2026-10-06 - Planning Board

00:01Board & Commissions: Are we recording?

00:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, welcome to the October 6th, 2026 meeting of the Boulder Planning Board.

00:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm gonna do a quick roll call and introduction of board members who are with us tonight.

00:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): To my left, the viewer's right, is Board Member Max Lord.

00:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason Roberts.

00:26Board & Commissions: To my right.

00:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Viewers left, Kurt Nordbach, board member Mark McIntyre.

00:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I believe we have ML robles online tonight, and I am…

00:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board Vice Chair Claudia Hansen-Thiem, our Chair Laura Kaplan.

00:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): is absent tonight.

00:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have two main agenda items tonight, annexation proposals at 250 Arapahoe, and at 2290 Emerald Road. Both of those will have a public hearing, slightly later in the meeting.

00:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But we do start our meetings with public participation. This is an opportunity for anyone to speak to the planning board about any issue that is not part of the public hearing on our agenda tonight.

01:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, any item that is not, these two annexation proposals and speakers will have 3 minutes each.

01:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thomas, do we have anyone in the room signed up?

01:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We do not have anyone in the room registered for open comment. Okay, and do we have Vivian online for online participation? Yes, we do have Vivian online, and she'll actually help cover these advisory board protocol slides for you. So let's go to Vivian, please. Okay, great, thank you.

01:40Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro-Wooldridge. I'll just walk through these rules of public participation that apply to, the entire meeting, open comment, also public hearings later on. So I'll just start by sharing that this vision and the rules that.

01:57Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: That I'll be sharing with you I think a couple slides.

02:02Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Back, Thomas.

02:04Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great. So the city, engaged with community members a few years ago to co-create this vision for more productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety.

02:16Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: For community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives.

02:24Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: We have a lot more information about this vision and that process on our website.

02:29Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Next slide, and I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

02:49Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all community members participating in open comment or the hearing later introduce themselves using their first and last name.

03:06Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Next slide. And if you are joining us online, you can let us know that you wish to speak by clicking on the raise hand icon. If you're joining by phone, you dial star 9, and you can also get to that same raise hand icon by hitting the reaction button and then looking for the little icon.

03:22Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So… still nobody in the room, Thomas, who…

03:27Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Has raised her hand to speak before we.

03:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Nobody signed up.

03:31Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Okay.

03:32Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Open comments, we can go ahead and move to online participants.

03:35Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Great, thank you for confirming. So we have a couple of community members joining us online. If either would like to speak at this point, go ahead and raise your hand, and we can call on you. As Claudia mentioned, each person will have 3 minutes to address the board.

03:54Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: And it looks like, nobody has their hand raised.

03:59Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: So we can move on, oh, we have Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn, you have 3 minutes.

04:08lynn segal: I'm sorry, I thought you said you had two people.

04:11lynn segal: So… I don't know what else to do.

04:15lynn segal: There's not two people.

04:19Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: There's a couple people joining the meeting, but only your hand raised, lynn. Hope that clarifies. Please go ahead. The clock's ticking.

04:26lynn segal: Okay, yeah, With this budget… first of all, I want my time back.

04:36lynn segal: I need my time back.

04:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We give lynn 20 seconds additional, please.

04:42lynn segal: No, I think it's 30 seconds now. Yeah, okay, good. Thank you. Okay.

04:48lynn segal: Yeah, that was confusing. So.

04:51lynn segal: We've got a budget problem here, and it's largely associated with the planning board, because this endless building is just not sustainable. It's not sustainable for the water.

05:08lynn segal: for… For the police, for all the services, for our budget, it's all completely un…

05:19lynn segal: problematic, and the planning board has to stop, like I've been saying, at each planning board meeting, practically, for years.

05:29lynn segal: That you can't build your way out of this one.

05:34lynn segal: And what we really need is a quantification of each human being.

05:41lynn segal: that's put into a project. How many, you know, units are made, how many people would be in that project, and how…

05:50lynn segal: How many the developer can actually have that's sustainable for the City of Boulder based on all the services that that human being uses.

06:02lynn segal: And that should be easy to quantify. The full lifecycle analysis of all of it

06:09lynn segal: lynn segal: And once it's done, that needs to be applied to each project, so they can't build if we can't pay for it.

06:20lynn segal: You know, that's the bottom line. And, you know, Heads are gonna roll.

06:26lynn segal: Right? We know that.

06:27lynn segal: Because this is… Impossible situation.

06:32lynn segal: of growth.

06:35lynn segal: Everywhere you turn.

06:36lynn segal: lynn segal: You know, I just saw Jaheb's name on Papelio's, and, you know, Jill Grano and Jaheb with Mapleton Academy.

06:47lynn segal: lynn segal: And, you know, McKenzie Junction, and Boulder Junction, and Diagonal Plaza, and Black… Black Horse, or Dark Horse, whatever it is.

06:58lynn segal: The Millennium, Colorado… there's no control we have over CU, right? We got that.

07:04lynn segal: No control.

07:06lynn segal: They bought up around Naropa, and they can go up 55 feet. They can go higher than that, probably, because they have no limits.

07:16lynn segal: But we do have control in Boulder.

07:19lynn segal: And we're losing it fast.

07:22lynn segal: lynn segal: And we've got to do something about this before it's overtaking everything, and people's services are diminished so much, and we're getting these

07:33lynn segal: DDAs, Deeper Debt for Alls, you know, the Development Authority, and the Metropolitan District, and those things are gonna make it even worse, so stop already.

07:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): you lynn.

07:47Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, City of Boulder: Thank you, Lynn. No other community members have their hands raised, so I'll turn it over back over to you, Claudia.

07:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Vivian.

07:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So next on our agenda tonight, we have approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve this week.

08:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Item 4 on our agenda is call-up items.

08:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We did have one call-up item on an earlier version of our agenda that has been removed.

08:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And so we are going to go directly on to…

08:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Item 5, which is public hearing items.

08:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have two tonight. Item 5A, we will start with, is a public hearing.

08:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And consideration of the following related to an area of land at 250 Arapahoe Avenue.

08:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): One, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan BVCP land use map. Speaker 1 : designation change from rural lands to Neighborhood 1, and two, a recommendation to City Council on a petition to annex approximately 1.03 acres of land.

08:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): at 250 Arapahoe Avenue, with an initial zoning of RM3, Residential Medium 3.

08:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Reviewed under case number LUR2024-000.

09:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 5-2.

09:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So before we begin, we always ask if any board members have any conflicts of interest, that they need to disclose.

09:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

09:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Seeing none, we will start with a staff presentation, and then are we going to hear from the applicant tonight as well?

09:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

09:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right.

09:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Good evening, everyone. I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder Planning Department, and I'll take you through tonight's first presentation for the 250 Arapahoe BBI.

09:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): ECB land use map change and the annexation and initial zoning.

09:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So the applicant has requested annexation at this time to allow for connection of a fire suppression system in the existing Native American Rights Fund office building.

10:01Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This property is an existing developed property already connected to city utilities, and the applicant isn't requesting any other changes or development at this time.

10:11Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): We'll walk through the required review processes, the site, a summary of the proposal, some key issues, and conclude with the staff recommendation.

10:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In terms of public notification, the site was posted, and public notification provided per code. The city didn't receive any public comments on the proposal.

10:33Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This proposal involves an annexation and initial zoning, which includes review of state annexation statutes and BVCP policies. The Planning Board is required to make a recommendation to City Council on whether or not the annexation should be approved and the zoning that should be applied.

10:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Board & And then the annexation and initial zoning would be decided by City Council at a future public hearing.

10:56Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Additionally, as a result of the recent 2025 major BVCP update, annexation of this property also requires a concurrent change to the land use map.

11:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): A decision by the Planning Board is required on the land use map change, and then approval of that change also goes to City Council for their decision as well.

11:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So here you can see the property. It's about a 1-acre site at 250 Arapaho, just south of Arapaho, and a few hundred feet west of 4th Street. It has an irregular shape that follows the edge of the Anderson Ditch, which runs along the southern edge.

11:38Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It's bordered by city limits to the north and the west. It's an eclectic area with a mix of public lands, office buildings, and housing developed in the city and the county.

11:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Eben G. Fine Park is just to the north across Arapahoe, and there's a single-family home to the south in unincorporated Boulder County. There's also city open space and mountain parks lands further south.

12:05Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The site contains an existing, about 19,000 square foot, 3-story office building built in 1973. It's currently owned and used by the Native American Rights Fund, and they purchased the property in 2020.

12:20Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The applicant intends to continue using the existing office building as it is today. Although it's outside city limits currently, the existing structure was connected to city water and sewer at the time of construction. The ordinance that approved that connection to city utilities required that the property

12:39Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): apply for annexation once it was eligible in order to allow for any future changes to the property that would increase the utility needs.

12:49Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As you can see on the annexation history map here, the property is now contiguous to other city properties, so it is now eligible for annexation.

12:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In particular, the applicant has requested annexation to allow for an increased water tap size to allow for connection to their fire sprinkler system. So there's no other changes or development of the property proposed at this time.

13:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The project was analyzed under the City's newly adopted 2025 BVCP. It's located in Area 2, Urban Edge, which is the areas of unincorporated Boulder County, where annexation

13:30Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): to the city is supported. Upon annexation, it would be designated Area 1 Urban Lands.

13:37Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): With the recently adopted 2025 major update to the BBCP, the land use designation of the property was changed to rural lands. This is a new designation for lands within unincorporated area of the Boulder Valley.

13:54Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The Rural Lands designation expects a land use map change to be considered concurrently with the annexation.

14:02Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This will apply a land use designation that reflects the new city jurisdiction, and it will enable the city to establish the initial city zoning designation. So therefore, a concurrent land use map change is being processed along with the proposed annexation.

14:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Staff has recommended Neighborhood 1 as the new future land use designation. Neighborhood 1 is consistent with nearby properties that are within city limits to the east and west.

14:33Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): It anticipates a mix of residential uses, as well as opportunities for supporting uses, such as offices.

14:43Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In terms of the proposed zoning tonight, the applicant has requested initial zoning of RM3, Residential Medium 3. This is an area for medium density residential areas, primarily used for attached residential development, and where complementary uses can be permitted.

15:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As seen here, the nearest properties in city limits are zoned in residential medium zoning districts, including RM2 and RM3. The RM zoning districts allow for a mix of uses consistent with the proposed Neighborhood 1 land use designation.

15:19Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): If annexed, an annexation agreement is used to establish terms and conditions, considering city codes and policies. In this case, the agreement is written to anticipate the existing office use will remain, and to address possible future redevelopment of the property.

15:35Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): This slide contains a brief summary of the terms. First, the existing office use, which has existed on the property since the 1970s, can continue to operate with its current operating characteristics, which are listed in the agreement.

15:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Once annexed, if a change or expansion of the office use was proposed, it would require review through the city's standard review processes. In this case, it would be a use review process in the RM3 zoning district.

16:04Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The agreement requires dedication of a ditch easement along the Anderson Ditch that runs along the southern edge to allow for access and maintenance of the ditch.

16:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The agreement requires payment of standard stormwater plant investment fees.

16:21Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And because the property is substantially developed, but does include some additional development potential if it was redeveloped as residential dwelling units in the future.

16:31Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The agreement provides for community benefit via provision of one and a half times the typical inclusionary housing requirement if it's redeveloped as dwelling units in the future.

16:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): There were 4 key issues staff identified for discussion, and I'll go through those briefly next.

16:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): For Key Issue 1, staff reviewed if the annexation is in compliance with Colorado state statutes. These require requirements for contiguity with city limits and other requirements of the petition in an annexation map.

17:05Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And we found that the application is consistent with those statutory annexation requirements.

17:12Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): For Key Issue 2, staff reviewed the proposal against BBCP policies and found it to be consistent with annexation policies, including those listed on this slide.

17:22Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): As noted in Policy 5, the site's located in Area 2, Urban Edge. It's an area where annexation to the city is supported. And as noted in Policy 10, annexation is encouraged for certain types of properties in the Urban Edge, listed on this slide.

17:40Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): In this case, the property is a substantially developed property along the western boundary below the blue line.

17:47Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The annexation will resolve the public health issue of a lack of fire sprinkler system in the existing building, so it will help increase safety in the event of a fire.

17:57Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And the annexation agreement addresses the redevelopment potential of the property through provision of community benefit by requiring that 1.5 times IH requirement if redeveloped as residential dwelling units in the future.

18:13Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): For Key Issue 3, the BBCB land use map change.

18:18Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The map change is proposed to update the land use map designation from Rural Lands to Neighborhood 1,

18:25Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, as we talked about with the 2025 BVCP major update, properties designated rural lands are now expected to be changed to a non-rural designation upon annexation.

18:37Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The change can be considered concurrently with the annexation request, and it's considered under the criteria listed here.

18:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Staff found the proposal was consistent with the criteria, the change is consistent with the policies and intent of the comp plan, and it's an expected procedural step for new annexations that are currently designated rural lands.

19:03Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And lastly, for Key Issue 4, when a property is annexed, a zoning district will be established consistent with the standards in 9218.

19:12Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And consistent with the goals and land use designations of the BVCP. So as noted previously, the application includes that request for the land use map change, and this review of the zoning proposal presumes that that land use map change is approved.

19:28Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The proposed residential medium 3 zoning can accommodate a variety of allowed uses, either by right or by use review, including the existing office building.

19:40Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And it would allow for future redevelopment with up to about 12 dwelling units, so it would be consistent with the presumed land use designation of Neighborhood 1.

19:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So, overall, staff found the proposed zoning consistent with the land use designation and with the community's desired future for the area.

20:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So with that, staff recommends these two motions for approval of the BBCP land use map change, and a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed annexation and initial zoning.

20:13Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And happy to take any questions.

20:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Shannon. We will go now to questions from the board.

20:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Does anyone have questions?

20:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Bert.

20:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Thank you, Shannon, for that presentation. My first question is about.

20:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The non-conforming use or not non-conforming use.

20:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & I got totally lost by that in that. Can you explain?

20:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Why, it's not a nonconforming use.

20:51ml robles, PB: Right?

20:55Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, so our… the definition of a non-conforming use, excludes uses that can be established through a use review process, so…

21:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): it's not non-conforming in that it's not allowed. It would typically just be reviewed through our standard use review process. So in this case.

21:16Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): for the use that's already there existing. We included the characteristics, the operating characteristics of the use in the agreement.

21:25Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): So it can just continue to operate as it is now, as the office use. If it were to be changed to a different use or expanded, then it would just go through our typical use review process.

21:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay, okay, I think I got that. Great, thank you.

21:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And my other question is about the affordable housing requirement, which is 1.5 times the usual, so…

21:54Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & We had another annexation a while back in a similar area, the Silver Saddle Project.

22:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Where, as I recall, I think initially we required a, 45% or something around there of affordable housing, where the usual standard is 25%, so that's…

22:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): one point.

22:18Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): What is it? 1.8 times.

22:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the the affordable housing requirement. And

22:27Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & they came back and sold, basically told us that that was not feasible, or at least the board judged that that was not feasible.

22:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Do we have any kind of assessment, like, from our housing people or anything, to…

22:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): To try to determine that the 1.5 is a…

22:49Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & is a feasible number, and we're not going to have to go through the reiteration again.

22:59Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): I don't know that there's a specific determination. They did look at that and kind of consider the feasibility of it in making

23:06Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): their recommendation for what the requirement should be, so I think that was a factor in trying to make a recommendation for something that staff felt would be feasible, but I don't… to your question, I don't think there's a specific study they…

23:22Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Have conducted or have access to that would.

23:25Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): say yay or nay on that. Okay, but they did.

23:28Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): They look at this as they usually do, I guess, and they approve.

23:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

23:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I think that's all. Thanks.

23:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): While we're on… can I colloquy on that? Okay. Okay.

23:42Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So… Board & I had the same question.

23:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): With a little bit.

23:49Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Of a differentiation in that.

23:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): is the point of adding 1.5.

23:59Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Rather than one, to the inclusionary housing requirement

24:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Is the point to get us more housing?

24:06Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Or is the point to discourage?

24:09Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Redevelopment.

24:11Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Because let's say we set the number at 3.

24:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Because we want… We want lots of housing.

24:19Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): free, Is an unreasonable number.

24:22Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): It won't happen. It would discourage redevelopment.

24:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, I guess… Rather than…

24:32Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): What's the point? What's the goal? What's the point?

24:37Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): behind this.

24:39Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think the… the idea behind having an extra

24:45Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): above a 1 requirement for the IH requirements for an annexing property. It's coming from the BBCP policies that are saying when we annex a property.

24:57Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): and it… we know it has additional development potential, we want to ensure that there's that community benefit factor that's coming in. So it's… it's… it's not trying to either create housing, nor is it trying to discourage housing, it's just trying to provide that community benefit.

25:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I might have more questions on that later.

25:23Board & Commissions: Okay, I see ml online.

25:26ml robles, PB: Thank you.

25:27ml robles, PB: Oh, let me go find my… Yes.

25:32ml robles, PB: Can you hear me? I think I have my microphone open.

25:37ml robles, PB: So, just on that same topic, I had inclusionary housing questions as well, but, the question… We…

25:46ml robles, PB: Looked at a project, I think it was also on Arapaho, and I think

25:54ml robles, PB: The inclusionary housing on that particular property,

26:00ml robles, PB: Lend itself to the favor of.

26:05ml robles, PB: providing on-site affordable.

26:07ml robles, PB: Is there… a… way to, have this be 1.5IH,

26:17ml robles, PB: And or a certain percent of.

26:22ml robles, PB: affordable, built on site. I don't remember what the, excuse me, exact language of that, project, I think it was maybe 4 years ago, on.

26:34ml robles, PB: just a few blocks away on Arapahoe. Would that be,

26:39ml robles, PB: Something that might be, considered

26:43ml robles, PB: That the community benefit is with on-site, not just additional?

26:50Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): That wasn't something that was recommended by housing staff for this particular annexation. I think, you know, with each project, we are looking at it

27:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): You know, kind of on a case-by-case basis, and for this particular project, it's not proposing, a redevelopment at this time, so we are…

27:09Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Taking that into account in terms of, In terms of the proposal.

27:14ml robles, PB: Right, right. This is not a,

27:16ml robles, PB: Yeah, a redevelopment. Okay, so I'll move on to my second question. Neighborhood 1.

27:25ml robles, PB: is primarily residential.

27:29ml robles, PB: So… what… and with office being clearly secondary to supporting the neighborhood, how… how was that…

27:38ml robles, PB: What was the thinking around this as a neighborhood one?

27:43ml robles, PB: Aside from it being,

27:47ml robles, PB: adjacent to Neighborhood 1.

27:51Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, Neighborhood 1, it… I think with the new land use designations that we have in the new comp plan, one of the…

28:00Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Really nice things about those is they're not as limited. They are intended to accommodate more of a mix. I didn't go into all of the detail on this slide, but it does include

28:13Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): you know, including those elements there, like offices, other types of uses. So, it is a little more broad, it's not intended to be limited to just residential.

28:24Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): And so that, you know, looking at the map and the context of this area, that seemed to be the land use designation that made sense.

28:36ml robles, PB: Yeah, it feels like this is an anomaly in Neighborhood 1, because even the small-scale businesses, offices, etc, are intended to serve the local community members, and I think that's a reach to make that assumption there, but…

28:52ml robles, PB: I see why it happened. It just seems like it's an anomaly, and

28:58ml robles, PB: I was curious as to staff's thinking. Thank you for that. I have a question about the, proposed zoning.

29:07ml robles, PB: So, if we look at the zoning map on what exists.

29:13ml robles, PB: Directly adjacent to it, and sharing that, east property line, is an RM2.

29:20ml robles, PB: Why… Isn't this being considered as an RM2?

29:26Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah,

29:28Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): The applicant's, you know, zoning request, I believe, came in for RM3. RM2 and RM3 are…

29:36Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): extremely similar zoning districts. There's very little difference there. I believe RM3 is…

29:46Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): maybe just a tad, more lenient in a couple of ways, but they're just extremely similar. So staff would have really been supportive of either of those zoning districts.

30:01ml robles, PB: So, the adjacency… the immediate adjacency is not as, is not necessarily a big driver of that, if there's… if they're that similar.

30:12Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, they're very similar and there's other RM3s kind of in that same area you can see on the…

30:19ml robles, PB: No, right, right.

30:20Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): in the East, so…

30:21ml robles, PB: I'm just looking at what's exactly adjacent to it. Okay, those are my two questions, or my number of questions. Thank you so much.

30:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max or Mason?

30:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Questions?

30:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I still have two, if I may. What are the street conditions at this site and in the surrounding already annexed areas? So I'm interested in things like sidewalks and…

30:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If they're not there, does the applicant need to provide them as part of an annexation?

30:52Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I believe, staff looked at those transportation conditions. I don't believe there was any that staff identified that the applicant would need to install as part of this, so that was not a requirement that staff recommended with this annexation.

31:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, and then a somewhat more general question. I recognize that we're really early in applying these new BVCP land use designations.

31:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But I do note, from this map that we're looking at right now, that there is quite a bit of, RM, the various RMs in this neighborhood one. Is staff finding generally that RM zones are consistent with Neighborhood 1?

31:36Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, that's my understanding, is that there is…

31:40Speaker 3 (Board & Commissions): the new land use designations are intended to be much more broad, so there can be overlap there, whereas the previous ones were much more, fine-grained. So, yes, there… that was what we found, that it was consistent with that zone. Okay.

31:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant?

32:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, let's invite the applicant to give their presentation.

32:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Just one moment, I'll get that pulled up for you. Great, thank you.

32:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Shannon, and good evening, board. My name is Matthew Campbell, I'm the Deputy.

32:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Deputy Director at the Native American Rice Fund.

32:31Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight.

32:35Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): On our request to annex into the city. I have a short presentation here.

32:39Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, you can go to the next slide.

32:42Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): So the Native American Rights Fund has a long history, and ties to the city of Boulder. We were founded in 1970 in California.

32:52Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): But they realized very quickly we needed to move closer to Indian Country and reservations, and found that Boulder was an ideal place, close to an airport that could get to many different places on Native American reservations in different parts of the West relatively easily.

33:10Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And that there was a law school here, CU, that was agreeable to working with us, so we moved to Boulder in 1971.

33:18Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And have been here ever since. We were at a location at 1506 Broadway, right next to the Limelight Hotel.

33:26Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): But when CU was looking at developing that, we decided it was time to find a new location, given the development there, and have moved down the street.

33:36Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): We are a nonprofit law firm dedicated to representing Native American tribes, tribal nations, and Native people all across the country on issues of major importance, so on treaty rights, voting rights, water rights.

33:51Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): a whole range of issues that we represent Native people on. And it's kind of the biggest cases that we take, given our limited resources, so we've served hundreds of tribal nations all across the country on various issues.

34:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And our headquarters are here in Boulder. We also have an office in Anchorage, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. as well.

34:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And, we moved to our new location in 2023,

34:20Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): kind of right coming out of COVID. You can see our old building there in the picture, that's the one at 1506 Broadway, and if you go to the next slide, you can see some of the ties we've had to.

34:34Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Boulder, you know, from our founding days, see some of the old board members and staff. We always have board meetings twice a year in Boulder, and we bring in the staff to meet and discuss business, and that's some of the…

34:50Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): You can see some of the staff and some of the board members there at the old building, kind of going all the way back to the 70s.

34:58Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And then if you go to the next slide, you can see at our new location at 250 Arapahoe here, on the top is our board, for one of our recent board meetings, and then, at the other… the three other pictures are images of the inside of the new building, so…

35:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): When we moved, we renovated the entire property on the inside.

35:20Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And part of that.

35:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): included installing and investing in a new fire suppression system. There wasn't

35:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): a system there currently, and we're kind of coming out of, recently, the Marshall Fire, right? And of course, fire is a very big issue.

35:39Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): With climate change and everything, and so we felt it important to install that fire suppression system.

35:45Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And of course, what we have learned is we need to connect into the city's water lines to be able to operate that system.

35:53Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Also within NARF, you can go to the next slide, is the National Indian Law Library.

35:59Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): It's another piece of our organization that provides a service to the public within Boulder, but also nationwide. It was founded in 1972, they… and it's tied to, of course, our work as lawyers on behalf of Native people.

36:17Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): They have a small staff of 3, but they have a really unique

36:23Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): invaluable collection of Indian law materials and resources, many historic documents, tribal codes, just a wide range of.

36:33Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Resources that are available for the public to utilize, and we house

36:38Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): many of those documents within our office at 250 Arapaho.

36:45Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): We don't get a lot of in-person visits, a lot of it's online. We will occasionally get a request in person, but primarily we're, the library is, supporting the community, all across the nation, and that's online.

36:59Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And they also assist us with historical research as well, if you're looking at treaties or, you know, say the Antiquities Act of 1906, and we need congressional records or something like that, so the library is always there to assist.

37:13Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): And they are part of, our… our organization as well.

37:19Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): You can go to the next slide, and really, I think it's already been mentioned.

37:24Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): You know, the purpose of our annexation is to make sure our community, our individuals at our office are safe.

37:32Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The surrounding community is safe, and so installing that fire suppression system, of course, is something we've already invested in, and as you heard. We need to connect to the city's water lines to make sure that that is operational, and so that is our goal here, and our request to annex into the city.

37:52Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Just to answer a couple questions, there is sidewalks already there. You might… if you've been there, it's kind of right at Arapahoe. It's near where it ends, and it's kind of the one-way portion right there.

38:04Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): right by, a roundabout and by the park, so there are sidewalks, and, you know, I will just note we don't plan on, redeveloping. We've been…

38:15Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): We were at the old building for 50 years, and hope to stay at the new building for as long, and be, of course.

38:21Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): a part of the Boulder community. So, with that, I think that's, I'll stand for questions, if there are any.

38:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Do any Board members have questions for the applicant?

38:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

38:43Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So, you just said that you have no plans for redevelopment.

38:49Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): What was the genesis from moving from Broadway to the 250 site?

38:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And so there was a move, and that site is being redeveloped, etc. So, just what was the genesis for the move?

39:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To 250 a wrap up.

39:05Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, the primary driver around that was the construction of the Limelight Hotel.

39:11Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Which is right south of our current building, and so it was the traffic and the noise, you know, we're kind of… we're a law firm, and so.

39:22Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): That would bring in a lot of changes to how our operations were, and so, we ended up

39:29Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): coming to an agreement with CU to transfer and sell the property to them. So that was the real genesis of…

39:35Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): The desire to move.

39:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Do you ever see a time?

39:40Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): that you would…

39:43Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Become an entirely virtual organization without offices?

39:49Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): No, I don't see that happening. We have a remote work policy, but a lot of us are hybrid and prefer to work in person with each other. You know, the corporate officers of the organization meet regularly, so, and just the nature of our work.

40:07Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): with legal filings and things like that, I don't see that.

40:12Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Us becoming completely virtual, no.

40:19Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Do you,

40:24Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): or as an applicant.

40:27Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Are you… comfortable with.

40:31Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Did you initiate the zoning request?

40:36Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And are you comfortable with the inclusionary housing?

40:42Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): requirement of a 1.5 multiplier, should you redevelop. And I know if you don't have plans, you're thinking.

40:51Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board & Well, sure, but I'm curious, did you initiate

40:55Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): the, the zone request, and are you comfortable with the multiplier?

41:00Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I mean, I can defer to Council on that, but, I think we did, and it was in conversation, of course, with the staff, and, you know, because we don't intend to redevelop and move, I think we were comfortable with that, but I also defer to Council as well.

41:16Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Sure. Good evening, board. Brad Curl, Packard and Deer King Council for NARF.

41:24Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, we were just a little bit of history. The current neighborhood one designation was previously medium density residential.

41:32Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Which is why, you know, these numerous properties are RM2 and RM3. As staff correctly indicated, RM2 and RM3 are very, very similar. There's an RM2 immediately to the west of us. There's an RM3 immediately to the east of us across that little dirt path.

41:48Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): The… we went with RM3, frankly, it came down to the fact that the more recent properties were RM3. So the more recent properties were the 9096 Arapahoe, the Silver Saddle Motel, was more recent than the property adjacent to us in terms of annexation.

42:03Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): That's RM3, and then the property across the dirt path to the east, the most recent one, was RM3, so that's how we landed on that.

42:12Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To answer your question.

42:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Yes, thank you.

42:18Board & Commissions: Other questions for the applicant?

42:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I have one.

42:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And that is, have you done, or are you planning to do exterior fire mitigation work at this property?

42:38Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): exterior fire. I believe we've done some already in terms of, like, the landscaping and the trees and things like that. I don't know about… I don't know if, Audra, if you know, to the building itself. I don't think we have. You know, it's a stone… Speaker 2 : facade, so I think it's…

42:53Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): pretty well deters, but, I, you know, I don't have a good answer for you off the top of my head, and I'm sure we can look into that and get back to you if it's.

43:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, yeah, I'm curious because we have.

43:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): put in place some landscaping standards in wildfire zones quite recently, and I know there is a lot of interest in the city in bringing properties on that western edge of the city.

43:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): into compliance with those. So, maybe that's something that staff could also take a look at. I'm not sure if that's something we have in our application materials.

43:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any future redevelopment of the site, or, depending on changes over time to.

43:32Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): To the existing building, depending on the how extensive those changes are would require compliance in the future.

43:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so something that would pull, like, a…

43:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): A permit. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

43:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other questions for the applicant?

43:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, we will go to our public hearing then.

43:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

43:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If there are members of the public, either in the room or online, who would like to speak to the annexation proposal at 250 Arapahoe.

44:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Now would be the time to raise your hand, and Thomas, are you going to be facilitating this, or do we still have Vivian? Yes, thanks, Claudia.

44:11Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): We didn't get any advance registrations in the room, but I noticed we had a couple folks sign in or walk in late. So if anybody would like to speak for the public hearing, this is your.

44:20Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Opportunity.

44:24Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And seeing none in the room, we can move to online participants.

44:28Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): If there's anyone online that would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity to do so, and you can just let us know you would like to speak by using the raise hand function on Zoom.

44:42Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And… seeing nobody jumping at the opportunity, I'll pass it back to you, Chair.

44:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I do see one in the audience here. Could you approach the microphone, please?

44:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Or…

44:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And it's not a time for questions. It's like, does he want to speak?

44:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, yeah, this is… this is to speak to the proposal. I just had a question.

45:00Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Could you please state your full name to begin? Philip Zychek. Thank you.

45:04Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Is NARF the current owner of the property?

45:09Board & Commissions: I wasn't… Board & Clear on that.

45:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So we definitely hear your question. All right.

45:23Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, and just for some clarity, it's an opportunity to offer public comment. The board can choose to address public comments, but it's not technically a Q&A session.

45:33Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

45:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, though.

45:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Is there anyone else in line for public comment, Thomas?

45:40Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I'm not seeing any, so I'll pass it back to you.

45:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We do actually allow applicants to respond to anything that they have heard in the public hearing. So if the applicant would like to just quickly answer that question for us, we'd appreciate that.

45:53Speaker 6 (Board & Commissions): Yes, we are the current owners, yep.

45:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And if you could go ahead and turn off the mic, just touch that button.

46:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you so much and thanks for the parliamentary work around there.

46:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, I'm going to close the public hearing at this point.

46:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And we will move on to board deliberation.

46:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Shannon, could you put up the slide with our key issues, please?

46:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you so much. So we have four issues for discussion, having to do with, compliance of both the annexation and rezoning proposal, and then the land use map change. So I'm hoping we can accomplish this in one round of comments, if folks are willing.

46:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And if you are interested in, making any changes to staff's recommended motions, it would be helpful if you could flag that for us in this portion of the meeting.

46:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So.

46:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Comments from the board.

47:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max, none.

47:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

47:09Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Sure, I'll start. I find that the annexation petition complies with the applicable state annexation statutes.

47:17Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I find that it's consistent with the annexation.

47:21Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): policies in 9 to 17, I think it is.

47:27Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & and the Bvcp. And I find that neighborhood one is consistent with the applicable criteria in the Boulder Valley Comp plan.

47:38Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & and I find that the initial zoning of residential medium 3 is appropriate for the site.

47:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Quick and to the point, I see ML online. ML, are you ready?

47:50ml robles, PB: I am. My comments are…

47:53ml robles, PB: are not at all unlike what Kurt has said. But I think I will just add that, I think this project, again, being one of the first ones that comes to us, with the new BBCP, there's gonna be anomalies, right? There's gonna be anomalies, and

48:13ml robles, PB: I think that… this, zoning?

48:20ml robles, PB: And, obviously, land use.

48:25ml robles, PB: were well thought out, given that there's not going to be a perfect match. You're trying to, deal with existing, unique properties.

48:36ml robles, PB: that have been there for a long time, while the neighborhood around them perhaps has changed. So, I… I think that, the… excuse me, 3 key issues, or excuse me, 4 key issues have been met, and I have, no issues with, approving this annexation.

48:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Amal.

48:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other board members.

49:00ml robles, PB: Aye, aye, aye.

49:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max, you keep looking at me, are you gonna speak?

49:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I mean, I also find…

49:07Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Staff's, analysis to be… On point in terms of state statutes, BVC policies, BVCP, land use and zoning.

49:16Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): And I am quite comfortable making a motion right now unless the acting chair sees a reason for me not to.

49:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Would anyone else like to speak before we have a motion on the table?

49:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You are welcome to make a motion, Max.

49:29Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): All right, I make a motion to approve a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map change for the property located at 250 Arapahoe Avenue to Neighborhood 1, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact pertaining to case number LUR202400052.

49:46Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): And.

49:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I will second. Alright, we're gonna do this one at a time, since we have a second.

49:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I was gonna say.

49:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max, would you like to speak to your motion?

50:00Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I believe that I've sufficiently described my position on this.

50:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, we have a second from Mason. Mason, would you like to speak to the motion? It's all been said. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion?

50:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

50:15Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I am going to propose an amendment to one of the two motions regarding the inclusionary housing ordinance, but I'm struggling.

50:24Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): with… since the… since the inclusionary… the 1.5 multiplier to the inclusionary housing ordinance is not mentioned.

50:33Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): in either motion… I'm assuming it's the second one, which is our recommendation to Council of annexation.

50:44Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board & That's correct. Okay. When we… I'll… I'll make my amend… I'll propose my amendment

50:50Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): When we get to the next motion.

50:53Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark, and I'm glad then we have a separation of the motions. Are we ready to vote on this motion?

51:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Paola, do I need to read it again before we vote on it?

51:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Not if everyone's clear on it and doesn't object.

51:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright.

51:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any objections? Are we ready to vote? Okay, I will start on my left with Max.

51:16Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

51:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes.

51:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt. Yes.

51:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark. Yes.

51:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ml.

51:24ml robles, PB: Yes.

51:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I am also a yes.

51:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, so we have…

51:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): recommended the land use map change. We now have a potential motion, to make a recommendation regarding the annexation and initial zoning. Recommendation to City Council.

51:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is there any further discussion on this issue, or is someone ready to make a motion?

51:54Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Max, again. Sure.

51:56Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I make a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property at 250 Arapahoe Ave, with initial zoning of residential medium 3 RM3 pertaining to case number LUR2024-00052, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation

52:21Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): agreement.

52:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark, are you interested in offering an amendment before this is seconded? No, I'll second. Okay, so Mark has seconded this motion.

52:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max, would you like to speak to the motion?

52:37Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I believe that I've made my position clear.

52:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you very much. Mark, as the seconder, would you like to speak to the motion and or offer your amendment?

52:50Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): No, I'll go ahead and offer my amendment, which I just… I'm not on the meeting, so I didn't put it in the chat. I emailed it to Thomas.

52:57Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And, I'll… Read it.

53:01Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): See if I get a second, and then… If I do… Then I'll speak to it.

53:10Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I move to amend.

53:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): The motion.

53:16Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To modify the inclusionary housing benefit.

53:20Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So that it will be determined when and if redevelopment is proposed by the applicant.

53:27Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): the multiplier of the then-current IH requirement

53:32Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): will be no lower than 1, and no greater than 1.5, as determined by City Council, based on a recommendation by the Planning Board at the time of redevelopment.

53:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So I think we're gonna get this up on the screen.

53:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If folks want a chance to read that.

54:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, this is a motion to amend.

54:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): The recommendation to City Council.

54:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

54:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'll second that.

54:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Seconded by Max.

54:23Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Could you just help with the wording here for how you…

54:26Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I ad-libbed, I wrote it, and then when I'm making a motion to amend, it was like, yeah, so I ad-libbed.

54:40Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I know you began with motion to modify the inclusionary housing benefit. There we go.

54:46Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay, motion to modify the inclusionary housing benefit.

54:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So that… It will be determined.

55:00Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): When and if redevelopment is proposed by the applicant.

55:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yeah. Mark, is this the form that you'd like to have it in now?

55:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, and Max, you're comfortable seconding this?

55:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay. Mark, you're welcome to speak to it. So…

55:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I find this, this number… of 1.5 to be

55:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I don't know if it's a great number, I don't know if it's a terrible number. It… the applicant doesn't seem to have any plans to redevelop, but to today.

55:32Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): say…

55:35ml robles, PB: Hmm.

55:35Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And the BBCP says, we want to encourage annexation of this type of property.

55:41Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Our new BBCP says we encourage this.

55:45Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board & And we… and it also encourages

55:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): good community benefit. But to today say.

55:53Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): We want… we will see a 1.5 multiplier of the inclusionary housing benefit Is both presumptuous based on.

56:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Gee, is that on site? What is our housing situation in the future? What is our office situation in the future?

56:11Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I just find it to be weirdly presumptuous, and and have no basis.

56:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): in anything that, so far, no one has been able to give a rationale or a reason for such a number. And, I would like to see it, be up to future planning boards, future city council, based on information at the time of proposed redevelopment.

56:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mark. Max, would you like to speak to this?

56:44Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I actually think it's a great idea, Mark.

56:48Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): It… We obviously want to have the community benefit, but we're already seeing, areas where…

56:55Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): development is strained because of policies like this, and I think that having flexibility in the name of posterity could only be a good thing. Well, the applicant clearly is not, or has stated that they have no plan to redevelop this. You know, times change. Five years down the line, this could just be a kind of pass from us to a future planning board, allowing a little bit of flexibility.

57:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Max. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment to the recommendation? Kurt?

57:24Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Well, I would love to hear from the city attorney about whether this would. This seems like something that you could work with and that staff could work with.

57:37Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I think we could put…

57:39Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Work without annexation agreements are negotiated. We would have to speak with the applicant about it and come up with.

57:44Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But exact language.

57:46Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): It does seem to be very similar to the requirement of a future annexation agreement amendment. Not all

57:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Development applications for development of the property.

57:58Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): will likely require that there is planning board involvement or council involvement, and this

58:04Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): would require that no matter what's proposed in terms of residential development, there would be a hearing in front of the Planning Board and City Council.

58:14ml robles, PB: Hmm.

58:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Can I ask one other question? The way it's framed, it says.

58:20Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & So that it will be determined when and if redevelopment is proposed by the applicant. Board & Would it be better to say…

58:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): just when and if redevelopment is proposed, because the property could sell, and then a subsequent property owner could redevelop. So it's not really the applicant redeveloping, right?

58:41Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Board & Is that problematic? Or am I over reading it?

58:44Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That's something that we can address in the agreement. The agreement applies to future property owners.

58:53Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Could this be crafted in such a way that if it's 1.5, it doesn't need to go back?

58:58Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): to Council, or… If it's 1.5 and…

59:02Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that works at the time of redevelopment, it does not. And something is proposed that doesn't require planning board or council.

59:10Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Then it could be approved without coming back.

59:14Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Preferably.

59:14Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): If it was one under this wording, it would need to go back.

59:19Speaker 7 (Board & Commissions): Can you say that again? I thought I heard, and I might be just misunderstanding, but I thought I heard you say that.

59:24Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Worded as is, it will require the applicant to go to city council or a future planning board.

59:31Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, because it…

59:33Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): There still has to be a determination later by… with the recommendation.

59:37Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Decision by Council on whether… what the actual…

59:41Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): IH requirement will be. And one is… is already required under… at least under today's code, because there wouldn't be a change to what the regulatory requirement is. But anything between 1 and 1.5, that's above 1.

59:58Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Would still have to be set.

1:00:03Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Right, I guess what I'm trying to get at is in some cases I could see.

1:00:07Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): coming to Planning Board or having to go to Council being more onerous than doing a 1.5, so the applicant might, or whoever in the future, might rather have the situation where they just do 1.5 and call it good.

1:00:20Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): And what I'm asking is, is there a way to word this to where if they choose the 1.5,

1:00:27Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): If they're okay with that upon development, could they avoid

1:00:32Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Or are we just getting way too over-engineering on this thing?

1:00:36Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah.

1:00:37Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): What we've experienced in the past is if… if it's difficult for an applicant to meet the inclusionary housing requirement or a community benefit requirement, then the applicant will typically propose an amendment to the annexation agreement, which then

1:00:51Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): causes… A recommendation by the Planning Board and approval by City Council of any such request.

1:00:59Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): So if I heard that right, if we leave it, if we don't do this, if we leave it at 1.5, but then they decide to go lower, then it would come back anyway, effectively getting to the solution that I'm looking for. That's right.

1:01:12Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Mason. Emil, you had your hand up. Did you still have a question or comment?

1:01:17ml robles, PB: No.

1:01:18ml robles, PB: No, I… my question's been answered, thank you.

1:01:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thank you. Mark, any further commentary? I saw your mic on.

1:01:25Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Okay, are folks ready to vote on this proposed amendment?

1:01:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I am going to start online with ml this time.

1:01:35ml robles, PB: So we are looking at the amendment.

1:01:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We are looking at the amendment.

1:01:38ml robles, PB: Online there, on the screen. No.

1:01:42Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Mark? Yes.

1:01:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:01:53Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:01:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason.

1:01:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No.

1:01:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Max.

1:01:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:02:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm a no.

1:02:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that is 3 3.

1:02:06Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): The motion fails.

1:02:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Motion fails.

1:02:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Are there any additional Amendments to the main motion.

1:02:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, could we get the main motion back on the screen, please?

1:02:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Any additional comments or discussion on the second motion on the screen here?

1:02:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I will reread the motion, and then we'll move to a vote.

1:02:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have a motion on the table to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property at 250 Arapahoe Avenue.

1:02:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): with initial zoning of residential medium 3, RM3, pertaining to case number LUR2024-00052, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation, as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement.

1:03:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I will start on my left this time with Max.

1:03:18ml robles, PB: Claudia, did we get a second for that motion?

1:03:21Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): This motion has already been seconded. We took a little detour to discuss a proposed amendment and we are back to the main motion.

1:03:27ml robles, PB: Thank you for that.

1:03:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yep, we need a flow chart sometimes. Max. Yes. Okay, Mason.

1:03:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:03:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt? Yes. Mark? Yes. ML?

1:03:40ml robles, PB: Yes.

1:03:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm a yes.

1:03:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that motion passes 6-0. Speaker 3 : Madam Chair?

1:03:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Can I say something real quick?

1:03:49Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Please. Just want to thank Mark for his thought out motion. I agree with the flexibility and your points. I didn't feel like it got us to where we needed to go. So sorry for voting against it.

1:03:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): But you voted no. I know.

1:04:00Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): I don't think… I agree with the problem that you brought up, I don't think it had… gave the solution that it needed. Okay, thanks.

1:04:09Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you for that and congratulations to the applicant. You're moving on to city council now for final approval of these things.

1:04:24Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Our folks… Willing to plow ahead to our next agenda item.

1:04:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right.

1:04:35Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, agenda item 5B.

1:04:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): is a public hearing and consideration of the following related to an area of land at 2290 Emerald Road. One, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, BVCP land use map change, designation change from rural lands.

1:04:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): To neighborhood 1.

1:04:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And two, a recommendation to City Council on a petition to annex approximately.

1:05:03ml robles, PB: I launched.

1:05:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): 097 acre on a place.

1:05:06ml robles, PB: Hamster?

1:05:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ML.

1:05:11ml robles, PB: I'm sorry, I'm talking to my cat.

1:05:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Two, a recommendation to City Council on a petition to annex approximately .97-acre enclave with an initial zoning of Rural Residential 1, or RR1.

1:05:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Case number LUR2025-00062.

1:05:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Before we begin with this item, do any board members need to disclose any conflict of interest?

1:05:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Around 2290 Emerald Road.

1:05:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:05:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We will then start with a staff presentation.

1:05:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I think we have Alex here for that.

1:06:01Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Wait a second, I get it queued up.

1:06:25Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:06:26Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Good evening, Planning Board. I'm Alex Pichaz, Senior City Planner here tonight to present an.

1:06:31Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): annexation application for 2290 Emerald Road.

1:06:34Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The applicant is requesting the annexation of the existing single-family home with the intent to renovate the existing detached dwelling unit under the city's buy-right zoning regulations.

1:06:48Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The public notice procedures for this application were consistent with the requirements of the land use code. Written notice was mailed to all property owners within 600 feet, and a sign was posted on the property. There were no public comments received regarding the application.

1:07:05Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The annexation review process requires compliance with state annexation statutes and policies of the BVCP.

1:07:13Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): State statute allows for annexation through a simplified procedure referred to as a unilateral annexation. The comp plan provides a framework for annexation and urban service provisions within the city.

1:07:24Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): If a property is annexed, initial zoning is established consistent with the land use map of the comp plan. As a result of the new comp plan update, annexation requires a change to the future land use map. An annexation agreement is required to establish the terms and conditions of the annexation, and the terms are based on the amount of development potential for the property.

1:07:43Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The planning board must review the annexation proposal to make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not the annexation and land use map change should be approved, and the terms, conditions, and zoning that should be applied.

1:07:58Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): 2290 Emerald Road is a 0.97 acre property located in the Githens Acres subdivision in North Boulder.

1:08:06Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): It's just north of Centennial Middle School and adjacent to the sports fields.

1:08:11Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): In this map, you can see the city limits outlined in red around the neighborhood, creating an area of unincorporated county land within city limits.

1:08:20Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The property is in the North Boulder subcommunity plan area and is subject to design guidelines noted in the annexation agreement regarding front entry locations and garages for residential development.

1:08:32Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): There are no identified transportation or multi-use path connections on the subject property.

1:08:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The Githens Acres subdivision is a county enclave that is slowly annexing into the city. The area first became an enclave in 1992 with a much larger perimeter, and has been shrinking since then as additional properties have annexed into the city.

1:08:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The adjacent property to the west of 2290 Emerald was the most recent to annex in 2015.

1:09:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The property contains an existing detached dwelling unit at the front of the lot. The street is rural in character without any sidewalks. There's a city sanitary sewer main in Emerald Road, but no existing water main. The property is connected to city sewer service and relies on a domestic well for water.

1:09:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The property may connect to water service when it becomes available, but at this time, there are no capital improvement plans to install new water mains in the area.

1:09:26Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): It's a fairly tree-covered lot, and the rear portion of the property slopes downhill into the Wonderland Creek floodplain area, where it backs up to the Centennial Middle School sports fields.

1:09:36Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Most of the property lies within the floodplain, which significantly constrains any future development potential.

1:09:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Wonderland Creek has been channelized underground, however, the area is still prone to surface level flooding.

1:09:48Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): As a requirement of annexation, a flood control easement is required to be dedicated to the city that covers the conveyance and high hazard zones on the property shown in pink and green on this map.

1:10:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The easement would preclude any structural development within it, and any future redevelopment will be required to be consistent with the 100 year floodplain regulations of the city's zoning code.

1:10:13Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The proposal was analyzed under the City's newly updated Comprehensive Plan. The site is located within an Area 2 Urban Edge designation on the planning area's map of the BVCP. Upon annexation, it will be designated Area 1 Urban Lands.

1:10:30Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The new comp plan designates the property as rural lands on the future land use map. This creates an additional procedural step that requires a concurrent land use map change to be approved at the time of annexation.

1:10:41Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The rural lands designation expects the land use map change to be considered at the time of annexation to apply a land use designation that reflects the new city jurisdiction in order to establish the initial city zoning designation.

1:10:53Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Staff recommends Neighborhood 1 as the new future land use designation. Neighborhood 1 is the lowest density residential land use designation, and is consistent with nearby properties that are within city limits.

1:11:07Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The initial zoning being requested is Rural Residential 1, which is consistent with the adjacent property to the west and other nearby properties. The RR1 district provides for primarily detached dwelling units with some duplexes and attached dwelling units at low to very low residential densities.

1:11:31Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The annexation terms require the applicant to dedicate a flood control easement and existing utility easements to the city, pay an inclusionary housing fee if they construct a new dwelling unit, and construct a new fire hydrant at no cost to the city on the corner of Emerald and Garnet Lane.

1:11:48Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The fire protection… fire protection was a major topic of concern during the review process, and the location for the new hydrant was decided at the approval of the fire chief.

1:12:01Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): There are four key issues identified in the staff memo. Number one, does the annexation request comply with applicable state annexation requirements? Number two, is the proposal consistent with the city's annexation and comprehensive plan policies?

1:12:15Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Does the… number 3, does the proposed change to the BBCP land use map to Neighborhood 1 meet the applicable criteria? And number 4, is the initial zoning of Rural Residential 1 appropriate for the property?

1:12:28Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): For key issue number one, the annexation petition is consistent with the state statutory and constitutional requirements. The site meets the required 1-6 contiguity to the city.

1:12:39Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): There is a community of interest to annex the property as the owners have requested to annex, and the city's annexation policy is to pursue the annexation of enclaves.

1:12:49Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): For Key Issue 2, the policies applicable to annexation are 10, 11, and 12. Policy 10 guides the annexation process and encourages the city to actively pursue the annexation of enclave properties.

1:13:01Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Policy 11 addresses the community benefit associated with annexation. The applicant will be required to pay two times the cash-in-lieu contribution for affordable housing if any additional dwelling units are built on the property unless they are deed restricted.

1:13:17Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): They're also required to dedicate a flood control easement to the city and construct a new fire hydrant at the corner of Garnett and Emerald Lane.

1:13:24Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Or, excuse me, Garnett Lane and Emerald Road.

1:13:26Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): The fire hydrant is also required to meet policy. 12 urban services provisions, so the city can provide adequate urban level fire protection to the property.

1:13:36Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Staff finds the annexation proposals to be consistent with these comp plan policies.

1:13:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): For key issue 3, the BBCP land use map change is necessary to update the existing future land use map designation from rural lands to neighborhood 1.

1:13:52Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): With the 2025 major update, properties designated as rural lands are expected to change to a non-rural designation upon annexation.

1:14:00Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): A land use map change can be considered concurrently with annexation, subject to the criteria listed on this slide.

1:14:07Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Staff find the proposal to be consistent with the criteria for a land use map change. The change is consistent with the policies and intent of the comprehensive plan, and is an expected procedural step for all new annexations currently designated rural lands.

1:14:23Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): For Key Issue 4, when a property is annexed, initial zoning will be established consistent with the goals of the land use map and the BVCP. The proposed map change will designate the property as Neighborhood 1 to allow an initial zoning of Rural Residential 1.

1:14:38Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Rural Residential 1 is a low density residential district that is consistent with the surrounding area and the Neighborhood 1 land use designation.

1:14:49Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Staff finds the proposed annexation to be consistent with the state statutes and the BVCP. Staff also finds that the initial zoning of Rural Residential 1 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed land use map designation of Neighborhood 1. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Board to adopt the following motions shown on the slide.

1:15:11Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): And that's it for my presentation, happy to take any questions.

1:15:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Alex.

1:15:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Do we have questions from the board?

1:15:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark, your mic is on.

1:15:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Anyone else?

1:15:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Giving a false.

1:15:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ml.

1:15:35ml robles, PB: Thank you. Thank you for the, presentation. I have two questions regarding inclusionary housing. I think I read in the, summary that

1:15:49ml robles, PB: This project is seeking annexation.

1:15:53ml robles, PB: for the purposes of redevelopment.

1:15:56ml robles, PB: Is that correct? And if so, would that, redevelopment of the existing house Entail an inclusionary housing fee?

1:16:07Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, they're seeking redevelopment more for renovations to the existing house, building a new single-family dwelling, but it would still maintain the one dwelling unit that's on the property?

1:16:18ml robles, PB: Would that trigger an inclusionary housing fee?

1:16:23Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): No, not rebuilding the existing dwelling. Any future dwelling units that are included on the property would be subject to the inclusionary housing fee.

1:16:31ml robles, PB: Okay, so getting to that one then, I heard that

1:16:36ml robles, PB: any additional dwellings would incur a 2.0 inclusionary housing fee. Would that apply to an ADU?

1:16:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): No. An ADU is accessory to the primary dwelling.

1:16:48ml robles, PB: Okay.

1:16:50ml robles, PB: Thank you. Those are my questions.

1:16:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thanks, Ml.

1:16:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I have one question for staff.

1:16:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And that is, some of the nearby parcels in this area are actually zoned RE, residential estate.

1:17:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, why does this annexation recommend the lower intensity RR1?

1:17:10Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): RR1 is consistent with the adjacent property to the west. There's not too much difference between RE and RR1, and for the renovation goals that the property owner has, it still allows for it to maintain the single-family dwelling.

1:17:29Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): That's also consistent with what's prescribed in the North Boulder sub-community plan as well.

1:17:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): In what sense? Because clearly, residential estate is also consistent in the surrounding area.

1:17:42Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): The North Boulder sub-community plan actually recommends zone districts.

1:17:47Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): And if memory serves me, that was consistent with the future land use that was included in the NOBO plan.

1:17:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So, specific to this enclave area? Yeah.

1:17:57Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay. How large is the developable portion of this property? I know it's significantly impacted with.

1:18:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): high hazard and conveyance zone, but what is that… what is that portion of it in the 100 and 500 year? Speaker 2 : I mean, I don't…

1:18:12Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): have an exact metric. I mean, the lot is less than 1 acre total, and it looks like the…

1:18:18Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): high hazard and conveyance zone is taking up more than half of the lot. The 100-year floodplain is on more than half of the remainder, and what's left is the… the existing house is kind of in that 500-year area.

1:18:34Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So, it's really not a lot of development potential.

1:18:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so we're running up against, I assume, minimum lot sizes.

1:18:42Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, and floodplain regulations, and because this project doesn't propose any development that's subject to, like, site review or anything like that, they're just looking for buy-right development once it's annexed. We didn't really get into the

1:18:55Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): the development details for a proposal, because there's… they didn't submit anything. Okay, thank you.

1:19:04Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:19:05Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I have a couple of follow-ups on that. First of all, with regards to the lot area.

1:19:10Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & The lot area, in terms of calculating density, for example.

1:19:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The full lot is considered right. It doesn't. We don't remove the correct. Okay.

1:19:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So it's more about buildable area than the actual intensity. Okay.

1:19:27Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, so when you factor in setbacks and floodplain and stuff like that, it kind of constrains the lot significantly.

1:19:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): The second question is, there was reference to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.

1:19:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): how, where, either in the statute or in the Boulder Valley Comp plan.

1:19:49Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Does that come in?

1:19:51Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): to an annexation.

1:19:53Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): So the terms are in the annexation agreement. They're really just kind of two design standards. It's really so front entryways face the street and garage doors don't kind of overburden the design of the house. But the subcommunity plan kind of adds more detail to the BBCP.

1:20:13Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But sorry, I wasn't clear. My question is.

1:20:17Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): what in either the Boulder Revised Code or the Boulder Valley Comp Plan.

1:20:25Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & says that we should consider the North Boulder Subcommittee plan in considering annexation.

1:20:35Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I hear your question. I don't know the code reference off the top of my head. And since the new BBCP is also.

1:20:43Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): Kind of fairly new, they're… Well, I think it's.

1:20:46Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Related to the comp plan. Yeah.

1:20:48Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I'm sure it's in there somewhere, I just… Pulling up right now.

1:20:57Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I mean, happy to get back to you on that.

1:20:59Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I think there's no specific reference to considering.

1:21:05Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): subcommunity and area plans in looking at this, but they… but the comp plan, as Alex said, talks about subcommunity and area plans

1:21:14Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): providing more planning detail than the BVCP for a certain area, and this is a legislative decision where

1:21:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): That is the kind of thing that the city can consider in terms of policy that's been set for the area when making decisions.

1:21:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): You get what you need, Kurt?

1:21:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any other questions for staff?

1:21:42Board & Commissions: Mark.

1:21:45Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Are there any?

1:21:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Designated, undesignated, formal, casual, Paths.

1:21:53Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): That allow pedestrians to connect.

1:21:57Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): from Emerald to the ball field,

1:22:02Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): of Centennial.

1:22:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): On this property.

1:22:05Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Not on this property.

1:22:08Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): But I believe there is an informal path further to the east.

1:22:11Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, there's one at Poplar, and… but…

1:22:14Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): This is a particular era of development where we… make kids

1:22:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Go very long ways in a circuitous fashion.

1:22:25Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): access their school, but anyway… Yeah. If… but there's none on this property. There are.

1:22:30Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): future connections in the area, but not on this property. Okay.

1:22:35Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:22:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Thank you, Mark. Any other questions for staff.

1:22:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Alright, do we have an applicant presentation tonight?

1:22:45Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): No presentation, but he is here if you have any questions or anything. Okay.

1:22:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Have any questions for the applicant?

1:22:54Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, let's move then to our public hearing, Thomas.

1:22:59Board & Commissions: Mmm.

1:23:04Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Chair. And we did not have anyone register in person for the public hearing, but if there's anyone here to speak to it, this is your opportunity to do so.

1:23:12Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Otherwise, we'll move to folks online.

1:23:18Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And seeing none in the room, if you're joining us online and would like to speak to the public hearing, please go ahead and raise your hand.

1:23:27Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): First up, we'll have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have 3 minutes, and you can begin when you're ready.

1:23:34lynn segal: Sounds like a go for me. Thanks, Dunn.

1:23:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Lynn.

1:23:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Any other comment from online?

1:23:47Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I'm seeing no other raised hands online.

1:23:50Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): So I'll go ahead and pass it back to you, Chair.

1:23:52Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, then we will close the public hearing and move on to Planning Board deliberation. We have four key questions for this

1:24:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): annexation proposal, I think very similar to the ones we've already seen, if not exactly the same. Thank you for putting those up on the screen.

1:24:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And let's do a quick round of comments if folks have comments.

1:24:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:24:20Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:24:21Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & I find that the annexation is consistent with the State annexation statutes, the Bvcp. And section 9, 2, 17 of the Boulder revised code.

1:24:31Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & and that the n 1 land use designation is appropriate.

1:24:35Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & However, I do not find that an initial zoning of RR1 is consistent with the criteria we have before us.

1:24:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & There are 2 main criteria for initial zoning consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp plan and the code in 9, 2, 18.

1:24:51Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & Rural residential one is an extremely low density zone with a maximum sorry, with a minimum of 30,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, and allowing few other uses than residential.

1:25:05Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): In practice, it results in very large lots, as this is, usually with very large single-unit dwellings.

1:25:14Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I see nothing in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan to justify this sort of land use, excepting the referenced consideration of sub-community plans. And much to argue against it. In particular, Policies 26, Compact Urban Form.

1:25:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): 29 15-minute neighborhoods.

1:25:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): 70, commercial activity in residential areas.

1:25:37Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & And most particularly, 82, housing diversity and supply.

1:25:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Beyond the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, we are also to consider Boulder Revised Code 9218, zoning of annexed land, in assessing the initial zoning.

1:25:53Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & But this simply reiterates that initial zoning will be consistent with the goals and land use designations of the Boulder Valley Comp plan.

1:26:00Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Which, as I just explained, I feel it is not.

1:26:04Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & The staff memo cites two other rationales for supporting RR1 zoning.

1:26:10Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & It says RR1 would be compatible with the surrounding area and adjacent property, which is zoned Rural Residential 1, Board & but neither the Boulder Valley Comp Plan nor 9218 zoning of annexed land shows this as a consideration.

1:26:30Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & In the past I have judged initial zoning for similar annexations to be consistent with the criteria.

1:26:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & But that was judged against the 2020 Boulder Valley Comp Plan midterm update.

1:26:42Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & judged against the 2025 Boulder Valley Comp plan. I find this to be inconsistent with the criteria.

1:26:49Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & overall. Therefore I find R. One not to be an appropriate initial zoning supported by the criteria.

1:26:56Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): As alternatives, I would suggest RL2 or RM2.

1:27:02Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Which allow for a slightly broader range of uses, and which at least have the possibility of resulting in more than one residential unit.

1:27:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Kurt.

1:27:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Additional comment?

1:27:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is there some way we can get ML back up on our screen, too? It'd be nice to see her.

1:27:31Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:27:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark, I see you reaching for your microphone.

1:27:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I concur with The first three,

1:27:44Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): We had four, points up that we were to address.

1:27:48Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I concur with Kurt on the first three, and I'm curious

1:27:52Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Are you planning on, proposing any modification to staff's motion to reflect your thoughts?

1:28:02Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:28:04Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:28:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you for signaling that.

1:28:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other comments?

1:28:13Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I have a few.

1:28:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I also agree this proposal meets the state requirements for annexation, satisfies the BBC policies.

1:28:23Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Regarding the pursuit of annexing enclaves, my concern is also with this initial zoning.

1:28:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Which seems to attempt to preserve the rural aspects of the property, despite the BVCP calling for more intensity at the time of annexation. And Kurt, I really appreciate you addressing this in depth.

1:28:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I don't know if it actually matters on this particular parcel, given these, hydrological impacts.

1:28:50Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But… It feels like we could be setting a different precedent for housing capacity in future annexation agreements.

1:28:59Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & in rural enclaves, and I don't know if anything radical is necessary here, especially given the guidance of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.

1:29:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I have a lot to say about that plan. I've said it elsewhere. I'm not going to repeat it here. It's 30 years old, but it is there.

1:29:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): But I think something closer to an RL1 that maybe could potentially allow for a few additional units in these neighborhoods would be more appropriate. So I am curious to hear, Kurt's…

1:29:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Modified motion, or alternate motion.

1:29:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): If we are at that point in the meeting.

1:29:36Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I can, I have,

1:29:39Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): a follow-up to Kurt's earlier question, looking at the new comp plan. There's a section on page 82, and I'm in the print version.

1:29:47Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I'm not sure if…

1:29:49Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): The online version page numbers correspond to this. It's a page about future land use designations, and it states in here.

1:29:59Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that in applying the map and the land use designations, sub-community and local area planning can support the implementation of this map to more focused areas of the community. And then a little bit further down, it says.

1:30:11Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Other references to consider when applying comprehensive plan policies and the future land use map to decisions may include, and one of them is guidance from sub-community and area plans.

1:30:23Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So, that's how I would say sub-community plans come into this decision.

1:30:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. I appreciate that. And I saw that, but I read that it's the, it's titled how to use the future land use designations and map.

1:30:38Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & So that to me doesn't relate to the zoning. Board & It just relates to the land use designation.

1:30:46Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, but the land use designation and map inform the zoning.

1:30:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And the initial zoning has to be consistent with the BVCP and the land use map.

1:31:00Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Right. I would certainly agree with that. Okay, thank you.

1:31:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Any additional Comments, questions, discussion amongst board members?

1:31:15Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, thank you for your comments, Claudia. I… I agree that probably this is just a matter of principle on this case because of the constraints, but I also feel, yeah, that it's important to be

1:31:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): To…

1:31:33Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): to abide by the criteria, and the criteria don't include a consideration of, gee, how much of the lot is actually, you know, developable, how much is, is constrained by

1:31:49Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): flood or other considerations or whatever. And, so I think that that… it what you're talking about with regards to the precedent.

1:32:00Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So, thank you for that.

1:32:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & Mason.

1:32:03Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Is this an appropriate time to ask Kurt questions or should I wait till the motion?

1:32:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I think this is an appropriate time for questions. Thank you.

1:32:11Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Is there any… situation in which You would consider this zoning.

1:32:22Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): reasonable.

1:32:26Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Reading the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, I do not find RR1 zoning to be consistent with the 2025 comp plan in any way, shape, or form.

1:32:38Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Interesting. Okay.

1:32:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thanks for that question, Mason.

1:32:43Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So…

1:32:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have been asked to give guidance on two issues that are reflected in the staff motions. I wonder if we can get those up on the screen.

1:32:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & So, guidance on a land use map change, and then on annexation and initial zoning.

1:33:14Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Who wanted the key issues? Could we get the staff recommended motions, please? Oh, the motions, okay.

1:33:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. And I'd like to ask the board, I'd like to invite a motion, either the staff recommended or an alternate motion, if one is forthcoming.

1:33:30Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:33:32Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Are you okay with splitting it up again?

1:33:35Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes. Awesome.

1:33:37Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay, I move to approve a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan… Boulder Valley Comprehensive

1:33:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): plan, I think, land use map change for the property located at 2290 Emerald Road to Neighborhood 1, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact pertaining to case number LUR2025-00062.

1:33:59ml robles, PB: I'll second that.

1:34:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, we have a motion and a second.

1:34:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt, would you like to speak to the motion?

1:34:07Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Well, no, as I already said, I mean, yes, I guess.

1:34:11Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): As I already said, I think that, the annexation is appropriate, and the neighborhood one land use designation is appropriate.

1:34:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ML, would you like to speak to the motion?

1:34:22ml robles, PB: I'm in agreement. I think Neighborhood 1 is the perfectly logical, land use.

1:34:30ml robles, PB: To apply to this.

1:34:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Any additional comments?

1:34:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): On motion number 1 here.

1:34:39Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, let's move to a vote. I'm going to start online with ml.

1:34:43ml robles, PB: Yes.

1:34:45Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark. Yes.

1:34:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:34:48Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Oops, yeah.

1:34:49Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes. Max. Yes. And I am also a yes.

1:34:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): That motion passes 6-0.

1:34:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & All right, now we're moving on to guidance on the annexation and initial zoning.

1:35:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt has a motion.

1:35:12Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property.

1:35:17Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & located at 2290 Emerald Road, with an initial zoning designation of Rural Residential 1 pertaining to case number LUR2025-00062,

1:35:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation, as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement.

1:35:41ml robles, PB: I'll second that.

1:35:41Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Someone's, oh.

1:35:43ml robles, PB: Oh, sorry, are we looking for a second?

1:35:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I am recognizing Mark.

1:35:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you.

1:35:47ml robles, PB: Thank you.

1:35:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Before anyone seconds that.

1:35:50Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I presume… That this would be.

1:35:54Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Moved and seconded, and then you would amend.

1:35:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board & Might it, in this case, just be simpler

1:36:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): To substitute your proposed zone in the main motion.

1:36:09Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, I was considering that. That would be fine if people would prefer. I thought it would be.

1:36:16Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): simpler, maybe, or clearer, at least, to have the staff motion.

1:36:23Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And then an amendment to that chair. Madam Chair, would you have any.

1:36:29Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I'm going to actually turn to staff on this. I think I would also, like Mark, prefer to see this offered as a

1:36:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): as a straight alternative motion, but I want to make sure that we are taking action on the items that we are being asked to take action on, if that makes sense, if we need to address this particular recommendation of RR1 on its own merits.

1:37:01Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I…

1:37:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And again, I'm not speaking for staff or anyone else, but

1:37:08Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Board & I don't think there is a difference.

1:37:12Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Let's just say we went to…

1:37:15Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): You propose zoning X.

1:37:19Board & Commissions: In this motion.

1:37:22Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And the board disagreed with you.

1:37:25Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): we would… Vote that motion down.

1:37:28Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And someone else would make this motion.

1:37:31Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): for the zoning, as staff recommends. So, I think it's a distinction without a difference whether we make this motion, and then immediately move to amend it, or just make the motion clean

1:37:45Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): currently.

1:37:47Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Kurt. My thoughts were just twofold. One, to avoid having to repeat the whole motion, potentially multiple times, for multiple zoning districts. And secondly, if it were a separate amendment, it might be a little clearer to Council as they're reading this, that

1:38:06Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes, this is the difference from the initial… from the initial staff proposal.

1:38:12Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:38:16Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And I'll second your motion. Okay, we have.

1:38:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have a motion and a second, and I believe that you may have poached that second from ML, but I'll let you know if ML wants to address that offline with her. I'll let her have it.

1:38:30ml robles, PB: I'm good. Go ahead, Mark.

1:38:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, so we have a motion and a second. Kurt, would you like to speak to the motion?

1:38:41Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Or would you like to offer your amendment to your own motion at this point?

1:38:44Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, well, I, I just, to move things along, I made the motion, but yes, I would like to propose an amendment, which would, is to change Rural Residential 1

1:38:58Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): RR1 in this motion to RL2, rural low 2.

1:39:09Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Just to be clear, that was a motion to amend.

1:39:12Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): That was a motion to amend.

1:39:14Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:39:15Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I second that motion.

1:39:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have a motion to amend. We have a second to that motion. Kurt, would you like to speak to the amendment?

1:39:22Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So, I'm waiting on… Thomas, do I need to send that to you?

1:39:29Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): I was just documenting it. And it's okay. But It's pretty brief. Okay. Yeah.

1:39:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So we're discussing an amendment to change this to RL2 in our recommendation. Yeah. Kurt, go ahead.

1:39:43Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): So, as I described, earlier, I think that R1 is not an appropriate, land use designation. I think RL2, which allows for… it's still quite limited, but it allows for a slightly broader set of uses, and slightly more intensity, would be appropriate, for this area.

1:40:02Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And I'm happy to consider other options, but, I thought that I would…

1:40:10Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Board & put out RL2 as an initial, as an initial idea for the board to consider.

1:40:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Kurt. Mark, as a seconder to the amendment, would you like to speak? I'll simply say.

1:40:21Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): that

1:40:22Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): This is one of these instances where, on the surface, it might seem like a distinction without a difference in practical terms.

1:40:30Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): However, the BBCP that we had just spent so much time working on.

1:40:35Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And have recently adopted, is both aspirational and based in principle. It is based in a forward-looking set of goals and policies. And so, if in fact.

1:40:51Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): We do something that doesn't fulfill

1:40:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): those goals and policies. Though it may not… it might be up to minimal or no effect.

1:41:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I think it's important to honor the work we've done, and which is extensive and reflects many hours on staff and

1:41:13Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): this board, the community council. So, anyway, that's why I'm supporting that change.

1:41:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Would anyone else like to speak to the amendment? I see ML's hand.

1:41:25ml robles, PB: Yes, I have a question actually for staff. I'm looking at the zoning map in our packet, and I don't see RL2 anywhere in the vicinity.

1:41:37ml robles, PB: Would this be considered spot zoning?

1:41:41Speaker 12 (Board & Commissions): I think by best practices from the AICP, that would be a yes.

1:41:47ml robles, PB: Does legal have any concerns about us doing spot zoning?

1:41:55Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Spot zoning.

1:41:57Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Somebody might bring a spot zoning challenge if there is an individual lot like this.

1:42:06Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Generally, what's looked at in a spot zoning challenge by a court is whether or not the zoning…

1:42:18Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): follows… the plan, the community's, comprehensive plan.

1:42:25Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So I think there is an argument here.

1:42:28Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that Kurt is making, that the comprehensive plan is new, and we're applying that. There are probably also arguments on the other side, based on the surrounding circumstances and the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan.

1:42:45Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But I think there is also a good argument that the Comp Plan is the newest document that's been adopted.

1:42:54Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): But there is some risk associated with that.

1:42:57ml robles, PB: Right.

1:42:57ml robles, PB: Okay, thank you.

1:43:00Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you, Amal.

1:43:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Other discussion of this amendment?

1:43:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Are we ready to vote?

1:43:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason, I saw you pull your mic down. Yeah.

1:43:12Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): This is just a comment that doesn't necessarily need a response, but… I'm not necessarily in disagreement, with what you all said, but what I heard is that we essentially have a zoning.

1:43:25Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): In our… Laws and, you know, in our neighbor… in our community, that is no longer…

1:43:34Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Aligned with the Bullet Valley Comp Plan.

1:43:38Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): So it feels like a bigger can of worms.

1:43:41Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Here, frankly, that's being opened up. I know that's probably overthinking it, as we are off to do on this board.

1:43:49Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): But, yeah, that's just my brain dump.

1:43:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): My thoughts on that are we are not taking away rural residential one zoning from any parcel. This is a new zoning.

1:44:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And the question is, should we be applying that

1:44:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & That zoning district to new.

1:44:11Board & Commissions: newly zoned areas.

1:44:16Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): No, no, saying there is no zoning, there is no city zoning at this parcel at this moment.

1:44:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): It's not being moved away from an RR1. It is being zoned initially.

1:44:26Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): 100% understood. But what what I just heard is all the other on the map and I'm sure elsewhere within the city those parcels are not aligned with the Boulder Valley Comp Land.

1:44:39Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): They're not being, they are not asking for annexation.

1:44:46Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, and I think that annexation is, it's very much a different animal, right, from, for instance, a site review where we explicitly are told to consider area plans. They're not necessarily binding.

1:45:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): question. But

1:45:03Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But there's no specific reference to the sub-community plans or area plans in the annexation… what the criteria that we're to consider in annexation. So, I feel like it is definitely a different animal.

1:45:21Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): If I may speak to that, I do think there has to be a consistent application of findings of what is consistent with the comprehensive plan or not.

1:45:31Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): So you are making a finding whether the initial zoning.

1:45:35Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): that's applied would be consistent with the goals and policies of the plan and the land use map.

1:45:42Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And that should be applied consistently.

1:45:46Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Not just for initial zoning, but

1:45:49Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Consistently through site review, application, and so forth.

1:45:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:46:00Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Max? Yeah, I guess… might as well throw my two cents into this.

1:46:05Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I… I'm hearing what…

1:46:07Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): you know, Mason is saying is, like, is RR1, you know, fundamentally incompatible with the BVCP? And I think maybe

1:46:17Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): of miscommunication that I might be picking up on is, is RR1 fundamentally incompatible with an annexation into the city? And that there's a… there's a pretty important delineation there that's worth noting, and…

1:46:31Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Actually, I do understand Kurt's point that perhaps with that reading of the BVCP.

1:46:38Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): it… any RR1 annexation is fundamentally incompatible, because as a community benefit, and with all of the outlined policies of the BVCP, it… it…

1:46:50Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): is incompatible, it cannot be done. And kind of making progress towards addressing these incompatibilities is just our duty as a board, to Mark's point. So, regardless of the applicant's intentions with the land, I think it does set a good…

1:47:07Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): Precedent for consistency, moving forward, that…

1:47:10Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): We interpret the BVCP to be incompatible with RR1 annexations, period.

1:47:18Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Yes, and thank you.

1:47:20Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): What Hela just said is the reason for the incompatibility is that it's not compatible with the BVCP, which means if it were to come, like, in site review, where we have to find compatibility with BVCP, we would need to be consistent there as well. So it's not just annexation.

1:47:36Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): It's also site review.

1:47:38Speaker 11 (Board & Commissions): Is what I think I just heard you say.

1:47:42Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Yeah, and I…

1:47:43Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): I'm specifically also referring to, I think Kurt said that he finds RR1 to not be consistent with a Neighborhood 1 land use designation.

1:47:55Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): And if that is… If that's how you're applying

1:48:01Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): the land use map, then that should be applied that way consistently.

1:48:10Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): and I guess that's why I'm making the very important delineation, is an annexation of RR1 incompatible with the BVCP, and I think that that's a much more clear stance to take at this point.

1:48:31Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Gotcha.

1:48:32Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yeah. And just in response to to Heller's Heller's point.

1:48:36Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): yeah, I… I do find that R1 is inconsistent with Neighborhood 1, but we have inconsistencies all over between zoning and land use, right? And those can last

1:48:51Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): forever. And so it's not like we're going through and changing zoning, en masse to bring it in… into consistency with the land use.

1:49:01Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): the land use designation, so I don't find it any different than, you know, if the land use designation is

1:49:09Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Is industrial, and there's a detached

1:49:14Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): single unit house there, you know? Sorry, and it's zoned RL1, or whatever. That, again, it's just an inconsistency with the land use designation.

1:49:28Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I appreciate your points there, Max, and I also see, an expectation in the current BVCP that when we move land into the city as an annexation, that there is an expectation that it moves out of those rural categories and into

1:49:44Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): More quote-unquote urban.

1:49:47Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): land uses. And so I appreciate that distinction, even if we're not setting precedent about the overall future of RR1 as it exists, but whether we should be doing this on annexations.

1:50:02Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Board & Is there any further comment before we vote on this amendment?

1:50:06Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I think we've aired most of the… Concerns about it.

1:50:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, so I'm going to move to a vote on this amendment to the main motion. The amendment, is to change the recommendation from Rural Residential 1 to Residential Low 2.

1:50:26Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm going to start voting this time with Max.

1:50:32Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:50:34Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes.

1:50:36Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Kurt.

1:50:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:50:38Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark. Yes.

1:50:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): ml.

1:50:41ml robles, PB: Yes.

1:50:42Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I'm also a yes.

1:50:46Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So we have accepted this amendment to the main motion.

1:50:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Is there a way that we can get our amended?

1:50:55Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Motion.

1:50:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Onto the screen, Thomas.

1:51:00Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): I believe we would typically just read the main motion again, and then…

1:51:06Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): As amended by the planning board. Okay.

1:51:10Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Are folks ready to vote on the main motion as amended? I'm seeing yeses. Alright, so I'm going to read the main motion, along with Thomas' suggested language, and then we will vote.

1:51:19Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We have a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 2290 Emerald Road, with an initial zoning designation of Rural Residential 1RR1,

1:51:33Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Pertaining to case number LUR2025-00062, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation, as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement.

1:51:48Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And as amended by the Planning Board on October 6th, 2026.

1:51:56Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We are ready to vote.

1:51:58Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): And I will start online with ml.

1:52:01ml robles, PB: Yes.

1:52:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark? Yes. Kurt?

1:52:05Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Yes.

1:52:07Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mason. Yes. Max. Yes. I'm also a yes.

1:52:11Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that is 6-0. We recommend this to City Council.

1:52:17Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): I want to thank the applicant for being here, listening to us debate much larger issues than your individual parcel. We are very much in the beginning phases of this new BVCP, so we are discussing a lot of larger implications.

1:52:37Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): So that is the end of our public hearing items.

1:52:40Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): We can move on to item 6 on our agenda, which is matters from the planning board, planning director, and or city attorney. I'm going to start with the board.

1:52:51Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Do we have any matters from the board?

1:52:59Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): Staff. Charles? Nothing from staff tonight, thank you. Nothing from staff.

1:53:03Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Hello.

1:53:03Speaker 10 (Board & Commissions): Nothing from me?

1:53:04Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Nothing from the attorney.

1:53:08Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Mark.

1:53:10Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I feel the need to divulge something.

1:53:15Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): How long do we need here, Mark? Not long. Fabulous.

1:53:20Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): We had, an item that was

1:53:24Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Up for call-up consideration. And that item went away.

1:53:30Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): When we received, an email from someone urging the planning board to call it up.

1:53:40Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I replied to her, Strictly with the section of the code, that

1:53:47Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Noted that an aggrieved party or any two interested persons may call up any item.

1:53:56Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): And I sent that to… I sent…

1:53:58Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I copied… I cut and pasted the code.

1:54:01Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Sent it to her in an email.

1:54:03Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): she asked me a reply, and I declined to answer. I… I said, Dr. Shannon, and… but anyway, I… I… I sent them, I made them aware of that provision in the code, and

1:54:18Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): I don't… I don't even know if…

1:54:20Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): this person and another person are who, called… I don't know anything about what happened, but I suspect that, by informing her of that provision in the code.

1:54:35Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): That… They called it up.

1:54:38Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): those two people. So, anyway, that was… that was that, and it wasn't because I wanted it to be called up, or didn't want it to be called up. I just thought, as a citizen, they need to be aware of that provision in the code, which I find peculiar, but it's… it's Boulder as our code. So, anyway, I'm just divulging that.

1:54:59Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): And to be clear, I believe the item was not called up. It was just taken off for the applicant to make some changes before it goes through the process. Yes. Charles can clarify. Yeah, it was.

1:55:12Speaker 8 (Board & Commissions): removed from the agenda at the applicant's request.

1:55:16Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): Okay.

1:55:17Speaker 5 (Board & Commissions): So I didn't have anything to do with it.

1:55:20Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Well, we'll see if it comes back to us in the future, Mark. Okay.

1:55:23Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): You can undivulge that.

1:55:27Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Thank you. Thomas, do we need to do a calendar check? Sure, yeah. Just looking.

1:55:32Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): forward to the,

1:55:33Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): holidays here coming up, we are gonna go ahead and cancel our third week, or our fourth Tuesday.

1:55:41Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): tentative meetings that are on Thanksgiving and Christmas week.

1:55:45Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): So that's, November 24th, we will not have a meeting, and December 22nd, we'll go ahead and cancel that one as well. Okay, thank you.

1:55:54Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And we have no meeting next week.

1:55:56Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): Correct. Amazingly.

1:55:58Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): But within the following week, the 20th? Yes, we'll be back.

1:56:01Speaker 2 (Board & Commissions): Back on the 20th. Okay.

1:56:03Speaker 4 (Board & Commissions): And I may or may not be able to make that one, but I will let you know.

1:56:07Speaker 9 (Board & Commissions): I know that we're all trauma-bonded to this dais, and I hope that a Tuesday off does not confuse and destroy us.

1:56:14ml robles, PB: I will be absent at the October 20th meeting.

1:56:18Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): Okay, thanks for letting us know, ML.

1:56:22Speaker 1 (Board & Commissions): All right, if there's no further business, I will declare us adjourned at 7.56 PM. Have a good night.

1:56:29ml robles, PB: Thank you.

1:56:30Board & Commissions: What?