July 18, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Times. We want to make sure to share them for the benefit of others who may not attend city meetings regularly, or less familiar with the rules. So Planning board will be starting with open comments from community members, as Sarah mentioned. And then there'll be a public hearings later in the agenda. We want our participants to know that city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that we worked with the community to develop these expectations for meetings. The vision is really designed to a free conversation and dialogue. but also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone participate in feels safe and welcome. We want to make space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it leads to more informed decision making next slide. we have a lot of information on our website. If you want to read more about our productive atmosphere's vision. But I'm going to focus on what we need to know for tonight's planning board meeting. There are number of rules of the decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code, and we have some general guidelines that our advisory nature to share with all of our participants. This evening

[1:08] we ask that all remarks and testimony. Race tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. I'm sending his racial and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible to continue, is prohibited, and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by their first and last name. Before speaking next slide we are in the Zoom Webinar format, and it allows participants from the public to get designated times. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this particular platform. there's no pre-existing list for signing up to participate. So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at the appropriate times to raise your virtual hand.

[2:00] and there's a couple of different ways to do that. At the very bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal money that has 3 clickable items. If you click on the hand, icon, it will raise a hand next to your name, and we'll go to calling you to speak. If you have an expanded menu. You can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. and I will look out for any anybody participating by phone later on and give you instructions if needed. so that comes to the end of this and As Chair mentioned. this part of the meeting is to share a comments not related to the agenda. So please go ahead and and raise your hand if you would like to speak. Okay, nobody has their hand raised for this part. All right, we will move on to approval of the minutes June 2023 min everyone had a chance to give feedback and the

[3:06] updated are available now for there any last minute comments. Otherwise we can vote on approval. Right? No comments. Then we will vote on approval. I believe this has to be a voice vote. So. Ml. yes. Laura. Yes, Kurt. yes, Mark, yes. and Sarah is a yes, all right. great. So now we can move on to dispositions, call ups and continuations. The first call up item is the Registry Boutique Hotel. Use review. L, you are 2,020 0 0 5. Use review for a proposed 37 Room Boutique Hotel, located at 1111 Spruce Street in the downtown. 2 or Dt. 2 zoning district.

[4:06] Does anyone have questions for staff or want to call it up? Ml. I have a question. I don't remember which staff person it's all. I believe it's Allison. Yeah. But, ml, I think you're frozen. and we lost them out. there she is. Ml. you're you're you're muted, I know, and I just managed to came back. Wow, so I don't know how much anybody heard. But so this is regard to Number 4 in the used to be criteria infrastructure. and I'm just curious as to how that is count as figured. Given that it's going from an office use to a hotel use. And I'm wondering about water.

[5:09] And to clerk, are you asking about the so number for for the infrastructure? how the change in use might impact that infrastructure. Yes, that's very clear. Thank you, Ellen. I just wanted to make sure I understand. I don't know, Charles. Do you have anything to add on that you know, to ensure that we're not out running any capacity issues but water and urban services in Boulder's core. for the most part is very rarely an issue. I think we only run into capacity issues when we kind of get out into areas of the city that are less served with better infrastructure. areas that you know, previously been served by well and septic. So in this particular case, in the urban core our engineering team didn't see any issues with capacity

[6:19] initial. And then again, there's a a fix. Your account that's done. at the time of building to make sure that we're getting water and waste water requirements. Alison and Charles I. I do. I have no need to call this up. Thank you. Anyone else have questions. All right, let's move on. Let's move on to call up. Item number 2. use reviewed for restaurant uses with rooftop and ground level outdoor, dining at 1,346, Pearl Street, in the building formerly occupied by Lazy Dog Sports Bar and Brill for new restaurants, skinny fats and Chiba hut.

[7:01] Any questions or any desire to call this one up. All righty excellent! Now we can move on to the public hearing items. Our first item is public hearing for 1,576 Hawthorne Site Review Amendment L, your 200 258 just for anyone who's listening. Our process is that staff will present, and then, I believe, on with this project one of the representatives from the ped will speak, and then we can ask questions of Chandler after his presentation, then of the Pd. Representative, and then public comment. and then we'll go to our discussion. Chandler. Please take it away. Hey? Thanks, Sarah. Can everyone see my screen without my notes? Yes, okay. So yes. Good evening. Playing board members First item on the agenda tonight is the 1,576 hawthorn Site Review Amendment.

[8:16] Oh. so the subject property is roughly 6,500 square feet in size, and is located in North Boulder on Hawthorne, a new east of Fifteenth Street. The Growing Gardens community Garden site lies southeast of the site across the Farmers Ditch. The property is part of the 1,972 orchard ped, which is comprised of 6 lots totaling just over an acre. developed a single family. Residential uses. The original ped approval provided for 7,700 square feet of open space per unit, which was averaged across the entire site. just a note that under current rl, 2 zoning standards, a minimum of 6,000 square feet of open space for doing it is required. the individual lots in the Pd range from just under 5,000 square feet

[9:12] to 7,700 square feet in size. The original Pd included a large common area on the north side of the Ped, which contains shared parking as well as a smaller common area on the south side of the Ud which borders the project site, and as part of this proposal, which was intended to serve as a shared play area Central Common area was also created to provide a pathway to the home entrances and connect the parking area and the play area the subject property is designated as Low Density Residential on the land. Use map of the Motor Valley account plan. The description from the Bbcp is shown here. which Lr. Is the most prevalent land use. Delegation in the city, covering primarily single family home neighborhoods, including historic neighborhoods and post World War Ii. Neighborhoods.

[10:02] consists predominantly of single family detached units at a density of 2 to 6 billing units per acre, and there's also a strip of land designated as the open space, other, which borders either side of the farmer's ditch, and runs along the southeast portion of the site and common area. It should be noted that while all the mapping shows the oso, and his designation is covering roughly half the subject site. the BBC designation language states that when the mapping applies to area, one linear features, such as water features, or ditches. The intent is to interpret the map in such a way that the designation follows the linear feature. meaning that it's really just kind of supposed to apply to the ditch. there's an existing ditch easement that runs along the boundary of the ditch and provides a 10 foot buffer on both sides of the ditch in terms of zoning. The site is zoned R. L. 2, which is defined as medium density. Residential areas primarily used for small lot, residential development. including without limitation duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level.

[11:04] so this is just an aerial view of the subject site, and it's current state As mentioned above, the original Pd. Was approved in 1,972, and construction of the homes began shortly thereafter. The original plat for the subdivision includes a 6 to wide public easement for a paved bicycle and pedestrian path that runs along the southeastern portion of the ped adjacent to the farmers. Dish It was intended to complete a transportation connection through the site. but that connection was eventually built on the other side of the ditch according to city records, and supported by 2 residents who have lived in the beauty. Since the 1970 S. The paved path was never constructed, and residents have been using the easement area as their private backyards since the homes were constructed. and it's current state. The easement has numerous encroachments on all the properties that it runs through, including fences, mature trees, and landscaping the existing home at 1,576, how during was completed in 1,978.

[12:01] And, as you can see in this picture, currently has a fence encroaching into the path, these, known as well several accessory structures and building features located on the adjacent con play area including 2 sheds and a concrete patio. and I will show an image here. So this image is a survey of the site. the existing pedestrian path. as shown in red the property line between the common area and 1,576 hawthorn is shown in blue. and the 2 existing sheds and the concrete patio which are currently located on the common area, are shown in yellow. So following the call up of this item on May 20, sixth, or maybe it was May sixteenth. I did a bunch of research into permit records for the properties. permit records are incomplete. however, Staff found that the existing sheds located on the adjacent common area were issued. Building permits and constructed in 1,997,

[13:03] under the name of the former former owner of 1,576 hawthorn which either indicates that possibly an incorrect address was used, or that at the time the commonplay area was essentially treated as part of the property. At 1,576. The current owner purchased the property in 2,017, at which time the existing sheds and concrete patio were already located on the commonplay area, and the fence and landscaping encroaching into the path. Easement were already in place. These are some photos of the existing site provided by the homeowner, Thomas Bender, who is here with us tonight, and he'll be giving a presentation. this is looking south we're on the west side of the property, looking south towards the common play area. The approximate location of the existing property line is shown in red this is another photo taken from basically kind of the point of the triangle of the common area. Looking north, standing next to the farmers, ditch

[14:06] the yellow lines indicate roughly where the paved pedestrian path easement is which, as you can see, is overgrown and contains a fence and then the approximate location of the property line between the common area and the home is shown in red. I'm showing that it runs across the existing paved patio area that is part of the property on his home. this is standing on the west side of the house, looking north. The red dotted lines here show the approximate location of the commonly owned pathway that was intended to provide access to the common area which, as I mentioned before, was never constructed. and currently has a a bunch of encroachments in it. You can see here there's some landscaping that's in the way, and that it's generally just kind of shared yard area for residents there.

[15:00] So the proposed project. As I mentioned, the purpose of this ped amendment is to amend the orchard ped to expand the property at 1,576 hawthorn to include the adjacent common play area that the Hoa no longer wishes to own or assume liability, for the project proposes to amend the existing Pd. Site plan to consolidate Lots 6 of the orchard which is 1576, and the portion of the Pd. Common area that is adjacent to Lot 6 into one new lot, which will be called not 6. A. No changes to the existing family single family residents or existing accessory structures on what 6 are proposed, and the other property owners within the ped have all granted their permission, and writing for the proposed lot. Consolidation following this amendment, if approved, the applicant will be required to subdivide the property, to reconfigure the existing lot lines, to finalize the consolidation The conditions of approval would also require a long term revocable lease to permit the existing fence within the pedestrian access easement on the south side of the property.

[16:04] as noted above the proposed lock. Consolidation does not affect the overall amount of open space per dwelling in it approved through the original. which was averaged across the entire site. Nor does it provide any additional development potential to the owners of 1,576 Hawthorne, because they would still be subject to the existing ped requirements and the existing city processes surrounding owning a property within the Pd. So this figure just shows the proposed law consolidation. so the key issue for discussion is just whether the proposed project on balance is consistent with the Site Review criteria including findings related to consistency with the Vcp policies. so Staff find that the proposed law consolidation is on balance consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the call plan and the Site Review criteria While altering the an original intent of the Ped. The proposed law consolidation would not result in any physical change to the existing Pd. Would not change any of the open space or building coverage requirements on which the original approval is based.

[17:14] the existing density, use, and configuration of the Pd. Are consistent with the intent of the low density. Residential land use designation and the Comp. Plan, as well as the underlying Rl. 2 zoning standards. and will remain as such, following the proposed consolidation. so really the the criteria analysis was not a change between the call it memo. And now So Staff has found that the proposed project does meet the criteria of section 9 to 14, and is recommending the plan where to prove the application in the form of the following motion. which is to approve site review, application. L. You are 202-20-0024. Adopting the staff memorandum as signing the fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria And now I'm happy to answer questions or if it's time for the applicant to present I can answer questions after that.

[18:03] Alright, why don't we? Mark, you are the one who all this up, do you? Are you okay? If we have the applicant present before you ask questions. All right. applicants wherever you are. I'm here, and I will go ahead. And yeah, and you have 10 min. Yes, all right. Let me get my! Can I get my share going here? Devin? Can you help him with his share? I think I got it cool. Hello! I'm Thomas Bender. I've been a boulder city or county resident since 1,992 moved into the city in 2,017 just provide some background here in 19. I thought it was 73, but I guess it's 72. The planned urine was created to Jason to the Boulder Community Garden on Hawthorne Avenue. The pub consist of 6 homes built from 73 to 78. The plan incorporates private lots and common areas, including a Berm Carport gazebo and a topic of today's meeting on there a narrow access to small common area, a triangular platform.

[19:15] there's the project number. It describes a proposed plan in accordance with the city of older laws and provisions, to combine the 1,576 hawthorn plat. These are approximate square feet with the triangular platforming a single plat. The purpose of today's presentation is to address the concerns and questions from the city of boulder planners, commissioners, and staff to allow for proposal to proceed forward. so our goal is really to take the common area plan, cleaning up the property boundaries and formally assume the asset liabilities of managing and taking care of that combined property. for areas here a little bit of history on the pod the 5 areas of concern I wanted to address that were calls up the support from the orchard. Pud And then the ask

[20:07] So I guess it was 72. Thanks, Chandler, for doing some additional research. Diana Mcnight and Joan Minnie are actually 2 of the original homeowners. in the pod, which is great. they're at Link 1550 and 1590. They collaborated with them, together much of the information of the historical information provided in the proposal. The property is unique and boulder, and provides an exceptional location adjacent to the community garden, farmer, stitch, and city bike path, the common and shared assets of the orchard are plentiful, and care and maintenance of additional assets is not desirable. The proposal is to combine the triangular H a own section with the 1,576 plat that should say, has been long and discussion, and the community unanimously supported this initiative. Quick drawing you've seen. This is our our home here, and the triangular plat. I don't know that it's any bigger, or it's pretty close to a couple of these other pl. Some of them are are larger, some of them are certainly smaller.

[21:07] Oh, they vary in size. I think Chandler showed an access. I just kind of did this approximation of. There's the access around the side of the a house to get back to it. There's never been a sidewalk here. So the the 5 areas of concern were privatization of public and community space facilitation of slow and quiet adverse concessions. Consensus among neighbors is not a reason to really do anything The. There was a concern that the memo was insufficient, and that there were proceed. There were barriers to the community space I put perceived, because there hasn't been any barriers to access and just wanted to share that tonight. And then adversely possessing a community asset. So in terms of the first case, privatization of public and community space the prime triangular play. I was never used as community property for a park or otherwise. In fact, the plaid is dangerously close to the farmers ditch, and requires a fence for safety purposes. The triangular plan has been accessible with no obstruction. Since 1,973, maybe 70, probably 72. When it was created, there has been no attempt to prevent or obscure access to the property.

[22:15] The triangular plan is not viewable by any of the other homes in the H. A. As it resides in what any reasonable person would assume is the backyard of 1,576. It is not a natural or obvious extension of the existing H. A property. The triangular plat has been managed and maintained at the expense of the 1,576 property owner. Since 1,978, when the home was built. the hou does not want to assume this additional liability is a shared burden to the second point, facilitation of slow and quiet at first concessions, while we can appreciate the recognition of future voices that they want to use as property as a shared asset of the H away. There's never been any adverse concession. The plat was just not deemed suitable as an H. OA. Community park. What appeared initially as a thoughtful idea. To have a park never came to fruition.

[23:02] Perhaps the location, logical backward of 1,576 and obstructed view and the size of the shape played a part. We have made no attempt to quietly acquire the property through any kind of eminent domain or obstruction of access. I've worked diligently with the Hoa members, my friends, my neighbors, the city of boulder and staff to work through this process the goal is always been to clean up the property boundaries, to reflect actual use, and desired outcome by both the pod and the 1,576 homeowner consensus amongst neighbors. As part of this process we actively engage the feedback of our neighbors in the orchard pod to make a decision that applies to and affects our community. We agree, consensus smoke neighbors does not make something right more or correct. In this case it was merely to demonstrate and make transparent that consideration on behalf of the current H. A. Homeowners was accounted for, and the collective decision was made to move forward with the process for the equal benefit of our community. I think there was note that the memo was inefficient, that there were perceived barriers to access. There's never been a fence there, and I have Diana Mcnight and Joan Minnie can attest to that. The drawings don't show any fence there that's always been open.

[24:12] there's the same drawing just panned back. but yeah, the area in question is this access right here. That's actually just like a 6 inch brick kind of framing out a garden there. adversely possessing community space. I had to look up adversely. It says in a way that prevents success or development harmfully or unfavorably. This is similar to the point number 2. Facilitation of slow and quiet adverse concessions. We don't feel that adversity applies. In this case, we're neither preventing success or development in a harmful or unfavorable way. We're working within the process, and our H. A. To complete what we hope the city of Boulder sees is productive and favorable path forward for all parties involved. There was a comment. I forget who it was about considerations for for lot size being bigger and the footprint I'm assuming it would be given fair and consistent treatment, as other. Similarly zone parcels in the city of Boulder.

[25:11] That was kind of the 6 point So some support from each of the individual neighbors, Diana Mcnight, John Minnie Bruce, and Doll. I had a video for Diana, but I had a technical failure. I'll just summarize here. my name is Diana Mcknight, and I bought the property at 1,550 Hawthorne Avenue and North Boulder in February of 75. When we moved here there was an agreement with Bob White, the head of kinetics construction, that the property behind 1,576 Hawthorne would be a part for the kids in the orchard houses. Well, that was untenable, and we weren't going to have our kids go back behind somebody's house. Nobody could watch them or anything like that it was just a pain in the next, so we never use that property, and all of these years nobody else and the other houses have gone back there and used it in response to a question about access. If there's ever been any fences or obstruction to access the property, Ms. Mcnight responded. The access has always been clear. Just nobody wanted to go there. So it just seems like the practical thing is to let them have it. Nobody is objecting to it here.

[26:10] my video that failed from Joan Mini as the original homeowner of 1590, Hawthorne and I fully support the annexation of the triangular plant located in the backyard of 1,576 home. The triangular plan has never been used by the community, nor was it well planned as a common area, especially as a play area. Additionally, the H. Of A. Does not want to maintain it nor accept liability for it sincerely. Joan Mini. and Bruce and Doll, my neighbor to the the north at 1,570. Since our arrival into the orchard, H. A. And 2,006 attractive land in question has always been discussed the previous honors. Dean and Robin Pasha also intended to annex of land, but found the process, daunting in terms of time, effort, and money. I remember annual H. OA. Meetings were in the land. Item was always a bullet of discussion, but never resolved I and my orchard, they to a numbers, fully support this action as a group we never have used it. Don't have any attention of using in the future, especially for its original purpose. In addition, the Hoa does not want to maintain it, nor accept liability for it. Time regards Bruce and all, and Paul, and again, and owners of the 1,570 property.

[27:17] so my ask is we feel we presented a reasonable and valid proposal for the city of Boulder provided the required information. I've been working on this since 2,019. I address, I believe the 5 areas of concern certainly open to questions. and we, like the city of Boulder's permission to proceed forward to combine the existing 5, 1576, platform and the H OA triangle into a single platform. And that's what our goal is looking for approval. So thank you and open for any questions. All right, Thomas. Thank you very much. Now is a time for clarifying questions, and if you if you have a clarifying question be sure to articulate to whom you are addressing the question.

[28:03] Mark my first cler. Thank you, Sarah. and thank you to the applicant and to Chandler for very complete presentations, and obviously a lot of effort went into this. So and I'll I'll address all sorts of things and comments later. But I do have 2 clarifying questions. for chandler when the city issues a that building permit for a shed garden shed backyard shed. What degree of specificity do we require for that chef's location. well, I can't really speak to how how we did it. 1997. But I assume it's similar to today. quite a bit. I mean an ext an accessory structure permit goes through a zoning review like anything else. so we'd be

[29:03] checking for setbacks and checking building coverage and height. etc. So my guess with I mean, you didn't ask this, but I I'm assuming the question relates to how permit was issued for this shed that was built on the common area. and I'm guessing that maybe somebody just didn't have. Maybe we didn't do the background research to actually realized that this property was owned by someone else or by the h of a maybe just looking at a map. It appeared like it was the backyard of this home, because it does kind of seem that way. I'm not really sure we don't. We didn't have quite the. you know, sophisticated Gis and kind of digital tools that we have now. So I I'm not really sure what happened. But yeah, someone someone did the review, and and found that it at least met building coverage and setbacks. That that's for sure.

[30:08] violating any setbacks. Well, it's more. I mean. No, that's what I mean. Let me rephrase that. Let's just assume that this was all the backyard of 1,576 And the sheds are located where they are as one contiguous property as is being proposed. Do the sheds violate setback requirements in their current position? No, okay. okay. And I have a a question for the applicant and I and and again I appreciate the applicants presentation, and and is paying attention to my concerns when I call this up So thank you very much. when you say the fence

[31:06] doesn't prohibit access. I maybe I when I was at the site, and I I I knew the former owners. You know their friends of mine, etc. But anyway, I went. I went I came into the property via the from the north to the community circle area there, and then walk to the west side of your property, and as far as I can tell, I I I I I'm not. This is not a debate thing. but it seems like you have a fence that runs from the house east west to the property line that would prohibit someone from going back to the what is currently at the Hoa owned space is, am I? Am I miss remembering that?

[32:02] Yeah, there's there's a small fence from the corner, but it stops right at that little 6 inch garden wall. So that picture that Chandler showed that that's the exact access area. And you can see that it's you know, it's wide open, and it's it's never been, you know, destructive. So there is a there is a small fence that was there, but it's not. It doesn't block the access. hey? And so it's open between the house, like I think, Dean, right before he sold it like built the deck up on that side. I think he had a hot tub down lower. So when we bought it, you know, the deck was essentially there, and there's there's never been a fence since I've been there, and, according to Diana and and Joanie. since 72 between that house and that area obstructing access. Okay? All right. thank you. I I don't have any further clarifying questions.

[33:01] Okay, thank you very much, Mark. we will now go to pop up. Kurt. Sorry. Sorry. yeah. I have a couple of questions for Chandler. And thank you, Jenner, for the presentation. my first question is you mentioned in the memo or the memo mentioned that in order to change in order to expand the house that is currently there. They would need to if they. I guess they could do it by right if it were a less than 10% increase. Is that correct? And it would be a line of modification if it were greater than 10%. Is that correct? no, since we're in a ped, there is no such thing as by right? So yeah, so they're in a Pd, so that's right, it's basically kind of like a an overlay zoning regulations almost that apply to to every home in there. So if they're under 10% expansion, it's a minor modification which is an administrative review process, meaning, you guys don't get to see it. It's just a staff level

[34:13] thing. if they're over 10% for area expansion. And there. There's other criteria as well, but they would have to meet to make it a minor modification, but if they exceed the limits of minor modification which the big one is the 10% floor area. Then they're in either a minor amendment or a site review amendment or full site review, depending on the extent of the changes they're proposing. Okay? And that would be a a, a planning board process. And do we know the flori of the existing house? I don't know. The floor area of the existing house, I mean the Pud record. To be honest is is not great. as was the case with many early seventies. Beauties? you know, kind of handwritten like. Here's the building coverage. Here's the open space.

[35:08] so we know the building coverage of the entire. Pd, but I have not calculated the floor area you would need. you know, you need scale floor plans and stuff like that to do that. So I haven't done that. okay? And we yeah. So presumably there, we don't know anything about the floor area of any of these, the existing houses there. Okay, my other question relates to the what what originally was intended is the walkway connection, I think, between the parking circle sort of thing there, and the open space which, when I toured the site, it looked like maybe that connected to the East-west extension of Fifteenth Street on the west side of this property. Do you know, if it

[36:00] does that actually connect you? Sorry? Are you talking about the the kind of the middle pathway on the west side of the house or the on the northwest, and of the parcel that's shown. If you go back to your second or third slide. you can see it there in the on the lot lines. Yeah, let me. Oh, sorry. Yeah. The the one that says zoning, I think. Alright. So there's that little narrow space there on the northwest side, right in in. And it seems like from the lotline shown here. It seems like it actually is a connection to

[37:06] that extension of Fifteenth Street, E. According to Google Maps, that little East West section is called Fifteenth Street, even though Fifteenth Street obviously mostly goes north, south. Oh, right? Yeah, you know, I I looked at that as well. And it doesn't actually appear that way, because the common area this might actually be better. So the common area kind of butts into what was the play area. And then, if you look at the Bdcp land, you so the the the extension of Fifteenth Street kind of hits the side whoops, now, i'm just messing with my slides, yeah, it's the side there, so I don't. Yeah. I mean. If if it was intended to provide a connection, it was not designed well at all, because the you know, the the lot to the north has a corner. That kind of comes down and buss into that, and then the play area.

[38:07] so as as far as I can tell from the Pd. Records, the sole intention of that strip was just to provide access to the commonly on play area. Okay, yeah, in the context that I'm asking about it. And it's just whether it would provide an additional connection through there between Fifteenth Street and basically up to that traffic circle and the or parking circle. And and then I guess it's yeah. It's kind of hard to tell. Yeah. And I honestly don't even know it does. Does the Fifteenth Street connection actually go all the way there. Huh? Yeah, I I'm not sure to be honest. I'm sorry. That's okay. All right. Thank you.

[39:02] And ml. thank you. I I just have a so if this, if those accessory buildings were permitted. it seems curious that When the coverage was checked. that it wasn't apparent that there were 2 different properties. There is that you said, yeah, they would have checked all of the, you know, zoning requirements and all. But they have 2 different owners. Yeah, you're right. It's just a mystery how this how does that ended up the way it was with proper building permits, or at least building parameters for the pieces that we built there. And yet it's kind of and logical that

[40:00] things were actually checked for years to different owners. Yeah, I can't. I can't really speak to the planners of 26 years ago. Yeah, I didn't go look at the Boulder County property records to see how it's listed. That. And that's the source to see right? Everything's anyway. usually for a shed permit. You don't have to provide title work. so yeah, I don't know. It seems seems like it an era that we probably wouldn't make today, but I can see a number of different ways that it could have been made that way. Yeah. thank you. Thanks, Amel and Thomas. If you're not responding to a specific question, I'm gonna yeah. I just. I was just going to respond to to Kurt. You can squeeze between the bushes and a fence that's there and get to the fifteenth. But that's actually a separate ho a in there, and so they don't ever give us access to to do to do anything there. So it's a it's a separate deal, and yeah, you can walk there, but the access was it was never set up to be like an access to fifteenth, as near as I can tell.

[41:21] Okay. do you know it. 15. There is that east west section of 15. Is that a public street? That's a it's a private street there. that I think is maintained by their hoa. But I I I don't really have the the the details of there. I just tried to deal with some tree to remain there and Then it has to go through their ho! A and it it it's very complicated. So and then, when I told her, it's not even my property. She it the the conversation kind of ended. So okay, Chandler, do you have me insight on that? Whether that's a primary public street, I mean no how you tell that.

[42:05] yeah, I'm looking right now, and give me a second, and I can see what our Gis has to say about it. It is a private street. like Tom said. it looks like the the actual Fifteenth Street ends, basically where the T starts, and then either side of the T are privately on parcels that are owned by the neighboring Hoa. Okay, thank you. All right. We now have opportunity for public comment. Vivian. Anything, anybody raising their hand. and that's any hands a couple of seconds.

[43:01] I think we might have applicants for the next hearing here, and not members of the public who wish to speak. Okay? So yeah. Oh, all right. Then we will move forward to planning board discussion. Thomas, I want to thank you for coming in or for appearing. And Chandler thanks very much. Don't go away in case people have additional questions. Please. Thank you. All right. Who has comments that they'd like to make cart. Yeah, I'll start it off. Really, I had 2 twofold concerns about this one was losing that potential pedestrian connection there between that extension, the fifteenth that I was asking about, and the parking area, which I think if we could preserve that that would be consistent with the access, transportation, and mobility.

[44:05] some sections of the site check review criteria but I'm not sure that that applies. Given. That part of the access is is private, anyhow. the other one was just allow a about allowing a potentially significant increase in the allowable size of property of the to house that can be built there. Basically, it's a what 40% or something increase in the amount of floor area and based on the F. A R. Limits that we allow for a significantly larger and probably much more expensive house, which to me is not consistent with the goals and objectives so those that that is my one remaining concern. I would feel more comfortable about this if there were a condition put on this that said that any increase in allowable for it would have to

[45:05] go through, or something to that effect. All righty! We'll want hell to weigh in on whether we can impose that kind of condition on private landowners who might, who might want to make their house bigger you and do it by right so, or do it within the ped. But we'll come back to that. so thank you, Kurt. Other comments. Wouldn't this be a great moment to actually figure that out whether the ped would allow that or not. Go ahead. Chandler. So so again, any any property in a ped is subject to site view standards. So anyone in the beauty now could ask to expand their home by up to 10% through an administrative review process.

[46:03] I'm not sure what hell I would say about adding a a condition that's more restrictive than that. I'm not sure if we could do that or not. because right now any of their neighbors could come in right, and if they wanted to do an addition they would automatically be in some sort of site review process. So if it was under 10 they'd be in a minor modification. I think the thing with this Pd, that's that's important to remember is that it's based on averaging of open space across lots. So they're not so like, there's several lots in here that don't meet the minimum lot size requirements for rl, 2, right? So like rl, 2 requires 6,000 square feet of open space per dwelling in it. And the way that's usually provided is on a lot that is 6,000 square feet or larger. and there are, you know, 4,700 square foot, or 1 one lot that's under 5,000 square feet in here. So you know, for them to come in and ask for an addition

[47:02] automatically. It kind of If you're increasing your coverage by any like meaningful amount. You basically, we, we would have to have the permission of everyone in the Pd like if they were in a site review amendment or a minor amendment. the code gives staff the ability to basically determine who in the ped needs to be notified of a proposal like this. And so, because everything is average and everything is so tight like there's so many small lots, and there there don't have a lot of room for expansion to still meet zoning standards. really any expansion that would happen in this? Pd. We would likely require everyone in the Pu. D. To provide their approval of of the proposal. so I I don't know if that addresses your concern at all, Kurt, but there, there is no by right scenario here where they can kind of come in under the radar and just expand their house by 20% because they have a bigger lot. That's basically what I'm trying to get at Anyway, they try to come in to expand.

[48:02] they have to do some sort of site review process. Hella. yeah. And if if I can add to that, the property owner could come in today and ask for the same, 10% expansion under that process and imposing a condition, seems to me, would be inconsistent with the procedures that the the code already sets forth. for that type of expansion. I think there's actually a couple of limits. It's the minor MoD process goes only up to a 10% expansion or 200 square feet. You also can go over 200 square feet. So that's another limit that exists. or did you want to follow up with any questions? no, but thank you for those very helpful responses. Ml, you had your hand up. Do you still have a question?

[49:01] Okay. Anybody else have not questions. I'm sorry comments or conditions. I'd like to put on the table for discussion. Okay. So I let's come back to Kurt. Given what Chandler and Hella have said, do you still want to try to do. You still want to formulate a condition? No, I guess my understanding of how the beauty works is still a little bit vague, but I am satisfied, based on those responses that they it. It wouldn't give them an automatic 40%, or whatever increase in allowable flor. And so that's that's my main concern. So I'm I'm happy with that. Okay, then, unless I see a hand pop up there's Mark. Well, I I was just. I'm sorry I I jumped the gun. I was anticipating you requesting a motion, and I was ready to provide that.

[50:02] Yeah. So I'm going to make the motion, the staff suggests, and I'll save any comments for the comments that are allowed to the motion maker after they have a second. So I move to approve. Side review application. L. You are 2022, dash 0 0 0 2 4. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Do I have a second? Yes, okay. Ml, seconds. I'm sorry. Is that the right case number on the agenda? It's listed as 0 0 0 5 8. I'm not looking at Staff's motion. I'm looking at the agenda. I think the motion is the correct case number.

[51:00] Sorry about that. It's L, you are 2,022, 0 0 2, 4. That is the correct case number. It's okay. Thanks, Laura. The motion has been made and seconded. is there discussion? Yes, you've already indicated there is. So please go ahead. So First of all, I I want to. As as the person to call this up. I want to thank Chandler and all the staff for bringing this back to us in a in a complete form. And I, I understand, this represents. a lot of work. And I want to make sure that the board gets some of the benefit of this work. I also want to thank the applicant for responding again, specifically listening carefully and and and providing this the deep, their detailed response.

[52:06] And I, in addressing the applicant, I simply want to say that while you addressed those concerns from your site specific thoughts, and that is that is all that you should do. there are some larger issues of board work and and application of law in a quasi judicial sense that our work here. So anyway, I just, I thank the applicant for being a careful listener and doing a great presentation. I I want to use all of this work to prompt us as we go forward. to be sure to look farther into the future about

[53:00] conversion of what is promised as public space, or promoted this public space or or other other promises made that seem great at the time that can be derailed or go unfulfilled. And so I think this is an example of one where, this has. This is an asset that was presented to a a, a, a different city government. You know, many decades ago that has has gone on unfulfilled. But I I want that lesson for us to carry that lesson forward as we do other site reviews. And I also want to sympathize with the applicant in the sense that you know when you, when you buying a home and buying and selling homes. You you place trust in the system you place trust and title companies you place trust in in this kind of big machine.

[54:12] And you know, and then you discover that well, things are not exactly as as what you thought. And so my comments about conversion of public public spaces to private property don't necessarily apply to this own or even the prior owners. But it's just something that happens that I think we we need to be very wary of. And so yeah, those are. Those are my 2 main points that I I do want to comment that the checklist on page 66, the beginning on page 66, supplied by staff. I have to find it slightly

[55:03] ironic, I guess that we say under. Let me get there under Referring to the BBC part to site design a Roman little Roman numeral. I we we're talking about open space. Open space, including without limitation parks. recreation areas and playgrounds. Playgrounds is is called out and usable open spaces is a range to be accessible and functional and corporate quality, landscaping and mix mixture of sun and shade and places together. And then Seth goes on to say, the existing open space on the site is located to the south, and subject property is easily accessible by the property owner incorporating the common. The common owned play area into the subject site will not access the existing layout of usability.

[56:02] And so the the irony there is. If I, if I murder a guy and I get away with it for a long time, and I say, well, he's already dead, and he's been dead a long time hence. Nothing is really changing it. It. It doesn't address what is a? Again? It's it's old, but it doesn't really address. What is something that was either a failure of staff, of of prior departments. And so, anyway, it doesn't really address that. And it's it's it's I find that a bit ironic. So I I am supporting this because we live in a world as it is. we are where we are. And is this the the simplest, best thing for everyone. Yes, I'm reluctantly saying, Yes, But again, I want us to be cognizant of what this represents. As we go forward into into other site reviews and other conditions, on properties and promises made by by people in regard to this general topic of a conversion of public space to private.

[57:19] I have one last comment that I'm only going to make after we take a vote on this this particular motion. Perfect. Well, I just wanted to say, thank you, Mark, for all of those eloquent words. I agree with one of what you said. And I definitely thank Staff for this extensive research that went into this. I know it was a little bit opaque, and thank you to the applicant for your presentation. but I I certainly echo Mark's concerns. but I will be supporting. Okay anyone else feel the need to say something.

[58:04] Okay. all right. Motion to approve. Site review application. L, your 222 0 24, adopting the staff memorandum of findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Laura. Yes. correct. Yes. yes, and Sarah is a yeah. So it's Thomas. Go forth. Go forth and do what you will. okay, Margaret, that you had something you wanted to say after the vote again, I want to emphasize. I I don't think I've ever met Thomas. I I certainly don't know him. Well, I have no connection to the site other than I. I I passed through it

[59:04] many times that sometimes many times a day, and and I I just want to say that there there is. there is there a. And as Kurt alluded to, I think there is a there is a winner here, and and that's the the the property owner in this case. it gets 28 60 square feet of of what was prior to this, publicly on property converted to private ownership and and lot size matters in a in a place like Boulder, where land values are very high. Then this this matters, and so I I I don't be grudge them the fact that they are getting something positive out of this great. That's good for them. What I what I want to say is that they happen to be neighbors to growing gardens

[60:00] and growing gardens is a an incredible community asset providing benefits for just myriad people within the city of Boulder, and especially they have to really great children's programs. And should the applicant ever And I have no one. I have no knowledge. May. They might be deeply involved with growing gardens. I just want to say that. that there's a winner here, and I said, There's a financial win. And if the applicant ever wanted to acknowledge that, then I think growing gardens would be a a worthy worthy beneficiary. All right, Mark, thanks very much. Okay. We're going to move on to the next public hearing item. which is public hearing and consideration of the Use review for a 7,062 square foot patio extension expansion. Excuse me of a restaurant use with associated landscape improvements that 49 and 4,920 Nautilus Court. North reviewed under case number Leu R. 202,

[61:09] and I believe it is Chandler. Again. it is me. Okay. All right, thank you. Yes, we'll move on to the Us. Review for 49, 10 and 49 20 Nautilus Court which is the location of the a re brewing facility. I'd like to just note that the applicant is here, but just to answer questions they do not have a presentation for tight. Thank you. oh, sorry. 2 screens always gets me. Okay. So in terms of the location, the subject property is located in gun barrel just east of 60 Third Street, off of Nautilus Court, north, that is, surrounded on 3 sides by industrial general zoning that is developed with office and warehouse buildings primarily built in the and nineties The property east of the site is on our H. 4, and contains the Boulder country Day School across Nautilus drive to the southeast as Twin Lakes, which is a boulder county open space parks area Twin Lakes is a 42 acre open space property containing 2 reservoirs that were purchased in 2,002.

[62:15] The reservoirs are used by the boulder and left Hand Irrigation company to store and transport agricultural water. There are a number of Ig Zone office warehouse buildings as well as county zone, residential properties that surround the lakes. The project site is located outside of the area guided by the gun Barrel Community Center plan. and you can just see here and I'll talk a little bit more about this later. there is, an existing temporary seating area that was permitted during Covid. That's in the location of the proposed expansion. so just some background which I outlined in the Memo. The existing Avery brewing facility was approved through site and Use review in 2,012 as a two-phase development that included an 85,638 square foot brewing facility and corporate offices

[63:03] with the 3,000 square foot gift shop, a 5,275 square foot restaurant use and an 1,800 square foot outdoor seating area. The project was granted. A 33% parking reduction and deferred construction of 52 parking spaces to allow for 220 spaces to be provided where 329 were required. Since that time all of the improvements included in the original phase. One of the project. have been completed. and there was an amendment to the facing plan, and 2,013 to allow for certain elements of the original phase, one to be completed as far as as part of phase 2. But us so existing, there's a 65,921 square foot brewing facility with offices. the 3,000 square foot gift shop, 52,000 or 5,275 square foot restaurant and 1,800 square foot outdoor seating. All of those have been built. The roughly 20,000 square foot expansion to the room. Facility, which was approved as part of phase 2 was never constructed. That's what's shown there in yellow. and the approval for that addition has since expired.

[64:09] so you can see here. the existing outdoor seating area is shown in green. That's what they're currently using for outdoor seating. There was an additional area of outdoor seating that was approved in the original approval that was never constructed. And then, as well, the yellow is showing the interior expansion that was never constructed, and then the blue dashed line is showing the location of the existing temporary outdoor seating area, and also the location of the proposed expansion. so this is just an aerial view of the existing site. As you can see. the existing temporary seating area is is just kind of informally demarcated. There's some umbrellas, chairs and I think they're barrels around the edge of the seating area. It was approved in 2,020 as part of the city's outdoor seating expansion program, which was a city sponsored program intended to support businesses through Covid

[65:03] The current proposal generally falls within the same boundary as the existing temporary outdoor seating area, which has been operational since 2,020 So in terms of the land use the subject properties designated as light industrial This is defined as follows, a light industrial uses are concentrated primarily in industrial parks located within the gun barrel area along Long one diagonal and north of Arapaho between 33 and 63. the uses consist primarily of research and development, like manufacturing assembly, media and storage, or other intensive employment uses, residential and other complementary uses will be encouraged. Inappropriate locations. so the zoning for the site is Ig. Which is defined as general industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and development, manufacturing service, industrial uses media production, storage and other intensive employment uses are located so very similar definition to the underlying land use.

[66:07] So the proposed project. It consists of a 7,062 square foot outdoor seating area to be added to the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the existing outdoor seating area. the proposed expansion would bring the total out to our seeding area to 8,942 square feet. a total non-ruer area, non brewery area and the development to 17,216 square feet, which is 23.2 of the total indoor floral area. this is only important because it complies with a conditional use standard of the land use code and the definition of brewery which require the total restaurant and tap primary and not to exceed 30% of the total floor area the proposed act or seeding area would bring the total required parking to 314 spaces which, when you incorporate the previously approved deferral 50 fourth basis results in a 30% parking reduction for the site as a whole.

[67:04] which is consistent with the 33% reduction that was granted to the original approval. So the key issue for discussion tonight is whether the proposed project is consistent with the use review criteria, including in particular findings related to the use being reasonably compatible with and having minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. So in terms of analysis of following the call up by planning board on May sixteenth, I spoke with Boulder County Open Space biology staff, who are familiar with the twin lake site the Boulder County staff indicated that the twin lake site does not contain any species of special concern. but does serve as habitat for bats, a variety of birds, and various foraging animals. The staff members expressed the following recommendations. that all lighting be down lit, which is already a requirement of city lighting code. they also encourage landscaping strategies around the outdoor seating area to create a visual buffer.

[68:11] this could include trees and shrubs, evergreen, if possible, tall flower planters, etc. They also indicated that the vegetation growing around the existing stormwater detention pond should be encouraged as possible to allow for maintenance and enhancement of the existing visual buffer between the twin lakes, Wetland and the Avery outdoor seating really the their recommendations and concerns can all be summarized as saying, keep night as night. So based on these recommendations, Staff has provided an additional condition of approval for the Board's consideration. requiring that the applicant submit and receive approval of the final landscaping plan which provides for additional landscaping strategies around the outdoor seating area that can create a visual buffer from the wetland and potential mitigation of noise as determined by a city landscaping staff. This would be at time of building permit.

[69:04] staff finds that the city's existing outdoor lighting regulations are sufficient to minimize lighting impacts. And additionally, while the Boulder County staff did not express any concerns over the proposed hours or the existing hours of operation which allow them to use the upper patio until 2 Am. staff has provided another condition of approval for the Board's consideration, restricting amplified music within the outdoor seating area to between the hours of 10 Am. To 11 pm. so Staff's recommendation, we have found that the proposed project meets the criteria of section 9 to 15, and are recommending that planning board approve the application, the form of the following motion. just to approve user view application. L. You are 2,022, 0 0 2 8. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings effect, including the attached analysis of review criteria. And now I am happy to answer any questions. Do we have any clarifying questions?

[70:03] Ml. thank you thank you, Chandler, for the information on this project. So I think I heard you say that the 2 lakes are holding for agricultural use. Is that correct? So they weren't natural lakes. I don't believe so. Okay, so there's no historical pattern of nature. No, I think it's I think it's largely kind of a adaptive habitat, if you will. That is developed around the lakes. Okay. see? yeah. 2 reservoirs were purchased in 2,002. I was out there today. They they seem like quarry is what they

[71:08] yeah, I don't know. The information that I found says that they're used by Boulder and Left Hand Irrigation Company to store and transport agricultural water. Okay, that I was just curious about the history of of native habitat there, and it sounds like there might not have been any native habitat. It. It was a kind of a man made situation. I was just going to chime in and say on Google maps are listed as Davis. We're gonna one. And Davis Reservoir number 2 makes them so. Not yet any more clarifying questions. No, I'm putting my hand down. Thank you. Okay. Great anyone else. Clarifying questions. All right. Do we have Vivian? I'm for public comment on this

[72:00] to seeing if anybody has their hand raised. This would be the time no hands raised there. Oh, Lynn just popped her hand up. Let me just pull up the timer. And, Lynn, you have 3 min. Please go ahead. No subsidies. Sorry. It's just out at the airport, and it was hot. Ride home on my bike. no subsidies. I was in the shower while you were describing thing, but I think I get the general idea. and whatever they can do, let them do The downloading, I think, is good for that for the wildlife.

[73:01] But no subsidies, not one. Then alright, thank you, Lynn. thank you, Vivian. Does anyone else have a hand up. Okay. alright. Then we will go to a board discussion. I'll start. Since I'm the one who asked who called this up. I just want to thank Staff for going that extra mile to talk to the open space in the county and incorporating and even expanding a bit on what their recommendations were. It addresses my concerns? any comments, any discussion that people want to have hands up? Okay, then, would someone like to make a motion. Okay. a hella, you have something. Yeah. thank you. So thank you. Sarah. I noticed that the suggested motion by staff does not include the the approval would be subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the staff mental. So my recommendation would be that if one of you choose to use the suggested motion language to add that in

[74:13] what's the phrase that has to be added, I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? And subject to the recommended conditions of approval. And the staff memorandum. Okay, hold on. I'm just writing that out. Okay. all right. Memo Random. Okay, since I just wrote it down. I'll go ahead and make the motion. Okay, so motion to approve use for view application. L, you are 200 two- adopting the staff member. subject to the recommendations of approval and staff memorandum and adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact.

[75:00] including the attached analysis of review criteria. Does that work? Hella. yeah, just to clarify. I think you are missing subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I think that you are correct. All right. Let me do it again. I apologize. Folks. I apologize. starting over a motion to approve. Use review application. L, you are to 0 to 2 0 0 to 8, subject to the condition. The recommendation recommended conditions of approval in the staff memorandum and adopting the staff memorandum as findings effect, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Is there a second? I will second. Thank you, Laura. Any comments. any discussion. Mark? You're you're muted, mark mark you, muted.

[76:01] I'll speak quickly to the motion in support of the motion. I was out there I was after today, and I visited the brewery, visited Twin Lakes and wrote around the whole area. And the thing that the maps that are that are in the packet don't show that Google Maps, when you zoom out a little bit does is the fact that 8, the Avery brewing site comes to a point at the seating area at the proposed seating area that would be at the southeast corner of their site, and then the Twin Lakes comes to a corner that would be at the northwest side of twin lakes, and then and the Jason. The influence of of the proper one property on each other is is really quite quite small in comparison to other existing properties that are adjacent to the Twin Lakes property. The day school, and a couple of manufacturing facilities on the west on the south and west of of

[77:11] of twin lakes. And so I appreciate Sarah bringing this forward with concerns about impact on the twin like site and and I I feel like the the additional conditions. The staff is placed as well as the site. Configuration for me. Address those concerns. So I'm in support of this. Hey, Kurt. I I'll just say that I've set out on this temporary value of many times since my previous work was right there and it can get quite hot because it's on the south side. And so I really appreciate the additional condition about the landscaping around the new seeking area, because I think that that will help to moderate the to temperature there on that south side. So I appreciate staff providing. Thank you.

[78:04] Laura. I agree with my colleagues. I think this is a win-win-win. It'll be better for the wildlife, better for the patrons of the patio better for the business. So I think this is an example of the process working well. So thank you to staff for following up on Sarah's concerns. And thank you, Sarah, for bringing this forward. I think this is well done. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Any other comments. Okay, I will reread the motion hopefully in exactly the way I read it before a motion to approve. Use review application. L. You are 200 twenty-two-eight, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the staff memorandum and adopting the staff memorandum as findings effect. including the attached analysis of review criteria. George. Yes.

[79:01] Ml, yes. and Sarah is a yes, so it's 6 0. Thank you very much, Chandler, and I think Christopher must be representing the applicant. So thank you very much, Christopher. As well. Yes, thank you guys, I appreciate it all right. We have sped through this meeting, if only all of our meetings were this fast. Okay. so now let's go to matters from the planning board. I know we have. Laura wants to talk about the airport situation staff wants to discuss retreat, and if anyone else has other issues. Just raise your hand now, and I'll call on you. Okay, so let's start with staff. please. Charles and Brad. I see you, Brad. So defer to Charles. Yeah, I think the only thing we wanted to raise with the board is that you know, typically, when we have a new planning board member. it usually means it's around time for a retreat. So just wanted to get a feel from the Board on whether or not you were interested in having our tree. Toward the end of the summer

[80:10] Devin would be happy to pull the board on a time that works. I think typically what we do is get a little retreat subcommittee together to do some agenda planning, and then we'll check back in with the rest of the board prior to the meeting. So that was the only thing we wanted to raise with the board tonight. so I'll just speak. I think a retreat would be helpful. And if somebody would like to, I don't know what the timing would be, but if there are 2 people who would like to serve on the committee to plan a retreat. now would be a good time to Let us know. maybe curtain, and you can lower your hand and left your volunteering to be on the Retreat committee. Okay? So mark is. Mark, is that about your volunteering yourself? Okay is with someone else like to volunteer themselves.

[81:04] We need one more person, and we're not going to volunteer, at least to who is not here. Can I? Can I urge Kurt to go and thank you, Kirk, I think since you're the new member, we want to make sure it makes your needs. So okay. so it is okay, Charles, if we just have a Devin, Kurt and Mark, talk and figure out, offer some figure out some possible dates, and and then start. The discussion sounds great. Do you mind taking that on? You are so awesome? Thank you. To the 3 of you. Okay. Staff, anything else? No. I'll just add that the Retreat Committee members are responsible for cooking the food. Just keep that in mind. I would. The one thing I'd add is, if we could do this in person, I think it would be very helpful. And there's a lot of tension on this particular setup of the board, and part of it is because we don't ever interact, or maybe some people interact

[82:04] separately. But we never get together as a board. And I think that would help a lot. I I I just gotta say that I think Brad and his kind of part of darkness white, black lighting tonight. Yeah, maybe as maybe as the the root cause of all of this. But anyway. I I I concur. That was really the driving factor behind for my supporting. Actually having a retreat would be an occasion to be together in person and and prove our general relationship. So yes, I agree. All right. next will be Laura, who has an update on the airport. Sure. So I can make this brief, or if folks have questions tonight might be a good night since we did end early with our official business, and I don't know if folks have questions about the airport and what's been happening, but I will just briefly say

[83:14] we're we're kind of right in the thick of things with the airport process, as you know, it's a community visioning process. And the stage that we're at now is that staff and the consultant team have taken in all of the input that they've gotten from multiple sources and made 4 scenarios, and tonight was the open house. It ended at 60'clock. To it was a second open house to get people's reactions to those 4 scenarios as well as a slate of near term activities that could happen in the next 0 to 5 years. I think those were the main things that they asked for input on. There's also a questionnaire up on be heard boulder until August second, so I would encourage folks to check it out. Look at the 4 scenarios. You're more than welcome to register your opinion as an individual and participate. I really think it's important that the city here, from a diverse array of voices, the

[84:05] just by the nature of things, the airport stakeholder community, the pilot community, the tenants of the airport, are pretty organized. They have existing mechanisms to talk to each other, and they're all on a mailing list from the airport. So that's like 100 2,150 people that are showing up and being heard, which is really good. I mean, they're an important stakeholder voice here. but there are also other voices in the community. So I'm hoping that we can individually and with our networks just encourage people to learn about this, learn about the pros and cons of all the scenarios, and and make your voice hurt because this is bigger than just people who currently use the airport, as we all, as we all know. I did also. So that's kind of my brief update of where we are, where we're headed is that after this period of public input closes with the survey closing, and I think staff are also doing another round of You know they consult with the San Lazaro, and this the village residents since their disadvantaged community. That's quite near the airport. and I'm not. I'm not sure if there's any other direct outreach that staff is doing. If there is an I'm failing to remember it.

[85:10] But they're collecting all the input. Then the next stage is they will be developing, trying to develop one preferred scenario to discuss with city council, and I think they will share with city council the whole range of scenarios that were considered the input that was received, and how they got from that through their analysis process of the public input and other factors, logistics of working with the Faa and all of that Faa requirements to get to a preferred scenario. There is a check in with council on August 20 fourth. I don't know how far along everything will be. But that's just a check in. That's not a decision point, although Council may provide some guidance at that time the real decision happens after the new Council is elected in January of next year. So, and at that point the Council will have an opportunity to say we want to go forward with an airport scenario and go into an airport master plan and give some guidance on that, or we're going to put the master planning process on hold and continue to explore decommissioning and building a new neighborhood. I think that's the big choice, and Brad or Charles or someone can correct me if I'm framing that wrong. But I think city council will have that opportunity

[86:16] in January. So that's that's kind of where all of this is leading to. So And I also just want to disclose personally, you know, you all know that my profession is I'm a public policy facilitator. I really thoroughly believe in community education and diverse voices being involved. So I have made myself available to any group that wants to talk to me or individual. So I have met with aviation interest. I'll be meeting some environmental groups. Anybody who wants to talk to me. I'm happy to have a conversation. I want to hear their perspective. I want to answer any questions that they might have about. You know, what is the city's guidance around housing? What could this look like? I'm not trying to say that I have the answers. I'm just saying, you know, for example, if there were a neighborhood here it would not be all one housing type, it would not be all luxury housing, it would not be all affordable housing. That's according to you know, Bbcp policies and things like that. So I can help answer questions like that. And just, I'm really trying to invite people into the conversation. I've been talking to journalists. I really want this to be a community wide conversation, which I think

[87:18] this is an issue that merits that that level of detail. So I have been talking to folks. and you may have seen. There was an article yesterday they came out in the boulder reporting lab in which I am quoted, so I just want there to be no surprises that folks know that I am having these conversations, and when I express my personal opinions I make it very clear I am not representing planning board. I can't speak for the city. I'm not a city employee. I'm just one person. and I want this to be a real, a real conversation, and everyone to know. You know, we should talk about what's great about the airport. We should talk about what could be there for housing, and and it could be alternative uses. Also, it doesn't have to be housing, even though that seems to be the the push. So let me stop there and say any questions. Anything that folks want to talk about tonight. With regards to this airport process.

[88:10] I was just going to say good job. I got. Alright. Thanks. okay, thank you, Laura. Thanks. And but, Brad, did you have something you wanted to add from Staff's perspective? No, I don't think so. It's all good we we continue to be as a department in liaison with transportation and transit. Okay. you know, recognizing this as their their process. But Kathleen King in our office is our main. Thank you, Brad. Okay, any other things that board member of Ml. and then Kurt. thank you, Sarah. I just wanted to put out.

[89:01] So there is a and the liaison to Deb and Mark is the backup, and neither of us can make the thirteenth of September dab meeting. So if there are any other people on planning board who would like to attend that. it's not required. We don't have to have a liaison there, but it would be nice if anybody would like to attend. September thirteenth is the meeting in question. And there are any volunteers you you can, I guess email. or volunteer. Now. why don't we let people look at their schedules? And then email you, if that's okay. Ml. yeah, thank you. I just wanted to follow up with Staff. I had asked to question a few weeks back about whether there might be any changes to city code required in order to meet the requirements of Prop 123 and and receive that money, and I just wanted to follow up and see if you've had a chance to make any progress on investigating that

[90:18] Yes, I believe we do. I I don't know that I can represent it and and do a justice, but I'm I'm happy to send along information. Well, and let me make sure I understand correctly you you're asking about the criteria by which that would be determined the supportable housing. Yeah. So my understanding is that prop 123 imposes certain in order to receive the the funding from the State. There are certain requirements that are imposed upon a local jurisdiction, and it just wasn't clear to me whether or not we met those.

[91:01] And so I so I was just asking whether Staff had looked into that and and what if you know if if the judgment was yes, we need it, or if we don't need it, if you know what changes might be required. Yeah, I was part of email correspondence back and forth between the State, or at least partial, of course, but partially included on some of the correspondence between the State and the Housing and Human Services Department. step we're following up on that. My, my recollection and I'll get confirmation of this, of course, is that The criteria was not well defined. There were some opportunities for jurisdictions in applying for that to define things in a certain way. the long and the short of it is. the city was recently designated as as getting some of that funding, so I'll I'll send along both that information and then A. A follow up to your question current, which will probably involved

[92:10] having one of our Hhs staff. Elaborate on that. Okay, that sounds great. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Hey? Hella! Anything? Oh, sorry. Hello! Before you come out. ml, just raised your hand again. Ml, sorry. I have a question for Kurt. Actually, you're on the Boulder Junction group, because that they did. A big presentation on the status of it is something big. Happen they're a milestone that was met. The last thing that I was involved with was an open house which was held at the don't care and social whatever, that's all. And I think, yeah, Laura was there, I think. And

[93:05] yeah, yeah, right? That's great. Sorry. And so you know, they were still presenting the the the multiple options. And I mentioned, I think I I talked at a subsequent Glen Board meeting about the options that were being considered in some of the turn offs, and so on. So that that's the last I know. But oh, they don't always ask me for my permission to go ahead. yeah. Well, I I saw them making a big presentation. That was, you know, kind of the, I guess input from whoever on that committee. And I said, Oh. for meeting tomorrow night or yeah, next week, or I guess it's tomorrow that and hurt will to give us our presentation. So okay, and no pressure. And Davis presenting fancy little Powerpoints about the process, but

[94:09] cool nothing. Thank you. All right, Hella, do you have anything for us? I don't have anything nice to see you to Devin. Do you have anything for us. I have nothing. Thanks. All right. I am going to plot our. I'm going to give us all a round of applause. This was a 94 min meeting. If we could do more of these we'd all the life would be good. Okay, and I am now going to close out this meeting. Adjourn. Enjoy your evening. Hi.