June 17, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Gordon. Okay? All right. Welcome everyone to the City of Boulders. Planning board meeting for June 17, th 2025 we have is Claudia online. Yet. No, I don't see her. Okay, we have all planning board members present, except for Claudia Henson theme, who I expect to be joining us shortly. Are 1st order of business is public participation for any on any topic other than our public hearing. Item, agenda. Item 5. A. So if there's any member of the public that would like to speak. Vivian is going to walk us through the city's city of boulders.

[1:08] Vivian. What is the correct terminology? I keep. So, then. Engagement, and. Yeah, you could say, rule of decorum or public participation. Thank you. Okay. Anyway, Vivian is going to walk us through this, and then we'll see if anyone has anything they want to say about or not anything other than the public hearing. Item. Thank you, Vivian. Take it away. Great. Thank you, Chair, and I'll read these through these, and then we'll take open comment from anyone in the room who wishes to speak, and then we'll move to our online participants. Next slide. Please again thank you for being here. My name is Vivian. I'll help facilitate the public participation in the planning board meeting tonight. So 1st of all, just wanted to share that the city has engaged with community members in the past to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff

[2:07] and board members as well as democracy, for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information on our website about this process and this vision next slide, please. And I'll just read through some examples of the rules of decorum that are in our revised code and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. Tonight all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that participants in person and online identify themselves by their 1st and last name. Next slide, please.

[3:00] if you're joining us online, you can raise your virtual hand by finding the hand icon at the bottom of the screen. If you're joining by phone, you can raise your hand by Dialing Star 9, and you can also get to the raise hand icon by looking for the reactions button at the bottom of the zoom screen and then clicking on the raise hand button. So those are the rules of decorum. We can move now to open comment. As Mark Chair mentioned, this is for anything that you would like to share with planning board not related to the public hearing agenda. Item. Thomas, is there anyone in the room. Thank you for reading slides for us, Vivian. We don't have any members of the public here in the room. We just have staff and the applicants. So we can okay, online section. Thank you. Great. And I'll let you know that Claudia has just joined us online as well. So we'll move to online community members who wish to speak, and we'll start with Lynn Siegel. Each person will have 3 min. Please go ahead, Lynn.

[4:07] Thanks. Thank you. Oh, You know none of the other boards. All of them should just go on strike. because this board controls everyone else. Last night I was at Rab. They're talking about their cips and how they're not meeting budget, and how all of these infrastructure programs for water, for all the people in Boulder are not working, you know. They're in deficit, you know, and you continue giving subsidies to every developer that comes before you dicing up these properties more and more. So there's more and more density, more and more people using the water using the open space infrastructure. We don't have money, for we're 10 million dollars in debt now in our budget. Why do you do this? Why, what is the function of this?

[5:06] I've I've brought this up for years now, and I hear nothing back from you ever just more subsidies. more and more and more, and this next council run. This is the end of boulder. These progressives are regressive. We all know that this is just so. Not okay. The millennium, 930 went by the bedroom. Now there's 5 bedrooms, apartments, apartments with 5 bedrooms. What does that mean, Claudia? That means densification, supreme densification. Now there's some with 6 bedrooms, 6 bedroom apartments. Oh, but that's more affordable, isn't it? It's not because who's paying for the South Boulder Rec Center. We don't have any money for it. We don't have any money for the Open Space deficit. 300 million.

[6:05] We can't do it. Stop! Stop already. You know the National Geographic, the little city you're building up there. It's not a 15 min Neighborhood. They're going to drive in their cars wherever they go. Every service that comes into this town through the development that you authorize and put forth and support and encourage. Through this board every single one of them drives a huge amount of services needed to build this, to build up the project to service it for the bank tellers, for the healthcare, you know, workers for all the people in the society that need these services, and there's no money for it, so don't do it. Stop already. Stop, you know, 200 400 at Hyundai, the development there it's every corner, and for every large scale, expensive place. You've got 10 to replace it for affordable housing, and we have none, and we have homeless all over the place. So stop.

[7:18] Thank you, Lin. Siegel. I'll just. We have one other member joining us from the public. I'll just wait a few seconds in case they wish to speak. An open comment before we move on doesn't look like it. So that, concludes the open comment. Hand it back over to you. Chair. Great. Thank you, Vivian. That takes us to. We have no minutes to approve. That takes us to item agenda. Item, 4 discussions of dispositions, planning board call ups and continuations. Item 4. A is a call up item.

[8:01] final plat to subdivide the property at 15 0, 1 and 15 0, 9, Arapahoe Avenue to create one lot totaling 0 point 2 9 acres. This application is subject to potential call up on or before. June 23rd 2025. The preliminary plat was approved through case number LUR. 2023, 0 0 0 4. So this is a time for planning board members who might have questions about this to make those questions known to Staff, and then we'll decide if there's any urge to call it up. Anybody questions. Okay, I see none. So we are going to not call up that item which takes us on to agenda. Item 5, a.

[9:03] This is a site review an amendment and use review to allow the existing structure at 1836 19th Street to be used as a single family detached dwelling unit in the RH. 2 zoning district, and to amend the existing Pud. P dash 83, dash 64, to maintain the existing rear deck. reviewed under case numbers LUR. 2022, 0 0 4, 4, and LUR. 2023, 0 0 1 0. So that's our agenda. Item, we will have a brief presentation from staff clarifying questions, and then an opportunity for the applicant to make any statements or give any presentation. Clarifying questions there.

[10:01] followed by a public hearing and then board deliberations. So that's the that's the agenda and Shannon. If you'd like to take it away, we're ready. all right. Good evening board. Can everyone hear me? Okay, all right. Wonderful. So my name is Shannon Moller, and I'll be taking you through the staff presentation tonight for 1836 19th Street. So we'll just look at the planning process to date the project background, the context, a summary of the proposal, some key issues and conclude with the staff recommendation. So here you can see a general summary of the planning process to date. So, going back to the early 19 eighties, this site was originally developed as a pud with a special review to be used as a group care home facility.

[11:02] and I'll touch more on those approvals later in the presentation. More recently the property was sold, and the new owner has applied for the Site Review Amendment and the Use Review, which is to allow the property to be used as a detached dwelling unit in this zoning district. The applicant has submitted those applications, and staff approved those. In May of this year the applications were called up by the planning board at a recent meeting to hold this public hearing. And so that's why we're here tonight. So tonight. The Planning Board is considering the Site Review Amendment, which includes setback modifications to allow the existing rear deck to remain as well as a use review which is required for a new detached dwelling unit to be established in the Rh. 2 Rh. 2 zoning district. The site was posted, and public notification provided per code, and no public comments were received on the items.

[12:01] So next we'll move on to the specific site and surroundings. The site's a little under 7,000 square feet, located just east of 19th Street, south of Walnut, north of Canyon. The boulder and left hand ditch passes through the southeast corner of the property. and here you can see some photos of surrounding properties. This area is primarily residential, and it has an eclectic character. Just to the north is a 1 story, detached dwelling unit, built in 1945. To the east is the 5 story, Bhp. Walnut Place, senior apartments, built in 1980. To the south are the Maple Creek apartment buildings built in 1984. And to the west there's a 1 story duplex built in 1,900 and a 3 story Condo building, built in 1976 in terms of the floodplain on this site the existing ditch that passes through that southeast corner coincides with the mapped areas of the conveyance zone and the 100 year floodplain. The proposal includes maintaining an existing deck and retaining wall along the edge of the ditch which has been reviewed and approved by flood control staff as part of the recommended conditions of approval. Staff has included a requirement

[13:21] for dedication of a public ditch, easement and drainage and flood control easements for maintenance of the ditch area, which is typical for projects located along a ditch and conveyance zone. The Bvcp designates the property. High density residential, which consists of attached residential units and complementary uses implemented through zoning the southeast corner of the site where the ditch runs through is designated oso open space, other, the property is zoned Rh. 2, which is for high density, residential uses, and where complementary uses may be allowed.

[14:01] So, looking at the property history a little closer. In 1983, the city approved a pud and a special review to develop the site and building as a group care home for 8 people with developmental disabilities. The Pud included modifications to setbacks to allow for it to be built as a 1 story structure. The brick structure included 4 bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, dining area, study, and bathrooms. The site design was a parking forward design and a backyard with with a backyard with the existing ditch flowing through the southeast corner. There were some changes from the initial design to what was ultimately constructed which is fairly typical for approvals of this era. The existing deck was not depicted on the proposed plan set, but has existed since at least 2,003. According to aerial imagery. The special Review, which is, we now know we now call a Use review, was for the use of the structure, for the group care home for the 8 folks with developmental disabilities. So the residents lived in the home. They attended daily activities like jobs or therapy and staff members were present on a shift basis.

[15:11] A group care home is a use known as a group home facility in Boulder's code, which is not considered a dwelling unit, but rather falls into the group living category. The property has since been sold, and it's no longer being used as a group care home. So the previous special review approval has since expired. So, moving to tonight's proposal, the applicant has investigated multiple options to reuse this property and update it, which they'll describe further in their presentation. But after analyzing the practical and regulatory constraints, ultimately they move forward with the proposal being discussed tonight, which is to adaptively reuse the existing structure as a detached dwelling unit with some minor updates to the site and the structure. The existing one story structure, with its 4 bedrooms and existing rear deck, would be maintained as is with some minor interior updates to the bathrooms, the existing site would be updated to reduce the number of parking spaces from 3 to 2 update landscaping and provide new bike parking per code.

[16:17] The proposal includes the setback modification request to formalize approval of the location of the existing rear deck, which was not documented on the previous plan sets. So moving on to key issues for tonight, Staff identified 2 key issues to guide the discussion. The 1st key issue was, if the proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria. so Staff found that the proposed Site Review Amendment is on balance consistent with the land use map and policies of the Bvcp. And with the Site Review criteria. The proposal is consistent with the land use map by providing a use that can be permitted in the Rhd Zoning district, and it maintains the open space other area that's traversed by the existing ditch, and it dedicates public easements over that area.

[17:07] The proposal to reuse the existing structure as a residential use is consistent with several Bvcp policies, including supporting the eclectic character of this of the existing neighborhood. It maintains the existing unique structure and provides a sensitive reuse of the property that avoids potential negative impacts on surrounding properties. It contributes to the mix of housing types available in the neighborhood avoids construction, waste and preserves the existing building which can be reused as a detached dwelling. The Site Review amendment includes a modification to formalize the setbacks for the existing deck which has existed for decades, but wasn't shown on the original plans, and it also provides updates to the site to meet current bike parking, and landscaping standards while maintaining the original overall design. So overall Staff found the proposed modifications were appropriate, and that the proposal met the review criteria

[18:05] moving to key issue 2 was a use. Review is required in the Rh. 2 zoning district to allow for the reuse of the existing structure as a detached dwelling unit in terms of the applicable use. Review criteria listed here. Staff found the proposal to reuse this existing structure in this way is consistent with the uses that can be permitted in the zoning district. It's compatible with surrounding properties won't affect the infrastructure of the area and doesn't change the character of the area. The prior use of the property, which was a group care home for disabled persons in a home like setting operated similarly to that of its detached single family dwelling, and the structure itself has existed at this location for decades so overall Staff found the proposal consistent with the Use Review criteria. Additionally, Staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with specific use standards in 9 6, 3 e. Which apply to a detached dwelling unit. In this location.

[19:07] These specific use standards and the requirement for a Use review were created in 2019. At that time the city was addressing concerns about the recently established opportunity zone in census tract 122.0 3, which is located east of 28. The north of Arapahoe. The city was concerned that this opportunity zone would incentivize development projects inconsistent with the Bbcp. So the Use Review process was selected as a way to discourage new detached dwelling units as compared to attached housing in high density residential zones, but also provide flexibility to allow some new detached dwelling units, because rh zoning extends throughout the city the criteria was applied. Citywide staff, on the proposal met the applicable review criteria shown on this slide, including meeting the Use Review criteria already discussed, providing pedestrian interest through design elements such as the existing brick design, details on the front facade, location of front entry and windows, and the brick path to the front door and found that it is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate

[20:17] in terms of the detached dwelling units in the area. Staff looked at the area bounded by surrounding streets between Canyon Walnut 18, th and 20 second, which are all zoned Rh. 2, and found the largest portion of the residential structures, 47% are detached dwelling units. 22% were duplexes or triplexes, and 23 structures contained 4 or more attached dwelling units. So based on this analysis, Staff found the proposal to reuse the structure as a detached dwelling unit met the applicable review criteria. So with that Staff recommends a motion to approve the Site Review Amendment, and used to review applications and happy to take any questions before turning it over to the applicant team.

[21:06] Great! Thank you, Shannon. So now's the time for clarifying questions to Staff. Who is ready? Okay, ml, go ahead. Thank you for that presentation. I like the brevity of it. It's a small project. Let's get to the essence of it. I think I heard you say this, and maybe I didn't hear it correctly. But the specific use standards for the Rh. 2 zone were, which gave the option, for single units were due to the opportunity zone. and the only reason that is an option in this neighborhood is because because it's not in an opportunity zone. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. What I I guess what I could have explained better is prior to that change. In 2019 detached dwelling units were allowed by right in this location. So it changed it. So now you need to go through a use review.

[22:10] Perfect. It was not making sense. So I'm like, wait a minute. Okay, thanks for that clarification. Do we know what percent of the deck is infringing on the property line. you said, what percentage of the deck is infringing on the property line? None of the deck is infringing on the property line. It's about not property line. Excuse me, setback. Yeah. It's about 8 and a half feet to the rear property line at the closest point. I believe so the typical setback is 25 feet. So that that would be the difference there. So you don't really know what percent it looks like. It's more than half less than half.

[23:02] Maybe I can ask the applicant if they know what percent of the debt, because that that is what's That is what is driving this site Review is the deck being in the setback. If I understood correctly. So I'm just curious as to what percent of the deck is prompting this Site review process. So we don't know. I will ask that to the applicant. Can I ask more questions, or please so the process that was described. that the applicant had investigated multiple options on what to do with the property, and I saw the back and forth with the staff questions. Did it ever did the conversation ever go to the possibility that we may not have any parking off street parking requirements in our future. And what would happen then?

[24:09] I don't think that was part of the discussion at the time. No, I think the discussion, you know, predated some of those discussions that are happening right now. and just regards to that. I think I saw as well in the exchanges with staff that a duplex would be allowed on this site. A duplex could be allowed. Yes, if if it could mean all the other standards, and I think that's where the applicant will go through some of the complications with that that they were finding right. So I'm just thinking, if parking is taken off. I just wonder what's left. Why this could not go that route. So that's a question for the applicant. Thank you very much. And lastly, so let's say that this gets approved?

[25:05] Could the applicant then demolish the existing house and using the Pud approved setbacks? Establish a much larger single family residents, but holding to the Pud agreed setbacks. No, the Pud is specific to what you're seeing here. So the setbacks would apply to to exactly this. Any modification to this type of design would go through a new review process. So the footprint in the building itself is in is part of the pud. If that gets altered. Then it's ground 0. Yeah. Then it would need to go through an appropriate review. Yeah, okay, perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Laura, you ready?

[26:00] Thank you, Shannon, for the presentation, and for answering some questions offline. So just a colloquy on what Ml. Was talking about. She talked about the rear setback. But this proposal is also requesting side setback modifications. Yes, and so that's part of the reason why it needs a site review. Yes, the deck goes up at the north end toward the north property line. So it and it just encompasses all of the areas where the where the deck exists. Okay? And does the building itself meet the setback requirements. The building received setback modifications when it was originally built. So the building is documented in the in the Pud that we have as already existing. So it doesn't need any additional modifications for the building. Okay, so for this review, we're not being asked to consider setback modifications because of the building only because of the deck. Yeah, okay, thank you. And thank you. You did send some images of the rear deck, and you mentioned that the applicants will have that in their presentation. How far in feet is the deck from the mapped conveyance zone

[27:04] when I was looking at it. It looked like it was about half a foot to 3 feet from the conveyance zone. So our Flood Review staff has reviewed it, and they had no issue with with the location and the deck as it exists today. Okay, thank you. And then just again to colloquy on what Ml. Said so. If the Use Review is approved and a single unit is considered to be approved on this site, would it still be nonconforming like, if they wanted to expand that use. Would it require a use review, or would it no longer be nonconforming? It's not non-conforming now, things that are in a Pud, with approved modifications, are are not considered non-conforming. If they were to propose a change, there is standards in our use review code that are specific to modifications to an approval that's been approved through a use review. So those generally limit things like expansions, changes. So if there was a proposal to expand it in some way we would look at that and see whether it would be something that would be considered an expansion and would require a new use review.

[28:19] And so we would just look at that proposal if it came in. Okay. And I really want to understand this. So because I think one of the things that we're concerned about is a very large single family home in a high density area. So if this were redeveloped as a high density property, it could go up to 3 stories by right right? And it could basically triple the square footage by right. If we approve this use review, can they then triple the square footage by right? Or would it be subject to a use review that says, if they go beyond 10% expansion, they have to get a new use review. Yeah, that's that's the type of thing we'd be looking at is when can just build as big as you want. All of a sudden. It's this is what would be approved here.

[29:05] Okay, I guess I'm just. I'm just not understanding how it would then be judged. Because if we judge, okay, it's appropriate to have single use single unit here. And it's not any taller than the structures around it, like, I don't understand what standards would be applied to say, a single unit home would need to be limited where a multi-unit home would not. If that even exists like, maybe maybe that doesn't exist. so is is the question as to why? Why the use review is required, or why? No, I guess I'm just. I'm just. I'm concerned about sort of snowballing right? Like they get this user review and not that. And I'm not assuming any intent on the part of these particular owners. I'm just saying, if from a from a policy and a procedural perspective. If we approve this dwelling unit as a single unit dwelling unit, right? We say that's appropriate. And then maybe the property gets sold, and the next owner comes in and says, we want to build up to 3 stories by right.

[30:07] or we want to. We want to expand this significantly as a single family home. have we, by approving this as a single unit home made that possible so that we cleared the path for that quite easily, or would it still be limited to? You can only do this up to 10% of an expansion right? Because because once it is approved as a single unit home that then becomes the new baseline by which any new use review is judged. I would assume. oh, go on, go ahead. Yeah, I guess. My, I wasn't sure if you were talking about a new use review like for this particular property. So for this particular property like, let's say it gets sold. Somebody else buys it, and they want a much, much bigger single unit home in this very desirable location. Have we then cleared the way for that by approving this use. Review.

[31:01] Now, I think we evaluate. 1st of all, anything that happens out there in the future is going to require an amendment? So we'll have some. You know. Regulatory authority over any and any proposal that you know would would come forward just trying to think through. If it were another single family detached home, we would still probably. Yeah, we would still put it through another review process. So I think we would still have purview over. But I think my point is, we review all applications. you know, as individual de novo applications, so I don't know that the you know rationale that applied to the previous user view. If somebody brings us in a new application, we're going to perform the analysis under the criteria and all the zoning standards, so I think we would be looking at it with fresh eyes. I think to Shannon's point we would still have an opportunity to review it through a process just by virtue of the fact that it's part of a pud, and it has a user view on the property. So

[32:06] unless they rescinded the Pud. which is a very difficult process, and then you lose all the benefit of having that pud that's been approved. So your setback modifications, all those kinds of things. It's pretty unlikely that that happens. But I think to directly answer the question. We would look at a new user view application, you know, as a completely new application under the criteria and evaluate it that way. Okay, so sorry. Just 1. 1 last little follow up about the Nonconforming. If if this were approved as a single unit home, would it be considered a nonconforming use on the property? No, since it's getting a use review approval. It has a discretionary approval. If it were a use that existed, you know. prior to us changing the zoning, then it would be considered a nonconforming use. But in this case we're intentionally approving a discretionary application that's going to run with the property. Okay? So then, the the use review standards that apply to nonconforming properties would no longer apply or would not apply. It's not a nonconforming use review. That's correct. Okay, thank you.

[33:16] But you are still limited to that 10% expansion through administrative approvals for all for use reviews. Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you. Claudia. I see you have your hands up your hand up. and I just if I could jump in for just one second and ask a question on this Pud to colloquy on Laura's things, and then I'll get to you. My question is. this is a site review modification to a pud. Okay, does the Pud have any floor area ratio standards applied to it, because the concern

[34:01] it's just it's just following the the standard zoning requirements. The puds, yeah. So puds did not have. as a matter of course, back in the early eighties, a floor area ratio standard applied to them. So the so what I'm getting to is the If it was to be redeveloped as a 3 story single unit home, the wood. a floor area ratio under the current. Would the would, would a floor area ratio apply to some redevelopment, some future redevelopment of this property in this zone. Yeah, I mean, if it was redeveloped, we have our our standard floor area ratio. That would that would, we would look at as part of the review as part of the zone. Yeah, okay. thank you. That that was my only one. And, Claudia, you ready.

[35:04] Yeah, I'm ready. Thank you. I had some questions relevant to the use review. So Ml. Already got this answer that detached dwelling units were a buy right use in this location back in 2019 correct. Yep, that's correct. Were they also a by right use at the time that the pud on this site was approved. Yes, they would have been okay. And then I was trying to get some clarification on how a use review actually lapses or expires. That language was used a couple of times in the memo to describe the the current status there. Yeah, we just have standards in 9 2, 15 of the use review part of the code that talks about if you're not using your use. Review. Currently, the standard is for 3 years, then then it expires.

[36:02] Okay. So when did that lapse on this property. The applicant might know more about when it actually stopped being used for a group home. But it's been several years now. So I'm not suggesting that they do this, but just to. So I'm clear in my mind if this property were to be used again as a group living facility, it would require a new use. Review at this point. It would. Yeah, it would require what we now call a conditional use review. And that's just a staff level review. Okay, so what is the current use of the building? According to the city. There isn't a use established in it right now. So that's kind of why we need to go through this process. Okay. And that is, that is an actual status that a building or property can have it. It can have no established use, despite having development on it. Yeah, there, there's just that's kind of why it was identified through the the process that we talked about that

[37:02] it would need the user review. Okay, I'm I'm just. I'm trying to like, reconcile that. That's as a as a physical status. That's very strange. But there is a legal status that says there is no established use, despite there being a building. Yeah, if it if it were to be approved tonight as a residential use and and go through the rest of the process, then that's when we would be able to update it. Okay. So in terms in terms of use. This is a blank slate property. Right now, according to our code. Yes. Okay, thank you. Let me see. Yeah. And then the city's definition of detached dwelling unit. Could you help me out with where that is in the code? And does a detached dwelling unit refer to a building form? Does it review to a type of refer to a type of occupancy? Does it refer to something else like, how do we define a detached dwelling unit in the code.

[38:02] Yeah, it's located in our definitions in 9 16 one and I believe it says it's just a single dwelling unit in a structure is. It's pretty short definition. I think it's in the memo somewhere, but I'm having trouble. Finding it. Dwelling unit is defined. Dwelling unit detached is defined as no more than one dwelling unit within a structure. And how do we define a dwelling unit? Dwelling unit means one room or rooms with internal connections for residential occupancy and including bathroom and kitchen facilities. Multiple dwelling units exist. If there is more than one meter for any utility addressed to the property or kitchen, or if there are separate entrances to rooms which could be used as separate dwelling units, or if there is a lockable physical separation between rooms and the dwelling unit.

[39:02] such that a room or rooms on each side of the separation could be used as dwelling units or rooms, with no internal connections. Thank you so much for that. How based on the floor plans we're seeing in the, in the submissions. How is this? Not currently a detached dwelling unit. It has one kitchen, it has, it has bathroom and bedroom facilities. It has one entrance. It's all internally connected. How is this? Not currently a detached dwelling unit, according to. Definition of a dwelling unit detached. Just by virtue of the layout. I think the established use on the property, originally through the special review was for a group home. So while the physical characteristics meet the the definition of a detached dwelling unit, it doesn't have that established use on the property right now.

[40:00] Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. Kurt. Thank you. I just have one question, and it relates to the specific use standards for detached dwelling units 9, 6, 3, E. And specifically subsection. 2. a 1, says a detached dwelling unit is allowed by right if it existed on the lot or parcel on August 6, th 2019, which it seems like this did. So my question is, why does this not apply? Yeah, I think that gets to what Charles was just speaking to is up until that point the use had not yet been established, either through like a building, permit application for that change in use to occur, so that that would really be. What what we would have been looking for at that time is to formalize that change. So since this application was came in after that time.

[41:16] Then that's when the Use review requirement comes into play. I see. So what? What? This really? I think that maybe the the wording of this is a little bit unclear. The detached structure did. The detached dwelling unit structure existed on August 6, 2019. But the established use did not. Is that the point. Okay, got it. Thank you. Mason. Do you have any questions? Okay, yeah, no, please go ahead. So I'm hearing bits and pieces of my question being asked. So excuse me if this is a little bit redundant, but

[42:03] what I'm understanding from the application is that Because of the the building existing prior to August 6, 2019. The a new detached dwelling unit may be approved if the section 9, 6, 3 criteria are met. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so starting there, those criteria are. The 1st one is the use meets the review criteria in paragraphs 9, 2, 15, e. 1, 3, 4, 5, right. Yep, that's correct. So 9, 2, 15, I go there. One is that that's where I get confused, because then I go back to 9, 2, 15, and I see criteria for review

[43:05] 1, 3, 4, 5, 1 is rationale. Yeah, I think if you're looking on our Muni code website, our code has been updated since these were submitted. So the criteria we're using in the memo are the ones that apply to this property and not our more updated criteria that are online. Okay? So the one that I'm actually looking at is the consistency. And 2 is rationale in that order. Yeah, okay, that explains that I appreciate it. Let me see if the rest of my questions are just mute at this point. Then. George, do you have anything. Nope, okay. Thanks. Great. Laura. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. I thought I thought, Mason. I'm sorry I thought you concluded, so I guess I still have one more. No, it's okay. I appreciate the efficiency. Actually, while I'm just looking through all my questions.

[44:02] So, looking at the Site Review criteria which I assume, this triggers. The Full Site Review. Criteria. Correct? The old ones. Okay. So no, it's not. We're not laughing at. You were laughing with you here. Yeah. Okay, well tell me if this applies or not right. The 9, 2, 14 h. 2 f. The part that talks about residential projects under 5 acres in zoning districts are including Rh, 2 are required to include at least one qualifying housing type. Is that new? Or is that? That's 1 of the new ones? Okay, yeah. Well, I officially have no questions. Thank you. Okay, Laura. I have one follow up to one of Claudia's questions Claudia was asking about, you know, is there a use that is permitted on this property? And am I understanding correctly that if they wanted to either modify the property or redevelop the property to be consistent with Rh. 2.

[45:08] Then they would not need a site review. They could go ahead and do that, except unless for the setbacks, but that they are permitted to do a use that would be permitted in Rh. 2. Zoning. Yes, yeah. Any of the allowed uses in Rh. 2. Yep. So those are currently allowed uses on the property. It's not like this, property has no allowed use right now. Yeah, there's there's some allowed uses in Rh. 2. It's primarily attached dwelling units. Yeah, okay, so the building as it is now, doesn't serve that purpose. But it could be redeveloped in conformance with Rh. 2. Yeah, thank you go ahead, ml. just following up on what Laura's talking about? Would the Pud need to be abandoned prior to rescinding back to the zoning of that area and all of the privileges, IE. The setback privileges and all go with it.

[46:05] Yeah, if if someone wants to rescend a pud, they have to demolish the existing structure first, st so that would be the process. Demolish the site, rescind the pud, submit an application for something new. But is that the way you get back to the original zoning. Yeah, essentially, you've got to get rid of the Pud and all the privileges it brought you. And then you're under. Okay? So I have one more question. I saw that the staff had a lot of dialogue around the parking. And so I'm looking at the parking. I know that one of the issues brought up was, does it minimize the amount of paved area? And I am curious. Right now, I think the access is on the upper left hand corner. And it kind of comes across, which is hmm!

[47:04] So I'm wondering, did they look at having it go straight in off the driveway just the way every single family home has the curb cut the driveway. The parking that would take up much less paved area. Was that an option that was considered? Yeah, I think that was discussed. I want to say the applicant considered a lot of different parking layouts to try to find one that would meet all of the like backing distances, the sizes of the parking spaces that are needed minimizing the width of like the curb cut. So yeah, that was discussed a lot to try to get to something that would remove some of the existing pavement, reduce the number of spaces, reduce the width of the curb cut, add back in landscaping. That was kind of the design that seemed to work, but the applicant might be able to speak to that more. Okay? Because I did. I did appreciate a lot of the conversations that you have had with the applicant since this.

[48:10] and I think you touched on. You know the salient issues. So I appreciate. I appreciate your thoroughness. Thank you so much. That's my last question. Laura. Sorry. One more colloquy. Just to clarify something that was just said. So you talked about. If they wanted to redevelop the property, they'd need to demolish the structure and dissolve the Pud, could they, if they wanted to just modify this structure, to make it 2 or 3 units, keep the pud, or would they have to dissolve the Pud. They could modify the pud, and you know they'd need to go through a process similar to this to kind of see how that could be accomplished. Okay, so, but they could make it multi-unit without dissolving the pud. Yeah, they could make a request for that. Yep, okay, thank you. Okay, I have one last one. And that's a a math question. In your analysis of the number of

[49:08] different types of units in the adjacent area. You had single unit dwelling duplexes and triplexes, and mult 4 plus. And so the numbers associated with those 3 types were those the number of buildings or the number of units. It was the number of buildings buildings. Yeah, because at the there's probably many a much greater number of units associated with the multifamily multi-unit dwelling type than what is portrayed up there with the yeah. Okay, that answers my question. Okay, any other questions. Last, call. okay, we're going to go to the applicant presentation. So.

[50:12] And so as you get up there, you'll see a on this device, this with the screen. Yep, the little button. Push the button until the light on your mind. There you go, okay and tell us your name and take it away. Okay, my name is Elizabeth Smith. I am. Yeah. You have. You have up you have up to 15 min, but we probably you probably don't need that. Yeah, we probably won't take that. But all right, thank you. Shannon did a good job with a lot of the basics, but my name is Elizabeth Smith. I am an architect with finesse architecture. One of the owners, and I have been acting as the agent for the owner of the property, Brent Grohman. My name is Brent Groman, so I put together a very, very Short Powerpoint. It's more of just kind of prompting me not to forget a few things to talk about. It's more of the backstory behind this property and kind of what we inherited when Brent came to us, and what we were trying to work with, and some of our goals.

[51:19] so we can flip to the next one. So I think, as Shannon's pointed out, this is the property. When Brent bought this property it was already not being used as the assisted living facility. It was owned by somebody who had already purchased it from the original owners. So it was already not functioning under the intended use. Brent's goal. You can flip. The next slide was, we were really looking to try to reuse the existing structure, if at all possible. It was built in the early eighties. So it's been on the site for roughly 45 years. The building is in very good shape for sustainable concerns, just trying to reuse resources, not tear down the existing structure, not disturb the neighborhood. We were really trying to use what we had been given in the most efficient way possible.

[52:17] and also one of Brent's goal was to provide some more reasonably priced housing for the area. It is very convenient to Pearl Street. It's convenient to see you. It's right on several Rtd lines. It's pretty close to the downtown Rtd. Hub. So he thought it was a really good location to provide some alternates to some of these brand new housing units that are going up here in Boulder that happen to be in really good locations. So The R 2 uses that we were looking at. And again we started looking at this in 2021 with Brent. So really, the 2 that could have applied to us in terms of reusing the structure would have been a duplex and or the detached dwelling unit, and we originally pursued and submitted an application for a permit on a duplex. So we can switch to the next slide.

[53:17] This shows what we submitted. Basically, the front half. The west half of the structure was one unit. The east half of the structure was the second duplex unit where we really got nabbed on this initially, was the parking requirements, and we put together the transportation report trying to reduce the parking requirements, had an engineer look at it for us, and submitted this to the city. We still could not get down to the required parking spaces for this facility, because it had been a special use with an assisted living, even though there were a certain number of bedrooms and a certain number of occupants. They had a reduced parking requirement there, because they only based it on the number of aides on a rotating basis on their shift that were going to be on site because most of the residents actually didn't drive. So that's where we were really nabbed with the parking.

[54:13] So while we actually had it in initially for permit on the duplex before we found out all of this information, Brent also was having it looked at in terms of getting it priced out to convert it to a duplex. And if you guys remember, a few years ago, when Covid hit and construction prices hit all of a sudden that made it a little less feasible for him to convert it. Because we're going from one mechanical system to 2 separate mechanical systems, one electrical system to 2 separate electrical systems. There was a lot of financial factors that also played a role in this. We may have looked at options for that if it had not come back denied for the parking, anyway. But we really did pursue the duplex option first, st

[55:06] then we took a breather, while when we got once we got all this information back between the pricing that was coming in from contractors. And just really, Brent, realizing that this site was a little more complicated than he had been made aware of when he purchased it. He went and spent a little time with his legal counsel to see what made the most sense for him in terms of where he needed to go with this property. and came back to us a year or so later, and said he would like to go ahead and try to make this a legal designation. There's no use on this property, so at least let's make it a legal, detached dwelling unit as an owner of the property felt like there was a responsibility to do that also. At the time. We can go into this a little bit more. The back deck that is currently in question was basically a life safety issue for anybody that came onto the property. The deck sits roughly

[56:04] 8, 10 feet above. Yeah, it sits up pretty high above the ditch there the conveyance zone, and it had originally been built with just your railroad tie kind of construction. There's some photos. We can show that it was literally starting to fall into the ditch. So he contacted Jva. Local Civil Engineering Structural Engineering Company here and just had them design how to reinforce that while all of this was in play with the planning department so that nobody would get hurt, or there was no potential liability on his part. If somebody came across there and kind of got hurt with what was going on with the deck. So that has been done, you know, if nothing else we would. You know, if you don't approve the deck, we would just keep that reinforcement, because it's basically holding up this bank of the ditch at this point, anyway. So yeah, that's a little bit of the history about it. He would like to have.

[57:00] You know the use approved as a detached dwelling unit, because at this point we don't really know what else it can be approved, as we were not told until about 2 days ago, that anybody is considering eliminating, parking restrictions, and he has 5 years almost worth of architects fees into trying to get this stuff through this way. So to go back and try to look at a duplex, because now we could possibly meet the parking requirements, I think, is a bit much to ask, but maybe that's where we land in terms of getting an approved use. So that's a little history behind where we're at you can roll through. I don't think I have anything else on here that Shannon didn't show we to do the duplex. We would have had to have 5 parking spaces, we could literally have crammed them on the site. But the question that you asked there's a lot of really specific like turning radiances and clearances, and you can't park behind somebody. So we just didn't have the space to get them on the site.

[58:02] So and that's kind of what we're looking at right now and then. I think the last photo here, the very last one, shows the ditch. So this is kind of the backyard here. The the picture for this to the right was the existing condition of the ditch, and then the other 2 are work in progress, getting it reinforced so that we don't have a life safety issue on the property. So okay, great, thank you. We appreciate the presentation. So now it's time for us to ask you questions. Who's who has questions for the applicant? And I'm gonna look, okay. I have it doesn't seem like there's a okay During this long process you've had. We've had actually a lot of regulatory changes, some mandated by the State, some city changes, etc.

[59:06] Was there a point where? You thought this would have to be a single dwelling unit for use under our Co-OP rules before they were dissolved was that we were ever going for a co-OP with this number of bedrooms. No, I don't think we entertain. Okay. we were going for the duplex, and I, you know, when we bought the place in those in that economic environment. I'm sorry. Could you please speak into the microphone so that you'll be on the recording when we purchased? I was, you know, I thought, speaking with the realtor and looking at the property we thought, oh, it's the duplex slam dunk! Zoning is good! And then we got into this parking issue, and you know there, I think it qualifies for like 2 or 3 spaces. And so that was, of course.

[60:00] disappointing. But we all live with disappointment. So you know, we went to plan B, and you know that. So that to answer your question, no, we didn't go to that. But since we've acquired this property, you know, not only construction costs gone up tremendously, but we've also seen experience on this property. About a 45% increase in insurance costs. We've got a huge, you know, like everybody, 30, 35% on property taxes. And then, of course, interest rates have doubled. So we're looking at a refinance there. So any kind of situation where you could have any kind of performing investment is really precluded. Unfortunately, that said, maybe there's an option at some point to add a bedroom or something like that, to provide a little more housing. But I really fall in love. It's kind of an ugly duckling for a lot of people, but I really kind of fallen in love with this property, and just want to do a great job to preserve it and make a great home for folks, and that's pretty much it very straightforward also, I think the change by Jared Polis, and allowing, you know, more than like non-related people to live together made it more attractive as a single family residence, because he could rent it out to. You know, young professionals or something. It wouldn't just have to be a family. So right? And that's what's really appropriate for the area I mentioned, the prior developer had

[61:23] put through and gotten a triplex permitted. We didn't really feel that was appropriate for the. It wasn't a reuse of the building, but also it doesn't really fit. If you spend time there, and it didn't really fit. And that may be why they ultimately decided to sell it from market standpoint from an economic standpoint, didn't really seem to make sense. So we felt like this was really the best best path forward for this property. Great. Thank you. Ml, so I'm understanding that this is going to be a rental. and you're talking about even adding another bedroom. So if you know, if it was something that you guys wanted for density purposes. Certainly we're not. But it's we're not asking. That's not any kind of a formal request or anything like that. So I'm just curious because we see this come through. Are you renting it by the bedroom or by the house

[62:14] as a whole? So it'd be it'd still be like a single family residence so given, the potential requirement of Off street parking being eliminated. I heard you say you had originally proposed a duplex, and parking was the was the reason that it got denied. Would you reconsider that, since it's already you've already got a duplex design there, if the cost, it's just not economic, I mean when we go in. If the cost. If we were in that environment we originally started in, I would answer you absolutely But in terms of where we are in this cost environment. I cited 3 of those costs that doesn't really get into the I'm sure you guys have probably heard or experienced firsthand

[63:04] dramatic increase in construction costs as well. If we were in that other environment. And it was economic that that's where we intended to go. But right now where we are just precludes that we'd be getting killed, and just as a reminder since that hasn't been passed by council or approved yet, it's not on the books yet. So we can't attach that to this particular view. Correct? Right? I'm just speculating. Yeah. And I will say, too, that that one of my concerns the parking situation in that. There's a little pocket parked there. and in there. The parking's tight. We were really trying to do this, you know, totally in good faith, totally on site, because if we were to, you know, only have a few parking spots, it would be not only a nightmare for anybody that was living there, it would be challenging, very challenging, maybe be the best way to put it very challenging to park on a daily basis, and it would exacerbate the situation for the folks that are already there as well.

[64:02] So my last question was something I asked Staff and and they didn't have the answer to. But what percent of the deck is infringing into the step back? So with the setback that is currently approved under the pud, it's less than half. So it's more of the north end of the deck, because the setback you can pull up if you pull up the site plan. Even that Shannon showed. I can point out where the setback line is. Yeah, I saw the setback line. I just was curious as to is it about a 3, rd it's less than half. Yeah. So it kind of the setback kind of goes like this. And the deck is kind of like that. So it's kind of that south east corner of it or no, I'm sorry it's the opposite. It's the northeast corner of it. Yeah, and there's a notable feature in that area of the property we wanted to provide access. There's the bike path there. So it's great, you know, from sorry could you speak into the mic? Sorry, I'm sorry. So from a

[65:00] so there's a bike path that that runs right past there. So it enables folks, you know, would be able to go out. And, you know, access easily the bike path, but at same time to provide security there as well. The bike path pass on the ditch. It pass. There's a bridge that goes over. So it's it's back there. So it provides access to that. It provides. I didn't realize that ready ready access to that. So it's good. And then the immigration park is right there as well, so people can just go out the back. They don't have to go around, so it provides some convenience there, and so they can just roll their bike across the deck and go there. So there's some utility to it. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you all, Laura. Thank you. Do you happen to know how the ditch performed in the 2013 flood, and whether that impacted your deck or your structure? It did not? I asked. There's a neighbor's name's David nice Guy. He's been there a very long time, and I did ask him that specific question, he said. That particular area is fine the way the ditch runs it kind of dips away and down

[66:10] from where that deck is. So it's actually not coming into it. It's actually going away from it at that point. So that in that portion is the part that's actually furthest away from the ditch. So there's the most separation. So the way, if you kind of visualize, we can maybe pull up the diagram of the conveyance zone on the plans. Just so that you can refer to that because people following along at home or watching the recording won't be able to see. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So if we look up here in the top, right. you'll note that the blue shaded area in the convention. You see how it kind of goes away. And then the deck actually how it's running parallel. But then it makes that bend. So up there it's actually quite a bit further away. It's not as steep in that area, but it's further away in terms of distance where it's closest. If you are standing on that deck, you're looking down

[67:10] 6 feet, probably down to the water. Something like that. Okay, thank you. Sure. And then, if I might just a follow up for Staff. can you confirm what is the date that city council is considering eliminating parking minimums is that in 2 weeks, June 26, th I believe. Yeah, okay, so it's not this week. Next week, next week they'll be. And is that the is that the second reading that is, the public hearing, that is, the public hearing. So that is the date that they're going to. So in about a week, you'll know potentially. yeah. But and then on top of that, there's a 30 day, and then 30 days to actually implement it before it's effective unless it's on emergency days. Okay? So in about another 9 days they'll know whether the parking minimums were eliminated. And then 30 days after that is when it would go into effect for any new plans. Okay, thank you.

[68:02] I just want to remind board members that we have an application in front of us for a thing and and are a lot of other things have happened, and a lot of other things may happen, but we have an application in front of us for a thing. And that's that should be our focus. Yeah, if I could just reiterate. I think the position that we're in right now, before we heard a couple days ago about the parking was that we could either hopefully get this approved for the use of the detached dwelling, or really the only other option for this property would be to tear down the existing building and rebuild it, to meet the current requirements of this district, because right now the existing structure is only allowed to be the form that it is because of the pud. You know, special privileges. So we can't work within that Pud, really without.

[69:00] you know, tearing everything down. And we were thinking because of the parking the previous application before Brent even bought the property had like a triplex, and they had shown like garden level parking. That was the only way they had gotten away with it. So they had to take out the complete structure and provide onsite underground parking. So that's where we were at. Okay, I don't see Mason. Okay, okay, go ahead. Is this project 50 years old? Would it be under historic review for deconstruction? It was built in about 1983. So I don't think so. It was 1983, 42, yeah, okay, thank you. So it there, there wouldn't be. The issue of this. Might be a protected building. Got it? Thanks.

[70:02] Okay. If there's no other questions for the applicant, thanks to the applicant for clarifying a number of things for us, we'll now go to the public hearing. And I don't see anyone in the room. And how about online? We have nobody joining us online at the moment. Okay, so all right. Okay, then we will close the public hearing, and we'll go to board deliberations if you'd like. So we're going to do a 5 min bathroom break, and we'll be back at 7 15.

[76:51] Okay, I'm going to call the meeting back to order. and this is now time for board deliberations. And so before we get to

[77:09] we have 2 key issues that Staff has given us here. And I think what I'm going to suggest is that we go in whatever order a board, any board member would like to address the key issues and their thoughts. So, Laura, I'm I'm going to let you lead us off, and you can address the if you'd like to address the use of you prior to the Site Review. You may do so. Thank you, I would, and the reason why I'd like to address the Use Review 1st is because I think this is the crux of the matter, and the site review assumes the single family use of the Home that the Use Review would be approved. So I think it makes sense to look at the use review first, st and I'll I'll just say I don't think it meets the criteria as laid out in the code for the Use Review. so I intend to move to deny the use review

[78:04] finding that it is not consistent with 9, 6, 3 E. Brc. 1981. I'll say I'm I'm a little bit I don't. I'm a little mystified by Staff's analysis on this one kind of following up on some of the points that you made mark with the specific use standard. So, 1st of all, the specific use, standard criteria, as staff discussed, were established in 2019 specifically to limit the establishment of new single family detached dwellings in the residential high zoning districts. Okay? So there's a presumption that we should not be establishing new single family dwelling units in this zone unless it can meet the criteria which were specifically established. And so can we please pull up the code. Section 9, 6, 3, e. 2, a Roman numeral to CI think that's the correct code citation. But it's the C in that section.

[79:13] It's the one that says dwelling unit is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. I think it's useful to have those words in front of us. Okay, can we highlight that little C there? Yeah, this is this, is it. And this is. This is the exact language that was in the Staff memo, and that was the relevant version that this was prepared against. So in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. It doesn't say, structures containing detached dwelling units, it says, detached dwelling units, and clearly, if we are counting the units then attached dwelling units by far outnumber detached. I don't think there's any question about that mathematically.

[80:04] but even if we accept Staff's interpretation of counting structures, instead of counting units by my math, multifamily still predominates, and in Staff's Memo they say that. Well, okay. So 1st of all, if we look just at this 19th Street spur the street that this project is on. There is only one established, detached dwelling unit, and everything else around it is multifamily buildings. If you stand on this street you are standing amongst a bunch of apartment buildings and triplexes and condos. There's only one other structure that is defined as single family, but that's just 19th Street. Even if we zoom out and look at the whole Rh. 2 area like Staff did. Even by their math, 47% are detached single unit structures which leaves 53% as multifamily structures. The only way that

[81:00] detached units predominate is, if you segment out and say that duplexes and triplexes are somehow a different animal from 4 plus unit structures. And then compare those 3 buckets against each other. There's nothing in the code that indicates to me that that's the way that this should be analyzed, and I'm not quite sure how we got there. So I just simply respectfully disagree with Staff's analysis. It seems very clear to me that by almost any math that attached units are the predominant units as well as the predominant structure type. So I just don't think it meets this criteria, and this is a required criterion that was established precisely to prevent new, large, single family detached units in this zoning district. So that that is why I'm going to move to deny the Use Review. I think it simply does not meet the criteria that it must meet, and if it does not meet the criteria we must deny.

[82:03] Okay, Kirk. Thank you. And thank you for that. Laura. Yeah. My analysis is the very similar to Laura's We have this requirement in the use criteria, this the specific use criteria, as Laura described the way I calculated it. If we assume that all the duplexes and triplexes are actually duplexes, and all the 4 unit structures are 4 unit or more structures are only 4 units. There's still a total of 159 units in the area that staff identified. And so they're only There are 35 detached single units out of 159 total units. So that to me clearly is not predominating. Also, if you just walk around the area which I've done

[83:06] many, many times, if you ask, sort of the person on the street do do detached dwelling units predominate in this area. I think very few people would say yes, I think that they think would think of this as an area of multi-unit dwellings. this is. It's an unfortunate conclusion for me, because I do. I would love to preserve this building. I've actually been inside the building back. When it was, I think, originally for sale. Boulder housing, coalition was looking, which is the Co-OP developer was looking at buying it, and I toured it with them. And it's really solid structure. It's really well made, and I would it would be a tragedy to have it torn down.

[84:02] But the code is what the code is. And so I think it's a. It's a gap in the code. But I think we have to go by what the code says. And so I come to the same conclusion that Laura does. which is, that it does not meet the the use review, the the use criteria. I I could. I am comfortable saying that it meets the Site Review criteria. It doesn't meet the standards of the or the requirements of the land. Use map because it's certainly not over 14 dwelling units per acre. It's about 7, 6, or 7 dwelling units per acre. So it's not consistent with the land. Use map. But looking at site review criteria as a whole. I think I think it is consistent, but not with use. Review criteria. Ml.

[85:00] I have to agree with both Laura and Kurt. You know. One of the reasons that I agreed to call this up was because it seemed it seemed at odds with. we tend to be pursuing a course of up zoning and creating more density. And this is going in the opposite direction. So I was curious as to how a single family home was relevant in a high density zone is why I was interested to see what the staff was thinking and what the applicant was thinking. Im like Kurt, I'm deeply troubled that this building might not survive the process. I do, however, appreciate that you have looked at a duplex on this site, and it's it's designed. It's really ready to go, especially if it was already applied for, and perhaps.

[86:03] you know, in a month or so this scene will look more inviting to, in fact, pursue multi family housing on this on this project and and go for for that option, retain the existing building which would significantly reduce the cost. Obviously. But go ahead and get the setback. the setback reductions that the Site Plan approval would grant you, so that you could keep keep the deck and keep any infringements that the building has already had approved relative to the to the setbacks. So it's a it's a i think it's a very difficult decision, but it it does really go against so much of what we've been trying to do with the city to create more housing

[87:01] and that it become a 5 bedroom single family house, I'm not sure is addressing. And you know we're looking for housing, for middle income, for maybe families. So that that's where I'm at. It's it's not an easy decision. And I think you I appreciate the staff's. the staff's presentation, and the applicants considerations and concerns. But I think I am going to agree and defer with the our regulations are are the regulations. Thank you. Mason. I agree with the comments you made, and I'll be really brief, because I don't want to just repeat everything, but

[88:01] I mean it's pretty clear what that says. The dwelling unit is located in an area where detached dwelling units predominate. and if you look at just detached dwelling notes predominate. Then this obviously doesn't, doesn't meet it, because those, if you do it just by structure, it's under 47 we have in my my line of work. We have tests for predominance, and the definition is to be predominant has to be 51%. Now, I know this isn't a direct, you know. Corollary. But I agree. No, no new comments. Okay, I'm looking at our online participants. Claudia, you got your hand up now. Thanks. I'll say a few words. First, st I want to say, I think the the Site Review criteria are not really written to evaluate a project of this nature. So I

[89:04] I appreciate and support Staff's analysis that focuses on some of these criteria that can be met and those that are relevant in a case like this, in the absence of a demolition. I actually think that the worst outcome that we can have in a review like this is that we make a demolition. The easiest. or God forbid the only pathway to legal redevelopment. Here I think we have a raft of Bvcp policies around sustainability, that support reusing existing structures when they are not actively harming their surroundings. And we also have policies around transparent and functional government, which is not how I would describe what this applicant has been experiencing in our review process. based on the questions I asked earlier and answers I received. I'm not even fully convinced that a use review is appropriate for this proposal. City staff can disagree with that. That's their

[90:03] prerogative and their expertise. But we have what for all intents and purposes, looks like, and quacks like a detached dwelling unit here. and which may have even been legal as such at the time that it was constructed, and other parts of its history. I feel that the definitions we're arguing about here are really solely about or solely related to, who lived in that structure, and who might in the future live in that building. And I don't think that's something we should be wading into without really good reason, in a review like this. I don't sense majority support for approving this proposal, so I'm not going to go any deeper into my comments at this time, but I will not be supporting a motion to deny. Thank you, Claudia. George, do you have comments. I feel the same way as Claudia. That's the end of my comments. For me to make my comments. I'm going to go back to a question to Staff, and

[91:07] so I would like, and this may have been answered, but succinctly. What is the legal use of the property today? So there is no approved use on the property right now. The zoning code has a number of buy right uses mainly, multifamily residential uses in this particular zone that would be considered uses by right. But as of today, there is no approved use for the property, not single family. not a group home since that's expired. So if they wanted to start over like we said, resend all of the approvals. Scrape the property, start over. That would be an option. Thank you.

[92:01] I'm sorry, or they could modify the existing structure. To be conforming with Rh. 2. Is that correct? That's correct. That is an option. Yeah, and modifying the existing structure. To comply with Rh. 2 would involve converting it to a duplex duplex. I mean again, if and when the parking changes happen and go into effect, then that would change the site planning and remove a lot of the constraints from the property. Yeah, okay. But they would, you know, if they're gonna again adaptively reuse the building. The typology of construction of the building remains a challenge in that you're going to have to put separate systems and meters and sprinkler the building and that kind of thing. So I think this is a a brilliant example of the Kafka-esque failings of a code being interpreted with unnecessary rigidity.

[93:00] And when I think about the Rh 2 Zone and I visit the site. And I look at this building. And I look at the plans. This is not going to be rented to mom, dad and 4 kids. This is going to be rented to multiple individuals in an environment that is predominated by smaller families, students. professional. Starting out. It's a it is, it is. It is a dense, multifamily neighborhood, and under our former code, until we eliminated occupancy limits, this would have been a perfect application. and I believe it would have been perfect as a co-OP, and they could have gone through our crazy Kafka es Co-OP application process, which, after years of development, resulted in almost no applications, because it was so onerous.

[94:12] They have worked through all of our parking requirements which are yet to be rescinded. and so the solution to providing housing in this place, meeting our climate goals while not deconstructing buildings. substantial buildings unnecessarily. We're you know, we're talking a nice brick building here. So and wow, I, I realize that we have a code. And I understand the attempts to interpret it rigidly. We also have a Bvcp and we have goals as a city, and we have goals as clearly stated in the Bvcp. For affordability for a variety of housing types we have.

[95:15] So I am not in support of this proposed denial. I think that, having experienced the kind of circular logic being applied to this. Where a building exists. bedrooms exist, a kitchen exists. But there is no, there is no legal use for this that that is. I think, rather than a a flaw in the plans by the applicant. That is a flaw in the code, and I think Staff has done good work in bringing this forward in a way that it

[96:06] it complies with the code barely, but I'll say it complies with the code. So that concludes my comments. Laura. So I just want to respond to some of the things I'm hearing from the Board that that don't align with how I looked at this project. So I just want to share. I don't think that this is a Kafkaesque rigidity question. I think that that line of code was written to prevent structures like this from becoming large single family homes. This is a 3,200 square foot building with 4 bedrooms right? And this particular applicant, it wants to rent it out, or at least that's what's being represented here. But we? We cannot hold them to that just like with Freuhoff's. We couldn't hold that applicant to what they said they were going to do. All we know is what we are allowing on this property, which is a 3,200 square foot, single family home in an extremely desirable location near downtown. This owner could decide that they would like to sell it to a family that would like to maintain it

[97:06] for an individual, a couple of people with kids, anybody who wants to use it as a single family home. And that is exactly what this code section was written to prevent. Right? We're talking about going from what used to be a group home. It's no longer used for that. But it was designed and built to be a group home for 8 individuals with developmental disabilities. That was an extremely valuable community benefit use for this property and turning it into potentially a home for one family in a high density zone very close to transit very close to downtown, which is exactly where we want density. So I want to talk to about the Bvcp. Because I was just talking about the Use Review, but I also don't think it complies with the Site Review. When you take it from the perspective of we are going from a high density, zoning, and a a former higher density use for 8 individuals to a single family home. I don't think it complies with the goals and intents or the land use map. I don't think it is on balance consistent with the Bbcp. And I'll go through. Why

[98:09] so Bbcp land use designation, high density, residential quote planned for transit, oriented redevelopment near major corridors and services. That's exactly what this property was envisioned to be. The zoning is Rh 2 quote, primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including without limitation, apartment buildings. Right? That is the the desired zoning for this site. Not a single family home policy, 2.0 3 compact development pattern. This project does not support a compact development project by taking something that could be or that used to be high density and turning it into a single family home. As Ml. Said, it's going in the opposite direction. Policy, 2.1 0 preservation and support for residential neighborhoods, says, in part, the city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability, and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. Going from a group home to a 3,200 square foot. Single family home is not preserving affordability and livability in the neighborhood. It is increasing the unattainability of that housing stock, presuming that it is a single family home.

[99:22] which is what it would be by definition, policy. 2.1 2. Preservation of existing residential uses says, in part, the city will encourage the preservation or replacement of in kind existing legally established residential uses in non-residential zones. This is this is a residential zone, but the idea is we're preserving existing uses while going from a group home to a multifamily or to a single family home is going backwards. Going from something that's zoned. High density to a single family home is going backwards. It is not preserving or enhancing existing residential uses. Policy 2.1 6 mixed use and higher density development.

[100:00] The city will encourage well designed mixed use and higher density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in appropriate locations, including in proximity to multimodal corridors and transit centers. This is in proximity to a multimodal corridor and a transit center, and it is going to lower density and is not contributing to affordable housing goals, whereas if it were used for its zoned purpose, it would be policy 2.3 3 sensitive infill and redevelopment. This is not an infill project. Again, it's going backwards in density in an area that is proximate to transit and to downtown policy 7.0 3 populations with special needs. This does not serve the goal of serving a population with special needs by taking a building that was expressly designed for this purpose and converting it to a single family home forevermore. Policy 7.0 7 mixture of housing types reads in part, the city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types as appropriate. This may include support for adus alley houses, cottage courts and multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot.

[101:11] This would be giving a use review to make a single unit home where high density housing would otherwise be built, and my last 1 7.0 8 preserve existing housing stock reads in part, special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing, serving low, moderate, and middle income households, and to promote a net gain in affordable and middle income housing. None of this is served by a 3,200 square foot single unit home, close to downtown. I could go on, but when I look at on balance to me. The value of preserving a nice brick building does not outweigh the detriments of taking a very, you know, precious piece of land close to downtown, close to transit and converting it into a single family home. I don't see that as on balance being where I think the Bvcp is going to, structures, get old structures get reused, they could keep the structure, pop the top, add a couple more units, add 2 more floors of units, and

[102:10] meet those goals of not contributing to a lot of landfill material, but also providing more housing. And maybe this particular owner doesn't want to do that. But that is what this property was designed for, and I don't feel like we rezone or permit use review applications that clearly don't meet the criteria just because we want to preserve a building, or because the person who bought it doesn't want to comply with the code. I'll stop there, Claudia. Thanks, Mark. So I object to my colleague repeatedly, repeatedly referring to the structure as a group living facility. When this is no longer a legally established use according to staff analysis and her analysis, this is a structure with 4 bedrooms and a kitchen, nothing more.

[103:01] We are not currently talking about moving from one thing that we might like. I like group living facilities. I like group living. I advocate for high density housing. That is not what is there? It is not about talking. We're not talking about moving from one thing that we might like to another thing that we don't like and discourage. If this is not currently a detached dwelling unit, it is also not currently a group living facility. And I don't think we should be making that distinction in our analysis, that's all I'd like to add right now. And I'll I'd just like to add that. that I think that the elimination of occupancy limits I found occupancy limits. Now bring this around to this situation I found occupancy limits to be a morally wrong role of governance.

[104:07] that for the city of Boulder to define what is and isn't a family was wrong. and when we eliminated occupancy limits it was exactly properties like this that suddenly could house could be 4 people could be 8. It could be 4 couples. It could be any, any number of things, but it was the elimination of occupancy limits and the end. And that's why we don't actually call them single family dwelling units anymore. Is it isn't the role of government to define family and who we live with and who we love. And this is an opportunity for conversion from gee, I'm I'm sorry it's not a group home as well. But like we've seen with a myriad other things. We don't we? As planning board, we as city planners, we as city government.

[105:11] don't get to determine what the market is and what is economically viable and not viable we are. We have to deal with the reality on the ground on the day, and I appreciate my colleagues citation of code, and and I think that is incredibly important. I also think it's incredibly important to understand the the, the limbo that actually having a property that has no legal use. That is also to me that's similar to occupancy limits. It's like, Wait, this is. This is just plain old wrong. So again, I will not be supporting the motion to deny. But I think

[106:04] it looks like that might happen so Mark May. Can I weigh in really quickly before you move to the motion stage. If that's okay, one of the requests that Staff would like to make is if you are going to go towards a motion for denial, it would be helpful to do a continuance, so we can draft the findings for you all. To review. That again, just helps us to have written findings of fact for you to consider, to adopt. It would also be helpful to be clear on site and use review. Are you denying both? Are you approving one or not the other. That would be really helpful just for the record. If I made a motion I would certainly be clear which one, I guess. I don't understand why Staff needs us to separate out the denial findings from the adoption of the so why do we need to separate the vote on the denial from the adoption of the denial findings. Why couldn't we do one tonight and do the other one next time? Because we ran into this issue previously, where we're moving towards a motion, we delayed it in order to adopt denial findings. And then we had different people in the room.

[107:06] Yeah, could we not adopt the denial tonight, if that's what we're going to do and then adopt the findings and then continue it. Yeah, I would do it as a you're adopting the denial, but continuing to adopt the denial finding. So either way, you're going to continue after that adoption piece. But you could not move to deny and continue for denial, finding adoption. Sure. Ml, yeah. Nope, Nope, go ahead. In the. I think this is a question, maybe for you, Laurel. Apologies. Sorry the use motion that we're being asked. Is it specifically? For a single family? Can we see the language that we're looking at under the use motion, please. So the motion that Staff has suggested is a combination approval

[108:00] of the Site and use review. And it's very simple. It just motion to approve site, review, amendment, application and use review application number number adopting the staff memorandum is finding effects, including the attached analysis of review criteria. So it's it's what the motion language that they they have suggested, which I I am. I have always been one that that doesn't mean we have to use. That is a combo. So my question, laurel is the use review application is proposing that the use is a single family house, or that the use is residential. Yeah, single family a single family. I'm sorry, a detached dwelling unit. as defined in the code, so they could not also consider a duplex

[109:03] under that use review that is being proposed right now, duplexes allowed use by right. They don't need a use review to do. They don't need a use review for a duplex. Okay? So if we deny the Use Review, they could still do a duplex. That's correct. Good to know. Thank you so much. So I would like to make a motion. Please go ahead. I move to deny. Use. Review. LUR. 2023, 0 0 1 0. Finding that it is not consistent with 9, 6, 3 e brc, 1981 second. Okay, we have a motion. And a second, Laura. Okay, would you like to? And so laurel, yeah. as we proceed here. Logistically, I'm just want to confirm what Laura had asked.

[110:04] that the denial findings can be adopted after the denial. I think it would still be need to be in the same motion, because otherwise you have adopted the denial. And and that's it. So I don't know if we could. I don't know. I'm trying to think about how to say this. so I understand the desire for denial findings and understand the importance of those in for all sorts of reasons. I also understand the Board's Board members desire to conclude with all 7 of us here, and not get into a situation like we've been in at other times. Right? So Is there a way to for us? Should we adopt the denial? To then, I guess, denoting the denial findings would also require the same number, same people.

[111:10] It wouldn't have to be the same people. But you would need a vote of 4 or more right, but it doesn't solve the perilous problem of someone being absent. And suddenly. then we would have a denial. the potential of having a denial. And then, having unadopted denial findings. Yeah, and the the possibility there is. Even if you were to say I don't support this denial, you could approve it as like a matter of form, kind of like we do with minutes. But I think that could be a problem if somebody doesn't come to the next meeting. But I wonder if we could say, you know, we move to deny, based on that. and direct staff, to draft denial findings. to be reviewed at a future meeting or something like that. Yeah, Laura, do as motion maker.

[112:01] We've already got a motion in a second, anyway. And you can speak to your motion, and you may also speak to any possible amendments that you might suggest to that would facilitate the logistics of this. I'm putting some stuff in the chat for Thomas to put up on the screen so we can talk about it together. I think maybe there's a way through this. Okay, Thomas, can you hold off and take the one that I'm just about to send you. I just sent it. and it reads that I move to deny the Use Review with the case number. Finding that is not consistent with the code section and request that staff draft denial findings to be adopted at a future planning board meeting. And you're right. It doesn't necessarily get us around the the potential hiccup that maybe some of us are not here. When that denial.

[113:03] those denial findings are presented, so I guess I would request that we bring forward those denial findings at a meeting. When all 7 of us are present. we do have a specific date. If that's helpful for the next planning board meeting. which is July 15, th because are folks going to be here for the July 15th meeting? Anybody know they're going to be absent. I don't know that we can. I think we gotta be cautious. I don't know that any of us can guarantee that we're gonna be all 7 in a room. I I don't know that that we should be doing that or codifying that. But you know we're all gonna be there in order to make this happen. I would love to find a way to figure out how to do this in one meeting, because I do see the obstacle, but I also think that our procedures are not set up that way for people to guarantee that they're gonna be here.

[114:01] Brad, help us out, Bud. Oh, I'll I'll try. So Brad Mueller, planning director I would just point out that if, for example, these were 2 motions, and they don't need to be. But if the denial were approved, and then there's a second action for denial findings to happen at a date certain, probably always a good idea to put a date certain. If, for whatever reason, those denial findings weren't adopted. the denial would still stand. It would just be without the benefit of the findings, which is a best practice, as you know, from from Staff's recommendations. I think, and Laurel's giving me the eye there so oh, I'm just sorry, but my wheels are turning a little bit, so I think the thing that I am struggling with a little bit is, if we move to deny that it's denied. Well, and that's the risk. Yeah. So I think we would.

[115:00] we would say, probably best practice is to not take any action tonight. Give direction for staff to bring findings and then approve the findings and the denial together. I mean, that would be the the most certain direction. So I'll just speak to this and say, I think that makes sense when the denial findings are potentially complicated. I think in this case we all spoke to the exact same code section as being the reason for the denial, and that's the one that's cited here. 9, 6, 3 E. And I can give you the subsection if you want, all the way down to the little number C, but this is the section that we found it was not consistent with, and I think that that was consistent across the board. So I don't think that there's a complicated denial finding here. although if you so, I guess I'm comfortable with this language, saying. you know we deny the Use Review for this reason, and we request that staff draft denial findings to be adopted at the July 15th Planning Board meeting. If you want to put a date certain on it. I don't. I don't think that there's going to be. I think that that would stand.

[116:03] And if we want to add more detail on July 15, th we can do that. Does that make sense to folks? Well, I I think it makes sense. If the 4 of you are committed to being here for the July 15th meeting, that's really that's the. If if the 4 voting in favor of denial are planning on being here, then the rest is moot. Well, I think George makes a good point. None of us can guarantee that we'll be here on a date. Certain, right? Like family emergencies happen. Weather happens, you know, health issues happen. Who knows? So I think any time that we separate the decision from denial. We have this question. but if we don't take the decision tonight, then we still have the same issue with when we come back it might be different people in the room, whereas now you're denying it, and we're just talking about denial. I would I would be more comfortable with adopting a position tonight, and then we can add more detail at a future meeting if needed. Okay, I'm going to bring this back around a procedure.

[117:06] So we have a motion. The motion ends after 1981, and we do not have a motion to amend. We don't have a motion to continue. we have a motion and and even, and I'm not just trying to overrule staff here. But as motion maker, it is your privilege to carry forth on the motion and my job as chair to facilitate the vote and adopt or not that motion. So I'm turning it back over to you as motion maker to proceed. So I accept the friendly amendment that is suggested by Staff. If my second will also accept it. To add this clause and request that staff draft denial findings to be adopted at the July 15th Planning Board meeting Thomas. Could we edit that to say July 15th rather than a future?

[118:04] And Kurt, I think you were the second. Do you accept that friendly amendment as well? I do accept that friendly amendment. I am also, though very sympathetic to what you said that the denial findings are basically that so far as I'm concerned, the denial findings are that it's not consistent with 9, 6, 3 E, and specifically 9, 6, 3 e. To A/C. The terminology about detached dwelling units predominate for reasons that we described in the meeting, talking about the numbers, and and that were presented in the staff memo about the specific numbers of different kinds of units in the area. And so I'm not a lawyer, but to me that feels like that is sufficient as denial findings. But I would be interested to hear from you. So sorry. I kind of hijacked this, but I do accept the the friendly amendment.

[119:03] or the amendment to the to the yeah, to the motion. I would I would. I'm going to request that either we discuss and debate the motion that we have, or someone make, a formal amendment to the motion regarding the July 15th meeting rather than this friendly amendment thing because there aren't such things. So we we've gone a motion a second. We've already deliberated. And so I'm going to request that if someone wants to make an amendment to the to the main motion. Please do. Okay. Yep. So I believe I heard Staff say that right now, if this use. Review is denied right now. applicant has use by right to apply for a duplex. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so they are not a project, a site without an option.

[120:06] If this use review is denied technically, no, got it. Thank you. Okay, so Mark, I'm going to respect your role as chair here and ask Thomas to strike the and request. Strike it out, but save it in case we want to copy, paste it into an amendment. So stop the sentence at 1981 cut the rest of that out. So we have a motion, and a second. Would somebody like to amend the main motion? Thank you for humor. I move to amend the motion, the motion adding the words that you just took out, which are adding, and request that staff draft denial findings to be adopted at the July 15, th 2025. Planning board meeting. Second.

[121:03] okay. Is there any further discussion or debate on the amendment which is requesting the staff draft denial findings to be adopted at the July 15, th 2025, planning board meeting. Okay, we are going to vote on the amendment. Okay, I'm going to start with Laura. Yes, Mason. Yes, Kurt, yes, and Mel. Yes, George. No. And Claudia. No. And I'm a no. Okay. The amendment is adopted. Now we are back to a motion. and it's on the screen, and I'm not going to repeat it just yet. Is there additional deliberation or discussion on the motion as it stands now? Yes, Mason. so you said something that struck me as interesting, and I was hoping that you could expand upon your

[122:05] use of the word rigidity. My understanding. as our roles aboard in a quasi-judicial hearing. We are to rule based on language in front of us. That's code, and it says, predominant. correct. So you obviously have a different interpretation of what that word means. am I interpreting that correctly? I appreciate the question because this is a an area of the code that that. And again, I appreciate all all the arguments here tonight. And because this is one area of the code that by some standard is objective, okay, predominant. Okay? And and yes, if you do it by unit count

[123:00] using your definition. And I accept your definition because you're a statistician. And I'm not okay. That predominant means majority predominant majority, 51%, 50% plus one whatever. Whatever you want to do that. Okay, what? What I struggle with is when we find a failing of the code even objectively, that puts that that really runs counter to the logic behind it and the logic behind Bbcp policies, and then puts an applicant in the situation of of Yes, the property

[124:04] could be redeveloped as a duplex gotcha on that. But it still is a property as it stands today. That's a functional property without a legal use. It is not a duplex today. And so so to say. Mr. Applicant, you can't use your property because you can't use your property, not for life and safety reasons, but for but for code reasons. That's where I struggle. So that's that's my reasoning. And but I appreciate you, bringing the objective nature of the code into it. And while the this particular section is objective, it is also, I think, wrong. So given that you believe it's wrong in our role in a quasjudicial form.

[125:02] If we were to believe a law code was incorrect. aren't we still held to upholding it? Because I agree, this is a really shitty situation, just to speak plainly, like they triggered a process. They got thrown into this through machinations. The whole thing is, I think, unfair honestly, but I also don't know that that matters. Laura. You I reacted to that pretty strongly. Look. I sympathize with the applicant wanting to do something, but they purchased a property in an Rh. 2 zone that does not have an approved use as a single unit attached. Excuse me, detached dwelling. It's not approved. And they went into this. If they read the code, knowing that they would have to go through a use review, and that there were certain criteria. Those criteria have not changed. In fact, we're going back to the previous version. That was in place when they bought the property right. We did not change it. We did not yank the rug. They simply don't meet the standard, and they did not meet the standard when they purchased the property.

[126:16] and so the fact that they want to do something that our code allows. That's not a shitty situation that we created right. That is the code that applies to this property that they purchased. and they should have known, or maybe they didn't have good legal advice, but that is, if you want to turn it into a single detached dwelling unit. Those are the standards that apply objectively right? I don't see that we did anything wrong in this situation to hold them to the code that has always been there. I get what you're saying. Yes, just as something I was thinking about as you guys are talking is, I think this is an example of this is a discretionary review. There is some subjectivity of what predominant is, since we don't have a definition. As you can see each of you view it a little bit differently, and each case might be a little bit different, you know, if this was the house right next door to the other single family house. Would that be different? Or if there was 51%, as you argue? And so I think that this is just an example of.

[127:16] like your discretionary review in this. And I know that you guys are really working through that. And I think that's really helpful for future applicants as well, but just wanted to point out that there is some subjectivity in this, because it's not defined. Right? Thank you. Okay, while, while this is super interesting and delves into a realm of oh, okay, Claudia, great. Thanks, Mark, I did. I also wanted to speak to that issue of discretion and subjectivity, and just call my colleagues attention to the fact that this was actually discussed in the staff. Memo. It's in one of the attachments. It's on page 70 out of 80 in our packet. where Staff says that the land use code does not establish a particular physical area. Specific method for the numeric comparison of detached dwelling units in relation to other types of dwelling units, or a definition of the word predominant. So Staff has addressed this issue in their opinion that there is some discretion in our determination here. So I just wanted to throw that into this discussion.

[128:22] That's helpful. Thank you, Claudia Mason. just simply to say I saw that I just disagreed. and that's the nature of subjective things. Right. Look, look, the word predominant is an English language word that you can look up in the dictionary, and it means the most numerous right. And so. and the code says it is in an area where detached dwelling units predominate, are the most numerous, and by no math that I can see are detached dwelling units the most numerous, either on this street or in the Rh. 2 area that Staff has proposed. Unless you do.

[129:02] it's a somewhat creative calculation to say that duplexes and triplexes belong in a different bucket than 4 plus units, but all of those are still attached units versus detached, which is the word that is used in the code which is attached. Dwelling or detached dwelling units predominate, which they don't. I? Just they just don't. Okay. Again, what I was saying was, this is, I actually find this fascinating, and one of these things that you know should have been a lawyer. But we have. We have business to conduct. And is there any other substantially additive discussion to the motion we have before us? Okay, hearing none, then we have a motion. The motion is to deny the use. Review. Number LUR. 2023, dash 0, 0,

[130:07] 0 1 0. Finding that it is not consistent with 9, dash 6, dash 3 E comma brc. 1981, and request that staff draft denial findings to be adopted at the July 15, th 2025, planning board meeting. so we're going to vote, and I'm going to do the same order as last time. Laura. Yes, Mason. Yes, Kurt, yes. Ml, yes, George. Nope. Claudia. No. And I'm a no. So the motion passes and the measure. The denial motion is approved. Kurt, can I request that the original staff memo.

[131:04] a motion be put back up. so up. I'll just say I was intending to make a separate second motion about the Site Review Amendment piece of this because that is a separate approval. Okay, I think I have the floor. I move to approve. Site review amendment application, lur. 2022, 0 0 4 4, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Do we have a second. Second. Okay, Claudia. Seconds. Okay, so this is strictly on. The this is a motion to approve

[132:00] the site. Review criteria, Kurt, since it's your motion. Would you like to speak to it? Yeah. I spoke quickly in my comments earlier about Site Review. I think that it's not an entirely clear cut situation. But overall, I feel that it does. The proposal does meet the site. Review criteria especially given the relative more flexibility of the Site Review criteria rather than the specific use. Review criteria in 963 e. That we were looking at, and so for the State, for the purposes of clarity and for Staff's benefit I thought that it would be appropriate to make determination one way or another by the board about the the Site Review. And so I am. That's why I'm moving to approve it. Claudia. A second. You want to speak to it. Okay, is there any other comment on the motion, Laura?

[133:05] So I'm not sure that it makes sense to approve a Site Review amendment that was designed around a use that we just denied. You know, if we approve this Site Review amendment. The main reason to do the Site Review Amendment, as I understand it, was to basically solidify the setbacks for the the deck. Primarily the rear yard and the side yard setbacks, and to approve some bathroom modifications. But if this is not the use that they're going, if they're not approved for the use that they designed this, for. I'm not sure that it makes sense to go ahead and approve a site review that they can't build or they wouldn't be able to to. If they did build it, they wouldn't be able to put people into it, because it's not approved for the use that it was intended for. So I would recommend that we not approve it, not because it's a, you know, a bad site review, but because they're going to need to come back with another site review, either to change the Site plan to conform with Rh. 2, or do another use review or something. But they can't do what they have intended to do with this Site review

[134:10] dirt. Well, I heard from Staff that they would appreciate hearing from us on both points, and I would certainly not support a denial of the Site Review. And so, if the options are, if if we've got to make some determination one way or another, then I'm in favor of an approval. Emma. So my understanding of the Site Review approval has to do with amending the Pud, essentially amending the Pud for the setbacks, which again would would allow them to come forth with a by right duplex.

[135:04] because they would have the setbacks in place. Is that correct. the setbacks on the amendment to the Pud would run with the property. Yes, unless they demolish a building, or significantly altered it so much that we would have to consider a new amendment. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no additional debate, we're going to vote it. Could Could you put that the motion language back up. I did not send the I thought you just I just read it off deleting the user. Okay, part. Okay, that's hopefully, that's adequate. Yep. I feel like we should probably have it in written form, because what's written up there includes the Use Review, and I just don't want there to be any question, could somebody copy that language and then delete the use review part

[136:05] so that we have a motion in front of us that doesn't include the Use review application that we just denied. And while we're doing that, I just the site review, the Memo and the staff's findings of facts include a Bvcp analysis that assumes a use for the property that we just denied. So I'm very uncomfortable with approving Staff's analysis as findings of fact when it runs exactly contrary to the motion that we just voted on and approved. I just feel like that creates a very confusing record. and and I don't agree with Staff's analysis, as I said, like, if I were voting on this, I would not say that it is consistent with the Bbcp goals and policies on balance, which is in the staff memo findings of fact.

[137:05] So I would not. I would not vote to approve this, even though I think the deck is probably fine. Then when we get to the voting, you may make your choice. So we have a motion. Is there any additional discussion. can I? I'd like to consider an amendment. Are you making an amendment? Are you moving as discussion? I want to propose? And I want to get Staff's advice on this, maybe laurel. I think you probably appreciate the conundrum that I'm in where this motion includes adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and the analysis of review criteria assumes use of this property as a single family home, and defends the Bvcp criteria in particular, on the basis of that. And so I am very uncomfortable, adopting staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria when that directly contradicts

[138:11] the fact that we denied the use that is analyzed in that memo. Well, this is just a just a food for thought. We could amend it to say something except for where it references, the Use Review, or the use review, criteria, or or anything like that. okay, drafting on the fly by. I would, I would like to make an amendment. Let me draft it real quick. Sorry, Mark. I did not understand this scenario. That's that's yeah. That's okay. You're still like accepting the staff criteria for the site review. Yeah, apologies. So I just want to clarify something while Laura's drafting her thing. This is a question for staff. So under the motion, we've the denial motion we've just approved.

[139:05] and under the use by right, which is a duplex, the I just want to clarify the addition of a kitchen and a bathroom, and separately metered utilities without any additional dwelling. Space would be a use by right. So 2 2 bedroom duplexes would be a use by right? That's correct. I say 2 2 bedroom units, one duplex. Right? Okay. just clarifying that we haven't created any more housing or or more units or more, we could. Yeah. Yeah.

[140:05] So again, I just, I just want to reemphasize. regardless of the intention of this applicant for renting out the property, we would be approving it as a single family home and or a single. How how many, how many times are we? Gonna repeat ourselves? I I can. We can. We move forward with something. Okay, I'm going to send this amendment language to Thomas. So I move to exclude from the staff memo findings of fact and analysis all references to the use of the property as a detached dwelling unit. Do I have a second?

[141:10] This is to make it consistent with the denial we just did for the use Review. I'm not seeing a second. The motion fails to have a second, and it is not adopted. Okay, we're back to the motion. The motion to approve. Site review amendment, application number LUR. 2022, 0 0 4, 4. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. So we're going to vote same order. Laura. No Mason. Yes.

[142:01] Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes, George. Yes. Claudia. Yes. And I'm a yes, okay, without any other conditions, etc. I believe that concludes this item. So we move on to Kirk. Can I make just a very quick statement? Yeah, yeah, I just want to address the applicant. I know that this is an incredibly frustrating situation, and I feel for you. I would urge you to to talk to city council about this. They're the final arbiters about on on this, and they may well have a different take on it than we do. It certainly would be worth considering. So I appreciate that. And I'm sorry if you're going to speak. You're going to need to speak to the mic, and it's up to the chair whether and if I can interject, actually, we, we don't want the applicant speaking ex parte to counsel.

[143:10] So you actually would need to refrain from talking to council until after the item is heard. Right? Because this is a quasi-judicial matter. Okay, you're right, my bad. Okay, thank you. However, I would. Since I'm speaking, I would encourage you to speak with Staff and Staff's already planning to reach out to you and talk through the mechanics and options for processing. But just for your edification tonight Staff will transmit the Board's decision as well as the Staff's analysis to the Council for their consideration. Council, then, can consider whether or not to vote by a majority to appeal the Planning Board's decision, and then have a new hearing about it. you know. I don't want to go on about the specifics of it. I actually I to Brad's Point and Brad, correct me if I'm wrong. We've concluded this item, the public hearings over. And

[144:07] and I think I think we're done. And we've said plenty. Yeah, I don't want to talk about any of that. I just want to seek clarification when I do have input, that's all. Yeah. And that's what staff will connect with you, and maybe even just real quickly after here as well. So thank you. Okay, we are moving on to matters. and we begin with matters from planning board anyone have a matters. Item, ml. we we talked about this before. Do we have a list and options for the liaison swapping out

[145:01] the liaisons from planning board to the different boards. We were going to get a list and see how that was going to work out this year. Can we get a status of that. Maybe this was the meeting I missed. Oh, this is the 1st discussion I'm hearing of this this year. I remember doing it last year. But okay. can we do it again this year? Get the list of the liaisons that? Yeah. So we want to do that in a future meeting. There was discussion actually. And I think there was discussion without resolution of actually growing that liaison list, right? So we need to go back to that meeting and take a look at that, and Thomas will communicate with you. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. We can. We can put that on the agenda for a future meeting. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other items from the planning board?

[146:04] Okay, from the planning director. That would be me. Yeah. Thank you. Team for the work tonight. I think they're heading out. I wanted to acknowledge or just express appreciation to you, Mark and and Laura, for getting together with me and Hella on Friday, just for everybody's benefit. We wanted to follow up on some of the concerns that had been brought to our attention about your deliberations and your discussion making its way into the minutes and more more to the point, to council for their awareness and consideration. I just appreciate that chance to talk about that, and there's some follow up that we'll be doing. I do want to just extend that offer. Maybe if we've got time now to the rest of you, too, to

[147:01] maybe give any color or commentary to your feelings about the level of detail, or or your sense of adequacy or inadequacy for bringing. You know your your discussion forward to council. I just want to clarify that the this went to at at recent council meetings. Sometimes there has been council hasn't been, it really struggled with. Our thoughts right our actions. And and so they have contacted us sometimes, sometimes not, sometimes just in a meeting expressed. Why did what? Why did planning board do that? So our concern, Laura's my concern, as expressed to Brad and Hella, was how to make minutes

[148:08] or other forms of the record more accessible. so that we don't fall into the perilous situation of board members trying to convey, without violating quasi-judicial procedures. What happened in our meeting, and what our thoughts were. and if I could colloquy on that notes from our meetings, minutes from our meetings have been a bit irregular, and they normally do not come to us for review and approval before they go to council. And sometimes the only thing that Council has access to is either the staff memo of staff explaining our decision, or they can go back to the video and expecting council members to sit through several hours of of our deliberations to try to understand what we meant, when we could just be summarizing it in meeting minutes.

[149:07] feels very inefficient and unfair to ask of them. And so what Mark and I were hoping for is that we can get into a cadence where we are getting minutes that explain our rationale and site code sections and maybe have links or timestamps to the video that Council can go back to, and that we get to see that and approve it before it goes to council. And Brad and Hella expressed that there may be some institutional complexities to work through. And it's unclear at this point where we go from here, because the whole city, citywide, as Amanda alluded to. is moving in the direction of meeting. Minutes from all boards will be quite brief and only capture actions. So just our motions and our votes. And that's basically it, and no rationale and no code citations, which is something that I in particular, and, mark you can speak for yourself, but

[150:03] that feels very inadequate, and it leaves council members visibly puzzled as to why we voted the way that we did, and, in fact, this last Thursday it was said several times, I really don't understand planning Board's rationale on this. They did not have any minutes to refer to. There was no planning board member invited to speak. That is one option that that was presented to us. That Council can request a planning board member come and speak. That planning board may be able to designate someone, perhaps someone from a majority and someone from the minority when it's a split vote to speak jointly, that may be an option. But I don't know, Brad, if you want to talk about some of the things that you're exploring. But getting minutes produced in that way seems to be more complicated than one might anticipate. So this is an opportunity. Laura and I have talked plenty. This is an opportunity for any of you to ask questions or speak about this issue.

[151:02] Sure, I would just like to express my gratitude that this subject has come up because I have not heard direct, well, indirectly, from council members about the Planning Board's decisions and the lack of understanding. So I I think, to create a pathway toward better communication of the nuance that has led to some of the decisions would be a most excellent thing, and I'd be willing to support that in whatever way makes sense. Thank you, Claudia. Thanks. Yeah. I wanted to echo that this is a real issue. I've certainly heard it from members of Council on a variety of occasions wanting some more background. And of course we're very constrained, and what we can give, you know, in an off the record outside of a public hearing setting. It sounds to me, given the the constraints on producing minutes on a timeline and other constraints that the city has around, that that maybe this offering up of of speakers, speakers, or designees to go talk to council for higher profile. Things might be an appropriate thing to explore.

[152:17] Thanks. George. Yeah, it was actually interesting. A council member voice something similar to me over the weekend, and I hadn't paid attention to the Thursday meeting. But then I went back and rewatched it specifically around this issue. and I was surprised to hear so many Council members say that they couldn't understand why planning board made it that decision, and there wasn't any. There wasn't anything there to give them the information of the context right? And whether or not that would have changed. Your decision is is kind of moot. But to to leave people hanging like that, I think, was was was unfortunate. So I think I thank you, Mark and Laura, for bringing this to the attention, because it's obviously something that's

[153:08] that needs to be addressed in somewhere, form or fashion. Well, I appreciate that additional context and color commentary from from many of you I did commit that I would be talking with the city manager's office. About this again. I had raised it as kind of an initial concern a couple weeks back, or a month ago or 2, but committed to leaning into it a bit more in the spirit of transparency, though there are not any immediate, easy answers just based on a combination of staff resources, and the current city policy around artificial intelligence, the current city policy around summary minutes and its relationship to state law and other nuances we don't need to get into, but which I will be

[154:00] following up on. So thank you for the additional thoughts, sure. and I'll just say that have just sitting and listening, and I haven't talked to George about this, and I really haven't talked to Claudia about it much. And so we're all having these experiences, and we all understand Staff's constraints and policy decisions and things like that. And so I, I just in thinking about this in the moment that the representative Planning board representative having an opportunity to clarify, explain, color our decisions when they are controversial. it's an additional burden on us, and we put in a lot of hours, but doing a creating, a rotating representative or pair of representatives, I think, could be a quick interim solution. And again, I don't know how that fits within Council's written procedures. But

[155:12] even if it's in public comment, which, if we got a little special reserve spots, we didn't have to like, be online at the moment the list goes up to try to beat out others, anyway. So a little special consideration there, it might be a worthwhile thing to pursue, and and might be the most immediate thing that would help that. Because I yeah, I, as as a planning board member and as chair, I have felt almost well. I felt this distance rift a little bit of embarrassment at times. because Council didn't understand or is like these guys are are these guys all right, you know, sort of thing. So anyway, I don't. Not that we're here to do councils bidding, but to have our our decisions so kind of deeply questioned. It doesn't feel great.

[156:10] Yeah, thank you. If I can segue to a second. Yeah, just just one thing. And I agree with what you just said Mark. Thank you for saying that, and and thank you everybody for weighing in on this one. There are some code sections that talk about a planning board member speaking to council, and I had asked for some clarification from legal, and I don't know, Laurel. If Hella had a chance to talk to you about this. She was just about to go on vacation. But there's a code section that says the Council Agenda Committee determines when boards and commissions should be requested to address the Council concerning their deliberations. and there is also a procedure that says board or commission members whose board or commission acted on a matter, and who have been designated to speak by the Board or Commission, will be allowed to speak during staff presentation, or at the beginning of the public hearing

[157:05] a board or commission may designate a person who voted with the majority, or a person who voted with the minority, or one speaker from each side. So it's unclear to me whether it's up to council to request us to come to speak, or if we can designate someone and request time on the council agenda, or both. It sounds to me like both, but I don't really understand. It sounds like both. But I didn't have a chance to speak with Hella before she left, so she's probably looking into it. When she gets back she gets back next week, so it would be good to understand that. And then one thing that came up was when we have a decision, especially one that we expect may get called up, for example, the one that we had tonight. Do we want to just go ahead and designate people to say, if Council calls it up, you're the designated person, or do we want to wait until Council calls it up, and then try to designate somebody. And it was I wasn't clear whether Laurel we have to do that designation in a public meeting, or if we can be responsive to staff offline and designate somebody

[158:00] that one's procedural in nature right? It's not a substantive. And on the matter. So I think you could do it via email offline. So it sounds like, either way, it could work either now in the public meeting or at a future date. Maybe when they've decided to call it up. I would clarify that when councils. deciding whether to call up something or another, they're not debating the substance of the matter, so it probably would not be appropriate to plan to speak at those, because they're simply trying to decide whether to call it up or not. So it'd be the actual call up here. Yeah, but we will be looking into all these things and more to come. Okay, all right. Good enough for now, Kurt, did you have something else? I did want to segue into a second topic, if I may. I sent you all a email that basically repeated what press release was sent about the city's budget just wanted to elaborate a little bit on what that could mean for us as a department. So, as you know, from that notice we have a projection of 10 million dollars shortfall I will clarify. There was a comment made earlier in public comment, that there's a deficit of 10 million dollars. That's not accurate.

[159:17] It's a projected revenue shortfall from the original projected revenue. So What that means is that we have a a hiring freeze that is subject to some reconsideration by the city manager on rare cadences. If we were to lose staffing just through attrition or whatever matter. There is a high likelihood that we wouldn't be able to replace that person now, if they're the literally the only person doing that work or able to do that work. We would make the case, of course, but just want to make you aware of that sensitivity of of us as we move forward in the next 6 months

[160:03] we'll say that as a city, we're in a better position than many other jurisdictions that are actually looking at more significant circumstances. Okay. Anything else from staff or our city attorney? Nothing for me. No, nothing for me. Thanks for checking. Okay, all right. Okay. We now have the new online calendar tool. So we, we don't really need to do a calendar check. And unless I hear an objection, I'm going to adjourn. Okay, hearing none, we're adjourned. Thank you.