Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning, Claudia. Good morning to Claudia, and good evening to everybody else. Today is July 28, 2026, and welcome to this meeting of the City of Boulder Planning Board. I call this meeting to order, and we'll do a brief roll call. There are five of us in the room tonight. To my right, Mark McIntyre, Kurt Nordback. To my left, Mason Roberts and Max Lord. I am Laura Kaplan, the chair. I see our vice chair, Claudia Hanson-Thiem, online. And it looks like ML Robles is absent tonight. So we are six of seven tonight. We have just two items on the agenda, one call up for our consideration around the North Boulder Library, and then our one public hearing tonight will be around the annexation request for a property on Cherryvale and another on McSorley Lane that are combined together in one request. We'll get to that in just a minute. But we will start tonight with our public participation. This isn't a chance for anyone to comment on any item that is not a hearing item on the agenda. So anything except that annexation request out on Cherryvale. So I will turn it over to Thomas to lead the public participation unless we have someone else online to do it.

Thanks, Laura. I'm just gonna be the one walking us through this tonight. And first of all, I'll pull up the slideshow that we go over. Is that? Well, okay, this will work. First of all, we want you to know that the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. more information about this vision and the community engagement process you can visit our website at the link below and the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision 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 Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by. It must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. When we call for speakers, you can let us know you'd like to speak by clicking the raise hand icon on the bottom of your screen if you're calling into the meeting to press start on and on your phone to raise your hand. And if you don't see that raise hand icon you can click the reactions button to expand that and then you'll see a raise hand button there. So with that we're going to call for anybody that would like to speak for the open comment portion of the meeting again that's items that are not on tonight's agenda. If you would like to speak to this, please go ahead and raise your hand, and you'll have three minutes to speak. And first up, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Yeah, I get it about the airport. You know what? I finally get it. The airport's not decided. It's not decided at all. It's not decided until the first vote on the funding. And that will be with the $137,000 in September. So I don't know, you know, if it was just that Mark Wallach didn't understand that or what, because he hasn't lost anything. There was no, you know, there's no such thing as, as anything less than perpetuity for the airport. There's no prayer that you guys have on the planning board for that $500 million that you're looking forward to without maybe a billion that we spend getting to $500 million in 2040. I was just astounded by that whole airport thing. But you know what really astounds me, and you know I'm talking about the same old, same old, is the passion for pushing more housing into a market that is saturated, that is inelastic, and that only means more money. And my taxes are high enough. And the city of Boulder is trying to stick $400 million more on me. And the county is trying to go for more for child care. Of course I care about child care. I just care who pays for it. And let the developers that come before this planning board constantly, every time that you meet, let them pay for it. Put something on them that they pay. Because I'm not doing it. I'm not voting for any of this stuff. I'm taxed up. And I think this community is too. And if they're not, they're going to be eventually. And the wealth disparity in this community is going to be like you never could possibly imagine. And I don't think that's healthy. I don't think that's in any way healthy for a community to have a huge bridge between the wealth of its constituents. So shame on you. Shame, shame, shame on each and every one of you for passing these developments and handing over all these subsidies to the developers because it's harming what I knew of Boulder. My dad came here in 1948, 49, got in the aerospace industry, would have supported the airport. He used airplanes for the bad reason, to bomb people in World War II. But, you know, you need to stop. Stop already. Please do something.

Thank you, Lynn. And sorry about that alarm. If anybody else would like to speak for the open comment period, again, that's items that are not on tonight's agenda. This is your opportunity to do so. Otherwise, we will move on to the next portion of the meeting.

and seeing no other hands raised online i'll pass it back to you chair thank you thank you thomas and thank you lynn for those comments okay moving on that was item two on our agenda item three is approval of minutes we have no minutes tonight item four is call up items we have one call up this is a final plat to replat the existing lot at 4513th into one lot containing the library facilities leased to the boulder public library district and one outlot containing Four Mile Canyon Creek and a multi-use path for dedication of easements. No new development is proposed. This is the North Boulder Library Subdivision Final Plat Re-Plat A case number TEC 2024-00060. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before July 28th, that's tonight, 2026. the preliminary plat was approved through case number LUR 2024-00073. And so do we have a staff member who's here to answer any potential questions about this call-up?

I think we have Shannon Moeller online tonight.

Thank you so much, Charles. Thank you, Shannon, for being here. Shannon, is there anything that you want us to know before I ask board members if they have any questions or comments or desire to call it up?

No, nothing from me. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So fellow board members, questions or comments? Before I ask if you have a desire to call it up questions or comments? Kurt?

I have no concerns about this, but I just have a question. So for my own edification, can you explain what the purpose of this subdivision is? What like, what, what how what is accomplished by doing the subdivision that wouldn't be accomplished by having it all one parcel?

Sure, yeah, I can speak to that. So again, I'm Shannon Muller with the City of Boulder Planning Department. Yeah, this request came in from another city department. Really the purpose was to delineate those premises that are now being leased to the library district. So now it'll be more clearly delineated on the plot, the area of the lot that's being leased to the library district. And then the outlot is the portion that is separate from that.

Curt Brown, Okay, I think I understand the point, thank you appreciate that.

Karen Hollweg, Great question Kurt I had the same question any other questions or comments. Karen Hollweg, Any desire to call it up. Karen Hollweg, This is not called up Thank you so much Shannon for being here tonight okay moving on, on our agenda. we come to our public hearing item. This is item 5A. It is a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a request for annexation of two properties totaling 5.4 acres and located at 1275 Cherryvale Road and 5995 McSorley Lane. with an initial zoning designation of Residential Rural 2, or RR2, case number LUR2025-00049. And I believe that Allison is here to give us a presentation. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer from the board, and then there will be an opportunity for public comment before the board deliberates and renders a decision. So with that, I will turn it over to staff. Thank you so much.

Thanks for the introduction and good evening everyone. My name is Allison Blaine and I will be presenting this next item for the annexation of 1275 Cherryvale and 5995 McSorley Lane. The project completed the necessary notice requirements per the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet and public notice was posted on the property. Staff received a few phone calls inquiring about the project as well as formal comment included in the package. In terms of review process and criteria, annexation is the process to incorporate land into city boundaries. An annexation application is reviewed for consistency with state law and the Colorado Constitution, which limits the authority of municipalities to annex lands. All proposed annexations must meet state statutes. And annexation must also meet city ordinances and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, specifically BVC policies related to annexation limits on expansion and growth requirements. Land that has significant development or redevelopment potential must provide a special opportunity to the city or community benefit in order to reduce negative impacts that may be associated with new development. When a property is annexed, zoning is established according to land use designation in the land use map of the BVCP and must be consistent with existing development patterns. An annexation agreement is required, which is a negotiated contract to establish the terms and conditions of the annexation. The planning board must review the annexation and make a recommendation to the city council on whether or not the annexation should be approved and the terms, conditions, and zoning that should be applied. The subject site is located along the eastern boundary of city limits along Cherryvale Road, just north of McSorley Lane and south of Arapahoe Road. The project site is comprised of two parcels addressed at 1275 Cherryvale Road and 5995 McSorley Lane. At time of annexation, the Cherryvale property contains a two-story detached dwelling unit, two mobile homes, a garage, and several accessory buildings, including sheds, yurts, and a greenhouse. And the McSorley property contains a detached dwelling unit and several sheds. The applicant has already removed some of these existing accessory structures throughout the course of the review. The Cherryvale property is already served by City Sewer Connections through Ordinance 4644, recorded in 1982. The property also obtained an out-of-city agreement and revocable permit for water service signed in 2010. The McSorley property is served by an existing on-site wastewater treatment system for sewer and a well for domestic water. The site is located in area two on the planning areas map of the BVCP. Area two is the service area of the city where annexation can be considered as long as it meets BVC policies on growth management, growth requirements and annexation. The property is designated as very low density residential on the BVCP land use map, which specifies a density of two dwelling units per acre. Anticipated uses for these zones are detached dwelling units and agricultural uses. The Cherryvale property also contains a BVCP designation of Open Space Other, or OSO, which applies to the South Boulder Creek that crosses the property. The OSO portion of the property will be preserved from future redevelopment with a flood control easement.

Hey, Allison, could you lean in or bring your mic a little closer? I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing you.

Sure, will do. The applicant is requesting RR2 zoning consistent with the surrounding properties within the city and adjacent to the site. The RR2 district is described as single family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. As mentioned earlier in this presentation, an annexation agreement is required as part of the process and annexation terms are written to anticipate any future development on the property. Such terms will include flood control easement to the city for the purpose of drainage conveyance, control of flood waters, and installation and maintenance of flood control and conveyance improvements, as well as public access easements along Cherryvale Road and McSorley Lane for future right-of-way improvements. Inclusionary housing cash in lieu 1.5 times the applicable cash in lieu for a new dwelling unit. And then an additional condition of the annexation is the requirement to close off an access from Cherryvale Road to reduce the amount of conflict points between vehicles and non-vehicle users and enable safety improvements for all travelers. There are key issues identified by staff in the memo. The first one is, does the annexation request comply with applicable state annexation statutes? Is the proposal consistent with city's annexation and BVCP policies? And is the initial zoning of RR2 appropriate for the site? For key issue one, the annexation petition is consistent with the statutory and constitutional requirements. The site meets the required 1.6 contiguity requirement to the city, and there is a community interest to annex the site, and it is capable of being integrated into the city. In terms of BVCP policies on annexation, the site can be considered for annexation because it is in within BVC in the Boulder Valley Planning Area 2. And the annexation will allow connection to the McSorley property to city's water systems, thus providing a public health benefit. The Area 2 portion of the property does have some potential to be redeveloped and will provide a benefit to the city in form of cash and lieu fees, dedication of flood conveyance and public access easements, and access closure. If a property is annexed, zoning is established consistent with the goals and the land use map of the BPCP. As described before, the site is designated as very low density residential, which anticipates a density of two dwelling units per acre or less. Considering that the surrounding area is zoned RR2, staff finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying land use designation and the community's desired future for the area. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the following motion. And I will now open up for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation, Allison. Short, sweet, thorough. Thank you. And I did forget to mention when I described how this process is going to go that after we do Q&A for Allison, the applicant will also have a chance to make a presentation and answer questions before we get to the public hearing. So questions for Allison? Who would like to start?

Mark. I had sent my questions in earlier, but I guess what I'd like is a little education on why this particular annexation that's before us, we have no visibility that I could find in the packet, and maybe I'm misreading it, to the subsequent improvements or additions to buildings on the site that might happen subsequent to the annexation. And I ask that. And then I also ask because the criteria is what staff has negotiated with the applicant is a 1.5 times the standard inclusionary housing fees to be paid. So 1.5 times. So I understand that in a site review, use review, et cetera, we can't really talk about the amount or the dollar amount of inclusionary housing. That is, it is what it is. But annexations are negotiations. And so my question is, is 1.5 times calculated based on what improvement what would that be or just what would the 1.5 times, what would one times be and what is 1.5? So let's start with those.

So the 1.5 times the typical cash in Luthi would apply in the event that the site is developed with an additional dwelling unit. That number is determined by looking at sort of the community benefit as a package and what else is being provided. In this case, the flood control easement, the public access easements, and then the access closure off McSorley. And also the limited development potential of the site, majority of the site is covered by the conveyance zone. So there is a limited redevelopment potential unless they were to go through a subdivision.

So is there an additional dwelling unit planned?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Okay. Okay. So no additional dwelling unit planned, no additional facilities for the Zen Center planned associated with the annexation?

There is a planned redevelopment for the new Zen Center, but for the annexation, we don't require development plans. Any future development would be reviewed either at time of a future building permit or if it triggers any other land use review. But as far as the annexation, we don't require development plans.

Okay. And maybe this is a question for Charles or anyone. So when we've looked at prior annexation applications, they have almost always come with development plans. is that because it's not required, is that just something I've gotten used to? And in fact, it is... we may have evaluated those other annexations without any development plans at all?

Well, it's a fair question. Um, I would say a majority of the annexation applications that come in the door, um, are reviewed with a companion development application. So some form of a site review or use review that runs alongside of it. That's always the preference. Um, but it does depend on the project. So smaller, um, enclave or neighborhood, single family, um, type applications like the one we have before us tonight might not come with a companion application. I think what's important for a lot of these types of annexations is really getting connected to utilities so that they can start figuring out what the entitlement process would look like once that this regulatory hurdle is cleared. So we did one not too long ago at 919 Fifth Street, which was a residential annexation that didn't have any future development plans. So I would say the vast majority of the ones that you do see come before you with some sort of companion development application, but not always.

Can I call you on that? But the Zen Center is on the Cherryvale parcel, right?

Yes.

And that already has city utilities, sewer and water. So hooking it up wouldn't affect their development plans.

Are they on sewer as well?

They're not, but usually for those out-of-city agreements, they're limited in any expansion. If they have the capability to be annexed, they have to be annexed.

Yeah, so the agreement from 1982 indicates that when we ask you to annex, you will annex. And since they want to annex the property next door, the McSorley property, it makes sense to bring them all in at once.

Oh. So is the motivation to annex actually provided by the city? I mean, are you guys asking for this annexation?

We're not asking, but when the McSorley parcel was brought to us, we looked at the common ownership. And I think the hope of the future development is really to reutilize both of those sites in some way. So we looked at the out of city utility agreement from 1982. And again, it has some compulsory language in it that says if you want a future expansion or additional expanded service that you annex if you're eligible. Under annexation, would the parcels be combined? No, it's not a subdivision at this point. They're just being annexed together. So a future subdivision would happen down the road.

Okay. And under the RR1, is there RR1 that you're proposing?

RR2.

RR2. would additional zen center uh buildings be conforming with that zoning if they were not not a single family residential other types of buildings anything that happens post annexation would have to um happen um in accordance with the zoning that's in place um at the time so it

After annexation, anything that's proposed for development would need to be consistent with our two zoning. So as far as uses go, single family detached homes are obviously approved uses out there as our religious assemblies, which I think the hope is to redevelop this into another religious assembly. I see.

Okay, that's it for me for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mark. Who else has questions? Kurt.

Thank you. I have a question about the access easements. Can you tell me what the motivation is for these? You said something, you referred to possible future expansion, but I mean, why, how was the size, both the need, potential need and the size of the access easements, how were those determined?

I would have to look at the specific language for those access easements, but it is for future right-of-way improvements, usually to include a detached or attached sidewalk and meet minimum street widths.

OK, but there's already an attached sidewalk on the west side of Cherryvale.

Correct. So I would need to double check that easement language on the size of it, the width.

And I was looking in the DCS, and I would assume that McSorley would be classified as an access lane, which... is is the according to the dcs that's appropriate for access for up to 15 dwellings and even if you include most of the ones on gapter down to dim it it looks like that's less than 15 so and that doesn't require sidewalks And it only requires a 30 foot right away. So I'm just, I'm trying to understand, is it like, oh, we can get space and so we're doing it? Or is there some more specific plan?

I will look a bit more into that and I'll get a response to you.

okay thank you and and one other question while you're looking into it did staff assess what the potential value of the access easements would be you know you you said that oh you felt that this full package of of um benefits yeah thank you um what was appropriate for you know to to to meet the requirements of the annexation language um and so the question is how much of that value in your assessment is coming through the excess easements

I don't think we have a specific value assigned to each of the individual terms. I don't know if we have a way to really quantify that.

Okay. It was more sort of a gut feeling kind of approach.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Kurt. I don't see any questions from the gentleman to my left. Claudia, did you have any questions before? I have a few. Oh, you have your hand up. Thank you, Claudia. Thank you.

Thanks, Laura. And yeah, I recognize it's not entirely visible here with my background. I have some questions about the initial zoning and the potential community benefit that's being calculated there. So under the current zoning codes and the flood and drainage mapping that we're looking at here, How and where would additional housing be possible at this property with RR2 zoning?

Please pull up a visual. Yeah.

Thank you.

It would really only be possible if they were to go through a subdivision because so much of the property, especially to the west, is covered by the conveyance areas. So it would have to be pretty far east, closer to Cherryvale in order to have an additional dwelling unit.

Okay, so could you please pull up the flood map? Because I want that property and it looked like there was a fair amount of space on the east side of the property that is not developed. I also if I could colloquy on that, Claudia, which of the flood zones have no development potential? I know high hazard. You can't build in a high hazard.

High hazard and conveyance. So you can build in the 100 year as long as you meet certain requirements for minimum elevation of the floorboard.

And you can't build in conveyance even with elevation.

Okay.

But I would like to see that graphic while we're talking about it. So do we have a sense of what is the acreage that is either blue or

not colored in i don't have that information the applicant might have that okay thank you back to you claudia

OK, yeah, thanks. Let's keep that graphic up for now if we can, because the rest of my questions get into this a bit, too. So the very low density residential land use in the BBCP limits housing density to two units per acre. And I've been trying to do some math on this and again, like account for this. flood and conveyance mapping. So this is a five acre site, essentially, that's being proposed for annexation. A significant amount of it is unbuildable. It's encumbered with floodplain and drainage. When we're talking about that very low density residential designation, like what acreage is used to actually calculate the maximum housing? Does that make sense? So two units per acre, a five acre site, but obviously some of it's encumbered. Again, I'm trying to get it. What is the housing capacity of this site?

It would be calculated using the total area of the site.

Using the total. Okay.

So that area would not be excluded from those calculations.

Okay. So it's the five acres. Correct. Okay. And then just curious about that recommended zoning of RR2. Okay. Could RL1, could RE or some other low density residential zoning actually be compatible with very low density given these kind of physical constraints on housing capacity on the site?

Staff didn't do an analysis on RL1 or RE since it wasn't proposed and looking at the surrounding properties, they are zoned RR2. So that was consistent with the surrounding area. Okay, so that's the rationale is that it's it's a RR2 is the closest to similar properties or neighboring properties.

I guess that's what I'm looking for.

And consistent with the very low density land use. Sure, sure.

Yeah. And I guess my my question is whether there are other zoning designations that are also compatible with the VLR land use.

I think the RR1 one or two would be low density residential in the BVCP, where this is very low density. So I'm pretty sure just limited to RR, RR1 or 2 and RE.

Okay. I will leave the questions with that.

Thank you, Claudia. Okay. I have a few, and then we can take a second bite of the apple if anybody has any more. I wanted to ask about contiguity. Can you pull up the contiguity diagram? Ah, okay. So I didn't actually look at this one. I looked at the one that was in the packet that showed Gapter Road as, it looked like it showed Gapter Road, the road itself, as being part of the calculation of contiguity. Is that right?

No, that's not correct.

No, okay. So the contiguity...

It's this area, this kind of hatching here.

Okay, but some of that area does not have city property on the other side of Gapter Road. Or I'm sorry, not Gapter Road, McSorley Lane. McSorley. So like what is south of part of that is not city property. So is the road itself considered for contiguity? Correct. Correct. I mean, I looked at the definition of contiguity in the annexation petition, and it says, contiguity as referred to in this petition or subsequent annexation proceedings is not affected by the existence of a platted street, alley, public or private transportation right-of-way or area, which I take to mean that the road itself does not count for contiguity. It's what's on the other side of the road.

One moment, please. Yes.

Kurt is saying he thinks that's in state law.

Yeah. 31-12-104.

Do you want to say that into the microphone, Max?

Yeah, that's Colorado revised statutes 31-12-104.

there's another diagram that shows the properties on the other side of and absolutely and i'm sorry the question is just disputing the contiguity calculation i just want to make sure that i mean i'm i'm not trying to get it disqualified i'm just trying to make sure this calculation was done correctly according to law which is that i don't think that the road itself creates contiguity it's what's on the other side of the road and part of that property is not city property

I think it actually means the opposite of what you're worried about. It allows us to collapse the right-of-way that might be in between annexed areas.

Correct. And so if you look at Figure 3 in the packet, That yellow streak that's kind of extending to the east, that's a road. If I'm looking at that correctly, that's McSorley Lane. That's not an annexed property. So all that gray area to the south is un-annexed. So the only things that should count for contiguity is everything that's kind of west of Gapner, west and north of Gapner, that is already annexed.

Yeah, I think the section that you're reading describes a different situation than we have here, where you can still find contiguity pursuant to this language, but it doesn't mean that there's not contiguity here.

So, Hella, are you saying that the area that is on the southern border of the subject site that is across McSorley Lane from un-annexed Boulder still counts for contiguity?

Yes, you can create contiguity by annexing roads, actually.

You can create contiguity by annexing a road, even if the area on the other side of the road is not... In the city of Boulder.

Correct.

Okay. And are we annexing a road here or is the road already annexed?

The road is already annexed.

The road is annexed in. Okay. All right. That's new to me.

Yeah, contiguity can actually be established in different ways, and sometimes a parcel is annexed. You might remember the Fifth Street property that came through not too long ago was annexed in a series because the parcel itself didn't have contiguity, but it can be split in a way. the annexation maps can split a property essentially in a way to create contiguity for different parcels. So there's different ways to get there under the state law.

Okay. All right. I just wasn't aware that a road could be annexed and create contiguity. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. So that's that line. Next question is the mobile homes on the Cherryvale property. There's two mobile homes on that property. Are they occupied by people other than the occupants of the primary dwelling unit? Like are they serving as additional units of housing?

I would have to defer to the applicant on that. I'm not sure if they're still out there right now. They might be gone. Okay. I can ask the applicant.

I did have a couple of other questions. I'm trying to, I'm discarding the ones we've already talked about. So I think I know the answer to this one, but the Cherryvale property, they want to redevelop it with a religious assembly use for the temple. Tell me how to pronounce the name of the temple. I believe it's Hakubai? Hakubai, the Hakubai Temple. So we're saying that this could not happen under county zoning because of the water and sewer agreement?

Typically how the out-of-city agreements are written is that for any expansion, you cannot get another out-of-city utility permit if you have the ability to be annexed.

Okay, so they could not continue with city water and sewer and also increase their use of that water and sewer by redeveloping a temple there.

Okay, that's good to know.

RR1 and RR2. So there are a couple of properties to the north that are RR1, right? They're not contiguous with the property, they don't touch the property, but they are touching Cherryvale and just a couple of properties to the north there are RR1, right? Correct. So conceivably this property could get an RR1 designation because it doesn't have to be contiguous. And I saw in there that the only notable difference between the districts in terms of development is the required side yard setbacks in the form and bulk standards of the land use code. Can you tell us more about what are those side yard setback differences between RR1 and RR2?

I had it written down. I think I'd have to double check my notes real quick. They are slightly different, the setbacks.

I just need to look at the table again to, I can pull it up though. I'm just trying to understand how that's going to affect future development potential. So if you could go ahead and look at that table, I'd appreciate knowing that.

Okay.

So the RR2 minimum side yard from an interior lot line is 10. And if I could see, then RR1 is 15.

Oh, so RR1 actually has a more, a larger side yard setback than RR2. Okay. And then I think I know the answer to this, but just to confirm, the change we made to the code to allow duplexes, for example, within 350 feet of a designated bus corridor. First of all, is Cherryvale a designated bus corridor? It is. It is. So this one, whether it's RR1 or RR2, would allow duplexes. Is that correct?

I'd have to double check the mapping, but I believe it's actually outside of that area, the 350 foot.

Well, if Cherryvale is a designated bus corridor, this is right on Cherryvale.

Sorry, it's not a designated bus corridor. It's Arapahoe.

Oh, Arapahoe. Yeah. Okay. Apologies. So Cherryvale is more than 350 feet.

This property is outside of that 350 foot buffer.

Okay. All right. So it doesn't, it wouldn't currently be eligible for duplexes no matter what the zoning is. Correct. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Those are my questions. Anybody else? Anything else pop up for anybody else before we go to the applicant presentation? All right. Let's go to the applicant presentation, please.

Hi, I'm Nick Sassier. I am an architect.

If you could please get right into that microphone so we can all hear you. Thank you.

Nick Sassier, architect and applicant on behalf of Hakubai Temple. We do not have a formal presentation or anything to add in addition to what the staff covered, but are happy to shed some light on any questions you may have. And it sounds like based on the questions you already asked, we might be able to do just that. Thanks.

Thank you so much for being here. Okay, so questions for the applicant. Mark.

So, since you're an architect and you've been hired by the applicant, can you describe how annexation what, how, what would affect what would you be doing in the future? In terms of redevelopment, additional dwellings, additional buildings, etc. And how the annexation would either facilitate that or lack would not allow it. Just give me an overview of your motivation for annexation and general plans, please.

I'll start with the second part of that. The core reason for the annexation is the out of city agreement specifically did not allow for a commercial development and it also had a stipulation that they must annex once eligible. They were not eligible at the time the agreement was entered or annexation would have taken place at that time. The Huckabye folks have been practicing and owners and stewards of this land for decades and then operating their temple from the buildings that were currently on the site. And they're looking to make the future home for their Huckabye temple right where it always was. And that's the path to do so. And I can also say that the proposed temple is modest in size. I believe it's not even more square footage than what's currently available. the property or what was on the property before they proactively removed a lot of the non-conforming structures during this process and it's a use by right and they have no interest in trying to pack residences into the property or developing it in that way great thank you thank you mark other questions for the applicant

I have just one. So the Cherryvale property was described as having two mobile homes. Are they still there and are they occupied?

They are not. They were never occupied as residences. They were part of the religious practice that took place on the property previously. And yeah, every single non-conforming structure on both properties has been removed proactively because we knew it would be a condition of the annexation.

Thank you. And there is one residence on the Cherryvale property, is that right? Is it occupied?

Correct. It currently is not. They have vacated and are operating their practice in other temporary spaces because they were not allowed to continue that use while this was going on.

Okay. And when it is redeveloped with a religious assembly use, will anybody be living there?

No, they're actually tearing down the house. And so there'll be one single building. There were a scattering of buildings, many non-conforming, some unpermitted, and those have all been removed. And there'll be one consolidated structure in the future.

Okay, so I want to ask, thank you for that. I want to ask staff. So I want to ask Allison or Charles. It sounds like right now there is one dwelling unit on the Cherryvale property that is going to be replaced by a modest religious assembly. Would the city consider that to be a more intensive use that would require annexation?

Yeah, I would say yes, because I think the religious assembly building for the purposes of administering the building code would be considered a commercial building or an assembly use. So, you know, would obviously, you know, use more water and have more impacts.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Oh, Kurt.

You heard me asking questions earlier about the easements, the access easements. Are those affecting your plans in any way? Because you have a limited amount of space because of the flood, and this would effectively increase your setback. Are you adjusting anything based on that?

Yeah, so the access easement specifically was along McSorley since that's the property that's currently owned by the city. So that is where that easement was required for future development. It did move their existing property line in, which made some of the structures that may not have been non-conforming before that happened now non-conforming. And so we had to go ahead and remove those for compliance with that easement requirement. There is no intention to further develop or do anything with the McSorley property though. It's being annexed as is, cleaned up of all its non-conforming structures and no future development plans there. The easements on Cherryvale, there was an additional one beyond what the city required that was to the county. Since Cherryvale is owned by the county, that came out of a discrepancy in the survey work that needed to be rectified. And they took the opportunity to do that. And then there's the floodplain and the utility access easements that were just required per current terms of the zoning code to be annexed and be in that zone district.

Any other questions for the applicant? OK, seeing none, I think we can go to the public hearing. Thank you very much. I'll turn it over to Thomas to manage the public hearing.

Thanks, Laura. And we'll start with our in-person public hearing. And we do have one individual signed up. We have Krista Castellino. And Krista, you could step up to the podium and give your comment.

And Chair, if I could. I took another look at the code and despite the fact that the site is more than 350 feet from Arapahoe, it still is eligible for a duplex in this particular zone district. So regardless of the fact that it's more than 350 feet, we changed the code just to allow duplexes in all of the very low density residential zones.

Okay, good to know.

We're changing the code faster than I can memorize it. Thank you, Charles.

Also apparently faster than AI can answer my questions. Okay, back to the public hearing.

Thank you. Krista, please just press the, there's a button along the bottom of your microphone there. Press that to turn it on.

Thank you.

And you can go ahead when you're ready.

Hi, my name's Krista Castellino. I'm a Colorado native. Thank you.

If you could lean right into the mic. Oh, sure. Thank you.

Gosh, this is very different. My name's Krista. I live on Old Tail, so behind the Zone 2 is kind of where you're talking. And I don't know a lot about this. This is new to me. I've never attended one of these meetings. But from my understanding, it's all rural areas. residential so our one or it shows up on all the plans is our so i'm i'm unsure of where there's our two in our little pocket of gap termic sorely and old tail. So. I mean, my plea is to keep it as rural as possible. That's why we moved there. And I think the hard part for me is that I feel like the residents have had a decent relationship with the temple. We've had some interesting experiences over the years with some of the different people that have come. They do retreats. So my question is that To me, it seems like it runs more as a business because people come for overnight retreats. There's been Native American drumming back there. We've had sweat huts. We've had cold plunging going on back there. So, I mean, lots of fun things that we're all okay with. But if this is like in their website, it shows, you know, a wedding venue. You can come and get married there. You can have a baby shower. something rituals there i just wonder is this more um of it being run as a business than say people come to a service for an hour and then they leave and so um to me going to rr2 it's up zoning and it's allowing for a higher density and more building footprint um and so i would prefer it stay and be in compliance with what the surroundings are. So my acres, we have two acres. Most of the people are on larger land. So when it said they notified people within 600 feet, none of us received any notification via paper. So I was kind of surprised when they started bulldozing the trees behind us. And now I can see from my property straight to Cherryvale. So I'm like, oh, something's happening. And that's how I found out something was going on. And so- I think that my concern is that if it does go, sorry, I just put some notes together today. I think when it goes to RR2, it enables the applicant to construct larger structures, accommodate higher occupancy. And there's two parking lots I saw. and we were here during the flood and I'm, I'm, you know, we have weather vane at the end and now we're like, there's more concrete around us.

So Krista, your time is technically up, but if you want to wrap up real quick.

Sure. Sure. I think there's just a few things that I have concerns over the parking, the parking lots and the flooding that has a potential. And I know you guys are I appreciate sitting and listening to you and hearing you discuss it and be thoughtful in your processing. Okay.

Thank you. I'm sorry. We have to be fair to everybody. So your time is up, but thank you for testifying tonight.

Yeah. Thank you.

Back to you, Thomas.

Thank you. And now we'll move to any online participants that would like to speak to the public hearing. If you're joining us online and would like to speak tonight, please go ahead and raise your hand. We have one raised hand so far. We have Wendy M. Wendy, you can go ahead and speak. Please begin by stating your full name because we need that for the record. Thank you.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you.

Okay. My name is Wendy Mortner and I am also on Old Tail Road near Krista 1270. So I'm on the corner of Old Tail and McSorley. And so my property is adjacent to both the McSorley property that's looking at being annexed as well as the Cherryvale property. And my property also goes across South Boulder Creek on the McSorley, close to the McSorley property. So Um, I, um, agree with the concerns that Krista brought up and just also wondering, uh, will it be, will it, uh, still be in keeping with the neighborhood and in keeping with, with what we have today, the residential and the family, it's a very family oriented area with the, um, with South Boulder Creek trail and lots of families and kids and everything. So wondering about that and wondering about parking, if the access is on McSorley, that's a very small road and just wondering how that would play into the neighborhood if we had a driveway access McSorley into parking areas versus say access on Cherryvale. where there are already religious assemblies and other maybe more commercial properties on Cherryvale. Then also just wondering about flood and drainage and what might be happening on the property and how that might impact our area. Also wondering about, there's also a residential property on McSorley and just wondering if there's any development plans with that property. And then I believe that is occupied currently. And then the last would be, which Krista also mentioned, what will the property look like in the future from my property? So today, I have a lot of trees that give a view for the area of privacy and beauty. And just wondering, are there any plans that will impact the back of our properties along the creek? And I think that's it. And thank you for all the thoughtfulness and consideration and all the questions. They were great questions and sounds like lots to consider. I have had no issues with the temple. I'm in favor of the temple itself. Just want to understand.

Thanks for joining us tonight, Wendy. If there's anybody else from the public online that would like to speak to tonight's public hearing, this is your opportunity to go ahead and raise your hand. And seeing no other hands being raised, I'm going to pass it back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Thomas. And thank you, Krista and Wendy. I do want to just speak and say we do not have a site plan that speaks to things like where the building is going to be, how big will they be, what will happen to the trees, the parking lots, or even the access that's planned. So we unfortunately can't speak to that tonight with the information that we were given, but we understand your concerns. Okay, so public hearing is now closed. Let us deliberate unless does anybody need a break before we go into deliberation? Anybody desperate for a break? Okay, seeing none. Mason, you have your hand up.

Yeah, I have a question that came up based on testimony for staff. The uses that are allowed on the property, I assume they would include some of the commercial uses that were stated. I know that's not a part of the annex agreement and all that, but I just wanted to ask about what exactly is allowed.

As far as the activities that were described, those are all considered accessory to a religious assembly, so there wouldn't be any types of special limitations that we would place on that.

Good question, Mason. Thank you. All right, could we pull up staff's proposed motion, which I think is to approve the annexation agreement. But before we talk about motions, more deliberation or questions. Kurt?

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up, Allison, with my questions about the easements and see if you have any further information there.

Thanks. I do. The width for those easements, it looks like for the mixed-roily property, was for a an 11 foot travel lane and a two foot gravel shoulder and 12 foot ditch and four foot sidewalk for that McSorley portion. And then to also meet the minimum width for the Carrieville right away.

And what, do you know what street classification that's using in the DCS? I don't. And I also had a question that I didn't ask earlier about the Cherryvale easement. So Cherryvale is a county street, right? So why is the city getting an easement for a county street?

That is to include the the minimum width for the 36 feet on measured from the center line of McSorley. And then the remainder was dedicated to the county as the applicant described.

But the question is why? Why are we taking? Why are we getting an easement? It sounds like much of the Cherryvale easement is going to the county somehow. And is that, I guess, is that standard practice that the city would take an easement even for a county street?

I believe it depends on the street and the project, but that's been my understanding through this review.

And was that a county request then or a city request?

It was a city request from our engineering staff.

Okay. Thank you. Just a follow-up. Did I hear that part of the easement on McSorley is for a new travel lane? Did I misunderstand that?

It's just to accommodate the width of an 11-foot travel lane, but not necessarily for a new one.

Okay, so it's overlaying on the existing road on McSorley, or is it on the property?

It would include, the entire width would include the 11-foot travel lane, a 2-foot gravel shoulder, 12-foot ditch, and 4-foot sidewalk.

I'm sorry, I'm a little slow here. I'm trying to understand, is the easement overlaid on the existing McSorley lane, and that's the travel lane that you're talking about, or you're planning for a new travel lane on this property?

No, it's the overlay.

Overlay, okay.

All right, thank you. Okay.

Just to colloquy on that and clarify, what you just described, an 11-foot travel lane, two-foot, what was it, two-foot gravel, and then a four-foot sidewalk, and then a ditch, or ditch, then sidewalk. That is from the center line of McSorley. Is that right? So that would be the westbound travel lane. There would still be an eastbound travel lane on McSorley as well.

Correct. It's measured from the center line.

So 11 to the ditch, then the sidewalk or sidewalk, then the ditch.

I don't know the exact order. Okay.

Okay.

Max, you have a question?

Yeah, this is just in regards to one of the testimonies. Despite the fact that I have faith that staff did do outreach, I just thought for the sake of the record, what was that and how was it? Because we heard in testimonial that they didn't hear anything.

Yeah, public notice was provided. Mailed notices are sent to adjacent properties within 600 feet and then signs are placed as well.

Awesome. Thank you very much.

And just to clarify, if somebody with a two acre property backs up and touches the property line of this property, they would have gotten a notice? Correct. Okay.

All right.

All right. Other questions before we go to deliberation? Are we out of questions? We're out of questions. Deliberation. So we are being asked what we think about this annexation petition and whether we will approve it as written or if we have any conditions or if we wish to deny it. That is the question before us. As folks have pointed out, we do have a little bit more leeway with an annexation petition. It is a negotiation. It is not necessarily a criteria-based petition. decision, assuming that they meet all the criteria for annexation, there's still negotiation to do. Which staff has done, and they have brought the results of that to us for our thoughts and potential concurrence or conditions, etc. So, deliberation from board members. What's on your mind? How are you feeling about this annexation petition?

Who wants to kick us off?

Mark.

Um, initially, uh, based on the packet, I was, I was just more, um, perplexed than anything. And, uh, it just, again, hearkening back to other annexation proceedings. Uh, however, uh, given the, uh, future plan use by right, the, um, uh, the way that the city is requesting or the applicant is requesting that they need to come into the city based on utilities, et cetera. I have decided that I am in favor of the annexation as proposed in the motion language.

Thank you, Mark. Kurt. Thanks. Largely, I'm in support also. I do have questions, though, as you might have noticed, about these easements. I don't see a compelling reason for the access easements. As I stated earlier, the DCS has a prototype for an access lane, which is listed as serving up to 15 households, 15 dwellings. which definitely would qualify in this location. It requires a 30-foot right-of-way, which is already met there, and a 20-foot street width, pavement width, which I believe is already met or very close to met, certainly could be met without additional right-of-way. So, and there's no sidewalk required in that prototype, which I think is appropriate in this location. You know, it's very, very low speed, low vehicular volume street. And the rural character, I think, is actually probably what a lot of the people in the neighborhood would prefer, often in these cases, I can't speak for them for sure, but often in these cases they prefer to not have sidewalks to give the more rural feel. And really, basically the streets kind of function as a Voonerf, where all the modes are shared on the relatively narrow street pavement. In addition, on Cherryvale, there's already a sidewalk. I think it's appropriate to have a sidewalk on Cherryvale. There's already a sidewalk on the west side of Cherryvale. And so I'm just not seeing the need for additional street right of way. I think transportation department always likes to get more right of way because It's more for them to play with at some point in time. But I think we need to weigh that against what are the trade-offs. Certainly, there are some trade-offs in terms of what it imposes, the restrictions it imposes on the property, given the very large amount of property that's already encumbered by the flood, both the The high hazard and the command zones. And. And I think since we're looking at the sort of the cost of the the entire benefit package together. It seems to me we could potentially ask for an additional multiplier on the cash in lieu in exchange for less of an easement. And to me, that would be a benefit. I would much rather get more tangible money for affordable housing than to have some additional space in the right of way that realistically probably will never actually get used and and we'll just you know restrict the the options for the property owner so i would i would like to consider making a trade-off like that i don't know i was hoping to get some numbers in terms of the quantification of what these things are worth Curt Brown, But we don't have that so I don't have a particular number to go to instead of the 1.5, but I would certainly like to consider eliminating the the access easements and increasing that multiplier value.

Karen Hollweg, Thank you Kurt um I would like to ask a question of staff. Could we pull up a property figure, just looking at the property with the dwellings on it, the buildings that are on it? I guess I'm asking for a photo.

Yeah, like the figure one vicinity map. Yes, that's exactly it.

And can we zoom in a little bit on that east end? So the dwelling units, there's only two of them, right? And there's the one right in the southeast corner, and then there's one immediately north of that. And then there's no dwelling units on the other lot. So when you say it could subdivide in the future and have more dwelling unit potential, is that what you're thinking of, that northern lot up there?

To clarify, this is the 1275 Cherryville Road is one lot. It looks like it's two based on our mapping because it comes from the county, but it sort of depends on the future redevelopment, but essentially they could do a subdivision similar to what is shown as long as they meet the subdivision standards and regulations and code. And could potentially add an additional dwelling to the north.

Is it just one dwelling unit potential to the north, or is it more than one through subdivision?

It really depends on how they meet the subdivision regulations in the minimum lot area.

Mm-hmm. Okay, did you want to add something, Charles?

I actually wanted to go back to Kurt's comments about easements and the street section.

Before you do that, I see Brad approached, and he might be on the same topic.

I just want to make sure there's not a wording misunderstanding about things. I think, Allison, when you're saying subdivision, you are using that term to also mean lot consolidation, so erasing lot lines potentially. Is that what they're looking to potentially do?

There was no conversation about any sort of consolidation or subdivision.

But that would be an option too. Potentially. Okay. That's what I thought I understood, but maybe I was wrong.

Okay, thank you for that clarification, Brad. Sorry to interrupt, Charles. Back to you.

Yeah, so I just want to clarify this. The street typology, McSorley isn't an access lane. It's a rural residential street. So the reason we asked for those easements is because it calls for a full 22-foot section, so 11 feet aside. Oh, I'm sorry. I just lost. Yeah, four-foot sidewalk where required. And then you have your ditch. And so that's where we came up with the request was just based on the section for that particular street typology.

And how did you arrive at that street typology?

That predates. That street section has been in the DCS for quite some time.

But, well, I know it's in the DCS, but how did you decide on that street typology for McSorley?

I think those assignments are made through the Transportation Master Plan.

Okay. But it would meet the requirements of access lanes?

I think the point is it's not an access easement. It's a public right of way, unless I'm misunderstanding.

No, we're talking about street sections. An access lane has a specific street section, and the rural residential street type has its own street section. We asked for easements that are commensurate with the classification of that particular street, which is rural residential street.

so we asked for the um easements that are necessary to implement that street section since that's what it's classified as so it it is currently classified as a rural residential road yeah which means it's a public road right uh yes yeah so it's a public road it's not an easement

No, right. Well, I'm certainly aware that the issue is that there's an additional access easement that's being requested on the north side of McSorley, the south side of this property to basically to widen the right of way.

Well, it's to improve it. So sidewalk.

But also widen.

Yeah. Not the travel lane.

Right, but the right way.

You're correct.

Yeah, yeah. So every street in the city is identified with a particular classification from the DCS in the TMP?

I believe so. I can't remember where the classifications exist. If you let me dig around, I'll find it. But we classify the streets, and then the street sections are found in the DCS. But I believe it's the TMP.

Okay, because usually in the TMP, or in the past, what I've seen is things like arterial collector and residential, but then they don't get more detailed than that.

Yeah, I'll have to find out. I can't remember where the assignments are made. I know we have them all mapped in our GIS. I just don't know what the origin of that mapping is, but it is an adopted city document.

Okay, and what about Cherryvale, which is not even a city street?

I'd have to look.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Kurt. Mark.

So, colloquing on Kurt's questions. What is the street classification for Old Tail Road, which McSorley runs into? And then, so that's one question. And the second question is, are the... right-of-way easements and improvements.

So in this case, the applicant... Mark, you might want to hold your question until staff has done conferring. I'm not sure if they can do both at the same time. Staff, do you need a minute or two to look stuff up? Okay, then Mark, you can go ahead with your question.

Okay, first question was the street classification of Old Tail Road, which McSorley intersects with. And then, am I understanding correctly that not only would the applicant be providing an additional access easement, would they be responsible for improvements, the sidewalk, et cetera, on McSorley. Would they be responsible for building that sidewalk?

Not at this time. It would just be for future right-of-way improvements.

Okay. And would the improvements on paper, since they wouldn't be required immediately, extend all the way on McSorley from Cherryvale to Old Tail? or would it only be the depth of the property east to west?

It's just the portion along the McSorley Lane parcel.

So in theory, if we made the improvements, it would be a section of sidewalk going from Cherryvale to the west end of the property, and then that sidewalk would end before it intersected, long before it intersected with Old Tail.

Correct. It would just be that portion.

Okay. Thank you. I'm Curt. I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

Thank you, Mark. So we are in deliberation. I have some thoughts, but Claudia, um, Max or Mason, would you like to go next? Okay, so I'll go ahead and give my thoughts before the other board members speak, since I have permission. I'm torn about this one. On the one hand, I respect the right of the property owner to want to develop a religious assembly use and improve their property. On the other hand, annexations into the city, we normally look for benefit to the city and preferably in the form of additional housing units. And with this application, we're not only not getting additional housing units, we are losing a housing unit. And the property does have the potential to gain housing units. So I'm not sure why we are not asking for subdivision and a commitment to build an additional housing unit, because that 1.5 times the inclusionary housing fee only applies if a new housing unit is built. And I think that we're hearing that there's no intention currently to build a new housing unit. So that's illusory at this point. It would be in the annexation agreement in the future if they ever did decide to build housing, but we're hearing that's not the intention. And so... I think it is an option for this board to consider, if we are interested, to deny this application and ask for it to be renegotiated to include a subdivision and a housing unit, since we are not only not gaining a housing unit, we are losing one. So I'll put that on the table. All right, Claudia has a hand up.

Thanks for that, Laura. I share some of the same concerns and I had a somewhat different approach and I'm curious what the board will think about our two comments combined. So to start, I want to emphasize that I understand the applicant envisions continuing a religious assembly use on the site. I think that's appropriate. And honestly, I think that's not much of our business as long as their future plans conform to city code. But where I do think we have business as a board, and I think I'm concurring with Laura on this, is... essentially getting some community benefit out of this regardless of the current ownership and their plans for use, right? And what I was looking at as a pathway to do this was in the initial zoning. And I had some concerns about RL2 and how that would impact the ability of this site to ever add additional housing units If it were to change hands in the future, if there was any need determined simply because of the nature of the site and the large lot sizes that would be large minimum lot sizes that would be required. So I was thinking we could do marginally better on the future housing capacity of the site with an initial zoning of something like RE or even RL1. And that's mostly based on the minimum lot size requirements at those different zoning levels. So RR2 requires a 30,000 square foot minimum lot size. With RE, you bring that down to 15,000 square feet. And currently in the code, there's a potential for a second dwelling unit on a single 15,000 square foot lot. I haven't done the math as much on RL1, but it sounds to me like that very low density measurement in the BVCP is based on the full five acre site, right? So there certainly is potential using that five acre measurement for more housing on this site in the future. again, depending on the zoning constraints that come with it. So as I understand it, that wouldn't have any impact on the current owner and their plans to continue a religious assembly use, but I think it would create a small opportunity in the future to make additional housing here and to increase the chances and the utility of that cash-in-lieu negotiation that staff has already done. So that was my approach to, I think, a similar problem that Laura is identifying and trying to problem solve here. Thank you, Claudia, for your thoughts.

Can I ask a follow up?

Yeah, Kurt wants to follow up.

Thanks for that, Claudia. I'm trying to understand whether that we would be allowed to choose that initial zoning given the land use. um because and i'm still confused about this in the comp plan discussions we've heard oh there's no hard mapping between the land uses and the zoning districts and it's really a matter of what what we feel is appropriate however in the current land uses there are strict density limits right and so are are would those zone districts be be compatible or would we also have to change the land use in order to do something like what claudia was talking about can i call it away on that

Yes, of course. So that's why I was trying to get some information earlier in the question session about the basis for calculating, right? So very low density land use, very low density residential had that two dwelling unit per acre cap on it. And we have a five acre site here. So all physical constraints aside, right, if you were to maximize that, you have 10 dwelling units on this site as a theoretical maximum potential. And that's why I was asking what is the basis for that measurement, right? Is it based on the total parcel size or is it based on the buildable or developable portion of the lot? And my understanding is staff answered that that maximum is based on the the total parcel size that five acres so if i got that wrong apologies but that's the number that i was working with and why i was asking for that clarification yes thank you claudia could we could we pull up not the diagram that's in the packet but just the city zoning map so that we can see what's around here

Some of it is still county, so it doesn't have a city zoning. And from my looking at the city zoning map, there's RR2 and there's RR1 that's in the vicinity on Cherryvale. I don't know that there's any RE around here. And I don't know what the city's policy is on... Usually we try to do contiguous zoning, right? We don't have little islands of different zoning locations. So I had been assuming it was either going to be RR2 or RR1, just based on what's around it. Yeah, so if we zoom out a little bit, there's no RE except up on Arapaho. And everything that's contiguous to it currently is kind of to the west and is RR2. But to the north of it, non-contiguously, there are little pockets of RR1. What are those e-zonings, Allison? That's enclave. Enclave. So they're not annexed. Not annexed. So that's county land still. Okay. Okay. Okay, Claudia, I really appreciate the thinking there and the proposal. I think it is an option for us to consider. Staff, would there be anything to prevent these properties from being RE in code other than just custom?

Yeah, just hella is looking at the consistency with the comp plan. So if you can bear with us.

Glad to thank you for considering this complexity. I will note that we have heard three different proposals for how we think there should be more community benefit from this annexation agreement. So I think there may be a trend toward thinking that the current annexation agreement doesn't provide enough community benefit, but that's still not a majority. Let's let staff think about this, and then I want to make sure they can listen to you too, Mason.

Yeah.

Right.

So it looks like RE would not be consistent with the underlying VLR land use designation because it would, can you go back to that? Yeah, so in RE the minimum lot size would be 15,000 square feet that would allow three units. Yeah, and it's up to two units per acre under the VLR land use designation in the comp plan.

And RE would go to three. Correct. So you're finding, Hela, is that RE would not be consistent with the underlying land use. Okay. So we can perhaps scratch that proposal. But I see, Claudia, your hand is up. Did you want to respond to that?

Yeah. I'm having some confusion between where somehow the mappable land I don't know how to make this distinction in language, between what is theoretically possible on a blank slate, right? And then what is possible given the physical constraints of the site? And so we're discussing, and I think rightly so, you know, placing a large portion of this site under flood control and drainage easements, et cetera. So that essentially renders the Western perspective half or even two thirds of this property not developable, right? But it still is a five acre site. And so you arrive at a state where even with a higher intensity zoning, your overall impact would be limited below that very low density threshold. And so I don't know, like, legally what governs and what works, but that's where I'm stuck with this is even with a higher intensity zoning, there is no way on this site that it would ever exceed that two unit per acre limit that's set by VLR.

Yeah, I think that's probably correct. Given the flood constraints on the property, I think it would be difficult to develop a number of units out there.

Okay, and I think we understand that, that difficulty there, Claudia, but is it still hella your legal determination that re would be inconsistent with the underlying land use given that it couldn't actually be developed to three units per acre? Let's let hella think about that. And then Kurt, you had a follow up.

Well, my question also was, as part of annexation, we can also change the land use, or the land use can be changed. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. A change in land use can be processed as part of an annexation process.

So I just want to point out that that would, is another potential knob that we could turn.

Okay. I'm losing track of the queue here. Mark, are you trying to colloquy or is it something new? Because Mason's in front of you if it's something new. Okay.

Mason. So just since we were throwing out ideas of knobs to turn.

Mason, could you speak into the mic?

Yes. Since we're talking about knobs to turn, I've got another one. Um, when I was reading about this, I was thinking about, um, much the same, what, what additional benefit could the city get from the annexing given, given the expenses to the city that is annexing and improving the property. Um, uh cost the city the one thing that came to my mind was in the um on the back part of the property there's the creek that runs through and i was looking at the tmp and the potential bike paths that are missing connecting um that east boulder bike path to um arapaho And that, you know, I didn't know if the open space or the conveyances would allow for future proposals for said path to continue north. Instead of going on to the, I already forgot the name of the road to the left. Old Hill. Yeah. Just a random idea to throw out while we're considering things.

Is that a question for staff?

No.

No. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, we are still deliberating. More thoughts, Mark?

I just want to note that as far as I can read the map in the draft BVCP that we have been evaluating, that this is noted as neighborhood one in the draft BVCP, not rural, this whole area. So again, I know we are operating under the current BVCP, not the draft, but it is interesting to note from a housing perspective, from a land use perspective, and how our zoning decisions might apply under a different land use map that this is neighborhood one.

So I will just, thank you, Mark, for bringing that up. I will just note that as we all know, and I'm not trying to criticize your statement here, the draft BVCP is not yet adopted. We are operating under our current land use map and our current zoning. And even after the BVCP gets adopted, What happens with this parcel if it annexes would likely be neighborhood one, but that has not been determined yet. That would be part of the annexation agreement, as I understand it, if we go with the county's proposal, which is not to make it neighborhood one proactively, right? But it would be part of the annexation discussion. And I'll also note that this area around Cherryvale is one of the areas that gave the county commissioners pause because there is a lot of development that's already been done. And a lot of the folks who live there like it rural, right? And so there is going to be this tension when properties annex because the city doesn't do rural, right? The city is a more Urban development pattern and so we are we are not necessarily looking to preserve very large lots when there is development potential and And I understand that that may not be the desire of the residents who live there and that creates tension and difficulty for all of us because that is our planning that is our planning view of Annexation is that it should create development potential and be brought into the city creating additional housing So I'm just going to put that out there. All right, so other thoughts? I'm ready to respond. Hella, thank you.

Thank you for giving me some time to think about this. I would guide you back to the zoning criteria of annex land, which require a finding of consistency with the goals and land use designations of the BVCP. And as maybe Claudia pointed out, there is no specific zoning associated with the land use designations. So I think if there is a way to limit how many units can be constructed on the property, then there could be... arguably a finding of consistent with consistency with the comp plan, even with the zoning that theoretically would allow more zoning, more units. And I actually even remembered a situation where that was done in the past. And in that case, to ensure consistency with the comp plan, the unit number was limited through the annexation agreement to ensure compliance with the comp plan. So that would be one way to get there.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, and Claudia, please jump in here, we could put in the annexation agreement something like the property is zoned RE, is the zoning that we find appropriate, but there would be a limit of, for example, no more than 10 units on the combined property, something like that.

Correct, yeah, that will be my recommendation if you wanted to pursue something like that. And then I also wanted to mention that because this is an annexation, It is a negotiated process and we have an annexation agreement in which the applicant currently agreed to our two. So if you're entertaining something like that you might want to check in with how the applicant is feeling about that because it would require a change to the annexation agreement is currently negotiated.

So thank you for that reminder that we can't simply put conditions on the annexation agreement. We would need the applicant to potentially agree. And if we don't have agreement between the city and the applicant, we could deny, although I think that's not the preferred outcome.

Yeah, and ultimately it's council who makes the decision. I think you're all aware of that. Certainly, certainly council can disagree with us.

But I would encourage this board, we should do what we think is right for this annexation petition and council will do what they think is right. So I would encourage us not to preemptively assume what council will or won't do. Okay. Where shall we go from here? Do you want me to summarize or do folks have other thoughts? Kurt.

Yeah, I would propose that we consider something like what Hella outlined, where we adopt a higher zoning, higher intensity zoning, but with the restriction on the number of units. And I would certainly like to throw in a change eliminating the access easements and requiring a higher fraction of of cash in lieu, more like maybe 1.75 or 2.0 in place in exchange for that.

Are you proposing, you said eliminate the access easement. Is that actually your goal? Or is it to change the street type designation? Do you want the easement is not the determining factor of whether or not we put in a sidewalk. Is it not the street type in the DCS, or the street type that has been assigned to McSorley Lane?

Yeah, and I'm still not entirely clear on how these street typologies get assigned and at what point.

Well, they are in the TMP, so they're assigned through the Transportation Master Plan and then defined in the DCS.

Okay, so I'm looking, for instance, on the TMP map, and it says McSorley, and the street class is residential, right? And it says street name McSorley and street type LN. That's all on the public TMP. That's all I'm seeing. Do you know where is, how is that?

So then it's defined in the DCS. And then the street section is specified for a rural residential street.

But it doesn't say rural residential. It just says residential.

But again, based on the definitions of the street typologies in the DCS, it would fall into rural residential.

Why?

Because the number of units it serves.

But how many units does it serve? It seems to me it's less than 15. And 15 then would allow for access lane. That's what I was saying earlier.

It carries traffic volumes in the range of 500 to 1,000 vehicles a day. So again, there's the whole definition of rural residential street in the DCS. Again, I don't want to derail the conversation. That's just how it's classified and defined. And then the metrics for the street section, so sidewalk width, pavement width,

I yeah okay okay Kurt I'm going to intervene here I think before we get too much deeper into this I think we should test and whether there's interest in this proposal so what I would like to do at this point is kind of list out what are the I want to check I want to check some assumptions here and see who's interested in what okay so I think the assumption that I'm hearing is that people generally like the annexation petition, but think that it does not currently provide enough benefit potentially. Is that what I'm hearing? If you agree with that, please raise your hands. So four, that's the majority. So I think we would like to keep discussing what additional benefit we might want to ask for. And we have several different proposals of what that additional benefit could look like. And we're not committing to asking for any additional benefit. We're just exploring at this point. And I've heard several different proposals. And so, Kurt, I think that you're... Discussion of easements is you're hoping to give some of that benefit back to the applicant so that you can get more benefit out someplace else.

It's a different kind of benefit that I'm looking for.

You're looking for a different kind of benefit because you don't find a whole lot of benefit in these easements.

I don't find a whole lot of benefit. And in the annexation guidelines, I think it's in the BVCP, it talks specifically about affordable housing. That is sort of the core benefit that is identified. So I'm trying to focus more on that and get more value in the form of housing affordability.

And it, I mean, it feels like a little bit of an assumption that if we get rid of these easements, that we could then trade that for some affordable housing benefit. I'm not sure that, like, it's not clear to me that these easements are all that much of a burden on the applicants, because they don't really intend to develop a whole lot anyway. Brad?

I think it's important for the board to recognize a couple things, and I'm going to ask Allison and Charles to keep me honest on this, but Because that was in the pre-annexation agreement to dedicate these public access easements, this is a fulfillment of their agreement, number one. And number two, in getting the full right-of-way width, if and when it gets developed in the future, that allows us to exact sidewalks for public purposes. If we don't do that at this time, the city would be in a position of needing to buy that land then in the future to be able to put a public sidewalk. So I would encourage the board to keep that in mind as this being a tool for exactions at the time of subdivision.

Can I respond? Yeah, thank you for that, Brad. I do understand that. The fundamental question that I'm still trying to understand is how did we arrive at the notion that this street should be classified as rural residential? because it doesn't seem to me that that classification is justified by the standards that are in the DCS. And if it can be classified as access lane, then no sidewalk is required there.

I think what I heard Charles saying, so Charles, you'll have to keep me honest, is that the transportation plan of all existing roads in the system indicate what kind of road it is, an arterial or otherwise. And those types of roads have this type of road section. Did I understand that right, Charles?

McSorley is not classified as an access street. It's classified as a rural residential street.

In the mapping of all the roads. Yeah. So it is classified as that. And then we are saying this is the standard for that classification road. It's not that that by creating that road standard, it would classify that. It is already class.

And I, yeah, thank you. I do, I'm hearing that. I'm just trying to understand, mostly for future purposes, how can I find out what a given street is classified as? Because I'm not seeing it in the transportation master plan map.

Can I ask you to take that offline? I would like us to focus tonight on this annexation petition. And I feel like we are not going to be reclassifying streets as a part of the annexation petition. So given that, is there any interest in talking further about not having the applicant do these easements, dedicate the easements? Is anyone interested in further pursuing that? Please raise your hand. Okay, Kurt, we're going to stop talking about it, but I appreciate your passion for that. And I hope you have a good conversation offline with staff about the information that you need. Okay, so in terms of the question of is there additional benefit that we would want to ask for through this annexation petition? And I will point out that if we don't ask for it, we're not going to get it. And if it's not in the annexation petition, if it's not written in the contract, we are not going to get it. So here are the things that have been proposed. Claudia proposed, and I think, Claudia, please stop me if I'm misrepresenting anything, and worked out with Hella, there could be a, instead of having this property be zoned RR2, we could ask for it to be RE. and put a limit on that of no more than 10 units so that it does not conflict with the underlying land use, that that is a potential thing that we could ask for in the negotiation, subject, of course, to the applicant's agreement. So that's one option. I suggested that we might want to send it back and ask for that the application would include there will be a subdivision and there will be at least one more unit constructed. housing and then that would be subject to that 1.5 IH calculation and then Kurt you suggested asking for a higher fraction of cash in lieu were there any other proposals about what we might ask for Mason were you asking for a potential bike lane or bike path

Yeah, since that area couldn't be built in, I thought it might be reasonable to ask for additional public access easement on the backside of the property.

For a bike lane?

Yes, for a bike lane.

Let me ask staff about that. Given that it would be subject to a flood control easement, we do often have greenways in flood control areas. Would there be any potential for access easement for a bike lane in that western half of the property? I mean, I'm not sure that the TMP calls for a bike path there.

It does not because it's using the old whatever road next to it.

Old tail.

Yeah. Thank you.

There's no connection specified on the property. There's no network connections plan out there that would require a bike path. So I don't know what the value would be to just have that assigned to one property when there hasn't been a network established.

Yeah.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like it would connect anywhere. Okay, are you okay if we drop that idea?

Okay, so we're... No, I was not in favor of it.

Okay, so we have. So we have three I want to I want to keep us moving here, we have three potential proposals on the table, and I just want to some polling about. Do you have any interest in this, and this is not exclusive you can vote for more than one Okay, you don't have to just choose your favorite so who has any interest in potentially pursuing claudia's proposal about. This could be RE with no more than 10 units specified in the annexation agreement. And that would not require anyone to build anything, but it would allow for that potential sometime in the future if the property were to change hands or if the property owner were to decide to pursue that. Who has any interest in pursuing that potentially? I see four. Okay. Okay. And then the proposal that I put on the table, which is send this back for renegotiation around subdividing and adding a unit as a condition of the annexation. Just me. Okay. So that one falls off. And then higher fraction of cash in lieu. I'll tell you my hesitation around that is I think that what that would do is that it just would never get built because people would see that as too onerous. But I do think that the inclusionary housing cash in lieu is not typically the thing that's make or break for a project. So maybe I'm overthinking that. Who has interest in potentially asking about a higher fraction of cash in lieu beyond 1.5 for a potential future housing addition? One. Okay. So it looks like the only thing that we might potentially want to pursue with the applicant is designating this as RE rather than RR2 and saying that no more than 10 housing units could be built on the property in total. And it would not require any building, but it would allow that in the future. So why don't we ask the applicant's representative if they think that could be acceptable?

I'd like to start by reinforcing that Approximately between the floodplain and undevelopable area and the setbacks, it's probably like 25% of this property that can actually be built on. So in our mind, it's kind of a futile effort because you could never physically fit that many units on the buildable portion of the land. And also Huckabye Temple is trying to make a 100-year building, essentially. They have no interest in selling the site or subdividing it. They want to maintain their longtime stewardship and existence of the land. And I just like to say that out loud. And if I could, I'd like to speak on a little bit more community benefit. There is a significant PIF fee that is also included in the annexation. was not discussed. Property taxes, sorry, what kind of fee, plant investment fee for the impervious area. They're also at the time of development would be hundreds of 1000s of dollars in permit fees, property taxes now coming to the city of Boulder, not the county. There's a quite a few additional benefits that I think aren't being brought up that are happening as part of this process.

Okay, thank you for that. And then to the question of would the applicant, do you think, consider revising the annexation agreement so that it is RE rather than RR2? It does not require any additional building. That would still be within the temple's purview to decide unless they decide to sell the property.

I think we'd want to look at if the religious assembly use was still by right in that district because that would be... a key to answering that question.

That is a great question. Can we ask staff is religious assembly allowed by right in RE? I'm looking it up right now.

And additionally, I'd like to say that we are about, we initially applied for annexation in June of 25 and had pre-app for several months before that. So we're, we're well over a year into many, many discussions. And if you want to pick my brain on any more of the, right away backgrounds or the continuity or any of that stuff. I have a pretty deep history on all that.

Okay. I think we're good on those. So a religious assembly is allowed by right in the RE zone. I'm sorry. It is, or is it is, it is. Yeah. Okay. So with that in mind, and if we made this change, could it be done fairly quickly so it doesn't hold the application up just to change the zoning, the initial zoning to RE and put the limit of 10 dwelling units? Would that take a lot of time to make that change?

We'll have to amend the agreement before it goes to council, assuming that we wanted to advance the change. But yeah, we can handle that as part of sending it to council.

Okay, so it would not extend the time. Okay, so I think it goes back to the applicant. Would you find that acceptable, given that you still have control over the development there?

I'd have to discuss it with the Hookabye ownership team, but I would say that it would be a bit painful, given the length of the process, and I would also want confirmation that the planning board hearings, which are already scheduled, would not get pushed back farther.

The city council hearings, I think he's referring to. Yeah, sorry, city council.

And Charles, I think you said that it would not push that back, correct?

Not that I could foresee now.

Okay.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Mark.

I'm going to propose, I'm going to make a motion. I just don't want to surprise people. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make the original motion. And should a board member want to propose an amendment, specifically to the RR2 designation, they may do that once the main motion is made and seconded. So unless I am really stepping on someone's toes, I would like us to proceed that way and get to our decision making.

I think that's a great way to proceed, Mark.

Okay.

Okay. Before Mark puts a motion on the floor, I see Claudia has a hand up.

Yeah, just not sure what order we want to do this in, but I had prepared a series of notions incorporating the different proposed zoning and the cap on total dwelling units as, as we talked about with hella body, would you be amenable to making those as amendments to the main motion. I have not written them that way because I have written the new proposed zoning into the main motion. I mean, it's a simple swap out, but it is there in the main motion.

I think either way gets us there. I really do. So I think it is typically our custom to start with staff's motion and then make amendments, if that's all right with you, Claudia.

All right. I'm not entirely sure how that's going to look, but if that's the will, let's proceed that way.

Let's go ahead. So Mark wants to make the motion.

I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 1275 Cherryvale Road and 5995 McSorley Lane with an initial zoning of residential rural 2, RR2, under case number LUR 2025-00049, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the terms and conditions of the proposed annexation agreement.

I'll second that.

Mark, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, briefly. Again, The more I've learned about this application, the more I've become in favor of it. And I think that there needs to be a respect both for the application process and the applicant's use as religious assembly. And that use... As much as we might like to modify it and hope that housing happens and hope that we get 1.5 or more... in cash in lieu to our inclusionary housing program, et cetera, the applicant has been clear that this is a religious assembly. And I think there just needs to be a certain respect for that as well as the application process. So I propose simply moving on with the staff's main language.

Thank you, Mark. Max, would you like to speak as the second?

Yeah, I actually completely agree with Marge. And I mean, I've been kind of silent on this one. I really admire the spirit of my colleagues and I too am a huge champion of inclusory housing. And I think that I, like I said, I admire that we're all striving to figure out a way to make this work in general. But this is a time where it is very consistent with the zoning around it to be RR2. I'm struggling to see the benefit of up-zoning it to RE because of the constraints of the land that already stand. I think the applicant made a lot of very salient points about the community benefit of bringing in property taxes, but I also think there's just a community benefit to making life a little bit easier on a place of worship. And in this case, I think that This is a regulatory hurdle that could have been surmounted many, many years ago and was not, unfortunately. But if their desire is to work on their building, I think that one of the best things that we could do is let them take in our fees. And we've negotiated, staff has done their negotiations, and I'm in agreement with their findings.

Thank you, Max. Any other discussion of the main motion before I ask for amendments? Would anybody like to make an amendment? Claudia, and I will recommend that if you're going to make an amendment about the zoning and a cap that you do it together rather than as separate motions because I think they go together.

Yeah, I'm struggling with the best way to encapsulate that since my amendment would would change that initial zoning. I guess I could roll it all together in one motion.

Is that what you would prefer, Laura? Yes, I think you could just very simply make an amendment, like move to change the zoning from RR2 to RE with a cap of no more than 10 units for the property.

Okay. Okay. So let me try this. I move that planning board recommend to city council that the proposed annexation have an initial zoning of residential estate RE and that the annexation agreement for the property be amended to cap the total number of future dwelling units at 10, consistent with the BVCP, very low density residential land use designation.

Hella, does that legally pass muster?

I think so, provided there can also be a finding of general consistency with the goals of the BVCP and not just looking at the density.

So we're getting wording up on the screen.

I'll just need the end of that. I think I captured most of it, but.

Claudia, could you repeat the ending to be consistent with the?

Be consistent with the BVCP, very low density residential land use designation. And then I think Hela had one more consideration to add here, and I'd be happy to do that. Helen, would you be willing to repeat the caveat that you gave?

Yeah, the caveat was more related to the findings that have to be made under the initial zoning standards and the code, which look not only at consistency with the land use map and that specific density limitation that's in there, but it also requires generally consistency with the BVCP. I think that's something you might want to consider right now in your recommendation, whether you think that those findings can be made under an RE zoning that's limited in terms of density. And I also wanted to mention that one of the things we haven't thought through is how this density limit would be applied by staff, considering that I think this property would not be eligible for a site review, so we would have to somehow apply the RE zoning with this density limit.

So Hela, I think you're thinking through some very complex things and I don't know that we are properly absorbing how you need us to capture that in the motion. Do you have any recommendations for language that we could use that would capture your concerns? And if you'd like some time to think about that, we could take a short break at this point in the process.

Yeah, it might be good to take a break and I can confer with staff too on their thoughts on how to capture that or how to maybe rephrase the motion.

Okay. Okay. Claudia, are you okay with us taking a break in the middle of your amendment making?

I am.

Okay. Why don't we go ahead and take a 10-minute break? It is currently 8.03. We'll come back at 8.13. Thank you. And if the applicant's representative would like to try to make a phone call to anybody and ask how this might be received, that would be helpful information for us. Thank you. Do we have the applicant's representative back?

We do not.

Not yet. Okay. Is he coming back?

Well, his water bottle and notebook are here, so I'm going to take that as a yes.

Okay. All right. Maybe we can go ahead and get this language up here and hope that he's back soon to talk to us. Okay. So we are going to reconvene. It is 8.13 p.m. We have a main motion to approve the annexation petition, already moved and seconded, and now we are working on a potential amendment to the main motion. And Brad, I see you have your microphone on.

I do have my microphone. So again, Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services. Before we kind of speak to a potential clause to be put in there to speak to the adherence to or compliance with the comprehensive plan, consistency with the comprehensive plan, did want to just go back and share with you as we thought through some of the mechanical realities of a potential clause that limited or put a cap of 10 on that, which we understand to mean creating the possibility of up to 10 units on the property. So a couple of considerations that we'd ask the board to think about. Number one, and we're going to be sharing the HOME Act that was passed by the state this year. We're going to be talking about that at our next meeting, I think. But Essentially, one of the things it does is create affirmative opportunities for religious properties, places of worship to propose housing in the future. Although in many instances, and that's true here as well, they could do that already to some degree as well. So that's one consideration we want to make sure the board's aware of. And then the other one is an administrative challenge that we don't know we would have a clear answer to, and that's the fact that because this is two properties, it would be unclear to us as to how we would administer the fractioning out of those theoretical 10 acres. So in other words, there's not a legal mechanism that would be in place, at least at this point, that would say if lot one got sold to a different property owner, they were allocated three of the 10 or five of the 10 or seven of the 10. There's no mechanism that's obvious towards doing that because it isn't one large parcel and it's not going through subdivision where those types of things would be determined. So we just want to point out that practical reality. And then I guess thirdly, we are sympathetic and aware of what the applicant's representative said about it having a highly constrained site in terms of physical constraints as well. So those are just considerations for you as you move forward. John Potter, In terms of the mechanics of addressing consistency with the comprehensive plan, we would typically. John Potter, Have a more exhaustive list of findings that we recommend for you, but in the absence of that you could add a clause. That essentially says after initial zoning of residential estate comma consistent with the finding or with the finding that That the annexation is consistent on the whole with the comprehensive plan or words to that effect. Would be would be a way to have that kind of minimum acknowledgement in place.

Thank you, Brad. With that in mind, I'd like to perhaps suggest a friendly amendment. And I want to ask staff, would this resolve the dilemma that staff faces in terms of portioning out the 10 units? Rather than a cap of 10, could we just go back to the initial language that says no more than two units per acre per parcel or calculated on a per parcel basis? And that way it would be clear if it's separate parcels that it's two units per acre calculated on a per parcel basis.

I guess as the team over here thinks about it, is the intent behind that to limit the amount or allow for up to that?

I think it's to limit, right? Because that's where we got the 10 from is that it is five acres. It's actually 5.4 total. And that's where we got the 10 from, but it is still two separate parcels that are not being proposed to be a lot line elimination. So if we went back to the underlying reason for the calculation was no more than two Two units per acre.

And the concern is that somehow there would be more than two per acre?

The concern is that the RE designation with the potential subdivision would let you have three units per acre.

Do we know that mathematically, given that it only would allow duplexes?

Yeah, and I think actually looking at that standard again, it would allow even more under the RE zoning if there were more than one house on a parcel. But I think the solution that you proposed, Laura, limiting it to no more than two dwelling units per acre per parcel would work.

Okay, and so that would still be consistent with that underlying land use designation of very low density.

Yeah.

So Claudia, if that works for you as the motion maker, I would propose, I see you nodding yes, that Thomas, we strike the language that says amended to cap the number of total dwelling units at 10. So you can start with to cap. And then end at 10, yes. And then you can delete that. And then it would say, to be amended to allow no more than two units per acre on a parcel basis. Pella, does that work? Be amended to allow no more than two units per acre on a parcel basis. Yes, I think that works. Okay. And then the other clause. Claudia, did you capture it or do you want me to take a stab at a friendly amendment?

If you have a stab at it, Laura, I'd appreciate it because I'm still a little bit bewildered by it.

Okay. I think it was. Okay. So after the RE in the second line, Thomas, it would say, comma, consistent with the findings. that the application is consistent with the BVCP on the whole? Comma. Is that the language you wanted, Hela?

And are you Are you trying to say that planning board would find this to be consistent with the BBCP on a whole or that you're asking council to make that determination?

We could say which the planning board finds to be consistent. I think we're saying that the planning board is making that. So yes, Thomas, which the planning board finds to be consistent. Right, it's a little awkward. Claudia, do you want to take another look at it? See if there's anything you want to change?

I just think there's there's an extra phrase in here. Let's see, which the planning board finds to be consistent with the BVCP on the whole. There's some extra language in there. So you could delete from where the cursor currently is consistent through the the before BVCP. Or sorry, with.

Through the is. Through the is. Thank you.

Yes. Which the planning board finds to be consistent with the BVCP on the whole?

Yes.

Okay. Hella is scrutinizing. For folks who don't know Hella, Hella is our attorney from the city attorney's office that advises planning board. Hella, will that do it?

Yes, and I'm assuming it's a motion to amend the original motion that has not been voted on?

Yes. So could we specify yes to amend the main motion?

This would just go under the main motion finding. So I don't think we need to put that in the.

OK. Claudia, is that your motion to amend? Yes. And if there are no objections, I would like to second. I second. Claudia, would you like to speak to your motion?

Very, very briefly. I think that we should be considering Karen Grove- incremental shifts towards meeting our housing goals within city limits when we have the opportunity. Karen Grove- This is very potentially one such opportunity in the future, I don't think that this amendment. proposed amendment to the annexation agreement impacts the applicants' plans as we understand them in any way whatsoever. I would be perfectly happy for them to continue with their religious assembly use, to bring forward whatever proposal they have for construction. to facilitate that use, whether or not we as a board get to see it in the future. But this is simply to ensure that if the use of this property ever does change, or if the ownership of this property ever does change in the future, that there is some housing capacity there to support city goals.

Thank you, Claudia. I would like to speak to it as the second. I support everything that Claudia said. I just want to point out that I think this is a really elegant solution that Claudia has proposed and that Hella has helped us work through because it still leaves the power in the hands of the applicant always what to do with their property. And if they never want to take advantage of this, they never have to. But we have seen throughout the city that different religious groups organizations have actively wanted to have more of their property developed because it provides some win-win, right? It gives them additional resources to continue their religious use, particularly if they find that they are having trouble sustaining themselves financially. And if at some point they wanted to sell the property or subdivide the property, this gives them resources that they would not otherwise have access to to continue the religious use that is so important to their community. I think it is also, we don't talk about these things as setting precedent because every application stands on its own merits. But I think it does provide a nice example of the kind of win-win that we can seek with applicants where the city is evolving, the city is changing, we are not forcing any change, but we are allowing for the potential to move in the direction that benefits the city through additional housing capacity, which is one of our primary needs. So I really like this solution, and I will say that I have seen plenty of applications come through on my time in planning board where we did actually require the applicant to maximize their housing potential on their site. And if this were in a different part of the city, we might have been having that conversation. We are not doing that tonight. We are leaving all of that decision in the hands of the applicant. And so that's why I'm going to support this amendment. Mason.

I would like to speak against the amendment for a couple of reasons. First, I think we're... forcing this upzoning on the applicant second, which is something that I know people oftentimes you know, complain that we do, but we never do. This is like the first time I've actually seen us doing it as far as I can remember. The second point is it complicates the process without providing any additional benefit. We've already talked about how this doesn't change what they're doing. They're talking about having this for a hundred years, so on and so forth. So I see it as a complication without benefit. And I also see it as actually giving value to the applicant. not giving additional value to the city, both because it doesn't actually add additional housing or anything else onto the property, but having an upzoning does provide additional value. And typically when we're in conversations about changing land use or zoning for a project that is a negotiating chip, once that project comes to us. So I think we're kind of giving away something here.

So I do just want to, and I respect everything that you said, and I think it's a valuable perspective. I do just want to clarify that we are not forcing this. This would have to be, the applicant would have to accept this. And if they do not, then they don't have to go forward with the annexation agreement. So we are not changing their land use without them agreeing to it. And also, you know, my thought is we can make this recommendation. And if the applicant feels strongly that this is not in their best interest, they can ask city council to undo it, right? We are not the final decision maker here. So I see this as us making our best recommendation on what the annexation agreement could and should include, but it is still up to the applicant and city council to finalize that annexation agreement. So just want to clarify, we are not forcing anything because I think that people are afraid that planning board does that. We are not doing that. Mark.

I concur with Mason on this one. And to say that we're not forcing it on them, we're not forcing it on them by the function of, in the case of annexation, we act as an advisory board and we advise council to adopt this. And I think we need to be very cautious and judicious when both we create a condition, and I'm not opposed to necessarily creating conditions for applicants, but the nuance of this, I think, could be lost on counsel. And especially if it's lost on counsel and the applicant says, we don't want this, we just want to build our Zen Center. It's another conflict with council that we don't need. So anyway, I won't be supporting it.

So before we go any further, I do want to ask the applicant, did you have a chance to check in with anybody? Do you have anything else that you want to tell us?

We did, yes. In our limited time, we did a quick and dirty analysis of the RE versus the RR2 and didn't see anything jump out as being substantially different in terms of FARs or setbacks or the types of things we would be interested or that might limit us further if this change were made. but that being so for that reason in general, we're not opposed to it, but we would ask that the planning and development staff that's on hand do a confirmation side by side of the two zone districts and kind of agree to that assessment that it wouldn't negatively change the development that we've been investing time and energy in planning for a year and a half or more now.

That's a great piece of information for us. Steph, do you have any quick and dirty assessment of whether an RE designation would change their FAR, their setbacks, their ability to build the project that they would like to build?

Yeah, I think we're going to have to study it. as part of our march to city council. Hopefully that doesn't slow us down, but we'll have to give it a little bit more thought.

So, yeah, so my recommendation would be we continue to deliberate and then take a vote. But it sounds like that analysis could be looked at without slowing down the process to city council. And if it arrives at city council and it does look like it would hamper your project, that would be something that city council should absolutely take into consideration.

Okay.

All right. Other comments before we take a vote on this? Adding this amendment. Kurt, did you have your hand up?

I did, but it wasn't specifically about the amendment, so I will defer for now.

All right. Shall we take a vote on this amendment, which has been moved and seconded, or is there any more deliberation? All right, let's go ahead and take a vote. Let's start with Claudia. Yes. Mark.

No.

Kurt. Yes. I'm a yes. Mason.

No.

And Max.

No.

I think that's three to three, so I think it does not pass. So now we have the main motion. Can we put the main motion language back up on the screen?

Austin, if you can pull the main motion language up. I don't have that readily available.

Okay, I'm going to read the main motion. Motion to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of the property located at 1275 Cherryvale Road and 5995 McSorley Lane with an initial zoning of Residential Rural 2, RR2, under case number LUR2. 2025-00049, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the terms and conditions in the proposed annexation agreement. It has been moved and seconded. Any final discussion? Let's take a vote. Claudia. Yes. Max.

Yes.

Mason. Yes. I'm a yes. Kurt? Yes. And Mark?

Yes.

All right. So that passes 6-0 unanimously. Congratulations to the applicant. This will move forward to City Council with that 6-0 vote. I do want to thank the applicant and staff and the board for a thorough exploration of our possibilities. I think that we plowed some important ground here that will serve us well in the future. We typically give the applicant a chance to respond. Is there anything else that you would like to say to us or ask from us?

No, just thanks for your consideration, and we appreciate the process as well. Thanks.

Thank you so much.

Okay, that closes out that agenda item. Going back to our agenda for the night, we are at, I think, matters from staff. Matters from the planning director, from the city attorney, or other staff members? Nothing from me. Thank you.

Nothing from me. Happy to answer questions, though, from the board.

Thank you. I guess I skipped over matters from the board. I do actually have a matter from the board. So Mark, everybody here tonight is expecting this except you. This is a surprise for you. I regret that on the night that I was elected chair, I did not take the time to properly thank our outgoing chair, Mark McIntyre, for your esteemed service to the board as chair. And I would like to correct that error tonight. So I'm going to kick it off with a few remarks that I have prepared in appreciation for your service and then invite the rest of the board if you would like to say a few words. So Mark. You and I and ML were all appointed to the board the same year. And typically, a person takes on the role of planning board chair in their last year of service. But for various reasons, you took your turn early. And your term has been extended. So you'll get to serve three years as a board member without being chair. So that's fun. But you stepped up and you served as chair admirably. And I want to say just a few things that I really, really appreciated about your service. So number one, your focus on process. And of course, I have a prop tonight. Robert's rules of order, right? We all got a copy of this thanks to you. And hopefully we've all had a chance to learn from it. And I appreciate it even showed through tonight with your moving us forward to emotion when we could have gotten our wheels stuck even more than we did. So thank you so much for your focus on process and Robert's rules. I really have always appreciated your insightful remarks with your attention to the code and to the good of our city and what's in the best interest of the city. I do think that you have always not been shy about pushing the board's limits a little bit and helping us think about not just being administrators of a code, but really thinking about our job to further the interests of the city of Boulder through good planning. And there have been agreements and disagreements in that regard, but I appreciate your boldness and your willingness to push us to think a little bit harder beyond just the limits of the code. you've always done a very thoughtful job also of balancing respect for the board and respect for staff, right? Like you're not a blind follower of one or the other. You know, you have always taken staff's good counsel under advisement and criticized where you thought criticism was due, but not harshly, fairly. and praised where you thought praise was due. And you've done that for the board as well. And I really appreciate your role modeling in that. And I will attempt to follow in your footsteps. I also appreciate your attention to not prolonging meetings and being efficient. So I'm not going to prolong these remarks much more. And I appreciate your steady hand and good humor. Mark, thank you so much for your service. Other board member.

Yes, for Mark.

Other board members want to add to that.

Well, I don't have anything prepared and I really can't add anything to that, but I just want to also express my appreciation for your great leadership. I felt that you did a fantastic job, as Laura said, really bringing us back to the proper process, which I think is super important, both in terms of making sure that everything is done fairly and illegally and also expeditiously. And so I think that you set a really great precedent there. And I'm glad that we're following, continuing to follow through on that. Um, blending board in the past before my time on the board, but when I was watching it, uh, sometimes that didn't always happen. And, and I, I feel like it was somewhat to the detriment of the board and the city. And so I'm really glad that we're doing that. And yeah, thank you for your, also just your heart and your brain and your heartfelt comments and insight and so on. I think really you did a fantastic job leading us. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Kurt. Claudia has a hand up. You're not, you don't get to talk yet, Mark. We're going to keep more praise on you. Prepare to blush some more. Okay, Claudia. Thanks, Laura, for organizing this and also for bringing a prop.

I want to note for the record that I had my copy of Robert's Rules in Brief in my bag in April. when I thought we might be sharing this appreciation of Mark's service as chair, but I neglected to carry that book across the ocean with me. So I just want to say I really appreciate Mark for keeping us in order during some very complicated and contentious items during the year that he was chair. for his thoughtful reflection on board procedures and for making space for our many individual quirks and obsessions and curveballs on the board. I think that being chair comes with a filter that you have to have, right? This expectation that you have patience and restraint and and sometimes put your own priorities a bit aside. I think Mark worked really hard to model that when consensus was not possible on this board. And when things did get rough in our deliberations, I was always impressed that Mark was willing to kind of come back and reflect on his own role in that process, right, and where things went right and where things could be done better. I'm incredibly glad that we still have Mark with us for another almost three years. I'm delighted for the chance to continue learning from his contributions without that chair filter in place. And I am looking forward to debriefing many more meetings with him on our shared bike rides home, at least for as long as I can keep up with him. So thank you, Mark.

Any other comments? I see Brad is approaching the podium.

I feel from the, the, uh, gal gallery here that, uh, I, I want to just express appreciation. Thanks as well. And, uh, Mark, as you know, we've had a chance to talk outside of just the hearings a bit, and I, I want to express appreciation. And, um, second, the fact that, uh, Mark very much cared for each of you and for staff and respected the opinions of all of us and all of you. And, um, struggled with how to be equitable and fair and in making sure that those voices were heard throughout the process and um and at the same time having his own passion about specific issues or specific processes and such so um very much appreciate you mark and uh also glad you're not going anywhere which is probably why it made it easy for us to to see that transition and, and know that you're still around.

Thank you, Brad. Okay. Mark, now you can respond.

Okay. Well, I first, thank you all very much. I really do appreciate that acknowledgement. And, um, uh, that was an interesting and challenging year for me. Um, uh, It did take a lot of internal work on my part to control some parts of me, right, that sometimes are less controlled. So anyway, I appreciate that acknowledgement. And I want to say that that last year, the year before, last year, and so far this year, has been really enjoyable. for me. And I think that comes from my view that we can all learn from each other. And I feel like I learn from you. I learn from staff at every meeting. And I think that that that learning makes is one of the greatest pleasures in life. And so, you know, I don't I come to these meetings as long as I have a plan for a meeting. But, you know, in fact, I come to them because I enjoy them. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. Right. So I think there is a lot to be said for the camaraderie that we have. And I think this meeting and I think our last meeting was an example of how a board can function really well, without weird uh alliances that are you know backroom alliances and stuff we debate things and we reach uh different conclusions um but we do so with great respect and so anyway i i i find our meetings um uh almost always enjoyable and i always learn something from them and i'll conclude by saying that I am greatly relieved not to be chair. Especially at the last couple of meetings, I'm like, oh, I'm so glad Laura is chairing. And so anyway, thank you all. Thank you, Mark.

Well said. And we enjoy and learn from you too, as you probably heard. Okay, I have one more quick matter, and then we'll do a calendar check and adjourn. And that is, in past years, we have had a bit of a budget for things like buying books for planning board members. Like I think the year before we arrived, Mark and ML and I, The middle housing book was bought for each planning board member. That planning board thought that was important. People have gotten sent to conferences, not overseas or anything, nothing too exciting. For example, my registration fees were paid for to go to the Landmarks Historic Preservation Conference that was held here in Boulder the year that I was the liaison to the Landmarks Board. We've had dinners, appreciation dinners for outgoing chairs, that kind of thing. And so I just wanted to ask staff for clarification in these constrained budget times. Is there a budget for planning board to do those kinds of things? And if so, could you tell us a little bit about it?

Well, thanks very much for the question. We have historically tried to help support the board in training opportunities, so be it state or local conferences. And there have been times where we've provided materials to the board just based on the board's request. We don't have a budget, a training budget for the board per se. We do have some dollars through our P&DS fund that are set aside for these types of things. It really just kind of depends on the request. I think typically in the past, we've tried to keep it to two board members going to a conference per year. Again, it depends on if it's a local kind of more inexpensive opportunity like Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, which is a great value on its local, you know, versus a national APA conference, which involves airline travel and hotels and things like that. So I think it really just kind of depends on the ask. um especially when it comes to things like other training materials books um we're always happy to look into it if it's an opportunity that we can support based on what it is that um we have in the coffers we're happy to we're happy to do it but i can't think of a time where we um even in our most fiscally constrained um uh budgets where um we've had to completely shut off the training or conferences things like that so

Thank you for that, Charles.

If you ask, Brad will render a decision on what it is as possible. He always uses an example about yoga retreats in Hawaii and, you know, versus those kinds of things. But if there's asks, we're happy to run it up the phone policy.

So the yoga retreats in Hawaii are an example of something that would be.

It's Brad's favorite example of retreats. But I think my point is that if you guys are interested in something, if you just want to let Thomas know, we're happy to take a look into it and see what we can do.

Okay, thank you so much. I know that it has become less common, I think, over the past couple of years that we take advantage of that. So I just wanted to make sure that people who are newer to the board especially understand that there may be some opportunities. So if you see something cool, a planning conference that's local, a book that you think the board should read, we can discuss those kinds of things, it sounds like.

I would also note that the American planning association also has taken, they have an in-person national conference, but they've also taken it online now. So they'll do, you know, their four day in-person conference, and then they'll have all online sessions, usually a couple of weeks later, which is usually a pretty good value. So.

I will say that the landmarks conference that or the historic preservation conference that I attended was held here in Boulder. So there was no travel expense. And there were some like walking tours of various areas of Boulder that I think I benefited from substantially. So things like that seem very appropriate. Yeah, Kurt.

And one year I went to the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute conference, which was at DU down in Denver. And that was fantastic. I don't remember who paid for it. It wasn't me. But it was really a great opportunity to get to meet people from around Colorado, the region, the metro area. and even beyond, who were working in land use and obsessed with land use and stuff like that. There were some really good talks and really good opportunities to just chat with people at lunch and stuff. I talked to the planning director of Thornton at the time, and they had just rewritten their land use code, actually, which was kind of interesting. So it was a great opportunity. It happened in the past in January, I think.

It's in the spring.

Yeah, I remember it was a cold day.

Yeah, either it could be really warm or it could be snowing. But yeah, it's typically in the spring. It's a great conference. It's a great value. It's been going on for a really long time. So it's very well attended. And the sessions that they put on are great. And we're happy to pass along after the first of the year, they usually start sending out reminders for registration. So we can forward that onto the board once we start seeing those. But it's a great local opportunity.

Yeah, I would recommend it to anybody who hasn't been there, especially.

Okay.

Any other matters from the board?

Very quick. Who is the ex-officio member to DAB now?

Kurt and I are splitting that duty. Although I don't think it's official. It's just that we show up.

And I have not yet been to DAB.

Well, I don't know that they've had a meeting since the change has been made. I received an email this afternoon with a quorum check for a DAB meeting on Wednesday, August 12th. Did you guys, did either of you, so I'm still getting the emails.

So we need to talk to DAB and get on their email list is what you're saying. Okay, yep.

But I will forward this to both of you.

Thank you, Mark. Any other matters from the board? Thomas, do we need to do a calendar check?

We have a meeting next Tuesday, August 4th, and then we have a break after that until the 18th.

Fantastic. Thomas, do you have anything else you need from us?

Nothing for me. Thank you.

Oh, Max has something.

Very, very small announcement, but I'm getting my ID card today, so I'm officially a member of the planning board.

Fantastic. Welcome. Welcome, member Max. Max Lord, everybody, now a member of the planning board. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you again to staff and the board. We are adjourned. Claudia, get some sleep.