February 6, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Echo. fixing it right now. please understand. are we good to go? Yeah. Okay. Great do we need to do a roll? Call me too. Rococo. I say, yes, do a roll call since Georgie Sunlight. Alright, George. wait! You're you're we saw your mouth move, but we didn't hear you. We still didn't hear you. I think it might be a tech issue. I think it might not be you, George. It might be us. Can you hear me. Can you hear me now? Excellent! Here, mark Sarah here. Okay. Alright public participation is the first order of the day. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak or anyone online.

[1:00] Hi, Sarah, this is Vivian. I think we have to read the rules first. Yeah. But do we have anyone online who wants to speak. Yes, there are some hands raised, at least one hand raised just a reminder. This is to speak to non agenda items this open comment session. Alright. So that means if it's if there is, if the item you want to speak to is a pu item today. Hold your comments until we get to that public item. Otherwise you can talk about anything you would like for 3 min. Vivian, go ahead and do that or Amanda. Yeah, I'll read our rules of decorum this evening. Thank you. 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, safe 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.

[2:03] The following are rules of decorum for this evening. Vivian, can you go back? One slide, please? Thank you. Found in the Boulder Revised Code. These are our rules of decorum for this evening, 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. participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online for those that are joining us. Virtually we're in the Zoom Webinar format when it is your turn

[3:01] or when we do reach public participation and public hearing for the public hearing items. You can raise your hand if you would like to speak, and then Vivian online will help you adjust the settings so that you can, may may unmute yourself. This is just a graphic showing you the where you can find the raise hand button on the bottom of the bar. Under reactions. And I think that's it. Thank you. Yep, that's it. Alright, Vivian. Okay. so now this is the time, the opportunity for open comment. If you'd like to speak to anything that is not a public hearing item, please go ahead and raise your hand. and each person would have 3 min. So far I see no hands. Give it a couple seconds. Okay, we have one, Lynn Siegel. please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[4:07] Where's my we can hear you go ahead. Hold on! Just hold the clock till Lynn figures it out, where is my timer. Vivian, can you please stop sharing your screen? I think. Sorry. Yeah, that should be okay. Now. yay, now I see it. Thank you very much. Yeah. Regarding the Peacock place. Approval the other the other day. I remember from like 5 8 years ago. Well, Jo Kent, the guy who owned the place. He moved his

[5:00] his structure from 20 Eighth and baseline in 1964, 67, to this area of unincorporated Boulder County, out past the east Boulder Rec Center, going south a little bit. and Annie had to dig a well. and 50 years later the well rusted out. So we got a new well, and then in 2013 that well got inundated somehow from the flood. So he wanted annexation. But of course the city wants to benefit from any annexations and They weren't accepting of just him and his house there. So he had proposed 4 houses at first, and that was denied they wanted more benefit. But This is on flood, plain area and riparian habitat.

[6:03] and the mouse jumping mouse, and the other birds that are going around there and stuff. So it was contested also is contested because the soccer fields, when they're put into East Boulder Rec center were uplifted a great deal, and it changed the alluvium, and the flooding in the area is is more impactful on the surrounding houses, greenwood meadows and keyworden. So the, the. The approval of this thing is really not okay. When the developer said they got a permit for the sewer line that they they gave the city, and this was stated this way. I can. I can give you the exact words from Chandler. and that apparently staff, or some one discovered. The developer gave the city a sewer easement along the east side of the development when they got their permit for the development, so they did not have to use OSBT. Land, or get greenbelt meadows approval. Well.

[7:13] this is not okay. Karen Hallake. I believe she was on the OS. Osbt. At the time, had heard about the sewer alignment, and inquired with some one, when this was this project was going to move ahead, and was told that she would be informed, and then she found out by seeing in the newspaper the other day that it was approved. Well, you have to get. That's that's time. First. just wrap it up with one final thought. Thank you.

[8:04] Next is dis discussion of dispositions, planning board callups and continuations. We have 2. For this first one we have allocated 15 min if we are able to keep it to 15 min. This is a call up of site reviews developed 1501 and 1509. Arapaho Avenue, with 8 attached residential dwelling units with underground parking in 2 at grade parking spaces behind the building. Development is proposed to be 3 stories in height that will not exceed the by right height of 38 feet up. Subsequent preliminary plat under case number LUR. 2, 0, 2, 3, dash 0, 0, 0 0 4 was approved to combine the 2 lots. The call up period expires on February seventh. 2020, 24, Several people had sent questions to Staff. Do you want to raise those questions? Now, okay, go ahead, Mark. Okay. So

[9:02] once again, II find myself discussing Tdm requirements in relation to Site Review. And so I have not decided. whether or not I'll call this up. But I wanted to ask the applicant. The applicant's here tonight. Applicants. Hi, Allison, Blynn, senior planner. The applicant is on the call tonight. Do they need to be admitted. Yeah, I think they need to be promoted. It's michelle's her name student Shelter. which Michelle Ellison. the back of error. Excuse me, smash.

[10:04] Hello! This is Michelle. Okay? Alright. Ready to carry on. Okay, ready? So? The first question that that Allison? I don't think fully responded to, and and not that. I mean, I I'm not. I'm not saying that in a pejorative sense I just wanna ask additional from additional questions of the applicant. Your parking that you're proposing. The 8 parking spaces are those separated and separately deeded or sold from the units? Are they titled with the unit. They are going to be titled with the unit. So each unit is going to have one parking space.

[11:02] Did you consider? using the parking management techniques that the city promotes, some separated, unbundled, managed, and paid with in in your plan for the parking. So we are not opposed to that. We had thought that keeping one parking space with each, each unit would ensure that each unit had one spot for a car which would minimize the potential congestion for on street parking in the area. So I'll just comment to that by by titling a parking space with the unit versus separating it. You are taking away the affordability of the person who chooses not to own a car. And so that is anyway, it's it's it's it's something that I would have preferred to see you include in your in your Tdm plan. II do believe you acknowledge that

[12:11] the parking situation in the Gos Grove neighborhood is people struggle with it. And I I'm not sure how your Tdm plan really addresses either the parking situation or the encouragement to live. Using bike e bike pedestrian transit Do you consider your Tdm plan as submitted to be your final and best effort. So we had considered. So our goal was to minimize congestion to the surrounding area based on feedback from neighbors. So that's why we have the parking that we have proposed, and then the bike parking. We tried to make it as convenient as possible with limited space

[13:05] that we have available to us to provide as much bike, parking, and alternative modes of transportation parking as possible. We also do plan to provide charging for not just cars, but also bikes to minim to allow for the most amount of accessibility to alternative modes of transportation as possible. Will that charging be in the garage? And will it be in a secured bike storage area where heavier, longer e-bikes can both be managed by someone that may not be able to pick a pick an e-bike up and hang it on your space saving racks that you show in the drawings. We have discussed that, and where the bike rack is shown. We can also provide a chain link fence and closing the area, making it more secure, which would also allow for

[14:02] larger bikes, such as what you've described to be placed, and the charging is going to be within that area. Okay. So II have a question for staff, and that is so here the decision to call up something or not based on an applicant's responses. Is this not just kind of like a mini hearing? Or if if an applicant can an applicant make commitments at this stage, or should I just call it up? Well, they can make commitments. But we're not approving conditions this evening. So it's a it's a promise it would not be enforceable through the approval. Alright, I'm just gonna cut this short. I'm gonna call this up? Did you have questions you wanted to put out to the applicant, too? Did you? Did you ask questions about this project? I don't think that I did. I have one question that we can wait.

[15:04] Okay. My question is just about the the sidewalk on the Arapaho side, on the south side, in the plans. The width wasn't clear to me. The applicants proposal stated 5 foot sidewalk, but the Dcs specifies 8 foot sidewalk for a minor arterial, which which Arapaho is. Can you just clarify the width in the plants? The width is going to be the minimum required per code. So if it's 8 foot will be 8 feet. we have everything up to the property line, so the sidewalk is going to be the width that it is, and then it will be we. We know it'll have to meet code. Okay? And ml, go ahead. Thank you. So my question is about the trees.

[16:00] There are 15 trees, 8 are being removed, and so the question I would be interested in is, what criteria are used. or allowing removal of trees. Some of them look like they're as close or far from the building. and they're being removed. And I looked at the legend. and the caliper is similar, so it'd be nice to hear and they're all in good condition. equally in good condition. None of them have anything above good whether they're being retained or removed. So that would be something that I'd be interested in seeing some clarification on. We're happy to clarify both those things. Thank you, Charles. Alright, alright! We'll move on to call up Item B. Use for view to allow residential uses on the ground floor, facing a street in an industrial service, one zone district. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing site with 2 new residential buildings containing 21 3 story town home townhouses, townhouse units with private garages. The call up period expires on February 1220 24. Does it matter that there's no lur number here.

[17:19] or admissions? Hmm, or address or address. Do we need that for the record? Stand by in the memo. It says it's 47, 25 Broadway, LUR. 202-20-0032 great. Thank you. All right. Now, II think, mark you all both had somebody had comments on this.

[18:06] I have a comment, but I'm I'm not going to call it to be distressing only in one respect, and that is that the design, as shown would be something I would want to call up. But it's since it's a use review. We can't. But I would encourage the applicant to revisit their design potentially scrap the the design as it is now, and and start over with something that's worthy of the North Boulder area. And it's just it's just pretty bad. I think it might be worth. Who was it who was saying on the phone yesterday during the planning meeting. that this is a unique one off situation. I think it was you, Lisa. Do you want to just explain? Come up and explain. Ever try it? Yeah, it wouldn't have been Lisa, I mean, I think it's just unique in the sense that

[19:08] we don't see a lot of actual development projects through the user view process. We, you know, user views are typically about the intensity of a use. You know, the hours of operation operational characteristics. So in this case, it's it's pretty rare to have a development project that's being reviewed as a user view. And I can, I can add something to that. I think that Sarah was referring to this is in the in An is zoning district, and we no longer allow residential in the Is zoning district. But this application was filed prior to that Co change, and I think in the in the other eye districts where we allow residential. quick, North Korea's yeah. So that's helpful to know. And Emel.

[20:03] So I asked this of Lisa. I'll ask it again, cause it's still not clear to me. That the North Boulder subcommunity plan identifies this as being in a service industrial area. And I understand that the Use Review is looking at allowing residential on the ground floor. Is that in my understanding that that's what's in front of us. That's right, because otherwise residential is allowed in that. Yeah, if residential was only above the first floor. not facing a street. I think that's also a qualifier. Then no use. Review would be required. Okay, so that to me is the thing I'm wondering about if our intention. And it appears to me that the North boulder subcommunity plan

[21:00] intention is to is to support the retention. the small service. Businesses that are typical in that area. I I'm wondering why Staff feels that we should allow residential on the ground floor. You know. Again, I think it's a balance. The the area plan talks about preserving light industrial uses, but it also talks about integrating, housing. It talks about mixed use. It talks about lived work. So a variety of housing types. And you know, our Council declared a housing crisis a few years ago. And the residential use is something that can be considered through the user view process. So there's a process mechanism for for you guys to consider that. So I think from a staff perspective, balancing it with all of the other goals and objectives of the North Boulder subcommunity plan. It seemed like residential on the ground floor, in a purely residential, you know. Project here felt supportable.

[22:13] And Allison, please let me know if you had anything to add. No, that was perfect. That was what I was. Gonna say, thank you, Charles Allison, can you remind what is around? That particular parcel on the ground level is is that? Is it? Surrounded by industrial uses. There's some industrial uses. Immediately to the south. And then across the street. You know you have the the armory that some mixed use residential the comfort and en suite hotel is immediately to the north, so there is a variety of uses in that area, including industrial, commercial, and residential. Sorry to chime in, but directly adjacent is sorry. This is Andrew Khadimi. I am bringing the project for it as the developer directly adjacent on text on Tenth Street is a residential neighborhood, and directly across the street is

[23:19] the Comfort Suites hotel also. Currently there is no road, and we initially submitted as a use by right. But after 3 years of negotiation with the city it became clear that we would need to extend Zamia Road, thus creating this need for a use review by creating the street. do you know how many existing small businesses are going to be displaced. Yeah, absolutely. So there are. I. Actually, if if you're ready, II have something to say that really outlines the project. If if I could have the time, or would you like me to just address your questions and save comments? Okay, there are 4 businesses, 2 auto shops, one luxury, camper van and a marijuana grow.

[24:17] We have, we have negotiate or not. We've negotiated all of their leases, stipulate the development, and all of them have been made aware. And we're working with every single one of the current tenants or tenants that have current leases to move that into other spaces of ours before development agrees in the city of boulder or county. Thank you for your thank you for coming forth with your answers. Th, that's it for me, and I will not be calling this up. Okay, thank you all. Alright. Thank you, Andrew. We'll go. We'll go on to the public hearing items agenda. Item, a public hearing and consideration of a site, review, amendment and height, modification, request

[25:02] to allow for up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height for each town home building within the approved shining mountain. Waldor School, PUD. Allowing for a pitched roof design on the Third Level reviewed. Sorry. There's also a second option which was included in the proposal, but not in the agenda title reviewed under case number LUR. 202-30-0050. We've set aside an hour for this. We'll start with a 15 min staff presentation. Take it away all right, thank you, Sarah, and good evening Planning Board members. As Sarah just mentioned. This is a request review, a Site Review amendment, application to amend the Shining Mountain Waldor School Development to allow for up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height, with a pitched roof, or alternatively up to 4 feet of additional height, with or without a pitched roof for each of the town home buildings in terms of public notification. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the subject site.

[26:05] Notice was also posted on the property staff has received comments and questions from 5 residents as well as letter of opposition signed by 5 residents which came in today, which I believe you all have seen. Shining Mountain. Walder School has existed in the same location west of tenth and violet. Since 1,983, it was found. Since it was founded the school has expanded to provide a full kindergarten through high school curriculum in the Waldorf tradition for the boulder community. This. Meanwhile the land holdings for the school have increased up to about 11 plus or minus acres. So in 2021 Lur. 2019, dash 0, 0 0 6 8 was approved, which was site review for phase, consolidation, and redevelopment of the school facilities and redevelopment of a portion of the property with single family and town home units subject to design guidelines. At the same time a user view is also approved to update the management plan for the private school.

[27:02] and recently, in 2023, a Site Review amendment was approved to allow for the subdivision of the town home lot into 17 individual lots, and to remove phasing requirements that had been in there for the single family dwellings. The Bvcp Land use. Designation is low density residential. which consists predominantly of single family detached units at a density of 2 to 6 units per acre. The zoning of the site is RL. 2, which is defined as medium density. Residential areas primarily used for small lot, residential development. including without limitation duplexes, triplexes or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. Under the current site. Review approval. The townhomes are subject to the 35 foot maximum height limit for the RL. 2 zone the majority of the site is located within the 100 500 year flood plains with the town home site following dedication of the Locust Avenue right of way.

[28:01] being completely within the 100 year. Flood plain. Pursuant to section 9, 3. 3 of the boulder Revised Code. Any person constructing a new residential structure shall elevate the lowest floor, including the basement to or above the flood protection elevation. In this case the flood protection elevation is approximately 5 and a half feet above the low point within 25 feet of the buildings, from which height is measured. So in terms of surrounding context. you can see here the site. It's immediately across Violet Avenue from the 4403 Broadway site which recently came in for the Concept Review for Bemoka Across Broadway to the east. There's the cresty Us. Residential development. and to the northeast of the site I'm extending north of Broadway as Violet Crossing Development, the new North Boulder Library site and the uptown Broadway development. These are some pictures of the surrounding context. These are mainly the violet crossing, which I believe actually has a new name now. But I'm going by the planning name

[29:08] Viola Crossing development shown there at the corner of Broadway and Violet to the right is the kind of northern portion of the violet crossing leading to the uptown Broadway buildings, which are 48 feet in height. And the bottom right picture is of a home in the Crestview West neighborhood across Broadway to the east. the 4401 Broadway site which recently underwent concept review. Lies immediately to the north of the town home site and is currently split zone between Rm. One and MU. 3 and the new Novo Branch Library sites. It's just north of Violet Crossing, on the east side of Broadway, as I just mentioned. So in terms of the existing site review approval under the existing approval the school buildings lying to the west of the residential portion of the site have been designed to include a mix of roof forms the approved building designs are compliant with Rl. 2 height standards.

[30:07] These are images of 2 of the approved school buildings. This is a shot of the town home lot in the high school, which is currently under construction. So within the approved Locust neighborhood design guidelines, the applicant has provided an area analysis that included observations to provide a foundation for the guidelines, including use of porches and garages that are set back a mix of architectural styles. but with a consistent style in each building variation materials, and sustainable landscaping of native species. These images are of the approved building height of the townhomes. These images are actually consistent with a tech dock application that the applicant has in. Currently. So we have determined that these buildings are consistent with the approved design guidelines. So these are not approved yet, but these are

[31:00] very likely. What would be built at the buy right height if the tech dock is approved. These are also some images from the approved design guidelines. and they provide a list of acceptable primary and trim materials, roof, styles, window door and entry, details to fit within the neighborhood. But still remain. Elements of the time still retain. Sorry. so the proposed project, as mentioned previously they are requesting. are proposing essentially 2 alternatives with the first being the preferred alternative, which is a 7 and a half foot height increase to allow for sloped roofs. On the third story, those are shown on the uppermost image there. The second alternative is a 4 foot height increase maintaining flat routes, and that's really just to get above the flood elevation.

[32:01] Oh, so no other changes to previously approved design. Guidelines are proposed for the applicant's written statement upon further development and design of the town home law that has been determined that the height of the townhomes is unduly constrained by the 100 year base flood elevation requirements. Further, the applicant is interested in providing a slope proof design that would provide more articulated roof lines that are more consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and school architecture adjacent to the town home site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting additional height as allowable by brc. Section 914 v. One EI. And so this is for the first alternative is that the eligibility. Requirement is that the height modification is to allow for a roof that has a pitch of 2, 12, or greater in a building with 3 or fewer stories, and the proposed height does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by more than 10 feet. So these images, that you're currently seeing are the buildings at the approved 35 foot height.

[33:00] and these are overlaid with the request for the slope roofs at 7 and a half foot height. Increase these next images, will demonstrate the second alternative design, which is intended to comply with section 9, 2, 14 b. One e. 4 which allows for a height modification, request to allow up to the greater of 2 stories, or the maximum number of stories permitted, but no more than 5 feet above the maximum building height in a building where the height modification is necessary because the building has to be elevated to meet the required flood protection elevation. What these will show is that while the overall increase in height would be less in this scenario, 4 feet as opposed to 7 and a half. It would not allow for slope through forms, and would therefore actually have a more massive appearance from the street level, as the entire 4 feet of extra height would extend vertically as opposed to the slope roofs which would slope back, beginning at the 35 foot mark.

[34:01] Morph. Okay? So that brings us to key issues. Key issue number one is, is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review criteria of the land use code. including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height, modification and key issue number 2 is open for any other key issues. That the board may identify. Okay, thank you. Are there questions right now for Chandler. Go ahead. And then, Laura, did you have question? Alright first of all, this is considered one building with a single low point is that correct? No individual units. They're attached by firewalls, but they each have their own low points. Okay, yeah. Okay. And will they then be stepped because it didn't appear that way in the rendering. I don't know if the finished floor elevation is consistent throughout all the buildings or stepped, I might defer to the applicant on that one. Okay, and can you also take down keys, you one, so we can see George.

[35:08] Sure I did have some staff findings to read about. K. Issue one. But if you, if you don't want me to read the staff findings, that's fine no, go ahead and read the staff findings, and but then put George back up on. So okay, cause otherwise I can't see if he's raising his hand. So the staff findings for option. One. We found that the height modification is eligible. It's it's to allow a roof pitch that has a pitch of 2, 12 or greater. It's fewer than 10 feet fewer than 3 or 3 or fewer stories. Option 2. They're also eligible to request because it's below 5 feet. and is necessary, because the building has to be elevated to meet required flood protection, elevation staff further found that the sloped roof design is compatible with the character of the surrounding area that it avoids or minimizes blocking a prominent public views, and contributes to a city skyline that has a variety of roof forms and heights.

[36:01] We also found that it maintains the existing architectural compatibility achieved by the approved design guidelines in terms of street level form and materials along the Broadway corridor north of Violet The addition of slow proof forms achieves greater compatibility with the single family residential character of the neighborhoods east of Broadway, as well as the adjacent school buildings, which incorporate a variety of roof forms, including gabled roofs. And that overall the proposal to allow for 42 and half of town home buildings. The slope roofs would provide both the transition and scale to the more traditional residential areas to the south and southeast of the site, as well as more variety in the overall roof forms and architectural style of the area board member. Nor Back's question. So for flood, there is a single flood protection, elevation for each building. Not each individual unit different than the purposes of calculating building height, but for the purposes of flood. So there won't be steps in the finish floor elevation.

[37:00] Thank you. Go ahead. Can I keep going? Okay? And then the the well, what? What is the what is the net elevation due to flood? If if this were not in the 100 year flood plain. how much different would those but the base elevation, I guess. B, I believe 5 and a half feet, but I can also defer to the applicant to specify. The applicant is going to make an a presentation? Yeah? And then the final question is really a process question, maybe for Hello. So there are these criteria for these 2 different options in the Site Review criteria. But this is considered. we're, we're, we're. We're thinking of this basically as a new site review. application. Right? In other words, it needs to meet the Full Site Review criteria

[38:01] under W, with consideration of these options, is that accurate? In other words, we're not just thinking about whether it meets these 2 particular points. Yeah, the the entire proposal. Would have to meet the Site Review criteria. one of the things to consider. And as you think about that, there is already an approval for what's approved today, so the applicant can move forward with that, even if these changes are not being proposed, but overall, the entire project has to meet the Site Review criteria. So we're thinking about this as if this were a new proposal. But of course. the the original proposal is already out there and approved. Okay, thank you. That helps Laura, yeah. And the 2 criteria that I read just to be clear, are they're just eligibility criteria. So just in order to even be eligible to ask for height, modification.

[39:00] Okay, thank you. So my question is the the modification because of the base flood elevation? Was that not known when we had the original Site Review? I'm I guess it usually is already part of the Site Review proposal. So what I I'm not understanding why this is a new ask, was it not considered when they gave us their original design. I think it was known. But according to the applicant's written statement, which I'm sure they'll elaborate on I think that it did. The impacts to the interiors of the building didn't really become fully clear until they got into the design phase of the buildings. Okay, thank you. I'm gonna go to George, and I'll come to you guys. Go ahead, George. sorry II need my memory refresh, and I think some board members weren't on the board. When we saw this in concept review relative to the the the discrepancy between the 2 story and 3 story, and what was actually allowed initially at this site, could you? Could you? Could you just provide a quick refresher on

[40:08] on what that? What that issue was? It'd be helpful. I don't actually know, because I was not here when that concept review came. I'm not sure that I recall any reading anything about it. Discrepancy between 2 and 3 stories. Well, there was a conversation, cause I was here, too. There was a conversation about the town homes being 2 stories and I actually remember George talking about it. That would be okay, cause they might be more affordable because they wouldn't be quite so big. But because it was houses and town homes, and there was a question about whether they should do both and but I don't remember exactly what the code was, what I recall. And and and again, my, my memory is kind of fuzzy on this. I need to go back and and really look at. I think we should look at our notes on that, because call is is that they were permitted to go to 35 feet. However. It was pretty clear that they were only permitted. There was an agreement in place. They're only permitted to do 2 stories, and we went back and forth through this process.

[41:17] And again my memory is fuzzy, so have the applicant, or in the city. If if someone from the city that was there can can talk to this, I think that would be super helpful, because this was a this was a point of contention on this project with the neighbors and with us as a planning board. There was an agreement in place that they were only permitted 2 stories, and then the applicant had mentioned that they wanted to do roof decks on this, and they needed a pop up to a third story in order to do that. That. That's what I recall. I could be wrong on that and then ultimately they were gonna stay within that 35 foot envelope. And this is why I'm bringing it up. Because I feel like to a certain extent this is becoming scope creep if you know they were originally allowed 2 stories and up to 35 feet. And now and and they were okay with that with with the third story.

[42:09] to this 35 foot limit. Now the applicant's coming in for an additional 7 feet 4 to 7 feet, depending on what's happened. So I I'd be. I'd love for us to rewind the tape as the city, because I think this is a material issue because of that discussion, and because of the agreement that was in place at that time with the neighborhood. But again II need II need clarity on that, because III don't have a good sense of it. While can I ask George what he meant by something? I didn't understand what George said. I just wanted to ask, said they needed. They were going to have 2 stories, and they needed a pop up to the third story to have rooftop access. I'm not sure I understand, so I could be. I could be wrong. But what I there there was there was a requirement for only 2 stories, but they had up to 35 feet, which is what the discrepancy was, and the applicant was saying that they wanted rooftop decks, and they wanted this third storey component

[43:14] for access to open air and things like that. And and to Sarah's point, I remember my comments being my concern was by by adding this third story we were. We were. We were tacking on. We. We're reducing ultimate the ultimate affordability of town homes like this. But that was it. II think it was. I think it was unanimous or pretty close to that. I don't remember if I voted yes or no at the ultimate. But but it was definitely, ultimately decided they were that we would allow this third story, even though in the agreement that they had in place. It was only 2 stories. And so that's what I recall, Laura. But II I'm not a hundred. I don't know if you have a different recollection of that I don't think she was here. I don't think I was there. We can elaborate a little bit more. There was an annexation agreement on the property where the town houses were approved, that limited construction to 2 stories, and as part of the proposal that came forward the applicant asked for an amendment of that annexation agreement to eliminate that.

[44:20] and that was approved by city council at the time. so that restriction on the property no longer exists. Cause it was removed. So your decision has to be based on the Site Review criteria that apply to the request. No, III think, thank you, Helena, for that clarification. I guess my point was is that that around that th around that 3 stories that that we had that and and we voted to approve on that, too, as the planning board. and it was they were still staying within that 35 foot envelope. Which is, that's that's my recollection. Anyways, I'll I'll leave it there. But that would be helpful to to understand a little bit more on that, and maybe get a little bit more clarity on from the applicant.

[45:09] Alright, Eml! Oh, I don't have any questions. Okay, so if you guys wouldn't mind checking out George's memory while the applicant makes their app their presentation. That'd be great. and you will have 15 min, and you'll need to identify yourself. Well, I'm sorry. Yes. no. This was this was like 3 years ago. No, he meant he meant site review. You, Sarah, do we scratches or anything? Sarah and I were together? Not Sarah Erin and I were together.

[46:07] Good question. Do we need to do any disclosures? Yeah, you should. If if you have any disclosures, believe we have a disclosure. So I would like to disclose that Aaron Bagnell and I work together on the East Boulder working group. But I still believe I can be a fair, quasi judicial judge on this project. Alright, and just because the I just wanna double check George can still see in here. Right? Yeah, I can. I can see everything. Thank you. Okay, yeah, that's fine. If you can't see my hand, I'll speak up if I need to. Thanks.

[47:19] We have a box that I'll just show we're gonna look in here. Sorry. Sounds great. Alright. Can you start? Start the clock?

[48:02] I'm started. Okay, not yet. Do you need 10 or 1515 15 good evening, Erin Bagnell, partner at Sophie Spawn architects, Boulder, Colorado. Thank you for allowing me to present this lots of good questions, and I think I have answers to all of them. So stay tuned. What I wanted to do, obviously height is a really sensitive thing in boulder. We know this and so I just kind of wanted to go over this. I kind of stole this from Carl. Actually. a little bit of a history of height. And what's happened in the past? So free? 1,971. Everyone knows there was no height limit. In 1,971, the city charter decided that we needed to get a handle on the growth and those tall buildings. So we established this 55 foot height limit

[49:01] between that time and 2,000 2,015 era. You were allowed to ask for height modifications through what used to be Pud then became Site Review around 2,015, the city staff and the planning board and city council. They all kind of felt like the growth, was getting a little away from them for lack of a better word, and also felt like they needed to take a little pause, and get a very important affordable housing change in the mix. So they put the hype moratorium on. Everybody knows about a pinx. J and sent city staff on a mission to do site review criteria updates. And the reason I'm bringing this up is that this is the reason why we're here today, and we're able to ask for any of these 2 things that we're asking for. In phase one

[50:00] Sarah, I believe you were maybe involved in this. The first phase of the Site Review criteria updates were mostly focused obviously around the affordable housing and adding that density and intensity, bonus making it more beneficial for affordable housing. When people are given extra height at the time, we also decided or agreed, that there's a lot of boxes. The city of Boulder is set up for flat roofs. The land use code is set there. That's why we see so many flat roofs. So at that time we put this roof slope exception in the code so that people could ask for that possibility. I don't know if you've seen a lot of them come through. But I just thought I'd include that here. The phase, 2 Site review criteria update. Included the floodplain exception, because you know as an applicant and as city staff. we see a lot of floodplain projects that are very much constrained by sometimes 5 to 6, sometimes 7 feet of height that you're already losing for floodplain protection elevations.

[51:10] So that's just a really brief history. And I think that this project is one of a perfect example of why we have this exception in the code, and I hope you do, too. By the time we get done with this could you enhance the slide, please. Thank you. Okay. So Chandler already said, had a very good graphic of this. This is kind of locating ourselves in in the seen in the scene of North Boulder, and you know we are right south of the Bemoka project, shiny mountain campus that has a 11 acre site. Lots of residential around lots of residential feel, and the village center for the North Border subcommittees there and the North Boulder Library that's under construction. Next slide, please. I put this in here. It might be a little bit hard to see, but that's kind of a good thing, because what I see when I look at this photo is a lot of the development that was spurred by the North Boulder subcommittee plan, and all the flat roofs that we got out of it.

[52:12] And what I see in the shining mountain, Waldorf, if we overlay what we have planned is something that's of scale and in keeping with the neighborhoods surrounding it. Next slide, please. So I bring this up. There's 2 projects that I'm going to bring up, and they are. I have history with them. They are both sofa spawn projects. They're both on Broadway. And they both went through Site Review and asked for height. exemption. So. And they're both 2 different projects. You'll see what I'm talking about in a second. So this is the Broadway brownstones. I'm sure you're all familiar with it. If you're not, it's right, just north of Ideal Market. on the east side of Broadway. in Site Review. They had approved 5 and a half feet height. Modification. There's no flood restraint in this situation they have too much like the townhomes we're proposing 2 story mass.

[53:08] third third story, setback, flat roof. All right. Can you advance to the next slide, please. Now, just up north of that site is Washington Village. Broadway Building, also got 5 and a half feet. Height, modification through site review. No flood. Pitch roof. At third level this building feels a lot different. It's 2 stories. Third floor is stepped back substantially, and it's all pitch roof. So those are just some examples of how pitch roofs can change the dynamic on the street. And from the way we see building next slide, please. So 7 and a half feet that feels like a big number. And I get that. It's not really. It's the ridge height. And so I'm I'm putting this up there because it appears as though it's a lot. But just walk. Let me walk you through this. So on the bottom. This is the approved height, 35 feet, with a flat roof. Height is measured to the roof sheathing. You can have 18 inches of parapet. You can have mechanical on the roof and roof, screening. Not say that we're going to do that, but all those things can come into play with with

[54:19] outside of height modifications. What we're asking for is 7 and a half feet to a ridge line that's at the midpoint of the building. So if you go to the next slide. This is what it looks like from a street perspective. On the left you see Locust Street with a pitched roof on the right. You see Locust Street with the flat roof you can see that that roof plate height is where the 35 foot height is, and everything else go slips up from there. So we're just gonna kind of cycle through these and see the see the impact that it doesn't necessarily have that people are afraid of again. This is Violet pitched roof.

[55:02] In my opinion. This, this the pitched roof and the sloped roof looks so much better as a designer. and I don't, really. I don't really see how I hope that people can see what I see when we look at these renderings. So keep go ahead. That's Violet. If we keep going broad along Broadway again. you're not seeing much of a difference. Oh, you can see on this one. You see the gable end. But honestly, the gable end it it makes for a better, better. 3 dimensional feel. Next slide, please. Okay, so flood height. Kurt, I think you answer. Did you ask a question that you about Flood? That you hadn't didn't get answered? Let me see if I can remember it. Okay. So I think it was the what would it? What building elevation would you be at if it wasn't Flood? And I think we probably like it really just depends on grading. And so we probably lose

[56:02] 3 to 4 feet really for flood. for the low point. So this in blue. This is how much we're raising our building. There's a lot of very important infrastructure and grading and flood mitigation that's going on in these this development. That's gonna help this area of town. what that means to us is that our data line is lifted and we're already at a deficit when we start next slide, please. Okay, so I'm just going to bring this back. This is not going to take too long. But we've been working with shiny mountains since 2,015 next slide, please they. They've L. They've been in the North Boulder area since 1,986, when they purchased the property and and move their school here. And really, really, really, really wanted to stay in Boulder

[57:03] they knew it was going to be hard. It has proven to be hard, but they wanted to do it, and they're they're seeing it through and part of the ways that we part of the reason next slide, please. is because during the 2,013 flood they they saw a lot of damage. They have a lot of how, of buildings that are not even on great foundations, and they really needed to bring their school up to up to the flood protection standards for for boulder and make it safe. So we worked with them. Next slide, please. We worked with them for 6 years to, and the city and staff to to formalize this master plan that would allow the school to stay in Boulder and use some of their land as the extension on the south extension of a single family, home neighborhood and along Broadway, the townhomes, and I'll just say, as an aside, we talk a lot about affordable housing. I am a huge proponent of affordable housing. I work with Bhp. A lot. We tried

[58:10] for a while, and lost probably a year of the process to get the town home site to be affordable housing rezone and and get affordable housing there, and it could. We can't, couldn't rezone and get the density that Bhp. Would even want to take it. or element, or any of the other people in town. So it was not for lack of trying. That's just an aside next slide, please. So in keeping with the in keeping with the design of the entire campus. We have a residential feel, a long-lasting materials, lots of masonry, wood tones, and gable roofs that keep with the the Waldorf Pedagogy, and also this neighborhood. This neighborhood's very eclectic. It's a lot of really interesting single-family homes, and we want to be a part of that.

[59:01] Oh, next slide, please. So all of our. That was the lower school site. This is the high School. It's under construction. If you've seen it hopefully, you think it's great. I think it's amazing, and it has the gable roof as well. So for the town homes we're very much interested in keeping this this vision or this neighborhood feel, and which we're allowed to ask for through site review. And that's why we're here next slide, please. So you know, same materials, nice masonry materials, wood tones, something that's complementary. Not exactly like the school is what we're going for. With this design. Like Chandler says we could have flat roofs. We it it. The tech docs are in. We could be fine, but we feel like this is an important thing to ask for, because we feel like it's a better product. This is the last slide I'll leave you with. I think it's telling, because in the foreground. We have a lot of flat roof.

[60:05] non-interesting buildings, apologies to those that might be listening to this that may have designed it, but it's no fault of theirs. Boulders, boulders, land, use code previously and hopefully, no longer designs for flowers. So there's a couple things to clarify. Why didn't we know this at the time of approval. So in regards to the sloped roofs. they we didn't have a we were only doing design guidelines. We did not have anybody to develop with us at us. Being Shining Mountain Waldorf school. We didn't have cobal as a joint venture. We wanted to create the design guidelines to the extent where we were formalizing as much as we needed to per staff recommendations. And letting the rest be determined later.

[61:00] This is later. So it's not a scope creep. It's not bad intentions, it really is. Just like this is the next phase of our project. The flood was not in place at the time of approval. So that was approved more recently, and we didn't know that we would be able to have that 5 foot height. Am I missing any questions? I guess I can't answer. Ask any questions, but I hope that I answered all of your questions, and I am happy to answer anything if you need to ask me again. Thank you. Who has questions. But go ahead, Kurt. What are the floor to ceiling heights that in the 3. So there's there's 3 different floors. So in each variation there's 3 different fluorid ceiling heights, maybe. But then are they the same across the 3

[62:03] designs, because I'm seeing the Florida floor heights changing. But it wasn't clear to me if the Florida ceiling heights are taking. Yes, the so in the in the Appro. Type. The floor to floor heights are more are tighter than desirable for town home construction of of the type that we're doing, which is a deep floor plate and A wood trust floor that's 16 inches. Then you have to account for steel and drop ceiling and soffits. So you leave a lot of flexibility in that floor to floor height if you can get it. But the question is, what's the floor to ceiling? What are the floors? Sorry to answer your question. It differs from scheme to scheme, because if we get extra height we will use a little bit of fluff in the areas, mostly on the second and the third floor, where we're constrained right now more than desirable. So in the current design.

[63:02] I can look right here. Excuse me. Sorry slide. Yeah, maybe if you don't mind. I can tell you what slide it is. It's 11 life. So okay, so you can see here that the first level is 10 foot 6 from the Second level. 10 foot from the Second level to the third, and then that dimension is taken to the roof, so that the third floor is more like 7, 11 to the underside of the roof framing.

[64:05] So the first floor floor to ceiling height is 16. No, it's 9, 6, as shown. But I will say that the these this floor assembly is a lot shallower than what the preferred method that we would prefer to use, which is those 16 inch. trusts, wood trusses. Okay? And then this I'm sorry. I'm not seeing where these are. The second floor floor. 2. Ceiling is all on the inside. And then 9. Okay, okay, great. Thank you. Laura. I thank you. I just wanted to ask Aaron to clarify when you said Flood wasn't available when you came in for Site Review. You mean that criterion in the Site Review criteria that allows you to ask for 5 extra feet. Correct if you have to elevate above the base flood elevation. Okay, thank you.

[65:08] George. You had your hand up. Did you take it back down. Oh, yeah, I did have a question, and it goes back to Kurt because I don't know if that was answered by the applicant. I thought it was a really interesting one, because in the presentation that you showed us, will you go back to the elevations of the facade of the building? Not not the not not that kind of 3 dimensional one, but the the twod elevation. I was near the beginning of the presentation. It was where you had the lines. Yeah, that one. So I thought Kurt's question was really interesting, because I see the slope of the land, and I see the building as one continuous building rather than different low points. On that lower south elevation that you're showing and the upper south elevation. Can you? Can you talk about that? Because

[66:01] if we're if we're building to low points, wouldn't the building itself articulate each townhouse yet? So so the and to the answer, the each townhouse unit cannot. We're not varying. So Chandler was correct. Each one of these, per the city's method of measuring height can be its can have its own law point. But, as Charles mentioned, the there can only be one Finn flood protection, elevation for each building, and as in regards to Fema, they they treat each of these groupings of town homes as one building. So because of Fema, we cannot step got it. That's that's super helpful. Thanks for explaining that. Emily, do you have questions. On that same topic there was a slide that showed

[67:00] sort of that blue water that showed the flood impact. It was again, an elevation. 6, 30. Yes. So there would be a a difference here, right between the idea of the low point being 25 feet away. That's not a fema thing. It's not so the fema requirement is how many feet above the grade at the site? I can give you. I can give an estimate there. So Fema is separate completely from the way that the city measures height and they have I don't know what they call them, but they're they're like streaks across your the land in 100 year flood plain, and they give you that elevation, and whatever that elevation is around your building. You have to go either one foot or 2 foot above that flood protection, elevation, or sorry base flood elevation is what it's called, and so we have a base flood elevation for this building, and it is exactly 2 feet below the flood protection elevation that we're showing there.

[68:19] Okay, so directly impact by flood that the that the building's height is related to our 2 is 2 feet. Is that correct? 2 feet? Yeah, 2 feet from from a base flood elevation which is completely separate from existing grade or whatever it might be. It's it's it's not correlated because you're referencing that as a factor. So my other question is kind of like what Kirk was talking about as well. Which

[69:01] so right now, the first and second floor are, those are substantial floor to ceiling heights over 9 feet or 9 feet. The top floor. You even call it a loft, so you don't call it a third floor, because it's just just barely 8 feet. Getting more hype been that probably could just be a third floor, and not necessarily aloft, which would make it in. In a it make it be more marketable right now. I see the biggest impact height-wise is taken out in that in that third floor. We've got it down at 7 11. Yes, and we have. What's not shown here is a sloped portion in between the flat section that separates the 2 units. If we go back to the elevation. I can show you. But that's a little bit lower and that's, why you're calling it loft is because we're calling it a love because it's small space.

[70:02] Oh, okay, it's not cause of the ceiling height, no higher or lower ceiling height wouldn't really matter. No. And I, you know, like a lot of II get. II wanna just respond, I guess, like. can I respond to Georges Scope Creek creep? Question. Sure. There! This isn't going to change the costs of these townhomes. We're not adding any square footage that we're just trying to improve design. So my last question is, and I'm quoting out of the applicant's information right? So you side the 2 dimensional impact versus when taken at a pedestrian scale from a 3 dimensional view, the requested changes are not discernible. I think you kind of used that language when you were doing your presentation. yet you also claim that the desire to provide slope roof area on the buildings for design aesthetic are the determining factors. So on the one hand.

[71:02] nobody's gonna notice what you're saying with the first statement, and on the second statement you're saying. fact that they'll slope is is why we want to do this yet nobody's noticing. So can you explain that we have a lot of trails above here. It's why I showed the book, the the bird's eye. It's not just from it's not discernible from the pedestrian scale when you're on the street. So when you're in front of, when you're walking down these streets, you will not know if that if I ever got this height, exemption one way or the other. But when you're removed and you're coming down Broadway one way or the next way, or you're coming down locus, or after dropping your kid off at soccer. You'll see it, and it'll it'll be noticeable. And when you're up on the mountain and you're hiking, or if you're parasailing, or whatever it's that will be discernible. So I didn't mean to contradict myself in that way. But I was just trying to point out that it's

[72:04] it's I feel like it's less offensive than the numbers say. So. The long view versus the close view is what you. Thank you so much for the answer. Those are my questions. Alright. Do a follow-up to something you, Mel said. Sure, thank you. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what you were saying about the base flood elevation and the 2 feet versus 5 feet that that 2 feet is 2 feet above a projected flood. Right? So that's like, if there were a 100 year flood, that's the level the water would be it. That's not about the ground surface, right? So you actually have to elevate the building 5 feet above where the actual ground is. Is that what I'm hearing in this case? Yes, in this case. Okay. 5 5 feet above 5 and a half feet above a low point 5 and a half feet above the low point. And so the anticipation is that if there were that 100 year Flood and the water rose to that base flood elevation, the building would be 2 feet out of the water, and that's where that 2 feet comes from. Yes, okay, yeah. And that's why I was trying to say that the the base flood isn't really. It doesn't correlate to anything that exists on the surface. Right now

[73:10] it's again the what the base flood could rise or the what the flood could rise to. Okay, okay, thank you. But you are actually taking the building up 5 and a half feet from the ground level of where you thought the ground was going to be when you proposed it puts a set of deficit. Okay, in the height, in the way that we calculate height. Okay, thank you. Mark. There you go. I have yet another follow up to Laura's follow up. So I had asked Staff what they estimated the net elevation required. As a result, the of the fact that this is in the 100 year floodplain was. and their estimate was 3 to 4 feet. which is less than the 5 and a half. Do you agree with the 3 to 4 feet? In other words.

[74:01] if Fema tomorrow were to revise their flood maps and say, Oh, we were wrong. Sorry, my bad. This was not in the flood plain. You could lower the building by how much from where you are now, I think I mean, I would say 4 is a good estimate to say, you know, you don't want to be at your low point. When you build a building, you're gonna slope up and grade away from the structure, so we'll call it 4. Thank you. Alright. Last opportunity for questions for Erin. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you now is an opportunity for public comment on that or public input? Do we have anyone in the room? No. okay. Vivian, you're muted

[75:00] somehow. Can you hear me now? No, yes, yes. Oh, okay. We have one hand online. Anybody in the room? No, okay. And then we'll just go to the one online participant. That's Lynn Siegel. And you have 3 min to speak to this item. Please go ahead. You know. Yeah, I think that you should just set up what the criteria for the height limitations are going to be with slope roofs. and set it at that. So you don't have to like be offering things to people to get them to put in pitch swoops. Yeah. For example. if the if the pitched roof takes up a certain amount of area. It should also be lower that the ceiling there would have to be lower. And I didn't see that on those images I saw that it was up, and then the pitch group rises above that, and I say, No,

[76:08] so that there isn't this debate over over these issues it should just be set in stone what you want, and if you have to, and if we want our belt environment to have pitched roofs, then it has to have pitched roofs, but they are. They're going to have to make up for that area with being a little lower to account for the pitch being higher. And the other thing. Blood issues are are, you know, here in Boulder. And why are we giving benefits for people to, you know? Why do they have to raise things up. Why don't they just have a, you know, a smaller building and

[77:00] not have these basically kind of subsidies just for the floods? Because of the blood. because the benefit to the community is not better for getting a net. A third level when there should be 2 the benefit should be basic, and the developer has to meet to it. and if they don't they don't, then there isn't a question of oh, we're gonna let them put in pitch roof. We're gonna have them give them a flood benefit. No, they have to meet the flood benefit from the start. And because there's all this extra expense added on, and then also I wanted to agree with Will that there should be some industrial areas there that have been beneficial to the community, and that he didn't know about, or

[78:07] how how he's supposed to deal with, that we don't have enough industrial space that's preserved in boulder in our central areas. And primarily, we need the jobs housing balance to be balanced. First. Thank you for being here. Okay, Chair. There are no other hands raised the online participants. Thank you. So why don't we do this first? Chandler? Can you just pull up the motion that you're recommending to us just so that we see it, and we'll take it back down so we can see George, and then we'll have our discussion. Thanks alright. So this is the suggested motion which may prompt a couple of questions.

[79:00] Regarding how we might respond to it. But, we won't read it yet, because I just want us to have an opportunity to talk amongst ourselves about this. If you don't mind taking that down. So we can see, George. Okay. are there comments, questions, discussion folks want to have about this. Yeah, go ahead, George. II actually thought that going back to our public comment for a second, II thought that Lynn made a really good suggestion, because this feels like a discretionary matter that we should be able to solve like code at some point. So something to for us to PIN as a as a board outside of this decision. II don't have other comments at this point on on this. Thank you. Okay. yes. Go ahead. She's you know. So that the way that I'm thinking about this is there's an approved site review, right. We approved a building design.

[80:03] and we are just here to consider. The applicant has pointed 2 code sections, some of which are fairly new, that could give them additional height and staff have determined that they're eligible for that additional height. So for me, the question is going to what Curt said. If we grant this request, which they are eligible, for does it still meet the site? Review, criteria, and and probably particularly that's compatibility, I would think, compatibility the rest of the neighborhood. So that's where my focus is is not. Do we like pitch trues or not? But you know they're eligible for that. We have put in our code that we want to encourage that and allow additional height to get that right. So we have a bi-wright height. And then we did put into the code, hey? We'll give you a little extra height above the by right, if you'll give us a pitched roof as a way to incentivize the pitch roof. So I'm inclined to consider that, and whether it is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, and I think everybody who has participated in previous site reviews from with me knows that I generally think that going up one floor is fine is compatible with the neighborhood, so I'm not opposed to 3 stories.

[81:11] and you know I do think 5 feet for flood elevation is completely reasonable. Right? We we want safety, we want building safety, we want public safety, and so on that score I'm not opposed to additional 5 feet, and then, if we go an additional 2 feet above that or 2 and a half feet above that to get a pitched roof to me. That's perfectly reasonable. So I would go with the applicant's proposal to allow the pitch groups at the 7 and a half feet. But I'm wanting to hear what, how other people are thinking about it. I see that George has his hand up, and then I'll come back around. Go ahead, George. Sorry. That was a remnant. Okay. Mark. I concur with Laura and and taking into account this was not a some sort of minor site Review. This. This was a Site review that was a substantial site review that went through a lot of public process. Council called it up. Council approved it, and counsel approved the the decision to change the code, to allow

[82:17] the additional height for pitched rope, so that that is a not just a planning board or staff decision. That's that's a policy that was directly approved by council. So I concur with Laura, and I'll I'm whenever we're done with this discussion I've got a motion modified to eliminate the flat roof option, because what we're really discussing is the both the aesthetic benefits, and I think the the aesthetic benefits and the allowance for a pitched roof. And so I think our I would suggest that our discussion should be focused on that and not

[83:05] the combination of pitched and flat welcome. Yeah, I think, as Laura pointed out, a lot of this comes down to how we're coming at this. And I agree with your analysis that we do. It's clear that from the code that this project is eligible for these hype modifications. And the question, as you pointed put it, was, Is that then consistent with the with the rest of the Site Review criteria, including the BBC. And the I think neighborhood compatibility is one question. I am also thinking, though, about housing affordability which is certainly a goal in the Boulder Belly comp plan, and the applicant stated that they were not applying for this because it would benefit

[84:05] the the value of the property. But with all due respect, I'm a little bit skeptical of that. Because seems like an awful lot of work to go through for just something that would look better, I guess. In when they're pitching their next project, or something like that, or I mean, maybe shining mountain just wants to have a nice neighborhood, and I'm sure that they do. but I find it a little bit difficult to believe that the these higher ceiling floor to ceiling heights would not generate a higher value for the properties. And so that is my certainly one of my greatest concerns about approving this. Emil, do you have a comments wanna make? Okay? Alright. I have a question which is a follow up to Mark's comment.

[85:03] Is there a so staff rationale for a motion that includes both? Is there still an ongoing discussion between staff and the applicant. No, the idea is so. The applicant only intends to build one design. So we included both just because it was the easiest way to include the 2 alternative. And then they can make up their own. They can make up their mind what they want. I mean, they they want to do the thing. So if we approve what's written. they'll just not preventing them from doing it. Correct. Okay. okay, all right. So I think we should make the motion. And I think, Mark, it probably sounds like we don't need to change it. I just emailed it to Amanda, and Thomas and I have it here. So we can put it up on the scroll. We can put it up on the screen, but I, in essence, just took out the words, allowing that the or alternative. So

[86:03] I move to approve. Site review application number LUR. 202-30-0050, including a hype modification request to allow for up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height, with a pitched roof for each town home building within the approved shining mountain Waldorf School Development. adopting the staff memorial memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Alright! Any comment. Before we set alright? We have a lawyer. We have a lawyer question. Chanar and I were struggling with the alternative proposal when we were proposing motion, language and conditions. And the way it's set up.

[87:03] The conditions of approval actually also address both alternatives. So if you're acting on only one, then that should be modified as well, and I guess I I assume you're interpreting the application as the request for the think of the 4 foot height. Modification, based on flat reasons, is only in front of us. If the request for the peaked roof height, modification is not approved. and that the applicant doesn't expect you to act on that second request. If the first one is approved, and if that's the case, then I would like the applicant to confirm that otherwise I think you need to act on both, and if you only find one to meet the criteria, then then we would actually have to make denial findings for the other one. I'd like to suggest. I I'm I would like to suggest that we actually vote on what was proposed. It changes nothing.

[88:05] but allows the process to go forward. The applicant's going to do what the applicant's going to do, and which we believe is the peaked roof if it gets approved. and I don't think changing it, changing it for the sake of absenting one option. Or maybe I'm interpreting what you said. We don't get to pick and say we like this alternative better than that alternative we have to say, based on the merits? Do we think that they meet the criteria for option A, and do we think that they meet the criteria for option? B. And if we weren't gonna allow the the intermediate option, we'd have to deny it and say, here's why it doesn't meet the criteria. That's my recommendation unless we get clear direction from the applicant that essentially they, they only want one option to be in front of you, and not even consider the other one. If the first one is approved.

[89:05] Well. III don't know, I mean, and even then you have. We have to. We really do things that way here where the applicant gets to decide while we're here in. Well, in in other words, they would do. We could have the applicant do a clear withdrawal of the second option. So you don't have to make any decision on that. What I wanna I'd like to. Since I have the motion out there. I'd like to speak to that if we. if the applicant I understand the legal ramifications of on one hand, we modify the board, modifies motions all the time, and restricts or conditions them. So this motion is to approve a specific height, exception for a specific design. That is exactly what the applicant has presented us with. The applicant did not discuss or present us with the benefits, alternatives of the flat design. If we, if we, if there was a if there is a motion.

[90:09] if this motion does not get a second, and is war is hell on your advice is not applicable, or we shouldn't do it. Then I would. be reluctant. I don't feel like we've done an evaluation of a flat roof design and had a presentation from the applicant regarding a flat flat roof design. So if we're allowing a flat roof design and a height exemption for that flat roof design. but don't actually want it. Don't actually desire it. Think it's bad. We don't know, because we we really haven't been presented with it as an option. So that's why I'm restricting my motion to the option as presented. So I think in this case, like Sarah, I understand your concern about

[91:02] letting applicants modify things, but I think that in this case, in the moment. maybe, hearing from the applicant would be the most expeditious thing to do. Yeah, II think it would be good to check in with the applicant, because it was phrased in the alternative, so I think it can be interpreted as that. But I would want that very clear on the record. and I did want to point out that even if the presentation, focused mostly on the peak drops, the application is for both, and and their images presented, and so forth, for both options. Can I just comment on that? They have an approved site review for a flat roof design. So they're just talking about taking the thing that we already approved, and elevating it above base flood elevation which is allowed in the code. So we'd have to argue why it's not acceptable or doesn't, in our opinion, meet the criteria to take the design they already have, and lift it up above the base flood elevation.

[92:04] So to me, that's I don't think they need to re-argue a design that we've already approved, that they just want to elevate. So why don't we do this? Is there a second to his motion alright. That solves that problem. Okay, thank you very much. Alright. Would you like to make the other motion sure? Okay, could you please put up the original motion. So it can be, we can make a motion. Someone. Yeah, there goes. Okay. it's up on the screen. Yeah. I've got it. I move to approve. Site review, application number LUR. 2023, dash 0, 0 0 5 0, including a height modification. Request to allow for up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height, with a pitch truff, or alternatively

[93:10] up to 4 feet of additional height, with or without a pitch roof for each town home building within the approved shining mountain Waldorf School Development. adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis for review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Do we have a second? I will. Second, we might not have a second there. Okay? Mark. yeah, this is, this is pretty easy for me, given as I said before, given the the intent of of our whole

[94:00] 2,015 through 2019, the height moratorium, all of the community input that went into this, that we are want to allow modifications that allow for additional density. We wanna allow for modifications that out create the varied design. And I think this certainly falls within the code and the parameters of the code, and that this is a a clear case. that where we should grant the the request is that an aye. well, II actually would like to propose. Sorry

[95:00] I would like to propose an amendment. and the amendment is to strike the words to strike the words up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height with a pitched roof, or alternatively comma. So this motion would be to strike the first alternative, the pitched roof alternative and leave only the elevated flat roof. Alternative. The reason for this, if I can speak to this, is that I feel like because the in my understanding, the flood maps got issued. and subsequent to all this approval and design. And so I think there's absolutely justification for accommodating that for taking into consideration the fact that now, all of a sudden there's flood to deal with, and that so a elevating based on that, I think, is appropriate to me. There is very little

[96:02] justification for the pitched growth other than possibly greater maintainability. I think that from a visibility standpoint it is as the applicant stated, the the visibility ramifications are minimal when you're nearby, and not that many people are paragliding and looking at it from above. And so I mean the the the there was. We were shown a picture of the holiday area, which is all flat roofs, and I really had no idea that those were flat roofs, because I've never seen them from that viewpoint before. So I think that the second the the the flat roof, the second option, the flat roof, elevated flat roof. Option is entirely justified. I do not find the first option to be justified. Alright. So you're the maker of the motion. Do you accept? That? Is, am I doing this right? He has to accept that. No, he would need a second for his he's he's made a motion to amend, and he would need a second for that.

[97:08] I'll second that. Okay comments on the amendment. Yes, sir. So in essence you are advocating for a flat roof design. because you you and I'm gonna when I understand it, you're advocating for a flat roof design. In spite of the fact that you said that the visuals from the street will be minimal. So what would be the advantage of a flat roof design over a pitch roof design? Well, I think wh. The way my understanding is the way we need to evaluate it. This is. is there benefit to the pitch, Riff design. basically in or such that it would justify the height, exemption, and to me

[98:04] there is no appreciable benefit to the pitched roof design. And if the basically, if the pitched roof design does not meet the Dvcp and the Site Review criteria. then it should be denied. And so, in my viewpoint. that that does not the the, the, the, the pitched roof of approach with the or the additional height in order to get the pitched roof. does not meet the site. Review criteria. A pitched roof is a pitched roof. advantageous according to the current code and allowed an exemption. Do we allow exemptions based on our the city stated preference in the code for a pitch growth?

[99:06] Yes, I believe so. I mean, that's what the exemption is based on. But that's why I was asking. II believe we're we're judging this, not just that soul part, but the entire application on the Site Review criteria, including the Bbcb. And so on, and so viewed in total the way I judge it. that does not meet the site. Review criteria. Alright. So, ml, and then Laura so correct. II seconded what you had to say, because the 4 foot of additional height it includes, with or without a pitched roof. so you can put a pitched roof in, with an addition of what we saw right now. That height is 7 11

[100:06] on that top floor. Can you pitch those top floors by design? Absolutely. So I don't think this is a a vote, for we're gonna go with flat roots. If we if we grant the flood exemption, the flood hype. I think that this is is just a matter of sure you can have a if if it's as important as was described in the design. the long, the big view. You want to see pitch groups. You can get a pitched group in now. But we're gonna add the 4 feet is what it's what they've asked for. And it does say 4 feet of additional height, with or without a pitched roof. So we're not precluding a pitched roof. In fact. we're just saying the the criteria

[101:04] that has that is coming forth with the most weight is the criteria of the flood frame and the impact. That that's so. That's why I was interested in seconding Kurtz, if if I may. if I may speak to that, because I wanted to clarify that the determinations of whether a height modification is possible as kind of a gateway determination. And if it is, then the Site Review criteria have to be reviewed, and the decision has to be based on that and for the pitched roof. The gateway question really is, is proposed, is something proposed that includes a 2 to twelfth or greater pitch, with 3 or fewer stories. and the proposed height does not exceed the maximum height otherwise permitted by more than 10 feet.

[102:00] That's not actually a discretionary decision. So they meet that gateway determination. So for this request you now have to look at whether or not the Site Review criteria are met. Sure. So your discussion on the pitched roof request should really focus on the Site Review criteria and and not be a comparison to the 2 options that's that are being proposed. So, Laura, and then I want to come back through what Hel is saying. Yeah. So II was going pretty much the same place. It sounds like we are all at least, there are 4 of us who would vote for the second option and say, yes, they meet that criterion, and we think it's compatible with the Site review criteria. There are at least 4 of us who are okay with the 4 feet of additional height is, I think, what I'm hearing. And then that's one question, and then the question is alright. So for the extra 3 feats that they're asking for because of this pitched roof criteria, which is a separate criterion. We have to look at the Site Review criteria and say. Yes, of course they are eligible for it, as Hella just said, that's not discretionary. They are eligible. Now we have to say, if we grant it doesn't meet the Site Review criteria, and if we don't grant it, we have to say how it does not meet the Site Review criteria. And so I was, gonna ask Kurt to specify

[103:14] what exactly in the Site Review criteria you think it would not meet, you know. Is it the balance of the Bvcp policies? Is it some other specific thing in the Site Review criteria? yeah, that's that's a good question, and it is primarily the. It's the Bvcp policies that I was looking at again. As as I stated before, it's in my judgment, it's the affordability, the the housing, affordability criterion. I don't have my note up, whatever don't have the number and I mean, yeah. So I would, I would leave it at that. The housing, housing, affordability criteria, so that

[104:04] the the Site Review criterion, I think Hella correct me if I'm wrong, that we have related to the Bvcp policies, including affordability, is on balance. Does it meet the Bvcp goals and objectives? And we added something in the last Site review criteria update to say that it can't just be one policy, because no no development is held to every single thing in the BBC, because that's like the Bible right? It has everything in there that you could possibly look for. So we would have to say on balance, this is not advancing the Bvcp goals and objectives. And are you comfortable making that finding? Yeah. And and I guess II should have. You're absolutely right, and I should have been clear to me. That is the the delta. I guess that's the one that changes is primarily or there. There were actually a couple of of housing, affordability, criteria, and those are the ones that

[105:05] that II guess I would judge to be less met under the 7 foot 6 inch additional height for slope, roof. criterion, and to me that is enough to determine that it does not meet the Site Review criteria. In that case. I guess another way to put it would be if the applicant had initially come in with a request for a 7 foot, 6 additional height with pitched roof. a request basically using this exemption. would I, in in considering this. have

[106:00] wanted to strike that? And you know, basically not approve that exemption. And I think that the answer would be, yes. So that's another way that I would think about it. Whether I'm thinking about it correctly I'm not certain. But hopefully. Hello. Yup. just speaking to the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I think that the neighborhood compatibility we heard a lot of input from the neighbors. Regarding their concern about the added height and I think that that is something that should come to play, that the people who actually live there and have lived there are concerned about the added hype, and I think that the Boulder Valley Comp Plan does put out the values of existing neighborhoods and

[107:05] helping retain the qualities that those neighbors would tab, and who better to speak for them than the actual neighbors? So I think that that's a criteria to keep in mind as well. mark I would. ml, and just not to make my I'll make my other point. But I I would disagree with that in the sense that site review criteria is something that it is site, review, criteria, and and neighbors need to be able to voice. Do they? Do they think the project meets the Site Review criteria. But just opposition for the sake of we have lots of opposition to lots of projects for the sake of opposition, for projects that meet site review criteria so. or the Bvcp. For that matter. I my question is for Hella I

[108:02] the way I read which we don't have the wording just yet on Kurtz amendment would be that it was. It's a modification of the applicants request which seemed. My modification seemed to be shot down as being something that that that the applicant has. Has applied for this, based on the language in the suggestive motion. and that my modification was deemed not to be advised legally, so I'm not sure why Kurt's modification would not fall into exactly the same criteria. Yeah, I think I think that the application could be interpreted. And I again, I would want to have the applicant confirm that that their primary request is for the peak growth, modification, and if that's not passed

[109:06] the second request, based on Flood for additional 4 feet of height. But Curt's proposed motion addresses doesn't address that a part of the request. Essentially so, you would have to address that as well. It. It seems like what you're proposing is a partial approval, partial denial. Essentially so. I'm sorry. So it's we're right back where we were with Mark's. Yeah. Okay, can I make a process suggestion? Hey, Chandler, could you put back up those 2 pieces of the code that talk about eligibility for the different height modifications, the one for flood and the one for peaked roof. Yes, I just suggest that we talk through those independently? Do we think that option one is supported, based on the Site review, criteria? Yes or no? And do we think that option 2 is supported based on the

[110:02] Site Review. Criteria, yes or no, and then that will tell us what our motion should be. I think. Because this is the question in front of us is, you know, we know that they are eligible for both of these things. And then our job is to say. Okay, they're eligible. If we granted it, would it be compatible with the Site Review criteria? Would it meet the Site Review criteria? So I suggest we do that on each piece independently, and then put the motion together. Just just to just to be clear from III so appreciate this. Just to be clear. we have a motion and a second, and we have an amendment and a second. consequently, yeah, yeah, yeah, we do. So. I would. I would suggest that. We take the amendment, the proposed amendment in light of option one and option 2, and and ultimately have a vote on the amendment

[111:02] up or down. then on the motion, if it was amended or not. up or down, and then, if we need to come back and make a different motion after that. But we have. We have a motion and an amendment on the floor under consideration. Yes, and the motion and the amendment on the floor. And I appreciate this. This is good process here is essentially to deny option one. So we would have to make a finding that they're not eligible for option, one for not that they're not eligible, but that we don't think it meets the site criteria if we grant option one, because that's the denial that we would be making if we approve Kurt's motion that was seconded by Ml alright. So essentially, when we vote on the amendment, what we're actually voting on is whether we're gonna reopen the Site Review process to evaluate. If that if if Kurt's proposal passes, we are essentially kind of reopening site review to then evaluate whether

[112:05] that meets site review criteria. are we not considering both of them right? But if yours passes. and then, if yours passes, and then the amendment. The motion also passes. We we've got kind of a cluster there because we've said we prioritize the 4 foot, but we're also approving the 4 foot or the 7 foot, like we we are. I think we're creating a kind of a mess here. My my amendment. my amendment, amends the right, the initial motion. But we haven't had a decision like to. We haven't voted on the amendment. No, no, but to Hell's Point, which was that your amendment creates sort of the same problem that marks initial proposed motion language creates, which is that we have not had

[113:05] comment from the applicant as to I'm gonna get the language wrong, but as to whether they are they, they affirmatively accept the denial of one of the 2 options. Is that correct because his amendment, Kurt Kurtz amendment denies one of the options basically negates one of the options. Yeah, I'm not try. I followed analysis you gave for Marx applies to Kurt. I think you still need the applicants proactive acceptance of one option and acceptance of the denial of the second option. because the yeah, the the applicant preferred, and for sure request is for the option that

[114:03] it sounds like a Kurd may not find meets the criteria so there would have to be a nihil finding on that unless the applicant withdrew that request. So I'm not gonna call the question. But I'd suggest that we vote on the amendment. I think I do. People feel informed enough to vote on the amendment. Okay? Can you please repeat your amendment and and do wait. Amanda, do you have it? Okay? I emailed you the amendment I can read on the amendment first.

[115:00] That is what the language would look like if the amendment were approved. but the actual amendments was the actual amendment struck motion. motion to delete the words up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height, with a pitched roof, or alternatively, comma right? That's that's that's the amendment. Yes. So the amendment is to strike the 7 foot option. Correct? Yes, the 7 foot 6 inch option. Amanda, do you have that? Okay? Hold on. Hella, I have a question. Ask a question about that amendment proposed. Do we have to include in the amendment, eliminating all references to that 7 foot 6 inch option from the conditions of a label that would be great, and that would cover. Basically what Mark's been wondering about. It's just like, okay.

[116:04] we eliminate all the other references to the option that has been taken. Okay, so can you direct that to Amanda, please. Nope. Well. it's trying. We're just trying to get the language of the amendment of the proposed amendment correct. Yep, yep. there's an additional language that has to be added. I'm sorry, which means we have to make a motion again, because it's new language, and since it effectively would be a denial of the primary request. It would be good to incorporate that as well in in a direct way. Okay, I think, Kurt, are you gonna work on all of that. Go ahead, do we? Wanna, II just had a quick process question given, how long this is taking us?

[117:02] Do we wanna just do a do a quick straw poll on. Who would even be for this before we before we go far, you know, like machinate this this amendment that would be a good idea. Well, a. And in fact, you can't take an amendment that's been made and seconded, and then start modifying it without amending it. So I would, George. I'm I concur. We need to vote on Kurt's amendment as proposed and seconded. and then we can do something else if, should it fail. But we can't continue to amend amendment without making a motion to. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Mark. All right. So the motion is to delete the words up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height with the pitched roof. or alternatively, comma laura. because this would amount to us basically saying, we find that this all this alternative does not meet the Site Review criteria. I'm going to vote. No, I'm not prepared to make that finding

[118:07] alright. And I'm voting. No, because I'm learning that this was an ill formed amendment. Ml, yeah. Well, if it's ill formed, I'm I'm I'm a no. I guess we can make a better form to one. But for now, thanks, Mark. Alright. Well, the motionmakers in the second, or said, no, so I don't know no, alright, so it fails. Okay. would you like to propose an amendment that is better formed? Well, I would. But I think now would be an appropriate time to accept George's suggestion, and just to take a straw pull before we go through all of this to see if there would be support for this at all. Okay. George, you want to repeat how you'd like us. What, what exactly it is you'd like us to take a straw poll

[119:10] to to to address the issues that Hella has brought up. Counsel has brought up. in which case he would be supportive. For that is that correct? Okay. so that's what I was suggesting. You could also take a straw poll separately on both proposals, on whether you think that the proposal meets the Site Review criteria. and then, when you know. Alright. So let's take a straw poll on. I'm going to frame it this way of limiting the most the what it gets approved to the 4 feet of additional height cause that I realize it's not exactly what the language will say, but that's the intent of your your amendment correct, Sarah. Yeah.

[120:01] I feel like we need to either say we think that the option with the 7 foot roof 7 foot 6 inch roof meets the site. Review criteria, yes or no, and we think that the 4 foot option meets the Site Review. Criteria, yes or no. right? Because that's essentially what we're doing. If we limit it to just one of those, we're saying that the other one does not meet the Site Review criteria. We have to make that, finding that it does not meet the Site Review criteria. It can't just be. We have a preference for one. For some other reason. It has to be because the one that they've asked for does not meet the site. Review criteria alrighty! Let's take a straw poll on whether the 4 foot option meets the site. Review criteria. Laura. Yes. Mark Marker Kurt, I'm sorry. Kurt. Ml. yes. Mark. Mark, I'm I'm we're not voting. This is like a straw poll. There's no vote here. This is a straw poll. So we know

[121:01] what kind of language Kurt should even bother trying to develop right? The the question is another ill-formed question. So I I'm II will not participate in this in this drop, poll, because the question is, if if I say yes to this in the straw poll. Then then I'm lending support to removal of the 7 foot option. No, no, we're looking at them independently. Does it meet this one? But the applicant has submitted something, and we've been told that we can't break the the application up. I. My initial motion was to approve the 7 foot option. And can we? Can we keep moving? Abstain?

[122:00] It's it's not a boat. It's just a problem, George. Yes. yes, okay. So it's straw. Poll is. Yes. alright, and the second straw poll is on. Does the 7 foot also meet the site? Review criteria. And and I would say, yes, based on you know that when I think about the Site Review criteria, what changes if we give them? We've already have an approved site review right for these town homes. What changes if we give them an additional 7 foot 6 inches of height, and for me that additional 7 foot 6 inches of height does not tip it over into not meeting the Site Review criteria. I could not cite what in the Site Review criteria they don't meet. So for me, yes. okay. And, as I explained earlier for me. No. So just remember, it's not a vote. It's just a strong abstaining. Okay, well, we'll have to vote on it eventually. So go ahead. So I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if that's what I'm gonna do. I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm I don't know if I'm gonna be able to do that. I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. I'm I'm not sure that's what I'm trying to say, I'm not sure if you're gonna be able to do it or not, I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. I'm not sure that's what I'm doing.

[123:16] When this was originally proposed, it was because of the annexation agreement that this was limited to 2 stories, but 35 feet. The applicant came back and said, We'll do. We'll do 3 stories and 35 feet. People were for it, and and that's what I meant by scope, Crete. However, that's no longer the case as Hella pointed out. Unfortunately, had we known about this flood, criteria might have come up with a different solution. I know this is Ruffles. I'm getting to the point. I'm trying to move quickly. But II agree with Laura in this context. Thank you. Okay. Did you have a position? II would abstain except kind of don't care.

[124:06] I don't think you have to vote for the for language that limits it to this shorter. Okay, I agree, because even an amendment needs 4 votes, too. That's right. Okay? So I withdraw my amendment. I guess I can't really withdraw. We voted down the other amendment all right, so we now have a motion on the table without any amendments to it. I will reread the motion if someone would please put it up on screen for me and put on my glasses. That's the old one. That's the wrong one. Okay. Planning board motion to approve. Site review application, LUR. 202-30-0050, including a height modification request to allow for up to 7 feet 6 inches of additional height, with a pitched roof, or alternatively

[125:12] up to 4 feet of additional height, with or without a pitched roof for each town home building within the approved shining mountain. Walter of school Development, adopting the staff memorandum as findings affect including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Laura. Yes. correct. No. ML. Mark. Yes. George. yes. I'm a no. yes, it passes 4 to 2 we are. Gonna take a 5 min break and then we will come back and do agenda. Item B,

[126:03] drop this. I'm saying.

[132:30] get started again. George, are you there somewhere? No, not yet. Okay. He'll come back through others. Alright agenda. Item B. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance 8620. Amending title 9, land use Code, Brc. 1981, to clarify existing code sections, Updating update graphics and improve the clarity of the code and setting forth related details.

[133:02] Lisa is our fabulous staff person. We have a 10 min staff presentation. We assume, maybe 10 min of board question and discussion, and then vote. Take it away, Lisa. All right. Good evening. Planning board. Nice to see you again. I'm Lisa Hood, Senior City Planner. First, I want to clarify that this is a different ordinance than the one we were talking about 2 weeks ago. So this is not the process streamlining. This is our code. Clean up ordinance. But we are excited to bring this forward. It's a kind of technical update that we do every few years. So the purpose tonight for you. this is this is a formal public hearing. So the purpose tonight is to make a recommendation to city council on this ordinance. This is our code cleanup. It's something we do. Periodically. We look through the land, use code and all the different land use reviews. We've done over the last few years and issues and hiccups that we found along the way. And we fix errors that we've run into in the code, simplify parts of the language that's been misinterpreted or confusing, and then codify some of our existing practices that aren't in the code.

[134:07] The last time we did. One of these technical cleanup ordinances was back in 2,020. So it's been almost 4 years so we've accumulated a few more things to fix. Some of the proposed changes are, the proposed changes in the ordinance are really limited to 4 topics, so corrections, fixing inaccuracies like we have some incorrect cross references, typographical errors. Those are just things that are gonna happen when we're editing the code many times over clarifications again, things that just make the code language clearer. We have a couple of changes to graphics which we do have some graphics in our code. So just some address, some common misunderstandings with those graphics. Try to make those as easy to communicate these important parts of the code as we can. and then also consistency. So there's some changes that are intended to ensure consistency either with state requirements or other requirements, or just the existing city practices that we've been doing.

[135:05] So. I have just a few examples of each of those types to give you an idea of the 4 types of changes we have some under our corrections. One of the ones that Carl and I thought was funniest that no one had ever noticed was a typo, or maybe a codifier error that's been in there for years. Which has a standard for parking height, and it's supposed to be building height. And so we noticed that looking through the code so just fixing things like that. There's one in this lot line and boundary verification. That was language that was strict struck from the code in 2,000, but was still there. not to point out, just codify. But so just looking through the history of that. And then also the things just like cross references and things like that. But as we do many ordinances, there's always gonna be a few errors that need to be cleaned up. We also have clarification. So one example of this is our standards for open space and balconies. This is one that really just the language about individual balconies, trips up staff and applicants a lot. So we tried to clean up that language. So the intent is clearer.

[136:15] I mentioned the graphics. We've amended, the graphics that explain the measurement of height. So that's a really important part of our code and also our side yard wall articulation standards. These are graphics that exist right now. But we've just improved them, based on kind of their utility with applicants. And then our consistency is the final one. So some examples of these types of changes in 9, 2, 17 in one part of the code we talk about how annexations require a recommendation from planning board. But we don't actually explain what that that public hearing looks like the way that we explain rezoning. So just adding some language there and then. The the bottom example is some consistency with state requirements related to mineral state notices.

[137:03] So there's changes like that just keeping things consistent. So those are examples of changes. This is much simpler ordinance than I usually bring to you all. So the suggested motion is to adopt ordinance 86, 20, and I'm happy to take any questions. All right. Do we have any questions for Lisa. how do you propose that we give you input? I suggest, you just ask the give the input that you wish to give. That's my suggestion. Okay, Oops. I don't have my mic on I guess I'll do it in little bits and pieces to give other people a chance as well, but just for procedural purposes. It's you're just asking questions now, because there's still has to be a public hearing. We supposed to do public comment. So if you're just asking questions at the moment, okay.

[138:05] and could we maybe bring up the red lined code so that we can look at. Yep, 1 s. Oh, just take me a second. Here we go. So first question I have. It. Seems like. I'm looking at 6, 14, 2. Okay.

[139:01] And it our 6, 14, 2 and 6, 16, 2, the same thing. What's the duplication? So title 6 is our licensing part of the code. So it's not actually our land use code. And it's specific to medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. A lot of the language is almost identical. So that's why you see it twice, because it's in both medical and recreational. Okay? So my question is, in 614, 8 h. 6, 14, 8, H. 6, 4, 6, 14 dash H. And it may or may not be here under changes. But it states that ventilation is required. so you might want need to look at the the, the full code. It says a ventilation is required. And so my question is, because I've been to a number of establishments that are adjacent to or down the street from

[140:02] marijuana. Facilities. And one was a T-shirt printing a printing place. and they lost a lot of inventory because of the smell. So I'm curious. What do we have in place. or the enforcing the ventilation requirement in in the and and I'm guessing it's 614. Eighth is is where is where it lands? So I'm I'm just curious, because it seems like it's a problem. sure. So that's kind of out of the scope of this ordinance, since we're just trying to clean up and clarify language, and I'm not prepared to answer the question about ventilation, just because that's a licensing requirement. The intent in this ordinance is really just to correct an error. There's a there's some overlap between references between the licensing code and and the land use code regarding mixed use development. And so we've run into some issues of that interpretation. So that's what we're trying to address with this not necessarily opening up the whole marijuana licensing regulations

[141:12] which would be a much more significant change that we'd have to do more study and input for so any reference to 6, 14, 8 H. Required ventilation. There is not a reference to some other place that will say, and for clarification for people to know. Okay, ventilation is required. And here is how it's required. Yeah, it it isn't related to the land use code standard. So the only thing related to the land use code is the location that the the businesses can be located in. And so that's where the mixed use development and residential zone district changes that you see tie into the land use code. So 614 8 h. Is not even in the scope of what you're right? Exactly. Because to me, okay, what's the problem? The problem is the ventilation. Yeah, it might be a larger issue for. And I see why they're the same. Thank you for clarifying that. I'm like, what? Thank you. Alright. Mark, do you have anything.

[142:14] George? Do you have anything? Nope. Kurt has something. Yeah. And I sent you a list of questions and thank you very much for that clarification. There, I just have a couple of call follow ups on those. And one relates to this very first code, which is mixed use development means, yeah, that that paragraph mixed use development means a building or a project or a development which may consist of one or multiple lots or parcels. So my question still is about the definition of a project or a development if it's on multiple plots. So imagine you know, you've got 2 lots next to each other, and the same developer owns them. And they're developed, though in sequence.

[143:04] are they the same project? If I'm just not clear that we have firm definitions about what is a project or development? Yeah, I think there is some ambiguity in there. The reason we're bringing forward this particular change is because it had become an issue. So we were trying to clarify that. But I think to make bigger changes. would have to involve a bigger process, because this language, also that we're clarifying. came out of issues that have been experienced. So we're just trying to make it a little bit better consistent with how the code was interpreted when when the last interpretation issue came up.

[144:01] Yeah, but we realize it's not perfect. Yeah, what? Next time that'll be perfect. Okay? Well, maybe we can just add that to the next list someplace. Yeah. And and and it's part of the marijuana licensing group that and administers that. So we just picked up on it because it it implicates a little bit the Land Use Review, but it would be a bigger project. The next question was about and I think Mark was sort of asking about this, too, about the parking, surfacing. And so my understanding is, the current code requires. As it as it currently stands, it requires pave parking. So some sort of solid paved parking. Right? So it reads, currently right?

[145:04] All parking areas are paved with asphalt, concrete or other similar permanent hard surface. Right? And then and then there's an exception for the detached dwelling units. So really the only change here flipping around the order of the wording of that sentence, because it's a little confusing. And then also just making sure that there's some the parking areas for those detached dwelling units have to be something that's maintained. Well, things like that. So it's some some kind of material that's able to sustain the weight of a vehicle. So it gives a little discretion for that what materials use for detached dwelling units, and that's consistent with our current interpretation. Okay? So even though there's no requirement currently for materials capable of sustaining the weight. We require that somehow, anyhow, even though it's not in the code, it's been the interpretation right of staff. So that's why we want the code to match what the interpre yeah, to clarify, so that people are aware that that's the

[146:04] the policy that we're implementing. Okay? Well, that that's fine. I mean, I'm a little worried about us applying rules that aren't in the code. But sounds good. Okay? And then so in looking at this, and I think that Mark brought this up. Are we precluding any changes to come from? the of other codes that would start to encourage perbeus materials? Could the entire requirement be for surfaces with materials capable of sustaining the weight and impacts of the associated vehicle usage? I mean, wouldn't that suffice? Or

[147:09] all of the definition or all of the requirements, rather than still having paved asphalt, concrete or other similar permanent hard surface remain. But we have more leeway for the future. Yeah, I think that there could be a future more significant change considered, I think, getting back to this being a limited scope of cleanup ordinance and trying to just align with existing practice. I think there could be a larger conversation about permeability and things like that in the future. But that's not really the scope of this project, since it's just clean up. So we're just trying to align with our current practice and looks like Charles maybe had something on parking code changes later this year, so might be an opportunity to get at some of those

[148:00] we're looking at the parking code changes. Would we then need to go back here and change things in all of this rather than just making it ready. Yeah, possibly. But you know, if we're opening up. you know, the entire parking code changes it. It's not uncommon if we're doing a code change that we have to change references throughout the code that, you know, would have impact, so that that wouldn't be uncommon. I still struggle with the the and I agree it's a clarification. but it's a clarification in the wrong direction. In a way all parking areas shall be, shall be, is A is a is a better way of stating a requirement than our. But it's like, Okay, we're now. We're really going the wrong. You shall do the wrong thing. So I just I just that's that's where my struggle with this comes I'll wait. I'll I'll anxiously await the

[149:11] the revised parking ordinance, and I appreciate that. Mark, that doesn't mean that we can't still do you know, pervious asphalt, you know those sorts of things on private property? So it doesn't. It doesn't necessarily preclude pavement typologies that allow for storm water. Yeah. Okay. thank you. Yeah. Just 2 other quickly. One was that it seemed like an extraneous use of the word minimum in 33. Did you already remove that awesome, and then the last one, and this was just reading it. I was kind of struck that this seemed outdated. Referring to act of God. II don't know whether that's a problem. We're not. But it just felt a little bit 1960 s. Or something.

[150:06] Yeah, we discuss that as a staff. I think Activecot is still an insurance claim policy. So that's where that came from, certainly up to the planning board. Whether you think that's appropriate to keep that in the code. So I'd leave that in your court. I know that we have a recommendation. Either way it can stay in or it could go. Okay. okay. okay, then my preference would be to strike that. We put it in quotation marks. Could we put it in quotation marks as a term of art act of God, because that's what it is. It's a citation back to insurance policy. And then that kind of the scare quotes make me more comfortable. I'm not gonna follow my sword about this, but just a suggestion. Ml. so I have one other question.

[151:00] And this is under 9, 7, 5. Brian's. Yeah. So 2 2 points. The first I'll start with the under number 2, the third bullet. It's really hard. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's really hard. I know I had a hard time, too. So it adds something that isn't. Currently. this is not a clarification or a it's adding something that currently isn't in the in the code as far as a means to determine the edge to which one anchors to 25 feet criteria that doesn't exist in in the current. And so that seems like it's outside of the scope.

[152:02] Well, there are a few changes that are codifying existing interpretations so kind of similar to the parking one. That's how we've been interpreting the code. And that's how we've been in implementing the code. Is that the 25 foot. The the like. An additional deck or porch, is part of the building side, and so we measure from that extended porch, and then we actually measure from the post of the deck. So that's what the drawing tries to show. So it's it's it's clarifying. It's codifying a an interpretation to give more clarity in that in that drawing. So the current staff for the interpretation had been beyond what the current diagrams show. Is that what you were saying. they've been working beyond this. I'm looking at. Well, I don't know what page it is of the current code. but I'm looking at the current diagrams, and it doesn't have any overhang. It doesn't have any decks. It doesn't have that at all. So people could come in. And suddenly there's a

[153:03] there's. Wouldn't that require a bigger conversation as to whether we want Dex to be counted as the edge or not. Well, I think it. I'm we regularly make interpretations of what the code means. And so this diagram is intended to reflect the interpretation that Staff has made of what? How that lowest point is change by adding a deck or porch, or things like that. It it's a long standing interpretation, probably goes back decades. So I think, from a staff perspective. It's probably not that radical, since that's how it's been. You know, interpreted for quite some time. but from the public it could. It could feel kind of radical in that. Well, I think one of the other points the edge of a building that's not gonna move right? A deck that can change over time. That is not a a substantive construct to users these are very impactful.

[154:08] The 25 foot to the lowest point are hugely impactful to a project. and I I have personally, professionally never encountered the debt being counted. Thank goodness. I would have had hair standing up. it! It seems really illogical. and II would put it out to a bigger conversation about Are we looking to establish this 25 foot reference point to something that is permanent and non-movable because it's got big implications to the building. or is something that can, in fact. be changed quite easily. A deck. a balcony. Those are not permanent components of the structure. So it that seems like it's a bigger change in your minds. It might be just clarifying. But out here in the public

[155:04] it feels bigger. Okay. Hi, good evening. Planning board. Brad Mueller, director of Planning and development services. We recognize with all of these items there can be a, you know, substantive issue behind them, and we regularly are happy to compile things that are of concern or or observed by the board. Ii just urge you to understand that we are called on a daily, if not hourly, basis, to interpret the code, and and we try to make sure we're doing that consistently. So that's what this represents is. as Charles said, several decades of interpretation. And we're just trying to make it in a language that's clear. So we're not having to re explain it to folks who are confused about it. If you'd like us to add this as a substantive matter to bring up at some future point on a list of other things. We can certainly do that but I would urge you to, you know, recognize that this is this is simply in the interest of clarity. well, II guess I do, Mark. Oh, I was commission

[156:07] before. You don't move on from. Okay. Thank you. I'm I when I, what I'm gonna say is that the current drawing the current diagrams that are in the current code are pretty clear. There's nothing confusing about it. I think it would be confusing if I use this. and then went into planning staff and planning. Staff says, Yeah, but a balcony is going to. And I'm like, no, this drawing this and this doesn't imply that. And so we design our project, or, yeah, kind of like what we saw tonight, right? The legal entity. And rather it's the language that is. And it's the language that we've interpreted. And the drawings are meant to reflect that in this revised drawing better reflects the language. So we would have to go back, and. you know, address the substantive issue of the language which we're not prepared to do in the scope of this conversation.

[157:05] So in in this current, the way it currently reads determine the building site, including decks and porches. That's what you're trying to illustrate is the encoding Dexter. Nobody reads the fine print. I see what you're saying. II think it might warrant some consideration. Mark, did you? Wanna I have one more I just on on this topic. My question is, and Ml, I appreciate your very careful reading of this, the current code and illustration. including debt, including decks and porches. Right? Just said, the drawings are ancillary. Well, it sounds like that's what they're trying to do is avoid people looking at the current, drawing and being confused, and then hearing something different from staff and being like. But that doesn't match the drawing. So they're like, okay, let's fix the drawing so that people are not caught flat footed when they design their their projects.

[158:04] It feels substantive. But I see your point. Brad. Read the fine print. Thank you for clarifying, and maybe put it on the to check, because it seems to me like a deck can. Is not a permanent necessarily as permanent as a building? So yeah, absolutely, we can add that. Carl, did you? You seem eager to hear something to add. We want to hear from Carl. Shoot me now. Karl Geiler, planning and development services. I was just gonna add that you know, in all the years that you know, Charles and I have worked here. We've worked on permits. This has been the interpretation. The entire time we've been here. We did coordinate with our permitting staff. And it was because of the daily questions that come up on the hype modifications based on the older graphic that led to these updated graphics to make those clarifications. So it isn't really new territory. This is clarifying the existing condition. We can certainly change it in the future. But I'll also mention that we have brought some hype modifications before the board. That required a hype modification by virtue of the fact that they added a deck.

[159:16] and it didn't make the building taller. It just change the low point. And all of a sudden they're in a height modification. So it has been something that we've done for a long time, but we can certainly look into changing that in the future. I just wanted to add that okay. any other points. No, I don't have any. Thank you. So the last thing I would I would wonder about is under definitions 9, 16 1. And I guess. as a point of clarification. referring to 9 7 9 d. Which which is about the

[160:01] 9, 7, 9 d. Is the bulk plane. and the bolt plane has a reference to roof overhangs or eaves of the primary roof. and there is no definition of a roof overhang. Okay, I think under it needs to be clarified because I have encountered that. And it's it's just like, let's just know if we're talking about industry, definition of an overhang. Or I found it to be at odds with the staff definition of an overhang so let's just be clear about what is meant by that language, and that would be under 9 16 one. Which is the definitions. Definitions. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the hard work lined by line, and those are all my comments right? Not that many. Thank you so much. Any other comments.

[161:04] Alright. So we now have a public hearing opportunity. Is there anyone online who wants to speak. Yes, we do have one person online, Lynn Siegel. It wasn't at all clear to me on the post image. Where that that it's not just the deck. It's a post on the deck. If you extended that post out to the end of the deck, it would change very much what the 25 foot setback was. So anyone that's looking at that to use to determine what they're gonna build there, that it's not clear to me. But I'm not a builder. I'm an ultrasound tax. But

[162:04] I do look at 3 dimensional items in the human body, and that just doesn't make sense to me. But Let's see the the perviouseness. I think that's a good thing, and the act of God. I don't think religion should come into urban planning. and I don't care if the insurance industry uses it. It's inappropriate. It! There's there's gotta be, you know, words that at a atom logically explain what they're trying to say, and some one just has to determine that But as to what happen tonight, with the approval of this thing at Shining Mountain. Something has to be done much more than just sorry, Lynn. We're not talking about Shining Mountain at this point.

[163:15] Then I'm just going to sit out my 3 min. an I don't want any one blocking thing for me, cause this is really important. and I think someone everyone here should think about what happened earlier tonight. It's really, really inappropriate that they got an extra level. alright, all right. We will now go to discussion. Is there a discussion. or can we go right to the motion making go ahead? So I just wanna thank Staff for all of the work that you put into this. I'm sure it is scintillating reading, going through the code line by line, looking for errors. So thank you so much for your hard work on this, and I guess my question is, when we go to a vote

[164:06] did anything that happened here tonight change the proposal in front of us? Or are we voting on the proposal that was in front of us before our discussion? Yes. yes, what? Yes. Sounds to me like, you're voting. Yeah, no, you're it sounds like you're voting on what was originally proposed by Staff this evening without any amendments. Okay? So if we wanted anything that we said tonight to change that proposal, it would have to be an amendment proposed by the board. Okay, thank you for that clarification, Charles. I appreciate that. I'll say I do not feel strongly enough about my little quotation marks to make an amendment. But thank you for considering. I know you wanna say something something you wanna say, I can see. Yeah. Well, I would move to strike the words, Act of God from. and I'm sorry I don't have the proper reference.

[165:06] 9, 10. If you can pull that up. 9, 12 b, 9, 10. Go ahead, Mark. are you suggesting a replacement, or does it make sense to remove those words, and does it still read? It doesn't make sense without those words. II think that Staff was fine with it with without those words, there's other calamity. But hmm! Oh, so you were saying that the attorneys are comfortable, striking that language. Oh, okay, I totally misunderstood that. Thank you for clarifying staff. And Kurt. Go ahead, Emily. so we're offering. Do we offer? This is in the menu. We haven't made a motion yet. Oh, so it's just discussion at this moment. Oh, no. Oh, okay. I thought we were.

[166:05] I'd like to make sure that we have a definition of a roof over him. Okay, so George, did you have any comments. George? Nope. Mark, did you have any more comments that was proposed for us? Okay. Eml would like to make the motion I do. Planning board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance. 8620. Amending T tit tit tit title, 9. Land use code to clarify existing code sections, update graphics and improve the clarity of the code and setting forth related details. Now we need a second. It's something like you got a second

[167:01] alright now is like someone want to make an amendment. Yeah, I would move that the words or act of God be removed from section 9. Dash, 10 dash to B seconds. Whoop! I second. Okay, so you don't care about what we replace it with it. It sounds like we did not need to make a replacement because it already includes the words. Other calamity is already in the language. Okay. we could. Could someone please send that language to Amanda. That's good. This motion to recommend. Well, he's typing that out. Does anyone have other amendments? Are there other people who want to make amendments alright? So that was the only one. Do we need to? I'm sorry sorry to vote on them one by one, before we make another. He's typing. I wanted to find out if someone else had an amendment. Okay, cool.

[168:07] should I make it? Do you have it written out? Oh, I recommend you. You just write it out for yourself, so that then you can. I propose that we amend section 9, 16, one. under general definitions. include a definition for roof overhang. I'll second that. Okay. we have to make sure that Amanda has caught that. That's why I was hoping you would write that down. Not just say it out loud, but to write it down so that when you repeat it back to her it's what you said originally. Yes.

[169:02] look at second. Okay, great. So let's see where Amanda is with. Amanda, how are you on the first amendment? And sorry I did not. I did not specify where that went, but it could go at the very end, I think, and comma, and striking the words or active. But from 9 12 B. The secretary's name. Okay.

[170:27] I'm looking at. Okay? So then the second amendment, which was made by Ml. And seconded by Kurt, I'm sorry Mark is. Now, can you please read this to amend the motion, to include, in addition to 9, dash 16, dash one general definitions to include a definition of roof overhang

[171:03] 9. Dash one. yes. yes, 9, 16. One general definitions to include, to include a definition of roof overhang for discipline. Perfect? Alright. So that's been made and seconded. And I'm sorry is that sorry? The fourth word there is. It include in include in addition, or include an addition, Ml, in the first, the top there motion to include in addition or an addition and addition. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other amendments that need to be made and seconded. Alright, we're gonna work backwards. We're gonna vote on these. Emma, I will repeat the motion to include an addition to 9 16, one general definitions to include a definition of roof overhang

[172:07] Laura. Yes, yes. Ml, yes, Mark. Yes, George, yes. Second motion to strike the words or act of God from BRC. 9. Dash 2. Dash. I'm sorry. 9. Dash 10. Dash 2. B. Laura. Yes. yes. Ml, yes, Mark. No. George, no. And I'm also a no. So that fails. Okay? And find the final main motion Planning Board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance 8, 6, 2, 0, amending title, 9, land use code to clarify existing code sections, update graphics and improve the clarity of the code and setting forth related details. Laura.

[173:02] Yes, Mark George, yes. there is a yes, alright. So it passes with the route the definition addition. And thank you very much. Thank you. All enjoy the rest of your evening. What's left of your evening? Enjoy it? Okay, we're gonna move on to agenda, title, agenda, item, number or letter C, a. Public hearing and consideration of a standard wetland permit application for the proposed renovation of the Chapman drive, trailhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Boulder Creek, generally located at 3, 8, 4, 7, 4, Boulder Canyon Drive, in Boulder County, WET, 2, 0, 2, 3, 0 0 2 0. We're assuming 45 min total with a 10 min staff presentation, 15 min applicant presentation, public comment and then discussion and this is a call. This is a public hearing based on a call up

[174:03] so I don't know who's oh. okay. all right, Mr. Stafford, you are on all right. I'm not sure your mic's on. By the way. try that again. Give me just a moment. Get the presentation running. and I need permission to share screen. Please.

[175:12] Alright, thank you. Good evening. Edward Stafford, Senior civil engineering manager and planning development services, and I'll give a brief, very brief presentation about this particular. Well, let one permit for the Chapman drive bridge trailhead. We'll talk a little bit about the permit process itself a summary of the proposed project, the key issue that's been identified for discussion tonight and a staff recommendation. The review process as a reminder. This permit was originally evaluated as part of the project for consistency with the stream Wetland, and Water Body Protection criteria, and was issued by the city manager on January second for the code that issuance is said or was subject to call up. And this board did call that action up on January sixteenth. So it's now in front of you tonight to make a decision on whether or not this permit meets the criteria in section 9, 3, 9, e. 3 and 4.

[176:04] Location of the project. You can see the Red Arrow. There is the location, and you'll see that it's actually located several miles outside of the city of boulder. So one of the unique aspects of this particular section of the code is that it is actually written to apply the land that is not within the city of Boulder's jurisdiction, but is owned by the city of Boulder, or projects being done by the city of Boulder. I point that out as a clarity, because other issues underlying in terms of land use. Whether or not this is a an allowed use. The standards of that are actually the Boulder County jurisdiction. Given that this is not actually within the city of Boulder. So the only item you have in front of you tonight, and the only regulatory approval this project requires. Is this stream wetland, water, Body Protection. Permit a blow up to the site so you can see a little bit closer to where it is off Boulder Canyon Drive. The project itself has has been proposed, is to reconfigure the existing trail head

[177:02] to construct a new pedestrian bridge, to connect to the Boulder Canyon Trail. There is an existing trail head there. There were things that were damaged in 2013 and have had interim improvements, and so the applicant, which is the open space and mountain parks department of the city, is now coming forward to make final improvements. The applicant is present tonight, and they will be making a presentation to give additional project details. Post this portion here. I did leave the table in here of the wetland impacts as a reminder. These are really the wetland stream and water body impacts. The code lays it out in 3 different areas, the first being the wetland itself. And you'll notice in here this project does not have any permanent impacts and has temporary impacts only to the wetland. Then there are 2 types of buffers, the inner buffer, which is the first 25 feet, and the outer buffer the second 25 feet for total of 50 feet of buffer, and you can see both the permanent in the temporary impacts. It's important to note the differences there. Temporary impacts have to be restored and can be restored. Permanent impacts have to be looked at in terms of whether they require mitigation or not.

[178:09] Their proposed project is on the screen. Here you can see the trail head with parking and adequate circulatory route and the pedestrian bridge I've highlighted on here, although it is not easy to see on the screen the 3 different lines that blue line on the left side is the outer edge of the designated Wetland boundary. You'll notice that the only thing that is impacting that it will be temporary will be the construction of the pedestrian bridge. The second line, the green line, is the inner buffer of the Wetland area. Wetland protection area. You can also see within that. The improvements are primarily limited to that connection, to the pedestrian bridge. the gold or yellow depending on how you look at that color last line is that outer buffer area which you can see does encompass a portion of the trailhead parking area. Primarily in some of the landscape associated with it.

[179:03] The key issue before you to night is the consideration of whether or not this application has met the criteria in 9, 3, 9 e. 3 and E. 4 of the Boulder Revised Code. There are 2 sections of code there. There is one that's applicable to any and all permits under this both standard and conditional. That information is in your staff mail packet was not gonna cover those by item. Tonight we will cover the second section, which is what's applicable to what is called the standard permit, which is what's actually eligible for the call up procedures that you've activated by calling this permit up there are 4 key issues within that in that 939 e. 4 of consideration. The first one is a requirement for minimization to the impacts to the maximum extent, feasible, as it says in the code. So that is looking at the project to determine has it considered design to minimize the impacts. For example, should it have this project come in and put most of it within the buffers, or even the wetland area, and left the area outside of the protection area as the current ground that it is, it would have given us a pause to say, this does not appear to be the minimum

[180:12] to implement the project. In this particular case, they've actually pushed it as far as they can against Chapman Drive. Given the grade and the location of chat and drive, and the actual land that is open is compared or owned by open space in comparison. And so we looked at that as a part of understanding the minimization aspect of it. Understand? This can be a difficult part of the code when we've talked about minimization to the maximum extent possible, look at that. To say it is not necessarily in there to be used as a way to say nothing is allowed. The code does provide for things that you can do within the inner buffer, the outer buffer and the protected area, and things that are prohibited. And so this is looking at those items as have been described in there to say, and has that been done in a way that minimizes those permanent impacts? The second one is the minimum impact to the stream. The well under the water body function

[181:06] and that is more particular to the wetland itself in this case, or Boulder Creek at Boulder creek. and looking. What is the project designed in a way not to impact things such as the hydrology, the ultimate habitat in there, and because the project is only that portions of the pet bridge which are minimal impacting and there are no permanent impacts. Staff's analysis was they did meet this criteria. The third is a requirement for the protection of species, and is a recognition of certain habitats that are critical to this type of area. And in this particular case the applicant did submit information about the consideration of that, including their discussions of the Us. Fish and wildlife service, and I did not identify any impacts to threaten and endangered species or the protected habitat areas. The fourth of it is the requirement to look at and ensure that any mitigation that is required by the code has been looked at, and has been proposed with a mitigation plan which they have included in here to do some mitigation to additional buffer areas to make up for their permanent impacts, to the buffer impact, to the buffer areas that they're impacting

[182:18] any more times, can I say the word impact? So those are the things we look at again. I did not cover the 939 E. 3. Of course, if there are questions we can certainly go through that. And that was in your packet. So ultimately staff Review, and has a recommendation. We have found that the proposal does meet the applicable criteria, and we recommend that the planning board approve the application with the motion that you see in front of you that includes the adoption on the findings effect from this memo and the conditions of approval that are included, which are conditions that we routinely do include in those standard and conditional wetland permits.

[183:00] That concludes my presentation. As I indicated, the applicant is also here, and we'll be able to add more about the project and its selection questions. Thank you who has questions. Hmm. alright. If our app oh, you do. Okay. Sorry you didn't raise your hand. So I thought I was so. as the applicant. The the permit that's being requested meet has to meet it hasn't made her propose her presentation yet. So it's questions for questions, for I'll hold my question. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I don't mean to speak for you, Kurt, but it seems like part of the issue was, how did Staff determine that a turnaround for trailers was needed here like horse trailers and hand cycle trailers. How did you determine that that that needed to be part of the project design.

[184:08] So when we look at these and review, we don't look to determine whether or not what they want to propose is an appropriate thing to build there. We look at whether or not in first to chart it's allowed. In this case it would be considered impervious or additional paved and impervious area. To say is that permittable? To begin with here? And then they'll look to see if that design is appropriate. So we don't look to say, is it right to put a trail head here, for example, or have they included the right elements? That's really independent of this pro process? Thank you. And I just also want to say thank you for the excellent short presentation I feel like I know so much more about these kinds of permits. Thank you, Edward. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, though, in 939 4, I think I got that right the minimization criterion. It does talk about scope

[185:02] of the project. And so do you consider that in your analysis. so we will look to see what kind of alternative analysis that was done which was included in the report here, as it relates to the scope, we will not necessarily use that to look to say, should it include a a turnaround, we may look at it more of have you thought about different sizes of scope to limit the impact? Now, in this particular case, given that there were fairly limited permanent impacts to either the buffer and that they're primarily in the outer buffer that already starts to speak to what we would consider minimization. Thank you. George. You have any questions. Okay? Alright. Now it's applicants. Opportunity.

[186:02] Can you hear me here? Great Hello! I'm Eileen flax, senior landscape architect with open space and mountain parks. I'm joined by Adam Gaylord, our recreation ecologist, and Jeff Haley, our deputy director of Trails and Facilities online. As Edward mentioned, most of our property. Most of the land we manage is outside of the city, and so we don't have an opportunity to share what we've been up to with you very often, and so I'm pleased to be able to answer the questions that were passed on to me, and share what we're working on at Chapman Drive Trailhead. The existing trailhead is a temporary interim condition. It's substandard. It was created when we bought the property from the Snell family in 2012 it was used during the period when Cdot was working on all of the improvements on Boulder Canyon, following the flood, and then also, during the period when the county was developing the Boulder Canyon trail. Now that we are ready to complete this final piece of the trail with the pedestrian bridge that is part of our project. As a joint effort with the county we are ready to finalize our design at the Chapman drive trail. Head

[187:18] Smp manages 37 trailheads and 76 official access points. These provide access to over 6 million annual visitors. The trailheads are the first thing that they experience when they come to the system, and as we renovate our trailheads to deal with this and manage our increased use, we are implementing standards for their design. To standardize our facilities and our amenities. There are multitude of factors that contribute to trailhead design as shown here. We're really looking at these as a an ecoton, a way to transition, a place where you transition from the built environment to the open space system. And so we're working hard to model stewardship and intuitive way, finding, welcoming, inviting spaces, but to create access and safety and functionality. At these trial heads

[188:12] the Chapman drive trailhead was designed to support efficient use of space for and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local roadway engineering design requirements, public infrastructure and public safety requirements, accessibility standards, and then just generally appropriate gut requirements for well functioning parking areas to set people up for a smooth transition to our open space system. This design supports first responder and emergency vehicle, access of operations, maintenance, vehicle and operations, passenger vehicle, access and parking, accessible parking and oversized vehicle, access and parking so to answer is the main benefit. The turnaround for equestrian and hand cycle use? No, but it does support those uses.

[189:01] And just because I have these images up, there is a question about how hand cycles are transported. Some people use hitches open space ours ourselves. We use a trailer because we bring multiple hand cycles at a time, but we don't dictate how people transport their equipment next, please. So there's a question about if we have data on equestrian hand cycle usage. We don't because we can't. We don't currently provide for those facilities. So we don't have any data on usage. But we do have a lot of information about demand. Our charter specifically, notes plan for horseback riding is one of our charter purposes. Preservation of regional agriculture. And it's yeah. And it's associated culture is identified in the Comp plan. Our 2,005 Viser Master Plan, which included extensive input from the equestrian community.

[190:02] calls for horse trailer parking at trail heads to direct visitor use to appropriate air areas and away from sensitive areas. And then our 2,011 West trail West trail study area, which is on the right there. Also with extensive input from the equestrian community, we we identified over 70% of our trails in this area that allow for horseback riding, but the only place to access the system with a trailer was actually outside of the West trail. Study area at Dowdy Draw at the South End when we presented that to city council, they directed us to make our best effort to pursue horse trailer parking west of Realization Point, which is a circle of the middle. And now that we have the Japon drive trailhead, we're able to provide for horse trailer parking at that location. The West Tsa also specifically calls for trailhead improvements to increase access for people with disabilities wherever feasible.

[191:01] And then, finally, our 2019 master plan. Identified horse trailer parking at trail heads as a way to honor, a diverse range of passive recreation, opportunities that respect the unique character and history of the boulder community. There's a question about whether alternatives were analyzed. Awesome, hey? It goes through a rigorous design process where we include we have a departmental core team that includes Wetland wildlife, recreation ecologists. And we all went back and forth and rolled over a lot of information. To get to this thoughtful and sensitive design for this site. Our pro pose design rep represents the minimum area required to safely support all of the required access and programming at this site. If to a question about if there's additional disturbance from a turnaround, this the parking area was engineered for a 40 foot turn radius which is for a trailer or emergency vehicles. And typically a passenger Carver only requires a 26 foot radius. So it's a larger radius there.

[192:12] a question about shared parking. Osmp does not direct the public to encroach on or park on private property, and during venue events, as you can see here, this area is completely parked up and fully constrained. We do have an access in easement in place that allows Trailhead bound vehicles to cross the vehicle bridge and access our trail head part of the agreement language says that we need to include signage that directs visitors away from the adjacent properties and to our trailhead. The existing trailhead was really just graded into an existing site, and it directs runoff to the Boulder Creek. We have nuisance flows and sediment going directly there and the current condition also allows. Visitors are curious, and they start heading down. And then those undesign, undesignated trails create sediment and erosion issues. So we will be addressing all of that with our design.

[193:13] Our civil engineer developed a drainage memo, creating kind of watersheds or contributing areas and identified where all the runoff from the parking lot is going. Most of it is going to a Bio retention water quality area in the center of the parking lot. Some on the side of the parking lot, but it's all accounted for in locations where sediment and pollutants drop out and settle in there. and we have fencing along the the west edge to keep visitors out of the creek corridor. So finally, the trailhead is sitting on our previously disturbed home site. It's nestled. tucked in between the Boulder Creek and the steep chapman drive. We've utilized the space as efficiently as possible.

[194:01] You're protecting resources and providing a safe and appropriate visitor experience. I hope I've answered your questions. I'm happy to answer anymore. Okay. is, is it? Eileen? Yeah. Okay, Eileen. so. I'm super familiar with this, because I access it daily and almost daily, certainly weekly. for skiing, for cycling, for hiking all the time. I also was a member of the 2,011 West Trail study Area Community collaborative group, and that was a long process. The report says, 6,500 h contributed. Yeah. Stuck it out. what is the number of

[195:02] this is a related question, and don't. I'm not just off on a tangent. The number of parking spaces at the Red Rock, Sunita's trailhead. Do you happen to know that off hand? I don't. Sorry II counted 15 at the proposed in your in your drawing. Is it 15? I think that's right. Okay. And I understand you operate within many. inter jurisdictional requirements. Is there a required number of parking spaces based on usage based on and based on any criteria that no, there, there isn't, because the system is so broad any definite numbers that we're trying to hit. We're doing the best we can to accommodate the visitors that we have. Okay? what is the requirement

[196:05] for the pedestrian bridge. And under what jurisdiction, what agency? Where? Where is the requirement for that pedestrian bridge stated or outlined? So that's part of Boulder county's Boulder canyon trail, and it's the final piece to connect to the Chapman drive system. It's part of their original design and was they've been moving forward with those plans for years, so I don't know that there is a requirement for that. But that was the completion of the project. Is the county paying for the bridge. Yes, there! Oh, that's not a city we're we're have. We have a joint. We have a Mo. You with them to pay for that. Do you know what the ratio is between city and county about? Who's we're splitting it? Okay.

[197:00] that's all for now. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for coming. Thank you for all that information. I'm particularly interested in the horse trailer parking. You said that you have no data. 0 data about actual demand. Here you're, is that correct? We have data on demand, which is that the community values this highly and wants to provide that at this location. But because we don't have any place for horse trailers to park. We don't have any data on how they're using it. Currently. So you have specific requests for trailer parking at Chapman. We have specific. The community wants to access the 70% of trails within the west trail study area that are available them to them to ride their horses on. They don't have a way to get there other than riding their horses, which has become increasingly troublesome up Boulder Canyon, so

[198:02] it's it's hard to access the system without a horse trailer at this point. And why is riding up? Build a canyon the canyon trail? Why is that problematic? Well, now there's a trail, but it's a heavily I mean Boulder Canyon itself, where, until we had a trail recently, there was no way to ride a horse there. I'm not sure about horse use on the Boulder Canyon Trail. That's that's a new facility. a new and not yet completed facility. I'm sorry. Are you saying that they would ride their horses up the road? I'm saying that was the only way to get here by horse prior. Prior. Okay? Well, okay. The the creek path has been there for quite a while. There's relatively recently it was extended from formal canyon to but to Chapman, but that's been few years now. So you don't. We're not clear whether that horses are allowed on the creek path, or I don't know if they are. I assume that they are allowed on there, but I don't know, and it's it's a paved trail. It's not typically used for equestrians. I know most of it is unpaved.

[199:12] There's only one short section there. There's a short section at the bottom that's bathed up to the first underpass. And then there's a section from 4 mile, basically from 4 mile up to here. That's paved. But most of it is unpaved. okay, I just so. So the then there's no access from here to the rest of the West trail system. The horse accessible West trail system is. it goes all the way from Chapman, drive trail, head up to Flagstaff, and so there's but I mean other other than Chapman, that Chapman segment.

[200:02] There's no connection to any of the other trails from once you they're all connected eventually. But but oh, so that that's really the question. Are horses allowed, for example, on the Ranger trail, which I think it's the Ranger trail that goes from the the the flagstaff summit up there's and there's a network of trails that accommodate horses on our system, and this is a place where they can access those trails. I am not sure about the specifics of which trails are. or currently really, what I'm getting to is, I mean, Chapman, is not that long. It's a couple of miles, 2 and a half miles, you know, on a horse. It's half an hour or something up and back. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be a huge demand

[201:20] up to the top of Green Mountain. Pretty much. The default is a quest, and I'm correct me if I'm wrong. But based on my terms. In the West drill study area, Ccg. pretty much horses are allowed. There are certainly trails that where we, where the department advises against horses being taken, but almost everywhere that hikers can go, horses can go. Whether or not they do is a bit of a chicken and egg question in regard to well.

[202:04] you don't see a lot of horses there, because they have nowhere to park their trailers, and they have nowhere to access it. And so I just. I'm just what can I add? One thing? There is no horse trailer parking at the flagstaff summit. Is there no? So that would be like if we had horse trailer parking at the summit? Then you could go up and down Chapman, and access Green and Shadow Canyon and all the other places. But to her point it's the very southern terminus of the of the mesa trail. Dowdy draw across Eldorad Springs Drive. which is where the designated horse trailer parking is to access any of the West TSA. Which is Broad Broadway, West alder. Out Springs drive, and

[203:02] for the north boulder. Oh, yeah. So anyway, II just clarifying that a a. And again, the equestrians are super sensitive about trailer parking, because that they they have to have it to access the system. And again. the trailhead is designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles and trailer parking. So you're seeing the that in the in the design that there's a place for trailers to park. But we're also trying to accommodate emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles being able to access the system, and just for just general use to get around to know where you're going, be able to park and pull out of the trailhead again. And so we've limited the footprint to the smallest area to accommodate all of those uses. This emergency and maintenance functions as well as the trailer. Parking is a component that you see, cause there's parking for that. But there, we don't have parking for emergency vehicles. That would be a

[204:07] special situation. And so that safety function is critical to why we have the footprint of the size we do in this area. Okay, and from I was I was never clear, quite clear on the plan. So all of is that parking is that whole parking area that is will be paved. No, II mean, it's paved with aggregate paving. We have concrete at our accessible parking spots, and then at at the walkway, and the connection to the pedestrian bridge, and then the majority of the area is gonna be aggregate paving. So it showed lines on the plans. There are going to be wheel stops. We used a recycled plastic wheel. Stop that defines the parking spots.

[205:08] you'll have to imagine the lines. Okay. thank you. I think that's all my questions. Okay, anyone else have questions. George. Yeah. Nope. Laura. no. Ml. okay. I think. Thank you. Thank you so much. do we have anyone who wants to make a public comment. I don't see anybody here in person. So we'll move to online. If you would like to speak online, please raise your hand. and we have one so far. Lynn Siegel. you can go ahead and unmute yourself for 3 min. Yeah, first of all, I want to be clear on if I actually get these 3 min, because I was cut off last time.

[206:10] Yes, and you're down to 2 46 6 at this point right? Well, when I'm muted before my 3 min are up. I have got PTSD. About even speaking now. and I do have a first amendment right here. I will say I can say whatever I want, and I can be silent if I want, but I get my 3 min, and I will say done when I am finished. Is that an agreement we can have? Since you are taking the position of telling people what to do, Sarah Lynn, please give your comment on this public agenda item. I want to know if we've got an agreement here. I can speak until I'm done, and I say, done, that's all I need to know. You can speak on this agenda. Item. Please go ahead, Lynn.

[207:09] Yes, there have been a lot of discussion on this agenda item that were not within the realm of what Edward Stafford was talking about. So you know, it was very broad about horse access, and all of this stuff. This is simply about buffer zones for a pedestrian bridge. and it sounds fine to me. But since everyone else was talking about other stuff. Then I guess I'll talk about other stuff. I would think that it's appropriate for people to ride their horses up here instead of dragging trailers with horses in them up here that it's a big carbon footprint

[208:02] to drive horses around. Personally, I don't subscribe to riding horses. I think horses should ride people personally, but that's my opinion. and and I think there are ways for horses to get up into the mountains and then get access to all of this network of trails right from Boulder itself. And the other thing is. I think it's really irrelevant to have any improvements to these pedestrian trails at at this pedestrian bridge and the buffer zone on it. If we get attacked by Iran because of our situation of not following Palestinian basic rights done. Thank you. Lynn. Alright. Anyone else?

[209:03] No, that looks like that's it. Thank you. Alright. We will have some discussion. But I would appreciate putting the motion up on the screen, please. So we know what it is. Exactly we're discussing. Okay, so that is the suggested motion language. Is there any discussion before someone makes a motion. Yeah. okay. does someone want to make the motion? Or shall I just make it go ahead? I will make a motion. I don't think it's the motion you that you were gonna make. I will make a motion. I'm move to approve. WET. 2023 0 0 2 0, a standard stream Wetland or water Body Protection. Permit

[210:13] to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman drive trailhead. Sorry my my font is too small, incorporating the staff memorandum and attached criteria analysis as findings of fact. and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. and with the additional condition that the plans be revised to show the south trailer parking and drive loop removed in order to reduce excavation and associated stream and wetland impacts. Does anyone want to second that? Okay, so there's no second for that. Alright. So I will make a motion. That is what was suggested motion to approve. WET. 2023, 0 0 2 0, a standard stream. Wetland and Water Body Protection permit

[211:10] to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman drive trailhead incorporating this staff memorandum and attached criteria analysis as findings of fact, and so subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Is there a second Ml. Has seconded it? Is there any discussion? Yes. so like curt. I would have called this up, and like Curt, I had drafted specific motion language. Curt, and I have different concerns about this. This trail head mine were focused on the pedestrian bridge in general. I so I want the message to the department to be that

[212:00] the pedestrian bridge. And this is one of these things that has taken on a life of its own. It's been in the works forever is completely unnecessary. It is whether the county's paying for half and we're paying for half it it the current configuration with the paved creek path going under Boulder canyon drive coming up is completely Ada compliant. It goes across the current bridge. I know of no requirement for a pedestrian bridge a 70 foot long by 10 foot wide seal structure that you know you don't. Do you know the value of that bridge? I don't know you do. You do. I would like to know that I'm sorry if you're gonna speak to us. Please come up to the. Although we are in discussion at this point, the bridge is about $700,000. The current condition would put pedestrians on a vehicle bridge that does not accommodate them. So it's not a safe condition.

[213:13] We we can't invite pedestrians or bicyclists onto a narrow vehicle bridge. I can. I can. I can point to many, many bridges within the city of Boulder that we do exactly that. So, however. you know the best time to fix a mistake is before it happens. And actually that that's even a bigger number. Then I anticipated. And anytime we spend money we have to think about. What might we do if we didn't spend that money in this particular case? And is it actually required? We have plenty of auto bridges that are poorly rated

[214:00] that need replacement. And anyway, so I'm not going to I'm not going to pose the motion as staff as approve. But this is this is a an example of something that doesn't meet the wetland. I don't think it meets the requirement of the wetland permit in requirement to minimize The impacts to the area, and a 70 foot by 10 foot wide bridge, supported on concrete piers over the creek has has impact in the Wetlands. All right. Any other comments. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, thank you for that, Mark. And I just wanted to clarify that. I also felt that we are not meeting the minimization criterion of 939 E. 4.

[215:00] I have that right. when we're including the the th, this large turnaround and the trailer parking. Because we we've heard 0 data. We've heard absolutely 0 data from the applicant about the actual demand for this and and I find that that is really disappointing. I think that that if there were data on the the need for this, the demand in this particular location, that would be great, and and that would, you know, meet the requirement. But the minimization criterion specifically talks about the scope, and to me the scope is greater than is justified, based on the data that we have. And therefore I don't feel that it meets the criteria. I'm going to respond to that part of the reason we don't have data is a the city doesn't. The the open space mountain parks doesn't necessarily track at all, but also

[216:04] people with horses have not been able to access Chapman drive. So there's no you're asking. It's like it's they're asking to get data on a on something that is not trackable at this point. But alright, we'll go ahead and anyone else have comments. Then we'll vote alright. I'll repeat the motion to approve. WT. 202-30-0020, a standard stream. Wetland and Water Body Protection. Permit to allow construction of a new bridge and Trailhead improvements for the Chapman Drive trailhead incorporating this staff memorandum of attached criteria analysis as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Kurt no. George. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mark. I'd like to wait.

[217:01] Okay. Ml. yes. I'm a yes, Mark. No. all right. It passes 4 to 2. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Edward. Alright, we are going going to be moving to matters. I'm going to upset myself at this point. And someone else can take over for the matters portion of the meeting. But I need to head out. So whoever wants to be Sharing the rest of the meeting would be great. Thank you very much. Would somebody like to be nominated to be our temporary chair tonight? I would nominate Laura. I said to somebody, want to be nominated. Yeah, Laura, let's let's go. Let's do it. Okay, alright, I guess I guess. we have to take a vote. No. Yes.

[218:07] yes. yes, yes. okay, all right, I guess I am reluctantly elected. Okay, thank you. Everybody for your faith in me. At this hour of night we are on to matters from the planning board, planning director and city attorneys. We have 2 items on the agenda. The first is, item, a matters the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project, spillway annexation. Who's giving that presentation? Christopher Johnson, our comprehensive planning manager, will be presenting the item this evening. Christopher welcome the floor is yours. Thank you, Laura, and Hello, planning board members. I apologize for not being able to attend in person this evening, but I appreciate your flexibility. For to join virtually. Give me just a moment. I will pull up the presentation here.

[219:08] Right, and let me just. Are you still seeing the full presentation. Or do you see my presenter view? We see what we should be seeing. We don't see your notes. okay, well, great. Well, let's let's jump in Good evening again. As Charles mentioned, my name is Christopher Johnson. I'm the comprehensive planning manager for planning and development services. I am also joined here this evening with Brandon Coleman and Joe Taddyucci from the utilities Stormwater, Flood Management Department. and then also Bethany Collins from open space and mountain parks in case there are specific questions to their areas of expertise. The purpose of this matters item is really to provide an overview. A brief overview of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. And more importantly, provide a preview to all of you

[220:03] for the proposed annexation that is associated with the project, and is scheduled for a public hearing with plenty board in approximately one month. Coming up on March fifth. the agenda for the evening is to start with a brief overview of the project itself that specifically, we're gonna focus on the flood wall and spillway portion. That's the primary component that is associated with the proposed annexation. Then I'll review that annotation and explain the next steps of the process, and then there will be an opportunity to ask questions of staff after the presentation. So we'll begin with the overview of the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project. As you probably are aware, Sam Boulder Creek is over 27 miles long, includes a hundred 36 square mile. Watershed area begins up at the Continental Divide, comes down through the elder out springs area, and then trends to the north and crosses through Boulder, southern eastern portions. Ultimately, then, joining up with Boulder Creek, you can see the city limits there on the right side, shown in the black outline

[221:11] In the flood mitigation project is located really, at this critical juncture, where some Boulder Creek meets the city limits near Highway, Us. 36. As it enters into Boulder. As a natural system. South Boulder Creek has a history of flooding over time. It's, you know a natural occurrence, and and major flood events have occurred on South Boulder Creek within the recent past were recorded in 1,938, and of course, in 2,013 Us. 36 was over topped by the flood waters during both the 1969 and 2013 storm events, and as a as a result of the 2,013 flood the drainage way that companies South Boulder Tree contributed some of the highest damages within the city. Approximately 35 million dollars. From that flood event

[222:02] you can see there. The photograph on the right hand side shows the floodwaters on quality drive really shows why the project is really so important to the life safety of and property within the city. So the key goal here is to protect life safety. You know, when South Boulder Creek floods and over tops us 36, it directly impacts an area that's commonly referred to as the West Valley includes Fraser Meadows, Kiwi meadows, and East Boulder neighborhoods. The mitigation project itself will ultimately protect approximately 2,300 residents in this area 260 structures that are downstream. From this location there were 6 key principles that really drove the strategy for the design of the project. They included floodplain mapping to objectively calculate benefits of different alternatives that were evaluated. The the inclusion of this spillway and floodwall along us. 36, and then an associated flood outlet that allows water to discharge beneath the road and prevent that overtopping condition.

[223:10] The constructability and the importance of limiting impacts to Osmp property, which we'll talk a little bit about here shortly and then maintaining existing groundwater conditions and also contributing to the much larger environmental mitigation plan for the 119 acres that are not adjacent to this area as part of the Cu sound property. So quick overview of the entirety of the project consists of a regional detention area that's upstream of in the area of the larger C South property. You can see that's shown there in the dash down line the area to the east, on the right hand side of the screen shows that existing Osm. P property that's outside of the city limits and within the county jurisdiction. The major kind of project components. There's a large earthen embankment, a detention excavation area. the outlet works and the spillway and flood wall which also then includes that groundwater conveyance system beneath the road

[224:13] and the environmental restoration area to the to the Cu sound property. Once the existing levy is is removed tonight, we're gonna focus more specifically on the floodwall spillway itself, because that is what is directly related to the annexation request. That includes city owned land, and then also the adjacent CD right of way. I'll explain that here in more detail. Just shortly zooming into this particular area. You can see the On the Graphic. It may be a little bit difficult to see, but there's a blue hatch area that's just on the southern side of the Us. 36 right of way. That's the location and the area that's needed for construction of that floodwall component. The the area of that property is approximately 4.1 acres in size

[225:05] it's already owned by the city of Boulder. It's currently managed by Osmp and ultimately about half of that area. So about 2.2 acres will be transferred to management of that 2.2 acres will be transferred to the utilities department. Once the flood wall is constructed and that will occur through an open space disposal process. and then the other half or so that about 1.9 acres will be used on a temporary basis by utilities during the construction of the of the flood wall, but then will ultimately be continued to be managed by books, and P. Going forward. The spillway and the floodwall itself, as I mentioned, are located on city-owned property. They're close to the C dive right of way as possible in order to minimize the impacts on that Osmp property the construction area and the Associated Annexation are really needed in order to permit and build the floodwall structure, but also going forward. So utilities, crews can perform ongoing operations and maintenance of that structure and facility over time.

[226:17] I'm sorry, Christopher. Could you clarify? Who are we annexing that land from? Is that city own land already? Is that it? Is? That's correct. Yes, it's city on land, currently. So it's it's we're annexing ourselves. As part of this. But it does include that C dot right away area. So that's obviously under different ownership. So that's partly why we're going through the the sort of standard petitions annexation process as opposed to doing more legislative annexation. I'm not sure I entirely understand that, but I'm sure it will be more explained, and I interject real quickly. Ii think. It's unincorporated county, but city owned land so correct to get it into the city city limits

[227:04] would require annexation. Gotcha. So it's in area 2 currently, but we own it. Thank you. So, moving forward then, quickly, just to give you a kind of brief update on the design of the flood wall. It's still way. The concept is still being finalized and refined. It's it's in about in a 60 design stage, currently it will incorporate grading and landscape materials, particularly the Us. 36. Side to better blend with the surrounding environment and reduce the potential for vandalism of the wall. and also minimize the visibility of that upon entry into the city, along the highway. And it as as we continue to sort of further refine that

[228:02] looking at opportunities to incorporate additional grading and changes in grading. So it it avoids a really kind of monotonous engineered design and becomes more naturalistic. We're discussing a lot of these concepts with with Cdot and city transportation staff, as well as several staff landscape architects within planning and development services, including Chris Ricardello, and myself and Kathleen King are also both professional landscape architecture. And so we're working with our utilities, partners, and others to to review the design of this as it comes forward. So moving, then, into the proposed annexation, you know this. This certainly falls directly within planning Board's purview, and that's really the purpose of of why we're here this evening is to give you a bit of an update on this. There's a number of associated things that are happening, and and we'll talk about all of those as well.

[229:00] Really, the the goal here of of this matters, items just to provide an overview of the information on the proposed annexation. II will not get into the full sort of evaluation of criteria and staff recommendation. We'll hold that and present that to you in about a month, when we come back for the public hearing in March. so the purpose of the annexation is to help really overall sort of help. The team think creatively about the design, give us some some flexibility in terms of interdepartmental coordination in in particular, really understanding and facilitating that permitting process, and the ultimately the construction of the floodwall spillway. Bringing this all with into the city will provide for greater sort of jurisdictional clarity about who's you know? Who's in charge? Who's responsible for permitting and really enable that smoother coordination amongst a number of different departments that are involved here. And that applies to not only sort of the phase that we're in currently in terms of permitting, but also through construction, and ultimately the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility going forward.

[230:16] So this is an overview aerial image of that proposed annexation area. You can see in the yellow dash line. It does include the C dot right of way. So the you're probably familiar with the foothills, parkway, and table mesa interchange there. It includes that portion, and in the sort of orange red area just to the south of the right of bay, that is, that 4 acre, a slightly greater than 4 acre area of city-owned land that is currently in the county. and would be annexed into into the city. The the overall scale, or the overall size of the proposed annexation is about 27 acres a little bit more than that, and just for reference, this is within that Boulder county jurisdiction it's currently zoned is rural, residential.

[231:05] It is within area 3. So the city owned portion. The city Christopher. We have a clarification question from Mike. Yeah. on that page, because that could you go back one page. So where it says in Red City owned area, is that referencing the area above the type in yellow and yellow dash and orange. Or is that referencing the entire area bounded by the red border? It's a it's the latter. The city actually owns that entire parcel. But we are only proposing to annex in that 4.1 acre portion. That's just south of the C dot right away. What? What is the city? What is currently annexed that is adjacent to the proposed annexation? Do? Don't we have to have contiguity

[232:03] to annex a property. Yes, and we there is contiguity all on the western and northern side. The city also owns land that's to the north of the C dot right of way as well. Okay. And will the area south and west, I guess of in in the area where it says city owned area will that become Osmp property. It already is Yup. It's already city owned and currently managed by Osmp, and that will remain. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yep. Yeah. And as we as we get into the QAI could probably pull up a Gis map. That would that would show where that city on property is that's helpful as part of the discussion. Okay, thank you, Christopher. Please go on. Yeah. Thank you.

[233:01] Just a few more slides here. So you can see within the proposed annexation area. This, the portion of city owned property that's south of of the highway is within area 3 and portions of the right away itself are are split between area 2 and area 3. You can see the interchange portion is in area 2, and then the portion that's to the east is within area 3. Now, normally, you know, we don't consider area 3 properties as part of annexations. But there is specific policy language. that areas re properties can be annexed if they meet very specific criteria. And this is one case where where it does they do need to be publicly owned. So property needs to be publicly owned. In this case it's owned by the city. It is intended, or must be intended to remain in area 3. There is a classification called Area 3 annexe, which is a bit unique in that it's area 3 and

[234:04] tended to remain as open space and rural preservation, but is actually within the city boundary it will not require a full range of urban services or that the area is being included within the city's jurisdiction for health, welfare and safety reasons. As another point of reference just in terms of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Land use designations. So it's it's a bit of a split choose your own adventure here. There's some open space acquired which is the city owned property. That would primarily be used for that construction of the flood wall and spillway. And then there's portions of the Cdoc right of way that fall within the public semi-public, and then the park urban. Other land use designation.

[235:00] The zoning in the surrounding area is primarily public, as you can see on the west and on the north side. As part of the annexation, we would be required to identify and establish a A A zone district here. The proposal that's included within the annexation application is to continue with and apply the public zoning to that area. It's defined within our code as some public areas in which public and semi public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and educational uses. And so we'll you know, provide additional information on that terms of its logical extension of of city zoning. But that is what is included currently within the annotation proposal. And then, finally, next steps there, as I mentioned, there's a there's kind of an overlapping suite of things that are all in play as part of this process.

[236:04] First, the construction of the floodwall and spillway includes as I mentioned earlier, includes this request for the transfer of management of us, so that city on land from Osmp oversight to utilities management. That will need to occur through an open space disposal process. So both ospt and Council will take action on the disposal. request. Second, is the annexation proposal that we just reviewed. So you yourselves, planning board and council, will take action on that item, and then finally. the mapping and functional evaluation of wetlands on the larger sea south properties that's to adjacent to the West Must also be adopted by council, and that's gonna occur through a separate ordinance. As you are aware, Wetland mapping is typically included at the time of annexation. But when the Csail property was annexed through the annexation agreement.

[237:01] it was established that that procedure and and that mapping would occur at a later date through a separate process. So that is also being included as part of this. And just so you have an awareness of some of the dates and and things that will be happening over the next couple of months. The Osbt and City Council are gonna be hosting a joint public hearing on February 22, regarding that open space disposal. Request. Osbt will deliberate and ultimately make a decision at their regular March thirteenth meeting. The annexation request. So the Resolution and the ordinance for that will be introduced on the City Council Docket on February fifteenth. Planning Board. As I mentioned, we are scheduled to host the public hearing with you, and then you will have the opportunity to take action on March fifth and then on that C use out wetland mapping that will be introduced for first reading with City Council on March seventh and then all 3 of those items will come forward for public hearings and action on the city council. Agenda, March twenty-first.

[238:13] So we've got, you know, 3 3 separate processes that we are aligning to, you know all eventually reach City Council on March 20 first. That's the that's the target date. And and really, that goal of March twenty-first is is primarily focused around maintaining the anticipated construction schedule and timing for the project our utilities. Staff have done a really tremendous job to, you know. Get that organized and and strategize coming into beginning construction hopefully before the end of this year. And so we wanna make sure that we can support that and help facilitate that. And with that that is that's the end of the presentation. So we are happy to answer questions, and as I mentioned. We have both utilities and OS. And P. Staff here this evening. As well.

[239:08] Thank you so much, Christopher. I can't speak for everybody here, but as someone who was not part of the See you South Annexation, that was extremely helpful. I really appreciate hearing what you are doing to try to coordinate the very complicated process to make this a reality. Other board members. Do you have any questions? Let's start with clarifying questions. And then, if there's discussion. We can do that. I see. Kurt. Oh, yeah, Christopher, thanks for that presentation. That was great. I wasn't. And and I apologize. You might have said this, and I missed it, but it wasn't clear to me why we need to annex the Cdot property as opposed to just this bill way and wall area. Yeah, that's a great. That's a great question. Current. Thanks. We did analyze that. And that was one of the options that we had originally kind of we're proceeding down that process. What we ultimately made the decision to do and include that C dot right of way is that particularly

[240:11] as I mentioned the design of the of the flood wall on the along the highway, there's there's really a desire to help soften that. And so, including landscape and and grading along that edge. we we pretty quickly determined that there was likely going to be some some level of disturbance within the C dot right of way. Now we will. We will still need to get permits for changes within that right of way area. But having that under city jurisdiction and and not within the county will help will help facilitate. You know that that permitting process, so that ultimately is why we included the C dot right away as well. Okay, thanks. And I think you that you did say that. And it didn't register the first time. But yeah, the other question just quickly, and this is probably a minor issue. But do you know, if there are like traffic enforcement ramifications, then

[241:08] from the fact that now, all of a sudden, we or have jurisdiction over a larger portion of us. 36. I we did talk about that, and rather than give you an incorrect answer. I would love to be able to follow up with our, you know, with other departments on on that, and just confirm that I believe I believe that. Yes, there, you know, there will be some additional you know, police and other, you know, traffic related transportation related oversight. Of the area. But as a Federal highway you know State patrol. So provides a lot of those services already. But but II can. I can jot that down as a question, and follow up with with a clear answer. You don't need to. That's that's fine, that that's a good opportunity. Thank you. Great!

[242:00] Thank you for those questions, Kurt. Anybody else have clarifying questions. seeing n10, mark! The current multi-use path on the south west edge of Highway 36. And is that going to be dug up, moved, and part of the softening process? And you? You showed it one of the one of the images kind of showed that the the flood wall actually kind of undulating, and some trees and stuff, so that the whole thing to try to minimize vandalism. So what will the multi-use path stay on that south side of 36? And will it be Redone to be a more interesting but be part of the softening of the floodwall. I we don't have a clear decision on that just yet. We are coordinating with our transportation staff and others to you know, to ensure that that facility obviously remains. You know, remains functional. I think there's a a question as to

[243:12] you know the desire for that to be a a fairly, you know, fairly rapid. You know, bicycle. Multi use bicycle focus. Multi use path versus something that might be more meandering. I think those are. Those are the questions that we're just trying to resolve right now. So I think it's possible that it could be altered in some fashion. But as far as its overall geographic location it would remain on that side of the highway before crossing over to the north side. Great. Thanks very much. Yeah. Thank you. Mark any other clarifying questions. Okay, we can have discussion. And just as a reminder, there's no action required of us tonight. This is just a heads up for us to make it smoother when they come back to us for an annexation decision and get some of our base knowledge up up to speed

[244:04] any discussion tonight. I don't see any. So, Christopher, thank you so much, and thank you to your colleagues for joining us, even though we didn't get to talk to them. We appreciate that they're here. We look forward to seeing you when you come back sounds good. Thank you. Okay. Next item on our agenda. Kurt, do you mind if I crib off of you? We have one more matters. Item, this is an information item and update on the Boulder airport community conversation. I see there's no presentation. Who's handling this item? no one here tonight. But if you have feedback. I'm happy to make sure that it gets transmitted to the right place, or if there's feedback that folks want to send me directly. There wasn't a contact in the memo for who to send it to directly. So if there is comment on

[245:00] the memo, you can send it to me directly, and I'll make sure that it gets to the right place. Okay, so there was an informational memo in our packet that hopefully, we all had a chance to read. Does anybody have any questions or feedback that they want Charles to convey to the transportation department? I don't see any. But thank you for including that memo in our packet. It's really good to to get that update. Thank you so much. Are there any other matters from staff. nothing from staff to night. Okay. Matters from the city attorney's office. Nothing from me, either. Thanks, thank you, Hela. Anything from members of the planning board. Any matters you want to bring up. I have one quick item before we go. Okay, I'll say my quick item is, you know, since Lisa unfortunately had to resign. We don't have a vice chair between now, and when we redo our officers in April, Hella, do we need to have a vice chair to attend like the agenda set a meeting agenda, setting meetings and so forth.

[246:03] Yeah, I think it would be good to appoint a vice chair. It didn't occur to me, either, until we were without one today. Yes. So I'm not gonna suggest that we do that tonight. I think Sarah might have some input on that. But maybe everybody be thinking about if you would like to be vice chair between now. And when we reelect officers the the schedule for appointment. People roll off in. Well, what meeting will be? The first meeting for new Board members should be the first meeting in April, right first meeting in April. Thank you. So you would be signing up. And what are the duties of the vice chair? Just so that we're all clear. Well, generally the vice chair chairs the meeting, if the chair is absent. But it's the vice to always attended our agenda meetings. It depends on the chair. If they're they have availability. They'll attend, but they're not required.

[247:01] So before abort, meaning the Monday before the Tuesday at one we have an agenda meeting that usually takes no more than 30 min to kind of talk about what's what's on on the agenda, how long we think each item takes and just plan that through, and the vice chair is is may attend, but it's not absolutely necessary if the chair is there. Okay, you said. It's on the Monday before. So the day before the planning. And what time? At one Pm. One pm. Okay, thank you hopefully. That gives everybody something to chew on and think about. If you might want to be vice chair any commentary or thoughts before on that item before we close it. I would only say that while I never chaired the Transportation Advisory Board. I was vice chair and the the addition of

[248:00] a second person. At the agenda meeting. I found it to be very valuable and valuable to the chair, valuable to myself and better should the chair not be able to attend anyway. So II think it's a some boards do it differently where the where the vice chair almost never attends. Sometimes some boards do it where the vice chair almost always attends, recommend the latter. So if you're thinking about vice chairing, then that that Monday at 10'clock, I think, is an important thing to be part of. you mean, so that somebody isn't caught flat-footed in the middle of a meeting, having to share it. The burden is shared of trying to just think about everything. And anyway, I think it's I think it's a good addition. I think it's a good suggestion. Any other thoughts on this topic.

[249:04] If you guys could call up more of Edwards items. I just really like having him at planning board, and I think he makes an excellent plan or does an excellent presentation. I was gonna say, during a phone call Kurt and I had. I would say, not speaking for curt that Edward wasn't really super happy with us. Call alright. So I'm gonna close that agenda. Item, anything else from members of the board. I move we adjourn. So here, second, second, any objections all in favor hands.

[250:02] Alright. Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you. Everybody.