.

And then of course there's also parking down at at Earth's um uh field.

Uh there's also a significant amount of parking that occurs within Cheyenne uh Avenue.

That's the diagonal um uh street just to the northeast, uh, and then uh on street immediately adjacent uh a parking that all contributes, and that is parking that exists today, and that's how uh the school has been parked for for many many years.

In working with uh the city and uh the parking enterprise, uh, we engaged in conversations about well, help us understand what's the long-term uh vision or or future for parking in this part of downtown, and how might the district really become part of that?

How can we uh the school district fit in uh to those longer term uh solutions?

And as part of that, uh we were urged to take a look at availability of um uh uh surface parking uh throughout the area within a block or two.

And what's really fascinating is there is a tremendous amount of parking capacity within this this part part of uh Colorado's downtown Colorado Springs, um, over 2,000 uh uh spaces.

Now many of those, of course, are perhaps associated with the YMCA or with the churches.

And we realize that as we look long term, um, and this is uh kind of direction that we've received from uh parking enterprise, that when you think about the evolution of parking and what those potential partnerships might look like, uh you start by saying what can we what can we park on our own on our own uh own property, our own facilities.

The next step in that evolution in downtown is to reach out to other uh entities that may have available parking, explore those kinds of partnerships, and then beyond that, you know, ultimately, uh like we've seen more in the core of downtown, you start looking at things like uh uh parking garages and and other facilities.

The point here is that there's a tremendous amount of opportunity uh we believe as we would head into the future uh to look at uh parking partnerships, just given the amount of surface uh parking uh that is just within uh easy uh walking distance.

Uh I promised that I would uh talk a little bit about uh the uh the homes along uh Saint Vrain.

Uh there is a small portion, the northeast corner of the two-block area that we're focused on that sits within uh the Weber Wasatch uh residential uh uh district.

That is part of a much larger uh uh historic uh district um and it captures three of the four um uh uh buildings that are located on the north end of the site.

What's also interesting is that this is not uh a historic overlay, as many of us may be familiar with.

Uh, for instance, the uh the old north end is a historic overlay, in which case within those overlays, the historic preservation uh board has jurisdiction and the city has uh jurisdiction.

Uh that is not the case uh in this uh in this uh particular uh location.

Uh the district did recently acquire uh all of not just these three, but all four, uh, with the intent of utilizing this space uh for uh development of the uh consolidated uh campus.

As part of that process, uh RTA architects uh uh did do an evaluation to look at these uh these buildings in in more detail to understand their uh historic uh uh significance.

Um and the conclusion of that was that uh that none of these individual buildings uh would qualify for uh for historic uh registry.

But I'll kind of come back to that in in a moment.

That also included a commitment uh from the district to look at what are some other options or alternatives.

Uh the district has been very open to partnerships uh to and one of the ideas that was explored uh might there be another entity, uh perhaps uh uh someone that's interested in affordable housing or or in uh um various services that might want to partner where these homes could potentially be relocated uh from the site.

And uh to date and looking at the cost effectiveness of that, uh looking at those needs, uh the district has not found a partner despite uh uh being open to that and and looking um for those those kinds of of partnerships.

Um so to be clear, uh, in order to accomplish the goals of this project, uh those uh those homes would need to be uh uh either relocated or or removed.

And that's what is intended, I think, with this um uh with this with this plan.

Um we have in uh had a number of conversations uh with neighbors uh about this, and I think one of the comments and questions that that has come up, and um I think we certainly agree with uh I think what we've heard is that these homes in many ways provide an edge uh to the to the neighborhood.

And the concern with their their removal is that that edge then begins to change.

And I think what we want to communicate is that in the same way that there has been a commitment to thinking about what future architecture looks like, how that would address uh the neighbors across the street, that when uh it comes time for and when phase two happens, that same commitment, that same opportunity for community dialogue for conversation uh would take place, in that we would be creating a new but a very appropriate uh edge, and that St.

Vrain would become that new kind of edge or boundary uh between uh the neighborhood and in downtown.

We do think it's interesting that if you look at uh this the boundaries of the uh historic uh uh uh registry, that uh in almost all cases, they are public streets or their alleys.

Um this is really an anomaly in that it just captures uh the homes.

And the challenge with this is today if if you look at these homes as being part of that historic district, their transition right now today um is simply you have the back of the homes and then you have uh parking and parking that's been utilized there for years and years.

And so we would suggest that that transition today between those homes and Palmer is very poor uh at best.

So let me now kind of shift on to the land use uh plan.

Uh there are a whole host of of criteria.

Uh and uh as Ryan alluded to, uh, we believe we meet all of these uh uh criteria and uh uh city staff uh uh uh concurs.

I won't go this into detail, but we can talk about those uh later if necessary.

And uh kind of justification uh for that again, we look to the plan COS, uh promoting and embracing arts, culture, culture, and education uh as part of our essential lives and identity.

Uh we look to being part of uh meeting the daily needs of residences and businesses.

If you think about the relationship of neighborhood and um uh and the school, and then uh from uh also plan COS uh increase access and foster a thriving arts education uh and resources uh for all.

Now let's turn our attention uh towards the the rezoning uh application.

Uh it's really interesting when you look at the mosaic of uh uh zoning classifications uh with it within this area.

Uh and and uh is particularly as you think about the form-based zone, we have this the Tejone uh uh section here that extends to the north.

So everything on this on this uh graphic that I'm gonna call is kind of that white or cream color uh represents that FBZ zone.

You can see that long uh spur that goes up towards Colorado College, it captures uh uh Robeson Arena.

Um in the center towards the bottom is Acacia Park, uh identified there as uh uh PK.

And then you have this odd R16 uh piece, and that is what uh Palmer High School uh has uh has had for its zoning for a very long time.

And on the north side of that, uh we have both uh R5 um as well as uh some OR or uh uh office residential uh zoning.

And so what really uh I want to emphasize this, what drives uh the need for addressing zoning, it's a handful of things.

One uh if you look at city regulation, we cannot have uh zoning multiple zones on one parcel.

So that drives the need to clean this up in some in some way in in some fashion.

Also, when you look at the existing uh kind of uh mass and and building and setbacks uh of Palmer High School, uh it is very much non-conforming when you look again uh setbacks and and and you're to place it into the R1 uh zone.

So then we begin asking, okay, uh what makes sense from a a uh zoning uh perspective.

We looked at a variety of of different zones.

Um given the district's desire uh both uh uh I think in terms of in terms of vision in connecting Palmer High School to downtown, how can we do that?

Uh when we look at uh form of the building, when we look at uh zero lot line setbacks, when we look at streetscapes, when we think about how this really functions, uh it really led us to look at the form-based zone all the while recognizing that we are on the edge of that, and so the transition to zone uh seemed to be the uh for variety of reasons really made uh made made uh the most uh the most uh sense.

So whether we're talking from a building envelope, building height, frontage, facade treatment, parking, public space, signage, uh all of those uh fit, I think well within uh the form-based zone uh T2 uh uh uh designation.

When you dive in and look a little bit uh more closely, uh you can see that surrounding uh this, it's uh on the corner, uh uh I'll kind of work my way around.

Uh you can see again, starting with Acacia Park, because that's easy to spot on this graphic.

I don't have a pointer.

Uh that's uh the the PK.

If you're to move north, we've got a piece of the form-based zone that comes in.

We have rather unusual, uh, the MXM uh piece, that's that kind of the hard corner there at uh um at Nevada and and Boulder.

Uh and then north of that we have R5, but in reality, uh the majority of that is not residential.

It actually is um uh the first Methodist church.

And when you think about its building and its presence and its mass, it actually fits much more closely with uh with form-based zone than it would uh uh residential.

Uh and so because of that, when even when we look at adjacencies, we think it really makes sense for this parcel uh to be FBZ2 and uh fits well uh with the the community.

And again, what's important is what happens on the edges uh and what happens on streetscape, and so whether it's this the Weber uh side and the thought that's gone into that uh that design architectural treatment or the design that has yet to take place on the northern stretch, it matters, and it's important that that is done and and done well when we think about adjacency uh uh uh ultimately uh to the north for that existing neighborhood and those homes that are there.

Uh again, you have a slew of re uh review criteria uh for uh for your consideration.

Um we certainly believe we meet the the goals and policies.

Uh we're consistent with the comp plan and and consistent with many of the downtown master plans.

I've spoken a little bit about that.

In this particular case, uh we think it's um it's appropriate certainly for the purposes uh of the zone district.

Uh and uh it's also appropriate uh for the scale height and uh density uh setbacks and and so on.

When we look at your uh within the FBZ uh language itself uh to provide a zoning option that allows for and accommodates the changing uses of buildings while maintaining integrity uh viability of the public realm with an emphasis on intermodal transportation ops and pedestrian linkages and orientation, we think that's a great fit.

Uh and then also when we look at encouraging flexibility, innovation uh of design, which is really needed, uh, that also uh fits well with with FBZ.

So now I want to turn uh attention to the right-of-way vacation itself.

Um we uh spends a little bit of time uh looking at looking back in our community's history to try and understand under what circumstances have we as a city come to a conclusion that a right-of-way vacation makes sense.

And it's really interesting, it tends to happen around three different land uses.

Uh the first probably makes a lot of sense, it's parks.

We have a lot of examples where our need for expansive parkland has broken the grid.

Um whether you want to talk about Memorial Park, I think you could make maybe make an argument around Monument Valley Park, uh, those are some of those uh prime examples.

The other, interestingly enough, is healthcare.

Think about Memorial Hospital and uh the uh even perhaps more recent uh uh right-of-way vacations that have taken place.

Why?

Because the hospital needs a campus, a hospital needs a certain size footprint in order to function.

The third that has happened repeatedly is education.

Um and whether we look at uh Colorado College, uh we look way back in time at the Colorado uh School for the Deaf and the Blind, uh all of those are examples of North Middle School is another example of where the grid has been and broken.

And I would also put Palmer High School.

Uh interestingly, Cheyenne Road or Cheyenne uh Boulevard that is the diagonal that where we talked about parking, that once extended diagonally all the way to Acacia Park.

And at one point prior to the 1938 construction of the 38 building, our community came to the conclusion the right answer for what we needed from a campus at that moment was vacation of that right-of-way.

And so that's that's uh part of that legacy.

The little box in red represents what uh that uh do those two blocks would look like within our our downtown.

We also did an analysis around campus size uh and what uh what are kind of the standards for high schools, recognizing this is an urban campus, this is unique, and that uh our ability and our size of a footprint will certainly be small.

But as a as a campus, we're looking at 8.27 uh acres.

Well, what does that mean relative to some of the other high schools in town?

The red rectangle is that 8.2 acre footprint.

You can compare that to Mitchell High School, Coronado, Rampart, Sand Creek, Doherty, or Cheyenne Mountain.

And you can begin to see how important uh in some ways constrained this campus is, but how important creating a consolidated uh connected campus uh really uh is uh and and um why we feel uh it is uh valuable.

I'm gonna give you a little bit of a sneak peek at the development plan uh because I know there was conversations about the timing uh of uh the closure uh of Boulder and that vacation of Boulder and when that might uh take place.

There are a handful of things I want to point out uh on this drawing, and it and we've kind of uh spun it uh so that north is to the right.

Uh and so on the left-hand side of the screen is really the core of the campus.

Uh that red rectangle roughly indicates uh the uh boulder uh right-of-way.

As Brian alluded to, uh there is a new entrance uh to the to the school that we'll have two primary entrances.

One, of course, will be right across from Acacia Park.

That would be in the far upper left uh corner of this uh diagram that remains as that primary and kind of ceremonial entrance, but the other is a key entrance that is located uh really kind of if you will, mid-block uh at the bottom of that red rectangle at the where where Boulder Street uh connects uh uh to Weber.

So there's a pedestrian plaza uh that is planned uh for that.

Uh that's where ingress egress uh into the school uh would take place.

Uh we are looking at um then uh uh improvements uh within uh the boulder uh right-of-way.

Uh we would largely uh leave the asphalt as it is, but there are planters, there we're looking at uh artwork a variety of different ways to really connect uh the the campus.

At each end, uh we are proposing uh a gates uh that would uh would uh um uh kind of control uh that uh the from a safety perspective and provide that uh connected uh campus.

Those gates and all of that are would remain accessible for emergency vehicles and remain uh accessible um uh for uh uh for for maintenance access as well as uh utilities that continue to run underneath that that pavement.

That's part of phase one.

The other important piece is that if you saw in the renderings, the north end of the academic building, uh it has a cantilever, a portion of the building cantilevers over uh the uh the edge of that boulder right-of-way.

So for all of those reasons, um uh the intent would be that and why the request for right-of-way vacation now would be to accommodate uh those those various needs.

Is it needed for phase one B, the track and field?

Absolutely, but we also feel it's necessary uh uh out of the gate here when we think about how uh pedestrians uh will will utilize uh this corridor.

Um what I also want to uh add is that when we think about pedestrian trips, and we think about this as really remaining public space as a public as a public school, uh you think uh and we have perhaps uh 1200, 1200 students.

Um we have about a hundred and sixty days of school in a year, roughly 171 days.

Um, and you think of students just going back and forth um uh maybe maybe two trips over the next 10 years, that's 3.8 million pedestrian trips uh across this corridor.

That should not be taken lightly, and uh why we think it's so important that we look at um uh really capturing this space for pedestrian uh pedestrian use.

Okay, uh digging into a little bit more uh detail.

Uh what really strikes me as a planner when I look at this slide is within that red box, look at all of the individual parcels.

Um this has never been replatted in many cases.

Uh these are individual residential lots, probably dating prior to 1871.

Um not only again can we not have uh multiple zone districts, uh, but uh the city policy talks about not having buildings that straddle across uh multiple parcels.

So what regardless of where and how we look at this and approach this, uh the need to address platding, uh the need to address zoning is is real.

Uh so of course Boulder bisects the the campus and prevents really this connected campus feel.

It divides academic and ex uh extracurricular facilit uh facilities.

Uh Brian, I think did a nice job of talking about some of the logistics and operational uh challenges and it exposes our students uh to uh to uh uh uh a risk.

Um and so because of that, we're pursuing the uh the right of way vacation.

Uh there is a commitment to uh for the c for as part of this, the city would retain easements uh again for utilities, uh easements for emergency uh access.

Um and uh a lot of the details of that are addressed as part of the development plan, but I want to commit uh uh certainly convey the commitment is uh is there.

And then the other piece again, that new east wing building and a portion of that cantilever extending over the over the right of way uh creates real challenges if the right-of-way is not um is not uh uh vacated.

Um we also have worked very closely with city staff and tried to understand uh some of the real issues.

We we dug deep into emergency access and wanted to know what are the implications to our community if Boulder uh is closed.

And the response that we received uh from uh emergency responders is that response time would increase uh by about 20 seconds.

Um that's what it would take to go out kind of out and around or find alternative uh routes.

So uh very minor uh impact uh there does not provide uh or result in major uh major impacts.

Um and other routes originating from the north and south uh that uh we looked at are there multiple, this is what emergency service providers look at.

They want to know that even if there's a blockage or there's an issue, are there still multiple additional alternative routes?

And because of the grid, we have that uh that it we're not 100% uh dependent just on boulder.

We also looked at crash test data and tried to dive into that and understand uh where are the the vehicular pedestrian uh um accidents.

And um that was very interesting.

Unfortunately, it didn't drill down into exact uh intersections.

The data just isn't kept in in that in that way.

Uh but uh where there were 284 uh crashes in and around uh the the school uh 265 were vehicular accidents, 14 were pedestrians, and again, I should I should have said this is from 2019 uh through uh through 2024.

So you get a sense of uh some of the challenges.

Um I would have guessed that they were all perhaps associated with the in and around the Palmer statue.

However, we were we were able to find out that is not that is not the case.

In fact, uh many of those accidents actually occur at uh Platte and it's Platte and Wasatch, and we're putting again students right through that that corridor and uh through that uh through that uh in intersection.

Um but one of the results of the assessment uh that the city provided was that uh they certainly felt that this project uh would result in improved uh pedestrian uh safety.

Okay.

Uh in trying to uh again understand the uh potential impacts.

I mentioned a traffic study uh that was uh conducted that looked to project what the impacts might be.

We followed that up uh in uh in kind of the August time frame uh with results coming back in September, took traffic counts to understand uh those those uh implications.

Uh we looked at eight different surrounding intersections, uh and there are a number of uh uh recommendations, uh, but one of the observations that uh took place was that uh the projections uh in that original study, we thought that the impact actually might be more than what we were actually counting uh when the the study was again conducted uh in August.

That's not really how we make choices around transportation.

The reality is many many uh drivers make decisions many blocks prior to that when there's a long term term uh detour so perhaps they're turning and and making changes uh traffic uh habit patterns uh on at Wasatch uh in other cases uh people may be hopping on uh plat much further to the east if you're heading into downtown others actually may be coming in on Pikes Peak the point being with the grid with this system um there are variety of different choices that uh drivers uh make and so that accounts for I think some of the what we're seeing as uh far less um uh impact in and around uh the the the site so what's happening is uh traffic is being uh redistributed uh some of that traffic is going up and around on Saint Vrain a majority of it is moving to Platte or other other locations uh we looked at signal uh uh current signal timing and one of the recommendations is that uh those uh signal timing be adjusted uh based on time of day um uh there are two turning movements that are difficult today and would continue to be difficult uh if you're making a left turn uh on to um the left turn onto southbound Nevada if you're on on St.

Vrain does that make sense or if you're making a left turn onto Weber uh you know on St.

Vrain uh moving north because those two intersections are not um are not signalized.

But what we're seeing then of course is traffic is moving on to other streets and taking advantage of the signalized uh uh network one of the big pluses to closing boulder uh pedestrian uh safety uh will uh uh will be improved uh and uh we'll have the benefit again of that uh connected uh uh campus um I won't go into a lot more on that uh however uh what again one of the things we were pleased to see was that the impacts on traffic are actually far less and we have the benefit of again being able to to know and understand where cars are are are going today.

Some of the mitigation mitigating recommendations today Boulder and Nevada and Boulder and Weber are four kind of you know have four legs and so at the intersection of Nevada and Boulder there is a south you're headed southbound on Nevada there's a left turn pocket that left turn pocket is not necessary and so that gives us an opportunity to actually restore that median we've uh been before the Parks and recreation advisory board who actually has jurisdiction over the historic medians to talk about uh um uh restoring that uh restoring to that median and then there are a number of other kind of curb and gutter uh improvements uh that we would also uh be making and I mentioned uh importance of signal uh uh timing uh and both uh again Lyle DeVries with FHU is part of our team is here to be able to talk about that in more detail and uh uh I know uh Todd Frisbee with the city is as well so when we look at uh the right of way uh uh criteria uh I think uh oh with the conditions of record I'll talk about that in just a moment uh we are addressing criteria number one uh which has to do with uh public transportation purposes um we have been able to demonstrate that the vacation will not adversely impact the use of the right of way uh we're preserving that for utilities also for drainage purposes uh the vacation will not adversely impact the uniform width of the remaining portions of public right of way uh along the block in in either direction uh access to adjacent properties in this case it's D11 on both on both sides so there's not impact to uh third party and that uh that the right of way is consistent with the purpose of um UDC again when we're look at the transportation plans uh we think there's uh certainly a lot of uh consistency uh uh for this particularly when we talk about improving pedestrian uh connectivity and uh but beyond that if you think about uh uh downtown and uh we essentially have several different areas of downtown that are becoming increasingly more uh what I would call uh have more pedestrian um vibrancy uh uh we would I'll obviously uh probably first think of uh the uh um uh busy corner and uh Pikes Peak and that core of of Tejone uh then we have really watched uh South Tejon and kind of the trolley block that begin to change the third place where we're really seeing that change is taking place on the north end um in the vicinity of of Boulder and

Uh uh we would uh obviously uh probably first think of uh the uh um uh busy corner and uh pikes peak and that core of of Tejone.

Uh then we have really watched uh South Tejone and kind of the trolley block that begin to change.

The third place where we're really seeing that change is taking place on the north end um in the vicinity of of Boulder and Tejone.

And it's interesting if you look at the investments that are taking place, uh what the closure of Boulder actually does is uh not only we believe uh provide improvements for pedestrian access in this block with the school, but certainly does that uh further to the east, or excuse me, further to the west uh as well.

Uh when we look at the intermodal transportation uh plan, uh to plan, develop and maintain safe and efficient uh transportation system uh to think about to future, uh, think about livability, think uh think about intermodalism, uh all of those uh boxes um we are checking.

And we look at experience downtown and kind of the vision uh for the future, particularly on the north end of downtown this fits uh project fits beautifully, as well as um uh the right of way.

I won't uh I've mentioned already we'll be bringing back the development plan and we'll be digging into more details about uh streetscapes.

Um just simply more uh justification, again, extensive planning uh context uh for this effort.

So when we look at uh all of the community benefits, many of which we've talked about today, uh whether we see this as a benefit for urban development, uh for arts and culture, uh, for um uh healthy lifestyle, you can kind of go across uh across the board.

Uh and you and then you begin to think about what are some of the pros and cons.

Uh right.

We we firmly believe that uh in this case uh closure for this one block uh section uh of Boulder uh outweighs a lot of the other um uh a lot of the other uh uh uh uh issues.

Mentioned the conditions of approval.

Uh so the city in their uh transportation plans um uh it has is looking towards improving uh Platte Avenue.

Uh Platte Avenue from essentially from um uh from Union uh or actually it's further even further uh to the east, all the way to Wasatch is identified as uh as a major uh improvement project.

The reality is one of the real challenges with that, if you travel just a few blocks from Wasatch to the east, we have the existing underpass.

And so uh real real concern uh from the city is how might traffic be uh be detoured uh uh through that.

And so um out of that and a lot of those conversations, as well as um I I we very much appreciate and understand the value of the grid system and what it what it provides.

And so that in the long term, if uh if the school district uh would no longer need this corridor, uh the city has said they would like to have that uh that right-of-way back.

The district is comfortable uh with these three criteria, understanding that exactly what mechanism is it an IGA, uh, what does that mean?

What does that look like?

That has yet to be figured out, as well as some of the details.

But in concept, uh the district is is comfortable uh again uh with this.

I would say that we have looked at uh alternative uh routes for detours.

Um we wanted to know and understand is is Boulder the only is Boulder the only option.

And uh we believe there are at least two other very viable uh uh alternative uh options.

One is uh simply bringing folks in on Boulder uh while Plat is under construction and turning north or south on Los Atch.

Uh another, even bigger and it may be a situation where you look at multiple uh scenarios, but the other is could to really direct a lot of the traffic that's coming into downtown uh temporarily onto Pikes Peak uh Avenue.

Both of those are viable, uh viable options.

Um the district looks forward to more conversation uh with the city about what that might look like uh into the future.

Uh we do know that those plans, uh what we've what's been shared with us is that the construction of that uh is likely 10 years or more out uh in into the future.

So that uh improvement isn't isn't immediate.

It isn't going to be taking place next year, but uh we respect the city's desire to um protect those kind of options into into the future.

So with that, uh, wrap up our presentation and just say we're excited about this uh transformational uh opportunity, what it means for downtown, what it means for uh the surrounding neighborhood, and what it means for uh for our the youth in our community.

Uh and with that, our team is here and available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

I'd like to just poll for a comfort break.

And so we're gonna take five to seven minutes for a short break, and then we'll come back up as long as that's good with city staff and any other parties.

Okay, so it is currently eleven oh two.

We'll aim to be seated before eleven ten.

Thank you.

The old whole trolley block.

I'm one of the, yeah.

I think I'm the neighbor Joe Joe is the main owner.

Okay, we are reconvening here.

At this time, I would like to invite the public to comment.

Uh, those of those uh members of the public who would like to comment in support of the project are invited to do so now.

Don't don't come on up yet.

We're going to call you right up.

We have two members of the public speaking to support.

Judy and Krista.

Judy, if you can come up to the microphone, introduce yourself, and then you would have three minutes to speak.

I'm Judy Alsley, and I am the president of the CSHS Palmer Alumni Association.

And I've been actively involved in the Palmer Renovation Project since really quite early in the process, I think.

As it began, I was impressed with the systematic and thorough way that the design team dedicated a full year to collecting vast amounts of information from alumni, students, parents, staff of the school, neighboring business owners, and any citizen who was interested.

They listened.

There were online surveys, informational meetings, focus groups, open houses.

They truly were listening to all the various levels and all the various opinions.

And leaders of the project team have spoken to the monthly meeting of our alumni association.

They've shown plans and explained the process and patiently answered any and all questions and concerns and challenges.

I've been a member of the steering committee and was able to see the three high schools.

They took us to the Washington, D.C.

area, and we saw three high schools that were historic schools very similar to Palmer.

The transformation of each of those schools was very impressive.

And now I'm excited that Palmer will also become a state-of-the-art facility by the time this full project is completed.

A serious concern for most alumni is the preservation of the historical character of our school that has been a fixture in Cower Springs for 150 years.

The design team has made sure that the most cherished pieces of our history will be maintained.

And one particularly positive aspect is that the co the um campus will become safer if the total plan is made possible.

Students will no longer need to cross two busy streets as they walk to the gym and that little practice field that has a square track.

If the vacation of Boulder is approved, Palmer will at last have a full-size track and field for practice and gym classes and the full range of sporting events.

What a boost that will be provide for our student athletes and for the whole student body.

Our own track and field complex on our very own campus for the first time in 150 years.

I get excited thinking what it will be like to have the athletic gyms and fields on the same two-block area, along with a full complex of academic and tech buildings.

That is bound to create a campus that generates energy and spirit and a vibrant sense of community.

And we are located right in the heart of the Colorado Springs downtown community.

This magnificently updated Palmer High School will enhance the downtown plan.

And our students will continue to benefit from all the Central Business District has to offer.

I just like to say thank you for considering the proposal and helping to facilitate the vacation of Boulder.

Thank you.

Krista, please, if you come to the microphone, and you would have three minutes to speak after you introduce yourself.

Good morning.

Thank you, board for hearing us today and uh considering our options for rezoning vacationing Boulder Street and the land use plan.

My name is Christa Burke, and I am the current principal at Palmer High School.

This is my third year on campus, and I have really enjoyed being part of the process for which we have undergone to come to this point in the adventure of the reimagining of how a downtown high school could work.

Why I support this plan uh is really and truly first and foremost, the safety and education of my students.

I've about 1200 of them on any given year, and uh walking to and from PE, walking to and from health class uh across Wasatch and Boulder uh can be very interesting to experience.

Um in addition, I think that the innovative way that we can learn um in a building where we are all above ground, uh, that was uh alluded to earlier instead of down in the basement uh and where we have uh really great air quality control is important.

Um I look forward to hearing your uh questions and hoping for your supportive vote uh in the vacationing of Boulder Street so that we can have one campus.

Thanks so much again for your time for hearing our um issues and uh listening today.

Thanks.

We have uh members of the public registered to speak in opposition.

Cheryl, Daniel, Amy, and Maraya is online.

Um we will have Cheryl first.

If you come to the microphone, introduce yourself, and you would have three minutes to speak.

One moment.

Hold on.

I believe we have one person online as in support of the project that should speak first.

Yeah, at this time, if there are any members of the public who wish to comment in support of the project in person or any members online.

We have um Austin Bradley, please.

Hi, uh good morning.

My name is Austin Wilson Bradley.

I am the director of economic development for the downtown partnership of Car Springs.

Um wanted to speak on uh behalf of the downtown development authority and the downtown partnership in support of this project.

Um speaking with my economic developers hat on.

Um we had a recent new mark study um commissioned by the chamber in EDC.

Uh that's assessed really our community's strengths as well as some of its shortcomings.

And one of the key findings of the study highlighted the need to better educate and train uh the next generation here in Car Springs for a 21st century workforce.

Um as a community, frankly, we are too reliant on importing talent uh that is demanded by today's major employers.

So uh really providing a you know a once-in-a-generation opportunity here to invest in Palmer and invest in uh, you know, our our downtown education uh really is an opportunity that um should not be uh wasted or void here.

Um really is downtown's only high school and as D11's IB program, you know, this certainly qualifies um and would show um not only employers but families and the talent really that employers are looking to um to hire that we are committed to investing in in education um and really kind of turning that around here in our community in in a meaningful way.

Um also, you know, we we fully agree with everything that was presented by um the project team um with regard to the vacation of Boulder Street, enhancing uh campus security for the students of uh Palmer High.

Um, and uh really, you know, as speaking on behalf of downtown partnership, we've been really invested lately in our our clean and safe initiative and um enhancing student safety in this way um is tremendously important to us.

Um, you know, I think we also uh you know had Chris mentioned that this aligns significantly with the the downtown master plan and the experienced downtown plan.

And actually, as we look at updating that here, um we're currently in the middle of a major update to that plan.

Um the investments in in Palmer and the renovation have featured prominently in a lot of our our discussions, and we've heard a lot of support in our own discussions around that uh update to the master plan about excitement for for this um really significant upgrade to uh the facilities at Palmer.

So, on behalf of uh Downtown Partnership and the DDA um really enthusiastically in support of this project and the the vacation of Boulder to accomplish the consolidated campus.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public online or in person who want to speak in support of the project?

Okay, we now invite members of the public to comment in opposition to the project.

Cheryl would be the first speaker.

Introduce yourself and then you have three minutes.

Well, three minutes isn't gonna be very long, but I'll try.

Uh my name is Cheryl Brown.

I'm the president of the historic uptown neighborhood association, for which Palmer is a part of the uh neighborhood.

And uh I'm speaking more for the uh residents that live around Palmer and live to the north and to the east.

Um, and uh we have a lot of concern about the vacating of Boulder Street.

Uh East Boulder Street is an important uh signalized east-west um uh thoroughfare and uh it you know connects the neighborhood to the downtown, north downtown, and industry at 25.

And uh Boulder provides just a safe, predictable traffic flow.

Platt Avenue, however, is not so you know, not so safe.

You can't do a left on to Nevada.

It's gonna quickly become a one-lane road, and it's going to force people down unsignalized uh intersections.

And my mother died uh in Briar Gate on an unsignalized intersection.

And I'm gonna tell you I don't like them.

And I don't like forcing cars into unsignalized intersections.

That's very dangerous.

And I there have been a number of times where I get to the point where I only go to signalized intersections when I go anywhere downtown because it's that dangerous.

Parked cars block traffic, and especially on Nevada and Wasatch, and they go fast.

And we have to think about the safety of everybody in the neighborhood in the city, and in you know, in addition to the kids who are also driving.

And then I also want to say that uh uh I'm in I am against the uh destruction of the three National Registered Historic Houses.

Um I don't know if we can stop the Boulder vacation, but should we swap?

You know, if they want Boulder, we want those houses.

We want this district to remain intact.

These houses are beautiful, they're important to our history, and we should save them.

Under no circumstances should we let those go.

And um the closing of Boulder and the removal of this parking is a very uh real concern to the neighborhood because parking nobody has a garage.

Everybody parks on the road.

It's like, you know, fair game.

I'd have people, I'd have people from Colorado College park in front of my house.

My daughter couldn't even park in front of my house.

She's walking, you know.

So let's just say that parking is a big deal.

Throwing these cars on the road is not a good idea, and making these kids walk multiple blocks to get to the school because they have to park a long way is not safe for them either.

So getting rid of that parking is a problem.

And rezoning to FBZ 2T is not necessary.

Um, I know that there's a lot of emphasis coming from the south part of this is a great commercial, you know, you know, downtown partnership.

It's all commercial.

What I'm talking about is the neighborhood.

The neighborhood is residential in nature, it is residential.

All of the the zoning to the north, it's all residential.

So why change it to FPZ?

They can make it R1 and do everything they want to do.

There's no need for that zoning.

Thank you.

If we have other members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the project.

The next speaker is Daniel.

Introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak.

Morning, members of the board.

I'm Daniel Way.

I've lived in Middle Shooks Run neighborhood for eight years.

When I moved to the neighborhood, what struck me about Palmer High School was its distributed campus.

In contrast to the fortress-like design of so many modern schools, Palmer's current layout sends the message.

We trust our students and neighbors.

Downtown is safe.

That openness, students walking on public streets between classes and moving amongst the public embodies a sense of connectedness and confidence that's rare.

The 400-foot block standard forms the rhythm of our downtown.

The quality of pedestrian experience is directly connected to this walkable distance.

There are no examples of or exceptions to the block standard that exclude general public pedestrians.

We have strong local precedents that show how to develop while keeping that structure intact.

Colorado College maintains a beautifully open, safe, and distributed campus.

The new Tiger Hockey Arena even stays within a single block.

The South End project at City Walk Apartments preserved a public plaza after a right-of-way vacation on Moreno Avenue.

These examples show that our community values the block standard and prove that educational excellence, student safety, and pedestrian connectivity are not in conflict.

They enhance one another.

The plan to renovate Palmer High School is exciting, and we want this flagship of District 11 to thrive for another century and a half.

We can do that without erasing the very qualities that make the school special or by compromising pedestrian mobility.

The success of Palmer High School doesn't depend on consolidating two city blocks or fencing in students for their safety.

If our streets aren't safe enough for kids, we're doing it wrong.

The proposed design diminishes what I think makes Palmer unique.

It disregards the surrounding neighborhood scale and character by making a super block.

And also the plan by citing student safety as justification for public exclusion from Boulder Street.

The project applicant sends an unfortunate and false message about the very safe neighborhoods surrounding the school.

Boulder Street is also the preferred and safe route for pedestrians in my neighborhood to downtown because of its signalized crossings.

I respectfully ask you to uphold our long-standing city block standard.

Please recommend the denial of the Boulder Street vacation and the associated land use plan and encourage District 11 to pursue the design that retains public pedestrian connectivity and the open distributed character of Palmer High School.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Amy.

Please introduce yourself and you will have three minutes.

Hi, um, my name is Amy Hill, and I'm also a resident of Middle Shooks Run.

Um, I just want to say thanks for the additional information that you all provided today, as well as to our city planners.

You all have a very hard job.

And Palmer has some very unique challenges.

Um I am pro applic uh pro-education, pro-public education, and pro this campus remodel.

If I could wave my magic wand, however, it would be the option three that had the pedestrian bridge that um retained the um pedestrian and car access on Boulder.

I work downtown.

I live downtown.

I'm a pedestrian and a driver downtown who is frequently also almost hit by cars on my legs and in my car.

And I think there's a lot of traffic challenges downtown that make this decision too challenging to make at this point, even with all of that research that was done.

Um I feel like could in May, in the city's own words, that this could in May follow these um agreements if we make these concessions is not strong enough language at this point.

And I feel like just a year ago, Boulder was under consideration to be a one-way road to supplement plat in the plat corridor study.

And it was deemed not to do that because Boulder was too important as a city thoroughfare to get two major things to now being like, oh, it's only 20 seconds.

If we shut this portion of it, it's not gonna impact I-25, it's not gonna impact emergency response.

Doesn't really check out to me, even after what I've heard today.

Um, and it might feel very visionary for um Palmer.

I feel like the decision to break up the block structure of downtown is kind of short-sighted for the long-term planning of Colorado Springs.

Um, but I am reasonable and I'd be willing to give this concession if some other considerations were made.

And I think moving the Palmer statue at the intersection of Nevada would make some of these signalized intersections less of a problem and less congested and less dangerous.

I use the Boulder Nevada intersection every day to avoid that flat statue.

And right now, I'm frequently backed up four to five cars for people making left turns on to plat because Boulder is blocked.

It feels very unsafe.

And yes, I care about the kids' safety, which is why I'm also suggesting can we please put scrambled um pedestrian intersections around the campus where the entire traffic flow of cars stops in all directions so people can cross diagonally at Nevada and Platte at Wasatch and Platt and other areas downtown, just to make it more pedestrian friendly in general.

Thanks.

That's everybody that has signed up in person.

We have Mariah Osborn online.

If you can please press star six to unmute yourself, you will introduce yourself and have three minutes to speak.

I uh um two things regarding comment.

Let me ask, and we'll come back to Mariah if that's okay.

Was there anyone else online uh signed up in opposition?

We don't have anyone registered.

If there's anyone else online that would like to speak in opposition of this item, please press star six to unmute yourselves.

There's nobody else online.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh, Ryan Tiefer Tiller for the record.

Um Mariah Osborne did email me a couple days ago, maybe yesterday, and I forwarded her email as well as about half a dozen others to DRB members and the applicant yesterday afternoon.

So you have that email from Mariah.

She was on the call, um, but she had to drop off around 11.

Um, and she emailed me asking me to read a statement.

I'm not going to read her full statement since I just received it, but it is essentially very similar to the email that she sent uh yesterday.

Um, I also I have um a hard copy of the six or seven emails that I sent yesterday available for DRB members if you did not get a chance to read them when I sent them yesterday.

If you did not get a chance to read them when I sent them yesterday, so I'll hand those up to the to the dais here momentarily.

I also received one additional email um late yesterday that I have not forwarded to you from uh a recent student of Palmer High School, Connor Strange, he was on the steering committee as well, and I printed half a dozen or so copies of that, which I will distribute as well.

Yeah, Bobby Mickless, Ryan, is there a way for us to view Mariah's statement?

Are you doing that now and for the record for the record, Ryan Tubertiller again?

I was just communicating with the chair that if the board wants me to read Mariah Osborne's email, I am happy to do that.

Um, although I did just receive it within the last half hour or so uh and just to add to it again, Ryan Tever Teller, there is some uh advice from the city attorney's office that we generally don't read emails received at the last minute because doing so we'd have to be consistent and do that consistently.

And Youngction City Attorney's Office, uh, that is why the emails and letters are provided to the board prior to um the meeting.

Um the reason that these meetings are public so that the public can come in person or attend online and uh make their statements.

Um thank you.

Now while we're looking over some of this material, any other members of the public who wish to comment in opposition of the item okay, I believe at this time we can invite the applicant to offer any response to public comment right.

Uh Chris Lieber with NES uh once again.

Um wanted to just address a couple of uh uh items.

Uh one was the expressed concern about uh about the rezoning uh to FBZ.

And and I I I think I want to be clear and transparent that that the district has really taken the approach they want to do this, they want to do this right.

And what I mean by that is could the school district continue to build and operate in the R1 um yes, from a from a state perspective, and given that some of their um uh privileges that come with that as a state institution, yes, they can.

But we've taken another step and we have said, what is really the right fit?

What is what is the right fit from a from a zoning uh uh perspective?

Even if we kept it in the R1, what really matters at the end of the day is what does that design edge ultimately look like?

So that's a step that's in front of us uh when we look at phase two uh ultimately, whether we're in the FBZ or whether we're in uh residential uh zone district.

If we kept it in the residential zone district, uh we would be applying for numerous variances.

Uh, and a great example of that has to do with building setbacks.

Uh the R1 does not allow uh for uh buildings to be pushed to the boundary.

Uh and yet that's what exists today at at Palmer in in a number of locations.

That's what exists uh with the the church across the across the street.

So we believe that with the FBZ zone and good design, um, we can uh achieve a uh really the a proper edge uh to Palmer and a proper edge uh to the to the neighborhood.

And the the district is committed certainly uh uh to both.

Um I really appreciated the comment about the vibrancy that students bring to downtown.

And um one of the the things, boy, oh boy, did we hear loud and clear is that uh Palmer will remain an open campus when it comes to lunch and the ability for students to be able to move from campus into the restaurants and to provide that vibrancy.

uh to Palmer and a proper edge uh to the to the neighborhood and the the district is committed certainly uh uh to both um i really appreciated the comment about the vibrancy that students bring to downtown and um one of the the things boy oh boy did we hear loud and clear is that uh palmer will remain an open campus when it comes to lunch and the ability for students to be able to move from campus into the restaurants and and to provide that vibrancy and so what this is really about is trying to find what's the right balance um uh between student safety uh between being a downtown campus having that be as permeable as possible the students want that they want to be connected uh to downtown but yet uh those very real concerns um that were mentioned earlier around um uh times when the the campus unfortunately has to be on lockdown unfortunately that is a that's a reality of of our times and it f happens far too often and so the ability to be able to manage that is critical and it's and it's very important as well as uh these opportunities for students to you know move on and off off campus uh particularly at at lunchtime um or coming and going uh uh throughout the day so that's that's important um there was a uh comment about uh a one way uh coupler and um I had the opportunity to be part of those those conversations and I I remember that remember that well and um uh I think a lot of the pushback of from that and and why that matters to to Palmer is that uh in creating that one way coupler it was about moving moving traffic perhaps quickly and more efficiently through downtown but that also meant um in some ways uh it's a compromise right as as you're providing and you're directing streets to be thoroughfares it kind of takes away then from that pedestrian um uh notion of pedestrian uh uh friendliness and is in some ways uh counter to I think some of the the master plan vision uh for that northern part of of downtown and that other that section of Boulder Street that's uh located immediately to the west and the idea of a a one-way coupler thoroughfare fair ultimately being built through the center of the Palmer campus if Boulder remained open with Palmer to the north and Palmer to the south that just doesn't feel right um to when we think about pedestrian access when we think about uh pedestrian movement and I think is counter uh counter to that and so this is an opportunity to say pedestrians matter pedestrians are are first um uh in this particular into in particular space and not to look at at Boulder as as this primary uh thoroughfare and I want to again say that that's separate from the need to be smart about how a detour would work uh obviously when plat when that improved much needed improvement happens on plat uh the district is committed to saying well what what how can we uh maybe work uh work together uh on that or or ultimately you know meet those those conditions uh uh of of a of approval um uh so uh I think those are the our primary comments uh and rebuttal again uh if you have questions more about details about student safety uh Krista again uh the school principal is here I think she could speak to that if you have questions specific uh to traffic and signalize our unsignalized intersections Lyle DeVries with FHU who's part of our team is here and prepared to talk about those uh as well so thank you okay thank you to the applicant I'll look now to the other members of the board for discussion as we bring this topic up to the dais any comments or questions for the applicant or for city staff I have a whole list of questions I want to just go down and then if I have a question that someone else has I could check it off or do you want to um we have we have three items and I'm sure many questions I don't have structure yeah I don't either I would I just was writing things down as we were going so um so I guess this is for the the district andor the planning team so is funding in place for all three of the phases um or if not then how if if some are or all of these items were to be approved through the process that's ahead of you in the next couple months if funding doesn't come through then what happens I don't know who wants to take that and I guess I you know kind of also I mean you've talked about that timeline we've kind of talked about the timeline of the zoning change the vacation of the street the land use plan but I guess as that overlaps with what I'm kicking here um with the funding what happens if there's not funding for all I'll speak to the funding and then perhaps Brian from RTA can speak to the the architectural planning and how that shifts um so right now um the 100 million dollars from our COP fully funds phase one A.

So that is the construction of the brand new academic wing on Weber that's already underway.

And I just want to highlight that's underway because we are using a COP, which um the financial mechanism is time limited.

You only have three years from the beginning to completely use the funds, not just um encumber the funds.

So that's why we're moving quickly on that, uh, to make the most use of that.

Uh phase one B, which includes the so it's the academic building and then the renovation of the historic heart of the school, which incorporates this new community entrance uh to add a s a celebratory kind of convocation space at that Nevada corner.

All of that is in that first hundred million dollar phase one a scope.

So that's taken care of.

Um phase one B, the track and field.

We believe uh that the capital team can secure funding for to complete phase one B.

The part that is unfunded without funds identified at this time would be phase two, the big construction of that athletic building.

Uh the goal of the district has been to go for a bond uh to secure the rest of the funds for this project.

Of course, that is when we would be going to our community taxpayers.

Uh today is also election day.

Uh so I can't speak for the Board of Education at this time because the newly seated board as of next month would have to formally make that decision.

So then uh we do have contingency plans.

For example, if we didn't get the funding for phase two, that athletic building that I might ask Brian Calhoun to speak towards if he would want to.

If that answers are you want to mean to stay here.

Well, now that now that you've mentioned all of that, right?

So then so then say that we do not vacate Boulder Street, then you would stop at phase one A with the funding that you have in place if you don't get the street vacation.

And I'm not trying to allude to my decision or any of this board, I'm just trying to figure out so so that at that point that could stop and you would just utilize the phase one A funds to do the new academic wing and then maybe kind of rethink the process.

But if you were to get um the zoning change and all of the requests today plus potential future funding, then that would phase out over the next several years.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and I think that the other question I had around this whole thing is why are we seeing this these requests now?

And your application was put in on June 17th when construction, demolition and construction are already underway.

It seems a little late in the process, but maybe I'm gonna make an assumption that because we're not certain what's gonna happen with funding for phase one B or phase two, this is the right time to ask for those changes um to this the zoning and the street to allow for the future phases.

Is that fair to say?

Yes, but I'm gonna have someone from my team clarify that because that's not my specialty and I don't want to miss I think that was an overarching question for me coming in today is why are we just hearing this now when I can clearly see street closures and construction underway?

So yeah.

So Brian Calhoun from RTA and if Chris needs to elaborate on my response, we can certainly do that as well.

So the the phases that uh Jessica uh indicated and how funding relates to those.

I think that was a good explanation.

We really are funded through phase one A at this point with an idea that phase one B could be accomplished, but it's not currently funded.

If, for instance, uh, because phase one A and one B both do include the vacation of Boulder, uh, if that is not approved, uh, we would uh at that point be required to amend and revise the master plan.

Uh we can still build phase one A, it is possible, although there is uh cantilever with some of the building does cantilever over a portion of Boulder.

So we would have to reconcile that.

That would be one issue that we would have to deal with.

Um it would prohibit the ability to locate a track and field, you know, on the campus.

That would be off the table if we could not get a vacation of Boulder Street.

So that was a significant uh part of the challenge that we were uh seeking to address.

The and why or why are we just hearing it now?

Uh we have been in since June with our development plan.

We've gone through three rounds of review and comments.

Uh we wanted to get through the majority of city comments, make sure those were addressed, make sure that we were in alignment with uh all the criteria uh before it would be presented uh to you as a school district.

It's been mentioned we do have the ability to obtain a construction permit and and build as a school district, and because of the funding limitations, we really had to get started because the money has a time limit that's going to run out, and there would not have been time to wait.

Okay.

I think I have one more question before you go, Brian.

Can I pick up?

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

How did you get the permit for the overhang?

You didn't have kind of that entitlement in place.

Was it uh revocable permit or that has not been permitted yet?

We have a foundation permit at this point.

We have demolition and foundation only.

And so the portion of the building that overhangs over Boulder is not permitted yet.

Gotcha, thanks.

Yep.

Ms.

Mr.

Chair, could I actually add to that?

Um, Ryan T for Teller Urban Planning Manager.

Um that comment is absolutely correct.

And and actually it is less common, but not unheard of for demolition work or site improvement work grading uh to occur prior to public hearings or uh entitlement approvals.

Um so that isn't terribly um unheard of.

Um and while the demo permits and foundation permits have been granted prior to the entitlements and prior to the right-of-way vacation.

I just want to remind the board that as a public school district, um, those permits were not circulated to the planning department for review or approval.

They go to a very limited number of review groups at Pikes Peak Regional Building that operate on behalf of the state to review public school district projects.

And in fact the the vertical the building permit for vertical construction above ground when it is fully submitted and reviewed by Pikes Beak Regional Building on behalf of the state, it also will not be circulated to zoning for our sign-off.

Um it will largely comply with there's certainly an understanding that it will match the development plan that they've submitted and that will be reviewed and processed by the city and ultimately by the downtown review board at some point.

Thanks, Rain.

And but the stuff the street vacation and the zoning change are obviously a local issue.

The permitting is at the state level.

The again, Ryan's two for talking, the right-of-way vacation.

Public school districts do not have the authority to utilize privately uh public right-of-way.

So that absolutely is a local um right that we have, and only city council has the authority to vacate public right-away.

The zone, you're right, they have requested the zone district to form base own, but they do have the authority to um provide public education facilities within really any zone district, even though our zoning code has uh certain permit certain zones where schools are permitted conditional or prohibited uses, um, based on state statutes, a public school district really doesn't have to fully comply with base zone designation to provide their their services.

I have a couple design questions.

Um is there a plan for, and maybe this is maybe for the district, but but it's kind of twofold.

Is there a plan for ERPS field and reusing that?

Um, and and is there has there been any discussion about moving, which I know is costly and challenging some of the homes that we're talking about on St.

Brain, maybe to another location like ERPS Field, like for teacher housing or staff housing as an idea, which again I'm designing from the dais, which I know we shouldn't do.

But and then my other question about moving the my other question completely separate from ERPS is if we move the field up onto Nevada as your as your phase two shows.

Um, how is that as far as visually as opposed to putting the field, or does it just not make sense to put it closer to Weber or onto on to Weber?

Um so kind of two different things, and maybe those aren't all for you, Brian.

But I'm gonna get all my field-related questions lumped together and then see who wants to take them.

Uh so Brian Calhoun again uh from RTA uh to address those.

So in our master plan that was uh approved by District 11, uh, we do include Earth's Field as part of the master plan, and we do conceive that land as being used for athletic fields, although not a football field or track.

Uh, there's also softball field, uh baseball field, tennis courts, other outdoor spaces that a comprehensive high school needs as part of its athletic program.

There is no intent to develop the Earth's field site for anything other than support facilities to directly support education at Palmer, primarily through athletic facilities.

So that that is the intent for the ERPS field redevelopment.

It does uh provide opportunities to look at how that site is developed a little differently.

Uh there's Shook's Run runs underneath it.

You know, it disappears under the street, goes underneath that site.

There, you know, there could be opportunities to look at you know different ways that that could happen across that site w as we look at um how that's used and how that's configured for field and educational use.

As far as the homes on the north side of the north block, uh we have looked at and put a call out for any group or partner, nonprofit.

If there's any entity that would like to take those homes and relocate them, uh the district and the design team would like nothing better than for that to happen.

We would encourage that wholeheartedly.

We would be a partner in that effort.

Uh nobody has come forward uh to do that yet, but that's still a possibility.

Thank you, Nindine.

Bobby Mikolas, downtown review board, just as a uh general comment um to the board, I think we have the unique challenge of looking at this item through the lens of the form-based code.

And while this topic is ripe for discussion on many levels, uh, I I just want to challenge us to filter our questions and comments through that lens that we all hold here.

And then, you know, while I'm speaking, I'll just say this is an incredibly important project.

And um, speaking personally, I born and raised here in town, and I we can see that this is necessary in many ways and going to be critical for the future thriving of downtown and our city.

I I think we're we're here to understand um how does this fit into the current planning and how can we support it through that lens.

Uh I have a similar question about Herbs Field.

The programming that is um anticipated to shift or remain at the field location.

Can you speak to that a little bit and how it is similar or different than current academic programming, uh including hours and volume of students and there I'm I'm hearing a lot of uh comments around student safety and pedestrian crossing and movement across locations.

So I'm trying to understand how the new field on the proposed site um solves that if there's still programming, you know.

We mentioned tennis courts, those would be moving from existing site over to Herbsfield, maybe.

So speak a little bit if you don't mind about the proposed programming on Earth's Field compared to how it is now and how that impacts student safety.

Yeah, absolutely.

So the proposed programming at Herbsfield does include um softball, baseball, tennis courts, a limited athletic building.

There'd be restrooms, limited um changing facilities.

Uh they would be primarily associated with athletics, which occurs for the most part after school.

Uh the school would still utilize tennis courts for PE when they're doing uh PE section on tennis, uh very limited number of students, limited times during the year when that would occur.

So the day-to-day use of the ERPS Field complex as it is today, with the main gym, the pool, all those facilities there.

There's a number of students that are going down for PE for health classes, uh, many things that use the ERBS complex now would all move up to the upper consolidated campus.

So the the majority of the volume, 95% of the quantity of student movement would not be required to go down to the ERPS field in the master plan scenario.

We're replacing that with the consolidated campus, but the majority, like all freshmen, you know, younger students are all in PE.

There's a lot of students, a lot of movement through the course of the day that would not have to go down to ERPS.

The ERPS complex would be largely for after school athletics.

The district does maintain Gary Berry Stadium, so big games, big track, track and field events, you know, those occur somewhere else.

I would say the hours of operation would be similar uh as far as after school activities to what it is now.

Practice occurs after school and before it gets dark.

Uh that wouldn't change those fields, uh the the venues at ERPS would would be used primarily during those times.

There is parking on that site now.

There would still be a small, a smaller amount of parking.

Uh we don't intend to park for large events.

It's really just for coaches, pick up, drop off, uh, limited amount of parking, a limited amount of vehicular circulation that would occur on that site in the future.

Right now it's fairly small, but it would be even smaller.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm I'm trying to think through the lens of um the necessity of this field living on campus on this master's site, this super block.

And you know, I've heard uh arguments that it will increase student safety, and then a lot of the great points about the human friction and interconnectedness of the departments and all the great stuff that can happen with one big campus where you're not crossing streets.

I would like to understand with maybe a little bit more quantitative response, what kind of traffic differences there going to be.

So you said 95% of the activity is going to be able to be housed on the main campus site as opposed to going back and forth.

Uh if that's if that's true, then you've answered my question.

I'm thinking about a scenario where students are traveling from the main campus to Herbsfield during different times a day for after school activities, maybe even busier times a day with more traffic on the roads.

And so I'm curious if you have any sort of um chart or data to show the differences in students crossing during peak hours of traffic or uh any anything data driven to substantiate that there's less um safety concern with the field as is.

I I understand in concept.

I'm just trying to really stamp that so that I can get to the idea that a field on that master block is the right decision.

And and to that point, uh, I don't have the the numbers, but it would be no different than it is now after school sporting events, practice for the most part on the ERPS complex, and the students that are involved in track and field, cross country, football, baseball.

Um baseball's actually off site now, so that would be something that could be housed on site.

Um, but all those student athletes uh would still be going to that site, and that would not be any different.

The number of students, you know, the the vast majority occurs during the school hours when uh schools in session.

The quantities you know of students is much lower for after school activities and events.

But I I think the key that I can speak to is it's no different.

Like it's not ideal if we had an even bigger opportunity to have more land, it would even be better to consolidate all those things, but we just can't like that.

That's not possible.

But we can take um you know the biggest use elements and put them up on the main campus.

Uh, you know, that is possible.

And it, you know, it was, I'm thinking it was asked if we were if we considered putting the field along Weber and uh on the super block, the consolidated campus, and we did look at that, and it just doesn't fit.

It only fits where we've proposed it.

Um Sam Friesma.

Um I also have enjoyed, you know, living in this area for quite a long time.

Um my wife attended Palmer High School in the 90s.

My son just won a state championship with Palmer's mountain biking team.

So really proud of that.

And um while you're up here, Brian, uh, I see along Nevada that the track looks like it's pretty close to the sidewalk.

Is there any plans for I know this isn't where they do meets and things, but would there be bleachers?

Would there be anything like right up against that Nevada property line?

But so we anticipate that there would be uh minimal improvements along the Nevada side.

The track would be fairly close to the sidewalk.

You know, there would be an ornamental fence uh between the sidewalk and the track.

There would be some minimal amount of landscape material, only a few feet uh on that west side, the uh seating, there are bleachers that are planned, and those would be incorporated into the construction of the athletic building.

We do anticipate providing an opportunity for minimal stadium seating.

I mean uh that would be part of that second building.

We don't intend to have big events here, but you know, anytime you've got something going on, there's people watching, and we need a place for them to be, right?

And so we would accommodate that in the construction of that that new gym building.

Thank you.

And then this kind of relates to the architecture, kind of more to policy, but the gates on the kind of pedestrian access.

We've used a couple of terms, and I just want to make sure we're clear that the pedestrian plaza, it's been described as public space, public realm pedestrian zone, but it's completely cut off to public access.

Is that true?

So on the east side where the new uh entry to the building is where our new academic building is, uh, we would have a fence that's set back so that there is an outdoor plaza on the the bold vacated Boulder Street.

The idea is that that would be public access, it's not controlled.

You could have a events, gatherings, people can be there, the public can be there, the neighborhood can be there.

Uh the fence that we would put is set further back to align with the west edge of that academic building.

Um, so that we we do need a line where we can define campus and non-campus, uh, but we do also want a community and a public space that's on campus and used by everybody.

Uh but but to but to be clear, it's not like on Colonial College where you could walk through there during the day.

Um and Jessica Weiss may add a little clarity to this.

This would be an operational question.

Um during the school year, we see the need to define what's public and what's school.

Uh when school's not in session, you know, that would be uh up to the school district to decide if that would be open.

But the intent is that it's not completely open like Colorado College is today.

Well, I school district 11 again.

I just want to add some uh some complexity to that answer and uh also address something um that board member McCoolis was asking about.

Uh one of the hats I wear as director of engagement is I'm responsible for crisis communications for the district.

Not my most fun hat, um, but my most busy one.

And um, so I am the one who's called when things happen in and around Palmer that we need to have emergency response to.

In that vein, while we don't have specific data around these things, we we have to rely kind of on anecdotal.

Um last year, twice there were individuals with AK-47s um arrested across the street from Palmer High School.

That is a reality of Palmer High School that we have to deal with as a school district.

I mean that in no disrespect to the neighborhood.

We love the neighborhood, we believe in the safety and strength of the neighborhood.

It's just 2025 in public education where these are the conversations that we have to have.

Um, so it is a reality for us that safety of our students has to take priority and we have to think about that in new ways.

And so the school district, to answer your question, um, board member Friesma is very willing to think about what are the opportunities to create community access to this campus while maintaining student safety.

And we understand that that's a complex conversation.

We have to lead with student safety.

So there are times of the day that those gates do need to be locked.

We've seen examples of when that has to happen.

And yet, uh, to points that have been made earlier, we also need to think about the opportunities that come with an open campus.

So I think that's a very complicated discussion that needs to continue to happen as we continue the development of this plan and the design and thinking about how we can be best partners with the city in that same vein.

We've also thought about how can we be partners with the city and access to the track and field.

Um is we've seen models in Washington DC, where the public has had access to a school track and field because it's part of an urban um environment.

And I think that's I know that that's something that my superintendent and I are very willing to entertain as we continue to develop off develop this plan.

So we hope that answers a little bit more.

Harrison Soal Downtown Review Board.

I think I have a question for Brian about the uh historical structures on the north end of the property.

Looking at the land use plan for the first phase, those are currently marked as open space.

Is that implying that the houses will be demoed in this first first phase, or will it be part of phase one B.

In the master plan, it is identified as phase one B.

Um Chris Lieber, is there any additional clarity to add to that that you're aware of?

No, I I think in in terms of timing, there are a couple of things uh I that are that are worth uh noting.

Um, um I think it's it's fair to say that the the district is not in the business of providing housing or being a landlord.

I mean, I think that's I think that's I think that's fair.

It's not what they it's not their forte.

Um and so um at this point, um the leases for the individuals, correct, that are in that uh in those buildings um will be up at the end of the year.

So it's use as uh as those those buildings use as residential um will be coming to a close at that at that point.

We do have a window of opportunity where we would love to find the right partner to come along and uh be willing to relocate uh those um those buildings.

And we've we've been actively uh trying to encourage those those conversations.

Um we just haven't been able to find that to find that partner.

And um, I think that the timing on exactly when that, whether it's demolition or relocation would happen, would be driven by if we have have a partner that comes forward and says I need X number of months to be able to get this plan in place and figure it out.

Um I'm I'm confident the district would say, well, let's let's let's take the time to do that.

Let's do this, do this right and figure it out.

Um, however, I think if no partner comes comes forward, um uh I think then we just then it's the the reality uh uh of those uh those those buildings needing to be removed.

I don't know if that's and that's not a black and white answer to your question, but I think it's the best we can we can offer at this point.

I've looked at the land use plan a lot, and it looks like to me, with how this the field is developed, that there is room for potentially at least two of those homes to stay until the beginning of phase three, um, just with how the layout works.

And I think in the the housing crisis that we have here in Colorado Springs, it it seems unfortunate that we would lose four multifamily houses that currently have, I assume quite a lot of tenants living in there.

And I guess I would question to the board if there's potentially interest in trying to change the land use designation for some of those properties to being residential, at least in phase 1A.

Um I know that D11 is not in does not provide housing.

Um, but I assume there are other companies in Colorado Springs that could act as property managers.

So that at least because especially since uh phase one B and two are not funded currently, it would really be tragic to have just empty houses for years or to see them demoed and then phase two to not move forward and then it's just an open field or a parking lot.

Right.

And again, I think our our hope is that maybe a partner does does step forward that actually focuses on providing uh you know affordable housing or or or housing uh and in close proximity.

So it oh I think you mentioned this earlier, but those even though the the his the National Historic Registry Zone District overlay, it's not an overlay.

I'm getting the wrong terms wrong, but even though that extends over those homes, those homes themselves are not listed on the on any registry, correct?

They are part of the they're part of the historic district.

Um they themselves are not individually listed and wouldn't uh qualify as what you said earlier.

That's correct.

Okay, I just want to make sure I need to correct I think I have another question for the traffic engineer.

If he's here just to clarify for the city's traffic engineer for the the district's traffic engineer.

For the cities.

Hi Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Yes, uh Todd Frisbee City Traffic Engineer.

One of the concerns that some of the neighbors have brought up is the pedestrian safety with how um if we vacate Boulder Street, traffic will be redirected to St.

Vrain and or to Platte.

And some of the intersections currently are set up in a way that are not as pedestrian friendly as they could be.

So I just wanted to hear if you have an opinion on the potential of requiring curb bump outs, painting crosswalks, adding signalized infrastructure to intersections such as St.

Brain and Webern, St.

Brain in Nevada, and potentially Nevada and Platte.

And any others that you think might be interesting.

Um are you asking in for this applicant to improve those intersections with with crosswalks, bump outs, synalize intersections, or is that kind of what you're asking?

Are you asking in for this applicant to improve those intersections with crosswalks, bump outs, synalize intersections, or is that kind of what you're asking?

Or just in general, my opinion on whether those need those need those kind of facilities if you had if you happen to close.

I think it would be both of those.

Because in the current land use plan, it does show part of the Nevada median being changed.

And since that's part of their land use plan, I would have assumed that that was something that they're gonna be funding and leading the charge on.

Yeah.

Yeah, I could speak.

Let me speak to um uh speak to that the best I can.

So uh I think um when you look at uh the one thing the applicant did was to look at changes in traffic patterns with because we have Weber closed now, right?

Uh and what we what we see was um as um they talked about sort of a dispersion of traffic, uh dispersion of traffic around.

Uh so uh, you know, the um and uh it's sort of in my assessment of that, I would say necessarily like you asked, which would we require would we require signalization, say St.

Borrain and Weber to St.

Borrain and Nevada?

Not likely we wouldn't require uh require that there's not it's not signalized today.

We um you have you you will still have signalized intersections to cross Weber and to cross Nevada at Boulder, even with the even with the vacation, you still have the you still have that option, you just don't have that option to continue along uh Boulder.

Um and so uh there are other things we can do to improve safety at St.

Borrain, as one of them would be pulling back the parking from the intersections.

Um bump outs are certainly an option.

Uh you know, when residents or people try to cross Weber or or uh or Nevada, I would encourage them to use the centralized intersection.

Uh, but you know, you do have the median, so you also have the option to make the two-stage crossing.

So um, in a lot of ways, those intersections um are uh have a little bit better pedestrian safety than say your standard intersection out in the Briar Gate neighborhood or something like that.

So um that would be my kind of my response to that to your question.

Would any of those potential improvements be on the developer, or is that something the city would do in response to the changes that this neighborhood's gonna see?

Well, um uh that is something that um has not been discussed.

Uh and um and uh we have not required those changes with this application um and put that in in response to that develop in in response to the development of this application because as the neighborhood representative on this board seeing the potential impact that this would have if everything goes through on mid shucks, it it does seem like it would disconnect us slightly from downtown.

Currently Boulder Street is one of the more direct ways for the residents of my neighborhood to get to to the town.

And if that's gonna be the case, I would like to see some kind of improvements in the pedestrian infrastructure on the the new intersections that they would be using in whatever ways that that could be done.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sure, thank you.

There's thank you.

I'll just uh say if we do choose to um consider vacating Boulder, I would want to readdress some pedestrian safety improvements together if we can get to that point.

Mr.

Chair, if I could just add uh Ryan T for Tiller again, um those level of improvements and details are generally included as part of a development plan review.

So um knowing that the development plan will include warrants, it at should the zone change and the vacation and the land use plan all be approved, the development plan would come back to you uh sometime early 2026, and that plan would show public space improvements, um, new sidewalks, curb and gutter where they're closing curb cuts or other things.

Um, and it could also show uh pedestrian improvement changes, uh crosswalks, um, ADA parking, um, signage and striping, issues like pulling parking away from an intersection, provide more visibility, all those types of details could be included on the development plan and discussed uh by the DRB at a future public hearing.

And that would that would be something chapter could consider uh you know in that development review process.

Um Todd, before you go, yeah.

Uh and maybe this is you can tell me if this is an inappropriate question or one that you can't answer.

I think we heard, you know, I think some testimony and evidence about um the history of of closing streets for civic uses, hospitals, parks, et cetera, which I think is very much a planning and design kind of conversation that we heard.

But from a traffic engineering standpoint, or from maybe the city's perspective or your perspective, do you have a philosophical or a um a position on the closing of streets kind of separate from, or is that not something that you can answer?

Well, I think that partially, I think I mostly answered, I think we public works mostly answered that in the staff report.

Yes.

With the five things that we we did mention disruption of the grid as one of our considerations.

Because we're trying to answer that subjective question on that first subjective question.

Is this needed for public right-away, right?

And so we, traffic engineering, looked at it from our perspective.

Like, what do we think?

You know, how do we interpret that question?

And we've added those five sort of you know, thoughts for decision makers to consider and vacating, vacating the right-of-way.

Um it comes to just in general philosophy, you know, philosophical um uh there's no, you know, I'm not yes or no on on vacating on vacating streets.

It's all driven by the context and and and the uh and the um uh and where it is.

And so um, since I've been on uh staff, there's I think we've considered a couple different vacations and uh and uh and so uh and we we approve those uh those vacations uh but they were a different context than then the than this than um um uh then uh than here.

And so um I think uh as I said, I think we've we've articulated our position with with regards to Boulder Street vacation, um, and um in our interpretation of that first requirement of the vacation criteria.

And I do have those up, so thank you.

Okay, sure.

Bobby Mikolus.

Um I'm I'm sorry to keep coming back to the field here.

And you're not the right person to ask this.

So this is a question for the advocate.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm still available to additional questions.

Thank you very much.

My my question is really I'm I'm trying to understand the reason for the field on the campus.

And um and I understand that to be to help with the students' productive learning environment and also student safety.

That seems the field seems to be the reason for proposing vacating boulder.

Is that correct?

That the primary reason for vacating Boulder Street is because the field only fits if we do that.

Is that correct?

We're both gonna speak to this in different ways.

No, I don't think the field is the only reason for vacating Boulder.

Um we started from a place safety has always been a huge concern for our community, and connectedness is also a concern.

So we started from there, which is where you saw those three plans with the different options of how do you create connectedness and safety.

Um and the field then came into discussions of to your point uh that I uh Brian Calhoun was uh answering a little bit earlier.

The traffic down to plat currently, because ERPS field serves not just as a gym, but as a location for PE and health classes and sometimes other things based on the situation of the school and it not being optimal right now and its current academic offerings on the main campus.

Um the traffic down there during the day is intense.

We're trying to limit that to only being after school traffic by bringing the majority of any activities that happen on that plat Wasatch block up to the main campus, and then therefore keeping the majority of our students on those two blocks circling and moving throughout the day in a more contained space, and then when they're launching into downtown, they're launching in one direction instead of being pulled in a variety of directions across disparate city blocks when they're constantly going back and forth to the gym.

To that point, for example, uh another safety issue that happened um was an individual that was arrested in the middle of our city of our students walking to class.

So they were walking down to Platte when a police officer was pulling their gun on an individual, and we've just got that happening in the midst of students, and there's a very difficult to account for or contain them, especially when principals are in the middle of which students are doing this block here, there, the other.

This drives not all, but a majority of the of the activity to those two blocks that both keeps us with eyes wide open to what's going on, while also as you alluded to supporting this um this more communal friction throughout the day.

Um the track and field, I I just also have to another hat put on my enrollment hat.

Um Palmer currently is built for 2,000 student capacity.

This new building uh will put us at a 1,500 student capacity.

The current enrollment at Palmer is just under 1,200 students.

So we're looking to grow with this new building, but never to get back to that 2000 student capacity.

And uh one of the things when the demand signals we've heard from our students and from our families is it's hard for them to choose Palmer when every other high school in the city has a nice new track and field facility.

Um we don't want you at North High School to be running cross-country and then say my only option for high school is Coronado because they've got a nice new track, and Palmer doesn't even have a circle, a circular one.

Uh and so what as a district, our first client is students and families.

And if they tell us that that's something that will make their experience at the school, we have to listen to that as well.

But I'll also offer to Chris.

Uh Chris Lieber with NES and your your your question, uh, Mr.

Chair actually took me back to a kind of this key pivotal moment in the design process.

And we were looking at different alternatives.

And uh you may recall three of those, uh although there were more, but three of those alternatives were shown.

And it was interesting at that point.

Um the track and field were not part of that idea and concept.

And yet, and however, a new gym, new athletic facility, and a very different configuration of architecture was happening on the north side.

And even without the track and field, what we loud heard loud and clear um from we had a room full of full of folks was let's explore this idea of a connected campus, independent uh uh of the field.

And and so uh I guess I want to just point to this idea from us from a safety standpoint from a kind of connected campus connective culture, was actually the primary driver for the closure uh or the vacation uh of the right-of-way.

Um and then when that became okay, well, if there seems to be some community interest in doing this, how could we then maximize kind of the space or what that footprint might look like?

That's when the field uh came in.

So I think it's fair to say that it really was it was safety, it was this idea of connect, you know, connectedness that really drove uh those initial conversations around vacation a boulder and then what what could happen if indeed we leaned into that that idea uh this Troy Coats I I think this is uh probably for Ryan.

Um thinking about zoning.

I'm trying to understand the the negatives that are out there between the FBZ and R1.

If if we go FBZ, what are maybe some of the negatives or opposition that could be to that?

Ryan Tiefer Tuller, urban planning manager.

Um as the board knows, form-based zone is a zone that is intends to be somewhat use flexible.

Um, not quite use neutral, but but most urban uses are permitted within the form-based zone.

So form-based zones, firstly, have a lot of flexibility on uh the use of land in an urban environment.

The physical standards of the form-based zone are also um written to uh require and support urban density and forms.

So we actually have the zone has a maximum building setback as opposed to a minimum setback.

Buildings are supposed to be pushed up close to sidewalks to uh create a interesting and vibrant pedestrian environment.

Um whereas our residential zones require buildings to be pushed back away from the street, creating a uh front lawn or parking area or other activities between the public realm and the buildings themselves.

Um there are some.

I mean, I think regardless of what the zone for this site ends up being, whether it's foreign-based zone or the existing R16R5 zones, um, the school district will uh likely pursue uh a build out that is pretty darn similar to what you're seeing on the land use plan.

Again, because of state authority, they um uh don't necessarily have to fully comply with building setbacks or building heights or use restrictions and those types of things.

Um so I think one issue that's been raised by some stakeholders regarding the proposal for the form-based zone is um long term.

And by that I mean 50 years from now or 75 years from now, when we no longer have high schools, we ever everyone learns via hologram from their bedrooms.

Um what would the form-based zone uh allow as far as future uses should this site not be used as a form-based zone as a as a high school?

And uh, you know, I I think I'd defer back to my initial comments.

Form-based zone is fairly use flexible, and a wide range of things could happen there.

Um that being said, just phase one A is a hundred million dollar investment.

I think it's extremely unlikely that this property will be used for anything other than a school for a long, long time.

You know, 75 years from now, I I don't know.

Um, but uh I think the surrounding land uses, surrounding forms and densities, and even the surrounding zones do support the proposal to establish the form-based zone over this eight acres.

I hope that answered your question.

I know I I rambled a little bit.

No, thank you.

Uh Sam Priestman, uh piggybacking on that.

So between now and 75 years, any changes would not necessarily have to come to this board for warrants because they could do essentially what they wanted either way.

Um Ryan T for Killer again.

I I might look to my left for the city attorney's office at some point during this answer.

But according to state statutes and uh local interpretation of how that affects public school projects, school districts are required to make a submittal to the local municipality illustrating the the physical development that they're proposing.

So, yeah, 30 years from now, they decide they don't want to track and field on the site, and they'd rather build new buildings there.

Uh a submittal would be made, it'd be processed and reviewed by the planning department.

It depending on compliance or not with form-based standards, it might end up in front of the downtown review board for a public hearing.

Um that is clear that state statutes require districts to make a submittal.

The state statutes also, though, give us public school district the ability to receive that input from a local municipality as far as zoning compliance, and then pursue proceed with their development, regardless of whether they've gotten their final entitlements or not.

Um local municipalities do have the ability to um request a hearing in front of the school board, uh, which would ultimately have the final say on what uh is constructed or not on public school property.

Harrison Sokolders to follow up on that.

So any recommendations or requirements that we may place upon the applicant basically could be ignored.

And I guess my my question with that then is it seems like the only part of this that the city has its own control over is the vacation of Boulder Street.

Does that mean that if there's any requirements that we would want to place on the applicant that that should be placed on the vacation as a condition?

Uh Ryan T.

Fortiller, it's a great question.

Uh and I I don't know that I can give a perfect answer.

Um, I will absolutely confirm that we have local control over our public right-of-way today.

And the the uh the right-of-way vacation uh gives us a lot of ability to affect the final outcome of the project through conditions or other things.

Um the the land use plan obviously illustrates the vacation of the right-of-way.

So um it would make sense if if the right-of-way isn't ultimately vacated, that they would come back with a modified land use plan illustrating how they'd intend to develop their campus without the vacated right-away.

Um ultimately there is some I guess uncertainty of if downtown review board planning commission and city council require conditions or modifications to the plan.

Um, and the school district didn't support or agree with those conditions, how that would play out as far as public school board action or not.

Um that being said, and and maybe it's an opportunity for the school district uh to comment, but my impression in our dialogue to date has been one of cooperation.

They want to follow local zoning as much as possible.

They want to work with the city, our traffic engineers, our technical experts to meet as many standards as possible uh for this project.

And Young Chin City Attorney's Office, if I may, real quickly.

Um, as to your point about conditions on vacations, those conditions correct.

The city code does give authority for city council to place conditions upon the vacation of a right-of-way.

However, those conditions should really be related to the vacation itself.

Um, and there may be legal questions along down the road if um questions as to whether those conditions are actually enforceable or not, um, and whether they're actually related to a said vacation, depending on what those conditions are.

But I will just lay down right now that the conditions themselves have to be related to the vacation.

And is it also um just part of course of procedure for us?

We are making a recommendation to council, city planning commission is making a recommendation to council.

So any conditions that we may discuss or come up with would purely be a recommendation.

Council could agree to take those um and/or discard them in their final uh decision making on the item.

Is that true?

That is correct.

So we should not think that what we've set forth is going to be binding per se until it works all the way through the process.

I just don't want to get hung up on something that may get struck down later.

You know, I'm partially uh Bobby Mikolas, downtown review board, looking to my other board members here.

I'm I'm sort of hung up on uh I understand the rezone, I understand the use plan.

It's my in my mind vacating the right-of-way is a question on whether or not this is a necessary function and whether or not it can be upheld in the form-based code or if there's reason enough to look to the precedent of hospitals, schools, parks.

That that's where I'm stuck right now.

And um, it's hard for me not to imagine a scenario.

I'm not trying to be a designer here where some of the missions and objectives that I've heard today could be accomplished without eliminating a walkable grid, maintaining street connectivity, you know, um active public edges, some of the things that the code calls out.

That's that's where I'm stuck, just as a topic of discussion.

Yeah, I appreciate you making it conversational instead of just questions.

I think I'm a little bit stuck on uh the field perspective, um, and maybe less so on the street vacation.

I like the idea of a consolidated campus.

Does the field need to leave live there?

As we've heard that maybe majority of the use of some of those fields is after school and some of the other functions, pool and field house and gym are what need to be happening during the day.

Um, and so maybe maybe there's just more questions around that.

But yeah, you know, I was um there for a minute, and what I understand is the field is not the primary reason for eliminating the right-of-way.

And so I think the experts are in the room on what the best use is of that super block.

So I'm actually that doesn't bother me.

I'm just trying to get my head around the idea that this is a necessary thing to uh eliminate public easements and all the benefits of the grid and that current right-of-way.

Harrison Sokol.

I liked earlier in the application when they mentioned that there was going to be over three million student crossings in the next 10 years.

I think that put it in perspective.

It sounds like Palmer High School students are the vast majority of pedestrian crossings in that little part of our downtown.

Um, so because of that, I'm thinking vacating Boulder might be a good idea.

I am concerned about the connectivity between the sides, the sites east of it to the rest of downtown.

And I would be curious if there's any chance of preserving some kind of pedestrian connection through the campus throughout all the phases.

But I do understand that Palmer has its concerns with security.

So weighing the security versus the connectivity with the neighborhood.

I I think is a challenging thing.

I don't know if any of the applicants would like to speak to the possibility of maintaining some kind of pedestrian connection through it, even if it is during summer or after school hours.

I don't know if any of the applicants would like to speak to the possibility of maintaining some kind of pedestrian connection through it, even if it is during summer or after school hours.

It was mentioned that that's being thought about.

I'm just like to hear a little bit more about your thoughts on it.

Thank you.

Um the way I would like to frame that is uh we are here today.

Um I the best that my brain is computing uh everything, Ryan is spelling out the difference between what a school district has to do versus what we're doing today, is not just about the right-of-way vacation, it's a lot about being a downtown campus.

Um the easy thing to do would be to eschew a lot of these processes and say, as a school district, we get to, but that's not what it means to be an urban campus.

An urban campus needs to work in concert with everything around it.

And so we are open to working through the hard questions about the complexity of how do you maintain student safety, but also think about how you fit into a neighborhood as we walk through each step.

And so while I can't tell you we have that figured out yet today, we are committed, and I I know you're just taking my word for this.

Um, so you have to take it at what it's worth.

Um, but we really are committed to working through those small pieces.

Those small inconveniences of it's not easy to solve this, but if it's better for the vision of what Palmer can be and how we can activate our downtown, then that's worth it to me to sit through conversations we haven't.

And we have done that up so far in this process.

Um, there are other things we're thinking about.

You know, what are what are partnerships that we can bring to life in this building?

Um, and we've done some unprecedented things.

For example, uh, some of you might know that New Life Church downtown, uh, they use Palmer every single Sunday as a rental.

We've crafted new rental agreements to think about how we can be a better partner to that entity because it's just a different experience than we typically have.

Has it caused headaches in our procurement department?

1000%.

But that's fine because we're doing something a little different here.

And so I we are very open to thinking about what are the times of day?

Can we do a study on um understanding in through conversation with the neighborhood when they most desire access to this campus and when it could be beneficial?

Those are all things that are still very open as we continue to develop.

So it's not a hard and fast, just commitment.

Well, thank you for those considerations.

Um since you're up here, I just have another quick question of the historical structures.

Um, do you know how many people currently live in them?

Um we we uh my uh procurement person's not here who's handling all those agreements.

Uh two are houses are housing apartments and two are businesses actually who are renting the homes.

So they're not all being lived in currently.

Um the Nevada home, it which is not in the historical district, has the highest number of tenants, and then uh one of the buildings and the homes in the historical district is tenants, and the other two are both being rented by current businesses.

But I I could provide those numbers later.

I'm sorry I don't have them on hand.

I guess I'm just curious if the district does have thoughts on trying to maintain the residential use of those properties until until their destruction and demolition becomes actually necessary so far through conversations with the tenants of the building, there's been no uh resistance to vacating their leases and moving elsewhere.

That hasn't been something that's been voiced to us.

We um have been in conversations with those individuals about that.

It we are currently using a third party to manage uh the the rental management of those leases because that's not something we specialize in, and it would be reckless of us to take that on.

Um if brought to us by the tenants, we would continue to entertain those discussions, but that just hasn't been brought to us as a concern up to this point.

Uh Jessica, this Troy.

Um back to the discussion of how does the community use the campus during you know, or when could they use it and kind of thinking about it granularly?

Um, you know, it seemed like evenings, weekends would be more of a time that the community would maybe be wanting access through that.

I mean, have you thought through that?

I mean, is there an operational process you think the school could do to have that area be more open to the public during, you know, I guess you would have to decide what times that the that you know you need it for safety and what times that maybe you you don't need it as much.

Could it could it have you thought through how that could look?

Um we've thought through a couple of different models.

I I'm losing track uh three hours in of what I've said already and what I haven't said.

So forgive me if I already mentioned this.

But when we did an educational tour uh to Washington, DC to look at some high schools and how they integrated into the urban situation around the urban context around them, Banneker High School is one that stood out.

The track and field is operated by the Washington District or sorry, the District of Columbia uh Parks and Rec department, actually.

And so that was an IGA between Parks and Rec in District Columbia and the school for mitigating and understanding these are hours of usage, shared time, not shared time.

Um and you know, every agreement has its bumps, but by all means Bannekur repoint uh reported that it was something that worked for them and worked for their community.

So that's one model we've just been studying and looking at to understand how that could work for us.

Um through our robust rentals department in the district, we are comfortable with having buildings be available for public use at certain times and student use at other times.

I think we would just need to hear from the community the demand and the and the interest to then start walking more into a uh more detailed understanding of what it could look like.

We just haven't heard that quite yet.

This may be for staff, but when when would this discussion happen in this process?

I mean, does this does this get flushed out prior to planning commission, prior to city council?

When when would this type of details maybe not this, but I mean this along with maybe some of the other details that the board is you know contemplating here, when when do all these details get figured out?

Uh Ryan Tifertiller.

Uh I'm not sure I have a perfect answer for that.

I think uh again, knowing that it we're largely talking about public use of what is today public right away, I think that it could be uh an issue that is required or a condition that is required by city council as part of the right-of-way vacation, some sort of note or restriction or or condition of record to the ordinance that could require public use of a portion of what is today public right-away during off hours or off season or or however it might be.

But um I don't I don't again, I don't I don't know.

I think it's the difficult thing is as part of the later phases of development, phase one B or phase two, public access across the campus would need to would require use of more than what is today right away because you to jog around the track, you'd have to cut across the school district's south property, uh, which is not right away today.

Um I don't I don't I don't know.

I don't really have a great answer for you, but it is certainly something that could be discussed at Planning Commission and again at City Council when this gets there.

And Young Chin City Attorney's Office, if I may briefly.

Um, upon council's final action on the vacation of the right-of-way, that title of that right of well, right of way will convert to the adjacent property owners here, the school district.

So upon that, what the district decides to do with their now owned land is really up to them, right?

So I just want to emphasize that upon the vacation ordinance being passed through council, that's essentially the last kind of decision-making authority for the city.

That makes sense.

And I think we do have another individual from the city attorney's office online, Trevor Gloss, who um may be open to comment further if necessary.

Well, I think that's a good point.

And I was just thinking about the fact that depending on the phasing of construction timelines, we may be talking here about access through what will be an active construction site if if approved, right?

And if going forward, so even if there's an endeavor to allow public access, it may be just be a construction site of which no one wants to, you know, or will be allowed to access through anyway.

And then I'm also thinking about the fact of like being a downtown driver and going through and how many students I'm right as I'm driving and I'm seeing all these students.

Um, I won't have to worry about them.

So my right, the access that I may lose on Boulder Street may be easier on some of the adjacent streets because I'm not dodging students as maybe I as we would be in the current configuration.

So I I think it's one of those, in my mind, it's one of those situations where you give up one thing to gain something else.

And so, yes, we may be losing public access through a street, but we may be gaining, I think, tremendous student safety.

Um, I was just, you know, there's so many terrible incidents around our country all the time, right?

And you think about students and access, and they have no prefrontal cortex and they dart across tr streets and um and to be able to get them a little bit more contained and to keep them away from traffic.

I see the benefits of that.

So, anyways, I say that because I think we may be talking about something that may not even be an issue.

If that as young is saying, right, that area becomes no longer owned by the city, they don't have to provide access, and or it could be construction zone.

Um those are my philosophical thoughts on that.

But I don't see a scenario where downtown sees smaller projects trying to come in.

We keep seeing bigger and bigger and bigger projects.

So I don't think this is something that we're not gonna deal with again.

So I s I like I in my mind, I don't see why we have to say it's one or the other.

I think we have a good example at the at the uh Olympic Museum where we've sort of woven together different things, and we're like I'm always a proponent of downtown, you know.

I w always want the projects bigger and bigger and more and more and more stuff merged and weaved.

And I think this is one of those prime examples where we have the opportunity to weave things.

Uh we have uh UCCS has a great example of a sports field on top of some parking.

Like I think there could be ways to weave the public and private entity and the get everything that everybody wants in this one project.

I think it it's the this is the exact type of thing that if we want our downtown to be a walkable, thriving neighborhood and have all this other stuff and accommodate really large projects, we're gonna have to think that way moving forward.

Um that's just my thoughts on that.

I think we have to go that way of making more out of our public realm, not negating a public realm in to accommodate a single use.

I've got a question for the applicant, Bobby Mikhail's downtown review board uh related to what you just said, Sam.

So and I I want to just say I appreciated Daniel uh Mr.

Way's comments written into prior to this meeting, they were actually really orienting for me.

So I appreciate it and I appreciate your support of the project, by the way.

Um one of them was of course to improve pedestrian safety, and we talked about how we might be able to have some say in that when we do see the development plan come forward.

So that's maybe for another day.

The other comment you had was to really consider um helping Boulder Street to remain publicly accessible as it's vacated.

And you also had some comments about how um the current model of the high school actually might accomplish some of the goals for the education of the students even better or equally effectively as the proposed closed campus.

So the question is for the applicant what um resources, insights, study, otherwise, other tools or or insights can you share have helped you come to the conclusion that this kind of closed campus model is gonna help these students in the ways that you've described more so than maintaining a public right-of-way, for example, through the campus.

I understand the safety issue.

We've gone round and round about that today, and I I can frame that appropriately.

Help me see why we can consider a a pretty broad broach into the form-based zone for the sake of students thriving in the mission of the school.

Um, help me see why that's important to vacate this beyond just safety, you know.

The connectedness uh was a word that I attached to.

I I understand what you're saying with a connected campus.

I wonder if that can be preserved while still maintaining a publicly accessible right-of-way, even if it's not a road, for example.

And I know you've gone round and round about this.

So hopefully you can pick up a question in there and help me see what you're seeing.

Sure.

Yep, happy to hear from the principal.

Not my day job.

Uh can I so the question is really I I think what I hear you saying is closed campus versus connected campus.

So I think what you're saying is what are the benefits other than student safety of having a fence around the outside of the boulder vacated road?

Is am I hearing your question kind of right?

You are, and the phrase I keep coming back to is um re-establishing a public realm equivalent, you know, as we vacate this.

That's something that's a lens I'm looking at.

What are the downsides of re-establishing a public realm equivalent to the programming and the education of the students?

Great question.

Uh I'm not sure I 100% have a really great answer necessarily.

Um, but some of the things that um we see uh I think with our public interactions, uh, mostly to me have to deal with how our students um become more globally minded in that it's more than just about themselves, right?

Um, and then the other thing I see a lot of is safety, um, to be perfectly honest, right?

Safety and how we do things.

Um so I'm trying to put myself in the not safety mindset uh because that is always my number one priority, number two is academics and how do we teach children, right?

Um so in the not safety realm, I think that it's great for our students to interact downtown with public.

Um, I think it's great for our students to uh venture out and build relationships with the businesses around us.

Um we are working towards deepening opportunities for students to get work-based learning in our downtown walkable area, um, which we find a lot of our work-based learning opportunities aren't right in our neighborhood.

Um while I think there are tremendous benefits to that, I also think there's a lot of distraction from the learning environment when we have those interactions, um, particularly during school hours.

Would I love for you to build me uh the kind of bridge walkway thing that's at the Paralympic Olympic Museum down into America the Beautiful Park to have pedestrian access over our campus or around our campus while preserving the uh non-distracted kind of self-contained piece during school hours?

100%, yes.

Uh, where does that money and design come from?

Don't know.

Um, I don't know if that's helpful in in providing an answer to you.

Uh when construction first started this summer, um, we had some breaches in the fence line, so to speak.

Uh, and I came in to work one day uh in the summer.

Now, mind you, we are not staffed, right, in the summertime.

So there's no security, there's no, right?

So construction's happening, and I walk into my AP's office and it's being um it's housing an unhomed person for I don't know how many days.

And so breaches like that, right?

We just have to be aware of.

And I know that brings it back to safety, but it also brings it to the uh distraction of um sometimes interactions with our public during the school day uh while our kids are walking uh in a variety of places.

Yeah, thank you.

Very, very helpful.

And I'm also looking at this through the lens.

This is a BI school, right?

So there's some different filters you were considering a global-minded curriculum, all that kind of stuff.

And um that's part of why I ask.

So thank you.

Uh if uh Chris Lieber with NES, if I may weigh into that a little bit, uh imagine um, and maybe I'm pushing a little bit, but uh imagine Memorial Park still in the grid.

Um CC uh with all of the streets, Tejone continuing uh all of the streets running through.

There's a point at which I think the sense of place, the sense of a campus sense of belonging begins to begins to come apart from from an urban planning uh standpoint.

And I so I think there's I think there's there's value in that.

I also think there's some real practical um uh sort of things to think about.

Often when I'm trying to, let's say make a right a turn um outside of Palmer at lunchtime.

The students don't all cue and go across in one bunch.

You see the same thing happen at Colorado College on Cascade.

You get a string of students that that come across.

And what that does is it causes sometimes a significant amount of traffic backup.

You would get that kind of a situation all the time, particularly as the northern half of the campus would be would be developed.

Even if you said, well, let's let's provide those pedestrian crosswalks.

Let's put all of that infrastructure, which I believe are all good, good, good things.

But when you have a significant volume of pedestrians that are all moving, there's some reality, I think that that comes with that.

So in addition, I think to the academic um reasons and kind of rationale, I think there's an important piece around placemaking and what does it mean to be a campus and to feel like a campus?

And then there are also those those practical considerations as well.

To the community and placemaking, I want to talk a little bit about the demographics of Palmer High School.

Palmer High School, as our downtown campus, is uh almost 50% frame reduced lunch students.

Uh one of the reasons we don't see traffic is because we don't have a lot of students in our urban core who can afford cars at 16.

Many of our students are walking to school or taking the public bus if they're not taking District 11 transportation.

Sometimes it's just not cool to take the school bus.

Um there's a real need at Palmer for that creation of school as community too, not just school.

Um, and in this day and age, school becomes much more than just the academic learning.

It becomes a second home.

It becomes a place where kids belong, where they hang out.

And part of this uh connected campus that we're we're pitching is about creating and an enabling that community for those students to thrive and to want to be there.

Because if they want to be there, then they're more likely to be in class.

And the more the learning happens, and the more we're educating our entire community and not just the students who, you know, are the high achievers and opt into it.

We want school to be a place where students want to be, and that's harder and harder in the modern age of technology.

It's real easy to be at school from home, right?

But we want to create a destination that our students actually feel comfortable in.

So last piece.

I just I've been zooming around on the map um as we've been talking.

And while I can certainly appreciate the um traffic flow or changes potentially to traffic flow on Boulder Street, um there's not much on Boulder Street between Weber and Nevada.

It's really just the campus.

So, right, when you talk about placemaking, there's not a lot of placemaking currently at besides student crossing or student use.

And so when I think about the potential for the future of placemaking and connectivity and student use, I think that in that sense and kind of reminding myself of what is on that block.

Campus buildings that I just zoom through because I want to get to Josh and John's or I want to turn um right onto Nevada and go to my office or whatever.

Um, I think that there is a real opportunity.

And so I'll be honest, I came into this hearing today not knowing how I was feeling about this and not sure where the data would take me with the decision making, because this is a really significant undertaking.

But as I've also looked around at the map, um Bijou kind of dead ends at something, something else dead ends at some like there's very many streets in this town that either don't change names at least three times as you travel them or don't dead end into something else and then change names on the other side.

So um I'm trying not to be hung up on um on that.

And when I think about what is Boulder Street in that section right now and what could that campus become, I think it compels me to be supportive of the application.

Um I think the rezoning makes sense in a whole lot of ways.

Um as opposed to, I mean, I think it could stay the same.

We would just have a little bit more work to do to get things done, but I think the rezoning makes sense.

And um, and I despite what I might have thought before I came in, I think that vacating Boulder um does in fact make sense.

And I applaud what District 11 is doing um with partners for this.

So I don't think I have any other questions.

I think I've come to a place of my own um understanding, but leave it to my fellow board members.

Yeah, I'm kind of torn also because most of what we've been trying to do with the downtown is make sure we get pedestrian access everywhere, try to get more inner block connectedness, uh alleyways, you know, maintain the fine-grained urban patterns that make downtown great and walkable.

Um I do not want to set a precedent that would give any other development, even the hope of doing this downtown.

As we've heard, the school district can build whatever they want despite whatever zone they're in.

So could we vote against the zone change and be done with it?

Because then it wouldn't be in the form-based code.

We don't have to vote on the land the land use plan for the vacation because it's not in the form-based zone.

Ryan T for Teller Urban Planning Manager, um the form-based code does have some specific language that says a proposal to rezone a property into the zone requires a recommendation from the DRB.

Um you don't currently have authority over the land because it's not currently form-based zone, but the code did envision a scenario where property owners immediately adjacent to the zone want to be rezoned into the zone, and therefore the DRB should be ranking a recommendation.

Planning commission will also make a recommendation.

City council has final authority.

So you really do need to make a recommendation on all three applications.

That recommendation could be to approve or to deny or to modify or to table.

Uh, but I think ultimately what what staff is um asking is for the board to make a recommendation one way or the other, and then we'll see how this goes through planning commission and council.

Bobby Mickelis, Ryan, a question for staff.

Yeah, if we choose to approve the land use plan and the high school rezone, you made a comment earlier that we're functionally approving the vacation.

I I don't see how that's entirely true.

We could approve the rezone and the land use plan and sort of require some alternative thinking or table in the discussion for the vacation.

Is that accurate?

Uh Ryan T for Tiller, you you you could certainly approve the zone change and recommend or recommend approval of the zone change, recommend denial of the right-of-way vacation.

And then I think in that scenario, you you could recommend approval of the land use plan, but I would I would suggest you add a condition or a technical modification that the land use plan be updated to reflect the retention of the boulder right-of-way.

Um, and and I don't know exactly how this school district would do that and how their consultants would do that.

They would just have to um uh come up with a modified land use plan that could be shared with planning commission and council in the months ahead that showed how that could be done.

Um so yeah, I I think the board could do that.

Um, however, I think that would be a little bit of a challenge for the applicants.

I have a question.

I'm not sure if it's for Chris or Ryan, but um, what are the pros and cons of handling this with vacation other than or versus maybe a revocable permits Ryan T for Tiller?

Um vacational right away is used obviously to um allow property to go from public ownership to private ownership, and in this case, the private ownership would be to the school district.

A revocable permit is a tool that's available for to allow limited temporary private use of public right-away.

So um revocable permits are issued for everything from sidewalk patios to awesome to signs to below ground infrastructure.

Um, they are technically one-year permits that need to be reviewed renewed annually.

Um, I believe the school district does have uh there are scenarios where they have revocable permits um uh approved in the past for use of public right-away.

Um but given the nature of the proposed improvements within the boulder rightway, and those are everything from hardscape to landscape to fences to gates to structures, uh, whether that's above ground, uh cantilevered structures over the right way or um uh uh the structure itself at ground level, there may be some some minor encroachments.

Um that is a little bit of a atypical use of a revocable permit for uh full-on structural encroachment.

It it does happen, but it's not ideal.

I think of the right-of-way vacation as a cleaner way to support the proposed construction in and above and below the public right-away.

Young Shen City Attorney's Office, if I may.

I just want to reiterate that a vacation of a right-of-way upon um city action for city code, that approval of that vacation cannot be reconsidered or rescinded.

It's done and done.

As to a revocable permit, although it would be a unique circumstance, can be in fact revoked.

That permission to use that manner or that property in that manner can be taken back as to where a city council action saying we are vacating this right-away is it Bobby Mickless, just it's hard for me as we think about a scenario where phase two doesn't come to fruition and the field is or one B, the field is not a part of it.

Um that's not the only reason for the vacation of the right-of-way, but something like a revocable permit might add a little bit of flexibility.

Yeah, there's a permanence to this decision that is speculative if the future phases aren't funded.

Mr.

Chair, if I could uh I do want to just remind the board that um staff has suggested three different conditions of approval on the right-of-way vacation.

And the first of which, while vague and we certainly haven't fleshed out all the details of it, it would implies that there could that there will be an agreement prior to final uh approval by council that would allow public use of the boulder right away to uh continue if the space is unused for construction or permanent activities.

So, you know, in this scenario that they don't find funding to fully implement um some of these plans, whether that's the phase one A development plan or phase one B or phase two, um the intent of this suggested condition of approval would um allow for uh an agreement, likely an IGA to articulate what the public rights across this area might be if private use for the school is not fully implemented.

Personally, I really like the vision for the campus.

And I think Palmer High School is pretty unique in our state.

I I lived in Denver for a long time, and they don't really have as true of a downtown public school as we do here in Colorado Springs.

So I think this is a unique opportunity to uplift, but is really one of the only truly urban schools in all of Colorado.

That said, I think there's a couple conditions that I would like to recommend to council if we do vote to approve this, namely that the applicant um makes considerable pedestrian safety improvements to help mitigate some of the impact that the vacation of Boulder Street would have.

And to retain a residential land use for the very least, phase one A, even if the current tenants are not particularly sad that they're being asked to leave soon if the future phases don't move forward in a in a fast-paced manner.

We're denying dozens or however many people in the future that would be able to utilize that housing that is affordable as Victorians are some of the most affordable housing in downtown.

And I would be sad to see downtown have a net decrease in dwelling units.

Those would be the two recommendations I would propose.

Maybe I'll look to Ryan to maybe add to the vacation.

Or I guess the one would be to the land use plan and the public safe, the pedestrian safety improvements would be to the vacation.

Bobby Miklas, a question for you.

Are you comfortable holding on the safety improvements until we see the development plan?

The reason that I was thinking of putting them with the vacation is that it sounds like with the development plan, they it isn't binding as a condition to the vacation of Boulder Street.

That sounds like that is the best mechanism forward to ensure that this would happen.

Question for uh city staff Bobby Mickelis here is um we we can have some level of input on conditional approval development plans pending things like pedestrian safety.

Is that correct?

Uh Ryan to you for telling, yeah.

I think it is reasonable for the development plan.

The development plan is at a level of detail where we could very much require and and work with the applicant and add notes or requirements that that pedestrian impro safety improvements be illustrated on that development plan.

Um again, my sense is that the school district and their consultants are happy to work with us to implement those those types of efforts, especially you know, uh assuming they're um reasonable and can be um financed through their their funding sources, etc.

Um if conversely, if you were to tie those types of efforts to the right-of-way vacation while there might be a tighter connection to uh the local authority, I think it really would need to be spelled out as part of your condition.

What exactly you're looking for?

I I don't I I don't know that it could be as vague as make considerable pedestrian safety improvements, and we could realistically implement the details of that as part of the right-of-way vacation.

I think there's maybe a couple different ways to approach it.

Could we make a recommendation to the planning commission and to city council for them to take a look at it and maybe get a recommendation from the traffic engineer on specific improvements that could be made?

Otherwise, I do have a small list of specific improvements if we wanted to go that route instead of passing it on to the planning commission.

Okay, yeah, feel free to share those.

Um Bobby Mikless speaking here.

I there's an there's a nice list provided by Mr.

Way, and of course, our traffic engineers and professionals on the project can help with that as well.

And I see Chris maybe uh wanting to comment here, so please feel free to approach one just comment.

I'll say for you, Harrison is I don't personally uh feel the same conviction to add any sort of safety pedestrian safety requirements at this phase in the project.

I feel comfortable with the level of um attention we've given this topic, and I feel confident that the team that the applicant will consider that in future approvals, including the development plan.

And I feel comfortable with the level of uh input we have that it can be binding or conditional when the development plan does come.

So I don't feel a need for any additional pedestrian safety requirements or conditions for this particular item.

Uh Chris Lieber with NES, a a bit more foreshadowing of the development plan.

Uh, we are actively, in fact, what has been submitted uh does address uh a number of the uh um pedestrian ramps and intersections, for instance, at the corner of uh Platte uh and Nevada.

Uh we're looking at uh making similar improvements to kind of what if we consider kind of the standard downtown uh that we see with with the bump outs and and pedestrian protection and uh all of that because it's in the district's best interest to keep their students uh safe.

I think another great example, I had mentioned in my presentation that we're eliminating the left turn pocket on southbound Nevada at Boulder.

Um, when we do that, we're gonna be extending the sidewalk and uh adding necessary uh pedestrian um uh uh pedestrian ramp uh there.

We're also looking at at the ends of of uh a boulder.

If Boulder is vacated, what does that feel like and look like?

Is there possibility to do a bump out to then shorten the amount of pedestrian time, you know, time that a pedestrian is in the street on Weber or on the Nevada side.

So those are all things I want to give some assurance that on the development side.

Um we are um proactively looking at because it's in the best interest of of the district.

Bobby Mickless, regarding the residential land use, I um feel a high degree of trust in the applicant and the team they've surrounded themselves with to steward the property appropriately that they've purchased.

And so um whether they choose to continue to lease those spaces as construction timeline is kept or slowed or sped up.

I I feel like that's best held in the hand of the applicant and their use of the property.

I'll defer defer, of course, to the rest of the board if there's nobody else interested in this.

I think it would just be a shame to see those houses sit empty for potentially years.

And assuming one B moves forward to see them bulldozed for open space, because I agree.

I think ultimately phase two justifies their demolition.

But those are valuable structures that could still have quite a few years of life out of them.

And if that's something that we could have an impact on, I would recommend still trying to advocate for affordable housing where we can, even if it is something that's just on a relatively short timeline as the phases move forward.

I certainly understand your sentiment, and I agree that housing is important, but I don't think that it's the purview of this body to um dictate or prescribe what a landowner can do, unfortunately.

And I see like the social aspect, right, of that discussion.

And I also see that we can't um we can't force them to use those in a way that is outside of their own desire, just like someone else can't make us use our property in a way that we you know they want us to.

So um hopefully someone will come forth to move those houses to a better spot and they can be reused.

Yeah, so I'm not in support, but I appreciate I'm in support of your spirit, but not of the actual recommendation.

But yeah, Mr.

Chair, if I could, uh Ryan T.

Vertiller.

I think we've had a lot of great dialogue today, obviously, and lots of great questions and obviously um very valid concerns.

Um I do think though, we're probably at a point where we need a motion.

Um, and so I don't I don't know exactly how much support, whatever motion is offered, we'll get, but uh I feel like uh at some point we're really just gonna need to uh take that step forward and and have someone offer a motion.

Um and again, there are three applications.

There will be separate motion for each of the three.

I believe the zone change will show up first in your order of motions, and then I believe I ordered the uh right-of-way vacation and then the land use plan.

I'm looking at Salonge.

The last two are flipped.

So the land use plan and then the vacation last.

Okay.

Um so just keep that in mind.

Uh, but I think the maybe it's time we hear a motion on at least the zone change.

Thank you, Ryan.

Yeah, just thinking we can kind of get the train rolling a little bit.

I'd like to make a motion.

Um can you make a motion?

May I make a motion as chair?

Yeah.

Not aware of why you wouldn't be able to Bobby Micholas, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8A zone-25-0026 Palmer High School rezone with the technical modifications to the zone change application as proposed by staff.

Would you like me to read the full item to record?

No, I think you can just reference the technical modifications as described in the staff report.

Yep.

I will second the vote passes unanimously.

Any other motions for the other two items?

I'll make a motion for 8B L UPL-25-0012 Palmer High School land use plan with the technical modifications to the land use plan application as prepared by staff.

Yeah, I'm changing the attorney's office.

Just to be clear, that's a motion to recommend approval.

Yes, a motion to approve.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

I'm just going to uh make a statement that um I don't think this plan is going to have any problems getting passed.

So I'm gonna vote as a pedestrian and as the form-based code uh kind of dictates um the goals of the foreign-based zone, um the pedestrian priorities, the public realm priorities, um the fine-grain urban priorities of the form-based zone, I do not feel are being met.

Um also the the vacation I don't feel is being met uh in an urban in an urban uh dense neighborhood public transportation, a lot of it is foot and bike, so I don't think you can make the case that it's not needed.

Um so that's why I'm voting voting um for the pedestrian.

I think this is appropriate time, Bobby Mickless, um, to consider another technical modification.

So I don't know if we need to vote first on the proposed motion and then add other modifications.

If there is a motion to modify, that would be an intervening motion.

So at this point, because there is a current motion and second in place, if someone were to make a motion to modify that new motion would take precedent.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to modify the motion.

And my I'm gonna stumble through with my words here, so perhaps you can help me a little bit.

Um I would like to make a motion to approve item 8B L UPL-25-0012 Palmer High School land use plan to include the technical mod technical modifications to the land use plan application as proposed by staff, in addition to include a modification to um consider the right-of-way on boulder for future consideration and ramifications to pedestrian use and public access to the right-of-way.

Um I'm trying to give room for the right-of-way vacation to consider this conditional approval if that one is not approved.

A little clunky.

You want to try that again?

Yeah, could you restate this for the record?

I'd like to make a motion to approve item 8b L UPL-25-0012 Palmer High School Use Plan uh to include the technical modifications to the land use plan application as proposed by city staff and to include a technical modification that considers the pedestrian experience and the public right of way in any future vacation of that right-of-way.

I'll second that.

Can we have just uh a minute so that we can rewrite the motion on the back end one moment?

Please, yes, take take your time and but I may ask as the one who would be facing the the um task of implementing this additional condition.

Um you said consider the pedestrian experience and public pedestrian needs of the boulder right away.

Is it was that essentially what I got?

Um and maybe Melissa could read it back too, but give me uh 30 seconds to take some notes here.

Thank you.

Let's just pause the third technical modification that I'd like to propose on this approval that the uh uh motion be updated to reflect re-establishing public realm equivalents and public easements.

One more one more time, please say that again to be updated to reflect re-establishing public realm equivalent and public easements in any future vacation of Boulder Street.

So can I ask a question about his modification?

Okay, because I don't so if that were the case, then are you saying that say a track and field is built that people can still walk across it?

Because that's what I'm hearing.

But I'm is that what you mean?

Yeah, what I'm saying is that if there is a right-of-way, which we haven't voted on that yet, but if there is a right-of-way that's vacated, um that the land use plan must be updated to reflect public use uh public realm equivalence and public easements.

So I'm not sure how that's so necessarily that could be going out and around the track and outside of a fence.

I'm sure there are many ways we could consider that um I believe, and young, you can help me with this.

I believe the code calls for any vacation of this to re-establish public realm equivalence.

Am I speaking correctly there?

Uh I just I uh Ryan Keeper Teller again.

I do happen to have um the section of the form-based code open that deals with block standards.

And it does say um uh section 2.7.1.3 system.

This is talking about the historic 400 by 400 urban grid system.

The grid system should be maintained, yet variations may be approved by Warren if connectivity is retained and the pedestrian experience is enhanced.

Uh I think that's kind of what you're alluding to as far as that would be the language I'm looking for.

And I'm not uh necessarily trying to create a modification that requires that, but I am trying to create a modification for any future uh application to be updated to reflect at least a serious consideration of those two items.

Okay, um I turn my microphone off.

Um with all due respect, it is it is challenging, I think on a staff level for us to determine whether there's been a serious effort to implement the language that you've proposed.

Um that's probably even more true given that this is a public school district with state authority.

So um obviously the board is aware of what staff's recommendation was per uh the motions in the staff report, so you know where where we stand.

But um I would say if you are looking to add another condition or technical modification, it ideally it is black and white to where we on the staff level can clearly and easily determine whether that condition has been met or not.

And you know uh making effort to achieve something is is difficult to evaluate.

Yeah, that's where I'm struggling to is it feels philosophical and directive, and I can understand that, but it doesn't uh it feels it there's not a way to check the box eventually.

So either it needs to say referring to FBZ item number, whatever, but even that is maybe a little bit unclear and ebulous.

But I think that the two that are here, right?

Revised to illustrate student drop-off and accessible call-out curb.

I mean, could there be something else that's just clearly delineated public that which I think is on the land use plan?

Maybe that's um which uh phase two, right?

Is that where the those kind of pedestrian areas are already called out?

Yeah, we heard about the um courtyard atrium area, which will remain public with the gate recessed back, so there is some public use there, which uh satisfies what I'm trying to do here.

This just writes it into uh a technical modification so that it follows all the way along to the next phase.

The part that is not included that I'm trying to reflect in this modification is some pedestrian enhancement.

Um like Chris has pointed out, this is smack dab in the part of town where we are trying to really make sure the pedestrian experience is important.

And I was trying to understand sort of the educational philosophy here, but I imagine there are case studies around the world where there's a connected safe campus that preserves a public right-of-way as well.

And so that's what I'm not necessarily trying to prescribe, but to allow opportunity for that public enhancement to occur.

Or I'm sorry, pedestrian enhancement to occur by some creative solution, even if it's not straight through the right-of-way.

So this is actually is kind of connected to what I've been proposing.

Because this is the line of code that I've been struggling with with this proposal.

Is it's pretty clear that you have to maintain connectivity.

And by closing the right-of-way and not allowing anybody to cross through it, that's clearly severing the connectivity.

And to me is pretty clearly against the code.

Um I think the argument that some of the what I've heard the applicant say is that it increases connectivity for the students, and it does it in such a way that might outweigh what the public needs to have access to there.

And but that's why I proposed doing some kind of recommendation for pedestrian safety enhancements around Palmer.

Because while we would lose the connectivity through the boulder right-of-way, you could argue that the connectivity is enhanced if you improve the intersections around there.

You would be providing potentially still overall a safer pedestrian experience cutting through that part of town.

So I would maybe suggest that we could revisit that or incorporate that into your motion.

I completely uh concur with what you're saying.

And I think right that's the way to do that is to divert public around the edges, but make those edges more inviting and compelling and safe, and then not trying to get folks through the center.

Because I wouldn't want to walk through the middle of a high school campus with kiddos either.

But I'd like to find a nice way around, which I know I sound like I'm afraid of high schoolers.

I have a middle schooler and he's stinky, so maybe I just foreshadowing.

I think too, we're we're talking about a little bit that boundary that right now is cushioned by these four Victorian homes.

You know, if that becomes a walk around for pedestrians, having that uh be a narrow sidewalk that butts up against a 20-foot wall is a little bit different than a um enhanced pedestrian experience, which is what we're talking about here.

Correct.

And probably encourages people to kind of circulate around the campus as opposed to wanting to go through, but makes it inviting to do so.

I can get on board with that for sure.

Yeah, how we write that.

I don't know.

Mr.

Chair, if if I could just add again, Ryan T.

Fortiller, I think the board has two options.

Certain, certainly you're within your authority to add additional formal conditions of approval or technical modifications.

I would just relay there is an alternative where you um uh support the motions and the technical modifications that are included in staff report, but then just allow staff as well as your planning commission representative to articulate these concerns and these issues to planning commission when it gets there next month.

And then ultimately when it goes to council, again, staff uh council will have minutes from your meeting as well as the planning commission meeting, and staff will be able to relay and articulate some of these items that the board has struggled with and the preferences of what sounds to be like the majority of the board as far as some of these pedestrian enhancements and safety improvements and and other related items.

So I I I do I can pledge to relay those concerns, whether they're included as a formal condition of approval or technical modification or not.

Yeah, maybe something in your staff report at informal, even I'm sorry, did were you did you know?

No, sorry thing, even um as part of staff presentation um during informal, but I'm also taking some notes to see if there's a way we could add whether it's here or there, a conversation or a piece about enhancing that pedestrian experience at the edges of the campus as opposed to through the center, which I think is maybe the crux of the issue is where does that pedestrian enhancement happen?

Um I also think that um our applicant team is taking notes diligently in the moment.

And I I really trust that this team too is is one that is as invested in our community as we all are and probably are taking these things to heart.

Um but you know, I understand too codifying this in in some way and formalizing it in our process and our application or our um motions, but I also see these folks.

Yeah, that's really my intent was to formalize this.

I guess um given that these meeting minutes are publicly available, this discussion is publicly available, and we've made it abundantly clear that we want to see the pedestrian experience uh preserved and enhanced and the public use preserved.

Um, I'm happy to withdraw my motion and defer to the previous motion.

Is that the right way to do these things?

Correct.

If you're withdrawing your motion, I think we're back to the original motion to recommend approval and the second that was already established, so essentially we would be looking for a vote on the original motion and second.

So essentially, we would be looking for a vote on the original motion and second.

Just to verify, we had board member Keisman as first and answer a second.

Thank you.

The motion passes with five members in favor and board member in opposition.

Don't any board members clear care to make a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I guess a motion to approve 8C SUBD-25-0076.

Vacating our right-of-way ROW.

Um motion to approve with the conditions of approval and the technical modifications to the vacation application as presented by staff.

Wearing my form-based code uh hat, I will not be supporting the motion.

I will second the motion.

The motion passes we board members in favor and um board members Friesma and Mikulas in opposition.

Okay, thank you.

Um the process for appeals for the items discussed today will be presented to city staff presenti to the appellant presentation presentation to the applicant in public comment with a rebuttal by the applicant opportunity.

The appeal instructions are as follows.

In accordance with the requirements of section 7.5.415 of the city unified development code, an affected party may appeal to the city council any action of the downtown review board in relation to the zoning code where the action was adverse to that party.

Within 10 days from final action on the item being appealed, which is Friday, November 14th, 2025.

The appellant must file notice of an appeal and pay the hundred and seventy-six dollar fee with the city clerk.

The appeal letter should address specific zoning code requirements that were not adequately addressed by the downtown review board.

City Council may elect to limit discussion at the appeal hearing to the specific matters set forth in the appeal letter.