November 19, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] So I am gonna call This city of Boulder planning board meeting for November 19, th 2024 to order. 1st order of business is public participation outside of the public hearing items that we have this evening, although the 1st public hearing item. we're not accepting any comment on. So I don't know if that changes the rules. If someone can comment on the 1st public item hearing. do you know? Yeah, I think that's fine. If there's somebody that wants to speak on it. There was a chance last week to speak, but if there's somebody here who wants to speak well, I'm saying, because we're not going to hear. We're not. We're not hearing. We've already eliminated public comment from that part. Right? Yeah. And the rules say, you know, if we're not having a public hearing on it. But since in this case we're not taking public, I think that's fine. okay, great. So I will hand it over to Vivian to talk through our rules. Great. Thank you. and chair. Can you just remind the public? What are the 2 items on the agenda? So it's clear what people can and can't speak about during open comment.

[1:06] The 1st agenda item will be discussing Area 3, and I'll go into that in explicit detail when we when we talk through that. And then the second item is proposed. Amendments to the land use code. I think it's I think it's titled family-friendly, vibrant, vibrant neighborhoods. Okay. Great. Good evening. Everyone. Thanks to the public who are joining us tonight in person and online. And I will just go through some rules for public participation. Next slide, please. So just wanting everyone joining us from the community tonight that the city has engaged with community members in the past to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about this vision on our website

[2:11] and the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and we require participants, in person and online to identify themselves using their 1st and last name. So we can call on you next slide, please. And if you're joining us online. Let us know you'd like to speak when we ask for public participation, and you can raise your virtual hand by clicking on it, or next slide, finding that hand from the reactions. Button?

[3:04] So those are. Those are the rules for public participation. And you can let us. I think we have one person joining us in person, who wishes to speak as a chair, said, it is allowed to. You are allowed to speak on the topic of area 3, but not family, friendly, vibrant neighborhoods, because you'll have the opportunity later. In the meeting, and each person will have 3 min to share their feedback with the planning board. So over to you, Thomas, maybe to help facilitate in-person comments. Thanks, Vivian. Yeah, we have one person here signed up to speak in person, and that's David Olskamp. David, please go ahead and approach the podium and give your comment. and just a reminder that the to turn it on with the small button there. Yeah, thank you. Hello again. My name is David Olskamp. I'm a resident of Boulder at 1590. Would you mind speaking up just a little bit resident of Boulder at 1590 Hawthorne Avenue, which we purchased in May 2024,

[4:08] basically per the Board's request. Last meeting we spoke. I met with City today, and essentially what they told me just to talk to city attorney's office didn't necessarily offer any any solutions, so I have 2 requests while I try to go through that process with the city's attorney's office, one that you know. This board in some ways tries to do some fact, finding in the meantime. whether that's the city's attorney's office or some other body as to whether the permit the city relied on was, in fact, the wrong permit for the shed, and then. whether the city statements about the current owner's encroachments, whether they made encroachments or not, whether those statements by the city were correct or not. Those would be helpful, I think, in terms of understanding whether the facts you guys relied on were in fact correct. Number 2, while all that happens and goes on, I would just ask that you

[5:05] pause any city activities relating to this matter, which is LUR. 2023, 0 0 5, 7. Basically, I think to put all this in context. And just to summarize it, just basically bad inputs can be bad outputs in terms of like the information that you guys were fed. I'm sure was provide you guys in good faith, and everyone was trying to do their job perfectly. But people make mistakes, and if we now understand those mistakes were made, we shouldn't make any final decisions until we understand all the facts. So that's why I'm asking today that just pause. pause. Anything related to Lur 2023, 0 0 5 7, which is basically the play area that will become a private property in my neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in person.

[6:02] That's all we have signed up in person. So we can go back to online. Thank you, Vivian. Thank you. Anybody joining us online who'd like to speak during open comment. Lindsago, please go ahead. You have 3 min. First, st I wish you would put the specific time to the minute 6.0 3 6 0 5 whatever, or put it between different item agendas for meetings when there are more than one in a night. Last night I testified at 3 different meetings and missed 4, and tonight I'm missing. testifying at the budget meeting, because there's no specific time that I can testify for planning board. So I want to talk about 777 Broadway, and about the insatiable growth of boulder, and how this is going to downfall our whole economy in Boulder, and

[7:01] I'm going to start at the top and go to the bottom holiday neighborhood area 3 Planning Reserve J. Road, Mckenzie Junction. a Geological Society of America that has no services within it. That that development that's coming up to be done. Rally sport! I don't know. I haven't been by there lately, is it built yet? I don't know. Hyundai diagonal Plaza Macy's is housing. All these are housing now. Papellio's is to come. Folsom Townhomes. Millennium is going from 256 to 930 rent by the bedroom, which is the new way to do things. Hotel Row 28.th All college students now was boulder revenue, for you know, sales tax revenue for hotels, the Olive, the Hill hotels. those balance it. But those Hill hotels are on the transit corridor that is going to just be totally gridlocked with 9,000 new already approved buildings coming on board.

[8:11] So let's go on. Western resource advocates to be 30 more residential units, 777 Broadway, going from 40 to 222 rent by the bedrooms. It's just unsustainable. I'm glad the Lebanese guy got something for us bombing Lebanon, but you know he made out big on that, and I'm glad he did, because I opposed that demolition. But I'm glad it happened because of the Lebanese guy that owns it. See you South. the airport development there, the potential 30th and pearl. all of the East Boulder development weather weather. Vane was waterview watch that go through years ago. These are isolated. This is the definition of sprawl that Jared Polis is trying to stop. But that is a sprawlish community weather Vane. There's garages for all the cars. And those 222 people at 777 Broadway are each going to have a car. They're rich students. They're going to have cars in spite of a 57,

[9:19] 7% parking reduction and 55 feet. That takes away the flatirons takes away the landmarked building. Thank you, Lynn, thank you for sharing your comments with the planning board tonight. You don't have any other hands raised. Chair so over to you. If you want the Board wants to respond to any comments received. Thank you. Chair, if I may. Yeah, go ahead. I just wanted to follow up on the gentleman from 1576, Hawthorne. He is speaking with our office. So we're working with him on that. Yeah. So we should have more in the future. Yeah, I wanted to follow up with that.

[10:02] So is the request for I rode by there the other day, and there's a notice sign up. So we approved this in 20. We approved the modification to the Pud in 2023. And so what is exactly going on now that that the that our land use sign is up out in front of the property. Right? I am not the one working on it. But I can circle back and get back to you. Yeah, all right? Okay. But you guys are on it. That's but I'll have some more questions another time. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah, we can have the right attorney call you? Okay? Yeah, thank you. Yeah. What does the the process look like? Does everything get paused while you guys work together? Will it? Assuming something is worth revisiting. It sort of depends on what's been approved and what hasn't been approved. If something's already been approved, do we start the process over? It kind of depends on where it's at in the process. I know that's not the most helpful answer. But if there is a process currently happening and we're in discussions. We will continue those discussions before moving to the next step, usually, but it just depends on so say, there's a notice out front.

[11:14] and there's some comment on it. Then we'll bring that back forward if if there's some sort of review that you guys are doing. But since we've already had a review, I'm not really sure where exactly we are in the process. Yeah. can we get an update? Yeah. all right. thanks for those who participated in public comment. We're going to go ahead into the minutes that we have up for approval. The 1st set of minutes are from September 24.th If no one has any comment on them. Would someone like to make a motion for approval? I move approval of the minutes from the September 24, th planning 2024 planning board meeting.

[12:02] I'll second. Great Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Mason. yes, and Ml's online. Hi, ml, we didn't. Bye. Yes. and I'm a yes as well. Okay. So those were approved. We'll do the same thing for the October 1st minutes. If no one has any comments. If someone would like to make a motion for approval. I would like to just note that I did send some comments to Thomas and I also copied the board hopefully. Everybody had a chance to see them. They were just clarifications to my own comments. So I think those have been incorporated. Okay, I will go ahead and move approval of these minutes from october 1, st 2024, second. All right, great Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia, yes, Kurt Epstein Mason. Yes, Ml.

[13:01] Yes. And I remember if I was at this one too, and I was also absent. So I'm also going to abstain. That passes unanimously with the people that were there. Okay, perfect onward to. We have no dispositions or call ups. So we're going to jump right into our 1st public hearing item, which is a continuation from the Joint council, City council, and planning board public hearing for each body to consider a motion to find that there is an interest in considering a service area expansion into the area. 3. Planning reserve as part of the 2025 major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan following the public, hearing on November 14, th 2024, each body will consider a motion to continue their respective hearing to November 19, th 2024 for the Planning Board, which is today. and November 21, st 2024 for City Council on November 19th and 20, and the 21, st the 2 bodies will respectively deliberate and consider a motion regarding its interest in considering a service area expansion into area, 3. Planning reserve as part of the 2025 major update to the Bvcp.

[14:12] No additional testimony is taken at this subject because it's a continued hearing. I don't believe there is any further staff presentation, and we already did clarifying questions in the joint meeting. There were also some additional written answers to questions from those meetings that were circulated earlier today. So if we could put up the motion that we're supposed to be considering, at least, so we have that somewhere on a screen. And then I suggest that anyone who wants to talk this through go ahead and start out, Kurt. I have a question. So we're not going to be doing any more questions because I have some more questions partly based on the additional material that we got. Yeah, we we can do. We can do more questions absolutely.

[15:08] Did you want to start with a question. Sure. So one of the questions, the response to one of the questions said, and I'm sorry I didn't note the actual question. But it said. 2 utilities programs beyond the current 6 year cip that might be affected by reprioritization due to the planning reserve are the water tank rehabilitation program and the transmission piping system rehabilitation program. And then it mentioned 2 examples. One was the Kohler tank and some some waterline.

[16:07] and I'm trying to understand what reprioritization means? Does it mean that the tanks are going to fall apart? Presumably not but like, if we're if these things are need to be replaced, then can we really reprioritize? Good evening. Planning. Board, Christopher Johnson. Comprehensive planning manager. Thank you for the question, Kurt, and we do have a couple of utility staff on the meeting virtually tonight, so they can. They can assist with this with this question. But my sense is is that a you know, reprioritization would obviously take into consideration any critical infrastructure upgrades that were necessary. So if there were, you know, water, tank replacement or repairs that were that were critical in nature, those would

[17:02] likely remain high in the in the priority list. But if there were items that were of a lower priority that could be deferred or delayed in order to allow for some of the additional off-site infrastructure upgrades related to the planning reserve. That is, the that is, the reprioritization or consideration that would be determined at that time. Okay, thank you. And then there was another question about the about debt service, basically issuing debt and debt service. and the response, said, the timing and sizing of the the project may motivate the city in the future to review tools such as refinancing of existing municipal debt or issuance of new debt likely tied to changes

[18:07] in the city's rates on utilities by changes. Does that really mean increases? I mean, presumably it wouldn't be decreases in rates. presumably no, likely not. But if there, I suppose the possibility does exist. If there were certain efficiencies that could be gained, but most likely those rates would be adjusted in order to pay for some of the additional infrastructure. We also have representation from the finance department as well in case they want to provide any further clarification on that. Good evening board. This is Joel Wagner, interim chief financial officer. You know. Think, Chris answered it correctly. Most likely if we had to issue additional that we would have to examine rates, and

[19:04] highly unlikely that it would be a decrease in rates, for sure. Yeah, okay, thank you. Those were my only questions. okay, and just to remind everyone sort of what we're what we're doing this evening. Because it's it's it's kind of a binary decision, right? It's a motion to find whether there's interest in considering a service area extension expansion. So and there are a lot of there are going to be a lot of unknowns right now, and so I don't know if it would be helpful if if people have additional clarifying questions absolutely go for it. It may actually be helpful if people have read through the information and have some interest in moving forward to take maybe a straw poll and see where people are that might cut to the chase a little bit. Given that there are so many unknowns that we won't get answers to right now.

[20:02] Does does that sound good to everyone, at least to take a straw poll? And people can opine and and talk about why they're going that way, but at least maybe just take a quick straw poll as to see if there's interest in considering the motion. George, I also have a question whenever it's convenient. Yeah, go go ahead and ask your question. Now, ml, absolutely. Thanks. I wasn't sure if you could see my hand. Good. So that's great. Appreciate that. Yeah, call out if if your hands up, you're the only one out there. So. Thank you and thank you, Christopher, for your presentation. I guess it was last Thursday. It was your and the team did a really wonderful job. But as I looked closer at some information, I I have a question. and that is so. The Bdcp states that adequate urban facilities and service are a prerequisite for new urban development.

[21:01] And furthermore, the urban services are defined by the Bdcp specifically to include public water. So in the study it talked about under moderate to severe future climate projections, which I I think we might all be in agreement. That that's probably what we're looking at the inclusion of any of the planning reserve scenarios, results in increased frequency of anticipated water use. Restrictions further beyond the standard established by the reliability criteria, including indoor water, use restriction under scenario d. So my question is, as a kind of a rough translation of what the study said, does it seem that there is not enough water to satisfy the standard.

[22:02] Thanks for the thanks for the question. Ml, no, the basically what the what the analysis, as part of the urban services study did related to water supply was. we analyzed the possible amount of growth within the area against a number of different climate scenarios and the outcomes of that are less about the availability of of water, as it relates to an absolute number, it's more that they're weighed against our reliability criteria. So basically, what that means is that under those future climate scenarios, for the most part the reliability criteria were met. There were, there were some in some of the, you know, more moderate climate scenarios, the there would be some more water use, restrictions that would be required, and most of those were were relatively sort of minor, non-essential, outdoor

[23:02] outdoor irrigation types of water use restrictions in the most severe climate model that we used as part of the study. It would, it did actually trigger an indoor water use restriction, but that was, if I remember correctly. It was only once in the 100 year study that that we were looking at, and so that obviously would, would not meet our current level of service and and reliability criteria. But it does not mean that there is not enough water to manage the additional growth. Okay. So it- it sounds like it's it's the odds are highly against. They're not being enough water. That sounds about right. Yeah, that's correct. And and Chris Duville, from our utilities department is is online. If Chris, if you would like to provide any further clarification of that. No, I'm good. I don't. I don't need to take up anybody's else's time. I just it just seemed to me like it was saying something that

[24:04] would have, I guess, brought up the question, since it's a prerequisite that we that we have enough adequate facility, adequate urban facilities and service. but it doesn't sound like like we're at that state. So thank you for answering the question. Yep, okay. If no one has any other pressing questions doesn't mean we can't ask more questions later. I'd like to do just a straw poll. See where we're at? I can just do a quick show of hands, if or we can just say, Do you want to just start out by. Do you want to comment, or you just want a yes, I'm interested or no. Yeah, I think we should. I think we should start with a Yes, I'm interested. And then people can comment. We're not going to take a vote until people get to at least comment on this thing. Right? Or, conversely, yeah, I'm happy to make a motion. and then we all get to speak to the motion as to whether or not

[25:02] we are arguing in favor of the motion as drafted or against the motion. Sure, sure. I'm fine. With that I I move to find that there is interest in considering a service area expansion into the area. 3. Planning reserve as part of the 2025 major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Second. okay, let's have a quick discussion. I'll I'll start off, which is as planning board. I don't see any reason not to allow the city to pursue a needs analysis around this space. I don't agree with the way it's been done so far, but that's besides the point in that, since we're not

[26:00] necessarily directly responsible for the city's finances. I do have a lot of concerns around how this gets funded. I do have a lot of concerns around this distracting from other more important stuff. But outside of that I think the needs analysis is a good thing, so I don't know why we why we wouldn't be interested in that, I guess, is my perspective. So that's my comment. Go ahead, Mark. So I look at this, and I think you know we are taught to save for a rainy day. We are taught to have reserves. We are taught to plan ahead and to me. We've been saving a really long time. and it's a very rainy day in terms of the need for at least us evaluating housing and a remedy to much of what

[27:03] ails the community, and so I cannot support an additional delay, though you know there is certainly a contingent of people out there that would like to see us. Well, we need to put this off once again to the midterm update or the full update 10 years from now, and I just can't support a delay of that of that kind of size. It's it's a long enough process as it is. Even if we even if we move quite quickly by our standards, it's going to be a very long process. And you know, I think Councillor Wallach has done the community a service by raising lots of questions, but there's but there's also a project like this. it's very easy to raise a million questions which doesn't mean. and some of those you can't answer without additional data. And I think this step

[28:04] is an important part of bringing us to that additional data and for better evaluation. And there's, you know, there are a lot of unknowns in the world. But I think that good data and good planning will help us make better decisions in the I hope near future. So I'm supporting, moving forward with this step. So I'm supportive as well. I think clearly there is interest in at least considering a service area expansion. This is one of the big conversations our community is having and has been having for years, and this is probably one of the major divides in Boulder. There are people who believe fervently, passionately, with every ethical fiber of their body, that we need more housing, and that that is an ethical and moral obligation that we have to provide for our community and for our nation, and for our state

[29:07] and for our residents. Quite frankly, those who are young and those who are at the other end of the age, spectrum and downsizing, and families and working people. And I'm just as passionately and fervently and ethically. There are people who believe that to move forward with this annexation, and to increase density is to do our community a grave disservice, and I think that it can only benefit our community to have this conversation. We're having it, whether we do it through data gathering and through formal community outreach or not. And so I am very much in support of. Let's let's open this up. Let's gather the data. Let's have staff work on this as part of our Bbcp Update and let our community really think about the choices that we have and the resources that we have, and what's the right direction for our city? Any other? Comments, Claudia. So I will echo a lot of what's already been said. I also want to add, I think this is

[30:01] an incredibly sensible process that's been laid out for us to make this consideration, having both the urban services study and the community needs analysis, both being required. I think these 2 things go hand in hand, and I don't think that we can fully evaluate either of them without the other. So we have been presented at this point with a list of costs. They are real and serious, as has been pointed out. But I don't think that we should be dismissing costs like that until we also consider the needs that we have as a community, and the costs associated with meeting those needs either elsewhere or not meeting them at all. So that's the discussion we're having. I think, that we are at an inflection point in boulder right now. not just in terms of the ten-year cycle for major updates to the Bvcp. But also in terms of state policy in terms of our understanding of climate change and responses that we may need to take to that demographic shifts and also local political shifts.

[31:02] And so, even if we choose to leave the planning reserve as it is for another decade, I think it's important that we have information about community needs in hand as we discuss whether or not we can meet these in Area 2 in this next planning window. and I know that we can't legislate this. But it is my expectation that we do not repeat this process. Talking about area 3 and 5 years during a minor update, I think this is a big 10 year conversation. And it's time to have it. I think it's also important that we have this information during the current Pvcp update, because the update that we will be doing even without this. It's all about trade-offs, right? And so we need full information to make decisions both as experts and as community members. And so I think that approving a community needs study at this time is good governance and good process. So I will be supporting this.

[32:03] So you all have said it really? Well, so I'm going to keep my comments really short. I agree with the good governance. I agree on the timing. I think one thing that's been made abundantly clear by Dr. Cog, the State demographer, etc, is that, and even nationally, through the conversations that we're in a we're in a crisis, and if we go through. as as Mark mentioned, even if if we move forward now, it's still going to take us quite a bit of time to get through the process. So maybe it's not. It's not as quick as we should. but I guess the the only point I really want to add is that I think we need to recognize that when we talk about community needs. you know, Boulder is a member of a larger community. We're a member of our regional community, our state, our nation. and I think that as a city we have a responsibility in addressing a regional crisis like housing shortages

[33:05] because we are, we are a participant in a broader regional community where decisions and policies that one municipality often ripples across neighboring jurisdictions. So while we have autonomy, and we get to do this, how we want to do it. and we get to govern ourselves the way we want to govern. We also have a shared collective obligation to address interconnected challenges, such as housing, transportation and economic equity. I will be supporting Kirk. Then, Emma, I'll go to you. I see your hand up. Thank you. And I also agree with a lot of. or really pretty much everything that my colleagues have already said. but I have struggled with this actually a little bit more than I would have expected myself to, maybe.

[34:02] and I am very excited about the possibility of creating really a really great new part of boulder. That is, that that benefits a lot of people who don't live here and would like to live here. and also hopefully benefits the people who already live here and provides. you know, a place for the the people who are already working here to live a place for people to go and visit their friends, a place for new friends friendships, to develop all these kinds of things. My concern is about. The process is that I feel like we use started a ways down the path. And I don't really know where we're going. And I I totally understand that that is sort of the way it's set up. But, as you might have noticed from a lot of my questions, many of which have been repeated multiple times. I will admit

[35:09] over the process of this, that I would I would feel much more comfortable if we had clearer a clearer statement of shared goals, not not as distinct from needs. Yeah, we need to, as the community needs assessment, we need to to determine actual needs. But then there are some other goals. I think that may be higher, slightly more abstract goals that in an ideal world, if the Bvcp process, the process outlined in the Bvcp were different. I think we would have maybe started with those, or or come to those a little bit earlier. Just to to state my some of my goals. I certainly share a financial goal. That the the current areas of the city should not be subsidizing new development either on a short or long term basis in

[36:17] this, in what is currently the blending reserve. Many of you, I'm sure all of you know the strong towns organization which has its problems. But one of the principles there that that they that they hold forth is that new development should not be a Ponzi scheme, and I'm not remotely suggesting that this will be a Ponzi scheme, but I don't want us to slip into a situation where we end up subsidizing new development. There, overall. There we can. There, there will be benefits that will come with this development, and it's perfectly reasonable for us to pay for them. But, seen overall. We want it to be

[37:10] a net benefit to the city, and, in fact. that is one of the criteria for initiating a service area expansion plan. It says expansion will benefit the existing residents in the Boulder Valley, and will have a lasting benefit for future generations. So that gives me confidence that yeah, that that is a core goal that is already embedded in the process. And and I'm confident that that will be upheld. And I think you know, benefit also includes environmental aspects like minimizing water and and wastewater usage. Energy.

[38:00] Vmt increases and that sort of thing. So I hope that we think about that aspect of benefit broadly as we go through the process. I would also suggest that and I, this has already been raised. I think that if. for whatever reason it becomes necessary to delay the process. I I definitely think we should be open to changing the Bvcp. To allow for that a different timing that is not locked to the the updates. I think there was a question about this, and Brad, I think, said that the main reason, at least the what I heard from Brad. Was that the reason for this lock to the updates was to share the the public process? That was my understanding of of what you said, but and that's sure. That's that's good. But I don't think that that's justification for waiting an extra 5 years just

[39:08] in order to have slightly more efficient public process. So that was a lot of talk. But in some I will be supporting this. So thank you. I'm out. Thank you. And yes, thank you to the rest of the board. I think you've all put forth slightly different and yet very valid reasons for supporting this. I as well, will be supporting this. I'm interested in the study, actually looking into not only the needs, but where those needs can be met. And to that end I hope that the study looks beyond the usual inputs and tries to uncover as yet unseen possibilities. To me. That is

[40:01] one of the I guess most could be. One of the most impactful things of the study is to look at things that haven't haven't been looked at in the past as part of a solution to very real problems that in agreement with what others have said, everybody's talking about the fact that we've got some housing issues. We've got issues in our city that are not being solved. By the way, we're looking at things. the way development is occurring the way we are proceeding. We're not solving the problem of housing as we desire relative to our goals. Our goal is to have a diverse population, mixed income population, people able to age in place all of these things that are part of the

[41:00] BBC vision for our city. So I look forward to this study. As for the piece that it brings of, let's look at things a little bit differently, and just try to find some new solutions to our current issues. Great, and before we take a vote I'll just cap one more. One more comment, which is to, because I know there was. There was. There are a lot of people that are really gunning for this, and there are a lot of people that are really concerned about it. But at the end of the day. What we're voting on tonight is. And I think a lot of people have already stated. This is. we're voting on basically the opportunity to study this more, to find out what we don't know. so that we can make better better educated decisions, no matter how this turns out. And I think that's why that's why I'm supporting it. Because I think more information is better for everybody and assuming it doesn't really have many impacts on Staff's capability to continue out their other priorities.

[42:05] then I think it will be benefit even for the people that are concerned about this. It'll be benefit for those people to have an opportunity to help shape it, or ultimately it may continue being a planning reserve after the study is done, and it's determined that maybe that's not the best route, but we'll see what happens. I just have one more comment, and Kurt kind of touched on it. Maybe you did. But In the 1st step in the services study We struggled a little bit with what assumptions to use, and I think, as we. assuming it passes tonight and Council passes it, I think, being really, critically looking at what assumptions we use in our needs, analysis and what questions we ask. The community is going to be key, because I think, no matter which side of the issue you stand on. If we're going to do something.

[43:09] the community is set on doing something really special and not replicating. You know, an a current area in Boulder, although, you know holiday people talk about holiday. But even if holiday as a model. It's I envision it as being far more sustainable than holiday and different than holiday. So anyway, I just want us to be really aware of what assumptions we use, and to question those, especially if they harken back to current tools like the Dcs. And those sorts of things that are, and current models of water consumption with big yards full of grass. And anyway, so I just want us to question our assumptions as we move forward into this step. All right, great. Mark made the motion. Laura seconded. Let's go ahead and vote, Laura.

[44:03] Just a question for legal. Do we need to reread the motion before we vote. and that's what the current rules say to reread the motion. Okay, do you mind, Chair? Sure, I'll reread the motion. The recommended motion language is as follows, a motion to find that there is interest in considering a service area expansion into area, 3. Planning reserve as part of the 2025 major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Mark made the motion. Laura seconded. Let's vote, Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. And I'm also a yes, that closes out this portion of the public hearing. We'll now jump into the second public hearing for the night. This will be an opportunity for the the public to speak if there is anyone out there. The agenda title for this public hearing is as follows, public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed ordinance, 8,666,

[45:03] amending chapters, 9, 2 review processes, 9. 6. Use standards, and 9 8 intensity standards of title Ix. Land use Code, Brc. 1981, to amend density, intensity standards to allow development of additional dwelling units in residential low. One Rl. One residential medium, one rm. One residential mixed, one Rmx. One zoning districts. and to amend review procedures and use standards to reduce regulatory requirements for certain residential developments and setting forth related details. So we'll go to the Staff presentation, which I think Carl's doing. Great. Thank you. Chair. Good evening, Board members. Tonight we're going to talk about the family friendly, vibrant Neighborhoods Project. which is a 2024 City Council work program priority.

[46:02] The work project is intended to add more dwelling units, housing options within the city of Boulder, particularly missing middle housing. to address the city's housing challenges that we are currently dealing with particularly cost and availability of different housing types. So I'll pull the presentation up. Here we go with the icons. Try to fix this so the board will recall that we talked about this project. On September 17th we had a follow up discussion with city Council on October 17.th

[47:07] So since we had gotten planning board, input and city Council direction. We've been working on the draft ordinance that's before you tonight. So that's ordinance 86, 66 as far as the presentation, trying to again try to remove all these things from the screen. But we'll be talking about the problem statement real quickly. The Project goals. I'll cover the City Council. Suggestions that were talked about last time touch on the community engagement that we talked about in the September meeting. Then just go into the details of the ordinance should actually say 86, 66 there for the overview. and then Bvcp compliance. And then we'll have a conclusion slide with the motion. These are the key issues that we'll be talking about tonight.

[48:04] I apologize. I'm trying to figure out how to get this, Carl. Does it have anything to do with the someone enabling the closed captioning. It's partly that. That's what that little button is. But everything that pops up on my screen ends up just looking black on that screen. I'll have to figure that out. Yeah. so there's 4 key issue questions tonight that we'll we'll work on. Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? We have a key issue related to the Rmx. One zone, which I'll read later, and then we have the Rl. One and Rr. Zones is a key issue, and then we have does planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements, the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Again we we talked about this in September. Obviously housing cost is a

[49:01] a rising challenge in the city of boulder, and we're trying to address it in a number of different ways. We've done a number of changes of the land use code to allow more housing. Try to get more affordable housing, incentivize affordable housing. So this is just one project out of many that is working towards that goal. The specific goals of this project relate to expanding, housing choice in the city of Boulder, supporting transit use by allowing more missing middle housing, allowing more housing types and units citywide, and trying to again remove barriers to the allowing more housing in the city. So just as a reminder these are the 7 suggested suggestions that came from city council as part of what, at the time when city Council was adopting the zoning for affordable housing project, the 1st was to add Rmx. One to the scope of the project, adding Rm. One to the scope of the project.

[50:09] taking another look at lower density. Residential areas of the city to allow more housing as well as looking at additional restrictions potentially in those areas related to owner occupancy. Originally the suggestion was to have an exemption for missing middle housing. You'll notice that some of these suggestions are grayed out because they're no longer a part of the Project Planning Board recommendations at the last meeting and City Council direction. We're no longer moving forward with the owner occupancy piece of the project. We're also moving the focus away from missing middle housing and just looking at an exemption to the site review process for any 100% permanently affordable housing projects which I'll touch on as part of this presentation. Looking at the minimum thresholds for Site Review. As I noted at the September discussion. A lot of those details are in the memo. They haven't really changed much since we've discussed them last, I'm happy to answer any questions about those, but I won't be really focusing on those in this presentation, as well as the 7th suggestion which relates to the floor area ratio, basically a bonus in the industrial zones. If there's residential mixed use, so I won't be covering that in detail with this presentation.

[51:26] Here's some of the summary points of what we talked about about community engagement from this project we've been hearing, you know. people on on the the pro side and the and on the opponent side of this there's a number of different viewpoints which you've all heard before, but just we've heard some folks saying that you know we should go further with the changes, remove more barriers. There's a jobs housing imbalance in the city, and that adding more housing is beneficial, adding more housing allows for more cash. In lieu. Going into the affordable Housing Fund

[52:04] we heard a lot of support for allowing housing along bus corridors around downtown and neighborhood centers. So that's where the zones that are part of the scope of this project really lie in the city. The concerns that we've heard from the community relate to, we should only be allowing deed, restricted, permanently affordable housing units rather than just adding housing. We've heard concerns about parking and just the general increase in population. We've heard a lot of comments that have been attached to the memo that talk about, you know. boulders being built out too much, we shouldn't be building as much as we are, and that maybe these additional use will actually increase land costs and bring in more investors that buy out properties, and with some of the externalities that might come from that. So these are all things that are attached to the memo. And what we've discussed before. I also talked about in September. Just the results of the be heard boulder questionnaire. And, as I said before, it's not a statistically valid survey. But what we did learn is because we did a be heard boulder questionnaire as part of the zoning

[53:13] for affordable housing project. One thing we noticed is that there was more support for adding housing in the last iteration of the project when it was zoning for affordable housing. When the housing was proposed to be added to like the high density residential areas, the commercial areas and the industrial areas of the city less so when, when the focus turns on to the low density residential areas. So just a reminder that when we talk about missing middle housing, we're really talking about a housing type. It's not an income range or anything. Basically, as we've talked about before. In the United States, we see a prevalence of single family detached housing and apartment buildings. We see less of the housing types that are in between over time. So we see less of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, smaller scale infill housing type developments. So that's what the point of this project is is really trying to encourage more of that.

[54:15] So I'm going to shift to Rmx one again. We've talked about this in detail before, so I'm happy to answer any questions. This is a zone that surrounds the downtown, and a number of different portions of Goss Grove. Portions of Mapleton Hill, Whittier, portions of University Hill. Everything that we're proposing in the ordinance is has to be found consistent with the Current Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. So we've been looking at the language that's in the plan as well as the density limits. So this is a particular area of the city that where concerns are raised in the Comp plan about impacts from parking and traffic. And I think to add to that, I think there's concerns about impact to some of the historic housing stock in this particular area of the city, which I'll talk about more in this presentation.

[55:06] but also having to to find that if additional units are are allowable, that they fall within the range. That's in the current plan, which is 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. These are some of the pictures and graphics we talked about last time again. The the purpose here is to not really get more big buildings. What we're really trying to work with is the existing floor area, ratio, setback, height limits, bulk, plane things like that that apply to buildings. Apply them not only to detached dwelling units, but apply them to attached dwelling units, and then loosen up the rules. For how many units can be on a lot. So. Rmx, one is an interesting zone in the sense that it was built originally, like with detached dwelling units. And then it was up, zoned to a high density residential zone, where we saw a lot of teardowns of some of the older homes and replacement with apartment buildings.

[56:05] and then, in reaction to some of the congestion that was in that area. I think it was in the late nineties. It was changed back to 6,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, which is more like a low density standard that's similar to what exists in Rl. One. What we had proposed as staff last time was 3,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. When we brought this to city council there was interest in moving forward with 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit, and that was kind of a similar feedback that we got from planning board. So on the slide, we have kind of a summary of what the Board talked about last time. The board was supportive of the change. We felt like that Staff should go further. At 2,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. There were some concerns that maybe we wouldn't be getting cheaper units by allowing more units, and there was also a concern about the parking requirements in the zone which are based on bedrooms.

[57:06] So we've moved forward with this particular change. But we wanted to show this particular map just to show the concern related to some of the historic housing stocks. So this is a map that shows the areas that are shown in in the green and blue are are lots or structures that were built before World War 2, basically. And this is largely where Rmx, one exists. So based on this, we've moved forward with an ordinance that allows the 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit. But it it would put some parameters on conditions where that additional density would be allowable. And it's really meant to largely just incentivize people either doing internal alterations to structures or landmarking their structures to add units. It also has parameters that note that if the building is less than 50 years

[58:06] of age, that they can demolish it and build a new building and add at that density. It's just really trying to avoid a scenario where people are going to be incentivized to demo their buildings potentially without permits to get that additional density. So it's just a safeguard that we're proposing within the ordinance that we think is rational to prevent any kind of demolitions that we wouldn't want to see, there are some development pressures that we think might target this area because of these changes. So we feel that these additional restrictions would be consistent with the goals of the project, just like the far and setback and height restrictions are being applied to protect the character of neighborhoods. These requirements would would do the same. So I will point out that Marcy Gerwing, our historic preservation principal planner, will be joining us tonight to answer any questions about the process on that

[59:06] there she is. So that's the 1st key issue. We can stop here and discuss this particular one, or I could keep going. It's it's up to the board. I think we should have you keep going through the whole presentation, and then we'll do Q. And A. Oh, we can come back to it. Okay. Great. The next topic, which is the the second big Key issue, relates to the Rr rural residential zones and Rl, one zones which you can see on the slide. Here in the map we talked about this extensively in September. Again, we have to find that the areas that are, you know, have a land use designation of very low and low density residential are predominantly single. Family detached and fall within the range of 2 to 6 dwelling. It's per acre. I'm not going to go into all the details of how we got to the numbers since we talked about that last time, but again happy to answer any questions. We're we're

[60:03] looking at an option that would keep the same far bulk, plane, side wall articulation, all those standards that are meant to preserve the massing of buildings the same way. But just allow in this case just duplexes, and it would be along bus corridors that we have mapped within the ordinance when we came to planning board last time we had suggested a a distance of 350 feet from the bus corridors. The board at the time supported this change. Some board members felt that we should go further, that we should not just be allowing, say, 40%, but maybe pushing it closer to that 50% to get more units. Which would mean that that buffer would increase. We did hear some concern about that. We wouldn't necessarily get the intended effect by lowering costs, by adding housing. We also heard that we should be including some other amenities along these corridors, and maybe have the distance measured from that. We actually did an analysis of that, and found that many of the amenities, like the Rec center or commercial uses, or a lot of the schools are already along many of these bus corridors, and were encompassed

[61:17] by those distance measurements. Already there was very little difference, so we felt it'd be simpler just to keep to the, to the bus corridors. As part of this analysis. So one thing we pointed out in the memo is that since we talked to city council. We did get some. We did some further analysis on the corridors. We did get some community comments on the specific bus bus corridors and made some adjustments to those bus corridors. Some of the bus routes that were shown previously were seasonal bus routes or Cu bus routes which don't have the same frequency, and wouldn't be used by the greater public. So we did change the number of bus routes, so that when we subtracted those it did drop

[62:01] the number down to about 30% increase in the number of eligible lots. So what we've asked, what we're asking planning board tonight is like, should there be an increase to get back to that 40% which which would basically mean that the 350 feet that we talked about last time would go to 550 feet. So we wanted to get feedback from planning board on that tonight, and that recommendation can be passed along to city council for consideration. So this is the map that we have that shows all the the eligible corridors where this distance measurement would be. It would still be consistent with the density range of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. So we'll come back to that one. So I'm gonna just basically go to the end of the presentation now, and just cover some of these other points. So rm, one is a medium density zone shown in kind of the peach color. They're generally around some of the more suburban corridors and around some of the neighborhood centers. They do have good walkability to mixed use services.

[63:12] So last time we talked about modifying the 3,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit requirement and allowing more units, we talked about whether to make that a lot area per dwelling unit or an open space for dwelling unit. I think there was a preference on planning board to move to a 2,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit to get some more units. But we talked to council about this. Their preference was to keep it as open space. We had argued that open space makes more sense just by the fact that how the zone is designed, it does kind of encourage open spaces, and if we change the methodology, it could change the design of the projects a little bit out of the zone where we think that the neighborhood character would be protected. So we continue to recommend that it be 2,000 square feet of open space. It would afford some flexibility for additional units without kind of changing the whole methodology that might apply to some of the planned unit developments and site reviews that were approved in those areas.

[64:21] We have heard some concerns from some council members about, you know, reducing open space in this zone. So if we were to do this change, we're estimating that there could be an additional 800 units over time. If everyone opted to like, add the units, which is unlikely, but it does add some flexibility to add units in this particular zone where there's great walkability to these neighborhood centers. The last thing I'm going to really touch on is just the exemption to site review Planning board wasn't as supportive of this. But what we're suggesting is that if there's a project that is large enough, that it trips the site review threshold in terms of the acreage

[65:05] of the project, but may not require modifications. Those projects typically have to go to site review anyway, and may end up before the board. In this case we're talking about exempting those projects and having them go through what we call an affordable housing design review, which is an existing process that exists where it's a staff level design review, where similar criteria to site review are applied to just hold that that standard of ensuring that these projects are built to a certain level of quality. Again, these would just be, you know, no more than 3 story projects that meet setbacks that are large, but would still have qualitative standards that apply to them. But there were some reservations on planning board last time we discussed this. so we can touch on this tonight to see whether the Board is in support of this this option or not. Board members did want to hear whether boulder housing partners would be open to this we did have a conversation with them where they indicated interest and support for this, just that it not necessarily would be

[66:12] cheaper for them, because they would have to still prepare documents that show the. You know that they're meeting the qualitative standards. But it could be a time savings that lowers some of the risk for Bhp, so they've indicated support of it. So overall we, we find that the the changes that are proposed within the ordinance would meet the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan as it stands today. We've listed those policies up on this slide, and they're also touched upon in the Memo. So we're recommending that planning board recommend approval of ordinance, 8,666. Finding that it's consistent with the goals of the project to add more housing, more missing middle housing and concentrating, housing along bus corridors and near walkable mixed use areas. If passed, it would add for the potential of over 7,500 housing units again over the long term. Not everyone would elect to do that, but the options would open up for these folks.

[67:12] There is a phase. 2 of this project which will run alongside the the Bvcp update for 2025. If there's other ways of getting missing middle housing, those are the things we'll be exploring through that process. And once the Bvcp is updated, we would then implement those changes in phase 2 as far as next steps. We plan to have some office hours to help answer questions with the community on the ordinance. We're going to be doing this same presentation to Housing Advisory board tomorrow night, and then we'll be going to City Council for 1st reading on December 19th again. That'll be on consent. and then city council, second reading public hearing on January 9.th This is the suggested motion language. Should we come back to that? And then

[68:05] these are the other 2 key issue questions, the the broader questions. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions, and I can navigate all through the presentation to the topic. Areas. Great! What do you think would be as as organizing it for you? Do you want to go topic by topic, like, yeah, I was thinking, we would, you know, start with Rmx one, and then go to Rr and Rl. One. And then I've lumped all the other topics under those last 2 key issues. Okay, great. Does anyone want to start with any clarifying questions. Claudia. not sure that this is clarifying, but I think it. It's overarching and doesn't fit into any of the specific issues in front of us, and that is in. So in 2023, we updated some use standards to allow for triplexes on qualifying lots in some low density zones. And I'm just curious why, we don't see the word triplex anywhere in this ordinance that's being drafted right now.

[69:04] We don't actually define triplex in the land use code. It really goes from duplex to attached dwelling units. So when we made that change in 2023, we put a use standard in there that says that you know in the Rl. One zone you can do a duplex, or you can do attached dwelling units, but no more than 3. We felt like at this stage. We didn't need to define triplex separately. We may in the future we're not looking at. Try like allowing triplexes along the bus corridors. But in Rmx. One or Rm. One triplexes could certainly be allowable, but they would just fall under that attached dwelling unit category. Mark, you have your mic open. Oh, okay, I'll go. Specific to our Rmx one. but possibly applicable to other well, not possibly applicable to other areas as well.

[70:06] Why, as I read the ordinance, there are no changes to any parking off street parking requirements in any of the zones. Is that correct? As part of this ordinance. That is correct. We we are looking at that as part of another parking project that we'll be talking about in in the quarter one and quarter 2. The holistic parking project. Yeah. Okay. but not as part of this project. Correct? Okay, is the owner. What zones were the owner occupancy. The question about owner occupancy applicable. I think that was focused more on the rl, one and Rr zones, okay, I'll hold. Okay. I don't have any more questions for this zone.

[71:05] I have questions about the changes. In 9 7, 9 to 9, 7, 11. It looks like the changes you have proposed would apply the compatible development requirements to all buildings in Rmx. One. Not just single family, single family dwellings. That's correct. Okay, good. And that was the original policy direction from City Council original meaning. When we talked about at the adoption of the zoning for affordable housing project. When Rmx was added to this project, it was specifically stated that we should apply the far that applies to detached dwelling units in Rmx. One. But allow more units. But that's FAR. But this also is applying, like

[72:00] the coverage lot coverage and the bulk, bulk, plane and side yard. Set back all of those things. Yeah, same standards as detached dwelling units. So I guess my my question is, why were those. when back whenever, 15 years ago, or whenever the the compatible development standards were passed? Why did those at the time not apply to. did they? Why did they only apply to single family dwellings in Rmx. One, as you know, when you walk around a lot of these neighborhoods. They were redeveloped with a lot of apartment buildings in the sixties and seventies that clearly don't meet those restrictions. So they're already developed. Those those units are there. They're considered. A lot of them are now nonconforming. But I think because a lot of those existing buildings wouldn't meet those standards at all. That's why those

[73:02] bulk standards were not applied to them. I think in this case we're looking more at like if those sites were to redevelop. And we're trying to maintain the character and bulk in that neighborhood. It would match what you see. And in the detached dwelling units. Okay? So it's largely because you would expect potentially more changes under this. Okay, yeah, thank you. Feel like, I know the answer to this. But I'm gonna ask it, anyway. Does this bring us in line with the adu changes with the State? I did see that we have a meeting next month about this which leads. This does not touch upon that. But yeah, we we will be here in 2 weeks talking about that ordinance. Okay. that was my window work. Yeah, is that about it? Georgia

[74:00] question. Oh, I was trying to figure out how to talk to you in the chat, and I couldn't quite So is this where we talk about the concerns with the preservation of the existing neighborhoods. because those are Rmx. One. Is that correct? That's correct. So the specific a language that you are proposing to deal with that let me see. So new building on vacant lot. The language that you have in the ordinance about the new building, new putting a new building on a vacant lot. and then it talks about, provided the Lauder parcel was for city records vacant on January 1, st 2025, and then it goes on to talk about different ways. Demolition

[75:05] can happen or could have. It's kind of confusing if if somebody wants to develop something in our Mx. One, and they're coming to the process with a vacant lot. Would those deconstructions need to have happened by January 1, st 2025. No, I mean what that was just trying to capture. If the basically, if the lot was vacant today, there's not many of those lots. We ran an analysis of that today. There's about 17 lots that are considered vacant in the Zone. but that they would be vacant as of today. I think what we're trying to get around is like somebody who realizes they could get more units. And then they demo a building without permits. They wouldn't be entitled to that additional density if they don't go through the proper processes for

[76:02] evaluating the buildings for historic significance, whether they should be preserved or not. Right? So you're you're looking to stop a potential loophole or or illegal removal of buildings. Okay, because it it's kind of illogical. But And we understand the language is is confusing. So we have been working on it since the the packet went out. We do have a more simplified version, which I'm happy to pull up on the screen, too, if that's fault. That would be great. because I think that that does speak to a lot of the issues with, how do you build in How do you encourage up zoning in a neighborhood that has got the kind of existing conditions that are valuable?

[77:01] And I think how you get to a vacant lot is an important. Yeah, so it's basically in this section here. So it's vacant, either, as of today. Oh, we put the or in got it. That does it put the order. And yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Or it ends up being vacant after the current date. If the building gets approval to be demolished because it's less than 50 years old. Right. If it's over 50 years old, then it has to go through initial review for historic significance. If it's determined to have historic significance, then it would move towards preservation, and then the units would have to be within that building. But if not, and it goes through, you know the historic preservation process to get

[78:05] approval of demolition. Then they can start anew. Right. I I think the fact that you added the or that changes it all and makes it like, okay, this is logical. Then so that that was my question. Thank you. I have a few on this one too. So 1st up the the memo talks about that. There are concerns for portions of the University Hill, Mapleton, Gossgrove, Whittier, and West Pearl Neighborhoods. Is that just a description of where Rmx. One exists? Or is there some specific call out of those neighborhoods that's in the ordinance that I. It's just generally where it exists. There's a mix of zones that are in each of those neighborhoods. Okay? So I didn't see those neighborhoods specifically called out in the ordinance. And it sounds like you're not trying to specifically call out neighborhoods. You're just describing what is Rmx. Correct.

[79:02] Second the memo says that these areas in Rmx one have been identified as potential historic districts is that all of Rmx. One is a potential historic district. I'm going to defer to Marcy on that one good evening planning board, Marcie Gerwing, planning and development services. So the potential historic districts in those neighborhoods in the Rmx. One isn't a 1 to one exact overlap, but it's remarkable how close they are, and I think it speaks to how established. Those neighborhoods are as some of the oldest in Boulder, and then the potential historic districts were identified through survey work in the eighties and nineties to identify areas that had a collection of eligible buildings. Okay, thank you. And are any of those Rmx. One districts already designated as historic districts portions the Mapleton Hill historic district, the West Pearl historic district, part of the downtown and Pearl Street district. And then there's scattered landmarks in Whittier and Goss Grove.

[80:19] Okay? And then my other question is just regarding the language that Ml. Was just talking about. That's in the ordinance with regard to Rmx. One, and the conditions under which a parcel could have this 2,500 square foot lot area per dwelling unit applied to it. Could you just either Carl or Marcy, or jointly just walk us through, and let us know in any of these conditions are we providing additional historic protection that does not exist in our historic preservation ordinance, or would legally applying the historic preservation ordinance. Take care of all of this.

[81:02] I think the area where it goes a step further is, if in the initial review process. There's a finding of historic significance. It then locks in that that would be a building that would be preserved, and that the units would be permitted there, whereas if that didn't exist, there'd be a higher likelihood of that getting a demolition approval. And maybe Marcy can expand on that part. Yeah, we wrote it to be pretty flexible, and and not to tighten the net of historic preservation of what comes through the review process, but recognizing what a concentration of eligible buildings are in the Rmx. One zone to say, the lot is already vacant. Okay, that's pretty easy. The buildings are less than 50 years old, also pretty straightforward. And then, if the buildings are over 50 years old, if they go through the review process and are found not to be eligible, they're old but not historic.

[82:02] also approved for demolition, and they get the increased density. What it's doing, or the intention of it is to lessen the pressure on demolition of eligible buildings that would then come through our review process. It's a 6 to 8 8 month review process at the Landmarks board, where the outcome of that is, either the Board, you know, approves the demolition of an eligible building or starts initiation of landmark designation over the owner's objection. It's a difficult process, and by building something in that incentivizes the adaptive reuse of eligible buildings and existing stock. It lessens that pressure that funnel that exists in our historic preservation code. Thank you. I'm not sure I followed all of it. I'm sorry I'm not as familiar with the historic preservation ordinance as I would like to be. But doesn't that already happen for any building over 50 years old that applies for a demolition permit, doesn't it automatically go through the landmark review process. Yes, it does so. How is this different?

[83:06] This is saying that if if the if the lot is vacant because the building's not eligible, you have the increased density. If the building is found to be eligible, then you wouldn't have the increased density. Okay, even if well, I mean, I guess I still don't understand. So to take advantage of the increased density, they'd either have to build a new structure, or they'd have to alter or demolish the existing structure. and if they apply for a demolition permit, they already go through historic review. So I guess I still don't understand what's different. I'm sorry I'm struggling. I think the other aspect, too, is, it makes it clear that if, like a building were to be demolished without permits which we've seen, you know not often, but they they wouldn't be able to come in then with to get the 2,500 square feet of lot area, like, basically, we would put a some something on the property that says that they're held to that 6,000. They don't get the. We don't want to incentivize the additional density, make people do things to remove these buildings. So we just want to make that clear.

[84:14] Wouldn't it be simpler just to say that that build, you know, lots where a building is demolished without going through historic review are not eligible. We thought about that. I think our preference was to like list out all of like, almost like we've kind of couched this as incentives to get the density. And it lists out the options for the density rather than it being a penalty. Okay, thank you. As we, sticking to this question for just a second, under what circumstances could someone legally demolish a building without permits is, can you just demolish your building it. No. So you're you're concerned about someone violating city code and then being rewarded for violating city code. And the code doesn't

[85:07] do we outline what happens just today? If I tore down my house without any permits. whether it was 50 years old or not, or whatever is, there? Is there a a stipulation, a violation, a punishment in the code for doing such a thing? There isn't. But we've seen scenarios where there's been historic buildings on properties in the county that we're annexing to the city, and that they would have been historic resources, and they didn't want that to encumber their what they wanted to do on the site. So those were demolished. So it's like the annexation process, almost kind of incentivized demoing those. So we were trying to avoid a situation like where additional development potential and these historically rich areas could incentivize that type of behavior. And and before anybody starts their bulldozer, there are actually fines in the boulder Revised Code for Buildings Pre. 19 or before older than 50 years old. And then there are building. Permit kind of violations. If you if you don't get that, so

[86:17] don't go out and and demolish your building. but kind of bigger picture. You know the the way that we approached this was to say, You know, how do you add density while still keeping the eclectic character that's in these established neighborhoods, which is one of the intents of the of the project, and the question is not. is often in how you do that. And so the way that it's written you can add density by adding a new structure to the lot, you can add density by adding on to an existing one. You can add density by demolishing a building that is less than 50 years old or not eligible for designation.

[87:00] What it says that you can't do is demolish an eligible building, and then get that additional density. So we're providing many, many avenues of how to add additional density while balancing and and incentivizing the preservation, adaptive reuse of of the existing buildings. It and one more thing to add about that. It doesn't jump to. You must landmark your building in order to get this increased density. Preservation happens outside of landmark designation, and I think a result of this ordinance would be that these buildings are kept and added onto and the neighborhoods continue to evolve. And it's not going to result in in a huge wave of new landmark designations. It's more preservation outside of the formal designation process. So just one follow up.

[88:00] So one of my concerns would be if this ordinance somehow takes a building that is old, older than 50 years old, but not found to have any historic significance, and denies them this benefit. Would would this language do that? No, because it says, if the building is old but not found to be eligible, then the demolition is approved, and they qualify for this density. Okay, thank you. Well, first, st just a question. Maybe, Marcy, would you, for the benefit of all of us, including me, who should know this? But I forget what really is the definition of demolition. That's a great question, because it's a little bit in the weeds. So the Boulder Revised Code defines demolition for Historic Preservation Review as taking off more than half of the building, taking down more than half the exterior walls, or any portion of a street facing wall. And so we build upon that

[89:05] definition of demolition that already exists, to say, if you keep at least half of that building and add on to it. You also qualify for the increased density. Thank you. Sorry if I didn't see this in here. So what? What if a building was found to be eligible? But the owner wish to make building a duplex? My understanding is that the exterior is what's landmark? Not the interior? Could they still qualify for increased density to make a eligible building a duplex? Yes, so not if they demolished it, or proposed to fully scrape it and rebuild, but to work with the existing eligible building they could keep more than half of it, and add on to it, or add a separate freestanding structure on the lot. What if they like? So I'm speaking from my like, my mom has a 3,000 square foot brick historic building.

[90:04] and it was a duplex that somebody had converted it really added a wall inside. Can they do that? Yes, so we only review exterior changes. And I think this came up in past conversations, but a lot of these larger mansions were divided up in the 19 thirties, and they lend themselves well, you know, a lot of them already have separate entrances, but those changes could be made, but especially interior changes. That doesn't require any historic preservation Review. Sorry one more follow up. So the landmarking process includes the opportunity for the the property owner to object to landmarking, and then that triggers, a higher set of criteria for landmarking over the property owner's objection. How does that play into this like? If I had a property in Rmx. One, I do not. But if I had a property in Rmx. One, and I wanted to get this additional density and make a duplex, and it went through historic Preservation Review, and somebody said, Well, this is eligible. It might have some historic value.

[91:10] but we haven't yet landmarked it. It hasn't yet gone through that process of the board, determining whether they would landmark it over the property owner's objection. Can you just tell me, like, walk me through how that process works? Is there still that opportunity for the owner to object to this building being designated as historically valuable. Yes. So there's 2. I'm here. 2 different things. One is the landmark designation process and owner consent versus opposition, and then also whether that project would qualify for the increased density. So if the building were eligible and the owner wanted to do a full scrape and redevelop the property, and the building is eligible. They wouldn't qualify. That's the one where they wouldn't qualify if they wanted to continue with the process anyway, and go through

[92:02] the landmarks board would consider they could consider designation over the owner's objection, though that happens very rarely. So the determination of this property is or isn't eligible. Is that a staff level decision, or who who makes that decision? And can the owner object to that in any way? Or it's just a done deal. You're not eligible. Yep. So the the initial determination of something's eligible or not depends on the age of the building. So post 1940 until 1975 is staff level Pre. 1940, is a committee made up of 2 landmarks, board members and a staff member, and that decision, or that determination is final, and to continue with the process, then it's referred up to the board. That's if they apply for a demolition permit. Yes.

[93:00] it so if a building is eligible, and they wanted to do a full scrape. and it was found to be eligible, they could also revise their plans. Add on to that building and still get the increased density or add a separate building and get the increased density. So it's not a it's not impossible. And in fact, it's very probable and likely and incentivized to develop and densify those lots with eligible buildings by keeping the principal building. Okay. But if they, if they didn't want to do that. I'm still just trying to figure out how this process would work. So they want to demolish. They want to do a demolition. Either staff or the committee has made a determination of you. We think you're eligible because they're applying for demolition permit. It would then get referred up to the board, and then they would have that opportunity to object. Yes, but the density qualification would only apply if they added on to the if they kept the principal building, and added on to it, or added a separate building. But if they went through the whole process and they got their demolition permit, the Landmarks Board was not willing to landmark over the property owners. Objection, the demolition is approved. Then I assume they still get the density bonus.

[94:17] not the way that we've written it. Okay, thank you. Ml. Thank you. So my question is a little bit broader. But because I'm hearing this language, you're you're you're saying a duplex or a second dwelling unit. So if a second dwelling unit is added, does that mean that they can sell that second dwelling unit on a duplex? I think you can have different. All ownership. They? They could condominiumize if they wanted. it wouldn't permit subdivision of the property.

[95:01] But it would. So, even on a duplex, it would still be one land owner and a condo relationship to the building. Yes. Okay, so that could happen if it's an attached or detached. Correct. And that is Is that new? Is that new in the code. It's not. I mean, if it's we're not proposing to change the minimum lot size where people could subdivide and sell off a lot. So there are situations where. if you're in a zone that allows multiple units, they could either be rentals or they could be condominiumized. So, oh. okay, I'll think about that, and probably have another question later. But thank you. Thank you for your answer.

[96:07] We go on to the next subject. Kurt, I'm just curious about process. You want to do all the questions on all the yeah, I think so. Yeah. any questions on this next one audio. 2 questions here. So just in the transit planning world, what is the standard distance from a bus stop that is considered to be good access. I hear a quarter mile a lot. But is that? Is that a real number? That's what we normally hear, yeah. And how does that compare to the I should do the math here? It's it's more than than the significantly more correct. Okay. We had looked at that, too, but it ended up kind of with all the bus routes. It ended up encompassing most of the zones, anyway.

[97:01] which is the quarter mile, is okay, and then appendix J in the proposed ordinance is the source for mapping the bus corridors. Is there a process for updating that map? I think we would have to just like we do code cleanup where we're always going through the code trying to make sure everything's up to date. We would look at this and make sure that it accurately reflects current bus routes. Okay? So the the way that the ordinance is is drafted. This is a a fixed piece of mapping. Yeah, we'd have to update it with any code cleanup. Thank you. May I colloquy? By the power of Google, one quarter mile is 1,320 feet. in the ordinance. It says any lot or portion of a lot that falls within that measurement is eligible. Does that mean that if a portion of the lot falls within the measurement, then that whole lot is eligible. Yes.

[98:11] it wasn't clear to me. If it was just the portion like this little corner is eligible. But okay. that's it. Thank you. Any questions on the other parts of the ordinance. We just lumped all the other. or like Rm. One, and the Site Review, exemption or Site review thresholds on the on the Site Review thresholds. I read that on page 25. There's The changes are kind of funny changing to, not required or not eligible. And I'm anyway. I just want to confirm that

[99:01] those on on that page 25, those you've got there. It's specifically the bottom. 3 bullet points. Okay. For instance, change the Rr one and Rr. One. Eligibility thresholds from 5 or more units are permitted to not required and not eligible. I guess, without looking at the table. what is that saying? It's basically saying that that is a portion of the ordinance that would become a little more restrictive. I think what we're looking at is trying to encourage people to do things by right in those zones. We don't normally get site reviews in Rr and Rl. One. A lot of them were already developed out, and they're not subject to puds or site reviews. So we have all these prescriptive standards in the code that can be met

[100:05] the purpose of. And we're also trying to avoid situations where certain lots end up going into Site Review, and may only have a single family house on them. and which is something we want to avoid. We don't want an onslaught of site reviews where it's best handled through like a variance, for instance. So that's where we felt like, based on the we don't have many site reviews or puds and rr, and rl, one and re, that we would just remove them from eligibility unless they're yeah for those zones. Yeah, okay. So sticking to that one, it was. 5 or more units are permitted on the property. And now the practical application of not required and not eligible. Is that is that referring to site Review, yeah, referring to Site Review.

[101:01] Okay, okay, so by being not eligible for Site review, we're saying, you can't vary your request so much that that it would trip a site review. You're not eligible for correct. You would have to just meet the the formal standards and intensity standards. No site. Review. Gotcha to modify. Okay, thank you. Hi, Mel. Thank you. I have one specific question and one broader question. On the rm, one One of the of comments from City Council was wondering about a consultation with the climate initiative regarding reduction of open space. Did did that happen? And what was that? What was the input.

[102:00] We've talked to them briefly, and we do have a meeting to talk to them. I think there may be a little bit of conflation here between, you know, open space as it's required in a development project and open space that exists around the city in in natural form. And I think there's concerns that it would have habitat impacts or impacts to the environment where the open space that we traditionally talk about. Right. In zoning is really like lawn and recreational area parts of a of a development project. But we're nonetheless. We're still going to have that a conversation done. Okay, I. I don't have any particular issue. I understand how we use open space in in development. But I just was curious as to what the climate initiative had to say about it. But conversation pending. Okay. So my, my broader question, has to do with

[103:01] so the goal that the city Council put out there in March of 2024 was to provide more housing options and price points beyond just large. So I see, a lot of these changes are looking to get the housing options. So I'm curious as to the price points. I think that one of the feedbacks or directions was not to look at the creating ways to make these affordable. We're not going the route of owner occupant trying to deter investors.

[104:01] But yeah, what happened to the idea of deed restrictions for middle income. It wasn't introduced as as part of the scope of this project. I think the scope of this project was just to loosen up the code to get the additional housing. I think we've looked into deed restriction and and found, you know, based on on the market, that it would just largely be a disincentive for adding units. To put a deed restriction on the units, it would just incentivize people to keep it as a detached dwelling unit and sell it to get more money. So I it never was part of the scope of the of the project. Well, some of the language in the information that's provided to us today was talking about allowing more modest housing units can open up opportunities for more young families to stay in boulder and enable more housing options for seniors, young professionals, etc, that otherwise may not be able to stay in the community, due to the higher cost of larger detached dwelling units, or because they may not

[105:13] opt to live in apartments. So it seems that cost is necessarily in the goal. Well, it was stated in the goal that city council put out back in March and in the language that that is in our packet about what we're trying to accomplish by doing this. So I I'm kind of. I guess I'm kind of more than kind of. I'm confused. Is that why we aren't? Or is there something coincidentally happening that will deter this from becoming an investment opportunity rather than a housing opportunity?

[106:04] I mean, I think there's other. If we're if we're talking about concerns about investment companies coming in the the discussions that we've had with planning board and council is that this is something that is a concern, but that we wouldn't be doing owner occupancy to to address that, and that there be other ways that we would look into in future work program items to disincentivize investment properties from coming in. What kind of other ways. Well, it could. It's something we'd have to map out. But taxation could be a method. It's something that's come up in other board meetings. Other methods that are outside of zoning. To get at the the concerns about investment properties or just creating affordability. From these zoning changes. And in terms of affordability like, we've had this discussion as well that, you know Council has noted that

[107:02] you know a duplex converted from a 3,000 square foot house. Each unit would be inherently or comparatively cheaper than keeping it as a detached dwelling unit based on the price per square foot. you know you'd have 2 1,500 square foot units. They would each be cheaper than if it stayed as a detached dwelling unit. It may still be relatively expensive. but it would still it would open up more opportunities for people in in those different price points. And so we tried to illustrate that by attaching a previous report that we had gotten from Kaiser Marstons, where they looked at the what the pricing of of a single family or detached dwelling unit would be versus a triplex. If they were to break it up based on the price per square foot, they would be each on their own comparatively cheaper than that that detached dwelling unit.

[108:04] But I think the findings of the report would be that there wouldn't be a strong financial incentive for that person to convert to a duplex or a triplex just because they could get more money by selling the large detached dwelling unit. But what we've been communicating is that anecdotally like, I think, a lot of communications we've been hearing from the public is, there is demand to allow people to convert their detached dwelling units into a duplex, for instance, so that they could. They may not need all the space so they could, you know, convert their house to a duplex, rent out the other portion, get rental income to help pay for their own housing. So there is. I've been getting a lot of inquiries, I would say, not necessarily on a weekly basis, but fairly often where people are interested in being able to convert to a duplex, even though that financial analysis shows that they would get more money just to sell it off

[109:01] as a detached dwelling unit. So I don't know if that helps. But that's that's why we attach that that report. And I did. I did read through that report. so a question that comes up for me regards to this is so. and especially with the language of a duplex or a second dwelling unit. We already have the opportunity, through adus, to have a second dwelling unit. Why aren't we incentivizing those by allowing adus to be condominiumized. Well, an adu is supposed to inherently be accessory to the the main dwelling unit. It would be on the same utilities. When you get into condominium situations, and it's not accessory anymore. I think the the

[110:01] the proponent of allowing duplexes versus an adu is that you have more flexibility on the size. You could have 2 larger units rather than one that has to be. you know, subservient size to the the detached dwelling unit, and those other units can be on their own utilities, have their own address, that it could be condominiumized. I think Adus already require some of those things. I know they have to have their own address. and I think they are. Hmm the option to have their own utilities is is there as well? I'm I'm just curious as to If this redoing of this ordinance and and ordinances to try to accommodate a greater range of cost options. I think that how we're gonna get, how we're gonna get affordability into it, maybe

[111:04] should coincidentally be happening somewhere. And I I've heard you mention, you know the phase 2 of it hopefully. That will be in that, because our history in boulder. Isn't that if we loosen up our regulations to create more opportunities for housing, that we're getting affordable housing, that that's not. That's not what happens in our city. So just cautious about trying to meet the broader goal of diversity and all the different things that the Boulder Valley comp plan talks about in regard to mix of housing types permanently affordable market affordability, etc, etc. Oh, but I hear it's not really on the table, for this ordinance update. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

[112:00] All right, any other clarifying questions. Before we go into some deliberations. Laura. Sorry. Just going back to the demolition of buildings that are potentially eligible for historic preservation. There's a section here that talks about alteration of a building. and it says the building is over 50 years old, and it is not designated as an individual landmark, and it is not an historic district, so it's 50 years old. But there has been no designation of this building. It says it can get the density bonus, provided the alteration does not involve a demolition as involved as defined in the section for historic preservation. Can can you explain why a building that is not designated as as historic or in a historic district should have to not have any demolition as defined for historic preservation in order to get the density bonus. Yes, So Marcy gerwing here again.

[113:00] So the intent is to incentivize the reuse and preservation or retention of eligible buildings. So that piece of the code allows somebody to take off 50% of the roof 50% of the exterior walls. But if they keep the street facing walls and at least half of the building. They qualify for that density bonus. Okay, but it doesn't say anything about being eligible. It just says old. It just says, over 50 years old, not designated as a landmark and not in a designated historic district. It doesn't say anything about having gone through some determination of eligibility. So continuing with the rest of that section of the code, if they meet that they don't come through historic Preservation review. So there wouldn't be a determination of eligibility, because they're not taking off enough of the building for it to require historic preservation Review.

[114:07] Okay? Because they have not requested a demolition, right? As defined by the code, even though they're taking off a portion of the building. It's not a demolition. Okay? Still thinking. Thank you. So, Laura is your. I want to understand. Your question is your question that let's say I have a building that is po potentially eligible. And I want to demolish it. and I go through the process and is determined that the building is has no historic value at all. It's a terrible building. It's awful. And so I get my demolition permit. But I what you're saying is that even though it's been determined that it has no historic value.

[115:04] my demolition permit would preclude me from taking part in the bonus. I would say, that's 1 of my concerns. And then this second one is, it's talking about alterations to existing buildings. Right? And so it's saying. if you're trying to alter an existing building, and you want this density bonus, either your building has to be less than 50 years old. so not an old building, or, if it is over 50 years old. and it has not gone through the historic preservation process. You can't be doing any kind of demolition of the exterior walls like the 50%. As Marcy was talking about the 50% of the exterior walls or the street facing wall. And that's the only way that a building over 50 years old can get this density bonus, if they want to do a duplex right? They cannot be doing a demolition there. It doesn't provide for a building that's over 50 years old, and has no historic value, and wants to do a demolition. Yeah, thank you that if it's not eligible.

[116:08] but it is old and the demolition is approved. then you get the density bonus. and that is, the vast majority of historic preservation applications that come through is just because it's old doesn't mean it's historic. So if the building is old, but it's not eligible, and the demolition is approved. The lot is then vacant that way, and they would qualify for a density increase. Okay, and that's your little Roman numeral. 3. There, I think. 2. I think that's where it's not historically significant. It gets demolition granted or does not. I'll keep reading and thinking. Thank you, I may have misinterpreted something.

[117:01] Thank you for asking the question. It's not defined as a demolition. So a demolition is, if it's historically significant, right? They can just go through a regular demo permit if it's not deemed historically significant, right? And so that would meet, too. because it's demolition as defined in Chapter 11, which is specific to. I see 2 says, following a demolition of a principal building that is less than 50 years old. and then 3 says, following the demolition of a principal building over 50 years old, if the demolition was approved, pursuant to an initial review. But it doesn't say if it's approved pursuant to a you know, a final review where the owner has objected to landmarking. That's true. So that is captured in 3 2 is, if the building is younger than 50 years old. Okay, okay, great. It's 8 o'clock. I suggest. We take a 5 min, 7 min break

[118:06] and reconvene here somewhere between 8 0. 5 and 8 0, 7, and then we'll continue. Thank you.

[126:56] so we still have a few more questions. We do have a public hearing. We want to get to. So I'll ask the board. Maybe one quick round of if there are clarifying questions that we need. Claudia had some

[127:08] quick Claudia. Yeah, thank you, what is the affordable housing design review process? I was hoping to find that described. This is what we are proposing for affordable 100% affordable housing projects that would be exempted from Site Review. But they are referred to another process that I am not finding described in the code. Yeah. So several years ago. as you're probably aware, with Ih, and you have a site review application. They can. An applicant can either pay in lieu fees. They can provide the deed restricted units on site, or they could choose an off-site location. And when they've chosen the offsite location, it's raised the question of well, these are being done to meet a Site review requirement. But they're not subject to site review criteria. So it seemed a bit awkward. So they created a staff level review that applied at the time this, the Site review criteria that existed. So there were qualitative

[128:11] criteria that apply to those projects, even if they're off site. So it's an existing process that's still used. If there were, there's an offsite required being met. So we're just kind of piggybacking on that for any project that wouldn't go through the site review process. That's a hundred percent permanently. So is that described anywhere in the code, or where would we actually learn more about that 9, 13 4. So I did look that up. I thought I did, at least, and it simply says, what kinds of projects qualify for it? Not what that review process actually consists of. I mean, it's it's an administrative review. So it just there's, I think there's a handout that has the criteria and the staff reviews it for those for compliance with those criteria at the staff level. Okay, so it's it's a thing that is referred to in the code. But the thing itself is not in the code.

[129:04] It's an administrative review process. still, on the topic of affordable the 100% affordable projects. Can you explain to me what the process is to for community benefit, for additional height in and a hundred percent affordable project. How would that work? I mean, there's already an exemption in Site Review that if 40% of your floor area is devoted to permanently affordable, you're allowed to have the additional height. You can ask for a height modification, so they would be just be subject to that. Okay. very easy, great. Let's see my next. I have a couple of very specific questions. On page 53 of the

[130:06] packet, which is the Site Review criteria. There is a new footnote B, that talks about a residential lot or a non-residential lot. What does that mean? What? What makes a lot residential or non-residential? Oh, you're talking about in table 2, 2, 2. Yeah. I think it's just relating to. If the if it's a if it's a non-residential use on the lot. it seems like there's room to clarify that. Because what if it's mixed use. Is that a residential lot? Is it a non-residential lot, is it? Neither is it both. So just. I guess that maybe that's more of a comment, then

[131:02] And then my last question is. you're proposing to restrict the list of incentivized uses in the IM and Ig zones, and the list that under this proposal is incentivized surprised me a little bit, because they seem like some of the least compatible with residential uses. and I was wondering how you came up with those I was reading, that those were the ones that you wanted to encourage. But it also seems like like building materials selling building materials will that it really is not going to go along well with a resident residential mixed use. So any thoughts on that. Well, I mean, we had discussed this with the Board in September, and listed out the uses. We did, our own analysis of what we thought was compatible or not compatible. I obviously there's room to disagree on that. If there's any uses that you think shouldn't be in the list, we could certainly

[132:15] remove it from the list, but we we just kind of as planners went through the line by line of all the different uses, and figured out certain ones that would have an element to them that probably is incompatible with residential and others that you know you're in an industrial zone. So there's going to be some obviously acceptance of of some impact, because it's an industrial zone. But we just kind of ran through the the uses. And but again, there can be room for disagreement on that. Okay, but I guess the main question is, you were you're restricting it in order to incentivize these particular uses. Is that right? Well, originally, when this was passed with the zoning for affordable housing ordinance. It listed all light manufacturing uses, so there was a concern that maybe we shouldn't include them all. So we just specifically list, the ones that we felt would be compatible.

[133:10] So it does in a sense, incentivize those uses. Oh, but it is based on compatibility. It's not based on the ones that you were trying to incentivize. Then. Yeah, early compatibility. It's just it's just an a list of all the ones that all the other uses that were found incompatible were just knocked off the list. It just lists what remains? Right? Okay, thank you. If there are no other questions, we'll go to our public hearing. Vivian went ahead and signed off for the night. So I'm just going to be running the public hearing, and I don't believe we have anybody in the room.

[134:01] So if you are online and you would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. We've got one raised hand. That's Lynn Siegel. Just one second. Let me get the timer ready for you, Lynn. and you can go ahead when you're ready. This is such a relief because I've been following landmark sport. You know I follow Rab Osbt tab landmarks board. Eab happens the same night as landmarks, so that's a tough one. But I might not know much. Okay, folks, but I know a little bit, and I know enough to see when things are not going right. And with this landmarks I've been really upset at some of these demolitions. In particular, I can name 1015 juniper, which was a beautiful bungalow that the the people that was had floodplain issues, and the the developer couldn't

[135:02] get his full value out of by it by by tearing it down, and I mean by by moving it or changing it somehow. So it was a demo. And yes, these are just unacceptable because it and it puts Marcy in a difficult position. Because she's trying to keep these properties intact. And and she really can't, based on the limitations. They have it within the landmarks board that says you can't have an undue cost prohibitive thing going on with the developer if the developer has a legitimate reason. But there's other things that have happened like at Western resource advocates where 30 extra units were added on to what was a commercial space. and as a result of these 30 residential, and their demand for parking on that space and the grading of the particular place

[136:03] that building was demoed, and that is a perfectly beautiful building on right as you come into town you see it, and then the same with the next building. It's Sister Building, which is a Hobie Wagner, the the one on on Baseline and Broadway. Wra was not, but that architect came from the same firm. So it was the same influence. It was kind of a sister building at 777 Broadway, and that one was demoed last week approved for Demo last week, and in it had 40 units, and it's now going to have 222 units bedrooms rented by the bedroom just like the millennium. It's 930, and it got a 57% parking reduction and a 55 foot height limit. And it's just like this monster thing. The only thing I felt good about was that the guy that owns it is from Lebanon, and had gone back to Beirut, and his building was bombed when he was talking with his folks here, so at least it was a bit of payback for the United States to Lebanon, but I didn't approve of that demo, so I support everything about continuing

[137:18] to stop the demolitions. And and you know the smaller things get get the the more expensive they are. Anyway, it just the developer is going to make their buck either way. Thank you, Lynn. and we have no other raised hands at the time, so I think we can continue with the hearing. All right. Thanks, Lim, for your public testimony. All right. Shall we put up the key issues that we are to be considering?

[138:03] Okay. I'm open to how we want to order this discussion. so I don't know if anyone has any particular opinions about it, or if someone wants to make a motion, and then we can go from there. Mark, you always seem to have an idea. Should we maybe take the issues in the same order that we took the questions. Talk about Rmx. 1 1st talk about Rlrr, and then the other stuff. Sure. let's see, you have different ideas. Anybody? Do. We have the draft motion language up, too. Just want to see it. So so maybe the question is, is anybody thinking about a condition or an amendment related to Rmx, one is anybody thinking about a condition or amendment related to the low density residential zones and the.

[139:07] And then, are there any other amendments that people are thinking about? Maybe that's the way to do it. sure. So I am happy with the content of what is being proposed for Rmx. One. I though, as you've probably noticed, I'm a strong proponent of trying to make the code as readable as possible. And so I think the way that we've kind of turned the the, the the code restrictions inside out is, it makes it very hard to understand. It was hard for me to understand. I think maybe Laura had problems, too, and she's a lot smarter than I am. and so I think that it would be way clearer if it just said what what you were talking about before that.

[140:01] If it's been demoed illegally, you don't get the bonus, basically. And it would. It would make it shorter. And I think clearer. And yeah, it doesn't. It doesn't make it sound like an incentive. But I think that's okay. So to colloquy on that I do have concerns with the content, although I think that Kurt's suggestion would do away with my concerns, and my 2 concerns are like it basically divides it up into things that happen on a vacant lot, and things that happen with an existing building and on a vacant lot. It does not account for demolition has been approved. After going through the entire landmarks process where the owner has an opportunity to object to being determined as eligible. Right? Because if the if the there's an initial determination that says you are potentially eligible. That's what's being proposed to use is that initial determination which happens at either a staff level or a small committee

[141:07] has not gone through the landmarks process has not gone through proper due process, and the property owner has not had an opportunity to object to that designation which then triggers. As Lynn was talking about a higher standard of criteria for the Landmarks board to say yes, this has such great historic value that we will preserve it even over the property owner's objection. So it does not account for that case, because I think I heard Marcy say that if the demolition permit is approved after going through the full process. Even though there was an initial determination, they would not get the density bonus. Is that correct? Yeah. So that's correct. And then the second case that it doesn't account for. And I appreciate Kurt for clarifying what is a demolition when it talks about standing buildings adding on to existing buildings. If a property owner just wanted to alter the street facing wall, but not demolish the whole structure, they still have to go through that landmarks process to get a demolition permit, and the way the code is written now does not account for the property owners. Ability to have a standing existing building.

[142:10] Have that building be determined, not historically eligible or not historically relevant. And get that density bonus. That's not accounted for the way the code is written. If I'm reading it correctly. Marcy, want to speak to that or so. You have an existing building. They want to demolish part of the front wall, for example or 2 of the walls, but not not be a vacant lot. but just demolish part of the building. They go through the process. They're determined not to be historically eligible or not historically relevant. They're not landmarked. They still can't get the density bonus, even though that building has been determined not historically significant through the landmarking process. Is that is that right? That doesn't sound. That doesn't sound right. That's how I read the section on existing buildings.

[143:15] because if it wasn't. If it wasn't historic. then it's eligible for change. Right? Yeah, you can. You could scrape it. But what if they don't want to scrape it? They just want to change the front facade. That's an existing structure. That's not a vacant lot. I believe you're correct in that. And I think that may be something that we iron out because the intent is to allow changes, and that is what's provided through the existing processes. You can have an eligible building. But then we for a partial demolition, we can look at the scope and approve a partial demolition, so a building can still be eligible. But we can approve those changes, and I think that our intent was to include that in this, and align it as much as

[144:09] possible with the existing historic preservation process. But I think you have identified a gap. Yeah, I think I think where I'm getting hung up is it just feels like it's treating old buildings that are potentially eligible, as if they have the same value as a building that has been determined to be historic in this density bonus category, not in all of the other ways, and I don't think we should be denying property owners the density bonus just because their building is old. If it has not been determined to be historically significant. and the way this code is written seems like there are some gaps there that he would either need to be filled. But but I mean, I sat with the landmarks board for a year and watched every one of their processes, and I'm still struggling to understand this code and interpret it and apply it. So I think Kurt's suggestion is where I would go is just let's not do this very complicated. Here's all the situations where you can get a density bonus. If you go through these 8 different pathways, and just say, if you demolish a building illegally, you're not eligible for this

[145:09] density, bonus done. Or if your building is historic, right? Well, obviously, if it goes through the historic preservation process and it's determined to be a landmark building, then you have to follow the rules for landmark buildings and it's already covered. Does that make sense to you guys? Is that I think so we can definitely take another look at this and kind of flip the language and see how it reads. Great. All right. So we'll make that suggestion when we make the motions. So I have a question for staff here. So we've got motion language that my sense here is that we will for the most part approve. Approve of ordinance. We suggest council, adopt proposed ordinance, 8,666, right? It's a recommendation, right? Right? So given that our mission tonight is to make a recommendation to council. Our motion language

[146:09] is, can be more suggestive, a little looser than than if we were doing it get approval. Yeah, yeah. So I would suggest. Then can we tack on setting forth related details with the following suggested changes and corrections, Colon, and then we could. We can go through suggested changes and corrections, and and vote on those as as essentially an amendment to the main motion, so make the main motion. add in and vote on proposed amendments like. and we can just say language, clarification, and correction in regard to historic demolitions.

[147:03] except, you know. And then that would be one is that. Yeah, that works. Yeah. And that'll be easy for them. That sounds efficient. Yeah, okay, so someone want to make the motion. I will make them. Okay. I move that planning board recommends a city. Okay? I. I had a question before you Oh, I'm sorry! Let me let me go ahead. Waving my hand. Let her ask her question. Okay, ml, go ahead. So there was a piece that the staff wanted our input on that we haven't touched on, which is in the one Rr. One and Rr. 2. The distance from the bus route 550 feet versus 350 feet. Is that, did that go away somewhere, or I don't think we talked about it. I think we'll we'll cover that if we want to discuss that after Mark makes the motion, then we'll kind of talk through the Rmx thing which we already we just kind of talked through the direction we know where we're going. There. We'll talk through the Rl. Stuff, and then anything else that that anyone wants to suggest modifications to, etc, or or as, or feels passionately, one way or the other, as additional comments.

[148:17] Okay, it was just a. It was just a question that Staff gave to us that we never addressed. Thanks. Ml, okay. I move that planning board recommend that city council adopt proposed ordinance. 86, 66, amending chapters, 9. Dash, 2 review processes, 9, dash, 6, use standards and 9 dash, 8 intensity standards of title Ix. Land use code Brc. 1981 to amend density and intensity standards to allow development of additional dwelling units in the in the residential low

[149:01] one RL. 1 residential medium, RM. 1 residential mixed one RMX. 1, zoning districts and to amend review procedures and use standards to reduce regulatory requirements for certain residential developments and setting forth related details. Second, okay. Alright any discussions on this or proposed suggestions to modify it. So I would recommend that the intensity standards be changed to make the

[150:00] lot size per dwelling unit in Rmx. One change that to 2,500 square feet, with a footnote that says that on a lot. That it! Or if a building has been illegally demolished, then the standard is 6,000 square feet. So change the default because that's going to be 99. Hopefully, it better be 99% of the time that's going to be what it is. 2,500 square feet. With a footnote that says 6,000 square feet. If there's been an illegal demolition and then get rid of 9, 8, 3 B. Completely. Hi, Brad Miller, planning and development services. Director, I think. Just recognizing that the

[151:04] capturing that whole language that was suggested. I wonder if there's maybe just general language you could offer, and and we can capture the spirit of that my suggestion to Staff is that we would just write an alternative set of code that goes to council that captures the spirit of that. So if if you want to. you know, propose a motion that that is more generalized. We certainly know how to run with that. Yeah, like you could propose, just like clarifying the language. Okay, so, or if there's just a general construct that you want us to put language to as we move toward council as long as we understand the concept, I think we can draft to it right? So I would say, I guess it could be a motion to amend adding a suggestion that Council pass the ordinance with simplified formulation for the conditions for

[152:08] the minimum lot size per dwelling unit in Rmx. One. Or can I offer a suggested formulation. Absolutely. Okay. I think we're trying to get the same thing. And I would say we recommend that the section of the ordinance for Rmx. One be removed and replaced with the concept that if a building is illegally demolished. the density bonus does not apply. and that section of the code that that is, is 9, 8, 3 B. As Kurt was saying. if you're making that as a motion, I'll second it. You would move to amend. Okay, I will. So you just send that to Thomas or something. Okay. Great thanks, Laura. Thanks. Kurt.

[153:02] Ml, ml, you have a hand up. We can't hear you. My head. My hand is down. Sorry! Hey? And if and if we need to call, if if I don't catch you, just just shout out. So we we know you're there, because it's it is a little hard to see. So, thanks. Wait a minute. I do have a question. It isn't. It isn't about this, though. So are are we gonna move this Let's let's focus on this one, and then. Our next one. To your, to your question. Great thanks. I am putting it in the chat.

[154:17] Okay? So it's up on the screen moved and seconded. do we want to discuss it and vote. This has been moved and seconded. I moved it. And I think, Mark seconded, okay, I didn't. I didn't. I didn't. This specific language. I don't think we did. That's why. So I just want to make sure. Okay. I move to amend for Rmx. One, which is ordinance. Section 9, 8, 3 B. Be removed and replaced with the concept that if a building is illegally demolished, the density bonus does not apply. I will formally second, that I have a question for Staff, do you? Is, does that make sense to you? Do you want any flexibility? There?

[155:01] I I think we understand that. And I think we do have to have some conversations of how it is worded and everything. But we understand the intent. Should we vote on that one? Yeah, let's go, Laura. Yes, mark. Yes, Claudia, yes, Kurt, yes, Mason. Yes, Ml. Yes. All right. One down. Did you vote? Yes, I'm a yes, sorry. So can I Yes. And so the the staff had had wanted us to look at. based upon additional analysis whether or not we would support of a 550 foot from a map bus route. Option. Can you put that question up on the table somewhere, Carl? Is that still a question that you guys, had I?

[156:01] You didn't really talk about it, but it was in the packet. You're referring to the distance. Oh, there it is! Sorry you're referring to the distance from the bus corridors. Correct. Yeah, that should be up on the screen. I see it. I see it. And and we didn't really talk about it, do we? Do we want to talk about it? Yeah, let's talk about it. I have a comment, which is, it's hard. It's very abstract, right? 350 feet, 550 feet. What the heck does that mean? I understand that you're trying to compensate for the housing that was lost in some other component of this right. But what does that mean? Practically like if we were to look at this from a city block like, what like can you? Can you? Can you give us a little bit of feel for what it means. I think, as far as a distance change like 350 is roughly a city block. This would be more than a city block if it was changed to 5 50. We're we're continuing to recommend the 350, because that what that's what we talked about last time. That's what city Council had directed, and that's what we had included in some of the community outreach.

[157:08] But there is that option of bringing it back up to 40%? Where is so? So the 5 50 is the genesis is, what would that 40% can you just elaborate on that a little bit? Well, we we had originally suggested a 40% eligibility number of lots that to not go over 50%, which so we keep it predominantly single family 40%. So I think when we talked to the board about this last time, there were some board members that felt we should bring it closer to 50%. For instance, our recommendation has been 40%. But based on this change, it dropped it down to 30%. So we just wanted to. What was your change that dropped it to 30%, just the removal of some bus routes that were seasonal and the Cu bus routes ended up dropping it down to about 30%.

[158:03] I'd actually like to make a motion on this topic. Would you be open to that mark, or do you want to speak first? st No, go ahead. I'm I'm well, actually, I would like to speak first, st and then I hope it supports your motion. Just from a practical standpoint. We're talking about what this means. Practically in my neighborhood, the Melody catalpa neighborhood. We're an ecopass neighborhood, and we have a bus stop at just a little south of Broadway and Linden. The entire neighborhood uses that bus stop to take the skip downtown, go to the airport bus, whatever they might be, but that's really the starting off point a 550 foot distance. I would encompasses really the 1st block of the neighborhood, and it's a it's 6 8 blocks going to the east from that bus stop. And and so the idea that

[159:04] 350 would not even encompass the 1st block width, which is kind of a deeper block. But it would not go to the second block. so Our neighborhood doesn't not have a problem walking 3 or 4 blocks up to that bus stop at a distance of a thousand 1,500 feet. And that's as the crow flies when we're actually it's actually farther than that. If you so, anyway, I would support this 550 foot distance. I hope that your motion encompasses that. So if if I'm reading things correctly, my understanding is that that percentage was selected because I want to say, and I'm going from memory. Sorry I don't have it right in front of me. The overlay says that the zone needs to be predominantly

[160:00] for me, I have a I mean, so I obviously have my own personal biases. I would allow duplexes everywhere. and for me, I think that still meets the predominant definition, because not everything is going to be converted to duplexes like, if we allow duplexes everywhere, is it going to be 40%? 20%? I think it's probably going to be lower. so reducing it to 550 square feet to me is more like 5% allowed. So I would support which I don't think city Council would, or maybe even this board just removing that distance entirely. May I make a suggestion? So one of the questions that we haven't been directly asked, but that, I think, is implicit is about this phase. 2. Right? Whatever we do here tonight, there's going to be a phase 2. So for me, my inclination is, keep it simple. I would support the 5 50 for tonight, which seems to be a little bit more than what was considered previously, and then put it on the table that we should be looking at going further in the Bbcp update and phase 2.

[161:14] Yes, I would if we're ready. So I move that we amend the main motion to recommend duplexes be allowed in the Rl. One and Rr. Zones within 550 feet of mapped transit corridors. Oh, second. Like just mentioned sort of my perspective on this, which is. it's the same perspective that I had last time around. I think I think it's counter. I think this is actually counterproductive to what's going to end up happening. I think we're going to make things more expensive. So I'm not in support of. I know I'm in the minority of it. That's fine. I just wanted to put that on record, because I do think we're going to have the unintended consequence of

[162:01] exacerbating our affordability issue without any affordability components to this measure. Anyone else want to comment. Otherwise we can take a vote all right, Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. And I'm a no, okay? Any other suggestions? 60 eyeballs? Yeah. So I would suggest. And I guess, let me start with a question to staff. So it's about the the uses that would get the residential far bonus in Ig and IM. So office is a an allowed use with use. Review, I believe in IG. And IM.

[163:12] But it is not listed as one of the uses that would get the the residential bonus far, which again, seems way more appropriate than vehicle repair, or building material. or some of those things. So but I just. I'm shaky on this this use stuff still. So I'd have to take a look at the code about office, because I believe it's an allowable use up to a certain size, and then it's a use review. Okay, it has an A with a bracket, which yeah? And the reason we didn't include office in there is because the original request from council on. This was we wanted. There was an intent to allow residential and incentivize residential and industrial areas, but also to preserve the industrial character. So office has been concerning, and that

[164:10] you know, if it's just pure office that it might take away from that light industrial character. So it was focused on light industrial uses. That was the original intent when we were developing this. So really, just trying to preserve. you know, what? What gives it an industrial character? Okay, that? Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at before. So it really is about incentivizing these units, these uses relative to other uses and not, yeah. Okay, yeah. Okay. Well, I will not, I guess. Then propose a change there, because it sounds like that is not what Council wanted.

[165:03] I would just like to say, Kurt, that this was a huge conversation that we had in the East Boulder subcommunity plan update about losing those kinds of small industrial uses, and even the nature of industrial uses is changing to be more like breweries and maker spaces, and less like automotive repair and selling construction materials. And so there really was a desire to retain these uses that the city needs to function. So people don't have to drive to Longmont or Louisville, or whatever. So I think and office use was not one of those. Well, in these days. It seems like it's biolabs, right? Yeah, which I think come under R&D, right research and development, which is one of the incentivized uses. So yeah. And Council had originally posed that question, do we really want to include R. And D. As one of the incentivized uses, and we analyzed it, and we recommended that we should, and we had that conversation with council again, and they agreed to keep it

[166:05] suggesting any changes. Let me just ask, is, is anyone else on the board interested in adding in office to this? Okay, never mind. Thank you. Ml. Thank you. So I I'd like to bring up the and I don't know if this is the place to do it. If we do it. After all, the motions are out there. But a suggestion that staff articulate middle income affordability strategies, and I think that that will have to be in in, you know the ensuing phase, but I absolutely agree with

[167:00] with I think George made a comment on the last one that I don't think any of these moves are. Gonna get us to the affordability goal. That was part of the council goal with restructuring this on its own. I think that we need to have affordability strategies alongside these. And I'm just curious as to whether how we get that thinking into the process. Can I make a suggestion. Sure. So my process suggestion would be to not attach it to this particular ordinance, because I think that it's much much broader than this ordinance before us about zoning for vibrant family-friendly neighborhoods. and the small set of zones that are being considered here, and once we are done with this ordinance, I was going to suggest that we formalize a recommendation for the next phase, or for the Bbcp update to consider things such as allowing duplexes and triplexes in all Rl. Neighborhoods not just near transit.

[168:12] incorporating some type of mixed use in residential low neighborhoods and also working on policy tools such as a vacancy tax to help achieve affordability goals. So I'm I'm prepared to make that suggestion once we're done with the ordinance. If that would that help meet what you're talking about? Ml. Yes, because I think Staff already told us belong in this ordinance. So but I I don't want to let go of it. I think we have to. We have to bring it forward so that it it doesn't. It doesn't get lost. Yeah, I think we're all on board with that. Okay, perfect. I do have one other minor thing. So I had raised the question about that. Footnote in the Site Review threshold table, do you need a part of a motion about that, or I don't think so. I circled. We'll work on that. Thank you. Great thanks.

[169:08] all right. So if no one has any other things that they want to attach to this? I guess we should restate the motion and vote on it. Right? Yeah. where is it? You want to restate it, mark, sure. But has this incorporated. The are are amendments. It has not. This is the original presentation. So this is the main motion, and then you would have your amended. So what? We've adopted the amendments. So it needs as as amended, okay, all right, fine. You could say, okay.

[170:00] Planning board recommends the City Council. Adopt proposed ordinance, 8,666, amending. Chapter 9, 2. Review process, 9, dash, 6. Use standards and 9 dash 8. Intensity standards of title 9, land use Code. Brc. 1981. To amend density and intensity standards to allow development of additional dwelling units in the residential low Rl. One residential medium, one residential mixed, one zoning districts, and to amend review procedures and use standards to reduce regulatory requirements for certain residential developments and setting forth related details as amended by the planning board. Second, I'm sorry, don't. Didn't we? Also talk about Rr. Zones? I don't see them listed here.

[171:00] They're not in the suggested motion language. Well, and neither is the are the industrial zones. Does the fact that it references ordinance 8, 6, 6 6 cover these things. I'm guessing. It probably doesn't matter, because you guys know what's in the ordinance, but I don't know if it does or not legally. and we also like cleaned up something about Rh. 7. There's there's a bunch of stuff in there. It looks like that. Apologies. Looks like the one in the memo is correct and shorter. Not sure. So page 2 of the packet. So page 2 of the packet.

[172:00] Oh, wait, no, it's not just. It doesn't have outreach, though. Do we just need to change it to zones the zones as as proposed in ordinance? 8, 6, 6, 6. Yeah, let's do that. It's a little bit less complicated. Okay, I think, is that okay? With you guys, yeah, that works. Yeah. Okay. apologies to make you repeat this. But yeah. so do you want to change it on the screen? Yeah, would it be helpful to change it on the screen? Sure. So we would. Okay, so my suggestion would be in. So it would be. 4, th I'm looking at. Okay, I'm looking. Let's look up there.

[173:05] After the words dwelling units in, we would strike down to. We would strike down to RMX. Dash one parentheses. So okay, all right in the zone. Yes, fine. Great. Okay, all right, much faster editing than me. What's that zone or zone? Plural and zones? Yeah. And so then, since we're modifying this in writing after after the last word details, we should, let's say, and including the recommendations of the planning board

[174:17] on this date. Sure it's and and including, are you guys saying we should include adopting. Well, I'm just trying to understand why we can't just say planning board recommends that city Council adopt proposed ordinance. 86, 66 period. Yeah, because typically the the attorney's office. That's not enough. Well, I is that enough? Usually we talk about what the ordinance does, which is what it's doing here. So the ordinance, and then it says, it's amending all of these things.

[175:02] But this is, I think this is fine. Yeah, yeah, alright. Laurel says it's fine. Can I just suggest a quick tweak to the last sentence and saying and including the recommended modifications of the planning board, it's already kind of up there and including the recommended modified yeah. Recommended modifications of the planning board on November 19, th 2024, because planning boards made a lot of recommendations. Well, I think it could say. And including the adopted recommended modifications of the planning board. Yeah. Because we did formally adopt those amendments. Okay? Good one. Okay, here we go

[176:01] planning board. I'm going to lean into the mic and look up. Okay. Planning board recommends the City Council. Adopt proposed ordinance. 8,666 amending chapters, 9. Dash, 2. Review processes, 9. Dash, 6. Use standards and 9 dash, 8. Intensity standards of title, 9 of the land use. Code br. 6, 1981, to amend density and intensity standards to allow development of additional dwelling units in the zones referenced in the ordinance, and to amend review procedures and use standards to reduce regulatory requirements for certain residential developments, and setting forth related details, and including the adopted recommended modifications of the planning board on November 9, th 2024. Second. Okay, all right, Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Mason. Yes. Ml.

[177:01] Yes. And I have a question on my vote, which is, I'm opposed to the Rl. Thing completely. So not just the 550 modification, but the 350. And so in that case. probably voting. No on this. Is that correct? Because you don't agree with a full motion, then I'm in. But I'm still on the amendments. I'm still unanimous on the things that I voted for. Correct. Okay, so I'm a no great that closes this section out perfect. We are going to go to matters. Brad. I guess we're all waiting to see who goes first.st I have no matters. Excellent, excellent work on keeping a lot of things moving here towards the end of the year. Thanks for your patience. As we kind of get a number of things over the finish line, and we appreciate your extra time and energy and a big thanks to Staff, who've

[178:07] worked hard all year to get us to this point. So thank you. I just want to say, Brad, you do matter. Thank you. You have no matter. But you do matter anybody else. Laura. I just want to say a really big thank you to Marcy, to Carl, to everyone who, to laurel, to Charles, to everybody who worked on this ordinance. This was a doozy. It was very complicated. I know a lot of hard work went into it. We really appreciate it all. Thank you so much. Anything that we have to discuss. Scheduling. Wise thanksgiving is next week. Right, is there? I don't have my schedule up in front of me. What are the next planning boards. Nothing for me. Our next meeting will be December 3.rd Okay, great.

[179:00] perfect. Then this meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone. Thanks again.