September 10, 2025 — Design Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Advisory Board call this Design Advisory Board, to order, and, this is… Wednesday, September 10th. Or a poor piano. And if you'd like, I'll just get started with the rules of decorum. Let me just pull up the right slide here, just go over this for everybody that's attending. And… Okay… Sorry, like Rory said, there's too many buttons. Am I sharing the right screen? That doesn't look right, I'm sorry. Are you seeing my slide, a PowerPoint slide? Yes. Yes. Oh, okay, okay, sorry, I am… alright. Thank you all for joining us. I'm just going to go over a few participation guidelines for this evening. 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.

[1:20] and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website. 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. And participants are required to identify themselves using the name that they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. If you need me to change your name, you can send me a message in the Q&A box.

[2:13] And I'd be happy to help do that. We're in the Zoom webinar format, so, for public participation this evening. In order to speak when it is… when it is time, you may use the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. You can hover your mouse just over that. I don't see anyone on the phone this evening, so I'll just kind of skip those instructions. And then just one last, area, too, that you can find the raise hand is under the reactions button. For anybody that wants to speak to this item or other items that are not on the agenda, you'll have, 3 minutes. And we will share a timer, when it's that time. But I'll let Brendan take over from here.

[3:01] Okay, great. We have just barely a quorum here, so… We can go ahead and inter… introduce the three of us that are here on the DAB. I'm Brendan Ash, chair of the board. Rory Belosukovich, Vice Chair. Jack Snyder, Deb. Great. Now I'd like to call a motion to approve, the meeting minutes from the previous meeting. a second… Fire. All in favor? Joe. Bye. Aye… Thank you. It does. Okay, so it's just the three of us today, huh? Okay, cool. It's… it's the three of us. We can open it up now for public participation, on sort of general matters. There'll be another opportunity for public participation, that is project-specific.

[4:10] After the applicant has presented. Great, thank you. We did. Brendan. Yeah, go ahead, Kalani, sorry. We did have one participant here as part of the… as a community member, and I don't know if they wanted to participate right now. Or as part of the project. Yes, I did see that message, so if you… I'm not sure what the name is, because it's a few letter… a few letters and numbers, but if you'd like to speak to any item that's not on the agenda this evening, not the project on Glenwood, you may raise… use the raise hand function to speak on something else. Otherwise, there'll be an opportunity later on.

[5:05] I'm not seeing any hands raised, so… Might be okay to move forward with the project that's on the agenda. They, it's… Andy Wittenberg and said they'll wait until the project. Oh, okay. Feedback. Got it. Thank you, Andy. Great. Okay, to… This evening, we're… we're going to be, Trying something a bit different than we… than the last week, and… With a bit more, Structure for the project review, and the discussion item. is the, project on 2717 Glenwood. The multifamily housing project.

[6:03] So the role of the Design Advisory Board in general is to look at the key issues that staff has identified that are partially meeting or do not meet the design criteria. And… Our role is to give, you know, architectural or design, advice to the, project. Hopefully, it can be, conversational, and our recommendations are non-binding. However, they're often incorporated into, future staff and planning, Recommendations or incorporated into their reviews. So, tonight, we are going to, Hear the presentation from… about the project in general from staff and the applicant.

[7:05] And then there would be an opportunity for DAB to ask Any clarifying questions? Which then will be followed by an additional opportunity for public comment, or participation. And then we are going to… to jump into our review. Tonight we're going to… to review each… each… we have 7 items to go through this evening, and we're going to start our reviews with, Matthew, and then we'll… we'll then get comment from Rory, and then, For me, last. And then we will… at the end of each topic, we will give a brief summary of the comments that the board has made.

[8:00] And then, at the end, we will give closing summary for the project as a whole, and then we will allow the applicant to… Leave the meeting and not have to participate in the, Calendar check and the other items that we have at the end of the meeting. Or they can… We'll send in if they won't. So… You get to be, you're the guinea pig, just to make sure that that was clear and understood. We are… there's gonna be… we're gonna go back to more of the rigor that we used to have from many boards ago, and considering there's only three of us here today, you get to start every conversation. I definitely feel like I'm in the hot seat, let's go. Yes. Great. Sorry, Brandon. Alright, so the seven items that… just briefly, that will be, well, I guess maybe we could just…

[9:03] how to… applicant. And staff. Presentation events. I can go into the criteria that we'll be discussing. I think that sounds good, yeah. So, Shannon Moeller from the Planning Department is here for staff this evening. Hi, good evening, board. I will just share my screen real quick. I just have a really brief presentation for you before I turn it over to the applicant team. So, I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder Planning Department. So as you know, tonight we're looking at the project at 2717 Glenwood. It's a, residential project to add a new building onto a portion of the existing parking lot here. So we're reviewing this under the site review criteria, and it's here before DAB tonight because it was referred by City Council during an earlier process during the concept plan phase.

[10:00] I won't go through these, now, but we do have slides of each of the, kind of key issues, and then at the end, the City Council referral of what they, referred it for. So that's it for me, and I'm happy to turn it over to our applicant team here. We have Caddis, Michael Bosma, and Molly on our applicant team tonight. Hello. Oh. Can everyone hear us? I can. Hello, everyone. Hello? why don't I start out, and thanks for getting together tonight. I guess we got a small group, so… Hopefully, we can get some really productive feedback. Let me give you a little introduction. My name is Michael Bosman, I'm the property owner.

[11:06] I have Bob Wilson with me from Caddis Collaborative Architecture, and Molly Batesian, who's been Who works with me closely on… and has been working with me closely on this site review application. So as Shannon said, we got… we're… we went through a concept review already. As part of the comments there, they wanted us to be referred to DAB, which I think is always a great idea, so that we can get some additional outside perspective. And, We're currently in site review, and we're trying to hopefully get to the finish line here pretty quick. A little bit of background on the property. I acquired this property probably… I don't know, 6 or 7 years ago, and I've been… you know, operating it as an apartment complex. We've always had the intention of doing some sort of redevelopment. And over the last few years, we kind of…

[12:02] Struggled with what the best approach for redevelopment of this property was. Obviously there's a complete dearedown option. There was some… Adding addition to the existing structure, And… What we came up with the best, which we thought was kind of a sort of… New concept was to take a lot that had a site that had a huge parking lot. It was way over-parked for What it was being used for, and repurpose that parking lot and that impermeable surface into actual living space and a separate structure on the property. I think we got a lot of good feedback on that at our concept review. People said, I think this is a great use of the site. But we also got a lot of other comments, and so the evolution of this is kind of… Kind of evolved a little bit.

[13:00] I think we have a PowerPoint that if you guys want to bring it up, I don't know if we can bring it up, Bob, or we can share. I'll go ahead and share it. This is an introduction, so it'll be a little bit more smooth going forward. Alright, can everybody see my screen? Yep. Okay. Oh, you can probably go to the second or third one down. sort of our introduction page, Bob. Oh, sure, yep, hold on one second, Michael. But in the meantime, you know, our goals are to kind of meet city goals, We thought that this property is a great redevelopment location, because it's… Super close to a grocery store, close to restaurants, close to amenities. all within walking distance. It's got great connectivity to the existing bike routes. The bus routes right off of the main arterial of 29th Street.

[14:01] I don't think it gets any easier than that within the city. I think it's got a walkability score of… What do we say? 89, and a bike score of 100. And it accomplishes some of the, you know, goals that the City Council and Planning Board over the years have always tried to accomplish, which is don't demolish our existing housing stock, but So we're not. We're keeping the existing building there, and I think in a combination of that, while these, you know, we're not proposing that these be deed-restricted or affordable units. By nature, with the location that they're at, and the style, and what we're proposing, it does seem to fill sort of that in-between affordable and higher-end, model. So, kind of in summary, I think that we've come up with what we think is a kind of a new concept, and at a great location. And we've evolved it from concept, we've brought it back down, we've listened, and I think you can see as we go through these documents that… or hopefully that we've… we've accomplished a lot of that. So, Bob, I don't know if you want to…

[15:12] take over with some of the design stuff as we go forward. Sure. And obviously, the three of us will be here to answer questions. Yeah, sounds good. Thanks, Michael. Yeah, I'm Bob Wilson with Caddis Collaborative. Yeah, as Michael said, I've been working on this for a few years, and I think we've, we've come up with something that hopefully you agree is a pretty successful, intervention, I guess, on the site. So, let me see, I don't know, there we go. So, the existing conditions on the site, are represented here. You can see that the… it's… it's largely a very parking, dominated, site. The, the frontage along Glenwood is really just this. the small portion of the side of the building, so there's… it's not a particularly inviting, sort of site entrance or presence on the street. And so, one of our goals was to… to really, tackle that issue and, try to… try to engage, Glenwood Street in particular. And so, as the sites evolved.

[16:16] You know, as Michael said, we've tried to introduce, you know, more dwelling units. Badly needed dwelling units, on the site. And… and ultimately what we've ended up with is a total of 59 units. 37 currently exist on the site, so this… this new building is a 22-unit, 3-story… 3-story building. The parking, as it stands in this current design, totals out at 43, broken down over here, as you can see, between the various uses, and then our bike storage, both long-term and short-term, meets the requirements, with 120 total.

[17:00] Where we have zero right now on the site. Yeah. And so, our original concept plan, largely because we were trying to maintain as much car parking as we could, took up a larger portion of the site, and so then, through concept, there was some concern on the part of staff and Dave Lauer with the fire department about Visibility and fire access and… and some other things, and so, and then also just sort of the pedestrian experience, on the site, because initially, what you're seeing here, this footprint underneath at, at, at grade, we were having some… some tuck under parking. So, instead of having dwelling units at grade, facing Glenwood, and or facing what we're calling the Paseo, that was all surface parked as well, so… and the solution that we've come up with, you know, ultimately results in a little bit less parking, but I think, some real benefits to the livability of the site itself. You know, we've increased both the Paseo width and the sidewalk along Glenwood to 8 feet.

[18:13] the… the open space that we've… that we've created, kind of in the… in the same… roughly the same location where the… the usable open space currently exists on site, is really more defined. We've got outdoor grills and, a lawn, and some seating areas, and a bike barn, and dog wash, and some other things associated with that area, that… that we feel is… is ultimately a real… a real benefit to the… to the community, so… And, you know, circulation. Really was one of our, our main, main aspects that we were trying to tackle, and through this, you can kind of see what we were intending as far as, having, you know, bike access and connectivity and pedestrian connectivity, and really trying to… to define what are admittedly somewhat confined spaces, but,

[19:11] Design in such a way that they're made to feel comfortable from a pedestrian circulation standpoint. And I think one other thing, just to hit on that real quick, is the… the addition, this was a big comment that we got from Planning Board was, to… To the north there, we… You know, the creek kind of runs down through there, and there's a big open space, and we really took that where it's… Not usable at all at this point, and created a real connection point to… To… to that side of the building. And a lot of usable space as well. Yeah, and that'll be a little bit more evident in some of the, in the fly-through, but we'll also fly around the rabbit model, and you'll have a chance to kind of get a better sense and perspective on how this building relates to both the existing building, but the surrounding site.

[20:06] The elevations, which you've seen, you know, based on the feedback that we've gotten, we've really tried to… To zero in on a material palette that is… is a simplified, or is relatively simplified, and so, cementitious vertical and lap siding, you know, potentially vertical cement board siding in lieu of the metal, the metal siding that we're showing. So we've got cement board in, in either horizontal lap, vertical lap, and panel system, some stone accents, and then, you know, some metal accents at the railings and that sort of thing as well, so… Well, and I don't want to spend too much time on these renderings, just because they, you know, they don't depict, you know, the intent quite as well as the fly-through of the model does. And then, from a palace standpoint, you know, this… this sort of illustrates a potential approach in lieu of… in lieu of metal. It might just… it might have a…

[21:08] You know, slightly better, contextual representation than the metal would. And these are some renderings that… that, have been, I guess, improved upon from… from maybe what was… what was submitted in that original packet. Nothing's fundamentally changed, except for we've really added to the landscaping and tried to… give this a little bit better, or a little… be a little bit more informative as to… as to how we ultimately intend this… this site to feel. And so this… this, you know, the slower, lower, lower right is… is the main entry, And then this image just above it is… is kind of just to the right of the main entry, at the entry of the Paseo, and sort of the… that interstitial space that… that Mike was mentioning, that we're really trying to… to enhance, frankly. And so we've got, you know, a 20 to 25 foot

[22:04] gap between the existing and the new building, and, you know, the hope is that that's… that's really a pleasant, experience to navigate through the site, and it really sort of frames and identifies the entrance to the site, as opposed to what's there now, which is… Really pretty, pretty ill-defined and, and, and hard to kind of… kind of graphs, so… Some additional renderings, Just to kind of articulate, and you'll… again, you'll see… you'll see this, represented in the fly-through as well, so I won't spend too much time. We can always come back to some of these images if need be. The transparency, we've, made some adjustments, to this as well, based on Shannon's feedback. So, you know, the… the… given the proportions and program of the… of the new building, I think the 60%, really wasn't… wasn't all that achievable, but we… we do feel like we can get to that 20%,

[23:11] You know, throughout the remaining elevations of the building. And then this is just meant to sort of highlight the areas that we've focused on from a landscaping standpoint. You know, obviously the Paseo, as Michael mentioned, what's happening on the east side of the existing building, trying to really address that open space next to the multi-use trail, and then the area. Up here at the, you know, between the new and the existing. And then, based on some comments that we had gotten, through concept phase, you know, we really wanted to… to have some… some sort of eyes on the street, so to speak, dwelling units kind of facing the Paseo, as well as… as well as facing Glenwood, to really kind of make this a,

[24:02] A more inviting… inviting atmosphere. Nope. And then these are just some snapshots of… of the landscape plan. There's… there's some minor, minor differences, updates to… to this, which you'll see in the… in the fly-through, but, But, you know, you can kind of see on this lower left here, we're really trying to make the interior courtyard as usable and functional and inviting as possible. You can kind of see some of these other perspectives of that space, the Paseo down here at the bottom, kind of looking from one of the upper-level existing units back down into the Paseo. And then over here, just a quick snapshot of, you know, roughly what we're anticipating for that eastern landscape area. Near the multi-use trail. And with that, we'll…

[26:01] Yeah, and you can kind of see how we're entering back into that kind of common area space now. Where today, that just doesn't really exist. There's a small area there, but with no programming. Yeah, and there will be a small fence sort of segregating the parking area from that. From that seating area as well, so… Alright So, I think what I'd like to do now, and… is I'm just going to bring up the Revit model, and we can kind of start to look at that thing from whatever perspective people feel they need more info on, and we can maybe use that in conjunction with kind of identifying some of the things that are on the agenda, so…

[27:02] Let's such a board kind of guide us on how we want to use that, and bring it up, and if they want to look at certain areas, then let's navigate it to them. But I think at this point, we can kind of turn it over. Huh? Yep. Are there any, questions from Ford? I think the only question I had, I know you guys have a bunch of your metrics for parking and things, and I may just be missing it, that the open space metrics, they are in here somewhere, right? So, in the… in the pack… in the… yeah, I don't know if I have that in the PowerPoint. We do have that in the packet. I'm looking at your Skype, man. Yeah, we're at about 37% open space at this stage. Okay. Yeah, I have a couple quick questions. Sure. For the existing units that are to the plan east of the new development.

[28:08] Those would be, in this proposal, then accessed Only from the Paseo, is that correct? Yeah, yeah. I'm an entrance to. Well, no, no, so all. Individual. So there's a… there's a… there's a exterior walkway that fronts the entirety of… of that two-story building. So there are three stair cores. Currently, there is a walk that's in front of that building, which is basically being replaced by this Paseo. It's being enhanced… I should say it's being enhanced by the… with the Paseo. Yeah, the access points wouldn't change. So, they're on each end of the L. And then one in the center of the corner of the L. Okay. So, the ground units of the existing building that are facing the Paseo, that's not their primary entrance, is that what I'm hearing? That's like a…

[29:03] Windows, or… No, that's fair. All of them are accessed off of… It's a two-story walk-up. And, they would be facing the Paseo, and they… and as you turn the L, then they'd be facing the parking lot and the… North end of… or the west end of the building. And because they're two-story walk-ups, the width of that existing building is just a unit's width. They're not double-loaded in there, are they? No, it's just a single, single-loaded unit. So if I have a window facing the Paseo, I can turn around in my unit and face east into the landscape, river scape, creekscape there. Correct. And then, what was the sort of kidney bean-shaped feature in the landscape just east of the existing development? I've. It's everywhere. If that's an active sitting area, or lounge area, or if that is, like, a water mitigation.

[30:06] That'd be with the Revit model, maybe, because I was curious of that, too, like, clearly some sort of programmed outdoor space. Yeah, yeah, I think, I think you're right. It's probably easiest just to describe some of these things as we fly through the model. Do we wanna… do we wanna do that? Just go ahead. Yeah, just real quick, just to sort of… in the information-gathering phase here. Yep. Bear with me here. Alright, can you guys see this? Yep. Okay, so this is kind of… this is kind of looking up above from, like, the south… I guess, southeast, And what you're seeing, I think that kidney shape. thing you were talking about over here on the eastern side. Yeah, so that's… that's our detention, and water quality area, with sort of a recreational area here and some informal seating, with a crush-refined path that kind of connects to the main sidewalk, kind of connects over in front of the existing building.

[31:12] to the Paseo, so… What are we calling that, Molly, on the landscape plan? We do have programming in there that's not being shown. It's a rain garden, basically. Yeah, but the… But there is, like, some… long… And then. programming, and… Also, the games lawn, so that's why. Yeah, game's long. People over here, so there… there will be seating. Yeah, seating and cornhole, or whatever else you want to use, yeah. this area, just to the west of where the people are standing, there'll be seating, and then… as well as around the back, kind of. Yeah, so there's some seating up here to the north of that, and then some seating here as well. And that… that is, I think there's some natural… barriers between that and the public pathway we're seeing to the right, right? Isn't that the creek and…

[32:04] Yeah, there currently is no direct connection, from that bike path to the site. You know, everything you're seeing up here is just a bunch of native, native grasses and that kind of thing that kind of segregate that path from the site, but… Yeah, I'm just trying to visualize the actual condition up there. Yeah. More of a wooded creek. Escape there, right? Okay. And then there's no connection. Out the site from that side to the north. I forget which street fronts out the north end of the lot, but… There's no through connection. There's not. Yeah. Okay, sorry, that's the extent of my, sort of, orientating questions here. Thank you. But I do think that there might be some potential opportunities to have some connectivity with the adjacent site as they're going through site review as well, so…

[33:00] You know, just to throw it out. This, yeah, this, this whole area. I mean, this walk… this walk kind of continues straight down at this point, so… You know, We do have connectivity across the creek, and… Up. A boat behind the adjacent property. Yeah. Yeah, so what you're seeing, just for a little bit more context, you know, this, I think this represents 28 here. You know, this is the discount tire on the corner, this would be the Safeway up here, this is the existing… existing apartment building, but… Yes. And I know that there is a ditch in between that is in, flood… Yeah, yeah, so there's a dish that kind of runs on the… on the west side of this… of the bike path, yeah. And I, I just have, one question, you know, I mean, this site really does include an existing building and then a proposed new building. Is there any requirements or… or opportunity to, enhance the existing building, in any way? Or, you know.

[34:11] It's, like, cosmetically. Yeah. Environmentally… Right. Yeah, I think that's all on the table, and I think it would prob… I don't think we're gonna do, like, any sort of renovation, but a cosmetic, and probably a… what do you want to call it? Kind of a interior update of that building? Would probably happen simultaneous with this. But that would be more at the building permit phase of the construction. Is not to have? Oh, sorry, sorry, Brendan. Are those… is the existing building condominiums, or are they apartments? No, they're apartments. Hmm. Is the intent to have them… I mean, because I could see one strategy with this whole project is to…

[35:03] continue to gain revenue from those during the entire construction process. Is that not a consideration? I don't think it would be possible. It'd just be too intrusive on them, and I… I actually probably wouldn't want that. Okay. Unless there are other further questions, I think we can open up the conversation to public participation. Great, thank you. Let me just get my timer here set up. All right, if anybody would like to speak to this project, now is your time to raise your hand, and I'll give you permissions to do so, and I will also display a 3-minute timer. So if you… Okay, we've got one hand raised so far.

[36:02] Couple… alright, so we'll go ahead and start with Andy Wittenberg, followed by M.E. Rauch. Andy, you have 3 minutes. Hi there! I live across the street from… this, this, community. So, I'm curious… I noted that you said you're gonna add 22 additional units, but you're taking away some parking. Glenwood is a very, very busy street. It's… it's… especially with all the construction on 28, there's a lot of street parking, there's a… it's… you know, this area has always been, since I've lived here in… for 15 years, it's always been a pretty congested area. I don't want to say congested, but it's heavily populated.

[37:00] And so I'm concerned that in reducing so much parking. That it's gonna impact our community, that's number one. And then number two, it's… the building now is three stories. And I think the original proposal was, like, parking underneath, and then maybe another… you know, just units on top, so that it seems to have really increased, and I'm just curious about the people who are going to have that In the original building, those west and south-facing… units, they're going to be sort of blocked. I mean, they're not going to get any light in that way. Their windows are going to be facing… a big building in the front. And so I'm just… those are… two of my concerns. For the… that building. Oh, and then just the amenities, what about, like. trash removal, like, you know, now the trash removal is, like, sort of in the, you know, middle of that community, but then where does that go? You know, all those things sort of impact the surrounding communities, so…

[38:14] Anyway, that's it for me. Okay. Thank you, Andy. Well, I can try to respond to a few of those things. I don't know, Michael, if you wanted to jump in as well. Is this the time to… immediately after, or are we kind of waiting for all the comments to come in? Yeah, I think we'll… we'll wait. Yeah, thank you, Brendan. We'll go… oh, sorry, my timer's still running there. Yes, we'll… I think just to be clear, though, just to be clear, the… I think we'll be waiting until the DAB has had a chance to run through things, too. I think we're just collecting information, and then we'll have an opportunity, given enough time, to have the applicant provide additional thoughts if requested.

[39:04] Great, thanks. Okay. Great, alright, M.E. Rausch now is, your… is your 3 minutes, and I'll restart this timer. And you all hear me. Yes, we can. Okay. Hi, my name is Emmy Rao. I live on Arnett Street, directly behind this proposed unit. I've got a number of concerns with this project, which, some of which I noted with the last site review. So… Some of my concerns kind of are how this is being presented, by CADIS and by the owner. I feel like it's maybe intentionally misleading with, kind of these renderings and the parking, especially in this presentation. I think existing, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are about 54 parking spaces at the current units. Often.

[40:17] a very full parking lot. This isn't an unused open space. This is a heavily used parking lot for the existing units. They recently did tree work to remove some of the badly needed dead limbs on the cottonwoods surrounding the property. And when they did that, they closed the parking lot off to the residents. which flooded Glenwood and all of the surrounding streets with cars. It was, like, made Glenwood a very… busy and almost unparkable area. So, with the reduction of the parking. it's going to make this a frequent thing. It's gonna make my street unparkable, it's gonna make Glenwood unparkable. Similar concerns to the last presenter.

[41:08] The renderings is another thing that I feel like is… kind of misleading, so right now on the screen, it's showing my house as this three-story structure, which is not the case. I'm a one-story unit, and I'm going to be completely enveloped, basically, by this three-story monstrosity that's dropped into the parking lot behind my house. My home value's gonna go down with something like this being added to the neighborhood. This isn't adding any cool businesses. I don't understand why the dilapidated current units aren't going to be torn down and rebuilt instead of just plopping something in front of all of their windows. So I've got a lot of concerns about this. I don't think that this is a good plan, in general, or for our community. So…

[42:00] That's my feedback, primarily the parking and my home value, but also concerns for the tenants in the building currently. They're gonna see a big building instead of anything else, and also tree removal. This is gonna remove who knows how many mature trees. So, my time is running out, I've got a lot of concerns, I think this is a bad plan, and I would like this to not move forward. Thank you. Okay, thank you, ME. Anybody else that would like to speak? Now's your time to raise your hand. Give it a second. Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands raised, so, I'll turn it back over to Brendan. Hey, the first item on our… on our agenda that we're going to review is…

[43:06] is the City Council, you know, sort of the reasons why City Council recommended that DAB review this project? And it's… and it's fairly broad, and I think that we'll be able to address their comments or their concerns in, in some of the criteria, design criteria discussion that'll happen after. So I'll just… briefly introduce their… their reason for referral, was essentially that they're hoping That through massing and material choices, the building can become more… have more of a human scale, and help address the design challenges related to placing the new building on existing parking lot and retaining the existing structure. Which is a good segue into the first design, criteria that we'll be addressing that is

[44:06] Been identified as partially satisfied by the, planning staff. And it, has to do with landscaping and screening. let's see, you know, the goal is to have, you know, operational elements, such as Transformers and trash, and recycling, parking for vehicular circulation, and screening, screen from the public realm through design elements such as landscaping, fencing, or placement of structures to mitigate negative visual impacts. And I think that, the staff comment was that the transform… they're concerned about the transformers in parking. Are shown in a mulch planting areas, and the trash and recycling areas are enclosed and roofed, and a planting plan would be… need to be, reviewed with the next formal submittal.

[45:10] So I'm not sure, you know, at the time of… That, you know, that we do have a site plan, and we do have these… this fly-through model, if it is matching what was submitted originally to staff, or if it has been updated. So, with that, Matthew Dalton, Put you in the hot seat and start us off. Yeah, this is… I'll try to get my, gears rolling here. I might need a reorientation to things as specific as the transformer. Although I feel like I'm oriented where… You know, trash and recycling, those things are…

[46:10] Sorry, I'm just… while we're doing this, I'm reviewing the actual comment. Maybe we could look at a, a site… site plan might be helpful. evidence. I think, Matthew, just to… catch you up. I think it's just, You know, the… the issue is… is that… They've taken this, a giant parking lot, an existing building, And, And the discussion is around how this new building has been placed within the site, and how they're, you know, treating, sort of, the necessary evils of

[47:04] Things like trash and… The water entry room, and… So, yeah, I mean… I'll try to confine my comments, you know, specifically to this, component. But, with the… with the site plan we're looking at, like, I… I think… this relates to my orientation question earlier. Like, I feel like the entrances are provided with some kind of landscape passageway, or… landscape approach. My read of the plans is that the sort of formal and main entrance to the new structure is. off of the map. Right-of-way sidewalk. And there feels like an adequate amount of, you know, landscape setback there. Well, the following. It's not too adjacent, right, to the sidewalk. The corner, the inside corner, where, like, sort of… Everything… there's a bit of public pro… or… Tenant… program and landscaping,

[48:09] Yeah, do you go as well. I feel like that does provide a decent buffer between the parking hammerhead And the north wing, which runs east-west of the existing structure. Well, shoot. I don't really understand where the entrance to the… existing units on the west end of the north structure? Like, where are their doors, entrances related to… in relation to the trash and recycling? Are you asking applicant at this point, or… Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just, I'm just trying to get oriented, like, if I live in that east-west running wing out up to the north. Where is the, sort of, primary entrance points or stairwells for those… units.

[49:04] So, there's a stairwell on… adjacent to the west property line, where Bob's circling his… his cursor right now. The trash is in the trash enclosure, trash recycling enclosure, just adjacent to that. The entire building, their front doors run along the, upper walkway. And so… There's a stairwell on the other end of the L, so on both ends, and I believe there's one right in the middle that heads down into the open space. usable area. Yeah. And the trash and recycling is in a roofed enclosure, is that… that's correct? Yep. That's correct. And that was a comment that we had from the neighbors, at the previous one, like, hey, don't try to put this, like. Just out there like it is now, so we built a nice tucked-in enclosure with a little bit of landscaping buffer in between.

[50:04] Well, even for the apartments, if you're on the second level, you're sort of looking out. You're close enough to it that… You know, you don't want to be seeing that necessarily from your, like, entrance door, looking right down into the cans. No. Yeah, I mean, the only thing I could say there, and I don't know if it's absolutely necessary, if there was a way to… Move that south. So that it gets even further from the existing termination of the building and their stairwell. Because just, you know, if it were to, say, pull south of Beam the Hammerhead, which turns east. And then you had more parking back towards the back of that building. I think that might provide a little more Sightline and smell. Separation between your existing units and, you know, the dumpster enclosure.

[51:01] So, I think the other areas, the Paseo and the Knuckle with the landscape program, they have other things that we can talk about, but sort of zeroing in exactly on this comment, I think that's my only area of concern, is that it'd be nice to look at some other locations for the trash enclosure. For the, you know, for the reasons we just discussed. And I think it could actually create a little better sight line to your back stairwell, which is already, you know, buried in the back of this parking lot. Yeah, I think that's… that's… unless something else comes up, I think that's my… my… My take on that one bullet point. Yep, thanks, man. I'm just scrolling through a bunch of different comments here, so bear with me. So, I guess my read on this comment… is… In the context of… planning board and city council call-up here, or whatever, the referral.

[52:09] is that they're kind of using the… like, City Council and Planning Board my read is that they're questioning the… just the Partee of the site plan, like, and I'm sort of… curious to ask the applicant some questions without, sort of, getting into a longer conceptual discussion here, but I think my read is that This screening of not only, like, appurtenances, like trash, and, you know, where gas lines and the fire riser room facing the pedestrian way, and, you know, the screening on the roof that you guys are setting back, and gonna provide some detail as far as how it's screened. it's really the parking, too, right? Which is essentially, they're saying, look, it's this site diagram. Has decided to place a building in the center of the site and push parking to the periphery. And this comment in the site review criteria is… opens up a seam to discuss that, because a building can be used in the review criteria as part of what could be a screening element. And so, as we look at this site plan here, we're seeing

[53:11] you know, this double-loaded parking corridor adjacent our property line, and so, you know, the kind of coy way of staff saying, hey, you know, we need to see a planting plan and a fence there at a bare minimum, at least opens the dialogue from DAB, potentially. to just ask some basic questions on the site diagram, and I guess I just have to ask it, because I think it's going to come up at some point, like. I saw the original proposal that sort of had a lot of feedback from Planning Board, and then I see this new proposal and appreciate, sort of, some of the reductions and things, just point blank, and I don't know if it's a solar issue, and, you know, H4 or whatever, R4, you know, I'm not as familiar with some of the specific zoning on every single lot here, but At any point. Was it considered to actually have a building that completed more of a courtyard plan on the diagram on the site, where this new building would be on the west property edge?

[54:08] So that we don't rely on an 8-foot-wide Paseo to access both brand new market rate units plus the existing units. We own, you know, the south view of light and access to air. I realize you're gonna have a parking lot you might be looking over, and there's some compromises there, but generally, the amount of, sort of, open space and access to light with creative landscaping within the parking… I'm just curious, was that ever considered? If so, how did it get shelved? And I'm asking the applicant specifically right now. So, I think… Well, I think we have a lot of issues with that. I think we were running up against a lot of solar fence issues. to the properties of the West.

[55:01] There's some access issues in other parts of the property. We felt that pushing it Farther away from… the adjacent neighbors would be better, and I think also, Bob, we did… we grew that Paseo significantly, so I think… I think we grew it about 8 or 6 or 8 feet from where we originally did, so I think it's about a 15-foot Paseo, or a 16-foot Paseo, not… not a… not an 8-foot Paseo. So, we grew those areas to try to do it, and… You know, it just made the most sense logically from a drainage perspective, you know, from fire access. there's a lot of thought and consideration that go into that, and, you know, I appreciate the comment about the trash enclosure and where it's located, but we did have it exactly in the concept review plan as suggested. And, we got some feedback negatively on that, so we pushed it back up. So,

[56:02] I don't know, Bob, do you remember any of the other… other reasons that we've kind of gone. What is the solar fence? What is the solar fence here? It's 12 foot along that western edge, so really what, yeah, really what that would have entailed is, like, bringing down, like, the western half of that building down to a two-story, which architecturally and contextually works, but it really impacts the density we can get and the feasibility. You know, we need a certain number of units to really even consider this project, right? the way to sort of maximize density and balance that with some of the site constraints, you know, the fire access was a big one. And frankly, the only way to get, like, a modified T turnaround on this site is to justify that drive to one side or the other, right? You know, if that drive aisle were in the center of the site. you know, I suppose we could… we could take this diagram as it's got, and just literally flip it, right? But I think that the real challenge with that, in my estimation, is it starts to introduce some of the same problems that kind of exist.

[57:10] Right now, with… with all of the units facing a parking lot. And… and so instead of… instead of really trying to… to provide the kind of Paseo section and… and kind of the sort of int… I mean, there's… there's… there's… the… the sort of intimacy of that space is, to some extent, deliberate. you know, because the things that that space can provide, I think, outweighs, the… the sort of environment that would exist by looking at a parking lot. That's okay. You know, in a lot of ways, it's a very active space. When you have the balcony facing each other, it kind of activates it. I appreciate that feedback, thank you. I, I was just trying to read through the lines on some of the planning board, what we're hearing from planning board, as far as why they've called it up. And so I think that… I just wanted to put that out there as far as, yes, there's the trash enclosures, there's the mechanical equipment, the appurances.

[58:07] there's the parking lot screening, those are sort of the blocks, you know, of the code, and then I think there was this underlying tone of, you know, the site diagram. I think, you know, from… I guess to wrap up my portion here, Brendan, the, Parking, given where it's located, I think that, you know, there needs to be deliberate Planting plans, which it looks like they're developing. to create enough screening to qualify the code requirements. I also agree with Matthew that the trash enclosure tucked tight to the building seems like the worst spot for it. I mean, we don't want it in the public realm, but sort of bookending with a T turnaround makes a ton of sense, especially given whatever sort of apparatus is picking up the trash, sometimes that's a better turning mechanism, side-loaded, if they need to be pulled ahead of it or whatever, and we'll get it away, both noise, smell, look, etc. from the residential units, so I'm in support of that comment.

[59:02] And I think… the… well, the public realm, I'll kind of leave my comments there. Thanks, Brendan. Okay, so I think… zooming out a little bit in… in, like Rory was saying, trying to address some of Planning Board and City Council's comments, I think this is a really interesting site, and… and it was… highlighted by the, public comment, for sure, in that there, you know, just to the west is single-family, some of them one-story residential properties, and then there's… there's a very abrupt transition into multifamily on both sides, both north and south sides of Glenwood. And then it… and then it transitions into heavy commercial. Which, you know, could use some updating, but I, you know, with the development of the diagonal plaza, I think that, you know, change is in this neighborhood. Like, it's hap… it's happening, whether we like it or not, and I think that there's some, pretty tall

[60:17] buildings that are going up on… in the Diagonal plaza just around the corner, and I think that that's gonna start leading at… be curious to see. It says that the… development to the, east of this property on the other side of the bike path is also under review. I'm curious to see, just what improvements are being made there. But I think that this is a really key site in terms of You know, being the transition property from, you know, very clearly, tree-lined, single-family, some of them very, you know, small properties into… bleeding into this commercial district.

[61:01] And driving down the street, you know, on, again, north and south sides of the street, there's… there's not a lot of, You know, human scale that they keep talking about, or… or, interaction with the sidewalk, or, sort of public… participation in the landscaping or the buildings as they exist right now. And I think that you know, not… maybe it's not a popular opinion, but I feel like the… where the building is sited right now is, it seems better, I think, than putting it so close to the residential. Like, making this three-story building closer to the commercial And on the east, in my mind, is better, while maintaining a similar access or entry point into that parking, without having to disrupt

[62:05] Too much of that flow or existing, parking that's in there. You know, I was, having a… I lived in just north of here in the Iris Hollow, when I first moved to Boulder, and I was having a conversation with, the neighbor that lives right behind, you know, also to the west of this property. And on the survey and on the site plan, she has a house, like it's an ADU, that is labeled as a shed. And it's… it's really right at… it's, not a shed. It's… someone lives in that house, and it is right on that trash. trash area. So, I agree, for all the reasons that Rory and Matthew suggested that that trash needs to be moved south, that would be an additional, just, you know, being… being a better neighbor.

[63:08] For, you know, having that trash potentially relocated. But I think in terms of transformer screening and, using landscaping. You know, we always want more landscaping, for sure, in our plans, especially since it seems like we're eliminating several of this… of these sort of old trees that were To the east of the original entrance that are now, kind of. in front of the water entry, I think that they were… they're blocking the… the footprint that this building is going. I… I do have concerns about solar shading on those solar shading diagrams, about that… the proposed open space in the knuckle, whether or not that's…

[64:00] It's… it is tucked back, and I appreciate making it a little more private. Whereas the… that… the kidney bean is… as was called earlier, the retention pond area, is… is pretty public. I mean, there's not a lot of trees on that side, it's… it's just grass and… like, at the ditch. But I… so I think that that has good public interaction, and then providing a space that's more private for the residents is… is… desirable. I just wonder if that's the best spot for it, you know, in the middle of winter when it's gonna have no… son. Okay, so that is, my summary. And I think, so if we're just gonna stop… well, let's… actually, let's talk about the next one, before we give.

[65:04] a summary, let's see… . I'm just taking some notes. Oh, it's the… it has to do with the rooftop equipment. And they're… they're suggesting that the screening on the root for the rooftop mechanical equipment is… Identified, but perhaps needs additional information or more detailing. Yeah, that's more of a technical… I think they've placed it centrally, and so it's got every opportunity to be cut from view, it looks like. And I am seeing… The… Screening on the elevations, And I… so I don't know about… about… you, Matthew, give you the opportunity to weigh in on that. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I don't…

[66:03] have a deep concern about the screening. I feel like as long as the material palette I think the comment even mentions that the next formal review should submit some more specific detail. I know there's a material key here. But I think, honestly, given the nature that it's a three-story building, basically double-loaded. The footprint of the mechanical equipment, are these all gonna be individually, heating and cooled heat pump or something, so you don't… there's not even a… I'm seeing you guys shaking your head. It sounds like there's not a large RTU. No, I think these will be mini-split Fed units individually. Yeah, so I think having, You know, mini-split units up there, given that it's a 3-foot building, it's probably 50 to 60 feet wide.

[67:01] I don't think the screening is actually that elemental to the whole design. I think there's other massing issues we'll talk about that may be more impactful, but, so yeah, sorry, I'm kind of coming up blank on this one. I don't see that it… I see that it's meeting the intent, and I actually don't think it's a big design factor. I'll just jump in and second that. I think it's placed centrally, strategically, you're gonna end up with a bunch of short suitcases lined up, given the nature of individual climate controls. I think this is as best as you could hope for, assuming that the material selected, you know, continues to demonstrate it meets the criteria. Okay, yeah, and I, and I agree. with that. So, if we're going to, summarize. Matthew, so, in general, the site, the siting, and landscape feels adequate,

[68:02] with the suggestion of potentially, moving the trash enclosure, further south, away from the existing building, and, so it's not interfering with, neighbors and so forth. That's… trash pickup. Yeah, that's my one concrete recommendation. I want to just, for the record, concur with you, and I think Rory was saying this to some degree, don't let me put words in your mouth, but… I think all things considered, the location of the building and it's proposed… position, with some caveats that I hope we get to talk about. Is… does feel like A better place than trying to push it to the west of the site, you know, given actual zoning constraints, it would not make that entirely possible, but I want to just…

[69:00] you know, refer back to public comment from ME. if I hear her concerns, you know, moving the building any further west isn't really a remedy that's gonna make anyone happy. So I just, for the record, concur with the, you know, other board members that if we are looking at this proposal for what's in front of us, that location seems to be the most optimal for a variety of reasons. I think we've reached consensus on that. Nice. Okay, and then, one additional suggestion would be, to… investigate additional landscaping opportunities along the west property line that creates a better fencing or landscaping that creates a better buffer between the parking lot and the residents. Yeah, I think that would con… in the south, the portion of the parking lot that abuts the street frontage as well, that corner.

[70:06] So I think just parking lot screening, you know. Additional attention to detailing and landscape design. Bye. Which it looks like they're doing, but just to sort of have it on record here. Right. Let's see, so now… We're moving into building site and design criteria, This is getting closer to, and then after we do the design criteria, the building site, we'll do building design and then building materials. And this has to do with… and you did address… This in your presentation, the applicant. But it does have to do with there not being enough Windows on the ground floor. so, you know, having to do with needing… requiring 20%, Fenestration on the ground floor.

[71:13] You know, whether or not we're meeting that, and whether or not we're meeting the requirements for transparency at the public realm. Can we go to the 3D for this before we invite Matthew's comments as our kickoff, or leadoff hitter? I would just love to see… because it's… yeah, there's the public realm, which is sort of the narrow side of the building. the south facade. But you could argue the Paseo becomes sort of a semi-public realm, given its primary access for all the unit tenants. And then the north side, you could argue, too, just given its adjacency to the public open… or the semi-public open space for the community. Sorry, about the jumping around here.

[72:11] Alright, well, I'm just gonna start by walking from 28th On Glenwood towards Folsom. This is kind of… sort of the experience of the existing towards the Paseo in the main corner of the new building. And then, so, to address the transparency issue, you know, this… given the nature of this building as being, residential in nature. You know, in a commercial building, or a mixed-use building, where we've got commercial on the ground floor, and there's more opportunity for transparency, that's one approach, but for this, we're a little bit limited. But to the extent possible, you know, we've really tried to maximize the glazing.

[73:01] And transparency at the unit, at the stack of units that face Glenwood. You know, we've, we've tried to, to provide as much, openness and transparency at the, at the main entry and, and at the, at the end of the corridor above, so the, you know, the view that you're getting from that upper-level corridor is, is, is, high-level transparency there as well. And then tried to, you know. Hey, Bob, if you don't mind me interrupting here, we're not looking for another presentation, necessarily, at this point. Oh, sorry. We're just looking for some visual reference so that we can collect our thoughts here. But we'll invite you to comment, I think, when we have a chance to digest, if there's enough time left, but we're… Okay. just to give you a sense of these meetings, we're already 15 minutes in the hole on what we have allocated. Got it. So, no disrespect, just trying to keep us time-checked here. I hear you, thank you for that, that heads up. Okay. Can we cruise? So, okay, so, I mean, we have the four elevations spread out. I don't know, Matthew, if you… if this is enough for you to get… to prepare your commentary.

[74:03] Yeah, I think given, you know, in the Matrix, there are some staff comment that Sort of acknowledges that a large portion of the lower floor is actually, utilitarian in nature, or park under, and that. sort of… sidesteps the requirement for the transparency. I think where there are living… livable units on the ground floor, it feels like the intent is being met, that, like, those units have transparency. The street facade, I'm reading between the lines in some of the comments in previous reviews. About giving some more attention and love to the entrance. And it feels like… The development, since the concept review to this, does that a bit more. You know, so it looks like your entire entry vestibule is at, like, a glass panel next to the door, so that's pretty much as transparent as you can get.

[75:09] So yeah, I feel like this is meeting, you know, what we maybe consider the bare minimum, given the circumstances. And Mike, Mike, yeah. Go ahead, Matt, you wanted to sort of summarize your thoughts? Alright, my comments are sort of on a different element, which we'll come back to. Yeah, I think, I mean, the comment's partially satisfied, and it's… I'm wondering if, really, it's just because the 60% at the ground level has not been met, and that's because, programmatically, it can't be met in a lot of ways. And given that it's residential. we're not trying to put people at ground level in fishbowls anyways. I mean, I think that's part of why residential sort of allows for a 20% minimum, just given, you know, privacy and safety concerns, or whatever. So, I think from a metric perspective.

[76:02] they've demonstrated that they've been compliant. I think, yeah, back to, sort of, entry and using massing and character, maybe I'll hold my comments until we get to that particular, talking point, just in the efficiency of time. I think the one And is it the public realm coming? Is that coming late next, I think? Next is the material variation, if I'm not mistaken. Okay, so that's more of the massing and material… using material variation on the massing. So, I think, you know, they've sort of demonstrated this 20%, given the residential nature. The partial satisfaction of the comment seems to be driven on something that's not necessarily relative, so… I'm gonna leave my comments there. Okay, yeah, I, I… I generally agree, I think that that given the lack of transparency, again, on the north and south side of Glenwood as it exists right now, this is,

[77:08] this is a huge improvement. We always try and walk that fine line in these reviews of satisfying the transparency requirements on the public realm, while also maintaining some privacy for the residents and Visual privacy as well as, you know, safety and so… while we understand that there is a requirement and need for the glazing, I think that this Walks that fine line between, being you know, private residence, while also having a significant amount of glazing. I think, you know, the design elements of transitioning, where you have sort of the corridor and entry area is very distinct from the residential units, and I think that that works, again, separating

[78:03] Sort of the… the public… circulation areas from these residential units that have, you know, significant amount of good daylight and glazing. I think my one comment is that I'm just having a hard time separating in my mind that this is These are… Two distinct projects. That you have an existing building, that was potentially just going to be, made in addition to, or remodeled. And then we have a proposed building, and I'm not seeing a good tie-in, to this… from this building, which has good, updated, detailing and modern… some, you know, modern elements, and… that we'll talk about in a minute, but I'm… I am having a hard time more with a complete lack of fenestration and transparency on.

[79:08] That existing self. facade. Of the existing building. Nope. again, like the City Council and Planning Board were discussing, you know, this needs to be an integration of a new building into, an existing building or project or site. I mean, they're… they need to be… they need to be thought of, I think, more cohesively and, like, one project. I don't know why I muted myself there. I think… that the general consensus from DAB is that, that the transparency requirements, while it's technically, partially satisfied, I think that

[80:05] That, generally on it, from a design and massing standpoint, that, that transparency, is adequate. And… and meets the… and should be considered to meet the minimum, required. And then suggested… Some investigation in fenestration or transparency improvements on the existing Building. Okay, the next… oh. Or do you have the. No, no, no, that's good, I was just… Getting ready to move on. Okay. Building, siting and design criteria. Yeah, go ahead. I'm just looking ahead at the next two criteria. I think, for the sake of time, we can combine Section B4 and C3. They both talk about materials and detailing.

[81:07] I feel like if we look ahead to both of them together, we might be able to knock them out. Yeah, that is… and that is the plan. I think we'll… we'll look at them together and then… and summarize them as a… That is the plan, yep, we've allocated them as a group. Nice. Yep. So the first is… oh. is, detailing and, building design, simple detailing is incorporated into the facades to create visual interest without making the facades very overly complicated. The concern from staff is that the renderings imply that Detailing, although specific details are not included in the DAB submittal packet, additional information should be incorporated into next formal submittal of the site review and will be reviewed by staff.

[82:01] Particularly the detailing of the proposed, large format cementitious panels. And then there was also a suggestion about, window detailing. And then… Would it be possible, Bob, or whoever's driving the spaceship here, to turn the trees off, just so we can get a better look at the architecture a little bit for this sort of detail-level discussion? Is that a quick thing? If not, no stress. In this, unfortunately, in this rendering setting, it's not a layer that can still be turned off. Thanks, Ron. Thanks. Okay, and then… so then the next would be the building materials. Staff is concerned that the proposal includes cementitious panels, cementitious lap siding, coriated metal, and stone. It's unclear how the organization of these building materials express the primary building

[83:01] features, and then… Piggybacking on that is just a reminder of the requirement to terminate and transition all materials in inside corners. Or with 12-inch wall offsets. So, Matthew, if you want to talk about, materials in general? Yeah, so I think this, you know, when I'm making my list, hearing the presentation and reviewing, this really is my… main area of concern, where I probably have the most to say, where I think some other areas that concern the staff were highlighted are fairly mitigated and mostly satisfy. I think this is one where, especially because we're trying to relate to an existing building on the site. That, you know, by comparison, is gonna look like a rundown chicken coop when you build a brand new building next to it.

[84:07] It makes the material discussion even more important. So, as it relates to the two, the two sections here that we're discussing, really, if I generalize them into detailing, materials. And how the details are expressing program, or changes in program, I think generally, it feels like this building, there's way too much visually going on. Especially when you put it next to I don't know how old the building is that's already there. You put that, and you minimally touch that, maybe put some lipstick on it, you're gonna get a very incongruent feeling, and I think our task here You know, not to make everything fit, identically to the building next to it, but is to look for chances to

[85:04] avoid these vastly incongruent massings of materials along the public streets, right? So… Whereas, I feel like… you know, reading some comments that the materials are even more restrained. I think as a board. We've gotten very used to seeing very refined Very well thought out, very well articulated presentations and materials that are, Maybe a little more restrained than what we're seeing here. For example, my first impression when I looked through the elevations as we rotated around the building. It's like, every corner, there's another presentation of new materials. And so, in material and massing. I feel like there's a good exercise to be had in finding some consistency on all four elevations. Every elevation feels absolutely different to me.

[86:08] Each elevation features, like, a different math… Field of primary material. You know, like, if you turn to the west, that big woodlook… protrusion is what sort of jumps out. It has no relation, really, with this elevation that we're looking at, so… Anyway, I think I've made my point. I think there's still large inconsistency with the way the project deals with materials. I think there's maybe too many variations of materials still. You know, just comparing the wood block there versus the stone on the other side, those materials don't really present themselves in that bulk anywhere else, so… I think there's still some refinement that could happen. And secondly, maybe most importantly.

[87:01] I do think some more detail needs to be given, and maybe even shown to the next formal presentation, about what you're gonna do with the existing building. Because to me, that's… That's something that if it's improperly overlooked. It'll really be to the detriment to the streetscape. You're presenting this, Proposal as a single residential block. And we wouldn't accept, you know, other proposals coming in with two new buildings, and the two of them absolutely have nothing to do with each other. So, I think the Paseo actually is a great tool to provide some, you know, it provides a physical relationship between the two buildings, and of all the pros, you know, that I'm… that I'm being allowed to comment on here today, I actually like the Paseo for what it does to the community that you're building here on this lot. So, what I'd like to see is more…

[88:02] refinement of the materials on this presentation, and then some illustration of how that really relates to the adjacent building. So, hope… thank you for indulging me. I know I had a lot of… a long-winded comment there, but, sort of just wanted to blast out my… my impression. Hopefully that's helpful. I think that's great, Matthew. Can we, Bob, can you drive to the back, that public courtyard that's being developed on the north side between the two buildings here? Because I think I understand this corner pretty well. And while we're in transit. I couldn't agree more with Matthew's commentary, and to spare us all from redundancy, I think I can just leave it at that, with maybe a one-liner that I do think The existing building. As far as driving by it at 25 miles an hour is relatively benign, because its massing and materiality is…

[89:05] Singular. It reads like a white, sort of, massing of a box, and so given its age and lack of attention to, sort of, material detail and things, it's pretty benign, and that's probably lent to a lot of its success and its continued desire to exist on this site, is that the bones are pretty good, and the massing and materiality are calm and sort of cohesive. that it's not offensive to anyone. I think… Much can be learned from that building in that regard for this building, where… I think… I agree that there is a lot going on, given the size and massing of it, that this would be a fabulous building if it was… if more restraint was exercised to mass and materiality. The other comment I'll just add, is, yes, once the Paseo becomes this guiding principle, which I think we're all in support of, and, you know, sort of the testing of different ways to locate this building, we reached consensus as far as some of the constraints that led to this location.

[90:11] then you kind of need to own it, and I think that's what Matthew was saying, and I'll just second it, that, like, as soon as this pasteo becomes this, you know, stitch between old and new, we can't just leave the dark gray hatch on the left and keep it in shadow, like the, you know, the bastard stepchild. I think we need to… these… the new building… yeah, we need to explore the threshold between these buildings in a way that extends beyond the edge of the Paseo. The last comment I'll have before, Brennan, letting you jump in, hopefully we're catching time here, this… I'm assuming there is some spectacular views in all directions from this building, especially up on the third floor, and I think… I would just… I question, and this may help with some of the massing, I realize there's probably a strategy to simple unit plans and stacking and whatever, but the south facade does a much better job, at least on the southwest, of addressing the corner.

[91:06] And providing, you know, outdoor space… private outdoor space, which are probably directed towards the best views available from this site. we then place a stair down there, which… on the southeast, which you could argue is public, so more people get to benefit from, you know, their daily commute, so maybe that's a benefit. This… this facade facing this other public area that is going to be defined eventually. I realize it's looking over… the north facade is looking over this parking area, but it's also looking over it to what's going to be this new sort of community space. I'm just wondering if there wasn't some consideration of these corner units having a little more… and those northern views up to, like, Dakota Ridge and stuff are probably spectacular from here. If there's not more opportunity to accentuate these corners, as opposed to looking like the loaf of bread got cut here, you know, on what could have been 10 more units, I don't feel like there's a proper bookend to the north.

[92:03] That's all from me, Brendan. Yeah, I mean, I think… That, Rory, that that really just feeds off of Matthew's original comment of there need to be… there needs to be, more consistency between the four elevations, but also some, more wrapping and integration of the elevations, that they're not… we're never looking at them flat on like you are, in a set of construction documents. So I think that there needs to be, you know, some… some wrapping of materials or, you know, the… the… Roofing elements seemed… seem a little, like, tacked on to me on some of… coming over some of those balconies and, just integrating some of these… these elements and moves that

[93:00] You know, could create a pretty spectacular outdoor space, especially on those third floor decks, but making it feel a little more, a part of the design and a part of the building. I think the balconies are integrated a little bit better on the east. Elevation, but that west elevation you could use… some… some study on, again, material and, sort of part- refinement, and then, just integration… integrating and detailing of. And… and some consistency and cohesion I think the big word is refinement, on all four elevations. So I think that my review would be also. The summary, because I just summarized what Rory and Matthew said. I agree, I like that. I think refinement and restraint, I would just add that. I think that's a consistent theme, as far as…

[94:02] And, and, yeah, and consistency, and sort of integration of the design on all four sides. Did we catch time? I think we may have. But… and I also want to add that, I… I really… Agree, especially with With the comment that there needs to be you know. Better integration of… of something, you know, some kind of an update, or some kind of… Love that's given to this existing building, which is… It is… it is very simple, it's kind of… it works, I guess, as it is. It's, but I… but if you're going to be adding something, you know, new and shiny with all these different material changes and detailing and moves. That… that the adjacent… Building, especially that wing that runs north-south.

[95:07] Some of it, it just needs to be integrated, you know, along that Paseo, and also where you have the outdoor gathering space sort of in the knuckle. I think people are going to be experiencing the old building as well. It's really not just a gray blob in the background. I think that… You know, some potential… you know, even just some… Cosmetic updates on… maybe integrating some of the railing details, or some of the paint colors, or just some of the cladding that can be updated. You know, I don't have a problem necessarily… part of the staff comment was about, about the detailing, I think… you know, the… like, the windows, you know, sill and jam. I understand the intent from that material board, and I like the simplicity of it. I like, sort of, the, Scandinavian modern…

[96:11] simplicity of the windows being somewhat trimless and not ornate, and I like how they are modern. So I… there is some detailing that I… that I am not opposed to. And I also think the windows being simple, that probably is the, the one thing that integrates into the existing building. The most. Let's see. I think that's a perfect time hit on that, if you want, and then we've got time to hit that as a summary, which… I think we reached consensus, so I think that's huge for the summary.

[97:01] Yeah. I don't know, Matthew, if you have any… Closing remarks that you'd like to… to give the project, As a whole, or just sort of your own… Feeling about it, or vibes about it, or specifically related to one of the design criteria items. Yeah, so did we sufficiently cover the interior corner discussion? I know that was a… partially satisfied bullet. Did I just miss that? As far as, like, materiality turning inside corners? Yeah, you know, it's just… there was this, it's a spec… specific… Staff comment about, the southeast corner of the building. Having areas that appear to not have a full 12-inch wall offset between material changes,

[98:05] I think, I mean, generally, with our commentary, talking about holistically approaching, sort of, the massing and character in a more restrained and unified way, sort of, is going to supersede all that, right? Yeah, and I. Yeah, I… I just gave the general reminder that it's, you know, materials are required to Terminate and transition at inside corners, and that you need a 12-inch plain change. Yeah. Unless you have more suggestions, Matthew. No, nothing particular to that. I think that particular comment seems to dovetail really well with just overall handling of materials, and I feel like if we're advocating for just more refinement, that's one of those things that comes with that, so… Just… if I interpret your question right, just general closing. I think some of the strong areas, you know, I feel… Just to slightly reiterate.

[99:04] Yeah. I think Paseo is a nice feature. It's a feature that if these were two new buildings, we would be amenable to, because we're like, yeah, this is a bit of community building opportunity, it's a landscape. I want to acknowledge and appreciate that the team developed the plan from the concept to provide a little more healthy space for that life to happen in that area, so I think that's a strong component of the proposal. My caveat to that is just to finally reiterate, let's make it relate to both sides of the Paseo. I think we don't have to go into that anymore. And then, so, IG, I just wanted to end with that general comment that I think… I think there are some, you know, standout developments in what… what we reviewed… what we didn't review, but what we saw reviewed from the concept plan.

[100:07] Yep. I, I agree. with the general, sort of, course of this discussion and the commentary from the rest of the board members, I think… I also agree with the applicant, sort of. their recognition that this is quite a unique project, and I think what makes it unique, and we could argue if it's, you know, financially motivated, or… I don't know necessarily to speculate, but it's unique in the sense that it's preserving this existing building. And then placing this new building on the site with it. And then in that effort is also creating the strongest access, which is this Paseo we keep talking about, to physically link them. So I think… I agree with the applicants. Self-judgment that this is quite a unique, sort of. project for Boulder, given this product type.

[101:00] And further your comment, Matthew, that I think the strength then becomes Actually honoring and or impacting that existing legacy of a building, which sounds comical at first, but then when you realize that it is the form and organizational driver of this entire Frickin' site plan. That it's somewhat comical now to think that it's a gray mass in the background. Okay. Can I add one more caveat? Sorry, Brenda, I hate to cut you off. Nope. I do, we didn't talk much about the landscape, the community area, and the inside knuckle. And I don't think it's the time or place now to, like, get into the site design, but I do think for the next, formal presentation, it'll be important to show a little more meat and potatoes of what's happening back there, because, the same way that we're talking about the Paseo relating to the existing building.

[102:10] that… that place, if left inadequately programmed and designed, if it's left sort of as a, sketch right now of some landscape and sitting areas, if it's left ill-defined, I fear that it will not be successful. And so, I would recommend a little more detail on, on… that, on the next presentation. I know it would be appreciated to better understand how that space is gonna work. Okay, so I think on a whole, you know, again, having lived in that neighborhood, for 10, 15 years. and, you know, I walked my daughter to preschool right past that building every day. I think it's a much-needed improvement. You know, the way that it was just all parking lot facing, and…

[103:11] it didn't… I… I really think that this new building, even though it's… it's 3 stories, I think having it on-the-street face is… is really going to help that entire section of Glenwood, and I think that it… I think it's helpful, just in general, in terms of… of being, again, like, that buffer between the small single-family residential units into more of a commercial area, and I think that the design is, is generally good, I just think that it needs to be, further studied, a little more cohesive, and integrated, and carried over into the existing building.

[104:01] But in general, I think that this is a successful addition to that. parking lot and site in general. So I… if… if the applicant has, Anything that they want to add, or if you need any further clarification from us, we will be giving our recommendations through our meeting minutes. You'll be given these recommendations in writing, but do you need any further clarification or have any further comment? Yeah, we got about 5 minutes if you guys want to take it, otherwise… I… I appreciate the comments. I think all of them are good comments, and I appreciate that they were all very… Thought out. Well constructed, and I do agree a bit on the skins of the building. It was probably always our intention to…

[105:05] Integrate the existing building into this, with… through a reskin and, you know, some… some redesign on that building, and some updating during the… simultaneously with this. I guess it was kind of just us thinking this was the focus of the… of this actual site review, and meeting the site review criteria, along with the data, and I think this more design… Integrated discussion has been very helpful in that. And Bob, do you have any additional comments? Oh, I mean, first of all, I guess I would agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. I mean, you know, our goal generally is to try to keep things as simplified as possible, while still maintaining as much interest as possible, so… You know, and just to elaborate maybe real quickly on some of the thought that actually did go into tying these two buildings together is, you know, these…

[106:07] If there's anything to draw from the existing building as far as, like, a design element that maybe we can, borrow, is the masonry. So, a lot of that existing building are sort of fin walls of masonry that kind of, you know, come out at intermediate stages, and that's kind of what you're seeing along that south face. It's just a large CMU Blank wall. And so, these stone elements and some of the fin walls that separate the units and that kind of thing are really meant to speak to that. whether or not that's communicated in this, we could… we could certainly do a better job of that, I suppose, and maybe there could… should be some material match, potentially, with that to really make it a little bit more deliberate. you know, but at the same… and I also agree that, You know, maybe there are too many…

[107:02] if there are too many materials, maybe there's just more… there's too much color, and too much contrast with regard… with relation to what's happening in the existing. So maybe it's just a function of… of kind of, you know, organizing that or rethinking that a little bit as well, so… But, I think it's possible. Yeah, I appreciate that. I'm not sure if it's necessarily that there's too many… colors or too much contrast, I just think that there's… you have, you have great, like. Rhythm that's happening… On each elevation, but it's not necessarily carrying through to the other three. I see, yeah. So, just more cohesive design. Got it. And I do agree that I think we do need to really highlight that common area, because… What's there now is tiny and almost non-existent. So, while this might not look like

[108:02] super grand. It is very usable, and it is meant to be more of an intimate space and usable space than And it's very usable, too, where people, I think, will gather and take advantage of it, so we will definitely highlight that in our future presentations. And also with the adjacent, the other… the other open space on the other side with the… the kidney bean, or whatever you want to call it now. It'll always be known as that from now on. Sorry, I… to give it a name. That's great. But I do… That's a. That's a pretty nice amenity to have when you live in an apartment complex, to have a nice, big, green, open space adjacent to you with connectivity, where if you have animals, or you guys want to go out and throw a football, or you want to do that kind of stuff, there's the space available for it, where that doesn't really exist today. That's great, guys. get it? Yeah, likewise.

[109:00] Thank you so much for presenting and hearing us out on all this. You are free to… Leave, or listen to our… Board matters. what matters. All right. Everyone, appreciate it. I'll probably leave. Get him out of here. All right, well, congratulations, we caught time, I think, right, Kehlani? Did we catch time? No, we're over about half an hour. Oh, shit! I thought you said we had… fuck, I thought it… No… It was… when I checked in with you guys, we had about 15 minutes left that we had allocated for. So 4 to 6 is not what we… oh, because it's a one project. We're trying. Yeah, we're one project, yeah, so we were trying to stay within that, hour time frame, just dedicated to the project, not the opening or the many minutes. I think that's a good gut check, though. I think, honestly, like, given the fact there was only 3 participants today, and we're normally gonna have 2 more, there was public participation, which is always gonna be a variable. I would argue that was probably…

[110:12] Minimal public participation, given two, sort of, three-minute speakers. And the criteria… we reach consensus pretty quickly on a lot of things, and it's a very. small. So, I think part of, Matthew, what you missed in our meeting yesterday, our preamble meeting. we, as you can tell, we're trying to create structure here, because it's just, we're getting off the rails, and we're kind of going back, similar to some of the stuff that Lauren was doing with us when she was, chairing the board. And I think, Brendan, you did a great job of sort of driving us through, and then hitting your, you sort of being the last commenter, and then inherently transitioning to The summary makes a ton of sense, because, like, you're not waiting for somebody else to stop talking, you just become the summary as you put a fine point on your comments.

[111:00] I am concerned, and we're talking about our next meeting, Matthew, even if there's no project, having, like, a Board Matters meeting management strategy, like we used to do back in the day during Retreat and stuff. that, to me, felt like the most efficient blitz of a review of a project that I've been a part of with this group, and we're a small group, it was a small project, and we still went over. So I… I'm just concerned, Kalani. Yeah, I think… It has maybe a little bit to do with their presentation, too, so that ran… 15 minutes, maybe? No, they ran 25 minutes, 30 minutes. 30 minutes. Yeah. for that presentation. And I didn't see your… How's… It's okay, it's okay, and we can figure out a way, like, maybe it's something that I use the raise hand function. Can't I? kind of… it's more of just, hey, I've got something, and then you know, and then you can check the chats without me having to say, you know, get on the screen and. And I think I can… I think there's a way that I can have it ding when somebody.

[112:03] I'm not sure, but I'm happy to look and see if there's a… Kalani, you sent me a message that said, just a time check, we have 45 minutes until 6 p.m. Yeah. And 6 minutes left, or… and 60 minutes left allocated, so we were 15 minutes over at the time. But it's 6 PM right now, and we're at the end of our agenda. Yeah, we were… we started at 5.15. the Fortune. Or 4.15, sorry, we started at 4.15, so by the time that I checked in with you, it was already… 5.15. We were an hour in to the routine. I understand that, but what time should we have stopped? We should have stopped at 5.30? Yeah, you should have been, like, with our allocation of time, we should have been done around 5.30. Got it, okay, that was unclear. I was looking at 6, going, okay, as long as we keep. glitz. I can't understand. I just wanted to show you that 6 is really the time that we've, that we have noticed for at the end of the meeting. It's listed at 6 p.m.

[113:02] And so that's kind of the, terminal stop of the meeting, but, But we did have, like, this particular project, I think their… their presentation ran quite a bit longer than we normally see. I think that, the developer had spent some time at the beginning. That was 10 to 15 minutes that they took out of the design team's time to present to you, also. So these are all kinds of things as we start to discuss, you know, what the… how the board wants to structure these. I… Rory, I think you… we can get there. I've been trying to look at the timing of this as… Maybe 15 minutes in the beginning is, the minutes, the introductions, the… any of that prep, and then the end of the meeting is, like, 10 to 15 minutes, so that's about 30 minutes. your review, I… I've… we've been counting your review as an hour separate from all that… all those other things, not trying to bundle that in with all this other housekeeping items.

[114:04] And I think that we're still… we still have the same issue that I mentioned yesterday in… Oh, that… You know, when we ask to, like, rotate the model. sort of an inv… and I think, Rory, it was good that you said something at one point, that it's not necessarily an invitation for, yeah, additional presentation. Yeah. But I think maybe we need to make that really clear in the beginning. Like, I tried to get that summary, and I'd like to get that maybe at every You should. at every meeting, like, this is… this is what our job is, and this is how we're going to review your project. And then, you know, we might ask for, you know, because you're driving the model and the presentation, we might ask for additional views. To help in our comments, but, we will ask for you to, you know, reserve conversation for the end.

[115:04] Totally. Yeah, and I think… and that was sort of the most deliberate we've ever been as this constitution of the board, so I think it's front of mind, which is great. I mean, I was taking notes, and just in case your summaries were getting lost, if you were looking… so we were… I think we were doing a good job of sort of heads on a swivel for the chats and different shit, so I do want to… pat you on the back, Brendan, as far as, like, managing all the shit that's flying, plus… Dealing with actually having time to think about responding intelligibly to some of the criteria. I… I'm just confused, and I mean, I'm all for… Trying to figure out how to be efficient with this board, and not sort of waste everyone's time, applicants, staff, our own, as volunteers. I, I, I guess… I'm… in days before the pandemic, when we used to meet physically, I mean, there was times where we knew we were gonna have, like, a three and a half hour review, because it was a monster project or two projects, and you guys would, like, organize dinner to be delivered, and, like, it was, like, we all just sort of strapped in, because we knew the storm was coming.

[116:11] We have since, sort of, with, you know, multiple people join on these, sort of, pre-agenda meetings, and there's definitely been this… attempt to sort of gate this to a maximum 4-6, which… again, I think I'm all for… If we can do it in a way that's still meaningful, because my concern is, like, looking at this project, and the amount of meat on this bone, which actually felt like quite little. And the fact that I thought we won getting it done by 5.50, and inviting the applicant to talk for 5 minutes, and that you're telling me we were a half hour over, and I realize you're training us on the two-project scheme. at a certain point, I'm not sure we're gonna have… meaningful input, like, to be able to actually get, especially if there was two more heads talking in that, like Steven getting an opportunity, and I'm just… that would be something I'd love to talk about when we schedule time to talk about our management.

[117:07] Yeah, and I think we talked about, if we don't have a project the next meeting, I would like to do some… call it a retreat or whatever, but just to have a… a meeting where we can discuss this with everybody present as part of the board, because, you know, I also don't want our meetings to become so rigid, too, that it's not a conversation, that it's, you know, it's not a directive. I don't… I do want it to be… not casual is not the right word, but I do want it to be a conversation still. So I don't want it to be so, so rigid. I also just cannot keep track of the time while we're doing it. I know, so I appreciate that. Staff had also not included all of the partially satisfied. So, like, the, like, the rooftop mechanical. That's why Shannon had pulled some of those ones that were really not, deemed kind of important for staff to spend a whole, like, year.

[118:07] I think we recognize that, and that's why I really just. Yeah. Folded it in, and it was just sort of a more of a brief mention. So, we could go back… like, staff has been trying to just put the ones that are the most critical in there again, instead of pulling all of the partially satisfied, because some of those things are, you know, more documentation later, and other things like that. I mean, I think… My concern about that is that You know, before, we didn't have these very rigid design criteria that are partially satisfied. These are the only things that we can talk about. It was more like a free-for-all of, let's just talk about all, you know, the building in general. And I think I… I like the structure of it, but… but having more design… more… criteria items for us to talk about opens up the discussion, rather than just…

[119:00] You know, I mean, like, there are some things about this project that neces… that… Particularly in the siting of it, or whatever, that don't necessarily fit, or that… or that sort of fit into one of the partially met design criteria, and if it had been left off. then we would have had a discussion about it. So I… I don't mind it. I mean, maybe in our pre-planning meetings, we can just say. These are secondary and… low priority ones or high priority? Yes, we can definitely do that, and so that's maybe something to talk about as far as process, too, as far as making some determinations around those. That would be great. So you'll keep us posted, Kalani, if we don't have an applicant. I'd hate to have this whole discussion here at 6.03, so should we. Yeah, we don't… we don't have an applicant for October, so we could spend next month talking a little bit about process and how the board, wants to handle, you know, structuring the…

[120:00] this… the… the reviews like this, these criteria-based reviews, because the board, these are what, you know, does go to Planning Board, as far as, a few criteria, so we could spend that time doing that on the next meeting. As far as, like, retreat and other things, we're waiting on some information coming out of the, the clerk's office that they're doing some work around all boards and new process, and so we want to wait until… Does your board get cut? Cut, Lonnie? No, no, they are working on things like, kind of unifying the training for boards. Unifying, getting everybody on the onboarding cycle, having, working on some of the… the rules and, you know, decorum, all that. So as they start to sort that out, that will be part of the next, the part of the next retreat that the board is doing, but they're actively working on that right now through the holidays, so… we can look to a retreat, say, in the new year, but we should talk about at least design structure, like, how you guys want to handle the next, like, if there's a November meeting, what that design review will look like.

[121:13] And, some of the round-robin things that you had talked about, and how much time you want to allocate for things. And then also, I mean, I think it's one of the things is, do you think you can reasonably… Handle 2 reviews in a night. Is that something within the timeline? Is that… I think it's a worthwhile discussion, because it's something that we can bring back as far as referrals You know, the. Well, you used to ask us, Kailani, and this is where the… I think the rules of engagement have changed, and in a way that hasn't been, like, overtly presented to us. Like, you guys used to come and say, hey, there's two projects. Do you guys want to try to stay till 9 tonight and bang it out, or do you guys want to break this up into two? And I remember having those discussions with you. Yeah, I mean, I think, too, we're looking at staffing and how staffing is allocated, because we have case managers that go to meetings every night of the week.

[122:08] No, I totally get it. I just… I'm trying to follow, like, it does seem like the objective is to fit 4 to 6 p.m. Like, let's just bumper that… That is the objective, is to stick within the timeframe of the board meeting, because we also notice for that time frame to the public. Yep. And so that's why we also have… when we can't look for a quorum, we need to notice a cancellation to the public, so they're not trying to show up to board meetings, too. And so, and then I know we have several members that have hard stops at 6 p.m. for other, you know. commitments and family commitments. So, staying within the time frame is really helpful for both boards and staff, but, I think that just understanding if… if the… you're… you're getting a series of referrals from City Council and Planning Board, and you're going to have 4 referrals a month.

[123:05] Knowing that, is that… is that something that you can handle, like, as far as a design commitment? Yeah, we're gonna have to talk about. And that's, you know, that type of thing. So that's why, SAF has been working to try to get the board into an hour-long review for projects, just kind of anticipating that we have seen an uptick in referrals. And then, Yeah, we don't… we haven't had a for referral period yet, but we do have some applications sitting, waiting, as the applicant sorts out some of their, review, with planning staff, so… Well, yep, I think it'll be good for everybody to at least hear that we're having this discussion, so that everyone's sort of front of mind with it when they're. Damn. I mean, Matthew, I even noticed you… I mean, all of us, right? Today was, I think, a much more pointed effort to sort of track and be deliberate and move on. Thank you.

[124:00] And I could say, just from your conversation, you having the opportunity from… to go from board member to board member and have a train of thought that's uninterrupted by the applicant is very helpful as far as the summary work and where the recommendation gets kind of consolidated, that they hear it in one flow, rather than, like, the first 5 minutes and a half an hour later, so… Or one person gets all the… Absolutely, so I think that that was really helpful for that, for you, that order in there. Yeah. And I, you know, I… if we have multiple projects in a night, too, I mean, there's… there's a little bit of triage that happens, right? Definitely. One project is going to take less time to review, hopefully, than… than another bigger one. And I think we just need to keep Board members, aware that harping on, metal and glass canopies is, like, the best use of anybody's time. I mean.

[125:04] Make your point, right? Make your point, be deliberate, be distinct, and let's move on, because this isn't like a plea bargain that we're working through here. So that's helpful. And you… and you picked up on a practice that I think Planning Board and Council has also been, cognizant of, is when a board member says something prior to you speaking that you agree with, that you just… you say, I agree with that person, instead of reiterating the same thing. So that's also a great time saver, too, is that it's perfectly okay to say they captured everything that I was thinking, too. Yeah. Yeah. I'm gonna make Maggie go first every time, so that I can… Yeah, and I meant to… Hotels. I met several of the planning board members, over the weekend at a a city council event, and And I kept saying, you know, we appreciate you referring more projects to us, we really like being a part of the process, and every one of them said, we do not

[126:08] We do not like or, and we do not refer projects to DAP. Wait, they said, I'm. They all said that it's just their applicants, hate when they get referred to DAV, because it's one more process. Oh, of course, 100%. step, and… and I said, you know, we're just… We're sort of design professionals ready to help end your process, so… I don't know. We're expensive. A trip to Dab just… I just see dollar bills, is what… if you have a trip to DAB. Yeah. You know, the site review's a lengthy process, too, and so… Yeah, I mean, I almost wonder if… The outcomes are good. Next meeting, but, like, if the application can be, really just

[127:01] You know, a chunk of the… the… you know, of what's already being presented to the planning board or whatever, I wonder if it could be simplified or… integrated, and I don't know, because that… I think it's fun. I like… Being part of those projects. Well, let's… yeah, I think this is a good conversation. Let's get it on the calendar, I guess, for Wednesday, Next month, and so we will just… it'll just be a, board matters. We will still have an agenda meeting. We should go over the agenda of how you want to structure that conversation, too, because we're gonna… we should still… practice the time, and I would say, Don't panic too much about the timing overruns right now. I… in all reality, the board has only been doing this for, I say, 4 or 5 meetings so far. It's still really… Awesome. Yeah, I mean, it's… we haven't had that many meetings. I haven't had that many meetings, and this is new. We… you also are changing roles, so we have new chair stepping in, and so all these things are newness to it.

[128:10] So, I think it's still good to practice, and still good to try to shoot for that timing, and just knowing that it's still a new situation. It's not like you've been doing this for 24 meetings. At, you know, 2 years straight, and you're still running over. Yeah. And then on the other thing on the… Mommy. Yeah, thank you. And I'll get it together, guys. It'll happen. Oh, I think you're doing great. You're doing great, and… And whatever stat we can do to help, too, especially during those agenda meetings, I think the agenda meetings are getting better, because that's also new. That's something that we have taken from the planning board process, so also a totally new process for us, so… We're learning together, and we want to support you in doing, being effective at the reviews and feeling like you get meaningful feedback.

[129:03] An interaction, so… And then calendar check next Wednesday at 10 a.m. Next Wednesday at 10 a.m. appreciation. Oh, shit. And, and then, I think that that is… That's it until the following month, when we just… we have a Boards Matters item. It's basically, we'll be workshopping. For that time period. Cool. Thanks, everyone. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Hey, everybody. Nay.