August 15, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:05] alright, we have 2 public hearing items today one on ordnance, 859 0 and one a public hearing site review for a life science facilities over on Walnut Street. We'll read all that stuff officially when we get there. But right now we will have both participation. This is your opportunity, as a member of the public. to speak for 3 min up each on a topic subject that is not part of our public hearing items today. So if anybody wants to speak, now is the time to raise your electronic hand. And while you're doing that Vivian will walk us through the regulations regulations that the code of conduct.

[1:01] Yeah, that's good term. Thank you. First of all, everyone from the public for joining us today, and we really appreciate taking your time to to be with us tonight at the Planning Board meeting. My name is Vivian Castro Wieldridge, and my role here with you tonight is to facilitate the public engagement part of these meetings and these rules that I'll share in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. Planning board will start with open comments as Sarah mentioned. And then there are 2 public hearing items later on the agenda. So we want our Christians to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that we have worked with the community to develop these expectations. and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing, we want to make sure everyone participates, feel safe and welcome, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it leads to more informed decision making

[2:06] next slide a lot of information on our website about the productive atmosphere's vision. But I'll be specific about what we need to know for tonight. There are a number of rules of decorum in the Boulder Revised code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our participants. This evening we ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats to use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. I'm sorry, Vivian, if I interrupt. Both Lisa and Ml. Are in the attendees and would like to be let in. Okay. thanks for letting me know since slides. I can do it quickly. Ml. Should be able to move over.

[3:02] So So saying, I'll send any special if that's other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise, makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment moment is prohibited. and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by first and last name so that we may call on you by your first and last name. And we know who's providing input next slide. We are in the Zoom Webinar format. This allows participants from the public to speak at the designated times, and we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. If your full name is not currently displayed, you can change it by right clicking on your name, or if you're unable to figure that out, you can go ahead and use the QA. Function. And I'm happy to change it for you. Just send me your name. No pre-existing line list for signing up. So if you would like to speak at the appropriate time, raise your virtual hand, and you can do this by going to the horizontal menu with 3 clickable items and clicking on the hand item.

[4:07] and it will raise a hand next to your name, you will know to call on me. If you only have an expanded menu. You can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And I will be watching to see if anybody is participating by phone to provide you with instructions as well. Okay, that wraps up these codes of conduct, and I will check to see who would like to speak at this point in the meeting. so, Garrett, I'm going to call you, and I ask that you introduce yourself by your first and your last name, please. and you have 3 min. Please go ahead. I guess I should make sure this is about one of the agenda items. Should I be waiting and speaking at the agenda? Item, II got on the on the call late. So I apologize.

[5:08] No problem. Thank you. So nobody else. Alright. So now we'll go to approval of minutes you only get to vote on the minutes if you are actually in the meeting. So we're first going to vote on the planning board draft minutes from May sixteenth. has everyone had a chance to give their feedback. Changes to Devin. All right. So we're gonna vote. Laura. Yes, Kurt. Yes, George. Yes, ML. Yes, Mark. Yes. Lisa. Yeah, okay, just so, you know, we can't hear you yet. Lisa. Okay, so that passes 6 0. I was not at the meeting, so I don't. Next is the planning board draft minutes from June sixth, 2,023. Did everyone get a chance to send?

[6:03] Yes, they did. Okay, So there are 5 of us who are at that meeting. Laura Kurt. Yes, Mark. Yes. Ml. yes, and Sarah is a yes, so that passes 5 0 or is approved. 5 0. Next is discussion of dispositions planning for call-ups and continuations. We have a call up a use review to convert 6,630 square feet of ground retail space to meetings space in the existing Marriott Hotel. And the does anyone want to call this up? Okay. excellent. We are speeding along here. Fabulous. Okay, our first public hearing, item, agenda, title, public hearing and recommendation. The City Council whoop! Hold on! My computer just moved on me which I did not want that to happen. Apologies agenda. Item, public hearing and recommendation. City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 859 0 amending title, 9, land use code, Drc.

[7:09] To update the use table and use standards related to walkable neighborhood centers and setting forth related details. We have Lisa Moody. Howdy? Good! Good! Thank you. And she'll give us a 30 min presentation, and then we'll have time for QA. With her. And then deliberation. We said, people wanna ask you a question while you're making a presentation. Are you okay with folks raising their hand. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Great. Alright. Take it away, Lisa. Alright! Let me get my screen shared alright. Good evening. Planning board members. Nice to see you all again. I'm excited to bring forth the file ordinance for the use table and standards. Project this is number 4 or 5 of, says the third module, the second phase, and so we'll be looking at ordinance. 85 90 related to neighborhood centers tonight.

[8:09] The purpose of your review is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Ordinance. an overview of the presentation that I'll be giving tonight. Since we've talked a lot about the use table, but it's been a while. I'll give a quick background refresher on the kind of the goals of the project things like that, and then we'll dive into Module 3. Which is this ordinance before you tonight. I'll talk about the focus scope, give an overview of past input related to this topic, and then give a summary of the engagement that we've heard this summer. Then I will go into a summary of the ordinance that is in your packet. So, starting off with some background. as you all know, the initial goals for the use table and standards. Project really, just oops simplify and streamline the regulations. It's a really complex

[9:00] part of the code that's gotten better and better as we've worked more on it. But trying to make it more understandable and legible, and also more predictable and certain for people to understand a big part of Module 3. And this ordinance tonight is aligning the use table and the permitted uses with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan goals and policies, specifically those related to neighborhood centers. We've also been trying to identify where there might be gaps between the kinds of uses, either housing or business that people want to see in the city and what's actually allowed through the use table. So really trying to bring together the community desires with the use table. Just a reminder that this project is really narrowly focused on changes to the use table and standards. Part of the the land use code so doesn't include a reassessment of the comprehensive plan policies. It's really intended to implement those comprehensive plan policies that are the result of many years of conversations and community engagement. That got us to an adopted comprehensive plan that we are trying to implement through these code changes.

[10:05] It also doesn't include changes to anything that involves for form, bulk or intensity standards. So things like setbacks, far area ratio, density, occupancy, things like that also not involving anything with development, standards like parking, landscaping or signs so really focused on the use table and standards. As I already alluded to, this project has been going on for quite a while. It was actually initiated by the Planning Board in 2,018 and identified as a priority project. We completed phase one of the project in 2,019. It had to be. Pause briefly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we've been working on phase 2 in 2022 and 2023 phase 2, as you know, was split into what we called 3 different modules. So the first one was adopted in June of last year. That was our functional fixes module one that was really the technical update, the reorganization and consolidation, trying to make everything a little bit easier to read the table easier to navigate.

[11:06] Module 2 was focused on the industrial area. So that was really implementing the conference of plan policies related to the industrial districts and industrial uses and trying to get a more diverse mix of uses in our industrial areas of the city. Similarly, Module 3 is also looking to to support diversity and mix of uses. But it's focused more on the neighborhood areas, neighborhood centers of the city. So like I said, this is the final module of the use Table and standards project. So you might remember the last time we talked about it the scope hadn't been really nailed down for what we would do with Module 3. There was some talk about whether we would be looking at residential introducing new non residential uses into residential zoning districts and based on conversations we had with planning Board City Council, our working group and really just thinking through the kind of upcoming, planning work that's going to be done. We decided to focus module 3, really, on the neighborhood centers which I are identified areas in the comprehensive plan.

[12:08] And this is for a number of reasons we are gonna have an upcoming, comprehensive plan update where we'll really be able to focus on or have a really broad conversation about the future of residential zoning in boulder. And I think with the this narrow scope of this project really only being about use table, it would really benefit to have a broader conversation about things like form and development standards and things like that. In the context of talking about introducing non residential uses into residential zoning. So based on the input and the analysis and kind of thinking that the the conference of Plan update will be coming soon. We decided to focus these changes on those neighborhood centers. And in that way, by making sure that these neighborhood centers are fulfilling the needs of the neighborhoods around them. Really focusing on walkable neighborhoods.

[13:00] So module 3 focuses on like we said, with the goals of the initial project removing the barriers in the code for uses that people want to have nearby in the neighborhood centers. And that way we're supporting the 15 min Neighborhood Concept, which it really means that people have access to the services that they need on a daily basis by walking, biking, or transit and going back to that same goal of aligning the Conference of plan with the use table. And I, as I mentioned, building on the previous input received, we've gotten a lot of great public input board, input city council input over the years on this project so that that really helped us to identify the focus areas. So as you saw in the memo the changes in the ordinance really kind of break down into 3 main topics. The first is restaurants, second is duplexes and townhomes, then the third is kind of a miscellaneous catch-all for some other identified changes that can help support walkable neighborhoods. Just a reminder on the neighborhood center concept. In the Conference of Plan this is a map from the comprehensive plan. It identifies 12 different areas of the city that our neighborhood centers. You can see they're spread out geographically. There's all different types from a kind of audio oriented shopping center to historic neighborhood areas, commercial areas. So all types and flavors of neighborhood centers that we're focusing on with these conference of plan policies and the the interesting part

[14:28] this project is translating that comprehensive plan to how do we implement that through zoning? And so what we've the first step that we took was to take that comprehensive map map, comprehensive plan map and identify which zoning districts are actually present in those neighborhood centers. So when you look at it this way, it allowed us to narrow the folk, the the the focus of these changes to basically 3 classes of zoning districts. Our business districts are downtown districts in our mixed usage districts, so that became the focus of the module module. 3 changes.

[15:05] There are 2 main policies in the comprehensive plan that we've really been focusing on implementing with these changes. The first is this one related to neighborhood centers. You might remember that when we looked at meet Module 2, there was very similar looking page for industrial areas. So that we have these specific guiding principles and policies for neighborhood centers, and it really boils down to the city, encouraging neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian, friendly and welcoming environments with a mix of land uses and specifically, the guiding principles are meeting the everyday needs of neighboring communities. So that's having a like a mix of locally serving retail other activities, personal services, grocery stores retail things like that. And then also ensuring that there's an appropriate scale transition in regards to housing. So in that number 2, guiding principle, it talks about how the center of the neighborhood center should be kind of the most intense, and then in terms of residential, and then that would scale down as you get closer to the lower density residential areas.

[16:08] so that scale and meeting everyday needs of neighbor and communities were really informative for the work that and the recommendations in the organized tonight. The other main policy that we've been looking at is 2.2 4. This commitment to a walkable and accessible city. And that's where the 15 min Neighborhoods concept comes in. So this policy says that the city should be designing neighborhoods and makes use business areas that provide easy and safe access by foot bike and transit to places like neighborhood centers and other shared spaces and amenities. So it's really those 2 policies. There's a number of policies that are applicable to the ordinance changes tonight, but those are kind of the 2 main ones that we've been focusing on for the walkable neighborhoods. Idea. Alright. Now I will go through a quick overview of the public input that we've heard previously on the project. You all have seen. I've presented this before, so I won't go into too much detail, but just a reminder that the topics and that relate to module. 3 have really been integrated into all of the public engagement for the Use Table Project.

[17:14] So we've really heard from people throughout the entire project. So we had in person engagement. Back in 2,019 we had virtual engagement during the pandemic in 2,020, all of the the virtual engagement in 2,020, actually, specifically was about neighborhood center. So we've got a lot of great information. And input that's helped to guide the project in that earlier input, what we heard from people was that they'd like to see more mixed. Use housing neighborhood scale stores, restaurant shops and retail transit green space coffee things like that. And then less traffic banks, car dealerships, kind of vehicle, related things, fast food and drive throughs. And then I mentioned that we had a question here specifically about neighborhood centers. So we asked if people were open to a greater mix of uses in the neighborhood centers heard significant support from respondents there that there was broad support for restaurants and coffee shops, retail uses and personal services in the neighborhood centers in regards to residential people were open to a mix of housing types being located there and then. Most important was the walkable or bike access and the design of the buildings.

[18:26] That's just a brief overview of the past. Input in your memo there was links to more detailed input. If you'd like to look at that now I'll go into the engagement we've been doing this summer. So once we completed Module 2, we kicked off Module 3 in the spring, and then we've been focused on community engagement throughout this summer. So this time, because the last round of input or the the rounds of input over the previous years, we're pretty general about. What would you like to see? What would you not like to see things like that this time around? We wanted to present specific changes for people to react to. So we took what we heard from the Planning Board Subcommittee, the first round of the Planning Board Subcommittee, who went line by line, row by row, column by column, and created a long list of recommendations and focus areas for the project.

[19:13] We went through those changes stacked in our own analysis. And then we took all of that previous input. To create this initial set of here are some proposed, some possible opportunities to improve the walkability of neighborhoods around neighborhood centers, and I'll go into each one of these on further slides, but just wanted to kind of highlight the changes that were shown to the public this summer. So what we did for our community engagement strategy, we developed a virtual story map. It's kind of a newer engagement tool that the city hasn't used very often yet. But I think I sent you all should have received a link to it when we opened the story map so hopefully, you're able to check it out. It was also linked to a questionnaire, and we promoted that through various channels, in addition to virtual engagement, we supplemented that with in person promotion. So we had several pop ups. So we were standing at several of these neighborhood centers with our big board, and just intercepting people, and talking to them about what kind of businesses they wish they would see there, or what might be missing for their daily needs, where they might

[20:17] have to where something might be missing that they have to drive across town to get to. So we were at Basemark, idle market meadows and gun barrel. We also attended a couple of fairs and events through July, so we were at one of the boat boulders, social streets, event, and a block party at Ponderosa. So that was great to do. Some in person engagements been a while with Covid to not be able to do that, so that was really nice to be out there. And then we also sent mailings. So we sent letters to all of the neighborhood center business and property owners, so that they were aware of the project and the ability to provide input through the questionnaire. just a little more detail about the story map in case you didn't explore it. So we had this story map and questionnaire open from July tenth to 30. First, we got 246 responses to the questionnaire the story map gave. It was kind of a guided map that gave information on each one of the neighborhood centers as well as downtown. And so it talked about what zoning districts are there? What types of businesses are there? What's the most common type of business that's there.

[21:18] And then it listed the potential changes that would impact each one of those neighborhood centers. After they explored the map. They could either look at just the one near their neighborhood or look at all of them. Then people were asked to fill out a few questions in a questionnaire. It asked about what their current walkable access was to many different services and what type of businesses they'd wanna see more of, or that they have concerns about in terms of the potential changes that were shown on the map. So what we heard through both the questionnaire and also our in person engagement are summarized here. But there's a long engagement summary attached to your your memo packet. If you wanna look at verbatim all of the responses to the questionnaire generally the themes that we heard was support for seeing more restaurants. That was absolutely the most common thing we heard through the questionnaire and through the in person engagement. That was the one that was brought up. The most grocery stores also came up quite a bit.

[22:13] as well as small retail shops, pharmacies, coffee shops which would be classified as a restaurant. Small music venues. ice cream. I'm not sure if this one was biased just because we were doing this in July, and it was very hot. It was like the hottest days of July that we were asking people so not sure if we would get that answer in December, but just wanted to throw it out there. We got a lot of that bakeries post offices, and then a lot of support for whatever we can do. To support local businesses. That was a very common theme in terms of concern. Some things that we heard more frequently. We're kind of all. A lot of them are related to vehicle related uses similar to the previous rounds of engagement. So concerns about gas stations, auto repair drive throughs. Also, some concerns are raised in the questionnaire about marijuana dispensaries and kind of on the flip side of the local businesses.

[23:06] People did express concerns about big box stores and chains. And not wanting to see too many of those, but really wanting to see the smaller local businesses thrive in boulder. And then finally, homelessness services were another use that people raise concerns about in addition to the broader public input that we've been doing. We also have 3 groups. That have been guiding the direction for this project. So we have a public working group of stakeholders and interested in residents that have been working with us throughout the whole use table project providing direction and feedback. They helped a ton with developing the story map and the questionnaire, and we met with them in March and June. We have our great planning board liaison. such as Sarah and Ml. Who have been volunteering extra time to help with this project. over the last year or 2, providing their guidance and input as well. And then we met with the community connectors and residents, which is a group led by the city that supports underrepresented communities and advances racial equity, and we had a really great conversation with them. On talking about the proposed changes. And then, really, what other strategies would help promote walkable neighborhoods.

[24:16] and for those input I'll kind of go through or for the input of all those 3 groups I'll go through as we go through the topics as they go through the ordinance to give more, give you more of an idea of what those groups said. Alright. So getting into the actual ordinance. This is a summary of the changes in ordnance 85 90. So, like I mentioned, there's going to be 3. There's kind of going to be 3 main topics. So I'll start with restaurants. Then we'll talk about duplexes and townhomes, and then I'll get to the miscellaneous other changes to support walkability restaurants is one of the most comp more complex ones. So I wanted to start with that. This has been identified throughout the Use table project as a overly complex part of our code. Definitely so. If you remember before module one. I think there were 8 or 9 rows of the use table that were devoted to restaurants

[25:09] when we reorganized and did all the technical changes in module one. We fixed that organization problem and consolidated it until just one row. But because module, one wasn't substantive changes. Those requirements are all still there. They're just better organize now into the use case the use standards. But we're still left with 12 different versions of restaurant requirements for boulder, and the standards differ based on the zoning districts, and they generally relate to 3 main things the overall size of the restaurant, the allowed size of the patio and the hours of operation for the restaurant. Different. So some are 1,000, some are 1,500. Some are 300 or 3 50 for the patio size and hours of operation is typically at 11 pm. There's a few other districts that have additional unique standards. So the Bms, the business Main Street district inside the University Hill area. It has standards related to the percentage of income that a restaurant has to have from food. So they have to have 50 of their income come from food. They have to have a food preparation area. If it's a brew power tavern, they have to provide snacks, and then their standards related to trash collection

[26:23] in the industrial districts, which is actually a change that we made during Module 2 industrial or restaurants and industrial districts have to be located in a mixed use building so it can't be a stand alone building it also has the hours of operation at 11 pm. In our public district. That's really focused on regulations for restaurants and regional parks. So it's a little different than the rest. So the proposed changes for restaurants is to take it from 12 different versions of requirements to essentially, it gets grouped into 3 different groups of changes. So we wanted to focus on kind of the zoning districts

[27:01] that are, if you think of, like a commercial and residential interface area, a small commercial area that interfaces closely with a or did I say, yeah, small commercial area that interfaces closely with residential. So kind of the more sensitive areas. So that's our and 4 Bms bt, and so the proposal in the ordinance before you tonight is to allow restaurants and subject to 2 standards a maximum size of 4,000 square feet. This represents an increase in the allowable size of restaurants. In most of these districts there's a 1,000 square foot, or 1,500 square foot limit right now to be allowed by right although in the hill they're actually allowed to be 4,000 square feet. But it's always a conditional use. So there's no allowed by right option. Right now and then we're proposing to maintain that 11 Pm. Hours of operation. One thing that's unique about Boulder compared to some other cities is that we treat restaurants through pubs and taverns as all the same line in the use table.

[28:07] Some other cities would have would have like a different line for restaurants and different lines for taverns or bars. But we we treat them all as the same line in the use table. So we find that the hours of operation are a good differentiating factor between what's a restaurant. And what's a bar? So typically, if it closes by 11, it probably really is a restaurant. If it has a later opening hours, those are those tend to act more like bars or taverns, and tend to perhaps have a greater impact on neighbors. So that's the reason for having the size and the hours of operation. If a restaurant wanted to be larger than 4,000 square feet or open later, they would still have the opportunity to pursue a user view, which is how that works in most of those districts now, and then one of the other things I wanted to highlight. So on the last slide. I said that patio size is also a main differentiating factor. For restaurants right now about whether they can be allowed by right or need a user view. We propose in this ordinance a different approach that we think ends up at the kind of same solution or the same endpoint, but has a different procedural route. A lot of times we'll have restaurants go through the user view process. And what happens through the use review is then standards are attached

[29:23] to that approval. That we found are tend to be kind of the same type of standard, so they tend to be about noise, music trash collection. So the idea with this ordinance is to just set those standards as general standards for all outdoor seating that ha! That's near residential. So rather than having that be the trigger that turns shifts people into needing a user view. there would just be those standards that apply, whether you're when you're close to residential areas. And so you, kinda as I said, you end up in the same place. But you've taken a different route and the the real intent is to streamline the approval processes and get more restaurants.

[30:02] To be able to go through the allow by right option rather than use review, which right now the regulations with the low size of 1,000 1,500 is, and the patio size is really catching a lot of the restaurants and almost all many restaurants needing use review. So that's the first group. Yeah, Laura. Hmm, thank you, Lisa. I just wanted to check in on something that I think may be important to some of our folks from the public who are here tonight based on some of the public comment that we received. As I understand it, the proposed changes for this project about use tables. It doesn't touch upon that standard of 50% of your revenue has to come from food. I know I was listening into a city council meeting. I think, last week. and you know, it was specifically about University Hill, and some suggested changes that were being proposed, some of them by the business community. And that standard about 50% of your revenue has to come from food was something that they were proposing, changing. And I just wanna make sure that this project would not change that standard. If I'm understanding correctly, this is just about

[31:08] what size of restaurant and closing hours and patio size can be allowed without a use. Review. Yeah, thanks, Laura, thanks for the opportunity to clarify that. So because the University hill areas within the Bms zoning districts, the way that the ordinance that's in your packet is drafted actually would eliminate those use standards? Specifically the one you're mentioning with the 50, because it would be consolidated with these other districts. So it would be limited to just the size and the hours of operation as be allowed by right. So as the ordinance is drafted before you. For your review tonight, it does eliminate those unique standards for the hill and instead consolidates it with these other kind of interface zoning district standards.

[32:02] I wanna both say that. I have. I'm gonna have a proposal to address that Laura, just at the flag. But I'm wondering if you can just speak to whether or not there was specific targeted public engagement on that particular issue, the removal, the moving of bms in the you should and the changing of the regulate or the requirements around it? Or was was there any specific public engagement on that issue? Sure. So just for those who don't know that acronym unit is the University Hill General Improvement District. So that's what we use in the code. So there wasn't a specific question like on the questionnaire about the University Hill General Improvement District. You know the the questionnaire and the story map was focused on all of the neighborhood centers of the city. And so University Hill is one of those neighborhood centers, and

[33:07] as far as the proposed changes for University Hill, it just said Streamline, approval processes. So it was fairly general. It didn't say specifically, you know. Remove the specific 50 requirement from there. There was. There's a balance in that public engagement of getting to into the weeds too much with details, and scaring too many people off. So we wanted to keep it fairly broad in general and get the input on on all of the neighborhood centers, I will say, in terms of the timing. We went to a city council study session for their input and I will have slides later. That summarize that A few weeks ago, and several of the city Council members recommended that staff actually pull the the hill standards into kind of this, this similar umbrella, with the other, like Dt. 1, 2, and 3 and and look at having the similar standards to downtown between the downtown and the hill. So that's where this ordinance ended up for you to look at tonight.

[34:06] Okay, thanks, Lisa, correct. So if I understand what you said correctly. You use the closing time currently as sort of the discriminator between what is the restaurant and what is it? Far down? Right? Yeah, that's what. And we have that in already. In many of these districts, the hours of operation in the kind of closer interface areas. But this 50% of revenue from food threshold is also sort of a discriminator, so would conceptually would it work to combine those and say. in effect, a restaurant is something that close by 11 pm. And has 50% or more of it's revenue from food. It could be, I think, that would get kind of complex because the the 50 is a different rule than what a hotel restaurant liquor license can have. So a hotel, restaurant liquor license can have

[35:10] which is what most restaurants have. They are only required to have 25% of their revenue from food or income from food. Whatever the differences for that, I'm not a financial person. So I think it gets it would get complex if we did that overall for all restaurants as a definition. And I think that's why we've gotten away from from defining it that way. Yeah, okay. thank you. Any other questions right now on this particular. Alright, please go ahead, Lisa. Thanks. Those are really helpful clarifications. I appreciate it. Okay. And then I just wanted to highlight. So we actually do allow restaurants already in some of our higher density, residential districts, or Rh-th 3 and our H. 7. You can see on the map. This is a pretty small area of the city. But right now they're allowed. If they're 1,000 square feet and close by 11, otherwise they're prohibited. There's no option for a user view. So in light of the other changes citywide.

[36:12] We also are recommending increasing the size in our h 3 and our h 7 so that the maximum size would be 2,000, and that would cash or a few more. One example. It's not in our H. 3 or h. 7, but Alpine modern is in residential zoning district cafe. That's 1,200 square feet. So even that wouldn't fall into allowed by right. So we just thought that 2,000 might capture, some more, of those smaller coffee shop type, uses, that people, might want to see an Rh-unknown but again, prohibited otherwise, there, wouldn't be any way to get a larger one. And then similar general patio standards rather than rather than using that as the trigger for use, Review. The third and final grouping of residential changes is really focused on our higher intensity. Business zones and downtown zones. That's kind of the southern side of downtown is Dt, 4 and 5 as well as BC. Bcs and Br.

[37:13] You can see those areas highlighted on the map right now. There isn't a size limit or hours of operation in those districts. This is really the area where we're trying to encourage these types of uses. Where people expect high intensity. Use but there is one requirement related to patio size. So if a restaurant in any of these areas has a patio that's over 300 square feet, and they're close to residential districts. They get kicked into use review. So in light of streamlining approval processes. These are mostly the actual neighborhood centers is the zoning and we heard a lot of support through the public about supporting outdoor seating and restaurants we're recommending in the ordinance to remove that user view requirement. And, like, I said, we would still have the general standards for outdoor seating that would apply if a restaurant is close to residential. So you'd still have those noise and music and trash collection things like that in place. It just wouldn't trigger the user view process.

[38:12] I wanted to highlight what we've heard related to restaurants in terms of public input. So kind of those 3 groups I talked about. And then the summer 2023. Engagement is everything we heard from the questionnaire, and also our in person engagement. We heard significant amount of support for more restaurants in the neighborhood centers. Almost unanimous from everyone. We talked to support for making the city process easier for restaurants to open in the city. A lot of people were surprised that it's challenging to open a restaurant or that we require a use review for almost every restaurant in the city, and a lot of support for wanting to see more outdoor seating. I think that the opinions on outdoor seating have definitely changed in the last few years with Covid and different desires for people wanting to sit outside and have that patio option

[39:02] from the public working group. Also a lot of support. For restaurant changes. We did talk a bit with the public working group about making sure that the the Hill Standard unique standards remain. This was before the city Council direction. Some design items about patios and what makes them pedestrian friendly planning board liaisons we talked about the difference between local restaurants and chains, and how we differentiate between those overall supportive of those changes, and then community connectors and residents. Also, we talked about supporting resident more restaurants in the community as a way to support local businesses and entrepreneurship as well as just providing more affordable and equally diverse restaurants. They also brought up food truck regulations I mentioned in the memo that's a really complex part of the code that we think could be a separate project where we could do more focused engagement on food trucks, because I think the rules were written in 2,011, so they might be due for an update, but not within the scope of this project. Basically.

[40:03] alright. So that's it for restaurants. The next topic was related to duplexes and town homes in the Bt or business transitional districts. As you see on the map, the Bt districts are kind of small strips that are essentially the transition between the larger intensity or higher intensity business zones like our Br zones or BC zones and residential zones. So it truly is a transitional district. Right now, they currently require our user view is currently required in Bt. If Ada duplex or town home is located on the ground floor. There's we have a similar requirement in the BC. And Br. Zoning districts as well. But the ordinance just focuses on Bt. For this change. So in thinking through that conference of plan policy that I mentioned. The transition of intensity out to the single family residential areas. we thought that Bt is a additional zone may probably makes good sense for middle housing to be located as kind of the transition from the intent, higher intensity, the lower end intensity. So by removing that barrier for duplexes and townhomes, it might incentivize those to be located in Bt. I would note that there is a similar requirement for attached dwelling units so attach dwell units are not allowed to be on the user

[41:22] ground floor in these districts. So by keeping that for attached dwelling units, removing it for duplexes and townhomes. Okay. thanks. You mentioned in the memo that townhomes don't really make sense, not on the ground floor, anyhow. Right? And so so prohibit. Essentially

[42:18] wait. I'm sorry. Can we just clarify a Kurt. Were you talking about Bt or BC. I was talking about BC. And Br. Are the ones that aren't proposed to be changed. But the there's still, at least for BC. There's still a restriction on town homes on the ground floor. So that was my confusion. So thanks for the clarification. And I also haven't. I thought about that that I'm gonna propose when we get to our discussion. So any other questions at the moment about duplexes and town homes. Okay, look, Lisa, please pick up where you were. Okay. Just a summary of what we've heard through the public input for duplexes and town homes, lots of support for missing or middle housing in neighborhood centers. A lot of people express surprise centers would add to the vibrancy of the center

[43:17] public working group planning board liaisons, also supportive of these changes, perhaps needs a good balance so that it doesn't become just residential. Also talking about area planning for the neighborhood centers as a way to guide the future. There, too, community connectors also supported more duplexes and town homes throughout the city. Okay? And then, finally, is the miscellaneous changes. So these are the proposed use allowance or standard changes. So I'll go through. There are changes in our public and institutional part of the use table, and then also commercial, like I mentioned before, our planning Board subcommittee. Back in 2019 and 2020, did a row by row, column by column analysis of the Use table and identified many of these changes as potential opportunities to improve walkability

[44:08] staff also did our own analysis. And then this is also informed by the the public input so in terms of public and institutional changes, allowing community services in our mixed use zoning districts and our public zoning districts. I'll note that just a point of interest. Boulder was very early in adopting mixed use zoning. So we had mixed use zoning in the early eighties where a lot of cities didn't have it until the 22,000 and so in doing that we were kind of caught in this early adopter issue, where we maybe dipped our toes in the water fairly, cautiously, in terms of mixed use. So now that we're looking at it kind of 40 years later. There's a number of uses that you look at the use table, and you're kind of surprised. Oh, that's not allowed in a mixed use district. So some of those just kind of came to light as we were doing the analysis for this, Lisa. I'm sorry. Let me just interrupt, Mark. You have your hand up.

[45:04] Yes, I quickly. I was and maybe I just should have read more closely, I could not really find the definition of community services. Could you expand on what is included in community services by those 2 words put together? It's a very, very broad category. It is one of our broad categories. So if it helps it used to be called public or private office use, and then we renamed it to community services in module one. So it essentially said, it's an office for a benevolent, philanthropic, patriotic. I think we also say, the definition kind of like doing good nonprofit often type of office. So community services doesn't include any more mundane services of

[46:03] hair salons, nails. Nothing of that sort. No, that would be personal services. That's another abroad category. But yeah, personal services would be things like hair salons, bakeries, nail shops, tattoo parlors. Things like that. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Mark Kurt. I'm curious why we distinguish, or why we have more restrictive animal hospitals and that clinics than medical offices. It seems like to me that they should be treated pretty similarly. I'm just curious. Why. oh, you gave me the best opportunity to make my zoning joke, which is that we're concerned about barking and parking. I think they could. I mean, the concern is that the clients might be a little louder or rowdier than A medical office but that's certainly something that we could take direction from you. Or a recommendation that that could be treated as a medical office. It's often if it was a use that was prohibited. We were trying to make the changes like one step down. So it was prohibited. So then go to user view. If something was used. Review, we often change that to allowed

[47:15] but yeah, barking. Okay, thank you. And then similar question about small theater slash rehearsal space, small theater slice rehearsal space sounds like about the most benign use you could possibly imagine. But if we still require use review, can you talk about? Yeah. Yeah. So it allows up to 300 seats? So it's not. It's not tiny. And I think that the rationale for some of these that are use for views is that when there's a use where a lot of people are coming at one time that tends to have a greater impact on the surrounding properties. And that's really what a user view is for us to be able to look at that particular use in that particular location, be able to perhaps add some conditions that could help or standards that could help mitigate any potential impact. So with things like theaters or museums, that's where we thought that a user review might be warranted over, just allowed by right, so that we get. The more the the more fine-grained review of those types of uses.

[48:15] Thank you. okay, go ahead, please. Lisa. Okay, many bullets on this slide governmental facility. I mentioned that we heard a lot about post offices. So that's what a post office is called in the use table. So allowing those in more places. Obviously, we don't have any control over the United States Postal Service, but at least we wouldn't have a barrier in the zoning code. For it. In these mixed use and public zoning districts I mentioned museums already taking it from prohibited to use review and mu 1, 2, and 3, and then from use review to allowed in the public zoning district. Already have the opportunity to talk about animal hospitals. medical offices, allowing those with a size limit. So just a small medical office, non vehicular repair and rental that's like your vacuum repair shop. Things like that not related to cars, but repair and rental of any kind, allowing those inside with a size limit in several districts, outdoor recreation and entertainment.

[49:14] Retail, allowing at a small scale that's something that we heard a lot from people just small scale retail. So not the, you know, 12,000 square foot big box store, but a small retail shop, that where you could support local business already mentioned, small theater, and then temporary event that was just one we identified, we allow, in all the business and downtown zones, but don't allow in our mixed use or public zone. So just aligning that with the other districts. So that's kind of the miscellaneous section. What we've heard on these changes I already mentioned, people want to see more post offices, lots of support for whatever we can do to support the arts, small theaters, music venues which would fall under that category and general support for all the other changes. Through our public working group and planning board liaisons as well. Had a good conversation with the community connectors about again supporting small businesses and ensuring that there's a portable community commercial space and directly talking. They talked about community services as something what they wanted to see a change for. So that's incorporated in the ordinance as well.

[50:19] And then I think this is my final slide. So I did just want to brief you on the feedback we got from City Council. We went to a study session with them on July twenty-seventh, and they saw a very similar presentation to what you're seeing and asked for their direction, so related to restaurants, City Council express support for streamlining the standards for restaurants and the review process. Several of the city Council members encourage staff to streamline the regulations on the hill, similarly to the changes that were proposed to downtown. So we talked about that earlier in terms of downtown or duplexes and town homes. We had originally for the public. Input proposed changes to both Bt and Br. Council expressed some concerns about those changes, seeing that those areas really as focused on or prioritized for commercial and not wanting to see residential takeover. One council member said. Maybe it made more sense in the Bt zoning district, but not the br. So that's reflected in the ordinance as well

[51:17] with just the Bt. Has the change. And then, in terms of the other changes, they were supportive of those changes. There are a couple of extra that they thought weren't necessary to the project, so those have been removed from the are are they not included in the ordinance? That's changes to hostels and clubs or lodges which are like Masonic lodges? So those are. That was the feedback related to the focus areas tonight. And that is my whole presentation. So I can stop and take other questions. So before we get to questions, what I'm gonna ask folks in the public to do is if you want to speak to this particular item. Now please raise your electronic hand.

[52:00] If there are more than 15 people whose hands have gone up. We're gonna limit comment to 2 min each. So I wanna try to get a headcount or hand a hand count before we go there. And this is a good opportunity. Just put up your hand, and then we'll go back to QA. We'll go back to QA. With staff, and once we have a hand count, I'll let folks know whether it's 2 min or 3 min. So who has questions for Lisa? Does anyone have questions? Wow! That's impressive. What? They're ml. please go ahead. Sorry, Sarah. I was looking at my paper to see if I had a question. Thanks, Lisa, for your presentation and I know I have seen this all before, but something struck me that I hadn't noticed before in changing the square footage. And I think this was restaurant

[53:03] from a thousand to 1,500 that had been sort of the standard to 4,000. It seems like it's a really large increase. were there any inputs as to the impact of doing that? Are there? What's that gonna do to in reality on the ground. What are we gonna start seeing? As far as restaurants? What's the 4,000 square foot restaurant versus a 1,500 square foot restaurant when so much of their public input seem to be about small. Yeah, that's a great question. II think what we did was, look at a number of restaurants that have been approved that are larger than 1,500. Like I mentioned, most restaurants, or many restaurants, have to go through that user view process. So just as an example. So the Med, when it was open, was about 3,000 square feet

[54:03] in size. Foolish Craigs is 2,500. I had mentioned that Alpine modern is 1,200. If you've been to the New Zomama, I don't know if it's open that anyone's open yet, but that's 2,400. That was a chipotle. So if you can picture the size of a typical Tripoli before that's 2,400. So the 4,000. It was a number that was already in in the code for the hill. So that's kind of a typical, you know. It's a historic commercial area. So that would capture. We thought that that would capture many of the restaurants. You know in the downtown area kind of the size and scale of that to make sure that that would be captured under 4,000 and then just what larger restaurants like chain restaurants at average size of like a Chili's, his 6,000. So things like that would be over the scale of 4,000. So that's where we landed on 4,000, being kind of a good differentiator between the more local business and scaled restaurants versus the larger chains.

[55:02] Granted, we would still have development standards like parking and things like that, that if they have a larger size they have a larger parking requirement that they need to meet and things like that. So we think that the other standards in the code would indicate any impacts. From the larger size. Thank you for that. Alright. So Mark, I'll call on you in just one moment, so we have 6 hands raised, so you'll have. Everyone will have 3 min to speak when we get to public comments. Mark, please go ahead. Hi, Lisa! Thank you. I have additional comments, of course, but II have a question. and would you characterize the changes in module? 3. To actually allow for or to improve the chances of developing a new neighborhood center? Or are these all really focused around existing neighborhood centers

[56:01] and enhancing them and simplifying the code which is all laudable? But my question is. does any of the do. Do you consider any of these changes to be significant enough to allow for a new neighborhood center where one does not exist? Currently the interesting question. So I think that the focus of this really has been on the existing neighborhood centers, and what we can do to improve them. But one thing about the changes is that the you know, if we change standards in the Bt zoning district because Bt is located within done barrel that affects Bt everywhere throughout the city. So it might be that bt zoning is not within another neighborhood center. But now we've opened up a new use there. So I think there could be a small impact on the the areas of the city that aren't technically within a neighborhood center, but are within the zoning districts that are impacted by these changes. But that wasn't necessarily the the focus of these, the module. 3. Ordinance.

[57:04] Okay, just a quick follow on. Did did you calculate what percentage of boulders residents are within a 15 min walk of a neighborhood center. We are working with our Gis team to do that. It's more complicated. Seems like it should be. We have some. There's some great walk, shed information in some of our transportation plans. Which gives like a really cool red, yellow, and green map. And you can see the neighborhoods when we looked into that cause. That's where we kind of started for that story map. And what, how we wanted to develop it. But when we looked into the data, it just wasn't perfect with the kind of services that were included in that data, so we couldn't use that necessarily. but we are working on the the flip side of that of looking at the neighborhood centers. And what's fif within 15 min from there? So we'll have that shortly. But but yeah, I think it. It's obviously a complex issue. That is both land use and transportation, and they're doing great work on the transportation side, too, on this. This is just the land use piece.

[58:09] Alright great. Thank you. Any other questions at this time? I know Lisa won't go anywhere, so if we have questions during our deliberations, we can always ask for it magically appear back on the screen. Okay, so no questions. For now I'm Lisa. First of all, thanks to you and Carl for blogging your way through. Obviously very complex work. And I'm sure you're looking to get across the finish line. We really appreciate that. Alright, so we can turn now to public comments. everyone will have 3 min. and Vivian is going to be the master, the mistress of ceremonies. Vivian, go ahead, please. Thank you. So so far we have 6 hands raised, and we'll start with Jake Hudson. Humphrey, followed by Lynn, Siegel, and Devin, will be helping us out with the with the timer.

[59:04] Please go ahead, Jake. You have 3 min. and you may have to unmute yourself. Can you hear me? Yeah, perfect. awesome. My name's Jake Hudson Humphrey. I am with the Hill University Hill Merchants Association, so we represent businesses within the University Hill General Improvement District. I'm here to speak in support of removing the regulations that prevent hill businesses that. Serve alcohol from staying open past 11 pm. As well as the regulations that require 50% of sales come from food. So I believe that these regulations unfairly hurt businesses in a district that's already struggling. We have a lot of turnover in in the hill district. We constantly have businesses going out of business. We've got tons of vacancies. And this is a problem that's been happening for years. And we basically our district needs all the help that it can get. We're the most regulated district in boulder when it comes to these kind of use restrictions. And, as I said, it's an already struggling district. So we are very wary of losing business to businesses open that are able to open later in the rest of the city and outside of Boulder

[60:21] so a. And then, in addition to that, people need a safe and supervised space to consume alcohol. We understand that a lot of the concerns specifically around the hill comes from, you know, very valid concerns about over consumption, and some of the issues that have presented themselves on the hill. However, it's important to remember that having a safe and supervised space to consume alcohol. you know, after 11 Pm. Which is when the majority of that happens that leads to less over consumption that leads to less underage drinking and it really does help get that activity out of the neighborhood, which is a big concern. So if we're if we allow that to happen in the district where it's supervised, where it's more regulated. That's really gonna keep it from behind closed doors. And it's gonna get it, you know, back into a safer, more supervised space.

[61:17] Thank you, that's all. Thank you, Jake. Next we have Lynn Siegel, followed by Jonathan Singer Lynn. You have 3 min. Please go ahead. Yeah. I just think we should get rid of those entirely in all of boulder and set it up so that the the hours are are fine. If people want to stay up without booze. It's kind of like, create a problem of booze and then fix the problem of booze. And I'm really kind of surprised that there that only 25% of our sales tax revenue is food. I think if we got rid of booze. People would be eating more.

[62:05] They might be getting fat, but they could always run. It's an athletic community and and and that would just it's kind of like homelessness. It's like a problem. And I don't see us creating more problems. the big restaurants. maybe not quite that big at 4 K. I'd like to see neighborhood centers with themes rather than just the same thing in each neighborhood, the same like, you know, like there should be an art theme in one place, or woodworking theme in another place, or you know, lots of different ones, not just these 5 or 6 big ones. and there should be micro centers like 2 blocks from me is Maxwell, the Daisy grocery. That should be. II think you should be zoning for specific shops. You should have a zone, or that's a shoe repair stop shop, and that's what it has to be. And then when somebody leaves, because the rent's too high. They're not gonna evacuate the place and add insult to injury in the landfill, redoing the whole thing for a different repurposing.

[63:25] So let's see? Yeah, the like. There are plenty of specific store types we need. For example, I mean, it's very simple with ideal. We need a pharmacy or drug store, or whatever and what you anchor with this really important. Maybe Waterview does need a brew pub because they're out there isolated, and there's nothing to do. And within that place there's a garage on every single unit of water view. It's just a sprawling community. But as the sprawl fills in the way that we're developing, which I'm really opposed to like. That's what I was speaking about at Kanamoto today.

[64:09] the edge of Longmont, just wanting to expand the density right to the ends. I say, wait, you know, until Jared Polis gets his dirty work done and the the infill happens then and entertain developers. Until then don't even entertain it. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you. Lynn. Next we have Jonathan Singer, followed by Byron Wheeler. Please go ahead, Jonathan. Good evening. Planning. Board. I'm Jonathan Singer. I'm the senior director of policy programs with the boulder chamber. And I am here to support the staff recommendation as it stands right now. I wanna thank Lisa Carl. And really the entire staff for their due diligence on this entire effort. This has been yeoman's work over multiple years dealing with multiple stakeholders, trying to balance sometimes some competing interests and and oftentimes interest that

[65:10] coalesce and very interesting ways. Ii know that the arguably the the largest red flag or or elephant in the room here is going to be around the University Hill General Improvement district, which I will not even try to pronounce the acronym there. and what I have to say is if you, if you listened to city council the other night. We heard numerous City Council members opine on the the lack of progress in that area over the last decade. If all of the different rules, regulations, and ordinances that were put in place in the University Hill General Improvement District. We're, in fact, working we wouldn't have nuisance issues on the University Hill, we would have a thriving district providing a great

[66:01] sales tax base for our community. We would have a wonderful community gathering place like it once was, and while there are some glimmers of hope being able to standardize a process that we give businesses of all sizes, but especially small businesses. A reasonable degree of certainty while they're going through the application and review process actually provides new opportunities for innovative smaller businesses to step into a place that needs to be vital, as we have our conference center coming in there shortly and back to the the safety issue and some of the nuisance concerns. II think a council member, Matt Benjamin put it perfectly the other night. When he said, Look, you know, when I was in college. We were all we we were able to, you know, avail ourselves of bars and restaurants in the hill area. Getting rid of those those opportunities didn't get rid of the problem. It just moved it into the neighborhoods.

[67:01] Let's do something in a way that deals with the problems in a correct place and time. but also provides new opportunities to bring the hill back to where it used to be, and perhaps even in a in a better place I'll be around so certainly feel free to. I'll be listening in for the comments, but I wanna thank everyone for their due diligence and their care on this process. Thank you, Jonathan. Next up we have Byron Wheeler, followed by Garrett Baum. Please go ahead by Byron. Good evening. Can you hear me? Thank you. Good evening. Planning board. I'm here to advocate on behalf of the business community in the University Hill District by showing support of the deregulation of the alcohol related, use restrictions within the General Improvement District, including the mandated 11 Pm. Closing time. So in University Hill, less than a quarter of all the restaurants in the area are actually able to be open past 110'clock. Despite these being some of the busiest and highest demand hours from the customers in the area.

[68:11] I own a restaurant on the hill, and I estimate, based on my completely full restaurants every Friday and Saturday at the time I'm forced to close that my annual revenues are decreased by up to 15% as a result of this regulation, and I'm helpless as a business owner. As I've watched my customers flood into neighboring restaurants because they have a grandfathered right to serve at a later hour. Businesses in the Hill district are struggling more than any other part of this city. Yet we're among the most regulated businesses in terms of hours of operation, and we're being forced to close during our busiest hours with our greatest upside potential in revenues. allowing hill restaurants that serve alcohol to stay open later with fewer regulations around percentage of food sales will significantly help these businesses improve their revenues and will improve the economic health of the district as a whole.

[69:05] I'd also like to emphasize that restaurants serving alcohol in a safe, supervised and regulated way helps limit the overconsumption and underage drinking compared to them, drinking at home or in their dorms. The hills serves primarily students, many of whom have a safe place to consume alcohol. Yeah, I'm sorry. Many of whom want to have a safe place to consume alcohol, but are unable to do so on the hill after 11 Pm. As we examine these proposed changes, which I'm a full supporter of everything that you guys have done and and and proposed here tonight, I strongly encourage you to include deregulating the required 11 pm. Closing time for the restaurants on the hill and allow the businesses to serve the needs of their target customers in a controlled and safe environment. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Byron. Next up we have Garrett Baum, followed by Lisa Spalding. Please go ahead. Garrett. Timer is up.

[70:04] Hi! Thank you very much. My name's Garrett bound. I it's this is difficult. I have not written out anything to discuss, but you know part of what. First of all, I'm in favor of what the first person said, and then the last 2 as well. they it was brought up that there's a lack of progress on the hill for a decade, and and I'm I'm a bit insulted by that, and and and in a good way. You know, we purchased the Flat Iron Theater 10 years ago, and we won an award from the historic boulder for what we did there, and we put tenants in, and I've had 4 tenants leave, and the reason they've left is because of the Draconian rules that have been put in place that do not allow businesses to succeed there. You know the the W. When the rules went in place it was, oh, the students are coming down. They're drinking. They're throwing up on their way home. We gotta fix it. So let's just stop drinking on the hill. Well, you know, there we invested millions in that building. After purchasing it.

[71:10] We invested 2 million dollars in a restaurant that you're all familiar with Rosenberg's bagels. That is no longer there. hey? The businesses that are no longer in boulder on the hill are not there because of the rules that were enacted that have been that have negatively impacted those businesses. The drinking problem or drinking youth the third person that spoke. That's not gonna go away because you've got limits on times for or or when when restaurants can be open. So you know one of our businesses? Yes, small portion of their sales were from alcohol. I'm working with another tenant right now. and a hundred per cent. Of their sales would come from food. They don't even plan alcohol, but the fact that they would be limited with when they conserve food

[72:03] could become a problem. And I don't want to see a fifth business go out of business on the hill. So you know, we've got our problem unique to our building. But as you've heard from some of the other restaurants or building owners. there are problems that every property owner and every business has up on the hill. So it is. There's proof over the last decade that the rules have not worked. There's crime on the hill. There's an incredible amount of vagrancy there's been, you know. I can't tell you how much graffiti and feces and the way you solve the problem is by encouraging business development, encouraging businesses to come, help them succeed to succeed instead of hurting their chances of succeeding. And you can do that by allowing businesses to come in function the way they're supposed to. and and encourage residents and others not just from the hill to frequent the hill. And and that'll happen if you're proactive and help the businesses succeed by by Rel. Loosening the rules on the hill. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[73:17] Next we have Lisa Spalding, followed by Stephen Walsh, and I just like to ask if anybody else would like to speak to please also raise your hand so that we we know how many people would still like to speak. Lisa, please go ahead. Lisa. You're muted Spaulding. I'm representing the University Hill Neighborhood Association before I start. I would just like to correct the gentleman who spoke before me. The restaurants can stay open until 2 and serve food. The close is only if they're serving alcohol. So the University Hill neighborhood was stunned by the news that city may roll back the guard rows placed on hill liquor licenses. 10 years ago

[74:02] city Council spent almost a year crafting regulations that they passed unanimously. In October of 2,013. The attempt to streamline the code for bars and restaurants would effectively remove these guardrails. but it would have an extremely negative impact on the hill. The guard, the background to the guardrails is important, since it involves land use and the Planning Board, Thunderburg Burgers was a bar on the hill that was staying opened until 2 Am. Without going through the required use. Review in 2,004. The Planning board ruled. That Thunderbird could serve food until 2 Am. But had to stop serving liquor. At 11 Thunderbird filed a lawsuit against the city that went all the way to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the city could not impinge on state liquor law that set closings at 2 Am. However. it could

[75:00] and should use its land, use code to limit the hours of operation in order to control problems. The only exempted the the hill has. There's only one kind of a liquor license that you can get, and it's a hotel restaurant license. The percentage is very low for food. It's 25. You would never get insurance as a restaurant if you only sold 25% food. So these these restaurants, it was a bait and switch that was going on the restaurant. They would call themselves a restaurant. They would apply for a liquor license. They would ha go through a use review for 2 am. Close, and these use reviews turned into giant screaming matches between neighbors and bars. We had 17 bars on the hill. It was just horrible. anyway. Ii would like to say that having the concentration of bars on the hill did not reduce the parties in the neighborhood underage. Students drank it parties and 21 and over drank and bars. I served on the liquor board for 10 years, and I could pull police reports that show bars are not safe, supervised places for students to drink. Please remove this element and allow the city to deal with it separately. They need to do research and get public

[76:23] comment. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa. Next we have Steven Walsh, followed by Tell Jones. Please go ahead, Steven. Thank you. Planning board and thank you for having me, and thank you for 3 min. This is a discussion that really would take me 3 h to echo what, Lisa, who before me said. I was one of the hill residents that worked so hard to bring the hill back from a place that was lethal to some students and paralyzed a police officer during one of the riots in 1996, when we bought our home there, it was a mess and we worked really, really hard for many, many years.

[77:11] To help clean up the hill. And the hill is a lot better place today than it was in 1996, the Speaker before Lisa is Garret Baum. He was a client of mine. When we formed the new Hill Company it was a private effort to create a quasi public process, to vision what the hill could look like and what it would take to make the hill look like that. using stakeholders from about 8 different cohorts, including students, bar owners, fraternities, Hill Residence University. and several others, the faith-based community. And we achieved a consensus vision of what that looks like. And it was formalized or memorialized in what's called the Hill Community Context report study.

[78:02] And that's something that we could send you. What I would say is the institutional memory of our neighborhood. The University Hill is short. We have uncovered meeting notes from University Neighborhood Association from 30, 40 years ago. This cycle of people coming in and out of the neighborhood, in and out of the community. The commercial districts. the stakeholders have never stayed long. I don't recognize anybody now on the hill that was their present there before. With the exception of the Sync and And Garrett Baum. We did good work. There's a study that should be looked at. But the the really, the conclusion was, and I strongly feel the Hill commercial district will never be able to support

[79:01] quality in a dining establishments that include liquor and food sales until the brand of the hill is cleaned up and it's never gonna happen until the Hill redevelops what we're seeing at the North end with the Hill Hotel and Caddy Corner to at the University Conference center are things we envision 15 years ago in our in our work, and that is the sign of hope for the Hill. That's what needs to be addressed. When those kinds of properties are developed and the landlords have the level of State stake, in that they have, the establishments will be run responsibly. But to leave the the. You know. The general building supply out there now to Anybody that wants to open a bar is a real is a very risky enterprise. There's no ordinance in the world that's gonna prevent someone from taking advantage of the community.

[80:02] Next, we have tell Jones and he is the last speaker. Please go ahead. Tell you. Have 3 min. Alright. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can. Okay, thank you all for everything I appreciate. It's been awesome to learn all the different insight on this subject. I support Jake Hudson and what he said 100 as far as the hill goes. I've been with the Sync for 10 years. So I'm pretty sure I only know what the rule is now, or the law is now. I kind of feel after talking to neighborhood people as II like community and whatnot. III think we all kind of agree that this is an experiment for 10 years. and it really hasn't gotten us anywhere. I've also known that notice that the block parties from this is from neighbors on the hill

[81:03] residents on the hill that the block parties have gotten even worse. And when I, you know, recently swing by these places as I'm walking back to my car. I noticed that. You know these house parties are 500 750 up to 1,000 people in certain fraternities with 2 door guys. and I believe that it's probably safer to open up the hill to monitor these kids. you know. In my situation I would probably have 4 Security guards as well as multiple managers watching and making sure these kids aren't going over the limit. that's what I'm hearing, that's all I noticed. Like, I said. I've only been here for 10 years. It seems like an experiment that didn't work. There's not anybody that comes in trying to boost their sales based on alcohol after 11, or based on sales after 11 period. It seems like most people have gone down to Pearl Street and Pearl street only, and or house parties. And that's all I have.

[82:12] Thank you. Tal. Okay, no other hands raised. Sarah. Okay, thank you very much. I'm gonna propose a 5 min break. and then we'll come back and have our public. I'm not public. I'm sorry our dialogue amongst ourselves. so we will be back at 7 28. Am I correct, Vivian, about that timing? Alright? That's correct. And we'll put up a slide. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

[87:47] So I know that George has not very good connection, so he will only pop up when he has something to say. But Laura, Mark, and Ml. If you are. If you are at 3 desks. please show your beautiful faces.

[88:13] Okay, alright, and and the staff back. Everyone's back. Lisa. Just so. I know you're there, Lisa Hood. Sorry plug in. I'm here. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. So we're all back. We've already gone over our allotted hour for this. So I'm gonna hope hopefully we'll be able to have our conversation and vote within a half an hour time period. If not, we'll go longer. But let's see if we can keep it to an hour, a half an hour. I think. My, what I'm gonna propose is that we just go quickly around the Horn. and people can comment on concerns that they are topics that they would like to discuss further.

[89:00] And then we can see what what has Co. What? Where? There's some common concerns, and then we'll go back and revisit those. So because George has bad connectivity. I'll start with George. I I'm I'm generally supportive of of the way it's been proposed by Staff. I don't have many. III understand that the the issues around the hill. I happened to work with restaurants and bars and things like that in my professional life. Not in boulder, but outside of here, and I'm I generally sympathetic to what they were saying in regards to just things overflowing into other areas rather than really solving much of a problem there. So that's that's generally sort of my lens on things. But I don't have much to add. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Lisa.

[90:03] yeah, I think as as often as the case, but not always very similar to what Georgie just said. I think the rough thing with the hill is that I think. And and this is true of the most challenging things that come before us. And just the most challenging planning issues in general is that both sides are correct. Like both of these things are simultaneously true. It is true that the restrictions that are currently in place from a business perspective, they're fairly draconian and are causing really high turnover and loss of wonderful. You know, restaurants and and just kind of killing the hill and it's true that it's probably part of some of those restrictions, some of the ways that is played out, and it's hard to measure has probably contributed to their, you know, being a bit less rioting and couch burning, and other behaviors which I remember well. You know. So

[91:02] II have empathy for both sides, and I think that's kind of the hard thing. I think 1 one thing that really stood out to me was kind of that differentiation between something that is fully functioning as a bar, or really is, turning into a bar after some certain time of night ends, and a place that is food plus alcohol, you know, and and also the unfairness of the fact that there are legacy uses that. you know can sell alcohol. And then somebody right next door, who's basically being driven out of business from day one so I'm not sure that I have a perfect solution. I think my instincts that I don't think is covered here, but I'm just gonna bring it forward and then and then stop talking. But my instinct would be that that the issue is probably more around really strict code enforcement and like being super on top of it. And I'm not saying that in terms of like

[92:03] stretching the staff that we already have for Co enforcement, or like trying to push that back onto city staff. I would actually support, you know. and and and and this would need to be developed, I think, in concert with the businesses, but some kind of an additional use fee which I've also seen brought forward, for example, for residential landlords on the hill. You know that like you will pay into this fund this much and like we're gonna come through and clean up the alleys, and we're gonna come through and pick up all the trash and like. you're just gonna pay into a fund. And that's how it's gonna work. anyway. So, yeah, III think I'm not necessarily opposed to trying lifting it and seeing if some of the other wraparound things that were put in place are enough to hold the line. But I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that we may be moving backward quickly, and I would also be super supportive of, you know, maybe outside this process, finding a way to specifically fund code enforcement officer activation intervention teams whatever on the hill, so that if we do this we could do it successfully, and not just be having to roll it back, you know, in 6 months or a year, or whatever.

[93:08] Okay, thank you, Lisa. If folks don't mind, I'm gonna just put on the table what my thought was about this, because it's something around which we might be able to discuss. so my concern with the with the streamlining specifically to the Bms zone that's in the University general Improvement district is that there really wasn't any in depth public engagement. And th the it merged, apparently from that conversation about the that parking lot at Fourteenth Street, and and what emerged from the businesses, work and work these concerns. and that there hasn't actually been the kind of in-depth public engagement or evaluation of proposed changes. And so what I'm thinking about, and maybe folks can respond to this is

[94:00] in the case of 8, 5, 9 0 is to remove the proposed amendments specifically to the Bms district in you, Jed. and call it recommending the Council that they put this particular issue on their work plan for next year, so that there can be an in-depth process that can maybe come out with a balance. That work that doesn't end up rolling back something that took a long time to create but also doesn't. but creates a a platform or a table where this stuff can be worked out because it does sound like there's competing concerns that just haven't been the last thing they're addressed with 2,013, and they really weren't addressed in this discussion that just sort of got added into the effort to streamline so that I I'm gonna probably put an amendment on the table. But it'd be helpful if folks could respond to that on this particular issue.

[95:02] Laura. thank you for that. Sarah, and and also George and Lisa for your very well considered comments which I agreed with. so, Sarah, what you have just proposed brings up a question for me which is related to my earlier confusion about. You know, the presentation that went to City council was specifically around University Hillary revitalization. And you did. And some very specific proposals around that. And I'm not sure how that has been wrapped into this use table update. And or if there is some other venue where those specific decisions around you jit are going to be made if we don't. If we punt here and say we're not going to make that change here tonight, is there some other process that is thinking about public outreach and how to consider those changes. So I guess that's the question for Lisa Hood and Brad. Yeah, thanks, Laura. And yeah, I might have heard of Brad, and I also see that Chris Jones is on here, too. So the planning board packet with the ordinance was actually made public and sent to you before that study session with community vitality last week. So the ordnance changes are a result of the direction that we got from City Council on July twenty-seventh, at their study session, not necessarily related to the community vitality

[96:22] session, which has happened in terms of timing to be similar within a few weeks. Brad, did you have anything? I don't know. No, actually, since II didn't realize Chris was here, so I probably defer to him other than to just tee up that the community vitality was really kind of a broad look, with no determined timelines. So I'll pass it off at that point. Good evening. Planning board. Chris Jones, here director of community Vitality. We also have Regan Brown on the call. She's our senior project manager and community vitality. We are key liaison to the business community that we res represent in all of our general improvement districts. And so yes, last week we brought to council a number of challenges that we're experiencing in the business community.

[97:14] including the alcohol, related regulations and some other regulations that are not being considered tonight. For land uses in University Hill District. So council did express a strong desire to proceed with changes. There was certainly not unanimous desire to proceed with the changes that you all are considering tonight. But certainly a a majority to move forward with changes quickly. So the suggestion that we put this on a future councils work plan might not be consistent with the direction that we received from a majority of council last week. But it doesn't mean that you can't still make a recommendation to the current council to that end?

[98:07] Can I follow Chris with a question? I'm sorry, Laura. Just Chris, in your in your work on this particular tiny little slice of the business issues. What kind of public neighborhood engagement did you actually do? Specifically on this particular issue? We did not ask Council about specifically changing the regulations. All we asked counsel about last week was if they would like for staff to would they like to direct staff to add a work plan, item to consider changes for University Hill. So Staff was contemplating that level of work, and the question that we asked counsel last week their response back to us was more pointed in that they would like to see the changes. on a faster

[99:07] time track. That doesn't mean that we that do that we'd so that doesn't mean that we need to or have to. That was a direction we we received at a study session based on presenting a number of of challenges that are being considered. We did not ask Council to provide direction specifically on the changes that you're all considering this evening. So there has been no extensive community engagement that takes a lot longer than what what was suggested by Council members last week. So to follow up on Laura's question, is there is there a space, a platform for further discussion? The answer is actually, yes, there is. There's the work you're doing. Actually, we do rely on our friends and planning to pursue these types of land, use changes with you. All. The question is whether or not

[100:04] we are going to queue up a longer term work, plan, item, or something that is gonna happen more administratively through our regular public hearing processes, using relying on our ordinance and city code required public engagement processes to include additional input into decisions around this particular topic. When the purpose of this work is to trying to simplify some of our regulations around community neighborhood serving commercial districts. Okay, appreciate that. Laura, did you want to pick up from here? I think I do. And and I apologize. I'm a little sleepier tonight than normal. So I'm not. I'm not processing as quickly, but it it does feel to me like what I heard from community vitality with that session that was specifically focused on University Hill. Questions felt like, kind of the opening of a conversation, and it feels like we're now trying to shut it quite quickly. By putting it into this use tables, update and Lisa, I hear you saying that

[101:15] this idea of removing the requirement around 50% of of sales have to be from food in all restaurants. Not not just on the hill. Right? Am I hearing? No wait flashpoint specifically for University Hill, and it feels like kind of I don't know. Public engagement is what I do for a living, and it feels like to sort of roll past that very quickly with this use. Tables update is is not quite sitting well with me tonight, so I think I probably would be in favor of.

[102:07] and and I can be convinced otherwise through more discussion. If people think I'm on the wrong track. But it it feels like that might be something that we want to remove from this decision tonight and recommend to council that more work be done through community vitality and and some additional processes, rather than having that be something that happens so suddenly. and if I'm misunderstanding something, please somebody jump in alright, Laura. Thank you. so folks know. I sent a draft amendment to a motion we haven't even made yet, so we can discuss who else would like to? Let's keep going around the Horn. And it can be about this subject or other topics that are of concern, that so I'm gonna go. Just pick on you, Kurt, and go to you, even though you don't have your hand up. Okay, thank you. Yeah. The the question of what to do on Union Hill is

[103:01] certainly the most challenging part of this for me, because I think that there are good arguments on both sides. Also, I think it's true that whatever we do with the use table and standards is not gonna fix all the problems on the hill? Obviously, right? And so it's a matter of how do we find the balance between what is best for the the people who live there, and what is best for the people, the the business owners, and the general vitality of the business district on the hill. I think in the end my inclination would be to go ahead with the the proposed changes in hopes that this could be a trial period, and we could see if that would make things better. It seems like we sort of had a trial period for 10 years, and it's not clear to me that that really made things better. I guess it changed some things but I think that trying the

[104:06] the, the proposed changes for hopefully a shorter period of time would make sense if we could come back to them and and pivot quickly. If that were if if that were called for, so that would be my inclination. But I'm certainly interested to hear other people's perspectives on these things. I have 2 other proposed changes that I would like to discuss, and I can go into more detail. Later one would be to remove drive through uses from the BC. One and BC. Busy one BC. 2 and Bcs zone districts and also prohibiting detached dwelling units in the Mu Bt. You you want to pro you prohibiting. I'm I'm I'm those are things that I am going to propose.

[105:02] says amendments to this process. Okay, I just want to make them writing notes so that I know it's a circle back to. So it's remove, drive through. And bt, is that what you said? No. BC, one and BC 2 and Bcs. okay? And then the other was removing detached dwelling units as an log use in Mu. BT. And BC. Zones. Okay. alright, thank you. Lisa, I'm gonna come to you. Eml and Mark. But Lisa has her hand up, and I'm gonna guess it's about the hill. Is that a fair assumption? Okay, Lisa? yeah, no. I'm I'm excited to see the language of what you're bringing forward there, and I guess I'll just say 3 things, and I don't wanna belabor it so we can move along. But one is that I potentially be open to some kind of an Am. You know, a an amendment or change specifically around the hill. For all the reasons others have brought forward, including myself.

[106:01] I'm also actually somewhat sympathetic to what Kurt just said. I think the one thing that's holding me back from that kind of like, okay, let's just do a trial and, like, see how it goes. are not holding me back. But one thing that makes me like hesitant and maybe be a little more line with the other side is just that like this is literally like a life and public safety issue like they used to dial a lot more up there. And it's awful. And it's sad. And these are kids. And and so I don't know that Council will listen to recommendation if that's where we end up landing as a board. But I kinda do feel like I'm leaning more towards sending a message of like, Hey, you need to run like a better process and figure out how if if you do lift, that's how you're gonna do it in a way where it's more likely to be successful. It just feels like a really high stakes trial period, or, you know, pilot compared to some of the other things we do. So I just wanted to mention that, and then all. I'll be quiet. Thank you, Laura. Emil, any issues that you're going to want to bring up.

[107:03] Thank you, Sarah. You know the the piece, and I don't see Lisa anyone. There you are, Lisa. The piece that has caught my attention in this whole process is the continued desire. From residents at at the neighborhood Center conversation about small businesses. And the question I have around that maybe. This is, there's a simple answer. yes. How does that get? I so I heard the logic. I'm going from the 1,000 to 1,500 square foot to 4,000. That that seems the 4,000 seems to be the kind of the breaking point where you're not going to get anything. Boxes coming in at that, or any

[108:09] any big restaurants coming in at that change, coming in at at that smaller scale. But where else in the use code do we have? those kinds, the kinds of edges that preclude anything but small businesses it. It seems that the ability to call something community or local, or whatever is kind of fuzzy, and unless that there are some specifics we could end up gentrifying so many of our neighborhood centers without.

[109:02] So is it. Is it in the Max, in the maximum square footage is that where the use code addresses that, or are there any other means to That's just such a recurring desire. And it seems I know we're dealing with bigger projects that are in the industrial zones and those kinds of places where we're losing the small. And I don't think we want. II wanna find out how how we are precluding that from happening at the neighborhood Center scale, which is part of this use. would you? Sure? So throughout the use standards, we have a number of different uses that have either or some sort of maximum size limit. So we actually do that quite frequently throughout the use standards.

[110:05] other uses. Like offices, personal not personal services, but like indoor athletic facilities or something come to mind. We have a number of other uses where we have. It's allowed by right up to a certain size. Beyond that, it's user view or conditional use. There's probably dozens of uses that have something like that. So it's not uncommon for us to use square footage as kind of the differentiating factor between the type of review process. And I think, for a lot of those that is trying to keep a neighborhood scale. We've had some challenges like you said, with some more ambiguous, not ambiguous but kind of that fuzzy language, like our definition of personal services for a long time, has said, for the convenience of the neighborhood, but the uses for the convenience of the neighborhood, and that we actually led to a code change where we came up with specific size limits for indoor athletic facilities which are were used to be classified as personal services, but we were running into at what point does is the gym for the convenience of the neighborhood versus that. So we do use the square footage and the maximum size as a fairly

[111:17] you know, black and white determining factor between what the impact is, or what the draw is to that business throughout many different businesses in the in the use standards. Does that answer your question about that project that came through that was behind base Mark Center, a part of the zoning, the basemar center. And it was I think student housing is being proposed there. and removal of all those little shops. and it seems like there wasn't anything that we could really point to in the use code or in the zoning that would stop that kind of

[112:00] I don't know evolution, but that kind of shift from what seems to be the spirit of of the neighborhood centers to me that that's a glory one, because it was just so. Not anything that the neighbors were wreck, or we were recognizing as, Oh, how is this? A neighborhood center? Part of a neighborhood center? So it might be a bigger question than than a specific. That's what concerns me. It that we get embedded in the use codes cause. Again and again we see the public input and it comes down to, we want small. We want local. We want to feel like we can embrace and support our community in these walkable neighborhood areas. And yet the opportunity for

[113:04] a development that doesn't include that desire can also happen. II so I'm I it. It's almost like right now we're talking about. You know, the closing time. Make it across the board or the serving of food, making it across the board and all the restaurants. It it would seem as though neighborhood centers should have across the board some particulars. They're gonna preclude the overriding of the desire for intimacy in their shopping centers, especially at that neighborhood scale. This is not the regional commercial center. These are something that is personal. and it seems like it can be overrun.

[114:00] And I don't know how to get. Anyway, it's a question that's what comes up for me in the you know. I think the old question. II agree with what people are saying. Both sides are right, and it's been stuck. The problem isn't solved. I love the idea of a pilot. and maybe the emerging of a pilot with what this is proposing. A pilot with that not only includes changing the regulations, but providing for the structured aftermath later openings and perhaps more impact to the, you know, trash. And so maybe it's a combination of of those 2 2 things right. anyway. Nothing, nothing any more specific than that. Again. My concern is

[115:02] II keep hearing. We want to stay local, and I hope that we can codify that. can I? Just? I'll respond, Lisa, if I'm not mistaken. During the first the first round of of the Use Review. When we went line through line, we actually decreased the minimum plate. did we not, for stores in the BC. One and 2 zones. I think we reduced it to like 1,500 as a minimum. Is that am I remembering that correctly? It's not really any bells for me. I don't know. Maybe we just discussed it and then didn't do it. Yeah, I don't remember seeing that as a Co. Change. But that was before I started the city. So I'm not sure.

[116:13] So Charles, your perspective on how does this concern that shows up when we look at these public outreach that talks about. We want local. We want small. We want our neighborhood centers to be intimate in your estimation. How does the use cable? Assure that is, is that where does that land is? Is it, too? Is that too restrictive to think that way? And we want it local. You're you're muted, Charles Charles. You're muted. I don't know that I understand your question, and also, maybe, if you can.

[117:00] my colleague, and ask you a question. and and maybe I need to see the map of neighborhood centers again. But are the neighborhood centers generally exclusively small businesses, or do they have things like a safe way and a whole. Yeah, that was my impression, too, is that there? There are anchor stores, and sometimes there are chain stores, but we don't want it to be exclusively that, you know we don't want it to look like Strip Mall, America. I'm from the East coast, where you can drive through 4 different towns, and you would never know you were someplace different, because they all look the same, and they all have the same stores and the same restaurants. So I get that desire for local character, local flavor. It shouldn't all be whole foods and safe ways. But but there is some of that, I think, in the neighborhood centers. So. ml, are you asking, is there something in the code that prohibits that or that? Make sure that everything is small and everything is not a chain. What I'm asking is

[118:01] So just big picture. the public input seems to continuously to point to we what local that seems to show up in so many of the different public input that that you present us. And I'm wondering is, how does where in the used codes. Is that safeguarded in some way? And I and I'm not Laura, to speak to your question. II don't think that it's a an exclusive. But maybe there's, is there a percentage? Or is there a way? Is there a a way? Has this conversation on how to codify that desire on the public's part. Let's not gentrify our city. It's not make it generic. Let's let's try to create a place for our local stuff to happen.

[119:04] Has that filter. Maybe it's a filter that gets developed so that when the uses in a particular area are being reviewed or programmed. it's a consideration as opposed to. Oh. you can have. We can have all of these. So we could have all big boxes we could have what precludes that sort of thing from happening. I think I have a I have a better question this time. I mean, better answer to your question this time. So that is really what we've tried to do with these changes. We really try to incentivize the small business by setting size limits, whether it's 4,000 for restaurants, 5,000 for retail or some of the other size limits. I think we did 2,000 for convenience retail. Really trying to incentivize small and maybe by proxy local. Those small businesses because their process would be allowed by right. They'd get to go straight to a building permit. They wouldn't have to go through a user view or conditional use. But once it's a larger use which might be less of that kind of neighborhood. Feel that you're speaking to. Then they have to go through a user view. And so the user view is a longer process. It's more discretionary.

[120:23] It's less certain than allowed by right? So in that way, we're trying to incentivize the small local businesses by providing them with the the smoother path. Easier path, to approval. And then those larger businesses get more scrutiny. Yeah, especially for businesses that we know that have a lot more impacts. That's really what user view was set up to do is to help manage impacts, that might be a detriment to a neighborhood or other surrounding businesses. So but I think amount. Excuse me, I think, to more directly respond to your question. There's nothing that we're crafting right now that guarantees that all of these businesses will be local.

[121:03] you know, till Lisa's point. We hope that some of the size restrictions that you know we're putting up might help encourage different business technologies. But just to be very explicit. There's nothing that we're drafting, and that's that would right. I like that answer, though, Lisa, and thank you for that. I think that answers my question, that. It's in the use by right. If the kinds of of of business demographics, if you will. That people are wanting can become used by right then I think that is a clear as Charles, an an incentive for those kinds of things to happen, because it's expensive to go processes. So I guess I have to look at a find with the Findings code to make sure that those use are at the threshold. You know, that will meet what we hear people saying that they want.

[122:00] Is it illegal? Hello! Yes. Well, we're discussing. But I was gonna mention that there's a constitutional concept called the dormant commas clause, and that actually prohibits the city from take making regulatory measures that benefit in State interest over out of State interest, and it also applies if you benefit a local, more local interest, because that automatically also will burden the out of State interest. So we can regulate based on wait. Did you say it was literally the Interstate commerce clause it? Yeah, it's called the dorm. It's a dormant commerce class concept. Okay? Hello, are you? Is that a Federal. Or is that state pedal? Yeah, so so there are. I mean, just just for everyone's awareness. There, there, there are areas of the country that have tried change store bands

[123:02] with success. So I don't know how that conflicts with what Hello! Just said. But II know San Francisco has done it in certain zones. Place like Fairfax, California have done it. So there is. There is a mechanism to do it. I don't think it has. It's related to what we're talking about tonight. But but there, there are, there are communities. And I'm not saying it's it's necessarily successful, because I think it brings on all kinds of other nuanced issues that those communities are dealing with. But if that's something, Ml, that you're interested in pursuing, or others are interested in pursuing. There are cases of other cities doing stuff like that. And I think it's really interesting. I think, like a lot of things like that. It also brings unintended consequences. Because, yeah, as, for instance, things like franchises and other things which are both local and small businesses and large businesses overlaid over those things.

[124:04] you know, you end up and and equity issues. And there, there are all kinds of things around that stuff. But I don't think it's related to what we're doing today. But I'm very interested in that, but I also think it's a it's a whole other can of worms. But but as far as what Hela saying. I do think there are communities that have done stuff like this to varying levels of success that you know, if that's something that that we or the community wants to look into. There's there's opportunity to do that. What you're talking about is more regulating big spot, big box stores versus having a regulation that says only local businesses locate here. Thank you, George, and thank you. Eml, so Laura have their hands up. But are you all wanting to respond to Ml. Or bring up another topic, because Mark hasn't had his chance to raise his issues yet. So I don't just want to figure out.

[125:02] you want to respond to? Ml, okay. And Kurt, do you also want to respond to Ml. And is local? They they fear like, am I not allowed to grow. Am I not allowed to have a second restaurant like if I'm Blackbelly and I am very successful, and I want to invest my capital in either making my business larger, or in having a second or a third restaurant. Those are the kinds of businesses that people think of as small local businesses. But regulations can have that unintended consequence that George was talking about of making it impossible to grow or to branch out. So I'll just. I'll just stop there. Thank you, Laura Kurt and I just wanted to point out that we certainly do here that people want local businesses. I think we all want local businesses, but we also hear that we want affordability. We want choice. We heard that particularly from the community connectors, that they want portable housing, shopping options, and those, unfortunately, are often intention. And so it's not just a goal of local businesses. It's complex cool. Thank you.

[126:21] Alright, thanks. Mark your turn. Thanks. III have several comments relating to the issue at hand, but II will take a second to address Ml, and simply say that you know the Us. Constitution. We are known for being a nation that operates under the rule of law. not of men. and so under that general provision. We are not allowed to discriminate in ways that whether it be through interstate commerce clause, or and my next comments regarding the hill are going to be about discrimination based on age.

[127:07] We have prior our occupancy ordinance based on status. And so we are not allowed to craft a code that says we don't like you. You are too techy. you have. You have more than 3 stores. Hence you're you're not allowed. You have more than 2 restaurants. Hence you're not allowed that is not allowed under United States Federal constitutional law, and that's a good thing. And so it's incumbent upon us as a planning board and a planning department to craft code that incentivizes and encourages behavior. Good behavior. Gee! The growth of small businesses the expansion of small businesses businesses that are responsive to community needs. But it is not.

[128:02] We are not setting up a panel that would allow ad hoc discrimination based on some various gray area of of a rule. So anyway, I am. I want us to to to focus on code that is specific and encourages good behavior, good businesses from our citizenry and our business community. But we can't. We can't just say gee! I like it the way it is, or the way it was. Hence I'm going to. I'm for this or against that. So that's my little speech on that in regard to the the ordinance that we're discussing. II first thing I want to say is a thanks to Staff. I have yet to see a

[129:00] an ordinance discussion that begins with a slide that's animated, that conveys to duration of the of the project. And so here we have a an ordinance project that expands so many years that we get an animated slot. I also, you know, wanna thank Sarah and Ml and staff for their work on this, because I think it's good work. and I think that the community engagement over this period of time can't be denigrated or diminished now. It it may not have been as focused as some might like on the hill. But we have done. I think we have done exemplary work engaging the community, and I thank staff and our board members for that. and So I think the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan encourages and wants to reward and wants to support good

[130:08] neighborhood center. So I am in support of this because I think that overall the ordinance supports the enhancement, the growth of neighborhood centers. I'm as I went through it, I can say I'm disappointed that maybe it's beyond the scope of the project that we actually don't really talk about ways of creating new neighborhood centers versus enhancing existing ones. And the last thing I want to say in relation to the hill, and this is another case, and it goes back to my comments directly to Ml, but goes back to occupancy that discriminatory code that tries to control behavior by discriminating, based on age. based on status based on wealth based on home ownership

[131:02] is is not only wrong, it's it's not very effective. It doesn't work very well. And and so the current status of discriminating against certain hill businesses because of bad behaviors of some people is is is is negatively affecting those businesses. And it's not really. it's not really controlling the bad behavior. So once again, boulder as a city, we tend to up to sleep try to attack our problems and and simple code enforcement is is a superior way you know, not over serving, enforcing, underage, drinking, allowances, etc. All these things can can be enforced with our current code. And when we, when we

[132:03] nickel and dime and parse our code in such ways that this business operates under one set of rules, and the business next door operates under a different set of rules that breeds contempt for local government. and it is not effective. So I am all for our code simplification and and the unification of restaurant code. And I'm all for both understanding, sympathizing, and most importantly, enforcing our codes universally on the hill downtown wherever they may be, and and achieving our behavioral goals through code enforcement. So I am. I will be opposed to any measure to separate the hill from other business districts in our

[133:04] in our discussions tonight. That's it. Alright, thank you very much. So I have one more issue that I'm gonna just put on the table. But I'm going to end up proposing it as a separate motion. So I think I curt. If I heard Kurt correctly, I think we may be on a similar page. The the I I'd like to make. I'm gonna make a motion to recommend that Council include in its work plans for next year that staff go back and look again at the prohibition of ground floor duplexes and town homes and BC zones. not a requirement. It's a recommendation. So that cause when that was originally. That was part of phase one of this process. And II do remember that we talked quite a bit at the time about including town. We wanted the neighborhood centers to be diverse housing stock.

[134:07] and apparently that was not included in the changes that were made back in 2,019. But here we are 5 years later, and there's been a lot of discussion about trying to create missing middle housing. And those are housing types that we know middle income and in commuters are interested in and so anyways, I'm gonna make a pro proposal as a second separate motion just to encourage City Council to look at that next year. Okay, so and we can discuss that when we get to it. So what I'd like to do now is bring up the suggested motion language and then we can begin to explore the amendments that are being proposed. I know Kurt has already sent his proposed amendments into Devin, and I have set mine in, so I'll go ahead and make them make the motion. and we'll get it seconded, and then we'll start with amendments. So planning our suggested motion language Planning Board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance 5, 8, 5, 9, 0 amending title land use code

[135:10] to update the use table and use standards related to walkable neighborhood centers. Do I have a second? Second? Okay, thank you. Kurt. Okay, so what I how about if we let's bring up the let's bring up the hill my my amendment. First. I think the one that's probably most debatable. Has most debate around it, and then we can discuss and vote on it. Yeah, your name is. where is Devin Devin? Can you put on the screen the language that I sent you? Okay? Alright. So

[136:00] yes. Hello. yeah, Sarah. II was just gonna suggest that you could make the initial motion the motion that recommends approval of the ordinance with the prop, with the change that you're gonna propose? Alright. So what do I need to remake the motion. or just make the make a propose an amendment to the motion? I I guess you can do your own friendly amendment. If Kurt is, gonna accept it. I would. I would suggest, sorry. II would suggest that we just amend, discuss a separate amendment to add Sarah's and separate amendments to add mine, and so on. So start with the the plane. We've already seconded the motion, the initial motion. So now we're oh, it's open for discussion. and if I'm doing this correctly, I'm going to propose an amendment to the motion.

[137:08] Alright. So my proposed amendment is, and I will read it an amendments that would remove any proposed amendments to the current specific use standards for the Bms district that apply to restaurants, group pubs, and taverns that are located in Ujid and recommend to Council to include in its work plan priorities for the next year the the intention to. Sorry. I'm not sure why, with the intention to review, evaluate and potentially develop changes to the specific use standards for the Bms district. That that applies to restaurants, group pubs and taverns within you. This process should solely focus on the specific use standards for this area and should include a robust public process. And obviously there's gonna have to be some changes made to the

[138:02] jaron's in this. Get it correct? Yes, Laura, can I ask you a question, Sarah. Yep. So the the basic changes that are being proposed for all restaurants is increasing. The buy right size to 4,000 feet. setting that hour of closing at 11, and then some standardization of what can be in an outdoor pat like, what are the restrictions on outdoor patios, so that it's not dependent on size. But it's basically like all the stuff that we would do in a user view, like amplified noise and and all of that kind of stuff. You don't want any of that for the you did neighborhood, or is it just this alcohol provision, this 50% of sales? This is a land use question, not a percentage of sales questions. So what I, the the proposal that is in front of us has eliminated the existing proposes to eliminate the existing code at 9, 6 over 5 E sevenb.

[139:06] That relates solely the Vms zone in Yug. and instead to move the Bms and Ujid into 9, minus 6, minus 5 e, 5 a. Along with all these other zones. And what that? What I'm concerned that it will do is potentially roll back what were hard, fought hard, fought over guardrails. Without actually doing any public engagement or examination of the impact of rolling it back. So I'm if a year from now, a public process gets us right back to where we are today. Okay, what I'm concerned about as you were is that there hasn't actually been a public process on this particular change, but it could have potentially very. Maybe it will have very positive implications, or maybe it will have very negative implications.

[140:10] and we just haven't done the kind of engagement on this that's needed. So the language that I'm proposing which Hella helps me with is intended solely to put aside. The one particular change of moving Bms and Ujid into a different section of the code. Can you? Can you cite those code sections again, because I'm this is way beyond what I prepared for. And so I want to know if I approve. If I vote for this what I'm voting for? So can you see this being proposed here is that the eliminate the the current proposed plan eliminates 9, dash 6, dash 5 E, 7 d. Which are the current Co current regulations that apply to Bms in Youtube. Just that one small area. That's what is being proposed. And I'm proposing that that not be eliminated.

[141:07] And instead, we recommend to council that they take this up as an issue next year. just looking at that one area and doing in-depth analysis and public engagement rather than what they've done here, which is some city Council people said. I think we we talked to some bar owners or restaurant owners, and we think this should happen. But there was literally no public engagement on this none. And if you look at the history of how we got to where we are in terms of what exists in terms of regulation. It was because there was. There were so many significant problems on the hill and maybe the bar, the restaurant owners who've spoken to us tonight. Maybe their analysis of the problems on the hill are correct, but it's not based on any actual analysis. It's anymore. It I mean, there we, the city hasn't done the work on this one particular slice of

[142:05] of code. So my proposal is not that we never come back to it, but rather we propose to counsel that next year this be on their work plan. and as we heard from Chris this issue. There's a platform of space, a table for this to be to be engaged, and in a more in-depth way, which is the economic vitality process. Yeah, II think I understand the point that you're making, Sarah. And I'm probably sympathetic to it. I'm just wondering if some of the changes that are being generally proposed, like the 4,000 square foot by right limit of size, and the 11 Pm. Closing time and the outdoor patio standards which seem generally not controversial, could go ahead and apply to you, Jidd. But we exempt out the things that are controversial like this section that says, not less than 50% of the gross income of sales from food and drink of the establishment, etc., etc. Like that, they have to sell 50% food along with their alcohol. That seems to be that along with hours of operation, seem to be the 2 big sticking points. But this particular code change would not extend the hours of operation by rights to 2 Am. They still would have to get a use review for that.

[143:20] So it seems to me like the big sticking point is this alcohol provision. But maybe there's other stuff in this section that you cited that we haven't talked about. That's also important. So, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I'm not quite done yet, mark. Madam Chair point of order. You have made a motion. and it's being discussed and debated, and has not been seconded. This is all for naught. If we don't get a second and actually follow the procedure. So my question is, do you have a second? Well, I think the discussion that we're having might lead to something that could get a second if I don't have a second for what's proposed here.

[144:02] So so if you don't have a second, then the next move would be to make an amendment that would receive a second. Okay, do I have a sec? Thank you so much, Mark. I really appreciate you helping to manage so. Kurt. so I think Laura's questions are good. The way I read this, if we were to so to undo the deletion of this section review process within you. then the other changes that we're talking about changing the base size, the the hours patio stuff that would still apply. And then there are these additional provisions within you with surrounding property owners required management plan, size of establishment, 4,000 square feet. Well, that's already

[145:06] given hours of apple of operation, and so on. So so I'm I'm I'm trying to answer. My under my understanding of the answer to Laura's question is. the the base standards would be changed, and then these additional rules would apply in Eugene. If terrorism and or brute. So in you did. If you go to page 57 on, and it'd be helpful. You see, you're there. Thank you. If you go to page 57 a. The codes specific to you, jid conditional use bms, district restaurants, group ups, taverns, you know, but located within Hill general Improvement district may be approved only as a conditional use, provided they meet the following standards.

[146:01] good neighbor, meeting. sorry! I'm just going through this size of establishment will not exceed 4,000 square feet. So that's already allowed. I mean, that's that is, the 4,000 feet is the Max that's proposed for the help for all of everything. In 9, dash 6, dash 5 e. 5 a. Which is where this would be moved to hours of operation no later than 11, unless the establishment operated without a liquor license, which I think is a big issue. Outdoor seating area still cease. No later than 11 pm. I don't know whether that's the same code for 9, 6, 5, E. Lisa, is it the same yeah. Sorry to. So to clarify a couple of things. So the way that the ordinance is drafted now it would consolidate it would eliminate the current standards for the area in Bms. Take everything in bms and consolidate it with the changes that we're recommending for those other districts. So some of the things that are unique about you right now. University Hill District

[147:22] is that the only review process is a conditional use. There is no use review option beyond that. So if you're over 4,000 square feet. If you operate past 11 with a liquor license, there's no option to get a use review. So in the proposed ordinance there is an option for larger and open later restaurants to pursue a use review. And that's one of the main changes or one of the main differences. There also are those additional standards related to food and snacks that would not be covered in that consolidated standards. In the proposed ordinance. How we've moved that so I think, Sarah, how I understand your motion is kind of keep it as it is. But you did part, you know. Don't move any part of it, but still make the changes for the other districts that are proposed with the 4,000 and everything. But take a closer look at the you did changes as a whole, as a separate project.

[148:18] But I do think there, to Laura's point, I do think there's also a middle option, or there are several middle options where you could take some of the ideas that are contemplated in those consolidated standards and add some flexibility into the University Hill area without touching some of the food things. Review language that reflects that flexibility. Which is why, what I'm recommending or what I'm proposing is to leave it as is so that the city can undertake a robust process that can in a year's time

[149:08] produce changes that are appropriate rather than changes that are kind of. They kind of snuck in here. As part of a streamlining process, without necessarily having the robust public engagement that might might produce the same exact outcome. But we don't know that. So you know, maybe the language here is too complex. What I had originally proposed was a recommendation to counsel, to direct staff to undertake a revo for both robust public process that specifically and solely focuses on restaurant group up and tavern use standards. And you did to develop a way to move forward that finds the right balance for all involved. That was my original language. Which I think is pretty simple and is intended solely to set this one item aside so that the city can go through a more legitimate process.

[150:03] So so we could we could vote on the amendment that's here, and then I, and which I think is going to go down, and I can then propose a second version, which is much simpler. And doesn't put us in the position of trying to draft a use. Review language that we are not is not our really are our task. Our task is to send recommendations to council. Okay, so let's vote on the amendment that's here. And then, if it goes down, which I think it will. Then I can make a second a second version. So mark no curt. no, Laura.

[151:00] could you come back to me, please. Okay. And there I am going to make a much simpler second proposal, George. No, because II think it's it's worth. It's worth refining. Lisa. How about. Now, I'm curious to see the next one. Okay, and Laura. okay? And I will vote. Yes, but then I will. Just bring in this new language. Hold on 1 s. I'm just gonna send it to oops. Sorry about this guys. While that's happening. I'm gonna bring up some prior to everyone the boards. planning board history and just say that Sarah spent. I'm not sure if it was a year or 2 years alongside other previous planning board members. Working very thoroughly.

[152:05] With Carl Geiler and other members of city staff. If I remember correctly, on the land use table and just going over everything with a fine tooth comb, and I was. I got to sit in and learn on some of those sessions, and just kind of hear how careful that work was, and also how Careful everybody was not to impose their personal beliefs as they tried to move through the process, and it was very cool. It was a very cool little little work process, and Sarah, thank you for doing it. Well, thank you. Kurt. Set in on a lot of those as well. And I just wanna chime in and say that when the city Council discussed this use tables, model module 3 back in July, they specifically complemented the Planning Board liaisons and work group on the work that you did. And so if you didn't listen to that, I want to pass along their comments. Thank you. And thanks to ml. who's part of cycle 2 and 3, phase 2 and 3. Okay, so I send much simpler language which may still get rejected. So I will read it. I won't make the motion, but I'll read it.

[153:08] Amendment to recommend to Council that the Council direct staff to undertake a robust public process that specifically and solely focuses on restaurant group hub and tavern use standards in. You just develop a way to move forward that finds the right balance for all involved. And my guess is, we'd have to add, we just would have to add a sentence that says remove it would have to add the remove any that was in the original one that go. It starts with, remove any proposed amendments to the current specific standards for the Bms district that applied to restaurants through pubs and taverns that are located in Egypt. Could you just cite the specific code section and say, Retain section 9, 6, 5, E sevenb.

[154:03] Sure is that what you're proposing is to retain that? Yes, yes. So retain other amendments. When are you type? Can you type? Whoa. an amendment to recommend accounts to to retain amendment to retain? Yeah, there it is. Amendment to retain. Yeah. Okay. 9, dash 6, dash 5 small E, number 7, capital B. and to recommend to. So then, and then the rest of the language, and to recommend to counsel to direct staff. Yeah.

[155:08] so that's much simpler, much more direct. I'm happy to make the amendment and see if there's a second. I think you you're still missing a word there which is recommend to counsel to direct staff to undertake just just for clarity. Okay, great, thank you. Alright. So I'm making an amendment hopefully, there'll be a second, an amendment to retain 9, 6, 5, and to recommend to council to direct staff to undertake a robust public process that specifically and solely focuses on restaurant group of and taverny standards in Ujid to develop a way to move forward that finds the right balance for all involved. Is there a second? No second. I'll I'll second it. Okay. I was, gonna suggest a friendly change. If that's okay. Before you abandon. Second, I do think that simplifying the the patio so that we don't get all these use reviews related to outdoor patios.

[156:12] do you, Sarah and George? Do you feel that that could apply to you, Jidd, and we could go ahead and do that or do you feel like that also needs more public input. Wait. Lisa has her hand up. Lisa. So, Laura, sorry. I just want to clarify. So the patio size limit doesn't actually apply in muted oh, okay, so that one wouldn't wouldn't make a difference to Pat to use it, anyway. Right? Not currently. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's a helpful clarification. Lisa appreciate that? Okay, so it's been seconded, is there? Comment? Is there no? George, you have a comment. So yeah, I'll make a comment in general, which is kind of consistent with my first statement. III truly believe, where this probably should land is the unification of these things across the board.

[157:07] II love the idea of where lisa was talking about some kind of fund for code enforcement, because that's what it might take in order to make sure that that that the community is heard, and that's something that things are actually being actively enforced. and I think that's why this needs, you know, some more conversation, because this thing was was a hard fought discussion item is, it's not that II think that it should. Ultimately III my gut, is that it will probably land with unification, but a but a more detailed thought process around. Unleashing this on the hill again and making sure it's done in a in a really thoughtful way. Without running over the community.

[158:04] but so so that's that's my perspective on. Why? why, I think we should do this. Is because this was put in with a lot of thought and care. It may not have been effective. Ii don't have a particular opinion on beyond II think it should actually be unified. But II want to make sure that the community is heard through through this. through this process, like like any other process that we would, we would kind of invoke this kind of change. So that's that's the reason why I second it. Okay, thank you, George. Mark. Yeah, II agree with George that unification is the answer. I think that we would be hard pressed to find residents of the hill that are happy with the results of the current code. And yes, 10, we've had the current code for 10 years. Yes, it was hard fought.

[159:10] and I think yes, the results are in essence a a failure, and that is why the residents of the hill continue to struggle. and that they struggle with essentially code enforcement. So we have a liquor licensing board. We have, we have a planning board whose job is to create fair and understandable an applicable land. Use codes and regulations that that businesses can plan for. And you know one of the goals of this entire module. 3 project is, surety is is allowing businesses to plan. So this whole talk about well, let's pilotless pilot that pilots when you're talking about investing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars into renovating a building, a restaurant

[160:10] producing a music venue, you know. Don't do that under a pilot project with the idea that it might get revoked in 6 months or a year. So you know, the current thing isn't working and continued, continued application of the current code is is simply not not what I'm going to support. And I think that code enforcement is and code enforcement through our liquor board and through our police and through our enhanced code enforcement of our code enforcement team is is the answer to the problems directly versus this obtuse attempt to regulate behavior.

[161:04] Okay, thank you. Mark. Does anyone else want to comment? Laura. yeah. I will comment. And I'll say, Mark, I think your comments are well taken about. You know the answer may lie in enforcement. I think Lisa's idea of how to fund that was was very attractive. And that may be where we land. My sense is. This is enough of a controversial issue within the neighborhood, and it was something that was carefully thought out years ago. and that for us, just to take a red pen and strike through it without much community conversation does not to me feel like it will be a productive thing that will create community harmony and community accord and agreement. And it, you know. It may be that progress will catch up to the hill, and if we removed these restrictions everybody would be happy, with the result that that could happen. But I'm I'm not sufficiently convinced that that is absolutely gonna happen. I do think that probably people are gonna want to sit down and go through these one by one and think about, does this still make sense in 2023 and and beyond? And if we don't have this? Is there something else that we need?

[162:22] So II do believe in community conversation. You know, you're never going to make everybody happy all the time. But something like this. I don't. I don't think that we should be sort of removing by fiat very, very quickly. That is the kind of thing that people tend not to love in their elected officials. And I do think it could have consequences. So II am going to support this amendment. Thank you, Laura. Any other comments that people want to make? And if not, we will go to a vote. Eml. thank you, Sarah. The only comment I was wondering about is

[163:01] it? Would there be value in either, including II don't know how friendly amendment or an additional. The idea that that Lisa put forward. And I think that well, that's pretty much, Lisa, that to consider. Not just so right right here you're saying specifically, solely focuses on restaurant use standards to develop a way to move forward. And I don't know if that create a mechanism to not only enforce but to enhance the means of enforcing the regulations. I think has been put on the table, and it seems that a lot of the problem lies in the lack of that. And I don't know if you want to reference that somehow, in this, so that that isn't lost, I think that's a valuable

[164:05] observation about where the problem might lie and how it might be solved. Ml, that's interesting. Can we? Circle back to that? After Lisa and Laura speak. They both have their hands up. Lisa. Yeah, I'd be open to it. And I'll just have people want to put that in. I also think that, potentially given that you talk about a robust public process. If this were to pass, I imagine that idea would come back up through that public process. So I I'd be open either way, you know, calling out specifically or keeping this more simple and I also would just say that I we'll also indicate that I would support. This is written. thank you, Lisa Laura. And then, Kurt. I think Ml. Has raised a very good point about this language because it currently says it solely focuses on use standards in you, jid and so I think, adding the language focuses on use standards and code enforcement in you, Jid.

[165:12] just adding that simple phrase and code enforcement. I think, would be useful, so that the charge is not solely limited to use use standards. Okay? That's a great addition. And I think that Eml does that kind of address. Your, okay? All right. So I just need Hela to show up for a second. Given that it's been seconded. Can we add a clause? Can we add that clause or that phrase? I think the most proper way would be to do another amendment to add that, or you could do. consider it a friendly amendment, and you, as you, you could accept it and ask if the person who second it accepts it. And if nobody objects to that process, then that's a way

[166:00] to more. Simply do this. Okay, okay, so before we do anything, Devin, can you just write in red use after use standards put in and code enforcement and do that in red, so that we can come back to that as a friendly thank you. I do like that as a friendly amendment. So I'm going to propose it as a friendly amendment. That is clarifying something that Sarah, I think that you meant or were open to from the beginning. I don't think it changes your intent. Yeah. And I'm okay as the second er of that to to move that forward. That's what, sir, would accept. Okay, thank you so, Kurt, and then Lisa. and then we'll go to a vote. And Hi, Max! Sorry if I was just called on and my hand was up. It's cause it was just still up. So no, we're just saying, Hi to man, okay, he's being lap

[167:02] II certainly support the idea of a community conversation about this. I was supportive of the amendment before you added the language at the beginning, where we would have go ahead with the change, and then, and see how that work as we were doing the community conversation. I think, as has been pointed out, people, the the current situation is not actually working and so trying something else to me would be appropriate while we're talking about. So it's difficult for me. But I'm not okay. All right. So I just need to go back to Hella. The george as a seconder accepted the change. Do I need to remake the event, remake the motion, or just read the emotion with the friendly included. Consider the friendly amendment, except that nobody objected to the process of adding it in this way. Then I would recommend that you read the amendment, including the friendly amendment language. Okay, George, did you have something you wanted to say first.

[168:16] yeah. Well, II wanna, I wanted to just give a thought to Kurt which is something that someone else brought up in in my experience in commercial real estate is III hear you. And I actually think that's actually where it's gonna land. Ultimately, with with more conversation with the community. the the the issue with piloting, and I just want you to consider it relative to how you're thinking about it as piloting with with with real estate and then rolling. Let's say, let's say it doesn't go well, and their conversation hasn't, and and the conversation changes. And now, 6 months or a year down the road. people's investments, and and what they're doing doesn't work.

[169:04] Then they're really screwed. So that's why I don't think like a a pilot in these kinds of scenarios works without some assurances that people are gonna be able to have to be able to continue with what they're doing. I don't. I don't know if that II just like you to to think that through because II don't know that that works in practicality. Because people are are making big investments one way or the other, and and I don't think we'll get any results with a with a quote unquote pilot that can be reversed. So anyways, just just a thought to put out there a do you wanna respond? Or would you be okay if we go to the vote? And then maybe this is a conversation that you and George could have. Can I just very quickly say, I really appreciate your wisdom? You have much more experience in this than I do. And what you say really is consistent with what Mark was saying to sort of really appreciate that.

[170:05] Okay, so I'm going to reread the motion and then go to a vote amendment to retain 9, 6, fivee-sevent, and to recommend to council to direct staff to undertake a robust public process that specifically and solely focuses on restaurant group hub and tavern use standards and code enforcement in Ujid to develop a way to move forward that finds the right balance for all involved. Kurt. I'm gonna vote. Yes, based on George's input. Okay. Thank you, George. Yes. Lisa. Hi. mark no. ML. Yes. Laura. Yes. since Sarah is a yes, this amendment passes 6, one or is approved. 6 1.

[171:00] All right. Thank you all. Now we're going to go to Kurt's amendment is there? Is there more than one, Kurt? They're 2. They're very short. Okay? And wait Devin, you just erase what was just approved. Did you mean to do that? And and just as the clarification it was approved to attach it to this motion, this motion has not yet passed, so if the motion fails, then the amendment also fails. Thank you. Okay. So Kurt Kurtz amendment, Kurt, do you want to? Make your amendment? That would say that they would add to them the the Planning Board recommendation a provision that would request that Council also consider prohibiting drive throughs in the BC zones.

[172:09] So III was gonna take these one at a time. So okay, that's fair. Can I? Just can. I just respond to before someone does seconds or do second it just in terms of the history of the BC. Zone discussion. I remember that we actually talked about drive-ins and the where the conversation ended was that for some people, especially like young moms with kids who are running around doing errands, the ability to like drive into the bank. have a drive-in bank was very valuable, because then they didn't have to deal with getting their kid out of the car and all that stuff. So what I'm thinking is maybe to clarify what type of drive-in you mean, and maybe narrow it a bit to some. Is it like drive-ins. restaurants, is it?

[173:01] And it was. And before you do anything, Lisa Just raised her hand. And my guess is, she's gonna tell us something. Yeah, Sarah, I just want to clarify that we use drive through use, and it applies to any use that has a drive-through with it. So there's there's not really a way to parse out like a drive through bank versus a drive-through pharmacy, or anything like that. It's just anything with a drive-through as they use use type in the table. Okay, Lisa Smith. and then Laura. And then we'll see if we have a second. Yeah, II was just gonna just speak to that as well, and all their certainly places and streets and areas where I think. drive through uses break up kind of pedestrian street front, and I specifically can be dangerous to cyclists. I'll just offer that. I would not be comfortable prohibiting them overall in all BC. Zones. Because I do think that they are an access issue and an equity issue. You know, for people who have mobility issues. And so

[174:02] yeah, I'll just. I just wanted to offer that. But I think there are times and uses where they are appropriate, and and that the end. Yeah, I'll leave it there. Laura? II was just hoping to ask Kurt to speak to the motion, so I understand it. Why drive through uses and why BC. Zones in particular. Why did you pick those zones? Thank you. Yeah. I would like to speak to this. So the the general rubric of this project is to promote walkability and neighborhood centers right? And I think most people would probably agree that drive throughs are an impediment to walk ability they in add per cuts, they add crossing traffic. They discourage walking because they provide they they and end up with a bunch of cars queuing and you know, emitting deal, pipe permissions, and so on. So I think most people would agree that they are not

[175:10] consistent with walkability, which, again, is the goal of this project, and we see those because they are prohibited in the other neighborhood center zones. They are allowed in Vc zones. And so, since we're talking about walkable neighborhood centers the the BC. Zones are the one, the remaining neighborhood center zones that are where they're allowed, and therefore I think it would be appropriate to promote walkability by prohibiting them in those zones. There are other zoom districts in the city where they would still be allowed. Oh. Laura, did you get an answer? The answer you were, look, did you get enough of an answer to satisfy your question?

[176:04] Yes, mostly. Thank you, Kurt. II would like clarification on where they would still be allowed. If they are not in the BC. Zones. I'm on the land use map, and I wanna be able to light up? Where are they still allowed? Maybe that's a question for Lisa Hood. Yeah, I can answer that. So they're currently allowed only as a user view in several districts. So BC, one and 2 bcs dt 4 all of the and then all of the downtown districts, they are allowed as a use review as a use review. Thank you. Hello, Emily, I'll get you in a second. But our lawyer has her hand up. Hello! I just wanted to check in. If you have a second yet for Kurt's proposed amendment we have not. I haven't asked for a second yet. I'm happy to do that. Do we have a second? II would second a motion

[177:03] that was properly made to separate. I think, Kurt Kurd, I'm interpreting that you want to make 2 amendments to the main motion. one prohibiting drive throughs in the Vc. Zones, and 2 prohibiting detached dwelling units in the Mk. In the. I'm having a hard time reading it mu Bt and BC. Zones. So to the way I would understand that, or undertake that would be 2 motions to amend the main motion. So if you're making a motion to amend the main motion that prohibits drive throughs in the BC. Zones, and would state that I would be glad to second it. Okay, that's what I tried to say at the beginning. I think you should state your motion. I didn't.

[178:06] The city count the the recommendation of City Council to include prohibiting breakthroughs in Vcs. I second that great. Thank you. Mark. Okay, ml, so Devin, could you move that number 2 language and just kind of scoot it down for later. So we know what we're looking at. Okay, thank you. Ml. you waited patiently. No worries. So yes, I would also like to support what you're proposing here and remind people that you know Covid really changed? How of the options that we have. In collecting stuff groups, I pick up online banking. There's a lot of ways that people could make their life simpler, and without needing to get out of their car without having the kind of antiquated reality of drive-in I mean drive into when everybody drove everywhere and didn't want to get out of their cars. Because it cause of the convenience. And now we have curbside pickup and other online options for so many things. So II think that this is talking about

[179:22] not just the walkability factor that you brought up. But I think it's also acknowledging that the world has changed. And we don't necessarily need to sit in a car idling at a drive-through window anymore. So I will be supporting this. Okay, does anyone else have comments before we go to Laura? Thank you. So I'm just. I totally agree with Ml, that I think the world is headed in a direction where we have a lot more options than drive throughs. I also am sympathetic to the you know the logic that Lisa described around. There are populations for whom

[180:07] the things that that many of us take for granted in terms of accessibility and walkability is not an option and they can't always wait for curbside pickup or a delivery, you know, if if you're a person having a medical emergency, or if you're a person with small children or elderly relatives or disabled relatives who need something right now. And so I'm just looking at the map of the city. I'm in the our boulder zoning map where you can light up the different districts. And if we take away these BC zones. we basically centralize all of the drive through uses around Pearl Street and in a big block around the Twenty-ninth Street Mall. And that's it. Nothing in North Boulder. Nothing in East Boulder, nothing in South Boulder and the BC. One BC. 2 and Bcs districts do exist in East Boulder, north, Boulder, South Boulder and they're small parcels right? They're still, it's most of the city still prohibits drive throughs. But II, personally, am not gonna support this one because of the accessibility issues and not wanting to centralize all those drive throughs only around the downtown zone and the 20 Ninth Street Mall.

[181:21] Okay? Thank you, Laura. Then Lisa, and then, George, and then we'll go to a vote. Yeah, I mean, I think I already spoke to. But I'll just add that the fact that it already has to go through site Review is another reason I wouldn't support it. I mean, every time this comes up we get the chance to say we don't like it here, and we've done that in the past as a board, you know we don't think this is appropriate, and so there is a high degree of oversight for any such requested uses. Now, Which makes me feel like overall prohibiting it in addition to having equity issues, is it necessary? Thank you, Lisa George? I think Lisa stated what I was gonna say, because because I wanted Kirk to know that I I'm very much on board with

[182:04] 99% of drive throughs not being put installed. But when we're talking pharmacies and other things, it becomes a different issue. And III agree I was gonna make the point that Lisa did, which was the Site Review comment. And II think that's where a site review is really important. And and so II appreciate Kurt's thoughts on this, and I think you know but I but II I'll be voting against it for that for that reason, because II still think there are some equity issues that need can be addressed. Drive throughs. And I'm thankful that we have a site review process that allows us to deny most frivolous drive throughs in Boulder. So thank you, George. Okay, any other comments before we ask curt to restate his amendments. and then we can vote alright. I see no hands so curt. Would you mind restating your amendments to add to the overall motion prohibiting directors in BC's.

[183:13] Okay. So, Kurt, what's your vote? Yes. Mark. Yes. ML. Yes. Laura. no. George. no. Lisa Smith. I hope you're there. Yes. your vote is a yes or no. Sorry. My Internet's been breaking out. Well. restate what I'm doing. You're voting on the amendment to prohibit drive throughs and the BC zone. and I'm a no. so that fails 3 to 4. But it seems curt like it's a topic to revisit at some point in the not too distant future to maybe clarify.

[184:00] Limitations, or you know. So thank you for bringing that up. And now, we have an opportunity to look at your second. Amendments. Did you state your second amendment, please? Yeah, I move, adding to the overall motion prohibiting detached dwelling unit use in the N UV. Nbc. Zones. Second. okay, thank you. Mark. Any comments question, can can I speak to this? Okay, thank you. So again, the overall goal of this project is to increase walkability of neighborhood centers. We are talking about potentially adding some some residential uses in the neighborhood centers which makes sense. But part of what makes a neighborhood center walkable is to have a diversity of of retail and other kinds of uses there, and you get a diversity of retail and other kinds of uses there, with a large number of rooftops close by, right within walkable distance, and you don't get a lot of rooftops

[185:15] in walkable distance. If they're detached single family dwells, we just. It just doesn't provide the walk shed that you need the the commuters shed that you need in order to provide to to make a really good walkable neighborhood. So I'm suggesting, since 75% of our residential areas allows d types and family uses that this it would be appropriate to prohibit them in these neighborhood center zones. Hey? Do people have questions or comments, Laura. I have 2 questions are detached dwelling units allowed now in Mu Bt and BC. Zones.

[186:00] I will answer that. So it's actually a little bit complex. So in our mixed use zones detached dwell units are allowed. If they existed before 2,019. If not, they are, require use review in the Bt. They're only allowed. If they're not on the ground floor in BC. They're allowed in the parts of BC zoning that are not the neighborhood centers. They so detest join. This are allowed, but if they're in the neighborhood centers, then they have to be similar to a discussion about duplexes and townhomes. They have to be above the ground floor as a conditional use, or if they are on the ground floor, they require a use for view. How is a detached dwelling unit, not on the ground floor. Similar issue with the town halls. Yes. I mean, you can have a single dwelling unit above a shop essentially like we would call that a detached dwelling unit. single dwelling unit. Okay? And our duplexes and tripe. My second question are duplexes and other plexes considered to be detached dwelling units, or they considered to be multi-family dwelling units. Duplexes are a separate use type, and then attach anything 3, and above would be attached dwelling unit

[187:11] most. It's a townhouse. Okay? So, Lisa, just for my own clarity, because I don't. I wouldn't think it that way. You so like. I own, a building in Salida, and it's in the downtown core, and there's a restaurant below it. and there's a single unit above that. You would call that a detached unit. That's my understanding, Charles. Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've understood, and also same with duplexes. Also, if there were just 2 units we'd call it a duplex above something else. Yeah, let me know if I'm wrong about that. But that's what we would call it right in a scenario where you had a unit on top of a

[188:01] prohibition. II was really aiming for the latter. If if something is above a res retail use. That sounds great to me, so perhaps I don't have this framed right. I was thinking about a house like the house that I live in. It would just not be an appropriate use in a neighborhood extension. Can I just ask a clarifying question of staff? Wouldn't what George is describing be considered a live work unit depends on whether they would be whether it operating that. So if it's helpful that the definition of detached dwelling unit. It just means no more than one dwelling unit within a structure. So it's a it's a little misleading that it's called detached because that makes you think of a single family home. But it really just means there's one dwelling unit in a structure home. Maybe we can ask the same question that? Laura asked. Cause I'd be interested in that. How does a single family home

[189:26] in MUBT. And BC. Zones currently could someone develop? But could. Could you? Could you walk through the same analysis that you just did for detached? Yep, so it would be exactly the same. So we would call. We would do that, and I will say so for many of these. It is getting at what Kurt is saying that you could have it, but it would have to be above the ground floor like you could have right? So the current exactly. The the current standards are already attempting to achieve that, at least in the Bt and BC in the the mu it's a little bit different, because it's not specific to ground floor

[190:07] units. Yeah, and that allowing it. If there are other details, rolling units is part of what was concerning me. that that seems like a strange basis for allowing a use that is otherwise disallowed. You know, if in Rl. One, if they're a bunch of existing duplexes, we don't say, Oh, okay, you can build another duplex because there's a bunch of existing nonconforming use duplex is there? So

[191:02] so that seem problematic to me. So another alternative, maybe based on George's, input would be to eliminate that as a rationale for the user view Laura. And then but, Laura, before you go, I just Kurt, are you contemplating? Maybe, revising some of the language. I mean, if you are to get more closely to what you're trying to get to. maybe think that through. Yes, I'm contemplating. Okay, thanks. Laura, you you have your hand up. I would. and I'm not gonna officially propose a friendly amendment, but I would be totally fine with changing the wording detached dwelling unit to single family homes. And and then I would be fine approving this because I assume that if if the current code already does this, then Staff doesn't need to make any changes, and if the current code doesn't do this, then Staff would make appropriate changes. So I don't think we need to hash that out here tonight. I think the intent is clear that you don't want to have single family homes in Mu Bt. And BC. And we would trust Staff to make the appropriate code changes. If if Staff feel like that is doable and clear enough direction.

[192:21] A. Okay, Kurt, do you? Wanna gee! Would you like someone to make a friendly amendment to your amendments so that it reflects in hearing from Staff? I mean, we don't. I'm not sure that we have a definition of detached single fan, whatever Laura said detached single family dwelling. so I'm not sure whether that would be something that Staff could work with. I think, as I understood it from Laura, she wasn't saying specifically that we would like call out a different use, but we would find the the solution that would get at your intent. Basically. Which I think that in Bt Nbc, that is, the rules are already

[193:11] direct crafted for that intent that if it was a single dwelling unit it would be above anyway. But if your intent is to outright prohibit them, there are still options in the code today. That people can pursue a use review. So if you want to take that further and prohibit them entirely, can certainly do that. I will say that the way the regulations are crafted for all of these districts already are already fairly disincentivizing detest dwelling units, especially single but single family detached that we're thinking of. Okay? Well, it sounds like the the problem is not as great as I had imagined. Reading the code, and so I am happy to either withdraw this or have a quick vote on it.

[194:08] or whatever because it sounds like. It may not be necessary. So it's up to you, Kurt. What? Which would you prefer to withdraw or to have a vote? Let's have a quick look. Then I would like to propose a friendly amendment to change detached dwelling units to single-family home. I would delete detached dwelling unit use and put in single family home for single-family homes plural. and I accept that. And II would accept it as well. Single family, just for clarification of that. It sounds like that already is prohibited in Bt and BC, so

[195:01] is that is that correct? Laura Hood. Lisa. But it's okay. Right? Great. So they're not prohibited. They're they have to go through a user view. So that's what I was saying that if you wanted to prohibit them, that would be a step further than we currently have but they are disincentivized because you would have to go through a user view. And the rules are correct. Yeah, okay, has there been a case where a single family at home has been put in a Bt or BC. Through a use review? II don't remember it. I don't, can't think of any off the top of my head. I will call on Charles. Brad. Has. Brad has magically appeared so he wouldn't. Brad or Brad. Let's have Charles answer that question that I want to follow up. No, at least I'm not aware of any you know, in my tenure either.

[196:04] Brad, your turn? Yeah, I think just for staff clarification. The motivation behind using the term single family home. If you could help us understand that because that is not a defined term in the code, it is a single family, their single dwelling unit. Yeah. Detached dwelling unit. Yeah. II think, Brad, the reason to do it is because of what Lisa explained, that detached dwelling unit can apply to a single dwelling unit within a building that it also has commercial or retail uses so like, for example, I used to live above a gas station in a in a single apartment, and that would be prohibited. But that wasn't Kurt's intent. His intent was a single family home. And I will give you an example from San Francisco, where my husband's former employer basically bought up a city block, you know, multimillionaire and built a huge house right? And you could do that wherever you want.

[197:02] I suppose. If you can do it by user view, and and maybe that would never happen here. But it happened in San Francisco so, and I don't know exactly what their code is, but I can imagine the situation where somebody very wealthy might decide. They want to put a house right in the middle of. I don't know Pearl Street or something, and and just do it right. I guess the problem I'm expressing is that in the absence of the definition, because all of our use types unless they're commonly understood like a laundromat. But when it comes to residential, especially a very defined term, so since we don't have the defined term for single family home, which we would probably recommend at least be described as single family detached. Phone to get to your point of stacked vertical mixed views. but but I'd encourage you to maybe give us the the spirit of the amendment versus the actual

[198:06] undefined term, and we'd we'd be able to come back and and follow up Lisa. Hello, maybe you can jump in with any other thoughts. Yeah, I think I think. maybe talking about standards that would discourage single units not in a mixed use. Building might be more of what you're after. Rather than talking about single family homes, just because single family homes is not a defined term in our code, but it's the term people use a lot. So it just might be misconstrued by people that read it. Could I suggest a change to my friendly amendment based on this very constructive dialogue, to say prohibiting single family detached units that are not part of a mixed use. Bill building.

[199:03] Is that what you were saying, Lisa? Single family, detached units that are not part of a mixed use building detached dwelling units that are not part of a mixed use building. Okay. detach. Okay. So Devin, could you please delete single-family homes and say. Detached dwelling units that are not part of a mixed use building. and I would look to curt and mark whether they would accept that friendly amendment to change the language. I accept that. I accept you, too. Hey? Let's go to a vote. Ml. yes.

[200:01] Lisa. Lisa Smith. Okay, you'll come back. You'll come back. Okay, George. Yes. Kirch. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. Lisa. Mrs. Smith. yeah. Okay. And Sarah is a yes, okay. So that amendment subject to the passage of the entire motion has been approved. 7 0. Okay. I am now going to read the total, the overall. I thank you for doing that Devin, and then we will have a final vote. Making a motion planning board makes the following motion, planning Board recommends that city Council adopts ordinance, 8, 5, 9, 0, amending title, 9. Land use code to update the use table and use standards related to walkable neighborhoods, including the following amendments.

[201:09] an amendment to retain 9, 6, 5, and to recommend to counsel the direct staff to undertake a robust public process that specifically and solely focuses on restaurant group hub and tavern use standards and code enforcement in Ujid to develop a way to move forward that finds the right balance for all involved second amendment that prohibits detached dwelling units that are not part of a mixed use building in the Mu Bt and BC. Zones. Okay, so I'm now gonna we're gonna vote, mark. Yes. Kurt. Yes. George. Yes. ML. Yes, Lisa. Yes. Laura. Yes. Sarah's a yes, so it passes 7 0. Most excellent

[202:06] congratulations to Staff. Thank you all very, very much so. We have a situation which is that we have a that we have a site review that we're going to take up. We also have regulations on the books, or at least it's they're not regulations their tradition that we don't take up new new items after 100'clock. So this, I have a feeling that we may lose a person or 2 as we go through this site. Review. And I just want to make. I don't want to make us have another meeting on another day, because our Tuesdays are already awfully full. But I just want us to be aware that we're gonna have some we're gonna lose some folks along the way. And is, I want everyone to just be okay with that. Charles. And I'm also wondering if we may want to check with the applicant to make sure that they're okay with that as well.

[203:08] I think we'll need to admit Danica Powell and Daniel Heisenman. Okay? And then, maybe Helic can also join us just in case there are legal issues to be raised. Thank you. And I also, I also would like to say that I have a somewhat time sensitive update about the airport process. I'm happy that I wanted to bring up in matters and I'm happy to do that, and then also to send it. If there's no legal problem to summarize my verbal comments and send it out to the planning board list for folks who have to leave early so that they can at least be informed even if they're not present for discussion. Okay, if you don't mind, Laura, I appreciate you trying to get that to share with us what you're working on. But I'd if we can solve the Site Review applicant question first. Okay? So, Charles, because we've not been in this situation before. Can I ask you to lead the lead? The pro. Leave this questioning process.

[204:07] Sure. Well, you know, as you stated in the rules share that typically, the board won't take any new business before 10 or after 10 pm. And that most meetings are supposed to adjourn by 1030 in this particular case, I think, given the complexity of the item that's before us tonight. It probably makes sense to check in with the applicant team to see if they're comfortable with either losing some members as the night goes on, or if they're pre references to have a bifurcated hearing, or maybe we get through the public hearing portion this evening and then, move deliberations to a different evening, or whether or not it's the applicant's preference to request a full continuance to a date specific where? We have a little bit more time in the agenda, where we can have a complete discussion and get through the entire item.

[205:01] Daniel, go ahead, please. Yup, thanks, everybody. I know it's very late, and I wanna be respectful of your time. So I'm not sure what our options are. I know the next planning board meeting is on 9 19, according to Charles would it be possible to do a continuance for a special meeting on 8 29 on Tuesday, 8 29. I know there's no meeting set for that time. but we did have a meeting. I guess I'm wrong. I thought we did have a meeting. 8 29. Nope, we don't. You're right. We don't. That is the volunteer appreciation picnic at the Boulder Reservoir, which I'm happy to Miss in order to conduct business, but I just wanted to raise that so Charles, what does this mean for staff? Well, Shannon and I are available. Edward Stafford, who is been with us this evening to serve as our transportation engineering expert. Is not available that evening, but I think we can probably have a proxy or

[206:10] a plan. B, to help make sure that we have the support that we need on the transportation side. Okay, so let me then turn to the board. We'll make a collective decision here. Our 2 options are to go late to to start this meeting and sort of violate our own code in terms of voting on something late in the evening. or to have the meeting have a meeting added to our schedule on the twenty-ninth of August. Can I pitch a question to staff or or and I know that we're just jam-packed for the end of the year. But are there any other days or times which may or may not be acceptable to the applicant? When we already have meetings on this, could move to. I know specifically that some of things get rolled out in ways we don't anticipate just wondering cause whenever we add another meeting that I don't have in the books already. I for example, I'm always, and maybe until I can guarantee that I'll be able to get to that date.

[207:07] We have pretty full agendas through September nineteenth. You do have a concept plan scheduled for that evening. You know we could certainly add this to the agenda, too. But I think that would probably be the next meeting that would have any possible availability. I do wanna time in and repeat the third option Charles mentioned, which is to start the item today, and then continue with deliberation on another day. whether that's at a special meeting or one of the existing meetings Charles, do we also have as an option the September twelfth for potential special meetings? Yeah. So September twelfth. There's no actual meeting on the book. So if the desire of the board, and if it was acceptable to the applicant, that would be an option to.

[208:02] So if if that is acceptable the twelfth. We would like to start tonight and then continue on the twelfth. if possible. Okay, so here's my proposal, Daniel. Tell me what you think we'll get through applicants the applicant, the applicant's pro presentation and public comments. and at that point, then we will wrap up for the night and come back on the twelfth to complete the project. Are you alright with that? Is there a chance that we can all agree on a vote today and finish after 10 and get to 1030. No, I can guarantee you. We're going to lose at least 2 people possibly more understand? Sorry about that the morning. The first meeting, the first issue, took longer than we had planned. And and Sarah II apologize for prolonging this, but I, personally would prefer the twenty-nineth of August to the twelfth of September.

[209:03] Strongly prefer. That's like my one vacation. I'm I'm just saying I'm sorry, Kurt. I'm sorry Laura Kurt said something to that, maybe about his availability as well, which may also add. I will also be on vacation. On September twelfth II saw a slot in in the calendar, and I actually am not available on the twelfth myself. So you'd be down to 4. So I think we have to go back to August twenty-ninth and go from there. So we can. Let's do that. And Daniel J. Just to clarify. Would your preference be to introduce the item tonight, and then continue to the twenty-ninth. Or would your preference be to do the entire thing on the twenty-ninth? If the 20 ninth is one, we will come back. Yeah, I would. If the twenty-ninth is available, I would rather just have a single meeting on the twenty-nineth. Okay, I see a lot of nodding heads. Okay, we'll do it on the twenty-ninth

[210:03] as long as Staff has said there will be staff available. It may not be, Edward, but there'll be staff available. Sarah, just to clarify. Then you you would need to make. Somebody would need to make 2 motions, 1, 2, establish a special meeting on that night and vote on that, and then a second motion to continue this item till that new date. Certain. Okay, so it has to be 2 separate motions. Okay, so planning board makes a motion to establish a special meeting on August twenty-ninth July second. Thank you. Kurt. I'm voting. No, because I would rather just continue tonight. Okay? Ml. yes. Lisa. Yes. Laura. Yes. George. Yes.

[211:00] Where is Mark? We've lost Mark? Well, that was fast. Okay? And I'm a yes. So if that passes, and then the second motion. what was the second motion? Brad? To continue this item to that specific date. But we're not gonna start this meeting. We're not going to start this. It's been legally noticed for tonight. So by alright, so the second motion is to continue this. Hold on, let me let me give the actual name of the thing. Hold on. Sorry, Mike. I'm I've got this problem with my computer being much too small, I can't see anything. What's what's the L, yeah, mark looks like he's back. What's the LUR. Can someone just tell me the LURL. UR. 2,022, 0 0 4 one. Thank you. I'm sorry. I just can't see it on my, okay, so motion. Do we need to reverse and just get his vote on that now it passed?

[212:09] II mean market. I we've already. I guess we can. Mark. Do you support? Yes, he's a fine. So now it's 7 0. Okay, second motion is that we're going to continue the meeting on to August twenty-ninth. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Laura Kurt. Yes, since we have a meeting. Yes, okay. Ml, yes, Lisa. Yes. a Laura. Yes, George. Yes, mark. Yes, although I gotta say I was looking forward to parting with all of you at the Res. I was, too. Maybe they can move up. Maybe they can move it up and start it at 4. Alright Sarah's a yes, so that passes 7 0.

[213:03] Daniel and team. Thank you very much for your patience, and we will see you on the twenty-ninth and okay. So now we can go to matters. Laura, you have the floor. II don't know if Staff had matters that they wanted to do before me. I'm still pulling up a couple of emails. Nothing from Staff Brad, unless you have something just a reminder for those a handful of you. Who? Hello! That was fun. can you, Daniel Eisenman? Please. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. So I was just saying, for those of a few handful of you who haven't responded to Devon's doodle pole, or whatever it was for the retreat. If you could, please do so, we can get that wrapped up and on everybody's calendar site. I'm sure I'll appreciate that, and we're eager to be able to meet with you in that tin formal setting.

[214:11] Okay. thank you. That's all I got. Like, lit. Laura. Okay, thank you. And Sarah actually just to note the party at the Res. Does start at 4. So if we want to get there and like 4 to 5, hang out and then go home into the playing board meeting. We can. Okay, So thank you. Everybody. I'll try to be brief, even though we only had one item tonight. So the airport, as you know. I'm I'm your liaison for the airport community conversation and there are basically, I guess what I wanna emphasize tonight is there are 2 kinda key junctures where Staff is going to be taking something to city council, and one of those opportunities is coming up next week on Thursday, August twenty-fourth.

[215:01] So I wanted to update you on what is going on. August 20, fourth, and then kind of the next steps from there. I also wanna remind you, the last time we wrote a letter to city Council, we basically requested and said, Hey, consider having a hearing at planning board at some point, because there is no hearing scheduled for us to look at this project, hear from staff, discuss it, make any recommendations. That is not part of the airport community conversation process as described by staff. So we made a recommendation to counsel. Hey, consider asking for this. Have not heard back about that, and as far as I know, that that has not changed. So there is no formal process for planning board as a group to weigh in on this airport community conversation. and where we are headed there's this check-in point in August where staff are going to go to city council and say, here are the 4 scenarios that we have developed. These are the same 4 scenarios that they took to the open house last month. and also had a be heard bolder questionnaire about if anybody got a chance to participate. So those same 4 scenarios are gonna go to city council and city council will also hear about the public input to date, and also the evaluation that staff have done of those 4 scenarios against a common set of criteria

[216:17] that are based on our sustainability, equity and resilience framework St. Staff will also talk to city council. I think, about a list of short term action items that were developed to say, Hey, no matter what the eventual future of the airport is, which could be many years or even decades down the road. are there things that are short term that we wanna do right now? So I think all of that is gonna get discussed with city council at a study session on the twenty-fourth. There is no public input because it's a study session or no, no public comments at that meeting. So if anybody wants to weigh in before that meeting happens you would need to just write to council. And I do plan to write to counsel as an individual giving some of my thoughts about, for example, some data gaps that they may want to ask Staff to fill in before they make that eventual decision about what is the future of the airport. And which of these 4 scenarios should we be pursuing? And that decision point again, is in January. It's not in August.

[217:16] Let me stop there and say, are there any questions about the process? Do you feel sufficiently informed about what's going on with the airport process, and what your opportunities to weigh in are right now. and I'll be clear. Staff are not asking us to weigh in so, not as a board, and then not as individuals. They just have a study session planned with council. So there's no request on the table. But you know, if you wanted to weigh in, you could do that as an individual, as as we all can at any time any questions about the airport process, or where we're going, or Brad anything you wanted to to correct or or comment upon. Nope, that that's all on point as I know it.

[218:03] When did you say the study session was? August twenty-fourth. So this coming not not 2 days from now, but a week from that and oh, sorry! Go ahead. I don't see any other hand, so feel free to to move to your next point. Okay? So, as I mentioned, I am going to be writing a letter as an individual, and you know II believe in information sharing, and I believe in no surprises. So if anybody on this board, because I am your liaison. even though I would be acting in my individual capacity, and I would make that clear to counsel that I'm writing in my individual capacity. If you wanna see it. If you wanna see it ahead of time. If you want to talk to me about it. I'm very happy to do that. Of course we cannot, you know, have a meeting outside of the meeting but one on one. If there's something that you wanna ask me or see the letter, I'm happy to share it with you can. I? Just I think I just need to ask Hela. It it does that. II really appreciate you offering giving us all a chance. So to give you feedback on your letter. But does that actually, is that actually a serial meeting in some way in inadvertently? Well, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we craft the letter together. I'm just saying, if anybody wants to be informed and talk to me that they're more than welcome.

[219:18] Yeah, fair enough. My question still stands. Is that inadvertently a serial meeting? I'm I'm not sure I fully understand what's proposed. I think Laura is proposing if she would draft something, and then, if any of us want to weigh in on it, or at least see what's in it. she's happy to share it with us one on one. So that's, I think, what she's proposing. But the question, then, is, does that in essence inadvertently become a serial meeting, because you might be talking to

[220:12] right. But we're all planning board members. That's just why I'm asking. No, I think it's good to get the advice. Yeah, thanks for asking the question. then the Board should vote on it after it's drafted. Yes, and and to be clear, that's not what I'm proposing. I would be sending the letter as an individual. I'm just happy to share information. If people want to see what I'm writing. and if people want to ask me questions or talk to me about it. But I'm not planning to edit the letter based on input, I'm not asking for changes or edits or feedback. I'm just happy to share information mostly, so that you folks know what I'm thinking as an individual, and if you wanted to write your own letters you'd be welcome to do that. But it's not. It's it would not be coming from planning board. It's just. I'm trying to make sure there are no surprises that if you see a letter from me that has gone to council.

[221:05] and you wanted to see it first. You're you're welcome to do that. But again I'm not. I'm not proposing that we're writing something together. It's mostly just a no surprises policy and an information sharing, because this is a very complicated topic, and we don't generally have time to really go into it. We're not going to have a hearing on it. We're not going to get a presentation from Staff, so I'm just trying to be really transparent about what I have learned and what my takeaways are, and and that you all feel sufficiently informed about what's going on. so II certainly won't help it away in. But I would just say, from a perspective view that that seems a little convoluted and kind of does cross into the fact that you are planning a board member. If you're if you're submitting a letter on your behalf from yourself, Laura. It's in the public record. Once you do that. all of these people on the rest of the world has access to the public record, you know. If anything you could just say.

[222:03] Hey, don't look at the public record once that happens. Now, that may not be a legal necessity, but I think it's it's probably perceptual consideration that would work for me. If if folks are okay with you know. again, I'm just trying to be transparent with everybody, so I can go ahead and send a letter, and then just copy you to send it. Say, hey, here's what I sent, and then no discussion. What do folks think my suggestion my personal suggestion, would be? You write whatever you want to write, and then, after you send it to the to City council, and it becomes part of the public record, feel free to share it with us. But it's post you've already sent it. Nobody can accuse us of like polluting in any possible way, even though you were plan sending it as an individual. It just I think it covers everybody's took us so we don't have to worry about things.

[223:10] Not not really a question to comment. You know all the legal issues aside, Laura. I totally appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject and your desire, you know, to make sure that everybody gets as much information as as your as you have on it. So thank you for for that enthusiasm being such a fabulous liaison to keep us on topic with a very complicated process. Yeah. So I appreciate your reaching out. Thank you, and you're welcome. I'm doing my best, and I do appreciate Sarah, your attention to Process and Hela and Brad, your advice on making sure that we keep our took us covered. We'll have. We'll have a planning board meeting in Yiddish yet.

[224:01] Okay, Laura, did you have anything else on this topic. No, II think I'm good unless people have questions like I said I could talk about the airport for hours, but I know we don't have hours and you know that's fine. At this point we're not being asked to weigh in as a board. So I think we've been very vocal on this issue. So I think we might want to consider a planning board recommendation when we get to the point of a decision. But that's you know not till next January. So okay, thank you, Laura. Anybody else on board on the board have a matter they want to bring up. Okay. I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you all very much, and we will see you whenever our next meeting ends, which might be next week, for all I know. Okay, bye.