August 27, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Okay. Great I'm gonna call this meeting to order for the the planning board meeting for August 27.th we're going to start things off with public participation. Thank you. And we've just had a question in the QA. About how to speak, so I'll go through that. and it'll make more sense. Okay, so I'll just read these rules for public participation. Thanks, Thomas, for sharing the slides. And thank you, members of the public for being with us tonight. We want you to know that the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about this on our website.

[1:00] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, these will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impede the ability to conduct. The meeting are prohibited, and participants are required to identify themselves by their 1st and last name. Next slide, please. So we are in the zoom format. So it means that community members who are joining us can only speak when we. They are unmuted, and and there will be 2 opportunities to speak tonight. One is the open comment period, which is an opportunity for community members to speak about anything that is not related to the public hearing item which comes later in the agenda, and then there will be the presentations, and the public hearing will come later, and that will be a second opportunity for community members to speak. So when we call for community members to speak, please raise your virtual hand, and you can do that by clicking on these little hand icons that you'll see on your screen, and if you're joining us by phone, you would raise your virtual hand by Dialing Star 9, and we'll see it and know that you want to speak and then call on you next slide. And there's just another way to get to this hand is by clicking on the reactions.

[2:23] So those are the rules. And now we can move into open comment. If that's okay, share. Yes, absolutely. Let's do it. Okay. so this would be an opportunity for, and Claudia is here. I'll just promote her to panelists. This would be an opportunity for anyone to speak to something, not on the public hearing. Item. We'll just give folks few seconds to see if there's anybody who's here to speak for open comment. and it looks like not so. I think people are maybe here for the public hearing. Item over to you. Chair. so so there, there! There is a comment in the chat. Am I blocked for given opportunity to speak? That that person doesn't want to speak in public comment.

[3:12] their hand is not raised. So, Robin, if you would like to speak now go ahead and raise your virtual hand, otherwise we'll be sure to call on you later. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Looks good. For flagging that. Yeah. Alright! Great we're gonna go to the approval of the minutes for the meeting that was held on 6, 1820 24. Does anyone have any comments? If not, would anyone like to make a motion to approve them? I will make a motion to approve the minutes. Great. Second, opinion. Awesome. Alright. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Looks like all of us were there, Kurt. Yes. Mark. Yes. And now. Yes. Claudia.

[4:00] Yes. Mason made some nods. I don't know. If. Do we need a. Seconded it. Yeah. Yeah. Great Laura. Yes. And me. I'm a yes as well. Those minutes are approved. Thanks, everybody. I don't think there's any discussion of dispositions or call ups or continuation. So we're gonna go straight to our public hearing item, which is a public hearing and consideration of the following related to an area of land at 28 0 1 j. Road number one, boulder boulder valley, comprehensive plan, land use, map designation, change from public to mixed use, residential Lu. R. 2023 0 0 1 9, and the recommendation on a petition to annex an approximately 4.8 6 acre area of land at 28 0. 1 J. Road, including adjacent right of way with initial zoning designation of residential mixed use to Lur 2023, 0 0 1 8.

[5:16] I think I'll pass it back over to yeah. Go ahead, Mark. I in the name of being fully transparent. I need to say that my son Reid Mcintyre, the owner of heartwood tree. Care has done work for the contract work for the applicant. Over the last couple of years. I have never met the applicant never spoken to them, or there anyone on their team, or anything else other than the Concept Review. We did back in late 2022. But I I do have a familial

[6:02] relationship distant, albeit and so I'm divulging that. And I think I can be a fair and impartial judge in tonight's. But just want to divulge that in case anyone has any objections. Thank you. Hello! Do we need any additional clarification? Are you okay? With that. No, that's fine! Great! Claudia. I also have a disclosure. When a project at this site went through Concept review in December 2022 that's before I was a member of this board I met at that time with the developer. And I wrote a short article about that concept review in an email newsletter for local housing adventistic group. Be happy to answer more questions about that. If they're Jermaine.

[7:02] Hello! Claudia. The organization that you're working for was that a nonprofit organization. Yes, it's a group called the Boulder Housing Network, and it's a grassroots Advocacy group. And you were working as a volunteer for the organization. Yes. And you can be fair and impartial in reviewing and taking action on this application. Yes, I believe so. Thank you. Done that, does it? Thanks for disclosures. Anybody else have any disclosures before we move forward. Great. And I think we can begin the public hearing with hearing comment from the public. George, don't we typically have a staff presentation first? st Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry I'm I'm skipping ahead. Yes, staff presentation. Thanks. Laura. Appreciate it.

[8:02] Great. Well, thanks so much. Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to introduce Shannon Moler. She is the planning manager and planning and development services. She'll be presenting Staff's analysis this evening. So, Shannon, take it away. Thanks, Charles. I think I just need my screen sharing enabled really quick, so I can share my presentation. I just made you co-host, Shannon, so you should be good to go with that now. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. alright wonderful. Can everyone see that? Great? And can everyone hear me? Okay, am I talking loud enough? Awesome. Okay. Well, I will go ahead and get started here. So wonderful! My name is Shannon Moller. I'm with the city of Boulder Planning department, and I'm here tonight to give you a presentation on this proposal for a Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan, land, use, map, change, and to annex and initially zone the property at 28 0. 1 j.

[9:14] So the purpose of this proposal is to allow the property to be annexed in the city and establish a land, use, designation and zoning that would allow for future redevelopment of the property, including for permanently affordable housing. Let's see forward here. So we'll look at the required review processes. History of the property existing site and surroundings. Summary of the proposal and key issue for discussion. So this proposal involves 2 review processes which are the Bvcp land use map change and the annexation and initial zoning the Bvcb Land use map change can be considered concurrent with an annexation proposal, and it's reviewed under the criteria in Appendix B of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

[10:02] and this requires action by both the Planning board and by city council. The second part of the review is the annexation and initial zoning. This requires review of State statutes and Bvcp. Policies. The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to city council. Whether or not the annexation should be approved, and the terms and zoning that should be applied. So both the Bbcb land use map change, and the annexation and initial zoning would then be heard by city council at a future public hearing for public notification. The site was posted, and public notification was provided per code. Some public comments were received on this item, and those included concerns regarding transportation and traffic density and compatibility with the area. Some comments were also received in support of the proposed permanently affordable housing, and those written public comments were included in the Board's packet for some additional historical context. I'll go through a little prior review history. Back in 2,015 the Planning Board considered a Concept Plan Review, consisting of 94, a permanently affordable dwelling units in larger format buildings. The planning board and staff recommended at that time a lower density than the 94 units proposed at the time, then in 2,016 as part of a Bvcp. Update. The city, reviewed a request to amend the Comp plan designation on the site.

[11:28] The proposal at the time requested Mxr. And City staff at the time recommended medium density residential. That proposal was subsequently withdrawn, and then also in 2,016, an annexation and site review were also reviewed by Staff, but again those items were withdrawn. The proposal at the time included 66 units a neighborhood daycare, and a cafe. and then most recently, in 2,022, both Planning board and City Council reviewed a concept plan on this item and provided helpful feedback at that time approximately 84 dwelling units were proposed in a mix of duplex, triplex and townhome units. A Bvcp. Land use map change was proposed at the time to mxr and annexation with Rmx. 2. Zoning was also proposed.

[12:16] which is the same as tonight's proposal at the time planning board was supportive of the proposed Rmx. 2. Zoning but and was not concerned with the specific Bvcp Land use designation so much as more concerned with the eventual design of the proposal, and at the City Council. Hearing on the concept plan the proposed Mxr. Land use, and the Rmx. 2. Zoning received unanimous support, and both planning board and city council, provided helpful design, feedback and suggestions on the design of the concept plan. So next we'll look more closely at the site and its context in the city's plans and regulatory framework. So again, we're located at 28 0. 1 J. Road in unincorporated Boulder County, just northeast of the intersection of 28th Street, us 36, and J. Road.

[13:07] This is an approximately 4.5 8 acre property just east of city limits. The proposal would also include annexation of 0 point 2 8 acres of J road, right of way that's adjacent to the site. And here you can see a picture of the site. Currently on the site is an existing church building, parking lot and a telecommunications facility. The surrounding area to the north and east is characterized by low density, single family residential development and rural, undeveloped properties in unincorporated Boulder County. Here you can see some of the surrounding neighbourhoods identified in these photos at the top of the slide. You can see rural areas to the north of the site and below that is the intersection of J. And Us. 36. There are some properties owned by the Lubovitch synagogue and Lutheran Church, on the south side of J road, and at the bottom of the screen are some examples of the types of homes that exist in nearby neighborhoods.

[14:12] Here you can see a couple of master plans that are relevant to this site. On the left you can see a large park property owned by the city that is located a ways north of the site within the planning reserve. That park area is planned for long term future needs. And at this time there's no development plans for that park space. On the right you can see some of the existing and proposed transportation connections near the site. There are existing on street bike routes, and a planned multi-use path is identified in the transportation master plan that's intended to connect to that future park space up to the north. So the subject property is located in Area 2 of the Bvcp. Which is the area under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered.

[15:02] The property is adjacent to area one, which is the land within the city and adjacent to Area 3, which is the planning reserve. The city is currently in the process of performing an urban services study, which is a preliminary step to help understand the scope of providing city services to Area 3 and weighing potential costs and benefits. The existing underlying Bbcp land use. Designation currently is public, which reflects the current religious assembly use public land use designations, encompass a wide range of public and private nonprofit uses. and the applicant has proposed Mxr. Mixed density, residential BBC land use designation. This designation is intended for developments that provide a substantial amount of affordable housing and a variety of housing types and densities, and it could allow between 6 to 20 units per acre.

[16:00] The existing zoning on the property is Boulder County unincorporated, zoning rr rural, residential, which is residential areas developed at a density and character compatible with agricultural uses. This Rr. Zoning exists to the northeast and southeast of the property, and there's also some suburban residential counties own properties further southeast and within city limits, the properties near a mix of residential zoning across us. 36, including rl. One rl. 2 and Rr. One. This proposal includes annexation, an initial zoning designation of Rmx. 2. Residential mix 2, which is a zoning intended to accommodate a mix of residential densities per the city's intensity standards the Rmx. 2. Zoning allows a density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre by right, with additional density, bonuses up to 20 units per acre that can be requested through the Site review process. The density bonus requires the Site Review criteria to be met, and for increasing percentages of affordable housing to be provided to achieve those higher densities up to a maximum of 20 units per acre.

[17:16] Sure. the Rmx. 2. Zoning also requires that a mix of housing types be provided, such as town homes, duplexes, triplexes, or other housing types. So I'm going to move into some additional information and context about the proposal. Jumping back just briefly to the concept plan that was reviewed by the planning board back in 2,022. That concept plan contemplated the same Mxr land use designation, and the same annexation and initial zoning of Rmx. 2. That is proposed tonight. The concept plan provided a conceptual layout and images related to a potential design and a proposed layout that would incorporate fee, simple lots and private streets with a substantial amount of

[18:00] on site affordable housing. The concept plan is a time for identifying key issues and concerns, and some of the items that were noted at the time included concerns about the location of the site. Access on the neighboring property to the East. Compatibility of the design with the surrounding area design considerations identified by staff as well as transportation and traffic concerns shared by surrounding neighbors. At the time of the concept plan hearings the applicant received generally positive feedback on the proposed land, use map change, and proposed annexation and initial zoning from the planning board and city council, and also received feedback on the conceptual design based on this feedback, the applicant chose to move forward with applications for just the land use, map, change and annexation initial zoning. At this time. If these applications are approved. they would then return for a future site. Review application that would involve a detailed review of a future design proposal.

[19:03] So again, tonight's proposal is specific to the Mxr land use and the annexation, and Rmx. 2 initial zoning and the relevant criteria and key issues. So the proposal continues, excuse me. As part of this review process of these items the applicant and staff reached an agreement on terms of an annexation agreement that would apply to the site and to any future development that would take place. So during the review process several items were clarified that informed staff support for the final proposal. These items included dedication of the Eastern 30 feet of the property as a new public right of way to ensure that the impacts of transportation improvements are not a burden on adjacent properties in the county, and also ensures that the public access to properties to the north. In area 3 are available. Should those properties ever be brought into the city. The proposal also clarified the minimum transportation improvements that will be required at the time of a future redevelopment as traffic and transportation. Safety was a key concern at the time of the concept plan. This proposal also includes compatibility standards in the agreement

[20:15] to address the relationship from the site to surrounding areas, and it includes an on-site affordable housing requirement of 30%. The proposed agreement also ensures that a site review process will be required and provides for flexibility and options for the project at the time of a future site review to ensure the proposal remains financially feasible. So I'm going to move through some of these annexation agreement terms, and I have 3 slides like this. So bear with me. This 1st slide is focused on infrastructure and existing conditions. So in this 1st group, we can see that the agreement requires several right of way deeds and dedications. Including to clean up title within J. Road to dedicate right of way for future streetscape improvements in J road, and to dedicate that Eastern 30 feet

[21:07] of property for public right of way. That right of way will accommodate a 2 way vehicular access, a tree lawn and detached sidewalk, and the dedication of these right of way areas ensures that there's adequate area provided for necessary transportation improvements in the future and ensures the development of future access along that eastern edge of the property can be achieved without impacting the property in the county to the east. The agreement also ensures adequate transportation. Improvements to J. Road and Us. 36 are provided at the time of redevelopment, and provides for the future multi-use path consistent with the transportation master Plan. The agreement provides for allowances for the existing uses that will remain. The existing church is proposed to remain until redevelopment of the site. It also allows for the telecom tower to remain as is required by the existing lease until that lease is terminated.

[22:06] The agreement also includes standards, requirements, such as connections to the city's wastewater utility and payment of standard stormwater plan investment fees. So, moving to the next slide, this one is a summary of the required community benefit for the property so consistent with Bvcp annexation policies which require provision of community benefit for properties with substantial development potential. This agreement requires at least 30% of the new dwelling units on the property. To be for sale permanently affordable units, either through construction or through conveyance of prepared lots. So cash in lieu is not an option for meeting this requirement. This agreement also includes construction standards related to minimum sizes, parking design, quality, and pricing requirements to ensure the proposed units meet the city's goals for providing middle income affordable housing. This also ensures that affordable housing owners will have access to the same site amenities as market rate unit owners

[23:14] and moving to slide 3. Here on the agreement terms. This, one shows the required compatibility, requirements, density, calculations, and some provisions for flexibility that can be requested at the time of a future site. Review. So, starting with the design and compatibility requirements, the agreement requires a future site review to ensure that the future design proposal is reviewed through that process. The compatibility, requirements, outline standards for the design of that Eastern 30 foot right of way that is dedicated which allows for required vehicular access as well as a physical separation from a future development and the county properties to the East. The requirements also limit buildings along the eastern and northeastern property lines to 2 stories above grade, and require sloped roof forms to provide for compatibility with residential properties in the county.

[24:11] and it requires shared usable open space to be located along that same Eastern property line to enhance the visual and physical separation again, from the properties in the county, and lastly, the property would be subject to these stipulations, and not to any area, plans, or design guidelines. If the proposal is submitted prior to January 1, st 2,027. This is to allow the applicant a period of relative certainty. While they're preparing design documents moving to the density calculations for this site. Through this annexation review process the applicant agreed to the dedication of a substantial portion of right of way along that Eastern property line. In acknowledgement of this, and in light of the fact that a final design of the site and street layout is not yet known.

[25:00] This agreement allows for the density of the site to be calculated, based on the size of the site that exists today rather than the calculation being reduced. Following right of way dedications. This is intended to acknowledge the important right of way dedication that's been agreed to, and to support the financial viability of the overall proposal which is dependent on providing enough market rate units to support the provision of the affordable unit. Additionally, this agreement notes that the requirements of the Rmx. 2 zoning district, which require certain affordable housing percentages to be met to achieve a higher overall density must still be met through the site review process to determine the final approved density. The agreement encourages more total market rate units, but does allow for increases in the size of the market rate. Units should viewer units ultimately be achieved on the site, and, lastly, provisions are included which allow the applicant to request certain modifications through the Site Review process.

[26:00] These include the ability to provide private streets, which may be proposed to allow for individual fee. Simple lot development rather than condos, and flexibility is also included to ensure that solar access modifications could be requested during Site Review, if necessary, for 0 lot line development, such as providing town homes on individual lots. So as we discussed because tonight's proposal doesn't include a site Review. A future site review would be required and necessary to review a future development proposal against the Site Review criteria, the Annexation Agreement terms and determine the final design and density of a proposal following a site review items such as technical documents, plats, and building permits are typical requirements. And so. Lastly, I'll move into a summary of the key issues. These are the 3 key issues for tonight for key issue. One is the proposed annexation consistent with State statutes and Bbcp policies. Staff has reviewed the annexation petition for compliance with State statutes. These include requirements for contiguity and other requirements of the petition and map

[27:14] staff found. The application is consistent with these statutory annexation requirements. Staff also reviewed the proposal against Bvcp policies and found it to be consistent with annexation policies. Staff also found the proposal consistent with the general goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bvcp. In particular housing related policies as the proposal creates opportunities for permanently affordable housing supports a mixture of housing types and provides for integration of affordable housing on site staff also found the terms included in the Annexation agreement allows the proposal to meet additional policies supporting compatibility with adjacent land uses through the compatibility and right of way dedication requirements of the agreement which provide an area of transition and visual visual and physical separation from the properties in the county, and through the requirements of the agreement for the proposal to be reviewed through a future site review to establish a final design.

[28:16] So moving to key issue 2. The Bvcp land use map change is proposed to Update the existing land use map designation from public to Mxr. Mixed density residential. A land use map change can be considered concurrent with an annexation request and is considered under the criteria listed on this slide Staff found the proposal was consistent with the criteria for a land use map change as noted on the previous slide. The proposal is consistent with many Bvcp policies, including many related to the provision of permanently affordable housing, which is a key component of the Mxr. Land use designation the proposal ensures. There are not cross jurisdictional impacts.

[29:01] The proposal would not materially affect the land use or growth projections or affect the adequacy or availability of urban services or the cip and doesn't change the area. 2 area, 3 boundaries. and for key issue 3 when a property is annexed, a zoning district will be established for the property consistent with the Boulder Revised Code as noted on the Prior Slide. The application includes the request for a land use map change, and the review of this concurrent zoning proposal assumes this land. Use map change to Mxr. The Mxr. Land use is characterized by provision as a substantial amount of affordable housing, and a variety of housing types and density ranging from 6 to 20 units per acre. The Rmx Zoning district, which is for medium density. Residential uses that have a mix of density and complementary uses. This zoning district is unique in that it requires a variety of housing types, and the density bonuses must be requested through the Site Review process in order to to achieve the highest densities. A density of 10 dwelling units per acre is permitted by right.

[30:13] but up to 20 units per acre can be requested through the provision of increasing percentages of on-site affordable housing. The Rmx. 2 zoning district is a newer zoning district in the city that was established to promote the provision of on-site affordable housing, and has been typically used for proposals in which an annexation is requested that does involve a provision of substantial amount. Affordable housing staff finds that the proposed Rmx. 2. Zoning district, including its allowed residential uses emphasis on affordable housing and controls on density and design through the site. Review process is appropriate for the site helps ensure compatibility and is consistent with the Mxr. Land use and the goals of the Bvcp.

[31:03] So with that staff recommends these 2 motions for approval of the Bvcp land, use map change, and a recommendation to city Council to approve the proposed annexation and initial zoning, and happy to take any questions. Thank you, Shannon. It's a lot of detail to get through. We appreciate that. Does anyone have any questions? Go ahead, ml. Thank you. And thank you, Shannon. I I found your presentation to be nicely concise and giving us everything we need. So it generated a few questions for me. Let me see. Did you have a map that showed the current and adjacent Bdcp Land use designation.

[32:04] This is the current Bbcp map. Okay? So the gray is county. Is that correct? What is the gray. Yeah, I think it's it's just counting. I don't. I think that's the area that is. Unincorporated. Yeah, it's not. Yeah. That's right. And what is VLR, okay. That is very low density. And Lr is low density, low. Yes. yeah. All her is low density. Right. So You were saying that this Meet the Bbcp compatibility. So how how does he propose land use of higher density?

[33:00] How is that compatible with very low density and low density? Just help me understand the thinking here. Yeah, I think that the compatibility has more to do with the eventual design of the site. And so that was one of the items that staff looked at through the Annexation agreement was to work through some conditions of that agreement to ensure the compatibility at the edges of the site. So it isn't about compatibility with the land use. which is really what we're dealing with here is changing land use and zoning. Yeah, there isn't a there isn't really a comparison or a specific requirement for a land use to an adjacent land use to necessarily be compatible in terms of design. I think our land uses are more establishing. Just kind of the vision for that area.

[34:02] Right that was going to be my next sort of follow up question to myself. Here was so by making this higher density and mixed is that in anticipation of higher density developments potentially happening in that area. 3 is that is that the thinking. I think there was support on when it was discussed at the Council. Public hearing. I think that Council was had expressed interest in in looking at Area 3, for Staff's perspective. That's not something we're looking at. We're more looking at the criteria in the Bvcp regarding changes to a land use map change? Does it meet those criteria does the zoning meet the criteria for initial zoning and that sort of thing? Okay? And last question, in your annexation

[35:00] agreement designing compatibility. So you establish kind of a 2 story above grade requirement. I guess it's on the was it on the east eastern edge, and all? Is there a height limit associated with those 2 stores? We didn't include a change to the city's typical height limit. So it would just be reviewed under our typical standards of how we typically measure height. So what would be? What is the height, the maximum height allowed in our Mx. 2. Cause it would go back to that. You're saying it would. Yeah. And what is? Yeah. if memory serves, I believe it's 35 feet. That's our standard on in most zoning districts. So 35 feet measured from the low point within 25 foot of each structure. Okay? So they could be tall. 2 stories

[36:01] as long as they're not more than 2 stories is that is that the idea of limiting it sounded to me like the idea of limiting it to 2 stories was to limit the scale. But that's not so. If we don't limit also the actual height. They could be 35 feet, which is potentially 3 stores. Well, I think the the way it's worded it was the 2 stories above grade, because that's what we would typically see even for even for something like a single family home. It would be pretty typical for 2 stories above grade, plus maybe like a sloped roof. So that's kind of what we were looking at for that that standard is something that would fit in with the single family homes in the neighborhood right. Okay. perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Xml. Mason. Great thanks. So if I'm understanding the history of this this project, these requests

[37:03] we went from. I think it was 100% affordable to 40% last time. And now now to 30. Can you kind of describe? Why, those changes occurred. Yeah. So I wasn't involved in those prior. The applications from 2015, 2016. I think at that time the proposal? It was a different proposal that was larger format buildings. For the proposal. The concept plan in 2022 the proposal was for a 40% affordable requirement or affordable. It was just proposed that way. Through the annexation agreement and and discussions with Staff, we identified that. What we're seeing is that there are challenges for proposals to meet that standard. And so, as part of this agreement, we wanted to make sure there was flexibility for the project to

[38:09] actually be feasible. And so that's why a 30% minimum affordable housing requirement was agreed to. I think the applicant could speak more to what they're hoping to do. If they're hoping to exceed that potentially great. And I know there was some discussion around the legal use of the existing road is the right away. Kind of solve this of those issues. Or maybe there's no issue to start with. Yeah, through the the concept plan proposal. The the issue was raised. In the community. Noting that there was a concern that that I think it was noted at the time of the concept plan, it being like a public highway on the property to the East. As Staff looked at that more, we determined that we would not be in support of placing the necessary access for this development of this property on that

[39:09] separate property in the county. So that's where we agreed with the applicant to move forward with the dedication of of a right of way on this property. Makes sense. And I'm sorry I'm having a bit of a bad memory issue around our discussions on planned Area 3, was the bordering properties in that discussion. And if it was, do you have a sense of where those are in the scenarios? What's planned with those areas. I'm probably not the best person to answer that question. I have not been involved in any of the discussions about area 3. Personally. At least it's probably something that I could look up while while the meeting moves on.

[40:01] Okay, and to be clear, I know not anything is planned. I've used the wrong word there. Just wanted to know what the trying to be. I'm mindful of what what we're talking about with the surrounding areas. And then my last question was, it was also mentioned on the last review that there was potential issues with shallow wells. Is that a concern? Or is that just something that we should visit later inside of you? There. I mean, that's always a concern for all properties. If there happened to be shallow wells or anything of that nature, so I think that was probably just a standard comment that we usually put in. This. Oh, excuse me, go ahead. It was someone who lived in the area on one of the surrounding properties. Okay. Have shallow wells in that the water table, I think they said, was 10 feet. I don't know. It's how accurate that isn't sure they would know. I I don't.

[41:02] They were concerned. That building would disturb their wells. Hmm, okay. yeah. I think that's something that you know. As if the proposal were to move forward into like a site review and a technical document, phase. That would be something our engineering staff would be looking at through their drainage. And those sorts of plans is just to make sure that everything regarding that would going through the correct engineering review. Okay. Thank you. Alright Claudia. Thank you. I'm gonna start with a process question. So please bear with me here. This is the 1st annexation. Hearing that I've been part of as a member of the Board. And I was under. As I understand it, we're making a recommendation to to City Council on annexation. and what I'm curious is, is there a process as with site reviews

[42:01] for recommending conditions or amendments to this annexation agreement that you've put together? Or are we limited to making a yes, no recommendation on this agreement. That's in the packet. I can take the question, Claudia. you can definitely make recommendations to changes to the annexation agreements, and essentially the annexation agreement sets forth the condition of this annexation, and makes them the annexation agreement, if the annexation is approved, would be executed by the city. It has to be executed actually by the applicant before it goes to city council. although there might still be changes negotiated with city council during that hearing process, but after approval. It gets recorded against the property and runs with the land. Proximately 2 approval conditions in a development agreement. Okay, thank you. So then I'll go on to some questions about the actual proposal. A little bit about land use designation.

[43:08] Can anybody tell me when or why this particular parcel was designated area 2. Especially given that it's kind of it's right. Next to what we call area 3. It seems to be a little bit of stuff. Do we have any history on that. Yeah. The incorporation of the area within area 2 seems to have been when the city extended water service to the site which was in the 8 19 eighties. So I believe it. Around that time it was added into area 2. Okay? And then the the Bbcp land use on this site is currently public. Does that mapping predate the existing church at the site? Or was that public designation assigned based on the Church being there when we did that land use map. My understanding is. The map, you know, is intended to reflect that existing use so like a public use for for the church use.

[44:06] Okay? And are there any city master plans or related plans that anticipate future public uses at this location? There aren't any. There aren't any like area plans or anything like that currently on the site. And there aren't any. you know, plans for the city to like, acquire the property, or or place other public uses. There. Okay, so is it. Is it fair to characterize the land? Use map, then, as just being descriptive of a church being on this property. That was my understanding of how it came about. Okay. and then I have a couple of questions about the annexation agreement. I actually have a long list, and I'll let my colleagues ask some of these hopefully. but one that's on my mind is one of the options in the annexation agreement to achieve affordable housing. At the site. Seems to be conveying lots to the city right? So there was an option where the developer of the site would eventually provide affordable housing and construct it on site. There was another way of meeting the requirement that said that they could convey lots to the city, or a city designate

[45:16] to construct affordable housing, but I couldn't see anything in there about how affordable housing would be funded. If that conveyance of lots was chosen. Why is that missing? Is that missing? Is that deliberate. Yeah, I think we have. I'm gonna throw this one to Sloane Walbert on our from our housing staff, and I think she can tell us a little more about that. Thank you. Yeah. So I'm Sloane Walbert. I'm I'm a housing planner and housing and human services. And so you are correct. They have 2 options. Essentially, in meeting the affordable housing requirements. The 1st would be just the standard building it on site as part of the development.

[46:04] and the second option would be to dedicate the land. It's it says to the city, but really we would be conveying it to an affordable housing provider like Bhp habitat someone like that and really the intent of that is to give them some flexibility in meeting the requirements. So one of the things that we've learned more about since they 1st came into apply is we did an update to the inclusionary housing requirements last year, and as part of that we had a consultant do a feasibility. Analysis of our inclusionary housing requirements which are separate from this, but as part of that generally they found that it is infeasible, if not very difficult to do on site for sale housing. I'd like to point out that this is for sale, not rental housing. So we already know generally that it's very difficult to do, and I think they are still hoping to do a 40% requirement. But

[47:05] This was just giving them some feasibility that if they are able to partner with someone like habitat, they could have a plaited lot that's served by utilities that they can hand over to an affordable housing development that can finish up so, to answer your question. they would still be tied together through a site review. So they do need to go through a site review. It has to be considered as one site. so they will still need to build that affordable housing. It just gives them more flexibility in how and when that's done. If that does that answer your question. I'm I'm not sure. So what I'm seeing is a discrepancy between these 2 options in and what financial contribution there would actually be to affordable housing. So in both cases there is land. That would be dedicated to affordable housing. And that's definitely a cost to the project. But in one scenario a developer would would finance that construction themselves. In another scenario the land would simply be given to another entity which would presumably have to bring money to the table, and that seems unequal. Somehow.

[48:17] Yeah. So in the 1st option, they land is not necessarily conveyed correct. So they could condominiumize, and they would just be individual units that are affordable as part of the larger development in this case in order. And we have had some discussions with habitat if they're able to get the land basically development ready with the students, they're able to make it work that they would be able to sell the units for the cost of construction, because we're allowing them to go up to that middle income bracket. So we don't know if that's going to happen. But we we've sort of talked about the feasibility of partnering with an affordable housing provider, and if they would need additional funding, which the city would not

[49:10] be, you know, entertaining through an annexation agreement. We're hoping that they are able to do it on their own. So I understand your concerns. But we have sort of thought through. And what we've learned is that when we haven't given flexibility in the past, people aren't able to actually builds the housing that's required through their annexation, so the intent is to give them some flexibility in meeting that requirement. Thank you. Couple more things from the annexation agreement. What is the reasoning behind the 3,000 square foot maximum set on units. How did how did the city and the applicant arrive at that number?

[50:00] So the intent of that is to limit the market. That's for the market rate housing to to keep it somewhat affordable. Right? So if you can limit the size that will limit the price and so that that was a negotiated number with the applicant on ensuring that they're not overly large. Okay, so that's coming from from both sides of this negotiation. Okay. is there something magical? About 3,000 is that related somehow to unit counts that they're anticipating being able to put on this site. Well, there is a provision that if they're not able to provide a certain number, I want to say it's like 78 units. then they are able to increase that square footage to 3,500. It's basically just helping them balance their performer that if they have to bring down the density they're going to have to be able to increase the size

[51:03] and the price of those market units to achieve the affordable units. If that makes sense. Okay? Last question, for now. There's a provision in the annexation agreement about putting open space required open space on the eastern edge of this parcel? Do we have any drawings that show that? Has there been any drawings submitted since that concept? Plan? But. Yeah. The the concept plan kind of showed that image. Where there is a requirement for properties in Rmx. 2. For the zoning to provide 15% of the site as open space like, and usually a portion of that is like a shared, usable open space, maybe like a playground or gathering space of some sort. So the design of the concept plan did show that over on that eastern edge, and we liked that feature that was shown in the concept plan. We did not incorporate a specific design drawing into the agreement, because we felt it would be somewhat limiting or overly specific. So the stipulation in the agreement is to

[52:20] place open space over on that edge. But it also allows for the design of the Site review to potentially modify that if there's a better design that achieves that goal. Okay, you you said that that was actually part of the concept review drawings that were submitted, that haven't that shared open space on the East Side. Yes, there was Back. Let me! Let me! Same. I can reshare that. I can find it real quick.

[53:03] Maybe I'm maybe I'm getting my drawings mixed up. go. but I think, at least at one time. Yeah, there was this open space here. And then, I think, during some of the later discussions with the applicant team, this open space was opened up a little and placed further toward the east end of the site, so that it had that feature. Okay. Thank you. Clarify that Shannon, that that drawing is not really relevant, right? Because it's not tied to the screen at all. Correct. bam. That's correct. We did not tie it to a specific design or. And I don't mean to imply that I'm just trying to get some sort of visual reference for what open space on the east side of the pipe might look like. Thank you. Yes.

[54:01] All of them. Ask questions. Mark. Thanks. I'm gonna carry on in regard to the annexation agreement, page 41 item, 19 unit size. And this whole calculation about unit size and number of units. And as I've been, I've been thinking and thinking, and I've been mathing on this and everything else. And my 1st question is so, who is motivated by this lower number of 78 units versus. if, in fact the development went forward with 40% affordable housing in an M. Rmx. 2, zoning at 4.6 acres times 20 units

[55:01] you could have up to 97 units. So my 1st question is, is this just a negotiated thing, or is Staff actually motivated to try to lower the number of the units? Is the developer trying to lower the number of units. And why wouldn't we actually be specifying a minimum number of units? Let's just answer the question about the motivation first, st and then I'll go on to some other thoughts. I'm trying to. Sorry I'm trying to remember the wording of your question. I might have been. Oh, okay, so I'll just, I'll I'll try to simplify because I I meander around. Who's motivated by this number of 78 units, is it staff who actually wants to see fewer units? Is it the developer who wants to see fewer units? Or where did this come from? And why are we not focusing on

[56:02] a minimum number of units and a higher number of units equaling potentially greater affordability and an actual, absolute number of greater affordable units. Yeah. And I I think I see what you're saying. So maybe I didn't explain that super. Well, I think the intent of that provision in the agreement was that the applicant is hoping to do a higher number of units, and there was a concern on the applicant's part that you know as as we go through the process, typically what we see as it goes through the development process. And we get into engineering and we get into the final design a lot of times that number goes down a bit just based on the realities of the site. So the applicant, I believe, if I remember correctly, wishes to, you know, provide as many units as possible. And so the idea in that provision was that if for some reason they're not able to do that, and that

[57:05] could negatively impact like Sloane, mentioned their overall ability to to provide the financial feasibility of the site that they need to make it work. So then, that would kind of allow for them to bump up the size of the market rate units if they can't achieve the the total number of units that they're trying to get to. So I don't know if that makes sense. It does. So I'm I'll just ask this question really directly. Is Staff motivated to reduce the number of units from the developer's goal? We don't have a number of units that we're targeting, I would say. The reality of the Rmx. 2. Zoning is that there's not a specific density that's guaranteed. Some of that density does come into play with the percentage of affordable housing that they end up providing as well as it needs to meet the Site Review criteria. So we don't know ultimately the number. And we don't know ultimately where that density is going to land.

[58:15] So I think as like I said, the the the trade off was just if they can't achieve more units. Then they were hoping to balance that out with slightly bigger units. Okay, I'm not. I'm not trying to trap you or anything here. But I I I what I'm when I look at the table and the table says that if you have 40% affordability. you get up to 20 units per acre. That seems like a pretty straightforward it is when you say that's not guaranteed. If I have 40% on-site affordable units, am I not guaranteed up to 20 units per acre?

[59:00] No, I believe the standard in the code and I'd have to just open my code real quick to read it off. But there is a standard related to Rmx. 2. That that talks about how you achieve that density. Let me see if I can actually find it. We're gonna happen. I'm sorry, Mark, I just have a question for you, you saying 40% or 30% cause I thought the agreement was on 30%. So I'm just. Well, so we we actually don't have a number, right? It's an annexation proposal. We don't have a development proposal. But Rmx. 2, the way I read the table today is you know, 30% gets you one bonus, 35% gets you, another 40% gets you another. And and so 1010 units per acre is is by right.

[60:00] And and if you have 40% on-site affordability. you get in a bonus 10. S010-10-2020 units per acre. And so I if if that isn't really the code or whatever, then I I just want to understand that. But that's the code. I. The really, the heart of my question is. if the code, using Rmx. 2 and the density bonuses provided and the open space requirements. isn't that just enough to give the developer certainty about units. You know the total size number of units, amount of open space required. Doesn't that all add up to a specification. and I I find it odd that we have this kind of one sided requirement

[61:00] for if it goes down below this certain count. then they get this bigger size unit. But we don't specify and we can negotiate. I believe you know more units per acre, etc. So I I'm I'm just struggling with this particular agreement in the annexation agreement. And wondering again, who wants this? Who wants? Who wants fewer, who wants fewer, bigger units and less affordability? Shannon can I hop in? Is that okay? So just I, I think I understand your question. So nobody is motivated by that number of that number. Just so, you know. it's really just because we don't have a site Review. What you're describing in terms of the density bonus and the assurances for affordable housing would be through a site review. so this, that the intent of that provision is just to ensure that if she can only provide a certain number of units that that

[62:08] the development is still feasible. So I believe I'm sure the developer is motivated to do more units, and you know we? We don't have a motivation, but we would like more affordable housing, more units, equals, more affordable housing. So I think I understand where you're coming from. But I think this is just a 1 off. What if requirement that the developer asked for, that? We were amenable to add. Okay, that that's helpful. I I again you know you. You go along. You read these things, and it's like we don't specify a lot of things that we might. But we do specify this, and it allows what is, you know, being touted as a middle income housing project. When I start thinking about 3,500 square feet in boulder

[63:00] that to me I I can't define it, but that that doesn't meet middle income. Boss, can I chime in super quickly? Just reading 9, 8, 4 as I read it? And this is really becomes a question for Hella. It says, density bonus for the provision of additional affordable housing. The approving authority may approve a maximum density increase up to 10 additional dwelling units per acre. If the following standards are met so to me as I read it, it is not a by right density. it's a density bonus that may be provided. So really, maybe question for Hella is that re. Yeah, but your decision has to be criteria based. So the way that's applied is if the site, if you find that the Site review criteria are met, then the density bonus is available.

[64:03] Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And so my last question and I'll jump off. This is. we don't. In the annexation agreement? Did we require any specification in regard to open space other than what is what exists in the code under sight. No, it would just need to follow the standards of the the zoning and the code. Okay, alright, great. Thank you for answering my questions. Thanks, Mark. Laura. Laura, we can't hear you. Sorry I was double muted. So my colleague quickly on what Mark was talking about with regard to the number of units, as I recall from the Concept Review that we did about a year ago. It was us. It was the planning board that was putting forward requirements that the developer said, would make her shave units.

[65:10] and I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the motivation for wanting something in the agreement that says, if we put requirements on that make her go down a number of units from what she wants. Then she would like to be able to have bigger units. As I recall, that was a bit of a point of negotiation. I do have a few questions. My 1st question is. could you talk to us a little bit about why, this time we're doing the annexation and the land map change and the zoning independent of the Site Review. Why are they not being brought forward together. Well, there's no requirement that they have to travel together. It's just typical that we see that. So from time to time we will see an annexation that comes through that doesn't have a companion development plan. It just forces us to be a little bit more forward looking in the annexation agreement to try to anticipate issues that may occur at site review. So there's no requirement for it. It's just kind of a typical practice.

[66:09] Okay. But can you comment on why this one is different? Because it did come through, I think, as a package last time. So why did this time the applicant request to Sep separate them? Or I could ask the applicant. I think you might wait you. You could probably ask the applicant about their rationale. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Second question. I did read the 2023 comment letters from Boulder County, and I know that those are old news, right like you have continued to negotiate after those letters were written, but they were particularly concerned about the provision of multimodal transportation, and if I'm reading right. their concerns were addressed by that right of way on the eastern edge, the multimodal path that would connect to the parkland to the north, going through the site and the improvements to J. Road and the intersection. Am I understanding that correctly that those county comments have been addressed, and they no longer

[67:05] feel that the project is incompatible with the requirements. Yeah, we had multiple conversations with the county planners, and kind of, you know, went through the proposal with them. And, yeah, went through all of those items. So yes, I believe that that has all been resolved at this stage. Okay? So the county planners are happy with the Annexation agreement. Okay? But were you going to say something? Shannon. Oh, no, sorry. Didn't want to interrupt. Then my last question is about that Eastern right of way that you know there is that existing dirt road that currently surfaces the properties to the East that they had originally proposed using to service this property as well. Is that road? Gonna stay there. Are we talking about building a parallel city road right next to that county road, like, what's what's the plan for

[68:01] for that. Yeah, that. So that property is still in unincorporated Boulder County, and isn't part of this proposal? So it would. It would continue to exist as is you know, this property would need to provide all of the infrastructure and street improvements on on the subject property to accommodate that. So yeah, there's no no proposal to change that. The existing property that's going to remain in the county. So so we're literally going to have a city street next to a county dirt road right next to each other. The well, the yeah, that would. That would basically be how how it would exist. I think part of the issue was that the city did not want to place the burden of access to this property on that property in the county, so it seemed more appropriate that this right of way was built on this property.

[69:02] Okay, I'm just trying to envision what it would look like and how it would function. Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Helen. Provide a little bit more background. We did look at that road extensively, and it's not actually a a road. It's under county jurisdictions. And it's in planning area, too, so that that parcel or that area cannot currently be annexed under the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. And while it's been declared a public highway by court decree. It's not actually a road that the county has accepted maintenance over, and the county didn't support the development of this property taking access through that you know, hardly developed public highway. And, as I recall it, dead ends into like a gate at private property to the north. Is that is that correct? I don't know. I believe that's correct. Yeah.

[70:01] And so this right of way that's on the property that we're talking about for the annexation. Would that run into the same problem, or would that bypass that property to the north that is gated. The right of way dedication, would it would stop at the northern boundary of this property. So for now it's really intended to serve this property alone. If for some reason in the future there was access needed to properties further north, this would be the 1st leg of of a right of way that might exist, going to those properties to the north. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. I'll pass it off. Great Kurt. Thanks one quick follow up to where Laura was going there. So the there is a property to the East that currently takes access off that dirt road right.

[71:00] If this project were to go forward and this the the street were constructed the city street. Would they then be able to take access off of this, get stop using their dirt road and take access off this city street? Or are there restrictions on that. That's a good question. I don't know if Hela would be able to speak more to how that could potentially work. Yeah, I think we haven't thought through those scenarios. We don't have a site plan yet, either. but I think the city could allow access to a city street at that point in time. Okay, so I think it. That kind of gets to some of what, maybe of what Laura was asking. Oh, I see, Laura, or do you want to chime in again. Yeah, if you don't mind. I I am also like, is there going to be a sidewalk is like this right of way that we're developing. I'm sorry I'm not great with plans.

[72:08] It's a 2 Lane road, does it have sidewalks on both sides? So are we talking about a 2 Lane road with sidewalks, and then right next to the sidewalk, is this dirt county road. and there's a sidewalk in between 2 roads, or how does I don't. I'm not quite picturing it. Yeah, I can go through that a little bit. I believe you know. The current design that we discussed with the applicant would be for the 2 lanes to be toward the eastern edge of the right of way, and then there would be the typical like tree lawn, and then a sidewalk close to the western edge along this property. so that that was the design we contemplated that would allow, for if, for some reason in the future. There was a desire to expand the right of way to a full 60 foot width, and the property owner to the East was interested in doing that, that then there would not be any improvements like a tree, lawn, or sidewalk in the way of that on that edge.

[73:13] Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Back to you, Kurt. Okay, one other very detailed follow up on this. So the easement in the drawing easement is shown as a 30 foot with easement, but the description of the in the the the the street design is 20 feet of Street pavement, 8 foot 3 lawn and 5 foot sidewalk, which adds up to 31. So we just have. We're off by a foot there, just a minor point to note. Okay. yeah. I I believe if I recall correctly, the agreement

[74:00] talks a little bit about. So they're dedicating the 30 foot of right of way, and then for any additional that's needed to go past the back of the sidewalk like you mentioned, for the total number that would be through a an additional easement that would be dedicated past the back of sidewalk. Would be how I would go I I don't recall the exact language, but I think. So there might be an additional one foot easement or something. Okay. Yeah. That's fine. Okay, ho, hopefully, slightly bigger picture questions. Now, the 1st one is so following up on some of the questions about the density limits, and 91 and 94, and so on. In. In the course of this annexation, by approving Mxr. And Rmx. 2. We are limited by in terms of density by what is in 9, 8, 1, 9, 8, 4, right? We're we're we're not going to ever be going above

[75:03] 20 units. One units per acre. Even if we tried to put something in the Annexation group, for instance, is that correct? There's no way to vary that in the annexation rate. That wasn't something we contemplated trying to vary. That was so. I I think. yeah, it would be a maximum of of what's in the code like you said. And one of our goals was to ensure that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan which anticipates up to 20 unit per acre under the Mxr. And use designation. Okay, that's good. Paul. Yeah. okay, so to be consistent with 1 17, for example. And the con, yeah, okay, makes sense. my other question. Thank you to my colleagues for all those great questions. A lot of interesting stuff to go through there. I had questions about the

[76:07] so. I'm having trouble hearing you. I don't know if you can maybe get closer. Is anyone else? Is that just me? Sure I'm sorry. I was also ruffling through my papers. I will try to get closer. My question is about item. yeah. 23 in the Annexation agreement, public improvements. So this is both kind of specific about the the designs of the changes that we made would be made at J. Road and 36, but also not definitely, not like actual designs. And so I'm wondering where all this came from and what what motivated these specific requirements

[77:07] is this something that went through transportation? I'm I'm just trying to understand where these fairly specific requirements came from. Yeah, this portion of the agreement was looked at very closely by our transportation review engineer. So my understanding is these would kind of be the improvements that we would expect to see at a time of site review. But we would also be looking more specifically at it at site review to determine if there's, you know, additional things and and more specificity to these. So the these were reviewed and and placed in the agreement by our transportation engineering staff. And are all these, then, based on the transportation, master plan, or what?

[78:04] Where, where are they really coming from? Or are they just sort of ideas that came from the reviewing engineer. I don't recall the specifics on that. I believe these are typically, these are standard items that we would get when a property is redeveloped. So just kind of the standards of detached sidewalks and tree lawns and those basic type of improvements that we would typically see. Well, th. Those seem very standard. But, for example, some of the specific changes at J road. like the center Median, the left turn lane. Those are definitely off the property and the kinds of changes that in my understanding need, there there needs to be a rational nexus, or whatever right in order to

[79:03] to be able to require those of a particular development. Yeah, and correct. You're asking a very good question. And and that is actually the reason why we're listing them here in the annexation agreement because we have more negotiating power in an annexation, because it's a legislative process. The property is not yet within the city, and our policies state that we only annex it. There's community benefit provided, and street improvements such as these that might go beyond what might just be required in a site review, or what the city might be able to require in a site review could be imposed through the annexation agreement. So that's why these specific improvements are listed here without actually locking us into that specific design without having a Site plan. but it enables us to require them. and time segregate. Yeah. Okay. The second part is that it specifies that the developer will actually build these

[80:09] as opposed to the, you know, some paying some fee for the city to to construct them. Calm. which I think is not our standard practice right? And it seems like it creates a perverse incentive for the developer to hire a gut right bill, you know, the builder that will use cut rate concrete and so on and But and it also doesn't really provide much assurance to the developer about what the cost will be and so on. So I'm just. I'm curious why we're structuring it as a requirement that the developer themselves go out into the middle of

[81:02] us. 36, and be building these things as opposed to you know, requiring some payment, for example, for them. That I don't know that I can speak to specifically for most development proposals. We we do require the applicant to provide all of those public improvements, and we go through our standard process for for inspecting, and and those sort of things the improvements so. Yeah, that's very typical for an applicant's contractor to do the roadway work, and then we'll inspect it and accept it. Oh, it is okay. And and it has to be built to design and construction standards of the city, and there is a requirement for a warranty period where the city holds a financial guarantee, for I believe, a couple of years. If there is any

[82:04] damage or faulty construction that's discovered during that time period, then that has to be fixed. So there there are processes to make sure that the the construction is of adequate quality. Okay. I think that's it, for now. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Kurt. I'm gonna. Super. Quick! Follow on to Kurtz. Financial question. is that okay? Yeah, sure. Okay. The the question is, if if it, in fact is standard practice to have a developer fulfill their street improvement obligations. To the Dcs. Wouldn't the charge of 135,000, whatever the charge was for a plant investment fee for the I believe it was a sewer connection.

[83:01] And maybe in that one of those early slides is, isn't that a better way to do it? Where we just say, Hey, look! You're going to connect our sewer. We don't want you really monkey around with our sewer connections and stuff. We want to connect you. But instead of you doing the work you're going to give us the money, and we're going to do the work as we see fit. We just don't have the resources. I mean, I think we can keep up with maintenance of our systems and roadways and things like that. But yeah, typically those main connections and mains extensions are always work that's completed by the applicant and their contractor. And, like Hela said, we inspect it will eventually accept it, assuming it meets Dcs standards, and you know, has warranty and everything. So again, another pretty common practice. And and typically the the construction requirements are related to the local impacts of the development and the fees go to the wider system. For example, the arterial system will be impacted a little bit, and that goes through the entire city. So it's different costs and needs are addressed by

[84:14] the 2 methods of getting the public improvements done. Great I'm gonna ask just some a brief question sort of try to 0 out a little bigger picture as it relates to Section 17 of the the annexation agreement Shannon. I I think Claudia brought this up, and I just kind of want to understand a little bit more of the city's rationale around. The the different options the developer has relative to the affordable units, one obviously being the concurrent on site, construction of those affordable units by the developer, and the second one being the conveyance of the fee title so simple title, I guess my question for us as a planning board to understand those options.

[85:09] is there a financial analysis that's been done by the city between these 2 options? So we can understand what the benefit is, because, at least from my perspective. it. It almost seems like. Ultimately we'll be forced conveyance to the city and and having us hold the bag rather than having them concurrently build it on site which I think would be much more favorable to what the goals are we're having to achieve. But but it's hard for me to understand that without having some financial backup, as it relates to how how we agreed to both those things. Shannon, do you want me to take that. Sure. Okay. no, we haven't done a financial feasibility analysis. And that's not typically something we would do.

[86:04] I think that I guess in in housing's perspective. You're getting the same outcome through dips. 2 different means. She's still intending to, or the developer is still intending to pursue a density bonus to receive that density bonus, that affordable housing will need to be incorporated in the development, whether that is built by herself as the developer or by a partner, it will still be part of the development. It's just whether it's built by habitat or another developer on a separate lot. or whether she's able to actually do it herself. it just happens that affordable housing providers are able to receive other funding, not necessarily city funding, or they have certain skills or ways to make it more feasible than a private developer would. So

[87:03] the way I think we're looking at it is they'll still be tied together with the Site Review. They're still intending to pursue the density bonus even if it's just at the 30% rather than the 40. So the housing will still be built. It just has a little bit less restrictions if she does it as sort of a land dedication rather than building it at. You know the exact same way as the market units. If that makes sense. Well, I I guess. What what I'm confused is that is that the the development agreement talks about it being concurrent. If they're building it. Otherwise it's a dedication. So conceptually the development could be built. and these housing units might never be built if they're fee simple dedication, and no one's no one's picked up and ran with it right? Because it's not. It's not required to be concurrent at that point. Is that correct?

[88:00] So that's correct. I mean, there is an outcome that's possible that a developer doesn't pursue. The Additional density builds the market units at, you know the provisions given, and they dedicate the land. and then that that land is developed separately as affordable housing. They'd still have to go through a site review together. It's possible. But I still see that as a positive outcome, because we're still getting affordable housing built on the site, it's just actually taking a different path to that. But. I I guess my, it goes back to my question if it gets built right, because in that scenario, in in scenario one, it's concurrent in scenario 2. It's we dedicate the land. You guys figure it out. and and there is a scenario in in that case, as as the way I read it is there a scenario where the land just sits, and we just get a bunch of market rate units, and the affordable doesn't get built.

[89:04] No, that's not possible. I I would say, too, is she? You know she has certain requirements she would have to meet before dedicating, and so I I'd be surprised if a developer went through a whole development proposal with the Site Review extended utilities to the site. And then it just sat. I mean, it's possible. But we're lucky. Yeah. Well, you said it was. You said it's not possible. And now it is possible. So is it possible or not possible? Is it possible that a developer builds the market rate without a density bonus? And this is deed as affordable housing for future development? That is a possible outcome, I would say. It's not a likely outcome, but it is possible. Yes. They? They don't get the density bonus if they, if they deed this over. Well, if if they decide that they wanted to develop the market right

[90:03] without any density bonus, they're not going to pursue the density bonus. No, no, I'm I'm I'm sorry. I maybe maybe I'm not narrowing my question. They pursue the density bonus. The affordable housing is required as part of the site review for them to get the density bonus period. When you say it's required, is it required for them to either build it concurrently, or convey the land. They. I mean. I guess it depends on who you mean. They is. The developer. The market rate developer. the market rate developer can deed the lands and meet her obligations under paragraph 17, that is, through the annexation agreement. The Site Review will have separate requirements that say how, what the phasing is, how they will develop within a certain period of time to meet the Site review criteria. So it's at this point where, if you're just looking at annexation.

[91:01] that's that is separate than what a site review would require. It's complicated. I'm sorry. Well, yeah, but but you see, number one is saying that there has to be concurrent construction. That's option one right if they pursue option. 2. So so that has nothing to do with Site Review. And in that case the Site plan would have already in in Site review would have already been assumed that this whole thing is going to get built concurrently. But in option number 2 it doesn't have to be built concurrently. It's just d to be simple to somebody else. And then you're saying in Site Review, it's up to Site review how the phasing is being done, so to to what you're saying. I guess my question would be to to the discussion around modification of the annexation agreement. It seems to me like you, you could build in some concurrency in option, 2 for construction. For when it goes to site, review that that already is baked in. So that's a requirement of who's ever approving the Site Review that that has to. That's a requirement of the Annexation agreement for the project to proceed is that is that a fair interpretation.

[92:13] You could. I think it's helpful to know that our if you follow the inclusionary housing requirements, our concurrency requirements are very strict in that you're not able to get a CEO on your market rate units until you have built them the affordable units. So it's it. It's very constraining. And so this gives them a little bit of flexibility through a site review. You can ask for a phasing plan. You can. You know you have a little bit more leeway through a site review to build the the market first, st and then the affordable so you could give some sort of time limitation if you wanted to have some assurance that it would be within the same period of time, not exactly concurrent.

[93:00] It is very hard for a developer to be able to build the affordable units before selling the market rate units. Right? Only certain developers are able to do that. So this is that's just giving some flexibility here and part. It's allowing her to partner with another developer. So in the if you're looking at it as the affordable developer is also the developer then. Yes, they have a certain number of requirements that they'll have to meet as part of the project. but it won't be solely Margaret, or whoever the market developer is. You. You answered my question. I appreciate that. I'll save my comments. That was all my questions, Kurt. I'm sorry I'm still confused about this issue. So for ignore this particular project for the moment, just in general. one of the ways to meet the affordable housing. The inclusionary housing requirement in Boulder is to dedicate land right?

[94:07] And if you dedicate that land once you've dedicated that land. your obligation is over, and the timing with which that those units then get built is. it is no longer that that developer's problem. Isn't that true? That's true. That would be through inclusionary housing. So this is completely separate. Annexation is completely separate. and that would be the case if there wasn't a requirement in the agreement that they do a site review for the entire site. So that's tying these 2 together, and also the density bonus would tie these 2 sites together if it were subdivided and divided into 2. Okay, I'm sorry I missed that part about the Site Review for the entire site. Great. I mean, that's the way it's written is that this site in entirety is required to go through a site review.

[95:03] Yeah, okay, thank you. Laura. Okay, I'm sorry. Just one more follow up question on this same point. So if they chose the land dedication option. then we would have 2 developers coming together for one site. Review. I mean I it would be their choice how they would like to pursue it! But hypothetically, yes. But there would have to be a complete plan for both the market rate and the affordable units. Coming to one site review. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. we'll have a whole bunch of stuff to get through any other questions for staff before we get the we have, we have a developer presentation. We do? Huh? Anybody else. Alright! Let's move forward with the applicant.

[96:04] Good evening, everybody! Hi! Oh. let's see, I have a whole presentation prepared. My name is Margaret Freund. I'm the developer. Some of you saw me when I came forward to hold on! Strike! Can we just hold on? Can we get the screen? Share? Yeah. But. Oh. yeah, us Shannon, can we? Can, Dan, have a screen? So while you're doing that, though, Dan, I'm going to answer some questions before my presentation, because I think there's some confusion on the board that I can help Sloan and Shannon address. So Number one habitat is who we've been talking to. But we've also started recently talking to another developer who can actually do the construction for us and the affordable. The reason that the non concurrency languages in the annexation agreement is because habitat is developing a plant to do panelized construction. And we worked with Kurt

[97:10] and Sloane to try to make sure there was flexibility, because it may be that we can bring the market rate missing middle online faster than habitat will be able to get their construction done? So we asked for the Total Site Review. We wanted the Site Review to include the entire site, because we want the site to be cohesive in appearance. We want to help design it. We want to make sure that the the You can't look at it and tell the difference between the restricted housing and the missing middle market rate housing. So I think there's concerns for no reason about that, because this is really and I think it's important that planning board understand this. This is inclusionary housing staff and actually planning staff in this case. really trying to face the realities of what it's like to develop in boulder and get more housing.

[98:05] So they're trying to create more flexibility. They're trying to respond to the realities of what it means to develop in Boulder, Colorado, which is in my experience similar to San Francisco. It's tough. And so I just want to say, you know, the the likelihood of non concurrency would be in a case where we were developing, and habitat was building with us as a partner the affordable. And you know we're behind us. Now, that's not ideal, because it's hard to sell market rate units. when there's a lot of construction going on, it's much easier when it's finished. So there's a big desire on the developers, part for all of it to be cohesive. So I wanted to address that size of the units and we're going to walk through historic stuff and show you the concept plan and some updates to that reflected in the annexation agreement. Just so you'll have some visuals. I think that's going to help you a lot. The size of our units is 1,600 to 1,900 square feet in our concept plan. The larger amount of square footage was us protecting ourselves.

[99:13] you know. I think Laura hit the nail on the head, and and Mark alluded to it that you know we understand. Sometimes some of the processes can push down on density, and we wanted to make sure that we had the ability to do a larger unit. If we ended up in that situation, the 30% affordable is required for the annexation, we will add 10% to that to get the 40% density bonus. So there will be 40% missing middle or or restricted middle income housing here. And the reason that we did the annexation without a Site review is because initially Council unanimously supported this plan, and the zoning and the land use.

[100:03] Staff, however, did not support the land use initially. so it took us a while to get Staff comfortable. And we didn't. We couldn't do both because if we put in a Site Review that satisfied staff, then Council wouldn't approve it. And if we put in a Site Review, that Council supported staff would not advance it, so it took us. so we stuck to annexation to make sure that we got the land use and the zoning in place. so that we could circle back to our plan. And one more thing I want to say about density. We you can't put 20 units an acre on this site and still get detention. Open space roads, parking utilities, tree lawns, sidewalks, curbs, gutters. and parking it. It just doesn't fit. So we're not going to hit 20 units per acre. Our our goal is and has been,

[101:03] 84 units ish and we may lose a unit or 2, or we may hold fast to that. That's 34 permanently restricted middle income units on the site. Let's see. And what else did you guys ask and as far as the dollar delta between us, developing it and habitat, we It's true that many market rate developers like myself cannot afford to build the affordable housing, which is why we've been for a very long time talking to habitat but that you know, we've also started conversations. You. You all may know that habitat has been through a change in directorship, and there have been some other challenges there. So we are also talking to a developer to partner with. That does develop both market rate and

[102:01] affordable. And I don't have my own construction company here in Colorado. So That would be a viable option for us. so I think I've touched on a bunch of your questions, and I'm going to go ahead and start the presentation, and then you guys will have a chance to answer questions. So good evening, members of the planning board. My name is Margaret Freund, and I'm the developer and applicant for this annexation request at 28 0. 1 J. Road I own, and live in a house in Newlands and Boulder, and please forgive me in advance. I have a second reading for another affordable housing project before City Council in Longmont tonight, and I am actually speaking to you from there. so I may have to leave before your deliberations are through. However, my team, Dan Rotner, Kyle, Plano, Brad Curl, and Dash Ash will be here to answer questions from us if you have them. I think we all believe in the overarching benefits of mixed income communities. Certainly we need middle income housing here in Boulder, and we came before you almost 2 years ago with a concept plan that was largely supported by this body. To gain clarity. That concept plan was called up by city council, and they unanimously supported the plan with Mxr. Land use and Rmx. 2. Zoning, as well as the density, compatibility, and the plan that we presented.

[103:23] Some of you may recall, we presented a concept plan that would work from a development perspective and bring community benefit to boulder by providing as much for sale, middle income, family housing as possible. as we understood from housing staff. At the time of the Concept Review, the 34 permanently middle income for sale units proposed in our concept plan equaled the total for sale permanently. Middle income units in the city of Boulder. We are back before you tonight seeking your approval for our annexation, which is supported by staff with Mxr. Land use and Rmx. 2. Zoning. This is an annexation without a site, review, and once annexation is approved, a Site review application will be submitted, submitted, and you can see there, highlighted in green.

[104:04] The 34 permanently restricted middle income units. We used the concept plan as a guide for the annexation negotiations to make sure we could accommodate planning board, council and staff requests and still fit in the housing the density. we increased the open space and centered it to create a gathering area created boon roof like paving at the streets between the largest open space areas to further enhance the pedestrian feel and added a 30 foot right of way at the East. While not included in the annexation agreement. The updated plan here shows how we can preserve the density with almost twice the required open space while accommodating various other requests. And I just want to note again, this represents a market rate size of between 1,000 601,900 or 1,950 square feet. The annexation agreement before your you for approval, preserves the ability to reach the level of density presented in the concept plan to bring the greatest amount of deed restricted and missing middle income for sale housing online as possible.

[105:10] The agreement requires the housing be for sale. We have agreed to dedicate a 30 foot right of way at the east edge of the property, so the city can eventually have a collector street that travels north from J road to the planning reserve. The annexation requires 30% deed, restricted middle income units and will need another 10% to meet the requirement in Rmx. 2. Zoning for the density bonus for a total of 40% restricted middle income housing. We can build the restricted housing simultaneously with the market rate housing, or we can do the land for the restricted housing to a developer like habitat, and after installing the utilities and streets, can build and sell the market rate units after learning about some of the challenges in holiday neighborhood. At Concept Plan we talked about the possible benefits to homeowners of a fee, simple structure where it might provide lower reserve costs by allowing homeowners to do some of the required maintenance themselves, such as painting.

[106:04] The Annexation agreement provides for this both with private and public streets. Something to take special note of here is that staff agreed to calculate density for the purposes of the unit per acre. Calculation prior to the dedication of streets or right of way that is, on the grossland area. This means it is possible to make the streets public and fully preserve the density. To my knowledge, this is the 1st time Staff has done this, and I want to point it out as something creative and forward looking that Staff has done to help get more housing. They truly rolled up their sleeves to find a solution that worked for everyone and seem willing to make the necessary street modifications and site review, to preserve a parking plan without parking lots, and to have the streets be public. The annexation agreement provides for the satisfaction, satisfaction of all transportation, fire, utility, and drainage requirements, as well as off street improvements and utility connections, all of which will be worked out in more detail in site review

[107:03] to get Staff comfortable with the compatibility requirement for the requested Mxr. Land use. We agreed to limit the housing to 2 stories on the easternmost edge of the site and the east half of the northern edge. This addressed staff concerns about the rural land on those 2 sides, and we also agreed to sloped roofs. We are only here tonight to seek approval for the Annexation agreement. Once the annexation is approved, all of the design aspects will be worked out in Site Review. however, we do hope all the work done with Staff in the annexation agreement process to preserve the density intent of the concept plan will help expedite the site. Review process. Once annexation is approved. so we can get to building this housing as soon as possible. Our architect, Dan Rotner, will now walk through the main highlights of the Annexation Agreement with some examples. So you can see the possibility provided by the Annexation agreement that we hope to realize in Site Review, and we look forward to your comments.

[108:02] Dan. Great thanks a lot. Margaret. Again just before you get going. Just so, you know, you get get about 4 or 5 min left for the. I'm not going to take very long. I'm going to rattle through some of this because we had an excellent job job done by Shannon to detail this whole proposal. So just to quickly rattle through the highlights of the the annexation agreement, the zoning and land use staff planning Board Council all support the Rmx. 2. Zoning concept. Ultimately staff support the Mxr land use with the following conditions, building height on the eastern edge, eastern half of the Northern Edge Limited, 2 story slope roofs. We have the dedicated 30 foot right of way which we've discussed in this this meeting. Enhanced central open space is another thing that we've worked to develop. We have close to close to double the amount of open space that's required by the Rmx. 2 zoning densities calculated on the gross parcel area. Prior identification of right away or streets. Maximum market rate unit size drops. If the if we fall below 78

[109:01] 2, 3,500 square feet. The annexation agreement provides that all dwelling units shall be for sale. affordability 30% affordable. We add 10% to get the density bonus getting us to 40 in our mix, too, the ability to develop the affordable units the concurrency issues we've discussed in some detail. We have some options there that really are there to to prove feasibility for the annexation accommodation for few simple lots, giving people an opportunity to self perform their maintenance. Utilities, drainage and transportation offsite right away, and improvements, including turn lanes off site, utility, main extensions, water, sewer, and drainage have all been anticipated. The Annexation agreement provides a multi-use path for future connections to the north. There's an opportunity to either build this or the city's elect can elect to take a cash in lieu payment to to build this at a future date. The annexation agreement allows staff to work with us to vary the design and construction standards and modify street profiles, which is a really key element in achieving our density.

[110:11] the this is our overall transportation concept from concept plan, from the from our Annexation Review. The In addition, offsite considerations, internal parking transportation related issues are studied in relation to the original concept. This is an example of the kind of thing we're looking at, where we have a 1 way street with parking on both sides as an alternative to a parking lot. Essentially, parking insets allow space for the landscape to extend into the street. This is the kind of thing we're interested in looking at. And actually, here's a real world example of a similar approach. One way. Street parking on both sides, parking insets and landscaping from the Red Oak Park Neighborhood in Boulder utilities have been looked at and conceptual level as part of the Annexation Review. This is our conceptual grading plan from the Annexation Review, and we drainage considerations were studied with respect to the available space, with an eye towards combining stormwater management features with usable open space.

[111:11] And a good example of this is our is the image that Margaret talked about previously, where our shared internal open space extending to the West or to the east property line, actually intends to combine stormwater features with the open quality. Open space features of that component. Here's just a real world example of a similar scaled space. Just note the mix of 2 to 3 storey units just from a scale standpoint level of quality. That's what we're after, anyway. Going back to the Concept Plan Review, we looked at how we would fit stormwater features in around the perimeter of the site, using those areas also as quality open space to the extent that we could to buffer the site from the perimeter at the right of way. We're also trying to take advantage of these areas by using 2 story porches potentially to get views and raise the primary living space above the traffic.

[112:03] This is actually a good example of a combined open space and stormware detention unit from the rosewood neighborhood in Boulder. So I think we think it can be done successfully other areas where we're buffering adjacent property lines. We're using private yards and patios at the. at the backs of the units. something. We also looked at in the Concept Plan Review. And this is a little bit of an idea about what we'd expect those precedents or precedent for what we'd expect those spaces to look like. And just in terms of context, you know, obviously with Mxr land use and the Rmx. 2. Zoning the the annexation agreement aligns with the holiday neighborhood that's adjacent to this. So I think we're not exactly charting new territory here. This was also adjacent to rural land at the time of annexation and planning boards, city council, and staff of all support. Our arms to zoning, request, concept, plan, staff now supports the land, use change to Mxr to achieve the meaningful number of middle income homes on the site and just some other examples from holiday of smaller scale units. This is the type of thing we're after and just a reminder that lowering, reducing density results in fewer income, middle income homes and larger market rates.

[113:21] The density supported by provisions of the annexation agreement, allows for a cohesive neighborhood fabric by providing smaller market units more. Dan, you're you're running a little over. Running over. Okay, I think I think I've I've said my piece. This is my last slide. So basically, I think we want to have a cohesive neighborhood where the units, the market rate units, and the permanently affordable units are part of the same neighborhood and not wildly divergent. I think that's a big goal of this overall proposal. Thank you. Thanks so much. does the planning board have any questions for the applicants

[114:10] hurt. Hi, thank you for your presentation. So just to follow up about the unit size and the limit. So you said that in concept plan. You were presenting 1,600 to 1,91950, I think you said square feet for the market rate units. But the annexation agreement talks about 3,000 to 3,500, which is a pretty big delta I understand you're trying to protect yourself, but that seems like a lot of protection. Thank you. Response. Yeah. So yeah, we're protecting ourselves. We we are determined to get the density. But we've done other projects here.

[115:01] And you know, I worked on a project on Broadway, where I tried to do a significantly dense product that would have provided some middle income housing. And I wasn't successful. So that is absolutely protection. It is the reality that if aspects of the Site Review dramatically push down on density, we will need larger units to be able to put anything here. And it's insurance frankly. and that's why it's in there. Thank you. Go ahead, mark. Thanks. can you explain to me what happened from Concept Review, where the streets were private? And now they're public, and I I advocated for public streets. I think there's a lot of problems that are eliminated. When you have public streets. But

[116:05] so what exactly happened to allow for public streets and do the public streets as they're designed now, actually meet Dcs standards, or or is this an exemption from Dcs standards. So that's A great question, and the answer is, we can do either. The city wants public streets. And so what they did was agreed to calculate the density before the taking of streets and right of way, since we're giving a 30 foot right of way. And since the city wants public streets like you do. They agreed to do this density calculation differently than they have in the past. And yet we have preserved the right to do private streets with fee simple? Because it's it's we're not asking that, as I understand it, the site, the site review process, and the standards allow a lot of flexibility on Staff's part in working with you to get creative when you design the streets and the profiles of the streets to make a project work. So again, this is insurance, and this is absolutely me and my

[117:20] Attorney who's on the call, trying to make sure that we are protected. in getting the kind of streets that Dan and I have been feeling really make this neighborhood, and we don't have parking lots, and we would love for the streets to be public frankly, and we really feel at this point that Staff is going to get us where we need to be. Charles has been particularly creative and supportive, and has made some great suggestions. And at this moment I feel confident that we can get those streets to be public, however. Since I also have a law background like Mr. Curl and Hela, I

[118:00] I always want to hedge against the the bad outcome. So again, that's insurance. But we're hoping. And we're optimistic, that these streets are going to be public and that we're going to be doing fee simple, and that the streets are going to be graceful, and feel like a neighborhood. That's a great answer. Thank you very much. Any other questions for the applicant before we go to public comment. No, thank you, Margaret, thank you, Dan. Let me ask you. I'm in attention. Great. So this is the public hearing part of the meeting for this item, and I ask that you raise your virtual hand. So we know who would like to speak, and each person will have 3 min. So we'll go ahead and start with

[119:00] Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have 3 min, and you should see the timer pop up hopefully. Thomas, you have that ready. Very simply. No. no, to having this thing annexed prematurely. No, to any subsidies to the developer. We have a housing crisis in this country, and and I don't care if it's middle, lower or high high income housing. It's a crisis, and density is not the cure. Density causes a worse housing crisis. and we need to get out of it, and Boulder needs to be bolder and say No, say no to all these subsidies the sloping roofs that I'm glad I mean Margaret's doing a great job of what she loves to do and what's what you know her. The reason for her being which is to extract a profit for her

[120:07] development here. But this is outrageous. What's going on in Boulder? All of this housing is just driving up the cost of living here. The cost of police rec centers libraries. There's no infrastructure. There's you know, I I I ride my bike everywhere. I drive about 5 times a year, and the other day I have to go to the Jcc. To East Boulder. Then I have to go to the East Boulder Rec center, which is southeast. There isn't even a Rec center in East Boulder. There's there's there needs to be another rec center in north, the north boulder, because that's so densified. It it. Boulder is losing what you know. What brought people here? In the 1st place, that as small place, my dad complained, 30,000 people is too much and that's the the population of our university now, 37,000

[121:08] and see yourself and and the fact that Iris, you know what you need to do is make a highway into Irish. You need to add lanes to Iris because of this kind of development that's going on here. So I just say no to all of this, with all due respect to Margaret, you know it's like Excel energy that's their business model. Their business model is to make a profit and a hefty profit, but not at the city of boulders. Expense in our violating our guidelines, if it has to look like crap. As a result, I guess it has to look like crap. you know. That's the way it is. and and maybe people will get deterred by that hopefully. But I don't want to be part of this. I'm a taxpayer here, and I don't want to be part of supporting this kind of development. In the name of the middle. That's very expensive, anyway. You know the ami at 2,206 is 1,700 to 2,600 mark. You know, we need the development of.

[122:17] Thank you, Lynn. Your 3 min are up. Next we have Robin Cube. Please introduce yourself, and sorry if I mispronounced your name. You have 3 min. Good evening. My name is Robby Qb. I live on Amber Place, which is diagonally across from the project across 28th Street, and 1st off I'd really like to thank Staff for all the hard work they've put in on this. They've done a pretty good job negotiating with a challenging developer. And I I want to acknowledge that. I also want to be clear that I do support affordable housing on this site, and generally support the annexation of the site for that purpose.

[123:00] But this is a highly visible site, and remains so for a long time. It is in planning Area 2. But it's also likely to be the point of the sphere for any future development of planning area 3. And, in fact, that was the reason that city council was so enthusiastic about this plan, in the 1st place, was because they viewed it as being compatible with the area, as it might be developed if planning area 3 is developed. Well, unfortunately, we know that planning area 3 may never be developed. and this site may stand out. I won't necessarily say as a sore thumb, but as a quite large development, perhaps with nothing around it for a long time. and because of that, I think it's really important that we get the bulk and density right with this project. I'm a real estate lawyer. I certainly understand the economics of projects like this, so that in order to subsidize the low income or affordable housing, you need to have higher income

[124:01] properties or and larger sites. But frankly, there's 3,000 to 3,500 square foot site, or maximum size on this. That's much larger than all those residential properties across 28th Street in the area I live in. All of us are lower than 3,000 square feet. So I think that's a problem. I don't want to go too far into this exchange issue. But the current inclusionary housing ordinance requires the developer to donate and then pay a differential between the the value of the property donated, and the what they would pay if they pay the cash in lieu, and that's specifically prohibited here. Any sort. I'd urge you to. Well. because I do support development, as I. I urge recommendation of approval, but subject to some tightening up of the provisions in the Annexation Agreement, specifically 1719 20, and 25

[125:06] to somewhat corral the what? What Ms. Freund talked about that the the flexibility that might obtain through the Site Plan Review that we do need some parameters on that to avoid having a larger, bulkier than necessary project on this site. Thank you. 3. Thank you, Robin. Do we have any other hands or community members who would like to speak? okay, Matthew Carray, please go ahead. you should be able to speak. Matthew, please go ahead. You have to unmute from your end.

[126:07] We'll give you a few seconds before we start. The timer. If you're speaking, we're not hearing you. Yeah, let's let's try the phone number. I believe it's the same. And let's try that. And you have to press 0 6 to unmute. I believe. Alright! Am I unmuted. Yep, perfect. Thank you. So, wow! such a bad idea at the wrong time. 4 major issues this intersection, the density the annexation agreement and utilities, and the Boulder Valley comp plan. Intersection. You know, J. Road is terrible. You guys have to redevelop this. I don't know. I think the city owns the Intersection J. Road. The county owns stuff to the East with a letter from Dave. I guess I would think it was Dave Webster, with a very tepid, generally acceptable utilities plan.

[127:17] Stated that you need to talk to the county. You're going to probably need to talk to the county to next road, and this is a terrible intersection you're making from dangerous to probably a fatal intersection with the increased flow from this second, the density, the density, does not conform with Boulder Valley. Comp. Plan everything around. This is either rr, one rl, 2, or rl, one. All very low density to get. And you guys noted holiday, which is pretty far away from this site as a density. and the density is going to make this intersection terribly worse. 3, rd the annexing agreement that's a nightmare, and the utilities utilities with the drain water. We excuse me. My name is Matthew Carot. I live at 2825 J. Road. We border the east side of this property. The drainage water from this property is going to affect all of the neighboring properties. We are on shallow wells 20 feet 10 feet 15 feet all around this area.

[128:12] They said they were going to try to use the farmers ditch on the farmers ditch. We use farmers ditch for irrigation. The farmers ditch does not know anything about this, and I do not think they're going to approve. Wastewater developed into or sent into the farmers, ditch boulder Valley Comp plan. The city staff has bent over backwards to say, this adheres to Boulder Valley, Comp. Plan with regards to one thing only, and that is housing intensity. the county, unfortunately. But whatever quirk of 8, this is under the 5 acres, so this does not need to go to the county. But entering, I think, Laura Kaplan said, that I don't. I don't think the county planners are okay with this. When I spoke to Hannah Hipley last week. That was not my interpretation, certainly her letter for November 3rd says that this does not adhere to the Boulder Valley Comp plan in multiple different sections, and that it's going to affect the neighboring properties and people. In the county.

[129:06] Let's see, where does Shannon Shannon Moler earlier, said, the land use is a vision for the area. This is area 2, it's bordered on area 3 by 60% of the property. This should be part of the urban services study that is ongoing now and dovetailed into the Boulder Valley. Comp. Plan to see if the people of Boulder City and Boulder county really want this type of development on this area? The city staff should not. This planning board should not approve this for annexation prior to a Site plan and a concept plan. They're not allowed to use our dirt road, which we call our driveway. But the county told them it's Area 3. So it shoved everything sooner in, and it's going to make it worse for that intersection. And I run out of time. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew, for being here. I do not see any other hands raised. Just give it a couple of seconds. Of anybody who has not already spoken. So that concludes the public, hearing.

[130:05] Great. Thank you, Vivian, and thank you. For the people from the public. That spoke we appreciate you being here and speaking your mind? With that said, it's 8 41. We've been at this for a little over 2 and a half hours. I suggest we take a break. How does coming back at 8 52. 10 min from now that work for everybody. Okay, alright. So we'll we'll adjourn till 8 52, and then we'll deliberate. Thank you.

[140:19] Looks like we're starting to get together. I don't know if it's Thomas or Vivian who's in control of the screen. But when you guys get back, maybe we can put the The the criteria that we're discussing up on the screen for discussion. Go back yet. Thank you. That's great.

[141:06] Alright. 8 52. I see we have full board and assembly. so I would suggest that. We go through and Talk to these 3 items that are up on the screen and their thoughts. If there's anything that you think should be added or subtracted to what's been proposed, or what your thoughts are, that on that in general. Let's try to limit our comments to 3 min since there are 7 of us that's hopefully 21 min. To get us through the 1st round. Does anyone want to start.

[142:11] George, just to be clear, are are you asking us to each address all 3 questions. Yeah, I think we should address all 3 simultaneously. Yeah. Okay. Sounds like sounds like you might want to start, Mark. Sure. I I thought I thought, Oh, he's gonna he's gonna pick up on that. Okay, well, I've got my mic on muted. We're gonna save time. okay. I'm just gonna answer in the sense of yes to all 3 questions. I I've spent a lot of time looking at this packet visiting the site. Thinking about this reading the Bbcp and I think it is consistent with the policies. I think the land. Use map, the map density, Mxr. And the zoning. The initial zoning of Rmx. 2 is consistent with the Bbcp. But, more importantly, I think it's consistent with

[143:10] the goals. our community goals. and the application of land that's in Area 2. And as I, as I hear. comments and go back through our concept review. You know, remembering that I think that the what I perceive is the biggest kind of objection is this is too dense. Given the area. and you know, I spent some time today in an area of intense mixed uses, mixed buildings mixed very mixed area, and that is. I was at between 6th and 9th and Canyon and spruce. And you know, that is an area that's a highly desirable area. It's a beautiful area, and it's a mix of everything from dense.

[144:08] 4 story apartment buildings. single family historic homes. 4 story office buildings. historic, large homes on Mapleton Hill, retail shops, one and 2 level. And it's all mixed up, and it's and that is part of its beauty is that it's all mixed up, and if we always say Well, we can't do something next to something, because the 1st thing is X, so we can only do X, or we have to have this crazy, gradual transition to why we aren't going to make any progress on our on our housing goals and our transit goals. So anyway, i i i i don't find that to be an objection that I support. So I I'm I'm

[145:00] full throat of support for this project and annexation. Great thanks. Mark. Laura. I am also a triple. Yes. and I'll just make a couple more comments. you know. I I agree with Mark's comments, and I want to particularly point out our annexation policy, which is we annex when a developer asks us to, or when a property owner asks us to like it has to be voluntary. It has to provide community benefit to the city, and we're usually looking for an affordable housing benefit. And so we're not going to bring in an area to the city. And this is Area 2, where we are inclined to annex if requested. We're not going to annex properties into the city and keep them at low density. That just is not the policy of the city of Boulder. We are looking for that community benefit in the form of affordable housing, provision, and additional housing units. So that is, that is density. I want to say that looking at the site design

[146:00] and the comments in the Annexation agreement. This looks very responsive to the previous comments that were made by planning board, especially around how to treat that eastern edge, and the transitions between the lower density and the higher density. So I am very appreciative of the work that Staff and the developer excuse me that Staff and the developer have done to make that possible. I also want to recognize that this proposal is for some products that we don't normally see in Boulder. It will be for sale. It will be on site, developed with both market rate and affordable side by side and middle income price points. Those are all extremely hard to achieve in boulder. And so when we get a project like this that is specifically designed to achieve those objectives, I think we are inclined to say yes, or to try to try to make that possible. And finally, I want to say. one of the objections I have heard to this project is that it is going to be largely car dependent because of where it is located and the multimodal facilities around it. And that is not the fault of the applicant.

[147:04] That is just the historic development pattern in the city. So I am hoping that the city will be able to take a broader look at nearby and surrounding bike, ped network, multimodal transit network as part of our planning for the planning reserve and the Bbcp Updates to complement what we're going to see here with this project. So those are my comments. Thank you. Hi Laura Kirk. Thank you to Mark and Laura for your insightful comments. I agree with pretty much everything that you said, so I won't repeat all of that. So I agree with that. The that it meets the these questions, 1, 2, and 3, with one minor exception regarding the annexation agreement. The annotation agreement provides for the project to build a left turn Lane

[148:05] on J. It doesn't actually specify where, but left Turn Lane on J at 28th Street. Just following up on what Laura just said, the problem. The the reason that this is a car dependent area is because we built car dependent infrastructure all around there, adding a left turn lane at J, and and 36 would increase capacity, which would induce more traffic and make it a yet more carbon area, and so I am not in agreement with that one provision. So I will be proposing an amendment to the Annexation Agreement to strike that one very narrow provision. Otherwise I feel that meets the annexation agreement. and it is consistent with the Mxr. And that Rmx flu is appropriate. Thanks.

[149:01] Cool. Thanks. Kurt Claudia. I will also try to be brief. Here I am also a triple. Yes, on these. I think the annexation is consistent with our Bpcbcp policy on annexation and providing affordable for sale middle income housing, as Laura has spoken to already. And I would also say it is not worth considering these kinds of annexations. If we are not going to go all in on pursuing those kinds of goals. I think the land use map change is necessary to achieve these goals. Mxr is the way to do this. And that initial zoning also of Rmx. 2 is our best tool to get a significant amount of affordable housing on site, given its density bonus structure. There's just one recommendation that I'd like to consider. This may seem small in the grand scheme of the Annexation agreement, but I keep coming back to it in terms of subsequent site design issues. And that is this requirement that the usable open space in any subsequent development be placed on the eastern border of this parcel.

[150:21] That does seem to be quite restrictive in terms of eventual site design, and I think it also sets up some real pressures for some some poor design choices for the actual neighborhood that we are looking at. Having eventually on this site to to set that kind of requirement on where certain amenities in a neighborhood are placed. Simply based on oh. compatibility questions with their surroundings. and not dealing with what might be useful for that neighborhood. So I would. I would recommend revisiting that. I believe it is. Paragraph 22 c.

[151:05] In the annexation agreement. I know that it says we can revisit that at site review, that whatever reviewing body. Can approve something different in that case, and I would say, if that's the case, let's not. let's not set up the pressure to to submit a bad design at the next phase. And Claudia Mason. I'm also a triple. Yes, on this one agreeing with. My colleagues comments. this does meet on balance the the BBC policies especially the one on annexation. I think the one part where I struggled the most was the reduction of the affordability. over the subsequent years. I mean, they've I guess we've been reviewing this for almost 8 years now.

[152:03] but in hearing the comments and hoping to get back up to the 40% needing that wiggle room. I was tempted to to request a a a change to the proposal to have it be 40 and maybe have the the 35 100 or 3,000 square foot reduced. But while thinking on this call and listening to the comments, I think, having that, added. Wiggle Room also gives us wiggle room in the side review as well. So maybe there's an opportunity a little more creative there and actually get something done this time. I am sensitive to the the comments of the folks that live in the rural areas on this change. I know it's painful to see, you know, a place that you've lived for a very long time.

[153:04] Become different, especially in changing the qualities of something that you appreciate so much? So I am sensitive. But I do agree with the comments that this is exactly what area 2 is for, and if Boulder is going to get live its goals. This is exactly the type of development that area 2 is meant for. So let's see here. just looking in the comments, we should got it. Honestly, I'm really excited. This is no cash in Loo this in the agreement. like a lot of times our affordability. units are affordable units are all very close together, because they end up being one project. So it'll be nice to see something that's actually truly mixed. So yes, all 3, that's all I got. Great, and I'll.

[154:03] Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. Yeah, I I can't find reason to disagree with any of these key issues. being met. What I what I would say is that the timing is awkward. because we are. you know, to propose this very different kind of a project either. High high density that is surrounded by low density. it's awkward because we're we're comprehensively rethinking and looking at the Boulder Valley comp plan and area 3. And so I see 2 kind of scenarios could play out. One is, we've got this different animal here, and it'll either provoke us to consider how how this

[155:01] can inform a evolution of Boulder valley, comp plan and Area 3 thinking or it'll it'll stand out as a as a different thing amongst the single family housing out there. So you know I I don't. That's that's my biggest concern. Is that the timing? It? It would be nice if we had had these other discussions. Boulder Valley Comp plan, and how it? How it fits in with that and area. 3 plan. But the timing is what it is, and I think that that's that is going to be. I think the liability moving forward is, will it stand out as an awkward piece that doesn't quite. you know, fit the area, or will it? In fact, spur new thinking? And that's it. Those are my comments. Thanks, Anna. Okay, I like my colleagues. I I'm in general agreement. With 1, 2, and 3

[156:10] i i i still struggle with that concurrency issue. I realize it's a it's a unlikely scenario between conveying the fee, simple land and and having the the the developer built concurrently. I just been on planning board long enough to see other projects where there was intent stated, and something else happened. And and I, and I'm not sure I'm really ready to propose any other language. But I I would like Staff to consider that comment to make sure that I think it was Sloan who said it was impossible for this not to get developed as affordable housing. If that's truly the case. I'd just like some like staff to think about that and make sure that that's really the case.

[157:07] We had the fruhoff thing and other things that have happened in the past. Not saying that this is exactly the same. But but I I am concerned about that similar. You know it's great that the developer, you know, walked us through a plan for 7 min that we should, as a group, kind of disregard, because everything on that plan except the intent and the except except the letter of the annexation, is what can be developed. And so the plan that we saw tonight it's not necessarily reflective except for how it's articulated within the annexation agreement. So I struggle with not having a site plan with an annexation agreement. And while I I understand that that's in the intent. the developer, you know, said some worrying things around. Sort of this, as Mason brought up the 3,500 and the 3,000 as insurance

[158:06] which makes you know, which makes me uneasy that we're going to end up there. There is a possibility with ending up with something completely different than what we were presented tonight. That will fit within the annexation agreement. So while I don't think I'm I'm I'm ready to propose anything around the concurrency. and I don't know whether I'm able to articulate, and maybe someone might be better suited to articulate it if they're in agreement with us. but I don't see any reason why the developer should be accommodated with 3,000. 503,000. If their intent is to build on average, 1,900 square foot units. There's no reason why we shouldn't limit that as a in the agreement to somewhere, plus or minus of 20% of that rather than

[159:00] what could be, you know. on the order of, you know, 50, 60, 70. I'm not sure what the math is. So something for us to discuss. I'm not really ready to propose anything. I know Kurt is ready to propose an amendment. I can't remember who else was. But maybe we'll start with Kurt or hey, mark you, wanna as we've done before, should we, since we since we're all in agreement. Should we go ahead and and vote on the initial thing, and then add on. I would suggest. I was just looking at the suggested motion language. And so the way I read this and think about this in terms of correct procedure. I would suggest that we take the 1st motion, which is a separate motion regarding the Mxr. Mxr. Designation and land use in the Bbcp. I think

[160:00] we'll get a first, st a second. We can debate it if we want. and then we'll vote on that. and I don't think any. There's any amendments. I haven't heard any. Anyone speak to amendments to that. Then we would make the second motion regarding to recommend to Council to approve the annexation we would get, make that motion. get a second. and then we can debate that, and people can propose amendments to that motion that we would debate. and then vote on the amendment, and then. That's a great idea. Hell! Any issue with that. that sound right procedurally. All right. If you if you'd like. I I'm ready to make that 1st motion. Go for it. Okay. I move to approve the proposed valley. Comprehensive plan. Land use, map change for the property located at 2,801 J. Road to mixed density. Residential Mxr.

[161:07] Incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact pertaining to case number LUR. 2023, 0 0 1 9. A second. Great ml. Sorry. Yes. Or Yes. Mason. Yes. Claudia. Yes. 3.rd Yes. Mark. Yes. And I'm also yes, that motion passes unanimously. So someone interested in making the second motion. Corporate amount. I move to recommend the City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 2,801 J. Road, including adjacent right of way, with an initial zoning of residential mix to Rmx. 2,

[162:13] under case number LUR. 2023, 0 0 1 8. Incorporating the sap memorandum as findings of fact, and subject to the terms and conditions in the proposed annexation agreement. Second. Great. Ml. Don't we have discussion next. Sure. Well, well, it was put up as a motion, and it was seconded. So we have to, we? Well, we. We can debate, or people can propose an amendment to this before we approve, this, people would take the opportunity to approach, approve, to make, propose an amendment, and then that would require a second. etc.

[163:03] Kurt, you wanna say something. Yeah, I have a proposed amendment. I sent it to Thomas. I don't know if it's possible to put it up. But I move to amend the Annexation Agreement. Section 23. Ca. To read a a new left Turn Lane to enter the property. So I think, does anyone wanna second that. I'll second it. May I speak to the motion. Sure go for it. Okay, thank you. So currently, the the annexation agreement provides for a left turn lane. It provides for the developer to construct potentially construct a left turn Lane to enter the property, and a new left turn Lane approaching the intersection

[164:06] with us. 36. Slash 28 Street. It's not entirely clear to me what exactly what that means. But, as I said in my statements or my my comments earlier, I'm concerned about adding capacity to J road, which will induce additional traffic in this area, and I find that that is not consistent with the Bdcp policies 6.0 1. All mode, transportation system and safe and complete streets. 6 point O, 2 equitable transportation and 6 point o, 5 reduction of single occupancy auto trips. So that is why I am proposing, striking the section regarding the new left Turn Lane approaching the intersection but keeping the the new left turn Lane to enter the property which seems appropriate to me.

[165:02] Hello! Do you have a comment on procedure. Not on procedure. I just wanted to point out that it's the the agreement doesn't actually require that left Lane Lane Turn Lane to be constructed. It just allows the city to require it as part of the Site Review, so the Site Review could be approved without that. Thank you. Laura. Thank you. I wanted to ask Staff. where did that addition of the option to include a left hand turn Lane, which I assume is from J road, traveling west, and then turning left onto 28th Street. Where did that come from? And was that part of your discussion with the county staff.

[166:05] Pounds. Speaking! Oh, go ahead! Sorry. Yeah, the all of the transportation improvements that are listed there were those you know recommended and and reviewed by our transportation staff. So that's where they came from. I apologize. They're not here tonight to speak on that further, but that was that was sort of the impetus for those was on the basis of our transportation engineering staff's review. I'll just speak for myself, and say that I would be reluctant to cut that out without fully understanding Staff's rationale for why they want that included, and any objections that they would have to removing that. Mark, and then per. Just first, st a point of clarification. Kurt. you are leaving intact in in Section 23. Everything except the modification to a BCD is is all you're you're leaving all of that intact.

[167:10] Correct. Okay. And then, if if we have the ability to not, this is a question, I think, for Hela to not require this left hand turn. Lane to be constructed? Because at site review we could say, Yeah, we don't want that. can we? If it, if it doesn't exist in the Annexation Agreement. Should we decide to add it, can we add it at site review. If at that point we feel that we can show that the the constitutional requirements can be met for exactions in a quasi-judicial procedure.

[168:06] Okay? Say some of the development. So I'm in support of this amendment. And I'll i'll tell, you why the the other improvements have a nexus or a contiguity to the site connection to the site. If you the a new left hand turn lane for westbound traffic on J road is something that actually. as part of a vision. 0 program may or may not be a really good thing, could be a really bad thing. but that whole intersection. as it stands now really needs some serious improvement, and I I think it's incumbent upon the city to reach our vision. 0 goals work with cdot etc. to improve that intersection

[169:03] without any regard to this property. And so I think it, is it it? I think I find it both onerous and not not really fulfilling of our transportation goals, etc, to require additional capacity. on on this intersection. So I support this amendment. Kurt. Thank you. Mark. Really appreciate that. Yeah, my, my concern partly is just that if this is in there, then, as as part of the annexation agreement. Then there will be a strong inclination to include it in Site review in in a Site review project, whether it's really justified or not, because it's kind of a free street change. That, you know, is already sort of included in the entire process.

[170:03] And So, as as Mark says, it may or may not be be consistent with Vision 0. It is not shown in the transportation master plan that I can see, and so it feels like it's something that the transportation staff kind of just came up with as something to throw in. And I'm just concerned that we will be inclined to build it, whether or not it's necessary which will add capacity and and induce additional demand for for driving in this area. So that's my motivation. Okay. Laura, you're speaking to this again. Okay. Yes, please. I'll just say I'm very sympathetic to where Kurt and Mark are coming from, and I want to hear that and explore that more fully. I would really like to be able to do that with transportation staff present to be able to speak to their rationale, and why they included it. I am concerned about taking it out at this stage, because if I understood Hella correctly

[171:13] to put it back in at the Site Review stage we would have to meet a much higher bar, which is that the project does not meet the Site Review criteria unless we include this left hand Turn Lane, and that there is a rational nexus for why this project and this project alone, is inducing the need for that left hand turn Lane, whereas with an annexation agreement. We have a little bit more flexibility. It doesn't have to meet that same standard. so I would be inclined to leave it in at this point, with the understanding on our behalf and on Staff's behalf. that when this comes back we need to have a much fuller conversation about. why is this needed in Staff's perspective? And what are the pros and cons? I really want to have that conversation. And it doesn't look like we can have that tonight. Yeah. Anybody else want to comment on this before we

[172:04] put it to a vote. You want you wanna actually write this up, Kurt. since since Mark is gonna sounds like Mark's gonna second you right. Sorry. Write it up. It's what's shown on the screen. Wow! I don't. Deletion. A new left turn, went in to enter the property, got it. Yeah. Okay. so that's your motion you want. Can you restate it for us one more time, just to make sure we have it. Sure I move to amend the Annexation Agreement. Section 23. Ca. To read a a new left Turn Lane to enter the property. Yeah. Everyone seconded. A second. Okay Laura. And now.

[173:00] Looking for my microphone. Sorry. No. Mason. Yes. Audio. No. And I'm also a no so that fails. 3, yes, 4, no anyone else want to make any amendments. Go ahead, Claudia. I haven't written it up, but I would propose an amendment to strike. Paragraph 22 c. From the Annexation Agreement. This is the paragraph dealing with the location of shared usable open space on the annexed property. I'll second that. But right well, if you want to write something up that we can

[174:00] put up there. does anyone want to discuss that further before we take a vote on it. Go ahead, Laura. I guess I would just like to ask Staff that paragraph about locating the shared usable open, safe space on the eastern edge of the property. Is that pretty much in response to planning boards, comments at the last meeting? Or is there another reason for that? I apologize my Internet just cut out a little bit. Could you repeat the last part of your question. Sure the the idea of locating the shared usable open space on the eastern edge of the property was that put in there as a response to planning boards, comments. The last time we did a concept review for this project? Or is there another reason, independent of that, why this was included in the agreement. I think part of the reason this was included in the agreement was to provide that additional

[175:01] Transition. Physical and visual buffer along that edge. So it was kind of a way to provide additional relief near the unincorporated county properties. Sort of the rationale there. And what was the response of the applicant to that idea? Did they say that's really difficult to do, or did they seem to go with that easily? I believe that that was one of the the items that we were both in agreement on. I think that as the applicant was kind of developing further ideas and concepts for their plans. That was part of what they were looking at, so. Thank you and and, Claudia, your concern is that that having that on the eastern edge might not make sense for the actual residents of the development. I think. Yes, that is the case. And obviously we're not. We're not held, or the applicant is not held to anything that they showed in concept review earlier. But the concepts that this board did look at previously included that space central to the community. And I think there are some elements of that kind of location that are very important for usability, quality of life for residents. And at the same time we are

[176:19] talking about an annexation agreement that, as we've discussed, is going to create 2 parallel roads on the eastern side, already creating not only some buffering from other lots. To the east, but also not a particularly friendly situation for recreation space for potential residents. Here. I'm sorry Mark. Yeah, I'll I'll just speak to this. That I appreciate. Claudia. Noting this during the concept review

[177:00] usable open space, not strip open space was a great concern of mine. The applicant, I, I believe, has has addressed that, but if we are, if we are specifying open space as part of an annexation agreement rather than through the site review process. Then I question the the validity of of specifying this strip a linear strip open space versus actually giving the developer flexibility to make it much more usable and available to all in more in a more central location. Now they showed us little sketches, but the sketches can't be used as part of our process for approving the annexation. So the question is, do we want to make it? You shall do this as part of the annexation agreement versus giving us the flexibility and the developer, the flexibility of hearing our concerns about usable open space that would be addressed as Site Review.

[178:08] Kurt. Reading this now more carefully. I'm not actually sure what this States at all, because it says this shared open space area shall be located adjacent to the Eastern property line, unless a different location is approved by the approving authority of the Site Review. Well, the Site Review has to show the open space someplace. So it's not actually clear to me what the provision is doing at all. Paula, do you have any comment on that. I. I think it creates an expectation for a usable open space that also takes into consideration compatibility of the design with the with the adjacent neighborhood, but it it does at the same time create the flexibility for it to be modified through the site. Review. So

[179:01] I hear your point. Go ahead, Claudia! My concern here with putting in the annexation agreement is that we are going to. We're going to get a site review proposal that is built around that requirement, at which point it is quite difficult in many cases to go back and make substantive changes to site layout, so I would like to avoid putting someone in that situation. Again, with the discussion of the previous amendment which I voted against. It is harder to make a change at that site review stage. Than it is at this point in time. Great I'll call myself I think, reading that through and giving Hela's comments. I actually find it to be pretty harmless because it it to me. It clearly states that that can be modified through the Site review process, and the idea of putting usable open space within this makes sense so I wouldn't be in favor of striking it. I want to modify it somehow. To accommodate some flexibility. I think that would be fine, but I think I think it's

[180:13] I think it's important to put to flag usable open space in there. And the fact that it's specifying where it is, but at the same time saying that in Site review this can be changed by the approving body, which is us. Kind of makes sense to me. So. Those are my comments. And a clarifying question. Then, I I assume, and maybe I've got this wrong. Under Rmx. 2 zoning. If we were to see a site review come back that there are actually usable open space requirements that would come with that so that striking this particular paragraph does not say, Oh, any. Any proposal that we see does not have to have usable space come with it. It's just taking out this requirement that it be on that Eastern property line.

[181:05] That's correct. Yeah, there's minimum standards and design standards for users. Thank you, so I would. I would still propose just striking the whole paragraph. There's the point in. Nothing. There's also a number of site review criteria that talk about the type and quality of onsite usable open space as well. So we, we would have those at our disposal. You. Laura. Okay, so it sounds like this paragraph is not necessary to ensure that the open space will be usable. Its main function is to say where it's located, and I will have to say that I am persuaded by Claudia's argument here that maybe the eastern edge is not the right place for this. Given that there is going to be that physical separation and buffer with the dedication of the right of way that we did not have when we looked at this back 2 years ago. I also want to say, I don't want to put the developer in a situation where they have to basically give us 2 designs and pay for 2 design processes to say, here's what we would do if we had to put it on the eastern edge. But we'd really prefer to put it over here, and here's why I would rather give them the flexibility to come to us with. Here's where we think the best place is for the open space. They already know that we have said the city has said, Hey, that the eastern edge might be the best place for that. But there's some flexibility here.

[182:21] I I don't. I don't think that we need to create the expectation that it has to come that way when we see it again. So I would actually be comfortable with striking this. even though I was one of the people 2 years ago who said, Consider putting it on the eastern edge. I know. Yes, thank you. So if I understand what staff just weighed in on it, it sounds like that paragraph C, or item C, might be redundant right? Because there there are plenty of of means within the zoning requirements to accommodate the or to require the usable open space.

[183:10] So this isn't adding any. Is this adding any weight to. Well, I think. I was gonna do. Well, I think to answer your question. Yeah, you're right. We have site review criteria that talk to the that speak to the quality and type of usable open space. Then we also have minimum standards in the code that talk about how much you know needs to be provided, I think, to Hella's point, this clause really just sets an expectation. That they should explore putting it on the east side of the property or modify that through the site review process. So I think we kind of looked at it like it. Just set an expectation to explore using open space as a transition to lower density property to the East. Recognizing that as they get into their design process, it may make more sense to better integrate it into the site. So

[184:05] I, I don't know that it's necessarily redundant. Ml, I think it just provided some flexibility. But we do have standards in the code that I think we can work with, and I think we also have site Review criteria that to help guide it as well. Yeah, thank thank you for that, Charles. I appreciate the kind of higher level thinking that it's 1 means to get that transition to happen, and if that is a consideration that we want to make sure is accommodated. I I would I would be yeah, I would be interested in seeing it remain remain there, so that that option which has has more implications than just usable open space. can remain on the table to. I'll I'll call on myself and kind of

[185:01] Charles. Put you on the spot a bit more, which is. do you prefer this being in there from a staff perspective? Or are you okay with it being stricken? If you, if you had to choose, what would you do. Well, I that's an interesting position to put staff in. Appreciate the question. I think we were comfortable with it, being in the agreement, just by virtue of the fact that it was a standard that they could modify through the site review process. So you know, again, I I think it created an expectation, with some flexibility that if it, if it didn't make sense or there was a preferred design that we could, we could consider it through site. Review. Great thanks. Mark! I I just I well, I I appreciate Staff's concerns and the flexibility. I also will know that it says this shared open space, and the word is shall be. And those words in legal terms, and agreements and documents are very powerful, even if it's followed by a modifier, unless a different body approved, etc, but that that shall be lends a weight to this

[186:13] close to a commandment. And that I I don't. I don't find it necessary, I find it restricted. Alright! We've debated this a lot does someone want to? Claudia, you want to make the motion and see if we have a second. and you're you're muted. Sorry. So my motion and I've got it typed up. But I'm not sure how you'd like to see it, but I could speak, and it's quite simple. The motion to amend the Annexation Agreement to strike paragraph 22 C. Shared usable open space. I will second. Great mark! Yes. Ml.

[187:02] No. Sure. Yes. Payson. Yes. And I'm a no motion carries 5 yeses, 2 nos. Okay. Anyone else would like to make a motion. I'm out. I I just wanted to have. I'm not making a motion, but I have a question on the paragraph right above the one we were talking about. It seems to have a contradiction in it, and I would like to try to see if that is true or not, and the contradiction I'm looking at is so the Applicant Site Review Plan shall show buildings of up to 3 stories, but no more than 2 stories in height above finished grade. can let me see. Can somebody clarify? How can it be? 3 stories, but no more than 2 stories in in height?

[188:00] We didn't specify a height number, so that, I think is nebulous. That's intended to allow for basements if the applicant was able to provide a basement level below grade, and then 2 stories above grade is what it's getting at. It doesn't specify. And it's just specific to the number of stories. Yeah. The height is governed by the underlying zoning at 35 feet in the Rmx zone. So that would. It doesn't have to be an agreement because it already is good, exists in the code. So this is already so. Why is it in? Why is it in the agreement. I I meant the 35 feet isn't in the agreement, because it. Already. They said. The code. Yeah. And they're not asking for additional height that they wanted to modify through the agreement. So

[189:02] the underlying height for the Zone district is 35 feet, and that already exists in the regulation. So it didn't need to make it into the agreement. So this is just a again, a design standard, a massing standard. Was, was the intent of this, if I understood, the intent of this was to have the buildings be shorter along the eastern half of the northern at of the Northern property line and the eastern. The entire Eastern. The intent of this was to have shorter buildings along that edge. I think the ultimate intent. And, Shannon, please correct me if I'm wrong, was really to allow for pitched roofs. so that we didn't have 3 story, flat roof buildings. Yeah, it was more to do with providing a design that seemed compatible with what was on neighboring properties. And that's typically what we see is maybe a 1 or 2 story.

[190:05] a home with a pitched roof. Okay, so really, this is just asking for a pitched roof in in a different way. Okay. I guess it isn't a contradiction. Thank you for clarifying Can I colloquy on that? Sure. So is the assumption that there could be 35 foot tall buildings with sloped roofs along the eastern edge and the eastern half of the northern edge. They could be just as tall, but they have very tall stories and a sloped roof or a pitch roof. I see Charles nodding. Yes. so they're not necessarily shorter. They just have to have a pitch roof on those edges. I see Charles saying, that's correct. Okay. okay, is that what you were asking? Ml.

[191:00] It. It was just unclear, because it seemed like the intent was to have the project scaled down along those edges. And it turns out this really isn't having it scaled down. It's trying to it's trying to accommodate a particular form which is sloped roofs rather than be shorter. so I think it accomplishes something. But I I don't. I don't know that it's necessarily gonna scale down I guess if if that, if I also assumed that the intent was to have it be shorter along those edges. otherwise, why specify the number of stories. Why not? Just say it shall have a pitched roof along these edges? I I guess I don't really understand. If there, if there is not an intent to have the buildings be actually shorter. It's confusing. but you know it. It is confusing. Cause the intent.

[192:01] 35 feet with pitch groups is is consistent with what exists in the area. And I think is also consistent with what could be redeveloped or additions on homes, you know, contextually in the area. So I don't necessarily know that it was designed to scale down buildings below 35 feet. I think it was really just more about character. yeah, I think, stepping, I I think, yeah, that, it would have more compatibility with single family homes along those edges was at least described that way. But may. Maybe it's it's the just using more complicated language than needs to be used. But I I think it's about sloped roofs. Is that correct, Charles? Would you say the gist of that. Yeah, I mean, providing for sloped roofs and 2 story structures

[193:00] above finish grade. Okay. Does anyone have any other amendments? I I'd like to. I'd like to suggest an amendment. I have not written it up. But I'll read it exactly I I what I what I'd like to do is in 19 in the annexation agreement. It currently says, no dwelling unit on the property shall have more than 3,000 square feet of floor area, excluding a 500 square foot garage, provided, however, but the total number of dwelling units allowed on the property pursuant to an approved site. Review application is 78, or fewer. Then the maximum square footage for each unit shall increase to 3,500 square feet. I clearly heard the developer say that on average, and I think their their goal is to have like 1,900 square foot units on the site. They wanted this for insurance, but I don't. I don't see it necessary to give them that level of leeway. I would suggest, reducing

[194:12] the 3,000 down to 2,500 and the 3,500 down to 3,000. That still in my mind gives them ample insurance. I don't see why they wouldn't agree to an annexation agreement, if truly their intent is to develop 1,900 square foot units. So that would be my proposed amendment. I can certainly restate it if anyone else is in support of that mason. When I asked the lower question, How did that number come come through? Would can anyone describe those discussions that led to those numbers?

[195:00] The 3,000 versus 3,500. Yeah. But how did you all land on 3,000 3,500. Fine. It was proposed by the developer. You know we I think we initially sort of threw out 3,000, as like the highest we would ever want to see. And then we gave a provision Inc. As an, as you know. just in case they're not able to get as many units. So I think that'd be you might want to ask the applicant what they would feel comfortable if you decide going down that route. Do you think? it would put this project at risk if we were to accept that proposal or the the amendment? I mean. I I mean, I I think having a limit is rational, I think. trying to like we've found finding. defining what that is can be hard, and I I would just urge you to provide some flexibility in whatever you decide.

[196:09] Ml. George, I didn't catch the numbers you were putting out there. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just suggesting we reduce that 3,000 down to 2,500, and the 3,500 down to 3,000. Because, as the developer stated, they're they're building 1,900 square foot units. So I think that still gives them a lot of flexibility. you know. people are going to ask for the moon and the stars. And it's you know, it's incumbent upon us to try to put some limits on things, and that was my thought. Mark, Mark, did you have a question area hand up. This is a this is this is really a challenging. You know. I I focused on this particular question. And and so initially, I I have. I had great objection.

[197:02] 2. The these 2 numbers, and why someone would want under what circumstances would they build this? And at the same time I sympathize with the developer of trying to protect the total number of units that the only way that the the applicant would ever be able to implement whether it's 2,000, 503,000, or 3,000 3,500. The only way is, if the number of units gets whittled away to below that 78. And so my desire to see more units. more affordability is to keep the number of units high. So I'm actually not going to support this, even though I I do find these sizes objectionable. I'd rather have them out there in the theoretical, with a higher number of units being built than in reality, with a lower number of units being built. So

[198:07] that's my thought right. Anyone have any other comments. Laura. Yes, thank you. I I just want to point out that when the developer talked about that 1,900, I think they were talking about, like the majority of units or the average unit size. But they may want to have some that are larger. And I think that we have, you know, in the agreement. I don't remember what page it's on. It talks about. A certain number of the units will be like, I think, at least 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. and most of them will be 2 bedrooms and one bathroom. I'm not a developer. I don't know what the numbers pencil out. But I know that in most developments you have some units that are like the penthouse unit, or like the fancy unit. And then you have a bunch that are more like the average size, and you have some that are smaller. So I I'm not super comfortable myself messing with these numbers at this stage in the Annexation, I would be more comfortable with letting this go through to site review, as is, and then, if we are very uncomfortable with the unit size. At that stage we can talk about it.

[199:11] but. Kurt. Just to respond to what Laura said. I may have misunderstood, but I heard the developer to say that their market rate units were planning to be from 1,600 to 1,900 square feet, or maybe 1950. So I didn't hear that as an average at all. I heard that as a maximum, actually. And if that's the way the project comes out I will be thrilled. I think that that would be fantastic. That is absolutely what I'm going for if we get anything anywhere near 3,000 square feet. I think it'll be a failure. This is not 3,000 square foot units are not what we need in this city. They're not going to be a net benefit to the city. And so I I'm sympathetic with Mark's concern about.

[200:02] I I think maybe Mark Mark, where you were going was by keeping it high. It is out of the realm of possibility, and the lower it gets it becomes a little more sort of realistic. So I understand that. But nonetheless, I would support this then. so I I guess I'll second. Okay, great. I I would like to make one more comment which you we have to remember that this excludes garages, which is 500 square feet. So so think about the total that's being added up here, and then just for my own clarity, because I'm not 100 sure on my own clarity, as it relates to square footage. What about basement space? Is that calculated in this, or is that? Could that be bonus area to this, depending on how it's calculated. That would be included in. It would be included. Consider this, yeah,

[201:00] So that would be finished floor space. But, like mechanical rooms and things like that would be included in that square footage. Or is that excluded? There's my. Extensions. but yeah, I think for the most part it's all considered floor area. Okay, that's great. That's great to understand any other comments. Okay, great. Well, I'm gonna restate that motion. Which is I suggest the following changes to Paragraph 19, in the annexation agreement to change. And I'm going to restate it as follows. market unit size and tenure. No dwelling unit on the property shall have more than 2,500 square feet floor area, excluding 500 square feet in a garage, provided, however, that if the total number of dwelling units allowed on the property pursuant to an approved site, Review application is 78 or fewer, then the maximum square footage for each market unit shall increase to 3,000 square feet.

[202:13] The floor area requirements for the market rate units shall be based on the floor area definition found in section 9, 16, one. General definitions. Erc. 1,981. So just to clarify the only thing that's changed in that is, from 3,000 down to 2,500, and from 3,500 down to 3,000. Is there a second. I'll second that. Ml seconds it and I'll go ahead and do a call. Laura hurt. Yes. Mark. No. Mason. you're on mute. Mason.

[203:01] yes. Cool. Hmm. Yes. Okay, motion passes 4, 3. Wake. Anyone else, have. George, I did not vote. Oh, I'm sorry, Claudia. I'm sorry. I'm a yes. I apologize. Sorry so do the is it? Motion passes 5. 2 apologies for that. I in my mind you're already agreeing with me. I'm sorry. Other amendments or suggested amendments. Okay? Do we want to? I still think we need the original, the main one, right? So we have we. The main motion is on the floor, and has now been amended twice.

[204:01] so we would. If you want, we would piece together this into a vote on the on the main motion, and I'll so it would. and maybe if so let me get I, I suddenly need to find it again. Okay, there it is. Okay. So we have a motion. It's been seconded and debated and amended twice. So can we summarize, or should I read? In fact, I can. I can do it. I can read the motion and add in we removed 22 c. and we modified 19. So

[205:02] you may do my best to just verbalize that. Okay? So the motion as it is, is motion to recommend. Excuse me not not to interrupt, but I think the motion language that we voted on needs to be what is in the amendment. The I mean. I think the amendments as voted on need to be. Not not a condensed version. Right? You're gonna read. Yes, yeah. But we. Okay. Yeah. Sorry I thought you were saying you were just gonna amend it. I I think I think I think well, how about if if we said if after agreement period. it would then say. as amended by removing section 22 c. And modifying paragraph 19 of the Annexation Agreement

[206:00] to change the square footage requirements or the square footage allowances from 3,500 to 3,000, and from 3 from from 3,000 to 2,500, and from 3,500 to 3,000? Or do we need to actually read the language of the full paragraph 19 as modified. No, I think you could just have the main motion language, and say, as modified by the motions to amend by Claudia and Georgie. Okay. right? The motion language on that was clear, and you already voted on that. So everybody knows what what you're voting on. Right? Okay? So I'll I'll read the motion again and tack on the as as amended by the motion from Claudia and George. Okay, motion to recommend the City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 28 0. 1 J. Road, including adjacent

[207:04] right of way, with an initial zoning of residential mixed. 2 Rmx. 2, under case number Lur. 2023, 0 0 1 8, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed annexation agreement, and as amended by the motions to amend from Board Member Claudia Hansen, theme and board Member George Boone. So there it's been read, and I I think we're ready to go. I'll second that. Okay. Ml. Yes. Mason. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Or Yes, her. Yes. Mark. Yes. And I'm a yes as well.

[208:00] Okay. That motion passed unanimously. Congratulations to the applicant. And for city staff. I'm working so diligently on that. that concludes that component of our agenda. I think we have matters left. Well, I have a matter from staff. Let me get my screen. Go on here. So we are seeking a volunteer and we were just here with all of you talking about the access management parking parking project and we were hoping to have one member of the planning board. Join a working group. and the time commitment will likely be quarterly until next July of next year. So about 5 meetings and each would be about 1.5 h apiece.

[209:01] And maybe a few hours of reviewing documents when they're ready for eyes to be put on them, and comments to be given. So If there is a volunteer we would love to have you if you guys need to. Think about it a little bit and the time commitment. We can follow up with an email. Question Sorry. Go go ahead! Mason! Is. Will the meeting be on a typical day like a Tuesday? It's a particular time of day. When is that meeting. It would definitely be during the work week and the work day. I don't know that it would be outside of typical hours. Let me just double check that, though. Person virtual. Yes. but we do have some flexibility. Recognizing that it's going to be a pretty big group. So.

[210:02] Oh, yeah. What's the scope of work? I mean, I understand the hours. But what is the actual task? Reviewing the proposed changes to the parking code and the neighborhood parking program. I'm sorry. The Tdm program all the things that we talked about last week. Thanks. I. I. I have a question of clarity around the role of a planning board member on something like this. Obviously we all come at it with slightly different views. What are you looking for? As it relates from the planning board member their specific viewpoint, or for them to liaise between the board and and this group, and because those are 2 different things. I think it's probably the latter, but I guess I I'm kind of carrying Lisa Hoods water tonight, so I don't know that. I have a great response to that hell. I don't know if you have any thoughts about how planning board members and Transportation Advisory Board members that sit on working groups participate. But I think it's

[211:12] I think it's not necessarily the individual perspective. Can I just say that from my perspective, trying to play that role on the airport working group? It's quite difficult to be a liaison for a group with 7 different opinions. When you don't have any time in the meeting to talk to all of those 7 meeting members about what's going on. So I think you really have to rely on the individual's judgment to participate to the best of their ability. because they're not going to be able to carry water for people that they aren't talking to about this thing. Yeah. And and along that line, right? I can say that that created a lot of friction on the planning board. Where you had. And in the case of the the airport someone who was involved in advocacy as well as on the planning board, and the goal of that role was very much to be a liaison, and that put a lot of weight burden on us. And Laura

[212:08] So I guess the question is. do you need someone from planning board on there, considering that you're going to get our input at the end of the day. Anyways. because I I do have concerns, and probably other members probably do as well. Right. You have a broad spectrum of viewpoints, and whoever this person is is gonna weigh in like they're a planning board member, but they're not necessarily representative of the planning board. So I'm not sure what the goal would be to have a planning board member do that. Well, I can follow up and better understand what the strategy is. I think this is maybe something that was synthesized potentially with our communications folks. And we can follow up with an email. But I certainly understand and respect that perspective. And that's a good recent example,

[213:02] of kind of attention that that can create. So I appreciate that. So if it's helpful, we can follow up with another email just about what the rationale was, and what the ask would be. I think that would be great from my perspective. Does anyone have any other thoughts on that. I I do. I just want to say, having taken part in more than one working group as representative to Tab or the campaign finance, working group, etc, that, as as Laura pointed out, you you want people on the working group that have an interest in the topic that if they don't have an interest in the topic and they don't bring some level of knowledge and expertise. then their then their value as a group member is diminished. But at this, you know, and at the same time they have to be cognizant that this is not that they are representative of a board. But but to try to

[214:03] take someone that has knowledge and background in a particular topic, and to say, Hey, you gotta be really neutral, and you gotta incorporate 7 other people's diverse opinions. Actually, really, it's it's it's a it's a bridge too far. And and it does it does create almost an impossible scenario. At the same time, though a good. a good member of a working group can really report back to their respective board and report to the working group that, hey? You know, some of my fellow board members really hate this idea. I support it, but some really hate it. And here's why they hate it. And and there is there is a role to play there with knowledge that that in the name of fairness. If you're conveying some of that stuff back and forth, that that there is value to that.

[215:09] I think that could be another part to the role that I think you guys play when, for example, when you're an ex officio board member on the landmarks board. I think you're there to bring in the perspective of a planning board member with the experience of being on the planning board, and you can't necessarily represent what the Board says. Because typically you haven't discussed the items. But as a planning board you may have experience, and as code changes are being discussed, how they might be applied and issues that you might have seen just coming in with that experience. So I'll just caution and say, I'm not sure that the airport working group was the best example to use, since the airport topic pretty deliberately, was not brought to the planning board, and that the Planning board was not asked to give opinions about it.

[216:06] and the Amps topic is quite different the same way that the East Boulder subcommunity plan process. John Gersell was the planning board member in that and his role there was was quite different because he was being asked to provide his individual opinions as well as his experience as a planning board member, which informed those opinions. So I do think that there is a role for a planning board member to bring the experience that you gain on planning board to a process like that, like the Amps process. I do think that there's a good role for a planning board member there. I don't think that there's a lot of value to defining that role strictly as you are, only there to be a liaison, and carry messages back and forth. Great. Well, then, I'll follow up like I said with another email, just on really what our hopes are for the role. And if it really is more of an ex officio, and bringing the experience as a planning board member and helping to review and synthesize these changes. But I appreciate the feedback.

[217:01] Thanks. Charles. Any other matters. Nothing from staff. Yes, I have one quick matters. Item, actually, I just wanted to raise the. We had a request from Community Member Lynn Siegel to reopen the open comment period from the beginning of the meeting as she was attending the Boulder police Chief finalists meeting and I just wanted to defer to you all on that. As ultimately. I believe that's the board over the chairs decision as to whether or not we would like to do that. Thank you. I I unfortunately, while I I sympathize that I was trying to to to to thread the needle in all kinds of different meetings and appreciate her her civic engagement. She'll have another opportunity to address the planning board and public comment at our at our next hearing, at the appropriate time. And I just think that that period of the meeting is closed.

[218:01] Great. Thank you, George. Laura. I just wanted to quickly recognize and appreciate Staff for responding to our request to add a little bit more detail to those meeting minutes that were brought back today, and that we approved today. And I thought you did a great job of how you summarized the comments that we gave in that East boulder sub community plan working session. So thank you so much. Right. Any other things that we need to discuss. Just a a quick calendar check for The next few meetings I think we have a pretty full schedule. There any changes or anything that Charles, we need a heads up on as a as a board as far as upcoming meetings.

[219:00] No, I think the calendar is pretty well updated at this point. Just some really busy agendas. coming up through the end of the year. So just you're gonna get some packets that are kind of doozies so just be prepared for that. But everything is is up to date, I think, as of yesterday, so. Alright! Great if no one else has any other matters items, I'm gonna close the meeting. going once, going twice. Everyone. Thanks. Everyone have a good evening.