Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retreat Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder Design Advisory Board plans May 13 retreat, postpones approval of minutes
Summary
Members of the City of Boulder Design Advisory Board discussed a May 13 retreat to review design guidelines, meeting management and options for earlier project review; with a recusal leaving the board short of a quorum they agreed to postpone approval of prior meeting minutes.
Members of the City of Boulder Design Advisory Board discussed logistics and content for a May 13 retreat and agreed to postpone approval of the previous meeting’s minutes because the chair had recused himself, leaving the board without a quorum. Chair Brendan Ash moved to delay minutes approval "until the next meeting," a motion members supported during the meeting.
The retreat — proposed as a 2–2.5 hour session around the board’s regular meeting time — will center on three priorities: a City Attorney’s Office (CAO) training on legal roles and site-review criteria, a focused review of the design guidelines the board uses most often, and discussion of how the board might engage earlier with applicants (an optional pre-application review). Kalani Pahoa, the city staff liaison, recommended about 30 minutes for CAO training with roughly 10 minutes of Q&A and suggested 30–45 minutes to walk through key site-review criteria.
Board members described a set of recurring "parking lot" issues — topics that come up in meetings but often fall outside DAB’s formal purview, such as zoning, traffic, or floodplain interpretation. "It's super interesting how Boulder interprets the floodplain rules," said board member Stephen Eckert, urging the board could examine how local interpretations align with FEMA guidance. Members gave specific examples (downtown awnings, a hotel tower affecting condo views) to illustrate how projects can meet code yet still prompt divided recommendations among board members.
The group also discussed outreach and coordination with other review bodies. Brendan Ash said he would like DAB to be recommended for more projects and for the board to consider optional pre-application consultations to give early design context to applicants. Staff suggested the retreat include time to consider partnerships with Planning Board and planning staff and to confirm whether DAB members want more opportunities to attend related meetings.
On logistics, the board tentatively set the retreat for May 13 during the regular meeting window (4–6:30 p.m.) and discussed an in-person option, noting staff availability and hybrid meeting technology as constraints. Kalani Pahoa asked members to provide feedback on the draft retreat agenda by April 27 and to return any final edits to staff by Friday the 1st so the agenda can be posted the following Monday; staff will confirm by April 22 whether incoming project applications require rescheduling. The board also agreed to select a retreat note-taker and timekeeper at the start of the retreat.
Next steps: staff will poll remaining members about availability and hard stops, confirm whether applications arrive that would move the retreat, and circulate the final agenda and logistics. The meeting ended with an adjournment and staff follow-up promised to the board.
