November 12, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Vivian could you start the recording for us please done yep hi everybody okay good evening all and welcome to the November 12th 2024 meeting of the city of Boulder planning board um our first order of business tonight is uh public participation and public participation is uh for anyone to speak on any matter other than the um the two public hearings that we have for tonight so if you uh want to speak either online or here in person we have a sign up here in person and uh viven will walk us through the procedure uh for speaking online and here so take it away Vivien thank you good evening everybody my name is Vivien Castro bridge and I

[1:00] help facilitate public participation um we have at least one person joining us virtually and maybe some others uh that are there with you in person so I'll just run through these slides quickly you can go to the next one Thomas so first we just want to share 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 commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and perspectives and we have more information about the productive atmospheres Vision on our website next slide please and I'll just share some um concrete examples of rules of decorum in the boulder Revised Code that support this vision and these will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of

[2:01] intimidation against any person obscenity racial behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited and we ask that all um persons wishing to participate in open common or public hearing uh identify themselves by first and last name next slide please and to let us know this is particularly if you're joining us online um please raise your virtual hand so we know to call on you and you can do that by um clicking on the hand icon at the bottom of your screen or also next slide please going to the reactions button and then finding the raised hand that way um so that's it for the rules of public participation and if there's anyone who wishes um to speak during this part of the meeting which is speaking to agenda items that are not you may raise your virtual hand now

[3:01] or Thomas you can let me know if anybody in person um wishes to speak thank you Vivian we do have one person here signed up in person for open comment and that is scamp um please go ahead and approach the podium just so you know there is a small silver rectangular button press that to turn the microphone on there you go my name is David amp coowner of 1590 Hawthorne my name is David amp I coowner of 1590 Hawthorne Avenue which we purchased in May 2024 house is part of the orchard PD if that Rings any bells we're about to have our first HOA meeting and the agenda circulate ahead of time includes an agenda item about L 2023 uh 57 the final frontier is they dubbed it thought I'd fully dive into

[4:01] the history of the item to ensure that I could actively participate in that a2a discussion my findings and interactions have been disturbing to the extent that I thought i' you'd want to know about him uh I watched the recordings of both meetings at which the board previously discussed the matters um as for the board's conduct I commend uh your deliberations uh you ask great questions and the overall discussion was quite thoughtful however there are fundamental flaws with the information you were provided in both the city's memo and the verbal responses to your questions I'll run through four of these items this will be a rapid fire given the time constraints anyone that wasn't at those meetings is going have no idea what I'm talking about but hopefully you guys do number one the shed permit as you may Rec call there were questions about how the heck the city issued a building permit for prior owners to build a shed on land they didn't own turns out the 1997 permit on which those discussions were based had nothing to do with lur 2023 57

[5:00] it was a permit for a different shed on a neighboring lot 1570 Hawthorne not the relevant lot which is 1576 Hawthorne I place into record I will post Hawk because of the rules um the permit documents provided by Channel city planner he sent them to me a couple days ago and then we were in contact this morning uh number two hawthor court HOA the 15th Street connector another discussion item was the pathway from the orchard Central gazebo to play area and the hoa's boundary missing from that entire discussion which went up for a little bit and kind of was about is it a good connection to other things and was this envisioned as a connection to other things um absent from that discussion was the fact that hawthor Court HOA wasn't even built until 1980s so our the orchard was in the 70s one next to it you guys were asking all questions about that was 1980s um as inside that's how I got here tonight over the common pathway on the connector shoot Broadway and then I walk thr rest away item three statements from

[6:01] Neighbors um two of three people who provide statements have their own encroachments on the hoa's common areas and third person may have lacked the mental capacity to fully understand her options actions and provide proper consent item number four owner encroachments uh in the memo basically like oh the current owners did bought 2017 they didn't do any encroachments uh I will enter into record the real estate list 2017 um certain items just don't appear out of thin you guys can look at the photo as they speak for themselves to ask you halt the action relating to this L 2023 57 and you investigate how these failures even happen in the first place so we can learn from them that's it um yeah uh do you have you it seemed like you were have some documentation and so forth can you send that to um Boulder planning is it Boulder planning board at any well the planning board email

[7:02] address which I'm sure we can yeah I I can send them I also have 10 copies for you all right here sure I I I think we'd be welcome to uh receive them now that'd be great okay so the first set here as I said this is um essentially the permit documents I got from Chan uh and basically you can look through them they have 1570 on there I don't know how this over the explanation I got from Chan this morning was if you look at the Boulder County website basically there's a house that's 1570 which it's people that Smit this and then the common areas basically I need some label or something so one of the common areas of play area was also label as 1570 even though it has nothing to do with that individual property and so Chan he thought that this had to do with the 1576 but in fact if you look at the applicants their names it has to do with a totally different property the

[8:00] neighboring lot which is 1570 and I also have here if we didn't know how much we want to go into this but Channeler response was oh like no this related to the what we care about and I said like look at the owner names it's uh basically you look at those two names there think it's wolf and saxs I went back and looked at who owned the property and they own 1570 as it says not 1576 I have all those documents there I can share them too okay okay I thank you and I I just to follow procedure we're not really designed to have a back and forth in the public engagement section however uh I think we will all take an interest in this and um trust staff to uh we'll follow up does Chandler have your contact information I I I don't understand what the concern is specifically tonight so I would love to sit down and meet with you to understand what the actual concern is and how we can basically the information that this board was given was was fundamentally

[9:00] flawed and that could determine the outcome of that conversation um my discussions with Chandler have been this I called I'm sorry does he have your contact info I would say I would like it to be someone else besides Chandler based on his discussions basically I did a lot of work you go through I'm going to let you and Charles outside of this room in a different context work that out but we do have your contact info is that correct you guys do I got all that information that I think I think that's all we can do for right now yeah great thank you are we okay to move on to the online participants one second Vivian can I just say you're welcome to send anything that you want to us via email like send us a copy of your remarks I also would like to make sure is it the boulder planning board that reviewed this or the board of zoning adjustment because we don't usually deal with Garden sheds it was the planning board it was the planning board okay uh so yeah basically the one thing I will say is that apparently this is at its steps and I'm

[10:00] asking if you just do a pause on those developments so it does not get approved we're we're GNA we're going to pause here and uh encourage you to work with staff and uh if if it uh needs to come back to us again it's just got to be done actually your chances of seeing a a result would be jeopardized if we did anything differently other than follow the follow the procedures we need to in our in our public meeting okay okay that's so I'm justk you okay thank you for your comments uh Vivian do we have anyone online that wishes to speak yes we do ly seagull please go ahead you have three minutes what you need to do is follow less procedure this whole thing spent a lot of my tax money on people not communicating with each other that's a problem that the city has all over and right now I'm in a hotel in North North Boulder because I can't be in my own

[11:02] house where there are two bedrooms for me because of an anxiety between me and David hashimi the energy smart guy for Boulder County who decided he was going to Gaslight me 12 years ago and there was a an energy retrofit thing then and I went forward with it and I found out that the provider that I wanted got dropped I asked why he did not tell me I called the developer that I mean the vendor that did solar panels This was solar panels done for someone else and Boulder County insisted on having the solar panels installed under adverse conditions that would have threatened the vendor with liability and damages and this is a big problem there is so much corruption in the county and the city and miscommunication and that last guy that spoke is just the beginning of it you've got to start to just listen into each other and just casual

[12:01] communication less procedure less going by the book you know I have a hole now in my living room wall because there needs to be access for my hot my hot water heater that has a heat pump in it and why I can pull out my refrigerator in three minutes and that's perfectly good access for that hot water heater but no you're going by code and code there's no exceptions to code there's a 2,000 lb entertainment center blocking that wall I will never use that access door that's deployed the value of my property by about $200,000 because who wants a living door in their living room going to nowhere never being used this is how the city of Boulder operates oh it's code so now I find out finally I could have even put this hot water heater in another part of my property

[13:01] finished that that space it would have had good ventilation they wouldn't have had to do this Con strange job they're doing in a small space these heat pump hot water heaters need a lot of ventilation 7 by 10 feet they're putting in it in a less than three-foot place and you know what Boulder Boulder housing Partners did they put a whole bunch of the in for people that can't afford them anyway they don't work efficiently because they installed them improperly and those people people are now burdened with more fees Shucks is this good policy hello planning board what are you doing developing Alpine Balsam the planning Reserve see you South you know is there any place you don't want to develop because you know what in North Boulder it there's no Vitality here zero thank you Lind seagull for join if other members of the public joining us online would like to speak please go ahead and raise your virtual

[14:03] hand I noticed some of you joined after I read the rules of participation so if you do wish to speak for the public hearing later uh you can change your name to include your last name here or send your your full name to me through the Q&A and I can do it for you okay I think that ends open comment back over to you chair thank you Vivian um before we close the public hearing I'm going to make a short comment and I'm going to offer uh a time for anyone else but my comment is that we have just concluded a a a national election a state and local elections and uh we will have a peaceful transfer of power and this election has me thinking about um the conduct of us as a board staff and the city of Boulder because uh politics

[15:00] is local and in my time on the planning board I have come to realize that um this particular staff this particular board uh adheres to the rule of law and I think that that uh in the way we judge things and the way we approve or deny things it's important and it's important that we do it in little old Boulder in an almost empty hearing room just as important as we do it in our in our nation's capital and adherence to the rule of law uh gives us a structure and gives us a way to disagree and to um strive for outcomes that are good for the community as a whole and when we have disagreements and when we um have outcomes that we uh feel are deficient or short Chang one particular group or

[16:00] another um we have the opportunity to change those rules and that law but we stick to the rule of law and I think I think we do an exemplary job and I want to commend the city as a whole this staff and this board so that's my comment for tonight so thank you all anyone else okay all right um we are going to move on we're going to close the public participation we are going to approve um we're going to uh move to approve minutes and um and then this board is going to take a break uh a quick 15 minute dinner break and then we'll proceed with the uh the rest of the hearing so um we're going to move on to approval of the minutes uh item 3A the May 20 May 21st 2024 planning board minutes does anyone have any uh final changes or Corrections or a motion to

[17:07] approve move to approve okay second okay uh again no seeing no other uh debate uh we'll take a vote and this will also give me an opportunity I fail to uh take attendance so um uh we will uh note our attendance as we go down on the line here so EML yes Kurt yes Laura I'm not going to vote because I was absent but I am present okay Claudia yes and Mason yes okay Mason is unmuted looks like hear me his oh

[18:00] no we can't hear you can you hear me now hey sorry about that yes okay uh so the May 20 thank you Mason the May 21 2024 minutes are approved now moving on to the um July 16th 2024 minutes um any final cor changes or Corrections there okay um was that I excuse me just a moment I'm Thomas were those the ones that I made the change to yes the J July 16th did you issue a second set of those I made changes and updated them in

[19:00] the packet in so the P okay okay um and I'll note that I also submitted some uh edits and I assume that those were uploaded yes I I put those in and updated the packet before the meeting okay thank you okay I I'm sorry sorry for pausing here but I um okay I see my changes thank you okay uh how about a motion to approve the July 16th minutes the motion second okay all right uh Claudia yes Laura yes Kurt yes ml yes Mason yes and I'm a yes okay those are approved

[20:02] item 3C the August 27th 2024 planning board minutes any final discussion or comment there um I'll just note that I also submitted some changes to that set so assuming those are Incorporated they should be also reflected in the current packet great thank you okay um motion to approve Laura you got your mic on move to approve the a August 27th 2024 planning board minutes sick okay and um Laura yes Claudia yes Mason yes ml yes Kurt yes and I'm a yes also okay we have um uh reached um we have no call-ups and so now we're to agenda item five and um I'm going to uh call a recess in the meeting

[21:03] um for 15 minutes and Thomas if you could put that up on the on the web and we'll go have a quick bite to eat and come back and get to our meeting e

[22:27] e e

[23:27] e e

[24:27] e e

[25:27] e e

[26:27] e e

[27:27] e e

[28:27] e e

[29:27] e e

[30:26] e e

[31:26] e e

[32:26] e e

[33:26] e e

[34:26] e e

[35:26] e e

[36:26] e e

[37:26] e e

[38:13] hey um Thomas are you ready okay let's try it now okay anyone needs oh maybe it's me have an echo I am I am

[39:00] okay okay okay I'm going to call the uh uh November 12 2024 uh planning board meeting back to order um we are now at uh item five public hearing items 5A is the agenda title is public hearing and recommendation to city council regarding proposed ordinance 8665 amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 to implement Senate Bill 23- 290 and locally permit natural medicine businesses defined in the state bill as natural medicine Healing Centers cultivation production and testing facilities and setting forth related details so we'll have a presentation from staff

[40:01] uh clarifying questions from the board a public hearing and then board deliberations so take it away staff uh thank you chair good evening board members I'm Carl guer planning uh de development services tonight we'll be talking about natural medicine so ordinance 8 8665 is before you um the purpose of tonight is for planning boards to approve deny or modify the ordinance or make a recommendation to approve deny or modify the ordinance to city council uh the goal that we have for this particular ordinance is because uh the state will be commencing issuing licensing of natural medicine businesses in 20125 our hopes are to get some rules on the book so we can offer some clarity and reduce the level of ambiguity with applicants that come in uh at the time that uh licenses will be uh applied for so having this ordinance in play uh by January 1st is what our goal has been so

[41:01] because of that the schedule we have uh is to get a recommendation from planning board this evening and then move on to city council for first reading on December 5th uh it'll just be on consent on that particular meeting and then the second reading and public hearing will be held on December 19th um in order to get the ordinance in effect by the start of 2025 it would need to be adopted on emergency so we'll be asking for that from Council on December 19th so the question we have before planning board tonight is does the planning board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance so just starting at the top um since we haven't had a a discussion about natural medicine um what is natural medicine um at the moment in Colorado uh it's defined as psilocybin which is a substance that's derived from mushrooms it's a psychedelic sub substance it's used to treat mental health issues or me mental illness it's

[42:02] medicinal purposes only so there's no retail component of this like we had with uh marijuana there is a specific uh definition that is in the state code that lists a number of other substances I'm not the best at pronouncing them dimethyl Tri triamine iane and mescaline are other substances that the state is looking into right now it's siloc ibin it's possible that those other substances that doesn't include peyote uh could become legal as well in the future potentially in 2026 but they all fall under this definition of of natural medicine so whatever local regulation we put into play would actually be under the definition of natural medicine as it's defined by the state uh moving forward but right now it's just siloc cybin so we have some pictures of of the the mushrooms that you can see where the substances deriv

[43:01] from so a little bit of history on this you probably do recall um voting on proposition 122 in 2022 that was called access to psychedelic substances again it was passed by Colorado voters and was intended purely to uh help treat mental health issues in the state of Colorado um the the passage of that basically became the natural medicine Health Act of 2022 so moving into 2023 the the Colorado Senate took up um the approval of that and started writing uh the Colorado natural medicine code so that was adopted uh as Colorado Senate bill 23-29 again that's where they got into more specific information of how natural medicine would be regulated in the licensing process the boards that would oversee natural medicine things of that nature and they've even taken a deeper step into the details uh this year with the state rulemaking uh where they've uh come up with even

[44:02] more uh detailed regulations so that uh process concluded on July 25th uh and then they adopted the new rules of the natural medicine code updated on October 21st so their intent basically is to begin accepting applica applications for licenses for natural medicine businesses uh on December 31st so there's a chance that they'll start issuing it on January first it'll probably be later since they have to have people that uh will review the applications for compliance with the with the regulations so just a a broad overview of the state legislation this is you know new territory for us and myself so I don't claim to be an expert on every detail in the code I've tried my best uh but basically it does allow persons that are over 21 years of age to possess share cultivate and manufacture that's what the the code says at the state level uh without payment so again there's no retail component it makes it

[45:02] uh legal to have the substance there you can grow it I think the code says within a 12 by 12 area that's secured uh within your residence but really what most of the regulations are getting at is the commercial aspect of natural medicine businesses so a lot of the regulations really focus on certification permitting and registration requirements uh it also sets up an Advisory Board uh for four five license types which I'll talk about on the next slide just uh one rule that uh is very applicable to um zoning is there is a thousand foot distance requirement that's in the state code uh from these businesses basically the property lines of the businesses to Child Care Centers preschools elementary middle and junior high schools residential Child Care Facilities um so that's something that that's uh come up in the conversation about this today uh we sent out a map that I'll show also that shows that Boulder happens to have

[46:01] a lot of child care facilities so that does take out a lot of the city but we'll we'll talk about that as part of the um presentation the regulations go into a lot of detail about the cultivation manufacturing testing storing distribution how it's transported dispensation for for natural medicine and and really get gets at the like facilitation of what a certification looks like what somebody has to do to get a license what qualifications they have to have and there's a whole bunch of regulations that they've created as part of the rulemaking process when it talks about local governments that's where we come in so it says local governments May enact ordinances or regulations to govern the time Manner and place of operations of licenses um within Colorado local governments are not allowed to prohibit the use uh we just

[47:00] have to reasonably regulate the use we can't restrict the transportation of the product through uh the locality um again like we may not adopt ordinances that are unreasonable or conflict with the state law so these are just some of the topics that are covered by the rulemaking you can see it's very comprehensive I'm not going to read all of these but I know there's concerns about the handling of chemicals how these are stored security requirements like if you have so much uh natural medicine on site uh it requires cameras and surveillance um packaging and labeling it gets into a lot of the details uh that in addition to just the basic licensing and renewal process so we've provided a link within the memo to the U the rule making process that recently concluded so we've basically been meeting with some industry experts on this again I said this is New Territory trying to understand what this would

[48:01] look like and I I think there's five license types one is basically listed as other there might be more specific things that roll down in the next few years but what we're really looking at is natural medicine Healing Centers natural medicine cultivation facilities natural medicine product manufacturers and natural medicine testing facilities so when we met with experts we learned that basically a healing Center is like a typical therapy office so it look like a lot like this picture where there's going to be a facilitator it doesn't have to be a licensed physician but it does have to be a licensed facilitator per the state law you know so someone would would take the product and they would be monitored and there would be a whole process um of where they're in a a therapy type session and I'll talk a little bit about the characteristics and impacts on a different slide but you can picture a typical therapy office it's a little bit different in the sense that that when somebody takes natural medicine they're under the influence of the product for

[49:02] much longer periods of time than a typical therapy office it can be like six hours potentially more um so facilitators are trained to monitor them for safety purposes but also to make sure that they are safely making it through the The Experience before they're allowed to safely be discharged so there are rules about transportation to and from like like you're not allowed to drive within a certain period of time these is this is all handled by the state law the three other licenses really deal with light manufacturing um so these are going to be more like growth facilities or where they're testing the products or D deriving the product from the mushrooms this is more of an industrial setting um they don't the other thing we heard from talking to experts is just the the sheer quantity of the product as well as the need for space the volume of product is much different than marijuana

[50:01] marijuana or if you want to look at like alcohol other things that are licensed locally and are required to be licensed locally by uh the state take up you know you have retail outlets you have much larger facilities to grow marijuana in this case with the mushrooms much smaller spaces are needed um I don't have all the metrics but like basically they've talked about like for the entire state it would be a much smaller area of of mushrooms that would need to grow and much less product that's needed for the experience for the sessions um so we've looked at these um tried to figure out what land uses this should best fall under we've also looked at peer communities but as far as characteristics as I've discussed uh supervised sessions can be with individuals or in groups uh and can last six to eight hours they say the effects last about four to six hours but they give kind of like a buffer area there's there's a whole tiered system of of

[51:01] sessions like there's a session before you take the product there's a session when you take the product in there's like all these regulations that relate to that uh again there can't be a retail component to this as we've noticed potential impacts you know largely analogous to Med medical clinics or therapy offices but there is obviously that risk this is a new type of use we're kind of approaching this with a little bit of C C in the sense that if the rules that the state has come up with are not followed there are some potential impacts in terms of people's behaviors uh when they leave the facility so these are things that we do have to monitor uh as we move into 2025 uh with the natural medicine cultivation product manufacturing and testing facilities like we said most of the impacts that we saw from that are very much analogous to other light manufacturing uses you know there's going to be you know Del trucks you know a more of an an industrial setting

[52:00] there's going to be air handling equipment things to handle chemicals all these things have to have to be done to meet the state law so we're not seeing many impacts above what you would typically see in another light manufacturing use obviously again like the other use any kind of non-compliance is where you might see uh some impact so again it's a new type of use we have to see how these new businesses um kind of move into that um meeting the regulations so again with the new territory who can we look to we've looked to Oregon uh Oregon passes a similar state law about a year before the state of Colorado um it's very similar some of the terminology is a little different uh where it's different is that it prohibits uh any local government from doing local licensing um it ALS Al uh allows a local government to opt out much like our our

[53:01] marijuana regulations uh we're not allowed to opt out here in Colorado we're not allowed to prohibit them we just have to reasonably uh regulate the time manner in place so we've reached out to a number of different localities to see how they're dealing with it we've also been talking uh with some State officials you know it's kind of like what you see in the rest of the country I think a lot of counties tend to be more conservative and have taken a a more conservative approach so um dutes County for instance uh attempted to try to prohibit it uh but that was over overruled uh the vote did not pass they tried to opt out uh when we look at some of uh the peer cities like Bend Eugene Portland and Salem most of them have been moving in the direction of regulating psilocybin service centers what they call them as medical medical clinics or medical offices or the the cultivation facilities as light manufacturing that seems to be the

[54:01] most prevalent approach uh in local governments um that we've looked at uh some of them prohibit the use of natural medicine as far as natural medicine Healing Centers in residential zones some require a conditional use permit which is the same as our use review so for instance as far as my communications with Portland Portland was one of those cities that did not allow them in residential areas uh other cities like Bend um and Eugene allow a conditional use permit uh for it to locate uh in a residential neighborhood uh it's been a little bit more challenging with in Colorado to find out what uh the approach communities are taking a lot of them have been in a wait and see approach a lot of them been wait waiting to see what we do uh before they do anything uh so we've checked in with them periodically Parker was the first jurisdiction to adopt regulations they do them in February um so that was kind

[55:01] of our first like oh we have a model to look at so um they basically categorize it as a natural medicine business um they require that they not be they're not allowed in residential zones and they also have to be a th000 feet from any residential use they limited the hours 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and they've also set up screening requirements and and their own local penalty process so Castle Rock has indicated that they are moving in the same direction as Parker um a lot of other cities we haven't gotten definitive answers but the ones I have highlighted are the ones that have told us that they are also moving in the direction of categorizing them as medical offices for The Healing Centers uh and then light manufacturing or a light industrial use for the cultivation type facilities so you can see again a lot of them are kind of moving in that direction like the Oregon communities so we we had done this

[56:01] research and then we came to City Council on August 1 and we gave them this information and asked city council what they thought of our approach and whether we were moving in the right direction uh what we had originally recommended to city council was we at the time were not looking to do any local licensing um again because of the scope of this being very different from alcohol or marijuana um a lot smaller businesses not not as prevalent uh and then as far as zoning uh we were looking at categorizing them as medical offices and light manufacturing but we were also looking at the possibility of not allowing them in residential zones or not allowing them uh within a thousand feet of a residential use like Parker so when we talked to city council about this they disagreed they felt like that was too prohibitive to not allow it in residential zones and to not do the distance requirement uh that's above and beyond the state law they did agree with the uh

[57:02] categorization of of medical office and light manufacturing and they also agreed to not do local licensing or I'm talking about the majority of the city council members so we've moved in that direction they did ask that you know whatever we end up landing on is going to be uh informed by Community feedback so we we did go out and do uh engagement so we've let people know about this through the pnds newsletter uh we've been meeting with industry e experts as I noted we've attended roundtables and meetings hosted by Denver in the state to get a better understanding of this particular use I think some of the largest concerns that we've been hearing across the board some some of it's or a lot of it's out of the control of the city I think is just the cost of sessions you know they're not um insured because of the fact that they're not federally approved so it's very costly um making sure access to Services is important and to mitigate some of

[58:00] that cost hours of operation has been a concern just because like you know with Parker you know limiting it to office hours that precludes a lot of the traditional practice of natural medicine that goes into the night sometimes um so we've kind of been veering away from doing hours of operation uh we've talked to Boulder County Health officials they do have some concerns about increased access of natural medicine to uh our youth in the community we convened some of these people as part of a focus group along with some uh cannabis licensing board members that were representing their own opinions not the board opinion but just because they have you know kind of similar expertise uh we had some uh folks represented from naropa meeting to talk about this um when we talked in the focus group they were largely supportive of the approach of taking a light leg regulatory Approach at the onset of this and then monitoring and then looking if there's any tweaks we can

[59:00] make later I think there were some in the group that felt that the zoning approach uh should be more permissive uh so again they brought up the the issue of micro Healing Centers which have different licensing and a different maximum amount of product that you can have uh in a smaller setting um and allowing it within residential zones uh they did bring up a distance waiver from the state code which is not something we really looked into um they looked at or they also talked about whether it should be allowed as a personal service use uh should we allow like retreat type uses like the retreat type use is more like a larger Gathering of people that like almost like a Outdoors kind of experience type thing we don't have a lot of settings like that that I think would would match up with more like what would you have in the county so we've not moved in the direction of of allowing that at this time time it's certainly something we could look at um another way we've gone to get uh some

[60:01] feedback is using the beard Boulder platform again this is a questionnaire it's not a statistically valid survey we've had this conversation many times that it's not you know you know necessarily representative of everyone in the community but it does give us uh some good feedback so as far as that we've we've included a summary of that feedback and attachment f um when we pose the question about whether there should be local licensing it was actually split exactly evenly it was like literally like 44.3 to 44.3 against and for a majority of the respondents it was about 55 to 60% were in agreement with the staff recommendation on categorizing them as medical offices in light manufacturing uses uh 44% indicated opposition of allowing Healing Centers in residential zones um so a slight major majority were open to allowing them in residential zones but that was

[61:00] even split I think 29% indicated that they uh should be permitted by right in residential zones and 22% felt that it should be a use review just like other Medical Offices so we've also been using the racial Equity instrument as part of this process uh specifically related to the indigenous people uh that have offered some concerns on this being legalized at the state level there's concerns that we've been hearing about the overc commercialization or advertising of this that's different than their traditional practice um concerns about restricting the late night hours uh we've been looking at you know do people of color are they impacted more by uh mental health issues proportionally and how can we mitigate some of that um I think what we've also heard is that there permitting fees is a concern particularly in like Oregon where some communities have put some like um

[62:00] expensive fees on applications for this uh and that that's a barrier so we've been cognizant of that um and that obviously locational requirements are important to open up access so we also met with the community connectors and residents um they did Express as their main concern that the legalization conflicts with their traditional use of psilocybin and obviously this is something that's more discussed at the state level um we're just trying to handle like the on the ground here in in the local government and concerns about over commcial commercialization they're concerned that because of the cost uh that only the privileged will have access uh to natural medicine but in general the group was supportive of the city approach they they didn't have any objection to calling it a a a medical office or light manufacturing they did feel like it should U be allowed in residential zones so it should be allowed widely to open up that access so I'm just going to jump right

[63:01] into ordinance 8665 which is refreshingly short compared to what many ordinances that you've all seen in recent months uh what we've done at this point is we've added a definition for natural me uh medicine business which I have up on the slide uh again it mostly just ties it to the state definition and it includes Healing Centers as well as the light Manufacturing uses and I can come back to this we've also updated our medical office slide um to have three different categories of what an off medical office means the the language shown in the blue is the new language related to a natural medicine business um they're not allowed to have a retail element so we we have to be clear about that so anything that conflicts with state law is not allowed uh what we do we aren't restricting hours but obviously um the medical office definition doesn't allow overnight stays

[64:00] so what I think we're trying to say here is that you can have late hours if it's intended for someone finishing up their session so we're not allowing people to unsafely go out of of the facility afterwards but it wouldn't allow overnight stays like we do allow with an addiction recovery facility and then we've updated our light manufacturing definition to recog ize the cultivation product manufacturer and testing facilities so this doesn't require any changes to the land use code because these are existing uses again this is what many pure communities have done they've categorized them as existing uses you can see in this use table how each Zone would would recognize the use it's generally in allowed use as a medical office in mixed use business downtown zones there are some particular regulations that apply to all medical offices that I included

[65:00] in the in the correspondence this afternoon I'm happy to answer any questions on that you can see that in some residential zones it does require a use riew we don't typically see a lot of use reviews for medical offices in residential zones unless the context uh is includes other commercial uses but I think based on the map that we've looked at obviously there there might be some pressures on residential zones since so many Child Care Facilities exist in Boulder that rule out many of the business areas um so that's something we can talk about uh light manufacturing it's allowed mostly in the in industrial zones uh you can see the BCS Zone and and mu4 Zone allow uh light manufacturing as well so if we do want to come back to this we can this is just a a comparison of land uses that we looked at as part of this so I know it came up in some of the questions so look looking at comparing um a medical office with personal service use or light

[66:01] manufacturing with a greenhouse um this is a comparison that we can come back to you can see that you know we we looked at personal service uses it it actually isn't regulated very differently uh than a medical office there's a couple other zones where it's allowed in personal service use and obviously a personal service use doesn't have all the size restrictions that uh an office has but a lot of those size restrictions are pretty large and wouldn't apply to a lot of these facilities anyway so we we we just have this up for comparative purposes if we need to come back to it and this is the definition of personal service use I know this is something that came up in the focus group and something that came up in the in the questions from the board so uh based on the the questions that we got from the board today we did look at and created this map um and highlighted all the zones where would be allowed based on the use standards of being uh categorized as a a medical

[67:01] office or light manufacturing uh you can see a lot of the br1 Zone which is a commercial Zone and some of downtown uh areas west of pearl uh a number of those areas in rmx uh it would be allowable but you can see it does end up um ruling out a number of parts of the city based on the sheer number of child care facilities so again this is a state law the state law does say that you can have a waiver done through resolution um to supersede basically that distance requirement we haven't done a lot of analysis as to what the implications of that are so we're not recommending that at this time if there's interest we certainly could look into it um there could be some special regulations that could reduce the the distance requirement but this is again is kind of new territory and I think the the distance requirement as far as I know might have uh the waiver of it might have been added later I'm not entirely sure about that but it's something we'd have to do a little bit

[68:01] of work on I'd be concerned about just lifting this um without kind of looking at the use and how it functions um as we move forward that that's our our recommendation uh but we can come back to this uh map as well this is our suggested motion language uh we're we're continuing to recommend that this ordinance move forward to council and be adopted uh before the end of the year our recommendation is to just get it on the books so that there at least is some clarity like if we start getting interest in these facilities wanting to come in we would at least have an answer of where they can locate if there are other nuances you know related to maybe it needs to be categorized different or maybe we need to look at micro Healing Centers and allow them differently I think that's something that we could look at um in the future uh maybe see how some of these set up and how things are are functioning uh before before we make changes is what we would recommend um Boulder Police has indicated some

[69:00] concern with allowing these without a local license because the local license is is a way that enables them to do inspections of these facilities so they've also asked that we you know move forward with allowing it to function but let's look at the use see how it if there's any impacts and then maybe revisit it later uh with some potential regulations so we're see we're hearing kind of you know perspectives on both sides as we move forward with this again it's largely new territory but moving forward this is our suggested motion language and that uh concludes my presentation great Carl as usual good work thank you very much um okay we'll go to clarifying questions and I'm expecting a bunch so who's ready Kurt thanks actually it looked like Claudia had her hand oh I'm sorry I look left

[70:00] look right look both ways okay um my first question is about the philosophy behind the Restriction the 1,00 uh foot um exclusion Zone whatever did you get any feel for what the actual con concern was that was motivating that I don't know that we talked to the state officials about that specifically but I assume it was you know a way to mitigate fears of allowing this you know potent you know medicine in close access to where there's children and as I noted with Boulder Public Health they they indicated a concern that they have about children having more access to this um so I think it comes from that okay okay that's

[71:00] helpful um next question is are there so in a Healing Center that's the right term right uh are there any limits on like the number of patients that that can be in there at a time the number of patients per therapist I think there's definitely a limit on how many uh participants per facilitator I don't know if there's a maximum per facility okay but per facilitator there is per facilitator yeah okay great and my last question for the moment is you were are proposing not allowing overnight stays at these facilities even though overnight stays are allowed um in the recovery centers right what what's

[72:03] the motivation for that I think the motivation was to try to get it as closely as possible as a new type of use within the framework of a medical office to a typical medical office you don't have a lot of medical offices that have overnight stays and I think again as a new use we're kind of walking into this with with some caution we don't want to you know we don't want to get in the way of you know a late you know session that might go you know into like the the evening um but having an ongoing use that could have some impacts through the night on adjacent property is of concern so again I think we feel that allowing you know some businesses to set up and have a better understanding of what the impacts are are important before we have that level of leniency great thank you

[73:01] Claudia thank you and I want to appreciate everyone who submitted questions earlier today because that covered a lot of what I've been thinking about but I still have a few outstanding questions um so most of the discussion in the memo has involved existing uses that we have in the code so Medical Offices personal services as we look at appropriate zoning are we in fact limited by the uses that are currently in the code or can we create new ones we we can create new ones it's just we're we're often creating new ones so if there's ones that have analogous you know characteristics it's sure it's our practice to try to see how it best fits absolutely understand that impulse thank you and then um how do our nuisance ordinances in the city such as those around noise police calls Etc apply to non-residential uses in residential zones I think most of the discussion we've had there has been around like uh residential rental properties um

[74:00] but do the same kinds of standards apply to non-residential uses I believe so any anything that you know creates an impact like noise or you know detritus on the property it' be the same uh we would have our enforcement staff involved and who's up next okay ml look make check Mason never see anybody um thank you Carl that was a a beautiful presentation so clear just boom boom boom I I appreciate that um I've got three questions um you talked about the indigenous people and their input I can't remember that was a particular term um did it affect the ordinance in any way is there anything in the ordinance that uh reflects the concerns or consider I know you talked you know that that's really more at a state level but did anything happen at

[75:01] our local ordinance as a result of those conversations I I think the biggest thing is just we originally looked at hours of operation and then moved away from hours of operation based on concerns we heard got it okay thank you for that um secondly does uh does law law enforcement have any extra concerns with potential illegal trafficking um that would impact this uh uh these medical centers and did that land in our ordinance in any way I can't speak on behalf of the police but we did hear concerns you know similar to like marijuana facilities where it has a product that might you know prompt some people to go maybe I'll try to break in there and see if I can get some of that product you know I think that's their concern so they want to obviously their interest is is making sure that these businesses are safe from break-ins you know it doesn't really play out in our

[76:00] proposal for the local regulations because the the state is pretty comprehensive on the requirements for security and things of that nature it's just uh police's involvement is is going to be less more you know voluntary um they can't they don't really have the authorization to like inspect facilities if there aren't specific rules on the books like like a licensing regime and does the state um have uh precautions in place for the uh cultivation facilities regards to safety and um potential Invasion by traffickers type of things yeah I think the surveillance requirements apply to all the natural medicine businesses okay whether they're the office or whether they're the facility okay my last question uh is are there any environmental um contamination concerns that are unique to the manufacturing and have

[77:01] they been uh captured in the definition the definition talks about uh providing um means to manage the environmental contamination you know in a broad sense is there anything that would be beneficial additionally due to this I think our thinking was you know I don't know the details but I know that the state rulemaking did has a a very uh um robust section on handling of chemicals and there's a whole process of deriving the product out of the mushrooms does require use of chemicals I I don't know that we came to the conclusion that those because it's regulated by the state we looked at it the same way as any other light manufacturing use where there's any number of different light manufacturing uses that we have in the city that we don't get in involved in the processes that they do they're all usually federally or state regulated and as long

[78:00] as they get their licensing we just have the use that we we managed we looked at it the same way so my my con concern or the place that I would be um that I'm looking at is is under the um light manufacturing um definition and it talks about managing the Environ environmental contamination um from the manufacturing and it it talks about managing it to to maintain the contamination to the lot that the facility is on rather than into the facility itself so somebody in an adjacent you know building we we see we have industrial areas that aren't just one um type of use that have and especially as we're encouraging uh the development of the East uh Boulder Industrial area in the North Boulder Industrial Area they're not everybody on the lot isn't one use and so I'm

[79:02] wondering does it uh I didn't see anything in there that would say your stuff stays in your building um was that anything you considered uh I think it's something we'd have to look into further I think it's a good point uh again we we did look at the state rules and it seemed very comprehensive but the um I I I would imagine that the state rules are all about keeping it on the site as well but we we can certainly look into it right I'm just looking at our particular language that our language talks about the lot not about the facility itself right okay thanks so much those are my questions I'm gonna check with Mason Mason oh did I see your hand go up yeah definitely sorry I I just realized this far into the meeting that my video is not working either so I'm trying to fix that at the same time uh but I do have a couple questions okay please go ahead sure um so I'm hoping you could explain

[80:01] a little bit further about Boulder's public Health's concern to um as you mentioned increased access to children from these clinics how would that happen well I think just the in general the natural medicine will become more widely available and I think they have seen some potentially negative effects of you know marijuana to some degree and I I think similar vein I think they have concern that there's going to be more access uh for um those under 21 years of age uh by this through the Clinic's additional access I don't know that I have like their concerns that that specific I I just I did speak with an official who's brought that up a number of times again it's it's looking you know their concern is more at with you know the

[81:00] state law more than you know how we handle it at the local level but um it's just a concern that they've you know logged with us because there are laws against the distribution from the clinics right if there if there was increase access through the from the clinics their licenses would be revoked and I would assume there would be additional criminal criminal penalties correct you're you're not allowed to leave the facility with the product like I said the state law is interesting it allows you to have it in your residence and grow it but you can't pay for it uh you can't leave these facilities with it there's no retail component um sure yeah yeah yeah and the the overall access you know be due to personal cultivation I I can understand that concern I'm not really sure I fully understand the concern through from clinics I guess I was just hoping to get some clarification there but um moving on um are there there are also

[82:02] penalties if and this is I think this is um Medical Center wide if a medical center releases patients uh to themselves like without say like a a driver or somebody else when they're under the influence of any kind of drug correct well I think the penalties apply to the facilitator for letting them go if they're not ready to leave right so if someone were um say disruptive because they were still experiencing the effects of any kind of treatment uh including uh this natural medicine um they would be liable uh that I I don't know the answer to I don't know the particular of the the law to that extent

[83:00] um and just just so I make sure that I'm understanding what I've read um state regulations are um for uh there are state regulations for signage uh or advertising that um uh on misappropriation or exportation of additional cultures excessive commercialization and targeting of underage individuals did I read that correctly oh that's right okay great thank you am I up yep you're up go ahead uh thank you to my colleagues for all your excellent questions we covered a lot of ground thank you Carl for an excellent presentation and memo as always I do have a few remaining questions um can we go back to that map of the places that are within 1,000 ft of the child care facilities and

[84:01] schools so um I'm looking specifically at the zones not not all if I'm understanding correctly this map looks at all of the zones where any of the natural medicine businesses could be located I apologize I don't know why it keeps it keeps closing it out we've all been there been doing this for years and it's just like there's a new challenge every time I blame Microsoft let me get to the right page first I will try to close this out maybe I'll

[85:00] move it over here there okay so this is all of the zones where any of the natural medicine businesses could exist right uh in the colors yes in the colors and the white bubbles are excluded because they're within a thousand feet of one of those child care or school facilities yeah you can see the the the icon that shows the kids on a seat saw is actually a child care facility versus a school which is the purple oh go icon see there's a lot of child nearly that good but okay thank you for explaining that though that I'll I'll go back and look at that so I'm looking specifically at the zones where light manufacturing is allowed I'm having a hard time finding any of them on this map so that's mu4 bc5 and the ey zones the industrial zones actually this was more this map was done I think for the Healing Centers it doesn't includ the industrial okay and so do we have a similar map for the industrial uses uh I

[86:03] don't have a a map that shows the industrial that it you know this this entire area you know is all industrial right but it but we've rezoned a lot of it so that it can have residential as well so but it doesn't currently have any schools or Child Care Facilities is what you're saying uh not that I'm aware of I doesn't the I'm sorry doesn't the 1000 foot restriction as uh worded by the state ex that also applies to a manufa the the manufacturing it does so so that map that map is showing the exclusions for either a treatment center or manufacturing or testing or any of of those any of the natural medicine facilities of any stripe are excluded in

[87:01] the in the white bubble area exactly okay it just doesn't show where those other zones are located because you can't see them because they're all white well it sounds like there would be some zones that are mu4 bc5 yeah much of this Eastern Area uh should show the the industrial zones industrial but this map already does show that mu4 and the bc5 right because those are also where medical offices are allowed but I don't see any of those on here unless I'm just I mu4 is like actually in this already excluded area here that's that's the reason right so so we basically saying you can't be in those zones because they're too close to child care facilities and schools I I'll save my comments for later but I want I just wanted to clarify whether the uh light manufacturing uses are also covered on this map and it sounds like the exclusion Zone are but we're not showing the zones where industrial manufacturing is allowed right okay all right thank

[88:01] you um second question you talked about the micro Healing Centers and that some of the stakeholders you talked to who are very Pro natural medicine were interested in having micro Healing Centers in more of the residential zones is this idea of micro Healing Centers where it's few I assume fewer numbers of facilitators fewer numbers of patients smaller amount of the natural medicine is that in the state code it is yeah okay but but we're not accounting for that in we're not talking about having any of those in Boulder well it would just it would still fall under a medical office unless we parse it out somehow so we'd be treating all sizes of Healing Centers the same yes okay good to know um I here's a question I have that I'm not sure quite clear on the answer yet so the state requires that facilitators be licensed it requires that the other facilities as well be licensed the um uh

[89:00] Healing Centers the cultivation facilities manufacturing facilities and testing facilities have to be licensed my question is if someone is a state licensed facilitator are they required to work out of a state licensed Healing Center and are they required to use Products that come from these State licensed facilities or could potentially a state licensed facilitator not work out of a Healing Center and grow some of their own medicine in their own residential setting but also use it with clients I think it would all have to come from a state facility I think the state law says you can have product for your own personal use um but if you're in a commercial setting that it does it would have to come from the state licensed manufacturing facilities okay so that's that part of it and do they have have to be operating out of a state licensed Healing Center because I thought I saw something in the state code where it talked about providing natural medicine

[90:01] services outside of a Healing Center yeah that I'm not entirely sure about I don't know if christe is familiar with that thank you Carl I am not directly familiar with that but I can find the answer and get back to you that'd be great thank you okay I think there are like provision in the state code that talk about like for example um recording and permissions around uh recording sessions and videotaping and that kind of thing and doing it outside of a state licensed Healing Center which implies that you can a facilitator can work outside of a state licensed Healing Center um so if you can clarify that that' be great okay um and then my last question here is around collocation of facilities state law also anticipates that you could locate a Healing Center with for example a growing facility would our code prohibit that yeah I

[91:01] think the way we have it set up right now uh we learned about the collocation part a little bit later but I think our approach is still along the lines of having you know a Healing Center under medical office and then having you know the the industrial components in the industrial zones that's one thing as we've stated in the memo um is something we could look at in the future we're not recommending to allow collocation at this time again I think we would want to look into that further um to find out potential impacts things of that nature before we allowed it does the ordinance as written prohibit that collocation because there are a few zones where both medical offices and Manufacturing and growing are allowed if there's zones that allow both the uses then it would just you would just follow the same review process that's that's in the code so you could potentially collocate if both of them those uses are allowed in the same Zone in the same Zone yeah okay it would be useful to have a map of that as well if if you guys don't mind

[92:00] producing that of what are the zones where a collocated facility could be thank you those were my questions okay I'm gonna call on myself um this this whole topic uh once you start examining it raises so many questions and and and many of them are about the assumptions we make uh just going forward like well of course you wouldn't want to have it next to a school well the the question is my question would be do we have H how do we account for pharmacies in the code or surgical centers or surgical centers daytime only no overnight stay surgical centers are they accounted for as a medical office yes okay how about a pharmacy retail retail so I mean and I again this is not

[93:02] a gotcha question but we dispense all sorts of uh life-threatening and addictive drugs from both those types of places and older med center right next to Casey uh Middle School Etc so is there a I understand the kind of anecdotal concerns but is there an actual uh databased reality to restrictions based on distance for something that is a a controlled substance um like fentanyl like opioids Etc so or or anyway is is there a databased um source that that supports

[94:00] distance restrictions I don't know that there's a dis there's a study that's specific to natural medicine for instance about distance I mean obviously we've used distance for a long time in the code for other things you know like like when the bla uh issues a license for a liquor license there's distance requirements that have to be met so there might have been studies for alcohol that having a distance requirement impacts access I don't have any at my fingertips you know about this obviously the state you know felt it was important to put it in the state law but then I think that eventually led to them though maybe there should be an exemption for that you know put into the code but um yeah okay and then the next question is um why do we have use reviews in so many locations for medical offices I mean it seems like the like maybe like

[95:00] one of the most loow impact in uous Community High Community benefit that as I started really looking at the use tables it's like geez so every time someone you know uh a doctor coming out of med school doesn't want to locate with a giant practice they actually want to go out on their own and and start a little three room practice and we're going to make them go through a use review and so does to what end and and why do we do that is does I mean that genuinely it's like I'm I'm having a hard time thinking of of why that is but i' I'd love to hear a justification for that if we're going to continue to have additional facilities that we're going to require use reviews for I I think in this case uh we we have to remember that you know most non-residential uses are prohibited in residential zones but some are allowed and any non most

[96:03] non-residential uses just inherently require a use review so there is you know obviously we have to look at it for predominantly you know parking impacts things of that nature if we're going to you know get specific about you know medical office I think we've traditionally looked at Medical Offices having a higher turnover you know with a point people are coming in and out all the time there's a lot of activity in the parking lot versus a traditional office where people come and work their 9 to-5 job you know things like that so but either way I think the point here is that's not the primary reason why it requires User viw it's just it's us riew because it's residential zones and you know there are you know impacts like parking or um uh store garbage disposal things like that noise um activ that have to be evaluated with every use riew and so um and and I I probably

[97:00] should have reread your answers but when I look at the a with brackets under medical office across from medical office under a number of business zones so it's allowed but with restrictions are those restrictions do they end up being like a mini use review or is it just you you guys just make a determination of whether or not it meets that criteria or not yeah it usually it can be just a building permit and as long as those quick parameters can be checked in the building permit um it's not like a use review it's not discretionary okay um and um all right I think that's it for now can I can I call Que on one of your questions yeah go ahead so um for the medical

[98:02] practice you mentioned that one of the reasons for use review um was the Intensive a potential impact on traffic Etc um am I right to understand that the sessions at these facilities last six to eight hours that's correct I thought that would be a follow-up question but I again I I I did want to make the point that like it is a use review because it's a non-residential use it's not primarily because of parking I'm just saying being a planner for a long time we've always looked at Medical Offices as having that higher impact so I understand your point that if there's longer sessions there's probably not going to be a lot of turnover but that's something that we would look at in a use riew like you learn about the operate operating characteristics that are unique to that use in the use riew to determine if there are any impacts to the you know adjacent residential uses thank you does that help yeah for

[99:03] sure okay Laura go ahead oh you you go and then we'll make sure get back to them okay getting back to everybody's favorite bubble diagram um what happens if a daycare or a school opens are they allowed to open within a th000 ft of of these licensed businesses let's say the licensed business is there first and then a daycare moves in next door great question I think that's something the state would have to answer I'm not sure it seems like unfair to say to a natural medicine business you can't operate anymore because a daycare has come in or to that daycare that you can't locate there um I don't I don't know exactly the answer to that but it's a great question okay and then also if looking at this map correctly it looks like about 10 daycares could almost completely blot out the ability of these

[100:00] um businesses to locate in the city of Boulder is that is that your read too about 10 day carees open in those little colored blobs oh if if like each located middle yeah yeah I mean potentially okay all right thank you Kurt go ahead I had sort of a followup to what Mark was asking so currently medical offices are a allowed with use review in the medium and higher density residential zones they're not allowed in low density residential zones if anything to me that seems kind of backwards because low density zones there's just more space and there's sort of more room for any impacts to be to be

[101:03] spread out and mitigated so it's another philosophical question philosophically why do we do that independent of natural medicine at all why why why is are we taking that approach with medical offices I I think it's a history of expectation you know like in the United States obviously we didn't allow a lot of mixing of uses particularly in lower density zones so introducing them over time can be challenging because it's very different than what people expect you know when they move into those neighborhoods or buy a house or rent an apartment whatever like I think that's you know one reason I I understand your point that there's more space but uh it's it is a big jump to you know start allowing those uses more routinely in those areas that's obviously something that's of interest in the bbcp update you know maybe looking at more opportunities for

[102:00] mixed use but I think again historically you don't typically see a pharmacy or something popping up in the middle of a single family neighborhood um and I think those are the things that we have to look at and build policies from to to potentially change if that's the community's desire okay thank you appreciate it anybody else any additional questions okay um we will commence with the uh public hearing and um we can see if we have anyone online Vivian when I hadn't signed off for the night since she's on vacation right now and was helping us out remotely to start um but we can go ahead and start the online public participation since I don't believe there's anybody here in the room to speak well let's let's ask are are you

[103:01] here to speak on this subject okay thank you all right so if there's anybody online if you would like to speak please go ahead and raise your hand okay we have one raised hand um first up we have ly seagull Lynn um just give me one second and I will get this timer started for you go and talk you should be unmuted now I think if Don Trump had some psilocybin we wouldn't have all of these problems because he's so screwed up from his childhood that he's kind of messing with the whole world but I never found the need to commercialize this kind of activity um growing up I mean we grew

[104:03] COC cybin mushrooms around Bellingham you know like it was done on our own I don't I'm not comfortable with commercializing yet another kind of standard item that should be available people I'm a little bit debated about it um because on the one hand I feel like it should be available to people but on the other hand I don't think that our culture is yet ready to be indulging ourselves in these kind of things I think they're a lot better than than common and you know drinking and alcoholism um so I don't really know how I want to

[105:04] input what I want you to do in this situation it's kind of debatable um but I don't think it's an issue about being by daycare centers I suppose that mothers might want to indulge in pilicide mushrooms trying to deal with their kids but I don't think little kids are going to be doing sosy and mushrooms it's just like and why do we why does anyone need to do any of this stuff it's because we have like developed oursel to such a de evolution of society that we need something artificial I don't think it's therapeutic so to speak I think that we have enough we have our brains and we can therapize ourselves rather than needing these

[106:01] external substances even if they're quote unquote natural to take care of our you know societal ills or psychological needs um I think it can be done by ourselves so I guess I would kind of say that I don't think this should be there but it it debates me because I don't think there should be drinking the way it's done so normalized it's really really destructive so I don't know how you're going to take that but that's best I can do um is there a timer anywhere yes Lynn your time just expired we had the three minute timer up thank you I'd like to be able to see it because it helps me construct my commentary thank you we had it up on one of the cameras during your presentation

[107:00] and it just I'm not seeing it at my end so you know actually I'm not seeing it either but thank you Lynn for your comments yeah thank you we have no other hands raised so we can unless anybody oh actually we do have one more hand that just went up from Martha hartney Martha um U let me go ahead and unmute you and then you will have three minutes to speak um Thomas if yeah you can go ahead I don't is it easy to go ahead and put her um timer up I I believe I'm not sure why they aren't seeing the timer I can I can see could you stop sharing your sles see okay I can see it it's boarding commissions to you may have to look for it and then pin it you can't see it it might be on like a different screen or something okay please proceed hello Martha um you'll have three minutes and you should be unmuted now

[108:00] thank you good evening everyone my name is Martha hardney I am an attorney in Boulder Colorado I've been practicing here for 15 years I am also very well aware of the natural medicine Health act and I am a member of the Psychedelic Bar Association board of directors we even have our own um specialty bar of about 200 lawyers who know quite a bit about plant medicines and the natural medicine Health act um I just wanted to say I'm very pleased to hear the direction of this board's deliberations and their questions um I have a lot of experience and if any of the members of the board want to um ask me questions about these things uh um separately I'm certainly able to do that or Carl if you needed anybody to talk to about plant medicines I can also chime in um I do think that the direction you're going in and treating The Healing Centers as U Medical Offices is a a wise one um I

[109:01] would be also cautious to not over over regulate especially at um overnights um that was that was a topic that came up tonight that I hadn't really considered before but with my experience with plant medicine suggest that a great deal of healing is done in the we morning hours because that's when our trauma come up so most traditional healing modalities do happen at night so I hope uh you will give some some room and effort towards that um you identified a few issues where the personal use model that is also Incorporated in the natural medicine Health act bumps up um with the regulated access model um and I'm I'm pleased to see that you're going to take that into consideration and keep the doors open for how this unfolds um I do hope that more and more people will look to some of these natural medicines that have been around for thousands of years

[110:00] um and the Technologies and the traditional knowledge that goes with them with more respect and care and Avail themselves of something that the Earth provides as um a unique way to understand what's going on inside of us and with each other so thank you all and appreciate the time thank you Martha if there's anybody else that would like to speak please go ahead and raise your hand otherwise we'll move on with the meeting no more raised hand so I think we're good to go ahead okay great thank you um are even though we took a quick dinner break does anyone need a we'll have a break between this and the next agenda item okay is that good okay um so now we're going to move to board deliberations yeah yes can I just ask if there's a followup to the question that Christine was going to research before we move to deliberation yeah sure thank you um so

[111:01] the question that you had asked me regarding um facilitators working outside of a state license facility um it does look like the intent is to allow for um or is to require that these facilitators work within a state licensed Healing Center there are also rules though that allow for like um like Zoom doctors so them to provide these Services over video um I would say in in my legal opinion the rules are clear as mud in this they have some requirements where for example product can only be given to um a Healing Center um and that Healing Centers have to have facilitators and then they also have sections where it's not entirely as clear so I think the intent of the rule from the state was that these um facilitators are required to be um providing these services with in The Healing Centers um it also requires that their licenses have to be placed in these Healing Centers okay thank you

[112:01] yeah okay so we're going to move on to board deliberations and I've been thinking about how to structure this because this was not one where I thought about drafting motions and I talked to Laur and anyway it doesn't feel like we're it feels like we need to have some deliberation before we um make motions or uh amendments to motions so I'm I'm ready to open it up but I would also recommend that we focus our discussions around modifications that we uh think we'd like to see uh rather than just natural medicines in general lots of different things but really focus around things that we potentially want to change I also and Christine this might be a

[113:01] question for you when we are doing a quasi judicial hearing we get into a situation where we have a main motion and it's important to have amendments to that main motion that we then vote on the amendment and then back to the main motion Etc there's nothing when I read the code and I read Roberts there's nothing especially in when we are acting in an advisory capacity like we are now this is not quasi judicial we're just uh where we could approve a main motion that says yeah we like staff's ideas about this and then have a separate motion with a separate vote that says we also recommend that Council adopt a 250 foot limit rather than a th foot limit and that would be separate

[114:01] from the main motion it's just its own motion would you have any concern with that um so my only concern is when that conflicts with what's in what you've already approved so for example what you're saying here is um what's in the code right now well I guess it doesn't have the th000 Fe but if it did for example if we had in our code that there was an a th000 foot setback um and you all approved that and then said 250 I think that would be an issue but if it's an addition or a recommendation I think that would be okay in the situation just as you're recom recommending body um I'd also defer to staff if that would be too confusing for them to communicate to council um if you all did it that way so I don't know if they have any comments on on that I think if if the motion is clear we we can convey it um I think it might be like the question

[115:01] might come up with does the motion support the ordinance as proposed or not so that would be something to consider it could be you support the ordinance as proposed but I there's these additional things that should be considered okay that's different than we don't support it as it's proposed and here here's what changes we'd like to see so so just the clarity in that MH yeah okay all right thank you Laura I'll just say procedurally I have a couple things in mind that might modify the ordinance that I think would I would like to see packaged with the ordinance and then maybe one or two things about that those kind of followon stages and things to consider in a separate stage for me would be a separate motion great I I think that's I think you've laid out exactly what I was trying to do but um you said it more succinctly thank you um so let's begin with deliberation and comments and again try to focus on things that we might want to change but

[116:01] our our thoughts so who's ready to go Laura so I will jump in and say that um I like the Simplicity of the ordinance and the Reliance on the state regulation that we're supporting um uh in general I'm also very sympathetic to the comments that were received from the people who have uh experience with either these kinds of medicines or similar medicines that um the more restrictions we put on the more it drives up cost and decreases accessibility and our whole purpose here is to um put balance the need for accessibility uh and reasonable cost with any kind of impacts to the community um and I'm saying what I'm seeing in my own reaction to this and my um analysis of the data and what's been presented and the public testimony is um I'm not sure that I'm convinced that there will be huge impacts from these

[117:00] centers although I understand the the precautionary approach so I'm inclined to be less restrictive at the outset and then put more restrictions in later if we're seeing impacts rather than the the inverse now my colleagues May differ on that but that's where I'm leaning and so I think that um in the interest of trying to actually make this accessible and and allow businesses to be successful here in Boulder uh and drive down the cost that I would like to consider removing the thousand foot rule um because I'm not sure how that would be implemented if for example more child care facilities move into Boulder um and also I'm not really truly convinced that that there would be a lot of harm or any more harm than just you know people who go to a liquor store or people who go to a dispensary right we not seeing a lot of harms from people who even are able to purchase these substances retail and leave the premises so let alone people who are under the guidance of a license

[118:01] facilitator so I'm inclined to think about removing that thousand foot rule especially in light of the maps that show that a lot of the city would be excluded if we keep that in place I'm also inclined to look at this idea of overnight stays again I think that or 2 in the morning when their session is done but they may be sleepy um or you know otherwise not really feeling like driving cuz they just had a really powerful experience that that could be more disruptive to a neighborhood and potentially more injurious to Public Safety than letting people stay overnight I'm not sure why having people stay overnight would be disruptive in any way um so I would like to look at potentially considering exception or a change to the ru making for that so those are the two modifications I might suggest and why so I'm going to Echo a lot of what Laura said um about balancing accessibility with impacts and I also am not seeing um a high risk of impact at

[119:02] this point in time um one of the things that I was thinking about listening to um the presentation and also working through our zoning code um are some of these inconsistencies on how we uh treat medical offices in different types of residential zones and I understand that's a bit of a relic of our code um and why it was written um but I'm a little troubled by how we would be treating neighborhoods inconsistently and how we allow these facilities to be cited specifically they're allowed in some low density zones and not others um they're allowed in some high density zones not others Etc and that does not seem to have any real um rationale based on what we're regulating here so I would be looking for um some guidance to City Council on consistency in how we're treating our residential zones um whether we take a more conservative or a more liberal approach to where we allow things to be cited um but to really think about what

[120:02] are the impacts in residential zones and um are we in fact treating our neighborhoods equitably in how we um approach the sighting and I've written up some language around that that I will circulate later if we get to that point of amendments Kur yeah I'll just briefly say that I agree with what Laura said and I agree with what Claudia said I think we should absolutely be treating our residential zones con with consistently but also with logic and I feel like the the restrictions as they currently exist are not necessarily logical and uh and Claud also mentioned equity in it obviously that is also an incredibly important part of it and I feel like the current restrictions are also not Equitable so I would support all of what

[121:02] my colleagues have said so far I'm G Mason go ahead great thank you um nothing real new to add Kurt Claudia Laura you had I agree with everything you all said the only thing to really add is that I think it's important to realize that um there have been gold star peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of this type of clinical intervention for anxiety depression PTSD um published in peerreview journals so much so that there's meta analysis available so support these findings which is um like I said the gold star standard in medical research so I think you know treating these these clinics as anything other than medical uh practices would be uh completely inappropriate great thank you

[122:02] Mason ml um so my um modification is is more mundane it has to do with the with the building and the um uh consideration in the light manufacturing Zone of the um environmental contamination not um leaving the facility as opposed to not leaving the lot which I think is a is a significant difference in um impact to the um existing businesses in any given area and potentially well I they'd be in the industrial zones so that is the sort of modification that I'd be interested in including which would just spe language um inserted into the definition that um talks about uh that if the law is shared

[123:01] and um that the um environmental contamination is confined to the enclosed premise rather than contained to the lot and Carl when I mentioned this before um is this something that that would more rather than a modification that it would more be um recommended for you to look into how do we I mean it it's not it's not a difficult thing to add that language into the definition how would you con proceed or think about it yeah we we can look into making that change in the definition so it would not necessarily need to be a modification ml could I ask you to clarify so I'm familiar with lots of industrial manufacturing procedures and so forth you have a contaminant paint varnish whatever you might all sorts of things that are under hoods in a building and they go up and they go out

[124:03] to an external outside filtration trap all sorts of things but or outside the building but effectively eliminating the contaminant from the environment it it actually gets very difficult at times to have those mediation devices mitigation devices in the space in which because you're either doing negative pressure positive pressure and so um so if if you're saying that you want all mitigation for a chemical contaminant inside the building I I I think that might be working counter to what your goal is I'm looking at the um existing definition where it where it talks about um light manufacturing means facilities

[125:01] blah blah blah um provided that such facilities are completely enclosed and provided that any no noise smoke Vapor dust odor glare vibration F fumes and other environmental contamination produced by such facility is confined to the lot upon which such facilities are located and I'm I'm uh wondering can is there a way to because again we don't know what's going to be next door and next door and next door and we already see it with the marijuana facilities where there's one um grower in an area and they contaminate everybody but it's on the same lot and so people um people's businesses suffer and there there are consequences to uh those environmental contaminants um being freely exposed to the entire lot which the particular um cultivating

[126:02] facility is only but a part of so so that that is that's the particular part in the definition that I'm just looking to is there is there a way to um to uh create some guard rails around exposing other people in that same building to these contaminants that could be detrimental to their businesses Laura go ahead may I make a suggestion sure if I'm reading this right ML and I am sensitive to your concern here you're talking about the definition of light manufacturing which applies Citywide not just to these businesses but every light manufacturing um facility so I would think that that would be a recommendation that would be separate from this ordinance um to say hey City can you investigate whether there is a problem as ml is describing where confining it to the lot exposes neighboring or adjacent uses on the same

[127:00] lot right and see if there's something about the definition of light manufacturing that needs to be fixed for the whole city for every light manufa business yeah I was looking at it in in light of the changes that are proposed in this ordinance right um so yeah and my concern here is that um that piece which would change light manufacturing around the city was not noticed prop properly for the change that you're looking to make here um so we can take that under advisement and work on looking at that in future code changes yeah because I think if this is a new a new use and we don't really know the environmental potential environmental consequences and potentially they're not huge facilities they will go into buildings that have um that have other occupants and so I think that that consideration might be more so than say a marijuana facility others that are bigger I think it's was pointed out they're bigger facilities but that these are going to be small facilities um is there a unique thing that that uh could

[128:02] be looked at in regard to these environmental contaminants and managing them when they could be in the context of uh of more tenants so I'm seeing Carl nod and it sounds like it's something to that you will consider as a recommendation future Co change just looking at you know broader than just natural medicine looking at what how that might impact other light manufacturing uses and whether that makes sense we'd have to you know look at those other not knowing what's going to happen with these small um mushroom facilities yeah thank you okay I'm gonna call on myself and and my comments are I I super appreciate the fact that we have an ordinance in front of us as to pages long or not even fully two pages long right you know it's like uh not only is it elegant it probably

[129:01] represents a lot of work and thought that that isn't isn't contained within those two pages so and I I I'm hoping and what I hear is that I think we can uh be similarly um concise and elegant in making two changes to that and was what I heard and I'm just going to see if people agree with this that the 1,00 foot rule should either be modified or eliminated uh and that that would be part of the that would be an amendment to that main motion or a change to that main motion and the um the overnight stay component I think it to me it sounds like is another one that would be important um should we agree to it uh to modify in that main motion that that our

[130:02] that planning board's recommendations uh are those are the two key areas that I heard then going on from that in other motions planning board would advise that uh Council direct staff to investigate um growing on site you know that that the two that I can have a treatment center and grow on site that that would something not for this ordinance adopted on an emergency basis to allow but something to investigate in the future and the other one would be um uh the ordinance regarding use reviews of medical offices and whether or not we we it should we should be changing that to allow uses um without use review but that would be

[131:00] separate from that those main motions that for further study and investigation does that make sense okay Kurt go ahead go ahead I'm not sure if what you were describing Mark um encompasses what Kurt and I were referring to about equal treatment of residential zones right that would be also something outside of the main motion is that right or or would you think that that would be part of I am agnostic on how we embed that in our recommendation but I would like to consider recommendations around that it okay I would benefit from seeing the specific proposal I know you said you had language I'd love to see it I will send it to Thomas and maybe we can get it up on the screen thank you so so okay any more deliberation before we start any more discussion before we move

[132:00] to motion and amending motions Etc Laura um so outside the context of changes to the ordinance I would also love to make a separate recommendation about uh a a phase two that would consider being um a lot more uh well I don't know what the right word it is but expanding the ordinance to also provide for micro Healing Centers and additional zones that might not be appropriate for a full-blown medical office but maybe for like a solo practitioner small practice um and also consider uh The Retreat idea which I think that is a current practice that a lot of people find a lot of value in is the um psychos syaban therapy in a group setting so allowing for that within the city limits um and then also this idea of collocation I think all three of those things micro Healing Centers Retreats and collocation uh is something that I would like to see this board recommend uh for a future stage that that be given some serious consideration that maybe

[133:01] we're not ready for now but if all goes well would love to see us move in that direction to make Boulder more of a welcoming place for these businesses thank you that I think that's very helpful um then with everyone's agreement I would suggest that we concentrate first on uh modifications to the motion make the motion make amendments get that done and then go on to make additional advisory uh comments under low end of the structure you kind of just suggested is that good with people okay then again structurally if we I would suggest that we go ahead and make the main motion as staff has suggested it get that seconded and then

[134:01] seek carefully worded amendments to that or if someone has a main motion with some carefully worded suggestions in it we can we can begin that way I think I would suggest going with the main motion suggested by staff and then offering any s modifications as separate amendments each one yep great so I'd like to go ahead and make the motion if that's unless somebody else wants to make it um I move that planning board recommends that city council adopt ordinance 8665 amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 to implement Senate bill 23290 and locally permit natural medicine businesses defined in the state bill as natural medicine Healing Centers cultivation production and testing facilities and setting forth related

[135:01] details second okay um Carl did I understand you to say that we are not going to be doing local permit permits we are not going to be issuing local permits uh no no local licensing so is that different local permit that just means building permits yeah just okay building permits yeah is it the word permit that is confusing should we say allow instead of permit which I think I heard Christine just suggest say that's probably what we need that's okay we mean allow not like a a noun permit but verb we are permitting natural messes think okay we're not talking about a permitting process way imply creating a new permitting process that's what you're getting at good clarification good clarification

[136:02] ml yes thank you okay so we have um a motion and a second and um now would be the time to start formulating if anyone has a an amendment to this uh ready to go otherwise I can start go ahead I can do one that's really easy which is um this is an amendment I move to amend the ordinance to allow overnight stays in natural medicine Healing Centers equivalent to those allowed in addiction recovery facilities second do I need to write that up and send that or Thomas you got it I was working on pulling up the ones that Claud had sent over to me so if you could send over like let me let me write it up and send it so I'm gonna withdraw my motion I'm going to write it up and

[137:00] send it to Thomas okay I don't just so that we make sure we have the right exact language okay all right if you wanted to seek a second on it now I can also just capture that for the minute I seconded it and oh you captured it I I don't have laur's currently written down but I can I can get it the way she worded it for the minutes later on if we prefer to do it that way we'll just let her write it up but I I think it'll be close enough that um I can always withdraw my second if you but I think it's I I have it I'll send it we can put it on screen great and these should probably be framed as we're modifying the motion to

[138:01] recommend that city council do X right that main motion language it just disappeared so uh does the main motion language I can it's a recommendation planing so planning board recommends yeah okay yeah we we we've got that as the first words there and so Laura has sent her motion and when Thomas can put that up anyway we can start um while we're waiting to look at it because conceptually we can discuss um uh we can or it's your motion so you may speak to it um first and then we'll go down the

[139:02] line yeah I would just reiterate the comments I made earlier that I think that um requiring people to leave the facility could cause more disruption and public safety issues if people are leaving in the middle of the night because their or 1 in the morning um rather than letting people people stay overnight and I do not see any kind of disruption or public safety hazard from letting people stay overnight so I moving to um strike that uh requirement that overnight dayss are not permitted any other comments I have one and that is also I I I think that um and maybe I misunderstand this but I would imagine that in some settings some facilities rather than use an extract of solocam may decide to use mushrooms you know dried mushrooms themselves and the dosing of such things can be

[140:02] variable consequently the timing can be variable and again just adding to your point it's just we are dealing with a natural medicine not a synthetic medicine uh business and so um I fully support this and again it just simply on public safety and uh and minimization of of impacts okay so um okay here is our a motion to amend which Christine is this okay as it is or do we need to word it so that it actually fits within

[141:00] so suggestion if um I would just have you all um say specifically um referencing that section so um amending the definition of office medical I think it's the last sentence of the definition of office medical to state with the exception of addic of addiction recovery service facilities and natural medicine businesses which may permit short-term overnight stays blah blah blah so actually saying where it goes into that section and I can send that to you Thomas real quick in the chat um so what you all would say would be um motion to recommend modifying the ordinance um for the definition of office medical to State and then it would say with the exception of addiction recovery facility and natural medicine businesses which may permit short-term overnight stays no overnight accommodations are provided in medical offices does that work I think

[142:00] that works except I I do think we intend to limit it to natural medicine Healing Centers and not all natural medicine businesses perfect thank you for that Precision Christine we appreciate that give me two seconds to write that for

[143:05] so she I think she's putting it in this sentence yeah TR feel that this right y

[144:00] I just put the motion language that Christy sent up on the yeah board here let me know that needs more modification looks good okay I was Tak too fast fast um okay let's all take a look at this for a second and then um I tried to bold natural medicine but it didn't I couldn't do it in team so okay I think I think this holds true to the motion and as a second I agree with this um is there any other deliberation or we'll vote on this amendment to the motion okay so we have a motion to amend the the motion to amend reads motion to recommend mod ifying the definition of office medical to State quote with the exception of addic addiction recovery facilities and natural medicine Healing Centers which

[145:02] may permit short-term overnight stays no overnight accommodations are provided in medical offices okay um let's vote thank you yes okay yes yes yes Mason yes and I'm a yes okay that passes unanimously um so sticking with this particular mode of correctly modifying the ordinance uh simply and elegantly then um before we before we go on to motion making I would uh in the spirit of

[146:01] things move to eliminate the distance requirement entirely that if we it it gives Credence to distance if we say well 250 fet or whatever I would I would think it would be best to just eliminate that um that to accept ourselves from from that from the state law okay I've got a lot of nodding heads there okay so may I comment yes yes I did want to comment that the state law specifically permits local jurisdictions to vary the distance restrictions or eliminate facilities from those restrictions so the state law specifically anticipates that we could say we don't want that distance restriction for some or all of these facilities or modify it so we are permitted to do that by state law I just want to make that super clear and I also you know um it was gently pointed out earlier and then I'm not going to name

[147:00] names that the state law is a little contradictory in that it allows any person anybody not licensed by anybody to grow possess and use these natural medicine substances specifically in residential zones you have to be on private property which is specifically defined as being non-commercial so to me it does not make sense to say you can use these things as a private individual in your own home and share them with people in your own home but um for some reason we feel like we need to have a distance restriction on businesses that are located near children right um it it just doesn't with in the absence of any specific safety concerns around children which I don't think that we have other than well people might violate the terms of their license and and let people under the influence leave the facility but then what do a th000 ft matter if somebody is under the influence of a psychodelic substance that's not going to wear off within a thousand feet from

[148:01] the facility so um again I I think that this makes a whole lot of sense to not have these um distance restrictions especially given how much of the city is covered by this Kurt yeah I completely agree with that and I also feel that this is that that the natural medicine Healing Centers as I understand them are a very different ball of wax from a marijuana dispensary where people are purchasing marijuana and walking out with it and can hand it off to anybody you know or they can buy it for not necessarily legally but they can buy it for someone else here everything's staying within the The Healing Center and so I just don't understand the any rational concern about children getting their hands on it anymore than they would as Laura said by

[149:01] use within the home so I I agree with eliminating the the distance restriction Claudia I also agree with eliminating the Restriction I wrote up language anticipating maybe not quite so much support for such a strong um recommendation um specifically focused on the child care centers that that is something where we should definitely be talking about waving that restriction and my rational for that was just thinking about the um the extensive protections that already exist in child care facilities in terms of who can access those um and supervision of children in those areas so I don't see really any um reason that we would expect adverse impacts in those settings I'm happy to go as far as as talking about eliminating it with schools too but I did write up language um to reflect that with childcare centers I have the most motion uh language written up by Claud this was also one that was written up by staff okay if you would all would like to consider this one um

[150:02] okay can I just add on to that real fast yeah please Mason go ahead yeah so just one step further I mean these are medical centers uh medical treatment centers um we don't require this of any other medical treatment center that also um uses schu One schedule 2 and schedule 3 drugs with their patients so I see no reason to single these medical treatment centers out there are regulations that if they were to violate um standard use and practice um they would be at risk legally uh and uh you know of legal repercussions and of losing their lures so I see a reason to single them out for any reason great thank you Christine so it we we don't actually have a motion just yet because I'd like it to begin with the way we would do it correctly uh

[151:02] in modifying the ordinance and the way have you written something up yeah so this is what um Carl has written and looks good to me so what it says in the law is that it's not an ordinance so it's actually separate from an ordinance it's that the city council can pass a resolution um waving from this 1,000 foot distance so it's a little bit separate of a document um and kind of strange but uh yeah that's how it's supposed to be done is through resolution okay y so would this be separate from our main motion and amendments to the ordinance it sounds like this would be separate from the main motions and amendments to the ordinance because this isn't a change to the ordinance it's a separate yeah yeah I think so so maybe we table this and come back to it once we're done with the ordinance changes yeah okay it's interesting though I would think that this this would be one I'm looking at the

[152:02] ordinance which defines the natural medicine business and then goes on to say uh or natural medicine testing facility pursuant to Colorado National Colorado natural medicine code article 50 title 44 and Associated state rules could we just rather than put have a period there say with the exception that Boulder will not have Boulder will not have a distance restriction um will not have a distance restriction to uh child care and schools Child Care Centers and schools so I think you can make that change my only um concern about that is it's a lot easier to change your resolution than it is to change an ordinance that you pass right so um and

[153:02] then there's also um you're the city council in order to wave that is going to have to do a resolution anyway to to meet with state law so okay yep all right okay so we'll table this kurk well just following up on that I I feel like part of our goal in should be to have the boulder Revised Code be readable and understandable by people so that they can read the code and understand what the rules actually are and if we don't include that in the code then how does anybody have any way of knowing that this thousand foot restriction doesn't apply so so I I I do feel like it should be both in the code and separately a resolution even though that seems

[154:01] redundant I think my answer to that is that if we were to add something about the thousand foot being waved it would not necessarily be a simple straightforward change in the ordinance we would have to figure out where that would have to go in the code like it would end up making making it a conditional use standard or a specific use standard and we'd have to add it so it wouldn't be as easy as you think I I I think that's why we think the resolution which is something that the the state law speaks to um would just make it clear that the city of Boulder declares that this doesn't apply and then it's just the responsibility of the owners to know their compliance with state law and they worry about that state law piece and we just look at is it a medical office or not is it permitted in this Zone that's all we'd have to worry about from a Lo local standpoint okay yeah I appreciate that I

[155:01] just can imagine someone wanting to figure out oh okay I've got this spot here can I have a natural medicine Healing Center here and they go read the code and and they read state law and the the answer seems to be no because they're within a th000 feet of a child care facility for example and then they also have to go through and read every resolution by ever made by city council no I think in our application materials that would be clear I think you know we have FAQs for most of our application types especially when we when we do something new in the code we'll have FAQ so I think it'll be apparent in a number of sources there will be a link to the resolution um you know in title 99 so you'd be able to cross reference it on uni code so it wouldn't be as um esoteric as you would think um you would have to go combing through you know

[156:01] resolutions okay we can link to the resolution then then that would be great thank you okay then um then I'm going to go ahead and I move to recommend that city council consider passing a resolution to wave I don't think you can do that yet because we still have the ordinance motion on the table okay right right because we're not doing thank you okay good to have you sitting right here next to me okay um are there any other proposed amendments to the main motion to the ordinance so I have written up to versions of um our ideas about Equitable treatment of residential zones if these would be appropriate at this

[157:00] time so I and I think those are the two are are you are you um should we concentrate on one or the other are you advocating for one or the other here I am I believe advocating for the second one I wrote the first one in case there was a an interest in providing additional protections for some neighborhoods it depends a bit on the mood of the board but I think the second one is the more the more liberal one based on my reading I would support the second one may I ask a question of course so you are suggesting that natural medicine healing centers could be located in any residential Zone rl1 rl2 mobile home parks the way that that I have written this is to encourage city council to adopt an ordinance that

[158:01] treats residential zones equally it is not taking a position on whether they should be allowed in all or none um but simply if we are taking an approach of allowing them in residential zones we should do so consistently so so to me that means because the ordinance as proposed does allow them in high density residential zones and mixed use zones this would mean we are saying allow them in all residential zones yes I would be challenging city council to make that move but the ordinance also prohibits them in yes low density zones so you could make the same argument that consistency would I I don't think I don't think that this specifically says which way to go so you're saying either allow them in all or prohibit them in all I'm not sure I'm in favor of you either one of those and why Mason go ahead what why just natural medicine and not uh

[159:02] all there's like three different definitions I'm forgetting what the overall different term was why not all clinics or or so how do we treat medical officers do we Medical offices are treated variably under the code currently and so so as written the ordinance treats natural medicine centers as a medical office and medical offices are allowed in some zones and not in others right correct I um I would I would be deeply concerned that this might ultimately eliminate natural Healing Centers from all residential zones um and yeah I I don't think I will

[160:02] support this Claudia can I um ask you to clarify when you say you want residential you want the treatment of um the natural medicine Healing Centers to be treated consistently in residential zones consistently to what so when we talk about impacts of this kind of use medical office use as it were um I would like some if if we consider that there are impacts that are not appropriate for some residential neighborhoods um which it sounds like the current formulation of the policy is suggesting okay that these may not have these may have impacts that are not appropriate for low low density residential neighborhoods um why are we then allowing them in higher density multif family neighborhoods and not vice versa likewise if we say that we expect minimal impacts um on surrounding

[161:02] residential uses um why are we restricting the kinds of neighborhoods that these centers can locate in that's it's the that's the issue that I'm trying to get to with this so it's a bigger question it's a phical question about equity got it and I think this also speaks to our consistency or lack of consistency or over uh use of use reviews in all sorts of situations I think our use tables are crazy in many instances I'm I I struggle with um trying to deal with that in this particular context at this moment I will say that I am much less attached to this approach um given that we have some consensus on eliminating the waivers around the childcare and educational facilities I think that gives a lot more opportunities for access in places that we were potentially blocking

[162:06] out well as S I sort of suggested in my question earlier I actually feel that they would be more appropriate if anything if you were going to make any distinction at all based on the intensity or density of residential areas I feel like they are more appropriate in low density residential areas than in high density residential areas because the impacts are just more spread out um so I guess what I would ask the board is would there be support for modif a modification of this that would say amend the ordinance to allow natural medicine Healing Centers in residential zones so I'll just speak for myself and say um I really really really understand um where this is coming from when we

[163:00] think about it in terms of impacts I don't have any concerns about these being impactful in lowdensity residential zones any more than any other medical office use the place where I get hung up on is the what Carl brought up um which is we don't currently allow any commercial use in a lot of our um residential zones no medical offices no retail no office space that's more than just like a a personal you know maybe you see a client or two as a tax account and out of your home or something like that home businesses home operated businesses I forget what the term is um and so I am very reluctant to single out natural medicine businesses as the one business that would be allowed in rl1 rl2 and mobile home parks because I think that would make them a Target uh and and in a very inappropriate way so I think this is something that we may want to address on a broader scale in the bbcp update in terms of mixed use in residential zones um and that is I think something that requires a lot more public notice a lot

[164:00] more conversation and hopefully um that can be part of our bbcp conversation I'm very reluctant to do it very peace meal here tonight I'm going to concur with Laura just what she said same so we kind of done this straw vote ml I um anyway it might just save some time are you what would your thoughts on yeah I I think there's too much ambiguity and um sorry I understand what you're trying to do and I think um uh recognizing that this particular uh service in the city and the population it serves might be better served in places where we don't have the capacity to at this point but um I I don't I don't feel like there's enough specificity to to what is being proposed that would actually make

[165:02] it happen the way we anticipate so I appreciate the discussion and I anticipate we will have it about other uses in the future thank you do you want to make the motion and I'll withdraw okay all right any other amendments propose amendments to the main motion okay uh any additional discussion to the main motion as amended so we just have the one Amendment right the amendment about the overnight St okay so um do we have the text of the motion with the amendment included and I'll read that and then we'll

[166:02] vote this is just the the amendment that ler made okay well okay Mark are you thinking you need to reread the whole thing yeah okay so then we need to see the text of the original motion and then the uh text of the amendment please just one second I'll pull that up so this was the original motion okay um so I believe so if you would scroll up just a little bit so that we can read no I'm sorry down I guess okay

[167:04] um wouldn't we just have a motion that includes the language with the exception of addiction recovery facilities Etc as part of that main motion now that we've ad adopted the amended motion or do we just say we adopt the main motion and we when we made this amendment can I think am suggestion so the original motion uh the suggested motion main motion uh it starts planning board recommends that blah blah blah and then then so that can be one statement Y and then as part of the same motion we can also say planning board also recommends modifying the definition

[168:00] of office medical blah blah blah yes okay the second paragraph beginning with the same words planning board recommends yeah okay I mean I don't I don't think we need to package it up as one thing right we we have passed in the in the past here's the main motion we've already passed theend amendment to say if the main motion passes it passes as amended so we would you would just read here's the main motion as amended and here's the amendment this is the package that we're voting on the motion as amended yeah that's how we did it in 900 Walnut with the Amendments okay so Thomas if you could scroll back to the top there we go okay the motion that we're about to vote on is planning board recommends the city council adopt ordinance 8665 amending Title 9 land use code comma BRC

[169:01] 1981 to implement Senate Bill 23- 290 and locally permit natural medicine businesses defined in the state bill as natural medicine Healing Centers cultivation production and testing facilities and setting forth related details scroll planning board also recom planning board also recommends modifying the definition of office comma medical to state with the exception of addiction recovery facilities and natural medicine Healing

[170:00] Centers which may permit short-term overnight stays comma no overnight accommodations are provided in medical offices and then this was this language here is from the amendment yes so that won't be a part of this motion correct okay so the mo the motion as amended is on the table we'll vote now Claudia yes Laura yes Kurt yes ml yes Mason yes and I'm a yes okay that passes unanimously okay are there additional recommendations to city council regarding this agenda item that were not included in that main motion we just

[171:03] passed well there's the one that we wrote up and then tabled do we want to pull that one back up regarding the thousand foot distance Thomas are you or Christine working on that either one I'm working on pulling that one back up okay thanks and by the way did somebody second that that full motion that you I don't think it's I'll just make it again okay I I second it oh you said okay it was if I didn't I I meant to okay okay here's that motion regarding the proximity to

[172:00] schools okay so um then are do is there any more deliberation on this and I'll I'll read it again but if there's more deliber ation let's hear it I would suggest [Music] striking consider passing a blah blah blah yeah I would I would recommend I would I would suggest replacing consider passing a resolution with just pass a resolution yes I agree with

[173:01] that okay any discussion okay so the motion is well I think somebody has to make it and somebody has to Second it okay okay I I thought we just did that okay okay but we just to be safe we're going to do this so I move that planning board recommend to city council no planning board that I move planning board recommends that city council pass a resolution to wave the 1,000 foot distance restriction of natural medicine businesses to schools and daycares as permitted by state law on natural medicine second okay any uh additional

[174:03] discussion okay then um we're g to vote and ml we're going to start with you this time yes Kurt yes Laura yes Bia yes Mason yes and I'm a yes okay any other advisory motions to city council related to natural medicine centers did you have one on use reviews what you speaking to me or Claudia okay not at this time how do we ensure the good ideas you know I've heard um I'm specifically thinking Laura and V up about this are are

[175:00] Revisited wait I'm sorry Mason could you state that again I think you're cut out at the beginning sorry how do we ensure that the ideas that Laura brought up to be Revisited at a later date are as scheduled appropriately um I I can make make a motion about that yeah if that would help I I I would like to I mean Mason I think I hear your concern is making sure that they're Revisited in a timely manner is that what I'm hearing so I guess I would ask staff what would you consider to be an appropriate time frame to to uh evaluate how things are going with natural medicine businesses and then potentially consider a phase two six months no one year a year or 18 months I would say okay okay can we say like no later than 18 months after implementation that uh we recommend that this be

[176:00] Revisited or do you want to say a year but do you have specific things that you want to to be Revisited yes so um and I can I can write this up and send it to Thomas but I would say planning board recommends to city council to um evaluate the success of the ordinance in achieving the city's goals regarding natural medicine businesses and re-evaluate specifically potential for micro Healing Centers Retreats and collocation of facilities um within six uh 12 to 18 months something like that you write that up I'll write that up okay is this a recommendation recommendation to counsel or staff because staff's welcome to take any of that feedback and come back to you all in 18 months or we can add this as a recommendation to city council for them to look at it in 18 months what are you

[177:00] all looking or thinking this will look like I mean if it's a phase two wouldn't it come back to both planning board and city council so I think we are recommending that that this be Revisited as a phase two with planning board and city council with yeah go ahead um so what I'm hearing um and correct me if I'm wrong Carl and and Charles is that you are you've been saying all along you're planning to um this is going out there as a okay we understand that we don't know everything about this and we are going to keep our eyes on it and we are going to to tweak it as necessary Etc um is that in my understanding that you got this on radar the same way that um you know anytime we change the code we're kind of monit we're always monitoring and prepared to adjust if we need to and we routinely bring uh sets of code

[178:02] change cleanups forward when we identify things that aren't working so that's typically the construct is that we'll Monitor and adjust is it useful to you to have this um come forward as a a motion a requirement or is this something that you will put on your schedule and work on it diligently stff it's something that we'll Monitor and adjust regardless and you know again if I think if we're seeing issues procedurally that we'll make the amend we'll bring forward the Amendments that um will help smooth those out um regardless but you know if the one year or 18month you know time frame is helpful you know to the board to remind us to kind of do a bit of a postmortem on where we're at you know that's fine too we'll continue to keep an eye on it thank you well I'm hoping Laura makes the motion I would second it and not to diminish staff in any way or their input

[179:00] I I think it is more has a greater impact that Council see it I I like it in our meeting minutes I like it as a direct communication to council because we we really we can't do anything with staff's work plan and neither really can councel but the city manager can and anyway I think it's a a proper way of communicating our our thoughts and concerns and i would support continuing it that way I have just uh submitted some proposed language through the chat do you um I think we're ready to if you want to make that motion sure I'll I'll go ahead and Thomas maybe you can put it up U when you get it but the language

[180:01] that I have written up is planning board recommends that staff evaluate the success of the ordinance in meeting the city's goals regarding natural healing businesses and consider a phase 2 update to the ordinance in no more than 12 to 18 months we recommend that Phase 2 specifically consider expanding access to natural medicine through micro Healing Centers Retreats and collocation of facilities I second that okay we have a motion and we have a second Lord you want to speak to this as the motion maker well I think we've basically talked about it it's just it's just a recommendation to evaluate and consider expanding and these are three of the things that I think we heard from the indigenous community the um practitioners of natural medicine um and potentially the users of natural medicine um that these are things that are are useful these mic like small practitioners being able to

[181:02] practice in potentially a slightly less clinical setting um being able to have group sessions group therapy set sessions potentially in an outdoor setting like a retreat and then this idea of collocation of facilities these small practitioners might want to be able to have a very small growing operation to be able to um Locate that on site along with their business so that they don't have to uh pay the premium of locating a facility offsite or or paying for access to such a facility or the products of such a facility so I I can just imagine that there are um and and I have heard that there are practitioners that operate on a very small scale and this this would um expand access by making that a bit more um uh user friendly here in the city of Boulder any other comments or debate um I I don't have debate I'm just going to um I won't be supporting this and I won't be supporting it because I I

[182:00] don't think I don't feel like it's our our responsibility as planning board to um uh direct staff on timing of things we've heard them say that they've got this on the radar and we've heard um uh that the process is unfolding because this is a uh kind of a new thing that we're that we're dealing with so I I trust that the planning um department and staff um have this and I don't feel like emotion is um is necessary so I won't be supporting it okay thank you any other comment okay I'm going to call a vote on this I'll go to Claudia yes Laura yes Kurt yes mL no Mason yes and I'm a yes okay now we're cooking um any uh any

[183:05] additional motion making recommendations to be made tonight on this item Kurt well I'll just throw out that following up on what um Claudia and I were discussing about the consistency and Equity of the the use allowances across residential Zone districts would people I just I guess I want a straw poll would people be interested in a recommendation that is part of the B Val comp plan update that be examined um to be improved as it relates to natural medicine to this agenda topic or just in general I mean I would like to see it in

[184:00] general but I would frame it in this context specific to natural medicine Healing Centers as as much as I think about our use the use tables all the problems with the use tables excessive use reviews excessive Etc I I don't want to muddy the waters on in this agenda topic and and as Christine said is this would it be properly noticed okay so I think um yeah anyway I I I think both procedurally and message wise it uh this isn't the place for okay to clarify I guess I wasn't certain quite what you said is to clarify I I was talking about restricting it to natural medicine Healing Centers so so what is your I I just want

[185:02] to clarify then what would your motion be I will I will make my motion okay let's let we'll let Brad talk Brad do you want to address this and and and then uh while you type away I I I thought I knew where the discussion was going but I think it'll be helpful understand the motion none of us knows where the discussion is going I move that planning board recommends that the Boulder Valley comp plan update process consider ways to improve the consistency and Equity of natural medicine Healing Center use allowance across residential Zone districts I'll wait to see if maybe there's a second or I can comment I'll just add that you know certainly we'll defer to the board's um preference on this but there will be various opportunities to offer up work plan items and and also comprehensive plan

[186:02] subject items uh for this board uh one of the things that we obviously haven't had in a while is a retreat to talk about kind of work work plan items but that's an area where we would talk about that and then the comprehensive plan uh update again we for many opportunities for input on subject matter items um I'm not quite sure how we would track a motion like that this it kind of hangs out in The Ether but of course we're we're happy to defer and just sort of to respond to that I totally understand and I I realize it has zero weight of law it's more sort of in the nature of a note to self and also kind of note to city council that hey this would be a good thing to take up but I totally understand that it's ex from a technical standpoint it's completely extraneous and so if it doesn't pass that's

[187:00] fine does have a second thank you we've got a motion oh yeah um I heard someone and I I'm sorry that I'm forgetting who who said this but I'm hesitant to to uh support this mainly because it singles out natural medicine um I would be more supportive if it was uh clinics in general um right but the the both the agenda topic Etc is is is very specific to an ordinance and yeah and the ordinance has the definition it it already Alters the definition of clinics or whatever it's called I'm forgetting the name again um so I wouldn't would it be unheard of to to recommend the review of of those facilities in general in the use use uh

[188:04] tables well I I I think we can make that recommendation I think though that making it in the context of agenda item 5A which is review a ordinance I see may be both awkward and not particular not what not noticed enough legally to have anyway it I if we don't have a second we can just end the discussion so do we have a second okay hearing no second uh we're done with that any other amendments okay then I'm going to close agenda item 5A recommend that we take a five minute break and uh and then come back

[189:02] at um 9:15 okay e

[190:16] e e

[191:16] e e

[192:16] e e

[193:16] e e

[194:16] e e

[195:15] e e

[196:15] e e 17 we're going to call the city of Boulder planning board meeting back to order our next item

[197:00] of business is agenda item 5B concept plan review and comment request for proposal to redevelop the 55246 square foot site at 777 Broadway with a five-story 55 ft tall 82,500 ft 63 unit multifam residential building with ground floor Podium parking and amenity space the unit type mix would include Studio two three and five bedroom units The Proposal includes a request for a 57% parking reduction reviewed under case number l22 24- 000037 so Chandler is going to kick us off with a staff presentation clarifying yes I just want to State before we get

[198:02] into this that I was on landmarks board when the demolition permit for 77 777 Broadway came before the landmarks board so I mean I wasn't on I was the liais on from planning board to landmarks boort so I saw it in that context so I just want to make that disclosure interesting because I thought that was the meeting I attended for you I think there were two meetings oh okay because I I I know I attended a landmarks board meeting recently where they put a stay of demolition on this site yes okay and and just on last Wednesday oh they approved the demolition permit oh they did approve it yes oh interesting that was Speedy okay yes I

[199:01] we won't get into that because that's actually an interation outcome okay all right don't steal my thunder guys okay um so so Mark and Kurt do you have to make any kind of statement about your ability to be objective I don't I I can't think of why yeah you all are um appointed liaison to the landmarks board so I think in your capacity on that on the pling board it's fine okay okay so anyway Chandler is going to present uh we'll ask clarifying questions the applicant will present clarifying questions and then we'll um provide feedback and input okay thank you take it away Chandler all right thank you um good evening plan board members I will be presenting on the concept plan review at 777 Broadway oops um just quickly I'm going to go over the concept plan purpose uh public notification planning context project background a summary of the proposed

[200:01] project and then key issues for discussion uh so the purpose of concept plan as you all likely know um is to really just review and um provide feedback on a conceptual plan Um this can include arrangement uses uh circulation Transportation issues uh methods of encouraging alternative transportation architectural characteristics environmental preservation Etc um it's intended to give the applicant comments from the public city staff and planning board early in the process before they submit a formal development review application uh there is no formal action required by the planning board on this application um so in terms of public notification written notice was sent to Property Owners within 600 feet notice was also posted on the property um staff has received calls from five neighboring community members expressing concern with the proposed project um no written comments were received so those were not included in the packet um specifically residents Express concerns regarding the

[201:00] proposed density and the parking reduction as well as potential traffic and circulation impacts um another item related to public notification that we need to discuss tonight um which which we gave Mark a heads up on in the agenda meeting um there was a a noticing issue with this in terms of a published notice um on our end on the city's end so the November 12th meeting was noticed in news from City Hall on Sunday November 3rd um but the public hearing agenda title for this item was not uh did not make it into the classified ads until Wednesday November 6th so that um technically the code requires 10 days notice of publication This was um published six days in advance um the board will have to make a finding whether or not the defect in notice impaired the surrounding property's ability to participate in the review process if the board finds that the surrounding property owner's ability has not been so impaired the board May hold the hearing uh but if the board finds that the ability to participate in

[202:00] the review process has been impaired the board would then have to continue the item for at least 10 days um so we can pause right now if you guys want to make a finding whether or not you think this affected uh the Public's ability to participate having never made a finding before versus a motion Etc is this just a little debate and a vote as to whether or not okay does anyone have any comment on whether or not we should continue with the concept review tonight um given the defect in noticing that staff has mostly repaired ml I I have a question um finding that the surrounding property owner's ability has has or has not been impaired how would we possibly have that what what are the how would one know that the property owner's

[203:02] ability has been impaired or not I'm Sor oh surrounding Property Owners excuse me well we did send out mail notice to everybody who owns property within 600 feet um the property was post did so I think it was staff's feeling that it wouldn't impair surrounding Property Owners ability to part participate in the review process so out of three mechanisms two were correct two were to follow the protocol okay and third was followed also but just four days late right thank you KK may I just add may I just add to that by being asked to make a finding we're asking you to just make a judgment that given what we we've told you in the additional followup that it's adequate okay I have a question this is framed specifically in terms of the surrounding property owners's ability to participate not the ability of the

[204:01] general public to participate is that because of something in the code this is just this is the code language copied and pasted yep Laura news from City Hall on Sunday is that something in a paper The Daily Camera that's in the Daily Camera okay and is that the online Daily Camera or the print version I think it's both I think it's a both it's both okay all right so it was a few days late getting into the paper but you did the mail notice to the property owners and what was the other mechanism posting posting on the property so like a sign on the property so people passing by and it has a QR code on it thank you um I'm ready to uh take a vote on the finding and so I would propose that we find that the um process has not been impaired and we can carry on with the uh

[205:02] concept review so I would second that okay uh let's vote on that uh Mason yes ml yes Kurt yes Laura yes Claudia yes and I'm yes okay okay so carry on thank you moving on um so the project site 777 Broadway is a 55246 foot property on the south side of Broadway just north of the New Vista High School property and directly across Broadway from the University of Colorado campus uh the property is located within the central Boulder University Hill subc Community and is surrounded by mix of multif family development directly to the West along 20th Street ranging from two to seven stories multiuse path runs along the east side of the site along Broadway and the area is well served with high frequency bus service uh the site currently contains two a two-story

[206:01] L-shaped Department building with a hip roof and moderate Eaves originally constructed in 1957 um the existing building was eligible for landmark designation you guys know how that played out and I will get into that um further in a few slides the Boulder Valley comp plan land use designation is high density residential uh which is defined as um areas that are generally located close to the University of Colorado in areas planned for Transit oriented Redevelopment and near major corridors and services uses consist of attached residential units and apartments may include some complimentary uses and the uh bbcp anticipated density is more than 14 units per acre uh the zoning on the site is rh5 which is defined as high density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units including without limitation apartment buildings and where complimentary uses may be allowed attached rolling units are allowed by right in the rh5 zone and intensity

[207:02] standards for the rh5 Zone allow for a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 and require a minimum of 15% of the lot area to be provided as open space for residential units um the applicant pointed out that my memo may have included uh incorrect information about 60 square feet of private open space being required in rh5 if that was in there uh it was not supposed to be that has been removed from the code so there is no um minimum open space per dwelling unit requirement um so this is a picture of the existing site taken from Broadway the two-story Lux apartment building lies adjacent to the project site to the North and then the sstory San Marco North condominium building um lies further north which you can see there behind the building um the property is currently owned by Horizons International and contains the two-story brick apartment building with surface parking um you can also see that there are um views to the flat irons from Broadway uh this is just moving up

[208:00] Broadway a little bit showing those same three buildings that I just talked about um the building at 777 Broadway is not designated as an individual Landmark nor is it located in a historic district however because the building is 50 years old historic preservation is required if demolition is proposed uh the applicant submitted an application to demolish the building in July of this year um in its initial review staff referred the application to the full landmarks board finding probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmark designation uh then on September 4th the landmarks board held a public hearing to consider the demolition application and they voted to place a stay of demolition on the application finding that the building may be eligible for designation um and contribute to the character of the neighborhood then on November 6th uh the marks board voted to approve the demolition of 777 Broadway the site is clear for site review uh the approval is valid for 180 days um so the applicant will likely need to reapply by the time they're ready to apply for um demolition permit but that would be a staff level

[209:03] review uh this is just another um shot of the nearby buildings to the north um this photo is looking South on 20th Street from near the intersection of 20th and Broadway um you can see the apartment buildings on both sides and then this is a view of the existing access to the site so this what looks like an Alleyway here is um in fact kind of a a flag pole shaped portion of the property which extends to 20th Street and as you can see it also provides access to the neighboring properties to the North and South um though not through any formal easement um so in terms of the proposed project um as you mentioned and as in the agenda title uh the proposed project is to redevelop the site uh at 777 Broadway with a five-story 55t tall 82,500 ft 63 unit multif family Residential Building uh with ground

[210:00] floor Podium parking and amenity space the applicant is proposing a mix of four Studio 23 two-bedroom four 3bedroom and 32 5bedroom units at this time um given the proposed unit mix a total of 143 parking spaces would be required under the code um as noted in the application materials the applicant is proposing to provide a 61 uh to provide 61 parking spaces which equates to a 57% parking reduction um so in terms of the site layout the um the proposed project would still take access from 20th Street as shown here um the existing Broadway access to the site would be removed uh they're proposing um new Landscaping and um continuation of the existing multiuse path connection along Broadway um two atg grade patio SL amenity areas are shown uh one of which is covered two elevated Courtyards on the second story

[211:00] and a rooftop deck um in terms of the massing and architecture the the proposed projects are showing five story massing on all sides uh the materials are a mix of fiber cement panel brick and vertical seam metal panel um the proposed ground floor Podium parking garage would be visible from Broadway along the south side of the East face of the building uh with a covered open space area and amenity leasing space fronting Broadway on the North side um this is just another shot of the proposed project looking from the New Vista High School property um you can see the L-shaped building which is largely a result of the um irregular lot shape so for key issues um we have four plus a bonus key issue um first one is is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals objectives and recommendations of the bbcp second key issue is does planning

[212:00] board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design number three is does the board have feedback on the proposed 57% parking reduction and number four is uh does the board have feedback on the proposed Building height of 55 ft taking into consideration the additional criteria for buildings requiring height modification found in section 9214 H4 of the boulder Revised Code and key issue number five is any other key issues that um the board may wish to discuss so just a a brief kind of analysis on each key issue um so in terms of key issue number one um staff finds that overall The Proposal is in keeping with the intent of the high density residential land use designation and that it is a high density attached residential project on a major Transit cour um directly across from the University of Colorado um as mentioned in the staff memo and the criteria analysis um there will be other bbcp policies um that will be used to evaluate the project during site review um some of the main ones are 2.33

[213:03] sensitive infill and Redevelopment and then 2.41 enhanced design for all projects and several of the um kind of sub policies within um 2.41 um in terms of key issue number two I just have some considerations here that I'm happy to bring back up during the [Music] discussion um key issue number three in terms of considerations um so as I mentioned before there are 61 off street parking spaces proposed were um 163 is that number right sorry 143 that's a typo um 61 off Street space is proposed where 143 are required based on the current bedroom count um section 996 which is the where the parking reduction criteria live uh requires the applicant to demonstrate that the probable number of all Motor Vehicles to be owned by occupants of and

[214:00] visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated um there are other criteria as well but that's kind of the main um intent so considerations to take um considerations to take into consideration during this discussion uh will be proximity to Transit multi modal connections uh proximity to available on street parking and transportation demand management measures um in the applicant's written statement which is included as attachment B they do state that a robust TDM plan along with extremely convenient location will incentivize residents to take alternative modes of transportation the TDM plan may include orientation packets information about nearby transit services Ecco passes for residents alternative transportation funds uh additional on-site short-term and long-term bicycle parking and ride sharing incer program um so we did not get a a final TDM plan as part of concept review but they did indicate some of the things that they are planning to include um key issue number four this one has two slides um I'm just going to

[215:00] go over the main criteria that are included in this part of the site review criteria um so the findings that need to be made um for projects requesting a height modification are that the form and massing compatible with the character of the area or improve upon that character consistent with the intent of the building design criteria that the building's form massing and length are designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability into and through the site um that the building height is compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area or that the building is located near a multimodal corridor with Transit service or near an area of Redevelopment where a higher intensity of use and similar Building height is anticipated um they must also find that the project preserves and takes advantage of prominent Mountain views from public spaces and from common areas within the project and that an inviting grade level outdoor Garden or landscape Courtyard is provided designed as a gathering space for building

[216:02] users uh then as I mentioned before we have kind of an open key issue slot and then next steps um following the concept review hearing city council may vote to call the item up for a council hearing to provide additional feedback um the applicant will then either proceed with submitting development review applications or may submit a second concept review application if they so choose and a site review application will require a public hearing and final decision by planning board subject to city council and now I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions great thank you Chandler okay Now's the Time for clarifying questions about the site for Chandler ml hi Chandler um thank you for your presentation um so there's a reference to a central Boulder Das uni Hill subcommunity plan just a subc commmunity they don't have a plan

[217:01] yet oh it reference subun it's just the neighborhood basically yeah but there is no subc commmunity plan okay so it's part of something but that doesn't exist yet good I couldn't find it me neither thank you for that answer I think we'll be self-organizing while okay Mark is gone um two quick questions there was reference in regards to the parking requirement there was a reference to the uh a deadline or a phase out time of July 2025 which I think is related to the Statewide legislation yeah so what what has to what would have to happen before July 2025 in order for them to still for the parking requirement to still apply or

[218:01] what would I guess Sor I'm not this very well they've they've submitted for concept review so are they under the parking requirements than as they currently stand or is it when site they apply for site review or I might actually defer to coo on that one I'm not sure if the when when the state legislation takes place if that automatically applies to projects or if projects that like if they apply for site review in May would would the parking requirement go away in July or not yeah um so typically and I would have to look exactly at this parking requirement M state law I looked at it a long time ago but um typically it does not apply to things that are already in process so it's not going to go go back so if they were to apply prior to the effective date in summer

[219:00] 2025 um the parking requirement as it stands now would apply if they apply after that date though um it is likely that the new parking requirement will apply okay and when you say they apply it's applying for site review it's not based on concept okay gotta it's based on the DAT of site review application yeah great okay and then one other quick question would so uh the the the current access there well there is current access off 20th Street and that's going to be the only access in the Under The Proposal would they be required to reconstruct that uh curb ramp and sidewalk and so on at 20 Street do you know I think so I think that was a comment from our transportation engineering staff okay great thank you L Claudia we'll get to you Laura thank you

[220:03] um there was some concern in the memo that the Open Spaces being proposed are too small to provide meaningful Gathering space could you give us any more information on what size um those Open Spaces are being proposed at and then what would staff consider to be an adequate size yeah that comment was made by Chris ricardel our landscape engineer um so I can't speak 100% to his intent and I don't think that there's um really a specific minimum size I think is the main concern was that this large open space area um on the Southeast corner of the building along Broadway is covered um so it's it's not really an open area where you can see the sky um and then I think his his concerns about the other ones were that they're just kind of enclosed in the building on nor Northern aspects of the building so they might not get a lot of sun

[221:01] um yeah and that they're I think he just think thought they were too small to be um super usable okay yeah I mean the building height the additional criteria for the for height modifications are are pretty focused on outdoor open space and kind of providing like large usable spaces yeah so this this larger kind of covered open space do we have any like does that have any reference in the code like um I don't know that I've seen one of those before I mean we generally yes talk about uncovered open space like what what is that in terms of definitions what they're proposing there you know it's hard to tell based on the project plans if it's fully enclosed or if it's like open-sided um okay I think yeah that's probably a question for the applicant okay um and then a question about the uh transportation and circulation um again dealing with that curb cut on Broadway um are there any required connections through this property from Broadway so assuming that curb cut were

[222:01] closed off I know that provides vehicle access right now is there any requirement to maintain um bik or pedestrian access through this property um or into the interior of the property from Broadway no there are no um connections through this property shown on the transportation master plan um there is a connection shown on the New Vista High School property um and I know that and the applicant may be willing to speak to this or better able but I know that um the new Vista High School and the applicant have been in discussions at some point about potentially sharing cost of providing it or something like that because New Vista um probably isn't going to be building it anytime soon it's a yeah so if you can if you see here it kind of it basically Trails the southern end of the property just on the New Vista High high school property and creates kind of a Stairway shape um but there's a bunch of grade there so it's a difficult connection to make um so we have we've

[223:02] raised the issue of whether or not there's you know potential to add that multiuse path as part of this project but it's not something that we can require of New Vista that was maybe more than you asked but um yeah it's it it's an interesting um topic okay yeah that I was not aware of that one at all but that the current connection I guess it's kind of like a Alleyway parking um between the adjacent building the Lux and this proposed building um what is the status of that would that would that remain there as a sort of alley access um yes okay wait the I'm sorry which connection are you talking about the current existing connection so as I understand it right now there's a curb cut on Broadway that serves both this property and the property immediately to the West called the Lux yeah yes um would that kind of alley vehicle access whatever

[224:03] status it's in does that remain I think that's something we'd have to determine during site review because it's a little bit tricky um that basically half of the existing access would be closed okay so the portion of the access on this property would be closed um but we couldn't require the Lux to close their portion so if that stays open there's a chance the Lux may want to do something with that very narrow space to the South um or there's a chance that they may want to keep it open okay thank [Music] you okay any other Laura just really quickly the diagram shows a fifth floor rooftop deck I assume that's a carve out from the fifth floor floor not on top of the fifth floor um that's actually uh that is a good question as well NOP that's on the fifth floor from what I could see in the on top of it how can that be with a 55 putot building it probably can't but

[225:00] again the applicant is okay it's a car bout so it's actually sitting on top of the fourth floor okay all right thank you page 106 in the packet thank you Claudia okay uh Mason any questions okay all right um time for the does the applicant have a presentation okay [Music] this is i't pulling up their

[226:00] presentation I believe this is the document you wanted to share is that right yeah I I'll need to promote them to speak the microphone go ahead sorry about that um I think what is their name Seth is the owner Y and he'd like to say a couple opening remarks okay I see him there now all right good evening everyone can you guys hear me yep perfect all right and Chris you're getting set up as well Chris you turn on your mic there you

[227:01] go yep yep I'm getting set ups here SE okay perfect I'm just G to share a few things here before Chris gets started um Seth SE was my name and I'm here on behalf of the development team um just appreciate you guys' time tonight I think this venue is a great one uh where we can receive just productive feedback from all of you um we do believe this will be a successful project for the city of Boulder and uh before I get into more I'd like to say just a thank you to Chandler and the staff for their work and input on the project to date uh it's been very constructive and helpful uh the concept that we've worked on putting together here focuses on just meeting a number of growing needs of the city as well as the University uh it aligns with a number of key goals that are outlines in the Boulder Valley comp plan uh Chandler touched on a number of those in his presentation um and we've been tried we've tried to be very just thoughtful in our approach of doing just that U I'm sure it's not lost on any of you that uh

[228:01] housing is a key responsibility of the city uh to help deliver accessible and appropriate opportunities uh to those that live within your jurisdiction there uh this site in particular is well positioned to meet the growing needs of the University uh I spoke about this at the landmarks Board hearing last week but some of the projections from CU over the next 5 to 10 years is a very healthy growth projection on their enrollment um in our minds it makes a lot of sense to continue to focus student housing right along the Broadway Corridor just given its connectivity and adjacency to the university um we believe this is a place for higher density uh when it comes to just that the zone supports it um a couple of side notes uh we touched on landmarks approval for demo last week uh we also did hold a neighbor meeting on September 5th at the library uh we invited all the neighbors within I think the 600 foot

[229:01] radius that he had provided us with Chandler um three of them did show up and there were I think three of the five that had provided comments to you Chandler directly so uh we had some healthy discussion and they're able just to kind of go through the same slide deck that you guys saw earlier here um so I'll hand this over to you Chris here but again we just thank you guys for your time tonight and look forward to the feedback thanks I I just wanted to let you know we you do time this and you have about 10 minutes left I was just about to ask if there's a time limit or not so um no that's perfect um and you know I'll just Echo real quick um you know Seth remark I appreciate Chandler your time and and the city staff um for you know taking the time ready and providing some some meaningful feedback um and you know uh to the planning board staff in this late hour appreciate you know in advance uh the time we get to spend here tonight in in the discussions um personally this is one of my favorite parts of uh projects of this size and

[230:00] this importance it you know it's it's a great opportunity that we get to get together as a Brain Trust uh as we're kind of shaping this thing um you know in its concept phase um you know to discuss ideas and you know just how to make this project really sing uh at this location so uh looking forward to the discussion here tonight uh next slide please A lot has been said about the location you guys know where it is um our team the ownership team and the design team um you see about half of it but we can talk through it um we understand the importance of the site uh it's going to be a pretty visible site along the Broadway Corridor and there's a huge opportunity here to provide valuable student housing uh to the University Hill Neighborhood uh in a location where you know essentially the access to multimodal transportation makes Auto transportation pretty much unnecessary uh and I think you guys have already started the conversation about parking

[231:00] right what does that mean now and what does that mean you know in the middle of next year um So currently we are proposing as Chandler mentioned to add 63 units and 222 is bedrooms uh to the housing stock right there next to uh the UN univiversity uh we talked about the proximity there's it's right across the street from the University just south the University Hill bus stops uh the Bas Mar shopping center is just south so you know in one of those incredibly walkable neighborhoods um incredibly tied into the fabric of the multimodal transportation so I I think we all know the benefits of of the site there uh next slide please Seth T a little bit um we are perfectly positioned here for student housing uh it's in the um supports the purpose of the rh5 zone that Chandler talked about uh and the vision of this University Hill subc Community right what does that mean right in that plan I think there's a two paragraph blurb in

[232:01] the uh subc Community or the um comp plan about that uh and the first paragraph is to support the growth of the University by 2030 uh so I think this this project is perfect ly positioned to do that so um just to rewind it all the way back to the use you know we think that this is the best use for this site uh surrounded by um as Chandler you pointed out again you do such a great job of these project introductions just to the South is the Redevelopment of the high school another larger building to the northwest of the site we have the San Marco Condominiums all the way up to seven eight stories uh and the Lux building there up to three stories and then the larger footprint buildings across the street at the University so uh you know in these respects we believe that um what we're proposing in terms of building size massing footprint um you know fits well within the context there next slide please these diagrams I'll quickly go

[233:02] through that I know that um time's kind of running out here first diagram shows uh the entire uh available form there uh regarding setbacks uh the second diagram here here um is showing um see to be gaining time here you're you're you've got six minutes you're okay sounds good it still shows nine here but oh oh that anyway I've got a timer going you're good thank you um second diagram just shows the maximum efficiency in the center L shape Channel you talked about this this odd kind of flag shape um you know property shape here um so what we Tred to do is really make as much effic efficiency and density um you know efficiently as we can in kind of that Big L shape um third diagram here is just how we erode that right how do we make meaningful usable open space uh we talked about you know the back corner on the southwest corner which is the top of this you know diagram facing the mountains that's

[234:01] a roof deck that's on the fifth floor not the roof um that has great views out to the mountains um and we erode some of the Interior Courtyards to gain uh light and air into the depth of that um that L-shaped block um so we've used private Courtyards we used semi you know public roof decks uh and also um trying to create some meaningful open space on the ground floor uh which creates a little bit of physical and uh visual permeability to this mass and to this site um the fourth diagram here just shows a little addition of an amenity space right along Broadway uh that urbanistic kind of holds the Broadway Frontage uh and creates a trans transar transparent Active Space to energize that um the highly trafficked multimodal path along Broadway and the fifth diagram there is the final form of the building next slide

[235:00] please uh we focused uh you know some major moves in this project just for your you know kind of background regarding circulation and the location of the mass and the program on the site um the big move here was to close the 20 foot of that 40 foot curb cut along Broadway um the Lux still does have access there we essentially Clos down ours um the vehicular access as you pointed out uh was from 20 Street to the West so that will remain um the Lux will retain access from Broadway and to the South through our property uh the building Mass you might have noticed this but we kept it 20 ft from the property line on the east side of the Lux so between the Lux and our building there's a larger Gap there and that's to reroute a storm sewer that I don't think we talked about maybe if you're on um the uh landmarks board that was a big discussion point is to reroute

[236:00] that sanitary sewer that's essentially riding currently running East West and bifurcates the site um so that's going to be required to run that up and around the site um so that is what that larger 25 foot north south kind a setback or easement will be uh the main pedestrian access will be along Broadway highlighted with a recess in the mass and a projecting canopy above it uh and the long and short-term bike parking again a robust TDM we realized that you know without the use of a car uh with a parking reduction that we're proposing you know we really got to you know provide um long-term and short-term bike parking above what's going to be required for code so we put that out towards Broadway easy access again to that multimodal path uh next slide please uh with open space this is a Hot Topic I mean this you know comes up with every every project right it's a fun

[237:00] challenge how to balance density parking and open space right we always talk about this um this project is no exception we do have additional open space requirements due to height modification um but again it's it's been difficult as you guys noticed how do we provide 15% in addition to what's already required per code um we're proposing private Courtyards on the West Side um that provide views and access to light and air uh to the bedrooms in the center of the mass we're proposing uh the resident roof deck on the southwest corner and on the East again is that large amenity space uh that is covered by the mass of the residential units above which was a comment um for staff and that's why we've kind of highlighted it uh here in the diagram um to the question uh the board had that is currently in this um concept shown is kind of uh passed through open on two or three sides um so

[238:00] just bounded by the mass on the North partially and on the west but mostly open uh we've been looking at ways to increase the amount of open space to respond to staff's comments um and so in the next slide if you could go to the next slide please um that shows those floor plans once again I've highlighted you know an oval right where those residential units are above and an opportunity there to move those to the West Side um so they're not covering open space they're now covering parking uh and so what that's going to do and I have some massing studies in you know in the spirit of uh Concepts review if you guys want to take a look at that I have those at the end of the uh end of the presentation here um so just looking at the uh floor plans the ground floor uh we have the circulation from 20th Street auto circulation in under the building that wraps around um and continues in a loop back out to uh 20th Street uh the trash would be located on the west end I

[239:01] think for obvious reasons there uh and again the bike parking and amenity spacious spaces pushed out to Broadway to hold that edge uh upper floors mixi unit types types Chandler talked about that uh Studios 2 three and five bedroom units so a good um mix of those uh and again we talked about that option there to relocate the East Mass to the southwest corner that would really open up that big space um to a you know kind of change that open space to a space that's open to the air and with South access solar access there was that my time that's your time okay take take a few seconds to wrap up you got it um you guys talked about uh a little bit uh sorry next slide please uh we're looking at a brick base uh fiber cement uh up above uh highlighting the entries and the building Corners with uh you know that orange color uh a little bit

[240:00] reminiscent of the Terracotta ruse there at the University uh and some spaces for you know some ideas for a project mural if you could skip [Music] ahead to 13 of 16 this is really where I want to go with you guys um this shows two options I know you haven't seen the bottom one before um but just looking at you know staff's comments they're up at the top here make a larger more meaningful outdoor open space emphasize the building entry increase the level of transparency on the ground floor show a variety of forms and Heights and integrate balconies into the building Mass so those three ones in bold and the top um are what we really focused on in this quick little sketch um we're reducing along Broadway uh the fifth floor to a fourth floor now along that gray Mass with that red arrows pointing down and then this option is showing uh raising up um the Broadway elevation right above the amenity space uh to a

[241:01] second and third floor to um really hold that Broadway elevation and to uh provide a datam uh that relates back to the Lux I think urbanistic that's a better move there there um so if you look at the bottom image there if you go to the next page please you can see the change that that really has uh on the facade you can see that big chunk up top that we had that was covering that open space is now gone opens up that uh lower floor um area for uh you know usable open space um and if you go to the next slide please uh you can really see in this image how it emphasizes uh a variety of uh masses along Broadway and really bring some prominence out to that Broadway edge with that second and third floor um Mass so with that U I won't take up any more time but uh open to questions and you know really looking

[242:00] forward to the dialogue so appreciate it great thank you okay time to uh uh field any questions to the applicant that you may have before we go to the public hearing anyone okay Kurt uh just following up about that East Side open space there was a question about whether that is open it appears that that would be open to the east and south and maybe partly on the north is that right corre correct so if you go to 14 of 16 you can kind of zoom in there um but yes on the North side it would be half right open on that East Side fully open

[243:01] on the east side and fully open on the south yeah minus structure okay and have you modeled or measured or anything the noise levels from Broadway at that point I have not yet okay thanks ml go ahead um yes hi thank you for your presentation I have a couple of questions um can you um talk about the site plan and um what percent of it is not paved I don't know right off hand it looks like it's about you know the setbacks are not paved but minimally beyond that is it's pretty much paved does that sound about right correct yeah with the exception of kind of that

[244:00] northeast side along the um multimodal path okay thanks um next question um just terminology wise what is podium parking uh it's essentially the the building is raised up on a Podium um so it's tuck under it's under the building yes okay um and do you have any perspectives at The Pedestrian level um there should be the front entry um there's one on the cover sheet and there's one on page 11 that's not pedestrian level like if you're standing on the sidewalk or driving a car uh no I think that that's the closest one we have so human scale what does it actually feel like to have a fivestory building here we don't have any perspectives no not perfect uh last

[245:02] question how many bedrooms 222 okay thanks okay any u m I can't see you but do you have any questions for the applicant okay okay did my video go out again no it just it just the don't yeah I just couldn't see you at that moment gotcha okay go ahead Laura H thank you um and thank you for the presentation um the application uses a bunch of of different terminologies for open space amenities it talks about a covered public amenity area a private Courtyard and a resident rooftop deck what's the difference in the expected users of the public amenity area the private Courtyard and the

[246:01] resident rooftop dek good question yeah so if you think about it as kind of a scale from private semi-private or semi-public to public uh ground floor areas would be PL public uh that covered open space there uh would be fully public accessible to the public um something that's uh that like that fifth floor roof deck would be tenant only so semi private or semiu however you want to look at it uh and then the private Courtyard would just be accessible to those units at that level kind of like a so those are the second floor roof the second floor roof decks are the private Courtyards correct so so just the units around those exactly and all the other units would have access to the rooftop deck on the top of the fourth floor equal to the fifth floor correct as well as the public amenity area and when you say that's open to the public you mean like anybody going down the multiuse path could wander off into your site and

[247:02] use the public area they could okay okay thank you and could you show us again the difference between the covered public amenity area in the original diagrams and the new ones that you showed tonight yeah so if you go to 14 of 16 please I don't know if you can zoom into the top one right and under the mural so that's what the covered would look like um currently we have two ping pong tables and a big fireplace in there you know who knows what that's going to be that gives you an idea of the size there and then below that if you scroll down please you know we took that whole mass

[248:03] and put it to the southwest corner uh which opened up that and right now I'm just showing a little pea there uh so it' still be a little bit shaded from the southern light that'll get you know that' get great eastern in Southern Exposure there uh and be open to the sky above okay so that's just to the west of all of that glazing on the ground floor correct yep okay and that's you said open on which sides so that one would be fully open on the south and the East the north would be um would back up to the amenity space okay thank you yep okay I have a couple um uh do you lose units or bedrooms in that design the lower design uh it's a great question that's one that we're trying to juggle um

[249:00] currently uh we have to adjust the unit mix but pushing all of the mass not all of the mass but the second and third story Mass out to that Flagship you know kind of that flag shape um is not the most efficient so um which design offers uh more units more view which design upper lowerer offers uh better views for more units to find better views there's pretty good views to the university and yeah so I'm I'm thinking so uh this gets into the commentary section but this site is particularly um good views to the South because of the open KC Fields uh good pretty darn good views to the West um especially on the upper floors uh because of the proximity to the

[250:00] mountains and the height of the uh neighboring buildings Etc so I'm thinking more south west is where the best views are but yes looking at the University is also it's a it's a beautiful campus so um I'm thinking more of the South and West it's probably about even right because that you know that Flagship one that we're we proposing to move to the South they already have views South we're just moving them more south and over and they still have views to the sorry they still have views to the South it's a hard question to answer yeah did you do any concepts of overall site uh overall building design on that very odd shaped site that more of the building was more of the face of the building was oriented towards the South and West like you know

[251:01] you if you have a beach prop odd shaped Beach property you know the designers really Orient towards uh Beach views Etc I I think this sometimes kind of the equivalent of that did were there any other Concepts that you had that or is it that the site doesn't really allow that not to get the density um we did you know the big change that we did look at you know before we came up with this concept was moving everything more parallel to Broadway uh and so that didn't really make sense in terms of efficiency um and again you're covering all of that open space right on the ground level and so this we think was the best move is to move everything over the parking right and and if we reduce the parking requirements even further that would only open up you know some more open space opportunities um but that was the big move is to take advantage of that

[252:02] you know that efficient L right kind of in the middle of the project so that's never really changed okay um I think that's it for questions for me any other questions okay sorry one quick one um have you had any discussions with the Lux about closing that access point on our property or their property um so in the staff memo it says uh staff is supportive of closing the existing access onto Broadway but this is a shared use between properties and would require additional study and cooperation between Property Owners to close or modify the access way in any way so I'm assuming that you need to talk to the Lux people about closing that access on Broadway yeah that'd be a good question for Seth um if you're still there I don't know if youve yeah had conversations already I am Chris we have not gotten into the details of those conversations um but as I think Chris

[253:02] you noted in your presentation the Lux has two access points one off of Broadway and then one to the South that runs through our property here and both would remain in place uh but no we've not had detailed conversations about what would it take to close half of the Broadway access okay thank you you're welcome Mason I see you have your hand up yeah just a quick one I didn't see um in any of the drawings that I thought I'd ask an open space that was in the in the drawing that was just up um that's along Broadway uh and borders the the school property is there any plans of additional enhancements to that open space like uh I I think I saw some tree plantings but I'm thinking more like uh uh architectural elements that might further activate it for use or you just

[254:00] plan on keeping it grass and trees well I did um actually figure out that a full-size volleyball court will fit in that area with that big mask on so that's an option um but to your point Mason um no we haven't programmed that space yet that would come with you know once we dial in to um see if we can get that open space down there right what we do with that with a full landscape plan and where we put water quality right that's another one of those those challenges is how would do we you know where and how do we put water quality on the site um but yeah full intentions Mason to make that a a really uh special place to be sure appreciate you okay okay thank you to the applicant we're going to move on to the public hearing uh I don't think there's anyone here in the room uh Thomas is there anyone online that wishes to speak to this agenda item we just have one raised hand and that's Lyn seagull Lynn I'll go

[255:01] ahead and give you permission to talk and then you will have three minutes to speak please go ahead I don't know if any of you have seen Mark Wallock hot line about Area 3 planning Reserve but any growth there needs to be a growth Mo moratorium in Boulder this is utterly ridiculous our water supply can't handle this that the this is just outrageous that you're that you're even contemplating parking reductions and 55 foot height on this thing and the open space these bodies need open space and they need to travel away from this to get it besides just the university and they will build it and they will come our open space can handle all of this we're in huge deficit people don't

[256:02] want to ultimately sit in their rooms after their education they want to get out and enjoy themselves and they're going to get away from here and I don't care if you have alternate modes or Transit oriented demand you know developments this is not what Boulder needs this is an outrage there's 930 bedroom and now it's all it's all the all about the bedrooms it's not units anymore there were 40 bedrooms here before 222 the only saving grace I can say is that what the United States has done to Lebanon is getting getting it back to him to get him the biggest bang for the buck for selling the space and leaving Houston Bay rout he was getting bombed by our country so that I can appreciate but further development Boulder

[257:03] this this Hobie wager should never have been demoed that that's the only soul of Boulder that pyramidal structure on the top the open the the the interesting lighting coming in in there this this building it's it's it's a sin it is lit you know and I'm not religious to to allow this kind of a development uh five stories and the argument being oh all the other large area you know large scale developments around it no that's the reason it needs to stay small and you know the sister project to this is the law water fund on Broadway and Baseline and that should have been kept too but that's demo demo demo what is anyone going to come to Boulder for but

[258:01] to see more housing developments and higher skyscrapers no no no no way okay thank you ly we have no other raised hands okay um I'm going to close the public hearing and we'll move on to comments from board members um who would like to go first how do we want to do this do we want to do point point or um Chandler do you have a slide with the uh with there four or five key qu yeah let's do the four and I I I have been in favor lately of just whoever is up holds the floor answers the question provides their comments and uh rather than round and

[259:01] round and round for uh each of the questions and and if your answer to the question is yes or no then that's that's completely fine as well uh we don't we don't have to comment anyway use your time wisely to um make your most important comments and there's no shame in saying yes or no to any of the other items anyone Kurt you look good you're fortified with some rice pudding there I'm fortified with some rice pudding so okay watch out okay um question number one yes I think that it generally uh complies with the goals objectives and recommendations of the bbcp uh I do have some specific uh feedback on the

[260:02] design first off the as proposed it shows only a single as I understand it it shows only a single pedestrian uh access off the multi-use path the Broadway multi-use path that doesn't look particularly um direct whether you're going to the Northwest in other words like towards the intersection of 20th and Broadway or to the southeast like towards the underpass U that that leads to the law building and so on and so um the um 9214 h2a is a provision in the site review criteria that speaks to efficiency and directness of pedestrian uh

[261:01] accesses and so I I would like to see or I think that the site review criteria would be more consistent with the design it shows more efficient basically two separate a pedestrian accesses one Northwest bound and one Southeast bound uh I have some concerns about that East Side open space area that we've been discussing primarily from the standpoint of the proximity to Broadway and the amount of noise and pollution and so on uh from from the vast number of cars going back and forth on Broadway and so I I think that it would benefit significantly from some kind of if it's to remain in that location and I don't know of a better location some kind of uh screening to

[262:02] protect from those those the the the noise and and pollution and so on that I talked about um or you know if you can come up with anything else I just I'm worried that that's not going to be a very appealing spot if it's just wide open like that um sta one of the staff comments was consideration should be given to how to increase the level of transparency and sense of connection to the public realm along the Broadway Frontage and I agree with that there's a lot of glazing shown um which is great but it feels very commercial it it almost I don't know it feels like it's a one-story office building there so I think that um ways to detail it uh to make it more

[263:02] appealing and more approachable would be better maybe maybe changing the fenestration somehow or some other uh detailing um and then um let's see there's a also a staff comment about consider adding please consider adding simple detailing to the facade using elements described above um and I agree but one thing that staff did not mention was the Criterion about about simplification simple materials and colors so the site review criteria say the number of building material types is limited and the building materials are applied to complement the building Form and Function and

[264:00] it appears to me that there's there's a lot of different colors there's some different materials but I don't I'm not really seeing Rhyme or Reason in it and it feels a little bit gratuitous and I think that there could be fewer materials fewer colors but better use of detailing um at a more subtle level that would make it more elegant and more cohesive coherent uh and then last just in terms of the the multiple the the the alternative proposals that you showed uh I think that that new proposal with the with the massing moved from above the the open space to the west and then additional height along Broadway I think

[265:01] that that could be quite successful um I I think that the as in The Proposal that we got there's the one story section right along Broadway and then there's the five story section and um and I think that that it works but I think that the greater the twostory section and the three story section and so on it just um to me it feels like it works a little better and is more consistent with the site review criteria which talk about a variet iety of forms and Heights uh so those are that was all in response to number two uh number three I support the parking reduction I think that that's appropriate and I think that the

[266:00] proposed height of 55 feet is appropriate okay Laura thank you Kurt thank you Mark um so I would say for one yes I think it is generally consistent with the bbcp goals and objectives and recommendations two feedback on the conceptual uh site plan and building design I I thought uh staff made very good comments in the packet and I did not see a one that I disagreed with I think you'll be served well to pay close attention to staff's comments there um because I would support them all uh I would be very concerned if that Broadway access remains open uh the first time that I saw the site here I was like oh what the heck are they going to do about that Broadway access because that's going to be a mess if there's a bunch of people using it and trying to make left turns there either in or out of the site uh I live in South Boulder and I use that multi-use path a lot and so I would be very concerned about um a lot of cars going across Broadway there um and across the multi-use path there

[267:01] um as far as the proposed parking reduction I do think that's very appropriate but I think you can anticipate that this board will look very very closely at your TDM plan I app appreciated the um initial comments that you put in there about that and I would suggest a couple of things um number one we have seen projects come through where uh student projects in particular where the tenants are required to show that they have a parking space if they're going to bring a vehicle or if they do not show that they have a parking space that they um uh uh promise that they're not bringing a car basically so I don't know if you're planning for your parking spaces to be assigned or unbundled or how are you going to do that but to somehow guarantee that if people bring a car they have a place to put it either on your property or somewhere else uh consider that as a lease term um and I think one of our applicants had their parents coign that lease so um that seemed to be we didn't follow up to see

[268:01] how successful that was but I liked that model um with the bike parking we bring this up a lot um think about the future of biking being a lot of ebikes and cargo bikes um so it can't just be all hanging bike racks for bicycle long-term storage because it's almost impossible to wrestle those big heavy bikes up there and I know Mark in particular will probably have comments about bike charging um and electrical V electric vehicle charging so think about those in your TDM plan and I also I don't know if we have any data Citywide about what kinds of modes of transportation alternate modes that students use the most whether that's the buses whether that's like Mobility like scooters if it's bikes and ebikes mono Wheels walking but whatever data that we have I would encourage you to use that to think about where do you put your resources in providing um alternate modes for folks um the more you can talk about that the happier we will be um so those are the

[269:02] TDM plan comments um I have no problems with the 55 foot height I think it is appropriate for this neighborhood especially along that um you know Broadway is a major north south drag through through Boulder and you're right there by Baseline um there's so many opportunities here for uh being along a multimodal Transit Corridor uh that parking reductions are very appropriate and that additional height of 55 ft is very appropriate and I don't think I have anything else I I would when we are done with the applicant like to make two comments for staff that this brings up for me that are larger than this project but I don't want to take the applicant's time for that great thank you Laura remind me of that after we're done with this Claudia thank you to both Kurt and Laura for getting this started I will agree with much of what they said uh but I

[270:00] will go question by question so first um is the plan generally um in line with the bbcp yes I think this is a good location for high density student housing and infield development um some thoughts on site design um I want to build a little bit on Kurt's comments about access from Broadway um I would really encourage you as you continue to refine this to think about the best access for bikes and pedestrians is being very different from that for cars um and that bike connection to Broadway um is going to be very important part of your e connectivity and realizing your TDM goals I did see in your diagrams that you are putting the long-term bikes bike storage closer to Broadway I assume that does include some direct access so folks don't have to be going all the way around to that 20th Street side um so I hope that is part of the final plan but I would also encourage you to think about Pathways around and through this property um moving folks

[271:00] between Broadway and 20th some of that is informal informally there right now in terms of the Alleyways and I'd like to find ways to continue to encourage that movement and permeability ility um in terms of a parking reduction this is a great place and population for asking for a large parking reduction as my colleague Laura said um we will still be looking for a very robust Transportation demand management plan um and I would hope that would include strategies for managing uh your parking Supply including potentially uh payment or other restrictions and then on the question of height um I think 55 ft height is completely appropriate for this use and in this location um as long as you are prepared to meet those additional open space and Community benefit criteria um in our code I really do appreciate um seeing those hints of flexibility that you're already working on the open space

[272:00] problem in terms of moving building massing around I look forward to seeing how that evolves um and I also share concerns that have been shared here already about the kind of concentration of open space on the east side of this project um as it's currently designed I'm not as worried about um shade as staff is perhaps but definitely concerned about how noise and proximity to traffic is going to impact the usability of space and so we're going to be looking not just at your square footage in the end but also you know how is that space usable by residents thanks great thank you uh ml I'll go yep um thank you let me see I will go through these issues as well let me see the um number one bbcp I think all my concerns have been answered regards to that and I have no um concerns with that

[273:02] criteria being met um feedback on conceptual site plan and building design number two um I will just identify the criteria um numbers and the Salient piece with it so um regards to site design to AV minimize the amount of pavement necessary um the question I had asked was the entire site paved except for the setbacks and the answer was essentially yes so I will be interested in in the next phase to see um are we using the minimum amount of of P that is necessary to accomplish the uh the goals of access on that property um to be one and two open space I think everybody has spoken about open space this requires it to be usable and to meet the needs of the residents so one of the questions I would have is if

[274:01] you have some of the open space um given the way this open space is calculated that is for the entire site um but some of your open space you proposed was limited to only the people that lived on that floor I'm not sure how that would meet the um meeting the needs of the residents and being usable so that would be one thing but I think that in general the staff has made a lot of points regards to that and I would I would um be looking for that to be addressed um regards to the building sighting and design um 3B one um it talks about uh when you have a larger floor plate Building have variety of forms and Heights um one of the statements that is made is that the building is all at 55t High um so we do not have the we're not meeting that variety of forms and Heights um 3B uh three um and I think the staff

[275:01] pointed this out the building windows creating visual interest 3B uh 4 simple detailing incorporated into the facades to create a again visual interest I believe the S the staff brought that up as well um so that's regard to number two number three feedback on the parking reduction you know it's always um we like the idea that we're transitioning away from um cars as as Transportation but we're not there yet and I we've improved so many projects where it's um student housing with a greatly reduced parking and um I don't know that we have data or facts as to is it working are the neighborhoods not getting overrun and um in fact are the students not bringing cars so I I agree

[276:01] with some of my uh peer uh my fellow board members that will'll need to see some good TDM um data and strategies there so that that neighborhood doesn't get packed up we've got the high school we've got the university there's a lot of um there's a lot of pressure on street parking if the inhabitants of this don't have any place to put their cars and in fact they do have cars so that's that's a challenge um number four the proposed Building height uh the criteria for height modification I believe that there's a number of them that that need to be addressed um for one I think it would be great when you come back to offer uh perspectives at The Pedestrian level five stories 55 foot high is Big um you are blocking some substantial views of the flat irons with this building and I think it will be important to see a view from both a car

[277:01] and and a person um this is a big big building and I don't know that you know we really talked about that to any length here but um so looking at um 4 A1 that talks about building length and I think that that needs to be um considered as you come back 4 A2 um building facades uh along a public Street um 4 B1 B3 that's the one that deals with views and I think you would be able to make your point and talk to that one looking at uh some perspectives from The Pedestrian um because if you go there now if you take some before and after pictures at the go there now and take a picture as a pedestrian on that site or across the street or in a car you have substantial views of the flat irons and I think you will see that they are going

[278:00] to be um essentially gone and it's important when we look at uh a 55 foot building that is continuously 55 ft um that has a big impact on the experience of of us people that aren't going to be living there that are going to be driving past it and or walking or biking so it'd be good to see what is that impact um plus to meet that criteria and again the 4 B I4 again that talks about open space and site design so um those are criteria that need to be met and so I that's why I gave them by number so that it's it's not um uh it's not nebulous and then on number five in the key issue um you're proposing 220 to bedrooms and so I I guess this is a question both for or a comment um how is that utility impact you know being calculated giving that

[279:00] we've got 222 bedrooms there um this isn't as though it's a five-bedroom apartment you know a family with five bedrooms this is five adults or I don't know how many people are allowed to live per room so I I think that that's a big impact and it would be interesting to see to make sure that the um impact to the uh water use is um takes into account the the users and and how the site is um going to be using those resources um yeah so that's all five that's all five key issues and um those are my comments thank you very much thank you ml Mason do you have any comments please yeah so on point one uh yes um I'm not GNA go I'm G to try to save a little time and go quick and just focus on what's important um number

[280:01] two um I'm not quite I I I think that staff had a lot of great comments again don't I agree with I'm not as worried about the the shade I'm also not quite as worried as some my other colleagues about the noise of of Broadway I mean I've seen lots of people hanging outside along Broadway I know the traffic is a little faster there so it might be a little different and I would be happy if the Green Space was moved more inward I think mainly because I think it's important for um for us to be working on designs that integrate the people who live in this building with the community and there's a lot of density in that area there might be opportunity to instead of focus on integrating it with whoever's using the multi-use path path at the

[281:02] time to be integrating it with the community around them I don't know if there's an opportunity to do that it looks like that might be really challenging based on the shape of the a lot um but uh just thought I'd throw that out there um as far as I do think that the current design could benefit from exploring ways to create more um um difference in height uh I do not worried about the 55 height limit I know that kind of jumps me to number four but I I do feel like it's a the massing is is kind of SP and it' be nice to have that broken up a little bit more I I know that you've heard that before and I really do appreciate how thoughtful you were in the uh second option that you provided look like you were already taking these comments to heart and making some adjustments so I'll be excited to see what you come back with in site

[282:00] review uh number three um 57% seems completely appropriate here as others have mentioned uh very close to um lots of humidities to the school to the multi-use path um it would be very easy to be Carree in this area I would think um but as others have mentioned and just to reiterate a strong TDM plan um careful consideration of those alternate um methods of transportation whether it's increased uh facilities for for bicycles of a lot of varieties um secure uh storage you know uh Eco passes things of that nature are going to be really important inite review I'm sure sure you're already thinking about these things number four um I've already mentioned I think

[283:00] 55 ft is appropriate largely here um it's a den area uh it's right across from the school um I think it's something that's needed um and then you know we've already other folks I think have already touched on the requirements for getting that exception so I don't think I need to go any more detail there um I have nothing for number five so thank you okay great thank you Mason okay um uh it's it's difficult to make comments after everyone has has made them and they are so pertinent and useful and I uh certainly honor all of them and um in particular so uh I'm going to go down the list real quick and then I I'm going to do just a little bit more of a narrative okay so one yes it meets the

[284:01] uh objectives and recommendations the bbcp I'll talk about site design in a second um the parking reduction is fine and I think it if there was ever going to be an adjustment it would be maybe even less parking and more open space um I don't have a problem with the 55 foot height although ml's comments about uh variation in that height and and how we use that height some of that was was I thought was very pertinent I I think what I want to tell you as applicants tonight is that uh in this review I think you've seen unanimity here on the board and my personal reading of staff's recommendations uh and the way they read this application is that um I this is maybe the I've never been more in agreement with staff than than this

[285:02] particular application and you would do well to heed their recommendations and and you've demonstrated some of that already that's great um but you know it is better to air on the side of uh hearing us and hearing staff than to come to site review and have some uh change made at 11:30 that is a surprise to you or it shouldn't be a surprise because we we really voice something strongly at concept review so uh you know it's your project but when you come back to site review um we we will um be looking for a really robust TDM plan and don't let whoever you use as your TDM consultant use the 2011 Draft TDM toolkit don't don't do that it it it's ill it would be

[286:02] ill advised I can't say don't do that I wouldn't advise it um uh I would approach your TDM plan with the question of how many things can we do to keep people arriving from arriving in a car and just play that game uh you know and so when I look at again concept reviews are tough because um it's a concept review and you don't have a lot of details but you know Laura talked about uh hanging bike racks versus ground bike racks do you have charging for your bikes do you have a um you know shared ride pickup and drop off location do you have planned uh place for um shared Vehicles you know so I IE you know two or three car shares on a building like that maybe four or five car share spots and that's an amenity

[287:01] you you offer are you are you practicing sump principal separated unbundled managed paid parking if you come back here and you you aren't and your parking is included in units which obviously with a 57% parking reduction that would be hard but it that that won't read well with us um so uh and I think the other thing is we've all talked about open space and rather than say um uh any it's critical in this project and I think you have this asset of these South and West views and and um you know a couple feet closer or an adjustment to Broadway isn't going to make any difference on sound but several more feet and uh more hundreds of more feet of open space on that south and west side I think can really make a difference for people uh who reside in that building and um I

[288:02] agree with ml's comments or whoevers it was that the um when you have open space that is only accessible by some residents but it's not a balcony with that you know just for that unit that that I think that's tough for people um so anyway I would uh I would caution about that and just to make sure your your open space is uh is really a place especially with five bedroom units because you got five college kids you know what they're going to need to get out and away from their roommates um some and have a have a place to do it versus a concrete Courtyard so um and and I also finally want to conclude just design wise um that with buildings of this height with and mass that uh like Kurt talked about simplification but better

[289:00] detailing um you know and and I in other recent concept reviews we've talked about um uh cement sighing can be fine but it can also be just if it's if it's not detailed enough if it's too large too big a surface area extends for too far then it it really can really be quite ugly um so uh and while it's cost effective uh it it can be really detrimental so I think that does it but yeah listen listen to the great comments that have been made in staff's review and thank you very much okay yeah did you okay we we usually it's after right after the public hearing and responding to the public but if you have any responses to us you're welcome to spend a minute or two and uh but it's not

[290:08] required could you turn your mic on for the yep um I think the only question you started to allude to it you know would the board be supportive of a larger parking reduction if it meant more open space especially given the you know what's coming down you know um in the next year and a half with possibly eliminating all parking requirements uh it seems like we could get away from a lot of the paved area turn that back to Grass where we can do planting screenings that kind of thing um just curious to hear your thoughts on that I I'll I'll go and say sure especially if you know um I think uh sacrificing uh a couple units here or there for more rooftop deck or um uh

[291:01] pulling back to the um from the South and West create more open space so you reduce cars and I'm not ad indicating a big reduction in units or reduction in height but I think um a careful balance there uh I would support that anybody else yeah I would support that I think that there is pretty much no more appropriate place in the city for a very significant parking reduction given as I think it was Claudia was pointing out not just the location but also the demographics of the of the people who will be here so I think that that would be appropriate and certainly you know we've we've expressed some concerns about the open space so if it really means significantly not not just more but higher quality open space I think that that would be a great

[292:00] trade-off Laura um yeah I'm going to largely agree and say um two things one it is all about the quality of the open space right so if if what you're doing is eliminating parking spaces in a tuck under parking garage and turning that into open space as like adjacent to a tuck under a parking garage and maybe part of it not as interesting um but if it's quality grassy usable really really usable open space then then yes I'd be all for it um and the second thing is is really back to that TDM plan like we need to know that if the parking is being reduced on your site it's not just being pushed out to where neighbors are going to be complaining about it because the the neighborhoods are being blocked up with cars so um things that you can do to to Really demonstrate that a real reduction in vehicle trips in car storage that your tenants are not bringing cars

[293:03] okay can ask a quick followup has the board going back to data regarding that because this has been a huge conversation with I think even asked Jan like well you know what is it what's the most effective way right if it's I don't want to provide you know a car share or a you know a spot for um you know kind of Landing um ego Scooters or blanking on the name there but you know shoot scooter sharing right uh where we could use it for open space right planted open space like what's the what's really effective do you guys have any data or any insight right we're kind of seems like we're kind of grasping it what really works um you know we we have a project up in Crested bu and you know we're providing um spaces for cargo bikes right big spaces we've got the vertical we've had um you know horizontal as well we've had uh the discussion about um plugs in the bike sharing or the you know bike uh

[294:00] enclosure or are people just going to charge them up in their rooms right there's a fire hazard associated with that as well so where do we put those things is there um are people us us Bike Tool you know little stands um long-winded way of saying do you guys have any data or what are you seeing like on the ground boots on the ground what's what's really working or what we should avoid so so we the planning board are seven volunteer community members so we do not personally have data you would have to get that from the city so um and if the city wants to respond yeah I was going to say I mean Chris haglin would be more than happy to talk to you about uh optimal TDM strategies I'm sure yeah okay perfect thank you um that with these big parking reductions that you kind of have to that

[295:01] the um that my emphasis has been on hardware and and I mean that by uh charging hardware for cars for bikes um hard places for scooters places for um big cargo ebikes places for bike shares uh rather than a Reliance on the the softer we're going to give Ecco passes which which the students already have Eco passes anyway um but the uh building going ahead and investing in in the places the things that make using all of those Alternatives easier and you know walk around at sites that uh you know when you walk around campus or you or you ride your bike around campus and you start looking at where scooters collect and how they're how they're

[296:00] stored places and who's writing a personal one versus who's writing um a uh a rental one anyway uh you know you can you can see p patterns um it's it's kind of like uh you know when when people put in a sidewalk and then everyone cuts across the grass in some other way it's like well just let's let's just figure out where they're really going to go so anyway just um I think you can be uh pretty aggressive in your TDM plan and it it'll it'll work out but yeah don't um don't give Credence to Too Much Credence to the car and yeah well certainly the city Chris haggan and um maybe some other people at the city will have great data but also there are Consultants who specialize in this and are great uh we get a lot of TDM plans from one consultant engineering firm out of

[297:02] Kansas City or something don't use them um Nelson nyard is a world leader in studying what's that I can't talk about this well I don't I don't know that we need to be recommending Consultants okay choose a consultant that has expertise in this area as opposed to just the cheapest okay I think yeah I don't know um Seth did you have any I don't want to lose track of him on the on the I'm here Chris and I'm good thank you guys okay okay okay thank you very much okay we're going to close that agenda item yep oh yeah please Laura go ahead sorry just just really quickly for staff uh two things we've talked about in the past that came up again for me

[298:01] with this application one turned out not to be relevant which is the whole landmarking question but I I do want to say again that um I know that in the code in the the bbcp plan it says that planning board uh can be the authority that basically as a part of site review makes it a condition that the applicant has to apply for landmarking and I have expressed in the past that I would be extremely reluctant for planning board to do that because that is basically a de facto landmarking um if the applicant voluntarily asked to be Landmark they will be landmarked so if we make them do that we are basically making them Landmark themselves so the only condition under which I would be comfortable doing that is if landmarks Ford has already looked at the project and said this project is of such great architectural historical value that um we are comfortable with that with saying we would Landmark it over their objection and so I know there have been some things to work out in terms of sequencing Consulting with landmark's

[299:00] board and bringing a site review forward that would need to be worked out at a staff level of how that process works so I I don't know if that's been worked on at all or thought about more but I I still have that concern and so if a project ever comes to us with a request that we as the planning board ask the applicant to Landmark I would want to know that that had been worked out ahead of time so I'm just going to put that out there and remind that that is a huge concern for me and is going to continue to be um I don't know if you want to respond to that but I can say my second point that I wanted to bring up is just um this idea that when we provide a hype modification and we ask for Community benefit in the form of that inclusionary housing uh bonus square footage that do we found out quite recently that that does not include rooftop deck square footage and I had suggested that we think about some kind of compensation for the fact that the applicant is getting a benefit from that rooftop deck even if it's not residential square

[300:00] footage it's an amenity for their residents it's helps them meet their open space requirement that that should not just be a freebie basically that there should be some um benefit back to the city for providing that benefit of the rooftop deck so just going to lay that out there again that that's not the rules right now we can't hold this application to it but I would love to see staff think about that and maybe um bring forward some kind of adjustment to the inclusionary housing um bonus square footage calculation okay thank you any other comments okay not on that now we're going to close this item yeah great okay so we have a couple of quick matters tonight um and if I could take them out of order the first since we're we're we're right next door to Fairview High School which if you've been by there recently it looks dynamite and the board actually under the state statute had the purview to review the um vist New Vista High School I'm sorry I was like it's

[301:01] getting late yeah New Vista since we're right next door to New Vista the board got to review that um and so did Council as part of kind of the state statutes and their process for um their new facilities so in keeping in that vein um we were approached by the school board recently uh they'd like to add two small sheds to their property next door um so we were wondering if the board wanted to request a hearing um to review those sheds you don't have to but we're required to give you the option thank you Chandler m um Charles how big are these small sheds real quickly yeah we really don't want you to request that and I don't know how big they are we wanted to see if you guys they're very I I saw the site plan they're very small yeah they're very small let me see if I can find them real quick and my second

[302:00] question was going to be do you guys have any concerns with them no we do not yeah and again everything looks really good out there if you've been out there recently at um it grade yeah I have no I have no need to have us look at it KK my experience is that our review is of school projects is kind of pointless anyhow they ignore us uh we we could have a long discussion about that but I think there's the opportunity for actual projects for us to make me meaningful comment and and Def facto put them in a position politically to you know defer a city comments we can have that conversation at a retreat I I have no need to spend their time or ours talking about small sheds but I appreciate the procedural um

[303:01] exactness and that you have raised the fact that we could request that thank you yeah I I don't either okay got it okay all right next um I think it was the nomination for a participant for the I can follow up uh the sub Community uh boy it's late sub commmittee for the uh process subcommittee for the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan so just a reminder that this is not uh dealing with substance whatsoever this would be simply reviewing staff's um planned schedule for uh Outreach for the sequencing of the 4body review when that comes around towards the end uh anticipate will me maybe four or five times maximum so we are looking for a single representative from each of the

[304:00] four groups and asking for that tonight I nominate Laura I second that nomination is there is there does anyone does any other board member uh have an interest in in this position I know we okay all right then um I propose that we all say yes to uh to Laura being our representative if she'll do it for us I object no um I I would gladly do it thank you for the nomination in the second so folks are comfortable with that I would happily do it okay thank you anything else no other matters okay any any other matters from the board okay I I just want to say a big thank you to staff and the applicant has left but if they watch the tape thank

[305:00] you to the applicant thank you to staff um thank you to Carl and Absentia we've had some great discussions tonight and I think it is reflective of the very high caliber of work that you guys bring to us and I really appreciate this board I think we have robust discussions I know it's late at night but I I really do think that we've done good work here and I appreciate everybody okay great we're adjourned