April 10, 2024 — Design Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] And and you're good. Great. I'd like to call to order the Design Advisory Board meeting of April tenth, 2,024 let me do a call to order for Deb members. So Todd, Brian Dab. Brendan, Ash Dad. Rory, Belisar, Covich, Deb. Steven Ecker Dab. Matthew Scheck signed our Deb. Okay, great. Any. Do we need to do any other introductions. Oh, Staff Colin! Paula. Okay. Amanda, Cussworth. Ally Penningger. Charles Farrell, planning and development Services. Christopher Johnson, also with planning and development services.

[1:03] Okay. And the Alison Blake planning and development services. And Ml, did we get you. Ml roblist planning board liaison. Okay. great. Thank you. So Amanda is gonna start us off with a little bit of rules of engagement ground rules. decorum. Yes, thank you. Okay. Thanks for joining everybody. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy, for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website.

[2:03] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised 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 participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, 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 before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony will be permitted permitted for this meeting. We're in the Zoom Webinar format. So when it is the opportunity for public participation, you may hover your mouse over the bottom section of of zoom and see this raise hand function. We will see that when your hand is raised

[3:06] you can also find this. Oh, my slides, not advancing. Sorry. Let's see, here we go. You can also find this under the reactions button. You can raise your hand there, and everybody that appears in order. I will just call on you, and you'll give. Be given 3 min to provide your testimony. And just a quick reminder for everybody. This meeting is recorded and will be available online. Within 24 h on the city's website. And that's it. Back to you, chair. Okay, thank you. So the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the December thirteenth, 2023. Meeting, so do I have a motion to approve those minutes.

[4:01] We'll do. We'll discuss them if there's any need for discussion. But can I get a motion to approve them? Cool and and we didn't see the updated minutes. But I, as long as they were updated according to our discussion lasts meeting. I think we all said we'd motion to approve them at the time. Okay. so my understanding is that. I can. We wanted to make sure, because there was a lot of discussion around the language that once we wrote out what the board members wanted to edit to. I wanted to bring it back to the board. It should be in the packet. Yeah, that's. I want. I want to get a you guys your eyes on it one more time. Make sure that we have summarized that in the way that you wanted. So. It sounds like not everybody had a chance to read the minutes that were in the packet.

[5:00] Is there a possibility that we can postpone the approval until May. We can push these minutes to the next meeting. Make sure everybody reads it, cause it does sound like there was quite a bit of discussion around it. Yeah, bye. Yeah, they. And do the. They did update that last paragraph. Brandon, about kind of the as far as the board being in disagreement versus us versus Todd. I think they've accumulated. Yeah. I'm. Market. Yeah, I think if you guys are, you know, ready to adopt them, then that that's fine with me. Yeah, I'm good today. Yeah, I would. I would make a motion to approve the minutes in the current form. Matthew. Second, that means. As well. Yeah. I saw. General. Yeah, in favor. Yes, all in favour. Alright. Okay. Sounds like it's unanimous. Okay?

[6:00] So the next item on the agenda is public participation for items that are not part of the of their project review. That will do in a couple minutes. Any public, any members of the public here? Okay. so next item is, is the review of the 1525 Spruce Street and, I need to add, start up by asking a question, and the question is, do we have any Dev members who need to make any disclosures, and may need to recuse themselves? This would be the time. Yes. Idea. Okay. Means. Yeah, I I do, too. An apparent conflict of interest. And although I do not believe that it would impact my review, I am going to recuse myself for this project.

[7:06] Okay. Alright! And I also I'm curious if there's You know the agenda items that are happening. After the discussion. Yes. If we will be notified. I know that there was. There was conversation before we kind of the meeting was officially started about whether or not we can listen in Hella made it. It's my understanding that Hela said that we need to. It would, if we were in person, that we would need need to leave the room. So essentially, it would be the same, I I guess, unless you've heard. So you guys can't be like just members of the public. Yeah, that seems crazy. Cause it's all gonna be recorded and available. Right. That is. I mean, that's kind of what I what I'm thinking, if we just are not participating in the conversation, but able to listen.

[8:03] Turn, rather. And having to look. Video, off. video, also yeah. Kelly is ready to advise us. Right. Hi, everyone! Hello, Pennowake! I'm with the city attorney's office, and I don't attend your meetings very often, but I'm here today in case there were questions just for the beginning of it, and I do recommend that you leave the meeting just for the time being. And Kalani has offered to send you guys a text when the item is done, and then you can just rejoin. just so that it doesn't. It impact anybody else in their decision making that somebody might be present that might have a conflict. Okay. So again, not listening in as a pub, a member of the public just. Correct. I I I would just. I recommend to just leave the meeting for the for the time being. Okay. I will send you an email to directly when this is wrapped up, so you can come back into the meeting.

[9:05] Whoop and. Up with you guys in about an hour. That's the that's the plan. Okay. And like. Mel, did you get clarity on your potential? No. I think Ml. Just needs to disclose and indicate that she can remain fair and impartial. She's not to hear it in a decision making capacity today. So I think just disclosing it should be fine. But how? Yes, that. Yeah. Why don't you describe your situation, Ml, and and whether you feel like you can be fair and impartial. Hey? Perfect! Thank you, Charles and Helena. Yes, so I am. My history with this building. Is I? Was there when the building right after the building was done. I know the original developer and architect.

[10:05] and I actually rented space there for about a year. This was decades and decades ago, so I have no current involvement, and I have nothing to gain. Being involved with the conversation about it at this point in time. I I know I'm not an actual member of Deb. I'm just a liaison, so I think I can report back to planning planning board in a unbiased manner. So I will remain King, if that's good with everybody. Well, it's good. It's got to be good with Hella. Yes, I'm I'm I don't think that Ml. Situation amounts to a conflict of interest, or that there's even an appearance of impropriety. Yeah. Right. I'm fine with her participating. But I appreciate your disclosure, since I believe this is a site review and potentially could end up in front of the planning board. Okay, thank you. So Matthew and Brendan.

[11:02] I think you guys unfortunately need to log off. But yeah. Alright! Just shared guys. We according to bylaws. We can't attack you personally, but we can't attack buildings. That's not enough. By law. We can't attack buildings. Will represent us. Well. alright! We'll see you in a bit. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we have a this matter at hand. 1525 Spruce street. We're gonna try. We're gonna I shouldn't say, try, we're gonna do this in an hour. Do the review in an hour. and we're gonna start with Alison is gonna do a 5 min. sort of opening we'll check in with public participation. But it doesn't look like there's any. The applicant is not on yet, is, are they?

[12:00] They're they're they're. Here, and I'm happy to promote them. After Alison's presentation. Need, okay. Written. Okay. So so, Al, so, Alison, you have about 5 min. And the other thing I want to say before we get into that is that because we're shooting for an hour. Kalani is going to do periodic time checks for us to make sure we're sort of on schedule. So we've got 11 items to review. Some of them will go quickly. Some of them may take a little more time. So, but we're going to shoot for an hour. Okay, Allison. Okay, Hi, Mouse and Blaine, senior planner and case manager working on this project. I think I could probably do this under 5 min, but just wanted to give a little bit of an overview before the applicant presents. The subject site is on spruce between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Street, and it is located within the urban interface area within the downtown urban design

[13:05] guidelines. It is an existing mixed use building with residential to the east and offices currently to the west. The proposed scope is just limited to the existing office uses that are on the west. so the the eastern portion of the building. Is not part of the scope of this review. This is just a retrofit of the existing building. It is currently being reviewed as a Site Review amendment to amend the existing pewdie on the property to convert the office uses to the West into residential units. the next steps will be the final site review approval, and then this will go before planning board. That has not yet been scheduled. But we will work on getting that schedule soon.

[14:02] and A lot of this information will be in your packet. So just a quick overview of some of the criteria that we'll be looking at as part of the downtown urban design guidelines for the partially satisfied and not satisfied partially satisfied would be 2.1 e 2.1 f and then not satisfy 2.1 DG and h. and we'll also ask for some analysis and review the Site review criteria for partially satisfied and not satisfied. I won't read all those, but specifically looking at some of the materials. Screening elements of the rooftop as well as some open space questions. And I think that's all I have for my overview, so I will pass it on to the applicant. Okay, thank you. So, is there any public participation?

[15:03] for this particular project? Review? Any members of the public sign on. I don't see any. If there is anybody that would like to. I see the applicants here, but if anybody else would like to speak to this item you can use your raise hand function in zoom. and I'm not seeing any hands raised, though at this time. Okay. so can we? Invite the applicant into the meeting? Then thank you. Just a little delayed. They're coming. Okay. Should be able. There we go. Okay. Hmm. good evening. Thank you all for hearing us today. Thank you. Board for your work. I know it's a lot of work. And I appreciate us getting through the conflict of interest here. And I know that has been a joy. But here we are a a little more than a month late later than we hope to be. But

[16:21] Yeah, our our apologies for that. So, Jim, can you introduce your team? And then, we're we're gonna try to give you about 10 min to do. Sure. So today today, we just have myself. I'll be presenting, if need be. Anna, in my in my office is here to drive the model if we need to get more technical. But I will be able to drive the model in general and go through some drawings. Also. Gavin is on the line, I believe. I can't see all the members but he is representing ownership Phil schul who's the main partner on this is actually a way in Europe right now and not here.

[17:01] So I think that is as limited as we have available for us tonight. Okay. so we'll try to sort of keep this to 10 min. But if you could give us an overview that. I will, so I'll start with the image here for Ml. Of reminding her what this looked like in 1,980. And so this project was developed. You know, in a different time. This was 1980. In Boulder was a. It was a different world downtown was just kind of coming into maturity with them all being developed. And there wasn't tremendous amount of office. So we saw this this area kind of developed. There were several of these mix use buildings that developed in in the area of Eastern boulder here. And so this is a I think it's just kind of fun to look at as architects to see these old renderings, and how we used to work. So I was just gonna flash that up on the screen here. But

[18:01] Alison did a great job of kind of teeing it up a little bit. This is a little bit. More of a diagram that helps understand kind of the relationship of the 2 pieces that are on this lot. So there are 2 parcels on this lot. The the eastern parcel is this, shaded in gray here, which is existing? There's 10 existing condominium units that are on there. They were actually built by Mick Stain, who's still a developer around? Ml, can speak to who actually developed the commercial side. I'm not quite sure who actually built that. So this was all built in 82 83 and it survived very well. But within the last, even before Covid with the addition of all the downtown offices that we're being constructed. We started to see a vacuum kind of set up here with a drain on some of the smaller offices that have been out in this part of Pearl Street so, or Spruce Street. So vacancy rates have gone up

[19:07] and so this is a good opportunity. I think, of, foreshadowing a lot of projects that we're gonna see in the coming years, of. how can we adapt office use into residential use. And so they took took a couple of years to kind of position, the property for purchase, buying various office, condomin and condominiums in this, in in assembling on the property so that it could be redeveloped into office. And that is, that has happened. And, as Alison said. We're kind of in the throes here of Site Review. Hopefully, today, based on your comments. So we can finalize. Our site review application and proceed into tech docs and building building department. I'm gonna flip down one more level to help you kind of understand it a little bit more so the building itself. It's a 3 story building, but it sits over a parking garage. This parking garage straddles the 2 different parcels. Here's the maybe I'll outline that just very quickly. But there's this parcel line. That

[20:16] that separates the 2 parcels. And as Alison said, we're only looking at the the office parcel parcel conversion into residential. But there are some shared components. And so that's important to understand. They are sharing their parking garage, and those parking spots don't necessarily correspond to the lot. Line and then, of course, there is this plaza on the front end of the building or the southern end of the building that is also shared, as well as parking in the back some access in the back from the alley way as well. So you know, one of the first issues we had on the building was this access issue? Today, the finish floor of this building is about 5 feet above that of Spruce Street. So eroding this plaza area for handicap, you know, for 75 feet of handicap ramp did not seem to make a lot of sense. The notion of maintaining this as an asset

[21:20] and open space seem more important. In addition, it is a existing building. So we have the opportunity here to develop handicap on the on the back. So we developed some handicap parking on the back developed, and a new entrance on the on the north side of the building that allows direct access into the into the elevator. Just to know the parking was not available below in the parking garage, because we didn't have enough height for the for handicap parking so hopefully. That gives everyone a better sense of kind of the relationship of these buildings. In addition to the entries here on the north side, we also have worked hard on providing some softening of the alley elevation.

[22:09] And we've done that on the ground plane by introducing some new plannings that screen not only parking, but also to new patio features that are ground level patios for 2 units. That are on the ground here, and then we've also eroded this the Southern plaza, which was maybe maybe even 2 grand for the 1980 s. Portion there of of office use. But we've we've eroded it with taking some of the space for one of the units to have a Southern patio which is nice to have again another ground. Level garden patio here. As well as we've taken away some of what was, you know, really just 2 wide out of proportion stairs and created some more landscaping. We've also utilized that to upgrade the buildings water quality

[23:05] by running the storm drain through that as well. So kind of a win win there. And then we're also doing some minor improvements. To the right of way with some landscaping and and working with the city landscaper on on the trees that are out there. So that's a a quick overview of of the plan. There. I'm gonna go ahead and and flip to the model and and kind of spin around a little bit. And maybe I I should actually just start by sharing the elevation again one more time. We'll have more time to to go into some of the details. So you've got about 3 min. Alright. So you know we we have. we've taken this elevation. That's pretty flat. And pretty, you know. It's it's demonstrated with very small punched windows. And it's hard to see in this in this Google view, but basically tried to get some additional interest and more depth, especially to the southern facade. And then also the key component. Here has been this atrium, this atrium was a 3 story atrium within.

[24:13] Well, you know that was there for an office use. And so we we've redistributed square footage into that atrium space. We've gained that as floor space but based on our approvals. We're not necessarily allowed to add any fa to their approval. And so we've further eroded some of the facade by punching in some some balcony, so you can see on the southern elevation on the second floor we have a nice balcony. That's punched in, and then, as we spin around the building here. We've eroded and provided some other balconies on the on, not only the west side, but also on the north side as well, so that has worked very well to keep the the buildings far from changing. We can maintain those approvals from the original ped. But it's also provided some opportunity to to provide some visual interest and break up the facades, which is, you know, today again, a rather flat

[25:17] facade. That doesn't, you know, doesn't provide some depth that we feel like we can add with with these penistrations to note, though, we are still working with a existing envelope. So we don't have. We don't have the ability to suddenly change a 2 foot plane every every 24 feet and create and create, you know, pushes and pulls that we might normally do if we were building a new building. So we are still, you know, I think a lot of the discussion today is gonna be, you know, how do we work with these existing envelopes? And how do we articulate material changes? Within them, and so I'll I'll leave it at that, and let's go ahead and start into discussion.

[26:03] Okay, great. Thank you. So the dab members love to talk about all the details of a building and and we have these really interesting conversations. But today we're just we're gonna try to stick to the to the criteria that are either partially satisfied or not satisfied and kind of go through them just in order. And so we've got. We're gonna as we said, we're gonna try to do it in an hour. We've used a little bit of that time already, I think, but I think we can still do it by before 5 30. so let me. So what I'd like to do, Jim, since you've had a chance to. You've you've provided your own self-evaluation that we have in our packet, and we have the staff comments. and I'm I'm guessing that you're familiar with both of those.

[27:01] Yes. Okay. So in this. So if we go, if if in the packet we go down to I'm not sure what page it's on, but it starts with, appendix A, the downtown urban design guidelines. Yeah. Good. So the first one that we have to review is is d. So if we could look a d maybe enlarge that that's good. Maybe shrink it a little bit so we can get the staff comment. Great. So I'm gonna so what I want to do is pose is pose a question. given that we have both kind of the the self evaluation and the staff comment. I would like to ask these ask particular questions that are related to what's been raised in the, in the in the staff comments.

[28:01] So the first one deals with minimizing the visibility of mechanical, structural, and electrical. I said that word earlier pertinences and the 2 criteria there are use low profile, mechanical units and elevator shafts that are not visible, if not possible, setback or screen rooftop equipment from view, and the second one is, be sensitive to the views from the upper floors of neighboring buildings, skylights and solar panels should have low profiles. So The staff comment suggests that that the screening And this also applies to the city. The city code says, all mechanical equipment is screened from view. And so my question is, have you thought about ways to meet this code requirement. Absolutely. So as I'm shown in this diagram, I think it's very key. And hopefully, you guys have had a chance to visit the site.

[29:01] But there's there's a unit that's up here today. That is, every bit of 6 or 7 feet tall. Jim, let me let me interrupt you for a second. So what we don't want unless it's unavoidable. What we don't want is a rationale for why you did what you did cause the because you've kind of given us that. And the staff has commented on that. So what we wanna try to do is is address. The staff comments by looking for other ways that you could meet the code, particularly regarding screening. Well, I guess what I'm saying is I'm I don't know why. Can I finish my statement? Please? Sure. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. So there is a 6 to 7 foot tall unit that's on the roof today and the units that we are proposing are low profile, 30 inch tall, units.

[30:00] That 6 to 7 foot tall unit is not visible today. As you walk around the site. So the question in the criteria is, can you see it from upper floors. cause you mentioned the public way, which I assume is the sidewalk, or street. Right. Okay, so the code. If you're if you're on a 3 story building. you're gonna see everyone's mechanical units. Okay. So in, in, in, in going to that criteria? I don't. I don't think that it's necessarily, if you're to read that criteria again. I'm not sure it's necessarily saying from upper floors. Be sensitive to views from upper floors. Okay. So so we we can ask Dab the same question, do you see ways that that the applicant can better meet the code requirement? Or is it. or is it sufficient.

[31:02] Yeah, I mean I it seems pretty clear that it's sufficient. Honestly, I don't as like I don't understand how it's not meeting the code right now. Honestly. My concern. It doesn't. Just if we are to screen this, we take. Worse! The exact. Yeah, I'm sorry you broke up there, Steven, would you say. I was saying, it'll be if we screen it, it'll be more visible, and the screen won't necessarily be better. We you're not. You can't see these. I don't know. I'd like to understand why it's not me, why they feel it's efficient. I don't. It's pretty clear. As far as the letter as far as the letter of the code. It's saying it doesn't matter how tall the building is, or, you know, sort of the view plane from the pedestrian corridors. It's about screening mechanical equipment period.

[32:00] What the code saying now, I'm not necessarily saying that I agree that that's and that that's going to make this situation better. I tend to agree with the comments that are already being said that. Yeah. Particularly in the case of small suitcase size, many split heat pumps. They're pretty low profile, and so to kind of start linking them with more objects and stuff on the roof. We're just adding more clutter to the roof, in my opinion, as well. But I see in the code why, this is a non satisfied criteria, because they're they're very black and white. Every mechanical equipment on the rooftop will have a screen. And you can't argue in a situation that the pair bit is the screen. Well, I think we as Deben as Deb, you and I, you know we can just opine and just say that we understand that it's a criteria that is not satisfied, but it in our professional opinion, it it's not applicable to this project. Yeah, I agree. And I think the call needs to be updated to

[33:02] for the reality of many splits that are much smaller than Rtu unit. So I mean, it just seems pretty obvious that this is kind of like a non issue. Yep, I agree. Let's move. Let's move to the next one. Okay. So the so that if I summarize this, I will say that that this criteria is not applicable to the project. But that, you know, Deb did not find this criteria specifically applicable to this project. Okay. Yeah, maybe that. Do the size and nature of the mechanical equipment, proposed that that would just kind of complete the thought. Okay. alright. Got that? Okay? So let's move on to the next one. Then so e is design. All sides of the building, including the alley elevations.

[34:04] the staff comment. The sort of core of the staff comment is that the building materials on the primary elevation wrap around to the eastern elevation to the depth of of third floor balcony line, though it may not be recommended structural Bay and requires deb review. So I guess the question here is, have have Jim, you or Deb thought of ways that you can more fully meet this criteria? It's partially satisfied. Yeah, I wasn't sure if they meant Western elevation here. It says, the building materials on the primary elevation wrapped around to the eastern elevation to the depth of the third floor balcony. So I'm assuming they meant the western. Western Friday. Yes, Monday. Okay. And that one, and then you can see the I think it wraps around the back. So there's a couple of in here that are tied to site, review.

[35:01] Yeah, I think you know, I I realize there's got to be budget constraints for this project. And then I you know, I'm not intimately familiar with the setbacks. I know that there's sidewall articulation, and then you're you're an existing building. So you know, you've got all sorts of parameters here. I was really fond of what was done to the front, south, the side. There's just this. you know, additional depth provided, and it took a second kind of coming through the drawings. But you guys have actually furred out. It looks like, so you're not touching the envelope. It's not like you've recessed the windows. You've recessed the balcony. But those 2 adjacent windows and the 2 below, that's all. The existing plane of the existing envelope. Is that correct, Jim? Yeah. And and and we felt like, you know, we needed again this primary facade to really try to punch that a little bit. And these are actually, we're getting a little tricky. But you know we're even doubling that brick, you know. Yeah. And just trying to give

[36:03] I don't want to use the word curb appeal, but you know we're trying to. We're trying th. The front facade is very. It's very flat. It's it's not articulated well. And so creating that facade as well as that. The the main entry here of of creating some richness of materials. Adding more brick than what was there today? Felt like a necessity. Yeah. And I think so. I I guess my comment is that I think you guys have done a nice job. Given the context here on this south facade and the entry which Staff acknowledges. And it's just how can we push more of this detailing around the building in a way that isn't like superfluous from a budget perspective. I know we're it's a side yard, and it's a rear, but I think that's the nature of the of the spirit of the comment is that we want to design this. Are these buildings on all facades? And so how can we

[37:03] can we push some depth? You know, there's 4 in plane material changes happening on this facade which we try to avoid like the plague. And so I don't know if that you can employ some of those tricks, Jim, where you've, you know, furred out in in locations that relate, you know whether it's the structural bay. I can see where the columns drop in the to to float the path. The plinth on top of the subgrade parking, or if it's somewhere along the window edges or the massing step. I you know, I just think we are seeing a lot of materials in plain change here that feels a little busy and flat, and you've done such a good job elsewhere that I don't think it's a lack of skill or ability to make this facade nicer. Oh, thank you for that vote of confidence. You know we th the assumption here, and maybe he else can can speak to it. But we're already. We're already sub standard on this setback and again, we're very limited in our ability to add square footage. And so the notion of furring anything out here did not seem like a viable option. Because we're below. We're below our, we're below our set back, and we actually start to get into fire code issues if we start to bring anything out here. So.

[38:15] 9 and a half. Oh, 9 foot 5 and a half! What's the setback here, is it? Is it supposed to be 10. Yeah, yeah, at least 10. And and and if we get, we're already yeah. So we're already making something worse if we start to. If you pump out. yeah. So. So we are trying, you know, to maximize some, you know, 3 or 4 inch, you know, separations between these materials, but to us. It became more of a compositional discussion of trying to. And again I I I teed it up at the beginning. We are making these material changes, you know, in 3 or 4 inches so. But I I feel like we are limited to that. I don't feel like we have the ability to start to push this out 2 feet, or something like what we did in the front.

[39:01] And ask her to be. Perspective, only perspective and a fire code perspective. Can I ask a question? Are you guys replacing all the windows on this. So we're gonna take this building down to achieving and then and then and then we're gonna put continuous insulation on it. And then we're gonna and then we're gonna start to reclat it. So one thing that you could do, you know, cause it's happening on like right where your cursor is like on the brick right the windows are gonna be naturally set back in because you have that little bit of brick, and then on the front. But that section where there's the siding where it reads kind of flat. I mean, I'd be pretty satisfied if you guys were to recess the windows just by, you know, doing a 2 by 4, Buck, and you know, in a 2 by 6 frame. I don't know what the frame is, but so the windows aren't flush with the siding, you know. Just inset the windows.

[40:00] Right. Simple detail, yeah. And and that part of that is probably just our model articulation. But yeah, at very least we can push them in 2 inches, if not. Yeah. So what? Lot, anyone. Let me see if I can frame 2 possible Recommendations from Deb. One is the applicant has sufficiently met this criteria. which it doesn't sound like that's the recommendation. At this point the second one would be the alternative would be to try to push more of the front facade details around the building on the west side. Yeah, which sounds like there's some issues with fire rating. But I think within 5 feet, I mean, you're gonna have to fire rate, anyways, aren't you? You're doing 1 h on all. Yeah, we're just gonna be restricted. So. But I don't. Wanna. I mean, we talk. Alison's here to say, you know whether or not we can start eating into that encroachment.

[41:00] Right well, and you'd have to drastically reduce the claim, which would be bad. Well, you know I I guess I'm not. I don't have it. All in front of me are off the top of my head as far as you know, architectural features are allowed are, are are, some of which are allowable encroachments into side and front yard setbacks. That's I don't know how they apply it to this particular site, and to what dimension that they would benefit you. So I think you know, the relief would be great to add, it sounds like there are quite a few challenges to adding any relief. So then the next thought that I would wanna suggest is, can we reduce one of those materials or have like, I'm not sure I understand what's happening around the the alley corner, where we see like a single story of brick return, and then we see stucco above it, and then it transitions to siding, and then a 2 story brick like. Can you go back to your sketchup model, please, and. I I did want to just remind the board here that you know we do have this other building jammed up against here.

[42:05] We do have a lot of vegetation also in in between the buildings. And so I do. I do want to remind the board that there it isn't. It's it's a it's a it's, you know, 3 3 foot facades away from being very visible, too. So I I do wanna remind everyone of that alright. So back to this. So you know, we are trying. You know, we're in setting these balconies here. I wanna make sure everyone understands that. So we're balconies in again to try to get some relief where we can. We've also pushed this. We've also pushed this balcony in. And so we are kind of creating this little 2 story element that's sitting on this belt course down here which is mostly brick. But then it's articulated with this patio window. So we are setting up kind of a strong corner here to turn the corner. So we have kind of that strong corner there. Then we have our front brick corner there, and then it becomes this compositional piece of W. What is what is left?

[43:12] And so originally we had shown this a little bit more s. In stucco to try to reduce it. And then there was discussions of reducing that. I think that's where we kind of brought some more of this brick around the base. If we were to look at reducing this to siding, you know, for instance, because I think, as the design regulations talk about stucco citing is unfortunately I is preferred versus stucco, which, as architects, I don't know if I agree with that but I I'm concerned that you know, reducing one material here is gonna increase the monotony of this elevation. Can I? Can you hold it right there. We? We do need to keep moving. So can we?

[44:01] Yeah, I just wanted. I mean, my recommendation. I think you're alluding to is I actually would lose the signing do this all stucco, and then you could start to do things like. you know this with stucco like you're doing in the front. I'm sorry. Draw so bad on here, but you could start to have these kind of connections between the windows, even in the back here. Yeah. Like you're doing in the front like you're doing here. You could kind of mimic that, and it would be cleaner. Yeah, I don't. I don't think the siding's helping really. Right? I I mean, I've got no issue. For instance, if we wanted to even express this this brick base, we could express this brick base back as well. You rotate the end of the front, because the issue is you've got the wood, the I don't know if it's wood, but you have siding. That is the penthouse that stepped back. So basically, I mean one less material.

[45:03] in my opinion, due to the flatness of the facade and and somewhat sort of prescribed flatness because of the existing condition, I think simplifying the material use. And looking at additional unifying elements like that base course you just described to keep it quite generic Todd, for your summary of this point, I think I I think I agree with Staff that this the facades need a little bit of massaging to reduce the material usage and explore additional unifying elements. And we can just leave it open. Ended like that. I would also ask that, Todd. You include the discussion of that stucco is maybe preferred versus the siding, because that is something we want to make sure is clear as we go forward.

[46:02] Yeah, I. Okay. So it's you, I mean. Personally, I think this is a you know. It's kind of a big no, I hate to use word monolith, but that for lack of better term, that's what it is. Truly. Edifice, edifice. Yeah. The. And why not? I think Staco, even with you, could even do some color changes in stucco instead of the signing, if you wanted to still. and like I said you could do a little relief, and with the stucco. Yeah, yeah, I mean this, this elevation would work fine with the stucco change. Coloring. Yeah, yeah. I agree, and. Simplify it and unify it rather than having signing for typing sake. It's not. Okay. So I'm thinking that the recommendation would be to consider more architectural detailing on the western facade to reduce flattening and

[47:00] we were. We're talking about reducing the number of materials. Yeah, I think just reducing the number of materials and exploring additional unifying elements. Yeah, but I wouldn't say more architectural detail. I think we actually said. No, I I would not cause, I think. Okay. I think we. Relief might be opportunities for relief, whether. Yeah, the limited opportunities for relief I would qualify cause they're up against. It's a. Like back. But even like I said, if you set the windows back, if you do stuff all, it makes huge difference. Not a big deal. Yeah, when you change materials. And Steven. I agree. I mean, even putting like I'm assuming. You know, this detail. This model isn't show level detail, but I would imagine there's some sort of fry, regulate sort of reveal details between material changes, something to kind of create shadow lines and gaps, so. Okay? So so it sounds like the recommendation here is to consider on the western facade

[48:01] ways to reduce the flattening and look for opportunities for relief. which may be the same thing. And and there's a preference for using more stucco. Is that kind of what you're saying. So, yeah. are you guys changing the color on the other building? The. No, we are not. We are not, you know. I think we're gonna have to look at the. you know, replacing the the light fixtures on there to make. Client. There's a couple of noncompliant light fixtures. Okay, we need to move on. But that's all we're doing. Okay, if. That was a good discussion. I really appreciate that, but it took us a little bit too long. I think that is the tedious thing we have, unless. It's gonna maybe answer some other questions. So that might be good. So moving on to F. So this one is exterior building lighting should be designed to enhance the overall architecture of the building.

[49:03] So there's a and then security lighting should be designed for safety as well as nighttime appearance. So there's really 2 issues here. One is lighting to enhance the building, and the other is security. So the staff comment is. the proposal will be required to meet the city. Outdoor lighting Ordinance Alley. Elevation indicates path path lights illuminating the walkway along the rear parking area, lighting on the front. Elevation plans is not indicated. Applicant needs to confirm the entry walkway lighting. Yeah? So. So site. Photo metrics are not part of the Site Review. They're part of tech docs. And so the the site lighting has not been developed. And so the simple answer is, we'll comply with that, and we'll be able to show compliance. But I don't think I don't think that there's anything that I can show for discussion today. Building. Perhaps. Jim, did you? Sorry to stop for a second, and you said you were going to maybe do some upgraded

[50:03] lighting on the other side. Have to. We'll literally we'll have to take it. If it's a noncompliant non-cut off fixture, we'll have to replace it. But you're talking about the the out, the outdoor lighting ordinance now, complying with that. No, I'm talking about the existing building today. So today. Searching. There's a globe fixture here, or something like that we'll have to replace with a cut off. Otherwise, you know, we have all this new opportunity to create low, level lighting for this plaza. We're not trying to put any big lights up there and light everything up. But yes, we haven't gotten into. You know. What is that? Scans? You know. What is this, Constance? Light? You know. But we know we can develop something that's again, we're trying to simply say that we're developing low, level lighting. We're not trying to even put sconses up at, you know, 10 feet here, even 8 feet and so you know, that's that's as far as we've gotten today to meet the ordinance. We know we have to show that we're gonna pick out tasteful fixtures.

[51:03] but I think that's as far as the conversation needs to go for today. Because while that criteria is listed in the Ddab. It's not necessarily where we're at in the Site Review drawings. Okay. Yeah, we can. It used to be part of the Site Review criteria. It is no longer part of the Site Review criteria, the photometrics. So if there's any very general thoughts on lighting because it wasn't indicated, that's an okay topic for the Deda, the downtown urban design guidelines. But you don't. whatever you're just explain the intention. As Jim is saying, low, level lighting in here security lighting at the back. Make sure that that's I'll get explanation. And I think the lighting will give you a good opportunity to tie this the 2 sides together a little bit. you know. Like, if you think of it at night, right where you can't see all this, and you have some, whether it's the low, level lane, or some really simple

[52:01] conses that are like flooding a little bit of the wall here and there. I think it'll tie it all together, which would be nice. assuming there's like gold pictures and stuff on there now, I can't remember. And so it sounds like we're saying that this is partially satisfied. We're actually Jim's actually saying that the other part will be satisfied is is still to be determined, because it's not part of this design as part of the more of the existing building. No. Well, it's just a different, different part of the problem. I'm saying that I'm saying that that criteria is out of place in discussions today because we haven't addressed. But you will. Well. Okay. Fair enough. And you guys, and Deb's comfortable with that. Yeah, okay, it's just. Right. So fact. Okay. So let's move on to G.

[53:03] Thank you. Who's who's who's ever doing that? That's me! Oh, okay. I'm good at your. Like rushing through these. You're like, ready right there, like. are we there? Yet? I guess we are okay. So G, reduce the visual visual impact of structure and surface parking. And the the there's 3 criteria to be met there, and the staff's comment is that the west elevation between the property line and the parking foundation extends above grade with open ventilation does not indicate any vegetation or physical screening. Screening possibilities could be their landscape or architectural elements, so does the plan indicate any vegetation or physical screening on the west. looks like. Most of these trees are all in the existing vegetation is on the adjacent property. So there's not much we can do to unscreen this.

[54:06] Okay. This van is in our way. But. You have it in your sketchup model. Yes, I can show it in sketchup, but we don't have the vegetation put in there. So but to give you guys an idea of what we're trying. No. Trying to get that. This con. This criteria is to try to minimize the impact of. you know, kind of highlighting, parking. Right. So so you know, here we are, the the the parking level. It's you know it it is. It's I'm sorry I don't remember the actual dimension I think it's about. It's I think we're 5 feet up and about 5 feet down to to the parking. And so and it kind of ramps up and then ramps back down. And so, you know, I think we're very well screened, obviously from the

[55:00] from the east with the existing plaza, and then and then whatever peekaboo you have along this line here is is is well screened by the existing landscaping and trees that are already established. Is that the issue colony, or is it the the neighboring properties they have? Windows are. No. And at the parking. So they we have the parking, landscaping, screening. It's a it is a pretty peek, a boo portion. Though all this landscaping is actually on the neighbor's property, and so they could get rid of it. Right, And there's nothing indicated on this plan as if they're planning on screening in those pockets. There. Oh, man, here's your! Here's your chance for some architectural interest on that facade. But what. You don't land. The element. If the board feels like they should fill in some landscapes. 4 and a half screens coming in front of stucco. Yeah, exactly. So this vegetation. Yeah. This vegetation, especially towards the front.

[56:02] Yeah. Yeah, and we are re, and we are relandscaping this component here. But we. Yeah. We did not landscape that, but. So it could be something like if the board feels like it needs additional screening to cover that it may be that this is satisfactory as it is, we just need to put it in there as partially, and you can take a look. I mean I I is there any harm in putting some 5 gallon buckets of, you know native grass that's got a drip line and just kind of doing something in front of that along that property line. Are you adverse to that. No, I mean, it's as I said, it's pretty well landscaped now. But you know, could there be some additional link? You know there's some. There's some crap in here. So I mean, I know we're gonna replace it. So if if you want to stay at it to the plan, we can. Can I ask a question? Is, I mean that is your client, or I mean, is there security issues here? I mean, I'm surprised you're not. You know we've had this conversation. We have had this conversation

[57:01] many times, and it's very interesting cause I agree. There, there's been some. you know. Once or twice someone has broken into the boiler room down here, but you would think that this would be a magnet, and it doesn't seem to be. And isn't. I lived here 10 years, and I've never seen this building, and I drive by it every day. So I think this building has just blended in to the left. I definitely notice. I mean, I'm just surprised you wouldn't want to put a garage door on this. Bars on the windows, on. I mean, I'm. Well, I mean, of course, none of us want to do that right. So right now, it's not a problem we would. We would like to think it's not gonna be a problem in the future. The use is actually going to change in the fact that now we'll have evidence there. 24, 7 versus, you know, just 8 to 5. So in in in some ways I I would think it would be less of a problem, more physical presence, but.

[58:05] I mean. Yeah, we're opposite. So let's Bunch of cars with personal effects in them for people to bust into. Yeah, yeah, that's that's that's fair. But yeah, we've been we. We've had the discussions several times, and it doesn't. You know, it's not an issue that we are currently dealing with. If we were to do it you know, it would be an open, great garage door. It would be open side grace on the on the western side. So design wise. I don't think it would necessarily impact the design. But currently, it's not in the plan. So this is de, this criteria is really dealing with the visual impact. So not necessarily security issues. But obviously, it has some impact on that. So it sounds like our recommendation is to consider additional landscaping. Sure.

[59:00] Screen, though that western elevation is that correct? Yep. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. I mean. Personally, I I think the building would look better if there was a garage store. But I'm not, you know. That's just my personal opinion, because it does feel kind of weird to have this dark. you know, parking cavity. And I definitely notice building driving by Laura. You should notice it. but, anyways, that's just my. Point, man. And I don't think the west facade has. There's really nothing, I mean, there's very little exposure. And so we. Have about 30 min left before our. Hard, stop. On this. So let's keep moving. We're on stage now, which is the law requires that universal access be located within the principal public entrance. and the the staff comment is currently the primary public entry. South elevation is not accessible.

[60:05] So I wanna preface this, that this is not a public building, nor there fully accessible units required within the unit within the building. So we're type B units as I said before, we're 5 feet above. So it is not. It is not practical to put a ramp along the front of the building. So it is the existing building. So I believe we are meeting the letter of the law here by providing handicapped parking in the back, which, in fact, is actually more accessible to the elevator. Then, if we were to somehow get someone walking up a ramp in the front. So. Just briefly it said, this says, the law requires that universal access be located within the principal public entrance. so but that would require it to be a public building. So

[61:03] are you saying that this particular criteria doesn't apply because it's not a public building. No, I'm saying that we're providing to the maximum extent possible accessibility. Yeah, this is a weird comment, because it's referencing Federal, a Federal mandate that actually, this building falls under international existing building code criteria. So there's all sorts of exemptions, or I guess, alternatives depending on how much work they're doing, what the budget of the work is that they're doing, etc. that relate to accessibility, and I would argue that what they've done here with is parking directly accessible to an entrance is much more useful than the sidewalk. Typically what you would see if it was a public use would be assigned. That would direct people from the you know, the front plaza that would say accessible entrance in the rear. But it seems like, because this is a residential use now

[62:01] that people would have specific knowledge of where they were going, typically. Right. So the applicant has met this criteria. I I just don't think I think it's a non. I don't think it's an issue. I I don't know how to say. Well, that. Craig! That that it wouldn't apply, that this criteria wouldn't apply to this. Oh, I think cause it's existing, I mean, if you were starting from scratch you would look at it differently. But it would be be really difficult to have a 60 foot boss ramp somewhere. Well, it's even more. It's it's the 60 feet of rise. Then you have to break it going out more than 30 inches twice, and then you have to have those 2 landings plus the other 4 landings. I mean, it would devour that that front landscape. I would say this, though, that if and you know, just look at that rear entry. You know, if somebody is

[63:00] needs an accessible route, and they aren't driving. And they, wanna, you know, walk, wheel into town. you know. Look at how they would go. And you know, could it. Could you make it hospitable that you? You're not necessarily driving? You might be wheeling out the back up the alley. and that's the best you can do. But you know, is there. whether it's lighting along that or whatever it is that would make it you know. Not a terrible experience to have to go up the alley to. So they have the ability to go up the alley and then back and around so. or or simply around the building. Yeah. Okay. So every time Steven and Rory, every time you frame something, frame it as a as a suggestion or. Okay. Foundation. So I'm say, I'm gonna say that the applicant has met this has adequately met this criteria, given the conditions of the building and and the private use

[64:06] that work for you guys. Yeah. Yeah. 'kay. I, yeah, I would. Yeah. The existing building is for sure. Yeah, just didn't make. Conditions and the private use of the building. Yes. Okay. And like I said my suggestion would be to look at that route to the alley and just make sure that there's prop good lighting and stuff. If somebody does want to use that. Okay. Revisit. Lighting. Yeah. I think just I I think it's more than that. I think it's just do to revisit the path from the sidewalk to the rear of the building. Yeah. Okay. Hmm. Path from sidewalk to the rear of the building.

[65:03] Okay. got it. So moving on. We are now jumping over these criteria until we get to open space. What number was that? Or letter? That is The. It's answered. 30, sir. Setting and design, criteria. There it is! I think. There it is! Yup! The Site Review section. Site site design criteria. so open space. Okay? So usable open spaces arranged to be accessible and designed to encourage use by incorporating quality, landscaping and mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas and green spaces for gathering. This is partially met.

[66:01] and the The staff's comment says the alley should be improved to include an additional landscape buffer, to avoid having the area adjacent to the patios evolve into spillover parking. And that. And and since that comment we have incorporated these planters between the patio and the alley. Okay. so is that sufficient? Is that sufficient for Deb. Can you score to that? 3? yeah, and sketchup. And we'll. And we're working with landscaping to to find. you know, material that you know, basically just lays down in the winter and doesn't get doesn't get beat up and broken. And we just know we we know we all know and appreciate how in hospital this alley is with snow removal and other things like that. So. The. Whatever is going to be planted there. The winter is just gonna lie down and get covered in snow and then come back.

[67:06] Okay? So I would say, I would frame this as the applicant has added landscape features to address this issue. Yes. Okay, you guys, comfortable with that. I'm comfortable. And I would suggest, yeah, just like you said, looking at plantings. Even lavender bushes could be great back there. Grant. Stick around. Okay. so let's move on to see landscaping and screening. This one is also partially met. and the. And can I add real quick, though, to. Yeah. You may. because there might be some overlap between the design guidelines, and Site Review. You may have a already kind of resolved or half resolved. Some of these later ones, too. Right. Okay. Good.

[68:01] So the comment is that the west elevation, where the parking structure has exposed structural columns and ventilation areas that are not screened landscape area along this area could include vegetative screening or architectural elements. So is that what we were just talking about. Yeah, yeah, okay, so then. This has been addressed. Kind of a duplicate. Just previously. Okay? So then, we're moving on to building, citing and design criteria and the the main criteria under that is building, citing and public realm interface. That may be a mist. Well, no, that's actually been addressed. So let's skip over that one and go to

[69:01] Item 4. You're you're on 6! There. Item 4, I I. Is. Satisfying. Item, 4. Under The next one is actually sheet 42, 4 sheet 7. On this appendix is a. But there we go! You had about the mechanical units. It's. Priority discussed. Right. So moving on from that one. Is on she 8, and it's It is this. It's this one simple detailing. It's right here. Which I feel like we already talked about. So the criteria simple detailing is incorporated into the facades to create visual interest. Have we addressed that one

[70:03] comment? Staff comment is the West and north. Elevation does not utilize or minimally util, utilizes the detailing listed in the criteria. I think. Kind of address that one in our previous discussion. It's the same. This. I think we did. But I think in to I think it's worth just including a comment to this specific criteria. That is mimics. What we said earlier that you know, reducing the material complexity and exploring additional unifying elements that you that utilizes deep, you know, detailing listed in this criteria which Jim was already talking about, maybe continuing the base course, and things are 3 inches out of plane, and whether that's sort of you know. a cornice, or whatever you wanna call it? I think the same. It's the same spirit, but I think we should acknowledge that this criteria requires that.

[71:04] Sure. Yeah. Okay, Rory, say that again, what does it require? A simplification of material use and exploration of additional unifying elements to the facades. Additional unifying elements. Do the facades? Okay. Abbas. Yeah, this is exactly the same. It's the same. This one, too. Okay, got that? Okay? And then the next one is under building materials. And it is a. I mean, this is where. Satisfied.

[72:00] Yeah. is to maybe eliminate the siding. Yeah. So some of the material changes are not indicative of changes in the form or function. example, programmatic, etc. There is opportunity for dab to simplify the material hierarchy and material assignment on the facades. So we've obviously covered that. Yeah. We have, I would say. See earlier comments, is that legit Kalani? Can we just reference. I know that there was a recommendation that they use less citing, more stucco, and maybe just reiterate that, like you did on the last one for this. Yeah. Okay. less siding, more stucco. Mean, maybe not in those exact words, but that way. Yeah. That's. Summarizing you.

[73:00] Set them so they're on paper now. They'll be in the minutes. I. And I think it was. You know, you guys noted that there was a lot of materials with changes through there. So. Right? Okay. we may. We're getting close here. So the next one is dealing with the cladding materials. It is 4. Yeah, you got that up. So building cladding materials, turn convex corners and continue to the inset, while the criterion does not apply to changes that occur at anterior corner, nor to detailing elements such as cornices, built courses, reveals, offsets, etc. So the comment is, the building materials transition in plane without offsets. Well. This project utilizes the existing building form. and this limits the overall planer changes across the westernmost elevation. There remains an opportunity for Dab to review

[74:02] the materials and detailing. Yeah, I think it's this is all the same. It's just again. Is also addressed. Yeah, I think it's just reducing the complexity of the material palette. simplifying the material palette and continuing to explore unifying elements for the facade. There's there's one thing I wanted to think about on this one, and if you could bring up the sketchup model again, maybe the front. It's kind of related to these, like in and out kind of cavities. and we can zoom it around. I know you guys are, you know you got you got rid of that like super cool 8 atrium glass right? Which was good. And you're keeping the arches right up top. How do you get zoom around to the front? Maybe. just thinking about the unifying element? One thing that

[75:03] if you just hold it right there, I. And when I keep looking at this I'm I'm wanting something to happen here. Oh, just hold it right there. Oh, still moving. No. Like in here. I you know it's like I want cause you, you're keeping these this element. And you've pushed this. You know, you're opening this up. I this is a that deck I'm assuming, or is this just roof? Here. It's just Ruth. Yeah, it's like I'm wanting to. I don't know. Extend these up to connect that. But just to reinforce that kind of like cavity thing that you're going for here. But anyways, that was just that. One of the things is we really. you know, as you as you were down here, I kinda liked it. Stepping back. And also see how it's not planar with that parapet it's pushed.

[76:01] So there's some weirdness that. I mean the the Ode to the you know original. Yeah. Right? Yeah, like, I said. Interesting. But is it really necessary to keep that the the storefront lands up there? I mean, I see, I I appreciate sort of the the honoring of the skeletal original diagram. But I'm not sure it works in the eighties, and I'm not sure it works right now. Did you pull? You brought some of it back? You like. Took some of the bays out. Yeah or not. You've done such a good job that from the pedestrian experience the you know the the 2 story brick, which is a nice new kind of I like the color and the texture you're rendering on the brick versus the red that's in the plaza, which is something I wanted to talk about at some point, but that that upper level steps back and and almost kind of it's not part of the pedestrian experience. You really experience this building from the plazas this beautiful 2 story masonry clad brick facade. It draws your eye up to see the old skeletal structure of the skylight, and again, I'm sure someone's attached to it somewhere, so I don't. You're not gonna dye my sword for it. But

[77:08] in my mind I would just do one of these click, and then let that, and then that whole upper level just disappears. I I I would be fine with the board, making a recommendation that they're indifferent to that, and that is not. Yeah, I am very indifferent to that extremely indifferent. I guess my point is is, there's something I don't know. There's something like little bit unresolved right there, I mean, and I don't have an answer. My first thought is like, what if this was a little bit higher. then that this element? But again, it's not. I'm just throwing stuff. It's just something feels on you, and maybe it is. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna tilt the cards a little bit. And just say, you know, this is not necessarily

[78:00] space that we want to program as amenity space. But we anticipate we will build it as such that if the hoa wants to develop, this is a little community garden or something they can. But we didn't necessarily want to put that in there because it becomes, you know, another maintenance thing. And you know, do does the community want it? I don't know and so it we've kind of left that open to be developed by future. So got. Cannabis up there, or anything else. So the notion of raising that is, to cut that off a little bit more too. So, Steven and and Rory, we've got about 7 or 8 min. Are there any other recommendations that you want to want to make. So I would. Just so, yeah, one, I wanted to. I wanna document my indifference to that steel super or that it feels like a relic that is completely unnecessary and really visually cluttered, you know. Talk we? We just went through the facades about like, Hey, let's have some more kind of logic to where we start and stop materials. And of course, we've got this Tr sitting on the building. So

[79:12] yeah, I want that in a minute. Beyond that. I gotta make it. You look like a little tiara up there. I put like that like 10 sky chairs hanging off that thing and super cool. Yeah, or maybe put like. A big star on the top of it, or something. The other question I had, you know, and I realize there's a challenge, because you know, where do you start and stop scope? And there is, you know, some sort of boundary line between the adjacent, although attached. existing residential. But the the difference in mi in in brick materials feels a little distracting to me and disjointed, and we already kind of have 2 buildings that are completely disjointed. And now that we have this new ground plane where you guys are inserting a lot of new work.

[80:01] you know I love the way you've rendered the brick on the building, because it's more interesting. Is there any opportunity, whether it's brick imaging, coming down and doing their magic with some of the like, the repaints, or whatever that they're able to staining and stuff. Is there any way to kind of get the brick materials to be unified? So I think this plays into some of those earlier comments about, you know the amount of materials and on the facade. And now kind of taking it to the plaza. Rate you oh, can I ask you a clarifying question, or do you mean like the the brown brick and the the. And the red brick all the same. right in the. We're in this red brick and then multicolored break. I mean. a lot of people do multi color break to add interest. But I think it is counter intuitive, like. There was no such thing as multicolored brick when they made bricks. What are you talking about? All the mud was different colors, dude. No, but it wasn't the way we do it now, like just, you know. Run.

[81:03] So to be to be clear and and concise. Actually, Steven, I just think there's 2 very clearly different rendered brick materials. And is there any opportunity to actually unify the brick material usage one way or the other? Well, we we were actually looking for a little differentiation between them. We felt that if you went back to the existing building, that there's a little bit of monotony going on here. And it's just it's a little too much. We also know that, as you know it, it getting that exact break is also gonna be also, and it it'll be a near miss. And so the conversation evolved into. Well, let's get, you know, some bricks that we think can live together. But but don't look like near misses, and and work as well. Family. Each other. And so and and now we have a differential between the site, the the site walls, and in the building architectural break.

[82:03] So you're gonna have to match existing site. Wall, brick, right with your proposed site. Wall, brick. So I think that whole argument. and and although eloquent, is completely foreign. So this, this little component. Yeah. Yeah, it's close. I'm gonna raise the Bs stick on you there, Mr. Britt, because that it sounded great. But that was completely not factual. Forum room. We're gonna have to. We're gonna have to try to match it. Can you go back to the brick sample page. And so we think that more materials is better is that I just wanna make sure I'm understanding you. Actually, you guys are actually interested. We're advocating for a different brick being used on the building. Yes, and we recognize that we have 2 different. And we recognize that

[83:01] boulder has overbuilt red brick buildings. Yeah, I'm actually a fan of the Facebook, I, you know. And this is this is not uncommon for members of Deb to not always see completely. I I I personally think that the face brick is a very nice brick, with some movement to it. and that if I I would personally think this project would be much more successful to unify it with the plinth out of the Facebook material. That's just my opinion. and I don't know how much scope you're taking on on the right half of that stairs. That was kind of what I led with this comment was that I understand that there's. It's really, just. Scope boundary somewhere, and at at a certain point you're not even on your property, and I don't know if you're. Yeah. Polishing those walls or not. This really the limit to the new? The new section of Wall sidewall. Got it. So so that left section is the existing section to remain. And you guys are just building a planter off that got it. Okay.

[84:07] Yeah, this stare today is ridiculously wide and goes all the way over there. literally just over framing that, turning that into a landscaping. So. Yeah, understood. I thought you were re rebuilding that entire perimeter. So you're just adding a new edge to that. Other section here. Yeah, I mean, brick imaging can do some amazing stuff as far as staining bricks. And whatever. But I that was just my comment. I think that again, back to all of the earlier comments about simplifying the material usage. I would like to indicate that that, you know, using 2 different bricks should be reviewed. If there's a way to unify them. Well, I mean it's it's it's. Yeah, me. It's pretty simple, you know. The discussion is, we either make this red brick or we spend. We added

[85:06] a lot of scope here to start to deconstruct all these walls and redo them, which. That's a fair comment. Don't! So that okay, so. Grace is fine, I in the in the schedule model. There's a lot more variation just the way you know it's rendered. But you know in. That's why I want to see the sample. But it's it's pretty subtle, you know, so it's not gonna feel so busy. But we wanna we we want a little bit of movement in it. Yeah, yeah. In the building next to you. That that one is you have. That's like a totally different bill. It's not even just attached. Yeah, we chose, yeah. No brick whatsoever. It is classic mixtain early eighties. Build it as cheap as you can, citing. Yeah, no, it's just that I every time I drive by it's right next to eat town. It's like that color is so horrific of that.

[86:02] I would love to base. but that. Thank you. Oh, my God! Didn't convince! Send the flight, change the color. No. Yeah. So we have. Swashbuckle. Amount of time. People. We're kind of out of time here, Sand, and we need to let them staff go and kind of move on to the bring back our other 2 dev members and kind of. Sure. Keep going. So we've got. I've I've got that captured kind of that last conversation. And that I think that was really helpful. So we'll also incorporate that into it. So let's just sort of officially end this discussion of the project and let Jim go and thank him and his team for putting up with us. And I think we really enjoyed talking about this. Unfortunately, we didn't have a lot of time to do it. I was interested in what the heck the Wealth Conservancy is, but that's another conversation.

[87:05] So I think, Jim, we'll we'll let you go, and and we will. put all of these comments into the minutes and make sure that that you and the Planning board have their comments on the recommendation. So thank you very much. Alright. Thank you all. Okay. sorry to cut you guys off like that. But. No, I have. Long. It's good. Okay. So Gavin is Gavin part of his team. Right applicants, team. I I am, and I'm I'm leaving the meeting. Thank you. Everyone. Okay. Alright. Thanks. Kevin. Hey? I have sent an email to your other 2 board members so they can be when

[88:00] A. Back. I don't. I'm trying to check on our agenda cause. I don't know if we have extra anything that staffs. But but maybe the board has something you guys want to talk about under matters. Nope. So there's mattered board matters, calendar check. and then adjournment. So. We didn't have any matters. Items. We will have a project next month, though. Just one. Well, it's it's 2 buildings. It's the Alpine balsam project, the city buildings. So those are. Okay. You guys will be a little bit different. So on. You know, we're gonna lay into that applicant. So it's like portions of it's not the full site. It's the portions that are outside of the form based code, strict form based code area. So you'll see that. And it's probably gonna it. The format's gonna be a little bit different. So hmm, we're working with them because you're gonna get. You'll see design evolution in that application, and it'll be against the set review criteria. So.

[89:02] And okay. I think it'll be an interesting conversation. I do think it's gonna take probably a bit longer than it's gonna take 2 h because you have 2 buildings to go through. Right, right. And. I mean. They've hit most of those, but there are some critical ones we want you to. We take a look at because they're public buildings. So that's. So have did you? text? Were you in a text, Matthew? And. I emailed them. I don't. Them. Okay. I told them I would email them. I did send an email saying that we're ready to have you back into the meeting. Okay. I don't know, Amanda. If you see them calling in, or anything. I don't. I don't see them signed back in yet. And I. Melanie. I thought you said you were gonna text them. But maybe that's. I don't have let me see if they I don't even know if they have. Phone Numbers. It might think that we're done after this, anyways, cause there's.

[90:02] That's what I was wondering. We didn't say we had business afterwards. Right. Oh. I'm not seeing anything from them. Okay. well, there is a there is one or 2 board ma matters. I guess one of them is that we it sounds like we have some applicants for the board. We have 2 applicants that have applied for Todd's opening position. Todd is kindly. Let us know he's he can stay available, for there's an option if we don't have enough of a forum, or we're still missing. Applicants like Council has opened back up or board members that are leaving to stay on until the positions filled. Is your seat up, dog! Yeah. It was up in the march was my. Be my last meeting.

[91:00] But apparently I can stay on. Yeah. I don't know if that means I would stay on and just share the discussions like I've been doing. If that's been helpful, or if somebody else wants to take that over, and then so there's my sort of departure. But that depends really on when when this other seat is filled. And Council did open up the applications again, and new department. The window closes on the nineteenth, I believe. of this month. So right now we have 2 applications, and we may get more. So if you know of anyone that's looking to be part of the dashboard. Yeah, definitely let them know we're taking applications on there. and then they will, I'm thinking. Probably June is probably when that person might be seated in time for the Dab meeting. They'll probably have one more meeting without this new person, because they need to do interviews. They need to schedule all of that, and that takes up.

[92:00] Right. yeah. So looked for possibly June as the new appointment at that point, and seating a new port number. Okay. Alright! And yeah. Council also does the inner like the appointments arena. Right. Meeting. You're always welcome to it, you know. Interviews and appointments. Okay. so, Matthew, and do we have anything to to add? We had the board matters that we were talking about just now were applicants for my position. because I've go off in. I went off in March, but I can apparently stay on until it's filled, and Kalani said it probably be filled in June. so I'd probably stay on for May. and I'm happy to be the chair and kind of put the hammer down when necessary.

[93:03] but other than that, it's. I guess, totally up to you guys. So edit and. I might, I might have missed this conversation. But have have there been any applicants or interviews. There's 2 applications right now, since they reopen the window, Brendan. Professional applicants? Or are they community member applicants. They are one professional, I think. And then I believe the other one's also a professional. But yes, there are 2 professional applicants, so far at least in one way, shape or form, in the design profession, whether it's architectural historian, architect, architectural designer, something like that. And if you know of anyone Brendan or Matthew that's looking to want to join a board. The application is open until the nineteenth of this month, so they'll close again the nineteenth. It'll take about a month to conduct their interviews and do the vetting, and then they'll vote on it, probably in time for the June meeting, first on dab in June.

[94:07] So I recruited one person and she applied. So she's, I guess, in the mix, and she's an an she has an architecture background. But I think she's working primarily in real estate and her father. She's from Portland, and her father was a kind of a well known architect in Portland, so. Cool. Yeah. So other than that, is there? Are there any board matters? Colony said. No calendar check. And Ml's got her hand, though. Oh yes! I do have my hand up. Thank you. Yeah, this will be my last meeting with you all as liaison. I believe that at our planning board meeting next week we will be re and Amanda's nodding that on our agenda, hopefully we will be reassigning ourselves to to new liaison

[95:08] Oh. situation! So I will need to move on from Dad, because I'm sure there's a queue behind me. Everybody wants to get on on this wonderful board and be the liaison. Thank you so much for the awesome conversations you guys, have I? I? It's a treat. It's a real treat to to be the liaison on this board, and to listen to the conversations and the kind of meaningful results that come from that. And I would like to encourage. And I guess it's Amanda here that sits on, goes to. Are you still gonna be coming, or is it only Thomas to planning. Mostly, Thomas. I'll fill in when he's not available. But I'd like to encourage. I've seen that at the last

[96:01] project, and maybe a little bit prior, but having a section in our packet. That, says Dad, and what Dad's recommendations were that that lands on our in our packet as part. Project review I love. I love that. It was at the last one, and I think Tab was on our last one. Amanda is that is that kind of standard protocol now. and if not, maybe we can make it so. That is standard protocol with the case manager. So when Todd does the summaries, Ml, they they are in. They're intentionally summarized into the planning case manager summary for planning board. So you guys can see where they're at and what they were. Perfect. I I guess I hadn't really seen them prominently in the past, but I did see them in the recent packets, and I really appreciate that because these are great conversations, and they should make it to the

[97:05] to the project review that has, you know, the next step implications for the applicant. So thanks off your for your great work, and it's been a pleasure being your liaison. Yeah, thank you. I know. We enjoyed having you too. For sure. Yeah, thanks. And, Ellen, I really appreciate having your design, background and architecture experience that is helpful. Yup. okay, I think we're at the adjournment point. So. That's a record. 5, 41 congratulations. Yeah. Because Brandon. Head of the. Yeah, definitely, because you 2 aren't there with all your last minute comments? No. That's right. And and furthermore, I mean we can drag it out, Rory, if you want. We can.

[98:03] Genius. He was tired of hearing us talk. By the end of it. Who was? Who was Jim? The applicant. Yeah, he was like, alright, thank you. Goodbye. Yeah, I thought he was like, who are these people. Yeah, he's like, great. Yeah. No, I, yeah. And I always have. You know, my, the one thing that I will say before we adjourn here something to keep in mind moving forward. And we've talked about this often is there's the fine line between us interpreting the code and the the written language, and saying, You know what's our. If we were to interpret it and apply it versus. We also tend to err on the side of just providing our professional opinion, even if it's in conflict with what's written in the code, and that's something I've personally always struggled with. Early on in my tenure on the board. I was very like. I thought I was being asked to fulfill a test which was to read, interpret, apply, and then different personalities on the board of at least for me, opened it into being much more of like. Let's make it a design critique, and, you know, kind of leave some of the rules of you know letter of the law behind, so that it's actually

[99:13] much more informative and and kind of professionally relevant to us. Right. I that's a good point. And I think in some ways we're being pushed further into the. Box. Yeah. Almost got us in our trap where we just go through the criteria. Right. Red, light, green, light. Well, we want definitely want your recommendations cause you'll notice, like even tonight, when there's competing criteria. Right? You have to resolve that there's we need help. That will the help the applicant through some of resolving some of those or if something doesn't. you know, with an existing building it, you're working with a they might not be able to hit everything. But Staff still has to go through and do an evaluation on, whether meet something or doesn't meet something. There are a lot of constraints involved, and that's where your professional recommendations really come in handy

[100:05] and obviously your recommendations. It it may be something like that. Really, you know, maybe that's a little outdated. And as we do, any code changes, those things start to come up too, and they might. Evening. Influencing later code changes that come along. Sure. Right. Definitely relevant. But we do need to have you guys reference the criteria because that is the thing that actually a lens planning board leverage when they're doing the approval. So. And and we appreciate to the opportunity to You know, review what planning board is suggested as being potential criteria items to address and then add, you know. I mean I couldn't this time, but in the future that that is a nice tip feature. I mean the pla, as case managers are being. Those are Co. Those are referrals from planning board and city council, and it's been they've been trying to be very direct about.

[101:09] What's the referral conditions like? Is there something you want the board specifically to look at because it is really helpful. There are a lot of criteria, and it's hard to tell right if you just get a open package, and they really want you to look at something, and you're looking at something else. So we've been trying to get those direction. That specific direction trickled down into your packets, too. Yeah. And you have the staff in the like work. And the so there's a lot that goes into the packets that I think in advance. Yeah. Yeah. alright. Should we make a motion to adjourn here? Todd. You know we don't have to make a motion to adjourn. And just click the leave button. Is that all right? I just. I just adjourn the meeting, and we're done. We've got some senioritis over here.

[102:00] Yeah, I mean. Yeah, weighed like a what's her name does on the basketball court? Alright, guys, we'll catch you on the next one. Thank you. Okay. Next a month for the next one. Alright. Yeah. Eggs. Thank you. Thanks. Aye.