April 4, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] And the charter and ordinances that helps, and the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. and the charter and ordinances of the city of Boulder. and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Planning Board, which I am about to enter. and faithfully perform the duties of the office of the Planning Board which I am about to enter. Congratulations, Kurt: Welcome to the Planning Board. Thank you. Our next order of business is nominating and electing any board, chair and vice chair for this coming year. We can approach this 2 ways. One is to do this now, even though Lisa, who would like to? Who I will be nominating for Vice Chair is not here, and George is not here. or we can put it off until the next meeting on April the eighteenth, when we will all be here. and then just nominate someone to be the temporary chair for today, and either one is fine. It's just a question of what people would like to do.

[1:06] Does anyone have a strong opinion one way or the other? I don't think it would change the outcomes. Maybe we could just. I mean, does anybody think it would change the outcome if we wait? Okay, then. and I would like, wait. There are rules about how to do this. Hold on! I I got to get them laurel. Hold on 1 s I have them pegged on. My Okay. Do let's see Laurel, do we do the chair or the vice chair first? Generally the chair goes first. Okay. All right. Would someone like to nominate someone to be chair. I would like to make a nomination. Please go ahead. Sarah. I would like to nominate you to be chair. and I can speak to that now, or we can see if there are other nominations.

[2:01] Are there any other nominations? Okay. So there's no second required. I would be out to accept the nomination. I don't know whether you need to speak to it or not. If you would like to. You're welcome to, if you don't feel it. I think we could just go ahead and take the vote. I'd be happy to speak to it briefly, if that's okay with folks. of course. So I have thought about this a lot, and the things that I think that you want in a chair that I think Sarah will embody. You want someone who will show up. You want someone who will help to structure an efficient meeting, but also allow everyone to have their say so not in such a hurry that people get cut off someone who will provide institutional knowledge and an informed perspective. someone who is fair and respectful towards all viewpoints. somebody who will not abuse the power of the chair to try to control outcomes

[3:03] mit ctl, and and someone who can faithfully represent all of you points of the board the full board if they're called upon, for example, to speak to Council, and I think Sarah will do a fine job at all of that 150. Additionally, she has the longest tenure on planning board, and it's our tradition that the person with the longest tenure typically as the chair as vice-chair last year she helped. John was structuring meetings and documenting outcomes in a way that was really great training and preparation for the the role of junior this year. and you know anybody who has worked with Sarah knows that she does her homework on the issues that are before us, and all of that I respect and appreciate. I also want to say that you know, as the Planning Board, we are most functional and most legitimate when we represent a wide range of viewpoints in the community, and that we don't always agree. If we were just an echo chamber, and always agreeing with each other. we would not faithfully represent our community, as we all know. so I think it's important for us, with different viewpoints, to support each other, and have faith in each other, and respect each other and work well together.

[4:03] And for all of these reasons i'm very happy to nominate Sarah as chair. Well, that's the nicest thing people have. So anyone has said about me in years. So thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. since we don't need a second. The now we vote in alphabetical order, or reverse alphabetical order. Laurel, is it okay? If I do it in May First name alphabetical order? Yes. and I'm a Kurt. Do you do you support the at my my nomination. Yes. thank you, Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. Ml. Yes. we'll take that as a Yes. Sorry. Tangled up in my course. Yes. okay, Thank you. And Sarah, is he? Yeah. thank you all. So now we're doing the nominations for vice chair, and I would like to nominate Lisa, who is not here. She did send an email to everyone

[5:07] yesterday or Friday. I can't remember which, indicating her interest in being vice-chair. Is there anyone who wants to offer an alternative nomination. Okay. I I didn't write anything wonderful about Lisa except to say i'm sure she'll be great, and so I will. I'll be. Very. It'll be a very simple nomination. all right, so we'll go again. Alphabetical by first name. Kurt. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mark. yes. Ml. yes. and Sarah is a Yes, all right. We now have a chair and vice chair, which is very exciting. We are well on our way on our my fifth year, and Kurtz first. So welcome, Kurt.

[6:00] All right. So now we have approval of minutes. Devin had sent out 3 min, 3 different sets of minutes, one of which was withdrawn, because it was, I believe, because it was not complete. And so we really have 2 sets of minutes. January the third and January the 30 first to to load on. set for approval. Did everyone see the changes they expected to see in the versions that Devin has shared with us? Okay. all right. So where is Laurel Laurel? Do we need to make a motion or just vote? I can't remember. Yes, you need to make a motion. Okay, with someone like to make for each one. Can someone like to make the motion for approval of the January third minutes? All right. I'll make a motion for approval of January third minutes. We, I believe that that means we need a second.

[7:01] I have a second. Thank you. Does it have to be a voice vote, or can it just be. I think hands raised anyways one okay, all in all who support approval, raise their hands all right, just for because Kurt was not there. January 30 first. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the January 30 first meeting minutes? I will move to approve the January. The 30 first meeting minutes. Great. Thank you. And would someone like to second? I Second, thank you. And hands raised for approval of those minutes. All right, so forth all right. We will be entering into public participation in a minute. But first Vivian is going to walk. Everyone, including the public, through the ground rules for participation in our planning board meetings.

[8:02] Can you see my slide? Yes, we can. Great Thank you so much, and thank you. Everyone from the public for joining us today. My name is Vivian Castro Wildridge. My role in planning board meetings is to facilitate the public engagement parts, and I just want to really appreciate you for being here with us tonight. so we'll start with open comments after I've gone through some of the protocols. and there are 2 public hearings later in the agenda. But we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staffing community for productive atmospheres for such public meetings, which we hope are meaningful and inclusive; and this vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue; while also recognizing that we want to make sure that everyone participating feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings. because we do believe it leads to more informed decision making.

[9:03] and we have a lot more information on our website about the productive atmosphere's vision. If you're interested and learning more, you can go to our website. There are a number of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder revised code, and we have some general guidelines there to our advisory in nature, to share with all of our meeting participants this evening from the community as well as planning board and staff. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats to use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting, or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited, and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they're commonly known, and display your first and last name as possible. You can right click

[10:01] on yourself and change change your name if your last name is not appearing, for example, so that we can, calling you, and and we know who's providing input. We're in the Zoom Webinar format which allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. So we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. But you can raise your hand to speak, and with your turn will adjust the setting, and you'll see the option to unmute yourself. There's no pre-existing list for signing. Up, so you do need to to raise your hand at the appropriate time, and we'll be sure to let you know when that is. and on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this. You'll see a horizontal menu with a hand that you can click on. and we'll know to call on you if you're joining us by telephone, You can also Dial Star 9, and it will also raise the virtual hand, and we'll be able to see it and know that you would like to speak

[11:03] so. If you have an expanded men, you can also get to the raise hand by clicking on reactions. and that should do it for now. So thanks again for joining. and we'll be moving on to open comment, so i'll turn it over to you, sir. all right, if anyone from the public wants to speak in open comment on. Is anything not related to our 2 public hearing items today? Please raise your hand now, our 2 public hearing items. One is an use review on an existing for building for building development at 400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400400404. The second is, I'm. A public hearing on the proposed ordinance, 8 5 7, one which has to do with a to use.

[12:02] Do we have anybody who wishes to speak? We do. We have making calls, and Devin will show the Timer. So making you have 3 min. Please go ahead. Good evening. Planning board. My name is Mike and Coles. I live at 1726 Mapleton Avenue, and I want to welcome the newest member of the planning Board back planning Board Members curt or constantly asked the concept and Site review to critique and suggest changes that will make projects better. even adding requirements in the form of conditions. And this is one of 2 essential functions of your job. When I was appointed to serve on this board as a late person without training and architecture planning. I wondered how I could do a good job. and I was helped immensely in this when someone suggested to me that I should use the book a pattern language as a source book, a starting point for my understanding of each element of design presented to the Planning Board for Review.

[13:13] The book consists of 253 patterns, each one of which has its own short chapter of 2 or 3 pages. It was put together by Christopher Alexander, a team of students and architects at the University of California. In the seventies. Many of these short chapters relate to a specific design element of the very plans that you are are reviewing, like small public squares or public outdoor rooms, courtyards which live a cascade of roofs and different roof design paths and goals. building fronts, activity pockets in each pattern. First, there's a picture which shows an archetype for the pattern. And second, there's an introductory paragraph which sets the context of the pattern.

[14:02] And then there's a 2 or 3 sentence problem statement, followed by discussion of the many ways that that problem can be manifested in a building, and finally, a solution with diagrams. the patterns aren't a set of prescriptions. Look at them as a hypothesis that you can use to test elements and specific plans before you. Many of the patterns are archetypal, so deeply rooted in the nature of things that they will likely be part of human nature, and the built environment as much in 500 years as they were when the patterns were described 45 years ago. The patterns provide language that describe essential elements of the built environment. They're related to each other, and can be used to create an infinite variety of combinations. It is so important that we use a common language when talking about the built environment from its publication in 1,977 a pattern language was a course book used in architecture and planning schools across the country.

[15:07] so the ideas and language found here will be familiar to professionals who come before you in welcoming you, Kurt. I want to let you know that a volume, a new volume of the pattern language, will be arriving at 7 7 Del Wood within a couple of weeks to welcome you to this important position you have. and, thanks to all of you to serve on planning board. We really appreciate your service and your time and know what a burden is. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, I see no other hands raised for this portion of the meeting. Okay, Great. Sorry. Sorry. 1. 1 one hand. Lynn Siegel. Okay. Devin ready with the timer. Go ahead, Lynn. You're always gonna see that. So just know that I'm always going to be there. Yeah, freezing freezing cold. It's 40 degrees in my house, so that my pipes won't freeze, and I'm waiting to get a ground loop heat pump to stop the warren in Ukraine.

[16:13] Our gas just went up 75% in boulder 75% increase. I'd love to turn my lights on with gas. but I have issues with restoring my attic before I can get solar. so that i'm covering that too sadly. It takes a while. But meantime I was looking at the landmarks board, was reviewing another Stoke property, you know, 2,006 pearl, this 1 1,741 walnut. I think it's it's approximately that address and they've gotten bigger with their the footprint of their units is 334 feet instead of 300 feet at

[17:07] 2,006. So once again, this is just not a panacea of middle income housing. It is not. It is 80 to 120% of area median income for the first go around right. And how long. You're gonna live in a 300 square foot place. As soon as the first person moves out it's market rate. It's not it permanently affecting the middle income that it's intended to that's simply to get you to approve the project based on their you know and give them subsidies for 43 parking. You know a parking reduction. So just think, go to your conscience when you're making these decisions. Go to your conscience, you know you have guidelines, and you need to follow them. I mean

[18:05] the issues with the landmarks are going to be well. We give them the landmarks, and they need to get something in return. No, they don't need to get something new in return. Landmarks needs to decide. Do we want that ally position, and we can revitalize our alleys at this rate, because it faces the alley, that significant part of it. But please people really go deeply to your conscience when you're making these decisions. Jared is in big trouble now with the State housing thing. It this is the this is pushing growth like heroin on boulder. It cannot continue. and if it goes, you know. From Boulder goes to the county it goes to the State. It goes nationally and internationally. Stop now. Stop already done. Thank you, Lynn. Any Any other hands up.

[19:02] Okay. we have no call up items which means we can move directly to the public hearing. The first public hearing. The first public hearing is a public hearing and consideration of a use review to allow personal service uses within an existing for building a proximate one 47,000 square foot office park at 441044304440, and 44, 50 Arapaho avenue within the residential high or H. 4 zoning district. The site is within the viewpoint office ped. This proposal is to allow personal service uses in addition to the existing professional, technical and medical office uses, and it was reviewed under Case Number L. Your 202-20-0055, and Allison Blaine. who is new to us, although not new to the planning department, will be the staff, presenting Charles. Go ahead.

[20:00] Oh, thanks very much for the Intro Madam Chair. I'm welcome once again. Board Member Nord back. I'm. Very pleased to welcome Allison to planning board this evening for kind of her maiden voyage before the board, so she'll be presenting Staff's analysis tonight, and Allison feel free to take it away. Thanks, Charles. Let me get set up here real quick. Let's see. Alright, and hopefully you guys can see the my screen right? Good evening planning for members. It's nice to meet you all for the first time. I look forward to working with you more in the future. This presentation is for a user view to allow personal services in an existing office park on our apostles within an orange 4 zone

[21:00] in tonight's presentation I will briefly cover the information that was provided in the staff Memo. including the purpose of the use, review and Process, the existing site, conditions, and surrounding context. A description of the proposal for the site, and a key issue for discussion. Personal services is allowed in an R. H. 4 zone, but must first be approved through a use review user view. Applications are viewed by Staff, who evaluate the proposal and confirm that the proposed use will meet the conditions set forth in the user. View criteria. One staff has reviewed the impacts. Recommendation is made to planning board, and this application is for a non residential use within a residential zone, and therefore decision is made by planning board at a public hearing. The project completed the necessary notice Requirements per the code written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and notice was also posted on the property staff, did not receive any questions or concerns from the neighbors Throughout the review.

[22:03] The subject site is approximately 3 acres, and comprised of 2 parcels located at the southeast for a Flip Hills Parkway, and a. The site is also known as the Viewpoint Office Park, and it's made up of 4 office buildings. I've shown them here on the slide with the addresses. The total square footage of all 4 buildings is about 40 to 47,000 square feet. The site is zoom residential high for, and the R. H. 4 zone district is described as the hide and see residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including without limitation, a permanent buildings and more complementary uses may be allowed. say it's also surrounded by some public, industrial, general, and agricultural zones, as well as some mixed density residential. as I indicated on the Pr. Her side, this site is surrounded by some residential uses. To the south, east ranges from low to medium density, residential and moves to higher density residential. We move east on our Rappo

[23:10] to the north of site. On the other side of a Rappaho is the Boulder Community Health medical campus. and that brings us to the proposed project. For this evening staff received 2 business licenses for acupuncture and massage therapy uses to operate within the viewpoint Office park. For some context. Every new business is reviewed for zoning conformance through a business license application which then allows staff to confirm that the use is permitted for the underlying zoning. In this case the previous approvals for the existing office part did not anticipate these uses, but the underlying zoning does allow for such uses through the user be process. and therefore the applicant is applying for user view to allow the inclusion of personal services within the site. In an or H 4 zone

[24:03] shown here on the slide is the definition of personal services. Personal service uses include uses that provide a convenience to the neighborhood. Specifically, we're looking at alternative health care providers, such as physical therapy massage, acupuncture, nutritionists, and others, and we're health and wellness services. The existing office park was approved through a a few D. In a special review concurrently in 1,991, that approved general offices, but specifically excluded medical and dental offices at the time in 1,991. The proposed uses were considered healing arts, and were included in the medical office use. Therefore these uses were not permitted as part of the original put and special review in 1,996. A use review was granted, which approved medical and dental offices on the first floor of one of the buildings, 4,410, or apaho. and again Still, at this time the proposed uses were considered a medical office.

[25:06] and so there are some allowed uses in that first floor for massage therapy. I'm. Sure those sort of uses included in personal service. and then up last in 2,010. Another use. Review was granted which allowed a medical and dental offices throughout all 4 buildings. However, at this point about 2,006, the code definitions change to reclassify the healing arts as a personal services use instead of a medical use. So when you look at all the previous reviews on the site that includes uses for offices, including professional, technical, and medical and then some personal service uses on the first 4 of 44 10 orapo. This project will help clean up that a record and allow for more variety of users throughout the site.

[26:01] The existing site has 4 2 story buildings, and the application does not propose any changes to the existing operating characteristics or the physical building form, floor area, and setbacks will not be changing as part of this proposal. The site has a 158 parking spaces, as required for the code for the 27 tenant suites and the new uses will utilize those existing parking spaces as well as tenant spaces and bike parking is also provided on site. The key issue for tonight is is the proposal consisted with the use review criteria set forth in Section 9 to 15 and staff find out. The proposal is consistent with the applicable use. Review criteria. Specifically, the proposed use is compatible with the character of the area, as the site is an existing office park, and that is not proposed to be changed. Additionally, it provides a service for convenience to the nearby community by offering healthcare options to nearby residents in those residential zones and further compliments.

[27:09] Boulder community health, just north to the site. and last, the inclusion of personal services will utilize the existing parking and tenant spaces, and therefore is not creating any additional adverse impacts. and that wraps up my presentation, and I will open it up for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Allison. Questions from the board. You just have to hit your raise hand button if you have questions. Ml. Thank you, Sarah Alison. You might have answered these, but it you pass me. But let me ask them again, and see just in case you didn't address them so.

[28:01] The use that they're looking for is currently allowed on the ground floor of building a. Oh, sorry! Go ahead. Do we know why it was not allowed either on the second floor of building a or in any of the other. Why why was it so limiting? Are we telling? I? I Don't have that information at the top of my head of the the previous. The disposition of approval for that user view just limited those uses to those medical uses to the first floor of one building. I'm. I'm. Guessing they might have had a business come in. and they just wanted it in that one area, but they didn't go through the process at the time to allow medical offices in all 4 buildings. What the logic was about that. And regarding the parking. Do you have any data on how

[29:03] how intense the uses of that parking lot? I I i'm not certain. If if the parking lot is filled up the the property management is, the applicants are on the call, and they can probably help answer those questions. I don't have that data on hand, though. But ml I think one thing we would notice that just based on the calculation rates. Yeah. One for 300 square feet, the site requires 158 spaces, and they're providing 158 spaces to the number. So it's I I I get. I think it's fascinating that this h oh, this our H. 4. So a. P. U. D. Process kind of whittled its way out of providing housing. And you know, this is really providing complementary health care services

[30:01] not necessarily about the neighbors in the neighborhood. I would think that most people coming to that would drive. That's why i'm asking the questions. It it just. I mean it is what it is right the Pd. Graduate, and and there and there we have it. But I I thought I would try to understand the logic of of how this got to where it is. But thank you for attempting answers at my questions that really, at the end of the day right are gonna change. How this is. how this is how this proceeds. Thank you. Hmm. Any other Board members who have questions that mark. And then, Kurt: I'll come to you next. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Okay. This may be a slightly inappropriate time. That is, as I reviewed this use review. I it made me. and 2 questions, and that is

[31:09] is this just what one it didn't feel like, particularly controversial use. Review. I anticipate people. We will approve this change of use tonight. My question is, is, is this just one of those things? Is part of the code. or is does this back that we're going through a public use review process on something that seems so innocuous and so almost unnecessary. Should this have been a staff level approval, or does it betray some fault in the code, or is it just one of those things? So i'm, i'm not i'm not. And i'm getting this is not a criticism. It's a. It's a curiosity to me that we're actually working on this. And and Allison Thank you for a great presentation, and obviously a lot of work went into it. And so again I'm. I'm just trying to find out the kind of why we're here.

[32:11] I think the codes heart is in the right place from a regulatory perspective, where we want to make sure that we have heightened awareness and oversight on non residential uses and residential zones. So I think the spirit and intent of the code is spot on, but I think it's served as well over the years. This is a very unique Pv. From the early nineties, where you know a ostensibly commercial office was developed in our H 4. I can't claim to kind of piece back together the rationale at the time. It's certainly a a bit of a unique review, and we see very few of these. So I think, on the whole, require and use review for non residential non residential uses and residential zones has served as well. This is definitely a bit of a a unique situation.

[33:03] Okay, great. Thank you. Kurt. Yeah. Thank you mark for asking that I have the same question. My question is about how, whether the if we approve this which I anticipate, we would. Does that persist, even if the use is lapses, or is it like other things? Where, if, if it is no longer used for that use after year, then then the the approval would lapse, and it would need to be reapproved. Was it? Does it clear that typically user views do run with the land if the uses expired or goes vacant for more than a year. A subsequent user would have to apply for a new user view. Anyone else have a question.

[34:00] Okay, I I I actually have a question. I'm just wondering if you could walk us through the prioritization of the ped, how the ped overrides the zoning, and and how. or when, or what are the what are the triggers that might get us back to the originals of the underlying zoning of residential. So for Charles, Were you gonna okay? Well, yeah. So this this used to review was triggered because of the underlying zoning because of the high density residential. the the beauty, or, I guess, should say that the special Review allowed a certain certain uses, including offices. So they back. Then it was just general offices, so that would include our professional and technical offices. and then the additional reviews allowed for the medical and dental office uses. And so those are the uses that were approved through the special review, and then the personal services is being reviewed because of the underlying zoning.

[35:09] and because the previous reviews did not anticipate these personal service uses as we define them now we would, we would look at the current zoning instead of what the special review and beauty would have approved. So does the I guess i'm asking a slightly different question. I I mean, I appreciate, appreciate that explanation. Is there some point at which the ped. if the land is sole does the Pd. Expire, and it goes back to being our H 4, or it is then has to be utilized through the Rh. 4 zoning requirements, or I'm just sort of curious about that, because it's a great question. I think the way to look at the beauty. It's like a modern site Review. So kind of continues to exist until it doesn't, and really the only way the ped goes away as if

[36:02] you know whomever owns the property chooses to resend it. and we developed the property. So you know it'll it'll continue to persist until whomever owns it at the time to sign that you know they would want to entertain a different type of development on on the side. Okay, I appreciate that I explanation. Laura. So just to make sure, i'm understanding what Charles just said correctly, because I think these are great questions. If the owners decided that they wanted to redevelop as residential that's within their power to try to get rid of the ped and go back to the underlying zoning. Well, that is good to know, and if the owners didn't know that before they know it now, and it sounds like planning. Board would certainly be amenable to that happening. Not that we would try to encourage that or anything like that. But thank you. Okay. Any other questions from planning Board. all right. And now is time to go to public comment on this proposal. If anyone has

[37:05] wants to make a comment. Please raise your hand and then Vivian will take charge. Great? Okay. I can't hear you for some reason that you're trying to get. Now we can hear you right. So ready with the with the timer. Okay, Great Vivian, we can hear you. But the sound quality is very poor, and i'm not sure Why. maybe your plug one. Maybe you're slightly unplugged from the computer. All right. So, Kim. Lord, you have 3 min. Please go ahead. So actually i'm presenting on behalf of the applicant. I'm not here for public comment. So there was a little bit of a glitch there. I think so i'm here also with my clients, and was gonna give a really short presentation. So I think technically, we're not part of the public comment, and I don't know. Are you gonna turn the camera on Vivian? Or how do we go about this?

[38:13] Yeah. Okay. So I can, Sarah. I can promote him to panelist. Okay. And then were you expecting a presentation from the applicant? Are you open to? Of course we're open to it, but we didn't. We had thought there, wasn't going to be one, but i'm happy. They're very happy to hear from the applicant. Okay. so. And Kim can let me know once she's on the other side. If there's anybody else that we should be moving over. you should be able to share your screen as well. Kim. so i'm Kim, Lord and I'm. A lawyer here in town with Packard, dear King, and I represent the applicant. The viewpoint ownership. Brian and Charlotte Shiffrin are also on this call and are here for the applicant as well. I'm not expecting them to say anything unless the planning board has questions for them.

[39:11] Brian is the property manager and his wife. Charlotte is also an owner in the property, and they are both long term older residents. So you know they are here. They are available, and we definitely we just wanted planning board to know that we're paying attention to this, and we're involved, and I have my clients here. I don't have a whole lot. I need to say on this, because Allison was super prepared and did a great job, as you've heard already. This property has a quirky history. It is an old ped from 1,991. I love the little discussion that went on here with Charles Pharaoh, and I agree a 100% with Charles that the Pd. Zoning is effectively there, unless it until we would ever want it to go away. And it's kind of an interesting quirky issue that tends to come up in boulder where you have these zoning overlays.

[40:10] So we have this old Pd. Zoning. And then at some point medical dental. We're added. And at some point in this process, when we're going through these approvals, the land use code actually changed. and the definition of medical office changed and took out alternative health care providers, and switched it over to personal services. So that's why we have this sort of glitchy situation with the property is that there is actually a code change, and I think it was like in 2,007. Allison actually researched this and told me. And that's how we end up with like one floor that has one level of personal service use in it not being available elsewhere. So the point of this use. Review is to clean up the record and make the uses allow consistent throughout the building, and this whole situation came up when we had a new tenant who does acupuncture and Chinese medicine. Dr. Corka, who went into the city

[41:19] to get her business license. And oh! She found out that her alternative help. Care Provider use was no longer allowed in a medical building, so we end up with this Litchy situation, and thankfully, Allison. But I can't believe this is our first hearing, but she took a deep dive. It's the history of this which isn't that easy to figure out and coming up with like, when the code was revised, and we were able to figure out. You know what happened with this change in the definition. and after her detective work we were able to collaboratively, you know, figure out what kind of application to submit and what was appropriate. So that's what we submitted, and our desire is to just clean up what is effectively a strange issue that's occurring here for alternative health care providers which are actually an important use for the site.

[42:16] So we appreciate the work with the city, and we want this resolved so that Dr. Corga and any other prospective tenants in this category, you know, Won't have a problem in the future. So, as Allison already said, there's no new construction. There's no change in hours. There's basically no change in anything that's going to be going on in the site. The parking is going to be the same, and that meets Code as Charles Thorough indicated. And so effectively, there's really not going to be any an added impact. By this use, I think Allison already covered the use criteria, and you know there's no added impact on the community here. This is an important complementary health care service

[43:07] for this area. And so it just makes sense. You know. We're across the street from boulder community and they're going to be referring patients to people like physical Clara, therapist, acupuncture, maybe massage, and all of those fall in under the personal services category. So we're here to ask planning, we to approve this office complex for the additional purpose, personal service use which would allow these alternative healthcare providers to go in. So just a couple of other comments. I think Mark Mcintyre had a an interesting question about why this is a staff level review, and it's because we've got this weird overlay of the ped with the residential district, and I don't think it was an unreasonable interpretation that Staff made that said, yeah, you've got to go through this extra

[44:05] little hurdle, because you have this, this our h zoning that's kind of overlaid with the ped. So that's really it from us. I I didn't think there was going to be a whole lot to present, because Allison's memo was super thorough, and we we feel like this is a pretty straightforward use application to clean up the record I'm. Available to answer any questions you have. I have. As I indicated, Brian Shiffrins on this call, and he is the property manager for the Shite side, and Charlotte Shiffrin, his wife, is one of the owners. She isn't. We have quite as much knowledge of the ins and out of the leasing. But that's it, and we thank you for your time and hope that this some you for you, will be approved by planning board him. Thank you. Does anyone on planning board have a question for Kim for the applicant? All right, I think you it's we, I think my guess is we feel fully. We fully understand what's going on and what the request is of us. So if there's no other Vivian, anyone else have their hand up

[45:12] for public comments. Okay, all right, Thank you. So we can now go into our discussion. Actually, apologies. Yeah, Lynn Seagull's hand just popped up. Lin. You have 3 min. Please go ahead like I say, just always assume it's going to go up. I just want to be last. Yeah, what what the deal here is is that this this project and this issue here involves what's really concerning me lately. and the loss of pharmacists ideal after pharmacare on pearl after army surplus store, thrift stores, services, even even Tesla's knee tires. Okay, tire gone. We don't have any services centrally anymore.

[46:05] So where do we put? You know? Why are we putting more office to start with? And why? Why, how does how does a medical wellness? How is that more important than having a local community drug store that that these all need to be serviced at any of these developments need to have the jobs housing balance applied to them. First. because this is going to draw more jobs. this whole complex, and we need to do Major rezoning in Boulder. Now, what I think is primarily really important is to do more Marpa House, zoning such that you would have like 8 people to 10 people in a 4,000 square foot place, using one kitchen, but zone it so they have 2 refrigerators, and yet it's much more efficient use. There's one washer dryer for 4,000 square feet, and with 10 people in that place, or 8 people, whatever you want, like

[47:13] 800 square foot per person, or 500, but not these 300 square foot things that are very costly. It's the whole, you know, a whole kitchen and a whole bathroom for one person. Then I can see that we can actually have some realistic. if it's possible at all affordable housing here, and that's what we need here in this space is housing right, because housing is getting pushed out and out and out. But we don't have the services anymore, and these are not services that I use. That I feel are important. But the whole board and a public hearing needs to determine what the services are that this community needs. I would grant you to say that they want a frigging drugstore in the neighborhood that they want, You know, the essential services

[48:09] for each, you know. 15 min neighborhood in boulder, and and not to have that withdrawn in in in the of super high expensive housing. Let's Re-zone and e creatively and very comprehensively aerial aerial view type. Zone. Please wrap up your top. Yeah, that's that's what I want it that was it? Just aerial view zoning with Jobs housing balance applied? Thank you very much. Anybody else just give people a couple of seconds If there's anybody else that wants to raise their hand. Okay. thank you so much. So now we're gonna go to our discussion of Staff is asked us to respond to one issue. That is, the proposal consistent with the Use Review criteria set forth

[49:11] in 9.2, 15. E. Does anyone have something they want to talk about or raise questions about or share concerns with the fellow Board members on this topic. Okay, i'm not seeing any hands raised. So we're gonna go to. I think it. Then we will just go to the motion. One thing I would like to start doing, at least for a time, is before we go to motion making on any project is to ask the attorney present in this case, Laurel, to just remind us of how we make a motion what the process is, and if someone wants to add a make a proposal friendly like just what the process is. Just so we're reminded each time.

[50:02] So, Laurel, if you don't mind? Yeah, Sure, I can help with this. So in the memo that Alison drafted there some suggested motion language which you're welcome to use, or you can change it. So any member of the board is allowed to make a motion Once that motion is on the table, there's a couple of options. Somebody can second that motion. or there's an option for a friendly amendment. So this would be if you wanted to, maybe change the language a little bit to something that you think of. That original motion maker would like, or would be a little bit easier to read, or something along those lines. You can ask to change that language in a friendly motion is what we call it. So once that has been approved, and once you know, any sort of changes are made which I can help walk through. If somebody would like to do that. I'm happy to help walk through that on a case by case basis, of course. Then the chair goes through and reads the motion out loud. At that point you can have discussion about it. and either create more amendments to motion, which we may see, maybe in in the Edu and the next public hearing. But in this public hearing, if you wanted to make any sort of changes.

[51:10] We can do that, and I can walk you through that when that happens. Once the motion has been put on the floor. Seconded the chair, set it. There's been a discussion. Then we can go to a vote. Okay. awesome. Yeah. And just feel free to ask me questions and public hearing motions to walk. You walk through the process until we all know it by heart. Sounds good. Yep. Thank you very much. Laurel. Does anyone want to make the motion. Laura. Yes, I move to approve. Use review number L. You are 202-20-0055 incorporating the staff memorandum, including its attachments as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

[52:06] Okay, does anyone want to make a friendly amendment? So I I I have a question. And this is also for laurel as well when someone is made of motion. And it is it I am not familiar with my understanding, as we call Robert's rules of order. and that I am not familiar with the idea that. prior to a second. that the motion is subject to this friendly amendment, I think friendly. And then that's our specifically to find I was just looking for my Robert's book. and suddenly I've lost it in the mess of my office. But do I? I? I would like to understand correctly. My understanding was motion is made. If it's seconded. then the motion is debated. and amendment, and becomes the property of the organization. No, it's no longer

[53:09] property of the motion maker. So I I I would love to do this on an easy subject like this one sure. And so my question is. is this window of friendly opportunities? Something i'm just not familiar with, and it's actually part of Roberts? Or is it something that's more of a tradition of this board. It's so it's something that's more of a tradition of this board, but it is really common among boards in nonprofit and government situations. I think Robert, tools of orders may mention it. but the idea here is, it's not a formal amendment. Once the motion is part of the board. It's more of a tweak or adjustment, and we call it a friendly amendment, as in like. It's not something to completely change the motion. Necessarily it's more of a friendly moment to to change the language, the suggested language. And we can one of the things that Helen, I have been talking about. The other attorney that advises this board is doing

[54:06] like a training on this as well. So this is more of a tradition of the board, and this is something that they've done before, and it's just a way to slightly tweak the motion or slightly change things before it gets to a full motion of the board. Now, if you're talking about an amendment. so you're working on an ordinance, and you want to include an amendment language in that motion. Then that would be something you would do after the chair announces that it's more of a larger amendment, or maybe some sort of tweak to the motion itself. But a friendly amendment is tends to be something a little bit smaller, or maybe a little bit of a change. and the idea of a friendly amendment is, then the motion maker can agree to it, and then it turns into that's the actual motion. Is this like friendly change to it? So Laura having made the motion. it is first per per option to reject or accept the friendly amendment. Is that correct? Is that the motion maker? Yeah, that is not

[55:00] not to the board right until the chair says the full motion, and it's been first and second. So when that happens, then it turns into something a little bit different, but a friendly amendment is Yes, when the first person makes the motion, if somebody says, hey, i'd like to change this language a little bit, and Laura says, oh, i'm sorry Board member. M. Kaplan says, Yes, that's great. Then it can move forward that way. and then it would second. Then it would seek a second. you know. But if board member Kaplan. if Laura said no, I I reject that language then, and Kurt raised his hand, I said, I second the motion. then the motion is the motion. and we debate we. Then the the motion maker would speak to the motion. Then we would debate the motion.

[56:02] Is that correct? Yes, and so say that person who offered the friendly amendment wants to make that change later. You could bring it back then, and have it do more of a formal vote on that amendment after the motion. Yep. So it gets a little bit. It can get a little bit convoluted. That's why, if if something happens like that, I can help you walk through it. Great. Thank you. Can I suggest we do have a session on scheduled on the calendar. The devin so hopefully provides on April the 20 fifth under matters motion drafting session. So i'm. I'm okay, with moving forward with this motion tonight, knowing that we have more time to talk about this, and delve into the intricacies on April the 20 fifth. If that works for folks. So before we move forward Kurt has his hand up. So Go ahead, Kurt. I was just wondering if we needed to do the quasi-judicial thing like to disclosing it's.

[57:01] Yeah, yes. So if there is a matter that comes before you and you have expert trade contacts, you welcome to email the attorneys in advance, or the planning board of Advance or sorry not the planning word. You're welcome to email the staff in advance. You can also bring it up during the meeting during Quas initial. So if there is something that you believe could be a conflict or something like that, we could talk about what that looks like under the city of Boulders ordinances. Kurt, would you like me to find out if people have anyone has a conflict? Well, I just wanted to make sure we it's a perfectly logical step to take. We have made a motion has been made. so I guess the question just for make sure we're doing this as cleanly as we can. Given that emotions already been made would now be an okay time to do the X partake question, or should we wait till a second, and then do the X part. Take question. I just want to make sure we're doing this in a way that's

[58:03] legit? I'm laurel. What's what do you think I would recommend doing it now before you move into the motion process. What I've seen other boards do is do do it at the very beginning of a public hearing. We could do it, set it up that way in the future. But for this one i'd recommend before you vote. If If anyone does have a concern, let me talk about him. All right, so it does occur. Does your hands still up, or all right? Let's the motion is out there, but for the moment we're going to put it on the side table. Does anyone have any exparte relationship or partnership, or any anything with the applicant that we need to know about. Nope. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a friendly mark? Not like the second motion, but you have I? I i'm sorry I I thought you had already asked for friendly, so I will. I will

[59:00] withdraw my second. Let you ask your question. No, okay, do we have a second? Yes. Mark, a second and second thing is okay. Why, don't we take? I? We have to take a roll call. Ml. before you sorry before you take a roll call, make sure you repeat that 0 0 0 5 5, incorporating the staff memorandum, including all its attachments as findings of fact, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Ml. bye. Laura I Kurt. I mark. Yes. Sarah, I so it passes 5 0.

[60:00] Okay, we can move on to public Item Number 2 folks. We're only an hour in 2. Folks want to take a 5 min break and then come back at 7 0 5 or 7 0 6, or you want to just keep clown ahead. I could keep going. Okay, we'll keep going. Okay. All right. Hold on 1 s. All right. We are going to public hearing number 2, a public hearing and recommendation of City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 8 5 7, one amending section 4 to 218 rental license, fee. title, 9 land use, code and title, 10 structures, Brc. In 1,981 to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units. and we have Lisa Hoodie here to walk us through this. Take it away, Lisa. All right. Thank you. Chair. Good evening Planning Board, looking forward to giving you an overview of the accessory dwelling unit regulation update, or N. It's 8 5 7. One.

[61:10] The purpose of your review tonight is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Ordinance. That's before you, and that you reviewed in your memo in your packet. So starting off with the absolute basics, I know that we've talked about accessory dwelling units, or a to use several times. But for anyone who might be listening just a quick overview. On what accessory dwelling units mean in boulder. So you can see the Graphic on the side in boulder. We have 2 types of 8 to use, we have attached to to use, which could be like an attic apartment or a basement apartment, and then we also have detached to use, which means that it's in a separate structure. But what an Edu really is is a small residence that's sharing a lot with a larger main house and in boulder an edu can only be located on a lot with a single family home. and also that that lot has to be owner occupied. So the property owner has to live either in the main house or the accessory dwelling unit.

[62:05] But in most basic terms an 80 is an independent, and self-contained living space. So it has its own kitchen and bathroom. The scope of the eightyu update project that we're going through tonight is dictated by the city Council. They set this as one of their work program priorities for 2022 to 2,023, with the express objective to increase the allowance of a to use in the community. There are kind of 4 main points that this 80 you update project is focused on the first being eliminating the 80 saturation limit the second, modifying the size, limits. third, general clarification and simplification of the regulations, and then fourth, improving the approval processes as noted in the memo in your packet. This project also helps to support several policies in our comprehensive plan related to the built environment, housing, and local governance.

[63:05] the public engagement that's been going on for this project over the last several months is listed on this slide as part of this project. We also are relying a lot on the engagement that was done back in 2,016 and 2,018. There was a significant amount. a public engagement done at that time, which we're also, which is very relevant to these changes as well. And we're also using that to inform these changes. We've been meeting with several different groups and boards over the last several months, as well as with the city council. We held a community conversation back in February, which all detailed bit more on a later slide we had virtual public engagement on our be heard. Boulder, our public engagement, virtual site, which has been open for several months. We've also been hosting office hours for people to come to to ask questions about the ordinance. We have one earlier this week, and then we'll have another one in a couple of weeks. and then overall. We'll have the typical public hearing process. So we went to the housing advisory board a few weeks ago. We're here tonight, and then the as is typical with ordinance. It then goes through to city Council, where there will be another public hearing.

[64:11] So all of this work for engagement is really focused on a consult level of engagement for this project. a quick summary of the input that we've heard so far in 2023, you all received any written public comments. Those were attached to your memo and in your packet. So you've seen many of those, as well as received several emails in the last few days is, in addition to what was in your packet. But as a general overview, the public comments that we've heard in writing so far are kind of twofold. So there's some support we're hearing support for changes from some with a desire to even go further than what the the ordinance proposes, as well as hearing concerns from others about a to use. And these really focus a lot on rental housing issues, things like parking and density.

[65:02] I mentioned we had a community conversation. It was called planning for affordable housing, because it was focused on the many different housing related code changes that the city is undertaking right now. and it was a really great event in February. It was about 25 representatives of different neighborhood organizations, the University and some other advocacy groups where we all came together and had a great conversation about the issues and opportunities related to the various code changes, including these eightyu changes that you're looking at tonight. There we also heard a diversity of opinions, both support for the proposal desire to go further with the changes, as well as some concerns about a to use not being used as rental housing and the affordability levels of a to use. We also, in January, went to our community connectors and residence group which indicated a support for eliminating the saturation limit, increasing the size limit, but also ensuring that a to use are really truly creating housing for the boulder residents that need it, as well as some programmatic suggestions to ensure that the benefits of a view ownership are more widespread.

[66:11] I mentioned that we went to Housing Advisory Board a few weeks ago. With this ordinance and the housing, and for advisory board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance on March 20 s. We also have been discussing the changes with city council. We had a study session with them in January. At that study session City Council indicated support for eliminating the saturation limits, increasing the size limits, and also undertaking several changes to clarify and improve the process of a to use. I know we've gone through this as a matters item before, but it just a brief overview of the evaluation that was completed. So you all are familiar with the last major update of the Edu regulations was adopted in 2,018, and put into effect in 2,019. And so for several months. Last year we spent time evaluating and creating an evaluation of those changes

[67:10] that had taken place or put had become effective in 2019, and how those impacted a to use in boulder. So you might remember this chart which lays out, which shows how many 86 had been approved each year since 80 user first made legal in boulder in 1983, and you can see there was a significant increase in 2019 after the last recent the last major update to the adu regulation. So the evaluation was really focused on those years 29 to present to understand the barriers and changes, how they impacted a to use that evaluation focused on understanding the changes that had been made that really did seem to reduce the barriers to a, to use and spur AD construction in boulder as well as identifying

[68:00] potential improvements in addition to those changes that could further reduce barriers to a to use, and that evaluation was very informative of the proposed ordinance before you tonight. We talked about this in the matters item as well. We also completed a survey of all of the owners of accessory dwelling in its last year. It's something that we've done in previous years, so we have the ability to compare answers from 2022 to 17 and 2,012, and about half of the owners actually responded to that survey. We talked about this in matters that some of the highlights are interesting things that came out of that survey was understanding that a greater percentage of 80 us are being used as space for visitors and relatives. and then, because the the affordable 80. You option was something that that was adopted in 2,018. We also asked some questions, trying to understand the intent or the impetus for why people chose to do an affordable AD, and that survey showed that 40% of owners chose to do an affordable Eighty- in order to reduce their parking requirement.

[69:09] We also completed, along with the evaluation we completed research of comparable cities. So this was looking at 34 different cities around the country that are comparable to boulder in some way whether a lot of them were university towns, a similar population, size, similar population, density, things like that. There's a much more detailed matrix in your packet, but just a quick overview of takeaways from these cities. The first none of the cities that we studied have a saturation limit for a to use. So we did some further research. So none of those cities in the comparable city that we looked at had that. But we did some further research to find other cities throughout the country that might use similar saturation limit, and we are actually only able to find one small town in Connecticut that has a similar saturation limit for a to use. So it's definitely something that is quite unique to boulder

[70:04] of the for 34 cities we looked at. Only a few of them use a minimum W. Size requirement for a to use, although almost all of the cities we looked at do limit it to only 1 80 you per lot regarding size. boulders, maximum size of detached to use appear to be smaller than most cities, although if you look at Colorado, Colorado tends to trend smaller, so about 600 to a 1,000 square feet as a maximum, but generally i'm looking at all of these comparable cities around 800 square feet, or a percentage of the principal structure is kind of the most typical. There's a variation on parking requirements among the cities. Almost all of the cities say the 80. You can't be sold separately. So it really has to be an accessory unit to a main house. and then about half and half related to owner occupancy. So about half are like boulder that require the owner to live on site all right. So now i'm going to get into the focus areas of the actual ordinance, and I have split it into kind of those 4 main topics, and if you have clarifying questions, I'll have a spot after each topic where we can stop and ask, and I can answer any clarifying questions.

[71:13] or if there are not, we can get through to the next topic. But that's kind of how the the rest of the presentation is organized. so like I mentioned. There's these 4 main topics, saturation, limit, size, limits, clarification, and approval processes. So we'll start with the saturation limit which I know. We discussed at the matters item in January as well, but for those who might not have been in attendance. The saturation limits that exist in boulder only applies to the Rl. One and Rl. 2 zoning districts. Those are our low density, residential districts. and it's a saturation limit of 20. So essentially this graphic shows it in kind of the simplest form possible. But if there were 10 properties within 300, a 300 foot radius. Only 2 of those properties or 20 could have an accessory dwelling in it. There's some nuance in the code, too, where

[72:05] it also includes nonconforming properties like non-conforming duplexes things like that those would count towards that 20%. But essentially, if there are 2 properties within your radius of 10 that I already have an 80, and you are the third property that would like to develop an edu. There is no option to develop an AD you because you've hit the saturation limit for that area. And so this is kind of unique for a zoning standard. It's something that often it that it changes over time, or there's no option or variance process or anything. If you've hit the saturation limit, there is no opportunity to develop an edu. So the intent, I think the original intent behind the saturation limit, because it has been in place in the code since the original 80 regulations were adopted in 1,983. At that time accessory dwelling units were not common around the city. They had been

[73:04] made it illegal through single family zoning for probably decades in most of the country. So it's kind of a new concept. And understandably, there is probably concern about what the potential impacts would be of accessory dwelling units on single family neighborhoods. Flat, fast forward 40 years. We now have nearly 580 Us. In boulder. Many cities throughout the country allow a to use, like I mentioned without saturation limits, and our code has evolved significantly over the last 40 years. So we have established zoning, robust zoning standards that are intended to address and mitigate any potential impact. So we have a lot more tools in our toolbox now than we did in 1,983 one. Of the issues that came up consistently in the evaluation that we did of the accessory dwelling units with the saturation limit is that it is very confusing for applicants and property owners to understand

[74:07] what the saturation limit is. So these are all verbatim quotes from property owners or residents who have written into our inquirer Boulder, which is our customer Service portal. asking questions about the saturation limit. It's actually the most common question we get about a to use is about the saturation limit, and I think the one in the top right kind of sums it up. Well what people are asking. We'd really like to consider an a to you. But we need to confirm that our area is not saturated first. How do we do that without creating a whole full application, submitting the fee. Things like that. So that's what's really unique about the saturation limit is that it changes over time. So you may. You might ask. The city in January is my area saturated? We would say. You know this, and Staff has to do it so property owner can't do it themselves. Staff has to create a special map to determine the saturation limit.

[75:01] We might say, Yes, you're okay right now. But what, by the time you submit your application in the summer your neighbor has already gotten their eightyu approval, and now you are no longer able to do an AD you. So that's just work. It's a zoning standard that doesn't really work like any other zoning standard. So it's definitely quite unique. It also is yeah, just something that's very confusing to the the public, and something When we went through the evaluation it just continues to pose both a real and perceived barrier to a to use. I mentioned that our code has evolved significantly since 1,983 this graphic summarizes all of the different zoning standards that would apply to the design and location of an accessory dwelling unit. This is kind of a typical 7,000 square foot lot in our Rl. One zoning district. So we have things like maximum height, setbacks, cider bulk planes, the maximum length of a wall

[76:04] as well as floor area ratios. building coverages. All of these apply to the design of the Adu. And then, in addition to that, we have all of these 80 standards. So we have parking requirements. We have minimum W sizes. We have some design standards for both detached and attached, and we also require, like I mentioned, owner, occupancy. So the owner has to live on site. and the occupancy limits are essentially almost identical to what the occupancy limit would be on a typical single family house. A. Do you have a little bit more flexibility on dependence. But that's the only difference between occupancy. So they're They're limited quite similarly by occupancy. So the number of unrelated people that can live on the site as well as maximum size. And so I think i'm almost to the with clarifying questions just the next slide. So this is all just to show that there are significant zoning standards that regulate and can help to mitigate the impact of a to use. And this is what? When we looked at all those comparable cities that Don't use saturation limits, they rely on standards like these to mitigate the impacts of a to use.

[77:18] So the proposed code change. This very can stop for questions, but the proposed change that in the ordinance is to eliminate the saturation limit of 20, so there would no longer be a saturation limit in the Rl. One and all, 2 zoning districts like Sarah. I can take your question now. Can you just go back to that previous slide. One of the questions I had was in the mix of proposed zone proposed Our regulatory changes. Do any of these regulations change. No. So the only so all of the blue and green those all just apply to principal and accessory structures the yellow is a to use. Those would all stay the same, with the exception of the maximum size, the actual maximum size changing. That's also proposed in the ordinance, but everything else stays the same.

[78:09] So the maximum size. I think it was 800 for some and a 1,000 for others would still have to fit into these limitations. Exactly. Yeah. Okay, All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. Does anyone else have questions for Lisa? At this point Ml. Do I have to disclose at this point before I make any statements into this that I do. I have to make a disclosure about the use in my work. Laurel, can you do? I wait? Let's have laurel laurel. Can you, up there about her? Need to disclose her business Working with building 80, 80 or designing a to use?

[79:01] Yeah, let's go ahead and disclose that Ml. Go ahead great. So disclosure a to use have been the subject of my professional research since 2,016. They're also a component of my work as an architect. As I specialize in small houses. however, after consultation with the city Attorney's office, and either of these pose a legally defined conflict of interest. so I believe I could. I'm capable of holding my duties as a member of planning board, with no conflict whatsoever on the sub topic of a in use. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. So I had the question I had around the saturation. We've been getting a lot of input from the public concerned about Uni Hill and the saturation. So, Lisa M. My question as it refers to the Unihil area and a to use, is.

[80:01] it's the UN. The hill area hi merrily rental or owner occupied as and I don't know how one would know where the quote, you know, problem or issue areas would be within the hill. But one of the caveats they they use is that they have to be owner. There has to be an owner occupancy. So I wonder how that plays into the concern it it would be on how the current rentals or properties that are a of concern are occupied. Can you speak a little bit to that. Sure. Thanks, Emily. Yeah, that's a great opportunity to clarify, as we have gotten several public comments on that. So, as I mentioned in 80. You can only be legally established where the owner occupies, so i'm not certain of the exact numbers, but I think the the University Hill neighborhood does have a significant number of rental properties. So if the owner is not occupying the property, an 80 unit cannot be established, and we do check that at the application

[81:17] stage they have to prove their owner occupancy. That's one of the main requirements for any AD you. They also have to record a declaration of use, swearing that they will continue to live there, and there are enforcement opportunities. If there are any issues with owner occupancy, we can enforce that through our Enforcement program as well. But to answer your question. because University Hill, I think, has a significant number of rental properties. They only the properties that are owner occupied would be eligible to be in. Have an a to you. All right. Yeah. And I think it's it's beneficial. Thank you for that. Beneficial to the public to hear that information.

[82:00] so it may not. The oh. a real concern. If the owners aren't living on the properties. it may not have it. This removing the saturation as proposed. may not have any significant impacts to that area. Given the owner occupancy. requirement. Yeah, that was my question. Thank you so much for answering thanks. Does anyone else have a question at this point, Laura? Thank you. Lisa. Going back to the compatible development standards. I think I understood from previous conversations that. let's say, somebody has a small house. and and they want to build an AD that a to to put it in layman's terms would have to fit in the same footprint of They could just expand their house right?

[83:00] And the number of people that could live on that property. I think you mentioned the occupancy is basically the same, whether it's 3 unrelated people living just in the house, or it's 2 unrelated people in the house, and one unrelated person in the 80. You like the occupancy you don't get a whole new 3 unrelated people living in your AD. You right. It's the same amount of occupancy, and it's the same building square footage that you could get if you just expanded your house. Is that correct? 150? Exactly so. If I say a lot was allowed 3,000 square feet total, they can either put that into all one large house or the 80 you would be subject to that same 3,000, you know, if the a. To use 500 square feet, the house can be 2,500 square feet. So, however, you want to accommodate that size. There's no additional size allowed for the at you. and then in regards to occupancy like I mentioned, there's a. There's a bit of flexibility for a to use in that more dependence can stay on the site. But in terms of unrelated adults and dependence Typically, it's. We use the Irs tax code. So it's very complicated, but

[84:10] typically it's children. But it can also be dependent adults, but often that's just having more children on the site. Thank you. Any other questions at this point. All right, Lisa. Plow ahead, all right. Alright. So the next topic is the size limits for a to use. So, going back to this graphic and seeing these attached versus detached, the size limits actually differ based on attached and detached. So an attached eightyu currently, is allowed to be one third of the size of the main house, or 1,000 square feet. So how this works is. If you had a 1,500 square foot house, you would be limited to a 500 square foot 80, you so you're not really able to take advantage of that full 1,000 square feet, unless the house is 3,000 square feet or larger.

[85:01] for in detached edu the maximum size currently is 550 square feet. and then, as we discussed previously, and affordable, so the option to designate your eightyu as affordable, which means it's affordable to no greater than 75% of the area median income. They are permitted to have an increased size limit, so they can go a little bit bigger with a to use, as if you designated as an affordable unit. I did. Wanna this was in your packet. There were some photos of ads that have been approved in the last 3 years. But I did just want to kind of give some rather than just the graphic. Just show you some real pictures of sizes of a to use. because we have been allowing those affordable a to be a bit bigger than the typical 550 square feet, or one third or a 1,000. I just wanted to show some examples of some of the larger ones that were designated as affordable a to use. So you can see, one on the top. Is this about a 700 square foot 80. You picture on the left shows what you see from the street.

[86:07] and then the actual 80, you from the alley on the bottom is an 800 square foot 80, you some more another one that's 800 square feet. This is the conversion of an existing structure, and then just comparison that one on the bottom is a 516 square foot, so that's a market rate 80. You some also some different contexts. So some areas without alleys just over 800 square feet for the one on the left, and just under 700 for the one on the right. and then some photos of attached a to use. So these were taking that one-third or 1,000 square, feet, so you can see. The one on the right is an 812 square foot 80 you in the basement of that home, and then the one on the left is a 1,200 square foot 80. You this was actually one that had to go through the board of zoning adjustment to get a variance for the maximum floor area which was approved, and that was to take advantage of the full size of that

[87:08] mark. I saw your hand. Yes, I I had your presentation prompted a question that I hadn't thought about in a while. I used to live on Marine Street as a student, and my good friend across the street had a They had a house, and they have an AV you in the back. and at the time it was considered an attached apu because they had run a covered a walkway cover from the main house to the to the AD. You. And they said, this is attached that that the structure because it was there was a physical attachment us, as it might be. Does our code currently prohibit that sort of definition of attached. I would have to dig into the code to see the exact cause. I know we have specific standards related to covered walkways and things like that, but the attached unit really does have to be attached to the structure. However, we use that definition. So if it, if it qualified as that, we would call it attached.

[88:16] But then we are we in that evaluation. We could see that about 2 thirds of the eighties over the last couple of years have actually been detached day to use. So it's more common to see the detached. Okay, thank you. Alright, so the proposed. I was just one slide away that time, too. Alright, so the proposed change related to size limits. We talked for a bit in the matters. Item about how there's a unique 84 area measurement definition that AD use have a special way of measuring floor area that it basically confuses everyone that has to deal with it. And so the proposal in the ordinance is to just use the floor area definition that we use for every other building so that it would strike the unique eightyu floor area measurement.

[89:00] And then just use what we use for everything else. And then the proposal in the ordinance is to modify the size limits as shown in this table. So the attached units I mentioned are currently limited to a third of the size of the principal unit or a 1,000 square feet. The proposal is to increase that to a half of the principal unit or a 1,000 square feet. So that's what's been currently allowed for affordable units. So you saw a couple of examples of those. and then for detached it would be increasing from 550 square feet to 800 square feet Again, that's the current limit for a affordable detached day to use. and then, in order to preserve, preserve, the incentive for affordable a to use, we've correspondingly increased the allowed size for the affordable units, and also historic units which have a similar incentive, so an affordable attached would be increased to 2 thirds of the principal size of the structure. or 1,200 square feet, and then the affordable detached would be able to go up to a 1,000 square feet. And then that similar, the same rules for the historic.

[90:09] and those are the proposals related to size limits. I can take any questions now. See, Laura. on that first line there, for attach you have 2 different measurements. And you say, whichever is less. does that also apply to the affordable attached and the historic attached, that it's one of these 2 member measurements which ever is less? Or is it just either of these? It's, whichever is less, whichever is less so, that's kind of unsaid. But for all of the dark gray, it should say, whichever is less. Oh, yep, thank you. Okay. Attention to detail. Thanks. Just just curious, because it two-thirds of the principal unit could be quite large. So yeah, sorry. That is that in the ordinance it's, whichever is less, whichever is less. Okay. Thank you. Kurt. regarding the change in how, for it is measured. My understanding is for a standard 2 by 6 wall.

[91:03] It won't change. The effective number is that correct? It only changes it for thicker walls. Yeah, so the intent of the unique floor area measurement was essentially for hey, bale construction like really thick walls. And so it was to 6 inches within the the wall. So yeah, it would just be to the exterior framing now, which is how we measure every other structure for floor area. So if you're building a standard 2 by 6 structure, the the current way of measuring, and then the correct, weird way of measuring, and then the new standard way of measuring will give the same number. I believe so I I I think, through the math. But yes. this is why the unique, the unique, Edu, for it is confusing as well. I think he might have an answer. Yeah. Oh, yeah, go ahead, girl, all smiling face. Yeah, I mean it. It would go to exterior framing. Or if you have an like a material on the outside, like brick, it goes to the exterior of that material.

[92:05] So just for that area. That is the AD you would use that on the whatever the exterior is. So it would just be making the measurement of the AD you the same as how we have it defined in our definition section already. So so it's slightly more restrictive. depending on how how thick your exterior material, is it? Yes, it would be more restrictive if you, if you were building a hey bale construction, or like extra thick walls, the proposed ordinance would be more restrictive for that type. Over the last 3 years we haven't seen any proposals that have done that, and so the idea is more that you know we have a variance process, and so kind of the exception to the rule, could go through a variance and get that rather than confusing every app location that comes through by having this unique 4 area measurement.

[93:04] and also taking into account that you know that we're proposing increased sizes for the a to use. That can account for some of that. Obviously, you know the the differential Isn't gonna be. You know it'll be a fraction of of that increase. Charles. Did you want to add something? Any other questions at this point? All right, Lisa. Carry on all right now. We will jump into These are the code clarification items. So these are items that came up frequently throughout the evaluation as items that we could tackle. That would also help to reduce barriers to a to use by clarifying issues that are just frequently coming up through the application process. So 2 of these were related to process. So the first issue is extending the approval expiration period. So right now a to use are approved as a conditional use which has a one year, expiration period

[94:09] with today's construction, timelines, and permitting timelines and things like that. We're seeing people get pretty close to that one year, and it's stressful for applicants. And concerning. And so that was One of the issues that was raised frequently throughout the evaluation was that approval, expiration, period of only one year. Another issue that was brought up was our public notice requirement related to the accessory dwelling unit. So there is a public notice. It goes to your J. Adjacent neighbors, but the neighbors can't actually impact or influence the the application at all, so it's understandably. A confusing and frustrating process of public notice that they receive this notice, but they can't comment on it. They can't make any changes. It's kind of just a notice for a notice. So the proposal in the ordinance is actually to change an accessory drawing unit from a C or a conditional use in these table to an a, or a loud use, and then the brackets in the table, if you'll remember from

[95:11] the Use Table Project. That means that there are standards that apply to that. So it's it would be an allowed use subject to specific use standards rather than having that separate conditional use process, something that came up over and over and over again throughout from internal stakeholders, applicants, people that had withdrawn applications. 80 you owners was that the two-step process for an accessory drawing unit is extremely confusing and frustrating inefficient really just creates a lot of issues so by changing it from a conditional use to an allowed use. It can be a one step process, and i'll explain that a little bit more in later slides as well, but the changes in the ordinance would change it from conditional to allowed in that way. There's no longer the separate expiration period for the conditional use.

[96:00] So the properties are just subject to the typical building. Permit expiration timelines that anyone applying for a building permit has to be subject to. and then One other consequence of this is that allowed uses do not require public notice, so there would no longer be a public notice. Requirement attached to the accessory dwelling in one of the other code. Clarification items within the ordinance is related to the height of existing structures. As it stands now, there is some flexibility for adaptively reusing existing structures. Typically, an accessory structure has to be 20 feet, and that's the maximum height. But if you're reusing an existing structure right now, the code says you can be up to 25 feet in height. We've had several applications in the last year, or so that have actually exceeded 25 feet in height, and there's no variance or modification, or any option that they have in our code to adaptively reuse that structure into an edu. So the proposed ordinance eliminates that maximum of 25 feet, and says that as long as you're not changing the size or height, or roof form of an existing structure, you can convert that into an edu. And that's for a number of reasons

[97:12] promoting the adaptive reuse of existing structures, environmental sustainability of using existing building materials things like that, and just providing that flexibility for those structures that are already there, and likely would have less of an impact on your neighbors if the structure has been there for a long time. Things like that Other updates to the detached AD. Height standards. There's a confusing standard that's been in there for decades related to a roof wall ratio that's been removed, but we did re retain some flexibility for a to use, with kind of steeply pitched roots to exceed that 20 foot height, so as to not overly incentivize flat roof structures. walkable separation. This gets really into the weeds of interpreting code, but it's something that came up really quite frequently through the evaluation. It's something that we use as the designator between 2 different drawing units, if there's walkable separation. But it wasn't it was kind of deeply within the definitions in the land use code. So we put it front and center in the attached to use standards that they have to be separated with a lock physically separated in order for it to be an Edu

[98:23] limited, accessory units. I mentioned that we have 2 types of ads. We actually have 3 types. We have this limited accessory unit. There's only one of them in the city. It was kind of a a way, a different way to have a nonconforming duplex, but only one property has ever taken advantage of it. The incentive for it is pretty low, and it just adds additional code language to the code. So we've removed that from the code, and then finally related to Owner occupancy. I think we discussed this at the matters item, we added more clarity to the definition of owner occupancy to clarify

[99:00] What if a property is owned by an a limited liability company, or similar structure, how they can prove owner occupancy. And then we've added some specific language into the standard about owner occupancy about what kind of documents people need to supply in order to prove that owner occupancy, and also that the city can request that at any time request those kind of documents to ensure owner occupancy. So those are that that code clarification items that came through were kind of brought to the surface through that evaluation that we've included in this ordinance. And I can answer any questions on any of those. if it's any. Okay, Ml: Anyone else put up their hands if they have questions, and I also have a question. Ml: Go ahead. Thank you. So, Lisa. regarding the separation. Blockable separation requirement.

[100:04] What about the situation? Where they add it's in addition to the property, and there doesn't exist. Oh. an attachment. an access from the main house into the Adu! It doesn't current so they're not renovating something within it. Do they have to create that, I mean, and and why? No, that's a good clarification. So if it's just an addition that's totally separately accessed, then that we would consider that physically separated. This is more to clarify the typical case of like a basement being converted into an edu. It's just one of the one of the main defining features of a separate dwelling unit is having a physical lockable separation. And so so, yeah, if you have no doorway in to lock, that's still physically separated.

[101:02] Right? Okay. Okay, that makes I I don't remember being abundantly clear in the language That's why we're. That's why we're trying to clarify it. If it is an addition. It's it's attached, but it's an addition. So there never was commonly accessible a situation that you don't need to create one. Yeah, we can. Yeah, we can look at that. That's clear. Okay, that would be great. Thanks. Yeah. I had that same question because we're talking about requiring it to be lockable kind of it implies that it can be unlockable. which it sounds like is not required.

[102:01] Yeah. So I was. I was confused about the permit approval. Timeline change because it talks about the in the memo. You talk about changing it from one year, but then you talk about 180 days. so can can you? Maybe just give a little more detail on that? Yeah, yeah. So I think when we originally brought and you wouldn't have been on the board. But when we originally brought this as one of the issues we were going to tackle with the ordinance, the idea was to maybe give it get the 80 you a 3 year process, or through your expiration period, like our land use review so like the user views that you looked at before. but, as we thought, through the procedural changes, and in changing it from a 2 step review to a one step Review. If it's not a separate application, then it would just have to comply with the building, permit application. And those 80 us like, even now that have a one year. It's a one year to establish that building permit. So then they're subject to the building. Permit expiration period, anyway.

[103:07] So it's not giving extra time in the building permit, and that is a process that people can get through in that time, and they can request extensions and things like that. So we felt like the the change from the 2 step review to the one step. Review was adequate in order to address that problem. So because it was. it was really an issue of the two-step review. So so in effect, yeah. the the the bottom line is basically it's going from you. Have one year to build to 3 years to build. That's the That's the important part of the change. Is that right?

[104:03] Okay? Okay. Okay, Gotcha. And so I know that there were questions about simultaneous permitting to you. You've got an empty lot, and you want to build a house in an edu. And there were questions about whether those could be permitted simultaneously, which is currently not allowed. Does this allow that? Yes, we've tried to be more clear in the ordinance, and those were all based on interpretations, or that that was an interpretation of the ordinance. And so we've tried to be clear with the language that was unclear before about how that would work, so that you would be able to to permit those simultaneously through the building. Permit. Okay, sounds good. And then one question about ownership. Say, you have a family of 3, you know. 2 parents and a kid. and they each in the They live in a house that is owned by an Lc. And each one has one third ownership of Dlc.

[105:08] Because no one of them would surpass the 50% threshold they would not be able to build an 80. Is that correct? Under the new rules. No, because the all 3 of them would be living there right in this situation. right? So they that would be full. They would meet the at least 50% are living on site. Okay, so it doesn't have to be that it doesn't have to be that one. It doesn't have to be that one specific owner owns more than 50. It's that the owners that are occupying the property have at least 50% ownership of that Llc. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. I think that's all my questions on this section. So before I ask my mark or Laura, do you have questions?

[106:00] Yeah, just one. Lisa, I might have blanked out and missed it. But did you mention the temporary rental exemptions when you were going through the changes? No, I didn't thank you for that opportunity to clarify. So we did add some more language in the section about owner, occupancy about the temporary rental exemptions based on the direction that we got from you, and first from city council in the matters item and study session. So we've clarified that people are able to go on Sabbatical leave their home for less than a year outside of Boulder County, and they could rent out their house while they're gone, and also rent out the atu, but that that is limited to a one-year period, and it's subject to our typical typical temporary rental exemption process. and that's the same as if like a a homeowner currently, who wants to rent out their house where they go on Sabbatical doesn't have to obtain a rental license for that sabbatical period so it's very similar to kind of what's in place now for home ownership.

[107:06] For a short period of time Exactly. It uses the same process, it just the clarifying language and the ordinances that that's the only exception for owner occupancy is if you've got this temporary rental exemption situation. Thank you. Okay, so i'm going to follow up on several questions that were raised, and ask one additional, so follow up on the temporary rental. It's limited to a one year period. But could someone who lead you who leaves for 6 months a year do it every single year? You know I I should check the exact language, but I know there's a limit of how often you can do it. I think you can only do it once in a yeah, I don't remember exactly what the timeline is. But yeah limits. How many times you can do it? You've got to.

[108:04] Okay, then I'm: i'm also I. This llc question confuses me a bit, and it it sort of touches back on the issue Ml. Brought up from the concerns we've heard from uni-held residents. So the issue with, as I understand it from the UN health stuff queue letters that we've gotten is not just that they it has to be an owner-occupied home, but also that they're all of these non-conforming residential buildings, you know they used to be single family homes, and now they're triplexes, or duplexes, or apartments, or whatever and so that sense of a a family neighborhood that's been already pretty densified, being further densified. So the question, I I guess the question I have about the owner. Occupancy is.

[109:01] What are the risks of this Llc elements? I realized that all these can be a a tax. a framework for for tax issues and doesn't mean the homeowner doesn't live there. But i'm just trying to understand what what. what was the thinking that went into this particular formulation. and and and enforcement is like everything else in Bold are going to be dependent on a neighbor calling into the Enforcement Office and asking it to be enforced like, what's the enforcement of this sure. So I think that I think there are like 3 parts to that question Hopefully, I'll get to all of them. So let's see. So starting with the first. So I think that the the issues of potential. So we have the regulation that requires owner occupancy. As we looked into it more, I think there's there's the same potential for owner occupancy

[110:04] not being complied with, whether it's a person's name on the title or an Llc. So there are like you said there are tax reasons why people own their property and an Lc. And that's what we discussed during the matters item and study session that we do, and we allow people like. If the the house is in a trust or something, they can also do that. So that's why we wanted to add the clarifying language, because there wasn't previously language that specifically addressed Llc. Situation. So now we have language that says that you have to submit. You know your membership which is the practice we've been using, but they they have to submit their membership agreements and kinds of things that they're proving their owner occupancy in the same way that someone with their name on the title is proving their owner occupancy, or someone with a trust. And so it's really just treating L. I'll see the same as the other properties and let's see and enforcement. Okay, yeah. So we looked into the enforcement there

[111:04] it, for there are not a ton of cases related to owner occupancy. It's certainly something that comes up occasionally, and our Enforcement officers do a great job of looking into that and making sure. you know it might be an issue of over time. The owners have changed, and they need to update, or they have. Their records are wrong, and the assessor, or something like that that they just need to clarify. But again, in talking with our Enforcement officers, it wasn't that there is a more significant issue with Llc. Own properties related to that. It's just in something that they can enforce. And and that was part of the reason why we added more clarification about you'll see in the ordinance. It says that the city can request at any time these documents, because right now it happens at the application stage. And so we just have a little bit more enforceability in the code language now about when we can request those documents again, if there's ever an issue.

[112:02] So the third question that was in embedded in these other questions had to do with the hill and with the the legal non-compliant buildings. And I'm just sort of curious one of the things that we had talked about during matters, and I realized it was just matters with the idea of an overlay zone for the hill that would maintain the current saturation limit. And I'm: Curious what happened to that discussion? Yeah, yeah, it was definitely something that we've been focusing on. In recent months I mentioned, we have the community conversation with several neighborhood organizations, including the hill. Carl and I went on a walking tour of the hill we've been in, and we've been receiving many public comments, so we've looked into it. and it kind of relies on, or the decision that we've made in the proposed ordinance relies on several different factors related to the University Hill, and other university adjacent neighborhoods.

[113:00] The first is that we saw in our research that other cities that have saturation limits are that do not have saturation limits, are able to adequately mitigate the potential impacts or issues of a to use through the zoning standards, and I would. I would argue that Holder has probably more robust zoning standards than many cities, anyway. So we have, like I showed on those that diagram. We have many other ways to mitigate potential impacts. We also looked at the differences of the properties that are in districts that Don't have saturation limits. So about 25% of the to use are in districts that don't have saturation limits, and we looked at whether there were there was significant enforcement differences between those areas without a saturation limit and with. And we really just didn't see a difference or a significant difference. Our Enforcement officers didn't point out any significant difference between the areas with the saturation limit and the areas without enforcement of of what potential issues that have been raised through the concern. So things like parking, or noise, or trash, or things like that. So i'm sorry. Just so. You were like comparing the hill with

[114:15] Newlands, or something like with Rmx one. We don't have a saturation limit or things like that. So just looking at those that's a a way to look at the differences is, we have some areas that have saturation limits. We have some that don't, and we don't see a significant difference in the types of impacts to the surrounding community. And then also just talking with our Enforcement folks and Enforcement officers. They don't think, are they? There's not. They Didn't note any difference between properties that have an eightyu like having more enforcement issues than any typical residential property. And we did look at the Enforcement data it's challenging because you can't get like a statistically valid number, because there's only 450 properties that they use, and tens of thousands of properties in boulder. But just kind of looking at that. There's the typical

[115:05] residential issues that you see on any residential property like snow troubling and things like that. But really, we just didn't see a significant difference in the areas that have a saturation limit and don't. And so, therefore we didn't propose, or we don't. We don't recommend creating a saturation limit for specific areas of the city. Okay. thank you for that. And I. My last question actually has nothing to do with owner occupancy. But the public notice requirement. I'm just curious if somebody is like, blown out the back of their house and doing an addition. do they have to tell their They have let their neighbors know the same regulations about I'm doing on my land what I want to do, and if i'm a nice neighbor, i'll let you know it's going to be dusty and noisy for a while. Exactly. There's no public notice. Requirement for those other types of construction. All right. Those are my questions. So was there another

[116:00] section There is, it's just process improvements, though. So it's only one slide. So these are actually not in the ordinance, but these are also part of the project. So I did want to highlight them. So we've talked already about the one Step Review. But this is a pretty significant difference to our procedural, the the procedures for a to use and that would be, and that's facilitated by the other changes in the ordinance, like eliminating the saturation limit and changing it from a conditional use to an allowed use. That's what allows us to change it from a 2 step review to a one step, review, and will increase significantly, increase the efficiency of 80. You review and approval. There's some other issues we've talked about in the matters item related to like. When you get the address for the Edu, and we'll also be looking at the declaration of use, which is a document that people have to sign when they get an 80. You approved to make sure that that language is is working adequately. And then we're also going to focus a lot on self service handouts, creating things for the customers to improve the experience of trying to get an a to you approved in boulder.

[117:07] and those are all facilitated by the ordinance changes as well. Does anyone have questions? Nope. Go ahead, and please only a couple more. So I would. I'm sorry I was slow on the draw. Do. Are there any other uses that require a declaration of use? Yeah. So we actually do declaration of use for many different types of uses. Carl. Do you want to help me with that one? Yeah, I'm trying to think there are circumstances when we look at building permits, for instance, that might show a building that has 2 units. and the zone only allows 2 units. but they might have

[118:00] a space in the unit that could have lockable separation and potentially a bathroom and kitchen that are separated where it could be used as a separate unit. So oftentimes we'll look, we'll look at that, and we'll make them revise the plan so that it's not a something that qualifies as a kitchen. And then we'll, we'll actually require a declaration of use where they basically will say that we're not going to use that space as a separate unit, because that would be a violation of the code, so that that's one example where it comes up particularly in building. Permit, let me. I think, where it comes up. There's actually a section of our our code in 9, 15, 6 that talks about the city manager having authority. you know frankly to require any use if there is question, or if there's a benefit to a declaration in you, so it's pretty broad authority in our code. Thanks for okay, Thank you.

[119:01] All right, Lisa. Carry on alright. So just a couple of final slides. So the next steps are to continue public engagement, hearing from the public throughout this process. it's currently tend to be scheduled, but this ordinance would go to city council April twentieth for first reading, and then would have a public hearing at second reading on May Fourth. and then the plan as proposed in the ordinance. There's an effective date of September first, so that would give several months to work on the process. Improvement changes preparing for the ordinance changes preparing those handouts, things like that, and also updating our electronic permitting system. So that would be the process. And I have a suggested motion. But I will just stop and see if there's any other questions doesn't look like it, and we actually need to do public comment before we get to the motion. So what would be help? Does anyone have questions before we go to public comment?

[120:03] Okay. and I, Lisa, will not leave us so we can always ask her questions when we're having our our our conversation. So what would be helpful right now is if everyone who wants to speak would, during public comment would raise their hand. So we can see how many folks there are. And, Vivian, if you will let us know what you're seeing so far, I see 5 hands. Okay. So my suggestion is that we have the public comment period, and then we take a 10 min break, and then we'll come back for our discussion. Is that all right with everyone alrighty and 3 min. Yeah. Sorry. I'm gonna to each 3 min each. And, Vivian, if you will lead us forward, that'd be great. Yeah, I'll just go down the line. So first we have Elizabeth Hondorf, followed by Tilla Duhim.

[121:03] Please go ahead, Elizabeth. You have 3 min. and you may have to unmute yourself. I think you should have back again. Awesome. Elizabeth. We can't hear you. There we go. Hi, yeah. I was on Bosa for 4 years, and I. I have an AD. You and I was both a chair, and I've been through some of this compatible develop and stuff like kind of a grip on what you're talking about. I'm elderly now, and i'm a widow, and this Saturation Point thing has turned into a real vicious circle. I mean people. There's no units left in my neighborhood, and so people are targeting me because they and other, you know, because I was the last person in to get my Abu, and there's

[122:01] builders up here on Fourth Street at one 80, and they're huge houses which actually, they don't even use a lot of them. And so creating a you know, a small amount when there's a big demand, puts pressure on the people that have them. and opens the door for harassment for elderly people. I've even been harassed about the religious background of people I rent to. So i'm all for the 100% saturation limit. And I think legally, your out of downs not to allow it when it's that way in 99.9 of our country. Thank you. thanks, Elizabeth. Next up we have Tilla Duhim, followed by Rob Ross. Please go ahead to left. Hi there, and thank you, Tila, do, hey? I'm at 22 on Fourth Street. Congratulations, Sarah, on your chair, personship, and it's really nice to see you. Kurt. Welcome. I'm really glad to see you on planning board.

[123:10] I'm chiming in tonight just to support these ordinance changes. I was attending the office hours earlier this week with Lisa, and was really really impressed with Staff's competency, and just the effort that they have put forth. And I think you you've seen it tonight that they're really really trying to extend avu availability and to rationalize what is unfortunately sort of left over from ordinances in 1983. So these are more small steps in the right direction. I am aware only thanks to Lisa, that there are movements at the State Legislature. which might render kind of null the efforts that Staff have done tonight, because they are considering even more liberal and permissive changes on a to use. And I think that says a whole lot about Boulder's lack of vision.

[124:09] and how it tobbled by policies in 1,983 that the state of Colorado is considering moving forward with something more progressive. On allowing in fill development, which is something we've been looking for changes to and and progressive change on for decades. Now I wanted to say, just as a personal level. My home is almost good enough for an attached to you. We built our home about less than 10 years ago. and sort of had an in included sort of Granny flat unit, because we have 4 aging parents that we were planning for. but it doesn't right now qualify under the current rules. and I think it would be pretty close under the modified rules I'd have to figure out some of the parking stuff. but in the meantime it is a very lucrative, short-term rental now, so I would be interested in using that space as an edu. We have had a like a mother and a daughter. A friend of mine stay down there for 6 months, and some other friends. So we've had some longer term sort of

[125:15] families living down there, but I can't add in the second kitchen, and it doesn't just qualify under the new criteria. But in the meantime I'm using this perfectly lovely space for tourists, and I would like the planning board to consider that that I can use this space as a short term rental space fully licensed, and it meets all the criteria, but it doesn't meet the criteria for 80. You i'm also glad to see the outreach to the boards definitely. The Housing Advisory Board is a great place to to be consulting as well as the planning Board, but as a member of Tab. I suspect the Tab would also have some pretty impactful input about the parking requirements for the eighties right now. So I know that's not part of the current set of

[126:00] regulations that you're considering, but as steps in the correct direction. I would encourage you to at least recommend these to Council now, and we will keep moving. To make 80 is even more affordable and accessible for everyone in folder. Thank you. Thank you for your input Okay. That's your 3 min. Next up we have Rob Ross. Please go ahead. Oh, hi! My name's Rob Ross. I'm an architect and contractor here in Boulder, and generally, I think the staff recommendations for the to reviews are all improvements, but it would like to suggest expanding the maximum height to not only include existing buildings, but also to include new structures. We live in a hilly town, and physical constraints, like steep lots, can virtually right the ability to build the 20 football, all structure that when the height is dictated by a low point 25 feet away.

[127:03] so even a moderately steep site greatly limits what can be built as anything at all. So we're going to consider a height variance for existing buildings. you know, even if they're not being modified, you know not, have an include other known constraints for new structures as well. No. So I really have to add. So thanks for taking that into consideration great. Thank you. Next up. We have Lisa Spalding. Please go ahead, Lisa. Thank you. Lisa Spalding University Hill. I sent you an email with a little tiny Powerpoint. If you if you have it, you can pull it up. It would be great. The neighborhoods surrounding the university offer investors who pay cash for homes, lucrative rental opportunities. This threatens the balance between families and students which has always been crucial to the safety and stability of these neighborhoods.

[128:06] University Hill is particularly vulnerable because it was down zone to Rl. One in the 1,900 and Seventys to maintain a balance between families and student rentals. However, a large number of properties were grandfathered in as legal, nonconforming duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. This has resulted in a low-density neighborhood based on dwelling units per acre with a very high population density based on homes that have been carved up into apartments and historic Greek houses. The current saturation limit for a d use consists of the number of existing 80 use non-conforming properties and co-ops. If 20 of any combination of these 3 types of res residential uses exists within 300 feet of a property applying for an Id you permit. The property is placed on a wait list. I sent you the Powerpoint Presentation that, I believe, illustrates this complex issue in the simplest terms possible.

[129:08] I use screenshots of 2 University hill blocks and the city's rental housing map, and these are blocks that I personally know very well the properties in green and blue have regular rental licenses and properties, with a red line around them, are short term rentals. I have put the number of legal occupants on each property. That is a non-conforming use, whether it's licensed or not. The 800 block of Thirteenth Street has 6 legal nonconforming properties that have a collective occupancy of 58. If the saturation limit is lifted, the remaining 12 houses on this block would be eligible for a to use this could add another 24 people to this block. The 800 Block of Eleventh Street has 2 non-conforming properties, with another large non-coforming Use the old Marpa House around the corner

[130:00] The cumulative occupancy for these 3 non-conforming properties is 166 the 9 owner-occupied properties on the eleventh that would be eligible for a to use if the saturation limit is lifted, could add another 18 people. These blocks are already at or beyond their carrying capacity without extra a to use. I believe this problem could be easily addressed by maintaining the saturation limit on neighborhoods surrounding the the University, that have a large number of non-conforming uses, resulting in an already high population density. Thank you. Thank you so much, Lisa. Any other hands I don't see any but want to give folks Lynn. Please go ahead. Lynn Siegel. Yeah, I agree with you, Lisa, that you need to do something separate with University help. Now, as far as this whole situation goes, I think this it this AD you expansion

[131:04] is an opportunity to leverage. What else is happening in Boulder. Okay, if you're talking about parking reductions on 2,206 pearl, for example. that's not really stopping parking congestion. I mean the traffic congestion. and that's affected by everyone in town when they're trying to get around in the neighborhoods. It's a different situation in the established single family neighborhoods, because they're going to be individual affected with extra parking demand. But I think you have to use this against the developers that are You're doing the exact opposite extreme densification in the very dense downtown part of boulder, and saying, oh, we're lifting parking restrictions because these people don't have cars and they're gonna be using cars a lot to truck their stuff around because they're living in 300 square feet spaces. Now the a to use are set up to have liberal space 500 to 800 square feet.

[132:14] so that's a different situation. People are going to be tend to stay at home more. These the the the intensity of use is very different in the 2 spaces, and since there's such a a passion or increasing density in boulder, there really has to be a thoughtfulness about where and how you're increasing that density. And it's significant to me that on the one hand, you're saying Yes, people can have an AD on this space in the single family neighborhood, and yet we can just jam it in in on 22 or 6 pearl, and for 1741 walnut, where scope wants to put in these 300 350 square feet places.

[133:03] So think about how that works. Because there, you know, I was out on the street the other day, and someone's waiting for you Uber, and this cars driving down the street, and they're saying, Stop, stop! You were supposed to pick us up. Know that Uber has to take. Go to their destination. Take that person. They can't take them part of the way. but they have to separate each person out, so they're going around and around the block congesting boulder. What a! And this is big! And Tila should listen to this, too, because it's an issue, and this is a grand opportunity now for you to to leverage this against this intensive developing for this missing middle of these 300 square foot places. Because of this. And meantime, I think, Lynn, I appreciate you. I just want to finish my sentence. Meantime, I think you a much as I would like you to just expand. Take away the regulations for a to use period.

[134:03] I would. Can I recommend that you increase the band with from 300 feet to You know twice that or something. because, and you can adjust this as you think about the this other intense development going in in town, that you want to balance it and kind of trade off the the the uses that are affecting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Lena: Thank you. Everybody from the public who's come here tonight to share your feedback. We do appreciate it. Anyone else, Vivian. Nope. No other hand. All right, so let's take a 10 min break. We'll be back at 8, 26, and we'll have our deliberations, and then act on the motion.

[144:26] You having fun yet. Kurt, you have behaved yourself so much better than Mark and Ml. And I did in our first meeting. Apparently I'm doing something wrong definitely. Please be more disruptive.

[145:02] Be careful what you ask for. Well, I think somebody at the beginning of this meeting said something about we shouldn't all be singing in harmony all the time. So yeah, exactly. he said. I do have 2 more questions that i'm sorry I didn't ask earlier. That's okay. Well, when everyone comes back and we start up again. Lisa Will is still here, and she'll be here till the bitter end. I believe she better be okay. So is everyone back who needs to be back. David Gear is here. Hi, David and Laurel is here great.

[146:00] He's David is here. He's helping with the 80 ordinance. So he's helping our office temporarily, so he'll be popping on and on. Yeah, he's back. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So we're back in session. It is 8, 26. Her said he had some more questions for you, Lisa. and then we'll begin our our deliberation. I I have one as well. Okay. And Laura and anyone else raise your hand if you have other questions. I had. Yeah, 2 quick questions there. First of all, in one of the public. the public, Input: the letters that we got there was a question about the compatibility language which I know used to be in the ordinance. But then I wasn't seeing it anymore. Compatibility of design with the main house or surrounding area, or something. Is that gone? Yeah, that was removed. I think it. It was either in the 2,018 major update, or one that came shortly after. So it it was eliminated from at least 28 to 2020, sometime in that period.

[147:13] Okay, sounds good. It just wanted to verify that. And then there's this provision 9 6 3 2 B about side entrances and screening side entrances of a to use to make, basically so that they're not visible from the main street. Did you consider removing that in the streamlining? It was something that we looked at it wasn't something that came up as an issue throughout the evaluation. So we were really focused on the things that popped up as major barriers. So that was a reason why we decided to keep it in there. Okay. Okay? Oh, and I guess i'll phrase this as a question, too. So the one of the commenters was asking about

[148:07] the possibility of a variance. Basically, I think, for height for new construction. My feeling is so currently with the detached. If you had limited it 550 square feet, there's not much opportunity to really go to 2 floors to 2 stories. but with an 800 score foot limit. It seems like there's more room for that. Did you? Did you consider that in the possibility that that might thereby require or or yeah, make make it more necessary basically to have higher greater height limit. I think that we didn't. We didn't want to affect the height limits too much from what they currently were, because they weren't raised as a specific barrier to a to use throughout the evaluation process. We do have flexibility for new construction for the height up to a certain

[149:12] amount, so up to 25 feet, so there is 5 feet of flexibility as long as you're using the a specific roof pitch of 8, 12, and then that was also the part that I mentioned. There's a confusing sidewall ratio that we've removed from in the current ordinance. So there's some flexibility there. and we didn't consider I I don't think that because we've been able to many a to use, have been able to accommodate an 80 you within the existing regulation, adding additional floor area on the first floor, and a lot of our detached data use are above a garage, anyway. So just adding additional floor area that might be for the 80, you on the first floor. We didn't think that that necessitated increased height. Thank you

[150:00] all right, Laura. And then, Ml: just remember this is our opportunity to ask some questions, and then we'll go to our our deliberations. Thank you. So following on Kurt's question about the height. you know. The commenter raised the example of a very steep lot, and and how that that can affect the measurement from the lowest point a certain distance away. I i'm not as familiar with building Sanders as the folks here who are architects and who work with that all the time. But have you seen that be an issue? Do you anticipate that being an issue with the larger sizes that are allowed, and if so it, you know, can they get a variance for that through Bosa or through some other mechanism. If that is really constraining on building an AD simply because of the steepness of a lot. Yeah. So we looked at the last few years, and we do have that existing standard that I mentioned, that allows you to build up to 25 feet, and we found that so we had about 280 use approved in that time, and I think it was 7 or 8 that use that flexibility on height, and some of them were because of grading issues because of how we measure height.

[151:05] Several of them are just design related, wanting to include the steeper pitched roof, or trying to accommodate putting an 80 on top of an existing garage. So we think that that provides enough flexibility up to 25 feet one of the issues with you use is that if the 80 you were to especially a detached to you, if the 80 you use remote is gone suddenly, you're all you've. You have a much larger garage than would otherwise be permitted. So it's a nonconforming structure without the 80 within it, so it just gets a little more complicated if we have these unique rules for a to use that might not potentially always be an Edu and some, and also just hearing the concerns of reducing impact on neighboring properties, trying to keep the height as similar to what any typical garage would look like. That was what part of the focus as well. There. There is a process, for you know, allowing additional height that's already in the code. So there, there.

[152:03] on single family lots, you can go through a height modification for the principal structure or the accessory structure being under the the zoning district maximum. It would be a staff level site review. Basically so we would. They would be treated the same as any other requests that we might get for more height. Yeah, thanks, Carl. Okay. Thank you. Ml. Thank you. Yes, I'm: i'm going to ref all this height thing, so i'm not sure if I remember correctly, is the height that the height, requirement, or the height, limitation relative to the point. The lowest point within 25 feet is that General Zoning? Or is that accessory dwelling particular, or is, where does that come from?

[153:07] The reasoning behind, the floor area measurement being the same. And so we are using the same measurement of height for a to use as we do for any structure which is 25, the lowest point within 25 feet. And is that given a steep lot? Is that requirement able to get very through a bosa process. It's the process that Karl was mentioning the administrative site. Height, modification through a site review. right? And so that would look at whatever the constraint is that's meeting the building to be higher, just relative to that point. Not necessarily higher. We're not looking for, you know, 30 tall building, or 20 even 25 foot, which is relative to that number. So there is. There is that process built in with with the variance

[154:06] great Yeah, great to understand the clarity. So it's going from being its own little unique little standalone policy falls in with everything else in the big building Review. Right? Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Any other questions at the moment for Lisa or Carl. Okay. So we'll start our deliberation staff has put 2 questions to us, but I think they left out a third question, which is just some basic thoughts and feedback on the various elements of the proposal. So we'll go first through the 2 questions that we supposed, and then we'll talk more broadly. So does the planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements, the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comp plan. Anyone have comments about about that key question

[155:05] anyone. Mark, Did you just raise your hand? I'm: Sorry. Yeah, Mark. And then Lee and then, Laura. you got to learn to use the little. because because I have notes, and I want it to be. I don't like it when i'm speaking, and i'm looking off this way, because I think that's disconcerting for people. So I move. I switch my stuff around. We do understand if you're looking at your notes. Yeah. don't worry about us. So I I just i'm going to begin my comments by thanking staff, or what I consider to be kind of threatening the needle in terms of being responsive to the community goals, councils, goals. and some community angst about this particular topic. But

[156:02] my comments and I consider this a very successful planning department project, and I think the the department Lisa, especially with Carl, deserved kudos for bringing this here, and you know. So I, as I looked at this at length, and I I back. I I also appreciate the fact that every time I I've been part of this particular topic, which is now 3 or 4 times now, because I was at the last have meeting. I continue to learn things, but I think that yes, in fact, you have taken the BBC. To heart, and I I I spent some time today, just on page 7, the BBC core values and the 3 that come up, and you have cited specific policies. But I just look at the the core. The core values on page 7,

[157:03] and that is in fill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form. great neighborhoods and public spaces. and a welcoming, inclusive and diverse community. So those I I think you know, there's obviously attention between those core values and trying to implement those in a policy like an Atu policy. But I think you have done that by balancing to the to a a great degree, you balanced some concerns with the community with us, reaching our goals and and us being a welcome, inclusive, and diverse community. and having a more sustainable urban form, because I think Boulder will continue to evolve, and I hope that we continue to evolve towards a more sustainable urban form, and then to that particular point that sustainable urban form definition

[158:06] on page 43, that the ball, so that that revolves around quote daily needs met within easy access from home work, school services or recreation without driving a car. and I can't think of a better housing time to in locations like the hill in locations like downtown Martin acres to having people that want to live without a car or car, light and and having walkable access to homework, school services and recreation. This is this is part of a filling that sustainable urban form. So an answer to the question, Does it fulfill BBC. Policies? My answer is, yes, and it does so very well, and you've done it in a well balanced way, and I thank you.

[159:06] Laura. I I second everything that Mark said. I think mark you said it better than I'm going to. But I also want to thank Lisa and Carl for the very detailed and fantastic work that you have done here. trying to thread that needle, as Mark said, in terms of Bvcp consistency, I would point to policy 7.0, 2 affordable housing goals, 7.0, 7 mixture of housing types, 7.10 housing for a full range of households and 7.11 balancing housing supply with employment base as some of the ones that this policy of trying to have more ads really checks the box. This really is a housing type that allows people who want to have an independent living space that maybe feels like a single family home, or is shared with a single family home to to live in. Boulder. It allows people to have complete families. Multi-generational living take care of their senior relatives, take care of a dependent relative dependent adults are dependent maybe children just moving in

[160:10] all of the things that we have talked about in the past, but I think is worth reminding the community that you know what makes our community strong is our ability to have a a community that includes all kinds of people, and we are really lacking in spaces for a diversity of 150 family types and a diversity of housing types, and this is one that is in high demand, and we Don't really have a lot of supply. So I support the goal to increase our ads by removing barriers, making it easier for private property owners to provide this sort of housing type to the city, and I really think that you have done that Here you have. You have accepted the mission, and you have executed it beautifully of trying to figure out what are the things that are preventing private property owners from building these 80 use and providing them to the community. And I thank you for it.

[161:03] Ml. Thank you. And Yes, definitely kudos to Lisa and Carl. It's it's it hasn't been as long as some of the prior, the initial AD you back in 20. What 16! But thank you so much for keeping it clear and concise and and precise. And I, The thing that I plug most about this is that you are giving 80 us all the benefits of a use by right project it. It's just like the big houses have had that, and I think it's great that now the the little second houses fall into that use by right category, and I think that that is a really significant move by whether I I don't remember that came direction from city council, or how that came, but a significant move in

[162:03] removing not only the barriers, but given giving a level playing field to people who want a different way to live on their property so great kudos to Lisa and Karl, and thank you for shepherding this project to to tonight. or did you? Wanna You know there's your hands correct? Oh, yeah, Well, the others have been very articulate about ways in which this does. Further, the the Pcp goals, but none of those goals that were the reference which all our very relevant. None of them talk about the need to house cars right? And so I realized that this is not part of the scope of the project. But

[163:03] I really feel like if we, if we were really trying to meet the goals of BBC. We would also be dealing with parking requirements and and eliminating. We're greatly reducing the parking lot. So that's that's the one glaring way that I see that we are missing meeting. Okay, thanks, Kurt. So I I I I I support that. I I agree that you all have accomplished what the Council wants. However, I do feel like a couple of the the the policy goals that you've pointed to our sort of we. This is sort of a mixed bag in terms of accomplishing those goals particularly built environment. 2 point, one which talks about preservation support for residential neighborhoods.

[164:06] The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhoods character and livability. And I, I really do hear what the folks who live on the hill are talking about because it's not. It's their lived. It is their lived experience that it is a neighborhood that is complex and certain blocks. Many blocks are very densely populated, and the addition of 80 us will add to that density. And and I realized that that is what the folks who support. I'm a to use unbounded want. but that isn't necessarily what makes for a livable family neighborhood. So I just want to. I want to recognize the concerns that folks who live on the Hill and in Martin acres have shared with us over the course of this discussion. Not just in the last 48 h

[165:04] I realized that there's no actual tool available. and there are all kinds of arguments made for why the hill should not be treated differently than any other neighborhood. But I think we need to acknowledge that this is a big change. and it's a big change in a neighborhood that it is very affected by by the student population, and I mean. I always tell remind people that the boulder has the highest rate of renters under 23, and 65 of our renters are 23 or younger so a goodly portion of It's possible that a goodly portion of these new ads in that neighborhood will be rented to students. Nothing wrong with that. But it it is a neighborhood that's already pretty saturated, and I I just want to acknowledge the frustration of the folks who live there who are not students, because it is.

[166:09] I think we all have friends who have lived there and moved away to other neighborhoods just because it was a difficult place or a challenging place to bring up a family young. If you have young kids and then build environmental policy environment policy 211, which identifies specifically the purpose of 80 used to increase long term rental options and single single-family neighborhoods. and i'm just I keep going back to that the from 27, I think it was actually from 2,012 to 20, 21, which must have been the last time you all did the survey of 2,020, that the percentage of that are being used for long term rentals dropped from 70 something percent to 40, something percent. And i'm sure there are multiple factors as to Why, that is, and i'm sure Covid has played a role and all that stuff. But

[167:03] in many ways those 80 us that are being built are not actually being used for the housing purposes that the city, the Boulder Valley Comp plan, wants them to be used for. and I know we don't really have a mechanism to guarantee that they're used. But I just want to point out that this is a marginal solution to a set of problems. and some of those problems are caused by the university, and what we really need is for the University to begin to solve some of its problems with housing. So I will leave it at that, because that's not what this discussion is about. But I just want to put that on the table, because I think it is an issue here. Whenever we talk about housing any other comments on key issue number one. all right. Key issue number 2. Does the Planning Board recommend any modification

[168:01] I so I I did want to make I'm realizing that we have these 2 key issues and the second one my My additional comments, Don't, really apply to the second. So i'm gonna jump back on for a second and make a couple of additional comments and then go ahead. Okay. I I I wanted to acknowledge all of the emails, both this time and last time in January, when we discussed this. and I I I want to acknowledge you know. I I think we have some people listening in that, you know. I acknowledge and sympathize and understand the frustrations of living in certain neighborhoods with like certainly, that have some bad actors like on the hill. And you know, when I was running for council I spent time with Hill Residents Hill merchants, and I've lived on the hill. I've also lived in Gospel and Martin Acres. And when you, when you really read these emails

[169:10] and you take their concerns to heart. You know that it's about parking. It's about noise. It's about trash. It's about parking. It's about weeds, and it's about parking. and you read this and you think no one's saying, I don't. I hate housing. I I hate a nice, quiet grad student living in my neighbor's, you know, backyard, Abu, they're talking about these these issues, and I think that there is We've collectively, we. The city of Boulder, has failed in 2 areas, and these 2 areas continue to work. housing policy.

[170:01] and that is parking and code enforcement. I'd like this to be noted in the minutes of these 2 areas. Our our our drivers of of warping our housing policy and keeping us from achieving many of our goals. because I think we we radically under price parking. and we placed it within the department of community vitality. And it is it's keeping this under pricing or parking, and the schizophrenic nature of us, trying to reach climate goals while making free parking, sacrosanked in the city right away. are at odds with each other, and and it's very confusing to the population. It's very confusing to homeowners. It because we are at odds with ourselves on this, and I think that if we price parking barely at a market rate

[171:00] or on city property, and treated it the way we should be treating it. We would do better. And I think we have radically undervalued the value of code enforcement to control the people that that do create. There are. There are strong impacts on the hill with parties and noise, trash and class. And I've I've spent time there with with homeowners walking around and stepping on glass in front of houses and stuff, and and it's it's a problem. But it's a code enforcement problem, and we give short strip to our code Enforcement department. and to the complaints, the vowel complaints of the residents of those neighborhoods. And so those are the things that I I. I think we have to separate from housing policy so that we can achieve our housing goals, and we can act upon those 2 other things parking. And

[172:02] so now i'm done with my little speech. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else want to add something right now before we move on to key issue Number 2. Okay, key issue number 2. Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? Hands up. If you do. Yup. Okay, I can see Kurt heading for his like. You must have your button up up above somewhere. So Mark was first, and then Kurt mark you're you're muted, Mark, you're muted. They're still muted. Okay, there we go, all right. I have one very small one. and that is on page 69. I hope it's still 69 of the of the revised packet is 69 of my packet, the original packet.

[173:01] I noted that under parking we do not require any bike parking or an 80, you without a garage. and but we do require for a market rate unit. and maybe i'm misreading it. But I I like clarification on this. We we have a, we have an auto parking requirement. We do not have any bike parking requirements. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Yeah, I think we should have a bike parking requirement again as part of our we're. It's just it's like a many, many, many Tbm plan for a single unit. If you want people to have lower impact on their neighbors, and you want them to arrive without a car. But if you build an a to you, and there's really not. And you build a small a to you because

[174:01] lot size, whatever it might be. And you don't give someone secure bike parking. Then they're more likely to arrive by car and have a car stored on the street. So I would suggest we change that to require by parking, for as part of the eightyu requirement. We can take a look at that mark, but I will point out that when we developed the the bike parking regulations we didn't have regular. We didn't have requirements for bike parking for single family homes or accessory dwelling use by virtue of the fact that there's usually garage space where the bike parking can be accommodated, whereas we needed to be more specific for attached dwelling units. But we can take a second look at that and see if we need to change the language. Yeah, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. So just a quick question, Karl. Does that mean to be framed some kind of amendment once we get to the motion, or

[175:03] can that be? Just note You guys have noted it, and we'll take a look. I think it's up to the board, I mean. We certainly will look at it either way. But if it's something that the Board agrees on and feels strongly about, it could be added to the motion that we at least explore specific requirements for bike parking for a to use. align the the requirements for the 2 units on a on a parcel. I think it just it. It relates to there, there's language in the code already about garages being available for like storage. So I think we just have to look at that again and see if that adequately accommodates a to to see if we need to make any tweaks. Think about how to how to. Okay, Kurt.

[176:00] I have a couple of points. One is fairly detailed. and it relates to the way that you can see the the occupancy limit signage rule. which is in 1,320. It requires anyone with a a rental permit to post the the occupancy limit, I believe. but for an 80 You, if you have a permit for an edu, a rental permit for any to you. The 80 you per se does not have its own occupancy limit. And so it feels like that is not really it's not a well-defined girl. This does that make. Sense. Yeah. So oh, my my suggestion is to somehow. I guess, exempt it from that requirement

[177:06] from the posting requirement. Yeah. So the occupancy for a to us is the same as the the house would be like, I said, there's that flexibility for additional dependence, but they, the 80 users, still subject to the occupancy of the whatever the site already has, so, I think, but I think we could confirm with our rental licensing folks more about the posting. and what the that notice or the posting has to say so. That's something we can look into right. It seems like if I live in a house in Rl. One in the occupancy limit is 3 unrelated. and I'm. Alone in the house. Then the occupancy limit in the 80 to 2, but 2 or 2 unrelated, but it

[178:00] But now, if I get a rumor in the house, and they're too unrelated in the house. Then all of a sudden the occupancy limit in the 80 would become one, and i'd have to change the sign, or I don't know it just. It seems like a strange situation. It's different from an apartment where the occupancy limit is always fixed. Yeah. Understood. I think we can talk with our rental licensing folks and see how that's written on the on 80 rental license postings and make sure. But it should. Probably it should reflect that the occupancy limit is for the entire property. and as, whatever the situation in the main house changes the 80 you needs to change to. or will be subject to, that, too. Yeah. And just quick question is that something that you'd want to see as a written amendments or condition. Or are you okay with it being an issue that you've raised with staff, and they'll try to. They'll figure out how to address it.

[179:10] just so that we know when we get to the motion, what else we want to incorporate? Oh, I think that is a question for me and for her. No, it was a question for Kurt. Okay? Oh, for me. Sorry about that. Well, I think it sounded like at least it was going to check with the Code Enforcement people and just clarify that. And so I'm: i'm fine with that. But okay. I go ahead, please. I did. I just wanted to make sure that we were sort of keeping track of what we might want to. Yes, thank you. Another thing that we didn't talk about is the the prohibition on separate conveyance. and I know people feel strongly about this. But I don't understand why we

[180:07] prohibit separate conveyance basically condensation of a house plus an abu. We seem to want owner occupancy, right? But with the house plus an AD you, as the rules currently are by definition. one of those units is not owner occupied. If it's, if it's rented right. where is if you allow for condensation. you they can both be on a rock right right? They can each be owned separately. And so it seems like it actually would be a benefit to the extent that you're interested in owner. Occupancy also the middle income housing study. so to determine that you know the our greatest affordability challenge is not with rental housing.

[181:03] It's with for sale housing. and so allowing another opportunity to provide small relatively inexpensive for sale. Housing seems to me a huge benefit. Also. if a house in an AV. You were conveyed separately. the house would actually become more affordable because you need now has less. It has less property associated with it. And again, this is different from subdivision. Right? We're not. We're not creating a separate person. It's still all one parcel. It's just a condo association on the post. Whether it would actually be used I don't know. but it seems strange that we prohibited that. given our other stated goals. and so i'd just be interested in seeing if the board would be.

[182:02] would be interested in taking that up. Is it possible thing to add. So can I. I'd like to respond to that. So I I I think it's outside the scope of this project, and it would requires additional exploration by staff and public comment and public engagement, because we Haven't had that conversation. And so I I think it's an idea to put on the table for future discussion. but I wouldn't suggest trying to include it here, because that would be policy making on the fly without any type of analysis or evaluation or public input, or, you know. compare and contrast to other cities. So that would I would not be supportive of trying to add that in at this point.

[183:02] So that's my position on that, Laura. So so just this. This is your first meeting. This did come up previously, when we talked about a to use and Council talked with Staff about how to have a narrow scope of something that could be done with minimal, a consult level of public engagement, and not full blown public engagement to get some some kind of interim changes done this year. What we still have the same council before the elections. But there were many ideas that have put forward that different Council members put forward that go beyond what we're looking at here in this package, and that included eliminating the parking requirement. It included condoization and separate ownership of a to use and some other kind of big ideas that I I think the direction from Council was that is, on the table for a future update of the AD ordinance. You know the 80 coordinates has been modified several times over the years, so they wanted to take this step and then look at the impacts, and then maybe come back with some additional changes in a future project. That's my understanding, anyway.

[184:09] And so for that reason I agree with Sarah that I I don't think that fits within the scope of this particular round, but I would certainly welcome that discussion in the future hopefully, while i'm still on planning board. I don't know if that helps. Yeah, thank you, I I guess to me maybe i'm over. I'm sure i'm oversimplifying it. It seems like a code streamlining issue. but it in reality it's probably much bigger than that. So yeah, thank you. Okay. Anybody else, specifically, to the question of changes they might want to see into the motion. Okay, seeing no hands. i'm gonna just open it up. Now, if folks have things they just really want to say that they Haven't already said so.

[185:07] Anyone have anything they want to add. Okay, I see no hands. I see Kurt thinking there's something you want to add. No, okay. All right. So I think it is time to go to the motion, and i'll Lauren, if you laurel if you wouldn't mind returning to view. and once again this is an ordinance now a little different from the use review from before us. Could you walk us through the wait? Ml: You have your hand up? Sorry i'm just queuing up to make a motion. Go ahead. Laurel, if you will just walk us through again. Have the motion process for an ordinance. Yes, absolutely. And of course I invite David. This is the product he's been working on. If he wants to chime in or change anything. I'm saying he's more than welcome to.

[186:07] So just again, as a reminder in the memo packet or in the packet. The planning staff includes suggested motion language, which you are, of course welcome to change, and I, or whoever the attorney is representing can help change that. So there's suggested motion language in there, so say, for example, Ml: Sorry a board member of this wants to give a motion. She can go ahead and do that. Say it's a suggestion motion language that would be a first first move to make that motion. We could have that friendly amendment. If anybody wants to make a slight tweet to that. we can do that next. If there there are no friendly amendments, we can go to a second. and once the second is done, then Charlotte or Vice Chair, silver, we'll go ahead or chair silver. Sorry. Here's where we'll go ahead and repeat that motion, and it'll be open for discussion if you want to make amendments after discussion. That is also an option. If we get to that point. We can talk about that.

[187:05] Otherwise you can have discussion and then vote on the motion. Okay. all Righty, Does someone want to make the motion? I believe I see Ml. With your hand up. Yes, please. So I do. I just read. I'll just read it the way it's written. The suggested motion Language Planning Board recommend. I move that Planning board. Recommend that City council, adopt ordinance, 8 5 7, one amending section, 4 dash, 20 dash, 18 rental license, B. Title, 9 land use, code and title, 10 structures, Brc: 1981 to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units. Okay, Does anyone have a friendly So mark. Do you want to mark? I do, sir, and thank you for prompting me to

[188:02] decide whether or not it was just a my comment to staff or actual motion language. And so I actually disagree with this friendly amendment the concept. But i'm going to take advantage of it tonight, so we can. We can we? Can, we can. We can it up with Roberts rules right? Exactly. We we can. We can deal with that another time. But since that's our mode tonight. So I would add the the motion that Ml. Just read ends with the accessory dwelling units period. I would add, and i'm happy to send this. I've drafted this as an email. Additionally, comma Planning Board recommends that planning Department staff include a flexible requirement for bike parking in the updated edu requirements.

[189:08] Would you like me to send that devin? Have you typed that out? I think I got that on the fly? Thank you. Okay. So so point of order, I feel like that goes beyond a friendly amendment like friendly amendment is stuff like there's a typo, or I prefer the word planning board strongly recommends, or something like that. David shows up Yay. I feel like that's an amendment, and that's totally fair game. But I feel like that goes beyond a friendly. The only thing that I would add, I would ask Carl to check my math on this, but it does seem like there. When I looked at the parking requirement for bicycles. If you have a garage, there's still there's no parking requirement for bicycles.

[190:05] If you don't have a garage, there is a bicycle parking requirement for dwelling units. So just in terms of just clarifying what's already in the code for dwelling units. Now. okay. Carl, Was I reading that correctly. Yeah, that's correct. I don't know that it's entirely clear how it's written. Now it it seems like any accessory dwelling unit, whether there's a garage or not. The requirement is no requirement. So maybe we again just need to go back to that and and clarify the language that you know. If there's a garage. there's no requirement. But if there's no garage that there would be maybe 2 spaces required. so I don't know that that's entirely clear right now. But we can look to fix that so. But if if if the principal dwelling unit has a garage and the accessory dwelling unit

[191:06] which has to be. which is a let's say it's a detached, or let's say it's even a a attached but it has to have walkable and separable entrances. I I i'm envisioning you have a principal dwelling unit, and the people living in the the the the owners, the owners can live in the a to you, but likely the owners are living in the principal dwelling unit, and you have an AD you without a garage which I would encourage. I don't think we need garages taking up square footage, and many of our a to use. But the principal dwelling unit you're like. No, you're not coming in my garage. You're that's where I keep my workshop, or whatever it might be, and consequently you don't have actual secure bike parking.

[192:04] So we don't want to make policy on the fly. So maybe. and and I think Laura's right that we don't that this is not really a friendly, but it's actually an amendment, or a condition or another motion completely or another motion completely, but I have it. I would maybe ask a recommendation that staff look into the possibility of bicycle parking requirements. So here's what I like to do is I? I like to withdraw my friendly amendment. I would like us to go ahead, and second and debate the amendment. I'll either consider making an amendment to the motion. which I think is the proper procedure. or make a second amendment, which I think is also one of the proper procedure.

[193:00] Okay. all right, so do we have a second for the motion. Somebody make a second. I will second Ml's motion. Thank you, Laura. All right. So i'm. Now going to read the motion. We can then discuss it, and or mark You can then follow with your proposed amendments to the Motion Planning Board, recommends that city council adopt ordinance, 8, 571 amending section 4 to 2 0 1 8 rental license fee title, 9 land use code and title 10 structures brc 1,981, to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units any any any discussion of this motion? Or is there an amendment to this motion. I'm not going to ask for an amendment to that motion. I I actually support that being a clean motion, and we'll pay my motion later. All right. So let's. Are we ready to vote on this motion? My seeing enough, can I? Can I just talk a little bit about Robert's rules of order, just because because I enjoy it

[194:08] so typically when you have a motion. The mate. So what was just made was the main motion. Now, if you want to change the main motion now would be the time that you would suggest those amendments to the main motion, which I think, Mark, that would be an order for what you're suggesting. and then anyone who wants to put an amendment to the main motion on the table, those can all be debated separately and voted on. And you basically vote on the main motion last, so that you understand completely everything that goes into what the Board's recommendation is okay. So the recommendation here is that Mark proposed an amendment stating the planning Board further recommends that we do X Y. And T:

[195:03] Okay. So okay. okay, I I I I love, and someone with more knowledge about Roberts than me, because that's almost garnered everyone. So I would I. So, David, do. I say I'd like to make. I propose an amendment. No. I would. I propose an amendment. and it's the same amendment, the same the same language. with one word change that I just said it would read additionally. Comma Planning Board recommends that planning department staff research. a flexible requirement for bike parking in the updated adu requirements.

[196:00] Okay, that sounds pretty good. Now, if I were the chair I would ask for a second. You want the staff to research this. Say you want the staff to consider, adding. I I I that's like a friendly amendment. That's a friendly amendment to your amendment. If and mark you, can either accept or reject her friendly amendment. I accept her friendly, and then that. replacing the word research with consider, adding, Would you like me to restate my proposed amendment? My my Ml's: Not a Yes. So like, okay, I'm gonna i'm going to restate it. Additionally. Comma planning board recommends that planning department staff.

[197:02] Consider adding a flexible requirement for bike parking and the updated Adu requirements. First, First, before I asked for a second Devin, Did you get that? I got it in for all? Thank you. Okay? Do we have a second for that amendment? We do not seem to have a second for that amendment. Can I ask a question? Yes, of course. For, Mark. when you say that staff consider so entertain the possibility that Staff might, in fact. consider it, and then choose not to bring a bike option forward. Yeah, I I I I I think at this, that this late stage

[198:01] that I am not I I I think it I. There are always things that sound great at 9, 9, 20 on Tuesday night, that under different light, with a greater expertise than I can offer, might create a problem. And and what I don't want to do is to slow down or delay, or in peril. Passing of this main motion, I consider this important. I consider the the the the original motion language also of greater importance. So I i'm trusting enough. and Don't consider it the the biggest issue. So that's why I'm going to leave it up to staff the staff to consider adding, and that's why I also use the word flexible, a flexible requirement for bike parking and the updated Au requirements.

[199:12] The current you have your hand up. Yeah. I'm. Definitely supportive of the concept. But I am concerned about the the exact fears that mark expressed about delaying this process. And so to me it feels a little more appropriate as something to be added to the list for next time. Okay. So i'm gonna. Oh, Laura, sorry just quickly. I I agree with Kurt Mark. I'm completely supportive of the concept. I don't know how it works with. I don't think we have bike parking requirements for single family dwelling units. And so I don't know how that works with an accessory dwelling unit. I totally get where you're coming from. for if it for me, i'm happy to just put that in Staff's Court and say.

[200:01] you know, if this makes sense, consider adding it, and if they think that it's not the right time or wouldn't work, I i'm okay with that. I don't need to see it as a motion, personally or as an as an amendment formally. that gives it a kind of weight that that i'm not sure I would support at this time of night. I I really I want to acknowledge that I also want to ask Carl and David. I thought I just heard that if there is not a garage, then there is a bike parking requirement. Is that true? Or in Lisa, as we wh whomever well it the the way it's drafted. Now is it's a dwelling unit without a private garage requires 2 per unit. and then it says the accessory dwelling unit has not. so i'm assuming that the the way that it would get applied now is that they would say, for the property, the AD and the single family home. If you don't have a garage, there has to be 2 parking spaces

[201:07] for the main unit parking spaces, Not by. But yeah. So you know, I think that we could look at it quickly, and Carl can virtually kick me under the table if he needs to. I don't think that the drafting is difficult here. and just to kind of speak to how we would deal with this. So we're turning around to Council pretty quickly, so we would probably give it a pretty quick look. and we would certainly convey the planning board's concerns and recommendations to the Council, and it'll be combined with ours in terms of whatever solution we could come up with on a short timeframe. Okay, since I don't have a second, and i'm not into. And I know I don't see someone jumping for a second. I'm going to declare victory that staffs going to look into it, and I'm going to withdraw my amendment, and we can all go on and vote on the on the motion.

[202:17] Mark thank you for that. And I'm very impressed that Lisa, David and Carl know the code backwards and forwards, and know exactly what where to reference. Every little tiddle in tattle. So thank you very much. And, David, it's nice to see your face again. Good to be back. So does. Do we want to have a discussion. Now about the motion, that for which there has been a second? Or do we? Are we ready to go to vote? Vote thumbs up both. We're ready to vote. Okay. Did I already read this again? I don't think I did all right. But no, I did. We did it again. Yes. yes, okay, we're ready to vote. Kurt: yay? Or Nay.

[203:04] yeah. Laura. Yes. Ml. Yay. Yes, and Sarah is a Yes. All right. Congratulations done. Our hands are washed of this you get to. Now take it to city Council. Thank you guys very, very much. Okay. We are now going to move into matters, and I just a before Laura goes into the letter to on the airport. Mark had sent an email to all of us about liaison assignments, and because 2 of our board members are missing. I emailed with him, and he's okay with putting that off until our next meeting during matters, so that everybody is at the table to talk about where they'd like to what assignments they'd like to take on.

[204:01] So I just wanted to put that put that out there. Mark, you have a question for a comment. I do, and that is simply that since we are putting this off. and I was the John's alternate for the housing advisor. No, i'm sorry I was. I'm the primary on DAB, which is next week. The DAB meeting is Wednesday, the twelfth. and I have a conflict. and so, and John was my alternate on the DAB meet up for that. so I would like to see if anyone is willing to attend a dad meeting. I find them fascinating, and i'm no architect. But anyway, I find them fascinating. But I can't attend this one, and John's no longer with us, so that looks like Ml. Just volunteered herself. I'm. I'm happy to attend to that meeting as Mark

[205:13] Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay. Our next matter is Laura's letter about the airport community conversation hopefully. Everybody had a chance to read it, and is ready to hear from her and discuss any any changes they might want to make. Okay, Well. did everybody have it? Thank you, Sarah, for queuing that up. Did everybody have a chance to read it? Courtesy? Yes, Ml: Zs. Sarah, Z. Yes, Marx. Cs: okay. So everybody's here tonight had a chance to read it. I guess I would ask the chair. Would you like me to walk through it for the purpose of like public transparency, and anybody who may be watching the recording, or might be still with us. It is in the packet. It went into the packet yesterday morning.

[206:03] I I I don't know. I'm Lauren laurel. Do we need to go through it line by line for public engagement, for for public transparency? Or is it okay for us just to discuss as is. Yeah, it's up to you on that, since it was included in the packet is open and available to the public, so I would say, it is transparent. You guys have shown one of this, but i'm up to you whether or not. You want to go through it as you would like to. Okay, I will try to recap it briefly, just to try to te up our conversation. I think, as as folks know, I am the liaison from planning board to the Airport Community conversation. The airport community conversation is a fairly swift public engagement process that is meant to be a precursor to the Airport master Plan update it. It does consist of a working group that has been assembled, and will have 5 meetings. There will be 3 open houses, and there will be a be heard. Boulder Survey. and anybody who's been following along knows that from the beginning before this group was conceived back in August, when we saw the capital improvement program, and we saw that there was going to be an airport master plan update.

[207:12] I in particular, but I think the whole planning board has been trying to uplift Bvcp. 6.2, 3, which says that at the time of the next airport master Plan, update the city will work with the community. That's the language it uses will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses. And I don't think I need to recap for this board. Why, we feel that looking at this piece of land and a long range planning sense and assessing it for housing and neighborhood serving uses, is something that this board is interested in seeing the city do in partnership with with the community. And so the the crux of the issue here, and why we're writing a letter to Council and the city manager about it. Is that the way that staff have scoped and designed this airport community conversation.

[208:01] and that's the term that they use for this whole process that includes the working group, the open houses and the survey is the community. Conversation. The way that has been scoped does not include developing any scenarios or any description of housing potential on the airport site. Staff is envisioning this as more of looking at the airport as an airport facility. And what is the future of that facility? And it can include talking about decommissioning the airport potentially, but not look at any detail at what might come after. So no analysis of housing potential is included in this particular conversation. I think that is a cause for some great concern, especially because the Airport master plan process itself cannot consider changing. The land Use to housing. The Airport Master Plan Process, as folks may know, is a basically a paint by numbers kind of thing that comes from the Faa. It is conducted according to the Faa process very strictly, and it focuses on airport services and facilities, and in particular capital improvements. So it's meant to be basically a 10 year capital improvement plan. And and looking at the operations of the airport.

[209:12] So the idea that we're going to go into that process without having done what the BBC. Says we're going to do, which is, Look at the potential for housing and neighborhood serving uses is is pretty concerning I'm. Going to go into one more detail, which is that decommissioning an airport is quite difficult. and the Faa does not like to let communities do that. One of the reasons why you can do that is, if the airport is in a state of disrepair and requires more than normal maintenance requires rehabilitation, reconstruction, rebuilding 100 and and lots of cash injected. To do that. That is one of the circumstances under which the Faa will say. Okay, we'll abandon this airport and put our money somewhere else. Potentially. It's possible it still requires a negotiation. It's not easy to do.

[210:01] But right now, given that our airport is in a state of disrepair. That's a pretty stronger. It's a stronger negotiating position for the city, and so going into a capital improvement plan and saying, we're going to do all these things to upgrade the airport without considering that long range. What are we going for? Do we do we want to decommission the airport and do housing. Let's have that conversation first. Before we put a lot of money into making this a better airport. especially in a capital improvement Kind of way seems to make sense from a planning perspective. All that to say what what I think, what i'm recommending is the liaison is asking Council to give some direction to staff, to reconsider how they're scoping this process, and to add scenarios, add an analysis, a preliminary analysis that looks at a housing alternative for the airport's future. and looks at a hybrid housing airport scenario, and puts that out for community consideration and analyzes it on a level playing field with any other scenario

[211:03] That, I think is our primary recommendation, and then I also give some other recommendations at the end. And I say I, I want to really acknowledge Sarah, for working on this letter with me. Sarah read it closely and offered edits, so it's a joint effort, although I I I want to take the blame for anything in here. That is, that doesn't make sense. So there are some fall back scenarios of If Council does not agree to make this a a full process that does look at housing and housing potential on the site in in terms of developing scenarios, which I guess, has a particular planning meaning of what is a scenario. One alternative is that we could back off from the idea of a scenario that is equally developed and equally analyzed. and say instead, okay, Well, we should at least have a narrative about housing that we can go out to the community with that talks about What's the housing potential on this site? How many units we would, you know, probably AIM for affordable housing. All of that kind of stuff, develop a 15 min walkable neighborhood

[212:06] narrative description, which which would be much easier and decrease the burden on staff wouldn't be quite as robust of an analysis. But that's kind of a fall back If staff push back on having scenarios that is mentioned in the memo, and then the third fall back is all right. If Council wants to completely exclude housing from this process in any kind of meaningful way. then they should at least get really really clear on how is housing going to be considered? Is that a separate process? How does that align with whatever comes out of this community conversation? And the airport master plan? And then I have a fourth recommendation that no matter what we do, Staff need to be really really clear about communicating transparently, proactively and neutrally about this commitment in BBC. Bvc. P. 6.2, 3, to assess the potential for housing. So I think there are a lot of stakeholders of various affiliations that might hope it'll just go away, and that we're not really committed to it, and I would like to have that commitment reaffirmed.

[213:07] So sorry that was probably a longer winded explanation than I needed to give, but I wanted to kind of walk through what's in the memo. and where are we headed? We're hoping that Council will give direction to staff to not separate out housing, not put it off to some indefinite future. Not go ahead with this airport, master plan. Update in the absence of taking a good hard look at housing potential. I'll stop there and say any questions first. Are there any questions from either what I just said, or what's in the memo, and then maybe we'll go to anything that you want to change or add in the memo. Go ahead, Ml. Okay, so I the only thing I I thought I thought the argument you just made about the you you talk in the memo about, or you write in the memo about the financial cost of revitalizing an airport.

[214:07] But I felt like you may in your comments to us. She made a really powerful comment about the complexity of going through an airport master plan and revitalizing an airport, and that I think that that complexity is a valuable argument on behalf of the objective which is. Have the city council sit up and take notice, and possibly reconsider the scope or redirect, not redirect, but expand the direction to to a staff. That that's all. That was my only comment based on your presentation to us. Thank you. And when you say the complexity. is there something in particular that you want to add to the memo. No, you just meant I just thought it was a powerful point, and one that I don't recall specifically being made in the in the memo when you talk about the expense of it. But you don't really talk about

[215:10] what it's going that it's. It's just as complex to revitalize as it is to decommission like I mean, that's essentially what I heard you saying. and I think that that is a powerful argument for encouraging widening of the scope. So that staff does. They offer up multiple scenarios, including housing, housing, hybrid or just a revitalization that that that was my basic point. Okay, I'm going to write that down. So the complexity of revitalizing an airport. Okay. were there other folks that have questions about what was written. And now you had raised your hand. Was there something you wanted to say? It was something you wanted to say? I know i'm not sure when when the right time. But you know the thing that, and I don't see any

[216:08] any staff people here from this project. I think, speaking to what is going to sort of tip the interest of council to extend the scope of the community conversation might happen around. Do we know who just the airport currently serve? I mean, how many local businesses use it. how many local individuals use it, and how many non local Is this a a facility that is there? People come from elsewhere to use it.

[217:02] What's the number? I've I've heard a 100 and something is the number of people that use the airport. I I think it's important to kind of give some perspective of we've got. However many acres is acres. It's acres. Yes, of land it's like 140 years, 78, or 179 depending on who you ask a significant number of of acres and what percent the citizens of Boulder, the residents of Boulder are benefiting from the current juice. and in a sort of Broadway it's just like, wow! How many people could benefit from a all alternate use to an airport. So if this is a public

[218:02] property and a public discussion, and I think the affected people right, we're talking about 120 people that might have to find a different airport, or or what what does that look like? I think it's unclear. As to the impact. the users, the current users, and the potential future users. And I think that that would be a compelling piece of data to bring to the table. That would. I think, compelled city Council to say, hey. we could. We could have a different impact, greater impact if we take just like a path. So I don't see that information on here, and i'm wondering if it makes sense to try to get it on there. I have some thoughts about that. But Mark, did you want to speak to that

[219:06] that are well within the scope of the working room. What the the matter at hand is, we have now this very moment to adopt letter urging council to broaden the scope of the inquiry, so that your questions are answered as well as other as as well as other parties. Questions, or answered that that the the intent and the concern that Laura has brought to us is that the scoping and the questions being asked are too narrowly defined, and so the whether it's 120 or 240, whatever it might be, for pilots and acres and that sort of thing. Those are those are things that

[220:02] Aren't really addressed at the heart of of Laura's concern, and other community members concerned. I don't know if you read making cows a letter that he said similar. And I've read other communication from other community members again, all about the scoping. And so I think that focusing on the scoping is what we need to do tonight, and I also want to emphasize that I I would like to see us as best we can unanimously adopt a letter tonight, so that that can get sent off and be active on, because the clock is ticking with this working group. So even so, any edits that we have commas periods or insertions, but they have to advance the cause of the letter which is broaden the scope of inquiry, so that the community

[221:03] feels that their questions had to have been fulfilled by the working room. Yeah. I I think I was trying to give some teeth to that very thing. Yeah, I I think Ml: as I understand your point is that I'm i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, right now. This letter is long, and it's dry, and it doesn't grab the attention, and that so a hook like talking about the fact that the airport is 179 acres that serves a a very small, relatively small number of people. Let a fraction of a percentage of Boulder's population. If you trust the airport managers statistics which I do. John Kenny has has been quoted as saying that it's about 125 people that regularly use the airport, some of whom are local, some of whom i'm sure are probably not. and that that you know it has housing potential for thousands of units potentially.

[222:00] My only concern about adding, that is that the letter is already really long. I'm not sure exactly where it would go. and I do think that city council already knows that they there have been several city council members who have been beating this drum for many years, Lisa Mozell for very years, many years Mark Wallock. For many years. I'm pretty sure everybody who's sitting on council currently knows that the airport serves a very small population, and that the housing potential is quite large. So I for me. It's not a priority to try to find a way to put that in here, but I totally hear your point about I. I do think that whatever we do. If we adopt this letter tonight, when it goes to council, it needs to be like an attachment, and there needs to be a short catchy email that basically makes the point. Hey? We're asking Council to hear our concerns about the way this project is scoped and consider giving direction to staff to include housing, which is not currently considered, so that they have a reason to open it up and read it.

[223:00] So I I would would you mind if I I would say it's fine, as is an a, and ignore my comments from earlier, because it is long, and it's already fine, as is. and I personally am good with giving you the go ahead to send it out. You have your hand up that the drafting of an email. if we don't do it now, and don't do it as a group, and and it we portray it as from planning board. I I I I would just so. We said, we have an email that, says the the planning board, drafted and unanimously gr to the following memo. Thank you for reading. and and the memo should speak for itself, and we shouldn't have to have another drafting process.

[224:01] If If we're going to take the positional in our or additional in our email. I I I honestly think it would be okay. I'm sorry, Sarah. I just Kurt Hasn't handed this all. I was just going to say that I thought that the letter was very well written, so thank you to Lauren for for drafting that it is a little long, but it's very thorough, which is great, and but I don't have any input on how best to convey it to counseling. So I have talked with Hella about my liaison role. and in general, just you know, being a citizen with a who still has freedom of speech. I I do think that it would be okay for me to write a cover letter that comes from me as the liaison, saying. Please read the attached letter that was approved by the planning board on this date with a vote of this. And here's the people who were absent. So they know that the the cover email comes from me, and the letter is approved by planning Board

[225:07] all right. So unless unless someone wants to add a comma or a dash, or a phrase or something, why don't we give either a thumbs up or a thumbs down the letter, so Laura can move forward with that, and we can thumbs up thumbs up all right, so it's 5 0. And please note that 2 of our members were absent, so that it doesn't appear to be for some reason, you know not that it doesn't call into question the absence of 2 people. Yeah. Can I ask you a question of the attorney? Would it be appropriate to see if Lisa or George would like to sign on in absentia, we could say this was approved by a 5 0 and vote. On this night these 2 members were absent, and if they so choose, they could lend their support after the fact. Yes, yeah, that would be definitely fine. Don't Group email them now to email them, one just set in one and one that. Really okay, I'll check in with George and Lisa and see if they're comfortable. With that. There might be any number of reasons why they might not want to do that, but if they do, I would like to give them the opportunity to sign on

[226:08] well, and George is apparently in some remote location on vacation with his family, so I you may not even be able to reach out. Oh, okay, maybe I should just go ahead with the 5 0. Okay, I'll do that just to move forward expeditiously, because the next meeting of this working group is in next week. April thirteenth. Is there? Does anyone Thank you, Laura very much. She did a great job. Awesome, awesome, awesome. Thank you for your help, Sarah, and thank you, everybody. Tonight I just added some commas that was it, or took out some comments. Are there any other matters from board members? Nope. Laura Laurel has a matter, and then i'll ask Charles if he has anything. Thanks. Thanks so much. I really appreciate you guys welcoming me in to being a part of the planning board team. I wanted to let you know that I will be assisting Helen and planning board matters. So if you do have questions for us, you're welcome to call either one of us.

[227:05] But if you are going to email us it'd be great if you could email both of us. And one of us will get back to you, and you'll notice us copying each other. Just so. We're all on the same page. So I thought I would say that on the record, and i'm looking forward to working with you. All right. Thank you, Laurel, very much, Charles. Do you have anything for us? No matters from staff this evening? Okay, Great and Devin? Just one question to you. Oh. a question to Devin, and then we'll go to you, Mark. Laura mentioned a a meeting where you're going to show it to remind us how to do motions. I do not have that on my calendar. When is that so? That is on the calendar and scheduled for April 20 fifth. Yeah, we're still working to get the actual foundations for the material covered. But yeah, it's in the calendar for April 20, fifth. Oh, so that's at our planning board meeting on April 20, Fifth. Okay, Not a separate meeting. Okay, Correct. Clear it up. Mark: You raised your hand. And then, Laura.

[228:00] Yeah, I. I just was going to request that Laurel send to all of us an email saying exactly what she just said about copying her and hell, so that I have all her contact info. I I don't know that I don't have an email from you, but I don't think I do so. I would love to just get an email that makes it easy for me to put you in my contacts. Thank you. Yes. Happy to do that. Okay, and laurel, Laura. I just want to offer the opportunity for any planning board members or folks who might be listening who would like to experience this airport community conversation in person. The first airport community working group open house is going to be April eleventh. So next Tuesday, from 4 to 7 Pm. It is on a drop in basis. You can stay as little or as long as you want. I'm. Assuming they will be providing some information and soliciting some early, input So I would welcome everybody to. I will send around the link to the page. But if you just Google, the Airport community conversation.

[229:05] you will find a link to the open house, and I apologize that I don't have that information at the tip of my tongue. It's not an easy answer. It was some address I wasn't familiar with all right. Anything Does anyone else have anything they really want to say tonight before we adjourn? Okay, welcome current thanks for joining us. And you did. Awesome as we all knew you would. I'm sure things will get more disruptive going forward. But you know he's into it all right, all right. We are adjourned, and we will see you in 2 weeks.