October 11, 2023 — Design Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:07] Go ahead and get started. So I would, like to kick the meeting of the October eleventh. Meeting of the design advisory board. And, so I'd like to call the order. I think at this point. Someone reads some ground rules. Go ahead and do that, Devon. Sure thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Okay. I'll go ahead and share my screen here for the time being. Because there is an open comment section for this meeting. There are a few ground rules and rules of decorum. I'm just go ahead and read and follow throughout this meeting and throughout the public participation process. So the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations.

[1:00] This vision is supported, supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board of commission members as well as the democracy for people as of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revise code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall use shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Icity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by and individuals must display their whole name for being allowed to speak online. Currently only audio testimony is permitted online. Some time for public participation. There's one quick easy and way to go ahead and let us know that you're interested. At the bottom of your screen you will see a, write a raise hand icon and once we get to the public participation section all you have to do is click that button.

[2:02] And that will let us know on our end that you want to speak during the public comment. Also if you're on a phone, you can raise your hand by sticking by clicking star 9 and that will also raise your hand on there. And with that I will turn it back to you Mr. Chair. Okay, thanks. Let me start with a roll call. Let's start with, members and then we'll go to. City staff and then the the applicant, representatives who are here. So I'm Todd Brian. Dab chair person. Rory, Bill Shakovich, vice chair, DAV, I am having some internet connection issue. So if I, I may jump to my phone. Okay. Brendan. And Brendan Ash, Dad. And, Stephen Eckert with them. Okay. That's all the DAB members we have at this point. So city staff. Who are on the call?

[3:06] Funny power, planning and development services. Charles Farrow planning and development services. Devon Sanders, your board secretary and board specialists were designed by as your board. Alison Blaine planning and development services. I'm aliasing your planning develop services. Okay, and our planning board rep. Liaison. Okay. And, And ML Robless, planning board liaison. Do we have are any of the applicants? On the. On. The call yet. I don't see any on the list. Yes, I think, there's one from Oz is here and then. I'll listen is Michelle.

[4:03] It looks like her hand is raised. She might be the applicant for your project. Okay, I don't see that. Well, let's wait till we get to just wait till we get to the projects then. And then we'll go ahead and introduce. So let me move on to the minutes of the, we have 2. Previous meeting minutes that we need to approve. July twelfth. So, DAB members, have you had a chance to review the July, the twelfth meet, meeting minutes and is there a a motion to approve those minutes. Yeah, I did review those and I motion to approve those minutes. Okay, great. And I'll second that. Any, discussion about those minutes, any corrections or anything like that that we haven't.

[5:00] Already covered. No. Okay, so. Let's go ahead and approve those minutes. And then that's August ninth minutes or the. Are the most recent ones. And do we have a motion to approve those minutes? I'm open. Yeah, oh, go ahead. Okay, great. Any, discussion on those minutes? Is there any, need for corrections that we haven't already covered? No. I think a lot of that was your your stuff, so. Anything there? Okay, so is there a I guess I'll second the motion to approve those minutes without a any needed changes.

[6:00] Right. So, So all in favor of proving those minutes. Signify. Okay, thank you. So let's move on to public participation for items not on the agenda. Are there any, is there any public participation? On our schedule for. Items not on the agenda. There we go. Yeah, we do have a public comment section designated for this, for the meeting here. This is going to be an open comment, public comment session. We do have one participant who has their hand raised and I said telephone I believe so go ahead and I'm gonna go ahead and promote you here you'll have 3 min to go ahead and speak on whatever item you'd like. And at that time you'll be redirected back into the attendees list. I'll go ahead and share my screen will have the clock on there for you so that way you'll see the timer clock down. And once the 3 min start, you can go ahead and, begin your comment.

[7:01] Hey, this is Matthew. I'm trying to get into the meeting. I'm a DAV member. Okay. Yeah. And, for whatever reason the link has, has put me as an unregistered user. Got it. No worries. Thanks, Matthew. I'll get through renamed it in here. Okay, sorry about that. No, sorry, thank you. That's because your name is Galaxy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a recent name change. Going through some things Okay. Okay. Okay. Other than that, to each other and no hands raised. Okay, great. Let's make sure Matthew is in. There we go. Okay. Alright, I think we're ready to move on to the discussion of the First project. Which is 501509 Arapaho. And I think what we want to do is start with, Kind of a staff introduction and then.

[8:07] A presentation by the app tenant presentation by the applicant. And I think when we get to that, we'll introduce the applicants who are part of that project since we have 2 projects. So. Who's, who's our staff rep? Is that? Allison? Okay. Thanks, Allison. That's me. Yeah, we're. Hey, everyone. Nice to meet you. The, proposed project that you'll be hearing is 1509. And Arapaho, it's for a new housing development for 8. Attached units totaling just under 20,000 square feet the proposed building is 3 stories tall, with some, 75% of the parking is below ground in the garage. 2 spaces service level behind the building is located in the DT 2 zone and it is being presented to DAB this afternoon.

[9:06] Because it is located in the urban interface area. So I will go ahead and pass it on to Michelle who's the applicant. Thank you, Allison. My name is. Okay. Michelle, can you introduce your your team if you've got other people here it's not It's not clear. They are probably called in and came in similar to how I did, which they may not be showing up as participants. Okay. And just observing, they did not plan on speaking. So I represent the developer and the property owner. Great. With regards to this development and I do have a presentation that I can. Start for everyone.

[10:10] Yeah. Do you guys? Oops. Okay. Sorry, it took me over to a weird place. I had to go back to. Okay, let's try this again. Alright, so you guys see it now? Hmm, no. Sure. Have on now. Yes. I see. Excellent. Okay. So we have a proposal. 8 units, and our goal is to provide needed housing.

[11:02] That also incorporates the essence of the downtown Boulder character that we see all over the downtown area. We have opted to include native materials. Including Flagstone and the iconic red brick. So that it better fits in with the area. My place with this particular presentation is to specifically address the areas that staff said they had. That we may not intention fully meet the requirements. So what I am showing here is that the entries are designed to fit within the existing character of this area, which shows entries predominantly at grade. And we have the vegetation and everything along the pedestrian way to encourage pedestrian. Mobility as well as comfort as they go through those spaces.

[12:05] The other area was noting that the setbacks, may not necessarily all match. Now we did intentionally design this development to match with the development character that goes predominantly down the west and north side of fifteenth and then the west side of Arapaho. You can see here we're looking northwest. From the intersection of Arapaho and fifteenth and all of those developments do bump up against the sidewalk. Staff did agree that we do meet the setback. Consistency with those areas. And those developments. I also show here looking south along fifteenth. More of that development character along the west side of fifteenth does bump everything up against the sidewalk. So we would be continuing with that. Observed character the other thing is most of those developments are newer so we are trying to stick with the previously approved designs that have been coming up into this area.

[13:16] The other item that had been brought up was the solar access. We did intentionally orient this building so that it had ample direct sunlight. Along the sidewalks as well as the entrances so that they remain. Ice free and The courtyard and seating area along the north side of the building will provide the shade. And the along the summer months. So the other thing is that the buildings will not be providing any significant shoulder shadows on the neighboring properties. And especially will not impede any zone districts established solar protections. That's a big one that we try to ensure.

[14:05] Oh, and that's what you'll see here that we're demonstrating. Lastly, this just adds a little bit more of the neighborhood context. This is the south elevation of the building. You can see that the materials that we've chosen try to fit within the developments criterion standards that we see predominantly going up within the downtown area. Including that red brick, the natural. Stones the flagstones and then also that cedar finishing. This is our Northwest Elevation. Again showing how that design elements do fit within the more modern designs that we're seeing coming up within Boulder. And that character, the other items that we were asked to show for you guys is the open space.

[15:00] So this is the circulation in open space that. Are going in on that northwest side of the building here. Is the red arrow on that far side of the screen shows. We are trying to incorporate native grasses and we'll be retaining the existing tree that sits over here. You could see in this. This drawing. And then the other is that communal space for the residents, the courtyard. And how that'll be utilized it is tensionally designed to allow for an intimate space for everyone to gather and mingle as as desired. That concludes my presentation. Do you guys have any questions? Let me, let me ask any of the DAB members if, there any other. Perspectives. On this project that you want to see. Do you want her to present? She focused primarily, I think, at my request to on the questions that we're being asked to address.

[16:05] But we, there may not be a Good overview of this project. The My, might be more helpful to provide some context. So as Is there anything else that you guys would like to see before we? Kind of move on. Yeah, I was just curious if you had a. I don't know if you had a 3D. Or an oblique view like looking. Square to, you know, looking kind of, 45 to fifteenth and Arapaho. Like on the corner itself. If you don't, that's fine. I just was. Okay. Yeah, just a moment. I'm gonna stop sharing my screen and I can pull that up. It would have been the same. We the only 2 new items that we got were the 2 I just showed you, the others would have been in our initial submittal, but let me pull that up just a moment.

[17:01] And then while you're doing that. Well, I mean, Charles, I know, you know, we, I know we had our meeting and you guys probably the 2 talking about having this criteria which is going to be great. But reading through it, I realize what's gonna come up for me is that I wanna hear. You know, you guys say why you think it's not meeting that criteria. You know, you know, we're gonna need to see that. Or hear that. It doesn't have to be lengthy, but. You had there were 2 items that were checked. Yeah, I think either Ellison or Colon could probably explain what the staff position is if they wanted to jump in. Yeah, this treats only because it's not really, it's not a 90 degree, you know, it's a little angle.

[18:01] So it's. Nice to see it from. You know kind of this oblique view. Right. Brendan or, Rory. Or Matthew, anything you guys want to look at specifically? No, not this time. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I would also be curious like, Stephen said to hear. About the concerns about the setbacks. And then also. Just how it maybe how it's, I think, deep, from the design criteria. In addition to what the staff comments were, if that's something that we can. Add to our checklist. Okay, so. Matthew, anything? Anything else you need to look at before we?

[19:04] Kind of dialed down on the criteria. No, nothing. The supplement right now. Thank you. Okay. Alright, so when I was Thank you of doing is to. Is to go take the criteria one by one. I think it would be helpful for the. To for one of the staff members to elaborate a little bit on the staff comment. On that criteria and then. What I'd like to ask the DA members are whether or not you think the That criteria has been met. And if not, what you might propose, but you might recommend. And see if there's any consensus around that. And and then kind of move on to the next criteria. So if we could. It started in order. The first one is. It's kind of the general guidelines for non-historic interface and it's on page 12.

[20:00] Yeah. Of the, of our packet and, It has to do with maintaining the historic and predominant building setback line. The staff common is the building maintains consistent setback. For to the recent development of similar scale on the western side. Of fifteenth street. So do we need some collaboration on, that? Okay. Oh, from the applicant or from? Well, from the staff. Yeah, I think from the staff would be good to hear. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm happy to try in on this one. Yeah, sorry about that. But, so the kind of looking at the adjacent lots, on that side of Arapaho on the eastern side of fifteenth. There are some further setbacks for I think there's that Jason. Like apartment building and then behind it there's a commercial, it's like a gallery space right now.

[21:04] That are a little bit further set back from, the street but then we have the on the other side of fifteenth. Especially that building on the corner. What is being proposed is more consistent. It kind of matches with that. Set back that's a little bit closer to the sidewalk. And that's what we, marked it as partially meets, and just wanted dad to take a look at that and confirm that. You know, it does kind of match that other corner. Unit but is consistent with the other adjacent lots. So, so what you're saying is that it's consistent with the newer development. But may not be consistent with the with a more historic development, which is that. That little house where the gallery is. Yeah, I think the only, sorry, I'm just pulling up the map on my computer too, on the.

[22:01] I think as you go further to the east. As you move kind of towards the RMX zone, those setbacks also, or a little bit further back. Okay. So we need to try to work through each of these criteria with in about 15 min on each one. So. Is there a Yeah, go ahead, Matthew. Good question, Todd. Yes, so while we have staff. The where the setbacks are consistent with more recent development or those also residential uses or they different uses? That building on the other side of fifteenth and I believe is residential. On the second and third floors and then. Commercial I think offices on the ground floor. Okay. That is correct, Allison. We did reach out to the residents on who resided there. Didn't receive any concerns, but it is residential on the top floors.

[23:04] Okay, thanks. Michelle, can you dial in on that image that has the, The open space next to the building that shows the gallery. This one. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's that's the one that shows this. Difference in setbacks that Allison was talking about, is that right? Oh yeah, that was one that had come to mind, behind the, the development on fifteenth and then. A few immediately adjacent on the eastern side. Right. Okay, so is there. Is this is this criteria a concern for any any DAB members? This is Matthew. I, I think. I think this setback is consistent. I know the The door entrances to the units seem to be set back.

[24:04] Closer to what that step back would be for the residential historic use. So I think for townhouse development like this. I think having them actually closer to the street is consistent with that language. So I don't have any big reservations about it. Okay, Stephen, let me ask you. Same question. Yeah, I agree with Matt and. I think we also have to look at this in context of where this neighborhood is going. And so, you know, it's I understand. That we want to honor and think about kind of historic. Patterns, however, clearly this neighborhood is changing. Is becoming more commercial and higher density residential. And it would be, I think, actually detrimental if we were to follow, you know, the sort of old.

[25:01] Single family home. Set back. And in fact, You know, I can't see 1015, 20 years, not that gallery building will be. Replaced with a new building. And this is our opportunity to sort of set the streetscape of how it should be moving forward. And still kind of honoring. A little bit of what we've got going on and I really like Matt's comment about the, you know, that these entries are kind of set back in. It's not just a big street wall. Same goes for Arapaho. I think it's actually more critical on a Rapaho that we. That we look at this anchoring both of these corners on fifteenth and with the 2 new buildings that that's going to set. Right. A necessary precedent as density increases along wrap up. We don't we would be what we don't want is a wrapper how to kind of be a mishmash you know, 20 years from now and we only get a few opportunities to build buildings like this.

[26:02] So I really think this is. Consistent with. The guidelines as there. Okay, let me move on to, to Rory and Brendan. Yeah, go ahead, Brendan. I'll go with. So when I'm looking at the the elevation on Fifteenth Street, the West elevation. I feel like there's enough. So, okay, backing up. This building seems like a real, kind of node and transition spot for between this historic on Arapaho, this historic house, housing. Single family houses. And then, diving right into on the west side of Fifteenth Street is predominantly commercial. And so I think that there needs to be, you know, this building is important in terms of weaving the fabric of those 2 languages together.

[27:06] And I think that it does that. Well on Fifteenth Street that, you know, you have these entry nodes for these private residential units that are set back a little bit. While still having some street frontage and and I like that and then still having landscape buffer. My concern is that the elevation on Arapaho seems to be. Very commercial and doesn't it it's starting to set up this this facade along Arapaho. That is. It's like lacking street frontage. I mean, it seems like there needs to be an equal amount of street. Frontage and articulation and building design on fifteenth as there is on Arapaho. You know, you look at the building right next to the east of this on Arapaho and it's You're starting to set up the same problem and then on on the, west side.

[28:14] Those elevations are not neither of those elevations on the adjacent properties are primary facades. You know, they're sort of the secondary like almost alley or lot line facades where they're just there's not a lot of, interaction with Arapaho. And I know that that, you know, it's right across street from the parking lot of Buller High and there's those all sorts of issues but I I feel like it meets the setbacks and weaves the language of the residential, historic residential with the primarily commercial. On Fifteenth Street, but I think that it's kind of missing on Arapaho that there's there's just not there's not a weaving or an integration of what's happening.

[29:02] Or what needs to start happening on Arapaho in that area. Okay, I'm gonna make a note of that. That's not, you're not really talking about the setback. You're talking more, more about just the design of that facade. Well, the, the, setbacks. Are a part of the articulation on Fifteenth Street. Okay. So, weaving back and forth there, there are setbacks. And then I think that this one has. You know, is comes up to the street. Right up to the, it has sort of a 0. Is it set back which Sounds to me like maybe what, planning staff is looking for, but I don't think that it really does that building or this project or this area of town, any. Real favors in terms of having that 0 line set back. I think it sets it up as being too, flat.

[30:05] 2 flat, okay. All right, let me move on to Rory on this this particular criterion. Yes. Yeah, can you hear me, Okay, I guess so first specifically to this staff comment I'm trying to wrap my head on. I'm looking at Googlers here and then I've got the renderings up. And the one difference as subtle as it may be is that across 15. The West facade of you know the Mosaic Architecture building it still has a small planted buffer area. Between the city sidewalk and the building facade. And so I guess my question is. One, is it actually aligned? And is the, is it just the relationship to the sidewalks different on these properties across fifteenth? This is a question for staff. Or is it? You know, that 18 inch or 2 foot planting strip buffer closer to the sidewalk than the mosaic.

[31:05] Architecture building. I would say that if that's the recommendation staff has flagged this as a partially meets and there may be some movement either on the Arapaho. That helps to better bring that set back in line. Oh, if you want to consider that Rory as part of the design. Well, I'm talking about the West facade along Arapaho that the commercial mixed use building to the north, which is like architecture and a bunch of folks in there. Yeah. Their West facade has a planted buffer between the sidewalk and their building facade. The proposal does not, but then we are being told in staff comments that it's a lining that these 2 are aligned. So I'm trying to figure out how they can be aligned, but one has a buffer to the sidewalk and the other does not.

[32:05] Okay, got it. I think the difference from the staff. Comment here is that you have the in general they're very close it's not exact But looking at the smaller cottage behind this building or the apartment, the multi-family residential just east of it, you'll see those setbacks are a little bit different on the east and north side. Yeah. So why it's been flagged as Take a look at this. It generally kind of half meets the this guideline. What do you got? What is the board? Think as far as design recommendations. Is it small adjustments or at a buffer to kinda bring that in alignment or other things? Oh, he does. Yeah. Under. So what I, yeah, let me just complete my thought here real quick. So then I think without diving into, you know, other conversation topics and trying to be specific to this comment. My suggestion would be that there would be a planted buffer added between the building facade and the sidewalk. Of a minimum dimension to at least match what's happening north across fifteenth on the West facade of the commercial building that they're trying to you know, use as a reference for mass and scale.

[33:12] Okay. That's very succinct recommendation. So. So I think we've covered this criteria. Is there any, does anybody want to add anything to what we've already? Talk about. Yeah, I just wanna add real quick. Sort of to tack on to Rory and Brendan's comment. You know, it's interesting. Brendan, as you were talking, I was like, God, I realized that actually the building on the north side of fifteenth. Or the west side of fifteenth there, You know, it always is sort of weird how the Rappaho side is a little bit. Not addressing the street, right? And you know, I agree, I think there's a way that maybe this building could address the street.

[34:00] I don't know that the buffer does that though in fact the The landscape offer may actually be hurting the building. On the West making and not address the street so much. So I don't agree with that with Rory respectfully, but. Yeah, for next first. I think just. I guess we're trying to in this new discussion format guys, I think we want to be careful to. We're trying to sift through primarily the comments of staff. And then if we have time at the end, we're gonna have general discussions about activation. Right. And I realize that's not just going to be some black and white line. So I'm resisting the upper, you know, I'm resisting. Okay. Okay. The bait here to talk about how to activate arapaho because it's not the credit that we've been, you know, guided for it and I wanna respect kind of staff time and, you know, use with us here. So, Just wanna, as we move through more criteria, let's if we can all keep that in mind.

[35:10] Okay. Well, I think that the criteria is a little bit vague. And so. You know, I'm saying there's 2, there's, there's 2. There's 2 different conditions. One Fifteenth Street, setback condition, and then there's the Rapaho setback condition. I think the fifteenth street set back condition. Works and the Rapaho Street setback condition does not. I agree with that. And that's where I was suggesting potentially a planted buffer, realizing that that doesn't address an activation comment. Right. But is more consistent with, cuz basically staff saying, Hey, it doesn't mean, you know, the historic to the south, right? Because these are these houses that are further set back. But if we're using the Arapaho. It is aligning with the new Mosaic building to the north, but it's not really because mosaic does have a planted buffer. Now I'm not saying that they did a great job to address arapaho with that planted buffer, but for someone who rides my bike up and down these sidewalks often.

[36:05] It would be nice to not have a handlebar go right into an unactivated facade and if it's not going to be activated to have it be planted and buffered just to get a little more breathing room which then further aligns it based on Google Earth. With the mosaic building that they're, you know, kind of using as a partial alignment. But I think we can disagree with with staff and that that okay maybe that is part of the issue but I also think that we need to address the buildings. Additionally to the east. Right that I don't think that the necessarily mosaic building is The only problem. Correct. That's right. And I'm, and I'm saying that I don't know if we want it to look like them. Arapaho facade on the mosaic building. I think we. We want to go away from that, that we want to have the setbacks.

[37:06] Give this built this corner building. You know, 2. 2 street frontage facades and through the setback, I think it needs to it needs to be consistent on Fifteenth Street and Arapaho Street. Right, and friend, but it might it may not be a setback, maybe an articulation. In other words, you could keep. Keep the facade at the setback that they're showing, but articulate it more. I mean, I will say when I. First look down like, oh shoot, I wish they could flip it and put the fifteenth street inside on a rapo. And the wrap-a-hop Assad on fifteenth. Because of that articulation. And I think that's okay for, you know, even for us to comment on that. I think that there's a little bit of articulation that you guys can do. Without, you know, going nuts.

[38:01] Well, one of the precedents building as it was, in the packet was the 17 walnut. Which was actually a project that I worked on. Years ago. And I think that is a good example of addressing and keeping consistent. Like the, you know. Where the building meets at where and how the building meets the. Streets equally on. Right. You know, seventeenth and on Bye. Okay, I think we probably, covered this enough. I've, I've got some notes here and I think we've we could summarize it. I, what I'd like to do is move on to the next criteria. If you guys are okay with that. Yeah. Yep. Okay. So the next one is. Has to do with.

[39:06] With sun and shade. And the comment is the building has a mix of solar exposure on balconies and ground floor. Open space depending on the season. And I believe. That is the extent of the comment. Yeah. And I think it's probably good if I just kinda introduce this one as the. Criteria asks for this. Exposure to both sun and shade winter and summer and it's it's one that's kind of difficult on how the massing is. We noted that the building has some areas that have sun exposure, some have winter shade or summer shade. So it's a mix. And it doesn't quite fully meet all of the criteria but We have to market as whether it does or does not. There and it's there, but it may not be worth a very expensive conversation. Just. Because of the constraints of the massing and the kind of seasonality and those types of things.

[40:11] Does that make sense? It doesn't entirely make sense to me. So you're Okay. This particular criteria is a little bit of. I'd say it's a little bit of a double edged sword it's possible to design a space that has sun in the winter and shade in the summer by the building. Right. So that's what we're noting here is that they've mixed they have several areas within the open space that some of them have sun. Some of them have shade. While no one's face captures everything, but. Because the criteria so specific we just kind of marked it partially. It may be fine and that's what we're asking the board to kind of look and say that's either not a we find that it needs this criteria because of the mix.

[41:09] It's not something that they. Need to delve into further or if there is, some thoughts on the board that you really wanted them to strive, harder to meet this. Then you can make some recommendations like that. Okay. So let me ask the, members if you feel comfortable that they've adequately. Met these criterion address the the concerns raised in this. Regarding sun and shade and summer and winter. Yeah. Yeah, Todd, this is Matthew again. I just. On that topic, I just wanna know that you know all of the main entrances to the unit at ground level. Either face east or south or west and I think that provides adequate Sun, you know and ice protection weather protection for throughout the seasons for the main entry.

[42:10] You typical of courtyard buildings, there are gonna be shaded areas. But I think all the doors leading to those shaded areas. Or secondary exits and The, open space landscape at the north, property line. Or intermediate north property line. You know, is gonna be in shade. For a lot of the year. But it is access. It is accessible to it seems to be but to all the units. So, you know, I think given the as many units as we have on here. There does seem to be a equitable access to open space. And thereby, you know, views and outdoor space, light, etc. Okay, thanks.

[43:05] Stephen, you want to go? Yes, Roy, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I agree generally. I mean, it's a tight space. It's a tight site with a courtyard plan. You know, some of those comments about potentially orienting more. Building facade to the south could actually play into this comment because it could end up creating some small recess entries and things that would activate it in that process. But I think the private outdoor space. Makes up for maybe what the lack of courtyard can provide for each unit. There's like generous kind of roof texts and things that have ample opportunity for sun and views and then Shade structures or furniture solutions. Okay. Yeah. I guess my turn. I'm trying to wrap my head around this criteria. On the one hand, it seems like it's about kind of. Providing relief and reveal in the Architecture, which gives you light and chain shadow.

[44:08] And it also seems to imply and C me if I'm wrong just new to this. It also seems to apply for the residents inside, right? Not just. Outside like are they getting enough light? And so I think it does a decent job of that. I think, for share along fifteenth because of the articulation and I Again, it's sort of gets back to our other comments. A little bit about the South elevation along the rapaho. There's that the one section of the building that where the 2 entries share a porch on that. East side and then above that there's 2 closets. In that facade, you know, it was a little bit of a missed opportunity to use.

[45:00] You know, a little bit more light, maybe it's even just putting to light in those closets. But I'm getting nit picky, but in general I support this. I think it. It does meet the criteria. I think it could be. Tweaked a little bit enhanced and it would help with the other. As we had previously. Okay. Brendan. Yeah, I do not have any issue with. The sun shade and the seasonality of it. I think it's. Appropriate for the site I think units 8 and 7 are gonna Yeah, receive. The least amount of. And have the most shade and the least amount of sun. But again, the rooftop decks I think are high enough that it's, gonna become less of an issue that they're outdoors. They're private outdoor spaces. High enough that it that it will get sun I think And I just, I don't have, I don't have issue.

[46:06] I agree with the central courtyard is. Somewhat secondary and, appropriately. Internal and shaded and they're for shaded. Okay. Thank you. So, so it sounds like this is. Adequate given the limitations. Yeah. For both summer and winter. Okay, good. So let's move on to the third criteria then. Which is. You see what this one is. The residential entry stoops. Yeah, entering entry stoops and or porches. And the comment is the residential entry stoops vary. And include entries above grade and at grade. Is there, do we need any elaboration on that from staff before?

[47:07] We This is just another mixed comment. They kind of they meet some of them and some of it may be ADA access, some of it may be. . so the board as you look through this you may find that you know they don't need to strive to try to get the actual elevated and tree feature and meets it fine as is. Or if there's other recommendations there. Okay. Any need for further elaboration are you guys Deb ready to Talk about this. Let me start with Rory. What do, what do you think any? Any recommendations? Well, I think this is sort of the comment that we can kind of crack open some of these facade activations with because you know what really activates a residential building at the ground level is the primarily the entries in calling attention to them.

[48:11] And then of course the window patterns that support the program beyond. I guess it may be in the Pax, are the Eastern 4 units. Are they affordable units? If they are not, no. I guess I'm just, you know, in kind of having our attention. Brought to you know the entry of each of these units. The the eastern units and particularly the south facing ones at Arapaho, they just seem to be completely underwhelming compared to kind of the way you've rendered the ones that are entered off of. Fifteenth and and then of course they're shared which I realized is a is kind of a product of having you know back to back plumbing pores and things run up these models But I guess that's the entry to me that seems to stand out as As others have said here, the probably the biggest missed opportunity and it I'm not talking about its relation to being stooped or not.

[49:13] At grade. But just expressed in a way that actually could kind of start to at least be the first spark. Of activation on this building facade to this, you know, very primary Arapaho street. Michelle, is there an east elevation? There is just a moment. Where is that? Get at what you're talking about. Okay.

[50:00] I was looking at the South elevation with the east portion of it where the units are entered from You can see they've grouped the 2 doors next to each other. There's kind of they've done such a they've done such a great job on the fifteenth where not only are you expressing kind of the individual unit owners kind of town home or whatever condo vertically with the steps as they kind of step you know to define each individual unit they get the recess protected entries but they're individual and obvious. You know, I think this facade suffering from this entry is suffering from being grouped because it starts to become an outlier compared to the others and then not having some of the other accoutrements that the other entries have, which is kind of a landscape buffer before front door entry. And you know the windows above to kind of really highlight this as a function of the closets that he was talking about earlier. You know, I don't wanna blow up their entire plan. I just, I think my general comment relative to entries is that the south elevation entries on the east end. Could benefit from some additional design and and pushing some of the character. Derived from the West elevations.

[51:06] Into the south elevation to help activate. Rory, if I, is Matthew, if I can just. Add. Because something you said their main lot of sense. The. The arrangement of the units along fifteenth. Are not mirrored. In other words, it's the same unit mapped down the page. It seems like one of those mirrored units facing Arapaho could be. Flipped in the same manner. Without drastically upsetting the architecture there but it would separate those entrances and at least give you 2 unique entrances. Which would tie it, you know. Just visually and architecturally to the way entrances to the townhouses are on fifteenth So unit 5, for example.

[52:02] I could imagine. Being the same floor plan is unit 3 and rotated 90 degrees. And you'd get some of that more. Like that same language on arapaho. That's right. And you'd actually spread the entries further along the Arapaho facade and instead of unit 6 becoming like a corner entry. Yeah. Yeah. That's all. Let me make sure everybody, including me, understands what Matthew just said. Okay. So Stephen is that clear to you what Matthew suggesting? Yeah, I was actually. Gonna suggest. The same thing or you could do it the other way too. You could have this southeast corner of unit 6 be the entry and you know, flip unit, you know, the entering unit 6 without even changing that.

[53:02] 4 plan. I think the The thing that I know you guys, the designers, applicants probably struggle with getting that window well, right? Down in the basement. You know, so you're sort of really honoring that a lot and then you got this The one place where you have kind of a whole. Setup, I think those are windows, right? Yeah, reflecting the school, you know, is like. Where the laundry pantry is, right? And that And I think that, you know, if there's some way you guys can figure out how to do that. Window well and you know activate that. As the, you know, bigger entry to unite 5 and you know, 6 on the other corner or flip it like. Matthew was suggesting, but. It seems like we're all kinda. Talking around something, you know, along these. Those 2 entries that is not quite resolved. And, you know, just looking at this, obviously we're not spending hours, you guys have put into this, but.

[54:08] That window well is kinda hanging you up somehow and maybe there's a better way to deal with that window well. Stephen, can you can you put your cursor on? Specifically what you're referring to. Yeah. Yeah, does my does it show up or I gotta do that? Let me do that We want to annotate here. Sorry, here I'll stop sharing. No, I think we need that. Oh, I think that's okay. I can. Yeah, that's Oh, okay. Yeah, Steven's really good at using his cursor. Okay. All right, let's see. Where is the? You want the last one that we had up there? Let's see. Here we go. Annotate. Yeah, so right here and Michelle, you can. Drag me from wrong. This is a window well, right? And this window here. It's kind of a special window, but yet it's you know, it's going into that laundry area and stuff.

[55:08] Okay. I'm sure you guys looked at a scheme where this was passed through into your courtyard, right? Which would be really great. But, you know, and Matthew was talking about could you end up doing something with the porches, you know, entry here. And leaving an entry here or I was suggesting you could even flip this entry over here. You know, and just something's not quite resolved and I know you guys probably pulled your hair out. With this window welcome. We did cause the meeting the. The requirements for building code kind of dictated. The location of that. No, I can't. But you know, there's a way to do it. You know. I don't know, but.

[56:01] I mean, I think we could probably get to a place where we could move one of the entrances along Arapaho so that they're not clustered together. My architect wasn't able to be here today. But I could definitely talk to him with regards to that. If that would make it. Something that you guys would be more okay with. So that we could do that. I mean. I think. Oh, go ahead, I'm sorry. I will see. I mean, I will say that we do take a significant amount of time with our designs based on the people that we're shooting to cater to. Bye. With regards to this development. So that's not something that we're not, it's, not like the little cookie cutter. Homeset we see popping up all over developments like in Erie. Oh. And I'm not suggesting that at all and I'd I'd recognize the window well.

[57:00] I'm just saying you made this window special over the window well. And I think you, you know, you could kind of take that idea. Of making something unique and special and and do it on your do it in your entry. Right? I mean, this port does. Good evening. There's ways you could sort of minimize what's going on here because you're sort of calling a lot of attention to that window well with these windows. Into the laundry, right? And now I don't even know if they go through like you can see. No, it looks like it's just like on top of the window well. Right. And then, you know, if you were to punch. No, see where's my. Well, let, let me, Right. Okay, I don't want to get into designers, but I think it's I think comment is that it's just there's a way that the energy and really the repetition and energy that you have on that West elevation.

[58:01] Sort of is not quite as. Apparent in the south elevation. It's like almost there. And I just think it's worth, you know, a little bit more exploration. I'm not saying that, you know, starting over by any means. I think what Matthew suggested and worry was some, you know, ways of kind of flipping those porches that doesn't change the unit. Yeah. Yeah, so we we really want to just cover this conceptually and not and not get too specific about it. Yeah. I will say that is, if that's the direction from the board of, you know, look at this elevation. In regards to kind of the setbacks and articulation that it starts to have that townhouse pattern. That's great direction for us as staff as we move forward in this the project moves forward. And then Yeah. And I haven't commented yet. I'd like to. They're still. Okay. So in, it really is piggybacking on the other comments, but the West elevations there's a problem that there's and inconsistency and in a lack of cohesion between the all 4 elevations.

[59:14] That they're all very different and I think what really works on the West elevation is that you have a rhythm and a pattern that is that is repeated and it does work I think for this elevation and for this project type. But what's happening at the entries specifically that's calling out the entries is having the, decks above. So you have, you know, in our articulation of, like the, built the, building material weights change the you know you start getting the deck in the deck rail that has some a little bit of transparency. And then you have the So solar shading feature, all the windows are. Most of the windows on this west elevation are somewhat different.

[60:12] But they're like consistently different. And I think once you get to the south, elevation, not bringing any of that rhythm or repetition or language into the south elevation. The balcony is not above the entries. The solar shading is, is missing, you know, in that. In that bay. And then the windows are. Are just all kind of rhythmically. So varied. That, it's, it's just a huge, deviation from the West elevation. So I think like raining in and bringing in elements of repetition on that self elevation would help.

[61:09] Okay, thanks Brendan. That's very helpful. In general and it would also help. With street engagement on Arapaho. So, we're, we need to wrap this, this one up and then, move on to the. 56 75, Rapaho, but let me. Let me see if I can summarize what we. What our comments are. We covered him pretty quickly, but. We go back to the first criteria. It looks like. We're saying that. Basically, let me start at the kind of where we ended. And, move. Sort of backwards from there. So. One of the comments from Brendan was this. 17 walnut is a good example. Of setbacks on 2. That are more consistent on 2 sides of the building.

[62:03] There's a concern about articulating. The Arapaho facade more. Which I think comes up also comes up in a later comment. And it's and the other comment I think that. That they're there to be more variation or articulation on the Arapaho. Facade in which also it includes the setback and that they're that the planted buffer. On one side of the street could be more consistent with something on the other side of the street. So that those things are tied together a little bit better that there's some Consistency that may not need to be a planted buffer but the concept is that. We're looking for something that's more consistent. There was the basic, I think the basic, feeling about the setbacks.

[63:06] On the building where the where that day. We're consistent with. We're generally consistent with new development. That that's kind of where the street was going. And so the set, the older setbacks are probably. Not long for this world and will eventually be changed. So being more consistent with the newer. With the newer architecture is really. Where we want to go with that. Let me see if I'm missing anything there that. That I need to add. And whether that's whether what I said is. Straightforward or confusing. Hopefully it's not confusing. I think that the general feeling comes across. The second 1, s criteria. I think everybody felt that it was that the sun and shade.

[64:00] Issues were. Adequately addressed. Given the limitations. And that there was really nothing that. Dad would recommend. And then the third criteria. Is really where we kind of got into. Looking more at. How the the energy and the articulation of the West Side. The West facade was really I think everybody felt that that was really a very Good treatment of. Of. All of those considerations around. The Of. Not sure I can't remember exactly what that right to what the criteria was about. Enter. Oh, okay, right. Yeah, Right. It was about the entries and tubes and We kind of used it to henge and basically the entries on the south facade.

[65:03] Could need, should be addressed with further design study, which will also help the other comments about our articulating and activating. Right, right. So the south elevation. Could benefit by considering treatments on the. On the west side, there was some discussion about flipping units. Which hopefully made sense. And then, And. The final comment was really about the. Kind of the lack of cohesion among the all of the elevations with the West elevation working the best. And that there was needs to be. There's a consistent consistency and differences on the West elevation, which I thought was in. Interesting way to frame it. And that the other elevations could actually benefit from. From that. Those kind of stylistic.

[66:02] Choices. I'm am I missing anything there? No. Yeah. I just had, one comment to make about the setback thing I think is a little bit confusing because I think that the fifteenth street step backs how they jog is. Consistent with the mosaic building. Actually, and that There aren't really any. Unless you're on on the rapo side of Fifteenth Street. So it's like we have it flip. So on the fifteenth. Street site. Side of the mosaic building is is flat. It's you know right on the street and then the rapahoe is jogging in and out. And then we've kind of reversed that. On this project where we're dogging in and on fifteenth and then it's flat on Arapaho. And I think that the jogging in and out would help and it would also actually match the mosaic better on on Arapaho.

[67:07] So you're suggesting jogging in and out on a rapo, but not changing. Fifteenth. Make it make the jogging in and out happen on fifteenth and wrap home Okay, alright. Okay. Thanks for that. Correcting that confusion. So are we ready to move on to? The next project. If we are, I might want to just thank Michelle. And see if you have any specific. If you have any other questions about to clarify what we talked about. Or anything else. I see, I think just the most recent comment that was made with regards to the jogging along Arapaho. And this is so I can make sure I'm clearly sending this back to my team. Is what I am envisioning with that is kind of going back to the moving the entrance and kind of breaking up the facade a little bit more to the entrance?

[68:14] Would that be something you guys are more looking for when you're saying jogging like the mosaic and then our fifteenth street. Facades. I'm struggling with how we would be able to do that. The reason we're able to jog or the mosaic is able to jog is because the streets aren't straight and they're angled. So we have to jog them. So I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding. What you guys are looking for so that we can. Provide you something that you would prefer. And so in my head, I'm thinking the moving of the entrance would probably satisfy that, but I just would like some clarification. Very good question. Thank you. Go ahead. Brendan. Yeah, yeah. I think that I think that the having the entries. Step back from the, from the Arapaho phase would help.

[69:10] And also, you know, the comment of flipping, separating them so you have additional, entry, step, step backs, jogging. You know, where you, we talked about mirroring, you know, so that the entries aren't side by side. Yeah, yeah, make them special, not that. Women a well, Windows special. Like you could have transomes. There's lots of things you could do to make them more important. Right now that's the most important thing. Is where the window well is and that that just shouldn't be. Okay. I, I think. Yes, that makes more sense. That makes sense. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. And Michelle, I think it's worth noting too that these are these meetings are recorded so if your team needs to listen to the recording too.

[70:04] Oh yes, no, I'll definitely be sending it to them, but my assumption was if I wasn't fully grasping what you were mentioning and how you guys were visioning the area. They probably wouldn't either. So I just wanted to make sure I clarified. So thank you very much for the clarification. Yep. Okay. And thank you again for your. Your work on this and, and explaining it to us and kind of. Walking us through it. So we appreciate it. Of course, I, we are happy to do that. And we will. Try to make a rapahose facade a little bit more. Engaging for you guys. Okay, great. Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Are we ready to move on to the next project?

[71:05] Hello. I see Chandler's. On the screen, hello Chandler. Can we get a time check just out of curiosity so we're at 5 15? How are we tracking as far as you know the plan? No. Well, we we are exactly on schedule. Yeah, 8 plus so far, very nice work. Yeah. Yeah, well done. Yeah. We may we may have locked out though, so let's let's see what we can do on this one. Okay. That's good. Okay, so Chandler, you're up. That is That is quite impressive. There was a few rabbit holes that presented themselves and somehow we Yeah, I'll just kind of tee it up for the applicant. So this is a request, a down referral for 56 75 or appaho, which is currently in for site review. They're in their second round of review currently, the proposal. As for 2 life science buildings and an amenity building, totaling.

[72:01] About half of the square footage of the site, so a point 5 F. They're proposing within the height limit. Meaning most of the by write standards really, they're required to be in site review because the size of the site. It was referred during concept review by council to DAB. Staffs done a preliminary round of review as I mentioned and, Clyne did a great job with kind of putting the criteria checklist in the memo. At this point, I think what we're mainly looking for are comments on kind of the site. Access and circulation. There's a service road that goes kind of around the buildings. So it's unclear whether that is consistent with the site review criteria, similarly just looking for feedback on. The kind of how the project overall fits in with the context of the surrounding area. And then, a little bit of feedback on. The parking area and kind of weather. We feel like the parking area and its location meets the site review criteria.

[73:02] It is worth noting just really quickly and I'm sure the application might talk about this as well. The site is impacted by both wetlands and floodplains, so high hazard 100 year. And conveyance and high functioning wetlands. So the reason that the building is set back so significantly is to avoid the high-functioning wetlands on the front of the site. Also in terms of the flood plane, the site was approved for, through site review, like over a decade ago and it was never constructed, but they did a bunch of grading to basically elevate the building platform out of the floodplain. So there's essentially kind of a rectangle in the middle of the site that is out of the flood plan. That's the buildable area and all the kind of boundaries of the site are within the flood planning. So that's really kind of all I wanted to mention about the site and now I can turn it over to the applicant to give the presentation.

[74:03] Okay, so. We have Joe. Welcome. Thank you. Happy to be here. Can you? Can you can you introduce your team if If there are others here, looks like there's at least one. Yes, of course. Yeah. And thank you. Thank you again for the time and thank you Chandler for the introduction. My name is Joe and Asasi, an associate principal at Oz Architecture and the applicant speaking and presenting on behalf of our client, Chensor West and the team. Also joining me as well as John Yates, a project architect here at Office Architecture. So Again, thank you for the time. Okay. I'll sort of jump in to the presentation and address some of the criteria. I kind of go through the thought process and again, happy to answer any questions as we as we get through this. So the so the site as Chandler mentioned is an interesting one. We've got the floodplain kind of surrounding us on all sides. A railroad to the north, industrial uses to the east and west. We have our wetlands, Arapaho.

[75:04] So we certainly didn't make it easy on ourselves. But, you know, I think with with some of those challenges comes an opportunity to be really creative. And so the idea really is to create a contextually responsive architecture, forward thinking, while also being respectful to the surrounding context and some of the surrounding site in East Boulder. You know, it's an area we've been a part of for the last 20 years, specifically kind of seeing the growth and the changes over the last 10 years in Flat Office Park, you know, delivering mass timber and some other unique solutions. So this is this is an interesting site like I said you're kind of getting a sense of the aerial right here. And as we as we sort of dive in. Some of the context that you've had a chance to review. Again, industrial uses surrounding us at varying times with different architectural features. And then again, you know, and also an incredible site too with some of the views as you start to get to the second level and the views of the incredible front range.

[76:02] You're really trying to leverage that as you'll see in the design. Again, the flood plane as we mentioned and so it really starts to set the stage for the form of the building and how we develop the form and how we're responding. So if we start looking at how we came to this solution. I think one again, it's the flood plan. It's the wetland so our building is naturally set back from that out outside of that buffer and then inset on the east and west sides as well. From there as well, we have about 206,000 gross square feet of this sort of life science use. And so breaking the building forms into 2 forms, separating them so they each have their own sense of place and sense of entry. This has the possibility to have multi-tenant situations. So they really each want their own front door and sense of way finding an entry and not just one large facade. That just takes over the site. So really shifting the masses and creating outdoor space as you'll kind of see in the design really having an activated indoor outdoor amenity area was very important for the site to create this sort of connected campus.

[77:10] Shared amenities for potentially multi-users. So the building shifts, to create those types of spaces. And then the building wants to naturally open up to the west side to leverage those views. And so you'll start to see how the building sort of anchors. On the east side and then begins to more naturally open up to the West. Again, each building wants their sense of entry. So having a bit more of a angular form at the primary entrance a little bit more glass and then contrasting that with a more patterned articulation that kind of balances with some of the natural trees that we're trying to save around the wetlands. So maintaining as many trees as possible was important and then filling in with a lot of new landscape and shrubs, rain gardens, swales, all of these things sort of interconnected in this seamless landscape environment.

[78:01] You'll see in the design as well. You know. More of an articulated vertical venestration on the east and west sides, really being responsive, responsive from a solar standpoint. And then creating this sort of connected amenity. So pedestrian trails we've integrated, you know connections between the different modes of transit I think are an interesting aspect to this that we've tried to integrate. Now you'll see the solution. The solution of this. And so, you know, with respect to the criteria, one of the questions came up as far as, you know, why the building is set back. Again, it's as far as, you know, why the building is set back. Again, it's it's by nature of that responsiveness and having a respectful, really appreciation for the wetlands maintaining that natural environment, having trees to sort of buffer the actual view from the street to you get to the by the time you get to the site. The other sort of thing we're dealing with is all of the site slopes to the north. And so we're sort of grading down from the wetlands and it's draining naturally to the north of the site.

[79:00] And so it's a it's a opportunity. It's also a challenge and you'll kind of see the the best access for that kind of minimal surface parking really is is kind of in front and we understand you know you know we don't like to put parking front and center of any sort of building and it's not in line with the city boulder standards. But you know we're 150 feet back from the street. We've naturally buffered and we've got 150 feet back from the street we've naturally buffered and we've have renderings and views to kind of show that, natural buffering and then really wanted a clear on grade access for that deck. So, so when you're really accessing it the highest levels at that primary interest off the front for guest parking. And so really creating, you know, that entrance. A sense of interest for guests right here, tenants getting them down to the P one garage and really hiding a lot of our parking below the deck and creating this sort of seamless landscape above and really not having any perception that it is the sort of parked underground structure. And then the last mode of access really again, seamlessly and we work with Dave Lowery and the team and fire to have a path that makes sense, you'll see that primary trash and loading access and that was a question that came up during their criteria.

[80:08] But that's kind of in the flood plain a little bit lower. So separating that use as as a primary access point for the fire department. Was key. There are opportunities potentially and we've been again continuing conversations with Dave. Maybe we could sort of get to this point as a loading back of house turnaround and not have to connect any further. That helps us and you know we just fill that in with landscape. So that is something that we're kind of considering and also in the context of this conversation really welcome you know the board's feedback and really coming up with a good solution and Really, minimizing any of that additional access. And in lieu of that, Dave, I think was comfortable with maybe, hey, you know, in case of an emergency, we're going to drive up on the deck and maybe from that point we have the right distances where they don't have to loop around. And so that that is a that is a consideration that we're looking to integrate. Probably in the next the next iteration.

[81:01] Joe. Sorry to interrupt you. I'm gonna have to cut you off in about 4 min. Sure. No, please. Okay. So If there's some other critical stuff you want to get to. That's about how much time you got. Yeah. Okay, that's great. Now thank you for the warning. I'm tracking, and I say, hopefully I'm not boring you too much. So sorry about that, but. Okay. Okay, good. Alright. Yeah. I'll just we'll touch base on a couple more key points just kind of set the stage and then kind of get into some discussion and you can kind of see the result of the design. You've got your amenity area sort of protected opened into the West, a minimal surface broken for guests, ADA, and then again a really natural landscape surrounding the site. You could kind of see what I was mentioning before for the overall site and really trying to address some of the does the site design criteria that was indicated as partially meats and you know wanted to be a discussion point in this meeting. The other thing we're trying to do as well is we've got a couple access points to the garage from the plaza. And so really opening up in the garage and creating a nice, you know, connected. Point simplify in circulation like I kind of mentioned from a gradient in floodplain standpoint, which is why that was sort of indicated there.

[82:13] And so you really get a sense of the plan, which is why that was sort of indicated there. And so you really get a sense of the plan. And then I'll just kind of you kind of see you can't really tell the parking we're sort of in filling the lot of landscape. And then. Again, really balanced landscape deck really filled in and balancing with the natural landscape. Fading into the structured deck that's hidden. Below and then you're getting a sense of, some of the design again, as I, as I kind of mentioned, the architecture, getting those prominent entries, a simple sense of rhythm, clear. Clear sense of entry as you can kind of tell covered colonnades That was another thing and then a I think a unique amenity shared amenity for the building and sort of filled in with landscape serves as a really in activated indoor outdoor.

[83:09] Design. Yeah, thank you. Great. Oh, thank you. I love your setback. The wet ones. I know, yeah, me too. Okay, let me see if there if there any DA members who want to see any others specifics before we get into the discussion that you might. Be able to show us. I just had one though. The one question I have is the, I guess your site plans turn. So the West. The connection when the back of house service fire lane, you know, comes off the entry drive wraps all the way around and then exits about halfway down the property length to the property to the west. Yeah. Did you just fill us in? I mean, to me that looks like if that site was really, is there an easement there and access, or if that site gets redeveloped that.

[84:04] Access would not be feasible potentially. Yeah, it's it's a really good observation. So there is a utility and access easement on the neighboring property that extends to this point. There's a sliver right at the end of our property for 5 feet or so to access that point. We've had good discussions with the neighbor, about those access easements, which are, expected to, to maintain, continue that easement as another second means that you guys for fire, but it's not primarily used in any sort of meaningful way for the site only in an emergency situation is to just complete the rest of that access. But other than that, again, keeping our primary access as quick as possible trying to get get parking and get cars where they need to be, get parking and get cars where they need to be, get them off site. By chance that shows the adjacent property and the extent of that easement. I'm just I'm confused like Does it go entirely through that property and somehow reach Arapaho?

[85:07] It does, yeah, it does. I could, yeah, I'll. Okay. Okay, that's enough conceptually for me then. So that's a maintained connection to Arapaho that you guys have access to. You can kinda see it on page 80 of the packet. Yeah, I was just wondering if they redevelop that site though is that actually so that is the easement essentially the existing drive line over there. It is, yeah, I can pull it up separately. I don't think I have the main packet open. Wow, that's a encumbrance on that property, isn't it? Just have a access easement right down the middle. Yeah, and yeah. Okay, that's all I had as far as additional requests. Anybody, anybody else have any additional requests? I have. Some questions, some questions.

[86:00] Okay. So I As I understand it is the you know it is a life science campus. Our Buildings A and B occupied by the same. Per group or could they potentially be 2 different tenants? That's right, yeah. So at this point, still looking for the right tenant situation, having good conversations on a leasing standpoint. The idea is hopefully it's one tenant but we're preparing for the opportunity to have multi-tenants whether by floor, whether by building. So at this point, it's it's a campus that has an amenity that can be shared in a multi-tenant situation, but we just don't know at this point. But that is certainly as a potential to have multi tenants in the kind of life science realm. Okay, so it's really just shell space for A and B. See is a bit more, developed or is that it is.

[87:01] The amenity space finished. So. It, yep, so it's plan to be finished at this point. The client really feels strongly in in putting together a robust amenity package. So it's about 10% of the overall area for the buildings is allocated to amenity and that would include showers. Gyms, conference center areas. You know, a nice living. Room, potentially coffee shop, to serve various tenants. And then. It programmatically. You know, if we are gonna have multiple users and we're talking about. You know, science labs. Potentially and and so when, when we're, when we begin this conversation about. Loading and back of house. I'm just it's I'm a little on clear as to where is it gonna be like shared mechanical?

[88:04] Is it, localized shared trash like what is back of house loading and you know what Are we potentially using this? 4. And if it is like mechanical access and so forth. I'm just not seeing. Sure. A lot of and it just could be the the plan that we have aren't. Aren't filled out but just you know as you're building the shell space how are we dealing with with the mechanical you know rooftop units and crash and sort of some of these services that I assumed this Lane is going to be. Or Sure, yeah, of course. So all of our, mechanical screening and mechanical equipment will be on the roof and screened. We have a large PV system. It should be noted as well that takes up a large portion of the roof area just from our energy model and meeting cities codes from an actual loading and service standpoint right now the buildings are functioning with their own sort of trash pickup.

[89:11] At each one and so that would occur, you know, a direct trash off your primary service elevator. Backup house here, backup house here. We did, did explore potentially having one sort of centralized trash area for the city. And those would be pretend, you know, whether it's Gators or something, bring in that to a, to an area that is a centralized located facility to sort of simplify the trash movements that that's definitely being considered right now. It's by building. Directly and then move in loading lab equipment is just backed up here. We're planning for a 40 foot truck or something in that realm just my life science use WB. 40. So that would kind of occur in those 2 zones, which is why we really got to that point.

[90:02] We're having this kind of really trying to get that back of house away from the primary amenity area. So that was the goal there. Building A if we need to pivot and maybe eliminate some of this in here. Which I think is again being contemplated. There might be a way to kind of you know, do that in a nice way and conceal it and another portion of the facade. But you have your primary form here, your primary form here, and a sense of entry for guests. And so really trying to get that away from that kind of primary pedestrian, nice amenity areas. That was really the key for us. Okay, thanks. Are we ready to move into the? Yeah. Okay. I, I have one more question. Sorry, because I think it's really relevant is, just out of curiosity, the, I'm trying to look through a threed and, you know, trying to observe this quickly here, but. The parking deck is there no way to circulate through the parking deck and then basically exit the parking. Page right and then, you know, eliminate an extremely long section of service road.

[91:06] Or did the grades not allow for that? Actually go up here on deck and then go through. Yeah, good. Yeah Or down that where that purple arrow comes. Like you basically circulate through the parking lot in order to have service access. Is that not feasible with the grades? It's tough. I think I've got a site section that kind of shows it. We're kind of a three-foot difference because our building structure is set above the flood plain elevation by a few feet and then the access drive is a little bit lower sort of within that not put in any buildable area obviously within that zone. So there's a you could kind of get a sense of it. I think this represents it the best. So it's not much. It's a few feet difference. You can kind of see this 52 30. It's about it's about 3 and a half feet or so 4 feet. Okay, thanks. There might be a way to kind of ramp that. Yeah, if we need to, certainly. But, and then ramp it sort of within that zone and get around before you, yeah, you get off.

[92:00] Exactly, cause I think that Relative to the comment that this first comment, I think that that's critical information to. Provide feedback. Sure. Yeah, no, it's, it's a good comment. I appreciate it. Okay, are we ready to move on? Okay, Steven. I got one just clarification, John. Do you have a? Do you have a longitudinal section like length lies on the side? I'm trying to. What I'm one of the comments about kind of the setback, right? You know, what lands I'm trying to figure out. You know, how it steps from or app. How do I want to see it? I think. I think I do. I could, I could pull one up. Do you have a section from a wrap all like lengthwise on the site? Or that. Going that way. And the reason I'm bringing it up is because. You know, we'll get into some of that comments is that. The wetland existing wetland area, I mean, you guys are constrained by that.

[93:02] It's there. And then, you know, and then you're starting your building and you have some pretty interesting landscape. Walls and features that you kind of start, you know, I see in some of their. Hey, pictures. And I'm wondering as we get in this discussion about kind of a wrap all in this street, you know, if there's no way to sort of like. Start to define your. Oh, you know, with some of those low like sort of occupy that wetland tiny bit. Just a gesture. You know, to the rest of the street rather than like we got this wetlands and your billing set way back in and it's its own animal. Anyway, just to bring that up, cause you do have some cool kind of moves that some of your other pictures where you're doing that but back in. You know, later in the site, you know, you've got these things happening, but not Not on a wrapahoe. Itself.

[94:01] Sure. He's kind of retaining walls. It's almost like I would love to see like, you know, 20 foot long routine while. Hey in your, you know, the other buildings that are adjacent to you. Just kind of as a remnant, just a gesture of like. You know, cause it's not natural, right? Yeah, the wetlands there, but it's not really natural. Without something like that, you're letting the sidewalk do that, which you know. Isn't really as powerful as the rest of your whole complex. So it's almost like. It's almost like an entry. I don't know how to describe what I'm talking about, but if it makes any sense. How are we jumping into the review now or we? You're jumping the gun. Yeah, I guess so. Sorry. I'll shut up. I'm joking. I love that. Yeah. Okay, so let's go back to the criteria. And kind of walk through those. So we, are, We were a little ahead of schedule.

[95:03] Okay. Now we might be a little bit behind. It's 5, 5 40, but I think. I don't know how complicated these are going to be. So the first one. First criteria is dealing with circulation. And the comment is review and make recommendations, if any, the location of the back of house services that create the need to provide the extra vehicle circulation. So. Yeah. I'll just jump right in, Todd. I think it's a comment off of my initial kind of inquiry. I guess, you know, quick, knee-jerk reaction is you just got, you got duplicate circulation. So like if you could use. The parking circulation itself. To deliver you as far north and before exiting and figuring out how to tie into grade. You would eliminate, you know, potentially over half of the service lane. On that east facade and this is kind of a permeable calicre like a landscape versus hardscape calc.

[96:02] That I think is at the base of this. Comment. So, I guess for starters, I would just encourage trying to figure out how to leverage the circulation that's already necessary. In order to park. To also deliver you as far north on the site as possible. Does that make sense, right? Like a service truck could drive through the parking lot exit the north side and then Just have a short lane to get to the back of building B. So you'd have the same lane that would just go to. Right. No, imagine, so we're entry drive. Kind of peels into the number one. Yeah, then you exactly and you're able to eliminate everything between there and plant it. Oh, I see what you're saying. So that's the you're talking about. That's the only thing you'd eliminate. You would have it wrap all the way around. To the. To building A like it does, you just eliminate that one section.

[97:10] Well. It has to doesn't it for fire access? I mean you're not getting rid of that road. Yeah. No, and and I think the criteria What the? Fire Act that has to get to that. Oh, David. Yeah, David seemed comfortable allowing it to maybe go here and get his distances. Within this zone if you could get to that point and have the right dimensions to there. So there might be a potential, there it's close. There might be potentially seem comfortable because they're gonna drive on the deck anyway, so it's kind of planned for that wait. Is it, is it 250 feet or more? Between. I was just wondering, I forgot the fire, the fire access distance was 250 feet wrapping around the perimeter. Yeah, I think he wants 1 50 to any corner of the building. Okay. Yeah, Well, the criteria, I'm just reading the criteria. It says the design of aicular circulation and parking areas.

[98:07] Minimize the amount of pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs. So I guess you know from the perspective of a of a potential tenant that wants to be able to circulate around this building have multiple access points for trash and you know, have like a true back a house that vehicles can serve like, you know, from building B's perspective. Yeah. And just you know the fluidity of being able to move through this campus if we just if the goal is do we eliminate Additional pavement you have a perfectly good parking lot you can circulate through and then a service road directly adjacent to it that's also just circulating past it. Yeah. So I guess just combining those would help meet that criteria. Okay, so. Yeah. Yeah, Rory, I think this is Sorry, just quickly. I think this is this is an example where the site review criteria.

[99:02] Right. May be designed for a certain level of development. This is a full campus with 2 Billings that are allowed to be there by use. They both need a full complement of individual services. So trying to shoehorn. Just for the sake of reducing access roads trying to shoehorn to absolutely, you know, 3 different buildings. Into the very minimal amount of pay thing to access it isn't really going to service the program or the function of the building. So I guess to conclude my my 2 sends I would Concur with Rory and that I think if there's a cosmetic change to the paving where it's possible as you approach building B from the from the south. I think that would seem like a fair compromise and sort of break up the the. Kind of monotony of a however long that road is, you know, 800,000 feet. Service road going. From the south back to the back of. Building B.

[100:08] So. Let me let me structure this a little more. If, if you'll allow me to do this. But let me ask each of the DAB members. If you think that, that the Design satisfies the criteria which is basically minimizing the amount of payment necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the amount of payment necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. Do you think they've met that criteria? Hey Rory, sounds like you're saying no? Yeah, my answer would be I don't think they've minimized it because I think they could Comeine some circulation that accesses parking and eventually delivers you to the back of building B. Okay, and Matthew, you agree with that? I agree with that and I would add I wouldn't. I wouldn't advocate for reducing access to building A by any means just to reduce paving.

[101:08] Yes, I agree with that as well. I think I think I think there's probably a fairly low hanging fruit solution by routing. Drive access through visitor parking. Okay, and let me ask Stephen if you think the applicants met that. The Criterion. Oh, if you can go, I don't know if you wanna go back to the one where you're just looking at. Yeah, I think I think it does. I think that you know obviously The reason that this is quote unquote a problem. Is because you know you've activated the whole site with these really cool pedestrian corridors. And I wouldn't hate for you to like you know, just have a super efficient. Service road which would ruin the whole campus. You could put one straight down the middle, right? One.

[102:00] And great, it solved least amount of payment, but it destroys the whole what you guys are trying to do here. So to that end, I would say, yeah, I think if there is a solution or if there is some way to minimize and kind of make it more efficient. Great. I also Oh, I think this is extremely complicated and you know, me sitting here 10 min trying to look at this and be like, oh, here's a solution is a little bit silly. And you know just judging from what you guys have done, you know, I trust that you're gonna take this comment to heart that, you know, try to make it more efficient. Let me. You want to make it more efficient and that's kind of, that's as far as I can take it, without it one day review of, you know, what's going on really happening here. Let's hear from Brendan. Yeah, so I. I think I don't have a problem with the service road. Being, you know, sort of wrapping around the site.

[103:03] What I am having a hard time with is that, you know, this building see this pavilion, the amenity space. Is our. It sort of like private kind of, central jewel, connecting. Like. But private in the sense that it's, you know, for the users, but it is somewhat. Public to the site. And it's kind of in the back, but it's located on the site sort of in the back of the house. And so when you have the site sort of in the back of the house. And so when you have the service road. You know, trash trucks driving by your kind of special amenities. Dual space, you know, where you want people to come and gather. And then you have the parking lot. I just wonder if there's a there's a way to sort of flip flop and have this gathering parking, you know, which is sort of why Boulder has parking in the back of the building.

[104:10] That you know you if you bring the amenity space building see forward and then you're engaging your wetland open space and you know you were forced to have this huge setback. But it's not really. The the amenity space isn't engaging in that open space at all. And that now the parking is kind of broken that up. And then you have this service road. Which is really back of house functioning. Driving right through your. Your amenity space. I just, it kind of makes this amenity space a little less special. And when you have the, I don't know, I know it's a huge. Design change but i would really love to see the pavilion and the parking flip flopped.

[105:07] I just think. So let me interrupt you there for a second because that the parking is where we're gonna get into that and criteria number 2. And Your points I think are. Really relevant. They may not relate directly to the efficient use of the of the of land and the minimizing the need for Pavement. So. Can we? I think the consensus. If there is one is that. It would be helpful to look at look for ways of, of minimizing the amount of payment necessary to meet the circulation needs. And then this other question about parking and about the pavilion and about. The public space, I think maybe we can get into that in the next one.

[106:04] Okay, so then just. To tie it back into. I do not see that the use of pavement. To be excessive. I just think that it needs to be, carefully placed. I think it might need it might need. Right. To relate to the building in a different way. Okay, and I think it sounds like All of the. DA members actually would agree with that. How you do that to is kind of up to them, but. We kind of agree with the concept. Okay. Unless I'm missing something. So what I just for the No, I think basically we're all in agreement that having vehicle access around this property is important to the success of the program. That having vehicle access around this property is important to the success of the program. Access around this property is important to the success of the program. There are probably minor efficiencies that can be found.

[107:05] By structuring some of the circulation and combining some circulation. Yeah. Okay. Good. Okay, can we move on to second criteria then? Yes. Okay, so that one says. Whenever practical considering the scope of the project parking areas are located behind buildings are set back further from this. The streetscape and the building facade. The comment here is the parking set back significantly. The parking is setbacks. Well, that one's that one's hard to read. I'm not quite sure what it says. Positioned adjacent to the primary street facing building is placed within overall site buildings and landscape as a subordinate part of the design. I might need some clarification from staff about. The about the parking concern.

[108:03] Staff is just. Is highlighting that partially meets. It's not, forward of the design of the building, the criteria says that the parking area should be. Located to the rear, but it's a Okay. Fairly low key from the street. Far as you're not parking structure. Right. But, there's other considerations like Brandon had mentioned on the. So we'd open it up to the boards discussion on that criteria. Hmm. Right. So. Yeah. Yeah, I think Todd, if we're having some font issues on the. Packet. Okay. Right, like it's just hard to say, see what it. We have some like windings. Yeah. Okay.

[109:01] Yeah. Right. Well, the criteria is pretty, is pretty straightforward. Considering the scope of the project, parking areas, you're located behind buildings or setback. Further from the streetscape and the building facade. So this parking area is set way back because of the wetland. But is it, but in terms of. When you're on the site is is the parking. Area concern. Well, I think it's also that it's in there it says the parking areas are located behind buildings. Right. An important part of that criteria. Yes. So. Brendan does it in terms of meeting the criteria. it sounds like without putting words in your mouth that you think it doesn't. Adequately meet the criteria. I mean, I would. I would say it does not adequately meet the criteria. And.

[110:07] I think it does a disservice for. Severing, you know, some of these, the amenity space from the wetland space. Right. Okay. Let's Matthew, do you do you want to? Way in here. Regarding the criteria. Yeah. I mean, just for a differing perspective. I'm, there's nothing offensive. About the where the parking is to me. I don't, I think that We're so far behind the wetland that the part of the comment that is concerned with visibility from the street and being in front of the building is moot.

[111:00] There's so much more going on in terms of landscape between them, in the parking area. And then this doesn't make it right. But I would just point out, you know, Boulder Community Hospital. 2 or 3 very big buildings. A similar use. In the parking is situated exactly the way it it is in this proposal. And that's probably less than a mile away from this site. So I think there's fair precedent. For building of this type and use to have parking. Accessible. And having it in the knuckle of the 2 buildings, you know, whether they're You know in the language of a campus I think I can't imagine situating parking further into the site than where it is already. Right. So, you know, I don't know if any of those comments are. If there would be consensus on any of that, but that's just my honest take on it.

[112:01] And I think when it comes to strictly judging the criteria. I think we're so far behind landscape. And so far into the site that. Those. Concerns of whether parking is visible from the road in front of the building is moved. So. Okay. Roy or Stephen? Let's hear from you. Yeah, I tend to agree with. Matt. You know, I think. I also agree with Brandon, you know, that there's, you know, Boy, if you could mirror the whole project, you know, what would that get you? If you go back to the site plan, you know, if you were. Where's my thing disappeared? You know, if you are literally like mirrored right across here, flip the whole thing. What happens? See you. And I'm sure you guys looked at some of those solutions. But I think there is a practical issue. You know, if you had the parking all the way in the back of the site. This is a big site and it's a big campus.

[113:07] You know, I think that creates a whole nother slew of. Of issues. Yeah, there you go. Love blue beam, right? You're just done. Rory, what do you? I guess I kind of see the equal merit and what these folks are talking about here. I mean, to Brendan's point, you basically have this y ying diagram, which allows kind of 2 open spaces in a figure ground. Between building and land. And whether you chose to park. Where they have and then put the private amenity space and, Caddy corner or invert, I think the building would function quite similarly. I think. If the issue of parking being, you know, kind of through the rear of a building is mostly to screen it from the public right of way, then that's where that concern is no longer.

[114:05] Kind of legitimate because of you know everybody else's comments about how much Depth and planting and landscape buffers that from a screening perspective So then it really just comes down to kind of Who is this building for? And, and when, when Matthew was talking about kind of a very public high traffic, you know, both the community hospital type. Function, it's important to figure out how to get to the front door if you're gonna have a lot of visitors. And so to kind of send them on a journey through an entire site to hopefully find parking and arrive somewhere, you know, kind of completely buried. Can be quite complicated for the wrong program. But my sense is if this is predominantly life science, the users of this building are intimately familiar with it. So I don't, I don't actually think that would be a problem for a program of this nature? But just judging by the amount of work that's been done here. My knee-jerk is it's not that the criteria that it's meeting the criteria.

[115:08] Addquately due to the landscape buffer. But just wanted to acknowledge that it would be a very interesting diagram to see it mirrored as Brennan has suggested. Okay. It's kinda, do you want the parking upfront guys so that everybody arrives, they know where to go, boom, drop your car, enter the site, shed your car quickly and then the rest of it is to be discovered or do you want to drive up like some country club campus where there's beautiful landscaping and pavilion that greets you and you kind of sneak into the back to go park as part of the staff, you know, so I think both are viable options, but I think So address the comment, what I'm seeing on the current site plan seems to be adequate. Okay. Yeah, I don't necessarily think it's a matter of. Being visible from the street. That's not the issue I have with it. It's more programmatic that we that this is set up to have That frontage road is being the back of house.

[116:04] Services, you know, transformers like all this stuff is happening on the on the back side of the site. But yet we have this sort of special. Piece that's sitting in the back of house. It's just it's just the programmatic mix. Okay. I think that I'm struggling with. But I really like that flipping the in yang and the mirror and flip would be. And then, and then flip it again. Oh, double flip. Okay. What do you call that? Hello. There we're done. Yeah, we're done. Double flip. Whoo! Yes, yes. Done. Yeah, Obviously, the owner wants all them. Flatter and views, right? I mean, that's a big thing. You want those western. Use

[117:02] They got him. They got him. Hey, God, building B is set up. No, but from the outdoor. Pavilion area and Yeah. Let me. Well, they didn't have it before. I mean. Okay. No, they do because they have you're still looking west you know from Oh yeah, I mean that's cool too. Yeah. Well, let me let me ask. Dad, remember something. So we're, this is a site review. And obviously the programmatic stuff. Comes into it in terms of the circulation and. The location of the pavilion and the location of the parking but I don't know that we can resolve that. Sure. I think it's helpful to point it out. But I'm not sure what else, what more we can do. Right. Understood. Yeah. I mean, I just think it's our I think it's our job to. Talk about the program specifically, you know, interior of the building.

[118:02] Right. And We don't really have purview. On the site as much as we do programmatically, I think. That could be adjusted. Yeah, I guess the question that I would have with Brendan with what you brought up about the pavilion, which I agree as a concern, but I wonder how. How often their service road is actually used. Right, yeah. Yeah, and that's the trade-off. It's probably the most private area on the site if you ditch all the parking early. Right. But you've got the biggest open space amenity and the only thing that engages it is is an access drive and predominantly parking. Right. So I see the point. I might it's also not a great I mean Okay, you got some great pictures here. But that area, I mean, we're working with Naropa right up the street and it's like you guys are gonna have to fight prairie dogs.

[119:03] Well, and it's a rapaho, right? Like Arapaho is a heavily traffic road. Like there's a lot of noise. I mean, it's not like a Garden of Eating or something. No, but I need Right, and so there, but I'm saying that like that wetland up there is not as like. Okay. Yeah. Shangri, is it probably, But. You know, so. Okay, I, I don't think we've reached any consensus, but I think that there's some. Yeah. Some common themes that we're that we're talking about here. So if we could, I'd like to move on to the, onto the third criteria. Yep. Yeah. Okay, so the third criteria is. Says the building siding and relationship to the public realm is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or. If none apply is compatible with the character of the area. Or improves upon the character consistent with the intent.

[120:05] Paragraph 3 in the building design criteria. And the comment is due to the nature of the floodplain restrictions, the building is set back further from a rapo than other buildings in the area. Generally, the proposed building is consistent with the overall commercial industrial character of the area. So it sounds like this is this is a really a question about whether this setback. Sort of disrupts the the pattern of development in this area. Right, and, and I might take this one because I was getting into that earlier and I can be quick. I feel like this is a perfect shot to stay here. You know what i think you could do is some kind of landscape gesture up. You know, up along here. It's a little more orthogonal that's a little, you know. Building elements, you know, could be you have some of those, you had some round like a line of Cool boilers, you had some walls back in your site plan.

[121:09] That there's a way to sort of honor this. The street edge a little bit. With some kind of really minimal. Gesture to that line. That will sort of like define the space. Because otherwise it might feel like something's missing, you know, that it's not finished or you know, even though there's the wetland there and that would hate that the sidewalk be like I said before the sidewalk sort of like define the site I think you guys could be a little more over and. I don't think we'd have to be like, you know, 40 foot wide, 20 foot high wall or something. I'm talking about something really minimal. Maybe it's. Maybe there's some seating or something that's sort of just a straight line out there that occupies that space a little bit. Defines that. What is what a sign. Define that space a little bit.

[122:02] . Sign was part of, you know, some kind of wall or You guys can hire any Goldsworthy to come out and do some cool wall out front. But. Anyways, I don't think there's any way around this. I don't think there's like, oh, you need to move the building, you know, did you just can't, right? Right. So. In lieu of that is there some way to sort of like that. Edge a little bit. With something. Now, I'll just stop there. Okay. Alright, let me ask. Rory if to way in on this. Criteria. Well, yeah, for starters, I would just like to commend the design team. It's a pretty sick looking building and the architecture language is far superior. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[123:00] You know, you could just throw a caliber collision sign neon in front, then you'd be good to go as far as matching this character. Okay. But I fully support Steve's comments. I mean, you guys just need a sport, a rock out cropping that basically grabs, you know, the fundamental architectural tectonics. Put them at the street kind of. Our architecturally commands the front property line. And I would assume you could incorporate additional landscaping. And obvious building signage which is gonna be critical anyways if you've got this many hundreds of people needing to figure out where to turn off of arapaho. So I think it's a very easy solution and would support kind of the intent. Of the code and and also just kind of complete the site diagram here. Matthew.

[124:00] And you get make a caliper remove that triangle entry as part of this somehow has to be included. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Let me keep the flow going here. So, Matthew, keep the flow going. Yeah, I just, I concur with the previous comments. I think there could be something architectural closer. I think the environmental site constraint of having a Wetland and a flood. Cloud elevation, dictating the footprint of the building. Does not seem practical at this point in, in the proposal. And so, you know. There is a precedent all over, maybe not on Arapaho for landscape. Campuses and I don't under all sorts of criteria. I don't feel like this is an inappropriate proposal by any means.

[125:04] So yeah, I don't know that I have a lot to add on this other than I think. You know, some architectural. Element that signifies, you know, the Defines the outer edge. Matthew, did we lose you? Yeah, you're back now. You're back. Did I lose you? Okay, sorry about that. I didn't go anywhere, but I did finish my comment there. Okay. Okay, great. So Brendan, what are your thoughts? So you know, just looking at the landscape design. There's, you know, the property line does on a wrapaho on the south side of the property line that it does include.

[126:11] It seems like it does include the. Sidewalk. Easement, I'm guessing, and then some sort of a tree lawn. And it's like. If that's where sort of the, design and the. Of the site gets fuzzy and, f fading to the background. And I think that it needs to be. Integrated into the whole design of the site, you know, the tree lawn and this and the sidewalk. You do have some new like a huge residential development that's happening. To the east. You're right, you're right across the street from people coming in and out of the golf course.

[127:00] Or accessing the golf course. And I think that there is like this site needs to acknowledge that it is, you know, it is private, I think. But at the same time that sidewalk on Arapaho is pretty heavily used for pedestrian cycling bike traffic and it is So dangerous right now. Hmm. People trying to ride their bikes on that side. It would just be great to see the development happening along Arapaho. Encouraging a pedestrian and cycling link that would make that whole area. More visible and safer and and while you're not you don't necessarily need to engage the sidewalk into the site because it is private.

[128:03] I just think that there needs to be It acknowledgement of that sidewalk in that tree lawn and how important it is in connecting. The adjacent spaces and. And while it is a private user and a private site, it's, it's not a hospital. It's not. Going to be accessed by. You know, new people all the time. I just think it is important because the building is set so far back. That the sidewalk is treated with care and and that it is you know the frontage of that site and what most people you know the public most people are only gonna experience that sidewalk so because the building is, so set back and I, do want to reiterate what Rory said that I think that The design is, the design and the scale in the articulation and the detailing I think is fantastic on this. It's just that most people aren't going to be experiencing that because you can't see it from Arapaho.

[129:05] So that treatment of the sidewalk would be helpful. Isn't that split rail fence? Like probably landmark, right? You guys can't take that down. Yeah. Okay. Products. Yeah, so you guys don't just wanna make it a public park and so on this really oppressive sidewalk you can kind of have one property that lets you orbit around a wetlands. Right. Just don't do those horrible like concrete split rail fences they did along the bike path, but I won't. I'll keep my mouth shut. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I think we've covered it. I can summarize quickly. I, there's not, I don't think there's a whole lot to say. But. Let me give it a shot. So, on the On the first criteria regarding the circulation.

[130:00] What I've kind of written down here is look for ways to reduce. The use of pavement. In this in the circulation pattern. I think that's. That's the that's the thing that focuses Most directly on the criteria. I think everybody would probably agree that that would be a goal if it's possible. And we don't have, we've, there have been some suggestions, but I don't think we have any. We don't want to make any suggestions really, we just wanna. Kind of give you the a little bit of direction. The second one is dealing with the parking. And that gets that kind of gets into this sort of programmatic. Issue. I don't think We had any particular consensus on the parking. There was a concern. Well, a couple of dad members didn't have really have a problem with it at all, but just because of the familiarity with the building.

[131:02] The fact that this parking is already set back quite a bit from the street. And so it's not a really a critical issue. If it could be. Put in another place that made it that still made it. Accessible and and improve the programmatic I guess. Issues that were raised on other parts of the site that might help and we're talking about flipping the. The plan in different ways. I don't know if that's. I don't know that there's any strong feelings about that other than. There is some concern with the with the pavilion or the area C and. How that sort of interacts with a service road. That seemed to be one of the bigger concerns and which is more of a programmatic issue than parking.

[132:00] Or circulation, but certainly affects both of those things. And then the third one. Is really more of a just the. Recommendation, kind of a consensus recommendation to. To Where does that one go? I like Rory's comment too. Good find the outer edge. No way that grabs the architectural tectonics. Of the buildings. And then Brendan talked about also connecting it with the sidewalk and having a treating the sidewalk in a way that That. Rick is really consistent with the kind of the overall site. And I don't think there were any other specific. Suggestions or recommendations about that. Other than it's important to sort of capture that. Yeah, in an architectural way and to.

[133:07] Think about this treatment of the sidewalk and the use of the sidewalk. That kind of cover it. I think. Yeah. There are people. Okay, so Joe or do you have any questions about? To clarify what you've heard from us. I don't know the really good commentaries that we really appreciate, the, comments, the insight, you know, like some astute observation. So I really appreciate that. Really appreciate the time. I don't think I have any clarifications. Okay. So I think we've got some good feedback to kind of address. But I feel we almost need you guys when we for designs for it when we start concept design before we get too far. So, but it's always good to collaborate. So we do appreciate the inside here. And we appreciate your guidance and kind of help walking us through this. And I'd have to agree with Rory.

[134:01] This is, when you showed the, the buildings. The surrounding buildings that you're supposed to try to, you know, play off of. Yeah. I think we're all thinking I hope they don't play off those buildings. Right. Yeah, not too much. Yeah, yeah, I know. You, yeah, the design I just think is really. Pretty cool, so. Well, I, we, yeah, the team, we do appreciate that. We, we've done a lot of work in Flatter and Offers block with double-T old buildings and trying to be creative. So it was a it's a fun challenge, but we appreciate that we appreciate the feedback. Right. And Coloni, is there any your staff? Is there any other questions? Or ML, any. Other input before we. Close this this project discussion. I would ask, if Chandler has any follow up questions, if not from staff, we appreciate the review and the time it was very productive. Okay. Yeah, no, I'm good. Thank you. I thought it as well as very productive.

[135:02] Okay, great. Oh, well, let you guys go then. Thanks again, Joe and John and. Your other team members. So good luck with this moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Have a good night. And ML, I didn't. I didn't see whether you had any comments, so. No, it was a great discussion. Thank you. Okay. Yes, I think it was too. Okay, so. Moving on on the agenda. The other. We have, board matters. Any board matters that we need to. Think about. Just how to keep this meeting under 2 h. Okay. Yeah. Let's say congratulations to you guys. It was very, very productive and a lot we can take all of those comments back on the criteria.

[136:05] To whatever planning board and start to leverage some changes based on those. Okay. Do you think you've got the summaries? In hand well enough. Devon. You we It was great because you did the summaries in a chunk there at post review. Right. Definitely summarize those. And It was nice to hear like where there might be differences. There's, you know, where there's cohesion in the in the recommendations. So we really appreciate you taking the time to do that. And that's also helpful to relay that to planning board too. Okay. Okay. Excellent work tonight. The feedback was very succinct to end prescriptive. It's a okay if board members disagree with each other if they disagree with staff it's all stuff that reasonable people can disagree over. And I just wanted to thank you guys again for spending time with Colonia and I, last week and just our one on one conversations, just kind of supporting the overall efficiency of the board.

[137:05] And, this is great. It really makes me feel like something's working. So thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Okay. No other board matters than calendar check. Calendar we have a potential project for November. So, if that We're looking for the application sometime today. Or tomorrow. So, It's likely you'll have a November meeting. I'm not quite sure if you'll have one or 2 projects at this point, but. Stay tuned. Okay. Well, I think we, we did a little test run on whether this Structure works and so Any other any other feedback would be very helpful from. Stafford from Dabber. M. I think the one thing I wanted to point out. You know, every project is going to be completely different and some of the, you know, depending on how big they are and how much.

[138:08] Right. We love or hate the project inherently. Drive a lot of additional commentary and verbosity. Okay. The one thing that was apparent you know today and I hope moving forward. It's hard sometimes, always get a chance to look at the packet in depth before the day of the review or the day before the review, but I think When we are prepared, we move through it more quickly. We spend less time trying to orient ourselves to the project during the presentation, then we do just kind of being nimble and As equipped as we can expect to be. You know, for a project we're supposed to review for an hour. I would ask a question of the board too tonight because on the next meeting, tonight's presentation from the applicants. Did that work for you having a short summary and then focusing on the criteria that You're asked to evaluate or do you want to hear more of a broad, like how did that feel and then starting next month we are gonna get those packets early to use because we acknowledge that a weekend with a large packet and if you're getting 2 and 3 projects coming on each meeting it's It's not enough time to look at

[139:17] something. So. We're looking forward to getting you something earlier and fielding questions if you have them or you know if you have request for additional information. I thought it was extremely helpful to have them kind of quickly give us their like conceptual presentation. And then obviously OS is super heavy on the graphics with their concept, so it's easy to understand quickly. But And then to have them speak to the criteria in a way that one, they're acknowledging it. And maybe even leading the witness in a way of like, oh, you know, we're, you know, we think we might be able to do this or that, but we're excited to hear what you do. Yeah. The, can kind of jump start what may or may not be sacred to them to help address it.

[140:02] Right. And then hearing from you guys too, like why? Why you're you know, that particular criteria is. You know, in question or. You know, mixed or whatever it is, you know, it's good, cause that can help us focus on like what. You know, your question about it is. And we're hoping to make a few adjustments to the staff evaluation, you know, the partially met versus, you know, does not mean or meet. But also to your maximum space for the applicant to respond to each one of those criteria to in the package. So that should be something that helps to inform the context for you. Yeah, that, yeah, that'll be helpful. That was that was kind of strange, huh? Yeah. What is, is there a requirement for the architect to be in attendance? That was very surprising, cause it sort of felt like. You know, it was about programming and design and materials and that is totally the purview and you know the architect would be the one to address all of the comments.

[141:11] Right. It was surprising. And it was. Oh, I hear you. That's a, as far as I know. This is the first time that's happened. In my since I've been on the board. Me too. I'm in 6 years. I've never seen a presentation without the design team. Yeah. Hmm. Maybe something happened. Yeah. With that applicant has been with Michelle and I thought that that was their design team. Because it was through in the last couple of days, that's the person that was emailing me. So I will talk to the, I'll talk to the case manager. And some of the plans and just make sure that as we are moving forward, we have had developers present at that meetings, you know, especially on. Some of the larger master plan projects. So it's not unheard of but I still think you need to have your design representatives there, you know, for whatever questions, technical questions are coming about.

[142:07] So yes, it was, unorthodox, I'd say. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? So, yes. Thank you, Todd. I would like to, commend you all on the efficiency that you went through the criteria. And I and I hear that it was a conscious. A conscious strategy between staff and and the board to organize the meeting. So that you can target. The conversations that need to be addressed. I know the planning board. We're struggling, right, with, the scope because there are there are such We're getting such complex and big projects.

[143:05] We struggle with the scope and we struggle with. The clarity of okay What is really on our table and what isn't? But that you had this nice little structure where it says here's the criteria, here's what the staff has to say. And you know partial be met or not parsing it and that we get that but ours is like you know 10 pages long. Not and it's because of complexity that's different, but I I so totally appreciated watching the process and hearing you have a complex discussion. It didn't I don't think it reduced the nature of the conversation. But I think it pointed it, you know, in a very efficient way. And I really, really appreciate, you know, the work that you guys have done to get. To get yourselves to that point and hopefully.

[144:10] Okay. And Devin, will you be at our retreat biased? Okay, just to have that kind of. I will. Okay. And I guess Charles is here and maybe, Brad is here. But I think that that I think that this is a very successful. Management of the boards time. Yeah. Well, don't get your hopes up and now. I mean, if we get a complicated absolutely dog looking project that could Completely unravel itself. Yeah. Hmm. No, but I and I've been on some of those with you all, but. No, I think that having the structure is great. Is a great, basis. Okay. So. I guess I could kind of think of it as maybe a necessary evil. Cause I really like to get into Here these guys get into the. Into the discussion. And I felt like we. We sort of forced it, which is what we're supposed to do to talk about the criteria.

[145:06] Right. Okay. Okay. But there's lots of other things to talk about. So. Yeah. Yeah, I think that is a good point because It comes down to what is our job. Right. And our job is to review criteria and respond to criteria. And as architects, you know, we want to look at the whole issue, not just the criteria that's on the table, but, I'm the only architect on planning board. So is everybody comes from their different, you know, transportation and housing and different. I guess different interests and backgrounds. So I get it, but I think that it comes down to what's our job and I. Thank you. Really, really appreciated seeing that. Wow. We can focus, which is really nice to see. So.

[146:01] Hmm. Well, and you gotta focus on what's not. Like working in the criteria, right? I mean, I I've been to plenty of planning boards where it's like, oh, this is great, you know, the sustainable. It's like, no, that's already solved. Like you don't need to spend time, it's like studying things you already know for a test. Wow. I know. You've said these don't know and You know, yeah, you guys should figure out a way to do that because This stuff's already working. Yeah. Right. Okay. This starts this stuff already. You know, fits the criteria. We don't need to talk about that. When you talk about. I know it's hard to reel ourselves in though. But I think. But I think if I'm gonna be devil's advocate, I am a little bit concerned that You know, a hundred percent agree that we need to have, 2, we need to be talking about enforceable criteria like we need to be. Okay. Something that that you know the planning staff and board can sink their teeth into and enforce However, You know, some of there's a lot of criteria I think that.

[147:14] Hmm. We're considered. Or Met. That I would not you know that I think some of the things we talked about really are pretty parallel to a planning. Board review and I think that we need to be careful and that this is a design review and that I agree. That we need to. Help. Either bolster or disagree with planning staffs assessment of the project. Right. However, I don't, I don't want that to be. You know, I, there needs to be room and opportunity for us to be able to talk about. Fenestration, you know, like I did not think that you know if If I if I don't think that a projects administration meets criteria but it wasn't necessarily in the checked box of things that we're supposed to be talking about.

[148:10] But that's I think that there needs to be room. For that because I, that's a valid point. And I think that, you know, when I was talking in my one on one with those guys I was kind of like, okay, you're showing us. The, you know, in a way if you're if the goal is to make it as succinct as possible they could have just included What their opinion of the does not or partially meet criteria and not even have the other kind of relevant criteria for that zone district. But they did. So I think again, it's like we're preparing and kind of using the packet as a way to kinda. Have the language of things that they're saying it does not applicable or meets adequately at least you get a chance to kind of brush up on it. The question is how do we allow for that? Because I tend to agree and we had an issue with this on the board probably 3 or 4 years ago where We were kind of self reflecting and debating like, all right, we're being asked if we agree about this criteria, but what about just being asked about what we think about this building?

[149:09] Right. Question. Is that the appropriate avenue or how can we provide for that in a way but still try to be you know respectful and efficient with staff's time and the needs. I would say to that yes that we were thinking that. Time boxing that extra time towards the end after you got through the clear, partially meets or does not meet certain criteria. And if there's a there's one that any board member thinks, hey, you know what, that one really doesn't meet it either or I'd like to talk about it.

[150:08] I think we should definitely get that on the schedule for the review. It's really helpful if we struck through those things. So. Maybe in the next packet if there's a disagreement about. Hey, you didn't mark this one and I'd like to talk about it. Send an email to Todd and Rory and myself. Or send it to me and I'll forward it along because I don't wanna violate open meeting lines, but then it can get marked into the discussion time brackets and then we can look at, okay, the discussion time brackets and then we can look at, okay, we need an extra 15 min to talk about this particular one. So wanna say it doesn't, we don't wanna curb those criteria based discussions, but we do wanna get them formatted and efficient. So that you we do have some kind of scheduling and timing on them. Yeah, it would be very helpful to be able to plan for that. So. Yeah. Yeah, and it definitely. There are going to be disagreements on whether one thing it meets something or doesn't.

[151:06] And some of those criteria are pretty broad based like human scale design and that may cover some of the fenestration patterns. Along. So. Yeah. Yeah, cause there still needs to be. And the next one is if you want to add particular criteria to review on a project. Send me a note, we can get it into the kind of overall time boxing of schedules. And I think that. That'll work and it'll meet what you were talking about, Rory is circling back during that extra time. Yeah. And if you want to be real sneaky, you just use the period of pivot and start talking. Yeah. Hmm. I know where able to post justify our comments and to fit shoe warning. Yeah. Hello. Yeah, like this the entry stoop somehow turned into a facade design. Right. Okay.

[152:00] Yeah. But I think Todd, you did a really good job of kinda guiding us back to the. Okay. It wasn't, I have to tell you, it wasn't that much fun, but thank you. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean I still feel like it, Sarwald. But I Having said that, I should we should probably. Respect staff time and. Wrap this meeting up as well. Yeah. So I would like to say to Devon, Thanks for your time and good luck in your next in the next phase of your career. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. You know, it's been really great to work with you all. You know, as everyone in staff has said tonight, you guys are by far at least my personal favorite of the the boards, ML, please don't tell planning board. Yeah. Okay. No, but it's been really great to work with you all. I'm really excited for my, for my next role. And so hopefully I will be back in Boulder at some point. I'm really excited for my, for my next role. And so hopefully I will be back in Boulder at some point. I'm for sure will be back in Boulder at some point and hopefully I'll be able to swing by one of these meetings and catch you guys when you guys go back to in person eventually so Glad to glad to glad to be here again. Yeah.

[153:00] Thank you guys. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I guess we are adjourned. Right. Alright, folks, have a wonderful evening. Same teamHi