Transcript

0:00:03Good morning. Today is May 14th, 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 have two items on our Docket this morning from Community Planning and Permitting. The first is Docket - DC - 24 - 004. These are LandU's code amendments related to residential uses, Boarding House, and Group Care or Foster Home. We are not taking public testimony on this matter. We did take public testimony at an earlier hearing and requested some additional information and revisions to the proposal from our staff. So we will hear from Kayley Byrne this morning. And the way we'll proceed is Kayley will present, I guess, a summary of your memo. We all have a memo that's been posted on our website, commissioners will have questions, discussions. And then we will hopefully make a decision on this matter today. We'll then proceed to the next item on the Agenda, which is a quasi - judicial land use hearing where we will be taking public testimony, and I'll have some introductory remarks about how that hearing will be conducted at that time. So Kayley, if it looks like you're ready. May, I just make one comment for the record at the previous hearing.

0:01:37I was at another matter for the County on Business, but I have had a chance to watch the recording and watch all the public comment. And of course, read both packets. So I'm up to speed. Oh, thank you for that. I had forgotten that you were not present at that hearing. Thank you. Okay, Kayley. Hi, this is Kayley Byrne with Community Planning and Permitting here to talk about. You might need to move that microphone closer. There we go. This better. Yeah, okay. This is Kayley Byrne with Community Planning and Permitting here to talk about DC - 24004 residential uses boarding house and group care foster home. As Claire mentioned, this previously came to BOCC for a public hearing on February 5th, 2026. The Docket was tabled at that hearing, and the Commissioner's requested additional information, which includes additional information regarding the Code Zoning Districts, including some mapping of those districts, which I'll present and was included in the packet. And then more detail on the structures and square footages for mountain state's children's home in Sandstone Care at the Alps, which are two existing group care homes. I'll start with the zoning district analysis and kind of give a brief summary of what's included in more detail in the packet. This map, just starting with Forrest Drain Mountain Institutional, this map shows those two zoning

0:03:04districts. The Forrestry Zone is intended to conserve forest resources and preserve open space, uses allowed in this zone, focus on the use of the land itself, mining, forestry, outdoor recreation. And generally do not include use of that gather or serve large groups of people. Issues related to site accessibility, service, and facility availability limitations, lack of transit and geologic and wildfire hazards are expected of this area of the county. Mount institutional, which you can see in dark green identified on the map is intended for more intensive uses that aren't allowed in the forestry zone. So more intensive use of that, don't harm forest resources or the natural environment can be appropriate in this zone, but the issues and hazards that are found in the mountainous region of the County still apply here. And this map shows the agricultural zone. The zone is intended for agricultural resource preservation and compatible residential development. Development pressure, and they allowance of more intensive uses on agricultural land can negatively impact existing agricultural operations and permanently convert agland to non - aguses, parcels in plotted subdivisions within this zone were created for residential non - ag development and thus the impacts of this development that have already occurred or been acknowledged through that subdivision. Which may make them more appropriate for more intensive or non - ag uses at the proper

0:04:38scale. This map here shows the rural state and suburban residential zoning districts, which are intended as low density residential areas. They're often subdivided land, but not always. Other uses in these zones are compatible when CAP2, the residential scale. This map shows the multi - family and manufactured home park zoning districts. Multi - family zone is intended for higher density residential offering a variety of housing options. It's typically located close to municipal services in transit, which is a benefit for citing more intensive uses serving groups of people. However, the feasibility of citing other uses in this zone is generally low due to the few areas that we have zoned multifamily and that they're already developed. The manufactured home park zone identified in pink here is intended to provide a proprio locations for manufactured home parks in the unincorporated county. This zone is not appropriate for more intensive uses that may add development pressure to parcels that should instead be prioritized for manufactured home parks. The business and commercial district shown here in red and pink allowed for a variety of people - oriented service uses in select locations where they are cohesive with the surrounding areas or fill a need to provide services in more rural areas such as in the mountainous region of the county and the plains. These zones are typically already developed, so

0:06:11there would likely not be new impacts from development in these zones. And then this last map here shows the light and general industrial districts and the transitional zoning district. The transitional district allows for a range of uses of different intensities in select locations, allowing for flexibility and use and scale where appropriate. These areas are typically already developed, so there would likely not be new impacts from development in this zone. The light in general industrial zoning districts are areas intended for industrial research, manufacturing, and warehouse uses in the unincorporated county. More intensive service or people - oriented uses could be compatible within the zoning districts. So just a brief overview there of the zoning district analysis, group care homes, additional information now. Just some context here. These are the two group care homes mountain - states children's home, which is north of Long Mai in the northeast corner of the County. And then Sandstone Care Residential, which is just west of Boulder, both identified there on the map with those red dots. And I'll start with mountain states children's home. This is cited on a 153 acre parcel zoned agricultural. It's operated on the site since 1961 and was formerly approved as group care home in 1972, approved to serve a maximum of 40 resident children on site. It's comprised of 18 residential administrative school and

0:07:50agricultural structures totaling to approximately 78, 207 square feet per the assessors records. Um, and I'll just make a note here. The residential structures, the dwellings on the property are not considered residential floor area, and they're not reviewed as single unit dwellings. So they're not subject to RFA regulations and are reviewed according to the special review criteria, not site - plan review standards. So just wanted to make that note. They're counted as floor area. Um, in 2021, they came through a special use review SU - 210017 and Mountain State Children's Home was approved for two new residences. The remodeling of six residences in additions to the administrative and school structures. And the completion of this work would result in 20 total structures and approximately 82, 114 square feet total on - site. This photo just gives it kind of aerial view showing the structures and the property. And this next photo gives you just a bigger overview of the parcel itself with the parcel boundary identified in red here. Next we have Sandstone Care Residential. Sandstone operates on a 12. 4 agore parcel zoned forestry. The structure known previously as the Alps Boulder Canyon in operated as a lodge since 1907, and then was converted in 2023 to a group care home through SU - 22008.

0:09:25Um, the Group Care Home is one structure approximately 14, 035 square feet in size. And it has 12 bedrooms, so it serves a maximum of 24 residents as approved through its SU. And again, here's just another kind of parcel overview with the Parcel Boundary delineated in red. You can see it's kind of split by the road there. Um, and the structure is on that left hand portion of the parcel, um, along the road. I'll just give a brief overview of the previous text amendment options that have been presented so far. Just the refresh everyone here. Um, option A was the staff recommendation, which was the original staff recommendation, which was to remove the existing Boarding House and group para foster home uses and add text to the household definition as shown here that acknowledges residential scale group homes as a household. Mountains - based children's home and sandstone would become nonconforming under this option. Options B and C, which I'll present next, were developed to respond to those uses becoming nonconforming based on feedback from planning commission. Option B would address the two existing group care homes, Mount States and Sandstone by adding this new residential care facility use and would provide an avenue for future group care homes in select zoning districts. It would not allow new facilities in agricultural or forestry, but it

0:10:58would recognize the existing uses in those zone districts, which are mouned states. And sandstone, um, as conforming. The proposed changes to household and the removal boarding house and group care foster home would still apply under this option as presented by staff. And then option C is a modified version of the residential care facility use, which would only recognize those two existing group care homes in agricultural and forestry as conforming per that highlighted text here without allowing for new facilities of this scale. So this is the same text as option B, but with an edit to number two that only recognizes existing uses and does not allow this use in any zoning districts. And the proposed, again, the proposed change is to household and removal boarding house and group care foster home would still apply here.

0:11:51And just a little summary of like, what are the outcomes of these different options? So option A, group living is allowed only at the residential scale, mountain states children's home in sandstone are nonconforming. Option B, we add the residential care facility use and new facilities can be established in limited zone districts. And again, mounts these children's home in Sandstone are conforming under this option. Option C, we add the residential care facility use, but no new facilities are allowed, but Maunstace children's home and sandstone, uh, remain conforming. So at this time, the Board County Commissioners may continue their deliberation and make a motion, which may include any of the presented options. And I'm here to answer any questions. Good. Thank you very much. Um, questions. Thank you. Kayley. Thank you. Thanks, Kayley, for the information and the recap in that summary was exactly. I was like, wait, wait, I have in one more questions. That was great. Thank you. It was helpful. Just a quick question too. And you may have said this in the previous hearing in February and I don't remember residential scale. What is that, is it a number, what is, it's a few times you said it in your presentation is in the packet. Yeah. Um, so that would be group care homes that would be considered a household. So then they

0:13:14would be in a dwelling unit and they would be meeting the dwelling unit residential occupancy regulations. So that's what I mean by residential scale. So if it was a single unit dwelling that based on the number of bedrooms and the septic, just as an example, based on those regulations that are in our code, if that maximum was 12, then it could, if a group care home wanted to be in that single unit dwelling and they only wanted to have a maximum of 12 people, they could just be in there by right. So it's just the same as any other, any other household that has to meet that new residential occupancy regulations for dwelling unit. If they're meeting that those regulations for residential occupancy and a dwelling, then they can just operate by right. They don't have to, they're not considered this other use, um, or don't need to go through any kind of review process.

0:14:09Okay. So the resident just to make sure I'm understanding the residential scale, it's, it's literally based on the bedrooms and the septic. If it's a septic home, is that what it's dual. It's the dwelling unit residential occupancy regulations that we added, I think in 2024. So if they're meeting the residential occupancy requirements, then they can operate by right. Um, but yes, those regulations are dependent on, you know, how big are the bedrooms. How many bedrooms there are in a dwelling, um, how large is your septic sized for and then kind of the, the lowest number amongst all those regulations is what like kind of carries. There's an upper limit of 16. So that's kind of a bar you could think about. But if your septic was sized for lower than that, even if you have more bedrooms kind of thing, then that's what would rule, I guess. And that applies to all households. So, um, not just group loving, but any households. So I think that's what I was looking for is what I just heard you say is the max of 16. What does that mean? Under the residential scale. That means that even if they had like 20 bedrooms in a house and they sized, they like had an oversized septic system that could support 20 people living there. The upper limit is

0:15:33still 16 of like what we considered to be. The residential occupancy maximum for a dwelling unit. So that's what I was looking. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Stolzman. I don't have questions, but I do have comments. Okay. Um, well, I do, I do have a couple of questions. So on your option B that was presented where you, as you proposed option B, it'd be by special review in T, which I take as transitional B is business. C is commercial. I just want to make sure I had that correct. And then by special review in agriculture and forestry for existing eases. Yes. Okay. Getting that correct. In your definition provides 24 hour care or supervision to residents of the facility. Does not include. It's this list of that does not include. I'm wondering where, you know, how you formulated that list of things that it does not include because it left me wondering what actually would be included based on this list. Yeah. Um, that list came out of previous conversations with the core team on this project and previous feedback. Um, that we had received about, you know, how we've interpreted in the past. That, you know, our existing group CARA foster home use does not include nursing homes. We used to have that use in the code and it was removed. Um, so I think

0:17:20it's been the position of the county that we don't have nursing homes in the unincorporated county. And there was feedback that we received that we didn't want this to get misinterpreted to include like community corrections facilities, um, or other shelters like that. So that's why those specific uses and, you know, similar uses skilled nursing hospitals, um, were included in that use to just be explicit about what's not included. Without making a list of, you know, every other thing that it could be. But it would include, you know, like, uh, mountains - based children's home or sandstone care examples that we have. He's kind of like mental health residential treatment. Facilities. Um, and, um, mountain states, which is a group care home. And I mean, they have, um, resident children there. So it provides some flexibility on what could be included, but there were just some specific uses that we had received feedback or through internal discussion. Wanted to make sure that we were not including this episode. So it sounds like you're trying to codify basically existing aloud uses in that we don't currently have nursing home skilled nursing homes hospitals, et cetera in unincorporated Boulder County. Right. And we want it to be clear.

0:18:48That wasn't included in the group care home definition. So if we're adding this new definition and writing new language, then we wanted to be explicit about that now. And then, um, I think, I think it's pretty clear what community corrections is, but is it clear what a shelter is? And I'm thinking about something like the source upon North Broadway, which is now closed. Um, but it is, it functioned as a, as a shelter for youth, um, uh, that we're homeless for whatever reason. Uh, so do we, is there some other definition of shelter that this would refer back to. I think that is what we were intending it to mean. Um, would be like a transitional living shelter. So from homelessness, um, if there are kind of use cases, um, I'm not sure of another, of another type besides that. But that is what we intended that to mean. So a transitional living. Facility of some sort going from a homelessness to maybe temporary housing.

0:20:08I'm just wondering whether there actually is some fixed definition if there were a question about a proposed residential care facility as to whether it is or isn't a shelter, what would you refer to on that. I think it would depend on kind of a narrative of what they're proposing. Um, as a residential care facility, I think the intention with this is that when we talk about transitional living arrangements, um, we're thinking about this residential care facility use as a more permanent living situation. Um, where, um, residents are living there at a longer term, um, it's not, you know, the time isn't defined there, but that's why we kind of pulled that out into what it does not include. Um, we could get more specific in the shelters. Language somehow, but I think it would depend on interpretation during, um, review. Okay. Well, I'm just trying to understand, you don't really, what is at least on the table and the proposal and the board may have some comments and thoughts as we deliberate on this about whether the exclusions are too broad or should be narrowed, because this is all about, you know, what we may want to allow in the future, um, and it's, it's always easy to do this just with reference to what we have right now, uh, but, um, but, um, that

0:21:44would have been, uh, I think, well, I don't think we'd be here having this additional discussion if we didn't want to maybe consider being a little more, uh, permissive on this. Although that's just my interpretation. Okay. I think those were just my two questions for you. And it's not a quasi judicial hearing. This is quasi legislative hearing. So I think we can certainly be free to feel free to call on Kayley if we have additional questions or clarifications as we move forward to take action. Commissioner Lo Chimian. Thank you. I did have another question. Well, maybe I have two actually. And it was if you could bring that slide back up. That would be great apologize. I should have said that right away. So two of my questions when I'm looking at the does not include list. Did you all consider putting detention centers in this language in this text amendment? It's not something that we've talked about, but I just wondered if it came up when you're, when I'm looking at the Community Corrections facilities, it did not come up, um, during our discussions.

0:22:50Yeah. Okay. And then the other question on there, just in regards to the special review, and it might be something that the Board talks about too, but just thinking about in some of the maps that you showed, it looked like there were some others zoning areas that were also on transit. There were also, you know, whether it was light industrial that was outside of just the commercial, could you just speak too, if, and it may be something we can talk about if the interest, but if there was a reason why you narrative down to the specific ones and not some of the other options on this earning. Yeah. Um, I think during this, when we were developing this in response to planning commission in our internal discussions, those were the, just most appropriate. In our discussions, zoning districts for them based on, um, what they're intended for, um, the other allowed uses, um, and where they're located. And there are, you know, there may be others, zoning districts that you want to consider. Um, those were just the ones that we had landed on. And I think we were, um, looking at just narrowing it down more. And I think that was why it was, um, a little limited. To just those three. And the existing uses in A and F. But hopefully the zoning

0:24:12district analysis will, if you want to consider other ones, we'll help that discussion. Thank you. Okay. That's all. Okay. Well, uh, sounds like we're ready to have some discussion and deliberation. Commissioner Stolzman, did you want to go ahead and, um, lead that off? Certainly. And I have the benefit of just getting to hear the deliberation because I just rewatched the video more recently than you probably did. So I have like fresh in my mind some things that you all said. But if you've changed your mind or that that's not the case, it's just that I just watched it. And you have it happen a few months ago and now have perhaps had new information. Um, but just from my perspective number one, I do think that it is excellent that the state, um, has had us take a look at how families are defined. And particularly with the federal government, um, coming after community members, um, based on their gender or their orientation or who they are, um, trying to take away someone's family, which threatens their livelihood and their home and their sense of security and peace. And so I'm really heartened that last fall, um, changed the definition of family so that people can be recognized as whatever their family is, um, and that is really consistent with our community values and how

0:25:24people in our area, um, look at family. And so that is wonderful. My perspective is that once we did that, we gave direction to staff that we would then consider how taking the definition of family out of the code would affect the code holistically because it had been built over time around this notion of family that was antiquated and unfair. And so what I think we set out to do was really just understand how the removal of the family definition impacted the rest of the code and then ensured that we were aligned with fair housing loss. So from my perspective, the best solution for that is option A. I think there are some other really interesting things that have been raised about would we want to consider a project of changing the way we look at parcels or changing where seniors have housing or ADOs or this, that, or the other. But I think those are outside the scope of what we set out to do and not really what we solicited input on. And so I would think we should think about prioritizing those conversations and the context of our work plan and consider if we would want to do that. So I would move approval of option A. Okay, thank you. Um, Commissioner Lo Chingy. Do you mind if could you bring up

0:26:34the summary of the option A, B, and C? Thank you. I thought you were going to ask a question. I would just want to see that one. You would ask for that I was waiting for whatever you wanted to explore. Great. Um, yeah, thanks for getting us started. That was my recollection as well as it was part of this conversation by state law about the definition of family. And that's kind of where we started in this one. Um, I am interested in option B. Understanding that we have some, we already have some of these, let's see here, what's the residential care facilities? Um, in a corporate Boulder County, that was kind of what I was looking at with yes on the definition of family and looking at that through the code piece. And this question, um, I'm actually interested in looking at other special review areas just based on what the maps were showing and what it seems like. The Land Russe Code talks about in regards to. And also our multitransportation and some of the other, um, opportunities in regards to any type of development being close to transit. And otherwise it looked like in some of those maps without doing a bunch of, um, review. And I didn't go into her all the different circle sites on those maps, but it looked like there

0:28:02might be some opportunities that could still be considered that would still go through a land use process that's still in my mind would be clustered housing and all the other things that we look at. But I do think that to allow the opportunity for special review, um, in others that unancorpornader County would make sense for this particular item that we're looking at. Um, thank you for to both of you for your comments. And, um, I'm, I'm leaning towards option B, but I want to, uh, I want to consider some possible modifications to that. I don't remember whether I was simply thinking this at the last hearing or actually set it out loud. Commissioner Stolzman, you can, you can tell me. But one of the things I was thinking about is we have some structures in unincorporated Boulder County that could be ripe for adaptive reuse in various zone districts. And that, well, I was not in favor of making, uh, the two existing residential care facilities nonconforming because, you know, we, both of them fairly recently went through a Land Juice process. And I think to then render an institution that has received review and been very carefully considered by this board and then to render them nonconforming, which would be very constricting and restrictive on, on what they can do. That I wouldn't want

0:29:42to take that route. Um, but what is coming to mind for me is we had a hearing, excuse me, um, several years ago now, I think it's been on what used to be called the Aldora Lodge, I think it is way up, uh, Colcrete Canyon, uh, it came in to be, I think is, is it mountain institutional or is it industrial or I don't remember what the zoning was, but, but it, it came in for approval as some sort of, uh, marijuana extraction, um, manufacturing thing. They were going to, they were going to extract, um, CBD oil and make it into products and sell it. And, um, and that seemed to be the only commercially viable use of that property. And it was allowed in the zone district. And, uh, you know, we approved it on a two to one vote. But as I was reading, um, mountain institutional, I guess I was thinking that there may be, um, things similar to that it already exists. It's kind of similar to the Alps in that regard in that if somebody wanted to put that to a use for residential care that I think that sometimes is better than some of the alternatives that might be allowed, uh, but it would help me to know if you can, if you know whether that, what that zoning

0:31:23was up there or I think you had a map of where the mountain institutional is. That might be helpful. I can pull up, um, that map. I do not know off the top of my head this owning. I wouldn't expect you to. Parcel, but we can, well, if you maybe we could just run through this, uh, here we go forestry. And yeah, well, I can't tell from where that little circle is on 72 down right at the corner. It could be. That could be. So it was a, it's a business zone parcel. Oh, it's business. Okay. So that is that. Now I have to go to page 12 again. And just my recollection of the activities that we're going on are slightly different than your recollection. Oh, I just, yeah, in the terms of what I described that they were going to do. Yeah.

0:32:24That doesn't. That's actually a material. It was that there is something, it has bedrooms. It has a kitchen of some sort and adaptive reuse. There we go. There's the business right up there. So, okay. So that, okay, so then what you're proposing is transitional business commercial special review and A and F. I think that would cover my interests. So. I understand the exclusion of community corrections. I think that is basically just maybe based on, um, I'm not really sure, but, um, concern about the maybe more intensive staffing needs for something like Community Corrections and shelters in terms of maybe transportation needs. For shelters. Transitional living arrangement. I'm trying to think more broadly, I guess here about the instances in which. They're. There could be a very beneficial reuse of a structure. Or a group of structures.

0:33:57That would be a transitional living arrangement. Of some sort. And I don't, and whether we would really be too narrow in what we allow. And I don't, I mean, I think Commissioner Stolzman, you've already said that you feel that within the scope of what this project is, that option A best suits that. I don't want to exclude you from the, from discussion on this. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Commissioner Law. Cena, do you have wondered if you had any thoughts about just whether, whether, um, we want to like tease out transitional living arrangements from Community Corrections. And I think that, that could be something like a recovery home because you that has, um, 24 hour care supervision for people recovering from substance use disorders. People, um, have a mental health needs, but it's not a permanent living situation for them. As you described earlier that it's, it's intended to be a short term temporary.

0:35:12I'm still looking at the zones, but I can pop over to the other language of the transitional piece. Could you pull up that side? And I apologize. I've got so many pages in front of me that I'm. What I was trying to. That last language on. You're saying, yes, leave in such as Community Corrections Facilities, but then take out shelters. Or you're wanting to give different definitions of transitional living arrangements. Yeah, I was focusing on transitional living arrangements. And, um. Would a recovery home need skilled nursing. But just not skilled nursing facilities. No, I don't think it's, it's not really skilled nursing. It's not, um, it's not, it's not medical. Just thinking about, we were just touring the sage rage, I believe it's called. Like, um. And I thought they had skilled nursing. Although the one out east that you went into it, um, I don't know. Uh, I don't know. I think that's, I actually don't know what kind of services they provide. For recovery center. Well, and I was just trying to think of maybe it's, maybe it's a different section to be removed versus the transitional living arrangements. But Commissioner Stolzman. Just to, because you solicited my thought on it. Commissioner Levy, it's just the way I am thinking about it is I think that there's

0:36:53a, we have zone districts, but it's not that they were made to consider where would the best place to have a transitional facility B. Like so the zone districts have a lot of historic, um, elements to them of why things are where they are. And it's not necessarily a thoughtful approach of like, where would you put a transition a living facility? Where would you put this that or the other? And I don't think that's what this project set out to do. So I think it is problematic to try to fit it into our existing zone categories. Like if what we wanted to do as a project to decide, are there areas in unincorporated county where we would want to expand transitional living uses? I think we would look at things like travel time to a hospital access to utilities, um, ambulance service. Like just the different things that a facility might need. I think it's great that we've been able to expand the number of, um, what we're, what I thought of as boarding house is by letting people define families in a broader way.

0:37:48So the more uses just by nature of what we've done. And I think if we wanted to add, like a sage, or if we wanted to add more nursing homes, I don't think just saying, well, let's just put it in on the business. Cause when I look at Alan's Park where the business is, there may not be services that can support that use. So that's just where my hesitation comes from. It's not that I'm opposed to the idea. I just don't think that this project looked at it in that way. And I think trying to fit it in. Will likely create conflicts. And I can't tell you what they all are, but we'll know when it happens. And then we'll say, well, why did we do that? So I just, I would take a different approach if our goal is to expand the number of areas in the county where we allow nursing homes or transitional living facilities. I think we would have defined the project differently. So that's just where I'm coming from. Yeah, I understand that position. Well, I'm interested in that.

0:38:49Different districts permitted under number two. So, but if you want to keep, if you want to work through that, the definition first. Where I think having seen that map again, um, I think the TB and C for by special review. Is fine with me. So I don't have concern about that. And I, I think, um. Yeah, I think. I mean, this is kind of hard to figure out right now, but, um, but. So I, it's on the definition. And whether the Community Corrections and shelters from the definition of a residential care facility, but still allow for a kind of, uh, you know, the, uh, so we're living those, those, those kinds of, um. Group home arrangements that they don't meet the definition of a group home because they do have 24 hour CARO supervision. So they're not, they're not residential and they're not a group the way we've now defined that. But I think they could, they function very much like that. So if we take, if we strike transitional living arrangements, then I think we would just have a little list of exclusions.

0:40:35And it would be subject to interpretation as to what's allowed. It would just be a facility that provides 24 hour care or supervision to residents. Um, who do not meet the definition of a household. And then it would not include medical facilities such as nursing home skilled nursing facilities and hospitals. Or. I mean, I don't think of community corrections as a transitional living arrangement anyway. It's really an extension of the criminal legal sentencing. System, for lack of a better word. Yeah. So that, that's the direction I'm trying to go. So are you just saying after that definition, the first sentence there, then just to strike out the rest of the, like what the residential care facility does not include. I just leave it as, no, I was saying, I was focusing on transitional living arrangements because I, I would be interested. I think I would be interested in allowing those. But communicate corrections not allowing Committee corrections facilities and not allowing, um, shelters. So I would retain community corrections and shelters.

0:42:10I mean. What I'm, what I'm stuck on, I think is the 24 hour care. But I guess it depends on the type of transitional living arrangement and whether or not it would need, you know, supportive housing type of restriction, like inadvertently, then you wouldn't be able to do what you're, I think saying that you want to do in some type of a recovery center. If you left the nursing on that or left the nursing as it is, I believe that, uh, care supervision that is provided is not medical. It may be pure support. It may be, um, uh, LSCW, but it's, it's not a medical facility. And I think that would just, maybe it's going to end up being up to interpretation. That's just my, from what I understood and from being at sagerage, that there were skilled nurses that were there and had their area for certain, for certain cases and for certain folks. But that might not be what is, you know, it could just be a piece that wouldn't be allowed.

0:43:33It will, my, okay, I didn't do the tour, but when that was established pursuant to the statute to legislation, it's not a medical facility. It's a, it's a transitional living. I think it is transitional living. And there is 24 hour care supervision. And they may occasionally, they may have like a nurse that comes and does medication management, you know, stops by and does that sort of thing. Or, you know, they may have, you know, like when you go to the sick room at school in all place, you can go, but, but it's not a, I don't, I mean, I think it's not a medical facility. So I wouldn't, I mean, I don't know if your question is because you want to rule it in or you want to rule it out. Yeah. Thanks for asking that question. I'm just the way it's written here, skilled nursing facility for some people could be exactly what you just described as a type of a sick room or room that's set up for somebody to go in and get some type of medication. Just based on what's written here, if that's how somebody interpret it, I hear what you're saying. And so if, and I'm, it sounds like you want to leave transitional. Or take transitional living arrangements out there and then leave the other ones. And I'm

0:44:56fine with that. Okay. I want to make sure I'm under so I don't have a concern about not allowing nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities and not allowing community corrections or shelters. Which for me would mean that we would strike transitional living arrangements such as. But there would, okay. And are you a we're saying the same thing. Okay. I want to make sure that I understood that. I mean, it would require a little bit of different construction because you've got the medical facilities such as. A, B, C. And then comma or Community Corrections or shelters. Or actually it would be community corrections and shelters. Yeah. Go ahead, sorry. The only question I had for the board just in regards to my question on number one around detention centers. And if that's something we would be putting in here. And I know we have a different conversation in that in our work sessions. And for me, my perception of this is based on the change of family and looking at the code and making those changes.

0:46:07Then we ended up, to me, it was kind of a potentially unintended consequence of affecting some properties that we already have here and incorporated Boulder County. So I feel like I'm working within that scope. Um, and so now there's a land juice. Code text here that's talking about a residential care facility. And I'm curious if a federal administration within say without us having that intent, if we don't put it in their similar to the Community Corrections Facility. So that's my question of you'd be interested in adding that to definition. Or if you want to put that into a different part of the work plan. Yeah. Well, I'll just say my perception. And, you know, it's just mine. And I might be wrong. Um, a detention center. I would not say is, um, I mean, people who are in detention centers are not residents. They are there under some, yes, they reside. They sleep and eat and go about their, you know, all their activities of daily living there. But I wouldn't be concerned that that would inadvertently be considered a residential care facility. I mean, what we may want to do, cause we haven't yet taken up the Land Yout Docket pertaining to a detention facilities. We may want to delay the effective date of this until we've considered it so that we don't accidentally

0:47:41open a loophole on that. But, um, to me, it would be a real stretch to say that a detention facility where you're there involuntarily is a residential care facility. It's just my thought. But I'm not the professional Land Juice Code interpretator. Interpreter, you sort of are. I mean, that is. That's not the hat I'm wearing. I understand by you sort of are a professional and use interpreter. Just saying. I said, I put the extra syllable correctly. Kayley, what's your thought. My thought, if you want to delay the effective date, you can, but I would also think about the existing group care or foster home definition is also very vague and pretty similar to this 24 hour care supervision. Of people who aren't related, basically. Um, so I don't know that delaying the effective date with the concern about the tension facilities. Not that it's not going to do anything, but I think that both of the definitions are vague. The existing one and this one, if you're concerned about the detention, um, the tension centers, um, if we're not, if it's not explicitly in there, it's my opinion that. Detentions that are would not meet this definition and just thinking about the name of this use and what we're intending it to mean in the other exclusions that we have in here, um, the exclusions

0:49:18that we have. It's that's just us saying this is not that this is not a nursing home. Those are other different uses that we don't have in the code, but we're adding it here for clarity, um, for people looking at it and what, what does this include and not include. So that's my opinion. Um, yeah. So if we delay the effective date, then the existing definition of group care foster home continues to be in code. And so the question would be, does a detention center. Fall within the definition, which is a facility which provides 24 hour care supervision of persons who are not related by blood marriage or adoption. And who did not meet the definition of a family. Yeah. Hi, Hannah. Hi Hannibaly Community Planning and Permitting. I think it would be our department's interpretation that this definition that we're talking about today would not cover a jail or any type of correctional facility detention center, et cetera, et cetera. Those are very differently and uses have very different impacts. Require things like fencing and lighting and a whole host of things that we would not expect in a residential care facility. I wonder.

0:50:44So what you're describing is being the distinguishing factor is that there are sort of external perimeter security measures. Well, I mean, that's one. But yeah, just if we look at this definition, I don't think that's how we would interpret it. Of a residential care facility. Yes. These are people in care. They live there usually for the long term. These are not people being held against maybe their will or because they did something, you know, violated laws and are in the correctional juvenile or justice system in any way. I think we would write a very different land use code definition for those types of uses. Which types are you referring to? Correctional facilities, detention facilities, jails, anything criminal justice related. And detention is not, they say, not criminal. Despite what it looks like and feels like.

0:51:48But I'm not equibbling. I'm just worrying a little bit. Um, and I don't, I'm not sure that on that sandstone actually is long term. I don't recall, but I thought the description really was that it was sort of a stabilization. Yeah. Um, to be honest, writing this type of definition is difficult. Um, it can cover a lot of things, um, it could be at its maybe simplest application. It could be, um, maybe a home for developmentally, uh, the developmental disabilities population, but maybe they have 20 residents in a home. So maybe it's something as simple as they're exceeding the residential scale. They still have 24 hour care. Some sort of supervision. Those facilities and other types of group homes may have nurses that come visit. They might have occupational therapists that come visit. We don't necessarily, I think Marta that's speaking to your question. I don't think the fact that people living at home may have services provided to them at home necessarily makes them a medical facility. Um, but back to my original point.

0:53:04Trying to. Define this use. Because it could be applied to so many things and so many permutations is challenging. So, um, what staff has come up with reflex sort of the history of the use in the code. It provides a lot of flexibility for people to propose their use to come through special uses, um, in the zone districts where we think a certain level of intensity can be considered, um, but I do think it allows for a lot of variety. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Luch, you mean sure. Yeah. I think because there's a piece in there around the Community Corrections Facilities. So that for me, if that doesn't need to be in there because you all believe that that's not the way the code would be interpreted. Then would we take that out? And if we're not going to take that out, then I would add in their detention centers because right now we don't have anything in our code that would address that. I don't, I think it's also a far church. I think it's the way you described it. And we have a federal government who is using land use to do a whole lot of things that are detrimental, including removal of public lands and wildlife habitat and all the things. Um, so that's, that's where my question is coming from. Okay.

0:54:23I think where I would still like to go, um, is to take out transitional living arrangements. I don't think detention centers are needed in here, but I don't have a, I don't have an objection to putting that in. I'm not even, I mean, without reference to the other docket where we're dealing with detention centers, I'm not sure I know what a detention center is. But we, so, I mean, there are a lot of, I guess I wouldn't include it, but I can't formulate a strong objection to putting that in. Just as a procedural point. So we have a separate work session where we're going to talk about, um, data centers and detention centers, which obviously don't go together, but to topics that we have planned to talk about. And this docket is titled, Residential Use is Boarding Houses, group care or foster home. So I don't think a reasonable interpretation of that would be to be considering amending our code related to detention centers today. I just don't think it was agenda that way.

0:55:36So I think if we do want to talk about detention centers, I think it needs to be renoced because I don't think the man on the street would even know we were talking about detention centers. Well, and I don't think, I don't think we're talking about detention centers per se. I think we're just trying to make sure that the definition of a residential care facility is sufficiently focused. So it's, it may be, you know, a nuanced thing. It's a flip side of something, but I don't think we're really actually discussing residential or detention facilities. We're just saying, or I'm trying anyway to see, well, what is a residential care facility? Um, and I do think a transitional living arrangement such as sober living and is, I think that is a residential care facility. So that's really my main interest isn't taking that out. I was just trying to be agreeable to putting detention centers in here. Although I, again, I don't think it's necessary. Maybe, are we, are we starting to get the closure here?

0:56:51Maybe coalescing around option B, at least for two of us. Uh, with a slight modification to the definition. Yeah. I think, and what I heard the other ask that I had was just in regards to the TBC as far as district zones or what's included in here. And then A and F under special review, I think is the way it's written. So my question was about adding in some of the other zone districts understanding. They still have to go through their own processes, but so it might be special review AF and light industrial or multifamily or something else like that, um, so that was just my question to know if there was any interest in adding something in there versus what I heard staff kind of describe as just trying to narrow something to bring back on the option B. So which particular zone districts are you interested in adding? There was a list of them. I don't know if you want to bring up the map on there, but one of them was in the multifamily the way the packet was reading was that there might be some areas that because they're close to other infrastructure that it could be something that might be considered. And I think each one of those paragraphs in the packet kind of talk about it would go through

0:58:03a process. And there's all of, you know, there might be all these other factors. But if I look at the multiple family, excuse me, I think I wrote it down as multifamily or maybe the two different. It's multi - family. The map is wrong. Okay. No, that's totally fun. It was like my notes, say multifamily. So that was one. That was light industrial when I think about kind of that rehabilitation of spaces. And, and or renovation of spaces. And I think about some of these buildings, including sage, but the others that are being completely renovated to be able to use this campus to address some of these residential care facility needs. So again, just to have it either in the code so that if an applicant wanted to go through that process, then they would have at least an opportunity to consider meeting community needs with the property that they have. Okay. I think I would be interested in including light industrial. I think I would not be interested in including multifamily for a couple of reasons, one of which is that it's fairly scarce in Boulder County. And I think we don't want to lose the actual multifamily. Residential uses that we have and have them convert to something that isn't actual multifamily. But, but I would consider including light industrial. Um, yeah, I

0:59:45would just say on that, when I'm looking at the map on there and I'm looking all the other, we're considering some of the other conversations that we've had around having opportunities of different uses. Along transit quarters in the map, it looks like there's a lot more opportunity there than there is in some of the other districts, but I hear what you're saying for sure. So light industrial is totally fine. Okay. Um, okay. Well then I think we can put a motion on the table. And that's totally fine. And then I just wanted to ask because a commissioner stole a new head brought up the other, um, conversation around two topics of data centers and detention center. So I just wanted to make sure that we close that if there is anything that we need to address not as part of this docket, but sometimes we'll give specific direction. So I just wanted to make sure that was, if there was something else pending or if you were just making a statement. No, I think that we have an agenda coming up to have that conversation. So I was just reminding the group of that, that like we actually have a work plan and topics that we have said we wanted to prioritize. And that is coming up. Just reminding everybody of that. And

1:00:55that session is where we'll give direction and feedback and all those things. Great. I'm looking to you, Commissioner Lochimic for a motion. I'm searching through my pages here. So let's see here. On item 2A. I move in regards to the Land Use Codex Amendments related residential uses boarding housing group care or foster home, which is Docket DC 24 - 004 that we choose option B with the amendments as described in regards to transitional, and I'm mocking at the language, but the language that was to remove the transitional housing alternatives, I think it was. Transitional living arrangement. Yes. Thank you. And you wanted to include light industrial in the districts permitted by special review. Thank you. So then that would be. I think the second piece of after TBC, it said a special review AF and LI would be the amendment. I think it would actually be by special review in TBC and LI. And by special review and A and F for existing uses as of blank date. That's great. I'm not looking at the language. So I'm just trying to remember. Yeah. Okay.

1:02:21Um, Kayley, I want to make sure that's clear to you as to what the motion is. Um, and with that expression of affirmation, I will second that. Um, Commissioner Stolzman. Just commenting on the motion to explain my no vote. So I first of all, I think it is complicated when you put residential uses in an industrial zone district that you expose people to unnecessary harm. I think zoning, well, you know, contentious and we often hear things that the state level does have really practical purposes of putting compatible uses together. And so I think it creates conflict to put, um, residential units in this expansive way. And some of these zone districts, like I don't think it's been fully vetted. I don't think we've considered the impacts to the residents that may need medical care, have trips, may need visitors. Um, I know in care facilities, um, in the urbanized areas, there are often stays associated with it. So the hoteling that's needed close by so that family visitors that come to visit others that are in care have a place that they can stay while they visit their loved ones. I don't think that this has been fully fleshed out or vetted, um, but I, you know, we do need to update the code today.

1:03:27So I understand why we're moving forward. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. That's important to get those views out. And I mean, we can have discussion on the motion before we move to a vote. Uh, Commissioner Louis, you mean, did you want to have any other discussion or comments on the motion? Um, I think the only comment would just be the way that the description and the packet was talking about late industrial. Again, it would go through all the processes. And so the intent is certainly not to create any harm for folks, but also to use our zoning that's located closer to municipal boundaries and major roads to even make that a possibility. So that, that was my interest in that adding something and not making it quite so narrow in regards to this particular language code.

1:04:14Yeah. Thanks. And I'll just note that I believe residential is allowed enlight industrial. So, you know, that may or may not be appropriate, but it is, uh, so, and I, I'm, I'm very appreciative of the work on this. Thank you, Kayley. You did a great job of, of listening to the board. Um, I, you know, this was potentially an opportunity to have that conversation about, uh, about different kinds of opportunities for senior living and unincorporated Boulder County that aren't currently allowed. And, uh, I think, um, I think our residential care facility could potentially address that depending on the level of services that are provided on site. But, um, the docket that we considered, I guess last week or the week before, I guess the board wasn't really interested in trying to, um, have, um, have additional co - housing opportunities other than what's already, um, what we already have. So thank you for the work.

1:05:26I support the amendment as written. And so if we have no further comments, let's call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion as presented say aye. All those opposed. No. No. So that, uh, has been adopted on a motion of two to one. And that concludes that docket. We can now move into LU - 26 - 004. However, if the board needs a quick break, happy to accommodate that. I'm all right. Okay. But if anyone does, that's wonderful. I'm not seeing any call for that. We're going to have a change of personal. And Pete Larage is coming up to join us here. So we are moving on to, uh, LU 26 - 004 slash SPR 26 - 0014. And this is the McCabe earthwork and residents docket. Uh, this is a quasi judicial hearing. And so the way we run these is that, um, our staff will present their memo and their analysis of the docket, um, how the proposal does or does not conform to the criteria that we're required to, uh, apply, uh, will have 20 minutes for that. The applicant who I see has joined us virtually has 20 minutes to make their presentation. And, uh, at both of these opportunities, the board will ask questions at the conclusion of the presentation so that both parties are allowed. They're

1:07:12full 20 minutes without interruption. We will then, after the board has asked all the questions we have, we was then open it up for public testimony. And, um, and at the conclusion of public testimony, um, our planner in this case, Mr. Larange will provide any additional clarification or comments that were raised by the public, the applicant always has the last word. And then when we are fully informed in that regard, we'll close the public hearing portion of the, of this docket and the board will deliberate and make a decision. And as we always do, we will, um, put, uh, any disclosures that we need to make on the record. So I'll ask if there are any at this time. No disclosures. Thank you. I have no disclosures. Thank you. Or do I one of these days we will, and it'll be so interesting. So we are now ready to move into your presentation. Pete. Go ahead. Good morning commissioners. Pete Laranche Community Planning and Permitting.

1:08:15This is Docket LU - 26 - 004 slash SPR - 26 - 0014. The McCabe earthwork and residence. At 531 Caribou Road. The owner and applicant is Erin McCabe and Matt Rubley is the engineer associated with the project. The parcel is zone forestry. It's 1. 25 acres and it is lot 7 in the Beaver Valley Estates subdivision. The parcel is currently vacant and the proposed is a limited impact special review for 883 cubic yards of non - foundational earthwork and slight plan review for a new 1, 881 square foot residence. Uh, the max residential floor area allowed on this parcel is 1, 893. Here is the vicinity map. Uh, you can see it is very small. But the subject parcel is indicated in that little red dot just west of the town of Netherland. Location map showing the Platted subdivision and location of the parcel kind of in the middle. Aerial map showing the parcel staff would note that as is fairly common, the parcel lines and aerial images don't line up exactly. So the dashed red lines are the approximate actual east and west boundary lines. So it's shifted just a little bit. Comprehensive plan map. You can see the subject parcel is, uh, that there's riparian areas and wetlands over the majority of the subject parcel. It is also in the Peak to

1:09:55Peak scenic corridor. And the view protection score of 1. 97 along Caribou Road. Wetland's and riparias are associated with North Beaver Creek that runs through the middle there. Elevation contours. This is showing the subject parcel. It is a fairly steep drop of about 14 feet from the roadway, uh, on caribou down onto the parcel. Uh, and then a little more towards the creek and on the far side of the creek it's a little bit flatter. And geological hazards map. The subject parcel, uh, primarily the area between the creek and caribou road is in a landslide susceptibility area. Uh, this map is zoomed out enough that it's hard to see, but there are also a couple of very small debris flow susceptibility areas in the northwest corner of the subject parcel. Here's the narrative as submitted by the applicant. Just to summarize, basically they are looking to build a new residence, uh, that is just under the, uh, maximum residential floor area allowed. As part of that, there is substantial earthwork that is necessary to access the parcel from caribou road, hence why the limited impact special use review. Here are the fact sheets as submitted by the applicants. I'm not going to dwell on them, but we, they are in here if we need to refer back to them. Sight plan submitted by the applicant.

1:11:23So you can see the subject parcel and then the, uh, access road coming off of caribou. Cutting west along the parcel before turning south to cross the creek. And then turning back east towards the detached garage and residence. And then the erosion control plan is submitted by the applicant. Again, I'm not going to dwell on it, but it's in here if we need to reference back to it. Here are the elevations for the residence as submitted by the applicant. Uh, you can see the floor plans on the top, the kind of mock - ups on the bottom, uh, portion. Site photo. So this is standing on Caribou Road looking west approximately where the proposed driveway would enter. There's the mouse. The driveway would essentially come in right here and then cut down into the property and go through where this pine tree is. And then that's just looking further along west on Caribou Road. And back east, this is at the northeast corner of the parcel. So this is essentially right at the limits of the subject parcel. This is now down into the parcel and you can kind of see the, uh, fairly significant slope on the right there. Those stakes mark the proposed center line, uh, of the driveway as it comes down in and heads towards the pine tree. The existing, uh,

1:12:52pedestrian bridge over the creek. And then this is on the far side of that same pine tree looking back east. So this pine tree would be removed and the driveway would come through here. And then this is looking west again. They're a little hard to see in these pictures just because of the aspens, but the, uh, stakes indicate again, that the driveway would come along this side. Before curving south to cross the creek, uh, in the kind of low spot here, uh, in the middle. And then on the far side, uh, it would come back over. And this is looking west. So the driveway would continue on the far side of these trees before wrapping around, uh, to the east again, uh, into this, uh, slightly more cleared area on the southern portion of the subject parcel. Um, where the, this is standing more or less where the garage is proposed. And then the looking east towards the resident where the residents would be located.

1:13:59And then this is in that same location looking back north towards caribou road. You can see the County vehicle, uh, just barely through the trees up there, uh, on caribou road. This application was referred out through the standard procedures. Uh, staff received responses from the agency's listed here. And those are summarized in the staff recommendation packet. Staff also received responses of no comment or no conflict from the County Conservation Easement team and the Colorado Geological Survey. Steph did not receive any responses from the agency's listed here. And then public comments, uh, notice was mailed to 45 nearby property owners, staff received a total of nine comments from members of the public, uh, all in opposition. Uh, with concerns related to impacts to North Beaver Creek, local wildlife, removal of trees and location of the proposed septic. Staff would note for the record eight of those comments are in the staff packet staffer received the ninth after the packet had been published. That comment has been provided both to the County Commissioners and to the applicant.

1:15:06So. Looking at the, uh, limited impact, uh, criteria, uh, looking at the most applicable. Number two, the use we compatible with the surrounding area. Um, in this case, uh, staff finds that the proposed earthwork and the LU is just for the earthwork pieces. A reminder, uh, the proposed earthwork is necessary in order to have a driveway access that does meet the county multimodal transportation standards. Uh, additionally, staff found that there are similar driveways at 425 and 627 caribou road. And there is also an approved plan for a driveway at 545 Caribou Road, which is the parcel immediately to the west of the subject parcel. Uh, that application included 793 cubic yards of non - foundational earthwork. It was reviewed and approved in 2022. And you can see the document information there. Steph does recommend as condition of approval that observation reports be carried out as part of it to ensure that the grading is happening safely and appropriately. And with those conditions with that condition staff finds this criteria and can be met. Going to criteria number three, the use will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. In this case, staff identified two elements of the comprehensive plan that are most applicable. Specifically environmental resources goal two, sustain and protect. This goal is talking about ensuring that we are preserving and protecting environmental resources.

1:16:43In this case, the grading would cut through the wetland and riparian areas. However, staff finds that it is unavoidable in this case. There is not a way to get from caribou road to the subject parcel, uh, without going through those areas. Um, however, to help minimize, uh, and reduce any impacts to those areas. Staff recommences condition of approval that the limited, that the grading be limited to the amount necessary to construct the driveway. And that construction fencing be included to ensure that, uh, construction vehicles don't, uh. Precede further into the parcel than is absolutely necessary. The other policy is natural hazards element policy NH 1. 03 land use activities. And this policy is talking about, uh, ensuring that the County is taking appropriate measures to, um, ensure that any work in natural hazard areas, such as lens, lice susceptibility area, uh, is avoided if possible.

1:17:45And if not, that it is appropriately mitigated. As noted, it's not possible to avoid the landslights and susceptibility area on this subject parcel to construct the driveway. Um, however, staff finds that the plans have been engineered such that it does minimize those potential risks. So staff found it was in accordance with this policy. Uh, and as such, staff found that this criterion is met. Going to number seven, the use will support a multi - metal transportation system and not result in significant negative impacts. Uh, again, staff would note that the driveway will have to meet the multimodal transportation standards, uh, and that is a recommended condition of approval. In reviewing it, the access and engineering team noted that a design exception could be, uh, used to reuse the existing, uh, access point for the driveway, uh, and bring it into compliance. Um, and that could result in a decrease in site disturbance and earthwork. Staff has discussed that with the applicants, um, and they are exploring that, uh, and are open to, uh, revised plans there. As such, staff are recommending that the access plants as submitted be approved because they staff finds that it can meet all of our criteria. Uh, however, we ask that, uh, the applicant be provided the opportunity to submit revised plans for review and approval by staff. Uh, during

1:19:12permitting, if those revised plans, uh, still meet the multimodal transportation standards and result in less earthwork. So essentially it would be a minor modification. And then as a final recommended condition of approval, uh, staging requirements that, uh, construction materials in such be staged on the subject parcel or to the cytokibo road so as to not impact the travel way, uh, with that stuff, I found that this criterion could be met. Going to the site plan review standards, uh, for 806 A8 development shall not have significant negative visual impacts. As noted, this is in the Peak to Peak Scenic corridor. However, due to the existing terrain, uh, this location is not going to be visible from, uh, the peak to peak highway. So Steph found that there were no concerns related to impacts to that scenic corridor. Uh, in reviewing a staff on the design, which is kind of a modified A - frame, uh, does actually reduce some of the visual impacts, uh, and that the largest Bank of Windows that are shown in the mockups face north into the subject into the subject parcel and the hill up to caribou road. So safang that the windows on that facade were not going to have any adverse impact on adjacent property owners. Uh, staff does recommend conditions of reproval related to, uh, a lighting plan,

1:20:43specific materials and colors and garage elevations as part of the building permit, uh, application. And with that staff found at this standard could be met. And finally A 13, the proposal shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Any applicable intergovernment agreements. And this code, uh, the land use code in this case, the medium residential floor area for B revalue estates is 1, 893 square feet. And the applicant is proposed a residential floor area of 1, 881 square feet. So staff finds that it does meet the, uh, requirements for maximum allowed residential floor area. And because the difference is so small between the two staff recommends approving the 1, 881 square feet and then not to exceed the 1, 893 square feet. So that if the, you know, construction drawings are off by a few square feet. It's, it does not, uh, cause any problems with the condition of reproval. So as conditions found that the application meets the land use code and the comprehensive plan.

1:21:49And there are no intergover mental agreements, uh, associated with this parcel. As such, uh, Community Planning and permitting staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved Docket LU - 26 - 004 slash SPR - 260014 McCabe earthwork in residence subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation packet. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Good. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions for Pete. Thank you, Pete, for the information. Thanks for the packet. Just really quick on that last part you were talking about a condition of the, I think it's 1881 to 1893 as a max. Is that part of the language and the condition then? Yes. Uh, the way staff has it phrased is the square footage is approved at approximately 1, 881 square feet, not to exceed or with a maximum of 1893 square feet. Okay. I was just looking for the conditions. I didn't quite get there. So I thank you. Um, the only, it's not the last, but maybe second to last condition in the list. Okay. Thank you. I'll take a, take a look at that. Um, I had, thanks for talking about the windows because you read my mind on some of the concerns. So I appreciated that the other question I had was really just about the lot in the maps when it's, when we're

1:23:12looking at that and the, the view score was pretty high. And it looks like it's all riparian area. So, but I haven't been on the lot. I didn't go do a site review myself. I just wanted to ask, um, what you saw when you were there because it looks in here like such a very special place of Boulder County Land. And so I was just having trouble even getting to the, what damage is going to be done. And this disturbance and the impact seemed really great. Get back to the aerial, uh, cause I think this shows it best. So here's the aerial photograph, um, of the parcel again, with the lines being offset. Here is that existing access point, uh, kind of right here in that, uh, northeast corner. The proposed access point would be, uh, over here, just a little bit further in. And it would then come down kind of wrap around here, cut through these trees before going over the creek and then wrapping around on this side again. So in this case, um, yes, there are going to be impacts to the existing trees. And trees are going to have to be removed. Uh, however, having been on site, staff found that there's really no way to get to, uh, an appropriate build site. And staff does find that the southern

1:24:39portion of the parcel is the appropriate build site for the residence. Uh, there's no way to get there without going through those areas, those trees. But because this property does sit so low and, uh, the terrain especially to the east and northeast is so much higher. Uh, and then the Peak to Peak corridor is on the downside of that. You can't see it from there. So that's kind of why Steph found that there wasn't going to be any visual any undue visual impacts to the corridor on that. Okay. Well, and that helps. And even that one of the pictures that you show, that you showed, you could see what a slope it was. That was also concerning to me. It just hearing what you're saying about that's, that's the best area there. And that was one of my questions was just if you all had talked about different areas, it sounds like that is the place, but it also just looks really problematic in regards to what water could do. And so it was just, it was concerning to me and looking at what you've talked about today and also hearing the description is, is helpful. So that was, um, that's all I have right now. I don't have any other questions. Okay. Commissioner Stolzman, any questions? I don't have any questions. Thank you. Um,

1:25:52Pete, thank you. I had two questions, I think as I was reviewing the packet and thank you very much for, actually I think I have three for, for all your work, your analysis, your photos. It's always very helpful to provide that context. On the exterior lighting and the requirement of a lighting plan, a full lighting plan, um, you know, I just know that, um, that your analysis says that exterior lighting fixtures shall be limited to. And then you have A, B, C. Only one ceiling or wall mounted fixtures permitted for each exterior. I won't read them all. But, um, pages, um, 18 and 19 at the packet. If those are in code, which I presume they are, you didn't just make them up for this. I'm wondering whether we really need to require a lighting plan. They have to comply with code. The land use code speaks specifically to outdoor lighting having to meet outdoor lighting requirements. But the code does not specifically delineate no more than one per entrance, no driveway, no landscaping lighting.

1:27:07Um, the code does not specify get into that level of specificity. That is a standard condition that staff applied to most properties in the mountains. Uh, just because, uh, light pollution is such a concern. So it is a standard condition, but it is not a specific codified, uh, requirement. The code simply says that it has to meet the outdoor lighting requirements for shielded down light fixtures where the bulb is recessed. And yeah, okay. I think what I'm trying to get at is when we require a lighting plan. And I think the language is, uh, one copy of a proposed lighting plan must be submitted. That, either way I, I don't know whether we require some sort of professional thing. Um, I'm trying to avoid, you know, people as a condition of putting the house on the property they own having to engage some sort of professional. So if can this be something that there are architect or builder who are there working with just says here's where the light, here's where the lights are. Because I mean, another way to do it is just to say only one, uh, ceiling or wall mounted fixtures permitted, no landscape lighting and all bulbs must be fully shielded.

1:28:36You know, just, just have those conditions and not require a plan. Yeah. Um, typically when staff recommends the inclusion of a plan, what that is, is when the building, uh, plans are submitted for permitting the electrical, uh, plan shows where those fixtures are going to be located. And then they include, um, a specific, you know, lighting fixture so that we can look at it to ensure that it does meet the requirements of the code. But this does not require say, um, photometric measurements or anything like that. It's a very standard, uh, part of any set of building plans. Okay. Well, that's satisfies my concern. You know, additional cost and consultants that may not really be needed if what we have are the standards that we're looking for. You know, so the concerns that were expressed by the adjacent property owners, including the one that we got this morning, I think, you know, about the location of the, of the house in that meadow. And I'm wondering, I mean, you've explained that that really is the only place that it can be given the slopes and the riparian areas on the property. But do, do we have any other standards in our site plan review or otherwise that would deal with proximity to adjacent residential structures?

1:30:05I know you have setbacks from property lines, but is there any other standard or criteria? Um, the setbacks are obviously the primary one under, um. You know, A8, the undue visual impacts that is something that we can look at in terms of location, whether, uh, the proposal will have those undue visual impacts and, you know, should it be moved to reduce those. Likewise, I think it's standard nine. Talks about location, um, in terms of, you know, whether it's an appropriate location and causing, get to the right one. Yes. Number nine, the location of the development shall be compatible with the natural topography and existing vegetation, et cetera, et cetera. So those are kind of the two standards that can be used to really consider location. As I said in this case, Steph found that there's really not a better location on the parcel. Um, unless the applicant wants to remove all of the trees, which staff would not really. No, and I actually don't have concerns about it. Um, sometimes, you know, this is an older subdivision and some, you know, newer subdivisions often would have building envelopes. So there were concerns about proximity to other residents. Um, and just from the aerial and some of the photographs that you had in the packet, it looks like the properties gets to the south. You know,

1:31:43aren't as heavily treed. And those folks built first and put their homes where they did. So that's sort of, you know, kind of what, what the neighborhood looks like. So that, thank you for answering that question. The last has to do with that existing. This is a great photo to just keep on the screen that existing driveway cut. And it looks like, was something actually pioneered in the applicant about this as well. But I'm just wondering about the, um, what would what the implications of using that additional, I mean, that existing cleared area relative to what they're proposing. Like you said, it would reduce the need for, uh, cut and fill earthwork. Yeah. Yeah. Um, like I said, we did talk about that with the applicant and the applicants engineer is on the line and he can provide some additional comments. Um, I found that if that existing, it's not really a driveway. It's just kind of, I think pioneered is a good way to put it. Um, access. If that could be reused, staff would support it. Um, there's staff have had conversations with the County Engineer. And this seems like a, um. To reuse that existing access point. It would require a design exception, uh, access point is required to be outside of the setbacks for the parcel. Um, so it would require

1:33:17design exception, but we have had those conversations and at least preliminarily, the county engineer has indicated that he would be supportive of looking at that design exception. Okay. Well, when maybe when we get to deliberations and we can, we can consider how we might encourage that. I mean, cause I think, I think we, we have the criteria and the general policy of trying to minimize the extent of disturbance. And from what I'm hearing, it actually would. So I think we would have the leader bases to do that. So, so, okay. So we'll, we'll address that perhaps later on. Commissioners, any other, um, questions for Pete before we move on to the applicant. No, thank you. See, any. Okay. Thank you. So I see we have Matt Rubley and Erin McCabe with us on the screen.

1:34:15And I would ask each of you to introduce yourselves before you speak just so the record is clear. And then you'll have 20 minutes. Hey, my name is Matt Rubley and I work with Altitude Land Consultants. We are a civil engineering and surveying firm. And we did both of the land survey and the civil design work on this project. So I can speak more to the civil side of it and less to the survey side of it. But, um, we took considerable amount of time and effort to mitigate the loss of trees on the property. With the dry publication. We looked at the current entrance of the property that currently set set roughly 24 to 25 percent grade with fire truck standards. Of, uh, 30 feet center line radiuses and maximum grades of 16 percent. We did not find that it would significantly reduce the cut and field numbers from what we already presenting on the drive that we submitted. So I think that is the little bit of a disconnect with, uh, engineers proposal that it would massively decrease the cotton fill numbers. We looked at numerous different routes through the property. To mitigate the tree removal. As I said before survey went out and identified a lot of the larger trees and we tried to propose a driveway that only

1:36:05cut through one of those larger trees. So. Other than that, I don't Peak kind of covered a lot of what I was going to cover, which is expected. The only other thing I have is that the bridge or the box covert over the creek was conformed to FEMA standards for the 10 year and the hundred year events. So the earthwork surrounding the box culvert could not be avoided. And that's where a lot of the fill comes in to play with this project. I wanted to add that Erin has owned this property since 2017 and has frequently visited and spent time just being on property. So if the neighbors had concerns that they were getting a resident that wanted to just come in and brutalize the property that is not the case. Um, I don't really have much else to add Aaron unless you do. Okay.

1:37:14Thank you. Sorry. Here we go. Not used to using it. Hi, my name is Erin McCabe and I've owned the property almost nine years. And I love it. But I had to save enough money to consider, um, to go through this process. My daughter had her horse down there for a couple of years along with the neighbor's horse. So they went back and forth to use both properties. And it's just beautiful. Um, where the house where the residents will be built is mostly among young aspen. They're steadily going southward as aspen or want to do. And, um, Matt was really great with working with me to have the driveway and the insurance, do everything possible to avoid, uh, larger older trees as well. So I love trees. Want to keep them there. And thank you very much. Okay. Thank you.

1:38:16Uh, you do have additional time, um, but if you feel like you've explained your project as much as you'd like and we'll take questions from the commissioners, if there are any want to make sure that neither one of you wanted to have, um, make any additional presentation. I think I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Any questions for the applicants? I think, yeah, thank you for being here. The only question I had was just, I heard a question around the potentially changing the conditions. I don't know where that'll land in deliberation, but just to hear back from the applicants that they had any, um, concerns in regards to what could be discussed as a change to the, I don't remember if it was 20 or 21 of the list of conditions, but in regards to the lighting plan. Oh, well, actually, I mean, you're all welcome to invite their comment on that. Um, I'm satisfied based on what Pete said that I, that I, yeah, that I didn't want to change that condition. Okay.

1:39:13Perfect. Excuse me applicants. Yeah. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Yeah. I don't have additional things. Okay. Nor do I. So, um, is it still Brie back there? Hello. We do not have anyone signed up to speak either in person or virtually the hearing room, uh, does not have anyone in there. So I think we can go ahead and, uh, close the public comment, uh, portion of the hearing. Pete, anything else you'd like to say. Pete Laurenti Community Planning and Permitting. I don't have any other comments, but I'm happy to answer any other questions. The Commissioners may have. Okay. It looks like we're all very happy here. And so applicant, we do always want to make sure you have the last word on this before we close the hearing and deliberate and make a decision. I can't think of anything else. Thank you. Okay.

1:40:11All right. Thank you. Then commissioners, we're ready to make a decision. Who would like to lead us off? I'm happy to start us off. Thanks again, Pete, for the information and answering the questions and curiosities that we have. I feel like I'm just in line basically with an analysis that staff gave. I had some concerns that I shared just in regards to the parcel and how, um, how full it is a different, really unique characteristics, et cetera. Um, and I heard what you said just in regards to this is kind of the only way to, with a building lot to create access and the applicant even talk to what they've been doing to make sure that they've got that, or I guess it wasn't necessarily the applicant that was speaking to, but, but the other, the other person on the team talking about how they're meeting those multiments, et cetera. So, uh, as far as the, and I would keep the conditions as presented by staff. So that's where I'm at right now to get us going. Commissioner Stolzman. Um, I think that the staff did a great job evaluating and I appreciate the applicant.

1:41:17I understand the neighbor's concerns. It is really hard when something changes. And like your home and your property is so near and dear, um, to you. I think that, you know, when I evaluate the land use criteria and what's allowed and like people have rights with their property, I find that the staff analysis was correct and that the uses, um, should move forward as conditioned. So, but I do understand the neighbor's concerns. And I just, I respect that. And also there are rights that we have to attend to and ensure that people have, um, the liberty that they're afforded and are our state protections? Absolutely. All right. Good. And I don't have any concerns. I think you've fully addressed them. The applicant addressed the issue around the possible use of the other pioneered driveway. And the condition has written what support if they want to look at that. But I, I heard and understood the explanation that when they meet the turn radius, when it's all said and done, it may actually not limit the extent of cut and fill anyway. So, um, I think we're ready for a motion. I'm happy to move on item 2b, which is the Docketlu - 26 - 004 - SPR - 26 - 0014 from a caberth. We're again residents for approval with the conditions as presented by

1:42:44staff. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. So we have approved that three to zero. Thank you very much, Pete. Thank you to the applicants. And enjoy your wonderful piece of property. So that is the last item on our agenda for the day. And so, uh, with that, we will be adjourned.