December 5, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] I'll go ahead and hit record. Thank you guys are good when you're ready. Okay. So, we need to elect an interim chair and so I I didn't realize you wanted me to start the meeting. Yes, you are right. The chair and the vice chair are absent today. That means that you have to, elect an interim chair. Which you do by nominating. I know more persons and then you make a motion to close nominations when you're ready. Act like it on a regular motion and vote to elect. I nominate Mark to be our chair tonight. I second.

[1:01] I have no other nominations. George, are you interested? I think he's saying no, but he's muted. All right. Yeah, no, sorry. I was telling you, I'm meeting myself. No, I'm great with Mark. And you have to one of you has to make a motion to close nominations. I move to close nominations. Second. So we'll take a vote. Curt? Yes. Yes, for Mark. Yes. Thanks. Oh, George. Right. Thank you, George. George is doing a thumbs up. Okay, so. Now that we've concluded that piece of business, welcome to the city of Boulder. Planning board meeting December fifth, 2023. We will begin. With public participation and I believe vivian will be walking us through.

[2:11] The rules of conduct for public participation. I think actually Amanda will read them. Is that right, Amanda? Yeah, I can do that, Vivian. Hold on 1 s. Okay, but I have them I pulled them out Alright, thank you everybody. The city has engaged with community members to co create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages. Identities lived experiences and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website.

[3:02] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants are required to identify themselves. Using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name. Online before being allowed to speak. For those joining us online, you're in the Zoom Webinar format. When it is time for public participation or the public hearing portion of this meeting, you may use the raise hand function and Vivian will unmute you online you can find that on the.

[4:00] Toolbar down below it and you can also hover. Over the reactions to raise your hand. I don't see anybody on the phone. And, and that's it. Back to you. Thank you. Okay, so no one here. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak about any item other than our public? Hearing item. Okay, and since there's no one online Yeah, Lynn Siegel has her hand raised. So then you'll have 3 min. You can get the time already, Amanda. Please go ahead, Lynn. Yeah, I didn't realize that was a public hearing. But my remarks. Relate to the most important thing. That you can be dealing with as a planning board in the city of Boulder. And that is to be advising.

[5:00] The city. To do something about a resolution regarding. Stopping the carnage. In Palestine. And that is for your own benefit and it is city business. Because before you know it. We're gonna get hit with an atom bomb from Iran at this rate. We need to do something and we need to do it yesterday. It's been 75 years. We've got to change things. If you wanna, but if you want a planning board to be able to advise about 56 91. South Boulder Road. You better do something fast. Because we haven't got much time. And if they don't do just an atom bomb, they're gonna do something like attack some random American city. Like, Boulder, Colorado. I don't doubt it, not for a minute. And if you think about it, if you really Open up your empathy, Gene. You will realize that this is absolutely true. It's completely unconscionable what is going on there.

[6:06] Watch democracy now today or any day. If you really want to see. The babies, the children. The absolute terror and horror of that situation. It is unconscionable. It's a travesty and you need to do something about it. You, the city of Boulder planning board needs to do something about it. Because it starts at the bottom and it goes up. If you want your jobs, if you like being on the planning board, I'm sure it has its digressions, you have to work a lot, but if you want to be there to do anything. Got to do something that's much more important. About the whole situation and you've got to do it now. You really do. There isn't much time. This is this is just unconscionable what's going on. And it's and it's getting worse and worse until We're not, we're not gonna even know what hit us.

[7:04] You really think about it. Think about it, folks. I know maybe if I'm stating the obvious. You know, sorry. But for those who really haven't thought about what this situation. Boats for the city of Boulder. Do something. So far as what we're doing here. And not with this thing tonight, they've got the hearing for, but just development in general. Think about building up. Gaza, which is blasted to the Stone Age, literally. That's where we need to build. Not. In this elegant city of Boulder, Colorado, done. Thank you. Lynn. And there are no other hands raised chair. Back over to you. Thank you. So that will close the public. Participation portion of our meeting. We're going to move on to agenda item. Number 3, approval of the minutes. We have. We were supplied with minutes from our October seventeenth.

[8:09] 2023 meeting. And since we have 4 of us and the 4 of us were in attendance then, did anyone have or 5 of us? I'm sorry. We. Right. Yeah. So all of us were in attendance then. So anyway, is there. Did anyone have any changes to the minutes? Okay. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. Second. We'll take a boat, Bye. Yes. Epstein because I was. You were absent then sorry. Okay. George. Yes. And I'm a yes, so. The minutes are approved. We'll move on to our public hearing item.

[9:08] Which is a public hearing consideration of a site at 5,691 South Boulder Road. How do I read the entire agenda item? Is that? Required or do we just I think it would be good for the record to establish the application and the location, the type of, actions you're gonna take tonight. Okay. Okay, then we'll, we'll begin with the staff presentation, Chandler, will, read that so we don't have to read it twice. We'll do a staff presentation. We'll do clarifying questions of staff. Then applicant presentation questions to the applicant.

[10:04] Public hearing and then board deliberations. So take it away, Chandler. Alright, thank you. And good evening, planning board members. As you just mentioned, this is, a 2 item hearing, 56, 91, South Boulder Road, annexation and site review. To. Why is my arrow not working? There you go. So to be specific, we are Requesting, planning board. Make a recommendation on a petition to annex in approximately 5.3 acre parcel that 56 91 South Boulder road with an initial zoning designation of residential low 2 or RL 2. Associated wetland mapping was reviewed under case number L you are 2020 0 0. 5 7. And then the second part is for planning board to take action on a site review. For the development of the site.

[11:02] With 15 new homes on the western half of the site and one new home in the general location of the existing currently vacant single family home at the east end of the site. The project proposes 6 of the new homes is permanently affordable, middle income, middle income cottage homes of approximately 1,300 square foot each. 3 of them is market rate attainable cottage homes between 1,300 1,500 square feet. And 6 of them as market rate single family detached homes between 28 and 2,900 square feet with detached accessory dwelling units. And site review, case numbers, LUR, 2020 dash 0 0 0 5 8. So the review process again, this project is in for annexation. The annexation is required in order for the site review to happen. So the site review is conditioned upon approval of the annexation. In the site review, they are requesting a few modifications from the land use code. Including reduced front. Rear inside yard setbacks for both principal and accessory structures. Reduction in the minimum lot with the minimum lot frontage.

[12:02] On a public street to allow for 5 of the new lots to be 28 feet in width and one to be 23 and a half feet. Where 30 feet is otherwise the minimum required. And they're also requesting averaging of open space standards across multiple lots within the site review. So in terms of public notification, we followed all of the code protocol written notice was sent to property owners within 600 square or within 600 feet of the property. This happened when they first submitted in 2,020 and then also when they resubmitted in 2023. Notice was posted on the property. Comments were received from neighbors in 2020. Expressing concerns with density and groundwater. The applicant since held Good neighbor meetings in both January, 2020 and May of 2023. About 36 people attended total and staff has not received any additional comments from neighbors since the May.

[13:03] Meeting. So, in terms of location, the roughly 5.3 acre site is located on the east side of 50 Fifth Street. North of South Boulder Road and south of the East Boulder Community Park. That's surrounding single family residential neighborhoods or green belt meadows, which are adjacent to the south. And Kuwait and Meadows, which is to the northwest. Both those were annexed in 1983 and 1963 respectively. City owned open space slides adjacent to the site to the north and east. This is just another aerial map showing some of the surrounding context. You can see the East Boulder community centers very close by. And Green Belt Meadows, Kuwait and Meadows, and OSNP land to the east. And this is just a picture of the existing site as seen from 50 Fifth Street looking east. I'm so you can see the existing home way back there and I'm kind of the north end of Green Belt Meadows there.

[14:04] Another aerial photo of the existing site. So the existing parcel was created in the early 19 sixties and the existing one story. Frame ranch style single family home was moved from 20 eighth street and baseline to the site in 1963 the historic peacocks in a backyard pen on the site were moved with the house. The house has a failing well and the owner seek city water and super service via annexation. It was a previously grandfather commercial use, which was repair of trailers from 1965 to 2,007 on the property. Whoever that use has been eliminated. The properties currently under the jurisdiction of Boulder County in a zoned R or a rural residential by the county. The site is located within, BVCP planning area 2. Area 2 refers to land now under county jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with policies. 1, 8, 100, and, 8, 100, and, 17, annexation.

[15:07] The property is designated low density residential on the land use map of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. This has an anticipated density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre or less. Generally, I'm consistent with low density residential zoning. The site is impacted by both the 100 year and the 500 year flood planes as well as a small piece of conveyance zone. The property came in in 2020 for a concept plan. Oops. There we go. Okay. So the 2020 concept plan. That was for a remodel and expansion of the existing home along with subdivision of the property to add 4 new single family home lots. At the playing board meeting on June fourth, 2020, a majority of board members express support for RL 2 zoning.

[16:00] More affordable housing, providing additional community benefit, single-family homes, and or duplexes with 8, 12 or 16 units total. And using the existing driveway with a variance of the cities designing construction standards. And the board also encouraged the applicant to pursue shared open space. On the site as well. So the proposal for the annexation as I mentioned before is to annex the 5.3 acre parcel. Why are these coming up out of order? Okay. I'm just gonna make them all come up and I'll read them. So it is with an area too. They're requesting an RL 2 zoning designation. The proposed annexation would include adoption of a wetland map and wetland mapping, for the city. They would be dedicating approximately 30 feet of right away on the east side of 50 Fifth Street to the city, not included in annexation. So just be dedicated to the city but not annexed into the city. First ride of refusal to the city for ditch shares in the dry creek number 2 ditch and Howard ditch both of which crossed the property.

[17:00] Ditch easements similarly for Howard Ditch, dry creek number 2 ditch and the cant lateral of the dry creek number 2 ditch. And then, it's worth noting that a sewer line easement across a portion of the city's Boulder Gbard open space and mountain parks property. Is required to serve the proposed subdivision and that this went through open space. Board and was approved by council in June of 2023. So, in the annexation, they are asking for a few additional modifications to code standards that are not otherwise allowed through site review. So they, they can request them through annexation. So one is to allow for, some of the required parking for some of the cottage units to be located on small separate lots. Typically the code requires that parking be provided on the same lot as the use for which it is intended. And so they're asking to be able to have. Small lots that would be under the same ownership as the primary cottage homes, but they would just have small garages that would provide parking for the cottage hubs.

[18:01] They're also asking to allow for detached ADUs, with a height of up to 25 feet. And a roof pitch of less than 8 12 but no less than 4 12 and I'll explain that a little bit. The code requires the code allows you to go up to 25 feet. For attached A to you, but the roof pitch has to be 8, 12 or greater. So a fairly steep roof pitch. And the applicant has shown us that. There are grading considerations on the site. There's essentially kind of a sunken, center portion of the site. That's going to require some fill in order to provide drainage. So they are concerned that with an 8, 12 roof pitch, they would not be able to achieve the 25 foot. Height for 80 use So they've asked that we allow them to have a slightly less steep roof pitch of down to 4 12 but no less than 4 12. And the condition that we have in the annexation agreement currently. Allows the city manager to, grant that if during building permit they can show that it is necessary to be able to construct a littleable detached accessory dwelling unit due to physical circumstances of the property requiring addition of fill.

[19:11] And 2 that the design is consistent with the character established in the design guidelines. Approved for the property insight review. So that's the way we have it. I'm currently phrasing the annexation agreement. So in terms of the community benefit package. And the big community benefit is affordable housing. So we are requiring 40% or 6 units, whichever is greater to be permanently affordable. These will these will be detached single family homes with a minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet. At least 2 of the units shall have a minimum of 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. And all the other units will have a minimum of 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. The 2 bedroom units are to be deed restricted. To be affordable for households earning between 100 120% of the area median income.

[20:06] And the 3 bedroom units are to be deed restricted at 1 20 to 150% of the area median income. So these are both in the range that we know of as missing middle. New dwelling units, including a replacement dwelling unit, should be constructed on a one to one basis. So there's a concurrency requirement that means for every market rate unit. They construct they have to build one affordable unit at the same time. And the annotation agreement also requires the detached accessory drawing. It's so these are required for the 6 new market rate units that are over 2,000 square feet in size except for the replacement dwelling unit, which is the replacement Kent home. So this requirement says that each of these, units must have a detached accessory billing unit. So now I'm going to jump into the site review.

[21:03] So, as I mentioned before, the site review proposal is for 15 new homes plus a new replacement home for the existing vacant Kent home. 9 of the homes will be 13 to 1,500 square feet. Known as cottage homes in the application. 6 of the cottage homes again are to be permanently affordable to middle income households. 6 single family homes will be between 28 and 2,900 square feet. And these will have detached garages with A to use above. And overall the project provides a mix of attached garage detached garage and some surface parking spaces as well as 11 on street parking spaces for a total shown of 47. So the, design guidelines, as I mentioned in the staff memo, they have not provided final designs for the homes. Instead they provided design guidelines that are intended to Basically guide the development of the property and and establish standards. So the design guidelines, set forth kind of a modern prairie style architecture, with features like gabled roofs covered porches.

[22:11] Wood trim windows siding with changes between floors. Variety of options for floor plans, elevation styles, and color schemes that all, let the applicant dive into more if they want. And then, specific requirements for side yard elevations facing streets to ensure transparency and visual interest. I'm similarly there are some requirements for fence heights on on side yards facing streets as well So this is a site plan. The red lines are showing, proposed sidewalks. And the yellow kind of transparent bits are showing where the on street parking is located. So this, the project includes a new 30 foot residential street. Peacock place that includes a 60 foot right away with 5 foot detached sidewalks and 8 foot tree lawns.

[23:00] Detached sidewalks and tree lones are also proposed along 50 Fifth Street. Peacock place transitions to a 20 foot wide residential access lane slash secondary access drive to the Kent home new detached sidewalks and tree ones on East side of 50 Fifth Street, as I just mentioned, sorry. Attach sidewalk. Would be provided west of the larger units. So that's the red line kind of immediately next to the 6 big lots. Again, 11 spaces of on street parking. And the proposal includes maintaining the existing gravel driveway access to the canton on the southern portion of the lot. So it goes to the south of all of the new homes. There's an existing driveway which they're proposing to keep. This is a site plan showing the proposed open space. So as I mentioned before, they're requesting open space to be shared across the site. With private open space areas on each lot. And the majority of the required open space for the new units being provided in 2 large outlaws.

[24:01] Those are shown here in the red. And these out lots total approximately 36,400 square feet or about point 8 acres. I'm on the eastern portion of the site. Where there is an existing pond, a proposed detention pond, and a narrow strip of wetland. The proposal also includes a paved pathway, which is shown in yellow between the houses there. I'm leading from the western portion of the site through the rear yards, the larger market units, the open space area. Which includes trellis seating areas as well as a walking path, which is shown there in yellow and there are the trellis seating areas shown in red circles there. To provide access and recreational opportunities for residents. And then the, portion of the site to the east of the shared open space would remain under Kent ownership. This is the wetland map that is proposed to be adopted as part of the anecdote.

[25:00] And I just overlaid this with a site plan so you can see how it lays out but essentially the existing wetlands will be split. One of them would be on the shared open space area. Outside of the detention pond area there and the other one. Essentially runs kind of in front of the Kent home between the driveway and the home. And these are narrow. Strips of wetland that are essentially associated with the existing ditches on that portion of the property. Actually I can get more specific wetland C is a low functioning wetland located along a drainage swell just west of the residence as well as around a small ornamental pond. The primary water source for that wetland is irrigation water. The other superfas collateral ditch. And wetland D is a low functioning wetland located on the eastern part of the property near the existing residence along the Howard ditch. So the one on the left is wetland C, the one on the right is wetland D. And so I have some key issues for discussion. And one is does the project on balance meet the relevant goals and policies of the BVCP?

[26:05] 2 is the proposed annexation consistent with state statutes and BVCP policies including BVCP policy 1.1 7 annexation. 3 is the initial zoning of residential low 2 appropriate for the land proposed to be annexed. 4, does the project meet applicable site review criteria on section 9 2 14 H. And 5 is any other key issues that may be identified by the board. So for key issue one, does the project on balance meet the relevant goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan? I'm not going to go into detail on all of these. These are outlined in the staff memo. But we did find that it is consistent with the number of BVCP goals and policies. Including, 2.0 3 compact development pattern. 2.0 9 neighborhoods as building blocks, 2.11 accessory units, 2.3 6 physical design for people and some subsections at 2.4 one enhanced design for all projects.

[27:02] And, section 7.0 2 affordable housing bills. Kissue number 2 is the proposed annexation consistent with state statues and BVCP policies including BVCP policy 1.1 7 annexation. I'm so I'm just gonna quickly kind of summarize our findings for these policies. So BBCP policy 1.0 8 adapting the limits on physical expansion The annexation agreement has been written to enhance the physical social and economic assets of the community. 1.10 growth requirements. The annexation would provide significant community benefits in the form of wetland mapping and preservation as well as affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units. 1.1 3 definition of comprehensive planning areas it is located with an area 2 so that's kind of a no-brainer. 1.1 7 annexation. There are, services that will be available, if this is annexed. The code or the comp plan does say that we will actively pursue. I'm area 2 properties. This is a substantially developed area.

[28:05] It does respect existing lifestyles and densities. And there is significant development or redevelopment potential and we found that it does provide special benefit and therefore allowable. Under that policy. It also meets all the Colorado revised statutes, Article 12 of Title 31. I believe that is one of the attachments where I do the deep dive on the state statutes. Key issue number 3 is the initial zoning request for RL 2 appropriate for the land proposed to be annex. As described above, the site is designated as low density residential, which anticipates a density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre or less. The proposed zoning is RL 2, which has a density range consistent with the land you're designation and would be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood to the south. Green Belt Meadows, which is also zoned RL 2. Overall staff finds the use in intensity controls of the RL 2 district.

[29:04] Are consistent with the BBCP policies and land use map designation and allow for development that is compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed zoning of RL 2 is also a logical extension of city zoning with the RL 2 zoning located to the south and the green belt neighbors. Green Belt Meadows neighborhood. Excuse me. K issue number 4, does the project meet the applicable site review criteria? And again, I won't go through all the site review criteria. But we found that the height and mass are compatible and contextual with the existing character of the area. Hi quality and durable building materials are used with contextually appropriate architecture. We find transparency and activity at the pedestrian level. It assists the community in producing a variety of housing types. Well designed open space areas appropriate for both passive and active uses. Which would also provide a relief to the density both within and around the project. The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features.

[30:10] Safe and convenient connections are provided and support multimodal mobility. Land devoted to the street system is minimized. Visual impacts of parking are minimized. And the project minimizes and mitigates energy use. So, the staff recommendation. For the annexation. Staff finds the proposed annexation to be consistent with state statutes. Staff finds the proposed annexation to be consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the application for initial zoning of the parcels addressed 5,600, and 91 South Boulder road as residential low 2. We're consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive playing goals and language destination of residential low. Therefore, staff recommends that planning board adopt the following motion, which I will not read here, but which I will have available for you.

[31:02] And the recommendation for the site review, planning staff finds that the application meets the site review criteria found in land use code section 9 2 14 H of BRC. Therefore, staff recommends planning board consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion, which is to approve the site review. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Chandler. Excellent presentation. Okay, now is the time for, questions from the board for staff. And just a reminder, Mr. Chair, we have limited availability with our housing and human services staff. So if there's questions related to affordable housing, community benefit, things of those nature. It would be great if we could, dispense with those first. Great. In fact, so we'll, with that information, we'll take affordability. Housing. And community benefit questions. First and then we can make another round once we've concluded with those.

[32:01] So anyone have questions in regard to that topic or. Thank you, Chair. I have 2. Sloane with us She is on the call. My first question is whether When the ADUs were discussed was the possibility of having affordable A to use disgust. One Okay, yes, I think. Okay, not been able to unmute. Chandler, do you wanna? We, Yeah, I mean, I I can get a little bit of background. We did discuss that. And my memory is that essentially the affordable ADU price versus the market rate at you price is not that significantly different that they felt that it would be a major benefit to have it be affordable and they also felt that it would make the market rate homes more marketable.

[33:11] If there weren't restrictions on what they could charge for the A to use. So I think it was kind of a concession. We could either make the A to use optional, affordable, or require them. And make them market rate. That was my recollection. Sloan does that. Check out Yeah, that's correct. And just as a reminder, when we refer to something as an affordable ADU, it's not covenant restricted. Essentially someone signs an agreement that they're going to rent at a certain level. So it's not something we would typically ask for through an annexation because we wouldn't be able to ask for a covenant. If we were to follow our standard process. Thank you. Thank you both Chandler and Sloan. And Chandler, when you said they felt, is they the applicant or is they the applicant or is they staff? There's staff. Yeah. So staff felt like it wasn't that big of a difference in the rental rate and that it was worth it to.

[34:08] To have the guaranteed that the 6 80 use would be built rather than making them optional but required affordable. Correct. Okay, thank you. That was one of my questions. The other, on page 132 of the packet, it said that the applicant was in negotiations with thistle for over 6 months to see if this all wanted to do something on this site and it says this will chose not to move forward. Is there a backstory to that? Why was thistle not interested in being the developer for the affordable units? I would have to defer to the for that. Okay. Sloan also you would defer to the applicant. Yeah, I don't have any background on that. Okay, I can ask the applicant. Thank you so much. Those were my 2 questions for affordable housing.

[35:02] Thank you. Thank you, Chandler, for the presentation. It's always a pleasure to see the. Comprehensive nature of the review. So the question I have regarding the affordable nature of the project is. In the general description it talks about the 15 detached houses it talks about 6 of them. Being permanently affordable, middle income, 3 of them market rate attainable. Are there? Are there? Categories that describe what does that mean? Not the one, the affordable middle income. I think you've got the AMI range and all that market rate attainable. And is, is this something that would be fixed into the project so that they remain. Market rate attainable and that they remain, I think I saw in the covenants the permanently of for affordable, middle income might be, but.

[36:04] That's the nature of my question. Are these definable? And are, are they into perpetuity? They are not deed restricted. So market rate attainable essentially just means kind of less expensive by design it's it's essentially just relying on the size of them to make them more affordable than a larger home. But we do not, there, they would not be deed restricted or, income restrict or anything like that. So there would be no restriction on resale value or anything like that. Moving forward. And is that, because we can't or because we chose not to. Actually, Sloan, can you answer that? I don't know if we are able to require more than the 40%. For community benefit. Yeah, I can talk to that a little bit. So. When an annexation, needs to demonstrate community benefit, the emphasis is typically on affordable housing.

[37:05] And in the past, our policy has been somewhere between 40 and 60% of new housing would be covenant. Deed restricted affordable housing. However, we've, sort of learned through the process that that 60% is very hard for developers to make pencil when they're developing so especially when you're developing something like single family detached homes that seems reasonable to ask for the 40% and then ask for the market rate to be size restricted and designed to be more of a market rate affordable. Product type. Is that site? And I, sorry, I have to, I forgot to introduce myself. For the record as well. So I'm Sloan Walber. I'm a housing planner in housing and human services. Thank you, Sloane. So is the. Hmm.

[38:01] Market rate. Attainable. Is that size gonna be? Restricted? Is that in the covenant? As a restricted size? It's in the design guidelines and the site. It's in this it's also a requirement under the annexation agreement. That would be in the covenant. Or however, yeah, the annexation agreement would be recorded against the property and it would restrict it in perpetuity. Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Following up regarding the. Either either Sloane or Tandler When you are calculating the affordability benefit, I'm guessing you were assuming that they'd use would be rented out. Thanks.

[39:00] George? I don't have any further questions. Okay, I have a couple. What so you have 6 homes that are permanently affordable deed restricted is there a body that actually administers that deed restriction or is it just census part of the deed. That would be handled by. Title companies, closing agents, etc. But who actually follows through if I own a home for 10 years. And then I decide to sell it. Who makes those determinations of the future owners afford, do they meet the A and I requirements and how is that administered? Go on. I, I can take that. Yeah, so. Once they are deed restricted, they become part of sort of the housing, inventory, the affordable housing inventory within the city.

[40:04] Okay. So That is able to be sold by, you know. Private party and they're they can choose their own realtor but a buyer has to be certified through the city has meeting the income requirements. So that city has their own staff that sort of help administer the ownership. Program. Okay, thank you. I assume there will be an HOA. For the entire development is that correct Yes, that's correct. Okay. And, if a unit is permanently affordable. My understanding is there's still no restriction. On the increase. In the. On the either the dollar amount of HOA fees or dues.

[41:02] And there is no restriction on the increase that might. Those permanently affordable. Homes might be subjected to they would be exactly the same. As the market units. Is that correct or have we done something? About that. I'm actually not sure of the details, but I do remember this being we discussed this and I know that it was being we discussed this and I know that it was a concern that I know that it was a concern that Michelle raised in housing that the structure of the HOA, Michelle raised in housing that the structure of the HOA should be such that, Michelle raised in housing that the structure of the HOA should be such that it essentially kind of prorated the affordable units versus the larger market rate units. I don't know where that. Would live or if that's been formalized in the agreement. Hello is this? Does this ring any bells for you? I don't think the agreement addresses that. And that be something we could address in the subdivision agreement. Sorry, I'm trying to look through the annexation agreement to see. What we said about that.

[42:08] Okay. Okay. Oh, you look, I'll just give a little context to my question and that is again, I have a limited understanding of this, but, I think some of our early efforts at deed restricted, permanently affordable. Owner, homes. Some of those people have struggled. As HOA dues have. Gone up as the as the greater HOA has said, gee, we want to make these improvements or we want to have this amenity or whatever it might be. The, people meeting the income requirements for the primarily affordable units have struggled. With the HOA dues. Of which they are income. Appreciated their appreciation limited consequently they're paying into an HOA for an amenity that subsequently they can't.

[43:12] Really enjoy the benefit of when they sell their units. So. It is something that, some. Residents of permanently afforded, deed restricted homes have. Struggle with or complained about. Okay. So looking for an answer for you. But I know it's addressed somewhere. I think I just don't know where. Okay. Well, this and and maybe well. We can address this even, even later. So while you look and maybe I'll ask. A different question and maybe Chandler can. Answer while you continue to look. I don't want to distract you. Following on to Kurder Laura's question about affordability of the ADUs.

[44:02] Is there any requirement that the ADU be actually occupied? No. Okay. I think that's all I have for housing. So on you, do you wanna, do you wanna keep searching for a little bit or? Yeah, I'll just ping Chandler when I. Track down what I'm looking for that works for you. Okay. Alright, if we have no other questions regarding housing or affordability. We'll move on to any other questions. We may have for, for staff on other topics. And I'm gonna call George. First and see if he has. Any other questions? No, I actually don't have any further questions. Okay, great. Okay.

[45:04] First question is about Peacock Place, which I think is the If I got the place versus slain versus whatever right, that's the portion that actually intersects with 50 fifth. Is there parking? On there. Is it it would be prohibited? Okay. My next question is, I know that some place it said that there would be no basements. But is there anything to enforce that? I mean just the consistency with the design guidelines and site review plans. They say that there is no basements and we require consistency with those plans. Theoretically they could come in and try to amend the site review later. Yeah, and then can I do one more and then you can go on.

[46:03] The site plan as I saw it seemed to indicate. Inconsistent setbacks of the cottages on 50 fifth. So several were set back, maybe 5 feet or something more than. And another one. Was there any discussion of that? It just it seemed a little odd from a design standpoint. Not. Really? That I recall? I mean, I think it was kind of intended to provide a bit of Just for variety in the frontage. I can ask the app. Okay, I will pass it on for now. Thank you. I have a bunch, but maybe I'll just ask a few for now. So this site review is coming to us with design guidelines and not a finished design.

[47:01] I think it's the first that I've seen in my short time here on Planning Board. Has this been done before that we approve a site review with just design guidelines and not an actual design. Yes. Can you give an example? Shining Mountain Waldorf School. It would be a recent one. Okay, portions of the armory as well. Armory and the Waldorf School. Okay, thank you. The variances for the setbacks that are requested in the variances from the schedule of form and bulk standards. That are mentioned in the packet. Is that just for the cottages along 50 Fifth Street or does the main house itself is it requesting variances and setbacks for the main the can't replacement home? No, the the Kent home would meet zoning standards. It's all for the new units. Okay, so they can't home meets all of our compatible development standards. They're not asking for any kind of exceptions for the main house. Yeah, no, no exceptions. Okay, thank you. On page 1, 71, it talks about sustainability and energy efficiency for the main home.

[48:05] And it says the goal is net 0, but what is the requirement? Is that just our normal energy code requirements? Yeah, the requirement would just be our energy code. Which is not not 0, but which is Very robust. Okay, so they have an aspiration to go above and beyond, but they would at minimum be required to meet the normal energy code, the sanctification doesn't change that. And about the cottages and the market rate homes. Are those all for sale? Yes. Okay. I'll stop there and pass pass the baton and maybe circle around if my other questions don't get asked. Thank you. Thank you. So I like Laura. Have a list of questions. I will start. In kind of key issue order, but.

[49:07] So the One of the. Requirements with the BBCP policy 1.1 7 annexation. Talks about the availability of adequate facilities and services. So do we have an infrastructure report on impact 2 and requirements from our water and wastewater systems by this project? I might defer to Edward for that. Good evening, Edward Stafford. Senior Manager of Engineering, Planning Development Services. And yes, as a part of the annexation, site review process, they prefer a preliminary utility plan reports for us. That we've reviewed to determine that yes, there's capacity in the system and there is certainly capacity in the treatment plants for this developer. Thank you. Okay, next question. Having to do with the open space.

[50:03] So. My understanding is so. This is. The BVCP. L our land use. Talks about 2 to 6 units per acre. The RL 2, however. Is a little bit different. It requires 6,000 square feet of open space per unit. So just doing some basic math, 15 times 6 or 1615 times 6,000, 9,900, So how much open space is required and I know it got deferred from, you know, being on each individual parcel to aggregated over the whole site. So 2 questions, I guess one is how much is actually provided and And there seem to be 2. Other.

[51:03] Not part of these 15 unit the single family house. And the peacock area I saw somewhere that that's going to be under separate ownership. Okay, the can't ownership. Yeah, they'd like to keep ownership. S. Score footage or parcel of the house So that would not be towards open space requirement. So how do those numbers look? Well, they meet all the RL 2 standards. So like you said, for 15 units, it's 90,000 square feet. So about 2 acres. Give or take. Right. So they're on the small lots for each of the homes. They're proposing a certain amount of open space and then there's the point 8 3 acre shared open space which is the 2 outlaws which is where the kind of majority of, that almost 2 acres is being met and then the Kent would maintain about a 1.9.

[52:02] Acre parcel under their existing Okay, I saw somewhere in the staff analysis that it says 36,393 square feet of open space is provided. So I was kind of confused as to it doesn't look like 90,000 square feet. So I'm kind of confused as to what how that calculation. We're talking about. The land that the 15 units are on plus the 2. Parcels of of wetland and that. And all of that adds up to at least 90,000 square feet of open space. Yes. Yeah, actually they're exceeding the minimum open space. By a bit. Charles, yeah, looks like, on page, 125 of the packet. Yeah, looks like, on page, 125 of the packet. It looks like total usable open space is But that's, so I think that that's including the house.

[53:10] I think that's including the entire site. So that's why I was. Right. I saw some discrepancies is why I'm asking. Yeah, it's open space table. Yeah, so I think it's over on the left side. But regardless I have There is the information on that open space which shows just the area of the 2 outlaws. Yeah, so. We talk place neighborhood site area. Is 2.4 3 acres. That site area is 1.3. I'm sorry, I've kind of lost track of the question. You're just asking to verify that they're definitely meeting. I saw discrepancy. I saw this stuff. You know, it's a little bit confusing in the final place.

[54:01] But across the entire site if you if you count the Kent property then there's yeah 9,000 square feet of open space per unit total and if you remove the Kent property from that equation and you have just the outlaws and the new lots to be developed, then it comes out closer to just over 6,000 square feet per unit unit. That 100. Okay. Okay, so last question is about the, bulk and density standard changes that are being that are being sought. So. I understand. So there. Set back. Requirements are being. Waved and new ones are being proposed. I didn't see what's actually required versus what's proposed. Was there a yeah I didn't list all of them because they kind of change on several of the lots. Right, which is what one of my colleagues had noticed that is not a consistent. Set back variance so yeah, I mean, so one example for accessory structures like technically the way we, determine front and rear yard, the ADUs are in the front yard of the market rate homes.

[55:08] So they have a 55 foot. The front yard set back in the code and they're asking essentially for the A to to be pushed closer to the street. So that's one of the modifications. And then the others are really just associated with the reduction in the lot widths. In all of the cottage homes I think have reduced side yard setbacks. Right. How much are those? They look really tight. Those cottages that are on the western part of the site. Yeah, I'd have to let me look at Go to site plan a little more closely. Yeah, I mean, they definitely made them tight. Sorry, I'm not sure that I have my, oh, here we go. So.

[56:01] I think the. The smallest side yard setback or the Lowest side here, that back. I think is 3 feet. Thank you. And last inside this area about the Vulcan Density Standards. It said there were changes to the maximum building coverage and is that that ADU being in the front yard set back or what. What change are there to building coverage? There is no change to building coverage. Oh, on the requested land use code modifications. Where it said, you gotta check off things that you're. Yeah, yeah, that's not so. Good. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Laura, go. Okay, I'll go and then we'll come back to you, see if I ask anything.

[57:01] That you might have on US. Do the so this area. I'm. A little familiar with it. I won't go into all the reasons why, but. You know, very high water table in this area or adjacent to it, especially over in the Kuwait Meadows area. So the design guidelines for the construction of this. Kurt asked about basements, basements are prohibited. Are these to be built on crawl spaces? Will, will there be mechanical in the crawl space or is this slab on grade? Or actually elevated. Tell me about propose a slab on grade and the grade itself may require some fill. In order to bring it, up a little bit to create adequate drainage. Okay, good. Does Which flood map? As I went through the packet, there's there's a lot of flood mapping and this is and it's very complex, right?

[58:01] So I which flood map. Are we using as our. Primary tool and Are we in this site review? Are we is there any request to violate any. What, flood zone. Criteria. Edward. Good evening again on the flood plane. So what applies is FEMA regulatory map in this case for South Boulder Creek. No, there are no variances. In fact, we would not be able to grant as variance outside of what our code requires because that would put us in violation of the National Flood Insurance Program. And there have been no requests for any such variances in this project. Okay, so when I looked at the FEMA map it looked like unlike some of the other maps, the FEMA map had a larger 100 year area. And again, I could be easily misreading this, but so we're going by the FEMA map and some of these homes are in the.

[59:07] 100 year flood plane, but that is allowable. Is that? It is allowed. We allow new residential construction or residential residential construction in the 100 gear. It has to be elevated to the base flood elevation. But we have that actually occur throughout the city on a regular basis. Okay, thank you. And Okay, I'm gonna stop there. Laura, go ahead. Did Kirk happen before me? We'll go back around. George didn't have anymore. I have a couple of questions regarding this. Dedication of land on the east side of 50 fifth street. I think it's a 30 foot. Right away with, right? The first question is you said that that was not going to be annexed.

[60:03] Can you explain why? I'll explain that actually. Yeah, and in the county right of way is in the East and in the city most of the time it's a fee land interest. So one of the things that the city is requiring that the right of way that exists and maybe even beyond that is dedicated and fee to the city. We're not annexing that because the other half of the street is currently owned by the owner. On the west side of the road. And it's we don't consider it good practice to annex half of a right of way. Because it creates intentional issues. So the city does not currently. Own the entire street or am I misunderstanding? That's correct. Yeah, it's currently county right of way. And actually on 50 fifth street I think it may actually kind of go back and forth.

[61:03] There is some right of way already to the north that the city owns and condemned I think many years ago. But it is the right of way. I think it's, it's maintained by the county. In this area. Okay, well, that's you've thought about it. So that's good enough for me. My secondary question is about the motivation for that. Dedication. I saw something that indicated that it was in hopes of eventually providing a bike facility. Along 50 fifth is that right and is that something that's in the TMP or I'm really the basis of my question is. How realistic is that given that that development, the Green Belt Meadows area to the south is. Pretty close, fairly close to the street. I'm just wondering if this, if this dedication land would ever realistically get used.

[62:08] I mean, it's providing a detached sidewalk and tree lines and tree lines as it is. So it does create kind of a pedestrian connection on the east side. I mean granted it ends at the end of the property. Presumably you wouldn't need 30 feet for that. Yeah, I'm not sure where the, I mean, I think the 30 feet. Is just kind of a standard half of our typical right of way width. So for annexing that's how much we would get if that's under private ownership currently. Oh, so this is not okay. That's part of my confusion. This is not for an additional 30 feet beyond the curb face or something is 30 feet from. The center line, perhaps. No, it's 30 feet of the property. So. I'm not. But we typically, yeah, what we typically require is that when, 60 foot ride of way.

[63:05] Typically require 60 feet to be dedicated and fee and then 30 feet feet come from One side from the property on the one side and 30 feet from the property on the other. So that's, I think what we're trying to establish here, I suspect that it's also the center. Of the current right of way, but I haven't looked at it at the map. Just. The 30 feet, at least part of the existing. It does. Yeah. Yeah, I think. A large part of it and actually it's the the western 30 feet of the property. What's being dedicated in fee because that's what we typically require. And that overlaps with the existing right of way. Right. Okay, I might understand. But that's helpful. Thank you. Alright, Laura, go ahead. Thank you. I actually just have a couple more. 3.

[64:04] So every unit has its own dedicated parking garage and or parking spaces for the ADUs. And then there are 11 visitor spaces. I presume that the answer to my question is that that will be managed by the HOA to ensure that residents don't just fill up those 11 visitor spaces with their own extra cars because they have teenagers or they have a car collection or whatever. But is there anything in the annexation agreement about the management of those 11 visitor spaces? There's not. Okay. Second question, on page 158, it talks about Peacock Lane and it talks about that side walk on the West leg that you showed in red on one of your slides, Chandler. And then it says pedestrians to walk in the pedestrian friendly street. So I'm assuming that's for the rest of the loop, the north, south, and east.

[65:00] Parts of Peacock Lane. Can you talk it all about like I guess you're just anticipating it will be a very low traffic street and so it's fine for people to walk in it but is there anything I'm missing there? I mean that's a big part of it and then also there's there's the pedestrian connection that goes right through the middle. Of the site. So I think in general the feeling was if It's residents from the east side of the site getting to the open space. They're probably just going to take the straight shot connection and not walk around the street and if it's folks in the larger market rate units we're trying to Get east, day 2 would. Would likely just go to the center. But yes, I mean, I think ideally the super low speeds anticipated. Made us feel like it was okay not to have sidewalks going around the entire property. Okay, thank you. Last question. There are some drawings, renderings of the fences, the anticipated fencing on the property and it looks like it's almost all wood. Was there any discussion about using a different more fire resistant material than wood for fences? I thought we were trying to phase those out in the city, wood fencing.

[66:08] You know, there wasn't any discussion. I'm, and I was not aware of that, but I do agree that, Other materials are probably preferable. I don't think that the design guidelines require them to be wood. So I think if they wanted to use a would like material, that would be fine. Okay, it may be going too far for me to say we're trying to phase those out. I just know that there's a lot of discussion about trying to. Move towards more fire resistant materials. It's good to know that they could choose a different material, especially a more fire resistant material, if they wanted to. Thank you. Okay, Kurt, M, okay, go ahead. Thank you. I just have one more question. So I'm looking at 9 2 14 H. Number 4. Projects greater than 5 acres shall include at least 5 dwelling units of each required qualifying housing type.

[67:04] So this is housing diversity and bedroom unit types. I guess if. If 4. If I and their housing diverse and bedroom unit types. Which is F. And IV, it starts to talk about. When when and how that diversity gets applied. Are you reading from the new site view criteria that are online? I did. Right. Cause I was like, hmm, I make sure I got the right one. This is one thing I guess I probably should have mentioned my presentation because this was submitted in 2020 and has been an active case since then actually reviewed against the old site review criteria. So what does the old site review criteria have to say? Do we not have housing? Diversity and bedroom unit types in the prior one? We do it just says that it assists the city and creating a variety of housing unit types. So it's just more general.

[68:08] And, and, and, a variety of housing unit types. So it's just more general. Oh, so there's no specificity. Yeah, and it was included in the decision making matrix that I sent out to the board was all the previous, criteria so I can pull that up real quick. Yep, and we did. We did make a finding that overall with. With ADUs and the mid size cottage chomes and the larger market rate homes that they were meeting that and providing a variety of housing types. So I'm not sure if this is a question for you. This is just part of our board discussion, but. It sounded to me like the planning board that met on concept review. Was interested. In more housing. And so that's why the project has come back the way it has. But if I understood correctly what that, conversation was about.

[69:02] That they were talking about. Like duplexes, like duplexes and that sort of thing. Is was that part of the Thinking as the applicant brought the project back. To actually not have them all be detached units but some attached units. You know, probably have to let the applicant kind of talk about their thought process in terms of how they. Decided on the unit types. I will say that from the community. Benefit perspective, you know, the missing middle like affordable detached single family homes or something that the city, really wants more of. So we, you know, the missing middle like affordable detached single family homes or something that the city, really wants more of. So we and also in terms of, you know, there are a lot of site review criteria that require compatibility with the adjacent area and stuff like that. So I think that they're thinking was that this is this would be a better fit with the existing single family neighborhoods that are. Right next door on both sides as opposed to. Duplex units. Yeah, I'm thinking about those small setbacks.

[70:05] And the 2 plus story. You know, just the bulk that is created by. It's like, wow, why don't we just attach that? What are you gonna do in those little skinnies? But anyway, so thank you for that. For that, clarification on how this landed work did. Okay, okay, I have a last one and maybe the most extraneous or tangential. You know, and I'll and when we get into deliberations, I may talk more about this. My question is, this is adjacent to the Hogan PAN cost property. Which is its northern border. And that is currently. Owned and managed by OSMP. The behest of the city a couple of years ago.

[71:00] Is that property still? . You know, I wish I'd asked Bethany to come tonight, but they have had a bunch of discussions about fencing. I know that. I know that SNP staff has been talking to the applicant and maybe they'll want to talk about it in their presentation, but they're they have definitely talked about the required fencing between OSMP and this land. So I don't know if it's fenced right now or not. But I know that OSMP is interested in fencing and that they have. Expressed the type of fencing that they will require. Okay, interesting. And, I, this is probably another, question for OSMP and I actually put in a call to you know one of these late in the day calls that no one was able to get back to me. But. My understanding is, is that while this is an OSMB property and it's designated as a natural area as one of their specific designations.

[72:05] It is currently completely off limits to public access to any of you. You concur with that is off limits to public access. Publicly owned, but it is essentially treated like private city property. Not OSMP. Right. And I'll get to the regrettable portion of that. When we get to our deliberations. But anyway, thank you. That's, that's. I think that concludes our questions. Okay. So we will move on to the applicant. Presentation. Just like, Good evening, everyone. My name is Joe Kent. My wife is in the third row in the back. So. Wanna thank you folks for allowing us to make the presentations and looking at the project.

[73:07] We put a bunch of time in on it. I grew up on that land. I move, we moved over there when I was in the third grade. There was nothing else over there. So I played on all the property around, there was nothing there. So it's very special to me. We're working on this project with Boulder Creek neighborhoods. To make it a special place. We want to live there. Which is the other thing. We're gonna be there. We're gonna be part of it. So we're not gonna do anything that's going to upset. Or do something that's not right for the people that live there because we're next door. So we're looking forward to being part of the, we're very excited to be part of the plan. My kids have grown up there with their grandparents. They love that they love it. After, mom and dad died. We started looking at moving over. The well went bad.

[74:06] Because of the flooding 13 And so we went to the county and said we'd like to. You know, get water and they said, well, we can't do that. You need to go to the city. We came to the city. This city said yes, but you have to provide additional housing. So that's kind of the beginning of the process and it's been to this time. Almost 3 and a half years that we've been working on it. Which says we're not trying to move too fast we're trying to do it right And I. So. We're happy to be a part of it, like said, we're excited. To be here tonight. And at this point in time, I think I would like to introduce Mike Cooper. With a Boulder Creek neighborhoods.

[75:02] Good evening board, Mike Cooper with Boulder Creek and address is 7 1 2 main street Lewisville, Colorado. Happy to be here tonight. Chandler, you gave a great presentation. I think it will have a ton to add to that, but I have a whole presentation prepared. So if I repeat stuff, just kinda snooze and I'll take your queue and move on quickly, but I've taken note of a bunch of questions and I'm happy to answer and if you want to interject during this presentation, feel free unless that's not part of the process here. But just to introduce you, You. I'm just introduce you to Boulder Creek. We are based in Lewisville or a local builder and developer. Primarily we specialize in active adult low maintenance home building. Primarily around Boulder County. Be our actual first project in Boulder, which is exciting. And generally the northern Denver, metro market. We're the only exclusive low maintenance home builder in the front range. We serve, really an underserved market of seniors, active adults, downsizers and downshifters.

[76:10] So we market more to a demographic than, than anything else. We specialize in energy efficient homes and very unique floor plans as a result of this. And increasingly, we've been building a higher percentage of missing middle cottage homes, which are detached houses. We've, also built townhomes, but we found really a preference for a detached home, which has been really successful lately. In providing that missing middle housing. We've been very involved in the fire rebuild process over the past few years. A couple years, we've built over the past few years. Couple of years, we've built over a hundred homes, couple of years, we've built over a hundred homes in that in the Lewisville and superior area. We're very proud of that. We're kind of on the forefront and helped. Forged that process forward, which was very exciting. And, being part of the local community. If you like this type of housing this housing mix, we're very excited to partner with Boulder to look at other parcels and and bring up this type of housing forward on other deals as well.

[77:06] So. Give you a little bit of the background of the annexation. You know, it's been a five-year process now for Joe. It's gone in some fits and bursts here. So mainly back in 2,020 they and had initial neighborhood meeting as Chandler pointed out. No no plan was presented just introducing the annexation to the neighbors and garnering feedback. And really heard a preference for single family that single family homes and lower density obviously that's a preference of adjacent neighbors. Later that year they filed a concept plan which came before this planning board I'm sure some of you were on that. On the board at that time and later in 2,020 they came forward with the official annexation and site review and I'll show you that plan in a minute and kind of that was our starting point when Boulder Creek came in, we looked at that site plan and we're trying to adapt our product to fit that plan but then we worked collaboratively collaboratively with Joe in his family and.

[78:10] and with city staff pretty extensively. Worked out with planning and transportation and housing and really devised this plan somewhat collaboratively with all these groups in mind. So we're pretty excited with, how we came up and, where we ended up. So this is the all the plan that was developed in. 2020 and submitted. And as you see here, it's a cul-de-sac similar to the Green Belt Meadows and I think this was kind of a default pattern that I think the previous developer who was looking at the project thought could make thought they could make it this work. A staff was concerned about the circulation round there for fire and the parking in the middle of that cul-de-sac. And primarily the concern was that the width of those lots and that that density I'm being a front loaded product would really have garage dominated front loaded architecture.

[79:01] If you imagine a 35 foot with a lot with a garage on the front of it leaves about 9 feet for for you know front door basically so they weren't too excited about that and obviously we're chasing density on the site here to make it work and meet the goals of the city. So we devised the plan. Keeping that 1 point of access, cause that was, acceptable by the city to have that. 1 point of access aligned with the access across the street. And keep the Kent access along the south. They're labeled Peacock Lane here. I'll keep that to have a separate access for the KENS. Through this process we decided to have that as a joint driveway so would serve those 3 homes of ours. On the south there, the garage is there and as well as, serve the KENS. So really not a lot of traffic on that South Peacock lanes. It'll really feel like a private drive still for the Kens.

[80:04] So, but obviously the circulation is not a call to sack. We created a loop around there for fire protection and also to provide a few extra parking spots for guests. Along the eastern peacock lane there along that part of the loop. So this is the overview of the project as you can see the existing Kent's home is shown there all the way to the east. The home will generally sit in that area. About in that same footprint area, it might expand a little bit. But generally that part of the that part of the property will be just as like you see it today. There's an existing stock pound up up there. And originally we had. Keaton on that is being a key feature of the site. It's really just it's a tiny little pond but it's really quaint and if you go out there and you just look across the open space, there's all these ducks on the pond and it's just a really nice area. So we worked with Joe and and Joe and Kerry and they were kind enough to say that they could share that area, retain ownership of it, but share it with us.

[81:01] We have a little seating area out there that we have a meandering trail that goes out. And so that's really a key part of preserving that open space in the natural character of the site, which is really exciting. So it's just a very unique parcel, so we were excited to have this unique situation where we're not filling the whole property up with homes. And able to retain kind of that natural character back there. So. Alright, so generally I think Chandler covered this. This was just the original concept. I have a cluster of cottage homes. A cluster of single, large, slightly larger single family homes and A to use the shared common open space, which we worked with the city and Joe on extensively. And then obviously the Ken residents there to the east. You can see the meandering trail, which which is shown to go around our detention pond and over to that existing wet pond over there. In terms of the the frontages I think you could see through some of those images and I'll walk through some of those images as well.

[82:01] Pretty quickly here, but, through the next slide. The orange dots are just showing where the front doors are in case that wasn't clear. So we were taking care to as you come into the community to make sure that you see front doors and front porches. As you come in on peacock place there and then the orange dots, some of those cottages have a side entry into the home. So it has kind of 2 front facades. It has a what looks like a front porch facing 50 fifth street but then has a front door. On Peacock Place. So kind of as you come in, it kind of looks like 2 front facades to the homes. And then enhanced site architecture on those 2 single family homes is you at the terminus of peacock place there. And then just looking, this is a visual you've already seen. Just emphasizing that entry way and the central spine, central spine corridor that leads to our detention pond and the trail that we under see the property. You can kind of see a feel good feel for the character of the EDUs on the rear. I can't clarify, you know, we're trying to fit into the code of the 25 foot height.

[83:02] We did. Identify some hardship that the site was sitting down in a lot of areas. We have to build it up by a couple feet around those 80 or 80 use because they sit at the edge of the property. So a lot of these times these are almost going to the end of the edge of the property where it's a little bit lower. And so we identified that as we did a lot of design work, not designing the actual units, but analyzing it to get to, to convince the city to give us hopefully a little leeway on that if we need it, but those will be about 10 feet, you know, 10 feet lower in height than the actual home. So it's not like these what we're asking for will create the ADU that's like. As tall or higher than the house it'll be at least 5 to 10 feet lower than the main structure so Just wanted to clarify that. Those 80 use will be Yeah, about 400 to 700 square feet. So you'll see some larger garages there and really we're not Hell bent on getting a 3 car garage or anything like that, but it's really we've got a bunch of designs for the EDUs.

[84:08] We want want to provide the most flexibility that we can. For those floor plans, we can get a one bedroom in there. Is probably the biggest unit we can get. So, one bedroom in there is probably the biggest, unit we can get. So, so I'm just gonna pause here for just 1 Si should have said at the beginning that you have 15 min in total, so I'm gonna give you your 5 min warning now. Okay. I didn't do that at the beginning, so. 5 min left. 5 min. So I just walk you through some images. As you're driving north on 50 Fifth Street, this is just looking in the can access there on the south. You can see the, we have about 6 to 9 foot deep front porches on these cottage homes, including the affordables. Really not compromising any of the design features on the affordable units so that they have all the standard standard optional features that the other cottages would have. So you can see a small, front yard picket fence and appropriate landscaping with street trees and tree lawns along 50 Fifth Street.

[85:02] There was some questions about the setbacks. We're citing these houses really to bring them, set them back as far as possible to provide the most front yard space that we can. That's why they're somewhat. Differing in their space. If you look at the site plan, you can kind of see how we're citing them back as far as we can. This is the main entry peacock place. As you can see the side entry on that cottage. Kind of on the left, the white one there shows that side entry. That's actually kind of a rear porch on that house, but it looks like a front porch. Looking down that central courtyard area. You can see that trellis way beyond there. That leads out to the detention pond in the open space. And some closer look up at the single family homes. These homes also really a homework feature of these homes are. Really large front porches and we're covered. How do you spaces and also they feature optional and standard, main level bedrooms to offer some multi generational livings or guest bedrooms.

[86:18] So as you can see that we really took care to architecturally design the single family homes to blend in with the cottage homes. If you go down to Superior, you can look at our Rogers Farm community there. You'll see the same product types there and how it all is stitched together. So we didn't create this architecture specifically for this project. Pretty small community, but, we took the queues that we used on that project and applied them here. Just like quick kind of background on the week hottage. They are about 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Typically 2 to 3 bedrooms, 2 and a half baths. We did quite a detached townhomes because they originated in a community center up north and we're having trouble selling our larger town home product.

[87:01] So we switched to the wee cottage and put them actually built these on townhome lots. And that's took off from there. We do use the coin. Market rate attainable. And that's really Not like you were saying, it's not a deed restriction, but that's really the bread and butter of how we're providing missing middle housing is providing a small house anywhere from 900 to 1,500 square feet and by its size it stays at an attainable price point. But it is a market rate home. And we do sell it for. Market prices but generally speaking there's only so much you can charge for for a thousand square foot home so that's where the term market rate attainable comes from. That's the essence of the we cottage here. As I mentioned, this is from Central Park here. You can see a kind of modern twist of these cottage homes. But they do mainly appeal to dine downsizers and downshifters and at Central Park. It was interesting because there was actually numerous older folks living in these and just loved them because they were kind of lock and leave homes and they just love that detached nature and the low maintenance aspect of it.

[88:08] Didn't mind the stare so much. This is the lineup of all the, styles that we have for these 2 plans, the cottage 2 in the cottage 9. And if you go to the next slide. This is kind of the streetscape that we've conceptually designed to be along 50 Fifth Street. So you'll see kind of a different home style and nice eclectic mix there. That's fronting fifty-fifth. And just some sketches of the, single family homes. And I'm not gonna go into this too much, Chandler. You've covered the zoning and comprehensive plan. I think it's pretty clear that. We're in the area too and the RL 2 zoning makes sense. It's contiguous with with Green Belt Meadows. It matches the comp plan LR 2 to. L. 2 to LR in the comp plan we're about 3 units per acre overall.

[89:02] We're a little higher density obviously on the developed portion of the site but overall the property is very low in that range of 3 breaker technically. So, not gonna go into the details. I've analyzed it as well, but I think Chandler has covered it. Now we're fitting into the comp plan and meeting all the housing goals for the city of Boulder. So I think I'm wrapping up. Perfect. You can just advance through a couple. There That's good. Yeah, so just to sum it up. You're out of 21 total livable units that we have out there, including the ADUs. About 15 of out of the 21 will either be what I call market rate attainable or permanently affordable. Units. So we're very proud of providing this type of housing. We try to avoid subsidized housing if we can. We're excited to provide affordable housing when we can and in this case. Not really have a formal subsidy. So it's pretty exciting. We do have one project. That we're doing 120 permanently affordable.

[90:04] Housing project in Denver, a Litech deal. So we're familiar with subsidized affordable housing as well. And we've done a commuting long model as well, similar to that. So, but this is exciting because it's in Boulder and we can provide this without a formal subsidy. So it's pretty exciting. Preserving half the site and you know really creating that indie community feel there. And presumably the existing Meadow and Pond and all the improvements on 50 Fifth Street as you see that'll be a really cool edge to the project. So. Thanks for your time and cover some questions. I'll let you ask them again if you want or I can roll through my list. Everyone do it. We'll we'll get to that's normally the next phase, but we're going to take a Just interject here for a second and let Sloan, who I believe is ready. To answer the one of the earlier questions. So and then we'll get to the questions for you. Thanks for your patience why I sort of went through the agreement. Understood all the different requirements. So if You look at the, annexation agreement, section K, states that the project must be consistent with, Chapter 9 13 inclusionary housing and also the associated regulations for inclusionary housing.

[91:21] So as part of, the code, it does create the authority, to sort of regulate HIs and then looking at the regulations. There are a lot of requirements. Making sure that the affordable units are new no not paying a undue share of the dues. So as part of the onsite agreement or the covenant they'll likely be some requirements about the maximum allowable HOA fees at the time of sale, what the HOLE fees were based on unit size. There's also likely be a requirement about HIV training for buyers of affordable units. So, the short answer is that will all be addressed through the onsite agreement or the covenant.

[92:16] And the city will be reviewing the HOA dues and the declaration as part of the whole process. Okay, great. That answers it for me. Anyone? Any other topics for Sloan or? Follow on questions while we've got Sloan here. Just, quickly, Sloan, could you point us to where in the code again that exists if we want to look at it later? So all of the details are in the regulations that are posted on the housing. Website but it's chapter 9 13 is the inclusionary housing section of the code it does talk about how we have the authority to. Review HOAs if there is permanently affordable housing in the development.

[93:08] Okay, thank you. And that section in chapter 9, 13 is section (913) 129-1312 I thank you Helen also. And I'll interject also that there was, we did work through that with Michelle Allen in the housing department very early on and we have looked at first of all we really appreciate that the city is concerned about that and looking to have a lot of this is public right away so we didn't have to include the access lane in the streets as private. Which helped out a lot. So we went through and highlighted in the minimal areas of landscaping and in driveways that would be H. Way maintained and they are very minimal. The problem is it's only 15 homes and just to even have a management company, you know, to hire a management company to have it have an HOA period. Now there's a certain cost to that. But we analyze that we're comfortable with it and we've designed this community as much as we can with native plant materials and not much irrigation or as little as possible to keep those, keep those dues at the most reasonable level that we can.

[94:12] And we agreed to prorate them to the affordable. Based on lot size, I think is what we came up with. So. Lots size, I can't remember, but it came out to be about 2 thirds one third, HOA fees for the affordable versus the market rate homes. Okay, great. Kurt? Yeah, just a quick follow up. I assume that HOA agreements can be amended by A vote of the HOA is that correct? I've never had an A. Yeah, that's true. I think what Sloane was talking about are requirements that would be incorporated into an agreement with the city and then recorded against the property. So even if the HOA declaration was amended, it would still have to comply with the requirements of the city. Great. Thanks. Okay, any other? Housing and affordability.

[95:07] Questions. Again, we're gonna let some go. So, okay, okay. Okay. Alright, we can, move on to other questions for the applicant who like to go first. Okay, Here. George. Go ahead if you'd like. No, I don't have any additional questions. Yeah. Alright, thank you. Thank you so much. I have got 3 questions. Close to you. There you go. I'm not. Okay, I've got 3 questions. And one kind of came up as you were talking about your the demographic that you aim your product to.

[96:01] So it sounded like it was, as you said, I don't think he used the word empty nester, but you know, people who are. Not they're not families. So this is asking for 2 and 3 bedroom units. How does that fit into your demographics that you described at the beginning of the presentation? It could appeal to small families, but generally we it's singles and couples. And even if there's a third bedroom, maybe there's one, child that lives there, but That's really the most that we've seen with this type of product. Generally not a family type. We call them downsizers and downshiftters. Okay, thank you. This next question I have is. I kind of got mixed messages about the pond in the open space. That is not open to the public. That's strictly for this community. Is that correct?

[97:03] Good question. I believe this would be Private open space. I'm not quite sure about that. We were not granting any public access easement over it so I think it would be considered private open space. Okay. And last question. And this goes to. The Bbcp idea that Neighborhood should be unique. Etc, etc. And one of the things that has come up obviously even with the name the Peacocks. Are a unique. Element of the project. And so you talk about them, you talk about them in the present in the information. In many different places. And yet that unique element doesn't have a role in the place making. And especially it'll be retained. You know it'll be it's gonna be private and part of something that nobody ever sees was there any consideration of that as a potential.

[98:08] To create a unique neighborhood as it's 2 point. Oh 9 in the BBCP and other areas that talk about. We want to make places that are unique and memorable. Aside from the name of the road. The Peacocks. I will say that we haven't totally gotten to that point of branding and detailed site design, but your point is well taken there could be. We could capitalize on that. I just haven't thought through that. What would you be thinking of exactly like just actual peacocks or there will be there will be an area for Peacocks, but it will be in the Kent property and I believe that would be a private. Probably, there, to go back to their driveway kind of at the end of the public access line. There'll probably be a gate there to go back to their driveway kind of at the end of the public access line. There'll probably be a gate there. Right. So the question just comes out of, you know, let's not create a generic situation if, we've got something unique.

[99:05] So that's what I was questioning. But I, Thank you. That those are my questions. Cool. Thanks for coming to present to us. I have a few questions. The first is about the access drive on the South and maybe this is more a question. For Mr. Kent, it sounded like It was important that they have a. Private or semi private access. There but then it ends up getting shared with the loop is my understanding. But that it sounds like that is a design priority for you to have. That separate and. More or less private. Drive on that south side. Yeah, I mean, it it is a public lane along the south up until kind of the midpoint of the property.

[100:10] And then the gravel drive or a concrete drive, I'm not sure they're gonna improve that, but, to go up to the but it'll be a public up to that point. And I think that was city driven. To have that public access there. That was their desire to have that. Public as well that's secondary access. But in the renderings, it's shown. It's not shown. Paved at least like the standard city street with asphalt. It looks like it's concrete. It's looks more like a driveway. It was that? Yeah, the curb cut there. Right. That whole forward section out towards 50 fifth. Right. I'm not quite sure how that would be. Would that be a V-pan, kind of like an alley or crown. I'd have to defer to our civil engineer how that, if that would be asphalt or concrete and would it be?

[101:08] Convex or concave, you know, don't look like a street versus an alley. I don't know if I know the answer to that one if that's important to you. Well, I guess really my question is would that be regularly used by people? Coming in if they're you're coming in from the south side that's the first entrance you get to yeah they could and okay yeah We think we don't think that would be the main entry except for those 3 houses in the KENS. Most likely you would pull into the main. The main entry, but it's such a small volume. I don't know if it would matter if the other 3 homes back there, you know, pulled in, but I don't see why they would, it would be a shorter distance. To use the main entry. There'll be a more comfortable turning movement and not going past the garage. I don't know. For me, it just seems like intuitively people would go use the main entrance. Unless that was your home on the south there, those 3 houses. Yeah. Okay, so then.

[102:04] It's sounded like you wanted or maybe the city wanted you to have that main access. Across from that very large property. The access for the very large property. The north and the south end of the property and a you. That came in. We just came in very conceptually and worked that out with transportation. They didn't like that. We kind of push back, but we. It was broader than that, so we came up with a better community design as a result of moving it to the center. And we just, that's kind of why you see those little. 2 clusters is how we kind of devised it. That kind of. Drove us into that kind of configuration there, having that central access point. But yes, that was a mandate from the transportation department. Then we kind of creatively. Worked around that. Okay, well follow up with them about that. In terms of the parking so i believe you have 47.

[103:06] Parking spaces shown on the plan assuming the the single family houses have 2. Car garages, but it's possible that some of them or all of them have 3 car garages, which could put it up to 53. So that's more than 3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Which is quite a bit. But it's also, there's only 6, I think. That are sort of shared. Maybe 1111 shared. 11 chair. Okay. But did you? Did you look at the possibility of having more that was shared to allow for you know, so 2 people have parties at the same time and a bunch of people drive or yeah, I mean, One person I was told that There's a delicate balance in Boulder with parking and to find just the right amount you need, but not too much.

[104:08] I thought a few more spots would be nice, but I was told that that's that was adequate and I think having having 2 car garageages on each home and the you know, basically is almost one per house. I think that's sufficient. If I generally go to a half per one space per. Per unit is added. If you have one guest space per unit, I think that's totally fine for this type of product. You can go down as low as half as, but that's kind of pushing it, I think. So this is kind of right in between. Is probably like point 8 per unit. So you're right. I mean there could be times where Somebody has a mega party or something and they're smaller house or one of the bigger houses, but, I just, I don't know. I don't, it'll be interesting because the HA will have to manage that. That aspect of it. They're not going to want to see. They're gonna wanna manage themselves that people are not parking their third car out there.

[105:01] So they, might have. Incorporate that into the rules and regs. They might post it. You know, it'll probably be self policing if that's or out they go, but there's gonna be some. Cooperative operation here. Among the residents to they're going to understand the situation and know that that's what the parking is for and come to an agreement. That's what's gonna happen. Okay, yeah, and just so that nobody. Is too shocked. I was not actually suggesting additional parking. I was suggesting that maybe some of the garage parking the dedicated garage parking could be made shared to a lot more flexibility. Or I was contemplating that possibility. I think that's it. Alright, I have no questions. Oh, you're okay.

[106:02] This one. I have one, final question on the public input. So I understand that there was one Zoom Meeting after the. Plan change significantly from the concept review. And when I looked at that information from that meeting. It was substantially unclear to me. As to whether the neighbors. Supported or didn't support the expanded. Project. How did that? I mean, it went from what originally you had. How many units to now? 15. I don't remember what the original content plan was. So the neighbors. Are fine with the project having gone from 4 to 15. The review just talked about these subjects were talked about.

[107:04] It didn't say. What an outcome was. I don't think we got violent opposition to the project. We heard concerns about, you know, that we're gonna by building these homes, we're gonna flood their their community. So there's, you know, we there's wildlife, you know, on the property. Mainly stuff like those were the concerns, more than anything is what I recall. If you gave some people the choice, they probably say, yes, we prefer not to have any houses here. I think that would, you know, the people who are on the call, you know, are generally not for the project. That's the way it typically goes. So I wouldn't say there was overwhelming support to have this project happen based on that neighborhood meeting. I think if you expand out to the broader community, you'll find a lot of support for this type of housing. And this community. So, you know, that's just the nature of neighborhood meetings. You hear the concerns and we try to address them if we can. Here, you know, here a lot of times we can adapt and change things during this process. And if we can, we do.

[108:11] Groundwater making sure we didn't have basements. You know, that we were gonna push the water into their sites, you know, so, but we're not proposing any basements on this project. And the wildlife that exists exists in those 2, outlaws. Is that pretty much primarily in the pond area and. That area in there that was concerned about because the rest of the land was pretty much. Didn't have much vegetation on it. I can't imagine it Is that correct? So that area isn't really changing that much. Their area around the Kens's property. That's got the, you know, just got the more natural. Yeah, I don't think anything's changing on there other than they're gonna demolish and build a new house. Right. Yeah, sure.

[109:01] Yeah, the wildlife, mainly primarily which would then come be where our house is, the pond in that area. And even next door, on the open space to the north, there's a bunch of trees. None of that's gonna be disturbed. So we're gonna have the wildlife. That's kind of what I like. That doesn't change at all. And then plus then with the houses on the front of the property. That wildlife will still come up. And we'll go through open space on the north. And my neighbor to the west. That 5 and a half acres. I mean, we've seen all kinds of. Of all life. We've had deer, we've had bear. Bobcat. All kinds of well left this year. So. None of that changes. Thank you so much. That's my question. Thank you. And by the way, I did visit the site and it is beautiful. And I'll say more about my thoughts on the site and it is beautiful and I'll say more about my thoughts on the site design but I think you've done a great job of trying to balance.

[110:01] The benefit that the city is asking for with retaining the natural features of the site and a nice home for the kids. That's my general thought, although of course we haven't had our public hearing yet. My last question. I might be confused, but I thought you said that that pond would remain the Kent's ownership. But I think on the site plan it is shown as shared open space that counts towards the open space requirement for the property. So who owns outlaw B that is the pond? Yeah, that will be owned by the Kens, that just the area exactly of the pond. And the reason we did that was, wanted to keep ownership and control and maintenance of the pond in case it needs to be cleaned out and control and maintenance of the pond in case it needs to be cleaned out and taken care of. It's their pond and they wanted to keep it that way and be able to maintain it as such. The concern was the liability if somebody were to slip in the water. So we wanted to put a fence around there. And we just put an open rail fence so that people can't actually go in the water. And then restrict them from going in the water, but they can sit next to it and enjoy it the view of it, but not actually go in it.

[111:06] And so that's kind of we work through the city staff and Joe and thought that that's the best solution is to, yeah, not have people be able to go into it, not much. Benefit their risk reward I'd say keep them out of it. That makes sense. Chandler, is that consistent with your calculations of the open space and the open space requirements that that pond is still pardon me, the Kent's ownership. Yeah, What does that mean? It's an outlaw, but it's an outlaw under the Kansas ownership. Like is that counting towards the open space requirement for the for the new houses? But they don't own it. Yeah. So I look at this way you can. Was not aware of the. The. For the Kent ownership thing and not, and heavily in our analysis. Like I assume that, Bye. But I don't know why it can't be on by the Getting ultimately for the purposes of calculating open space.

[112:06] I don't think that it makes a difference. It doesn't make a difference. I guess my concern is, you know, when we, when we, you know, approve a site review, we approve. The homes and then there's just a certain amount of open space that's required and if they don't own that open space that is part of the project that access could theoretically, I don't think the KENTS would ever deny access, but if it's owned by somebody else couldn't access to that open source. Well, they'd be in violation of the site review approval that and we would have enforcement authority. Could present the site review. So I think we would have enforcement authority there. Okay. So the annexation agreement requires that open space is shared and it is open access to the homeowners who will purchase the new 15 units. Right, the site review application. The companion site review, that goes along with the. The companion site review, that goes along with the.

[113:05] There is a requirement in the annexation agreement that goes along with the annotation. There is a requirement in the annexation agreement that requires equal access to the open space that's also that's available to the market unit owners, but it doesn't require that. The affordable unit owners have. Access to all of the open space that's designated for use of the replacement dwelling unit that can't. House. So I don't know what the plans propose in terms of. Who may use that? Pond area. The pond area looks like it's associated with the count property and it's fenced. So whether it was the Kent ownership or not, we would still put a fence there and they would not be able to access it. So whether it's owned by the K or not, it would, everything would look and function exactly the same and the people would always have access in the trail to the seating area right next to the pond unless Joe built a brick wall, you know, visually obstructing the pond is really the only downside I can see.

[114:01] Playing devil's advocate to the residents not being able to enjoy the bond. No, no, I understand that. But if at some point in the future, I'm just trying to make sure that there will be perpetual access for the people who buy these because if we are approving it as a package is a site review that they have this amenity and then in the future potentially they could be denied it by a future owner. Who believes and has the deed to that property, what prevents a future owner from denying access to either the market rate or the affordable housing owners. Yeah, and again, so the the discussion was always about the pond being fenced off so they were never gonna have actual access to the pond itself. Other than as a passive recreational amenity to sit. Around the edge of an enjoy. So yeah, the site would be approval, the fact that that's included in the tally for the overall open space for the development and the site review approval is what requires ongoing access.

[115:01] And the site review approval is what requires ongoing access by residents. To the open space. Cause they will own the track. They'll own the track that the trailer goes. The trails, okay, that goes around the pond. Okay, and is that both the market rate and the affordable? If there's something in agreement that excludes the owners of the affordable units, I think we need to fix that. No. No, it's, the, the, the, will have the same access as Mark, unit owners. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm not following all the details. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm not following all the details, but as long as you feel confident that that is the case, then I'm doing all the details. But as long as you feel confident that that is the case, then I'm good. Thank you. Laura, I appreciate your concern. It's not dissimilar to the millennium. Project and private ownership of what is historically public space, except for anyways we can. I think. We can also address this potentially in deliberations and in conditions or motion. So. Okay. I, George is confirming with you that you don't have any questions and that we're going to close the.

[116:04] Yeah. Okay, he saying no. Alright, okay. Last call on questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you. And. I'm going to propose a break now. Then the public hearing and then deliberation. So, we're going to temporarily adjourn for. We'll take 6 min and. Take a break. Sure.

[123:58] Okay, I'm gonna ask everyone go ahead and Take their seats and we'll. Get back in session here.

[124:11] And. We will now go to our, public participation. And. Do we have people we're going to start with in person first and then go to online. So, has anyone signed up to speak? No, I'm here. Okay. Okay, all right. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak. Raise your hand using your tool. Okay, I see one. Okay. Yeah, we just have one so far. So, Lynn Siegel, why don't you go ahead and in the meantime we'll see if others raise their hand. You have 3 min, Lyn. Please go ahead.

[125:03] Let's go back in time. 3 years. I remember this case coming up. How dare the city of Boulder. How dare they intimidate people? Who wants some friggin water? And force them to have more development and more density as a result. Now I appreciate, I think his name is Joe, can't. And his effort. But he should have had the max, for houses on this space. And he should have gotten his friggin water annexe in with the annexation. I mean he had an issue with the flood. And the city of Boulder should not put him in that position. For quote unquote affordable housing. Because guess what? We all know. You all of you on this board, you know!

[126:03] That in boulder, affordable does not mean more. In an inelastic market. It doesn't mean smaller either. Actually, the bigger the better, and communal housing in the bigger. And that's what you've got to look at at Alpine Balsam coming up. Because you're going to catch HH for meat on on that project. When that comes along. But you know, So much of this is just not okay. This is like And with all due respect to the fact that these people are judiciously doing their work, you know, putting in together all of these projects. This is just not applicable in Boulder. It doesn't help boulder. It doesn't, I could go through the Boulder Valley comp plan and prove to you on every friggin case. That this is not viable for Boulder. This is not beneficial. This is not provide community benefit.

[127:02] Does not provide all that the Boulder Valley comp plan is attempting to do. It does not improve jobs housing. These are cars, this is a car! Or oriented community. What it does is it inhibits me when I'm trying to get across count on my frigging bike. And I live in Central Boulder. Because I have to wait 10 min to get across 20 Eighth Street. Because when these people go out in their cars, guess what they link their trips and they travel all around Boulder And this is not a 15 min neighbourhood. There's nothing, there's no surfaces around there. They got cars to go everywhere. This is Jared Polis's Wet Dream. It's just like water view, now called weather vane. Change the name to protect the innocent.

[128:00] It's another semi, it's not as big as Waterview, 400. It's a semi. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. You know, sprawlish. Little city. Any other members from the public wishing to speak? This would be your chance to raise your hand and let us know. Okay, back to you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Vivian. That we will close the public participation. Portion of this item. And move on to board deliberations. And so with the agreement from my cohorts rather than I think in my view staff's done a great job. With, the 4 key issues. And their reasoning behind why this project. Complies and meets those 4 key issues.

[129:03] So I'm not wanting to dismiss that. I'm wanting to say, does anyone have specific concerns that they'd like to voice. Conditions that they are thinking about anything. Outside of what staff has. put forth here Well, okay, I mean, so the alternative is to go through board member by member question by question. And go through those what I'm asking for is is it all right if we do that? In the negative meaning, do you, believe that, or you have concerns that haven't been addressed by staff? That you'd like to discuss. Okay, go ahead.

[130:03] So. I appreciate that. So many of you all, I think 2 others. We're wondering about the AVUs. I I'm not clear on why the 80 use cannot be deed restricted affordable. That is a They're being granted? A height variance that they can go up to 25 feet without having. This steep roof requirement that all the other 80 use in the city of Boulder are subject to. So they have got a a variance to the requirements of the ADU policy. And though.

[131:01] Cities policy has been when we get something. We give something. In the ADU world, it's usually a deed restricted, affordable. Adu will get us. The additional things that we might be needing for example more score footage. Or a reduction in the parking. And here something is being given and we're not applying that same kind of logic. So I think that there is a case. For these ADUs. To be subject. To a, affordability. A requirement and When I read the application. Includes the ADUs in the in the thinking that we're providing all this housing, we're providing all this housing.

[132:00] We've got all these ADUs. There is no guarantee that the ADUs will be actually rented. A lot of people. See the ADU is. Kind of bonus space. Guests and family stays in it. And it doesn't come back to the community as a benefit. So I'm not sure how we might, required that these become rentals. And subject to the city's affordable. Rent. Guidelines, I know there isn't much of a difference with what most people charge for A to use and what the city requires. But you never know what's going to happen out into the future. So that's my biggest, I think, unresolved concern. Is that the 80 use A can be a a true benefit to provide additional housing. And we are giving them something.

[133:05] That it has historically been. Tied to an unaffordable, deed restricted affordable. ADU, so I'm going to put those on the table for consideration. As we, and I'm not sure how, if there's anything, Do you see anything in in sort of? Putting putting conditions on the ADU so that they actually become. A component of affordable housing. I think a requirement could be created through the annexation agreement. It may be something that the applicant in the city. Both would have to agree on. Cause it's an agreement. And, I don't understand the financing part of it and whether or not the development.

[134:04] Then it's still feasible or not that's something to consider. The other thing that I wanted to clarify is What's proposed tonight is not already approved. Modifications to the height standards for the ADUs, but the annexation agreement anticipates is the authority of the city manager. To modify. The roof gable requirements. If that's necessary to create a livable detached accessory dwelling unit because of the fill that has to be. Added to the side and And you all know how the city measures height looking, you know, 25 feet out. So it's not. Clear yet that will actually become reality. It's just authority that's being created just for those circumstances. And could that authority be then subject to these additional requirements? Should they, grant?

[135:08] We could create something like that in the annexation agreement. Yes. When they're affordable, A to use, they're not deed restricted. It's not the same as an affordable dwelling unit. It's just an agreement that they sign. So it's, definitely not the same thing as a deed restriction. It gets recorded. It gets recorded. Yeah. It's a legally binding. Yes, far as transfer property in, you're supposed to be doing. Yeah, I'm not, is referring to is the, that can be created under the code standards. They could be different requirements under this agreement pursuant to the community. Benefit requirements associated with an annexation. Right. Can I ask a question related to that? Just related to that and to clarify, I think ML, you were asking, can we require the future owners of these homes.

[136:11] To rent out their ADUs rather than to use them for personal use. Is that legal? I was under the impression that we could not require someone to rent out their property. I'm not sure that we could and I don't know how we would enforce it. But. Cause ADUs already have, you know, pretty strict kind of rental requirements. There's owner occupancy. So the owner has to live in one of the 2 units. And they're not subject to short term rentals. So I guess my. My question would just be what would happen if they couldn't find a tenant. Then would they be in violation of their annexation agreement? Right. That's where I'm not sure.

[137:00] So, And, and you know, this. Kind of bubbled up to the top of my thinking. Because the Show up again and again in the both the staff and the applicants. We're creating housing, we're creating housing. So, Just because you got an ADU, doesn't mean you're creating housing. You know, my experience has been that a lot of people don't rent out their ADs and they're not creating housing. And if this property is getting the huge benefit of, okay, now you don't have to worry about a well that failed and you don't have to worry about these things plus you you know, have the benefit of the sale of 15 units. It seems that the, Puls. Some affordable housing weight.

[138:03] Yeah, I wish I wish Sloan was still here. And I know housing felt like in their experience when you build a house that has an A to you ready to go as a source of income for a homeowner and they can just start renting it that they've had pretty good success. Renting A to use. But I hear what you're saying that not everybody does. Right. And again, because the discussion has included ADUs and they, this is the benefit we're getting A to use where we've got more housing, but we don't have any. Any leverage to make sure that we in fact get new housing. Kurt, go ahead and I just want it as long as we're sticking to this topic I'm ready to plow through this. Go ahead. Okay, that was my first question. To ask this question, but we should still. Yeah, let's stick with, I'd like to actually kind of, this is interesting and important. And so I'd like to. Reach a point of at least a plan for how to deal with this.

[139:04] Later in motion making. And then we can go on to other topics. So anything on this topic? Yeah, so I share ML second concern. I'm less concerned about the actual Requiring that they use the what we call affordable. Partly because as Steph has pointed out the rents aren't that much different from market rate. Units and also more importantly, there's no income qualification for affordable aid to use, right? And so, There's not necessarily any benefit from the city standpoint, but I am very concerned about the point that you raised that. In our neighborhood. We are neighbors and there are a number of 80 use that I believe are not rented out. People use them, you know, when relatives come into town. And then it serves as an Airbnb sort of.

[140:00] A non paid interview indeed. Or, you know, they'll use it as a, as a studio or whatever, and it effectively becomes. An additional part of the house and it's not providing real benefit in terms of additional housing. And so yeah, the question is how do we deal with that? The other thought that I had. You know, I don't know if this is possible. I don't know what we can vary. In the annexation agreement like can we supersede any of the city code but I know that. Separate conveyance of 8 users prohibited. Under the city code, but could we? Even require that these be be condo-ized so that it's separate ownership in which case. It's much more likely to be separately. They have a separate person. Or separate, family unit.

[141:03] Oh, I didn't know. Joking. You carried just fine, I think. So. Okay, George. Yeah, on the topic of, I feel like we've covered this like 7 times in planning board already, you know, in an A to you by its nature, whether we like it or not. Is the purview of the homeowner as to what they do with it. Whether they rent or not. And we could argue whether or not they should be affordable if they're rented. We have all the mechanisms in place today to do that. I think where we're getting confused is we're talking about Sounds like. Kirby, I want to need you. He was the micro unit there that's that's separate, which is not an A to you, which is a separate dwelling unit, not appended to part of another dwelling unit.

[142:06] So I'm confused. I feel like we're going on a rabbit hole. We've been like multiple times. What are we, what are we, what are we trying to achieve here? I'll weigh in. I'm sorry. And, It's sorry, I'm sorry. I just, an ADU is. We already have the definition of an ADU. We have the definition of an affordable 8 to you. So are we talking about asking these asking the developer to make these affordable A to use in which case there's a, there's a restriction put on the property that if it's rented. We have all, we have all the mechanisms already in place in Boulder. If it's rented, it would be under this affordable mandate, which I think we can do. Or we just leave it as normally to you. If we go down the rabbit hole of creating a condominiumized separate micro dwelling.

[143:03] Then we're just adding dwellings to the property, which is something we can do, but it's different than an ADU. It seems like we're pretty far away from doing that. So I'd like to kind of focus our discussion and try to move us forward. I'm gonna concur with. George on this and I'd like some clarification from staff on 2 points. My understanding is we have. Pretty big flexibility in. In annexation in terms of how things might be conditioned. But we're doing a site review and and and an an an annexation. All in one piece tonight. And help me understand there are restrictions. For instance, we're doing a site review. The planning board can't.

[144:01] Kind of ad hoc. Just say we want more affordability, more affordable units than what the calculator says or we want more cash in loot than what the calculator specifies. By discussing. Making, requiring Some additional affordability. Are we doing this under annexation where we might not be? Crossing a line or. Are we doing this under site review where in fact we are proscribed. In that we we can't. We really can't do that that our affordable housing code is our affordable housing code. And That's that. So help me understand or are we debating something that we really Hey, shouldn't be debating and we're not going to resolve it because it would be a violation of our code.

[145:03] Yeah, that's a great question. It's 2 different. Review processes and the site review that you're all very familiar with is quasi judicial and you are bound by the criteria that apply. In an annexation we consider a legislative action because the city does not have to annex this property. So an annexation agreement is part of that. And that is negotiated with the property owner. In terms of what Additional requirements might apply to a property and the complain guides that by requiring that there's additional development, potential, that community benefit has to be provided and Yeah, what I think what you're talking about would be requiring additional community benefit. To what staff has negotiated. So, ie that would be prohibited. Because it's additional community benefit beyond. No, no, it's not prohibited.

[146:08] Yeah, but the applicant would also have to agree to it because they ultimately would have to sign the agreement that. Imposes those requirements. And tonight, under the more flexible. Legislative review process that we are working with. We would draft a it would be part of our recommendation to counsel because we are not actually approving. The annexation. We are making a recommendation to counsel. To approve, deny. Condition modify. So. Okay. So I bringing this back around in a light of what George had to say and your concerns. Does anyone have a gun of a something that we could end up drafting into part of our recommendation.

[147:11] To counsel that we could then. Look at as an, as an amendment. To the recommendation to council that we would then. Vote on that recommendation. So what I'm asking you is, is that you have one. Okay, Doc. Yeah, please. I just wanna say that while I very much appreciate the impetus to have more affordable housing and try to get that whenever we can. I'm probably not going to vote for that as part of this annexation and site review and I'll tell you why. One is that if we require the A to be affordable, that is a disincentive for the homeowners to actually rent out those ADUs if they can make less money and it's more burdensome on them to have to follow the program.

[148:05] And as as Kurt pointed out, there's no income qualification for who can rent an affordable A to you. So you might just be giving a break to your son in law or something like that. So that to me is not a good enough reason. We're not getting enough benefit out of it to worry about it to me. And then this idea of can we require people to rent the ADUs and not use them for personal use. Again, I understand the impetus behind that, but we don't currently have a city program to monitor that to afford to enforce that so we would tonight be creating something in entirely new that then finds the city to do something they've never done before, which is to monitor and enforce this annexation agreement. Causing people to have to rent out their A to use. So I think that if that is something that we are concerned about citywide is people. Using A to use for personal use and not renting them out. I think that that was considered when the ADU program was created and it was decided that that was not really enforceable. And I would be hesitant to try to enforce that on just this one little tiny development. I don't feel like that's something that I'm going to enforce that on just this one little tiny development.

[149:07] I don't feel like that's something that I want to be in the business of doing tonight. I also feel like Michelle Allen and Sloan worked very carefully with the developer and the homeowner to try to put together a whole package of what is the community benefit, including. The deed restricted units, the smaller sized market rate units and the creation of these ADUs all as one big package. And if we try to go above and beyond that, we may be changing the calculation of whether this project works at all, right? And again, that's not something I'm inclined to do kind of spur of the moment in a site review stage. I feel like that would be more appropriate to brooch maybe in concept review. We're kind of too far down the road for that. For me. So I'm unlikely to vote for putting a restriction on these ADUs to make them either affordable. Or to somehow try to require the homeowner to rent them out. I love this development. I think that it is providing a good community benefit.

[150:01] When I first saw it, I thought. It would be nice if there were more units, right? Because the density is only 3 per acre rather than 6. But given the site constraints with the the wetlands and the wildlife and the Kents wanting to have some private property, we are not requiring them you know they have a 5.5 acre site they have a beautiful site there and so i'm not, I'm grateful for what they are providing to the community and I'm not feeling like. They haven't done enough, right, or that we need to somehow extract more from them. And I also want to honor what happened in the previous concept review. Where, you know, 16 units was kind of the upper bound of what was imagined could be built on the site at that concept review. So, so for me this all adds up to I'm not. Inclined to add additional burdens at this stage at this time. And I think if we if we're concerned about this, we should think about it as part of a citywide program, not just for this one property. So those are my thoughts. And so given that I'm unlikely to vote for it, and I think George has expressed it, he's unlikely to vote for it.

[151:01] I don't think that we would have the votes to pass that amendment tonight. George oh you're okay you just took your hand down did you want Oh yeah, no, I'm sorry, I took my hand and I took her with Laura. Okay, Just quickly, I understand that there's not support for this, but what I was request, what I, my goal here is not additional benefit. It's getting the benefit that was assumed when this was negotiated. Cause I asked that specifically, did you consider the ADUs rented out as part of the affordable housing and they said yes. And so that the assumption that they were rented out went into that calculation and I just wanna make sure that we got it. I'll leave it to that. Okay, I'm gonna speak for just second and then we can come back to you, ML. And, I concur with Laura and I would not be a vote for This amendment, even though we don't know exactly what it is yet, but in principle we're

[152:03] And I also, I, you know, I asked the original question of, you know, is are these required to be rented and so forth and we can't. Do that. I think that ADUs. It's I don't think it's correct to say that if it's not rented It's not providing community benefit. What if it's used for, you know, we, have other names for A to use granny flats. So if my mother lives there and I don't rent it to her, but I provide that that's housing for her that's multi-generational housing so it it doesn't have to be an unknown person on the street. It it might be your mother your mother-in-law, your father-in-law whomever it might be a child. You know, with a single parent with it, with a child that wants some privacy, but, the grandparents take care of, take care of that kid and that one some privacy but the grandparents take care of take care of that kid and that provides benefit as not a quote.

[153:06] Rental. It's just it's family. And so, and if it's used as a, a home office and people don't have to drive in from the surrounding L towns or whatever, then we get a little bit of community. Benefit from, you know, the whole idea of home offices and reduced transportation and carbon. So anyway, And, and I concur that it's a particularly complex subject to try to address in this particular annexation slash site review. But your turn, Emo. Had the application. Not refer to 80 use as as continuously. And, often as they did as part of the housing solution.

[154:10] I think that I. Would not be inclined to consider them. As part of the housing solution. So. You guys put the thought in my head, right? Just like, hey, ADUs are gonna be part of this housing solution. So I I'm not as interested in that, okay, it needs to be. Deed restricted, affordable, etc, just because that. I think that is Yeah. Not. Providing any really significant change to what people would do. With or without that. What I what I would propose would be in the annexation agreement.

[155:00] In covenant number 15 F which talks about accessory dwelling unit requirement. That a sentence be added. Before the final sentence that simply states ADUs shall be established for housing. And that. I think. Begins to put some. Intention. To the language that was used throughout the application that we want AD used to be here because we want the housing. Well, let's just. Sort of formalize that and say, okay, the 80 use. Or housing. So that that would be the simple proposal that I would make because I think We see Again, the annexation is, is a huge. The owners are winning. You know, there's a huge benefit that is being gained by becoming a member of the city of Boulder and getting all the benefits that the city will provide in addition to water.

[156:08] And our crisis is in housing. And 80 use can be a very significant, they can play a role. But not if we dismissed that role. Okay. So that is. I didn't put it in the form of a motion, but I can, but I know exactly where should go. I think it is part of the annexation agreement and it's in that. One that talks about accessory dwelling units. And it just very simply states that They're housing. So I appreciate the simplicity of your thought here. That's I really do. Would that? In your mind. Prohibit all other uses. For the ADUs. Are you saying it cannot be a studio? It cannot be an office. It cannot be. Any of these other things? I really appreciate what Hela said is that these annexation agreements through an agreement, they're negotiated.

[157:12] And what I'm interested in putting into that particular covenant is You have alluded to the fact that they're going to be housing. Let's just say it. Let's just say an ADU. Shall be established. For housing. I don't think that it. It's kind of. Putting us in a place to walk our talk. You know, we want housing and here it here it is hanging off the tree. So I don't know, that is even. Can we do something like add something that's simple in there, given that this is an agreement that needs to be negotiated? A little bit.

[158:02] George, you're breaking up just a little, but go ahead. If it feels it feels like we're trying to do something much broader on this tiny development. It just Okay, I'm not, I mean, go ahead and make your, make your motion if you want. I just, I, heard no support for additional things around this. I suggest if you have a motion, let's, put it forward and, move forward. Yep, go ahead Laura and then we'll then we'll make a motion or not. I just want to ask a question of staff if we did add that sentence ADU shall be established for housing to the annexation agreement. Would it change anything? Would it give you something to enforce? Would it change anything? I don't know that it changes anything. A accessory dwelling unit is already defined in the city's code as a separate and complete single housekeeping unit.

[159:00] So I think the intent is there from a legislative perspective. So I, I don't know that it necessarily is a lot of intended effect. I'll just I'll just say for my perspective and I'm repeating what we talked about with the ADU conversation is that you know, ADUs can have different functions over their lifespan and maybe at 1 point in a family's life cycle that ADU serves as housing for a relative, maybe at another point it gets rented out, maybe at another point it's a home office like during COVID. So I think that people will use the space in a way that makes sense. It is a separate dwelling unit. It's not attached to the house. So it's not easy for people to go back and forth between the different parts of the ADU and the main house. You know, I think people use that space in the way that makes sense to them. And that may change over time. And I don't know that us trying to regulate it is going to do much. So as Chair, I'm going to. Maybe short circuit this process just a little And say that based on, I take a quick straw poll here, based on the language that you.

[160:10] Just provided. We would need 4 of us in support. George has already voiced. His descent. Kurt, would you second that? Okay. So I'm gonna propose that we move on, but I totally appreciate the thought and the fact that you came with. Wording. been in the same position a lot. So I'm sympathetic, but anyway, so. Yeah, I think my point is I don't want this. To The more often that we bring the subject of how can we in fact make more housing that is for to serve the, we're talking about middle.

[161:01] The middle missing middle housing and those kinds of things. These smaller units have a role to play. And so I'm glad that we had the discussion. I'll, I'll, I'm, gonna be writing this little ship through my time on planning board because I think it's an important thing to remember my time on planning board because I think it's an important thing to remember. Don't put 80 use out of my time on planning board because I think it's an important thing to remember. Don't put 80 use out there as part of this housing solution if they don't have on planning board because I think it's an important thing to remember. Don't put 80 use out there as part of this housing solution part of the housing solution. So I will. Concede that there is no support, but I'm happy for the conversation. Thank you for indulging me. Okay. Kurt, I believe you had something you wanted to discuss outside of the ADU. As far as annexation or conditioning. Of the annexation of the site review. Or what will go ahead. You just tell me what what you. Change I think under the offices of the site review and it would be to reduce the width of.

[162:08] The peacock place. From 30 feet probably to 20 feet which is consistent with an access link in the DCS. It's shown as or it's been indicated that it would not have parking so we would have as currently designed it would be a 30 foot with street, with no parking. That's exactly the kind of wide street that the city keeps ending up having to put traffic calming on because people go to fast. In this case, it's only 100 feet long or something. So probably people won't be going too fast, but the wider the street is the faster people will turn onto it and turn off of it. And it also just ends up being additional paved space and intermeable space. That is not necessary and one of the goals.

[163:03] In or one of the criteria for actually for annexation. Is it the amount of land devoted to the streets system is minimized? And I think a 30 foot curb face to curb face. Street section is not minimizing the amount of land devoted to the street system in this context. The access lane, which in the DCS is listed as 20 foot. Street is, it's stated, it's intended for public access to no more than 15 as it happens, single family dwelling units, which is exactly what we have here actually since. 4 of the 16 units it sounds like would be accessed from the lane on the south. There's really 12 access from Peacock Place.

[164:00] And it's the access lane, the 20 foot access line is designed for up to a 250 trips per day. So 250 trips per day is like. 20 per day for each of the 12. Units that would be using it, which is like. Way more than what actually happened. So that to me seems like a perfectly adequate with it would be consistent with the annexation. Criteria and it would reduce the amount of. Of paved space and it would allow for a little more design flexibility potentially because It, it would give 10 more feet to work with. What's that? Sure. I'm being whispered to that maybe Ed has some commentary on this.

[165:01] Thank you. I've been given a lot of thought yet because I didn't expect this one necessarily to come up. We would want to look at it closely to make sure that we weren't going to have a problem with fresh trucks and other entry of course in there which is part of the intent for having a reasonable size street coming off of 50 fifth isn't larger street there so we would want to be careful and look at that it's certainly something we could. Further consider in there. Other comments regarding Kurt's thoughts here. Laura. I appreciate the thought and I think that if staff feels that they could do a little bit more research. I would be totally open to putting in a motion that asks staff to consider as part of the annexation agreement, reducing that street down to 20 feet if possible. I wouldn't want to make a hard and fast judgment tonight, but we could definitely, I would support asking staff to reevaluate that.

[166:03] George. Yeah, super supportive of it. I think Kurt's idea is a great one to the extent that there's no other reason why the city engineering would want it. And once they take a look at it like what Laura said so I think it's a I think it's a nice idea. Thanks for thinking of it, Kirk. I'm highly supportive of it too. I would suggest that we make that part of our site review. Make it binding rather than a recommendation as part of the annexation. You said make it binding well in the sense. When we condition. A site review that's quasi-judicial. So If we made a motion. To amend staff's motion that the site review was conditioned.

[167:02] Unless it was. Like physically. Dangerous impossible under the code. That we were violating the code that it would be part of the site review. The condition of our approval of the site review. Which would carry more weight. Then if we say G Council, we suggest you approve this project and we also suggest this. Which they might dismiss. Okay. Would it be appropriate to ask the developer? Boulder Creek neighborhoods, whether they would have any objection to taking that street down to 20 feet rather than 30. If they have thoughts about that, getting a thumbs up that they think that's okay. Okay. Maybe you have thought about something we had not and the can, and Mr. Kent as well is fine with it. Okay. For what it's worth, we definitely required it. Actually, your mic's not on.

[168:01] Sorry, say for what it's worth, we required it. So city transportation engineering staff. So that they had to provide the 30 foot. Street and I'm sure there was a reason we don't know it right off the top of our heads, but we will look into it. Well, I think to Edward's point, it's about safe access, making sure that we have room for you utilities, to touch sidewalk landscaping. So I think it's certainly we can start something we can study further. If that's the direction. It has been my experience that at times. What we suggest or require from developers. Actually doesn't meet the DCS and is contrary to our goals. And, and so, and I, I'm not saying that to. Raise anyone's hackles, but. I, you know, when we talk about crash trucks, well, you know, we have trash truck servicing alleys on the hill. We have, streetscapes. That are

[169:07] 30 feet wide with parking on both sides. We have. You know, you look at any number of streets I could point out that where, where we don't have speed mitigation for exactly the reason Kurt is pointed out, we have parking on both sides of the street. The street is narrower. And the neighbor, everyone's happier because people go slower because this is a narrower cross-section. So anyway, I'm, I, happily second. This motion when we get to. That so here's what I'm from a process standpoint. I think we have a viable. Condition to consider. Under our site review motion. Are there any is there anything else? That someone wants to bring up and so, I'm not blowing by it. We're just going to put it in the queue. To consider and you can work on some.

[170:03] Specific amendment language. Laura. Thank you. So hearkening back to an earlier topic. Chandler, could I ask you to work with Amanda to pull up the site plan? That shows the open space that shows the whole property, including the open space and the outlaws. Yeah, I will just share my screen. Thank you. I have I have it pulled up on my screen. Not sure. I'm just looking at a PDF. It's on page 15 of the packet if you're able to display it, Amanda. I don't know if that's the same one you're looking at, Chamber or if there's a different.

[171:25] Sorry for the delay, folks. Chandler, I'll just tell you why I'm asking. I'm hoping that you can walk us through just for my own peace of mind. Who owns what? Like where will the Kent's property start and end? What will be sold off as this new development peacock place? And what exactly is up with that open space. In terms of the trails, the trellises and the access for those homeowners who owns that land and what protects their the access for those new homeowners. I know that we've talked about this and I'm not 100% clear, so I just would like to go through that.

[172:03] Yeah. And so we usually don't, I mean, I can say we usually don't get deep into the issues of. Like ownership during site review the fact that it's shown as an outlaw implies that it is supposed to be commonly owned. Right, like usually out lots are commonly owned. I did not know that. Now I do. So honestly, the outlet being owned by the Kansas is kind of new information for me. I'm still. Like, okay. Sure. There you go. Yes. Yeah, that's one that I'm looking at is the one on top. Although the one at the bottom is probably

[173:04] The one below that. There we go. Okay. Okay. This is what you're looking at. Yes.

[174:16] Okay. Okay, we've only been at this for a few meetings. And the technology is new to all of us. So sorry for the delay, folks. I think this is our third planning board meeting in person since COVID. And so the setup in this room is quite complicated. I am sorry for the delay that this causes. Okay. There you go. I think that's probably good enough. I don't know if Chandler can either verbally describe or if you can give him control of the mouse so that we can talk about what's what here. So verbally I can describe it. You can see there's, can you zoom in a little bit more?

[175:07] Sorry. Page 15. Yes. So I think I understand that everything within Peacock Lane and including Peacock Lane, everything to the, what is that, the west of that. Is going to be the province of the HOA, the new HOA and the individual owners. And that the light green area. On the right that has the Kent's new home and it has the Peacock Avery and the tool shed or the, sorry, the shop area. And that loop of the driveway. That is all Kent's private property, the Kent's private property. That's correct. And this diagram is a little confusing because it focuses on the flood plane. Can, do you think you have the PowerPoint back up? Or just scroll. Oh. Scroll down. Yeah.

[176:02] Okay. There you go. Okay, it's those 2 outlets in the middle. There's a fence that a black a thick black line that goes around the long light green parcel at the detention pond and then connects to another thick black line that goes around the pond. Yes. So in the middle, the pond area and then that vertical. Pond area. Yep. So those are both shown as outlaws counting towards the common shared open space. In the site review and the area to the east of that or the right of that is all the Kent's property. Okay. And what I'm what I'm now understanding is that there may be a desire for the K to maintain ownership of the outlaw with the pond on it. And that's not something that we've really discussed or anticipated. So I don't really know. Okay, that would work. And I think I heard in the discussion that maybe they don't care about the whole outlaw. It's just they want to be able to maintain the pond, right? Have ownership of the pond, maintain the pond, have access to the pond.

[177:01] Maybe that's something that needs to get worked out. But it seems like if that outlaw, is that outlaw be? Yeah. If that outlaw B is Kent ownership that feels like that changes the open space calculations for the whole property. Especially at dispensed. That. Just around the water. It's not around the whole lot. It's not around the whole lot. Well, but so yeah, but if that whole area, it's not around the whole lot. Well, but so yeah, but if that whole area is, if outlawed be. Is fenced but counts towards. The open space. The 90 the required open space. Then you know if you're saying hey it's yours and accounts towards your open space but you can't go there. But you can look at it. The concession that we made with them was to provide the trellis seating area at the fence boundary. So that was kind of where we landed with. If you're going to fence it and not let people. Jump in the pond, which you know, they probably shouldn't be doing. Then at least make it so that people can passively enjoy it like from a close distance.

[178:07] And so that's where the trail seating area came from. But Yeah, I understand. Is that the black rectangle that's on the west side of that fence boundary? Is the trellis seating area? Okay. I think as far as, you know, keeping that as part of the shared open space. I think there is probably a way for us to manage or create the subdivision agreement. Such that the Kents are in charge of maintaining it, but. Access, whatever that means in this context, even though it's fenced. Still granted to the residents. And do we need to do anything tonight to ensure that? Do we need to write that into the agreement somehow? Cause it sounds like that's the intention. And we're just arguing over the legal ease of who owns what and how do we ensure that that access is guaranteed into the future and that somebody won't, you know.

[179:01] So do something in the future that we're not anticipating now. I see that. Yeah. Sure, sure. Come on up to the microphone and, Share your thoughts. I may I may end up being questioned and not have thoughts. It's like there are 2 lots that will be under the ownership. The lot that's around the lake or that is essentially the pond at the lake pond. And then the rest to the east. One of this one of the major considerations in Carving out the pond the way it was carved out. The pond is actually part of Not just a water feature, but it's actually part of the wetlands and, it It serves, you know, there's a ditch that goes through there. It has to be maintained. But even beyond that. To a point that was being made earlier. If you have ownership.

[180:02] Of the in the neighborhood to the West. Now you have a massive insurance policy problem. You have a huge cost. It gets imposed on the ownership there. That you then have to You have access to that. So that was actually a real consideration for our standpoint in. Let's try and keep the ownership over here. And keep it segregated for the purposes that you've been talking about. So there was a practical reason behind. That makes sense. And, and I completely appreciate and have gratitude for what you're trying to do here, which is, you know, the Kents are graciously agreeing to maintain the pond and allow access, which is wonderful. It's just, it's the legal aspect here of can we count something as open space for this development that they don't actually own.

[181:00] And so what is our mechanism for doing that in the agreement? I don't know if that's a hell of a question. I mean, technically we can count everything, right? Like it's all part of the PUD. So even though the Kent's home, like the Kent home will be replaced, and they'll maintain ownership of that property. Take me the whole area subject to site review. So. Even though it's fenced off. We kind of have the ability to include the entire Kansas property in the open space calculation. They just broken it down. I think really more for purposes of illustration showing like what will actually be accessible to residents versus what will be private property but I mean, in terms of the legal ease aspect, I think there's a bunch of different ways. Like we can include any of this as open space, really. I mean, I guess that makes sense because each parcel has its own private open space. Right. I don't know if this is not a if this is not a concern for staff and it's not a concern for me, I just want to make sure that it's been.

[182:01] How about and that we are not creating a precedent here of. How we calculate open space when it doesn't actually belong to the people that we're calculating it for. And one protection that you have going forward about it always being there is. I having the size of that lot be just the pond. You can't do anything else with it. Right, yeah, an outlaw is, yeah, by definition, undevelopable. And it's gonna be, it's a wetland. It's part of wetland sea. So it'll now be protected by the city's violin regulations as well. So, so am I going down a rabbit hole that we don't need to go down because it's we're fine. We're not terribly concerned about it as staff. Okay. Okay. And Has a question. Go ahead. So. This zoning RL.

[183:04] 2, I'm, I'm looking at it in my mind. RL 2 has a requirement of open space. They don't have a. You know, minimum lot size or something. So that is in the zoning, 6,000 square foot per. The dwelling unit. And. This agreement looked at making somewhere there was language about, it's not going to be per. Parcel is going to be in a common. Area. So the question that I'm wondering about with all of this and how the open space gets calculated. When the open space requirement. Was, derived. From the zoning. And. This project then. Choosing to make that. Not per unit, but. Oh, across the entire project.

[184:08] How does that get calculated if. It gets kind of fuzzy when the ownership. There isn't, how do, originally was attached to a unit, right? That's what the zoning. Point was is that people need space. And so now we're. Kind of saying it can even be the, you know, Kent's backyard and we can do the whole side. It's like. I'm not following the logic of leaping from a unit and it's required open space so that we have livable. Environment. Do saying, okay, let's do it community-wide. And then. Some of it isn't accessible. Or isn't part, it's confusing on that level to me just because it's part of the zoning.

[185:04] Requirement. Yeah this is a function of the site review and as you know sometimes standards can be modified in their site room process because you also apply the discretionary review criteria. So one of the things that can be done in site review is that the open space, the averaged across the entire development. And overall, there has to be the required amount of open space, but it doesn't have to be 6,000 on on the lot that a unit is on. And then the site, Rewriteria, and requirements that allow you to look at a development to determine whether the the open space needs of the people in the development are being met and you can look at the different parts of the development. So one of the things you can look at is, do you think that with the open space that's provided in Outlook A that the open space needs of the New dwelling units on the western end of the sites are going to be met adequately or not.

[186:07] So it's kind of a balance. It can be averaged and done differently. But you also look at that to make sure that It's appropriate. Do we know what that equals to? If we just take the outlaw A or yeah, and don't have the pond. And, and you would actually look at all of the open space that's available to. Those units. It's already. The the open space calculation. Is a combination of the private open spaces in the in the green. Plus out what a plus outlaw B. And so we've determined. Already tonight that Outlaw A B and the private open spaces. Exceed the site review criteria. For the zoning. Okay, but it the question is does it meet it?

[187:07] Does it not? And I think, so. If we can establish that. It meets the criteria. Then we don't. Really have a lot to say about it. And I think the question goes back to Laura. Understand and sympathize with your concern about the ownership and so forth. Do you feel that that has been addressed? For you. Yes. Yeah, I'm good. I, I think if staff are not worried about it and they're not worried about, you know, future ownership of the parcels, then I'm okay. If we don't need to add anything to the agreement, then I will respectfully close this line of inquiry. Okay, any other questions from board members? Including George who I can't see you George so You'll just have to unmute and shout.

[188:02] On this on this particular topic. George is good. Okay, great. Good. I'm good. Alright. Any other issues. Concerns board members might have for us to deliberate. Before we get to motion. I have one other potential transportation related issue that I'd like to raise when I was out there walking around. There were a bunch of other people walking up and down. 50 Fifth Street, which was great, mostly walking there. Dogs and a lot of them, it looks like headed north. Towards East Boulder Community Prick Center. That area and South Boulder Creek path and so on. So that's wonderful. There's a sidewalk on the west side. This, project will create a sidewalk on the east side of 50 fifth, but only as far as the north end of the.

[189:01] Of the lot, right? And then it ends. And so, and there are a number of houses also further south in the Green Belt. Meadows or whatever that area is called on the east side. That, you know, would probably want to walk north and then they end up at the end of a sidewalk. And so my thought is, gee, it would be nice to have an improved pedestrian crossing at the north end of this. Of this parcel so that people can get across 50 fifth. And safely and continue on north on the on the sidewalk that exist. So my question for Hela. Is, do you feel that there is, what's the term something Nexus adequate Nexus adequate Nexus what? Rational nexus. Thank you. Pational nexus. In this project to justify.

[190:03] And improved pedestrian crossing at that point. Did you? We've got, we've got someone here who's. Raising her hand. One up. Yes, sir. Nancy Blackwood, I'm working with the applicant. And we, and I've been involved in this project for. As long as it's been, we've been working, it's been 5 years, 4 years. And that was one of the first things that we mentioned was that if we were going to be required to put the sidewalk all the way up to the end. We would then be forcing people to cross. At a place where the site distance is very, very inadequate. You're right on a curve. And you're asking people to literally. Come off and It's very, very dangerous.

[191:03] But, we were assured that that was. What we needed to do by the transportation department. So maybe Edward talks to that too because we that was something we were very concerned about and I, you know, I'd be happy to have. A crossing there if that was safe. And it was something that we were very concerned about. Thank you. If you would like, I'm happy to address this. So first, yes, we had the conversation in terms of whether the sidewalk sitting along here was appropriate. And we have that condition throughout, of whether the sidewalk sitting along here was appropriate. And we have that condition throughout town, of course, where there are places where the next piece isn't yet developed along here, it's appropriate. And we have that condition throughout town, of course, where there are places where the next piece isn't In terms of a crossing here, there's a couple of challenges. First is we actually don't have juristational control. On 50 fifth through there. It's in the county. So I don't believe you can actually direct the county to do anything. You can request.

[192:04] Secondly, even if it was in the city, we would want to look at it very closely in terms of how our pedestrian crossing guidelines through the transportation mobility department are applied across the board. We've done that very purposefully to try and ensure that we have a robust network that's Meet safety standards meets concerns. I wouldn't want to arbitrarily introduce a crossing here with improvements that don't necessarily meet what we've looked at applied across the entire community. I'm ensuring that we provide an adequate more than adequate system that meets safety. Meats needs. So those would be my initial thoughts. In terms of trying to put something into this site review on a requirement. I do think it's a little bit challenging also to say this particular project is creating the need which comes to that rational nexus question. So.

[193:00] Will this project require substantial street repaving of fifty-fifth. At any section along. Along there. Not that I've seen in the preliminary simple plans. No. Because my understanding and again could be wrong but I was schooled when I was. When we undergo a street repaving project. It requires us. To apply ADA and universal design concepts. You see a neighborhood. Suddenly get, ramps. And the. The red bumped blocks, etc. Many times that is due to the streets being repaved and so that's a requirement so that might be a way to get a crossing.

[194:03] Should anywhere along 50 fifth street. Require repathing due to utility facility. Going to this going to this new site. So what you're referring to if I can address. Yes, there are standards, in terms of when we make modifications to facilities. Ensuring that they meet the accessibility requirement. That does not actually put in a requirement to add a new crossing. So if we were to build a crossing, it has to be accessible compliant there. Yeah, the 88 does not mandate that you add a crossing. It says if there is something, it must serve all all needs through that code. It would not be something that would require us to put a mid block crossing. Okay. Actually, that. That, promised me to realize that There will be sidewalks along. Peacock place.

[195:06] Which means there will be crossings there by state law. Those, those then are crosswalks. Right? Across 50. And so those would be required to have the standards they would not be required to be marked so they would not. Striping. But there's still legal crossworks. Yeah. Well, but it sounds like the owner ship issue is maybe the fundamental. Problem that that half of the street is. County. The entirety of 50 fifth there is the county. So that's your first hurdle is to try and direct something that is not in our jurisdiction. Yeah, it's not necessarily ownership. It's under the county's traffic jurisdiction. Okay, yeah, jurisdiction. Okay.

[196:02] I'm totally sympathetic, but I'm also like. Not sure where to go with this exactly. Yeah. Okay, I think I will drop this unless someone else has a brilliant idea for how to move it forward. I'll simply say I have seen. In an unincorporated county residential area. Were they repaid the street and suddenly a marked ADA accessible crosswalk. With markings and signs appears. At a point where a sidewalk ends and there's a sidewalk on the ops anyway very similar to this so without going further on. I think the county might have a role in this and maybe it's a good one. Okay. I think unless anyone has additional concerns. That we are ready to make some motions and vote. And I'm going to suggest that We, and Howa and staff tell me if this is not.

[197:10] The right way to do it that we undertake the annexation. Motion first And then we can consider the site review. And then once we have the site review motion on the table. Then we should entertain an amendment. If there is one to the site review. Motion. If we're gonna proceed that way, okay. Alright. So I'm going back to I've printed them out. Okay. Would someone like to? Make a motion regarding. The annexation.

[198:11] Sure. Motion to to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 5 6 9 9 one South Boulder Road. With an initial zoning designation of residential. Dash low to RL 2. And with the proposed wetland mapping all pertaining to case number LUR, 2,020 dash 0 0 0 5 7 incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed annexation agreement in attachment D. I second. We have a motion and a second. As motion maker ML would you like to speak to this motion I do.

[199:03] I think that the, The original reason for doing this that, the cat family was, finding it impossible to live without water and services, finding it impossible to live without water and services, is, is a, and it's in the perfect location as far as, is a, and it's in the perfect location as far as our, is a, is a, and it's in the perfect location as far as our. Volta Bell account plan, and it's in the perfect location as far as our, moldabellic comp plan directance and guidance into part in I think that the. Process that God is to the point where we have. You know, 6 units of affordable housing and some significant middle income. Opportunities there as well. This, has become a win-win for everybody and I'm, and I'm happy to, to pass this forward to city council. So that this

[200:02] This annexation can after i was trying to see how long it's been after all these years can move forward Okay, Laura? I just wanna offer my appreciation to staff and to the applicant team. For the hard work that you have put in to trying to create something really beautiful here, a really good community that offers things that the city has been asking for and this type of middle income permanently affordable and middle income attainable housing. I sorely needed in the city. It's almost impossible for us to achieve it without annexation, to be quite frank. And so you are doing a good service for your community and I'm really excited to see what gets built here. I'm fully in support and really appreciate all of the back and forth and negotiation that you've had with staff and working through this. I think you've come up with something really, really great. So thank you. Curt, any comment? Okay, I'll make one comment. I'm in support of the motion and the development and the annexation.

[201:08] There for those of us that have been around town for a little while. There's a bit of irony here in it's the proximity of this project to the Hogan PAN cost project. And I'm struck by that irony, which doesn't take away from the goodness of this project, but It's, it's sad to, think that we, there was an opportunity here. Not too long ago. To have. significantly more housing. In our in our city. I also since since the city. Pushed open space and mountain parks to buy the Hogan parent cost property. Against their wishes and against any particular That property did not fulfill. Any particular. Open space value or desire by the department to Add that to their inventory.

[202:14] We have a property that is inaccessible. To the public. And with no plans for accessibility. Anytime soon. And I think that that's a shame for the families, the kids, the residents. Of this new development. And anyway, I think that's a shame. I think that, it's something I'm going to continue to pursue with. OSNP and the Open Space Board of Trustees because I think this development changes the requirement for access. For the Hogan pant cost property. So. Having said that, now I've got that off my test.

[203:00] I think we're ready to oh George, do you have anything you want to say? No, I'm ready. What's wrong? Hi. Okay. Then we'll. Go to a vote. I'll restate the motion. And then we will vote. The motion is motion to recommend the city council. Approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 56 91 South Boulder Road with an initial zoning designation of residential. Low to RL 2. And with the proposed wetland mapping. All pertaining to case number L, UR, 2020 dash 0 0 0 5 7 incorporating. This staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed annexation agreement. In attachment D. I'm gonna start with you, Yes. Laura? Yes.

[204:05] Curt? Yes. George? And I am yes. Yes. Okay. You have a recommendation from planning board to council. To proceed with the annexation. Next I would like to. Entertain a motion regarding. Site review and if we, great, you can make that motion and then after a motion and a second if anyone has a an amendment. We can then talk about that. I move to approve site review case number LU R, 2,020 dash 0 0 0 5 8 incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached site review criteria checklist as findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum.

[205:01] Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and speak to this. For a second and then we can. Move on to after after the. The motion maker and the second speak. Then we'll entertain any amendments. I'll just say very briefly that I thought staff made a very compelling case that this project meets all of our site review criteria and I'm very happy to recommend approval. Okay. Yeah, and I agree. I don't need to repeat everything that's already been said, but I think this is a great design overall. And I think that it's something that will. Be of great benefit to the city and hopefully also to the camps. Okay, any other commentary or are we ready to go to any, amendments? Okay, do I hear any amendments to the main motion?

[206:00] Curt. I move an amendment, that the curb face to curb face with of peacock place be reduced to 20 feet or to the extent deemed appropriate by city staff. I'll second that. Just question for Edward Stafford and other staff. Does that give you the flexibility that you need if we word the motion in that way or does that motion give you any pause? I may look the hell off for a little bit of this. It gives me a little pause just in terms of the. Criteria that we should apply. For something other than 20 feet and making sure we're clear. Yeah, I think that my recommendation would be to qualify that provided the reduced width meets. With a revised code and city of order designing construction standards. Yeah, I was thinking that maybe the requirement could be that the plans be revised to show a reduced width without being specific about what that is or maybe saying up to.

[207:06] 20 feet. Amanda, would you be able to put that up because I do say be reduced to 20 feet or to the extent deemed appropriate by city staff. But it could. If this would help, it could read. Deemed appropriate to city staff and consistent with. What did you say city code in the DCS or something like that? Yes. Is that what you said? So, and the amount of the reduction could be 0 if that is deemed appropriate by staff. Is that? Right. Yeah. So, so could at the end after staff. Could you add? Consistent with city code and the design of construction.

[208:07] Maybe we could to the extent the appropriate by city staff. To minimize. The amount of land devoted to the street system. Yeah, which is the goal. And That's actually coming from the annexation. No, it's actually a SAC review criterion. Oh, that's as I review critique. Yes. To minimize the amount of land devoted to. The street system. Is that is that correct? The amount of land. Yeah. I may recommend rather than devote to the street system the amount of land dedicated to paved surfaces to be very clear where you could just say the amount of land dedicated to paved surfaces to be very clear where you could just say the amount of pavement. Okay, but the amount of land devoted to the street system is the actual wording. In the site, in the site review criteria.

[209:02] I think, I think the pavement, I think it could be further refined to the pavement because that That is how you interpret the intent of. Okay. Can we put a comma after pavement? And can we add and consistent? So I think you can just say to minimize the amount of pavement. Minimized in on, devoted, Okay. There you go. I think you do need an of there. Minimize the amount of pavement. Does that work for everybody? Hela, Kurt. Works for me. Does it work for the? That's okay with you, Edward. Yes. Great. And I, yeah, ideally we would.

[210:03] Relate to the conditions of approval and that the final side plans be revised to show this. Are you, do we need to actually incorporate this? Into the main motion, ie. Yeah, like motion to amend. To add. A condition requiring. To add a condition of approval. 2. Fine, adding motion to amend, adding a condition of approval. There we go. That. There we go. Okay. So remove the 2 after amend. Let her, okay.

[211:10] Be revised to show. The curb phase. To group face, reduced to 20 feet so I could think you can delete the B. So you can, delete the word B in front of reduced. And I think you can. Remove the second 2 in the first line. Motion to amend, adding a condition of approval. That the final site plans be revised to show the curb face to curb its width of peacock place be reduced to 20 feet or to the extent deemed appropriate by city staff to minimize the amount of pavement consistent with Citycode and the design and construction standards.

[212:07] Does that make everybody happy? Yes. So without objection, then we've adopted. The changes made by the motion maker and the second. So. Okay, without objection. I don't want to go to the. Okay, so. Thank you. So, any additional debate on the amendment Are we ready to vote? Ready to book. Do you have a second? Yeah, I second it. Okay. So. We have a motion to amend. Adding a condition of approval. That the final site plan shall be revised to show the curb face to curb face width of peacock place reduced to 20 feet.

[213:02] Or to the extent deemed appropriate by city staff. To minimize the amount of pavement. Consistent with the city code and the design and construction standards. Okay. We're gonna begin with you, George. Yes. Okay, I'm. Yes. Yes. And I'm yes. So we have an amendment to the main motion and now. I believe we're ready to vote on the main motion. Is anyone? Okay. Okay. The main motion. Is motion to approve. Site review case number L you are 2020 dash 0 0 0 5 8. Incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached site review criteria checklist as findings of fact. And subject to conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum.

[214:09] And I don't think I need to read the. Can you say with the condition? We never. With with the following condition. So we add that after memorandum with the following condition. Yeah, with an addition. Well, just after the word memorandum in the main. In the main motion. Just with the including the following condition. Are you good with that?

[215:01] Yeah, I think you could even make it including. The following. Condition of approval that Fine. So we would we're going to Okay. So now I'm I'll just go ahead and. Read the whole darn thing and then we can then we can vote on it. Okay. Motion to approve site review case number L you are 2020 day 0 0 0 5 8 incorporating the staff. Memorandum and the attached site review criteria checklist as findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum including the following condition of approval. That the final site. Plans be revised to show the curb face to curb face with a peacock place reduced to 20 feet or to the extent deemed appropriate by city staff.

[216:05] To minimize the amount of pavement consistent with the city code and the design and construction standards. Okay. Correct. Yes. ML. Yes. George. Yes. And I'm yes. Okay, I believe that concludes this agenda item. Congratulations to the applicants. And, maybe longer than people expected, but. It's never shorter than you expect, so hey, they're 5 years into this. Yeah, right. Another couple of hours. Right. Thanks for bearing with us. We got there. Yeah, and thank you for what you did. Development in Boulder is not for the pain of heart.

[217:02] You finally made progress. Okay. Matters from the planning board. Well, does any board member have anything they want to discuss? Matters from the planning director. I see Brad headed up here. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, planning board members. My comments are gonna be definitely anti-climactic. So I really don't have anything to add and I can't even wish you happy holidays because we're gonna see you again in 2 weeks. I mean, I suppose I could. That but. Thank you for all your work as as always and We'll look forward to seeing you again in a couple of weeks. Okay. And he matters from the city attorney. Nothing for me. Thank you.

[218:02] Okay. Alright, and so Brad. We are meeting on that would be the nineteenth. Yes. That's correct. Yeah. Okay, alright. I am and thought we were meeting them then. Okay, all right. Do we have it? Do we have a 2 good things? Okay, all right. Okay, super easy quick. Not a long night. Okay, all right. We're here for you, Charles. Whatever you need. I'll send out another email, but, George did notice, tell me that he'll be out December nineteenth. Right. But. That's break down. I'm actually, flying back the next day. So next time after that, I'll be in chambers with you guys.

[219:01] Okay, excellent. We look forward to seeing you in person, George. Have safe travels. And here, here. We're expecting Sarah back. Okay, so Sarah is expected to be here. I believe Lisa too. Oh, okay. I'll send one more little note just in case. Okay, all right, unless there is an objection, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. You don't want a motion to Good night everybody. Thanks.