November 1, 2022 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[12:47] Hello! I wanna thank all of you beautiful planning board members for your service and the staff, and making and all the folks are working so hard to crack the affordable housing nut, and I just want to encourage you as I have for several years to open another front.

[13:07] In this war, by understanding that our efforts at affordable housing, however heroic, we'll never amount to very much, because we allow a landmark. The market is shaped only to the liver, luxury homes. Anyone biking around my my Newlands neighborhood, where I'm getting close to getting a building permit for the first new for sale. Co-OP, we'll know and what the the the huge energy that is going into all these luxury houses, many of which are only identified part of the year, and if you come, to fourth and valley, view near where I am standing like a 15, or 20 year old house that the my friend, Kate Kramer built. You know. It has been torn down, for you know, but much grander project.

[14:07] We can shape the market, we we enter into the market with open space so beautifully 1 billion dollars to procure, and fee, or by an easement. You know a third of the land area of the county. This a allowing basically only for sale, mostly for sale, modestly sized appreciation. Moderated, mostly car share only developments, provide an incentive, a huge incentive for that You don't have to outlaw luxury homes, like your homes. An important part of a mix, but can subsidize the low income projects. The middle income can pay for itself. As I've shown in many performance, but that mix Let's let's limit luxury housing to 10%. Let's have a goal to have only 7% of housing new housing be the luxury housing and 93% be appreciation.

[15:07] Rodriguez so I encourage you to go back to the proposal that we made for the in the midterm updates of the Holder valley, comprehensive plan about how to do that that with some pilots and then ramp up the best examples using all the bad housing that still remains out there, or I should say, you know, average in average or poor conditions all of those lots could be 5 or 6 or 7 modesized condos or co-ops. We're shared cars, and we could return Boulder to what is what are, or our our competitive advantage is our people. And do you want to read what's happening here You can read Evan Oz, and it was great article about Granny's Connecticut. so. Anyway, I just wanna encourage us to look at the source of the problem, and and all the heroic efforts are great.

[16:05] But we're doing exactly what Betsy Let's see, Marston, Betsy, help me from boulder housing partners talked about in the 2,014 strategic plan for boulder housing partners that we would have no for sale market rate middle income housing available That's exactly what's happened a little bit ahead of schedule, and it's it's it's a the destruction of what's best about over, anyway. Thank you so much. Look back at the at the that the our North Street and the pilot idea for the middle, for the midterm update. And I'd love to hear anyone wants to help me. resurrect that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, David. We went over the time a little bit, but I didn't want to cut you off.

[17:02] John. I'll leave it. There are no other hands raised for this public participation component, so I'll leave it to you if board wants to, respond. Okay, Thank you. All right. We'll move on now to our discussion of dispositions and call ups and continuations. We have a 3 items in front of us. The first his Oh, sorry! Lemura Oh, thank you, Mark, and no problems on I did. The The last speaker David mentioned that there was a pilot idea that was part of the midterm updated. The Bbcp. If and either on staff or David wants to send that to the board so that we can take a look at it, lay hands on it easily. Okay, Laura, that's fine.

[18:10] Thank you, Laura. That's a great idea and a good request to Any other. I I'd like to note that Ml. Has joined us this evening also, now sure Okay, alright. I'd I'd also like to respond to Macon's comments, and I think that that his point is highly valid, and I would like to bring that up. yeah, that that sounds good, John. I I also agree with that. me too. I think there's a lot of support on this board for that idea. And we'll talk about it under matters also tonight, but make and thank you for raising that point to us.

[19:08] Okay, So we'll move into our discussion of callups. we have 3 items to deal with tonight. The first is L. U r p dash 0 0 0 7 to subdivide properties of 2830, 2860 and 2890 Arapaho Avenue. any questions, or does anybody want to call that up? Okay, Dude? I just had a question that that that maybe Staff can answer.

[20:08] they would be considered Well, thanks for the question, Mark. It would be considered fee symbol subsequent to the subdivision, so they could be marketed individually. Maybe it's just a point of curiosity, and it doesn't late, but is the purpose of separating these units to make them potentially for sale as separate lots Oh, Mark! Go ahead! Okay, all right. The The second item is a standard wetland permit for the construction of the and reconstruction of the boulder main Sewer, W. Et 22 0 0. 1 0. Does anybody have questions on that? I have one which I just like to inquire quickly, and that is, and I don't know if the member of staff dealing with Oh, yeah, Hi Kristen So I just looking through.

[21:05] The material. I see that that's going to go through one of the ponds. that's just north of Arapaho Avenue. yeah, it's a good question. So that the existing pipe is already has a the existing pipe is already laid through that area. And what they're going to do is they have to shut that part of the pipe down in order to prepare it. So they're gonna put a polyethylene kind of more flexible pipe of upgrade to reroute the sewer while they blind the pipe in place, so there there won't be any dredging or trenching or digging it up it's so will that be done by dredging and back filling, or or what's the technique that will be used to lay that pipe through the pond just they're gonna pull lining through the existing pipe I see. Okay, Well, thanks for that explanation. Very interesting. So? Does anybody have further questions or want to call that one more?

[22:04] Seeing none. I guess they we won't be calling that up. Thank you, person. And then the the last item is a flood plane development. Permit fld, 2021 0 0 6. 3 in the 4,000 block of Nineteenth Street. any questions or comments on that Seeing none. I guess we won't be calling that one up either tonight. So thanks for that. Our Our next item this evening is a a public hearing. It's a and concept plan review or the redevelopment of properties. 25, o 4, 25, oh, 6, 2536 and 2546 Screw Street, and 2526 Street and 2537 Pearl Street, L. U.

[23:03] R 2022 dash 0 0 0 3, 3, and just to to make it clear, this is a concept. Review. So what will happen tonight is that Staff will make a presentation, and the applicant, I presume, may have some additions to that. We'll have a public hearing, and consequently thereafter will We'll be discussing a variety of the issues associated with that proposal, but because it's a concept review we won't be making any formal decisions on that tonight instead the point of our discussion is to let

[24:10] yeah, I just wanted to clarify the order of things, you know, in site reviews and use reviews and so forth. A little more structured in terms of presentation, asking clarifying questions of the applicant and staff, and then public hearing, and then subsequently more discussion amongst the board. Is it okay to continue to ask questions of the apple, and so forth, after the public hearing? the applicant and staff know of our general thoughts on the concepts being presented tonight, and staff will have A several will be drawing our attention to several specific issues in which they'd like her response and and those will become apparent in the course of the presentation mark I see your hand as it I think, in the interests of clarity and accuracy, we should be able to continue to ask questions after the public. Are we trying to get that all done before the public hearing I just wanna make sure I understand the the procedure

[25:05] Hearing. So, in my opinion, the answer to your question is, Yes. Alright. Thanks so much. Mr. Chair. Good evening, Members of the work, Chapman Vista, Senior planner in our office is going to be presenting staff analysis this evening. this is a version, 2 of a concept plan that the Board saw last year. I believe, around this time. So we have a number of key issues that we've identified for feedback from the board, and I think the applicant is going to help illustrate to the board what's changed between then and now So with that said i'm pleased to turn it over to thanks, Charles. Good evening, planning board members. I'm shab Nambista. I will go ahead and share my screen. At this time Okay, Charles, take it away

[26:08] Please let me know if you're able to see that So today I'll be presenting on the concept plan for mixed Steve's development at 25 O, 4 Spruce Street, as Charles mentioned, this is a second iteration. Of the concept plan, and changes have been made based on feedback from planning and board. City council as well as Tab and and staff, and I will, throughout the presentation, kind of speak to that a little bit as well I'll cover the purpose of the concept, plan, the planning context, for the site project background summary of the proposed project, And then the 5 key issues that stuff has identified

[27:02] so the purpose is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and identify any key issues in advance of a site, reviews the middle. This is a place where the apple can receive comments from the board staff, as well as the public, and again, no formal action is required tonight. in terms of public notification. We sent out notices to owners within 600 feet of the property We did receive 2 emails. I was part of the staff memo and they were generally supportive, and just. Had some clarifying questions, and then a number of emails were sent to planning board email not part of the packet yesterday and today, I believe that so moving on the project is a 2.1 3 3 acre parcel, and it's located South of Spruce street and north of Pearl Street There are a approximately 7 or 8 buildings on the site at this time to provide a sort of larger planning context from the comprehensive plan.

[28:13] I wanted to look at the Bbcp framework for the site, the same as part of the Boulder Valley Regional Center, which is considered one of the city's 3 regional centers. centers are defined as general places with potential for info and redevelopment, and our higher intensity compared to established residential neighborhoods. The beautiful, defined as an area that should invite pedestrian orientation and human scale. Design. The site is located towards the northwest corner of the Bvrc. And it's subject to the design guidelines that were adopted in 1980, The location of the site within the Bvrc.

[29:04] is really important, and that's it's uniquely surrounded by a significant amount of services. Personal services, retail office parks, schools, etc., as part of the Bvrc. There's also a transportation connections plan that was adopted that currently impacts the property This, this, this specific site, the Tcp illustrates a North South multi-use path and and East West Secondary street connection. This is something that was discussed as a key issue. The last iteration of the concept plan. And I will talk about that in detail further in the presentation. And as the as the discipline is presented today, the connection plans are not included in that in terms of the transportation contacts. This is a transit rich area that the site is located within.

[30:05] there are a dozen of multiple local buses as well as regional bus facilities. Within a quarter mile and a half mile of the site. No site is also highly walkable and bikable, surrounded by on street bike lanes, as well as ease. access to several multi-use paths In terms of the land, use the Boulder Valley Comprehensive land use designation. The the site is primarily multi sorry. Makes use residential. That's defined as predominantly residential uses with neighborhood scale, retail and personal service uses as well there are portions of the project site that are mixed use business and general business as existing. The site is zoned business community, too, which is defined as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where Retail's predominant residential uses are permitted by right in this context And then 3 is determined

[31:17] by open space, perdling unit, contextually across the across through street to the north, there is residential. It's our H. 2, I believe, And then there's regional business across Pearl to the south of the site So, for for this concept plan, the applicant is proposing a rezoning to mixed use 3. So M. U. 3 there is that 3 is defined as areas of the community that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary non-residential uses generally within the same building

[32:03] In terms of the surrounding contacts. There is residential along Spruce Street, as I mentioned earlier. There's retail uses to the east, and then a 4 story office, last retail building to the south of the property. And across Folsom Street is the Greenleaf Park, and the boulder and white rock did parallel the site to the west In terms of what's existing on the site. It's it consists of a variety of warehouse, light, industrial, and retail uses. There's an auto repair shop, a scooter, rental repair, and then at the northeast corner is 2546 spruce which is the Mecca building that was recently surveyed and determined to be eligible for landmark designation. This was also another key issue that was presented to Planning board last year for the concept plan And we'll be talking a little bit more about that today.

[33:05] And one of the key issues So. Just a brief project background. So the first iteration of this concept plan was, I was heard, by planning board on September second, 2,021, and then it was referred to Tab by city Council. So We went to Tab on October eleventh, for hearing, and then Point City Council calls up the concept. Plan, and another public hearing was held on November thirtieth, 21, So the last round of review from planning board, Council and Tab focused on 3 issues above or sorry 3 issues listed here, and some of the key issues today are continuation of this So the First, one was rezoning or potential rezoning from BC 2 to Mu 3 in

[34:04] order to address the boulder. Rally Comprehensive plan policies regarding how the feedback that the applicant received was that the central location of the site had a lot of potential for higher density given its close access to transit and a lot of kind of retail services. And so it was. They were encouraged to explore what achieving, or maximizing density would look like through the zoning in terms of the Vb Bvrc transportation connections. Plan The East West Secondary connection was discussed and determined to be unnecessary for circulation by planning Board, Tab and City Council in terms of the the North South Kadashian and bicycle connection or multi use Pass connection Tab Noted that The site is already well served by surrounding streets for bikes and pads, and that that, you know could suffice, and the conversations, or even regarding con connections.

[35:10] Plan or centered around Maximizing units on the site. Similarly with landmarking of the Mecca building in the corner, planning board feedback was to have the applicant integrate the Macab building into the project site council provided feedback saying they appreciated the building but that providing additional units to increase affordable units on site as a larger community benefit so in the interest of time I won't go through the entire table. But these are some of the changes that were made to the proposal since the last review, and the apple can also be providing additional details on this during their presentation so, jumping into the proposed project, the new proposal is for 8, 4 story building, 55 feet in height.

[36:08] There are 101 forces units proposed, and out of those 13 affordable onsite, affordable units for sale. They're 11660 parking pieces out of the 101 units. There are 3 efficiency living units and 98 condos in terms of the floor plan. So the first floor shows the parking structure at the ground level and to the west, east, and portion of the north, surrounded by residential dwelling units and then there is commercial affordable commercial space and a cafe, or restaurant proposed on the corner of spruce and Twenty-sixth Street in terms of the side floor. There is the Amenity terrace and pool, All units also have a private balcony or private patio, and there are 2 shared outdoor spaces on the second floor, and then on the fourth floor There is another community.

[37:17] Roof deck as well The applicant provided conceptual renderings that illustrate building modulation along spruce. The front lobby on Spruce Street, incorporate some of the beams from the Mecca Building And so these are the proposed elevations, as of now for the project. The building, again, is 4 stories and 55 feet in height, and the applicant is subject to community benefit requirements for hype modification. So for this concept plan Staff identified 5 key issues, and I will briefly walk through each of these

[38:11] Okay. So for Kishiwan, this essentially kind of looking at rezoning as a process to support additional residential density on the site as mentioned, before, The proposal is for a mixed use development with predominantly residential and the reason is proposed to kind of maximize the density on the site. The apple can, if they move forward with mu, 3 will have Do you demonstrate that the rezoning needs one of the 6. Criteria that can be found in Section 9 to 19 and one and 2 are a little bit connected in that, in order to move forward with the rezoning the apple, can must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that, the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into

[39:00] compliance with the Bbcp Land use designation map, And so the the second key. Shirley talks about the What does that map land use? Map, designation change look like and so, looking at the uses on the site in relation to like use, the site is primarily designated Mixed use residential in the comp plan yet the current underlying zoning is BC: 2 it's important to Note: that feature. Land use under the comm plan could vary from the zoning, and that this particular area might be viewed as trans additional site with the residential across the street. So if the applicant were to move forward with and me 3 zoning. Oh, me. Through rezoning, It's important that the other 2 land uses on the land. Use map designation would need to be checked to makes use residential from makes use business in general business

[40:05] And there is an amendment process in the Bbcp through which the applicant could achieve this as long as they meet the criteria, including finding that the change is consistent with the policies and overall intent of the boulder rally comprehensive plan. So key issues, one and 2 are really came out of the interest express during council, and the discussion around additional density, and how that could be achieved on the site. So that's something that's important to note the project given the city's Bbcp policies, the the strong linkage, new housing, in the area newer transit as well as mix of uses, particularly in the Bbrc there may be possibility to say that it's

[41:03] consistent with the Bbcp In terms of key issues, 3 which talks looks at the Mecca Building, and just asks for planning board feedback on the preservation as The proposal stands today. So the building was revised in this concept plan to be demoed to maximize the number of sites at a number of housing on the on the property. The applicant will have to demonstrate at the time of site review, that the project is consistent with the site Review criteria, and the Planning board will also be considering policy. 2 point, 2 7. As part of that review staff is seeking feedback from planning board. On whether the project could, on balance, meet the site would be criteria as permanent, considering the proposed demo of the Mecca building. their interpretation of using the beams from the building, and then meeting our Bbcp policies, such as in increasing housing within the city

[42:12] Okay. So moving on to keys to 4, This is regarding the height, mass, and scale of the proposed building. So the building is 55 feet in height and approximately 4 stories tall, and the immediate area to the north of Spruce Street is our H. 2, and it consists of one in 2 story homes, the M. 3 zoning allows up to 38 feet in height and 3 stories, and so there are some small modulations, and the fourth floor is slightly stepped back, along spruce street However, additional alleviation. To the massing is necessary to be compatible with a character as well as provide an appropriate transition into the or 2 zoning across across the street on spoofs

[43:10] in terms of Ksu 5. The memo is provides a preliminary consistency analysis with the guidelines in the Bbcp. Or specifically the design guidelines. So an interest of time. I won't go over those specific things, but we wanted to bring this to the Board's attention as the previous iteration did have a connection that went through. That there. Was the normal South connection with the multi-use path, and that has currently been removed in order to maximize housing on the site. so additional feedback on. Whether this feels appropriate and meets the site would be criteria from board would be, I appreciate it

[44:15] yeah, I had a quick question cause I recall it from the September meeting last year. I I don't know if I really had an opinion one way or the other on the Mecca building, but really felt like it was landmark's role to step in, and kind of evaluate that because they're the they're the experts in that area, at what point does this get referred I believe that it gets referred. If it's going to be that mode. having some trouble with my computer. If there's a proposal to Demo that building, then a demo permit has to be approved, and I think there's only a pretty short time period during which that's valid.

[45:11] So that's something that the applicant will think about in in deciding how to time the applications. But the applicant, but also have to have privileges that are consistent with each other. It is an and landmarking, for example, is is within the purview of the landmark. Sport and Council the way it's dealt with with usually instead, if it has been required, to requirement is to file it. Networking application and pursuing good fate, landmarking, and then the decision ultimately would be up to the Landmark Board and city council.

[46:03] thank you. I have a couple of questions at first, just as the rep to the landmarks board. I'll say that my understanding is that Yes, the landmark process would be initiated when they file for a demolition Permit and then, because the building is over 50 years old, and the historical preservation staff would take a look at it and make a recommendation to the landmarks board, the Landmarks Board would then typically issue a stay of demolition, which is 6 months typically I believe, 6 months in which they try to talk to the applicants and see if the applicant is receptive, to ways in which they can do preservation or to land market of the applicants. free will, and if the applicant is not receptive to that, the landmarks Board can pursue landmarking over the objection of the applicants. But then the ultimate decision rests with City Count landmarks, can recommend landmarking over the objection of the applicant But then

[47:00] city, council can say yes or no, and from so I'll just know to that It sounds like what we have heard is that when City Council saw this previously, they were not inclined to landmark over the ejection. Of The applicant would would be my guests, based on what we have heard, about what their comments were, all that to say. It's a fairly long and involved process, and I don't know that planning board has any authority to simply skip over landmarks board and their process and their prerogative with trying to talk to the applicants so I would probably encourage the applicant to to see if they can get that started because there is that 6 month, or at least to consider that there could be a six-month stay of demolition requested by landmarks board. While they talk to the applicant about that. So is that all? Correct it. Please Stop, me, Hella or others. If I have misrepresented anything from my understanding of landmarks, process So thank you for that.

[48:02] Sure. Thank you for that validation, Charles. I do pay attention. At Landmarks Board. Thank you. So So that did answer my question that what what our prerogative is is to say, is this project consistent on balance with the Bbcp. Which does include policies around historic preservation. So, if we would have to find that on balance, the other interests are more compelling than the historic preservation. If we were to recommend that we're fine with going ahead without landmarking. I believe if that's what Landmarks Board recommends, that's at least what I think. I had a question which is in the staff memo different topic. The, the 2 connections If I read correctly in the staff Memo staff, do not at this point support not having those 2 connections, the North South connection, and the East West connections and I wasn't sure entirely Why, that was given that planning Board and Council.

[49:04] And Tab had all said that they felt those connections were not necessary, so I was just wondering, Who are you thinking? Will use it. And why do they need it? Why why does Staff recommend keeping those connections it was in Staff's analysis, and I think it said that Staff did not support removing those connections. I don't think I have a page number, though I'm sorry. I was having computer issues. So thank you for technology that I arrived Usually I write down the page number. We can come back to that if you want, and I'll search for the page number while other people are commenting and questioning Andl says it's page 41 of the 2 97

[50:03] Sorry Okay? Oh, of item 5 a sorry I I did not write down the page number on that one. for 41 of 87. It's just item 5, a Yeah, it's in. It's in our packet, and it's under item 5 A. I figured it would Okay. What's the packet and the the page, and the whole packet? It's page 41 of 87 Okay. Okay. Nice Charles, Where do you have that information in like huh? so that would be page 112 of 290 So it I think sure I think that was initially part of the review comments that we submitted to the applicant. but in further discussion with our transportation engineer, and then kind of going back and looking at the conversations with Tab and city council and planning Board as well. Of last year's concept plan. I think we decided to omit that from the memo itself, and that stuff would be and it would be helpful if the transportation engineer could also speak to that.

[51:12] But I think if this time Staff would be okay with the removal of those connections Thank you. Chapman. That's super helpful clarification. That may also get to my name question, and I may have also been reading this, not notice that it was a staff comment that maybe got revised. But my next comment was, You you talk about potentially on spruce in in order to break up the massing that staff were recommending town homes for that spruce facing elevation, and I was, just if I'm understanding that correctly and staff is recommending having town homes there versus condos. What would that mean? Is that, like a condo, that, or excuse me, a town home, in the sense that it's a self-contained unit, multi-level with its own staircase and a private yard, is that what we're talking about or are We talking about something

[52:14] So, that's kind of similar to to the last point. it. It was just a suggestion by staff, but it it's something that the applicant could look at in terms of, I think the more important point to that would be trying to break up the massing of the building, and perhaps providing some variety in the housing types but again, that was part. different. Gotcha. Okay, thank you. I'm still learning I'm getting the distinction. Okay, So that was a review comment. That's not necessarily the overall staff opinion. Of the review comment, which ultimately did not. Not. Something we brought up in the in the memo You're not making a staff recommendation that they turn some of these condos into Townhouse. Okay, thank you. I think that was my list of questions for staff.

[53:05] Thank you, John. Hi Shannon. It's I. I just have to con comment on the great depth of review. I think, getting into the the building and the building issues. You did you? And the staff didn't really? Well, I I guess not. Is it this time or last time? I don't know but the the information you put together, and the way you reviewed it, I think, was very helpful. So my hi question has to do around the affordable housing units, and I am looking at Again. I'm I'm on the pages. That are in our packet, and it says 43 of 87. So maybe.

[54:01] Charles can give the other overall number for that page. but the question I'm having, oh, perfect, so I'm understanding that because of the requested height modification, this becomes accountable to the community. Benefit requirements. So what I so was that in the original proposal there were 63 total units and 8. We're affordable. And in this proposal there's a 101 units and 13 are affordable. So we gain 5, affordable units. Does this imply, Yeah, all 13 units proposed and just, will be built on site, and it's 13.

[55:15] So we've Michelle Allen here from inclusionary housing. sure. Sure. So the the code has incentives for putting half of the requirement on site. What the breakdown is for this 101 units is that 25 are required through Ih. An additional 3 for the bonus square feet, so total of 28, so, in fact, they would need to do 14. We have refined the numbers a little since the good memo came out, and but then it would be 14 on site, and then at this time the the estimate of the remaining cash and loo is 1.6 million dollars, that would probably be a little higher because they pay whatever is in place when they

[56:01] pay and they they There will be another annual adjustment before they pay. So approximately 1 point, 6 million, probably a little higher than that. But the for the proposal that's on the table right now to put half on site. The total, including any in loop. They would need to do 14, and that's what they're proposing. and without doing the zoning change, Their prior proposal of 8 affordable units is that the total, or would they have been what would have been the total in that scenario You know. Honestly, I I don't know Right. Because they weren't asking for a height It was what 64 Yeah, So they were proposing half on site. Well, 12% It was 63 total units. 55 of them were market rate and 8 or 4 days. But I'm wondering if those yeah, so for 4 would have been

[57:09] So the I guess the point that I'm I'm wondering about. I'd like to begin us thinking about. It is no majority of the public input that came through emails. Oh, I'm sorry! Do this again We're very excited about having all this extra housing in a very prime location, but, truth be told, we're talking about 14 units, 14 affordable housing units and 88 market rate. Right. Units. So this is not a significant amount of affordable housing being proposed Correct, I I I would point out, though, that these are for sale units, which is a hard to achieve outcome.

[58:02] So we get very few of for sale, affordable units through any of our mechanisms. They're just sort of a hard not to crack, so I don't Honestly, I I apologize. Correct. I don't remember the whole configuration of the last proposal. but yeah, that's the outcome. 14 and but and a 101 point, 6 million dollars. Right. That would go into the affordable Housing Fund to create affordable units elsewhere. so I have oh, clarifying numbers, just based on the the previous memo for BC. 2, which is the existing zoning. It looks like with 64 dwelling units. Hmm. when one more question Michelle, when you said on the current proposal that were 2820, affordable units will be required.

[59:24] would, it would likely produce significantly more because of the leveraging that we can do with with cash in our program. So 1 point, so I would say you would get 20 to 25 units out of that. 14 would be built on site. So are you saying that the 1 point I can't remember the exact number 1 point something 1 million dollars paid into would buy To what would buy the other 14 units Right, right. that's I'm not the money person. So that's sort of a rough, rough estimate on my part, but it would be more than 14 Sure. Thank you. Thank you for your for having that information. Thank you for updating on that as well. Shannon. Can. Can I add something else really quickly, because it had to do with the comments that were sent prior to the meeting?

[60:05] there was a question about whether they would have to do these units on site, because it with inclusionary housing when they propose units on site they can still default to cash and loo later in the process, if they have to but I would point, out, that if they get the height, waiver that can be benefit. Ordinance says they can only get the height waiver if they put half of their required units on site, so they would not be able to not put them on site and default to cash and Lou under you know and a proof site, re site review with a height waiver. It would lock them into that outcome. yes. and that's specific to for sale housing. Michelle right? So yes, specific to for sale Hmm, hmm. Gotcha, The prior project was a rental. Is that correct? Right. The 5 prior proposal was a rental project, because they call them apartments.

[61:04] Of course, new. Honestly, I'm sorry. Maybe you know Not condos. Yeah, yeah, no, I'm just trying to find all of the the the values that have been added by getting the high variance and the zoning changed out to accommodate the needs And if If the impetus was that we're gonna get a significant amount of affordable housing out of it, I'd I'd like us to be to understand. What are those numbers? What makes a significant yeah number of affordable units that would warrant pursuing these changes changes to zoning and and hype let me see. I have one more question, but I can't find it, so I will hold until I find the question.

[62:12] I think, sean So my my very first comment is not so much a question. Maybe it's a question for my fellow board members, and that is when I looked at the key issues that Staff had presented for us, for the concept plan discussion, I read through those question number 2 to me is is the keystone is the guiding question Yeah, all the other questions rely upon and so when you know, is the proposed stop concept plan, consisting with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan and the land use map designation of the Vcp.

[63:02] For me answering that question is answers a lot of the it make. It informs my answer regarding the other questions. So anyway, as we, as we go on tonight, I will be looking at it from that perspective of question number 2, being the most important one to, answer and and then the others, are informed by that and so if anyone else thinks that I I will that love to have the responses from staff and our questions kind of focused on that. That second question goes is the most important. The in terms of getting to a a a question. the shot them had said, The balance is condos, and I I, and I've been looking.

[64:01] But that the mix between some one type of housing and then the other type of housing being condos. But I can't really find anything in terms of the number of studios versus one bedrooms versus 2 versus 3, etc. So? Is there any information, or is it too preliminary at this point to talk about the mix of bedrooms versus type of ownership, which I think, about apartments versus condos, etc. So my My question is on the kind of mix of units, and getting some more information. There. Yeah, think, thanks, Mark. I think that might be an appropriate question for the applicant team. Okay, alright. I'll wait for that for a moment. I think it's in the packet, mark. I think it's on page 145 on one of the figures.

[65:01] Oh! Oh, well, there you go! I there it is, right in front of me. It says, 3 efficiency units 31 one bedroom condominiums, 51 2 bedroom condominiums, and 19 bedroom condominiums, equals one O one Okay. No problem. I had the same question, and and I also just in in response to your first question about the land that you know you thinking that that you're feeling that the guiding question is is it consistent on balance with the Bbcp and the land use designation I just wanna clarify with. Staff. It sounds like staff is recommending, not just a zoning change, but also that the applicant pursue a land, use map, change so that the areas that are currently general business. And I think community business. I don't remember the designations, but the areas that are not mixed use residential, that the land use be changed, and There's guidance for that. I looked it up. It's in the Bbcp. Okay, we'll We'll come back to you. Get another chance, Mark

[66:00] Okay. Yeah, okay, I was just I I was learning and and getting my question answered from before and job in there. Okay, the the last question I have for this phase is for staff. So this is a a really significant piece of property in terms of various plans and things that we have in the works.

[67:00] especially regarding transportation, and I've mentioned this before. But when we did the site review or diagonal plaza, and I ask about the streetscape, the applicant pretty much said, Well, hey, it's it's the city tells us what to Do here It's not really at our discretion and so I I really took that part. And in this case I. My question is, how has and maybe it's too early. Maybe you can say we're working on it, whatever it might, the answer might be. But how has Staff worked with the applicant to take into account the core area network plan which, if you look at that map, this spot is like the priority spot. Our core area network plan. It's noted in the transportation master.

[68:00] Plan. It is you know Folsom, as part of our vision 0 implementation and the Boulder Valley Regional Center transportation connections plan which I wasn't even familiar with until tab reviewed this project a year ago a little more than a year ago. So can we, And then I looked at the illustrations in the packet, and the illustrations look as though they the streetscape and incorporates the temporary bald outs at twenty-sixth and spruce and so anyway, i'm i'm asking how has Staff incorporated the various plans that focus on on this area of the city? and when when will streetscapes, and and so forth?

[69:05] do you want me to take a stab at that I I don't think we have anybody from transportation on the call tonight, but and I appreciate the question, Mark it is kind of a crossroads of a bunch of different policy documents as far as transportation. Goes. I think that the applicant has done a pretty good job of addressing everything that we have on the books conceptually. I think that there's definitely more work that's gonna need to be done. As we move into site review. I can't really speak to how much of the core material network work that they've incorporated into their concept. The coordinated with the application

[70:14] And I'll just summarize my comment in the sense of as as we did. I've mentioned this before is that as we redevelop properties, I think it's so critical that we don't put in one street skate initially, only to later. Say, G. Now we're incorporating some, some some plan that we've adopted. Okay, Mark, I think that's a very useful comment that you should make. Also when we have our discussion Yeah, in the planned discussion section of this meeting, I have a a couple of questions also for staff.

[71:12] the the project is being proposed to us as a for sale type, condo arrangement to what to Greek, you know, in the past we've had proposals like this before that wind up being for rent type arrangements due to various financial reasons. And legal reasons, To what degree can we be sure that that doesn't happen on this project? If it if it moves ahead, No, under under its current, guys And maybe this is question for Charles or Shopdam or Helen.

[72:02] John. But the project comes forward. As for sale, there's always the possibility that an applicant proceeds differently on the site. Review. Criteria don't really address whether a project is for sale or prevent. In this particular case, as we already discussed for sale, units are proposed, so one thing that the Board could do is the community benefit is imposed or ensured through a condition of approval, and If for sale units are proposed we could draft that condition of approval to be specific to that particular proposally, because it does require different things It requires some affordable units on side. I'm I'm not sure who who best can answer them. So that way. That would be best dealt with as under site.

[73:00] So at a minimum. If there was a change after an initial approval, proposing for sale units that would require an amendment to the approved side plan, because it requires the it. Changes the community benefit requirements Yeah, it would be a a condition that ensures that for proposed for sale project before sale. Onset requirements along with the overall community benefit requirement is complied with. As for the site, review condition, then expicitly. Okay, thank you. And then another question is is just to pursue the the issue of transportation connection.

[74:15] sure I can. I can try, I think, based on what Tab had agreed as well. When we took this to Tab in November of last year. staff's kind of stance. You know. It's influenced by that as well. And Top didn't feel the need to have that East West connections specifically as it would be a vehicular connection, almost functioning as an alley and then in terms of the North South connection again there were enough, or there was understanding. That there is already a multi-use path network close to the property. So that wasn't necessarily important. Then there was the conversation about maximizing units, and I I just moves forward to site.

[75:09] Review. There's still kind of criteria regarding circulation within within the the site. Both the North, south, and the East West, which which have been eliminated. And I'm still trying to understand Staff's logic in, and and how they regard that elimination of those connections can you elucidate a bit So well, I I'm sure, planning or members have an opinion on that. That staff will will be looking at But just so. I understand Staff's attitude. They they basically were willing to sacrifice those connections to for the sake of additional units in the in the project is that the trade off that took place.

[76:23] Yes, that's the proposal stance. That is what the applicant is showing. I found my second question. So this is a mixed use zoning. And in my correct in looking at the proposed plan, there's basically a little section of affordable commercial and a cafe is that all of the Nixon so There are all of the I think, all everything that's currently there is is commercial right. It's service service type things. And is there anything about accommodation? The existing businesses, or because many of these look like they would provide service sort of things like. That's affordable commercial. And then cafe along spruce and twenty-sixth

[77:13] Is there any relationship between what currently exist regarding the service to the community and what is being proposed A broader question, then, is there any requirement in a mixed use? Yeah, I wouldn't defer that question to to the applicant team when when they are presenting and and after Zoom, that there be a certain amount of retail commercial versus housing, or can it be all housing, or how does that work? Sure I I think I don't think there is something for the mute 3 zone. The one thing I can point to is that along Pearl Street, in our code family 3 zone states thought any anything fronting on Pearl Street, so that kind of small strip of the site that can be that's a long prol suite would actually need to be a

[78:19] restaurant or commercial retail space on the ground floor, and it can't be. I think it's currently a lobby or it can't be residential. What makes it mixed So that's that is not meeting the requirements. It has to kind of contribute to the commercial fabric of of pearl shape Is that what you're saying? Because it's a lot it should be, and just looking at the plan itself. How if there were commercial like a proposed in the cafe? Where do people park for that Currently yeah, yeah, currently it's not

[79:01] Do they go underground into a garage, or how Because there's more powerking, proposed what's required. And so I'm guessing it's oh going over to perhaps the commercial at meet I would again defer that to the applicant. But I think it's this is the transit which area, so I that can helps contribute to potentially more public transit usage Do? Did we Potentially. It's not. It's not specified in in the floor plans or in the in the applicant materials. but I I think they would be best to answer that question. Okay, thank you. Alright. Let's see. Ml. Has her hand up again Okay, let's see. See, George, you had your hand up for a while where you still

[80:05] Oh, actually Ml. Did a great job of of answering or posing a number of questions that I had. your hand is still up. You have more questions. Okay, Okay, any other questions? I have a a real quick question. I see in the renderings here and in the drawings, that there is no setback shown in any direction on the property lines. is that a proper reflection of the codes that they're likely to have to apply

[81:02] Yeah, and I I think, John, this assumes that a number of the setbacks will be modified, and I don't have a memorized off the top of my head, but I can look them up So basically the renderings probably don't reflect that it's my assumption is correct that there will be additional setbacks at some stage Okay, thank you. And then one additional question, And what is Staff's experience regarding how how transition is achieved between 2 very different neighborhoods in terms of diminishing the the impact of one on the other? Is it typically by by the use of setbacks at upper floors, or what other?

[82:14] I think there's a number of techniques that have been used and are kind of standard. you know, diminishing upper floor setbacks, undulation of the building. thinking about how the streetscape is laid out. You know the ultimate landscape treatment the overall intensity of uses between the transition. So I think we've seen a number of you know, techniques elsewhere in town. I think the aspect ratio of the street, you know, spruce being a pretty wide right of way, as opposed to something that's more of a residential street. What other techniques can you describe that that might be applicable for that concern?

[83:07] Okay, Thank you. All right. Any further questions for staff. Okay, then, perhaps it's time to move on to the applicants. Yes, let me just promote our applicant team. As to panelists.

[84:03] bear with me, everyone. Sorry while we are while Amanda is working on that John, can I ask you a question? So Sarah Silver had submitted a bunch of comments and asked that they be included in the record, and I think it's very important that what she wrote, you know, be heard tonight and she had questions for Staff, I don't remember if she did But that there's an opportunity to have them answered is there a plan. sure. Absolutely. We. I was gonna bring that up in our discussion, but we can do it now while we're we have some time available. Perhaps Hello! Can describe how how we might accomplish that.

[85:10] Yeah, I think it would be great if Laura, you seem to have them in front of you. You could read the comments or summarize them for the board? while still following the rules. Okay, Is there any chance? I think I think that would be fine. If you will want to consider them. or summarize them, as the rules technically say that. Okay, what you consider tonight in documentary evidence has to be submitted. Can we also include it as part of the written record So So what does that mean? That means the only way to get that formally to be part of our consideration is is to read them. 24 h in advance of the meeting

[86:01] Yeah, to summarize them. And it sounds like the world wanted for the board to consider them tonight. Yeah, or to summarize them Okay. Well, Laura would be. Would you care to do that? For how we incorporate Sarah's comments, because I'm very supportive of having those be part of our meeting Or Well, I think that I'm I'm looking at them now, and I think that they probably fit best under our discussion rather than they're not questions so much. yeah, I think I think from A from a summary standpoint, I I if we're gonna do it, I think to your point, Laura, we should probably just read it in that way. No one's sort of paraphrasing what her voice is, or if one of us were writing something in, we wouldn't want to paraphrase either, so I think it'd be great if Staff Cam. and I'm happy to do it. Or if there's a staff member that wants to take that role so that it's a neutral voice bringing Sarah's voice in or if somebody, else wants to do it that's fine Yeah, yeah, I think there's like she has like 6 6 significant comments.

[87:04] 5 of them are numbered, and and one is kind of a preliminary comment. So I think, having round-robiting them while we're in our discussion, is a great idea, George. I also think And also that some of them have been answered regarding the the ability to just switch to cash, and Lou primarily affordable stuff like Ml. Thank you, and I I imagine that they would be summarized in the notes, the way that any of our comments would be summarized in the notes well. Yeah, just okay, I I think we can. That's assume that we'll do a round robin reading that in during our discussion period.

[88:06] good evening. How are you? I'm Ali Gitar. this is Christianers. How are you all? Are we supposed to show our slides ourselves, or is shabby? And now I see that the applicants are ready to make their presentation, so I invite them to move ahead I'm doing that for us. I'm not sure I can do it, That's that's great. There we go. Well, that's between you and How's that? Are you seeing what we're seeing? Oh, great. Okay, Thank you so much for your time. Last time we were before you. Was a very long time ago. It was in September of last year. We've been at this for 21 months now. We came to you with a simple project that you can see on the upper left hand side, and based on the comments that we got from planning board, tab and Council. We're in encourage to build as much affordable units as possible, then, and Council actually asks Staff to look for ways to do that, and they came up with and we've been working with that to come up with this scheme that we're really excited about I think it's going

[89:15] to be a wonderful building that Chris cheers on the team have designed with lots of outdoor space and a lot of volume in these open corners that Chris is going to address and momentarily but I think at the end of tonight i'm not gonna spend too much. Time, on on what we you guys have already heard from Staff, and a lot of good questions that come to them. And we're looking forward to asking your questions. But we also would love to have as much input from us as possible, so that we can forge ahead and I'm bringing this project to a good closure and and Chris is pointing to the screen and saying that he's coming to read all those notes and you can read them.

[90:00] For yourself. So we we have increase the number of units from 64 to 101, and if you are interested, you can ask me later about the count of each type of unit. I think 3 bedrooms, efficiencies, etc. And their average sizes, and I'd be happy to share that with you. And then we put this slide in here, because it really just summarizes everything that you guys have already talked about. that we didn't see any point to these cross block connections, and that the way Mv. 3 works, the loss of units for the Macro building is also something that became an encouragement point from the 3 entities for us to look at, not keeping it let me put it that way, and with that I should turn it over to Chris Well, good evening everyone We've intentionally tried to not repeat what Saddam has presented in the interest of time.

[91:03] And I'm sure you will appreciate that That was a great summary, So, as everybody had suggested, conceptually, it's important to recognize that we have chosen to avoid what is on the upper left hand, corner which is a continuous, Street Wall which is really a normal approach a normal approach to the solution to project like this, and would prefer the diagram on the right. We've broken the building up above the podium level such that we have outdoor spaces and the horizontal and vertical fragmentation of the building that allows for outdoor spaces landscaping for the residents and and Those open courtyards are indicated in green. Conceptually we our presenting the elevations.

[92:08] let's go back to the last. Sorry. This is the this pre street elevation, and you already discuss that a bit, and there have been questions about it. And we have intentionally broken up the elevation horizontally and vertically, and changed the building materials to differentiate and scale the project. also interestingly, we based on a lot of the discussions that we've heard over the last few years. We've been incorporated. Pittsburgh versus that, hey? A flat roof, and we think that's a unique feature. On the Fourth Level, and of course, Fourth Fourth Level. We've changed the materials. We're showing a lobby area in the middle of that elevation which will be ever used.

[93:04] We help reuse Mecca. Glue and beam solution from the building on the corner which you'll be discussing as well tonight. but it's essentially a free story, a building with a penthouse level that's differentiated from the balance of the of the project. That's go to the next slide, and then there are a few, a few street views. This is from the northwest the White Rock Ditch would be on your right and we do have setbacks by the way, and we have conform to the required setbacks to answer your question. Sorry, John, and this gives you an idea what the streetscape would be like. obviously as Saddam has suggested in her staff report, There will be a lot more detail on these elevations as the project proceeds.

[94:04] right now we're in concept. And so we're really dealing with the mass and form of the building and not the details. The storefront, nor the details of that have the windows. let's go through the Yeah. This is the north east corner of the project, and this is where there would be a cafe or a coffee shop, which is part of the commercial requirement for the project, and then, there's a a commercial space as well, down the street let's go to the next hmm, and then this is an initial idea for the lobby, reusing the blue land beams from the Mecca building, and we're hopeful that we can use those in the project and we feel that would be A a Gesture. Certainly not necessarily acceptable, usually to the President community.

[95:04] But we did feel that that's a unique opportunity to reuse those materials Excellent! And then right. And then This represents the upper floor of the building, and the the mass, reduction and setbacks once again. This was discussed a little bit earlier. So we are setting the building back on the fourth floor to scale it to the neighborhood in particular, the Spruce street and neighborhood, and then you can also see the open spaces where the trees are in the indicated in those 3 upper level spaces, and let's go to the next. Last slide. This is the last slide. I think it's important to ask you, too. Please comment, give us direction as we move forward, and we recognize that we're asking consistent with the purpose of a concept plan review that you provide direction regarding the stated key key, issues which you've.

[96:20] Already discussed, obviously associated with the project we know. We'd like you to not hesitate to ask us questions during the deliberations. you're dealing with that right information There's a lot of information here. We understand. Some of it can be confusing all these issues aside. it is our objective to reason. On the property, to rezone this half block, to enable the design construction, Have any exemplary, contextual, and sustainable residential project on this particularly suitable property with the density.

[97:00] The maximizes and affordable housing contribution. We've listened a lot in the last year to a lot of different people and learn a lot through this process, and we're confident that the result would be a great project for the community the neighborhood and for the residents so we look forward to your comments, And to your direction. This evening, and then just back to what we're asking. It's this list, really, where we need direction, so that we can move forward. looking forward to a site, reviews to middle. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have a public hearing tonight as well. Oh, Laura, I see your hand is up. Do you have a questions of the applicant? I do is is now the appropriate time. Okay, I'll try to be quick following up on one of Ml's questions.

[98:05] There are 101 parking spaces required and 160 are proposed. Can you tell us a little bit? Why, about most of the applicants who come before us actually request a parking reduction? Thank you. The 101 comes from. I don't know if it's requirement, but that's the parking standard, for is one party spot per unit, and that's 101, we have to park the commercial on-site as well, so some of that 100 and 60 unit count would go towards that. The rest of them are frankly there to help us sell units, you know. So could you help us understand why you, requesting 160 parking spaces Unfortunately, most people still wanna drive their car, so you know, if we can, we'd like to keep them so we can make sure that we can sell the units that we need to Thank you. And when when you say some of it is for the commercial, is that for the use of the staff who are running the commercial spaces, or is that for customers of the commercial spaces, like the cafe

[99:04] I think the way it works is that the code requires X number of parts, spaces for the score footage of the commercial, and that, I think, is a blend of both Have you already looked into what kinds of conversations have you had about retaining the Mecca building and what that would require? Sure. Do you wanna go without one and respectfully our opinion that this building doesn't need to the standards for eligibility, for landmarking, and that's you know, often in in the preservation, it becomes a discussion and and it's it's not clearly in this case we feel a building that it should

[100:07] be preserved. So I'll just start with that. but we looked at incorporating the building as a corner element, and and not yeah. We never looked at actually building over the building, and when it's a corner building there are setback requirements both on the south and on the west, and so that then eliminates a good number of residential units, so i'm sure we'll be discussing this a little bit later, during For example, you said that it would eliminate, I think, 7 units. But you know, have you looked into whether you could retain the building and still build above it Well, I think you're probably gonna have to have that come. this conversation, but I think it really boils down to your opinion about whether this building is an important building to preserve have that conversation with the Lammarks Board, because that's their purview is historical significance. That's not ours, but

[101:01] That That's right. And we've heard a lot of varying opinions about this as we've listened for the last year, and I'm sure we'll continue to perfect Well, thank you. It's helpful to know what what you have considered so far. I I love your cutouts. I know I'm not supposed to give my opinion yet, but the the the concept of having those like courtyard cutouts is is very heartening in terms of you know providing light and air and landscaping and reducing the sensation of mass. I did think it was interesting that you have 2 cutouts on the side that faces Pearl Street which faces the back of some commercial buildings which are not going to go. Away They're going to stay there because it's kind. There's kind of like a a wall dividing a parking lot that divides your property from the other properties along per street that you don't own. so those cutouts are kind of facing those commercial buildings on Pearl Street. 2 of them are, and one cut out is facing Spruce Street. And I'm curious why you had that orientation where the majority of your cutouts are not facing the residential neighborhood.

[102:00] Yes. Yes, that's that's a good question. I think there are 2 reasons. One is that they face south. So then getting signed, Natural sandwich is preferable, for letting me kind of landscaping, and so the the landscaping will not be in shadow, and the other reason is it's a gesture towards what are now the views add to the south, although there are still views from the upper levels. the upper residential units to the to the west, into the northwest. They're facing the commercial Okay. Thank you. That's helpful to know that the prayer there was sort of the sun and the views that that may be something that the board wants. To discuss. When we think about if we were to make a request for you to break up the massing, and what that might look like. And then my last question has to do with you. Do have some onsite affordable mixed in with market rates and and then you have some shared amenity. That's right.

[103:01] Spaces, and my question is, are those shared Amenity spaces shared amongst both the market, and affordable units? Absolutely. away. Okay, And And I'll just mention this to see if you have given any thought. Yes. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about this, but one of the issues with having market rate and affordable in the same building, as the hoa fees, and how those tend to escalate and become unaffordable to the affordable units is that something that you have any thought Okay. No, we haven't really put a lot of thought into it. We do know that that's a big problem, and understandably so. about But I'm not sure if I've heard of anybody having solved that problem either. I haven't either, but I was hoping that maybe you had We don't expect you to. No, I mean you know, it's okay. Well, the only thing I can say is that for affordable units have smaller sport footages per you for that unit time, and so that helps a little bit. But they're typically done by square footage, by per unit.

[104:00] I just curious That that we might be a legal question, and I'm out of my depth here, so I will yield the floor. By how much square footage you have in your unit, so I don't know if there's any way to escape that, or to force that on to the more expensive units without getting into a fight. Oh, okay, yeah, go ahead. Thank you, John. Good evening. Let me see. I see your name. Yeah. Polly, but I don't see the other first. Chris. Good evening, Ali and Chris. So, continue with the idea of the affordable units. It's it's Chris. Good evening. we haven't specifically located them yet, but we have had discussions with Michelle about that, and it's going to be, you know, just a combination of W. How are they distributed? We can decide. No.

[105:02] Where, where can we put them, and not hurt the the amount of money that we need to support the whole project, but the same time being cognizant, that they need to be spread up throughout the project And definitely, Yeah, there's not. It's not gonna be all in one corner. Okay. So I'm here that the intent is to mix them Right. So this might be more. Well, I'm not sure if it's a question, or I just want your thoughts. That's least desirable. We wouldn't do that But the prior proposal, and I was upon planning board for that had 63 units, and then the after the discussion with all the various councils and and boards, you came up with, this one where you Now have a 101 units, so we've had it we've gotten Yeah.

[106:03] an increase of 5 affordable units We're up to 14 now And there were 9 Okay. Yeah. So we think we've gotten 5 affordable units, and there's been an addition of I don't but 28 market rate so Yeah, nice. I'm getting. So this is, Would you say that this is primarily a a luxury housing project Market rate market rate. Right? Okay? Which in boulder, that's kind of high So I'll put the question to you that that the community, the community, is very exciting, excited about having about the increase in housing, that this second proposal with the the hype and the zoning rezoning, is is bringing 2 boulder but in truth we are only getting 5 It's a market rate. There are some luxury over Yeah, and anywhere on the wall that would be luxury. But here in Boulder it's market. Right.

[107:28] I'm fine more affordable housing units. So what? What what would you say to the people who are excited about this Project and supporting it that are looking for middle income housing. I think there's gonna be Well, let me just give you the numbers now that you brought that up, We have. It's planned 19 bedroom units at about 2,200 square feet each average. 2 bedrooms are 49 counts, and those are 1,400 square feet.

[108:02] One. Bedrooms are 29 account. They're about 900 square feet, and then we have 7 efficiencies at 630. So what we tried to do is to really push the units sizes. So the question is about what income range are you looking at? Where will these land on the market insofar, as as far as sales? It, and again it's coming from. People are excited about this project, and they want to support it. I mean, keep bedroom counts more towards the middle, and not as much top and bottom Yeah. And it's because they they think that they're going to be able to live here, And I'd like to understand is that a myth is that a hope, or is there some truth? Right. Are you Well. I think the answer to that is that the units are going to be new units, which in in our market garner the premium over older units.

[109:09] So that's number one. Meaning that they're going to be more expensive than another similar size. What do you? What What do you see as your as your end 25 or 30 year old unit, right? Because it's a new product. So that part of it we we know. For sure, it's gonna be more expensive than you know. If another one came on online, that was the same size. But it was older. So that's how I can ask that now in terms of you know as the way I think about it is that, as we get more and more units in the market, it helps to just increase the available quantity of units and therefore prices, should moderate or at least slow growth or whatever I don't know. It's just working. It's an issue that we all have. I mean, it's taken us 21 months to get to this point right where we're still waiting to see if we can We have a project or not.

[110:04] yeah, well, I'm I'm putting this in relation to what has been gained on the on the capacity of the site. Right? And you know, as things go slower and slower, this is what happens. I mean, we just end up with this backlog of need You gain the capacity for 28 more more units and and and hike. Yeah, Okay, go ahead. Land is Super expensive. Construction is crazy and we've switched from our first proposal, which was thick builds to ceiling country, which is a 30 to 40% premium over that. So there's there's a lot more possibilities that have come onto the table, and we've gained 5 affordable housing units. And the reason we have to do that is, if we're going to do for Sale Project, we have to have a much better build building to be able to buy expensive insurance to put off the crazy lawyers that will come after us for every little defect that happens so we're all in a bind here.

[111:06] It's not that we're pushing prices up because we want to just the way the market works. Cool. You know we're we're at the mercy of a lot of things that are out of our control. Yeah, I I appreciate I you know I'm not hope hopefully. Honestly. You're not taking this as I'm pushing, pushing this into a corner or something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, oh. But this is where the community is wanting to support, but what they're wanting to support, may not align with what is actually being provided, and and I I would just like to have that the clarity as much as it can be at this point and I understand that you know we're at the mid beginning. Right, so the other answer I have for you is that the cash and Lou that Michelle mentioned what really Rs. Up? What can be done on the affordable side. Okay, I I I don't have the power of doing that, but you know one of the things one of the numbers that Michelle gave us.

[112:06] Is that if we can't have the units on site, this is a meeting that we had with our the cash flow would be 7 and a half 1 million by the numbers that she just mentioned that equates to something like 95 or 100 units. Offsite somewhere else through boulder housing partners. Yeah, versus the 14 that we can get on site. Right? So that's where you're gonna get the most bang for your buck, And that's unfortunate in reality. I started this project with the idea of wanting to have a really mixed income. Right. Group of people live together. Everything that I'm doing is working against me, and I can't control it. okay, right I have no control. I can't make rich people come and give me money to make this thing happen. Yeah, I think that the issue with the in in Lou funneling everything to an end. It just doesn't work that way Louis, we lose the diversity and the potential complexity in the prime sites in boulder, you know.

[113:05] So we're we're all on the same page. I totally agree, like one of the things like one of the things that I mentioned early on in this process is that Look at piano. We have a problem Look at how they do things. They have these tools, tall towers, not 4 stories taller, so you can make it work, and they have the mixed group of people that live together with the most expensive units on top that help to pay for a lot of the units underneath Unfortunately, we're stuck if I could have a fifth floor I could do a lot more. Hmm. Can you give me a fifth floor? I would love that Then we can make all this work, and we'd all be very happy as a serious concern, because awesome. It becomes a lot more efficient. When you bring, build more square footage right, and the land cost is the long cost. Thank you. I I I get it. It's not an easy problem to solve I can't change that. I have to deal with paying people to Port concrete and form it, and do all this other stuff that needs to happen. Yeah. But if there's more of it, then the costs come down, so I think sorry I'm rambling off.

[114:02] do you have other questions? No, that was it. I'm gonna mute myself. Thank you so much. Okay, okay. If if not, I suggest we round Robin it cause like a like a page and a half Thanks, Thanks for the presentation. Guys. Quick kind of expansion on Laura's questions around parking. So you have a 101 units 160 parking spaces. Can You get us a little bit more. You said you need some parking spaces for commercial. Sure. What What is it that you need for commercial on site I will. I'll take a guess, I think probably maybe N. Okay. Something like that. 10 or 11, based on the score footage and 300 square feet per for parking spot. yeah, Go ahead. Great, so so so that leaves sort of 50 in that delta when you're talking to that project costs and square footage. What kind of square footage does insert both with parking spaces in circulation?

[115:06] Hmm. Does 50 parking spaces in your building occupy how much square footage is that occupy? Well, George, one of the issues that we have is that 3 gives us a bonus for the square footage of finished space by how large the parking is Yeah. Right. So, in other words, if you look at the first 4 plan about our project, it's a massive bray with a sliver of finished spaces around it. It's perverse. It's anti everything that we work towards But that's the way the code is written. So we have to have a large parking area so that we can take that extra 70,000 square feet that we found in that parking parking, area and added to the 102,000 square feet to get us 107 to 2,000 square feet, of which 155,000 square feet are Yeah.

[116:04] finished. So yeah, I mean it. It again. It's one of those things where the coastal written 35 years ago, and that's that's the rule that we have to play with I'm gonna need some explanation from staff on that. no, I'm not tracking at all with what it is that you know requirement is. So if someone wants to try and re-explain that to me, I'm I'm happy to start digging through the Covid can can. Can. Someone can can someone from staff elaborate on that So Yeah, that that would be great, cause I I'd certainly like to dig in into that a little bit more with the applicant, because we're talking a lot about you know, project costs and concrete. Buildings and I understand, no matter what this is, gonna be a conquering steel building. I get that for for sale, Condos. I understand what you're up against as far as the law goes. I'm just I'm curious around this this excess capacity and parking, and you know if that if that if that was to be removed from the project, what that would free up from both a setback standpoint, for champering the edges from from doing a bunch of other things to to to help help the project massing and scale, and still maintain the units, etc. Yeah.

[117:27] That's that's a good question, and I think the answer to that is as simple as what I just described. you get bonus square footage, finish square footage by the size of your parking in closed parking. So, if you notice, and that's the key keyword and close. So if you notice our our parking is completely surrounded on 3 sides by finish space, and then on the south side, there's a wall that goes up to the podium, so that is the same close that allows us to take that square footage and added to the rest of the fr were which were allowed which is

[118:02] a 102,000 square feet, which is the area of the site, And that's what gives us a bonus area if you like, under M. So So that's the reason for that. I mean that that's the reason for what exists there. U 3, no cool. So if you, if you were able to keep your bonus interior square footage, but reduce the parking spaces by 50, would you do that? You mean the Count? Yes, maybe I think again. But I go back to my what I said earlier. If I if I want to sell a penthouse unit, you know, to wealth, to a wealthy person, they're not gonna want to buy it if they only have one parking spot. Yeah. How do I do that Got it. Okay, All right. Well, those are 2 separate issues, I guess, I I guess. And I guess Staff is chasing down the the bonus square footage thing that you talked about, and then separate and part, is sort of how you how you sell it got it Thank you appreciate it and so towards me. The I have the code open, and it. It doesn't describe it as a bone as, but it in M. you know I just I could surround it Okay.

[119:00] So, So, Charles, could you interpret that for me, then? Is this is is what Ali is saying Is Is that correct? Right. Hmm! Other than that. The far is just one well, ultimately it's a the discretion of the planning board, and that through the site review process they can modify the amount of parking that they're requesting. so as Kella said, floor area used for off street parking and circulation that's above grade and provided entirely within the structure isn't counted, and I think the urban design intent behind that is really to encourage structured parking so you know, ultimately parking can From the standpoint of that he needs this parking in order to get the interior square footage of these asking for? Or is that something in the discretion of this city, and in the planning board, etc., Okay, And so, And so the bonus square pushes is that Ali Would is talking about. He could conceptually. If if this was modified, it could still be there, even without. Let's let's call it, whether it's 50 or 40.

[120:12] be reduced through the same review process. Assuming that they have a meeting functionality demand management planning can set aside the criteria Whatever the spaces is, without that square footage that he's talking about. I can. I can add something, I think. What George you're getting at is that why have so many parking spots? Well, we could lower lower the parking spots, and just have gray asphalt area who would accomplish the same thing? I'm talking against myself in a way, I'm saying that where the drive aisles are and all that.

[121:04] Oh, that's all parking right. But who's to say that there there wouldn't be fewer parking spaces and more storage for bike parking, or something else? You see what I'm saying? The point is, just say that if, if, instead of 161 parking spaces, you had a 150 parking spaces, and maybe you have some extra spaces for bike, storage in there or something like parking I should say I can't use the word storage has to be parking so so, so, in other words, it's it's in my interest to have as many parking spaces as I can get, because I'm I know I'm gonna have a problem with not having enough parking spaces for the zoom is above No, no, I'm not clear. Can you? Can you rephrase that Yeah, okay, yeah, I guess we'll We'll be We'll have to talk about that later.

[122:05] But I appreciate the the comments. I guess you know at to Ml's point. Right. and to the other point to consider is that you know, if you don't provide those parking spaces, then what happens is that they, the residents, will overwhelm the neighboring streets with their cars more than they are already We have a lot of people in the public excited about a transportation rich development, and we're talking about over parking it by 50% of of you know what would be. You know, one car per unit, which is already. If you look at things like Alpine balsam, that the city has approved is already above that and I think Boulder Junction is similar I think it's either one or point 9 per unit. Thanks. Before I ask questions. I do want to make a comment directing at Ml. But all all members of the Board, and those watching. I I I did a affordable housing tour with jase.net, of the housing department, city and bowler and you know we're all invited to this.

[123:11] And anyway, John and I did that The thing I want us to avoid is diminishing, or somehow isolating the units that are built with casually, because while yes, having that on site and integrating them is great within boulder we don't have get us. We don't have low income isolation. We, you know Boulder is a community that you can have a many multi 1 million dollar. Home. You know, within hundreds of 100 feet of a of a manufactured home, or something so I I don't want us to diminish the the units.

[124:02] I'm not speaking for Michelle or the applicant, but the idea that 1.6 million of cash and loo, that that actually will result, and some greater quantity over the 14 built off site, is not to be discounted and the thing I learned on the bike tour coming back around of the bike tour Mark. is that we have taken Cash in blue, and we have built a lot of units, but we don't put up a flag and and wave it above The unit that says this was built with cash and blew up money we don't we don't even identify, them as being affordable at all so anyway, I just I just don't want us to diminish those units. Hmm, mark. So okay, going on tomorrow. What's that? Yes, I do. Do you have a question for the applicant? Do you have a question for the appointment? Thank you, John. Yeah, I do. And I'm gonna go on to the my Tdm.

[125:00] no. Questions Is the parking unbundled. It is, it is are they for sale, or are they? The meeting they're not assigned. Is that what that means? Are they deed to the units. Not currently not. Currently No, no. Is that a problem Is that a problem? Or I don't. We haven't thought of that actually. I'm sorry that. Say that again So we haven't discussed that yet Well, it's it's so. It's in fact, a way of rewarding those that that say I want to live in an urban environment. Want to live in a transit. Rich area. I want to limit myself to one car or car share, or just my e bikes, and I'll I'll rent a car on the weekends or whatever and so you know we've encountered a number of recent projects where parking and and many of them, are rental

[126:06] but where the where the parking weather is frontal or for sale is unbundled, separated, and it's and it's managed, and the and over in the t vap one area there are a number of offices that gee here's your base ramp here's your net expenses, and how many parking spaces do you want Those parking spaces? Are X dollars a month, and so the market determines that. So let me wait. Yeah. Good. Yeah, you're rewarding those I want to behave. You reward those that want to show up with one car or no car, and you charge more for those that can, afford and want to have 2 cars and and it, and to some degree it addresses the the whole question about about parking is is your asking people to fairly pay for their parking Yeah, okay, so so far, you have an unbundled parking.

[127:00] Well. No, we haven't got that far. Honestly. What we have talked about actually is that, however, number parking spaces we have, and even bike parking that they're all going to be set up so that they can be easily electrified in the future. In others will pull conduits to where they need to be so that just stations etc. can be added easily without time to tear up the Is is what I' Okay, Do you have you taken into account the ability to electrify most or all of the parking Okay, So I'll I'll just go on to your I didn't really see anything in in your in the packet that was presented regarding a a transportation demand management plan other than the acknowledgment. building. That is site reviewing. You have to come up with one. I'll simply say we have lots of requirements to pass through.

[128:02] Site, Review. There are really. There is some old plans that were never adopted that are not official people Developing projects tend to use as some official document to develop. A Tdm plan, I would encourage you not to do that, and 2. Look, this is this is such a transit, Rich area. You know you're a couple of blocks from what we hope again will someday again be an Rtd Hub. Over the 30 s, anyway. What I'm getting to is I would encourage you that this is. This is a site that you should come back with a Tbm plan that you should feel freed by the fact that the city has a dirth of actual Tdm solutions for you. and this is as a developer. You get to design your own, and but it is also a an expectation, that if you get to design your own it's gonna be really great.

[129:00] Yeah. Oh! so just come back with a when when you come to site, we do come back with the Tdm plan that will blow us away. okay, And then the final question is, yeah, as I look at design, I I I'm I'm not an architect. I'm not a designer I You know I have my own aesthetic opinions is the design, as it's shown, and I know it's not, final. Or anything else. But as as I park him back to the bike tour, there's a there's a lot of design going on right now that has these similar elements that I can't verbalize. But I think you know what I mean. And are we entering into a trap design that will seen to us 30 or 40 years from now similar? We appreciate. Thank you for that

[130:08] To what a lot of buildings that built on the seventies or eighties Look to us now, and we say, God, that's you know. That's ugly I'm not. I'm not criticizing your design. I'm asking a question, How do you design cost? Hmm. It's actually, it's actually a great subject, and it's something that we discuss a lot about in our office. We like to think that the buildings that we have done and will do, our buildings that endure and that are not fashion statements. 2 times 2 recent buildings. I think that you're familiar with one is pro West.

[131:01] Yeah, there is the new hotel. That's under construction on the hill. the Macy's is another project that you. This board is approved. all of those, all of these buildings we feel our avoid the fashion, and and I appreciate your your comment, because it's it's important to hear that from a non architect. so we'll keep that in mind, Mark, as we move forward with the design. I think that the design is pretty simple. It doesn't have the fashion, the the components that let that layer of fashion that you see in a lot of projects, new projects, in town or in other parts of the country, for that matter, so we will persevere and make sure that this building endures over Effectively, and have a design that doesn't that age as well? And and doesn't, you know, make us feel better at some date, and the future

[132:00] Okay, last thing sticking to design as developer and architect sitting there together. How do you? How do you view a recommendation to go to DAB time. The Dialogue, design advisory Board. Yeah, if, if, if if it is within planning boards per view 2, at some stage in the development, send a project to the design Advisory board. How do you perceive? And do you welcome it? Do you? Oh! How! Oh, this is this is wonderful, very, very enthusiastic about going to Dad. And I actually was chair of the What was the downtown design Advisory Board about 20 years ago, and that board, I think, was always proceed to be a board.

[133:00] That was apolitical, and and dealt strictly with design, with design, professionals. And that's where the value was And I think that's where the value is for that board as a board that that provides input for you and for city council. But and I'll use one more example, and I'm gonna talk too much. But the review that we had on the Hill Hotel, for example, we had 2 reviews. One of them went for 3 h, and and when we finished, and it was virtual when we finished we all looked at each other in a room. I'm just curious how you perceive that Oh, okay. can, What are you doing differently with this building? Because it is intended to have condos for sale rather than be rentals, You know. We said that was a great great session. So I'm enthusiastic because my experience has always been good

[134:04] That's one of the issues That's a great concern in Boulder, and I just like to learn what it is how you're going about making that happen. Is that a question for Chris or me? Oh, the first go around? We had apartments or wood frame on top of a podium, and when we came back and there was a lot of discussion from I think you guys as well as Council, but you know, it would be desirable to have 4. 7 units. So when we started to talk about that, then our entire method of construction had to change, to address that higher risk type of construction. We the buildings with wood. Can cause a lot of problems. one of which is shrinking or or movement, and the other is easier.

[135:04] Sound transmission from from floor to floor, vertically. So. Those issues cannot be addressed adequately enough in a condo project, and most insures will have a very difficult time ensuring such projects. just designed to hire standards because you you have to avoid the risk of construction defects. Not that you're not careful with other buildings as well, but that is as yeah. So we suggested. You are subject to legal problems, and you're subject to those issues. For 8 years, so we have to be very careful and then it's more expensive It's more since then one of the line items that people aren't aware of is that for a similar stick built building the insurance coverage. For thisack of work would be about 2 million dollars for this type of building.

[136:00] I just got some close today at 4 Point, 3 million, and rising, they rise every year in the State because of all the bosses that happen. Oh, you you get to choose 2 answers. Yeah. just a quick colloquy on one of Mark's points when he asked about the unbundled parking, I can say from my experience living in one of these kind of buildings the way that it was handled was you did have a parking space or 2 deeded, to your units. But then, owners have the ability to rent their spaces to other owners. So if if I was not using my space, I could rent it to someone else and decide to get that income. Similarly, there were some bike lockers that were for purchase, and could be deed to your units, and then you could also rent those to other people if you were not using. Unfortunately. Nice. We do have a separate by room right now, but it may not be large enough, so we might have to spill into the parking area as well. Them. They were like enclosed, you know. You could lock your bike up completely enclosed in a longer Thank you Laura

[137:26] The answer is, No, it's it's it's a good question. But panelization works well when you have a lot of repetition, we have a lot of diversity in this building in terms of units, in terms of the the materials on the outside the building the ins and outs that begin to fragmented horizontally and vertically Thank you. John. I just have one question following up on the construction strategy, that moving from the original plan to this plan. Have you considered panelization or some alternative to stealing coffee? Ml and the the varying unit types. It works much better on very large projects, where you have repetition vertically, horizontally.

[138:04] Okay. Seeing No more Hands up, thanks to the appointments for a very interesting presentation, and responses to questions, I think we'll take a let's see. Yeah, So now comes to the public hearing portion. Amanda, how many or Vivian? I'm not sure Who's who's running this money? Well, we'll work together. I can help facilitate the the comments, and Amanda can show the timer. people speak, no Okay. Yeah, we we can do it now, or we can do it at view. so something something for the public that think about, too. I'd appreciate it. We can do it now, too, if there's a need for that, shall we? Thank you. That's okay. Yeah, So How many, how many, how many folks do we have who want to comment

[139:01] Could. We could we see some hands? Maybe that would be useful from the public. you can put your hand down if you don't want to be first. That's fine. 2, 2, 3, Yeah. Okay, I think I think with 4 comments, we can take the public hearing portion first and we'll take a break afterwards. So I think there's 4. Well. Great. Okay, Yeah, So this is. Thank you, John. This is the public hearing portion. So how this will work is, each person will have 3 min to speak, and I understood The participants couldn't see the timer last time, so I'll ask the first person to confirm and We'll go. Through all the comments. First, unless, John, you, you wanna enter interceptor. Okay. And Vivian, you wanna okay. Sorry. Say something in between, and then you can comment at the end.

[140:01] Okay. So first up, we have Kurt Noord back, and Amanda, you can get ready with the timer Yeah, no, no. I'll give you permission to speak Okay, Can you hear me? Great I'm Kurt Norbek. Thanks for giving me the opportunity in general. I'd like to say that I I support the revised plan. That's for you. Now I like the increase in the number of units. I particularly like increase in the number of a forward on site units W for and for sale units, which is something that's rare. As we know, and the increase in the amount of cash in Loo. I'm not obviously excited about seeing more luxury units. But you know, these things need to pencil. And so so I understand the the need for at least a certain amount of that.

[141:06] I thought that the discussion of the parking was very interesting. This is an awful lot of parking. I would love to see some way that some of that could re be re-purposed to. to better activate the ground floor, whether it be through some additional commercial space, A, or maybe additional ground floor units. That would be, you know, very accessible, Ada, accessible perhaps with direct external access I don't know if that's being contemplated with any of those first floor units, but I it steams from the renderings that the first floor the the pedestrian experience is not particularly great, and I would love to see some way of of trading some of that parking space for a bit better pedestrian experience.

[142:03] The other thing I would say regarding sort of transportation. Really is measuring it on the map. It looks like pro no pro spruce is an 80 foot right away, which is very wide already. It's extremely wide, right? It's got diagonal parking, partly to use up that space, and even with diagonal parking the city ended up through The vision 0 innovation program putting in the the curve bold out at twenty-sixth and spruce which are great But it's because it's such a wide street that encourages people to move to, you know, to travel very quickly, and so I would. I think it would be interesting to understand how that space is going to be used. I realize that that's more of a city issue than an an applicant issue. But to understand how that space will be used in, whether that could help to increase the effective setback of the building, for example, or something like that.

[143:16] great. Thank you, Kurt. Next up we have Janet Heimer, Janet, please go ahead. hmm! Hi! My name is Janet Hammer, and I have lived in Boulder since 1969. So I have seen lots of changes in in in Boulder, as many of you probably have as well. I also live in what I consider near this neighborhood, as I'm at twenty-third and Bluff. And so this development impacts me, and I'm very pleased to have an increase in the number of housing units that are available.

[144:03] I have been an advocate for issues that impact people who are low income for the last 30 years. It was part of my career, and also my passion. So I do appreciate the housing that is going to be provided, and I think that it is very important, as you guys know, to have housing, because it does affordable housing because it does really affect and the people's lives who do not have that much money it's a large portion housing is a large portion of our what we spend our income on. I also want to say my daughter was raised and born here, and she cannot afford to live here, and I suggest to her that she apply for one of these affordable housing units.

[145:05] so, anyway, I support the whole idea of this increased housing. I think it's great, and if we could have even more of affordable units, I would go for that. I do want to say that used to be many years ago that people had to provide 1 point, 5 parking spaces per units, and I actually support that, even though I know that's against some of what you guys may think but i've noticed in living in very neighborhoods that people if you don't have enough parking people do Just pack up the street, says in the holiday residential neighborhood, where it's extremely congested. So anyway, I support you all in doing this, and moving forward with this housing.

[146:07] Thank you so much, Janet. There are no other hands raised at this moment. Anyone else. Okay, A couple of just popped up. See? Mackon. Your 3 min starts now, Mac, on calls. so I am so excited to hear about about the discussion and the questions raised by the planning board, the timeless way of building in your questions, scrutinizing, parking, talking about the importance of affordable housing, and I just I wanna come in at first that If you feel like you're getting heartburn about historic preservation and the Mecca Building. You should take a look at the consultants, report, and points out that the Mecca building would not qualify for historic preservation status under either our State or the Federal regulations, but only only under our local ones getting to my point I want to say that this concept plan makes a leap forward delivering more

[147:20] to the community on this Prime Tod site. This site adds a lot of housing in a 15 min. Neighborhood. And isn't that what we're trying to achieve? It's across the street from a park within walking distance of 3 grocery stores, adjacent to hundreds of jobs. They're abundant bike lanes and 6 to a dozen different bus. Routes. I Actually count 6, the staff said. 12, Maybe there are 12, and they have frequent headways within available within 2 blocks. We have to realize that for sale units are more expensive. Then rental units in surprising ways, and that's been discussed by the applicant.

[148:03] You know, I thought a lot in in framing my remarks about questions that I've heard the board ask over the last year about attainable housing George. You've been particularly articulate on this point, but the attainable for sale housing on this site averages 1,150 square feet in size for 85 of the units the price for a unit of that size is likely to be a 1 million dollars a year ago that price was affordable, as we calculate affordability no more than 30% of gross income spent on housing at an interest rate of 3% to a household making a 120% of ami or a $134,000, a year but Now a year later the interest rates jumped to 7, point, one, and for that same condo to be affordable, A household would need to earn $215,000.

[149:02] We can't just stop building new places for people to live in bolder because of the vicissitudes of things like interest rates, housing in Boulder is not going to be inexpensive ever but we are have to understand, it is more expensive. To build a middle-income, affordable unit for a person that 80% of Ami, and above, than it is to make an affordable unit for someone earning 60%. Am I, or below? And that's because 80% units don't qualify for light tech tax credits. The developers, offering to deliver to the community 85 smaller for sale units more than the previous plan, which offered only 50 rental units, and, moreover, this plan will put half of the required 28 for sale, affordable units on site the incentive to do that is, this goal is not met, and you can check this with Michelle Allen, with staff.

[150:06] If even the the intention of 14 units false, and ability only to put 13 on site. As I understand that the the cash and Lu contribution jumps from a 1 million and a quarter up to over 7 million. I heard you to embrace this plan, welcome the aspiration of the developer, and look forward to site review thanks for listening to me tonight. Thank you. Mark on. I just wanted to ask if you could see the the timer. Make. I think maybe it's still not showing up. No? Okay. Thanks for that. Just a little bit. I was about to interrupt, but it was okay. You wrapped it up.

[151:02] I'm making grow grow grow. That's for you, not for me. This is No, no, no, not until you pay Ali $130 a square foot, not $30 a square foot. That's what the true impact is on this project And no boulder will not just build more and relieve the demand. You know that you all know that, Ali, this is not aspen. Go back to Aspen Boulder's worse than aspen, anyway. So take Aspen away from Boulder The over parking by 50%. No, this is The other projects. You know the depot, all the supportable housing.

[152:01] it's it's not supposed to be distinguishable, right if it's off site. And it's in loop we should have had in Lu. Go on. Decades ago, decades ago. No more in Lu. The depot is the perfect example. Have you been to a council meeting lately? Have you heard the people talk about how they can't live there because of the shop shops and the meth users in these affordable places? That's where the and that's where the homeless are allowed Now, living In in this affordable housing, and a family can't live there with their kids. Listen to the last council meeting. It's outrageous, the last the one before last actually Where have the services gone? What about all the services on this block? You should not have entertained anything like this to start with from the start. When is he enough enough for you people? When

[153:05] Folsom is not enough. Across from that chamber. Good God! You can't even get inside to see how many units there are in there. Go on the other side of Spruce Hi in condos, as far as the I can see, and yes, Ali, they cost more because they're for sale. Yeah, and they're better built, and they're you know, or because of construction defect. They? They have to be better built. You know what? I wonder what they do in New York City, with, you know 300 stories, I mean. I Guess that's what you have planned for here Right? Is that what it's about? You know bolder in 50 years, boulder in a 100 years? No, I've been here from 58 to 60, and I've been here since 87. Yes, we can

[154:04] Thank you, Lynn. We have one more hand up for now. It's David Adamson, David yes, okay. I'd like to build a dumb David Adams in 8, 15, North Street and the executive Director of Goose Creek Community Land Trust. Give me a land trust. Organize local people to build permanently, affordable housing on community control land and thanks to shopping I'm more close to building boulders first for sale. Call up at 17 North Street. But it's an example of Well, we could do also at this project. It's an example in a way, of the pilots we've suggested, and I really sympathize with Ali and Chris. It's very hard to develop here in the city. We have a lot of great intentions, and we beautiful people and beautiful staff.

[155:03] That does a great job, and I I want to add to Ml's praise of shopping on about this. But I don't support this project Goose Creek does not support this project, as it is, even though it goes in certain directions very laudably. And again, good intentions. But if we again go back to Betsy Marston's 2,014 strategic plan for boulder housing partners, she brings up the point of the net loss of a projectable, housing and I so my number one request, is that we look at was the new loss of affordable housing. We're actually going backwards, and the amount of housing that's a affordable and boulder we're making virtually no progress on our middle income housing strategy virtually. No, and that should be. Please put that on the boulder measures site.

[156:03] It's great that we are building some more rental housing. That's fantastic. But we're losing a net because of this land market. We talked about earlier. We're losing the the, the and the net amount of housing. That's affordable to people, and certainly the 4 sale component of that. So number one, let's do bolder measures about what's really the net amount of a 4 balls thing. Number 2 to help Ali. What An excruciating process! 21 months! What you could suggest to him that he brings Scott Holton and Roger Lewis and maybe me, and maybe Danica PAL. I think he's hired, for before. Let's have a 2 day shred with a couple of staff People and show how this project can actually deliver just the housing we need. You know, a relatively small amount of luxury housing, maybe even a few more moment.

[157:00] a few more than we have there, mostly for sale, appreciation, moderated housing, with virtually no private car parking that could be auctioned off. Let's make money from that. So those are my Those are my 2 big. Ask for this project. Let's help this developer on this important site. Do like builder needs. We don't need to do again, because this net loss of housing we don't need to do more luxury units per se. We don't. We don't need more market rate units does soon, except be beyond any kind of affordability. So with a story or 2 more. This is a very important site. thank thank you, David. any other anybody else from the public want to contribute tonight. Okay, by. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, So as promised, we'll take a break.

[168:24] Okay, let's hope that people are showing up again. Okay, I think we're all here Alright. Now sit down when when the Board's opinion on what has been presented here, and I think there are 2 things I'd like to point out. One is that maybe before we start talking about that, we can get Sarah's comments in.

[169:00] and secondly, when we we need to work our thoughts so that they're coherent, and I think that the best way to do that is to to focus on the primary questions that staff raised at the beginning of their presentation and organize our comment. According to them, to the degree that their your comments are amenable to that So why don't we start out with Sarah's Sarah's comments? sure I I just think in general, that when a board member wants to be heard on something that we should make an effort to hear that board member, so I really appreciated that Sarah took the time, even though she's traveling, internationally she could not call into this meeting, because they would have started at 2 am her local time, but I really appreciated that she took the time to send these comments, and they should be heard, and they should be part of the record and we should discuss them as appropriate Okay, so her her first comment and now I'm speaking for Sarah silver absent board member with

[170:16] I appreciate Staff's hard work and would like to offer the following rezoning requires meeting at least one of the 6 criteria in code section 9 to nineteene from the boulder of ice code I do not really believe that any of the 6 criteria are met. Perhaps one could argue that the request to rezone meets criterion. 5, quote the land or its surrounding environs has changed, or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area end quote or criterion 6 quote proposed rezoning is necessary to provide land for a community need not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the Bbcp end.

[171:03] Quote, and then Sarah continues. But actually neither of these, and by these I think, she means criterion, 5 and 6 is factually true. The surrounding environs haven't actually changed much. There has been housing to the north and west, and business to the east and south. Nor was the need for housing not anticipated at the time of the most recent adoption of the Bbcp. But assuming that everyone is in agreement that additional housing is a community need, even though this need is already clearly stated in the Bvcp. And therefore doesn't actually meet Criterion 9, 2, 19, e 6. Then let's make sure that the design mass, scale, and height is appropriate to the area and existing frameworks. Laura, you Do you want to start out? You suggested that very thoughtfully. And Okay, anybody else. I'll sign up for the next paragraph or 2.

[172:00] One m u 3 form and bulk standards, a maximum height 38 feet. I am not okay with a proposal for a 55 foot tall building in the M. You 3 given the zones 38 to 40 foot limit, I would be more comfortable if the design of the building limits height to 38, to 40 feet on spruce at least on the western half from the entrance to Folsom and on Falseon in order to one protective view sheds for dwellings on north side of spruce, and to meet 9 dashboard, 14 H. 2, F, 3, and 2. This development is on the edge of the bowl of the Bvrc. Area, and of 38 to 40 foot height on The spruce and Folsom would be a better match for the 35 foot height, of the new developments going up along Fullsome

[173:05] 2 transportation connections, a suggest widening by path on the east side of Folsom to make it more usable for what could be a higher concentration of cyclists from this building using that very narrow path b I might suggest consideration of a wide bypass located on spruce street. I can't tell from the drawings, but it might require a elimination of on street parking spaces, but it would connect with an existing mark and flashing yellow light bike, crossing at folsomest groups 3 permanently affordable units hey a reminder to my colleagues generally a developer has no requirement to build permanently affordable on-site, and can decide at the last minute to offer constr construction, and Lou would be helpful to ask staff, to clarify if appointment guarantees on site permanently affordable units.

[174:12] This isn't actually a selling point for this project, but rather requirement. The developer will have to meet to build in boulder for or sale units. I am pleased that this proposal offers for sale units. I am curious whether the applicant must guarantee that these will be for sale, or whether, like the Onsite construction zoom, projects permanent, permanently affordable units. It is something that can change as the project moves forward, and 5 building design and massing. I share staffs concerned that this building fails to meet the building design guidelines. 5.1 A, B, and C, recommending that a building be designed to break down the massing to transition to adjacent buildings.

[175:06] This building is gigantic and far out of proportion to anything else in the area. It is really important that we balance the opportunity for housing with the need for attractive building design that pits well with the area when the applicant returns to site, Review, I will be looking for a design with far better transitions, especially to the North and West and that concludes sarah's written comments so on the record. Now and you've all heard it. So now we can move. Perhaps, Vivian, you can put up or or shopping on the the 5 questions that you've asked us specifically to comment on I can drag this

[176:09] I hope it's coming up soon So in the interests of efficiency. Oh, great! Yes. Thank you. But I think we should do is those who have specific thoughts should make them known. if if you don't have anything, any special concerns, you can say so, and we want to devote too much time to where you don't have too much concerns. just to process clarification. Are we going to all of us speak to Number one, and then all of us speak to number 2, and then, move on. But let's start with the with these 5, So should additional residential density for the site be supported through rezoning Maura

[177:03] Or do you want us, one by one, to go through items, one through 5, yeah, I'm sorry you're you're suggesting. We go one by one you're suggesting like with Laura goes now. I think, one by one, and the only ones who should speak are the ones who have some clear concerns and comments on You want her to go through all 5, or or she Okay. No, no! Just talk about the first issue, and then move to the second issue. Okay, that works for me. I can go first on Number one It's confusing. There's so many ways to do it. Thank you, John, for suggesting a good process to get us through, so should advance additional residential density for the site, be it supported through the rezoning process I Am an enthusiastic Yes, on this I Cannot imagine that we have put the applicant through a redesign that was specifically requested by city council, and they specifically requested, Please look at the M. U.

[178:00] 3 zoning, and then we at planning board, say no, we're not willing to support that additional residential density. That field that we feel like a betrayal of our previous process. and what the applicant has been asked to do. I also think that supporting additional residential density is exactly what this Board has taught about. It's in line with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan that we need more housing. We all know that we've talked about it a 1 million times, and I think the community has very eloquently said, both here tonight and in emails to us all of the reasons why additional residential density is so important. The applicant has gone from, I think, 60 about 60 units to 101 based on our request. Our being the city's request to try to get more housing here. This is a site that is within the Boulder Valley Regional center and I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Bbcp about the Boulder Valley Regional Center first one the city's 3 regional centers there's only 3 in the city constitute the highest

[179:07] level, of intensity. The Bbcp also states that these centers are generally places with the potential for infill and redevelopment, and are higher intensity compared To established. Residential neighborhoods, I want to emphasize that higher intensity compared to established residential neighborhoods, and then, finally, it says that the city will pursue regulatory changes to increase housing capacity and reduce the current. Non-residential capacity in the Boulder Valley regional center, while maintaining retail potential that is, in the Boulder Valley Regional center description in the plan. Alright. I wasn't clear. Yeah. Okay, just just so, you know, we won't be taking a vote on this. This is a chance for you just to make your feelings known, and both the your colleagues and the applicant and to staff.

[180:00] So. For all of those reasons, I think this is incredibly appropriate, and should be supported by this board Oh, hi! Thanks! I I wanna do say I think I appreciate everyone's willingness to accommodate Sarah and her comments, and I think, establishing this as a precedent. Is a good thing, and I I hope maybe I'll be able to take advantage of a similar procedure when I can't attend, but find I have a great interest in a particular meeting topic. I want to address Sarah's point about rezoning, and she sites 9 days, 2 dash 19, e 5, and I'm glad she looked it up. Because it reads that you would rezone should the land or its surrounding environment has changed, or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or recognize the change character of the area and So when I look at Yeah, so, I think this

[181:22] project fulfills in spades 9 days, 2 dash 19 e 5, you know. Technically, I think that that that particular piece of code is poorly worded. Land doesn't really change, but the circumstance changes, and the character changes, and in this case the character is a a housing shortage, and for other than the the interest in the Mecca building pretty much a bunch of stuff that really doesn't care about and we don't get about and in exchange for fulfilling a requirement or a need.

[182:03] A great community need for housing. And so, anyway, I just wanted to address in in my view. Oh, we are actually fulfilling 9 dashboard 19, P. So just to I hope that's very clear, Mark George. sorry I'm I'm generally supportive of the change in zoning to M. U. 3. Unlike Mark I I don't believe that Boulder doesn't care about the uses that are on the site today, just for personal experience at my my my niece worked at Arizona shop there It was a to do. A great job there They they?

[183:01] Employed, disabled people, and and it served it a a community benefit of its own. And and we're we're losing out on a lot of light industrial that's neither here nor there, because the ship is sailed on housing for the site. But I I do want us to note, so we are losing a lot of good homegrown businesses that are getting pushed outside of, older and pushed to the to the further outreaches of town because because of because of the circumstances that we're at as it relates to housing, and the M. U. 3 as long as it's defensible from a from a spot zoning standpoint which the city the city will have to deal with. if if that in fact it gets contentious there, though I do think there's a good amount of public good that will come from this. And so from my perspective, I don't have much of an issue. I I do have issue when we get to mass and height and zoning, because it's one thing to up zone to M. U.

[184:07] 3. It's another thing to up zone from M. U. 3, and then push those boundaries even further up against residential neighborhoods and some other areas that I don't think it is necessarily appropriate. And so I'll stop there, because I'm again generally supportive. not necessarily supportive of the of the current plan. hey? It's your I I just wanted to say I was particularly inarticulate. in what I said about not caring. I I I what I meant to say was architectural building, the buildings, the the built environment. There is, is is is one that is not great, but certainly Aries. I've shopped in areas that donated areas, potion motors, I mean, just I I I don't want to denigrate any of the businesses that occupy the that space currently, at all and that was not my attention.

[185:10] I, drawing that out that, thanks for that clarification. Those those businesses mean a lot to me, and my bet. Yeah, no, I I I You know I same thing I've shot there. I've taken my card to Hoshi and all kinds of things, so I'm I'm remiss to see those things going but I but I get what You're saying I appreciate it. Yeah, absolutely. Me, too. And I I agree. The the building stop there is not great. George, you're muted Thank you, John. I I am generally in agreement with the rezoning as a means to increase density. I agree with George's observation, that adding on top of that, the 55 foot hype and the well, there's a number of things that are that have been piled on, I think, to to the to the project that might not be supporting the reason.

[186:00] Okay, Let's see. Ml. Okay, I have a brief comment, and then I see Laura has some more thoughts on this, too. I speaking of someone who's worked on the last 4 versions of the Boulder Valley. plan, I think Sarah's comments are correct.

[187:02] I mean in each of those versions house thing has been a concern. That's nothing new. There has not been a change, either in the surrounding area or other circumstances. The would force one to conclude that rezoning is appropriate. But I do think I don't object to the rezoning Given the circumstances we have, but I think, in my understanding of the complex, that there has not been a a change that requires that reasoning and all other other thoughts, I have. are quite have already been stated by George and and Mark and Ml. I just wanted to respond to the conversation that Mark and George were having The good news is that the Aries thrift store is now the pig and Pearl, and it is occupying the site formally that was the humane Society thrift store on Aapaho So aries has not gone away it's been

[188:09] renamed and it's over on Arapaho, which is good news. Same thing with Hoshi motors. It's not gone. It's just relocated up near the the baby goat upon. Laura, you have some more ideas Oh, gosh! Balmont! Up at a little bit north and on Belmont. So those 2 businesses are still with us, and yes, close to the post office on. Thank you. John. The baby goat. Of course everybody knows the baby goat who cares about the post office? I'm kidding. I'm kidding So So that's good, because I also value those businesses. And I'm glad to see that they're still with us here in Boulder. The other comment I wanted to make was one of the things that got drilled into me, and had to be drilled in several times, because it's tricky is that they're zoning and there's underlying land use And I think what I heard staff say is that they are recommending a change to the underlying land use, so that all of the underlying land use would be changed to mixed use.

[189:07] Residential which would support an zoning. it's not inconsistent with the land. Use. If you change the land, use and the rules that I looked this up because I'm like, Okay, Well, then, what are the rules that govern land? Use change. I can share my screen if folks want, but it is in an appendix. Appendix B. To the Boulder Valley. Comp. Plan talks about what you have to do to get a land, use map change, and it says that to be eligible for a land use map change the proposed change is on balance consistent with the policies and overall intents of the comp plan. It would not have significant cross jurisdictional impacts that may affect residence properties or facilities outside the city. And this is yeah, there we go. You all can read it for yourselves. But thank you for whomever put that up on the screen.

[190:00] But in reading through these criteria for changing the underlying land use which then affects the ability to change the zoning, I think that a a strong case could be made that changing The land use. Is fine and that is within the discretion of city council. to do that at any time, and then that the staff's determination was that the mu 3 would then be consistent. And so I don't. I just wanted to point that out to folks who may be concerned about the mu 3 zoning being inconsistent with portions of the parcel that are not currently mixed use residential Most of the close to the post office. There has more thoughts. Oh, alright! You don't alright. Okay, that concludes our discussion of part of question.

[191:02] One, unless anyone has more to say. All right, let's move to 2, is the proposed concept plan consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comp plan and land. Use map designation of the Boulder Valley. Comp. Plan yeah, I'll just say briefly for the record, because I think the applicant and staff are wanting to know when this comes back for Site Review. Would we find it to be consistent with the boulder, rally comprehensive plan and the land Use map, I would say I would have at that, with the concept that's in front of, us and I know that it. This very close to number one, Laura Will evolve. But with what I see before me, I would have no problem saying that it is consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bbcp. And the land use map designation. If the applicant is successful at getting that change done by city council to make the whole parcel mixed, use residential land use.

[192:01] I would say, That's fine, that it is consistent with the land. Hmm. okay. yeah. So I I concur. And I just would add that staff is called out BBC policy like 1, 6 and 2 point, 1, 8 on page 42. Pdf. Page, 47. I would also call out 2 point, 1, 7. The policy between the 2. And but now I have a looking for the right tab. But anyway, I I I think yeah, as I spent a bunch of time with the Bbcp today and notice that to 1 1, 17 and and the and the goal page a couple of pages up, you read that you look at this Plan it, Fulfills it fulfills, the the promise and the goals of

[193:08] the Vcp. And spade. So I think it's I think it. Mark. I I think, for me generally. It does. I think it comes back to when when this question kind of when this question introduced the the proposed concept plan rather than just the idea of the project, right? Because the concept plan then layers in the height, massing outside of M. U 3 it. It doesn't necessarily take into account the lower buildings and adjacent seas, and and what exists, and so for that reason I would say that it doesn't necessarily meet the goals and objectives because it's, it's not necessarily taking those things, into account relative

[194:00] to question number 4 outside of that. Hey? Agree with Laura and Mark relative to the land use map designation of the Bbcp. that it probably does meet that. But again, when once you later in, not just the idea of the project. George. thank you John. So regarding Tsu number 2, I I think I can't find fault with its meeting the objectives and goals. When I would remind us, is under 2, 1, 6, that it talks about the city encouraging, mixed.

[195:00] Use of higher density development that incorporate a substantial amount of affordable housing, and I understand what a difficult proposition it is to not just bill and built for sale, and then try to accommodate an affordable component into it but what I would like us to remember is let's not forget what those numbers actually are. So, without having the 55 feet without having the 101 units from the original plan. To now weekend 5 affordable units, So that's just something to think about. We're excited about more density and more housing.

[196:00] But unfortunately, I think it is not the housing that the city is clamoring, for. It is market rate housing, and we all know that market rate housing is generally not affordable to the people who are speaking to this issue, and excited about the idea that maybe their kids can live here or maybe we didn't hear which of the units are affordable are they gonna be all the studios. Are they gonna be some of the bigger ones? I don't know. but that's keep in mind that the affordable issue is a very real issue. I understand it's a dynamic problem. But let's let's not get confused. Very good, Ml.

[197:06] Okay, mark, your hand is up. Oh, okay? Well, I'll I'll say I'll just be short and say that George captured my thoughts. Very well and so, but I think that's correct. We have to look at the details of the height, mass, and scale to make sure it corresponds with the Boulder Valley con plan goals alright. John, can I just can. I just say that factually, I think it's actually 6 affordable onsite units. We went from 8 in the current version to 14. That's a difference of 6, and it's actually more than that when you think about the cache in Lou. So on this site. It was 6. So let's just if we're gonna use that number, let's use the right number she changed both of them, the original 8 to 9, and the original. Who? Who.

[198:02] The shown 13 to 14. So yeah, yeah. So that number remains the same. Oh, does she? Okay. But you're correct. There is an in loop component here that doesn't show up. I'm just. I'm just encouraging us to Let's be aware of what's really being done, because people are excited about a centrally located in a vibrant part of town, etc. Etc. Etc. And truth be told actually on this specific side. Here, is the amount of affordable units that we'll be getting. Number 3, hmm I believe the increase is 60 units Was 9, and now it's 14. I mean, I'm sorry. It was 8. It was half of 16. and right

[199:01] It was 8 and now it's 14. It's an increase of 6. Just just just so. We're always talking about the right number. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said was not yeah, yeah, sorry. I I just wanted to be clarify. Okay, thank you. Michelle Okay, we move to number 3. This planning board have feedback on the preservation of the Mecca building. my! My feedback is hi similar to what I What I what I discussed earlier, which is, I I think it's really plan Mark's purview to look at this one way or the other, and I hope they do and I hope that that We can come up with some piece on it I did appreciate. However the the developers attempt to incorporate what they could, and to their point right. As the proposal stands, today, which is to say, it's been demolished. According to this proposal, George

[200:17] Thank you. John. My, I I agree with George. I I do think that this belongs under the jurisdiction of the Landmarks Board, and the preservation staff. but I will say I will say something about the value. recognizing and accommodating Ud components of a site. If you take a look at this building and it doesn't have any, you know. Just corner isn't preserved it's it's it's a proposal. It's a building. It could be anywhere. It's not saying that it came.

[201:05] It's in Boulder. It's in this particular site in boulder matter of fact, some of the perspective show rolling hills in the background. So the reason that we value and preserve and pay attention to the existing fabric in a community is, it's what makes a place a place it would. It will create the there there in an environment. And so I I'm not gonna you know, way and say, this has historic value, even though I've seen what the staff has to say, which they do believe it does I will say that just from a from and in a contextual perspective, I think it's important that the projects that happen in Boulder have have something to do with the the boulder itself, and I think, nodding to an existing building, because to speak to that, and of course there are myriad of other things that can go along with that but that's what creates a sense Ml

[202:27] yeah, So I think we can leave this in the hands of the landmark board? I think that when the demolition permit is filed, if they are suggesting, demolishing this building, it will automatically go through historic preservation, review and reading the comments from Marcy Gerwig in landmarks it sounds like She does not concur with the demolition. And she is the main staff person for landmarks. I think landmarks will have a lively discussion. I think the applicant can anticipate that there will be a stay of demolition placed, and I think that you know that is the process that we have for landmarking.

[203:03] As it goes through Landmarks board, and if they decide that they want to recommend recommend landmarking over the objection of the applicant, then it goes to city, Council and it really doesn't, have anything to do with us the only decision that we have to make, is whether we feel strongly enough about landmarking that building that if it somehow gets through landmarks and city council, that we would then stand in the way of a demolition based on the Bbcp. So that's that's my understanding of the process. I could be wrong, but I I think we should just leave this in the hands of the discussion between the appant and landmarks. Laura. at the risk of playing amateur designer in the company of okay staff and everything, I would I would wonder about rather than having the Lobby central and incorporating the glooms you just incorporate the building.

[204:05] As the lobby. You make your bike work area incorporated into the whole building. Make that your lobby and retain the glue lamp, blue lambs, and everything else in their current location feature. It as a as a design element, at a not to boulder's past. And I I think about there is a house just to the east of Chautauqua, down the hill south of Baseline, where there was a stone cottage, and they built a very large modern House but there was a stone cottage stuck in the side of that house and it is striking, and you can hate it, but it is striking in its in the way it's incorporated into a a modern vernacular house, anyway. Oh, thank you, Mark.

[205:14] Okay, I'll I'll just close by saying that I I personally, really like that building. But I understand that we have a process for deciding. It's landmarking value, and and I'm willing to leave it to that process. just want to add on another example of where a building that was landmarked was incorporated in a modern structure, in case that's helpful for the applicant they may already be aware of this building but it's on the frontage road on the guess that's the east side of 20 eighth

[206:04] street. There was a church with a very striking, proud design of a staying class kind of tabernacle. I'm using the wrong words, but very striking building that used to be a church. And now I think it's like a student union or something for some student housing. I do appreciate the applicants. Attempt to incorporated that sort of a feature as part of the lobby, and if if Mark's suggestion were to move ahead, in some way, I think it would be great Laura Oh, I remember that project very well indeed. That's a Charles Hartley building. So okay, let's move ahead to now 4. This will be a interesting discussion. Height maps, and scale of the proposed buildings, and the compatibility with the character of the area. Look forward to your thoughts on that I will go first in anticipation of vigorous disagreement with some of my fellow board members.

[207:01] Very respectful vigorous, disagreements. I don't have a problem with the height, mass and scale of the proposed buildings that they have done everything they have already done, Everything, in my opinion, or most of everything that would be suggested the types of things that Charles suggested, like having relief, from the mass of having things set back having that cut out that cut away with a courtyard right in the middle. I do think that they could potentially swap their design so that they have the 2 cutouts on the north sides, facing spruce. Understand why they wanted to have them facing south for the sunlight and for the views. But you know, if it's important to retain the same number of units to relieve the density and massing, especially along spruce, That's the only area. That I think, has any sort of legitimate argument. Well, I shouldn't say that in my sense, the only area that I could potentially be concerned about the height and the massing is along spruce I'm not worried about it along folsom the folsom is I walked this.

[208:02] Whole property. I walked around it 3 times this this morning on Folsom. There's a natural setback because of the ditch. It runs the whole length of Folsom. It's got trees, it's got the the water flowing through there, and then on the other side of Folsom. There's a park, so I'm not worried about having too much density in that area behind the trees by the ditch right and on Twenty-sixth Street. That's a very commercial area, so I don't think it's a big concern about the character and the backside of the buildings, you know, that are kinda halfway to Pearl Street. I'm not I'm not super worried about that, either. But that's you know. It's facing a commercial area, but the residents on Spruce Street to the north, if we have a concern, about relieving the density for them, you know the applicant is already doing setbacks the roof is not actually 55 feet tall. It's less than that, and it has its broken up by being what is the word for?

[209:01] Like a tilted roof rather than a flat roof. You know. They're they're not proposing additional mechanical up there to make it even taller. Right, like they're doing the things that we would recommend, and we went through this When we talked about the they I'm forgetting the name, the stamp area, the station area master plan for east Boulder. It is across Arapaho, and there are neighbors on the other side of Aapaho. And so you know. How do you break up that density? How do you relieve that density? And it's with the very things that this applicant has already built in. They could have come to us with a huge, blocky building design, with one straight wall, like they said, And what we would have recommended is the stuff that they have already built in So by doing the right thing right by not kind of trying to play us and give us a horrible design so that we can ship away at it by giving us a fairly good design. Now we're trying to chip away at it even more, and I don't want to penalize them for coming to us with a architecturally very Nice design that already does many of the things that we would suggest so in summary I don't have a problem.

[210:04] With it. I think they're already doing a lot of the right things, and I do think that you know, we talk about a transition, especially on that that corner. That is Spruce and Folsom. There are 3 story buildings, three-story condos going up the first 3 buildings that head to the east, Spruce Street are all 3 story buildings, so to insist that it has to also be 3 stories. For this building is you know, that's not a transition. Laura. it's okay. You can change my name. Yes, I

[211:06] I am not going to get into. Oh, the design of the building per se. I'm gonna talk about the performance, And one of the things that the height and the mass is scale influence. if the oh sidewalk and street, and I'm not sure how far, but the shadow that the building would cast in the winter at those heights I saw that the staff said, Yes, we Will require the solar analysis but I I think it's gonna have a pretty significant impact I think that sidewalk on us along spruce there is gonna be in the shade all winter long, and so there's there's a sun issue, and then there's a pedestrian experience that is significantly impact.

[212:14] By that scale of a building that close to the sidewalk, and without having, I don't know how. How will that get mitigated again It's across the street from a residential area, a much smaller scale. So th that would be my concern would be to How can the building shadow the minimized and the accommodation of people walking along that sidewalk be accommodated now given the scale and the mass of the building speaking about the scale and the math and the character of the

[213:03] building, I I would suggest I I did hear the the applicant ask for direction as they move forward in the project, and one thing that I would suggest is in looking at the building itself and talking about going from a wood building to a concrete. Is still building. I would encourage rethinking to a carbon reducing strategy. This is a pretty significant building, and I don't think that steel and concrete are the only options out there. Their panels. Have done a lot. Theirs. There are other strategies out there that I think would be less impactful to the environment. And you know it's it's 2022, and we have a climate issue, and we need to think about these things in the early stages of designing.

[214:12] A building, so that we can make them as carbon neutral. I don't think carbon, which is the right term, but as as carbon sensitive is possible, I think that's a factor that needs to be on the table. I will look for that in the in the next round. We've talked about the parking, I think we should repurpose the excess parking. That was a discussion. I'm not sure where it belongs in here other than compatible with the character. okay of the area. There's retail. I I'm not sure what I'm not sure it. It feels like the retail or the commercial component is kind of. a token. It. It's not it. You could miss it if you weren't hunting for it. It's very small.

[215:06] It's the that the cafe is huge. The little commercial, affordable commercial is this tiny little piece. I I would consider looking at If you're gonna have some a commercial component. How does it really function? How are the people? Gonna You know that need to come there and drive there? The parking is, you know, not obvious, So I think that that piece should be should be looked at, and all of this I'm putting into the big guys of compatible, with the character in the area and the other question I would ask And I don't know if this is if they if the applicant. Has looked at it, but where in the vicinity are the other 55 foot, tall buildings of that scale? I heard what Laura said that to to the south of the project the Cox building is what 40 something 30 something I can't I I I don't remember the the drawing but I think that that would.

[216:16] Come up again in the future is, how does it fit in? How does? It accommodate the context? So identify? Where are the other big, tall buildings? That would would be considered part of the context of of okay. So that's a lot of information. But So I don't know. I don't have a yes and no answer. Alright. Sorry. Put it on saying Ml. thanks. I'll try. Try to repeat things to the extent I can kind of circling back to the M. U.

[217:06] 3 zoning that's already being up zone. Here I I think we need to take that into account, and not necessarily stretch too far beyond that. When we talked about this on planning board and and actually city Council talked about it too, as regards to some of those things they talked about I think I think it was the a lot, of people discussed concentration of excess height towards kind of that Pearl Street office building That's already 4 stories, because that is sort of the least impactful part of the site. so I don't agree with going beyond sort of M. U 3 zoning on on current height, on fulsome, or on parts of spruce.

[218:01] I could see moving some excess height towards the towards that that back, you know, sort of half of the building where where that office building is, and to the center of the site to try to remove some of the concerns around view sheds and shadows I agree with Laura that you know it it might be worthwhile to take a look at flipping the the courtyards so that it it kind of breaks up the building more on the screw side, which is really the general area of concern that I have the other thing I would say along the lines of What Ml said, were around the streetscape, and the fact that this building appears to be, and again, we'll see more as the design is developed. But right now it appears to be a massive stretch of a single building. All along on the streetscape with very little setback and I know that I saw some set back there, but kind of echoing some of Sarah's comments.

[219:07] There might be an opportunity for widening the setbacks there, Widening the bike path along Long Spruce Street to give that a better sense of of a pedestrian feel. I think those things can actually be accomplished without compromising the unit. Count too much, By By my account we have at least 50 access parking spaces and circulation. Along with that the city, you know. It's it's interesting, is it? Kind of watch projects go on throughout the years in Boulder the argument made was made on Alpine balsam that we shouldn't even have one parking space per unit, because it's so expensive to build structured parking even in a four-sale project and now we have a developer saying he can't sell a project unless he has 1.5 per unit on average.

[220:04] I know that. Yeah, probably 2 parking spaces go to 3 bedroom. One goes to the you know, 2 bedroom or one mute budget. However, it's set up, but I do think that's completely counter to what the city has been talking about for years and specifically around this project. you know, Okay, all the discussion on this up zoning has been focused around the transportation richness of the site, and then, somehow we're jamming in a lot of excess parking and to to mark's point around unbundling parking right those that that's a that's an interesting concept in in one that's worth exploring on the site. But it doesn't. It doesn't necessary. Unbundling parking doesn't suggest that you necessarily build excess parking. Maybe parking has more scarcity on the site and unbundling it. Becomes even more valuable to the people that want it.

[221:01] and so I would argue that a lot of the the height concessions that I'm looking for, and they're not really concessions They're really just trying to get us a little bit back to where M. You 3 is could be a accomplish by removing that parking from the site. It would also have the effect of reducing the cost of construction. I realize it may also have the effect of reducing the price that the developer could get for some of these units, which, from the city's goal standpoint, is not necessarily a bad. Thing, especially if the project still pencils out. And obviously that's a big question that only the developer can answer for themselves. along the streetscape and commercial. There's one thing that we've been talking about as well. That I think is interesting, which are live work units, and to the extent that we've got, maybe some opportunity for some small commercial in this building.

[222:00] There might be an opportunity to create It's actually a great site for live. Some a few live work units on the ground level, because there is a lot of mixed commercial small businesses around that area, and I could see that, being a viable product and something that was desirable. So that's the general what I wanted to comment on. Yes, Okay, George. so I would just like to, I'm sure this is on everybody's minds. Just remind my colleagues that if we stay within the confines of what is already possible within M. U. 3 and there is no height, bonus or not. A lot of height bonus that we are willing to grants. Then we get fewer affordable housing units, and we get fewer, less cash in Loo, because that is the trade that we are making is that they have to meet the affordable housing ordinance and they get certain concessions on height and in exchange They provide us

[223:06] with affordable housing, so that affordable housing count will go down to the extent that they are not able to get that height. yeah, I think to that point, since since you're offering some clarity there, let's let's I think it's also important to clarify sort of what that trade-off really is right? So it's I think those types of things are actually really worth exploring by staff, because to Ml's point, if we lose one affordable unit, but we have the opportunity to bring things more in line with the scale and maintain view sheds and keep things, open to the mountains I think that those are trade-offs; that the community should be aware of, because that that's kind of the the question, right, or the cash and Lou, how much? How much cash, and Loo, you know. Do we lose? or you know, if we reduce the size of the parking, do we, you know? Ha! Ha! What what all those trade offs are! But without those numbers it's one thing to talk about those things is another thing to understand them on paper. Laura.

[224:22] Okay, I'll I'll just say that I think many of my concerns have already been expressed. I I am very skeptical about providing so much parking when it's not really called for or necessary, and and I think the applicant should really review and reconsider the use of that that's based. George has mentioned a couple of possibilities, and so has Ml. I think Boulder might be better off with the reconsideration of of how that space is used.

[225:00] I am also very unenthusiastic, and this will come up in the next issue also about the loss of the of the bike paths both north, south and east west through the area, and that it really bothers me to think that it's at the cost of additional parking second blue possibility of increase setback along Spruce, I think, ought to be considered carefully. I can cur with first set of comments and or subsequent set of comments.

[226:04] I appreciate everyone's focus on parking and and to hear that we're all trying to figure out ways to make this a more future oriented development that deemphasize his car So i'll just leave it at that, and conclude with the applicant, as expressed actual enthusiasm, seemingly for getting design input from DAB. And I think we wanna be sure and take the apple event up on that ability, and and because I I do think this is it is a big building. I'm in favor of the fourth floor, but I'm also in favor of a really active pedestrian street. on, especially on spruce, and I'm in favor of ways of making it special and unique.

[227:08] I think our Design Advisory Board can help. That that has a huge impact on the people across the street and and uses the transition. And I think that's something I would look very carefully to mark Okay, let's move to Number 5. Does the concept plan preliminarily meet the Boulder Valley Regional center, design guidelines and connections plan Thoughts. I'll I'll just simply say that this was my initial introduction to this project was while on Tab, and this was the question. Tab answered some other questions that they want the 2 to raise. But this question was, was the reason that Council referred this to Tab, and Tab was unanimous that the kind that yeah, we are so little multi-use pat just into the project Didn't really serve a particular function.

[228:22] they were opposed, for multiple reasons, to the right in, write out on to Folsom kind of at the center of the property, and I I think the applicant has really heard Council and Tab and I I appreciate the way They have an intaps. Final input, was Yeah, We have essentially a really great walkable cycling street on Spruce. we, we, have nearby connections to multi-use pads, etc.

[229:03] And that Tabs interest in how was saying and and providing housing for people in the transit rich area was greater concern. Mark. I think that the concept plan does preliminarily meet the Boulder Valley Regional center design guidelines, and I do not have concerns about the connections plan like, I said I, walked around this site Extensively this morning, and I was having trouble envisioning who would choose to use either the north, south, or the east-west connection. When there are, you know, other major multimodal options nearby.

[230:07] And I, John, you may have walked the site as well, and have a different opinion, but that that was my impression. If you haven't walked the site, I would encourage you to to do so before this comes back to us, And then to think about that. and I would also note that having that East West connection between Spruce and 20 Sixth Street would involve creating a new overpass, I guess, over the ditch that runs the full length of the Fullsome side of the project which is you know it's currently a ditch and it would end you up in the middle of that block, whereas the signalized crossing is on spruce right so you'd be in the middle of that block between spruce and pearl Is where that path would would intersect and so it it it doesn't naturally connect with the other elements. Of the system is from from what I saw in my very brief tour of the site this morning.

[231:04] So I agree with Tab. I think I don't see a reason why those connections would be needed, and certainly why they would be worth the trade off for the housing. Laura. I just I had also forgotten that the current design really reduces curb cuts, and the prior design with good trying to meet the the Dvrc connections plan Yeah, at least 2 additional curb cuts that have now been a and and that's that's A worthy that's a worthy Okay, let's see any mark

[232:10] Okay? Well, I'll I'll just respond briefly by saying that I think we have traditionally been respond. yeah, I I would just like to say one more, one more comment, which was kind of I I gave up a little bit up top, but I do think on spruce. There is an opportunity for a better streetscape which could contribute to a better connection on spruce than currently exists.

[233:04] I you know, I use that. I use that spruce to bike all the time, and I can imagine that with this building and with other development around this area, it's only gonna get busier and the opportunity is now to program that into the site, before something like this gets built So it, gets incorporated into Wouldn't been interested in the permeability of big sites of which this is, one. And What is being proposed has 0. Permeability to the public as far as I can tell and I find that a concern so can leave it at that alright. I think Oh, George go ahead I'm I'm sorry, George, could you clarify what you mean by program that into the site? what what I'm talking about is better streetscaping along spruce potentially. widening the bike path, or incorporating a multi-use path in front of the building. What's the that you want to program in Onspers to make it safer for bikers, and also to make it a little bit better Pedestrian feel. Okay. Okay, I think what what happens now is that each can.

[234:11] am I in the shadow? I would just like to say regarding Oh, 5, I would encourage the applicant to read through the very thorough review that staff did I think that you know they went down, piece by piece and articulated where they felt the project met or it didn't yet meet the criteria. So I think that that would be a good resource as the applicant moves forward to Just take a look and see what? sorry. Yeah.

[235:01] Thank you. Alright. Just to keep moving here. Any other comments Wow! Don't see any hands up. Well, so this has been interesting. Thank you. Staff. Thank you. Applicant. I hope I hope this has been useful for you. it has. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you for everything that is good breaking up already. Okay. okay. Oh, oh, no! We're not breaking up. You may be, Thank you. Good. Okay, That's right. Good. Have a good night. Thanks, thanks. Everyone. Good night. Okay, It's almost 10 o'clock. Are we still willing to move ahead with our agenda information?

[236:04] yeah, and so on. If if my if I may interrupt, I was just about to remind you of the rule that the Board generally doesn't start. New items after 10 pm. But by a majority vote well, or for people, since the Board can't actually take action unless 4 people vote to approve something, the Board can start. Another item. So that's something that the board should consider. And because we've had a lot of stuff here that's been waiting, I I would also recommend to check in with them to see if they would prefer to finish up this meeting and present their item or to come back. Item on the on the Boulder Valley Train transit village Okay, Well, first let's check with the board. Here are you? How do you feel about continuing

[237:00] Okay. Well, I I will ask the relevant staff to kind of speak up to this. it, you know. Some of it, of course, depends on how, in depth of a discussion, or you know whether it is just an overview, or whether you want to have discussion around that just as a point of clarification, how my understanding, is that there would have to be an actual, vote though for correct yeah, I am happy to. I'm happy to stay on, but I'm gonna defer to Sarah as the as the lead project manager for for the Project. And let her make the call. Importantly, we are really looking for. You know a lot of robust feedback, I think, and so depending on whether or not you feel you can offer that at this hour.

[238:06] yeah, I think I'll second with Christopher said as well, just because we want to present a new project. We haven't come to you yet, and so there's a lot of new information. We also had around 3 different questions that we wanted to discuss as well and get feedback from you on. So if you guys feel like you're able to do that and have a discussion and great. and I do want to also point out that we do have staff here. regarding the proposed updates to the plumbing code so we'd wanna get kind of a perspective from them as well, and or direction from the board. well, I I suspect the the plumbing code update would be a a very quick, or at least I hope it would be pretty quick, so I'll I'll ask my colleagues are you willing to.

[239:10] I I had a question for Sarah and Christopher, which is how time Sensitive is it for you to get this discussion going and feedback, because that's the other balance Is sort of Where we. Put this in it. If we, if we move it, where does it go? yeah, it's a good question. It it bye. This project is a city council priority project. So you know, moving into the implementation of phase 2 of the transibility area plan. We are, you know, continuing to move forward to refine that scope of work and the community engagement approach we we don't anticipate really formally kicking off the project until the first of the year.

[240:00] So we do have a little bit of you know, of time, and are intending to provide an update to Council as part of a a study session on November tenth that is really encompassing of a lot of other Dn ds work plan items. So they will get an update on it. On November tenth. and yeah, you know, we will continue to refine the scope through the end of the year, and then look to really kick off the project in January. Do both? Or do you want to I guess one more question maybe be helpful as to Amanda and John. we do have November fifteenth available, and at this time we don't have any items on that agenda.

[241:00] if that date is is possible for staff. So that's our that's our next. Opt the media option we will be holding in a a meeting on November 20, ninth, as well and we have 2 items scheduled for that agenda but November fifteenth. You say we don't have a big agenda Yeah, make. It's representing the plumbing code. I didn't hear who Megans Oh, right I I was hoping we would deal with that tonight. I in any case, and then but I mean, okay, Megan, what what do you think?

[242:06] How long will it take That's what I that's what I suspected. 5 min, or less happy to take any questions off line as well Well, I'll I'll ask my colleagues on planning board. I just wanted to add that you had wanted to talk about cash and Lew under matters, and I can wrap that up. For you. Yeah. Right. so I I would I would so move. Suggest we do the plumbing tonight. We move tap app to the fifteenth, and and go a a assuming that that works for for staff schedule. Right.

[243:09] we can make that work. Sarah, and unfortunately is going to be out of the office for a little bit of time. Well stuff does the fifteenth work. Christopher Zoom does the fifteenth work for for you and Sarah Starting on the fifteenth, so she would not be available, But I'm certainly willing to cover one thing that I might suggest in the interim is that prior to the fifteenth we you know we did provide a staff memo as part of preparation for this meeting and so if there was an opportunity for planning Board members to review that in that memo, and send any initial thoughts or comments that would be useful and helpful and then we could. One yes. Oh! Okay, well, colleagues, what do you think? Does that sound like a reasonable proposal? You willing to do that

[244:00] I will say that I'm honestly torn, because you know I I know what it's like to work on a project and have it be your baby, and then have to pass it off to somebody else. Even a wonderfully competent and supportive colleague like Christopher. So I I don't want to put Sarah on the spot. I do think you probably will get better feedback. Better discussion from us when we're not super tired when it's not very late at night, but I also want to honor the work that Sarah has put into this project. If she's the lead, you know I I kinda hate to have it without her on the fifteenth, but I don't know, Sarah. I think the goal is just to get good feedback and good discussion. Okay, I see a bunch of thumbs here. Sarah, are you? Are you gone for the rest of the year, or could we differ at beyond the fifteenth? I think when we come to you guys. I will be back in the office. Yeah, So it's just that I can't do that. And you would be back

[245:01] So Amanda. Is there another date that this could take place on? rather than what about saying, Okay, we're not going to do it tonight. We'll let Staff figure out what might work for them, and then come back to us, and it maybe it's not a Tuesday night. Hmm. I mean, I'm open to something other than a Tuesday night to accommodate Sarah or whatever. But rather than try to go through the calendar at this moment. up our calendar here I don't, anyway. I I I'm thinking that may not. yeah, you know I I kind of tweak what you said, Mark, and I'd say, let's tentatively plan it for the fifteenth.

[246:00] If it works out better for Sarah and Christopher. In the interim, and we can and we can work with Amanda to put it on another Tuesday agenda. Then let's do that. In the meantime, I think I think your suggestion, Christopher, of making sure that we read the memo and and and put out our thoughts, and ideas. So we can make it a really good discussion and a quality session. Okay, Amanda and Brad. Is that seem reasonable to you? Okay. Alright, all in favor of of following that suggestion. Stick your thumbs up but we need a motion, and second to

[247:14] And I can I can make the most, and the motion is to tentatively put this on the agenda for the fifteenth, or and or defer to Staff and amanda to find a more appropriate planning board to have it on with that I work and if I can add also in and extend tonight's meeting Okay, all in favor. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, unanimously adopted. I will second Thank you, and thank you for coming up with that suggestion, and being flexible enough to do that. And thank you. Sarah and Christopher, for staying so late. Sorry. Sorry that you had to stay But it must have been fascinating, Right? Sure. Okay, all right.

[248:05] okay. Well, thank you. Members of the Board for your time this evening. I will try to make this as short as possible. While giving you the information you need My name is Megan. Wilson. I'm the water quality manager for the utilities department, and I am going to pull up the presentation And so we've agreed that we can move on with Megan's item here Sorry. Hold on! Just a second. Can you see my presentation, and just the presentation? Okay, alright, So tonight I'm gonna go over proposed changes to title 10. The plumbing code I'll give you just a brief background of why I'm here, and why why we're proposing these changes. Go through what they are, and ask any or answer any questions. so, just as a bit of background Here.

[249:01] the utility staff for about the past year or so have been working on updates to the industrial pre-treatment program which is codified in title 11 the utilities chapter If you're not familiar with industrial pre-treatment is it refers to a set of regulations that really seek to protect our wastewater collection system And are we sweater Treatment: facility from harmful chemicals that might be corrosive or explosive chemicals that we really just don't want directly discharged into the sanitary system so think about like manufacturing processes. Within this program we also regulate fat oils and grease that come from food services, establishments, As you can imagine. We don't want large quantities of that's oils increase going directly into the sanitary system that can result in grease buildup and ultimately sewage backups which are really costly to remediate and clean up both for property owners and for the city so to prevent fog from going directly into the san sanitary system. We currently require Greece interceptors for restaurants and commercial kitchens that produced grease, so something like a raw food restaurant?

[250:11] This would not apply to, or does not apply to. But most restaurants in Boulder have some amount of grease that they're producing in the photo. Here you can see an example of a very small crease interceptor that would be appropriate for a small kitchen. So as we were updating title 11, and our industrial pre-treatment regulations, we noticed that there were some kind of outdated amendments to title 10, which is the plumbing code and as i'm sure you're all well aware well aware, the city adopts the international plumbing code, with amendments. And so we are really just proposing to delete these 2 sections, these 2 modifications end point as they apply to grease interceptors, and really point just to the international plumbing code with no amendments, and I wanted to

[251:00] show this screenshot because the red line didn't make it into your packet. But we're proposing to delete these 2, these 2 sections, P and queue. So just going through what that means really quickly, currently in our code there are 4 requirements encompassed in these 2 amendments. The first is that green grease interceptor. She'll be at least 750 gallons. in fact, a smaller grease interceptor may be appropriate for smaller kitchens. The International Plumbing code specifies size requirements based on the volume of discharge. So, just updating and modernizing that requirement. The second requirement currently in our code that we're proposing to delete is that interceptor shall be remotely located It's perfectly fine to have them on premise and in some restaurants and boulders just not possible there's no space outside, To have these interceptors and that's consistent with the international plumbing code. The third thing, or proposing to delete is that interceptors shall not receive jainage for more than 4 fixtures really doesn't matter how many fixtures are connected as long as the interceptor or interceptors are sized appropriately, and that's also consistent

[252:07] with the International plotting code, and then, finally, the last item listed here is that interceptors shall not be connected to heated water fixtures or waste disposal units, so again to be consistent to be consistent with the ipc or proposing to delete that some heated water fixtures are allowed to be connected to grease interceptors, and the Ipc does not allow waste disposal units. So it's both both inconsistent and and redundant. So those are the changes that we're proposing to delete. that's also connected with our updates to Chapter 11. that industrial pre-treatment section. Finally, just quickly, for your own background and information. We've been going through our public process. We did some community outreach 2 restaurants over the summer, directly mailing them, postcards, notifying them of the changes. Really didn't receive a lot of questions or feedback through that process.

[253:03] We presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board. On September, and they were supportive of our updates to title 11 and 10 or I'm providing this notification to you tonight on the title 10 changes and then we'll go to city Council next month with the Hope for Yes, yeah. hey? I I had a few questions. I particularly interested in this, because I I I work with a number of restaurants. I would imagine this. It actually benefits a lot of conversions right to making it more affordable to put in grease traps that are appropriately sized. adoption in February. So that is the quick and dirty version of the grease interceptor changes, and I'm happy to take any questions

[254:02] That is correct. Yeah, those small interceptors which are probably appropriate for a lot of small restaurants in Boulder are are relatively inexpensive. First, what exists in the code today is that correct Yeah. That's that's that's that's really really interesting and really positive from my perspective. We we estimate less than 5,000 for both the interceptor and installation Well, thanks very much. That one efficient and quick. So good for you, George. Thank you. 2 things. How do you find and prosecute violators? Do you actually detectively work back up and say, I've got a grease source here. Hmm. Yeah, we do do some of that. So our utilities maintenance team proactively jets some sewer lines in the city, and we kind of keep track of hotspots, and it's not rocket science, like where there are restaurants is where we tend to have grease

[255:02] So yeah, sometimes we do find them that way. Obviously, if there's a backup, we find them, but we also do some routine inspections of restaurants, And so we actually have a list of grease producing restaurants and we Hope, to be a little bit more methodical We kind of paused on a lot of those efforts during It's causing us problems. And backward up the upstream Okay. The The other question was, I just on the screen? I was reading the the card that you Yeah, it seems like 3 years to come in to compliance is very generous, exceptionally terrorist. Covid are still kind of getting wrapped, ramped up again. Given given Really, how important this this grease issue is for wastewater treatment Well, I have appreciate that When we first started talking about this, it was in 2,020, and it did not seem like a good time to be imposing any additional content to restaurants. So to some extent that's a bit of a legacy, but we also know that there are some mom and pop restaurants who might want to plan, and we'll have to do outreach and let them know so.

[256:12] I have one more question kind of along those lines of compliance. Does the city have any programs to help accelerate compliance through some kind of matching funds or something to help these restaurants get into compliance? yes. For sure. That's a great question, and where we've sort of landed with that is, we'll continue to do outreach as we implement the code. Assuming it's approved by council, and if we start to hear from folks that they're having a hard time we've talked to our finance manager and feel like we could offer some kind of cost share program with pretty limited administrative burden for us it's not a ton of money for us that we estimate less than 50 restaurants that are not in compliance, which isn't nothing.

[257:02] But I We're We're open to that, and have kind of started to explore it, but feel like coming right out of the gate with that is isn't necessarily appropriate. We can kind of react as the move along over the next couple of years. You're welcome. Okay, Well, I can. I can just say that, having started out in that profession dealing with the Greece myself, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of your proposed changes so Well, thank you. Appreciate that Alright. Any other comments. Well, thank you. Appreciate your you're informing us of this. Okay, good night. And let's see. Now we can move to Michelle yes, so earlier as you know, make and spoke in public comment period about what he described as a design flaw in the Eih program, which results in cash and loo for a large single family home being significantly less than the cash and we required for say, for the house is built in the

[258:24] same square footage. That's true. That that's the way the program works. but rather than being a design flaw, it was actually very intentionally built into the program when the program was adopted. The council at the time did not want to increase cash and loo for larger homes. and so what so? And he also may and mentioned that we should do cash and move by square foot. We do do it by square foot, however, it increases, but it. The program has always had a cap at 1,200 square feet, and like I said, that was put in intentionally when the program was adopted, because at that time, like discussion was with the community was that they did not want to increase cash and move for larger, homes so last week.

[259:12] We. We went to council, first study session to kick off an update to the inclusionary housing program, Among other things that we are proposing in that update is to remove that cap and to increase cash and loo for home says for larger size size, homes so it's already in the works, the th the that change. So I think that we're we should be coming back to you in the spring with the proposed updates to the program. There are, there are a number of other ones. That's just one of them, and then we're hoping to go to Council for adoption about mid year. I see your name. There, Yeah, there you are. yes, so Michelle, the way that Macon described it. Next year, yeah.

[260:02] And, by the way, thank you for that update. That's super helpful to have that context of where that came from, and and that what staff. Is proposing. So just as a clarification when when Macon described it, he said he gave an example of 1 6,000 square foot home, and then divided into 4 units, and it would cost 4 times as much because you would be charged the same price per unit the changes that staff are You know that you're proposing. Would it be agnostic to number of units and based solely on square foot? Or is it some a square footage, or is it some combination of There's still a per unit? Cost but Then there's additional fees on top of that for larger. no, the way. Well, so the way it works right now is that it's per unit, and it depends on the unit size. so, for an individual unit, it depends on the unit size. For multiple units. It depends on the average size of all of the units So it's a very kind of simple calculation so, If you have a project like spruce today, with a 101 units we would take the average size of all those units.

[261:13] And we would, and then the cash and loo amount is for that size of a unit, and it's times 25%. Yeah, 25. So so what are the things that we're proposing in the update is that we're going to be hiring some a consultant. to look at best practices, and look at how we calculate Kashelu sort of across the board, because of this a bit antiquated it in how we calculate it and and definitely I think there are some good ideas out there for other ways to do it but but but in particular we Does that make sense? That question And do you have some kind of reference document about what the proposal is like? do want to increased cash, and Lewis, the size of the units, go up

[262:01] What? What cash, and Lou, how it's calculated now versus the changes that you're proposing? Or is it still kind of up in the air Well, it's in the code, in the administrative regs, which are online No, that would be in the the memo from last Thursday to Council. The study session. And that has the proposal that you're making as well, or that just has Memo That's where the proposal. Do you? Do you want both the the current methodology is a bit hard. It's a bit dense, I have to say, but I can certainly pull out those sections of the code, or I could. W. Would you mind forwarding in that to us as well The memo is fine. Whatever you provided to council, at least, in my opinion, if you could, just if you wouldn't mind forwarding that to us just so, it's we have it. Or would you just want the memo? Okay. At our fingertips. That would be so helpful. Thank you. Sure not at all, I mean yes, I would. Wouldn Wouldn't mind forwarding George, did You have Hmm, yeah.

[263:05] Okay, Is this a matter likely to come to us at any point? It will, because it will require some changes to the code, to the Brc. So we'll we'll be bringing it to you. I believe the schedule John is is probably about Mayor June, and then it will go to Council for adoption and we're hoping in July That's kind of ambitious. Right, okay. Okay, Well, thanks. That was a quick response and very informative. But that's what we're hoping for. And and when I send you the memo, if you have any questions about what we're proposing, certainly feel free, of course, to reach out. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just want to say this is very exciting. I remember talking about this issue years ago, when I was applying for planning board and people brought it up as one of those things that maybe the city might want to change some day, and everybody sort of pooped it, as this is pie, in.

[264:08] The sky, and it will never happen. And it's so exciting to see it happening. I'm happy to to go through them with you Thank you. yeah, thanks, John for recognizing me. I wanted to follow up on the concept plan earlier, and Sarah had submitted some commons and planning board members have done this over time. If they were missing a concept plan that they send in Commons. We do have the rule now that our comments in a virtual meeting have to be sent in and actually, I think we may have the same rule. when the Board was meeting in person, that all documents be sent, and at least 24 h in advance, and that allows notice to be given to everybody who's involved, and to the planning board members enough time to actually review all the comments, that come.

[265:07] In but I I just wanted to tell you that I would recommend that if you want to do that in the future, to send those Commons in more than 24 h before the meeting. Okay? Well, good night to you. Alright. How long I see you're ready to talk about something There so to bye, reading them in as we did And then they automatically be part of the record, and they don't have to be read, and by somebody else, and that'll make it a lot easier. And you can refer to them from there Yeah, I think your your goal was that her comments were captured right? And I think in a concept plan for the applicant. The applicant wants to hear from as many board members the staff can can, because it influences how how they designed the project moving forward so I think that happens you know they didn't make an objection to how this was done but I think her comments Are? Are we legit at the moment Makes good sense.

[266:22] oh, a couple of things. No appreciate that comment from Hella. And you know we're always wanting to help help. You make sure to have your all communication whether you're in the meeting or not, and and I think, getting it to us before 24 h, which you know. Nope. Nope. Slight on Sarah. Call for that. Just awareness for the future will be good for all The one announcement I wanted to share with you is, we got confirmation, of a hire, for a chief building official. Dave factor was our chief building official. For 5 years. 5 years ago, and has applied, and will be returning in that poll.

[267:06] we've had that open for maybe 9 months now. and Edward Stafford, who, you all know, has been dutifully wearing 2 hats. Charles also had been wearing 2 hats for much in the year, until Christopher was yes, hired right about the time I was so super happy to have a full consort. of folks at this point that's gonna allow us to better serve you and the public and and the council. I I just wanna share with you that there's just been a lot of over time in the background from folks because of those vacancies, and if they were here I would want to acknowledge them in in person but just wanted let you know we're super excited since building permits is where we implement a lot of the big policies that you all talked about in here.

[268:00] Okay. And I see Brad has. This looks like he's about ready to say something to there Okay, well, thank you that that is good news. To have him back any questions for Brad So with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Sure, 4 terms Well, thank you. Okay, any matters from the board I I can just mention after our last meeting, where we had some questions about, process and procedures and So on. I think several of us have had chats on A on a, you know, private basis, and I think it's something that there are several issues that we do need to agree upon. on our general process, but now is probably not the time, because I know Sarah and and Lisa.

[269:07] Were both had a lot of thoughts, and would like to participate in that discussion. So I'm I just wanna mention that that issue isn't forgotten, but I think now is not the time for us to deal with it. We should wait until they're both with us and able to join in the discussion. No, we we could technically put that on our agenda for the fifteenth. So Yeah, that I I'm hoping Sarah will be back. She was a bit unclear about whether she was gonna be with us in that meeting. got it. That certainly would be nice city here, because I think that's that's a being a board discussion. But I I would like to get a on on our schedule mark I I just wanted to express it. Well, I'm anxious to have this discussion that was concerned when I saw this is agenda had nothing under matters from the board, and I I I just want notice that's that's all I'm asking and i'm sure you. Will.

[270:16] Okay, I just I just didn't want it to be something done on an AD hoc basis. So and it's just to have it wanted to be scheduled. Mark. could you just clarify so that we understand kind of the scope of the conversation? And and I asked that John, in the context of we had already kind of anticipated a discussion around process as either kind of training and or discussion, either as a study. Item on an agenda, or as maybe even that special meeting in the New Year.

[271:02] I just wanna make sure I'm hearing you right. Fair enough, right Well, it's still pretty vague. Frankly, it was just if you recall a couple of meetings ago. There was some lack of clarity about how we were gonna deal with, you know. We're hearing you right, that the discussion that would take place on Fifteenth would be more specific to just kind of. So some of the discussions you've had, or can you help us just clarify that Did. Oh! Describing the different attitudes of board members on various issues, and to what degree people would be able to provide their individual opinions on various issues, and to what degree the Board would function as a group, on various issues, and so so that's what i'm referring to and I think Okay.

[272:04] several folks have had suggestions on how we might want to address that, and I just wanted to bring it up in a as informal a matter as possible in under matters. Okay. Sure Would it be okay to characterize that is informal? Follow up to her meeting discussions it because we do want to be. We are eager to provide you a kind of structured conversation around process. Oh! If if you all want that, that's my understanding. You have that conversation with Charles Yeah, I I think that would be fine, Laura may have a different opinion. I I'm not sure if I have a different opinion or not. Okay, we'll plan both them Hmm, Laura! What what do you think

[273:18] Well, yeah, actually, we we haven't had much. We've had a lot of contact with tomorrow, but not about that. it would probably be that I I can't say We've thought through it thoroughly, and I know John and Sarah have been talking with tomorrow to so it might it might be in taking some of her suggestions around that as well it probably doesn't make so sounds like doesn't make sense for the fifteenth either way, cause it sounds like there's some work to be done. There, but I I I would I would first. I would characterize It is the the motion making process, and if we need plan to break down motions into deeper slices, or if we're doing what we've done in the past just a single motion and with commentary or some other process along with that to make sure that people's voices are heard Oh, okay, okay. Yeah. Thank you, George. I think yeah, that's that's exactly it.

[274:01] Kind of a structured discussion around some of those mechanics, and norming about how you all want to do that. Okay, again. The reason for my clarification. I'm sorry to stretch this out is just it sounds like just a more informal Follow up discussion among yourselves on the fifteenth and then we as staff will, plan a a more structured. So Yeah, again, If Sarah, I think we wanna make sure. So Sarah is here when we have that discussion. Conversation, room, process. Right. if I could just add, I think for me the way that I would characterize something that I'm hoping to get out of this training is, how do we, when there is a significant minority opinion to a majority opinion on planning board when we have a split vote. How do we ensure that the minority opinion shows up in the vote? Because that the vote is the summary. That city council reads right.

[275:02] Almost always they. They look to the vote, and if they see a unanimous vote they're not necessarily going to dig deeper. So if she's not here on the fifteenth, then we have to do it later. Well. So I think it's so that to me is the heart of the question of how do we ensure that a significant minority voice shows up in the piece that Council will read whether that's the vote or something different Okay, we just have to teach the city council to read all the notes okay. Oh, okay. I just wanted to say that I'm I think rats structured conversation, not necessarily with the facilitator and stuff, but the structured conversation sounds a lot more productive to me. Then, just a casual sort of rehashing on. I I would not really I I don't think that sounds like it to me.

[276:02] Doesn't sound like a great use of time. I would want it to be a an agenda item where we reach a conclusion, and it's so. Well, that's the staff's help you know. There's a lot of experience here on Staff that in the and and I'm always for structure. Mark. Okay. Alright. Any other matters Alright, go home and eat your Halloween candy. Then yeah. thanks, John, for facilitating through all tonight. It's great Thanks, everybody.Okay, Thank you. Good night.Thanks, Everyone.not everyone.night, everyone