September 11, 2024 — Design Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Okay. We will officially call the dab meeting to order at 4 10 the agenda I put. In the chat here in Zoom. Just wanted a quick reference. That's great. Thank you. I just see nothing. Should I? Book? Should I pay? And I have the mute packet right here? Do we wanna share a screen and kind of roll through this. Through the approval of the minutes or through the. Just through the agenda. Set it up on the screen. You guys want me to share this, and you guys have it all filled up.

[1:03] Yeah, I think it's just in the chat. It's pretty. See it in the chat. For some reason. Chat. Maybe cause I joined after you shared it. Let me reshare it in here and see if that works. Okay. Now, do you see that one. Now I see it. Yeah. That is what it is. you know. Okay? Approval of the minutes. So is there, did anybody have any edits for the minutes, or does somebody want to make a motion for approval. So how are we gonna get this done? The April meeting. Matthew and I recused ourselves so it would be. Okay. Smaller form.

[2:01] I I move that we approve the minutes. I'll second. Need to hear a a vote on the approval, or maybe your audio, Rory. Can you hear me? Now I can. Yeah, I was. Yeah, I was kind of bouncing out a little bit. Yeah, yeah. So we have the May 8th meeting minutes. Any revisions or does somebody want to make a motion for approval? I move that we approve. The May 8th minutes. I'll second that, even though you weren't there, Steven, or at least it says you. I motion to approve, and second or second. oh, they're one of those rules. Okay?

[3:00] Scroll through the rest of this here public participation. Do we have any public that wants to participate today? No general participation. This evening. Fantastic. So then we get into board matters. and what I'm seeing is we have elections or so we wanna welcome a new board member, and then welcome and introductions. Yeah, if you just we did that at the beginning instead. Got it. Earlier, so. So welcome, Harriet. It's great. We like having a full board. It's honestly much more productive than I think. Additional perspectives are fantastic to have I in the last. I think I've been on the board for 8, 7, 8 years. I've never had a structural engineering board in less than 8 years. So I think that's gonna be kind of fun and interesting.

[4:01] What we do have is, I think we're all architect members of this board. Now. is that correct? Yes, yeah. So everyone is an architect member. We do oftentimes have just community members that don't necessarily have professional training. I think there's spot for 2 of them on the board if they if someone has interest. Recently our board chair had background in landscape, architecture and land planning, but was not an active, practicing professional in the design field. So again welcome. And I think the structural specialty will be fascinating to kind of hear some of the where some of our discussions will go board elections. So we're up. This is our sort of year cycle. Is that right? Kylani? Yeah. So I think, what wait. So typically, it's so. It's a year long. It's not the duration of your term. I think we can sort of self volunteer to, you know, if you're interested in the position, it's before, both for chair and vice chair, and I think what would be handy for me to offer a little bit of perspective, just having been vice chair for the last 2 years.

[5:13] What? That entails some responsibilities. And then also. you know, with Todd kind of sharing, but being less of a design professional, there's some redundancy sometimes, and sort of communication making sure that all of our ideas and thoughts were understood. So I think for starters, we have a weekly we, we have a monthly pre agenda meeting. So you have to participate on basically Tuesday before the Wednesday meeting. and we use that meeting, and I think it's been very helpful. They we ideally. You'll have come prepared with the packet, and so either reviewed sort of the staff items and the project or you can sometimes use that as your study hall class before the exam day the next day.

[6:03] But the goal is to kind of review all of the items that are priority from Staff's comments, and and a lot time time blocks to how we're going to move through this and Dab is notorious for just verbosity to you know where we're sort of multiple hours, potentially callbacks, multiple days kind of stuff and is as enjoyable as that is as the architect members. I think there's a lot of city staff and applicants, and you know ultimately, client money that relies on us to be efficient. And so I think we've over the years tried different strategies to sort of drive efficiency through these meetings. And I actually think this pre agenda meeting, although it requires another, you know, half hour to an hour a month prior to the actual dab meeting is is very useful. we don't want to necessarily over encumber our meetings to where our reviews to where we can't open up discussion. And I know you guys have probably noticed, like between Todd, mostly Todd, because he's running the meeting. So that's sort of the chairs responsibility, right is after these time blocks are allotted. He's kind of going through our meetings

[7:18] and making sure we're moving along, which you know, you could kind of consider yourself the fund police, if you know, if if that's something that interests you. but also just, you know, sort of timekeeping in a way that's keeping people efficient. We like to go out on tangents. And I, you know again, we don't want to like keep ourselves in such tight bumpers that we can't sort of be creative, which is sort of the reason why we're here. But I do think striking that balance between sort of managing a meeting flow and schedule, but also still allowing productive conversation. That's sort of the chairs. Responsibility all that at the end of the meeting, then comes to documenting it in a way that it can very easily become meeting minutes and clear directives for the applicants and or planning board. Should any of our

[8:10] recommendations want to have sort of pending, planning board overlays. Vice chair is kind of just there to support the chair. Be another set of ears. For me. I felt like it was a little more duty, just because Todd was not as he wasn't professionally active the way we all are, and so sometimes translating our intent from conversations. vocabulary of Lexicon. There was a layer of additional work there with Todd, but I think it's also fair and worth mentioning, you know, Todd volunteered 2 years in a row for that, because I think it gave him an opportunity to feel very useful in our meetings, because maybe he didn't have as much of the sort of vocabulary and and critique criteria. But he

[9:01] but he also didn't get to participate as much in the discussion right? Because he's there managing the discussion, trying to make sure he's hearing what everybody's saying properly. So I think, you know, moving forward a chair is sort of also acknowledging that they're doing some kind of double duty so so to be like fully invested into the project discussion. And that sort of critique. balancing the fact that we still need documentation and sort of a record of that whole conversation. Should things get called up to planning board in a way that would require Dab presence. The chairs gonna be, who's gonna be invited to those meetings now I've filled in for Todd before, when he was unable to make it, and I assure you those planning board meetings, all 4 and a half hours of them, where they may or may not ask you to opine on one thing, and probably not. But you're teed up the whole time sitting there. It's really awesome. But I do think it's helpful when they do need color shed on what our comments were, and, as you can imagine, depending on how good the notes are, from what we've, you know from whoever the chair is, and with Todd, who's what? We had to clean up the minutes occasionally, just to make sure

[10:08] the intent was clear. even if planning board, even if the liaisons here and then goes back, it's helpful if it's a sort of high pressure, high critical decision. Item, that our feedback is communicated clearly at their meeting. So, being there as a resource, I think, sort of closes the loop from a recommendation back to implementation. So with all that being said, who would like to be the chair for the next year? Are there? Is there anybody that's interested in it? And is there any. You you really sold you sold it, Rory. That was. That was one of the best pitches I've I've heard. Yeah, I was. I was gonna say that in the last 3 years or 4 years, or however long I've been on this board. It's the structure of our meetings has really, really changed. And I think, that the

[11:01] significant and hard part of I think that chairs role is distilling, you know, an hour and a half to 2 h long, meeting into like 6 very clear, distinct sentences or directives. And I think that that's hard to, you know of of the 1,000 words we say, to sort of distill it down to very simple directive, I think, is was challenging. I think you know hats off to Todd and to you, Roy, for pulling those together. But I also think that it's really important that you know, as a representative of our board, if we are called into a planning board meeting. That we do have. like a pretty, a broader recollection, maybe of the of the meeting that

[12:00] just because a lot of the while the meeting is recorded like a lot of the meeting is is hyper distilled. So sometimes shedding additional light onto our conversation, and the background of our recommendations is helpful to the planning board. So it's I feel like it's pretty tricky. For sure, and, to to be honest in reflection, I I can't. I think there's 1 one time that planning board asked for us over the last 2 years to be present in the meeting. Yeah. I went to the the Harvest house somewhat millennial Harvest House planning meeting, I think you and Todd were. does he. Oh, got it. So there's 2. There's there's been 2. So it's not. It's not like every project we review. We end up needing to follow up that planning board. But yeah, I mean to your point. That's why we would be there right? Because the distillation is so thin that somebody's there to color it by the time they're going to codify it right.

[13:03] Right, right. So, Steven, you like. But I know you also had some questions about like process. What's working? What's not? But I think ahead of that we got to get through these elections. Here. Is anybody interested in putting their hat in the ring for chair and or vice chair of dab for the this new 2024 25 cycle. And I'll just add to your you'll have staff to help support you in those agenda meetings, and it's a half an hour on Tuesday. It's not a lot of extra work. So you'll it'll be chair and vice chair with staff, and if it's a case manager on any project. That's also the time there that as you start to structure the design review and timing, you can ask for additional materials, too. So.

[14:01] And chips. Whatever. Then the meetings don't run more than half hour. Right 20. Half an hour. Yeah, we try to keep it 25 min. half an hour to 25 min. The day before. Found useful is. and I notice it is like a turning point in my participation and reviews is that you get an opportunity to sort of preview and ask Staff their intent behind some of their comments. And you, really, it's like a 4 study session of going through the items asking them some specific questions and clarity, so that by the time you're hitting the review you've sort of cleared the runway as far as any ambiguity, and for me. It made my ability to sort of understand what the priorities were, and sort of how to focus comments and discussion in a more productive way. That city staff felt like they were actually receiving that we were giving direction that was helping sort of clear their commentary.

[15:01] Yeah. And I I think that there's, you know, I've always felt like there needs to be a fine line in those pre meeting meetings between, like maybe setting up the structure of the meeting and the timing of it, and but not crossing the line into any review. And I know that's what you're asking for, feedback, but I think in the meetings there's also an opportunity to ask for clarification and feedback from staff. But if you can kind of get that beforehand, I think that's helpful. So Rory and Brandon, are you guys interested. I was gonna open it up, guys, because I've been participating in chair position for the last 2 years. So I just wanted I didn't want to like feel over dominating. I also, candidly, you know, have a 3 month old at home, so like my participation and extracurriculars are starting to receive heat. Yeah.

[16:03] Yeah, I mean, I think, Rory, it would make I I if you had the bandwidth or the time for it. I feel like it would make a lot of sense. Yeah, I just. You have a tremendous amount of experience. If you want wanted to be chair, and then I would you know. put myself out for the vice chair, if that is, if nobody else wants to buy for it. I definitely think. There was. Work in the background for my 1st year, so I'm not going to put my hand up for anything. I think that's fair, Harriet Steven. I wasn't sure if you had interest, just because I know you've sort of taken an interest in some of our procedural items and kind of what works and what doesn't work. Sort of analysis. I mean, if I think you guys would be great. But if you know, for you don't, wanna you know, if you feel like you know I don't want to do it, you know. I would

[17:03] back up Brandon as the vice chair. But it's up to you guys if. I was. Maybe what I was gonna offer is, well, I'm I guess I haven't really thought it through too much. I I'm worried about my schedule just again having sort of basically a newborn at my house. So it was quite unpredictable. And there's gonna be over this next year. I'm sure, a lot of sort of like managing childcare pickups and maybe missing meetings and shit. So I want to be careful about that. I, what I was gonna offer is actually, if somebody was interested, that I would remain vice chair to continue to support with the experience I have, but not be in the primary seat as far as scheduling. And then, obviously, we can all debate like Brandon, stepped in when Sharon Vice Chair we're unable to make planning board, and as long as we're all communicating. Well, I think we can cover the bases. But then, at least, I'm still in those agenda meetings, and can kind of transition the way we've approached them. And I think, Brandon, you really good point, like the those meetings are not intended to be, you know.

[18:04] Preamble there, you know. But it'll be interesting to see like if you have another set of eyes in those meetings based on the experience that I have with them for the last 2 years. How we want to sort of evolve the use of those. So if that makes sense, I don't know. Brendan, do you wanna be the. Do you want to put your head in for the chair, and I'll be your vice chair to kind of keep things moving, and then, Steven, you can take a crack at it next year. Yeah, that sounds good to me. Yeah, I mean, I've. Let's go for it. Yeah. You were going for vice chair. Yeah. No, that's my head. hey? It's just like Kamala. You just got. Do anything for a year right? We can retire. It's not as much work as you think. I I think it. I think you'd be really good at it if you're interested in it.

[19:00] Huh! Sort of. Yeah, I mean, I I remember when you know, Lauren was on the board, and she struggled with being chair and like had a lot to say about the projects, but felt like, you know, just because she had the role of chair she was limited to like take. You know she was taking notes, and had to be listening and not participating quite as much as I think she would have otherwise. But I I think I I would like to. I think it would be a good challenge. Sure. Think that's it, then do we have to like? Do some like ringing of a bell or something? Kalani. Well, yeah. yeah, I would. I would definitely like to hear Matthews and you know, Stephen and Harriet's input, and as you know.

[20:02] if you. Sent perfect sense to me. I think you should. I think it's a great idea. Yeah. For my part, I I totally support that. I think it makes a lot of sense. given my tenure on this board. I would just say that like being the chair isn't really in my suite of of skills, that yeah. So, Brendan, I think you you have a you're very well attuned to. When you read the packet, when it's coming in picking up on some of the overriding issues and having some organizational thought around it. So I think that's very helpful. So it sounds like a great choice. In my opinion. Right? Yeah. The editor of Meeting Minutes. No, I I think you you quickly pick up on the scope of the project in front of us, you know. At least when we? We've discussed things so it

[21:13] I think it's I think it'll work out great. I don't know any of you, but it makes sense to me that you'd keep people on that have the experience, and but also come up with a bit of a transition plan to enable Rory to step back a little bit more. So for formality. And if you guys don't you're welcome to talk more about the chair responsibilities. And if there's any questions for staff. Yes, you'll do. Need to make a motion and a second, and vote on the chair, and then make another motion and a second for the vice chair. And we also actually need you to vote on the minutes. I know you made motions, but we didn't actually get a.

[22:03] So. Either. So if we could. you could take care of all these 3 things in a row. And then we can close this business out. If you have any other questions. Got it so. so we had a motion to approve. So I guess let's go. But rewind. So, Steven, you made the motion to approve. Would you go ahead and do that again. Yes, I hope that we approve the April 10th meeting minutes. I second, that all in favor. Hey! Hi. I make a motion to approve the May 8th meeting minutes you have a second. Second. All in favor. Hi. Hi! I nominate Brendan ash for chair of dab. Does any? Do you have to second that or all in favor?

[23:04] Hi! And I'll nominate Roy for vice chair. And I second, that. All in favor. Hi! Hi! Oh, that's great with. We only went over 3 min. Guys see these agenda meetings. 10. That was just me being late by 5 min, so I think that'll. Yeah, look at that. Okay, then we are, gonna get into Steven topic additions, what's working? What's not? And then we'll do. Let's just save a little bit of time for calendar check. Yeah. And I can just give a wait 10 seconds on what I was thinking. Really, just we don't get a chance to sort of like talk about. You know how the Board works or not work. And you know, and I feel like we can also help as citizens like, push the agenda, you know, like, what

[24:01] what projects would we like to see that we're not seeing, or things like that? you know. And if that. And then, even if that ends up being something we'd have to like. go to the city council, say, Hey, we really think it should. We should expand to this or whatever, or maybe not. Maybe we narrow it more. But I just felt like. you know, we never get a chance to kind of like. Hmm. Talk about some of the that stuff. So. Steven. I have one item that falls generally in that category. not that we have to lead off with with this, but it might also be of benefit to Harriet. and that would be how we try to achieve consensus or not. And so I know there are some projects where it's easy for us to come to consensus. There's been some projects

[25:01] where particular board members have had. you know. I wouldn't say disagreements, but certainly did not go, want to go along with the consensus of other board members, and only bring this up for discussion in as much as I think. Ultimately the priority in my mind is we we leave the applicant with a clear impression of of if we, if we want to steer them in a certain direction or you know, give them something that they can constructively take back to their team. you know, I I would just put it out there, what, what would you all feel? would be the priority? Is it to naturally seek consensus, or to voice those differing opinions when when we feel like they really matter? I mean, are we required to reach consensus? I don't. I don't know, are we? Is that.

[26:02] And we're not required to do anything. Right? Yeah, I mean. Prior to consensus you can have recommendations that you know many of you feel strongly about, but we do like to note if there's a strong feeling in other directions. You've noted other opposing views. and some of your men. I think the it's helpful to have just some direction that either. Notes that for an applicant like the board was mixed, had mixed opinions on a project so that carries forward to plan. Yeah. Right. That's. That seems to be the most important piece I think that Matthew was touching on is just clear direction, even if it's hey? There were opposing viewpoints on the board, we did not reach consensus about the following. to me, it's strong, and sometimes we get caught up in our commentary of wanting to like. at least from my perspective, like argue your position, or like present it, or represent it, or repackage sort of the way you're describing it in a way, with hope of like reaching consensus.

[27:03] And you know, I I would say a lot of times we do sort of have consensus when it's really obvious stuff, right? That's lacking or whatever. And it comes down to the specificity of the guidance, too. Like, if the entry needs to be worked on. That's a very broad thing. But if one of us thinks it needs to be a horizontal plane that reaches out to grab you, and someone else thinks it needs to be a recess. We could kind of get caught in the weeds pretty quickly. What I do like, though, is that we've sort of all started to take a breath when we've found ourselves with opposing views. And just say, Hey, guys, it's okay that we have opposing views. Clearly, we're not going to reach consensus on this item. Let's move on for the applicant. That's huge, because we don't want them to feel pressured to go with like one or 2 board members ideas that they thought were sort of leading the charge. And we don't want to give, you know, planning board. Maybe the impression that there was consensus or like, confuse the applicant or planning board in that process. So to me, when we have opposing views, we state that it's okay that we have them. And we move on. It basically says, Hey, there's an issue around this item.

[28:05] We don't know exactly what you need to do about it. But there's still something that probably could be worked on there. Right. And I think that along the same lines, if there's something that like Staff, doesn't, you know, like we disagree with staff or something. I think that's okay, too. You know. I know that's maybe not so clear for the applicant. But that's sort of may be important cause it could highlight things that may be in the code needs to be looked at. you know, if we were, if something isn't really making sense. But that's the criteria. you know, and we can be like, Hey, this is a criteria. But, boy, wouldn't it be better if we did this? We note that, you know, and just get it in sort of the record that like, hey, maybe this is something that you know the city looks at in the future in terms of tweaking that that create particular criteria. I don't think it's come up so much, but I can imagine it

[29:01] could for sure. Yeah, I mean, I agree. I think when when you know planning, staff presents us with a project, a piece of a project that doesn't meet certain criteria and then we can have a discussion about potentially adjustments that can make be made in the design that can help the project address certain criteria, but it's also not necessarily our job to solve their problem. I mean, I think, perfectly good. you know, perfectly good directive or suggestion is for the architect to go back and study this element like that. You know, it needs to be addressed. and we're not here to solve it for you, but it you just need to to restudy it, and and re rethink whatever whatever the issue is, if it's entry or fenestration, or whatever and I. So I think that that's okay. And I think that that, you know, can be noted in the meeting minutes of you know the

[30:10] the like solution to the issue with the Board was in disagreement on, on how to resolve this issue. But these were some suggestions that were made, whatever. Global citizen. Yeah. And the staff one, the one that's interesting to me. And this has been sort of on and off over the years different board personalities. But on the one hand, we're sort of being tasked very specifically to review the criteria as it's worded in the code and interpret it through our professional lens of experience. and opine on whether or not how we feel about it. and also specifically the items that staff is bringing to our attention.

[31:00] So I think there's kind of 2 things that break out of that is one. There's all these other things that we see that we're like. Wait a second. How many guys aren't commenting about how terrible that. Right. Is, or this or that. Like 2. It's just so bad and so like, are we sort of broadening the scope, even though we've been sort of tasked with a particular set of items during their review that don't meet criteria. And that's kind of, you know, they've worked really hard to kinda correlate that. you know, like Lauren, I guess you reminded me when Lauren was on the board. Rather, she was very adamant. That like, yeah, they give us an outline of things that they think are deficient or whatever. But you know, we're creative professionals, and we're gonna comment about whatever we want to. And then there was the next layer, which was. If you were to ask me. ask us as professionals, if we read the code, how would we interpret? It doesn't necessarily mean we agree with it. So like just cause like so like, I found myself in some awkward positions over the years where it's like, well. if you're asking my opinion of how to interpret that section of code, then yes, I would agree that this needs should be done differently.

[32:02] But as an architect and a creative professional, I love what they did, even if it's in conflict with the code, and I'm in full support of it. Right? Yeah, one. I think that that those were the days when our meeting, our meetings were going like 5. Our meeting minutes were insane, and and our conversations were great. And I, you know, I felt like we were really able to to dig in and give a lot of feedback to the projects and the architects. But I now I feel like we have it so structured that you know, and I I think Staff is able to give us our packets a little bit earlier. Now, with the intention of us reviewing them and being able to say, like, Okay, this is the criteria that that planning staff wants us to review. But, I want to add. I want to add this. So I think that it's important that we kind of do our homework

[33:02] ahead of time and early and and then keep the meetings still structured. You know. Of course I I enjoy the discourse, and things come up. You know, in the meetings that you know. Oftentimes we'll get a planning package, and then the project has developed and evolved in the time between submittal of the package to the meeting. And so things will come up in the meeting, for sure. But I I do think it's important that we, you know, get get the packets early, and then add feedback. Or if there are items that we feel like. because we're looking at it through a different set of eyes. And now we have Harriet, structural engineering eyes. And I you know it's a a lot of the packet is was reviewed by planning staff. So I think it's important that we come at it from a different direction. And that's kind of why we're here. And on this board, so.

[34:05] Yeah, I mean, I just wanted to say one of the things that I thought about like just with for bringing this topic up was some years ago I went to a lecture at Aia Conference, and it was the Dean of the School of Architecture and Wisconsin and Milwaukee, and they have a program there where the building department planning department will give the architecture school projects to look at kind of more, much more thorough version of what we're doing. And they said, You know, what we're trying to do is take like F projects, you know, F projects and turn them into C projects. But what was so cool is they showed all these examples of like strip malls, and I mean, it was like bad stuff. It wasn't like. you know the whatever the Rock and Roll Museum. It was like, you know. bad stuff, and they would. They showed like what they were able to achieve without adding more costs to the project, you know, just like really simple stuff. And it was like this super successful program because the developers and builders and stuff were like, Oh, wow! This is great. We're getting like, you know, some free advice. But we're actually making the projects better. And it was like Win win all the way around.

[35:23] and it was kind of cool. So that's sort of like the context. I was thinking about this larger question like, Hey, what could we? You know? Yes, we have the criteria. But you know, do we have? Is there some even within that? Is there some little time, you know whether it's 5 min or something set aside at the end of the thing like, well, here's some other things that you could think about that are outside of. I think you nailed it, Steven, and that's sort of like cause. Todd was very keen on trying to manage all of us. Thanks, Eric. He was always like very adamant in the pre agenda meeting of like, okay. And then do you think 1520 min is good, for

[36:00] you know, open the discussion. Right. But I do think it's important to, at the very end of the project or the end of the review, to absolutely take it out of the criteria. And and I think what you know, Brandon, what the task in front of us, as we sort of take this into the next year of process is, you know. How strict do we want to be with following? Hey, Staff, did you get everything you need? I do feel like it's very nice to acknowledge staff during these meetings, and like, Hey, is this discussion and trending in a way that's going to be useful to your next steps? And if we can be efficient in getting through sort of what they need us to, then I think we have more time to have those sort of creative discussions that are less tied to some criteria. So it's almost the onus is almost on us to sort of motivate ourselves. To get through. Staff requests quickly and efficiently. Yeah, Rory, you know I would add to that, our main constituency isn't staff, and it isn't the applicant. It's the public.

[37:03] And so I think. procedurally. Yes, we have to answer the criteria. For very practical reasons. We have to honor the applicant's time and effort and understanding of the project. Ultimately, if we need to take a departure from those very strict lanes in favor of looking at this from a public perspective, as a project that exists within the public realm. Even if it's not our exact purview. we should indulge sometimes in talking about the broader context of the project. So you know. 20. Whatever the right percentage of all those 3 constituencies, balances may vary, depending on the project. But I think there, there really are multiple perspectives we have to take. I mean, that's a huge point is that, you know, like appeasing staff is not the intent, but moving through their items, even if it was, hey? Item one. We don't agree that this is deficient, like we don't have to agree with them or appease them. We just want to be definitive as we move through the things that they think are holding up the final review of the project. But you're, I think that's a very valid point to bring up is exactly who we represent.

[38:22] I mean, I think, thinking back to you know the controversial project with St. Julian. Right? You know that that was one that was sort of like we had a lot of disagreement. There's a lot of interesting layers and blah blah, and but we did it. I think we did a really good job of sort of giving some great feedback and moving through it. But there was at 1 point I know in my mind I was just like. Well, the elephant in the room. Is that the flood plain? The way Boulder interprets these Draconian rules is making the urban condition horrible along the street front, because we've got this 4 foot wall that they're like stuck dealing with. And it was sort of like, well

[39:02] as the public. We really should be addressing that issue and pushing back on the city and be like, Hey. you know. Fema lets you decide how you interpret these rules. There isn't anything that you can't do. You're just chosen, you know that you can't put a park bench because it's going to get washed away right in a major flood, and but I think that was an important one. Where, like the discussion could have gone to like, Hey, this is a big like public project, and this really comes up against like some issues that aren't great in our code that we should be looking at. Yeah, that kind of that makes me nervous like it opens up such a huge can of worms. I think we get direction from planning staff because they're enforceable items. I mean, I do. Our board is not, you know, is non binding recommendations. So I think it's important that we come from it, not from

[40:02] You know the need to have enforceable suggestions, because ours are not. But I do. I think we need to come from it from like several different angles and address. But I also don't think I I think it. We can't necessarily question like overall building zoning maps and Fema's flood plains. And I I just think. We don't. Who does? Planning board. Planning board. Or. Yeah. But planning board doesn't necessarily have this. I mean, quite frankly, they necessarily have the technical skills. I mean, they're they're different. Room. you know I mean. I think this is a great opportunity for some. I'm not saying that we're like activists, and we shut the price, you know. Not that. But but it would be nice if we could point out like, Hey, is this really like? Could Staff go and look at this, you know, like this particular rule, and why

[41:04] I don't know. And it, I think you're what you bring up is interesting is sort of historically. I would argue that Kalani would say, Well, that we can have a retreat, and we can talk about these things, and then we can write our letter to the city council once a year and explain to them that we think the flood plain should change for important buildings on that. Just use the one example. That's sort of the forum. Now to your point like, it's like this, where else is this dialogue happening? And we are sort of a perfect group to have this conversation, I guess. just being cognizant that we don't want it to derail sort of keeping these projects moving, and then we can document it. And I think that's a great example you brought up with St. Julian edition and so let's say we, you know, at the end of it we're having sort of a folly fodder and talking about like. Well, you know, if if we weren't sort of subject to this, which we think is a silly rule, you know, that can get captured in minutes. But again shy of like writing a letter to somebody, or and this is what you know, Kalani and previous planning boards have always been very adamant about is like, figure out how to get it in a in a form like a sound bite, or a word byte, or whatever that planning board can make it

[42:17] a contingency of approval like that's sort of like our little cheat code, and Brad's got his hand up here, but that's our little like. If we can get a little nugget to be sort of a condition of approval in the language with planning board, that's how we can start to have a little more teeth in those. Right? Yeah. I mean, I just feel like it's as you know. If I'm putting my, if I was a city council member I would look at like. Where can I get ideas to make changes, beneficial changes? This would be a place, I would think. Why they ask us for a letter every year. Have they not responded to it?

[43:03] Right. Brad, why don't you. And maybe we keep track of these things as we go, and we we make sure that it's in that letter. Well. alright, I'll be quiet. Brad, are you trying to say something here. Yeah, yeah, I I didn't want to interrupt. And and in general, we, you know, don't want to interrupt the you know, conversation between board members, but but also want to be supportive of some of the conversation, and I thought it might be useful for me to give you perspective of how I have experienced a version of this conversation with other boards. Well, frankly, and councils throughout my career. But but with the planning board and with Council. It's not unusual for a council member to say. either actually, in a meeting or even offline something like Hey, I understand this is a criteria based quasi-judicial decision that I need to make. And I'm going to make it.

[44:01] But I don't like this rule, or I don't like this law. What you know. What do I do about it? And they do have mechanisms for raising that up. It's it's more art than science. But, they will do that through their annual council retreat, and maybe the most formal way where they pair down a list of 10 top priority policy items for the typically policy items for the year. But they also do it through more frequent opportunities, such as what's called a nod of 5. That's to give direction to look into researching a particular policy. Change or it can even be, you know, depending on the scope of it. Just inquiry. And one of the things, I remind them, and I'll just share with all of you is, we are constantly hearing the conversations that take place in board meetings, and we are not.

[45:00] you know, mindless drones who just cast it aside when it's said we. We have a kind of running awareness of topics that are of interest. We kind of weigh that with what we're maybe hearing out in the community. On on a basis what we hear through applications. I know this seems onerous. That doesn't. This doesn't seem consistent with best practices. So know that none of your conversation even if it's you know a specific point being made or not to to staff goes on. appreciated or unrealized. We we are constantly kind of scanning the horizon for what? What topics need to be lifted up, maybe by staff as emerging issues. But I would say that you know, as you think about those things, there are some mechanisms Kalani and other staff are are are able to convey to to me and to at the staff level. Hey? This seems to be really an issue. Are there different ways? We could pursue it.

[46:06] So that's 1 mechanism is to just highlight that to Kalani and others during a meeting. Serve. Certainly you're making comment to recommendations or observations to an applicant and a planning board member, or the planning board. Yeah. And I think the one thing. Comments, and then and then, you know, I understand the kind of thought of like, and if it's actionable to put it in kind of in in a way that then could be picked up as a condition of approval, or just something else, that the Board Planning board might act on so just a little perspective to share with you all. That's great perspective. Thank you, Brad, I think with the sort of we've got a time check here. So we got 5 min allocated, and we need to do a calendar check for our next round of meetings. The one thing I will say to sort of continue the dot.in that conversation is, we do have a retreat coming up, and this is exactly the type of conversation that we want to have during the retreat, Steven, where we can sort of like.

[47:04] Take a broader look at how we behave in, you know, within the city of Boulder, within the other boards and coalitions with staff, you know, larger, sort of broader, abstract topics. I would like our letter to be acknowledged by City Council, though, so it doesn't just feel like you're writing Santa Claus, and you don't know what you're going to get under the tree, you know. Even. Just say, Hey, guys, we really appreciate your letter very thoughtful. Blah blah, you know just that, anyways. And I think a second opportunity. as another opportunity. Is. You did that. The Boulder Junction phase 2 joint board was a a huge opportunity for us as designers to to have a conversation with the other boards about. The planning of of these developments. And you know that you know. That's when the conversation is had as to like fenestration requirements and retail requirements and

[48:01] pedestrian requirements, and all in in that very early stages. It's cool to be, you know, to have someone on up from our board with a design perspective design professionals to come in and and give some insight, I think, to projects, cause that. That's where the change happens. Not necessarily in our. Right, during. Cancel. Yeah, Lyndon, I think this is great discussion. If you guys don't mind if we sort of pack it for a retreat. I don't know exactly. I think we're gonna talk about some of these dates here. But cut, which particular calendar check are we doing here, guys? That's typically just on our agenda in case we have a meeting next month. So we don't have a calendar check for today. We don't have a. When is our retreat scheduled for? When are we targeting, scheduling? It. After the New Year, because we're in the middle of some board and commissions work right now, and

[49:01] waiting to see how that work and some of the direction from the city manager's office might help format some of your discussion at a retreat. I think so, and. But I. Even. To keep some ideas together and know, like, if there's someone that wants to start keeping some topic areas, we'll also have some things for that retreat, too. The biggest thing that came out of similar discussions even, was that planning board, and our relationship has gotten much stronger. And I think even having Ml. On the board. She acknowledged that and that, making sure our bridge to planning board. That was like a huge. you know, when I 1st joined, it felt very severed, and and the discussion was always, How do we have more influence? How do we see more projects? How do we? Whatever? And that was a big thing that came out of it was planning board. Strengthen your relationship with planning. Right. I would. And I just wanted to say one last thing you know about all this. It would be. It would be great, you know, in terms of like anything about like what's working, what's not working, and and

[50:02] some ways I think not working. If you will, is. boy, it'd be great to a see things earlier in the process, so that, you know it's a little it's difficult to go start talking about. Oh, you gotta do this, and it's like, I know how far you know they're almost in the Cds, and we're like, Oh, just make this little roof change a, and then B, you know, I'm very much like an old Clinton Democrat. Broken windows, kind of guy like. I would love to see smaller projects that we could have a bigger impact on. Yes, I understand. There's a you know, St. Julian. Those things are important projects. But in a way, a lot of that is, you know, they're gonna take what we say with a grain of salt. But if we had a you know, a duplex that someone was doing in a new neighborhood. We could really help them. you know, and help that process. And yeah. Yeah, Matthew, you would love that right. Your clients would be stoked if they had to pay you to come, sit in front of us to deal with a duplex fee. Alright, Steven, we're gonna let's let's be respectful of our allotted time here.

[51:06] Okay. And that's perfect discussion to have at our retreat, and to continue to have sort of in the free board that we're gonna try. You know that Brendan and I are gonna continue to evaluate how to incorporate these sort of free board discussion time allotments. But I appreciate everybody's involvement. Today, I think we got through our agenda relatively quickly, Kalani, smiling. That feels like maybe when. Be less. Right. I mean. And it's a pleasure to welcome Harriet and to meet folks like Brad, who we've never. I've never seen here before. So and Amelia, thank you for joining us, and we look forward to working with you as well. And. Christopher, we won't leave you hanging. In person meetings. Covid's over. That's we don't need to be doing this anymore. I know it's easier for all of us. But Jesus, it's so much better when you do stuff in person. I'm just sort of sick of zoom, you know, like it's just.

[52:02] It's a good question. Yeah. So. We'll we'll chat. Let's let's continue to think about that. So alright, I guess, formally I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Is that how that works? I don't have a gavel or anything. But yeah, alright, guys, thank you so much. We'll catch you. Thank you! Thanks, everybody! Take care!