December 6, 2022 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] That's yeah, that's correct. John. Sorry. I know it's been a little bit of Brenda last Weekend and Me tonight. But Devin I'll show the slides and and and I'll talk to them so thanks everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Wldrich. I'm the Planning Engagement Strategist for the city and my role is to facilitate the public engagement part of these meetings, and as always, the Board Will Start with Open Comment from Community, Members and so We'll Just Talk a Little Bit about what Public Participation, Will Look, like in This meeting tonight, and we do have some public hearings on the Agenda So as I mentioned, we're gonna start with open comment. Then there'll be public participation with public hearings, according to the Agenda, and we we really want everybody participating tonight to know that the city is really striving to lean in to a vision co-created by the City Staff and Community for Productive meaningful and Inclusive, Civic Conversations, and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue. While, also, recognizing that we want to make sure everybody Who's Participating Feels both emotionally and physically safe, and that we're allowing for lots of different viewpoints and I Identities and Ages and perspectives in our meetings because we really do think, it, leads, to more informed decision

[1:14] Making, next, slide. So we have a lot of information on our website, about what we call our productive atmospheres vision if you're interested in more detail, but I'll just Zone in on on some specific things, right now for what it means for tonight's meeting There's a number Of rules, of Decorum that are found in the boulder revised code. We have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants, this evening from the community, as well, as Planning Board and city, staff, and and we ask that all remarks and Testimony, raised Tonight, be Related, to City Business, we will not Allow any Participant To make Threats or use any forms of intimidation against any person. In this session, obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior, that disrupts, the meeting, or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited and we do also ask the participants identify themselves by the name they're commonly known and display the whole name

[2:14] Before speaking, so we can call on you properly, and so that we know Who's Providing, input next slide. So we're currently all in a in a Zoom Webinar format. And this means, that participants are allowed to speak their testimony. But we will not be turning on video for community, members, because of security concerns. In this platform and I want to point out that there was no pre-existing list for signing up to participate today. So if you're in the meeting, we welcome you at the Appropriate time to raise your hand to let us know and let the Chair know that you'd like to give Testimony and on your screen You'll see a Couple of different ways, to do this at the very Bottom of your Screen You should see a horizontal menu that has 3 clickable items. And if you click on the hand icon, it'll raise the hand next to your name, and we'll know to calling you to speak.

[3:03] It's get appropriate time if you have an expanded menu, you can also get to the raise hand, icon by Clicking on reactions, and there may be some people participating by phone, we want to make sure it's inclusive as possible so if you're on your PC you Can use a shortcut all why, to raise your hand, if you're connecting from your phone. There is also a shortcut Or command, and that's to Dial, star 9, And next to your phone number raised hand will appear and Chairman, Gers, will let me know that you raise your hand and and you, be able to speak We're not doing any Interpretation, at this meeting, tonight, so I Won't go over that tonight, but we will turn on the live transcripts and just to stress that the participation part of the meeting coming up next is a chance for you to share topics outside of the Agenda with the Planning Board and that Covers the Essentials so I'll turn it back Over to you chair

[4:02] Thank you. So in fact, we have a couple of one item to think about before moving into the public participation section here. So we'll deal with that quickly. And that is, regarding the Approval of Minutes from Previous Meetings. And we have the minutes from our November, first Planning Board Meeting, that I think, have been spread around and everyone has had a chance to review them and provide any edits, or Comments, and I think at least one or 2 of us, have I hope everyone's had a Chance, to Review those and would welcome a motion to approve them. If you do approve of them Any. Mark. John! Oh, I'll move to approve, and I'll I'll do it with and I want to make a comment.

[5:03] I'd like to do it after we deal with the minutes, but it's about the minutes. So you can tell me if I should do it under matters or while we're discussing minutes. Well, if it's Pertains to minutes, I think let's let's not forget them. So why don't we deal with this. Now and then you can make your comment. Okay, yeah, yup. Do we have a, second. I will, second. Okay Seconded by Laura, all in Favor 1, 2, 3, 4, and Sarah I guess you weren't here for that that one, okay, the minutes are appropriate. And now, mark please let us know your phones Okay. Alright, I'll I'll try to be quick. I I want to acknowledge that preparing minutes is I've never done it, and so it. But I just can't imagine that trying to condense 4 or 5 h of rambling comments, from people of of Different Speaking of Abilities, and everything must be an incredibly difficult Task and so I.

[6:12] I I really appreciate Staff's Work and Putting together the minutes having said that to me it feels like the minutes have become so condensed that sometimes the Essence I know that We're trying to Convey the Essence of what transpired in a meeting that the Essence is Lost that 2, or 3 min of someone making a point is condensed to a sentence, and and so I would on the continuum of a transcription to Condensed Minutes. I, would, my request, and or my perception is, we can move the needle a little more towards some detail.

[7:04] So that's that is is one thing, and I don't know. If I'm the only person that has that has that feeling. But the second thing I I wanna mention is when I when the packet becomes available, I download the packet and I start reading it and making notes, within the Packet within the Pdf except and so as we Edit minutes then and Subsequent Packets come out that the only thing, that's changed Is the minutes, then, I I am loathe to lose my notes and everything. So the request would be. Can we separate the minutes from the packet? So that as people make changes or Edit minutes, it doesn't change the packet.

[8:04] So those are my those are my 2 compounds, and I'm curious to hear what anyone else has to say Okay, any responses at all. Oh, Sarah's hand was up first. I guess there.

[0:00] I'm like right right well, I'm glad to have you here.

[3:49] Hmm.

[8:42] Out, because I like mark, I made notes sticking notes on the Pdf, so it'd be very helpful if that was separated in terms of the first thing I I don't know. I think mark you bring up a good point, but it's it's the the minutes.

[9:02] Are They do just try to capture some of the key points and not our entire back and forth. And I think I mean, maybe it's possible to to go a little more in depth. But I I think it would still be very challenging for the minute Taker in the Minute Maker to figure out what in particular needs to be added and it sort of comes back to the comment that or the idea that George put on the Table in our last Conversation which was if you have something that you Feel really was missed, that you could add, you know, submit and it I don't know what the language would be, but submit something an additional paragraph to try to capture what you meant, to say that didn't get captured in the minutes so that the responsibility, falls on the

[10:12] How do you Lisa Yeah, I I also, concur, with the idea, if if possible and I imagine it kind of both creates, a little extra work for staff. And then maybe also makes work a little less for staff later. But if possible, splitting out the minutes would be nice so it's not part of the Packet. If if that's not too annoying and then yeah, I I'm glad you brought that up mark because because I'm sort of of 2 minds I mean, I I think, you know, that we've, had a couple of members of the Board who I think have have maybe wanted to more, particularly make Sure, the Minutes reflected exactly what they said and I would never want someone not to be able to put that put that forward, especially if they feel like it's not reflecting, you know what they said.

[11:02] And then Council's not getting the full picture, and it's an accurate, you know I would want people to be able to bring that forward But it's the same time. These meetings are incredibly long. They're intended to just be broad summaries. They're not meant to be direct transcripts of each of our thoughts. I I happen to fall into a camper unless something's really egregious. I just don't care that that much. So I usually don't don't words with the minutes, although I I certainly have and would if I felt something was really wrong, or didn't reflect what I wanted to be in the official record so I'm kind of somewhere. In the middle. You know where we're where I want people to be able to bring it forward. I I think it's a reasonable ask to staff to say, hey, can we make it a little more direct But it's also meant to be digestible. There's so much that gets funneled up that they're supposed to be looking at and the longer we make it the less they're gonna read. It you know, and and so, yeah, I I think I think I have empathy for it. And I also want to be careful that we don't get super specific with it which maybe isn't what you're asking for.

[12:07] Thank you, Laura I would say that I agree with mark on both counts, and in particular with regard to the substance of the minutes, I agree. It's very very challenging. I have been in the position of trying to condense long meetings into summary minutes, and I think for me the most important concept or principle is is the substance conveyed such that if if it Decision Maker was trying to understand what was our Conversation what did we Care. About, what were the particular points that people made, that they can find them pretty easily, because I think I think Lisa is right that long minutes are not gonna get read, but I do think that city Council goes back and looks at the issues that they that are controversial or that they particularly care about or that they're going to Have to take up later. Some of the members, do go back and read those particular portions of the minutes, and I think they're probably not gonna go back and watch the video so in the respect that the purpose of the minutes, is to be a record of what was the discussion so that somebody can understand it without having to watch the

[13:10] Video I fall on the side of a little bit more substance would be nice Okay, thank you, I think everybody's points are great. But I I think, Laura and Mark encapsulated it very well, perhaps a little bit more. Detail would would be appropriate and Separating the documents, so that we can review the minutes without having the entire all the other material attached to it is makes a long sense. To me so, anyway, just comments for staff to consider. I think Brad has to send up to here Yes, thank you. Mr. Chair, and we certainly welcome that.

[14:00] And take that under advice and I did want to give Amanda Customer of the Opportunity, to speak to maybe some of the History on that since she supervises, the the Boards and then I Anticipate Will you know will we'll have some follow up Discussion Internally but amanda do you want to share any thoughts. Thanks. Brad, yeah, I appreciate all of the Feedback, Thank you very much. I I do know that across the entire city. We all of the Policies and procedures of Kind, that all of the Boards have move towards these action summary minutes, and then effort to Condense and and Consolidate, these the Meetings as far as like the History, and Everything goes, I Don't know, if Charles, has anything to Offer that the procedurally for posting the packet online. It's certainly something that we can look into. I think that posting the entire Packet all at once.

[15:01] And updating that all the time has become part of our Practice, also across all of the boards, because of the website that and the with the website, was just Redone, in the last year so that might just be something that we work, on with Communications, and all the uploads, and and Figuring out that Piece. So I certainly happy to look into that part and get back with you all on how we upload the minutes for outside of the packet. I'm sorry I'll lower my hand. Okay, thank you, rat, did you have additional comments. Okay, Laura. Yeah, just briefly, Amanda, thank you for mentioning the you know the website, and the things are getting revamped. I did notice as I was going back and trying to find past meeting summaries or minutes, that it it's not consistent how they're uploaded sometimes they're uploaded into the Folder of the Meeting where They Were Approved and sometimes They're Uploaded Into the Folder of

[16:06] the meeting, for which they are the Minutes of, and it would be nice if that were consistent, so that people can can figure out where to find a particular meetings, minutes. Sure. Yeah, thanks. For that Laura I think that in Central records, they will upload the Approved Meetings for with the Meeting date that it occurs but our packet will still have the minutes in Them like, tonight's you know We'll still have November first meeting Minutes in them and then after tonight's Approval, November First Meeting Minutes will be uploaded in the November First Folder Make Sense. Okay. Okay. That that's great. I I think that it was not the practice in the past and going back even to meetings, since April this year they're in different locations, like the the separate minutes not just within the packet but the separate here's the final meeting, Summary sometimes it's with the Meeting where it was

[17:01] Approved, and sometimes it's with the meeting where it's the minutes of that meeting. So if someone could go back and reorganize those folders, and make it consistent. That would be wonderful just for finding things. Thank you. I'll I'll check with Central Records on that one. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, thank you well, so now, you know what we think about minutes. So, thank you, Okay, now we'll move into our public. Comments section. And this is the time of our meeting. When we are interested to hear your thoughts on any issues, except those for which we there will be public hearing consideration later, this evening. And those 2 items are the 2,800, and one, J. Road, concept, plan review, and comment, and the 2747 Glenwood, Court Concept, Plan Review, and comments.

[18:01] Oh, I should say the Glenwood Court case number is l. U. R, 202-20-0037and the J road case number is ll. U. R, 2022, z 0, 0, 0, 3. 8, so I'm look forward to hearing comments on any anything except those 2, hearing items tonight. And I think Vivian is prepared to manage this portion of the meeting. So take it away. Yeah, thanks, thanks. John, yeah, we have 2, hands, raised, as of now. So Aj. Grant you your hand was up for, and you have 3 min to speak to the Board and Devin. Is go, yeah, please go ahead Mute. Okay, Thank you my name is Aj, grant first of all and

[19:03] I think that the greatest challenge to all of us, and on the Planning Board, and the City staff is to figure out how to develop bolder, and grow, without sacrificing the very character A Boulder the Jewish all here in the first place and this Project Poses a a critical here for that Yeah, excuse me. Aj, are you speaking about the the issues for which we have hearings on tonight. Yeah. The 28 on one J road. I'm sorry I didn't Miss is is did you open comment for that The time to comment on that is is later in the meeting, when we're dealing specifically, hmm. Oh, okay, that's what okay, I had said. Okay, so hold that disregard. I'll, I'll make my comments later. Thank you. Thank you for stopping me Thanks thanks for that, so Kim Laude, also unmute you now, and please keep your comments to those not on the agenda.

[20:03] You have 3 min. And also let us know if you'd like to speak later instead, that's also fine I see. Yes. Okay, can, you guys hear me now, okay, thank you. That was confusing, good evening members planning board my name, is Kim, Lord and I, am the applicants, attorney for a Blood blood plane. Development, permit, variance at 2, 8. 8. O Kalia. This is the item on the Callup Agenda and We're requesting that staff decision be allowed to st in place, approving our variance. The variance is for a 24, unit, apartment building that was destroyed by fire the goal. Here is to get the apartments, rebuild. This variance was approved by staff and as, I mentioned is on the Call up consideration Agenda this Evening.

[21:06] We have worked extensively with Kristen, Shepard, the floodplain Engineer, for the city as Well, as the Public, Works, Department, including it with a meeting with Joe Tayuchi, to understand the Timing of the Lomer and how to Move Forward the only Option, is this Variance Everyone has agreed that the variance process makes sense, because a clomer has already issued the work to remove the property from the 100 Year Flood plan plane has already been completed and issuance of the Lomer will occur but is not a quick process at this juncture the Co Criteria for a variance are met, and the project should be allowed to be to move forward her staff approval. We request that planning board, not call up this application and Allow Staff's Approval of the Variance to remain in place. So we can get these apartments, rebuilt for the community a representative of ownership, is also available tonight and wanted to say a few, additional words, and I'm Hoping he has his hand.

[22:12] Raised it's a victor of these. Are you guys seeing him? Thanks. A lot Kim, so Victor Pildez, you're, you're up next. Please go ahead. Victor appears to be muted I see that, yeah. Yes. Hi Paula sorry can you hear me. Now. I'm sorry members of the Planning Board. Thank you, for the opportunity to speak to you. This evening my name is Vick Pildis i'm Senior vice President, for asset management At Hyman and we represent the ownership. Of the Magwood Apartments, which includes 2880, Calvia, we're ready to Rebuild 2880 Kelvin, Kelvy after the Fire that occurred last month, We Appreciate, the City Staffs, Work with Us.

[23:16] And the determination that a variance is appropriate, and the way for us to move forward with rebuilding. The apartment, without the Variance will incur significant additional cost to comply with floodplain Regulations only to have the property removed from the Plug Fl Flood, Plane when the Lomer is approved as expected later next year the Floodplain Regulations would Require Us. To replace the entire existing Structure of the building that would otherwise be reused at a cost of over half a 1 million dollars. To us once the Lomer is approved, as expected that additional cost will have been made Unnecessary

[24:02] Waiting to rebuild until the Lomer is approved. Would also Place Additional costs on Us for Per Protecting the Structure from whether It's and Construction Cost Increases and Less Rental Income, and the Community would have the continued Loss of 24 Units, of Much Needed Housing, our Variance, Request Meets all the City's, Requirements, and most importantly, it allows us to restore this needed housing to the community in a timely fashion. So we ask you, you accept staffs approval and not call every application. Thank you, for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank thank you, Victor, I don't see any other hands up. Let me give it a moment. Lynn, I see your hand. You have 3 min. Please go ahead.

[25:02] Yeah, I don't. I'm trying to get to the empower meeting with Ken Regglson, and I don't mind listening about your minutes. But I do mind listening about again and again, the rules that make me feel like not speaking at all over and over again, and this never happened, before the pandemic. So in addition, to the pandemic, could you please give the people out there some relief and expose, our video, windows, and trust like, what you need to do is say you have to read you will be liable if you violate any, rules so go to this place and read the rules so that everybody doesn't Have to waste their time listening to it again, and again, and you have to listen to it all 9 of you have to listen to it again, and again and again, and again, done done okay.

[26:00] Give us time to like think, without being insulted first. Now, what I wanted to bring up was the issue that I would like to know from you. If you know, and put your hand up, please, if you do know this, that when you have when you're a developer and you go to a project, and you have the you you have the less 3 stories, 35, feet limit and you have in Loo or on site that you can do did you know that by setting up in Lou. You don't have to do in Lou. So what's the purpose of having it, if it's not enforceable do you know that 3 of 11 Mapleton had 7 subsidies, 7 height, Limits, all kinds of stuff, and largely, they got approved because of a 95 Person Senior Affordable Site off Side of Theirs but It's like

[27:05] On site, at perhaps Well, guess what they don't have to do it. I spent hours, hours, months listening to endless planning board meetings, and meetings and meetings, and meetings, and council meetings, about all the details, of the parking, there, that was going to be non-car shares versus the parking, at Mapleton, which is 300, plus Car Shares I mean not Car Shares 300 Cars, All the Dimensions, All If If People Are Gonna Use, the Dining Room all of this Stuff, for Hours and Hours and Hours, and then I Can Just Do in Lou and Nobody Even Knows, Nobody Knows. They don't think about who's anymore. It's an empty space. Is this okay with you? Seriously, how could you allow this to happen? This?

[28:01] Was 4 or 5 years ago, and it's still on the book that is sick That is just corrupt, do something about it. Now Thank You Lynn I do not see any other hands raised for this portion. Thank you, okay. well, as one of the speakers noted. We have several dispositions, and call up in front of us tonight. Have have you all had a chance to review those, and Does anyone want to inquire, or wish to call up any of these matters

[29:07] I have a a question for I think Kristin Shepard is here. Hmm. Regarding the the 2880, call Me. A variance application, that one of our Speakers just addressed, or 2 of them, actually So my question is with respect to the issueuance of this Variance ahead of the Fork issuance of the Lomer, is this something that has happened frequently in the city and and are you pretty confident that ferk, is likely to issue there there the Homeer. Yeah, so the chance, to your first question, variances are are not very common. I think I've brought a couple of Wetland variances here for you to consider, this would be my first flood variance.

[30:02] Most of the time Applicants, Don't, meet the whole, the Criteria, so in this case is an unusual one because of that timeline with typically from the time of the Flood, Mitigation Project is built to a lower Approval this less than a year and this is going on I think your 3, or 4. So it's just that it's extenuating circumstances that have have come up so it's not very common, but this is this one Met the criteria, in my mind and then your second question, how confident, about am I for the lumber being approved the I'd say I've I've been that 90%. And above, so the the technical data has has gone to fema, went before the Project was done, and Fema Approved the Climber. It's very unusual for us to have a clomer, and then a project, and have the Lomer, which is the after technical review to have that not be approved. So this will be, the this is in its third round of Revisions, with fema, and all the Technical.

[31:06] Yeah technical Engineers. They have. a minor construction piece to fill in. And then there's there's never any 100% Guarantee Fema doesn't like to give those out, but it seems like so far everybody's on Board with the Solution, that's proposed in the Construction being Undertaken so I'm I'm in that 90% Above belief that Fema will approve that lumber here in the next 6 months So I'm you know. I'm I'm very sympathetic. To the appointment, and so on. And you know that makes sense. But what happens, if a female doesn't approve it, you know, for whatever reason, where where does the city stand at that point If they didn't approve the lumber. Then that would mean there would be another round of that the flood plane lines may change again, I think, in this particular location, so in the in the lower, model, this whole stretch of wonderland creek where the issue, is in the technical lower model is down by foothills Parkway so

[32:13] it's, further south, it's about a half mile to a mile south of this Calvia location. So the the textbook, back and forth with fema. If they didn't approve the lumber, I don't believe it would have an impact this far upstream at this location, to change. The delineations. It might just extend the length of time and the construction they have to do down near foothills Okay. Well, thank you I see there couple of other folks with questions. To Ml. Maybe You have 8. Oh, sorry I was gonna just call you have aj unmuted and Kim got it Thank you. John Yeah, my questions were a along that same that same line of Thinking. And so what I'm understanding you to say, is if the lumber is it's for some reason, the lower is not Approved The flood boundaries would have been changed anyway. Right.

[33:12] No that that what we're waiting on is the final approval to to change the lines on a map so so what I'm saying is that the All the work has been completed, and where the the issue, that fema is having is further Downstream so it might slightly Alter, some of the Boundaries at that Location, but very likely not further upstream where this Oh, so they could approve what they've already so signed off on, and continue to handle the rest of the stuff. Okay. So that that was one of my questions. I have a second question, And I'm not sure that this, is that this is for you or not, but in some of the other bullets that were in the information Relationship, to Boulder Valley, Comp Plan and flip Plane Management, Preservation of the Relative Relative Affordability of Housing Stock. So is this housing stock going to be relatively affordable? Does it meet that criteria.

[34:18] Minor, my understanding is that it doesn't meet the criteria of affordable housing but that it's that it's mid-level income housing, so it Provides and maybe the owner can hop in or that or can can hop in here and answer that question a bit More but it it doesn't meet the it's not the the criteria in the Code, for the Boulder Valley Compound is just that we keep to the complaint itself and so that we're, not doing something, completely, opposite, of the comp plan and so the way, that I Perceive that This application met that criteria is that they were providing relatively, affordable housing and additional multi unit, replacing that additional Multi-unit structure So I'm not hearing what makes it relatively affordable

[35:05] If it's okay. I'd like to call on Kim. Lord, to answer that question because I think she has a better insight into Okay, thank you. That's all for me. Thank you very much. You, the people that live there, and and how the affordability mechanism would work Okay. You're unmuted Kim, do you Does that question make sense? It's about I think I'm understand. Ul, it's it's it's not exactly affordable. Housing, but how is it relatively affordable. Right. Sure so I'll I I think I can answer that so these are apartments. It's a big apartment contract. And so you know they're there apartments that like Workforce folks in Boulder use it's on a transportation corridor I can't. Quote, you, the you know the price off the top of my head.

[36:00] But we're talking about like very moderately, price housing for the City of Boulder, because it is apartments and it's. A you know it's a nice Apartment complex it's been around for a while and in North Boulder So is this just basically fire, damaged and not destroyed. Well that that's a really good question. so fire started and it burned the top. Top, 4 of this 24, building Complex, and then the sprinklers came on and so there's always there's Fire Damage, and There's, Water Damage and it didn't Burn to the Ground No but There's like a Lot, of Work to be done which is why We're Above our threshold for the Amount of Improvements. We can make Right. I guess that's that's what I'm I'm trying to understand. If if significant improvements get made. Would that price it out of the relatively affordable range

[37:07] No - it's I mean, it's going to basically say the same, it's just like, literally I mean, there'll be some countertops replaced I mean, it just has to be done and there's all this fire damage and they have to go in and like Mitigate, the wood that's remaining and treated for the water damage, and there are a lot of issues that are going to be coming out to in terms of sort of weatherproofing things, with the Webinar Heading that also Increased, the Cost but the the Character of the Apartment complex, is not going to change, and the footprints not going to change it's the same building being rebuilt Thank you for answering those questions. Okay, thank you mark.

[38:00] You're muted I just had. Yeah, I I just had one super quick one on the wandering creek, the bns Bridge Replacement. Did I miss it, or who who is the applicant, and who is paying for this So the Applicant, is Bnf Railroad and then Olson Engineering, is the engineering firm, that's doing the technical analysis But the actual, replacement, the cost of construction of the replacement would be borne by the Nsf. Yes. Okay, great. That was it. Thank you. You're welcome Okay. Any further inquiries All right. does anyone wish to call any of these matters up Seeing none. Looks like none of these will be called up. Thank you. Thank you so much. Kristen that was the effective response on your part. So.

[39:03] Okay, so now, we'll move ahead to our public hearing items. The first one is a concept plan. Review and comment for a proposed redevelopment at 28, O one J. Road to include 84, 4 Sales room Units, Ranging from 1,000 and 50 to 1,800 square, feet, consisting of Town, Home Duplex and Triplex, Housing, Types the Plan Proposes 40% Middle Income affordable Units the percent of Affordable Housing community benefit will be finalized through annexation, and this is reviewed under case number, l Ur 2022, dash, 0, 0 0 3, 8, and the way We're gonna Deal with this is first, to have a presentation by Staff Thereafter by the Applicant, subsequently

[40:03] there'll be a an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Board members rather than on the Minute Taker. That's just a thought Then we'll have the public hearing and then a discussion by the Board and There'll be no formal decision taken by the Board on this tonight. But we. Will try to organize our discussion in in such a way, so that we're responsive to the specific questions that's staff is asking you to tonight and subsequently there'll be an opportunity for all board members to raise other issues that they feel are appropriate on this issue and Sarah is has volunteered to oh, go ahead. Sure I maybe you can describe what you you Take this, no, I'm actually, this is this is just a follow up suggestion. John There's something like 33 people who might want to speak to this so I was gonna suggest that maybe we limit everything to everyone, to 2, min. So that we are not here for 2 h and they're not here for 2 h. And if we decide that now people can edit their comments to fit the 2 min. I don't know how people feel about that

[41:19] I let's see, some phones. Okay, Laura Alright, I I think. That's. A. I I think everybody agrees with you. On the board. So just to make it clear to the public that your time will be limited to 2 min tonight on this matter Okay, so we'll start out with the staff presentation Great, thanks, so much good evening. Members of the Board. It gives me great pleasure to introduce Shannon, Mueller, to some of you and Reintroduce Shannon Muller, to others who may remember her Shannon, was a Planner, in her office for about 5 years, and departed right before the Pandemic to take on a new challenge in a different community, and We're really happy to welcome her back.

[42:01] So this is her first concept plan before the Planning Board as a Returning Alumni back to the City of Boulder, so We're really happy to Have Shannon, Shannon take it Away Welcome back. Thank you have a screen to share. I think I just needed sharing enables See, are you trying trying to share your screen Yes, this, is my sharing is not yet enabled. Technical team. I can get it to be enabled. Oh, here we go, wonderful

[43:07] Okay, okay, you can see that Okay. So good evening. Planning board for tonight's discussion. I'll be presenting on the concept plan review, for the proposed redevelopment of 2,001. J. It includes 84 for sale, dwelling Units, and a proposal to provide 40% of those with middle income affordable units, so this proposal requires a concept plan review or Site review because it exceeds the thresholds in the land use code, Based on The size of the Property and the Number of Units. To require a mandatory concept, plan and Site Review. Okay, yeah, hopefully, the slide, change. I've been having a little issues with slide sharing. So let me know if it does processing. So I'll briefly, cover the information in Staff's Memo and the purpose of the Concept Plan Review, some Information Office, Site a rundown of the Proposal and some Key Issues, for discussion

[44:12] So again, the purpose of a concept plan is to discuss a development proposal and identify some key issues in advance of More detailed System so the Applicant receives Comments from the Board Staff and the Public Discussion with the Comments are to be based on the Topics under the concept plan Criteria, and again, no formal action, like an approval or a denial, is being taken tonight on the Project, it's just do identify those key issues and concerns and provide that guidance and Feedback to the applicant so written notice was provided consistent with the Land Use Code, and notice was Posted on the Property, the Applicant also held a Virtual neighborhood meeting on November Ninth, at about which 20 community members, attended a Summary of all the Feedback Provided, at the Neighborhood meeting and through Written Comments Received is Included, in the Memo and Attachments, some of the Major Concerns and

[45:08] Feedback, We Noted included concerns about traffic and access. Along Jay Road, and at the intersection of Jay and us 36. There were concerns about density of the proposal, the number of Units, Traffic, and Compatibility with Surroundings. And there was some general support in particular, for adding additional drawings to the City and Support of the Inclusion have to propose Portable here So now that we've gone through the purpose and the public notification We'll talk about this Site, Surrounding context, and also a little bit of history. So here again, the site is that J. Road. It's an unincorporated boulder County. It is northeast of the intersection of 20 Eighth Street and Jay Road. It's about a 4.5 acre property, and it's immediately east of City Limit

[46:03] So this property is an area 2 of the Folder Valley comprehensive site. Plan, the planning, areas. So this is an area that's now under the county jurisdiction but we're annexation to the city can be case considered consistent with BBC policies. And the property has been designated area 2 since 1985. This property is Jay said to Area One, which is the area within city limits as well as area, 3, which is the planning Reserve, there's been some discussion, at the planning reserve lately ahead of the next major update to the Ecp in 2. 1,000, and 25, and in relation to planning Area 3, the City Intends to perform work, including a Capacity analysis, and an Urban Services Study The existing, underlying Boulder, Belly, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Designation for the Site, is Public, P. And that reflects the correct religious assembly Use on the Site.

[47:03] So public land, use designation is intended to accomplish a wide range of public and nonprofit uses, that provide a community service, this property, again, is in unincorporated boulder county right now so it has a county zoning of our rural residual and so Do most of the properties nearby the site that are in the county. Here you can see some of the cities, I mean districts in the vicinity, which are some of the zoning districts, like r O one, r. 2, and r. One, which are low density, or Rural Residential Loading, see Types of Zoom Meetings. The Existing property. You can see here contains the Existing Church building and a parking, lot, the City Church, Folder, Operates on the property. And it was previously used by the Folder First Church of the Nazarene for many years the Property does have an Active prairie.com and prior reviews neighbors, have Noted There's, been Wildlife, viewed on the Property It's generally a Flat, Site, with a Little Bit of

[48:05] a slope, it does contain some mature landscaping which could be worthy of preservation. And it has some obstructed views of the footprints to the west that are impacted by other structures and trees and power lines. The Surrounding area is primarily, low density. There's Single family development. Here you can see some neighborhoods in the area that are identified the Loopovic Synagogue on the property, immediately to this, immediately to the South, and the People Lutheran Church is Located, to the Southwest Here again, are some photos of the surrounding area at the top of the slide. You can see that there are rural areas north of the site, you can see the intersection of J. And Us. 36, that the site is immediately there's some again, public properties in the vicinity and at the bottom of the screen. You can see some homes in the area that are examples of the types of homes that exist in there

[49:06] Here are a couple of Master plans that are relevant to the proposal on the Left you can see the parks master plan for there's a large Park property Owned by the City that is planned to be Located North of the Site within the Planning Reserve area that Park Area. Is a long term future Site and There's no current development. Plans, to develop it on the right. You can see, some except the existing and proposed transportation connections, near the Site. So there are some on Street, Bike Routes, on the Adjacent Streets, and there is a proposed Multi-use, Path That's identified through the Green Line, through the Transportation Master Plan, That's intended to Connect to that that Future Park, Site to the North For some additional, historical context in 25, in the Planning Board previously considered a concept. Plan. Review that proposed, an a residential proposal on the same site.

[50:05] It consisted of 94 Permanently Affordable Dwelling Units in somewhat larger format buildings at that time. Generally the Planning Board agreed with the staff analysis at the time that was to support a density lower than that 94 units that were proposed. Then in 2,016 as part of the twenty-fifting, Bbcp Update, the city reviewed a request to Amend, the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Designation on the Site, the Proposal at the Time, Requested Mxr Land Use the Mixed Density Residential and City staff, recommended Mr. Medium density, residential, the proposed Land Use, Designation Request was subsequently Withdrawn, so the Site does remain as it was which is Designated a Public Land use also in 2,016 following the concept plan Review, and Annexation

[51:00] And a Site review or reviewed by Staff those items were also subsequently with Drawn therefore no Approval or Denial was made on those items the proposal at that time was an initial, zoning of our next 2 with 66, Dwelling Units, a Daycare And account. So now that we've talked about the site, the surroundings, and a bit of history. We'll move to tonight's proposal. So again, this is a proposal that would require many review processes. The first major one being A change to the land use, map of the Bbcp, As noted. Here, it's currently still a public land use designation and a change would be required to accommodate the proposed development The applicant has proposed. Mxr Mixed Density residential Land Use Designation. So this is intended to allow for developments that provide affordable housing and a variety of Housing Types and Densities.

[52:03] And it allows 6 to 20 drawn units per acre, as well, as I'll discuss a bit more later. The Staff Recommendation on this proposed Land use designation is the same as it was back in 2,016, which was for the Mr. Medium, density, residential land, use designation rather than the Impact The proposal would require an annexation and initial Zoning Designation, the Applicant has proposed Rimx 2 Residential Mix 2, which is a zoning Intended to Accommodate a Mix of Densities through the Site Review Process this Zoning can allow for Densities. of up to 20 units per acre. If the density bonus, is and Site review, criteria are meant which require a provision of a certain percentage of affordable housing in Exchange, for that Density Bonus the Rmx 2 zoning also, requires that a mix of housing types are provided, which this proposal would provide because it provides a mix of town homes, duplexes, and Triplexes, staff was generally Supportive of this proposed Zoning district with the Caveat that the Overall Density be Consistent with the

[53:10] Recommended Density of Mr. Medium density through the Land use So moving to the specific Project plan again, it's consists of 84 dwelling units. These are proposed to be located on individual fee, simple lots. The Unit Sizes would range from about a 1,000 to 1,800 square, feet of space per year, the lots Based primarily on to propose Private Streets, while some Homes also face on to Existing Roadways, the Dwellings have a Compact form with Minimal Internal Setbacks and they include a mix of Front Loaded and Ally, Mode and Garage Configurations, the Proposal, also includes 38, for Sale Middle Income, Affordable, Units, those are Outlined in the Pink Line Generally, toward the East and Southeast Areas, of the Site, and

[54:06] there's. These are near the proposed internal open spaces. The Site, also Provides a Mobile Use Path Renee North and South through the Site as indicated on the Transportation Master Plan, and the Site, would connect to the Existing Access Road, that Exists East of the Property and it would Eliminate the Existing Curb Cut that Exists now from J Road. So here are some conceptual views, there's a Mix of Town Homes, Duplexes, and Triplexes and Heights, Range from One, and a half, to 3 Stories some Common Open Space is provided toward the East End, of the Site As Well As Individual Yards. In terms of the Overall Review, Processes, I just want to emphasize. There are many. They would require an annexation initial zoning of Dvc. Land Use Map Change in the Site Review Affordable housing requirements would be reviewed and There'd be technical reviews, that include the planning the Technical Documents, and Building Permits

[55:08] So last I'll move to key issues for discussion. So the first one is whether the proposed concept plan is generally consistent with the Bbcp Bbcp, so Staff found the proposed concept plan is Preliminary Consistent with many of the Goals Objectives and Recommendations in the plan Particular Re Policies related to the Provision of affordable housing and just generally I'm providing housing through the annexation process this proposal would provide a variety of Housing Types. It would provide Ada accessible units. It would provide unit size to accommodate families and it would provide a mix of Affordable and market rate units on one site. Well, this Slide staff is listed some of the policies that were inconsistent with some areas of the so generally these areas proposed to be annexed as listed in the first Couple of Bullet points there here, is proposed to Be Annexed and

[56:13] Redeveloped, are intended to respect existing lifestyles, and in Densities, and Protect an Enhanced Neighborhood, Character, so the proposed density of this Project at almost 19 Drilling Units Per Acre Didn't We Didn't find that to Be Consistent with Density is an immediate area. Below that policy, 6, point 0 one related to transportation and complete streets. Is highlighted to note that the Proposal provides an opportunity to establish what the city Sees as appropriate in terms of the Streetscape and Design. In this area, the proposal in this case includes a request to provide private rather than public streets. And the streets wouldn't Meet the City's Typical Street, Section, and the Provision of Private streets, also places the Future Financial obligations for Repair and Maintenance of those Streets, on the Future Residence of the Neighborhood the Staff is Generally Looking for Typical Street Section with the T

[57:10] typical, detached Sidewalk, and Tree long that would accommodate Pedestrian Circulation through the Site Staff is also Listed Several Policies from Chapter 2 of the Vvcp that are Related to Design of the Proposal and We'd be Looking for Additional Refinement at the time, the Site, Review. These are things that include the relationship of the proposal to the various adjacencies on the different sides of the site, and support for a strong design Presence, along the community edges since it, Serves, as an Entryway, into the City We would want to look at the proposed Alignment and the Design of the Multi-use path through the Site, and see how that could best work. And we'd want to look closely, get things like how can this site, the environmentally, sensitive and how it can provide an enhanced design just like we would review through all

[58:01] Lastly, because the Land Use, Designation and Zoning are some of the Key points of discussion. For this issue, I want to provide a comparison of the existing proposed and staff recommendations for those again, the applicant has proposed and with like feedback on the Mxr mixed Density Residential Land Use Designation that would allow up to $20 Per Acre staff has Recommended in 2,016, and now that the Mr. Medium density, residential Land. Use, designation would be appropriate the Mxr Designation would allow a number of dwelling units that the Board has previously indicated, would not be appropriate for this site and the Staff Recommendation of Mr. Would allow for a lower number of dwelling units that could be consistent with an accept densities in this area. Well, it would. Still forward the city's goals of Addressing the Jobs Housing Endowments, Providing Compatibility, and Providing for Sensitive Redevelopment in the Robot Load that you Can See Staff, was Supportive of the R Next 2 Zoning Just with the Caveat that the

[59:04] Density, room consists with the Bbcp. Land. Use designate Lastly, for keys, you, too, regarding compatibility of this plan this is with the Surrounding Area Staff considered the density and the form of the Units and Architecture, and Assessing this here you Can See a Comparison of this Proposal with some of the Densities, and Surrounding neighborhoods. So it's previously mentioned, this could be an appropriate place for medium. Does the development, but the surrounding areas are at a much lower development than what's proposed. Here again, you can see it image of the proposed conceptual design. The proposed residences Consist of Individually Homes. They're in Duplex, Triplex and Town and Configurations, they're at 1 one and a half, to 3 stories and have Sloped Roofs, Staff Found that generally, the Form of the Buildings was Compatible with Surrounding Areas but the Site Design and the

[60:04] Building passing should be further refined in keeping the the concerns we've talked about, regarding density in the design of the Site, and the Provision of High Quality Open spaces on the Site, so we'd Want to look at Ways to Reduce the Perceived Density, especially where the Proposal is adjacent to lower density. Residential uses, so that Concludes Stuff's presentation and I'm happy to go through any questions Thank you. Very nice presentation. So questions. For Staff Sarah Thanks. Shannon, thanks so much and welcome welcome Home, so I actually I was looking back over the October twenty-fifth notes and I was still that Leonard and John Putnam who don't often agree on things. Both raise the idea of incorporating this Parcel into Area 3

[61:04] So that it's redevelopment could be undertaken as part of a larger plan. So I'm curious if you can just maybe give us some. Background on that discussion, and whether that is something that you all thought about as you were reviewing this concept plan. And if you did what your thoughts were Yeah, so I wasn't present at the at the October. Meeting that happened so I can't speak too much to what was discussed at that time. In terms of Staff's Analysis of this Item. we really tried to we did talk about the fact that the area, 3, that there is some discussion of the the future planning for that and some initial staff work that's, going into that because of the this proposal does have an area to designation, and because we're working with the Existing call plan and the Policies that that relate right.

[62:03] Now That is our focus is trying to implement the policies and the Guidance that we have on the books right now, because we Can't really anticipate what may come out of those future Discussions, Related to the Urban Services Capacity analysis and Study that that could that could happen Thank you very much. Sorry Just to clarify? Are you do you mean area 3. Yeah, sorry. Or planning reserve. Yes, I think they're because that's area, too. Also, so yeah. So that was mine I Misspoke. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Shannon I'm sorry, the Planning reserve is in area. Too. Is that correct? I thought it was area 3. I might be mistaken I Defer to Shannon, my perception instead of this Area, too. Here we go, should be consistent with this map. Here, if you can see that

[63:04] I, I think. That's great Excellent. The Planning Reserve is very great I always understood that area 3 was the planning reserve, that those 2 things are synonymous. I, I, That's that's correct planning to plan reserve as area 3 I think I read, and I could be wrong, I could be miserable, but I think I read that area 3 contains both the planning Reserve and also some areas that are designated, that we want to preserve as rural agricultural and both of those things. That's correct Are in Area 3. So it's not just the planning reserve, but it is the planning reserve. Is Part of area 3 That's correct Okay, Ml. Thank you, John thank you for the presentation, Shannon. It was, it was very clear, and it followed the pack nicely. I didn't get lost, but not even once. So I have some questions that I think are are for you.

[64:01] So it's reference to number of places this, 40% middle income affordable unit, what does that mean? Middle income affordable Yes, can try to answer. I believe we do have a housing staff member here. They want to take it over, but the city has different categories of affordable housing. Low income, Hmm. Okay. So there's the the typical one that everyone thinks of that's the I don't know the correct term for that, the the lower to mid Income Houses, and then there's, the Middle Income, which is a New Tier that was recently established, so those are One where we Don't have a lot of those in the city yet, and so there is a focus on bringing those middle incoming. It's Okay, so it is a well, described tier Yes. And

[65:03] Okay, I'll I'll get back to that at that. When the applicant makes the Presentation and There's also the term used a substantial Substantial Amount of Affordable Housing and that comes up in a number of places so I'm just curious is there a Definition, for substantial amount I mean it's 40% a substantial Amount Yeah, I would probably defer to our housing team. If they wanna, jump in, what we look look forward, for that And I'm just looking at on page 17, staff, recommend the land Use change to need to Mr. Rather than the mxr, Wait! Oh, mixed it at the mxr! Well, the Dip, one of the different desktop Between, Mxr and Mr.

[66:00] Was mxr is required to provide substantial amount of affordable housing. So if the Zoning Directive is gonna be a question, that I think, factor is one of the things that is attached to the Mxr How would that look different from Nmr. Well, I That doesn't have substantial Amount of affordable housing requirements Right. Yeah, so I think those I don't know that those are regulatory in terms of the descriptions of the of the Land Use Designations themselves I think through the Annexation Process is where we Would provide and and Agreement that would take place with the appointment in terms of the amount of Affordable housing that would be perfect. So that typically is a negotiation process

[67:00] So does the staff at the staff level. When you look at Mxr versus Mr. Have a way of thinking about substantial affordable, Housing versus just affordable housing does that is that a factor in the conversation, but that language is used I I think it means something, but I'm not sure what it means to To the staff. Hmm, Yeah, I think, oh, no. Hi! Oh, Hi Michelle, I've seen you before. Still Here, Michelle, Allen with Housing and Human Services City of Folder. So we don't really take this zoning so much into account it the the density is very much a function of what the site can support for affordable housing but when an amateuration comes in the Mxr the Mr. That's not really how we think about that that community benefit requirement for an annexation, but the applicant will will probably want to address that as well, as far as that affordable Housing Bonus, you get from Mxr I mean that density Bonus you get

[68:16] From mxr. If you have this 40% or above of a affordable housing is very important to making the Project work so but 40% is, we we would consider substantial community benefit, given the product, that it's for sale family-friendly, middle Income housing all Of which we have goals for, and would like to get more of And just to very quickly, address your question about middle income. Middle income is a is only applies to for sale and that would serve between 80 and 100, and 20% of Ami Nice, so it it's not a factor in rentals.

[69:11] Oh! Right. No, no, not really. We have a very small Tier, for rentals, but because rentals are almost entirely built with light tech Tax, Credit Financing, they don't accept a higher income Threshold so it just doesn't come into play. Yeah Right. so last question and I think it's Miss it's for you, Michelle, Yeah We had, that lovely little chart that showed the density of the existing and adjacent neighborhoods, and the average was about 4.9, and ours is being proposed at Identity of like 19 or 20 and again, in looking at which Zoning makes most sense and will Get us, kind of closer to what we are looking for as the city is there any mechanism that would look at those factors of the Adjacent area, and what would be compatible, what that what that density looks like versus the difference and have that different somehow play into an increase

[70:21] In affordability? It it does that make sense, like it's it's 4.9 is the average of What's. There. And this one is like 19 that's a big leak can affordability. Come onto the table as a factor for saying, okay, we'll agree to this much higher density. But we're gonna also look at more affordability as a result of that not just what already is required. But just looking at sort of that's a very intriguing chart. I don't see it up anymore. But you know that that chart, that showed that which I think speaks to what a lot of the Public comment is about is that identity is wrong.

[71:10] The density is wrong. You know, this is this is the lower desensity housing area. But if we are going to go for something. That's higher density is there more that we can that we can get insofar as meeting our housing goals out of it We, have. Had a lot of extensive discussions with the applicant, Right. More than we typically have for concept plan, because there's the sort of annexation sitting behind And my understanding, is that that this probably Maxes, out the yeah. And in my belief, my my thought, after having a lot of discussions, is that 40% is because for sale product is is expensive, to develop that if we are doing well to get 40 at at this, 18 unit per acre density if they go to a rental product, which is not as

[72:09] Right. Right? Okay. Desirable from how housing perspective we might be able to go with a slightly higher percentage. But 40% is probably what what is doable Hmm! Great thank you Sure thank you. Laura. Oh, sorry, my you were there first. Okay. Okay. I'm Glad Michelle and I see housing people Kurt are on the line. Tonight, so my my first question is when in what year did we establish our middle income housing goal, and which is 2,500 middle income market rate, units by twenty-thirty and a 1,000, Permanently deed restricted middle Income Housing, units, by twenty-thirty what year

[73:04] Did we start that and what progress have we made to date I'm not sure if Kurt wants to to to Chime in, but I believe we adopted that call in 2,000 and 17 and I Don't have the steps in Front of me for the progress to date mark but I can look them, up While we have other Discussions and come back with that Okay, alright, I'll go on to the my next question. And this is probably more for planning staff. So I spent a bunch of time with the Zoning map, which is really a great tool what a what a fantastic tool to look at stuff and there are some areas. Zoned Rmx, 2 that are adjacent, that border R. L, one and rl 2 areas, is is there, any probabilities into this is is that some left over from days before or is there in fact nothing that would prohibit us from having an Rmx to the zone next to an Rl one and R or Rl 2 zone as currently exist

[74:27] In other, spots, in the city. No there'd be no Prohibition on that, and and Staff was generally Supportive of the proposed Rmx to you know, with some Caveats about the the Total, Density and the Design of the Site Okay. Oh, that that raises another question for me wait staff. It was generally supportive of the Rmx to zoom, but I thought Staff was recommending an Rm Zone So the there's the Land, use designation question which was the question of and and Xr next day, residential land Use designation, versus, an Mr.

[75:10] So that kind of is your underlying Designation from the Comp. Plan as to kind of what you're looking for in the density, and then that can be implemented in a variety of ways depending on what zoning district could fit with that Potentially But once it's annexed, then it would be designated as Rmx. 2, which would allow up to 20 units breaker Typically what we do, and wrong is we want to look at the annexation initial, zoning. Site review and potentially that the BBC land Use designation, kind of concretely, we're generally around the same time typically when we do an annexation, we have an agreement and the Site plan to go along with that so that we understand What's being proposed the

[76:08] density and the kind of the design, so we can, kind of determine and find out how that leads the what we're getting So it would work. Let's say, we annexed. It, we designated it as based on all the underlying Bbcp Codes and everything else. We said This is Rmx 2, which Rmx, 2 a again I'm I'm maybe wrong. That allows up to 20 units. But we would say, okay, even though the zone Alright next to allows 20 units, we're allowing only, 14 or 16 or some other number is that is that a a summary. Yeah, there's a permission in the code, it's real specific to our next 2.

[77:00] Regarding this density bonuses that you can request and it requires the applicant to go through site review and requires The they approval of that to kind of Determine. If if those density, bonuses, and and the resulting density is appropriate, so it kind of goes together as a Okay. Alright. Hey. Shannon, can you? I'm sorry it seems like there's a connection between the underlying land use and the Rmx 2. And if we go with staff's proposal, for the underlying land use, then even though it's Rmx 2 it would be limited to 14 Units by the underlying land Use Not just the Annexation Agreement but the underlying land Use is that true my Understanding that correctly. That's the way we've done it on other proposals. A similar one was done at Address correctly, At Table Park, and 45, 25, table, Parkway. I'm guessing the address right and it was a similar situation. There! with the land Use, and with the density limited by the Land Use. Designation.

[78:05] So, yes. Shannon. We got a a comment that your microphone is breaking up, especially for people in the audiences, if you maybe there's an adjustment you can make thank you I have though one more. And maybe the Shower curve will have their update. I think this is probably pretty for planning staff. Let's say we annex, a property and bring it into city boundaries. We can condition that property proper with what we may deem necessary to for annexation is condition of annexation, or as a condition of site review but can we in conjunction with the county make conditions that are that Effect county Land Let's say a sidewalk outside that that

[79:11] That would be actually, when We're when We're right up against the county here. so a sidewalk that happens to be on counting property even after the Annexation, can we Condition, the Property the developer to produce a sidewalk, in the county with the counties Agreement You know, I would want to defer to Elliot on that. But I don't know that we'd be able to require any off-site improvement, nor would I think that we would be able to you know, request or require another government. Entity, Construct them. If there were an intergovernmental agreement, or some sort of calendar improvement program, where we wanted to enter into an agreement to do that I think that might Be a different Conversation but I Don't know that we'd be able to require that through

[80:06] Okay. I'm I'm done for now. And we'll wait for someone else can go. And and then, when Kurt, Shell, or anyone as the that other answer, we can come back thanks John, you're on mute Laura, please go ahead! Thanks Okay, I have about 8, questions. So John please feel free. If I'm taking it too much air time to cut me off and come back. To me. Okay, well, go ahead. Thank you. So we didn't, so Shannon thank you so much for the presentation. Again, very hard to boil things down. It was very on point and informative. So thank you very much. My first question. We didn't talk much in that presentation about that dirt road, that's to the east of the Site First of all Do.

[81:00] We know what the name of that road is, because it seems like there's some disagreement, about whether it's violet, or violets, or some other name Yeah, I think at this time, because that isn't an accounting. We don't have a lot of the final information on that. So I think, when we get this in Per Site review, we would want to kind of determine all of the information about that and make sure that we're looking closely with the folks that Boulder count Agri transportation so that we are all on the same page all of the information related to that access road Okay, so so my first question is, what's the name of it? I'm just gonna call it the Dirt Access Road. Since we don't know the name do we know who owns it because at least one of the people who wrote to us raised the question of legally, does this applicant have the right to use it. Because I believe in the Site plan there's only going to be one access, to the site in and Out. And it's going to be on this dirt road rather than on J road.

[82:03] So do we know whether the applicant legally has the right to use that dirt road Yeah, again, I think that would be something we would look at closely during the site review. Just my recollection of it, was that there was an app dedicated and some improvements that were done in the county that may or may not have been accepted by the county so that requires us to do a little more digging when it comes Okay, so it sounds like, that's a tbd to be determined. Thank you my next question has to do with the planning reserve. If you could pull that map back up of the planning Reserve area and shows its relationship to the site. It looks to me like the neighbors who are across that dirt road are actually in the planning. Reserve is is that true are those properties. Within the planning reserve Or is that private property like I don't know who else owns the land in the planning reserve, and whether those neighbors, just to the East, are they part of the planning Reserve.

[83:11] Oh, I have not attempted to directed by the exact Location of the Planning Reserve Area. Manufacturing, but I just saw it To those personal lines. Alright. Yeah, it's clear that they're in Area 3, whether or not they're actually in the planning reserve. I don't know that they are and Laura. I can I can do some sleut thing here on my map, while we're having our conversation. If we want to loop back to that Okay, that would be good to know. Thank you. And so the area that we do call the planning reserve. Even if we don't know the precise boundaries on the map does. The city, own that land or is that county land, or is that privately owned like what's, the ownership of the planning reserve There is a combination of ownership the city owns, a sizable piece. I think of what it is. That's considered the Planning Reserve. But I don't know that we own all of it, but that's something else that I can verify as I'm doing. Some research here on my map.

[84:08] Okay. Thank you I'm, I'm, asking these questions, because You know a lot of our commenters have pointed out rightfully, that you know the fate of the Planning Reserve is to be determined through a community conversation and in conclusion with both the City and the County. And what that area looks like in the future. We don't know yet. And so we don't know how this particular parcel is going to relate to those yet to be determined. Land uses. So that that's why I'm asking the Questions about like who owns it and are those neighboring parcels in it, and all of that my next question for Staff I did Appreciate plan boulders Comments about the Bicycle and Pedestrian Network and How this Area, currently this Parcel is currently not very well connected to either commercial opportunities or job opportunities. It's pretty carbound at the moment. And so my question is, does the city have any plans to improve the Pedestrian and bicycle connections?

[85:07] To this site beyond what might be associated with annexation and the improvement of this particular parcel, is there a plan to Improve the bicycle and Pedestrian network, that connects to it. Yeah I don't has that information in front of me, and that we are always looking at training updates, but I don't know. Specifically in the vicinity of the Site. If there's any forthcoming changes that are planted Okay, that seems like something that might be important. You know, to know, before we get to site review, of how this is gonna connect to the rest of the City, so Next, my next question for staff, is you know, with regard to the recommendation for the Mr. Lay underlying land use could you show again how many units could be built. I think it was like a maximum of 66, or 68.

[86:00] If you went with the combination of the Mr. Land Use and the Rmx 2 Zoning. I think that was one of your slides, Shannon And then, and maybe it's a question for Michelle, Allen. If if that was what happens, thank you 27, to 64 units are possible. So up to 64 units, if they did get a maximum of 64 units, if we went with Staff's proposal, how many of those 64 units would be the Middle Income affordable would it still be 40% of that number or would it, be a different number and maybe michelle Allen. Has that answer You know, what I would say is that that would likely drive them to a rental, product because the annexation requirement is probably not going to dip. Below 40% we are of the understanding that Council wouldn't support an annexation. Community benefit of much lower than that but I don't know that they could pull off a 40% affordability with for sale products of these sizes. So I think they would go. To probably smaller you can that's certainly a question, for the applicant

[87:11] I am going to highlight and star that, and come back to that for the applicant. Thank you. Michelle just highlighting that in my notes here My next question connects to the one that Ml, asked and I think you already answered It Michelle, but I did see that in the staff Comments, in 2,016 they basically said that they would require 60% affordable. Housing, not 40, and Michelle, I think you answered, why that decrease happened for this proposal, and it's because these are for sale, family friendly units, and so you would require and then are more expensive to build so you would require fewer of them to be affordable versus a Sure. Rental product am. I understanding that correctly Yeah, yeah, I would say, it's a number of fat factors. Back. When you know, 20 years ago, we, we occasionally have some annexations. That did 60%. It was difficult, but they managed to do it, but now the cost of construction, the Cost of Land the Cost of Utilities, all of this Costs are are going up so high that what we found, is that it's, just not possible to to hit those higher numbers we did one of the Most recent larger annexations of around the size was 90, Arapaho and I think they landed at 43,% it's just sort of a function of these increased Costs and and we We hardly ever hear 60% Laura, we it was almost always around 50%, but yeah, we've.

[88:08] Had. We've we think it's appropriate to go slightly lower, given all the constraints, now that Developers have Thank you for that explanation, Michelle. next question is a general question.

[89:03] Have only been on the planning Board since April, but this is the first time I have seen staff do an analysis to say, we think that this Project is inconsistent with the following Bbcp Policies. Is that new like I know I've seen in the past people. The staff have said, this project helps meet policies. You know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but I don't. Think I have seen staff specifically call out and say, we think that it is inconsistent with Policies X. Y and Z, maybe I'm gonna sleep with the wheel Yup, no, not especially I think it really depends on the project. And I think this one, because the context is so unique, and what it is that's being proposed you know, there's not an area plan that's adopted so I think we're just trying to be as delivered as possible with the applicant, and the board on what our Initial analysis, is so that we can really provide the applicant with the best possible guidance moving forward, recognizing that the Site is unique and the context, around it you don't may not be as intuitive as something in North, boulder or something Downtown so you will see that

[90:14] From time to time Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Charles, I have. Just 2 more. Questions, this proposal it looks to me like the Affordable Units are all town homes they're Just one type of Housing. And I thought I remembered from previous discussions that when you have an affordable housing requirement. It has to be a you know proportional slice of all the different housing types that are offered on that development. Am I wrong about that? Like, why, why is this one all just one housing type Well, this for this concept plan we have been talking to the Developer about the possibility in the future, of of Using units that are produced through the Manufactured Housing Facility, that we're planning to Build on the City so that was sort of part of the thinking is to have them be

[91:05] Consistent, so that we could use that product, the the that proportionality is is an inclusionary houseing requirement and annexation does not need and typically does not follow inclusionary, housing exactly it's Totally annexations entirely. Negotiated. So we we kind of take inclusionary housing as a starting point, but we don't necessarily follow all of those those requirement Sure. Okay, good to know and the last one, you know. And again, maybe this is not applicable to the site because it is an annexation. But you know my understanding from previous Discussions is that the best practice when you are going from an area of lower density, to higher density, is that there's some kind of transition area and it's, usually the responsibility or the burden of the higher Deity developing parcel to provide that

[92:03] Transition, area, so that you don't immediately go from very low density to you know very high density or much higher density. And so my questions for staff, are. Can you talk about is this the best practice in planning a mini, Understanding, that Correctly and and if so why do you, view this particular proposal as providing adequate transitions, between low density, and high density. You know, I think baby, I can speak to the former. Maybe Shannon can talk about specifically the issues that we've identified with the transitions So it's absolutely a best, practice. I think it's something that's reflected throughout you know the Account Plan Design Guidelines, Throughout Town Area, plans throughout Town I think it is a thoughtful planning Construct to manage the Transition between higher Density Uses and lower density uses. And I really think you know very simply the reason behind that is to help manage impacts. You know both visually whether it be buildings that are higher in height. We have a different scale, you know and then just kind of the quality of Life Impact. So always light you wanna make sure that Parking Garages aren't shining into people's homes. And you know those sorts of things. So I think the answer to the first part of the question is, yes, it's absolutely a a best practice, and it's a construct that again is reflected in a number of our Guidelines. Throughout the city, so and something else that I think also as reflected in a Site review, criteria that ultimately the applicant is going to have to demonstrate Consistency, web so but while I have you Laura just wanna let you know that the Area, 3 planning reserve While the City Does, on a tremendous amount of property within the planning Reserve. We don't own all of it. So there still are some privately held properties with them. But the planning reserve. So Shannon if you want to talk a little bit about Staff's analysis of just the initial concept, and how that transition is being managed

[94:07] Yeah, I think that was definitely something that we wanted to see more of in this proposal. I think that it's evident. And in the proposal we received, that there was an effort to do that to have a little bit more of that larger higher massing located closer to the Rt Roads but we wanted to see more of a step down and look at ways that we could reduce The Perceived density, for the areas that are closer to the low Density residential homes, whether that's Providing bigger, open space areas, views through the site, or just different Ways, of Breaking Down, the Mass of the Buildings, There's, a Variety, of things. We could look at when it gets to site review. to try to do that Thank you. Shannon and Charles and Michelle, super helpful.

[95:00] I I pass it on to the next person Sarah. Thank you and laura, thanks for all those good questions. So I really have just 2 questions one, of which may be more complicated in answer. So this question of the the All, the affordable units are in concentrated, area, because the assumption is that they would be built by a third party developer, and I'm Just sort of I'm Hoping you can sort of talk Us, through how that Would Work I Don't know that I've ever seen simple kind of proposal. On Planning board and what would happen? Does that does that agreement with a third party developer have to be in place before a site review can be approved, and then it says, if there isn't a third party agreement the affordable Home should be integrated into distributed throughout the Project which

[96:10] Then raises the question which raises that question for me, which is So then the the applicants would have to build those affordable houses, and who would be responsible. And I guess this applies whether it's a Third-party Developer, or the Current Applicant, who who Manages, the Supply of Permanently Affordable Units, and their Reset, their you know, Ultimate Resale. Okay. Sorry sorry that was a Complicated if I forget something Sarah go back and remind me So it's actually very typical. For the affordable units to be produced by a third party developers. So, keep so, think about spine, road, for example, I mean, Yes, but we call it spine road, the celestial seasonings.

[97:14] Okay. Development. There are those affordable units are not going to be produced by Sars, Regis, the Developer of the market, United States they brought in a second Developer, so that was very typical we see that a lot so in this case that's sort of what the Developer is talking about doing that they Wouldn't produce them themselves, that they would try the land, the utilities, and then they have an agreement between them on the cost, but ultimately, it's the market developers responsibility to get them, built but they do Anticipate bringing in a third party, Developer but that might not happen I mean. They're just sort of throwing this concept out and they wanna see what you think about the approach so alternatively, if they had to produce them, themselves. If they did produce them themselves, we would probably ask that they distribute them differently, so when they're aggregated, it's basically has to do with the timing of the 2 construction projects, one is a market the construction, project the other is the affordable and so it works better to have them.

[98:07] Sort of aggregated. So that, yeah, and then as far as who owns, and so for sale, product, like this they get sell, sold to individual Affordable buyers, and then that the developer, does the same themselves or whoever is building them, whoever, is going to be the owner of them initially and then the City, our Home Ownership Department, Monitors All of the Resales over time, so then it goes into Private ownership, and then that then to another Private Owner, another Private Owner, you know, their Condos, essentially their their like a Condo, Think, of them that way, yeah. But they remain in the in within. whatever the formula is for resale, percentages, and so that they always remain presumably affordable compared to the market.

[99:08] Absolutely absolutely they need to be resold to another affordable buyer, in perpetuity. They get a very modest amount of appreciation, when the resell happens, the the the Buyer, and then Yeah, they just stay in in in that, in that income range, in targeted income for in perpetuity. Okay, and and if it ends up being distributed throughout the project, That that doesn't change. Okay. No - no no Okay, that's really helpful. And then my other question. And this is probably a question for Shannon not for Michelle. So thank you very much. so you've described a lot of Design Challenges related that seem to be related to the proposed density.

[100:01] The the proposed number of units meaning that it makes it hard to have wide wide roads that could be public roads, and the the Usable Open Space the Location of the Bike, path and it fact, that it's, currently designed or imagine to be Smack up against I Sort of like someone's front Porch, it sounds like does the lower density that is the would be the outcome, of the Mr. Land use designation with the Rmx to Zoning. Give the applicants more opportunity to address those design challenges I think potentially, I think typically what we see when a project is going through this review process, is that a lot of times, once you start acting in things like the open space things like you know detention just all of those things that you need to fit on the site then the density tends

[101:14] to to decrease A bit in order to accommodate things. Okay, alright, and I appreciate that thanks. Those those are my questions Thank you. Okay, let's see, who else? Oh, Michelle, you have your hand up is there some other point you'd like to make Sure. Yeah, I would like to answer Mark's question, If if that if this is a good time for that, so market, as and probably planning board, is aware that we haven't made a huge progress toward the middle income goal, we've added 36 Middle Income Units, since the Goal, was Adopted, and there are another 30, or so in the in the pipeline that will be coming down, the the the pike here here in the next year, or so so it's been a challenge, and been a challenge to Make Progress primarily because there's very Limited Funding for Middle Income Housing out, there, in the world, we're still struggling to find an effective mechanism. We have done, we have gone into purchasing some condos deed, restricting them, and then reselling them. That's portable to middle income, but you know not producing huge numbers. And so we had a long conversation with council about the Challenges around Producing Middle Income Housing at our study, session last month, and one of the things that we will be going forward with We're Going to do an Update, to the inclusionary Housing Program, we've already started it and We'll Come back to you, guys at mid mid 2,023. And we will be addressing some of middle income we'll be be addressing Middle Income, Kind of strengthening, our incentives in the Program, so it's one Strategy, that that we'll have but there'll be others, and we'll be Coming, back to Council with those later, in 23 Yeah

[103:14] Okay, just, a quick. Follow up you said, 36, or current 30 in the Pipeline are those all permanently affordable of O out of the 1,000 that that the goals of 1,000 and we have 36 and 30 at the moment is that right That's what we've added. We we we have. Okay. Okay. I think we started with about a 100, yeah. And and so, just so that you guys know, we never do anything, but permanent and affordability. Sure. Yeah. Oh. It's just not even in our you know, and any affordability, that that we do as a city, is always perfect Oh! So yeah, I I was just breaking up and Yeah

[104:02] The 2 parts of the goal, which was 2,500, market middle income. Units, a 1,000 permanently affordable middle Income Units and that started th the in 2,017, is that 2017, 2018 Is when is when the that's when we set the goal okay, yeah, okay. Well, that's when we set the goal. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, we've been getting middle income units much longer than that. And almost entirely through our annex 8 power of annexation, community benefit. Yeah. Okay. Thank you To Michelle, I Laura, I see. You have your hand up for some more. Questions, I have a I'm just trying to give everyone a shot at dealing with our questions here before we go around again I have just a couple, I'm wondering if Staff can give an indication of how the proposed plan that the applicant has come with, meets, the the Levels of Service, Standards, that the City typically has with respect to for example Park, and the Games playing Space and Emergency, Access and and Street Access in such a

[105:27] Big proposal with such narrow streets, things like that and and the number of Access points to the Probably would would this proposal meet all of those general practices, that the city has Yeah, and so was the the question was related to to parks, service. Standards, and also to access

[106:04] Standards, and fire access? Was that the question That's right, and I I'm aware of the the park land to the north, but that'll be many years potentially before that's developed, so not clear to me. How that would be considered in in this on this basis? Yeah, that that was one of the great concerns. I I think that was either included in the staff, Memo, or in the Initial Review. Comments, with just the accessibility of this site, since it is separated by some major roadways to the Nearest Existing like Park playground, type, facility kind of keeping in mind, that the Units are you know, would be attractive, to families we would want to see some kind of Amenity. Incorporated within the design of the open spaces that can help serve families, whether it be like a playground, or some type of amenities, that would serve the anticipated Residence there I don't know that I know off the Top my head the Parks, Level of Service Guidelines, but

[107:06] that that was kinda how we looked at it during the review in terms of those amenities. Tech concern in terms of Fire access. it was reviewed by our transportation staff, I don't know that they commented specifically on an issue with fire access that they were seeing but they do work, closely with the fire folks, and and make sure they can get and survey so we would definitely look at that as Part of our comments, about the the Width of the Road, and trying to trying to meet our our typical standards, to make access in there And and similarly, with the access, the the single access point that's being proposed. That would be generally considered to be meet the cities. Practices in terms of of Actions.

[108:02] I don't recall that there was an issue with the the access, that it was, that it was deficient. So I think that that is the case, that it was acceptable, But we would definitely, you know, we'll get that and confirm. That that was the Yeah, at the time of site Review. John, they'll be required to provide a Detailed traffic study as opposed to just a kind of generic Trips, Analysis, that we get at the concept Plan Phase so they would have to demonstrate to us that you know, the intersection, was going to be functional and safe And Need, all the city, standards. Okay. Well, thank you. Okay. Let's See Laura. Oh, your hand is down again. Now, you you didn't have anymore. Okay, well, let's move into the applicants presentation If the applicant is tier and willing to disclosed to us, what they are thinking

[109:17] Yes. Hello, I just wanna make sure. Everybody can hear me at this point is Margaret also available to speak at this meeting Yeah, yeah, i'm here. I wanna make sure I need can I share my screen for this for the presentation. Please. Thank you. Yes. Okay, tell us when it's time to go Are you ready Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Can. Okay. Thank you. good evening. Members of Planning Board. My name is Margaret Freud and I'm the developer and African. For this project, I own and live in a house in newlands. Here in boulder and I develop also in Richmond Virginia, where I have another home.

[110:02] We recently completed a project there that is mixed in common and includes new construction, and the restoration of a former school, and in that Project residents, Ranging in income levels, from 40% am. I to 120% am I live alongside, creative offices, art studios, market, cafe, and a ceramic studio. I'm sorry to interrupt. But, Margaret, do you do mean to be sharing slides, because we're not seeing any Yes, actually dan Roger is is supposed to be able to share his screen. Yeah Okay. Okay. I think it's coming up. Now, okay. You want me to pick up from there Yeah, please, move ahead. Okay, so I truly, believe in the overarching benefit. Of mixed income communities and I have been in discussions with habitat for humanity, to collaborate here you should have received an email of support from the Executive.

[111:08] Director, i habitat, at 28, O one, J. Road. There's an opportunity to achieve some of the city's most primary housing goals, this Site is one of the Largest of the Few Area, 2 Sides, Left and Boulder in in 2,000, and 16 I submitted a plan for Rental Apartments, at this Site, including mostly Smaller Units. Unsuitable for families. I pulled this application as the requirement of 70% permanently affordable housing made the development Unfeasible over the next 3 years I have many discussions with the City's Inclusionary Housing Staff, and other City leaders to try to find a Way to bring A viable project. Forward, I heard repeatedly that for Sale Middle Income Homes, Specifically Home, suitable for Families is the Housing type that is most desperately needed in bolder based on these conversations, we created a plan that would Work from a development perspective and bring community benefit to Boulder by

[112:07] Providing as much forcing on middle, income, family, housing as possible. As we understand from housing staff 34, permanently middle income units is almost equal to the total combined permanently middle-income units in the city of Boulder today, our Plan Envisions, Middle and Market Rate Homeowners, living in a Cohesive Community the Planning Staff has suggested lower density, and this is no surprise as density is often viewed as the Enemy of Good neighborhoods. In fact, Lowering density has the greatest negative impact on affordability. And we believe before ability is compatible with good neighborhoods. We understand that the for sale component of this proposed development will be a covenant in the annexation agreement. And we have thought about other ways to increase the success of the Middle Income homeowners. Here, for example, we propose varying a lot requirements.

[113:00] And allowing the Streets to be private, which is an opportunity here because it's an annexation agreement. This helps achieve the needed Parking Without Parking loss and increases yards by using a barrier variety of street, types. Something, we can only do the streets remain private, most importantly, it allows each homeowner to own, the land, under their unit and with party wall agreements, a Homeowner's association can govern our approach keeps, Monthly Fees, and Costs much lower with than a Con than with a Condominium Association and Helps Middle Ag Homeowners, be successful in the long term, a goal supported by Inclusionary Housing. Staff this is an example of a site well suited to getting as much middle income housing as possible. It is bordered by a highway, and a main road on 2 sides, and while there is rural land to the north, and east, this land is the Futures, solution to the Affordable Housing options, boulder, seeks here we Present, a plan that Maximizes, the Middle income Housing, while integrating

[114:10] The market rate housing to make a successful mixed income community, the market Bay homes are smaller, due to the higher density, and While not Affordable. They are more accessible than hubs, twice the size, the middle income and market homes. Will create a community that reads us one where there is not much difference in the home sizes and the type of families that live. Here you can see the benefits of what we seek in a holiday neighborhood Nearby the Holiday Site was annexed is Rmx. 2 with Mxr. Land use is 20 in its breaker, and was adjacent to her land, Reducing Density Results, in Fewer Middle-income Homes, and larger Market Rate, Homes, not only does it take many of the middle income units away, but it forces a greater Divide, in the Types of

[115:01] Homes, and families that will be a part of one community. If you reduce the density I suggested by staff, the Impact on Massing, and the Experience of the neighborhood, for those living Nearby or passing by will be men the Impact on the Quality of the community, and those who Live there will be Great I Hope you will Carefully consider this Opportunity to make such A significant amount, of much needed middle income housing, a reality. Our architect, Dan Ratler will now walk through the proposed plan, and afterwards we'd be happy to answer any questions. And we look forward to your thoughtful comments on this concept Thank you. Go ahead, Dan You're muted Dan Thanks Margaret and thanks to everybody on Planning Board, and City Boulder, staff for their work on this I I know it's, a complex process, the I'm Gonna just do a brief run through of the Site Just Try not to Repeat too much of what Shannon.

[116:12] Put out, there, and then show some real-world examples of the approaches that we're trying to try that for this Project as as Mentioned the Site With North up I has light Gray Market Rate, 2 Story Duplexes and Triplexes Around the Perimeter the Lowest density, Units of the Price of the Project, the more Compact, 2, and a half Story, dark Grey Market rate, units are located at the at the Busy, 28, and J Intersection and at the Project Interior to the West and then the Blue Red and Beige and brown units are the middle, Income one. And a half, 2 and 3. Story, including 2, proposed then accessible units associated with the middle Income Component

[117:10] Just running through the Overall Site, metrics in terms of how access and Open space are handled. Obviously 28, and J primary, Circulation as we've discussed Primary Access Point, Along the Access Easement on the east of the Property the our proposal for Fire Accessing a Loop Road Around the Interior, and because We've tried to Use Smaller Scales, Streets, on the Interior Blocks to manage our Parking Access and also provide individual unit identity at the Street We're Planning on Designing our parking access Files, at the Interior of the Project which need to be wider Regardless to Manage our Fire access Lanes for the Interior Blocks. In in orange is the multi-use path connecting the corner of 20 eighth, and J. With the Future Open space in the reserve and Park that's slated in the Comprehensive Plan, the Park parking is going to be illustrated in Red and as Discussed before we have these small Scale, Streets, which We are trying to develop in Lieu of a parking lot

[118:23] Solution for this project, and they are you can see them in the double Loaded Locations, and then throughout the Project. We have opportunities for on street parking. Wherever it makes sense, and then at the Easterly or West side of the property. We have a small nose in parking area, where you have less on street, parking, available One of the things we're really trying to drive that with this because of its isolated Location is to try and create a unique community identity and sense of place for this neighborhood. It needs to stand on its own assumption. The the the focus that Margaret's talked about, that we've discussed with staff about middle Income Owner Occupied Family Housing, it's, not found in very many Locations, Elsewhere in Boulder and really the the whole

[119:16] Density, question is integral to our purposeful integration of incomes and Family Structures throughout the Project, the the approach We're We're Driving at also allows for a flexible planning Flexible uses of the units for Home Occupations and Multi-general Housing, particularly in the 3 Story, and 2 and a half story units. They have that they work well for that approach the proposed density allows for a cohesive fabric, by Lying for Smaller Market, Rate, units. We can keep as Margaret mentioned the the community more cohesive.

[120:00] If we go with a lower density, the feasibility of the project will drive larger market rate units, which is definitely gonna substantially change the character of the neighborhood without necessarily changing the relationship with the Surrounding, area Significantly so That's One of the drivers that really We feel Works, for The Increased density bottom line is we worked hard to provide as much for sale, Midcom, Middle Income Family housing. As we could on site and create a unified community in the process, open space is a question, obviously one of our focus on the open space that we provided in the center of the Property is to make room for active use community gardens, Outdoor Dining and play areas integrated into that component it's Also a situated in relationship to a central, pedestrian spine, and this is a view looking back, showing how these areas connect the the market rate and middle Income portions of the project really to create a gathering space where the the common community can can meet together, this is a real world

[121:16] Example of a similar type of space. Again, this Scale is quite similar. And just want to make note of the mix of 3 and 2, story Character. And this application, which really provides a variety of texture for the the Surrounding Buildings. This, is, a roughly small open space at Redo Park. Here in boulder, this this illustrates. How some of the perimeter open spaces can be programmed and how 3 story, three-story units really allow for a more compact development Pattern, opening up the Site, a little bit, better land use. And and more opportunity to to develop that relationship to the over. Space.

[122:05] This is a quick illustration from our model, which shows just a vignette of one of the locations that we've developed around the Perimeter but We're going to look at all of these land areas very carefully to make sure that They're just not Unprogrammed, land. Areas, Surrounding the Property, or Rice of Way, Surrounding twenty-eighth, Mj. This Is a. Another example, of a Compact, open space integrated in the Rosewood neighborhood in North Pole, integrated in this case with the Water Management, the Perimeter of the Project Open Space Is very is very important as Well, this Is Private Open Space, this this this Alludes, to the Relationship between the individual, Dwelling Units and also the fact that private open space, as a lot, of Value, the 2 story units of the Perimeter are planned to be designed for main floor Living and and a strong Connection, to the outdoors, in the Relationship to this Surrounding Rural Landscape here's, a

[123:09] quick vignette, image of what we are thinking. The character of those spaces will be like ultimately So you know, in creating great neighborhood, and good public spaces. We really feel like individual unit character, of the street is a critical aspect of the project you know. Here's an example. Again this is a we want these to read like individual family homes, attached single family. Is what we want to do. Thus the town, home, approach this is just a good example of how those type of units might relate to some of the common open space areas around project perimeter the other, the other piece that we agree, is a challenge is parking access from the street we feel, like this is integral to Efficient utilization of of the site and what we're what we're driving to do is to create spaces in the unit at at the front of the Units that could work for Parking, but also are are are Suitable for a Variety of different Uses, to allow people who are

[124:16] Living in different ways, to effectively use that property. If they don't need a car, if they prefer to use the discovered out to a living space ultimately, that's that's what our objective is with those spaces, and those unit designs, this is just a quick vignette from our model. Of the our Narrow Double Loaded One Way Streets and again the Goal really to create into everybody has their own Front Yard Relationship to the Street, their Guests could come There's, Parking, Available in Front of the Units, of the Street, Level. And this is actually a similar kind of approach that was applied at the Yarmouth Way Development adjacent to holiday.

[125:01] And again, very narrow right away. But you can see that it's providing a strong Frontage for the units that Front on this Internal Roadway, so not an Alley, but it still Provides Function for Parking Access for Garages and then Salon Street Parking Spaces in Part of the and part, of the Street The the bottom line is that that our approach utilizes, the intention of the desk, Bonus and Rx 2 to Provide a unified mix of market rate Middle Income in this Neighborhood well, we you know I think that the the key thing, being the difference in character when you end up with These larger units through reduce density you can see that playing out at large in the city of Boulder, to some some degree, where we have a lot of big houses and a Lot of small affordable units and in this little corner We'd like to try and create something that's Balanced the Density is integral to that and we can't solve all the housing challenges in boulder, but we can we can do the right thing.

[126:01] Here we think, Anyway, thank you to planning board and staff for your work on this project. It's really important, obviously for the city and Margaret do. You have anything to add at this point No that was great damn just happy to ask you any questions. Okay, thank you, any questions for the applicant from the Board. Thank you, sorry to interrupt Oh, oh, here comes some hands, Laura I have a few. Thank you, John, thank you, Margaret and Dan Barry, informative, really appreciate hearing your perspective on what you like about this development. And why it's designed the way that it is couple of questions thank you for showing this slide. What are those? 2 yellow buildings on the east edge of the Property showing at the bottom of our screen.

[127:06] So that's Those are Van Accessible Units They're designed under the Nancy code, to be able to Accommodate a van for someone who may be in a Wheelchair or something like that Great thank you. I was wondering if that's what those were. I really appreciate that you called out that this development would include 2 of those Van Accessible Units for folks who have Mobility challenges. I think that's a wonderful addition to any community in your description of those units. You talk about them having a ground floor bedroom, which is of course, important it did not mention where the Kitchen is located, is the kitchen also on that ground floor Yeah, I, can. I believe for what we're gonna propose. Here is a what's described as a antsy, a multi story unit, so it's gonna have a kitchen, and living spaces, and a bedroom on the main level, So the primary, Living Spaces will be on the Main Level, and then the Garage of Course and then Upper Level.

[128:19] It's gonna have and it's not designed yet. But a couple of bedrooms, and an additional additional bathroom. So if you have a family with a disabled family member, that house is gonna really work. Well for for that that demographic Great, that sounds like a very thoughtful design for that product. Thank you and am I understanding correctly, that the primary open spaces are, you know. On on this diagram in the like second to last row from the bottom, and third, to last row from the bottom. And those are your those portions in the middle, that's what you showed the renderings of is those particular open spaces that are in those second to last and third, to last rows from the bottom you know

[129:09] That's that's part of it. I mean the internal, that's, the internal piece. But we also really feel like the the I'm trying to see if I've got it better. I'm gonna back up through my slides. Here, the we have some of these pieces which are at the perimeter. We want to make use of of all of these areas, at the perimeter are really important. These now, and some of them are not they're not, they're not huge spaces, but they're substantial. And we want to make sure all of these all these areas are utilized with care, and that's kind of why we, showed this example of this, smaller space, it you know I think, when you compare, when you see, some of the expansive unutilized right away that Exists, along 36

[130:02] For I said to a street or highway, 36, as you go up towards the north end of town, that's what we really like to to avoid we want to make sure all this is working to support the Neighborhood, and provide opportunities for outdoor use It is this, is another example. Alright, thank you. And going back to the the previous slide that you showed with the whole Development. So I'm, just trying to locate those perimeter spaces on the map of the yeah, of the whole development, so this is J road to our left yeah. That's correct. J. Rose to the left that's correct Okay, so there's some open space along J, road and then curving to the top of our screen. That is 20 Eighth, Street, or 36 That's correct. And you are looking from the other direction of This Corner, and my the slide, where we're just looking at Previously Okay, so, so, this, other, additional open space is primarily a long J, road, and along 36. Okay. Yeah, so I'm sorry I brought this slide up. But you can see these areas, all these pieces, we're gonna be looking at with a fair amount of care. These these these triangles, these sections, in here all of them are going to be linked together.

[131:06] And and function whatever opportunities we can gain because the views are actually pretty good from these areas, even though it's, a busy intersection. I think that it's also it works in both directions. Right. It's when people. Wh. When people observe the project, when they're driving by or people within the Project looking out, we want to make sure those spaces work for everybody Okay, so you're not planning any kind of screening, from 28 than J. Road between the open space and the road. There's no like tree, lawn, or kind of Screening Elements. There's Definitely, a Tree lawn so it's the I'll see. If let me just go back again. Here, so obviously we have a tree, one. And really the goal here with the and you can see the trees that are placed in the model at least. But the goal is to have a a city standard treelon, a adjacent to J.

[132:05] Road, and then the Sidewalk, and actually the width of our tree, line, that's illustrated in this in this this plan anticipates, that we're gonna Lose a little bit of right away you can see this is the space from this is an Existing walk that leaves The bus stop. But we're anticipating this likely going to be a need to expand the road, right away, to provide for a left turn Lane, as part of it, that's something that came out of last Site review, so we still plan on having a Tree, Lawn in this Area, then the Sidewalk, and and then there's actually an addition, buffer in this section, which, prior to getting to the Private Front Yard. So there's A series of Layers that are that are put together, in a fairly compact sequence in here but each one of those is going to Perform Function So Trees, the tree lawn separating pedestrians from the street trees in in a another, Layer, separating the private Yards from the Public Sidewalk, and then the Private Yards, and then here where We have more Space Works, Expanding in this Section we obviously this becomes more Park, like We're

[133:16] Getting further away, from the Intersection Still Quieter and this will be more developed as a as an area for maybe, some sort of Outdoor, recreation, Connectic Area, etc., or some Seating Area, yeah, We will examine each one, of these, Carefully Okay, thank you, that's that very clarifying thank you I also wanted to just note from a prior question that we do have the rights to use that right away, As our access on the East, there, so that's a shared road and depending what the study comes out with for the planning reserve in the Future. It could potentially continue and connect future development as well Okay, cause. There's there's currently a gate at the end of that Street. Is there, not

[134:09] There is, yeah, but it it That is a shared right of way that we have rights to utilize in this past Okay, thank you and that actually connects to my my next question, you know some of the people who wrote to us and commented from the public. Asked. You know, could other accesses be considered rather than something that connects to J. Wrote, I think one person suggested, did you consider a direct access Out, on to 20 Eighth Street, maybe with a new Traffic Light, We're any other Traffic, patterns considered or access patterns considered Well, we we aren't able to we're, we're unable to have an access point on 28, because we don't connect with it except at the intersection there as you look at this image here you can see to the left of the screen there's actually it's

[135:02] The West property line of the Device our Property, from another Private Owners, property. There, so we we do not connect to 28, street, add that actual point in the middle of the intersection which is not a place where you could access the site so right now We're We're we're Accessing the Site today from Jay Road. Not far from where this current access site is just slightly to the west and really in order to get a left her lane in and make it the safest and be Able to Make sure there's no Bottleneck, during those rare Times, of Day, when There's you know at 5 O'clock, or 5 30. When people are heading out or back on Jay, This is the safest Access point for this site, and it's probably the only viable one, really because of the Relationship with the Intersection and State highway Okay, and when you talk about the current access point, you're talking about the curb cut from J.

[136:14] Correct correct Road that goes to the church parking lot, and that and that would be closed in this proposal is that okay. Okay. Correct, yeah, what is on J road. Now, yes, yeah, so we are only accessing the site from J road today, is all I'm saying. Gotcha, thank you, thank you a a question that came up when I was talking with staff, with Michelle Allen. I had asked. You know what happens if the staff proposal were to hold Sway and you had 64 units maximum, because the site were had a land use of Mr. And if that were to happen, and you and you had to reduce down to 64 units, Michelle's thought was that that might be make it prohibitive to Do for sale housing and you might have to go back to a rental Housing product but she said that you should weigh in On that as the appointment like what what is your thought on what implications? If any, there would be, if you were held to a 64 unit maximum through the the land, user

[137:13] You know we've we've been working a lot with as Michelle pointed out more than most people do. For a concept, plan, because it it it's just clear that what's really needed. And what's really desired is this family focused for Sale middle and come Housing and Michelle brought up a good point with the Cost of Land and the Cost of Construction Right now and I know Planners, and Planning Board People Don't like to Hear about those Things but I'm not Sure The project would be viable at all frankly today, at 64 units, But what I did when I spoke to them was I said, You know, let me bring you something that I can do that brings you for sale, middle income family focused houses and we'll see.

[138:12] What happens and that's exactly why we're here, we we certainly can adjust this plan a little bit to make more open space and to do some other things. But some of the creative ways. We've approached this site to solve For the challenges that it presents It's it there are some extra expenses here we'll have to be bringing some utilities in from distant places. Boring under 28 of coming Up Jay Road. There's a left turn lane to install. There's a lot of offsite cost here really 64 Units. I don't think makes a viable project unless you do a lower percentage of affordable and much much larger for sale homes.

[139:06] And while these are not affordable market rate homes at 1,550, to 1,800 square feet. They accommodate Families, and they're they're far more accessible than many of the housing, I mean, I'm a development, I do spec houses in Newlands and those Houses, Sell, for 5 million, Dollars this product is Closer to a 1 million for the Market Rate and Honestly, we we know there's a resistance to this kind of density, but I think it's been done successfully holiday, and You know, we we we would. We would continue to work with staff to try to come. To something that everybody felt good about, but I don't think 64 units is viable at 64 units you would lose 9 to 10 middle income houses a if you were able to do 40% checked out you would be able to so you might lose more, and if

[140:16] It were to work. Your market rate would would double in size, so it's it's it's, a challenge and and the biggest issue for me in that scenario, was really the lack of cohesion, in the community we we're really trying to create something That everybody doesn't notice that there's middle income and market rate housing there, that lives. There it's just it's blind that way to the community, and it's. It's not that easy to do frankly, having done mixed Successful Mixed Income Communities myself. It's harder than it seems, and the density is a critical piece. So I I don't think it's 64 units.

[141:02] Maybe something less than what we have here I'm not saying. This is gotta be this number or nothing. I'm just saying, I think if you lose 20 units and the market rate gets larger. You're not going to have a dramatically different visual impact but you're gonna really Probably make it not a feasible project Thank you for that. I do have a question for staff following up on some of these comments, from the applicant, but maybe we can come back to that, after other, people, ask their questions of the application Okay, let's do that mark. You're up Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thanks, John, so my my questions are interrelated. I'll begin with the private Street question, Boulder County, has a history of misunderstanding between subdivisions who owns the streets, who maintains the Streets, and that all came to a wicked head not that long ago, and and it's still even a Containious issue today, so my my concern is that private streets are problematic. In the distant future, when streets are falling apart. So my question to you is, Are you proposing private streets solely to fulfill the Parking, Requirements

[142:45] No we're proposing private streets, for a number of reasons, one because it allows us to use different street types, as Dan pointed out in this presentation we've got these Double Loaded one way, Streets so that you can access the Front of these Units and We've got these

[143:05] parking, these alley, sort of driveials that are actually 24 feet wide, where you access, the Garage before fire, Truck, access so part of the reason that we want the streets to remain private is because of the Lack of Being, able to Use these, different Street, Types if They were public it it is it is also it is a it is a valid question. How do you maintain these streets over time but our idea of changing the Lot requirements so that they could front on public streets, and we could use party wall agreements to Use the homeowners Association, to Govern this Community rather than a Condominium association, I think with save

[144:05] costs enough so that the Fees could still cover snow Removal and Street Repair one of the Challenges for Middle Income Homeowners is the Ongoing Funding of Reserves I know That's been an Issue on Holiday and I. Think Also the just straight up fees to maintain and and and and do things like that. In this case, every Homeowner would maintain their own unit unless there was an issue with the Carding Ball, their own facade, their own, because they would own the Fee, simple under their unit, so the Burden of those fees would leave the association in that regard and We believe free up the Resources to take care of

[145:02] These streets. Okay, so are are you saying and maybe this, I don't. I'm not asking you to speak for Stanford, but this Apple, maybe correct you if if they disagree but are you saying that the Street types you propose would not be allowed under city, Code and you could not have a Double loaded one, Way Street for instance Dan, I think that Yeah, that's that that gets at the heart of the issue. Mark, I appreciate that question it, it that the answer is yes, in that the the standards, you know they don't anticipate the variety of street types that we have in here in particularly for the narrow streets you know they might the city, might not even consider that a Stream, you know it's. It's really. It's it's a creative parking, lot, to some degree.

[146:00] But it functions, this lane functions to really provide, if you think about what you see in higher density situations in older East coast cities or in Europe, it allows us to be creative in a way that's proven to be effective you know, give give giving you smaller Scale, rights, of way, but the the the city standards are they? Are very thoroughly worked out to provide a certain standard, but there are numerous examples of variances, to These Standards, I mean they I showed the one example the Yarmouth way example just because necessitated by the internal nature of that piece of property, it where different approaches have worked, but doing them under the Standard City standards. It's just. It's going to eat up on a small space on a small piece of property like this, it'll eat up such a significant area of the Parcel that it it it's just not it's not practical, and yeah, so one.

[147:08] Alternative that's always been pointed out when we've tried. This approach is like, well, why don't you just make that one way street, a Pedestrian way, and you see that and it that's not necessarily something that hasn't been done, successfully, but then somewhere else you have to have a parking. Lot. And There's. There's a different yes, it's. This is a matter of being creative about the approach to provide individual, single family, attached identity in relation to the the public way Okay, next, question, still on the same topic, how are you managing parking? Ie is parking, a community asset. And first, come first, serve 3 for all, is it separately ded, is it rented? Is it? How are you? Yeah, how are you managing Park?

[148:03] Well, I think there's 2 answers to that one is if you're parking in a garage in your unit, then it goes with your unit, so the nice thing about the the concept of altering, these lot requirements, and allowing people to own the land under their unit gives them also a toll hold into some level of parking that they can control at the same time. I think we would anticipate that the on Street Parking would be first come for serve, and that it much like the parking here in new ones. You you know I I have one. Car. My neighbor has 12, and so in front of my house there's always a trailer, and a truck, and you know 4 kids be vehicles, and you know and I pull my car into my Driveway so they can have more room for the street. To Park. their vehicles because I'm just one person here and then I have you know, room to put my car off the Street.

[149:08] So I think that this plan and where if we don't call, if if we transform the Front Loaded parking spaces, into flexible spaces, as Dan indicated in his presentation, we're very close to Just the Minimum Required, Parking here and those Flex Spaces, Don't Necessarily have to be counted as parking, But yeah, there's a mixture Okay, alright, thank you, and so the last one doesn't really do barking, but kind of and that is so your presentation. Focus. Much more than I expected, or in a in a enlightened it helped me understand the open spaces that you're proposing and you use examples that I had researched and I had have some notes about in my comments, for later but wh.

[150:14] When I look at this project, I still have a general sense that and I I I know people value their their private open space and you can put the dog out into the backyard to go B alright great but the ratio of kind of very small private open spaces to really small the the whole Project Feels like it's Lacking Kind of that center, area of a Park like Holiday, Park, like the Center Area.

[151:04] Good, good. And you, you decided Canopy at Red hawk, whatever the Bhp. Yeah, so to me, this this doesn't feel quite enough of a community asset for gardens. For forget gathering for having the kids go out and visit. So can you address what your thoughts are about the ratio at the Perimeters, and maybe maybe it doesn't come at the Expense of Homeowners, little backyards, but maybe it comes at the Expense of Pushing more to the Property, Line, or whatever Else so Can you Address am I Wrong in That or or how do you guys feel about the amount of open space. That is really a community center. Bye, I don't know. I'll be brief and let dan address it as well, but I I think there's probably room to create some more open space in this plan.

[152:01] But I also think that we can be creative, And we can create. I I did a tour of holiday recently, and they have these little pockets of places where kids can. And these small sort of little play house type, things where you know, a play date can assemble and I think that there are ways to activate and be delivered. About some of these smaller spaces at the perimeter and I would agree that we could you know lose another unit, or 2, and and and and enlarge the Existing Central Space and probably Still make this project Work, and and we just started here, in fact we Didn't have that Central, space that you

[153:00] See, because we know that's gonna come up. We know that's gonna be an issue. And we started here. I think we have about 3,000 feet. Of open space in the center, there, and and it's connected to both the middle income in the market made. But I I don't think that's an instrumentable objective Great thank you Okay. Let's see, Ml Thank you, John, thank you Dan, I appreciate, your presentation, and I've lost your name. Your name, Margaret sorry thank you both for for your presentation. Yeah. The planning proposal as you described it. So hold, this is is very appealing. I really appreciate the the Goals, and the Vision Layers of Intentionality.

[154:06] For this project, so I I've got a number of different Kinds of questions. But you talk just going from where Mark was talking about the open spaces, and how the you talked about developing some of the peripheral areas, and creating Opportunities, for their not to just be left over Space and you Reference the Holiday, and you Referenced, that some Others that are not out here in the middle of really nowhere. So my question, when you look at quote activating, where are people going Where are they going? From? The site, you mean?

[155:03] In the site, from the site to the site. It seems like this is the car centric project. Well, it's it's it is to some extent a car. It it is because there's a bus stop here, but it doesn't have. Right. Oh, a lot of buses that come there So it's it's you know, typically the transportation actually follows the development. So the more people you have, then the more often the bus will come just like Broadway, is a great bus artery, because of the number of people that live along it and so it is it is a place and when you have workforce middle income housing. And we sort of feel, like all of this fits into some of those categories, frequently people need cars. I do think that is part of the reason that we worked on.

[156:02] We've presented this plan to some other groups around town, and and a a planning stack also talked about the Front Loading Garages on these perimeter houses, to the west, and the North and that's why We came up with an idea to create a Flexible Space there so that if You didn't have a car. Didn't want a car. You you could utilize that space for something completely different. So trying to stay in reality, and and I think you're right. I think if you're living out here, you more likely to not will have a car Right, cause there really, isn't any place to walk to you. 're not gonna get anywhere, just get going, walking out, your door, to go to the groceries or to go to the cafe, or I is not not a great walk. Score that's correct Right? Right? There, is, there is, a great deal of bicycle traffic. Yeah yeah Here, this is a this is a very popular and and well traveled bike path.

[157:04] I've written out there myself, and I'm sure Dan has to, and So I think thoughtful Mike, opportunities is something we'd like to look at And some things like that I mean, again, this is a concept plan. Alright. And we have Focused really primarily on how to get the Maximum Number of For Sale Families Appropriate Middle Income Permanently Middle Income Homes that that was the Right. The bill here. Right, okay, well, so my my comment about you know the intention of what you're wanting to do here in the Holistic approach to it down many layers of of planning thinking is, is really very appealing what I think what challenges what I find challenging about this is the plan

[158:03] Itself, and I'm not Yes. Oh, okay, ml, I think, we'll have a discussion later on about how how we you know our opinions about the proposal as as a whole. So this is a time when, if you have specific questions to the application that you might focus on them I was going somewhere with the question. But I've lost it. Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean to interfere So no worries, no worries. You'd saved yourself, margaret and Dan my question flew out the window. Thank thank you. It comes back. We're happy to answer Okay. Alright, I don't see any other Hand. I just have a a couple of questions one is where in this map that we're looking at would be the area that the affordable housing or the or the habitat related housing would would go

[159:06] Okay, so everything. You see, the orange, the blue, the sort of PAL, tam, or beige, and the grass, brown, that's that would all be built by habitat we've had Conversations with them, and as I mentioned, you probably have an email, from the Executive, director Supporting, the Project and also saying that we've had these conversations, and so all of that would be, and we would try to coordinate that to try to get as much of this to come online at one time, so as staff outlined in their presentation, and that's, why, we have the Market Rate in The gray and dark light, gray and dark ray. So everything that has a color except for the gray, next to the yellow, which is also middle income would all be constructed by habitat.

[160:08] Okay, thanks. And my I I appreciate your comments on the ha! Type, arrangements that might be associated with this project, because that's been a particular problem in in areas with the mixed, affordable you know permanently affordable housing and market rate, Housing and so what i'm trying to understand is how your proposal would solve that concern and So. You mentioned. Okay, go ahead. Well, I'm sorry I I didn't mean to interrupt you. I I thought that was a question. Yeah Well, well, you you had mentioned that it would be fee simple ownership, and that that would remove some of the expenses associated normally associated with Hoa type, operations, but when you have these buildings, that are are you know linkedin and joined I was trying to understand

[161:08] how how the how that works, and whether there's a precedent for it Well, I'm gonna answer the answer quickly, and then be Van Van can talk to precedent, but This there is precedent. And what you would do to make it a hard owners, association instead of a condominium association is to have party wall agreements, so where you would have duplex for example 2. Units that share, a common wall. John, you have a party wall agreement for that common wall. So if you have the unit on the left and I have the unit, on, the right. We would have an agreement between us, and if something broke in that common wall, the agreement would dictate how we shared the repair costs of that okay, and then the the land underneath your unit would go with your unit just like, the parking space, you would have that that would be yours, and you

[162:07] Would take care of your yard, that piece of land under your unit, the windows, the roof. It goes over your unit, of course if it was on the on the party wall, you would share it with the person on the other side of that wall, so the legal agreements would outline how that would work but it would be on each homeowner to take care of their unit as opposed to a Condo where Right. The Condominium Association takes care of everything. So you could have you you could also charge more to the market rate, because they're larger and that would help take care of the roads and some of the common areas. So we haven't figured it all out yet. But there is precedent for this, and I think you would have lower reserves.

[163:03] Because each person would be maintaining their individual unit so there wouldn't be the on on the Middle income to fund such large reserves, and that's been an issue. I think that you're alluding to in some of these mixed income Developments that we're seeing kind of over time and there's just a much we we we would have to take care of the Roads, if they are Private and but the units, themselves, could be Maintained by Homeowner, and so that would lower the cost it's also easier for somebody to go out and take care of their own house. That it is to put a bunch of money into some common pot that takes care of things that aren't perceived as theirs. That's, a psychological thing and maybe it's not so PC, for me to say that. But that is the reality, that we see in these mixed income environments.

[164:05] So it again. Dan has seen the precedent for this, and he and I talked about it, and the Inclusionary Housing Staff feel like anything we can do. Thank you. To keep the middle income fees and costs down a positive for these folks long term Laura. I had a just a factual clarification, question for staff based on something that the applicants had mentioned if this is an okay, time to ask it. Sure. So I think Dan and his presentation mentioned that Holidays Density is 20 units per acre. And I actually did a little back in the envelope calendar of my own just based on all of the Comments, that we got completely this development to holiday and you know when I looked at and I just looked at a website that said that holidays that the Density in Holiday there's

[165:09] 333, units, in 27 acres, and by my math, that's about 12, and one-third units per acre, not 20, and I'm not sure, where that Discrepancy, comes from if that's like there might be portions of Holiday, that are up to 20 units per acre and maybe there's more open space at holiday. Like, I'm not. I'm not sure if my figures are even accurate. So I wanted to ask staff to weigh in on how do we calculate the density of holiday I would have to look up what was. Kennedy, the initial holiday Development. There's, a number of developments in North Boulder. I think that kind of get logged into holiday. That's just a monitor, so that's something. Great thank you, Charles. And and oftentimes. if if they use the Density bonus of 20 units per acre, they don't end up with the same acreage, because you're Dedicating Streets, and Right and You're Dedicating, Right Away So the Acreage, Is

[166:06] Shrinking, so it may have started at 27. Acres, but by the time all the public roads were dedicated, everything it no longer becomes eligible for units, when it isn't when it becomes public That's a great point. Thank you. So it, it it that's another way, that so so we're not in this would we're not trying to put 20 units per or on this site, we're just saying that the because of those types of things that level of density, Bonus is required to get to a number of units that Make This Project Work Yeah, I think it was like, 18 point, 6, or something. Like, that is what it worked out to Right and it, it may end up at at at less, we don't know because of what we we may lose some space, because of our Right Away Dedications, and other things that will reduce our anchorage. Thank you, Margaret, I appreciate that Okay, any any further questions of the applicant

[167:04] No but John, I'd like to make a suggestion that we take a 5 min break before we go to public comment. If that's okay. That's exactly what I was thinking. So let's do it alright. So we will return at 8 55

[174:19] Hey! John Yes. I wanted to touch the third rail here and ask about our agenda for tonight. Well. We have another, very significant item, that I think Deserves, our Thoughtful Attention and Discussion, and public comment. And it Doesn't seem like, we're going to be done with this, item, before 10 Pm at Anywhere near because We Saw Public comment and discussion You're not alone in that concern. I I think, that what we'll do. Is we should do a take a little thumbs, up thumbs down test, and see who is interested in deferring the next Public hearing to later on.

[175:05] In another meeting? is that what your yeah. I, I think that would be great. Yes, I think we should probably ask staff, if we did defer it. Is there space for it like, when when would it happen? Yes. Hmm. I'm I'm sure that there are people who are hanging on the line for public comment and also staff, who are staying on for this. Item. Sure. So if we can make a decision on this before we get to public comment, that might be Yeah, Charles. Well, we had sent out a cancellation for the January third meeting. So I think we could probably reactivate the the January third meeting, and Slot. This item on the way. I think that would make a lot of sense. If, if all the stuff necessary are available, then to to join us, okay, if if that's possible, let's See can I from the board. Can, we, do some thumbs up or thumbs, down about to moving the Glenwood Court Concept Plan Right Review.

[176:05] To January, third, can I see your thumbs 1, 2, 3. Looks like, we all, agree. Okay. Okay, looks like Brad might have a thought here for us. Yeah, I may be tracking incorrectly, but if you did. Formally vote to Cancel the third meeting, it might be timely to go ahead and hold the formal vote, to hold the meeting The January third meeting Okay, I don't think we had a formal. I think that was just a staff decision to kids. But Okay. Sorry. Okay. Yeah, scheduling is typically administrative. So as long as we get the public notices, and the paper. Then I think we're all set Alright, sorry to confuse things, thanks

[177:01] Okay. I'll just I'll just say, I have an early flight on January fourth, and so I would appreciate. If we do meet on January the third that we just have one significant item Okay. Let's let's try and accommodate that then I think Charles has heard that and so that's what we'll do. So I think we've made a decision. Now, so just to announce to the Public Who's here, tonight that we will not be Considering the Glenwood, Court L U r 2022 Dash 0 0 0 3, 7. Tonight, but that we will be dealing with that public hearing on January third So that means some of you can go home and find something better to do with your evening. But we will now continue with our consideration of J. Road and it's time for the the public comments, section and Vivian.

[178:00] Are are you prepared to run that show again? Yeah, sure, I'm John and Devin will be showing the Timer. So just want to remind everybody that the board agreed for 2 min. Per person. And I'll just add John that January. Third, should work for me. I think we have some pretty packages, but if something unexpectedly ends up moving and we can clear January, third, I would also Appreciate that but I know we may not be able to So we'll what here to that and I see a few hands popping up. So I'll just go ahead and start calling Before we start Brad, I just wanted to check that your hand is still up by accident, is that a fair assumption Yes, it is okay. My Apologies. Go ahead! Evan Great okay, so first let's start with The name here is Robin Cube. If that's not correct. Please introduce yourself, and you have 2 min. Please go ahead. Yeah, my name is Robin Cubby still spelled Kube, but Pronounced Quebec, I wanna thank everybody for all their time. And All the Good Questions and comments that we got today.

[179:02] But I one of the things that I think was left out of the conversation is the impact this development will have on the Infrastructure, especially the Roads, and the Signalized Intersection at J. And 28, street, I live at 41, 60, amber, place, which is just southwest of that intersection. I've lived here for 35 years. I've ridden my bike across Jay room. And at this intersection, for even longer since I moved to Boulder in 1982, and I've been riding it over, and they are intersection right now is horrendous 6 years Ago 7 years, ago, when Planning Board looked at this that was an issue at that Time as to how bad that intersection was, and one of your prior members. John Pnam, commented at that time that the applicant would need to put a lot of thought into the Infrastructure and Kind Ofivity at this Site Fixing J Road, and 28 Street would take a Lot of thought and money, and they given the Annexations, of Discretionary Act on the Part

[180:01] Of the city, development of the property should be done as part of a larger plan, and although I did hear the applicant indicate that there's, a recognition that they'll have to do some work on Jay Road there was nothing about the plan that they Submitted that took that lower acreage into account And so given the comments that have been made tonight about the need to in order to make this an economical project. You need this density. I think these 2 things, just collide, in such a horrific way that it really needs to be taken into account seriously, and I am I want to be clear too I'm not a post, to a high identity. Project, here, but it needs to take care of the Impacts. That we'll have on J road and the safety, and one reason, the buses and everything aren't used here, is because it is so unsafe to get on and Off the Bus, and especially on the other side, of the Road that Isn't part of the City and you guys have no control over thank you So much.

[181:01] Thanks. A lot. Robin. next up. We have janet hymer. Please go ahead Hello. My name is Janet Heimer, and I've resided in Boulder since 1969. I've seen a lot of changes in the community and not all of them. Do. I approve of, however I am in support of this proposal, and the one that now has been moved on Glenwood place but I've been doing a lot of social justice work in this all the years, that I've been in and the possibility of changing Zoning so that more affordable units can Be built on site is what we need to do. We need middle income housing. As you already know. And this site gives us the option to add 34, affordable units, and the proposed 50 market Rate Housing will pay for the cost of the Affordable Units, as the site Stands now City was Recommending City Staff Recommending Lower Density in the Area and while I

[182:13] Understand that I actually don't agree with that, and feel like we need to use as much density. As we can. quite frankly, I'm really tired of seeing all of the Expensive Homes for people who can't, who have money and can afford them. And yet my daughter who grew up here, cannot afford to live here. We are far behind on the housing study of 2,016 that calls for a 1,000 units. So this site is the perfect location to really increase our middle income affordable housing site and I appreciate your doing, that and I think we do need to change zoning.

[183:01] And you can. You need to change the rules. If you want to get a different outcome, and that's all I have time to say. But I did live in that area, thanks Thank you so much Janet, and next up, we have Aj grant who had spoken previously, followed by Danica Powell, just to give you a heads up Hi my name is Aj. Grant Hello, Planning board and staff thanks for all your work. First of all, I think the greatest challenge to us all is and the planning Board and the City staff, and the developer is actually to figure out how to develop, boulder, and grow, without Sacrificing the very Character of both and Roll Boulder that Drew us, all here in the First place unfortunately That's. Why this development should really give us pause, the best way to make a thoughtful decision should be based on a master plan and not a hodgepodge of approving singular developments, like this and also we need to make sure that there's due diligence on all the Developers especially

[184:14] Those from out of town and their track records and ability to operate in a way, commensurate with boulder I'll hold detailed comments to the next meeting, but want to get on record that this is the wrong Project in the wrong place at the wrong time the Boulder comp County comp Plan is coming up for review in 2,025 that's going to determine much of the planning Reserve and Surrounding Area, to this 28. O one J. Road, so the proposed development should not be considered until after that comp plan is completed and because of the very fact that a deviates so drastically from the Existing zoning it should not set precedent for the planning coming up in anyway, so this proposal request should be tabled until that is done. I hope everybody has stood on this property who's making this decision, the density of This Project is actually completely out of character, to the unique Setting on the north Side.

[185:09] Of J Road, it's an awkward, aesthetic to stuff onto this corner with no parts and Burn Surrounding Neighborhoods, like We're Georgia, with More, Open Land, which Will undoubtedly need to be Protected at Cost and also to put Such Building and Drive, it to The outskirts of Town Increases, traffic and Pollution, and is Counter, to the City's, Climate, Goals. Just go ahead. Aj Thank you so much. Aja grant next up we have. Daniel banjo, followed by Lynn Siegel, Daniel, please go ahead Hello, my name is Dan, Banjo. I'm a resident at 28 O 7 J. Road. I reside in Boulder, since 2,007, we are right next to the Applicants Property, and have one home, on 7 acres.

[186:03] We have the gate at the end of the Dirt Road previously discussed, and I currently maintain that road with a 39 horsepower. Tractor I respectfully disagree with Margaret and Dan's assertion that they can use this road it is an easy me provided by my neighbor, Matt Carroll on his Property I'm Looking At the Client Title Deed from 1998 Provides, This Easement and Access to the 4 properties off of jail road. They are wrong. We are not in the city. We do not have city water, cable, gas, or other utilities, Well I'm not adverse to control development within the city do strongly object to this proposal for several reasons, as acknowledged by the Board the plan is not congruent with overall look and feel the Neighborhood. There have been several developments within the city that have allowed for medium density. How housing and low income Housing, which are in the process of being built. There are is already an access point from J road to the existing Church on the Property, and they cannot use the road as they've described, the proposal would need an access off of 36 to take an account all the how all of the cars going in and out Applicant did not tell

[187:14] The Board, this, but they're proposing, a right in right out to the property that is obscene to dictate, that we would need to loop around 2 miles to now, access our property it would cause about 84 houses with work 3. Or 4 people, piece, making 8 trips a day would be an extra, 2,600 trips on J. Road, we average, 16, our family, averages, 16 Trips, a day over the last 2 weeks. Just this year, There had been several cycle at Earn just today there was a Pedestrian hit on Jay road, by an Suv, there have been several cyclists killed in the last few years. According to boulder, crash, data, Dashboard. There are 6 vehicle crashes. So far at this intersection, no rezoning of the property and annex session should be allowed prior to the 2,025, planning reserve, 3, 36, North of J Road is complete major Development.

[188:08] Is approved North of Jay, Road, along 36 then Intersection at J Road. Would need major redevelopment, and potentially new East West thoroughfare and Oh i'll save the rest Daniel, sorry to interrupt, but just to be fair to the others, The the yeah. But thank you very much for your contribution. Next up, we have Lynn, so you go, follow, followed by Thomas Finley Lynn, please go ahead. You have 2 min Hi, thank you to the planning board in the City of Boulder members for your service. My name is Lynn Lichtie my husband, Kevin Benjamin and I are the property owners. At 2830, J. Across from the proposed site, on the south side of Jay Road, in the Guel, division, my main, concern is that only 1 point of motor vehicle Egress is being Planned Namely from the Dirt Road also known as Violet Road, on the busy J.

[189:08] Road, you wouldn't build a house with only one door to enter her exit. A proposed development of up to 84 units, having only one major, vehicle Entry, or exit Point will be a Traffic, Nightmare, and a Fire Safety access Hazard from its Outset, however, North of the Proposed Site, likely in the Area 3, Planning Reserve, Violet Road once Had, or has an East to West access point that feeds on the 20 Eighth Street Highway, 36 I don't see this portion of Violet Road on any map shown tonight. There is currently off of Twenty-eighth Street a road closed sign posted on a barrier at 20 Eighth Street, at Violet Road. There's also an official Green Street sign Off of 28 Street that calls it violent Road. Could staff address when this east-west portion of Violet Road was closed, and could the city or county legally reopen.

[190:08] This portion of violet road to allow a second point of egress for the proposed development, and the current adjacent property owners as people have already said Traffic on Jay Road is already very heavy I've Shared Photos with Shannon of the Current Traffic Congestion on Jay Road. Near this proposed site and the intersection of 28 and J. Is one of the most heavy accident prone intersections in the city. Thank you so much thanks for what you do Thank you very much. Lynn next up. We have. Thomas Finley. Please go ahead. Sorry, Vivian, before we go on. Can we just encourage people. That's great thanks for thanks for mentioning that

[191:01] Thomas, please go ahead. You have 2 min. You're muted Thomas, I think you need to unmute your from your side. Yeah. Yes. That's great Can you hear? Me? Okay. Now, I see. Okay, I understand. I was muted internally, by you. So forgive, me. I'm a resident of or Georgia. I want to formally voice my strong opposition to this project. I have more concerns that I could list tonight. But I'll start with the main concerns number one from 4, Single Family Homes, to 84 units on 4, and a half acres, betrays the spirit of our Rural residential zoned neighborhood, for Reference, Miriam Webster Dictionary, defines, rural as quote of or relating to the Country, country, people, or life, or agriculture, end quote this project is completely incongruous with the Surrounding Rural Residential Area with Respect to Density and for example I can't think of a Single Three-story Building, in the Survey

[192:16] Area, let along Rows, of 3 story Buildings, now we're talking about private streets that are in inspired by the East Coast and old European cities are we aspiring to be Boston Madrid, Rome I Don't understand it number 2 Cars 84 Units, I'm Expecting a 100 to 200 cars parked on that corner, plus visitors. As others have said, Gee Road is extremely busy. The Site is at a traffic signal. It will completely snarl, traffic and will be a complete danger and it's a total fallacy to say people will use public transit transit here is limited. As We've discussed, and there is absolutely no retail nor services within about a one-mile walk which, by the Way doesn't even have sidewalks Lastly, there is No, green space, of any substantial Amount in this Development.

[193:04] It's at odds with what boulder offers, ample green space. To diffuse the the hot summer heat, to wrap it up. I don't feel that this project is designed for this community. It's totally at odds with the Surrounding Area. It's driven by a developer Margin Only and affordable housing is just a lipstick on a terrible deal. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. next up. We have Claudia, Hansen, Tim, please introduce yourself. If I pronounce that Incorrectly and then followed by Wiley Hodgson, so you have a heads up that you're after Claudia, please go Ahead Claudia, you have 2 min Thank you. Vivian. Good evening, planning board. My name is Claudia, hansen theme. I live in the holiday neighborhood. I reviewed this Project for the Boulder Housing Network Newsletter but I'm showing my Personal thoughts tonight. First I want to recognize that this is a challenging location to create the type of Compact and Car light development that many of us have been advocating for there's limited transit Service and high car Traffic Volumes on both 28 and J are Barriers to Bike, in

[194:11] Pedestrian access. But this is not a reason to replicate the low density, development patterns in your buy development. Of twenty-eighth and J. Should look to the future. Whatever we envisioned for the Area 3 planning reserve rather than backwards. To, the Suburban Land Use patterns that have encouraged on affordable sprawl the Combination of Mxr and Mx, R. And x. 2 zoning that the Applicant request would put this parcel in par with the Nearby Holiday neighborhood, and open the door to doing even Better End Future Annexations, so what I hope we can do at this site is accept that challenge of getting to 84 Shared full Homes and Focus on how to optimize housing utility and shared spaces for future residents, please work with city staff and the applicant, to minimize the Space Devoted to Parking and Paved rights, of Way and allocate, open space, within the Development in ways that will enhance community Life the Shared space at the Center

[195:03] Of the neighborhood is a good start? Could it be connected and expanded by turning the north, south, private street, that it crosses into 2 dead ends? Could the multi-use Path be more separated from cars either by moving it to the western boundary, or by reducing vehicle and Parking, access On the adjacent Private street, can We be Flexible with Street Design, and Rights of way, Recognizing that New Streets in this Parcel will Be primarily for access to housing, and they don't need to be high volume. Can we find creative ways to turn the wedges of open space on the periphery into safe, active and ultimately loved spaces. The bottom line is that the concept we have here of middle Income permanently affordable ownership Housing by with smaller unit footprints. Is something we've been aspiring to for some time. So let's see how good we can make it here thanks Thank you, Claudia for your contribution. Next, up we have Wiley, Hodgson. Wiley, please go ahead, please go ahead.

[196:04] Might have to unmute from your side. Wiley. We can't hear you Let's see let me try it again. Wiley. Can you try speaking now. If not, we'll move on and then come back to Wiley Sorry about that we'll come back to you, let's try Ryan Bonnik

[197:04] Please go ahead. You have 2 min. Hi, planning board, thank you for your time. My name is Ryan Bonnock, I'm a renter living car Free in Boulder, and I. Think this project is pretty great? No, this is a great example of moderate density, like the Holiday new neighborhood near there. It's not quite as dense as a transit junction. Where I live. but more importantly, this does provide a large amount of permanently affordable middle income housing. I, I, your concerns about you. Know this doesn't really match the neighborhoods around it. But I think the problem there is that if we only ever build the housing, that Matches the neighborhoods around it will never really reach any sort of meaningful density which is absolutely required. If we need to run public transit and allow people to have non, car centric lives, another thing.

[198:00] Is the sorry. I'm I'm losing my thread for the short term like J Road, is actually quite nice. Once, it connects to 26 Street. There's a really solid bike, lane, that you can take all the way down to the city, center, there's also connection to Goose, Creek, Trail, Personally, I also really like to have a concept provided options for non car Centric people, like myself to have you know, nice outdoor patio area, to live in. If they don't have a car, and then longer term we do need dense housing, like this project, so I mentioned the planning reserve which I I do hope eventually gets developed, but that'll also bring a bunch. Of amenities. And you know with more dense housing, we also can actually make viable transit, like buses possible, because without a large potential rider, base it's not really economically, feasible to run buses at a frequency that is actually useful to residents.

[199:02] Thank you Thanks, a lot ryan. Okay. So let's try widely, one more, time Can you hear me now Thank you! Oh, good evening. My name is Wiley Hodson, our family lives at 2, 8, 2, 3. J. Road, so we've been here before during the previous attempt this Developer made up zones, property and the rationale, then for why it should not be developed as for post still applies today, the Requested Mxr land use absolutely does not conform with the Surrounding Neighborhood, and we do Appreciate. A staff, history. On that same conclusion, however, we strongly disagree with Staff's assessment, that ups own it to Rmx, 2 with allow for 14 units for acre is appropriate Staff is using housing Densities and neighborhoods that are more than a Mile Away to Justify what the appropriate density is for this parcel, but they're annoying the neighborhoods that are directly adjacent to the property which has around a density about a Quarter, of home per acre so including those neighborhoods, and the analysis, would Drastically.

[200:06] Drop staff, average density, per acre, so 2 8. O one J. Road sits in Area, 2. But it is surrounded on 3. Sides by the Planning Reserve which is all privately owned. The city has singled that is going to move forward with its service, study as a first step to opening up the Planning Reserve and the Upcoming Boulder Valley Compound, Update, so from a planning perspective it doesn't make sense, to push approval of this proposed development just prior to the Start the Boulder Valley, count plant, update, process, doing so well, at a minimum. You'll end up with a poorly planned housing project that creates traffic and safety issues that are mentioned and really Lacks conformity with the Surrounding Area, the worst case is that now you set the precedent for what they're planning Reserve is going to become and doing so the risk of Burning The whole Bullet account. Process. So I highly, recommend revisiting with the previous planning Boards Discussion was of Moving This Property Area from Area to Area 3 Planning Reserve so you can ensure you have A Comprehensive Planning Approach That's Conducted this is done for a Holiday

[201:06] Neighborhood. It should be done here, too, and so in last, I'll say, you know, while it has changed since the Developers previous Attempts to build the property there has been a positive change that we Haven't. Yes. Now have a new Tenant at the Church on the property, city church has made improvements to the property, and overall they've been a really good neighbor, so let's not forget about the Impact this Development will have on them thank you Thank you, Wiley. next up we have, Greg Schwartzer, followed by Adrienne. Fine Greg, please go ahead. Greg, we can't hear you, I think you're joining from Telephone. Great Up there. We go sorry about that Missed the pop up. Screen. Sorry. My name's Greg Schwartzer, I reside in Orange orchard, with my family i've got 2 quick comments, you know.

[202:02] First, possibly a naive, Citizen, Question but you know if the Bbcp, 1.1 7 d. Is Shared, and noted addresses you know density matching in the case of annexation. You know why isn't that an immediate stopper on this proposal, given, you know, as ml noted, the average Surrounding Density is about 4.9. So you know, said differently on that topic, you know if if the Bbcp Plan isn't followed, when contemplating this annexation at least somewhat closely, you know What's the point of that Plan and Wouldn't you be undermining it so that's Point number 1 point Number 2. Is you know as the developer talked about the density. They're proposing it as as necessary for the cohesion of the neighborhood, that they're contemplating it strikes me as a homeowner, and direct proximity, as an invittance that the Surrounding Neighborhoods, and the Impacts are not at all considered as Part of

[203:02] the Overall, local community, envisioned in the Developers proposal so that's that's a major concern that you know, the Developer thinks, this is this one cohesive standalone thing. And therefore is ignoring all the rest. Of the comments. You're hearing from neighbors, and not trying to work with like well, how do we make this a larger, broader, community that that works together, so you know. In summary, I think it's a great project. I I applaud, the creativity of the Developer. But it's a great project for a different system thanks for your time. Thanks a lot. Greg. next up. We have. Adrienne, fine, followed by Matthew, carro, a Adriene please go ahead, you have 2 min Hi there, thanks. Much for the time to speak thanks for the Planning Board Applicant and Staff, my name is Adrenaline, I live in Orange, orchard and I'm Generally Supportive of this Project especially since It Does include 40% Affordable Housing Helping the City and Region Meet their

[204:04] Meet their Middle Income Housing Goals, which, as described earlier, we're having some trouble meeting the Staff Report really Robust appreciate that 2 issues, I saw raised there so one on the Annexation of Change of Land Use Doesn't, I would just suggest at some Point, like if you want the housing those are things you have to massage, and actually make happen. I think you can find that they're necessary and Consistent with the Comp. Plan you can also find that they're not question is do you want the housing on issue to consistency with the character of the founding area? I would say yes to the West, as some people have mentioned the holiday neighborhood less, so to the East, towards my neighborhood, of orange orchard and that actually seems like a fair compromise the Applicant is asking for density similar to North Broadway, in the Holiday neighborhood the Project Massing is Sensibly designed to put the density away from other Uses. And I would also suggest compatibility. Does not mean the same there's actually kind of Stepping back, stepping up all that kind of good stuff, few other comments, Cafe I would love that reduce me Driving into Town for Coffee a Number, of Folks have mentioned J Road, and 28 I Would

[205:06] Just be interested in seeing the data around that I'm sure it's somewhere, probably a place to sharpen our pencils. On, and then finally the Sidewalk on Jay, I think, is a bonus. It would be wonderful if there were a Pedestrian Connection between 28 and 47, or even up To Diagonal, Anyways, thanks so much for the time Thank you, Adrian for your Contributions. so next, up we have Matthew Paraway, followed By Paulina, Herewitt and Rosie, Fivian, Matthew, please go ahead. Matthew, you might have I think you're on your telephone. You might have to look for the popup

[206:03] Give him a moment. Let's see Matthew floors, yours. We can't hear you Okay. Let's go to Paulina, and we'll come back to Matthew Paulina, you have 2 min starting now, please go ahead. Hi i'm Pauline Hewitt, I also live on J. Road, I have. We've lived here since 2014. And this is a rural residential area, as you know, I have. No I'm not opposed to development of that corner, but not the density, that the developer is proposing, having lived on j road. I know what the traffic is I've seen the traffic at that intersection and during rush hour.

[207:00] I don't know how it's tenable to have that many cars, as the Developer said. It's a working community, come out, a rush hour in a short distance, with one lane road, with a right turn off, there, a bus, stop and a bike, lane, and bikers going from from East, to West, and then making a right, there, or going left, or going, straight there, have been Bike. Accidents I've witnessed on J road, and it is the most bite road in Boulder County. My husband, is a cyclist, and that is something that I think the board needs to take into consideration when they're thinking about that intersection because we have races on J road, so many athletes, and many Bikers use j road to practice on all Day long every Day of the week at all times of the day, and I would invite the planning Board cause you seem like a very thoughtful group, and I really enjoyed your questions, and comments to please come here after the holidays on a regular working.

[208:09] Day, dream, rush, hour and see what that intersection looks like and experience, the traffic there, and then decide whether you think, you can have high density, housing at that point as many of the other people said as a planning board, We've lived around the country, in a lot, of different places we need to Sort of look at the whole plan, and not piece meal it. So it's Comprehensive and Workable for Boulder, okay. Thank you. Paulina. Okay, so let's try Matthew again, I think we've figured it out. Mythew let's see, if we can hear you this time All right. ' can you hear me now Okay. Good. Okay, so I'll be quick. My my name is Matthew Carro. We've been living at 2025 J road for the last 16 years number of people before me have said there's a little bit more eloquently than I will, so I'll be pretty quick one, J.

[209:12] And 28, is a terrible intersection, and as Robin Cubby pointed out, there has to be significant infrastructure improvement on that before you put 84 units, on this call this Plan doesn't Compile it Doesn't really comply with a Boulder Valley compound in so Many different things. It borders on the Reserve, on 3, different on the North, and the East, the I'm not really in the West. You, talk, about the Polar Valley compound is going to be redone in 2,025. This needs to be shelved until that time. People have talked about the density. I hear about the density of a holiday neighborhood neighborhood is pretty far away from here in your table, that you have you had the Sundance Neighborhood at 9.2 that's still pretty you can't really see that at all from this Area. This density is not appropriate. For this spot.

[210:00] This design is not really available for the response. She's. Now, just so in summary, I just don't think it's a good idea I'm I'm a more elaborate. Yeah, that's great Maybe in my letter. But please shove this thing, make it a comprehensive plan, where all of boulder, Valley compound, with the planning of 3 reserve, in a couple years, and then let's talk about what would be appropriate for this Property in the future thank you for your time, have a Good night. Thank you Matthew, so the last hand up, for now is Rosie Fibian Rosie. Please go ahead. Good evening, I support this project at this conceptual Stage and Aspirations of this Project as an architect who's been Following these projects for some time. Now I know how costly and difficult it is to provide any kind of on-site affordable housing. I think it's commendable that this Developer is finding a way to to accomplish this with with an AIM, to to to accomplish everything that's been asked of them by the City and by our go our city goals, of Providing middle income Housing so for that

[211:16] Reason, I support this project, Thanks Thanks a lot, Rosie for your contribution. We do have another hand, make and call, calls hope I pronounce that correct this time, please go ahead Thank you, and Vivian what a nice job you're doing and helping us in the public to contribute to the meeting. So, I just wanna point out, that this project promises to bring forth 34, Middle Income Affordable Housing Units, Permanently Affordable, which is as many as we've gotten Since October Sixteenth, of 2,000, and 16 which is the date on which we Adopted the middle Income

[212:06] Housing strategy 6 years ago. And if we keep saying no to the projects that come and can make a substantial contribution to what we have said and adopted plans that we want we're not going to address the need of our people for more Housing The the cry, that I'm hearing from neighbors is that we should wait for the planning reserve to be planned. We don't know that anything's going to go on in the planning Reserve and there's absolutely nothing in the site, Review. Criteria? Which is what a concept review points to that makes a criterion that you can take a property in area 2, and treat it as though or in the planning reserve where development can only be considered once every 10 years I think you's really important that we get this housing and get it online

[213:06] That it addresses the housing crisis that we have all talked about, and I'm sorry the neighbors in the Rural Enclave, to the West, are just going to have to Tune in to the extraordinary Housing Crisis that We have we have young people working in restaurants that they like to Patronize it. Have no place to live. This is gonna bring some needed new units to our to our community. And I hope that you will encourage the plan. Thank you Thank you. Thank you, making so we have one more hand for now, Diana Karo, please go ahead Hi can you hear me Okay, this is Diana Carroll. I live at 2825 J road.

[214:01] And on the property directly adjacent to as proposed. Development, we've lived here for about 16 years, raised our kids, down here, we traveled down our dirt driveway you know, every day, taking the kids to school turning Left turning right out of that driveway as it Stands just leaving to go, to school in the Morning, we can wait for Several minutes, for an opening so that I can turn left or right to get the kids to school. I cannot imagine how 84 units worse of families could feasibly get in and out of that Site at that corner. I just I can't see it I don't let my 13 year old son who goes to school at Centennial Middle school, which is the middle, school that this Area serves I don't let him go across that intersection, because I don't feel like it's safe

[215:17] So that's you know I could go on and on about concerns. Please go ahead. I have about this, but I think I'll just speak right now to my concerns for safety. Traffic Wise at this Site, thanks a lot for hearing me out Thank you, Diana. We have a couple more hands, Susan Patton, followed by Ernie Sandy, Susan, please go ahead Yeah, this is Daniel Weller I'm Susan, Patton's husband, using her computer. I just want to thank you all for the meeting. This evening, a couple of things that haven't been addressed so far. There's a lot of traffic at this intersection, that's already been mentioned, but There's also been a lot of wildfires up to the North and West of Boler, recently in the Last several years J Road and Highway 36, that Intersection, is one of the

[216:16] main egress points to get out of boulder. In an emergency situation, That was very apparent during the the Marshall Fire day, about a year ago. There was a fire to fires, actually just to the north of boulder and a lot of folks had to evacuate to the south, and to the east, and that intersection, if you add another 60 to 80 Homes, with 3 to 4 people, in each home That's, going to just create additional Gridlock. that area is not a good spot to put a whole bunch of homes it's a rural character, you had a a gun, club to the North and East that people are trying to approve, for more expansion, and that's, going, to be shooting into the into

[217:11] The to the backyards of these new homes. So those are all things that have not yet been considered and I just hope that you think about these types of things, the safety and the the traffic. I understand that we need more housing and boulder. But this is not the spot to do that once you bring it utilities across, highway 36 to the North, and East, an entire area from Jay road, all the way to the open space to the north, about 2 miles worth is going to be developed, and I Don't think that's, what we want for that part of Boulder. Thank you for your time. Thank you for sharing Ernie Sandy. The floor is yours. Please go ahead.

[218:08] Ernie, we've given you permission to speak but we can't hear you I have to mute from from your end. Okay, here, we go. How's that? Okay, this is Ernie Anderson, at 40, 80. Welsh place in the Gould Subdivision, just right across from this area. That's being talked about. this seems like a a pretty nice design develop layout, and everything. It's just not that corner is just not where something like that should be the amount of app in and out that corner is just even for a small development on that corner, would be almost too. Much. It's just doesn't have the access to handle. Very many cars at all which everybody's talked about the densities, just not the and like the Last person that just talked the annexation to begin with I would be against that just because once that gets Annexed it's, gonna just snowball, all the way, up

[219:22] 28 street and Just change the entire character of the whole area eventually, so another thing that hasn't been talked about very much is a lot of the areas around here we have shell Wells. And any disruption of the ground with would be the Underground or their Parking, the putting in the Underground Parking and Stuff, I mean water table in some areas is maybe only less than 10 feet maybe sometimes 5 feet, from the ground so Disruption, of that Water did affect a lot of wells in the

[220:04] Area, so that's about it. It's just it's just not the right project in the right Spot. As well, okay. Yeah. Great. Yeah, that's perfect Thanks. Thank you Ernie Chair, there there are no other hands raised Okay. Well, I'll bring the the Public Comment Section of this Hearing to a close, and bring it back to board for discussion. Or question. Additional first, will, if you have additional questions of staff for the applicant, we can do that first and then then we'll have our discussion. If you don't have enough time to say, everything you want to say, please do email us, we do read our emails. Are there any additional questions for Staff or Applicant, Laura Yeah, just a couple. Thank you. I'll try to be quick. I wanted to ask Charles, did we have an answer on the holiday density. Were you able to work on that Okay. Thank you we'll come back to that. I did also want to ask. I did ask the applicant about this, but I wanted to give staff a chance to respond as well. Are there any other access points that could be opened, that staff think are feasible? Or is right in right, out on that Dirt Lane. The only option for access to this site

[221:32] Yeah, We don't have any transportation staff here with us tonight. I can try to address the question we would be looking for the city's minimum access spacing requirements to be met and for turning to do that so that's my Understanding of how when the City Reviewed it the Right in Right out, in the Location Let's, look at so We

[222:00] Didn't review alternative placements to that. I think we kind of looked at what was propose and kind of review that again. Thank you. Shannon and I'm seeing some public comment in the Q. A that people were not able to hear that some of the the folks on the line were not able to hear you. It sounds like, maybe there's a microphone issue. I don't know if Shannon either you could repeat it or if someone else could repeat it. So that folks on the line could hear I'll try to take my microphone off and see if that's helpful at all But yeah, the I think that the question was regarding the access in terms of the Access Location and how that's laid out transportation. Staff. Would look at that in terms of our minimum access space and requirements, and then the the turning movements that would be appropriate for more with access is located.

[223:00] So we didn't, we didn't attempt to evaluate like alternative locations for that access point. They really just looked at what was proposed in it. Okay. Thank you it's good to know And then I we've had a lot of people question. How could this be approved? Given? The Current Bbcp Land use that it limits it to 4 units in in this particular Zoning and Land use I don't know if staff wanna comment on the Process of Annexation and changing land Use and why the City would Consider Annexing it, and What benefit we get from that I don't know. If it's worth trying to restate, that for the benefit of the public Yeah, for sure. I think, we're like you mentioned where the the 4 Units is coming from is under the the current, Zoning in the County. There's a limitation there under that work, residential, zoning.

[224:02] And has now So since the Bbcp Planning areas designate this as area to that, means that the city and the County have jointly agreed through the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan that it is eligible to be Annexed if if it goes through the Annexation, Request Process, and is determined to be consistent with a number of policies that would apply so that's what we'd be looking at if it. If it were to apply for annexation, and the benefits, that the city would see out of that, particularly in terms of the orbital Housing Piece that many folks have mentioned be one of those Key items that would come into play So, so this is a piece of so if I'm understanding correctly, this is a piece that has been designated. I think, since the Seventys or Eightys as appropriate for Annexation Area to and It's anticipated that at the time of Annexation, that land, Use Zoning would Excuse Me Not the Land Use the Zoning would Change, Allow the Only Reason Why, the City Would I'm still digging, but I'm close Annex it is, if we receive a benefit to our housing stock. So annexing a rural residential property with no change of zoning is not something. We'd be likely to do is that correct That's correct

[225:23] Yeah, any time. It's annexed. It would have to have a city zone in a pledgement. Yeah. Okay. Thank you Alright any further Questions. Okay, then, I think, I see, Ml, has a hand up. Okay. I couldn't find my other hand just a little quick follow up Shannon This land is currently the land. Use designation in the Boulder Valley Comp plan is public is that correct That's correct Okay, thanks.

[226:04] Okay, so now, we're gonna bring it back. And to make sure that we respond. In an efficient way to both Staff's questions and to let all the Board Members lay out all of their any other concerns which they may want to talk about we'll, start out by Specifically, focusing on the Staff's Questions and the first one of those is is the proposed Annexation and Boulder Valley, Bbcp. Con Land Use, Designation of Mixed Density Residential Consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations of the Top Plan. So, let's let's focus our responses, right now on to on that question, and then we'll move on to the next question. That staff is laid down. So what do you think

[227:04] Jon. Could we get the question up on the screen. Just so we make sure we're all speaking? To it. If Well, so just so you know what we did was we took that first question, and we broke it into 2. Parts. The first question that was in the Memo we broke it into the land Use Designation Part, and then the Zoning Part just so that we could have full robust discussion about each each of the they'd combine 2 questions which are probably better separated so the first question is specifically, about the land use designation. That's right Thank you, Sarah. Can can we point to the page in the packet, or put it on screen just so that we can all read it. Maybe I think it's on page 65, maybe Devin. Can you get it up there, or Shannon 3,

[228:04] I'll try to share my screen again. 64, looking at the wrong one, no. I have it on page 65 of my packet. And But this, sounds like ml, you have it on a different page. Yeah, but then I don't know who just typed this out but if you would just for the time being, take out from and to Mixed use 2 that'll be a separate question just so that the board can focus on the 2. Different components. Okay, very good. Alright. Your thoughts are requested Go ahead, Sarah. I'll go first, Okay, so first, I want to thank all. My fellow Board members for really Thoughtful good questions that I think, go to the complexity of this concept, plan I'll just answer question one very simply I support Staff's Recommendation of an Mr.

[229:12] Land Use, Designation, and I think that it's possible to get large number of Houses, or Units into this Site, without not the number that they've proposed perhaps but a Significant number and I think that the Mr. Doesn't is a tool that will, allow staff and the applicant to find ways forward that address A lot of the challenges that have been brought up that have to do with Traffic and parking. And the what I think is sort of a lack of really usable open space. Etc. Etc. So I actually, support Staff's recommendation for an Mr. Land, use, designation.

[230:09] Okay, Lisa I would say, I I'm open to sort of either, which perhaps isn't so useful. We're in concept, plans that can be a little wishy, washy I think it's very possible that and I won't go end up on them. Yet but but I also have concerns about open space and parking, and traffic, and access, and so on. And so it's very possible that once all that is addressed, that it basically ends up being at Mr. However, I'm not super like I I don't feel super strongly about mxr versus, Mr. Okay. Laura Yeah, I strongly agree with Lisa, I am agnostic about whether it's mxr, or Mr.

[231:04] I'm more concerned about how do staff and the Applicant Work together to solve the challenges all of the ones that Sarah and Lisa have brought up and if they can do that in Mxr more power to them and if it Ends up being Mr. I'm okay, with that as well, and I hope we'll have a chance to talk about some of those specific challenges later in this discussion. 2121, 83, or 21, Okay, let's see, we else. Ml. Thank you, John well put Laura and Lisa and Sarah. I I think that Taking this back to the staff, and the applicant, the Bigger issues.

[232:06] Let's see mark. What do you think I'm gonna come down after a lot of Map Review and thinking and looking I'm gonna come down on the side of Mx, R and and my reasons go to and i'll talk, about these later but our our middle income housing goals and the risk. Of oh, not Doing enough, and consequently it doesn't happen. And and that that's something that's a pattern that that happens in boulder many times where we pair away at a kind of a bold project to the point that it it just doesn't happen or morphs, into something that doesn't accomplish, any of our goals

[233:02] So anyway, I'm gonna come down on the side. Of I think Mxr is an appropriate land use. Okay, I'll, I'll throw in my 2 bits. No, I I think that Lisa and and Sarah and Laura have have made good sense I'm not so much concerned whether it's mxr or medium dance, today, but I am concerned that this proposal does not seem to adequately satisfy, either the Transportation, Movement, Aspects, or the The The Open, space Aspects, that would make better necessary to make this a desirable development. And we'll all again talk about those issues later on, but so so i don't have a strong feel for that, as long.

[234:03] As these other Aspects are addressed, and among those aspects are integration with the the Neighborhood Right. Now this could be a gated community, except for the except for the multi-use path, but is shown and that makes me quite nervous Okay, let's move to then the relation key issue from key issue, number one, and that is the the Let's See, which is It's the is the proposed Rmx to Zoning consistent Oh, alright, okay. Can can we put that up here? Here, we go! Wow, that was painless, okay. Is this consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan

[235:02] I'll go ahead. Yes, I think it is Okay. That was short. Laura I'll agree with Sarah, I think staff and the Applicant have both requested this zoning, and and so and this is allows for a very wide range of Housing Types and Densities so I Think a very good project could be made, with Rmx 2 and it is Consistent with the Goals Generally I will Often Defer to staff. So I certainly take their recommendation seriously. So yeah, I'll I'll say I'm somewhere kind of in the middle, which perhaps Isn't super, helpful, but it's concept plan so Alisha Designation. It's a bigger issues are solved. I think that the Appropriate Land Use Designation will unfold from that Okay, where are, we ml. I agree. I believe it is consistent with the Boulder Valley complaint, the Rmx 2 Mark. I concur. Yes, I think it is consistent with the Pbcp Okay, this is going very quickly. Lisa, you have your hand up again.

[236:01] Okay, well, I, I get to be the odd man out here, my my perception is that this does not agree at present with the boulder Valley. Comp. Plan, and I think that this could be changed in the 10 year, or the 25 update to make it concerned with the Comp. Plan, but I don't think at present with the way. The comp plan is formulated. I I'm not satisfied. That this sets right, that this is consistent with the comp plan Hey, John, can you just explain. Can you unpack that a little bit tell us what you think is inconsistent Well, I think that one of the key issues of the Comp. Plan is to give expectations of to the Neighboring community of What They're likely to be dealing with in the in the Future and right.

[237:04] Now this is the land. Use maps show this is public, and I think that is a that What's being proposed here is not a public use of the land, and the the way to change that is to change. It in the in the 2,000, and 25, update Hmm. and Objectives But, I, okay. John John couldn't it also be changed upon annexation Of course it can and that is a you know a legal way to move ahead. But my perception of the comp plan is that it gives people a reasonable expectation of what is likely to happen on a certain area, and that's why I'm hesitant to say that this is consistent with the existing conflict to me the the right time to make

[238:03] Sure is with that that update Sure. Can I see something? John, you bring up an excellent point. I appreciate because that I think, is something that I think I'm not sure that the Public used well, they did Boulder Valley Call plan plus the areas area study I think the question that comes up for me is How can. Okay, looking at this as a discrete, project coming on deck today, bringing with it the housing that is so vital in our

[239:00] In our community, bodily necessary in our community, and yet To feel like we actually understand where we're headed. I think to me that that's the biggest conflict I have with the project in general, is well, where are we headed? Is this a little, hodgepodge on the corner there, So I I appreciate. I appreciate your point, and I'm not exactly sure I, I think none of us could say that well, as a boulder Valley comp plan stands right now, right, this is not public, Yes. But yeah, I. I'm not. I it adds a lot of questions to the to the thinking, yeah. Yeah, no. I I I certainly recognize the the desire and demand for additional housing.

[240:07] Right. And the obligation of older to make it possible. But I also recognize the the concerns and expectations of people in the county, who are neighbors of this area, and it seems to me that is if if we're gonna operate with the Boulder Valley comp plan in good phase that we have to Take that into account as well, Sarah Yeah, thank you. I just want to follow up with something with Ml, so don't mute yourself. Okay. Okay. Ml, the this question of where we're headed, I mean, I think that kind of takes us to the issue that came up back in 2,000, and 16. Which was for 2,015, which was the recommend or a suggestion by several of the then Planning Board Members, that maybe this should be incorporated into the longer, the larger Planning for the Part of the planning Reserve and I realized that you know we're not in the Business of putting

[241:13] Parcels in various different places. Just because we want to. Right. But this question of where are we headed, and where does this fit? In. I think is a really important question and one that the proposed the proposal doesn't answer in it's also very and it. So it's a it is a challenge. And I'm just curious. Ml, if you have some thoughts about It it does it being a standalone that's going to be connected to something much bigger. Right. Like, how that how you think about it, then Right interestingly enough, the the for my even using that language.

[242:00] Is it comes from a climate responsible development. When are we gonna shift from making I mean making projects that could have been proposed a decade ago, 2 decades ago. The shift, in how we use our land on all these scales. I think I'm sorry I've got a call. So my my voice is a little funky but so that's that's what I mean. When I say, where are we headed? I think we have to start looking at a holistic Solutions to the use of our land. And you know we've heard about traffic. We've heard about the there's nothing out there. We've building a a car, centric and then we're like right up against a rural area. So I don't know the answer to it, but I I think it's a question that we we have to bring forward.

[243:04] So sorry. Sarah, I I don't have a specific. I just I think that a holistic approach that includes. How can we address climate responsible solutions that speak to where we need to be positioning ourselves Okay. See? Laura has her hand up I think, mark, might have been before me Oh, go ahead, anyway, you're you're on laura. Okay, you know, I think these are great points. And I pondered this as well, you know, and I also take to heart that this project is in area 2, and they have applied for annexation and or they are contemplating applying. For annexation. And they've come before us with a concept, and it would be great if we already knew the answer to what is going to happen in the planning. Reserve.

[244:07] I think there are different ideas about that there are folks that would like to see it. Stay basically rural, there's also a strong contingent of folks, probably including some of our City Council, members who are interested in seeing it be developed and used especially for this Types of Housing that we just have a very hard Time, Developing, in Boulder, such as missing Middle and Affordable, Housing so We Don't we don't know what that's going to be. So my personal take is that we need to treat this project. As it needs to stand on its own. For what is there for the reality today, regardless of what happens in the planning, reserve, I it seems to me, and maybe Staff want to weigh in on this that we probably don't have the authority to simply say we're going to punt on this for 3 years until the planning reserve study is done I I don't know if we can do that I don't know if

[245:03] Staff want to weigh in on the legality, there Eliot's or Charles Hi I mean I couldn't say at this point we are. This is the this is just giving our opinions on things. This is not a quasi-judicial decision. So I think who you can be happy making any recommendation. We want at this point Sure, but the applicant has come to us with a concept that they would like to take to the next stage of a site, review and so part of the purpose of What We're Doing here tonight is to give them some indications of what we would need to see in a site review and you know if this board has some indications that. Well, nothing that they propose, is going to be okay with us, because we want them to wait for the planning reserves that to be, done. I think we need some legal advice, about whether we can even do that I think that applicant deserves to kind of have that question answered rather than live in limbo.

[246:04] It seems like, Oh, okay, somebody else can go. Laura oh, go ahead. Sorry sorry I was just gonna laura my my agreeing with John's and and Bringing up. Where is this all going? Doesn't change my initial support of I think that It Rmx 2 as an annex, as a state of zoning after an annexation I still agree with that I'm I'm not changing that Position I'm just I'm just Reminding myself, and maybe out Loud, that there are bigger surrounding concerns, and I think that they will come in with key issue. No too Thank you. Emil. Mark. Well, John, I think Elliot was maybe gonna weigh in on the question that I had asked about legality here Oh, sorry I'm glad you were gonna yeah, go ahead. Sure, yeah, the the gist of what I was gonna say was essentially, it would be within the discretion of the Planning Board, whether you would want to have the applicant wait until the 25 Update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan like if that was That's essentially your your

[247:11] prerogative to say no, it's more appropriate to update the land use map in this Comprehensive fashion, versus in this kind of AD. Hoc fashion, so it really be within your authority to dive Would it thank you, Eliot. And would that entail meeting to ask staff that when they consider the Area 3 planning reserve study that they add this parcel to the mix I I would defer to charles on that. I'm not sure of the specifics about how that that process works You know the area 3 study that we're going to be undertaking in 2023, is really about utility service, I think where that's gonna come up as really in the next update to the comprehensive plan. And and that's typically the time where we start talking about you know whether areas should be moved from area 3 to area 2, or 2 to 3. Vice versa.

[248:06] So if that's the desire of the Board, as Part of Tonight's proceedings. You can make that recommendation to Council, But ultimately, I think it's a legislative move to put a piece of property back into the Area, 3 or back end of the Planning reserve. And I think as we said earlier tonight, I think this has been area to You know which means it's I I envisioned for You know Development and city services since the mid eighties. I think so. That will probably command some additional conversation as part of the Upcoming Compound process. But if if that's a recommendation to board, wanted to make as part of tonight's conversation, you certainly could do that and then you know, we we would ask that the board, raise that again, once we start talking about the next update to the conflict Okay. I'm not saying that I want to do that. But if we were to do that what is the timeline of the next comprehensive plan update, you said, 2,025, is when it begins

[249:08] No it'll begin in advance of that 24, I believe, if I'm not mistaken We'll start talking about the Urban Services Study in 2023 So, the comprehensive plan update happens in 25. It'll be finished in 2,025 Yeah, it won't finish in 2,025, we'll start doing the preliminary work in 2,000, and 24, it usually takes 18 months to 2 years, I think the fifteenth, update was adapted and 17, if I'm not Mistaken, So it's a it's a pretty detailed conversation with a lot of Outreach to the Community, so It's not anything that happens overnight. So so it could be 2,026, or 27. Before that's finished. Okay, thank you just wanted to get my timeline straight Correct, hmm, sure Mark. Well, it seems we've embarked on a little bit of a question creep. Here, but I'm I'm everyone else is contributing so I'm going to do the same.

[250:08] So the question is, where are we going? And for me, we need to zone and plan to our goals, to our vision, for our community, and not to Enshrine Current condition which has led to our our housing crisis, our our Climate crisis, so you know so an answer is it rmx, 2 or something else? Well, what gets us closer to our goals, and I O so, one, we need a plan and zone to our goals, and our vision. 2. This is area 2. It is not area, 3. It is adjacent to area 3. It is area 2, so I think, any discussion of Area Creep, Well let's toss it in with Area 3 it's in Area 2.

[251:07] It's been an area, 2 it's in area 2. Let's deal with it like it, is which is an area too And finally, you know, we've talked about the middle income housing goal. Which was started actually like 2015 early, 2,016 We are 38%. We've used up 38% of the timeline and depending upon how you calculate that we are somewhere around between 5 and 1215% of the way there, and achieving our middle income housing, goal so we are way, behind the Curve, and I think we have To look at this as an opportunity to to not get ahead, but to to to catch up a little bit in in achieving our Middle income housing that's my answer on the Rmx, 2 so thanks.

[252:12] Okay, I think, we've all had a chance to let people know what we think on that. Let's move ahead. Is the proposed concept plan compatible with the surrounding area Mark this, your hand is still up, so you can go first Oh, well, okay, then, fine. I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll I'm ready on that one. So I'll try to make it quick. I think that this I I I spend a lot of time with the Zoning Map like I've said before, and the the whole issue of Contiguity of Gee, if we have a condition here then we have to carry on with that same condition somewhere Else, and if you look at Boulder and you look at the best, most desirable neighborhoods, and you take West pearls and example, west of like 8 you, know it's, it's a total mix of small, businesses offices apartments, Condos some are 3 Stories, some are 4 Stories.

[253:16] Tall 2 Blocks away from some of the largest, most expensive estates Anywhere, yeah. Mapleton Hill. So this idea that somehow we have to have these this this contiguity is is really to me. It's it's kind of a false premise. If you look at holiday Holiday, Butts right up to industrial zones, and okay, that's that seems to work and if you look at ex explicitly, the zoning map we have a number of areas that are Rmx one next Rmx 2, right Next To

[254:06] Rl ones, so if you if you manipulate the Zoning map to highlight those those particular zones, you can see that we have a number of areas. So I I I think that the idea that sure it is a it is different than than the surrounding areas. But going back to our goals. I think that's that that can be okay. It can be good, so Okay, Sarah. So if you look at the broad, the broad, area that they've described that the staff has compared it to. I would say if it were less dense than what's been proposed rather than the 19.2 per acre versus the I think the closest one.

[255:16] Is 5 if we could bring it down a little bit, I would be comfortable with what would be a development that's denser than what is in that area now but not as dense as what is proposed and it's just I think it's finding the right balance and I think We've all kind of said something along the following lines already, which is as Staff an applicant, move forward, their challenge is going to be finding that balance that can help that can help meet all the other i'll call them variances, that would be needed to to make this particular concept plan happen And that staff has brought up as as as problematic, so generally, I it's not really compatible with the Surrounding, air, but it's not awful, and it's it's it does meet a advance a number of City goals, Bbcp Goals, So it's, just

[256:16] Finding that right balance in my mind Okay, Lisa Oh, Nope, that's me failing to lower my hand. Thank you, John. Yeah, very, very similar to what Sarah just said, I'll try to be brief. You know what when I first looked at it. I was like well, it's like compatible in certain directions. And Makes sense, with certain major, thoroughfares and that it's absolutely not compatible you know, with some other largest states that are very close. I shouldn't call to the States but you know larger parcels and homes that are more rural and character and so it's sort of both so so without rehashing what Sarah just said I I think the devil's very much in the details I'm sure there are some neighbors, and and some folks who, who, you know, won't want to see it developed or won't want to see it developed at all densely, my preferences to see it you know, get some middle Income Housing I really Appreciate the Duplex tripx and Townhouse Style and I'll talk about that more a little bit later, But at the same time, given that on certain sides, it is a adjacent to Vary, different uses, I I think it'll come down to kind of how how it gets developed over time. How we handle access, how we handle open space, you know, all of that is is really gonna determine.

[257:36] Okay. Laura I'm gonna largely agree with Lisa here, that I definitely think it can be made compatible. I I do think you know, I'm sensitive to what the applicant said that even if they got rid of some units and reduced the number of units, the way that they would make up for that is by making larger for sale, market rate Homes, larger Massing more Expensive I'm Not sure that That's, a

[258:09] benefit, I'm not sure that's the direction we want to go. I really do appreciate about this property, that the units are smaller and targeted to middle-income folks, and especially that benefit of 40% middle income units, and the number of those units, as many people have pointed out is as many as we have managed to put in the ground so far in the last However many years, so I think it's not the number of units that I'm concerned about it's more the perception of massing and the traffic Info, because more units, does probably mean more people so I do think that the Applicant has some Work, to do on how the site is Laid out where the open space is, how much open space. There is the size of the buildings. You know, 1.5 to 3 stories, I think is compatible with the the character of the neighborhood, It's more about the perception of of a large Amount of Mass.

[259:02] And then the impacts on the traffic. I do. I do want to point out. You know one thing that's very important to me is Bbcp, policy 2.1 4, mix of Company Land Uses. I'm going to quote it real quick. Here, it says whenever land Uses are mixed. Careful design will be required to ensure compatibility, accessibility, and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity, and scale, you know, and I think mark makes a good point that we have lots of zones in the city where you do have higher density budding up against lower Density. But I think we have a real responsibility to be sensitive. To what that transition zone looks like. And I do appreciate the steps that the applicant has taken so far in terms of locating the Taller Buildings, more towards the Center of the Property, etc. I think they need to do a little bit more with that. And again, for me, it's not so much the number of units, but it's how how's that perceived especially on that eastern edge adjacent to that dirt road, where they have you know, immediately Jason, neighbors, that have a more Rural Character and I would suggest to the Applicant

[260:05] that they consider locating more of that open space on the eastern edge, so that their neighbors are looking at kids, playgrounds, and community gardens. More so than looking directly at buildings up against their access. Lane Okay, Ml. Okay. Thank you, John, I Compatibility it's an interesting word. We generally use it in its kind of smallest dimension. I'm gonna stretch it out a little because when you think about what is surrounding this Property, we've got single family houses on a patch of dirt, their modest Scale.

[261:01] And I think that this concept plan is single family housing on a patch of dirt and their modest Scale houses. I think the thing that is often overlooked people. Talk about the rural character of the Surrounding Area, one of them, one of the kind of Values that usually evolves out of a rural setting, is a oh, respect for the Landing Climate more Climate Responsibility. In today's terms, historically, respect for the land, and I think that's the piece that isn't here how is this Project respecting the land in the Climate, I Don't I don't see much Compatibility, at that at that Level, and That's, where I am at Odds with

[262:04] The Project, as I said to the applicant, I am, in full agreement with holistic approach to the the layers of planning and consideration. It's the site, plan, that's the problem, the until we've talked about all those kinds of things. I I think that a greater appreciation 4, the Climate factors will significantly change the quality of this plan to speak more directly to the Character of the Surrounding Land then any any Sort of it's big is it little is it is it this or that I think that in an up itself will will ship Shift. The project, where people will recognize it, as as as being a compatible addition to that area.

[263:05] So I believe that, and and broad stroke basic pattern. Yes, it is compatible, they're not proposing. Condos they're not proposing all these other things, they're Single Family Houses on a patch of Dirt and They're, a Modest Scale, where it doesn't need it is in its Responsibility, to the Lands, into the Client Okay. Well, I'll I'll chip in here. Now I actually I agree with all of my colleagues, I think it can be compatible. I I'm not sure that the existing layout is compatible. I think but it's not it's not impossible for it to become satisfactorily compatible.

[264:02] In my opinion, so my concerns are partly due to the to the Traffic Layout and you know this question of access from so-called violet, road which may not be public and which some of the users of violent Road disagree on on the ability of this project to Use Not needs to be sorted out, that's an issue of compatibility, also a practical aspect. But I'm I'm not fundamentally opposed to to what is being proposed here. I think we need to go about it in the right way. And I agree with it, otherwise the comments of my call plates Now Okay. Where are we now? Those were the those? Go ahead. Now those we're we're we're gonna give everyone a chance to this, is a question that staff didn't.

[265:03] Yeah Ask what we thought was which was to just go around the table, and everyone has a chance to give feedback on the specific proposal. That are things that you want to applaud, you're concerned about, basically based on 9 dash, 13, the guidelines for concept. Right. Okay, I see, Lisa's hand is up and she may be a Short Timer for tonight. You know exactly how I feel about it. But yeah, so, yes, I am no Also so go ahead. Yep, may may be out about soon. So I imagine a lot of what I touch on this stuff. Other folks. Will will go into too. So I'll just say that the what was brought up before you know, just making sure that there's adequate parking including guest Parking that's always a challenge when you've got you know people closely together, and I'm not obviously advocating for a ton of parking, but just when I looked at that plan, and and I live in, you know attached multifamily, town homes, that that was something that jumped, out, of me I I I live somewhere, that has a private Road socially in that That I imagine, would not be illegal street, as far as the City's concerned. I'm not overly concerned about that because I have one and it works. Maybe there's other folks will have the opposite bias, and live on One. That doesn't. But I'd be open to you know that being continuing to be part of the proposal. Well, thinking about what people's concerns around that are for maintenance and all of that. One thing that I'd like to see, potentially, and that that I enjoy where I am that I enjoy elsewhere in the city, would be maybe more varied setbacks even some of the images that I think they put forward showed that but then when I look at the rendering at least From the aerial it it didn't really seem like much variation and Setback. So I'd be interested in that, and I'll also say that off of what I'm what I'm commenting on my inclination isn't necessarily that it has to drop. Down to like 64 units, like i'd like to actually see more than that but I suspect that it may not end up being 85 you know. So I'd be interested in you know what can be done with the performer on the use case on, you know, and and trying to keep that missing middle and I I love Duplexes. I love triplexes, I town houses, are great. I appreciate the Successful Units Like all that's fantastic, But you know, maybe it doesn't end up being 85 or whatever and then I agree that more central, open space, and then and then I just have concerns about the open space being pushed the perimeter especially with those busy Roads, I'm Picturing kids trying to play there, and that seems bad you know, so yeah, I I I'd like to see, Some refinement, On that as well, it would be nice if there's a way to get second access. I bet the fire chief would really like that, too, you know, so you know, when we talk about traffic, and some of those concerns and improvements that would need to occur, you know yeah, you know another way, out another way, in I think could somewhat eliminate, that yeah, I'm probably Forgetting. Oh, I, one thing, I was gonna say and other people may have a different. Take on this depending on like, how it's step back to in, and like where the three-story units are. And I thought that they're some thought into that I don't I don't mind the 3, story particularly because you're giving me a gable roof and I am tired of boxes, so you know that's me personally, but you know what whether that's an

[266:00] Extra half floor, or whatever if it gets, me some kind of an interesting Roof Line, and Depending on what Planning things Depending on what other planning Board members think and so on you know where that Falls, within the Site and the lines and the Views and so on I'm I'm not Necessarily, against that you know, if if it kind of gets us something that's not a box cause. I'm really terrible. okay, I think that's most of what I want to say. I'll probably stick around for a few more minutes, and then I may drop off

[269:06] Okay. Thank you Review, cause. We realize that the staff questions were more big picture and they're not everyone had lots of comments on the specific, so that's what question question number 3 is Who else is ready to site all their concerns. Here Sarah So I agree with pretty much everything. Lisa just said. I have a couple more. I have a big long list that I wrote out, but I'll try to I'm I'm pretty, I appreciate Staff's focus on Tdm and the Traffic Impact Study. I during Covid I walked that big loop a lot, and it does seem like an awkward, perhaps not very safe intersection for Pedestrians and Cyclists, even though it then bumps into this Lovely little Neighborhood, on the on the West side gonna bring up Prairie Dogs, just because you know, every time we upset a prayer, dog, neighborhood, We're we're address we're dealing we're limiting the Pstn species. I I shared staff. I shared Staff's concern about the lack of public streets, and I appreciate mark having asked the question of whether the Prime Minister's were in Order to Meet Parking. Requirements, and that may not have been the intention, but that is how the proposal uses the streets I did notice if I read it correctly that the Applicant is requesting 0 parking, spaces, for 12 of the permanently, affordable Units and if the Pita was still on Planning Board. She would have blown her top over that because, as she has always made the point that folks who are living in permanently affordable housing, of any, type, or are often folks whose cars, are or trucks, are key to their work so I think that's an issue that needs to be Addressed definitely Gotta have Sidewalks, Treelon, Let's see

[271:13] Sarah. Okay. I'm sorry. Let me just one more thing, the relocation, the the the point that the multi-use Path, as currently imagined, I, Think, it Sounds, like a Staff, just described it it goes right like right next to People's, Front Stoops, Steps, and There's not a Necessarily the Kind of Buffer that you might want so figuring out where that would go from? So those were my comments, and I will leave it at that Hey, Sarah, before you, you, I I just wanted to ask. Could you repeat the statement I I I was really struck by that that you said 12 of the Permanently Affordable units, have no parking So, if you look. Yes, that is what I said, and I got that I didn't get to ask. I didn't think to ask the question of staff or the applicant. But let me see if I can find the there's a on page, if you all just give me one seconds

[272:25] Yeah Alright, Here, yeah, so on page 9 of a 125 just of this portion of the thing, they have a table that lists, each of the Housing Types the Number of Stories the finished Area, the Bedrooms Bathrooms Garage Carports and Parking, and what you'll See is for the Blue permanently affordable. There are 30 Parking Spaces required, and only 20, provided for the Red permanently affordable there are 5 sorry, 7 Parking Spaces required and 0 Parking provided for the Good Permanently affordable there are 5, Parking Required and 0 Parking, provided so They're Made there may Be Families, that Want to Look, in, who, who qualify for and want to live in these houses? Who will not have a car, but I don't think we should assume that that's the case, and I said, and from a just from an equity, perspective, and these are not low-income families, but from an equity. Perspective, these these homes should have at least a parking spot. So that's a concern for me.

[273:37] Lauren I, think we should. Fact, I think, we should fact check that because I think that those counts might not include the street parking, they might not be allowed to count the street parking, spaces, because when I actually look at the map there are little rectangles right above, that Chart there are little rectangles that seem to Indicate, parking spots, outside of all of those red, and blue and green, units. So can we just take a second to fact, check Well, they we can. But I think yes, and but in reading the proposal, they use the street parking to make their parking requirements. So my guess is. It's a guess you can check in But it's my guess that this includes the street parking.

[274:00] But we can double track from staff Okay, thanks. Thank you. I might. I might be misunderstanding And to your point. Sarah, the the bigger Units have an excess of parking From What's Required So they require 42, and they provide 56. They require 33, and they provide 44, so Yeah, right. Right. So maybe it's just the moving things around, I mean, a lot of things are gonna move around in this proposal, based on all the input, they're getting right and to limit the number of variances, that they're ultimately requesting and maybe but and maybe as part of that there has to be some moving around of Parking. I I just stand by. You can't have permanently affordable housing and no parking

[275:01] Laura. So definitely agreed with Sarah Channeling Lou Pizza there affordable units need to have Parking spaces, whether dedicated or not. So that that would be something I'd be looking for in sight review. As well, thank you for bringing that up and in general. I agree with the comments that I have heard. I want to run through. I also have a list, so I'll try to be quick here. So things that I wanted to complement the applicant on that I thought were really good. I do like that they're doing fee simple and trying to minimize. Hoa fees although I do have the same concern that mark raised about the private streets. I actually in Contrast to Lisa's Experience, Lisa, you said, maybe some of us have a different thing with private streets. My husband, and I, did briefly own a townhouse in the golden, that had entirely private streets that were from the 1,900 seventys, and were decaying and the Ha was just in a terrible situation trying to have people, on a fixed Income contribute to repairing the streets and in that

[276:04] Case, there also were oh, Gosh, what do you call it. When you're shoring up like a slope. I I've forgotten the name, too late at night. Retaining. Retaining Walls. Exactly thank you, Ml, the architect, this property might not have a lot of retaining walls, but private Streets, Worry me because having Nhl way of Private Citizens, try to Repair their Streets like where would you even know how to begin to get a Bid for that you know Filling Potholes and repaving and stuff like that so I I do think that's very challenging to have private streets that the Ha would have to maintain very different than just contracting with someone to plow, your snow I was on things that I really appreciate about the Project I did really appreciate that they had the lower heights towards the eastern edge, and towards the ends of streets that seemed like very thoughtful design you know, as I said, I think they need to make take more care, with that Eastern Edge and what that looks like but I did appreciate that they were trying to employ some

[277:04] Good principles there, and I really appreciate it. Also the gable form roofs. As other folks have said concerns that I have. You know, as I said earlier, it's the Perception of mass, that they need to work with and the Traffic I am very concerned, about I did go to this Site today, during rush hour, at 8 30 in the morning and it sounds like the Evening rush hour is worse, But I can definitely see how the traffic would completely back up the homeowner who mentioned that it's a right in right out. It is a very circuitous journey, to try to get around that site and get back onto J, road. If you have to turn right onto well, you have to turn right and go out to 20 Eighth Street very hard, I think, to get to get back around it's quite a distance. So whatever can be done to try to find another access, point, or find a different solution for access definitely whatever legal issues there are would need to be resolved and and trying to find a better circulation pattern, because I do think that the Traffic issues there are significant I personally, am not super, concerned

[278:10] about, whether the changes that need to be made to the site result in it being rental properties, versus owner occupied that's, a whole, nother issue, that I'm Kind of a heretic on I know that the city really really is pushing towards home ownership I do think that the any time that you are capping people's appreciation. I'm not sure that people who are buying those homes really understand what that means, like it's not going to be a vehicle for wealth creation, which is what a lot of people want home ownership, opportunities, for so i'm not super concerned, about whether the changes Result, in a Rental property, although I do as Ml, said I. Like the character of it being duplexes, triplexes, and Town Homes rather Than Condos, I do. Think that that is a significant Contribution whether it's Owner Occupied or for Rents,

[279:00] Let's see someone mentioned in some of the Comments about considering including eco-passes in a Tdm, plan, I think that that's a great idea my experience it really does encourage people to use the public transit that is available when you have a free ecopas so I would I would strongly encourage that I don't. I don't know what kind of burden that places on the developer, or if that's even Possible in Owner occupied versus rentals but equal passes, are always a great thing to provide to people so they can see how it Works, how that transportation system works definitely support and agree with all of Staff's Requests about improvements, to both J. Road, and that dirt access from agree with the comments on need to be more thoughtful about that multi-use path, and I think everything else I have mentioned. So thank you Okay, I'm l

[280:00] Thank you, ch, so let me see broad picture. I I think that the aspirations of the Proposal are I I'm very I'm very much in agreement with the They've got. A a nice goal. I think the site plan is the problem, or the challenge, the biggest, component of the site plan is to challenge is that because there is no contextual destination. I asked the question, you know to the to the applicants? Where are people going? There is no contextual destination. So different has to create one. Internally, if they really want to do what they aspire to do which is to create a community, there, either wide to become a very car centric development. Which I think just fly in the face of our goals in boulder, so that is kind, those are the big pictures.

[281:06] When you look at the way the Site plan is developed. Right now, you wouldn't know that Jay Road and 28 Street are big messy streets you've got all these houses right? Close, pretty close pretty close to them. So I think the plan needs to acknowledge the J. And 28, are or Major Street, so that's and then of Course, all the rest of my concerns have to do with The climate. We got to minimize the heat. Added. There's a lot of painting. When you look at all the gray, there's a lot of paving. Here. Maybe they can do pervious. If it's a private row, do Pervious painting there is no. Oh, I look at the architectural, and not a very not the finest, awards, but it it seems like a mashup.

[282:09] There's, not there doesn't seem to be there there at at the plan, scale, either, not just at a functional and experiential, but at a plan, scale, you've got a little bit of this and a little bit of that and of course the colors, don't you know and encourage. The thinking of that, but I would encourage, yeah, we look at how the site plan might actually support the experiential Qualities that they built into their aspiration. How is this, the community and I would take it a step further. How does this community interact with the with with the climate, with the weather, with views, with patterns, with the natural environment, because right.

[283:03] Now, you can't tell. I can't tell from looking at this, what's Northward south of Eastwood West. So I think those are important things, and that's what I mean when I say, where we headed, We've got to start making projects that take into account, not just how can we get the houses. You need. But how can we make buildings and use our land in a way that it's actually giving back and not just taking Okay, mark. I'm going to try and not repeat anything. Anyone else is set. So earlier in the evening, Michelle talked about how annexation.

[284:01] Is a negotiation, and it's different then just building on a site going through the site review process. And I think that that I I I maybe I'm reading too much into that. But I think that gives us an opportunity to work with the appointment to have unique and different streetscapes and still have those streets, be public. And if you look at other annexation, agreements. And you guys, you know, we're in much more integral in the Cu South negotiation, etc. But have more experience with annexations. it seems to me that there is a possibility that we could both accomplish creative Street Design Outside of the Dcs and have that be part of the Annexation negotiation and it would be a way for us to have a limited Area apply some

[285:04] creative thought and and maybe end up with some really great street design and streetscape while Avoiding Private streets, so that's that's one thing the other, thing I want to know is that you know at at this intersection, at the at the intersection, of J and 36 and everything. It's a real mishmash of You know county, city, etcetera. But the intersection of J. And 36 is entirely in the city and under city control. Along with c dot because the State highway, but it you know. So if we want to improve the intersection. If we want to apply vision 0, techniques, and thoughts to that intersection that's within our purview to do that. And again within within, the confines of what C dot allows us to. Do. So I just wanna make sure everyone understands that intersection in the city, not in the county.

[286:09] What is, in the county, and is is kind of problematic. And my question, at the very beginning was, can we condition something that involves County space, and my thought there, is if I have a K, if I'm Living there and I have a a child that is trying that was to avoid negotiating Highway 36, and J rose I need to go. So most likely everyone is going predominantly southerly direction from this site, and we need to work with the county and the Apple to build a Pedestrian Crossing on J to get People to the South Side of Jay so that they can Go East and West, between between Highway

[287:05] 36, and Thirtieth Street, and there's 2 Dirt streets there, Stone and Welsh and those if you if you ride down those those Dirt Streets, you can connect to 4 Mile Creek and 4 Mile Creep goes East it goes West, it goes west to Folsom, and you can have a very pleasant cycling walking experience that avoids the intersection of J and 36 so I I again. I I think we need to apply some creativity and some intergovernmental agreement. But I think we can get people where they need to go. And in some cases, have them. Avoid the 36 and J.

[288:02] Thank you. Well, let's see, has everyone had a chance to say what they think I'll all say a little bit first of all. I I agree with all of my colleagues on all of all of these issues, that have been pointed out and mark thanks for those transportation connection comments, you just made now I think they were excellent I just had a nice trip along the 4 mile Path and was wondering how that could connect So I think there has to be a way for that to be done. So I I have 2 very small specific points, and then one process point. That I'd like to make one is despite. What it may sound like. I I don't oppose this this development, or project. But I do want it to be done right and to be done in a process that that is appropriate the specific, small comment I had was that I didn't think it was reasonable for the the project to attempt to take credit for the open space that it leaves along Jay Road and

[289:16] 28 Street, where there was some talk, about a tree lawn, and maybe some children's play facilities, or something, but doesn't seem reasonable. To me, to to put a play, facility, right close to 20 Eighth Street and and J. Road, with all of that traffic, and so I I would recommend taking that open space and moving it to to the East. As laura mentioned, where there it it might be more appropriate. There, the process issue that I just wanna raise is again, pertaining to how we deal with the Boulder Valley comp plan, and I I, say, this from the heart because I've been now involved in 4, or 5 Updates of that plan and to me, one of the Objectives of the plan is to give

[290:15] People, an expectation of what might happen in their neighborhood. In, the future, and for until the next, 5, until the next update and that's why, I'm so Reluctant to to abandon, that approach if we if we abandon that even if we follow the you know the rules that the City, has Adopted for Area, 2, and Area, 3 and so On. I I've lost one of the Main purposes of the Comp Plan, and thus it will diminish its correctability, will will be diminished, and that is really our fundamental document, that we work off of so That's.

[291:07] Why, I I feel that the 5 year update is the right time to consider a change in this Land use here would be on that I think that this I understand perfectly well, the need for Additional housing and I think what's being proposed here which is reasonably modest for sale housing I regard as a, as, a real, desirable Product, and I hope that it can move ahead. I would just like it to move ahead in the right way. So with that all and beyond that I think I agree with the comments and my colleagues, Moron Thanks, John, I take your comments to heart about the use of the Bbcp, and the Update cycle.

[292:06] I'm trying to understand what the implications of that might be for Area 2 given that there's quite a lot of property in area, 2 that abuts area, 3 so are you suggesting that we should not Consider any Annexation. Requests for area to that Abuts area 3. Until the next Cycle of the Compound, or is it just this one property that You're thinking of Well, I I was just referring to this one property, and the reason why I think it's so important is because a it's. So prominent, and it's big and there's a Major Land use Change involved But but the concept of annexation that I you know, that is not in itself, something that needs to wait. I mean, we move. We're moving forward with the Boulder Valley School Offices, Annexation.

[293:04] I don't put that in the same category Oh, I just meant annexation of area 2 lands that are. But the planning reserve cause. I'm looking at the map and and there's more that's on the south side of J road. That's there's more that's on the East side of Forgive Me I'm terrible with Water Bodies but there looks like There's a Creek, on the Eastern the southeastern edge of the Area 3, and on the other side of that Creek. There's, you know, a very large block, that that is also Area, 2, So so I, can I can share my screen and pull up this map, if that's helpful, but I I don't feel that I would hesitate to treat this property owner, differently, then other area. 2 properties, that Abut, the planning reserve without giving it some careful thought, and and making sure that We're being Fair

[294:05] I mean, I'm sensitive to what you're saying. Okay. But it, I mean, I just literally just now pulled this up, and had not thought about it before this very moment I just gives me a hesitation, that because this property Owner Owner came Forward with the proposal they would be treated somehow differently, than other property owners that a butt that are in Area, to that about the planning reserve Well, you know that's something. That reasonable people can disagree on when that when there's a major land use change that to me is is more significant than the fact of annexation, or not that's that's what i'm holding on Okay, I, I, I don't know what the land so you're thinking because it's a change from a public land use to a residential. Right. And these other ones look like they're already potentially residential. That's right Anyways one man's opinion, I understand that not everybody on the Board feels the same way, but

[295:04] Well, I think it's a serious question that has been raised of would we be willing to entertain a Site review proposal. If it came along in the next year, or 2 or 6 months from now, or would this board I mean, should the applicant, not Bother this Board is of a majority opinion that we Don't Want to consider a Site review and an Annexation, and a Land use Change except in the Context, of the planning Reserve has already been programmed, we understand what's going to happen in that context, the next Bbcp Update. Yeah, I think it would be interesting for other people to say what they think about it. You, you know what I think. What do you think Laura I would say I'm not especially inclined to to ask this property owner, to wait. I think that the property also is you know. It's on a major arterial.

[296:03] They're trying to provide much-needed Housing. If this opportunity passes by, and we wait 5 years. Who knows what could happen? The property could change hands. The complete concept could change. I do think that they are offering a housing type, that the city has has really has a lack of has requested this Missing Middle Type of Housing. The Condos And Duplexes and triplexes that are so hard to get developed in boulder. I think it is a significant benefit to the city like I we have talked about the site has some challenges that they would need to, address. But I'm not particularly inclined to ask them to wait 5 years, and then, who knows what could happen Okay, other thoughts. Intersection. So those are my thoughts. I'll just say that I'm sorry, as I said before. Alright, those are my comments.

[297:03] Okay. Right. It's just but it's not. It hasn't. Been and next, yet the question is the annexing I don't think we're talking now about moving it into area 3 that was something that was brought up in the 2,015 planning board conversation. About this it's more the question of the the Land Use, the the Land Use Designation Change, And I I don't. I don't think I know enough, or have heard. I agree with both John and Laura, and I I think it needs to actually be A. It was not. It was not the question that staff brought to us and so there wasn't any That's not fair. They brought us the question of what do we think of that. And you, mx, or M. Dx, which everyone it was not what do you think of changing this from public to high density when it was framed a different way which I think presumes, I will assume means that staff once this change. From public, to some kind of residential that's that would be my assumption, but that's how they wrote that memo because I write a lot of Memos, and I write them in ways to convey what I want to convey and i'm guessing staff. Does here as well, and I I do think when step one planning board in 2,016, voted against the change land used as a I think they voted against Changing the land use designation at that time I think That's what the Vote was Yep it it was because they they did It in the context of the of the of the Boulder Valley Comp, plan Update if I'm remembering correctly from the our Memo, and so even Within, the Context of of the Update it Didn't get Approved It'd be kind of Interesting to know why I just think

[299:12] I thought It's a bigger question, and the one that we have the Knowledge, what We're we're opining without like, a a ton of information you know that would help us to frame our thoughts that's, kind of my take, on it like it's really interesting it's important and and we Don't Have but we didn't have that's not that's not the conversation we had today. So it's a little hard to respond Just a point of fact and maybe staff. Can help clear, this up. I would go back to the Memo and Try to read it. That's right But I'm a little bit tired. My my recollection was that planning board said that they thought that the concept was too dense, and they kicked it back to the Applicant and then the Applicant withdrew and so I Don't think Planning Board ever Denied anything never Approved never Denied

[300:03] they just said, we think this is too dense at the concept review level Hey! With And I think, they withdrew again, if I'm not mistaken, yeah, yeah. Right. But then, a year later, they this applicant Applied, and I don't think it was the same Applicant. It may have been I don't know the applicant Applied for Annexation and then through again, right right and so but you know we don't know it gonna have the back story. Away from? Well, what was there or what might have been there? So those are my comments As to why that happened so I don't know. I. I just I would love to have the conversation about John's point, but I don't feel like the have that information in front of us to happen Anyways. It seems like there's a there's a desire talk to our our overarching Document, the Boulder Valley Comp plan. And yet within our city, process, we've given ourselves ways to worm our way through it.

[301:02] Oh! You know, I mean I I every time we do an annexation, and we just oh, well, let's change the underlining Use and I'm just like we have our arbitrarily changed that Boulder Valley compound. Use, Use Designation, many times and I'm Just Consistently Like impress that huh! I guess the Boulder Valley Compliant isn't it's pretty Porous Well, speaking as a as of former member of the County planning commission. I can say, that is very much the impression that other parties to the comp plan have and frequently so good I wish it wasn't so, because you know why take the time and energy and make it what you want it, and then I guess it's because things. Change oh, true

[302:01] Yeah, there's lot of discretion, sure Well, and also the if you read the comp plan right you could design any kind of city you want out of that Comp plan, right and right there's a lot of discretion, and we the way our Processes, Work, is someone, Applies an Applicant, submits a proposal and we Respond the City responds like that's that's how it works, and so we are put in this position where We're asked to meet multiple objectives, some of which are contradictory to each other, and that's. Why they ask, they put smart people, like, you guys on planning for to try to help, Navigate, all of those Complexities, maybe the solution, which is not specific to this, project, but maybe the solution is to instead of having the every 5 year, update, where a few projects, a few things come to Us, as part Of the update to the Boulder Valley Comp plan versus, the whole big boulder Valley comp. Plan redo is to do that more often, so that an applicant like today's applicant could come forward in 2021, specifically with a request to change. The underlying zoning that and if that got approved. Then she could move forward with the rest of the process instead of I Think.

[303:24] Yeah Hmm. It's the we did we did this in 2020 right, John, we had a and and this applicant for I'm sure, good reasons did not apply for to be part of that mini update, so maybe we just need to do many, updates every couple of years instead of 1 75 years It's an area, too. It's periodic, period on the end. Yeah, I think that would be a a reasonable thing. Mark How have we have we corrected I think that's a good suggestion. But, Kit, can I just say in the Interest of Moving Forward I think what the applicant needs to know tonight is whether we would Reject out of hand a site. Review proposal that comes back to us before the next Comp plan. Is it even worth her time to listen to what we have said tonight and try to make changes and bring us back a site site Review or another concept review based on what we've said tonight or we just gonna reject it out of hand and mark and I have said we would be willing to entertain a new concept plan

[304:16] or a new Site Review plan before the next edition of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. But that's not a majority, the 2 of us as much. As we might want to be a majority are not so. I think she needs to hear from us. No, I would If we would entertain that I, I, I'm I'm in full agreement with an overarching plan. But I have no problem with changing the use, the Boulder Valley comp, plan, use for this site, based on an annexation I I think, it's a process that exists and we have to be mainly, it's a pat and it's a Valid, path and it's a real path and

[305:01] I I don't feel like I we should deny the appant, the ability to do what other people are doing Yeah, and my guess is that John didn't bring this up expecting to change all of our minds. No, I He brought it up because it is a it is a principle that he has brought up before, and it's a principle that's important and one that we much like you know permanently affordable housing one that needs to keep being placed in front of staff and the city as a reminder that we we Do have a set of principles about how to build a Valley account plan should be used is that a Yeah, I mean, more, to to answer, to respond to your question, my my perception is that this should not deter, the applicant from moving ahead with the project based on the majority of Comments, from the majority. Of Board members tonight.

[306:02] Okay. Thank you. That's important clarity. That I appreciate. And I imagine the applicant does as well as well as other folks who might still be hanging out with us. We have 16 attendees, thank you for making it past 11, Yeah, okay, further comments on this matter. I just want to say again, sorry to prolong this, but I think we all agree as a board. On the the critical importance of providing missing, Middle Housing, and that we really appreciate that the applicant talks with staff about that listen to Staff about that designed a concept about that obviously this is a Tricky, Site, and there's a lot of Issues still to you know to clarify and to Work. On, but I just want to give some appreciation to the applicant. This is not an easy process, we know it. And thank you for sticking with us tonight, and and thank you for really prioritizing that missing middle housing

[307:00] Thank you. Okay, that brings to a close, this hearing. And now we'll move into matters from staff Good evening, planning port Certainly. A lot of robust discussion tonight. I don't know that I've got anything to add for you this evening, but Appreciate. Your service as always, we will make adjustments to add that meeting back in January. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Laura Can. I just real quick for whomever is in touch with the Glenwood Court Applicants in walking around that Site tonight. They they may already be aware of this, but there is an external light that is literally hanging, by wires down the front of one of their buildings. That looks like a fire. Hazard. So if I could just ask someone to bring that to their attention. It's the the 20 it's it's the same building number as what's in our on our agenda

[308:04] The 2747, Okay, I I hope there's that's still inhabited. So I hope there's some some inspector that can go around and solve that There's like a hole that goes right into their building. That's wide open like to the weather. So I just I I had to say something Thank you, okay, matters from the Attorneys City Attorney. Nothing from my end. I hope everyone has good evening Okay, and from from the board. I I would like to give a shout out to Sarah who helped organize this meeting much more than it would otherwise might otherwise have been. So thank you very much. Sharon. I'm grateful no I'm a Fan of Matrices

[309:02] Okay. Well, good night let's adjourn