Attachment G - Sep. 2, 2025 Draft Planning Board Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 2, 2025 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and an audio recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone Mason Roberts STAFF PRESENT: Karl Guiler, Development Code Amendment Manager Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney III Jay Sugnet, Housing Senior Manager Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Thomas Remke, Senior Operations Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Nobody spoke. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no call-up items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed ordinance, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 6, “Health, Safety, and Sanitation,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 8, “Parks, Open Spaces, Streets, and Public Ways,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 10, “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, and Title 11, Utilities and Airport,” B.R.C. 1981 on

matters related to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire resilience and setting forth related details. (00:06:00) Staff Presentation: Karl Guiler presented the item to the board. (00:30:00) Board Questions: Karl Guiler answered questions from the board. (01:44:00) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal (01:47:30) Board Discussion: (01:55:30) K. Nordback noted that 9-9-11(i) recommends changing the minimum width of a landscaped area from 2 feet to 5 feet, with the explanation that areas less than 5 feet tend not to be very successful. He thinks that may be true of planted areas, but a landscape area can be a walkway, for example, which on a private development, can be fine if it's quite narrow. He does not support that change and thinks that 2 feet is perfectly reasonable. He asked a question earlier in the meeting about whether demising an existing building with no exterior changes would trigger this. He does not think that it's not appropriate to penalize that kind of change that doesn't affect the exterior in any way by requiring it to have a landscape plan. You could do all kinds of other interior changes that would be just as substantive, but if you're not creating another unit, then it wouldn't trigger it. He asked the question about the required summary about how the landscape requirement is met and he understands where staff is coming from on this, but it also sounds like it could end up just kind of always being a boilerplate, where people say, “I studied the landscape plans, and I met them.” It's not clear to him that it adds any real benefit, and it's just another thing for people to have to do, so he is not in support of requiring that additional summary. He noted the draft landscape manual says that irrigation of all landscaped areas is required, even though that can include hardscaped areas, and suggested refining the wording there. He does not support the requirement for a licensed landscape architect on lots over 1 acre. (02:02:25) L. Kaplan suggested that for 9-9-11, staff should try to use the language that was adopted into the site review criteria that says this space is visible from an adjoining public sidewalk and is not elevated above the building's first story. She raised questions about what it means for a courtyard to be connected to the grade. She doesn’t think the language in the site review criteria is perfect, but thinks it strikes the right balance so that we don't get people arguing that a second story roof or a third-story roof is connected to the grade through an elevator or something like that. For 9-9-12, she is concerned about the idea that the whole lot or parcel must be in compliance if a new principal structure is proposed, or the addition of a dwelling unit, and ADU for example, on a lot or parcel, that could then trigger the whole lot or parcel, which could be very large, to have to come into compliance with the landscape manual. K. Guiler clarified that the City wouldn't consider an ADU a new dwelling unit or a new principal building.

(02:04:15) L. Kaplan is concerned about disproportionality that could then mean that we don't get new units, because people don't want to trigger this requirement for 10 acres, say, to have to have a landscape plan. She recommended that staff consider that there be some limit or proportionality between the new unit and the size of the parcel that you're looking at. If somebody wants to put a duplex on what is currently a single dwelling unit lot, and it has 10 acres, she thinks that that could be prohibitive. She has some concerns here about lowering thresholds for new floor area and internal renovation projects. She noted that some of these old structures are assessed with a very low value. She suggested that if we’re worried about people hosing things off without a shutoff valve, we should add artificial turf to that list. She supported K. Nordback’s idea for an exemption about demising units into more units with no exterior changes. She agrees. that we shouldn't be penalizing people for doing that. She noted that she is agnostic about the requirement for landscape architects, and agrees with Kurt that it's not necessarily necessary. (02:08:50) Ml Robles recommended that this ordinance encourage gray water use in landscaping. She also recommended protection of healthy, mature trees on private property through the permit process when proposing construction on that property. She doesn’t support a requirement for a licensed landscape architect. She suggested that there be a range of options for people to consider when they go to comply with the 5-foot buffer requirement. (02:13:04) C. Hanson Thiem noted that she thinks it's a good idea to be moving a lot of these technical standards to manuals and the city manager’s rulemaking process. She noted that the board has had that discussion in regard to some other issues recently and thinks that's the place for this kind of work. She also supports the various exemptions that staff have already started to work into the code, such as the one exempting site review projects from full review if they want to do turf replacement and then limiting these requirements for licensed landscape architects to those larger sites, if even that. As discussed by both Kurt and Laura, she would recommend removing triggers that disincentivize demising structures into multiple units. She believes that the idea that we would penalize converting existing single-unit dwellings into duplexes or some such, by making landscaping requirements for that seems against our other housing goals. She would like to see some clarification and deeper thinking about how landscaping triggers would play out in townhouse, condominium, and manufactured housing communities. She would like to see some specific goals and or standards in a water-wise landscaping code for shade and cooling. She thinks the version of the code that we're seeing here piles up a lot of reasons to remove or reduce vegetation in areas of our city, and if that is not done with an eye towards improving the quality of what remains, we are going to find ourselves living in a much harsher environment going forward. She would recommend that we do not over-regulate food gardens and other forms of urban agriculture. She thinks it would also be very helpful for the community to see examples of how these requirements can actually work, how we can reach all three of those goals around fire mitigation, water-wise landscaping, and the shading and cooling. (02:17:49) M. McIntyre supported the comments and suggestions made by his colleagues. He emphasized the growing importance of functional shared spaces. He is in support of the draft tree and plant list, especially being managed under city manager rulemaking for greater adaptability. (02:22:04) MOTION: L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre that Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt a proposed ordinance, amending Title 4, “Licenses and Permits,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 6, “Health, Safety, and Sanitation,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 8, “Parks, Open Spaces, Streets, and Public Ways,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, Title 10, “Structures,”

B.R.C. 1981, and Title 11, Utilities and Airport,” B.R.C. 1981 on matters related to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire resilience, and setting forth related details. Planning Board voted 3-2 (C. Hanson Thiem and Ml Robles dissenting). Motion failed. (02:23:13) AMENDMENT MOTION: K. Nordback made a motion to amend seconded by ML Robles that Planning Board recommends to City Council that B.R.C. 9-9-12(b)(1)(A) be changed to read: “ New development for any project that involves development on a vacant lot or parcel, or a lot or parcel where a new principal structure is proposed” (that is, not including the words “ or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel”). The intent of this motion is to avoid triggering expensive landscaping requirements when adding a unit via changes that are entirely or mostly interior. Planning Board voted 3-2 (M. McIntyre and L. Kaplan dissenting). Motion failed. C. Hanson Thiem noted that she continues to be concerned about disproportionate impacts on quality of life for people living in multi-unit housing and manufactured housing communities, especially in what have recently been defined as WUI Zones. She is concerned about impacts on residents' gardens or “urban agriculture”. She is also concerned about regulations that incentivize or have, as an unintended consequence, a broader de-vegetation or deforestation of our community. (02:41:00) Voting on the original motion stated at 02:22:04. Planning Board voted 3-2 (C. Hanson Thiem and Ml Robles dissenting). B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed Ordinance 8712, amending Chapter 4-20 “Fees,” and Chapter 8-9, “Capital Facility Impact Fee,” adding a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain single-unit dwelling developments, and setting forth related details. (02:51:45) Staff Presentation: Jay Sugnet presented the item to the board. (03:09:00) Board Questions: Karl Guiler answered questions from the board. (03:32:00) Public Participation: In Person: Nobody spoke. Virtual: Lynn Segal (03:35:30) Board Discussion: Key Issue: Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? (03:36:10) C. Hanson Thiem supported moving this forward to close the loophole that we have created for single-unit homes in our inclusionary housing program, and if some market rate development is paying into this fund, then she thinks all market rate development should be doing so, and particularly the more expensive homes in our community. She appreciated that the draft ordinance responds to a lot

of concerns that we raised in earlier discussion, for example, around exemptions for ADUs and smaller homes, as well as for small additions that are more about adapting existing housing stock than fundamentally reconstructing it. She thinks there could be an argument for lowering the size of an addition that receives an exemption. She stated that 500 square feet is, after all, 2 bedrooms and a full bath, and that is not a small project, but she will not withhold support based on the recommended threshold. (03:38:00) K. Nordback agreed with C. Hanson Thiem’s statements. He believes the GGA nexus study does show that development causes impacts on the affordable housing demand, and that this fee is their best estimate of the cost of mitigating the impacts of that development. (03:39:00) L. Kaplan agreed with all of C. Hanson Thiem and K. Nordback’s comments. She supports the ordinance as written. She thinks it has struck the right balance by exempting home types that we want to encourage, which are our ADUs and the small rebuilds and the small additions. She appreciated that it will avoid disproportionately impacting community members with more limited incomes, but more importantly, that it conforms to the logic of the NEXUS study, since these smaller homes and ADUs are not likely to be occupied by high-income families that create the demand for more affordable housing, as detailed in the Nexus study. It confirms that we are losing homes in the affordable range in Boulder through these scrapes and rebuilds faster than we are replacing them. She addressed some other details of the Nexus study, including that it notes that the new and expanded homes typically increase in value by $875,000 to $3.5 million. This is at least double, or sometimes several times, what we estimate a middle-income family can afford in a mortgage. It also notes that the average annual income required to purchase these homes is $200,000 to $640,000 per year, higher than the income required to purchase the smaller homes that they replace. The average annual median income for a middle-class family of four in Boulder is about $100,000 per year. She believes this is evidence that significant home rebuilds and additions will take a somewhat affordable home and price it out of the range of even Boulder's middle class. She believes this shows that this ordinance has benefits for our community. She also noted that the fees that will result from this ordinance are in line with the fees already paid by new multifamily construction or a new unit on a vacant lot, and agreed with colleagues that as a matter of equity, it is only fair that the Board look at charging the same for single units that are rebuilt or significantly expanded. She also noted that the fees typically amount to less than 1% or 2% of typical construction costs, which is unlikely to be prohibitive for anyone who is contemplating this kind of development. She thinks the ordinance is a small but helpful step towards equity and increasing Boulder's ability to provide homes that are affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income families. (03:42:00) Ml Robles noted that the premise of this impact fee, that larger houses pay for their out-ofproportion impact, does resonate with her. However, the impacts that she found most significant are to the environment, not to the economy - Impacts such as the increase of the heat island by the huge footprint and associated paving, the loss of original trees because they were inconvenient, the significant amount of vehicle use, if you include all the deliveries, the commutes of window washers, house cleaners, landscapers, dog walkers, etc. She isn’t sure if the impact fee is going to capture this, but she thinks it's going to open the door to discussing the real impacts.

(03:43:30) M. McIntyre agreed with statements made by his colleagues. He suggested that there could be progression within the justifiable range of the Nexus study. (03:47:30) K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan that Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8712, amending Chapter 4-20 “Fees,” and Chapter 8-9, “Capital Facility Impact Fee,” by the addition of a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain single-unit dwelling developments, and setting forth related details. Planning Board voted 5-0. Motion passed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:50 PM. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE