Transcript

0:00:35Yes we are, thank you. And we're recording. Good morning. Today is February 12th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present in the hearing room this morning. We are here for a public hearing. I am Decision on a call - up of the Planning Directors Determination on 7223. Marshall. It says Marshall Residence, but I think that, well, Marshall Road regarding a residence that was submitted. And so we will be, this is a call up at the request of the commissioners to review that determination. And we'll hear from our planner Sam Walker on the analysis that the Community Planning and Permitting undertook on this and the recommendation or the decision, I should say, that they made on this site plan review. Commissioners will have some questions for Mr. Walker. I have no doubt. Allow the applicant to make a presentation. We allow 20 minutes for both sides on these. You'll see the timer up on the screen. When you start to speak. After we've fully heard from our planning department, as well as the applicant, we'll open the floor up for public testimony, starting with people who've joined us here in the hearing room, that has joined us to speak virtually online after we've heard from all members of the public who are interested

0:02:21in this matter. We'll then give Mr. Walker an opportunity to provide any additional information answer questions that have been raised. The applicant gets the last word. Then the Commissioners will deliberate and make a decision. So just wanted to provide that quick roadmap before we get started. So Sam, go ahead and take it away. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. This is Sam. Oh, I'm sorry. I do need to ask if we have any disclosures on this matter this morning. I have no disclosures. Okay. I don't have any discussions either. Great. We're ready to go. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Sam Walker with the Community Planning and Permitting Department. I was the reviewing planner for this application SPR 2563 7223 Marshall Residence at 7223 Marshall Drive. So Tucker Huey is the applicant, the property is owned by 7223 Marshall LLC in Vince Colson is the agent for the application. It's in the Agricultural zoning district and it's a little under three acres in size and it's currently vacant the previously existing residents was burned during the Marshall Fire. The application review or the application that we reviewed was site planner view to construct a 1, 414 square foot residence with an attached enclosed 4, 417 square foot basketball court on this parcel. The maximum, oh, I should clarify this application, the applicant's chose to go through

0:03:48the new site pointer view regulations rather than the previous slate planner view regulations. So rather than a presumed size maximum, we do have the maximum allowable residential size. The neighborhood median. So that's what's shown on the screen here. And we'll probably, that'll be reflected in the standards that we talk about later. Uh, so the maximum allowable RFA on the residential floor area on this parcel is 5, 884 square feet, which is how much residential floor area the applicants have proposed to construct. I do want to note that there is an attached carport, uh, that's 307 square feet in size. That is exempted from the calculated residential floor area as well as 120 square feet of covered porch areas. Their proposed site disturbance is 105 cubic yards of fill for non - foundational earthwork approximately 1, 470 cubic yards of foundational cut and then 32 cubic yards of backfill. The proposed maximum height is 29 feet 10 inches above existing grade. And then, uh, they're proposing kind of typical exterior materials. The original proposal had black siding and roofing, uh, the colors being just a flat black. But after discussion with the applicants, they proposed some revisions, which are more in the earth tone brown beige range, which we'll see an example of in the slides.

0:05:03So here's our vicinity map. The parcel is located kind of at the, it's not really the corner of Marshall Drive and US 36 as it comes into Boulder, uh, we'll see that on the location map here. So Marshall Drive does continue, uh, down to the south of the parcel, but they are kind of that wedge that forms between the two rights of way. This is aerial photo from, uh, after the Marshall fire, so you can see the site is pretty disturbed. Uh, you can see the location of the previously existing residents and the driveway that kind of travels up into the parcel. The comprehensive plan map, uh, nothing of particular note identified on the parcel. I'll note the view protection scores in the green circles. They are pretty low. Those scores can range from zero to five. Five being the highest, uh, or most important visual quarters in the counties. So these are all less than one. Um, and then we do have the, uh, colcrete south boulder and cold creek ditches running through the parcel as well. This is a contour map. So the uppermost area, the northernmost corner of the parcel is relatively flat. Uh, to the south. We have identified geologic hazards, including moderate swelling soil potential. And I apologize, the blue is not shown. The blue shading isn't shown in the

0:06:21legend, but that's landslide susceptibility across most of the parcel. It is located within the rural preservation planning area of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. And there are adjacent public lands in open space across Marshall Drive as well as some OSMP lands further to the northwest. Finally, we have the zoning map. So as I said earlier, this parcel is located within the Agricultural zoning district. There's also some additional setbacks. Excuse me, measured from the center line of Marshall Drive and US 36 that proposed development is outside of all of those setbacks. Um, so I've included the applicant's narrative here with my own highlighting, um, so just a kind of refresh everyone, this application was submitted as a different site pointer view last year. SPR 2500 50, which proposed a residence and a detached basketball court that was enclosed. And as part of that application, we staff found that the basketball court was not going to be an appropriate accessory use or accessory building. And so we didn't allow the construction of the court. Uh, the applicants submitted a new site pointer view. And that's the one we're looking at today with revisions to those plans mostly that attach the basketball court to the proposed residence. Um, and this is the narrative that was included with that revised proposal, noting that the enclosed basketball court is going

0:07:44to be used as a personal gym and wellness facility solely by the property's residence. Um, and then I also highlighted the part that they changed the design a little bit trying to reduce the visual impacts a little. So here's the fact sheet. If we want to take a look at it later, as I stated earlier, it's a roughly 14, 1, 415 square foot residence. The enclosed court is a little, a little under 4, 500 square feet. And then we do have the exempted carport area and covered porch areas as well. This is the defined neighborhood for the parcel. Um, the chart on the right hand side is showing the presumed size maximum. I note again, we're not using that. We're just using the neighborhood median, which they're coming right up to. This was the site plan reviewed as part of SPR 2500 5050. The previous application that shows that, uh, detached court location, which was not allowed, uh, also note, it's a little bit difficult to see, but just at the bottom left of that big red no circle is a parking area that was also part of our justification for the disapproval showing that there was going to be guest parking there. This is the site plan that we reviewed and approved as part of the subject application. Um, so the residence is the

0:08:58northernmost section. And then the unshaded area in between the residents and the court is the attached carport that connects the two buildings. And then we have the court itself, which is kind of set into the hillside. These are these submitted elevations. So on the top, we have the west facing elevation that'll face toward the mountains. On the bottom, we have the east facing elevation that'll be looking at US 36. Then we have some, uh, just slightly different detail views of the East elevation showing the maximum height above existing grade, which is at the high point of the court part of the building. And then we have some 3D renderings. This is the original proposal, which shows that black exterior color. And then the revised proposal, which changes it to more neutral earth tones and beige.

0:09:46Uh, I have included the applicants floor plans as well. So this shows the resonance in this image north as to the right. Um, so we have just kind of a general layout of a residence. And then the attached carport with a small enclosed storage area. And then shifting to the south or to the left, we have the enclosed court structure, which is attached via that carport on the right - hand side of this image. I'm going to move pretty quickly through site photos, uh, because we did a site visit and then a Hype Pole study as well to try to do visual impact analysis. So we're going to see both of those photos sets. So this is the entrance to the parcel facing north and then turning to the east along Marshall Drive. You can see that first kind of stair step in the topography.

0:10:29And then traveling up the driveway, you can see, uh, Vince Tucker. And I think Tucker's dad whose name I'm forgetting standing off in the distance. And that's roughly where the resonance is going to be located or probably the north edge of the court part of the structure. So this is that first stair step facing east toward 36. I'll note that the power line tower you see on the left - hand side of this image is on the subject parcel. And that was part of the Excel comments we received. Just a slightly different view. Traveling further up the parcel, we see that southeastern corner of the residence. And now we're standing at that southeastern corner facing west. So this is kind of the southernmost extent of the building. And it's going to be dug into the hillside and have a relatively, uh, flat across the top roof. Facing directly up the east side of the residence.

0:11:25And then standing in the middle of the court area facing due west. You can see marshall drive and the mountains off in the distance. Then panning around facing directly south toward the open space parcels. And then now we're standing in the residence location facing toward 36. You can just barely see some cars off in the distance. Facing north again towards 36. You can just kind of see long's peak way off. And now we're on the road and facing up toward the residence location. And so for this, uh, the next few images, this is the Hype Pole study. So the red dot on this slide shows the location that the Hype pole was at roughly. And we did set it to 30 feet, if I remember correctly. Um, so this is on Marshall Drive facing east.

0:12:11So you can see that the resonant or the roof line of the building is going to extend kind of off of the hillside. And then the red circle shows the top of the height pool. Further to the west on Marshall Drive, just keeping that same view. And now we're standing directly. Now we're standing directly south of the residence. I didn't circle it on this one for some reason. But this is the top of the hype hole right there. So this is the view if you were standing on the road facing due north end of the parcel. Now we've gone south on Marshall Drive kind of headed toward the Costco and superior. And then facing back north you can see the height pole is circled in red there. And then a few images from 36. I apologize for the quality, but I did my best. Um, so this is driving north on 36 toward Boulder. Um, and this is probably the best view. So it will be briefly visible, um, but as was noted in the Parks and Open Space Natural Resource Planner comments, um, there's quite a bit of development in this area. So staff found that it was probably going to blend in. Okay.

0:13:18And just one more photo. So referral responses. Uh, we got pretty much standard comments from our building and permitting team. Um, Excel energy noted that there was some additional review required because of the overhead distribution lines that are on the parcel. So they just want to make absolutely sure that they're not disturbed or violating the easement in any way. Uh, the public health department noted that the existing septic system is size for three bedrooms. And the proposed and the proposed residents will have two bedrooms. But noted that the septic system should be sized to accommodate the maximum usage, which would include potential guests playing on the basketball court guests of the property owners. Um, the division of water resources noted that there's an existing well permit and had no comments or concerns. Um, the natural resource planner noted few natural resource concerns and limited visual impact concerns because of the existing disturbance both on this site and the surrounding area. And then the access and engineering team, uh, just had a lot of requirements for the building permit, things like an engineer drainage plan to address drainage concerns on the parcel, uh, making sure the driveway meets our access standards, that kind of thing. Then we receive no concerns from the city of Lewisville, the farmer's reservoir and irrigation company, which owns the ditch. And

0:14:34then the mountain view fire protection district and no responses from everyone you see listed there in the bottom. I've only included two of the site planer view standards, uh, in the presentation, but we can talk about any of the others if we need to. The first one I've included is number eight from the current standards for site pointer view, which is the negative visual impact or the trying to mitigate negative visual impacts. So we did find that this proposal will have, uh, visual impacts on the surrounding area. It's a kind of prominent location. It's up on a hillside. Um, but we found that with the revised colors that we're proposed by the applicants, the exterior lighting limited to the lighting that was shown on the submitted plans and then some required tree plantings east of the residence between the residents and 36. We found those visual impacts would probably be mitigated. And the other one, uh, that I've included here is the final standard number 13, which requires that the proposal is consistent with our comprehensive plan and any applicable agreements in the land use code. So they have met the current size maximum for this parcel, which is 5, 884 square feet. And we found that as conditioned, the proposal would be consistent with all applicable requirements. So the determination letter approving this application

0:15:51was issued on October 15th of last year and was, uh, called up by the commissioners on the same day during the October 28th, 2025 business meeting, the commissioners confirmed the call up. And the original hearing for this application was scheduled for December, but was rescheduled due to the high wind event in the loss of power here. Here being in the Courthouse building. Um, so during the call up meeting, the commissioners indicated some concern that the use of the basketball court was not accessory to a principal residential use. And then as I noted earlier, we had a previous site pointer review application for this parcel where staff found that this detached basketball court was not, uh, customary and incidental to the residential use of the parcel. So we approved the residents, but not the detached structure.

0:16:37Following that application, the applicants revised their application and submitted a new one. And that's the application we have in front of us today, SPR 250063. Um, the revisions attached the court to the main residence via the carport. They also removed the exterior guest parking. So if we look at the site plan now, it only shows kind of a regular residential parking area that approaches the carport that's there. Um, they did still include that statement about the personal use of the gym and the interior locker room facilities, but attaching the court building to the residents, uh, assuage some staff concerns that the, uh, locker room facilities would constitute an accessory dwelling unit as well. By definition of the code. So we found that the revised plans submitted by the applicants for this application, uh, were, uh, met the site point of interview standards. And so the directors determination was issued with a conditional approval, uh, on October 15th of last year. So staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners uphold the director's determination for SPR 250063 7223 Marshall Residence subject to the conditions that were described in the determination letter, uh, because of the way we write our site pointer view determinations. I don't have the full text of those conditions on the slide, but I can pull up the determination letter if we need

0:17:57to take a look at it. Otherwise, I'm available for questions. Okay. Thank you so much, Sam questions. Yeah. Thank you very much for the presentation. Can you just, um, go into a little bit more detail about how non - residential floor area can attach two areas that you're calling residential floor area. And then I have a follow - up question. So the. I'm going to have to pull up the code. I believe we have a definition for what attached means, uh, which I will try to find while I'm talking. But carports are kind of in, in odd, they're exempted from the calculation of residential floor area by the land use code. In the definition for residential floor area, but they're exempted up to 400 square feet. And then beyond that 400 square feet exemption, they're still considered residential floor area. So I think the, I wouldn't really characterize two residential floor areas being connected by non - residential floor area here. Because they're just specifically exempted up to that size and they're under the size.

0:19:00So it's exempted, but it's still resident. Correct. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. And then the second question I have is, if there wasn't at what would be typically considered like the house part of it. And it was just a basketball court. But we were going to say it was a residence with that Countess residential floor area. I'm sorry. Could you restate the question? If the house part was missing and it was just the basketball court, is that a residence. Um, I guess, well, it would depend on the floor plan. Like if it didn't have a kitchen or restrooms, then no when it doesn't appear to have a kitchen. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable answering that hypothetical counterfactual. I understand. I understand. I think those are my questions. Thanks. Great. Commissioner Loch, you mean? Thank you. Thanks Sam for the presentation. The documents and the updates here, the photos and site photos were helpful. Um, I just had a couple of questions on, um, in particular, you were talking up, on article four, 806. And there was two different criteria that you brought up on the significant negative and visual piece. That was one of the concerns I have. So some of the photos that you shared were helpful. And the way I was looking at a few of those photos actually

0:20:18had me a little more concerned just based on what looked like where you had some of the red lines of where the residents and then the basketball court and things were going to be placed. It looked like those were actually adding additional disturbance to the lot in this rural preservation. Um, area. And so I just, I don't know if you can speak to that a little bit, um, in regards to, because my understanding this is an agricultural parcel or designated as agricultural in the rural preservation area of the comp plan, is that correct? That's correct. So the, the parcel is located within the Agricultural zoning district, which is the zoning district. For most of the eastern part of the county. Um, agricultural zoning allows a variety of uses, agriculture being, uh, being open agriculture being one of those, which is kind of your typical row crops outdoor forming. Um, amongst a bunch of other agricultural uses, but a single family residence is also a, or excuse me, a single unit dwelling is what we call it. A single unit dwelling is an allowed principle use by right in the Agricultural zoning district as well. Um, the rural preservation planning area is part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan, if I remember correctly. I'll have to go. I don't have that off the top of my

0:21:31head. I couldn't describe to you what that intends. But I think it's generally speaking just supposed to preserve rural uses in general, not necessarily prevent residential development. Um, does that answer your question? Or should I traditionally? It does. And the way I was reading in the comprehensive plan in regards to A13 is rural land uses and character R to be maintained and preserved. And so again, I'm looking at the, just some of the photos that you shared in the presentation in regards to the question about land disturbance. And then part of the, what we were reviewing here that you showed was in regards to the actual disturbance, meaning cubic yards, um, of fill in and fill in and removal. So I'm just wondering, I think in your analysis, I'm trying to understand the way you described it originally as in one of the beginning of your presentation you talked about. This is a lot. You can kind of see that it's been disturbed. But then when I saw the photos, it looked like part of the road that's there currently is going to be. Redisturbed.

0:22:37And so I was looking for, is there an area in did you and your analysis talk about a different area on that parcel that wouldn't be removing a road and putting a property on that. So we did discuss that a little bit at the staff level. Um, the, I think this parcel is tough because it's a, it's highly visible from the surrounding area. I mean, the way you can approach it on a right of way without seeing most of the hillside, um, the existing disturbance on the parcel is pretty extensive. If I, um, go back to my site photos, um, that kind of stair step pattern that I noted earlier, I don't know what created that, but my assumption is that it's related to Excel doing work on this parcel because they have the distribution facilities at the kind of eastern end. I don't know that for sure. That's an assumption on my part. But, um, it really is highly disturbed already because this is not the natural topography of this parcel. Um, the amount of disturbance proposed by the applicants was an attempt to reduce the visual impacts by digging the structure into the hillside while also reusing the kind of previous residence location.

0:23:53So the, the actual kind of residential living space of the new structure is in about the same location as the previous residence was. And they've tried to maintain that. And then by responding to the staff comments from the previous application, they've now attached the basketball court to that residence, which necessitates more disturbance. But then they're digging it into the hillside to try to prevent the visual impacts. So it's like all of our reviews, this is a balancing act that the applicants are trying to do. And then staff are trying to include that in the analysis. And so we felt that any location on any other location on the site would probably be equally as impactful just in different ways. Either through visual impact or requiring more site disturbance to get a turnaround in a more difficult spot to do it. It's just, so we landed on the applicants have made a good proposal. And that proposal meets the standards that we have to review the application against. Okay. That's helpful. And then I just wanted to understand when you started speaking about this application, you made a clarification comment about the applicants choosing to use specific site review. Based on the timing of the application.

0:24:59I just want to understand what that means. I didn't know that it was a choice. I thought it would had to do at the timing of when the application was initially presented. So I just want some clarification. So the, this partial, like I stated at the beginning of the hearing was an impacted by the Marshall Fire, the previously existing residence burned, um, and the article 19 regulations adopted after the Marshall Fire to into our land use code. Give certain parameters that allow applicants to, uh, rebuild a house on a, on an impacted parcel without going through site point review at all. And then when the commissioners revised the site point review regulations, uh, following over the last year, uh, there was, uh, they were very, sorry, I'm losing my words here. The commissioners were very clear that the new regulations would not apply to Marshall Fire impacted parcels because generally speaking, those old regulations give people more residential floor area to work with. However, we have been allowing applicants to choose to come in under the new regulations if they want to. We're not whole, we're not requiring them to go in through the old regulations. So in this case, the applicants chose the new ones. Okay. And that's a helpful explanation you were referring to article 19. And I thought you were referring to

0:26:18different state plan reviews that have happened during the same period of time since 21. So, okay. Um. I think. Um, the only other piece that I had on that the same article eight or criteria aid in significant negative visual. The photos helped a little bit to understand what's trying to happen. But the way I read in the packet is that there's a requirement of 10 trees. And we've had this conversation in the past. That's the requirement. And that seemed like that was kind of what staff came up with to try and address some of the visual impact and you stated and I agreed to the massing. You didn't say that the massing the property is significant. That's my interpretation and certainly looking the pictures today. Um, and understanding, um, what's in there from the pull state that you talked about. But six feet trees. For me, I don't meet that visual impact. So I'm just curious about, was there anything else that you all talked about to try and address that particular criteria. Um, so the first thing we talked about was the actual colors and materials. That was the, I think I talked about that during the site visit actually with the applicants, um, so that was the big one just avoiding creating, uh, kind of a mass of black where the white snow,

0:27:41hopefully, or, or, uh, earth tone grassy planes vegetation. Um, so that was the main step that we took. I mean, the applicants have proposed a structure that meets the height limit and generally speak, um, we try to only limit heightened situations where it's warranted. Um, and in this case staff felt that we could get the applicants, what they wanted and still address the visual impacts in other ways. And so the intent of the vegetation that we required is to not necessarily totally screen the structure, but just to break it up a little bit and make it a little bit less of a solid mass looking at 36. Um. Yeah, I think that's probably all I can say. Yeah. No, that's great. And then the last question I have right now is just around that the height. And it looked like in the packet, it was up to a 30 feet height. How is that broken up along the entire property. Or residential structure? Sure. So if I go back to the elevations, uh, that's why I included the detail view where it's kind of the most obvious, but the proposed maximum height is 30 feet or 29 feet 10 inches. If I remember correctly above existing grade, which is measured at the southern end of the residence where the, uh, topography naturally is dropping off

0:28:58quite a bit more, um, but the actual residence is, or the residential portion of the residents, I guess is, I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's much lower than 30 feet. And, and the applicant might be able to describe that. I just, I saw the, the renderings and the different diagrams in here, but my eyes don't allow me to read the complete width of the entire structure that all the different presidential floor areas that we've talked about. Or the total height for the entire building. Just trying to compare this to other areas of rural preservation in the county. So that the applicants could address that too. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Sam. Um, I just had a question and you may not be able to answer this because it deals with the OWTS. I think I heard you correctly that while the residents has two bedrooms, the public health wants the OWTS sized for guests that may be on the property. That caught my ear because we don't really look at, um, other, you know, residential uses and the fact that people may have a party they may have guests over. They may have people, you know, whatever. So I was just, I was just wondering if that's, um, if that's a typical thing for them to look at that occasional use.

0:30:27Versus the number of bedrooms. I would say it's not something I've seen typically for residential proposals. I have seen other applications where public health has stated something similar, wanting to make sure. So for, um, a lodging use where they've, they've required that the septic system B sized for the maximum number of guests and staff that would be on the parcela at any given time, um, but it's, I would say it's not something I've typically seen for a residential property. Okay. I mean, it just struck me as odd. And I realized that that's a public health comment and not a CPNP comment. I don't think I had any other questions. I think I'll ask the applicant for some clarification. I believe, well, you, you commented on the significant site disturbance and this sort of stair step configuration. And, um, actually I'll just save that question for the applicant because I think I have some history on that. So if we don't have any other questions for Sam, um, uh, the applicant and your team and whoever you wish to have speak for you collectively, you'll have 20 minutes to make a presentation. We would ask that you please identify yourself, uh, for the record before you speak. And then, uh, so that we can record this and make sure we have a good record. You'll have

0:31:58to pull those microphones very close to your mouth. And they do move. So you can get them right in position. So whoever wants to lead off, please identify yourself. And then you'll have 20 minutes. Good morning commissioners. Lou Harsted with, uh, the law from a Johnson Rapucci 850 West South Boulder Road. We represent the property. Please do move that microphone. We represent the property owners. Is that better? Well, it was for a second then it dropped. Just right. Okay. Um. The LLC is owned by the Colson families, the applicant. So with us today is our architect Tucker Huey who help answer some of the questions that you guys have just, uh, asked. Um, on the far end is Jordan Colson. This is going to be his residence for he and his wife who are getting married in April. Vince Colson and then their parents, um, who live in superior. So this is a family resonance for, uh, Jordan Colson. So, um, I know the questions why a basketball court, why would that be residential? And, you know, we'll address that a little bit. Um, the applicant appreciates working with staff. Um, they've worked hard. Um, they're, they're, they're pleased with staff's recommendation, all the conditions of approval, the square footage, as Sam discussed. Um, we recognize this as a call up by the board. So

0:33:23you guys may have questions and you obviously do have questions and I'll defer to, to these guys for a lot of the questions, a couple of things I just want to point out is that, um, we set you guys a letter in my office did, um, December that provides more background and context. I hope you've had a chance to review that. If not, that's part of the record. Um, but this property is uniquely situated as Mr. Huey put up on the screen. There's an aerial photo. And we've already been discussed with, with Sam, it's not in a native or pristine condition at all. I know it's Zonda agricultural, but this is not an agricultural property. As you can see from the photo, it's really covered in driveways and terraces. At the time the Colson's bought this property, it was being used as a junkyard. Um, there were over 60 cars, Vince. Over 60 cars that they had to have hauled off the property. Um, and as Ron West noted in his referral response from Parks in open space, the parcel has been extensively disturbed in the past, including grading and the importation of fill over nearly the entire parcel from 2012 to 2014. So I know it's Zonda Agricultural, but this is not an agricultural property. This, this application will actually result in the cleanup

0:34:44and restoration of most of the property. Um, the, um, Sam already covered it, but this features a tall tower, electric transmission lines, cell antennas. It's not, it's just not a pristine parcel. Um, the, there were some questions about the areas of site disturbance where the basketball court would go. And if you look at the aerial photo, you'll see that those are actually driveways right now. I mean, there's a number of driveways in terrorists, but it's already a disturbed area. It's not pristine. Um. In terms of the, um, questions I know that's going through your mind of why a basketball court. And it's, it's really simple. Um, the Colson brothers both played basketball. They grew up playing basketball. As a matter of fact, it's his wife, Jodi, who stepped outside with one of their kids. He played basketball in college. This is what they do. This is what they do. Jordan place on a daily basis.

0:35:43It's where he's going to live. It's what they want at their home. Um, so people want to sauna. Some people want a swimming poop. Some people want a yoga room. Um, these guys play basketball. There is no public or commercial use. Uh, I think Sam also addressed that. There was a parking area that's been taken out in terms of the visual impact. I think that's been covered by staff as well. Um, they did try to cluster it into the hillside. Mr. Huey designed it in such a way that it's been dropped into the hillside. Um, there is some natural colors and materials that have been agreed upon by the applicant and tree and vegetative screening. The Cousins live in this area though, the Corson parents, Vince and, you know, they want this to look nice as well. There is no excessive site disturbance. We've covered that. It's all the entirety of the property has been disturbed. The development's actually going to improve the parcel. It is consistent with the comp plan. It does fall within the maximum residential floor area. It's going to meet all the energy requirements. Um, you know, in a sense, it's actually, it fosters sustainability. Um, in the sense that you've got 4, 000 square fit that will be a basketball court. It's not going to be fulfilled with furniture and

0:37:04fixtures and whatnot. And the recreational activities that will occur in this area are residential purposes. Um, the basketball courts meets the definition of residential floor area under the code. It's Section 18 - 189D. It's common to use fluoride area for residential purposes. You've had houses with pool houses, home gyms, yoga studios, saunas, golf simulators, batting cages for this family. They want to play basketball in there. Um, I think that's it from my perspective. There has been no opposition at all. No public opposition. Um, I don't think anybody's here to comment on it. If there is opposition, we'll address it. Uh, but with that, I'll leave it for questions to the applicant and the architect. Great. Well, thank you for that. Uh, you do have 14 minutes and seconds left. If you want to go ahead and, um, make any additional comments, uh, any of the applicant architect anyone. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Uh, I don't know. I think Lewd did a good job.

0:38:14Um, just offering. Yeah. No, I think, I mean, me and Jodi, that's how we met. That's what me and Jordan do. That's what my dad does. We live in superior. My folks live in superior. We live on third avenue. Um, we're looking forward to Jordan being close with Hannah. And I don't know any questions you guys might have, but I hope we just don't get penalized for being transparent. You know, we could have just made this a garage. And put a basketball court in there. But we wanted to just. Do what we were doing. Say what we're doing and what we're doing, what our intention was. And so, um, I hope you see that. So great. Okay. Then, um, commissioners, any questions for the applicants? I don't have any questions. Thank you. I thank you.

0:39:01Um, I do just have a question. I don't know which diagrams you may have with you or not or we might be able to ask them to bring, bring something up. I just had a curiosity around that section of the house that's attached to the carport, I believe is the way it was described. That you've talked about as the basketball court. What I'm interested in is around the visual impact at night. And I wasn't, I didn't hear that in the presentation and I didn't ask that. So since we're with you now, could you talk speak to a little bit about the design? And I'm looking at the architect in regards. A lot of what we hear in unincorporated Boulder County and we heard in the presentation today that it's, there will be a visual impact for the property. And I hear that you're all they're trying to do your best to overcome that in some way. And at night, uh, a lot of times in our properties, we have what's considered a beacon of light from a light pollution standpoint and other types of disturbance can create some concerns. So could one of you speak to that? Yeah. We believe in dark sky too. So I think it's just up, down lighting. I don't think, I don't know, you can speak to it better, but

0:40:08no, I don't think it's going to be horizontally driven. It's up down. But I believe Sam had that noted in there that there's just please state your name for. I'm Tucker Kiwi. I'm with Osmosis. I'm the architect on the project. Sam mentioned this in his portion that there is minimal amounts of lighting proposed on it. I believe part of that initial site plan package is also the proposed fixture that is dark sky compliant. There's no proposed soffit lighting. Just standard at the front door. And patio spaces. Okay. So you don't have any diagrams. You don't have any renderings of what that section of the property is. I'm just curious about windows and maybe your tongue. I don't want to misinterpret what I just heard you saying that the windows on that whole section of 4, 000 square feet of your house. On that, on the court side, there are some clear story windows. At the high side there. Um, if you have a diocam, yes, that would be good. Um, along here, just a bank of these clear story windows. Across the top there, which.

0:41:24Are used mostly for bringing in daylighting. The day lighting. Okay. And, and I heard what was talked about on the exterior. So that's great. I was just curious about what the final, because this has gone through a few different discussions. Um, and changes I wanted to understand what, what the final request was here for that part of the house. And then I wondered if one of you might want to address the question I had previously around the height, um, and then the actual width, meaning the full mass of the property. Um, so you can see on here the height of the, um. This is, this line here is the height at 30 feet above. Oh, I'm not. Oh. The, this is 30 feet above the peak. The grade at the proposed peak. And then you can see that that's only really happening at the one south end of a structure as you move up the site. Really everything is significantly below that. The whole structure.

0:42:32The basketball court is 79 feet long connected by the carport. And then the house is, I believe about, um. 61 feet long. So Ron a 145 feet wide total. Yeah. Um, your question about the road clipping in the corner in one of Sam's questions as well, uh, really it's just, it's, it's going to steer around this corner. Within that step that's already existing, um, which we've mentioned is kind of already a site disturbance itself. Okay. Um, okay. Thank you. That's helpful. I appreciate bringing that diagram up. That's the only question I have. The only question I have is just to make orient myself to make sure I know exactly which lot this is. So, um, the fill that was brought in my recollection of this maybe of this property, there was a whole bunch of film dumped. And I don't know if it was a previous owner that was creating this whole sort of stair step, uh, thing. And over the years as I would go buy it, uh, in my car on my bike.

0:43:56I wondered what is going on here because I couldn't, I couldn't understand any reason for. And it didn't have any purpose. And it was really unattractive. Is that this property. That I was seeing. I think it is commissioner. I think that's what we're on West was alluding to when that happened through 2012 to 2014. He put that in his referral response. So I think it's exactly what you're thinking. Yeah, that is this property. I mean, it was just dumploats of, of pretty crappy looking fill that I couldn't believe that it was actually allowed to happen on this property. Um, so no, I don't, I don't have any questions. Thanks for being here. So, um, if we have no further questions of the applicant, we will go ahead and, um, take public testimony starting with anyone who has joined us in the hearing room. We don't have anyone signed up. I will offer the opportunity. If you didn't sign up and you decided you would like to speak to do that, uh, I see nobody indicating that. So we will close the testimony from those in the hearing room. Our staff has indicated that nobody has signed up to speak to us virtually. So, uh, we have a satisfied the need to have public comment on this public hearing. Sam, uh, just please let us know

0:45:19if there's anything additional that you'd like to share with us. Thank you Commissioner Sam Walker CPMP. I did have just two, I think pretty brief things, um, so the first one was just there was some discussion about the visual impacts, um, and the lighting. So I just wanted to note, uh, like Tucker stated that we did have a condition of approval in the determination letter tied to the exterior lighting. Um, the lighting plan that was included with the application material is generally restricts lighting to one light per exterior entrance or exit, which is a common condition that we use anyway. Um, in the determination letter, I noted that that was pretty much the rule of the plan they submitted except for the West facing patio area, which has three exterior lights, but we didn't have any concerns about that, um, because the West facing, the West facade was actually the facade of least concern, uh, for this application. So just wanted to note that that was in the determination letter. Um, the other thing just to speak to the, uh, Commissioner Levy's statements a minute ago about the, uh. Grading that happened on this parcel.

0:46:22Um, I was just scrolling through the parcel history. There were several zoning violations under previous owners of the parcel for grading and landscaping and stuff like that that were closed between 2011 and 2015. So just wanted to note that for the record as well. I'm available for follow - up questions if you have them. Thank you. Any questions for Sam? Just one question is if you had pulled up the definition of like attached or whatever you said you were going to look into. I started to and then I got sidetracked, but I can try to find it if you give me a minute. Thank you. Mr. Louis? Well, I just wanted to say we need to take a recess. Sam if you need a few minutes. I would be in support of understanding that piece as well. Uh. Let's find out if we need a recess. Yes. Can we take one please? Sure. Um, so it's 10 seventeen. Why don't we come back here at 1022.

0:47:35Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, so we're back on the record. Sam, you're looking for a provision in our land use code. Tell us what you found. Thank you, Commissioner Sam Walker CPMP. So unfortunately the land use code does not have a definition for what attached or attachment means in the context of a structure. There are several references in the various floor area definitions in the code that talk about attached versus detached buildings. And we have reached out to someone on our permitting staff to see if the building code has a definition for what attached might mean. But generally speaking, we treated as sort of a structural connection. So if you're just, if you have a roof line touching a wall, that wouldn't be considered attached like an excuse me, the eve of a roof touching a wall, we wouldn't consider that an attachment. But if the nail between two pieces aboard that is attached. So it's some sort of structural connection as our consistent interpretation, I guess. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. And Commissioner Ojwyn, I think you are interested in that too. Does that address your question. Yes.

0:48:40For right now. It's going to have to, because that's all the best we can do. And I think if I may, I just. Would we use the information from the building code. To, like, is that part of something that we would review in this instance since the Land Juice code doesn't have a definition? Should we be waiting for a response from the building code is where I'm going? I think that's up to the commissioners. I think the plan submitted for the purpose of the site pointer view satisfied the requirement, or it wasn't a requirement, it was a proposal by the applicants to attach the building, attach. The basketball court portion of the building to the carport and attach the carport to the residence. Um, so staff found that that was satisfactory. I think the commissioners could wait to see if we get a response from the building team if we wanted to, or we could, uh, move on. The building team will review this as part of the building permit at some point. So they could verify the attachment then. If it's not out of order, it is sort of out of order, but it would then give the applicant time to respond in any other questions that we might have if the board wants otherwise. We can wait. Yeah. And I have some thoughts

0:49:53on this too. I mean, I think if it's a question of do we proceed or not proceeded would be good to, to, um, flesh this out a little bit, although it feels like deliberation to talk about it, although I'm happy to talk about it now. If we have to reopen again and go back to staff and the applicant, that's an option as well. Well, I don't think we're close. Yeah. I just, just sharing my thinking on it at this point. So like coming in, this is the main question I had is like, is this a structure or is this two structures? Um, I think that explanation that the carport is not not resident. I was thinking carports were not residential flora, but they're exempted. I think that creates some satisfaction in my mind that it is like there is residential floor area continuously across the structures. And there's a structure continuously across the structures. Um, so I think it is one structure at this point.

0:50:51And the remedy, if I didn't think it was one structure would be to construct walls on the carport, which would just increase the massing, which is sort of a dystopian remedy. So I think I'm personally satisfied that it is a structure that I'm looking at at this point, but that is what a lot of my questions were about just trying to understand, is this a structure with an accessory structure. Or one structure. An architects do creative things all the time that make me wonder, like, is this one building? How does this work? So that was what most of my questions were about and what I'm currently thinking. Sam. Yeah. Yeah. Sam Walker CPMP, if I could just respond to a very small part of what you just said. And then of course reminder to give the applicants a chance as well. Um, if so, the applicants have proposed to go up to the maximum allowable residential floor area. If we were to require them to enclose the carport, they'd have to find that extra 300 square feet somewhere else in the design because it would be counted at that point rather than exempted. So just wanted to note that. Yeah. I think we understand that.

0:51:51Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And commissioner, what you mean, um, I do, you know, we have, we do still need to give the applicants an opportunity. I don't know if you wanted to dialogue with Sam a little bit more about this issue. I think what I'm just trying to, um. Because this is a land use decision and it's great to have you all here and appreciate that. And the decision that we're making is for the rest of the properties existence. And so I think that's part of, I mean, what you're, I had similar questions and also trying to understand what this would look like or mean to somebody in the future. And so I'm just trying to like, what can we proactively put on the record here and maybe what you just said about in closing it then would create a different issue. And if somebody, if you all decided to solve the property in 10 years or, you know, fill in the blank, somebody else may come and say, I want this to feel like a full structure, quote unquote. And then they would want to close it in and it would create a different issue.

0:52:52And so I'm just trying to, that's what I'm thinking about in my mind is how do we make sure, but potentially what you said on the record is captures that sufficiently. That was the only question I had or if you'd have other, um, anything else that you would want to make sure in the record in that concern. Uh, same walk received. I think Sam Walker CPMP, I think I could talk more about the issues that would come up if we tried to, if they tried to enclose the carport. But I don't know that if the, if the board is leaning that way, I think it kind of creates several problems. Um, that I could speak to more, if that's what you're asking me to do. Okay. No, we can wait. And it may not be an issue at all. Thanks. Okay. So, um, this is your opportunity for any, um, wrap up address any of the questions and comments. The commissioners had, uh, any closing comments, uh, after you have that opportunity, we well closed the public hearing portion, the three of us will deliberate.

0:53:54And so, um, this is your opportunity. Yes, thank you, Luharstead again. Um, just to address that last line of questioning, um, the SPR approval will be recorded. It's it'll run with the property to bind future property owners. But applicant is willing to express condition that the carport won't be enclosed in the future if that's a belts and suspenders way of doing it to make clear for any future purchaser of the property. But again, any fur to purchase or the property is going to be subject to these same, um, approvals conditions, limitations. So I think that's addressed. But if, if, if there needs to be another express condition, the applicant is fine with that. Thank any questions for the applicant? I have none. Thank you. Okay. No, thank you. All right. I don't either. So, um, commissioners, we, um, have called this up for public hearing.

0:55:01We have had the public hearing. We need to now make a decision. Who would like to lead us off. I mean, I'm happy to get us started just so we can get the deliberation going. Um, thanks again, Sam, for the, for the documents and for all you being here and able to respond to questions, et cetera as we're, um, looking at this docket. I had some initial concerns, things have changed, appreciate that someone said thanks to staff and for the continual conversation. And we always appreciate hearing that. I think for me, um, the structure question and just understanding how we can, in my mind, I was thinking to that carport go somewhere else or the, you know, it's not a garage of the carport. But what we've heard today, I think satisfies that, at least for our current land use code says, the other piece that I was, um, concerned about was, and the visual impact and it's in that I'm having a, uh, scrolling issue here, but the criteria nine. And initially without the presentation, I was concerned about that visual impact and thinking about topography versus tree. And I know there was more in there and you described it a lot better. And there were some description of this photos, et cetera. And so, um, that's, that was kind of what I was

0:56:20looking for and concerned about in regards to the significant negative visual impacts. And then also, um, to what level of disturbance. And I understand that's the discussion and that's the interpretation. Um. And I believe understanding too about the agricultural parcer like on paper, like, Oh, agricultural player. So what does that mean? And I heard in the testimony that that is not the history of the property, at least what was detailed since 2012 that was talked about in testimony. And so, um, that, that helps me kind of address those concerns that I had in those pieces. So I'm right now leaning to, um, looks like I'm trying to think of what the actual upholding the director's decision, determination after the changes and conversation and the changes to the actual application and docket. Right. Thank you for those comments. Commissioner Stolzman. Thank you. I'm on the same page. Um, I really appreciate the hearing because looking through the information, I had a lot of questions about whether the basketball court was subordinate to the residents and whether the structures were attached or they were too structures and whether the massing was appropriately addressed by the grading and through the presentation and discussion today, I'm convinced that we should uphold the directors determination, but it did make a big difference to have the hearing because without it, I

0:57:47did not find those same conclusions. So I appreciate you all. Great. And that's the purpose of a call up. And so I'm, sounds like we met that need. And I, um, I like my fellow commissioners. I'm happy to, uh, affirm the determination as it went out. I think it is, well, I'm not going to state the wrong date because the one I have in front of me, I think was the initial one. No, my feeling about this was, um, and I think Mr. Horsed addressed this very well. Um, we, we commonly get proposals for residential structures that have workout rooms, home gyms, yoga studios. Maybe there's a pottery studium. What, you know, things that people want to do in their home that they do because that's their hobby or that's how they exercise or that's how they want to use their home. I think in my, um, 25 years of practicing land use law. And now my ears sitting in this, um, chair and years on the city of Boulder Planning Board, I don't think I've ever had a case involving a home basketball court, but doesn't mean, um, shouldn't be done. And, um, and I do know this property. I didn't make a disclosure because I don't know anything about it that the general public doesn't know. But I do know that this property,

0:59:16uh, was significantly disturbed. It was a junkyard. I also know that you actually, when you're on martial road, you can't really see because of that topography. You can't really see a lot of what's on the top of it. So I, um, and certainly if you're minding the road like you're supposed to be doing when you're on the US 36, you don't really see that much of it. That way either. So I don't have concerns about visual impact. I don't have concerns about the fact that the applicants love to play basketball. I'm a Hoosier. I'm, I would never want to discourage that activity. And so I'm happy to also join my commissioners in an appropriate motion if somebody would like to put one on the table. I move that the commissioners uphold the directors determination on 722 three martial road. A second. All in favor. Is that the wrong address? Sorry. All in favor. Aye. I just it looked like Steph didn't upreach. So I move approval of, I would move to uphold the directors determination on 2a. Which is our agenda topic today. I think I gave the wrong address. So I don't want to cause any trouble. And that's 2A is very clear.