September 6, 2024 — Boulder Urban Renewal Authority Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] We're going to get it through roll call here in a second, and maybe when we do roll call, our commissioners can do a quick introduction that would be great. And then, just for everybody on the call, this is the boulder urban renewal authority. I'm Mark Wolf, one of our assistant city managers for the city. I'll be helping guide us. We have a few housekeeping items as the authority to to clean up first, st so we'll be addressing those getting a formal chair and vice chair. And just for the Commissioner's knowledge, I'm I am more than happy to help kind of get us from item to item today and you know, we'll between me and Hela and the rest of the Pnds team will will make sure we'll stay on track today. So starting with roll call, why don't we go with Tara first? st Sure. Hi! I'm oh, Tara Weiner, here! Is that what you want us to do? That's great, that's perfect.

[1:01] And David. David beak here. And Tom. Colonel here. Perfect. Alright. So we have 3 out of 5 of our commission seats filled. So we do have a quorum, and we can go ahead and begin our formal meeting of 1st or I guess technically, second item on our agenda today is the election of officers so given. It has been some time since. This commission has met. We do need to appoint chair and vice chair, and so role will be to help run the meeting. And again, no pressure. I'm here to help support whomever is willing to step up. So I think we can do this pretty informally, but if anybody would like to volunteer or nominate somebody, we'll we'll take that to start. and if I say anything incorrectly, hell is gonna kick me across the virtual table and and help us out. So any any nominations or volunteers to be

[2:07] the chairperson. A volunteer. I second David as the chairperson. Great. Can we do that by consensus? Everybody comfortable with David serving as chair. Absolutely. Super. Is there a volunteer or a nomination for vice chair. I nominate Tom for vice chair. Second. Tom, do you accept that nomination. I accept the nomination. All right, we'll do that by consensus as well. So thank you, David and Tom, for stepping in as our chair and vice chair. So, David, you are happy to take over the the administration of the meeting. But if you'd like me to kind of move us from item to item item and introduce them. I'm happy to do that.

[3:04] I would love if you would do that, mark. It's great. Alright so item number 3 for today is consideration of resolutions. We have one resolution on the agenda today. That is a consideration of resolution number one series 2024, establishing a meeting place for the Boulder urban renewal authority meetings the details here simply allow us to meet like this, virtually as as we need and so again helping to amend our rules as as an authority. So David, only thing to do at this point would be to see if there is a motion, and a second, and any discussion on that resolution. Okay, do. They need need to go in that order. Yeah, you can start with. With emotion. Okay, would someone like to make a motion that we

[4:03] agree to hold our meetings virtually. I can make that motion. Mark, do you want to put up the language. or do you want me to just say I. Yeah, if you give me one second, I can. Thanks. So be a motion to adopt. That language. I make a motion to adopt resolution one series 2,024, establishing a meeting place for boulder urban authority meetings to be virtual. Does that make sense? Is that what you're looking for? You can stop at the at the period there. The the virtual language is in the resolution. Okay, meetings, period. I would second that motion.

[5:01] Okay, motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay, let's proceed to a vote all in favor. Say, aye. I. Super. Resolution passes. Great. Thank you for handling all that housekeeping. So we do have 2 items, then of new business today. 2 land use cases are coming to us. Again. You know, you all have a little bit of background on the role of bureau. Staff will do a few things. In these presentations, one of which will be to review the role of bureau and each of these cases. So we'll we'll go through that just in terms of the The run of show, so to speak, for today. We will have a staff presentation first.st You all will have an opportunity to ask staff questions. If you have questions of staff

[6:06] we will have the applicants of both of these items present. They will have the opportunity to present. If they would like. You can ask them questions and then we will open a public hearing we did ask for folks to register in advance if they would like to speak during the public hearing. So we'll go to those folks first, st and then we will open the opportunity for those present that would like to speak during the public hearing portion of each of those items to simply raise their hand. When we open that up we'll note who would like to speak, and each person during the public hearing will be given 3 min. so we'll we'll walk through that at the end of the public hearing. You all will have a chance to deliberate and make recommendations per the the purview of Bureau in each of those cases.

[7:06] Sound good. Did I mess mess anything up? Hella. Sounds good. Okay? Alright. Well, we're gonna start with. Item 4 a. This is a public hearing and consideration. Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the St. Julian Hotel and Civic Pad Site Review Amendment at 900 walnut within the 9th and Canyon urban renewal plan. So we? I believe I'm going to start directly with Shannon. Who will be leading the staff presentation. That's great. Thank you so much, Mark. I think I just need my screen sharing turned on so I I can share my screen. Okay, Shannon. I think you have access now.

[8:01] Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Okay. all right. Can everyone see that? Okay. And hear me? Wonderful. Okay, great. So good afternoon. Board members. My name is Shannon Muller, with the Planning and Development Services Department, and I'm just going to take you quickly through the 900 Walnut Site review amendment we're talking about today. So the purpose of today's review is for borough to review and make a finding and a recommendation on the proposed Site reviews consistency with the guidelines in section 3 C. And section 3D. Of the 9th and Canyon Urban renewal Plan. So Borough's finding and recommendation will be conveyed to the Planning Board. Who's the decision maker on the Site Review application? So for some planning context, when the 9th and Canyon Urban renewal plan was originally established back in 1988. The site at night and canyon consisted largely of surface parking, and was considered significantly underdeveloped, and was in need of infrastructure improvements. The purpose of the urban renewal plan was several purposes, including implementing the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

[9:20] eliminating conditions in the area that were detrimental, redeveloping and rehabilitating the area contributing to a sustainable downtown. facilitating private redevelopment with infrastructure improvements, and to effectively utilize undeveloped and underdeveloped land so the urban renewal plan called for development of this downtown site to include a hotel underground parking, open space and a civic use. Here you can see the subject property as it exists today. The St. Julian Hotel and the underground parking garage were approved in 2,000, and as part of that a project design a pad east of the hotel was constructed with a concrete structural deck capable of supporting a future building.

[10:04] A Site Review amendment was later approved in 2,001 for a 55 foot tall civic use building that was to be a children's museum and a dance facility. But that structure was not constructed due to financial challenges. So, following additional efforts to identify a viable user for the civic pad, including multiple city task forces dedicated to the issue, the city entered into an agreement with St. Julian partners that included conceptual images for development of the site and information regarding operating characteristics of a multi-purpose civic use space on the site. So this current Site Review amendment is consistent with those agreements and includes an approximately 50,000 square foot structure. It has a 1st floor meeting space and associated kitchen facilities, storage restrooms and connections to that below grade parking garage. The ground floor meeting spaces will be provided for local, not for profit. Organizations and civic groups that have 1st right to reserve a space discounted rental rates, and other terms per the agreement between the city and St. Julian.

[11:13] The upper levels provide for a mechanical mezzanine and 3 upper floors of extended stay hotel rooms that are connected to the upper levels of the existing St. Julian hotel building. So in terms of today's review. Section 3, C. The context guidelines and section 3D. The Site development guidelines of the Urban renewal plan are the guidelines to be considered by BURA when providing a recommendation to the planning board during the site review process. The plan notes these guidelines are not intended to be a checklist, but are to suggest the type and range of options to be considered. The existing St. Julian Hotel and underground parking garage completed many of the guidelines called for in the plan. including establishing the hotel use, creating a distinct open space along Canyon, establishing the 10th Street pedestrian corridor, through the site that helps connect it from Pearl Street to the civic area and placing all the parking underground, and it established the future development pad that's proposed to be developed with this proposal.

[12:21] So, looking at these more closely, here is section 3 c. The context guidelines. These describe how the proposal should relate to its surrounding context, such as the walnut and canyon corridors, its function as a regional and downtown gateway and guidelines that encourage the area to be developed with pedestrian access, public improvements and a high quality design. So in Staff's review of Section 3, C. Context, guidelines. Staff found the proposal consistent with these items as more detailed in the staff. Memo moving to section 3D. The site development guidelines. These guidelines provide further guidance for redevelopment projects to encourage full time activity in the project area, reinforce unique attributes of the site.

[13:11] Create a physical gateway with a distinctive image, enhance pedestrian connections and provide for quality. Open space and public improvements, so as noted earlier, the existing development fulfilled many of these guidelines, and this proposal continues in that vein. It provides both hotel and meeting spaces to promote full time activity on the site. It provides a distinctive and high quality design with a unique entry element, upper level sky, bridge and enhancements to the 10th Street pedestrian corridor. It maintains that distinctive open space and public improvements that have already been established. So Staff found the proposal is consistent with these items in section 3D. As further described in the Staff Memo, and found that overall. The proposal completes the vision for the redevelopment of the site as a cohesive development as intended by the guidelines.

[14:06] So with that, Steph included a suggested motion language in the packet, and on this slide, and the applicant team is also here to share more information and images with you, but I'm happy to take any questions before I turn it over to them. Does anyone have any questions. No questions at this time for me. I don't have any questions at this time. 0. Oh, sorry I was on Mute, who knew no questions for me. 3. Okay. I'm happy to turn it over to the applicant team. Let me make sure they've all been promoted. We have

[15:01] Bruce with the St. Julian and the architecture team as well. Give us a second there, Shannon. We're getting people in the room. and I don't know if we see Jen Nieman, I see a Jen's iphone. So if that is same person, if you could raise your hand, so we know who to promote that would be super helpful.

[16:13] Jen's traveling on a personal matter, so she may just be listening right now. Okay. And I think we have everybody. And, Matt, if you are able to share your screen, or if your team is able to share your screen to walk through your slides. You're welcome to do so. Okay, great Carol is going to take the lead today. Great. Yes, I'll go ahead and share my screen.

[17:02] There we go. Okay, can everyone see my screen? Yes. Yes, so thank you. Everyone for joining us on this meeting today. We're happy to be here. My name is Carol Shockley. I work with 42, 40 on the architecture team. We've been working closely with Shannon and the city to propose something that we're really excited about. So. I'm gonna try to keep this part brief. I have some slides here to share that are all from the Lur packet. There's nothing new in here. So you guys should be familiar with what's included. I also have a 3D model on hand for us to reference if needed. As we move through the discussion, we can sort of, you know. Look at particular parts of the of the building that you guys might have questions on. So for starters. I would like to start with pointing out a couple of things that really influence the design process. And for this project to sort of existing challenges that are real hurdles. So the 1st one being the flood plain. So in this, in this diagram, here, you can see our site in the middle.

[18:19] and this pink area is referring to a high hazard flood zone. And then the blue which is most of our site. It. It's lesser of a hazard. But we do. This is a challenge for us to deal with. So within a high hazard flood zone, there are a lot of challenges and limitations into, you know what we can build there? fortunately, that that's sort of a benefit to the public in this case, because it, you know it's really pushed the development of the site to maintain opening open space along the south side of the project which we'll we'll get into later on. But this is all part of the public domain, with views of the flat irons that will is currently in place, and will be maintained with the development of this new project.

[19:08] Let's see. Sorry. Just a second. Have a frozen computer right now. Okay. sorry about that. Another challenge. So while this is a a new build. It's a new project. It is over an existing structure. So you guys are familiar with the parking garage that is below grade. That is a Cajun parking garage. This new addition is built on top of that. So moving through the design process, we had to be very mindful of how the structure that we put on top would impact the parking garage structure we really wanted to avoid reinforcing that structure and trying to be. We did not want to disrupt the garage as much as possible during the course of construction, it still needs to be open and functional and operational

[20:12] so so that presented a challenge for us to to tie into the existing structure. So with that comes, you know, some more limitations in terms of flexibility and massing. A lot of our, you know. Steps in the facade are cantilever conditions that are a little tricky to navigate, but have been really you know, thoughtful in terms of what is being incorporated, and why moving forward? So to sort of jump off what Shannon mentioned before. This is. This is a, you know, an aerial of the site as it is now, and it it really is sort of the missing piece to this original concept that was developed 20 years ago. And and there's been a lot of discussion throughout the years. And we think this is a good summary of all of those conversations.

[21:04] So jumping into the Site Plan. A really good quality for the site is the is the open space that is provided here with the existing St. Julian. This is for the public, as we all know. Canyon is a busy street. So making it as pedestrian, friendly as possible, has been, has been important throughout this process. We are proposing planters to be deeply integrated into the facade in order to soften that experience of of walking down the sidewalk and and really encouraging pedestrians to come onto the site and walk through to to meet that 10th Street connector. Another interesting challenge with this project site is the context as outlined in borough, you know. There's You know, we need to have a building that is distinct in character, but also fits in with the context. And by doing that we are making references to the original St. Julian, we're incorporating the sandstone that Leadstone on the space to reinforce that connection. But we also need this building to be distinct because it is. It's a different facility. It's a mixed use facility. The ground level is, is purely for civic use and the upper levels of the hotel.

[22:27] So just to zoom in here a little bit, you know, we we worked within the city's guidelines to really pace the the sort of facade of the building in a way that felt organized and broke things up in a way to avoid creating a massive building. So as you sort of get to this this corner here the sky bridge connecting the upper level is pushed back. And we have a curve here that we'll look at and plan this will. This will do. So we have a curve here to really usher in pedestrians to to utilize that space. One thing to note within this drawing is, you know, we're not showing street trees in the elevation. We did that just for clarity, so that you could see the building. But in the rendering here there, there is great treescape out there. Now that

[23:18] We should note here. So, moving on to the 1st floor. Shannon explained this pretty well in terms of how it was operating, but we just so we won't spend too much time on the 1st Level, but it has been designed to provide a a wide range of events here. So it is pretty large space. This could be treated like a ballroom for a more formal occasion. We also have dividers that can split the space up into smaller configurations, so meetings of a different scale with different needs can can still happen in the space. We also are providing a prefunction element, and all the support spaces, including restrooms, the kitchen, and any of the sort of storage that comes with a facility like this.

[24:09] Jumping to the exterior on this ground level here. This is where our civic use function is is happening in the project. So we are providing a a large amount of glazing so that people can feel connected to the street, and vice versa. One thing to note with this building design is there is. The primary entrance is not off of the the main facade, and a lot of that is because of flood plain reasons. This door here is not meant to be a primary entrance. It's more of an egress point. So, moving around to the west facade here, this is our primary entry that has direct connection to the St. Julian and then we have another sort of secondary entrance here. A lot of attention has been put into what this pedestrian experience feels like on the West Side.

[25:01] once you sort of get past the entrances to the civic use space. We're really trying to create some visual interest there, so that people feel excited and encouraged to move through the space they feel safe. It's well lit. There's signage. It's really a public space, and and the architecture is responding to that moving around the building. This is our our alley facing facade. But it it really does have quite a public presence. As you guys know, there's sort of access to the parking garage, the public parking garage on the north side here that access point will be maintained and elevated to where it's very clear to pedestrians that that is where you enter the parking garage. This is sort of the backside to that moves through the through the pedestrian way, touching base on just sort of the East Side. We're very mindful not to include any sort of windows to respect the privacy of our neighbors, and we also are extending the high quality materials that we are including on these public

[26:08] facing facades. Around the corner. This facade is is constructed with the same materials. Just to sort of highlight and section what's going on here. You guys know that there's parking garage on top, and our civic use space is on the 1st Level we have an elevated 1st Level in height, and guest rooms are 3 levels above. We have a mechanical space here with screens that are blocking all mechanical equipment, but a large majority of our mechanical equipment is tucked away in the mezzanine level of our building. so that we don't have as much on the roof. and this is sort of the long section, demonstrating how the how it connects and aligns with the the existing hotel in terms of overall massing. And what's happening at the corners of the building, we we really took effort into sort of

[27:05] based off of our conversation with Dab to sort of shrink those corners and pull it in as much as necessary to create a sense of arrival and injury as well as you know, playing around with how the mass is viewed. We included in our Lur document some sections demonstrating the the space between our our building and the building next door. We. We spent a lot of time working with Shannon on trying to come up with a solution that respects the neighbors. so we can. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a second. But in terms of what borough is is focused on. And and you know the purpose of this meeting. We think one of the the more appealing features that we're excited about is this pedestrian walkway that's going to connect the civic center of boulder with the commercial area of downtown right now. It, you know it's there, but it's very undefined. So this is an opportunity to enhance that pedestrian experience.

[28:07] provide a good experience. There will be bike parking within here, so that people for people to use. And let's see also featuring a really sort of custom metal panel feature. Wall, we're still developing that. But it's something we definitely want to collaborate with you guys with the city itself on what? What that looks and feels like. So with that. These are some images of the building that we are proposing. We're excited about how it feels fitting into the context of this block and and sort of completing that puzzle or this last piece of the site to move forward. So thanks, everyone. Do you guys have any questions? Does anyone on the board have questions for Carol.

[29:05] Yeah, Carol. So the the the windows not being included on the east side of that building. Those are to address the the reason they're not. There is to address privacy concerns from the condo next door. Yeah. So on the upper levels, where we have hotel rooms, there are no windows. Sort of looking east. Everything is directed either to the north or the south. Okay. thank, you, yeah. I have a question that Several of the neighbors brought up in their comments, addressing concerns about trash and servicing of the hotel and the new addition. Would you like to. Explain a little bit about that. Please. Yes, I'm I'm gonna pull up our site plan again. So currently, the you know. The intent was servicing the hotel, the additional hotel rooms, and the new addition is gonna tie in pretty seamlessly with the existing maintenance of of the existing hotel. So any sort of trash or housekeeping will

[30:19] be serviced from the existing hotel and brought over to their their trash and loading area that they currently have off. This is on the ground level towards the alley. However, we are addressing any sort of trash generated by the civic use space. So in in case of an event, we have trash and storage here, so that that will then sort of be relocated to the hotel at a later date. This is really just for level one. It's just servicing level one during big events, and will ultimately be combined with the with the existing infrastructure of the of the hotel as it works now.

[31:06] and and just to clarify. There is a gate here. So it is sort of it's not just trash bins out in the open, but it is enclosed and accessed by staff only. Okay. So it seems like, regardless of what kind of civic use was on this pad that those same issues would need to be dealt with in in a manner similar to how you've done it to some degree. Having this be part of the hotel lessens the impact of of that in that it is combining the existing trash processing area with the hotel. If we're wouldn't be separate user.

[32:04] Right, and it's worth mentioning that the St. Julian Hotel has already discussed, increasing the the number of the number of times. This trash and recycling is serviced. you know, in the case for dealing with that increased volume of trash and recycling, with the new addition. Okay. Tara, do you have any questions? Yeah, I'll lower my hand. I don't know if you could see it. Yes! It's a quick question. Is, is the 55 foot height? Do you know if that affects any of the restaurants on Walnut street that have views of the flat iron on the roof. So we've we've done a shadow analysis and studies and views, but in terms of what's happening on walnut we we don't have that we're not totally sure. This is really on the south side of the block, away from Walnut, so it hasn't been a focus of our study.

[33:10] Okay, thanks, so much. Yeah, I don't see any other questions. you're free to proceed to the next. Great. all right so we are going to open the public hearing then for the item so in a moment. Here we will. We will start with. I think we only had one person sign up in advance, so we'll let them have the the 1st crack at it, and then we will. except hand raises to start a queue for

[34:03] public comment, and we'll go about it that way some guidelines before we get started. Just want to ask that those that are calling in from a phone number or have just a 1st name or a phone number or anonymous tag to their name. They'll need to identify 1st and last name. If you could. You can click on your name in the participants list and rename yourself. That would be helpful to us. It's part of our guidance for public meetings, and again. You'll have 3 min to speak when we start. If you could help us out by sticking to that 3 min, so we don't have to cut you off and let everybody have a chance to speak. appreciate you all being here today. And, Selena, we can go ahead and begin. Public comment. Thanks, Mark, so I don't see the person who signed up.

[35:02] So the person who's on the phone as Ron Mccormick. Please raise your hand because I don't see him in the attendees list. I'll give that a few minutes. Okay, and we can always come back to him if he does join us. so we'll go ahead and allow those we'll take them in order of the hands raised. If you'd like to speak on this item. and we'll go ahead and go down the list. Selena, who do you have 1st on on your list? Do you want me to list them off for you? Is that the best. I have Stan Garnett on the 1st of my list. Great start. There.

[36:00] Okay. give me one second. Let me pull up the timer. Okay, Stan. I'm gonna unmute you. Inger. 3 min. Sorry. Give me one second. Are you able to hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Great. Well, listen. I really appreciate the chance to speak for a couple of minutes on this. And I also want to thank the members of the Urban Renewal Commission for your service. I know it's important and not always a job where you feel the community's appreciation. So thanks very much for your work.

[37:13] My name's Stan Garnett. I'm a lawyer in Boulder, at the law firm of Garnett, Powell, Maximon, Barlow, and Farbs, and we were retained a while ago to represent a group called Protect Boulder Civic Space, Llc. Which was formed due to concern about this development. I've been working with them for several months. I understand the role of this board in this meeting is somewhat limited, but I wanted to simply list some of the concerns that our group has, and make sure that the Board is aware of those. The 1st concern is simply that the original intent of the approval. And this approval history, as you all have seen, goes back

[38:00] a couple of decades, did not contemplate something like this. 60. What's almost a 60,000 square foot building. Now it looks like with significant mechanical and additions on the top which is going to have a real impact in downtown boulder number 2 the our understanding of this nearly 7,000 square foot ballroom. I will be primarily a for profit service for the St. Julian, and does not meet the requirement of civic space. Also, previously the approval had been for up to 20% civic I mean for 20% or over a civic use space, and that's been changed to up to 20, which means. not necessarily a very significant amount of civic space. Use being provided here. And finally, my clients are particularly concerned. About how this project has grown through the decades, and also that the concerns about trash and traffic which are very

[39:12] chronic concerns that everybody in this area has are not adequately addressed by this, and finally, that there's not been adequate public outreach through the time with it. Now, some of the other folks that have concerns will be present and speaking but I would be available afterwards, or by contact. If people have additional questions, I'm happy to make sure that myself and my staff that have worked on this are available. So again, thank you for the opportunity to make almost 3 min to comments and appreciate your service. Thank you. Stan.

[40:04] Right! Go ahead, mark. I was just gonna say, it looks like next we have Catherine gasman. Catherine, you are have gotten installed. Can you hear me now? I unmuted myself. Yes. Hi! I'm a resident of Boulder and live next door in the Arette building, and I'm around a lot driving in and out and being in the neighborhood. And I just have a couple of comments. 1st of all, my understanding is with the urban renewal development that one of the goals is to provide quality, public space. I I will note that in the part of the Bureau of Paperwork I read is that one of the comments made by staff was that in section 3D. 5 was that the existing open space provides outdoor seating and dining. It's not really true. There's no outdoor seating and dining that is in the public venue. It is all in the private space behind the borders and the walls of the St. Julian, and my concern with this, the way that the structure is on the south side is, it feels much more like private space than it does now. It has a very large sky bridge.

[41:20] and while we have openings that are curved, I just feel like this will feel like private space, and the people who are walking through there from the public, going from Canyon through to Pearl, will not feel the kind of welcoming boulder vibe and energy, and they will go back around 9th Street because it just feels very private as it does now, right at the corner. My second point is is, I feel like we haven't adequately dealt with the back of the house issues. Typically, there were 3 large echo cycle trash bins in the 10th Street alleyway or pedestrian easement. I'm not sure where those boundaries are. One has been taken away. There are now 2, and I realize this is St. Julian has agreed to have more frequent pickups.

[42:14] However, it's really can be a mess up back there when you've got an eco cycle truck. You've got the water truck, the liquor truck the delivery trucks, and while I know that the new design contemplates sort of a fenced in trash area, I just assume that all that trash is going to be hauled through the alley and dumped in the outside dumpsters. I think we need to really consider the traffic implications of people coming in and going out, I guess, on 11th or Walden. I'm not sure how that traffic works. But let's revisit the traffic. Let's revisit the trash. Let's make sure it's safe and beautiful for all of the public visitors and tourists and residents that we want to welcome to our beautiful city. Thank you.

[43:05] Thanks, Catherine. Alright, looks like next we have Cindy Lindsay. Cindy, you have been unmuted. Okay, thank you. I I'm also appreciative of the time for the Borough group today. I live at 1077, canyon next door to the east of this proposed project. Have a lot of the same concerns about traffic in the alley, which is always a disaster today. The trash which is always blown about in the alley. But my main concern is just the view of this, the monolithic design of this building. If you look from the canyon side, the St. Julian itself is greatly recessed with green space. The arette has multiple levels with different terraces, and this is just like one huge.

[44:11] almost entirely flat space that really does not fit the the look of the community. So that's 1 concern. Another is just that the civic space is not civic is not explained to me in a way that seems like it is truly designed to be a civic space. It's just if nonprofits or other organizations want to use the space, they can make that request. But it's not being presented as the entirety of the building as a civic space, which was the original intent. So thank you. Thank you, Cindy. Alright. Next we have Mark

[45:01] Plinky. Mark, you have been giving the chance to speak. Yes. Can you hear this? Yes, okay. thank you. Thank you. To your service to the city. I very much appreciate that. The a lot of time goes into this, and I I appreciate you taking the time. I'm I'm Boulder Resident, living in North Boulder on a greenhouse company for the last 15 years we built greenhouses and what we call biophilic buildings, buildings where people and plants both are happy. And one of the questions, or one of the things that I was thinking about this issue is when I I have aired Airbnb guests and people ask me. Well, you know what's very cool about Boulder, you know. What do I need to see? It's like, Okay, you need to go see Pearl Street and the flat irons. The farmers market, maybe, together with Duchambe.

[46:18] But there isn't really any particular place that I can usually send people to one of those places. What I would think we're missing, and I would love to see on the public space, especially in the winter months, is a place that people can just be in public where weddings can be held. That is somehow iconic, something that people it's worth coming to boulder for. something that would be truly civic and benefiting the whole community, including the San Julian

[47:04] with the ability to maybe have a cafe where you can be outside in the sun. you know in in a greenhouse space you can be sitting in the sun, and you can have a dinner or coffee. And so there are people in this town that would be excited about this. They would be willing to potentially fund this, or work ever tirelessly to to fund this this project, which would really benefit the whole community. And so I wanted to raise the opportunity for you to consider that I think you have drawings of a potential a design and way. I know my company with local resources, we can build this kind of a structure, and we would be very excited to do so.

[48:06] so thank you so much. Thanks, Mark. Next we have a a Dennis Dennis. If you could provide your last name when you're unmuted, that would be wonderful. Dennis, you have been given the chance to speak. Greetings all. It's Dennis Johanning Meyer, real long last name. I am a Cpa with offices in Boulder and Denver. I live in boulder also, and what the thing I got to offer 1st is gratitude for the the process, and thank you all echo many others feelings. But the the other thing I have to offer is in in my capacity as a Cpa. I have professional standards that to live up to, and one of which that requires a due care

[49:07] of duty is having professional skepticism. And I just gotta put it out there that those involved in evaluating this product projects should be alerted. Their census should be alerted when it's called by the applicant a civic use of building. When Carol shared earlier, that that the 1st floor is set up purely for civic use. Tom had a great question about whether the privacy concerns of the neighbors, the reason that the the there was a solid wall. I don't think that has ever occurred. and the summary that I have is just quite simply this. with so many obvious

[50:02] inclusions of words that seem to be targeted. My senses are alert. I hope yours are, too. That's what I have to offer. I really appreciate the time. Thank you, Dennis. and we do have last at least, that I can see is a Brant brooks, and while we bring Brant on just last call for raising hands for public comment. And I did want to mention, we do have a few look like they're on. The phone can raise your hand by hitting Star 9, so that we know you are interested in speaking looks. We have at least one more after Brant now, so we can go ahead and go to Brant. Alright, Brent, you have been given the chance to unmute.

[51:01] Right. Thank you, guys, and thank you all for all the work and efforts on all parts. Appreciate it. Brant, Brooks, I am part of the ownership group and represent a 1011, walnut. second, 3, rd and 4th floor building across the street. And you know, we've been following this. We are concerned that I I heard a couple of questions regarding how this may impact shadows and views going up to 55 feet and you know concerned about what this does to you know our property, and and also concerned about the the someone mentioned monolithic design and wanting to see a bit more character. We are very supportive of having an appropriate structure, but just not sure. 55 feet seems appropriate. You know, given the use that it it is meant for. and

[52:01] that is my comments. Great thanks, Brent. Alright. A couple more here next up is Mitchell Ember. Mitchell, you have been allowed to unmute. Yeah, I think I'm unmuted right? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, anyway, we live on the second floor in the middle of the building. Facing the alley. We have a deck in back facing the alley. We also have the keyhole deck which really amplifies sound. We've been there since April 2,011, so we've been there over 13 years we've lived with what's in the alley. The trash trucks in the morning, even with windows closed.

[53:11] We like to open them when it is quiet. It's nice. We've dealt with the city on the construction zone, on skateboarding back there a lot of the trucks that make deliveries mostly to the Julian Park in that little loading zone, right in the middle of the alley opposite our deck and Condo. and we often listen to engines running refrigeration units running. When I go talk to drivers. A lot of them tell me that they need to keep the engine running for their liftgate or for their refrigeration. So we're dealing with the deliveries to the Julian. So my real concern is that it doesn't get worse back there. When it's bad. It's bad when it's nice. It's very nice, and we love to keep the windows open.

[54:05] and I hate to close them just because of activity in the alley, so I want to make sure that the city is going to enforce traffic back there. If it does get congested and people start honking their horns that they keep through traffic, so we don't have to get more osha backup sirens and and bells ringing, so I just want to be where the that we live there, and and it's our home, and and we're out on our deck, and and just to make sure that it doesn't get worse. I would like the city to commit to really enforcing rules in the alley in terms of engine idling. A parking how long people park there and all that stuff. So I appreciate it. Just want to let you guys know. That we really live there. It is our home. It's our only home, and I don't see how that 10th Street walkway is going to be in any way inviting when it's already filled with dust

[55:11] trash dumpsters from the Julian, and this is just adding 2 more dumpsters to the area. I haven't seen anything that really describes how those are going to suddenly vanish. I think that's it for us. Thank you. Thank you. Could the second Speaker just identify themselves. In in Berkshire. Thank. Brief. Data. all right. I believe we we found Ron Mccormick. He's calling in from a phone. so we'll get him going here. But. Selena, do you see which iphone that was

[56:03] based on the Q. And a. Oh, give me one second. Okay. Yeah, that. 2, 6, 2, number. Okay. is he? The next speaker is, I'm sorry. Yeah, we'll go ahead to Ron. Okay. Ron, you have been given the chance to unmute. We're not hearing you, Ron, if you are trying to speak. Hello! Now we can hear you. Okay. I apologize. I I'm not sure why I wasn't able to join in earlier on. I've been hearing you all the way along. But apparently I didn't do quite the right thing to hook up

[57:10] Shannon, do you have the renderings that you're able to display as I, as I speak. that were sent over to you yesterday. Hi! This is Shannon Muller. All of the items I received yesterday were forwarded to the board as part of the public comments package. So the board has those. Oh, great! So they've been able to see what what? That proposal is. Okay. Thank you. So I am Ron Mccormick. I'm an architect. I've been doing this about 52 years. And I was asked by Mr. And Mrs. Dan Dietzler, who are residents of the Eret, to develop a an alternative conceptual design for the civic use. Pad they are concerned with many of the concerns you've heard today. The the mass of the building. Certainly the block of view from the eret and the lack of of civic use space that's being offered

[58:12] so we have proposed a a glass greenhouse type structure as an alternative, a 1 story, primarily, one story structure with a second story, mechanical area. and it. It would be a that really offer a 2 multi civic use opportunity for weddings, corporate events community gatherings and that sort of thing independent of of rental from the Saint Julian. And we feel it's this, the solution in general would be more in keeping with the original your recommendations when St. Julian was 1st developed. but operationally, we also feel that what we're proposing would be a great asset to the St. Julian, as well as the entire community

[59:04] it. This design features a a year-round green space mark described it as a biophilic space, which is an excellent word for it, meaning giving life to your enjoying life and enjoying the surroundings and connecting with nature. And this greenhouse structure would very much do that with with the light, the green space inside of views to the flat irons, and and the connection a visual connection, and a very strong one north and south in particular. To the community. there would also be some outdoor dining as proposed in the southwest corner of the building along the public walkway. We're also promoting the connection from from canyon to pearl, as as the previous scheme is shown. But I think that could be done more more, in a more inviting way and a more direct way.

[60:00] But the big thing is the is the mass, and the the quality of the design. I really feel this would be an iconic structure for this city of Boulder or a true landmark. So thank you. Thank you, Ron. All right. Next we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you can unmute. What a blast from the past! Bruce Porcelli! My God! 30 years since I've seen you on the civic space with the Saint Julian and all the flood discussions. Wow, wow! And you know this is our. I'm sorry I'm not going to put lipstick on a pig. Now, Percelli, I just looked up. It's a Southern Italian pig lit piglet. I love piglets. This was supposed to be civic space. Remember the folk singers.

[61:02] They couldn't afford it, you know, can anything in Boulder be afforded as to the value of the the the embodiment of boulder. because performance center is what we desperately need? Instead, we got a 15,000 square foot conference, you know, ballroom up on the hill with with Cu. You know we've got the millennium taken over by Cu by the bedroom. 950 bedrooms compared to 250. That was the millennium. This was something that we can have as income, you know. I I know you're going to generate income, Bruce. But this is not what this was designed to be. You're lucky that you got your hotel. Let's not be too greedy. We need something for boulder.

[62:00] for boulder folk, singers, folk, dancers. performance center something that makes this place into something more than just, you know, a a tourism space for tourism, of condos of high end condos. That's what we've got here in Boulder, you know, of people living in spaces or inhabiting them in a hotel sense, but not for what this community, the value, the history that it has to give and to offer. you know. I know it takes money. but you know the developers in this town. It's obscene what's going on? $40,000 for the penthouse per month for the penthouse in 3 11, Mapleton

[63:00] and you know, 5 or 10 million. And then you get 15%, no, probably 10 million. And you get 15% back when you die. and an endless amount of people that are going to die. So they're going to go up there to live first.st So it's like the stock market. It's not just a bank. There's plenty of wealth in this community. The developers need to give back. We need a performance space, not a heroin recovery center like at the September school, like the guy from 3 11 wanted. Let's do our part. Thank you, Lynn. Alright last up and see your hand, Bruce, that we'll turn to the applicant team here. After public comment for any responses last up for public comment is Steve Schaefer. Steve, you have been given the chance to unmute.

[64:03] Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Hi! My name is Steve Schaeffer. Thanks for pronouncing my name correctly, which is unusual. I am a resident of downtown. I. I live in the building next door to the Erat, and like a lot of people in Boulder, I spend a lot of time walking up and down the creek trail and using the library, and the vision of Boulder is seen from there has been really spectacular, particularly the the wonderful job to say Julian did in designing their building with the setbacks and the open space. I'm very concerned about this new proposal. because it's out of character with the rest of canyon. If you go down 3 or 4 blocks to the east, you can see there's a very interesting array of building designs. This building is really different.

[65:04] and goes against the recommendation in one of the documents that we've seen, the building shouldn't be massive and monolithic. And so I think that that's a real problem, and we should look for other alternatives. I would also strongly recommend everyone. Look at the drawings that Ron Mccormick just referenced of the alternative. Not that we would have to do that. But that would be a truly revolutionary thing to have in boulder and to create an attraction for people to come to Boulder, which is a terrific place. Thank you. Thank you. Steve. Yeah. Okay? So if it's okay with David, you and the commission, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing, and then we will move on and allow Bruce and the applicant team. If there are any responses to public comment.

[66:10] Okay, it's fine with me. Unless anyone else on the board objects. Let's proceed. Okay. let's go ahead and does. Anybody does anybody on the board have any questions or comments to members of the public before we go on. No, just that. I appreciate everybody's input and eager to hear Bruce's responses to some of the issues that were brought up. Likewise Tira. I agree with that. I'm looking forward to hearing from Bruce now.

[67:01] Okay. Let's proceed. David, I'm getting a note that there is one more member of the public and it looks like a second that are now raising their hand, so leave it to the Commission. Whether or not you'd like to allow for additional public comment. Okay. Alright. We have a Lisa and George Bartlett, and then, I believe, a Dan Dietzler is having trouble raising their hand, but would also like to speak. So we'll take those Lisa and George look like they're together, so we'll take them as one speaker, and then we have Dan following. Okay. Okay, Lisa and George, you I've been given the chance to unmute.

[68:18] I did try to unmute. Did it work. We can hear you now. Thank you. I want to thank the members of the Board and the city, and I sent in a letter which I hope you all have the opportunity to read I'd like to make a few brief comments as has been stated by many the proposed building is not a true civic use it is for profit. and that was never what was intended. the alleged no window

[69:00] those that live in the eret. I have never heard that in my life. In fact, we have. I think many of us stated that there need to be windows, and the setback between the Saint Julian on the East side and the Iraq on the west side is basically nonexistent and needs to be addressed. There are now, obviously endless hotel rooms on already online or coming online. And I don't see any consideration being given to that. Yes. and I just believe that the time has come because the St. Julian has rebuffed any efforts to the best of my knowledge, for people who have requested all through this process to speak with one or more representatives from the St. Julian and there has been no willingness, to the best of my knowledge.

[70:11] and everybody who purchased at the urette and other buildings. They, of course, are aware that the Saint Julian has a right to build a building but no one I doubt even the city could have forecast that the proposal would come in using virtually every square inch of the property, and when the presentation was made initially earlier on by a representative of the St. Julian, it talked about all the open space. Well, the open space, as we can all see, is already in existence. In front and in back of the St. Julia there is no meaningful addition of any open space. In fact, almost all the open space has been

[71:07] completely eliminated. So the bottom line for me, along with flood zone issues, trash, parking, etc, is, there needs to be a dialogue between the St. Julian and those that are opposed to the currently proposed project. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. all right, and I think we'll give Dan Dietzler a chance to speak. Okay, Danny. I've been given the chance to unmute. Hope that worked. Can you hear me. Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Miss Moller and the Bureau Board members. I appreciate this opportunity to

[72:02] participate in this meeting. My name is Dan Dietzler. I'm a semi retired civil engineer. In May of 2,011, my wife and I purchased Unit 2 0 2, in the arette. Our unit has a deck and windows on the west side. We enjoy the views from from that area. We have 5 happily married children and 13 healthy grandchildren, 2 families and 5 grandchildren live here in the Front Range. We enjoy staying at our place in Boulder. visiting and entertaining family and friends here we like the outdoors. Yesterday I had a letter delivered to your office, and I ask that you all read that letter before you make your recommendations to the planning board. My wife, and I want what is best for Boulder. The so-called civic use building as proposed by the St. Julian.

[73:01] is only good for the Saint Julian. No one else. I encourage. I encourage you to reject the current proposal, and recommend that a truly civic use structure be proposed by the owners of the civic use. Pad. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. all right. Thank you. Commissioners for allowing those last couple of public comments. And I think we can go ahead and move to responses from the applicant group. Agreed. And I see Bruce's hand. But, Bruce, do you wanna start or anybody. I wasn't sure if I was need to be unmuted. So thank you all. And the couple of comments in no particular order in 42 40. My team might jump back in here, but a couple of things that I wanted to elaborate on David's comment about what what's being proposed kind of lessens the impact overall. Because there's yeah, there's 39 suites that are hotel rooms that are being proposed. And I just want to point out that, you know, in this business.

[74:23] on on average, there's about a 65% occupancy. So we're talking about 26 on average, 26 occupied rooms and all that. The guest traffic and pedestrian traffic, etc, is handled through the hotel. So that is yeah. And actually, as far as increased staff people think there's a there's many more people coming. No, this is actually a fairly small addition room, wise when you consider occupancy as well. And one of the reasons why, after 20 years, the civic use has come to this is because we needed or this, we all needed. The site needed. An economically viable, feasible civic use, and a lot of the uses that were being proposed were not economically viable. And then it came into private use, being proposed to help support the public use. And that's what this is the civic use. Now, that 1st floor, there's actually a big point. That's that's not being highlighted, is that.

[75:26] And it's not only the nonprofits can use it and rent it, and potentially 100% of the time all year long, but the it can be catered by 3rd party caterers. It's not under the Saint Julian does not have to provide. The the nonprofits have the option to bid it out to use other caterers that are, they have to be approved. But use other caterers. We think that will also help other restaurants in the area where foot traffic is obviously down for restaurants, restaurants that also cater on the side to get them approved and and give them another outlet for their for their service.

[76:08] The on the I know as part of the submission. It's, you know, 180 pages, as you know. But the originally the erect was the original submission, and, as Lynn Siegel pointed out, I've been around for 30 years doing this, and the kind of become older than dirt to be the institutional memory of this, but when the array was originally submitted, it had a blank wall. There were no windows, no balconies, and it was submitted that way because they knew the developer knows urban infill. The children's museum that was proposed. Prior was 55 feet and a blank wall facing east, and so the Red had a blank wall facing west. The planning board at that time said, You know. it's probably gonna be some amount of time before this building gets built next to you. So why don't you design it so that we don't, we're not looking at a blank wall. The Chelsea Museum actually was the same way. There was a blank wall, and as it was going through the approval process there were murals and reliefs, and whatever put on that blank wall to because again, they thought that you know Thurman infill, there'd be a building eventually to to its east.

[77:26] So the the complete, the the criticism that we don't have windows. That's actually that was done through the to the process with Shannon and the planning department. So to protect the privacy of the of the neighbors next door. Why, all these windows and balconies were put in on urban infill I don't know. But the the fact is that it was put in there originally. And actually, if you go through the planning approvals the developer was to record a declaration acknowledging that an up to a 55 foot building would be built next door.

[78:02] So for the residents that say they've never heard of it, or they didn't know what was being built. It's been mentioned a couple of times through the ret approval process that there was to be a declaration acknowledging the building next door up to 55 feet, the so part of the east west. So with the balconies and windows, our 42 40 team has estimated that there's about 1,900 square feet that setbacks from the property line to to our side, to our west side through this process, and actually trying to provide some relief and and more space between the buildings. We've actually set back about 3,300 square feet. So not quite double. But actually, I think we're being quite sensitive to to the neighbors, and to their balconies and windows and trying to prove preserve site lands as much as possible.

[79:01] The the terms of yeah, the civic use pad, you know. It's it was never, you know. People call it that. But there was never any. It was never city property. It was always St. Julian property, and there was a development restriction requiring a civic use. And when people talk about original intent. you know, 1988 was the original urban renewal plan, and we bought the property prior in 1994, prior to the amendment in 95. That started a lot of this more specific civic use and what the original intent is. So I think anyone that's referring to original intent. You need to go back to 1988, and no one knows what the original intent was in the 1988 urban renewal plan, the the recycling. the yeah. We do have recycling containers in the alley, and we are working to. We had 3 actually in in cooperation with the compliance offices of Boulder. We brought that down to 2. It's not. Yeah. It's trash. It's actually recycling. It's primarily plastic and cardboard. We have a trash compactor inside our

[80:15] our loading dock, and and that more than handles the trash. The actual trash that we generate, and the and the trash that would gent be generated by this other building. the when when other commentators have talked about the, you know. We don't need it. We can. You know, people can use space up on the hill. We can use space out out east in the Jcc. But part of this and part of its urban renewal is that it's the vitality of downtown. It's helping to bring people downtown. And that was one of the reasons why the hotel and meeting space was going to. To begin with. You know, we always talked about Peep bringing people to downtown boulder on a Tuesday night in February. You know, the restaurants are all full on Friday and Saturday night. It's through the rest of the week, and the rest of the seasons that that we that we need this. So the

[81:13] So the I I know people are saying, it's a for profit. St. Julian building. Now, I mean, it could potentially be a hundred percent nonprofits renting it, bringing in 3rd party caterers utilizing services from other restaurants. And I think that point that point gets missed as well as the the rooms that we're adding is really fairly minimal. But it's I. I know it's like the Saint Julian. It's a large building, but it's actually a small business, and the building next door is is also not a not a big addition in the scheme of a business. Also, you know, we've been around a long time, and and when the erect, if some of you might remember the

[82:00] the Elephant Bar, the Republic of Boulder, I mean. It was a fairly small building, and when the erect was proposed, you know, trans. The Exeter Building, just to the North had written a a fairly lengthy objection to blocking all their views to the South. And but you know the property owner had certain rights, and and you know. that's people try to work through it. But at the end of the day there's not. Everyone can be accommodated to all their wishes, and certainly with civic use. Everyone has a different idea what that is, but actually opening up to literally hundreds of nonprofits, local nonprofits that can be used for performances if they want for fundraisers for other art art. Yeah, pop ups, etc. There's a number of of events that can be used there. That would be very considered very specific by anyone that opens to the public and actually have fairly fairly diverse uses.

[83:11] I don't. So yeah, if there's anything that the 42 Carol and Matt, if you're if there's anything that I've missed that you'd like to add and feel free. thank you for your time. Thank you. Bruce. Does other members of the applicant team want to elaborate. I just say that I'd echo everything that Bruce mentioned. I don't know if there's really anything to add. There was a comment. I forget if that was from you, David, or perhaps Mark. But reference to, if there is a separate facility the trash would actually increase along the alley. The way that it's designed is such that it can piggyback off of the St. Julian. So that actually lessens the impact of any civic structure on that property.

[84:09] Okay. One other thing I'd like to add about the potential traffic in the alley, and this is, you know, I'd like the you know the pictures of trucks coming and going by the Saint Julian. But you know the most of the access from the Exeter building and from the erect and anyone else along there is to 11th Street. You know, I question how these trucks actually interfere with people's lives when they're coming in and out of their buildings and going to 11th Street as opposed to. Yeah, they don't have, you know, from time to time, and it's not a hundred percent of the time from time to time. There's there's trucks making deliveries, and you can't have access to Walnut Street, but you can go to 11th Street and go in any direction. So I do want to point that out as well. It's I think that's a point that's that's being missed as far as traffic flow.

[85:05] Okay, thanks, Bruce. Anyone else from the applicant team. No, I don't have any other comments. Okay. Mark, what is next on the agenda. Yeah. So you all are able to move into deliberations amongst yourselves. Might ask Shannon just to pop up the the guidelines for your review that that help kind of shape your recommendation. and then included in this slide as well when you're ready, is a suggested motion language. Okay, I would like the board to have a chance to ask some questions of the applicant team. Following Bruce's presentation. If that's okay.

[86:03] Does anybody Tara or Tom? Do you have questions? Go ahead, Tara. Should I stop raising my hand? I'm assuming you can't see it. I can see you. Okay, Bruce, great to meet you? You had mentioned, or actually, it wasn't you the person that was the presenter. that the wall was to give privacy is that it? Does it have to do with? Is that the only reason why you're putting that wall into the East? Or is it for financial reasons, or is it flexible. No, actually, I think part of the design was the originally were some frosted windows or faux windows. Because there was. And I think Shannon can confirm this. There was some privacy concerns by the neighbors who do have windows facing west, and

[87:05] so we were. We were trying to be sensitive to that, although I would imagine some windows could be put in. I think there's going to be certain people to the East. That will object to that. And but I think that and Carol and Matt and Shannon, I think you can all confirm that. That's why it's a that's a blank wall. Now. Oh, yes, that's that's what what the discussion was. We had windows sort of at the stair in circulation. Portions on the east side of the building, so it was never a hotel room looking in on the Condos. It was common space, but we did remove that during the process. Okay. thanks. And then my second question is, is, after reading the packet. It looks like there were many iterations, but the most current one was that this is supposed to be a public private partnership, not a nonprofit, I

[88:06] venture. Is that true? Am I wrong anyone, staff? Maybe because somebody one of the one of the people mentioned that. This is supposed to be, not for profit, this location. I don't know that that is true, for meeting the packet. I think it's not true. Yeah, I can. Isaiah. Oh, go ahead, Ellen. Yeah, I would agree with that statement, Tara. At some point it was anticipated to be just for a civic use, but that vision was changed in the last few years, and the city the City Council approved an operating and management agreement that anticipates hotel space and a ground floor event space that can be used by

[89:00] non-profit organizations, but not that it it was free. I actually have the same question. So I I appreciate that clarification. I also would just like to say, Bruce, I appreciate that historical knowledge about the 55 foot being part of the original plan, or at least potentially being part of the original plan. Back in 1988. So, thank you for answering both of those questions. I I would like to add, as far as this profit for the civic, the nonprofit users can you know they they rent it at a discounted price, but it's in our agreements that it's meant to be at at somewhat of cost, that we don't make a profit on that rental the intent is that the rooms above are providing sufficient funds to allow to provide for the space on the 1st floor

[90:02] the city has also put in there that it at its option. It can help subsidize if there's particular nonprofits that wanna rent there that they, the city wants to subsidize it, but that's not a requirement. In fact, I'm not sure that will ever happen. But I think the the city always wanted the option to to subsidize a group or 2 if it felt it was necessary. Yeah, thank you, Bruce. You anticipated my question perfectly. That was what I would wanted to get a bit more clarity on is. you know, if you are at what? At what level of discount. and what I heard you say is that it's essentially at cost to the hotel is the intention. I also recall

[91:01] the been around not quite as long as you, but the the children's museum and dance facility that was originally proposed around the time of the planning of the Saint Julian. Was pretty much the same bulk as the current proposal. And you know, and and really I haven't seen all of the different proposals that have come and gone over the years. but my recollection is that they were all kind of building out to the underlying, zoning maximums and maybe, with the exception of one that had a rooftop deck. But Even still, you know the the total mass was still going to be the same height as the 2 adjacent buildings.

[92:04] I, personally, and I think most people in Boulder would have loved to see. A truly civic use there. I think that the proposal for a greenhouse, or something like that. you know, while visually appealing. you know those. you know, in the original language and subsequent language of the plan. It wasn't being left in perpetuity, but there was a a period of 20 years or so. which expired for those other civic uses to make a plan or make a pitch for the use, and quite a lot of study by the city has gone on, and looking at

[93:00] different things that could go there, the feasibility of them. You know I I know if I were a neighbor, and this was being built, and I'm used to seeing the mountains out of my windows. This would be quite a shock. It would feel like. And as as Dan brought up, you know that this isn't really the intent of the original plan. But that plan has been modified several times over the years, and it did have a sunset provision which has now passed. so that, you know, the Saint Julian has been waiting for 20 years or more to have some use that was appropriate on this property, and so as much as we'd love to see is a truly civic use.

[94:05] Think that I that that opportunity has come and gone according to the language in the plan and in the plan is revised. so unless any members of the board have any objection, let's proceed to the next stage in discussing whether the proposal is in line with these guidelines, and before we do that, I should say to the public that our board is not really being asked to weigh in on the architecture. We're not really being asked to weigh in on the appropriateness of the use. we're not really being asked to weigh in on the design.

[95:03] but we're being asked to weigh in on whether the proposal meets the urban design plan guidelines for the 9th and Canyon area. so let's open it up to discussion. I think it does meet the. It is consistent with the Canyon urban renewal plan. So I would approve it. I I would agree with Tara. I I do believe that the plan is consistent. I you know, as as David so helpfully pointed out there number of issues with with it that I would love to comment on. And and that's just really not my role. So in terms of the scope of of what we're looking at here. I I believe that it does does meet the guidelines. I also want to point out that the planning board is really responsible to take it. You know, once we're done, the planning board takes it from here, and they are really the board that

[96:08] is going to be talking about. These different considerations from the public, I would say. Yes, I agree with that. They The the discussion about whether there are windows facing east, for example. would be something that could still be negotiated with planning board right. I was just myself curious. But yes, that is exactly. Shannon or Hella? Are there other elements of plan. and the process that we need to address before we proceed to a vote. You could just go to a vote. I think it's clear which guidelines you have been considering so

[97:05] you could use the suggested motion languages if you like. Okay, Tara or Tom. Are there any guidelines that you feel are not consistent or not being met by this proposal? Okay, I'm not hearing any, and and I don't I guess from a high level I would kind of add to to say that. You know I've looked at a lot of urban design plans over my career and spent a lot of 10 years on Dab and been chairperson of the Boulder Urban Land Use Institute. Urban Land Institute and Architects and Planners of Boulder

[98:00] the It's unusual that a that a private entity follows the plan as closely as the St. Julian has in this process. The I I guess. Just adding a point of perspective. from, you know, looking at it from high level as an urban designer and architect, that The the city did impose quite a lot of requirements on the St. Julian when the project was built originally. which they have met, pretty much to the latter, I think. in in looking that over. And so you know that that we aren't really able to get the civic uses that we were hoping for on this site is a shame and

[99:01] And I agree with all the things that each of the neighbors and and other people who spoke have brought up as being legitimate concerns. and don't want to make you feel that we're not hearing those. but again, just want to reiterate that our role on this is is very limited to really just looking at. As this met all of these different criteria according to plan that was established and then revised at least twice or 3 times since it was originally established. So we were kind of looking at the most recent iteration of that plan. And I agree with Tara and Tom. Then it meets those guidelines.

[100:01] So would someone like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion to find the proposed Site Review Amendment Application, Lur. 2023, 0 0 46, consistent with the 9th and Canyon urban renewal plan, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact and directing staff to convey that opinion to the planning Board. Second. Okay. So we have a motion made and seconded all in favor. Say, aye. Aye. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank you all. And thank you members of the public for joining us today on a on a Friday hearing. So appreciate your input. I'll take us to the next item next item, a new business is 4 B is a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation for proposed amendments to the Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections plan related to a Site review that entails redevelopment of a 2.3 3 acre parcel with 52 residential units.

[101:18] Proposal is located at the following addresses, 25 0, 4, 25, 0, 6, 2536, 2546 Spruce Street, 2055, 26th Street and 2537 Pearl Street. so you all follow a similar process here. You will have staff presentation. I will kick it over to Chandler for that. You will have a chance to ask him and the team questions. Applicants are joining us today as well. They will have a presentation, I believe, and then we will open for a public hearing before deliberation. Chandler. Good question, mark. Yeah. I thought this was 12 to 2. Did I get that wrong cause? If so, I if I did get it wrong, I need to push back a work meeting real quick.

[102:07] We were scheduled for 2 I believe we are hoping that this item is shorter, but it it does depend on the length of the public hearing. Okay. I think we're probably gonna go over 15 min. Alright, that's alright. I'll just take this computer over to my. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Yes, I'll be just teeing this up, and the applicant will be giving a bit more detailed presentation. But this is the 25 0, 4 Spruce Street Site Review. They are proposing an amendment to the Bdrc transportation connections. Plan I will briefly go over just what the role of the board is and what we're asking of you guys and give a little bit of background. So the purpose of this is for the Boulder, urban renewal, authority, or bureau to make a recommendation of the Planning Board on the Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan amendment requested as part of Site Review number Lar 2024, 0 0 2 0

[103:16] so the planning context of the site we're discussing is located mostly along Spruce Street from Folsom to 26, th and then there's a small attached finger parcel on the south side, which connects to Pearl Street, shown here on the map. As previously mentioned, this site is located within the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Regional Center. It's on the northwestern corner of the regional center and then the design guidelines that were adopted for the area. It is further defined as an area that should invite walking with a pedestrian orientation and a human scale, and the guidelines suggest that to make the area more pedestrian oriented development should be less dominated by the automobile

[104:01] so the Boulder Valley Regional Center Plan also includes the transportation Connections plan, which is what we're here to talk about today. this is just a shot of the overall connections plan. The primary goals of the connections plan are to improve access and mobility for all modes of travel, to improve safety for all modes, to create visual continuity. To reduce vehicular congestion, particularly along arterials. to improve access to businesses, and to create a network that supports and encourages development and redevelopment consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan. So this is just a close up of the site taken from the transportation connections. Plan. It's outlined here in light blue. So, as you can see, the transportation connections plan illustrates a North South multi-use path. That's the yellow dotted line as well as an east-west secondary street on the south side of the site which is shown in purple.

[105:00] So this is a closer up image of the transportation connections shown in the Tcp. Overlaid on an aerial so the the red dotted line along the Southern property boundary is the anticipated east, west, secondary street, and the yellow dotted line is the north, South multi-use path. Just to be clear, the applicant is requesting to amend the plan to remove both of these connections from the site, and we'll get into a little bit more about the justification for that in a second. So a little more process. discussion amendments to the transportation Connection Plan require both. The Transportation Advisory Board and Bureau to make a recommendation to the planning board. So this project has been through 2 separate concept reviews. During their more recent concept review they brought the project to Tab and Tab, recommended removal of the East-west secondary street connection. and that was in October of 2021 there were links provided in the memo to that meeting.

[106:05] for for additional background, and then, more recently, when the when this project has been in for Site Review. we brought it to tab again and this time to ask for removal of the North, South. Multi-use path connection. tab, did recommend removal of the North South, multi-use path connection under the condition that a permanent public access easement be provided through the site not less than 5 feet in width. For a pedestrian path running through the center of the site to connect Spruce Street to Pearl Street. So they said, It's okay to get rid of the multi-use path. But in in exchange they want a public pedestrian pathway running north south through the site. So this is just a site plan of the current project. As I believe, Mark mentioned early on it's it's 52 units. But we're not really here to talk about the the density or the project, as much of the connections, and whether the the transfer connect transportation connections being proposed. Are equivalent to what they're asking to be removed.

[107:05] So as you can see here, there's an existing on street Bike Lane on Folsom Street. The project also proposes a new buffered bike Lane along Spruce Street, running east, west along the north side of the site, as well as new sidewalks. 26th Street as well, has an existing dedicated Bike Lane. and then the project itself includes a number of pedestrian connections, most of which would be private except for the green dotted line in the center of the site that runs from Spruce to Pearl Street. That would be the location for the proposed public access easement that would allow that pedestrian pathway to be public. So, in terms of criteria for review and recommendation, the the Bvrc transportation connection plan is is a little less detailed, I would say, than the downtown urban renewal plan.

[108:01] it basically says the approving authority will consider the following, when reviewing a proposed plan, amendment. and those 4 considerations are change of circumstance, physical hardship, practical hardship, and equivalency. And as I outlined in the memo, given the connectivity, constraints on pearl and Spruce streets, the abundance of existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities bordering the site, as well as the Bvrc. Design guideline consideration of pedestrian Connectivity Staff finds the request to amend the Bvrc. Tcp. To remove the East West Secondary Street connection, and the north, South multi-use path to be supportable, based on the considerations. To be made. Specifically, the area surrounding the site has changed since the adoption of the Boulder Valley Regional Center. Transportation plan. There's a left turn Lane and a curbed median on Pearl Street which prohibit the installation of a signal crosswalk and thereby make the north, South multi-use path connection infeasible. So that represents a change of circumstance.

[109:03] The existing ditch on the west side of the property. The White Rock Ditch presents both a physical and a practical hardship in terms of construction of the East-west secondary street connection. and the existing and proposed bike and pedestrian facilities on and surrounding the site, including the proposed public pedestrian pathway through the middle of the site, provide equivalency for both of the planned connections. Furthermore, the Bvrc states that the alignments of these connections are specific to the area, but are not intended to be precise as long as the connection illustrated is created in a manner that efficient or facilitates efficient travel. The intent of the Tcp is to maintain flexibility in the implementation of these connections so as not to hinder redevelopment, potential of a parcel or parcels and development or redevelopment proposal should illustrate that the intended connectivity is achieved. So at this point both Staff and the Transportation Advisory Board have found that the intended connectivity is still being achieved through this project.

[110:01] but we are bringing it to Bureau for your review and recommendation as well. So I have subjected motion language here, which I'm I'm happy to take down for the public hearing and the discussion portion of the meeting. That's it. Thank you. Being scandal. Do you want to, Mark? Do you want to continue to kind of act as the moderator. Sure. Yeah, you all have a chance to ask staff questions at this point, if you have them. Yeah, I just have one question. So the 5 foot width public easement is, that is 5 foot. Is that considered handicap accessible. I'm not sure I believe so. I think that's standard public sidewalk width. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[111:01] So I apologize in that. I didn't see this information in the packet. But maybe Chandler, could you elaborate a little bit on the and multi-use connections. That surround this, I mean, it seems like there's a multi-use path within a block each way of this proposed connection through the middle. Are we? Only we're looking at removing both the east, west, and the north, south connectors. Is that correct? Yeah. So the the east West was supposed to be like a like an alleyway, essentially secondary street connection, so vehicular. And then the North South was supposed to be, or is supposed to be, a multi-use path.

[112:03] so there is again, yeah. An on street bike lane on Folsom Street, and then a buffered. So a separated bike lane will be constructed on Spruce Street. There's also a dedicated bike route on 26th Street. I don't think that's a a bike lane, but it's a dedicated signed bike route. and then existing and proposed sidewalks all around the site and the the applicant, I believe, has some additional, like more regional imagery. To illustrate just kind of the the broader connections. Okay, why don't I wait? And to the applicant, you know. presents? I have a. Is that all right, David? Yeah. Sorry. So like Dave. I did see this only 20 min before.

[113:00] right? Because it was at the bottom of that packet. But so my question is, and I'm sorry if this is not even appropriate, but as the I totally trust Tab, when it comes to deciding what is good, what is, you know what are good paths, multi-use paths, whether or not they agree or not. So what is our job as bureau? Why, why is this coming to Bureau. It. It just says that that's the process in the in the transportation connections plan. It just says any amendments to the connections plan require review and recommendation by both tab and bureau. Okay. Alright? Well, Why don't we proceed with the applicant presentation. or. Great. If you give us a second we'll be promoting several from the

[114:00] applicant team. Okay, I think we're getting everybody on. I'm not sure who would like to lead, but happy to kick it over to one of you. Sure I'll I'll kick us off. Pete has the Hi, everybody! This is Danica Powell with trestle strategy group. I know we're at a late hour in your meeting 8 min. So we are going to make this brief and happy to answer any questions. Pete has a quick presentation. I don't know if you're able to share.

[115:10] There we go. You see it now. Yep, perfect, so we'll just pop to the next slide. Seems to be a lag here. Well, I on the next slide, I just want to introduce our project team. That's here today. We have Coburn with Pete Weber and who's driving the slide show, and Bill Holloki, I believe, is here. We've got the development partners. Dave Bacon with Trailbreak and Ollie Gidfar with pace development, and we have myself with trestle Strategy group. Ollie, did you want to say a few words about the history? I know we're want to keep this brief, but. Yeah, I know. Hello, everybody.

[116:00] We've been at it since January of 21 Hi, Tara! And happy to be here again, and just want to be brief. So that's it. Talk soon. Yes, and on this side we just wanted to show you kind of the journey that we've been through. Borough was not. We didn't know we would be going to borough at the end of our journey. But here we are, and excited to be here, and so we really are. I wanted to highlight. We've been to all of these public hearings. We've been to tab twice, and now we're really just looking for feedback from this board before we had to planning board to review the the larger Site Review in a couple of weeks. Next slide. And I think I'll take it from here. Thanks, Danica. Hey, Pete Weber? With corporate architecture. We're the planners and architects for the project. I think Chandler did a a beautiful job of explaining where we are and why we're here. And I. So I'm just gonna try to point out a few things that maybe didn't get hit, and I won't. I won't try to reiterate too much.

[117:02] As Chandler noted. This is the Bdrc transportation connections plan that we're here to request an amendment to I wanted to just point out that the in addition to the connections that are called for, there's also the request to make improvements to the sidewalk and streetscape around the project, and I'll I'll show you how we how we plan to do that as well. So I think this is a good one to point out. To get, maybe to David's question a little bit the larger context of the the bike network. And you can see with our site in the middle of the slide here in Orange, how well connected this really is to the to the greater boulder region. With regard to the bicycle connections, we've got a bike designated bike lanes on both Pearl and Folsom on the south and west of the site, and then a bike route on both Spruce and 26th Street. and you can see where these go. This leads us to all over the place. The entirety of the rest of boulder via those bike connections

[118:09] this zoom is in on the site. I think Chandler hit much of this. Well, the particularly wanted to point out the equivalency from a bike standpoint. Again, at moving the north south direction at Folsom and 26th Street, with the difficulty and near impossibility of safely crossing Pearl Street one on a bike that might be in the middle of the site's gonna need to move either west to Folsom or south to 26th Street, in order to move in our south south direction across Pearl Street. and then you can see also the East West secondary Street connection that Chandler mentioned, that has been removed per tabs recommendation from the transportation improvement map. and then just a couple of details of some of the difficulties here and the changes in circumstances. The boulder white rock ditch runs along the north side of Pearl Street, ducks under Folsom, and then takes a hard left and moves north along Folsom.

[119:10] Making any kind of a connection between the internal part of our site to Folsom extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible. There is, in addition to that, there's a if it were possible. There's still the problem of the narrowness of the sidewalk. The sidewalk here is is actually an attached sidewalk and then, immediately after that attached sidewalk is a railing in the ditch itself. There is virtually no room to do anything there. And any cars that would traverse westerly along. Such a connection would actually be now interfering with the bike path that runs along Folsom as well. and then the pedestrian connection. So we've got our bikes accommodated in the north south direction really? Well, on both the east and west of the site. From pedestrian standpoint we do plan to provide the public access easement discussed. But just also want to point out that if there were a multi-use component to that it goes nowhere. After we hit Spruce Street there's a single established single family neighborhood to the north.

[120:14] Such a connection would only serve a very small number of any neighbors, and they're still going to have to traverse east or west to make any crossings of pearl, because when we get to Pearl. Chandler pointed out the change in circumstances. This kind of double stacked left turn lanes actually triple stacked. If you look at all 3 of them. Provide for a inability to have a pedestrian connection at this location across Pearl Street. So here's the slide chart. Chandler has has already shown again, indicating all the improvements that we need to make along and plan to make along Spruce and 26th Street. The blue dotted line indicates the location where we would have that 5 foot

[121:00] additional access easement which would connect Pearl to Spruce per the request of the Transportation Advisory Board. And additionally, I just want to point out how well this site is interconnected. We have a number of internal pathways that help connect our site itself to the, to our neighbors around us. The sidewalks and other transportation facilities. I will leave it at that. Thanks very much. Any questions. Welcome to help you with. Thanks, Pete, that was very clear. Other comments from the applicant team. Any questions from the board. None for me. Are we? Are. We gonna have comments later, after the public hearing.

[122:02] Yep. okay. Yeah, okay, so no questions. At this point I don't have any questions. Why don't proceed to the public hearing? Then. Okay, we will go ahead and run this. Similarly, we did not have any advanced sign ups so we will just ask folks that if you would like to speak during the public hearing that we're opening. If you could raise your hand if you are on the phone and would like to speak. You can raise your hand by hitting Star 9. And then just please make sure you have both your 1st and your last name identified. When you're called on. All right. We will begin here as

[123:01] the hands are coming in from the top. Lynn Siegel is first.st Alright, Lynn, you have been given the chance to unmute. Enough enough when when I fought this. Oh, gosh! What's the name of it? This proposal P. Starts with PI think, anyway, thought this like crazy. What we don't need in boulder like for the St. Julian expansion is more more housing for the tourists to come to. You know what. When tourists go places they don't come to look at another huge housing development and another condo building all the same, all just filling in what we need is things that actually draw people here. Besides the flat irons, because that's all we've got left.

[124:07] This this middle path from east to west was not perceived to be inviting at all to the public. No, Nada. I remember there being some discussion about some fencing or something, and how the penetr. The penetration is not really inviting to the space. This, this intensity of use is going to drive so much pedestrian car, and it's not got the huge reductions in parking like the 2,206 nightmare from last night. car, people bikes everything. It's called humanity. It's called overpopulation. And that's what this

[125:01] God! What's the name of it? Development is about. It's it's like. you know, have more kids. So we can have more future generations of population and endless profit. And that's not what Boulder is about. When my dad came here in 48. Originally, then, our family moved here back. Wait! No, no, no! Our family came back in 48. No, no, no, no! Excuse me. 58 to 60. My dad was here after the war. It was 30,000. That was a good population. Now we have 37,000 just for Cu, and a hundred 7,000. We don't need more of Papellios. That's the name of it seems like all these Italian names, Bruce Porcelli, and this thing. So what what Boulder

[126:01] needs is to not have this to start with, and it's certainly not a benefit in any way through Bureau to have it penetratable. It's not penetrate. It's not inviting. People aren't going to go through that East West corridor. And it's and the whole idea was that it should be so vibrant and inviting. It's not that it's just another housing development to go through. Thank you, Lynn. All right. Last call for public comment going once, okay? So with Board's consent, we can go ahead and close that public hearing David and move on to any applicant responses, and then board discussion. Okay?

[127:00] Oh. anyone on the board object to closing the public discussion. Okay, seeing none. Let's close that and proceed to the next item. Great. So any responses from applicants. No! But I see there might be a question. Tara! Do you have a question. No, I was ready. I was ready to comment, okay. No, we don't have any further comments. Thank you. Should I comment. David? Yes, please. Okay, I think this project is great. and I think the transportation plan is great. That is my comments. I'd like to do something we used to do on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and share my ditto. Oh, my gosh! I was on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board! Really twins.

[128:03] Yeah, that's awesome. It was a great board. And I have never watched barks and recreation and sorry bad joke. Okay, I triple that ditto. Would there be a Triddo? okay, no, I I think. This is to me is sort of a slam dunk that did its job. And we're just rubber stamping. What they did. The applicant team seems to have thought it through very carefully, and presented very clearly. So I certainly am in favor of approving it. Tom and Tara, would you like to see anything further? We are pulling. Motion language for you. I'd love to read the motion. Great! Go ahead! Where is that motion? Is that the motion, like the 3 points mark.

[129:01] No, it's having some computer freezing going on. That's all. You and everyone sometimes. Zoom is not your friend. Yeah, sorry. I just. I just had a power outage like a 2 second power outage at my house, and everything is rebooting and very confused. Hey? At least at least the power came back on. Oh, there's the. -Oh. I'm just gonna hope that it responds again soon. Sorry everyone. I have it, I will put it in the chat for But up on my screen I can share it. If that's helpful. Yeah, that'd be that'd be great, Charles, right? Let me turn off my camera real quick.

[130:16] Why don't I just read the motion in the chat? Okay, I'll do it. I want to make a motion to recommend approval of the 2 proposed amendments to oops. Okay. I want to make a motion to recommend approval of the 2 proposed amendments. Why is now my computer giving me trouble there it is. Good. everybody. Alright! Are we good that I want to make a motion to recommend approval of the 2 proposed amendments to the Bvrc. Transportation connections. Plan in particular removal of the East, West, secondary street connection and North South multi-use path connection through the properties subject to proposed site. Review, application.

[131:04] LUR. 2, 0 2, 4, 0 0 2 0. To adopt the staff memorandum as findings of fact, and to direct staff to convey that recommendation, recommendation to the Planning Board. We'll second that motion. Okay, we have a motion, and a second, all in favor. Say, aye. Hi. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Buddy. Have a good weekend. Everybody. Alright, David, that is the end of your agenda. So we are able to dismiss as bureau once again. I feel like we're a great board. What do you think, guys right? We're off to a good start. Totally. Okay. Well, thank you. And yeah, have a good weekend.

[132:02] Thank you. You are dismissed, I guess. We need a motion to adjourn. No, thank you. Do we need that? Do we need a motion to adjourn. Nope, you can. You can announce that you will adjourn as the chair. Okay, we are going to adjourn thanks for. There you go. Thank you. Appreciate the time. Thanks. Everyone.