May 5, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[0:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, it is… [0:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: It is now 6.35 PM, and this meeting is called to order. This is the Tuesday, May 5th meeting of the City of Boulder Planning Board. Thank you all for joining us. We are fully remote tonight due to weather. I see Vivian has a very appropriate snowy background. [0:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: So we have a pretty full agenda tonight. We have some minutes to approve, we have one call-up item. [0:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: And we have two public hearings. The first public hearing will be for some changes to the land use code around festival events, and I'll read the full title when we get to that item. And then our second public hearing is the one on the Unity Church property at 2855 Folsom. So if you're here for that item, it will be a little while before we get to it. [0:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then we will check in on our retreat planning at the end of the meeting. [0:57] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, we will start with a roll call, and so I'm just gonna say that we have all of our board members here tonight. [1:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark McIntyre, myself, Laura Kaplan, Claudia Hansenhy, Mason Roberts, Max Lord, and M.L. Robles. Kurt Nordbach is trying to get into the meeting and having a little bit of technical difficulties, but hopefully he will be here soon. [1:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: So we'll start the meeting tonight with public participation, and I will turn it over to our engagement specialist, Vivian Castro-Woldrich, to walk us through the public participation. [1:30] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the public, for joining us tonight. I'll just start off by reading these rules of public participation before we move to open comment. [1:41] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Thomas, for bringing them up. [1:45] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So, just want to start out by sharing that the city has engaged with community members, in the past to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations that I'm sharing with you tonight. [1:57] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And there is a lot more, information on our website about this Productive Atmospheres vision. And I'll share some examples of rules of decorum that are found in Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines. [2:20] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: That support this vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. [2:24] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: 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. [2:42] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And we ask that participants introduce themselves using their full name, first and last name. And, we're all online tonight, so if you wish to speak during open comment, which is for non-public hearing topics. [2:56] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: or the public hearing items later in the agenda, you can press this raise hand button to let us know that you wish to speak, and we'll just call on you on the order that the hands were raised. If you are joining us, [3:10] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Via your phone, you can dial star 9, and you can find the raised hand button by also going to this reactions button. [3:18] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Since we are all online as well, I can also share that if you have any technical difficulties, you can use the Q&A function. You can also send us your full name, and we can change it for you, and the Q&A function is not meant to be used to [3:33] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: To discuss, the agenda items, but we can help you with technical issues through that, so feel free [3:41] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: to use it. [3:42] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So for this open comment section, if you wish to address Planning Board with any non-hearing items, each person would have 3 minutes to speak. [3:52] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And I'll just go down the list. So, we have, Dennis Bashlein, but please, first, please go ahead and introduce yourself. And you have 3 minutes. Please go ahead. [4:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: And Vivian, if I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to remind folks, the public hearing item tonight that many of you are here for, 2855 Folsom, we will be having a public hearing for that item later in the evening, so if that is what you wish to speak to, that time will come later. This time is for anything except for public hearing items. [4:25] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Yeah, thank you for that. [4:27] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So, Dennis, if you do wish to speak, please go ahead, or if you wish to speak later, just let us know, and we can move on. [4:34] dennis bashline: Can you see it? Can you hear us at all? [4:36] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Yes. [4:37] dennis bashline: Okay, because we can't see anybody else on the Zoom meeting, so we thought maybe we weren't hooked up to it. Anyway, I'm gonna help my wife [4:47] dennis bashline: talk with you for a second. Here she is. [4:51] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay, and do you have that timer, Thomas? I can't see the timer, but I can also.

[4:55] Thomas Remke: Yes, I do. [4:56] dennis bashline: Yes, I do. [4:57] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay, I can't see it, but you can just let us know when it's up. [5:01] dennis bashline: That's up. [5:02] Thomas Remke: Sure, I haven't clicked start on that. [5:04] dennis bashline: I'm not sure what… [5:04] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay. [5:05] dennis bashline: just start talking to them. No, they're… they're waiting. [5:08] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Go ahead, go ahead, you can go ahead. [5:12] dennis bashline: Okay, we want to reply to the Coburn hearing. [5:20] dennis bashline: Hi, is that… [5:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: Hi, hello, I'm Laura Kaplan, I'm the chair. We very much invite your comments on that item, but it will be… that hearing will be later in the meeting, and we will have time specifically for that item. This time right now is for everything else except for our public hearing items. If you have something else you want to talk to us about, you can talk twice. [5:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: But this time is for everything else. [5:41] dennis bashline: No, just during the Coburn hearing. [5:44] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great, there'll be… there'll be a presentation first, and then the public hearing will be later. Thank you. [5:49] dennis bashline: Thank you. [5:53] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great. Anybody else joining us? Wish to speak for open comment? [6:01] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay, I don't… oh, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. [6:07] Lynn segal: First, I need a window with the time. [6:11] Lynn segal: Oh, wait, there's one up above. Thank you. [6:15] Lynn segal: I'm really cold. [6:19] Lynn segal: And I'm this way for the last 25 years, waiting for geothermal. [6:25] Lynn segal: Because not everybody can just afford it instantly. [6:30] Lynn segal: And I bring this up because it's related to a lot of your topics of, projects that you approve. [6:38] Lynn segal: That, are attended by green energy… Incentives. [6:46] Lynn segal: And… My incentive has been very negative to me. [6:52] Lynn segal: Because I have rated 25 years. Then I waited a year to get in this program that offered a free energy retrofit that basically destroyed my life. [7:04] Lynn segal: Because all the stuff they stuck on my house is just debris on my property. Needs to be removed, and it's not that easy to remove stuff that has penetrations through multiple walls and doors constructed in your living room, and I have to listen to this loud electronic [7:24] Lynn segal: Buzz of my hot water heater right in my living room and kitchen. [7:29] Lynn segal: And my water's not warm enough to wash the dishes, really, or to get a warm shower, and the part of the house where I live, where they were doing this improvement to increase warmth, is, like, 40 degrees right now.

[7:47] Lynn segal: And that I can turn on the heat, but I'm not willing to subsidize Xcel Energy [7:54] Lynn segal: for an inefficient 30% less effective than a mini-split air handler in my attic, and my attic needs to be popped up for the geothermal. So everything they did, I was left out of. [8:09] Lynn segal: unintentionally. I wanted to be involved. [8:14] Lynn segal: it's just a nightmare. It's wrecked my life completely, because I don't live for anything but energy efficiency, and… [8:25] Lynn segal: And for holding all my funds for my kids for climate change. So I'm really disappointed. [8:34] Lynn segal: Really disheartened. Really cold. [8:37] Lynn segal: And tomorrow morning, I have to go down to the county to complain about it. The city also involved with this, because they required me, through the county, and through probably clear result from it. [8:49] Lynn segal: energy retrofit 10 years ago that I didn't go through with, because I found out that the county was doing unethical practices with their solar install. [9:00] Lynn segal: So, they're gaslighting me now, 10 years later. [9:05] Lynn segal: And… As a result, I'm just freezing. [9:10] Lynn segal: So… All the time. [9:13] Lynn segal: Not like you. [9:14] Lynn segal: Thank you. [9:15] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for being here tonight. [9:19] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay, we have no other hands raised. [9:21] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: But thank you. Thank you, Lynn, for joining open comment, and back over to you, Chair. [9:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you so much. I do want to say for the members of the public who are joining us, if this is your first time, you won't see other members of the public in the meeting. The meeting video just shows the board members, but there are about 20 of you here. [9:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: And that item for 2855 Folsom Street, I would anticipate it's going to be at least an hour before we get to it, because we do have a couple of other things to do. [9:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, we look forward to speaking with you later if you're here for that item. [9:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, we're gonna go next on our agenda to Item 3, which is approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes on the agenda to approve, April 7 and April 21st. [10:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: There were some written comments that were submitted on the minutes that Thomas has incorporated, and hopefully everybody had a chance to review those by email if you're a board member. [10:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: And the public record of the minutes that is uploaded on the website should be reflective of those changes. [10:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: So let's start with the April 7th minutes. Does anybody have any further comments or questions about the April 7th minutes? [10:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. [10:33] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I move that we approve the April 7, 2026 draft planning board minutes. [10:40] PB Mark McIntyre: I second. [10:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, we'll go for a vote, and if you weren't here, just say that you weren't here. So we'll start with you, Mark. [10:48] PB Mark McIntyre: Yes. [10:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia. [10:50] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Yes.

[10:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mason. [10:52] Mason Roberts, PB: Yes. [10:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max. [10:54] Max Lord, PB: Yes. [10:56] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yes. [10:57] Laura Kaplan, PB: ML? [10:58] ml robles . PB: Yes. [10:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: and IES. Those minutes are approved for April 7th, 2026. [11:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: Next set of minutes, April 21st, 2026. [11:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any comments, questions, additional edits? [11:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? [11:15] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I move that we approve the April 21st, 2026 draft planning board minutes. [11:21] ml robles . PB: I'll second. [11:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Let's go for a vote, and Emma, we'll start with you this time. [11:27] ml robles . PB: Yes. [11:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt. [11:29] Kurt Nordback, PB: I was abs… [11:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Max. [11:32] Max Lord, PB: Yes. [11:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Mason. [11:36] Mason Roberts, PB: Absent. [11:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia. [11:38] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Yes. [11:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark. [11:41] PB Mark McIntyre: absent. [11:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I'm a yes, so those minutes are approved. [11:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Moving on, we have one call-up item on the agenda tonight. This is a call-up for a site and use review for an essential municipal and public utility service [11:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: used in an RL1 zone. [11:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: The site review is to allow a second principal building on the subject site. The proposal is for the installation of one prefabricated 360-square-foot structure and screening at 1190 South Lashley Lane. The call-up period expires May 7th, 2026. [12:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Since this is a call-up item, we don't have a presentation, but we do have the opportunity for the board to ask questions of staff, or have any discussion, or if any board members already know that they would like to call that up.

[12:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, any questions for staff? [12:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any discussion? [12:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any desire to call it up? [12:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: this item is not called up by this board. I'll just comment briefly to say this is an exciting project that will help bring [12:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: what is it? Fiber… fiber internet to our community, in partnership with, our partners in that. So, very exciting to move this project forward. [13:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Moving on on our agenda, we have two public hearings tonight. The first, item 5A, is a public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance amending Title IX Land Use Code [13:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: To create new use standards for special festival events, amend mobile food vehicle standards related to organized events, and amend, excuse me, the city's sign code to regulate signs that may be erected for the duration of a special festival event. [13:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: Plus associated review and approval processes, and setting forth related details. [13:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: We do have a staff presentation on this tonight. [13:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: Followed by the board's ability to ask questions of staff. [13:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: Followed by a public hearing, and then board deliberation. And, [13:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: I guess it's a decision or a recommendation, we'll follow that. [13:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I will turn it over to staff. Looks like it's going to be Carl Geiler from Planning and Development Services to walk us through the presentation on those land use code changes. [14:05] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Planning Board members. My name's Carl Geiler. I'm with Planning and Development Services. I'm going to pull up the presentation now. [14:24] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Can you all see this? [14:27] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Okay? [14:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Before the Planning Board tonight is a code change relative to special festival events, which, requires a Planning Board recommendation to City Council to make changes to Title IX, the Land Use Code. [14:44] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So you might have heard that in 2027, the Sundance Film Festival will be coming to Boulder in January of 2027. [14:53] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It's prompted us to take a look at our land use code and other parts of the Boulder Revised Code to get an understanding of how the regulations would, relate to such a festival. We do have [15:05] Karl Guiler, P&DS: festivals in the City of Boulder, things like the Boulder Boulder, things like, Boulder Creek Festival, but those are much smaller scale, usually they're more limited in duration, they're a day or two. [15:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: They don't have as many attendees, and they're usually found in, the public rights-of-way or on public property. So, in this case, the… [15:26] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Film Festival is something quite a bit different. It's quite a bit larger, it would be for a longer duration, and it would be on public and private land. So, we had to kind of go through the Boulder Revised Code and see how all the current [15:40] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Regulations relate to that, and see if any updates should be made, relative to this type of festival, or any future festivals that are like this. [15:51] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So, we've come forward with a proposal to make some changes to the land use code. These are some of the reasons why we're bringing this forward. [15:59] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Like I said, if you go into our Boulder Revised Code, special events are, they're basically found within Title IV, which is licenses and permits. It's because they're on public property or in the public right-of-way, so they're different than what we normally see with the land use code, which applies to private property. [16:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So, looking at the Sundance Film Festival, or any kind of festival like it, they're a bit different, like I said, because they could be on public-private. [16:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: public or private property, they're longer, they would have higher attendance. So, we've gone through the land use code, and we realize that we should recognize this use as something distinct. [16:39] Karl Guiler, P&DS: From a special event. [16:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And we also found some other areas, like mobile food vehicles are allowed during what's known as, like, organized events in the land use code, and that calls out special events, but it doesn't really talk about, like, a special festival event like this, so we've… we're looking to make some updates relative to that as well, and I'll talk more about that. [17:02] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I think if you've ever been to any kind of festivals, you'll notice that there's a lot of banners and signs and flags and things like that that actually contribute to that.

[17:11] Karl Guiler, P&DS: festival atmosphere. Things like the Boulder Boulder and the Boulder Creek Festival have those as well. [17:16] Karl Guiler, P&DS: But again, they're usually in public parks or in the right-of-way. So they get those permits through Title IV and Title VII, which relates to public lands. So, when we look at the city's sign regulations, those are really comprehensive requirements for signs that are installed on private property. So, again, the code doesn't really speak to, like, what we would expect for something like Sundance. [17:40] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So we're saying that the current sign regulations should be updated, to recognize new signage that would be special to these special festival events, because they're on private property, and of limited duration. The sign code is really, mostly written for permanent signage. [18:00] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So… [18:01] Karl Guiler, P&DS: These are some examples to give you a flavor of what signage could look like during the Sundance Film Festival. These are pictures from the 2026 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, so you can see that some of them are on venues, and they're put up by the actual [18:19] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Sundance Institute, but there's also official sponsors that… [18:23] Karl Guiler, P&DS: get approval to put up special signage on buildings. There's banners, you know, things in the right-of-way, they're on private property, they encroach over property lines into the public right-of-way. So there's a variety of different types of signs that you can see with this type of festival at this scale. [18:39] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And here's some other, examples. So obviously, looking at these signs, like, they would not meet our current sign regulations relative to permanent signs. [18:50] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So it was useful to see firsthand how these signs are erected during the festival. [18:58] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So I'm going to jump into the changes that are before you tonight, that we're asking for a recommendation to City Council on. We're proposing that we add a new land use into the land use code for a special festival events, so this would distinguish it from a special event. [19:14] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We have a new definition that would be in Title IV, [19:18] Karl Guiler, P&DS: But it'll be referenced in Title IX in our definitions section. [19:23] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And then we would add the special festival event land use into our use table and show what zones would be allowed. So I'm not going to read the whole definition, but you can see it's along the lines of what I've been talking about with distinguishing between the different types of events. [19:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So, in adding a new land use to our code, it also begs that we would need to have some specific use standards. Obviously, with any types of use, we're trying to, you know, uphold, you know, public health, safety, and welfare, avoid and mitigate impacts. [19:57] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And try to recognize a special use. So, we do have specific use standards that we're proposing in Title IX, and then because we have to insert these new regulations, it's required a lot of land uses to be renumbered in the code, so you'll notice that in the code change. [20:13] Karl Guiler, P&DS: For the most part, the land use would be allowed in the same zones as temporary events. If you look at the definition of a temporary event in the land use code. [20:22] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It's usually an outdoor event that happens on private property. That's usually, like, retail sales that's, you know, for a business that wants to have, like, a tent and sell mattresses or Christmas trees, or things like that. That's a temporary event. [20:36] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So we've put them mostly in the same zones as temporary events. We've excluded it from the ag zone. [20:43] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Because these special festival events tend to be limited geographically, like the downtown, where it can be variable depending for each year, so it would also be more specifically limited by a map [20:57] Karl Guiler, P&DS: that would be submitted by an applicant as part of a special festival event permit. So, much of these requirements are tied to a new permitting process that's proposed within Title IV that the city is also working on. Rather than requiring a whole bunch of separate [21:15] Karl Guiler, P&DS: applications, like administrative reviews or sign permits, they would all be submitted under one permit, under different headings, and that would be a special festival event permit. The reason we started going down that road is we've coordinated with Park City, Utah to understand how they've. [21:33] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Approached this festival as they have, you know, over 40 years of experience. [21:38] Karl Guiler, P&DS: of hosting this type of festival, so they have what's called a master festival license, so we're creating something very similar to that, where they can submit all the materials all together, to demonstrate, compliance with the code. [21:52] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So the use standards would make sure that this is a temporary event, so no more than 14 days. It would have to be approved as part of a special festival event permit. May not result in any unsafe conditions or unsafe levels of congestion, can't damage trees or buildings or [22:09] Karl Guiler, P&DS: public infrastructure. They would have to return, the properties to the pre-festival state within 5 days of the end of the festival. There would obviously have to be, like, owner or leisie approval. [22:22] Karl Guiler, P&DS: For any kind of venues or any, activities occurring on properties. The other thing that we noticed in going through the land use code is that, obviously, a lot of properties in the City of Boulder [22:33] Karl Guiler, P&DS: have planned unit development approvals, or site review approvals, or use review approvals that have conditions of approval associated with them. So we wanted to make it clear that [22:43] Karl Guiler, P&DS: for an event of limited duration, that we wouldn't… it wouldn't trigger any need for amendments or modifications to those land use reviews. If it gets its approval through the special festival event permit, we wouldn't be requiring, like, a site review amendment to have that activity, so we've put that in the code. [23:03] Karl Guiler, P&DS: There's also been, [23:05] Karl Guiler, P&DS: some concern about, like, temporary events that might pop up during special festival events. And so we were proposing a city manager rule that would just enable the city to limit the number of temporary events. If there was any concerns that there could be undue congestion or any safety concerns of having too many

[23:24] Karl Guiler, P&DS: different events all going on in the same geographic area. So we've put that as a city manager role so that we can more quickly act if there's any need for concern. [23:35] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Like I said earlier, if you look at the mobile food vehicle standards, which I know the Planning Board has in the omnibus ordinance that came through, it does allow [23:47] Karl Guiler, P&DS: mobile food vehicles as part of organized events. Typically, mobile food vehicles have a limitation on the number of mobile food vehicles that can be there, and there's distance requirements between the vehicles that normally apply. That does not apply in organized events, so we just want to update the code to make it clear that a special festival event is part of [24:09] Karl Guiler, P&DS: The definition of an organized event for mobile food vehicles, so there would be some flexibility for those to operate during the festival. [24:19] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So moving on to the signs, as I noted, a lot of the signs that we observed [24:25] Karl Guiler, P&DS: at the Sundance Film Festival wouldn't meet our current code, which relates to permanent signage, so we are proposing a new section to be added to the sign code in our land use code. Again. [24:38] Karl Guiler, P&DS: demonstrating compliance with these requirements would all be done under that special festival event permit, and wouldn't require a whole bunch of separate sign permits. But we are requiring a comprehensive sign plan that would be submitted, [24:53] Karl Guiler, P&DS: No later than 90 days prior to the event, and we would allow some amendments to that, up to 30 days. [25:00] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So basically, there's a whole bunch of application requirements of all the details of the signs that they would need to submit, so that they're demonstrating compliance with this section. So, the signs can't be up for longer than 20 days. We have some area setback and height restrictions, so they can't extend beyond the width and height of a building facade. [25:21] Karl Guiler, P&DS: They can't cover more than 60% of each building facade, the coverage of that facade. [25:27] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And there's also just basic, setback and height requirements, like having adequate headroom, has to be 7 feet over a pedestrian way, and not more than 12 feet. [25:40] Karl Guiler, P&DS: A number of things that are already in the code for safety reasons we've incorporated as well. It's raised some concern since these festivals would likely occur very much in the downtown of Boulder. There could be impact to historic buildings, and we didn't want to see repeated years of [25:56] Karl Guiler, P&DS: of applicants drilling into the facades of these older buildings and doing damage, so we do have some special protections for how the signs get attached to those buildings. And again, just some… [26:08] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Common sense requirements related to not impeding ingress and egress for pedestrians, or interfering with motor traffic, not creating any fire hazards and not damaging buildings or trees, are in the requirements. [26:23] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We're also requiring that they comply with our outdoor lighting regulations. Our current outdoor lighting regulations do recognize that temporary events [26:33] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Can often have some lighting conditions that don't… [26:37] Karl Guiler, P&DS: meet the lighting code for a limited amount of time. We're just updating that section to include special festival events, recognizing they can ask for a variance in some instances, and we'll have discretion over, you know, whether or not it's safe and meets the variance criteria to allow something different than we ordinarily would see with lighting. [26:57] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So with this particular change, we're moving forward with an informed level of engagement, since it's, it's an event of limited duration, and it, you know, things would be taken down and returned back to their, their pre-festival state. [27:12] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We are, informing folks through the Planning and Development Services newsletter, which was sent out at the end of April, letting people know about these proposed changes. We're planning to go to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce next week. [27:26] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And talk to them about the changes. We're also going to be holding a virtual community open house for people to ask questions or provide feedback on these changes. We've also shared these changes with the Sundance Institute. [27:42] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So as far as next steps, we do, have to go to City Council with the proposed changes in an ordinance. The first reading of that ordinance is scheduled for June 4th. [27:53] Karl Guiler, P&DS: The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for June 18th. [27:58] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We're trying to, like, get the rules on the books as quickly as we can, because we understand that it can be quite complicated in the lead-up to these festivals and can take, quite a bit of time. We expect the second half of the year to be devoted to working out all these details and reviewing for compliance. So after [28:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Council adopts the regulations, they would go into effect 30 days after, and then we would be able to, like, be positioned to guide, Sundance and… and again, any future festivals of what that permitting process looks like and start the review. So… [28:34] Karl Guiler, P&DS: With that, we're recommending that Planning Board recommend to City Council, adoption of these code changes. We find that the [28:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Proposed cone changes would protect the public health, safety, and welfare from any potential impacts from a large festival. It would enable Sundance Film Festival to move forward. [28:51] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It creates standards for any like festivals that we might have in the future. And this also would just support many BVCP policies, which we've listed on the slide that relate to enhancing the city economy and the arts within the community. [29:09] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So we're recommending, that you recommend approval. This is the motion language for Planning Board, should you agree? [29:16] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And then, these are the questions we have for Planning Board. I can come back to them, but that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. [29:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Carl. A wonderful and informative presentation, as always. Do board members have questions for Carl?

[29:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: If you do, please raise your hand. ML, you are first. [29:37] ml robles . PB: Thank you, and thank you, Carl, for, going over our expectations for this big event coming up next year. I have two questions. One is a short question. I will start with that. Under science. [29:54] ml robles . PB: it says that they may be up no longer than 20 days. Why aren't they limited to the actual festival dates? I mean, we don't need to see sponsor signs up [30:06] ml robles . PB: beyond the festival dates in Boulder. We don't… [30:11] ml robles . PB: do that in Boulder, but why? Why? [30:14] Karl Guiler, P&DS: In many cases, like, the experience in Park City is that the signs generally go up pretty quickly and get taken down pretty quickly. [30:22] Karl Guiler, P&DS: But we did want to enable some flexibility on either end of the… you know, the festival is expected to be about 14 days, so it would allow some time to put the signs up, and then adequate time to pull them down. We didn't want to box it in too much. [30:40] ml robles . PB: I say box it in. [30:42] ml robles . PB: So that's one of my suggestions, is that let's not have the signs up any longer than they need to be, just… that's not who we are. My second concern is with autos, automobiles, and traffic. [31:00] ml robles . PB: So, what my experience is when the city fills up, as it did last weekend with CU graduation. [31:08] ml robles . PB: The Lyft and Uber drivers are all over the place, which is great, you know, people don't bring their cars, so they use the rideshare. But it seems that, they don't… they aren't… they're not concerned about pedestrians. So, last Friday, CU graduation, I was in a crosswalk at, [31:25] ml robles . PB: 9th and Spruce. [31:27] ml robles . PB: And I'm in the crosswalk, crossing along, and a Lyft driver comes up in his big black SUV, [31:34] ml robles . PB: And decides he's gonna run the stop sign, and me. [31:37] ml robles . PB: And I pounded on his hood, and I said… I looked at him, and I said, what? I pointed to the stop sign, I pointed to the… you know. [31:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, ML, I don't mean to interrupt, but if you have a question for Carl, we can have commentary later. [31:51] ml robles . PB: No, this is just… so… [31:54] ml robles . PB: I'm identifying that there is a problem with [31:59] ml robles . PB: cars and automobiles when we have an event, and I personally experience it all the time. My question is. [32:07] ml robles . PB: Would it be possible during the festival to pedestrianize some of the streets, so we don't have to deal with all the people, trying to get from, you know, especially downtown, venue to venue or whatever, and, having automobile conflict? [32:26] ml robles . PB: I don't know if that's been thought of, or did Park City do that? I know we're two different kinds of cities, but… [32:33] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, I mean, with Park City, they certainly closed off their main street during the event. These are things that I would say would be handled [32:42] Karl Guiler, P&DS: By our transportation folks as part of that special festival event permit that comes in. Again, this is only one angle that we're looking at. We're looking at it from a signs and a land use perspective in, like, zoning. [32:56] Karl Guiler, P&DS: There are gonna be many other aspects in terms of safety and public rights-of-way that will all get looked at. [33:03] Karl Guiler, P&DS: in that overall umbrella permit that comes in. So that's… just like they do with the Boulder Boulder or the Boulder Creek Festival there, they have discretion of what to do in the public rights-of-way, and to pedestrianize those areas. That would all be handled under that [33:21] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Permit, but it wouldn't really touch the, [33:24] Karl Guiler, P&DS: The zoning angle that we're looking at. [33:26] ml robles . PB: So it's already… those kinds of concerns are already accommodated through other means, is what I'm using. [33:33] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And I think the permit will be very similar to how they do special events. It's just, they're gonna… they'll look at all those details. [33:42] ml robles . PB: Okay, those are my two questions. Thank you.

[33:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, ML. Kurt, you're next, followed by Max. [33:50] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, thank you, Carl. I have a question about the… the change to the use tables, adding special event, special festival event to the use tables. We've spent many years trying to simplify our use tables, and now we're proposing to add another line to it. [34:08] Kurt Nordback, PB: it feels to me like… as I understand from your presentation, you're kind of modeling it on temporary event, but this feels different in that it is… well, for one thing. [34:21] Kurt Nordback, PB: it's on multiple parcels, whereas a temporary event, I think, ordinarily is on a single parcel, like, as you described. [34:30] Kurt Nordback, PB: mattress sale, or something like that. And, but more importantly, maybe, in this case, the city manager rule has a constrained area, right? So it seems like the purpose of adding it to the use table would be to say. [34:48] Kurt Nordback, PB: To constrain the area, but we already have a constraint [34:53] Kurt Nordback, PB: given in the permit. So, why does it need to go into the use table at all? [35:00] Karl Guiler, P&DS: You know, we kind of looked at it from a number of different angles, and we tried to see whether this particular land use could be under another definition, or a different type of land use, or if it could be handled like a special event, which is, you know, largely, again, like, in the public right-of-way, or on public property. [35:20] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We just found that there were enough things that distinguished it from those other land uses that it should be distinct. [35:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: In the use table, to be clear. You know, and anytime we have a new definition of a land use, we usually will put that as a new line item in the use table. [35:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: But am I… am I correct, or am I wrong in… [35:47] Kurt Nordback, PB: Saying that the point of adding it to the use table is simply to constrain it to particular zones. [35:58] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We did expect that any kind of festival like this would likely be constrained to a limited geographic area, so that's why it's tied to that special boundary map that would be in the permit. But we also don't want to [36:13] Karl Guiler, P&DS: you know. [36:14] Karl Guiler, P&DS: If there's another type of festival that comes in, in a… you know, it could be in a different part of the city, we thought that the most analogous land use was temporary events, so that's why we [36:25] Karl Guiler, P&DS: kind of mirrored that of the zones, but again, in this case, it's really… that's just the… step one, is to look at the use table, what zones may this be allowed in, then you look at the standards. [36:37] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And then the map would get submitted with the applicant, and the city would have the discretion of where this can occur more, distinctly. [36:51] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay. [36:52] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yeah, I guess I'm… I'm still missing something as to what the purpose really is of having it in the use table, and I know you answered that, but I'm not seeing it, other than to say, well, it can't be in the residential zones. [37:09] Karl Guiler, P&DS: it's… [37:10] Kurt Nordback, PB: Presumably, the region would not be allowed to be in the residential zones anyhow. [37:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We wanted to make it clear that it's an allowable use if it meets the standards, and we wanted to make it clear that it didn't have to go through, like, a use review process. So, the use table is that [37:29] Karl Guiler, P&DS: That quick answer of what type of process it would have to go through to get approval. [37:38] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, well, thank you. One other quick question. There were a couple of references in the specific changes to, undo… creating undue congestion, or something like that, and I think you referred to that, too, in your presentation. [37:58] Kurt Nordback, PB: What does that mean? [38:01] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I think… [38:02] Karl Guiler, P&DS: The reason we put that in there is just that, in speaking with Park City officials, there can be occasions where there's an… [38:11] Karl Guiler, P&DS: an unaffiliated event that, you know, might get approval to operate, like, put up a tent and have their own type of event during the special festival event, and that that can… if there's too many of those, it can actually cause a lot of congestion, and it can interfere with the [38:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: the efficiency of the festival and the theming of the festival. So, there… we wanted to have the ability to… if this is a problem in the future, like, if we find that… that we see all these other temporary events start popping up or asking for approval. [38:45] Karl Guiler, P&DS: And it gets too congested, you know, where it can be… create an unsafe situation, that the city could act quickly to…

[38:53] Karl Guiler, P&DS: figure out what a safe level of operation would be, and then limit those. Limit the number of applications that come in so it doesn't… [39:03] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Get to that level. [39:05] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We just, you know, the thing about these regulations is this is year one of dealing with this. You know, we're gonna have to learn as we move forward. I expect that we probably might have to make some future code changes, but we're trying to anticipate things that could be problematic, and this is a… [39:22] Karl Guiler, P&DS: A fail-safe, if there are any unsafe occurrences. [39:28] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, thank you. [39:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Max is up next, followed by Mason and Claudia. [39:38] Max Lord, PB: Sorry, I'm bad at Zoom, despite having been born in 93. [39:43] Max Lord, PB: So, anyway, I'm not sure if this is… would be the correct place, but that's, I guess, the nature of my question. [39:51] Max Lord, PB: For temporary structures built under the special event permit, or festival permit, would that… what regulations would those fall under? Would this not be the right place, or would it just go back to IBC, or somewhere deep in Title IX? [40:08] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, those are more related to IBC, so this is kind of like getting in the door and saying, this is the land use that's proposed, and then those details relative to temporary, you know, tents or queuing locations and all that would have to meet the IBC. There's a number of… [40:24] Karl Guiler, P&DS: code regulations that they would have to demonstrate compliance with for safety reasons, you know, fire hazards, things like that. That would all get submitted under that main permit and would get reviewed by our building staff, for compliance with the IBC. [40:40] Max Lord, PB: Okay, yeah, so I think, I mean, I have, like, the IBC books, for instance, but is there any… is there a more specific one for temporary structures? Because I just leafed through mine. [40:52] Max Lord, PB: And they're… it's pretty brief. Like, there's very few regulations, and if that, they're vague, and obviously it falls to the discretion of the local inspector, but I'm just curious if there is somewhere that is more specific to our standards in Boulder. Because they're… they're… they're light. [41:11] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, I can't speak expertly on the building code, to be honest. Our building official would be best equipped for that, but obviously, whenever we get, like, temporary events, we refer those applications to our building staff, and they have to, like, make sure that the [41:26] Karl Guiler, P&DS: the tents are tied down properly, and they're structurally safe. They can, you know, handle wind load. You know, all that stuff gets reviewed, and I'm not sure where that is in the IBC, or where those details are, but we could follow up with you. [41:40] Max Lord, PB: But. [41:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I mean, I could certainly… [41:42] Max Lord, PB: one page. But I guess if we wanted to fortify those regulations, would this be the correct place to do it? I guess is what I'm really getting at. Or would there be a more appropriate place that's a larger catch-all for temporary structures, or… [41:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: If I could interject, I think what I'm hearing is that that's not a land use code issue, and tonight we're just looking at the Title IX changes. So… [42:07] Laura Kaplan, PB: Carl, do you have anything else to say about… could Title IX have anything to do with what Max is asking about? [42:13] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, I mean, mostly what, [42:15] Karl Guiler, P&DS: what… that would be Title X, rather than Title IX, so I think it'd be helpful to… [42:21] Karl Guiler, P&DS: hear any feedback for those changes. I mean, you could send them separately, in, like, an email. We could forward those to our building official for consideration, and they could maybe do some updates in the future through a separate ordinance. It's not necessarily something that we had anticipated with this ordinance. [42:40] Max Lord, PB: No, that's a very good answer to my question, thank you. And then, I guess, [42:47] Max Lord, PB: under signs and lighting, and once again, forgive me, but I don't know if this is the correct place for this, but as the, you know, drone signs are becoming more and more common, would this be where we'd catch that, or would there be a more appropriate place? [43:04] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Oh, that's an interesting question. [43:07] Max Lord, PB: Because lighting is kind of vague, and I don't know if I'm, like, missing… I've read it a couple times, but there's a couple places that I'm like, it could qualify or not, and then same thing with signs. [43:19] Max Lord, PB: It's a more modern technology that a lot of the language doesn't seem to have. [43:24] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, I mean, typically, again, the Title IX is really dealing with, private property, like, on the ground, but that's not to say that in the past, there were regulations that [43:36] Karl Guiler, P&DS: speak to, like, signs, behind planes and things like that. I think there is even still a reference in…

[43:45] Karl Guiler, P&DS: our sign code to that, but no, like, specific regulation, so I'm not 100% sure whether this would be the right place for that. It might be something that we have to react to if it's a problem. [43:56] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I don't know if others have any thoughts on that. [44:01] Max Lord, PB: That was my questions, thank you very much. [44:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Max. [44:07] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia's up next, and then Mason. Although… oh, Mason, did your hand drop? Sorry. [44:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mason, were you next? [44:13] Mason Roberts, PB: I thought I was next, but it's okay. [44:15] Laura Kaplan, PB: No, go ahead, go ahead. I'm just going by the order on my screen, and if you drop your hand down, then you change order, but go ahead, Mason. [44:22] Mason Roberts, PB: So a clarifying question… This… this covers both public and private. [44:29] Mason Roberts, PB: Permitting, correct? [44:32] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It's… it's actually mostly the private property piece of it, so whatever's on, like, a building or on, public… it could be public property, or private property, but once it goes into, like, the rights of way, and even public property, it's really… [44:46] Karl Guiler, P&DS: managed under, like, Title VII, and there's different review processes already in place, for approvals for that, but if it steps across. [44:55] Karl Guiler, P&DS: you know, into the public rights-of-way. We'll look at how it's attached to the building, and look at those regulations in Title IX, but once it goes over the line, there's other parts of the code that relate to that. [45:06] Mason Roberts, PB: Okay, but that stuff's already fleshed out, so we're not reviewing that tonight. [45:10] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Correct. [45:11] Mason Roberts, PB: And then, what if the event… [45:15] Mason Roberts, PB: Falls into this kind of public, private, and is less than 15,000. [45:21] Mason Roberts, PB: people. Why did we choose 15,000? [45:27] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I think when they were crafting the definition in Title IV, they were, you know, looking at how this would be different than, a typical special event. [45:38] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I'm not sure exactly how they came up to that number, in the definition. I might defer to others on that one. [45:45] Karl Guiler, P&DS: If anyone knows. [45:46] Mason Roberts, PB: I'm asking specifically because we have this really cool event in town called the Roots Music Project. [45:52] Mason Roberts, PB: It's, like, 800 bands, 4,000 plus people, does private and public. I think, like, this kind of… [46:00] Mason Roberts, PB: code could… could help them in theirs, but they, since they have 4,000, they're not a part of this, so I don't know, were they considered? Was this type of event considered when updating this? [46:13] Brad Mueller, CoB: I'm happy to speak a little bit to it, Carl. [46:19] Brad Mueller, CoB: I think it's important to realize that, [46:23] Brad Mueller, CoB: with the city actively putting out a bid for Sundance and being awarded that, that we recognized we were… [46:30] Brad Mueller, CoB: engaging in a fundamentally different kind of experience within the city, and that there really was a tipping point beyond which this went, much more akin to hosting, not that Boulder would be for this, but hosting the Olympics. [46:48] Brad Mueller, CoB: World's Fair, you know, those kind of… kind of scale of things. [46:52] Brad Mueller, CoB: And we didn't want to get into the situation of undermining all the good, kind of, special events that we had, but also needed to recognize that it is fundamentally different. The duration, the number of

[47:05] Brad Mueller, CoB: attendees. The overall number of attendees, for example, for this is expect… of unique visitors is expected to be something like 110,000. [47:14] Brad Mueller, CoB: So, there really is not an attempt to try to [47:21] Brad Mueller, CoB: idiot on, you know, future giant festivals of this nature, just to really focus on the recognition that we've got this at hand, and that there are regulations that really need to be [47:35] Brad Mueller, CoB: Unique to that in order for it to be a functional event, as opposed to the other special events, which [47:40] Brad Mueller, CoB: are beloved and important, but they can also function under rules we've had in place for, you know, many decades, essentially. So we're just not trying to… we want to make sure we're not trying to blur those lines by being all things to all people, when in fact there's a very big distinction. [48:00] Mason Roberts, PB: Right, and I guess this is just a part of my ignorance, but I appreciate that. [48:05] Mason Roberts, PB: that answer, Brad. I just… I just wonder if there's, like, a mid-tier community festival event sort of thing that could be added that would simplify it for. [48:15] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, you know, I think Carl hit on it. This is going to be around for 10 years, so for folks who don't know that, we've got a 10-year contract with Sundance. [48:23] Brad Mueller, CoB: this is year one. We will iterate, we will learn, we will probably attract other interests, as… as this becomes a foundational part of [48:33] Brad Mueller, CoB: part of the community. There will be opportunities to think about those types of things in the future. [48:42] Mason Roberts, PB: Okay. [48:44] Mason Roberts, PB: All my questions. [48:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Claudia. [48:51] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Alright, now… [48:53] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: This is a much more fun topic than I anticipated it was going to be. If you look at the use tables. [49:00] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: getting back to the use tables. The proposal for the special festival event, says that it would be [49:07] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: quote, allowed with specific use standards. This is this A versus C in the use tables, right? And with temporary events, which are also in there, they're conditional with specific use standards, in that same set of zones. And I'm just wondering if you could explain the logic why we have this difference between [49:25] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: One of these things is allowed, one of these is conditional. [49:29] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, so, like, with a temporary event, a conditional… [49:35] Karl Guiler, P&DS: use is basically an administrative review that gets submitted to staff. It's a staff-level review, there's no call-up or anything, and usually they're approved if they meet the specific use standards. [49:48] Karl Guiler, P&DS: through that process. In looking at this particular use, because we're creating a new special festival event permit, which is this larger [49:58] Karl Guiler, P&DS: permit where everything goes into it and gets reviewed comprehensively. We felt that the conditional use application was redundant, so we just put an A in there saying it's allowed if you meet these standards, and you go through that permitting process to demonstrate it. It just seemed… [50:15] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Unnecessary to have that separate review. [50:19] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, so… so if the assumption is if you… if you get the permit, right, that there's no additional conditions on top of it. [50:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Correct. [50:29] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Great, thank you. I was curious what kind… what actual activities and uses are you anticipating might… might happen, in a place that gets this special festival event? Like, let's say I have… [50:44] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: let's say I have a gallery, or I have a cafe, or maybe I have an underused office space. What does this special festival event use potentially allow me to do that I could not already do under the existing code? [50:58] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Well, again, most of the activities that we're anticipating through this land use are going to be linked specifically to the festival, so it might be the organizer that is organizing an event, or a, you know, a venue, a showing of movies, or it could be a performance. It could be official sponsors. [51:16] Karl Guiler, P&DS: That are working with the festival, or vendors that are working. [51:20] Karl Guiler, P&DS: With the festival, so these regulations are going to pertain to those parts of the festival that are associated with the permit.

[51:28] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So, anything separate from that would have to go through our ordinary, you know, review processes, [51:35] Karl Guiler, P&DS: permits for any activities indoors or outdoor temporary events, which are outdoors. They would go through that process. [51:44] Karl Guiler, P&DS: So, again, there's a number of different types of… there could be, you know, VIP events, there could be, you know, parties, you know, things like that, but they could be essentially linked to the festival itself. [51:57] Karl Guiler, P&DS: There are some, you know, at Park City, there were places where [52:01] Karl Guiler, P&DS: the use was just a place for people to hang out and meet each other, you know, and that was part of the festival. You know, there's a variety of activities that can happen. [52:12] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, so this is more like it's giving flexibility, like, we have a lot of really specific categories in our use tables that would give some flexibility to mix that up during these kinds of events. [52:23] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah. [52:24] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, okay. Have you talked about creating or enforcing any kinds of protections for residents in mixed-use zones where festival use might be claimed or applied for? [52:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I mean, the protections that we have proposed at this point are those, you know, high-level criteria that talk about, you know, avoiding undue congestion and damage and things like that, so I think through that permit process, we'll have discretion to look at how they have it [52:57] Karl Guiler, P&DS: laid out and designed. We, like, suggestions can be made if there's any anticipated impacts. [53:03] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Or, like, you know, we were saying, you know, if something doesn't work well in the first year, the second year, or the third year, we have opportunities to make updates to the code to try to mitigate for those. [53:16] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, yeah, I wanted to raise that question because it looks like you've been really deliberate about excluding residential zones, right? And just to recognize that we are having more spaces in the city now where, I mean, they're both residential and non-residential at the same time, right? And so, if we're allowing these uses in those places, it may come with other impacts. [53:35] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, and then kind of the flip side of this, you notice our call-up item earlier this evening involved a church property that's in RL1, right? Residential zone. [53:47] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And that made me think about the fact that we have a number of churches and other privately owned community facilities that exist in residential zones right now. [53:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Has there been any consideration of spaces like that being made available for special event uses? [54:05] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It's possible that the events could be in those locations. We'd have to see if that's something that gets proposed by a future [54:13] Karl Guiler, P&DS: festival organizer. In some cases, you know, a lot of these types of uses already have events. Those are considered accessory uses. Okay. So, those aren't really problematic, but again, we have to kind of look at everything on a case-by-case basis to see if there's any impact, and… [54:31] Karl Guiler, P&DS: If it does fit the definition of accessory use. [54:34] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, yeah, thank you for pointing to that pathway. Last question is, like, really. [54:39] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: specific here. If you look at the draft code changes in our memo, so Attachment A, [54:46] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: there's some stuff towards the end, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with special events, and I'm just wondering why that language is in there. Like, there's some language about, principal parking facilities, and community gardens, and… [54:59] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Oh, that's just, when we added the new standards in Chapter 9-6, it required a renumbering of all of… [55:07] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Poorly renumbering? [55:09] Karl Guiler, P&DS: It's renumbering. [55:10] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Because there's some sections where there's actually just, you know, titles, where I understand it's renumbering, but then there's some sections that have text, too. [55:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Oh, the ones that have text are that they have references within those sections to the main letter, and that letter's changing. [55:27] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Okay. So, we just had to cross out the letter. [55:30] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, is that also the case with… let's see, there's a reference to… [55:35] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: 9-10-2 about, old drive-through facilities in the downtown zones. Is that also just a renumbering that's happening there? [55:45] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Let me check that real quick. 9-10-2…

[55:48] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Yeah, it's just the renumbering. It goes from, you know, it… [55:52] Karl Guiler, P&DS: it was a V, and then it becomes an X. [55:55] Karl Guiler, P&DS: You know, it's 9 to… or it's a… the numbering changed, so we have to update that. [56:01] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, thank you. [56:02] Karl Guiler, P&DS: There was some actually… there were some lingering sections that weren't updated in a prior code cleanup, so this was an opportunity to fix those as well. [56:12] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Because the numbering changes. [56:13] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Is it a renumbering, or is this a… [56:16] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: So there's no… is there change to the code language, or is this really just a new number? [56:21] Karl Guiler, P&DS: No, I mean, again, like, you'll look at those sections, and you'll see that it'll… there'll be a subsection 965 reference, it's just the letter crossed out and the new letter put in. That's the only change. [56:32] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, yeah, see, we don't have a redline version, and so some of this is a little… [56:36] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Okay, yeah. [56:37] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Confusing. Okay, great, that's all my questions. [56:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Claudia. Brad, I see you've got your hand up. Is that just lingering, or did you want to pop in here? [56:47] Brad Mueller, CoB: That is lingering, I apologize. [56:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: No worries, no worries. [56:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any other questions from board members? I have one, but if anyone else has one? [56:57] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, Carl, my one question is, why are agricultural zones excluded? [57:04] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I thought someone might ask that. [57:06] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I think, you know, we were just, you know, looking through the use table, and those are… [57:12] Karl Guiler, P&DS: revered zones in the city and, you know, to be protected. And I think… [57:17] Karl Guiler, P&DS: We looked at it, and temporary events can occur in the ag zone, because it might be, like, they might be selling produce or something like that, but we didn't think that that applied in this case. [57:26] Karl Guiler, P&DS: For a larger event, so we… we decided to… to exclude it from the Ag Zone. [57:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I don't really have a strong opinion about it, I was just curious. [57:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: All right, so any other board member questions? If none, then we will move on to our public hearing, which is an opportunity for any member of the public who would like to speak to this particular item of our special festival event code changes. [57:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I'll turn it over to Vivian to manage the public hearing on this item. [58:00] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great! So, community members who wish to speak to this item, you can raise your virtual hand, that way we'll know you wish to speak, and just go in the order that hands have been raised. [58:12] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And reminder to introduce yourself using your first and last name. [58:17] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: I don't see any so far. We'll give folks a couple more seconds. [58:22] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: I think people might be here for the next item. [58:26] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Lynn, please go ahead, you have 3 minutes.

[58:31] Lynn segal: Yeah, I don't approve of anything associated with Sundance, because I don't approve of Sundance being here at all. I think it's going to be the downfall of Boulder, along with CU South, Area 3, the airport, things like this. [58:51] Lynn segal: So… [58:56] Lynn segal: The… the impact… is just… [59:02] Lynn segal: you know, I lived in Salt Lake, so I know what this is like a little bit, but I'm not into football games, and that's what it is. It's like imposing another big football game in Boulder, and [59:17] Lynn segal: To me, it's ironic that you're trying to ameliorate [59:23] Lynn segal: Problems that would happen with that. [59:25] Lynn segal: And I think we've got, you know, a huge budget shortfall, and the last thing we need is something to make it worse. [59:35] Lynn segal: And Sundance is gonna make it a whole lot worse. [59:38] Lynn segal: the… the… Asphalt upkeep, the human life and safety issues, the congestion, the, it's just, you know… [59:54] Lynn segal: And I'm not that much into movies. I haven't seen movies for 40 years, like, so I don't really care about them. I like to create movies rather than watch someone else's. [60:07] Lynn segal: And… you know, Boulder approved it, so we're stuck with it. [60:14] Lynn segal: But… But I think the problems that you're gonna have with it are gonna be a lot more… [60:22] Lynn segal: significant with having had it here at all, and then for 10 years, and then the attendant, [60:34] Lynn segal: massive amounts of population being drawn to this area. And then at the same time, nobody's doing anything about Iran, and Lebanon, and Syria, and… [60:48] Lynn segal: and, like, are really big expenses, and planning board is assigned to deal with, you know, affordable housing. [60:58] Lynn segal: And it's not… it's gonna be plenty, plenty worse, considering this, and… and considering the time that is not being spent on Palestine, and on [61:11] Lynn segal: The things that are really costing the global economy and Drifting down into Boulder. [61:19] Lynn segal: And I think that's what you need to be thinking about. [61:23] Lynn segal: So, that's just my two cents. [61:26] Lynn segal: And I've been here since 1961 at some point, left, but come back. [61:33] Lynn segal: Done. [61:35] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great. Thank you, Lynn, for sharing your perspective. I don't see any other hands raised. [61:41] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Over to you, Chair. [61:44] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Vivian, and thank you, Lynn. [61:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, that concludes the public hearing on this item. [61:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: Before I forget, I'd like to check with our city attorney's Office. Do we need to do, disclosures, ex parte communications, conflict of interest statements about this particular item? We should have done it at the beginning. [62:04] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Yeah, thank you, Laura. Yeah, if there are any, conflicts that you have to disclose, then you should do that now. There is no concern with regard to ex parte communications, as this is a legislative item. [62:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any conflict of interest? [62:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: financial ties to Sundance or other large festivals. [62:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, seeing none, it is now time for board deliberation and recommendation. So, Carl, you had a couple of key questions for us. Would you like to show those briefly again to remind us?

[62:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Sure. And then we'll take them down so that they don't, take up the whole video while we're talking. [62:41] Karl Guiler, P&DS: One moment. [62:53] Karl Guiler, P&DS: Sorry, it's not showing up, one second. [63:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: If we're having technical difficulties, Carl, maybe you could just remind us, what are the key issues you wanted us to focus on? [63:16] Karl Guiler, P&DS: I think I have it here, yeah. [63:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: There they come. [63:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so do we find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or BVCP, and do we recommend any changes to the ordinance? [63:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, I think those are good places for discussion. If folks want to keep this brief, because we have another large hearing item, that would probably be helpful, but this is your opportunity to say anything that you want to say about this hearing item. [63:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: And if you do have something that you might recommend as a modification, let's… let's hear it now before we go to a recommendation. [63:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, who would like to speak with your comments about this ordinance? [64:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: And any changes that you might propose? [64:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: I see ML's hand is up. [64:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: And Carl, you can go ahead and take those questions down so that we can see each other. [64:19] ml robles . PB: So, clarifying, are you wanting us to speak about both of these? Oh, 1 and 2? [64:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: You are welcome to. Those are staff-suggested questions, but this is our time to deliberate and discuss. [64:33] ml robles . PB: So, I think I've… [64:36] ml robles . PB: spoken about the modification, and that would be about the time that the sign is up, signs are up, I would suggest that we limit them to the actual festival dates, as a modification, rather than 20 days. [64:52] ml robles . PB: That's an additional, potentially, what, 6 days? Which is a lot of days to have. [64:57] ml robles . PB: big sponsor, and I'm more concerned about sponsor signs being up, so that would be a modification that I would suggest is the time that the signs are allowed to remain. [65:09] ml robles . PB: Before or after the vesting. [65:12] ml robles . PB: Thank you. [65:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: So it's currently 3 days before, or 3 days after, approximately, and that window can move around. [65:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: So ML, if you're going to suggest that as a modification, I would suggest that you write that up as a proposed amendment to the ordinance. [65:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then send that to Thomas. [65:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, other comments from board members? Or ML, were you… I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off if you're not finished. [65:35] ml robles . PB: That's good. I didn't have my microphone off, sorry. [65:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [65:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Who's next? [65:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia. [65:48] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Very briefly, because I'm agreeable tonight, I'm supportive of the general concept here of introducing flexibility and uses for these time-limited events. I think especially if they are coupled with an application and enforcement process that has some safeguards for long-term community members.

[66:05] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I know that those safeguards are going to be administrative, that's not legislative, it's not what we're dealing with here, so our recommendation is not a place to spell out what those look like, but I do want it in the record that we [66:17] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Have a responsibility here as a city to not create a free-for-all, under the cover of impacts being temporary. [66:24] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I think it is prudent to be conservative with which zones allow the special event festival use, especially in this first go-around. I think staff is doing that. [66:35] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: But I do also think it's worth revisiting in the future, especially… specifically what kinds of spaces we want to be available. Like I mentioned, that example of churches and other gathering places in residential zones that may be relevant to this use, and if it's appropriate to consider adding those in the future. [66:53] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Or conversely, based on experience, placing some kinds of mixed-use areas off-limits for particular types of things. But again, I'm comfortable with this as a starting point, and I think the concept is good. [67:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Claudia. Kurt. [67:10] Kurt Nordback, PB: Thank you. I agree with Claudia that allowing flexibility of use is really important, and I'm glad that we're moving in that direction. [67:20] Kurt Nordback, PB: I am… have some concern, I guess, that this may not be the best way to approach all of this through… specifically through the land use [67:31] Kurt Nordback, PB: The, the land use regulations specifically, but… [67:35] Kurt Nordback, PB: I am definitely not as smart as Carl in this, and so I trust his judgment on that. I was, taken with Mason's question about the threshold, the… I think it's the 15,000 attendee threshold. [67:51] Kurt Nordback, PB: Which seems, you know, it's very arbitrary, and [67:56] Kurt Nordback, PB: You know, it raises to me the question of, well. [68:01] Kurt Nordback, PB: what if somehow something happened to Sundance, and all of a sudden it got much smaller, and we were only getting 13,000 attendees? [68:11] Kurt Nordback, PB: Would we say it was not allowed? [68:14] Kurt Nordback, PB: that wouldn't really make sense, so the notion… to me, the notion of having a hard threshold at all, in terms of attendees, doesn't really make sense. It seems like it [68:25] Kurt Nordback, PB: could be a judgment call by the city manager as to what is an appropriate festival, special festival, to have… to allow or not. And that potentially would allow some flexibility for other kinds of [68:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: Of events, like Roots Music Project, as, as Mason said, or perhaps others. [68:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Kurt, and if you have a specific change you'd like to recommend as a modification to the ordinance, we can do that as an amendment. [69:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: Or as a separate motion. [69:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Who else has comments? [69:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max, Mark? [69:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mason? [69:11] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, I'm good. [69:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max is good. [69:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Just real. [69:17] Mason Roberts, PB: quick. [69:19] Mason Roberts, PB: I don't know. [69:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mason. [69:20] Mason Roberts, PB: just seconding what… most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I'm not going to repeat myself. [69:25] Mason Roberts, PB: I will say that I think that this is an opportunity to…

[69:30] Mason Roberts, PB: to, shore up the code for other things that are happening in our community. I know we're trying to do something quick for Suddenance, and that's, like, the immediate need, and we need to address that. [69:40] Mason Roberts, PB: And we can't be everything to everyone, but I don't see why we couldn't add, like, a lightweight version of this for a slightly smaller event, or change that threshold down, or what have you. There's a need in our community for [69:55] Mason Roberts, PB: for, I think, a more clear permitting process amongst private properties for other events as well. So, I appreciate all the work that's been done on this. [70:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Mason. [70:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark, did you have anything? [70:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark, you're on mute. [70:20] PB Mark McIntyre: Thank you. This little discussion does prompt me to ask the question, have we engaged with BIF and other events that are an existing part of our community and are significant stakeholders in, [70:39] PB Mark McIntyre: In these types of events, as to whether or not they would benefit from either a lower threshold or a more general application of this kind of code change. [70:51] PB Mark McIntyre: Certainly, BIF doesn't bring in $15,000, but [70:55] PB Mark McIntyre: Anyway, other stakeholders, have you engaged with other people that, as their festival might grow, or, as they might bring a different type of event to town, as to whether or not, some lower threshold or [71:13] PB Mark McIntyre: Different type of application would be appropriate. [71:19] Karl Guiler, P&DS: To my knowledge, and speaking for Planning and Development Services, I don't think we have engaged with them on these code changes, but that's not to say that our other staff in the city manager's office and others haven't. [71:32] Karl Guiler, P&DS: reached out to those folks. There's been a lot of coordination from different departments on different levels, and I may be unaware of some of those conversations. [71:42] PB Mark McIntyre: I'll just simply say, I support Kurt and Mason's concerns. [71:48] PB Mark McIntyre: However, at this time, I'm kind of like, alright, well, we can always modify it again. [71:53] PB Mark McIntyre: Anyway, so I'll be supporting it tonight. [71:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thanks everyone. I don't really have a lot to add. I view this as a little bit of a… just a cleanup to make sure that the festival that we have invited to come to Boulder is not hampered by Title IX, and so I want to thank staff and Carl especially for combing through Title IX to figure out where those conflicts could occur and make sure that they do not. [72:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: And also that the public is appropriately [72:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: protected from impacts, as has been described tonight. I do think I'm hearing from my fellow board members that [72:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: there are questions about whether smaller festivals, like the Boulder International Film Festival or the Reeds Music Festival, could benefit from some kind of coordinated permit process or some of the code changes that we're seeing here tonight. [72:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I think staff probably take that as input to something that could be good to do for our smaller festivals. But in terms of the code changes that we are approving tonight, I would encourage folks to focus on this particular package in front of us. [72:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, with that said, I'm gonna make a process suggestion, which is that we start with staff's motion. [72:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then if folks would like to modify that, either [73:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: If you feel strongly enough about it that you would not be able to vote for this code package without your modification, you can try to attach it and see if the board member agrees to attach it [73:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: as a package, as an amendment to the motion. If you don't feel that strongly about it, but you want it to be a separate recommendation, you could make it as a separate motion. So I'll leave that up to individual board member discretion of whether you want to try to attach it to the main motion. [73:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Where it all would have to be approved as one package, or if you're okay with approving it separately as a second motion. [73:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: So this is our, recommended motion. [73:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would anybody like to make a motion at this time, either using staff's language or some other language? [73:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark? [73:49] PB Mark McIntyre: I move…

[73:51] PB Mark McIntyre: that City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title IX Land Use Code to create new use standards for special festival events [74:02] PB Mark McIntyre: Amend mobile food vehicle standards related to organized events, and amend the city sign code to regulate signs that may be erected for the duration of a special festival event. [74:16] PB Mark McIntyre: And associated review and approval processes, and setting forth related details. [74:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Mark. And if I may make a friendly amendment before we move to a second, I think it needs to start with, I move that Planning Board recommends [74:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: Rather than you personally move that City Council make it… adopt an ordinance. So we're making a recommendation as a planning board. [74:38] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay, I would… beginning with that first sentence, I move that Planning Board recommend Dot, dot dot. [74:47] PB Mark McIntyre: On… on… on it goes. [74:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. [74:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would anyone like to second? [74:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: I see. Mason is a second. Okay. [75:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark, would you like to speak to your motion? And then Mason… [75:05] PB Mark McIntyre: Only this… [75:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any discussion? [75:07] PB Mark McIntyre: Yeah. Only to say that we're… we're in this. And I appreciate staff's efforts to craft code that [75:16] PB Mark McIntyre: acknowledges that we're in to Sundance, but that could be applicable to other large special festival events, and that as we go forward, [75:28] PB Mark McIntyre: and Boulder continues to develop its tourist and festival economy, which there are other significant, [75:38] PB Mark McIntyre: the Jaipur Literature Festival, etc. There's many things, many that I didn't know about Mason's comments earlier. I just would encourage us to continue to refine this [75:49] PB Mark McIntyre: to make it, less specific to Sundance and more applicable to a, to a vibrant city that has festivals of many different sizes. So that's my only comment, of encouragement to staff and, in support of the current [76:08] PB Mark McIntyre: recommendation to counseling. [76:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Mark. Mason, you seconded. Would you like to speak to the motion? [76:16] Mason Roberts, PB: Everything's been said. Thank you. [76:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. [76:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any other discussion? [76:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Before I ask if there are proposed amendments to this motion. [76:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any other discussion? [76:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I know there are a couple folks who might be proposing amendments. Did anyone want to propose an amendment to the motion? [76:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: You also have the option, after we approve a motion, to try to make a separate recommendation. [76:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: Did anyone want to try to attach an amendment to the motion? [76:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, seeing none… And no more discussion, let's go ahead and vote on this item. [76:57] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I'm going to start with just the folks on my screen. Max.

[77:02] Max Lord, PB: Yes. [77:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Mason. [77:05] Mason Roberts, PB: Yep. [77:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia. [77:07] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Yes. [77:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt. [77:09] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yes. [77:10] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark. [77:11] PB Mark McIntyre: Yes. [77:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: ML. [77:12] ml robles . PB: Yes. [77:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I'm a yes. [77:15] Laura Kaplan, PB: Motion passes unanimously. [77:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would anybody like to make another motion on this item? [77:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt, you have your hand up. [77:26] Kurt Nordback, PB: Thanks, yeah, I think that Mark said pretty well what I wanted to say, but I think that it might be worth sort of formalizing that, so I would move… [77:36] Kurt Nordback, PB: The Planning Board recommend that staff consider how to broaden the special festival event code changes to embrace events that are smaller but otherwise similar to Sundance, including existing city festivals, such as Biff and Ruth's Music Project. [77:53] Kurt Nordback, PB: And I can send that language to Thomas. [77:56] Kurt Nordback, PB: If that's helpful. [77:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, yes, it would be good to be able to get it on the screen. [78:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: While Kurt is doing that… Well, I guess we should see it first before I call for a second. [78:10] PB Mark McIntyre: I… okay, we should see it. [78:13] PB Mark McIntyre: I'm ready. [78:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: If you're ready to second it, Mark, that is your right as a board member. [78:17] PB Mark McIntyre: purple. [78:18] PB Mark McIntyre: Well, I don't want to jump in fast if someone has a word change… word change or whatever before we second, so I'll hold my horses for one more minute here. [78:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. Thank you, Mark. Very considerate of you. [78:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, Thomas is going to pull up that language that Kurt just read, so that everyone can see it. [78:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: When was… were you able to receive that language? [79:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay.

[79:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, now the language is in front of us. Take a second to read it, and if anybody has any friendly amendments to broaden or change the language. [79:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any friendly amendments? [79:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: If not… Anyone want a second? [79:29] Mason Roberts, PB: I'll second. [79:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh, Mark, you got… [79:33] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [79:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Sniped. [79:35] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay, there you go. [79:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: I didn'. [79:36] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [79:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt, would you like to speak to your motion? [79:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: No, I think we've discussed it. Thanks. [79:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Mason, would you like to speak to the motion? [79:47] Mason Roberts, PB: I think it's perfectly worded. I think… yeah, I think this is exactly what I was thinking the whole time I was reading this portion of the packet, so I'm… [79:55] Mason Roberts, PB: I'm excited to see this go through. [79:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: A discussion of this proposed additional motion. [80:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Seeing none, let's vote. And I can't see everybody, but I'll try to name everybody. We'll start with ML. [80:13] ml robles . PB: Yes. [80:15] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt. [80:15] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yes. [80:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia. [80:17] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Yes. [80:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark. [80:20] PB Mark McIntyre: Yes. [80:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max. [80:22] Max Lord, PB: Yes. [80:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: whom… who did I leave out? [80:26] Mason Roberts, PB: Meat. [80:27] ml robles . PB: Mason. [80:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mason.

[80:28] Mason Roberts, PB: Yes. [80:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I'm a yes. [80:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, additional motion passes. [80:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would anybody else like to make an additional motion? [80:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: ML, did you want to make one about the duration of setup and cleanup? [80:43] ml robles . PB: You know, I heard many times that, Carl mentioned that this is year one, and let's see how things go and what we need to tweak, so I'm thinking that might be one of those things that, you know, either we find that the sponsors come and go [81:00] ml robles . PB: timely with the festival or not, and then we can amend based on actual experience, so… [81:07] ml robles . PB: I… will hold off for a year. [81:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, concern noted. [81:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any other additional motions on this item? [81:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Hearing none, I'm going to suggest that we take a 5-minute break. [81:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: Folks say, get a drink or do anything you need to do. [81:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then we'll come back at 8.01 PM. [81:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: For our second hearing item, and that will be the one on 2855 Folsom Avenue, Unity Church. [81:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: See you folks in about 5 minutes. [86:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, the time is now 8.02 PM. I see board members coming back online. [87:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I think we might have just one more board member that [87:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: We don't have that quite yet. [87:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: But it is… [87:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: 8.02 p.m, so I'm gonna go ahead and kick this item off, and I'm sure we will all be here shortly. [87:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, the next item on our agenda is our second public hearing. It is item 5B on the agenda. This is a concept plan review and comment on a proposal to redevelop the existing Unity Church property at 2855 Folsom with 21 detached dwelling units. [87:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: It is reviewed under case number LUR2026-000. [87:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: 1, 5. [87:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: For folks who are not as familiar with Planning Board, in a concept review, this is an early stage in the process of looking at a development application. It's a chance for the planning board to see an initial concept and comment on it. There's no decision being made tonight, there's no vote being taken. [88:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: The sequence of events will be, we will have a presentation from staff who have worked with the applicant, and then the board will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. [88:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Then the applicant will have an opportunity to give their own presentation, and the board will have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. Then we will have a public hearing, where anyone from the public can speak to the board for 3 minutes about this particular project. [88:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: And when we are done with the public hearing, that will be the opportunity for the board to give comments back to the applicant, especially noting anything that we think may be a problem for them when they actually apply for their site review. [88:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: And Shannon, I wanted to ask you, will this project need to come back before planning board for a site review, or will it be a staff-level site review? [88:51] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, it would be eligible for a staff-level review, but it could be called up. [88:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so this project would not necessarily have another public hearing unless the board called it up at the site review stage, or City Council called it up at the site review stage. But this public hearing is your opportunity to be heard about this project.

[89:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Shannon Muller from Planning and Development Services, who will walk us through the staff presentation. Thank you, Shannon. [89:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: Alright, great! [89:23] Shannon Moeller, COB: Thank you so much. Good to be here with you, Board. I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder Planning Department, so I'll take you through staff's presentation here next. [89:34] Shannon Moeller, COB: So I'll be touching briefly on the purpose of a concept plan, the public notification, the site and surrounding context, a summary of the project, and some key issues for discussion tonight. [89:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: So again, as was noted, the purpose of a concept plan is to review a general development plan for a site and help identify some key issues prior to development of a more detailed site review submittal. So the applicant will receive comments from the board, staff, and community members, and no formal action is being taken on the project tonight. [90:12] Shannon Moeller, COB: In terms of public notification, the site was posted and notice provided to property owners within 600 feet. [90:19] Shannon Moeller, COB: Staff did receive several written comments on the proposal. Many of these included concerns regarding wildlife and natural areas, and the potential impact of overbuilding on the site. [90:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: So here you can see the property outlined in kind of the pinkish-purple color. It's about 8.8 acres in size, and it's south of Edgewood and west of Folsom. So, it includes the, existing approximately 28,000 square foot Unity Church. [90:52] Shannon Moeller, COB: This building was built in 1992, and there's about 190, space parking lot around it. And, through this site, Goose Creek runs through the site, and there's also the Goose Creek multi-use path that runs through the property and along the southern edge. [91:10] Shannon Moeller, COB: And this property is part of the Trout Farm PUD, that was approved in the 90s that encompasses this lot as well as the 92-unit condo property just to the south. [91:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: And here you can see some of the surrounding, areas. So, again, this property is located at the intersection of Folsom and Edgewood, and there's several different uses in this area. [91:38] Shannon Moeller, COB: So to the west and the north, it's a RL1 residential low 1 zoning, which has detached dwelling units that are largely one-story brick homes built in the 1950s. And then moving to the northeast and the east across Folsom are properties that are commercially zoned, like the Goose Creek Medical Office, there's a 7-Eleven. [92:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: and other, mix of retail and personal service type uses. Further east is the Mapleton Mobile Home Park, and, [92:13] Shannon Moeller, COB: affordable housing developments at Red Oak Park, and then just to the south of this property, again, is the Trout Farm Condos building, that is part of the Trout Farm PUD. [92:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: And here you can see this property, is impacted by the, the city's floodplain regulations. Portions of the site along the creek are in the high hazard zone, conveyance zone, 100-year floodplain, and there are high-functioning wetlands and buffers along the creek. [92:45] Shannon Moeller, COB: This property also contains areas of steep slopes, in particular, the west area of the property. [92:53] Shannon Moeller, COB: The overall site slopes downward toward Goose Creek. The area that's proposed for the redevelopment on the site of the church and the parking lot has more moderate slopes, and then those get steeper as you get closer to the creek. [93:07] Shannon Moeller, COB: The property contains many existing mature trees along the creek, and, overall, there's a lot of sensitive areas that exist on this site, between the steep slopes. [93:19] Shannon Moeller, COB: As well as along the creek, and the areas along the creek that are subject to those floodplain and wetlands regulations. And this is reflected in the many comments the city received, encouraging protection of these sensitive areas, in particular due to an abundance of wildlife in the area. [93:42] Shannon Moeller, COB: Here you can see the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The eastern portion of the property where the redevelopment is proposed. [93:51] Shannon Moeller, COB: Is designated… designated medium density residential, which is characterized by a variety of housing types, generally near neighborhood and community shopping areas. [94:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: And it's at a density of 6 to 14 units per acre. [94:07] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then the western portion of the property and many of the immediately surrounding areas are in the low density residential land use designations, and there are also other areas of medium density and business and manufactured housing land uses nearby. [94:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: Consistent with the BBCP land use designations, this property is split zoned, so the western portion is zoned residential low 1, there in the yellow, and then the eastern portion is zoned Residential Medium 1, in kind of the pinkish color. [94:42] Shannon Moeller, COB: And this is, a medium density area that is intended to have, attached residential development, where each unit has access to the ground level, and where complementary uses can be permitted. [94:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, the proposed, homes for redevelopment are in that area zoned RM1, and they'd be subject to the RM1 zoning standards. Residential uses, including detached dwelling units, are permitted by right in this zoning district. [95:14] Shannon Moeller, COB: In terms of transportation connections, the site is located near several multimodal corridors and connections, including, again, the Goose Creek path, shown in the green, the protected bike lanes in Folsom, an on-street bike lane in Edgewood, and other nearby designated bike routes. [95:34] Shannon Moeller, COB: The site is located a little further from nearby bus routes. It's over a quarter mile from the nearest bus stops in 28th Street and in 19th Street. [95:46] Shannon Moeller, COB: So moving to the proposed project tonight, so the proposal includes redevelopment of the portion of the property where the Unity Church building and the parking lot currently exists. So here you can see the image on the left showing the existing site there, and then on the right, what's proposed. [96:04] Shannon Moeller, COB: The project would involve removing that existing church building and parking lot, and it would involve subdividing that part of the property into residential lots for 21 detached homes.

[96:16] Shannon Moeller, COB: And, installing associated site improvements, like a street, sidewalks, and landscaping. [96:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: The proposed home sizes here range from 2,400 to 3,600 square feet per home. The units along the north and the east edges of the site are oriented outward, with front doors and porches along Edgewood and Folsom. [96:41] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then the units kind of on the south internal side there are oriented northward up toward, the new public street, and so they have garages and front doors and porches oriented toward that new little street there. [96:57] Shannon Moeller, COB: And here are a few images provided by the applicant team, to help visualize the project. [97:06] Shannon Moeller, COB: In terms of the required processes, this proposal requires a site review amendment to amend the existing PUD on the property, and the applicant could request any modifications that they would like to have through that process. [97:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then following that site review, it would move into technical type of reviews, like preliminary and final plats to create the lots and dedicate easements and right-of-way, the technical documents, and the building permits. [97:35] Shannon Moeller, COB: So staff identified these three key issues for discussion tonight, which are including the consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, consistency with the site review criteria, and, any other key issues identified by the board. [97:52] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, for Key Issue 1, consistency with the BBCP, overall staff found the proposed redevelopment is generally consistent with the BBCP land use designation of medium density residential and the role of this area in providing a medium density of housing near neighborhood and community shopping areas. The proposal includes features that support several BBCP [98:17] Shannon Moeller, COB: CP policies, including providing a compact development pattern. [98:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: Providing a sensitive redevelopment on the existing developed portion of the property and avoiding and limiting impacts to existing open natural lands and to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It also provides for an enhanced design with homes oriented toward the public realm. [98:40] Shannon Moeller, COB: Building designs that are a human scale and have inviting front porches, and have four-sided, cohesive design. [98:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: Staff is recommending the proposal better address some other BBCP policies at the time of a site review application. So, in terms of compatibility with adjacent land uses and addressing the surrounding context, staff is recommending the proposal better address the relationship of the site to the adjacent busy thoroughfares. Both Folsom Street and Edgewood are considered [99:13] Shannon Moeller, COB: major streets in Title IX, and that's where the city subdivision standards call for a design to reduce noise in residential lots to a reasonable level. [99:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: So staff recommends considering how the unit types and the overall site design can better address the expected noise and traffic along there. [99:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: So possibilities might include providing attached dwelling units along Folsom, and a transition to detached units further west. [99:41] Shannon Moeller, COB: And where detached homes are provided, staff is also recommending considering incorporating ADUs, attached, or excuse me, accessory dwelling units, as these could add to the mix of sizes and types of living options on the site to support the city's housing policies that encourage [99:59] Shannon Moeller, COB: Providing additional living options, as well as moderately sized and priced homes. [100:05] Shannon Moeller, COB: In terms of the transportation connections for this project, transportation staff provided information in the memo, and staff comments about necessary improvements and dedications that will support a complete network of multimodal connections. [100:23] Shannon Moeller, COB: These include several items, including right-of-way improvements in Edgewood and Folsom for detached sidewalks, and a minimum 8-foot planting strip. [100:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: It included updating the corner of Edgewood and Folsom as a protected intersection. [100:38] Shannon Moeller, COB: providing a buffered bike lane along Edgewood, and providing a connection from the site to adjacent multimodal connections, like the bike lanes in Folsom and to the Goose Creek Pass, and that's intended to help prioritize walking and biking. And lastly, transportation staff noted that the access point along Edgewood [101:02] Shannon Moeller, COB: As well as the design of some of the driveways would need revision to meet spacing and other technical requirements. [101:11] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then moving on to the design a little bit more, for the proposed parking and garages, staff noted that where there are some homes that have garage entrances and front entries on the same side of the home, the garages should ideally be set back from the front building facade whenever possible. [101:29] Shannon Moeller, COB: And lastly, we looked at the on-site open spaces. Typically, for a residential proposal, we'd be looking for common open spaces to be provided for residents to gather. Given that much of this site consists of natural areas, staff recommends exploring how a common open space for gathering could be provided for residents while also [101:51] Shannon Moeller, COB: Limiting any impacts to those sensitive natural areas. [101:57] Shannon Moeller, COB: So for Key Issue 2, this key issue is specific to the, proposal's consistency with the site review criteria in 9-214. [102:08] Shannon Moeller, COB: So again, you'll see many of the same items on this slide are quite similar to what I just went over with the BBCP, so I'll try not to spend too much time. Again, staff is recommending looking at those pedestrian connections to the existing network, making sure residents can get out to those paths more directly. [102:27] Shannon Moeller, COB: And also looking at those common open spaces for gathering while limiting any impacts to natural areas. Looking at that building and site design and the public realm interface to make sure it responds to the context along Folsom and expected noise and traffic, looking at things like the site design setbacks and unit types for that. [102:48] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then again, looking at those garage and front entrances when they're on the same side of homes, and trying to, optimize that design as much as possible. [102:58] Shannon Moeller, COB: So for next steps, following tonight's hearing, the item could be called up for an additional public hearing by City Council.

[103:06] Shannon Moeller, COB: Once it's through the concept plan review feedback process, a future site review application could be submitted, and then the site review would be decided by the planning department with call-up consideration, by the planning board. [103:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: And that concludes staff's presentation. Happy to take any questions. [103:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you so much, Shannon. Very thorough and efficient and informative, as always. Who has questions from the board for Shannon? Oh, I'm sorry, before we ask questions, I should again call for any declaration of conflict of interest, or, because this is quasi-judicial, any ex parte communication disclosures that people want to make. [103:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any ex parte communication disclosures or conflict of interest that people want to mention? [103:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, seeing none, we'll go to questions for staff. Oh, I see Max and then ML. [104:02] Max Lord, PB: Awesome. I'm just… was leaving back through this and what I've got earmarked, and I noticed that the land use reviewed that staff is unable to support the creation of a new public street for this parcel, so do we just not need to discuss that at all? Is that already kind of a hard no on here? [104:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: That's my understanding, is that transportation staff flagged that as [104:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: as an issue for that… for this site. So I think there'll be further discussions between the applicant team and staff as to the best way to provide that access point and the best way to provide that. It sounds like it would need to be most likely, a private street in there. [104:43] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, okay, cool. Then let me see if I can find my one other mark here. And then, this is… I'm… know that we're using the, [104:53] Max Lord, PB: terminology, detached dwelling unit, but I'm just gonna echo the language from the applicants. [105:02] Max Lord, PB: page here that the community… [105:05] Max Lord, PB: benefit would be an increase in single-family homes, is the quote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but is there anywhere that we have codified that we view that as a community benefit? [105:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I'm not… [105:23] Shannon Moeller, COB: sure what that would be referring to specifically. For this project, in terms of… we would typically be looking for a community benefit for a project that was, like, 4 to 5 stories tall and needs that community benefit extra fee. [105:38] Shannon Moeller, COB: For this one, it would just typically go by all of our standards, and then when it's getting into things like paying for inclusionary housing fees and that sort of thing, that's… that's just all handled the standard way, so… [105:54] Max Lord, PB: And then, lastly, and the… those who've been on the BVCP longer than me might already know the answer to this, but on the… [106:01] Max Lord, PB: Next, in the future iteration, right now the area is marked as Neighborhood 1, but I know many people have expressed interest in [106:10] Max Lord, PB: changing to Neighborhood 2 along arterial corridors like Folsom, Arapaho, etc. Would that very much modify the applicant's ability to change their project? Because we're kind of, like, coming up close on that, aren't we? [106:25] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, so whenever a project, you know, when it comes in the door for that site review, whatever the BBCP is at that time, then we would review it under that, yeah. [106:36] Max Lord, PB: Alright, thank you very much. That's me. [106:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Max. I have ML, then Mark, Claudia, and Kurt. [106:48] ml robles . PB: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Shannon. [106:51] ml robles . PB: I have one clarifying question. [106:57] ml robles . PB: You mentioned that the site So I think the site, [107:02] ml robles . PB: and the information says it's, like, 8.8 acres, but you mentioned it's going to be subdivided. So what size site does the development project actually have? [107:17] ml robles . PB: What's cute. [107:18] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah. [107:19] ml robles . PB: of that, of that site. [107:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, the 8.8 acres I was referring to is the whole, area outlined in this pink outline is the current lot that is owned by the church. So that's the 8.8 acres, and then someone could come in and, like, subdivide off [107:40] Shannon Moeller, COB: You know, pieces of that to create, like, an individual lot for… to sell for individual homes.

[107:49] ml robles . PB: But, so my question is, for purposes of site review criteria and BBCP, [107:57] ml robles . PB: Are we talking a project that's 8.8 acres? [108:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, yeah, that's a… that's a great question. So, because this property is split zoned. [108:10] Shannon Moeller, COB: And it's also tied into a PUD with the property to the south. There are some of the criteria where we have to take that into consideration, in terms of what we're looking at for, like, the housing types and densities, and how the density is calculated. [108:30] Shannon Moeller, COB: So… So that was taken into consideration when we did our review. [108:37] ml robles . PB: RM1 portion of the site, which is where the development will be occurring. [108:43] ml robles . PB: What is the size of that? [108:48] Shannon Moeller, COB: I know I have it somewhere, I don't have it right in front of me, but yeah, I did have to run some numbers on that because of the split. [108:58] ml robles . PB: Right. Okay, so the reason I'm asking is, in regards to the, acreage relative to the housing types that are required. There's a trigger point based on acreage, so I'm just curious how many acres we're dealing with here to… [109:14] ml robles . PB: to kind of… Refer back to the site criteria of how many housing types are required. [109:22] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I believe when we looked at that, so because this property is tied in with the property to the south in this PUD, and it's somewhat limited, and the additional density it can add because they're sharing the open space, so when we looked at it, we did our calculation based on the part that's zoned RM, and… [109:46] Shannon Moeller, COB: Taking into consideration the fact that the property to the south is… has to be part of those calculations, because they're kind of [109:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: tied together, through that PUD. So I believe they were in a good spot in terms of meeting the housing variety calculations, if that was sort of the question. [110:10] ml robles . PB: Yes, H1F… Triple I. [110:15] ml robles . PB: the requirement of… of that, which… which says if it's… if it's greater than 5 acres, it needs to have 2 housing types. And I'm just curious, is it… [110:27] ml robles . PB: Is it greater than 5 acres? [110:30] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, we would consider that whole area in the pink, and so for this… for this site, they would be able to include the attached dwelling units, on the Trout Farm Condo's property, as well as their proposed dwelling units toward meeting that requirement. [110:49] ml robles . PB: Okay, so those are condos and detached houses. [110:53] ml robles . PB: Perfect. So it took a while. [110:54] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, sorry, it's… [110:56] ml robles . PB: No worries. [110:57] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah. [110:58] ml robles . PB: I appreciate your answer, thank you. [111:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Mark is up next, then Claudia and Kurt. [111:05] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay, thanks, Shannon. [111:09] PB Mark McIntyre: Shannon, can you kind of either verify for me or explain to me what I'm perceiving as a little bit of a conflict in the code that's been brought out, that we want [111:21] PB Mark McIntyre: Buildings, residential buildings, to engage with their respective streets. [111:29] PB Mark McIntyre: And in this case, we have two pretty high-volume streets. Edgewood is, especially at this intersection, is pretty high volume, as is Folsom. [111:40] PB Mark McIntyre: And yet, we also want residents, and they rightfully can… Desire, privacy, and quiet. [111:50] PB Mark McIntyre: So, my question is, is which of those takes precedent, and is it really in conflict here? Am I missing something? And then.

[112:00] PB Mark McIntyre: In this zone, do we allow fencing [112:05] PB Mark McIntyre: on, front yard fencing on the street, side to encourage quiet and privacy, or is that [112:16] PB Mark McIntyre: Does that completely obviate the desire for engagement? [112:22] PB Mark McIntyre: With the front of the residence to the street. [112:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yep, yeah, I think that that's a great question, and that's one of the things we… [112:31] Shannon Moeller, COB: considered and noted kind of in the comments is that there is sort of that conflict there, where we do, like you stated, we do want those buildings to interface in front on the street. We do also have subdivision standards that are pointing out that [112:48] Shannon Moeller, COB: Typically, for a detached home situation along those major streets that are going to be busier and noisier, that they're… it's looking for some sort of design element, typically, either a larger setback or a landscape buffer of some sort along there to provide that little bit of distance and a little bit of noise [113:12] Shannon Moeller, COB: Considerations along there. [113:14] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, I would say that that is a design consideration. It'd be helpful to get any thoughts or feedback on, [113:22] Shannon Moeller, COB: Like you stated, the code is… [113:25] Shannon Moeller, COB: is looking for, somehow, for that to be resolved. In terms of fencing, we do allow fencing. [113:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: We would typically, you know, try to encourage a type of fencing that would provide that, you know, sense of permeability, so it's not just walled off. But we do allow fencing. [113:48] PB Mark McIntyre: Thank you. My other question is, and this is, kind of following on to Max's question, and do I understand, then, that, and I must have missed it, and I appreciate Max, seeing this. [114:03] PB Mark McIntyre: that… the applicant [114:07] PB Mark McIntyre: has, in the illustration right here, new public street, are you saying staff and transportation staff, or whoever, has said, no, this is… this is not going to be a public street, it will be a private [114:21] PB Mark McIntyre: street. Regardless of this configuration, there won't be a new public street within the confines of this application. [114:30] Shannon Moeller, COB: That was my understanding, is that that was the staff's determination, is that it would… should not be a public street added here. There was a few other comments noted regarding the configuration and design of it as well. [114:45] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay, so when an applicant, is… [114:51] PB Mark McIntyre: either has the opportunity or the requirement to have a private street, then the street cross-section and the design [114:59] PB Mark McIntyre: Can be modified as long as it's accepted by fire and safety personnel. [115:09] PB Mark McIntyre: If it meets… basic fire and safety personnel, then suddenly the DCS requirements are… eliminated [115:19] PB Mark McIntyre: And you can have smaller streets, narrower streets, etc. Is that… is that a fair characterization? [115:27] Shannon Moeller, COB: I wouldn't characterize it as that the DCS requirements would be eliminated. I think it… I think it can provide more flexibility in terms of the design, though. [115:35] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah. [115:37] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [115:38] PB Mark McIntyre: And then, did staff… Propose, suggest. [115:46] PB Mark McIntyre: Or look at a more western entrance [115:51] PB Mark McIntyre: to the project along Edgewood, across from 24th Street, and maybe even combining with the multi-use path entrance, but some sort of [116:04] PB Mark McIntyre: Anyway, did you guys do anything, or make any suggestions? [116:08] PB Mark McIntyre: About, moving the entrance farther west.

[116:13] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I think that came up in more some informal discussions with the applicant team and staff, so that would be the logical next place to look for a good access point, is pushing that further… further west. The applicant team would need to go through a process of, working with the transportation engineer to kind of verify some safety information. [116:37] Shannon Moeller, COB: distances, different things, and provide that to staff to help us understand if that would be an appropriate and safe access point further west. [116:48] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [116:49] PB Mark McIntyre: Alright, that's it for me right now. Thank you. [116:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thanks, Mark. Claudia. [116:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: All right, some of them might have been answered, still have a few. [117:02] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Do you know, Shannon, how large are the individual building lots that the applicant is proposing? [117:11] Shannon Moeller, COB: No, I'm not sure on the lot sizes, I didn't measure those out. [117:15] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, I can ask the applicant team as well about that. [117:19] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I have a fairly complex question about the… [117:25] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: PUD, and the way that open space is being calculated. [117:30] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I just want to make sure that I understand this. [117:34] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: correctly, so… [117:36] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: The trout farm condos have a certain required open space under RM1, right? And some of that is currently being met on this subject property, is that correct? [117:47] Shannon Moeller, COB: That's correct. [117:52] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: how much… I know the applicant statement had some… had some math, we could go back to that, but how much of this parcel is encumbered by that neighboring open space need? [118:05] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I don't have the numbers in front of me right yet, but their… their numbers kind of… [118:12] Shannon Moeller, COB: I think I know the numbers you're referring to, and it kind of walked through the different open space needs, and how [118:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: it totaled up, and then this new proposal, the new open space needed for this, and kind of showing all that. So, but I know what you're referring to, yeah. [118:32] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, is that something that I should ask the applicant to dig into, or can we get more into these numbers now? [118:38] Shannon Moeller, COB: Oh, yeah, I can try to answer if I… if I… [118:41] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I'm curious about, in particular, like, does the… so currently the… there's the church there surrounded by a parking lot. [118:47] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And… and that's… that's, proposed as the space available for new development, right? I'm curious if any of that space is being used to… to support the open space needs of the trout farm, or if… or if somehow that entire need is being met on this… [119:07] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: This western portion of the parcel that's being proposed to be left undeveloped. [119:14] Shannon Moeller, COB: Like, if the existing parking lot and church area is counting toward… so we don't allow buildings or parking lot areas to count toward your open space needs. So the PUD documented fairly well, and I don't have the [119:32] Shannon Moeller, COB: Document right in front of me, but it… it kind of subtracted out everything that was being used for, like, parking lot, building. [119:41] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then… [119:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: resulted in the open space that was approved at that time, and so this proposal is, working with, kind of, the open space that they could get and use, and so that's why they're [119:57] Shannon Moeller, COB: Dwelling unit numbers are relatively low for what can be added because of the open space requirements that… that pertain to both these properties. [120:08] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: All right, and so the open space is the one impact of the PUD that stood out to me. Are there any other limitations that the PUD, is going to be placing on development at this separate property?

[120:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: I mean, when you come in for a site review amendment, you can… you know, you're kind of in a new site review, so, [120:34] Shannon Moeller, COB: it… the… the development at the time… I would say this property is unique in that it has a number of constraints in terms of… [120:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: the floodplain, the natural areas, just a lot of easements, and so it is fairly limited, just by all those, not necessarily because of the PUD, but just a number of the zoning, the split zoning. So it's a unique property. [120:58] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, but at the time of site review, those things can be revisited if the applicant chooses to. [121:04] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, things like setbacks, things like, you know, we can look at all that, those typical types of things. [121:12] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. Can an applicant request modifications to open space requirements in the site review process? [121:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: No, not in this zone or in this situation, no. [121:25] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: They can ask for things like setbacks, but they can't ask for a change in that 2,000 square feet of… [121:31] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: open space. [121:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: Correct. [121:34] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Alright. [121:36] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Let's see… There was a comment in the… in the, staff comments. [121:44] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: about a planned protected intersection at Folsom and Valmont that would require creating some additional easement. [121:52] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Can you say more about what is being planned there, and… [121:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And what impacts that would actually have on the developable space here? [122:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I'm trying to remember the exact… what the protected intersection involves, and there may be other folks on the board that know more about those than me, but my… my impression is that there's, [122:16] Shannon Moeller, COB: additional space in the space of the right-of-way in the street that's needed to provide that… that protected intersection, so it kind of eats away a little bit at the… at the part of the property that would still be able to be used for [122:32] Shannon Moeller, COB: For houses and so forth, so it would kind of shrink that corner in a little bit. [122:37] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [122:39] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Would there be any of the other requirements for, like, how a building would interface with that new intersection? Or it's just gonna change the… [122:47] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Change the boundary, essentially, of what is… [122:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, it would kind of change the boundary, and then as that design is more fleshed out, we'd have to kind of look at, you know, what's an appropriate setback, you know, how is that all going to work together? [123:03] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [123:04] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And then, I know you already answered some questions about the access point on Edgewood. [123:11] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I am curious, what is… [123:14] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: What is negotiable versus non-negotiable in terms of where a parcel takes entry? [123:20] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And do we have tools at the time of site review to mitigate potential safety impacts from excess? [123:28] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I think that would be the main thing, and I'm not sure if it was in the transportation comments in the packet, or if it was just a separate conversation with the applicant team, but our transportation staff would be looking for a pretty detailed analysis, from the applicant team when it comes in for site review about [123:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: The location of that, the different, just visibility and spacing between that access point and the multi-use path, and… and the, you know, all of the alignments along there, [124:02] Shannon Moeller, COB: To make sure for those safety sort of questions.

[124:06] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Yeah, so there was some mention of, like, a 300-foot distance requirement from intersections. I assume that's being measured from… from Folsom, is that correct? [124:16] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yes, that's my understanding. [124:18] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: to apply to, like, the, the north-south streets, 25th and 24th, that are, like, intersecting Edgewood from the north. [124:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, typically we'd want an access to a line with one of those, so that you can… yeah. [124:33] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [124:34] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Great! I think that wraps up my questions. [124:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Claudia. Kurt, you are next. [124:45] Kurt Nordback, PB: Great, and thank you to, yeah, to Shannon and to my colleagues for their questions, so most of mine have been answered. I have a couple of follow-ups about open space. [124:55] Kurt Nordback, PB: The first regards the subdivision. So, in RM1, there's a requirement of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, right? And so, total on the site, that's being calculated as 42,000. [125:12] Kurt Nordback, PB: Square feet for the 21 dwelling units. But if they're subdividing. [125:17] Kurt Nordback, PB: Wouldn't that apply lot by lot of the subdivided lot? [125:22] Kurt Nordback, PB: And… and yet the lots seem to be very different in sizes according to the… [125:30] Kurt Nordback, PB: the plating that's shown. So how does that work with the subdivision? [125:35] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, so that's one of the unique things about the type of zones where it's based on open space, is that all of the open space in that [125:46] Shannon Moeller, COB: zone that's part of the PUD is all pooled together, and so you don't have to have, like, 2,000 feet on your individual lot. It could be, like. [125:58] Shannon Moeller, COB: in the open spaced area along the creek, as long as the total adds up to the required amount of open space. So it does require a little more [126:08] Shannon Moeller, COB: Planning on the part of the… [126:12] Shannon Moeller, COB: in terms of the documentation for future homeowners, so we want future homeowners that own that lot to know how much, if they want to add an addition, is there still a little bit of open space left where they can do that? So that was… [126:28] Shannon Moeller, COB: Sort of a long explanation, but yeah, it's all pooled together, and it just has to add up to the required number. [126:37] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, and you said that that's because it's part of this PUD. So if there weren't such a PUD, and we were just doing a site review for a project in RM1 that was 8.8 acres. [126:52] Kurt Nordback, PB: That it would be a different situation. [126:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, if it was a new site review, like today, and there was no [127:00] Shannon Moeller, COB: no PUD on it already. Through the site review, yeah, folks can do that exact same thing, where they pool all the open space, and then just show that it meets the total. And it's intended to allow, like, a more flexible design, so say you want to have a little park or a little common space as part of your open space, or there's, like, a creek or a natural area, so you can count that as part of the total, and you don't have [127:25] Shannon Moeller, COB: You have to have it on each… [127:26] Shannon Moeller, COB: Each individual lot, so you can have, like, a smaller lot, with a smaller yard. [127:34] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, and then following up on what you said about potential additions, then… [127:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: It's… it's… it's not a constraint lot by lot, then, on what an individual homeowner could add. It's a constraint across the entire site, right? So, if somebody [128:00] Kurt Nordback, PB: next to me, Uses up the existing open space. [128:06] Kurt Nordback, PB: then I can no longer… Use that? Is that… is that correct? [128:11] Shannon Moeller, COB: Theoretically, yeah, and that's why in our comments we said, as part of the documentation in the site review, we like to provide,

[128:21] Shannon Moeller, COB: That, like, a chart with the information about how much each lot is going to be allocated, so there's not confusion later down the road where somebody builds a big addition, and then everyone else [128:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: doesn't get to do an addition. So we try… that's one of the things I think we've learned over the years, is it's good to include that for these, sites where the open space is pooled. [128:45] Shannon Moeller, COB: So that just creates more fairness for all of the different homeowners. [128:50] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, so it sort of starts out pooled, but then you… you parcel it up? [128:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: It would be up to… yeah, it would be up to what the… as part of the site review, we just want to document, kind of, what the plan is, for how that's allocated amongst [129:09] Shannon Moeller, COB: The homeowners and everything, just so everyone's aware of. [129:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt, can I, can I call you? [129:17] Kurt Nordback, PB: Sure, please do. [129:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Shannon, I guess I don't understand why the size of the dwelling units makes a difference, if it's just it needs to be 2,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Why would increasing the square footage change that? [129:33] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, so, if we have… [129:37] Shannon Moeller, COB: a development that's built to the maximum size, and there's no… for example, and there's no open space left, a homeowner could try to come in for an addition someday, and may not be able to do that, because there's no [129:55] Shannon Moeller, COB: open space available. Another example would be… [129:59] Shannon Moeller, COB: if there is some open space available, how is that allocated, fairly amongst all of the homeowners? Because when you do an… if you're adding, say, an addition, like a new room, that takes away open space from [130:14] Shannon Moeller, COB: The required amount of open space. [130:16] Kurt Nordback, PB: And to clarify… [130:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: It's because it's building upon open space that's on the individual lot, and so that would be subtracted from the overall open space. Okay, I see. [130:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, I was confused about that. [130:29] Kurt Nordback, PB: And… and just so that I can… thank you, Laura, I appreciate that. Just so that I can clarify, it's not an addition, per se, it's an increase in footprint, right, that would be the concern? If you're… if you're expanding on the second floor above the first floor, then it's not a problem. Okay, yeah, great. Okay, thank you, wow, that's… [130:51] Kurt Nordback, PB: It's complicated. The second one is about… [130:55] Kurt Nordback, PB: how open space… well, whether open space used… sorry. [131:02] Kurt Nordback, PB: Whether a private street [131:04] Kurt Nordback, PB: would count as open space. My understanding is a public street does not… is a private street different? [131:13] Shannon Moeller, COB: Not to my knowledge. Generally, anywhere that's a paved surface with cars on it is typically not going to be counted as open space. The only caveat to that would be we… we can, like, if there's areas of landscaping and so forth. [131:30] Shannon Moeller, COB: That are interspersed, or around it, or something like that. That could count as open space. [131:36] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay. [131:37] Kurt Nordback, PB: Great, thank you. [131:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Kurt and Shannon. Any other questions from my fellow board members before I ask my question? [131:45] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Laura, could I colloquy on that last question that Kurt had? [131:49] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Because I thought there was some exception in the code here mentioned in the memo, that [131:54] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: That the applicant can get credit for open space

[131:58] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Or a driveway to a detached housing unit. [132:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yes, that's an important point. So our code for a detached dwelling unit, it's intended to count [132:11] Shannon Moeller, COB: basically your whole yard, including your driveway that leads to your garage. So for this design, that helps the design meet open space requirements by providing [132:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: units that are detached, it can count the driveway that's on your lot toward that. [132:31] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: But that credit is not available for, say, duplexes or townhouses? [132:37] Shannon Moeller, COB: That's correct. [132:39] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. And is the… does this proposal, do you know, is it using that [132:45] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Driveway space to get to those required. [132:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: I believe so, yeah, I believe so, yep. [132:54] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Thanks. [132:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, colloquy on that, Shannon, do you know what the rationale is for why that is only available for detached dwelling units and not multifamily? [133:05] Shannon Moeller, COB: That is a great question. I don't know that I know off the top of my head, other than for… [133:11] Shannon Moeller, COB: Just for simplicity of… of open space calculations for… for, like, a detached home lot. [133:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: But it's been in our code like that for a long time, yeah. [133:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: I would maybe flag that for a potential code update, because we try not to… I'll save that for my comments, but [133:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so I have just a few questions for staff, and Shannon, if any of these are more appropriate for the applicant, I'm happy… just tell me, and I'll save it for the applicant question. [133:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, I just want to mark for the public, we did have some exchange offline asking some clarification questions, and clarified that 21 units is the maximum that can be achieved on this site, and if ADUs are included. [133:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: Those are accessory, they do not count as additional welling units. [133:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I did, I did want to ask. [134:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: you know, Shannon, you talked about having multifamily along Folsom and Edgewood. [134:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: What, what is the, excuse me, multi-unit? [134:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: What is the, benefit of asking for those to be multi-unit attached rather than detached units? [134:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: What's Jeff's rationale for suggesting that? [134:24] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, the rationale for having more of that [134:30] Shannon Moeller, COB: attached dwelling unit along those fronts is typically what we see is that provides a little bit more of that sense of barrier and buffer along that busy street, versus a detached home [134:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: there's typically the expectation you're gonna have more of a bigger setback, and there's more permeability from that street into the site. So, it's one design option. I don't know if it's the perfect design option for this site or not, but it's something we could discuss for sure. [135:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, and it sounds like that could maybe… you said the permeability is different with multi-unit versus detached units. Is that also a noise barrier consideration, that it would be shielding the rest of the site from some of that traffic noise? [135:14] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, that's typically kind of the type of development that we see along more of a busy street, yep. [135:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. [135:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: And the applicant did talk about how these, if they were detached homes, they would be smaller than what is currently being built in Boulder.

[135:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do you know what the average size of new construction, single-family, or single-unit homes is? [135:37] Shannon Moeller, COB: I don't have an average size number. [135:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do you know if it's bigger, smaller, or about the same as these units, which I think I read are 2,500 to 3,500 square feet? [135:50] Shannon Moeller, COB: I don't know off the top of my head, I don't know if… If Maxis might know. [135:57] Max Lord, PB: No, I… [135:57] Shannon Moeller, COB: Oh, I thought you maybe were gonna say that. [135:59] Max Lord, PB: 2,400 to $3,600, but I was also curious about that. And we… I think we briefly discussed at the last meeting what percentage… I meant to add, send this in an email, but I was getting snowed out today. Like, what percentage of the… of the housing stock that we currently have is detached dwelling units? [136:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, Shannon, I don't know if you're able to look into some of those numbers, maybe during the applicant presentation, but if… that would be interesting to know if, is the size of the unit bigger or smaller than Boulder's average? [136:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then Max's question about what percentage of our housing stock is detached versus attached. [136:39] Kurt Nordback, PB: Can I also… Cold real estate. [136:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Go ahead. [136:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: I would be interested, if we're getting… able to get any of those numbers, I would be interested in the number for new construction, but also the number for all existing house… detached single-unit dwellings. [136:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: And Kurt, is that in terms of average size. [137:01] Kurt Nordback, PB: Average, average size. So both new construction [137:05] Kurt Nordback, PB: What we're, you know, what has been built over the last few years, but also the total housing stock of detached single units, and what are the average sizes for both of those? [137:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Great questions. [137:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, and then I just had a few, questions about renderings and images. [137:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do we have anything that shows… you talked about having a connection to the multi-use paths, that that's something that staff is suggesting. Can you show us where that would be on one of these images? [137:38] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, are you able to see my cursor over here? [137:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: We are, we are. [137:42] Shannon Moeller, COB: Okay. [137:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: Okay, great. Yeah, I… I don't know that we had a specific location we were looking at for that. It seemed to us that, ideally, if there was some way for folks that are kind of walking on this internal sidewalk to [137:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: Make their way over, to the multi-use path without having to go all the way out onto… [138:03] Shannon Moeller, COB: either Edgewood or Folsom, that that would be ideal. But… [138:08] Shannon Moeller, COB: there are, you know, constraints involved in, I think, some of the slopes, and obviously, like, the natural areas, so the exact location, or if that's feasible, I think we'd have to look at. [138:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, and I wanted to ask about some of the existing, [138:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: Amenities, improvements, some of them are a little bit primitive, but existing on the site. [138:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: from that parking lot, there are little pathways and little bridges over the creek. There's even what looks like a little, sort of, informal mountain bike trail, or BMX bike trail that somebody has made there. There's a Unity Garden that's fenced off. [138:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would any of that remain, or what's… what… do you know what the applicant intends with those existing little bridges and pathways and garden? [138:58] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, I don't think that came up during our review, but, I think the applicant could speak to, kind of, the plans for those.

[139:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, because there is currently a little staircase that goes down to the Goose Creek path there. [139:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then my last question is, you know, this… the site has that large southern portion, which is, I think, what a lot of the neighborhood commentary was about protecting. [139:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: Is there any proposal Yeah, that sort of southwest portion of the site that's not going to be developed. [139:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I think… is that what staff is talking about, that you're talking about maybe adding some kind of pedestrian [139:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: Into that area, or… Would that be connected in any way to the proposal? [139:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: No, yeah, that was… that was not what staff was suggesting. We were really focusing in on the… the proposed area of the homes, and how those can just have a little easier connection to that existing, the Goose Creek path, so… [140:01] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so there's no proposal that you're aware of to kind of connect over the creek and down into that southwest portion of the site? [140:07] Shannon Moeller, COB: No, there's not with this application. There is an existing, bike and pedestrian easement that goes over in that direction that exists and was dedicated when the [140:20] Shannon Moeller, COB: prior, PUD, occurred. So that easement exists. The applicant is not proposing to build a path with this application over there. [140:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, and staff's not suggesting that either. [140:34] Shannon Moeller, COB: No. [140:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I didn't… I didn't see any crossing… [140:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think that's Goose Creek that sort of runs horizontally through the narrow… the bottleneck here. I didn't see any crossing that exists currently that goes to the other side of Goose Creek there. [140:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Is that accurate? I guess I should ask the applicant that. [140:53] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, the applicant may know any, yeah, exact crossing locations, yeah. [140:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I was out there today. Goose Creek is very high today. Okay, thank you, that's all my questions. [141:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Anybody else have questions for Shannon? [141:08] Mason Roberts, PB: I have one. [141:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yes, Mason. [141:11] Mason Roberts, PB: Yeah, thank you for everybody for your questions. I only have one that hasn't been asked, and it's kind of tailing on what Laura was just asking. It seems like there's quite a bit of area back behind these houses, this… this portion of the property that was just being discussed. It just really isn't… [141:29] Mason Roberts, PB: accessible by road, and due to the, you know, the conveyance and the flood and all that stuff, really isn't suitable for a building. Is there a process for [141:41] Mason Roberts, PB: Converting to this… to greenways, or something of that nature with the city, is that something that would ever be considered? [141:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: That area there that… this… this portion of the site here, there is an existing scenic open space easement on that part of the property that's already been dedicated. So it is protected by that easement. [142:07] Shannon Moeller, COB: So, and it's a very steep slope, so, like you said, we wouldn't expect or, [142:15] Shannon Moeller, COB: You know, be supportive of development of that area, so… [142:20] Mason Roberts, PB: But, you know, knowing that that's… [142:23] Mason Roberts, PB: And that's probably true of these other parcels, just kind of further to the east, I would assume. [142:28] Mason Roberts, PB: Is… [142:31] Mason Roberts, PB: I imagine it's a benefit to not have it on the city's books, as it were. I don't know if that's the right term. [142:37] Mason Roberts, PB: And just having it as an easement, but…

[142:42] Mason Roberts, PB: Would there… would there be any benefit of moving that over to… public lands? [142:49] Shannon Moeller, COB: Like, in terms of the city purchasing a portion of the property, or… [142:54] Mason Roberts, PB: And I know I'm way out in left field, we don't have to spend a lot of time on this, but I'm just kind of curious if there is, like, a… [143:00] Mason Roberts, PB: A benefit to exploring something like that. [143:04] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, it's not something that… that we looked at during the review, because we were focused on the applicant's proposal, but there could be other departments or divisions where, if it made sense, to approach the property owner, separately as part of a project, that they could [143:22] Shannon Moeller, COB: Look at if there was some benefit to both parties. [143:26] Mason Roberts, PB: Okay. Thank you. [143:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt, I see your hand, but I just want to ask a really quick colloquy. [143:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: Shannon, am I… I didn't… I didn't look at the open space diagram very carefully. Is that southwest portion where the 2,000 square feet per unit is located of open space? Like, is that open space easement counting towards what the PUD and the development need for open space? [143:50] Shannon Moeller, COB: That easement does help with the open space, for the existing condos, and that was approved as part of the original PUD. The bulk of the open space is, in the rest of the property. [144:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: By the rest of the property, you mean, like, the… [144:10] Shannon Moeller, COB: West of the parking lot? [144:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: lot. [144:13] Shannon Moeller, COB: the, [144:15] Shannon Moeller, COB: the portion of the property that's RM1 is typically, typically we don't allow nowadays for you to use any part of the property that's in a different zoning to count toward your open space. For this one, when it was approved, [144:32] Shannon Moeller, COB: in the original PUD, that area in the scenic open space easement, was counted to meet part of the open space requirement for the existing condos. [144:44] Shannon Moeller, COB: That's a lot of technical… technical background, but… [144:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do we have a diagram of where the open space is that is counting for this project? [144:55] Shannon Moeller, COB: Let's see… [145:02] Shannon Moeller, COB: I don't know if I have anything right in front of me. The applicant may have some drawings that may… [145:09] Shannon Moeller, COB: Show those numbers. [145:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. Well, I'm not so much interested in the numbers as just the visual of seeing where it is on the property. [145:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do we have a… usually we have, like, a little map of that, or depiction of that. [145:23] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, yeah, I'm afraid I don't have that right in front of me, but I think the applicant may have some images in their presentation that might be helpful. [145:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. And Kurt, you have your hand up. [145:36] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yeah, thanks. I had one other question that was raised by Claudia's question about how, the driveways for detached single-unit dwellings are not [145:50] Kurt Nordback, PB: They don't count… they… they can be counted as open space, right? And so my question is the definition of a detached single unit. Would a row house, so on a fee-simple lot, but with a zero setback, would that be considered detached single unit? [146:10] Shannon Moeller, COB: I don't believe so. I believe it's speaking to detached being fully detached, is my understanding. [146:20] Kurt Nordback, PB: Where is that definition? [146:26] Kurt Nordback, PB: Because there's not in the… in the Title IX definitions.

[146:32] Kurt Nordback, PB: There doesn't actually seem to be a definition of detached Single unit. [146:39] Kurt Nordback, PB: or detached unit. [146:43] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, let me see if I can find it for you real quick. I believe under… [146:56] Shannon Moeller, COB: Yeah, so the definition of dwelling unit detached says… means no more than one dwelling unit within a structure. [147:05] Shannon Moeller, COB: And then we have other definitions of dwelling unit attached, which means 3 or more dwelling units within a structure. Typically, we'd consider things like a row house, townhouse, to be a dwelling unit attached. [147:23] Kurt Nordback, PB: Even if it's on its own… parcel. [147:28] Kurt Nordback, PB: Because usually, usually we think of… we say a structure can't cross a lot line. [147:37] Kurt Nordback, PB: Right? [147:40] Shannon Moeller, COB: That's my understanding of the definitions. [147:45] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay. [147:45] Shannon Moeller, COB: Is that anything that's, yeah, like a townhouse, row houses, like, attached, yeah. [147:50] Kurt Nordback, PB: Okay, thank you. [147:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any last questions for Shannon before we move to the applicant presentation? [147:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: Shannon, thank you so much for fielding all of our questions so well. [148:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Next up, we have the applicant's presentation. This is typically scheduled for 15 minutes, unless there has been some special request, which I'm not aware there has been. [148:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so we'll have 15 minutes, and can we get a timer? Thomas, do you have a timer? [148:26] Pete Weber - Coburn: While you're pulling up the timer, could you also promote Mike Shaddle, please? [148:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: I want to say welcome to our applicant from Coburn tonight. We are looking forward to your presentation. Oh, Thomas, don't start it yet, please. [148:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [149:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: All right, do we have everything we need to get started? If so, let's go ahead and start the applicant presentation. Take it away. [149:10] Pete Weber - Coburn: Okay, are you seeing my screen now? [149:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yes, we see it. [149:17] Pete Weber - Coburn: Okay, and could you please promote Mike's shadow? [149:20] UofB Center: That's me. [149:22] Pete Weber - Coburn: Oh, you're there? Okay. [149:23] UofB Center: Yeah. [149:24] Pete Weber - Coburn: Great. Okay, hey, I'm Pete Weber, I'm with Coburn. Nice to see you all again, and Max, nice to see you for the first time. [149:31] Pete Weber - Coburn: it seems somehow we get the really easy ones. I'll try to explain this open space thing to you when we get there. But I want to start with introducing Mike. Mike is with Unity Church, and he's just going to explain a little bit of, kind of, about why we're all here tonight. [149:45] UofB Center: Hello, my name is Mike Shadle. I am the church administrator at Unity of Boulder. I've been doing that for about 14 years now. [149:54] UofB Center: Unity of Boulder has been a church,

[149:58] UofB Center: in Boulder for… since 1991, and at that time, this… in this building, we've been in Boulder for even longer than that, but we've been in this building since 1991, and at the time we built this building, this was actually almost too small. [150:12] UofB Center: But times have changed, and really, once we hit COVID, we really, we really had to promote our online viewership. [150:21] UofB Center: And so, we really… our crowds really shrunk in half. [150:26] UofB Center: And finances dried up quite a bit, so… [150:30] UofB Center: Having this building this size doesn't make a lot of sense for us anymore. We don't want to move. [150:37] UofB Center: But we're just trying to take the steps with Coburn right now to move the process forward in case we ever do get to a situation where we can't afford the building anymore, and… [150:49] UofB Center: But our end goal there would be to buy a smaller building somewhere else in Boulder. [150:57] UofB Center: So, just so you kind of know where we're at. [151:01] UofB Center: So… Thank you. [151:05] Pete Weber - Coburn: Thanks, Mike. I'm gonna start by just pointing out, I think Shannon did a great job, and also I really applaud all of you with your questions. You've really cut to the chase on a lot of these issues. [151:15] Pete Weber - Coburn: So, I appreciate it. Our site here, I just want to point out its location at the far western edge of Goose Creek, and today, when you're out there, Laura, it might not have been ideal, but, this is back when it rained in Boulder, last fall, and, it is quite a unique and beautiful spot. [151:34] Pete Weber - Coburn: In this picture, you can see the trout farm condominiums on the far left. [151:38] Pete Weber - Coburn: Their nice green lawn, the multi-use path, the Goose Creek path in between. [151:43] Pete Weber - Coburn: Goose Creek itself, on the right, and then the overhead power lines, these are the Excel power lines that go from the, substation, all the way through town. [151:53] Pete Weber - Coburn: Here's the little pump track, I think, that you were talking about, Laura. A lot of cool things are happening down there. [152:00] Pete Weber - Coburn: And that's what, you know, those are the cool things to see on site, but when you look at it on a map, it's a pretty different world. And so Shannon did a nice job of pointing out a lot of the, kind of, issues we have to deal with here. This slide points out a few things. [152:14] Pete Weber - Coburn: I'll start with the far western edge of this. That hillside is actually an open space and a scenic easement dedicated to the City of Boulder. That was, I assume, that was done when the PUD was put in place, so the majority of that is already, an open space and a scenic easement. [152:29] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then you can see the way the flood wave moves through the project, and the impacts of that Excel power line and its associated easement. So what we're left with, to actually build on is up in the upper right-hand corner. [152:46] Pete Weber - Coburn: So this is the plan. The buildings, 21 homes, the majority of them facing either Edgewood or Folsom, with 5 internal to the project. We were calling this a public street. We were hopeful that that street could be public. It sounds like transportation is very much against that. Mark, to your point, there are some benefits to not being a public street. The benefit, of course, is that [153:09] Pete Weber - Coburn: It is maintained by the city, and if you follow things that have gone on in the county, the Gumboro area, that can be problematic. People expect streets to be cared for by the city. Nonetheless, there's some great advantages that we could… that we might get by not having to strictly adhere to all the DCS standards. [153:27] Pete Weber - Coburn: The… I also wanted to point out that there is a bridge, if you can see my cursor. The bridge is on the Goose Creek path, and it crosses Goose Creek right in here where the trees are. So, everything… the place that we do have access to that path directly is, as Shannon pointed out, at the end of this cul-de-sac, or somewhere on the western edge. [153:49] Pete Weber - Coburn: All right, again, the homes accessing Edgewood and Folsom. The access issue off of Edgewood, I think, has been beaten up enough. We're gonna have to negotiate that with staff. [153:59] Pete Weber - Coburn: I'm happy to try to answer any more questions you have, but ultimately, we're not going to be able to settle on that location until we engage a traffic engineer and work with staff to determine what that access point is. My guess is it will be someplace between 25th Street and 24th Street. [154:16] Pete Weber - Coburn: Or one of those two, but that remains to be seen. The plan doesn't need to change significantly with location of that path. [154:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: We are very much interested in the connections to Goose Creek and the sidewalks that Shannon spoke about. The other thing we need to address is stormwater. We were hopeful that we could have stormwater. [154:36] Pete Weber - Coburn: individually on lots. Sounds like staff's gonna be against that, so we're needing to provide more of a single stormwater, [154:44] Pete Weber - Coburn: Quality management location on the site, so the site plan is going to have to morph to accommodate that a little bit. [154:51] Pete Weber - Coburn: Let's talk about density in the RM1 district, and specific to this site. I think a lot of your questions, really smart questions, are trying to get to this point. The thing that makes this property unique [155:02] Pete Weber - Coburn: one of the many things that make it unique, I should say, is the PUD that's in place in the trout farm. And what we determined with staff is that our ability to add residential units to the site is going to be limited to the [155:17] Pete Weber - Coburn: non-open space on the site, because essentially the Trout Forum Condominium Project, PUD,

[155:24] Pete Weber - Coburn: used up all the open space, and when I say that, I mean, on paper, they used up all of the open space. They don't actually occupy all the open space, a lot of the open space is on the Unity Church property, but the way that the permissions were done at that time, it assumed that all of the open space was devoted essentially to Trout Farm. [155:42] Pete Weber - Coburn: So what's left for us to utilize is the church building itself and the parking lots around it. [155:48] Pete Weber - Coburn: That adds up to about 83,000 square feet. [155:52] Pete Weber - Coburn: When we… what you're looking at in our plan takes that 83,000 square feet and divides it up between [155:59] Pete Weber - Coburn: building footprint, open space, and road services, essentially. And so we are… we've used it all, in the plan that you're seeing. The street. [156:10] Pete Weber - Coburn: The drives, and the building footprints, and the required 2,000 square feet of open space per unit get us to the total… we've used up that 83,000 square feet. [156:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: So… And Claudia hit right on one of the benefits of doing single-family, which is that we can count [156:31] Pete Weber - Coburn: driveways if they lead to a single-family home. And I do believe that there is good reason for this, and I think it is that you can skateboard there, you can play basketball there, you can have a picnic there, you can put your lawn chairs out and have… you can turn it into a patio if you like. It can, in fact, function as functional open space. It doesn't always have to have a car in it. [156:49] Pete Weber - Coburn: In a single-family configuration. [156:51] Pete Weber - Coburn: The result of all that is, strangely enough, and it's hard to get your head around, but actually, we think that single-family homes gets us more units on this site than you could do in a multi-family configuration, given the same parking numbers. [157:07] Pete Weber - Coburn: So, I'm happy to answer questions about that more when we get into the Q&A session, if you like, but that's our read on it. We've tested it several ways, and you can actually get more units in single family than you can in multifamily. [157:22] Pete Weber - Coburn: The other thing to point out about that is the discussion about multifamily buildings on the streets. One thing that you can see in our site plan, I might go back a couple points here, so you see that site plan better. We have 21 total homes in this plan, 5 of them are internal to the site, and the remaining 16 are on the exterior. [157:42] Pete Weber - Coburn: If we were to build multi-family buildings on the exterior, as a buffer, if you will, to the interior, really what we're doing is protecting 5 units with 16. [157:55] Pete Weber - Coburn: If we were to squeeze those together and put townhomes or something and add more, in my opinion, what we're doing is just exposing more people to those busy streets rather than less. So, while I think there could be some benefits, I'm a little concerned about going too far down that road for what it could do. [158:13] Pete Weber - Coburn: The… ADUs are a great opportunity to add [158:19] Pete Weber - Coburn: residential to this project, to add units. The great thing about it is that they don't count as a unit for purposes of that 2,000 square foot tail, on the open space requirement. [158:33] Pete Weber - Coburn: So, last thing, just to show you is just some pretty pictures here. We didn't spend a lot of time on the architecture of this, to be honest with you, but we're… [158:43] Pete Weber - Coburn: Taking our cues a little bit from more or less traditional, architecture, but with a modern bent, and some… just some inspiration images here. [158:52] Pete Weber - Coburn: This is a view looking south from Redwood into the project where we had the proposed, 25th Street, and you can see the homes as conceived here are… here, you're looking at two-story homes. [159:05] Pete Weber - Coburn: This one, you can see a two and a half story. In our 35-foot height limit, we could get three, which might be attractive. Just simply get, larger homes on there, should a developer want to do that. [159:17] Pete Weber - Coburn: This one is looking, from the new road, looking south. [159:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: back towards Goose Creek. We… each one of these, I should also point out, includes, in the square footage numbers, includes a single attached garage. There's a couple detached garages, but the majority of them are attached garages. And I did want to correct, square footages. What we dict… what we… [159:41] Pete Weber - Coburn: Depicted in our plan is building footprints that range from 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. [159:49] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then, depending on the number of stories, you could… you could be… a two-story, 800-square-foot footprint, if you subtract the garage, might be a 1,200 or 1,300 square foot home. [160:01] Pete Weber - Coburn: Minus the garage. And at the high end, I think, Shannon's numbers were dead on, $3,300 at the high end, if you were to do one of the larger footprints with the, with a whole three-story or nearly three-story. [160:15] Pete Weber - Coburn: This is the view, looking south from Edgewell, where you can see more of a two and a half-story kind of structure. When these buildings get close together, they do get a little bit restricted in terms of how high they can go because of the shadow analysis, so actually doing full three-story kind of, boxier structures is going to be difficult, [160:35] Pete Weber - Coburn: And… but the two and a half story, we think, can work pretty well. [160:40] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then this is a view looking east down that proposed new street, on that internal street, back towards Folsom. [160:51] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then this one from Grouse Creek, looking back at the project across the creek with the path in the foreground. [161:00] Pete Weber - Coburn: And that's really it. I imagine you might have a few questions, and I'm happy to answer whatever you can, whatever I can.

[161:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Thank you, Pete. 3 minutes to spare. Appreciate that. [161:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Questions from board members for the applicant team? [161:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia, you're first. [161:30] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Oh, okay. [161:31] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I have so many questions, but let's start with some [161:37] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: hopefully quick ones. So, the, the city's bike path [161:42] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: crosses the XL easement. Are you able to also, do some sort of a connection across that easement? That is, is that… is that Xcel Energy any sort… energy easement, any sort of a barrier to creating the kind of connections that staff is recommending? [162:01] Pete Weber - Coburn: I don't think so. We've worked with that easement on another site the last time I saw you. It's the same easement. What's not allowed there is structures. [162:11] Pete Weber - Coburn: Okay. But I believe things that are at grade, are not restricted by that easement. [162:16] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Great, thank you for that clarification. I just want to make sure we have clarity on this. What is your intention for the RL1 portion of the property? So that is the western [162:29] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: the western arm of the property. Are you proposing any changes in terms of landscaping, open space activation on that portion of the property? Because it's really not… it's not really even on a lot of your… your site plans that we're seeing diagrams for. [162:44] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, it… we're not planning to do anything there. I should point out that we are not the potential developer. There's always that chance. You know, we are working on the site design and the buildings, so a potential developer that may… might come through may propose something, but that currently. [163:04] Pete Weber - Coburn: we weren't thinking that anything would happen there, that that would just stay in the condition that it's in now. The area that Laura pointed out that's on the other side of the path. [163:15] Pete Weber - Coburn: that is still in the RM1, that's still kind of close to the project. I think there is some opportunity there for a community garden, that kind of thing that could be intriguing. But as you get further east into the R01, especially that hillside, I don't see anything happening there. [163:29] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [163:30] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: What are the lot sizes for the individual houses that you're proposing? [163:36] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, let me back up here a second, because they do range quite a bit. I believe our smallest is in the neighborhood of 3,000 square feet. [163:44] Pete Weber - Coburn: And a couple of them get… get fairly large, just because we have the property. So the lot at the southeast corner is quite large. That might be 8,000 square feet or more. [164:00] Pete Weber - Coburn: The smaller ones are up here along Edgewood. These are the ones that are in the neighborhood of 3,000 square feet. [164:05] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then this… this one here, is also quite large because we can't build in this area with the power line and the flood zone, but it could be quite a large lot. [164:18] Pete Weber - Coburn: So some of those could… the lots may be quite large, and this gets to Kurt's point about aggregating the open space requirement. But the smaller ones are in the neighborhood of 3,000, 3,500, and the larger… the largest of these might be as much as 10,000, those big ones. [164:33] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, so a mix of lot sizes, some are larger than the kind of RL1 minimum, some are smaller. [164:39] Pete Weber - Coburn: All right. Yes. [164:40] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. Cause, yeah, I have kind of a… [164:44] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: overarching question about all of this, like, what you're proposing looks a lot to me like what we would expect to see in RL1, for the most part, right? And yet, of course, you've got RM1 [164:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: zoning on this property. Are you using any provisions or allowances of RM1 to get more housing on this property, or is this essentially an R01 proposal with a few tweaks? [165:13] Pete Weber - Coburn: you know, it's an interesting way to look at it. I don't think we looked at it that way. I think we strictly looked at it with the… [165:19] Pete Weber - Coburn: PUD restrictions in front of us, [165:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: Without those, you know, the land, I believe. [165:28] Pete Weber - Coburn: is about 4 acres, in the RM1 zone, so absent the PUD, we should be able… we'd be able to get double, ish of what we have there now, but with the PUD restriction, we're not able to.

[165:42] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [165:44] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And then, another kind of open-ended question for you. So, we've read the staff comments on the proposal, and I think [165:51] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: this came up a bit in our questions for staff. There's… there's a fair amount of potentially contradictory feedback and advice in those comments that you're getting about things like street access, setbacks. [166:03] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Where your buildings should front on the streets and so on. Building types, whether you should have some attached units mixed in with detached, etc. [166:11] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Where do you think it's the most important to get clarity in expectations as you lead this concept review? And where do you think that exceptions or modifications at site review would deliver the greatest impact, given what you're looking at right now? [166:29] Pete Weber - Coburn: Appreciate that question, yeah, that's great. I think the general site design, with the idea that this… that the building's largely front Edgewood and, Folsom, and your reaction to that, combined with the… the internal, [166:45] Pete Weber - Coburn: buildings along Goose Creek. If you believe that a attached scenario, for some reason, is preferable. [166:56] Pete Weber - Coburn: given that it may actually result in less total units, I think we'd like to know that. [167:09] Pete Weber - Coburn: I don't think you're gonna have much impact on staff's opinion of a public street, but should you have an opinion there, it might not be bad to get her on the record. [167:18] Pete Weber - Coburn: Those are the things I can think of. [167:23] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, and how would a… how would a public street, because this keeps coming up too, what elements of the project or site design hinge on that being a public street versus a private street? [167:34] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, and I… it's interesting, because I think that the, and Mark hit the nail on the head. I think that we… [167:42] Pete Weber - Coburn: absent the DCF standards, or I should say loosening of the DCS standards might allow us to narrow that road, and if we are able to narrow the road. [167:52] Pete Weber - Coburn: it essentially yields more open space, which then could yield additional units if we got enough out of it. So that could actually be a benefit of a private street. [168:05] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: But your ask has been for a public street, correct? [168:08] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, the reason for that is… [168:10] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: That is to facilitate for this design. [168:13] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, this design depicts what we think could comply, what could be considered a public street. We tried to make it meet the standards, the GCS standards. [168:24] Pete Weber - Coburn: And the reason that we were trying to do this is twofold. One, that if we're able to do that, then these internal lots could be fee-simple lots if they access a public street. [168:35] Pete Weber - Coburn: If it's a private street, I don't know that they can be fee-simple lots, because they don't have access to a public street directly, so they might not be able to be fee-simple. The other reason is what I mentioned during the presentation, is that if it's a public street, it's maintained by the city, not privately. [168:54] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay, thank you. [168:56] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I'm done. [168:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Claudia. Mark, your name. [169:05] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [169:06] PB Mark McIntyre: So, not to belabor the, public-private street entrance location, etc. too much, but… and I acknowledge that you said, hey, we gotta work on this, but I… as I… the longer I looked at this, the more of a puzzle it became. [169:26] PB Mark McIntyre: And… and the configuration of the housing units [169:30] PB Mark McIntyre: My question… I'm gonna phrase it as a question. [169:32] PB Mark McIntyre: Did you sketch out [169:35] PB Mark McIntyre: any configuration with a narrower street, with the entrance farther west, that would result in, rather than two kind of big cul-de-sacs, a much more narrow, [169:52] PB Mark McIntyre: path through the middle for autos, or to the southern edge, kind of a round or a loop that would allow for

[170:03] PB Mark McIntyre: a central… [170:05] PB Mark McIntyre: open space, and I know you have lots of open space and everything, but… but a center kind of community-facing, where the units facing each other would have… have a central open space. And I know there are… there are a number of, [170:20] PB Mark McIntyre: projects that have been developed where, you know, some co-housing projects, etc, where you have this kind of central open space. Anyway, did you sketch anything out? Did you… or is the site not really conducive to that? What did you do with that? [170:37] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yeah, so, a couple things. Our initial pre-app submittal, had the entrance where the church has it now. You can see a hint of it right here. [170:48] Pete Weber - Coburn: Between… the second and third homes from the left there. That was our original proposed entrance. [170:57] Pete Weber - Coburn: And at the pre-app stage, staff indicated that they didn't think that was going to work, and that would show a line with another street. The problem that we had with 24th Street, I believe this is here, is the proximity to the multi-use path. [171:11] Pete Weber - Coburn: And we explored the idea of moving the multi-use path, shifting that to the west, but then the intersection with the multi-use path gets too close to this curve in Edgewood. [171:24] Pete Weber - Coburn: So these… these things… something's gonna have to give there somewhere, and I'm not sure, you know, sitting here today, what the right solution is in terms of the actual access point. Your comment about a loop road [171:39] Pete Weber - Coburn: We did not look at that. I'd be skeptical that a loop road would… I think it would eat up a lot of real estate, to actually achieve that on this tight site. [171:51] Pete Weber - Coburn: It's worth looking at, and I appreciate the suggestion. The other thing that we didn't look at that we, [171:59] Pete Weber - Coburn: just didn't have time for was the possibility of a road actually going… it would not be a public street, but a street that might actually go into the floodplain. [172:10] Pete Weber - Coburn: That gets a lot more complicated, so I'm not sure that has any legs either, which is why we avoided it. But your thoughts worth exploring, Mike. Thanks. [172:20] PB Mark McIntyre: Did… okay, final question is, did you explore segregating parking and garages from [172:29] PB Mark McIntyre: The housing units, and having, Really, almost no street [172:38] PB Mark McIntyre: In access to the, access to the residential units, and, and having, garages and parking separated. [172:48] Pete Weber - Coburn: You know, no, we haven't. It's something we've done before, and I think it's a really interesting concept. That could be, [172:59] Pete Weber - Coburn: That'd be something we should take a look at, because it would allow us to reduce pavement, and could actually net more for us. It's an interesting idea. [173:09] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay, all right, thank you, that's… that's… those are my questions. [173:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Mark. I've gone off video because I'm getting some choppiness here, so I'm trying to make sure I… [173:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'm not lagging behind. [173:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max, you have your hand up. [173:24] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, actually, I'm… right behind Mark on that one, [173:29] Max Lord, PB: I was also curious about that, because correct me if I'm wrong, what we're… because, and once again, to borrow your word belabor, what we're bucking against is if you attached these units, you would essentially lose the ability to write off the driveways as open space, and we're already completely up against that. But… [173:48] Max Lord, PB: If they were attached. [173:50] Max Lord, PB: And you had less shadow restrictions, you could space them out more, and then have more shareable space, so long as we didn't have driveways for each unit, right? [174:03] Pete Weber - Coburn: Right, or a, [174:08] Pete Weber - Coburn: a parking lot that also… because you count the parking spaces in the parking lot plus the drive aisle, so just the math of that gets difficult, unless, as Mark [174:20] Pete Weber - Coburn: I think was alluding to, if you were to really centralize that and do that very efficiently. [174:28] Pete Weber - Coburn: That you might be able to come out ahead. [174:34] Max Lord, PB: Okay, sorry, the… I'm gonna leave it there for now.

[174:38] Pete Weber - Coburn: Okay. [174:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Max. Other folks with questions for the applicants? [174:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I'll go ahead and ask mine, and then if anybody else has questions, please put your hand up. [174:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, I'm sorry, you may have, [174:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: addressed this while my internet was fading away a little bit, but could you speak about that, the amenities that currently exist on the western part of the site, like that Unity Garden, and that path that you talked about, and little bridges over Goose Creek? What of that would remain, and what is proposed to go away? [175:14] Pete Weber - Coburn: I think you did miss that, Laura, but we haven't addressed it. I think it is a really interesting opportunity. There is good land there that could be used for a community garden or a number of other things that can be part of the project. So, while we haven't addressed it yet, I think it's an opportunity that we should definitely consider. [175:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry that I missed that. [175:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: with the subdivision of the land, how is that portion divided up? Is it like a common outlot, or how do you distribute that land to the West? [175:46] Pete Weber - Coburn: You know, it's a great question, and I don't think we have an answer for you. Actually, Mason's comment was interesting, like, does that land get dedicated to the city? I think could be an interesting approach, because I don't know that it has [176:00] Pete Weber - Coburn: Especially the far… western portion of it. I don't know that it has [176:05] Pete Weber - Coburn: value as anything other than the wildlife corridor that some of the neighbors have talked about. I don't think it makes sense to bring any pathways into there, so, [176:18] Pete Weber - Coburn: the immediate… [176:20] Pete Weber - Coburn: western portion, I think, is really interesting to what we talked about, but going further in, I don't… I don't know what that is going to be, and it actually could be considered, I think, a little bit of a liability in terms of the steepness of that slope, [176:35] Pete Weber - Coburn: So I don't know, I think is the best way to put it. [176:39] Pete Weber - Coburn: The most honest answer. [176:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then my last question, you mentioned that ADUs could be a part of this. Were you thinking attached ADUs that are internal to these units, as you've defined them, or were you thinking detached ADUs? [176:55] Pete Weber - Coburn: I think both are possible. I don't think that any… there's any… [177:00] Pete Weber - Coburn: The only thing the ADU will do that will affect the overall [177:06] Pete Weber - Coburn: yield of the project is that they will add footprint [177:10] Pete Weber - Coburn: Which could take away open space. So, I think it would be up to, you know, the ultimate developer to take a look at it and see what might make more sense. Attached [177:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: ADUs have a little less utility requirement and so on, so they may be a little bit more attractive, but then you've got neighbors that you might not prefer, so… don't know. I think either are possible. [177:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have questions for the applicants? [177:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: All right, seeing none, then it is time for our public hearing. [177:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: This is an opportunity for members of the public who wish to speak on this item to go ahead and raise your hands, and we'd like to get an initial count, so if everybody who wants to speak could please put your hand up. [177:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: If we have more than 15 people who want to speak, then we might, slightly alter the amount of time available per person, just to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak before it gets too late at night. We're already at 9.30 at night. [178:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so I'm not seeing more than 15 hands, so we'll go ahead and stay with 3 minutes per person, and I will turn it over to Vivian to run the public hearing. Thank you, Vivian. [178:30] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Yes, thank you. Thomas, hopefully you can get the timer up. Might need the presenter to stop sharing their screen, so we can take it back over. Each person will have 3 minutes, so I'll call on you, in the order that the hands were raised, and I'll let you know [178:47] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: who is up next, so you can get ready. And please introduce yourself with your first and last name. So first we have, listed here is, Jenkin LLC. Please go ahead, you have 3 minutes. And then next we have Dennis Bashlein. [179:12] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Sorry, I know that that's not your full name, but it's… what's appearing is… J-i-a-n-k-e-n-l-l-c? Yep. [179:21] Jianken LLC: I'm sorry, can you hear me now?

[179:22] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Yeah, please go ahead. [179:24] Jianken LLC: Okay, my name is Tigger Park, and I grew up in this neighborhood and still live here now. [179:31] Jianken LLC: And I've been here since the 1970s, so way back when the trout farm was a trout farm. So I've seen all of this development go. I'm actually excited to see the opportunity for maybe some more diverse development in Boulder. [179:46] Jianken LLC: I do have, between myself and my family, we have 5 of us that all actually face this property between the trout farm and [179:55] Jianken LLC: Green Meadows, but I think that said, I think it's, it's an interesting opportunity for Boulder to maybe have some more diversity, and I'm curious if mixed-use, has, like, live works and or mixed housing sizes, has been considered as kind of that [180:14] Jianken LLC: in-between buffer between the residential and kind of moving to the city. Also, you spoke about the wildlife, in that back quadrant. There's lots of deer and [180:26] Jianken LLC: other wildlife that come through our neighborhoods that we really enjoy, and I think they all pretty much live back there. So I'm hoping that we don't… [180:34] Jianken LLC: impact that, too much. And then the other thing is, seeing the red oak development, which is [180:42] Jianken LLC: basically the newer development next to 7-Eleven. It's in a different zoning district. But one thing that I think we've noticed, we walk around this area a lot, and they weren't given a whole lot of space on their back patios. [180:57] Jianken LLC: you know, they're basically right up adjacent to the sidewalk, and I think it just… it makes for a poor, like, sort of living experience, because you can't really, you know, have a little buffer from people that are walking by when you're trying to, you know, hang out with your family. So, perhaps, I don't know if RM1 allows… [181:16] Jianken LLC: a little bit more of a landscape setback, just to give people that space, and you don't feel like you're encroaching in somebody's afternoon. And I think, that's pretty much… oh, and the, just hoping that maybe we can try to preserve some of the mature trees, in this area. They've been there for a long time. Thank you so much for your time. [181:36] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you. Thanks for staying within the time as well. So next, we have Dennis Bashlein, followed by Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Dennis. [181:52] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: You have to mute yourself from your end. [181:58] dennis bashline: There you go. Hi, I'm Peggy Bashlein, and we share the same email, so I pre-made an audio, and I'm hoping you can hear it. Here we go. [182:09] dennis bashline: After skimming most of the 200 pages on this latest Monster Copern project, I find it amazing the city cannot accept the fact that the people of North Boulder and beyond have no interest in disturbing so much as a hair on the head of the corridor behind Edgewood. [182:27] dennis bashline: I'm ashamed most of City Council and local government cannot accept no for an answer. I'm ashamed. [182:34] dennis bashline: You are servants representing the informed majority. Even the people with flooded basements object to this travesty, and I can only imagine what those who didn't survive in 2013 must be thinking as they look down upon what will be a Holocaust, where the innocent trees and wildlife slated for expulsion. [182:55] dennis bashline: The church property represents what is the last portion of the wildlife corridor behind Edgewood. This piece of land should be used in such a way as to enhance and promote what currently exists as a thriving ecosystem. Why do the words persecution and Hitler so often cross my mind? [183:13] dennis bashline: I'll never understand why anyone or any group would ever want to destroy such a beautiful existence off the face of the planet, only to redecorate and establish what they suddenly deem best. [183:26] dennis bashline: Our area, now under siege, did so well during the flood of 2013 that the city did an about-face with their opinions on just how flood-worthy it truly is. [183:38] dennis bashline: If you've ever seen Kiss the Ground on Netflix. [183:41] dennis bashline: You'd realize how important it is not to disturb the dirt and the ground bed of Goose Creek. [183:46] dennis bashline: You would realize the history of what has been created, how valuable it is, and you would not for a moment want to disturb its treasures. [183:56] dennis bashline: I believe Coburn and Reach 6 are related fraternally, and each believes he has rights to the corridor from 19th to Folsom. [184:04] dennis bashline: Where they meet in the middle is my home, and I'm sick of the fight to take, take, take. I despise both brothers, as do the majority, who find the city's efforts to implement archaic practices, such as eminent domain, a step backward in evolution. [184:25] dennis bashline: After skimming most of the 200 pages on this latest Monster Coburn project, I find it amazing the city cannot [184:35] dennis bashline: I'm done. Okay, she's done. Thank you. [184:39] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you. [184:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'm sorry to interrupt, Vivian, but Dennis, did you want to separately speak? You could also have 3 minutes. [184:46] dennis bashline: No, I agree. We'll talk to you later.

[184:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. And I did neglect to encourage people to disclose if you have any financial relationship to this project, such as you are a consultant to the team, or you live in the neighborhood. I do believe that the folks we've heard from so far disclose that they do live in the neighborhood. But for folks who haven't spoken yet. [185:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: Please do disclose any connection you have to the project. [185:12] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great, next step, and please remember to introduce yourself. Lynn Siegel, followed by M. Smith. Lynn, please go ahead, you have 3 minutes. [185:22] Lynn segal: You introduced me enough. I hadn't… [185:26] Lynn segal: I hadn't had that take on this as a wildlife porter. [185:32] Lynn segal: I was gonna say, I'm glad that, it's not another… [185:38] Lynn segal: What is the name of that place? Palucio's or something? Folsom and Pearl? A big, giant, multi-story… [185:48] Lynn segal: development. But… [185:53] Lynn segal: looking at this place historically, I was glad I understood what happened with Groverland from Unity Church, that he's moving, or that, you know, he needs to make some money on his land, I suppose, after COVID. But… [186:14] Lynn segal: It's just interesting thinking that this was built in 92, and it's going to be demoed, and how it could somehow be incorporated into, urban design. [186:29] Lynn segal: would be… Kinda neat. And, you know, cohousing came to my mind, like. [186:38] Lynn segal: Mark McIntyre, and… and, like, some kind of centralized parking or garages is kind of… [186:47] Lynn segal: Thoughtful, too, because then, you know, and you could have, if people wanted access, because that's what you really want with the driveway, if you had little, [186:59] Lynn segal: You know, pathways with carts that you can carry stuff From your house to the… [187:06] Lynn segal: garage area. Those are kind of creative. [187:10] Lynn segal: ideas for that. That can make it… [187:16] Lynn segal: Better use of the open space. [187:22] Lynn segal: and any kind of communal use, the central area. I mean, can't have another South Boulder Rec Center here, we don't need it here, we need it South Boulder, but… [187:34] Lynn segal: And the fact that this is RL1… It's kind of interesting, because… It's not… [187:46] Lynn segal: I mean, with the church. [187:50] Lynn segal: It's not set up to be another church, you know? [187:55] Lynn segal: I don't know that much about… All of this, but… [188:01] Lynn segal: I'm just glad it's not a big, huge development like the one at Folsom. And… [188:10] Lynn segal: a lot of interesting thought, has gone into it, I think. But… [188:18] Lynn segal: I don't know. I'm glad it's single families, I guess. [188:24] Lynn segal: West person had something different to say about that. Anyway… [188:28] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. [188:31] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Next up, we have, M. Smith, followed by Luke Sansoni. Please go ahead, M. Smith, and please introduce yourself with your full name. [188:44] M Smith: Hello, my name is Michael Smith. [188:47] M Smith: And I live on 24th Street. I've lived there… my wife and I have lived here for 35 years.

[188:54] M Smith: I'm not against, I understand the need for more housing, but I have a lot of, questions that building in basically a flood plain [189:04] M Smith: and under the high-tension wires, which were kind of not really mentioned very much. They cut the southern end of the… into the southern end of the project. I'm just wondering who's going to, spend [189:19] M Smith: these houses won't be low-priced, really. When I asked the… [189:26] M Smith: person, the design people, they weren't sure there was an affordable aspect of it. Anyway, my basic [189:33] M Smith: thing, since, it's getting late, is that having the, entrance exit be butting into 25th Street is really a bad idea. It's so close to the intersection, and I think that's been mentioned. [189:47] M Smith: But I think having it across from 24th Street is also really bad, that I want to emphasize how dangerous the current bike crossing is. One person's already been killed there late last year. [190:01] M Smith: It's a… I cross it all the time, cars don't stop, they're constantly speeding. [190:07] M Smith: Through… through there. [190:09] M Smith: And that crossing is used by people bringing children, for instance, to school. There's an elementary school up [190:18] M Smith: 23rd Street, I think it's the Columbine. [190:21] M Smith: And, so I'm just saying to mushing it in there, I would hope that, [190:28] M Smith: consider that the current exit and entrance is on the, east side of the property. That's where the church exits an entrance, and it has one small spill-off in the, [190:40] M Smith: On the north side, so I, I would… [190:44] M Smith: consider something where it's not creating one more jam on that, north side, and just how dangerous the whole street is, and that bike crossing is. And, lastly, I appreciated some of the comments about, say, Mr. McIntyre. [191:02] M Smith: there's something about the whole design that doesn't work, where it's your… people are ending up right on the road on one side, and then you're getting basically a big concrete thing behind it, you know? Maybe the houses could [191:18] M Smith: along the rest of the Edgewood. [191:20] M Smith: go right the entrance… each house in… exits an entrance from that house. Same thing with Folsom. And then you could have, basically, the main part of the house facing that inside in the central, you know. [191:36] M Smith: grouping. But either way, I hope… I actually hope Unity finds a way to stay. They've been a good neighbor. Thank you very much. [191:46] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Michael, for joining us. I would just ask if anyone else is planning to speak, please go ahead and raise your hands so we have an idea of how many more people, wish to participate. [191:57] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So next we have Luke Sansoni, followed by Bruce Davis. Please go ahead, Luke. [192:05] Luke Sanzone: Thank you, Vivian. My name is Luke Sansone. I do live up on Balsam, so I'm a neighbor. [192:13] Luke Sanzone: To the site, and am very familiar with it. I drive by it on a daily basis, and walk by it on a weekly basis. So, I'm really excited to see this [192:26] Luke Sanzone: opportunity to activate this corner. It's, [192:32] Luke Sanzone: as supporters of the church. It's been… it's been… [192:37] Luke Sanzone: distinct to see how quiet the corner has been since COVID, so it does feel like redevelopment of the site is really going to be, potentially, if done right, a means to really activate this part of town. [192:52] Luke Sanzone: which right now, it feels very vacant. We experienced two things in this corridor, living above it. [193:00] Luke Sanzone: Wildlife is huge, and we want to make sure that we preserve the corridor, and we protect the wildlife's right to move through the space. [193:12] Luke Sanzone: Additionally, we've been recently, over the past few years, experiencing a lot of transient, population. [193:21] Luke Sanzone: During the warmer seasons, camping out, to the immediate west of this site, Goose Creek. So, I do feel like a lot of that has to do with the church being mostly [193:35] Luke Sanzone: empty and quiet, so there's, you know, without an activated use on this corner, it's pretty dark. So, I do feel like, developing a residential community that is vibrant will really help to improve

[193:53] Luke Sanzone: The overall health of this… this entire corridor. [193:57] Luke Sanzone: As far as the plan goes, I'm really excited and thrilled to see that there's one entrance coming off of Edgewood. I really like how the vehicular, [194:07] Luke Sanzone: Movement is… is… is shown to be interior to the site. I like how it's… [194:14] Luke Sanzone: by and large, two cul-de-sacs at this point. I do think that, [194:19] Luke Sanzone: The density on this corner should be within the… [194:24] Luke Sanzone: zoning laws absolutely maximized, and this should be, given the high vehicular traffic along Folsom in particular, I think the more that this community can have an urban presence on the street-facing frontages, and more of a [194:42] Luke Sanzone: In, agrarian or, ecologically focused. [194:49] Luke Sanzone: Aesthetic on the interior of the site, so that the… [194:52] Luke Sanzone: The, community can really enjoy [194:55] Luke Sanzone: what they have to the west of them, or to the south of them, sorry, would be great. So I really think that we should maximize density on this site as much as possible. [195:07] Luke Sanzone: have a really welcoming street frontage, and develop the home so that they really take advantage of the incredible corridor that is behind, would be the best way to utilize the site. So, I'm a huge supporter of this project, as long as it's developed, [195:27] Luke Sanzone: In a congruent manner that really works with… [195:31] Luke Sanzone: A balanced approach of urban density with. [195:35] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Luke, if you could just wrap it up. [195:38] Luke Sanzone: a kid. [195:38] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Quickly. [195:39] Luke Sanzone: Delicate, just, yeah, work delicately with the environment that's to the south. [195:44] Luke Sanzone: Thank you. [195:46] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, and I didn't rush you because our timer had a little bit of a technical, problem, but thank you. Next up, we have Bruce Davis, followed by Devin. Please go ahead, Bruce. [196:05] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Should be able to speak, Bruce. [196:07] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Let's try and see if we can hear you. [196:15] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: You have to unmute from your end. Oh, I think it's working. Go ahead. [196:19] Bruce Davis: Wonderful. Well, thank you. My name's Bruce Davis, and I'm a neighbor to Luke. He's two houses away from me, my home. [196:26] Bruce Davis: is… Connected to the western portion of the open space easement. [196:32] Bruce Davis: So first of all, thanks to the board for all this great work you do. I'm really impressed with the process and level detail. [196:39] Bruce Davis: just, I wanted to jump on Luke's point about [196:42] Bruce Davis: Transients that are sometimes, you know, behind the hill there. [196:47] Bruce Davis: You know, we worry sometimes about [196:50] Bruce Davis: open fire and campfires that are there, and, you know, I just want to jump on [196:54] Bruce Davis: Robert mentioned earlier about liability on the backside of this property.

[196:59] Bruce Davis: And, you know, right now, when we have a challenge, we call the church because it's their property, and they engage with [197:06] Bruce Davis: You know, any type of, of, [197:09] Bruce Davis: oversight or enforcement that needs to go and look at this area. And with this change, that's just a note I want to comment on, is I want to make sure we understand who's responsible for this property, and [197:20] Bruce Davis: If there were to be an issue. [197:22] Bruce Davis: how does that get resolved, whether it's through an HOA or… or just whatever the management would be, so… [197:28] Bruce Davis: Just wanted to note that. And then, you know, another… [197:31] Bruce Davis: You know, interesting thing here is that there's been… [197:34] Bruce Davis: Inquiries in the past to subdivide that property, the open space easement property. [197:41] Bruce Davis: And essentially sell it to… [197:44] Bruce Davis: adjacent properties. And I know that, you know, there's not a desire to develop the property because it's… it's… it's, [197:52] Bruce Davis: you know, as some people have put it on the meeting today, it's undevelopable due to the grade and access, etc. But it would enable [197:59] Bruce Davis: Control and, you know, you know, the ability to… [198:04] Bruce Davis: mitigate issues if they were to arise on the backside of, you know, essentially where this property is. So, I just wanted to put that out there, that I think there is interest in that, not for development, but for just someone to be watchful over the property and [198:18] Bruce Davis: And, [198:22] Bruce Davis: just, you know, have control, you know, on this open space. So, that's it for me. Thank you. [198:29] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Bruce. [198:31] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Devin, please go ahead, you have 3 minutes, and if others would like to speak as well, please raise your hand so that we… we know you to call on you next. [198:49] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And you have to unmute from your end, Devin. [198:52] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And please introduce yourself, with your full name. Thank you. [198:55] Devin: Can you hear me now? [198:57] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Yes. [198:57] Devin: Okay, great, thank you. Devin Riker, and I back up to both the corridor and the, the church property. [199:05] Devin: Very supportive of… this effort to bring in more residential housing, I think it's a… [199:12] Devin: A fantastic, repurposing of… [199:16] Devin: What is, you know, mostly a parking lot, at least for the majority of the period of time. [199:22] Devin: Obviously, we need additional housing for… [199:27] Devin: Hopefully bringing in some new young families, additional children, schools, [199:32] Devin: you know, school-aged children, etc. I do want to pass one, [199:38] Devin: The, the sentiment with respect to, [199:43] Devin: liability on the, the western edge property. I know that the… the church, as the owners of the property, are also responsible for maintaining

[199:55] Devin: Removing, shrubs and trees and anything that could potentially be part of a… [200:02] Devin: of a contributor to flooding. And so, you know, knowing exactly who's going to be responsible for removing dead branches and things of that nature would be [200:12] Devin: Of the utmost, you know, concern for those of us who would be impacted by rising waters behind us. [200:19] Devin: But yeah, all in all, fantastic work. Shannon, you did a really lovely job. [200:25] Devin: And, thank you to, to everybody here. [200:29] Devin: That's it. [200:30] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you. [200:32] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Alrighty, I don't see any other hands, but I'll give folks a few seconds in case they change their mind, wish to participate. [200:41] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: We encourage you to. [200:45] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay. [200:47] Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Back over to you, Chair. I don't see any other hands raised. [200:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Vivian, and thank you to all the members of the public who took time out of your precious day to come and speak to us about this important issue. Now is the time that we ask the applicant if they would like to respond to anything that they heard in public comment. [201:06] Pete Weber - Coburn: Just a quick response, first to the, [201:12] Pete Weber - Coburn: comment about the potential for mixed use, I think it would be fantastic, [201:17] Pete Weber - Coburn: It is very difficult right now to, support [201:23] Pete Weber - Coburn: commercial activity, at this location, so I think it's unlikely. I think it would be great if we could figure out a way to preserve that potential for something to change in the future and allow that to happen. I just think it's gonna be very difficult. [201:38] Pete Weber - Coburn: And then the only other comment is to the bash lines. First of all, I think that the, [201:43] Pete Weber - Coburn: you're, [201:45] Pete Weber - Coburn: tying things into the Holocaust is, frankly, quite offensive, and I would suggest you think about a different way to express yourself. [201:52] Pete Weber - Coburn: But the… I want to be clear that what we're proposing does not [201:57] Pete Weber - Coburn: impact the wildlife corridor or the hillside in any way whatsoever. In fact, what we're proposing actually takes up less footprint, less pavement than the existing church in its existing condition. [202:13] Pete Weber - Coburn: And that's it. Thanks. [202:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Pete. [202:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so that concludes the public hearing, and now is the time for Planning Board [202:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: to provide our comments back to the applicant. This is a concept review, so there's no decision, there's no voting. We just individually can speak to the applicant, and if we want to have any interchange with each other, we certainly can, or ask any additional questions of staff. [202:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: Given the lateness of the hour, it's 10 o'clock, and we do have one more agenda item to go, I would encourage everyone to try to be concise, but thorough, and provide all of your good comments to the applicant that will be helpful to them when they think about, coming back for site review. [202:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: So with that in mind, and do especially flag if you see anything in the proposal that you think would be an issue for them in site review. [203:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark, you're up first. [203:06] PB Mark McIntyre: After a year of going last, it's fun to go first, so… And before I… [203:14] PB Mark McIntyre: go along with my comments, regarding this… regarding the concept review. I, too, in this last year.

[203:23] PB Mark McIntyre: As chair, I have been really impressed [203:27] PB Mark McIntyre: And I was impressed tonight with almost all of the public commentary. [203:32] PB Mark McIntyre: But I, too, found one of the commenters, [203:38] PB Mark McIntyre: raising of Nazism and the Holocaust in relation to housing for residents of Boulder to be both offensive. [203:47] PB Mark McIntyre: unhelpful, and do nothing for their cause. And so. [203:52] PB Mark McIntyre: I don't make a… I make a point of trying not to respond to public comment unless it's, severe, and in this case, I found it severely… is distressing, and [204:05] PB Mark McIntyre: Not worthy of, any of our time. [204:09] PB Mark McIntyre: So, going on to the concept review. [204:13] PB Mark McIntyre: Ugh. [204:15] PB Mark McIntyre: I am… in concept, In favor of this particular redevelopment, but the puzzle is… [204:24] PB Mark McIntyre: The access and the, frontage on busy streets, combined with a desire for privacy and quiet. [204:35] PB Mark McIntyre: and a sense of community. This will be a night… this could be a very nice, small community. And so, the design puzzle is primarily, for me, focused around how to minimize the pavement, how to make the street. [204:53] PB Mark McIntyre: A place where, rather than [204:57] PB Mark McIntyre: big, large cul-de-sacs where… where kids can be… where kids can be out playing, where people can be out on their… [205:08] PB Mark McIntyre: whether it's their front or back porch or whatever, but relating to one another, and so I think that's really the puzzle with this, and I think the design team [205:22] PB Mark McIntyre: With more work, and the flexibility that a private street and some, creativity [205:31] PB Mark McIntyre: about the multi… about how to either join or more further separate the multi-use path access on Edgewood with access into the site, but I… I think, actually, [205:45] PB Mark McIntyre: A creative streetscape Design between 24th and entrance into the project, And, [205:58] PB Mark McIntyre: And, the, the movement through the project with a Wooneriff type of feel could really, could really make this a lovely place [206:09] PB Mark McIntyre: To be, and I… and I… I lived… one more thing, in regard to the wildlife in Coos Creek, I lived for 20 years on… on… up on Balsam, and maybe I was neighbors. I lived at 2375 and 2045, and walked out my backyard and down the hill, and… [206:26] PB Mark McIntyre: across the church, and many times. And, it is a lovely wildlife corridor, and I find that this current concept, maintains that and rewards that, and I would only encourage them to… the design team [206:43] PB Mark McIntyre: to create even more of a human connection to that corridor. Again, I'm hoping kids are playing over in the creek and the remnants of the trout farm and get a chance to observe lots of wildlife in there. [207:00] PB Mark McIntyre: Alright, that's it. [207:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Mark. I have Kurt, and then Claudia, and Max, then Emil. [207:12] Kurt Nordback, PB: Great, thank you. I want to talk first about consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies, which is one of the questions. [207:22] Kurt Nordback, PB: in front of us, I find, overall, [207:27] Kurt Nordback, PB: that this project as designed is not consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies, and specifically with regards to our housing diversity [207:38] Kurt Nordback, PB: Policies, so 7.07 is mixture of housing types, 7.10 is housing for a full range of households, 7.11 is balancing housing supply with employment base. [207:52] Kurt Nordback, PB: Which really talks about [207:54] Kurt Nordback, PB: How the housing provided should be appropriate to the kinds of jobs that exist and the need for different kinds of housing.

[208:07] Kurt Nordback, PB: 717, which is market affordability, and also in the site review criteria, 9214A4, which is about housing diversity. [208:18] Kurt Nordback, PB: So, my concern is, we're talking about 2,400 to 3,600 square foot houses, which… and really, the problem is not so much the size, per se, but of course, but the cost. So, realistically, these will probably be in the [208:33] Kurt Nordback, PB: 2 to 3 million dollar range. They are… they may indeed be smaller than the average new construction. [208:41] Kurt Nordback, PB: of detached single-unit houses being built in the city, but I'm quite confident that they are significantly larger than the overall average, which is why I was [208:53] Kurt Nordback, PB: asking about that earlier. So… adding this… [208:58] Kurt Nordback, PB: this project in will increase the overall size, I believe, of detached single-unit houses in the city, and of housing units overall, since attached tend to be smaller. [209:14] Kurt Nordback, PB: So that, I feel like, and certainly increased the overall… the average cost. So that is not the direction that we should be going. It's not the direction that is, envisioned by the BBCP policies. [209:28] Kurt Nordback, PB: So, I… in order to make it consistent with the BBCP policies. [209:35] Kurt Nordback, PB: In my view, the units need to be significantly smaller and, and a greater diversity of sizes and, in particular, costs. [209:46] Kurt Nordback, PB: So that's my main concern with regard to the comp plan. I agree with a lot of Mark's comments regarding access. [209:56] Kurt Nordback, PB: And I particularly liked his idea about separating the parking and the housing in some way. I think some of the best [210:08] Kurt Nordback, PB: projects that we have around the city and elsewhere work that way. I am supportive of a private street, not inherently because it's private, but because [210:20] Kurt Nordback, PB: our DCS, as we know very well, doesn't work for us, and so being the street private, it allows us to get away from a lot of those DCS restrictions, and really make friendlier, better, [210:36] Kurt Nordback, PB: Less impactful streets. [210:39] Kurt Nordback, PB: And I would… I think, [210:48] Kurt Nordback, PB: that clearly there need to be better connections, pedestrian connections, both on the west side to Edgewood heading west. [210:58] Kurt Nordback, PB: and to the… and or to the Goose Creek Path on the west end, and also on the east to Folsom. So I imagine someone [211:10] Kurt Nordback, PB: who lives, for example, on the southeast of this project, wanting to go south on Folsom, they would have to walk all the way out [211:22] Kurt Nordback, PB: in the current design, they would have to walk all the way out on the 25th Street alignment around to get to Folsom, and it would add, you know, a couple of blocks, really, effectively, to their route. And so, some sort of direct connections [211:39] Kurt Nordback, PB: both eastbound and westbound, I think, are important, for pedestrians and bikes. [211:51] Kurt Nordback, PB: And I think that that is the extent of my comments. Thank you. [211:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Kurt. Claudia. [212:01] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: All right, I'm gonna put a big fat exclamation point on a lot of things that Kurt has already said. [212:08] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And I'm just gonna start by saying, I think. [212:12] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: We have a case here where the code is working against a lot of the goals of the BBCP. [212:19] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And I think the applicant nailed this in talking about open space calculations. My calculations were the same, that we can do more units at this site doing detached homes with private driveways than we can do attached. [212:32] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Homes. [212:34] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And I think that's a failure, okay? It's not a failure of any individual involved in this particular case, but of our code, right? [212:40] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: This is a highly accessible location with good access to schools, recreation, employment opportunities. It could provide housing for people who cannot currently access these locational advantages. It could, in theory. It's not able to do that with the code. [212:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: So there's plenty of seven-figure detached homes in the immediate area. The city does not have any meaningful tools to limit pops and scrapes in this neighborhood, which means that supply of large, expensive homes is likely to continue to expand.

[213:11] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: These are not smaller homes in this concept review. [213:15] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: At least by national standards, I think the national median for new construction is now 2,200 square feet. [213:22] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Which is still large, but smaller than what's being proposed here. And so I think given our local housing needs, it's not responsible to be dedicating more land to these housing types. This ultimately doesn't support compact development or a diversity of housing. [213:37] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: So staff has made a couple of recommendations, right, to maybe incorporate some attached dwelling units. [213:43] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I think that's nice to see, but that doesn't really get at the underlying problem, which is these open space requirements that are putting a hard cap on the number of homes you can do here. [213:54] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I recognize that the applicant team here, these are smart people. I trust that they are maxing out, essentially, what they can do, given the site constraints here. [214:05] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And so in that context, like, 21 units, like, tweaking that unit mix [214:10] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And the typology of the units, it might lead to maybe, you know, better design on street fronts, maybe so, maybe not, but it's not really doing anything to move the needle on per-unit development costs. It's not really doing anything to move the needle on housing needs, okay? [214:25] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And I think incorporating ADUs, it's another creative suggestion. [214:29] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Again, it doesn't really do anything to, like, lower individual purchase price. It might limit your pool of residents to people who want to manage a rental, or just want to absorb an ADU. Again, I don't know that that's getting us a lot of places. However, however. [214:44] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Okay. [214:45] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: We are likely, by the time a project here comes back to site review, to have [214:51] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: A new land use map. [214:53] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: and schema. [214:55] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: If we approve the BBCP, and I would really encourage the applicant [215:00] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: To consider, if timing allows on this project, to make a rezoning request at that time that matches new categories, right? [215:09] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: If we approve a new BPCP, and maybe look for a zoning that has better consistency with those BPCP goals and overall urban design. [215:20] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: issues. [215:22] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: So, I think there's a possibility for that, given the timeline on this project. [215:26] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And doing so might give you, first of all, a better chance at aligning with city goals and policies, and also give you more flexibility to at least make a better community-oriented design, even if you stay within that RM1, or sorry, if you stay with this basic concept, right? Gives you more flexibility in how to lay things out. [215:47] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: If that doesn't happen, I have some comments on the current design, right? Because it's absolutely a prerogative to bring that forward. [215:55] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: In the future. [215:57] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I agree with the suggestion to make that connection on the west side of the bike path. [216:04] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And also with Kurt's suggestion that you'll also pursue a similar kind of connection for pedestrians and bikes to Folsom on the east side of the property, the idea there is to give residents easier ways to enter and exit this site without having to get in a car, without having to create additional distance. [216:21] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: I think that Mark's suggestion about reducing the pavement associated with individual garages and parking access is definitely worth exploring. [216:32] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: That could help you actually meet multiple site review criteria beyond just open space calculations, right? That, again, it gives you more community-oriented space. [216:43] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: More usable open space, etc. [216:47] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: So I think that's… that's a good thing to look into. [216:52] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: And staff also flagged that too, right? This expectation at site review for shared open spaces and gathering areas, right? It gives you more opportunity to do that without having to delve into that creek and bluff area that is such an environmentally sensitive area, and I'm really glad you're not planning on doing that. I think it's important to [217:10] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Keep that boundary on the project.

[217:17] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: That's where I'm landing on this. [217:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Claudia. And, so I've got Max next, but I just want to interject and ask the applicant to clarify. So, what is in our packet says the units will be 2400 to 3,600 square feet, and I think I heard you say that there were some smaller units. Could you clarify that quickly for us? [217:37] Pete Weber - Coburn: Yes, I can. Actually, what was depicted, does have… [217:42] Pete Weber - Coburn: We have written our, our, no, the packet was written by Shannon. So, yeah, what's in the plan has building footprints that range from [217:52] Pete Weber - Coburn: 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet. And then, depending on what you stack on top of that, and whether you have a two-car, one-car garage, your total square footage may vary. So, at the low end of the spectrum, you could have, at the 800 square foot footprint. [218:07] Pete Weber - Coburn: If you had a 250 square foot garage. [218:12] Pete Weber - Coburn: and you put a second floor on top of that, you would be 1250, 1350 square feet, I think is the right math there. Now, that could be 3 stories, so it could be more. The number of stories greatly affects the potential square footage, and [218:28] Pete Weber - Coburn: We haven't gotten to that point yet. So, but what was depicted in the plan, anyway, had footprints from 800 [218:36] Pete Weber - Coburn: to 1,200 square feet. And then you stack on top of that, and that square footage included a garage. [218:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you for that clarification, because I think a lot of us were going on that square footage number that's in the packet. [218:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you. So, Max, you're next, and ML, and Mason, and then I'll bring up the… [218:55] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, I don't know if we did the conflict of interest. I wanted to mention that I do believe my girlfriend is moving in with Pete's daughter right now, in this exact moment. I think we're layers enough removed that it's not a conflict of interest, but I do find it, at the very least, a bit hilarious. But… [219:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, Max, Max, when you do a disclosure like that, I'm sure that if Hela is online, she will ask you to say something like, do you believe you can be fair and impartial in this manner, despite the disclosure just made. [219:25] Max Lord, PB: that I can be fair and impartial, but I thought it was worth mentioning. [219:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I'm sorry, Hela, does that adequately cover it? [219:34] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: It does, thank you, Laura. [219:36] Max Lord, PB: Yeah. [219:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Hela. Back to you. [219:38] Max Lord, PB: And then I want to acknowledge for starters that this is, like, a tangled nail puzzle, and I mean, I was trying to wrap my head around it too, and it is getting late, and I'm sure we could go all night trying to figure out what the… [219:48] Max Lord, PB: what we're bucking against it on any level. But that being said. [219:53] Max Lord, PB: it does seem pretty obvious that there could be connections to the bike path that… I also want to acknowledge that it seems like the church is still potentially interested in keeping their own property, and this is only a concept review, so I understand there's limitations to how much time that you can put working on this. [220:09] Max Lord, PB: But I would agree with Kurt that on my first glance, cursory glance, I would… [220:15] Max Lord, PB: agree that it doesn't meet the current BVCP, and I would also say, to Claudia's point, that hopefully someday it might, but that will be more because of BVCP changing. And this kind of highlights the importance of having more Neighborhood 2 designations along arterial roads. [220:32] Max Lord, PB: some of the conversation that hasn't been touched on about the noise along Folsom and Edgewood, I agree that having attached units creating a wall doesn't necessarily solve that as a problem. [220:43] Max Lord, PB: It just kind of, like, shifts it, so I'm not really sure that I would agree with that. But I would still urge us to have some sort of diversity of form, even if we have to have some sacrifices somewhere. You know, when we have all of these houses, I agree that [220:59] Max Lord, PB: are kind of larger, I would reject the notion that this is an affordability thing, or I think there is language that even says available to middle-income earners, I mean, but I don't think anybody middle-income is buying a 3,000 square foot house in Old North Boulder. [221:17] Max Lord, PB: So, any sort of variety of form, even if it means that they're not gonna each have their own garage, or not each gonna have their own driveway, I think that there are perhaps some creative ways to make this work to the point where it's not attracting the same type of people, but that's kind of what we want, people that are more interested in the [221:34] Max Lord, PB: variable transportation. They're excited about the bike path, and they might be willing to have a shared parking lot because of that. And yeah, I guess that's my comments. [221:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Max. ML? [221:50] ml robles . PB: Thank you. So… I appreciate all the comments that have been made. I think I, concur.

[221:59] ml robles . PB: with the majority of them, even though some of them seem to be in conflict with each other. We can have two good and opposing thoughts for you to figure out there, Pete. [222:11] ml robles . PB: regards to the BBCP, I am going to weigh in on the side of, I don't think it yet meets the BBCP, and especially the policies that the staff noted. [222:24] ml robles . PB: I'll leave it at that, because I think a lot of people have spoken to that, and the staff was pretty specific. [222:31] ml robles . PB: Regards to the site, criteria. So, my biggest concerns have to do with, [222:41] ml robles . PB: the fact that BBCP and RM1 [222:45] ml robles . PB: Medium density land use and zoning. [222:49] ml robles . PB: So, both of those talk about, medium density, which is not single [222:55] ml robles . PB: single unit developments. But I do appreciate that the open space and solar access limits, make a good case for detached units, so you did shift my thinking, because those constraints are real, and they exist, and you have to deal with them. [223:14] ml robles . PB: I would… I would defer to supporting more units versus the density, excuse me, of fewer plexes. [223:22] ml robles . PB: However, I think we are in a point of transition as BBCP updates happen. We're pressing, many of us are pressing, to have the zoning and the code changes [223:35] ml robles . PB: Happened, in a timely manner, so that we can [223:41] ml robles . PB: actually meet the goals of the BBCP with the developments that we're pursuing, and so… [223:49] ml robles . PB: That could change the way this project plays out. The updates on the driveway as open space, and as you explore, perhaps some of the way the streetscape can be, developed, as my colleagues have suggested. [224:05] ml robles . PB: At the end of the day. [224:07] ml robles . PB: I would focus on getting the most and smallest units possible. [224:13] ml robles . PB: I think that's where we hit the target market, and that's where we can create some true vibrancy [224:19] ml robles . PB: That is missing in our city. You talked about single houses being something that… [224:27] ml robles . PB: we don't have on the market. Well, I think small single houses. [224:33] ml robles . PB: are not on the market. We have big ones. We don't have small ones. So I think that would be, a target. [224:42] ml robles . PB: So that would be my… [224:44] ml robles . PB: suggestion insofar as, meeting the land use and, zoning, density directives. [224:55] ml robles . PB: And, regards to the street, I… I support the staff's interest that this is not a public street. I mean, it basically serves a, you know, private use, and I think… [225:07] ml robles . PB: I really enjoyed hearing the different ideas about creating a streetscape. [225:14] ml robles . PB: That could, change the dynamics of the density and the open space. [225:21] ml robles . PB: And, this really is a lovely, unique site in regards to its adjacency to the Goose Creek. And that's an amenity that… where else do you get that, right? And… and you're also in an urban setting. [225:36] ml robles . PB: Because, yeah, you might get that out east somewhere, but you don't get that in the city itself. So, I think it's a very unique site. You've got some challenges, but I think that you have put some language into your, application. [225:55] ml robles . PB: that I think, is hopeful. Like, you want to serve, a housing type that isn't readily available. [226:04] ml robles . PB: I would just, again, not just make it detached units, but make small detached units. I think that is definitely not available. So, those are my comments, and good luck moving forward. [226:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, ML. Mason. [226:21] Mason Roberts, PB: Not a whole lot to add. Agree a lot with, what the staff suggested. Agreed a lot with what I heard from Kurt, and, ML, and Claudia, and I guess Max as well, but…

[226:38] Mason Roberts, PB: And I can't forget Mark, it would be the one other person. But, the one thing I would… [226:44] Mason Roberts, PB: maybe somewhat disagree with some of my colleagues, is I do believe, even if… even if having, attached housing along Folsom wouldn't necessarily, solve the noise issue, I think it would definitely solve the transition issue from a highly active street [227:01] Mason Roberts, PB: This was brought up in conversation, I probably don't need to go much further than that. [227:09] Mason Roberts, PB: So, agree with Warner that Mark so clearly talked about, agree with the bike connection, agree with the comments about our code working against us in this case, and I just… I find it hard to believe there's not a better solution that would get us [227:27] Mason Roberts, PB: missing middle here. This is, like, the perfect place for the missing middle housing type. I'm not talking about a price point, I'm talking about a housing type. [227:36] Mason Roberts, PB: And I really hope that when this comes back to site review, we see some of that housing type here, and I think that's what would solve the issues that others pointed out with this project not quite living up to the goals of the BBCP. [227:53] Mason Roberts, PB: Laura? [227:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, thank you, Mason. And then, so Pete, I see that you would like to react to something, but I haven't gone yet. Do you need to go now to react to something? Okay, so I'm last, I'll be quick. [228:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I think all my colleagues have made extremely, important and thoughtful remarks, and I don't disagree with any of them. Even, you know, there's a lot going on here. [228:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: that you'll need to balance, but I think all of their remarks are well taken. I did want to mention something that wasn't mentioned, which is that this project would be converting a lot of impervious pavement [228:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: into either open space or dwelling units. And so, I do think that this project is… will be beneficial to the neighborhood if it moves forward, and beneficial to the city. So, very happy that the church is thinking of moving this forward if they do indeed want to give up that space. [228:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: I really want to emphasize Claudia's comment about a potential rezoning. I think all of us here are disappointed by the way that our zoning is limiting the number of units that you can achieve on this property. [228:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think a lot of us would prefer to see more numerous and smaller units, but you… you're limited. You can only have 21 units, that's your cap. [229:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, making the units smaller isn't going to get us a bigger unit count. [229:10] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I think rezoning, if you're able to do that when you think about that moving forward, to get a higher unit count, would be supported by this board. [229:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: Staff made some great comments, and I support all of them. I didn't see anything that I disagreed with, and I would emphasize the, the common open space amenities. Open space needs to be usable, and I think that we… we really support having that wildlife corridor and having, you know, protecting those environmentally sensitive areas and the steep slopes. [229:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: But the folks who are going to live here. [229:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: would benefit from having some shared common open space amenities. And then the last thing I want to say is, about ADUs. [229:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, we cannot add to the unit count. 21 is your cap, but if you… if a lot of those units had ADUs, that would enable more families to live there, and a lot of those ADUs probably would be more affordable as rentals, right? [230:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: And so I would encourage you to think about a design of attached ADUs that don't affect your open space, right? You already might have a 3,300 or 3,500 square foot footprint. [230:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Take that same footprint and make part of it [230:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Such that it could be closed off into an ADU, or it could be opened up and made part of the family's space. And that way, as people move through the years, they move through different phases of life, it could be a home office, it could be a mother-in-law unit, it could be a place where their kid in college has some privacy, but is still part of the family. [230:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: Or they could actually rent it out. We've talked about this with ADUs in the past, that there's no guarantee they will actually be rented. [230:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: But they can be used in different ways, in different phases of life, you know, for a disabled family member, or whatever. So, I think there is a market for ADUs that's not just people who want to rent to a stranger, but it can also serve these multi-generational households as well. [230:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I would think about incorporating ADUs to the maximum extent that you can, and I would consider that adding additional housing types in a project, even if it is still technically a detached dwelling unit. [231:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: So those are my comments. I don't see anything in particular that would make me want to, not approve this project in CyberDude. So, Pete, is there anything that you or others on the applicant team would like to say to us or ask of us at this point? [231:27] Pete Weber - Coburn: Two very short things, and I'll let you move on to the next thing. First of all, thank you so much. I think this has been incredibly thoughtful. You all are really digging your teeth into this, and I greatly appreciate it. [231:40] Pete Weber - Coburn: Would point out that the potential for more units on this site, in addition to the ADUs, is [231:49] Pete Weber - Coburn: through the BBCP. [231:51] Pete Weber - Coburn: So, if you… to the extent that you are able to affect the BBCP, not just for this site, but other sites very much like that, I've been looking at Folsom for a long time. I used to live on Folsom, and it is a poster child for where we should have more.

[232:07] Pete Weber - Coburn: And so, to the extent that what you do as you review the BVCP and influence what it winds up being. [232:15] Pete Weber - Coburn: extending the possibilities along our multi-use corridors, and especially our busier streets, is an incredible opportunity, and it could be something that could influence what happens on this site. So, to the extent you have an opportunity to influence that, I personally would welcome it, and so would probably the owners of this property and others. [232:33] Pete Weber - Coburn: Thanks so much. [232:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you so much. [232:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [232:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any last comments from board members? [232:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Google… oh, Max. Max has one. [232:44] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, I'm not sure that any of us caught it. I thought somebody might catch it by the end, but I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that we did receive a ton of public comments about preserving the corridor, and even when I was looking through the plans, I had a hard time understanding entirely where they were coming from, so I wanted to agree with Pete that they did, in fact, if anything, increase the amount of space for traffic for, you know, the lions, bears, and [233:08] Max Lord, PB: Tigers that we all heard about in public comment, so… Thank you for that. [233:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Max. [233:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: So before we close this item out, I just want to mark again for staff, I know that you heard this, but just say, it does sound like there's an interest on this board for a potential future code update. [233:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: In looking at this idea that driveways for multi-unit attached in the code don't count the same way that detached driveways do, and that works against us in terms of we don't want to penalize [233:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: architects or developers that want to bring in multi-unit dwellings, but they could get more with single unit detached. So, maybe that's something to look at in a future code change. I understand the rationale, and thank you, Pete, for explaining to us [233:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: the idea that with single unit detached, the idea is that it could be, like, a basketball court or people riding skateboards or whatever in their own driveway. I'm not sure that couldn't also happen with driveways for multi-unit, if it's designed correctly. So, maybe something for a future code update, and I'm seeing some board members nodding heads. [234:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, just to eliminate any penalty for multi-unit. Okay, thank you all. We're going to close this hearing item. [234:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: So all that we have left on our agenda is Matters, and I think we did want to talk about the retreat under Matters, but I'm not sure if it being just about 10.30, we would need to vote on whether to take up this item. Hela, could you remind us what is the rule about taking up new agenda items late in the evening? [234:45] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Yeah, let me take a quick look. [234:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: This isn't technically on our agenda, but we did plan to talk about it under Matters, retreat planning. [235:09] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: So your rules say the board's goal is that all regular and special meetings will be adjourned by 10.30, and that special sessions will be adjourned by 10pm. No new item will be introduced after 10.30. [235:19] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Or 10PM, respectively, so we're talking about a regular session, so 10.30 would apply. [235:26] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Unless four board members in attendance vote to introduce an item after that time. [235:33] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Okay. [235:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Sounds like we would need to hire. [235:35] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: the four board members. [235:37] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Yes. [235:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: who would like to, continue and have our retreat planning discussion. I do believe this is our last meeting before our retreat, so if we don't talk about it tonight, we would have to somehow do it by email, and I don't know, Hela, if that would violate our open meetings laws. [235:56] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Yeah, my recommendation would be to land on something tonight. [235:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: land on something tonight. Okay, can folks stick around for a few minutes longer while we finalize our retreat agenda? I'll try to move it forward as fast as possible. [236:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: I can stay… Okay, so do we need an official vote, Hela? [236:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Like, a motion.

[236:15] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Technically, but if nobody objects, then we don't really have an issue. [236:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [236:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Well, let's quickly take up this item about the retreat. I did sketch out a plan for how to do this, so let's try to move it forward quickly. The first question staff have for us is about start time. [236:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: And they suggested perhaps starting at 5 with dinner, and starting the actual retreat at 5.30, just to move it up a little bit, or we could start at our normal time of 6 o'clock and have dinner at 5.30. [236:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I don't know if staff… if there was a reason why you wanted to move it up. [236:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: In time. [236:53] ml robles . PB: Yep. [236:57] Brad Mueller, CoB: You know, I think I brought that up, Laura, and it wasn't so much wanting to, it was just noting most folks [237:05] Brad Mueller, CoB: That we had in the past, started it at 5.30. [237:09] ml robles . PB: Right. [237:10] Brad Mueller, CoB: But I think I also made the point that a lot of folks [237:13] Brad Mueller, CoB: More recently, don't make it to the meetings till quarter to six or so. [237:18] Brad Mueller, CoB: So it was just based on… on… [237:21] Brad Mueller, CoB: The last… last year's agenda, and how it started at 5.30. [237:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, good. Good to know the rationale. So with all that in mind, and bearing that we do have some board members with, 9-to-5 jobs, I would suggest that we keep our normal start time of 6 o'clock with dinner at 5 30, unless anybody feels strongly we should move it earlier. [237:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Everybody okay with keeping it at 6 o'clock with dinner at 5 30? [237:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I'm seeing, I'm seeing thumbs up. Any strong feelings the other way? [237:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so start time of 6 o'clock with dinner at 5.30. [237:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: I do want to, [237:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Acknowledge and thank staff for putting some items on the agenda for us. Let's review those really quickly. [238:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Can I share a screen or send something to Thomas so that we can… we can see these things? [238:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: That would be the best way to do it. [238:14] Thomas Remke: Screen sharing ability, if that's easier. [238:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think we've done that in the past, and as long as there's no legal problem with it, I think that's the easiest way to do it. [238:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: So let me go ahead and share my screen. Let me make sure I'm sharing the right one. [238:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [238:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: You all should be seeing a document named Retreat Topics. Do I need to enlarge it? [238:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Is it big enough? [238:48] Mason Roberts, PB: Yep. [238:50] Kurt Nordback, PB: Please enlarge it if you can.

[238:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: How about that? [238:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: Is that better? [238:57] Kurt Nordback, PB: That helps. Okay. [238:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so I want to highlight this section here. Staff has suggested some items for us to go on the agenda. I suggest we start with those, unless anybody has an objection. [239:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: First is a discussion of historic preservation, the operations of the program, the timing, and especially, I think, the relationship to site review. [239:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: And staff wants to talk about the value of evaluating historic preservation as a part of site review, and also cover demolition processes and any ideas for improvement. [239:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: And do staff members have an idea of how much time you expect this to take? [239:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: Is this, what do you think? [239:38] Brad Mueller, CoB: Charles, I'm thinking… I mean, it could be fairly long, but we also have many other things to consider. [239:48] Brad Mueller, CoB: We would… we would act… probably ask some of the historic preservation [239:52] Brad Mueller, CoB: Team to give an overview of some of the recent Process things they've done, and… [239:59] Brad Mueller, CoB: Kind of weigh in on their observations of the… [240:03] Brad Mueller, CoB: Ying and yang, chicken and egg problem of historic preservation versus site plan. [240:09] Brad Mueller, CoB: for site review. [240:12] Brad Mueller, CoB: I don't know, 20 minutes, Charles? [240:14] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: Yeah, I think when we talked initially, we were hoping to get through all 3 of the staff-initiated items in, 45 minutes, if possible. [240:25] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: So, however we wanted to break that up, it seems like [240:28] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: That's would probably be about right. [240:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: So is this just a presentation, or are you asking for discussion? [240:36] Brad Mueller, CoB: Oh, discussion, yeah. But we'd, you know, we'd give you some background. [240:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, 20 minutes feels really tight to me, so I… I would say maybe, like, 30 minutes? [240:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: Minimum? [240:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'm gonna put 30 minutes for now. [240:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: Feedback on future code changes. This says you would solicit feedback on future code changes that we may be interested in. [241:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: We may be interested in recognizing that there are limited resources in the department. [241:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Did you want to say more about this one, Brad? What are you hoping to hop in here? [241:09] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, I mean, I think this would be, like, broader themes. You know, I'll say what I've said at meetings in the past. We're always listening to the… [241:18] Brad Mueller, CoB: Feedback from board and council, on… Items, specific and thematic. [241:27] Brad Mueller, CoB: So it's not that we need to rehash, necessarily, or re-identify those. [241:33] Brad Mueller, CoB: And certainly not, like, Point-by-point things, but rather thematic items.

[241:40] Brad Mueller, CoB: And maybe in preparation, if you had specific things, you know, you wanted to email. [241:45] Brad Mueller, CoB: In advance, you know, we'd be aware of that, but just trying to create some space for [241:54] Brad Mueller, CoB: You know, what we hear on a somewhat [241:57] Brad Mueller, CoB: regular basis of, oh, I feel like this should be addressed, or that should be addressed in… [242:03] Brad Mueller, CoB: in the code. [242:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so this would be a place for potentially bringing new items forward, or emphasizing items that we find to be a priority. [242:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Or just making sure that they're on the list? Is that… is that what you'. [242:17] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, and I would say, like, we don't need to debate them, discuss them, just identify them. [242:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [242:24] Brad Mueller, CoB: If that kind of helps put some parameters around it. [242:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: So maybe. [242:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: 10 minutes or so? [242:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: 10, 15, what do you think, Brad? [242:38] Brad Mueller, CoB: I think it's gonna depend on how… [242:41] Brad Mueller, CoB: tight you all want to keep that, but probably 15 at a minimum, I would guess, yeah. [242:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, Kurt, do you have a comment? [242:47] Brad Mueller, CoB: 45 minutes on the 3. [242:51] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yeah, I was wondering if this could be combined with the next steps after BBCP, because it seems like a lot of these are going to be things that kind of follow from or fall out of the comp plant. [243:07] Kurt Nordback, PB: So… [243:08] Brad Mueller, CoB: I would… [243:09] Kurt Nordback, PB: Just, if possible, trying to combine those. [243:11] Brad Mueller, CoB: That's probably a good idea, and we might start with the next steps, and then segue into feedback on changes, I would submit. [243:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [243:22] Brad Mueller, CoB: Gotta be one and the same. [243:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yeah, I think if we have both of them, they would be… the sequence would be, let's talk about this one, next steps after BVCP, and then any other future code changes that people want to talk about. [243:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, and then meeting materials, soliciting feedback on how the materials are serving the board and any refinements that may be helpful. [243:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: More to say about that, Brad or Charles? [243:45] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: You know, it's been a while since we've checked in with the board just on, the materials and presentations that we're providing you, so any feedback that may be instructive for us in better, you know, conveying the information to you guys, or better serving the board. [244:01] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: You know, I think it's a good practice, so we're all ears. [244:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. So maybe about 10 minutes there. And this, you know, can change. Yes.

[244:12] ml robles . PB: Could we do that meeting materials? And Charles and Brad? [244:17] ml robles . PB: Something that we email ahead of time? [244:21] Brad Mueller, CoB: I would say for all of these, feel free to email some things. [244:25] ml robles . PB: I mean, especially if it's, like, a list of this, that, you know, whatever, it seemed like… [244:30] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, that'll just be me. [244:31] ml robles . PB: have it. [244:32] Brad Mueller, CoB: discussion that way. [244:33] ml robles . PB: Right, okay. [244:35] Brad Mueller, CoB: basis, yeah. [244:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: Sounds good. [244:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so that's kind of… it's a little bit under an hour of stuff that staff has brought forward. I don't want to really shortchange any of this, especially this historic preservation discussion. I think this… this could be… [244:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: really interesting, because I think there's some diverse opinion on the board about this. [244:54] Laura Kaplan, PB: This would have been an item that I would have suggested if staff hadn't, so I, [245:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think all of these are valuable, and I thank staff for bringing them forward. So, a little bit… about an hour, maybe a little bit less in staff items. [245:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: And by the way, we don't have a firm [245:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: time for how long this retreat has to go. It could be two hours, it could be two and a half hours, it could be three hours, it depends on what the board wants to accomplish. So my thought was that we would [245:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Start here, and say we're going to do all of these, and then see what of these we feel are priorities to add for this… this particular, retreat. [245:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: So we got 4 suggestions, and I'm gonna just list them quickly, and then I'll ask each person if they want to speak to it, and then we'll try to prioritize what do we think is the most important to do, and if anybody wants to add to this list, we'll add to it before we prioritize. [245:47] Brad Mueller, CoB: Laura, I thought you were gonna move number 3 up to be… Companion number two. [245:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'm assuming that we're going to prioritize this, but I'm not actually… we haven't done it yet, so I'm assuming this will get moved up, but we haven't decided yet to add it. [246:01] Laura Kaplan, PB: So the three… the four things that have been suggested already are floodplain regulations and how they interact with our work as a board. [246:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: Water, particularly how water adequacy is determined, and how it takes into account climate change, and the various things that come with that, like drought, fire, and landscape irrigation. [246:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Next steps after the BBCP. [246:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: A preview of what's likely to come before us in both land use applications and code updates and anything else. [246:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then, this one, information about council decisions. This is about closing the loop of when planning board acts upon something. [246:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then it goes to Council, and then how do we find out what Council did, and whether they accepted our recommendations or not, and how that shows up in the code or in a land use approval? [246:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: And this one could potentially be combined with this, meeting materials. We could be asking for regular updates on what Council's doing with our advice. [246:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, I'm actually gonna suggest that we go ahead and just combine this one. [247:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: with meeting materials. [247:05] Laura Kaplan, PB: Rather than having it as a standalone item.

[247:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: So that leaves us with 3 potential other items for our agenda. We're probably not going to have time for all 3. [247:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Were there any other suggestions before we try to, prioritize? [247:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yes, Mark. [247:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: You have a hand up. [247:26] PB Mark McIntyre: I'm sorry, you are combining meeting materials with… [247:32] PB Mark McIntyre: the information about Council decisions, I don't see the connection, particularly. [247:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Harry, this is about how does the planning board receive feedback on what the decisions that Council made after we acted on something. So, for example, we did a site review, and we approved the project. [247:51] PB Mark McIntyre: And Council… [247:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: denied it, like, how do we know what Council did after us? And I think this is just a request that this be included in our meetings and in our meeting materials. [248:03] PB Mark McIntyre: Oh. [248:04] PB Mark McIntyre: So… so that… a future packet would inform us of… what council did. [248:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yes, and whether it's an email or whether it's a packet item, we could talk about that, but I think… I think this is basically a request of [248:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: How do we get this into our materials somehow? [248:25] PB Mark McIntyre: Yeah. I thought the meeting materials item [248:28] PB Mark McIntyre: Was kind of a tight, discrete item about [248:34] PB Mark McIntyre: How we are utilizing and perceiving the packet [248:39] PB Mark McIntyre: which is the basis for our meetings, and whether or not there needs to be changes to the packet. And I… anyway, I perceive that as a very discreet item, and kind of very different than the information about Council decision items. But that's… that's me. [249:01] Laura Kaplan, PB: I just feel like these could be quickly combined, because we could be requesting this information in our meeting materials, in our packets. [249:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: Not necessarily in a particular item, like a hearing item, but just, like, in the packet of information that we get, can we please have [249:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: the feedback loop closed. I don't know that we need to have a long discussion about it, I think it's, you know… [249:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Maybe it's a two-minute discussion of how does… how is this information delivered? [249:26] PB Mark McIntyre: Huh. [249:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, that's… that's my suggestion. If anybody's very uncomfortable with it, we could separate them out again. [249:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, alright, hearing no strong bucking and kicking, I'm gonna leave these combined. [249:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: Does anybody have an additional suggestion besides these three for what else we might cover in the retreat? [249:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: And you're gonna need to raise your hand, because I'm not seeing everybody right now. [249:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, seeing none, seeing no other suggestions, we have these three. [249:57] Laura Kaplan, PB: And we have somewhere between 1 and 2 hours to work with. So I would like to, [250:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do we want to ask people to describe these further, or are they pretty self-explanatory? Does anybody need more information about any of these items? [250:10] Laura Kaplan, PB: If we had more time, I'd ask each person to speak to them.

[250:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: And why they're interested in them. [250:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: So if anybody's really motivated to speak to your item and why you're interested, I'll make space for that. [250:21] ml robles . PB: Laura, can I say something? [250:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Sure, Emma. [250:25] ml robles . PB: on, that number 3, next steps after BBCP, maybe we start there, because we were thinking that that goes up with feedback on future code change. [250:36] Laura Kaplan, PB: Let me just see a show of hands. Does everybody consider this to be your first priority, next steps after BBCP that you'd like to add to the agenda? If that is true, please give a hand or a thumbs up. [250:45] ml robles . PB: Oh, I was just thinking it got added up to… [250:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: I don't think the board has agreed that that is our priority to talk about at the retreat, so I don't want to move it up prematurely before we say what our priority is. [250:57] ml robles . PB: Got it. [250:58] Kurt Nordback, PB: Well, I don't think we agreed that the first three are priorities either. [251:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: So I was… I was suggesting that we just go ahead and start with what staff has Suggested. [251:11] Kurt Nordback, PB: Right. [251:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: But if we think that those are lower priority than some of these others, we could just. [251:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Combine them all and vote on priority amongst all six. [251:20] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yeah, for me, the next steps after BBCP is higher priority than [251:25] Kurt Nordback, PB: Certainly, the meeting materials item, for example. [251:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: Should we then just vote on all six? [251:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, let's go ahead and just… we'll just combine them. [251:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: We'll number them 1 to 6. [251:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: And we will do… [251:47] Max Lord, PB: Well, here, if we're gonna do it that way, do you mind if I, like, say one quick thing about the floodplain? [251:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: I don't mind at all, Max. [251:54] Max Lord, PB: I'll keep it brief, I know it's late for everybody, but the reason I brought it up is just, obviously, I'm newer, but… [252:00] Max Lord, PB: every single site review we've had so far has had a floodplain limitation on one corner of it. So… and then also, I don't know, as far as the mustards last anything, I don't know if you guys got any hate mail, or if that's just something that our enraged community members reserve for me. [252:17] Max Lord, PB: But that also has to do with all floodplain regulations. So I would just like to have a better understanding of what… where we wind up kept and what. And I also talked to Brad briefly about it, and was talking about, [252:30] Max Lord, PB: some, like, ghost properties that we have around town that are limited because what it would take to redevelop them on the floodplain, and I just thought it would be helpful for everybody for an educational moment for… [252:41] Max Lord, PB: Understanding those issues better. [252:44] PB Mark McIntyre: I'm all for it. [252:45] Brad Mueller, CoB: Maybe I'll quickly interject, too, that the things that are purely informational. [252:51] Brad Mueller, CoB: And less discussional items. We could also do as a matters item on…

[252:56] Brad Mueller, CoB: Future agendas that are light, so if you need to… [253:00] Brad Mueller, CoB: You know, move things around, that's one consideration you might take. [253:06] Brad Mueller, CoB: We'd still get to it, to my point, but… but if the agenda's getting too long and you wanted to punt something, we can… we can do that. [253:17] Brad Mueller, CoB: Just an option for you. [253:19] Brad Mueller, CoB: I'm not suggesting it for one topic or another. [253:28] Laura Kaplan, PB: Let's see. Can folks hear me? [253:30] PB Mark McIntyre: Now we can. Yes. [253:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: Right, my ear. [253:33] PB Mark McIntyre: It was… [253:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I had to change my audio. Okay, Brad, thank you, that's a really helpful suggestion. What I'm going to suggest is that we prioritize the list, and that anything that doesn't get prioritized for the retreat, we perhaps ask staff to bring forward as a matters item. [253:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: In a future meeting. [253:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: And that might work well for some of these items that are less discussion and more, informational, like information about how floodplain regulations work, or how water works. Those are the… how water adequacy is determined. [254:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: Those two strike me as less of, like, we need to talk about them and more about information. [254:08] ml robles . PB: Not a conversation, you're right. [254:10] Laura Kaplan, PB: But y'all might disagree with me, so feel free to vote for them if those are your priorities to do in the retreat. [254:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: Can we quickly put some, some times on these? Like, Brad, how long do you think that floodplain regulation discussion would take, or information item? [254:27] Brad Mueller, CoB: What do you think, Charles? Maybe 20 minutes? Probably ask Mark and Will to do it? [254:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so we'll say 25, just because this board is talkative. Water. [254:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: Water, what do you think? [254:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: How water adequacy is determined. [254:45] Brad Mueller, CoB: Well, that's a tough one, right? Because the short answer is… [254:50] Brad Mueller, CoB: It's required for any new development, and wouldn't be brought forward without that, and yes. [254:57] Brad Mueller, CoB: We consider climate change, but the longer answer is anything from You know, 15 minutes to… [255:06] Brad Mueller, CoB: Hours and hours, so… That one's gonna fit the time you want it to take. [255:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: So maybe we'll say 20 minutes for even just a basic overview, and it could go longer. [255:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Next steps after BBCP, how long do you think that would be? [255:23] Laura Kaplan, PB: I feel like that's a longer discussion. [255:25] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, that's… that's really gonna be driven by… by board discussion. [255:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mmm… 30 minutes? 45 minutes? [255:39] PB Mark McIntyre: Well, if you're combining it with future… I, I, again… Yeah.

[255:44] Laura Kaplan, PB: Not combining it, but just saying, just this piece of it. [255:49] PB Mark McIntyre: Okay. [255:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: What do you think, Brad or Charles? [255:54] Brad Mueller, CoB: Oh, I thought you were asking the other board members. [255:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh, no, what do you guys think in terms of. [256:00] Brad Mueller, CoB: safe. [256:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: We really don't have a good sense of what it's gonna look like in terms of what's going to come before us in land use applications, or what code updates you are expecting, or how you're rolling out implementation. [256:10] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, that's a relatively short conversation. [256:13] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: I don't know that we do either. [256:15] Brad Mueller, CoB: Vision. What's that? [256:17] Charles Ferro, City of Boulder: I don't know that we do either. [256:18] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, yeah, that's… that's… [256:21] PB Mark McIntyre: So… [256:21] Brad Mueller, CoB: That's kind of why it's a short answer, so I think it's more about hearing from you also. [256:26] Brad Mueller, CoB: I mean, if… if it's… [256:28] Brad Mueller, CoB: 10 minutes for that, and then another 10 or 15 minutes to segue into future code changes. That's probably 25 minutes, right? 20, 25. [256:37] Laura Kaplan, PB: Are you… [256:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: not counting this one as separate? Like, just this piece of it, the next steps after the BBCP, how much is that piece? [256:45] Brad Mueller, CoB: Yeah, that's what I was saying, like, 10 minutes, maybe. [256:49] Laura Kaplan, PB: Like, 10 minutes, okay. Yeah. [256:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, alright, so we have a sense of how long these things will take. [256:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: Alright, so we have 6 potential items for the retreat. We're gonna use our favorite, sorting technique of N over 3, with N being the number of items on the list. [257:04] Laura Kaplan, PB: And 3 being a standard, you divide it by 3, and then everybody gets that number of votes. So, 6 items on the list, you get… everybody gets 2 votes, alright? [257:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: So take a look at the list. What are your top two priorities? [257:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: for this retreat. [257:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: And if we all land on the same things and we have more time, we'll do it again, with what's remaining, okay? But for this first round, what are your top two priorities? And I'll just ask you to give me the item numbers, okay? [257:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Everybody ready? [257:38] Mason Roberts, PB: Are we putting him in chat, or… [257:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'm gonna ask you for them verbally so that the audience can hear it as well. [257:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay.

[257:50] Laura Kaplan, PB: Who's… who's ready? [257:52] Max Lord, PB: Hmm. [257:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so we'll start with Mark, and then Claudia. [257:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: Item number. [257:57] PB Mark McIntyre: 5… 3. [258:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark McIntyre is 5 and 3. I'm keeping track on paper, but then I'll put it on the screen. Claudia. [258:09] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh, you're on mute. [258:12] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: 6 and 1. [258:16] Laura Kaplan, PB: 6 and 1. Great. Kurt. [258:19] Kurt Nordback, PB: 2 and 6. [258:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt is 2 and 6. [258:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max, you ready? [258:26] Max Lord, PB: Yeah, I would actually probably say 2 and 3. [258:31] Laura Kaplan, PB: 2 and 3… Okay, Mason, are you ready? [258:37] Mason Roberts, PB: 1 and 6. [258:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: 1 and 6. [258:41] Laura Kaplan, PB: And ML. [258:42] ml robles . PB: I'm… I'm a 1 in 6 as well. [258:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I am a 1… And a 6. [258:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, so 1 and 6, so our number 1 top voter getter was number 6. That got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 votes. [259:00] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then our number 2 vote-getter was number 1, which got 4 votes. [259:08] Laura Kaplan, PB: And so that is 30 minutes of time. [259:12] Laura Kaplan, PB: and 10 minutes of time. So let's do it again with the ones that are left. I'm gonna go ahead and highlight these as being on… [259:21] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh, do I not have… There we go. [259:25] Laura Kaplan, PB: I'll highlight these as being on the list 1 and 6. [259:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, so we already have these. [259:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: Alright, now we've got 4 more to choose from. [259:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: 4 divided by 3, you get… everybody gets one vote. [259:42] Laura Kaplan, PB: One vote from the ones that are left, okay? So, clean slate. [259:47] Laura Kaplan, PB: Round 2.

[259:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: So we have item number 2, 3, 4, or 5. Everybody gets one vote. [259:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: Are you ready? [259:59] Max Lord, PB: I'll vote for 2. [260:01] Laura Kaplan, PB: Max votes for 2. [260:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt. [260:04] Kurt Nordback, PB: 2. [260:07] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you. Number 2, Mason. [260:11] Mason Roberts, PB: Gross. [260:12] Mason Roberts, PB: I think number 2, yeah. [260:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, Claudia. [260:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: 2. [260:24] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mark. [260:25] PB Mark McIntyre: Bye. [260:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Five. [260:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: ML. [260:30] ml robles . PB: I'm a 5 as well. [260:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Who am I missing? [260:37] ml robles . PB: You? [260:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: Just me? [260:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh, just me. [260:43] PB Mark McIntyre: What did you do, Claudia? [260:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia, she signaled non-verbally. I'm also a number 2. [260:51] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, number 2 is on the list. [260:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: That would… that's, this one here, future code changes. [261:06] Laura Kaplan, PB: And then, our next one would be water. [261:09] PB Mark McIntyre: Laura, you didn't… your highlight release… [261:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: It didn't work, okay. [261:15] Laura Kaplan, PB: So this one… And then water would be next. [261:22] Laura Kaplan, PB: So that would give us 4 items on the agenda. [261:27] Laura Kaplan, PB: Do we want to stop there and call it good?

[261:30] ml robles . PB: How much time does that add up to? [261:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: I mean… [261:34] Laura Kaplan, PB: These are very tight time frames here, like, I don't think this is really gonna be 30 minutes. [261:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: But, as we have accounted for it, this is 45… [261:43] Laura Kaplan, PB: an hour 15, an hour and a half. I think it will actually go longer than that, because we're talkative. [261:49] Max Lord, PB: Well, you rounded that up, it's an hour and 15, but… the… [261:58] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think it will actually go longer than that, but we could put another one on here if folks want to talk about either floodplain regulations or meeting materials and squeeze it in. [262:05] PB Mark McIntyre: What about, Laura, what about, we say, These four, for sure. [262:13] PB Mark McIntyre: two and a half hour meeting, and that if we have time remaining in… if we all agree that two and a half hours is a… we go till [262:24] PB Mark McIntyre: a 30… [262:26] PB Mark McIntyre: If… if there's time, then… then we, we address, 3 and or four, but… [262:34] PB Mark McIntyre: We'll just see what time we have left if we have an agreed upon full duration of the meeting. [262:40] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yeah, I think that's a great suggestion, Mark, and I would suggest that we not do that with this one, just because staff are going to have to prepare. [262:48] ml robles . PB: I think. [262:48] Laura Kaplan, PB: Claudia's thinking the same thing. Why don't we say that this one should go as a matters item on a future meeting agenda? [262:55] Laura Kaplan, PB: Would folks like to see that come back as a matters item? [262:58] ml robles . PB: Yep. [262:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any objections to asking staff to bring it as a matters item? [263:03] PB Mark McIntyre: Fuck. [263:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, we'll put that one in blue, because it's watery. [263:07] Laura Kaplan, PB: And we'll say that this is the… if we have time. [263:11] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay? [263:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: And if we don't have time, we can just give staff feedback by email or individually. [263:18] Max Lord, PB: That all looks perfect, yeah. [263:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yep. [263:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: All right. [263:22] PB Mark McIntyre: And are we, do… do we have consensus on our total length of meeting? [263:30] Laura Kaplan, PB: Yeah, how do folks feel about two and a half hours? [263:33] Laura Kaplan, PB: So, from 6 to 8.30. [263:36] Mason Roberts, PB: Finally.

[263:38] Laura Kaplan, PB: I see a shrug. Does anybody think it should be… Shorter. Raise your hand. [263:45] Mason Roberts, PB: I mean… [263:45] Laura Kaplan, PB: should be longer. [263:47] Mason Roberts, PB: We should shoot for it, I assume, but two and a half hours sounds reasonable. [263:52] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [263:53] Laura Kaplan, PB: Alright. [263:54] Kurt Nordback, PB: Yeah, I think… I think 2 and 6 are going to take significantly longer than we have here. [264:01] Laura Kaplan, PB: I think so, too. [264:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Brad and Charles, does that give you the direction that you need? [264:09] Brad Mueller, CoB: I think so, although I'm unclear on what order you want to do those in. Maybe I'm just… [264:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: Oh. [264:13] Brad Mueller, CoB: Look, tired. [264:15] Laura Kaplan, PB: It is late at night. [264:18] Laura Kaplan, PB: My suggestion would be, are you guys okay if Claudia and I work with staff to put together a logical order? [264:26] Laura Kaplan, PB: Knowing that the sacrifice is meeting materials if we don't have time. [264:31] ml robles . PB: Sure. [264:32] Laura Kaplan, PB: Or does it… or do folks want to put together an order here together? [264:35] Laura Kaplan, PB: Does anybody feel strongly that we want to put it together here, together? [264:39] Laura Kaplan, PB: No? Okay, seeing none, Claudia and I will work with you, Brad and Charles, to establish an order. [264:46] Laura Kaplan, PB: And I would generally say that the higher priority items that got the most votes should probably go on the agenda first, although some of them are logically linked together, so we'll consider that too. [264:56] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay. [264:59] Laura Kaplan, PB: Any other matters from the planning director, city attorney, or staff? [265:05] Brad Mueller, CoB: Here, huh? [265:07] Hella Pannewig, City Attorney's Office: Nothing from me either. Thank you. [265:10] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, I'm gonna stop screen sharing. [265:14] Laura Kaplan, PB: Let's see… stop share. [265:17] Laura Kaplan, PB: Did it stop sharing? [265:20] ml robles . PB: Don't stop. [265:20] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, alright, it's still blocking my screen, but… Okay, any other matters from the board? [265:27] ml robles . PB: Kurt has his hand up.

[265:29] Laura Kaplan, PB: Kurt, sorry, I can't see you because I'm a little bit blocked here. [265:32] Kurt Nordback, PB: Oh, sorry, yeah, I would just love to get a determinative answer about whether row houses count as detached single-unit dwellings. [265:43] Kurt Nordback, PB: From the use table standpoint, and also from other code standpoints. It sounded like [265:49] Kurt Nordback, PB: there was a little uncertainty about that, so at some point, it would just be here to… good to hear one way or another, for sure. [265:56] Kurt Nordback, PB: Thanks. [266:02] Laura Kaplan, PB: Mute. [266:03] Laura Kaplan, PB: Thank you, Kurt. Any other matters from board members? [266:07] Laura Kaplan, PB: Okay, the time is now 11 o'clock. Any objection to me adjourning the meeting? [266:12] ml robles . PB: None. [266:13] Laura Kaplan, PB: We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. [266:16] ml robles . PB: Good night. [266:17] Claudia Hanson Thiem (she/her), PB: Thank you, goodbye. [266:19] Laura Kaplan, PB: Great meeting.