Map / Planning Board / ← 2025-07-15 · 2025-08-05 →
Planning Board · regular
7-22-25 Planning Board Meeting
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- YouTube, via the Woven archive; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed27 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personBut if you don't even have an online projection right now, how are you going to make a future projection?
This parcel was left as industrial, single purpose, industrial use
This is described in the Comp plan as characterized by a variety of housing types.
are the proposed annexation agreement amendments consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan policies of annexation
Homeownership within the city is consistent with Bvcp policies and a number a number of other city initiatives.
You just have to prove that you meet the city's livability standards for affordable units.
So the original annexation terms are the percentages and the number of units and the location of units.
in inclusionary housing, so in this case they were allowed essentially a credit for existing units on the property.
and so that you will be seeing me in a couple months to talk about a possible impact fee on those types of cases.
affordable housing units in a historically landmark structure, who maintains the exterior of that building?
The Annexation agreement specifies that the implementation of the affordable housing requirement will be consistent with the city's inclusionary housing program
So landmark designation can be reversed by review of the Landmark Board.
And it lists the affordable housing requirements. That's essentially what's being modified if that makes sense.
So we've had situations where we asked through that. We asked for that through annexation.
each high-end development should pay an impact fee for all the unaffordable housing it creates.
That's why you need to go higher on the affordable housing above 45%.
And we've seen that the the most recent projects that were approved were of annexation projects
It seems like, maybe from the technical standpoint, demolition has already occurred, in which case,
Consider removing the landmark designation primarily to benefit the low, to moderate income affordable housing owners
also because little remains of the exterior of the original historic structures.
To remove the parking requirement from the from the annexation agreement.
I am not a fan of parking minimums, and have advocate and have advocated for.
Do you want to read the entire acknowledgment, or have something shorter to use.
the training that we had about the indigenous land. Acknowledgement is that we should
I think the wording that we have here now is is broad enough.
All the city of Boulder Land acknowledgement, or a summary of it, so you can decide how you want to proceed.
and it's not council. It's just for boards and commissions.