December 20, 2022 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] So homeless count as a result of all of the extra work that works for you. Subsidizing developers ensure that behind, then is building in butter. and knowing that they can always pay for the low end. This does not happen. Low income. How zoom tax credits the Federal government. not the city of Holder. The impact fees are covered. And see. when you make it look to the public. you're developing more health, more and more housing for all the homeless, and for all the lower ami, for all the jobs that are not increasing in their salaries.

[1:00] This is not beneficial. This is an illusion that you present to the public. That's unfair and unethical and unconscionable. because they don't know that they are the ones that are paying the taxpayer pays. Another thing I noticed lately, specifically, that I wanted to bring up was when buildings get a fourth floor they automatically get into a situation where they they they can do onsite affordable housing, but they don't have to if they've got a fourth floor, they get 50 50 a oh, wait actually no excuse me if if they have a third floor that, like at through house. who have got away with their affordable housing on side.

[2:01] After many hours of time spent by staff paid for by the taxpayers and for an affordable housing senior center that never happened. I was stunned when, months later, through House is gone, and so is the housing nothing. When Papelios got their fourth story they're compelled to do 50% on site at 50% in loo. But Yes, what they've got a fourth floor that just ruined the reason for having the affordable house. You may increase more of more more and affordable housing. Thank you, Lynn. Sorry the 3 min is up.

[3:00] Thank you, Lynn. It was that the only speaker in the public participation section. Okay, thank you. How are you doing. We'll move move ahead. there's a considerate. We have 3 call-up items to consider tonight the first is the standard wetland permit wet 2,022 culvert replacement at 50 First street and dry ditch. Number 2. Does anybody have questions or want to call up that item? Okay. The second is a flood plane development. Permit fld 2,022.0, 0, 0, 7 0, and a standard wetland permit wet 2,022 0, 0, 1, 3

[4:00] for 8, 16 Arapaho, a solar pergola. Does anyone have questions or want to call that item up? Amel. yes, thank you, John. I don't know what happened to my hand. It's gone off my screen. So I do. I have some questions. Is the Is there somebody here who can answer? Kristen? Are you going to answer the question? Okay, so i'm curious. The there are. There's a discrepancy about the shed. Is the shed in the description. It says that the shed is going to be removed. and yet in the drawing it shows that the shed is or it says that that the panels will be in the pergola will be installed, together with the existing shed group. So i'm curious is the shed coming or going. My understanding was that the shed was going, and then the pergola would be adjacent to, or right next to where the shed exists.

[5:10] Okay, it. It just it doesn't say that in the in the I will look into that 3 of 20. So the project description says that solar purplea installation, together with the disting shed roof. This supports a 6.8. That's the project. Information includes it. Okay. so i'm not it. It just was unclear. Yeah, I can follow up and and and get to an email, if you like, with more clarity. I was going off of the structural drawings which just showed the pergola standing alone. So I didn't I I I had read that as if the shed was going away, but i'm i'm happy to follow up They they may not need to be a follow up. I'm: I've got 3 questions. So i'm looking at this.

[6:04] This is basically a car port. Is that correct? I don't believe it's going to be used for a car. I think it's being used for like backyard shade and sort of like a relaxing area. But it it does. Yeah, I I I can see how it would if you saw it from the street. It might look like a car, but I don't believe it's being used for a car. The aerial photographs online show cars park there. So I mean it's perfect right. It comes off an alley. It makes sense. It just isn't called a car port. and I guess my question relative to the carport is. does it being a cardboard impact. The the fled for the The application for the protection of the storm of the

[7:02] of the water. Yeah, it So am I. I just wanted to let you know that it looks like the owner of 8. 16 is here. and they may be able to hop on and answer some of these questions a little bit more directly. But if it was a car port I believe. Well, i'd like to confirm that whether or not it was that's the intended use, because there is some parking requirements around that to parking requirements. Oh, some requirements, if it is parking. Yes. yes. i'm sorry. Hang on My! I miss. Can you go get daddy, please, and there's water right over there. Apologies, My son is his home as well. So that that was really my concern. Is is it, in fact, the car port, and how does that impact the A flood plane consideration. And i'm guessing that all of the coverage issues are.

[8:03] you know, resolved as well. Yeah. So for a car port, if it if it's what the code says is, if it's if there's existing parking, the code says you can't have new parking in a high hazard zone. But if if there's existing parking already being used there. If a car is already being parked, or a parking spot is in place. I have not traditionally interpreted that as as new parking or expansion of parking. No, I'm i'm just wondering if it is in fact. Well, first of all, i'm sure it's. It's why it's been called it. It looks like a car part. But i'm just wondering if there would be a difference in the approval process if impacted with the cardboard. Not necessarily. No, because that what I look at is the structure and the obstruction. So how it, if it would be obstructing the flood waters. So the cars on the ground. Aren't. Really a consideration. not if it's already being used that way, because it's about

[9:01] continuing the use. Got it Can. You? Is the owner here to see if that's because you didn't think that that's how it was being currently correct, and it looks like they are. i'm not sure if you can bring them in. Jose Lemon, as Jim Sorry, him and his. Yeah, we we can bring them in as long as it's. Okay with the chair. Yes, that's let's get this questions answered right away. Okay, Jose, go ahead or or please address your questions to him. He can speak. I don't see him. he just popped in, but he's unmute. So maybe he doesn't. Okay, so he'll say my question. It's good evening. Thank you for being here. My question is, is this proposed Pergola. gonna be a car part? And is there currently parking on this area of the site? Hello! Can you hear me?

[10:06] Sorry we had 2 devices connected. the this is on on our parking area. So the the area where it is, is is where we sometimes park our cars, although we have. I got us next door, which is where we normally park the one car we have. but they really this is the option we the only option we could find to install solar panels, because our house is very shaded. So when we contacted Namaste and those guys, they said. you have to much shade. So then, where we have some sun is over the parking area. But in the parking area. We have all these flood restrictions. So this was one way. We We found that we could get around that, and in response to what you were mentioned earlier that the shed will be removed at the beginning of the process. We were hoping to keep it, and whatever but then it was made clear that I was not possible. But I I don't know there was so many documents and so many versions that perhaps some of

[11:01] what you have is some of the old versions great. Thank you. You've answered my questions. Basically, I was. I was just wondering if something different would land if it was, in fact, a car port, and not a not just a pergola, and it sounds like it wouldn't. so. I have no questions, and I have no need to call it up. Thank you. Thanks, Emma. I appreciate it. Okay. And then the final item is a standard. Wetland permit w it 2022 dash 0, 0, 1 7 for an open space and mountain parts. Wetland Restoration Project. Does anybody have questions on that one mark? Oh, I saw your hand. Yeah, No, that's that's oh, oh, here, anyway, I i'm still figuring out how to use zoom at this late date, I guess. Anyway, I I have a

[12:01] a question for Osmp staff as I read through that memo, and and you know i'm not a botanist or anything. So I just looking at the list of plants and different types of habitat that they were trying to create or recreate. My question is, does is milkweed, a native species to this area. and if so, does this site offer any opportunity to plant or restore milkweed for monarch butterflies. I am not sure that Osmp staff is here. and and that is a level of detail that my engineering degree never covered. But i'm I am happy to I am also happy to email Adam Gaylord as the applicant on this, and he

[13:00] he would know that very well, and i'm happy to email him, and that's that's fine. So I have no interest in calling it up. But it's out of curiosity. It's a great question. I'll ask him. Thanks. Okay, any other questions. All right, seeing none, I guess planning board is not interested in calling any of these items up. Thank you, Christian. Okay. So we'll move ahead into our public hearing item for tonight. which which is a matter that many of us have seen before we get another crack at it. So this is a site review criteria, update ordinance. and we'll start out with a presentation by staff. and there there's no applicant in this matter. But, the there'll be an opportunity to ask questions of Staff, and then we'll move into a

[14:00] hopefully a pretty systematic discussion that will address both both of the questions laid out in our agenda and materials tonight. and in just to make it clear how we intend to proceed, we will first have the opportunity for all board members to say some general comments about how they believe this. meets the intended objectives, and then we'll go through section by section, and each Board member will have the opportunity to to comment or say, if they find something, they find unsatisfactory. and then explain why, but we will focus our comments hopefully tonight on substance rather than presentation. So we do not intend to move commas around too much tonight.

[15:01] unless there's a an issue of substance at stake. So with that No, just a question. because there's no applicant, can we Can we ask questions of that. Do you want us to ask questions of Staff during the presentation, or after they, after Carl's presented? Let's see what Carl thinks, or or Charles. What do you prefer? I think it's entirely up to the Board whether you want to ask questions as I go through the presentation or after. Sometimes it's helpful for us to get through the entirety of the presentation, since there might be some items that will get answered in the presentation. But I I don't mind getting interrupted in the presentation. If you do want to pose a question either way, i'm a fan of getting questions answered as quickly as possible while you're thinking about them. You know in in this case that may actually make sense, since a lot of what it is that we'll be presenting as updates to the work that kind of represent, You know, where the ordinance has been since we last spoke with planning more so that that might make great sense tonight.

[16:14] Okay. So Board members feel free to ask questions at the right time. John. Can we also, as we're going through section by section, if we have a specific question about something that's written in the ordinance, Can Can we ask questions at that time as well? Hmm. Okay, Great. Thank you. Okay, and Sarah has has done a great job. She's like it out of a nice spreadsheet. So we'll be keeping track of people's comments hopefully. And we anticipate having a coherent coherent response to Staff's inquiries here. So it's great. Thank you. Great thanks very much. Again. Good evening. Members of the board. Carl Guyler, our senior policy analyst, will be presenting staff now this this evening. So, Carl, take it away.

[17:10] Thank you, Charles. good evening Board members. I'm going to pull up my presentation real quick. So tonight we'll be discussing Ordinance 85, 15, which relates to updating the site review criteria. we talked about this in May of this year. So this reflects, updates that we've made up to the ordinance since our last discussion. So the purpose tonight is for planning board to make a recommendation to City Council on the ordinance just to cover what's in this presentation tonight? I'm going to more briefly go into the background in the presentation. since we've talked at length about this in May. and then part 2. I'll be walking the board through the changes to the ordinance. then we'll go to the key issues. The 2 questions provide our staff analysis regarding those questions. We'll also be summarizing

[18:09] the public comment most mostly what we've received since May on the latest version of the ordinance, and then conclude with the staff recommendation. So starting with the back. I'm: Sorry, Carl, are you? do you mean to be sharing your screen? Because we're not seeing a presentation? Oh, I'm: sorry that's okay. You were on a role. I'm sorry to interrupt. Very excited about this tonight. By the way, Great work! Let's try this again. Can you all see it now? yeah. Now I'm Sure, you know. Okay, but we're seeing it. We're not seeing it in slideshow. Mode. We're seeing your whole screen with the slide deck down the side. Okay.

[19:03] getting some interesting pop ups. There's always a technology issue. Keeps things lively. i'm gonna try this again. We're still kind of seeing it with your slide deck down the side. You can try that little icon on the bottom right next to the slider. Sorry bottom right next. Keep going. Keep going. Not that 1, 2 more over that one.

[20:06] I apologize. So all it might be showing on a different screen, so maybe double check and share and share. Okay. I've done this most so many times. I've never had this problem before. Yeah, I think I have it now. So there we go, right. It's. It's still doing the same thing. But I we can see your slides if you don't mind us seeing the deck as it is that's fine. So the other thing to Carl is Devin can pull it up if it's in a shared folder. That's what I was gonna say, Carl. Is that what I've seen? 6 out in the past when it's misbehaving like this is just to have someone else on the slide show like. Send them the file or send them a link.

[21:03] Okay, let me try that. We absolutely blame Zoom. Yeah. But, Carl, you might want to stop sharing your screen. Now. Okay. interesting. I'm not have this problem before. Yeah, it's weird. I I've seen it. You're not the first person to deal with this, and it it seems very intermittent and like Odd. So yeah, not your fault. hey? Devin? I'm gonna save it in our planning board, Memos folder. Would you be able to access it from there in the site. Review folder. yeah, I'll go in there right now and check

[22:02] it. Elon musk, acquire zoom or something like what's going on here? Clearly some changes here. You need to tell a story. Why, we're waiting, Carl. Because he doesn't have enough to do. Yeah. no, I I was actually going to make some comments. I'll make them now, while Carl is trying to get this up that you know this is next to the longest night of the year. and and I I I don't. Sometimes I get kind of the seasonal you know, disorder of feeling down and stuff, and I haven't really felt it until, like I last night I was like, oh, man. hey, wait! I was just thinking about staff, and this must seem like the longest project of the decade, not the year. But as as I read through the memo, I was so reminded that this project was going on, you know. started a long time ago.

[23:01] and it's been It's been through multiple councils. The political winds have shifted. It's been through multiple planning boards. and you know I I I my personal response kind of like, okay, let's put a fork in so, and not that. Not that we should have that attitude. But Anyway. I just it was just a a funny coincidence with being the almost longest. All right, Devin, are you seeing it by chance? So I am seeing it. but it is downloading onto or trying to open. we are at a solid 12 Trying to. It is an extraordinarily large file which could be contributing to this. since there's a lot of backup slides and everything. You just a Testament to the the volume and time that that's gone into this is showing in the presentation.

[24:02] I think there needs to be like an equivalent label for like endurance athlete. But like as a planner, because that's like. That's what we got going on here. I'll get the gold star for that one, for sure. for sure. Many reasons, not just those i'll second that the train is time to go to sleep. They're they're worn out by this, too. alright, is it? So that that looks good? Can you go to the yeah. So like slide 3 perfect. Thank you so much. Thanks for your patience, everyone. So I just wanted to. If you go the slide before this devin.

[25:01] So just getting to the background of the project. there's been some perceived unpredictable outcomes with the Site review process, since it's been really initiated. Site review kind of originated in the in the seventies and as evolved over time. But the Site Review, Criteria haven't really been holistically or comprehensively updated in that time. There's been some additions to it as catch all over time, but this has been the most comprehensive overview and analysis of all the criterion updating those criteria, and these are the goals and objectives that related to this project that were set out by the City Council several years ago, when this project started as part of the community benefit project in 2,018 so specific to site Review. It was to identify incentives to address community, economic, social and environmental objectives of the Boulder Valley Comforts of Plan.

[26:06] Other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more predictability in projects. So this project really kind of grew out of some concerns that came out of the community related to particularly larger scale projects that were being built typically fourth and fifth level or story buildings that got height modifications, but it kind of begged a need to take a re look at the site, review criteria, and see how we could improve it. to meet these goals and objectives next slide, please. So the Board will remember that in 2,019. We did. It adopt changes to the site review criteria that related specifically to community benefit. So any additional floor area above a Floria ratio maximum, or any additional floor area in a fourth or a fifth story does require additional permanently affordable housing either on site or an increased in loop fees or increased commercial linkage fees. So this is already in the code

[27:12] site. Review projects are typically required for in in different zones. If they trigger a certain amount of floor area, a certain number of units, or if an applicant request modifications to things like setbacks or height most site reviews are staff level. They are all subject to call up by the planning Board or citizen Appeal in order for them to be approved. They have to meet the detailed criteria of Section 9 to 14 H. Which is the focus of our discussion tonight. and none of this is changing. then any request for additional density or height modifications still automatically will require a planning board public hearing. So next slide, please. So when we talked about this at the October work session in 2,021, and also in May earlier this year. These were some of the words that are in our current site. Review criteria that have been kind of raised as being ambiguous people.

[28:13] You know what is human scale, what is pedestrian friendly? What are authentic materials, people come to different conclusions on these topics. So while these words are in the latest ordinance, we've made the the criteria language more descriptive to really better define what these mean. And that's been a really critical part of this project is in trying to increase that level of predictability is really better defining what these mean. So that's what we'll talk about tonight. So the next slide, please. So just you know briefly, talk about the the version of the ordinance of the board Looked at in May. there were concerns, obviously by by some on board about the level of prescriptive nature of the criteria. That's what was shown in the the prior ordinance. we had gotten some direction from the Prior Council. and there was some advice from I. I brought up Victor Dover a well known architect and planner in the in the country.

[29:13] that making it more prescriptive as to what the community wants would increase that level of predictability and and get better design projects. So that's kind of the direction we took. We we kind of took in in inspiration from the form based code, because we've had some successful design outcomes with those projects. So we tried to integrate that into the criteria also try to address some higher level policy issues in the criteria related to, you know, greenhouse gas, emission, reduction environmental protection, historic preservation, housing, diversity, things of that nature. we also made the criteria more descriptive, like I said, a lot of the site design, open space, landscaping and transportation related criteria were made much more descriptive as to what it means to meet the criteria rather than it being a very discretionary and not very clear.

[30:07] so we'll i'll give a brief overview of what we talked about last time. So next slide, please on May nineteenth of this year planning board reviewed the Ordinance the discussion by the board is found in Attachment B of the packet. we did a detailed line by line discussion of the criteria, as you remember. back in October, 2021. The board at that time was largely supportive of the ordinance direction in terms of the prescriptive nature, and and where staff was headed. But when we had the discussion in May of this year, this particular board was was more, was largely mixed on the outcome of the ordinance being to, you know, versus prescriptive. So one of the key issues we raised was was the ordinance to prescriptive. So the Board was kind of mixed on that topic. There were some that felt that the criteria were appropriately prescriptive, and others felt, that it was too prescriptive and needed to be dialed back a bit. because of these concerns. Well, especially also we we talked about the Boulder Valley comforts of plan criterion

[31:15] being too limiting the energy, conservation and greenhouse gas emissions, reduction criteria not going far enough, and some confusion about the the language use for the height, modification, the Board at that time, or in May. Did not recommend that the ordinance proceed to city council rather They wanted the questions of the prescriptive nature brought before the designed Advisory Board to see what their thoughts were. So After the main meeting we did proceed to the design Advisory Board next slide, please. So the the DAB discussion on the segregated criteria that the minutes for that is found in attachment, c. so when we talk to DAB, they were complementary of the work that was done

[32:03] in in the ordinance. They felt like a lot of the things that were derived from the 4 base code would likely increase the baseline for good design in projects. however, the the d did have strong concerns that the criteria were too prescriptive. and they were concerned that if it was applied city wide that you would see too many buildings that would start looking the same throughout the city. Their recommendation was that the criteria should be revised to be less prescriptive. that the criteria should function more like guidelines and include other design solutions just beyond just the form base code type requirements that were in the criteria. So we also had a study session set with city council in August. we felt, since we were going to them already for the use standards and table project that we would also talk about the site review project since this particular Site Review Project Hadn't been addressed by the Current Council, so we felt like we should give them some background on the project and ask them whether we felt they felt we were on the right track as far as meeting the goals and objectives of the project.

[33:15] Correct. So next slide, please. So August 20, fifth we. We had a discussion with Council about the Site Review project as a whole. the Council felt that the proposed ordinance was, was largely consistent with the original goals and objectives that were set for the project in 2,018. But, the Council did agree with DAB and some members of planning board that the criteria were too prescriptive, and that we should again dial it back. make the language more flexible, more discretionary. and really kind of draw from how we wrote the criteria for the open space Site design transportation to be more descriptive rather than prescriptive. there was a sentiment that the design content related to form based code and good design was good, and that that shouldn't be lost in the criteria. So we were asked that that content

[34:10] be retained in the criteria, but just that the language be more generalized, and in in enable applicants to find other design solutions to meet that intent. so basically what they were asking for is a hybrid between the existing criteria that we applied today, and the positive elements of that ordinance from May we also discussed the the comp plan criteria that they they also felt that, like the planning board that it should be broadened to allow more policies to to apply, but just that maybe the language had to be more clear about how to apply the policies. and i'll talk a bit about how we've addressed that. We also talked about the greenhouse gas emissions criteria. they felt it was overly complex, with all the different options

[35:02] that were proposed. But, many of the Council members felt that some of the requirements should just be baseline requirements that apply citywide rather than being in a just site review. So what they asked was that the reduction of of concrete and carbon in concrete and projects be added to the The energy code updates that would occur in 2,023 as well as the electrification things that we were proposing. so we do have Carol and Elim here tonight, if there are questions on that. But, there is an intent to move forward with moving some of those requirements into the actual ecc coming for next year what we've focused on with this particular ordinance is just getting to net 0 or being 10% better than the Ecc. So i'll talk about that as well next slide.

[36:00] So the key issues tonight. as as outlined in the memo, is the 2 questions before you, so it does plenty board. Find that the Revised Ordinance addresses prior concerns and meets the objectives of the project. And then, secondarily does planning Board recommend any modifications to pass along with its recommendation to city council. So we this we think this would be a good way to guide the complex discussion on the ordinance next slide, please. So attachment a contains the ordinance. I wanted to bring up this slide again. This is what we showed back in May, but just the the approaches that we took to the ordinance. this is largely the same as we've. We've been doing all along. It's really to emphasize criteria that address important city policies to reorganize the criteria. The more top down approach, and what we mean by that is starting at the policy level, and then kind of working to like a site design site wide. It's in a relationship with neighboring properties, and then moving towards actual buildings where they're placed. And then the the actual design of buildings getting down to the detail of building materials. And that's what we've done where there's areas of where we could simplify.

[37:16] reduce, redundancy eliminating some criteria that haven't been used or have are not feasible or overlap. We've we've removed those criteria and then the last one is really adding more descriptive language to make the criteria less subjective. I've highlighted the more prescriptive and measurable part, because obviously we're we're coming back with an ordinance where we've dialed that back a bit. So we've kind of expanded on the descriptive language part. but we still feel like the ordinance that's being brought for you tonight. Still meets these approaches. next slide, please. So getting into the the changes. like, I said, the the latest ordinance is less prescriptive, has more descriptive language.

[38:01] descriptive language. but we have retained some for prescriptive elements on some things that we feel are quite important. like housing diversity, amount of window glazing building materials. The language that you saw before is still in here. It's just some of it's been softened a little bit, just to allow for some other solutions, but we try to write it in a way where it's a best practice, like if somebody comes or an applicant comes, and we look at a design, and it's not quick Meeting the criteria, we might then fall back on Wall you. We do think you need to add. you know, windows to meet that minimum blazing to meet this level of quality. it's it's a little less rigid. But we still have include included that language to really guide projects, so that when they come in the door. They're in a better place to be more successful, and and and being able to get up approval. we tried to simplify and reorganize the criteria as much as possible to to make it more understandable. the prior ordinance had a public realm section, which is kind of the bridge between site, design, and building design. I think some of the feedback we got was that it? That was

[39:09] added to the confusion. Some of those criteria really relate to landscaping or actual building design. So we've just folded those criteria into those respective sections rather than having a separate section. So again, looking at areas where we can simplify as much as possible. you'll notice that we've also updated the purpose section, so it better reflects the content of the criteria. So it's kind of the main themes of the criteria as you move along, are better captured in the purpose statement based on the board concerns. We've tried to simplify the language related to the Bvcp. We've reintroduced the on balance language. we would, it would allow, you know, more policies to apply to projects just making it specific that it should be policies that are intended to apply to development projects or the built environment rather than

[40:03] policies that are really aimed at the city or county to update, You know, programs or things like that, just making sure that the policies are appropriately applied to projects. Language has been added to make that more clear. next slide, please. The energy conservation or the greenhouse gas emissions reduction criterion has been greatly simplified, based on the input we got from the board and City Council. again. the electrification elements, the the concrete carbon reduction requirements are going to be folded into the updates to the the Ecc in 2,023 in this case the criteria basically says that any buildings or additions that are greater than 30,000 square feet in size would either have to be net 0, or at least 10% better than the energy

[41:00] code. we feel that effectively. you know, with larger scale projects, shows that they're being held to a a a bigger standard because of you know things that they're requesting in the projects and their scale and impact on the community. The housing diversity criteria is largely similar to what we propose before we did receive some feedback from the board that if there was a project that was predominantly just, el use that there'd be a requirement that there should be at least 2 housing types. So we've incorporated that into the language we've added one part of that criterion that allows for any other compelling community housing needs. If a project didn't meet that housing diversity they could propose. Like. It might be a different type of project that fulfills a community. Housing needs. So there is a little bit of flexibility that's been added to that criterion. to just kind of lower that level of rigidity the open space criteria are are probably the most similar to the prior ordinance that the Board looked at.

[42:06] since it was already written in that descriptive manner that we've tried to do elsewhere. the the biggest difference is that some of the courtyard requirements that we had proposed for larger projects that was in the open space criteria. We've moved out of the open space criteria and applied to those projects that would be asking for additional floor, area, or height. Just so, there's an an additional level of design quality and breaking up mass that would apply to those projects. I'll talk more about that when we get to that section. So next slide, please. like, I said, the public Realm section has been consolidated into the building design and landscaping sections overall. the language about human scale, attractive streetscape. pedestrian interest that has been overly discretionary and and somewhat unclear, is better defined in the criteria. Now it's more descriptive of how you meet that.

[43:03] we've also added a definition of public realm into the land. Use code through this ordinance. just to make that more clear on site and building design. This is kind of where you can see the difference between the more specific metrics that we're in the prior ordinance that cost some concern as being too prescriptive. Rather, we've updated the organs to have basically an intent statement at the beginning of each about what the level of of design quality should be. And then, in order to meet that intent, we list some criteria that would be factors that the board or staff would consider in their reviews. This is the same way that we we review site reviews now. it's just that the criteria are more specific as to how it's. It can be met so that language at the beginning of each section says: in determining whether this intent is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: so this is some of the input we've gotten is to try to dial back that prescriptive nature of the prior ordinance. So one a big bit of

[44:18] simplification is now that the criteria has been updated to be more discretionary than the prior ordinance, not as discretionary as the current set of criteria, but that there's no longer a need for the alternative compliance section that we had all those specific criteria, and not each individual thing would have to be called out, and with the additional criteria. So this has been removed from the ordinance. A next slide, please. So throughout the building design section. That's where you'll see kind of the biggest changes to the ordinance again. We've kept a lot of that design content that we think yields good design. But we've added some additional design solutions. So we still have a section on building materials that specify what we, you know, consider high quality building that

[45:10] materials that make buildings look like in during permanent buildings rather than temporary or overly complicated, You know. Low quality design we still have. we're still proposing a a a window glazing percentage per floor. We think that's a an important part of building design against Again, the the is a little more flexible, but it's still kind of drives on. How important these are. Instead of. you know, expression lines which I think cause concern, and a number of reviewers we've add a new detailing section that gives additional design options for giving some detailing on buildings without them looking overly complex or complicated. and then the landscaping standards are largely the same as before, where it would have to exceed minimum standards by 15. So there are, again some elements that still are somewhat per prescriptive than others.

[46:08] with the ordinance becoming more discretionary than the prior iteration. We've reintroduced the compatibility language that we didn't have in there before. So there are findings that have to be met by the board or staff. that a project have is is compatible with it's design and massing is compatible with the surrounding area, and we've tried to make it clear that there might be areas that where you have the existing character as as a guide, or it might be an emerging character. where it's changing and and going into a a a better type of design, you know, having getting rid of parking lots along a street, for instance. or it might be meeting adopted area plans or subcommittee plans, just making it clear how that compatible the ability finding would be met next slide, please.

[47:03] So this is an important part of the ordinance, because it's one of the main objectives of the project is increased requirements for those buildings that are over the height, limit or over an fa are limit and limited situation. So we've tried to simplify the criteria that apply to taller larger buildings. This is what we consider the land use intensity, modifications. So If there's buildings that are not over 3 stories like we're talking about a height, modification that might be due to height or due to slope. You know where it might be. Just a a couple of feet over the height limit. We don't wanna apply all these arduous standards to those. So there's just a general compatibility finding that's been added to the criteria. But for those projects that are asking for more than 3 stories, and are are those buildings that generated a lot of concern. At the beginning of this project. we are still, including a lot of those requirements from the 4 base code, again, is more of like best practices. Sarah.

[48:12] you're muted Sarah. Apologies. The material you send actually has maximum building length of 200 feet, not 150. That's right. So we've actually we. Yeah, we we yeah. The prior ordinance was 150. The the latest version based on some feedback we got from the site review focus group. We changed that to 200 and the and the last few weeks. So I apologize for that. That's correct. Just to make sure I was there. Which one it was. Thank you. Yeah, hey? Just a question for courtyard space. Does that mean it has to be open to the sky above, or can it be a covered space like in, for example, that I think it's called the Vexell Building, where there's a basement

[49:03] courtyard, but the intent is that it'd be open to the sky all right. So that's clear in the We can look at the language, and certainly, you know, make that clear as well. Okay, thank you. Circumstances where it. It doesn't have to be open to the sky, but the vast majority does. Thank you. so yeah, there's maximum building like is best practices 200 feet. and then, if there's any buildings that are over 120 feet in length, there's those forsoft variation requirements that we had last time we we really simplified that just to say that if you're over 120 feet you should have, you should look. The building needs to be designed to look like 2 separate buildings at least.

[50:11] and that those should look like 2 separate buildings by very, you know, windows like materials, colors, roof forms. At least 2 of those would have to be met to make it look like 2 separate buildings. we've simplified the roof cap types language that we brought in from the Form base code. In this case it's just criteria that really aims it. Getting more pitch droves and getting more roof variations and trying to avoid the boxy, flat, roofed buildings that have caused some concern in the community mark. Oh. maybe this is the right spot. Maybe later you can tell me if it's later. Does the roof cap type allow for Anything more creative, different

[51:02] pitched roads that are actually screening for mechanical I'm getting to. As you know, we we have. kind of what I interpret it to be great allowances for mechanical screening in terms of materials and and so forth. But yet we we prohibit or restrict pitched robes and some other things. So anyway, this does any of this update address, that there is a specific criterion in the ordinance that tries to raise the bar for concealing mechanical equipment above our State, or just regular standards in the appropriate standards of the code, and obviously roof forms to shield it. Our are are part of that. it's not really specific as far as there's another thing we keep hearing from the community is encouraging. Pitched roofs may that might be a little bit over the height limit. So we did make an update to the site review criteria, and the last iteration that would allow some pitched roofs some flexibility. But we've we've been asked to even go further and make it a conditional use

[52:11] or a conditional height requirement, so that might be something that we do down the road. But we we we do address that in the criteria. Hey, Mel. I just have a a quick question, Karl, are these 2 photos that you have on here? Are they? Would you consider them to offer the pitched roof and height variety that you're talking about. Are these good examples or not some good examples? I I don't know that I put these particular pictures in for that alone. They both are largely flat roof buildings. They meet the flat roof cap type in the for base code. I think I was just trying to show context of a variety of roof of building heights.

[53:01] These 2 buildings, I think, do a good job at that, because there are portions of the buildings that are 3 stories, and others that are 4 stories. so that was the primary reason I put those pictures in. Thank you. So we talked about the the courtyard space requirement. That's actually an existing requirement. That's in the code that applies to the Rh. 3 Zone, which is a high density residential zone. We found it to be, you know, fairly successful, so that's why we think it would make sense to put in this particular section, applying to tall or larger buildings because it does help break up the mass and get some additional high quality ground level, open space. We've also added the view protection criteria, which is largely the same as the prior ordinance. It really just sets out the specific conditions where there's going to be a higher level of scrutiny on impact to views of the mountains.

[54:03] we're we're the current criteria. Don't go into any specifics on that. and we've also, you know, added a compatibility criteria for the buildings that are over 3 stories as well. So next slide, please. So this is the last slide on the content of the ordinance. So we did address a couple of other things that are kind of miscellaneous in talking to our urban designer, she had indicated that there's some concern about some buildings that have come in with pitched roofs, that instead of putting, you know, tiles or things like that, they've just put roofing membranes that become visible from the street, and and the concern about that is that if they're on a sloped roof over time that wear and tear on that roof doesn't look very good. So we've added a criterion that addresses that so if it's on a sloped, or if you can't use certain types of roofing membranes that are visible.

[55:07] the acoustic studies piece this is something that we talked about in May. with the board. There were some concerns about adding a requirement for applicants to do a noise study if they were located near a noise source, because it would just add to the expense of a project. What we've done is we basically just derived a requirement that we already have in the code for residential and industrial zones that already has a minimum standard for wall construction to minimize noise. So it actually wouldn't require a a study they just like, if they're within 200 feet of an expressway or a railroad, they just have to have a certain wall construction to minimize noise, and that's already in the code, but applies this will prior to any project in the city that's in in those areas. And then lastly we did notice that there's some confusion about the language in the code related to Polls a lot of polls that they're over 35 feet, and up to 55 feet Are us

[56:12] city manager or staff level review, subject to planning board call up. And there are even some conditions where there's public utility polls that might be over 55 feet that are staff level review, and can be then called up by city council. This is an existing requirement. That's in the code. we just wanted to make that more clear. So we've updated the language in the code related to that. And there's also specific state laws that apply to those reviews that we wanted to reference in the code. So we've added some language, and the ordinance related to that. So it's all points of clarification and making you know the criteria better. Address polls if they come in. Obviously it's not a very common thing to come through, but we want to make sure that we're ready. If If something were to come through that we can review that

[57:02] next slide, please. Yeah on the polls issues. I, in looking at the language, it it identifies power and gas as the utilities and the emergency operations. But I didn't see that it specifically called out to, You know, cell telephone type facilities, which is something that I know that the county has wrestled with a lot, and is that included in the emergency operations and utilities. Utility type polls anything beyond that. That doesn't meet. That definition of poll is a private facility. Basically. So we look at it the same way we do Any building, so a pull over 35 feet would require a height modification that would be subject to all the

[58:00] the site review criteria, and we review it the the way we do any building for visual impacts, just polls that are public utility polls have a a different level of of review per the State. Okay, Thank you. Yep. so just touching on public comment, I I talked about this in in the May presentation. You know we've been doing ongoing outreach on this since 2,018, but on the site review criteria. It's largely been since 2,020. We've done a a variety of ways of reaching out to the community, reaching out to to certain groups to make them aware of the changes we've been sending out emails to architects and interested parties. we've been meeting with the Site review focus group reaching out to our neighborhood representatives. We've been doing the planning news letter just to kind of make them aware of what changes have been made. So what you're seeing on the slide is actually our prior feedback prior to the current

[59:02] ordinance. that, that just as a as a summary. But if you could go to the next slide devin. This is the the more recent feedback we've gotten. So When we met with the Set review focus group, and I I assume there might be some folks here tonight that will speak to this the group was was more supportive of the latest version of the ordinance being less prescriptive. there were comments that it would provide better guidance to applicants on how to design a high quality project. and 1 one thing we heard was that that the criteria kind of read, in a sense like staff comments to applicants which is helpful, because we we hope that that helps the process, and hopefully makes it more successful, and that with the criteria being more descriptive that they would be coming in the door with a a a project more likely to be approved than we might get today, where there's a lot more back and forth like you know that doesn't quite meet the criteria Yet you need to do this, or you know things like that. So we thought that was helpful. Feedback.

[60:06] They did talk about the greenhouse gas emissions, reduction requirement that it would be a a bit difficult to determine compliance at site review, since a lot of that energy modeling wouldn't be complete at that stage. So we did update the language to be clear that there'd be a condition of approval, and they would have to do that later. and it would apply, but they would have to demonstrate it at time of building permit. so we we incorporated that. there was a comment that live work should be added as a housing type as part of the housing diversity of housing type criteria. So we did add that. they had some concerns about the screening criteria. we we still felt like the criteria that we have in there is is appropriate. I mean, it's just basically puts more scrutiny on how you screen mechanical equipment. But there's a number of other criteria that can address that. we heard some concerns about the public entry requirement, every 50 feet being too rigid. So we did soften up that criteria a bit, for, like residential uses and industrial uses. Again, you know, making the point that the criteria are more discretionary now, so it's

[61:12] not going to be like before, where it just rigidly has to be met every 50 feet. There might be other ways to accomplish the design intent. again. So suggestions for more lenient height measurements to get more pissed roofs. That's something that we think is encouraged in the in the code here, but we we might want to go further with that in the future. based on this feedback. we did hear some concern that you know. Some of the criteria, you know, are still too rigid minimum out of windows per floor maximum building with the amount of high quality building materials. Again, we've tried to dial back percentages and numbers, but just still some concerns on that and also some concern about the additional requirements that might apply to taller larger buildings, and that section was too confusing. So we did try to work on that section a little bit more to make it less confusing.

[62:05] Next slide, please. So this is key issue Number one. does the the Board find that the Revised Ordinance addresses prior concerns and meet the objective of the project. Obviously our analysis in the memo is that we still believe that the updated ordinance would meet the goals and objectives as outlined on the slide just understanding that, you know, by dialing back the prescription. it does create more discretionary type. Criteria Not as much as it is. Currently we, we think it's an improvement, but that does lower the level of predictability than than we had before. But we also understand that when you. If you have criteria that are, you know, more rigid when you have more of that prescription, there would be more design uniformity in the city, and we understand that that's not something that the community necessarily wants, either. So we feel like it does meet the objectives of the project. We do feel that the ordinance strikes a balance

[63:06] that's consistent with the goals and objectives of the project. next slide, please. So, as we outlined in the memo, we we feel that the the the updated criteria would be an improvement. It would give applicants and designers and the community more guidance as to how to design a project that meets city goals. So the criteria would be consistent with the Comp. Plan, its policies, and any adopted plans. It does move more in the direction of sustainability and getting more diverse housing types specifying it more clearly. enhanced site design ensuring human scale building, design being more specific about what that means as well as being more clear about. You know buildings that are over the height, limit, or over far, that they would have community benefit requirements for affordable housing, but also have additional design requirements. as specified in the goals and objectives.

[64:05] so we we believe that it's Matt. So key issue number 2 on the next slide, please. So does planning Board recommend any modifications to pass along with its recommendation to city council. So we certainly are open to any suggestions that the Board has tonight. in the memo. We just basically said that we are recommending that Planning Board recommend approval of the ordinance, but because it more clearly applies city policies. it's significantly more descriptive, making expected design quality. Baseline very clear. so that projects will be on better footing when they come in the door. there are. you know, there's more language that really is very explicit about how to get good design. But there is more flexibility and simplicity in this particular version. of the ordinance, and also again, we are accomplishing city goals for those projects, particularly that go over heightened and floor area. on addressing city policies. So

[65:09] next slide, please. So based on this analysis, this discussion. we are recommending that planning board recommends to City Council approval of the ordinance. 85, 15 meeting. The goals and objectives of the project. next slide, please. We we've provided motion language for the board if the board was so inclined next slide, please. and just wanted to touch on next steps before I conclude. So if the pro if the ordinance moves forward, we do have reviews with the City Council scheduled so January nineteenth is tentatively scheduled. It would be first reading, so there'd be no public hearing, and then second reading before the City Council would be on February second, where there would be a

[66:01] a public hearing if the City Council were to adopt the updated Site Review criteria. We've set the effective date for July first of 2,023, just to give applicants and designers everything time to implement these criteria and their projects as they design them. We don't want to just drop it on people, or they're probably designing their projects according to the current criteria. And obviously, you know, we don't expect that the ordinance will be perfect. This is like something that we have to work on over time. but I think as we move forward, we we're gonna want to hear the feedback from applicants and the board as the criteria are implemented about where there can be some improvements in the future. If something's not working quite well. But we have been combing through this for a long time, and we think we have a a good package before the board tonight. So next slide. So that concludes the presentation. Any other questions?

[67:03] Okay, thanks. Open it up to the Board for questions. Laura. Thank you. So I I think most of my questions probably are better addressed as we go through, section by Section To answer your second question. One question I do have, though, is, do you expect, if this ordinance passes in February, that you might get very many site review applications in April and May and June before the new criteria take effect like, will there be a period of time where we're still using the old Site Review criteria? Do you expect many projects to try to get in under the wire or the old criteria, or how do you see that playing out some folks that try to get in under the current criteria. If they, you know, don't want to have to like meet some requirements. That's not unusual as far as the scope of that I mean

[68:07] every year is different, but the the number of site review applications is typically around like 12 to 15 a year, so I wouldn't think it's a huge number of applications would come in. I I think it would be a you know, a. For a smaller percentage of that. Okay. Okay, I guess the reason why it's on my mind is having been a a new planning board member as of last April, and trying to like, get my feet under me with regard to site. Review. I'm. Feeling very empathetic, for whoever our new Board member is going to be that comes on board in April has to learn one set of site, review criteria, and then turn around and learn a new set. So I think maybe all of us will need to be a little patient, and give a little extra care to that person. But I do agree that giving the applicants time to you know, figure out if they want to go under the old criteria or the new criteria, and just to the new criteria is of obviously the most important consideration there.

[69:05] Thank you. 0 Carl. Very nice job. Thank you very much. I do. You have questions? i'll start with the language that you came up with for what applies in the Boulder Valley Comp plan on page 98. I found it really so much more complex and complicated than perhaps necessary. And i'm guess i'm trying to understand what exactly you were trying to accomplish with a 80 word sentence with lots of semicolons. I just. It was very confusing to me kind of after we had a discussion with city council as well, I mean, I think they shared the concern with the planning board that the prior version was too limiting by not allowing

[70:09] all Bvcp policies to apply. So their guidance was, basically, you know, let's apply all the policies that relate to the built environment and to to development review, so that the qualifiers of that paragraph are really just to kind of guide how to apply policies to a project. So if there is a specific policy that is not aimed at. you know a development project, it it couldn't necessarily be denied, based on that particular policy that might be aimed at guiding a different department to do something about an environmental matter or something. We're just trying to keep it focused as to how they should be used.

[71:00] because I, what worries me is that this is all done on the Community Benefit Code Review, except that the built environment does not include community benefit components that are incorporated into the Boulder Valley Comp plan. So I feel like what you've proposed is slightly missing. some of the purpose of this of this plan. I I do have a second question, Mark. Do you mind if I ask my second question, since you were next up. Go ahead. Is that a go ahead? Well, so I I I so I appreciate you, pointing out the paragraph, which would be h one a on page 98, because I had a a similar up on page 86,

[72:01] which is under the general purpose of site review. and and I. I struggled with this. The under 9 days to you guys 14 a one while acknowledging the BBC. P. Goals and policies are not prioritized. and no project is expected to satisfy anyone. BBC. Policy or set of policies. So if we're not. it, it's the wording to me could be interpreted as you don't even have to satisfy one because you buy it's a it's a it's a to me it's an awkward wording that I I don't understand exactly what you're saying there, and that in that and and i'm big on general purposes and general statements, and I don't understand that one. So that's my input. There. I I don't know if you

[73:01] can address it now, or if Sarah's wording proposed wording of that paragraph farther down on page 98 would provide a basis or changing the area I I have a concern about. Can I suggest that we we hold this kind of thing, for when we're going through, section by section, because more of us may want to weigh in on these rather than treating it as a question to Staff. We might want to ask Carl to clarify. What does this mean, and then work on it together, all kind of as a piece as we go through section by section. What does that work as a process. Ml. John, I was just looking for clarity around that. I thought we were originally just going to talk about the big picture on the key issues and then get into the details. I think we have to hold ourselves to that process. Otherwise.

[74:03] okay, i'll just gonna er. This is the long, complicated document, so I will appreciate us sticking to that process. Thank you. Thank you, Amel, and I am grateful for any discipline that gets injected into the process. So okay, Sarah, you had another question. This is another broad question. The open space reductions. I think I have the correct page 87. It's 9 point, 2, 14, a 7 to provide a high quality. Open space. That I think it's page 87 actually hold on a second. This is where I got a little confused. no, it's not page 87 I don't know what pages it is. It's 9, 2, 14.

[75:04] Oh, wait! Maybe it's sorry. This is what I need. I got super confused. I was running back and forth. but we, it says, somewhere in here. providing high quality, open space that provides additional relief to additional height and intensity. But then, later on, in 9, minus 2 14 age, 6 land use intensity. Letter a small B numbers 1, 2 it's talking about reducing open the opportunity to reduce open space by between 15 and 25%. And i'm just kind of trying to understand how high quality, open space that it provides additional relief and a reduction in required open space. How those 2 things move us in the same direction. Those seem like they're incompatible. So I just sort of Karl, would love your

[76:00] your thoughts on on that. What what, Carl, I lost you. I wonder if we've lost Carl here? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. you. Well, now, we now we can't hear you. Okay. or I'll turn your video off and see if that helps. Did you all hear me? Yes, by coming and going. Interesting. Carl. You may also want to make sure you have Powerpoint closed for some reason that can slow zoom down also if you even have it open. Hello. Well, we're waiting, Sarah. Your first quote, I believe, is on page 87 of the packet. and it's number 7 in the middle of the page about community benefit and enhanced building and site design for taller larger buildings.

[77:01] Yeah, and there's that code about high quality open space, since it have the right reference. Sorry it's it's there's just a lot of numbers. So thank you very much. Sure. And what was your second quote? I can try to find that one I that one I know that's 9 to 14 H. 6, a small letter B numbers one and 2, and it's a the land use intensity, and it's on page 109 page 109. So we're looking at pages 87, and page 109 carl are you there. So while we're waiting for Carl. I I I want to. I I need a refresher. Maybe on we are asking questions of staff that are large and general. but not right? I'm: trying to. Yeah, yes, that's correct. And what i'm just trying to understand is there seem to be? These are big 2 to what seemed to be conflicting purposes.

[78:01] and it may be that one is small for a very specific, very specific zone, or for a very specific types of building. And I just misunderstood. So i'm just trying to get some clarification. Yeah, no, I i'm. I'm not. I'm not struggling with you direct it. It's it's funny because any question. I have actually addresses very large issues. It's it's so. I was just trying to understand what we, as a order doing now versus what we're going to do in a little bit if someone wants to help me understand that. Okay, these I mean, this is a big picture in that. It seems like. There's conflicts between 2 separate sections that. We'll discuss later, and that's why it seems. Appropriate now to address that you'll see and hear me right now I got booted off. I apologize. Zoom and I are not getting along this evening.

[79:00] Carl. The other thing you may try is turning off your blurred background that can slow your camera down to okay. And if I can chime in while we're taking a quick break here, just a reminder that, in addition to referencing the coordinates page number. You can refer to a line number, and that would avoid you. you know, having to get to section numbers and all that type of thing which can be cumbersome. So you know, for example, page 86 line, 23. Yeah, i'll do that next time this time I only did pages and code references. Next time i'll do line references, my apologies. Sarah. I can try to address your your question now. 5 min later. I I think your question was in regard to the open space reduction criterion for the Dt. Bms. And Mu 3 zone. Is that correct? I let me. I I don't know what exactly I think it. It seem to apply to us a number of different zones.

[80:01] it wasn't the dt zone. Because I did understand why you wanted to reduce open space requirements, because it makes for odd buildings in a very high density. But this was. I think it was about buildings that are like 30,000 feet, or larger, or additions that are 30,000 feet or larger, and they get to have this. You're proposing a reduced open space. If the it it it just seemed like it just didn't I didn't see how it meshed with providing high quality open space. So i'm just trying to understand that these 2 different directions. Yeah, I'm. I don't know that they're out of sync. I I think there are certain scenarios where it makes sense to re allow for a reduction of open space and more urban zones. where it where it might. out of context with the surroundings. I I think if you're talking about the courtyard standards for, like larger buildings that only applies if the site is one acre or larger so I think

[81:09] I think we that again it's like all these criteria have to be. you know, considered on balance. So there might be a smaller project where this open space, you know, reduction makes sense as long as they meet the other criteria. But for a larger skills. property, or project that's like a block long over an acre. It probably makes more sense to have that courtyard open space to break up the massing of the building it so it it was in the in in this section on land use intensity, and it's small Letter B, and it's the br 2 zone, which I think is the boulder that we where the 20 Eighth Street Mall is. Right? Yeah. And it's a reduction in open space in in developments that have a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Yeah, this is actually existing language in the code. we actually use this section in the gun barrel Center

[82:06] project. so we we were just tweaking this language. We we weren't really trying to change it holistically that I appreciate the clarification. Exactly. Why, I asked. Thank you. I have a a general question also, and it pertains to the use of Boulder Valley comp plan input and that is erez agmoni that I know that this has been an issue for a long time with lots of project applicants, and so on. But are there actually any examples in recent history? One of site reviews a projects failing site. Failing to move ahead from site review based on Boulder Valley Comp plan policies that were cited as the reason why it did not get approved

[83:02] in my recollection. I know I might defer to to Charles, but I I I've seen projects where it's been cited, but not the primary cause. I I think I've seen it as the primary cause for more of a legislative action, like an annexation. But I can't think of any specific site review development. So no, Charles, if you yeah, I agree with that. I think it's well said it always is part of the conversation. But you know the conversation is also about striking a balance. So right, I mean. we'll we'll talk about this in a more detail, but I just want to make it clear that in in my in my history, with planning board of of 8 years now, i'm not aware of a single project where Older Valley comp plan policies have been the cause of the site Review. Failing to get approval, You know there have been other ones that didn't move ahead, but not with Boulder Valley comp plan. So I just have to say that I wonder to what degree this is a one.

[84:05] a straw horse. But we'll get to that discussion later. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Staff. All right, I think. Then. let's see. Do we want to take a 5 min break before we dive into our Let's talk about the first question. and then we'll take a break and move ahead with the with our detailed comments on the second. At At what point do we do? The public hearing? I almost forgot about that. Let's do that now and and then take a break after the public hearing. Yeah, let's do that. I I apologize. I forgot what what we were doing here. Okay. Vivian, Would you like to take charge?

[85:09] You're muted, Vivian. Can you hear me now? Okay, Strange? so I was just saying, this is the time when the members of the public here with us tonight. There's just 3 can raise their hands, and I would call on you sequentially to provide your comments for 3 min. No hands so far. Okay. Lynn Siegel, you have 3 min, and I just ask Devin to. please show the timer on the screen. They're with us, Lin. We're just getting the timer up. Okay, go ahead.

[86:00] Generally it sounds like pretty good revisions to site. Review: There should be plenty of open space, because the higher you go. the more you need. But what I think really needs to be done you're in Boulder is something about affordability. because that improves the quality of life here. A lot and community benefit, and and such looks good. But when things like I was talking about the third story and the fourth story that actually makes it 50% on site 50 offsite. Those things Aren't included in these kind of

[87:01] site review changes. but they need to be. and I have no idea how that change happened. but I know that that sounds real sneaky to me that a fourth floor went up. and then oh, 50% is on site. and isn't that a panacea and no, it's not in the case of propellios. There's a private swimming pool that nobody else can go swimming in. And I don't think that we need more wealth disparity in this community. And I don't like the feeling that now our homeless shelter, which is basically the library is closed. and I don't like the feeling that Bhp.

[88:00] People are complaining about what it's like to live in in the projects in boulder. and I don't like to think about how we're doing all of this supportable housing. and no one's seeming to mention that it's not all that great to live in those projects. and that they are discriminating compared to the peloton across the street. and that things like for has happened that that shouldn't be able to happen. Those affect the quality of life and community benefit far more than the site. Review changes. and morally those really stand out to me and the benefit that opportunity zone types. You know Federal people that can come in

[89:02] and benefit off of us, and then leave That's not. That's not a positive thing for Boulder. So I just like to see some changes there. and Don't just believe it. Having more height is an increasing opportunity for people. It's not. It's making things more difficult. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn. There's a few extra seconds because we were a little bit slow on the timer. Thanks a lot. Anybody else from the public. Please raise your hand if you'd like to to be called on. Looks like no other hands are raised. Okay. thank you. So we'll take a break or 5 min.

[90:01] So you at 7, 41.

[96:22] Okay. I think most of us are back now. Let's see. Do we have Sarah and Lisa? We'll give him a minute. Looks like Sarah might have dropped off. She might need to be readmitted. Oh, no, she's still here. I just don't see her on screen.

[97:00] Yeah, I think I think she's She's just not sitting at the desk yet. Right? okay. Thank you, Brad Brad. You are full of helpful tips tonight. Really appreciate that line Number I'm: Like: oh, yeah, You could totally refer to those All right. Let's see. And let's see. Is Lisa likely to show up again. She She has some good things that she's dealing with. I think we can start our discussion. Okay. So our first assignment right now is to but let each other know how we feel about the first staff question. which is, the question of whether the object right. I have an old computer this that's not working well, so I can't read it out. Maybe, Sarah, can you read out the

[98:02] The first question is, Does planning Board find that the Revised Ordinance addresses prior concerns and meets the objectives of the project. Can we get the objectives put up on the screen? So I think Carl had them in a couple of places. Or or yeah, I can call that up one quick second. Here. are you seeing that? Okay. it's coming. Okay, Here we go. Awesome

[99:01] it. Can you put the objectives and goals on this on the screen? Oh, Gotcha? Yep. thanks. And what? And Just so, you know we we broke those 2 questions. It was in the packet. It was listed as one key issue. We broke it into 2, and just so. You're aware Sarah has made a very nice a spreadsheet, so we can keep track of everyone's comments, and have some coherent. conclusion at the end. I can go ahead and give my answer to that first question while we're waiting. If if you'd like, while devin's pulling up the goals. Okay, let's move ahead expeditiously here. So my answer is, I think that Yes, I think i'm extremely impressed with how Staff has taken diverse input from planning Board City Council, the Site Review Committee and DAB

[100:04] and come back with these changes. You are very creative in finding ways to try to merge all of that. Input. I didn't know how you were going to do it. But I think you've been very successful. So I do think that it meets the project goals and objectives. As I agree with Staff's analysis on that point. I'd also like to point out that you know, when we last talked about this item. We had a very long public hearing, and we had a lot of people in the design and architecture and development community that came and testified with their concerns. and the fact that they are not here tonight to testify to me that says that they, Don't, have those concerns anymore, or at least not enough that would motivate them to come out to a meeting like this. They also showed up in force at city council, and again. The fact that they're not here to me is good evidence that the revised Site review criteria, at least satisfactory to the Development Community. And I think I look back at my comments from the last planning board meeting, and I felt that they were.

[101:03] for the most part satisfactorily address. I do have some detailed comments that i'll get to in part 2, but overall i'm a big thumbs up. Yes, I think that Staff has done a great job here at meeting the previous input and the goals and objectives. Thank you. Sarah. okay. So mostly I think mostly the objectives have been met. I am I. I also have some small language, and those types of changes in our second for our second question. but I am really concerned about the Bvcp language that you have in there. and I think that, in fact, that language does not meet the objectives which includes identifying incentives to address community, economic, social, and environmental objectives. I don't know how we can do that as a planning board if we're only evaluating. using the built environment, goals and policies of the Boulder Valley plan.

[102:04] So if we change that, I will, if we can find a agreed upon simpler language that encompasses more of the Boulder Valley component, I I would. My answer ultimately will be Yes. thank you. I'm at all. thank you, John. I I have to say that. this is the the project that I was not looking forward to reviewing Given what we saw back in what was that? May? but my Gosh staff has done a tremendous job of. I think. recognizing the gist of what people were saying, which is, you know, don't don't make it more complicated. Don't make it harder.

[103:02] and let's try to get what we want out of our built environment in a more direct and efficient manner. I think that On on the whole. these goals and objectives are being addressed with this version of the site routine update criteria. I have 15 very specific questions which i'm not going to speak about right this minute. But so there are considerations that I think need to be brought to the table around that. But as in a broad scope, I I do believe the staff has done a a pretty amazing job of bringing these golden objectives into a manageable

[104:01] site. Review: update. Okay. let's see, Lisa. Yeah, very much the same. So I Won't: speak at length, and I think we'll be getting more in depth later. But yeah overall. I think Staff did an incredible job of taking the feedback from community members and from planning board, and probably internal discussions you all had with each other. and I do think meets the goals and objectives overall, and you know I might have more specific things to say later. But yeah. Excellent work. And and I appreciate all that effort that must have gone into it. Okay. mark so concurrent with everything that's been said so far, especially about synthesizing disparate public input. I think that.

[105:00] you know, Staff has done a great job at the this. The piece I struggle with is in that first goal. It says, Identify and send it to address community, economic, social, environmental, objective. So we do as a community have these objectives. And yeah, well. the site review threshold table on a page 89 cable 2 2 the part I struggled with is that not only is site Review is a is a rigorous process. It's an expensive process, and a lot of that table in the mu, and our h zones Put the focus on number of units versus the size of units or square footage, and one of our one of our goals is

[106:00] to have more housing for more people and less housing, of less less very large housing for fewer people. That table has really gone unaddressed. As far as I can tell, and still puts an incentive to build fewer larger units versus more smaller units. If you look at it in the context of will. I have to go through site, review, or not. So outside of that, that that particular table. and what I find the incentives to build big units. I concur that the that the new criteria. on the whole, it's really great. Okay. very good. Let's see. We haven't Heard anything from George yet to do. You have any thoughts on this?

[107:06] You're you're muted. You don't appear to be muted on. Zoom. It must be your computer. He's giving 2 thumbs up to George. Is that 2 thumbs up to you? Think it overall, meets the goals and objectives and did a good job answering the the criticisms. Okay. it looks like a Yes. all right. We'll have to do sign language. all right. Well, I I concur with my colleagues. I think Staff has done a a great job with a very difficult assignment. And congratulations. I I think this is nice. I I do have some concerns that we'll address in the next phase of this meeting.

[108:00] but dealing dealing primarily with the Boulder Valley Comp plan consideration as as I mentioned previously, and also with the consequences of changes in the open space requirements. But beyond that I think the objectives I've been nationally met. So congratulations. Okay. so I think now, what we'll do is move into the second phase. The The second question that we have been asked, and that is, learn how we would modify and improve what staff has come up with. and there, I think the the best way to do it is to go through on a on a section by section basis. And there. if if you like, what Staff has done, no need to say anything except stick your thumb up.

[109:03] But if you disagree or have a a material improvement to staff suggestion. This will be the time when you should should make that known. So I hope that's clear. and the reason I I lay it out like that is to keep us moving ahead as quickly as possible. So I know. Thank you, John? I actually have a very direct question. and and it's it's the staff. It's very specific. I'm looking at the first paragraph development Review. Action number 12. I'm. Here. Can you hear me? Are at the ordinance? It's line 12

[110:00] it's page 84 in the packet. Could we get it up on the screen devin. Could you go to page 84 in the packet, and we'll go through the ordinance section by section. and Sarah, are you? Did I hear that you're taking notes with a table that you have for whatever our input is okay, a different computer. So, hopefully, my capabilities are approved. Yes. So I just have a very straightforward question. We're, and we're putting this into an ordin. So I I just want to be clear. oh. line number 12. It says that the completeness determination will be made within 5 days after the submission. I mean, I can't get an 80. You completeness verification for 2 to 3 weeks. So does it make sense to put that in? Is that what happens is that real? I mean that this is existing language. in the code.

[111:06] and I think that so the determination about completeness is largely looked at by our project specialists at the counter. So there are instances where applications are considered incomplete within those 5 days of submission by the project specialists, and then, once they they deem it complete, there will be a another review by a case manager once it's assigned. If there's anything missing, we usually work with the applicant to get that submitted. So you say Yes, that is it is, it is our practice. again, like applications come in our project. Specialists will do that initial review for completeness, and we have standard responses. If something is missing. and that's usually before it's assigned to any case managers.

[112:03] Thank you. Okay. Mark. Okay, well, and maybe I'm: I'm: I'm jumping down to the not page 86 bottom page 86 line, 2,324 9 minus 2 over 7. I recommend that we let John manage a meeting. Okay, that's fine. I'm just worried that people will jump in with whatever their next item is, rather than going sort of page by page or section by section. But I I will defer to John. That's a great suggestion, Sarah. Okay, I hey?

[113:01] Thank you. And I I think that's that Laura is a thoughts are reasonable too. So but if if anyone has a comment on on page and I have 84 or 85 before we get to Marx comment on page 86. Now, it's the time to say it. Okay, Mark, go ahead on 86. Okay, alright, again. I I thought I might be jumping ahead. So. going back to my question that I posed earlier and big on clear general statements that set the direction. and I can't quite parse. particularly the last sentence. There was actually all one kind of sentence, but so they I don't know if staff Carl can tell me in some simpler words, what that saying I get confused with, no project so 0. No project is expected to satisfy

[114:06] any one BBC. Policy or set of policies. I I think the intent of this statement was that the way it's stated in the in the criteria now is that the policies are applied to projects on balance. So we were trying to find a better way to say on balance. there, you know the policies. Aren't prioritized it, and we don't want a project to be impacted unequally to another project based on applying a particular policy. So we were just trying to set the stage for how it should be used. So if it said, no project is expected to satisfy all BBC. Policies simultaneously. or just all BBC policies

[115:01] that would say that you're expected to satisfy some of them a bunch of them. But when you, when you use the word one in there, it's kind of like wait, I don't really have to satisfy any of them or I I I just find it confusing, and I would suggests different wording there. Tell me that i'm i'm reading it wrong. if I may jump in on that. The language I I totally think pondmark, and I wonder if it could be addressed by changing it to satisfy any one particular BBC policy set of policies. I think that's what our intent was, and the language. and maybe we didn't translate it accurately. Actually comes out of the Comp plan itself. The complaint states, the policies are not prioritized, and no one, policy or set of policies must be satisfied by any action, ordinance, regulation, 150

[116:02] development review or program. So I think that statement says there is not a particular policy that a one development has to meet there still has to be a meeting of the on on balance. But if it's just one, then a project should be denied based on that correct, I guess I would say one. I like the term on balance and 2. The other thing you might say is no project can be rejected because it failed to satisfy any one BBC. Policy. So I I don't know if that I kind of think about that. But anyway, it seems like that might be a way you do. We couldn't just say, Gee, this doesn't satisfy this one it it fulfills 90 other policies. It fails on

[117:02] number 91. Hence we're going to reject it anyway. I still find it troublesome that that's my that's my comment there. It would be all right. I think it was. I think Helen was trying to respond to Mark. And hello, You're breaking up a little bit. I don't know If you want to turn off your video, maybe. Yeah, let me do that. Well, hopefully, this helps a little bit. Yeah. I was just gonna follow up to mark's to know. Hello! You're still breaking up. It sounds like a mic issue. it might be that it's like something or not plugged in all the way. I'm gonna try to turn off my headset and see if that we we actually hear you find. Now, whatever you did you're you're coming through.

[118:03] How is this? Can you hear me better now. Okay. yeah. I guess I I was just trying to say if and and I think you're all just commenting right now. But Just the discussion, I think, makes it clear that there's root for improvement in that language to make sure you know what it means. it' be good to understand what you guys will want it to to read. can deny it, based on what a policy, or. you know, turning it the other way around, but I would encourage you to elaborate on that as a as a group. So you know where all of your AD on that. So I I guess as I keep we reading it. Mark, I I think that there is language elsewhere in the memo that is more clear and more in line with what Hella just read out of the Bvcp. Can I suggest that? And this is not necessarily the right answer, but it is a potential answer

[119:03] that later in the memo on page 99, the the first line. It says basically the same language that Helen right out of the Bbcp. No policy and goal or set of policy goals must be satisfied by any one Development project. I feel that that is more clear than the way they had it written in the summary at the beginning of the memo, and that actually comes out of like the ordinance language, the the edits to the ordinance. So I don't. I don't know if that that feels clear to me another way. That staff framed it in their memo. they said on page 81 new language clarifies that policies unrelated to development review applications would not be considered. which is a very strong statement, and does not appear anywhere in the ordinance. But that is also a potential way to frame it that policies unrelated to development review applications would not be considered in side review.

[120:03] which I I I think i'm hearing from Sarah would raise some flags for Sarah. It it would for me that's for sure and I do like I I do. I wouldn't. I would think that what you pointed out on page 99 yes. would be a a, a a big improvement I flag that same thing because I had the same concern that you did. Okay. all right. So the language that I had drafted up was to change the what's on line 23 on page 86 was to change it to consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp plan. Development projects are consistent with relevant goals and policies of the Bvcp while recognizing that no project can satisfy all. BBC: Put all PVC. Goals and policies period.

[121:05] rather than saying that doesn't satisfy one, you know, instead of it, it just it. Just it's a simpler sentence. and it gets rid of some of that confusion, confusion, and we all know that you could build any kind of city you want out of the Boulder Valley Count plan so. it is not and nothing's. No one ever fulfills or meets all the goals. so it would just be the first sent the first the first phrase to the comma, and then adding. while recognizing that no project can satisfy all beef, Cp: goals and policies. I I appreciate that word. And I yeah, I I would. I would

[122:01] things that would be fine so. and and I guess question for everyone and staff by dropping. Is this a section that we drop the use of on the whole. on balance, or on the whole. because I I think I've heard both. But anyway, on balance well, I I I do want to point out that that this is a summary things that appear later in the ordinance, and there is more specific language on this point. on page 98. So i'm fine with sarah's rewrite to this summary I think we're. We're probably going to want to have a deeper conversation when we get to page 98 about what specifically being considered when we think about what are the relevant goals and policies, and is it on balance or not? I would be fine with Sarah's rewrite to this summary section completely, and then I would like us to continue that conversation when we get to page 98.

[123:04] Okay, I see I'll summarize when I see thumbs up or down. Ml. Has a thumb up. I have a thumb up. Mark has a thumb up. Lisa. I can't see your hands, so I don't know what you think. Laura has to come up. Okay. Lisa, are you? Yeah, I I'm generally in agreement with what other folks are saying. I mean. I think in some ways my general approach that the BBC. Is. Maybe a bit more pragmatic is how I view it, you know, and that is that I think much of what's in. There is incredibly important. And yet ultimately, when it comes to specific site review. And so, when we don't, use it that much or you, as you yourself mentioned, and and i'm not saying that that you were mentioning this to

[124:04] to reach any particular rhetorical, and you know. But but it's usually not the reason why we reject something or or embrace something. So my bias tends to be towards simplification. both for us and for future council members and for staff. but that doesn't mean that i'm not. very sympathetic to much of what's in the BBC: I just I might my yeah, I tend to order more problematic, simpler approach. So is that a thumbs up for Sarah's suggestion and let's see George is here. I haven't heard from him. He also has a thumb up. People's funds there. Okay. so that we don't lose it as we go forward.

[125:01] Okay. And as Laura indicated, we'll get to talk more about this at the At a later stage here. Hey, hey, John, I have something else on this page before we scroll off. This is a small point, but I do. I did hear people when we had the previous conversation about Site Review specifically point to the language that said, the purpose of site. Review is ABC. The way the current language is written. We have a very simple sentence that says, the purpose is, ABC. And then it's elaborated on with the rewrite. If i'm reading this correctly, we basically have the purpose of Site Review is, and then there are 8 separate clauses in a very long paragraph. and I would like to simplify that and what I would suggest. I'm just going to go ahead and put my suggestion out there. I think that 3 of those things are the main purpose of site, review, and the other things are subsidiary. And so I would rewrite that as using the language, it's there. I'm. Not proposing changing any words, but just how they are arranged.

[126:07] I would say something like the purpose of Site Review is to allow flexibility in design to promote the most appropriate use of land. to improve project design and to implement the goals and policies of the Bvcp. And other adopted plans of community. That's my understanding of what we're trying to do. We're giving people some flexibility and design, so that we make sure the land is used appropriately. The projects are good and improved design, and we're implementing the Bbcp mit ctl, and all of those other clauses like encourage innovation in land, use. Improve the character and quality of new development that's fleshing out to me the simple purpose of Site Review 150, so i'm suggesting that rather than having 8 things a sentence with 8 different clauses be the purpose of site Review that we simplify. and I can send that language to devin if that's helpful. Okay, Sarah.

[127:04] So I I not ready to respond to Laura's suggestion. I I would be hesitant to remove most of these descriptors, because site review isn't actually simple. As you know, it's quite complicated, and we are dealing with multiple different facets of development from the broad sense of planning, and to the very specifics of a particular application, so I wouldn't want to limit it so completely that it's just about the building that's in front of us, because it's it's not I we can. Why don't we wrap up Laura's discussion, and then I have something else I wanted to raise in this section. Okay, any other thoughts on Laura's suggestion.

[128:01] I'm. Supportive. Okay, I have thought. Oh, go ahead, Emily. I understand what Laura is is saying, but I think that what the staff has done. Here is they have created kind of this overarching identifier that calls out here the pieces that we're going to talk about, and then they nest underneath that all the specifics of it. I think that there is a structure here that is important to to retain, because the way the rest of this section plays out has has to do with Referring back to all of these, I would you say 8 items that are listed here under purpose, so I would be headed to to diminish the comprehensive nature of that that

[129:03] paragraph aircraft sentence. So I guess i'd be more more in line with what Sarah was saying it. I don't think we need to work with this one. I think this one is a structure that is being set up for all of the stuff that follows. If I can just respond to that, I completely understand your point. I I just mit ctl, and my point is that if somebody asks you what is the purpose of site review, would you say the purpose of site review is to allow flexibility and design to encourage innovation and land use development, to promote the most appropriate use of land, to improve the character and quality of new development, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of street lights and utilities, 150 to for streets and utilities, and so on and so forth. For all of those 8 clauses like it just doesn't it's not a 50 sentence of what site review is that would help somebody understand it? Maybe that's not important in this ordinance to be able to encapsulate. What is it so that a person understands it? But.

[130:00] My suggestion is just to point that out to staff and let them come. Let them do the word smithing with our with your comments, which I I agree with. But I don't think it's appropriate for us right tonight to to to try and get into that detail. That works for me. Any other comments on that issue. Okay, Sarah, you said you had another. Yeah. So I was just disappointed that we lost some of the references to pedestrian in an a. We lost a reference to pedestrians and humans scaled. And there's never been a reference to cyclists. and I just wonder if there is a way. And i'm not gonna. I won't word Smith, but i'm just gonna urge Staff to think about whether it makes sense to

[131:02] put in a clause that does reference human beings who are in this built environment. because that is part of the planning process as well. and the removal from this discussions seems to me to be an unfortunate decision it may. I'm sure it was done for editing purposes, and not because planners don't care about people, because I know they do. But I just do suggest that we put people back in there somehow. Okay. So we just do thumbs up or down on Sarah's idea. I like it. Can't see? Okay, Looks like there's a majority of funds here. so I can't see Georges. So i'm i'm thumbs up in. I think I got my mic to work now, too.

[132:00] All right. Let's move on. Oh, I think I think we're scrolling too much. So I I have a small item that I welcome just in a comment on Sarah's park. Sarah and and Laura's work both. It seems like that the 7 numbers one through 7 directly below the long paragraph are kind of flushing out everything that we've both found missing and confusing earlier. So maybe that's a good thing, but in there, in number 7, with lines, 17 and 18 on page 87, the second to the last line. It was one between 1, 1718 reads provide high quality open space that provides.

[133:03] We leave to. additional height and intensity. Is that supposed to be relief, or am I just not understanding? A. No, that that's correct? There, there's actually a couple of little errors in that we've already identified. So thank you. I'm not familiar with that. Okay, that was it on that page. Thank you. All right. so I have a couple in number 7, and I have one and number 2. So in number 7, it talks about buildings that are built above the zoning district. Height limits. and I just. I always have a be in my bonnet about people who are going to misunderstand and think that we are somehow violating the city's height limit. And so I would just encourage Staff. Whenever we talk about going above height limits to talk about it in terms of going above by right or conditional height limits, but still staying within the city's chartered height limit. I put that out there for your consideration. It's not make a break for me, but

[134:04] it always raises my red flag Of how are people going to misunderstand this? And I know that the typical user of site. Review won't, but somebody might and then also in number 7. There's language about views, I believe. so it's in line 17 preserve and take advantage of prominent views from the sites and adjacent public spaces. I would like to make that language match what is later in the ordinance, where it talks about prominent views from public spaces and common areas within the project. It's not just anywhere on the site. It's the common areas on the site. So I want to. I would like to, since this is a summary of what comes later, just to make sure that that matches And then my last thing in Number 7 is that it talks about providing relief to the additional height and intensity of the project.

[135:03] which I think is right, and then it says, and surrounding area, and it is not my understanding that a project is required to provide relief from intensity in the surrounding area, especially if we have found that it is compatible with the surrounding area. So I would just suggest a small tweak there, and say that the project benefits the surrounding area rather than having it run into providing relief from the height and intensity of the project and surrounding area. So I would just say, benefits the surrounding area. Those are my things in Number 7. I do have some stuff in number 2, but if anybody wanted to respond to what I said in 7, maybe we should make space for that. Go ahead and well are we? Number 2 is before Number 7. My comments are on 6 and 7, so do we want to go up to 2 and kind of do it sequentially.

[136:01] We're all there. John. Let's keep in mind what I said about 7, and spoken to them. I do have a comment about 2 also, but i'm happy to let Ml. Go. Okay. wait. I'm sorry. Wait there. I I would like to respond to you, and I think Ml. May want to respond to you as well. So, since we've skipped over 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. We'll come. We can come back to those and let's just wrap up 7 Ml: You had your hand up, do you? Wanna I do. Can we? Can we scroll to 7 again, please? Down one pair. There you go. I appreciate that this

[137:00] Number 7 talks about the community benefits, so that would be line numbers between 15 and 16 community benefits identified into the BBC. Beyond the underlying zone. So do you have the Bvcp sections that you're referring to there. I mean, I think it's rare that we're seeing specific pointing to to something specifically in the boulder, belly, cop plan, and i'm wondering if there is added specificity that you can put in there community benefits identified in the Bv Cp. On the other. we typically shy away from specific references to the Comp plan. We used to reference specific policies in the code, but over time when there's updates made to the Bvcp, those policy numbers often change, and then they're out of sync with the land use code. So we've

[138:04] tried to shy away from from doing that. We've actually had to make some zoning code updates that removed specific policy references because of that. So how so? I I have an applicant coming, and i'm reading this. and I've seen that there are community benefits that are identified in the BBC. How would I know which community benefits this section is referring to. I mean, and anyone can, you know. Take a look at the Comp plan and do like a word search. But you can go through Section one. There's there's a policy called Enhanced Community benefit, so that I mean that's the primary one that we're drawing from here. there's also the annexation policy that's also in Section one. So my my I guess the gist of my question is, if we're putting

[139:00] a specific pointer. and this looks to me like a specific point, or maybe it really isn't community benefits identified in the Bdcp. Oh. that we should give people the opportunity to find those I mean, we should say it's it's it's for it's for giving people the information they need to use the criteria. So we don't very often have something as specific as that is the reason I'm. Pointing that particular one out. so. however, that would happen. It seems that if we're pointing to something, there should be enough information so that people can actually get there. In other words, get to the part in the Bvc. That speaks about community benefits.

[140:01] I want to have some advice for us. Yeah, with regard to that particular concern about this is the intense section. These are not actually the review criteria. So it just expresses the intent behind the re review criteria that they're established later. and we do have more specific criteria on what those community benefits are. Later in the code where we actually implementing those policies of the BBC. That talk about increased community benefit for additional high density. Thank you. Thank you for that. That makes I guess I didn't catch catch it when I read through the document that it was more specific later on. But thank you, I appreciate that. So I think that that's kind of one of the things that we were looking to do is make it predictable for the people that are using it so that they know what they're going to be held accountable to. Thank you.

[141:00] Sarah. Okay, I'm gonna respond to Laura's suggestion about changing the language about that is specific to buildings that are taller and larger. Given that this is the intense section, I think it's important for applicants to understand that if they are going to propose a taller, bigger building that they have to be. They have to take some responsibility for prominent views and adjacent public spaces. That seems to me an important intent. that even though they are not responsible for what is going on, and what's programmed in those other public spaces, those public spaces likely exist in part or have may have prominent views, and that an applicant has to be thoughtful about those. So, as an intense statement, i'm actually very comfortable with what the language is here, and as hell, it just said, there's more specificity. Sorry later on in the in the Site Review. and all the tables associated with the site Review. So I personally am comfortable with the language, as it is

[142:05] so, just to clarify Sarah, because I know there's a lot of detail here. The change that I was suggesting was just to make this match what it says later, which is that take advantage of prominent views from common areas on the site and adjacent public spaces. So, yes. But that's specific to a project. This is an intent about what's what we're going to look for in site Review. Not specifically for Project X, Y. Or Z. So that language that's later on is specific. and this is more general. So I think they're complimentary, and they serve 2 different purposes. That would be my take on it mit ctl. And I think this is about it, says these buildings are compatible in form, and massing with the surrounding area, and preserve and take advantage of prominent views from the site and adjacent public areas for adjacent public spaces. 150. I'm just trying to make it match what's later on what it has later on.

[143:01] so i'll just leave that comment with Staff. I I think it makes sense to make this match. What's in the ordinance later. I'm not trying to delete anything or change the intent. I'm just trying to make it match. Okay. Any other comments on this. I think, our our staff. Let's take a note, and they they can figure out the word Smith thing on this. I think we were going to go back up to Number 2 and then Number 6, and then anything else in this section? I think I think what happened was that Mark kind of skipped ahead to Number 7 in this section, from one to 7, so there might be some things in the middle that got skipped. I do have a comment on Number 2. Okay, let's go with that. So number 2 talks about that development projects are consistent with adopted subcommittee and area plans and design guidelines of the community. And I just want more clarification on what do we mean by design guidelines of the community. Are we saying

[144:02] city design guidelines? I mean. The community could be the community of architects, the community of developers, the community of the globe. You know what are the design guidelines and which community are we talking about? I mean this was intended to be adopted. Design guidelines that we apply just like adopted plans. Not anything beyond that. So these are adopted design guidelines of the City of Boulder. Yes, okay. I would just make that clarification. That would be my suggestion. Okay, any other thoughts on this. All right, let's see what was the next 1? 6, Then all good memory. It is 6 And this might, and just Karl, hold this.

[145:00] Hold this on on the path here. I know that. So we're talking about a Ted here. and more specificity comes later, but on Number 6. The question I am It is number between 10 and 11 buildings, exemplifying high quality enduring architecture with facades that are simple and human-scale. So buildings provide pedestrian interest, and are compatible with the character. So I wonder if facade is the right, is really what you're talking about here, or if you're talking about about the form. can you unpack that a little bit? Exemplifying high quality? So we're looking at human scale building. So we're talking about the streetscape. We're talking about people approaching a building.

[146:05] We're talking about human scale. And that happens. Yeah, I'm, it's not clear. So you're asking if if we mean more than just facades, like if it's building massing. Hmm. Yeah. Because when you think about human scale that's really the person against the building. It's not the contextual relationship of the form. I guess it's the use of buildings and then reducing it to facade. That is kind of Yeah, I I think our thinking was that we wanted to focus on facades, you know, like windows the size of bricks. For instance, you know the design more that like and really kind of address, the massing and form under 7,

[147:14] just in terms of like adding to the predictability element. If the massing of every building, even at the the zoning allowed heights, comes under too much scrutiny that could add to the unpredictable nature of the review. So I think that's why we focused on on facades enduring architecture with facades that are simple and human scale, and then maybe that should say facades provide for pedestrians, interested or compatible rather than zooming at the scale again to a to a building. It it was just unclear. What scale you're talking about here, but you're talking about human scale. So

[148:03] I I would. I would just rethink whether that should be buildings on the second sentence, or whether you're really still talking about the facade. Okay. I actually my thought was back to number 3. I'm: sorry. i'm just it's actually a question for Carl about sustainability. and at least it will lead to other questions later on. How does site review. or how does this process? A comp? Oh, yes, I just don't wait. Does. Does the site review process which now incorporates responding to the carbon reduction goals of the city include

[149:02] the cars that are associated with a building in particular the parking and opportunities for ev and hybrid hook ups is is that counted towards the The carbon emissions. not sharing work for buildings. No. I mean, perhaps Carolyn can help with this. But my my understanding is that you know, if a applicant is trying to exceed the to meet that criterion on the Ecc. The Energy Conservation Code. There's any number of ways that they could it, you know, reduce their energy usage by 10%, and that might include ev charging stations. For instance, there's a combination of things that could be a platform. Carolyn. Am I interpreting that correctly? Yeah, thanks, Carl. And again i'm Caroline. I'm a senior manager in our climate initiative department.

[150:06] you know, I think in in our base code we try and address making, ensuring that all of our buildings have capacity for electric vehicle adoption. And so that's a a base Energy Conservation code requirement to include making sure that we have. You'd be charging at every building that has parking as well as eb breadiness. Maybe capable requirements. I think, as far as site review, we're trying to really get at some of the other aspects of the carbon footprint. Recognizing that these projects typically are more than simply the building. that's going in place to to drive a further reduction to compensate for that. I it's not necessarily through additional you be charging, because that's not necessarily going to be inherent in the Eui

[151:00] but I think we're planning to address more of that through the base code, including some of the life cycle, carbon things that are going to move into the base code. So certainly happy to answer more questions about that. But just kind of wanted to. I think what we're really intending is the as you'll see in the later criterion is the structure itself, and it's operational emissions that we're really tackling with that criteria. Not so much the transportation effects. Those are Those are more to do with some of the transportation criteria, and then our base energy conservation code. Okay, that's very helpful. I appreciate. That morning you're muted now. this does raise this kind of general question, and and I should probably just drop it and go on. But I i'll i'll raise it that how does our energy code

[152:00] and vehicle charging? are those separate things from our Tdm policies which our stated in the past are general, and we don't have a Tdm toolkit, etc. But what is staff's plan to kind of make cohesive our Tbm policies which incorporate how people get to and from a site and the building energy policies and the charging policies. how will that get coordinated? And are we missing an opportunity to do it in the site? Review criteria, or should it be done in code and other places. Such a complex question you ask, I mean, I I I think the fair way to say it is the energy code itself treats the building as a building, and does it take it in the context of

[153:06] where it is within a transportation corridor. and it's really our you know, con compliance and and other tools that we have that really start to guide our transportation networks, and and how people get to those buildings. And so I I don't know. I I will come at specifically on where the opportunities in the Site review criteria, but just naming that typically those yeah. every building has to have a certain set amount of parking spaces and charging spaces and charging readiness irrespective of where it's located. But it's really how we treat that within the comp plan that that gets at some of those other aspects about where you know where your transportation corridors are, where your public access is. that's how I generally think about it. I look to my planning friends because i'm i'm a climate person, and I only you know

[154:05] I touch on this. But if anybody has anything to add to that, that's how I tend to think of the the 2 coming together, and I think they're both in the site Review criteria, in the sense that you you need to really look at the comprehensive. You know the area plans and the comp plans to really think about those criteria coupled with what's going to happen in the building code. but I I certainly am not the expert in in that specific aspect. Okay, thanks I. It's. We are charged when we, when we do a site review and maybe we were doing it wrong. But we certainly are charged with reviewing. parking, parking reductions. electrification of barking, charging of bicycles, etc. And so A. And I find our current

[155:01] criteria and and the subsequent down level code to be thin and subjective. and so it leaves a lot of us up to us. So, on one hand that encourages creativity. On the other hand, it it leaves leaves developers to be subject to, to try to meet our the desires of of the current planning board. So, Anyway, it's a conundrum there. Sarah. Thank you. I wanted to move on. I mean I have one of second Marks comments. I think it would be very helpful to figure out how to incorporate the the ev stuff into the

[156:00] energy code as part, and then ultimately incorporate into site review. because I think we want to encourage developers to add more ev stations so that we can incur, so that more and more people who drive ev cars can actually move into those buildings. but I does. If anyone else doesn't have comments about this topic, I do have something I wanted to, and the next in number 4 housing diversity. Okay. so I was just gonna suggest that. we add a phrase at the end of the housing diversity to include So in producing a variety of housing types, unit sizes and ownership opportunities to just add and ownership opportunities. We know that we do want to make it possible for folks to be homeowners in Boulder, Not not. Everyone needs to be, not everybody wants to be.

[157:03] But, Since most of what has been built recently is not home ownership opportunities, I just think it's worth adding that as an objective, and it certainly is part of. I think it's Chapter 7, which is all the housing housing goals of the Boulder Valley Count plan. So that's just the suggestion. Laura. you're muted, Lauren. Sorry double muted. I I just would like to ask Staff a question about that, and I Well, I appreciate Sarah's intent. My understanding is that this section of the ordinance is basically summarizing or giving a taste of what is to come later. And I don't think that there is anything later about ownership versus rental. and so I would be hesitant to add something here in the summary of intent that is not later reflected in the ordinance language.

[158:02] Oh, that's correct. This purpose. Section is meant to be a summary of You know the different sections of the Site Review. Criteria. Thank you, Carl. I don't object to what Sarah is talking about. I just don't know that this ordinance does that. even though we do have an overall site review criterion around balance of Bbcp policies. There's nothing specifically in this ordinance that people would have to respond to around ownership opportunities. That's more in the affordable housing incentive. Program. Right? I i'm a little mixed up here. that's that's correct. And obviously there's there's been some changes in State law relative to ownership that are our friends and in the housing department are looking at and looking at potential updates to codes to address that.

[159:01] Okay, Any other thoughts on this. All right. let's keep moving. The people need to speak up when they, when we come to a section. go on. Sorry. So scrolling back up to the Development review thresholds. I I have some questions about some stuff that's missing here. so it's not language that staff is proposing. The first is that you know, in the Development Review thresholds. This is where that. in my opinion, kind of wonky section about buildings in industrial zones, if they have 2 or fewer stories, or the height is necessary for manufacturing, testing, or other industrial process or equipment that they can get up to 55 feet, and we struggled with that on a project that came before us briefly earlier this year of

[160:03] Mit. Ctl. And why is that an, or rather than an and because I don't understand why? Simply having 2 stories in an industrial zone would make you eligible for a height. Modification One and I don't know the history behind that, and I know this didn't come up earlier in talking about it. But it is in the Site Review criteria. and i'm wondering if I can last minute kind of sneak under the wire, a suggestion that we think about changing that or to an and unless there's a really good reason for why a 2 story building in an industrial zone should eligible for a 50, five-foot height. Modification regardless of needing tall floors. I don't understand it, and I would like to change it if it is not, if there's not some logic behind it. Can you just direct us to where i'm? I'm. Yes, so in the or in the current site. Review criteria. Let me just Google for it real quick.

[161:02] It's it's Section 9, 2, 14, B: yeah. B. Onee or b one it's one of the letters after one. It's 2. Actually, it's little letter I I little Roman numeral to let me see if I can find it in the but it it is in the site Review criteria. and it's in the same section about scope or Development Review threshold, and it's not shown here because it wasn't modified. And i'm suggesting that we take this opportunity and and fix what seems to me to be a very puzzling thing that doesn't seem to serve us very well. I don't know if we can pull that up on the screen, Carl, do you? Are you able to find that and pull it up.

[162:00] and Hella helped us with this when it came before us as a project where they were requesting 55 feet. and they had no particular justification of Why, they needed extra tall floors to get up to 55 feet. It was only a two-story building so it qualified for this exemption. Yeah, there it is. It's e little Roman numeral 2. The building is in the industrial general industrial service or industrial manufacturing zoning district. and has 2 or fewer stories, or the height is necessary for a manufacturing, testing, or other industrial process or equipment. I don't understand why that's or the height is necessary for their equipment. I think that should be an and I I would suggest that we ask Staff to consider that, and come back to us on it. because I can. I can see the the temptations that that would lead to various

[163:01] developers to to move up to 55 feet, and that I I I think it would be great to to get Staff to look into that carefully and come back to the planning board on. But I I have to say, i'm very cautious about making changes like that on the fly right now. I understand. I understand. I just remember that it it what's bothersome earlier. Yeah, it's a good point, Laura. Thank you. I'll just recommend that to staff is there a good reason why? Only having 2 stories in an industrial zone would qualify you for height, modification, all the other ones in here there's a good reason like you've got to elevate above the base flood X elevation. So you get some extra height, and things like that. This one I don't understand. And then the other one that I think is missing. This is when going back to the ordinance that Staff gave us that was deleted, and I just have a question of Why was

[164:01] on page 88? Why was that stricken, that a height, modification to allow an expansion of an existing building that exceeds the permitted height requirements. If the height existing height was approved as part of a planned unit, development, site, review, or height Review, and the expansion is not within a fourth or fifth story. Is it just that that never gets used, or why was that strict To be honest, this this is new language. that I think we wanted to include in here. I might have to defer to to hell on that, because unless she has objection, I think we do actually want to include that. Yeah, I think I think that may be a a mistake in the ordinance. It is not currently in the code, and we were proposing that.

[165:03] Yeah, I think there's a version control thing that's happening here because it's not currently the code. I think that's something that wasn't supposed to be stricken through. Yeah, so we'll we'll. We'll have that in there. Okay? And and I didn't have a problem with it. It just basically says this: this building already has a permit to have a certain amount of height, and now they're expanding it to that same that you know they're expanding the floor area that has that same height. I I didn't see a problem with it and still go through site review. But this is one of the allowable conditions showing crossed out. Okay, thank you. Those were my only 2 items under development review threshold. Okay. sure. so it does. Anyone else have stuff under development review thresholds, or can we skip over the charts? sorry

[166:02] I just have a charts and go over to charge. I have a a question about the minimum size for site Review. Content Review required those thresholds. Has development proved that these triggers are valid 2 acres. one acre, etc. Whatever these minimum sizes. they don't say that they they these are the right numbers. I I think it's all a matter of opinion. I mean I've worked for the city for many years. In my opinion, I I feel like these thresholds are appropriate. I feel like the projects that we get in are of a size that I think definitely warrants. You know, Planning Board review of a concept plan. I don't know that I've ever seen any concept, plans or site reviews that I thought

[167:06] probably shouldn't be. I know I know there's you know, some that think that we should change these thresholds, you know, to encourage more housing. I understand that, and that's something we may do in the future. But I mean my sense of of concept plans and site reviews is that these are appropriate thresholds. I would agree. I think we're netting the right projects for review. and I do know that when the Set Review criteria were originally drafted in the nineties, I think there was a lot of attention given to the typology of the different zone districts. and the thresholds that were set. So while Carl and I work around for any of that work. That's the way that it's always been explained to me. But it it does feel to me, even if it's just anecdotally that we're adding the right projects for the Board's Review. Okay. So nothing is as either been below those that you wish would have gone to a review or something that you captured it. Okay, that that was just my question. Are you still? Are you still valid?

[168:05] Thanks. Mark. I'll just simply I I made my comments about this table earlier. I'll simply say that Well, we might be netting the right projects for review. We are not necessarily incentivizing the right projects for construction. So that was. That's my slight counter to that state. So just so. I understand your your point. Are you saying that those sizes should be increased or decreased. Well, that that we're using the wrong criteria in the sense of we have 2 acres or 20 dwelling units, so as an example. So again. If if a developer

[169:01] has the it's a disincentive to go through site reviews expensive and a disincentive. So if the developer is making decisions on the margins. Of Gee! I can build 19 units at 2,000 square feet of piece or 24 units at 1,600 or 32 at 100. Whatever Whatever the math works out to be. they are incentivized to be able to skip, side, review. and and not undergo this process by building fewer larger units. I want to callically on that and say, I think Mark has pointed out something that's very important. I think Staff are already dealing with this in the affordable housing program in terms of the the fees that have to be paid to the affordable housing program that are based on unit counts.

[170:01] And Michelle talked about how they're looking at changing that, so that it also considers square footage rather than just being purely based on unit counts. And so I guess my suggestion. I do think it's pretty late in the game to be changing something so incredibly significant as this. for this particular go around at the ordinance, but I would suggest to Staff that they consider that that language or that logic that holds for how we're incentivizing affordable housing. It also holds for how we incentivize or disincentivize developments in general, because Mark is right. Going through a site review is something people would like to avoid, and so if they can do that by constructing larger units, they might so that might be something to consider for a future update of this ordinance. And I see Karl nodding. So I'm going to stop there and thank you, Carl, for considering. Yep. Okay, I I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. And again, it's something that we should encourage Staff to consider and and review that that whole approach.

[171:03] All right. Any other. Oh, sarah go ahead to page 92 small letter D application requirements 17 page mine. Yeah below. Keep going a little bit further down on page 92. Whoever is in charge of the scrolling. Yeah, the the prairie dogs. Okay, I have a question. So we say in 914 D. 17 that we have. There you have to have plans for preservation of etc., etc. But then, when we get to prairie dogs, we have a statement of intent. and i'm wondering why we have these 2 different standards. And why not? Just because statement of intent?

[172:02] What intention and plan are not the same thing. And i'm just wondering why we don't require a plan for the prairie dog intervention. Why, we require a statement of intent. So we coordinated with our our wildlife specialists in our department on this issue. this particular requirement, and the criterion that relates to it has been in the site review for for many years. we thought through this site review process it was an opportunity to confer with her whether this was still accurate. and what has happened since this was originally codified is that there is a process for like prairie dogs that's actually specifically stipulated in Chapter 6, one that wasn't there when this was originally created. So we updated the language to refer to that process. That's in Chapter 6, one.

[173:03] Okay. And that process is this: this requires a statement of intent. I think so. Yeah. There, there's a whole set. Okay program that they follow for every project that has identified Prairie Dog. Okay. So we just wanted to to make that clear. Okay, alright, Thank you that I just wasn't, sure. Why, there was a difference. Thank you very much. Okay. okay, Sarah, your hand is up. It is 9 to 2, 14, H. One capital letter a, which is the Vcp language. But there might be a bunch of things. Other people have Number 20. I have a question on Number 20. Okay, let's hear it. So Carl, I think I I heard a contradiction to Number 20, it at your presentation. But this is implying that the

[174:08] the energy modeling that would demonstrate the greenhouse gas emissions reduction would happen a type review. But i'm thinking I heard you say that people pushed back and said, No, we can't do it with you. We'll do it at the link from from it. So what's actually happening with Number 20? Well, 20 that's correct. what we did is we we modified number 20 here to say preliminary energy modeling and or or any other documentation necessary to demonstrate. So basically what this means is that it's more like they would give us some information about what they're looking at for the for the modeling that would occur later to demonstrate how they would meet that criteria, and they would say

[175:01] that they're looking into doing any number of things to meet the criteria, and we would assess that preliminarily through site, review, and then it would become a condition of approval. We they just have to show us that they have the capability of moving in that direction. That's what we're looking at. Site review. It's not going to be solidified at that stage. So we just wanted to alert them that to look at this and start thinking about what they're going to do. Okay, I I would agree with that completely. and I think that's a great thing to put it into the Site Review. even if it's at a preliminary. because you have to think about the building holistically, and if it's not there at the beginning, it's not going to show up. you know, after the building is designed. And oh, my gosh! You gotta add this in, so I I I am very grateful to see that it's still there. and that we will be able to hold people accountable to how they're going to meet that reduction from the very from the get-go.

[176:01] Thank you. For that. Yep. Okay. Oh. who you want? Okay. people, you gotta as we're going through this. You've got to speak up. If you have a point to a question. So we definitely have some stuff on here on page 98 related to the Bvcp criterion. and I would like to ask the chairs indulgence to have a short break before we go into this criterion, because I think it's going to take a while, and I have drunk too much tea. Okay, let's let's take 5 min we'll come back at 9. 0 8. Thank you. So much perfect

[177:00] perfect. Hey Ml: Your microphone still on

[180:57] how's it going on? The note taking there.

[181:02] You're on mute Sarah. We can't hear you. You're You're muted. You think, after 3 years of zoom we did the the mute thing. I'm I'm catching the stuff that we're actually asking for a change and sort of making quick notes on asking Staff to take a look at and consider stuff. Well, thanks. A 1 million. Yeah. Thank you for that. Thank you for volunteering, Sarah. if it's helpful. I have written notes on the things that i'm asking staff to take a look at, and I can share those with you for your if that is supportive of your task. Oh, thanks, I think I might. I'm: Thank you. My guess is that staff is also taking extensive notes. So

[182:02] this is more, for when we return back to. is there anything specific that we want to see changed. So when we vote on it, or we we know that we. because some of this is going to be stuff that's going to have to look at longer term and will not end up being included. My guess is in this initial round of approvals, and because it one of the things they say in the memo is after whatever gets approved and implemented they'll want feedback. What's working, what's not working from planning board and applicants and city councils going forward, so things will continue to change Gotcha. At least that's my sense. Maybe I could be wrong, Brad or Charles, am I wrong about that. They're not back in not. You're absolutely right. So I appreciate you saying that, Sarah. Yeah. Great. Okay. I think we're all back Here.

[183:02] Let's keep going. if you can. Good. The Yeah, there we go. Okay, I think. Oh, Sarah has your hand up first. Go ahead. Well, I think we all have our hands up to talk about the same thing. which is this very, very, very complex. and and I would use a term Solomonic effort to split the baby between for very specific Bbcp policies and just the on balance language. And I appreciate what staff. what the the what staffs trying to balance out But I still think it's. I think it's super complicated, and let it's the absence of clarity.

[184:03] so I had. I had come up with a suggestion does not mean it's what not. I'm just it's just a suggestion. It's a place to start the conversation. And for me that what it's not just the complexity of this paragraph. It's also, as I said before. the whole point of this site review update is to align it with our community benefits, efforts, right? And yet, if we only focus on the elements of the Boulder Valley complain that have to do with the built environment where I think we're kind of we're not aligning with the purpose of this not fully aligning. So I was going to recommend that age one a read something along the lines of Boulder Valley comp plan, land, use, map and policies.

[185:02] Colin. The proposed project is consistent with the Bvcp land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bvcp. That address the built Environment and community benefit goals and policies which creates a larger aperture. But also is not every single sol it it it does also narrow the aperture from the the whole. Okay, you know. Thank you for that perspective, Sarah. I do appreciate the expansion. although my comment is

[186:00] not directly about that. What i'm. So. Carl, and the question I have when I read this paragraph One H. One a. it sounds like well. holding ourselves accountable to differentiating the Bdcp intent. So whether it's to guide development. or is it to guide city policy? or is it intended to be implemented through some other means rather than site use Review. So my question is. I I really appreciate. I I totally appreciate the differentiation into there's different ways to use the information in the Boulder Valley comp plan.

[187:05] Some of them are appropriate to the built environment. So my question is. would there Would it be possible to get some kind of a chart made That shows the Boulder Valley comp plan Both environment policies, and which ones? What is their intent? Are they? Are they to for development review? Are they for city policy, you know, so that we have a better understanding on how to use the B. V. Cp. As an actual tool rather than I. I know that I myself, who put things out there just like oh, no, this is not the place that you use, that you you it's you someplace else would there be a a way to have kind of a chart that that shows us this the stratification of how to use the Boulder Valley Compliant information?

[188:05] I mean, I think if if the Board found that to be helpful, I think that's certainly something staff could prepare. You know a matrix that just kind of shows each policy should be applied. I I think that that could make sense well in aid this particular section, and how your I think you're trying to be very clear in this in this document that the boulder belly call plan has got useful place in the review. and it's got not so useful place in the review. In other words, we're not going to hold you accountable to X y or Z on it. and we're not going to try to use it in a way that it shouldn't be used. and so i'm i'm just the I I like that a lot. I think that it makes our job.

[189:01] gives our job more specific direction. so from that perspective I think it would be incredibly useful to keep us from. You know. moving a project or a discussion into an area where it just it. It's not necessary to go there with the BBC. And so that we know. Where can we actually use the BBC. To to the projects and the call plan itself advantage. So so that's that's That's my comment about this, because I do think there's been a lot of shifting of the ground on how the BBC. Is going to be informing the process since we talked back in May. and I like the direction is heading in. so the more tools that that can be provided to help us succeed.

[190:02] and using it properly, I think would be would be a good thing. Laura. Okay. So I I apologize that these thoughts are not as organized as I would like them to be. There's a lot to say about this one. So first I want to say I appreciate Sarah's suggestion, and I agree with it of adding in to that first sentence, the built environment and the the community benefit policies of the BBC. I think that's entirely appropriate, and thank you for that. I support it for the rest of this paragraph that folks have found to be kind of long and confusing. When I read it I thought it was clarifying. and I thought it was in line with some of the concerns that a minority of the board expressed in our main meeting, and then City council kind of also seems to agree with which is the the concern that policies and the

[191:00] that would appear to be very appropriate to apply at like a zoning level or a sub-community plan Level could be used to deny individual projects, and I hear my fellow Board member saying that has never happened. That's not what we're going to do. We just want to be able to discuss these things to give guidance, and you know, set a general tone, I think, is is the intent here. So, for example, 1 one of the policies that we have differed on amongst this board is whether it's appropriate for an individual development project to be criticized on the basis of its contribution to the Jobs housing imbalance. you know, and I don't need to go into how we disagree about that. I think we all know how how we kind of split on that. and I hear people saying that a project would not be denied for that reason, but it's important to be able to discuss it. So I'm: okay with being able to discuss it. I do question how valuable that is in site review with an applicant that's not going to be held to that standard, because it is

[192:03] not something that any one particular development project. if it is compliant with the zoning, and it's compliant with the subcommittee plan. Why would we deny it based on the policies that are supposed to be informing that zoning and that subcommittee plan, or that area plan. and I guess my fear is also informed by my experience with the board to which I am a liaison. where I see things rarely result in a project denial, but they often result in a project withdrawal because the applicant just doesn't want to deal with it. it's too complicated. It's too costly. It's too expensive. It's too unpredictable. They don't know how the individual board members are going to use the criteria, and so they just withdraw their demolition permit. and I don't know if that has ever happened at planning board. Maybe we don't deny a project, but we discourage them on the basis of policies that won't they won't actually be held to. So I I don't know. I wish I had good guidance for staff. I like the language that's here. I think it is clarifying. Around.

[193:06] you know, is a particular policy meant to be used for denial of a project, acceptance or denial of a particular development project versus is it meant to inform zoning and area plans and the Bbcp updates? And you know, legislative matters? I do note that in the City Council meeting notes they specifically directed Staff that they wanted staff to quote, strike a balance of achieving full Bvcp compliance while avoiding language that will result in arbitrary denials of projects based on policies that are not explicitly developed to. They are directed to development projects. So I think Staff really are trying to thread the needle here. I think Ml's suggestion of trying to create a chart that says, Here are the Bbcp policies that apply to Site Review. Here are the Bbcp policies that are more legislative in nature an interesting suggestion, I think we would still argue about the results of that exercise.

[194:03] and I I guess where I come down on it is. I don't know that I personally. Well, i'm conflicted, because if you don't put it in stones. You don't set it into the site. Review criteria. Whatever understanding we have between the 7 of us today can change over time. So I like the idea of putting something in here that talks about how no project will be denied on the basis of one Bvcp policy. But i'm a little concerned about where that could lead. Because maybe there's some Bbcp policy that is absolutely essential that i'm not considering. So i'm going to stop there. I'm just being completely honest about why i'm conflicted about this one. and why it's important to me. Thank you. The her so, Laura, I appreciate your comments. I would just take a look at the the what Section 2 which is the built Environment Section covers

[195:05] which is city structure, sustainable urban form, community identity and land use pattern, rural land preservation, neighborhoods, locations for a mixed-use public realm. community conservation and preservation and design quality. What it doesn't include is anything related to the natural environment anything related to energy, climate, and waste anything related to economy, anything related to transportation or housing or community well-being and safety. And I feel really strongly that to to that that those many of those areas fall into the category of community benefit. And we need to. The site. Review process is an opportunity which, as you just said. so, I'm re reiterating what you just said, because you were reiterating what I have said and what others on the panel have said.

[196:02] it is an opportunity, one of 2 that we have concept, review, and site review to reinforce concerns about the elements of the Boulder Valley comp plan that are being forgotten, ignored, set aside, deep prioritized, despite how important they might be. and it concerns me greatly that we would cut off on arm of our work. when this is really a key opportunity key moments in these processes to remind the city to remind city Council to remind ourselves to remind Staff that there are other things besides the built environments that planning encompasses and incorporates. so it's just so. I'll leave it at that I think I see Hella can share some wisdom with us.

[197:07] Oops trouble Unmuting thanks, John. I have a follow up question on the language that Sarah and Laura were discussing, adding, I think it was to not only reference the build environment in the unbalanced finding, but also the community benefit community benefit. and I think it would be helpful for us to understand a little bit better about policies you were thinking about in that regard. You're muted, Sarah. Well, I think that's a good question, and we we we've been throwing around the term community benefit for 5 years. and it's still not defined by code. Right. It's defined in the the 1 1, 1, one or 1 point, 1 2, I think it's 1 point, 1, 2, now

[198:01] but it lists a whole bunch of things. Sorry I just have to open my book. Actually, I may. I may have add it in my notes here. Yeah. So 1, 1, 1, 2 Boulder valley, comp plan, community benefit language for land use or zoning district changes that result in increase in the density or intensity of development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning or added height that increases intensity. The city will develop regulations and incentives, so that the new development provides benefits to the community beyond those otherwise required by the underlying zoning. Any incentives are intended to address the community. Economic, social, and environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan. Community objectives include without limitation affordable housing affordable commercial space space for the arts community gathering space, public art, land for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration. 100 outdoor spaces and other other identified social needs and services. Community objectives may also be identified through other planning or policy, making efforts of the city.

[199:05] and I read that as almost everything that's in the Polar Valley Count plan right? Which is why I think the on that what we used to use the language that we have been using. This on balance allows for a fulsome conversation at at site, review at at concept, review, and site. Review but also is. as John noted. has literally never been used to deny, a project. There are all kinds of other reasons to deny a project. I just think that this is. I don't know where the idea came from originally, which was to limit us to 3 or 4 particular components of the Boulder Valley comp plan. So, without knowing what the initial motivation was like, whose idea originally was, and what commute part of the community it came from. It's very hard to understand what the motive was given that there's everyone's knowledge. Never been a project

[200:00] that's been rejected because of it. Doesn't meet some component of the Boulder valley. Count, Plan. so. But this is part of the community benefits discussion. And yet all we all this language does is, say, i'm not my language, but the proposed language is, it can only be about the built environment. Well, that is not aligned with the community benefits discussion. Yeah. And historically, when when community benefit originally kind of came up, and it was incorporated into the Comp plan. It was talked about, and we want additional community benefit. If somebody asks for additional density or hide, and it's granted to the site review criteria. And one of the reasons i'm asking about that is because I I can think of of the top of my head of 2 policies that specifically address community benefit, but they are all drafted around a goal that the city will amend its regulations to implement that

[201:04] versus being a side of your requirements. So I think that's something to consider in how we draft this and and what the intend is, and whether it's consistent with. But the complaint states. I guess i'm not understanding. Hello! What you're i'm sorry I just not understand, because this lists 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 lists, a whole bunch of things that are considered community benefit. But you're saying that it can only be a community benefit. If there's a If this is what this really is saying is, the city needs to create a policy, and like I just don't understand what you're saying. So when this was originally added to the code, if you read the policy, the 1.12, it talks about If there is a land use or zoning district change that results in increases in the density or intensity of development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zone zoning district or for added Hyde.

[202:06] the city will develop regulations and incentives, so that the new development provides benefits to the community, to the beyond those otherwise required for underlying zoning. And then it lists that what kind of community benefits it can be, but it talks about it in terms of the city is going to develop regulations that will require additional community benefits. If a project seeks. or if there's some kind of regulatory change that it results in increases and density. Or if it was basically a. It was basically put in here for the community benefit project that we implemented to the height modification standards so you're saying that none of these other community objectives. count.

[203:00] I'm not saying that they that they don't count. But I I think these 2 specific policies that talk about community benefit specifically address Co-chang, that the city is going to make. I'm. I'm sorry i'm a little lost the language that Sarah read. Where is that? Is that in the Bvcp. Is that in title I. No. It's. Bbcp. 1 point, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, So Hella. Are you saying that the community benefit that we have in place right now at use. Review is limited to this isn't what you said, but it's limited to the inclusionary housing

[204:02] benefit isn't that a community benefit that we get from added. but from added height. Right? Yeah, that's a good question. we We went through a code process where we analyzed that, and where we proposed different different types of community benefit. And then we landed on the main community Benefit that the city wanted was actually of an afford about the housing benefit in this with this particular ordinance, we're actually proposing to broaden that and create more flexibility to provide community benefit in in other ways. But but that part of the side of your criteria is really intended to implement the goal and policy. 1 point, 1, 2 to go back in time a little bit. Community benefit, you know, before 2,019 was only

[205:03] applicable in a Development Review project when it was in an annexation. because there's a a specific Pvcb policy about annexation and talking about community benefits. So, knowing that we were moving in the direction of of applying community benefit through site Review. That's when policy, 1 point, 1, 2 was developed to set the goal of let's be like to find what community benefit is, and how and that, and give the order to address it through code changes. So in 2,019 we did the first part of community benefit, and added the new language. And and even through this particular ordinance you can see the underlying language we're trying to expand that as to allow alternatives to meet that community benefit. So so just just a question about the history that a chart Carl.

[206:02] It was my remembrance that the community benefit conversation got triggered because of the non-existent but promised community benefit in the old Daily Camera Building. I think that was certainly a project that brought that discussion, for, but I think the community benefit. Discussion predated even that project. I think there was a growing sentiment. you know, even though it wasn't in the code at the time, that if a developer was allowed to build more Florida or add additional floors above the zoning district limit. What is the community getting in return? I've been hearing that, for you know, a lot of my duration here, even before the Daily Camera building. So it kind of grew. And I think that was just an example project. that kind of led to that policy discussion. and that policy discussion happened in the last Bvc. The update. And then Since then we've been integrating that into our land use code.

[207:05] Okay, so I I think i'm understanding what Hela said, and I appreciate Carl's history of this I'm: not in. I personally am not interested in limiting this. our planning board or future planning boards from being able to present concerns about or or praise projects because of how they do or don't advance elements of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. I think it's a vitally important role that planning Board plays in highlighting key issues that are addressed that are that are planning issues for the city. So i'm not interested in language that deeply limits that ability of ours and a future planning board.

[208:00] Ml. Carl, can we get our? Did we lose your screen? It it froze up so i'm trying to so. Oh, there we go. So in this one a h, one a That address the built environment. I didn't interpret the built environment to be just the chapter that is titled, built environment. There is no capital right under built environment. so I assume that would take in into account the other components of the Boulder valley call plan that are.

[209:10] of course, vital to the built environment. it was your it was is the staff stinky that this built environment that is, in line like 21 and a half was just that chapter. I don't know that we were thinking that it was just that chapter. I I think there were suggestions to limit to that chapter. I think there could be other policies that relate to the built environment that are in other sections. But I don't know that what we were specifically looking at just limiting it to that section right right? Well, the that is not capital letters. I didn't read it that way but once Sarah kind of

[210:03] noted that it was in her interpretation. She read it as it was just that section 2 built environment where the natural environment, energy, climate, and waste economy, transportation, all of those are are vital and important. So I don't know if we have to be it. This should say that address the policies. I I i'm not sure how that should read to. In fact. be more inclusive. because if it's just that one Section I I'm. In full agreement. That's just way too exclusive of a of a Vvcp. Section and we're not even, you know, extending it into the community benefit which doesn't have its own little policy. Chapter. So

[211:00] I don't know. Does anybody else have any thoughts about about expanding? Even the concept of what constitutes It's a built environment. Oh. Colin, Mark! And then i'll have some comments there after. So this this, for any question. is really trying to address the interrelated nature of darn near everything, and that's that is, you know what really I mean. It's like transportation and housing and affordability and community benefit. So so, and and the BBC. I think, does an excellent job of an and and a Sarah points out often that, hey you can, you can. It's like the Bible. You can kind of read it any way you want, and interpret it in many different ways.

[212:03] and and it is an aspirational document so we have this thing. It's in a related and and so I I but i'm struggling with the language here because I do find it complex, and I I I find myself wondering why I agree with Sarah or Laura, or what is it that I agree with? But I do know this, that I think that as we evaluate projects that to not be able to look broadly at the goals as laid out by the BBC. and to make the scope so narrow that that we're protecting a developer from uncertainty would be a mistake, because a project does need to address you know, the built environment does address transportation does address community benefit, so I don't want it to

[213:03] constrict us too much. And at the same time, I I think, when I I I just scan through the comments of Council members on this on this subject. and i'm going to do a little political interpretation say that the fear noted by certain Council members, I think, might have been a result of our denial of Use Review. based on BBC policies. Now use review as a different set of criteria, and and you have to fulfill certain BBC policies to go through to be successful and going through a use review. and I know that that gave some heartburn to some Council members on on the project that that we denied the Use Review. So going back to the paragraph here in front of us. As I read it. I would be almost good with a period

[214:01] you know, after on ballot. Well, no after at at the built environment line 3 period. and then including the final sentence make a final sentence that just says, hey? No, no project must fulfill all BBC. Policies or can't or no project may be denied because of the failure to meet a a single BBC policy. So Brad's, raising his hand here. I'm gonna stop. Yeah, If I can offer a observation based on a career's worth of hearing a version of this debate over the years. I I appreciate the position the board's in and it would share that it's not unique. What you're basically struggling with is this idea that

[215:00] the comprehensive plan should be able to be considered comprehensively against the name. but that any one element should be. and it and it hope this doesn't sound as politically charged term, but just for simplification, weaponized to kill a project that in a broader context and and with broad consideration of the account plan would be. you know, otherwise, support it. You know it's a fair debate, and it's one that it has happened everywhere in in land Use I think Staff did a noble job in trying to come up with language that really thread the needle, and and I appreciate the acknowledgment of that. But I I would almost suggest going back to the basics on the line of what's what's being discussed right now. and i'll offer this in the context that at the end of the day.

[216:02] you all are acting in the quasi judicial matter when you're hearing a particular case and the essence of quasi-judicial is judging and judging is judging and weighing those various things. So going back to the basics could be as simple as saying the first part of that sentence that the proposed project is consistent with the land use map and on on balance, and with the goals and policies of the and maybe just a nuance, particularly those that address the built environment and acknowledgment of what you all are speaking of as the main focus of presumably the main focus of the site plan. I think a lot of the other is nuance that that everybody is struggling with. I think to that. You know the comment about balancing them is already stated in the Comp. Plan. It would be my expectation that on page 9 of the Comp plan people would bring that up to the degree that that's not being

[217:05] applied fairly in their estimation in in your role as judges on a particular case. but that's just an observation based on my experience, and I offer it for what it's worth. Thank you. Throw in a my 2 bits point right now. I I greatly appreciate the Sarah's and Brad and March thoughts, and I I think, the term threading the needle is is quite accurate here. but I I would like to take a step back and ask us. make us think about what our proper role is, both in terms of developing the Bone Valley Comp plan and interpreting it for use in specific quasi-judicial situations.

[218:03] speaking as someone who's who's been involved now in in 4 or 5 iterations of the boulder Valley comp plan over the last 25 years. I can say that the intention behind, in at least in in my observation of those who are involved in developing the Comp. Plan is that it be applied to all circumstances in which it could be at all relevant. Secondly. the role of the planning Board is in this case independent from council. We have independent authority with respect to the adoption of the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and it seems to me that. although we are appointed by the Council once we're appointed, we are asked to use our best judgment in moving forward with both the adoption and the use of the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and so

[219:05] applying any sort of restrictions. cripples our ability to do our job, in my opinion, as well as the intent under which the the Comp plan was created. So I I think that you know these these attempts to thread the needle are appropriate. But when we're considering it, we need to consider what our appropriate role is in dealing in for which we were appointed. and secondly, the interpretation of the given, the the record we have of interpreting in a reasonable way the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I I fail to understand why there is this pressure. well, in fact, I understand very well the the politics of the situation, but

[220:04] I think that is given our proper role. It's inappropriate to try and influence. Our use of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan to carry out our job. Laura. so I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of everyone who has spoken. and I, you know I can read the T. Leaves that I'm going to be in a minority here. but i'll just say I don't think it's appropriate to take 174 page document and say that any piece of that is fair game for a Development project that's trying to achieve a specific goal. I do think that part of the AIM of this project was to increase predictability. and I don't like being one of 7 people who are entitled or empowered to take anything in the Comp plan

[221:02] that we want, and use it to judge a a by. And I guess I don't understand if we are not actually going to use this criterion as a basis to approve or deny projects. Then why is it so important that we keep it in here in the form that it has been, if it has never actually been used in a way to impact a project because I I it probably has been used to impact projects. Maybe not a denial outright. But I I don't have a long enough tenure with the board to understand exactly how it's used. I just sympathize with the objective of this project to simplify how this 174 page document is used in the specific context of Site Review. I absolutely agree that part of our purview and our charge as planning board members is, you know, updates to the Bbcp applying the BBC. To legislative matters like zoning and area plans and that sort of thing.

[222:03] I I just yeah. I have said what I said. and I support Staff's language here. I think it is an appropriate balance of the feedback that they got from planning board from the Site Review Committee from city Council. And if this is one of the things that that people want to recommend to counsel. I I don't agree with that. But you know we don't all have to agree. George. I I I've been listening to everything. I I I gotta say I think. John's comments encapsulated exactly my thoughts as well. and so I just wanted to put my position there and and there, because I I think no no reason to state exactly what you stated again. I I thought it was excellently put in. And and that's also my view. Thank you.

[223:00] Okay. So I think we need to. Okay, Sarah. so I want to read what? i'm gonna i'm got so this is actually the language from Brad. So it would read instead of what's in there now it would read, or proposing it would read Bbcp Land, Use map and policies. The proposed project is consistent with with the Bvcp land, Use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bvcp. Particularly those that address the built environment. Is that what? Ha! Ha! Our folks? In response to that as a as a proposed alternative. I was just gonna say that. I would just not

[224:00] be that specific. Just get end it with the goals and policies of the BBC. Period. So go back to. Well, basically it's back to what it was in what it currently is. But I I I am not in disagreement with the intent of the application. that it shall be consistently interpreted. and etc., etc., all those other sentences. I think it it starts to to give a sort of those edges that the process is looking to try to put it without saying. But you can't. Look here, you can't look there, just saying, just be consistent. Just be consistent. And some of these things make sense in development. And some of these things are about policies that are about code. so I do appreciate

[225:03] the process of giving some substance to how the Boulder Valley comp plan needs to land out there in the world, ie. Consistently and not trying to do something that they a development review process should be doing so. I say, just take off any of the limiting factors. and then look at the, at, the at the application process. I see Hella might have something to tell us. Yeah, I I I appreciated Ml's thoughts, and I was gonna mention that what we drafted in here, and how to apply it. Those are the things that already apply.

[226:03] because you are required to apply the code in a consistent manner, and interpret it in a consistent manner. and with the complaints. You will probably remember from the trainings that we've done in the past. You always have to be careful in how you apply the policies, because the confident is drafted as a broad policy document and has other functions than the regulatory function that it's put into through the site of the reference to the calm plan, so it's not drafted as precisely as other regulations. But, con. The Constitution requires that if these types of requirements are imposed on a property owner, that there is sufficiently clearly drafted, so that the property owner is unnoticed what might be required under the under the regulations that are being applied. and when you apply the comp plan on balance, finding you always have to be careful and read the policies carefully, and think about

[227:05] what I'm doing with this policy, and how how I am applying it. Is it written in a way that the land owner would know about that of a reasonable land owner would have noticed about that. So that kind of constitution the limitation is, I guess, what we're what we were trying to address, and when we drafted the apply criteria, and then the last part of it. refers to how the calm plan talks about how the policies are to be applied itself. So in my mind all of these different things that we said you should consider you have to consider anyways whether that's written here in that way or not. Thank you. So can I just follow up on what helicopter I'm. I'm, i'm, i'm trying to incorporate that into i'm trying to incorporate Ml's

[228:02] thoughts and hell is response. So what I what i'm what I just did I don't know if it's the right thing is I eliminated the particularly the built environment phraseology. So now it says the proposed project is consistent with the BBC. Land, use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bvcp. And applying this criterion should be these criterion. This these I think it should be the it's a plural right criteria. These criteria, the approving authority, shall consistently interpret and apply these criteria. Is that how does that I mean? I think what you said was. whether or not it's the languages in there. That's our responsibility is to apply them consistently. It is correct, all right. So. But i'm trying to capture that there was a staff. You guys wanted that consistency

[229:01] component in there for a reason, even though it's implied in our responsibilities. but you you put it in there for a reason. Yeah. yeah, I think it was in response to Councils feedback and giving more direction on how to apply that. Okay. So if I add that sentence in applying this correct. i'll let you Guys word, Smith, whether it should be this criteria or these. this criterion or these criteria. In applying this criterion, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion. which does not limit us from having a fulsome discussion about X Y or Z. It means that we'd have to have a really good reason under utilizing code to argue that a particular vitally important BBC plan. BBC. Policy has not been is, is is

[230:00] so radically undermined that we're going to reject the project because of it. Sarah, I think that that one sentence doesn't fully capture what? What? You just said it just says you have to be consistent so you could be consistently wrong, right? I think I heard Hella say that all of this this whole paragraph what Staff was suggesting as elaborating on how we are to apply the on-balance criterion? Is that what you were saying that this whole paragraph is what you were suggesting for guidance on how to apply it. Yeah, the the whole second sentence, I guess in it. But I okay. I don't. I know Mark has a hand up. I just I don't understand. I don't think this makes sense. Maybe it makes sense to a lawyer. Seriously, I don't mean that as an insult at all. But no, I I I think you're saying this this is too complex, and maybe we can simplify it.

[231:13] Let's I have a question for hell of first, and then one proposed set of language. So the this last sentence that was added. or the last portion very less portion. BBC. Does not prioritize goals and policies, and no policy or goal or set of policies must be satisfied by any one Development project is that stated anywhere else in the code or in the in that fashion. The Vpc. States. The policies are not prioritized, and no one policy. A set of policies must be satisfied bye. any action, ordinance, regulation development review or program.

[232:06] Okay. So interesting because I I find that the the the the plural nature of that of set of policies or goals. Suddenly it's like well. a developer. It seems to me a developer to interpret that as like. Yeah, it doesn't really require that. I I I satisfy much of anything. Because if if you, if you don't have to require. On the whole. seems like it's saying, Gee! You have to satisfy on the whole a bunch of this stuff. and then and then we turn around and say. Yeah, you don't really have to. So the language I have looked at here and drafted, and i'm happy to send it, is.

[233:00] The proposed project is consistent with the BBC. Land, use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the BBC period. The Bvcp. Does not prioritize goals and policies, and no single policy or goal must be satisfied by any one development project. So you couldn't. We couldn't use some a single policy to reject a project when on balance. Yeah, it meets the BBC. So anyway, I I to me, that's a very simple way of stating it while prohibiting us from unjustly. or inconsistently using a single policy to reject a project which seems to be what Council fear is. Lisa

[234:04] i'm. Hearing a lot from from various quarters that I completely agree with, and I understand I I don't want us like it's called conflict, but I don't understand why we have some different ideas about how to make the language as good as possible. I guess my question partially born of having seen this exact debate happen many, many times in the past. and having seen staff work hard on this and the time and and I I will be leaving, and not too long, regardless of what we do. I guess I circle back to the question or the direction that you gave us the beginning of the night, Joan and and I wonder other planning board members. the chair. The staff maybe have a thought on this, and that is. is it productive for us to keep trying to word Smith this and get this perfect? Is it more productive to hand it back to staff? Are we going to come up with perfect language tonight.

[235:05] or or ever i'm I'm. Maybe being a little realistic again. I've I've seen this exact debate around Bbcp to happen. It's it's so common and and then I guess I just want to add, with all those of those questions that I just posed ultimately, what whatever it is that we have this language, say I, I I think the reality is that we each as individual board members, and then as a collective body. decide how we're going to treat the Pvcp. And how we're going to use it or not. Use it. you know, as as we have, things come up before us. And so whether the language is perfect or not doesn't necessarily seem to matter that much you know it's more about what we do with it. and I've never seen boards. I I i'm not sure that however we change the language is actually going to change what we do, because I've never seen it change what we do in the past. so again I I have. I have this

[236:07] frame, you know, you know, partially born of of the time of of of evening, and the fact that it's a Tuesday, and also just for having seen this many, many times before, to just say, you know, perhaps without stifling the conversation without. you know, ignoring the excellent work that everyone has already done, that that we may wish you, you know, up to the chair and the rest of the board. We may wish to wrap this portion up. See if there's other stuff we want to talk about, and perhaps hand it back to staff with my apologies to staff because i'm just not sure we're going to get somewhere that different. or better. Okay, let's let's have one more round, and then do some funds. Mark. Sorry. Laura. I agree with Lisa's suggestion. I I personally think that you know if Staff, and particularly our attorney, feel that these are our obligations, anyway, then, and they've taken language directly from the Bvcp. Especially for that last portion. I'm. Perfectly fine with the language that Staff has here. If we want to give direction to staff, to please, tighten it up or try to clarify it a little bit. I'm fine with that, too.

[237:18] I just want to say to Mark that I appreciated your suggestion about no single policy, but i'm not sure that that's a panacea, because there are so many Bvcp policies that are related that for any issue that you care about, you could probably cite 2 or 3. So i'm just not sure that that would do what you wanted to do. Understood? Okay. alright. wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Wait! Ml has her hand up. And then I also just want to read to you guys, what I'm: the 2 options, the 2 proposed options. I will send the staff Okay, email. Thank you. I suggest that this one a read as it is, except for remove

[238:03] that piece of the sentence. It says that address the built environment and leave everything else as Staff has proposed. That's just not limited to send. It seems to be able to be interpreted as just the one section of the BBC. this is, take it out, and leave everything else in. I think that to me is the only really truly troublesome part. Is that it? It could be interpreted to be just that one section of the Boulder Valley Comp plan which I I we completely disagree with. So that would be my suggestion. Leave it as is, except remove those 1, 2, 3, those 5 words at the end of the first. Sorry. Okay. So the 3 I'm. Sending staff 3

[239:01] options from which they can throw them out the window, or whatever they want to do. One is the proposed project is consistent with the BBC. Land, use map and on balance with the goals and policies. The Bbcp. In applying this criterion, the improving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion, 250 mit ctl. And second option. The proposed project is consistent with the Bvcp land. Use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the BBC. Bvcp. Does not prioritize goals and policies, and it is recognized that no policy and goal or set of policies and goals must be satisfied 150 by any one Development project. I think we have to add particular particular policy. No specific. Okay. and then the third option is what Ml. Just said, which is everything. Staff currently has in the language, minus the phrase with the goals and policies of the Bvcp that address the built environment.

[240:00] So i'm going to send that off to staff for them to pick and choose everyone. Okay, with that I'm: okay, with that with one caveat, which is that I would also be okay with staff rewording that clause about addressing the built environment. I agree that it's confusing Sarah. You made a great point that it could be interpreted to mean just that one chapter or one set of the policy chapter in the BBC. But I think you know Council did give some specific direction on this, and so I think that if Staff want to reword it a bit, so that it's not as confusing, I would be open to that. Yeah. Awesome. Okay. I think it's appropriate for to do some phones here. So who who likes the first? I'm trying to remember what the first one was that you can. I can. I make an alternative suggestion that because I've already sent off all 3 to Staff is let them. They've heard all this and let them sort of

[241:00] winnow it down rather than does that. Have people? Okay, with what do you think of that, John. Okay. Yeah, I I think it's important for us. I mean, if we put it back in Staff's hands, we, you know, we have essentially lost control over a very important element, in my opinion. so I think we should do a thumbs here. The proposed project is consistent with the Pvcp land. Use map, and on balance with the goals and policy of the Bvcp. In applying this criterion, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion 150. Hmm. I like that. I'm good. With that one. Do we get just one vote, or you can vote for as many as you want? You're kind of just no problem. And yeah, that's that's where I'm at me, too.

[242:00] Yeah, i'm good with that one, too, for as many as you like. Okay. alright, so the second one is the proposed project is consistent with the Bvcp land. Use map and on balance with the goals and policies. The Bbcp. PVC. P does not prioritize goals and policies, and it is recognized that no specific policy, your goal, or a set of policies and goals must be satisfied by any one development project. also okay with that one. Okay. And then the third one is what Staff currently has minus the phrase with the goals and policies the BBC. That address the built environment. No, I don't think that I think I wanted to keep the goals and policies in the Bvcp in. I just wanted that address to both environment out. But yes, my apologies. Okay. So yes, to removing the 5 words that address the built environment.

[243:06] so that one got the most that John's got his thumb up. And Lisa, are you a thumb up on that last one as well? Okay. We're still leaving it in Staff's hands, because it's basically there was 7. There was 6. There was 5. Okay, I think we got to keep moving here. Okay. So I have one on the next page. Okay. page 99. And this is about historic and cultural resources. I don't think we're quite there, yet. E: So I appreciate staff's intent here. So this is about What is this overall section? Can someone remind me what this overall section is? This is 9 minus 2, 14. H. This is the intro

[244:08] to what? To? To all of the site. Review: criteria. Yeah, it's: okay. So this is the whole section relates to the Boulder Valley Conference of plan as well. Okay, it says, No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria. And that's what this list is. So we're saying the approving agency has to find that the Site review application is consistent with the following criteria, and I feel strongly that Number E. Here. Letter e is not our job. It is not our expertise. We don't have the staff available Landmarks Board specifically deals with landmarking. They have a whole process that they follow. and trying to landmark over. The objection of the property owner is something that is not taken lightly. It is done extremely, rarely. and seriously, and city Council has the opportunity to overrule it. So I do not think that planning board should be taking the reins and saying that

[245:07] no site, review application shall be approved unless the approving agency us finds that the project is consistent with this Section E. On historic or cultural resources. I don't think that we should be requiring application and good faith pursuit of a local landmark designation that's basically requiring landmarking potentially over the objection of the property owner. and so I just feel very, very strongly that this is not at all our job. I think it's fine if we want to say, hey? I think this building might have historic cultural resources, and I think landmarks should take a close look at it, and then we should turn the reins over to them and not make it one of our criteria for site. Review. I just th. This is just not anything that we have any kind of expertise on and listening to their conversations about it. It's extremely complicated, like. Take, for example, the Millennium Harvest House Hotel. There are a lot of people who thought that that building should have been landmarked and not demolished. There is a demolition permit that is active for that. It's allowed to be demolished.

[246:04] And the reason why is because it does not have historical integrity. It's been modified too much. That is not something I would have known except from sitting on landmarks board and listening to their erudite educated 150 expert conversation. So that's my feeling about you. Okay, let's do some funds. Ella has a thoughts here, too. Yeah, I I wanted to. give a little bit more context to this this proposed language. It's actually it's kind of mirror's language that's often been used as a condition of approval inside every applications where a hit significant historic resource is involved. Currently the calm plan states that the city will seek protection of significant historic and cultural resources through local designation. When a proposal by the private sector is subject to discretionary Development review.

[247:06] so th that's been in the complaint for a while. And there's been a number of projects that have come through where we required exactly what the second sentence there states, and ultimately, whether something is landmark would still be up to the networks board and City council. we've always drafted it such that planning. What's requirement would be this application and good faith pursued off land barking you, you're right that it it may ultimately against the wishes of the developer Laura which is different from most landmarking applications, but through the development review process that has been a history of this and practice. but that that feels different to me than saying we can refer it to landmarks to consider whether this property has this or or cultural resources. This says

[248:00] that the applicant has to in good faith pursue local landmark designation, which is a different process entirely. It's different, a different code section one. and and that presumes that the board is going to assume that the applicant wants landmarking, that they're requesting landmarking, and I don't think that that is our job. To tell the applicant you must request landmarking, even if you don't want it. I think if the Landmarks board wants to impose that on somebody that's there that's their prerogative in conjunction with city council. But I just like I have absolutely no expertise in whether a building has to historic or cultural resources, and I don't think it's my job as a planning board member to tell somebody you must pursue in good faith a local landmark designation. I'm out. yes, thank you. So on on the same Number E. Here

[249:01] I would suggest that the language so with present the project identifies significant historic and cultural resources. I do think that it is important in a in our review process to be aware. and to be cognizant. and for the applicant to be aware and cognizant significant cultural and historic resource. but I I wouldn't put the owners on them to protect it. I would put the owners on to identify it. It exists. It's here to speak to your point, Laura. it says, May the approving authority may require application.

[250:03] you know that that gives a lot of the way as to where that desert doesn't go. i'm thinking about the building that is coming up that just had concept review where the make a building. I think that the applicant got some mixed messages on on that on the the building itself. and that maybe the planning board didn't give them enough direction. Oh. when they when it came around the first time I I wasn't on planning board I don't. I don't know what happened, but

[251:01] I I think that we do have a responsibility to give some direction. this might be more. This might be a little 2 directive, but I do feel that we have a responsibility to speak. if there is a significant resource to speak about it. Mark well, this may be a shock to you all. But i'm an expert at almost nothing. And so if expertise is required to to approve or deny something, then hey, I should quick quick my position on planning board. And I think that that we we rely on expertise and outside resources, including staff, to

[252:07] present us with options. And we sometimes act as a backstop to a landmarks forward, and sometimes council acts as a backstop to us. And so I I don't have a problem with the language as as it is here. and and just. I I think our our job is to use our judgment. and I think that this allows us to use our judgment. So that's what I've got to say about it. Sarah. I agree with Ml. And Mark. that was short and sweet. George. Yeah, I I also agree with Mark and Ml: there I my understanding of the way that hell of frame this was that

[253:01] this this may require an application, but ultimately it would be up to landmarks at that point, anyway. So i'm supported with the existing language. Okay, as am I, Laura? I again by myself, the minority. That's okay. I would just ask Staff to talk to Marcy, the the staff over in landmarks about whether the right thing for us to be requiring is good faith, pursue of a local landmark designation, or is the right thing for us to be recommending? Is that the Landmarks Board review the project under their normal process. Because I feel like pursuit of a local landmark designation is its own specific code section, and i'm not sure. That is the right code section that we should be trying to trigger here. So 150. I I just would ask if you have not already consulted with Marcy about this. I hear Hal is saying: this is already kind of in the code. But I find this alarming.

[254:00] Okay, George, your hand is still up. Oh, okay. all right. I think I think our thoughts are known here. Let's proceed. Speak up. When when we get to a a point where you'd like to talk about it. I can't take notes and watch the thing go by, so sorry. Maybe you could read out where we are. we are on housing diversity and bedroom unit types, and I do have something here for 99 F. But If, Sara, if you have something that's before that I I don't I just I can't. I can't look at both at the same time. So thank you sure. So I have a question for staff on this one. So this section here 99 F housing, diversity and bedroom unit types says, except in the Rr. Re and Rl. One zoning districts.

[255:01] projects that are more than 50% residential by measure of floor area. etc., etc., have to meet certain housing and bedroom unit type requirements. And this is the thing about. They have to have 2 different types of housing or 2 different bedroom types. I guess I just wanted to know. Why is our R. R. E. And R. L. One called out as an exemption here. These particular zones are zones that are already do not permit more than a detached single family home on them, based on the use standards that could change, and if it were to change. We would obviously update this criterion, but we didn't want to create an expectation that before any change like that, that our project would have to meet the the housing more than one housing type in those zones, because it would conflict with the the other parts of the code. But if it's a single family housing project. It wouldn't

[256:02] fall under this, anyway. Right? No, I mean if if there was a large enough project that had more than I think it's 20 dwelling units in those zones. It triggers site. Review. I see. Okay? Well, with that explanation, and with the understanding that if that if the zoning districts change. This would be updated. I'm: okay. With this. Thank you for answering the question. My question is down a few to Number 6 V. One it I are you on that, Are you before that, Sarah? You're still in f right? Yes. yes, I just had something about little Roman numer little Roman numeral one. Oh, do you mind? Do you mind? I'm sorry it off. Go for it.

[257:00] you know I don't think it's likely that a project of 5 acres or less is just going to have one bedroom type, but I thought it might be worthwhile just clarifying. it says so that it would read something like Project Project projects. 5 acres or less shall include at least one qualifying housing type. and then I was going to propose with at least 2 bedroom types. just so that we don't end up with a mono a mono culture of types of units. I don't know whether folks feel that's necessary or not. But I can. You clarify what you mean by bedroom type? I'm not so in the code. the housing type for the it's later on in the same section. For the purposes of this sub paragraph qualifying housing type shall mean twoplexes, attached, dwelling units, townhouses, live work units or efficiency. Living units and bedroom type shall mean studios, one bedrooms, 2 bedrooms, or 3 bedroom units.

[258:01] so it's just So you have. If you have a 5 acre or 5 acre or less project, and it's an apartment building. we've we've we have said that you can't have only efficiency living units because now they have to have a second housing type. but we don't say anything about if it's an attached dwelling, it's all apartments that it couldn't all be one bedroom. So i'm just suggesting that we we require at least 2 bedroom types in in in in these types of developments it just seemed like more of a clarification. I mean I I don't think we've ever seen a project where someone says, I just want to do one bedrooms. but I figure it can't hurt to be clear that we would like to have a diversity of dwelling of bedroom types. I don't know how others feel about that.

[259:03] I think for me. It gets to a little bit of a clarification I would like from staff about what they mean by the unit types and the bedroom types which is in the section that Ml. Was going to talk about. Vi. Little little Roman numeral 6, like the the bedroom types. Does that just apply to apartment buildings. Or is that also like townhouses? You must have a one bedroom, townhouse, and a 2 bedroom townhouse, and a 3 bedroom townhouse? I guess I don't quite understand exactly. Yeah. I think the intent for bedroom type was more for, like a tap we could clarify that in the language. Can we scroll down to that little Roman numeral 6 real quick. Just so we can all see what we're talking about here. This is the definition of qualifying housing types shall mean duplexes, attached dwelling units, townhouses, live work, units or efficiency. Living units and bedroom types shall mean studio, one bedroom, 2 bedroom, or 3 bedroom. 2.

[260:04] And so you're saying, Carl, that bedroom types that only applies to apartments or condos. I I think that's what we were thinking. we usually don't specify bedroom bedroom types, for you know, single family, or townhouses or or duplexes. Okay, and i'm just realizing that my suggestion, maybe because of the projects with more than 22. Well, you know, she'll include at least 2 different bedroom types. I think that thought that addresses what I was trying to raise. So I take it back. Yeah, I I had concerns about that, because, like sometimes we do have some old site reviews that might be like a duplex. You know where they just want to do a little addition or something. And all of a sudden they're snaggled, and you know, not having the right bedroom types. So Yeah. I withdraw.

[261:01] So we we could clarify that language to be to attached great. Can I ask a question about attached? So, looking again at little Roman numeral 6, you say, do passes, and then you go right to attach dwelling units. There's attached dwelling units, mean apartments and condos like, Where do triplexes and quadplexes fit in. I mean, typically right now, the way it is in the code. Once you go above a duplex that it becomes attached to all units so attached. 12 min can mean anything from a triplex up to a 100 apartments. Thank you for that clarification. I'm: Sorry, Ml. go ahead and all. Okay. little little 6 there. my point with little 6. There was Carl. Might that want to go at the beginning, so that we know what you're talking about. you know. Put the definition up there first at the start of this Bill session, so that we don't. I mean everybody, not everybody, but a lot of people ask the questions like, okay, so what does that mean a housing type or a bedroom type? Just put it at the beginning of f

[262:15] the definition, so that we don't get. we don't get confused. Does that make sense? I mean, I I think, that works for us. If if the board. Other Board members agree well to avoid confusion. but the definitions before you start using the terms I think it helps to clarify. We want to do. Do you need thumbs for, Miss Karl? I see a lot of phones. So And then my second question is on 7, which is right below it. Does anybody have anything else on the one? Can we go to 7? Go ahead?

[263:00] So my question is it? The applicant shall demonstrate that the project fulfills another at least equivalent, compelling community. Need related to housing is identified. So is compelling Community need identified in the Boulder Valley Compliance somewhere is that a term that people will be able to to to find. I I don't know if that particular wording is found in the complaint. I think we were trying to get it here is that if there was a project that was. you know. providing housing for a a segment of the community that that needs housing that's not identified here. We could point to the Comp plan, and and maybe they don't meet the housing diversity requirement here. But they are providing something different, and this would give that flexibility to do that. we we have Section 7

[264:00] of the Bvcp. Which relates to housing, and it has a number of different policies for providing different types of housing. For you know, people with special needs or seniors or things like that. I think this particular criterion could be used. in that instance. and so would it need to be identified in the BBC. To still be valid as a compelling community. Need that just to me as identified in the BBC. Which is the last bit of that sentence, implies that you're going to go and find compelling community need in the BBC. But if that is gone, I hear what you're saying. You're giving people an opportunity to become creative and come with something that you know it's unknown to us yet it's it's so. I think that. But anyway, yeah, go ahead. I think you know, hanging our head on the Bvc. P. Gives a level of predictability and guidance to applicants. maybe the word compelling goes a little too far. Maybe it's okay, to just say

[265:09] at least, equivalent community need related to housing, and then we can look at those Bvcp policies that that that makes sense. I think it was the compelling. That is just like. Oh, where's that to find? That sounds good, but I I wasn't sure where it would be. I I I think you're right. That that's the point. Yeah, go ahead. Can I offer a wording suggestion? I think I think what you're saying, Ml: is that you're expecting compelling community need to be defined in the BBC. Because it says, as identified in the BBC. I think we could avoid that by saying at least equivalent either use the word compelling or not. Community community need related to housing policies identified in the BBC. So it's related to the housing policies. Yeah, rather than so. You take the owners off the wording itself and put it into the policy it's going to support it.

[266:04] Yeah, that's that. What you're saying is it's a compelling community need that is related to the policies that you can find in the BBC: Yeah. Well, so, Carl, you you hear our our our concern is this: like people are going to go, I would go look in the DVD. For the compelling community need as written. But you know, just make it less confusing. I think it's a I think it's a good option for people. I like it. You guys get that language because I I not get it all down. I think Carl picked it up. All right. Okay, let's keep moving. I I have I have something on building design. I did 9 to 2, 14, h, 3, B.

[267:02] Roman. They were all little too. Page 104, are we? I have one o one. I have a couple of things on page 101 Sorry, Sarah. so on page 101 Roman numeral little Roman numeral 4 Yeah, right there. The last part of this talks about optimizing safety of all modes, and providing connectivity and permeability through the subject sites. And I want to say, I understand and relate to John's comments about permeability when we talked about the site up on spruce. I have a concern about permeability. if it is not going to actually be used right. I I am concerned about creating permeability for permeability's sake rather than permeability. That serves a connectivity purpose, or will actually be used by people. And the reason why i'm concerned about it. 2 things. One is, I read Jane Jacob's book about the Life and Death of great American cities, and she very much emphasizes that just because you put a path somewhere or a bench somewhere doesn't mean people will use it.

[268:09] And if you create something that isn't actually useful for people. It then becomes a a danger or a detraction from the site, because it becomes a place that people can hide or do unsavory things, and that you don't want in the community because nobody uses that space. It's publicly available, and there's nobody using it. I think we all know what can happen when you have permeability that doesn't actually get used. And then the other reason why i'm concerned about it is that one of the developments that I lived in here in Boulder has great permeability. It has a huge, wide drive and sidewalks that go through the site. and it just it feels like private space. It doesn't feel like public space, and members of the public do not use it except if they need to go to a specific restaurant or they're visiting a specific person. So I don't I don't want to see permeability for permeability's sake. I want to see useful permeability or permeability that will be used because

[269:05] you know, it connects 2 things to 2 locations that people need to go to, and there's no other way to get there. That's as easy right. So I guess I would just use I That's a long-winded way of saying Why, I would like to add the word useful to useful permeability through the subject site. or maybe some other word that conveys. This is connections and permeability that are going to actually serve a purpose beyond just you can see through it. Does that make sense? Speaking as a permeability fan, it makes good sense to me and a Jane Jacobs fan. So I can look for that so just can I build on that? Just a little bit? I would say that maybe the word we're looking for is functional variety. safety for all modes provide

[270:01] and provide functional for me ability and connectivity through to the external to the site. Because we're actually we're trying to it. It's funny to say connectivity through the subject site, because connectivity relates to outside the site. permeability is going in, and both should be functional. and not gratuitous, or whatever descriptor you want to use anyway? Functional. If I could provide a clarification, we we intentionally tried to address external connectivity with Roman numeral. One Roman numeral 4 was more fun focused on the internal

[271:00] aspects of the site. So that's that's why we wrote it that way. Okay, thank you. So i'm fine with. However, you want to rewrite that, and I like Mark's suggestion of it being functional rather than useful. That's a good word functional. And then my other comments on a page 101 we're talking about open space here. I think it's a little bit further down the page with a letter B. I think. Yeah. So if you scroll down so something that's missing here, and I don't know if it's intentionally missing, or if it just got lost in the shuffle is that in our previous discussion about this we talked about how. if and there is open space that is calculated like this meets the criteria for open space for the project that it has to be open to all residents and users of the project. 150 not just, for example, the market rate users or not, just the affordable housing users. But all users would have to have access to that open space. If it is open space that is calculated to meet the site. Review needs of the entire project.

[272:04] and I did not see that concept in here, and I didn't know if that was intentional, because I know that there's some complexity here and some behind the scenes. Conversation probably went on, so I just wanted to check in on that concept. we. We did consider that there certainly is some complexity. With that we we did work with our the folks in housing on that there was some concern about being that explicit. We felt that it probably made more sense, since we're trying to generalize some of these that we not include that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not something that can't be considered in a site. Review. I I think there would. There just seemed to be. could be some unintentional consequences by including it. Yeah, I I understand the complexity around it, at least to some extent. I just my concern is you know. I read another book recently the color of law, and it talks about

[273:06] the intentional segregation of America, and part of the reason why that intentional segregation was created by was for You know what you might imagine to be rational reasons, that of Certain people would object to it, or it would be too expensive, or people just wouldn't build it if it was desegregated like. You can really understand their logic, and I don't. I don't want to, and i'm not. I'm not trying to compare a swimming pool that's only open to market rate people to the kind of segregation that we experienced in the past. I just want to make sure that we don't go down that slippery slope of. because we recognize that there are some obstacles and some expenses and some logistical barriers that we create spaces that don't feel welcoming for people, and that we have a we have a project where the project is approved, based on a bunch of open space that a lot of the residents of the project cannot access

[274:01] and especially the low-income residents of the project. So I do think it deserves a really really serious consideration, and if we are not going to include that, I think we need to have a really good reason why. So I would put that forward again for consideration. Yeah. George. Yeah, I i'm, I'm. I feel similar to it towards Laura. I I guess my question to Karl when you mention an unintended consequence. What what do we think those are? I I i'm curious as a planning board of what? What, what could be an unintended consequence that that would raise raise concern from that I I don't know that one comes to mind exactly. I I just Sometimes these criteria can be so specific that it it can defeat the purpose a little bit, and that that was our concern. But

[275:02] we tried to, you know, work with some language that said something to the effect of, you know. equivalent open spaces provided to market rate units, or something like that, and it just it didn't seem to to work when we were. We were developing it. But We certainly could take another look and see if there's a better way to say it. Yeah, I I I tend to be with it without without really understanding what the unintended consequence could be. I I have a hard time faulting what Laura just said. around sort of that that equity and open space across an entire project. Thank you. Mark. Yeah. So back at the diagonal plaza project which we approved. And I I was referring to, I I I

[276:01] question, and that was that first question is. was the overall open space calculation use that included the pool which was for the use of the market rate units. was that open space calculated to. to the benefit of the approval of the entire project. Do you remember? I mean, in that case it it there the entire open space would count for the entire project. because that's a you know, there's a figure that you develop based on the open space regulations in the code, and then we apply the the site review criteria. It doesn't change that it's just the qualitative aspects get looked at through the site review. so the other tended consequences. A of that was that Bhp

[277:02] not only did not want access to the pool, but, as I remember, it would have jeopardized their ability to build the affordable units on the adjacent site because of the you know Federal tax credit regulations there there was. There was something there that Bhp Wasn't just like. No, we don't want our people using the pool. It was No. our project cannot be fulfilled with this kind of market rate. Was it? Was it. The dues related to that. I remember that was an issue for you, Laura. But, I think that they did not. They were not advocating for it, or did they want access to the pool?

[278:00] So I do believe that Bhp. Said, Well, if you gave it to me, I wouldn't say no. But then they also said that there were some complications, and I think it did relate to like how you pay for those amenities, and like the share that would be paid by the affordable housing. and that's what I was referring to when I said. You know there is always a logical reason for promoting for allowing inequality right? It's not always done out of malice or out of the feeling of superiority. Sometimes there can be logistical reasons or financial reasons. and maybe as a city. We need to think really carefully about whether those logistical hurdles are something that we can overcome, so that we do not create spaces that feel like segregation of market rate from affordable. And I do. I do want to read, you know, from the code. This is in our inclusionary housing ordinance in chapter 13 of the code, it does say, affordable owner and renter access to amenities

[279:00] mit ctl, and when affordable units are provided on site in any location or configuration, the affordable owners and renters shall have access equal to that of the owners and renters of the market units. Such amenities shall include, but not me limited to parks, outdoor play areas, pools, exercise facilities and equipment, 150, etc., and it goes on. So we do have that provision in the code. But my recollection was that there was an exception that was made in that particular case, because of the arrangement of how the land was being conveyed by the the developer to Bhp, or something like that that that made it an exception to this particular rule. and I was just trying to close that loophole. I think we might want to close that loophole and site. Review. Is it a loophole. or or have we just. I mean. Is it just in a different spot. What what you're trying to achieve, is it already stated? And already part of the code? It is in part of the code, but there is a loophole depending upon how the property is conveyed in the process of development.

[280:04] That loophole exists in our inclusionary housing ordinance. We could close it in site review by saying that if something counts toward open space and site review, it has to be equally accessible to all residents of the property we could. and I don't know that we're going to resolve it tonight. I think it's too complicated, but i'm just trying to pull from our previous experiences things that were problematic that we might be able to fix here and suggest that to Staff, If Staff have a really good reason why this is not appropriate. I will yield. We can. We can revisit it before it goes to Council. Thank you. Your hand is gone. I was just gonna say we could add something like for that is available for you by all residents. unless in let you know in less mitigating circumstances prohibit that or something so that it's.

[281:02] I don't know, anyways. Carl, already said. They're gonna take a look, so I will be with. I think staff has our thoughts on that. So thank you, Laura. I think that was a that was an excellent and important point. So thank you, everybody, for your indulgence. I know it's late. and thank you, Staff, for your open mind. And considering these things. you got the But I have a I where we at i'm at I have something in building and site design which is after landscaping and screening. Does anyone have anything in landscaping and screening? Okay, I have a a question. We work open space here. actually the act on the 101 and 102, and I'm. I'm trying to understand whether the new

[282:00] suggested language. Here winds up decreasing, opens the total amount of of areas voted to open space for significant projects. Carl. Maybe you can summarize what the impact of this will be. I don't think any of these criteria would decrease open space. Open space is determined by the intensity standards. and we're not changing that. what these criteria are are the qualitative application of the open space. So this is where you you first have to figure out the open space how much there is, and then we determine how the quality of it by applying these criteria. So this shouldn't wouldn't reduce open space. Okay. all right. But there's so, then, explicit consideration of the quality is is a big part of that.

[283:01] Okay. good. Thank you. Bye. Made me happy about that. Just a process. Point. I think Lisa may have left the meeting. Do we need to officially put that in the notes like what time? She left? You're right. I don't see her anymore. Here. We can say she left it approximately 1045 or something like that she's in the chat. Oh, did she good. Yep. I have that noted. Thank you. Right on Lisa on top of it. Okay. all right. We'll keep scrolling through, and people have to say when they building site, design, citing and design criteria. So I have 2 in this area both of which are just sort of they about vague language. One is

[284:02] 9, 2, 14, h, 3 3 a one the in urban contexts buildings are positioned closer to the property line. He's right on it. It's that a I right? A little I So it just talks about it's this about the public realm and interface. and I just thought that this was kind of vague, and it may be that in in some table somewhere this is not vague. but closer to the property line is just sort of a vague. It's vague. So I just was curious. Carl, if there are specific setback requirements that.

[285:00] I just Don't. Remember the reason we added, this criterion is because. you know, the current criteria are even more vague. Obviously the certain zones don't always reflect what the cost is around them. So in a site review they'll often ask for a setback modification to position a building. you know, closer to the street, you know, particularly along Pearl Street. or or other places. So we wanted to just have a criteria. That kind of takes into account the context. that in a more urban area. You'll see buildings closer to the street, and then in a less urban area like landscape setbacks are more appropriate, and it just it calls more attention to that than the current criteria do. and then I have another one in the same section. But Mark has his hand up, so

[286:03] go ahead more. I I don't have anything about this section. I was Lisa Leaving made me look at our agenda. and we have item 5, which is 2 items under matters that if we are going to conclude after the site review criteria and say, Wow, it's so late we're gonna do these later. Then let's make that decision so that any staff members associated with the 2 information items. maybe released and go to bed. Well, that's that's good. You pointed out. Actually, we at the beginning of the meeting we already delayed the first of the information items to January third. the second Carl or or Charles i'm not sure how much time is involved. I think it's just for the board to read, and if you have any questions or concerns, you can reach out to staff directly there won't be any presentation there won't be any. It's. It's purely for your information. Take a read through it. It's a

[287:15] a few pages long. If there's any questions, feel free to reach out. Okay, Thank you. And just so, you know, I I sent an email around about the letters to Council. but I don't get very far on that tonight, either. So okay. I have a couple in this building setting and design criteria. But, Sarah, you should go. No, no, because mine is in building Isn't. B. So if you're an a, we'll get to be eventually. Okay, All right. Thank you. I have a couple. One is a general question. the last version that we saw of this had exemptions for some of the smaller missing middle type projects like duplexes, town homes, mobile home parks.

[288:06] They were exempted from some of these criteria. and I I don't see that idea in here anymore. I suspect I know the reason why, but I want to ask and verify. I actually thought you might actually ask this question. So I I have an answer. I mean we we exempted those those types of housing types before, because they'll excuse me. The language was more rigid and strict. and then it didn't make sense. But in this case, because the criteria is more, you know, discretionary. we felt that it could be more generalized, and that there wouldn't be a need to exempt them, because there's the Board has discretion about what can be applied for what makes sense? I think you're muted. Thank you still learning these buttons? I I that's the answer I thought I was going to get, and thank you for preparing it. I do think it's probably worth a mention somewhere that the prescriptive criteria can be a little bit more flexible for the missing middle housing types like the duplexes the town homes, the small multi-family units like quad plexes and triplexes and stuff like that.

[289:20] if it you know I think we all understand the reasons why it might be a little bit more flexible for those small projects. so. And I appreciate that these are no longer like rigid rules. But I still think if that's the intent that we still could exercise that flexibility. It might be worth mentioning somewhere. my next item here is on page 103. Also it I think it's at the top paragraph, so you might need to scroll back up a little bit. There. it says. building, sighting and design are compatible with the existing area character of the area emerging character of redeveloping areas or character established in adopted design guidelines or subcommittee and area plans for the area.

[290:05] I have a couple of questions. One is the adopted design guidelines that you reference. And, by the way, I agree with all of that I think that's great. The adopted design guidelines does. That also include the guidance that's in the Bvcp for specific areas of town. Or is that just like. Here are adopted design guidelines for Boulder Junction. I mean, I think the intent was these: these specific design guidelines for Boulder Junction. I I think if we were applying anything related to the Bvcp that would point back to the criterion that we were talking about. in a about compliance with the policies and and the land use map. And okay. I'm: just remembering that there's specific guidance in the Bvcp for things like the Boulder Valley Regional center. And I Don't know if that's just duplicative of more detailed guidelines that are available elsewhere. Or if that is unique guidance, for, like the Boulder Valley, I think in our reviews in our analysis like if

[291:10] in that case we would be responding to that under the Bvcp policy criteria, not in this particular one. This one would be if there's a specific area plan or specific design guidelines that we would respond to here. Okay. I can live with that Next point on this in another part of this document you you phrase it slightly differently, and you say the project is designed with an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties. Considering. So this is about transition areas. considering adopted subcommittee and area plans or design guidelines applicable to the site, and if not apply the the existing development, pattern. And I like that hierarchy of being sort of future Oriented, that when we are considering consistency

[292:00] mit ctl, and whether it's consistency with a transition or any other kind of consistency with the area that we're future oriented. And first, we give sort of privilege or or elevated importance to sub-community plans adopted design guidelines, things that talk about the future, and where we're trying to take this area 150 before we consider the existing development pattern or the existing context, I think we should privilege. I think we should always, throughout this document, be privileging our plans for the future over the existing context. and I don't know if my fellow Board members agree with that. I don't know if that's controversial or not. But I would love to see that sort of hierarchy be adopted throughout the document. Because you talk about this you know, considering adopted subcommittee and area plans or design guidelines, if applicable, and the existing context, You probably talk about that like 6 or 7 places in the document, and I would love to see it Be a hierarchy. Sarah, are you? Where Where Are you in the document? I'm sorry.

[293:00] Well, the first place, it appears, is on page 103 where it says building. I think it's in the top paragraph. Actually. okay, if we want to scroll back up, it says. building, sighting and design are compatible with the existing character of the area emerging character of redeveloping areas or character established and adopted design guidelines or subcommittee and area plans. I think we should be privileging the future vision in terms of compatibility before we think about the existing character. What 2 other folks think about that. Sarah. But Ml. Had her hand up first. I I had it up in anticipation of moving to be. Go ahead.

[294:04] Yeah, I You know. Theoretically I agree with you. But the lived experience of being in a neighborhood. whatever your neighborhood is. is you know you move into a place because you like the neighborhood. You like the way it feels whatever. And I I think, almost by definition, the future planning is not the individual project. The future planning are the area plans and the subcommittee plans. And rather than I mean. I I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think the individual project is the space for future proofing. and I I guess I would be. I wouldn't want us to be unilaterally.

[295:00] The plus what you think the future should be, and what I think the future should be might be very different, and neither one of us is going to be right, because neither one of us actually knows what the future will bring. So I just think it's a I I think it's. I don't think we want to tie our hands quite that much. It's my my response to that. Thank you, sir, I appreciate those comments. I just want to clarify that. I'm talking about specifically. How do we think about compatibility with the neighborhood? And and I'm saying that when we think about Comp. Is this building compatible with the neighborhood? If we're pegging it to what exists, then we're pegging it to the past? What's already been built. If we're pegging it. I think I do think that the existing context makes a difference, and I definitely think that transitions should be sensitive from, say, for example, an area of lower intensity to an area of high intensity, just like with the last project that we reviewed up there on 20, eighth, and J one. I do think that we need to give some deference to the transition between the low intensity and the high intensity. But but I think if we're thinking about is this project compatible 150?

[296:04] That the first thing we should think about is, is it compatible with our plans for this area as described in the area Plan not my vision for the area, but then you have to have area. But then you have to have an area plan, and we don't have an area plan for everything. So you know I I I think the answer that I, my response to your thoughts are. If you have an area plan, then you have the compatibility has to be to the area plan, and I i'm going to guess that I Haven't studied this particular paragraph all that closely. But I do know that area plans are reference and and design guidelines and all that stuff are referenced repeatedly. So And I could. you know I could point to the building the proposed building it at Folsom and Spruce to say that is so. Not compatible with the neighborhood that it's going into now as it is redesigned. and that's been driven by a whole bunch of external factors that had

[297:00] nothing to do with what was actually in the proposed original proposal or in the zoning Right? So I I just think that you you open a Pandora's box when you are saying compatibility should be defined by what might come. Well, i'd like to to be clear. I'm saying that if some community or area plans exist, we should defer to those, and and then the surrounding community context should also be considered. But that the over our overriding factor is the subcommittee or area plan that has been adopted if it exists. But you know, if that's a controversial concept that people can live with. I i'm not gonna follow my sword about it. But it it appeals to me to to say, when we're considering compatibility. We consider the subcommittee or area plan if it exists first. and i'm not going to beat the dead horse anymore. I don't know if other people have thoughts about that. I I I can live with it. I I think it's.

[298:02] I don't think it's necessary to be explicit about the ranking. But of course, you consider the area plans and the and so on. So I I with you. But i'm not sure how important it is to go into detail and rewriting this section here. Okay, Ml: Did you have your hand up. Oh, yeah, no, i'm sorry. I'm anticipating. We're going to get to the next page. Here we go. so B: I I I would just like to put a They thought out that you've got a really long way and kind of moving away from prescription. and I

[299:00] see this last piece of. I have a variety of roof forms in height. And I wonder if if what you're really talking about, because you're talking about big buildings, whether they are a large floor plan, or a plate, or a project that has a lot of. you know, multiple buildings. and I would just suggest, not not specify that it's a variety of rooms, but maybe go with something that that has more validity, and gets to the gist of what you're trying to do, which is express a variety of forbes and heights. because changing or just saying, you want variety of root forms it's kind of like a one-liner. whereas if you talk about the form you're really getting at what breaks down. That's all. I was asking you about those

[300:00] photographs earlier. What gives visual and experiential variety isn't necessarily a roof form. or you know, a slope group and a flat roof, and a shed roof, and a gable roof. But it really is that there is a variety of forms and heights. so I would just get rid of roof and let it be more in the spirit of not prescribing. That's the comment. I had my hand up for all this time. I guess so let me ask, Carl, why Why? Why roof forms and heights are the specific, I mean, i'm not. Why, specifically roof forms versus

[301:00] Ml. Suggestion of a variety of forms and heights? What was roof forms a specific intention. What was the intention that you all? Well, I I I think the intention was that you know, through this process, like even through the form based code process. We've heard a lot of community thoughts on development where there were concerns about large boxy buildings, rectangular buildings everywhere. And how do we move away from that. so I think that's what this criterion was meant for, whether it needs to have the word roof in it I don't think it does, I, I think, forms and heights accomplishes what we were intending. Yeah, thank you. I think I think. the language people think about this change. The roof shape is again a concept. It's like. Oh, if we change the roof it it'll get us there, but I don't think that that I I like going with less prescriptive. So thank you, Carl, for acknowledging that your goal can be met without that specific.

[302:08] All right. okay, thank you. And Ml: as you raised this one. I also had some notes about this one. I think it's also connected to this appears in another place on a little bit earlier page 103, and i'm sorry I missed it, as we were scrolling but page 103, the very top paragraph. If we could scroll back to that. It says it's on line, for building roof. Design contributes to a city skyline that has a variety of roof forms and heights. If staff are okay with removing the word roof there, too. I'm fine with removing it in. But but my. I mean here is particularly talking about the skyline. So I think it is talking about. You know the tops. But my my question is, are we saying that we will never approve another site review with a flat roof.

[303:03] is is that what we're saying? Because that is a big change? And and if that's what staff are recommending, I guess i'd like to hear that that is indeed the recommendation. Or is this more like this is a best practice that we would encourage. But there's some flexibility. I I think it's it's more the latter I mean we're we're moving more towards discretion. so we want to have that level of flexibility. But we certainly want to drive better design. and it's a variety of room, for flat roof is a type of a roof for Yeah, but it has to be a variety. It can't just be flat. So he he thank you. Ml: I think you're right. So, Carl, hearing what you're saying, that this is meant to be more of best practices. I'm just going to put a suggestion out there. Would it work? Would it be helpful in Line 5 here to say the approving agency will consider the following best practices rather than the following factors, and make it more clear that

[304:07] because these do so read as pretty prescriptive now, at least to me. Oh, you're you're talking about Line 5 on what's on the page right here, yeah. Line 5, just rather than calling them. Consider the following factors, maybe make it more clear that you're saying, Consider the following best practices: I don't know if that clarifies or not, it would for me, but i'm just one person. So I think if I think if the intention is not to be prescriptive, because to me, when I read that the one that Ml: just talked about. I think it's on the next page. It looked like thou shalt never approve a building in site review that only has a flat roof. I mean our Our intent was that it? It would be the following factors, and I think in our mind that would be best practices. These are all best practices. So I think we'd want to have

[305:00] consistency, and how we we state this. So this is language that we already use in site review about following factors. So I think there'd have to be some consensus to change this to best practices throughout the document. Again, i'm not wanting to follow my sort about it, but I just so if you scroll back down to page 104 where Ml. Was in be little Roman numeral one. It just says: building design, larger floor buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of reforms and heights. Consider this factor that larger floor plate buildings have this to me. It reads as you must have this, and I understand that's not your intent, so i'll just suggest rewarding it to to convey more flexibility. However, you want to do that. Okay. Okay, I I just want to check in with everybody here. We've passed 11 o'clock. We're making pretty good progress.

[306:00] But, is everyone capable of continuing? And does anyone need a 5 min break? I need to check out soon. I've got some family things I need to attend to. Okay. I mean, I think we I think we have another half hour or something, and then we've completed this. So what do you think I do want to just chime in and let you know that we do hope you finish this agenda item tonight. We don't have a lot of capacity in January to have this continued into without kind of significantly impacting the rest of our schedule for the year. So we're we're here to forge ahead. Thanks. All right. Any other thoughts. Anyone need a break or should we just keep? Okay, let's keep going.

[307:00] Okay. Can I just ask? I'm sorry I again, with the building roof heights, Carl, you had mentioned something at the outside of our meeting about potentially changing the way that height is measured to allow for some more flexibility. and I don't know what that would look like. We we had a suggestion. There's actually a There's a conditional height requirement in the code that's not in site review that allows some flexibility in the R. H. Zones for pitched roots to go, you know, up to like 40 feet to encourage pitch roofs. And the suggestion from the group was. We should be doing that in other zones. and I think there's there's a lot of agreement in the community about that. so that would it wouldn't be in site review, but that's probably something that we would look at in the future to kind of add some flexibility to get more pitched roofs throughout the city. So that's what I was referring to.

[308:01] Oh, Gotcha. Okay, so it's it's like 9, 7, 6 of the code to read that section. I think it's a great idea, and it also sounds like. It's not anything we need to deal with tonight, because it's not about site review. So thank you for answering my question. I do have one here on page 104. Sorry about blank walls. it's little room on numerous 3 on page, 104, a little Roman numeral 3. I think you have to scroll up a little bit. it talks about the last sentence here. Blank walls along the most visual portions of the building are avoided. What do you mean by the most visual portions of the building? Is that visual from the public realm visual from where visible? Yeah, I think it's supposed to be visible. Actually.

[309:00] we wanted it to be like it. Could. It may not necessarily be the public realm it could be like. There might be a a force story building next to a 2 story building, and that wall may not be facing the public realm, but it's visible so we didn't we wanted it to be not just the public realm, so I think the language should say visible. What would be a non-visible or a less visible portion of a building well like something that's blocked by another building from from the public room further away or in in, you know, pointed in work to the site and not not visible. Again, I think this is where those areas where we have to use discretion. you know, in the in the application of these criteria. Okay. I that that's fine. Thank you for that explanation. And this section that talks about blank walls. I didn't see any exceptions for industrial buildings.

[310:01] Is that intentional? Again, because these are made, you know more discretionary. We we took out some of that more specific language about industrial. Okay, Thank you. Okay, let's keep going. I have something on one. Oh, 5. Oh, Sarah, are you before one of them? No, no! Mine is on page 106 you know. So, Carl i'm looking at I i'm looking at triple I and i'm looking at 4. And so now these we're getting back to so pretty directive

[311:00] criteria. And so here's my question, and it might be for Hella as well. on these that are talking in such specificity about design? Does it make sense? Is it possible to to refer that criteria to Dad's approval? It seems like they should go with design board to review and make sure that these particular things. these particular design components are are met. Yeah. Under that authority there has to be a referral to that. so that that will be in the planning Board's discretion to send something to that. that it'd be referred to, that when it comes back as a side with side review before the planning board acts on it or the other way. the planning what is sometimes done it is

[312:11] that if the planning what is not sure, a project meets that criteria and gives direction on what to improve and to have that review, it based on that feedback. So there isn't anything we can trigger in the use in the site. Review. trigger to go to death. No, not directed, because it's not in within that review. Authority you know. I'm thinking about things like new new building, emerging building materials. I mean. You got it pretty cop on the on, I Here, on one you got a pretty comprehensive list of what it is considered high quality.

[313:02] acceptable material, and you know the world is changing. There's a lot of a lot of exploration and materials, especially in trying to deal with with climate issues and and carbon issues. and it it seems that when you get into this level of of specificity that we should almost try to build in I don't know. Do you have any? Do you hear what i'm saying, Carl alternatives in this language, but we could add it back. We used similar language in the form based code. So if there's more comfort from the board we could look at

[314:01] Bring that back. Yeah, I guess maybe note to note to us. we should. We should differ these kinds of this specific things, we should just refer them to Dad. It. There's just a lot of There's a lot of considerations that are black and white. you know. Do you use what kind of material versus another? And especially if you're being health accountable to their carbon footprint? That's gonna matter what materials you're using, and it's not just about aesthetics, and not just about what I kind of like. The way this looks, and this is durable. There are more and more there are greater implications to designing a building that is holistic and environmentally conscious. Then do we like the way it looks? And i'm not sure how to how to get get

[315:02] get that level of consciousness into it. Okay, I I think we can leave it up to staff to expand that a little bit in terms of options. Okay. moving ahead. John. Yeah. So 9 debt page 106, 9 to 2, 14, H. 4, a Roman numeral little one additional criteria. When we sent this to council we were at 150 feet. Now we're at 200 feet. I'm: just curious how we've got 200 a 200 foot long. Wall, it's a really big long wall.

[316:03] so i'm kind of curious how we got there. Yeah. you know, we again, in in the spirit of trying to add a little bit flexibility, we got a we got pushed back from the site. Review focus group on the 150 and then we were thinking. You know, the requirements for 2 different building base, like per number 2 below is really looking at to 100 foot segments. So we thought, okay, maybe to offer some flexibility. Maybe we go to 200, but but if we do that, then shouldn't the facade it. The item in in Roman numeral to be 100 feet, not 120 feet, I mean it's 120 feet just means if you have a building that goes over a 100 feet, it then puts it in that category where you have to have 2 segments.

[317:11] The building can't. The building cannot exceed 200 feet in any length. If if we have a building that's 200 feet long, which I hope we never will. That's a really really really long building. wouldn't it make sense, then, for the building facades to not exceed that that that you you're building facade can be up to a 100 feet when it's, and at that point it has to be designed to appear as at least 2 distinct buildings. So anything oh, like, does that? Am I making sense? It just seems like 120 and 200 are not there. They don't seem like a compatible. but it's been. but it's not saying. Each bay would be a 100 feet right like it could be a 120 foot length, building, divided into 2 60 foot bays.

[318:01] So the the length of the bay is not necessarily connected in that way. The parameters They're not. They're not. They're not directive right. But we we had. They had to be a doorway an entrance way every 50 feet, and that got kicked out like they were. It just feels like we've lost some tools to bring these the ground floor of these buildings to a to the pedestrian scale to the people's scale and to an activated street. And I you know I, that's my that's the point i'm trying to make whether it can change or not, I suppose the answer is no. But I just this seems like very long walls. Well, the

[319:01] all my perception is that the reason for this that this happened is to remove prescriptive requirements. I'm just thinking about a building that was just at landmarks that's on Pearl, and I think seventeenth, maybe where the developer wants to redevelop one of the walls into 3 separate bays. Basically and because of whatever design requirements they couldn't recess the base. So they did it with like different colored paint and expression, lines and things like that. And it actually was a very nice design that the landmarks board was very happy with. I don't know how long that wall was. I don't know if there's anybody here tonight that knows what that project is that i'm thinking of. Well, I don't know that project, but I can tell you that there was in the form base code in Transit village at least the second half of Transit village on on the north side of the

[320:03] of the of Goose Creek or the bike path, whichever bike path that is. had a limit of 150 feet. Isn't that right, Carl. That's right. right. And there was a No, it was a It was a 100 feet. It was a 100 feet. and one of the projects. One of the buildings came in with a request to be 150 feet. and it's a very, it is a very, and that's a big. It's a big building, and it you know it's got window, I mean it's it's actually I think grills because it's parking on the ground floor. It's. But you know, I just think if you're going to get 200 feet, and then you're going to get someone saying, Well, what about 250? I just were. I just feel like this is a this is giving in the name of flexibility. Opening the door to very large buildings. which I just and I agree, Laura, that they're nice ways to break them up, but

[321:04] or to make them look like they're broken up. But This just seems like a really potentially big building problem. especially since Carl didn't you say 150 was best practice. Yeah. So why are we using best practice? Anyways, I I've made my point. Yeah. Laura. Well, I had a different section on this page. So mark if you were responding to Sarah. if if you read Roman number one and 2 together. then if you are successful at implementing a 120 put maximum length or the facade Even if the building itself is 200, or whatever it it, the building in theory, could be longer than 200 as long as you're breaking up

[322:06] the facade in such a way. To that it appears as at least 2 distinct buildings. Then we're on. The world, too. achieves what the concerns have that achieves the the concerns that have been voice, and so whether a building is 200, 210, and and no one's suggesting 210 or 250. There's there we're saying in code. 200 feet is the maximum link. And we're saying that 120 feet is the maximum that a facade can appear to be a built that you know one building, so I don't have a problem with it, because we're accomplishing what we want. which is a visual interest and not a big massive

[323:00] 200 foot long long. all right. Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to have this up. I think it's going up on its own magically. Laura. I I had a different point. So if anybody wants to continue this conversation, I don't have strong feelings about 150 versus 200, maybe because i'm not good with math and distance, so I would kind of trust Carl and staff's. you know. What do they think is reasonable? What's been done in the city does the combination of Roman emerald, one and 2 adequately break up the massing by making it appear like it's 2 separate buildings. I think that's going to be a what you want to take the city council. I don't have a strong opinion on. But I had a different point on this page, though. Okay, let's move to your okay. It's the same section. It's in for a here. and it talks about online between line 7 and 8. It says to create visual permeability into and through sites.

[324:02] And I just. I'm curious whether this visual permeability is different from the sort of transportation, connectivity, and permeability that we talked about previously. What's what's visual permeability? I it could be like indented areas that are used as courtyards. It is. It is kind of used in a different. a different way here. It could be a pathway going in, or it could be just things that break up the mass. Okay, thank you for that. That was my question. yeah. All good, all good. You can keep going. I do have a couple on page 107, so I have one on one on on page 107. Also you go ahead, Sarah. Okay. So 9 minus 2, 14, H. 4 B. Roman numeral, one little B 2,

[325:00] the language about If no guidelines or plans for an adopt or adopted for an area, so it talks about the high, the building. The building height is compatible with the height of buildings in this running area, and the building is located near a multi-molar multi-modal corridor near near is not a defined term, so I feel like that's pretty vague. and I would suggest replacing that with adjacent because near if i'm a developer and i'm 4 blocks away from a multimodal I could. I could argue that i'm near a multimodal corridor, so I just think that term needs to be refined a bit. I would suggest adjacent. Laura. I'm sorry. I'm still thinking about Sarah's suggestion. I'm with my hand down. Okay? Well, I I think Oh, Mark, you can. if you, if you need go ahead. No, I'm just agreeing with Sarah. I think it Well, I i'm i'm disagreeing with Sarah, and that I think

[326:07] If I think about some of our streets have a a short block, and so if I was a short block away from a multi mobile corridor or a transit corridor. That qualifies as near, but it doesn't qualify as adjacent. And so what Jason means, you know next to And so. i'm actually completely fine with near and wood oppose adjacency because of it, specifically. Okay. So then, what's the definition of near Mark? I just I think that it's it's I realize that we've gone in this other direction of of prescriptiveness.

[327:01] But near near doesn't mean anything. I mean. we need it just doesn't mean anything. So we need a term. That means something. If it's not adjacent, we need something we need within a block of, or just something that's specific because near does need near as a meaning is essentially a meaningless term. Well, okay, we we talk about first and last mile, and I would say something less than a mile. But you know greater than adjacent. So if we want to put it, it's kind of like the whole definition of you know. the old. the judges definition of pornography. I know when I see it. That it is, or period was the word, I believe. Anyway, it's, you know, near it it would be up to planning or in the Site Review. Is it near enough?

[328:01] What does that mean it's like Well, it doesn't mean it, and a mile a mile boulder is only like 6 miles across so every a multi-month order. Yeah, i'm not advocating for a mile. I'm just saying that near is near. It is good enough for me, and it's good enough for us, using our judgment. A lot of things. surrounding what is surrounding me? Well. you know you there there are. There are a lot of words that that are not numerical in nature and so near surrounding higher. what is higher than higher intensity? You can. You can apply this. You can play the the word game of it doesn't have a meaning with many words that we

[329:00] adopted and and used in criteria for years. Now it's too late to play a word game. Mark Brad has his hand up around. Go ahead. Yeah. I can just wait into this a little bit as a person that finds themselves kind of speaking to this on a fair basis. you know a lot of times. there's kind of this planners there to to envy the fact that engineers often get to deal with much more prescriptive, precise things like P. Has to be 4 feet and 3 feet isn't acceptable, or that type of thing. But I would I would. I would observe that the realm of planning does involve a lot of subjectivity at some level of compatibility of the just brings to mind the earlier comment that it meant

[330:03] brought up about your role as being judges in a case specific situation. I I I don't know what the answer is, but I I will tell you that when crafting code for zoning regulations, we are cognizant, in fact, that by design there is subjectivity, if you will. inherent in planning process. That's somewhat unique and different than that of street standards and sewer main standards and things like that. So I would just offer that observation of Okay. Laura, do you want to talk about this? Or I mean, I think if staff are okay with near like. I understand Sarah is concerned, but I I do agree with Mark. That adjacent is too constraining, and I don't have a better suggestion. I was thinking maybe something having to do with walking distance or 5 min walk. But that also is subjective. So

[331:05] i'm, You know, i'm okay. If staff are okay with me or I'm: okay with near, although I do appreciate Sarah's concern. and I do have a couple of other on this page. If we're done with that one. Yeah, go ahead. Staff has heard our thoughts so we can here. Okay. at the very top of the page, and you might want to scroll back to split it with the previous page. We're talking here about buildings that are Get a height, modification, and this is talking about a a building no taller than 3 stories, and subject to a height modification. It says the building's height, mass, and scale is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, but it doesn't mention anything about subcommittee plans, area plans and design guidelines. And I would like to suggest adding that in somehow I see Carl kind of nodding. Yeah, I mean, the reason we distinguish these is, you know, a is really focused at.

[332:00] You know, those other forms of height modifications that aren't in the community benefit category, or necessarily adding a lot of mass with a fourth or a fifth story. There like this could be like a single family house that has descending slope in the backyard, that, in order to add an an extra floor that's usable might go over the height limit by like 2 feet at, you know most it's really meant to capture those types of projects. So we just felt like a basic finding of compatibility was sufficient rather than having to like, add the language about adopted plans or guidelines. Okay, if it I guess if this is about buildings that won't get any taller than 3 stories, and it's that kind of thing. I'm. I'm. Fine with it as it is, suggestion withdrawn I have another one on this page about views. It's on page 107. If you scroll down a little bit, it's number 3 Roman numeral, 2. Yeah.

[333:03] it says if the proposed building is located. Pardon me. adjacent to a public park plaza, or open space. that the the buildings are cited or designed in a manner that avoids or minimizes blocking of prominent public views. Totally fine with that. I'm. Just curious what what's up plaza in the context of boulder like. I can't think of any particular things that I would call a plaza. I mean, I I think of Thirteenth Street, south of Walnut. The brick surfaced area with the concave building that surrounds it. I would call that a plaza. I don't know if there's a lot of examples in boulder, but that's one that I would definitely call a plaza Is that a public plaza. or is that a private? I mean some of it? Is. It's a lot of it is in the public. It might be kind of shared. But there are public improvements.

[334:05] all along Thirteenth Street or the bike path goes through the North South. Okay. I guess I was just wondering. It is what we mean here, like public lands that are managed by the Parks Department and the Open Space Department. And if that's what we mean. Could we just say that rather than a public park, plaza or open space like, is this open space with a capital OS? Or is this just any open space. in this case we did intend this to be public. we we wanted there to be a higher level of you know, protection from. You know, these areas that are public that are that are actually city managed. Okay, then I then I might just say, city managed parks are open space, but it's just a suggestion. Well, on on that example that

[335:01] Carl came with, I think a portion of it is privately owned, but available to the public, or there's public access or something like that. So I I think that areas like that should be included in in this consideration. Is it? Is it city managed, though I partly not. I. I've noticed some non-city people working there so. But I don't know more than that. Hmm. Well, i'm happy to leave it to staff, to figure out how to how or whether they need to clarify that. But when I read that without any clarification, i'm like Well. there's a lot of open space on private land. So okay, thank you. I everyone have nothing else. Just that wire. Okay, let's keep going. I have a couple more. Does anybody else have more?

[336:03] I have something on 1 15 I have something on 109. Okay. So on page 109. This is actually something that was struck. it was 6 a the former little a there where it talks about the density of a project maybe increased in the Br. One district through a reduction in the lot area Requirement? I didn't know why that was struck. Was that. Is it just not useful, or it was that pre existing the a right there the density, is it? I think it was rewarded it in the language below. We we are proposing there. There's a there's a host of criteria that apply in the VR. One, and we this has been in this particular ordinance for

[337:02] since the community benefit days. but basically there's a bunch of criteria that are not often used. They allowed up to a 4.0 far and br one Usually it's almost impossible to get to that point. A lot of the criteria are redundant with other criteria. So our proposal for simplification was to just remove that language and then allow up to a 3.0 far, and that community benefit would apply when the far exceeds 2 in the Br. One, so it just it required us to kind of restructure this language. So that's why you'll see a lot of strike out in this section. This is something that we've talked about with the board before we're we're getting into kind of parts of the ordinance that we're not discussed last time, and we didn't change

[338:00] totally fine. I just was reading it, and I didn't remember when we looked at this before, I had only been on planning board for a month, and I was confused, so I just wasn't sure why I was struck. I'm totally fine with it, though my next one is on page 111. So this has a bunch of I think it's a a little letter B. so it it talks about reasons why open space could be reduced. And I was curious why you mit ctl. And being situated next to, or adjacent to existing public open space or recreation amenities. Why, that was not considered to be a reason why open space could be reduced. Because, like, if you're right next to a public park, 150. I'm thinking about like the Parkside residential designation in the East Boulder Subcommittee plan.

[339:01] and in that instance they talked about Well, you could reduce the open space and have more density because they are like literally right next to the Belmont City Park. And I know that's not a br 2 zone. It's different. But I was just curious. Why, that logic didn't show up here that if you're like right next to public open space, you could have less open space on your property. we we talked about this earlier in this meeting. This particular section. is existing language in the site review criteria. We were just tweaking the language. So we we weren't looking at doing any. You know major changes to this particular section. That's something that could be recommended that if it's an adjacent to open space. there could be a reduction. But we weren't looking to to change this, since it's already in the code. Okay? Well, i'm not going to make a big deal about it. I see George has something to say, though. Yeah, let's hear it. Oh, yeah, I wouldn't. I wouldn't be supportive of of a change around that, just because

[340:04] I personally don't believe that public land should subsidize public open space on on individual projects. I think that can be the discretion of planning board and Council when those things come out. But I don't think a developer should start there, so I just want to put my 2 cents on that. Thank you. Yeah, I I have the same attitude as Georgia. One. Okay. I do have a question that may or may not fit here. Sorry if this is too late in the meeting for this. But in the previous version, Carl, you talked about how there was a density bonus site, review criteria previously that had been removed, and I had expressed. I just want to make sure that doesn't get lost, because I think what you had said was it was removed from site review because it was being considered through other channels, and just wanted to check in and make sure those other channels are still moving forward

[341:11] for affordable housing. So we are embarking on that. We'll be talking to council and bringing the information to planning board, and then in the coming months on what those options might be. What was taken out is kind of what inspired some on council to ask us to continue exploring those great okay. Thank you. Thanks for Just keeping us posted. I only have one more. It's on page 113. Ml: Did you have something before that? Did anybody else have something before? 113? Okay, on page 113 C little C. I think it it might be further down. Maybe it's this one it talks about 55 foot

[342:01] yeah, so it's online between 18 and 19, it says the approving authority may approve a height up to 55 feet. If the following criteria are met, I'm just going to put out my suggestion that instead of naming 55 feet, we just talk about the city's chartered height limit. Which is we've talked about in the past, could change up or down. just a suggestion. Take it or leave it. and i'm done. Okay. Any other anybody else has concerns, comments 1 15. Okay. Let's hear it. So under a alternative method of compliance. So under a it's got a list of

[343:02] We'll improve facilities or services delivered by a list of things, and then the underlying, or we'll provide an arts cultural human services, housing. I would like to add in environmental and greenhouse gas reduction or other benefits. I would like to add those 2 environmental kind of climate action that we're starting to see with our upgraded carbon footprint requirements as a community benefit objective. Mark. What do you think? Think of an example? Or can you give us an example of something

[344:04] that would be an environmental benefit? Don't? Qualify? Yeah. So if someone decided that they would make a building to the Perceive house standards. that's a that's a that's a huge under service, because you really reduce your your energy use and your footprint of the building. did you? Okay. So so building a building to a particular to a a much higher standard than code that would provide environmental and or greenhouse gas reduction designing a building so that it

[345:02] can maximize the solar. We see buildings being quote ready for phoneable takes, but we don't see them necessarily maximizing so that they can. and that they just think that buildings can do People don't tend to necessarily do them. But if they're going to be getting it's a it's a pathway to hire compliance. There's a whole lot of different strategies that people can do. Green roofs. vegetated roofs. well given given that we don't have a lot of specificity around any any any other that's it. I'm just saying I I I guess i'm not opposed

[346:00] given that it's It's not super specific here, anyway. So Yeah. it just seems that it should be on the table the environmental factors. it seems to me reasonable to consider those as possibilities. We're we're not making any commitment on that. Laura i'm fine with adding the word environmental in there. You know, human services, housing, environmental or other benefit. I'm. Looking at the 1.12 section that Sarah pointed out earlier on enhanced community benefit. And it does mention spaces for the arts, community gathering space, public art, land for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration. You know it does talk about some environmental things, not specifically what Ml. Is talking about in terms of efficient buildings and that sort of thing. But

[347:01] it does talk about environmental purposes as potentially part of expanded community benefit. Okay. my sense of a positive attitude towards that. So add the word environmental in here. Is there any reason from Staff's perspective why that would not work? I I I think it's completely reasonable to add that here we we added this language to. you know. Try to capture those unique innovative projects that might not have been captured by community benefits. So I think adding environmental makes is a aligned with these other factors that make sense to me. Hey, Laura? Oh, no, Sorry i'll put my hand down, although I will just say for the record that if you're going to make me do something else besides affordable housing for community benefit, you're going to have to be super convincing for me to vote for it, because we just need housing so much.

[348:06] All right for Warner's forearm. Okay. Yeah. wow. Any other comments. All right. So I think we need to take a vote on making a recommendation. Oh. can we talk about what that might look like? That's what we need to do? You may have some thoughts, Lauren. I I think that Sarah has taken on just an enormous task of trying to. You know, record all of our Input my sense from our discussion was that we have given our thoughts to Staff. and I, I personally, would would be fine with just saying that we recommend adoption of the ordinance, and we recommend that staff. Consider our discussion tonight in the in the ordinance that they bring forward to council, or something like that like.

[349:05] I want to just leave it in Staff's hands to say, I trust you. We've had a good discussion. You don't have to bring it back to us, because I think that would screw up your schedule one like, please go forth in good faith with what we have said tonight, and take something beautiful to Council other response. I don't like the language of taking something beautiful that we take something beautiful. I mean, if folks are generally okay with with that idea, then we could ask Hella for how to craft a recommendation like what that would look like

[350:13] deal with the considerations. and we spent enough time on that this evening that I think it might be reasonable, and i'd be interested to see what your attitude is to include one condition. and that is, that the the language dealing with with the Boulder Valley Comp plan considerations is. you know, should be included as a condition, and and we have several different versions of of that, and we can decide which language we think is most appropriate. But I feel that that is significant enough, and a function of our fundamental duty is as a planning board

[351:03] that we should not put that in the hands of staff regarding that that matter. and i'd be interested in your thoughts on that. But, John, we could send Staff 3 versions of that language. So are you suggesting that we vote on all 3, and whichever one gets the majority is the language that we recommend to staff, or that we recommend being incorporated into the material. I mean, I believe that that you drafted the 3, and we voted on all 3. We I certainly didn't count the votes and we could certainly refo, but I do know that I do remember us voting on all 3 items. Well, my point is not so much which which of those 3 items is, but we want to be explicit that, or at least I do, and i'm not sure. I'm. Speaking for the majority that we want the language changed

[352:11] accordingly. So the language is explicit that we can. we can utilize. We can reference the entire folder Valley comp plan. that that so whichever language the staff chooses. the understanding is that it allows us to reference the Boulder Valley Comp plan in its completeness exactly.