May 27, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Good evening, all. I'm going to call the May 27, th 2025, meeting of the city of Boulder's Planning Board to order. And tonight we have 4 of us here in chambers and to online. And Kurt Nordbach is absent tonight. So the next order of business is public participation. Vivian is going to read the city's rules for public participation, and then we'll see if we have anyone online or in the room that wishes to speak about any matter other than Our agenda. Item 5 B, which is changes. That is a proposed ordinance, so anyone can speak about any topic other than agenda. Item 5 B. So, Vivian, take it away, please.

[1:09] Great. Thank you. And I see we have a couple of members of the public joining us online, at least. So that's great. And my name is Vivian. Thank you for joining us tonight, and I'll just go through these rules of decorum for public participation, first, st just wanting our community members to know that the city has engaged with community members to Co. Create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more about our productive atmospheres. Vision on our website. Next slide, please. and I'll provide some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[2:10] obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that participants identify themselves using 1st and last name, next slide, please. And I can see that some people have found how to raise their hand, and Kurt has also joined us. I just promoted him at the same time. But in case anybody's not familiar with the Zoom Platform you can raise your virtual hand by finding the icon at the bottom of the screen of the hand where it says, Raise hand, and you can also get to this same function by looking for the next slide. Please. looking for the reactions button. And then you can look for the hand there. So those are the rules of decorum. As the chair mentioned, we can take some comments that are not related to the public hearing agenda items. Welcome, Kurt, and each person would have will have 3 min.

[3:15] Thomas, is there anyone in the room who wishes to speak? We could start with in person. We have nobody joining us in the room for public participation. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and take our members of the public joining us online. We'll start with Jan Burton, followed by Lynn Siegel. And will you be able to show the timer. I'm pulling one up on Zoom that, I believe is gonna be able to work. Okay? And if not, I can also can come up with an alternative system. So let's try it. Please go ahead, Jan, and please introduce yourself. Mute. Good evening planning board members and staff. My name is Jan Burton, and I live in Boulder.

[4:02] Thank you very much for your work for your service and thank you for letting me speak tonight. I believe strongly, there needs to be more community involvement. And input on the city of boulder budget. And tonight I'd like to mention the sip. and I'd really like you, Brad and Staff, to discuss with the planning board your process and timing for planning Board's review of the Sip. and really consider how long you need to properly allow for education, research, proper discussion, particularly with the high dollar amounts that some of the projects have an evaluation before you have to vote, and that probably means multiple meetings. So I really believe that together you should really think about. How will you build that into your schedule through the process? So it's not a vote that has to be done, you know. Kind of at the end of the process. So that's my only feedback. I hope you'll consider it.

[5:10] And again, thank you so much for your service and for all the work you do for our city. Thank you for being here for sharing your thoughts with us. Next we will hear from Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. It's tough, because I cover so many boards and so many acronyms, and I forget what sip is. But I agree with Jan. This, this Council and this planning board is out of control, out of control, completely unbelievable. I wanted to bring up with Brad Mueller that there's a problem when the planning. The Planning Board can recommend that some commercial space goes to residential like at Broadway and

[6:05] Baseline, the southwest corner. It's Western resource advocates. I sent it to all of you. So you should have read that, and if you haven't, then you need to. And this was a stormwater detention management system throughout the country the United States that that boulder could use. It was planned from the start when this building was set up there. It never even went to landmarks board, that this was a merit or of historic value to the city. and it definitely is, and they demoed the place. I think they did it on Ldrc. Which is not recorded, and that in itself is unacceptable, since so many things go through Ldrc. But largely, the reason was that there was too much parking for them to be able, and the grading of the site. And this is the iconic entrance to Boulder.

[7:02] You understand? It's right when you come in from i. 36, and you go up, baseline. It's on the left. It had a very elegant system from from the the roof to the ground and the infiltration all over very detailed and involved in a demonstration project, and this was not even come up, and they largely argued that they didn't have enough space to have parking. In fact, they had the same Western resource advocates had brought the parking down about 7 spaces. I think it's in your memo I sent you, and that was in 1998. So here we are now, and they want more parking, and they can't get it on the space. So their argument is, oh, we don't have enough parking. It's just like at 1015 juniper. It's on the flood zone, you know, on the confluence zone. They can't move the house back. Well, duh, they bought

[8:12] land on the confluence zone when you buy it. That's what you get. You don't get a handout of 3 million dollars from the city, which is what they basically did, because that was a 2,000, some foot place that would have been affordable for someone. And now it's taking up the whole lot, and it's going to be 10 million easy, and it and you have to deal with that. Alright, please wrap, please wrap up, Lynn. You have to deal with the housing all the time. Right? So do something. Listen to what I'm saying. I'm tired of just saying it over and over. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you, members of the public for joining us tonight and for bearing with us, as we have some video problems, so we won't be. You won't be able to see the chambers tonight. But audio is working. So thank you for being here and for your understanding

[9:05] back over to you. Chair. Great. Thank you, Vivian. Thank you, members of the public, for your comments. And welcome, Kurt. We rousted you. You look like you're in a Dutch Disco. But yeah, glad to have you here. So we have no minutes to approve. We have no dispositions or call ups or continuations. We do have. Item 5, a, which is a public hearing item which we continued from last week. So the status of this item is is that we've staff has made their presentation. The Board has has asked clarifying questions, the public hearing is closed, and now it's time for the Board to provide feedback to staff in regard to this ordinance that someday will be, and Chris has a super mini slide to help us get on track on this continued item.

[10:20] Take it away. Chris. Thank you. Chris Haglund, principal project manager here, with the continuations of the Amps. presentation, and public hearing. So, as our chair said, We've gone through the clarifying question. So now we're looking for feedback. And so we have the question that was in your packet about planning board providing any additional guidance regarding the Tdm ordinance currently under development that will complement the other 2 amps items, the elimination of parking minimums and the residential access

[11:05] management program. So I just put up a few more bullets just to remind you of the different components of the Tdm ordinance that we went over in the presentation. So one is the application of that ordinance staff is recommending that the ordinance apply to all developments by rights, site, review, form, based code all it will use a tiered approach based on size, the smallest projects would be exempt. Medium and large size projects would have requirements under the ordinance. It's focused on the use of financial guarantees. These financial guarantees are used by the tenants of those properties to implement the the staff approved Tdm plan. Those financial guarantees are provided by the property owner or the developer staff is recommending in our bold way to say that these requirements would be in perpetuity, since Tdm programs have ongoing annual costs. The other is the Tdm plan elements where we would have in certain contexts requirements around Tdm programs and perhaps parking management.

[12:25] And then, lastly, staff described the current, thinking on monitoring and compliance for that ordinance. So I welcome any planning board feedback on that on those items. Thank you. Great thank you, Chris. So who is ready to help Chris with some comments. Feedback on what we have seen to date in relation to Staff's work on Tdm. anybody.

[13:08] let me. Look here, hang on. Yeah, yeah, hold on, let me look. And oh, Kurt, I'm so happy you have your hand up. We were. We were all wondering about it. And I'm so glad you sent a very thoughtful email tonight. And I thought, Gosh, I'm going to have to kind of Channel Kurt tonight with some of his questions, so I'm glad you're here. So Kurt, take it away. Thanks. You can hear me. Yep. Okay, I I got them to turn off the disco music. Briefly, Tom. so yeah. As I said in my email, I have some concerns about a permanent requirement. I sort of imagine seeing something like in. I think it's Wally where the world kind of lies in smoking ruin. But the the remains of the

[14:01] financial servers from the from the developers and the financial servers from the city are still talking and sending a a a monthly payment, or whatever it just. It feels like not having any kind of a mechanism for at least to review, so so that it it comes up for consideration. Just, it seems weird. I could imagine things be could be totally different, you know. 60 years, 90 years from now along. It's a long time, and not to have any mechanism for changing. This just seems a little bit odd so that's my 1st concern. The the second was about the that I I feel like just putting in the code that that parking in any kind of large development, should anything that would be above the tier 0 level should have should parking should be paid.

[15:13] should be priced. Would just help us immensely in getting that to happen, because there tends to be pushed back to that. It's something that people aren't used to. And kind of a new concept, I think, for a lot of developers, especially commercial developers. And so if it just were a hard and fast requirement we didn't have to discuss, I think that that would help a lot in making it actually happen. And I feel that that's a really effective way of of changing travel behavior. And the last one is this idea that well as with this recent project that we saw in Gun Bureau. There was a commercial project, long ways from any transit near like Pass. As we discussed length in that meeting. But A place where it's difficult to get, you know.

[16:17] Significant travel change. I could imagine somebody spending a developer spending a lot of money on a on a Tdm. Plan there, and not really being able to achieve very much difference, very much change in overall Vmt. Whereas that same money could be used. It seems like much more effectively elsewhere in the city, maybe to augment a different project in a place that is much more transit rich. And so I'm imagining there could be either a cash and Loo program or a not really a transfer development rights, but transfer of of Tdm financial guarantee payments to other projects, and it makes it more complicated and less efficient, I guess, probably because it would involve some some city involvement. And you know, staff determination and so on. But I think it could be really helpful in putting money where it can actually achieve a change in Vmt.

[17:27] so just suggesting that we we put that that we put that in for consideration. I put that in for consideration, I guess, and and see if there might be any mechanism for making that happen. Thanks. Certainly just in response to those comments. You know, the financial guarantee duration is one of those dials that we can turn. It could be in perpetuity, as you know, boldly going with the Tdm. Ordinance, or it could be restricted in the number of years. I do want to make it clear that you know it is

[18:11] perhaps the developer 1st and then the property owner. Who, then, who pays the financial guarantee and those funds are used by the tenant to implement the required Tdm funds. In regard to the idea of kind of a cash in lieu program. There are some examples in our best practices report where they do use that type of system where developers and or property owners pay into kind of a citywide fund. And then that citywide fund is used to provide Tdm programs throughout the city kind of dispersed or spread out or used, you know, specifically for another project. So that is certainly an option that Staff can look at. There's examples in other places where that kind of cash in lieu is done for those areas that may not have

[19:11] a lot of the multimodal access, and we wouldn't see a lot of change in. So that's certainly an option that Staff can consider. Thank you for that. Yep, okay, Claudia, you ready? Yeah. I'd be happy to go next. and also really good to follow Kurt, because I also wanted to address the proposal for ongoing Tdm contributions. So I actually started from really appreciating that you're considering lengthening, lengthening that required commitment to programs. I think that's incredibly important as residents and commercial tenants turn over, and also, as we, you know, kind of go through exogenous events that can make alternative modes of transportation less viable for people at these sites. So things like

[20:01] pandemics where you don't want to ride the bus with other people necessarily what we're seeing now with supply chain disruptions for bikes, fluctuations in our Td service, etc. So if we have ongoing support for a Tdm requirement that gives us an opportunity to reset when we have those kinds of humps. At the same time, I do really appreciate Kurt's suggestion that he shared to add some sort of a sunset or review period with an on ramp. I think that's really sensible. To other things. Beyond that, I am glad to see potential inclusions for physical infrastructure. In addition to programmatic elements in Tdm things like best in class bike facilities, transit shelters and furniture shared riding, shared ride waiting areas, etc. And the reason I'd like to see that. And I think I've mentioned that in individual project reviews we've done as well is because providing access to a mode can really only produce so many results if using that mode does not feel good. Right? So really thinking about how users will experience these options that are available to them.

[21:11] So I really hope you'll keep those aspects in. You'll build on them and really think about what else we can add into the physical environment at the scale of a development site to encourage alternative modes. And then one other thing still in my notes here from last week, was about the the question of whether to provide exemptions for affordable housing development. and I thought it was really striking to see some of the quite negative comments in the outreach with community connectors and their communities. And I think that those comments really capture that for a lot of people in affordable communities they don't see current transportation alternatives working for them right? and I think that's really unfortunate. But that's a reality that I think we have to deal with. But part of how we can make things work better for those folks is to actually give them better access to services and not exclude them from things like Tdm programs.

[22:10] And these are also some of the folks who potentially have the most to gain from having viable alternatives to private cars. So I think it would be an unfortunate outcome. If we end up having to exempt these projects from Tdm. If there are ways that we can find to cross, subsidize, to lessen the burden of affordability on those communities, but really try to think of ways to keep those groups in the programs and the requirements. That would be a good outcome. Thank you. And and that's certainly something we're looking at in terms of specifically the affordable housing. So currently, right now, you know, if a property goes through border housing projects or border housing partners. The city provides like a subsidy immediately for the neighborhood. Eco. Pass for a market rate. We provide that subsidy for that neighborhood. Eco pass after the 3 year developer period. So you know, that's 1 option that we can look at is we want to provide these benefits. We want to provide the infrastructure at at those facilities. But is there a way to subsidize? Make sure that we're providing the the benefits of the Tdm programs without significantly increasing the cost to the developers and hurting more affordable units. So thank you for that.

[23:31] Mason. I've seen your hand go up and down a couple of times. would you like to raise it again? Okay, there it is. Okay. We're we're good to go with you, Mason. Yeah, excuse me. Sorry look, not not feeling a hundred today, but just wanted to say that I appreciate Kurt and Claudia's comments, Kurt's ideas really good. Claudia's comments on the our affordable neighborhoods, and how Tdms might interact with them. I think he brought up a an option for the general fund idea, and those those funds into the general fund to provide.

[24:12] perhaps a mechanism that could address some of those needs that aren't currently being met by the Tdm. I will say that my my views differ a bit from what I've heard on the perpetuity point. My understanding is that if the Tdm is required, it's because these buildings are are asking for an exception or additional items within the design that would trigger the additional community needs, and these buildings live on it to perpetuity. Essentially, as I think those community benefits should live on to perpetuity. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be like a revisiting of what the form of the Tdm. Is.

[25:03] But I do think, if we're looking for community benefit from these buildings, that community benefit should live for as long as the building does. But I think there's been a lot of ideas already said on how to make sure that that whatever those funds are spent on meets the community's needs where it is not. Just be a sort of dystopian idea that Kurt brought up. Yeah, that's all my comments. Thanks. Great thanks. Mason and Chris, do you have any comment there? Certainly, I think you know, the idea of the financial guarantee being in perpetuity is that you know there's ongoing costs. Those costs don't end. and that, if you know significantly, less parking is provided on site. You know, we need these programs to to affect travel behavior and make that site work.

[26:00] But I be would be totally opening open to to building into. You know, the Tdm plan process that there are periodic reviews and checks. You know we do have the idea that you know, for the largest developments. If they're in compliance 3 years in a row. They're no longer annually monitored, but they could be periodically checked. We could build in into that periodic check, you know, which we suggested 5 years that there could also be a review of the Tdm. Plan the requirements. And if there's any changes that need to be happening to make sure that the you know the intended effect continues so totally open to building that into that kind of ongoing, monitoring compliance process. Laura. Thanks again, Chris, for your presentation last meeting. So I'll try to be brief here and not too repetitive. We talked last time about the need to figure out a method for trip generation for developments that aren't going to have a lot of cars parking on their property. Just wanted to, you know. Put that into the comment section as well as the questions.

[27:16] Another point. Originally Staff had proposed that only Site Review projects would be subject to the Tdm ordinance, and you expanded it to ensure that all large projects are subject to the ordinance. Good! I want to underline that. Thank you so much. That's so important. I hope that doesn't change The ordinance currently gives the city manager rulemaking authority to set financial guarantee rates, adjust tier thresholds, select required Tdm plan elements and adjust vehicle trip generation targets. I think we discussed that that would have some public components to it and potentially go through planning board and city Council oversight. I do think that's important, especially with a very new program like this that has traditionally been the purview of Site Review.

[28:01] that it not changed so suddenly. I do think we might be able to eventually get to a point where it's just very routine, like a lot of our development requirements are just. You know, there's numerical targets in the code, and it's really routinely administered, and we don't need a lot of oversight. but I think, at least at the beginning I would not support removing it from planning board or council oversight. I think we need to see how it's working for those large developments in Site Review and and how the program changes over time. On page 98 of the last packet you had a chart with various thresholds, and my immediate thought was that I understand the logic of not wanting to spend a lot of staff time applicant time money on doing this really elaborate planning process for small projects, and at the same time, you know, for example, residential projects that have less than 40 units. Those folks should have access to Tdm benefits just like large projects, and the same thing with the concern for the affordable housing projects. So I'm wondering if there's some creative nexus here with Kurt's idea about a cash in lieu program where

[29:07] there are some fees paid, and there are some benefits provided. But they don't have to go through the entire process of, you know, vehicle trip generation reports and annual monitoring, and all of that, there's got to be some sweet spot where all of our residents have access to these programs, and everybody's paying into it somehow without requiring the full blown, large development process. I do agree with the staff recommendation that the Tdm annual financial guarantee levels should be based on hard costs and hard costs only not not the higher level of some of the other things that could be included in that. And I do like the idea that that annual financial guarantee is ongoing for as long as it makes sense. Right like is the building still there? Does it still have the same use right? Obviously, if the building gets knocked down and rebuilt as something else that would change right?

[30:04] And does the city still have the same need for alternative transportation, plan planning and resources. But I guess that's what code changes are meant for is if conditions significantly change, we can change our code. So I'm agnostic about whether we call it perpetuity, for now, with the understanding that things could change in the future. But it's a good point that you know, perpetuity doesn't really mean perpetuity. the basing the Afg on a per unit basis. We talked about this a little bit in the Q. And a. I would be interested to see Staff explore either a square footage or a number of bedroom trigger rather than a number of units. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that, like a 5 bedroom apartment. would be paying the same rate as a studio apartment into the annual financial guarantee that that level would be the same for both, especially if we're not just talking about this. Not just an ecopass program, right? So I think it's worth exploring, basing it on number of bedrooms, at least in part

[31:08] or square footage, and then, finally, you had a statement about whether staff will apply a more prescriptive approach or be more flexible and allow more customization based on those vehicle trip generation targets. And you know, ordinarily I like the idea of being flexible and results based. I think that's a little difficult in this case, because those vehicle trip generation data reports, there's just a lot of dials and variables there that make it hard to base your understanding of? Is this working on on that, and and make it very flexible, based solely on? Are we? Are we reducing the vehicle trip generation, especially as we move towards more developments with 0 parking or minimal parking on site. So I would personally vote for a more prescriptive approach, but then fine, tune it later. If the analysis shows that there's a mismatch between what we're expecting and what we're getting

[32:07] great. Thank you, Laura and Chris, before you comment. And Mel, I just want to colloquy on hers. And and from an efficiency standpoint I'm going to jump in. Okay, And so, Chris, before you comment, I concur with Kurt and Claudia on all of their comments, and I was going to focus tonight on the threshold thing, and Laura did a lot of saying of what I had to say, and I'll so I'll summarize by. I think we've gone along. And everyone's like, yeah, Tiers sound good, you know. That's a that's a smart approach. But in in a practical way, exactly what Laura said, or maybe it's Claudia. But both of them those folks who arrive to work at a smaller project live at a smaller project also deserve the same.

[33:07] not exactly the same sort, but deserve Tdm benefits that encourage them to, as our current Tdm code says, minimize single vehicle occupancy trips. And and I. So I applaud the idea of exempting tier 0 from trip generation reports and studies and stuff, but at the same time a minimum level of of compliance. That so whether you rename it tier 0 to be tier one and a basic level. Anyway, I think the tiered approach is fine and that bigger projects should contribute more. But the minimum level needs needs to apply just like we apply safety regulations and all sorts of other regulations without regard to size. I'll also say that

[34:07] that the number of plans, the average number of plans per year is low, and so the percentages get get wonky at times. But when I look at you know, general commercial, where tier 0 would be 50% of the plans. That seems like a very high percentage. And again, I know we're dealing with small numbers. But that seems like a very high percentage to exempt. So I think continued work on the tiers, because you've got broad general support on the tiers. but making it more applicable in more situations, while not necessarily being a huge burden for the lowest tier. So that's my comment. There. ml, do you have comments? Okay, that's that's okay. I just want Chris. I thank you for for carrying kind of this Tdm banner along, and I guess we'll see the actual ordinance later on this year. The only point I would raise is, with the probably likely likely elimination of on-site parking.

[35:21] I think that puts an added pressure on Tdm. To be more comprehensive and think about things that perhaps might not have been applicable when there was a governance of at least a certain amount of vehicles being request required. So I I don't have a suggestion about that, just a recognition that I think that's going to add a different kind of a burden to the Tdm plan, that isn't currently isn't currently there. So I look forward to see how that fleshes out in the ordinance. Thank you.

[36:03] Okay, do you have what you need. Yes, yes, thank you for for all your feedback. I think you know, we'll continue to do work on the on the tier levels. you know, looking at alternative ways to measure the trip generation. Looking at how we apply those city manager rules and the oversight. And you know, kind of the initial approval of what's in the city manager rules before we implement also looking at, is there a possible way in which the smallest projects continue to contribute, investigating further the the way in which we could have maybe a cash in lieu system for those to make sure those benefits are seen by all. Yeah, so, and and we'll look at the kind of the issue of per unit versus square foot versus bedroom. So I think I got a good list to go work on, and we look forward to coming back, likely in August with a draft ordinance for your consideration.

[37:10] Great thanks very much, Chris. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay? And we we said, 6, 30. But it's 6, 39. So close, okay, yeah. Okay, we're moving on to agenda. Item 5 B. Which I'll read the title of, and then we'll go from there. Agenda. Item 5 BA public hearing and recommendation to the City Council regarding Ordinance, 86, 97, amending title, 4, licenses and permits title 9, land use, code and title, 10 structures. Brc, 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting, clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design, and in certain locations and setting forth related details.

[38:21] So this is our usual format staff's going to give us a presentation. We will ask clarifying questions of staff. We will then go to a public hearing, and then we'll close that public hearing, and then we'll have board deliberations and eventually discuss motion. A motion or motions. So take it away, staff. Good evening. Jeff Solomonson City planner.

[39:00] and this is ordinance 86, 97. The code cleanup. The purpose of this ordinance is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed ordinance code. Cleanup is a periodic technical review of the land use code. It fixes errors, simplifies languages, codifies existing practices, and the last cleanup was done in 2024. These proposed changes are corrections to correct inaccuracies. typographical errors clarifications to make the code clear, to use graphics, update, to make them consistent across the entire code, interesting general consistency. To make sure we're with state and other requirements and using existing city practices. and then flexibility of removing unnecessary zoning barriers. So I will not be going through every single proposed change in this presentation, but I've highlighted some of that, I feel are of interest to the Board members.

[40:07] So, starting with so an example of a correction that we have in this proposed ordinance in the use and standards table update that was done previously. Certain dwelling types were removed from the is districts in Section 971. So currently this proposed example right here is, and to correct an erroneous section where it was left behind. that a residential was still allowed. In the is district live work units are still allowed. Just regular residential was removed. So this was a correcting, erroneous section. For a clarification example. the intent of the additional language here, under the definition of contractor, is to be consistent with the type of work accepted by the State. Licensing requirements for electricians and plumbers for both long term and short term, rental properties.

[41:00] and then down below in 9, 9, 2 in terms of zoning standards, with lots in 2 or more zoning districts. Staff found the paragraph confusing because they didn't know whether to use it under proposed uses or form bulk, intensity standards, and so this separates them out into each individual area. Another example of a clarification is in the most recent adopted version of the form based code. It was discovered that terminology for impervious, semi-pervious, permeable services, coverage and material were all being used inconsistently throughout the code. And so with help from staff, we've gone in, and this ordinance corrects that to make a clear and consistent message about which definition will be used throughout the form based code. Another example of clarification 90 three's density in the duplexes in 2 detached dwelling units. It addresses what was proposed in the

[42:05] are adopted family friendly, vibrant neighborhoods, ordinance. It updates and clarifies the minimum lot area for duplexes and 2 detached dwelling units. It's for ease of understanding upon the sizes in the zoning district and aligns it with section 9, 10, of nonconforming lots. Another example of clarification is adding the word generally with being consistent with proposed exceptions to community and sub community area plans. And then, additionally, language is added to clarify the number of units for bedroom types to include units that might have more than 3 bedroom units. Another example in the minor subdivision area was quite a bit of rewrite in there to clarify the section being for residentially zoned properties. Only big rewrite was combining these standards and limitations which were found that were contradicting and kind of paralleling each other in a way on separate ends of the code, to combine them into one section.

[43:05] and then clarifying that the standards required for minor subdivision that require public improvements will not be considered. A minor subdivision will have to go through the the full platting process which, through the engineering department and our staff found, was the original intent of that section. To begin with. in terms of graphics to be consistent with other graphics throughout the code gone through and updated, for example, the setback relative to building height and form and bulk standards along Canyon Boulevard. as well as the front, rear and side yard graphic and the yards for irregularly shaped lots. Example in the consistency area staff found that requiring surveys for minor development procedures has been unnecessary and and cumbersome to applicants. And so this proposed change is to be consistent with a process that staff is already undertaking

[44:05] an example, in the consistency for congregate custodial and residential care facilities, is removing the 750 foot separation requirement. It was deemed restricting to find for adequate locations, and this provides more flexibility in being able to locate them. Additionally, it can consistent with state code, because, for example, group living has a state separation, requirement, whereas they do not have a separation. Requirement for congregate custodial and residential care facilities. The reason for consistency in the energy, efficient requirement for attached accessory dwelling units when removing that exception from the smart Regs is due to a change in rental licensing for detached dwelling units for properties that have an attached accessory dwelling unit. A rationalization was made that the nature of these are can be treated similarly to a duplex, so it just keeps it consistent with the fact that when they are both rented they are subject to the smart regs regulations

[45:10] for flexibility in development, removing the grade level requirement for a height, bonus and open space, but clarifying the consideration requirements for successful design elements. Another example and flexibility is proposing additional language for hospital and medical uses in public zoning districts for height modification. This is due to these types of uses having larger than average floor heights to account for additional ventilation and mechanical equipment. And then another proposal for flexible design is, including the Dt. District, regarding balconies and decks, to count fully towards open space, and counting outdoor short term bicycle parking towards countable open, safe as staff has found that these are typically designed in a similar matter to other paved areas, such as sculpture and landscape planters. so that highlights, some of the proposed changes, some of the more substantial ones that we're looking at here. And so I have in front of you the suggested motion language. And with that I will take any questions.

[46:11] Great. Thank you very much, Jeff. Okay, we're going to open it up to questions. I'm going to look online and right and left and see see who has questions for staff about this pretty extensive code cleanup. Okay, I'm going to give you a minute to prioritize your questions. I'm just curious. I haven't seen George up there, is he? Still here? I believe George is. Yeah, George, is there? Yep, okay. yeah, all all 3 are online members are still there. I believe. So, okay, actually, I was actually serious. So does anyone else have some clarifying questions. And and

[47:02] okay, great Laura, go ahead. Okay, I have a handful, and I'm happy to pass the baton at any time. If I'm going too long. So you tell me, Mark, okay, all right. So thank you, Jeff, for the presentation. Very helpful. And for the memo, okay, so I want to talk about the I have a question about the building is in the public zoning district, and it's exclusively used for hospital or medical office uses. or is a parking structure serving those uses. Am I understanding correctly that this is being added? Basically, so that foothills hospital won't have to pay community benefit fees if it expands because the hospital is a community benefit. Did I get that right? From the footnote Carl Geyler planning and development services? The change is coming from a request from boulder community health based on some future plans that they have for the hospital. I don't think that the change was intended to exempt them from

[48:00] paying into community benefit. However, in our discussions with them. you know, they've already gotten approvals to expand the hospital up to 55 feet, but with buildings that are 3 stories and typically a 55 foot tall building is 4 or 5 stories in the case with the hospital. They do need extra height per each floor for their equipment and ventilation things of that nature. So they are able to make additions onto the hospital, following those same floor plates. But if they were to now build a new hospital type building under those same standards. It would typically be 3 stories, but it wouldn't meet the strict wording of the code which assumes you have to do a 4th or a 5th story. So this becomes problematic to them. They got their approvals well before the community benefit regulation. So I think in our discussions with them we felt that the hospital in and of itself is a community benefit, and that, allowing a 3 story building under the same terms as they got approval originally would make sense. So that's why we added that.

[49:13] Okay, thank you. That's helpful. And are there, or could there be other medical buildings on publicly zoned land that this would impact? There could be? I mean, I think, most publicly zoned land is, you know, city of Boulder owns. But there, there is a possibility. But it is focused towards boulder community health. Yeah. Good evening, Brad Mueller, director planning and development services. And just to punctuate that point, we do get inquiries from other health providers that aren't this particular hospital. So I know we were looking at it holistically, too, not just as a responds to a particular comment. Thank you. Okay. I probably need to go back and think about that one some more. But thank you for answering the questions.

[50:04] A different question related to sub community and area plans and design guidelines. How much of the city is currently covered by an area plan or a subcommunity plan, or a set of design guidelines. I know we have a list of them on the website, but do we know how how much of the city is covered by those plans. Not off the top of my head. But I would say it's a pretty small percentage of of the city overall. Okay? and is there any update on Staff's latest thinking about subcommunity planning and how that relates, if at all, to some of the changes we're talking about with the Bbcp Land use map to make it more flexible. You know, when when we were doing the East Boulder subcommunity plan. There was this anticipation that we're going to be doing rolling subcommunity plans every couple of years and try to get a sub community or area plan going for the whole city and updating them regularly. And that's kind of I know that there are a lot of pressures on our long range development staff because of the Bbcp and the area 3 process. But is that still? The intention is to be doing area plans and subcommunity plans for the whole city.

[51:11] I'll be happy to take this. There we are. Okay again, Brad Mueller. Really. I would say, it's very much like we talked about at the Retreat. I certainly have a vision to continue what had been anticipated prior to Covid. to have a rolling review of subcommunity plans, and to build out our capacity and and completion of those remains as policy in the current Comp plan, as you know, and we anticipate that a version of that will continue in in the current comp plan. It's a best practice. It's 1 we aspire to. There are a lot of variables in that budget staffing those kind of things, but certainly it's my vision to have a robust maintenance of those plans and and use them as the tools they're intended to be. But

[52:05] you know, to be able to put a finer point on it. I can't do that at this time. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. On page 88, about housing diversity and bedroom unit types. You know. You've rewritten some of the language there. you say, for the purposes of this subparagraph qualifizing housing type shall mean duplexes, and then you go talk about attached dwelling units, townhouses, live work, etc. I'm curious. Why, just duplexes are called out and not other types of plexes. I'm sorry. What was the page number page 88. In the current packet housing, diversity and bedroom unit types. it says, qualifying housing type shall mean duplexes attached. Dwelling units. Townhouses are other kinds of plexes included in attached dwelling units? Or is there a reason why we're just focusing on duplexes here?

[53:02] So, Laura? Just a clarification. You understand that there is no change in those wordings. It's a good question, but there is no change to the code being proposed in that. In the particular duplex section. Yeah, I just thought, as long as we're opening this up, I have the answer to that. I think this question may have come up when we did the Site Review update. So that's where the language is adopted in our code. If once you go above a duplex, you're you're under the definition of attached dwelling units. Okay, thank you. Could I? Just, I do have a question on in that very same section. So while we're all looking at it. where bedroom type shall mean studios, or the proposed addition is, or units with different numbers of bedrooms, such as and so. And we've we've struck the or 3 bedroom units right, and I to clarify that our wording got funky, and people thought that you could have 3 bedroom units. My question is, can you just put a period

[54:08] after number of bedrooms and just stop there so that you're not introducing a bedroom count in in any way? We're we're saying. we want a variety of bedroom types, and we want or units with different numbers of bedrooms. Period, that are we getting ourselves in additional trouble by continuing to enumerate the number of bedrooms we're talking about. I think we certainly can just end it there. I think the purpose of this change was really, I think it came up in a project where there were actually 4 bedroom unit types and they weren't included. So we're like, Okay, well, we didn't intend for those to be excluded as a type. So we figured we had to rewrite this to make it clear that if you have 4 or 5, for instance, that those would be different.

[55:04] Consider different categories if I may. if I may, I think there could be confusion there about. Is is this like a duality like, there's just 2 things. There's studios, or there's units with different bedroom types. I have a wording change to propose, but I think it's minor, and I can do that at the end of the amendment process. Well, I mean, I think we can give that suggestion as part of the feedback at the end. But all right, thank you. Okay, carry on. Thank you. Okay, one more. And then we're going to go to another one more. Okay, also, on page 89. It talks about grade level courtyards, and I'm just curious what was the intention of including the grade level courtyard as a site Review criterion was that just intended to be an open space amenity for the residents and users of the property? Or is it also intended to be a street level? Green space, amenity and relief to density for people outside of the project. What was the intention of having that be a ground level courtyard? In the 1st place

[56:03] the original language for that actually came from a code amendment many years ago, that was intended to codify a space that a lot of people were commending as a as a good grade, level, open space. It's actually like by the spruce confectioner property where there's, you know, trees and connection to the street. That was the original language, and then that got adapted into the Site Review. Does that help? But what was the purpose of saying? It is a Site Review criterion that a building of this size shall have a welcoming gathering space that is, a street level or ground level courtyard. I mean, any kind of Site Review Project. You know the the spaces are intended for the residents that live on the property, but also visitors to the property, so it could be to the greater public if there's businesses around it, and things like that. The the intent of adding it into the Site Review originally was to really try to break up the the massing of the building by requiring a setback. So you didn't have a bulk

[57:13] mass like along the street, you would have an interruption that could be a an interruption to that massing. Thank you. I will pass the baton to start with that. Okay, great. Take a couple 3, and we'll see who else has similar questions. Thank you. So, speaking about that same site review, I guess it's a criteria. The specific language says the space is visible from an adjoining public sidewalk, and is not elevated above the building's 1st story. What is intended by visible because something.

[58:00] and then it says, not elevated, but above the building's 1st story, so is visible also, implying that it's accessible. It's I know, the space you're talking about as the reference by spruce confections, and you know that just really feels like it draws you in. even though you may not be visually draws you in, even though you may not be you know, getting a coffee there, or whatever. So I think that was the intent to have it be, you know, accessible from the streetscape. I think this particular change is really in reaction to not every open space is going to be meeting the street at a level plane. I think in this case we were looking at it. From what if there's like some grade change? There could be a connection point, but we would allow some flexibility. If the grade were to to be different. I think the other thing that I would note, too, is that since the time this landed in the Site Review criteria.

[59:02] We've added so many other things into the Site Review criteria to help break up the mass of the buildings and in other ways. So using form-based code material changes. All of the prescriptive measures that have wound up in the code over the years. I think, have tried to get at this. I think there are typologies that we're experiencing now, particularly in infill situations where it's really difficult to address this at the grade level. So, recognizing that and the number of other things that we've done in the code, I think that's part of the spirit and intent of trying to advance this code change okay, so moving on looking at specific code things, the land use intensity, modification with open space reduction. And I seem to have a different page reference. And everybody else. I looked at page 85, of 1, 45,

[60:06] it being on there. And so the question I wonder about is changing the open space requirement reduct from a maximum of 50 percent reduction to a hundred percent reduction. So can you. So 2 questions, one. does that mean that there is no 0 open space requirement when there's 100% reduction. And why such a big jump? Originally there was already a 100% reduction for these areas. And we when we made a code change in the past, we changed that to 50% the reason we went back to it is just because, like, there are some examples in urban settings like downtown, where it at least gives the applicant the option of asking for a modification to that open space standard if there's difficulty meeting it. And I think our concern is that in an urban setting where you have buildings built up to the street. We don't want to have the resulting open space. Be an unusable, remnant piece of you know there are some buildings downtown that have this

[61:20] kind of unusable random open space on the alley, for instance, to meet that requirement, and it's like becomes not not used. Very well, it's not, you know. It goes into disrepair. We just wanted to add that option back into the code to allow for it to be asked. and a few months ago we did a project that the Board really liked. It was a site review for a apartment unit over a 2 story building next to the Boulder Theater, and it barely barely, barely had enough open space. It was a turn of the Century Mercantile building, so it's hard to add any additional, you know. Open space at the grade level to it, but it barely had enough.

[62:02] Had it not, they would have never been able to add that unit to the top of it. So not necessarily in response to that project, but just a good recent example of how that has impacted it. So more flexibility for specific. can I ask one more. Okay? So on the setback standards. That's page 91 of 1, 45, 9, 7, 2 setback standards. C, 8. So it talks about setbacks, and it was one of the pictures that you showed was the setbacks relative to building height. So what what zones have that requirement? A lot of the zones that use density based on open space have that requirement. So rl, 2 rm, one, right? There's a like, and there's usually a correlation with those zones where they have open space per dwelling unit. They have that

[63:04] tiered setback got it. And that made me curious. Is there any place in the code that talks about criteria for granting setback variances. We've seen a lot of projects come through where the setbacks aren't even mentioned, and that's kind of a significant benefit to the applicant to have the setbacks removed. Do we have any place in the code that talks about how we waive setback requirements? Well, I mean through Site Review. It's considered a modification so usually with any project where they propose a setback different than the underlying zoning. It's a setback modification that gets laid out in in the memo. And ultimately the the notice of disposition for non-site review projects. We have the variance process. So there's like there has to be a hardship.

[64:02] and there and that's reviewed by our zoning staff and our Board of Zoning appeals. So I don't recall any criteria in our review process for assessing. A setback, very modification. The criteria is just the Site Review criteria which don't necessarily speak directly to how we grant that modification. Is that correct? Not specifically just like anything else. There's there's criteria on landscaping design and quality and building placement and open space placement, and all those things get factored into whether or not a setback modification is appropriate and meets the criteria. Okay. thank you for that. And I will hold the rest of my questions for okay? And we'll we'll see if we'll see if other other members ask the same question. Claudia, are you ready? You don't have any questions. Okay,

[65:06] Mason or Kurt or George. Excuse me. There we go. Great, thank you. I I keep my. I keep switching back and forth between things. So anyway. Okay, seeing none. Ml, I'm going to. Oh, Kurt's hand just went up. Thank you. Okay, let's call on Kurt. Sorry I was a little slow on the draw there. Thank you, Jeff, for the presentation. And hopefully you saw my comments by email. And so some of those actually were sort of questions. But it was difficult to frame the question and the comment in the email. So I'll follow up on a few of those on page 109 of 150 don't have the code reference in front of me. There's something again getting back to the setbacks that that Ml was talking about it. It seems like in order to

[66:07] use the new allowance for a duplex a building has to meet the existing setbacks, and so that it seems like, if I'm reading that right, it may restrict conversion to duplexes of historic buildings that are nonconforming with respect to setbacks. Am I understanding that correctly. That's correct. Okay? And and what? What is the reason for specifically calling out the subnex? There. So when we did the family friendly, vibrant neighborhoods project we had to determine what lots are eligible to go to a duplex in the Low density residential zones. And there's a section that's in the code that's existing. That's in the Nonconforming section that relates to non standard lots. So lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size. So to get at the issue of can non-standard properties also do duplexes. We basically just borrowed the language from section 9 10

[67:25] that related to when you are allowed to develop a non standard lot. And that language says that if you're less than the minimum lot size you have to be, either, you know, half the zone or 1 4th depending on the zone, but it also says that you have to meet to develop that lot. You have to meet the setbacks. So we basically just took that language and just put it in 9, 8, 3. So that's ultimately what got adopted. What we're doing here is just changing the language to be a little. No more. Understandable and less confusing.

[68:03] So because it. That setback section already was stated in 9 10, we just pulled it up into this section. But you know we're we're open to any suggestions from the board. If there was disagreement on that, maybe we look at an existing developed lot differently than we do a nonconforming lot that's vacant. So. Thank you, that's helpful. My next question is about the definition of, or the allowance, I guess, of, unenclosed open space in some zones. This is on page 1, 13 of 1 50, and I'm trying to understand why, as I'm reading the code, we seem to differentiate by zone in whether we allow that an enclosed open space I'm trying. I'm trying to understand the the rationale for that. Again, that section's been in the code for quite a while. The reason that language exists is it relates to elevated open space that's within the building. So it's really the section that talks about

[69:10] deck or balconies, principally on a building. All that section is saying is that it can only count as open space. If it remains unenclosed. So if that space were to be enclosed like building walls, it would count as floor area. It'd be part of the building it, and it wouldn't count as open space anymore. So that's that's what that language means. Okay. So I think I was misinterpreting that I thought it was relating to whether balconies could be partially enclosed versus projecting needed to be partially enclosed versus projecting. But that's different. It's just avoiding where somebody might decide in the future to take their their balcony and and enclose it with windows and walls, and then it just becomes part of the building inside building condition space.

[70:02] Okay. I guess the the question, though, still remains, even though I was misinterpreting it. Why, why does that only apply to certain zones? I'm gonna have to look at that language again. Okay. Do you want me to move on or. Sure we can come back. Okay the last one is on page 1, 14. We're talking about the subdivision. The minor subdivision changes to the minor subdivision rules, and it sounds like the proposal is to say that something is only can only qualify to be a minor sub. If there's 0 public improvements involved. Is that correct? That is correct in speaking with engineers in our department.

[71:00] They described that the original intent of the minor subdivision code is that any any public improvement that was added on there should kick it out to a normal platting procedure. The minor subdivision process was originally intended to purely take 2 pieces of land and split them into 2, or take one to split it into 2. Excuse me. Okay? And there's a provision in there about the it needs to meet the Dcs. I can't remember exactly what the terminology was, but that includes the sidewalks. Is that right? So if you have a 3 and a half foot sidewalk, for example, on a on a property that that so that does not meet the standards of the Dcs. That would not be eligible for minor subdivisions. That's right. I mean, if you're doing any kind of improvements like building a new sidewalk, it would kick you out of the minor subdivision process.

[72:05] Okay. But but I guess part of the question is in that situation. If you have a substandard sidewalk. and you say I don't want to change the sidewalk that'll cost me money. Are you allowed to still do a minor sub. or or or did would the city say no. you need to bring the sidewalk up to Dcs standards, and so you can't do minor subdivision. That would. Yeah. It would not be allowed through the minor subdivision, but they could do it by a separate instrument, either by tech Doc. They could do it as separately. Okay. And and this is just because it's, it adds complication to the to the process. If if there are any kind of public improvements. And so we want to go through. A more robust process. Is that the rationale.

[73:01] Yes, correct. Staff has found that they spend more time determining whether it needs to go to A, or what kind of improvements are needed, and whether it needs to go into a full planning process, or could it go to the minor subdivision that they said that it would be faster to simply keep this as the intent of just splitting a property into 2 and having go through the planning process. It's a reduced fee, and it's supposed to be a simple subdivision that just adds a line, you know, to an existing, you know, low density, residential lot. So I think over time like things were added to it. That kind of made it where more time is being spent on it like more than the actual fee costs. So I think we're just trying to get back to the original intent, which is like a simple subdivision to create an additional lot. Okay, but a minor subdivision would still require, as it does currently, a preliminary plat and a final plaid and a full on survey. And all those kinds of things right?

[74:05] But all is one process. It's all under one fee, and it doesn't require 2 separate process. It doesn't require a development agreement. That's the other thing is a development. Agreement is usually required when there are public improvements, there has to be a thing about maintenance and and things like that. So that's why we're trying to keep it. Draw the line more distinctly between a minor subdivision and a regular subdivision. Yeah, okay. And if I could also answer your other question about why there are specific zones for that elevated open space, it's really just the the zones that are in more urban settings. It says that you're allowed. It encourages you to have balconies and open space within the building, and it says in those zones like downtown business. Main Street mixed use like those are the types of zones where you can put that open space up in the building and have it count for 100% of your open space in other zones, elevated

[75:07] balconies, and such only can count for up to 25% of your total open space on your lot. So that's why it's those specific zones. Okay? So it's based on the context or the character of the particular zone district. Right. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. Okay, ml, take a couple more. Thank you. So going to the definitions area, I saw that, you guys. we're struggling with pervious, impervious, semi-pervious and looking. Page 111 of 145, section 9, 14. Dash 8. Definitions c. C, and D. So these are the the coverage definitions for impervious and semi pervious.

[76:06] So in C, the impervious cover coverage means a percentage of a lot or parcel developed with principal or accessory structures or other impervious surfaces. Does that mean this definition of impervious means? A 100% of precipitation is retained and or runoff. Is that correct? It's a hundred percent. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the page number that that's on? So this is on. So you guys have been saying out of 1 50, the one I had. So it's page 1, 11 of 1, 45. It's 9, 14, 9. Dash 14. Dash 8 definitions. And it's C, and d

[77:07] see. Can you repeat the question, please? So the question is, and I'm just to look at the whole definitions of of the impervious, semi-purvious under coverage. And then you've got another section which is surface. permeable, semi-pervious, and impervious. And I'm curious as to in, because these are definitions. I was going to point out on my packet is page 1, 16 of 150. Yeah, I know the numbers are weird. If I could help with this a little bit. Okay.

[78:01] people that are referencing out of 1 50. That's referencing the assembled packet. And with all the materials and the Pdf, the the total Pdf number right? And Mel's referencing. What's in the footer? Right? The Memo page number. Yes. Okay. Well, anyway, in the Pdf. 1, 16 of 1 50, I believe, is where she is. So in in the Memo, page 111, of 145, or page 116, of 145 definitions of of degrees of impervious, pervious semi. If this is about clarifying and actually creating something that people can know what they're talking about wouldn't percentages make sense. There's already percentages in the form-based code that the issue is that these definitions were created. But then they were like there were variants of these definitions used throughout the form-based code that didn't align completely with the definition. So we went through and made sure that it went back to these original definitions as intended. If you go into the

[79:13] the building types section, that's where you have the percentages in the form-based code. Would that be page 1, 16 of 1, 45. The form-based code isn't actually in, fully included here in the in the ordinance at all. Is that correct? It's the portions that have these definitions that needed amending, so trying to find the page. So what I'm understanding you to say is that elsewhere, where no changes are being made is the actual specificity of what you mean by semi-pervious, semi-impervious. And that sort of so what is the point of these definitions? Yeah, that is that is correct, because previously there was some that were using

[80:08] coverages, surface and material interchangeably throughout the entire code. And so what this is doing is, it's more. So, bringing you back to the definitions there to define what the material is, and then, like what the actual coverage is, then you can go and find the actual percentages based on the type of of project that you're doing. Okay? So so page 133 of the online Pdf packet is where you see those terms used with the with the percentages in this ordinance. Okay, it would. Just you know, definitions to me, this is like, that's where you get all the specific stuff. But I'm hearing you. It just wasn't okay. So I've got one last 2 last questions. And I think this is one of your examples in the Appendix C. Energy efficiency requirement existing residential rental structures

[81:08] in the Memo. It's page 144 of 145. So almost at the very end and you removed the exception of attached accessory dwelling units. So my question is the vast majority, I would say, of attached accessory dwelling units are done within existing buildings. They're either attics or basements, and to not exempt them from this is a really big deal, because it's just a piece of an existing house. and then to require them to upgrade that piece to the energy code standards can be a big undertaking that is not directly proportional

[82:05] to what they're gaining, because you probably will have to impact the mechanical system for the entire house. And how do you get a you know the hers rating, or these kinds of things? The air change when you're just when you're just remodeling a piece. It's it's kind of illogical. So I'm just curious as to given the reality of attached adus being inside existing buildings. The reason this was included in the ordinance is we coordinated with our our rental staff that raised a concern that this had been reliant on the owner occupancy requirement. That's that's in the code. And because the the State law. you know, resulted in us passing an ordinance that got rid of owner occupancy. It caused some

[83:03] some issues with this particular section. So when we then talked to our energy code experts, they were saying that you know these units could be retrofitted. You know, the walls, you know, could be retrofitted. I don't know the details of how it works, but that it would be feasible for them to make changes that could meet smart Regs so to clear that up. That's why this is being updated. Okay, the owner occupancy is what triggered it. But I still think that for the scale and the type. I I question it, but thank you for your answer. And then I have one last question. and this is taking us all the way back to the beginning of the Site Review, 9 to 14. So, and the question is for the public feedback on this particular ordinance update code update

[84:10] was at the informed level for the public engagement. So there are some proposed changes that are included in this that have an impact to public. I think concerns, and primarily it would be the way we are looking at amending the sub area and area plans. Those are an instrument that were the result of a very robust public process. and to propose changing their role, reducing their impact without.

[85:04] Oh, I don't know what the other inform beyond inform public feedback beyond inform, I'm curious as to what? What is the threshold that triggers. This is of public interest, and this is just an informational, because it seems like that particular component of this ordinance has a huge public impact. I would say our perception is different. Our perception is that the addition of generally is actually getting us back to how this particular criterion has been applied for decades. It's never been applied in a way, or meant to be applied in a way where it's literal. Every single thing in a plan or subcommune plan has to be addressed. It's always been done on balance, much like the rest of the Site Review criteria. I can even read you. The old criteria that we had in the Site Review that mentions that it's it's applied on balance. I think what's happened is that we did change the language as part of the Site review update, and it changed how it was being applied. We're trying to get it back to the way that it was has been applied historically.

[86:20] Well, we've got a new. We've got the East Boulder subcommunity plan, which is just now coming on board with projects. So, and that has a pretty robust area plan and requirements that go along with area plan to meet the goals as well as I'm just going to ask, do you have a question, or are we into deliberation? No? Well, so my question is the level of public engagement being informed versus. okay. So have you asked that question? I'm gonna I I've asked it in a in a way that so the next, what would trigger the next level of public engagement beyond inform.

[87:09] I mean, it would be consult. But I mean in this case again, we're just seeing this as a clarification. It's not a change that would change the nature of how projects are being reviewed. So we wouldn't need to get input on that. This is just a clarification. Okay, so it's staff. It's staff perception on how the criteria are acknowledged. Yes, okay. that's my question. Thank. And that's it. All of my questions. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you. Ml, Laura, you have another couple. I have a few more. Yeah, okay, we'll get right into it. So I'm going to reference. The is it? Okay? If I reference the Pdf pages, that's what I have. Okay. So page 25, of 150, it talks about a section of the code where it says, the goals of the boulder urban renewal plan are implemented, and this was struck, and it says in the footnote that the boulder. Urban renewal plan is no longer applicable to this section of code. Could you explain that further? Why is the plan no longer applicable

[88:18] originally this, this, applied in the the Boulder Valley Regional Center, where the the Boulder urban renewal plan was more active. There was the board that convened, and I know it had to be convened for a specific like legal requirement for another project recently. But over time the bureau, like stopped meeting, and it wasn't even being used anymore. So this there was actually a number of references in the code to the Boulder urban renewal plan that we had taken out previously. This was one that was missed. So because it's not, it's kind of a defunct board. For the most part we're just cleaning this up. The board is defunct, or the plan is defunct, or both, a little bit of both.

[89:03] Most of the Boulder Valley Regional Center area has redeveloped over the last 25 years. We just don't see a lot of projects in there anymore. So when we do like, we had the St. Julian Civic pad site, we had to reconscript the board into duty, but that was the 1st time, I think they had been like a decade. So it's very rare. But there was an era like the Boulder Valley Regional Center is like 29th Street in the village, like that whole area was all under bureau, and there was actually a requirement that every project had to go to bureau. And it just wasn't. They weren't meeting anymore. So that's what we took that reference out of the code. So this is just they have a very small section of downtown that they have some authority over as well, but again very rare, that we see a project in that area. Okay, thank you. And I might have that page number wrong. Sorry. On page 1, 13 of the packet. This is the one that that Jeff you mentioned in your presentation about outdoor short, short term bicycle parking areas have been added to the list of paved areas that can be counted as open space.

[90:12] And can you can you give us a little more detail on the thinking behind? Why, bicycle parking is being included as a passive recreation facility that counts as open space. Sure, this kind of came about because we've seen a number of projects come through that it initially started as a request, and it was something that we had to take a look at, and in staff deliberation and kind of talking about it. I mean, the the thought was the way that they are designed, and as a paved, you know, area. The similarities that they have provided to a lot of the other criteria that are there. Like, I said. Landscape planters as a sculpture, you know, just kind of seemed like they had a similar intent, because a lot of the projects that are coming in are well designed enough that

[91:09] they seem to meet that intent. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Page 132. This one is complicated. So bear with me here. There's a i think it's page 132, the packet. Yeah. So there's a I think this is in the form-based code. If I'm not mistaken. And there's a list of potential modifications to building type requirements in the form-based code at. And then it talks about, how can you modify the building location? How can you modify the impervious coverage? How can you modify the type? A frontage street wall? It seems to be setting some guardrails. And I'm I'm just curious about

[92:02] you know what is the current process. It says that the reason why this has been struck is because you can do all these things through the modification process, anyway. And it's not really subject to these guardrails. Can you help me understand a little bit more and remind me, what is the process for modification in the form-based code? You can just request anything, any modification you want? Yeah, I mean, it's administrative. The intent is that in general we encourage. And I think there's even language that says this, that the number of exceptions should be limited. It's not like Site review where you can ask for a lot more modifications. But in order to give some flexibility, we've included an exception process. We, you know, they came up when we were doing the form based code that it's very black and white prescriptive standards, and there was concern that it wasn't flexible enough, so we allowed exceptions to be requested. But then the language does say to keep them to a minimum. and are the that form-based code process and those modifications is that subject to any kind of oversight from planning board or city council, or any kind of call up. It is every form-based code is subject to planning board call up, and we we do require that all the exceptions get listed out so that the board can see that if the board had a disagreement, with an exception that you know they could theoretically call it up.

[93:25] Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Appreciate that. Thanks for the reminder. Blah blah. okay. And I want to. And, Kurt, forgive me if you already followed up on this, and I didn't hear you. The definition of a boarding house on page 1, 42 of 150. You know, Kurt pointed out that this could apply to most rental apartments in the city. So I'm just curious. Why do we need a definition of a boarding house, and what would be the impact of removing removing it from the code, as Kurt might suggest?

[94:02] We have a definition for boarding house primarily, because boarding houses were permitted in the past and then do exist in the city. So it's it's kind of an older type of use. So we're hesitant to remove it from the code because it does. It is a use that that is regulated. However, I think in light of the changes to occupancy where there could be more rental licenses issued within a detached dwelling unit. We were just trying to create a more distinct line between a boarding house and and a detached dwelling unit, so that the changes are proposed primarily to treat a boarding house like we would like a multi unit type building that might have different requirements from the international building code, whereas a detached dwelling unit is going to be more under the international residential code. So we just wanted to have more of a distinct line

[95:02] between those 2 uses. So to really understand what a boarding house means, you have to know what a detached dwelling unit is, and then exclude all of those. I think so. But again, it's it's kind of like the the requirements that would get triggered through a commercial operation of rental licenses being issued for a number of rooms within a building versus just a regular detached dwelling unit. okay? And and the purpose of keeping it is primarily so. It can follow a different building standard rather than okay. All right, thank you. And better help us manage the ones that we still have. I don't anticipate. We'll see a ton of new ones. But yeah, it's a better tool for us. Okay, thanks. That's all my questions. Okay. Great Oh, Kurt has one. Kurt. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Laura, for raising that. I did not bring that up, but I still want to follow up because I failed. I completely failed to understand how this definition excludes, as Laura said, any apartment in the in the city

[96:09] boarding house means an establishment subject to the building code, where for director indirect compensation, lodging, with or without meals is offered for one month or more. That sounds like an apartment. How how is that different. Boarding houses are different than like a typical apartment, because, like they're rent, they rent out the rooms. But it doesn't. Rather than each unit being a distinct dwelling unit with a kitchen and bathroom. There might be shared bathrooms and shared cooking facilities, but it's more of a commercial operation, and that somebody, you know manages it and manages the leases for the different rooms. Could I. None of that is in the definition. If we really need to make that distinction, then I think we should put it in the definition.

[97:03] Sorry? That's not a question. And I'm also just not clear how that is distinct from a rent by the bedroom model for some of these student housing units. That was, that was my point. Yeah. okay, so do you guys have any more input on that? Or are we just back to later? The board might disagree with, or find that that definition needs to be enhanced. Kurt, do you have additional questions. No, sorry. That was it. Okay? All right, I think we're probably ready to move on. Yeah, okay, I have one request. And in anticipation of our later deliberation. my question is, can you? I think maybe it's just me. Sometimes

[98:03] I and I think sometimes other board members can be confused by the words open space, especially in boulder open space. We have our open space, which is highly public. It is open space, and then we have open space. That might be a commercial courtyard in A, in A, in a place that is a public like the spruce. I'm thinking of the the little courtyard by spruce confections. That's a public courtyard. It's open space, but it's private property. And then we have other levels of private property that are counted as open space, such as a fenced pool lawn area for an apartment building. All those. All those things can be open space.

[99:02] They can be private property, and they can be publicly accessible, or or they might not be publicly accessible. Does our code, either in modification or in prior code, try to create? Do we specify at any point publicly accessible open space on private property. Do you under? Did you? Do you get my question. or do I need to rephrase it? I think I get it. But then that last part, I think, steers it into Hella's category. Okay? Well, I haven't reviewed are a big title 9. With regard to the specific questions, but I don't think it does. Generally the city cannot require that private property be open to the public. That's 1 of the bundles of stick of private property rights, and that would amount to a taking.

[100:03] Okay? And just as an example, a ground level courtyard adjacent to open space with a capital O. Capital S ground level courtyard adjacent to open space is intended for the residents of that building, and it is not required there. In this particular case it is not required to be open to the public. That's right. Okay, great. I just wanted to understand and make sure my understanding was correct. Okay, seeing no additional questions. Yep, just a quick colloquy. There are some uses on private property that do have a public access easement, though. Right? So how is that? Can you explain a little bit more about that.

[101:02] Yeah, for there are sometimes we call them exactions. If there's a requirement for public access, easement, dedication, or right of way dedication, and the city can require those to the extent that it addresses impacts caused by that development. But there are no impacts, costs that would require the creation of public open space. Okay, I'm going to conclude the questions, and we're going to go to our public hearing, and we don't see anyone in the room. And, Thomas, are you going to take a look online and see if we have anyone from the public? We don't have anybody from the public. Okay, online. All right. So we should be good to move right on. Okay, thank you. All right. Going once, going twice, our public hearing is closed

[102:01] and we move on to board deliberations. We're approaching the 2 h, mark, do people want a 5 min break? Or are we going to plow through here? Break? Okay, we will return at 7 51,

[110:50] all but one member, and I'm sure Ml. Will be here shortly. I'm going to resume the

[111:00] planning Board meeting of May 25.th We're going to. We're going to resume And we now enter into the phase of board deliberations in regard to the the packet item and I think a an initial round. If board members want to make any general comments directed to staff about possible. Anyway, if you want to make general comments, express your thoughts in a form that is not a motion. Now would be the time to do that. And once we've had kind of an initial round of that, then we're going to move to motion making, and I'll have a little discussion on that when that time comes. But if anyone has wants to make general comments.

[112:13] Now would be the time to do that. Okay, Laura. I'll start us off just by saying, I really really appreciate that staff are keeping an eye out and compiling lists of all the things in the code that seem to be holding us back and or need correction, and bring that to us periodically. I really appreciate these code cleanup items. So bravo! Thank you all so much for that. I do have some concerns about a few items that to me rise above the level of a cleanup, or the kind of thing that, as Ml. Pointed out, could or should be done at an informed level of public engagement, and pretty quickly. And so I'm going to be proposing a few amendments to the code that I think bring it back to the level of code cleanup.

[113:00] And then, if there's not agreement on on that, I might try again to say we should just hold on to this, and maybe consider it in a future process. That is not just a cleanup, but a more intensive code revision. So that's that's my intent for tonight is to kind of keep this at the level of the quick code cleanups, and in very great appreciation of what Staff has done here. Kurt. Well, 1st of all, I want to echo Laura's kudos to staff about doing the code cleanup. Yeah, it's super important. Our code is incredibly complex, and has certainly some problematic areas and really appreciate that you're paying attention to all of these. I will go through quickly a few things that I flag that I would like to see the ideally I would like to see changed. As I mentioned, I feel like the in excluding community benefit for hospital parking garages to me doesn't make sense. As I said in my email.

[114:02] I feel like hospitals and medical offices are a community benefit. There's no doubt about that. I'm not convinced that parking garages are a community benefit, so I would suggest excluding those. It is also not clear to me, based on the questioning, I think, from Laura. why we restrict this to the public zone. I mean, I understand that it's really kind of focused on community hospital. But that's not the way we should be doing our our our code writing. We shouldn't be sort of tailoring code for a particular project or or owner, or that sort of thing. And so, if hospitals and medical offices are community benefit in public zone, then their community benefit in every zone district. So I would support rethinking that and potentially removing that restriction to public only. I am concerned, as I said, or, as I suggested in my questions about requiring meeting setbacks in order for a property to be to be, to, to become a duplex. I think that that would eliminate a lot of historic buildings. We have a lot a lot of buildings that don't meet our new.

[115:20] relatively new larger setbacks, and I don't think that we should punish those by prohibiting them from becoming duplexes. The yeah. The the definition of boarding house, I think, is very problematic. Ideally, I would love to see us just get rid of that as a definition and wrap that that use into other uses, as Loris kind of suggested. It seems like currently an owner can a property owner, I believe, can rent out rooms by the bedroom.

[116:00] you know, you know. 3 bedroom apartment or something, if they want to do that management, and I don't see that that boarding house needs to be a distinct use. and I certainly don't think that, or if it is a distinct use, then we. We certainly need a clearer definition. The current definition just doesn't work. And finally, I agree with Ml's concerns about changing the energy code for attached adus. I'm you know. I'm not an architect and always an architect. and it seems like that is a pretty significant burden to impose on an attached a view of just a 1 portion of a potentially rather old house. And so I I definitely have concerns about that. Maybe this is one of the ones that Laura was thinking, should not be included. Yeah, in this, at the informed level.

[117:02] and if so, I would I would support Ex. I would support removing it from this particular code. Cleanup process. Thanks. Can I just respond real quick and say, Kurt, I did not have that on my list, but if you want to propose it. that would be your option. Great. Thank you. Okay, any other, any other comments before we move into more structured deliberation? Ml, thank you. So I'm going to be kind of in the same mindset as what Laura put out there, that the vast majority of these proposals, I think, fall under your intention to clean things up and make things clearer, and maybe bring them back into their original spirit. So thank you so much for the work. I can't.

[118:04] I don't know how many hours goes into these kinds of things, but it's not lost on me. I engage the code often, and it it is a very complex document. So thank you for your work. I think that there are some items that are not falling under, you know, just code cleanup that would require a bigger process and more public involvement. So I will be bringing those onto the table and I'm in in. Thank you, Kurt, for reminding that that adu piece. I think I don't think it's a small deal. So that would be something that I would bring up. I'm also concerned about the kind of de-emphasizing the capacity of the area plans

[119:01] and especially given that we've got East boulder sub community plan. Just kind of leaving the gate in in reconfiguring what East Boulder is going to become So yeah, I I'm hoping that we can get the vast majority of what is proposed with this ordinance in under code cleanup, and then maybe pull out some items that have to do with a bigger process. But just I appreciate the work that's gone into this. Okay? Any other comments, George. Yeah, I'll just comment quickly. I don't want to cover territory that has already been covered, because I agree with most of what's been said. The one thing I will say is that the the concept of community benefit relative to the hospital is is a very interesting one, because it's a euphemism that we've adopted. Right community benefit has a defined parameters as what it is. A hospital or or medical offices is not community benefit under what was

[120:15] what's the trade-off? Right? The trade-off is height for essentially affordable housing. And so a hospital, as defined, is not a community benefit. We may think it is a community benefit. But it's not as it's defined. So I just don't want us to confuse that, because I do think it's again. It's it's 1 of those things. That's kind of outside of code cleanup. I don't have a specific, necessarily a specific view on it, but but it's 1 of those things that I want to clarify, because that's not my understanding, as it relates to when we refer to community benefit. Certainly medical offices and hospitals are not defined in that as something that we would do as a community. So anyways, just putting that out, there.

[121:02] Thanks. George Mason. Just a quick call colloquy on that. I was a little surprised by that distinction as well, both for the reasons that George so eloquently just put out there, but also hospitals or businesses as well. Businesses provide community benefit on their own rights a large variety of them. I mean you could say restaurants provide a community benefit? So I would like to understand that a little bit more. I probably should. Sorry. I'm not fully a hundred percent. Probably should ask some questions around that. but it feels it feels a little weird to me. Frankly, without understanding the relationship a little bit better. Hmm! Excuse me, thank you, Mason, so I'll simply say, if any board member has concerns about this.

[122:04] Now is the time to put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard and draft anything that you might want to include as a subsidiary motion in advice to counsel, or as an amendment to the main motion. So be thinking about that. And now we're going to move into the structured form of our deliberation, and I'm going to take a bit of prerogative as chair and say and repeat what I urged in my email earlier today. But I'm going to preface it by saying we operate under a set of rules. The set of rules has different paths to go down for us to offer our advice to council. We have done an initial round of feedback to staff.

[123:05] We can, because this is not a site review. This is an ordinance. We can do what we did last week, late into the night, which is, adopt an ordinance, and then offer additional advice in the form of additional motions. Each one of those would get deliberated and voted on and recorded the alternative path, and this is one that is equally valid. It is a little more structurally complex, is to begin with the main motion, and then offer amendments to the main motion. And, as Laura pointed out, I think in her email that structure may work better

[124:00] for you if you feel so strongly that you could not vote for the main motion if your amendment to the main motion was not adopted. That is a completely valid argument and way to feel it is also presents a a greater structural challenge to the deliberations. And it then potentially puts us in a situation where we don't adopt a. We don't advise Council to adopt an ordinance, or we don't have the 4 number to adopt our advice to council. So, having said all of that, we are now into motion, making territory, and the chair would entertain a motion.

[125:08] I'll make a motion. Okay. Could we get the suggested motion language on the screen. Please. Jeff, I can just go ahead and pull that up as well, since I'll likely be making some some amendments, I have it copied into a word, Doc. All right, I'm going to read from what's in the memo and hope that it's the same, because I can focus on that better. I move that Planning board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance, 8, 6, 9, 7, amending title, 4, licenses and permits title 9, land use, code and title, 10 structures, Brc. 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain state regulations and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design

[126:21] and in certain locations and setting forth related details. I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second, and it is typical for the motion maker to now would be the time that if you want to speak to the motion, this is your moment. So I will just say that I am largely comfortable recommending this update as written by Staff, and I am planning on saving comments for a few key issues, where I anticipate motions and amendments by my colleagues.

[127:05] As second, I'll simply say that as as I read through this, I think on whole. on balance. This is these are excellent changes and updates, and I support it as as as move now. So I do have a few amendments. I would like to offer. If now is the time for that, unless people want to have more conversation before looking at amendments to this main motion. if you want to amend the main motion and not make additional motions. Then now is the time. Okay, I do think that there are a few things that that should be amended as a package rather than just sort of a separate suggestion to convey kind of the strength of how some of us feel about some of these changes.

[128:00] so I'll start with one that I think is maybe a little bit easier. So let's start with the the ground level courtyard. And and again. My intent here is to try to find a middle path forward, that that does clarify things in a way that I don't think changes the code requirement. because I think that changing the code requirement substantively that would result in substantively different building designs does not deserve to be packaged with a minor code cleanup package. So what I would propose is, I move. So I move to amend the ordinance to edit section. Maybe I should send this to Thomas. I will send this to Thomas so that it shows up on the screen as I'm reading it. Sorry, hey, Thomas? So for ease, for your ease of display and formatting and everything. Is it better to send it to you as an email in the Zoom chat? What works for you?

[129:03] I know the last week we had a, we had formatting issues, and we ended up doing a lot of typing. I think the Zoom chat should work fine unless it's something that's okay, maybe if there's listing and indenting, you know, then maybe an email feel free to logistically say, gee, can I get this this other way? So Laura has put that into the chat. Okay, so I'll just explain what it is before I read it. So I appreciated in Staff's footnote that they wanted to convey that it should be close to grade level, but doesn't have to be exactly on grade level. And I'm so actually, I would. My preference would be that you make your motion. See? If we get a second. Okay? And then and then deliberate and discuss. Okay, but I'm trying to tweak the language slightly to conform to Staff's intent in a way that I'm comfortable with. Okay.

[130:02] so move to amend the ordinance to edit section 9, 2, 14 h. 4, capital. B. Roman numeral, one lowercase b. 4. Roman numeral one to include, quote an inviting outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard, is provided at or close to grade level. That's instead of saying in the following section, and is not elevated above the building's 1st story, so and strike and not, is, and is not elevated above the building's 1st story from Roman Numeral 7 in the same section. Hopefully, that's sufficiently clear. I think Staff can find it. So you're suggesting the language that's in quotes as alternative as an alternative to what Staff has proposed in this section. Yes, so, Staff, I don't know if we can see what staff proposed, but they proposed striking grade level from an inviting grade, level garden or landscape courtyard

[131:13] is provided. I'm okay with striking grade level. If we say at or close to grade level, which is, I think, is the intent here from what Carl described. and that to me avoids the problem with saying, and is not elevated above the building's 1st story, because that could be 15 feet in the air, depending on how tall that story is. There is language later on that talks about it being visible from an outdoor space. But, as Ml. Pointed out. you know, that's that's problematic, too, like visible to whom? Visible to a 6 foot tall man visible to a child visible to a wheelchair user. I mean, it depends on the location of the person standing. It just seems more problematic than saying at or close to grade level, which seems to be, you're seeking advice on what you're saying here, or are you ready? I think at this point. I think I am making it as a motion, and I'm looking for a second.

[132:08] I'll second it. One second we have twins. That was George. Okay, all right, we have a motion and a second. So the language is now as you have proposed. and now would be the time as a motion maker to speak to your motion. Thank you, I apologize. I think I took the liberty of kind of speaking to this already, but to me this, this keeps Staff's intent without introducing what I think are some new problems with talking about it being elevated above the building's 1st story. I do think that the intention of this courtyard provision was not just to provide a green space amenity to the users of the site, but also to break up the massing and provide relief to density for people looking at the project, I think if we made the change the way that Staff had proposed it. It opens the door to a lot of elevated courtyards that could be as high as 15 feet in order to accommodate other nice uses.

[133:14] and maybe and maybe we want to consider having elevated courtyards above parking garages. For example, I don't know why that example occurs to me having that qualify here. But I think that rises beyond a minor code cleanup. This, to me, feels like a code cleanup changing it to have those courtyards be substantially elevated does not feel like a code cleanup. Okay. Other comment. There was a question earlier about the intent in the code and requiring these courtyards. And you know you noted that model of the alcove on at Spruce on West Pearl, but then also noted that this requirement migrated into the Site Review criteria as a way of breaking up massing of a taller building.

[134:06] So I think we should be focused here on how these spaces are used to provide that relief from massing. I think the grade of the spaces does matter. They should not be on the roof, for example, but that ground level is not a make or break requirement if public access is not the goal. And I think we've established that public access is not the goal, and it cannot be the goal of these spaces. We saw very clearly in the recent Site Review on 30th Street that, elevating a courtyard can help to move less desirable uses, namely, parking below grade or below the grade at which a building presents. And I believe we have seen this phenomena in several concept reviews as well recently, and I honestly think that this alone is enough reason to support this change. Surface parking is one of the most problematic land uses when we are trying to create livable environments. That's ostensibly what these requirements for additional height are meant to accomplish.

[135:02] So any flexibility that we can give to get uses like that under something useful is a good step. But I also support this code. Change Staff's recommendation, not the amendment, but Staff's recommendation, because it recognizes that there are really many ways to create high quality, shared open spaces in residential projects, and that ground level may not always be the best design choice for residents or other users, users of a space in a particular context. So having that menu of guidelines that I see staff trying to migrate the code towards rather than any than a singular criteria, I think, allows for more site adapted designs, and I would like to see more of those in front of us. So I do support Staff's recommendation here. Not this amendment. Other comment. Ml, so I'd I'd like to point out that. This is talking about

[136:05] space that is joining to a public sidewalk. So this is contributing to a building's presence at the community scale, which I think is something that has eroded a bit. As our projects have become taller and denser, the experience of the person walking or riding, their bike, ambulating next to and adjacent to and toward and by and beyond the site is, is there aren't many criterias that begin to speak specifically to how the building creates a relationship, an intentional relationship beyond its own boundaries in its own population. So I am supporting this for that reason that it's 1 of the few tools we have that

[137:07] begins to address the fact that. you know buildings are part of a city in a bigger context, and especially in this case adjoining to a public sidewalk. I think these amenities help contribute to the livability of our environment? Need to. Sorry I'm going to open up my zoom. I don't see any hands on zoom so I'll oh, George, go ahead! Yeah, I'll just put out there. I think a great example of something like this most recently is, and I don't know if it falls into this criteria, but it's another. It's a much larger scale than the spruce confection thing is the Moxie Hotel and the relationship between their ground level courtyard and how it interplays with the city streets. And it's it's just kind of reinforcing what

[138:04] what Ml. Said in that. And and that's 1 of the reasons why I'm supporting this amendment. Not necessarily that particular project, but those ideas make a lot of sense to me, and keeping the scale of the city appropriate for human beings that are pedestrians walking along the streets. That's it. Okay, thank you. seeing no other raised hands, I'm going to comment. And I I like Claudia, will not be supporting this amendment. And I concur with all of her comments, and I'll simply add that by we I am all for the elimination of parking minimums. But we have taken a a whole series of tools out of our tool chest to be able to address project design.

[139:02] and and as we encourage more functional usable open spaces for the residents of the project, and I think that the clarification we had earlier that open space for residents of a project is not to be confused with public open space, and just like I have a backyard. I'm a really lucky guy. I have a nice backyard. It's my backyard, and I invite people into it. I have guests there. It is not public open space, and to create the expectation of public open space for multifamily residents that somehow their their amenities, their open spaces must be accessible

[140:01] to the general public in the way we think of of easements and and public access. I think, denigrates those spaces for those residents. And and so I think that's problematic. I think also, as we away from surface parking. and and what we have less ability to affect in project design. What type of parking a developer brings to the table? Because we've eliminated parking minimums, and we no longer have parking reductions. And these sorts of things we are going to see more call it stilt parking. Call it podium parking. We are going to see a wider variety of parking that is not subsurface, but is not surface, and makes better use of that space. And I think we've seen that at a number of projects recently, and I think if it's done right, it can be done really well, and it doesn't have to present as a building on stilts. And I think 3 11. Mapleton is a great example

[141:12] of that kind of design, and I would encourage all of us to go walk around there because there is very slightly submerged parking that integrates with the facade of the building. feels like the building is well designed, feels like a great pedestrian space, and it's actually podium or stilt parking just with a nice facade on it. So anyway, I think for those reasons, I think Staff's language is the appropriate language in this case to give us greater flexibility, and to reduce the emphasis on surface parking and allow for a wider variety, because we're going to have parking. So let's let's make the open spaces above it, more usable

[142:02] for the residents. And that's that's my emphasis. Okay? Any other comments, a couple comments, and one question to Staff. I want to ask, Staff, how do you interpret? Is not elevated above the building's 1st story? Could something be on the roof of a parking garage and be not above the building's 1st story. Yes, or could it be so? For example, there's most of the building has a 15 foot 1st floor height. but a section of it is brought down to 10 feet, and the courtyard is on top of that. But it's not a parking garage under it, it's something else. Would that be elevated above the building's 1st story at 10 feet. Sure, let's say, 10 feet or 12 feet, but most of the building is higher than that, and beneath. It is not parking structure, not parking. Let's say that it's a slightly sub slightly lowered down commercial space or a restaurant space.

[143:18] I mean, I think our thinking was that as long as it was accessible from the street and not above the height of the 1st floor. you you could get a design that can work. And and just to, you know also, this is just a factor for qualifying for this type of courtyard space. There's also the other Site review criteria on open space that, you know can be used to assess the quality of that space as well. Right? But this is a this is a qualifying factor for getting additional height for your building is to have this kind of courtyard. So I guess I just want to point out that nothing in this speaks to public access in terms of you have to have a public access easement, or the public has to be allowed on it. 24, 7. So I don't know where you're coming from. With that mark I want to respect where you're coming from, but I just want to point out that this doesn't

[144:09] equate to that, and also that there's nothing that specifies that if the courtyard is elevated, that what's underneath it is going to be a parking garage that is a design that we have seen lately, but I see Charles nodding. It could be anything as long as it is lower than the building's 1st story. Most likely it would be a parking garage, but it could be anything. So I'll just reiterate again that you know I'm trying to meet Staff's intent that it is at or close to grade level. But and I think that if you elevate it substantially, that's a substantial code change that doesn't belong in a minor minor code change cleanup package. But I respect. We may have different opinions about that. Okay, any other comments. If not, we're going to close the debate, and we'll vote on this.

[145:00] So last call, okay, we are. Laura. I'm going to read the amendment. A motion to amend the ordinance to edit section 9. Dash 2, dash 14 little H. 4 B. IB. For I to include an inviting outdoor that the wording would be quote, and an inviting outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard is provided comma at or close to grade, level end, quote and strike. You shouldn't have a quote there, I don't believe. Oh, I'm see and strike quote and is not elevated above the building's 1st story end. Quote from Section small Roman numeral 7 in the same section. Okay, Ml, I'm going to start

[146:01] with you and your online people go ahead and unmute and get ready. Okay? Ml, yes, I support this Claudia. No, Laura. Yes, George. Yes. Kurt. Yes. And I'm a no. Okay. I mean yes. I'm sorry, Mason. Yes. Okay? All right. Okay, that is a 5, 2 vote to on that amendment. Okay? Who's got and who's got another amendment? I have another one unless someone else wants to jump in. I don't want to monopolize. I'm not seeing anyone. Okay, let's let's take the hard one while while we're still fresh, or at least reasonably fresh. Okay?

[147:02] I'll just preface by saying again, this is meant to keep it in the realm of a minor amendment and respect where staff is coming from. I move to amend the ordinance. Oh, let me send this to Thomas. Okay, I'm sorry I have to make a slight tweak here, because my bolding is not coming through. Mark, do you want me to go ahead and read it, or wait for Thomas to catch up. No, I I think there. Well, there it is. Okay. Okay.

[148:03] I move to amend the ordinance to read subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines. If the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable site. Specific guidance, such as a transportation network plan, place, type, character, district area development, guidelines or similar. The project is generally consistent with overarching plan goals, policies, or guidelines that apply to all sites covered by the applicable plan. and I can speak to why or we can look for a second. What's The goal here is to differentiate between things in the area plan that are site, specific guidance and things that are general, overarching policy plans, goals, intents, things like that.

[149:04] And this is in response to. I want to respect Staff's comment that you know an individual project in a sub community plan or an area plan cannot bear the weight of achieving every single goal in that subcommunity plan. Some of the goals and policies in the plan are pretty broad and are meant to apply on a whole sub community plan, level and be achieved and implemented on a whole sub community plan level. Other things in the plan are very specifically site specific, like the place types in the East Boulder said community plan or the character districts in Tvap or a transportation network plan. And very, they're very deliberately specific to what's on the ground in that sub area. And so I'm trying to make the distinction to say, of course. every project you can't. You can't achieve every policy on the back of a single project. But the project should be consistent with that specific land. Use guidance in the plan.

[150:02] Okay, I'm going to stop the advocacy and search for a second. I'll second, I'll second that. Okay. Now we have a motion and a second Laura. Is there any additional comment you want to make as motion maker in addition to what you just said. Yes, please. So you know, my assumption is that tonight is not the time or place to debate whether we should have area plans or if area plans should age out. The fact is that we have area plans and we have regulatory code sections that are intended to help implement those plans. And one of those regulatory code sections that implements. Our plan is in our site review guidance, which is what we're looking at tonight. And I appreciated Brad's comment that the city does intend to keep doing these plans and keep updating them. So the wording change that Staff has proposed tonight by saying the project only has to be generally consistent with the area plan as a whole, I think, weakens everything in the area plan.

[151:05] because general consistency is a wide open door. We see that with the Bvcp. The on balance, finding that it's almost impossible to rule that a project is not generally consistent or on balance consistent as long as it meets something in the plan. Right? So I'm trying again to find this middle ground and and say, staff has a great valid point, which is, that, as I said before, one project cannot meet every single goal and policy. But I do think that you know my experience with the East Boulderside Community plan was that we did expect that the plan's guidance would get implemented into policy and zoning and regulations, and that it would become the vision would become the pathway for the evolution of the plan or the evolution of the area as properties redeveloped, and the tool for doing that is through site, review and form-based code and form-based code does include some very specific things in the different place types to try to implement that land, use guidance. And I think that Site Review should do the same thing. And I will just point out some existing language

[152:08] in the Bvcp. And in other area plans. That, I think, supports the idea that some things are meant to be not just general consistency, but consistency. So the Bbcp says, on page 21, subcommunity and area planning bridges. The gap between the broad policies of the comprehensive plan and Site Specific Project review, and in parentheses it says, development applications or city capital projects very clear in the Bvcp. This is meant to apply to development applications, and on page 1 17. It says, the subcommunity and area planning process includes establishing a planning framework in which to review public projects, land use changes and development proposals. And it specifically says, this is a direct quote to implement or ensure compliance with the plan, not general consistency, but compliance with the plan that's in the Bvcp.

[153:04] In the Transit village area. Plan. It says, on page 7, the guidelines for character districts and streetscapes will be used in the site review process to help determine whether a project meets the Site Review. Criteria not generally meets it. but those things will be used to determine whether it meets the criteria. and in the North Boulder subcommunity plan. On page 3, our oldest subcommunity plan in Boulder, it says, North Boulder projects going through site or use review are subject to conformance with the North Boulder subcommunity plan, not general consistency conformance. So I don't think it's too much to say that if there is site specific guidance in the plan. A project should be consistent with the site specific guidance. So that's where I'm coming from. Maybe we want to change that. Maybe we don't like that, and we think it's too restrictive. But I would not say that that is a minor code cleanup.

[154:02] If I could ask a point of clarification. If this were to move forward. Is this change intended to apply to both the form-based code and Site review sections? No, just the Site Review section, the form-based code, I think, already has its own internal logic and consistency that, I think, does implement the area plans. So I'd say, just the site review process. And Mel, I'd like to speak to. I'd like to speak to this as well, and not to overlap with what Laura is saying. I will point out that you know the the A couple of projects came to us, and there was. It was unclear as to the role that the area plans were playing. So we have since gotten direction on how to understand better understand and better utilize the area plans. And

[155:05] so area plans are planning directives directives for geographically specific areas. So they're not intended to be big, broad zoning. Zoning considerations. They're they're about specificity in a particular geography trying to create an outcome, an intentional outcome. So area plans have specific bits and pieces. And I think the interpretation is that when there are specific pieces that reasonable expectations can result from that. Those are the the items that I think are being cited in this amendment that the specificity remains. But it's the general. The more broad and general items of a area plan that don't need to to be waited

[156:08] on a site by site basis, but they can be across the board and use language such as generally compliant. So this is to differentiate that there are some things because of the nature of an area plan that it's intended to be specific. It's intended to speak to a geography. It's intended to lead to an outcome to an intentional community plan for an area. There are specifics to it. And and I think that this is trying to acknowledge that those specifics should carry the weight of the their intention. I will also point out that area plans are one area are one opportunity for the citizens of Boulder, the residents of Boulder to weigh in on what our city is going to look like. And so there's a lot of expectation when an area plan, excuse me, is developed and approved

[157:08] that they are going to lead to a particular kind of an outcome and a particular kind of a neighborhood in a particular kind of an area, a particular kind of quality. And I think that that public participation and public engagement is an important component of an area plan. And thusly, this to me, becomes important to be an amendment rather than a recommendation. At the end it it it's bigger than just a code change. Okay, Laura, go ahead. Sorry. Just 2 quick things that I forgot to say. One is that you know there are things in these area plans that everybody on this board wants, like, you know, the whole purpose of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan. One of the main things we wanted was to get more housing in an area that's very industrial and things like transit oriented development, that if we just say general consistency, that that door is wide open, that if the Council composition changes, if this board composition changes.

[158:14] that will be in the code, that all that is required is general consistency and not any kind of site. Specific thing. you know. Buyer, beware. And then the second thing I wanted to say I have forgotten. So we'll move on. Okay, any anyone online, Mason, your your hand has gone up and down. So we're going to go past unless you raise it again. Any other comments? Oh, Mason's got his! Don't worry. There you go. Been very indecisive this meeting. Sorry about that. So just one point that might be a little more crass like. I agree with everything that Laura and Mel said, here, I feel like that. That change the change that Staff has has put forward to us is is seemingly small, but it's actually large. I would actually feel more comfortable if we just remove that, and had this discussion

[159:15] on a larger level rather than moving this through in in this way. Just so. We make sure that you know city Council and every the planning board everyone is is aligned. But with that being said just to tag on to what Ml. And Laura spoke to again, I agree. One additional, maybe more crass point is that has been described Bbcp underneath Bbcp's area plans. And then the the use maps and zoning form based. Code falls out from there right? And it's supposed to be more specific going down, more enforceable going down that pyramid if you will. And so I agree that area plans are meant to have more enforcement of of sorts than the Bbcp. Which makes sense. They're meant to take

[160:13] more resources, have more. And they do. And if they're gonna have that level of resources, I mean, East Boulder was what 2, 3 years 70 plus community meetings, however, many hours of of staff time. If we're gonna put that level of effort behind these different plans which I think we should. We get good things from it. Then there has to be some kind of Whoa deeper level of enforceability than just general in my mind. And that's that's all I have to say. Thank you, Mason. Claudia, do you have any comments? I do, if you're ready for them? Yep.

[161:02] So I think Staff got the language correct on this. I think they are proposing an update to language that we need sooner rather than later. I would like to see it addressed in this update. I think, 1st of all, that language of just inserting that word generally supports what I understand was the city attorney's guidance shared at our retreat. That area plans are drafted to be advisory, and that is, they are drafted differently from our land use code. and if we are drafting area plans to be interpreted as specifically as our land use code, then I think we should be drafting both their provisions and the amendment processes to them differently in ways that makes their rigidity crystal clear, and I expect if we did that we would be approving them in very different forms. So I think that adding the word generally to this section of the code is also a practical response to a problem that I've noted in multiple reviews that we've done in the year that I've been here involving area plans. And that is the problem of how plans age

[162:00] area plans represent a vision at a specific moment. In time it is hopefully the best vision that we have based on current knowledge, practice, and community sentiment. But as we move on from that moment in time, baseline conditions, best practice and community priorities can and do change. And I think we also have to recognize that we work as a planning board, as a planning department in a private land market. where city government and regulatory bodies such as ours, have very little control over what parcels come forward for development and redevelopment. So the plants that we currently have do not have sunset dates. They do not contain any guidance about how to interpret them in contexts that may be wildly different from the contexts in which they were produced. And we also know that, despite intentions, the city does not have the resources to make regular updates to our area plans on a timeline, on a timeline that would track with changing contexts. So I know that my colleague Laura, approaches this issue from the perspective of the East Boulder sub community plan. That is our most recent

[163:04] and arguably our most ambitious plan. And so arguments about aging that I'm making might feel premature or even adversarial, to a fresh plan like that. I come at this from the other end of the spectrum, from considering the North Boulder subcommunity plan, which is one of our oldest efforts. It's created a lot of good outcomes, but also some that are suboptimal because things have changed. And that's a plan that has also required significant amendments to facilitate what we now consider community supported changes. I think that planning in our political and economic system requires that we exercise judgment. and I also think that we have neither the tools nor the the vision, nor the tools to get good outcomes. When we describe specific outcomes in large scale and long-term planning documents. So I think what we need in these conditions are plans that provide frameworks that distill values and that put up some guardrails, and I think that's where Staff's proposal is moving us in this case. So thank you for that.

[164:06] Thank you, Claudia. I see George has his hand up. Yeah, thank you. I'll make mine. Brief. I support wholeheartedly what Laura, Ml. And Mason spoke about having been involved at a community level in 2 area plans. Process. I. There, there is a. There is a tremendous amount of resources spent on the community. The community is spending a tremendous amount of their time involved in this. And I think when changes are made to area plans, or if significant changes aren't needed, as could be interpreted when using the word generally here that the community should be involved. And if a plan is viewed as aged.

[165:06] the right thing to do is to involve the community and make an amendment to the plan if we are committed to area plans. I believe that is the correct process. But to Mason's point I think the the issue here is that a number of us feel like this is a very significant issue and not just code cleanup. And the way this is positioned, does not feel comfortable, and is not written in a way that I could support it as Staff has presented it, and and I think Laura is trying to thread the needle in in creating a balance of of what Staff wants and needs. And also respecting that that, you know, we need to really focus on this as a as a code cleanup, or this needs to be a much broader conversation, in which, quite frankly, I think the community would need to be involved because we've spent millions of dollars on each of these area plans as a city, and to have.

[166:13] you know, essentially the the whatever elected leaders to. To Laura's point to buyer. Beware right. The elected leaders can change. The planning board can change, things can sway, and I don't want to repeat everything that's been said, but that's in general my thought process in supporting this. Thank you. George Kurt has his hand up. Yeah, thank you to all my colleagues for your incredibly articulate statements about this. I think it is an important issue. I agree with George, that the fundamental problem it feels like is that our our processes are too slow. They can't respond in a timely manner to changes in

[167:02] the surrounding environment, whether it be financial or material in some way. And so that is really what we're trying to deal with here. I will not be supporting this amendment. I feel like it is, it is trying to to to change what our. I believe our current practice has been without due consideration. I would support. I'm okay with the the proposed change to the code from staff, but I would also support eliminating that change and deferring that as to be part of a a longer and more in depth process which I feel like we need. Anyhow, you know, we've been talking about this for a while. We talked about it in meetings and in retreat, and we really need to grapple with it on a more fundamental level about what the the relationship is between

[168:08] area plans in the code, and I'm not comfortable with trying to make that the distinction right now in a in a fairly detailed way, as Laura is trying to do, although I appreciate her input I don't feel that it's appropriate to do it sort of on the fly. At at this point, not to diminish the thought that she has put into it. But we need further input. If in in deliberation, if we're going to make that kind of a fine distinction in how we handle these area plans. Okay, thank you. Kurt. Okay, I'm going to call him myself. My view of this is a no, and rather than a yes, and it's no, and that that. And again I concur with Kurt.

[169:05] I concur with Kurt and Claudia. But Kurt specifically as far as the thought behind this, that and the careful wording that has gone into this motion, however, we are. This is referring to a quasi judicial process. We are a quasi judicial body, and as sec. As such it is our judgment. We exercise judgment in regard to the application of the Site review process of how area plans affect these things. How a project comports with the Bbcp. All of these things require our judgment, and yes, councils change, planning boards change, and and that is part of the risk, and also part of the responsibility of

[170:06] we cannot define and enumerate every characteristic, and the plans that are being referred to here have a depth of subjectivity to them that again requires judgment. So just if we, if we struck the word generally and and stayed with the word consistent, we still have. The subjectivity goes back one or 2 levels deep into the plan. So I think that as we have, as we use the term on balance. I think that the word generally is appropriate, and and is necessary for us to continue to judge. to judge projects under our current quasi-judicial process. So I'm advocating that we accept Staff's use of generally. The and portion of my request is that in our many, many month long Bvcp process, I think this is a topic

[171:17] that can be addressed in how area plans and sub community plans relate. Relate to the Bvcp. How we apply the Bvcp and area plans in a quasi-judicial process. But in in my judgment, we are required to use our judgment and interpretation. As all judges are. so I will not be supporting the amendment, and I hope that that if pass or fail, that this prompts a again, a more in-depth discussion of how we relate and judge area plans and our overarching Bbcp.

[172:04] So any any other final comments? If not, we're going to vote on the amendment, which is. and an amendment to the ordinance to read, quote, subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines. then the ordinance reads, okay, Colon. If the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines. The project is consistent with the applicable site-specific guidance, such as a transportation network plan, place, type, character, district area development guidelines or similar. The project is generally consistent with overarching plan goals, policies, or guidelines that apply to all sites covered by the applicable plan.

[173:03] That's the that's the motion. And Ml, I'm going to start down with you. Yes, Claudia, no, Laura. Yes, Kurt. No. George. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a no, okay, it is adopted. I would just like to note that I very much appreciate where Kurt is coming from, that this may need to get reconsidered at a broader level, and this is the Recommendation City Council, which they may or may not accept. But I would like to underline. I also think that this deserves more conversation and more consideration about how we apply area plans. Okay, I have one more. Okay. and I will send it to to Thomas, and this

[174:03] actually speaks to Carl's previous question about was the previous one intended to apply to form-based code. and the answer to that was, no, but I have a second one that does address form-based code. and forgive me. This may not be worded especially elegantly.

[175:05] and I think I need to put in the precise code section because it's not clear right now. so this is intended to apply to a form-based code section that is specifically about making exceptions to the form-based code. Right? It's not saying that every form-based code project has to do this, but if you are making an exception to the form-based code, the project would need it currently, the way staff has it. it says the proposed exception is generally consistent with the goals and intents of the adopted subcommunity or area plan. They just added that word generally. There's already language in the code that says that exceptions have to be consistent with the subcommunity or area plan, and instead of adding the word generally, I just want to make it mirror. The previous section

[176:03] is that is that clear like this is about the process of making exceptions to the form-based code. and instead of saying, exceptions have to be generally consistent, which is what Staff have proposed. I'm just proposing the same language all over again to say exceptions to form-based code have to be consistent with applicable site-specific guidance, such as a transportation network, plan, place, type, character district or area development guidelines are similar, and then the project is generally consistent with overarching plan goals, policies, or guidelines that apply I before we get to a second. And I, do you want to modify your yeah. I should modify motion to amend, strike the ordinance regarding yeah, it just should just say, motion to amend the ordinance. Yeah. Motion to amend the ordinance

[177:03] regarding 9 dash, 2, dash, 16 form-based code exceptions. Could you please add the word exceptions, Thomas, after form-based code. form-based code exceptions to make the section consistent with the previous change. So this is not trying to modify the entire body of form-based code, which is its own thing. It's just form-based code already says that if you're making an exception, it has to be consistent with a subcommunity or area plan. Staff proposed making that generally consistent. I'm proposing using the same language here. Would you? Go ahead and make that motion? See if we get a second and then we can, then you can speak to it. Okay, motion to amend the ordinance regarding 9, 2, 16 form based code exceptions. And actually, I don't think that should be a capital E

[178:03] should just be a lowercase. E. Please, Thomas, to make the section consistent with the previous change quote, the project is consistent with the applicable site. Specific guidance, such as transportation, network, plan, place, type, character, district area development, guidelines or similar. The project is generally consistent with the overarching plan goals, policies, or guidelines that apply to all sites covered by the applicable plan. So I'm looking for a second. No, I'll second. Okay. we have a motion. And a second, Laura, do you have additional comments? Yeah, I just, I'm just trying to close a potential loophole here. Right? Because currently, if you are a property owner in an area covered by an area plan or a subcommunity plan, and you want to go outside of your zoning, your, you know your buy right zoning. You have 2 options.

[179:03] If form-based code exists, you can go through form-based code, and if if not, you can do a Site Review amendment if your property is eligible for site review. And so this is just trying to make it so that there's not a loophole where somebody who wants to ignore their sub community plan can just go through form-based code and get an exception right? Because right now, the way that form-based code is written. It does require consistency with the area plan. Right? That's already in there. That's not something I'm proposing that's in there. Staff have the one change that staff is proposing here is to say, generally consistent rather than consistent. So again, I'm just trying to make the existing process mirror the language change that we just did. Okay? Deliberation comment. Kurt. Okay my feelings are similar on this one as with the previous one. But actually, I'm I guess, more strongly opposed to this one, because the form is code is meant to be very, you know.

[180:12] strict and and particular about how a particular a building is to be designed, how a site is to be designed, and so on. And so, in my. in my judgment, it quite. It largely supersedes the area plan in an intentional kind of way. And yeah, there's the existing consistency language. But I think that more so than Site Review, it is really intended to be a a pretty comprehensive set of rules about and and and and self-consistent set of rules about how a project should be built. And so I definitely do not think this is appropriate in this case.

[181:02] Can I just respond to that, Kurt? And I just want to. Maybe you're already fully aware of this, but I just want to make sure that it's clear that this is about the process of making exceptions to the form-based code. And in East Boulder, for example, or in Alpine balsam, the form-based code is intended to implement the area plan like they were designed to do that right. So this is someone who's trying to get an exception to that careful set of rules in form-based code, and I just don't. I just want to make sure it's not a giant loophole. Additional comment. Oh, go ahead, Kurt, you can you feel free to? Sorry. I just wanted to say, Yeah, I understand. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Okay. Other comment. I'm looking right, left and online. I'll just simply say, like Kurt, I feel the same about this as the prior amendment, no sense in rehashing it. But I do agree with Kurt that it that

[182:03] the applicability given what we try to accomplish in form-based code. The use of the term generally is, is even more applicable in the form-based code in exceptions as noted then even in Site review. So I won't be supporting this any other comment. Okay, we're going to go in the same order again. Ml, yes, Claudia, no, Laura. Yes, Kurt. No. George. Yes. And Mason. Yes. Okay? And I'm a no. So this is also adopted. 4 to 3.

[183:01] Okay, anything else. Okay, ml, and this, this is kind of. I don't have a device to send you anything, but I think that this won't need me to send you language. This is talking about the appendix C energy, efficient requirement with existing residential rental structures, energy conservation. So I, and I would move to amend that we don't remove number 3, which is the attached accessory dwelling units as detailed in section 9. Dash 6, dash, 3 specific use standards. Residential uses. Brc, 1981. It's it's just it's a it's a. It's a motion to you. You move to amend, amend. The ordinance, the ordinance. Oh, there we go

[184:09] to amend the ordinance to strike, no, to retain. Oh, well, okay. To strike the proposed change or retain, retain the, to retain the original language, correct on, on appendix c. Energy, efficiency, requirement, existing residential rental structures, energy conservation. Okay. does anyone anyone have a packet page number, or a anything? Any? Oh, I any any help here I can. I can refer memo. Either one memo or the packet. Page number is 1, 49, and 1 50. So it's right at the end of the packet. That's the last one.

[185:08] Can you grab it out of the packet? Okay? And so, Thomas, just so for your clarification, that would be memo page number 1, 44 of 1, 45. Oh, actually, I'm sorry it would be Packet, one packet, not packet page. Excuse me. Memo. Page 145, 145. Ml, you. Emma. Look here, yes, what you're proposing is, they have struck this correct, and you would like to retain it. Okay, can I can. I make a language suggestion? Can we just cite the appendix C of the Ipmc.

[186:02] which is the International Property Maintenance code? And it's section C, 101 dot one scope number 3, number 3 retain that to retain. to retain to current. Item 3, can we? Yeah. Restate the complete language, please. Okay, Thomas, you would need to add scope. I think it would be best to have the complete amit proposed amendment stated on the record. Okay. do you have additional? I do so. It would be a motion to amend the ordinance to retain the original language, appendix c. Of the Ipmc. And then you would cite C. 101.1 scope number 3.

[187:12] I think that covers it. Charles, is that clear? You look confused. Should we say what it is we can say regarding an exception. for unless unless people, unless anyone online is not following along or not seeing what we're talking about in your packet. I would urge us to just stop there. I think the I respect that, and I also think that city council is going to see the motion language. And so I guess Staff will explain what it means. But nobody is going to understand that we're not going to understand that tomorrow. Okay, so then to retain.

[188:04] to retain the exception to retain the exception. Okay, yes. Detached accessory dwelling units as detailed in section 9, 6, 3. Specific use standards, residential uses. Brc. 1981. I think I can send that to you on Zoom Thomas. It's page 141 of 145. No, you'd want to grab that whole piece. It's it's 1. It's 1, 45 of 1, 45 is where item 3 is, I know. But I've I. Also. This is where it was in the in the well. No, that's in the memo. Oh, that's actually Page. Oh, because it was on the yeah, I just sent Thomas the exact language of section 9, 6, 3, specific use standards, residential uses.

[189:23] apologies. It's difficult to get to these other sections, while also screen sharing. So understood technical difficulties. Sorry, everybody. Yeah, that was a man who was having trouble screen sharing and editing. That's so. You're experiencing exactly what she was experiencing last week. only we had innumerable more emotions.

[190:17] That's that's super clear. If I may suggest one small change. Please to retain the smart Regs exception attached accessory dwelling units. Okay, I think this is And now we, since we've been crafting this, I would like you to remake the motion and read it as it's written. Now, please, I can do that. I move to amend the ordinance, to retain the original language

[191:03] on Appendix C. Of the Ipmc. C. 101 dot one scope number 3 to retain the smart regs. Exception of attached accessory dwelling units as detailed in section 9, 6, 3. Specific use standards. Residential uses. Brc, 1981. Okay, do we have a second? I'll second this. Okay. Ml, do you want to? speak to this, please. Yes, I essentially. It's what I said before that the vast majority of attached accessory dwelling units are within existing buildings, and these generally are not new buildings. They're in people's attics or basements, and I think this per. This would, excluding them

[192:11] from this requirement would put a hardship, an undue hardship on people who are trying to provide housing within their unused areas. So I am wanting us to go back to the way this ordinance originally read, which made exceptions for these kinds of situations. Okay, I'll just a second. I'll call myself and say that I am. I support smart regs. I so I support rigorous implementation of things like smart regs to keep us moving forward in our energy in the way we use energy and conserve energy.

[193:02] while I also agree with Ml. And, as Kurt said earlier, that This could be a real impediment to really achieving the easiest, lowest hanging fruit in making additional spaces, for whether it's an elderly parent, a college student for someone living alone in their house, whatever it might be, that we need to make sure that the barriers aren't too high for those kind of uses, so I'll be supporting it. Any other comments from anyone else. I don't see any hands up. Okay, Laura, I'm going to start with you. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt.

[194:01] Yes. George. You're on mute. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. Okay. And Mason. Yes. Okay? And I'm a yes, all right. Got a unanimous one there. Okay. Yeah. Okay. There you go, all right. Hearing no other motions I am, unless someone. Oh, George. George, you have your hand up. Sorry I just sent this to Thomas, and this is in regard to the hospital discussion. I I just don't feel comfortable with what's been put in there relative to to what I spoke to earlier. So I'm gonna make a a motion and what I what I sent to Thomas was as follow. And I sent it to an email, Thomas, just because I've got some connectivity issues. So

[195:05] that's why it took me a second to jump over and I can spell it out more, but I kind of put it in shorthand in there move to strike the addition of Ix. Under 9. Dash 2, dash 14. Site Review. And I can read. That's specifically addressing this sort of exemption for the hospital. So that's my motion. I can be more specific in it, but I wanted to get it out. There. Thank you, George. I'm going to. If anyone can give give us the packet page number, and then. Yeah, it's I've I've got it. It's well I've got it's 82 of 1, 45, which is the site review. It actually is 83 of 1, 45 is where the hospital language is, but it's all under 82 of 1, 45.

[196:01] Okay. And it's 88 of 1, 50. Oh, there you go. Okay. Okay. okay, I don't have a I here's, I'm just gonna this is a logistical question. I don't have a problem with the way this is worded a motion to remove the addition of Roman little Roman numeral 9 under 9 14. Site Review. It seems. Let's just say this. Let's just say we adopted that. We want to remove this addition. You guys in, you guys aren't going to bury this in your packet without any additional explanation, or do we need to make our motion

[197:06] clearer in terms of what? Exactly it is we're striking. I think we're clear on what is being proposed to be stricken. I think we're also clear on the viewpoints leading to that. Okay? I mean, so right, we don't. We don't need to elaborate on this in the motion, because it's going to council. That's your job. Kind of yes. Okay, all right. Okay, thank you. Then. So we have a motion, George, I'm going to count it as you have made this motion. And I'm going to second it. And now we will deliberate on this. George. You want to speak to it any. Yeah, I spoke to it a little bit earlier. Which is to say that similar. What I want to be cautious about exempting anyone or any use for community benefit. Across the city.

[198:14] I don't pretend to understand the economics of the hospital, but to Mason's Point it's a business like others, and I do think we need to be careful about that. We also need to not conflate what community benefit is, as it relates to how we speak about it when when it gets inserted, when people ask for bonuses, and a hospital certainly doesn't fall under that term. So without without a deeper dive into this specific issue. Again, I think this kind of goes beyond code cleanup to a very specific item that someone or some entity wants to get done within this document, and I just don't. I don't. I'm uncomfortable with it as code cleanup. And so that's why I'm making this motion.

[199:04] Okay. Other comment or deliberation on this and Claudia, can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. So if we accept this amendment? Or if we were to to approve. If this code were eventually to be approved with this amendment, taking this out, could those hospital and medical office uses still go to the 55 feet, they would just have to meet community benefit in order to do that, they would have to design a building with at least 4 stories and yes, community benefit would be required for that upper story. They've indicated to us that it's not in their design needs to go to 4 stories. So it creates a complexity for them. especially with the needs for the the height of the floors and understood. So yeah, it creates complexity. But there is potentially a pathway for them to still get that additional height.

[200:07] I mean they they may not be able to meet their needs with a 4 story building. That's that's what they've told us. I think either we might end up having to deal with this again in a future change, or we might be having to do some sort of special ordinance to to bring through with a project if they just can't make it work. Okay, no, I understand. Thank you. So I want to clarify. This is really interesting, because I generally support this. But that particular comment that it would force them. So you're saying you can't build a three-story building to 55 feet. Our code prohibits that there are. There are limited circumstances where you can do a building under 4 stories up to 55 feet. Part of it was intentional when we did this code change.

[201:03] I don't know when we did it. 2018, or something. We wanted to have a very specific dividing line between buildings that would require community benefit and ones that didn't. There was a little bit of an issue about. If a building comes in at 3 stories and goes to 55 feet, the proportion of that building above the 35 feet is a lot more than a typical 4 story building. So they get kind of penalized more or would have to do more community benefits. So I think when we talked to planning board and council. At that time it was decided to make the community benefits specifically for 4 and 5 story buildings. So it did make it more complicated for buildings to be 3 stories and go over the height limit. There was also intent to try to not have as many 3 story buildings that go over the height limit because of the proportions. And

[202:00] there was a whole discussion about this. It was intentional. But we do get a lot of requests for people that want to go to 55 feet with 3 story buildings. And we're like, No, you you got to either do a 4 story, or you got to meet one of the other criterion to do a hype. Modification. So can I make a comment on this? Because I think this is, it's super interesting, right? And I don't know how many of us know this or don't know this, but I don't think the answer is, if you go to 55 feet you don't contribute to community benefit, but I see there could be a potential need for 3 story buildings under certain circumstances, and it just doesn't feel like we may have properly addressed this. And so again, my goal in removing this is if the hospital wants to come with a proposal, and maybe we need to change some things in our community benefit to work through this. I mean. To me it seems like there might be a workable solution, but the solution is not to exempt them entirely or just ignore it because of their specific use. So that's why I'm making the amendment.

[203:16] Thanks, George. I think that was really helpful. It was helpful to hear Carl's explanation and your motivation. Additional comment or deliberation. Okay, I'm going back to. I'm sorry. That's okay. Yeah, just quickly. I I agree, there does seem to potentially be a problem here. But I feel that we're not addressing it in the right way. I actually don't see why we don't allow 3 story buildings at 55 feet. If that's the way somebody wants to build their building. I don't see that that should be a problem, but that's a separate discussion. But I feel like the way we're trying to address it here is not appropriate, so I will be supporting this.

[204:02] Okay, thank you, Kirk Kurt. Did you say will or won't will? Okay. I will be supporting the proposed amendment. Yes, okay, all right. Ml, yes, Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Kirk. Yes. Mason. Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a yes. Alright! Okay, okay, I I keep thinking we're done, and we keep coming up with good ones. So all right, are we done? Or does anyone have something? If if so, now's the time to raise your hand. So I have a couple of suggested changes, but I don't feel that they need to be amendments, so will there still be the opportunity to submit them afterwards as just suggestions.

[205:03] I think now, is it? Can you just verbally make these suggestions. Sure I can. I can. I have something ready to send. Thank you. I'm I'm sorry. Okay. Kurt. I've been reminded that we still have a main motion as amended on the floor. And so so let's let's yeah. Right after adoption of this, then we'll we'll have a last round of any additional comments. and that'll be primarily you. Thank you. Okay? All right. So now I'm going to go back. 2, the main motion. And we're going to. Just

[206:04] okay. I'm going to read the main motion, and then I'll be adding the words as amended by planning board below. To it. Okay. And so the main motion. And if Thomas, do you still have that available to scroll up to the main motion? Okay? And then what I'm going to suggest is after in in the last line after design and in certain locations before the semicolon comma, as amended

[207:04] by planning board below Semicolon and setting forth related detail. So I'm going to read that. and then we'll take a vote on that Planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance, 8,697 amending title, 4 licenses and permits title Ix. Land use code and title, 10 structures. Brc, 1981, related to development activities, to correct errors and omissions, update graphics and formatting clarify standards and procedures, create consistency with certain State regulations and remove certain development restrictions to allow flexibility in project design, and in certain locations, as amended by planning board below and setting forth related details.

[208:09] So we're going to vote on this, and I'm going to begin with. Ml. Again. Yes, Claudia, yes, Laura, yes, Kurt. Yes. George. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes, okay. that closes that out formally. And we're going to have a just one last pass with any additional comments that didn't rise to be part of the motion. So Kurt, take it away, and anyone else will also have an opportunity. Great. Thank you. I sent 2 suggested changes to Thomas, so maybe he can bring those up when he gets a chance. The 1st relates to the proposed restriction on conversion of a building to duplex in Rr. I think it's Rr. And Rl. One zones as proposed. This ordinance would add a restriction

[209:17] on that would prohibit properties that don't meet the setback standards from being converted to a duplex, and I'm proposing to eliminate that proposed additional restriction. In other words, I think to keep what the rules are currently that a building that does that does not meet the setback requirements currently would still be assuming it meets the other requirements, would still be eligible for conversion to duplex. Okay. Yep, Kurt. The question I'm having here is is this only for existing buildings?

[210:08] Well, that's a good question of building, is this. Carl, is this? 9, yeah. 93 is either conversion or construction of new. And the way Kurt is, is Kurt. Are you intending this to just be about existing buildings. But no, I am not. I'm intending it to apply to either case. So so yeah, conversion is probably the wrong term here allow. I guess. Allow a building that does yeah. Conversion or construction of a building that does not meet the setback standards to duplex. Yeah. I think that that works. Okay, you guys clear on his suggestion. Okay, all right.

[211:05] Next. Who sorry do do we want to handle these separately? Do we want to give a thumbs up. You? Are you making, are you? Oh, I'm sorry. Are you making a motion, or are you just commenting. I'm I was just commenting and hoping that we could get sort of a thumbs up or thumbs down from the board. Maybe that's not appropriate. Maybe we want. No, I we're straw polls are not against against the law. So. I'm trying. I'm trying to make it as efficient as possible. Yeah, no, no. And I'm I'm just trying to understand what it is. You're you're wanting to do. So. okay, so would you like a a super quick straw poll on this. I think that that would be great. If people would prefer a formal motion, then we can do that.

[212:06] I I don't think we prefer a formal motion. We can do a quick straw poll. So on this 1st item. just why don't you show your hand virtually, or in the room? If you support Kurtz. I'm sorry. Is this limited to just conversion, or is it still conversion or construction, I spaced out for a minute conversion or construction. Conversion or construction. Yeah, the intention was to change that conversion or construction. Kurt, why are you adding construction? Because I would imagine that a newly constructed building that's what the setback standards are for. Well, but you could get a setback variance right under construction of a new building. Say, you've got some weird lot, for example, and you need to get a setback variance. So you're building a new building. You get a setback variance, but you still want it to be a duplex. I think that that should be allowable.

[213:05] Okay. But this language doesn't specify that the construction of a new building could get a variance. I think a variance is just understood that that you can do that. and I feel like this says something more than that. I would I would I would support allow conversion of an existing building that does not meet the setback standards. I think that that makes a lot of sense, because the building's already there. If it's a newly constructed building, I think we already have procedures for that, that they either meet the standards or get a variance. I don't think we have to weigh in on that here. so if you limited it to just conversion, I would be a thumbs up as it is now I'm I have concerns. Okay again, there certain cases where you know, you've got a a strange lot, or some sort of topographic restriction or so on. And you really can't meet the setback standards right? And so that's what the variance, the setback variance processes for going through Bose or whatever. And so that that is an independent process from

[214:08] the con, the creation, or conversion to duplex, and I feel that the you should, as long as you can meet the standards, the requirements for a setback variance, then you shouldn't be restricted, whether it's new construction or a conversion, then you shouldn't be restricted from making it a duplex. And I'm sorry that I keep prolonging this, but I feel like the way this is written. It basically just eliminates setback standards for duplexes altogether. And so I don't think we need to mention construction of a building that could get a variance like that's already assumed. This just feels like it eliminates setback standards for duplexes. I concur, Laura, with your thought here and again.

[215:02] you know, the more you know it's like well, the more nuanced it is so, but the conversion process strikes me as a reasonable the con a conversion strikes me as a reasonable way to. since it's you're not building new. Anyway, I concur. So Okay? Well, I think I think conversion is the main. probably the main situation, anyhow. So we can. To move this along. Would you strike or construction? Sure. And we can straw poll it. Okay, okay. So those in favor of Kurt's suggestion reminder that they can't see. You reminder that they can't see you online. Okay, so we have 3 here, 4. Okay in the room. And

[216:01] Kurt is a Yes, and. Yeah, I'm in. I'm in favor. George and Mason on the app. Okay, all right, Kurt. Next. Great, and the next one relates to this definition of boarding house, which, again, is problematic, and I don't feel like I haven't really gotten an answer about why, a just an apartment, for example. It doesn't fit this definition of boarding house. I think it sounds like maybe there is one or 2 remaining, or one or 2 remaining boarding houses in the city. But I feel like we don't need to even have a separate use. Definition for those given that the occupancy limits have gone away. It seems like boarding houses these days are really just large dwellings. Large dwelling units where that are rented by the the

[217:02] by the bedroom, which lots of other dwelling units could be. Anyhow, I'm proposing just eliminating this as a use and and combining, you know, those with the existing rules for attached dwellings and detached dwellings and and rentals, and so on. Okay comment. I'll just comment to say I absolutely concur with Kurt that that definition seems very problematic and needs to be revisited. In my opinion I would not support this just because Staff have said that they need to retain that definition in some form in order to regulate boarding houses appropriately, for example, with regard to energy construction code kind of stuff. So I don't support eliminating it. But I do think it needs to be revisited. Okay, any other comment. Yeah, I agree with. I agree with Laura and and Kurt. For that matter, I just. I'm uncomfortable eliminating, because Staff said they needed it. But I I in general like I don't. I don't really get the definition myself, so I don't know if someone from Staff can can let us know whether why this is needed. And specifically, I it's just it's it's very confusing.

[218:14] From what already exists on the books. Brad's headed up to the microphone. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. You know there are a great many mysteries in the zoning code right? And one of them is that this language fundamentally has been there for a while. It will make our job more difficult if we don't have the definition or a version of it. We're proposing some tweaks to it just to regulate this in the future, and we're trying to match some of that with the building code as well. So we would respectfully ask that we be able to move this forward. Brad, if if you retain the language. One of the concerns I have in is that. does the definition of boarding house make it so that

[219:03] there, there's some advantage. You know we have lots of student housing now coming online, that is 4 and 5 bedroom with a shared kitchen and stuff. And so this this line you need to be a have a careful definition of boarding house, so that it's not applicable in other standard rental housing situations. Right? Well, one thing that is true of all code is that the common understanding of the term also applies. So while we create definitions and such, there's a common understanding of what boarding house is one of the things that aligns with the building code is. if there are 10 or more rooms that becomes a building code, or that defines a boarding house and boarding houses, you know, with this revised definition, would help kind of create that clarity of a line between 9 bedrooms and less and 10 bedrooms and more. So we're just trying to build some consistency there.

[220:00] Deal with the legacy codes that we have. You know, we can flag this as part of a a much larger. You know, code, update that we will envision in the longer future. But just trying to do a simple update at this point. Okay, So here's a question, since since this is really a straw poll item, and I think the board in general hasn't has at least verbalized, massive confusion as to why this is here, and what this is. I would hope that Staff understands our viewpoint and maybe can take it up, you know going forward. And Kurt, is that enough, or do we do we want to do more beyond that. Yeah. And that's what I was going to say. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I don't want to make Staff's job harder. And so if this would make Staff's jobs harder, then I don't want to do it, but it definitely does need to be addressed somehow. If it's just a matter of adding 10 or more bedrooms to the definition. I'm fine with that, but there needs to be some kind of distinction from, I think, in the definition, and not just in common understanding

[221:08] from a standard rental unit. Okay, I'm going to suggest that Staff has heard our voice on this and that. They can take that under advisement, and we can go on. Yes, I agree with that. Okay? All right. Anything else. Okay, Kurt, are, are you? Are you? Do you feel complete? I am complete. Okay, thank you. Okay, Laura. So I've tried to send this to Thomas, but it won't let me cut and paste this. So I'm just going to read it verbally into the record I have. I have a few things that don't rise to the level of a you know.

[222:02] an amendment to the motion, but that I thought I would put out there. So on page 90, it talks about reducing setbacks to a maximum of 100% reduction in certain high density. Zones like Dt. Bms. And Mu. 3 zoning districts and staff explained that as being necessary because you might be working with an existing building, like the example that Charles gave, which I thought was very instructive of that apartment near the Boulder Theater. So I just want to suggest adding to this. where existing development will remain and precludes meeting open space requirements again. I'm just worried about creating loopholes here where someone could knock down a building and propose 0 open space, which seems like a very substantive change if that becomes a trend 0 open space urban development. That seems like it's not appropriate for a minor code amendment. So again, I'm just. I'm just

[223:02] proposing adding to that language where existing development will remain and precludes meeting open space requirements, you can still get your 100% reduction if the site is that constrained? My next one is about the housing diversity and bedroom unit types. I said earlier that I would have a proposed language change. I do think that the wording about the bedroom count is awkward. and so I suggest bedroom type shall mean studios or units with different numbers of bedrooms, eg. One bedroom units and 2 bedroom units are 2 different bedroom types. So you're just giving an example that different numbers of bedrooms are different bedroom types, because I think the way the language is written now it could be misinterpreted to be binary. you know. Bedroom type. She'll mean either studios or units with different counts. Okay, would would it be better as ie. Or eg. Eg. Means, for example, ie. Means, in other words. So I think it should be. Eg, for example.

[224:01] okay, yeah. Real quick. Oh, yeah, go ahead. Would it? Would it make sense to move the studios into the eg clause? So, eg. Studios, one bedrooms and 2 bedrooms are all different housing types. I would be fine with that, too. How our staff wants to write it. I think it's just important to clarify. It's not binary. It's every different count, and I struggled with how to word it. But that's what stuck for me. Yeah. Thank you for that friendly amendment, Kurt. the next one. I know this is not something that Staff proposed changing, but since we're opening up this ordinance anyway, on page 89, it gives examples of different kinds of recreational activities in open space, and it says, horseshoe pits. I don't know how many horseshoe pits we're building lately. But I would just propose something like lawn games instead of horseshoe pits. because that's more general and probably better describes what's actually going on out there.

[225:02] So lawn games instead of horseshoe pits, page 114, I think there's a word missing. it says vacant or parcels in all residential districts. and I think the word lots is missing. I think it's supposed to say vacant lots or parcels in all residential districts. That's on page 1, 14 in the packet. And so that's it with the word tweaking. And then I just want to say that for future code updates. when you do a new package. There are 2 things that I would propose taking a look at. Number One. Is this open space versus open space, right like open space and mountain parks kind of open space versus open space and developments. I think it is confusing. One of our city council members has pointed this out several times, and I'm going to support her that I think if we can change one of those use cases, and it's probably the development Review use case that we should. So I propose that for a future code change amendment. And then, secondly, the definition of public realm. I actually

[226:03] asked one of our city attorney staff to look at the definition of public realm and remind me what it is. And when staff have talked about public realm in development projects. I feel like we've always talked about the public street, the public sidewalk, the multi-use path, places that do have a public access easement, and the public can access that the public realm. But the actual definition in our code. I was surprised to find this out includes private open space courtyards and things like that as public realm, and it feels to me like that, maybe deserves another look, because I don't think that we want all of the provisions in our code that relate to the public realm to potentially be relating to private courtyards rather than streets and sidewalks and multi-use paths. So I think that deserves another look the definition of public realm for a future code update. I'll finish there. Thank you so much, Staff, for all your hard work. Okay, thank you, Laura. Those were all interesting comments. Okay.

[227:04] Any other comments from the board, Claudia? Just a process question. I'm curious about the status of the feedback that Laura just had read into the record. So we did take a straw poll on some of Kurt's. Is this just open commentary, or is this now reflected as somehow the thoughts of of the Board. I'm expecting that this is just reflected as my commentary, and not assuming anything about the rest of the board. If people want to take straw polls we can. I'm not asking for that just for the sake of expediency. I did take strong exception to one of your comments. And I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to yeah. So in regard to the open space, the allowance for an open space reduction in the more urban zones. So this was, I forget the particular zones. But the code section was 9. Dash 2, dash 14 h. 6, a little one little a dealing with allowing for that open space reduction in the I think it was the Dt. One the Dt. You have some of the zones. Yes. The Bms. Br. One br, 2 mu, 3, right?

[228:15] I actually support that potential for an open space reduction up to 100%. And here's the reason why we don't have a lot of these kind of more intense urban zones in boulder because they tend to predate car centered development. The ones that we have, though, are some of our most functional walkable areas, and they tend to have a much richer public realm. Sorry to use that term, Laura, after you just took it apart, but they tend to have a much more rich public realm that makes up for some of that lack of private open space, I think, requiring that parcels add open space where none exists currently in that kind of inherited urban fabric actually disrupts some of that dynamic that works really well. So I do take exception to your comments on that, and I appreciate Staff adding and maintaining that flexibility in the code.

[229:13] Great! Thank you, Claudia. I think that was clarifying. Kurt has his hand up. Yeah. And I just want to say, I agree with Claudia. With regards to that open space issue. I agree with Laura in all of her other points. And I agree with Kurt about Claudia and Laura. So there we go. Okay. Okay. I've last call a couple times now, but I'm a pushover. So any other comments? Okay, I'm going to close agenda. Item 5, B, okay. And we do, have. I? Are there any matters from the board. We do have one matter from the city attorney.

[230:06] I'm gonna my only matter is I've got a I've got to jump. I want to make it through the public hearing. But I'm gonna I'm gonna depart. So appreciate everyone's time. Thank you. George and and Kurt, too, and Mason. We appreciate everyone extending themselves, especially Kurt in the early morning hours. So we watch the sun come up anyway. We appreciate your attendance tonight, and Mason and Mason, I know you're not 100%. So we appreciate you suffering through it. Okay, but we do have an interesting matter from the city attorney. So if you can and want to hear this, I think it will be interesting. So Hello, yeah. So I think this item. I'm sorry, Brad. It seems like we should leave the best for last. So okay, Brad, if I may, under matters from staff, we're going to have Brad. And then, Hella, yeah, thank you all. I wanted to address the public comment items earlier in the day or earlier in the meeting also earlier in the day. But before that I also wanted to

[231:18] thank you all for your participation at the joint session on Thursday, with Council. A lot of good input and and feedback. I did want to apologize for having to leave right beforehand. My son actually got in a accident. I had just learned minutes before the meeting. So while he's okay, generally speaking, there's gonna be some follow up needed and such with them. But appreciate the kind thoughts that I've received from from folks who who knew that I had to leave the meeting, and thanks for your understanding about that. I did want to just speak real briefly to some of the comments that were given earlier at public comment about the Cip in particular, the capital improvement program.

[232:04] which is a 6 year cip in the city of Boulder for capital improvements. We do have a role as a department in reviewing that to give guidance to the many committees that are involved with that to create a feedback loop about consistency and consideration of plans and adopted plans and policies and things like that. The planning board does not have a formal role in that. I would submit to you that that would become a very extensive process if we did. All of the education and learning, and such that was suggested. We do bring that forward to you as those of you have experience that no, and a review with you, but we would not frankly have the timing or capacity to do the in-depth study that was suggested by the speaker. Brad, you just said, I think I heard. Planning board does not have a formal

[233:03] role. Is that in the cip, and I might need correction on that. I mean there it is brought forward for review by the board is my recollection. I can't remember if there's an actual action that takes place. Yeah, the Board makes a recommendation on the cip. Right? So it is formal in that sense. Yeah, yeah, okay. but in general the department is advisory towards a much larger project that involves, you know, many departments who execute on the plan, and ultimately the city manager's vision of of implementing council policy through the budget. And of course, their review of the budget, ultimately and then happy to answer any of the other. or address any of the other comments from public comment. But that's it. For now, I think. Okay, thank you, Brad. Sure. Okay. And Hella. So the the item I'm coming to you with tonight, I think, was requested by Mark and Laura during one of our agenda meetings, and you asked if I could speak with you about

[234:11] board interactions, with an applicant after a public hearing has closed in a quasi-judicial matter, and if there are legal concerns, and also how to handle that procedurally, if one board member would like to ask those questions. and I looked at our code, the Board's rules of procedure, and also some case law, and I didn't find anything that directly addressed that particular issue. Everything's been silent on that. But I did find some case law related to zoning boards, allowing an applicant to provide additional testimony or evidence after the public hearing has been closed and those courts talked about that due process and procedural requirements need to be considered by a zoning board.

[235:01] and that a zoning board, when it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, it must give adequate notice, and afford an opportunity for a meaningful hearing to affected individuals. and generally, while rules of procedure and evidence don't have to be as strictly followed as a court would. The principles of fundamental fairness must be observed, and those were more general statements before the courts analyzed. You know whether there was a what to do if if such additional evidence was provided after the public hearing was closed, and I found courts in several jurisdictions, remanded cases to the boards where new evidence was presented after the close of the public hearing, because it did not allow the public to adequately provide input and review that information. One case I found in Colorado, and there the court looked at whether the evidence was substantial enough to warrant adequate public review. So in that particular case.

[236:06] Why, it was a little bit more limited in review than other cases that I found there was. It was a county that had some language in its code that talked about up until when substantial changes could be proposed, and it was actually relating to before the Board even held a hearing, and it may be that the court focused on substantial language because of that particular section in that jurisdiction's code, but it might be the standard that would apply here. Now. That's of course, not necessarily. What would come up if you are asking questions related to condition drafting. But I think it's still instructive that in whatever you do in interacting with an applicant after the public hearing is closed, consider whether or not it provides new evidence about the applicant's proposal.

[237:02] and and if it does that, then it becomes more vulnerable to attack in a court proceedings so generally. I would recommend. then you always try to ask all questions you have of the applicant and staff after they give their presentations, because that's before the public hearing, and any evidence that may be presented as a result of those questions, would still be able to be addressed by the public during public comment, because that public comment period follows. And then, when you do want to ask questions of an applicant when you draft your conditions, I would recommend that you ask questions that are really related to the conditions versus resulting in providing new evidence about the application that you may not otherwise have. Where is that fine line? And you know I think that might be difficult to do, but I would just recommend that you keep that in mind, and think about whether the question would result in a situation where the public may not have had adequate

[238:11] opportunity to comment on it, and I think there might be a difference between a change the applicant proposes versus a condition you're asking for. That's not really something the applicant proposes. And you're asking about that. So I think there is definitely room for argument that you should be able to do to ask those questions with regard to the conditions that you want to impose, and also having in mind that conditions are only imposed. If the application as proposed, does not meet the criteria already. So you're just trying to propose something to add something that would make the application meet the review criteria that is fascinating and very clarifying and appreciated.

[239:01] I just want to say that as chair I've both heard I'll speak for myself and other board members that I've heard from that. There was some uncomfortableness in one of our in a hearing about the quantity, and in depthness of questions of applicant of an applicant after the public hearing was closed. and so my suggestion would be, as I've recommended, that, you know you come with an open mind, but you come with drafts and thoughts prepared about possible conditions that would help a project fulfill its requirement to meet the code. and that if you have questions about that that you ask the applicant

[240:01] before before we have a public hearing during during the Q. And A. Session. Ask them questions that might help your case we're not deliberating, but you're asking questions that help clarify what your condition or amendment, or whatever might be when you go to make it, and sometimes that that might come off. As you know, we all know what question. You know a question that is leading to something, but it's still it's still a question, and if it's clarifying something for you and for your the rest of the board, then that's a good thing, and that's a time to do it so I would hope that that anyone chairing wouldn't be put in a position of having to kind of like stop or police that activity, and it would be rare, not exceedingly rare, but

[241:01] it wouldn't come up a lot that we would be querying applicants about things after the hearing is closed which requires of us a little more preparation, at least mentally, about things that we might be proposing. Yeah. And I think you know, there are so many different possible scenarios that can happen, I think what's of particular concern is if something new is proposed or different, if it's if something is said that was already said before then the public would have had an opportunity to provide input on that. But it's it's kind of hard to anticipate everything that might be said. And I also wanted to talk a little bit about the process. I was actually going to suggest that if a board member, because you are in the deliberation process, and that doesn't really anticipate communication with members of the public or the applicant that a board member who would like a question to be asked, ask the chair who is managing the meeting at that point in time, and can make decisions about procedure on whether or not

[242:14] The question can be asked, and maybe the questions are just asked by the chair. and while the chair has the power to make procedural calls, the Board or a majority of the board members present can overrule that. So if the chair says, I think that goes too far, or it's not necessary to ask this question, whatever the reason might be a board member can say I would like the Board to to vote on that. Do I have a second for it? And then the rules actually say that a majority of the Board members present can overrule that procedural decision. Great! That's after Chapter 3 in Roberts. But I've only I've only no, this is in your 1987.

[243:00] Typewritten procedure. Okay? Oh, okay, all right. Well, at least a part of it. Yeah, okay, yes, please. This is so helpful. Hela. Thank you so much. I want to give a specific example where I don't remember who asked the question. It might have been me. We were talking with the St. Julian folks about a rooftop deck. and I don't remember if it was a question that was asked, or if they volunteered the information that what was being proposed would create the need for an additional stairwell. That's new information. But it's information about a proposed condition to fix meeting a criteria. How would you look at that? That to me, feels like the most useful thing that we can do in terms of talking back and forth as an applicant is to say. if we do this thing, are we creating unintended consequences? That would maybe change our minds? Yeah. Yeah. And you know, I think we don't have clear guidance on that based on the case law that's out there. But it is not something that the applicant is proposing. It was something that you were proposing. So I think in that case we would then argue, it's not a change to their proposal. It's a question about the condition we want to impose. And and we're just

[244:21] really trying to not impose anything that's unfeasible or understand the consequences. So I I strongly feel like that should be okay without having to go back to a public hearing. because it's not something that the applicant is proposing that is super helpful. Thank you. Brad is up, but there are some, you know. There's some legal uncertainty. I'm happy to share a little experience in my career with these types of things. I think there is some practicality in. if you're considering an amendment or a condition of approval, if you will, to finding out what the applicants kind of reaction to that, and it can be a little bit of a dialogue as as hell alluded to.

[245:04] but I've often worked in places where there was practice or policy, that once a condition was formed. or conditions, they would ask an applicant to come forward and say, Do you accept these conditions? And of course they can say yes or no. but the board can still move it forward. So let's say you have a condition that all the you know the roof has to be painted purple, and they come up and say, No, I don't really like that. That's going to be a hardship. We can still say, Okay, well, we're still going to adopt it anyway, and then the applicant can withdraw the application. If that's a deal killer for them, you know they have that choice. or, conversely, they can go argue their case in court with counsel as well. but I think it is practical to find out whether something is going to be accepted, acceptable in in their mind, because there may be a practical consideration like, well. it'd be really, really hard, because we have to build XYZ. Or, well, it'd be really, really hard, because that's going to cost us.

[246:06] you know, a million bucks to do that. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, well, I'm going to rethink the condition. You know that type of thing. So just for what it's worth in other places, I've worked. That's been a practice of get all your conditions together. Ask the applicant to speak forward and see whether they feel generally okay with them or not, and and react accordingly if you want to, you know. So, on the other hand, what what you just said I I if we have a condition, a motion's been made, it's been seconded to take out a portion of floor number 3, yeah. And and the applicant says, Okay, I'll do that. That doesn't obviate the need for us to go ahead and debate and and vote. Yeah, not at all on that condition. Yeah.

[247:05] no. You still would want to make that a condition and put it forward. It's just you can do it. you know, feeling good, that that's not. Gonna and the and the distinction that Helen made was that that that motion is some. That condition is something that came from the board, not from the applicant, consequently it is less likely to be perilous legally than the applicant coming forward and saying, well, no. How about this other thing? And I agree, if I'm following your sentiment, Hella, that that starts to get into the realm of negotiation, and you know hearings are not negotiations. Now. you know. Is he going to be practical? If they say Well, you know, maybe you know, if it was pink and not purple. I'd be okay, and you go. Okay. Well, Pink probably does the trick as well. But

[248:02] I think it's it's it's a little perilous of territory to get into this back and forth negotiation and debate that type of thing for the same reason that with the public. you know, it's not meant to be a dialogue. and and certainly at the end of the day, it's not even your obligation to engage the applicant with conditions. You've already closed the public hearing, and you've given them a chance to speak to the public hearing comments, and you don't have to talk to them again at all. But you know, as you've experienced and expressed. There's some practical considerations there. And so I was just sharing how I've experienced that in other places. Okay, any other comments questions. Okay, that was very helpful, although it's it's still subjective and and I think that I think that that that working with I like your suggestion, not because I'm chair, but just working through the chair on something like that, both feels more orderly and structured and slows it down just a little bit, so that

[249:08] if if someone says, Hey, I am uncomfortable. I have a condition. I'm uncomfortable with the applicant playing into this right now I want to debate my condition that that gives them an opportunity to do that. Yeah. And and if you, as the chair, are not comfortable with making the call, and you'd rather ask the board you you could just do that too great. Okay, thank you very much. Super helpful. Okay, hearing no other matters. Items. And we have a lot of lot of people have already left and are about to leave. So I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Okay, thank you all for your attendance tonight. Thanks. Everybody.