City planning staff on May 27 presented Ordinance 86 97, a wide‑ranging technical cleanup of Boulder’s land‑use code that corrects typographical errors, clarifies definitions, updates graphics, and makes targeted changes to align the code with state requirements and local practice. Jeff Salmonson, city planner, summarized the ordinance’s purpose as “a periodic technical review of the land use code” to fix errors and codify existing practices.

Staff highlighted several substantive changes under review: clarifying which dwelling types may be allowed in certain districts; harmonizing terminology for impervious, semipervious and permeable surfaces in the form‑based code; revising duplex and bedroom‑type language to accommodate larger units; and tightening minor subdivision rules so that proposals requiring public improvements follow full subdivision procedures. The package also proposes removing a 750‑foot separation requirement for congregate, custodial and residential care facilities and allowing additional flexibility for hospital and medical uses in public zoning districts to account for larger floor‑to‑ceiling heights.

Board members asked detailed questions across many provisions. Laura (Planning Board member) pressed staff on a proposed allowance intended to help Boulder Community Health add height for hospital uses without triggering community‑benefit requirements; Carl Geiler and Brad Mueller (Planning & Development Services) said the change responds to hospital floor‑height needs and to previously‑approved footprints, and that staff intended the change to be applicable more broadly than a single institution. Some board members expressed concern that the provision could create a narrow, use‑specific exemption; George (Planning Board member) moved to strike that addition and the board subsequently voted to remove it from the recommendation.

Members debated whether properties that do not meet current setback standards should be eligible to convert to duplexes; Kurt Nordback said the proposed setback restriction could block conversions of historic buildings. The board asked staff to revisit the duplex language and the related nonconforming‑lot rules. On minor subdivisions, engineers’ input led staff to propose that applications involving public improvements should proceed through the full subdivision process rather than the simplified minor subdivision pathway.

The board also discussed open‑space rules in denser urban zones, elevated courtyards above first‑floor spaces, and whether balconies and short‑term bicycle parking should count as “countable open space.” After debate, the board approved an amendment to the courtyard requirement changing the recommended language to require “an inviting outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard is provided at or close to grade level,” a wording intended to prevent broadly elevated courtyards from substituting for ground‑level open space where that would be inappropriate. The board kept language allowing certain elevated open‑space features to count in urban form‑based contexts.

Other focused items included: clarifying impervious/semi‑pervious/permeable surface definitions and harmonizing the form‑based code; retaining a SmartRegs exception for attached accessory dwelling units after discussion of construction burdens on retrofit ADUs; clarifying rules that restrict minor subdivisions that require public improvements; expanding the list of paved areas potentially counted as open space to include short‑term bicycle parking; and cleaning obsolete references to the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan.

After a round of proposed amendments and votes, the Planning Board moved and seconded a recommendation that City Council adopt Ordinance 86 97 “as amended by Planning Board below.” The board instructed staff to prepare the ordinance with the adopted amendments for City Council review. Among the final edits the board directed: revised courtyard language to emphasize grade‑level access, a refined site‑plan/area‑plan consistency clause to distinguish site‑specific plan guidance from overarching plan goals, an aligned form‑based code exceptions clause, retention of the SmartRegs exception for attached ADUs, and removal of the proposed hospital‑height language under the site review criteria.

Ending: The Planning Board voted to recommend the code cleanup ordinance to city council with the board’s amendments and asked staff to bring the revised text forward for council consideration and to continue follow‑up on several requested clarifications.