February 7, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:01] It is now being recorded. Thank you. Great. Okay. So before the public comment, I will go over the rules of engagement. My name is, Vivian. I help to facilitate on the public engagement parts of these meetings. And Devon, if you could just pull up the slides, please. That would be great. Okay, so we do have 2 public hearing items, and before we start the meeting we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by the city staff and community, for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations and this vision of the city is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everybody who is participating feels safe. We want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings as well, because we believe it leads to more informed decision making next slide, please.

[1:04] and we have a lot more information on our website about what we call our productive atmospheres vision, if you're interested. But i'll be a bit specific right now for this meeting. We have a number of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder revised code, and we have some general guidelines that our advisory nature to share with all of our meeting participants. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. and also we will not allow any participant to make threats or use any other 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 is prohibited. and we do also ask that all participants from the public and from the board and stuff identify themselves. But the name they are commonly known by. and please display your first and last name before speaking, so that we can call on you so if at the moment you only have your first name

[2:03] listed. Please go ahead and and rename yourself. and you can do that by using the right click function next slide. So we're in the Zoom Webinar format. and it allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. and there's no pre-existing list for signing up. So if you are in this meeting, we welcome you at the appropriate time, or or if you wish to speak during the public comment, time or later, during the public hearing time. So please raise your hand, and you can do this a couple of different ways. The bottom of your screen. You'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items, and you can click on that on the hand, Icon. if you have an expanded menu, you can get on the race and icon by clicking on reactions. and if you're participating by phone. You can dial Star 9. Next to your phone number Raised hand will appear and we can call on

[3:02] That's it. Thank you. Over to you, John. Okay, so do we have anybody who wants to address planning board on any issue other than those in the public hearings Tonight I see one hand or a raised there in will you be? Let's see. this is Cj Oldam and Devin. Do you have the time you ready ready for you? You have 3 min to J. Please go ahead and please also introduce yourself. Correct. Okay. Then I will wait until you guys address the 20 s and 20 s and Pearl project.

[4:01] Yeah. Anybody else from the public, I don't see. Oh. we have 3 per people with their hands. Right? So let me start with making cools, Megan, you have 3 min. Please go ahead. Good evening. Planning Board. My name is Mike Nicole. I live at 1726 maple time. I'm speaking out of concern about the airport master planning process that you're taking up under matters. I'm concerned that the project, as it now is launched seems to give short shrift to language that Lisa Morsell, on the Council in 2,020,

[5:01] placed into Section 6.2, 3 of the Comp. Plan that says quoted the time of the next airport master plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighbor neighborhoods serving uses the 255,000 scope of work. That staff is included in your packet. With the consultant says that the community process will be undertaken. Quote. to better understand the desired future of the airport complimentary to obligations and commitments to the city's partners at the Faa. No, I say that is not what Lisa Morzell and the Council had in mind. They imagined an open-ended engagement with the community to determine the future of the airport with or without the Faa.

[6:02] They had in mind the fact that this property, which the city already owns most of it. provides the only opportunity for us to create a significant number of middle income housing units in accordance with the 2,016 adopted goal for 3,500 of such units to be created by 2,030. This is the matter that is called for the discussion that's called for by the Comp plan, not further complementing somebody's partnership with the Faa before we spend $255,000, and I hope that is not the faa's money. Please use your authority to alert council that what is supposed to be a community conversation is headed in the wrong direction. it's being placed in the hands of consultants whose expertise is the expanding airports, not responding to a housing crisis.

[7:03] The community conversation has to be open to consideration even of decommissioning the airport entirely. and yet the scope of work removes that from the conversation let's lay this out. The airport right now. Serves 125 wealthy people whose hobby is an expensive unsustainable and polluting enterprise we must entertain as part of the community conversation decommissioning the airport and creating a 15 min neighborhood with housing and neighborhood services on this site. Lisa Smith. This is where the people you grew up with, and about whom you spoke so eloquently at the last meeting, could come home to live. not by the airport manager.

[8:01] Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up we have Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead. You have 3 min, Lynn. First of all, there's no place for me to name myself. I don't have a video window, Vivian. We can hear you. Lynn. Yeah, you told me to name myself. I can't. We can see your name. We can see your first and last name. There's nothing else to do, so I don't know that. So when you tell me to name myself, and I don't have anywhere to do it. You're asking me to do something I can't do just so, do you know. and I disagree with Macon. I think that this airport and I've heard there are there scientific planes that come out of there there, there! There is some good function of that airport, and I think it is a valuable community asset, and it should be discussed between all stakeholders, and not just those with

[9:14] with more housing in an inelastic housing market. Anyway, it doesn't matter how much housing we built here. It's always going to be expensive, and the way things are going, it's going to be more expensive than add there, after you approve M. For Papalios and a fourth penthouse for them 250. This is not generating more affordable housing in boulder. Also. I hear a lot of troubles I've been reading on next door about boulder housing partners, and you know the Federal funding that they're getting, and the unlivability. and in some of the structures and people having to move out and having to having to get hotels and various things. So you know our affordable housing programs. Aren't, our aren't, always doing the best.

[10:09] you know, through health and human services. So what are what are we doing here when when you know there's there's more and more approvals of unnecessary. I mean what you wanted it to propelio. Should you go back to 64 units? This now 165 units. This is not a community value for us to lose not only the retail, the B C 2 that we had in that area we lose those services, and we add not only 64 units, but 165 Well, those are human beings that demand services, and we've already got plenty of service demand taken up in the Boulder Valley Regional Plan. There, you know that I mean Macy's has already been taken over. So now people are driving to a flat earns crossing or wherever they go to a department store. This this is not making 15 min neighborhoods or 30 min neighborhoods

[11:17] for the greater boulder community. It's. It's a different scale of things when you're taking the Bvrc and turning it into housing. Thank you, Lynn. Okay, we have one more hand raise, and that's Yan or Jen. Please introduce yourself with your full name. Hi, I'm. Jen Hickory and I just had a question on how to put my name in there without having to exit. If If you just introduce yourself, I can. I can rename you. Okay, mine. I just have my first name under it's Jan, and my last name is Hickory. Okay, please go ahead.

[12:01] Oh, that's all. I don't have anything else. I just had a question Great? Okay. So I think no other hands raised. So that concludes this portion. Thank you to everybody from the public with us here tonight over to you, John. Okay, Thank you, Vivian. So so we'll continue with the on the agenda. There's a no call up items for us to deal with tonight, so we'll move right into our first public hearing. Item, which is a concept plan, review, and comment for proposed mixed use. Redevelopment at 2206 pearl view. This is Case Number L. You are 2,022, and we'll start out with the staff presentation. followed by an applicant Comments If there are any followed by public comment.

[13:02] and then it will come back to board. Now then, for questions and discussion. So, Staff, please move ahead, and I understand. Ch. Them. Mr. With us tonight, and this is her last presentation. So before she disappears off to the East coast, so I just want to take this opportunity to say thanks for all you've done for us over the last couple of years. Yeah, thanks so much for saying that chair. It's with the heavy heart that we have to inform the Board, who may have heard that Shabnon's relocating back to our home city of New York. She's accepted a position as a senior planner with the Department of Economic Development in New York City. But she's been with us for about 3 and a half years now. It started as an associate planner in our office, and it's really risen through the ranks really quickly. So it has been a real pleasure to watch her grow and serve the community, and we'll miss her very much. Sh them. I think I speak on behalf of the board that you have a standing invitation here at planning for every Tuesday night whenever you want it. So

[14:15] it's been a pleasure getting to work with you, and thanks so much for your service to the board, so i'm sad. I will never get to do a an in person meeting, but maybe i'll join as in in person. member of the public. So let me go ahead and share my screen. Oh.

[15:05] are you able to see the presentation? Yes. okay, thank you. Okay. So my name is Shabnon Vista, senior planner with the planning and development services tonight, I will be presenting on a concept plan for a mixed use redevelopment at the at 2206 and 2210 Pearl Street Thanks. I'll briefly cover the information that's provided in staff's memo going through the purpose of a concept plan. public notification the existing site, conditions and surrounding context, as well as the project background and the summary of the proposed project. And lastly, key issues that staff identified for tonight's discussion

[16:03] The purpose of a concept plan is to determine the general development plan for a particular site, and to help identify any key issues in advance of a site. Review some middle. No formal actions taken on the proposal tonight. and this is a space for the applicants to receive comments from the Board staff as well as the public couple. and in terms of the written notification, written notice was provided consistent with the land Use code, and the notice was also posted on the property. The packet includes an attachment with emails from the public that staff received during the review majority of the emails for the public, voicing some concerns about traffic and access, so just the parking reduction as well as any overflow in the neighborhood. The density of the proposal as well as affordability, and I know. Planning Board also received a number of comments

[17:08] over the last week regarding the project jumping into the project site, the how approximately half acre site is located in the video neighborhood south of Pearl Street and east of 20 s Street. The site's comprehensive land use. Designation is high density residential, which are areas generally located in, planned and planned for a transit oriented redevelopment and near major corridors and services. The intensity in the or designation is more than 14 dwelling units per acre in terms of the land Use zoning. The site is zone down makes use 3 defined as business areas that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary non residential retail uses generally within the same building.

[18:13] For this particular site the surrounding area is characterized by a mixed use, residential and commercial as well as high density. Residential development. To the north of Pearl Street is the Whittier Square Condominiums, and that's about a 3 story building, 3 to 4 story building with 80 units. and then to the south are one and 2, 3 residential homes to the east, or some commercial spaces. Immediately across 20 s Street to the West is a residential converted to an office as well as a multi-family residential. Building. And then Yep, that's okay. And then, in terms of the existing site. The site itself contains 2 commercial uses. They're both both a characterized under art spaces.

[19:09] And then there's on the top right is the alley that's on the back of the building. So south of the the site. and then currently, there is a lot of surface parking on this site. Other aspects of the transportation contacts includes a relatively transit rich area. Look, the the site is located right along with Pearl Street, where the hop bus line is located, and it's also within walking distance of downtown folder. and there are a number of other. you know, local buses that are surrounding the property. There are also a number of on street bike lanes within easy access of the site. So along Walnut Street.

[20:03] twentieth and spruce as well. diving into the proposed project. The applicant is proposing 45 efficiency living units Efficiency living units is described in the code. It was defined in the code as dwelling units that contain a bathroom and kitchen, but do not exceed a Max floor area of 475 square feet. The maximum occupancy per the code is to 2 people for an efficiency living units under the mix to use 3 zoning district. the ill user allowed by right if it's less than 40% of total units in the building. and or at least 50% of the floor area of the building is residential uses

[21:00] and the total floor area of non-residential uses in the building is less than 7,000 square feet. otherwise you'll use, are permitted through a use. Review. So in this case the applicant will need to apply for use. Review along with the Site review when they come in with this proposal before us today. So in terms of just logist of the stats, so there's 45 Ill use, and they are approximately 300 square feet. The building is 3 stories tall, and will be approximately 38 feet in height, which is the allowed height under Mu 3. There are 17 regular residential parking spaces in the garage on the ground level There are the applicants also proposing 8 tandem spaces and one car share space. And then there's also 2,000 square feet of commercial space along Pearl Street.

[22:01] getting into a little bit more detail with the floor plans. This is the ground lower floor before land, but you can see the Commercial along Pearl Street. There is a plaza to the north northwest corner there is that garage which is access to the alleyway to the south of the property, where you can see the 17 regular spaces 8 tandem. and then one ride. Co. Right to your space, which is located to in the alley around here. There is also a potential dog area for PET relief, and then there is the 5 units on the ground floor. and then on the second floor or level 2. There's the common pauses, spaces the resident common rooms, as well as 20 efficiency living units on Level 3. They're also additional 20 units, a roof deck and a Pv solar awning.

[23:07] The applicant provided some renderings of the the project. The first one is the northeast view from Pearl Street, where you can see the Commercial along Pearl and the the building along the east side, and then there is the southwest corner of 20 s Street and the alley. and then, lastly, the corner of 20 s and Pearl Street During the review staff I to identify 3 key issues for a planning Board's discussion. The first one is whether the proposed concept plan is preliminarily consistent with the goals and objectives of the boulder rally comprehensive plan. The second one is whether planning board has feedback on the proposed parking for the project.

[24:02] and then the last one is this: planning board have feedback on the building design, design, and general layout of the project diving into the first key issue at this time Staff find that the concept plan is preliminarily consistent with many of the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bbcp, particularly related to housing, and makes use related policies. The proposal is for makes use building with majority residential as well as the comp plan, identifies encouraging and mix of uses. and then these are some of the policies that staff has identified. Additional review will be done at site review as well. So, in terms of the second key issue

[25:00] staff, and the applicant would like additional feedback from planning board just regarding the proposed parking and the parking reduction. The required parking for efficiency, living units in a me 3 zone is one per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing a 64% parking reduction with 17 regular residential units, provided where 45 are required. and any parking reduction greater than 50% requires planning board approval. The applicants also proposing 8 tandem parking spaces. as well as a car share space in the alley. The code does not allow tandem spaces or the car share space to be counted towards the minimum parking requirements. However, the applicant can use it as some of the justification for a larger parking reduction. But that will need to be coupled with a

[26:00] robust transportation transition management plan, and as well as information just regarding how the tandem parking spaces and car share space will be operational. And then, lastly, case, you 3 is regarding the the design of the building so generally Staff appreciates the site, organization, and site design with the placement of the uses, as well as the common spaces facing being south, facing the uses are appropriate, and the form of the building is generally compatible with the area. However, in terms of building design, the applicant staff would recommend that the apple can refine the building design by exploring ways for roof articulation, and pitch roofs to avoid the flat roof expanses.

[27:01] and then consider a redesign for some of the balconies, especially the wrap around one, so they create more functionality for the the attendance and create a more cohesive look for the building in our review Staff recommended 2 staff recommends to planning board and the applicant that the concept plan be brought before Design Advisory Board. After the site, ruby application is filed with the city. That concludes the presentation and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Any questions. Yeah, Sarah, go ahead. Okay, thank you. I just have a couple of questions on the design of the building when maybe you'll tell me to ask the applicant. But the first is those wraparound portches? Are those also the walkways to the doors of the apartments? That was a little and clear from the drawing.

[28:07] Sure, let me just share my screen again. I think the floor plans do a better shop kind of showing those so they They're not part of the elevated walkway that that requires the provides access to the units. Okay, thank you. And then my second question, and then i'll be done. Is those e. I'll use on the first floor on the ground floor. Excuse me. open our our look. Are they up against the go? I can't really tell what that is. Is that a the garage just a little hard to tell. Yeah. I which then the question of Are there windows, or just the door into the LED el You.

[29:01] I think that would be a better question for the applicant. But just looking at the plans, I think it is up against what is going to be the garage. or perhaps the the bike bike storage. Okay, I'll. I'll also ask the app. Thanks so much. Those are my questions. Did we lose, John? Is he there up all. So i'm Ml. And then Laura, and then George, and when John comes back he'll take control again. Thank you so much. I just have one question that the for public brought up, and maybe this has that's been to me. It doesn't. But is there a known water supply issue in this area that would be impacted by the number of polling units. I'm. I'm. Not aware of that at this time. I think that

[30:02] perhaps either the applicant can answer that, or it's something that would stuff would look at in detail during the site. Review application. Yeah, I think it's talking with engineering. Ml: we're not aware of any capacity issues in the area. As a matter of fact, most of our infrastructure planning has been done. you know, fairly in lock step with our land use planning and Max to projections for the city, so I I wouldn't be aware of any capacity issues. But maybe their engineer could speak to them. Yeah, this is just something that came up to the public, so I I didn't see anything in the application. I thought i'd I check it out in case there was something lurking. But thank you, Charles, and shot not for your answers. Okay, Sorry I got the i'm interruption here. I just got knocked out.

[31:00] Laura, go ahead. Thank you. So that issue that Ml. Was mentioning was on my list as well. I'll just just for the sake of Staff, who were on the call. It was a resident who emailed. And then they said that somebody in their neighborhood was told by the city of Boulder Utilities departments that due to over development in that neighborhood. The city's main sewer line in the area was having difficulty supporting the amount of sewage. So it was a that was. I think that's what, Ml: You are referencing that it was a sewage issue. so i'll just it. It sounds like we don't have an answer to that that we're not aware of any issues. But it's something that you. Okay. I did have a couple of questions, so i'm in one part of the staff comments. It talks about that the applicant should be improving building legibility, and that was a new term for me. Could you explain what is building legibility? Sure I can. I can try.

[32:01] Building legibility is I just how to find the building building looks along the street. Face. Charles, If you wanted to add something to that. These are going to be retail spaces. They should be better presented as retail spaces. I think there are some ambiguity on, you know, looking like office. and the way that you get it, some of those things are better pronounced entry ways a more meaningful signed program. So I think those were some of the things that we're going to try to develop with the applicant as it moves into site. Review. Thank you. It's very, very helpful. Oh, and by the way sh on them great presentation. I forgot to say that, but I meant to start with that. Thank you so much. My next question is you said that 38 feet is the height limit in the mu 3, and that you, in encouraging the applicant to explore pitched roofs.

[33:10] Would that require a height, exemption. Or would that I know that's something that we're considering under the Site Review updates is to allow a little bit more flexibility with that when it's done for the purpose of having pistols, so W. Would this applicant have to wait until those criteria are final, to take advantage of the of that? Or is it something they could do, even if they bring this back before those criteria are final? I think, if they, the criteria, that which applies depends on, when the applicant will have submitted for the site, review. and and in terms of just the pitch counting towards the height. There, you know, there there are ways to modify the height through the site reviews. That is a possibility if it if it can result in better design. However.

[34:02] I I see. Yeah, so I would say it's. There is a possibility that there could be a height modification just if there are a pitch roof and if the applicant decides to exceed the 38 feet. Okay, thank you. Next question within the applicant statement on page 27. It said something about exceeding the allowable density from 20 dwelling units to 22.5. Is that like a remnant of something that has changed? Because I didn't see anything in the staff presentation that, exceeding the allowable density. just pulling up the intensity standards.

[35:11] So in I mean 3 in the intensity, intensity, standards. There are no number of drawing units per acre in our table it's. It's the intensity is driven through the F. A. R. For the say, which is one and so i'm i'm. Not aware of the 22.2 20 units. Okay, it sounds like maybe that section in the applicant statement was incorrect or sounds like it's not an issue. Yeah, it's on this. Okay. they are in the the concept plan and and site. Review. It triggers the threshold if there is a 20 plus dwelling units. But other than that, yeah. But we don't foresee an issue in terms of intensity

[36:04] with what's okay. Okay, thank you. I I just want to ask one more question. So I did go visit the site this morning and walk around and look at the parking situation, and I was there at like 8, 40 in the morning. And so you know. That's when a lot of people, if they're going to work, have probably left for work, and if they were parked on the street it probably moved a vehicle. but there probably were 50 or 60 empty parking spaces within a one-block radius of this site and I guess i'm. I'm just curious whether staff have any knowledge about. You know how that changes throughout the day. Like is the parking really crowded at night when everybody's home, or do you have information or data about when what times a day parking might be a problem. At this time we don't. I believe there is a trip generation report, or it will be required during the site. Review and transportation will take a closer look at that.

[37:00] Okay, thank you. George. I think most of my questions have been answered. One quick question regarding the part of the building that is on the 15 foot set back. I'm noticing from the floor plans, especially the units in the center of that area. I'm: just curious what they're facing. because it it seems like there are windows just out on that setback. Is there another step back on the other side of the property. This is a wider area. I'm just trying to get a sense of what an occupant might be looking at. You're referring to the units that are going to be along the east side of the property. I'm not aware of what that setback is on on the lot adjacent to it.

[38:09] I mean right now. The applicant is showing that 15 foot set back with. I think some see if there's some landscaping what what is adjacent to this property relative to you know how close up that is, to open space on the other property. We don't have to answer it now, and it's more just a curiosity. And then along that line I see that one of the about. I see that the corner balcony wraps around and actually encroaches into that 15 foot set back. What What can you can you talk about that encroachment? Is that is that permissible? Or is that something that they need to get an exception on. Yeah. So setbacks can be modified through the Site review process. So again, that's something we'd take a closer look at during

[39:01] site. Review. Yeah. right? And I sorry. The property adjacent The balconies of the rear also looks like, are they also encroaching on a potential setback? They are okay. So that's something that would need to be. And that's the alley to the rear as well. You you're talking about the east side of the building there. east and east and on the alley. So so on the east. There's a there's there's a balcony which wraps around staff. Sorry about the wraparound balcony is not being that practical, but they have encroached on the 15 foot set back, and then on the rear on the alley looks like all the balcony is encroach on the alley. Set back. Yeah. I can. So in walking along this this morning, like on Pearl Street. the current building is right smack up against another building like there's literally no separation. You can't walk between them. They're like built on top of each other

[40:05] so, and I don't remember if that building was one story or 2 stories. It's all one story. There. Is it one story? Okay. So there's no units on the first floor there, but the second floor would be overlooking that building, I guess. Is that was that your question, George, of what they're overlooking? My My question was directed around the encroachment of the setback, and I think shot. Not answered it. Thanks, Laura. Okay, mark thanks. And again i'm operating from an ipad for the last couple of weeks and ipad only. So I, switching back and forth between packet and Zoom Meeting and stuff is not as easy as a big dual monitor desktop. So if I've asked my questions and they're addressed in the packet. My apologies.

[41:06] This site, specifically. is not located within any of our neighborhood parking districts. Is that correct. Yeah, that's correct. but is to the south. Is that portion of walk? Is any portion of walnut, or even a little farther south towards Kenya? Is that a parking district. Let me take a quick look here at our mapping. So the parking district there, which is the Cageid parking district. ends along right before 20 First Pearl and then there isn't anything along walnut until until about Eighteenth Street. Okay. Going west. Okay.

[42:01] all right. And in the staff commentary to the applicant I was. I appreciated you. and again I I don't have the where I can't switch over to the wording. This moment you refer to some principles for parking, separated, unbundled, managed, and paid. And I just want to make sure I understand that that is a staff discretionary request based on the parking reduction. but request. But it is not a May. Is that mandated? Or is that just as staff's discretion that you're requesting some principles be applied?

[43:00] Taking a Look here, I think the applicant, using those principles, you know, would need to demonstrate that they have a feasible parking reduction that does not negatively impact the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Okay. all right, but it's not it. It's we don't have a code threshold or anything that says. Gee! If you're going for you know, greater than 55% reduction in parking, then. this particular. These particular items have to be applied regulatory threshold for that market. It's it's a great question. It's really more of a policy direction, and we've seen it applied in projects like this, You know, when when folks are requesting a parking reduction, so I think that's the spirit of one of when we have managed districts like you'd see out at 30 pearl.

[44:02] That's when we see it really put into motion, and some of the form based code documents. But in a infill project like this it was really suggesting to help manage the the parking reduction that's being proposed. I will also say that we had some questions about parking management overall on the site that we'll need to vet with the applicant through the Site review process if it moves in that direction. So what we'd like to hear from the applicants and it on some of their parking management strategies. Right great. That's that's very helpful. Charles, on that that that that does clarify that for me and I'll just say I I appreciate the focus on ways of accommodating both the parking reduction and mitigating a parking reduction, and I just wanted to make sure I understood the whether that was a requirement or not. So i'm not questioning. I i'm all for it, but

[45:06] I just wanted to understand it. Thank you. Okay, I I have a couple of questions, and I hope they are not repeats of of what Sarah and Ml. Already asked, and I and I missed while I was bumped out of the meeting. But i'll ask them, anyway. One is I'd. And appreciate Staff's opinion regarding the uniformity of the type of apartments and efficiencies that are being proposed here, and W. What what Staff's opinion is regarding having all efficiencies versus having a a variety of How's the of apartment sizes in this project?

[46:00] I'm sorry, John, you cut off towards the end. Could you repeat that? I'm. I'm. Wondering what what Staff's opinion is regarding the uniformity of the living units that are being proposed here as opposed to having a variety of of sizes and types of living units. Sure, I think efficiency living units allow for increased units on the site which is. you know part of the housing goals to have additional kind of housing stock as well as housing, so that's more affordable. and so I think, Staff. you know it. It it's supportive of the the All. You know. Efficiency living units on this project.

[47:02] Okay, thanks. And we also have Michelle Allen from housing Michelle. I don't know if you want to do that just as far as the policy underpinnings go, of supporting a diversity of different housing typologies. But you're muted. So yeah, the Comp plan does is looking for a diversity of housing types, but they don't necessarily need to be vertically mixed. They can be horizontally mixed. This is a huge project of these small units. So so you know we don't have a a ton of these micro units in the city at this point, although there seems to be more and more being proposed. So I think, from a housing perspective, they're desirable, especially at that location.

[48:01] So so it's your opinion that there's a a a large demand for this sort of housing that's being proposed here. Is that what I understand that I I think that's probably true, John, but I also think that they again did a market study. Remember, we talked about market studies at our last meeting. and so the developer would have found that there is a a a decent demand for this type of housing. Yeah. thank you. Sure. All right. Any other questions of staff. Okay, Well, let's let's move to the applicant's presentation. So we've gone ahead and promoted the applicants. But please let us know if your entire team is not there who will be presenting with Bross Holbrook

[49:01] the pain. and you should be able to share your screen. Thank you. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yeah, Great. And we can see you. Thanks. Lee. Ross is on the phone here. I do have our Powerpoint here to share, so i'll be running that. But Ross is going to lead our our introductions Here, take it away. Let me just make sure I get my screen share here. Can you guys see a Intro side with Stoke Investment group at the top. No. How about now? It's coming. Yes, we can see it. Thank you. sure. Go ahead, Ross. Good evening. My name is Ross Holbrook. I'm. The managing partner at Stoke Investment Group, and thank you for the opportunity to prevent present. 2206, Pearl. You go to the next slide

[50:01] a Stoke investment group develops attainable, sustainable and healthy housing. For today's middle income demographic. We submitted this concept in May of last year, and it made a lot of refinements, and really appreciated the collaborative process with staff and stakeholders. And we're excited to to move the project forward. I think when you. You look at the housing landscape nationally. Something that we think about a lot is how the middle income demographic is vastly underserved. Would you look at subsidized or capital a affordable housing that typically only reaches up to about 60% of area meeting income. whereas traditional market rate housing is reaches down to about 120, are they in my? And then, when you look at the Renter population in the Us, the 80% Ami is the largest, and so also the the most underserved.

[51:03] So we fill that need targeting young professionals, service workers and those that that work in the area. Yeah, if you go back. Sorry, Lee, Your jumping ahead a little bit. So so. Investment Group we Matt and myself. We're actually roommates at the University of Colorado. I think about 4 blocks from the the project. That's funny enough. So we started so an investment group about 5 years ago. we're using a local team. Dj: I think they've been in Boulder for about 50 years or more. and then Danica Powell with Trestle. Unfortunately she's fighting Covid at the moment. so we wish her the best, but she sends her regards. We hope, for a speedy recovery. Go to the next slide, so we believe that there's a housing Health Department crisis. Our goal is to to do more and and not be reliant on subsidies. And therefore we're focused on market rate or non deed restricted middle income housing

[52:06] something that we call naturally occurring or attainable by design by building smaller units on next slide from a sustainability perspective. Our goal is 0. Carbon. We achieve this through a reduction first approach, obviously using less materials with smaller units. we combine that with a deep focus on efficiency. and in order to be 0 carbon. We are all electric, and expect to utilize a mini micro grid to integrate solar Pv. Charging and storage Residents and guests will also be encouraged to avoid single occupancy vehicle use. They're taking advantage of our bicycle storage and repair facility car caring program as well as proximity to just about everything. We really think this is a great note of our core of the 15 min city that we believed in

[53:02] excellent. So how do we accomplish this? We we use innovative design and technology on our our units units are are smaller right around 300 square feet, but satisfy the needs and wants of other residents. Each unit has a kitchen and bathroom just like a normal unit, but in a more efficient footprint. And the other thing that we do is the residents not only have, you know, access to their unit and the privacy that that provides, but also a larger home in terms of communal spaces, both interior and exterior. The units are furnished which i'll get into in a second. And most importantly, we we try and locate our projects in neighborhoods that already have the amenities, so that we don't have to add the cost of those into the project, and therefore increase the the rents that we must charge next next page. So one of the pieces of technology we use is a a company out of called orie living. They manufacture essentially robotic furniture. This is an example of one. Fortunately we can't use video with these presentations, but it's it's really cool. It could check them out for a livingcom.

[54:12] but essentially creates a a one bedroom in a studio, you know a 300 square foot space feels much more livable and and and and larger. and and provides, you know, a a better lifestyle for for the 10 next next slide. So we we really see our residents walking and biking to to work and and or working from the property. I think historically most attainable or or affordable housing is not necessarily approximate to these things. Things like jobs and funds and and restaurants and grocery stores and so residents are really forced to own a car. And so we're providing a a different type of housing that is filling a a need for those who, you know, want to live car free

[55:03] in terms of outreach to both our our potential residents and and the community. Our Our focus is really around our residents. We've done extensive market research interviews and and focus groups. And I think you know, we really found that the location and walkability, and even the minimalistic design is is really attractive. But, more importantly, we've, you know, met and spoken, corresponded with about 9 neighbors, and and really tried to listen. I think when we started this company we really wanted to step away from our projects more and more proud. And one way we're doing that is, is really trying to listen to all stakeholders, our residents, our investors, our community and and the environment. So we've added more parking. We listen to the feedback for absolutely some parking strategy. I think one of the things I wanted to touch on

[56:02] ahead of time was was. Hey, John? Excuse me, Sorry, John, are are you? Can you mute. Oh, you yeah, I was getting a little bit of feedback. Well, thank you, Mark. So so tandem parking, how does it work? Parking will be undone, unbundled, and if a resident chooses to pay for a a part attendant parking space, they'll receive a what's called a parking roommate. and and therefore the burden of communication and coordination is between them. Our Our hope is that these cards are are not used very frequently, and maybe only on the weekends. And so, if a resident needs parking, you know, and and that doesn't want to rely on that communication, they can lease a non tend to tandem space, and the those spaces obviously would be at a premium. The other thing that we're excited to talk about is our conversations with Colorado car share, which is a a Local Boulder Company. I'm. Sure you guys are aware of.

[57:08] They have interest in locating a a vehicle on the property which I think provides a a community benefit for the residents, but also the the neighborhood at at large in terms of the neighborhood context. Next slightly. you know it's a very walkable and and viable area. And we're excited to to locate this type of project in this type of housing in in this this neighborhood that's so proximate to everything and and is walkable. I'll pass that on to the pain she did. Thank you. Thank you, Ros. My name is Lee Payne. I'm an owner and the director of architecture here at Dtj. Design, Boulder. Thank you all for your time to tonight, and the ongoing discussion with Staff, as is Ross has mentioned since we've had since. May

[58:05] I'm very excited to present this project to you tonight. I think it's a great it it's a very valuable opportunity for our for our community is is, Ross is kind of filled in the blanks. Unfortunately, a lot of my presentation was discussed already, so i'll try to focus in on, maybe addressing some of the concerns and comments from staff and things shopping them, and and the discussion, really good, have touched on the major issues. As as was mentioned. This is a very transit rich site. The configuration of the project has been mentioned already. Units with really kind of a small scale residential front yard feel over on twenty-second a very, very strong emphasis to public space here associated with the commercial use as Well, as the resident use facing northwest or or west on Pearl Street. We really want to focus on having people use the stairs in the communal spaces within the project as a way to move up and down within the building versus a traditional kind of elevator core

[59:13] high density of public bike parking spaces that 24 primarily focused at the corners of the building or resident entry areas. Every unit will contain a bite parking space within it, and then there's an additional 23 Byte parking spaces located within the secure enclosure for the garage. This is not something that we wanna tuck away in a far corner or back behind the transformer, the the bike parking and the bike maintenance and the access to it for the residents is something we really want to celebrate and have that be part of their journey every day, as we're also mentioning the commentary along the street. These units here I did want to mention to i'm sorry I forgot the the woman who had mentioned this. We have begun looking at relocating this restroom configuration for these units to the back wall

[60:05] separating the units from the garage. To really get the whole end of these units to have a lot more glass and light into them, so that that is actually something we have been studying. As was mentioned, the second and third level of the buildings really celebrating the journey to your unit from this grand staircase. That's already in it towards Pearl Street. the common room here that's a place for, together with friends or even guests outside of your unit, the Southwest Oriented common plaza, and raised gardens for the community Again, not only this is, have really great solar access. I think it allows the architecture of the building to be primarily justified Towards the East. which is an existing 2 story Building and the north, which is Pearl Street. And then we basically are breaking down. The mass of the building is, we're moving south towards the adjacent neighborhood again. The massing we've kind of talked about that we have started looking at some of the wrap around conditions primarily on this corner there are a few spots, where the deck, being an extension of the front part of the deck, does allow for Western views and western sunlight, and I think that's very very important for units that base north.

[61:18] So we're we're excited to integrate that design, thinking with Staff's commentary. we have started looking at some of the roof articulation here. I think that's a great design comment that we're going to begin investigating. I am sensitive to the provisions in the code to exceed the 38 foot height to have it through. So I think there's definitely a scale to Pearl Street that we need to respect versus just forcing in a a reform that feels more residential. But we're very early in the design process process, and are very much looking forward to that dialogue. Let me see if I can. One of the other comments we got to we're balconies, and we're not looking for a modification to the setback. We're looking at the Code Section 9.7 point 3

[62:08] A. And G. Allow balconies and cantilever decks to project into those setbacks. And that's what we're showing at those 2 conditions. Again, this really communal space with great solar exposure. This celebrated journey up the stair with the Orientation towards Pearl Street, and really the strong connection to our more the architectural typology alone, Pearl Street. But stepping the mass of the building down as we're moving towards the site in the neighborhood, and really giving the feeling of one story residential units on 20 s Street. Here with front yards. The character of the building is very much early. We are thinking something with natural materials as rocks. Ross has mentioned. Carbon footprints are a very, very important part of our material selection, but obviously the use of masonry is not to both the existing

[63:06] neighborhood contacts and historic Pearl Street, I I think, is in our future. We did not get these in in your package, so these are supplemental to what you've seen. But we did take a stab at locating the building in street view. Just so you can start seeing the scale relationship to the building and some of the like existing street context. Another view a little bit closer again, really celebrating that face of the building that's pointing towards the Pearl Street Mall. and then a view back down, looking west on Pearl Street, with the adjacent two-story building just to our east here that's. It. I did want to mention before I into the presentation here, as well as just mentioned, we've had I multiple meetings with Staff. I cannot recall any engineering comments come up during our referral or dialogue with it with the city. Unfortunately.

[64:05] our civil engineer is not on the call tonight, and can't answer any of those specific questions. We weren't aware of any issues that came up during our our engagement with the city since May. But Jba has a very, very long and rich history of doing work in Boulder and I'm: Sure, we will definitely get into the particulars of all the engineering as we as we get further into that the process. Thanks again. Thank you. Okay. Any questions of the applicant, George. Yeah, thanks. Guys great presentation. Quick question, Ross. This is for you. We we pitch this development as sort of a middle income, you know, trying to get that 1 20 to 80 for 80% of am I? So what do you perform other rents on these units to be so. So One thing that we we look at that's more attributable to affordable housing is chaff. Those annual rent

[65:09] maximums based on incomes in in the various counties. And so that's usually how we kind of target where our price point is, is really trying to beat the the need at 80 to 120 of am. I got it so so what would like? What are you performing the average rent per unit on the on the signed to me. You know it. It it changes over time, right? Because the wages increase. John. I I hate to. Oh, John, I yeah, John, I think it's your your echoing because you're you need to be on mute. Okay. sorry. It basically it depends right. It depends on what the annual numbers are based on wage growth. Essentially.

[66:03] it's typically census data, or or where Chappa gets it. I I don't know, but it's basically how subsidized. You know, capital a affordable prices, their their units. But these will be market rates. So it's it's it's basically just a framework of where we're yeah, that's why I understand there any market rate. But you you must have a perform on what you've performed at these units to be at when they open, let's say, 3 years from now. Yeah, that's the average, right? Yeah, 3 years from now. Well, what okay? Well put it this way. What would the average rent be today in order for us to understand projecting out 3 years. I'm. Just trying to understand how this fits in with the 1, 20 to 80, am I? And that would be helpful because you you must have a I mean, you're the developer. So you must have a sense of what you're actually going to rent these things for. Yeah, I think we do. I mean, there, there's you know, some volatility in in the market in terms of construction costs which hopefully have have maybe reduced over the last few months, but it's been a a pretty tricky market to to price, so I can't tell you with any sort of certainty other than

[67:09] you know, really just showing you where we look at that data which I i'm happy to provide. It's it's chaff that that produces the you know rent maximum per income. What do you do? You guys have a similar prop? Do you have any Elu projects now that you have that are constructed already. I'm not bold or not. But you know I mean you. You said you don't you don't know what you're performing the average rent to be here actually in the packet, I mean, maybe the applicant doesn't remember putting it in there, but it's on page 29 in the packet. We we provided a range at that at that time, but in 3 years I I can't tell you what it's going to be. I can tell you that we plan to. You know, pay the in blue fees, so it. as far as I know. I'm not sure that you guys can regulate what we don't know. I'm not asking you? Oh, not we can't. We can't regulate market rate units. I you! You're just you pitch your whole. Come your picture whole process as this.

[68:11] filling a gap in 120, am I? And i'm trying to get information to understand whether that's actually going to happen. So you that's my point. You you must know, because you're pitching us. that it's 8,120, I mean I can, when I can back into those numbers myself, knowing the 80 to 120 what the rents would need to be. So i'm just trying to understand whether that's actually going to happen. Yeah, I I think it's a as sorry, Laura you you mentioned in in our packet. I think we said 1,700 to 2,300 was was kind of the rough numbers again that's based on. I think it typically comes out in April or May. And so I hesitate to tell tell you what it's going to be, because again, we'll have, you know, 2 or 3 updates. This project is is built.

[69:04] Okay, thanks. Yeah. Okay, Sarah. Thank you. And just just to follow up on George's question. That range is exactly what an E. And boulder goes for. So it's. You know. I don't know whether you'd call that organically affordable, because I don't think there's anyone who would argue that $2,000 for a 300 square foot apartment is affordable, but nonetheless, so I have a couple of questions that have to do with. because you've mentioned that you're going to be installing robotic furniture and but handing over management of the tandem parking spaces to the people who co-signed for the spaces or signed for the spaces. It's unclear to me. whether you all are planning to manage this development once it's built, or whether your plan is to

[70:05] sell it to somebody else for their management of it. Because I I just i'm just very curious about that. Because, like what happens if if the bed the robotic bed breaks, who fixes that? Yeah, no, it's a great question. So our our plan, as with all of our projects will, it will be professionally managed by a a third party property manager. And so things like broken beds. although they have a great warranty and and the capabilities, because we actually went and looked and touched, and feel these things. You know those that will be solved by the property manager as well the coordination of of parking as well. If If there's an issue. okay, so that your plan is to hold on to the product. But it will be property managed by somebody else.

[71:09] and that I so thank you for clarifying about the el use on the first floor. It did seem like all of the El use as send, except for the ones on the ends essentially have one source of light. is it? It's a little hard to tell from the drawings. I realize they are preliminary. But is that accurate? Because that would be concerning to me that just the light coming from the front of the apartment is it? And then it's a it's a three-sided three-sided walls with no windows right well there are quarter units where we're looking at manipulating that but I would think of these these units as much more like a bedroom. You're gonna be living in the far part of the unit that has the windows, the back where the bathroom is that there's no windows. It's much more like a typical apartment building where individual rooms have, you know, one window on one side of it, places where we can capitalize on corner conditions. We're absolutely

[72:17] okay. I think. Thank you that those were my questions. Thank you. email. Thank you, John. and thank you. Applicants for your for your presentation. I i'm going to start with questions about parking. Just kind of following Staff's key issues in that sequence. So I've got a couple of questions about about parking. Where did the people who work in the commercial buildings, in the little shops? Where Where did those people work Park.

[73:05] we're we're following the Development Code guidelines that say at a certain depth. The parking demand for the commercial is 0. No, I understand the regulation. I'm thinking actuality, and of course, just looking at a lot of the concerns in the neighborhood about parking. I'm thinking about the people that work there, because I I see the options you've provided for people who live there right You've got the the electric bytes or Bytes storage and the e-car and that sort of thing. But the people that work there. You're looking at small businesses. and i'm guessing you know the shop people. I can arrive at work from somewhere and potentially going to need to park. Where do you see that happening?

[74:01] Well, it's a little bit speculative. I don't know that they would necessarily be driving to work. There is a district west of this for Kjid, you know, at the former tech line building that as a a large density, it's it's a little bit speculative. They might be taking mass transit to the to the site. I I really wouldn't know we don't have parking on site for the employees. They may be finding different methods to be able to get to work. They might even work. They might even live in the building without a car. Who knows if there was something out there thinking about that? Thank you for that answer. The you talk about alternatives to the auto are promoted by site design are those car share and the bike parking options. And that kind of thing is that what you mean by alternatives to the auto within the site plan.

[75:00] or are there others besides those 2? You You've talked about some ideas, Ross. You want to take this one. I i'm not sure. I I fully got your your question. I I apologize. But you you're you're asking if there's alternative transportation. This is this is the language that is in in your information. It says that there are are alternatives to the auto, and they're promoted by the site design. and so i'm. Curious what in addition to the car share, and the bike parking that's provided, and hand them to that, You said, there's bike parking in the actual units, and i'm looking at the plant, and I don't really see a how, where you're thinking that people are going to park their bike inside the unit. So if you can just expand on. I think walkability is number one. I mean, if we think about where the project is and what is in within a walking distance, both in terms of jobs, but also grocery stores and

[76:05] many other things as well. definitely focusing. You know the design around bike ability and and the ease of you know whether that's e bikes, or commuter bikes or bikes for recreation in terms of you know, parking a bicycle within the unit, we found that a lot of residents are worried about bike theft. Obviously, that's a an issue in this in the city. And so for those that have. you know, nicer bikes or worried about you know their commuting capabilities. They can locate their bike in in the in the unit itself, and we actually have some cool. We don't. We can't share with it you now, but we have some cool ways of how to store those those bicycles. Additionally, the the Colorado car share option is is great, and if you look. I don't know if if you all are familiar with it. But the price point of of that membership is is very, very reasonable and and pretty amazing

[77:06] opportunity. Something we worry about is how one of our residents may go up to the mountains to go for a hike and or a a bike ride, and and they provide, you know, cars with ski racks and bike racks and all those things very economically. Yeah, and it is, Ross said the the This kind of resident is very, very proud of their bikes, and you know we want to provide that security within the unit versus having them all stored on the deck. I don't know if Shabnon can share with you our slideshow, but slide 6 of 20 in our presentation shows where we're concepting a vertical storage component for the by 2. So we're definitely trying to integrate that into the unit design versus it just being a complete after thought, I mean, like. We're all said the this. This is their This is their car. So i'm getting the idea that the plans that we're seeing

[78:03] in the architectural set. There is a lot of sort of technology that's going in to make those really livable like the way the bed elevates and what you're talking about for the bike, storage and all. It's not all apparent just by the floor plan. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean it's it's it's actually pretty simple technology. At least the how the bed is operated. But I don't think we're able to share a a website, but we're living.com. If you scroll through you'll you'll get it in in no time. But the bicycle storage is is, I would say, low tech it's just full design. right? All all I'm saying is, it's beyond the simplicity of the plan you really are attending to some of these details of livability in around 300 square feet, which is like what 2 thirds of a 2 car garage, which is pretty pretty small, but

[79:01] it's not. It's not just Here's the floor plan, and it's the square footage. I I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. And I actually think it's pretty inventive to, you know. Provide the units furnished. That's a pretty awesome thing. Thank you so much. Thank you. John. You might be on mute. Okay. So try it now. Can you hear me now? Okay, go ahead, Laura. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions. First of all, thank you to Lee Lee and Ross for your presentation. Very helpful. Looking forward to seeing the site review. I I do have a couple of questions about the car share

[80:00] and the northwest Corner plaza. So first for the car share, so it's a third party company, and so the app, the your tenants. It sounds like, could choose to become members of this third party car Share company that would park a car at your site. Is that is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, I I think you know our Tdm plan will get into the details. But actually just talk to Peter the CEO of Colorado car share today, in fact. and you know, I think it's it's to be determined in terms of how the structure works, but absolutely. You know, our residents would have access to using that car. Not exclusively, necessarily, because I think one of the things that they want to do is provide that value to the surrounding community, and, in fact. I think locationally, they have one at the Chamber on Folsom, and then maybe one near the fifteenth. So this is a a really great site for them

[81:00] both, not only for our residents, but also for the the community as well. Okay, I just want to flag that if your Tdm plan relies heavily on a lot of our residents are going to use car share, then we would probably want more details about that at site review, and I would be very excited to hear about that like. How are they going to get to the car that they're trying to rent. And what if somebody already has that car for the weekend? How do they get a different car? And then that kind of thing? And then the northwest corner Plaza. I know that you'll have more detail about that at site review, but it sounds like that is intended to be primarily for the retail space so like. Would you have some kind of re envisioning some kind of seeding there, or what's your vision for that plaza at this point? Go ahead, Lee. I think it's a great place for people to meet up. You know this synergy between the residential use and the commercial. I think that's a great spot for it. You bring up a great point. We want flexibility, but I think Staff made a good comment about, you know. Let's figure out a way to separate that space from the the public sidewalk.

[82:07] How, whether we do that through planters or something that might be more fixed, and then there's a combination of mobile components. We'll, we'll just investigate it. My vision is that it is a place for for seeding, for people to gathers in the sun. Okay, thank you. And then, lastly, just to follow up on George's point. I also was curious about your your rental pricing, and I think, in the packet that's say, 1,700 to 2,600 is 80 to 120% of Ami right now. But I guess my question is more around. How Are you planning to maintain that for as long as you own the building? And if you sell the building, would that continue to be? Is that somehow deed restricted that this this building targets that am I range, or it's just. That is what you, as the owners intend to do, and if you sell it that could go away. Yeah, no, it's it's a good question. These are are not deed restricted. They are market rate, but again affordable by the the fact that they are smaller.

[83:08] especially in this location, especially furnished. But yeah, I I have no control over whoever may purchase the the asset, and and what they decide to do so. You know it's it's clear our Our values are trying to provide, You know, middle income housing within that range. So okay, so you expected to fluctuate with the market? Basically. Yeah, I I I think you know, there's supply and demand factors. But there's also, you know, wage growth within that specific demographic, too, that are kind of our framework for for pricing these units. Thank you. Let's see Mark, go ahead. Hi! So

[84:02] I I also. I'm kind of following up on both Ml. And Laura's questions, and and in my reading of the packet. and maybe I didn't read it correctly. But it seems different than your presentation. So I just want to clarify a couple of points here. Can you tell me the total number of long term bike spaces that you're planning on if you just tell me that number again. Just a moment in the in the packet, I read it as somewhere in twenties, and the in the presentation, I think you said somewhere in the sixties. 68, I think, is what we're showing on our submittal so one in each unit and 45 plus an additional 23 for residents. And

[85:00] is there a portion of those, all of those that would be charging ready we haven't talked about that. But I think it's probably inevitable. In fact, the city standards for public bike parking say it should be accommodated. So I think that's a good idea. Okay. all right. So. But at the moment you don't have a number of those that would be electrified or ready to electrify. Not yet. Okay. And I want to acknowledge there's always the tension at concept review. You don't want to do too much and present something and then have various interested parties provide input at the same time you you've got to provide enough detail that we get a feel, and I think that's I I since. And I was struggling a little bit with that as I did in the floor plan, and and lay out storage, etc.,

[86:03] on the car on the car, parking the packet, I think, had 3 or 4 spaces as as charging when it was constructed you would have, they would be electrified, and some additional small portion as electrified, ready as as have those numbers changed. They they have not. Currently it is going to be a proportion of the table that's provided. But, as you know, we're showing 2, 3, 4, 5 is Ev ready and 3 additional. Is he be installed? Okay, 5 and 3. Okay. All right. And so how how did you arrive at at the those numbers, those same, and i'll i'll i'll i'll I'll save my comments for later i'll. I'll just ask, how did you write with those numbers?

[87:02] I believe it was a aspect of the code. But we haven't like, I said, we haven't gotten in the deep dive of electrify, and you know more than more than we're currently showing all the bikes themselves, either. I'm sorry I know exactly, Mark, but I and you'll you'll You'll get my thoughts a little bit, and then the the storage situation is I some in on the on the ground floor plan. It said something near the parking as resident storage. But you're You're also planning on some residents or all residents using a their unit as as bike storage. Is that is that right? Do I have that right? I think they would probably be 2 different aspects. So these these would be

[88:01] weatherproof storage lockers. You can see those in a lot of multi-family different projects around boulder there, you know, metal boxes, if you will, where resonance can keep things other than their bikes. Okay. And but if a unit, if if a resident brought a a bike to their to their. to their efficiency unit. Would you allow those on decks, or would that not be allowed on decks? I I don't know if we've gotten into the operations aspect, Like, I said, we're planning on incorporating it right now. Okay. All right. Okay. I think I think that's that's all my questions, for now. Thank you. They they're all fantastic questions, I think, as somebody mentioned we're we're in month, 10 of the 3 year process. So I think it's. It's it's worth reiterating. What Marcus said is that we're we're trying to show enough to create a dialogue. But we definitely are not purporting that we figured everything out. We definitely want to have a dialogue with the city about

[89:09] what the drivers of all these solutions need to be. But I think it's really really great to think about those ideas right now, this is the perfect time actually email. Thank you, John. If there aren't any other questions about parking. I was going to go on to key issue number 3, which is the building itself. Okay, I I just like to inquire to what degree you considered making, not having a car a condition of at least with your tenants for some of them. If if that's an option that you've considered with respect to your parking concerns.

[90:00] we we certainly had discussions around. That, I think pricing of parking is is one way to maybe disincentivize those that you know don't want to own a car. Don't have to pay for parking. so we kind of start there. but you know we we're not there yet in terms of the operational plan with our property manager, and how we would potentially, you know. not allow residents that own cars. Okay, thank you. You go ahead and great thanks, John, so I will ask some questions about now the building itself. and I will start with the shared communal spaces. So I see one identified. It's on the second to work it is that is, that the only communal

[91:02] building is on that building that it's on the that space the resident common room. Yes, ma'am, that that's the only condition space. The information refers to a kitchen or a place to have a meal with the bigger group and all that. That's the room that they would, and the entire anybody in the building would have access to that. Not just that second floor. Yes, ma'am. And So. looking at the intent for the building to be sustainable. I wondering I see the language potential TV solar awning above.

[92:01] so that to me does not seem like a very big array. And so I wonder regards to that what percentage the Pv arrays in that Is that the only place you're assuming a TV array, and what percentage of the site use would be covered in that amount of square footage. That's one of 2 spots we're thinking. I don't have an exact number in terms of coverage or output for that array. Right now. We're thinking that the slope troops sloped towards the south would be really really great places, even if we can leverage the the exact solar angle to have solar arrays on the roof. and then the solar well awning the the verb that you just used is really kind of multi for multi functional. It generates electricity, but it also provides shading for the people that are outside and given that this is cell facing. We think that that's a great sort of, you know, shade and weather protection device for the outside. So we're just kind of getting in. First. We need to kind of determine what the reform is going to be, and then we want to maximize it.

[93:14] Do you have a target for on-site. Pb. I mean just given your mission, given the language that you use to describe who you are and what you do and why you do it. I'm. Just curious. Do you have a an intended goal for what percent of your electric use would be delivered on site? I I I apologize. We we don't have an exact number, you know. It's. I think, as as somebody mentioned earlier, we're we're definitely interested in exploring the pissed roofs. And obviously you know, keeping in mind the efficiency of the Pb. As well. So they're, you know. trying trying to balance those 2 things. It's it's pretty difficult to commit to any sort of percentage.

[94:02] So when you state as your goal, that sort of you, you don't have a concept in mind that we want to AIM for this. it doesn't tied to what you might actually be designing for. Is that what i'm understanding? You say. the goal of of the sustainability component of onsite removals. You don't have an idea. Is it 1020%, 80%? No. Our Our goal is consistent in terms of being 0. Carbon and Pv is one way to get there, but there's many other ways as well, and I appreciate that you going all the electric. I think that that is a great a great step. But then, of course, parallel to that is still time to be. And I I just wanna mention to the there's definitely metrics there. But it all really starts with the the building consumption. When we worked on Alpine Bank, you know that's a major

[95:09] over on on Folsom and Canyon that's a lead build building. That's a major sustainability issue for them. But to really get to what the efficiency of the system was, we need to figure out the offset, and that's driven by the building consumption. So, as Ross mentioned, smaller units lead is less material. It's less energy consumption. On we just haven't gotten to that part of the engineering. Yet I think we're definitely forward, thinking in terms of trying to set the architecture up to receive as much as we Can we just don't have specifics yet? Do you think you might have more information at Site Review? Is that something that would come on board sooner rather than later. We're definitely going to be getting into the engineering, so I I would assume it's going to be getting factored in at some point. I can't say exactly when. but the array that we designed at Alpine Bank was definitely part of our use. Review for that

[96:04] cool. So my last question about the building. I'm looking at the sort of building coverage of the land, and i'm curious about 2 things. One would be that urban Heat island that I don't see a lot of previous ground on this. Do you know what the percent is of previousness on the on the property? Everything looks hard surface except for the little gardens in front of those 5 units at grade. Do you mean at the upper levels or the ground? What percent of that site has previous ground.

[97:01] I don't have that exact number. I can say for an infill site like this. The amount of green that is around the footprint is very, very large, based on my experience. you know, having such a substantial dog run on the east and the basically front yards for those units is kind of a rarity at the upper level we definitely are in. There are thinking of garden boxes very much like the project that I worked on up across the University bookstore. Those have elevated stormwater management devices and community gardens at the upper level to help mitigate the the healing effects. Okay. those are all my questions regards to the building. I appreciate your answers. Thank you so much. Those are good questions. Okay, Thank you. All Any other questions of the applicant from the board. Okay. Then we'll move ahead to our public comment section.

[98:05] Let's get a Let's see how many people are likely to say anything tonight. I see 3 hands up. Oh, well, there's a lot more up now. Okay? Well, let's see. We're now at Okay, I think. Given the number here, I think we need to limit the comments to 2 min each tonight. So so let's see, Vivian. Would you care to move ahead and manage the public comment section here? Sure, thanks, John. so we'll go ahead. Devin has the timer ready, and we'll start with Fred Jones. followed by enigma and enigma. Please please introduce yourself by your full name when we call you but first bread. Please go ahead, Fred.

[99:07] and you may have to unmute yourself from your from your end, Fred. I I think I'm losing time here. Can you hear me? There's a bit of some feedback, but please go ahead. My name is Craig Jones. John. You may need to mute. Just close it down. 2 min is not very much time to defend 50 years of your life. I'm. I heard a 3 min train state, and you should understand that those of us who oppose this I put a lot of time and effort into this. You give almost infinite time to people who support the project to give very little to us, Having 2 min to support work that you've done 50 years is well, maybe the very definition of abusive bureaucracy.

[100:00] What can I tell you? I don't have any time. I can tell you that we have always worked here for I mean I don't even really know where to begin at this point, but i'll try to read some of this. First. Let me say we'd like to have more good housing quality housing for working people in boulder. This is not quality housing. We've lived here for about 50 years, and have been part of the effort over those years. Make bolder a place where working people could actually want to live. And we've always supported open space parks for centers, libraries, and when city budgets for parks and meetings were kind. We became volunteered caretakers to the Pocket Park, and until 2 years ago a comedian on Walmart, our home is one unit in a triplex West Market Park. We began as and we're eventually able to purchase triplex before it came possible for people like us. Over the years. We have tried to fight very high quality, low-cost housing. So, for example, while our lot is about one third the size of the post development, we provide substantially more landscaping and green areas, and while our units are larger they rent for about $200 per month, less

[101:12] and a $1,700 rent. In the proposed project. We have always regarded our tenants as a source of rent. We've never regarded our our tenants as we're spread, but always his neighbors. Most of stay for years, and many have become close friends. We understand that some believe moderately. Sides. Units like ours should be replaced with a kind of very large scale, high density by profit and impersonal structure that is being proposed. But if approved, this development more devastating us and others like us in the neighborhood, and it will also create the same problems for most current and future letters. There will be many problems with this massive development, but the most immediate will be access you on street parking like it or not.

[102:04] setting wishful thinking aside over 50 years that has included all of our tenants, and for working couples usually conflicts of parking before the pandemic, and as people return to no more than 3 or 4 parking places on twenty- on most days with at least 28 more cars. In this project. Competition for parking will force the overflow into surrounding neighborhoods. People who apologies right? We have to be fair to the rest of the participants. So John did mention that each member of the public will have 2 min to share their comments on this item tonight. Next up we have. Let's see a lower their hands. So now we have chill at their grano. and would appreciate. If you can watch the timer.

[103:01] please go ahead and show Joe. We can't hear you. Okay, there we go. Good evening Planning Board. My name is Jill. Either Grano and I'm. A graduate student at the University of Colorado and a member of the University's Boulder Affordable Housing research initiative. My research examines the types and 10 years of multi-family housing being built in boulder's medium density high density and mixed use zones. While these zones represent a fraction of our residentially zoned land, they contain almost all of our affordable housing. I've reviewed the data and examined case studies on the multi-family developments that have been proposed and built in the aforementioned zones over the last 5 years. and it's clear that our intensity. Standards are too low to produce any form of new market rate affordability. This does not mean that market rate. Affordability is no longer possible.

[104:03] Boulder residents continually reject the kind of density that would lead to market rate affordability. But other communities are not as exclusionary as we are in an extensive study of 101 cities and towns in the greater Boston area titled how to increase housing, affordability, understanding local deterrence to building multi-family Housing political economists found that relaxing density restrictions specifically by increasing the maximum number of units allowed per acre. was the most effective method. Effective method to increase housing affordability. Their empirical study clearly demonstrates a correlation between increasing dwelling units per acre and rent reduction. The National Association of Realtors, recently named Boulder among the top 10 highest price metro areas in the country. For too long we have em embraced regressive zoning policy that prioritizes wealthy residents over low low income residents

[105:02] this project fits in our city. What doesn't fit are the luxury town homes that have been constructed by right all over the place, the ones across from the Chamber, the ones on Spruce and Folsom, the ones that line East Pearl. These developers could build expensive housing by right, but they're going through the trouble to try something new. I urge you to accept their vision. I urge you to try for market rate affordability. Rejecting this proposal. Since the clear message that we've given up. Thank you. Thank you, Jill. Thank you for sharing your views tonight. Next we have of a Cj. Older. followed by yeah. And Jan Hickory. Cj: please go ahead. Hi I've lived in Boulder since 59. Been in the Whittier neighborhood since for the last 33 years, I understand, and I get this project more parking, less units, less money. They make

[106:02] quite honestly a lot of these developers. They'll build a project like this, particularly since their apartments get the gross rent multipliers up and turn around and sell it to a re I would be I'd be a monkey's uncle if it didn't happen within 5 years. The fallacy that these smaller units provide for people that have cars is proven, you know, time and time again in Boulder, Whittier Square, when your place all through Boulder, maybe there's a maximum of occupancy of 2 units or 2 people per unit, but doesn't mean they won't have 2 cars. It's a misnomer as well to show all their mapping with the 24 Street parking which even today I was out. There was most of it. 70 was filled up already. And Those people are going to give up their parking just because you don't provide parking on this site for the cars that are needed. They're gonna have to sacrifice units to provide parking, you know, as used by right, would require what your square is. 4 times the land Mass the parking there ratio, one port, 3 per cars per unit, we your place when it comes back online. That was one car per unit. All these projects park cars underneath one car per unit where your place when they rebuild that out this neighborhood is going to be

[107:14] a disaster with people overflowing. I was there today. A gal walked out of wetier square, rocked across the street, picked up her car on 20 Fourth Street, right adjacent to where you want to build this project. You know, today any number of times you can get out there and see that when people get get home from work these projects are going to fill up. So you've got to provide for the parking. I think, for the last 30 years. Down here in Denver I see kids parking, and you can have all the codes this that the other. I see kids parking in in the yards in the right ways. So you know, if you're going to enforce it, perhaps you have a restriction on the riddle, lease, one car per unit, maximum, or even less. And that's the only way you're going to handle it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you for your contribution.

[108:03] Next up we have Jan Hickory. Please go ahead for your 2 min. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. I am the resident who said that there was an issue with the city's sewage system capacity to handle the sewage in this area due to the over developed. we seem to have lost her. How do you see? Okay, maybe we should. We can start the timer again. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Please go ahead. Can you hear me now? Okay, I am the resident who said that there was an issue with the city's sewage system capacity to handle the sewage in this area due to the over development in this area. The reason, I said, that there was an issue because our duplex, which is located within a stone's throw from this proposed development, had 3 major sewage backups from the city's main sewage line all within one year.

[109:13] This cost us tens of thousands of dollars to clean up and having to remodel the basements multiple times. Within one year each of these backups was confirmed by the city utility workers and the plumbers and workers who had came to work on our property and the city were utility workers who had to clear the city's black sewage made the city's main sewage line. So there is an issue. I heard you guys say there wasn't. But when you have to spend at least $30,000 in one year to clean up the city's sewage that was dumped into our sewage line. There is an issue, and I hope. if you guys understand that I talked to the city's utility worker about this multiple times, and he did tell me that because of the over development in this area it is getting very difficult for the city sewage line to handle the capacity from all the over development.

[110:11] adding 45 units is only going to make this problem worse, and I do not want the city sewage in the basement of our duplex anymore. I also am concerned about the parking, and I know this has been brought up. but I think it's a joke that the development said that the people who work at the Commercial Building will not drive to work, so they don't need to provide parking for the employees. How are you going to prove that? Are you going to tell your employees that there is no parking available for them, so they cannot drive to work. The developer is only speculating that the employees and the residents will not own a car, and you, Don't, have any data to prove this. The del developer is not being realistic, and is only speculating, he said, quote unquote that they they are not there yet to not allow residents to own cars so they can't guarantee, or even claim that there will not be a parking issue, nor that this will be a negative impact on the neighbors. It will.

[111:07] because they're gonna be parking in our privately owned parking spots. One of the staffers said that they went out and counted 15 parking 50 parking spots. Today. I don't know where they found them. But maybe they're parking all the you're counting all the parking spots that we are privately owned. And again, Jen, I'm just gonna have to ask you to rep up. The 2 min have passed those parking spots. Some of those around there are owned by private residents, and you can't count on the residents allowing their residents to park in our private parking spots. Thank you. Thank you for participating tonight. Next up we have Claudia Cm. Followed by Lynn Siegel. Claudia, please go ahead for your 2 min. Thank you. Hi there! Good evening, Members of planning board.

[112:00] My name is Claudia Hansen, theme. I'm. Part of the people where housing network. I think it's great to see this project at concept review, and I really like its potential to bring additional accessible housing and pedestrian life to this location on East Pearl Street. We know that there is growing demand for small and car free living spaces, especially amongst folks seeking to reduce their environmental impacts and cost of living, and it makes sense to add these homes in walkable, viable, and transit connected neighborhoods like we Here the immediate neighbors have expressed concern about parking impacts, as they often do, but reducing private vehicle use is a city-wide, goal. We will make no real progress towards it. If we continue to mandate enough space for every driving aged human to park a car. and in the case of micro apartments over parking feels particularly absurd. The footprint of a parking space is more than half of the footprint of each new home proposed here. So I hope you'll support the requested parking reduction

[113:01] and ask city staff and the developer to use other tools to manage the impacts in the surrounding area. But I think it's really a shame. We're spending so much time talking about parking, because there's a lot of other things in this design that we should welcome here in Boulder. The first thing I noticed about it? Was, it's use of outdoor corridors to access individual homes, unlike the double loaded corridors that we often use to maximize buildable space. This allows for natural light and cross ventilation in every unit. There's also this shared courtyard deck, which in a less car, centric city, we find more on the ground level. But it gives this private extension of the home. It's a place to linger and not just pass through it's got access to light and air, and it also shelters folks from noise on the street. And again it's just good design that almost all of the 45 units open onto this space, in addition to having their own private buildings. Features like this can make living small, feel delightful. And if we can provide that experience, while also providing homes that advance our housing and climate goals. We're doing it right.

[114:02] This proposal is a great start. Let's please lean into it. Thank you. Thank you, Claudia. Next we have been Siegel, followed by Judith Jones, and I just like to ask others if they're planning to speak, to go ahead and raise their hands now. So we have an idea of how many more people there. Lynn, please go ahead. Less is more. There are no for sale units here. There's no they're going to do in Loo. This is. you know. What you're doing is you're opening up middle. More demand for more middle demand for more middle with this project, because the developer himself said. They're going to get higher wages and guess what we haven't. But any Jobs housing balance soft here. The more jobs we have here, the more wages, the more demand for the middle for projects just like this. And you know what the 300 foot thing is. They should have a quarter of a park car per unit. They should have one car for 4 units.

[115:12] because that's equivalent to a larger unit like in Papalios. This is. you know, fundamental things here are not being met with the Bvcp either. Why, Don't, they have a ground loop heat pump. Have you looked at your excel, Bill for the for the gas lately. and and these guys Haven't even mentioned the groundl heap what the heck. This is a new project, you know. I'm getting one in my place. And where are they going to put all their stuff? They're gonna be driving across town for storage, you know. I'm. Sorry. Yes, i'm 69, and yes, i'm hoarding, and I have all kinds of space, but the everybody does. Other people have demand for stuff, too. It is 1,700 to 2 2,600. It says they're right in the place. In in their document they sent in. There is a density request for 20 to 22 units.

[116:14] That's on page 27 that is there. So why Wasn't answered by Lord Kaplan, who asked about that What they need to do is true communal housing dorms with sliding doors that are that are soundproof for privacy for this age component demography, and it's one demographic that's really weird to stick one demographic in. So let's see. I've got 12 things and definitely more time. But what the sorry to control of this all of these to the end of the 2 blue pays who pays we pay. and we're not going to stand for it anymore.

[117:03] Sorry for cutting people off, but I just want to make sure that we're being there and providing 2 min to each member as the chair mentioned at the beginning. So thank you to those who have been sticking to the 2 min. Can you see the timer when it comes up? Does the timer show on the screen? Yeah, okay, Just want to make sure. Next up we have Judith Jones. Please go ahead. You You have 2 min. My name is Judith Jones. My husband and I are property owners of the triplex, located on 20 s Street. This is our home. We've lived here for over 45 years. When we first moved to South Whittier it was an old semi-rural area with small houses, dirt roads, limited side. It's later, the designated as high density neighborhood. and as a result we have, we welcome the street improvement and the addition of the Min Mini Park, which we take care of.

[118:06] the is false. This proposal has a false assumption that tenets will not need cars. I'm. A retired teacher the kind of person they're trying to attract. and my job was in our that. although I car pooled, I still needed a car to get to work with this proposal they there will be an overflow onto the neighborhood, with the result of residents having to drive around searching for a parking spot. Often several blocks away from where they live. and this will impact for the congestion and safety issues. Since both Pearl Street and Walnut have heavy traffic during certain times the day the residents are going to be forced to compete for spaces. I would like to see this development have fewer sides. Each unit have a parking spot. I would like to see a more diverse unit in order to have a diverse population which our neighborhood could use.

[119:09] So what I urge, and I would actually like to see is some landscaping. That little strip of dog park we have. The Mini Park is located in front of our property, and the entire neighborhood uses that it's the dark park, and I can assure you that little strip will never get used as a dark part, because they'll come to our mini part. so I hope that you listen to us and change. Respond accordingly. Thank you. Thank you, Judith, and thank you for sticking to the 2 min really appreciate that as well. Next up we have. Rosie Vivian. Please go ahead, Rosie. You have 2 min. Hi, there, everybody. I sent you guys an email earlier. I'm glad I made it just to catch the tail end of this meeting, and I just wanted to say that I support this project. I think efficiencies are so important for Boulder in a play, such a wealthy community at a downtown location.

[120:09] with public transportation, biking walking to have places that are appealing for young people to be able to live here. Car free is amazing, and I don't see why we're afraid to embrace this project. If we think about the big picture about the future and what's best for Boulder. When we're making decisions like this. I just think I have to choose people over parking. That's all thanks. Thank you so much. Any other members of the public who wish to speak at this time. Please raise your hand. Nobody else. I see, make it just go ahead and make it

[121:04] So if we're going to achieve a sustainable planet, we have to build places where people who want to live with a small carbon footprint can live and thrive. We need dense small units, positioned along central arteries, the central corridors, the bus routes in our town for most of us. It is hard to imagine a life other than the suburban subdivisions that we grew up in. myself included. But the young people, the people of color. They're showing us a different way of living. smaller, tighter, more social, fewer carbon emissions. We can't create a future for our planet and our town that is worth living in. If we cannot transcend a lifestyle that's locked into suburban forms with lots of stuff using lots of energy with lots of free parking on the streets. We're called upon to do this by the melting glaciers and the crazy weather, the overheated planet.

[122:02] to celebrate transit oriented development like this project to enable people to live lightly in individual units, and to provide a place for people who want to live a sustainable life. Small, efficient use of bikes and walking and transit not a lot of stuff. And on a transit corridor are we really going to ask for more? 200 square foot parking spaces for 300 square foot unit. That would be absurd. but it would set off the values. Do we value homes for cars more than homes for people. If most of your discussion tonight, folks and I say this is a former planning Board member is about parking it'll be a lost opportunity. Don't go forth as though you're the parking board. Be the planning this board and and this design come to fruition in a better way.

[123:03] Thank you. It's cool. Thank you me for your contribution. So, chair. We only have hands raised for people who have spoken already, so I see to you whether we allow people to speak twice. No, I think the we don't. We are not going to start doing that. So thank you. I'll bring the public comment section to a close. and I think it's time for a break. We'll take a 5 min break and return at 8, 12 for board discussion.

[126:10] Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[130:21] Okay. So I think now it's the time when we can ask questions and have a coherent discussion. I think the way to do this is initially to organize our comments along the lines that Staff has asked us to do. There were 3 major questions. The first was whether whether this proposal is compatible with the vulnerability comp plan. And so i'd ask everyone to think about that

[131:02] in their initial comments, and then we'll move to the other questions, and and then after that, then. and have a general comments on whatever whatever you think so. Who'd like to start out with the with the first it maybe if if Staff could put up those 3 questions. People will be able to organize their thoughts accordingly. I'm sorry, John, just so. I understand the plan. Do you want us all to go around and comment on number one. and then i'll go around on comments on Number 2. Okay. Sorry. I wasn't very clear about that. Okay. Here we go all right. So is the concept plan consistent with what we valley complain. Hey, Mel?

[132:00] Thank you, John. I You know the the concern that I have about meeting the BBC. Kind of points To some of the questions George was trying to get answered. And if this. if this, if we're seeing this project under the umbrella of middle income affordability. And that's what this project claims to be. Targeting. There's nothing to guarantee. It will, in fact, from this market. So I I am kind of conflicted about the Boulder Valley cost plans. goal. providing housing. and I understand this diversity piece that this brings to the table with the small units.

[133:05] but I am concerned with the goal. If this is, in fact, the goal of the developer. there is not a lot of evidence that it will meet the gold on your muted. Yeah. Sorry. I didn't know if you were through or not, Sarah, go ahead concerns. I appreciate that this is a small lot on which there, which is developers, are trying to maximize the build out. And I,

[134:01] you know a. We have no input on that part per se. But you know the price point that they're pointing to is exactly what we know to be the price point for el use in the city based on what we learned from our presentation on housing affordability 2 weeks ago. So you know, I think if we took that topic off the table and just looked at it as what it is, which is a dense apartment development, and it's a it's a less fraught conversation. and just accept that it is gonna be. I mean. it sure looks like it's going to be market rate, not market rate affordable. $2,000 is not affordable. It's market rate. So. But you know we need more housing. I i'm not sure. Micro units are

[135:03] the thing, but you know there's certainly a hot topic these days in development and circles. So. But I I I just think we should not think of this as affordable market rate affordable. It's just market rate. So if the question is, you know, is the proposed concept plan preliminarily consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bvcp. The Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. My answer to that is, yes, it's consistent with the underlying land. Use it's consistent with the zoning, and I understand that the zoning has changed to be higher density than it was in the past, but it is consistent with the current zoning. As some of our commenters have pointed out. This is exactly where you would want to have higher density living. It's 0 point 4 miles to a grocery store in either direction. pretty easily attainable along Pearl Street by bus, by scooter, by bicycle

[136:02] walking with a little hand cart. Grocery shopping is one of those big things that people use their car for so like being near. Our major grocery stores is a big plus. It's right by transit. It's right by downtown. It's really walkable to the 20 Ninth Street, Mall like. If you were going to. You know. Try to find a place on the map where you would really like to have places where you can experiment with having smaller units that people don't own cars. This is the great place to do it. So I do think it is consistent with compact development pattern policy, 2.0, 3 policy, 2.2 for a commitment to a walkable and accessible city, and other policies that we have that encourage housing diversity, and you know our desire to grow different kinds of housing that can serve different kinds of populations. I think the fact that these units will be furnished will serve a certain segment of the population that doesn't own a lot of stuff, or doesn't want to own a lot of stuff. And I think that it's a very interesting concept.

[137:03] and I think this is a good place for it. That is consistent with our our goals for housing in the city work. I concur with Laura. I appreciate her recitation of the Bbcp policies, and i'll simply add on by saying that one of the goals that we have as a community is a variety of housing types, and and that variety of housing types doesn't always need to be met within a project. You can have a project like this that is designed around specific to a particular demographic, a particular lifestyle, and still achieve our variety of housing goals at other locations within the city.

[138:00] I'll also say that my the very first apartment I lived in in Boulder was an efficiency at the 20 eighth and college. The blue spruce apartments and efficiency of living is a can be a wonderful thing in spite of its size, and I arrived without much. And anyway, I think efficiency living in this project. Meet those BBC. P. Goals. Thanks. You should. Yeah. I think it is preliminarily consistent with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BBC. However, I don't think that means that the concerns that people raised aren't valid. I see a lot of them as like externalities, and the devil being the details, I really appreciate the presentation. Everything we heard, and I will. I know we'll get more into that in a moment. So that's not meant as any kind of criticism towards the applicants or the work that they've done. This is, you know, our preliminary site review, and it's we're not going to have the details yet.

[139:08] But you know, when I look at the current zoning. When I look at what we're trying to do, diversity of housing types and all that there's there's just nothing that rises to level of like this can't probably happen, or you know I feel like this is totally inconsistent. I I don't see that. However, I will be. you know, very curious to see what comes back as we get more into site review, you know, and and see how some of the concerns that we heard from the community are addressed, and some of the stuff that plenty board members are raising, because I think that's what's kinda. you know lead to where where we actually land on this. I suspect. So. Yeah, I I see it as overall consistent. And then. as always, it comes down to details, so we'll see what those are when we get a little further along. Thank you, George. Yeah. And with Lisa again, I mean, I I I don't see any major inconsistencies. you know, in general.

[140:00] I agree with what almost everybody has said. I. I am concerned that the one area that what we're trying to accomplish here, and you hear the the the people that are supporting this in the community, and even the developer saying themselves that this is going to potentially fulfill a niche. and the 80 to 120, am I? And it's going to create. You know that it's gonna drive sort of a car free area. I I would. I would love for the developer to put their money where their mouth is. and. you know, put some. Put some if if if their mission is really to do an 80 to 120? Am I to go ahead and and lock that in for the development in one form or another? If their mission is really to have a car-free environment. Let's go ahead and lock that in and and have and and have people

[141:00] sign You know. 50 of the apartments are more assigned that they'll be car free. because there's a big sales pitch here. and i'm concerned that the sales pitch is very different than the reality. I I went to that. Thank you to the developer for for pointing us to where you living. I I went there. and I looked at some of the units on there. And and what's interesting about our units, or where we're living site is, they actually show what's for rent, and what city where their furniture installations are, and it's all over the map. Right lower scale. Cities are, you know, 1,000 1,500 bucks. But then there's you know, Austin Texas, which has units, starting at 2,500. There's La where units are starting at 3,000 Elus. There's you'll use in New York City, where where things are starting at above 5,000. And so I i'm just concerned that the that the community might get hoodwinked into something. And and i'm not suggesting that the developers nefarious in any way. They've already said that this is a market rate thing, but then they've also positioned this as 80 to 120. Am I in a car? Free thing? So

[142:11] I I just like there to be a a little bit more teeth around that, so that boulder gets what's being pitched to us. But outside of that, and that that's kind of the devil in the details that I see is, you know, as as Lisa kind of positioned it, at least from my perspective, is, I don't see necessarily anything generally inconsistent with Bbcp. But the devil's in the details of how it's implemented, and and and how this really service boulder and in our community at large. Thank you. Thank you. And i'll. I'll just say that I think i'm in complete agreement with with George and Lisa and my colleagues have said that this is compatible with the call plan that doesn't mean that it is compatible with everything bolder wants in a project.

[143:04] and I think we'll have an opportunity to discuss the details later on. But, for example, as as George said, there's a lot of aspirational talk here that we need to make sure that it is not just aspirational. But then it becomes real. Ml. John, Thank you. I just. I am just going to Riff on that. I absolutely concur with what with the way, George positions all of this, that I have no problem with this preliminary preliminary consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I think it's. My concern is with the way this is being pitched in the community. And how is that going to actually, in fact, in reality land? And what do we actually expecting as a result of of that? So there seems to be some discrepancies. But again it I don't think that there's any issue. I don't have any issue with meeting

[144:11] key issue number one. Okay, thank you. All right. The next issue does Planning Board have feedback on proposed parking for the project. And obviously this is something that a lot of people have shown concern about. So let's let's deal with this right. Now, Mark. As I mentioned before the meeting started, i'm currently in Overland Park, Kansas. and in there are acres upon acres, upon acres of parking. You never want for a parking space anywhere you go. but you go everywhere by car.

[145:01] but so parking is everywhere. But the thing that's missing is a sense of place. This is a this is a PIN to the automobile and automobile storage. suburban for urban design. No, we've been designed suburban. endless, suburban roads and parking. and you know, as I, when I went from the transportation board to the planning board. I I have always thought and advocated. There's a link between transportation and housing this obviously one that we deal with all the time. But I I didn't really think that the dominant issue in almost every almost every site and use review would be cars and parking, and how we store our cars, and I find that sad

[146:03] so. But parking is an issue, and what my greatest concern with this project, as shown in in this concept review, and and I do find this particular concept review to be at the lacking and detailed. Put it on a spectrum of You know where we are, what we see in terms of concept reviews. I find this one to be. I struggle with it more because of the lack of details. But in general I will say that they're asking for a large parking reduction. That's fine. I I support that. What I find the Tdm. Even the preliminary Tdm plan and their concepts around ways of attracting people without cars. The ways of giving carrots to people without cars, the ways of answering some of the neighbors concerns

[147:09] to be weak, and I would encourage them to have a much more robust Tdm plan for this development when they come back at site review, and I I know I will be focused on that again, sadly to the detriment of focusing on on other design elements. But they've got to come back with more car. Share more bike electrification, more car electrification. But we Also, I want to acknowledge one other thing, and that is. we want them to practice paid parking. We want them to practice market rate incentives to not arrive with a car and as a city boulder.

[148:00] All right. we we we have free city right of way, parking outside, just outside of this unit. just outside of this lot. And so what we will end up with until the city practices much of what we preach to developers, we will end up with a situation which I find problematic, and that is the university charges for parking appropriately. and the neighbors the neighbors, because the city doesn't charge for parking appropriately then neighborhoods feel like they suffer from from students parking in their neighborhood. So if you have, your competition is free and you're charging for something you're at it. You're at a real disadvantage there. So I would encourage the city to practice some of our own parking policies and goals.

[149:00] Thanks. Yeah, I'll. I'll be fairly brief. This is kind of the situation we always get into with parking is that we both want density, and we want to preference spaces for human beings over spaces for cars. And also there's the reality that our built environment currently requires cars that people own cars and they have to put them somewhere. you know. So so again I I think one and and i'm sure this would push the pricing into a an unfeasible place. But I I wish that I was looking at Tuck under. I wish that I was looking at a structure. You know some other things like that, or undergrounded parking instead of surface. I believe it was surface, if I remember the rendering correctly, and then around Tdm. Specifically, I I think it would be really interesting to see some creative solutions to that again.

[150:00] Not all. Everything, I think, is possible to manage administratively. But if it's going to be. you know, leased out or managed directly, then there are cool things you can do with gamification. And and you know, with that splitting a part of the parking spot from the unit to to really incentivize and disincentivize certain kinds of behaviors, not just owning a car, but also ways that you get tuned from where you are, and and that can be kind of fun for people. You have to be careful that you're not hurting anybody, but I've seen that be very successful. And then finally, I agree on electrification, you know. Certainly, if I'm. If i'm seeing parking going in. then I I I like it a lot more if it's, you know, plug and play, and I know that some of that's required by code already, you know, but but just anything that can be done to kind of move it along, and to make it a. I know you're going to make it a full electric building which I love, you know, but to profit certain kinds of use, or even electric scooters, and so on. I think it'd be interesting to see

[151:00] some fine or green things around that. And then, lastly, I can't remember if this came up or not. But I I don't remember if this is a Jason or in, and I apologize, I should look at this up, but a neighborhood parking permit area. But I think, looking at at that, you know what we can do to kind of manage street parking and the impact that will happen if the parking is not on site, I think it's really important for neighbors and adjacent uses, and so on and just. I. I would also be curious to hear details of that when this comes back in front of us again. So those are some things that I have been thinking about. and I love that you're talking about doing good bark, parking and putting it in the units, so that people can put their very fancy bikes in safe places, because I think that's good with you, Sarah. Thank you. I'm gonna agree with pretty much everything, Lisa said. But I had a different thought about the bike parking, which was okay. 300 square feet super small.

[152:01] and a bicycle can take up a lot of space in 300 square feet, and I would think i'd prefer to see locked storage for the bikes where you currently. somewhere on the on the lot on the parcel. Right now, you know just it might be where you currently have parking for the bikes that's between the parking for the cars and the back of the first of the ground floor units that face. 20 s Street. Just so that there's as much livable space in those E's as possible. That's one thought, and then you know all. I I don't agree with Mark on everything, he said. But I do think that part of the problem we part of the reason we keep coming back to parking as a problem is not actually because solely because there's this conflict between people who think we shouldn't have cars and people who think everybody should have cars.

[153:01] It's because I think we lack some city policies that allow us to have more thoughtful a conversations about parking one of these i've already brought up, which is the eco-pass issue, which in new developments is covers eco-pass for 3 years, and then that's it if we want people to use public transportation, rental development should have eco-pass for any residents at any time over the course of the life of that building. I mean it's just crazy. That we have this regulation that ends it at 3 years. That's just silly. So that would be a policy I think we should look at if I understood. Mark's this: the university requires students to pay for parking on the street. I think we should be doing the same thing. I know we kind of do with the neighborhood parking pass, but in a development like this, where the the applicants is essentially offloading parking costs into onto the city, and will be

[154:10] allow asking encouraging the residents to use publicly owned streets to store their cars, and many people in boulder have cars because they go to the mountains, etc., etc. Then we should be trying to develop the policy or set of policies that raise fees for the utilization of that kind of public utility which is what a street is. I I think I am gonna assuming this comes back while I'm still on planning board. I am going to have a problem with the level of parking reduction that's being asked. and I realized that Tdm. Will have to. We'll have to see what it is. But I do think this project brings up a bunch of big policy questions that we should be looking at. Thank you.

[155:05] So i'm gonna agree with Sarah about the eco-passes and also that there are some policy questions here that are bigger than this project. I am going to try to focus on. What can we say right now? That's useful for the applicant for this project coming back for site. Review. I think that no matter how many parking spaces the applicant provides you. if they are have to be paid for which they should be. But that is good policy. But the fact remains that this building is surrounded by free public parking, and and maybe I did not notice some signs that said private parking. But in walking around 20 s Street, Walnuts Pearl Street, 20 First Street, 20 Third Street. there are unmetered, non hourly restricted. Just free parking spaces all around this building. and some residents are going to choose to park their cars there because it makes economic sense for them. That's just the way of the world, and there's nothing this applicant can do to prevent it if they provide more parking spaces that are paid for. Some people are still going to choose the free city parking which gets to the policy issue that Sarah, I think, was talking about, or at least that's where I take it

[156:13] so. All of that say, or sort of as a preamble to say, I do think that the applicant is asking for a pretty severe parking reduction. I do think that their Tdm plan is going to need to be extremely robust and convincing of how they are going to prevent. just, you know 25 or 30 people from parking cars in the street and competing with the neighbors. And while it is true that these residents have just as much right to a free public parking space as any other neighbor. We don't want to be by permitting a building with a very severe parking reduction. creating a Hassle, I mean, that's just not. That's not good planning, right? So I do think that the applicant needs to show how they're going to reduce demand for those free public parking spaces around the building. And I think and i'm trying to think of i'm racking my brains of how you would do that. So One thing that I would be looking at is that car share program, because I do think people want cars to go to the mountains. I do think people want cars for, you know, trips with family that they're things that people are gonna want cars for, but they may be able to be satisfied with a car share. Program.

[157:14] So I think a more robust on-site car share program like was proposed for the Frey Hoff site might be something to consider and look at. Certainly we can't require that. But I think that that might be a convincing element of a Tdm. Plan. Those are my comments for this question. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah. Try not to be too repetitive of of everyone else. I generally agree with a lot of the statements Laura Sarah Market made. I I believe this parking reduction is an aggressive ask, and needs substantial backup on how its impacts are mitigated. You know.

[158:01] I I I understand that the applicant really wants to create a car free environment. That's part of their mission. I would encourage the applicant to do some kind of real restrictions on on who rents these apartments, and actually, you know, do something like that. They agree not to have a car, and that would solve a lot of things, and it would put their money where their mouth is, so i'll put that out as one suggestion beyond Tdm. One thing that hasn't been mentioned that that Ml. Brought up earlier is around parking for the commercial space, and I understand what's code, what's there today? Obviously those commercial spaces are well parked, probably over parked. But as the site gets built out and others get built out. These businesses are going to need parking. They're gonna need parking for some of their employees, and they're gonna need parking for some of their customers. I'll give a topical example of one that I use every week down there. So my kids go to the food lab, which is a great facility right next to box car They do. They go to Food lab 20 min after school, and I drive them down

[159:11] from foothills all the way downtown. Some could take a bike. I drive them. I think almost everybody else who goes to that food camp drives their kids from all over Boulder to get them there in a 20 min period. It's congested. It takes a good 20 to 30 min just to find a spot. Luckily they have one loading zone that that is pretty emptied up. So the the question is, is this a problem now for the site today where it's located it. It may not be as long as nothing else gets built out there. but I think our job as as the planning board is to also think, through the the long term future, both the carless long term future, but also the reality and practicality. If we want successful small businesses in our core

[160:01] as what has been talked about. You know there's all kinds of small businesses that have all kinds of issues and boulders, and this is one of them, and so I I don't want it lost that just because Code states one thing we are, we are. We are removing 2 businesses that are well parked where people park there every day, and we're coming back with 2,000 square feet of commercial, which I think is great. but I think it needs to be fought through on how those businesses function. both from the customer and the employee side, along with the rest of the parking that's already been discussed. So I won't. I won't. Deliver that point anymore. So thank you me, too. No. thank you, thank you, John. I I will absolutely agree with what George said about the commercial. I think that is something that needs to be thought through. When this comes back

[161:05] we can't assume that the employees are going to buy a spot in the parking building, and you know they will disperse into the neighborhood, so that, I think needs to be on the radar of the applicant the issue with the overall parking reduction. I personally and professionally find it absolutely brilliant. If if we don't, start prioritizing our land use and create these kind of like big move with parking reduction. You know. Where do we begin? So I I am not opposed to the concept. What I find problematic for what I think needs attention is.

[162:01] where is the interim ground to get us to that? No car world that they are proposing? And i'm looking at the map that they provided on a one- one, and they identified all the parking, public and private parking. I'm getting there lots that are adjacent to the project. and i'm wondering as a solution, I think there' been other options, the eco-pass and the car share as another strategy? Is. Can there be some kind of a kind of parking rental for those that don't either fit in the building or out out, priced by whatever the building is going to charge to Park. In some of these adjacent parking lot, so that they don't spill into the neighborhood. We've got that resource. I don't know how full those lots

[163:02] or I'm looking. There's like I don't know there's 10 of them around the building. Is there something that can be directly proposed in collaboration with the city to provide kind of overflow parking opportunities in those public lots. I I think the building is proposing a future. I think we need to be able to get there, and that is going to entail us. leaning ourselves from our cars. and that doesn't happen instantly. So I think these interim steps are going to be vital to the success of the the project, you know. So we've got the car share. We've got the the parking district

[164:00] eco-passes, and perhaps a rental agreement with some of these public parking site. So I I think we need to see some more aggressive management of Where are these cars? We know we're not going to get 0 people coming with 0 cars to fill all this project. We just that's not going to happen in an instant. But so I agree with what they're trying to do. I think that there needs to be an interim plan. Thank you. Okay, i'll. I'll throw in my 2 min, for if I Amazingly enough, I agree with almost everybody on almost everything that they've said. I'd like to add a couple of points. One is that it seems to me that we do have an example of quite aggressive parking management that came when the Google project was approved. Where there were a number of requirements placed on on the on Google, on the tenant there regarding

[165:17] how they dealt with the with parking issues in that area, and among them were limitations on how many employees would be allowed to part on site and arrangements of that nature. And so I think that's something that the staff can go into into more detail than I can, but we do have an example of how fairly aggressive parking management can take place. The second point i'd like to make is that I think that the applicant can suggest not accepting tenants with cars as a

[166:03] as a part of the contract. and least that they enter into, and that it's not unreasonable for the city to require that if it decides that the appropriate Thirdly. I what was reminded that even if somebody has lived in a in a neighborhood for 50 years. That's doesn't. Give them the right to a parking place in front of their house on a public street in a more than the newcomer. So I think the rate the logical way to deal with that issue is with a neighborhood parking. Permit one of them program. and we have plenty of examples of how that has been dealt with in other neighborhoods. And then, finally. I I would just like to say, with respect to bike parking. I I understand that some people have expensive bikes that they want to protect, but I think in a 300 foot

[167:05] apartment who expect everybody to bring their bike in and in there in that apartment, and and keep it in there when space is at such a premium. I find it unlikely. And I think that the yeah. the plans should allow for a a much more significant ground level, common parking area that is walkable and protected. Okay, any further comments on on this question. All right, let's move ahead to the building design and the site layout. It's just the fun part. Sarah.

[168:01] All right. I was aiming for both, raising my hand and on meeting at the same time. So I just want I 2 things. One is, I want to say that I agree with the staff comments on building design. I I know that the box that you all design that you drew is not the final. What the final look will be. I would hope that if you're that you're not going to be a white building, I think that's just the I hope you don't use some natural or natural looking products. I'm not a huge fan of that dog area that seems like a like a weird, a weird place to to do that. I know you're trying to utilize the setback in an effective or you or productive way. but it's a you know this is a very walkable neighborhood that you are building you will be building in, and folks can go take their dogs for a walk.

[169:05] No problem. and I think that might be better used as a basis for some actual landscaping in in perhaps planting some trees that can grow tall relatively fast, so that the folks who live on the second and third floor, facing east. We'll have something green to look at, not just into the the windows or door, or walls of the building to the east. So those are my thoughts. Sorry, George. I you know in in general I I I I think Staff's comments are are kind of the same comments that I would have. I think I I think it's in. I think it's in genius that the developer has been able to figure out a way to put 45 micro units on this small site.

[170:05] I I think it's I mean, I think that's a really interesting use of space. And so I I. It feels early on in the design phase based on what they presented and rendering it feels like it. Can it can and should shift a lot from that. But as far as the layout goes. I think it's. I think it's a really interesting and smart use of space to achieve what they're trying to look to do, save for the fact that I think they've been a bit aggressive on parking to get there. But we've already covered parking, but that is where I could see the design shifting beyond that it it still looks a little early, as far as like materials and articulations of the building, and and some things that that it's just not apparent on here. But I think the overall layout makes sense to me in general.

[171:03] and it kind of depends on the details of the design sort of in the next iteration. Okay, thanks, Lisa. Yeah. Very similar. So i'll try to be brief, I think the overall kind of site design and building design makes sense to me. I already talked about parking in depth, but I appreciate it kind of the brownstone direction. But you're hoping to go in. I appreciate the discussion, and maybe some more roof line interest, if Code will allow. you know, and and just generally those early sketches. I think our are attractive. You know again exactly what they end up, being will come later, and should come later. But I think it's it's going in a direction that that I like. Laura.

[172:00] Thank you. I'll try to keep this this brief. I also agree with a lot of what Staff said and support their comments in the packet about the building design. I'll just comment on a couple of things. One is I love. I really love the reference photos that you folks have chosen on page 22 and 23 of the packet. and some of the things in there, like 2 of your very prominent photos have trees on every balcony, and I don't know if that is something that you can provide along with furnishing the apartments. But man wouldn't it be nice to have all that green on all those balconies. I think those are lovely with regard to the dog space I get Sarah's point that that could also be a lovely landscaping space. I'll just submit that as a dog owner. Sometimes you have a dog that needs to run, and needs to run off leash, and it would be nice to have a nice little fence spot where you can throw a ball or throw a frisbee. Probably not a Frisbee would get away from you. But throw a ball. Let your dog go a little bit wild, but you cannot do in that little public pocket park which is not fenced, and where your dog would need to be on leash. So I I think that's worth thinking about, although if it goes away i'm, you know. Obviously, we can't control that. But I I do think, having a fence dog area is nice.

[173:06] and I I do want to dress another comment about the windows on one side, you know if if that changes in the design I won't be mad. But I will say I have lived in a 850 square foot unit that only had north facing windows on one side, and it was okay. You know, there was a surprising amount of natural light, so I think, as long as the architects and designers can solve that natural light problem and make sure that each unit feels relatively welcoming. which i'm sure you want to do for your tenants, because nobody wants to live in a dank, dark apartment. The windows on one side doesn't doesn't really bother me. I'll stop there. Thank you. Mark. I had to drop off. I I couldn't get any sound for a little bit, so I missed some of those, some of your comments, so if I repeat any ones. I'm sorry

[174:02] in general Again, as I said earlier. this particular concept review I find to be thinner on details that I can comment on, and I understand as a concept review. But you know the as Laura mentioned the the the couple of pages of interest sort of great little images. I I don't want anyone to be confused. That that is somehow indicative of elements that this project is specifically representing and so and and George has mentioned, You know just the idea of what we're being sold, and what any I I would appreciate if next go around. or as a as a lesson to the applicant that a little more detail, as specifically on the design

[175:00] would be helpful is I. I look at the design and say, i'm not really sure you know what what sort of surfaces, what sort of materials we're seeing, are you know I I I I find it thin, so I don't really have a whole lot of comment. But you know my recommendation has come back to site review with something that is architecturally exciting and promising, and and maybe really does incorporate some of the pinterest photos that you used in your concept review packet. Thanks. Okay, Amel. Thank you, John. I just want to kind of in some of the comments I made to, or questions I had with the applicant.

[176:05] I think. given the size of the units right two-thirds of the double car garage that that's pretty small. I think common area and storage are going to be critical. and you know they have kind of proposed storage area. and then they had the one common area common room. I think the evolution and development of those are going to be critical to the livability of of the units, and I agree with the prior comment about yeah, this provides enough bike storage that is beyond the units, because it that's valuable real estate inside the unit for for living. I do think that again, given what the applicant is talking about doing on the site.

[177:00] the sustainability and sort of yeah. that intent with who they are as a as a developer. I think I want to see some answers to how much onsite renewable. Are you really going to be creating? Because it's one thing to to propose that you are going to be doing the sustainable things they're talking about the carbon footprint of the building, and a lot of that is, of course, in the materials there's no less materials on the square footage. Whether the building is, you know. 46 small units or 25 big ones, you know, but the square footage of material. It is probably about the same. But reduction of carbon footprint that's great. I'd like to see specificity on. How are you going to offset your

[178:00] carbon footprint that would be associated with tied to the and that's in the photovoltaics. They They did respond. They're going to evolve to move. and that's great. And so I I will be looking for that sustainability component that is being proposed on the applicants from the applicant to have that actually show up in the next in the next round. And yeah, those are my comments regarding the building. Okay. So i'll. I'll wrap this up by saying that I I don't hear anything that I disagree with from all of my colleagues. And so that's that's very neat. A couple of additional comments, I would say is that I I think it would be great if there was a little bit more variety in the nature of the

[179:02] apartments and efficiencies you're proposing. I I think there is a demand for a variety of sizes, and i'd encourage you to consider, providing that. Secondly, I think it would be great if you would consider doing some onsite affordable units as well. and i'm aware of the economics and incentives associated with the decisions on that doing offsite and onsite, but from from a viewpoint of of the neighborhood and the cities benefit. I I think that some onsite affordable units would be desirable. And then, finally, I would like to encourage the the issues associated with the open space around the

[180:00] the building. as I think it was Sarah who talked about most in greatest detail be reconsidered to I'm. I'm. Very skeptical about the little plaza that is associated with the corner of 20 s and Pearl becoming either and undesirably walked off area to keep keep a non residence out. and I I would. I think that would be a too bad if that happened. So it's a challenge to figure out how to set that up. to make it both attractive and acceptable to the residents in the neighborhood. But that includes my comments. All right. So now we have responded to staff questions, and now I think if any of the Board have other comments about this project

[181:04] feel free. Don't. Limit yourself any other thoughts. Okay? Well. then, that concludes this onset preview I hope. I hope that that it's useful to both staff and applicant. and we'll move ahead to our other public hearing tonight, which is an annexation and staff that'll start out with a staff presentation also. So, one Charles, are. You can take it from here shop, and we'll also be presenting this one this evening as well. So shopping. And whenever you're ready. okay. just getting the Powerpoint up.

[182:25] Oh, that's not sharing anything. Okay? Oh, I'll okay. Are you able to see the slide? Okay. Thank you very much. So our second item tonight is a request for annexation of near of a nearly one acre property, within initial zoning designation of residential low. This is located at 2415 vine place.

[183:12] also formerly known as 43, 43, Twenty-sixth Street. The applicant has requested annexation to connect the existing detached single family home to city water and services in terms of the review process and criteria. Annexation is a process by whereby land is incorporated into the municipal boundaries and land may be considered for annexation. If it complies with the State annexation statutes and the policies of the comprehensive plan. This property is unique in that it's considered an enclave, since the site is entirely contained within the boundaries of the city. There are special provisions in the State statutes for enclave properties, including a simplified annexation procedure referred to as a unilateral annexation.

[184:07] The comprehensive plan provides a framework for annexation and urban service provisions within the city. Specifically policy, 1.1 7 states that the city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves and other substantially developed area, 2 properties. and when a properties in exoning is established consistent with the land use designation in the land use map of the Comp Plan. An annexation agreement is also required to establish the terms and conditions of the annexation. Generally. These terms are based on the amount of development potential. and then the Planning Board must review the indexation and make a recommendation to City Council on whether or not

[185:02] the annexation should be approved, and the terms and conditions and zoning that should be applied. So this site is located east of Vancouver and west of, and place majority of the properties to the west, south, and east, for Annex is part of a larger group group annexation in 1,988, I believe, and then the properties to the north were annexed in 1,992. So these are the existing conditions on the site. The property is developed currently, with a single family detached home, that's one story, and the home was built in 1,956 The site is located in the area to on the planning areas map of the Comp Plan area to the service area at the city where annexation can be considered, and the site is also recognized as an enclave

[186:13] in terms of our complain land. Use the properties designated as low density residential on the land Use map with an anticipated density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. so the applicant is requesting an Rl. One zoning consistent with the surrounding properties to the north and to the East. Excuse me, the Rl. One district is described as single family, detached residential dwelling units at a low to very low residential densities in terms of the annexation agreement development potential does exist under the proposed zoning, and the annexation agreement is written to anticipate any future development of the property.

[187:10] The policy State that properties with significant redevelopment potential, must provide a special opportunity or a community benefit to the city to offset any negative impacts of additional development. To meet this requirement. A community benefit package is proposed which includes in this case inclusionary housing fees, so paying 2 times the applicable cash and low amount required for new dwelling unit, and then there are some additional site improvements as well. The property. if it's subdivided, or or any time prior to building, permit for any attached. Oh, sorry! Additional dwelling unit. The applicant will replace the existing driveway and attached public sidewalk with a driveway ramp and a detached 5 foot sidewalk.

[188:01] There is also a plant investment fee that's included in the annexation agreement. which is required to be paid prior to the first reading. in terms of noticing of the application. This was done consistently with the land Use code. So written notification is mail to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed development and assigned is posted on the property. did not receive any public comments during the review. The 3 key issues identified by staff includes the first one includes: Does the annexation comply with the applicable State annexation statutes. The second one is, is the proposal consistent with the in with the city's annexation and other pvcp policies; and then, lastly, is the initial zoning appropriate for the subject property.

[189:05] so moving on to Keishu, one in terms of the State law. The Annexation petition is consistent with the statutory and constitutional requirements. The site meets the required one-sixth contiguity to to current city properties. There is also community interest in annexing the property as it is non-clay band and area, too. and in terms of the older valley, comprehensive plan, the site may be considered for annexation due to its designation as an area to property. and disable again actively pursue enclave properties for annexation. The annexation will also allow connection of the existing home to the city's water systems, and will provide a critical public health benefit by providing safe and quality, drinking water and reducing any public health threat.

[190:03] And so at this time Staff does find that the proposal is consistent with the annexation Bbcp policies. and then, lastly, in terms of the zoning. If a properties in ex Zoning is established consistent with the goals of the land. Use map of the BBC. As I mentioned above, the majority of the site is designated as low density residential, which anticipates a density of 2 to 6, 12 units per acre or less. and staff has identified the Rl. One as being the applicable zoning with the highest density. So, considering that the surrounding areas to the north and east are also zoned. Rl. One staff find that the proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying land use, designation, and the community's desired feature for the area.

[191:00] Considering all these factors, Staff recommends staff recommend that planning will adopt the following motion. That's on the screen that concludes the presentation. Thank you. So before we move it that I I just realized there may be a need to for people to declare whether there's any conflicts or need to to recuse themselves on this matter. I I need to make a declaration. and that is that I I know some of the people involved with this on the social level. But I have no financial or personal interest in this annexation request, and feel that I can deal with it fairly and objectively. So i'll continue to participate in this process. and I just open it up

[192:01] for anybody else to who mention that if they need to. Okay, Thank you. I would. I would also like to say that the applicant is present tonight if you had any questions for the applicant. Okay. Thank you right marked questions. Thanks, charming. You showed a a map with the all the surrounding properties and yellow, and the and the subject property and and kind of a gray does that indicate that all of the surrounding properties are currently within the city limits? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. And is there any historical or current access Cul-de-sac to Cul-de-sac from vine

[193:01] to the cul-de-sac that I believe, is to the West not that I'm aware of there is there is nothing there at this time. So a a lot of those. The reason I ask is that you know, we went through a a development phase of building a bunch of large lot homes on call to sacks that are particularly unfriendly to people trying to get one place or another somewhere outside of their car, and and in some of those places there used to be historical footpaths or soft surface connections, and then a, and then the city I I have found in in some other places has been poor, and trying to maintain those those access points, and so

[194:03] I would hate to miss an opportunity to either connect, to reconnect or formally establish a connection between those those call the sacks. So I i'm, and I can't really pull up Google Earth right now, because i'm again, I I don't have the kind of computing power that I would need and look for any of those connections or anything. So anyway, I I I i'm. I'm concerned about that. And it is it'd be a shame if we didn't couldn't create some sort of connection between those 2. Call the sex. Ml. Okay. Thank you, John. So, Shannon, I'm. Looking at the annexation

[195:04] policy in the in the PVC. P. One dot 1, 7, E. And the question I am wondering about. You know. One of the things that came out of that Ih meeting last week that stuck with me was when I saw this, the statement that our number One affordable housing tool has been annexation. So the question I have given the information in E. Of the annexation of the Boulder Valley Comp plan. the square footage of this site is an acre. the golden belly comp plan.

[196:01] land, use. It establishes 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The R. L. One that would be the city Zoning gives establishes a 7,000 square foot per unit. and given both of those. this site could potentially have 6 units on it. Is there anything in this annexation discussion that refers to? Can we get more housing? I I I understand that the applicant has put forth that they will divide the property into 2. Has there been any conversation about

[197:04] the potential for significant development? Which is right? 3 times right, 2 to 6, that's that could be considered significant, just as a percentage to get more housing out of this annexation. Sure, thank you, Amel. The applicant is they? They They have the intent to subdivide the property to lots, I think. Early on in staff review process we did explore. You know, the pro subdividing the property into more than just 2 lots, and there were a lot of utility limitations that affect this property. I we don't have any engineering staff on the call at this time, but just based on the conversations we have in utility and engineering review. They were really just limited to to the volume. It's on the property because there is not the utility infrastructure there

[198:06] in place to serve more than 2 at this time. And I think, really what the issue is. Ml. Is that the main dead end in either of the call the sacks on either side of the lot. and you would need to extend mains and make sure that there is enough pressure to do so across private property. so that presents a number of challenges, and just even servicing the property. So, technically it would be possible if we had the utilities to service, and in this case it would be a pretty difficult to ask, just by virtue of how everything has redeveloped around this lot, which you know sometimes can be a challenge with on claims when they're the last property in. But we did look at it with our utility staff in detail, that it's. So am I hearing that

[199:02] the limitation is in the utilities, and is that to accomplish 7 parcels versus 2 parcels that cost is prohibited, or is it just like technically not possible? Is it cost, or is it? I think you know, Ml. As you probably well know, in your professional practice when it comes to engineering anything is possible. But I think there are some prohibitive costs associated with it, and I think there's also some private property rights associated with crossing a piece of private property with a new main, and whether or not, you know, just based on the position of the home that's directly on the west side of the property. Whether or not you know from an engineering perspective how disruptive that would be just with the way that the a lot is situated. We also Haven't looked at the grades, and what the invert elevations would look like. So the land use considerations. I think that you're talking about wouldn't ordinarily be a problem through annexation.

[200:10] especially since you know the zoning seems to support minimum 7,000 square foot sizes in our all one. I think in this case the considerations are really more access, and how to serve the property with water and super in a way that you know, doesn't disrupt other private property. So i'm hearing that the staff has thoroughly investigated the possibility of getting more housing on this property. and we're where we're at after a serious investigation on your part. Is that correct? We absolutely looked at the possibility of adding additional units as opposed to just subdividing it into 2 lots again, from a zoning and a land use perspective. I think that's something that's possible. The issue that we're running into is really more run utilities.

[201:00] Yeah. Okay. Well, very unfortunate. But I'm going to keep hunting for the conversation of let's not end up with luxury housing at the end of the day every other minute on this board, and we know that you know those lots are gonna different than luxury housing because the big. But thank you, I do appreciate that. Staff took the time and consideration to see if see what might have been possible. Okay. any other question. I have a a real quick question in the language that you've used here, You, you've said several times that the majority of the property is designated as low density residential. but in the maps it looks like all of the property. What's what's the reason for that wording?

[202:01] It is it is all the properties I might have been using that to talk about the zoning, the Landy Zoning, where you know to the north again to the north and east it's R. L. One versus R. Le to the south and the west of the lot. But you're right. It's it's not majority. It's it's all of it is Ilr: yeah. all right. Thank you. Just wanted to understand. Okay. any other questions of staff. All right. We we can give the applicant a chance to Hmm. Address the matter here. Do we have the applicant present we do has the ability to share his screen. Okay. it's

[203:00] okay. And it's your call. Thank you for having me this evening. Yes, and Shabnab in a they very thorough job of representing the annexation of the one acre parcel. And yes, we did ask for a initially of a 4 lot subdivision. But due to the limited availability of water. The city planning told us that 2 would be the maximum because of the surrounding properties, and not having any easement to to do anything else with the water. So the property is currently occupied by Oh, Beth Beardsley, who's been living there for over 50 years. and the house that you show the picture of. She plans on staying in that house as long as she can. She's a 75 year old

[204:07] widow, and she plans on staying in the existing house. like I say, for as long as she can. And the annexation, yeah, me to all of the state and city requirements. And we're asking for approval of the and here for any questions. If you have any other questions. Okay, thank you. So are you an agent of misspuriously. Are you the I'm. Her her representative in this annexation? Yes. okay. I'm. A friend of the I'm: a friend of hers. Okay, Any questions of Hmm.

[205:00] All right, thank you. Then we'll we'll move on to the public hearing portion of this hearing. One who wants to speak to this? All right. don't you any hands, do you, Vivian? No, not yet. Request members to just go ahead. Raise your hand if you would like to speak. Give you a couple of seconds. You're asking for members of the public who want to speak to this item. They may be confused and think you're asking for planning board members. Oh, okay? Hmm. So this is the you said public hearing, John. Right? You're ready to thanks for you. Have. Are we doing 2 min or 3 min job? We can do 3 min here. Okay. Kevin. Hope you're ready with the slide. Then please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[206:00] Thank you. Yes, done 2 s. I needed 3 min on the other thing done nicely. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wish to to speak for this public hearing item. I see no other hands, John. Okay. So bring it back to board. So we are being asked to make a recommendation to council. Could the staff? Could you put the suggested the recommendation up so that we can review them. Okay. Laura. short and sweet on this one I had the same question as Ml. About, you know. Could this be an subdivided into more lots? I was encouraged to hear that the applicant actually requested more lot to subdivision a 4 lot subdivision.

[207:13] It it's regrettable that the city can only accommodate to because of infrastructure. But that's the way it goes. So I do think, to answer. The key issues. The annexation request complies with the applicable State annexation statutes. and that it's consistent with the city's annexation and other Bvcp policies, and I do find that the initial zoning of Rl. One is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood any other. Oh, Lisa. Yeah, Well, at at risk of potentially hijacking. I' to see if I have any other hands. I think this might be a good time to either call the vote or to do a quick straw poll, and I feel like we might be able to move this item along. But I don't want to

[208:01] have a chilling effect on discussion If someone else disagree. Given the lack of hands up. I think i'd invite you to make a motion. Okay, great. I'll go ahead and make the motion. I move to recommend a City Council Approval of the proposed annexation of the property, located at 2,415 fine place, with an initials on a designation of residential low one or Ro, one pertaining to case number Lor, 2,021 0, 0 48, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact, 150 subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation is provided for in the proposed annexation agreement in attachment, c. Okay, do we have a second I second seconded by Mark any discussion. All right. It's time for to vote all in favor. Please raise your hands.

[209:00] I I think it needs to be a voice about John. Oh, okay. Laura. Yes. Ml. Hi. yeah. Mark. Yeah. Lisa. I George. Yes. and I vote I also. So the recommendation is to Council is unanimously adopted by planning board. Oh, thank you all right. That brings to a close this item. And now we can just move into matters from staff and and board, and and everybody else. Oh, we hold it. No, we have Kathleen here. Sorry Kathleen is here to make a little presentation to us, and and to ask for a planning board later on.

[210:00] Yes, I think i'm under matters. I think that's right. Yeah. I I don't have the agenda in front of me. So I got confused. Got some weird lighting going on. Okay, Hi! Hello! Everyone Great to see you all tonight. Good to see you. Hello! So my name is Kathleen King. I'm. A principal planner with the city's comprehensive planning division, and I am here with my colleague from transportation Allison Moore Farrell to request that the Planning Board appoint a member to serve as a liaison to the Airport Community Conversation Working Group, which is an important volunteer community group that will inform the Airport Community Conversation Project. So the city's recently launched a community engagement process to create a range of future scenarios for how the city airport might evolve in the future. So we have a brief presentation on the overall scope of the Airport Community Conversation Project.

[211:05] and as well as some of the planned engagement. and then we will ask for the Board to nominate and appoint a member to the working group. so I will turn it over now to the project Manager Allison. and she's gonna present this opportunity. Perfect. Thank you so much, Kathleen. I appreciate it. Hi, everyone. I'm Alison Moore Farrell with translation and mobility. Senior transportation planner. I recognize a few of you. It's good to see you, and for those I haven't met. It's wonderful to meet you. Thank you so much for having me this evening. like Kathleen shared, I'll be sharing a brief presentation about the scope of this process, and I I know you received in your packets some further information about that, as well as the consultant scope of work, and we will be requesting a liaison from planning board to be on our community working group. So with that I will share my screen.

[212:07] All right. Can everyone see my presentation terrific, so like Kathleen shared? We recently initiated it. It's not in our presentation mode, though, which perhaps you'd like it to be. I can go and change that. Thank you. We recently initiated a Boulder Airport community conversation. And as you saw in your packets, and you may know, this actually was a suggestion in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and the most recent update to have this conversation prior to the Airport master Plan update. That will be occurring soon. So that was part of the initiation of this. So i'll share the background and goals community conversation, strategy, and our schedule next steps.

[213:00] So the the Boulder municipal airport is owned and operated by the city of boulder in partnership with the Faa. It is a general aviation airport with 2 runways. It offers business, private, recreational, and emergency response and recovery services. There are training flight schools and robust glider operations. So goals for this project is really understanding community aspirations around the airport and the future goals for the airport will be identifying challenges and opportunities for consideration, and from there developing a range of scenarios and identifying a preferred scenario and determining next steps from there. So this is a multi pronged engagement process. We're starting with community conversations with on and off start airport stakeholders. So this includes pilots, tenants, nearby neighbors, folks in nearby mobile home communities, business owners. And so we've had some really in depth conversation with those folks and really understanding the impacts that the airport has, and and that relationship with the community.

[214:14] and folks have been sharing their desired outcomes for future airport operations. And we've been really learning a lot about the community and their current relationship with the airport, and with this we are consistently consistent with the racial equity plan. Like I mentioned, the stakeholder. Interviews are a diverse set of residents in the city. We've also interviewed a few people in the county given given the location of the airport, and we do have interpretation services for these, and we allow participants to really share their perspective and their lived experience of living near the airport and parts of spin airport activities. So we're wrapping up the stakeholder interviews and moving into the next part of the engagement process which will be the Community working group. And this is where we'll be requesting a liaison from planning board. We'll also be having a liaison from the translation Advisory Board and a number of other community members.

[215:16] I will share a a small update from from. When we shared the packet with you we have decided to expand the engagement scope. So instead of 3 community working group meetings, we are expanding it to have 5 community working group meetings and 3 open houses. So that is a an expansion that I did want to share with you, because that would affect your commitment, and that first community working group meeting will be in March of 2,023 and the goal here is to understand the airport background history and use it as a visioning workshop. The remaining community working group meetings will be about establishing priorities, outlining, outlining a range of scenarios and digging into each of those and what each of those will mean an impact to the community, and then identifying a preferred scenario

[216:07] and potential members here would be airport tenants, older residents under serve community members, the business community, the scientific Community and City Board members, such as yourselves and I'll share that we are going to be soliciting an interest form for the community working group will likely be releasing that next week publicly, and providing a lot of outreach to a variety of community members and different groups that are impacted by the airport, and we encourage as many people as possible to apply, so that we can review those and make sure it is as equitable a group as possible. When we come together and work on this like I mentioned, we are expanding the open houses from 2 to 3 open houses. And here's a brief overview of what each of those open houses will be. We'll be sharing the history of the airport gathering feedback. I know myself having having been on this project for a few months. I've learned so much about Boulder as a report, and it's been really fascinating.

[217:07] So we'd love to share that with folks who will be attending the open houses, and then, later on in the open houses we'll be sharing the scenarios and the preferred scenario that the community working group will be working on. and from there our consultant team will be working on the alternatives analysis of these different scenarios, so that we can evaluate those. We'll be pulling some high level financial implications of each of the scenarios, and being in bringing a preferred scenario forward. So with that i'll share our schedule, and next steps like I mentioned, we are continuing our stakeholder interviews, and we'll be wrapping those up fairly shortly. starting in March, will be conducting the community, working group meetings and public open houses, and from there will be developing the alternatives and then in the fall, presenting the final report, and we will be bringing that to council in late 2,023 early 2,024 is the plan.

[218:10] So at this point i'll just ask if you have any clarifying questions about the engagement process, and from there we can discuss a liaison appointment. So, planning board, if you have any questions about the engagement process, i'd be happy to answer any of those Lisa. Yeah. Can we go back to the slide of who's going to be on the the community working with me? Yeah, thank you. Potential. So so both of the things that I mentioned may may fall under this, but I would strongly recommend inclusion of someone who specifically provides support during emergency activations. So eoc specifically Wildfires

[219:00] police. It flood like when we lose all our roads. I can't get out, you know. I I would like someone with that expertise on there, because I think if we don't include that voice on there. Then it could very easily get alighted and ignored. and and that's one of the main reasons why I would argue for having some kind of continued airport is there public safety and and disaster response. And the other thing is, I see, scientific community which may include this. But I would have someone from see you specifically, probably aligned with science on the board, and and I would surely open that those not be potential members, but that I I I would have a hard time supporting whatever came out of it without those people in the room. Yeah, yeah. yeah, Thank you so much for bringing those up. But i'm just smiling and nodding, because those are also brought up by city council, and we brought this to them. So i'm just kind of putting a star next to them that that you're identifying those as well. So thank you so much for bringing that up.

[220:01] Hi, Mark. Sorry. Go ahead, John Hi Allison good to see you again. Did this this process, this this project? Didn't it start out with a broader? When I say a broader question, a more of a question. Of what can we do? What is within the world of possibility at the airport? What what can we do at the airport? Does it need to be an airport, do we? Does the community want it to be an airport? Maybe the answer is, yes, maybe the answer is no. But wasn't it essentially a a much bigger question brought about by housing

[221:01] specifically housing advocates that said gee like like counsel or wallick. who said, you know we could. We could have housing at the airport. and I don't want to put words in his mouth. But, gee! We could have housing out there, and we Don't necessarily need an airport. I am I? Is that is that what your perception is of the initial question, and is that still the question or is, is, Has the mission change from that? Yeah, Mark, that's a great question. Thank you. And i'll share my understanding, and Kathleen feel free to jump in. If there's additional background. You have from from the mentioned in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. My understanding that that it is indeed a a broad scope of what this could be so so literally. Anything is on the table in terms of what the community wants to bring in terms of goals, and what could be at the airport, and that's part of conversations we've had this far with community members, and also what'll really be happening at the open houses of of folks sharing that. So

[222:13] really everything's on the table of of what community members want for the airport. So so it's a fairly broad what it could be, certainly. And and this is a fairly high level process. So so you're correct in that it it could be a whole whole range of options identified, which is why we're we're working through those different scenarios, and and I do believe it'll be one of those processes where there's a lot of different pieces in each scenario. You know that that could be a wide spectrum. So so you're correct in that mark. So So I I i'm just harkening back to something that that may seem so insignificant compared to the airport. But I was involved in the West Trail study area, and if you want to get people riled up in boulder. You want to talk about.

[223:06] especially our our our trail system, our open space, and especially the western portion. And you know we we actually cycle through more than one facilitator, and because the city put itself in a centralized role within that process. Anyway, it was the the outcome to some. Had they had somewhat of a predetermined feel. and I i'm i'm going to question the the hiring of a consultant who. rather than just a kind of a neutral facilitator, a consultant that has a a focus and and expertise expertise is good. I'm not against expertise from all sorts of different quarters.

[224:03] But what I understand is. You've hired a consultant who will also facilitate this, and and they are airport experts. They aren't parkland experts. They are housing experts. Their airport experts do I have that correct Yes and no, and i'll i'll share. Why, so the the prime that was selected was Kimly Horn, and they have a large team underneath them. So Kimberly Horn is the I'm. Sure, as you know, as a large multi disciplinary firm. So the the discipline that we're using primarily is their engagement and outreach team. We do have an individual on there who is their airport subject matter expert. So he is there to advise and to interpret some of the language, and and help us with that. But we are utilizing them for their engagement and outreach folks. We one of their sub consultants is Cdr, which is a local engagement from it. I'm sure some of you are familiar with them, and they'll be doing the facilitation of the community working group. So

[225:10] so. Yes, they they do have that airport expertise. But we are utilizing their engagement and outreach resources for the the prime services. Yeah. Okay. Last thing i'll say is, I agree with Lisa that I think the the types of community members she mentioned in that area of expertise it would be, would be valuable, as would, I think. housing advocates, or people advocating for a different view of this particular piece of city property. And and the reason, I say, that is not because i'm this is i'm. I'm not gunning for housing at the airport. I'm not gunning for the airport to remain an airport.

[226:02] but in my experience and running for council and being involved in the community over the last many years. is that the the community really wants to know, and it feels like they want to. I. What they really want to know is what's in the real possibility. And when someone says, oh, no, you can't you can't. You know we owe the Faa millions and millions, and we can't do that, or you know we could easily take out the airport, and we could just have housing there, and we could have a couple of 1,000 units there that they want to feel like the answers they're getting are valid and unbiased, so I would just encourage to have people on this working group that that the answers that they come back with reek of Truly.

[227:01] what's in the in the room look possible and unbiased. And and so the the community doesn't feel like it was fixed one way or the other, predetermined one way or the other. So that's it. Thank you so much, Allison. Yeah. And and I will share it's really important for us for both the community work and group and public open house to really share background of the airport, what what is possible, and that sort of thing, and really sharing that history so that everyone can can have that baseline knowledge. So thank you for highlighting that. Laura. Thank you. Well, i'm hearing some things I really am I appreciating very much. So thank you, Allison, for this presentation, really glad to hear that Cdr is involved as your facilitator, their colleagues to mine. In my field of public policy facilitation. They have a great reputation. I think they will provide that neutral facilitation. So i'm really glad to hear that they're on board as a sub to Kimly Horn.

[228:01] also really glad to hear that transportation department is considering that all options are on the table and are open. I will say that you know that that be Pcp policy 6.2, 6. I think it's more than a suggestion. I think it's a promise, it says at the time of the next airport master plan. the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses. And that is kind of the initiation of this whole thing is to look at developing a portion of the airport for housing in neighborhood serving uses. So i'm going to very strongly. Second Mark's suggestion that you specifically need outreach to housing advocates in both your interviews on your community working group and make sure they're aware of this process, so they can help develop those scenarios. That vision, because, as we all know, the topic of housing in boulder is incredibly complex and a lot, and we have needs around low income, moderate and middle income housing

[229:02] where a community owns a city-owned piece of property provide rare opportunities that do not exist in our normal development process, working with private property and private developers. And so I think, really exploring. What is that potential? It needs to be? Not just. We're open to it. But that is part of our mission. and that we do expect that at least one and maybe more, of those scenarios. We'll live up to that promise in the BBC. That says we are reassessing the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing in neighborhood serving uses. I think that should be an expectation, not just a maybe it will organically arise. You know, I think, that that is a conversation that's already been happening in the community for many years before my tenure here, probably before most of the people who are working on this issue came to work with the city. And so I think that history is also important to understand is, why are people looking to this piece of property as potentially having redevelopment potential for housing and neighborhood serving uses

[230:04] that said, I think that you know we all of the potential members that you have listed. There needs to be a really robust conversation of what is that potential for airport growth and expansion? What are the benefits? What are the costs, who benefits from it? What are the impacts? Same thing with redeveloping it for housing. What do we gain? What do we lose? What are the impacts, the benefits? Who benefits? What are the costs? I think all of that needs to be very explicitly programmed in from the very beginning that we will explore that. And there may be other ideas that arise in this process that will also be incorporated into the scenarios. But I I do think that really honoring what's in that Bbcp 6.2, 6 will be crucial for the legitimacy of this process in terms of data gathering and answering people's questions, and really looking at that, or it will come back up again right? It's not gonna. If we don't do it. it's not going to go away. So I think this is the time. This is the place that we can really seize the day and look at that. And so I do have a couple of questions.

[231:06] So I I am curious to know who has already been interviewed, and whether any housing advocates either are on that list or could be added to that list. And then what are the questions that have been asked at those interviews. I think Amalia Andrews offered to provide that list of questions at the City Council study session. Certainly I can follow up with the the list of questions I I have. I can dig for that on my documents. I do have that. and we we have been cognizant about having a fairly even mix of folks who are involved with the airport as well as folks who are impacted by the airport and and operator live off the airport. I can look into housing advocates for interviews. I've been on probably about 3 quarters of the interviews. I'm not thinking of one off the top of my head. But I will look back at our list, and and I can certainly follow up with you on that great Thank you so much.

[232:01] I am curious how those members are going to be selected and appointed and or appointed to the community working group who makes that selection? Is that a city Council selection? Is that a staff selection. Certainly. Yeah. So this is a pretty typical process. That's a great question for a lot of working groups we have through our transmission master planning process and a lot of different planning processes. So what we'll be doing is like I mentioned. We have us. We'll have a solicitation, and we'll be having a broad outreach. For that we have our engagement and communications team working on on outreach for that, and from there we'll go ahead and select. It will be a staff selection of folks who will be like like. I mentioned the potential members in this group, and making sure we have an equitable mix of folks. We'll be running it through the racial equity instrument. We'll be running it through our engagement team and making sure we have the the a good mix of of folks who are involved with the airport and impacted by the airport. And that's throughout this entire process. We've learned folks who will be involved with that. So that's that's how we'll be selecting the community working group members. We are aiming to keep it about 20 to 30 people, as we found in past working groups. That's

[233:17] an effective number in terms of really digging into the issues and being able to get that work done. And those members are selected by staff or by city council. And is it transportation staff planning stuff? Yeah. And it will be the transcription team on this. Yeah. okay. I would highly recommend that in that group of off airport stakeholders that there is not just one, but a good number of people who understand boulders, housing issues, general community members are great. Neighbors are great people who understand the noise impacts, and and that kind of thing are great. But I think that you know, if we're going to live up to 6.2, 6. We need to have more than one multiple people who have a vision and an understanding of what this property could become for housing. If we're going to live up to that promise.

[234:09] And then I I guess I have a question about how you're going to develop that scenario does this. If there is a assuming that there will be at least one scenario that looks at seriously what could go on this property for housing, you know. Is it low income, moderate income? Is it market rate? How much of it would we need to sell off, to be able to fund back the commitments to the Faa. That kind of thing. this Bhp going to be involved is planning and development Services staff funded to do that kind of planning like they did for the East Boulder Subcommunity working group. Does your consultant have that expertise? And just? I just want to make sure that you have the capacity to really do a robust vision. Certainly, Laura, thank you for asking, and i'll share that. I don't want to get to ahead of it in terms of the process. So I don't want to state. Yes, we will be, you know, looking at this percentage and and that. And so I don't want to get to ahead in the process. But we do. One of the reasons we did choose. This consultant is because they do have that capacity in order to dig in, and in order to develop those scenarios, so we do have confidence in them in the capabilities to do that.

[235:16] and I do have. Kathleen King is on our team, and we have different folks in in different departments who are on our internal team who can support and reach out as needed. That's wonderful to hear, because, as you know, boulders housing market is a bit unique, and our regulations are are a bit unique. And so really understanding what could go there? You we need really local knowledge so great to have Kathleen on board. She did such a fantastic job with the East Boulder Side community plan, and there's really good tight connections there definitely. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Just a couple more climate climate change impacts is this: for the different scenarios that are developed. Is there going to be an analysis of the climate change impact in terms of emissions in particular? Because, as you know, Boulder has really strong

[236:04] goals around, reducing emissions, reducing our climate change impact, reducing single occupancy Vehicle Miles traveled, for example, in our building code. All of that we're trying to reduce our climate change impact. So it feels like that's an important consideration for what happens on this 100 and some acre parcel. and that certainly will be part of the process. We will be running this through the sustainability framework, so that will be part of the process. As we are expanding the scope, I can't speak specifically to what level that will be, but it will be run through that process good to know. I I assume the group is going to have some kind of a charter. This community working group correct. We'll have a charter that's developed. Okay, that's good to know. I would really recommend that that char to be really clear on how decisions are made. I'm. Assuming you're not trying to do consensus building with the group of the group is going to select the preferred alternative. I'm. Assuming that the group is more advisory to Staff and the consultant, and that you'll take those things into account.

[237:09] But I think, you know, just like we pinned down who makes the decision when something comes to planning board or to see the Council, I think, knowing who that recommendation is actually coming from is going to be something that you're really going to want to clarify with the group. So they don't have mismatch expectations about about that process definitely a great recommendation. Thank you. And then last question, Sorry. And i'm taking a lot of time. I'm super super interested in this, and I've been following this for a long time since since before I was on the East Boulder Side community working group. but but through that as well. so I didn't see in the scope presentations to planning board. I did see presentations to city council, so is somebody else going to be bringing information back to planning board it was. It is that the job of the liaison is that staff? How is planning board going to keep abreast?

[238:00] Yeah, that certainly will be one of the roles of the liaison to the planning board, and Kathleen and I were just discussing that. We can, you know. Once once the liaison is selected. I can certainly work with them to figure out the best way to bring information back to the planning board in addition to delays on sharing, so I. I can certainly work with the liaison on the details of that great, and I I love seeing that you expanded the timeline because you know June or July of this year seemed to really ambitious for all that you had planned. So I think you have a expanding. It was a good, a good choice. So thank you very much. I know a lot of my questions were specifically focused on this housing, but only because that's where i'm seeing a gap. I want you to know. I'm a 100% supportive of developing scenarios that look at expanding the airport, enhancing what's there? I think that that alternative scenario should be very thoroughly explored and advocated for

[239:04] on equal footing with any other centers that might be developed. Great. Thank you so much, Laurie. I appreciate the input looks like that. Brad has his hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to ask, maybe for my own, maybe on behalf of some of the board who might be wondering to this specific ask of the transportation department in this regard is, I believe, for just a single liaison. and then my follow up question was going to be kind of that reporting back and forth structure. You answered that a little bit. There, Allison. I do want to share with the group that you know part of the effort of the city to maintain coordination between departments and between boards while still being efficient with meetings. And you know schedules and all those types of things is some of this cross representation into working.

[240:01] So I appreciate that there's an opportunity for a but I understand to be a single planning forecast click. Find that? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for that question, Brad. Yes. A single planning board liaison. Well, we'd love input it. Part of the role of the liaison would be to bring it back to the board. And and, like I mentioned we, you know we are a means keeping in the 20 to 30 range of folks. and as as Laura and others were mentioning, there's a lot of folks we we'd like to have involved with the community working group. So we do need to be really cognizant of of of that number. Yeah. And that would just provide the board to that, as with any of the items we put in the packet. You always feel free to reach out to the case. Manager Planner. In this case, Allison, with a follow up questions. John. I don't know that you and I, or anybody else on staff, had a chance to discuss the mechanism we were

[241:01] going to use this evening to I'm losing you, Brad. I was just seeing. I don't know that you had determined a mechanism for determining who that single liaison would be. But i'd be happy to share any thoughts on how the Board might want to select that person tonight. Okay, when we get to that point we can talk about it. I I have a couple questions. John. First of all, I'd like to say that I think Laura's and and march points are excellent, and I agree with them, because the reason this this exercise is taking place is because of there. There's a history behind it like very much to make sure there's not a predetermined outcome, but they The other question I have is, why why is planning Department not doing this? I would think that this is a a question that would be logically within the department of planning

[242:09] activities given given its magnitude and the relevance to many different departments. I wonder if Brad might have some thoughts about that or or you. I'm happy to start, or you can. Oh. you Well, i'll! I'll offer my but you first, which is just that you know we are blessed as as a city, to have wonderful transportation planners or train planners, like Allison, to be able to facilitate these. As you know we do have a cross coordination with Kathleen being involved in that. But we also recognize that the starting point for the history of the airport is, it's current state. And so I think there was just a a very

[243:00] understanding among the city leadership that it would be appropriate for transportation and mobility to be the lead on this. But as with all of them comforts of planning and master plans that we do in the city we recognize it's, cross-discipline and Cross Departmental. So it it feels very comfortable to me. That would that would be my response to that Hopefully that this is consistent with what your thoughts are. Yeah, thank you so much, Brad. So the airport actually falls under the purview of the translation and mobility department within the city of Boulder, and is managed by the department, and it's actually under the purview of the translation Advisory Board. So so just kind of a overview, John, that that's why it is managed by the translation department. But we do recognize, of course, there's there's a lot of overlap and importance from the planning department, which is why, you know, reached out to Kathleen King pretty much the week I I got.

[244:05] you know, started working on this, so we we recognize there is a lot of Cross-man, both departmental work on this. Okay? Well, thank you, right. Appreciate that. And I I guess I hope you heard what making calls had to say in the public comment section of this meeting, and that you take that into account. We don't have some sort of a default position which is just continuing with the present that this is a real examination of of our options. But this is yeah, and i'll and i'll share, you know. I'm. I'm very happy that it was brought up in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan, because, you know, we're we're really looking forward to improving this, the airport, and whatever whatever that outcome is, we are looking forward to an improvement. Okay, Thank you. I know. Yeah, I just have a an observation.

[245:04] If I understood Ellison what you were saying that it will be the consultant who will be developing the scenarios as opposed to our city planning department. Is that correct? The Community working group will be doing the majority of the work. then the can of of working on the scenarios bringing those ideas together, and then the consultant will be digging in developing those scenarios identifying cost, benefit of those and really fleshing out those scenarios. So the community working group can dig into those and make some of those decisions. And and this it just seems that it should be done by our planning department. Why would it be done in our planning department? This is typical in a lot of our translation planning studies that we've conducted in the past. That staff is very involved, as is the community working group in terms of capacity. That is why we hire consultants for some of these roles for for things like scenario development.

[246:12] I'll just the intent that it isn't just a transportation problem, but that it is a bigger. So consideration. Sorry, Kathleen. Yeah. No problem. I I just wanted to mention, You know, my involvement in role in the project. especially when this project comes back to planning board. To look at the different scenarios is, I will, you know, be providing a staff evaluation of how the scenarios line or don't align with the comprehensive plan. How well it plays or doesn't play with recommendations in the east Boulder sub-community plan so there will definitely be planning, involvement and evaluation of the different scenarios, and ultimately the preferred scenario. And we'll be sharing that information through the liaison and and at future planning board.

[247:06] These. Thank you for that. I appreciate Laura. I wanted to ask if you could consider giving a liaison from Hab as well as planning board and tab. since you know again that 6.2, 6 re-evaluating the potential to redevelop a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses seems like an appropriate subject matter for have to weigh in on. Certainly that's not our current intention. But I will circle back with the project team. I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Okay. Oh, I'm: sorry. What can I ask? One more question? Bhp: how do you anticipate? Bhp: Might be involved, if at all. Sure. Yeah, we have been in touch with Bhp: I I have relationships over there that I have worked with. So we've let them know that this process is

[248:04] has been initiated, and we will be involving them in the process. Great. Thank you. Just to add you either Bhp or housing and human services. I would think both have relevant interests. Okay. any other questions or comments. So we've been asked to to provide a liaison to this effort. and I think the best way to do that is to see who's interested and then take a vote. Hmm. So now it's the time to speak up. If if you're interested, you know. Thank you, John. I would actually like to make a nomination if if that's appropriate. I think I heard that language being used by Allison when she talked about the liaison, and i'd like to nominate Laura

[249:08] to the early 8 on. We have seen her champion the airport project. Well, my entire time on planning on planning, for which Hasn't been that all? But I think she has knowledge and and interest, and and will serve as well. Okay. Is any other interest or nominations. Well. that looks pretty promising for Laura to me. I'll send it to nomination if if there needs to be one. All right. Can I just John. Can I just speak to him really quick? I just. Wanna I just want to emphasize again that although my focus tonight has been this housing element of of this process I really appreciate and support the work that the transportation Department has done, and I really really sincerely like I don't. I don't know if everybody here knows my background. But I am a public policy facilitator. I design and facilitate processes like this that try to work on public policy issues that are controversial and so designing stakeholder processes something that I do.

[250:18] and I absolutely am 100% supportive of. Again, as I said, having really really robust scenarios that include. you know, maintaining and extending and growing the airport as one of those scenarios. So I don't want anybody to think that my comments about housing mean that I have a predetermined thought about that. I I really truly, truly truly believe in the power of robustly exploring alternatives and having advocates for every possible outcome or every likely outcome, make their case, and really exploring the pros and cons and benefits and all of that. So if I were the liaison to planning board. Yes, I'm going to have an eye to make sure that this housing piece is is incorporated, and try to advocate for that, but also advocate for a fair examination of all the scenarios.

[251:05] Okay, George. Question around Laura's statement just then, which was she plans to advocate for housing when she's on on this, I mean, I guess that's my question is the role of the liaison. because my understanding of the role of planning board liaisons is not necessarily advocacy. It's a liaise between 2 groups. And so I I want to be clear. I I have no problem with. By the way, I've no problem. I think it's right that Laura is willing to do it, and i'm excited for that. I just want to make sure that we're clear. I'm not advocating that we pick the scenario for housing. I'm. Advocating for robust examination of scenarios, including one that focuses on housing and including one that focuses on growing and expanding the airport. I have focused on housing tonight, because that is something that I see as a little bit of a gap where I did not see how 6.2, 6 was being included in this process of really looking at a housing scenario.

[252:05] But i'm not going to be necessarily advocating, certainly not on behalf of planning board for any particular outcome. I'm advocating for a fair process that looks at all of those alternatives. I just want to make sure that's clear that I it sounds a little different than what you just said to me, at least, to thank you. I I just want to be clear on the role which is my understanding of these leaders on roles are not advocacy roles in any way that they are liaison roles, and I I think it like some, some clarity from the city, and some clarity from John as the chair on what the expectations of liaison are, and what guard rails. There are. as it relates to personal added this case, because the first representation from the planning Board and what this role is, I just wanted to be clear both to to barb or but also to this group, so they understand sort of

[253:03] what the parameters are or what they are. I'm sorry I'm just going to interject really quickly, I think that's a great question. And, Laura, I totally support you being on there. Thank you for volunteering, and i'm about to sign off. So good night. I support Laura. Bye, guys. I I think George's questions are good ones, like, what? What is the role that's expected? And what are the guard rails? Yeah, I I I I can, John. You can speak to that. And i'm happy to add any pieces from the city. I I'm. Not aware of any formal guardrails. George. Your question, other than the good judgment of the individual involved. and the understanding of of their relationship to planning board and their position, as they also

[254:02] so bye. you know, I think we we have to. We have to depend on the on the good judgment of of whoever we nominate frankly. But if you, or if anybody else has. has some more thoughts on that or detail, I think now it's the time to come out with it. Sure I I'll just add in the packet that Kathleen submitted to you all. It was shared some kind of expectations of of the liaison. So we we do have that as reference that that we can additionally review. But, like George, was mentioning it's really to represent the planning Board as a whole, and and and the perspective you provide to the city. So that's you know we we'd love that perspective on there. So that would that would be a a hopeful contribution. Me, too. So, George, I don't know that. That's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's plenty. I I just wanted to understand it in a little bit more detail, and

[255:02] just make sure we all understood it. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, we have a nomination in a second. so I think it would be good if everyone stuck their hands up. If they think that that's an appropriate decision for us to make. I do. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So congratulations, Laura. you're in. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't prepare an acceptance speech. No, thank you. Everybody and I will do my best to represent what I think is the perspective of the planning board, which i'll just state is, we want a fair process that looks at the various alternatives, including a housing scenario. But we are, do not have a predetermined outcome in mind. We're very interested in hearing the community conversation having good data, having, you know, good representation and and seeing this process be really really successful, and looking at these long range planning issues for the airport property.

[256:11] That sounds good to me. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you all. I'll be in touch with you later this week. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you. Good night. We're grateful that you're willing to do that for us, so thank you my pleasure. So now we can move on to other matters from staff. Maybe right. You have many. No, I I really don't have anything. Your thing just appreciation for representation on the board on the Me. I saw that we just talked about, and oh. work on the various projects, so happy to answer any questions you on my down.

[257:01] If you did all get, I will mention one last thing. You all did get copied on it an email from what's it from? Sorry we wait from. They can tell us about some of the permitting challenges we've added. Just wanted to let you know. I'd be responding and copying you all we are struggling with our plan. Review turnaround times, but have some aggressive plans in place to try to address that, and happy to talk to folks individually about that questions. Okay? Well, I think that's great, and i'm glad you're responding to him. I I would don't let yourself be pushed around too much. But i'm glad you're responding to. Well, we we we know we are right now. So

[258:01] okay on. Oh, George, your hand is on. Oh, sorry it shouldn't have been okay. all right. I don't even know if we have how long with us tonight. I don't see her on the list. Any matters from the board hell is here. Oh, hello! You are here. Okay, I am here. I didn't have to chat on my my video today. I don't. I don't have any matters, either. Okay. Thank you. Any matters from the Board. All right, you know. I a quick question for Hella, what we've got, you and we've got this matters. You know we were. We were talking about the concept of this city of of a developer apartment developer. putting in a contract that someone couldn't own a car if they had, an if they took an apartment there, is there any? Is there any legal issue with that? I'm just kind of curious, because I I I don't know if

[259:11] I was just curious what your perspective was on that we got you. No, I think. have to think back. I I do think that we've had a requirement like that before, and particularly thinking of. or redevelopment on the hill. The Mara House. Maybe some of you guys will remember it. I think we did draft a condition there. There was very little parking available, and we kind of created a parking management plan where their vendors had to disclose whether or not they owned a car, and whether or not they were gonna be allowed to park it there or bring it there. So we did make that a requirement to become a contractual requirement between

[260:01] the land or and it is something that is, I think, pretty cumbersome and difficult to enforce that development is still not been completed. Is that right? I think that's right. Okay, all right. So we don't have a working example of that yet. That's good to know. Thank you all. I appreciate. Okay, anything else. Well, I propose we adjourned this meeting. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone. Thanks.