August 29, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] After that with a question. Good evening, everybody. So this evening both our chair and vice chair are absent. So we're gonna need to make a motion and and vote on who will be the chair for this evening's meeting? In order to do that. It's the majority of those who are present. So if anybody would like to make a motion we would entertain that. I move that we elect Mark Mcintyre as our temporary chair for this evening. Second, that I don't know if we need a lot of discussion, but I have every faith that that Mark would do a great job sharing our meeting tonight. He has a lot of ideas about how to help us be efficient and effective. And I would love to see how Mark runs a meeting as an experiment, and just you know, try it out so I would be very much in support of mark as our chair for this evening. Evan, would you do a roll call, please?

[1:03] Absolutely, Laura. Yes. Kurt. yes. Mark. yes. and George. Yes, yes. awesome motion passes 5 0. Alright. So I'd like to call order the August 20, ninth, 2023. Planning Board meeting of the City of Boulder and I'll just say Thank you for the confidence that I can do this because you've expressed confidence that II frankly don't have this is my first time sharing, even though I've been on. I was telling Vivian lots of different boards and commissions and working groups. This is my first time sharing one officially. So I'm nervous as hell. So anyway, that having said that I'll try to do the best I can, and

[2:04] just wanna make one other thing. Note I had said in an email, I was going to be making a motion to spend the rules. I will not be doing that possibly later, if we need to. But I will not. Be doing that. We can check in at the end of the meeting at at around 10 and discuss all of that, should we need to at that time? And I have great respect for Sarah and Lisa and those that have done this job before. So with that, I see Brad has his has his hand up. Yes, if I could just speak to a couple of items before we get into the agenda these relate to the agenda meeting that takes place weekly. None of you were part of that, of course, because our chair and vice chair attend those and help with them. On behalf of staff, we do want to ask that there be some level of commitment to either get to both items this evening or to not get to the second one. We discussed with the chair and vice chair a concern that is growing that we're bringing staff on

[3:13] for meetings. They stick around for 4 h, and then they end up, not presenting. And it it presents a second situation. There is no formal way for you to commit to doing that other than if you were to prospectively continue the second item to day to a date certain. The other option would be to commit to suspending the rules and staying indefinitely. we are hoping to avoid a scenario, though where you decide to hear the second item at or not, or worse, did not hear the second item at 9, 30, or 10, and again take up step time we are! We are finding ourselves in a bit of a a brunch in that regard. And and just as the chief administrator of the department.

[4:00] I want to be transparent, and some of the challenges that's creating. So asking if there could maybe be a brief conversation about whether you feel the scope is such that the first item could be covered in short enough time that we could get to the second or not, so we could request a continuous, or in that regard just hoping for some sort of commitment. Although again, we understand it's not normally possible. Laura. Thank you, Brad, I think a lot of us share this concern. And we are all struggling with with how to have more certainty around our agendas. I can say, for my part, that I have confidence that we can complete these 2 items today, these 2 public hearing items today, I'm willing to stay late, if need be and II would hope that a majority of the Board would be willing to stay a reasonable amount of time late, if necessary, but I think we can all commit in good faith to working towards completing both of these items by our stated agenda. End time of 1030 and we'll try to be succinct and efficient while still having a good conversation and doing good work and giving these items the attention that they need.

[5:13] That's my 2 cents. Thanks, Laura. Yeah. Similarly, I hope that we can complete these in reasonable time, but I, despite being not a night person at all, I am committed to getting through them and whatever time it happens. But hopefully it won't be terribly big. Okay, thanks. III do can, since I need to say simply say that I, too, will commit to going as long as necessary and trying to be as efficient as possible. Thank thank you for that discussion board members the last item I wanted to mention from a kind of a housekeeping administrative item is in regards to the

[6:04] scope around either or policy items that are on agendas or on individual cases. and just remind, the board members that if the scope of the of what's being proposed for you is amended significantly by a motion to amend that you would just keep in mind that those are items that we would then bring forward to council for their determination on whether to increase the scope of the original application or proposal policy proposal. You know we would make sure to represent faithfully the Board's recommendation, of course. But if the scope is significantly larger, it is, it is typical, and we would recommend to them that they remand that back for additional outreach. And input in that regard.

[7:02] And I can, we can kind of give you feedback as as those items come forward both tonight and in future agendas as well. Just so that you're aware of that situation. But as an example. You know if if the scope of the policy were greater than we brought forward. Brad, you're you're you're gone for some. You're kind of like it suddenly dropped out, sorry yeah. There you go back again. So if the scope were significantly changed, as I was saying, we would fill an obligation to let the Council know that that was not part of what had been a part of the outreach. Just by way of example, some of the Council members raised the question of of whether. as part of the occupancy discussion, whether maybe 3 families should be considered. They brought this up in final reading. We said.

[8:04] that certainly is your prerogative, but please know that that had at no time been represented as part of our outreach, so we feel an obligation to let you know that that's probably a reason to not take action and go ahead and take that kind of outreach. They didn't do that, of course. But that's an example where? You know, adding a lot of amendments to a proposal might be kind of a tipping purpose. And and again, I just bring that up because that's been part of the discussion administrative one among the agenda committee and and just wanted to share that I don't need to elaborate particularly having answer questions, and I certainly don't want to engender a long conversation around that. We can kind of address that if and when we get to that on individual cases. II would simply say, Brad, thank you very much for that, and I think we would all welcome a staffs

[9:03] guidance when we start to step outside of what you perceive as the scope and where it would create additional additional outreach additional things. And so. however, the the item that we have before us later in the agenda is a, you know. It is a broad topic of, you know our entire zoning for affordability. But be that as it may, will look for you guys to speak frankly with us as as we as we progress through this. Thank you, Mister Chair and we will, of course, be happy to elaborate, maybe at the retreat in other areas. So that concludes my administrative comments for tonight. Thanks. Kirk. Just to go back quickly to the previous issue. I'm a little concerned that we only heard from 3 board members who would not be sufficient to

[10:04] to to take any action tonight, and so I don't want to put the others on the spot, but I think it is important that we hear how the others are feeling about continuing potentially later. So I'm I'm just. Yeah. I would love to hear from them if they felt comfortable doing that. My opinion is, we need to move forward. We got 10 min already into the meeting. II suggest we keep going and see where we land. I'm in agreement with that statement. Okay? Well, on that note, then. I will. We've called the meeting to order. We have a quorum, and it's time for public participation. And Vivian, would you lead us through any any preface to public participation? Yes, chair. Okay, so first of all, thank you. Everyone from the public for joining us this evening. We really appreciate taking your time to attend the planning board.

[11:09] and my colleague Devin will pull up the slides. I'm Vivian. My role in the planning board meetings is to facilitate public engagement parts of these meetings, such as open comment and public hearings, and the rules I'm sharing are a place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. So we'll start with open comments. After I go through a couple of these slides. And then there is a public hearing agenda. Item. we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by cities, staff, and community, for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that we work together with community to develop these expectations for meetings when the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing, we want to make sure. Everyone who is participating feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings because we believe it leads to more informed decision making

[12:11] next slide. And we have a lot of information on the city's website about the productive atmosphere's vision. But I'm gonna focus on the rules of decorum that are found in the boulder Revised code that we need for the meeting. These have some general guidelines that are advisory nature. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial episodes in other speech and behaviour that disrupts the meeting, or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue as prohibited. and we also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by and so just please display your first and last name before speaking, so we can call on you next slide

[13:00] from the Zoom Webinar format. This allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. And we will not be turning on video for community members because of security conf concerns in this Zoom Platform. There's no pre existing list for signing up to participate today during open comment or public hearings. So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at the appropriate time to raise your virtual hand. and you can do this a couple of different ways. At the bottom of your screen you'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items, and if you click on the hand icon, it raises a hand next to your name and will know to call on you. and if you have an expanded menu, you can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And I see there are few people participating by phone, and we want to make sure this is inclusive as possible. So if you're on your computer, you can use a shortcut alt to raise your hand. But if you're connecting from your phone. there's also a shortcut we're commanding to Dial Star 9, and next to your phone number raised hand will appear.

[14:01] and we can call on you. and if you are not sure how to change your name, you can also reach us through the QA. Function and provide us with your with your name, and we can change it for you and the QA function is really meant to help with these kinds of process or technical issues, and not really for side chats or for sharing comments related to agenda items. Okay. So I think we can move to the open comment. So this time I would ask if any committee members would wish to speak during open comments. Please raise your hand and just a reminder. This is the portion of the meeting where you can speak to items that are not on the agenda. So I see. There are 2 hands. Start with Daniel Eisenman, and you have 3 min for open comment. I think, Daniel. Daniel actually just wanted to be clear test out with Mike, so we'll just move to Lennon Siegel, and then you have 3 min.

[15:05] hey, folks! Here I am at the JCC. At the chamber forum waiting for things to get started here. It's interesting, because on the way, coming out here. I saw the largest city basically Sprawl City Water View City, which y'all approved, which should never have been approved. 400, some units anchored with a brew pub, which they will need because they will be driving everywhere, and, believe me, it was not fun driving on my bike out here. because I've got 70 mile an hour cars driving, you know, and I'm in the in the shoulder. I know you're not planning board, I mean, I know you're not, Tab, but you're intimately integrated with Tab, and every one of those units at Waterview has a garage, every single one, and they're gonna be driving every single place they go because they're in a desert.

[16:08] They're all by themselves the perfect example of Jared's dream of a sprawl city. This is what we do not need in boulder. God forbid! It's still in the in the city lines. but it is the definition of the worst kind of sprawl. And I wanted to also tell you a little story a couple stories if I have time, but one of them is yesterday going to the Prab. Capital improvements funding tour of 4 sites. The Civic Center, North Boulder Park, violet park upcoming and east Boulder Rec center. Now, it looks like East Boulder Rec center needs a 50, 7 million dollars getting. Basically, it's 87 million. If you scrape it. I hope that's an example to you of what you're doing with the approval of these scrape projects, because that's a good example of when not to scrape

[17:14] but in any case they have oh, for the civic center. okay, they need 18 million. How much do they have 500,000. Okay, we can't pay for this. So stop giving out these subsidies. Just say no. And Cap Ceu's enrollment. this is just outrageous. I was coming back from meeting in Denver and coming through Central Park. There's a stabbing. Oh, we got him. It's all good, you know. Then I try to go into the library to go to a rotary meeting. I can't. It's lock down, you know. There's it's mayhem down there, you know.

[18:02] Stop the wealth disparity done. Thank you, Lynn. I see no other hands raised, so I think we can move on over to chair. Thank you, Vivian. So we'll move on to item 3 approval of the minutes. And I think we need to do this. Can we do this together, both together? Or do we need a one set of minutes at a time. Usually we do my step, or just in case or not, at the previous time. I'm I'm looking for a motion to approve the draft planning board minutes from July eleventh, 2,023. So moved. second moved and seconded any discussion. seeing none. Okay, we'll take a vote Laura. George? Per, yes. Ml. yes, and I'm yes.

[19:02] Okay. Now we'll move on to seeking a motion for the draft. Finding board minutes from July eighteenth, 2,023 that were amended. So moved. second moved and seconded any discussion. seeing none. Okay, Laura George. Yes. Kurt, yes. Ml, yes, and I'm yes. okay. So we have unanimous approval on both sets of minutes. Now we move on to we have no dispositions for, or call ups to discuss tonight. This is since this is a special meeting. And we move on to agenda. Item 5, a public hearing item, and that is a public hearing and consideration of a site Review

[20:03] for 112,600 square foot, 2 story life sciences, facility at 36, 75 and 38 25 Wallace Street. Within the industrial Ig Ig zoning district. The proposal includes modifications to building and fence height and a 25% vehicle parking reduction and a request to amend the tbap transit village Area Plan transportation Connection Plan. The applicant has requested vested rights. This will be reviewed under case number LUR. 2022, Zip. Dash 0 0 4, one. So we'll do a staff presentation for the first 15 min. followed by an applicant presentation. the public hearing, and then board, discussion and debate.

[21:00] So take her away. Shannon. Alright. Okay. Can you all see my screen? Okay. wonderful. Alright. See if I can get it going here. Okay. to the side. Great. Okay. So good evening. Planning board members. I'm Shannon Moeller with the city of Boulder planning department. I'll provide a brief overview of this project. The planning process to date surrounding contact summary of the project and some key issues for discussion. So Planning Board heard a concept plan proposal on this item back in April 2022, and provided helpful feedback at the time planning board discussed and chose not to send the item to the Design Advisory Board, due to the creative and well-developed design that was already apparent at the time of the concept plan. The proposal has been updated, based on planning board's feedback, and the applicant will go through a detailed summary of those changes in their presentation

[22:06] at the time city Council chose not to call up the item. Then the item went to the Transportation Advisory Board for a hearing related to the proposed amendment to the T vapap transportation connections plan where Tab was supportive of the proposed amendment. Then the Site Review application that we're discussing tonight was filed in September 2022. This item was originally scheduled for its planning board, hearing on August fifteenth. But it was continued to tonight's hearing instead, in the interim last week Planning board did hear the did a public hearing on the TV amendments, and did provide a motion to adopt those amendments last week. so, as part of those amendments that the Board voted on last week. This site is no longer impacted by the Transit Village Area Plan transportation Connections plan. So that will make tonight's hearing slightly shorter

[23:02] and simpler, because we no longer have to include a reference to that in the motion and in the key issues. So I'll just make a note of that as we go along, but that is a slight update from the staff memo that was provided. So tonight the Board is considering this site review which is required, based on the size, and because modifications are being requested, including the proposed parking reduction and the height modification. So this proposal requires a decision by the planning board. This site was posted, and public notification was provided per code, and no public comments were received on this item. Moving to the specific site and surrounding context. This is about a 5 acre property. It's located along Walnut Street, just a bit east of the Foothills Parkway overpass and south of the Bnsf Railway. There's an existing over 100,000 square foot warehouse building on the site that was constructed in 1,967. The property is largely paved and is accessed via 3 cur cuts from Walnut Street.

[24:08] the existing building includes multiple loading docks and surface parking area facing onto walnut. Here you can see some context photos of buildings in the surrounding area, the building to the west at 33, 33. Walnut is the Google offices that are in approximately 158,000 square foot, 3 story building on about 8 acres. This building has received a height modification up to 46 feet in height, and also includes 11 foot high rooftop, mechanical. To the south and east of this property are a mix of buildings, one to 2 stories in height. They have a variety of uses in those buildings, and were constructed between the 19 sixties through the 19 eighties to the north of this property across the Bnsf Railway there are 2 large industrial buildings, also with a mix of uses that were constructed in the 1960 S. So generally, this is an eclectic area. All the buildings range between one to 3 stories in height, and they're characterized by extensive surface parking lots.

[25:09] The site is impacted by the 100 year floodplain of the boulder slew, so the proposal is required to flood proof or elevate the lowest floor to add, or above the flood protection elevation. This is important to note in regards to the proposed height modification where about 5 feet of the proposed height, modification is due to the need to elevate this building out of the flood plain in terms of the Bvcp. This site is designated light industrial. So it's intended to serve light industrial uses. The property is zoned. IG. Industrial general. Where a range of light industrial uses, including research and others, are supported in terms of the transportation context, the site is required to provide improvements outlined in plans such as the low stress walk and bike network that calls for a buffered bike lane along Walnut, which this project will provide.

[26:03] The site is not located immediately adjacent to any transit service, but there are some so transit lines within a half mile of the site Long Thirtieth, and Arapaho. Because of this, the proposal includes a Tdm plan that includes elements to address these last mile connections, and we'll talk about those later. In the presentation. This site is located in an area that does not have any adopted area plan or any design guidelines. It is near many other adopted area plans, including the new East border subcommunity plan. That's just to the east. The Bvrc is to the west and the Transit village area plan is to the north. But again, as part of the amendments that the Board voted on last week, the site is no longer impacted by that transit village area plan, transportation connections plan moving to the specific proposal tonight. This is a proposed 2 storey life sciences, facility with spaces developed for science and technology based research and development companies. The site design locates this building towards the south and west areas of the site. Parking is located in the eastern portion, and the service yard is located at the north, facing onto the rail corridor to locate those loading docks away from the primary facade

[27:20] in terms of access. The existing site, again, has those 3 curve cuts along walnut, and this proposal would reduce that to one with one century located vehicle, vehicle, access, point and place the loading and utility areas at the rear. It features a prominent entry plaza designed for pedestrian and bicycle access at the building entry, and the site circulation is further enhanced with a perimeter walking path at all the edges of the site. And again, it would provide those updates to Walnut Street, including the buffered bike, lane, tree, lawn, and detached sidewalk in terms of open space. This proposal provides well designed open spaces for employees and guests on the site where little de no space exists to day.

[28:04] the open space design features that prominent entry plaza. There's an outdoor cafe patio surrounded by gardens with interpretive signage, sculpture and outdoor fitness area, the perimeter, walking past rain, garden and landscaped areas throughout overall. The proposal provides 35% of the site as usable open space where a minimum of 20% is required. because this proposal requests a vehicle parking reduction of 25%. The proposal has provided a Tdm plan to support alternate modes and provide last mile connections. These are detailed in the staff, Momo, but generally include a mix of items, including Eco passes an alternative transportation subsidy fund for employees that don't need a parking space. It provides a new B cycle station that's prominently located along Walnut that would be accessible to employees and the public. and it provides, excuse me, an excess of short and long term bicycle parking more than risk required by code. Invite charging bike, repair stations, showers, and locker rooms for employees, as well as those infrastructure improvements along bullnet

[29:17] in terms of the building design. This proposal is a two-story building which features sloped roofs that are designed to conceal the substantial mechanical equipment that's necessary to serve the proposed research and development uses throughout boulder right now we are seeing a number of proposals sometimes coming in as retrofit designs for research and development uses. This proposal provides an excellent way to screen those mechanical needs. Through this sloped roof design. The building. Exterior features, high quality materials like dark brick, metal panel and wood, look accents with substantial glazing along the street facing and the entry facades. It also provides permeability and activity along Walnut via the outdoor cafe patio, and a second level deck at either end of the building.

[30:07] In terms of the height modification that's proposed. This project is located again in the IG. Zone because of the location of the property, not near any residential properties. It's by right eligible to be built up to 3 stories in height and up to 45 feet in height. The project is also eligible to request a height, modification, and as outlined in the staff. Memo. Either of these 2 criteria here result in it being eligible to make the request in terms of the planning board making a decision on their request. Staff recommends that the Planning Board look at the Site review criteria and determine whether or not to grant the height modification request, including specifically the criteria related to building design such as these, first 3 criteria here that I'll go through next. So again, there's a detailed write up of these criteria in the Staff Memo, but generally Staff reviewed the elements of the building design, such as the height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture, and configuration, to see if it would be compatible with surrounding properties. Again, note, there is no area, plan or design guidelines to guide this area. So thus it results in this eclectic mix of buildings in the area.

[31:22] The built form is largely driven by the IG. Zoning district standards, as well as by the type of uses that are proposed that dictate the necessary building form to serve the particular use that's proposed in the Id Zoning district. This largely results in larger buildings on larger properties due to the floor area ratio standards so similar to the property just to the west, at 3,333 walnut. This property is a larger in terms of the acres which results in the property being able to support a larger amount of floor area on the site. The placement of this building toward the west end of the site allows for substantial setbacks from the property to the east of over 250 feet, and it's also buffered from the properties to the north and south, due to the adjacent Bnsf and Walnut Street ride of ways

[32:12] the design of the roof form also allows for it to be a reduced perceived massing due to that sloped roof. Form and staff is also supportive of the roof form due to the eclectic due to it, adding to the eclectic nature of the buildings in the area so overall. Staff found that the proposed building placement and the overall design is compatible with, and adds to that eclectic character of this area. Lastly, moving to the key issues for tonight. In the staff. Memo, there were te 2 key issues identified by Staff again as part of the amendments that the Board voted on just last week. The site is no longer impacted by the Tvap transportation Connections plan. So I won't be discussing key issue number 2. But we will talk next about just key issue number one, which was the consistency with the Site Review criteria.

[33:03] So again, for key issue, one staff did find that proposal is designed in a manner consistent with the Site Review criteria of the land use code and meets many of the policies of the Bvcp. Including supporting the inclusion of space for light industrial uses in our light industrial areas as noted earlier staff did find. The project is eligible to request the height modification, and that it does meet the site. Review criteria relating to the building design. Staff did also find that we supported the proposed parking reduction, which was supported by planning board back at the time of the concept plan, and is supported by the applicant's Tdm. Plan, that provides many efforts to improve those last mile connections as outlined in that Tdm plan attachment. So with that stuff does recommend a motion to approve the Site Review application. I've just stricken the reference to the Tdap transportation connections plan since that was voted on last week.

[34:09] and I am sorry, and that is the end of my presentation, and the applicant will have a presentation as well. Happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you, Shannon. So now's our time to Ask clarifying questions of staff about this site review, and we'll get on with it. Kurt. Hi, yeah. Just one question that relates to the path that is shown proposed for along the railroad tracks. and it wasn't clear to me whether this was W. What the status of that was, whether it was supposed to be inside the river right away or not, and so on. So if you could just clarify all that.

[35:00] yes, on our transportation plans. There is a proposed multi path that's depicted along the the railroad right away. If she's noted that path is depicted actually in the railroad right of way. So it's not the responsibility of this property to construct that path. So we wouldn't be requiring or able to require that as part of this Site Review request if I could just follow up. So if the the the plan is specific enough, the mapping of the the path is specific enough that it's clear that it's in the railroad. That's right. Yeah. And I believe, at the time of the concept plan, hearing that was discussed by transportation staff. And they made that determination. That's right. Okay, thank you and Bell. Thank you. And thank you, Shannon, for your presentation. I just have one question, and you know, we got our packet updated 3 times. I'm hoping the numbers are still right. But I'm looking at page 30,

[36:12] 4, 66. It's a section diagram of the building. And my question is. so do you see that diagram? Okay? So the question is, can you explain on those mechanical. let's call them lost for lack of a better. those 2 areas that are called mechanical, they say, for tenant expansion and base building. Can you explain what that means? Yes, yeah. And I apologize. This this diagram that you're referencing might be a little bit confusing or misleading. But generally that area up there is basically a mechanical sort of penthouse area with a catwalk to allow for tenants to be able to put their mechanical needs up in that high ceiling space and allow for flexibility for them to change out and have those those mechanical needs up in kind of that tall roof space to serve the needs of the of the research and development users. It's not intended to be

[37:20] like a usable or occupiable space. It's really just to kind of access access the mechanical. Okay, so I'm hearing that. So what does base building mean? I hear the dependent expansion has to do with that the tenants can expand their mechanical needs up into that space. And we're just building. Yeah, I would probably defer to the applicant if there was like a specific term they're meeting with building. No, this is part of, I think. I pulled this from the applicants, possibly their written materials. Thank you. I will ask them. Thank you, Shannon.

[38:03] Laura. Thank you. Just a quick follow up on that same diagram. It it looks like it depicts a flat roof, but those are peaked roofs. Yes. yes, I think the way this diagram is cut through the building, it makes it appear as though there's like roofs and floors. But that's yeah. So that it's probably a confusing diagram. I probably could have tried to ask them for like a slightly updated diagram that would be a little more clear. no worries, thanks for the clarification. And and I also would like to thank you for your presentation. Thank you, Shannon. Okay. Any other questions for staff before we move to the applicant presentation. Okay? Seeing none. Great. We'll take the applicant presentation, and then we can pepper them with questions next. And can you guys hear me? Yeah.

[39:02] yep. Just want to make sure, Shannon, from my team and Danica are on the meeting as well. So I don't see them on the screen yet. so alright! What's the other person's name? I don't see. Sorry. So why don't we get started so, Shannon, whenever you're ready. Excellent. Just set some things up alright. Well, let's get started. Thank you very much. Planning board members. I appreciate you guys being here on an extra meeting that was just for us and other topics. I know you had some retreat that you mentioned last week. So I appreciate you guys being here

[40:05] introducing myself. I'm Daniel Eiseman, Director of Development for Conscience Bay Company. And I've been a resident of Boulder for 22 years. So anything that happens in this town is dear to my heart. And if you go to the next slide so a little bit about about us here at Conscience Bay. We're Boulder based. Our offices are here in downtown and B. We've been in business since 2,012, and we're in real estate investment and development and management firm So we take projects driven from emergency of climate change, and we invest in properties and partnerships with a goal of cultivating healthy food, healthy people, and healthy places, and we take this pretty serious and everything we do. Our portfolio is intentionally diverse. It ranges from offices. Industrial mixed use multi-family properties all along the front range, and we also have, some working farms on the western slope.

[41:04] so we are a very giving company. We give with purpose. We do it through advocacy and grant-making, and our goal is to cultivate healthy food and healthy people in healthy places for generations to come. So we also serve in the Urban Land Institute. We teach at CU. We're A. B certified company. We are have more memberships of the Western Resource advocate. So we we put our time where our mouth is. so next slide. So I want to say that this is a pretty important project for us. It's here in Boulder. It's it matters. And this development replaces an inefficient industrial warehouse that currently sits on our site on basically an asphalt parking. and it replaces us with a high performing research and development building. The Bulasta century at least. so rich wheat. Science and tech is aiming to be Colorado's first net 0 carbon and all electric life sciences building. And that's a big task.

[42:07] There's no building like it in the State. It's the second or third in the country. So this is a hero piece, not just for us, but for the city of Boulder. So we're trying to do something that is iconic. We want to offer a world-class facility to support the scientific discovery. and we want to make sure that that we provide the the infrastructure for these tenants to succeed in finding the medicines that will save humankind or will make our lives better. It's truly a function to that. And every aspect of this building is designed for that for that standpoint. So we created a very, very flexible framework that's responsive to the future needs of multiple tenants. Hence the height and the neat to accommodate a lot of the equipment that comes with this place like this. Also, it's a very flexible environment, very secure, very efficient, and it's also located within 5 min of the Boulder Junction transit station. So it's a tld side for all intents and purposes.

[43:08] So I wanna remind us that this topology of building, it's unlike anything in the city of Boulder. There is another building that has been built like this in a very, very long time, with this much technology in it that could sustain the science that's gonna happen within. And I also want to say that this building is beneficial to boulder. It truly embodies the values of the community in not only supporting the engine of scientific and technology discovered, but also raises the quality of design and place making in in the city. So with that, I'm gonna pass it to my colleague Danica to continue the presentation. Hi, there! Good evening. It's Danica Powell with trestle Strategy group. Thanks. I want to reiterate the gratitude that you created a special hearing for us tonight.

[44:00] as we start here on just the overall site plan. I wanna recognize also, Shannon did a great presentation. So we are going to try and not repeat some of the information that she shared. So just as we were visited with you on our concept plan, just showing some quick changes that we made to the project based on the feedback that we got from planning board, staff and tab. The parking spaces have been reduced. Slightly from 2 26 to 2 12, we've increased our parking reduction to an in a an inverse reaction. And we also increased our usable open space based on feedback we received and as we were able to refine the Site plan and really drill down on how we were, gonna use the the spaces that weren't being utilized by parking and building. The building footprints remain largely the same, and the total building area remain largely the same, we did decrease the building height based on that feedback, and brought that down a few feet to really tighten up the building envelope and the height on the site.

[45:10] So the height is this is a a unique height modification, request. We are, as Shannon mentioned, are falling within 2 of the criteria and considerations for height modifications that were in place when we applied which was before the new site re review criteria. The first is that it's an industrial use, and the height is necessary for manufacturing, testing, or other processor equipment. So you can see on the top left image this catwalk that would access this mechanical space that's shown in the gray area outlined in pink we created a roof system to enclose that. Typically you would see a lot of this mechanical. On top of a flat roof. accessed through ladders onto the roof with a penthouse. We also have a high floor to floor ratio 16 feet 4 inches on the 2 floors. That's a much higher floor to floor than you would see on a retail or residential or even office building that's to accommodate large things like aerospace parts engineering, large lab equipment, large

[46:17] vehicles that might need to move in and out of the building. To, you know, move this equipment. Think of ball aerospace, and how you know they do production in manufacturing inside the building. The next slide talks about the the the pitch. So this is the second kind of consideration that we're able to ask for hype modification. We created this roof pitch line. That's 2 12 or greater and so we're meeting that criteria of the Site review criteria. And this was really in response to a lot of feedback we've heard over the years about creating interesting roof forms and more in interest, in design, excellence. And so you can see on the left this clean room, which is what could happen on the second floor of the building. And then you have the mechanical above. And II know this is very technical. So I'm gonna go through it quickly, and maybe we can come back to it. I know. Eml, you had some questions. And Laura, about how these buildings actually function. They're very different than buildings that we're used to.

[47:24] You can also see the low point on the bottom in purple is where height is measured by, and then we're up 5 feet 11 inches just from the start of the building to get to that flood plain elevation next slide. So in summary, we did reduce the height by over 2 feet and created this pitch roof design, which was generally was well received by planning board and staff to really conceal this mechanical equipment. It was not referred to. Dab so we met the 2 criteria that allowed us to seek a hype modification. In addition, there's a new criteria that has been added that we're not actually is not available cause we submitted before July first, but that's that flood plain

[48:09] elevation, so that 5 feet accommodation to allow buildings to be flood proofed next slide. So here we can see the mechanical screening views. We wanted to show how those mechanical, that traditional parapet, with large mechanical units with a screened parapet, is being concealed within the roof line. So you can see these different views happy to come back to these and dive into further detail, but really trying to show you where the chillers and the mechanical equipment are, are no longer visible from the street, and aren't even receiving screening in a traditional format of just a a parapet next slide. These are other examples. That was a question that was raised, I think, during our concept plan is, can you show us other examples of how roof lines have concealed mechanical equipment within them?

[49:03] And so these were 2 examples from see you, and then the or all of them are actually from Cu. They're much taller buildings, but you can see how those pitch roof lines were able to incorporate. The mechanical within them next slide. So this is a summary of why we did it this way, and why the height is why, the height modification is being requested. And I just we wanted to also note that this is a more expensive solution to create this architectural development of the mechanical equipment. But it's very important, as Daniel described, to create this architecturally interesting building, that is a direct result of the design outcomes that the design excellent initiative I know many of us were involved with in the late early 20 20 twenties to really create better site review criteria to encourage better building design. And so this roof variation, architectural interest was in response to that criter that was added at that point in time

[50:10] next slide. So just to compare Shannon went through this as well, the parking spaces. What we have today, this is not conceptual, but this is actually what's on site. Today. We have 212 spaces proposed. There's 210 today, there's 2 ev charging spaces. Today. We're proposing 11 plus 22 ev ready and 22 capable. We're increasing. There's no bike parking there today. We're increasing that to 24 to meet code. There's no water quality or stormwater detention. That will be improved significantly. There is no open space. And the entire site is impermeable. The building footprint today is a hundred 1,000 square feet. We're reducing that footprint to fix 56,000 square feet. and the total building area of the existing building proposed are are very similar. There's about a 2,000 square foot increase in the new building.

[51:08] And we're doing 2 story sorts of more more consolidated building footprint and increasing significantly the onsite solar pv, removing the gas service to the property and going all electric and reducing the curb cuts. And I believe oh, this is our transportation demand management plan. We are providing A B cycle location, bike parking. As I mentioned. shower and locker rooms, a parking reduction that's commiserate with the use and the location and access to transit eco passes will be provided. We also will be doing an alternative transportation fund for those folks that decide not to bring a car to the site and use that for lyft, uber ride, share B cycle membership and then lots of coordination between the tenant and land mold or and boulder transportation connections we've spoken to commutify. and we're within a 5 min walk to the transit junction

[52:09] next slide. and I'll pass it off to Shannon. Who is the architect on the project? Yeah, move to Channel. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now. Hi! I'm Shannon Stantic. So thank you, Shannon Moller, for going over such a great presentation on the mobility and site connectivity. I'll just mention a few things as we work. Walk through these diagrams we are really pretty close to and under. Pass on both the east and west sides of your of the site. You're good chairman. We keep talking, I think the echo's gone. We can't hear you now.

[53:00] There's A. B cycle station located to the south of this. Oh, I hear that as well. I think you need to mute on the Microsoft teams. Try again. Okay, can you hear me now? Perfect. Okay, great, very sorry about that. Everybody. Okay, back to this mobility and site connectivity. So we have A B cycle location to the south of the site, really right up against the right of way. So it's easy to access and very public amenity. We have one curb cut, as Shannon mentioned, and that drive aisle gets you all the way back to the service area. So that is facing the railroad and not the public right of way. We also have 2 underpasses not too far away from our site, which is also a great way to make sure that we are connecting the site at that last mile. We have 212 parking spaces with 11 ev charger stations. Those are located right here where my mouse is pointing.

[54:08] We also have visitor parking that's located right next to the main entrance of the building and conveniently also located next to the employee entrance, where the indoor protected bike parking is located. We also have a fenced yard in the back. So this is where all of the mechanical and ugly stuff happens. Right? Your transformers, your backup generators, etc., and we are requesting a taller fence for that loading area in order to maintain in order to maintain some views, and really shield that from adjacent properties. We have some ev charging stations as well as Ada Parking, adjacent to the building, and some expecting mothers and senior parking spaces located really close to the drop off area, as well as a car sharing space that will be visible and accessible for the public to use

[55:00] important to note. Here we have local art to be curated by Vmoka that we're very excited about, and some other really great amenities to enhance the wellness of the people who use this building in terms of our sustainability for the project. We are going for very energy, efficient systems and envelope, as well as a number of solar panels that will help to offset the energy use of the building as well as a net 0 strategy. Geo. Exchange system and climate resilience. Something that we heard from concept plan was to really look at the entrance and make sure that it was visible to people on the right of way. And so in this view, you can see, compared to concept plan, which is up here on the right, that we really pulled that entrance forward and made the slats much more visible, so that you get a good entrance feature right from their public right of way as well as a buffered Byte plane. And again, that public art curated by Bemoka in the form of murals and sculptures on the exterior.

[56:01] This is that raised very kind mark. Thank you. So the drop off and pedestrian crossing is raised here in this view, is visible along with some really lovely landscaping. We have some great site materials as well as architectural materials that Shannon mentioned earlier. And here are a few images to help support that on the concept plan. Action that we also heard was a request to break up the walnut facade. And so what we did here is we created a nice glazed feature right in the middle of the block. as well as you can see that the cafe is really well activating that Ca, that Walnut Street right of way. and where there were underground, where there were above ground utilities. We've now buried those, and that's why you see this really nice green tree long right along the the entrance there. and I have a quick video to share with everyone here that gives you a little bit more, a little bit better view of the entire project.

[57:11] There you can see that Walnut Street facade has been broken up quite a bit for you. Here's a nice and nice view of the entrance. as if you're walking right up to it. and there you have it. Thank you, Mark, for the extra time. Thank thank you very much, and we're here to respond to your questions as as needed. Okay. alright. Well, thank you to the applicant for that type presentation. We'll now open it up for questions from the board. Ml. thank you, Mark. And thank you. I guess there were 3 presenters from the clients of the applicants. Thank you so much. I have a number of clarifying questions.

[58:08] so you reduced the parking by an additional 5%. And I'm curious, how did that extra land get programmed? I'm I can respond to that. It doesn't produce that direct translation. II guess it does. We did increase quite a bit of the open space. We went from from 20 to 35. Actually. So we have quite a bit more open space. Okay? So it it's shown up in what was described as the open areas and gardens and all those public. Okay, so let me see the question. I asked the staff about that section, that mechanical area. And it being

[59:01] called out as. let me see. tenant tenant expansion and base building, can you explain that? Yeah, I wanna maybe jump on this. I wanna clarify that this is not leaseable area, and it will not be occupiable area ever. This is strictly designed to accommodate the amount of mechanical equipment that a tenant would require to do the science that is, that could happen in this building. They're very, very heavy on equipment. They require a lot of height. Sometimes they bring vehicles, sometimes they need to hoist things up so the height specifically supports all those uses. It is not habitable space. We're not getting more square footage rent out of that. We? so

[60:00] is this a spec building? Would you have a tent? We don't have a tenant at the moment. The reason is, nobody takes you serious in the city of Boulder until you achieve entitlements from planning board. So we are being very careful not to market at the building. But we believe that there's a tenant out there or several tenants out there that are looking to. For this type of billing and and I guess the reason I'm asking is, It's an unknown. an an an unknown what the mechanical requirements might or might not be for the tenant. the. It seems like they're one of the bases for the added height that mechanical space has been for tenant use in a mechanical need.

[61:01] So am I understanding correctly at this point. That's speculative. It isn't. It's not not for for a big portion of the building we already have identified a lot, quite a bit of equipment. That's that needs to go over there close to 40%. There's the other 40 to 50 left open for the needs of the tenant. But just on the base building it already occupies about 40 of the space allocated. Yeah, the building itself to function. Yeah. that is correct. so one of the I'm gonna speak a little bit about the you talk about this in a showcase of up leading technology, sustainability and that sort of thing. I see that you're going for an all elected building. so I have a couple of questions around that. you have

[62:01] photovoltaics proposed for the roof. And if I if I looked at the original way, that those rooms working, all vast majority, are facing north. Did I misunderst? Read that? Or is that correct? The way that it's hard to tell which I think the hips. Shannon. I guess you might know how that those arrays are set up up there. I'm trying to just understand how what these groups are actually accomplishing. And I'm understanding what you're saying about the mechanical. I'm trying to see how they support be achieving a non-electric building or contributing to onsite. Yeah? And let me let me clarify that it's not only an all electric building, but some net 0 carbon building. So that is achieved. We have the solar panels. a geothermal field which is a hundred 60 feet 160 wells deep. that are 300 feet deep

[63:03] that exist throughout the parking lot. and a very a very energy efficient envelope on, like triple glazing kind of things. Some incredible chill beam systems aircraft control, triple glazing which I've mentioned. Highly insulative. So if you go back to the yeah, maybe one of those that chose the panels, the majority of the of the eaves face south. Some of them are facing north so obviously, the the south facing panels generate a lot more electricity. They're a lot more efficient. And Shannon, you might know the number of efficiency facing north. Obviously we get some reduced efficiency, but we're still committing to it, and we need them. So. But we are still getting quite a bit of energy out of them in the north side. Yeah, that's correct. There's some reduced and efficiency. I don't know exactly what that percentage is, but

[64:00] we do still get quite a bit of energy out of those Umhm. Yeah. Cause we're only this slip of the roof isn't great enough to totally shade those that are facing north. What is the slope of those roofs? We're about 2 to 12. I I'm I can't quote the exact number. I apologize for that. Oh, so the reference you pointed out to in going for a hike modification was that it was greater than 2 and 12 correct. Yup, we are greater than 2 to 12, but but so it's around to 12. It's not significantly one of the pre preference you pointed. If you had on your in your packet showed a a pretty, extremely pitched roof in there. so that is not in this. In the packet we got. We didn't get this package, but the packet that.

[65:06] anyway. one of the precedents you showed showed up an extremely steep roof, and I'm hearing you say, no, you're not doing extremely steep roofs you're doing around 2 weeks ago. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. What you see in the perspectives is or the sections is the pitch that we're using. There was an example in the packet of another project that achieved similar similar. If you keep going down Shannon. yet be great to see a section through the pitch. I didn't see one. Sure. We actually did have one on the presentation. So let's go show that instead. Yeah, so this is the pitch of the roof. And this is one that does not have the sheltering, the mechanical in between them. This is just a continuous from one end of the building to the other. Is that what I'm seeing here

[66:11] essentially I don't know if I understood your question. So what you're seeing in the foreground here. This gray, shaded area is cut through the pitched roof, which is shielding. The mechanical from first person perspective, as if you were standing on the street. What you're seeing beyond is the flat roof, mechanical? Well, where there will, that's totally open to above. If we look at this next section here. this is the opposite direction from the previous section that we just showed. So this is cutting parallel to the pitch of the roof, and that's why you can see this exterior mechanical. Well, that's on the roof level that's totally open to the air above it. And in this image, once again, you can sort of see some of that happening beyond

[67:02] those tall they look like that. You got your little handle right there. How tall is that? Those are less than 16 feet above the mechanical appurtenance. Height, allowance. So what is their hype? They're about 16 feet tall, is what I'm trying to say. Oh, no! From from the roof height here. So they're 16 feet above 38, 7. So 50, something. So 54, 7, roughly okay. So just to recap, it's about 16 feet. These. The top of these chimneys right here is about 16 feet taller than 52 11. So we're 53 feet plus 16.

[68:06] And that's within our appurtenance allowance. How often do those chimneys occur? I don't remember seeing them on the plan. Maybe they are on the plan. There are 2 of them, and you can see them pretty well from the Walnut Street view here. There's one here and one here. Do any other edges come to the exterior availability? No, they do not. They're all contained within that mechanical well, space, as you can kind of see within this section. Cut here. And so why do we have some. The if you've got this big loss for mechanical, and we've got the idea of this kind of channel between the loss for mechanical. why do we need these big chimneys in addition to all of this additional mechanical accommodation? Sure. So the mechanical unit is located here.

[69:02] and we are exhausting air after it's been used within the building, up and out of this 16 foot tall chimney. So this is really an exhaust, and we wanna have a certain distance from the air intake, where we're taking in fresh air, for where, compared to where we are putting out the air which is cleaned through hipaa cleaners, hipaa filters, etc. So I think you would set Daniel that 40% of the mechanical requirement for this building is for the actual functionality of this building. That is correct, plus we are adding some equipment so that it's ready for one of the tenants to come in. So. But it could be. It could be that one of the tenants, or might most likely will be that one of the things will have to bring in their own equipment. use the additional hide to hoist things up. So if you look at the orb just for their cabling and liquids, they go sort of all the plumbing that goes similar to what's shown on this image right here on the left, the amount of exhaust, the amount of a Mep equipment that goes on on. This building was unlike any other building.

[70:13] you know. It's kind. So hypothetically. if you weren't to have those enclosed mechanical loft would be an exterior situation. Accommodate what you are anticipating in a speculative nature. To meet the teacher needs Short answer is, we would end up accommodating the equipment similar to what Sharon Moller said, that a lot of recombers in space is adding a lot of equipment to to the roofs, and then a lot of mechanical screening around them. So there would be a lot of patching of mechanical screening around in order to accommodate all this.

[71:02] So the design problem would be a different problem to solve. Instead of having it be a continuation of the building, it would be a matter of designing an element that is the mechanical screening to be architecturally delightful. It'd just be a different phone. It would be a different problem. I believe that what we're doing is delightful cause. It is integrated into the architecture, into the pitch roofs. which is part of part of the desire food we've heard from staff and from a lot of people in the city since we applied for the project that the jagged edge roof and the integration of these elements is mechanical. Screen is a better. provides a better architectural solution. Then a flat building with mechanical screens, which is not that uncommon that we see all around town. It produces a very flat building. Essentially. So we we. This is costing us, by the way, this is costing us a lot more money to make it this way, but we believe that this is a much better architectural solution.

[72:05] Okay, I think that I have got my base questions answered, and I will let the rest of my board have a chance to thank you so much. I appreciate your answers. Okay, thank you, Emily, and thanks to the applicant, ready for other board members to ask questions of the applicant. Laura. Thank you. I just have a quick one. I think. I'm interested in this question of vested rights. And I'm looking at your form here that says you're requesting vested rights for the parking reduction, height, modification, building, footprint location, the floor area for the building, the building, square footage, the setbacks, and the building architecture. If I'm understanding this correctly. I've been on planning board for a year, and I'm sorry about my ignorance, but I haven't seen this before, so could you explain to me why you are requesting vested rights for these elements of your site. Review

[73:09] 17 months into this process, or 18 months into this process. and a lot of effort and a lot of money has gone into it from the staff, from our standpoint and from the city's resources as well. by the time we start construction we hope that we can find the tenant. We also hope that the economy will be strong enough. and we can find the financing necessarily for this to happen. Sometimes things don't occur as planned. So the vested rights allows us a little bit of breathing room in order to make this project happen as as design and as planned. Hey, thank you. And could I ask Staff to elaborate on that? And again, I am sorry for my ignorance, and I tried looking into the code, and I'm not sure. I entirely understand what creating these vested rights means, and why that would be a good thing for the applicant and what it might imply for the city. So, Laurel, you have your hand up. I would love to hear your take on what it means to the city to have these be vested rights instead of just not

[74:16] being vested. Did you have something to say before? I just wanted to say that I am very grateful for Laura's questions, because I am just as ignorant, so please carry on. This is very, very informative to me absolutely. Yes, and this is Laura with the city attorney's office. I don't think I introduced myself earlier. So apologies Laura, for the record. So vested rights. When an advocate goes through an application process with the city once they're given the approval authority. They have 3 years of rights to build their property. And under those 3 years, and this has to do with some like statutory law, and things like that. Under those 3 years they get that opportunity to create their building and build their structure. So what the applicant is asking here is for a little bit more time for those approvals, and and you listen perfectly earlier what he's looking for, but what the applicant is looking for.

[75:07] but it allows them to have a little bit more time to finish their development under their approvals if they weren't able to finish it in 3 years, and they didn't get vested rights. That means that they could be subject to whatever Co changes we have or whatever other changes we have, it could cause problems down their road. So vested rights. Are generally 3 years unless they ask for more. If they do ask for more than we have to have a hearing. I mean, in this case, since there was already going to be hearing for the Site review process. That can went ahead and asked for a little bit longer for best in rights, and there's a certain amount of time. It's it's a little bit longer that has to be precisely counsel as well. So that's the process of how that works. I'm sorry I didn't understand that last part. How much longer do they get beyond the normal 3 years. It depends on how much they ask for. I think it should be. You know, it says they have not. Usually it's in the vested rights form. It says, how long I'm asking for. Okay, I did not see that.

[76:02] I think it's the same amount of time I can try and answer this having been through this many, many times. So the Site Review, that's the project as approved. If it's approved. the vested rights is a State statute that also vest the the development. In case there was something else that happened like a moratorium or the zoning changed, or something else happened that was that could conflict with the Site Review. But the time periods are exactly the same. And there it's. I think the performance is the same. It's just that the city of Boulder, through our site review process best in that approval where the State has a different vesting process that every applicant gets to choose a box, I wanna vest or not best, and it's always a debate which we best or not best, and it's actually quite confusing. But I think it. It procures the same amount of rights that the Site Review approval would as well.

[77:03] Laurel, did you want to? Yeah. The the stuff that's in place right now, the code that applies to the project today, we want that to last for 3 years, and if if anything, the city changes should not change our approval for 3 years. Yes, okay, alright, thank you. That's very clarifying. I appreciate that. Laura. Thank you for that very clarifying from me any anyone else have questions for the applicant. George? Yeah. Could you? Could you throw that the last screen up that you had? It was, facing the front of the building. A a quick question on that. So it's interesting. I I don't. I don't know if I'm reading it correctly in the plans. But I'm looking into that second floor window that looks like a vaulted ceiling space. But isn't that part of the mechanical?

[78:12] Area that is part of the mechanical area, and in some cases where the there is no need for mechanical, that's probably gonna get filled with exhaust and some other things. But there could be places where you hit a get a double height ceiling. There's no doubt about it. Okay, so is the rendering that we're looking at correct, or is it? Or is that gonna be a flat? I mean, it looks very elegant. but it reads differently on the on what you just said versus what is actually displayed on the rendering, I cannot control what the tenant does within that space. If the tenant wants to do science in that space and needs the equipment. Then that's that's they would probably have a false ceiling, or they would have all sorts of equipment running through it. So

[79:03] this depicts probably something a little more gracious than what could happen. But I can't control what the tenant does. It could be that that it's all lapped throughout this whole thing. And and you know, it's happening in every part of this project. Okay, alright. So that's that's good for our clarity. It would just help, you know, in in renderings like this. And and I kind of point back to staff. This is the type of thing where this is this that? That image is a cell versus reality. And I I'm actually I'm thrilled with this project. II think it's awesome. But II would just. I'd like us to really understand. You know, what's going on. And this is contrary to what's being proposed in the building. So that that's completely understand? And I want to show another image to respond to you, George. Why don't you show a few of the other images? So they understand the potential reality, the things that I don't control in this building.

[80:04] So go back. Yeah. Even this image go through any one of the perspectives. Look at, for example, the top right? If you don't mind zooming in. This is most likely what would end up happening where we're gonna have spandrel glass over there and all the equipment that's gonna happen there. So like I said, George, I can't control. If the tenants gonna have lap space or they could be a section there. It's gonna stay open. But for the most part this is what I foresee happening in the in this building. I guess my comments more to staff, and just kind of focusing in on stuff like that when it's presented to us and the public. I'd I'd like, you know, more reality display than than what maybe possible, but not real, not not realistically on that same image that we saw which was the front image you have that cafe that's fronting

[81:06] the area. I think I know the answer to the question. But I'll ask anyways, is that cafe because it's fronting the street, and it appears to be open to the public. Is that intended to be open to the public? Or is that only for the use of this building and will be available at all to the public. It's completely 10 independent. Again, if a tenant wants to open it to the public, and they want to have a public cafe in in service to to the area we could do it, but like I said, it's completely 10 independent. and our intent was to put people on a pedestal at the entrance of the building, animate the street. etc. Understood. Thank you. And then 1 one question. And we can I? This is probably not the necessary place to to bring this up. But these B cycle stations. you know, this building's gonna be built.

[82:01] Let's say it takes 5 years to actually, you know, open the doors here. I guess the question is, with dockless systems and things like that. How how realistic are these things in the near future as something that is needed and requested. And that's not really a question for the applicant. I just kind of want to PIN that as a as a question to the city. To understand sort of the long term view of these things. They seem to be disappearing in other cities. So, anyways, but but those were all my clarifying questions. Thank you. Thanks, George. I know you didn't ask me the question, George. Well, I'll just say that the cycle with their even though it is docked it the the electric they are. They are going crazy and having great success at the moment. Anyway. Kurt. yeah, just one question. It's it's about this street frontage. If you keep this image up. My understanding is that the parking strip there on between the the street and sidewalk can't have trees because they're underground utilities. But then it sounded from your presentation like you were undergrounding with utilities.

[83:19] Are both of those correct? Yeah. One of the requirements from the city is for us to underground the existing utilities. When you underground those utilities, there's some setbacks that you need to comply with. Which doesn't allow you to put trees in some vicinity. I don't remember the number. In response to that we put the street, the trees in our properties on the setback to make sure that at least we have some tree canopy coverage in this area. Okay? And if Staff could follow up, is that a hard and fast city requirement? Or was that just sort of a we'd like to request this kind of a thing. Yeah, we would always require undergrounding of utility lines for for redevelopment of of this sort. That's right.

[84:06] And and we have our civil. They're just haven't been promoted. I think Cody or Sharon from Jva could answer this. It's a it's a pretty technical question. If you wanted to bring them in, they could answer your question, Kurt. All right, thank you. Well, they're here if you need them. Okay, I'm don't wanna cut this off. But unless unless we have more questions from the board, I'm gonna suggest that we move to the public hearing, and try to keep on schedule here. So Vivian? Well, first of all, it it am. I correct? No one else has any questions. If you do raise your hand now, please. Okay, let's go ahead and go to the public hearing. And

[85:02] Vivian, can you check our participant list and see if anyone wants to speak. Sure, I don't see any hands. So if you're joining us from the public, and you'd like to speak to this item. Please raise your hand, and we can call on you. And Daniel, if you could just take down the slides for now. thank you. Okay. Seems like there is nobody from the public who would like to speak for now over to you. Okay. So we've concluded the presentations and the public hearing. And now it comes back to the board, and before we begin I wanna to 2 things. I had intended and in recent times we had not done this. But for site reviews and use reviews. I believe we are supposed to ask, ask if anyone has any X parte communications that they need to tell us about, and if anyone has any conflict of interest that they need to tell us about so, and I'll take silence as a as they know there are none. But if you have any, raise your hand and tell us all about it.

[86:21] Okay, I don't see any now like something, I said, Hey, that's II didn't think that was necessary to divulge. It would be expected of planning board members to at least cruise by in one form or another. Laurel. Do you have anything to add to that? I was gonna ask just to make sure that he feels like he could still be biased and impartial, and

[87:04] in his decision-making authority, if you could say yes or no for the record that would be really helpful. And just to follow up with that if you are on verge of thinking whether or not it should be an expert. Take contact. It's always better to disclose that for the record. Better to say it on the record. So if that's something that I'm purpose comfortable with doing, and and you also comfortable talking about any sort of visits. Then then yes, we would encourage that for the record, so that everybody who knows who can see this on the record knows what everybody has seen and been involved with, and it looks like but laurel laurel to to mark Mark's quick question, if you're visiting a site, not making contact with people on the site or the developer anybody involved is that is that viewed as Xmr at all. I think it sounds like there are other boards where it has been used as expertise. So arguably it could be I'm not sure that we have done that in the past, but I can do some research on that and get back to you for the next. Yeah, I visited that site. Well, II don't. I don't find it to be a conflict of of interest, or anything like that relative to to to my work. And II think that's something that we regularly do as members, so it would be great just to get us a concrete answer on that. Thanks.

[88:24] Laura, just quickly to say, I agree with George. It is my typical practice to visit a site before I sit in a quasi-judicial role to make a decision about it, and I would expect that hopefully all of us do that on a regular basis whenever we can, maybe not every site. So knowing whether we need to disclose that or not would be good. Thank you. And I'm gonna raise my hand and just simply say, that I serve on the board of better boulder, and so does Daniel. Daniel and I have discussed many things, but we have not discussed this project, and we've been careful about that. So that

[89:02] just want to want to make that clear. Okay. Laurel, do you need to ask me anything about that? II can. I can be impartial. So if if that's what you needed. Yep, that's correct. Alright. Thank you. Okay. let's go to board discussion. And a as we began this meeting with a discussion about timing and getting through our agenda tonight, knowing we have a very large agenda item after this. I would make to request that we begin our discussion. but relatively quickly. I would like for us to transition to discussing under a motion and a and then any amendments to that motion rather than just a a longer kind of general discussion about thoughts and feelings and stuff. So we can begin with a general discussion. But I very very early like to have that transition to debate in support or opposition to a motion and an amendment. So I'm going to open it up.

[90:15] George. Thank you. I'll make this brief. I finally, you know, from my perspective. Finally, we have a project that's asking for height exceptions. That's that's interesting for the city that's doing something innovative. That's that's demonstrating the need. You know. Be it. The flood issues the mechanical space that they're looking for the raise ceilings in between there. It's interesting because we've seen other, you know, quas quasi life sciences, projects come up and and and concept review. And it's so clear the difference of intent and thoughtfulness that this project has put forth versus other things that we've seen, and so II I'll obviously let other board members chime in. I'm ready to vote on this. II think it's pretty easy vote. But I also I think it's worth

[91:11] just underlining that with a period and underline, and it capital letters that that this is when when we see other projects. This is the bar that we need to measure things against in concept, review and site Review. Because this has been really thoughtfully put together and hits just I think nearly every box doesn't hit every box, because we still have a jobs. Housing and balance is gonna bring a lot of high income jobs into. It's gonna put more housing pressure on us. But from what this project is doing, II just think it's it's a rare occurrence, and it's something that we should focus on on a board. So thank you, and thank you to developer. And let's see for putting it together. I will say the one my one will knit which is.

[92:01] you know, being presented a vaulted ceiling in what is mechanical space as the shiny image of the project. I just don't think it's necessary to do, and it it it could be a disappointment to the public and others when when we just don't need to have that kind of disappointment on such an awesome project to begin with. So thank you. Laura. I'm gonna second, just about everything that George just said. I think this is an exciting project. I'm very grateful to the applicant team for answering our request to explain, why do you need that ceiling heights? And I think that they have done that explaining what that catwalk is, and what kind of equipment would go up there, and what purpose it serves for the building. So, and I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. I do find that it is compatible with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and the vision for the future. This is, as Staff explained in the opening presentation. This is right near Boulder Junction. It's right near East Boulder Subcommittee plan. It's right near the Pbrc. This is an area. It's right. It's right near a railroad tracks and a major freeway overpass right? So this is an area of town where intensity is appropriate, where height is appropriate.

[93:16] and I love that they're bringing some interesting concepts and a commitment to sustainability. And really thinking hard about what's the future need of the world as well as boulder, and and trying to be very aspirational on what this building is, even though it's gonna cost them more. So I'm supportive of the project. As always, I'm willing to entertain the reasonable suggestions for conditions posed by other board members totally open to that. But where I sit right now. I'm very excited to approve this project. Thanks, Laura. Ml. thank you. Mark, let me see, I'd lost my notes. Here we are. So I am going to put a little bit of a different perspective on the table.

[94:04] I am concerned with the height. and I'm not so much concerned with the height as a It's too tall. as much as I am concerned with the height. and I think that the flythue and and ground level elevations that the applicant put up. Speak to what my concern is. So this is a neighborhood of low slung orthogonal buildings. They either got flat or no slow roots. That is what the context of the immediate. And you know, further out, adjacent neighboring buildings is there, one to 2 story buildings ranging from 15 feet to 40 feet.

[95:05] So I question the compatibility of them. Of the 2, plus the mechanical loft. Getting the building. I think it's maybe I don't. I didn't do the final math over like 52 55 feet tall. So it's also not an orthogonal building. So Nash height. it's it's an area of town that has a very modest character. and the thing that I have struggled with on this project is everything in Boulder doesn't have to become

[96:00] something that it isn't. You know we're not. I don't think we're aspiring to be Denver. I don't think we're aspiring to. Well, let's change the character of every place that gets redeveloped in our city. We are not getting any any benefit from the hype insofar as housing monies or anything of that nature community benefit we are. It's being proposed on an architectural basis. It is the way II look at it. And again I think that those flyovers and the elevations showing all the context. helped clarify this for me. that. And I'm looking at site review criteria that hasn't been met. I'm looking at FFI. And F. Double I. And it's the building, height, mass, scale.

[97:00] orientation, architecture, configuration. compatibility. And I think one of the things that 2 easily happens when we get excited about future. And what could be is we forget that there's value. This part of Boulder has been an industrial part 4, many decades. and there is nothing fabulous about a sea of asphalt with a little building in the middle of it. But there is value in. It's a low slum building type of an area. and if you look at it with the blurred eye. You know you just kind of take in the landscape, and you see what it is. I liken this to. We've got, you know this herd of goats right? And and they're tall. Maybe summer go turned all the same. The low, slung orthogonal buildings aren't all the same

[98:05] there. Of the 5 of the 8 adjacent buildings are one story. They're 15 to 24 feet tall. One is 2 stories at 35 feet tall and 2 or 3 stories around 40 to 46 feet tall. The proposed building is 3 stories and 52 feet tall. It's taller than every single building around it. So I, what I question is. if we got this sort of eclectic and I'm not sure truly, that eclectic. But okay, it took. I'm not going to argue with that take on it. But it's basically a low slung area. It's it's not about little monuments. And I think that this building will stand out in the sea of goats as like a llama showed up, or or something. It is not the same

[99:00] now compatible does not mean that it has to be the same. But it I think it has to give back. And I'm I love what they're doing with the site and the open area, and the sort of co-opting the version of the sea of asphalt with the sea of of green and pervious, and that sort of a thing. What I question is. do we really need that mechanical loft? And I do believe that the applicant said it more than once. They can't control what the tenant actually does. So how that loft might or might not be used into the future is not in our control. We've got this extra. What 7, 40, 11, I think, is what has been put out there. 7 foot 11 foot height loft area. that is basically being given to this project with with no benefit to the city other than an aesthetic one. Perhaps.

[100:08] I think that the client is proposing that it's an architectural move. If you are at the street and you can look at those street perspectives. you will likely not see that slowly at all. And the idea that a flat roof with mechanical, and then to design a mechanical screen as an additional element. That's a design problem that can be solved elegantly and beautifully. And it is an industrial area. This isn't a class, a office area. This is industry in industry. You expect to see mechanical. I mean, that is the nature of an industrial area. So I don't find

[101:03] that the criteria of compatibility has been met with height, with mass. with the basic nature of a most slow orthogonal context. And from everything I looked at when I examined the drawings, and again with speaking with asking the applicant straight up. this is for an architectural benefit. That's what's being proposed as. and there is no guarantee that it won't be used by the tenant in in some way that has nothing to do with mechanical As George pointed out, we see that in their elevations I'm not sure that it needs to have. I think it's an elegant building.

[102:00] I am not questioning the aesthetic it is proposing. I'm not sure that it needs to height to achieve that. and I'm not sure that us giving up this the low slum quality of that neighborhood building will achieve that. So I am planning to make a motion to amend with the condition of removing the mechanical loft and having a flat wall. And so my question would be, is the staff have any thoughts or concerns about about such a condition. Can I call a queue on that real quick before we go to staff? I just wanna make sure I understand in this zone. What they could build by right without going through sight. Review is 3 stories and 45 feet tall. plus mechanical. On top of that. Is that right. So even if we

[103:02] didn't approve this building, they could go ahead and build a 3 story building, 45 feet tall, plus mechanical. That would not be a low slung. necessarily orthogonal. I had to look that up. ML. Orthagonal meaning has right angles so flat roofed building. So am I understanding that correctly. Laurie, your your question is directed to Staff. Oh, III did the drawings show the hype. or was that thing I'm sorry, Laura. You were asking. I just wanted to colloquy on. Yes. So Ml, ask Staff if they have any concerns about not allowing the loft and having it just be screened mechanical. I just want to make sure. I understand that the applicant also has an option as a by right building, to go up to 3 stories and 45 feet tall, plus mechanical on top of that. So just a colloquy on that. Sorry about that. Thanks for the question. And yeah, Laurie, you're correct. As far as what the by right options are

[104:04] and the the use of administrative conditional height in the industrial zone, so 45 feet can be achieved administratively out there. And I'm sorry, Charles. And would they also get the 5 feet for the flood elevation that would have to be factor into the overall. How they measure the building. They don't get an additional 5 feet because they're on the front plane that has to be part of the the overall design and grading of the site, 16 feet of mechanical equipment on top of that 45 feet. So you're right on on those accounts, as far as the condition goes. you know. II think from a staff perspective, we're at a point where we feel like it satisfies the criteria. Well. I would get worried that having exposed mechanical equipment and a flat roof that we haven't had the benefit of reviewing, particularly with the board, might result in a less preferable outcome.

[105:09] So I think it, the condition would need to be very specific on what it is. The board would want to see. I don't know that I would necessarily be comfortable translating. Just make it a flat roof with exterior roof, mounted mechanical equipment. I also think from a policy perspective, our code goes a long way in trying to screen and enclose mechanical equipment. So I think from a policy perspective. There's a little bit of push and pull there. But if there were to be such a condition it would need to be very specific. Thank you for answering that question. Hey, Mel? That's all right. You. I'm gonna go to Kurt. And then we're going to start talking about motions and your conditions. Kurt, go ahead. Okay, thank you. I won't go into too much detail. But I just would say that I largely agree with George and Laura's perspective. I think Laura pointed out well that if we were to

[106:11] not grant the height exemption, but they build it with screening. Really, we would end up in a pretty similar location height. Wise. It would just look different from the outside. Maybe maybe it would be have to be 5 feet less because of the the flood elevation. but otherwise we'd be in in pretty much the same place, and I think, with a significantly less attractive building. So I support the building the the project as it is proposed. and I would like to move to approve. So I move to approve. Site review application L. Ur. 2022, there's 0 0 0 4, one adopting the staff memorandum as findings effect, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memory.

[107:06] I'll second that great. So we have a motion. and the second convention says, Kurt, it's your it's your your motion, and after the second, if you want to add anything or speak to your motion, now is a good time. No, I think the other board members spoke well on it, and I don't think anything additional need II would like to point out that, Mark. You did not give yourself time to speak before Kurt made the motion. I don't know if you wanna make general comments. Usually the chair goes last. But since you didn't get to speak in the first round. If I may take the opportunity to invite you to say something if you'd like to thank you, Mark. II do, actually, and I was just just about to do that. So thank you. And and

[108:02] I concur with George and Kurt and Laura about the general building design. And and I just, I want to address this idea of of context, and that, you know, if we are all rather than looking forward. If we are always looking at the current context. then some of our favorite things wouldn't wouldn't exist. And I think that it's our job to discern between things that are out of context and out of place when the place is a great thing versus things that are out of context and and feed a vision that is forward looking about where we want to go, and especially when the context and and I, I'm not to diminish the the people the businesses that are in that in that area. You know, I frequent them. Whether it's tundra, the restaurant supply or or gases. It's all I'm familiar with those businesses and Rudy's bakery and stuff. But

[109:20] yeah, I think this is our job is to discern using the Bbcp And other documents as a lens where we want to go. And and I think this this project fulfills that vision of where we want to go, which is better architectural design. And and and a more welcoming environment and buildings that, rather than being, you know, poorly insulated metal shed buildings that were not meant to to last some as long as they have. We want to go to buildings that enhance our environment.

[110:02] improve our visual world and and and and make a dent in our climate goals, our transportation goals and and our aesthetic goals. So I'm all for this. And and I would entertain any motions to to the the main motion. If anyone has a condition. Kurt. I'm not sure I got a second on my motion. George seconded George seconded. I don't. I don't know that we need anything on the screen unless we have a proposed amendment to the motion. Well, I think I heard that Ml. Would like to make an amendment, and I'd be very interested to see what that amendment is. Okay. And Ml, if you want to make an amendment to the main motion. Now would be the time.

[111:05] I am glad to have that opportunity, and yes, I remember that charge, and now is the time. So I move to amend to add the following language to the motion. have you? Have you sent this to Devin? No, I have not. Devon. Would you like it? That would be fantastic if you could. And, Devin, if you could also put up the main motion language that Staff suggested in that Kurt Red, and then we can see the amendment right under it. Absolutely happy to do it. Thank you so much. Sure, that's great thanks. and I want to. I can hear some background talking sounds like a television or a radio or something. It's gone. Now. Thank you. Whoever muted. Okay, I just sent that I just sent that to Devin. Should I wait till he puts it up before I read it?

[112:10] Mr. Chair, yeah, he's okay. I think we're we're there. Do I need to read it? Yes, please. Beginning with, I move to amend, correct. I move to amend, to add the following language to the motion with the following provisions to the recommended conditions. one. Add that the final plans shall replace the sloped roof and mechanical loft area with a flat roof. The building height shall not exceed 45 feet. Mechanical apertures may be placed on the rooftop, and shall need height and screening requirements for rooftop appurtenances in the bolder revised code. And I guess.

[113:01] is anybody gonna second this to obtain a second. Is there a second to this motion. seeing none that that proposed amendment dies. Is there any other Is there any other amendments that any member would like to propose? Okay. seeing none. Then I'm going to call the question, and I will actually, Devin, if you could just put that back up there for one more minute.

[114:02] I believe I am supposed to read the the motion. Sorry. I just like to make one quick comment. I won't believe it. I want to push through on time. but I do want to support M. L's thoughts around context. It is important on the BBC. The reason why I'm not supporting the motion in this particular case is because the applicant has sort of, II think, at least from my perspective, exceeded my expectations, as it relates to what they're proposing here. and it to underscore what I was saying before this. This does not appear to be the wolf and sheep's clothing of jamming in a bunch of office into the Ig zone that we're actually getting quality

[115:02] industrial light industrial space put back into this. And I think that there's a major difference, and and that that is part of the context and fabric of this neighborhood. And why? Why? Why? I think the height is merited here. Because they've demonstrated that. And so I wanted to put that out there because it context is important. I don't wanna say that context is an important. I just think in this case, we're we're getting something. That that many proposals we've we've seen lately. We're getting a lot of just office pretending to be Ig, and this. In this case, I think we're getting something that that fits this zone pretty well. So anyways, thank you. Thank you, George. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and move us along here on a motion to approve. Site. Review, application. LUR. 2022, dash 0 0 4, one.

[116:01] Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. So Laura! Yes. George. yes. Ml. no. Kirk. Yes. and I'm a yes. okay. So that's a wrap on that agenda item and so we we did go a little long on that. So I'm gonna suggest a 5 min break and come back and hit our next agenda item heart. So I'm gonna say, we return at 804.

[117:02] Okay.

[124:19] okay, I'm looking for Ml, and George. And you guys may be there. or maybe not. Give them just one more more. Second here. Karl, it's nice to see you good seeing you. Did you make it over to the Rez before this meeting? Yeah, or I don't know if staff were invited to the volunteer picnic.

[125:08] II wasn't. No, I don't think so. Okay, maybe it was just for volunteers. Staff should be there. You work as hard as we do harder way harder. Do you get your own picnic, your own party at the Res. We we did have a picnic a couple of weeks ago. Yeah. Oh, nice. Alright. Ml, I hope you're there, and just need to turn on your camera. There we go. Okay. We're going to rejoin the real world and move on to our next agenda. Item 5 B. Public hearing and recommendation. The City Council regarding proposed ordinance 85 99 to amend title 9, land use code. Brc. 1981, related to the site review process and a tip

[126:01] process and intensity form in bulk use parking and subdivision standards concerning affordable and modest sized housing and setting forth related details. So Carl will walk us through his presentation, and then we have. We have 30 min budgeted for his presentation. and then 2 h, which would put us at 1030 for all of our own deliberation and discussion, including possibly many amendments, and some of them quite technical. So I encourage all of us while watching Carl's presentation, and hearing that to be honing anything that you might want to propose, and especially in light of Brad's

[127:01] advice as as we started. So take her away, Carl, and thank you very much for being here again tonight. Mark, if I could. Just Mr. Chair, Mr. Temporary chair, if I could just point out real quick, we probably wanna save about 10 or 15 min at the end for matters from staff and or matters from the board. So little less time than that. Yes, II was. What I was looking at is the a budgeted time of hour and 20 min for board discussion, 30 min for staff presentation. So agreed, so we can either shorten that or go a little later. But but roughly. I'm I'm urging us to sharpen our pencils. Are you. Good evening, Board members. I'm Karl Geiler with planning and development services before the board tonight is ordinance 85, 99 the project is called zoning for affordable housing. Last we discussed this with planning. Board was in April. I'll talk a little bit about that in the presentation. We we went into a lot of detail on these changes before we prepared the ordinance.

[128:16] So this project was initiated by City Council at the Retreat in 2022. It's one of the Co. Change projects that's meant to address the housing crisis that exists here in Boulder and across the nation particularly here in boulder. There's a lot of articles that talk about how zoning regulations can make housing costs even more pronounced if they're limiting to how many housing units can be built within the city. So that's something that we've been looking at as part of this project alongside the adu project to the occupancy project and the inclusionary housing project so the purpose statement of the project was to evaluate the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable units and smaller modest size units. So we had presented this problem, statement and purpose statement and the goals and objectives to Council at a study session in November of 2022, and then yet again

[129:13] at a study session, where we went into more detail in March of this year. So again, moving in the direction of removing some zoning barriers to housing. So the title's already been read. So the purpose of tonight is to hold a public hearing on the on the ordinance. 85 99. I realize it says Occupancy. It's the zoning for affordable housing ordinance. There should be deliberation on the ordinance tonight, and then a planning board recommendation to City council. So these are the questions that we've posed to to planning board tonight. Does Planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements, the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Conferences plan? And does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the ordinance.

[130:00] So before we start, I just wanted to touch on what is affordable housing. What do we mean when we say that as part of this project. What we're saying here is that there's there's 3 different types of affordable housing that's that's trying to be achieved through this project so obviously permanently affordable. Housing is where you have deed restricted housing. That's in perpetuity. It's done through our inclusionary housing program. We also have attainable housing, which is market rate housing, but generally housing where, the households pay no more than 28 to 30% of their income on housing. And then we're also talking about smaller market rate units that are comparatively more affordable. At their smaller sizes. As compared to the larger market rate units we've seen in recent years, and largely, that's been partly driven by by zoning. So that's something I'm gonna talk about tonight. But by relaxing some zoning limits in certain zones. The lot area or open space for dwelling unit requirements. It can allow more housing to fit within the same. You know, basically basic volume. And what we, the the far or the height or the setbacks, things like that. So what we're trying to achieve here is just allowing more housing and the more housing that can be provided in these projects means that we would have a higher percentage

[131:22] of inclusionary housing with each project. So the whole purpose is to increase the amount of of housing opportunities in the city of Boulder, and as part of that increasing to the the yield of ih units in the city. So these are some statistics just to ponder about housing in the city. I won't go into all the detail here, but what it shows is, you can see that in recent years much like in other parts of America. Sorry? You can see that the highest percentage of housing types in the city of Boulder are single family detached. And then multi-family attached. You can see, when we're when we look at kind of the smaller sized units, like duplexes or triplexes or townhomes, it takes up a much smaller percentage at 9

[132:12] person. So part of the goal of this project is to address that with the smaller housing types, and to try to to increase that yield of a middle housing in the community. So you can see from this graphic. You know a lot. And this is pretty typical across the United States, particularly since World War 2. What you see in most cities or single family housing units, and then you see the higher stacked housing apartments. You don't see as much of of the duplexes or triplexes things of that nature, and what middle housing is really supposed to, you know, allow for more housing opportunities that are more affordable comparatively, but also it scales that are more synonymous with like a single family development. So this is something that's playing out across the nation. You've probably read some articles about how many cities are trying to loosen up their zoning regulations to get more middle housing. So this is a slide that just shows the American Planning Association pointing out that cities should be taking this seriously to add to their housing inventory. Since zoning has limited housing over the years, and that has contributed to increasing

[133:22] cost, so encouraging smaller units where possible, looking at reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing, miss missing, middle housing everywhere, allowing for more housing types, and also taking a look at at parking requirements, see if those could be relaxed to to get allow more housing. So I think the Board is aware of the State Bill, the Senate Bill that we were considering several weeks ago. It was something proposed by the State where there were, basically mandates on localities for middle housing ad use relaxed occupancy restrictions. There were several different iterations, and we were monitoring that closely. It ultimately did not pass

[134:07] at the state level. So it's something that you know could come in the future. There could be future mandates from the State. It's happened in other States. but something that will continue to monitor in the packet. We did provide a link to the June Fifteenth City Council, memo, where we reported to council on a number of national studies, commentaries, and articles that kind of spoke to loosening up zoning regulations. We tried to show a a fair distribution of articles, some for and against, but I think the vast majority did say that zoning restrictions greatly limit housing, availability and communities, and that restricted housing supply, among other things, also drives up housing prices. So a lot of the articles do recommend adding housing to increase affordability. Overall. There were some articles that made the argument to the opposite. There. There was a instance, or a private group had prepared a study in Austin saying that adding the the additional housing drove up costs. But I think most of the studies that we saw talked about. You know, this is something that needs to be addressed holistically by adding housing.

[135:20] Boulder is one of those communities where we even have a a higher demand than many places just like bay area communities. So we have even more limitations here that drive up cost. So it's even more difficult to solve the problem here in Boulder, so it has to be handled in a in a multi pronged approach. Either, you know, through zoning, through inclusionary housing and other methods to to help with the housing costs. So not one option can can help solve the problem. And these are things that that the West Coast communities have seen, particularly in Washington and Oregon, where there's actually been State legislation that requires additional housing, loosening up occupancy restrictions opening up housing opportunities wherever you can to help with the housing costs

[136:08] so based on that. We went to council in March. We we basically presented these particular 3 options to council at the time we had focused on mainly, our, our, our growth areas or neighborhood centers or the Boulder Valley regional center. Looking at those zones areas like diagonal plaza where there's opportunity to add housing and how we could loosen up the roles in those areas to get more housing we we saw from the diagonal Plaza project, which I'll talk about briefly. That there was limitations on how many units they could build there, and and that they needed a special ordinance to build the project as they as they intend to. With additional housing and more ih housing and that was why Council, one of the reasons Council had asked us to work on this project. When we we also talked about the potential for adding duplexes and triplexes in low density areas of the city. We didn't recommend that at the time since when we worked on the large homes and lots project. There weren't that many lots that could allow the additional units. But we did take a second look. With the low density zones. Rl one in particular, where there actually is

[137:20] quite a bit of potential for that. And I'll talk about that. And then we talked about parking modifications such as allowing residential pro parking reductions up to 25 without site review and the and these things were all supported by Council the Council basically asked us to go further. So I, with respect to the density Adjustments Council asked us to look at all the high density residential zones and see if changes could be made there. Council also asked us to explore the duplex and triplex in single family zones more and we've done that. So II wanted to just touch on that real quick.

[138:00] We did. Look at the Rh. One. Through Rh-five zoning districts you can see the zones are shown on the map here. we looked at ways to change the zoning restrictions based on the lot area per dwelling unit or open space for dwelling unit and shifting it more to a floor area, ratio and site. Wide open space requirement, which is kind of a more simple way of of calculating it. Also, would not stand in the way of how many units could actually build on the site. Obviously, projects are still gonna have to meet like parking requirements, landscape, and other open space requirements. But we looked at these zones. We also looked at changing the Site review thresholds to encourage middle housing. So we? We looked into that with more depth. And we also looked at the low density zones here. we talked about this in April. Basically there, there are limitations to what increasing density and and a large part of the city in the very low density, residential or low density areas based on the Boulder Valley Conference of Plan. It caps out the density in those areas. So if

[139:08] density were to be increased in those areas, it would have to be done first through a comp plan update process, and then the zoning would have to follow after. But we tried to look at ways where we could allow more units that would still fit within those limitations in the Bvcp. So looking at the 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre that's allowed in the re, the residential estates and the Rl. Though low density, residential zones, there are a number of properties in those areas that are large enough that they could still be subdivided, and single family homes could be built under today's code. But you wouldn't be able to add a duplex or a triplex So we looked at those as potential areas where additional units could be added. And there actually is a potential for well, over 1,600 units again over time. Where people could either subdivide today or or actually convert and create a duplex or a triplex if the land area of their lot still met the density requirements that are in the code today. And then one note was looking at changing the compatible to development rules so they wouldn't just apply to single family homes, and that they would also apply to duplexes and triplexes. So Council asked us to look into those 2 particular topics and also get a more

[140:29] community feedback on these changes. So I wanted to report back on that. We've heard a diversity of of feedback on these particular changes. In talking to to a lot of the single family owners. We've heard concerns that these zoning changes will disproportionately impact their areas. There was concerns about adding duplexes and triplexes and single family neighborhoods concerns that families will be driven out by these changes and parking impacts will increase.

[141:03] We talked to plan Boulder about these changes where they shared a lot of those concerns. particularly if if changes are made in these areas, and then there's no guaranteed affordability was a concern there. They felt that there needed to be deed restrictions on any increases in in housing types or units throughout the city, and that the city can't build, build itself out of the the housing crisis. We also talked to the community connectors and residents, and we had got some interesting perspectives there. I think many of the members felt that zoning restrictions in general are limiting and in the past have been targeted to specific types of people. There was a concern that you know in America today, a lot of the younger generations can't reach the American dream there was a support for adding housing types, but concerning expressed about adding more concentrated housing units that might be lower quality, you know, that could create future ghettos.

[142:04] and that there there should be assumptions that people want to live in in high density, and that crowding people together is not always conducive to their cultures, and may affect their mental health in talking with the development community and some housing proponents. We've heard a lot of support for these changes. We've gotten more technical comments, you know, from some in the community about, you know, additional zoning districts that should be considered, or tweaks to the zones that we've already included in the scope. When we talked about occupancy several weeks ago. We had included a lot of questions relating to this project, as well as part of the be heard boulder questionnaire that was sent out, and we talked about the limitations that that questionnaire presents. You know it. It's it's only one tool among many to get feedback. It's not viewed the same way as a statistically valid survey. But it does give us, you know, basically a temperature check on where people sit on these issues. When we ask questions about adding additional housing units in the commercial areas and neighborhood centers which the Boulder Valley Conferences plan already anticipates. We saw a majority of support. For those changes.

[143:22] a little bit less for the duplexes and triplexes. But it was it was a majority of respondents. That showed support for that. It was more mixed when it came down to reducing parking requirements, because there were concerns that, you know, relaxing things too much might present impacts. So attachment C has a lot of detail on on the feedback. We've heard through this this whole process. So we've gone to housing Advisory board twice on this project. once on March twenty-twond. And then we were just there last week with the ordinance when we presented this to to have originally have supported all the staff, recommended options. At the march, hearing thing. There was some ex. Disappointment expressed that we couldn't increase density in the single family areas, and that was a missed opportunity. But they did recognize that there is a more involved

[144:18] Boulder Valley Conference of planning process that would have to happen to allow that to occur, and that they would support that in the next update of the plan some members felt that more aggressive parking reduction changes should be allowed through this project when we presented the ordinance to have last week had recommended approval. 5 to 0 of the change they commended that we expanded the scope of the project to include more duplexes and triplexes and single family areas more than they had expected. There was support for making review process easier, for allowing more housing types in the community, and and general support for allowing more modest sized housing, more missing middle

[145:05] housing in the community. There was one member that expressed some skepticism on the guaranteed affordability front. Are we really gonna get more affordable units by allowing these changes? That's something that we've been hearing on throughout this process. so board members may recall the conversation that we had on April eighteenth. About this project. We presented many of these options before most of the board supported the staff recommended options. There was calls for making the the parking reduction process more robust. based on enhanced transportation demand management plans as part of that process 3 board members supported duplexes and triplexes. One member of the board found that the changes didn't go far enough. There were 2 board members that were more cautious of the changes. And that if we're to make these types of changes, it really should be encouraging people that are in commuting the option of living within the community. That any kind of far or or

[146:10] increases should be tied to missing middle housing. We should be focusing more on property ownership rather than getting more renters in the community. There was concern about reducing open space requirements and concerns about allowing duplexes and triplexes in single family areas. So after we received all that community engagement, all the feedback from boards, we reported back to City Council on June fifteenth. Again, we attached, or included, a link to the June fifteenth memo, which included all the articles and commentary. In our findings. we. We basically reported back on what kind of changes could be made in the higher density zones. The lower end density zones as well as changes to the site review process to encourage missing middle housing and Council supported all the changes that we were proposing. So they

[147:05] they requested that we then move forward with development of an ordinance. So now I'm just going to talk about the content of the ordinance and this is all in the memo. Obviously so with respect to review processes, the intensity, standards and form and bulk standards. We were proposing in the ordinance that any project that that creates a hundred percent middle housing, which is duplexes, triplexes, and town homes. That, it would be exempt from site review, no matter how many units are proposed. This is to encourage more missing middle housing in in the community. If they were to propose any kind of modifications, it would that would kick it into Site Review. But we're really trying to encourage more by right developments where the scale, you know, is lower and gets into that missing middle. Segment of of what we're looking for.

[148:03] There's a number of zones, RH. One RH. 2 RH. 3, and RH. 7 that have a mandatory planning board review. If there's any requests for additional units, we're proposing to remove that requirement from the code. And basically just allow it by right? In Rh. 7, we're proposing to have it as a call up since we didn't wanna make too many changes to the RH. 7 zone since that's being considered for Alpine Balson but otherwise we would be removing that Automatic planning board review. We also took a look at our form and bulk standards related to townhomes or townhouses. We've heard from the development community that our code does not encourage townhouses because of the fact that we have side setbacks. And if you're doing town homes where a town home is houses on its own lot, you basically automatically have to go to Site Review if you want to do the shared wall and have it on its own lot. So we were proposing a a part of the ordinance that would allow down to 0 for townhouse lots without having to go through site review. And that would be one way of

[149:10] encouraging townhouses moving on to the Rl. And Ree zones. We've changed the use table to make triplexes and duplexes and allowed use. The intensity standards also would be largely the same, except for Re, where we would allow one unit for every se 7,500 square feet, consistent with the Boulder Valley cumbersome plan. So basically, if the density requirements are met, these uses would be allowed based on this ordinance. we're also proposing to eliminate the user view requirement for efficiency living units. What it says now in the code is, if you have more than 40% of the units as el use, it requires a use review. We largely find that that's a deterrent for doing that. And also it's unnecessary, since Site Review already has a criterion that was added, that requires a diversity of housing types.

[150:13] So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about each particular zone, but overall in terms of the intensity standard. Sorry, Car Carl, just a quick question. that that diversity of housing types that's like a 60% threshold. Is that correct? I'd have to go back and look. It's it's in that Bvcp section that we updated. So it just with each type of project you have to have a you could just PIN that for me, and just just just let us know when you have a chance. I just I just wanted to give that out there. Thanks. Yeah. I mean, basically, you can't have a project. It says you have to have more than one housing type. If you have el use already. I don't recall the 60%. It really, it's based on the size of the site. So the the larger the site gets, the more housing types. You have to have.

[151:05] Okay. that I can try to to find that exact language. So what we tried to do here is is removing the deterrent of the 1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, or the 1,200 square feet of open space for dwelling unit. What that does, is it? Basically, if you think about it. if you have an far for a site, for instance, in the Br. One zone. I talked about this in April. If you figure out the total floor area that's permitted on the site based on a 2 far and br one, and then you divide the lot size by this 1,600 square feet. It automatically encourages a larger unit size. And this is something we've heard for years that our zoning basically just encourages larger size units. The calculation ends up being like 3,500 square feet average.

[152:00] So this is one big reason why we're proposing to make these removing these density calculations for the number of units by removing them. Then you encourage more units, smaller units within that same volume. So that's the way we've kind of looked at each of these zones is proposing an far and an open space requirement that roughly matches the intensity that we're already seeing out there without having this calculation that drives larger units. So these are the zones that we originally have proposed and and council supported. Council also asked us to look at the Rh Zones, that we've done the same so again, creating a tier of far based on the intensities that we see in these areas and getting rid of those lot area and open space or dwelling unit calculations. So I'm happy to answer questions. I know this is somewhat complex. On any particular zone.

[153:01] We talked about this in April, and this is kind of what I just said that you know the diagonal plaza project, for instance. had a zoning requirement that basically drives larger sized units. They did a special ordinance to allow more and as part of that project. There was actually a a big, fairly big jump in the number of inclusionary housing units. Under our estimation for what the number of I age units you would get from just meeting. The zoning was 30 units, and by by waving that 1,200 square feet of open space per unit you could get up to 70 units. So it just shows that if you can pack in more, more smaller sized units you get more. Ih units. As a result. Laura Carl, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. I think what you're saying is, the building envelope doesn't change the amount of actual open space on the lot doesn't change. It's just able to be shared by more units. Is that what I'm understanding? Okay? Because II think, and maybe I just misunderstood. But I think

[154:08] there was a perception that the actual amount of open space on the lot was being reduced, and it's a little bit difficult with, like the 1,200 square feet of open space per unit cause it's totally dependent on how many units they put on there. So but in general, we're trying to match what open space we typically see in those those areas. But largely, we've gone through each zoning district and tried to propose a site wide open space as an alternative to the open space per dwelling unit. In some zones you'll see that, you know, the open space is actually quite a bit more than is in the code now. And what we did is we looked at a number of different projects that were built in those areas to see what open space was ended up provided on the site and saw some consistencies and then use that to inform the changes

[155:02] that's that's really helpful. So so it sounds like. And the previous open space per unit was driving us to have larger units right? Because there was only so much open space to go around and so dividing that up you get larger units. And so now we're we're allowing more smaller units with basically the same amount of open space on the property and sometimes more. Okay, thank thank thank you. That's helpful for me to know. Question on this this slide. Yeah, getting to this specific example of diagonal plaza. So diagonal plaza came in or will be coming in at Nfr. Of 1.7 or I saw someplace 1.7. Okay, but we are proposing to allow 1.5 far. So even under these rules, diagonal plaza would not be able to be built at all right other than with the special ordinance. Well, it would have. It would have to have been in at a lower intensity. II think our analysis of that was that

[156:07] you know we have to look at the zone. It word exists throughout the city, I think, in diagonal plaza, you know, given the context of it being, you know, a derelict shopping center, there not being many a a established neighborhoods around it, we felt that 1.7 makes sense there. But 1.7 is is kind of pushing it. When you talk about other areas like Basemar or the Meadows shopping center, where you have more single family in in closer proximity, we felt that 1.5 would be a more appropriate limit for those centers. Thank you. Mark. Yeah, I I'm I curt. Are you done? Okay? I'm gonna call on myself for just a second, so speak again. It's all about diagonal plaza and the the far. So under the new ordinance

[157:02] to make diagonal plaza work. the applicant would still have to go back for an actual ordinance change. Is that correct? Only, if, like, if this were to pass, if they wanted to add floor area. the answer is, yes. but okay. they don't. Wanna if if they wanted to. If we wanted to rebuild diagonal plaza, do it again under the new ordinance. Under this new ordinance it would diagonal. Plaza would still require a special ordinance to be built in the same configuration that is being built today. I mean, if they were to rebuild it, for whatever reason there already is an ordinance that permits what was built out there so that would continue to apply. But would that apply in other? Does that ordinance? That diagonal was built? Diagonal plaza was built under apply

[158:02] to strictly to diagonal plaza? Or does that apply elsewhere that that ordinance strictly applies to diagonal plaza. Right? So so if someone wanted to build something super similar in a very similar situation. 2 diagonal plas that we would still to make it work, have to have another special ordinance. Yeah. I mean, again, we'd have to look at kind of all the factors you know of what the project provides to the city, whether it's portable. II think the way to look at it is when you get to 1.7. That's getting at more of the Fars that you see downtown. I mean the most intense zone in the city of Boulder is actually BR. One, which is like the area of the village Twenty-ninth Street, and that allows 2 up to 3. So that allows that gives you some context of where intensity is intended. Then downtown ranges from 1 point

[159:04] 1 point oh, basically to 2.7. So I think when we looked at these neighborhood centers, they're not downtown. So we feel like as it gets closer to 2 point. O, that's kind of pushing the. you know the mass and bulk in those areas. So we felt. That's why we felt 1.5, which kind of matches, more of like. You know what you see. you know on the hill, or or other other zones that are closer to onefive seem more appropriate for those neighborhood centers. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop there. And there are more to come, I think, from all of us about this topic in our debate. So thanks, carry on. Yeah. So, moving on to parking standards again, this is all things that we've discussed about before. We're proposing to eliminate the current parking requirement that applies to one bedroom units if they're more than 60% of a building. So it's currently 1.2 5 that would just change to one. We're proposing to allow residential parking reductions up to 25 through an administrative review. So a staff level review under today's code. Any residential parking reduction automatically requires site Review.

[160:26] We're proposing to update the parking reduction criteria to have stronger Tdm requirements. And we've we've done that in the language. And we've also reorganized and just kind of simplified the parking reduction criteria just because there was a lot of redundancy and things that that didn't mesh with other parts of the code. We kind of reorganized that accordingly. And then, lastly, again, getting back to townhouse slots there, there are some sub division standards that require a minimum lot width of 30 feet we've heard from a number of folks that a barrier to townhouse Lot townhouse slots. Is that 30 feet? So we're proposing that for townhouse lots where you have one townhouse lot per per unit per lot that you could go down to 15 feet

[161:16] in a buy right manner, and not require any subdivision waiters as part of that. So, again removing a barrier to townhouse construction. so we feel that the project meets the goals and objectives that were outlined at the beginning of the presentation. We feel that these changes would allow more by right construction of middle housing. For the reasons that I've I've outlined on the slides. We've tried. We've aim to keep a relatively similar form and massing restriction for the the zones, but allow more housing and encouraging more smaller units the point of the presentation is that, allowing more smaller units would add to the city goal

[162:00] of more attainable housing, more housing units would be more deed, restricted, permanently affordable housing. We've made changes in zones where we encourage housing in the Boulder Valley regional center and neighborhood centers as well as industrial areas where we've loosened up the rules to really kind of focus housing increases in those anticipated areas of growth. And then we're proposing those parking changes to remove the onerous reviews of parking reductions and supporting more housing development. So we find that these changes would be consistent with the Bvcp policies that I've listed on the slide. And with that I'm leaving a motion for planning board. If Board was so inclined to recommend approval to City Council, we can come back to this after deliberation. So that concludes presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

[163:00] Great. Thank you, Carl. That was this. This is a really big project. and obviously staff has done tremendous work on, and tremendous outreach. And so we appreciate everyone's everyone's work on this, and I'm sure it's going to generate lots of interesting discussion here. So before we go to deliberation, this is a public hearing item. And so I think I think now is the time for what? First first questions for staff, then the public hearing, and then deliberate, then deliberation. Thank you. So questions for staff. I see Ml. Has her hand up. I do. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Carl. And it's always it seems like you're presentations. Get shorter. But they get

[164:01] more to the point. So practice makes perfect here. Thank you so much. So the the question I have I think I heard you say that one of the changes is that in Rl use by right would allow duplex and triplex. Did I hear that correctly? Yeah, in the ordinance of it's proposed that the prohibition on duplexes and triplexes be removed and be replaced with an A for a loud table, and then obviously a property owner. If they were to provide a duplex or a triplex. They would have to have the minimum land area to allow those uses, and that would be through a by right process use. That's already that's allowed. That's going to be allowed.

[165:03] but we know where the obstacle is, which is the 7,000 square foot intensity. Right? The 7,000 square foot minimum lot is there? I. And I understand that the Boulder Valley comp plans density, intensity standard is what's guiding this, which is what 2 to 16 is per acre. Is there any way that we can set up the policy so that once the Boulder Valley Comp plan is updated? Or should the Boulder Valley Comp plan update those particular density intensity standards? This is ready to go like, for example, can we change the minimum lot size per dwelling unit to from 7,000, to say 3,500 or can is that is that? Can we do that without

[166:11] And then, knowing that nobody can do that because the Bdc. Won't allow it. But as soon as the Vvcp is is passed, then you don't have to come back and redo this. I'm just trying to see. How much can we get in place? Fall into place once the next step is done in our in our judgment. I feel like we're kind of pushing the limits of what can be done now with what's in the ordinance? moving to create 3,500. Now. would create a kind of a false expectation in the community would create a direct conflict with the Boulder Valley commerce of plan. So we wouldn't recommend that. Okay, so so we can't get ready to get ready. Essentially. yeah, I think that's my, that's, I'm trying to figure out, because our L. One is the biggest right land use in the residential, and I know that one of the things

[167:12] I think Bdcp is to support right people staying in their houses and stuff. So anyway, thank you for that answer, and I will take the rest into deliberation. Alright thanks, and Mel Kirk. thank you. And thanks, Carl, for the presentation and all your work on this. It's a big project following up on Ml's question. We've talked before about these Bbcp density, intensity values. Again, the BBC says, it is assumed that variations of the densities on a small area basis within any particular designation may occur, but an average density will be maintained for the designation.

[168:00] so it seems to me pretty clear that the density limits are to be in are intended to be measure over an entire land, use designation and not lot by lot. When we discuss this before. I believe Brad talked about this and said that we're not interpreting it that way because we don't have the right data to get the in densities on a land use designation basis. Is that still the case. Yeah, our position on that hasn't changed. It would be a very complicated effort to aggregate all of the dwelling units in all of these zones and figure and minus out the the rights of way, and figure out what averages are in certain areas of the city, and then figure out how to implement that I think our concern is that a lot of these subdivisions that were done have maxed out the density and many of these neighborhoods already.

[169:05] We? We look at these, you know, through puds all the time, and they usually maximize the density. But the other thing is. if you average it it. It creates an equity issue. It's like, if somebody decides over here to to build 8 units and that fits and that takes away from this property owners ability to to add 3 units. It's just it becomes very difficult to monitor that and and challenging. So we feel that there has to be a an over there has to be a more analysis done on those areas and through the policy changes. Figure out how we can do it in a more straightforward way. Yeah, just just to share how we envision. Having a better understanding of that, I'm having preliminary conversations with the conference and planning team

[170:00] of whether it's important for us as a city to do a city wide services in this inventory. That is a level of service. So this gets into the question of, Do you know, do we have good knowledge about adequate sewer capacity and water capacity and those kind of things? And I I'm pretty sure that heard Carl say this, but I just wanna reemphasize it or say, to be dead. Which is it it it it's it's really a matter of equity. We don't want to create a situation where the first, you know, 5 or 10, or 20 or 80 in the door get a permit. And then suddenly we say, Oh. guess what? We didn't think about how how this averages out now now, now we have to stop building permits in this area because we don't have capacity whether it's a sewer line or whatever so zoning is not well suited for highly detailed accounting such as this would demand.

[171:00] So that's why we speak in terms of of kind of general. I hope that helps kind of add additional color to calls. Thank you very much. One other very detailed question. I noted that currently floor area transfer is allowed in MU. One, and IGIM. IS. Zones. And you're proposing to eliminate that ability is that, can you talk about what you're thinking there? Yeah, we're not eliminating that those that language on Floria transfers has been in the code for a long time. and there's actually been through site reviews. site Review combines all the properties involved in the Site Review together, and it allows you to average the floor area across those properties. Anyway. We actually updated the code pro, it's probably 10 years ago. Now, to make clear that floor area can be average. So that's across all zones. So it basically.

[172:11] you know, those sections aren't necessary in the code anymore, because it's already allowed. We're just trying to simplify the code by removing that that language. I love Zoom, find the code. That sounds great. Okay. Laura, have you? Have you gone yet? Do you have questions? I'm good. I don't have questions. Thank you for checking. Alright. Ml. thanks, Mark. I have. I have 2 kind of little specific questions. so the staff considered duplexes, townhomes 3 and fourplexes. Middle housing is that codified somewhere? Do we have a definition in our in this that tells us that because I think we ran into something, and maybe we need to add this as well. At one of our planning board meetings where we realize single family dwelling didn't have a definition either. So

[173:08] are these getting picked up. you know? We. We actually had originally created a definition for middle housing. But I think we just clarify in the exemption for Site Review what those housing types are. So it's not. It's not an official definition. But it is, it's in one of the footnotes. I'm trying to find it here. So is that good enough for us to be able to use the term in the code. I think we just say duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses in in the ex exception language. Okay? So my second question is, so we're not referring to middle housing anywhere and in the zoning ordinance, or anywhere that would require us to know what we mean by that is that correct? And then just second little question here. I'm looking at. Use table 6, one the rl, once, and the only thing I see allow that is a plexus and duplex, and I thought you would say triplexes would be allowed as well. Is that an oversight or no? It's not the if you look at the

[174:25] attached housing row, it's a with brackets. So what you do is you look at a with brackets. It'll alert to you that there's additional standards for attached housing. So then we had to add language in under the RRRR E. And rl, one's that basically says attach dwelling units are allowed by right, provided that no lot exceeds 3 dwelling units. So that is what the bracketed a is under the rl, yeah, it just makes it clear that, like, you can't go over 3 units.

[175:04] Okay, thank you for clarifying George. Thank you. Just a a quick reference back to what we talked about. If you could. While we're deliberating. get us the language around the diversity of housing regarding the proposed elimination of the 40% threshold on El Use, I just wanna I just want some clarity around that. You know, you're building a big development. And you're not getting like. you know, someone's not putting in, you know, and 1, 3, 1, 2 bedroom to satisfy diversity of housing. I just want to understand sort of what? What that mixes. That'd be great. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna call myself here for a second, unless someone else has something.

[176:03] Carl, in in your article, reading, research, etc., and then in the summary of. So I'm referring to your data collection in the summary of your comments from the public about about the allowance of duplexes and drive boxes in those 3 zones. Some were concerned that families would be driven out. and then down below. We had community connectors saying that they wanted this sort of diversity of of housing. So 2 questions, is there any data to support? The idea that families are driven out by the presence of a wider variety of housing devices and triplexes, and what is currently single family zones in other other places.

[177:04] Not not that I've seen obviously, there's an example we talked about before, was Austin, where they. you know they have these duplexes that they they called super duplexes, and they were likes. They were right near the University, and they had a lot of students. So it catered to renter pro population, but I don't know that that would necessarily be the case across all single family zones away from the university. I didn't find any data that spoke to that. I think the concern is that if properties are allowed more units. that it would encourage investors to buy up properties and do rentals more rentals if they if the the city code allowed more units, I think that's the concern that I've been hearing. Okay. I know that the that the we did a concept review of the project at 20 eighth in J. That. And I know that that was

[178:08] for annexation and and annexation is different than than just site, review, and stuff, however, would. How would the proposed changes in regard to town home shared walls with the lot, sizes, etc. How would that affect that project during annexation? And then, or if we just annex that? And then and then they came, and and how would how would that affect that in in in what way would that affect that type of project? What way with this ordinance affect that type of project? Yeah, II don't know that I know the particulars of that project to the extent to speak to all the you know minutia, of how it could be different. I mean, I think obviously, if the code were more lenient on

[179:06] townhouses, then there, that project may not require, you know, site review modifications to setbacks, and wouldn't require subdivision waivers to do the townhouses that have. They would just meet it by a right. But again, I don't know much more about that project, and you know, in terms of what would be different. Alright. I don't know Charles or Brad have anything to add to that. no, I think that's possible chips. Yeah, I don't have any. Okay. Alright, okay, thank you. Alright. Back to Uml. I know I seem to have a lot of questions. Sorry. Carl, And this might be out of the scope of the project, but

[180:02] because the word affordable housing is in there, I wonder is there any place? Or has there been a consideration? Over the fact that. granting multiple units in what has historically been single family housing. I'm talking about those zones like Rl, rl, one and 2 is there any thinking about requiring owner occupancy, and and this as a means to dissuade investors from moving into this market, and kind of opening up the door for the owners of the property to be the developers of the property, and then have a way for them to be able to a stay on their property and leverage the value by selling some of the other ones, but always requiring it there

[181:09] owner occupied. So that we're building for people who actually want to live here. That's something that we have considered. We've heard that suggestion through outreach. I think our concern about it is, you know. making any additional units in those areas. A condition of either owner, occupancy, or other method is gonna require a wholly new application process that has to be looked at on a case by case basis. It has to be monitored. So our our thinking is that that would create a barrier to owners. Moving forward, adding those units. So we've not suggested that as an option. yeah would be required for avu's.

[182:03] So there is a mechanism in place when an owner wants to create more housing on their property, and I don't know that. Has that been a barrier for people? I mean. Again, II our thinking is that you know, with 80 use it allows an accessory dwelling unit on a lot. That's, you know, 5,000 square feet and up whereas adding a duplex or triplex is the equivalent of of the option where they have today to subdivide their property and build another single family house, so making it more difficult for them to do that, it's just gonna incentivize them to use the mechanisms that are in the code today subdivide and add a single family house rather than going that route. Yeah, I guess I'm thinking about as we update our BBC to allow more density in the in the smaller neighborhoods, or excuse me on the smaller lots? And that they could build them and not necessarily parcel them

[183:09] right. Don't subdivide them, but you've got a triplex, and I hear a concern come up again and again that hey? They're not going to remain affordable, and I think if they're investor driven, they are not going to become remain affordable. and people then start to worry about all the issues with them to find single family neighborhoods. And I think owner, occupancy begins to speak to those to those concerns in a in a very tangible way. So I'm just putting that out there. And it sounds like at this point. It isn't in the stream, and maybe there'll be an opportunity in the future. But I think it does start to speak to some of the concerns that people have about affordability. because we all know that when an investor gets involved and the developer gets involved, their goal is to make money.

[184:03] whereas when a person is developing their own property, their money making goal might look very different than that of a an investor or developer. okay, any more more direct questions for Carl to clarify anything in the ordinance before we move into deliberate public hearing and deliberation. So questions for Carl. Okay. So now I would like us to. I'm not. I don't know if we're gonna have anyone but open up the public hearing. And thank you, Carl. And thank you, Vivian, for coming on. And let's let's see what happens with our public hearing. Thank you. Chair. So we just have 5 people with us from the public, and we'll start with Lynn Siegel. You'll have 3 min, and I just request other members of the public to go ahead and raise your hand if you intend to also share your comments. During the public hearing

[185:14] devin's got the timer, so please go ahead, Lynn. So I was gonna speak to the to the Ridgeway. But I was in the middle of transporting myself back to my house from Jccc. And you went less time than you intended, which is 2 and a half hours, and I started out at 6 22, but I miss underestimated. Oh, well, cause I was. Gonna say no to Ridgeway, much as it's beautiful, and much as they're doing all these things. But you know the parking restrictions. But lifting, parking restrictions is just. I just completely disagree with Mark on that and because not because I don't want less parking, Mark, but because II don't want to see

[186:09] subsidies given. So that's the trick. And and that's what these developers like, and I loved what Ml. Had to say. It's just that's elegant. You presented it perfectly. Ml, that's the bottom line of the developers. They want this thing. They want. you know, more smaller units, right? And that isn't the most efficient way to live. And what I would love to see is something. If Carl could find it for architects to stimulate them to get bigger places, I recommend up to 4,500 square feet. actually for a house to fit 9 people. This is why I was against the occupants, the limits of 5 9 people, 500 square feet each about, or decide what you want what each human being deserves. It is a minimum in square feet, and I think it's about 500. It's certainly not the 300 of 2206 pearl, and then how much square footage for the land that goes with that human being.

[187:20] and then add that all up. because if they're not. If they don't have that range of land like an animal has. then they go out to use the other land, and then we have open space burdens that we can never meet because our population's so increased. And I think you have to maintain that. And that's automatically gonna cause effect of population, management or control. and and I'm sorry the developers don't like it. But you know, having these small rooms with all this dry wall, one person, I mean. I had 17 people at my house, and 2 and a half bathrooms, and they all worked perfectly, and one washer and dryer, and it worked fine.

[188:08] So that's a maximal use of each utility of the, you know. You're gonna use more water, I suppose, with more people. But that's the best way to stimulate whatever you have to make that happen. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn Siegel. No other hands are raised over to chair. Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. are, do people need a super short break? Or are we ready to dive into this? Okay, let's go. Okay, in. In that case. again, thanks to Carl and Staff for doing this. And and I think the complexity of this task is going to be represented by our discussions and motions and amendments. So we'll carry on with the discussion for a few more minutes, unless unless someone is ready to begin the actual motion process.

[189:14] Kurt, you've got your hand up. I'm ready to begin the motion process. Okay, II just wanted before. I don't. I don't want to seem like I'm hammering on this. So A. A. Is there any other sort of general discussion before we start on this? I'm I'm anxious to start on it, but I just want to give anyone the opportunity to speak generally, George. Oh, you just mute diagonal plaza has been brought up as a lot of different examples here. And I know that's something you want to talk on to Mark. II think during a plaza was a unique circumstance where we got inclusionary housing, basically on site or adjacent to the site. you know, using it as a flagpole or something that's successful, I think is dangerous, considering it hasn't been built yet. I think we got a good amount of inclusionary housing. What we didn't get out of diagonal plaza

[190:14] was any home ownership or potential affordability. From a market rate standpoint. That very much is out there as something that's you know, Tvd. And and we won't really know for quite some time. What I will know from a development perspective is Tremel Crow, who's a national developer who's developing that project right? As a very similar project in other markets. Ii know of one specifically, that's almost identical where they term that as luxury housing. These are developers who build housing completely rental throw it into a real estate investment trust. In the case of diagonal plaza, it's an opportunity zone. Their their goal is to avoid any capital gains through that through that opportunity zone, and and boost the rents as quickly and as maximally as possible. So when they have an opportunity to flip that it gets flipped at the lowest cap rate possible.

[191:16] So my concern very much so on diagonal plaza that I think is lost. And all this stuff is. there is very little affordability that's going to be created with that whole project. Not only that, but there's limited diversity of housing there, and when those people that are renting are looking for other opportunities in Boulder, we don't have any place for them to go, and a lot of the prosperity that's being created out of that project is gonna be sucked out of the community and into this national developers pockets and ultimately flipped over in these reits doesn't negate the benefit of the inclusionary housing, but I'm not sure that it does anything for affordability, and actually could could send us backwards. Relative to that. And so II just wanna put that out there that II don't know. II wanna make sure that we have that in the discussion.

[192:09] And then, Carl, you brought one other thing since you brought this up so so clarify on the diversity of housing relative to these elus. I'm sorry it's really small on the screen. Can you just can. Can you just clarify that for us? Yeah. So if you look at number one, it says, projects 5 acres or less. Shell include at least one qualifying housing type. But then it says in projects with efficiency, living units at least one additional qualifying housing type shall be provided consistent with this paragraph. and then it just goes by. You know, the larger a property becomes, the more so housing. So so in that, I guess that's my concern relative to I mean, why, why, that percentage of elus was in there. There's it does say, additional housing type. But in the case of that, using an extreme example,

[193:08] without, with this removal from the ordinance of the 40% threshold, could someone conceivably build a 200 unit project that's 199 elus and 1 2 bedroom. And that would qualify as a diversity of housing type based on, based on how this is written. I think it it could be possible. Yeah. So I guess that's the question to staff is sort of Where are the safeguards. because, I think that's what that 40% was. I don't know that 40% is the right threshold. But if if there's if there's no safeguard in sort of housing diversity in a project, and you know, simply someone can check a box by throwing in a one bedroom.

[194:07] got significant concerns around that. So you you can look that over. Maybe maybe other board members have comments. II don't have any further comments beyond that, for now I'll simply comment that I think that that's excellent input and that there were a couple of things that were pointed out to me by a a community member, that we're also kind of like oversight things. And I think that a project of this size we're going to find things like this. And and and it's anyway, I think that's that's good. Input, and maybe we give them a few minutes to

[195:12] Dwell on that. And and so Carl. Charles Brad, if we make changes tonight and we adopt when I say we, the the board you know, recommends approval with the following amendments. then would the process be that you would if if staff supported, though what would the process be when you take it to council? And then is this an another one where? This is not an area plan. But what is this back and forth process, or does it? You just take our stuff and it goes to council, and they may or may not adopt it. Yeah, we we would convey whatever the Board recommends to counsel.

[196:02] I think Staff has some discretion to make changes. If we feel like something, you know, fixes something or makes sense. So we could include that in the ordinance that goes to council, and we would tell them what change was made, or we might just list what was recommended, and then bring it up as a key issue for council, and then council can then decide whether something should be added. and then, if they then make a motion, we would to incorporate certain things, we would take it to a third reading with those changes, or, if it's something that is more complicated, requires more public outreach requires more analysis. It might be something that informs a future work program. Item. illustrate that point a little bit too. I appreciate Carl's explanations. So kind of the 3 different scenarios. Just to give an example if it's helpful. you know. If through the discussion, we say, I'm just using fake information

[197:05] there's discussion by board members of oh, this particular clause says. and shall be 6 of something. But later in the paragraph, it's not clear that that's referring back to that. We may all agree. Yeah, that that's not real clear. We'll go ahead and just make that change and have that as part of the ordinance change. That's one change another are the basic, you know, recommendations that you're bringing forward. We recommend approval of this ordinance instead of law. With these changes. those, as as Carl indicated, we would bring forward. It would be the Board's decision to or Council's decision whether that take those or not, and then the Third Level would be if you were to make substantive recommendations, or ones that are really changing the scope of of a sight so or scope of the project

[198:02] an example that would be, hey? Rather than these 5 districts, we should think there should be 8 districts that apply. This rule applies to. Then we would go probably to council and say, here's the recommendation, and if you follow that recommendation, we we would submit that additional public outreach is needed, and that's kind of what I was speaking to at the top of the meeting of the scope scale, and and just making that distinction for the board here. Can I call quick, Mark? I don't know if this was part of your question. I really appreciate what Carl and Brad outlined, and I think at the base of that is an understanding that. unlike subcommunity plans or area plans, council and planning board are not required by code to adopt this and identical versions. So they don't have to listen to us. We're just making recommendations at this stage, and there are various ways that staff can can facilitate the process of council. Considering our recommendations and what the implications of those recommendations might be. But council at the end of the day is the deciding body. We are not

[199:08] right. Yeah, all of that is helpful and and and clarifying. And so to to move us forward. What I'm gonna suggest is that we put a main motion on the floor. We begin with amendments, but as Staff looks at our amendments, if if if a if the proposed amendment is up, the variety oh. that's really kind of an oversight type, only sort of thing that you're capturing our intention, and and we should have done it that way. Then you tell us that, and we can just dispense with a lot of debate, and and and away we go, and at the other end of the spectrum. if you want to add weight to our deliberation and say, Well, if you do that, we're going to go. You know, it's gonna it's gonna

[200:05] likely would delay and create more outreach, etc. So I think you're you're frank. Input as we go along here would be very helpful. Thank you. Mark. I have a I have a a question about the kind of overarching that you just set out there. Wouldn't there be an option, instead of a motion, to make a recommendation that we're just making recommendations. Well, I may. I think that's a distinction with without a difference. We we are by. we are, we are make the the prime. The main motion is going to be to adopt the ordinance. The amendments are going to be our recommendations that that the our zone be counted as XY. And Z rather than A, B and C, okay, those are all recommendations, we since. And as Laura pointed out, we are not the

[201:08] actual deciding body. We are. Gonna make these recommendations. and and and Staff is going to have some influence on whether or not let's be frank about it. Staff has influence on council as as a whether or not they adopt our recommendations. So yeah, II think I think they're all recommendations at this point. So the difference would have been a motion for a condition versus the motion. Yeah, we're not conditioning anything. Adopt an ordinance, so we can only recommend adoption or not of an ordinance. So okay, with that

[202:13] Laura's got her hand up. I am ready to make the motion great. I'd like to hear that planning board. I move that planning board recommends that city council adopt ordinance a. 5, 9, 9 to amend title 9. Land use. Code BRC. 1 81 related to the site. Review process and intensity, form and bulk use parking and subdivision standards concerning affordable and modestized housing and setting forth related details. I'll second that. Okay, we have 2 s. Who wants it more? Some wrestle? Alright! Laura, since you are the main motion maker. it's your your privilege to no, but I mean you can. You can decline. But but I think I think it's it's appropriate time. Should you want to?

[203:13] Well, first of all, who's the official? Just for Devin's records? Kurt, Ml, do do you care who's the second? Or that's what we were trying came out of the gates quicker. So. Kurt, are you okay with that? Okay? Ml, you're the official for Devon's records. I'll just speak to the motion to say, this is the second time I have heard this presentation. I heard it also at Hab, where it was enthusiastically welcomed. I think people are are, and I agree with this, are really appreciative of Staff's work here to do exactly what city Council asked, which is, look in the code. Look at, what are the barriers to getting the housing types that we know we need more of in this city. You know the the charge was not to figure out fixes to a permanently affordable housing, but to to try to figure out ways to get more of the housing types that we know that we are missing like townhouses, duplexes, townhomes figure out what in our code is driving us to have this Barbell, with single family housing on one side and

[204:17] large apartment buildings on the other, and try to help relieve those barriers so we can. The market can start to fill in some of those things. And the market doing that, as Carl explained at the very beginning of the presentation, will provide additional inclusionary housing, especially with some of the changes to our inclusionary Housing ordinance that Michelle Allen and J. Sugnet are gonna bring to us later. Where we fixed the loophole where single family redevelopment, when you knock down a single family home and rebuild it or add units in that way that it's subject to the inclusionary housing benefit right? So or th. There's other things that are gonna come with that. But we're gonna get inclusionary housing out of the market, adding more units one way or the other. So there's no guaranteed affordability out of building duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. But we get some natural inclusionary housing benefit out of it.

[205:12] So anyway, I just wanna say I'm excited by the work that Staff has done. I think this is a great ordinance that has been brought in front of us. I suspect that the changes that my colleagues are going to bring are largely going to be to encourage going farther, and I look forward to Staff's reaction and guidance to us and input on how much of that might be feasible without slowing this down and having to go back for more community outreach, which is an appropriate thing to do when the scope changes significantly. So I'm looking forward to the conversation as always very excited to see what my colleagues will bring forth. I love the diversity in this group, and some folks may have concerns with things that they they don't wanna see. Go forward. So let's get on with that. Okay? So we have a, we have a motion and a second

[206:02] and we can discuss this further. Or if anyone has amendments or the amendments they want to propose. Now would be an appropriate time. Kurt. Yeah, I have several amendments that I would like to at least bring forward for some quick discussion, to see if they would fly at all, and to see what Staff thinks of them. Do you want me to send them to Devon first. Yeah, let's do that. Let's. And and again, II know I've been an advocate of formality in this process. But let's I think one thing we could do is send them to Devin. Put them on the screen and see if there are any that Staff immediately says, Oh, sure. that is, that's a correction change that we would just adopt and or

[207:01] that one's hell. No, you guys go ahead. But you know you're you're not. You're not gonna hear a bunch of applause from us. and what might be in the middle. I think that would be a very nice process to put up Kurt's suggestions, and then let Staff talk through what would be the implications of each, and if they see that as compatible with the ordinance, or going beyond the scope per. I think once you've done that, and Devin has them up. You should know that you have the right at any time to say, well, I'm moving this forward, anyway, and see if you get a second etc. Okay, so a a while, this is all collegial. There is still a process here. And and I just want you to know that you have those you have. You have the tools of procedure available to you. Yeah, thank you so I guess Le, let me talk through.

[208:05] I guess. Should I just describe then, one by one, and we can get quick response. Is that what you're hoping for. Okay? So the first one relates to the Site review threshold. So what is the threshold beyond which a project needs to go to Site Review. Currently, a number of these thresholds are framed, framed in terms of number of units. So in a lot of cases for a lot of zone, if you're building more than 5 units, for example, you need to go to site review. If you're building more than 20 units. you need to go boot through both concept, review and site. Review my concern about that in the context of this project, which is to remove barriers to creating more affordable housing and to, just to to stop incentivizing larger, less affordable

[209:03] units instead of more smaller, modest size, more affordable units. My, my concern is that. for example, somebody wants to build a project. They can either build 4 5 units or 4 units. If they build 5 units, they're gonna be smaller. If they're gonna be. If they're gonna build 4 units, they're gonna be bigger and most likely more expensive. If they build 5, then they have to go through through Site Review Site Review is, as we know, a fairly difficult time consuming an expensive process. And it's also risky, right? And so I, my my concern is that in a lot of cases. a developer, a potential developer would say, no, I don't wanna do deal with the site review thing. I'm just gonna do fewer larger units and avoid site review. So my suggestion is to replace those per unit

[210:10] or no sorry number of unit based threat, site, review thresholds with equivalents in terms of floor area. And I'm speculating. I guess I'm putting out there that the appropriate multiplier would be about 1,500 square feet per unit. So where it says 5. The threshold is 5 units. It would become 7,500 square feet of floor total, for it says 20 units. It would become 30,000 square feet of floor area and so on. So that is proposal number one. can we ask Zaf to react one by one? Would that be helpful.

[211:01] Yeah, that would help me, cause I can't retain it too long. So this is my professional opinion. I'll allow my colleagues to jump in if they have a different take. But I'll just offer kind of my thoughts on this. So with Number One. I like the log logic because we are trying to move away from discouraging by number of units and by changing it to floor area based on an assumed square footage of 1,500 square feet. You get a total, you know, 27,000 or 30,000 that aligns with some of the square footage thresholds that we have in other zones. So I think for those reasons, II think. Iii like the logic of it. This is relatively new to me. We haven't had a chance to think about this in depth, or obviously, our job is to look for any kind of unintended

[212:03] consequences that might come from this type of change. My only, I think reservation at this point is. would this allow a project to go through that would have otherwise required site review that maybe should have required site review that people are going to look at and go. That would have been a higher quality or a better looking project had it gone through Site Review, and we changed the threshold. So it didn't require site review anymore. I I'd have to think about that more. but III like the logic of that. Beyond that given Staff's response. And and Laura to your point of rather than go down to the list, and then backtrack to that curve. Would you want to? Make this as a motion to amend

[213:04] and and then we'll debate it and and vote on it, and then we can go on to the next item. Yes, so may I be, Kurt, before you do that? Can I make a friendly suggestion rather than giving a definitive number like 1,500 square feet. Could we rewrite it to say with floor area at a multiplier. to be determined by staff. because I think we're on the same page with Staff about the intent. and it sounds like 1,500 was kind of a a bit of a wag on on your part of like just trying to put a number in there that might make sense, and I would trust Staff to find an appropriate number. If they do some calculations and figure that that's not the right number. Yeah, would would staff be comfortable with that? Yeah, I mean, I think the recommendation could be that the threshold to be reconsidered, to, not use dwelling units as as a threshold, and come up with an alternative

[214:04] floor area that would be appropriate. I think that would be fine as a recommendation. Okay? So what I would like to move an amendment to replace the unit counts in table. 2. Dash to site, review, threshold table with floor area at a multiplier of 1,500 square feet per unit, or as determined, appropriate by staff. would second that is, that is that language clear enough, Carl and Laurel. I think, from from my perspective, I think Carl's language made more sense to me relative to consider rather than use a word like replace. Only because II think that what I heard from Carl was

[215:07] this, the logic makes sense. We just need to think about it. And so for us to direct replacement with that kind of directive. I just, I just feel like trying. I think we can leave it in staff support to consider it and if they think the logic sound, and they don't think the unintended consequences are, then then then they can move it forward. But if they come up with something that you know all of a sudden they're like this is not a good idea. I don't want our directive to be replaced. At least that's my perspective on it. II could get behind that, but I just have a hard time with a hard, affirmative action like that. Burt, go ahead. and and I would be totally comfortable with that. I guess I just didn't take up that language because I wasn't sure that for better. So that's totally fine that that is absolutely the intent.

[216:00] I'll only say this, I when let's just say we we left the word replaced there. and Staff goes away, and then they discover a problem. It's certainly well within their purview and their responsibility to say planning board recommended this, that because again, we are only making recommendations, planning board recommended replacing this table with this other thing. We discovered this problem, and we recommend that you don't adopt planning boards recommendation. II think that's that's part of. And and during the occupancy discussion II won't say that our recommendations were marginalized, but it certainly were emphasized in that discussion at council. So II anyway, I think Staff has latitude given that all we're doing is making a recommendation anyway, and I actually think that clarity of words of replace

[217:15] should is is is a preferred option for me in the motion. Ml. yeah, I kind of. I kind of like the thinking that George put on the table, that if we put. Consider the unit counts, etc., etc. Then Staff doesn't have to yay, or nay, a recommendation they can consider that, and find you know the appropriate way to deal with it rather than saying, No, we don't agree with that. We don't agree to replace it, or, I think. build in some flexibility, so that the recommendation has an option to be flexible.

[218:01] Laura, I'm gonna jump. Ask you for just a second here and go to Brad. If that's all right? Yeah, I was just gonna encourage the Board to not worry too much about that language on Number One. I think the spirit of it's caught, and we understand the nature of it. Mark, you're absolutely right. There's a fatal flaw, you know. We're not gonna fail to bring that to the council attention, so appreciate the sensitivity around it, but also want to make room for the other discussion that. okay, I'm I'm just gonna Laura. I'm like, I'm right to you. I just gonna say, so we had a motion. We had a second. And so a and and I'm I'm just going to encourage us that the input has been great. we do have a motion and a second, and unless the motion maker wants to withdraw, or whatever let's focus on on the motion as it stands now. unless we want to amend that motion, and we can. We can amend the motion if we do it without objection. You know someone can say II would replace re.

[219:06] replace this word with something else. and then I would poll to see if there was an objection to that. Laura, go ahead. I think if the harshness of the language is a concern, we could just say, Consider replacing unit counts. and and I see it. George is thumbing up on that. So if that's okay with the motion maker, and the second, which would be Kurt and Mark to say, Consider replacing unit counts. It seems like an easy change that is consistent with all of our intent. That is okay with me. I'll concede, okay, okay, so having now trying to move us on here. Having now replaced consider without objects, we replace the word replace. would consider without objection. Do I hear an objection to that particular change to that motion.

[220:04] Okay, then, without objection, I'm going to call the question, and we're going to vote on this curt. Yes. Laura. Yes. Ml, yes, George. yes. and I'm a yes. okay. Excellent work, Kurt. Thank you. So the next one relates to the intensity standards in table 8. Dash one. There are some minimum lot area requirements for some of these higher intensity zones the A is rm, r the BC. Zones. IM. Oh, I'm sorry I should have made the motion.

[221:01] Maya, I move that. Council. Consider in Table 8. One intensity standards eliminating the minimum lot area for rm, R. BC. IM, Ig and VR. One zones and eliminating the minimum lot area per dwelling for zone. And if I can speak on it now, so there's these minimum lot areas to me. I, the all of these are really they're governed by the far's. That's how the intensity is governed, not by the minimum lot area in our R and RE. And Rl, the intensity is governed by the minimum lot area. And so I'm certainly not proposing to change the minimum lot area in those zones. But in these zones it seems like it's just an additional constraint on creating small buildings on small sites. So, for example, in the IM Zone.

[222:12] the minimum Lot size is 7,000 square feet, which isn't that big. But say, somebody wants to make a very small, you know little repair shop on their own property, on small parcel of land of 5,000 square feet, or something. Currently, as I understand it, that is not allowed, and the the the, the total built area would still be regulated by the floor area. So you're not. It's not increasing the amount. The forward ratio. So it's not increasing the amount of building that you can build. It is. But as it currently stands it is prohibiting very small scale development. And to me, that's problem. The second part relates to the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the Vt 2 zone we've in in the proposal in this. In this ordinance, we've eliminated the lot area

[223:10] per dwelling unit for a lot of these other zones where we're regulating by floor area floor area ratio, and but for some reason that was not done in, and it seems appropriate to me to be consistent and also do that in vt. 2 again. We. The goal is to move towards regulating my floor area ratio. So that's the intake. Okay? We got a little Our procedure was going to be to discuss it. Then decide if we're gonna make a motion or not. But you made the motion and and so I'm I'm just going to go out of procedure a little bit and ask Staff to respond to this as to kind of which which sort of category what their thoughts are on this, and then we can seek a second or actually modify this or whatever. So let's look for Staff's response to this.

[224:08] Yeah, obviously, I haven't had a lot of time to consider this in a lot of depth. I think my original reaction to it was a little bit of concern. Just. you know, if we get rid of minimum lot sizes, it could result in subdivisions that create small lots that may not be buildable. That was my initial concern. But the more I think about it, when you look at the intensity standards, it's like half, or maybe even more than half the zones don't have a minimum lot size. And that hasn't necessarily been a problem. I see the point of getting rid of the minimum lot area. I think the when I look at these zones I could see that being done for most of these zones, probably without any issue. The only one that gives me a little bit of concern is rm.

[225:01] just because we don't really want somebody to create a lot that ends up being too small to support the density requirement that still exists for that zone. I don't think that that would be the case for the other zones. so I guess my recommendation would be like yes, on all these zones, except for rm. and then the point on vt. 2. After I've thought about that, I agree that we're already doing BT one and the fact that bt, 2 wasn't in the scope originally, but because BT. 2 already has an far limit. We're not going to be seeing a change in the visual, you know, intensity. So in the spirit of of the other zones, I could see getting rid of the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in that zone. Carl. Just a question on that. I mean.

[226:01] as a practical matter. what are we? I mean, our, our, our minimum lot area is a real issue here, because because I do see your point from a development standpoint from a city standpoint. II can't imagine we want people subdividing lots to the point where they become unmanageable or unbuildable, or just just a a a nuisance at a certain size. The question is like. practically like. Are we really accomplishing much here? Or with this amendment? said, I think it's kind of an additional gargrel in there that may not necessarily need to be there for all zones, and I'm only saying that because there's so. you know, if you look at the intensity standards, you can see that there are already a bunch of zones that don't have minimum lot area. So II think my concern kind of went away the more I thought about it. Okay, do you think we're actually gaining anything by doing this?

[227:02] I think as a as a matter of simplification, and one less thing to check. That's appealing. Okay? Or would and and now I'm a little confused. Carl, are you still concerned about rm, or, as you spoke about it? Did rm, become less of a I'm still concerned about. Rm, I'm not as concerned about the other zones. So, Kurt, Would you be willing to? Laura, do you. Wanna do you wanna speak to this? Well, I guess I just wanted to ask so 2 things. One I wanted to ask. Carl. do you feel like you need more time to think about this before we start wordsmithing it like we could just do the same thing here that we did above, and say, consider eliminating yeah, comfortable with a a bullet point that says, consider eliminating the minimum lot size in these zones.

[228:01] I think that would be fine, and you'd be comfortable with that, even if we leave Rm. In there and then you could make a recommendation that Rm. Should come out, or would you prefer more analysis time before the city Council public hearing, and make up. you know, recommendation on it. So you'd be comfortable if we just say, consider eliminating, and then leave the rest of it alone. Yeah. Kurt. And your second, I think it was Mark with, does that change work for you? Actually, we don't have a second yet. Yeah, so current you you you actually at at this point, since we don't have a second. And maybe I'm not doing this correctly. But I'm going to say. would you be willing to change or add the word? Consider in there and then just leave everything else, as is, I believe, when I read it as a motion which I wasn't even supposed to do, I did put in consideration

[229:04] if that would be helpful. So I move that planning board recommend that city council. Consider in Table 8. One. Intensity standards eliminating the minimum lot area for is one RMRH. 5 PC. IM, oh, PC, bt, 2, Ig and zones and eliminating the minimum lot area for dwelling in it. For that I can. Second. okay, is there any more discussion or questions on this particular num motion number 2. Okay, seeing none. Let's vote. Kurt. Yes. Laura. Yes. George. Yeah. Ml, yes.

[230:01] And I'm a yes, okay. that's 2. Okay? Or you still have the floor. And and so let's go ahead. And again, this time a quick little discussion. Get Staff's response. And then we can decide if you can decide if you're making a motion or not a procedure already from unit based restrictions to floor area restrictions for Rmx one. So currently for Rmx one, there's a minimum lot area of so 6,000 square feet and minimum lot area per dwelling unit for 6,000 square feet. There's also an existing floor area maximum that is part of the compatible development rules, which ranges from point 7 4, I believe.

[231:07] 2.4 2. And so my suggestion, which may not be popular, is to be, basically do the same kind of thing for Rmx. One, that we're doing for these other zoom districts and move from this per unit based calculation to a total area based calculation. Okay? So my reaction, my reaction to this one is that I would have strong concerns about doing this. the reason is that. Rmx, one is the neighborhoods that surround downtown. They were originally built as single family homes, and then it was zoned, you know, up zone basically will allow

[232:03] apartments for for a time, and then it was change. The zoning was changed to our lower intensity, and it rendered much of the of the properties nonconforming. It's a very complex zone. It's got a huge range of densities we had looked at this originally, and because of those concerns had not included it in the scope. I look at Rmx one a bit like I do. You know, Rl. Zones, where there is a cap in the Bvcp of density at 20 dwelling units per acre. So I'm concerned that this change could actually have a lot of unintended consequences, it would render a lot of properties potentially conforming. That might be better kept at non-conforming. I think I just think a lot more analysis would need to be focused on this zone, and I also hesitate because there, there, there not been any outreach to these neighborhoods. You know, this hasn't been a suggested change through the scope

[233:10] or the course of the project, so tho those are the reasons II wouldn't recommend this one kirk well, I would like to hear whether the general sense of the Board, whether the Board would be interested in continuing to recommend this as a consideration of council. Laura being very much not an expert on this, and knowing that Carl deals with this day in and day out, I take his concerns very seriously, so I probably would not be inclined to move this one forward, knowing that Carl has such strong concerns about it. I also just saw popper thumbs up. And George did. Or did you say something? I disagreed with Laura.

[234:04] Thank you. So it sounds like that one is not gonna go forward the next one is to you're just sorry. Sorry you're just removing that. You're not making a motion on that. I'm not making a motion on that. Yeah. Sorry. Yup. thank you, Debbie. The next one is to address part of what we were talking about in relation to to Dial Plaza and potentially other areas where we're now moving to a floor area ratio based constraint on on the intensity of development. And I have great respect for the expertise of the of staff in coming up with those flurry ratios, but it seems to me that there there may need to be some flexibility, some provision for additional review to allow for higher, far in certain circumstances, such as was done in a a diagonal plaza where it was built out at 1 point, I mean it will be built out. It was approved at 1.7 something, and under these rules it would only be allowed 1.5, so it probably the project would not happen under

[235:27] these rules is is my understanding. So I'm trying to provide some mechanism for a review, a site review in this case to allow that to allow some additional Florida ratio. But you know, with the usual constraints of Site Review, where the the Planning board or city Council can say no, that is not appropriate, but in certain other circumstances it

[236:00] could say, Yes, it is appropriate. This is getting getting us what we want to have. So that's the intent to just allow some flexibility with guardrails. Yeah. Question of clarification. Nope. So for Kurt, I assume that this is limited to the zones that are already being considered by this ordinance. Except for RRR. Re. And L. Rl. you say it allow this point 5 additional residential far with Site Review. I assume you're limiting that to the zones that we're already looking at in this ordinance. Not all zones. City wide. Yeah, you're right. It's the zones that have a Florida ratio that are. They're constrained by a foreign ratio. Yes. I should have been clearer. And then what question I have is is the point 5. It would that be like subject to additional community benefit requirements?

[237:06] That seems like it would be very appropriate. Yes. I guess my, my reaction to this is I understand, wanting to add that flexibility to the code. I hesitate because I feel like we'd have to really look at each zone as to what the implications might be, you know, in some cases point 5 could be a doubling of the allowable far in some zones, or or up to a third grader. You know, and there it could set the expectation that well, it says it in the code. You can ask for it. So you're gonna get it through Site Review. And if we don't have those guardrails of exactly when that would be granted. I'm a little concerned of, you know, unintended consequences from that. I think you know, tagging on community benefit would at least get some benefit back to the city. But we could end up seeing some projects that appear over built based on their context.

[238:12] At point 5. Again, I think we would need more time to analyze zone by zone, to see if it makes sense. Laura. Wild idea, which may or may not be acceptable to the motionmaker. But Carl, would it be more acceptable rather than giving a hard number like point 5 additional residential far. Could you say an additional 10% residential far or some percentage increase so that you wouldn't get like a doubling, but you would get some known percentage of increase. Would that be more acceptable? And if so, is there a number that you would suggest. I mean, my sense is that if it's a percentage of what is allowed, that that would make me more comfortable, and and if it did require community benefit. At least there's something get, you know, that would be

[239:08] given in return for it. That that makes sense to me perfect. Thank you, Laura, for that suggestion. And I actually was originally thinking in that in those terms. And then I for simplicity, basically, I went back to this point 5 residential far, I would also be so. I would fully support that. I would also be open to just is something much more vague saying requesting the the that there'd be consideration of some mechanism to allow for higher when appropriate, or something to that effect. If if people would be more comfortable with that.

[240:00] George. Yeah, to. To me this, this goes. This goes pretty far. II think I think you need community engagement on something like this. This is a this is a big bump, you know, just kind of hidden meatball that we would be putting in there. So II would be opposed to either percentages or or some amount of far without without a whole lot more community engagement around it. Okay, given the the nature of our or tonight, which is 5 being present and for needing to approve any motion. I'm going to ask. is there any?

[241:00] And I'm not trying to key someone one way or the other. Is there any other board member that has strong feelings about this more as percentage or not here now that that would either cut this off or we would go ahead with a motion. I guess I'd wanna ask Carl. Would would you want us to. What do you think about George's idea that this is something that should perhaps be considered with additional community outreach is? Do you feel that this rises to that threshold if we changed it to say something like some percentage rather than a point 5. And we added your idea of community benefits. would you still think that this rises to the threshold of additional community outreach. Because I think that's a that's a concern that you know we've often heard raise. I mean, it kind of depends on the percentage. I think in my thinking, you know, 10%

[242:05] allows for a marginal increase that might make sense in some cases. But yeah, I mean, I think. being that this is being introduced this late in the process. It it does kind of give me some concern. That this concept hasn't been talked about before, and we've been at this for months, so I guess I'm kind of erring on the side of caution. There. Ml. in answer to your question, Mark, I think I would respect the trepidation that Carl is putting out there. And This might not be something that we should try to put forth hurt the balls in your court. As to whether or not you want to move forward with a motion or or not. I would like to move forward with motion, even though it will fail just to get it on the record.

[243:04] Then go ahead and make the motion with whether you want a an far number or percentage of far. And then, I would suggest, include the community benefit as well. Okay, carry on sorry. And and can I also just make another friendly suggestion is you. You could also make a recommendation that this be considered in the Bvcp update? Okay, thank you. So I move that City Council consider allowing additional residential FAR with site review subject to to community benefit requirements.

[244:00] except in RRRR. E. And Rl. Zones. So I did not include the number of point 5 in there. Devin, if you're following along. So II eliminated that. So I just said. consider allowing. and then an additional residential far with site review, subject to community benefit requirements. Would it be? Would it be far, bonus? It feels like it's missing a word after far additional residential, far like an additional ratio. I don't know it. Anyway. I, Carl, II think the intent is clear. Isn't it so? So, Devin? Could you change the beginning of sentences? Say, consider allowing

[245:07] and then delete up to. And is it subject to community benefit requirements or subject to additional community benefit requirements? Carl. I think it would just be community benefit requirements. Okay. I'll second this motion. So we have a motion and a second Kirk, you wanna speak to it now that it's been edited well, no, not really. I just wanted to add some more flexibility in there, so I think that it it at least will convey, even if it fails it conveys, I think, the intent. Alright. I'm gonna go ahead and call this one We'll go the other way now, George.

[246:04] No! With with this with a strong note that anything like this would require some serious community. Outreach. Ml. no, I think I will trust Deaf's instincts. Laura. I'm gonna say yes, because it says, consider allowing, and because I know that staff will appropriately advise Council whether this would require more community outreach and what that should look like. So I'm going to say, yes. her yes. and I'm a yes, for the reasons that Laura has a now that so I think it fails fails. Yeah, it fails. It fails. 2 to 3. Yes. wait a second. Is that right? Because Mark and Kurt and I were all yes.

[247:02] it fails 3 to 2, it fails. 3 to 2. It has to have a vote of 4 or more. Right? 3 to 2. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Okay, thank you for being with me. And then the last one really is kept trying to capture Sarah's recommendation. which is to track the affordability of units constructed under this revised code versus those that are constructed the way they would be con constructed currently, just to see, are we getting more affordability? Are we not? You know. I think data is always useful. So I like your recommendation. And I wanna bring forward. I'm just gonna say, I think this could be phrased initially as a as a question for staff. Of what tools?

[248:00] How would we, without any motions or recommendations from planning board When we adopt this, this ordinance? How would we track? What would we track? How would we track it? And is is this necessary, or is this actually something that would be beneficial to everybody to state that we're going to track this? Or is it creating this giant burden? So back to staff on on what your thoughts are about this. Yeah, no, I'm not exactly sure how we would do this. It seems like, with every project that comes in like Staff would have to do a calculation based on today's code, and then figure out what the applicant proposed and and compare them. So it's kind of a interesting additional task to, and I don't know, you know, if it would be, you know. with permits or site review, or how we would

[249:02] instruct our staff to add another task. relative to this. II think we'd have to think about it more about how this would be beneficial. And if I can piggyback on that. You know, if this were adopted as part of the code update which II would have to say, it's unclear how you would even write that in the code, but if it were adopted as a requirement it's not clear to what end this tracking is, either other than just interesting information. It essentially just creates a indefinite and perpetuity research project for the department that implies some sort of information for decision making, but doesn't doesn't directly do that? Iii think II think we understand the staff and appreciate the intent, which is.

[250:03] how how do we know Codex is gonna do what we envision it doing. I think that that remains the purview of our conference and planning division. In doing research relative to policy changes moving forward. you know, looking in the rear view mirror once we have existing policies. but trying to track that in real time over time. Is unclear. What the benefit of that would be. And and and then, in addition to that, all the administrative uncertainties that Carl just spoke to. I would be hard pressed to know how we would actually administer that in practical terms. Ml. so I wonder if there would be thank you for your point, Brad. I wonder if there would be any value

[251:04] in just tracking the removal of regulatory regulatory barriers relative to the amount housing being added that could not have been added before. Is there an increase in housing that would happen once you remove these barriers, or is it pretty much on task the way it has been historically. yeah, I guess that's the point it was making. II don't know what it means to simply track something like this. I don't know. That's an easy thing to actually execute on, and again isn't. And and I don't mean this pejoratively or dismissively, but as an academic question it it certainly has merit, and and I understand that you know where that type of information is useful as an operational element that's very difficult, as something that we might use again

[252:05] looking in the rear view mirror to make to do research leading up to things like an update to a comprehensive plan, a sub area plan, or or those types of things that is familiar. Territory sometimes consultants do it, you know, or maybe we do that in house. But that's a snapshot in time, working backwards, not trying to track things in real time. Oh, I see. Yeah, cause he uses the word tracking. Yeah, I think it would be, it would I? I'm speaking more to the point of are we meeting our goal, you know, removing regulatory barriers? And did it? Did it, in fact, create more housing. And I'm hearing you say, Brad, that staff does that in any case, as they collect data and see what the impacts on. Yeah, I think I'm saying, you know, retrospectively, we're always going to try to do that research much like per host and research on existing conditions and peer communities things like that.

[253:02] But again, to actually program that as part of ongoing operations is kind of a whole different. And and again, I think we're all sympathetic to the question and answer of our Co. Any specific code changes actually affect or not. I'm just suggesting that if we try to operationalize that question for every code that comes along. That's just not not really purview of an operational, you know. operations of the department. If we envision you know, changes that were made 10 years ago in well, in occupancy, for example, and again try to track that in real time. That's much different than just looking back into historical data. And again, if if there's any staff who. you know, can say no, there's there's clearly we can do this. I'm I'm certainly happy to be corrected, but I think our first was. It's unclear how we would actually implement this.

[254:07] I think we we do track number of dwelling units, and we do track, you know, units that are subject to ih, so you could over the years like, Look. you know, if there's an increase in the number of housing or the increase in the percentage of Ih units. But again, there's other market forces that are gonna come into play. On those those numbers. Laura. So I deeply sympathize with Staff's position of it's unclear how you would track it, and I don't think that we're in a position to design something tonight that tells them how to track it. And I I'm hearing from Staff that they also agree with the Board's interest in understanding the data and in analyzing the impact of this policy at some point in the future, when we're perhaps considering, expanding the policy or doing more to try to encourage middle housing.

[255:03] And so II would be comfortable, just expressing a a strong, not as an official recommendation or a motion to amend, but just expressing our strong interest in knowing what does happen as a result of this change at some point in the future, when we might be considering additional similar changes like, did we get more duplexes and triplex and townhomes on those parcels that were identified as potentially being opened up for duplexes and triplexes and townhomes, and for the zones where we have reduced barriers to to creating smaller units. Did we get on average more smaller units, you know. I think I think our intent is clear of why we're making these changes, and I think I would leave it to Staff's future creativity to think about. How do we do that? Look back that Brad is is describing without us trying to design that here and now II don't think we have any divergence of interest here. It's just a question of this is not an easy task for us to envision right now. Of how Staff would do it.

[256:07] Thanks a lot, George. Yeah, II agree with La with what Laura said. I will say that the the one thing, and I think that the cognitive dissonance that that we that Sarah might be feeling I feel the same similarly, is we have something that's labeled as creating a a something to create affordability. And then we have no metrics to actually understand what we're doing. And if we're doing something that's at all positive and an inelastic market with nearly endless demand for housing. And so I agree with Laura, because II also understand from snaps perspective. But it it's a it we have. We have something in front of us that's that's called, you know, an affordable ordinance. That really does not deal with affordability directly. It's dealing with housing types that some postulate that may impact affordability.

[257:14] But there's no th. There's no sort of requirement on data or or tools to help us. And so all we have is a lot of opinion. Which is not necessarily in in gut and some thoughts about what's happened in other cities, positive and negative. So I like Laura's idea on, on, on something related to that as far as tracking and understanding, and look back and understand. We can't put that directly in the and the code, but at least putting some kind of ask on on on all of us staff and others that are putting this in place to to really understand. Are we? Are we doing anything here? I think that's important.

[258:05] Laura. did you sign up? Okay. yeah, I'll I'll I'll just comment that I I feel everyone here right? You you don't want to create a make work project. But at the same time, if you can't measure and track something, you can't fix it. You can't improve it. And so II I feel everyone here, and I'm I'm I think I'm going to come down on the side of acknowledging the difficulty of tracking yet. But let's let's see what Kurt has to say. Well, I appreciate everyone's input staff input and the board members input and I agree with all of it. Given the difficulties that are obvious from the an operational standpoint. I'm not going to be. Bring this forward as emotion, but I think Staff understands the and shares the the the concept behind this and motivation, and I'm sure that we will be gathering this data at some point going forward. So thank you.

[259:17] Hey, mark we got 10 min left can. Can you can. Can. Can we kind of do around Robin real quick, and just see how many more things we've got going if we can. Time, cap this, if we can come to some kind of agreement to extend this, but not forever. Type of thing. Okay, that's a that's an excellent suggestion, George. So we have completed a main motion and 3 amendments. George, you have one in the chat. And I have. I'm I'm gonna deal with that next. Okay, that would be the next item.

[260:02] I have a couple that I think are are on the technical side like this. That could be responded to Staff pretty quickly. So I'm going to say it's 1020. Now, hang on, Mark, what about mlm, do you have one that you want to bring forward? I do not. I do. And I just sent it to Devin. Okay, it's just one, and it's a very. It's a very simple, straightforward. So couple 3, 4 if if we can do this at 5 to 6 min apart. We could be done by 11 or earlier. That's possible. If we're for pretty snappy, and I can. I can try to move things along a little quicker. Now, what's that?

[261:02] I'm okay with 11, if everybody else is, and maybe we just try and move it forward, and at least we'll get close, and we'll see what happens. I think we do need a formal motion to extend the meeting. George, would you like to do that? Sure. I'll make a motion to extend the meeting. to 11. Second, thank you. And so we have a motion and a second let's just go ahead and vote on that Kurt. But Laura. Yes. ml, yes. George. yes. and I'm a yes and I'll just I know, Brad had said the other night that you know you guys serve at our pleasure, etc. However, if if you have some objection, I'd love to hear it now, otherwise we're gonna keep going. Yes. all right.

[262:01] George, so George has put a a motion Ml is yours. Oh, that was from earlier. I just got confused when I opened up my chat window. George, would you? or Devin? Can you go to the chat copy and paste onto the document on the screen. George's proposed amendment. and we're gonna treat it just like we did. That'd be great. So the goal is to maintain the maximum of the 40 elu. I think I pointed this out, which is just that there's, you know, removing, that is, it's a safeguard, so that we we try to maintain diversity of housing. And right now that diversity of housing section is not

[263:04] entirely prescriptive as to the balance that it's trying to achieve. And so I would, basically make this motion to either keep what we have or I. I'm open to something different from the perspective of staff. I just wanna make sure that it's we're we're trying to achieve the diversity of housing. That is the the idea behind that and consistent with the Bvcp. Are we asking Carl to respond to that recommendation is we find that keeping the user view process for El uses counter to the goals of the project of trying to streamline process. For housing. So that's the reason why we recommended that use review not be required. It's just a

[264:02] added burden. so we don't recommend it, but certainly up to the board. But when you say you don't recommend it, I mean, are are you concerned at all, that elus being a profitable housing type. being that we could see based on the language of what's in the diversity of housing, I mean, my concern is that we're gonna get. We're gonna get a bunch more elu projects which isn't really achieving a middle housing type. For boulder. It's kinda more of the same, if not more, of more, of the same of what we've been seeing as a planning board, too. II think our sense is that you know we have the the in commuter issue where people can't live in the city, so they have to commute in. So by allowing more e el use that that furtheres the goal of trying to give people opportunities.

[265:02] In the city a place to live so correct. I'll just say that I strongly support the goal of achieving a diversity of housing, but it's not clear to me that we need to achieve a diversity of housing within each project. I think we need to have a diversity of of housing across, you know, within areas of the city. And so I don't find this compelling? Well, it's it's in our, I mean, I guess my point, is it we we? It's called out in our code. Now that we're requiring a diversity of housing in these projects. Laura. But but isn't that that section of the code that you called out George. And that Carl pulled up on the screen. That's for projects that go through site Review, right? That's not for all projects in the city. And so the changing this threshold would just say that fewer projects have to go through site Review, and then they don't have to meet those diversity criteria that are in the Site Review criteria

[266:09] is that am I understanding that, Carl? Or do I have something that's correct? And and I'll say that I could. You walk through that a little bit, cause I think that's a good point of clarity, Laura. you want me to walk through it. Do you want Carl? No, no, Carl Carl. so I just I think if if an Elu project is large enough, it it likely will require site review. So I think our thinking is that you know the the impacts that could be presented by a project of that size would be handled through site review and doesn't necessarily need to be. Have an additional use review on top of that. If this requirement were removed, yeah, we might see some more by right elu projects in the city. But again, they have to meet. you know, basic development standards like parking, landscaping open space. You know things like that.

[267:02] Okay? And Mel. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. If I could just finish my comment. I'm not super concerned about small elu projects. I do think they provide a valuable housing type. I think there are a lot of people singles, young people, older people who appreciate that housing type. I I'm not sure that having to have a few single bedroom and and 2 bedroom units in a same building with an ALU project makes a lot of sense. Ii don't see the need to requirement. I don't see the need to single out Elus as being a particularly concerning type of housing. I think if we start to see too many of them, then we can always adjust at that time. But I'm not really concerned about this one. Yeah. And Mel, I'm gonna ask you to speak and go quickly, because, as I've been counting both. II don't think this one's going to proceed. Go ahead and speak.

[268:03] You're still muted. I was going to ask a broader question of this proposal which is, does use by right? Are there any thresholds for diversity of housing in projects now outside of a a trigger? For do we take? Do we say, I know we always say we want diversity of housing. Are there thresholds just in general out there? Or is this the only place we've ever had threshold. The other place where we have thresholds is actually the Rmx. 2 zone. But beyond that it would have to be through site. Review. thumb. Okay. At this point. George. I'll withdraw it. Okay. let's go to Mls.

[269:04] so I have a the the I'm looking at table 2. And it it used to be, or it's proposed to be taken out that in BC. To any project that was any site in the Dbrc. Would require it to be so? My question is, why did that get taken out? Is was there no value in it re being retained? Yeah. The the reason that's in there is because there was. There were design guidelines that were created for Bvs Rc. Sites in the past, and there was actually a urban renewal board that existed in Boulder was the Boulder urban renewal authority. And so the the point was to put projects in front of Bureaucr Through the site review process, and Burea has not been meeting for

[270:02] 10 plus 15 plus years. So there actually were other zones where this requirement for any site to go through Site review will remove from the code. So this is actually just a remnant that we think this is a code cleanup, because there's no Burea to look at these projects anymore. So that's why we're recommending it. So the Bbrc guidelines are no longer, even though they are referenced in the 2020. No, they still apply, but they would apply to a site review project. So if a project meets the the threshold. oh, it wouldn't be a requirement. Got it. Okay, I don't need to put this forward as a recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Great progress. Progress. Okay. Devin. Do. does any other board member have anything else?

[271:09] okay. alright. I I'm I'm just in the in the name of transparency and clarity and everything else. I spent. You know, Bill Holiki, a former planning board member and part of the development community you know, sent us that note and and trying to send us his email and in trying to understand and clarify, I had conversations with Bill and II finally wait this afternoon was like. let's, you know. be more specific. Let's make this in in the language of of of emotion. And so the I think a couple of these might be things that staff can say, Oh, yeah, that's actually something we can

[272:00] just take care of. But the first motion I'll speak to motion. One isn't is in BC. One and BC. 2 zones or property shown in Appendix, N. There will be an additional point 5 far bonus for residential use uses which will be into, in addition to the 1.5 fer limit in the base code. So the first question I had was, What what's appendix in? Where is appendix in and appendix, and is in a prior ordinance. And and well, Carl, I should probably have Carl speak to this, but the idea is that appendix, and calls out our community centers, base mark table, mesa part of North Broadway, etc., and that if we want to see projects similar to the diagonal where we're converting

[273:01] decrepit and retail, that is vacant, etc., and large surface parking lots into housing that near Ni near or in neighborhood centers. Then the additional point 5 far for residential uses would be allowed 4 projects, 4 4 properties shown in appendix. And so, rather than forcing someone to actually go through the process of creating an ordinance like what was done for diagonal plaza. If it was residential uses in the neighborhood center an appendix end. Then you would be allowed the onefive far bonus on top of the onefive limit in the base code. So, Carl, do you wanna speak to that. And did I get it wrong, or is that about right? No, that's right. I mean, the appendix end was created to apply to largely the shopping centers that are zoned BC Pcs kind of an odd zone, because it applies to those neighborhood centers. But it also applies in some areas that are not

[274:16] shopping centers like East Whittier. You know, where there's like single family homes that have that zoning, or out at 55 in a wrap. 50 fifth in our in a Rappaho different context. So they wanted to show those those shopping centers and appendix and and okay, so we're in agreement on, on, on appendix. And what what is your thinking about the validity? Or of this suggestion? And you know, unattended consequences, or whatever. Yeah. And this one, it's kind of the same as as what you know Kurt had suggested about allowing a bonus. So there's some concern that this hasn't

[275:03] been, you know, communicated through, you know public channels, and and also just that getting near a 2 far in some of these areas, which is like what we see downtown may not be the scale that we think makes sense for those areas. So I have. I have reservations about that. And hey, Carl, a question on that. So like, I'm just thinking of, like the area planning process that took place by took place by Alpine balls somewhere. That's BC, right? In that case it relates to Mark's motion. Would that would that would his motion sort of override what was done in the area plan and and provide additional that they are on top of those that the way you read it. I mean, yeah, if we change the zoning code it it would. It would change that zone her. Well, I was just wondering if, instead of specifying the specific point 5 that they are as I have done in my recommendation, if we should leave it open, if there would be more support for leaving it open without specifying a particular number, but asking Staff to

[276:18] to come up with some sort of a recommended number for additional far. You want to, Carl. Do you have any with with that? Be enough to make you feel better, or I think, similar to to that other motion, I think. consider a a a moderate bonus to the far to allow for flexibility in certain areas. II think that makes sense. Okay, I kind of like that language. But, Laura, go ahead. Pardon me, I don't have Kurt's motion in front of me. Is this already incorporated in what Kurt suggested, or this is a different zone.

[277:05] Well, Kurt, so, in fact, had had Kurt's move forward, then the need for this one may not have been taken place at all. So this is similar to Kurt I specifying some sort of far bonus. It could be a number could be a percentage, or it we could, we could, as Carl suggested. adopt language that says, you know, staff, consider allowing an FARB bonus in these zones. a. But so he was referring to Kurt's motion that that failed. Gotcha. Okay. thank you. And Laura just respond. This is much more restrictive than what I was proposing, what I was proposing would have applied to many more zones. This applies just to as I read it, just to BC. One and BC. 2, and for BC. One and Vc. 2, only independent, those independence and so much.

[278:08] Yeah. I was just wondering if this fit under that umbrella, if it was already encompassed. But then Mark reminded me that that motion failed, so this would be an attempt to see if a more narrow motion could succeed, so could I suggest a wording change based on Carl's. So Devin, could you, after appendix? N say. consider allowing and additional. and then you can delete. There will be an additional point 5. You can delete all that. Consider allowing an additional far bonus for residential uses. as determined, appropriate by staff to provide flexibility.

[279:00] and I think, Kurt, or sorry that Carl had used the word modest. Consider allowing a modest additional FARB. Bonus. Carl, is that about what you said off the top of your head. And would you propose any changes? Yeah, I thought, that's what I said, or I think I said, moderate, moderate, moderate. Thank you. Well, I can. I could certainly live with that. And I'm I'm George. Go ahead, Balson area plan as an example and diagonal, for that matter, as an example. Why. you just can't do this without community input. This is a disaster. III don't know why we would over. Why, we even suggest overriding in the community on this, you know, area plans as as as planning board. Right? That's our tool

[280:01] to, you know, work through these areas and design something cohesive in conjunction with the community and and the planning area and etc. If we overlaid something like this where now there could be a bonus tacked on to an area plan that we just passed. That is a disaster. And the reason why out why why diagonal was approved through that ordinance was because someone wanted a catalyst. And I get that. And and that was that that that went through a process right. The right process for diagonal at some point is an area planning process. Then the right process for these areas is an area planning process. And II don't. I just think we're you're you're layering on this bonus that the community will just get, I mean, crazed about. So II I'd be very cautious about something like this. II don't think it's necessary to achieve our goals. We got diagonal through because people there was urgency because of a specific to to Carl's point it was a very specific

[281:05] thing, and if there are other specific things like that. those things will develop on their own and in the meantime, if we've got area planning processes that we do with all this community outreach. And all of a sudden, someone can just layer on a 10% or 20% or 50% bonus. Yeah, I just think we're asking for trouble from the community that that that is irresponsible. Okay, II I'd like to respond to that for a second. I think that one the language being considered now is both indefinite and uses the modifier moderate to many of the properties shown in the Appendix end do not have, nor will they ever have. an area plan. And 3. I think that while we claim diagonal plaza as a success, the

[282:06] the guiding principle behind this project is simplification and facilitation of broader housing types in more places and and simplification of of the process, and requiring an ordinance in any time we want to have, you know, a not just site. We do not just use review, but an ordinance that has to get past to achieve some of our goals is to me. That's the disaster. So I'm gonna leave my comments there. And Laura well, I'm wondering if there might be a tweak here that would help to alleviate it. Maybe probably not all. But maybe some of George's concern about areas that have gone through a rigorous area planning process and and maybe

[283:00] for your consideration, mark you know, you made the point that not all of these areas have an area plan. Perhaps we could say for properties in BC, one and BTBC. 2 zones without an existing area plan. appendix shown an appendix and etc., and I don't know if that language makes sense. I would look to Carl to say, am I saying the right things to answer George at least part of George's concern? Or is there a different way to phrase it? Is it an area plan, the right thing? I mean, I think we've we've heard a lot of comments over the years. That area planning for neighborhood centers would be a a logical step here in Boulder. It's just they haven't been prioritized by our Council since there's been more of a focus on East Folder Subcommittee plan. But II think these neighborhood centers are opportunity areas for mixed use and more housing. So I think our suggestion is, yeah, that makes a lot of sense to have area planning and then have your zoning.

[284:06] you know, shake out to implement those area plans. But again, that the timeline to do those area plans would be well into the future. So I'm going. I I'm going to suggest modifying my motion to exclude area plans as per Laura's. So Laura, would you? So in VC, one and BC. 2 zones for properties shown in appendix, and that do not that do not, haven't that do not fall under an area plan. Is that would that be the correct language, Carl?

[285:01] I think so. Yeah. Consider allowing. Okay? So I just, we're we're bumping up against timing. So I'm just gonna read this as a motion. See? If I get a second. and then we can take a quick vote in BC. So I moved in BC. One and BC. 2 zones for property shown in Appendix M. That do not fall under an area plan. Consider allowing a moderate additional pr bonus for residential uses as determined, appropriate by staff to provide flexibility. I will second. okay. we've had discussions or any final comments by anybody, or should we go to a vote seeing none? Kurt. Yes. Laura. I'm going to say no, because I think I heard Carl saying that the right thing to do would be to prioritize area planning. So I'm gonna say, no.

[286:03] And Bell. no. George. Nope. okay. Alright. II don't know. I'm going to glance at these. Sorry, really quickly. Quality share. Make sure that you put your vote on the record as well. I'm sorry I vote. Yes, excuse me. Yes, okay. So we're bumping up against the time limit here, and I would welcome I wanna go down to motion 4 and to and and motion 3 and 4, because they are things that may just be something. Carl says, Oh, yeah. So, for instance, in in motion 3 and an Ig and IM in table, a dash one. the 600 square foot required open space per unit should be removed or replaced by the site wide open space requirements matching BC. One and BC. 2. His his point here, as as he explained it to me and I worked to the table was that

[287:12] the 600 square foot is kind of a remnant that should have been deleted, and that the open space requirements Matching, BC. One and Vc. 2 accomplish the same thing. But when you have both. then it's it, it becomes problematic. So Carl, would you comment on that? Yeah, III think that's the right logic. II think, for the industrial zones. I think the code is set up in a way where it's trying to make sure that a residential project that's built in in industrial zone has enough open space. They may not typically have as much open space as another project. I don't know. I could feel like I could go either way on this one.

[288:03] I think it certainly would simplify the code if it just went to a a, a solid percentage. But II kind of feel like we need to do a little bit more analysis here cause I think this, it might be, make more sense to to be a little bit stricter on open space in industrial, just because there isn't as much access to parks in those areas. Okay. I'm I'm let's go to motion 4. And again the clock sticking here. So in BT, one on table, 2 to the concept and Site review required. Threshold shall be raised at 2 acres. I think that should be, or 2 acres, or 50,000 square feet. My understanding

[289:00] was that Oh, the edits in this table got confusing. But is this making any sense to you, Carl? As to and try to find the page number here. I I'm seeing it on page 223 or 4 66. So the the current what's currently in the code is 2 acres or 30,000 square feet for BT. One. So this would be changing it to 2 acres or 50,000 square feet. I guess my reaction to that is I think when these thresholds were originally set up, there were certain zones that were envisioned to allow more intensity. So, for instance, like Br. One and br. 2 have 3 acres and 50,000 square feet of floria, because those are zones that

[290:06] have a higher far, or they allow more development bt. One, I wouldn't say is in that same category, because it's a transitional business zone. And I think in the past when they applied bt, zoning it. It typically is a long corridors where you know, it might be a multimodal corridor, but nearby is single family residential, so it's supposed to serve as like a transition to that lower intensity. So this, this would change the threshold to kind of the same as what you would see in a higher intensity. Zoom, so that's that's the implication. I see with this change. Okay. unless I get like a big chorus, I really want this. I'm gonna drop both of those. And then just Oh, Kurt, go ahead!

[291:02] Well, I would be interested in the previous one motion 3. If, instead of saying be replaced by side wide open space requirements, matching, Vc. One and BC. 2, it just said, be replaced by side wide open space requirements as deemed appropriate by staff. For example. if Carl, if you, if you would be more comfortable with that yeah, I would alright. then II like that. So instead of matching BC 2, it would be as deemed appropriate by staff. And I think, just grammatically, you need to take out the comma so that it's clear that, as deemed appropriate by staff replies to the site, wide open space requirements

[292:04] and not the whole clause. Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'm going to move in. IG. And IM. In table 8, one. The 600 square feet of required open space per unit will be removed and be replaced by site, wide open space requirements as deemed appropriate by staff. I second. can I just ask Carl, do you still have hesitations about it as written. No. okay. all right, I'm going to call this question Kurt. Yes. Laura. knowing that Carl's okay with it. Yes. George. I'm a no just cause it's it's it's a little too specific for for what I'm aware of. And I just need more time to absorb. So for now I'm gonna know.

[293:03] Ml. yes. okay. And I'm a yes. okay. But last one here. And so this last one motion 2 and IG, and I am the base FAR. Table 8.2. We lowered 2.3, and the residential bonus floor area will be raised to 1.3 and 1.2 respectively for a total far 1.5 1.6 and 1.5 respectively. So his commentary there, that the idea here is that. And again. II could be getting this wrong, and Carl jump in and help me out here that the is! You are increasing the bonus for residential in the Zone. while not

[294:01] losing the percentage of industrial on the on the lower level. But you tell me what you think of this one. Yeah, this is something. So this is a suggestion made by Bill Hollick, you correct? Yeah. it seems a little complicated as I read it right now. But I think what he's saying is, if we allow a greater amount of residential that that could incentivize residential but also preservation of industrial I guess my my only concern with this is that lowering that the commercial limit isn't something that we've communicated to property owners in that area. So I think we'd have to keep the existing point 5 and point 4 Fars for the non-residential. If if the logic is just allowing more than just a one. Far. I I'm

[295:13] I'm comfortable with that just because we already want the the Po. The policy for that area is to get more residential in that area, but also preserve industrial. And it's also the fact that we don't have an far limit in that area now. So, allowing a a little more residential. If if Bill thinks that that creates an incentive to to do residential and preserve industrial or or get a R&D in there. this. This seems logical to me. Okay, so what I heard was. you wouldn't lower the the base far, because, having not discussed that with and communicated that to the property owners, so

[296:05] it would just would it make sense in an in Ig and IM, the residential bonus floor area will be raised to 1.3 and 1.2 respectively, for total far of we. Just we. We don't. We don't need it. I don't even know if we, the bonus for area would raise to 1.3 and 1.2 respectively. Yeah, it could be that just you recommend that the residential far be increased above 1 point. O, okay, I like, II like that. So let's in. IGNI, m a comma. So yeah, delete. Yep. okay. The residential

[297:03] bonus floor area will be raised. To greater than 1 point. Oh. but And then to greater than 1 point. O, do we need to say up upon Staff's recommendation, or upon. or just put a period at the end of 1 point. Oh. are you? You are! You may, making it subject to the community benefit at all, Mark, or we just giving this away to developers. Well. what right now the the one is is still subject to is not subject to community benefit, because it's not.

[298:07] Well, Emily, I'm asking Carl Carl what is the community benefit requirement in these 2 zones to to have the to to get a residential bonus floor area there. There isn't any community benefit at this point. We had suggested a onefive far for Ig and IM, because it's in the same intensity module as RH. 5 and BC. 2, I think. and that they have the same, proposed 1.5. So that's why we applied it to that industrial area. The the industrial zone right now doesn't have an affr limit for residential. That's why I was saying. In this case, I think you know, you can probably allow more intensity in that area, because it's a targeted area for residential, and it does. Doesn't have established.

[299:05] you know, residential around it that could be impacted. So that's why I was saying, There, I'm I'm less concerned about allowing more far here if it makes sense to get that. You know, synergy between, you know, residential and nonresidential. I think it's up to the board. If you wanna say, here's the cap, and beyond this. you know, is community benefit being applicable. Ca, I'm sorry I'm really unclear with what you just said. So. The far things that Mark is suggesting in here. You're saying there's no far now. So what? How does that? How does that compute versus what he's what's being said here. Well, we're we're suggesting in this ordinance that an far be applied to Ig and IM, and again, because we lumped it in into the same, and intensity module as some other zones that have that same

[300:01] limit. When we look at the code today, there's an far limit on non residential, but there is no far limit on residential. So this effectively, you know, kind of makes it more restrict, restrictive for residential. It doesn't necessarily have to be restrictive for residential, or or does this? Does this modify? Sorry? Does this modify? Basically is is Mark's thing, saying, there's a there's, there's the far for the site. And then there's a bonus far for residential on top of that. Is that is that how you're interpreting this? Yeah. you know what I don't understand the motion. I'm making well enough to really advocate for it. So unless someone else wants to take this up, I'm gonna withdraw it. Kirk. I'm not gonna take it up, because I don't understand. Well, either, but I would certainly encourage Staff to think about it. My understanding is

[301:08] currently there's no restriction on the amount of residential you can put. They're proposing to reduce it to 1 point O far, which is a pretty significant restriction over what is current there. There is currently. and this would not restricted as much. So I would just encourage Staff to think about whether you would want to introduce something like this when it goes to council. and we can certainly summarize. You know this discussion, even if it's not in a motion. We could say, the board discuss this topic. Okay. alright. bye outlets. Yep. So we have Could I ask Devin to group the motions that passed and the motions that failed so that we know when we approve the whole motion which things were approving with it.

[302:08] Take the ones that failed, maybe, and move them to the bottom. I think it matters less who made the amendment and it at this point, and it matters more which ones pass. Sorry, Mark, I didn't mean to believe me. It's we're we're 2 min past our deadline, and we still have to read and and pass the main motion with the with the amendments. So And we're very close, and Devon's working furiously here. Great work. So are we ready for you to read it as chair the home, the whole package.

[303:03] Okay, we have a motion on the floor. The main motion with the past amendments. The main motion is automotion. Oh. okay. Planning board recommends that city council adopt ordinance, 85, 99 to amend title 9. Land use code ERC. 1 81 related to the site, review, process and intensity, form and bulk use parking and subdivision standards concerning affordable and modest sized housing and setting forth related details. including the following amendments in Ig. And IM. In Table 8, one. The 600 square foot required. Open space per unit will be removed and be replaced by site. Wide open space requirements is deemed appropriate by staff.

[304:07] Consider replacing units in Table 2. 2. Site review threshold table with 4 area, add a multiplier of 1,500 square feet per unit, or as determined, appropriate by staff. Consider in table 8. One intensity standards eliminating the minimum lot area, for IS. One RM. RH. 5 BCIM. Ig. And zones and eliminating the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for zone. Okay? So I believe that we had. We moved and seconded on the main motion we passed

[305:04] the auxiliary motion. So now it's time to vote on the entire package. George. Yep. ML. Yes. Laura, yes. Curt, and I'm a yes, also. Okay. don't run off just yet. We've gone 5 min over, and I want to offer the board members or staff. If you have matters of that are really time sensitive tonight. bring them up now. Otherwise we can. We can carry on without. But if you have something you really need to talk about. Now let's do it. I have. I have 3 quick things, but I wanna check in with Charles first. And

[306:02] Laura, I'm gonna drop off, guys. Thanks. Bye. it, it's real quick. Okay, alright. So hang on, George. Go go go! Nothing for me tonight. number one you were sent a pull for an a special meeting. We have now determined that that is not needed. So you can ignore that. We've determined the special meeting in September's not needed. whether you filled out the poll or not. And Devon, if you can send an email to the full group just reinforcing that. Appreciate it. You also got a a hold the date for the retreat on October 20 fourth. So please please, please make sure that that's on your calendar, and let us know immediately if somehow that is a conflict for you. But the poll indicated you were all available. and then finally, we've been asked to reinforce the boards and commission survey that's been sent to all of you. It sounds like citywide not just planning board. It's maybe been a little slow to respond to that. So please try to give that your attention from the clerk's office, I think. And that's it.

[307:10] Okay, any matters from the board. Thank you, Brad. No matters from the board. Okay. I'm going to. I believe we need a motion to adjourn, and so I will entertain that. I move. We adjourn. Second. Okay? Then, seeing no objection. I will adjourn the meeting. Thanks. All. Have a good night. Good night, everybody. Thank you.