August 1, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Is August first. Thank you. It's August first, 2,023 we are now called to order. I believe this will be a fairly brief meeting before we start public participation Laurel just wants to lay out a couple of rules given our 4 person membership tonight. Yes, thank you so much. I just wanted to let you all know as just a quick reminder. supplies for minutes as well as any other done. Item tonight we have for our public hearing. But Any agenda item requiring a vote of the planning board is tonight. If it doesn't receive an affirmative vote of 4 or more with our particular item later in the day. If there's a boat of 3 to one in favor of, or something like that. then that person can apply to appeal within 7 days to re here, with the idea being that maybe if the full board is present that they could be affirmed. So just wanted to let you know in order to move something forward. We have to have about a 4 more.

[1:04] Thank you so much. Laurel. Thank you. So we're going to go to public participation. I I think, Laurel, if it's okay, I'm going to utilize the the traditional we've been using thus far until we have a conversation to change that which is public participation. You get 3 min. You can talk about anything you would like to other than the public hearing items on our agenda. So if you would, if you have, if you would like to speak. Please raise your electronic hand. In the meantime, I think Devon will be. Are you reading us? The that is correct. I will take care of that awesome. Thank you, madam, chair and as she had mentioned. We do have one item for up for consideration tonight for public comments. So we do have just a few slides to go over here. for this public participation process.

[2:00] So for this the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. This vision supports the physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and boarding commission members as well as the democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political preferences. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, and other guidelines that will support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited. participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online

[3:01] when we come to. For when we come to the time for public general public comment and for the public hearing. Item, it's pretty simple, and straightforward to participate on the bottom of your of your bar. Here you will see 3 icons, one of them being the raised hand icon You'll simply just click that at the designated time, and that will let all of us know that you're interested in commenting on the item. With that I will turn it back to you, madam, chair you. I'm eating a lot. I eating dinner while we do this and my apologies. Does anyone who is in our attendance want to speak? We have one hand. Go ahead, Devon, please. Possible. Oh, Devin, you just You means it yourself. Lynn. I'll go ahead and promote you here, and then I'll have the timer displayed on my screen

[4:00] all right when we lost Len completely. But there she is. Lynn. Can you unmute yourself? And then you are free to speak. Yeah, do you want my video? I do not think we utilize video. So no, just your words would be great. Thank you so much. Massachusetts Legislature requires me to have my friggin video. I had to say, boulder doesn't do that where the heck is boulder in the Dark Ages. Seriously. you don't have videos. 3 years later. Unbelievable. It's your responsibility, not City Council. You report that I'm complaining that I want to see videos. You know I see you. You need to see me. I mean, how many times do I need to? Was my time on all the city problems we have instead, talking about simple things like technical aspects of this meeting. Unbelievable. What a waste. isn't it? What a way she could be hearing some really good stuff from me! Instead, you're hearing about video.

[5:15] It's just going to go on that way, isn't it? Yep. just gonna go on. We need shoe. We pair zoning in Boulder Shoe repair store. We need drugstore across from this big huge development at Boulder Community Hospital. It's the next door. 15 min neighborhoods. No, it's going the opposite way. You know what Zoklo is, you know. Water View. I went by there unbelievable. 300 400 units. Every single one has a friggin garage. You know what that's going to do to a Rappaho. Turn it into a highway a bigger highway. Let's put it that way.

[6:01] Riding my bike out there I do not enjoy. I'm 2 feet from people that are going 70 miles an hour, and that kid that was killed 17 years old. He was going for the gold medal. Did you know that? You know we've got problems here with people trying to get places, and 213 is supposed to be stopping sprawl. And we've got a whole city out by the Jcc. A. Whole. Another city called Zocolo City. What have you the view when the big flood comes? Because it's on the flood plane? Caroline Miller is a problem in the sense that every city governmental department is under threat right now with her dismissal

[7:02] she was a whistleblower blower. She knew what was going on, and she called it on C. Yourself. Elicit conversations going away from Colorado statutes? Not okay. It threatens the planning board to done. Thank you, Lynn, very much I don't see any more hands, so we will move on to approval of minutes. Approval of planning board minutes from April 20 fifth has everyone had a chance to review the revised minutes. So you know what? laurel you weren't yet a member on the twenty-th, were you? Yes, I was. Oh, you were okay. I was, gonna say, we don't have. We don't have for okay. So

[8:05] do. I just need to be a voice vote correct? Laurel. Yes, okay. you have some additional comments. Yeah, I just, I, submitted a minor amendment to the May sixteenth. Are we just talking about the 25. We're just we're going to the one at a time. Okay, it's all right. It's a no problem, all right. So planning board minutes from April 20, fifth. Laura. do we need a motion? I move that we approve the planning board minutes from April 20, fifth. Okay, okay, so thank you. Laurel Laura. I correct. Huh? Lisa. Sarah and I. Okay, they are approved. Can I have our any comments for additional information on the May second minutes. All right. Laura, you want to make a motion. I move that we approve the May second minutes.

[9:04] Okay, Kurt. yeah. Laura. Yes, Lisa and Sarah. Yes, locally suggest. You know we're not actually hearing you when you say yes. Now we have a problem with the May sixteenth meeting. I wasn't there, which means we only have 3 people to vote on it. So I think we're going to have to carry it over to the next meeting, if you don't mind. and if I can add I submitted, just a very minor formatting change on page well, 65. And I'm not seeing that reflected in the current version. Yeah, sorry about that. I do. I remember I call you submitting the edits there. I'll go back and check on that and see what happened there. Thank you. Great. And then, whenever our next meeting is which I think is next week

[10:04] we can. We can vote on those minutes. Then all right. Thank you all. We are done with approval of minutes. There are no discussion of dispositions or call-ups or continuations. which now brings us to our public hearing. Item 5. A public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a request for annexation of an approximately 11,766. That's approximate square foot, 0 point 2 7 acre property, located at 3 0 3 3 third Street, with an initial zoning designation of residential low. Rl, one case number Alison Blaine is going to be presenting to us. the applicant is in the house. If we have questions. I, Alison, am I correct that he doesn't have a plan statement? Is that correct? Yeah. The The applicants will say a few words, but I will not be making a presentation. If you okay, perfect, then we'll have questions for Staff and the applicant, and then we will go to board discussion. we'll have public comment if there is any, and then we'll go to board discussion.

[11:16] and our goal is to get this done in under an hour. So, Allison, please take it away. All right. Give me just a second to get my screen going. Okay. everyone can see my screen. Right? Okay. good evening, everyone. The item before the board tonight is the annexation of approximately point 2 7 acres of land, with an initial zoning designation of all, one located at 30 33 Third Street. The project completed the necessary notice. Requirements for the code. Red notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and public notice was also posted on the property staff did not receive any questions or concerns from neighbors.

[12:15] in terms of the review process and criteria for those who are maybe unfamiliar annexation is the process to incorporate the land into city boundaries and include several layers of review. the first layer is State law and the Colorado Constitution, which limits the authority of the municipalities. The annexed lands, however, any indexation must meet all State statutes. Second, and annexation of this also meet city ordinances and policies of the older valley. Comprehensive plan. specifically, BBC policies related to annexation limits on expansion and the growth requirements. land that has significant development for redevelopment potential is also provide a special opportunity to the city or community benefit to reduce negative impacts that may be associated with new development.

[13:04] and last when our property is annexed, zoning is established according to land. Use designations in the land. Use map of the Bbcp, and then must also be consistent with existing development patterns. An annexation agreement is required which is a negotiated contract to establish the terms and conditions of the annexation, and any more must then, review the annexation and make a recommendation to the city Council on whether or not the annexation should be approved, and the terms, conditions, and learning that should be applied. The site is located along the western boundary of city limits along Third Street, with evergreen app to the North and Del would add to the South properties along Third Street have been gradually annexed into the city throughout the last few years. prior to the application to annex. The site contained a single family dwelling, built in 1924,

[14:02] as indicated on the survey that was reviewed during the application and shown here on these photos. The existing dwelling has since been demolished, and will be redeveloped upon annexation. The site is also currently connected to city utilities. The majority of the property is located within the area, 2 shown there in gray for the Bbcp area to refers to the area that is under county jurisdiction that may be annexed in the city as long as it meets BBC policies on growth, management or requirements and annexation. And then there's also a small portion of that green sliver there that is located within area 3, which may also be in the city for preservation purposes. he's a little bit of a closer look at what's going on on the site. The blue line does run through the site with the area in 3 portion to the west in the area 2 portion to the east the area 3 portion is also subject to an existing scenic easement from 1,981 that requires the area 3 portion to remain undeveloped and preserved in its rural state.

[15:07] as such new development can occur west of the line or in the area 3 portion. The party is designated as Logan. See residential on the Bbcp land use map, which specifies a density of 2 to 6 billion in it per acre. The anticipated uses for these zones are single. The applicant is requesting all one zoning consistent with the surrounding properties within the city and adjacent to the site shown here in yellow. The R. One district is described as single family, detached residential bill units at low to very low residential densities. and, as I mentioned, a little bit earlier, an extension agreement is required as part of the process, and annexation terms are in to anticipate any future development of the property, and I wanted to touch base on some of the important provisions going into this agreement.

[16:01] the first one being the area, 3 preservation and conveyance which states that the area 3 portion will remain in its natural and rural state. for the existing scenic easement power on request the area. 3 portion must be conveyed to the city. and we also have the inclusionary housing fee, which states that for each new market rate or non formal unit constructed The property owner or developer must pay 2 times the applicable cash in blue. There are 3 key key issues identified by staff in the middle The first one is, does the annexation comply with the clinical State indexation statutes to? Is the proposal consistent with the city's annexation and other Bbcp policies, and 3 is the initial zoning of all one appropriate for the subject, property for key issue, one in terms of State law. The annexation. Petition is consistent with the statutory and constitutional requirements. and the site meets the 1 6 continuity requirement to the city.

[17:04] and there is a community interest to annex the property as it has a development potential. It's already connected to city utilities and is capable of being integrated into the city for key issue to in terms of BBC P policies the site can be considered for annexation because it is within the holder value planning area. As we saw a majority in area 2, and then a smaller portion in area 3, and the area 2, portion of the property has a potential to be redeveloped and provides a benefit to the city in the form of cash and lufies and preservation of open space. Therefore, meeting policy 1.1 7 d. Of B. Pcp. And then last in terms of zoning If a property is annexed, zoning is established consistent with the goals and the land you smell of the Bbcp. As mentioned earlier, the site is designated as low density residential, which anticipates a density of 2 to 6 billion dollars per acre.

[18:00] We're all one zone district allows the density of up to 6.2 dwelling units per acre. The are all one zoning district supports, detached single family uses, and all future development will need to comply with the solar and energy requirements as well as compatible development standards. And to conclude. staff finds that the proposed annexation is consistent with State statutes as well as the Vcp Policies staff find that the initial zoning of all one is consistent with the BBC people and land use designation and is compatible with the surrounding properties. therefore, Staff is recommending that planning board adopt the following motion, which I have here on the screen. Yeah, thank you, Allison folks, all right. If I ask the applicant to speak, and then we'll ask questions. If one. Okay with that. Okay,

[19:00] I don't know the name of the applicant. I'm sorry. And can you bring the applicant forward so that he or she can speak to us? Yes, absolutely There are 3 of the applicants on the line, and I have promoted them all. Just need to accept the promotion there, and you'll be ready to go. Thanks. yes. I think it. Do. You have a sense of the amount of time you're going to want to speak to in total. 2 min. Okay, great, thank you. And then do you have to identify yourself, please? Oh, hi! I'm Hi! My name is Sherry Goff. I'm at 2 9 0 2 0 room trail. I'm I'm the barsh's architect, and I'm speaking on our behalf. Great. So great Andrea and Michael have lived in Boulder for 31 years. They raise their family in a home just out of side of the city of Boulder now, and are now looking to downsize.

[20:10] They purchase the property at 3 0 3 3 Third Street, to be more centrally located and to build their retirement home. In analyzing the property we realize most of the surrounding properties are in the city of Boulder rather than unincorporated over county. and that the property has both city water and sewer. We determined it would be beneficial to seek annexation in order to build a home consistent in mass and form with the neighbors, and to formalize provisions. The city's provisions of utilities. We also believe the Annexation will help create a more well-defined, consistent western edge of the city. There are a number of commuted benefits that we can, that we can find it with annexation. The bars are granting the city a 25 foot easement along the Silver Lake ditch. this will provide access to the ditch for needed maintenance.

[21:01] There's an assisting in a basement on the western edge of the property that is, for the benefit of the city and community. this and next section agreement, we confirms my clients application to preserve that portion, the property in accordance with the scenic easement. In addition, upon request, they will convey the scenic eastern portion of the property to the city. and finally, with the building of a new home. The bars have agreed to pay the 2 times the amount of cash and move for portable housing. thank you for your time and reviewing request for this annexation? we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Michael, did you want to say anything? Sorry, unmute? no, okay, that's fine. There is no requirement that you say something. Okay, if you have any questions I'm happy to happy to answer, but I I think Sherry covered it, and

[22:01] all right. Thank you so much. Alright. So now Does anyone on the planning board have questions for staff or for the applicant? All right. Oh, wait! Kurt does. Yes, Kurt. yeah, I have some questions for staff. So my understanding based on my calculations. the Compatible Development rules would allow for an 11,766 square foot parcel about 4,315 square feet of floor area. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. assuming that would be the Max Gross floor area Kurt. But that also assumes that setbacks are Matt and all of the other volume, metric standards that may actually chip away at that. But as first, the math goes, that would be the Max

[23:00] and that does not include basement is that right as long as it doesn't top out of grade more than 2 feet. It's not considered in the floor, or the calculation so conceivably assuming setbacks are that But I think setbacks are what the the the sides that are all of 15 feet. Is that right? You know one? Yes, and are all one there is the yeah, the camera will be calling in the code. I'd have to look it up. But you basically have to position it so that it's a maximum of 15 feet. Yeah. Okay. So if you were building just very rough picture, if you were building a 2 story house with a basement. a fully submerged basement 4,300 square feet on the

[24:00] upper floors, the the first and second floor. You'd end up around 6,500 square feet, maybe of total for you to do that team roughly, right? Including the base. I I probably defer to the applicant on that. But yeah, that You know that that the whole basement, you know, is dug the you know the entire perimeter of the house. That sounds right to me. Okay? And then the the the cache and loop. My understanding is the normal cash in Loo for a detached house is $52,025, and so this would be a hundred $4,050. okay. And so for just just sort of very roughly, for a hundred $4,000 of cashing room.

[25:06] considering whatever the current raid is to build a unit of affordable housing and the the multiplier that we get with caching by leveraging it, using flight, that funding, or whatever do you have any real feeling like? How many. how many affordable units with this we do, or what fraction of an affordable unit. Could you typically build with this $104,000? I wouldn't have a feel for that. And I don't. We weren't prepared to have somebody from housing and human services on the call this evening. It's something we could certainly follow up on Kurt. But, What the contribution? I'm not. I'm not exactly sure fractionally what that result in in the in the market. But I I think we've heard that the general multiplier is is 2 to 3

[26:08] times. Sorry that that lie tech funding for whatever you know we get through of the State. gives a maybe a 2 to 3 times multiplier on whatever that is contributed from the affordable housing fund. Does that seem roughly right? Yeah, again, I I don't want to speak you know for our colleagues in housing or or I I'm just. I'm trying to understand. yeah, how much affordable housing or how much of an affordable, what fraction of an affordable housing. We we get with this. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Kurt. and that might be a question to direct outside the

[27:02] framework of this hearing. to curt, not to Kurt Fern Hover or Michelle Allen. to try to understand what the ratios are. okay. Any other questions for either staff or applicants. Okay? Great. Oh, the Lisa. yeah. I just remember that the applicant said that they're looking to downsize and you know. I I was just wondering if you have any more information about kind of what you're hoping you're planning to build here, and where you're at with the plans for that. Should I answer that, I mean, or Michael, do you want to answer? no, go ahead. Sure, it's fine. Yeah, I mean. So yeah, we have a schematic design. But we've been basically on hold on until this goes through. This is a pretty long process, as you guys all know. So yeah, we have a schematic plan that we've worked on.

[28:00] It doesn't Max out this, for I mean, it doesn't come with the square footage. I think you were asking earlier, but because that was kind of what I was trying to get at. I I know that once it's in it you'll have a lot of and and not not that I you know you'll have freedom right if you re-sold the parcel, or whatever I I I was just curious if you know if it it is built by these communal, long-term community members. If you had a sense of like roughly when it might look like, because Kurt kind of had some questions, I think, about square footage. And so I was going to give you an opportunity to speak to. Yeah. I mean, we can't get that much basement in. I mean, we have just doesn't make any sense right? Because we end up having the way it's designed. There's a lower level and part part of the lower level accounts towards the square footage. So you know. cool, great, and I don't want to lock you into design, because once you get on the site it can thank you. Hi! thank you all Michael and Sherry and Brad can turn off your cameras. And we will now take public comment on this item.

[29:01] If anyone has public comment, that would be the time to raise your hand when you have 3 min. Devin, if you can unmute Lin and start the clock. That would be great. Then go ahead, please. to unmute yourself. I guess. I also wonder about the size of this development. you know. Are they going to build another 600,000 or 6,000 square foot place on this property. th. This is on the open space, basically, and on the urban wildlife interface. And we've already got 3, 11 there and

[30:00] 3 11 failed on their affordable housing part at Fruit House. And that's basically why they they got their road paid for them was an agreement that makes the planning board look ineffectual when you know you have agreements, and they are mainly. and so I say, keep the agreements as strict as you possibly can. I can understand these people wanting to annex then, and improve the general property line, and for whatever reason they're not annexed. And so the city has some power there to express some community benefit. and if we're going to provide them.

[31:00] you know another project for a 6,000 square foot house on the open space. I'd say, No, thanks. We don't need that on the edge of Boulder. but they aren't talking about that. So that's a problem for me. you know this is an opportunity for you, as a planning board to put some constraints on them. Any affordable housing, any inclusionary housing they might be responsible for Those could be increased if there are any or any other. I mean, it's nice that they're giving 25 foot easement, those silver like ditch. But what other in positions are they

[32:02] exerting on the city of Boulder by this proposed annexation? What are? What's the city giving up? yeah. I thought that we're trying to get more affordable housing, but as far as long term affordable housing. I don't think this is going to produce it all right, Lynn, thank you so much your time is up. Thank you. All righty, we will now go to our deliberations. There are 3 key issues, and I'll just remind everybody that this is kind of a straightforward application. so key issue number one is, does the annexation comply with the pick up applicable state annexation statutes. Key issue number 2 is the proposal consistent with the city's annexation and Bbcp policies and key issue number 3 is the initial zoning rl, one appropriate for the subject property.

[33:10] So let's start with key issue number one folks have comments, or Lisa. yeah, I think Staff laid it out pretty clearly in the memo this is, in my opinion, consistent with State statutes. yeah, I I don't find any reason to disagree with that. So I agree that it's consistent. Laura. I agree with Lisa. Okay, Kurt. I I agree with Lisa. Okay, as do I. All right. Key issue number 2 is the proposal consistent with the city's annexation and Bbcp policies. So you still have your hand up. Oh, I'll go first again, but then I won't go first on the third one. Sorry I just didn't put it down. yes, yes, I think so. You know the fact that it's in what's it called area 2 planning area to

[34:07] and the fact that it's already on city utilities and that usually for public welfare and consistency reasons. It's nice to pull stuff in when it's already on city utilities like this is. I did have some questions about the blue line, which I think were adequately addressed. in the memo, explaining, you know that that would be preserved, since it does cross the blue line. yeah, and I won't get into the third thing, which I think is the zoning But yeah, I I think it's consist of the BBC. And and furthermore, although this isn't the question, too. It's consistent with what the city likes to do. It's not quite in in holding But if you look on the map it's kind of darn close to it. If you kind of think of Area 3 in the blue line, as as you know, being something we can't build above. Anyway, it's kind of surrounded by city and generally, when that happens, it's a good idea, for a host of reasons, to try to pull it in. If someone's interested. So in a way, it's sort of a gift that they want to come in. So yeah, I find it consistent.

[35:03] Alright. Thank you, Lisa. Laura, and then, Kurt. I think Lisa said it very well. I really appreciate her analysis and Staff's analysis. The only thing I would add is that you know the when we annex the property, we look for that property to provide a benefit to the city, and I think that Staff explained well, and the applicant explains well what those benefits are in terms of the scenic easement being maintained and conveyed to the city if requested. The Silver Lake ditch, easement, and the 2 times the normal cash in Loo that would be required. So they are providing additional benefit to the city for that development potential. They're already on city water and sewer. As Lisa said, so annexation was anticipated, and it's area to appropriate for annexation. So yes. hey, Kurt? Oh, well, I agree with most of the benefits that Lisa and Laura outlined. certainly in terms of the the and so on.

[36:00] I am concerned about the implications generally for housing affordability. when I read the annexation, the section 1.17 of the BBC. And the housing policies in the BBC. Sort of the the general thrust that I get is that annexation should improve, you know affordability in the city. So 1.17 e. Says, for annotation consideration, this will be given to the benefits achieved from the creation of permanently affordable housing. This certainly will produce some benefit from the creation of permanently affordable housing. So no doubt about that. we also have Pvcp policy, 7.0 2 affordable housing goals, 7.7 mixture of housing types, 7.0 8 preserve existing housing stock, 7.5 7 15 integration, and permanently affordable housing.

[37:09] and 7 17 market affordability, all of which speak in terms of improving the affordability of housing, basically, in the city based on the the fer that would be allowed on this property for 350 square feet. You know. My guess is that this property would end up being worth in the 4 to 6 million dollars that the house, you know, as constructed in exchange for that we will be getting a hundred $4,000 affordable housing money, which. based on my recollection of the multiplier, and that we get from the affordable Housing fund

[38:01] that would end up being like maybe three-fifths of an affordable housing to me. I'm not convinced that that trade off is, what would be is is something that would be consistent with the goals. So that so based on all that as it is currently constructed, I'm not I I'm not of the feeling that this is consistent with the BBC alright. Thank you, Kurt. I'm going to point out that the city code and city annexation policies are met by this proposal city policy, 1.2 5 E city shell and the area to land with significant development and redevelopment potential only on a very limited in order to reduce negative impacts on development. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city.

[39:10] With the exception parcels that are proposed for annexation that are already developed, and seek no greater density or building size would be what would be required to assume and provide the same level of community benefit as vacant parcels. and less. In a tell, such time as an application for greater development was submitted plus the city. The annexation agreement for the the proposal in front of us makes it clear that what can be built there have to meet existing city code. So I don't think that we're in the business of telling a person who's brought a parcel that they can build big, the the that they want to build. If it meets code they can't build So I'm going to disagree pretty strongly with Kurtz point of view. I

[40:01] I appreciate the policy issue that you've brought up. and I would suggest that you continue to raise it as a question of whether the cash and loo for single-family home redevelopment is adequate. I think that's a totally legitimate question. But in terms of this particular application the application meets the requirements of the city taxation policies from my perspective. Yes, Lisa first, and then Kurt. yeah, I'm I'm just gonna echo what you said, Sarah. I think I've maybe been worn down a better gotten. You stood over time on planning board, but There oftentimes, when I wish I could impose my policy objectives or make the roles be different than they are. and I'll often take some floor time to talk about how I think they're silly, and I I think you raise a really good point about the value of this parcel coming into the city, and regardless of what this applicant builds. You know what could be built there, and what the ratio is for cash. And Lou, I think I think that's really fair. And I've had that same thought before and

[41:08] under our current code and rules for annexation. I do think that this does meet the requirements. you know the ratio maybe isn't what I wish it was. But we are where we are today, and I. I see my job as a member of planning board and the Board's role to, you know, follow the code and and do what it says to do. So I I just you know I'm not actually pushing back on your broader argument. I think I completely agree with it. but in terms of the decision we're asked to make today, I would just refer back to the code into Staff's analysis and and kind of the framework we have to operate under under currently. And I, I think it absolutely, you know, meets me. The requirements is set up correct. Thank you. Well, I I certainly appreciate that. And I certainly am. working off of my interpretation of the city code in specifically the BBC. As I read it. But I had a question for Sara. Sara. You cited. I thought you were said that you were citing 1.25 city policy. It's not not evolution.

[42:15] okay. which? I if it wasn't included in the packet it was access. I think it was included as a link. So if you read through it, it's got I don't know a through h some of which are not applicable like a component on what happens in gun barrel and no annexation outside the boundaries of Boulder Valley planning area. the elements that are apply to this kind of parcel I personally feel are met. Given the current regulations.

[43:00] I just in it credit. If you you you're you're muted. Yeah. I was not saying, Okay, sorry, Laura. Thank you. and I really do appreciate this discussion. you know I I'm not a builder. I don't have a good sense of what it costs the applicant to acquire the parcel. Deconstruct the old house, construct a new house and how that compares with the benefit that they're getting, and the cash and Loo that we are asking from them. I I that's not the kind of math that I'm prepared to do tonight. so I guess my question is for city staff. How did you determine that 2 times the normal cash in Loo was the right amount to request for this annexation agreement? Because my understanding from legal is that you know annexation is negotiation, and we don't have strict guidance on things like what what we could ask for in exchange for the benefit that is being provided. So I think what I'm hearing from Kurt's request is, do we want to ask for more cash and Loo. We certainly cannot require them to build an affordable housing units on their property, and I think I read in the packet that that

[44:05] you know with the Rl. One zoning. They can only have one housing unit. They could build an to you if they want to like any other unit, but they can only have one unit, we cannot require it to be affordable. So cash and Loo is an appropriate buy out. That's how we do it in the city. But how did we arrive upon 2 times the normal single family housing cash? A new amount? It's a great question, and and thanks for raising it. you know. So like, years ago, we kept experiencing this issue on. You know really what the right ask was for single family detached tones that don't have additional development potential. And like an R all one situation. So staff work with council to get some annexation guidelines adopted. so that's how we landed on 2 times cash and lou as kind of the right fit for a single family detached home. that doesn't have additional development potential. I'm in a situation like this. So it's been a long standing policy that

[45:03] was approved by council. I want to say it was maybe around 10 years ago, but I'd have to go back and look at the policy. But so it's also created some uniformity. And how we apply that in these annexations over time. And that's it was really born out of conversations like this. I really, what's the right balance? So okay, so if I could just glom onto one thing that you said. There, Charles, that was very helpful, which is, you know, one of our goals is to be fair and consistent and apply guidance uniformly, and it sounds like this is a long standing city policy of when we do, an annexation for a single family dwelling unit. This is the cash and Loo that we ask for. So that's very useful to know. Thank you. Lisa. And then Kurt. sorry Turned off my hand, but not my mute I I think Laura just said it really well, and I I just wanted to highlight that. But I think the reason why it is, the way is. And again, perhaps it is not ideally the right number, and we might want to

[46:01] lobby for it to be revisited. But the my understanding is the goal was for consistency and uniformity, and that regardless of exactly who's sitting on planning board when you come up, or which staff member from the city is reviewing it, or whatever that people have some understanding of of what they're going to be asked, and and that you're not seeing, you know, one neighbor asked to pay a certain number, and then another neighbor passed us to pay something, much less they're much higher. and that there's some a degree of fairness, you know I see it not only, as you know, a fair amount, but and I think Laura uses word, but as as being fair? so that we're not putting different numbers on different people, depending on how we feel about a certain one. So I just wanted to highlight that. I think at least. Kurt. yeah. And I certainly appreciate that. I mean the Fourteenth Amendment to the Us. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Right. And so I think for And so I'm I'm I'm certainly very sensitive to that a question for Staff, though I think that there have been situations where we have at either ask for additional affordable housing money in in annexation, or further limited.

[47:12] The F they are that was available to them on the site. Is that correct? I'm thinking about a project. This is not a thing in house, but a project on 50 Fifth, nor from Arapaho that was subject to long and sort of laborious discussion outside of a single family detached with additional development potential. I I think we've had those negotiations in the past. But we don't have any analogs for the Those types of negotiations for single family detached from that. doesn't have additional development. Potentially right. Lisa. Yeah, I was just trying to think back, Kurt and I haven't been here on as long as Sarah. And I'm certainly Charles has a much longer memory than both of us.

[48:04] But that that's true. We definitely get into some pretty fine grained in particular discussions and votes when it comes to something larger and denser, and these bigger parcels. but for single family detached. we're we're not. We haven't historically you know, been kind of trying to smudge it around or try to move it for for those kinds of parcels where only one house could be built. Anyway. Kurt. Well, I understand that the Board may not be interested in requesting additional horrible housing money catch in Lou I would make. I I would like to put out 2 possible proposals, and just see what people think one would be to further limit the F AR the allowable f a. R. On the property below the what I calculated is 4,315 to 2,500 square feet.

[49:05] That's one possibility. Another one which is less stringent, I guess would be to remove the portion of the property that is west of the Blue line, and which could at any time be requested by the city. Anyhow. remove that from the floor area used in calculating the allowable far under the compatible development. So I I'll respond to that and with like Laurel's, input that I think would constitute a taking. Both both of those things would constitute a taking. I I think. Laurel. yeah. So the first one we have done before we've done a negotiation and annexation agreement where we say what the like largest allowable amount is part of the negotiation with the property owner is that they would

[50:04] come in and negotiate whether or not they wanted to accept that. Or, you know, it's kind of again just to clarify was that for a single family detached home. When we did that. Yeah, let me pull up the examples. I have a couple of examples. They don't have to be specific example. But I was just curious. I would just scan it through my examples, because I haven't been here as long as some other folks have. But no, they're generally more So they the ones that I see have been for like development of several family home, so like not just one property. that they that we've limited that, and then the other one. I it's not something I know. The answer to off the top head as far as taking from part of the property, but I would assume it is. We are as the memo talked about dedicating that to open space, or to these men above the blue line, and I see Brad went off me so I don't know if he wants to add anything to it. Yeah, I'm sorry. I just I I want to share with us. This is a moment where we probably want to be precise that we can never determine the outcome of the court case, which is what it takings would be. But we can only offer whether it's likely something might result in the taking or not. So

[51:14] sorry to be a little technical, but it just make sure we be careful. right? It would just be a guess. Yeah. so I I will, respond, Kurt. I I would not be comfortable with either of those 2. There's a we are not in the business of negotiating an annexation with a on a single family home. They're very clear, consistent rules, so that everything is consistent, whether it's your house or your neighbor's house. And I think frankly, this is a pretty simple annexation request. Staff and the applicant have already been negotiating. and I realized that you fresh you you would prefer a smaller house, but

[52:01] you know, it's not really our job, not really our role when it comes to a single family home parcel annexation. that's just my response to your suggestions. Before you respond. I'm wondering if either Laura or Lisa wants to respond to your thought. Your suggestions Lisa. again, I I I think I'm actually very sympathetic to what I think you're trying to do, Kurt. So I I hope that I hope I'm communicating that adequately. and also I think in this case it's not. It's not an appropriate thing for planning board to be doing. yeah, I I think it's important that when people bring forward simple, single family annexations like this. And again, there. There are good reasons why the city wants to pull some of these properties like this that are surrounded by city into the city, especially when they're already on service, because we don't have to pay. That means we're not obligated to provide them with water, and so on beyond what like, it's already been done. So it's a less expensive annexation for the city. and there are practical

[53:18] health and safety and like life safety reasons why we like to have those parcels come in. So you know, I I I I just I know I wouldn't want to do anything. One I don't think it's appropriate, and 2, I wouldn't want to do anything that set of precedent, that it was going to be a more complex process, and also where people wouldn't know how that would go, you know, on larger parcels they already know that they don't know what they're getting and that there's going to be a negotiation process. And that's just not what we do for single family. So again, I I appreciate the creativity and trying to come up with, you know, 2 options which is awesome of ways that we might be able to move toward what what you're thinking about. But I just I don't see it in this case. Kurt. And then, Laura thank you for your input. I feel like this is already a non standard annotation because of this provision regarding the portion west of the blue line. Right? There's that that the the there's a there's a a

[54:19] statement in the annotation that says in the annexation screen that says that the city can at any time request that property, and must be that the the property owner must be, must grant that then to the city. So the second after this is signed, the city could get that portion of the property right. They would own it. And yet my understanding is that at that the they would still be allowed to build, based on the full 11,766 square feet of of property, and you know what that comes down to in the compatible development. So it's it. It is definitely not a standard annexation from that standpoint. And so it to me it seems fully appropriate to account for that. in in this other way.

[55:18] Laura. And then, Lisa. so I have one observation, and then a question for staff. The observation is that I assume that the applicants best alternative, if they don't like what we offer them. An annexation is just to stay a county property and build according to county rules, and so I don't have a good sense of what size of building the county would allow, or how their development standards compare to ours. I don't know, Charles, if you have some insight on that I don't off the top of my head. I do know that they probably would have a difficult time. getting well in septic permits from the county just by virtue of the fact that we have city utilities right there. It's essentially an enclave for all intents and purposes. And really, what the a jointly adopted. Complaint says, is that if you're eligible for annexation, you pursue annexation, so I I don't know that development in the county would really be an option for them.

[56:17] Oh, so they couldn't just go ahead and rebuild unless we annexed them like there they the and they cannot rebuild it unless we annex again, just based on the Comp plan policies. I I don't know that the county would would want to issue well in septic permits, since it's, you know, an area to property that's served by urban utilities. And I just to and clarify something with you, Charles, I I think 2 State losses that if they're within whatever it is, 300 feet of a sewer line they're required to connect to that or not be able to get septic as well. Yeah, that's true. Again, notwithstanding the you know, the policies on the Comp plan that talk about the city pursuing aggressively annexations in area to to get people off of well and septic, so it would be functionally impossible for them to.

[57:15] so they could not rebuild a house as the county property and reconnect they were already connected. There's no more house there they couldn't reconnect, but still stay a county property. I don't want to say that it would be impossible. I think it'd be very difficult. Okay, okay, that's interesting to know. And then my second question is, I just want to clarify what Kurt said. I think I heard Kurt say that even if that land west of the Blue Line were dedicated to the city or the city, acquired ownership of that land that that parcel their compatible development standards would still be based on the full square footage, including that parcel that's in the open space at at the time of development, if you know they, if they, if they got annexed tomorrow and they pulled the building permit, based on the 11,000 square foot lot.

[58:06] that's what we would base our calculations on if it were subsequent to that dedication. that would count against their floor area ratio that would count against their compatible compatible development standards. I'm sorry I didn't understand that last part. So like, if the scenario is as part of this annexation agreement, we say, let's do it. Now let's have the land be conveyed to the city now, because it basically says you could do that at any time if we said, convey the land as part of this annexation agreement. Would the their development potential be based on the 11,000 square foot? Or would you subtract out that open space parcel. So I guess my question. My last question to city is, why did we not ask for that land just to be dedicated over to the city right now rather than saying what we could get at any time. If we request it.

[59:00] Does it come with like maintenance burdens like, why wouldn't we want that land just to be dedicated rather than an easement. I think because we already have a scenic easement over it. you know, which I think functionally provides that same control. that it can never be developed, that, you know there can't be any encroachments or improvements on the property. So I don't know that there's a need or a benefit to take it in fee at this point, when these and I think serves the same purpose. Okay, I mean, I think Kurd is pointing out that potentially a benefit is that it would then reduce the size of the house that could be built on that lot. at least, if if you view that as a benefit which probably the applicant does not. But if planning, board you that as a benefit which Kurt, I think, does. That is something that could be considered. I don't have. I I guess I had not thought about that prior to now. I think it's an interesting proposal. I don't know that I have a strong opinion on it yet, so I'm going to shut up and listen to Lisa.

[60:00] and I guess the other thing that I would offer to is that The annexation package that's been put together. Excuse me, is consistent with all of the other annexations that we've done on Third Street, on the western edge, over the last, you know. Decade. So just you know, for your notification. we're also trying to be consistent with the the packages that we've put together up and down through. That's good to know. So there are other properties that have had a similar scenic easement kind of situation. Okay, thank you. The yeah. Well, the first thing. And I'm trying to think how to phrase it because I'm not an attorney, but Is it the city to to the takings question? And I'm not attorney, but like by both parties agreeing to the contract because it is the annexation contract. The city then gets that right to pull that that little piece above the blue line whenever they want it, while still having the protection of the easement without having to take possession right now. And I think that's why they structured it the way they did. and I think that's what makes it not so much of taking, because both parties agreeing to the contract through the annexation. And then they're saying, Yes, you can have it in the event that whatever whereas it might be more complicated to do it now before green to a contract that both parties are going to, but I'll leave it to write our minds in mind to see if I've got that right.

[61:18] And then I think my last question is just because I don't want this meeting to go any later than it has to the opportunities for the applicant to appeal one. Could they ask to come back in front of planning board again with a fuller quorum of members and 2 Would they also have the option, or would their only option be to then take it to council, and just see if Council wants to do it unilaterally, like. What? What are their options if we can't get to for tonight. Yes, I can weigh in on that unless Charles or Brad wants to. Okay. And so I'm just the under our roles. This is what it says so. If we don't get about a 4 to 0 for moving it forward, then the app again has the opportunity to within 7 days. requested. We're hearing in writing, and then we have to follow the notice procedures right? So it won't be next week. It'll be a little bit further down the line which will push back there their council hearings.

[62:12] so they can ask for a rehearing the other option. is, you know, sorry to clarify Re here with at planning board. Correct? Yes, yes, And then the other thing. So that's one option they could do that. They could also take the So this is a recommendation right to to counsel But they could take that to council, so say we. You don't recommend it, or or you're split on it that can go forward to council if they choose to go that route. So those are kind of the options. thank you. I'm just gonna interject one more time. So I I want to make sure everyone gets to speak as much as they want to, especially folks are concerned about this which Kurt I mean you And also I I think if it's kind of coming out clearly that we're going to have a split I might encourage us to move to a vote if if we can't come to some kind of agreement. As for now and then the applicant can then

[63:01] go about their night and decide what Chris process would like to take yet. So I don't want to cut off discussion too early. I just want to highlight that if we find that we're kind of starting to circle and spin, and we're not proceeding that that it might make more sense to at some point, move to a boat and then move forward. Yeah, thank you, Lisa. I totally agree. So I would like to suggest, and that in a recommended amendment to the Annotation agreement which would subtract that portion of the property west of the Blue Line from the the property area that would be considered for the purposes of combat. The Commendable development rules. Well, so you either need to put that into addition to the motion, or we can right now do a thumbs up thumbs down on that recommendation. I'd suggest.

[64:02] All right. who supports that thumbs up and who doesn't thumbs down. Okay? So Kurt is not supported. So since you seem to be the fulcrum on which this vote will. are you gonna vote against the suggested motion for annexation because of the of your hope that the amount of buildable land is less than what has been agreed to in the draft annexation agreement between the city and the applicant. I will not vote against it. Okay. that's all we need to know. And I think I appreciate that. And I think you've made your points, and I think they are. Staff has heard them, and they're interesting points. but I think we can move on to question number 3

[65:00] Lisa, you have your hand up. Yeah, one quick thing, and I I don't want to delay it, but I I know I've probably been a bit of broken record on this, but I would be totally open, and I know Staff has a million one other things that are probably higher priorities on your list, but I would be open to maybe looking back at that 10 year old. This is the how we determine caching the whatever thing. I I I would still want it to be applied uniformly, especially these single family annexations. But I think it might be appropriate to flag that as a potential work item to see if maybe that ratio and some of those numbers should be looked at. Because, again current, I think your overall point is a super valid one. I just I can't see a client here. So that's all. Thank you, sir. Okay, great. All right. So let us quickly go through number 3 is the initial zoning. Rl, one appropriate for the subject property? I'm just gonna say yes given the requirements that if properties annexed. Zoning will be established according to land use designations and Vcp land. Use map and conform to city zoning categories. yes, the land use designation and Bvcp is Lr. Low density residential, which is compatible with surrounding properties.

[66:09] and the initial zoning is consistent with the BBC land use designation. So I say, yes, in my opinion. Yes, it is. appropriate for the area. Laura. I agree with you, Sarah. Kurt. Lisa. Same. I agree. Okay, great. All right. I am happy to make the motion unless there is further discussion. All right. the for the discussion. Okay, Laurel, you popped up. Is there something that you want to say. Yeah, just a reminder that if you know, if we don't boat for that to nothing, then the other options that we talked about earlier. So just to remind, if we don't all vote together, we can talk about what's next. But okay, but we need to take that alright. I'm making a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 3 0 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 street, with an initial zoning res designation of residential low one rl. One

[67:10] mit. Ctl. And pertaining to case number Lor, 249. Incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of facts subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement in attachment. Ski. Is there a second? I second, okay, Laura seconds. Is there any discussion? Okay. I'm going to read the motion again, and then we will take a voice, vote motion to recommend to City Council. Approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 3 0 3 Three-third street, with an initial zoning designation of residential low, one Rl. One pertaining to case number L. You are 249 incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation. Agreements in attachments.

[68:08] Laura. Yes. Kurt. Lisa. yes. and Sarah is a yes, the motion is approved. and I know Staff heard both. We everyone's comments about possibly proposing a reconsideration of the ratio of cash and loo for single family home annexations, Kurt, did you want to add something? Yeah. First of all, I just want to express appreciation to both board and the applicant, and to staff for sitting through my my drawn up process. but I appreciate also that the at least, for some of the board agree that this is something that should be looked into, and possibly this could be something that would come up in

[69:09] The work on the inclusionary housing ordinance that I know is coming up in September. I don't know if it would be appropriate or not at that time, but as as market rate houses have gone crazily more expensive It seems like our corresponding affordable housing payments have not kept pace, and it seems like with every so especially single family annexation. We're just. We're exacerbating the unaffordability in that, even considering the affordable housing payment to cash and new payments that we're getting, we're exacerbating the net on affordability of this city and to me that is out the right direction to be going, and something that we should be addressing. So thank you

[70:04] right. I don't know. I think the way we make policy, it usually takes a little longer than pushing something into existing legislation. But I think a staff definitely hears the interest in in reviewing the existing policy. So, Kurt, thank you very much for bringing that up Laura mit Ctl. And I just want to say really quickly, congratulations to the applicant, and and thank you for your patience with us tonight, and very happy for you to be part of the city. So welcome to the city 150, and let I guess, unless council reverses that with that which I don't expect them to do. And I also want to express appreciation to my fellow board members and to Kurt especially for raising this issue. I think you're right. This is probably something that should be looked at. I did a thumbs down on your amendment just for consistency reasons, you know, a fair application of existing policy. But I think you are right that we should crack this egg open and look at it again, and make sure that our affordable housing is keeping pace with market rate inflation. So thank you very much. Okay. So now we move to matters staff.

[71:05] Any any matters to bring up nothing for me this evening. Bread Just wanted to acknowledge that. You all have had discussion about some of the meeting format and timing and length of meetings. Obviously the last couple have been within your goals. So congratulations but just to try to further gain perspective from each of you. and and follow up with Sarah. I committed, and I may have done this to the group, or maybe just in conversation with sir, so I I can't quite remember. But at any rate want to plan to just call each of you in the next 2 to 3 weeks to get your perspective on things. obviously, we also have the retreat coming up. and I know, as I said in several settings, that everybody is working towards the same goal which is efficient and

[72:00] effective meetings, that give plenty of deference to the opinions and and the applicants. but still also manage the the cases as they come in, and and we do acknowledge it's going to be a a busy fall and and early winter, if you're based on the current case load that's coming through. So you can anticipate a call for me in the next couple of weeks here, and I just appreciate connecting up with people as I did a few months back when I started. So thanks in advance. thank you, Brad, appreciate that. And do we have any matters from board members? Correct? Yeah. I just did a quick question. We got an informational item recently about the Dcs. The 2.0 3 2. And I'm wondering was that was that strictly going to be an informational item. Is that going to come to us in any form

[73:03] for consideration? I think at this point it's informational. I don't know that the changes will come back to the board. but while we're finishing up the meeting I can take a look here. sorry. It was the design of construction standards, 2.0 3 queue. the the safety study. the safety analysis. Correct. I can't remember what term is. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm glad Charles knows I'm looking right now. I'm sorry I should know that off the top of my head. Charles, you don't have everything in your head. You don't know every single thing about everything.

[74:03] That would be an impressive amount of stuff. The the older I get, I take concept that there's just more to notes. And that's why. Okay, anybody else have anything? All right, then I am going to adjourn this meeting. We beat our record of the last time congratulations to all of us. The meeting is adjourned. Good night, everybody.