May 4, 2021 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] [Music] ran a are you able to confirm that channel 8 is running Channel 8 is running and good to go thank you thank you Emily welcome everyone to the Tuesday

[1:00] May 4th regular meeting of the Boulder City Council we have several announcements our first announcement concern the covid-19 exposure notification and vaccination to learn more please sign up at wwy your phone.com for more local information on getting your vaccine and sign up for notification when you're eligible please go to b.org sloid vaccine notify sign up or second announcement concerns or boards and commissions you still have time to serve one of the city's board to serve on one of the city's boards and commissions we are currently accepting applications for the Boulder Junction access District parking

[2:01] do you want me to go over these again okay perfect the boulder access District parking Boulder Junction access District travel demand management and the beverage licensing Authority anyone interested in applying please visit our boards and commission's website at bouldercolorado.gov backboards and commissions as was noted earlier our Mayor Sam Weaver is not here yet he will be arriving a little bit later at a later stage in the meeting so please uh Alicia go ahead and call the role all right thank you mayor protim and good evening everyone council member Brockett pres friend is absent

[3:00] Joseph here Nagel here stick present wallik present mayor Weaver is late council member Yates will be late and council member young present all right mayor protim we have a quum thank you so much um can we please have a motion to amend um the agenda to update items 5A non-conforming use review of marpa house to include Council deliberation this item will be completed in its entirety this evening also to remove item sixa health and safety regulations in public spaces an annual homelessness update this item is being being moved to May 11th to the May 11th meeting and also to add item 8 a c attorney's

[4:01] recruitment subcommittee update for 10 minutes can we get a motion no moved second thank you do we have any objections to the motion nope okay great this motion to amend has been approved unanimously Alicia can you please take us to the next agenda item oh I believe actually uh is our declaration which will be presented by council member bracket all right uh good afternoon everyone it is my great honor to read a declaration in honor of older Americans month May 2021 uh older Americans month is a time to honor and celebrate adults ages 60 and over each May the administration for Community Living sets the theme for this special month in 2021 is designated as communities of strength during during the covid-19 pandemic many older adults

[5:01] have demonstrated their strength and courage by supporting their Community as healthcare workers First Responders government employees essential workers volunteers and neighborhood leaders while many others have endured social isolation as a result of their willingness to support their Community by staying home as as much as possible sadly many of our older adult community members have died during the pandemic with adults 55 and over accounting for 97% of the deaths from covid-19 in Boulder County the city of Boulder is committed to strengthening the older adult community by connecting with and supporting the over 16,000 older adults their families and caregivers and by acknowledging their many valuable contributions and the critical role they play in building strong resilient communities and serving as role models and mentors for younger Generations the city of Boulder also recognizes the value in acknowledging honoring and supporting diversity inclusion and equity for older adults in our community and the need to remove barriers for success based on

[6:01] agism so we the city council of Boulder Colorado declare May 2021 as older Americans month and we urge the community to take time this month to recognize the strengths of older adults in our community as essential and valuable members as well as acknowledging the individuals who support and serve them thank you thank you Aaron next we have our open comments well before we head there uh are there any counil questions or comments based on this declaration tonight no okay great we have our open comments and before we head to our speakers list we have some housekeeping notes for our speakers please take it from here I believe either Brenda or Alicia that would be Ryan happy to take those let me pull them up here

[7:06] and we should have those coming up on the screen here let me make sure everyone can see those okay we are really grateful for everyone joining us here this evening we are working to strike a balance between transparent engagement and online security and we want to make sure that everyone's clear this meeting is called to conduct the business of the city of Boulder any activities that disrupt or delay uh this business are prohibited the time for speaking or asking questions uh will be during public hearing or open comment and we'll be for a specific time we want make sure that folks are joining this Zoom with their real name um and I'll reach out to clarify if folks are are not using their real name and then um video will only be

[8:01] permitted um for for City Council Members or staff or applicants um others will be participating Audio Only uh and then the chat function uh is not enabled this evening if there are any technical or process questions that Comm members have please use the Q&A function and [Music] um that's all of the the guidelines that we have for tonight I'll pass it back to you thank you thank you Ryan during this current open comment each speakers will have three minutes this evening because we only have uh nine people speaking as opposed to over 20 so the first three speakers are Becky far Patrick Murphy and Len Singo L seagull Becky far

[9:00] and Becky you should be able to unmute yourself okay um can you hear me I think I've unmuted yes okay thank you good evening council members and other community members who are also joining us virtually um my name is Becky far I'm a longtime Boulder resident I've lived in Boulder since I came up to attend CU um undergrad then worked at the Daily Camera for a few years and then went on to CU law school currently I am fortunate to work mostly with main with nonprofit 501c3 organizations in my law practice I was excited to have the opportunity to join the board of directors of harvest of Hope Pantry in 2019 in the year and a half that I've been on the board of the pantry I've seen firsthand what a difference this organization makes in the lives of those it serves this past year 2020 was one of tremendous hardship and uncertainty for essentially everyone but there's no denying that it hit some people harder than others however Harvest of Hope staff and volunteers were able to be there for those who needed food stability and assistance and they found

[10:00] ways to keep the pantry open and serving safely throughout the pandemic largely by moving to an outdoor model that still Incorporated some choices and options for our guests and I want to let you know it is so appreciated the Pantry's newsletter recently featured some stories from guests who use the pantry one who shares my name Rebecca explained that the pantry provides the variety of food that her dietary needs require and that she feels accepted there without judgment another guest Arlene appreciates the conversation with volunteers and staff as some of her only human contact given the pandemic the pantry has been able to accomplish all of this in space it's largely outgrown and imagine what we can do with more uh with that being said Thank you to the city council for considering the special ordinance it will help us get into the new building space as quickly as possible and provide a stable and low barrier access point for those in our community who are experiencing food insecurity we are eager to continue serving our community and finding the best ways to do that and improve upon what we do including forming part Partnerships with other community- based

[11:00] organizations in our area this new space will be a huge step in that direction so again thank you for your time um and consideration of this matter it is so appreciated thank you sure all I had because I thought I only had two minutes so thank you Patrick Murphy Patrick are you here yes uh waiting for the present the PowerPoint to pop up my name is Patrick Murphy I live in Boulder this is my 101st open comment since 2014 regarding Boulder's slow progress rather than rapid carbon reduction the community effort sucked up 10 years and over $30 million and many of the leaders have left the city the remaining lead leadership has a troubled history of not honestly considering the alternatives to the mun so now we are

[12:00] left with exactly what I tried to push since 2014 solar incentives wind incentives renewable energy certificates and energy use reduction slide two Boulder's recent self- congratulations in the Boulder Camera from April 17th touts the installation of solar for no money down with both carbon reduction and $50,000 in savings each year my third presentation in 2015 described this exact process in detail six years ago I actually had my solar installed in 2011 under these same conditions and that was 10 years ago my small installation has generated over 46 megawatts if the city had simply done what I did 10 years ago over 40,000 megawatts would have been generated with solar but no the mun stood in our way and clouded our thinking so congratulations on figuring out the obvious and finally getting around a carbon reduction and saving money at the

[13:00] same time I expect much more much faster from here on out especially since the current leaders are not spending more than 60% of their time on the mun as they did in the past I was not selected for the citizen advisory panel for Excel Co collaboration but I'll return to let you know what I observe count on it third slide free LED lights to all lwi income would be a great first step for Community engagement summer is coming can you taste the smoke thank you Patrick uh next is len seagull it doesn't look like Lynn is in the meeting double check one more time she is not there okay perfect then we can move on to our next speaker ERS robertt

[14:00] smoke Evan rabitz and Gwen Barack so we'll start with Robert smoke Robert you'll be able to unmute yourself now can you hear me yes you can hear me okay yes yes hello we can hear you oh okay I just wasn't getting a response I thought um in any case my name is Rob smoke I live in Boulder I've lived here since about 1986 and I just turned 65 so you're talking about uh older adults so I feel old enough at the moment and I uh just want to comment on my displeasure reading about the uh choice to increase the policing of homeless encampments in Boulder uh I realize that uh there are people who Camp Outdoors who could be problematic who uh in some

[15:00] uh sense could require policing as the type of help they need but overall uh the policy is inherently discriminatory because we know that people who are ticketed and uh maybe in poverty and go to jail for that are going to be a a larger percentage uh people having trouble coping with life issues like their mental health like uh like poverty itself and uh to say that policing uh because it's the answer to cleaning up an area or or whatever you think it's the answer to security wise um it's it does more harm than good and right now the city does not have legislative policy to have low to no income housing established on a large scale there's no land trust legislation on the agenda in Colorado and these are are are things

[16:02] that city council should be taking up and U I think it's really harmful inherently uh discriminatory against people also people of color who are a larger percentage of the homeless population than they would be of the uh general population and um we've also seen that it doesn't work and finally I just want to say it's very clear that policing homeless uh encampments close to the city will push people up into the mountains and I have not seen the city doing assessment of the fire risks and we have had fires in Boulder County and in other areas along the Front Range and along other cities in the Front Range due to homeless people being pushed into hiding places so to speak because of an increased police presence and increased uh police uh actions towards their encampments when they're close in so I

[17:02] I've heard no discussion of the uh the unintended consequences of uh the addition of more policing to homeless encampments homeless encampments excuse me uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak I'd like to hear uh if there's any response uh thank you Robert our next speaker is uh Evan rabits Evan yes expect more fires and more vandalism if the city had any respect for its Elders it would never have subjected our city elections working group plan Boulder Rocky Mountain peace and Justice Center Etc to three years of Staff of obstruction of our online

[18:00] petition system three years as the spearhead of the project it sucked some 2500 hours of my life nobody should become part of a City Board commission or working group if you really want to change things unless you're ready for the Battle of your life one of those Elders longtime former councilman Steve pomerance begged you Council in his camera column to work with the people not just for the people he's too kind Boulder has been a laboratory for government against the people and propaganda to cover it up for example today is exactly two years since the president of National nonprofit maplight Dan Newman flew to Boulder to demonstrate a prototype of the online petition software they offered Boulder for free but the city rejected their

[19:01] free offer on false pretenses and instead spent half a million dollar on a system so problematic that two of three campaigns are using paper petitions instead this year the only campaign using it bedrooms for people has had to create all kinds of helpful software and it's still been too hard for hundreds to use at all we all told you how to fix the system last year but the city repeatedly refused all is documented at tinyurl.com petition story that's tinyurl.com petition story mapl just emailed me that the free offer still stands and it will take about six months to implement I hope you get going on it so that it's ready next year in 2019 council members encouraged the

[20:02] ongoing sabotage of the online petitioning project by the City attorney and city manager with big pay raises I suggest you clean up the mess now before the next Council investigates it you merely need to accept the free offer that you should have welcomed two entire years ago thank you thank you very much Evan our next speaker is Gwen Barack doesn't look like Gwen is here in the meeting and we move to dit voice thank you the you're still muted welcome I'm mute okay hello my my name is DWI Boyce I work for Dale's

[21:00] Investments who owns the Sussex one building on 30th Street between arapo and walnut there is an address sign at the entrance to the driveway to the building the sign was approved by the city in the early 1970s around the same time it granted public utility easement to Boulder the sign was then and has since been located on the public utility easement as approved without any problem until now in 2017 we applied for a permit to replace the old sign with a new sign we were turned down without review because of the utility easement at that time we were informed by a city staffer that the code allows us to reface the existing sign without a permit as long as there were no structural changes last year we resurfaced a sign with sandstone and it looks great the surface sign conforms to All Height and

[22:00] size code requirements the city then issued a notice of violation alleging that the sign permit was required to maintain and update the sign we complied and applied but our application was denied without review because of the easement the city code provides a remedy a long-term lease city planners have refused this option even though we have offered to pay any removal expenses if necessary the notice of violation is being litigated in municipal court and if the permit is denied an appeal to the boulder District Court is next we have offered a practical solution allow for the update of the same sign for the same building with the same easement that has worked for nearly 50 years through a leas we implore the city council to intercede with the city planners and approve our very reasonable proposal prior to the

[23:01] May court date thank you for your consideration thank you Mr Boyce our next speaker is David donon David good evening can you hear me yes good evening city council I Am David donon executive director and chief curator of the boulder Museum of Contemporary Art I want to thank city council for your support of be and the Arts boka is proud to have served Boulder citizens and visitors for 49 years we strive to present accessible exhibitions and inclusive programs that inspires creativity and Foster community Through art for the next year and we can pass the slide please for the next year we are exhibiting an outdoor sculpture in front of imocha titled elento Sig translated as the movement continues this is the second Community generated

[24:00] sculpture facilitated by loses the boulder sculpture project an artist Jasmine Bates to commemorate loses the boulder the six activists who died in car bombings in Boulder in May 1974 in Mento SE recognizes the silence tragedy of the deaths of losay the work celebrates their lives contributions and solidarity as activist boka is collaborating with community members and groups to create free public programs that honor Los and Sparks conversation about the current state of equal opportunity for all people in our community I hope you will visit Pima to experience a Mento SE our community is still in the process of healing from the tragedy of L say and we are now also healing from the King Super shootings art has the power to upli uplift and

[25:00] strength our community and we hope this exhibition and the supporting programs will bring people together for healing and discussion thank you thank you David our next speaker is Riley manuso I will go ahead and Riley and note that Lin seagull has joined the meeting thank you hello city council um I just want to [Music] um what can I say you're despicable we all everybody saw last week how without a trace of irony you voted to on top of an existing deficit of more than $6

[26:00] million you voted to spend 2.7 million on additional policing including 1.5 million for armed cops and the rest for pseudo cops in the form of Rangers and semi-private ambassadors and then after without batting an eye allotting this 2.7 million for increased milit militar presence downtown you all mused about oh how nice it would be you know it was really what we need to do is have services for uh you know poor and unhoused people but we have no money how would we pay for that how would we ever pay for that gee I wonder um it's just are are you that stupid that you don't see the contradiction that seems hard to believe um you know like I so one can only assume that you are

[27:00] being willfully deceptive and cruel um you know and um of you um you know I think that council members friend and Brockett as usual did a very insufficient job at pushing back against the of the rest of you council member stick actually did a pretty good job of asking some really important questions like what is the expected percent decrease in camping that these interventions will result to which Chief Harold and Kurt Ferber had no answer they don't know but they say give us 2.7 million and we'll tell you if it works and then council member sweat lick asked well what if it doesn't work are you just going to ask for more money for more officers again a long silence um so you know it's just like everybody can frakin see you like you're it's you should be ashamed of yourselves um you know we know that sustained

[28:01] Financial investment in services and housing is the way to end homelessness and all of its Associated consequences and instead you have chosen to make a sustained Financial investment in militarized police um which will Rectify Nothing by the police's own admission Shame Shame Shame thank you Riley um our next speaker is seagull Len yeah I've got to have the unmute first um yeah Riley I couldn't agree with you more you're you're so clued you should run for counsel um yeah I had some questions about this one was um meth um it seems like there's a cycle of more and more people getting into meth as there's more and more distress and yet meth's the most expensive housing there is um now I was at the meeting at

[29:02] Highland City Club last night where Bob Yates was speaking and I'm just rather stunned for one at it started this huge ambulance sound came by and no one even flinched for 10 minutes I finally figured out there was a protest there and they no one even said well we've got people protesting and we'll close this this door so that you can hear or what have you it was stunning uh the ignorance of it just not even a Flinch as he's speaking about homelessness I guess they were protesting about homelessness but um and he was talking about training people in the culinary arts and Landscaping well what is that mean does that mean that besides being the center of the University of Colorado we' now become a training center for people to uh vocational jobs but

[30:02] those people cannot afford to live here on Landscaping wages or culinary arts wages right so does that mean we're just supposed to be training people you know and I agree with Riley we're spending this 2. I thought it was 2.4 million over 18 months um so that the police don't feel afraid when they go to an encampment encampment and there's not enough people and they the police R run away which is understandable but the facts are if you have more police and it it's just like the jobs housing imbalance You're Building more and more jobs and more and more housing's needed for the jobs and then it's the cycle because those encampments just move down the way and then you need even more police you know because more people are coming now maybe they get discouraged and they leave town and then other ones come into town but meantime they're just moving from place to place and we're spending $2.4

[31:00] million transferring people from one part of town to another making them migrants um so let me see I was also confused a little bit I think there needs to be more of a dialogue um I I'm and I've heard these talks over and over again and I don't want to hear Bob Yates again and again I want more dialogue to figure out what's exactly going on like with the permanently Supportive Housing I think those are disabled people but that's $52 a night and camping is $59 a night and the hotel is $60 a night and it's like this is not cheap stuff and um yet when we're digging a hole more for housing expense being higher and higher property tax going up and up rents going up and up people becoming unhoused as a result of the whole cycle and the jobs housing balance is not being addressed done thank you ly thank you so much this uh there's no more speakers

[32:02] for tonight so this concludes or open comment section for this evening but does the council have a question yes Aaron I do want to see if there are any staff feedback before I asking my question okay uh nothing for me tonight I have two things U um Mr rabitz comes every week it seems and says the same things that are not true map light never did not offer us a free system their price was exact almost exactly the same as the one that we chose when they responded to the RFP they came back later and said they'd reduce their price and that's not the way rfps work the system is working fairly well as of this moment bedrooms for people has gathered 3,16 signatures out of required 3,336 signatures that we expected will qualify for the ballot this week the system has withstood 6,500 bot attacks over the time that that we've been able to identify and stop because of the two-

[33:00] Factor identification so the system is working very well um Mr Boyce raised the question of the sign um at the property on arapo um staff did deny the permit for the sign it is over a City utility easement the uh sign would prevent access to City pipes there are also easements for Comcast and Excel Energy in the same area they don't have permission to build over for them even their reconstruction of ass sign was was in our in staff's view a complete reconstruction uh staff is defending a case that they've brought in the boulder municipal court and we will respond accordingly thank you thank you Tom Aaron is it yeah thanks Janie um well Tom thanks for that explanation on the sign um I just um you seems like that um business might need some way in order to have a functional sign and so I'm not it sounds

[34:00] like it's in litigation so I don't want to go too far there but I you know I I always hope that the city can find paths forward when people get stuck and um when they're just trying to do something simple I think the answer is a sign on that's not in the utility eement City water pipe so like a falling like a falling apart sign you have no ability to do some minor Rehabilitation or something to they do have an ability to do a minor Rehabilitation that's not what they did they built a new sign yeah okay well I we hear a lot from businesses in our community about how difficult the city processes can be to work with sometimes and I don't know it seems like there might have been another path forward here but I don't know all the details understood I don't know all the details either I do know that we're defending in the Municipal Court thank you Aon our next speaker is

[35:02] Adam thanks Judy I just wanted to respond to uh Mr smoke who asked that you know we just say something to acknowledge we heard him uh we did hear you we're having another conversation about our unhoused community uh next week um and I'm sure it's going to be another robust conversation so uh please tune in and offer feedback before then if you could thank than you thank you Adam I would also before I pass on to Mark to acknowledge that our council member bobat is here thank you Bob also our mayor is here actually and I think I should hand it over before Mark starts speaking go ahead juny I'll let you finish this section out go ahead and call thank you Mark you have the floor okay thank you um I want to Second U aon's comment comments um particularly in in light of the feedback that we

[36:01] often get as as he noted um that our regulatory processes are um enormously complex um without going into the detail because it is in litigation um from the little I know from the the comments I've read this is the sort of situation that simply screams for some kind of negotiated compromise and I hope that we can get there um defending being forced to defend this and and being forced to to bring a suit of this kind um just strikes me is is so terribly unproductive and I I hope we can find some kind of middle ground and you know avoid this process because I don't think it's productive for anyone so that's it for me thank you thank you Mark are there any other Council questions or comments nope none well thank you for all the to all the speakers and for all

[37:00] the council comments and staff comments as well and uh I just want to once again welcome our mayor Weaver who will be taking over for the rest of the meeting tonight great thank you all and thank you juny so much for running the meeting in my absence um Alicia I think we're ready to go on to the next item all right sir and and hello and good evening everyone again we have next on our agenda the consent agenda which includes items a through L very good and I will just call to people's attention that on the consent agenda items d and e uh we agreed at CAC we would um address after we address call-ups so um are there any questions on the consent agenda or is there a motion to move the consent agenda except for items d& I'll go ahead and move the consent agenda other than items d& and I have a

[38:01] comment as well second great Erin what's your comment yeah well just you know item J on this is the second reading of a special ordinance to allow Harvest at Hope food pantry to move into a new location but defer some of the normally required site I just wanted to thank um City staff uh for working collaboratively for Harvest to find a way to get this result for them so that they could move forward without having to do a lot of expensive Renovations in the short term so I appreciate that flexibility i' love to see um us continue to do that with other kind of notable nonprofits when they need a little bit of assistance because I think city council um is happy to help out um in circumstances like that and congratulations to harvest of Hope for your new location I look forward to seeing you serve our um uh the food deal with the food scarcity needs of members of our community so thanks to everybody right thank you Erin and Alicia I

[39:00] believe this is a roll call is that correct yes sir it is so we will go now with um council member Yates I young yes Brocket I friend is absent Joseph present oh well yes Nagel I slick yes wallik hi and Weaver hi the consent agenda with the exception of d and e sir was passed unanimously thank you all right next on our agenda we have our call up check second item which is item 4A call up item for site review and use

[40:01] review applications related to the phase Redevelopment of The Shining Mountain Waldorf School located at 999 Violet Avenue 1100 violent Avenue 1101 Union Avenue 1179 Union Avenue 0er Locust Avenue 934 Locust Avenue and 4395 Broadway and for this item we have several uh staff from planning and development services here uh to give a brief presentation if Council would like it please very good uh Ryan if you could um go ahead and start the presentation and I'm going to request to share so um for this evening um let's see Ryan if you wouldn't mind giving me

[41:07] control and if not we roll through it um so next slide please so in terms of the applications that you have in front of you they're all related to Redevelopment of The Shining Mountain Waldorf School and um this slide illustrates it's been in process and in planning for quite a few years starting with Concept plan review and 2018 and then um applications were submitted in 2019 and 2020 um planning board reviewed it as a concept plan as did city council a couple of times uh there were four resubmittals and Corrections reviewed by staff development Review Committee and then planning board just took a look at this uh back in April of um 2021 last

[42:01] month next slide please so most everyone is probably familiar with the location uh which is essentially at Broadway and violet uh between Broadway and foothills community park but I think this slide is important to just take a look at the surrounding context because it's quite eclectic and varied everything from single residential on the east and South the Foothills Park of course um which leads into uh Open Space Mountain Parks trails and then Ponderosa mobile home park as we know was annexed recently and it's planned to be redeveloped over time is to the north as is um some Service Industrial uses and then of course Uptown Broadway um and a number of mixed use um and um sing multif family residential is um to the Northeast including the upcoming North Boulder library next slide

[43:02] please and again uh While most folks might be familiar uh the existing site's been developed as a school campus for shining Mount wer for about 35 years um various school facilities are on the site today and then you can see uh north east corner of the site roughly um where Broadway and violet intersect is a v home and just to the west of that is a vacant lot next slide please so then on the existing um site the applicant is planning to redevelop overtime um and under consideration in items 4A for your callup consideration it's the school buildout um it'll include a new High School site um as well as an addition to the Festival Hall Parking and drop off areas are planned to be reconfigured with landscape and streetscape a new lower and middle school is planned on that main campus as is a new

[44:01] kindergarten um and then on the east and south sides of the site are residential uses 20 single family lots are proposed along with 17 Town Homes there's site planning as well as uh Locust neighborhood design guidelines next slide please and then um this is intended to be phased over time three phases the high school school will start first the number of public improvements associated with it phase two will be the residential along with the Performing Arts um addition to the Festival Hall and then the third phase is the main campus um improvements next slide please so items um 3D and 3E are related 3D is a process to vacate and convey existing um or rather um formally vac ated 9th Street it was completed in the 1990s and um the actual disposal of the

[45:02] property was never completed um so council's requested to um vacate the property uh or rather dispose of the vacated property uh this was something that was agreed on in the 1990s and it was in deference to the dedication of Cherry Avenue and 10th Street rights of way which were at the time intended to fulfill the North Boulder um subcommittee plan connections plan and parks and wre board took a look at this both in the 90s and then recently there weren't any questions or comments and then planning board recommended approval next slide please so then the uh item 3E also related was something that was discovered in the site review process the area that you see circled is 4395 Broadway it's a part of proposal that's intended for Town Homes

[46:00] this site was annexed as part of a Crest View West Series annexations in the 1990s and at the time it included a provision for a limit on two stories above basement um and of course with the proposal of town homes which are a much more condensed form of building it provides much more usable living space to have three levels rather than two very tall levels in that 35 ft 35 FTS the byright height and there was no provision to limit that in the annexation staff and the planning board both found it to be consistent with um North folder subc community plan next slide please so with that uh planning board unanimously recommended um approval uh or rather they approved the site and use review applications they recommended uh that city council approve the disposal of of the property and they also recommended that um the um annexation

[47:02] agreement is amended and next slide please with that I'm happy to answer any questions one other note it's important to know public notification was given um we did have six public comments um that were received eight members of the public spoke at planning board and six of those folks indicated support there were a couple of folks who were um Express concerned and with that I'm happy to answer any questions thank you very much Elaine Council any questions on this item Mark just a couple I I know it's it it's tangential um to what we're doing this evening um is this a joint venture between a private developer and the the Waldorf School who is actually going to build the town homes and single family homes or are they simply selling off the Lots they plant a sell that and so what we did in the site review process is

[48:00] request that they create design guidelines which would lend some predictability and a sense of quality that we could um review upon um any future town homes and single family residentials so it it's not intended to be a joint vure and and so ultimately the homes and town homes and the single family homes that are built there will also be subject to our inclusionary zoning requirements am I not correct that's correct okay um okay that'll cover it for me thank you thanks Mark Bob I apologize for having to miss open comment I had something else that ran till right ended but I wanted to ask a question to my Council colleagues was there anyone at open comment who um urged us to call this up seeing some sh shaking ads okay thank you okay um with that I'll turn to council

[49:01] does anyone want to call this up great seeing none I'll say uh Aaron go ahead oh well I just want to make a quick comment just that Y is that uh you know I first walked the the property with the the school owners some four or five years ago and when they were developing these plans and it's been a pretty long road but I think the proposal has gotten better uh and for the school and for the Community each step so um well on the one hand I'd love to maybe see a little more housing on a Transit quarter in a walkable area this does what the zoning calls for so appreciate all the hard work and uh good luck uh to shining mountain in the next chapter of their Journey thank you Aon Mirai I just wanted to wish um shining Mountain waler a good luck in the project um being an alumni myself and having attended school there for 10 years um I'm just excited to see how the community is going to grow around there especially with such a wonderful development and I'm excited for the

[50:00] children and all the future children who are going to be um attending the school it was a really special experience for me and I hope uh it continues to be for the generations to come thank you Mir and I'm gonna pile on and say I think this is a great project I think it's good for the school and I think it does provide housing maybe not at the density everyone would like but certainly um there are a couple different typologies here which I think is great and so um with that it doesn't look like there's any appetite to call it up so best of luck to the school and the developers um with that I think we want to return to the consent agenda and see got two things but first the one related to this if we could get someone to move items D and E of the consent agenda that'd be great so it moved second great we have a motion and a second um is this part roll call as well

[51:00] Alicia no okay great could I see a show of hands of anybody who does not want to pass items d& on the consent agenda great seeing none items d& on the consent agenda pass unanimously I will return to an item that I missed apologies um item K on the consent agenda was something we were going to have a short presentation on um we adopted a resolution tonight resolution 1287 which supports the metro Denver homeless initiative um pledge to coordinate regionally on homelessness and with that I would turn to staff to give us a short um briefing on that mdhi pledge it over to uh Kurt and Vicky from housing and Home Services uh good evening Council uh Kurt Ferber director of Housing and Human Services um this will be a short

[52:00] presentation and thank you Sam for for slipping Us in um so um if you recall it's your retreat at the beginning of the year one of the um items that you spoke about was wanting to be more involved in the regional work around um homelessness um realizing that homelessness is both a a regional and National um issue and um uh it's important for us to have a larger than local involvement and so there was a there was a conference um about a month ago held by um metro Denver um uh homeless initiative and three council members were present at that um council member friend Weaver and young and um um after that conference they asked that we as a councel and really as a city commit ourselves to this Regional work so um with that I

[53:00] would like to introduce two people who will go through this brief um presentation to give you a little background on it um the first is Dr Jamie R he's the director of uh Communications and development for mdhi and um then that will be followed by Vicky edner um who as you know supports our programs uh for individuals experience ing homelessness and with that I will pass it on to um Dr re thank you K I appreciate it and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening with all of you you go to the next slide please I want to start today by introducing mdhi and talking a little bit about what we do so really our mission is around leading and advancing collaboration to end homelessness in our region we are What's called the Continuum of Care for our region it's a seven County Metro Denver region which you can see um on the third bullet point what those regions include and what is

[54:02] cooc is it's really a system that helps coordinate housing and services for people experiencing homelessness throughout the region so a few of the things you may have heard of that we do um we do coordinate the annual point in time count for our region we oversee What's called the homeless management information system uh for the region which we're proud to say in Colorado one of the few States that has an hmis system that goes Statewide we also oversee What's called the one home coordinated entry system and that's how we prioritize and match people to housing in our region we oversee and coordinate the HUD funding application for Continuum of Care dollars that flow into the region that support housing and services as well as share data around things like the state of homelessness report which we released in October of 20120 um and we also participate closely with regional Partners like the hsvc so I will say Matt Meer our executive director sits on HSBC and plays a critical role in that work and I want to

[55:01] just say we really appreciate the collaboration that HSBC shows with mdhi and with our region overall next slide please so this is really just kind of the structure of mdhi to help you understand how we accomplish the work so in dark blue are what are called our councils and these are all comprised of individuals that might be providers housing resources it's individuals of lived experience as well as other key stakeholders and then within those you'll see in the lighter blue are actual committees that help us do all this work throughout the region and I will say we're very blessed to have several key members of city and county staff engaged in this work um around our our mdhi kind of council and committee structure and how we move all this forward next slide please so I want to talk a little bit about built for zero and really what built for zero is the framework that we're using that we unveiled on the

[56:01] March 18th meeting that Kurt was just referring to and so I will say that HSBC and Boulder was already moving in this direction really what built for zero is doing is bringing a lot of those practices to the region that we know are evidence-based so what is built for zero it's out of a um a nonprofit called Community solutions that does this work nationally over 80 cities and Counties have joined this kind of movement to use as framework for making visible reductions in homelessness and what it does is really works to measurably end homelessness one population at a time and we when we say ending homelessness you'll see below we have that definition of a functional zero and so it's not to say that no one will ever experience homelessness because that will happen at some point what it's what we're trying to say is that we want to make homelessness rare brief and non-recurring and that we're housing more people in any given month than the number of people that are coming into the system and experiencing homelessness in a given month and cities throughout

[57:00] the country are reaching that metric um most of them and we're going to be talking a lot about veterans tonight and the reason that is is because as a region we've decided to use Veterans as a proof point and that's what's really worked well um across the country in reaching veteran an end of Veteran homelessness getting to this point of functional zero and so what we're doing and why we're using Veterans as a proof point is because veterans crosses all subsets there are veterans that are chronically homelessness there are families that are their heads of households are veterans there are even youth that are experiencing homelessness at our veterans and what that does is inform us about every subpopulation in our region and where our gaps are and where we can become more efficient and data driven as a region so really what this work does is we're working in collaboration with local Partners cities and counties to kind of again stand up sub regionally this built for zero framework which has these proof points around veterans and our goal is to end veteran or excuse me to reduce veteran homelessness by 50% as

[58:01] a region this year and that's something that we feel is absolutely achievable and we're very excited about and so um with that I'm going to hand it over to Vicky to take it from here and talk a little bit about the the context in Boulder thank you Dr R um next slide please so as Dr R mentioned the region is focusing on veteran homelessness through the built for zero effort uh Homeless Solutions for Boulder County or hsbc's work with veteran homelessness is a good example of how data can assist with ending homelessness HSBC has been working really closely with the VA and in 19 in 2019 identified a significant Gap in the data and that was data that was unavailable concerning veterans that are experiencing homelessness in Boulder County uh research and Analysis has identified 93 individuals in need of housing compared to 34 that was that were previously known HSBC is currently

[59:03] working with both of the VA regions uh Boulder County crosses metro Denver and the Cheyenne offices uh to increase the number of available housing vouchers based on better data collection next slide please so the model well let me say the uh each of the blocks on this slide represent the components of the built for zero model and so HSBC strategies and activities are aligned with this model across the different subpopulations of people experiencing homelessness a shared measurable aim is a key component of the HSBC system the collaboration between Boulder County the city of Longmont and the city of Boulder along with sharing of data has led to efficiencies and successes the executive board and the policy implementation team of the HSBC provided a Nimble Command Center that leads to effective evaluation and policy polic development the HSBC executive board serves as council's representation when it comes to

[60:01] homelessness policy decision making designing interventions and Outreach efforts through the use of by name lists allows us to tailor responses and AIDS in the prioritization of resources and Boulder has been able to develop a variety of Housing and service options due to the collection and leveraging of these resources and this data next slide please so the resolution that you uh passed through the consent agenda tonight includes three key components at a high level The Pledge includes acknowledgement that homelessness has no city or county borders that coordination with mdhi and built for zero is a key to reducing homelessness in the region and this work requires commitment to continue the work at a local level with that we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have thank you all so much for the presentation um Council any questions Mary thank you for that presentation um

[61:02] appreciate it and for bringing forward the resolution um my question has to do with um the data collection and if and how it recognizes the movement of people within the region earlier this evening um a couple of speakers brought up the idea that it that people move out of the city and where do they go and so I I'm just curious to see how that kind of movement might be trapped through this effort so there are two different ways that we collect data one is through the homeless management information system that Dr R spoke about um on top of that in the Boulder County area we also use uh Boulder County connect Software System and so um the shortest answer is we can track movement through the region most easily through our coordinated

[62:00] entry screening um as a self-report people are tell us where they come from how long they've been there um and we can then cross reference that data with the hmis or the homeless management information system um there it's not as easy as I just made that sound um there there is some work that's involved to make the two systems talk to each other but um that is an ongoing regional thing is to sort of uh understand where people have resources um where there uh for example somebody who is new to the Boulder County area may already be on a housing priority list in another city such as Aurora or Denver and so then it's evaluating um what intervention and where is the best for that person thank you Vicki and thank you Jamie for joining us tonight thank you Mary

[63:02] juny um I just have a quick question and thank you for the presentation and all this information um do you know if this work this initiative will inform a greater National effort and is there a push for some type of national support as well um Jamie would you like to answer that I'd be happy to I will say that this is absolutely informing a lot of the work nationally at the local level and that's actually filtering upward and I think making a lot of people more aware of the importance of data and knowing by name who is actually experiencing homelessness in your communities and what they need and I think one of the most powerful things in advocating for resources is data and to know who's actually experiencing homelessness so yes absolutely as we get better at this as we can identify to the

[64:02] person who's experiencing homelessness what they need and what's required to meet their needs um I think there's a lot to be said there for as particularly for federal resources no thank you for this presentation and I fully um welcome this initiative and look forward to seeing the fruit of it thank you thank you juny and I'll just jump in brief with a comment that Dr R I couldn't agree more about data it has been so helpful to us here in the city and Boulder County as well to know um who we're dealing with and to know you know where they um contact our support services so agree with that 100% I have one question one of our programs in the county is to rapidly reunite folks with their support system so when people first come in through coordinat entry if they are found to have maybe in the city or out of the city or even out of the state a

[65:00] support system that could be beneficial to the client uh we'll sometimes provide them with Transportation there if we know that there's somebody to receive them one of the complaints we've heard is that we don't typically track people once we've reunited them with their support um and we've been getting requests and I would say insistence that we track people once they've turned potentially out of the city or state can you talk about best practices for um reuniting like how how do other communities um deal with the issue of what happens when you return somebody to a support environment yeah you know I'm not sure anyone has a great answer on that um I will say so Colorado has the best answer for one as one of the states so um in most other states the data systems that they use may be like in in California there might be 42 different Data Systems where they as soon as you cross the

[66:00] street you have to start the entire process over um so I will say now because Colorado has one system we're able to at least look at that information within the state um and I will say also that part of buil for zero and part of a best practice is having what you're referring to as which is diversion and having people reunited and keeping the inflow into homelessness um as minimal as possible and regarding tracking you know as a country we haven't gotten to a place where we have one data system that tracks people across state lines um that would be a dream someday if we could track you know longitudinally what happens to everyone we're not there yet and I think that's a question that a lot of communities are wringling with okay great well thanks so much for the information apologies that I um passed over it by accident but your help is greatly appreciated on this subject thank you very much thank you and with that Alicia I believe we're ready for the next item yes sir thank

[67:00] you next we have on our agenda our public hearing item 5A which is the consideration of a non-conforming use review case number L 2020-22 for the historic restoration and composion of the former Mara house living quarters at 8911 12 Street into 16 three bedroom dwelling units with a maximum occupancy of 48 persons this project site is Zone residential low1 rl-1 thanks Alicia and to begin this item tonight I'm going to turn it over to our director of planning and development services Jacob Lindsay thank you Chris um and good evening mayor Weaver and members of city council so the item before you tonight is uh a special and complex type of case and it's the non-conforming use review of the property formerly known as the marpa house it's called non-conforming

[68:03] because this property was originally built as a fraternity house prior to the city's adoption of zoning regulations and therefore has never conformed to the requirements of this residential low density zoning in going through this process the applicant is following the city of Boulders procedures and is allowed toe process in our hearings and prior to appearing here of course the case Was Heard by the planning board who unanimously recommended approval so in that hearing the planning board heard a very robust Community conversation around the use of the property and the many quality of life issues on the University Hill Neighborhood of which I'm sure you all are aware so to inform the hearing tonight I will turn over the presentation to Sloan Walbert to present further details thanks Jacob I'm just gonna share the

[69:00] presentation potentially okay are you seeing the presentation yes okay great okay um so my name is SL Walbert I'm a development review planner and the case manager on this application um as was described the item before you tonight is consideration and determination on a use review application to convert an existing boarding house at 8911 12 Street to 16 self-contained dwelling units and to renovate and restore the historic structure so um as Jacob mentioned just to tee up the conversation I do want to mention

[70:01] there's been a very robust dialogue that has occurred regarding the use of the site um that's occurred for over a year the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting in September and a large amount of public comment has been received both in opposition and support um you'll likely hear from members of the immediate neighborhood who have concerns about impacts to their volum of Life specifically student noise trash and just you're fading in and out this happened last time with the audio I'm not sure you can mostly hear you but sometimes okay here I'll move closer let's do that um mostly about student noise trash and just general disruption um to set up the context the nearly Halfacre project site is located on the northeast corner of Aurora and 12 streets the property is less than a half mile walk from Broadway and the CU

[71:01] campus the site is located in the residential low Zone district and the immediate area has been zoned for low density residential use since 1928 the area is characterized by residential uses in a variety of forms some of which are non-conforming as to the existing zoning the most significant which is the pii sority house located across the alley to the West which is approximately 28,000 Square F feet in size and has 80 allowable residents and single family detached homes are located to the southeast and West the site contains a boarding house use in an approximately 40 foot tall four-story building and surface parking um exists off the alley and just to set up um the legal and Regulatory background it is considered a legal non-conforming use as to the low density residential zoning it

[72:02] is non-conforming as to use because the boarding house is not currently permitted in the RL Z rl1 Zone District density because the development exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units per acre and that's based on the allowable occupancy and then parking because the site does not provide the required parking based on the number of allowable occup so it's important to note that there is a constitutional protection um for the owner of the property on which a non-conforming um use exists in order to permit the continuance of the use to the extent necessary to safeguard the investment of the property owner so the property owner is entitled to continue the use of the property as they did before and the right attaches to the land itself it's not personal to a specific owner or tenant and different from many other jurisdictions Boulders land use code does not seek to eliminate these

[73:00] non-conforming uses the code allows non-conforming uses to be changed and upgraded and generally the non-conforming use review criteria are focused on minimizing adverse impacts to surrounding properties maintaining compatibility and improving the appearance of the property and this process provides flexibility for improving and rehabil rehabilitating non-conforming properties which can help promote reinvestment in neglected structures so as I described the development proposal is considered an expansion of a non-conforming use because the proposal will add dwelling units and bedrooms thus the application must be reviewed for consistency with the criteria in section 9215 of the L use code the a determination on this application is a criter IA based decision and um on February 18th the planning board did vote 7 to Zer to

[74:00] approve the use review application with very specific conditions of approval which I'll cover in a minute so just a quick um overview of the history of the site the existing building was constructed in 1923 for Fraternity use which was prior to the adoption of the first zoning ordinance which was in 1928 um and as mentioned the site's been nonconforming since Z was first instituted SLO I'm sorry we're having trouble hearing you again you're going in and out a bit all right moving closer sorry um so it has been utilized as a fraternity use until 1977 at which time the marpa house boarding use was established by a Tibetan organization and then last year the structure was designated as an individual historic Landmark um so it's just important to note that allowable occupancy for group

[75:01] residences like this are determined based on City Records which include rental license records um I'm showing some screenshots of some of what those records look like it is the city standard practice to rely on official City Records rather than documentation from an operator or neighborhood um many of these records are past rental license license inspections starting in the 1960s and there is an assumption that there could be some fluctuation in occupancy but the rental license is relied upon to determine or set the maximum occupancy and it's also important to note that group occupancies like boarding houses sororities fraternities Etc are regulated by the same occupancy rule in the code so it's not uncommon for the city to receive requests for the conversion of group occupancies to something like attached units based on that allowable

[76:00] occupancy so um here's some other screenshots of what those records look like and we've been very consistent since the 1960s and limiting the occupancy to 50 residents as recently as 2010 So based on the history of use on the site the property owner does have the rights to operate as a boarding house with a Max of 50 occupants um and they essentially have four choices on how they can utilize the site they could convert to a conforming use um based on the existing zoning code permitted conforming uses in rl1 are are very limited as you can imagine um so this would be pretty difficult to achieve since the existing building is landmarked and they cannot um demo they could continue the prior use as I just described with um the same operational

[77:00] characteristics they could um request an administrative substitution of use to allow a use that falls in a different category on the use table but is similar in operations um hypothetically they could apply to convert to a fraternity use or something um along that lines and that would not trigger a discretionary non-conforming use review and the last option would be to change or upgrade the property which would be an expansion of a nonconforming use that is the proposal before you tonight um and as I described it must be reviewed under the use review process um so to get into the proposal the applicant is requesting approval to reconfigure and reconstruct the interior layout of the building to create 16 dwelling units um this would reduce the allowable occupancy of the development to 48 persons which is three per unit um and as I

[78:01] described this allowable dwelling units is based on the occupancy the occupancy rule is that three occupants constitute one dwelling unit which constitutes 16 dwelling units allowed and the applicant has submitted a good neighbor statement of operations which would be included in any approval documentation and would be enforceable by the City if necessary as I mentioned the site was landmarked last year and the proposal includes the rehabilitation of the historic building um and they would also be doing some Life Safety upgrades made to the structure they're also proposing several site and building improvements to meet the review criteria including establishing nine formal vehicular parking spaces off the alley and these areas would be improved to meet current code requirements they'd also provide excess short and long-term bite parking and remove large Gathering spaces like

[79:01] interior rooms and exterior decks and patios and the intent of that is to mitigate noise impacts to surrounding properties and just generally discourage disruptive behaviors they're also proposing to um update the landscape so just a little background on the planning board hearing on January 21st the planning board held a quasa Judicial hearing to review the proposal and after extensive public comment and delation the board voted to continue the planning board's discussion and they decided to direct staff to draft conditions to address very specific concerns and to continue the meeting to discuss such conditions staff did prepare conditions of approval to address those comments and on February 18th the board considered the conditions and Del liberated um they did make some modifications to staff's recommendations and ultimately approved the

[80:02] application um so the planning board disposition includes 24 conditions and subconditions which were intended to ensure that the use does not have adverse impacts on the neighboring properties and that the site is well-managed they were also written to support future enforcement and straightforward interpretation by enforc staff um some of the notable conditions are that parking is restricted for the use to 12 vehicles to be parked in the public right away they also must provide each tenant who has a driver's license with an ego car share membership or um a similar membership each tenant must disclose their motor vehicle license plate make model um and type there's also quiet hours defined for the use and each tenant is required to sign a good neighbor agreement ATT testing that they understand that they live in a quiet neighborhood and agree um to not

[81:00] disturb the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighbors on-site management is required which would enforce any requirements of the approval and lastly the applicants required to submit an a marketing plan that is directed toward uh more diverse population rather than just students so the key issue for tonight is whether the proposal meets the criteria for an expansion of a non-conforming use there's a very detailed analysis and the um memo but just to summarize staff finds that the proposed operating characteristics are appropriate and adequately address concerns regarding noise parking traffic and other nuisances um the vehicular parking requirement would not increase with this proposal the applicant has submitted an analysis by a professional traffic engineer that finds that the surrounding streets have the capacity to accommodate

[82:00] the expected parking generated they've also submitted a traffic assessment that concludes that the development of attached dwelling units would have an overall reduction in trip generation and that the conversion would not change the predominant character of the surrounding area just trying to advance give me a minute oh uhoh right I'm not sure if it will let you oh okay let's try that again sorry about

[83:08] this nothing quite like technology messing with you right at the critical moment right it seems inevitable if we would like to take a moment um Sloan if you want to keep working on that Tom I was going to turn to you and see if you could just give us a little bit of a guideline on what we're doing with quasi judicial tonight will slone gets the presentation up yes thanks Sam uh this is a quasi judicial hearing conducted under the council's quas judicial procedures uh one of the things I'll ask you when I conclude my remarks is for you to disclose any exte contact you've had with this year the the Quasi judicial rules and quasi judicial process generally requires that you make your decision based on matters in the record so you can have X party information you just need to put that in the record to give the applicant a full

[84:01] and fair opportunity to reut contest or respond to anything that you've learned uh please Tre prob be thorough in disclosing your expart day context U we used to swear people in Council eliminated that from its rules uh after Sloan finishes the applicant will be given an opportunity to make a brief presentation and then you will hear public comment uh at the end of that you will have your deliberation you have up to 30 days to after the end of the hearing to make your decision um as you're there's only eight of you if you cannot reach a decision the rules and the count the the boulder Revised Code are not clear on U what happens if you have a 44 tie I recommend not having a 44 tie um it's something in the code we need to fix at some point um if you reach a 44 TI my recommendation would be to adjourn or to just finish the hearing and have a later later deliberations when you have a full counsil um the the rules provide for no pooling of evidence of of of speakers at CAC I raised this

[85:02] CAC said that we should have pooling there are many people who've signed up for pooling I will remind you that pooling actually saves time since it takes three people who have two minutes each to to give one person four minutes you actually save two minutes so people are being more efficient when they're pooling for for you so pooling will be allowed tonight unless some council member objects Sam that those were my comments super and Sloan are we ready to go now okay super if you want to kick us off and finish that we will do expart communication when you are done thank you thank you sir okay so hopefully it's appearing for you yep okay so um just to continue in order to mitigate impacts of the use the applicant is proposing to provide excess short and long-term bike parking um and that would um reduce the

[86:00] need for parking on site furthermore the Historic Landmark cannot be reasonably utilized as a single family home considering the size of the structure and historic significance so it can't reasonably be made to conform to the current requirements and the proposal would promote reinvestment in the property and supports the Rehabilitation of a Historic Landmark okay so with that staff recommends Council approve case number L 202022 adopting um the staff memorandum as finding effects and subject to the motion on the screen and as always I'm help to answer questions thank you SLO bearing with me yeah with that um let's go to council questions next are there any questions for staff Bob and then

[87:00] Mark probably a question for the legal team Tom um we uh we received counil all of council and therefore it's part of the record received a um request from a group of neighbors for some additional conditions and and I I just want to speak to or ask a question about one of those conditions actually their first condition uh and that was a condition I'll just read the first sentence of it the council require a mix of student and non-student occupant in the marpa house proportionate to the relative populations in Boulder at large um I'm dimly familiar but maybe you can educate us Tom on um that there are some limitations under the federal law about what we can do as far as limiting um who lives in a particular property is that correct yeah Bob thanks that's a good question I appreciate you're asking it the federal Housing Act does limit uh prevent prohibit discrimination based on familial relationship uh there is no independent protection for students or for people of a particular age um you

[88:01] could therefore uh comply with this the other there are some cases out there that raise equal protection challenges um those uh tend not to be successful as you know um equal protection requires that a governmental body make a decision that is rationally related to its purpose so if you can articulate a rational reason for having such a division you could do it it probably would be defensible there are a few cases that have struck down prohibitions on students on equal protection grounds but there are none in Colorado thank you Tom that's all I had thank you Bob Mark um yeah the comment was made that at City practice rely on official City Records rather than documentation provided by the operator or the neighborhood is this a simply a practice or is it a statutory requirement Tom I guess that would be addressed to you if if not to staff so I'm happy to answer

[89:00] that um as you know Mark we've as a city struggled with occupancy over the years and I've been personally involved in a lot of the um changes that we've made with respect to occupancy generally the challenge is that people want to occupy higher than the level that we have stated so back I think it was in 2015 Council changed the code to and to add some language to section 10320 that B that said that the occupancy is what's stated on the on the rental license this codified a practice that staff had been using for some time prior to staff initiating this process we had inspectors who went out and inspected to see how many people were actually occupying a place uh then they would notation note that on some piece of paper and we'd have people claiming a uh an non-conforming occupancy years later based on some some random inspection that occurred in the 1970s so Council was not happy with that and codified the requirement that occupancy

[90:01] is what's stated on the on the the license staff as I said have been using that practice because it is somewhat intrusive for staff to go and inspect and see how many people are living in a place so relying on the rental license has been a long-term practice and I checked the rental license for this property today it says that there are um two dwelling units and 30 rooming units with a total OCC allowed occupancy of 50 okay um my other my second and last question is uh this area was subject to a down zoning in 1974 um which created this as a nonconforming use um what was the purpose of of that down zoning do you know that so uh I'm not qu quite sure you're right I think this this use existed before there was any zoning at all and then there have been various down zonings on the hill to reduce the occupancy over time um and so that's why we have so many non-conforming uses and

[91:01] occupancies on the hill but this particular property would would be considered non-conforming not because of a downzoning but because it predates zoning okay thank you Bob another question I do thank you um if no one else does I'll jump in I want to refer refer back to the same uh document that was sent to us today on another proposed condition again I think this is probably a legal question for you Tom another condition that these people proposed again I'm going to read it rum the council require 8911 12 Street to operate as a single entity for purposes of code violations and nuisance abatement I guess my question Tom is is that already a condition or is that if it's not already conditioned is that a condition that the council could oppose Bob in my opinion that condition would violate the code the code Cod specifically gives staff the uh the discretion to treat a a property either as a single unit or as an entire

[92:00] property for nuisance of batement purposes and you can see why that would be helpful in some circumstances um Council I do not believe is can can change the code through a condition and application approval if you wanted to to do that you'd need to pass an ordinance revising the code which is in within your power it's just not part of General application review also application conditions are conditions on the applicant not conditions on City staff so it would be very unusual and perhaps improper include a condition on City staff in conditions that are intended to restrict an applicant okay let me ask you if you don't mind I follow question that could that be um hardwired into the Good Neighbor agreement I understand the code uh limitation there but if the good neighbor agreement which is really just a contract between the the property owner and the City um said that for purposes of of whether the G Neer agreement is violated or not you would count violations in each of

[93:00] the apartments towards a cumulative number and and if certain thresholds were met is that something we could put in we could stipulate with the property owner if the property owner was so inclined the property owner could stipulate that any any single violation would be considered a violation against the entire property yes okay thank you thank you Bob Aaron so I'm going to follow up in this line of questioning about proposed uh conditions of approval um there's another one about requiring a speed bump to be constructed at the applicant's um expense uh along I believe it was on 12th Street um is that a does it have enough of a Nexus to increase traffic from the development that we would be allowed to impose that condition well I I have two challenges with that uh one the the conditions that already limit the number of vehicles there so it would be hard to to draw that Nexus but two the the city is limited in the amount of exactions it can take out of a developer and the exactions as you knowe have to be rationally related to the impacts so I

[94:01] think you might have a challenge with that being an improper exaction got it thanks for that and can I add several council members have referred to emails that they received I will note that all emails that were sent to the council email address have been placed in the record and they are available to the public on the city council webs web page under City Council documents I want to thank Alicia Johnson for taking care of that thank you Tom um thank you Aon and I have one question Tom and it's about interpretation of the um requirements for non-conforming use and I believe in the slide it said something like continuance of the use to the extent necessary to safeguard the investment of the property owner in other words I believe we're required to approve anything to the extent necessary to safeguard the investment in this case do you consider the occupancy of 50 uh important to safeguarding the investment

[95:01] of the property owner that's a tough question Sam so I hesitate um I I think we have a challenge in changing the city process considering the longstanding city property of using the rental license as the basis I I it's hard to say whether or not it diminishes the value of the property I think the obvious answer is yes since there's 14 less occupants but I'm not sure an economist would say that because you you might be able to charge more for 36 50 so I'm I'm not sure that that it meets that standard I wouldn't say that okay and I'm sorry I just wanted to cqu on that question sure yeah I guess that question could be could be asked in a different way rather than um the maximum occupancy because it is 16 units um could it be looked at in terms of its economic value through the lens

[96:02] of the number of units rather than the number of occupants I I think you could do that I mean under the code uh you're allowed three per unit so 16 would get you pretty close to 50 it's 49 so so um I'm not sure the benefit of that without changing the code I I would add that I have no problem with anything the applicant agrees to as you all know so if the applicant agrees to a lower occupancy to uh to to to because they believe that it's worthwhile there is less issues with that uh but I'm a little troubled by going in that direction thank you Tom um and with that seeing no other questions Tom is this the right time for us to do exp parte or should we wait till after the applicant I think X party would be good now so the

[97:00] applicant has a chance to understand it before they make their presentation super thank you Tom so let's just go around the horn here and um each individual council member speak to whether you have had expart communication I'm going to call on us one by one just to make it efficient um I'm just going to do it in a random order that I see names so I'll start with you mark wallik have you had any exp parte Communications you'd like to reveal no I have received emails um as we all have U generally uh emails directed to council uh but I have not had conversations or meetings with anybody relating to this project thank you Mark next I will go to Adam stick Adam have you had any expart Communications no I have not thank you Adam turn to juny Joseph juny none that I can

[98:00] remember okay uh and with that I will go to Bob Gates the only expart Communications I've had or process related um where residents wanted to know where the find the staff memo or the process for signing up for tonight's hearing very good thank you uh mirbi I've had none thank you uh m I have had no expart Communications thank you Aaron uh no I not very good and then I'm the last and I have only had the similar one to Bob um it was about process and with one um resident so resident of the neighborhood um and that really was about process had nothing to do with substance so with that I think we're ready to turn to the applicant presentation

[99:00] good evening can you hear us we can it's a little bit distant so speak up or lean into the mic please yeah bring that around hopefully that'll help a bit that's that's helpful thank you great thank you um Mr Mayor member of councils thank you for the opportunity to uh present this project to you tonight um we've presented it several times uh so we're getting good at it at this point um so but again we we appreciate the the opportunity to do so this evening can you hit the next slid please um I want to introduce the entire team that's here this evening uh we are all available for questions uh should there be any on any uh technical aspect of the project um Sloan mentioned uh traffic and and parking I I will just note that uh Fox Tuttle who's represented on the call this evening and who did this study uh was chosen for this project and and is intimately

[100:01] familiar with it because they were the city's consultant on the recent chiaka neighborhood study and parking plan and uh have the the greatest wealth of data and insight into this specific neighborhood so should there be any questions on that uh we're ready to go for you next slide please for purpose of context um I want to to just provide a little bit of background on the team and the operation uh group behind this project um this is actually our fifth project up on the University Hill Neighborhood uh you can see the four previous projects marked on the map and noted with the purple Little House icon um I will note the the first couple of projects that we did were with Sofer Spar uh locally Steven SP was our architect on those um and the last couple including this one have been with Esa architects of Boulder as well next

[101:00] slide please um our past projects I'm gonna pause just for a second if I may is there a way to to move that sorry your images were covering up our talking point so thank sorry about that um our past projects on the hill uh We've invested more than $1 13 million uh every single one of the projects that we have undertaken was similar to this in that they took a rundown uh neighborhood nuisance type project and we undertook proactively uh historic Restorations of the properties uh we decreased the intensity of use and the intensity of uh tenants as we're proposing here we use local teams and we manage them with a local professional management company that we also own and operate next slide please and I'm sorry to interrupt but could the speaker identify themselves

[102:00] we've seen your team list but um who's speaking at the moment I'm sorry this is Robert OD day speaking thank you Robert please continue thank you um so our experience on the the hill and in our past experience with with very similar projects to this has led us to a design process that's extremely deliberate uh we have gone through each of our past projects and this one to specifically design out all party areas large congregation areas and to build units that are intentionally uh Compact and devoid of areas that are are prone to partying we've taken those common areas and removed them out all of these projects including the one before you this evening are long-term hold projects these are not uh buy them fix them up flip them or maximize the rent and and sell them these are owned for generations and uh and are managed as such therefore we

[103:02] spare no expense in the materials the design the construction the building systems and certainly the maintenance as well as I mentioned earlier we have a full-time professional management team uh they live on the hill and uh we do routine monthly uh safety and inpections of every single unit in the the entire portfolio we have one of the most strict leases in the city uh and we have a very strict policy for any lease violations of our tenants uh we also have a very comprehensive good neighborhood agreement that we'll speak to uh in a little bit more detail briefly uh and lastly I think it's really important to understand again in terms of experience of this team uh across our different properties we have approximately 2,000 tenant years worth of experience that's you know years of of managing individual tenants across all of our properties

[104:01] this is a very seasoned team here on the hill next slide please um overall the the Investments and work of this team really are aimed to be a win-win for the community as I mentioned uh our investment plan in the operation uh sorry can you go back one yeah our investment uh team and the the operations team are local uh we do have a long-term very long-term strategy here so it's important for us that all of our work on on the hill and across the city uh really have a long-term win-win Dynamic for the community um further all of our work is Guided by and compatible with the BBC plan or BBC TP next slide please um so uh to add a little bit more uh history to the couple of images that

[105:00] Sloan shared uh the image on the top right here is how the building was originally constructed um you can see down below as the Landscaping in the 30s became a little more mature gives a glimpse of what the building looked like before uh the building that is the uh Southeast component of it which you could see in the top left the kind of box shaped bunk house that was added in the 50s and then bottom left the 1990s is approximately how the building looks today um next slide please um contextually again Sloan mentioned our proximity to campus uh we are a third of a mile walk uh through or to campus a quarter of a mile from the hill commercial district and slightly less than a mile to downtown Boulder and we're also extremely close to shiaka park next slide please um this provides a little bit uh different context um every shaded box on

[106:04] this map represents a existing rental license for the city or a rental license in the case of the hashed uh properties uh where some paperwork has expired and it hasn't yet been renewed um but it it gives you a sense of uh the types of uses in rental housing that surround this property and have historically next slide please as you zoom in closer still um you can get a sense on our block specifically um there are three short-term rental licenses that are uh in effect and we've heard from a couple of those neighbors that they are leased out and Airbnb type leases on short-term bases at a high frequency and as Sloan noted we are directly across the island or Alleyway and proximate to the University's largest sorority we're also

[107:02] just south of the historic CU president's house the Norland house which is also a landmark and again as was mentioned um by staff um the use of this property is historic and the building itself predated All City Zoning code and most of the nearby residences next slide please um as has been covered already we won't spend a a ton of time on this to be respectful of schedule this evening uh but there is a hundred years of of consistent use of this property as for rent housing for people associated with the University of Colorado and naropa University and the the teachings of Shambala International in fact in are in the on the record um previously in this project under Landmark uh purview it was noted by John C cob who was the chairman of Shambala uh who coordinated the sale

[108:01] of this property for the organization that during their ownership the house did serve primarily as a Housing Development and this the residents were students of Shambala teaching so again we have a track record on this property on this site of a hundred years A Century of use as for rent housing next slide please this gives you a sense of the condition that we received the property in uh back in 2019 um there has been a a number of questions that we fielded over the the last two years as we've been working on getting approval to reconfigure the inside about precisely what the building is like and I think there's a lot of mistake from the outside uh um about the building and we just wanted to share some context for what the the property is as it sits today next slide

[109:00] please um the the property and the challenges we've had as a team as we've been looking at it is it's essentially seen a very long uh life as a high-intensity group home first as a fraternity um and then latest uh for the last 40 years as a group home setting um during that period actually from the beginning of time on this property uh it has been a a poster child for deferred maintenance and just kind of halfhazard uh shortsighted uh improvements uh to all aspects of the building and building systems uh and most importantly as it relates to the the decision before you this evening the property is still configured today as it was designed a century ago to to be a fraternity um there are as Sloan mentioned several very large interior uh social spaces big party rooms and a series of decks and outdoor patio spaces that we aspire to

[110:03] remove uh in reconfiguring the interior uh to make it more compatible with the surrounding uses next slide please so our plan is to deintensified uh we are going in proposing as as Tom Carr suggested to reduce our rental license not just from the historic high but from the current of 50 we are proposing to reduce it down to 48 uh we aspire to convert a highly problematic group home to a much more conventional multif family use that's reflective of the market today and of the need for housing at the University um our plan supports the comp plan goals of creating walkable neighborhoods uh preser ation of buildings that are important to the community and that have historical value the ReUse of existing structures and also very much so uh greenhouse gas reduction both through

[111:01] preserving an existing building but also putting housing in close proximity to the university and and a walking environment uh we're also very mindful of cu's Flagship 2030 plan uh which anticipates and is is driving towards an increase in number of graduate students new professors and students across the university right now as you are intimately familiar there's a significant housing imbalance on the hill and we believe that there is a need for very high quality very well-managed housing that addresses the grad student market and those students who don't want to live in a party house or in a flop house type environment that there are too many of today um to that end we aspire to attract the best possible tenants uh we are very excited and have a a very aggressive plan to restore this building back to its original 1920s condition we worked very closely

[112:00] with the the city's preservation team and the landmarks board um and lastly and we'll speak to this again uh our goal is to educate our residents help the people who live in our property understand their role in the community and the the dynamic that exists between their tency and the neighbors who call this home and where there are conflicts or you know where there are issues we fully intend to be accountable for those and we take that very seriously next slide please so in the last two years um we have uh participated in the landmark um process for this building uh many of you are are familiar uh through your approval of of the landmarking application um that was unanimous approved um this landmarking effort was initiated on this project in a in a very unconventional manner um the owner of

[113:00] the property and the purchaser who was under contract at the time hus uh nobody was told that this was being nominated uh for a landmarking process um so we uh took a very tough situation that was put up upon the project in the middle of a transaction to purch it on a hurry up basis to help out Shambala um and we turned that around and worked very closely with the landmark board and with uh the city's preservation staff who we have a tremendous amount of respect and support for and uh we have developed a plan that received a unanimous vote from The Landmark board for our alteration certificate so we have a valid alteration certificate that has looked at every single change that we're proposing to the bill building and it's been unanimously supported um as Sloan mentioned we have uh earned staff support for this project it meets the requirements of the city code and we

[114:01] have worked extremely closely uh with Sloan and her team over the last two years to get to that point and again uh to reiterate as you all know we did after 10 and a half hours of of public process uh before the planning board receive a unanimous 70 approval for the project next slide please um we are true Partners in this and we take that commitment very seriously and we take that positioning very seriously uh when we first purchased the project as I mentioned uh Shambala was in need uh to close the project much more quickly than we originally had in our contract uh we accommodated their needs and we closed the project quickly and in so doing we gave the existing residents of the building building at that time 90 days of free rent as I mentioned we shared uh the landmark or we participated in the landmarking process that was unconventionally put upon us um and and

[115:02] turn that into a great win both for for the building for the community and for the project as a whole um excuse me we've also hosted uh numerous mult uh numerous neighborhood meetings um countless one-on-one tours of the property uh more conference calls with neighbors and and folks than you could imagine um we have drafted the city's most comprehensive strict and enforcable good neighborhood agreement uh we worked very closely uh during the planning Board review process with the city attorney's office to structure 24 separate conditions on this project um I think that may make it the most conditioned project of its type in the city um and then we have also you know minimized the rental of the building for the two years that we have been um in this process to gain approval to make

[116:00] the interior reconfiguration that we believe makes it appropriate and I just want to point out on that last point in addition to uh not taking advantage of the situation where we could have rented it out and its current condition which we did not believe would be you know beneficial for the neighborhood uh rather than simply let the building sit idle uh we have worked closely with Boulder Police Department and uh accommodated a series of SWAT team trainings this past winter and uh well before the the tragic events that struck the community uh but we have a very close working relationship with them in fact tomorrow we're hosting uh Boulder County Sheriff's Department for K9 training and certification in the building while it's vacant at the moment next slide please um so to highlight I I won't spend a ton of time on this since Sloan already covered it um but I do just want to note uh against the historic use and the grandfathered use of this building

[117:01] our parking reduction um that Tom mentioned we have uh agreed to a reduction from the 150 on street parking uh stalls or or uses that are permitted today uh down to 12 and we have increased our off street parking from 6 to 9 we have also undertaken an an extensive uh indoor conditioned and highly secure well-lit bike parking uh garage where we're increasing the on-site bike parking from 10 to 60 um and we are also under our lease agreement and our our Good Neighbor agreement requiring all residents to provide their vehicle information to sign a parking contract contract and we will share that information uh with the city manager's office to support enforcement of the parking reduction that we've agreed to on the resident

[118:00] side uh this was an issue that was discussed at length with planning board uh we have agreed to an absolute maximum occupancy of 48 individuals uh we have on-site management who will be there uh to take care of any issues we also as I mentioned have full-time Professional Management staff that are available 24 7 and they all live within one mile of the facility we also have a full-time uh management office that is located on the hill where we have full-time professional staff that are available should there be any issues requiring immediate attention our quiet hours are from 7 am until 10 pm and on weekends 00 am until 11: PM uh this is again more restrictive than any of our our you neighboring or peer properties on the hill but we believe that that's appropriate and we've agreed to it and we think that it's entirely consistent with the type of Resident that we would like to see uh in this property uh similarly the marketing plan

[119:00] we agreed with the planning uh board to uh present our marketing plan to the city manager for approval uh prior to building permits uh being uh issued for this property again I am not sure of another project in the city uh where this has ever been uh considered or conditioned but we're happy to do it because our intended use to both increase the diversity of residents who are living there the accessibility and inclusivity of the property for renters and to attract the most mature residents that's our intent and we believe that the you know sharing our marketing intention and plan for that with the city manager for approval is is perfectly consistent with where we want to go and if it you know it's it's the right thing to do on this one uh We've similarly responded uh or or changed our response time uh to complaints that are raised by the city from five days which

[120:00] is the standard for all other properties in the city down to two and again we've bolstered our good neighborhood agreement significantly next slide please on the good neighborhood agreement U when we were working through this process with City staff we asked staff to provide us with the city's prior best example the most comprehensive most strict most robust uh Good Neighbor agreement that existed and we built from there um so everything that has existed in the city's prior most restrictive that was our starting point uh We've also introduced a very in Innovative program uh where we intend to educate our student residents about their role in the community and their Dynamic coming into what a lot of people have is their home and their long-term residential uh community and neighborhood U the people who are living here or who may be attending the university working at the University new to the area we want them to understand that that this is an

[121:02] existing neighborhood into which they're a vibrant player and and a great contributor but they're not living in an island or in a bubble or free to do as they wish at the expense of others um lastly we are committed and in every way shape or form and I think staff both from the preservation team through the planning team and everybody that we've worked with will tell you should you ask the question this team is 100% committed to doing the right thing we've been extremely accommodating and and eager participants in a process to get to where we have and to earn the the unanimous support of of planning board on this after such a long and deliberate process next slide please lastly um this project is and again kind of per the bbcp and and to the values of the entire team we didn't want it to go unoted that

[122:01] this project is a huge environmental win for the community uh has one of the highest walk scores uh in the area we've got great access to to nearby Transit from a bicyclist standpoint um it's about as good as it gets into terms of proximity to riding and proximity to the university and to downtown uh as I mentioned this is a creative adaptive reuse of an existing structure we're bringing much needed Housing close to the university and where people work uh the traffic study has concluded uh we are reducing vehicle trips on this property by nature of the type of housing we're providing and where it is approximate to the university uh we are adding significant indoor bike parking that's safe secure and raises the bar for projects of this type and we're doing all of this while we're replacing very outdated and dilapidated building mechanical systems we are going to

[123:00] extraordinary length to to do all of this in the construct of the the landmark of the building and to do so in a way where we're preserving for example the wooden original wooden window structures and the window patterns and rhythms into bring back aspects of the building that were uh kind of halfhazard uh evolved out over the years but we're bringing it back to its original conditions original materiality colors a and this project when it's finished will be something that really will be a treasure for the entire city and in so doing it will be completely compatible with the city's smart RG standards which is an exceptional feat for historic restoration of project of this scale last slide please so lastly we again we understand we've heard we're extremely empathetic and receptive to the range of of very

[124:00] emotional pleas from Neighbors who have uh shared their views on this project with us from the beginning uh we have been open to it and and we get where they're coming from I would urge you as you're considering the project tonight that's before you to keep perspective on the fact that this is a building that has been here in continuous operation as rental housing for people who are students and or affiliated with this University at CU or with naropa for a hundred years for a hundred years this building has operated in complete compatibility with Neighbors in terms of parking traffic use residents tenants it in in every single aspect and we understand that change is often an emotional thing evokes an emotional response um fortunately for the city and for you in deliberating about the

[125:00] approval of this process there is code that guides these types of projects so that the considerations are based on the code and whether or not the project meets the letter and spirit of the code and not just you know the emotional concerns of others who who may have an OB C to it and again I I just want to let you know if you can go to the last slide please uh we do hear the concerns we've been incredibly responsive and receptive to them as long-term owners and operators it is 100% in our interest to be aligned with the neighbors to have great tenant here to preserve our investment and take care of this property at the highest level given that we are going to be investing millions and millions of dollars in the historic rest restoration to repair a hundred years of deferred maintenance on it and we really are committed to delivering this along with our other projects uh in a manner that is compatible and and

[126:00] contributes at a high level to the city as as a whole and certainly to the neighbors and uh and and with that I will turn it over to you or turn it back to you we' be happy to field any questions or comments uh from you thank you thank you very much for the presentation um Bob I actually have two questions one for the applicant and one for the staff if that's okay first for the applicant um as I asked previously of of Tom car whether it would be per permitted permissible for um the city and the applicant to agree in the Good Neighbor agreement to operate this building as a single entity for purposes of code violations and nuisance abatement is that if it's not already in the Good Neighbor agreement is that something that the applicant would willing to consider including in Good Neighbor agreement uh that is not something that we are uh frankly you know very

[127:00] amendable to and and the reason I I say that is a couple of fold one um where there are issues that come up with a complaint we have been extremely responsive in our other properties we have an outstanding track record in that that regard uh and we are committed to being you know completely on top of this in every single aspect of the good neighborhood agreement and and uh and our operating plan for the property is consistent with that I I don't feel it's appropriate to put it in a situation where it could be subject to a series of of calls that might be more general or that might have other motivations than remedying a specific uh ACC issue and and have that put the entire project in Peril in a way that isn't uniformly applied to similar properties around the

[128:00] area Okay um staff a question slan question that um to make sure that I understood something from your presentation did you say that um uh that without um City approval this property could be operated as a fraternity do I understand correctly they could apply to do an administrative substitution of use so through that process they could demonstrate that based on the occupancy that the operational characteristics would be similar and that would be an administrative process it would not go through a discretionary review thank you son that's all I had great thank you Bob next I see Mark and then Adam Mark yeah a couple of questions um first can you talk to me about the onsite management um is that going to be a third-party independent firm is it going to be an employee of uh

[129:00] your company or is it going to be a student getting a break on rent um in exchange for services that's a great question I and I very much appreciate you're asking it so we have all of our properties including this one are managed by our management company these are full-time paid professional staff who are on the spot managers like I said we have a leasing office and a management office on the hill that includes full-time maintenance Personnel uh for the properties and so we do not Farm out the management of this to any third parties we take that responsibility very seriously we do it with our own Personnel the we will have an office at this site that will be staffed and we will staff it with professional staff or appropriate resource that's responsible and and receptive to any sort of issue that should come up and I I do want to

[130:01] mention since you uh asked the question and I think it's a a very important one to discuss there has been question about whether or not we could designate a a unit for a manager or designate a student for to be a manager and in our EXP that is a a not great practice uh for a property like this because it it erodes the authority figure role and creates an an undesirable peer pressure Dynamic um that doesn't really meet the objective of having an on-site manager which is to be responsive to any concerns or complaints either of residents or of neighbors so we take that very seriously we understand the spirit of it and we're committed to doing it right well that on-site presence be 247 or 9-5 uh it'll be it is not intended to be a residential person um the hours of it have not yet been set uh but as I shared

[131:01] we have people that are available on call 247 who are residents in the immediate proximity of this area our furthest one right now is four blocks from here uh who is available as I said 247 should there be any issue and and lastly on that every single one of our buildings has on the exterior a number and a website where somebody if they have a complaint or a concern can call and reach that manager so should a neighbor have a noise complaint or trash complaint we're available and responsive immediately you you have agreed to respond within two days as opposed to five days to a complaint how is that Germain to a noise complaint which will be two days gone by the time somebody responds that's a that's a great question and I appreciate the chance to

[132:00] clarify that the the two days versus five days was an issue that was brought up it was a technical issue that was brought up uh at the planning board and it was not in response to a noise complaint or anything like that it was rather in the uh City's process or the city manager's process for fielding a an ongoing complaint or responding to a summons that's issued to a property um there is a standard that any landlord in the city who receives such a complaint has five days to respond uh to the city manager and to be to show up and be responsible for that we agreed in the spirit of being much more responsive to a a shorter period uh planning suggested two days as as being their their preferred period and we agreed to that well then how will you respond to a complaint at 11 o'clock at night of excessive noise so there there that's a

[133:01] again great question so there are two ways we respond to it one actually three first response is if somebody calls us with a noise complaint we will immediately dispatch one of our full-time people there and as I said we answer our phones 247 and there are property managers Within four blocks of this site who will show up and deal with it if it's a more serious issue or a complaint involving noise or anything else that requires an immediate response outside of a s a property manager anybody is welcome to call the police department when we find that there has been a noise complaint that has required a police response then the tenants who caused that uh are held accountable for and that mechanism is is both in the lease which has been reviewed by staff was part of the approval process as well as uh being responsible to the city manager in terms of any complaints against the property or against

[134:00] individual units well unfortunately our standard our standard for response is greater and more stringent than any other property on the hill presently one one of our ex colleagues uh Jan Burton has made the suggestion that in order to avoid um noise complaints we build into the Good Neighbor agreement that this is a 24hour uh quiet property would you be prepared to do that I there's the quiet hour uh period that we have proposed is one that we came to with the city attorney's office and that we believe is entirely consistent with the neighborhood now we are aware you know for example there are not such similar constraints on Miss Burton's house which has a short-term Airbnb

[135:00] residence rental license and which can be used for for example a group of people want to come in and party for a homecoming weekend we want to make sure that there's an equitable use preserve but I want to assure each of you we are 100% committed to doing this right and to being responsive as we have been with our other properties for years well with all with all due respect Miss Burton does not have a history of uh noise complaints or noise violations which is not the case uh unfortunately with much of our student population I have only one more question um and I don't mean to look into your pockets but I have to ask you have stated that these apartments are going to be available to and attractive to graduate students and families um so may I ask since uh they're each being rented as a three-bedroom unit um what kind of rates are you going to be charging are they going to permit

[136:00] families and graduate students to actually live there or they going to be out of reach for anyone other than three students contributing to the total rent so if you tell me that they're renting you know for $3500 a month um there will be no families renting them probably no graduate students or faculty so can you give me an indication of where they the rental rates are going to be absolutely the rental rates will be these are are intended to be market rate Apartments um they will be rented at the the rate that's consistent in the neighborhood and with our Pure properties given that this is a brand new or will be a brand new construction at at the highest level um we anticipate that they will you know will bring a a a decent rent in terms of what the exact numbers are given that you know kind of best case scenario if we receive approval and able to pull our permits we're two to three years out from being

[137:01] able to sign a lease I I would it would be irresponsible of me to suggest a number particularly in this covid era where there's so much uncertainty are you telling me you have never proformed the rental income from this property you would be the first developers in the history of development to have ever done so I I can tell you that that all the pro forers in the world could not forecast the the escalation of construction cost and materials that we've seen in the last month that would have thrown any projections we made two years ago completely out the window okay I I understand you're not going to answer that question so I'm not going to take up more Council time with it thank you thank you thank you Mark next we have Adam and then Mary Adam thanks Sam Mark took my first question uh so I'm going to ask one of Staff real quick um I'm pretty sure this doesn't uh this project wouldn't require any

[138:01] on-site affordable housing units or any cash and L fees um is that accurate they would be paying cash and L oh they they do plan on paying cash and Le yes Adam I'm I'm happy to speak to that our our cash and L payment on this property will be uh nearly $600,000 okay um yeah I'm I'm also a little concerned about not having even a a broad spectrum of possible rental rates I'll say that much um because that very much dictates who is able to live in the property um so I'll just offer that as well thanks for that question mark Market r i mean thank you Adam Mary thank you Sam um I have just one question as my questions have been already mostly As asked by my colleagues

[139:00] um so you are as as part of one of the conditions you're developing a marketing plan I'm wondering um where and to what kinds venues will you Market the marketing plan in that's a great question um so one of the things that we have uh talked with planning board about specifically when this question came up was would we set up a separate website for example to showcase the property and and yes we would um the one of the Dynamics right now on the hill and a across any type of of housing in that entire part of town is there's such an imbalance of demand to supply that students when they have identified a nice well-managed property come to us you know very quickly and

[140:00] same with graduate students and other other people who are interested in it we anticipate that'll be the case with this property because when it is done it will be hands down the nicest highest quality most attractive building and well-managed in this part of town period and full stop and that includes a strict management process that will distinguish it from all of the existing party type houses that are up there and that have been so problematic to this part of town our goal with this project is to reset a high bar for what this type of housing should be in this part of the community we would not invest the type of money we're investing to restore a Historic Landmark if our intent was to let it be overrun you know with a bunch of Rowdy and entitled college kids who are you know intent on being a nuisance that's that is antithetical to what this

[141:01] project is about thank you so what I hear you saying is that you will have a marketing plan but the property will mainly Market itself due to its location and um condition so we will have a a thorough marketing plan that anticipates where the market will be who it will speak to how it's positioned it will be separate and discreet from the other properties in the portfolio it will have its own dedicated website and when that plan is created we will present it to seek the input of Staff in the city manager's office for compliance as we have agreed already and if approved by the city manager's office uh and as being acceptable to meet the community objectives then we'll we'll proceed with that plan and stick to it and it's worth noting this project is is incredibly unique in that uh the planning board in

[142:00] this condition that we've worked with the city attorney's office on we believe is the first where our building permits cannot be issued for this property until our marketing plan has been approved by the city manager's office as acceptable to meeting the community objectives for this property again it's a very unique condition for a property of this type we're unaware of any others like it certainly in this neighborhood or anywhere else in the city that have such a requirement but again in the spirit of doing the right thing we're committed to doing it and we're we're pleased to engage with the city manager's office to make sure it's acceptable thank you you're welcome thank you Mary I do not see any other question questions um with that I think we're ready to go to the public hearing unless Council has any other input before then great seeing none let's move on to the public hearing um let me pull this

[143:02] up and then say a few words um because we have 45 people signed up to speak tonight um it will be 2 minutes per speaker to pool time under the rules for tonight it takes three speakers um to agree to have one person speak for them sorry three people who have signed up to have one person speak for them and that person will have four minutes to speak there are a few notations here that have four people pooling time together um that does not give any extra time so for the folks who are lower down on the list pooling with four people that's not necessary um the rules for pooling are that when the person who's called to speak um who is pooling uh we will ask to see that the other two people are um present in the meeting in order to give

[144:00] four minutes to the pooled speaker so those are the ground rules and um to test them out uh our first Speaker Doug Burton is pooling with cie Wyant and Victoria John's um and then after Doug we have Diana Gonzalez Burton and Ralph goth and so I'll turn to um Ryan and say Ryan we're ready for Doug as long as cie and Victoria are in the meeting thank you um I'm confirming that cie and Victoria are in the meeting and Doug you will be able to unmute yourself now thank you my name is Doug buron I live directly across across the street from the marpa house at uh 87012 street I'll address several issues but first I need to address some things in the last presentation first of all don't be fooled that the intent with this building is anything but to fill it with

[145:01] students they all but admitted that in this process they said they fill up their student rentals a year in advance and that does not that means no families the professors are going to commit that far in advance to the marketing plan that not going to really do anything second uh the planning board said the on-site management should be day and night I have to assume that means 247 and if you go that route that's what you should require third about D intensifying use uh from 75 to 50 to 48 this is a problem with using uh not paper occupancy opposed to real occupancy we've proved that the actual occupancy at the unit at the property was no more than 3 36 people for the last couple decades and maybe for the whole Mara use so it's not going down from 50 to 48 it's going up from at most 36 to 48 and it's comparing

[146:04] uh Buddhist centered people with University students uh next I think uh you should require that people give their address when they speak because last time lot of people spoke who were not from this neighborhood uh next I ask that you keep an open mind and seriously consider denying this application outright as a majority of the planning board was close to doing you can't make the determinations under the code criteria you have to do that uh since your review is denovo you're essentially being asked to put your name on what the staff memo said as justification the findings of facts analysis of criteria all those conclusions become yours and as one example of problems with the staff memo And discussing the uh Factor related to the um one of the criteria or two of the

[147:01] criteria the staff member member memo says that a large student apartment in the middle of this neighborhood is compatible with and will not change the character of the neighborhood and they pointed to a map with some non-conforming uh Residential Properties and uh suggested that there were apartments and fraternities and and multi-dwelling units you if you look at those properties they're all single family homes that are are duplexes so putting a student apartment in this building would definitely change the um uh the character of this neighborhood and I I sent you uh evid evence of proving that last thing I want to address is this fraternity use issue I totally disagree with the staff's interpretation of the law changing from a boarding house to a fraternity is a substitution of one non-conforming use

[148:02] for another one regardless of their practices in the past the code says what you have to do in that situation you have to go through an analysis about related to the non-conforming use so that analysis is is completely wrong I sent you a memo with that full analysis to refute what the city attorneys are telling you now finally denial would not mean that the uh well what it would would mean is that the developer would have to come up with a new approach he could work with the neighborhood and come up with approaches that might work for everyone and then the neighborhood Consolidated comments we made a suggestion about one of those so I urge you to deny the application so we can explore those other Alternatives thank you thank you Doug next we have Diana Gonzalez burden Rolph kth and David Ruiner and it appears that Ralph is not in the meeting Ralph if you are in the

[149:01] meeting please let us know um through the Q&A function and with that Diana you are up good evening uh my name is Diana Burton and I live at 87012 Street um in 20 2014 we bought into a single family neighborhood the marpa house across the street was a quiet contemplative Buddhist centered group home it was a little unusual but was consistent with single family homes um they shared a kitchen they ate together shared chores in many ways lived as a single family we along with neighbors who have lived with the mara house for decades expected this non-conforming use or something similar to continue we never expected that it could be replaced by an apartment building for 48 undergrad students so it seems that one purpose of zoning laws is to govern expectations of property owners and to

[150:00] maintain compatible living situations um allowing a new outof character use to replace a use that that was compatible with the neighborhood really undermines the zoning laws and importantly the expectations of the homeowners so the neighborhood opposition as you will have seen is nearly Universal um we prepared a summary of the nearly 300 pages of individual comments submitted to staff we submitted Consolidated neighborhood comments to the planning board and Consolidated comments to you assigned by 110 households representing about 175 individuals who live in the area around the around the property we've put forth facts on occupancy parking traffic and the impact on the neighborhood we feel that we haven't been heard these comments reflect the view that the Baseline for your consideration of Maintenance or reduction of non-conforming use should be the actual use over the last four plus Decades of the marpa

[151:00] house so you know tonight I think you expressed concern of safeguarding the investment of the developer but didn't Express concern for safeguarding the value of the neighboring the neighboring homes um which we think is critical we think you should deny at the very least significantly strengthen the the conditions as it appears that unfortunately it will be up to the neighborhood to enforce thank you Diana thank you appreciate it your time is up um next up we have David Riner Diana Veri and Stacy Silverstein Apple Stacy does not appear to be in the meeting Stacy if you are in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A box and with that we'll go to David okay hello can you hear me we can great my name I'm David Razer uh 7651 14th Street Hill resident for 22 years I serve on the yaa design re Review

[152:01] Committee and have been active in various uni efforts uh ever since around 2004 we hope you've been able to review the packages that uh Doug and Diana uh mentioned uh from unit and the neighbors the information uh provided attempts to correct errors in fact and errors in interpretation and clarify the Neighbors near unanimous opposition to the application to expand this non-conforming use at the markah house building I want to just stress a couple of key points while there have been other instances of conversion of boarding housee uses to multif family use on uni Hill some by this developer uh but none of them have been located in the heart of the low density permanent resident part of the neighborhood and all of those cases involved highly occupied nuisance properties this is none of that those New Uses typically resulted in a reduction of non-conformity fewer bedrooms reduced occupancy or at worst

[153:00] no change in occupancy yaa has supported most all of those applications as they resulted in not only physical improvements to the sites and buildings but also Improvement in management of those properties however this application represents an expansion of a non-conforming use and fails to meet the requirements of city code the application and staff analysis is full of inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of the previous use and impact of the proposed use previous use for the last 43 years was not a 50 person boarding house or any form of fraternity it was a contemplative group residence with a maximum occupancy of 36 persons usually far less the staff's Reliance on the potential use versus the actual use is simply not appropriate further an application of noning use must show that all of the very specific

[154:02] requirements David I'm sorry we go go ahead and finish your sentence please I just said Yuna and the design Review Committee respectfully ask that approval of this app be denied thank you David next we have diil um and then Mark Meyer and elen Mooney I will check in if Stacy Silverstein Apple Janice stenbuck or Thomas Mooney are in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A box and with that Diana V you are up great thank you my name is Diana ver and I've been a resident of the Hill for 22 years and live at 7651 14th Street we love our home and our neighborhood and prize its historic character and mix of residence the expansion of this

[155:01] non-conforming use is wholly incompatible with the character of the neighborhood there are many alternatives to redevelop the property property that would result in a reduction in nonconformity or maybe better said an increase in compatibility imagine for example a multi-unit residential condominium project with fewer units and beds housing 36 seniors benefiting from communal areas with a percentage of units reserved for affordable housing the neighborhood would support that sort of Redevelopment and it would be economical for the developer the developer did not even attempt to work with the neighbors to create a plan that would be palatable the planning board has tried to force that via approving the application with conditions however the conditions are inadequate to overcome the incompatibility of the project with the

[156:02] surrounding neighborhood adding 16 three-bedroom units in this low density single family community will have a devastating effect on Neighbors in the immediate area and will bring deterioration and encroachment of more conversions to student rentals this neighborhood is a treasure of architecturally significant buildings and a wonderful place to live for the folks who call at home please correct the improper decision made by the planning board and reject this application thank you thank you Diana next we have Mark Meyer Thomas money and alen Mooney and I'll say again if Stacy apple or Janice stenbuck is in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A box and with that Mark Meyer you are up I know you did it it's fine good evening uh my name mayor Weaver and City

[157:01] Council Members thanks for the opportunity my name is Mark Meyer I have lived um at 1177 Cascade for 22 years which is just on the south side of the same block as the former marpa house um at the end of the day the fun Al question you need to answer as pointed out by staff in their memo on page 12 uh and paraphrasing is a proposed project reasonably compatible with and will it have an impact on the use of nearby properties are the proposed operating characteristics appropriate and do they adequately address concerns regarding noise Etc will the proposal change the predominent character of the surrounding area clearly in my view in the view of everyone that you will hear tonight and all the neighbors and the larger neighborhood the answer is that this project will have a material negative impact it's therefore incumbent upon you to deny the project um if you're really

[158:00] concerned about Council if you're really concerned about protecting the neighborhood and preventing the kinds of problems we've seen just recently on the hill and the ongoing issues just a few blocks to the east of us and you're familiar with what's going on on 14th and 15th Street um then um urge you to deny the application originally I was going to suggest that maybe strengthening conditions would be an option but after listening to The applicant's Proposal I don't believe a word they've said and therefore I urge you to deny outright we'll take our chances with the next step but clearly this project is the wrong project in this neighborhood it'll have it negative impact on the neighbors and the surrounding area this is a forever decision it's a a watershed moment for the University Hill Neighborhood and for you city council uh thank you for your consideration thank you Mark next we have Thomas money alen money and Jay madon

[159:03] Thomas Thomas is calling in Thomas you'll need to press star six to un hello can this is Thomas Mooney can you hear me we can um I respectfully would ask the city council to deny approval of this project uh the initial presentations uh to the planning board met with uh disapproval and only after uh innumerable uh conditions that are either unenforceable or perhaps even unlawful uh did the planning board put forth uh this to city council um with the original uh plan which is what currently you're being uh presented with uh it does have a major impact and increased impact on the surrounding home community and uh actually increases the non-conformity that uh the guidelines say should be uh uh

[160:04] reduced at the very least so um thank you very much for your time thank you Thomas next we have elen Mooney Jame madon and Mark painter who is pooling and Mark I'll give you the heads up that you seem to be pooling with three and you only need two and with that we'll go to alen Mooney star six you're you're unmuted you can just speak if you hit star six again you may have REM muted yourself um have I've muted Thomas um elen you are able to yourself and speak now thank you elen you're able to speak you'll just need to unmute

[161:09] yourself can you hear me now we can okay I'd like to seed my time to leave Spalding um is she not here or well she probably is here would be my guest um you don't need to seed your time to her um well then I'll I'll just say a couple words um I think the biggest problem with this project is that it is uh 16 separate uh apartments in an area that is uh single family and um that in itself is really uh vastly different than having a community that lives together whether that's the sorority or the halfway house or the previous uh um the previous uh tenants who lived

[162:03] there who lived in a communal uh fashion unlike 16 separate Apartments thank you thank you elene next we have Jay madon Mark painter who's pooling and Jordan Bunch who's pulling Jordan I'll also give you the heads up that you appear to be pulling with three plus you you only need two plus you Jay Madson you are up you're able to speak can you hear me we can oh thank you thank you good evening uh my name is Jay Matson I live at 1101 Aurora Avenue and I've lived here for 28 years uh we have a wonderful neighborhood and I am against this development because it's taking a non-conforming building into making it into a more non-conforming bu development um and I'd like to make

[163:01] three points one it's making it into a density bomb in our neighborhood it's going to have adverse effect on everyone here with the parking um everything that they're proposing is going to be a negative aspect to our neighborhood my second point is I agree with a uni Hill letter that was sent to you in entirety uh and the third point I wanted to make is is that we've we had a bad Riot on the hill of almost two months ago there's many angry people on the hill and there's many issues that need to be resolved on the hill and it's one of the issues is density of college kids we need to have a big discussion about that and frankly I don't think any there should be any approval of any projects than increase the density in anywhere in the Hill area that um will bring those proms from the lower Hill to the Upper Hill and um I appreciate the time and I definitely want the project not to go forward thank you very much thank you

[164:01] Jay um next we have Mark painter Jordan bunch and suelen Harrison all pooling so Mark you are good to go as soon as Ryan tells me that two of your three pooling partners are here I am confirming uh that two are here to pull with Mark two are also here to pull with Jordan and two are here to pull with Su okay super so Mark you're good to go with four minutes great thank you uh again this is Mark painter I'm an attorney with Allen in Hart here in Boulder uh right across the street from the um city building I'm representing a number of clients who uh live adjacent to the development my clients would obviously prefer a denial but council did make clear you are more likely to approve with modified conditions so as our plan B I forwarded to you last night proposed modifications

[165:01] to the criteria as a red line and a clean and I think uh there's been some reference to those already but I hope you have them now because I can't put them up on the screen for you so um I sent them to you and allow me to walk through those uh with you these are conditions that the neighbors have been working on um to help tighten up the conditions that were put together uh after the the planning board meeting first under uh Roman numer at one of the parking section staff recommended eight not 12 off-site parking permits which is more consistent with the historic use uh 12 spaces will put a burden on an already tight parking situation ation in the area as to uh numer at five of the parking section the parking conditions were developed by planning board late at night a bit on the fly with a lot of speculation and no one from Parking Services involved planning board only

[166:01] wanted a very limited number of on Street Parkers to minimize the impacts under the criteria so they devised a separate system where the applicant will issue and manage his own permits for parking on the city streets unfortunately that didn't account for the separate neighborhood parking program which could allow even more tenant parking through its second car guest and visitor passes in order to get around the maximum cars permitted our Clause solves that problem in Roman numer at eight of the parking conditions we added as we do in a number of places a requirement of at least annual reporting of the information required under the conditions in order to promote ongoing compliance by the applicant Mr day has stated over and over tonight that the developer committed to all of the conditions which are the strictest ever quote period full stop if that's the case the developer needs to be willing to submit the reports and information required by the conditions regularly so

[167:00] the city and in many cases the neighborhood Representatives can have real enforcement opportunities that's why in condition 12 of the parking conditions we added that license plates and corresponding permits without owner names we don't need those be provided to the neighborhood designes so that compliance with permits will happen the city has said it will not engage in active enforcement of the conditions this is a critical point that gets missed in a lot of the presentations it will not enforce the project separate permits except on complaint nor will it enforce the conditions except on complaint that won't work unless the neighborhood can verify compliance by permites and periodic performance solves or periodic reporting solves the other problem which is you cannot expect the city's staff which is already stretched to be asking for reports on a regular basis we need to require the developer to do that

[168:00] looking at quiet hours in section three the applicant is represented that it would not permit these outdoor sound systems at any time so this prohibition should be at all times uh in paragraph 4D regarding on-site management that issue's already been addressed regarding paragraph six we added this to clarify that the good neighbor statement and parking agreement requirements cannot be modified or eliminated over time in a way that diminishes the requirements uh of the conditions in paragraph seven on nuisance abatement I respectfully disagree with Mr Carr if nuisance abatement goes tenant by tenant or apartment by apartment that enforcement of the conditions against lack management or problematic tenants is not going to be possible the city has the ability to interpret that provision and make it a requirement we believe the modifications are reasonably consistent the neighborhood just needs the enforcement tools to actually work in a way that ensures the applicants commitments are as Perpetual as the

[169:00] development's impacts are going to be on the neighborhood thank you thank you Mr painer Mark um next we have Jordan Bunch suelen Harrison and Lynn seagull Jordan um we've already confirmed that your pooling partner are here in the meeting so you have four minutes great thank you um good evening my name is Jordan Bunch I'm also an attorney with Holland and Hart representing a number of property owners who live adjacent to this project uh Mark just walked you through some proposed revisions to the conditions um should you choose to proceed with approval but I want to be clear that our position is that this application should not be approved under the clear terms of the code this project is zoned low density residential and large student apartment buildings are not permitted in that zone under the code now other uses are permitted but if and only if they meet the following criteria the particular use is demonstrated to be appropriate in the proposed location a

[170:00] change in a non-conforming use would not adversely affect the traffic and the environment of the surrounding area and the change would reduce the degree of non-conformity now as I'll discuss none of those criteria are met here I'd like to start with the third and most crucial point which is that this application can only be approved if the change would reduce the degree of non-conformity the fundamental issue here is the use of the 50 person unused rental license as the basis for analyzing the non-conforming use that is not consistent with the law or the facts I need to challenge the characterization of the code that was made earlier this evening section 10320 does not state that the occupancy level is set by the license across the board rather it says that acceptance of the rental license is a waiver of claims for excess occupancy in this case no one is claiming um excess uh occupancy in excess of 50 nor does the provision have anything to do with or override the provisions of a non-conforming use review and this may be why that

[171:01] provision was never raised by the city in any hearing until this evening now and a permitted you if you think about it a permitted use from over 40 years ago should not supersede the actual historical use for the last 43 years the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized this proposition and held that an owner's rights quote were to be determined by the actual use made of his property prior to the zoning rather than by any state or city licenses that he may have obtained the basis for comparison should be the actual historical occupancy of 35 people not an unused decades old 50 person rental license the goal is to move properties closer to compliance and away from non-compliance this is cified in both code section 9215 f as well as in case law which is held that non-conforming uses should be reduced to conforming as speedily as possible and zoning ordinances should be interpreted strictly against allowing indefinite continuation of non-conforming use this

[172:00] application unequivocally moves the property away from compliance additionally non-conforming loses uses lose their status if abandoned for a year and to be clear the Colorado Supreme Court has not held that a complete cessation of use is required to prove abandonment the questions before you are almost identical to the issues presented in the 1990 non-conforming use review of the nearby Alpha fee house in that case the city denied the application noting that the house failed to maintain the rental license level of 43 occupants and in effect abandoned that occupancy and that is exactly what happened here in the alpha Fe case the city also correctly identified that an increase in occupancy would bring with it a number of ansers AR issues including inadequate parking and noise those as you've heard are also concerns here beyond that the use review criteria states that a project cannot cannot be approved unless it meets all not some of all of the criteria set

[173:00] forth in 9915 I'm sorry 925e and we submit that this project fails to meet a number of those criteria including the following the project must provide a direct service or convenience to the neighborhood that's not the case here it must reduce adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood this actually creates new adverse impacts it doesn't um reduce them and it must be compatible this is not compatible you've heard from the neighbors who are deeply concerned that this will create a conflict that the the city and the neighbors will have to manage in perpetuity thank you thank you Jordan next we have suel and Harrison is pooling and we've confirmed the pooling partners then we have Lyn seagull and Jim Scarboro suellen you have four minutes suellen thank you good evening my name is Sue Ellen Harrison I live at 8412 street so I'm across the street and about a house up from marpa house um

[174:01] I've seen firsthand for the last 55 years because actually I lived on uni hill before I bought this house in 1977 I've seen the negative impacts that students have had on University Hill how quickly we forget you all saw the riot you've all seen the videos of the riot that is happening because of the increased density of students I think Jay matson's comments are one you should really really take to heart it is really inappropriate and at this point in time and what's going on on the hill to dump 48 students at the corner of 12 in Aurora and facts do matter matter here there are no apartment buildings sou south of uid let alone south of Aurora this is a huge jump in terms of density and the impact on our neighborhood continuing the fact that

[175:01] facts matter the applicant would have you believe that we're a neighborhood full of rentals and students and nothing could be far from the truth despite what that map shows you there is actually only one St student rental on our block that's it one there are two other rentals they're occupied by long-term rentals one a family that have been there for years um and they're part of the fabric of our neighborhood also there was a reference to the Airbnb issues it was pretty disingenuous a couple of airbnbs in our neighborhood are seldom used by the folks own them I know the folks who own them um they even use age restrictions um and so that was really taken out of context if you're gonna look at these conditions I I really don't think we should go down that rude I'd like to

[176:01] point out very much um the response to council man the one thing that truly matters is that this address is one address for enforcement and you notice the applicant refuses to agree to that by not agreeing to that and unless Council requires that you are throwing the neighborhood under the bus there's no way that we can figure out how to complain and how to deal with 48 different depart apartments and all these different conditions finally it's important to look at Kirkland's track record there's a you know we have all these conditions that he's claiming that they're going to take care of but the fact remains if you look at my submitt 56 a.m. you'll

[177:00] see what goes on at his properties and how they've been managed there were 62 noise complaints in the time period that he picked as being a good time period for his properties there was sexual assault theft and gunshots that's not what a resp responsible landlord does and you should not put that into our neighborhood it's also interesting to note that the applicant really dodged all the hard questions that they were asked tonight um and I think that tells you a lot about you know what we can expect for the city and University Hill I know Council it's hard to say no to development but this is your legacy this is a defining moment and it's an opportunity for you to recognize what's going on in the hill and say no the property does not meet the non-conforming criteria and should be denied thank you thank you suellen next

[178:02] we have Lynn seagull Jim Scarboro and hope Mickelson Lynn well and told my word disingenuous from the very start John cookwood undermined the neighbors and the neighborhood joining with marpa house the model the model of communal homes in Boulder it is so sad my brother lived there for 10 years truna R's consort lived there and her family the the way that this place is depicted as as old and demolished and falling apart is the biggest why that was a com comfortable wonderful environment it was a model for what

[179:00] housing should be in Boulder now this guy has places up towards the intense density part of the Hill the other problem here is that this place was improp properly designed into three bedroom units each one separated out they are each rented separately so it's totally split apart and then they say that up on the hill where they're doing this other housing that they took they took away the communal areas to help the neighborhood no they took away the communal areas so that they can make Every Blessed Buck out of every bedroom possible that's what they did and that's what they did here and the communal spaces are gone so there's no sense of community for anyone of these 45 48 people living here there's not they're all disintegrated and you know where they're going to go they're going to go out to

[180:01] get away so they can have some Community out on the rest of the Hill that's what they're going to do this don't be bought by this this this is just shameful what's happened here this is a a beautiful building they just remodeled the kitchen they have communal spaces and they're taking all that away and claiming that they're doing that for the benefit of the people that live there no thank you Len thank you Len your time is up next we have Jim Scarboro hope Mickelson and Ray Boma Jim just move over please hello uh Jim garbor can you hear me we can okay thank you very much um I'm Jim Scarboro my wife Ann and I live 35 12 Street about a block and a

[181:02] half away from uphill from marpa house we've lived here for 35 years we love the neighborhood we love our neighbors uh and we are afraid that if this project is approved that we're going to it's going to deal a severe blow to to to the neighborhood as it's traditionally existed um one glaring defect to me in this application is that it's not being made by the University of Colorado it's not not being made by an agent of the university in other words we don't know what the University's needs are but the University's needs are being used to justify the project after covid who knows what's

[182:02] going to happen with University life it's very much up in the air we may not go back to full residential learning the way we did before in fact I doubt that we will and just what we'll go what we what we'll go to I don't know but it's just not right to approve this project on the belief or assumption that is to benefit the University of Colorado when the University of Colorado has many resources of its own to solve its housing problems and has got plans of its own and doesn't need marpa house so please please think of the residence of the neighborhood and deny the application thank you thank you Jim next we have hope Mickelson Ray Boma and

[183:00] rishy Raj hope very nice hi my name is Hope Michaelson and I live at 8051 13th Street on the hill I'm an engineering professor at CU and I sincerely love racting with C students that said I am acutely aware that our students are still in the process of maturing and many of them do not have enough maturity to act even in their own best interest let alone the interests of or sensitivity to their neighbors or the broader Community high density student housing Arrangements that lack 247 residential oversight such as the marpa house can reconfiguration encourages rather than curbs dangerous and disruptive immature behavior and hinders our students students and maturing into healthy successful and happy community members expanding high density student housing on the hill also does a disservice to those of us living in this neighborhood the increasing divers density of student housing is having serious negative impacts on us we have been dealing with frequent fireworks

[184:01] sometimes throughout the night causing great emotional distress litter broken glass dangerous speeding cars that don't stop as stop signs public urination threats and violence this creep of dense unsupervised student housing also has a negative impact on our city a once beautiful history Rich tourist attraction is slowly crumbling into disrepair and Decay with trashed historical homes and unruly student residences the riide of March 6 underscores the legitimate concerns of Hill residents over the proliferation of student housing in the neighborhood the current plan for non-conforming use of the mar House Pro property represents exactly the type of development that will further promote the trend the neighbors presented extensive data and legitimate concerns to the boulder planning board that were essentially ignored in its recommendations the proposed occupancy moves property further towards non-conforming use for an R1 Zone compared to the historical precedent of the past several decades I understand the desire to protect the applicant's investment we ask you to protect the financial and personal

[185:00] investment we have in our neighborhood and thus decline the application for the marpa house reconfiguration as it is thank you so much for holding this meeting and considering our concerns thank you hope next we have Ray Bomba rishy Raj and Zack gen Ray thank you can you hear me yes yes okay okay so my name is Ray Boman and I also live on 13th Street in the same neighborhood as marp house and I think we're all aware that there are that the rise of Airbnb has caused major problems in some cities to the point where we've seen City councils and communities across the country trying Des desperately to stop the expansion of Airbnb for in order to preserve long-term housing for permanent residents from the standpoint of depleting long-term housing there is essentially no difference between conversion to Airbnb or student housing and I believe that the city council

[186:00] should be just as concerned about the proliferation of student housing as other communities are about Airbnb expansion um from the standpoint of the impact on the overall neighborhood I think any any of the Neighbors on the University Hill would assert that that student rentals are much worse than airbnbs and the proposed development is is a permanent reconfiguration that that I invite you to look very carefully at the design to see that no one other than students would ever want to live in this and and at every other meeting the developers have stated unequivocally that their target their their target market is students and that their business practices essentially eliminate anybody but students in those in those apartments so so be be very careful about what you what they're saying now versus what they're saying before okay so so um I think the city council should

[187:01] be very concerned about a domino effect of conversion of other houses and if you're wondering if that's a if that's a a supportable concern I I I I assert that you should listen to what the what the um neighbors what the developer themselves said when they put up their their um map in in the fall meeting they they actually said that the future expansion of of the University would go into the low Shaka and University Hill Neighborhood thank you Ray next we have rishy Raj Zack gen and Chad Helton rishie you're able to speak just go ahead and unmute yourself please okay um you can all hear me now

[188:01] right correct go ahead yeah so my name is Rishi Raj and me and my wife live on 14 Street two blocks from marpa house and we've been here for 26 years my association with University Hill goes back 50 years believe it or not anyway so I I want to speak to three topics uh the first is u i want to present to you um a vision that I have for University Hill and for our neighborhood and uh the secondly I want to discuss the process by which this marpa house um uh issue had been uh you know shaken down and finally I want to to make a recommendation and give you a reason for my recommendation so the vision I have is that the covid has really Unleashed a total revolution in how people work they work remotely now you know there's a flight from cities to Suburbia and

[189:01] people are renting uh places in Suburbia to not to work at home but to have a place from where they can work remotely and I think the University Hill and our neighborhood are really very well positioned with lot of culture and activities and the university nearby to really take advantage of this movement and build upon it for the future so that's the vision I have now marpa house you know um you can say about this and that and all kind of restrictions but the basic problem is over stuffing students into small places you know if you put three people in one bedroom people need privacy especially in this Digital World they need to think for themselves you know you creating an explosive situation and we have all these riots and and unsocial behavior on the hill because of

[190:00] over occupancy because we are stuffing people into small places where they get on each other's backs get on each other's nerves and they explode you know so I think you can do whatever you restrictions you want but if you put three people in a bedroom you got you're inviting trouble so I think we need to be aware thank you rich thank you next we have Zack G Chad hton and Greg Baron Zack hi there thank you uh my name is Zach gen and I live on 14th Street two blocks from the marba house um I'd like to make my comment in support of 8911 12 Street um listening to other comments tonight particularly comments from older community members uh neighbors of 8911 12 Street it's clear to me that the Divide within the community of Boulder is larger than ever wealthy neighbors some of which do not even reside in Boulder are concerned that if this project goes through the values of their homes will diminish and their so-called quiet neighborhoods will be no more this

[191:01] selfish Outlook makes me pose the question when's the last time that you've stepped on campus when's the last time you've interacted with the students of the university and what have you done to improve this community the project at 89 112 Street to me is improving the community secondly let's talk about enrollment at the University next year enrollment at CU will set a record topping 35,000 students by 2025 this number will be well over 40,000 based on projections like it or not Boulder is a college town and if you think otherwise I'm sorry the students are the ones supporting your small businesses working for your stores and companies and keeping the economy of Boulder afloat there is a direct correlation between the closure of numerous business over this past year and students attending the university in person this is a great project with a great potential to improve the neighborhood and allow additional housing for students of the University this year has been full of hardship for our town let's make Boulder Community let's work together students

[192:00] and neighbors let's Foster a welcoming Community rather than one of Spite and divisiveness I'm going to end with this I know for a fact that there's a line of a dozen fraternities and sororities interested in living in this historic property if you don't want to go through with the renovation of 8912 street so be it but I guarantee you you will be much happier living in an up living next to an updated well-designed well-built and well-managed house than a massive party home city council please consider these things in accepting the proposed restoration of 8911 12 Street thank you for your time thank you Zach next we have Chad Helton Greg Baron and Bennett fishbane Chad yes yes I'm here thank you um thanks for having us tonight uh you know my name is Chad hton uh currently running a a property on 13th Street uh you know pretty close to 891 and um I'm a CU bowler lni I've been a resident on the hill for the past six years um I have

[193:00] some past work experience in Boulder um in the rental industry um myself and from what I've seen um from these projects from this team uh you know they've been able to put together you know some really great opportunities on the hill that have been really refreshing um you know that have really improved you know the rental industry in my opinion um you know they've made impressive changes to properties that were once dilapidated and run down and you know now they're gems and and I think they show good progress for the rental Community here on the hill as a whole um but in the end I highly recommend that the council take the advice of the planning board uh that unanimously voted 78 to 7even to zero approval for this restoration thanks for your time thank you Chad next we have Greg Baron been fish bean and Madison Camp Greg hey guys can you hear me yep all right so I'm a junior at CU currently and I live on 14th Street and I would like to speak in regard to 8 9112 I currently live two doors down from one of the Management's other

[194:00] projects Cedar house and can attest that the students living there in their properties are respectful and good neighbors there's been a knock uh earlier in this conversation to no sense of community when I walk outside my house every day I feel a sense of community from my neighbors who are all students because they were all respectful to each other and uh if the right residents are selected to live there the environment of having fellow CU students living next to you is unmatched and I know some of the older members in this conversation have voiced their concerns about having a younger demographic there because there is a divide currently in the community but rather than neglecting these students I think the older demographic should look at this as an opportunity to connect with them and have an and have an opportunity and reach out to some younger people living around them and I think this would be very beneficial for the city as a whole so that's all I have to say and uh thank you for your time everyone thank you

[195:00] Greg next we have Bennett fishbein Madison Kemp and Jesse Fleck Bennett yeah can you hear me yep hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak I currently live on 11th Street just a few blocks over from this location I would like to support uh voice my support for the renovation of 8911 12 Street I'm very excited at the prospect of the ash house by investing over $7 million into the property not only will this be one of the best places to live on the hill but probably one of the best places to live in Boulder I also like the fact that this property won't stick out and the existing historic structure will be will still be preserved it is far enough from the center of the Hill that it will not become a nuisance for the Neighbors all these proposed changes that others have spoken about have already been approved by the city staff and the city landmarks board so Council please follow their lead in approving this project and thank you again for your time thank you Bennett next we have Madison Kemp Jesse

[196:01] Fleck and Logan Dow to the Council of Boulder I'm Maddie Kemp and I would like to address my support for the project at 891 12th Street I am a CU Boulder student and I have lived on the hill during my entire time here at CU I truly believe that this project is a great opportunity for people living in Boulder to enjoy this community and neighborhood to the fullest not only is the hill housing extremely limited but in many cases housing can also be extremely overpriced I've personally struggled to find housing that is reasonably priced and think that the students of Boulder would be grateful for more affordable housing options the optimum location and existing property will provide a beautiful complex for residents as well as a better more updated living experience as a whole thank you for your time thank you Maddie next we have Jesse Fleck Logan da and Zachary ofner Logan we do not see you in the meeting if you are in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A

[197:02] box Jesse you are up hi my name is Jesse Fleck and thank you for the opportunity to speak as a third-year student here at CU I have experienced firsthand how difficult it can be to find housing in good condition at a reasonable price this year I lived in a house constructed in the 1920s with little to no updates or renovation done and I'm paying over $1,300 a month plus utilities as a student population of the University grows I am fearful of how this might affect pricing of housing in Boulder especially because landlords have become stagnant and comfortable with upcharging rents year after year knowing that their house will be fully leased regardless of the price or or condition of their properties if something is not done this will soon become a crisis that being said I hope that the city council can see the need for better housing in Boulder many of the best most beautiful houses on the Hill are occupied by fraternities or sororities and I would hate for 891 to turn into another party house thank you so

[198:00] much thank you Jessica um next we have Zachary ofner David gabed and Elizabeth odonnell and I'll say it one more time Logan da if you're here in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A Zachary you're up hi guys thank you for this opportunity to speak I would like to voice my support for the restoration of 891 12th Street my dad was a CBT member at Boulder and lived in this very property and speaks very highly of the space unfortunately time has weathered down this existing space but I believe that with the work of the developers and rental company this place can be restored to a great state when my dad was living in the space it was known as a rockus party house housing up to 75 Brothers at one time by decreasing the space to 48 people it not only will remove the threat of becoming another fraternity house but the common spaces simply will not allow it to become like this again I believe the management team has proven itself around the hill as they have transformed four other rundown

[199:01] properties into well-run greatl looking and low impact departments thank you again for this opportunity I hope the council will consider moving forward with the renovation of 8911 12 Street thank you Zachary next we have David gabed Elizabeth O'Donnell and Eli Rosenfeld David hi I'm David garbed I'm the owner of denu construction a general contractor in Boulder that has built um several really similar adaptive reuse projects to this um and in particular I wanted to talk about the ledges project at 985 16th Street that's at 16th in uid just a few blocks from this project uh that project was really similar to this in that it included converting an existing fraternity house into 11 three and four bedroom apartments and I think that project has been very successful and has been a really good addition to the neighborhood many of the same concerns

[200:00] were raised during the entitlement process of that project uh but to my knowledge none of them have become actual problems I'm in favor of projects like this that include updating neglected buildings to be more sustainable safe and encouraging of respectful occupant behavior on the hill thank you thank you David next we have Elizabeth odonnell Eli Rosenfeld and Lars runquist Elizabeth hello uh thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm here to give my support for the restoration and construction of 891 12th Street um as a current tenant on 10th and Pennsylvania Avenue I was shocked and upset to watch the riots that occurred in our neighborhood on March 6th reasonably so this event has painted the CU student population in a negative light and has brought up many issues regarding student housing on the hill that must be addressed I believe the owners of 8911 12 Street have the right idea on moving forward with the planned Redevelopment of this property the student population living on University

[201:00] Hill lack quality housing while paying extremely high rent the property at 891 Street can help solve this problem and simultaneously Aid in maintaining a safe and responsible neighborhood with strict management full staff on property and designated quiet hours I think that we can hold the cuu student body accountable and make this property a respectful place to live for responsible University students are equally part of this community in Boulder and deserve a safe housing in a neighborhood adjacent to campus thank you and for your time and attention to this issue I hope the council will consider moving forward with the restoration thank you Libby next we have Eli Rosenfeld Kathy young and Brad O'Neal I will put out there if Lars runquist or Sue pbau are in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A and with that you're up Eli good evening everybody thank you for the opportunity to speak this project excites me for a magnitude of reasons predominantly the proximity to campus and the beauty of the physical structure

[202:01] I believe that the steps that management have planned in preserving the existing building while also improving it are very promising it leaves less of an environmental and structural impact on the surrounding community and neighborhood I find it amazing that the building has already been landmarked and that the tenants will be able to enjoy the building for what it is the history behind the building makes it all the more special to me it has been a structural landmark and Boulder for so long in a neighborhood that is predominantly sophomore to senior students the physical location of 8912 street is very far from the main section of the hill in all honesty people don't really throw parties past 14th Street and 10th to 12th is usually grad school student I do not think it would undermine the neighborhood or the Neighbors at all for this reason that's why I don't see the residents being a Nuance such as a fraternity house or a more centrally located building this property is truly magnificent and I believe the residents and neighbors are going to see an immense amount of benefit for the renovation of 8912 Street to all the people out there

[203:01] tonight that are against this property and the renovation of this property this is the direction that the neighborhood is taking I understand that families live there but the university is expanding and so much student hous the boulder economy is dependent on us students so let's let's take an Innovative approach to how we house our students and let's continue the renovation of this property thank you thank you Eli next we have Kathy young Brad O'Neal and Anthony Burke and one last call if Lars runquist Sue pbau or Tamar Larson are in the meeting let us know in the Q&A and with that Kathy young you are up it looks like you're unmuted you'll be able to speak now hi hi there you can hear me now yes yes okay great thank you um good evening members of council um

[204:01] thank you for allowing me to speak tonight um I do want to get right to the point to show my support for the renovation of 891 12 Street actually I'm a little shocked where back here having this discussion again it would seem to me that having a developer who is willing to invest so much of his own money in making a small landmark in Boulder into a beautiful safe clean space for living why wouldn't we agree to this the alternative is a rundown dump where college kids will congregate to party I happen to have an incoming freshman to see you this fall and as my money will be going directly to that school I want to see a better more affordable living options for these kids I've followed this issue very closely and from what I can see the opposition to 891 house is coming from a very wealthy entitled neighborhood who likes to preach about diversity and equality and inclusion but they complain

[205:00] when this project might interfere with their competing rental properties or the idea that students may be their neighbors which I find to be blatant hypocrisy from what I've read from the developer side it appears they will be willingly addressing the big concerns from the neighborhood like parking and quiet hours and their Good Neighbor statement honestly can't they see that if they don't renovate this house they are going to get exactly what they fear the most with all due respect members of council I honestly don't know what more I can say there really is only one obvious choice for this matter please I urge you to allow the 891 renovation to go forward thank you I yield the rest of my time thank you Kathy next we have Brad O'Neal Anthony Burke and David Smallwood Brad I my name is Brad O'Neal thanks for the opportunity to speak um I got my uh degree in environmental design from CU in Boulder 40 years ago um Boulder has

[206:03] changed a lot in the last 40 years um one thing that has not changed and that's the need for high quality student housing uh Boulder is a is a college town um and when I lived there um I sought very high quality uh housing uh which was in short supply as it is today um you know the 40 years that I've I've spent in the career of of design and development has taught me really one thing and that is look at the Practical reality I think I understand uh the comments from a lot of the neighbors um if I were a neighbor uh right across from the marpa house um I might have the same conclusion that I wouldn't want you know 48 or 50 students there but the reality is that the current license allows that and if you don't approve this project then um likely that we'll you'll have the same density there of students but you won't have an improved

[207:01] building with improved Life Safety which is very important the building upgrades the Landscaping which will give a great curve appeal um it will definitely eliminate all the party rooms and the decks um and it will minimize the adverse impacts of the uh of the residents through the good neighborhood agreement you won't have any of that if you don't approve it and it's being rented out um as is to up to 50 students um and one of the neighbors said you know what does the council do to help improve the value of the neighbor uh Hood versus this this Pro property I suggest that you improve that you approve this and that will improve the value of the neighborhood because you'll get get all those benefits and none of the adverse effects if you just leave it as is thank you thank you Brad next we have Anthony Burke David Smallwood and Liz Hansen um David Smallwood if you are present in the meeting please let us know in the Q&A we don't see you and

[208:00] with that Anthony you are up thank you um my name is Anthony Burke I am uh president of Pinker construction and we are a midsize General Contracting firm uh who only works in the Front Range of Colorado and we started building in Boulder 59 years ago um we we've been involved with a lot of um you know important projects within Boulder um but really our our value to our clients is we are client Centric and Community Driven uh More than 70% of what we build has to do with either affordable housing or senior housing and and as such we're called upon to participate in uh many community and uh industry type um councils uh for housing and uh diversity and inclusivity and one of the challenges that we've been working on um for a number of years is really just overcoming housing segregation and

[209:02] figuring out how to U make housing more not only more affordable but more fair um we also have quite a bit of experience with historic renovation and and landmark certified historic um types of projects and we really like those as well because um you know they they position Community assets for new life so uh they are costly to undertake both with time and money um they contain special challenges and um you know certain memorable features any of them and every one of them but the the point is that um for for this project particularly to put highquality housing in place for future Generations using an existing asset uh so we wanted to offer our support for our developer peers uh who use their imagination and creativity to create that win-win uh type of project within the community and we hope that Council supports this project

[210:00] moving forward thank you thank you Anthony next we have Liz Hansen Damien Les Bron and Scott Alexander Liz can you hear me now yep thank you good evening mayor and members of council my name is Liz Hansen I live at 3930 darly Avenue in Boulder I'm a former resident of the Hill for eight years and I work as a senior planner for Holland and Hart and I have worked with some of the neighbors um on to review this application and I'd like to share some of my thoughts on the application um and the review process so as many of you know I in the past worked as a city of Boulder planner um for 30 years and um I've also read about I think 35 years of

[211:02] planning memos um one of the concerns I've had in the process is that the the staff memos haven't really summarized the public comment and in this case the public comment is is overwhelming um and and significant opposition and I really haven't seen that before so um I really do hope you've had a chance to read um the public comments um that have been given to you and you know when I have been listening to the public hearings for this project There's Something Fishy that's been going on um like in the planning board hearing um where where we learned that there were paid speakers um in this hearing also there are some speakers who have begun their testimony in the exact same way um in the planning board hearing in fact there were neighbors of the applicant not neighbors of this property and um right before me

[212:00] speaking was a former employee of my Boulder rental which is the applicant's company so I just I hope you're hearing um loud and clear how the people who live in this neighborhood really feel about it in fact this site was affordable housing on the hill and so we're losing some of that affordable housing and you know we know that the applicant um really does serve wealthy students with his properties we've heard some contrived prescriptive threats of fraternity but please rule on what's before you what's important is the criteria really it's criteria criteria criteria um thank you Liz thank you Liz your time is up thank you um we have Sue Peter BAU who is um come into the meeting uh sue you are up um yes hi thank you my name is Sue Joe pbba and my address is

[213:01] 85512 street here in lovely Boulder on the hill thank you for taking time to hear all of our discussion around this very intense situation um please don't be fooled by the applicant's main goal he is clearly financially motivated nothing wrong with that but keep it in mind the goal is not maintaining or enhancing the character of our neighborhood since 1977 maximum occupancy has been 36 persons in the marpa house we are not opposed to change as some of the younger folks would say for those of us who are established in the neighborhood but with respect to R1 zoning it seems residents are not being respected in the single family home that dominate the area around the marpa house please take note that the sheer fact the applicants consideration needs so many

[214:02] conditions the plan is clearly riddled with difficulties and please strongly consider the denial of this application that with due respect the planning board really weakly agreed upon thank you so much for your time and thanks thank you sue next we have Damen lesperance Scott Alexander and Alexia Parks Daman hi can you hear me yep hi can you guys hear me yes we can okay good evening members of City Council thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight on this important topic my name is Daman um I'm a graduating senior this year from nyatt high school and I will be attending CU this fall and um I am here in support of the renovation of the 891 12th Street house I actually called in on the last city council meeting on this topic and honestly I'm

[215:00] quite surprised we're still talking about this issue the fact that somebody wants to renovate and upgrade 891 12th Street to a high-end student apartments in a safe setting a no-brainer to me I will likely be living on the hill this fall and it would be nice to have safe clean options to choose from but now this topic of should we let this renovation go forward seems so ridiculous given recent tragic events in Boulder we had a massacre in a grocery store recently as you all know and let me say I also happen to work at a grocery store not far from that king supers where Boulder has been thrust into the Global Spotlight the families of those victims must be going through something unimaginable on a scale probably none none of us can comprehend and we're over here debating whether a dump of a house should be upgraded to a clean safe and beautiful um housing for the city of Boulder really what has happened to priorities Boulder is overrun with homeless people who constantly harass my friends and me my parents constantly tell me to steer clear of them because they have a

[216:00] history of assault and violence and this is a fact because my parents and I have read the crime statistics in Boulder and the increase in transit crime is up I'm personally sick of how Rundown bould has become and how the homeless are free to roam with no consequences to their criminal activity given that having a safe monitored living situation seems like the only option for the 891 house I urge you as Leaders of Boulder to set the right example of doing something positive for the new residents coming in like myself to give us more safe options for living in a city that's already suffering from a social stigma of out of of outof control student partying rampant Transit crime and the garbage they leave behind and let the renovation of this historic house go forward it really is the only choice that makes sense thank you Damien next we have Scott Alexander Alexia parks and Lisa Spalding Scott hi councilman Weber can you hear me we can hear you thank you thank you

[217:03] to you and your council members and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight I am a bowler native my parents both graduated from CU and my mother Betty Alexander served on the board of directors of the alumni association for many years I have been and around the CU campus all of my life I appear before you tonight as a chapter adviser for the fapsi fraternity at 1131 University Avenue I have no interest in the marpa house project Financial or otherwise I am not employed by or related to anyone involved with the project and as I hope you will understand in a minute no promise has been made that my name will be moved up on the potential lesie list for this project we have 14 double units in our house the culture of our house is typically that as freshmen our members live in the dorms as sophomores they live in our house and as Juniors and seniors they live wherever we can find them a room I have learned the hard way

[218:02] that the day in August that a sophomore brother moves into our house we begin the search for housing for his Junior and Senior year at the same time my antenna is turned up looking and listening for housing opportunities in Boulder 52 weeks per year I am always looking for leases that could not be fulfilled leases for students that get an opportunity to study abroad and need to be assumed Etc while I completely understand the concerns of the neighbors and if I was a property owner in the neighborhood I would have the same concerns my observation is that if this project will add 16 three-bedroom quality well-managed apartments and there are some Property Management firms in Boulder that are not well-managed uh this one is for a total of 48 more beds we would welcome that addition thank you thank you Scott next we have Alexia Parks Lisa Spalding and Aon Belzer

[219:03] Alexia uh good evening my name is Alexia and uh many people have already expressed my concerns so I'll be brief no one can deny that housing is a major issue in Boulder today but we should not be fooled into thinking that this is the way to solve that problem as dozens of concerned citizens have accurately pointed out converting this building into housing for 48 students will exacerbate major issues that have been spoken of tonight I would also like to add as someone who is a graduate student at CU Boulder I remain incredibly skeptical that this housing is geared towards graduate students with its three-bedroom units I fear graduate students will be priced out of this location without some sort of guarantee that graduate students are families would make up the majority of residents it will likely not be the case and I know that I myself avoided housing that had a large number of multi-bedroom units thank you very much and have a nice evening thank you Alexia next we have Lisa Spalding Aon beler and Stephen Clark

[220:00] Lisa the recommendation to approve this use review review presented by staff to the planning board and now to you represents black and white argument based only on paper what you hear from the neighbors is the lived reality the assertion that the use before you will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area is based on records from the county assessor and Rental licenses they State whether a property is non-conforming use and whether the owner has a rental license they do not tell you who is living in the home or who they are renting to if anyone they do not explain that Aurora Avenue is the buffer between the blocks to the north that have non-conforming grandfather properties and they do not explain that many of the non-conforming properties are occupied by families they do not explain that pifi sorority house has a live-in house mother and does not permit alcohol they do not explain that the rental properties south of Aurora around marpa house are owned by neighbors who

[221:00] live a few minutes walk away and all except one is rented to are rented to families staff asserts that the use will have a minimal negative impact on nearby properties and that the good neighbor conditions will ensure the huge expansion of non-conforming use will not adversely affect us or increase the degree of non-conformity the permanent residents of University Hill know that conditions are rarely enforced and when they are it's because the neighbors have filed numerous complaints and the police have written tickets this development is designed to squeeze as much profit out of this property as possible at the expense of the neighborhood please do not choose an extraction from our community over the community itself there are many other uses the applicant could develop that the neighborhood would welcome but he refused he has refused to listen to us a denial will result in a much better project and by the way I've watched his rents for years he rents by the bedroom and it's going

[222:01] to be a minimum of $1,500 a bedroom I can guarantee you that thanks and thank you for staying awake three more people to go Thank you Lisa so next we have Aaron Belzer stefen Clark and Daniel harberger one of Daniel's pooling speaker is not needed Daniel was pulled with five that's Rachel mcke um we will slot Rachel in head of Daniel so Aaron Belzer Stephen Clark Rachel mcke and Daniel harberger Aaron you are up good evening Council thank you for your time I appreciate you all staying up and um hearing all these public comments my name is Aaron Bowzer I'm an attorney here in Boulder although I'm not representing anyone who's a party in this matter I'm not related to this matter but as a professional in Boulder who often deals with land use and and code mans and things like this I'm speaking to ask you to approve the application before you there is clearly an acute need for Quality student

[223:01] housing in Boulder this application adequately satisfies the technical code requirements for the non-conforming use process and it address is that acute need for housing on the hill that housing is critical across all of Boulder but particularly on the hill where the University's growth has outpaced the city's housing inventory these this applicant's plans they've been vetted thoroughly they've been approved unanimously I Believe by the planning board The Landmark board and the staff the project directly addresses Community challenges it complies with our plan and it does so while restoring a Historic Landmark building this is a real solution to the student housing mess on the hill and it's exactly the kind of Redevelopment or development that Council should be approving I think the alternatives to not supporting this project will have a decidedly worse

[224:01] adverse immediate impact on the neighborhood surrounding it I'm also very concerned that not supporting a very solid unanimously approved plan for development like this will send a message to other owners in Boulder that the city is happy with the dilapidated housing inventory particularly that on the hill if we don't support and embrace project like projects like this we're doing a disservice to the community and particularly to those folks on the hill who need quality diverse housing options for students I'm asking you to please approve the applicant's proposal tonight thank you thank you Aon next we have stefen Clark Rachel mcke and Daniel harberger Stefan hello can you hear me yep hi good evening members of city council my name is Stephen Clark I live at 942 9th Street and I'm speaking on behalf of the University Hill neighborhood

[225:00] association my original speech regarded development concerns but those before me have already touched on all of these items regardless of this property's outcome our association requests city council support with future decisions that aim to reshape and rebalance life in one of bolder's oldest historic neighborhoods a neighborhood which is being converted from well-kept homes into ones dotted with beard dyed tables graffiti covered facades and last but not least massive parties that make national news again a side of this e a side of this e sorry again as side of this evening's discussion we call upon city council to Aid future restorative efforts on the hill before it's too late thank you for your time thank you Stephen next we have Rachel mcke and Daniel harberger Rachel hi can you hear me yes okay great thank you thanks for

[226:01] all of your time tonight uh so my partner and I moved into this neighborhood four years ago we bought our first house together um we've been super engaged in the marah house you know conversation since the very first meeting that the developer had and I would just like to say that I think if this developer cared about being a good neighbor he would have integrated some of the neighborhood feedback that we've been asking for for the last almost two years I've been at every single meeting that's occurred and there hasn't been one uh significant neighborhood ask that has actually been integrated graded so I don't have a ton of faith that he's actually um interested in following through with good neighbor agreements because he hasn't actually been a good neighbor from the beginning of this process so that seems important to me um I wanted to call out that this was not a thoroughly agreed upon planning board

[227:00] approval they were a moment away from not approving it um until there was a pivot and one of the last things that um one of the board members said was I think we could have done better and I hope next time we have the courage to say no so you know I don't know if you guys reviewed the planning board meeting but it was not any sort of um positive you know meeting by the end of it um I also think if you lived in this neighborhood you could walk in front of any of the developers properties on a Thursday Friday Saturday night and you would see that the porches are not uh designed to not have parties they're full of parties there's glass all over in front of the houses they're incredibly loud there's sofas outside and um they're messy the next day so the these kinds of properties would just destroy this neighborhood which is a very distinct area from where his other properties are and um I I really hope

[228:01] that you guys really consider um not approving this development thank you thank you Rachel and last we have Daniel harberger and I understand um there may be a presentation there it is Daniel you have four four minutes and you're up thank you so much um thanks so much everyone for your time here this is a super important decision and I really want to thank you for how considerate you've been in this process I just want to practice my comments by sharing that during the planning board meeting a supporter of the applicant was caught on a hot mic saying that he earned $100 for or she may ear $100 for making her comment I feel like this should be weighted when assessing The credibility of supporters of this project I'd also like to shed some light on why the community so vehemently opposes this project and why it should be denied next slide please there is a vicious cycle that starts when a new student development comes into an owner occupied

[229:01] neighborhood students move in and they party and drink um they bring disruption that can cause many homeowners to feel unsafe and unable to enjoy their homes they sell their homes move out and make space for more students that like to party and the cycle continues by this process some of Boulder's most treasured blocks and neighborhoods have been lost to party zones now ultimately these party zones can become legitimately unsafe for long-term residents as we've seen in months past next slide please and there's a video if you could play it all right there's audio which which is which is pretty powerful with this but these are videos of the uh the riots that happen just down the block and when things get out of control and and there are too many students and not enough people to counterbalance that it can be pretty um pretty disruptive uh if you guys were here during that time it was legitimately frightening and felt legitimately unsafe

[230:01] as occupants so there's a reason why the neighborhood is is concerned about this uh next slide please so the neighborhood is rightfully worried that the marpa house development will kick off this vicious cycle and they have a reason to be concerned because the same disruptive behavior seen during the riot and seen across the hill is on Full display of the applicant's other properties next slide if you walk past the a the Aspen house or the oak house you'll see trash broken bottles and vomit in the front yard and this is not on a special occasion this is a regular regular thing if you look on their deck there'll be music blasting there'll be parties and people playing drinking games every day of the week which is hardly an environment that feels welcoming to families next slide if you check police reports you'll find noise violations complaints of criminal mischief and sexual assaults and this is not an exaggeration um these These are the real reports on just some

[231:01] of his properties with you know 25 or more complaints in a year um it's hardly an example of gleaming good management as the applicant suggested next slide what's more the applicant's own advertising perpetuates this party culture these are screenshots taken from the applicant's Facebook page which they use to attract renters image upon image shows kids smoking partying on roofs and drinking a mask and there are many many more photos like this that encourage this party culture would a family want to live in a home where this is being promoted and furthermore how can the neighborhood feel trusting of the applicant when he says he'll make a quiet apartment building but then police logs and his own promotional material suggest otherwise next slide approving this project is incredibly dangerous for the neighborhood which is why the community so vehemently opposes it the best possible solution is outright denial of the project because it does not meet the

[232:01] use review criteria it should be rejected next if the if the applicant I'm sorry if Council will not reject the project please add a condition to limit the number of student occupants to 25% of of total residents 25% is roughly the proportion of students that make up of students in Boulder at large and if you could skip two slides to the end I know time rning low okay so in summary two more two more slides given the importance of this decision and the devastating impacts of the project on the the neighborhood and the many mistruths shared by the applicant we request that you please reject this use review if rejection is not feasible please set clear limits on the number of student occupants at at the property 2% is a fair number thank you Daniel your time is up appreciate it with that we will bring um public the

[233:02] public hearing to close and return to council um I think I would suggest a five minute break I see lots of nodding heads so um let's go just a bit more than five minutes we'll be back here at 10 o'clock yes Tom the rules provide for the applicant to be given three minutes at the end of the public hearing you can do that either before or after your break I would I I would love to do that after our break that'd be great um appreciate that and see everyone at 10 o'clock thank you

[239:56] okay it is 10 o'clock Aon if we can see your face

[240:02] we're ready to get going perfect thank you okay so Tom to your point I believe that the applicant has three minutes to respond to what they heard in public testimony is that correct that is correct Sam okay great um applicant we are ready for you when you're ready uh hello mayor uh Jim Johnson on behalf of the applicant actually I was uh I was on the initial slide from the applicant's presentation so um I represent the applicant mayor and council members thanks for your time this evening I know it's getting late and I will make my comments May maybe shorter than three minutes if I can uh the first thing I wanted to just say was that I understand I certainly understand the neighbors concerns here um uh this is this is a a change in what's there and I don't think there's any doubt that it's going to feel different than the marpa house has for the last many years so but I do want to State just unequivocally for the record that this

[241:00] project meets all of the relevant standards of approval um those are all spelled out and discussed in detail in attachment C to the staff report that you have um and your staff found that that this project met all of the relevant standards of approval and your Planning Commission unanimously agreed with that um they imposed a number of conditions of approval which are designed to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood um you know more conditions perhaps then have been imposed on on any other similar project in this in in the city um and and I just wanted to I guess maybe reiterate that there is a building just across the alley that that has 80 rental licenses so um there this would be 48 um and it's it's on the same block as one with 80 so I do think that should be viewed with some with in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and not just all of the single family houses that are around

[242:00] there so with respect to the histo historical occupancy numbers there's been a lot of talk about uh whether it should be 50 or or whether it should be 36 I believe and I just wanted to point out here that I think the city is using the same process with respect to this application that it has used for all similarly situated applications so uh even though you might disagree with the numbers you may disagree with what what's been there in the last two years or whatever uh what what the city is doing here I think is consistent with what they've done for other properties uh the application does reduce the non-con formity by reducing the number of permitted occupants and it does reduce the parking deficiency I think if you look in the staff report you'll see that the parking deficiency was actually larger than what's proposed here uh larger than it was under the marpa situation uh the the parking consultan did also say that there are 132 I believe the number was off street

[243:00] parking spaces available so there are there are quite a few parking off street parking spaces in the vicinity uh I'd like to say also that the um that um this does provide housing right it does provide housing and um in a purely market analysis more housing should reduce the price of housing so the more units you provide uh the overall price should go down and um in addition I think you heard you'll be getting a substantial cash and L payment to further address the housing affordab affordability issue in Moulder so uh with that I just like to urge you to approve um approve the project and affir the PC's findings thank you thank you Jim and with that I'll turn to council see if you have any questions for the applicant if not I have one um so we were shown some screenshots of uh other properties Mr Johnson that I I believe

[244:00] that your company is part of and I was curious where you think those screenshots came from they had the logo of your company on it um are those on a website that you maintain so I just to be clear um this is Jim Johnson again I am not an employee of the applicant I am outside counsel for great is there somebody on the is there someone I I think there is yes who can answer that question it's my understanding from a com a conversation quick conversation we had when we were in break that those pictures were actually not from uh the applicant's properties but I can let him answer if he's on here go ahead I can you hear me now we can yep thank you I'm unfamiliar with those pictures there was there were a couple of pictures that appeared to be the outside of one of our buildings but the pictures that appear to be attributed to a website or something else I have no idea where those are

[245:01] from okay but it certainly does look just just to clarify the video that was shown again has absolutely no association with our property whatsoever I am clear on that thank you for that I I was asking about the Stills that were taken one of them certainly did look like a picture of one that was in your presentation so um I was just curious if any of those pictures are part of your marketing um th those are absolutely not part of our marketing whatsoever go to the website my Boulder rental yeah my Boulder rental.com has all the images that are used for marketing they show the history of the properties the restoration of the properties and the properties as they sit today and we'd also be happy to offer a tour of any of the properties to any of you on Council anytime you wish thank you very much for that Council any other questions for the applicant great seeing none Tom I'm

[246:03] going to bring this back to council for beginning discussions could you please remind us once again um what our decision needs to be based on in this quasi judicial setting yes it should be based on the criteria in the code which are reviewed in the staff memorandum great thank you and with that reminder I'll will turn to council for any thoughts okay first we've got Adam and then Mark Adam I got some further thoughts but I had some clarification on the question you asked Sam um it looks like those pictures some of them were sourced from my Boulder rentals Facebook uh official Facebook page so I can verify I found one of the pictures that was in that presentation on their official Facebook page that's obviously not their marketing material

[247:01] but that's that's what it is thank you can you click raise hand no no no I'm I'm sorry to the applicant we we're we're done with input on your side thanks appreciate it um thank you Adam and Mark um not to bury the lead I am going to be in opposition uh to this application and now I will explain why section 9101 of the boulder Revised Code um uh permits us to uh permits non-conforming uses quote to be changed and upgraded without requiring their elimination if the change would not substantially adversely affect the surrounding area this project does not meet that test uh as it will contribute to the further deterioration of uh the hill in terms of both density and noise and trash I'm sorry that's that's simply my judgment based on common sense and

[248:02] and the experience of conditions that exist on the hill and I'm quite stunned that one of the responses of Staff uh to the claim that um to justify the claim that the project will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area was that quote changes proposed to the outside of the building and to the site would enhance the character of the site and the surrounding area unquote that seems to be it and um that is pretty thin rule in terms of of uh justifying um the fact that this project will have no adverse impacts uh second for a dose of reality I think that the conditions of the Good Neighbor agreement will be both unenforced and unenforceable I I don't know anybody who can seriously believe that college students are going to turn off Amplified music before 10 and 11 o'l uh I don't

[249:03] know what in the long history of the behaviors of college students would make anyone think that um and as always this complaint-based system is going to expose neighbors to retaliation that they are currently experiencing when they make complaints and I think will result in little enforcement and somebody earlier made the claim that the city could step in and enforce this agreement if necessary I think that argument is is specious uh we have statutes on the books relating to noise trash and other behaviors on the hill um which are barely enforced at all all and one visit to the hill will will tell you that um I think the solution here is not to draft better language for the agreement but to find the use of the property that does not require it um I do support the renovation of the building I think everybody does and I certainly don't oppose Redevelopment of this building but I do oppose this

[250:01] application and this configuration of units which are guaranteed to house only students uh I doubt there will be any faculty graduate students or anyone with a family and inhabiting these these units I think it's going to exacerbate difficult conditions already prevalent on the hill and badly damage the adjacent neighborhood I would urge the applicant to reconfigure the project as something other than a pure college dorm um I think there are many ways this project can be redeveloped in a manner that will protect the applicant's investment but not this this one I think this is inappropriate it doesn't work uh for the surrounding area um and I am going to enthusiastically vote no uh when the time comes thank you thank you Mark other council

[251:00] members all right well we are gonna have to take a vote and we are gonna have to either talk about why we're going to support it or why we're not so I would invite council members to weigh in here miror by thanks Sam um I'll just as it's getting late I'll make it simple um I think Mark laid out very well um the same reasons that I will not be supporting this project um I think when this I get T that this is not and this is just my my rationale on top of the actual criteria area but when this number of neighbors that are actual Property Owners which is for me who I'm looking to support because they have a massive investment in this neighborhood um being a relatively young property owner myself uh and using all of my available funds to originally purchase my home that's a really scary thing and

[252:02] when you're talking about the values that exist in Boulder to have that in the balance uh be affected is is a major deal and so I think that there are projects that have happened in Boulder that have gotten sign off by neighbors and there's been great neighborhood agreements um specifically some of the the the um the young people's home that happened over um around Pearl Street Mall I'm sorry I'm forgetting the name of the project right now um where the neighbors were really up in arms but then they started working with the project and and they came up with a really good neighborhood agreement and um it sounds like it's gone quite flowless since when we've had two years of working on this in the neighbors this upset to me it sounds like there's some major problems um beyond beyond what's being shown here so again based on the actual legitimate

[253:01] remarks that Mark was stating um I will be voting no but just for again I think working with the neighbors it's sad to see that um what they've been asking for and their cries have not been heard so I would like to support that um as well so thank you nearby I've got Mary and then Aaron Mary so for many years we've been hearing about how the um University Hill has been slowly um been seeing a conversion of [Music] um of homes occupied by um family units to um to rentals occupied by students which has um increased the noise levels and um slowly but surely and so I I remember

[254:03] this being a big issue with um our former Council colleague Andrew Shoemaker so there's a couple of things that I would like to put on the table that I think could make a huge difference um one of them is um to consider the proposal that was made by um one of our former colleagues Jen Burton about the extending the quiet hours to be essentially all the time that was one of the things that as I I read through the packet um it really the quieted hours weren't really that different from the quiet hours um that we see all over town really so um that's one thing that I would like to put on the table the other thing I would like us to explore if Tom um thinks this

[255:00] this is a viable way to go um and that would be to um use the the one single address for enforcement purposes um I understand from the earlier questioning that that would require an ordinance change or at least a special ordinance so um so I would like us to explore those two things and um that's what I'm putting on the table for now very good thank you Mary eron um well I I do think that uh broadly speaking the the project is meeting the criteria I do I think the planning board worked really hard on this um they had a couple of meetings they added in uh many conditions some of which are are quite strict and um I think with the addition of those I think they they got to something that that would mitigate the um you know the potential impacts from the property I do

[256:01] want to remind folks that that we did do a landmarking of this property not that long ago I think not at the owner's request right it a um so you know we imposed limitations on the property so to preserve it in current form so getting something that would would renovate it and improve it um I think with it while staying landmark and preserving its historical character um would be great uh we do need uh housing in this town and um students need housing as well as older folks so I think the the question is not I mean I I I hear people's concerns and I know that on average younger people may tend to be a little louder than older people but um people of all ages need housing including students so I think the key is to to mitigate kind of make sure that the operating characteristics um and the Good Neighbor agreement and such like that prevent um prevent the the property from having an

[257:00] outsized impact on its neighbors so I'm I'm I'm happy if it's the will of council to to move forward with considering an approval I'm happy to talk about conditions um that we might uh additionally consider I I would just say I would I would look for them to not be discriminatory to uh the property or to the potential future occupant so like expanded quiet hours seems like a reasonable thing to talk about but there's no property in this city that's required to be quiet all day long and that's that feels it feels little discriminatory to me um but I'm happy to if if council's interested to talk about potential conditions thanks thank you eron we've got Bob and then I'm gonna go Bob well like like Mary and like Aon I I I would like to have um a discussion around additional conditions in addition to the 24 conditions that planning board put out I think the two that Mary suggested are a good place to start um I do have a question um I guess for staff because I'm not exactly sure what quiet

[258:01] hours um means um so does that mean that you can be as loud as you want in the non hours or are there like quiet and really quiet like what's what's the definition of of quiet hours what can one not do during quiet hours that one can do during quiet hours does anybody know or non quiet hours I think we oh go ahead I was just gonna say we tried to be pretty descriptive in the conditions to remove some of that discretion um so I I think we were just talking about what normal conversational speech is as opposed to actually listing decibel levels okay but I guess I don't so Mary Mary made a proposal which which sounds reasonable and and the Good Neighbor agreement that's on the table has a different proposal and I'm just trying to understand the difference between those two so what's the difference between 24-hour quiet not Distributing

[259:01] your neighbors versus um certain hours at night uh not Distributing your neighbors but does that mean you can disturb your neighbors during the day I mean there must be when you put a descriptor on something it means it's distinguishing it from the other thing so I would like somebody to tell me what what's the difference between a and b so Bob I took a look at the code while you were asking the question which is why I delayed if you take a look at section 595 disrupting quiet enjoyment that's kind of the base standard for this the city as a whole it says no person shall engage in or be responsible for a conduct which is so loud that materially interferes with or disrupts another individual in the conduct of activities at such individual's home and then it there's a further definition later on that says that whether or not whether or not noise is so loud that is materially interferes with or disrupts shall be measured against the objective standard of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity okay so is that the is that

[260:00] the quiet hour standard or the noisy hour standard that is the quiet hour standard so that the whole city all time okay and so that's what the the applicant is applicant is agreeing that a few hours a night they will comply with the law no I'm sorry i m have said that that that is the noisy hours standard that's the standard that applies regardless of any agreement anywhere okay then what's the what's the quiet hour standard it's whatever is in the agreement I'm not familiar with that Sloan talked about it we can get pull it out for you right so the underlying code speaks to the hours p.m through 7 a.m. 7 days a week the conditions themselves are from 10 00 a.m. Sunday through 00 PM through 8:00 am Friday and Saturday so there's a little bit of an extension on each side depending on the day I get the hours part I'm just trying to understand the difference between Tom Tom I think described I think if I understand correctly he read the code and that's we'll call those the noisy hours what's

[261:02] what's the definition of quiet hours during those time frames you just mentioned SL what's the definition of that let me just share my screen hang on how much how much quieter than noisy so rather than um quantify it uhuh the intent was to be a little bit more descriptive about what exactly could be allowed or not allowed so that's what the language in the the conditions was intended how is this language different than the code that Tom just read pretty much the same saying okay that's that's the answer that I thought it was okay so we're so uh I agree with Mary then why don't we just have the the code that says you can't annoy people apply 24 hours a day in other words I can't believe the applicants are want to reserve the right to annoy people during certain times a day so if if both this language and the code say the same thing which is don't be annoying then why

[262:00] don't we say don't be annoying all the time rather than don't be annoying at certain hours reserving the right to be an preventing you from doing that problem okay so that'd be one so I agree with Mary and I also agree with Mary on the um you know and I raised earlier in the questions I I I did not get a good answer from the applicant why it would not accept this as a single address um I mean they're either can comply with the rules or not and and I wouldn't want them to play the game or well that was Apartment A that that violated this Rule and this is Apartment D now that that violated that rule um I look at this property as a whole it's always been a whole property when it was a fraternity and a um and as Mara house so I I don't see why the applicant should get 16 opportunities to violate now that they're breaking this into 16 different units so I I support both of Mary's uh changes and I think those would be a step in the right direction I would hope that the applicant would agree to that um sounds like they won't I would ask them to reconsider that right now because if they don't we're going to have to go out and ask a special

[263:00] ordinance um or deny this application and neither one of those are really great um outcomes so would ask the applicant to reflect on that over the next few minutes that's all I have right now Sam can I Cally on the noise question please go ahead yeah so Bob thanks for trying to get that to ground but I'm still a little confused and because slow the things that you were putting up there seem to have a couple of additional rules in addition to city code like I'm having a hard time kind of believing that quiet hours really just means following typical City Rules and the rest of the hours you don't have to follow City rule there's got to be something extra required during uh quiet hours and it looked like maybe Amplified music that you you threw it up there and then took it down pretty quick if you don't mind so like the B1 that looks like our

[264:01] typical city code but two and three look like they're additional to city code is that right or is there something else going on I I think that was the intent was to be more descriptive I.E more restrictive and what would be allowable um I think the intent is around the same again I think the conditions were written to allow for enforceability so that would be an easy thing to enforce upon if there's ampli amplification devices outside or facing that course yeah or actually as I'm as I'm reading this actually number two is it's not just amplify it's generate any sound L than normal conversational speech so that that looks like it's saying that you can't have produce a sound louder than normal conversational

[265:01] speech do I have that right yep that's correct okay so so that's really very significantly more restrictive than the overall city code right Tom yes okay so so I think that's that's important to clarify that that that is significantly more restrictive than regular city code so I I'll I'm again I'm find proposing expanded quiet hours but but I I feel like other people don't have to uh keep noise down to conversational speech uh at their property 24 hours a day and that that would be unfair I have a question um kind of a colloquy on this um I do know that throughout the city that if you have a noise complaint like on a Friday night there's a party that

[266:00] there is no enforcement that happens until after 11 um and for that matter any night that that the noise whatever it might be can continue until 11 and then after 11 it's enforceable whatever it is that is getting enforced so Mary there's two different provisions of the code I was referring to section 595 which is disrupting quiet enjoyment the section 593 is exceeding deciel sound levels which has different sound levels in different Zone districts for different times of the day day one of them is the maximum number of Dees 00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. of the same day and then there's 00 p.m. until 7 P 7 a.m. and so in a residential district you can't go above 50 DB 00 p.m. and 7 amm thank you Tom that's the one I was I

[267:00] was um I'm familiar with in a and because this is clear we prefer a charge under 593 rather than 595 it's easier to prove a deal level than a reason than what what a reasonable objective person would would be upset by and is that how the um the law is enforced do they go out with a decibel meter generally yes although I don't know that we have all that many deciel meters okay and how does that compare to enforcing on 595 which sounds like what the um the the condition was written under to comply 595 the problem the challenge we usually have is finding a complainant who will testify that the noise uh it's not a subjective standard but we need to show an objectively reasonable person and I believe there's a section there that says it can't be a police officer so we have to have a witness and generally people for reasons that people have discussed are reluctant to be

[268:01] Witnesses against their neighbors okay so now my question goes over to Sloan and um Stone it sounds like those conditions that you flashed up on the screen were written to comply with Section 595 I I think to an extent I think the intent was to provide more enforceability on 595 so if if the intent is to provide more enforceability why would was measuring decibels um disregarded I think that's that's what you said is you didn't want to use decibels so if if the intent is enforceability and enforceability can occur more easily with an objective meter that you measure the sound with why was there a resistance to do to use that standard and go with a more kind of

[269:03] um subjective objectivity yeah to be honest I I don't recall I think that I think that there's their its own issues with just measuring decibels there's some fluctuations I know that the enforcement staff struggles with that in its own right but I think that's definitely an option and I know Mary from my own experience working with shiaka and complaints about the noise coming from the the auditorium decibal levels are very difficult to keep below 50 uh 50 is is normal conversation so the it's it's a pretty tough standard and I think our enforcement folks can have can be challenged trying to to justify enforcing Mary Mary would it be okay if I jumped in with the thought here um I I I love where you're going with the decb but I do think that in the planning board conditions on noise under quiet

[270:00] hours a couple things that are added are the amplification bit so that's object in the sense that if somebody takes a picture of a speaker in a window pointed outwards you're pretty clear that there was a amplification you know in that way and I think what Aaron brought up about um generating any sound louder than normal conversational speech an example would be fireworks right they're probably illegal on their own but the noise itself would would be that so it's my guess that the conditions um two and three that Aaron pointed out um from the planning board or an attempt to add objectivity to that reasonable person standard I also agree with you that as an engineer I prefer something measurable with a number on it to that but at least I think the amplification bit was to get some objectivity about it great thanks so juny I was going to go next

[271:01] you want to go ahead and jump in sure um I do support the project I think it will offer the opportunity to House people in our community and I understand some of the comments made by community members about affordability but nonetheless I think we need housing uh students need housing and other members of the community needs housing so um I support it now my only challenge with and I also um with Mary's idea of extending the quiet hours and I think that's where planning board conditioned for somehow for me is not these two things are too different they they're in contrast extending the

[272:00] quiet hours and also because planning board condition number four is about just quiet hours for a certain period And if we extend it to 24 hours to me I just don't understand how can we say to someone for instance in number two amplify or generate other than human voice any sound like louder than normal conversation speech well you mentioned firework how about a dog I just it you mention objectivity I don't think that's objective actually I think that's very subjective um and discretionary and place an amplifi an amplification device Outdoors or windows with sound directed outside what if you just want to be on your porch and you just want to listen to music so I just think the these number two and number three to add that as part of an extension or 24 hours I just think

[273:00] that's just simply oppressive I don't think it's right I don't think fair and I wonder is this something that's going to be applied to all the housing in the community because if it's not I just don't yeah I just think it's slightly harsh and it goes back to what you know Erin mentioned earlier it's it feels discriminatory in a way okay thank you um so I'll go with my thoughts here um I think that by the CR criteria um this application qualifies as an extension of a non-conforming use so I believe that um it's incumbent to approve this but I think it's also incumbent to get the conditions right so um there were lots of myths that we heard tonight um from various sides about various things um but one one

[274:00] thing that is not a myth is that it's very likely that based on the reconfig uration of the units that it's going to be appealing to students and so I think it is fairly clear that there'll be lots of students are attracted to the the layout and the configuration and if we look at the other properties that this company is part of it's clear that they are intended for students and if there's a certain threshold of student occupancy it's going to be much much less attractive to families so I think that's something to just be honest about you know that this well it is a non-conforming use and it is an extension of a non-conforming use and so it does make it different than the entire rest of the community because this is a boarding house that's going to be a student dorm in the middle of a single family neighborhood if we're being honest about that then it is sensible to make sure that the um amount of non-conformity does not increase so I

[275:00] think that's addressed with the 48 people and that the standard that Mark wallet put out is also addressed that it not have detrimental impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as a as a consequence of extending the non-conforming use so with that in mind I support both of the conditions that Mary put out in principle meaning one that we use a single address for enforcement um whatever we need to do to make that so I think we need to make it so on this property because I don't see trying to go figure out which bedroom within which apartment is the one that's causing the problem if it's chronic so I I want us I'm going to focus on getting the conditions right on the quiet hours I don't know that 247 quiet hours is going to make sense I mean what about the leaf blowers that are going to be used on the property we'd love to ban those then what about the lawnmowers or what about whatnot we we have to

[276:00] acknowledge that you know this is a property that would be lived in by human beings and is going to be maintained by human beings and is going to generate noise as a result of that however outside of commonly accepted hours where people are busy and noisier than usual we should expect a very good compliance with any of the Good Neighbor rules that we establish so we should make them enforcable because the neighbors should be able to call and get enforcement of whatever is being agreed to here um it looks to me like you know know this will be a good project in the sense of it's landmarked it looks like if what the um developer proposes they follow through with it looks like it will be a good preservation of of a good building nice building with lots of good history behind it um I also think that planning board worked really hard to put some conditions around um areas of impact we

[277:02] should we should um deal with those um but we do live in a college town right and so you know part of that is we house students in our town and so we should not discriminate against students so you know the developer has laid this out to be appealing to students students will live here it is non-conforming and so we need to make sure that if we approve this that we do the best we can to protect um The Neighbors from living next to a noisy or trash fi student dorm so with that said that's kind of where I am um that we need to move ahead talk about conditions but I'd like to hear from everyone else so that we get a sense of um whether we can focus on that and move forward or whether we need to like do a straw poll to see if we even want to work on it I've got two NOS I've got by my count um at least four five

[278:01] interested in conditions and I think the only one that we haven't heard from on that subject is you Adam so that that's my um stepping off point is that I I think it meets the criteria therefore in a quasi judicial sense we need to approve it and at the same time it has potential for being disruptive and we need to make sure that is not so so with that Adam I'll invite would you like to reject condition approve where are you leaning on this I'm definitely on condition um and pretty heavily on condition as well um I didn't realize that you could pick your neighbors to some degree in the state of Colorado that's pretty interesting idea uh as far as limiting the amount of students in a given space um but that may be even a bit too aggressive I'm not sure if anyone else

[279:00] had any inkling towards that idea um but but I would love to hear anyone's Insight or input on that as well great so I'm just going to take that as another condition to explore with the group which is um demographic limitations of some kind Mark yeah I would say demographic uh limitations or creating a diversity of uses of of the residential units some for students uh and some for faculty and some for graduate students uh could well change my view of this project I thought I think it's the next it would be an excellent suggestion um and frankly I think a lot of the what I think is the mythical enforcement of the Good Neighbor agreement would take place by neighbors within the building um who are going to be a little bit less receptive to um no noisy parties or

[280:02] other uh you know inappropriate behavior because they live there um and so that condition if we were to be able to apply it would would greatly impact my view of the project super thank you Mark Mary I have a question um I don't know if anyone from housing is on the call but um I know that one of the efforts that housing has been putting out there in new developments is to um have the the management accept vouchers so I'm wondering if uh that conversation has been had and what the outcome of that conversation was and if that has not occurred um what kind of openness they there might be um for accepting vouchers I'm not sure that we can include that as a condition so I

[281:01] guess that one is a question for Tom so so Tom I think the question was can we require vouchers um to be accepted by the landlord as a condition of approval yeah I don't remember Mary we looked at this from mobile home parks a while ago and I'm just not remembering my research give me a few minutes and let me take a look at it and see if I can come up with what the law is on the requ requiring section the landlords accept Section 8 that vouchers that's we're talking about okay thank you you great Sloan maybe perhaps you were GNA talk about whether or not the conversation was had I was was just gonna pipe in as far as I'm aware that conversation did not occur I think they were relying on the code of were how they were going to meet inclusionary housing right thank you and you know my

[282:02] rationale around bringing this up is that if you accept vouchers it would likely um add some um diversity um to the residential makeup of the building okay so here's what I'm tracking at the moment um we have two who are inclined to know and the remainder of us that's six are inclined to condition or approve um and so I think we're focused on uh discussing conditions at this point I have four that were um I've been tracking On's 247 quiet hours single address for enforcement demographic limitations and require accepting vouchers as for to talk about um if we're going to focus on on these um why don't we start just down

[283:00] the list is there anyone that people would like to talk about first if there is kick us off otherwise we'll just go down the list great seeing No Hands 24 Seven quiet hours or I'll just say it more broadly what can we do about noise on the site given that there will probably be a lot of students here um as part of it so anyone we have the planning board conditions um Mary do you want to talk about what you're hoping for out of this yeah so I I totally get the the points that you brought up Sam about all of these um just being human kinds of noises noises that would occur um at other hours that would make a 24-hour quiet hour uh requirement unreasonable so um if we can come up with

[284:01] a well two things um one is um earlier hours an earlier hour than the one in the planning board um condition and you I'm open to whatever um anyone proposes I believe the planning board was was 10 to um eight on week nights um it was 10 to 7 uh uh Sunday through Thursday and 11 to 8 Friday and Saturday okay so um to perhaps perhaps extend it on the um on the weekends to make it earlier and then um perhaps as well on um the Monday through Thursday so that's that's one thing and then the other component of it um is the using an objective standard and I understand that the 50 dbel level is

[285:02] about the um the level of of of just conversational speech so perhaps we could make it to the level of something like um um I don't know some some some decibel level that is higher than the conversational speech so I don't know what that would be but um that's kind of where I am right now so I'm open to suggestions so so ripping on your ideas um I'll throw out there 8 am sorry 800 pm to 8 AM quiet hours every day of the week super simple doesn't change for the weekend um and you know the the point is if you want to party at that location party indoors otherwise go visit downtown or um some of the places on the

[286:00] hill so um that's that's an idea I'll 00 P.M to 8:00 a.m. quiet hours that's 50 DB at the property line um keep the other I think keeping at least two and three of the planning board conditions on this no amplification um you know during quiet hours which is when that is and amplification devices can't be outdoors or in Windows and if we have that from 8:00 P p.m. till 8:00 a.m. uh to me that covers most of the sensitive time when people are trying to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes so I'll just kick that out um hang on one second so I get the order right I see two hands Aon and then Mark um well I'll just uh you know counter with maybe a 10 pm uh and uh in terms of a start time I just know that like I I in my neighborhood you hear 30 um you know that's a little more than 00 a.m.

[287:02] 8:00 P.M seems awfully early was a quiet hour uh but you could pull it down to 10 maybe and the it's it's already at 10 for what it's wor 10 to 7 is the current not on the weekends it's not it's 11 just on the weekend okay you could pull that you could pull that into 10 um and just the other thing is during the week uh people may need to um get up and get going for work and school purposes that may involve like slamming your front door or on your way out the door so I life does start I care less about that one it just seems 8 8m seems unreasonable or unfair Mark yeah I'm supportive of the 8 to8 on exactly the theory that you have advanced uh Sam not every location has to be a party location and perhaps this is one that that ought not to be uh given the number of units and the number

[288:00] of people and if you want a party do it in doors or do it elsewhere um I think that's a choice that that people can make and if they want to party that you know they may not want to live in this particular property um so I think your formulation works and uh and I think the theory on the theory behind it is uh is good so I would be very supportive of that Bob um I I think we've heard arguments on both sides of two competing um alternative your Sams and eron so I was just going to suggest that we straw pull on each one of these three or four conditions so we can kind of put them to bed one at a time so that we can go to bed okay I'm I'm good with that so one is uh mine which is 800 pm to 8 am seven days a week quiet hours and then the one Advanced by Aaron is what it currently to 7:

[289:03] and then I think Aon you said we'll go 00 am on Friday and Saturday is that correct that was mine okay so we have two you can vote for eron and vote for mine or you can abstain if you'd like but if we're trying to make progress I'd suggest you vote um so 8 AM to 800 PM raise your hand if you're interested in that one 1 two 3 4 five six all right we got six so we're going to call that one good all right thank you everyone for that let's go single address for enforcement so Tom I'm going to turn to you I did not understand the concern with this one legally so would you mind restating it sure um I was trying to find I hav't been able to come up with it but there is an ordinance that says that staff gets to determine whether or not to apply a nuisance case against the

[290:02] entire building or a single unit you would be saying that discretion disappears in the case of this application you can't really do that through the application I was thinking you probably could make a motion directing the city manager to um ex or I'd prefer if there was an exception to the to the code you see see what my what you're basically doing is you're you're amending the code in an application condition and you can't really do that so I'm struggling with how you can do it preferably tonight in a way that's defensible C could we do it as a condition you know just as a condition one of the conditions is that section XYZ of the code will be interpreted such that um it it is enforced against a single address yeah I'm not happy with that because you're you're basically changing the code um no we're saying for this

[291:01] property it's a condition that that the codes interpreted that way I guess you can do that yes Bob I wanted to ask appc one more time if they'll be willing to do this so we don't have to to go through all these imaginations we're going to end up in the same place so we can do it the hard way or the easy way so I'm asking the applicant if they'll do it the easy way and just stipulate to this applicant if you got a representative who can speak up that'd be great I expect they're talking about it I have and and Joe I will go ahead and unmute your account I'm not sure if if Jim Johnson would prefer to speak Jim I'm seeing your hand so I'm gonna unmute you Jim you're able to mute yourself okay there I am think I was desperately

[292:02] trying to push a button here yes we but we we are fine with um with that condition and and the one you said before as well okay thank you very much so can I answer Mary's question now sure go ahead so in 2018 you passed an ordinance that prohibited discrimination based on source of income what I was remembering so it's already illegal to discriminate based on source of income now whether you can say a percentage of the units have to be Section 8 that's going a little further I remember when we did that research I was a little uncomfortable excuse me there with uh making the man making making it housing discrimination to deny so I think we're on the line there but you certainly can say they can't turn down anybody because that's already the law in the city of Boulder thank you

[293:00] Tom awesome and that was my recollection as well Tom but I wasn't sure if it meant that they had to accept vouchers but if that's what it means that deals with one of our conditions that we're talking about because it's already the law so absolutely what it means that was okay super and so uh by my tracking we have one more condition we've been discussing which is demographic um requirements I guess uh demographic limits so I'd invite folks to speak about that Bob um while I understand the appeal of this one I'm I'm I'm uncomfortable I'm not the city's lawyer and we will'll take advice from Tom but I just as a as a former lawyer I'm uncomfortable regulating who may live where um we have a we have federal laws on this there state laws on this and while this while any limitation May well survive I I don't want to end up in litigation over whether it was appropriate or not even

[294:01] if we're ultimately going to win it feels a little I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna quote Juni on this one that that feels a little Draconian to me to tell a landlord who he may or may not rent property too um so I'm I'm not going to support that one and Bob to clarify what what I said was there's no case law that says you can't do it I there's been equal protection challenges and you would have an equal protection problem um whether it would survive is up to the courts y my preference would be that you don't do it because it makes my life easier but that's your job is not to make my life life easier your life easier for five weeks Adam yeah this was one I was just interested in learning more about and seeing where people were at um not necessarily wanting to support it I just uh you know it was an interesting concept um but if we are putting enough things in place here that will make these units only attractive to people who are going to live in a non-isr way

[295:04] then I don't think there's a whole lot of use behind it so I don't know that many college students that don't want to be noisy after 8m that that doesn't tend to happen a whole lot um so we'll see where the rest of the conversation goes also were we going to STW pull on the single um single unit versus 16 unit question we certainly are um so Mary and mirbi would you like to comment before we straw poll on the single address my hand is raised for a different question okay and meby do you have any comments uh before we uh move forward on the straw pole for single address enforcement no Aon you I just think it's a good idea so I'm glad we're moving forward on that one at is sense I and appre okay so the applicants accepted it

[296:00] um Thomas said we have a way to craft it is there anyone on Council who does not want to condition approval on a single address for enforcement let me know raise your hand seeing none I'd say that's an eight8 Zer stle um and then uh we are on to this demographic question and next I have Mary and mebby um this is not about the demographic question um this is about the Section 8 question so if we want to just finish with the demographic one or no just go ahead and throw it out there need to work on it um so so a question for Tom um Okay so we've established that they cannot deny anyone with sectionate can we um as a condition uh of approval include that their Mar marketing materials will say Section 8 vouchers

[297:02] accept yes so I would like to add that as a potential um condition all you're saying is they'll comply with the law and that they'll advertise it yeah okay thanks Mary I've got that one appreciate it mby and mby and the mark mine's not on the topic either it's just I guess a question and I don't I'm not sure how to phrase it in terms of making it a condition but I guess the question is you know if this project gets approved with all these conditions and it turns out beautifully and and the residents join in with the fabric of the neighborhood um with no problem great but I guess the question is is there a way to put it on a condition of like and I don't know how you could do this because it would already be go moving forward because we'd vote Yes to do a six-month or Oney year

[298:01] check-in I mean I guess the question becomes if the rules we're putting in place work fantastic but what happens in a year and they've had 50 calls to the police because of noise or whatever the case is I mean is is there a way to check in with the neighbors to see if there's something else that can be done to protect that if if it's an issue I just put that out there I have no idea I don't know how to phrase it as a condition um so could it be part of the Good Neighbor agreement and um just say that every periodically whatever six months or whatever um there will be a check-in yeah so I guess something like that just I I think it would be good that to me communication continued past the initial point would be beneficial to make sure that things are working out on both sides because

[299:00] maybe maybe if it's super quiet maybe the quiet hours could lift and become you know more normal I I don't know maybe if things were you know working out beautifully so so nearby I'll follow up and ask the planners um we we had a bunch of good neighbor agreements for attenion homes and we got a report after I believe six months or a year I forget how long it was about how things were going um what triggered that and how did that work you know Sam it's a good question I remember that I'd have to go back and look at the exact language in the approval but I think it was simply we agreed on um a threshold of time and put it on the calendar and made sure that we checked in with the applicant and came back to council um it's a bit difficult for us to track but we could certainly do it in this case if it was something that Council was interested in super thanks that's very helpful um and I've got a note on that uh check in and we'll come back to that Mark what's on your

[300:00] mind I just wanted to make a further comment on on some kind of um demographic balance within this project even though Adam may not be uh entirely enthusiastic about it I thought it was a great suggestion we talk all the time about housing for families housing for graduate students we're doing an entire project in CU South trying to house faculty and graduate students um here is an opportunity to provide some of that housing and I think that balance would really ameliorate the sensitivity of the community uh towards this project and uh the opportunity is there and I I wish we would take it um not in a way that's that's punitive to the applicant uh but in a way that creates some portion of the project reserved for undergraduates some portion of which would be reserved for faculty

[301:01] maybe some portion res for fact for uh you know graduate students and or with families um I I just think that's an opportunity that we're missing uh for housing diversity um instead of just shoving as many students as we can into these three-bedroom units so despite the fact that Adam um has a little bit walked back his support for the idea I thought it was a great idea and I would like to support it super um can I get a motion to extend the meeting please so moved second anyone I'll second second so anyone opposed to continuing our meeting not seeing one Mark you can always have a protest vote if you want this is our job so that passes so we're gonna continue the meeting Aon okay I I only barely voted in favor

[302:00] of continuing the meeting um well I just I I want to say just on the on the the demographic thing I thought Bob's legal analysis was was spot on and and also just that I'm really uncomfortable with us as as a council and government picking and choosing who gets to live in in in what buildings I I think that's whether whether it's age or on other characteristics I I think it's too too intrusive um and and you know we should let the people that that want to live there live there as long as the operating characteristics the building appeal to them and they are willing to live by them I'm going to jump in on this and say first thing Aon I didn't know you're a Libertarian that's awesome and then second I fully agree um that um I don't think we should be dictating who lives where based on any kind of family status in that sense of you know because it changes right and so the other thing

[303:01] I'll have to say about it is given the layout given the fact that it's probably going to be super appealing to students if there's a critical mass of say undergraduate students in there that's who's G to most probably want to live there and it's going to be far less appealing to say families with children so um I'm I'm not in favor of any demographic limitations to me it's much more important that we get the impact issues correct um because I think this the way it's going to be laid out is going to be most appealing to undergraduate students to be quite honest so why don't we do a straw poll on demographics to see if we should pursue this any further um who would like to continue um working on a condition to specify demographics in this property raise your hand I've got one okay I only see one so I don't think we're going to keep working on demographics um I think we've settled quiet hours single address um the two we

[304:03] have left are Mary's idea about marketing materials indicating acceptance of vouchers and another condition about a checkin which I believe we did effectively with um attention homes so um let's start with the first one U marketing materials to indicate that vouchers will be accepted per the laws in Boulder um does anyone object to that I'm seeing no so we'll call that an 8 zero on that Mary and then a check in at one year and I think if we do this I'm going to suggest that we have a few reporting requirements at that year so could be things like police calls to the location noise complaints we could figure out whatever would be relevant at that year let's just do a quick straw poll who's interested in continuing speaking about um a check in at one year

[305:01] I am one two three looks like almost everybody everybody so we want to have a one-year check-in um anyone want to suggest anything as far as criteria goes or what we should be looking at juny well I'm not sure if maryb was going to respond to I what I heard from Marb as well was as part of the check-in to see if we would want to lift some of the restrictions mby yeah I think it goes both ways so you know depending on I mean some of the criteria I would say would be noise complaints uh police visits um I don't really know what else is used to calculate the problems that they're having on the hill with other uh large occupancy um units but I guess kind of maybe the you know staff or our police

[306:01] might know that better um and they could help guide what those criteria would be but then again if if it's very low and based on what the neighbors were you know discussing so if the neighbors felt like things had been working out really well that it could be open to yeah maybe going back to the normal time um quiet hours rather than the more restrictive one so again I think it needs to go both ways to be fair um but again I think we also have to have a very specific group of criteria that will then help guide that discussion as to which way it would go mark my question is are we empowered to unilaterally change the Good Neighbor agreement in either direction if we decide we want to lift the restrictions on on quiet hours I'm sure that would be accepted but if there were 50 noise complaints would we have the right to unilaterally change the conditions in another Direction what's what's our what's our remedy if we have a I don't think you can do that once you've

[307:00] approved it with conditions you can't greater conditions later so the check-in is essentially uh a report to say whether we were wise or not wise in terms of agreeing to this set of conditions it could be the learning experience for Council and staff that to me is a little bit problematic um well it's it's I i' call it useless so we have to do better than that um Bob well I want to continue this because I Tom must be some consequences forget about changes what are the consequences for violating the Good Neighbor um agreement so we we could I guess revoke the approval if if they violated the conditions of the approval that's different than trying to impose new conditions well we can talk about that too but that that's that we have to have some remedy otherwise is Sam said the agreement is worthless and as Marx observed once we have a remedy then then then we effectively do have the leverage

[308:01] I use that word to either um either lighten the restrictions or or or clim down of the restrictions because the consequences the alternative consequences would be dire so I I hear you asking two different questions one question what happens if they breach the conditions in the agreement that's a violation agreement what H happens if we're not happy with the way the conditions are functioning and we want to impose additional conditions I don't think you can do that no I agree with you I this got to be objective so I'm just asking what I think the question mark asked which is what are what what are what happens if the agre agreement is objectively violated if iqu for a second can can the rental license be at risk I have to go back I have to go back and look at chapter 10 and see what the this there are there are criteria under which you can revoke a rental license I just don't remember if if that if that's one of them off the top of my head look m m cqu on this um how could we use the

[309:00] condition itself to um move the um for instance the quiet hours one way or the other could we write the condition in a way that says after a year if um X then we would move lift the quiet hours after a year if why then we would make them more restrictive I mean is could we write the condition in that way let's go down the list mirb and Bob well and again I mean but then remember that time moves on so what happens if you get a quiet Bunch this year and a noisy Bunch next year so to tack on to marry could it even be conditioned on if you remain under five noise complaints in the year you know you can have the leniency but if you go above five noise complaints for the year it's gone I I don't know because they

[310:00] could maybe have the Good Neighbor meeting once a year um to to recheck in every year and see how that works I again I'm just throwing some thoughts out there because I know the sound is the issue I guess um but again I I it goes deeper than the noise right I mean it goes into the parking issue it goes into how bad the neighborhood is being affected by multiple different topics of this so but I I know that we're on the noise right now so again maybe it's just something every year that they check in and there's a level of noise complaints that's if they're under or stays restrictive it stays restrictive or is not restrictive Bob I'd be as as mar Just observed it's much brighter than noise I'd be reluctant Mary to to start put together a formula um but thas now um raised my antenna because I am now concerned about what the enforcement of of the entire agreement is we need to have an enforcement mechanism once we have enforcement mechanism that has has teeth to it um we then have the Leverage

[311:02] to um to do whatever we want not whatever we want the leverage to have a sit down with the property owner and say you know what um we think there's a breach of the agreement and this really bad thing will happen um so we need to make some adjustments do you agree to them or do you want the really bad thing to happen so I'm I'm less worried about an amendment process and more about enforcement so Bob the enforcement provision is in section 95-1 subsection a no person shall occupy use or change the use of any structure except in Conformity with all provisions of this title and the conditions of any approval granted under this title so occupancy continued occupancy of the structure is conditioned on compliance with the conditions that you approved tonight right so we could pull the rental license so that's if we if we call for a periodic check-in and there's a report by I don't care if it's by the staff or by the neighbors or by the applicant but there's proof given to a future Council a year or two or three from now that that the good neighbor agreement is not being complied with and

[312:01] the City therefore has the power to withdraw the license which would be cat catastrophic I suspect then we're gonna have a very interesting discussion about what new rules might need to be applied and Bob I'm in complete agreement I just wanted to check in on one super Minor Detail I think we'd pull the certificate of occupancy with I think the city manager assist order says it can't be occupied the the provision for revoking the license is separate and that that can only be done for violations of title 10 the the violation of conditions in Title 9 it's fine okay great Bob Bob I think you and Tom have have kind of given us some insight into into how to do this we can have a a review at one year and see you know on balance is the uh n Good Neighbor agreement being followed or on balance is there a real problem and you know definitely if there's you know two or three big problems that are probably

[313:03] code violation related whether it's noise trash parking whatever then we'd have the conversation that you're talking about right you know it would be let's make an amendment so that we're getting better compliance with what we expected and if not then you know it's a very bad outcome and nobody wants that we don't want to have people no place to live so it seems to me like if we did what um was done in detention homes and we got a report at a year then the council at that time could evaluate um you know whether to direct the city manager uh about occupancy of the property juny this may not be a real concern but my question whether it's for Tom or people who work on the hill is that a requirement that we have of other properties on the hill that are being rented that you know if we can

[314:01] just pull their licenses or if you know the young people over there are being rockus so I'm I I'm just wondering if we are just being somewhat too restrictive or too strict on this particular property might I call qu juny please um I think one answer to why we're we're focused on this and not all other rental properties which is its own conversation is because this is an expansion of a non-conforming use that is not um compliant with its zoning and so because there's this expansion of the non-conforming use we have this conversation about how do we make sure that that expansion does not um degrade the um quality of life in the neighborhood which I forget which code provision but Mark quoted it early on tonight so I think there's a rational reason why we do that here because it's

[315:00] non-conforming and standing that's my guess as to why we're more focused on this than like every other property thank you I'm not questioning you know I'm not that's not what I'm questioning but yeah well can can you explain it maybe I didn't quite get it well I again I think what I I just get a sense that we're being much much more restrictive then I understand what you're saying there is an expansion and we want to ensure we you we maintain the quality of life but at the same time I I just feel it's slightly more restrictive than it might need to be because there are other properties in the area as well so if we're being laxa in those properties and we're just we're just focused on this particular one but I see Bob and Tom maybe they they have a better response to um just start with Bob and then Tom Bob I had I had a a policy suggestion but if

[316:00] Tom has a piece of legal advice I could Trum that so I'm going to yield the time and then I'll come back great thank you so I there's also section 9211 which provides for it requires a city manager to before issuing a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion to review the development agreement and make sure everything's complied with so and then there's a subsection B that allows anyone agreed by any violation of a development agreement to petition the planning board to hold a quasi judicial hearing to determine whether or not the conditions are being met so there's two different processes to enforce these kind of agreements okay Bob I wanted to touch on something that juny said and something I think that mirbi said as far as you know are we being too restrictive but on the other hand what if they haven't just have a good year and there's no complaints I was G I think checking in just once is not enough but I don't think that checking in perpetually every year for until the end of time is fair either so I was going to throw out this as a suggestion maybe there's after

[317:00] there's the initial Co is is issued that is people are actually going to start living there maybe three annual check-ins after that I I think if if they get it right for about three years in a row they're they're probably managing the property appropriately uh and we probably don't need to do check-ins regularly after that unless I mean obviously as Tom points out there's always a statutory grounds to haul them in front of planning board anyway so that doesn't go away but I just say three statutory three contractual check-ins I would ask that that' be a joint checkin by um staff and the um property owner that they come up with a joint set of facts if they disagree they can say they disagree the neighbors can obviously weigh in it can be presented to council and if the neighbors think that the staff and the developer haven't told the truth and they can offer their different version of the facts I hope we have the same result as we had with attention homes where the neighbors and the property owner came walking in literally hand inand and we delighted with the outcome I hope that that a year from now or three or four years from now everybody in the neighborhood and the developer

[318:01] are delighted with the outcome that that's that's what our job is to try to to nudge everybody in that direction okay so Bob you've put an idea on the table which is um three one-year check-ins and I I think you know it can be an on-balance check-in um you you haven't said anything criteria based so we could just have a review and maybe the first one comes to council and the other two are just staff level um so that's that's a proposal Bob's put out there three one-year check-ins the first one comes to council and they're focused on whether the Good Neighbor agreement is being complied with does anyone OB to that condition no okay great so I'll turn to staff and ask a question we've got four agreed upon conditions here that we would like to add

[319:01] would staff like to go back and put verbiage around that and then bring it back to us for final approval yeah that's my preference although I I'll defer to Sloan who have to do the heavy lifting but my preference would be to draft something and bring it back on consent perhaps at the March 25th meeting okay s that works for me March 25th is either a good time travel or a really long time from now May 25th mayby uh I'm assuming we meet May 25th uh but I guess I'll just put this out there to the residents um who are not happy with the agreements as they are if you would not mind emailing us if you're still on and awake um to let us know if these conditions make you feel better because I'd be very interested in hearing that before I voted on the

[320:00] project um Tom May 25th I think is a stud session did you mean May 18th Tom two weeks from now I just say that yeah so I had the wrong day and the wrong month but had two weeks other than that you're spot so um do we need to vote tonight or do we do we vote tonight with these verbal approvals and then bring it back on consent or do we have these written up and then do a final um vote in two weeks so the code says you have 30 days after the close of the public hearing to to issue your final decision so my recommendation is close the public hearing um I I think council's given Direction and then vote on May 18th on the final conditions of approval or change them super we will do that I'm going to recap what I think the four conditions are uh Aaron let once don't you go oh I just wanted to to get clarification on the process thing so it where do we stand then if we're kind of

[321:01] in a continued um or closed public hearing but a continued consideration of a quas Judicial issue like this do we keep I mean we're I guess we we haven't been talking to people we probably still shouldn't but are we okay with emails and and of course people can email us anytime right but how do we handle that so the the record is closed all you're doing is approving your final decision within 30 days of the public hearing or within such time as Council the applic M agree the council will either Grant the application whole or part so your final decision has to come within 30 days you're still covered by the all the quas judicial due process limitations on not m not considering evidence outside of the record so uh the emails to council will those count as the record I mean we have to read our emails right so yeah we will we will cons put put them in the record send them to the applicant make sure that they have an opportunity to but

[322:01] them if they show choose and we'll we'll we'll put that record before you on May 18th good now we can read our constituent emails with the clear conscience thanks for clearing for that Adam yeah I was just wondering real quick are these conditions in addition to any planning board conditions or are they in lie of any planning board conditions I'm interpreting them as in addition in the case of quiet hours we're altering one of their conditions for example but um I was imagining these all either altering or in addition to um yeah I just I wanted to make sure that was the case um and make sure we all agreeing in the same thing so okay if we agree and I think that's a very important point to bring up um I'll let Bob go and then I'll straw poll that and then I'll try and summarize our conditions Bob that was certainly my intention Adam too that these to be

[323:01] incremental um the point I was going to request I was going to make of Tom is and Tom you're probably going to do this anyway but I would encourage you to work with the applicant on the language um you know we you know some things they said out loud that they'd be fine with other things we didn't checking with them on we're kind of doing this on the fly a little bit so I would just encourage you I I would hope that you and the applicant L could come and holding hands with a um uh documentation that everyone agrees is is consistent with what we talked about tonight and that they can live with is the council okay with that as general I take Bob's suggestion sometimes the the community is not happy with us working too closely with the applicant I I I personally would say it a different way um I would say that I'd love staff to generate the first draft based on what you've heard from us running it by the applicant for their feedback I think makes perfect sense in case we've overlooked something um but I think generally uh I feel like Council is

[324:01] saying what the conditions of approval are we'd like staff to write them up and then Bob to your point I'd love to give the applicant a chance to review it but I'm not sure I want the applicant to draft them yeah no that's you said what I what I meant it was more of a drafting point to make sure that they were okay with the language uh they don't get to disagree with what we said tonight it was just more uh if they had a minor tweak to the language that was consistent with what we said tonight I would be accommodating of that okay so um first I want to straw poll just to make sure that we're all clear Adam's question is a very good one um I interpreted all four of these as either altering or in addition to um the planning board conditions of approval does anyone disagree with that okay seeing none and I think we're clear that the four I'm about to say give direction to staff will be either altering or in addition to the planning board conditions of approval first one

[325:01] 00 am to 800 PM 7 days a week as defined um by the planning board second um and that was straw poll six to2 in favor of that one single address for enforcement that was 8 to Zer so if we need to we direct the city manager on how to interpret the code provision third marketing materials must indicate that all forms of payment are acceptable including vouchers and then finally that there be three check-ins um at one year intervals the first of which gets brought back to council um and with that um we want to know noise complaints police visits code violations anything else staff finds relevant um to consider to see if the uh Good Neighbor agreement is being followed as well as our conditions of approval so those are the four any comments or feedback to those

[326:02] for okay very good so with that I think I'm going to close this hearing and send staff off to write up the conditions and we will on May 18th is that right May 18th um yes that's right um have this on consent unless we hear differently as CAC okay with that thank you to staff very much this was a tough one um and thank you to everyone who commented tonight thank you to the applicant um for being here anything else from staff on this otherwise we are done with this one all right thank you all very much let me pull up my cheat sheet here Alicia what are we doing next okay all right sir am I muted okay good um we are under number 8A matter from the mayor and members of council we

[327:00] have the City attorney recruitment subcommittee update I think that's me that's you Bob say my my wingman is not here I think we have a one slide and I'll talk as as you look at the slide and sobody can put it up um so um as as Council will recall we um we approve we as a group uh shortly after Tom announced um his that he would be departing uh this summer we um engage a recruiter thank you engage a recruiter to help us put together uh a job description we reached to a number of Staff members a number of members of the legal department to um to help us with what criteria and qualification they thought were necessary Council approved that um job description or profile on the 15th of March that was posted and there was a active recruitment campaign that went on for about six weeks the application process closed a little over a week ago on April 25th um we received a total of 12 uh

[328:00] applications uh for the City attorney position um our recruiter um has looked through those um and has spoken to a number of the candidates uh as preliminary interviews and she is recommending to us that six of those 12 fully meet the the position profile and our people that she would recommend that we take to The Next Step so the next step will be uh tomorrow uh Council will receive a confidential Memo from the city attorney 's office which will include um redacted versions of those uh candidate materials and you'll be asked to um I know later the next Tuesday uh share with the recruiter or with Jen sprinkle or HR Director your views on those um so that this could be a further winwing process I think what you'll be asked to do is is uh rank order them based upon your best assessment on on paper um our recruiter um Heather gance is available to meet meet with people

[329:01] and share with you what she learned in the course of the interviews so you could either do it on paper or you can meet with Heather as you wish this is a process very similar to what Aaron and Mary ran with the city manager a few months ago uh and they then we will um base upon that feedback we will line up interviews for the um top candidates I don't don't want to presume how many will be on top candidates um and that time is already set on your calendar for the week of the 17th for that to happen and then the idea idea is that um based upon those interviews preliminary interviews that uh Rachel and I would um receive feedback and then bring back to council our recommendations for finalists um and uh that could be as early as May 25th it could be the following week it'll depend on how quickly we get through that round of interviews so finalists would be identified either in late May or early June any uh questions about that process we're going to check in with with Council every week during the month of

[330:00] May to make sure that we're on track that everyone has a good handle on the process but that's what Rachel and I and Jen are recommending to uh to our colleagues uh for the month great thank you for that update and thanks very much for um taking on the work to you and Rachel Adam yeah I just had a quick question I wondered if Bob had the answer is that sort of a normal amount of applicants for uh position in a rooll like this in a city our size did you get that information from uh from our recruiter yeah I did and it's it's a sad answer um uh our recruiter was a little disappointed of the numbers if you look at the dates that are on that slide you'll see that the visibility campaign was started was scheduled to launch on March 22nd and I think we all know what happened on March 22nd and so um she had um a less active campaign um than she would have liked to have had in light of the circumstance it was difficult reach out to people in the

[331:01] days and weeks following the shooting and uh and recruit them actively so it was a more quiet campaign and she believed that may have resulted in slightly fewer applications with that said she also says that we've got some really really good applicants so I wouldn't I wouldn't take the number and extrapolate that to Quality is is just a lower number than I think we would have expected definitely and that's just what I was wondering um that doesn't speak to the quality of the candidates at all okay thank you Adam anyone else questions comments feedback all right very good thank you and with that I I want to um Alicia I think we're done with our agenda we're on to um any items from Council I have one um next meeting um May 11th will be the first meeting where our new city manager

[332:00] naria Rivera Vander is with us and she will be um present and leading that meeting on the staff side um that's great news but I also want to um take the opportunity to say a big thank you to Chris mjuk for having stepped into the role of acting city manager over the last six months since October um it has been an enormous amount of work not only did you of course have the covid issue to deal with with as we were continuing to power through probably the worst part of that but obviously there was a riot and a shooting that occurred also on your watch so you have done Yan's work it has been excellent work extremely high quality very responsive and we couldn't have asked for any more um from the service that you've given us in the interim roll so I want to speak for myself and thank you very much Chris I've enjoyed working

[333:00] with you um on all kinds of issues um and just again much gratitude to you for stepping into this role and for helping us out when we needed it and I'll invite any other council members to speak up if you would like to Adam yeah I would Echo a lot of things Sam said and you know we we get to choose to be in the positions to some degree that we're in but we never get to choose what we have to deal with while we're in those positions and Chris I you know I can't thank you enough for what you've done um in the time that you were just slotted into the position you're in that there's you know very few things tougher to deal with and the things that you've dealt with and um I just sincerely thank you and the leadership you have for the staff and it's it means a lot I think to all of us on Council that we had someone who could handle those issues the way

[334:00] you did thank you Adam I got Mary Aaron and marby Mary we're not worthy we're not worthy thank you Chris you just were so awesome it is beyond words so um really appreciative for how you carried us through these difficult times so thank you thank you Mary Aaron and I already gave Chris my one-on-one thank you last week when we were talking but just uh just thank you so much you know we you did an extraordinary job for our community over the last year and just really grateful that uh that even though you're stepping in from this position we still get to work together in the months and years to come so we keep at it together thank you thank you eron Mir thanks Chris I think if uh anyone was to look under the dictionary under graceful and humble and Beyond competent your name would be listed first um it's been just a great year getting to work

[335:01] with you especially because I was teamed up with you for the retreat as well as um the interviews for the city manager and it's just been a joy to get to work with you you're one of my favorite people um that I've worked with on my almost four years on Council so we're just very very grateful for you and to you and we wish you the absolute best um continuing to work with the city and work with us and we're so lucky to have you so thank you from nearby Ark CH I I think if you Google the phrase Grace Under Pressure you're going to find your picture uh there uh what what you have done under the worst possible circumstances is almost Beyond description it's just been extraordinary and at the same time it's been a pleasure to work with you um I look forward to continuing to work with you but what you have done in the last few months has been so outstanding it just Beggars description thank you thank you thank

[336:00] you B Chris you are a mench which is one of the highest compliments that anyone can pay to a person you are an absolute mench thank you and juny thank you um Sam I'm excited to be I look forward to meeting the new city manager and you know it's been a really Hardy year for all of us on Council and and for you know for Chris as well who just took on this role so thank you for your service and you're not going away I know this sounds like a going away um you know uh comments but um yeah so thank you for everything you've done for all of us great well thank you council members thank you again Chris um and with that unless I see any other hands uh Chris you looked like you were going to say something there oh sorry Chris

[337:00] I was just just gonna say really quick thank you I'm I'm so humbled by all of your comments and uh these last six months have uh have had lots of highs uh definitely some lows as folks have acknowledged but um the incredible partnership and Leadership of the city council uh H has been just awesome and um we have lots of city employees that talk about why they stay and work here and it's always about the people uh and we have an incredible team of people here an incredible team that uh continues to support all of the work that we do and has supported me and so um a big thank you to all of uh the city staff as well so um and yeah I'm not going far uh so um you'll you'll still see me so thank you so much good all right and on that happy note we will 30

[338:00] 38 all right have a good evening everyone good night night night [Music] everyone [Music]

[339:13] [Music]