April 25, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] And we are gonna perfect. And Amanda is sitting in for Devon tonight because Devin has Covid. And so we wish him well, and we really appreciate Amanda stepping in at the late this late hour. we're going to start with public participation, and this is an opportunity for anyone in the community to speak to us about any topic they would like to speak to us about. Accept the item that is under for a public hearing tonight. and that public hearing. Item is a concept plan review for a site at Baseline and Morehead. So if anyone wants to before we get started with public participation, Vivian is going to walk us through the rules of public participation. Thank you, Chair, and Amanda will just pull up the slides. Good evening. My name is Vivian Castro Wldridge. My role in these meetings is to facilitate the public engagement parts, and I want to really appreciate all the members of the public who have come here tonight.

[1:04] so the rules i'll read are in place to find a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. So Sarah mentioned. We'll start with open comments from community members for items. not on the agenda. And then there is one public hearing later tonight for development on baseline. So we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everybody who participates feels safe and welcome. We want to ensure that we're making space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it leads to more informed decision. Making next slide, please. and we have a lot of information on our website about what we call our productive atmospheres vision. If you're interested in more detail, but i'll just focus on some specifics relevant for tonight's meeting.

[2:04] There are 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 tonight from the City planning Board and the public. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscen these racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting, or makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited. and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by. and, if possible, to display their first and last name before speaking, so that we can calling you, and so that we know who is providing. Input and if you cannot figure that out, you can send me your full name through the Q. A. Function next slide. So we're in the Zoom Webinar format which allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not be turning on video

[3:07] for community members because of security concerns in this platform there is no pre-existing list for signing up to participate today. So if you're in the meeting, and you would like to speak during open comment or later during public hearing. we welcome you at the appropriate time to raise your hand. and on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this. At the very bottom of the screen you'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable I items. If you click on the hand, icon, it will raise a hand next to your name. and you will enter the queue, and we'll know to call on you to speak next slide. If you have an expanded menu you can also get to the raised hand. I come by clicking on reactions. If you're joining us by phone. you can dial Star 9 to raise your virtual hand, and will know that you would like to speak. so that that concludes

[4:00] the rules of of engagement for the evening. And I think we can jump into open comment. Sarah. Okay, thank you. Anyone who wants to speak to open comments. Please raise your hand now and again. It's for any comment that is not about the items we're discussing in the public hearing. Okay, so far, we have one hand. So, Lynn. you have 3 min, and we're going to try this timer. Please go ahead, Lynn. It's really a waste of time to do this, this whole discussion about public participation. First, it's also very intimidating. Also, I don't believe you for a minute that it's a security issue about having a video window up. I go to state meetings at the capital, and I have my video window, and they ask me to put my video window up. So I i'm insulted by this whole thing, and i'm insulted that I have to listen to this stuff.

[5:09] Why, Don't, you just have a disclaimer people have to sign if they want it participate. It's like a waste of my time, and it's certainly a waste of your time, and you've got plenty more to do than that now. What I came to talk about tonight is the fact that we need communal housing, zoning that needs to incentivize developers to do the most efficient density housing, and that is within one unit up to 4,000 units you can have, I mean, 4,000 feet. You can have 10 people in there have a couple of refrigerators. One washered wire. It's more than enough no, very much less dry. Wall, you know you have one living room that everyone uses. You have common spaces that get used. This kind of zoning needs to be employed into boulders

[6:03] planning period. If they're going to densify. That's the way to do it. 300 square foot units are not doing that. They're doing exactly the opposite. They are elevating land value, and that elevates housing cost and that causes homeless problems. And that's the biggest problem that the city of Boulder has. Right. So why don't you finally do something that works that you know works. It's so simple. Just do it done. Then are you wrapped up? I said, Done? Yeah, Thank you, Lynn: thanks for sharing your input. I do not see any other hands at this moment. Okay, thank you very much. Again The planning board minutes from March twenty-first that were shared with us. We're not complete. So in Devon is out, so we will be sent complete copies hopefully when he gets back, and then we will vote on them

[7:11] whenever that is so. Now we'll go to discussion of dispositions, planning board, callups, and continuations. The first is a call up final plat to combine 2 parcels of land into one lot at 2,72720 Ninth Street case number tech. 2023 0 0 0, 0. 2. And the subdivision is consistent with approved site. Review, L. U. R. 2020 0 0 3 8. Does anyone want to call that up? All right? So it's a no second call up Kensington Apartments non-conforming Use Review. L. You are 202-20-0039 non-conforming use review for updates to Kensington apartments at 2,950, Bixby Lane, including increasing accessibility within the building and on the site.

[8:05] new short-term and long-term bicycle parking, updated, parking lot and garage, striping, updating, and increasing, landscaping and modifying unit layouts and bedroom counts to add 102 bedroom to the property and reduce the unit, Count from 163 to 162 units. Does anyone want to call that up? Mark first, and then Ml: and then Kurt: oh, my goodness. yeah, thanks, sir. I i'm undecided about calling this up, but I have questions for staff. I'm hoping that's appropriate use of our time. Yeah, of course. Okay. So I have a question. Have there have been discussions with the applicants in regard to the number of new under under the reconfiguration

[9:00] of the buildings and the units. the number of new residents versus the number of new bedrooms. And the the reason, I ask, is the larger bedrooms. Typically, we're. I I assume we're used by 2 people, and now those would be you. The smaller bedrooms are used by one person. So is there any information on the number of new residents? Yeah. So each of the dwelling units, as they are now under occupancy standards, would be allowed technically up to the 4 occupants. So the change in the number of bedrooms, for the most part doesn't impact the maximum number of folks they could have in the building in terms of the use of those units or the expected number of occupants I would defer to the applicant. Jeff Dawson is here tonight, and could probably

[10:02] help talk a little bit about what they expect to see in terms of occupants. Jeff Dawson, with Studio Development Services. I'm. The owner's representative for the project. The way that these are typically rented is by the bedroom. And so, in our experience. generally speaking. you would only be seeing one resident per bedroom. So mark to your point. I think there Isn't anticipated to be, and you know. an increase in the number of residents necessarily, or occupants in the unit. It's just an increase in bedrooms. And the way that we rent these is typically by the bedroom. So so okay, I I think I heard a couple of contradictory things there. So. currently, a large bedroom is rented by the bedroom. And are you saying that that large bedroom

[11:06] is occupied by one person typically or 2. Typically. I don't actually have that information. It was. It was never requested by staff. So I've never researched that we recently acquired the property about 6 to 8 months ago, and so the current occupants in the building Don't, reflect the way that we currently rent the building, so we'll be releasing the project once the improvements are done, if approved here. so I can't actually answer that specific question right now, because I don't know what our occupancy is. but I think your assumption is accurate that the existing occupancy is likely either one or 2 people per bedroom. Given the size of those bedrooms that we're going to be subdividing.

[12:03] Okay. Can you give me a your plan timeframe? Are you planning on at the end of your current leasing period. vacating the buildings and doing all the renovations and work that all at once, or in some sort of serial fashion, where you know, 2 or 3 units get remodeled, and then the next 2 or 3 and people shuffle around, or what's your plan? And what sort of timeline for doing this work? Sure. So again, if approved, the current plan is to actually do this in in effectively 2 phases. We would do all of the studio units which are primarily cosmetic remodels. They don't have an increase in the number of bedrooms.

[13:06] and they aren't actually being reconfigured. They are just. you know. We're just replacing finishes and fixtures. We will be adding washers and dryers to each of the units, so that will require a building permit for us to pursue. That will be the first phase. So we will do 51 studio units. In the first phase, which is this cosmetic remodel. The second phase will include a 100 and effectively 110 units. and that will be done in a series of phases where we will rotate through the units. so that we will be rotating residents into the newly finished units, taking them out of the next phase, and then working through all of the units until we complete. So again, if if approved here tonight, what we would do is start

[14:05] the remodel work this spring. Once the the school season is over, we would work through effectively a 12 month, remodel process and finish by around April or May of next year. Okay. fine last question. Do you have any data? And I i'm guessing based on your prior answers that you, Don't. But do you have any data on under the current configuration? The number of residents that arrived with cars, the anyway percentage of for either as a percentage or an absolute number versus those that arrive without a car. I don't have the specific data. We do own

[15:01] 3 other 2 other properties in this general vicinity across the street north of Bixby is called the Lodge. That's at 2,900 east Aurora. We did something very similar to this about 3 or 4 years ago. and we're finding that our parking lot is generally not as full as we anticipated in that project, we actually went through a site review to do a parking reduction as well as the use review. In that case we reduced it just by a couple of parking spaces. But to your point. We're finding that not as many students are bringing the cars as we anticipated. and so that parking lot is not as full as as we. You know, anticipated through the site review and use review process there. Okay, I said with my last question, I have one more

[16:00] Thank you for being patient with me at, and since you own other projects nearby. or any of them, do you separate? Parking it is, how how do you manage parking? Is it just is it assigned spots? Yeah, I think rented separately. Could you describe how you manage parking and more specifically at this site? But if you have examples of doing something different at one of your other sites. I'd be interested in hearing about that. We generally follow the some principles in this in the city. so it's. It's unbundled, parking managed, and it's rented. It's separate from the unit itself A. And we do that on all the properties here in boulder Now it's a little different on our properties up in Fort Collins. But, generally speaking, in Boulder, it's it's on unbundled and managed parking.

[17:02] And what would a spot rent for? Do you have any numbers since I don't work on the operation side? I don't know exactly what those numbers are, you know, per parking space, but I could certainly get that for you if if you were interested. Okay, Thank you. I'm: I'm: finally done. Thanks. I'm: considering it. Yes, okay. I'm: I'm gonna let Ml. And Kurt ask their questions, and I'm considering. Okay, Ml. Thank you, Sarah. So, Jeff, I have. Well, maybe it's for you for staff. But i'm not sure. So you I understand you, adding a 102 bedrooms. And now I just would say that all of the units are getting washers and dryers. One of the things that I saw was unknown was

[18:02] where you were at with water. Use on the project. you know the plumbing fixed. Your count is not a complicated form to fill. I'm guessing you meet the requirements, or where. Why was it not? Just a kind of Yes, the project meets it with the meter size they have. What's what's did you add bathrooms, or just to wash your dryers, or where you at with and and and why is that not just a Yes, you comply with this. I I don't know that we I don't know that. I guess i'm not aware that we don't comply with plumbing fixture, count. We are adding new washers and dryers, and as as far as we're concerned, there isn't any change in the overall service to the building we're not in. There's no requirement to upgrade, you know the tap, size, or the service to the building.

[19:06] We aren't adding additional bathrooms. We're just adding an additional bedroom. So the bathroom that's in the current. One bedroom unit will serve both. The bathroom that's in the one bedroom unit will will serve the 2 bedrooms. you know we're placing plumbing fixtures and and that sort. But we're we're purely just adding a washer and dryer teach of the units. So I I guess maybe i'm not following your question. So maybe. Shannon, this is your project. I I don't I can't. The scale is I can't read the name here, but it says to be determined whether the project will comply with the plenty requirements for that. Do you know what

[20:01] i'm? Not sure what your what document you might be referring to there. I think, once it's in the building, permit process, all of this. all of those items would be accounted for right. Now, since it's in the Non-conforming Use review process. Were primarily looking at the Criterion related to related to that Amel. Is there a page in the packet that you're seeing something that troubles you. It just seems odd to move forward without knowing whether your water meter is sufficient for the at, added: I I hear what Jeff said, though they're not adding back to us. You're adding laundry facilities to each of the units, which is actually a lot of laundry. But it just said it was an unknown, and it just seemed to me kind of interesting that you would move forward without knowing about your your plenty. But

[21:01] it's okay. If you don't know. Thank you for Thank you for trying to answer my question. All right, Thank you. Ml: Are you thinking of calling this up to? Oh. no, I don't think so. Okay. Kurt. Yeah. First question for Staff. I just want to confirm, Probably given that. I just want to confirm that the long term pipe per long term, like parking system. that they're proposing complies with our standards. Yes, that's correct. The fixtures that are being added for the long term. Right parking. There's going to be a covered, enclosed new kind of accessory structure on the site that would have the racks and the accessibility, and all of those features that we would typically see for a long term bike parking facility. They'll also be long term by per team. If I recall correctly within the existing garage structure

[22:03] and short-term bike parking as well. And there was, I believe, details included in the plan set, and the written statement for all of this by parking features. Okay, thanks. And then one other question about the landscaping. So it's in that they're planning to add street trees on the 20 Ninth Street side. But there is. There are utilities in the planting strip. and so they are not going to be planting in the planting Sp. Are. Are there utilities to go? The entire length of the planting strip? Is that the problem? I i'm just i'm a little surprised because I think our the the landscaping standards in the Gcs. Say plant trees in the landing structure as possible. Yes, that's our first choice. If there's not a utility conflict to place those out in the planting strip. As you said, there's a 10 foot requirement for trees to be spaced

[23:07] from an existing utility line in the condition of a conflict. They can be placed close close to the prop, like, close to the right of way, as close as possible. Basically. So I believe that was. The condition in this scenario is that we have to avoid this utility conflicts, and just place them in the next best location. And so there's a utility line that goes along parallel to the property line parallel to 20 Ninth Street. That's my understanding. I could try to take a quick look at the plans and see if I can. Yeah, I'm looking at them right now, Shannon. And that seems to be the case. Okay. sure. Thank you. And no, i'm not learning to call this up. Thanks, Kurt. All right, Mark. It's up to you. Do you want to call this up?

[24:03] There we go. I have trouble on mute. I'm going to decline the call, though awesome. Thank you, and thank you all for your questions and thank you, Shannon and Jeff, for being here to answer them. Thank you for your I'm: Sorry. Oh, thank you. Just saying, Thank you. Yeah. Have a good evening. Yeah. I have a good one. all right. So we're going to move into the public hearing now before we start the process. I'm going to walk. I'm going to lay out what I think our time. We're gonna. We're trying to organize some times for this and to so that the public knows when we're likely to get to public comments. But Also, we want to find out how many people in the public want to speak to this item. So if right now. members of the public who are here who would like to speak to that? This item wouldn't mind electronically raising their hands. And that way we can count

[25:05] if it's more than 15. We're going to ask everyone to actually speak for just 2 min, not 3. Then we hope that this will give you all enough time to edit down your prepared comments. If, in fact, there's more than 15 it. Sarah. how are we dealing with it? We received from staff some slides from members of the public. and I'm. Assuming that those were still under 3 min proposals, or for those some combined time scenario for those presentations, I I i'm curious about how how that works. So we don't do. Apparently we don't do time pooling time anymore. So it would either be 3 min or less than 3 min. I did not walk through the one

[26:01] Powerpoint that we got. Maybe I got to. I think we got to. I I think I've I've looked at to the same name did we get to before we've received 2 before 60'clock last night, and i'll be sharing those sharing my screen when those 2 individuals speak, and we did notify them that it could be 2 to 3 min depending on the amount of public participation tonight. Okay, so, Vivian, can you tell us, please, how many hands are raised. Just tell if it's more than 15. So far there are 6 hands. 7 hands. Hold on, let's give it a moment. Okay. So we have. There's 46 participants, which means there's a lot of public people people from the public watching. So if you are in the public, and you plan to speak on this public hearing. Please raise your hand right now, so we can see how many there are. Sara. Can you remind folks which public hearing it is, they may not have the agenda. I know we only have one, but

[27:06] it's concept, plan, review, and comment requests for a proposal to redevelop, the site at (272) 710-2720 and 2750 baseline, road, and 2,765 and 2,800 more Head Avenue. So i'm seeing some people without hands raised. So i'd be very surprised that they weren't going to speak tonight. Mike Marsh, are you planning to speak, Lisa falling. Yeah, please raise your hand now and mark to your question. I also saw the slides, and they they seemed quite long, but we did inform people of the time, so we will have to honor the the time for each person. Yes, it Yeah, i'm. Also not saying Scott to to Lisa's Point. I'm. Not seeing Scott Mccarry, who was one he's actually joining from, I believe, his wife's connection. So we sorted that out. Okay, so there's 2 people connecting from one, so that that's okay. We we made arrangements for that. All right. So there's 11 hands raised.

[28:07] There's 11 hands raised, but also people who, I I imagine, are planning to speak to this, who for some reason have not raised hands. Oh, there we go! Thank you, Mike. Let's give it one more minute. We're trying to do this, so that everyone has time to edit their comments down from 3 min to 2, if that's necessary. rather than when we start public comments having to tell people you got to do this on the fly. So yeah, and I, that's nice there. Yeah. And I I would suggest just to members of the public. If you haven't raised your hand. If if once we actually get the public comment, we see that we have more than 50. That point we will, I think, again, be taking it down to 2. So you're not gaining yourself 3 min by not raising a hand. Now, if we have more people, that we will be dropping to 2, and we're at 11, which is kind of close to 15, so we're at 11, but it's actually 12. And Scott yeah, it's on Abby's connection. Yeah.

[29:03] Yeah. So it's 12 kind of keeps going down between 10 and 11 fluctuations, for now we'll leave it at 3 min per if it If, when we get to public comments, it's above 15, we will be cutting it down to 2 min, so just be aware. And then in terms of timing there, I want the public to not feel like they're waiting to know when we might get to them. We expect a 15 min presentation by staff and some questions from the board. Another 15 min of presentation by the applicant, with some questions from the board. and then a 10 min break. So at a minimum it'll be 45 min from now from 6, 30, so 7, 15 at a minimum before we get to public comment. I would assume, if you all, if you all don't feel like sitting here and watching, or you want to make dinner while you're listening. We expect

[30:02] at 7. 15 is the closest starting point for public comments. All Righty. Let us start on the agenda. Item, concept, plan, review and comment request for a proposal to redevelop the site at 2,700, 2710, 2720 and 2750 baseline road. and 2765, and 2,800 Morehead avenue. As a mixed use student housing development that includes 84 units with a four-story tall 55 foot tall i'm sorry for story. 55 foot tall, building on the western portion of the site reviewed under Case number l you are 2,022, and ours, and Chandler is going to do the staff presentation. Take it away, Chandler.

[31:03] Thank you, Sarah. Are you guys are seeing my notes right now? Yes, we're seeing your notes. It's not in presentation mode yet. Apologies. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Are you sure? Okay. But I think also, if you want to go ahead and present, even in that mode. That's fine.

[32:01] It's readable for all of us. It was there you go. Okay. Good evening. Planning Board members. I am here to present the concept plan. Application for redevelopment at what we're calling 2,700 baseline road, we should incorporate all of the addresses that you mentioned earlier. So for presentation highlights. i'll briefly cover the information in the memo. Talk a little bit about concept, plan and purpose, public notification, planning context project background. I'll summarize the proposed project, and we will have a discussion on key issues. Hard and, Chandler, If you are advancing slides, we are not seeing them advance. Okay.

[33:02] are you seeing that now it has it switched to slide 3? All right. We're back here we go. So the concept plan and purpose, as you all know, is just to review a general development proposal prior to some middle of a formal site. Review application. It's really just to give the applicant feedback on a proposal. So, in terms of public notification. Okay. written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the site. The applicant also performed their own outreach, which I will them to discuss during their presentation Notice was posted on the property, and staff has received several comments and questions from neighboring property owners and residents, some in favor. Some opposed the primary concerns from those opposed included traffic parking, lack of retail space, and the overall scale of the project.

[34:11] So in terms of the loops, the location. as you can see here. The site is located in the southwest of the intersection of us 36 and Baseline road at the northeast corner of the intersection of Moorhead, App, and 27 way. The broader context of the site includes the Martin Acres residential neighborhood to the southeast High density, residential housing in the basement, Commercial Shopping center to the South and West and the University of Colorado Main campus to the north. Sorry I'm. Okay, the what is going on? Not there, you guys. The Bvcp Land use designation of the site is community business. This is described in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. As

[35:07] community business areas are the focal point for commercial activity. Serving a sub community or a collection of neighborhoods. They are designed to serve the daily convenience, shopping, and personal service needs of nearby residents and workers, and support. The goal of walkable communities. Uses consist primarily of commercial business uses with convenience, shopping and services, and some offices where feasible multiple users, including housing, will be encouraged. So these zoning on the site is BC. 2, and the it's Jason to Rl, one zoning to the southeast. Our H. 5 zone into the south, and other properties on Vc. 2 to the east and west PC. 2 zone district is defined as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where retail type stores predominate. The project site is located in the business community area subject to special use, restrictions per appendix end of the Boulder Revised code. This essentially means that it it has additional conditional use standards that apply to certain uses.

[36:10] intensity standards for residential uses in B c. To allow for up to 27.2 units per acre. They require a minimum lot area for dwelling into 1,600 square feet and a minimum of 600 square feet of open space per unit. There's no maximum F AR. In the BC. 2 zone, and the by right height is 35 feet and 3 stories. so the surrounding context didn't move forward. There you go. So the character of the surrounding area is varied in eclectic. A high density residential residential apartment fly adjacent to the South on Morehead Avenue and across 27 way to the southwest. Jason Bee, BC. 2 zoned areas include the Bass Mar shopping center immediately to the west of the site, across 20 Seventh way and some small shopping centers based on East retail service and restaurant uses to the east of us 36 adjacent to Williams village

[37:11] Across Baseline. To the north is the Cu. Main Campus, and the Wolf Law Building, which runs along the west side of us 36 up opposite various high density residential and hotel uses to the east to the south of the site is shown here. Southeast is the Martin Acres neighborhood, which is zoned Rl. One, and is comprised primarily of low density post for a single family detached ranch style homes as such. The project site represents both a gateway into and out of the city for travelers on Baseline and us 36, as well as a gateway or transitional area between the low density residential area to the southeast and the higher intensity uses to the north and west. This is another contact shot just showing the site. Looking basically from the Chatauqua area, you see Broadway Baseline.

[38:00] the main campus. the Hub Boulder future site, which will be a 3 story 35 foot development. So the existing site, which was formerly environmentally contaminated but has been remediated. remains largely page of paved over and in a state of general disrepair. Stone Creek. A Major Drange way of contributing basin area of about 2 square miles. runs through the center of the site and currently receives all of the sites run off. There are several mature trees, and a narrow strip of high functioning wetlands surrounding the creek. However, overall the existing site is mostly impervious, and soil and habitat conditions are poor. Each of the existing businesses on the site has at least one vehicular access point. as you can see here. There are several businesses on the site, including boulder, gas, grease, Monkey, Vac, and Wendy's building baseline liquor, a large, vacant parking lot, and Nick's auto, which is also a you call Rental Center.

[39:08] So the next few slides are just pictures of the site taking from various points. This is from the intersection of 27 way and more head. These 2 shots are just both along more head, moving south top to bottom. These are additional shots from more head of this eastern portion of the site. The site is affected by the flood plane, including the re 100 year conveyance and high hazard zones, as you can see here. And now I will get into the proposed project. So the applicant is proposing to redevelop the site at (272) 710-2720 and 2750 baseline road, and 2765 and 2,000 more had to have as a mixed use student housing development. That includes 84 units

[40:10] We should be split between 24, 2 bedroom units, and 64 bedroom units and ground floor retail uses within a 4 story 55 foot tall building on the western portion of the site. The eastern portion of the site east of Scone Creek is proposed to be converted to a large 1.2 acre landscape open space area. The current proposal includes a 166 parking spaces, and an internal 2 story parking structure, where 222 are required by the code which equates to a 25% parking reduction request. as shown above, the proposal places the building on the northwest side of the site, thereby concentrating intensity closer to the nearby high density, residential, commercial and university uses the remainder. The remaining 1.2 acres, as I mentioned, would be converted to landscape to open space

[41:00] which they're intending to use to provide a transition to the lower intensity. Single family uses to the south and east site, access would be taken via single garage entrance off of more head to have as well as a drop off zone in the rear of the building access the the existing us 36 frontage road pedestrian access would be provided via sidewalks along adjacent rights of way with a connection across the site, provided via path to sorry a path adjacent to this concrete corridor, which would exist to existing multi-use path facility. the proposed project includes a mix of attached residential and retail uses, totally approximately 136,694 square feet and floor area retail uses comprise roughly 1,700 square feet on the ground floor, with the remainder of the unit, or a remainder of the project made up of residential units and amenities.

[42:00] and they are proposing to provide just over 95,000 square feet of open space, where 50,400 is the requirement for the number of units they're proposing. While the application packet does not include specific architectural renderings, the applicant is provided. Numerous reference images, as well as detailed massing studies, showing the intent behind the proposed massing. The applicants written statement expresses the desire to provide a transition and massing from the northwest to the south and east size of the building, with the corner of more head and 27 way, being 2 stories and height to be compatible with the existing 2 story commercial uses across 20 Seventh Way to the west. as shown some of these images. The building. Design also incorporates a changes in plain to create articulation along rights of way as well as different vertical elements. Step back, and what they're showing is changes in materiality to create visual interest and break down the perceived massing.

[43:02] These are some of the reference images included with the application packet so moving on to a summary of the required modifications. Okay. requested. Sorry. Requested modifications. Oh, oh, yes, yes, requested notifications. I guess I I They'd be required if this were to be approved. But yes, you are very correct. They are requested modifications. So the proposed modifications to the land use. Code. There you go. That works too, it's a 25% parking reduction again to provide a 166 bases, where 222 are required. He modification to allow for a 55 foot building, where 35 foot is the maximum by right height, modification to maximum number of stories to allow for 4 stories, where 3 is the maximum by right. And just to note that the site is eligible for height, modification, the community benefit regulations would apply.

[44:03] So the bonus floor area Aka, the floor area on the fourth floor would be used to determine the required number of bonus units above the 25% inclusionary housing requirement that would either be required to be constructed on site or paid for via cash in blue. So the result of the height, modification is that we require additional permanently affordable units. so moving on to key issues for discussion. There are 3 key issues that are outlined in the staff memo. and the first key issue is whether the proposed concept plan is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley plan. Second key issue. It does. Planning Board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site, plan, and building design. and then, finally, the third key issue is whether the proposed building height of 55 feet is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings in the area, and the proposed or projected heights of buildings in the area

[45:04] so moving on to key issue Number One is the proposed concept plan, generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. I have provided some considerations here to help guide the discussion. So the community business areas are described partially in Vvcp policy to 19 neighborhood centers. So it describes the desire characteristics of community business areas as that they should contain economic, social, and cultural opportunities that allow neighborhoods to thrive, and for people to come together. provide pedestrian friendly and welcoming environments with the mix of land uses and mix these places that try to accomplish a set of guiding principles included in the plan. The neighborhood centers guiding principles. I'll just read the titles of each of them, but we need everyday needs of neighboring communities. ensure appropriate scale transitions to neighboring residential uses, encourage a richness of transportation amenities, encourage parking management strategies, and ensure comfort and safety.

[46:12] Additional considerations for key issue number one. and these are related to zoning. But the you know BC. One and BC. 2 zones are generally the zone districts that are intended to implement the desired outcomes of the community. Business land use designation. and in this case the BC. To conditional use standards require a use review. If there is ground floor residential in a project that exceeds 10% of the total ground floor, floor area. So as part of the use review criteria. an applicant must demonstrate that the use on the ground floor will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate on the ground floor. and determining whether this criterion is met. The reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use in the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel in the area. So as we discussed in Therc review comments to the applicant which are included in your packages, attachment, c.

[47:14] Staff has directed the applicant to significantly increase the amount of ground floor, retail, or commercial space for the project to meet the above Criterion Staff is also direct the applicant to work with neighboring residents to determine the appropriate. and we're desirable amount and type of retail space that the project may be able to provide key takeaways from the key issue. Discussion here would be whether the planning Board agrees with Staff's findings that additional neighborhood serving retail space is necessary in order for this project to comply with comp plan goals related to community business areas, and whether there are any other PVC goals or policies with which the Board finds the project either consistent or inconsistent. So moving to key issue number 2, which will be whether the planning Board has feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site, Plan and building design.

[48:05] Some considerations for key issue. Number 2 include whether there are any building or site design considerations. The applicant should take into account to improve or enhance. The project's consistency with the site, review, criteria. compatibility with the surrounding area design and operating characteristics. The proposed open space. ground, level building, design along rights of way, or any concerns related to access, circulation or parking, and of course you are welcome to add as many other considerations as you would like Staff's initial assessment of the proposed site and building design is included under the concept review. Criteria, included in the memo as noted there in staff, finds that overall the current proposal represents a thoughtful first step, particularly in terms of provision of open space as a transition to adjacent residential areas and use of building design techniques to break down massing and create visual interest. Staff is notified. The applicant of the specific Site review Criteria. That will be central to the review of the final project plans

[49:04] and has made clear that additional details will be required on a number of different elements. Key takeaways from this discussion will be. Oh, I already mentioned the key. Take away from this discussion. So let's move on to key issue number 3. So key issue number 3 is is the proposed height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings in the area, and the proposed or projected heights of buildings in the area. And to help with this discussion. I have provided a copy of the building height context map that's included in the memo as well, so as can be seen in this map. The area surrounding. The site contains buildings ranging from single story, 35 foot or below single family homes to 5 story 55 foot department buildings. with the main site frontage in terms of its adjacency to development.

[50:00] which is the Southern Lot line along Moorhead, sitting across from the 3 story 45 foot Union apartment complex. Given the surrounding context staff finds the proposal to develop the project site with a 55 foot building on the western portion of the site. While preserving the eastern portion as open space appears to keep the project generally proportionate to existing development in the area, but that additional refinement of building, massing, and articulation will be necessary to ensure that the project provides an appropriate transition to the lower intensity Development to the southeast and west, while providing an appropriately scale pedestrian frontage along the Western and Southern project boundaries. So next steps. following the concept for you, hearing the city council may about to call the item up for a council, hearing to provide additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submitting a development review applications, or may submit a second concept for the application. and the the third bullet should say site and use review applications will require a decision by planning board subject to call up by a city council.

[51:08] And now I can take any questions. Okay, Thank you, Chandler. All right. So we're gonna take questions from the board. But remember, this is just questions. discussions, presentations of your points of view that will come after public comments. George. And then Ml: Just a quick question on the open space component of the project is that is there a covenant that lies on that land as proposed? That would it would remain open space forever. It works. There is not right now just it's concept plan. So it'd be a a question of whether we would require them to dedicate a public access easement or something like that. Yeah, that that's what I just want to know. I appreciate it. Ml: and then Kurt.

[52:03] Thank you, Sarah. So my question is. do we know how much market rate housing? So 84 units are proposed with the 55 foot and 4 story request. Do we know how many additional market rate units does that produce versus how much affordable housing we get by by increasing the height and having a fourth story. Do we know those numbers? It's like, Where will we at before we before the project asked for these concessions, and where are we after? So we don't know the exact numbers yet, because it's still, you know, concept review, so they they may be subject to change, and that's something that inclusionary housing staff would determine during site, review, and which we would basically nail down before an approval was issued

[53:08] but 84, essentially additional market rate units would come out of this. and the you know, we would charge or require 25% of basically the bottom 3 stories to be affordable housing. plus the fourth story. and in this case the applicant. So we staff typically doesn't, support the provision of affordable student housing, mainly because most students don't actually qualify for affordable housing. So the the likely outcome of this is that they're going to pay cash in Loo. and we would get a a substantial amount of additional cash, and Lou from the fourth story. and we are able to leverage cash and lou fees 2, 3, sometimes even 4 times in terms of leveraging them against State and Federal funding to provide affordable housing.

[54:03] So in this case the I, I don't know the exact number of affordable units that we could produce with the inclusionary housing, cash, and new fees. But it would be more than we would get. I guess the the proportion of affordable units we could build to market rate units would be greater than in a by right project. If that makes sense. Yeah. So do we know how many units could be built if they didn't get the hype and a added story. So 84 units just based on the size of the site and the space requirements. 84 units is the maximum density that can be accommodated on that site. They are essentially just asking for this height modification so that they can concentrate all of those on half of the site. Perfect? That's the answer I would, or that's the question I was looking to get answered. Thank you, Chandler

[55:01] Kurt. And then, Laura. My first question is about the frontage road. I don't understand the situation with that that belongs to c.is that right. the potential that he, Dot. would not be interested in retaining it correct. And I I will defer to the applicant to discuss that during their presentation in more detail. but it's my understanding that C. Dot has indicated that they are willing to vacate that right away. The second question is, I was confused on the drawings. So there are setbacks in in PC. 2, but it looked like the side marks were being shown in the Set X, which is not typically how it's done. Can you? Is this another question for the applicant? Or is this something that you can explain?

[56:04] The the sidewalks are typically provided in the right of way. so I think the sidewalks are in the right of way, and then the setbacks are taken from the property line behind the sidewalks is that if that makes sense, are you saying it looks like it's closer than what the setbacks would allow. Yeah, in plan view it wasn't looking like there was any set back beyond where the sidewalk was right. And I think that's the so part of this development would be that they would have to consolidate all of these parcels into one lot. And once they did that, the 27 way frontage would be the front yard. so there would be basically the the 20 foot set back that would apply to that frontage, and then the rest would be side yard setbacks adjacent to a street which are I'm. I'm not thinking of them off the top of my head for BC. 2. But I can look that up while we're while we're talking, and but they're they're less than the front yard. Set back

[57:10] right. I think it was 15 feet. Well, I can follow up with the applicant and get clarification on that. Yeah, but it's a 15 foot set back on the side yard. I just I It's like that, Laura. And then, if no one else, then i'll have some questions. That's okay. Do we have traffic counts for the? I am not sure I would have to follow up with transportation staff on that and get back to you. Okay. Okay. No, I or you're Dunkirk. Okay, Laura Kurt, You're asking about the part of the Scunk Creek multi-use path that's currently in use right like. I think the part that would go through the property is there's not a path there now. I don't think

[58:05] right right, either. Yeah. One side of the other of the property is what I was thinking of. Yes, sorry. Okay, thanks. I have just a couple of questions. First, Chandler. Thanks for reminding us about affordable housing requirements for students apartments. You phrased it a little softer than what I've heard in the past. I I thought that students were not eligible for boulders affordable housing program. Is it income qualified, or does the fact that their student mean they are not eligible for boulder's affordable housing? Program? You know. I let's see. So just so. So the the information that I got a few talking points from Sloane and our housing staff in case there were questions. and she said: Generally students do not qualify for affordable rental units produced through the Ih program and housing staff does not support providing affordable units within a development AIM towards student housing. Thus they will likely pay cash and low.

[59:09] Okay, all right. Thank you. I I had thought it was a hard No, we don't do that, but it sounds like it's just. You don't generally support that, and you don't support it for this project, so it would be cash and loo for this project not on site affordable. I think. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that my second question I know that the applicant has to work with the code as it is now. and cannot speculate about changes. But we just recently saw the zoning for affordable housing proposal that Staff has been working with to to shape up, to bring back the city council. can you remind us, is BC. To one of the zones that is being looked at for changing or modifying some of the requirements I might ask Charles. You know it's a great question. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I can look while we're chatting.

[60:02] Okay, thank you. And I had one last question, but it might be better to ask staff after public comments. One of the people who, I believe, is going to have a slide presentation tonight Wanted to talk about the transportation master Plan plans for a connection for an underpass at Scott Creek and Moorhead. That seems like it's a low priority project, and that staff would not require it as a part of this development proposal. Maybe i'll ask you to come back to that after the public comment period, where the public comment or talks about their concern there and their suggestion there. But I wanted to know. My My question is going to be whether Staff would ever consider or had considered. Making it a requirement of this project. Is that something that the code would allow is that something staff would support, and if not. if it is allowed by code. But Staff Don't support it, Why is that so that that's where I'm going. I just want to find out more about what Staffs reasoning is on why that is not being required at the developer.

[61:05] Okay. But you don't need to answer that now. You can, if you're ready, or if you want to wait till after the public. I want to steal the thunder of the public commenter. But I wanted to let you know, so you could prepare an answer. Okay, i'm prepared to answer. So it really it's up to you when you would like to get into it. And, Laura, I have a follow up. So B, C, one and B C. 2 are being considered in the zoning for affordable housing code changes as they move forward. Okay. And can you remind us what that code changes that's being considered? Is it like a reduction in open space, or something like that. I'm sorry. 1,200 square feet of open space for dwelling unit and setting a floor area ratio.

[62:04] I think we're the density calculations that we're being proposed. Okay. and I and pardon me, i'm a little slow here, but the staff have a sense of how that might change this project, and what would be allowed on it if indeed, that code change goes through. Yeah, I mean. But obviously I don't. I don't think we've given it any consideration since we've been working on this application for a couple of months now, and we just recently started to synthesize what potential code changes could look like to support zoning for affordable housing. So I don't know that we've done that analysis. Okay. Thank you. I don't expect that you would have just curious. Thanks. Anything more, Laura. No, okay. Chandler. I just have 2 questions. Can you just clarify again the the projects located in a business community area subject to special restrictions. Can you sort of walk us through those special restrictions again?

[63:08] Yeah. I mean the main one in terms of like as it applies to this project is just that ground floor residential is not allowed without a user view. If if ground floor takes up more than 10% of the first floor you have to go through a user view. And the second question is the Skunk Creek high hazard zone, high functioning Wetlands reality on the ground. I actually drove by there yesterday, and obviously it's not a very attractive site at the moment. But the fact that there is a high functioning wetlands. and a huge what is apparently a a major reservoir for water. I'm. I'm curious. Who would be responsible for maintaining this open space for protecting the wetland like what? What? What's the

[64:06] the regulatory framework, I I guess, Around this amount of open space the side of the open space. It's my understanding and and the app kind of sure will will want to get more into this in their presentation. But it's my understanding that they are technically building just outside of the floodplain, so as far as we have it mapped, they. I mean they would be in charge of maintaining the open space and the property. But I do not believe they would require a wetland or floodplain development permit. because they are keeping the building outside of our mapped flood plane. So, and it's not a very attractive site at the moment. but because there's a high functioning wetland. How is that protected during development and post development? I don't know if we have Kristen Shepherd here. I don't want to speak out of school, really, but

[65:05] I know that you're not allowed to cause major disturbances. There's a there's a buffer area surrounding high functioning wetlands. So I assume we have construction requirements with fences. But I I would have to probably refer to our flood staff. Yeah, we do. We have a home set of mobilization guidelines to help, you know, prevent any damage to the Welllands during construction. Okay, Sarah, i'm sorry. I just you said, there's a high functioning wetland there currently. Which portion of the property are you referring to? Well, based on the map? So so we can get into this when you and I, when we're having a discussion right now, we're just asking questions, but according to the map, it looks like it's actually pressed up against the side of the highway access. That's what it looks like. I do not know that that's accurate. but that okay. I just wanted to clarify your question that that or statement as well. We're here. And then I do have a third environmental question, which is.

[66:07] there might the amount of auto traffic where that building is being proposed, and I don't mean the Morehead I mean the access to the freeway and the freeway itself. Are there any the air quality requirements, for they have to be that have to be tested or approved, or passed to build in an area that is so of residential building that's so close to a freeway. I just have no idea if that's something that they have to worry about. I I mean not as part of the building code like we would. We address, I think, interior air quality of the building, but I don't know that there are any required tests. They have to pass as far as like ambient air, quality, or adjacent

[67:01] auto-oriented air quality. And what about noise mitigation from all that traffic for a residential is that something that the city has a code, for. I don't think that we specifically require noise, mitigation from adjacent traffic. But our building code. you know, require such tight buildings. Anyways, that I think noise mitigation is kind of built into modern buildings. or else you brought yourself up as it Hella. So i'm thinking you have something you want it that I said something wrong. No, no, I mean we have site, review criteria that speak to you know, building design not necessarily specifically in this case to noise, attenuation. But there are some standards in there that I think, give us some latitude to have that conversation as part of the site Review. But hell, I don't know if you wanted to get more specific.

[68:03] Yeah, there there is actually a criterion that addresses, not noise mitigation between units, buildings, and from other external sources. So it is something that can be reviewed as part of the side of your process. Really appreciate that. Thank you so much does anyone else have questions for handler. Laura I don't. But I just wanted to point to page 153 in the packet for anybody who's interested in this flood mitigation easement issue. There are some comments by Kristen Shepherd who's the Flood staff experts on page 100 and Fifty- of the packet. And the staff comments. Okay, thank you very much for All right. Court Kurt. One more question on page 59 this 159, referring to 27 way.

[69:00] This staff report says bicycle safety would be improved with an alternative route to this location. because it would eliminate the need for North down motorists to cross the in order to turn east on the Baseline Road or the Us. And I'm. Wondering if staff have a particular alternative in mind. Is there. Is there some concept, or is it just sort? Was that just sort of a general statement? I think that was just the general statement i'm trying to let me, if I can find the northbound motorists on Moorhead right? Right? So it it's on page 1 59 of 198 i'm on the older version. Oh, no. i'm sorry, was that a public comment that

[70:01] No, that was I. I'm not finding the page. I'm sorry this is this is the transportation. The comments from transportation in the the land use review comments. Transportation Got it? Got it? Yeah, i'm not sure if if transportation had a specific circulation pattern in mind or a specific design. I can also follow up with Tom Bank, our transportation engineer, and and see if he has any more details on that. Okay, Thank you. It's I, me of the transportation comments. And just as a reminder, everybody that our opportunity of concept review is to identify things we are concerned about, so that Staff and the applicant will have the opportunity to try to answer those questions through the

[71:05] development process before they come back to us to site review. So the staff doesn't, our applicant doesn't have a full-fledged Answer. They do know it's a question that will reappear site Review time any last questions at this moment for Staff. All right, so now it is time for the applicant. You'll have 15 min, and then there'll be questions after, and once we're done with those questions, we're going to take a 10 min break and then go to public comment. Thank you. I would love to to share my screen, but it's disabled at the moment. There we go.

[72:29] not sharing. Can you see my screen? It's loading? Okay, I'll give a second. Thank you. Danica. Would you be comfortable letting them? Would it be easier if they just change this? Change the slide when you ask for them to? If they manage it.

[73:00] The the city doesn't staff doesn't have our presentation, so i'm not sure what's going on here. but I did back it up to Powerpoint, so let me see if I can do that. There you go. Is that it technology? Thank you. So you can see it. Okay. Good evening. I'm Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy group. We're super excited to bring this concept plan for you. We will be looking for lots of feedback from you in the community.

[74:01] This is the very beginning stages of the project. And so I wanted to just let you know that we have assembled a team. It's led by Acc. The developer check will speak to you in a second. But this is a very localized team. There are some familiar names here as the architect Jva. As a civil engineer. i'm. Helping with entitlements and community engagement and studio. Terra is the landscape architect. I'm gonna pass it off to chuck and to introduce acc or reintroduce and kick it off. Great thanks. Can you guys hear me? All right. First off. Thank you for allowing us to to be here tonight and present to you. I wanted to start with just a quick overview of our company American campus communities Acc. And just give you a little bit of color on who we are as a company.

[75:05] The approaches that we take and incorporate into developments such as the one we're we're discussing here this evening. First off we are long term owners of of the properties that we develop. We've actually been in the boulder community since the early 2,000. We developed the University village of Boulder Creek, up on Taft, Drive back in 2,002 and more. Recently we developed the You Club on 20 eighth property, which delivered in 2,016 to date. We still own both of these properties, and we manage both properties as well as far as our management approach and philosophy. We manage 100 of the properties we own there's no third party management. There's no absentee landlord situation. We've got full time. Staff, book management, and maintenance community assistance residents that live with us and and work part time, and we have one of our staff members on call 24 7

[76:07] lease agreement. We require our residents to to execute a very, a very strange, at least as a very strict code of conduct for both them and their guests. We designed these communities with an academic focus in mind. The centerpiece of most of our properties is what we call our academic success centers, which is a large portion of the community space that's houses, study rooms, individual group study rooms, printers, printing, station basically everything that we need to help our our student residents, you know, further enhance their educational experience when they're in school. And then, finally, you know, one of the other attributes for our communities that that we've been implementing the last 10 years or so is our residents live programs so similar to what you would see on campus. This is the programs that allows our staff to educate our residents about, you know events and services that are not only provided at the property but on campus and in the community.

[77:09] Strong focus of our residents life program is on mental health, well being of our of our residents. And and this is also the program that spearheads our philanthropic initiatives, which allow you to allow our our residents to get back in the community. So, anyway, I just wanted to take a quick second and educate you all, or give you a little information on who we are like. I said. I worked personally on the You Club at 20 eighth project. We started that process, I think, back in 2,012 well delivered in 2,016. We bought this property that we're discussing tonight right before Covid hit, so we've had it for about 5 or 6 years. One thing I would like to communicate to everyone. Here we are, super excited about this project. We think it it would be really great. We did our homework when we bought this property, and we went and looked at the previous ownership group

[78:10] That was not us that had proposed a project on this site called Baseline 0, which is a mixed use office hotel. And anyway, we we really studied those case files to look at what the neighborhood feedback was to that project. So that when you know we we're coming forward and and coming up with concepts for what's before you tonight, we act. We actually took that. You know that feedback from that previous project, and tried to implement a lot of that into what what we have here tonight. Also, you know, I think we'll get into this in a minute. But we we did have a meeting with some of our neighbors, I guess, about 3 months ago, early December, and got some feedback from from that group, that stakeholder group. But we look forward to continuing dialogue with you all with council, with our neighbors, and really making this a great project. So i'm going to give it back over to Danica and

[79:09] available for any questions. Thanks, Chuck. So just from a number standpoint we've talked about this 3 acres total. It's one building on the west side of the site 84 housing units. 70% open space 158 indoor bite long term bike parking, and a 168 parking spaces, which is about a 25% parking reduction. So I do believe we're within the administrative parking reduction threshold. But again we're a concept plan, and we would love to hear your feedback on the parking standards. So I think one of the important things that we wanted to share is that the community engagement is very important to us. So before we began this process we wanted to have a productive conversation with the neighbors and other stakeholders, including business owners and current tenants

[80:11] around what the broader needs are. So we did hold a community meeting. We? No. The hand delivered 3 over 300 flyers to properties within 600 feet of the subject property. We tried to exceed some of the city's minimum, noticing requirements by actually hand, delivering and expanding that circumference, inviting people to an open house at you Club on 20 eighth, which is the other property nearby. and to talk in that space. It was the winter time, and then tour you Club, so we could show the neighbors what this type of housing student housing could look like. We had 6 neighbors in attendance, and then we walked over to the current site on the multi-use path system, and then finished up our conversation

[81:04] at the project site. We were also invited to a Mana neighborhood meeting on April third, and so the neighbors had prepared questions and comments around several, many issues. These were some of the summaries student housing impact on neighborhood. the concern around neighborhood, serving, retail and maintaining that in the community concerns around parking and traffic and building design and open space. We also have done one on one community engagement as people reach out to us, or would like to meet with us lots of coffees and chats, and we are committed to continuing that so a a larger summary of the comments that we received to parking overflow parking, really understanding how what the data is around. The other student housing projects in the neighborhood, as well as

[82:02] some of the older student housing projects and really fine tuning. What the right parking count is to not impact the neighborhood. while also implementing Tdm strategies to reduce, car usage and encourage, You know, reliance on non single occupancy vehicles. There's also questions about programming and retail. What type of retail would work on this site? The neighborhood had collected. They had done a survey a few years ago that talked about what type of retail they'd like to see. So we're taking that into account as well as we'll be looking at a market study to understand what type of retail could thrive. Neighborhood serving retail could thrive on the site. There's concern over existing businesses, and how those businesses could stay, relocate, continue on the site affordable housing. So we did hear about. You know the how could this contribute to the city's affordable housing and particular student housing.

[83:05] I think we touched on a little bit before, but the city's affordable housing program does not qualify students. It doesn't serve students as a and I I. If somebody's from housing division is here, they can talk about that more, but certainly will be contributing to the city's inclusionary housing fund through that cash and the payment and traffic. This is probably one of the biggest concerns cut through traffic traffic to the neighborhood back up into the intersection of more head. We have really tried to conceptually organize our sites, to minimize traffic impacts with the use and access points, and we can get into more details in the site plan. So in terms of future engagement, we do commit this isn't the beginning or end of the community engagement. We would like to continue to engage one of the key areas that we would like. That we have not designed on purpose is the the neighborhood park and open space south of Skunk Creek.

[84:05] We would like to have a design workshop with a neighborhood. We've discussed that, and probably would do that in the next couple of months to really understand what type of programming would be best. Here is it more riparian protection, open space, more active uses, a mix of passive and active pollinator uses. And so we really want to design and co-create that in a neighborhood park with the neighbors. and we wanted to ask you tonight. If you had other ideas for engagement after you listen to the public testimony, and we would take any we love to co-create our engagement with the community, and with the decision makers, so that we can best serve each project. So we'd love to hear from you what that might look like through this all we have really looked for shared values through listening to the project before us, engaging with this community, talking to our design team. And so we know that there's a

[85:04] There's that the use of the site matters, the traffic matters that the neighborhood matters, and we know there's a shortage of housing, and especially student housing. So we're trying to find these shared values that would allow us to move forward, together with the city and the neighborhood. And some of these are neighborhood compatibility is very important. increasing the stock of housing, increasing safety and low traffic speeds, parking and multimodal connections and meeting visions, 0 goals. Danica, if I can just remind you. You have 3 min left of your 15 min. Oh, boy, I started the timer. You too sorry. Oh, I had. I had 5 min left. I'm: Sorry. Okay. I'll pass it off to. We'll make it 5 min. But okay, thank you. Sorry I did start a timer. My name is Eduardo Ilanis I'm. The principal architect with us architecture that has been working on this very important site for all of us. In hold it.

[86:02] I said, that all of us have been in Boulder since 1979, and when you look at a at the site from birth I you from 30,000 feet. You you realize the importance of the side and the context of all the users that are mixing a community as a gateway first, and eventually as a urban edge to all of us, with all the uses and a great neighborhood to the to the East. Next slide, please. What I want to address more than anything is for you to understand the process that we have, as it relates to understanding things diagrammatically. So, for instance, we evaluated first the site in the context of what we could build both sides. But then. as we consider what and how we could become a buffer to a neighborhood. it's been this up to the war we decided to move. Shift that entire mass on the east side, all to the west.

[87:00] such that if you give me next slide. You see that now we are more interest in creating that urban edge on baseline which is so heavy article or traffic and also 27 way that faces, base line, shopping center. The idea there is that it's concrete because the divider for us to create a nervous space community space landscape area. And yet At the same time we take care of the areas that have issues with wetlands on issues and so forth. Next slide, please. Now, when you look at what's existing. Chandler was very specific about showing you all the buildings that are here a little bit tired of their lifespan has ended. But when you start seeing the conflicts that we have with vehicles, possessions, and bikes at so many locations, we have a very living kerk that some of them streaming wide.

[88:01] And yet when you look at the ability for us to connect with sidewalks and bike pads, and so forth. we're looking at that, and same with Go to the next slide. Well, let's understand how we could best utilize the land such that we have the buffer on the east side with open space. Focus the building on the west side. We create all these open spaces, but we only have 2 curb cuts, and actually not 2, because there's only one of access and more head that brings us to an internal garage. We have another one on on the service drive, which is the front and road that's only for service. And yet it's allowing the bicycles the coming from campus to park right into the building But what's more important here that we do believe that the corner Baseline and 27. I'm 20 seventh way becomes that active storefront that that poorest and transparent.

[89:02] the sad that I to articulate that that space as it turns the corner next slide. Sorry I'm going to be fast. It probably could come back to me when when you look at that in the context of the building that hits the ground. We left the East Side to be connection for multi- the parks, and then the buildings as it relates to the main streets with the heavy traffic become a very poorest in in blue. One red is is at the lobby that many of the space of the red, the little bit of red is the retail, but the key is that that's the saddle on 20 seventh. Why is very poor central span. Now, when we come to more help you, thinking that of course, we have the access to the parking garage with 1. One of us is only. But then we have units on the ground level that have porches that are activating the pedestrian nature of the neighborhood To the east

[90:03] next slide, please. When you then look at how the land could be improved in terms of a landscape area we're looking at in different levels of intensity as it relates to so c. To all the paths that we have coming in and out. And how do we create a very safe and usable green space to the neighborhood in such a way that we could maintain water quality and all the wetlands that are located right on the top left of concrete. where where we ride water, quality, feature. and destroy you also, seeing that there's a the frontage rule becomes just a drop of area to the building where the main ent to the building will be on that northwest side facing. Well, what's more important is when we start thinking about how we really not designed the building just yet.

[91:05] but articulate the key principles that are going to allow us to all with your input, understand how the building will relate to the neighborhood, to the urban fabric if you will, and and on 20 seventh way from Baseline to Morehead, it is apparent and clear to all of us that we need to make sure that the pedestrian is celebrated with that great porous facade that you see on that light time color they're building up above has not been designed just yet. We're looking at where we play, interest, for instance, those arrows in green that show the main entry to the building, if you will. on Baseline 27 way and the same thing where we're looking now at the corner of a more head on 27 what we're saying Well, this press that height, that we said. We go to 4 stories along baseline and 20 seventh way. But then we push the building down

[92:02] when we get to that entry portal to Martin Acres. and then we're playing with not only materiality, but also elements of the building that allow us to break the mass to layer the building both vertically and horizontally, in such a way that the pedestrian is celebrated. The scale is working down the material so such that they're tackable. They are small in scale and so forth. And then this last image that you seen from the southeast. It kind of relates to the mass on the corner, if you will, where the Arrow is. 2 stories related to baseline or pay smart. I'm: Sorry it's okay. More. And on the other side, on the bottom of the page, you've seen that it will bring in the to the height of the building down, so it relates to the department top up, and then at the end, we have this long part that brings the scale of the whole

[93:01] frozen down. Vatican. Yeah, you're You're muted, You're muted you. You muted. Sorry I didn't mean to stop sharing or rush you. But we were out of time, so i'm trying to. But we have we. I think you can see some of the slides we have, so we're happy to come back to those in questions. Thank you very much. All right, Board members. Do you have questions for the applicant. Laura? And then Kurt. I can go first. Okay. Thank you very much for the presentation. So much information. There, really good to see your vision. First question. I want to try to be quick for the sake of time. The amenity space that you talked about is that private amenity space, or is it in some way open to the public? So a lot of the amenity space is for the student housing. There's a lot of this academic center, and you know, work out space. But there is, I think, about 1,700 square feet of retail space.

[94:11] That would be pure retail neighborhood serving retail. And I, I don't know, to check if some of that amenity space would be available for public use or community meetings. Or Typically, it would not be just for security concerns of protecting the you know. 18 to 23 year old student residents. But yeah, like Danica, said the the retail on the corner of of 27 and and more ahead there is is where we are now, you know. We heard chamber and and trousers feedback on the staff report, and we are absolutely open to exploring, increasing the size of that retail space. We just.

[95:00] we want to make sure that it's. It's retail space that that we can. We can put people in that we can find businesses that will utilize, because there's just quite candidly there's there's quite a bit of vacant retail out there right now, and the last thing that we would want to do is have this really beautiful building that has. They can retail in the ground floor of it. It. It would just be kind of a black eye on the entire street front, and really not accomplish what you know what we would like to do, in which I i'm. Assuming that you all want to do as well, which is activate that street from. Okay, that that thank you. That leads into what was going to be. My next question is, why did you not choose to do more ground floor retail, knowing what the purpose and description of a B C to zone is that the ground floor should be predominantly retail. So anything else that you want to say about why you made that decision. I mean it's pretty clear that you feel that there's a risk that it could go vacant.

[96:07] Vehicle Access is is not great. When we were looking at this, it was kind of. During the midst of Covid retail occupancies were were way down. We were looking at the staff report and the community feedback that the baseline 0 project received, and a lot of that was revolving around traffic. and which that project with the hotel in the office use generates a lot of traffic. obviously retail generates a lot of traffic as well. So there was a lot of reasons that you know we elected to to minimize the amount of retail. But, like I said, this is this is the first step in the process. Our intent is to fully engage with local retail professionals. That's not our field of expertise. but to engage with local retail experts to tell us what is the optimal amount of retail that can be successful on this site, not only for us, but for the neighborhood as well.

[97:03] Okay, Thank you. I did want to ask you about your parking spaces. You had mentioned in your materials that you have leases in place in your other buildings in which students living there commit to not having a car. If they don't re rent a designated parking space, and that you have systems in place to enforce that. Can you talk a little bit more about what those lease agreements are and how you enforce them. Yeah, it. Well. I I watched the earlier case that was before you all, and I think they kind of talked about it, and it's pretty common and typical for the rental market specifically around to you. We're in the. If you bring a vehicle to the property you have to register with the property you you do pay a separate fee to park at the property. We typically like the other gentlemen, said, we don't designate spaces, but if we have a 160 spaces.

[98:04] then we only have a we only sell 160 vehicle parking departments. And so typically, if if they want to bring a vehicle, what'll end up happening if they do, they'll go to another property that has parking available. It won't it won't least with us, so it's it's it's paramount for us as an operator to make sure that we dial in the number of parking spaces that is is warranted and in in kind of market driven. And just to further. I think, through the Site Review Process, one of the and the Tdm process there. The lease agreement that says that they cannot bring a vehicle if they Haven't purchased a space on site is something that gets produced later on in the process as well as the Tdm strategies to provide alternative transportation funds. So

[99:00] you know, really try managing that. So those cars are not going into the neighborhood, which I know is a a huge concern for this community. Yes, thank you. And that is why i'm asking the questions, not just for our our information, but also for community members that may have concerns about that. You know they should hear what your answers are on that. So what are those Enforcement mechanisms like? How do you know if somebody brought a car? But doesn't have a parking space? And what would you do about it if you found out that that had happened? Yeah. The so the cars, though we'll either have a hang, tag, or a parking sticker that goes on there like at you Club. We have a high speed roll up gate to be able to get into that that parking garage if we and we have staff that's on call 24 h a day, and and sometimes we'll even have third party security guards that will patrol in the evenings and stuff, and we'll just have the staff the staff goes through, and if they see a a vehicle that is in the garage, we will have a toad.

[100:02] Okay. But what about someone who's parking in the neighborhood? They've decided not to buy a parking sticker, and they're just gonna park in front of somebody's house. Do you have any way to know that that's happening? And if somebody was doing that. what would be the consequence? You know, knowing where people are parking when they're not at the property. Okay. thank you. But I do think I just to add, I think that's something that we would like to explore with staff insight, Review to understand what you know, how that can get regulated through a a current site review application, whereas you know some of the older student housing projects are just neighborhood parking plans. Don't have those types of current development reviews with development agreements that do have specific more teeth than we have had in the past with some of the older projects.

[101:01] Okay, thank you. Chuck and Danica. I can you tell me how the retail parking is handling or guest parking. You have a certain number of spaces in your garage, I'm. Assuming you will sell some number of those spaces, but not all. What what do you do about retail and guest parking? Yeah, that's that would be all something we'd have to figure out, based on the square footage of retail. We end up with in the project. in in other projects that we've done, we we we're just honestly not that far along in this particular one, but in other projects that we've done. Where we have garages, you'll typically just set the garage the high speed gate into the actual garage itself, so that you'll have kind of redo retail designated spaces before you get to the gated entry, and then the gated entry is kind of what the marks where the resonance can enter, and the resident parking would be located. So that's typically how we handle that.

[102:00] Thank you real quick. Have you considered having any kind of onsite bike share program like having b cycle have a station there, or I don't know if scooters are allowed in this part of town at this current time, but like an electric scooter, share some some tangible way for people to get around town. That doesn't involve having a car. We're open to. All of that. Esg is a is a big initiative for us as a company, so you know, to the extent we can promote. Bike pedestrian, friendly alternatives to vehicles. We're absolutely on board for that. So again, that is something that we'd like to further explore as we as we move forward and and see what we could come up with to to really make this a special project. Thank you. I do have 2 more questions that relate to community engagement. Sarah, would you like me to hold on those and pass for the time. I will do that. Thank you. Kurt and Mark than Ml.

[103:03] Okay. First, I want to follow up on 2 questions that I ask Staff. One was about the frontage road, the seat up front and drove. Have you been in discussion with C. Dot? And if they were to vacate that, how would that affect the your plan for your project? So I I think we have not. We don't know if they would vacated or not. I think we'd be very interested in talking to them once we get into the design phase Right now, we're using that access road as a service delivery uber lyft drop off, as well as the bike to bike entrance, so the bikes have a entrance into the garage. It's closest to the University. and different than the auto entrance into the garage. We just again haven't gotten that far down the road we have heard, I think, from our civil Engineer Cody's here. He might build a answer that there there might not be. We're we're just not sure but that would be something we would explore. Cody, do you have?

[104:03] I? I think we haven't reached out to them. Kurt. I think we've heard through city staff that they have a desire to do that. But I I would be surprised to see see that want to give away their property to this development or the city. So I think we should figure that out and talk to c.in the city and have that conversation for sure. Great? Okay. Thank you. And then my second question that I asked of Staff was about the setbacks and the sidewalks that appear to be in the setbacks. Can you explain what's going on there? Yeah, I can jump on that one real quick. So so on this one Kurt. What we're actually doing is we're providing additional improvements that are outside of the city right of way to comply with the city required 8 foot tree lawn, and the sidewalk requirement required with.

[105:02] And so by doing that we're going to be dedicating access thesements behind those proposed improvements. So the the actual setbacks, and Chandler and Charles correct me if i'm getting this wrong. But the setbacks are actually measured from the property lines and not from the public access seasons. So we're measuring our setbacks from those property lines that are in board of where that sidewalk is. So that's why you're seeing those measurements measured from across the sidewalks. so the sidewalks will, in perpetuity be on your property. not in the right of way. but under an access. Okay. Okay. okay. Next question is the parking garage evidence off of more hit is shown as 2 stories.

[106:00] It's a very large entry. Is that just for some design choice, or is that necessary? I'm wondering why it's so large. It's mostly a self-designed element to break the mass of the building. Not not that you will see the garage, but the opening is going to allow a bigger volume of space. Okay. okay, I think that's all for now. Thank you. All right, Mark. And then Ml. And his Danica to. So you know, we're seeing your screen share that they're gone. Okay. Alright, I was trying to share the site plan again. But there's a huge delay that I I don't know what you just saw. So a a a a dark, dark spot. Yeah, there's a delay on my end. I'm sorry I was trying to pull up the image. We appreciate that mark. And then Ml.

[107:02] Of course I want to thank my other planning board members for asking so many of my questions, and I don't feel so longly focusing on parking and transportation. So this is great. I I have a just a couple little ones I following onto that. Do you have? And I know this is concept review. It's funny. So a concept review. We come with a a very specific request for parking reduction, but we don't require very specific plans for Tdm. etc., and you've answered many of those already do you plan on the long-term? Secure bike parking? Will that be electrified? And so that people can charge their emails? Sorry I was gonna have mute for you again, you know, like Laura's question earlier.

[108:01] Everything's on the table at this point. I mean, we we really pride ourselves on being cutting edge when it comes to promoting pedestrian bike. you know activity in and around the site. To be candid with you, these are the type of properties. These are pretty much the only type of properties that we look to develop student housing on the ones that are truly pedestrian to campus. Because I mean, you guys, you've all probably heard the story before. This is car storage as a Co. Opposed to car parking. The residents are going to come. The ones that bring a vehicle. We're going to park their car there, and they're gonna bike to class You've got so much retail right there in in front of Williams village down the baseline. You know. Everything they need is is kind of right there in their own backyard. So again we're we're all ears, you know. We. I came into this, and and view this as a learning kind of session, a brainstorming session, if you will for you all to tell us what we need to go explore and let us go chase some of the stuff down and and come back to you with something with site Review.

[109:11] So i'm gonna say comments in that regard to later, and i'm gonna continue with questions. And again, the question is. Do you have plans for car charging electrification or at a minimum pre wiring, etc., for car charging electrification. I understand your comment in regard to storage. But my comments, my question Still, Sands, do you do you have? Are you going to have car charging facilities? Yeah, I I I can tell you, on on some of our recent projects across the country, even the ones that we are not putting car charging stations in. We are making sure that the the the wiring, the conduit, and it is an availability, is there, so that we're not going back a year from now, and having to group out concrete to to put those charging stations in, because obviously that is.

[110:05] that is where the automotive industry is going. And a more tactical answer mark is, the code does require it. There's a certain percentage that is required. And so I think if you are looking, you know, for more feedback on that, we like to hear it. But the code does require both electrification and wiring, for I think almost all this basis. Now I I think it's up to 40. Has to be ev ready. Is the new code requirement? Chandler and Charles, correct me if i'm wrong. But that's what I believe the new code is I'll I'll save my comments again until the comment time. So next question the the amount of green space that you have shown us in this concept plan.

[111:03] I think, is commendable, and I like it, and I like the way up. So here i'm drifting in the comments. What I'm going to ask is. should the should the city change its code as you as you progress in the development of this project. would you? I'm not asking for a signed agreement. But are you committed to roughly the amount of green space and its location. as as you've shown us tonight. regardless of whether the city changes their green space requirements in in this particular zone. The honest I just I don't know enough about what the new code is to even answer the I mean. If the new code says that it's something completely vastly different, and we could come back with a project that is is better for all of us. you know i'd love to explore that, so I guess the short answer is, I just I don't know enough about it.

[112:12] and and I do think the code is aimed at onsite affordability to for open space reduction. So with with that not being a component of our project a. I don't think we would change. We would even be able to change. I I i'm trying to follow those I watch that hearing. But I think all the zoning changes are for affordable housing. And Charles, if i'm wrong. But so, because we're not proposing affordable housing, we wouldn't even be able to utilize those changes. So I think you know the commitment would. This was a very intentional commitment to move the density off of that southern parcel and or that Eastern parcel, I get really confused with directions. This is like a weird like

[113:01] spot. So I think that would. That that's a concept that we're proposing is to not to have a a large buffer on that area. Hello, Charles, You both up here. So I if you want to say something. Yeah, I I don't. I wanted to chime in and say, I think the code changes that are being considered are not limited to affordable housing that's being provided on site, I think what's being proposed is a switch from a minimum land area per lot or dwelling unit, or or open space for all you requirements to more of for a ratio type regulation of what kind of currently zoning districts. however, on that set pretty early in the process, and it is yet to be seen what will be brought forward, and it will be a okay. Last thing is.

[114:03] I think I heard that you're planning on doing a retail market study. a market study for retail space as you progress, because I I would imagine that your since you're asking for less than 10% ground for retail currently in this concept plan that that would probably. anyway. Are you going to do a retail market study. and likely you would stay below that 10% number for ground floor retail. Is that right? We we we view retail as an amenity to the overall project. If it is in a location that could be successful. Like I said earlier, we've seen projects that we've actually acquired. We didn't develop that had a ground floor component that say they it, for I think it was 3 years before we had to come in and try to re purpose it. So

[115:03] our intent is to do the retail study to find out. You know how that can be incorporated, designed to be successful. Okay, Great. That's that concludes my questions. Thank you. Okay, Ml. Thank you, Sarah. I just have one question. I'm just curious about the square footage of the building. So what percent of the building square footage is? Amenity versus not open space, but the amenity spaces versus housing itself. It's about 6%. Thank you. All right. Any last questions. Kurt. I have a follow up question for Staff would now be an appropriate time to desk that

[116:05] sure. Okay. So the question again is about the the Fedex and the difference between dedicating the the right of way and using a public access easement. Yeah, Are you comfortable? Well, I guess. Is there any functional difference between those 2? And are you comfortable with the public access as the as has been proposed. There's not really a functional difference between the 2. I think we probably are comfortable with an access easement. It's also, you know, worth noting, that they they can ask for setback modifications and a lot of our site. Review criteria actually kind of encourage reduced setbacks to create more of a defined street edge and urban environment. So in terms of where they, whether they're measured from back of sidewalk or front of sidewalk.

[117:06] I think either way we're fine with public access easement, and we'll really just be looking at the overall site layout, and whether we feel like it meets the site. Review criteria versus whether they're meeting the exact setbacks of BC. 2. Sorry. Go ahead. Hello. Yeah. In terms of dedication of excess easem or right of way. What the transportation engine looks at is the cross section that's in the Dcs. And there's a requirement to dedicate the right of way up to that cross-section. Sometimes, especially in the site, reviews. Additional transportation improvements are required, and the city has about those if they go beyond the cross section with, and the Dcs. Has allowed those to be within a public access for transportation purposes that access easement can fulfill the needs

[118:03] that exist. Okay, and in terms of long term maintenance and right, and so on. They're They're basically the same. They work this name. Yeah, I. The code sets it up typically these additional areas that might be, and it is typically the sidewalk area or sidewalk area and a green strip between the sidewalk and the roadway. And the code actually requires those areas to be maintained by the adjacent proper unit. Thank you. Ml: You still have your hand up. Do you have another question? No, okay, all right. I want to thank the applicant very much for this very interesting presentation. We're gonna take a 10 min break when we come back we'll do public participation. But before anyone goes there goes away.

[119:04] If everyone in the public who plans to speak would please raise your hand now. So we at know actually how many people want to speak. Thank you again, Devin, who did earlier, and the folks to clarify whether they were here or not, you know. being a little aggressive about figuring out what our numbers are. But I didn't want people to feel short changed. V. And I. What are you seeing? 13, 12 plus, but we know one is now 14. Okay. we're up to 15. Okay, let's give it to 20 more seconds. I think, with 15 you can decide if you want to reduce the time or not. that there actually 33 people in attendance, i'm gonna guess that some of those folks are just not yet raising their hands either because they can't find the hands. So let's go to 2 min for everyone. I realize that. Yes, mark what is it?

[120:05] It is that I think I would like to get a sense from the board. This is the big. This is a big concept review. It's important to a lot of people in the neighbors neighborhood, and I would urge us to extend the 3 min to 15 people, I i'm. Showing 14 attendees with their hands raised now, and I would encourage you to actually be 14, though, Mark, because we got a lot of folks about hands up. Yeah, we actually have as you. If you read page 2 of every packet, we actually have some regulations or rules of engagement, which are, if we have 15 or more, we can make a decision to go to 2 min. 15 people. That'd be 30 min. I I do understand that this is a a hearing of the great interest, and we want as many people as possible. If we want to speak, to speak.

[121:05] it is also a concept review, and and so. unless unless a majority of people on the board think we should do. Continue with the 3 min. We have given everyone ample notice, starting at 60'clock this this evening that we might go to 2 min. So is there anyone in addition to Mark, who thinks we should stick with the 3 min. or is uncomfortable with us? Going to the 2 min. Let me put it that way. Okay. Then I'm going to make an executive decision and we'll go to 2 min each and and we will take a 10 min break. We'll be back here at 8 11, and we will start with public input. Thank you all very much.

[132:35] Hey? Let's see. 1 2 3 4 5 mark. Are you there? Yeah, okay. All right. We are all back. We're going to go to public comments. Vivian will manage public comments. Everybody has 2 min, and for the 2 people who have

[133:00] slides I believe Amanda will be in charge of turning those slides over as requested. Yeah, and maybe just for everyone's knowledge here. If you do want to show slides in the future, you need to submit them 24 h in advance. Good. So i'll just go through the line if that's okay, Sarah Perfect. Thank you so much. Yeah. And just ask people to please watch the timer and I will let you finish your sentence. But then we'll need to move on to the next person. So first we have Lisa Harris. followed by Jan Trestle. So, Lisa, please go ahead and the timer's starting. Thank you. Please consider what the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan says about compatible development. It says in Section 2.1 preservation and support for residential neighborhoods that the city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood, character and livability, and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock, the city will seek appropriate building, scale, and compatible character in new development or redevelopment, appropriately size, etc.

[134:07] As proposed. 2,700 baseline is not compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. It proposes to remove practically all of the retail square footage on the site that is well used by neighborhood residents. This is one story, high retail that is highly compatible with our predominantly one story homes, typical Martin makers houses, including ones that will be right next to this development are one story, 13 feet high, 1,000 square foot ranch homes, 2,700 baseline represents an abrupt rise to 4 stories, 55 feet in height. At the very least the development should be reduced to 3 stories. It will undermine rather than preserve the character of our neighborhood. We are a modest blue collar neighborhood. Having this towering development of self described, boutique housing clashes not only visually, but also with our neighborhoods overall identity. There is nothing Boutique about Martin Acres, and as one of Boulder's most diverse and relatively affordable neighborhoods, we say that with pride i'd also like to point out that this is not a baseline road development. 100% of its access is going to be from our neighborhood street of Moorhead. So we should be clear. This is a development inside of our neighborhood, not on baseline.

[135:09] What we do want and feel would be compatible is adding rather than losing more, develop more neighborhood, serving retail and services. That's what the site's zoning dictates Retail doesn't require 4 stories, and 55 feet of height. So right away it's more compatible with our mostly one-story neighborhood. We want to reduce vehicle trips and C. O. 2 emissions at the very least a much larger percentage of the site should be developed as retailer services that the neighborhood can use, and again preserve livability. Thank you so much. Thank you, Lisa. Next we have Jan Trestle, followed by Rosemary. Heger t please go ahead, Jen. Can you hear me? Hello! Yes, please go ahead. We can hear you. Good evening. My name is Jan Trussell now almost the most recent proposal. 2,700 baseline is different and purpose. It shows almost all the same aspects of height. Mass traffic issues spill over parking and removal of nearly all retail, as the previous proposal of Baseline 0 did.

[136:15] we felt it would be helpful to remind Planning Board what the survey told us. This is our survey methodology. In 2,014 we commissioned a neutrally worded survey that sought neighborhood views on the 2,700 baseline site, then called Baseline 0, good, bad, or in different 2. We distributed door to door to all 1,350 homes in our neighborhood. Here the responses we receive back traffic. 94% responded. So they were concerned about traffic, 80% very concerned, 12% significantly concerned, and 2% medium concerned. Height. mit Ctl and 93% of respondents, said the proposed buildings are too high, please note the proposed 2,700 baseline buildings are the same 55 maximum height as a 2,014 baseline 0 buildings, 3. The scale fit the neighborhood. 79% of respondents said, not at all. 12 cents somewhat doesn't fit, and 6% were neutral with 2%, saying, it fits very well. Zoning and land use 81% preferred neighborhood serving retail

[137:14] parking 96% were concerned that parking will overflow into the neighborhood. Now, as you're evaluating this new proposal, please take vote of the overwhelming landslide nature of these concerned in the 79 to 92 4% range. And please realize that this new proposal shares the same height, the same near total loss of retail traffic issues and spill over parking issues as a 2,014 baseline 0 proposal and note neighbors weren't against developing the site. But 81% had, and still have, the completely reasonable expectation that the site would be developed in the spirit of its zoning neighborhood, serving retail and services. I'm done. Thank you, Jan.

[138:00] Thank you, Jen. Next up we have Rosemary Hickarty, followed by Ron de deput. Please go ahead, Rosemary Rosemary. Are you there? Yeah, sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can correct. Why is this project even being considered in this zoning? This project has been described as boutique cu student housing by the developers representative. There is no community benefit. Neighborhood retail is being removed. We need more retail on this site, not less. The only reason retail would not move in is, if the property owners may cost it, Renting retail too high. Boulder Comp plan, says walkable neighborhoods is a goal. Removing Retail is not making this a walkable neighborhood. The open space on the property has no guarantee to be open to the public. The property has been owned by

[139:02] this property owner. For 5 to 6 years it's been allowed to go into disrepair. The current retail has not been supported. Weeds are constantly overgrown. Illegal camping is moved in. This is not a good indicator that this property owner has any, and intention of being a good neighbor to the Martin Acre neighborhood. What happens to the bike and but pedestrian access to the underpass off that frontage road. With this proposed property. If this property absolutely had be changed to housing, it should have a significantly greater percentage of retail, and the housing should be for boulder workers and seniors and not boutique cu student housing. This is a massive building, the increased height request, the decreased parking, significant loss of retail traffic issues, flood issues. and and if the developer really thinks the students are only going to park their cars and not drive them, or that students will not choose to bring cars and park them in the neighborhood. They do not have a good

[140:06] connection with the students that go to see you. Please do not allow this project to go through, as is Boulder really needs to stop. Thank you. Okay. Next we have round the few, followed by Paula Mosley. Let me just get the timer going. Okay, Ron, please go ahead. They finally got the button here. I would like to address some inaccuracies and compuls planes on the 2,700 baseline proposal in the developers trip generation document the current retail square footage population admits the 1,231 square foot convenient, smart at the boulder gas state. It only lists the 8 gas pump islands, and we wonder if it was intentionally emitted to support another fast plane that the current site results in no trip reductions Developer falsely claims that the current site creates no trip reductions because they're all auto-related businesses. This is there's a liquor store and there's a food store there nearby. Residents frequently walk or bike to baseline liquor and boulder gas convenience Mark.

[141:14] claiming that every visit to the current site involves a vehicles false. The hundreds of residents of the Union apartments on the opposite side of Morehead, the Creekside apartments across 27 way. Don't get in their cars and drive a block over to go to Baseline liquor in order. They drive to the Bulgar Gas convenient store for a put grocery or somebody need do it for hundreds of residents of northeast Martin makers who can easily walk to these stores, and having Nick's auto repair in the neighborhood, allows residents to walk to and from next next to drop off or pick up the vehicle planning board should soundly. I'm sorry roundly reject the developers demonstrably. False claim that no trip reductions currently serve developer falsely Claims that there are 42 restaurants, bars, and coffee shops. In Martin Acres martin acres is bordered by Broadway table mesa us 36 and 20 seventh way.

[142:01] In point of fact, there are absolutely 0 such establishments in Martin acres. If residents of Northeast Martin makers wish to walk out of the neighborhood within 5 min, they can reach a small number of establishments, mostly being fast food outlets. We have very few. Sit down restaurants in yours, and only one bar nearby. The dark force, the poly and neighborhood bars is stretch. My big concern here is if the plan removes all walk of the retail from this area, and that's what we need not motif housing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hold on, let me scroll up to the top here. So next up we have Paula Mosley, followed by Dorothy Cohen. Paula, please go ahead. You have 2 min. Hi! My name is Paula. I live in Martin Acres lived there since 1989.

[143:04] I want to address the neighborhood retail businesses going to the top Plan Section 5.0, 4 vital and productive retail base. The city recognizes the importance of its retail base and maintaining affordable retail space. The city will develop and implement a retail strategy that takes into account shopping needs of the community and ensures a appropriate mix of retail and identifies opportunities to approve the retail base and the city's sales Tax Section 5.0 5 support our local business and business retention. I'm going to say that again. Section 5.0. 5 support our local business and business retention. This project scrapes off every existing business. They are the has been there, many of them for decades, and there are. They are a vital part of our neighborhood. The comp plan also states under

[144:02] neighborhood centers, guiding principles in everyday needs of neighboring communities include a mix to meet everyday needs. Well getting gaps. I don't get gas every day, but when I do I go to that gas station. I don't get liquor every day. When I do, I walk to that liquor store, or I stop on my way in or out of the neighborhood Nick's auto repair Been going there for over 30 years. It's the only auto-repair place within a reasonable walking distance. I no longer have a second driver in my home. My husband passed a few years ago. and the idea of taking my car somewhere remote, and having to Uber to get home, or whatever it's a hardship from. Please consider creating, going back to the drawing board and making this

[145:00] a concept that includes keeping our existing retail. Make it a smaller apartment complex. Thank you, Paula. Thank you so much. Next up we have Dorothy Cohen, followed by Scott Jackson. Please go ahead, Dorothy. My name is Dorothy Cohen and I live on Elm Avenue, which is in a stone throw of the building spill over parking. The developer seeks to provide 25% less parking than required. The northeast corner of Martin Acres is already subject to chronic overflow parking from Cu Students Faculty staff. See you football games in the fall and from the Union apartments, which also reduce their parking. It's already impossible for guests to to park in front of their own homes. Residents on my street regularly have cars that parks straight across their driveway, creating dilemma. And I've called the police. I don't know how many times

[146:04] we urge you to consider the following exceptions from the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Section 2.1 3 protecting the residential neighborhoods adjacent to non-residential zones. The city and county will take a take appropriate action to ensure that the character and livability of established resonance neighborhoods will not be under undermined by spill. spill over impact from adjacent regional or community business zones. Section 2.3, 3 sensitive. infilt and redevelopment. The city will gear sub-community and area of planning and other efforts towards defining the acceptable amount of infilt and development and standards, and perform measures for design quality. To avoid adequate mitigation, negative impacts and enhance the benefits of infilt and redevelopment to the community and individual neighborhoods. I took my car to to Nix today

[147:04] and didn't have to worry about. you know. I just walked over there and picked it up and dropped it off. And that's a convenience for me. Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. Next we have Scott Jackson. followed by Mark Stangle. Scott, please go ahead. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. I'm: a maker's resident as well as many of the other speakers. I don't have Polish plan written remarks. I just want to throw some support towards the careful planning process that it appears has already been going on between the board and the applicant. This is the first planning board meeting I've ever attended, and it's kind of enlightening, and it's good to see kind of the careful thoughts going in. I hope more of that continues as it goes on to the side review phase. especially on the part of the applicant.

[148:04] I think, as as a neighborhood. I'm glad to hear that the applicant is open to working with us on the retail issue, and one thing I would suggest is consider offering the retail space, the low market rate in boulder. I think a lot of the reasons why we see vacancies because of the It's high rent, and any any real study will probably show up a a good, a high risk because of the market rates that I would encourage to develop at the same time possible to think through that, and offer potentially below market rate as a way to improve the retail options and to improve the relationship with the neighborhood. And that's it. Appreciate your time. Thanks for coming Scott. Next up we have Mark Stingle, followed by Deborah Vesca Mark. Please go ahead. You have 2 min.

[149:01] Yes, i'm concerned about the hydrology of the area. When I was living close by on 20 Seventh Street in 2,013, we realized that the entire neighborhood was flooded. Every home had flooded. Basement water just came up through the ground. It was an overwhelming experience for many of us, and when we come to that we realize that Bowler County, comprehensive Lower Valley. Comprehensive plan has provisions for studying hazardous areas. This area regarding soils we Haven't seen much studies on that that topic and surface and groundwater Section 3.3 0. So 3.1 8 3, point, 3 0. From the comprehensive plan. Much of the area of the of the development site is in the 100 year flood plane, and we saw a lot of high water there in the 13 flood and addition. We had a study down in 2,014 from a Dr. Gordon Mccurry.

[150:04] and a hydrologist noted that a great deal of red water flows through an underground underneath this side, and there's no such thing as eliminating groundwater. What have we done? What we know about how the groundwater is going to be affected by this development. That's a very important question. It's been left out of the analysis. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mark. Next up we have Deborah Besca, followed by Abbey Abbey, Shannon and Scott Mccarry starting with Scott. So, Deborah, please go ahead. You have 2 min. Deborah, are you there? We can't hear You you might have to mute yourself

[151:00] if you could speak, Deborah, we can tell if you're unmuted. Maybe we can go to Scott Mccarry first, and then we'll come back to to Deborah. So, Amanda, this is the present. This is the slides. If you can pull them up. Excuse me, give me just 1 s here. and I can person share my screen. and I was just going to offer. I don't remember the call and option. But if Deborah is still having trouble with her, Mike. Perhaps after this presentation we could put a or link her that just so that she has the option to participate. Yeah, thanks for that, Lisa. Okay. So Scott Mccarry, please go ahead and just indicate to Amanda when you'd like her to move on to the

[152:01] to the next slide. I've just i'm gonna carry 100 and 46 Street next slide, please. So the applicant indicated that there would be less traffic than what there is today. Next slide, please. But the entrances are all being concentrated into one spot. Next slide, please. Part of that problem is that 80% of the traffic actually comes in and off of 20 seventh way. Not through your m ahead next, please. So 4 out of 5 cars is coming. I'm gonna right in right out off the 20 seventh way. The right and right out off. A major arterial is one of the easiest movements to make next slide, please. that all gets moved down to the more head and 20 seventh way intersection next slide, please. This is a stop controlled intersection. So it's one of the simplest types of traffic control that there is next slide, please. The left hand turning is one of the problematic parts of the stop controlled intersection. Next slide, please. As you can see there's only 6 spaces now for this Stop for the cars to dwell in the southbound 20, Seventh way. Anything more than that you'll have back up in the general purpose line and possibly back up traffic into the baseline intersection Next slide, please.

[153:04] So if if that intersection does fail, you know what happens next slide, please. Probably what's going to happen is we'll be cut through traffic through the neighborhood, as is already been discussed. Next slide, please. So what do we do about that? Well, we need more housing in Boulder, for sure, but I think it's extremely important that actually the the developer for the traffic impacts that are going to be here, and possibly that might include a traffic signal at this spot next slide, please. So it all comes down to traffic forecasting. What are we going to anticipate to happen at that? More at 20 seventh intersection next slide, please. It. Trip generation rate is a pretty good start, but for this particular land use model, there's only 4 obs observations that it uses. So if we're going to spend 10 to 100,000 of dollars of traffic improvements. We only have 4 case studies next slide, please. That's really not enough to actually adequately know what the future impacts of traffic is going to be. The other problem here is that they're asking for a 30% reduction in the traffic. I can understand that for retail use folder typically sees less traffic on, generated for retail uses and other uses than the rest of the nation where it jaces its numbers. But this is a Jason to campus right. So in this 4 case studies are probably already anticipating a trip reduction because of walking and biking to the other campuses where those are taken next slide, please.

[154:17] So just Scott's side interrupt, just letting you know that it's come to the end of the 2 min. Okay, I think that's not enough. Maybe you can. Maybe you can wrap up with your with with your closing and thought, or your closing slide. Okay, so you need, and departments are right across the street. So what I would recommend is that the applicant actually take a 7 day counts of of the at 2 entrances there, so they can actually get empirical data of what the trip command is, and use that as a ratio for the 256 beds, and apply that to the baseline property here. Then, we can actually get a regional sense of the forecasting.

[155:00] Okay. thank you. The Scott. Just a thank you for smushing so much information into 2 min. Really appreciate it. Yeah, I think it's completely unreasonable. But thank you. So next up we have Abby Shannon and Amanda will also show the slides. I'm sorry. Who's next video. So this is Abby Shannon. They're connecting connecting from the same computer. Scott. But thank you. But 2 different people. Yeah, I'm: just i'm just taking notes. So I want to make sure I know I was talking. Yeah, so this is Abi Shannon. Please go ahead, Abby. Hi there, Abby Shannon, 1 40, so 30 s Street. I'm here to talk about the more head underpass. Next slide, please. What Under past? You said? Well, it's actually in the transportation master Plan for 2,019, and it was included in the plans for in the presentation tonight. But I noticed that the presenter took out this plan. Next slide, please. I support this project, and I support changing the dominant use in retail to residential the 55 foot

[156:08] 55 height is okay. Also, there's a lot of PC. 2 around here, and a lot of it's vacant. The Bvcp calls out for walkability. So let's make this walkable. That white arrow. There it's about a 1,000 feet of right away between those 2 spaces. Next slide, please. There's a lot of potential here for better connections, and to make those connections away from Baseline which is really hostile. Next slide, please. Ideally, 2,700 baseline and Union departments would redevelop at the exact same time next slide, and they would develop at the exact same time that the city has money in the capital improvement plan next slide. But that rarely happens next slide. Please. There's a lot of potential here for conflicts. Worst conflicts between vehicles and the existing ones to use path under 27 way, but we can make that better Next slide, please. I'm going to skip this a little bit. Next slide the to do an underpass under Morehead. There's a huge grade change

[157:02] next slide, please. It's hard to see. But there's 11 steps there that's on the site plan showing what that grade changes. We think it's about 14 feet next line, please. If you look at this in a section view next slide from the bottom of a potential enable to use pattern, and we're head to the top of the road is about 14 feet next slide. We need to plan for that grading. Now there's some serious grade change, and the developer could do that now. You should be thinking about it as part of the concept plan, because they could be ready for that, even if they're not going to be paying for it next slide. Please also, can you? To the next slide, please? A new underpass will change access to the creek. It'll change the landscape plan. It'll change the site grade. It'll change the site grain, and it'll change the flood plane next slide, please. Next slide, please. If we don't do this now it won't happen, and we should be thinking about it now. So for summary points next slide, please. The underpass is in cities. Tmp: next slide, please. This should be required as a concession, for the lack of code required retail, which I don't think is necessary. But this is the community. Benefit is an underpass at Morehead that's been planned for we should design and construct

[158:10] the designing construction will drastically change Grading and landscaping. Next slide, please. The design construction will change the flood control and perhaps the building placement. We should be thinking about that now. Thanks for sharing the screen. Okay. So now Deborah has dialed in, I believe. So let's try her from her telephone. Please go ahead, Deborah. I've unmuted you now. It looks like it's still muted. Oh, that's so. It's from the telephone number. I think she's still connected from her computer, and that one is muted. but from the number that called in

[159:01] I i'm seeing the phone number still muted. Yeah. that would be from their end. Probably she had to do. I'm unmuted. Can you hear me? Yeah, now we can hear you great wonderful. Please go ahead. Boulder is committed to more affordable holiday housing. The developer's description of their project. Says it's boutique student housing. We know of no students who are looking for a place to live here that's more expensive than market rate. But this project is proposing to charge $6,800 a month for a four-bedroom apartment compared to our neighborhood's current rate of 4,000 for 4 bedrooms a 70% increase That is a luxury accommodation boutique, for sure, but hardly affordable. And what does the comp plan say about affordable housing? Section 7.1, 2

[160:00] requires the city to regulate policies and ensure that when additional intensity is is involved in the project, a larger portion of additional affordable housing is required. Cash and loo just doesn't do the trick because of our scarce housing stock. These developers are asking for many favors in the form of variances, and we want community benefit to match, and that must include affordable housing. second and Section 7 1 5 at the Comp. Plan talks about integration of permanently affordable housing, and it requires whether the project is public, private, or combination that affordable housing is dispersed throughout the community. and that the city should encourage new and affordable units units to be provided on-site integrated into new housing developments

[161:01] that is not happening at all at at 2,700 baseline, nor, so far is any affordable housing commitment other than the cash in Loo. For these reasons and others you've heard this evening. I urge you to reject any plan that does not fully comply with these statutory provisions. Thank you. Thank you, Deborah. Next we have Mike Marsh, followed by Cecilia Gers. Okay, Marsh, Hold on. Give me a second to Okay, please go ahead. You have 2 min. mark, Mike, you're still muted. There you go. Class a office space and high-end rental housing bring landowners the highest monthly rents, whereas retail can generally afford to pay only a third or half as much so without zoning. Boulder would be entirely class a office space and high-end housing with residents driving to nearby cities for all their critical daily needs. Fortunately, zoning specifies certain things to go in certain places, so communities are built in balanced ways that consider the needs of residents, not just developers.

[162:19] The real reason we have nearby retail vacancies is that developers often set monthly rents way too high for retail to afford. Then they say retail can't succeed. That's a self-serving argument, so they can do more. Lucrative uses. And also. Basemar lost its anchor story of whole foods that took out other base Mars stores. So we really need a fix for all the B C. 2 retail spaces around here, including this one that includes realistic monthly rents. We shouldn't use a temporary retail challenge to justify removing even more as this proposal does it's totally false, to say, we have ample, non-student retail regular South boulder residents drive to Central and North Boulder. For far too many things.

[163:04] The ideal market shopping area is another B C. 2 zone, central and North Boulder would never accept the loss of 85% of that retail replaced with boutique student housing. As this developer proposes, we shouldn't have to accept it. Either. We calculated all the additional annual vehicle miles travel that area residents will have to do. Once we lose the retail we have at this site I prepared for 3 min, so i'll have to just email it to you. But it's in the hundreds of thousands of additional vehicle Miles traveled. We'll end up doing annually just from losing the retail at this site. If the city is truly serious about reducing traffic vehicle, Miles traveled and carbon emissions, then it should require the site to be redeveloped as nice, attractive neighborhood serving retail per Its zoning to help us drive less and be more equal. Eco, help us help you! Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Okay. Next we have Cecilia Gears. followed by Bob Porth. Cecilia, please go ahead.

[164:10] Thank you. I wanted to discuss the height issues and the massing issues. Most of the 2,700 baseline development is proposed to be 55 feet high. We have at least 2 concerns about this has been stated before. Typical Martinaker homes, especially the ones right next to this development are very modest. They're 1,000 square foot, one story 13 feet high. Ranch style houses at a height of 55 feet. This development is over 4 times as high. We're also very concerned that this development combined with the already tall Union apartments on the other side of Moorhead. who make the entrance to our neighborhood feel like we're entering a canyon flanked on either side by towering walls. Consequently we're requesting that the buildings Excuse me, Curbside profile directly on Morehead

[165:03] be limited to 2 stories. Considering what the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, says i'd like to read from Section 2.3, 5 building height. and I quote the city, will consider additional height up to the city charter, 55 foot height limit as an incentive in exchange for community benefits, that further other community objectives. such as the provision of permanently affordable housing. Yes, the end of that quote. given the lack of affordable housing in the city. And I know we've talked about this not being an option for student housing, and that there's a cash in loo component. To this. I'd like to note again that there is no permanently for portable housing in this proposal. I'd like to also quote Section 2.3, 6 of the comprehensive plan. Physical design for people quote the city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure the public and private development

[166:03] and redevelopment be designed in a manner sensitive to social health, psychological needs broadly defined. This will include factors such as the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context under Neighborhood center guiding principles, complaints, Comp. Plan States number 2 ensure appropriate scale transitions to neighboring residential uses. Be at a scale. Thank you, Cecilia. we are a little intensity lower, equal to downtown with this particular plan. Thank you. Next we have Bob Porth joining us by phone. Please go ahead, Bob a pop. You're still muted. Vivian. Can you remind us how to unmute from phone? Yeah, I think it's Star 6.

[167:06] There you go, All right. You're unmuted by that wonderful Yeah, the more I look at this project I so I see just access problems everywhere, just for the neighborhood and for the side itself. I mean that that little corner of of the gas station and and the jiffy loop is, it can be a disaster depending on what time of day you're traveling there. Further, there's a house on the corner of Elm. It's on the the southeast corner of Elm and and Morehead. that that when we have a lot of water. Their sun pump is as running all the time. So Mark Stinkle is is right on the fact that there may be water problems that are as far as having an access under under Moorhead, it seems

[168:01] I I just doesn't seem into all necessary, I mean, unless unless the traffic increases it tremendously, which is what apparently is going to happen. So I I I just. I just find that the fact that you're removing existing businesses. I mean you're just bulldozing long established businesses that that the whole that whole community uses. Boulder gas has has someone parking there, someone there doing business there regularly all, all at all times of the day. So I just think that this this project is is a disaster for Martin Acres and for the city. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Thanks for joining us next. We have Tom Cannon, followed by Lynn Siegel. Tom, please go ahead. Hi! My name is Tom Camel.

[169:00] I'm a long time older, resident. I was able to acquire my home when I was a student. If you decades ago. I really just don't see any community benefit for this proposal. I mean, I just see other people have added just more traffic car traffic, pedestrian traffic. I enjoy going to core power, Yoga, and often the studios are crowded as it is now. I just see a lot more people in the studios lines longer. It sprouts. It's unfortunate that the existing property has been allowed to just saturate. but I would really like to see it developed in a meaningful way that's going to benefit the community. make it welcoming to all of us combination of green space inviting retail restaurants just very disappointed. I mean this. This proposal just has no place. The Martin Acres.

[170:07] Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Next we have Lynn Siegel, followed by Eileen Flax Lynn, please go ahead. I am from That's it. Lynn. Can you speak up? Please? I am from. Can you hear me? You're sort of falling out, so just speak a little more into the phone or microphone, please. I'm from Central Boulder. I guess you can still call this boulder is Boulder, a subsidiary of C. U. What about? See you South? Not enough space for the students on their campus

[171:01] as plural. not enough from see you keep it on. See you, I won't even say this height. Restriction should be not violated. This parking reduction should not be violated or given a subsidy. I will not say that because this project is utterly ridiculous. It increases. Housing costs in boulder. It doesn't matter if you get lie tech funds. It doesn't matter if you get inclusionary housing. You know what the inclusionary housing needs to be for boulder citizens a 145, not 25, and you know what it needs to be. For. See you 250 Sorry I had strep throat for the last week. This is outrageous. It reminds me of the diagonal project where you're sticking, housing in the middle of nowhere.

[172:06] This is a nightmare for boulder. Do not do this listen to your public 3 min, not 2 min. You think this is a free and charade. You have to listen to people that have great information in 2 min for a 15 min talk. You are not doing your jobs all right, Lynn. Thank you very much, and please take care of your throat. Yeah, Thank you, Lynn, for joining us. So next we have Eileen flax, followed by Ron Flax Eileen, please go ahead. Hi! This is Eileen Flax i'm on Elm Avenue. I've lived here since 1,999. I'm. Super pleased to see the applicant taking an interest in what has become a derelict site, and I think they've done a thoughtful job of addressing site issues here.

[173:11] I would like to see a more honest accounting of traffic, particularly between baseline and 20 seventh Way and Moorhead, and the impacts that the CIA's South Development is going to add to this site. I'd like to see an honest accounting of parking. ensuring that the neighbors are not impacted by it. And i'd also like to see a better idea of what's happening on the open space on the southeast end of the site. I'm. Particularly interested in the Skunk Creek extension through this site. I think this is a great opportunity to realize Olmsted's vision, for the city. It needs to be incremental. I understand this is a very small piece of the network of green ways and trails, but this is an important increment to that that system we can, whatever we can do to set this project up for success and work as a city to support their efforts, so that we can open up that green way, so that we, as neighbors, have visual and physical access to the water, so that that water can do what it needs to in the flood plain, and possibly create. Wetlands, have plantings that are associated with Skunk Creek and create an amenity for our community. It will be an important piece here.

[174:27] I'm also interested in the street trees that have made it through a number of years without any support, and the future street trees there that they are proposing. I'm. Also interested in the Bikeway network connections along the south and east sides of the site, along the frontage road that C. Dot has not been caring for adequately. I'd like to see. This project helps you to care for their right of way. Thank you so much. Thank you, Eileen. So we only have one hand remaining. If there's anybody else. This would be a good time to raise your hand if you haven't spoken already.

[175:07] So, Ron, please go ahead. You have 2 min. Can you hear me? Yeah, yeah. Okay, Thank you. I guess. First, I would just wanna mention how disappointed. I was at the start of the meeting to hear that there was no more pool timing, and that the comments were likely to get limited to just 2 min. Some of my neighbors have really spent a great deal of time and effort to prepare for this event, and to not have the opportunity to actually hear their full comments, especially some of them that are fairly nuanced and technical in nature. That was that was disappointing. To hear that in terms of the the project itself. I guess there's been a lot of discussion about the the retail nature of this site, and to be perfectly honest, i'm a little bit more concerned about the retail to the west in base mar shopping center into the east of the site, and making sure that we actually establish really solid pedestrian connections between these places. Right now. If you were trying to walk between these 2 sites, it's a really windy and often unpleasant pathway, and i'd like to see that that fixed Abby Shannon earlier, was talking a little bit about the the underpass. I think that it's. It's really easy to underestimate the the the

[176:27] the importance of getting that done. Now, the pat, we continue that Scunk Creek pathway in a meaningful way to open up Skunk Creek and make it a a pleasant place to convey both both the water and pedestrians bike routes where you separated from the the on street vehicle. Traffic is is really important, and you're not going to get many opportunities to do that. So I think it's really important to adopt the long term perspective. And really think about how this site is going to integrate with that future under past that's already been identified with the city. I think that that

[177:04] really important in general, I think it's important to not underestimate the on street and on grade bicycle connections that go through this very congested part of the city, moving from south to north or north to south. It's a very. It's a bottle back on a really wide region, and I think it's important to make sure that is taken into account. Thank you. Thanks so much, Ron. So we have one more hand. Kerry White. I would appreciate if anybody else would raise your hand now. so that we know there are others. Otherwise I think we can consider that Kerry White would be the last speaker in the public hearing. Please go ahead, Kerry, you have 2 min. Thank you. I'm. Kerry White. I live at 3, 100 and 20 Ninth Street, just a few blocks down the street from the development have lived in the neighborhood for 26 years. This our family is super interested in seeing

[178:07] a redevelopment of this property in various ways, just because of the disrepair and the and the issues and the problems that have existed for many years. As it is right now, my main concerns that I wanted to speak about is the height, variance, and going to the the 4 stories it does feel to me out of scale, of the neighborhood and the surrounding other apartments and and retail development, the commercial development in the area. I I think that that benefits the developer and and not us. If it is going to be allowed. There is a promise of setbacks, but i'm not currently seeing sufficient setbacks that come across in the current plans, and the renderings that have been shared. So it would be great if that was a more strongly considered

[179:05] the we just this. Everybody talked right now about the need for more affordable housing in in boulder. I've been listening to city council meetings. This does not feel like a fix for that, and you know not every development has to be. I just overall I would be I'm I'm. I'm. More interested in a really good development for our neighborhood, one that fits the scale that I am even about that open space. We've lived without open space for decades down there, and we've got some good community open space already in our neighborhood. So i'm less interested in making compromises for parking. I don't we're far enough away that I don't think parking will influence it us personally, but I am worried about overflow parking for our neighbors. So thank you for the opportunity to come it. Thank you, Kerry.

[180:00] Okay, Sara, there are no other hands raised. Okay, Great. Thank you to everyone in the public who spoke, and you know, sorry that the 2 min a limit was frustrating for some, but really appreciate how everyone spoke very quickly and got their points across, and I think we've heard a really interesting range of perspectives and and insights that i'm sure will be part of you'll hear echoed by us as we give feedback to the applicant and to staff. Okay, so the next, Our next step here is that feedback staff has asked us 3 respond to 3 questions, and i'm sorry to get to my notes here. My suggestion is that we go through each each key issue and sort of just go down the line, and folks

[181:02] give their comments to their responses to that key issue, and when everyone's had a chance to have their say will then go to a key issue too, and go through that process, and then she issue 3. So the first key issue is is the proposed concept plan, generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan. I'm sure everyone on the Board has lots of comments. So if you would raise your hand, and I can call on you and work my way through the line. Did we want to give Staff an opportunity to respond to anything they might want to clear up from public comment. Sure. I I thought that was part of our normal sequence. But if we want to just try to incorporate that and the key issues. I'm fine with that, too. But I just wanted to ask about it.

[182:00] Yeah, I not sure with concept plan. But i'm happy to follow up with that, Chandler. Is there anything you want to respond to? Or, Charles? If you there anything you want to respond to that. You heard from this from the public. Nothing for me. chance or anything from you. I guess I would just be interested. Okay, yeah. So just regarding the the more head underpass. you know, definitely heard the community comments about the desire to see that happen and to plan for it. Now. i'm. I'm just gonna say there. Yeah, Helen may jump in on this one, but there are some legal issues. So you know, there is such a thing as taking right from a developer takings. We do have to find that there's rough proportionality and a rational nexus. If we're going to ask for us the improvements

[183:02] or improvements of this scale. which would essentially require making a finding that this development is directly causing right the impact that we are going to address with this. Hello, I don't know if you want to say this better. Yeah. What what china is referring to are the institutional limitation under the takings class when somebody comes in to develop the city, can exact certain improvements, but only to the extent that the requirements for construction of public improvements and education of of land to the city addresses an impact that that particular development creates. We cannot require a development to address impacts that are created by the our community that should be addressed by the broader community, and there is sometimes opportunities to

[184:00] he. The developments contribute to those improvements. But in this case oftentimes the cost of a of an underpass a very large, and go beyond to the impacts that are created by a single development. and need public events as well, which I don't think, have been appropriate in this particular case. There they also, I believe, are other issues that have to be worked out, associated with the platform there that would be impacted. and just looking at the gis, which is not always accurate in all accounts. It's a very helpful tool, but not always accurate. It did not look to me like the city currently on the Eastern rights, to create the exit of the underpath on the other side of more head, so that would also be an issue. So if somebody from board wanted to encourage staff and applicant to look for ways to solve those to try to solve those problems. That is a comment they should make today. And just as an encouragement is that correct?

[185:06] Not knowing that we may not, you may not be able to solve the problem, but to see that as a priority. sure. Okay. Just so that the fact that it's there are obstacles doesn't mean it cannot be something that Board members comment on and encourage efforts to address. Okay, anything else, Chandler, to respond to that You heard from the public. you know. I will just say so with I. I did receive an email from Sloan and housing earlier, and and she I wanted to reiterate on behalf of housing staff that housing staff has done some independent studies as far as student housing and its effect on overall housing affordability in the city. and they're fairly supportive of this development. And one thing to keep in mind.

[186:02] You know, I I I heard a lot of neighborhood concerned about existing student rentals, and and, you know, overflow parking in the neighborhood, etc. And what housing staff has found is that provision of more student housing actually has a positive impact on middle income, long-term rentals in Boulder, and i'm not saying that it will. you know, remove students from Martin acres or anything like that. But in general, you know, the Cu. Has found they are short on housing, so it is an issue. And so right now a lot of the students are renting. are, you know, getting the long term rentals throughout the city. which are an important source of middle income housing so just as far as the the kind of overall argument about housing affordability, and this being boutique student housing our inclusionary housing, folks still see this as, or just still see student housing really in any form, as a positive in terms of the impacts to long term rentals overall.

[187:11] Okay. thank you, Chandler. All right, All right. First key issue. The proposed is the proposed concept plan, generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan. Raise hands if you have comments All right, Kurt. Well, first of all, i'd like to echo what we just heard from staff we all know we desperately need in this city, right? And we particularly here we need. We hear time and again that we need more student housing, and this is providing that. And I talked about this in the last meeting. Other cities have found that when there is not enough student oriented housing close to campus

[188:02] pushes students into the surrounding residential areas. You know. low densities or neighborhood areas. and that can cause all kinds of conflicts as we've seen in boulder. and when, instead, they have built significantly more or allowed to be built significantly, more student housing close to campus. It draws the students out of those areas and makes them available for other people generally. Students want to be as close to campus as possible. And so to me this is an extremely appropriate site for student housing. It's a minute depending on whether you get the light or not. It's less than a minute to get across the campus. And so in the big picture. which I know is not quite what we're asking. But in the big picture this seems like an appropriate development in an appropriate location

[189:06] specifically about the land use area? The question is, does the project adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate on the ground floor. Right? That's that's the question related to the the land use in zoning, and it seems to me like. because of the emphasis on the area. Really, what it's talking about is the entire area zone, vc. 2. And since retail continues to predominate in baseball and the sprouts area. and the rest of the Vc. 2 area. I think that

[190:02] this this retail demand continues to would continue to be met. Even after this project removed a certain amount of existing retail on the site in terms of the other Bbcp policies. I. The the the comment just brought up a number which I think are very appropriate. There's also 6.0, 5 reduction of the auto trips. Now, the point was made by commenters that some auto trips, that some some Turks, that the the local residents are currently the making 2 of these businesses would turn into longer or more auto-centered trips to get further away. And i'm very sympathetic to that concern on the other hand. There are hundreds of students who

[191:01] currently are traveling from further away to get to campus, and this would allow them to for the most part walk or back to to campus from their housing. And so. you know, without doing some super extensive study. My gut, My gut feeling is that this would result in a net reduction of single occupants motor trips, and therefore be consistent with 6.0, 5, and then. you know, there are the housing policies, 7.0, one and 7.0, 2 regarding affordable housing. Is it not affordable housing, but make a significant contribution to our affordable housing. Font. 7.10 housing for a full range of households, 7.11 jobs. but I for housing. We just improve the jobs as a balance generally. So

[192:01] those are my thoughts on the BBC: Great. Thank you very much. Kurt: Lisa. Yeah. I'll be brief and and also just acknowledge that this is sort of an equivalent. Answer. I think it has the potential to be consistent. and then the doubles and the details, and I won't go too much into that, because I think I can speak to it more under the other questions, but I think it's just a little bit too early to say there are things about this that are interesting and potentially it could work well under the Bbcp and or for the neighborhood, but I think it's just too soon to tell exactly how it's going to fit into it overall, which is fine, because we're a concept review. I I have comments, but does anyone else have come? I'm expecting Laura. Thank you. Sure I like to let other people go first if they want to, because I tend to take up a lot of time. But I want to thank Kurt for taking up some time with enumerating the Dvcp policies that this checks a lot of the boxes. So I won't. Go there.

[193:10] My answer is, I mean, I agree with Lisa. It's still early days. It's conceptual based on the concept. I think it's headed in the right direction to be generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations to the BBC. I agree with Kurt. This is a prime location for student housing. It's literally Caddy Corner. You know it across from some cu buildings from the corner of campus there. It's very well connected to bike paths and transit, which helps us with our our goals about reducing single vehicle occupancy trips. The closest grocery store is also like less than half a mile away, that sprouts. There's also King Super about a mile away mit ctl, and and it is one of our goals to be increasing housing density along major transit corridors. There's the bus service on Moorhead. There's bus service on Broadway, 150 like. I said. Well connected to the city's bike paths.

[194:01] This is a good location to put more people and to have higher density. Housing needs met along a transit corridor. I I I'll say more about the building design and the connection to the neighborhood, because I think we do also want to be sensitive to what's going on there in Martin Acres. I am going to slightly disagree with my colleague Kurt, and say I don't and and staff can correct me if i'm wrong. But my interpretation of the Bvcp land uses is not that they should be interpreted on a neighborhood wide basis, but that this particular site, the expectation is that there will be retail on the ground floor that predominates. And so I do agree with Staff's comments that the applicant should consider significantly expanding the proposed ground floor retail to be consistent with B C. 2. My personal opinion is, you know, the right places for that are along more head, and also 20 seventh way. That's where we're accessing. Retail now is long 27 way and more head I go to this site all the time. That's my favorite gas station. I'm very well acquainted with this site.

[195:02] and so I am sympathetic to all of the issues with access there. But I do think that that is an appropriate place to have retail. and I really appreciate that the applicant is planning to conduct that additional neighborhood outreach to get feedback, not just from a market study, but also from the neighborhood. On what type of retail would best serve the surrounding neighborhoods? Those are my comments on key issue one. So, Laura First, i'm, impressed that you have a favorite gas station. It's the cheapest. I'm cheap. Okay, thank you, Mark. And then, George. So I want to address. I I guess this is the spot to address the usual topic of of parking, and and how it relates to the neighbor, the neighbors in the neighborhood community. So i'm going to address barking, and that is

[196:05] the University charges, and they charge a pretty much at a market rate for parking. I did a little survey today. Talk to the University parking people. It's about $500 for 2 semesters or 9 months for a parking spot at the university. We don't know what the developer is going to charge for parking, but we encourage them to charge for parking, and we praise them for charging, for parking. and next door to the university next door to developments like this. The city gives it away. So what happens when you give away something that's being charged or next door? And so what happens is yes, you do. And Laura ask about Well, how would how would the developer enforce or find out about someone coming to live at the project

[197:00] and bringing a car, but parking in the neighborhood. Well. you know. we really don't have a mechanism for that. So by the fact that the city has, and as a somewhat incoherent and disjointed parking policy. we we raise up these issues of parking in the neighborhood, and I sympathize with those people, but at the same time it can't be a reason to not do the right thing at a development, and to not honor the university doing the right thing by charging an appropriate amount for parking in terms of the BBC. And other policies. My colleagues have cited the some different items within the BBC. And I'll just simply point to page 43 where we talk about again. Compact, sustainable, urban form. compact, connected, coherent, and complete daily needs met within easy access from home work, school services for recreation without driving a car. I can't imagine

[198:10] a site more appropriate for a student to live car free. Then this site with a base mark slightly to the west, sprouts and other sores and restaurants a little to the east, and those connections will only to me will only be enhanced by by this by this development. And you know, as a community we have to acknowledge we're at college down. Yeah, we complain about the lack of student housing, and then we complain about building student housing. So you know we have a we have a we have this, this disconnect here between enjoying, living in a college town, and yet again decrying the lack of soon housing

[199:02] and complaining when we actually try to build it. And we then we complain about in commuting traffic by students to staff that that can't find a place to live here. I can't afford to find a place to live here. so I think we we need to sort out what it is we want. But I I'm. I think this project does on hold address Dvc. Goals and objectives. Hey? Thank you. Mark. George. Yeah, thanks me. My thoughts organized here. Just get that in front of me first. I wanted to thank the public. I I know that this is a a hot topic for all the neighborhood who lives around that area. I appreciate all the feedback this evening. specifically on concerns around traffic and retail and affordability. I I think. as it relates to the project itself, I I I am in concurrence with a lot of my colleagues that

[200:10] you know, student housing is a is a great need, and this site is, I think, appropriate for that student housing. Given all the things that people have cited so far. I I I also agree with Lisa that a lot of it devil is in the detail, so I I think it's a little too early to say whether this is really supportive of the BBC. Or not. Do you agree with Laura that I I think that retail is a is is too smaller component currently, and and this could create a little bit of a whole for the neighborhood, for the area for the walkability. I I it one of the things that one of the commenters from the public resonated with me was around what's charged for retail space right? Retail space

[201:05] doesn't go vacant because there. There's there's there's always something that will fill the retail space. It just depends on what the expectations and the charges are from a developer, both from guarantees to build outs to all kinds of things. Part of the community benefit for doing something like this is to preserve some commercial space for the neighborhood and for the area. And if that means that the developer has to subsidize that or make it more, you know, less, quote, unquote market rate than maybe someone's charging on Pearl Street or somewhere else, that that really needs to be taken into account. You know the developers cited a project that they took over where they have vacant retail space for 3 years. I I can tell you, as a seasoned retail developer of over 20 years myself.

[202:04] that it all depends on how motivated the developer is to rent that space, and who who they want to bring in, and why? So I would encourage more more more retail, as it relates to parking, I i'm I'm. A bit torn from by this. You know one of the things that we need to think about as it it relates to this is this is High End student housing. and the students that are paying 1,500, 1,700, a bedroom to be Here are those students likely to have cars that they want to park in this building, and will they find parking elsewhere if they don't so it's just something to think about it. I'd like to understand that better, because I don't. I don't have a good grasp on that. But, my, my, my, my my gut, is is that a lot of the students that are renting here have cars, even if they're not using them. We need to make sure we have a place for them

[203:04] and in. And finally again, it's it's relates to to Early Tell him B. Cp. I think a lot of the public made really good comments on traffic. and there needs to be a thorough traffic analysis unbiased, not only from the developer, but, you know, really in depth, traffic analysis for us to get comfort that what is being assured to us around traffic is actually what's going to happen. That's all my comments the moment. Thank you. Thanks, George. Ml. Thank you, Sarah. So, addressing Key, issue number one Alder Valley Comp plan. as I i'm just saying to both the Belly Comp plan. This does not meet the land use

[204:02] It's community business. It does not meet the zoning that was put in place to support that which is a neighborhood center. There are numerous additional policies that are also not met. 2.1 3 3, point, 1 8 5.0 1 5.0, 3, 5.0 4 5.0, 5 and 6.1 3. However, I I would encourage the applicant to do the market survey. I know that they haven't done that so they Don't know what might be appropriate retail there. I would encourage that survey to happen, and to figure out what kind of service needs to be there, to support. What the land use has identified this. This is what we want here. This is what we have organized our our land plan around.

[205:01] And how can this applicant find a way to accommodate that that policy. I would also encourage the applicant to consider the existing businesses they talked about, you know, being in touch with them, and wanting to try to accommodate them. I didn't see any evidence in the tiny little retail, 1,700 Square 40 that would actually try to accommodate the existing businesses, so I would encourage the applicant to find the appropriate retail to the survey. and see how they might be able to support the existing businesses to remain. or something similar to remain on on the property. But at this point in time. I think there are just some very large Bdcp

[206:00] components that just simply aren't being met. Thank you. Ml: All right, my turn. I agree with literally everything. Ml: just said I. I feel a bit like this. for the applicant took a swing for a home run as a starting point negotiations. and is hopefully. We'll be open to right sizing this proposal so that it reflects both the land use designation and the zoning, and the idea that everyone keeps talking about which is 15 min neighborhoods where you can walk to restaurants, and you can walk to the hardware store, and you can walk to the cafe and all all of that which is the whole point of a neighborhood center that the whole point, but it's one of the purposes of a neighborhood center. The fact that the what's proposed right now has almost nothing that is

[207:01] activated on the ground floor. And this sort of feeds into key issue, too. But because you're the applicants. Traditional developments have internal lots of internal space for the students is limiting what kind of neighborhood serving retail they could provide, and also creating essentially could create essentially dead zones at the street level glass walls where you can look in, or people can look out. But there's no there's nothing to go into or out of. I I want to also just thank George for bringing up and reiterating what some members of the public have said about how you fill a retail space. and the applicants are a developer's commitment to doing so.

[208:06] I I do think that the the common area and the amenity area could be re-imagined as more neighborhood serving retail it's not going to be the same neighborhood serving retail that is there today, because you're not going to put a gas station inside a building, and you probably don't want to put a liquor store in a student student housing, but there are definitely multiple types of retail that you could put on the ground floor. Let's see, and in terms of the parking reduction, you know the idea of reducing I pursue. We always assume that if you reduce parking options, you will reduce single occupancy vehicle use. I don't know that that's true. I mean I I I would be. I really love it if the transportation department

[209:03] ever did a study that evaluated whether the parking reductions that we give actually result in the outcomes that we hope for. But I did want to just put on the table something that Brian Bone actually shared with me last week when I said, You know, why can't we have more of our parking developer developed applicant developed parking Be ev ready to go, not just TV wired. And he suggested that we come up with some sort of formula that in exchange for a parking reduction of X. You end up with X more ev ready to go spaces. and I thought that was a pretty interesting idea you'd have to. The staff would have to do a lot of calculations to figure out what makes sense. But I I do think that we should be looking for ways to leverage parking reductions.

[210:00] and translate that into more ev ready to go parking spaces of what remains of of those parking spaces. So those are my thoughts on key issue number one before we go to key issue number 2, Any last thoughts? Okay. Key issue number 2. Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site, plan and building design. Hands up, please. Lisa. your first Lisa. Then Mark. Yeah, I guess I would welcome feedback here if you feel like. I'm saying this in the wrong spot. But this is the the key issue where I thought it it fit the best. I I think I think what puzzles me the most about this is. and and I know that we only hear from a certain subset of people. But it I I just have a major sense of Deja Vu from where we were with this project some time ago, and the piece that seems to have been missed, and I know that they talked about trying to do it sometimes soon, so I I appreciate that from the applicant.

[211:05] but it's really robust public outreach and bringing the neighborhood along. You know we didn't, really. I didn't. People again seem sort of surprise and shock to what was coming forward. There isn't as far as I can tell a ton of buy in from the neighborhood, and I would expect that. And I know we're at concept review. But I would expect that when we see this come back again. My sincerely health hope would be, You know, that we would see evidence that the community had been reached out to that the next. that the actual site, plan, or potential building design was informed by what they're asking for, and that some of these issues were being considered. I'm generally not somebody who pushes hard for area plans. I I think they can slow things down in ways. I don't always support or feel our our best for the city. However, you know. I I wonder about some of the you know these uses, or if we're talking about neighborhood.

[212:03] you centers, You know what has anything been considered with base Mar about. Who can move over there? How? That's going to be managed, you know such that would maybe enable more people to feel more comfortable. Student housing here, which I think is a very understandable use, both from a developer standpoint and from simply proximity to the university. It's a sensible place for student housing. But so are some of these concerns about changes to zoning. And you know business is being displaced and what it's going to mean for the neighborhood. So yeah, that just just you know, As I was listening to the to comments, and also looking at the plan, it just came to me that it. It just it. It doesn't seem to have been terribly well thought out, and there doesn't seem to be. Have been a bunch of public outreach or any effort. and he is a strong word. I apologize, but I I I I was hard for us to find evidence that you know much work had been done at this point in the process, to to kind of bring the community along, and and to offer some benefit back to them, or explain where things might be displaced to, or what advantages might be to go alongside, perceived disadvantages.

[213:10] Yeah, I I guess i'm just saying, whenever this comes back i'm really hoping to see a robust outreach process and some modifications to this site, plan and or potential building design that starts to address that, and also maybe some information about. If this does turn out to be student housing, I thought somewhere we can get to. Then you know. What does that mean for the original zone name, and where else can those services be met for the neighborhood and for other folks? All right, thank you, Lisa. So mark then, Laura, then Kurt. in regard to site design, input. I I I really enjoy the fact. And I mentioned earlier in regard to the amount of public open space that the applicant is providing where they're providing it. I think it's smart in terms of both

[214:07] moving the buildings out of the flood plane and providing open space along and a possible wetland area along Scott Creek. There, I think that's great. I I think that the way it's presented currently. The building mass creates a wall at the end of the open space. So your if you're on the open space, and you look over the building, there's no penetration again. I know this is very early. This is very conceptual, but it's what we have. So I would encourage the applicant to move move a portion of the open space into the building, so that it feels like there's a courtyard that connects from the building onto the open space, and I think that the multi-use path that cuts across the open space

[215:02] could be either be a really great design element to get people out of the building into the open space and so forth, or it could be like a dividing line between the building and the rest of the open space. I think that's a matter of landscape design. I think, in terms of building design, and that that you should be looking north to the University and the University design. rather than to base our center or creekside apartments for any sort of inspiration. I think the University provides a lot of examples of really actually really good design, and the law building or across the street is a is a great design, and so make that connection that way. I would encourage them as always, when you come back, come back with a Tdm plan that's worthy of your parking reduction. That's worthy of the the site you're trying to do in this forward looking and really thanks outside the box and goes beyond what's required, and is a is a forward looking Gdm. Plan that that stretch on that Tdm plan.

[216:19] Finally, instead of a arguing about a an underpass which the city doesn't own the land to the south. There's lots of things that there are problems with that cost being the greatest one. I would say that a super well designed, but at grade, the desk room crossing with our our at these rectangular, rapid, flashing beacons which we use on 20 Eighth street we use on Iris, and a number of other places would be a way to connect to the apartments to the to the south.

[217:04] and but I think you could have a very attractive functional, and safe crossing there that encourages pedestrian and cycling crossing with with a good design for that. I think that that would certainly be a cost effective way, I would guess approximately one tenth the cost of an underpass. That's it. Thanks. Thanks, Mark. So, Laura. Then Kurt and George. Thank you. I will try to be brief, and not repeat too much of what my colleagues have said. Some folks talked about parking in the first question. I'm going to talk about it in the second question. I'm. Generally fine with the parking reduction. We generally tend to encourage parking reductions if they are coupled with a really robust Tdm plans. I'm going to repeat, so that it shows up in the notes that I would encourage the applicant to look into things like a bike share program. The scooters, if those are allowed in this part of town, think about how people are going to get their groceries. If they don't have a car like cargo bikes or carts that people can take.

[218:12] When I lived in an apartment building, we had like little grocery cards that you could take from your car in the garage up to your unit. Think about expanding that so that people have like something that they can wheel down to the grocery store and wheel back with their groceries, so they don't have to take a car. I do think that students are amongst the most likely populations to be okay living without a car. I lived without a car for all 4 years of my student career, and maybe that's less likely in boulder, but if anybody is going to do it, the students are going to be some of them. So really think about ways that you can help those students get around town when it's raining when it's snowing without using a car. So think about that in your Tdm. Plan, please. I'm looking forward to seeing that I want to give a big thumbs up to this idea of leases which basically the students commit to not having a car. If they don't have a designated parking space. I think that that is a good idea, at least for the law abiding students who would take that commitment seriously. I it certainly can't hurt. So I really wanted to uplift that and say, I like that

[219:14] regarding. I think Staff had a lot of very good comments in the packet about the management of the open space circulation. In regarding circulation. They say the applicant should give special consideration to design techniques that minimize the potential for traffic congestion along Morehead Avenue and 27 way, as well as conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. I think they're pointing out a need there and that there's more conversation and creativity to be had. So looking forward to seeing how the applicant and staff work on that issue. so I wanted to uplift that with regard to site design. I really do appreciate that the density that the applicant made a concerted effort to say, we're going to take the density away from the neighborhood.

[220:00] you know they They could have built all the way out on that eastern end, and they're not doing that. They're going to make that green space and concentrate the density on sort of the northwest portion. I think that is a good idea. I do want to uplift. You know. Staff have some comments about how to make that massing and density work a little better. I'm going to talk about that in the next question. But I do think that that can work to have the density concentrated at one end. If the massing is appropriate regarding the open space. something that hasn't been said yet. or or said in much detail is that some of that open space is currently being used by our unhoused population. And so you know, Danica, you asked for ideas about community engagement. I would really encourage you to talk with staff and advocates and service providers that work with our unhoused population. And think about how you can have that space be a public space that doesn't create an attractive area for encampments which it is currently

[221:03] at least to some degree. Now, i'm not trying to, you know, cast blame on anybody. But that is the reality on the ground there right now. I was there this morning also, with regard to you know that open space. I would think about programming it, because if you just leave it as a wetland that has great benefits for the flood plane, that is also, you know, a a space that can get misused, not just by the house population, but a a variety of folks. So I I would really think hard about how you have a little triangle of open space in a very urban environment that has a lot of people passing by all the time. and so I I would work on that and think about that. In addition to talking with the neighbors about what they might want in in that open space like I don't know. Could it? Could it be a dog park? Maybe maybe not. But that might be a way to have some activation there that serves both the neighborhood and the site users and creates some more activity on the space there

[222:06] and then. I don't know if this fits here. But i'm gonna put here, anyway again about the idea of engagements. You know, the applicant mentioned community philanthropic initiatives where residents are really encouraged to give back to the community. That was the phrase that was used. I would really think about. Is there a way to connect better with the neighborhood and have the students and the neighborhood working together on something, whether that's social events, whether that's picking up trash some other way to benefit the neighborhood and bring those 2 populations closer together, because where we see the problems happen, the most is where those 2 populations sort of Don't feel connected at all. So I will stop there with my comments on this question. All right, Thank you, Laura Kurt. And then, George. Okay. I just heard a bunch of really great comments. I agree with everything. I think that Mark and Laura, said I. Certainly

[223:03] I certainly feel that a robust Tdm. Plan is super important, especially given the parking reduction. That's being requested, which I would be comfortable with. But yeah, it's got to be backed up by good Tdm. I was very intrigued by Mark's comment about I interpreted it as finding a way to design the the building, so that it sort of invites the residents out into the open space. which I think it doesn't the current design does it. It's more sort of self-contained. And so hopefully, we're inviting the residents out to the north, West right, which is where they want to go every day to go to and from class. So hopefully, internally, we're inviting them out that way.

[224:02] and we should also be inviting them out, you know after class to go on and sit by Scum Creek or through the Frisbee, or something out to the the southeast. There were some very good comments made in in public comment about the the the the traffic situation. I think the the the fact that currently a lot of the access is made off of 27 play. and this would be changing. That access to more head is an important point, and so is. yeah, like a really a credible traffic analysis, I think is very important. I want to raise 1 point that I think Hasn't been raised.

[225:01] which is about the garage entrance that I asked about as the applicant about to me. So that does, just from a basic design standpoint. It kind of looks to me like this giant dark ma. that you might fall into so just from purely aesthetic standpoint. I it it's just too big. I'm also concerned about the effect on people walking and biking on Moorhead. and I think it's not fully consistent with the site Review criteria. One of the the criteria is Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience. And I don't think putting yeah giant garage

[226:00] really needs that. So I would like to see it at least reduced in size. I would also love to see the applicant. Consider whether all of the access, instead of being taken off of Morhead, could be taken from the north side via the existing frontage road, or you know, whatever happens with the front end. because that to me would it would, it would make the more head sign much more attractive. It would make it safer. And you know the baseline side is kind of you got baseline there, so it's kind of a disaster already. And so, putting all the ugliness on the north side. I think, would be more appropriate. and that would, I think, that that would satisfy several other of the side. Review criteria about reducing potential conflicts with vehicles.

[227:03] measures to to. There's a side review criterion about providing measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from. And so I think that would help with that. And I think that's all for now. Alright, Thank you. Kurt George. And then Ml. Yeah, i'm just gonna comment a little bit on what my colleague said. Say, I agree with much of what they said. They Lisa set it best around. making sure that the neighborhood is brought along with the site design. because it certainly didn't feel that way during public comment. We get a lot of these public comments, and this one was overwhelmingly. You know, the the developer needs to pay attention to that, because because we will be the next time around 2. And and I think that's really critical.

[228:00] How how do you do that? I think Mark made some good comments on on on the massing towards the open space and site. Permeation, I think. What a e echo! Exactly what Laura said around really programming the open space. I want to make sure that the developer is committing an easement permanently on that open space that this doesn't become a second phase 30 years from now. So wanna echo what Kurt said about a credible traffic analysis. and then around just overall site design. One thing I said upfront, that I think belongs here is really retail on that first floor, and and and hearing a little bit more of the zoning to make sure again that we're we're honoring that and and getting some some more utility and activation on that first one. That's it. Thanks. I know.

[229:02] Thank you, Sarah. So moving development as far as the site plan, moving development to the west and making it dense, makes great sense. Keeping the east side of the site for managing water and open land is is a great plan solution. but that being said, the applicant is asking for a fourth floor. They're asking for a 55 point height. and that kind of implies that the they can't get the 80 to 90 units without this added floor and edit hype. Note that 6 of the building score footage is amenity. not housing itself. So I would encourage the applicant to focus on housing reduce the common space and amenities. I'm. Not sure that the fourth floor is necessary to get the 80 to 90 units that are being proposed.

[230:06] Consider reducing the ancillary space and make this hard working housing. I would support density of this nature. You know that's it. It seems there's a lot of. and and I think that speaks to yeah, some of the things that neighbors noting, which is boutique housing. But if you're asking us to consider a fourth floor and 55 foot height. I would say that the focus needs to be on hard working housing rather than an amenity, and use that score footage to actually house people. Thank you. Ml: Kurt. Do you mind if I go and then calling you is that okay? Is that it's okay, All right, Thank you so. A few comments I really appreciate and support Staff's comments on building design and the importance of the height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture, and configuration, to carefully reflect

[231:06] the very complex reality on the ground. I would personally appreciate a lower height. and I I want a lower height. The building across the way is 30 is 35 feet, I believe, or 45 feet. It's 45 feet and I think this building should not be any taller than that. and I also would like to see more transparency through the building. It's a big block. I know that there's the courtyards inside the building which benefits the residents, but it's just a big block of a building to anyone who's on the outside of the building. much much more activation. On street level. On the north elevation there is a big blank wall across along the ground floor. That that is just blank. I realize this is along the highway on ramp, but I think when you're actually getting to design

[232:04] thinking about how to transform that wall into something that's not just a big blank wall. And whether that's murals or materiality that is more attractive, whatever it me, whatever it takes, it can't just be a big link wall. east elevation. There are also several walls that are big and blank, and it's very off putting. And you, I think. as you move forward and come up with the more clarity on what you're designing, you're going to want to address that. I completely agree with Kurt, and, in fact, I had written down. I am not a big fan of it. Gigantic garage, entrance and exit it. I first of all, I think it's dangerous for bicyclists and and pedestrians and other cars, but it's also like I don't know it. It just seemed very like a very odd kind of choice, given the effort by the architect to break up the walls and and have it be, and sort of have the building in a more human scale to then have this giant

[233:09] entrance that look like it could accept a semi-truck. And I agree with Kurt that if there's a way to have the garage entrance behind the building where they're, you currently proposing the service area and the drop-off area, I think that would be a much better choice. I am concerned about the Wetlands and the Skunk Creek area, and would hope that there's a way for the city and the developer to consider opportunities to sort of reinvigorate the wetlands that are there and make it part of the broader green space. Okay, then. traffic. Everyone's talked about traffic I agree. It's a real problem, and I think, like whoever was the member of the public who talked about the need to maybe reimagine the intersection

[234:02] of 27 and more headway. I think I really appreciate it, even though he had to rush through his slides. I really appreciated him, pointing out the risks that additional traffic would bring to that intersection. And that's something that the city is going to have to take into account. even though it's the development that might be changing, creating it's part of the problem. And then, as I mentioned earlier, I am quite concerned about noise, mitigation, the apartments that are going to be along the highway entrance to 36 are going to be super noisy. So if this comes up when i'm still on planning board, I will be raising questions about this Kurt. I just wanted to say. I forgot to mention that I completely agree that there should be more retail. especially on the 20 seventh way side. I I do. When I was talking about it under the Mobile company and policies. I feel like the general concept is consistent with the complaint policies that the the the the

[235:07] building design would be significantly improved with real retail on there instead of. So I just want to agree with everybody else on that. All right. Thank you, Kurt. All right. Last opportunity to speak to key issue number 2. No hands. All right. We're moving to key issue number 3 is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings, and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings in the area. So who would like to respond? Who would like to be the first person to respond to that? All right, Laura. I will take the hit for the team. I'm guessing I might not be the majority. I'm actually not sure if i'm the majority on this one. But i'm fine with going to 55 feet on this building. It is right by a transit corridor. It's right by the University. The building as Sarah pointed out. That's just across Morehead is 45 feet going up, an additional 10 feet does not seem out beyond the pale to me.

[236:14] There's another 55 foot building just Caddy Corner over there across 27 way. I do think that you know, Staff had a very good comment about that. The transition in massing from the northwest to the south and east sides of the building with the corner of Morehead and twenty-seventh way, being 2 stories in height, to be compatible with the existing 2 story commercial uses across the 20 seventh way to the west is a good comment. The whole thing should not be 55 feet, certainly, but i'm fine with some parts of it being 55 feet, and and maybe large parts of it, especially the parts that go back a. But with, you know the on ramp to 20 eighth being the on ran or off ramp to 20, eighth being behind it. That part of the building seems perfectly appropriate to me to be a bit higher. I did also appreciate Staff's comments. They said that there need to be changes in plane to create articulation along rights of way

[237:11] as well as vertical elements. Step back, and changes in materiality to create visual interest and break up down the perceived massing. I think the applicant in their conceptual drawings has done some of that, and I I applaud that I'm. Looking forward to seeing how that gets done in the final development. But in general I do think that it is appropriate to have 55 feet in some parts of this site with sensitivity, you know. Again, they've moved all the massing away from the neighborhood which the neighborhood doesn't touch the property, except at the Far East Side, which is where all the green space is going to be. and they're trying to be sensitive to that gateway there at more head and 27, where people are driving into their neighborhood with a 2 story lower down there and I think that's very appropriate. So I think they're doing all the right things. And I want to see how it looks in the final plans. But generally I think it's appropriate.

[238:02] Alright, Thank you, Laura. Okay, Mark. Wait. Whoa! Mark Ml. Lisa Kurt. George. Oh. I find that the height, especially in service sorely needed housing if done properly, if the design is right is is warranted, and I I think that when an applicant comes to us, and I know that that they fulfill the requirement between 35 and 55 feet by providing very specific community benefits that are written into the code. and i'm i'm not advocating that we go outside the code. but I will say that I think there is a responsibility upon applicants, especially when building to our maximum height.

[239:02] to really have excellence in design, because those buildings are taller, they are more visible. They are seen, and they I, I especially in this site. It is a gateway to the city, so I can't. You know from these concepts. You know it's just big chunks, and yes, some of them are smaller and set back. But and so it's very hard to say. I'm. I'm. I'm just going to say that it is important that you really have excellence in design. And when I, when I look at the applicants proposal, and I look at each chapter page. It's a nice aerial view of the Wolf Law Building. which is 55 feet and is 725 feet away a lot. That's a 55 for building 725 feet away, and it's actually I find it to be very nice. I think it's good design, and I would look for that level of design articulation

[240:05] to be present when they come back for site Review. I also want to point out that so we have the Wolf Wall Building, 725 feet away. 600 feet away is the creekside apartment. and and 1,200 feet away, is Spanish towers, which is i'm not sure how tall it is, but it's it's it's way away above 50 by feet. I'm sure there's some history there, but anyway. Spanish Towers is not far away, so as far as being compatible with existing nearby development. I think, if done correctly. the height can be oh. can be warranted and in service of Alright, Thank you, Mark Lisa, Did I say you next? I can't remember what my order was. I think someone else is ahead of me. Ml: so, Ml: i'm sorry people keep moving around on the chessboard. So Ml: Lisa Kurt. George.

[241:07] Thank you, Sarah Mark, that that was a great comment on excellent excellence in design totally appropriate. and I would hold the applicant to this as well. So my take on hype the lots that actually share. A border to the site are one to 3 stories and 35 to 45 feet in height. So I would say the immediate context is not support a for a 55 foot height. Additionally. I'm. Not convinced of a functional need for 55 foot height if they are trying to accommodate the proposed unit, Count. I I completely agree with densifying the footprint and doing it in a location that they're doing it in. I would reiterate the prior comment that I made that it's like. Take a look at the actual plan and what you're providing for that and

[242:08] make hard working housing here. I'm not sure that 55 foot is necessary. I agree with Laura's thinking that perhaps it would be pieces that would be that high. but I don't think that literally the context is is supported supporting of 55, because nothing immediately adjacent to the site has that hype. They're they're, you know, across the street or candy corner off off to the distance. So I, and not convinced that 55 feet is necessary or or appropriate. Thank you, Ml. Lisa and Kurt and George.

[243:02] Thank you, Sarah. We'll try to be fairly brief, because I think we're hearing a lot of great things from other folks given the context of the site. I'm having a hard time picturing 55 feet. I think I it to move up to that. I would need to see a design that made sense to me within the context, and then i'd also need to see kind of a some of the stuff I already addressed, like being, you know, dealt with with the neighborhood, and so on to where there was starting to be buying around it. So I guess at this point i'm very skeptical, 55, even though I I agree that it's got some intensity if you surround it to where I wish I could be a little more pro. But yeah, that there's just a lot of low buildings around there without that context around it, without really seeing why it needs to be used that way. I I just have a hard time supporting the 55, and I think i'll leave it there because we're hearing a lot of great stuff from other folks. Thank you, Lisa Kurt, and then, George. Well, this definitely seems like very much an eye of the holder kind of a situation, because I think you could justify 55 feet based on what you focus on you could justify. Not 55 feet.

[244:18] maybe. Okay, is that better? A little bit? Yeah, Speak a little louder. I Don't. Think your headset. Mike is actually picking up your voice. I think we're hearing through your computer. It's very. It's very fuzzy. How it is interesting. Go to somebody else and let me work on this. All right, George. Sure I kind of sit where Ml and and Lisa are sitting. you know. UN unlike what what Mark said. I I agree with the law. Building is a is an interesting structure. It also happens to be on Cu. That's not necessarily related to our height restrictions, and so I don't know if that's a good comparison for context.

[245:05] I think also the devil's in the detail of the design right? The developers leaving out a lot of first floor retail. and they're They're asking for this type to maximize their profitability on on student rentals, and I don't know if it's the best interest in in Boulder. I I've used this term before I use it again. I i'm i'm very wary of developers putting 10 polls up in our city. Where, then, this spurs 55 foot development redevelopment of sites directly adjacent to this, and I don't know that this, the context, as as Ml. Stated it so well necessarily merits of full Max out of our height. and i'll leave with that. Thank you. Thanks, George. All right. Current. Let's try you again. Okay, is this better? It's kind of the same, Just

[246:01] okay. Well, so basically I am. Okay, with 55 feet. I agree with Ml: that I'm: not to that it's completely justified. I do feel that it's important that we try to get as many units, as many bedrooms as we can. If we can reduce some of the amenity space. and thereby reduce the height and get the same number of units then, and that would make the neighborhood happier. I think that that would be great if we just keep the same floor area and reduce the height, then that's larger footprint. It's in general, more in in previous area, and probably not a good trade off in my mind. I think it is important that to consider that this is on big streets right. It's bounded by baseline it's bounded by

[247:04] us 36 really and it's bounded by 27 point all of which are large streets, where I think the a higher frontage is more appropriate. And so certainly on those spaces I feel like 55 feet is not inappropriate. Thanks. right. Thanks. Kurt. I am not comfortable with 55 feet I'm. Okay with 45 feet. I just, you know, a reminder that the zoning here the zoning here requires very limited residential on the first floor. I mean that's part of the BC. To zoning. And what I think we have here is a applicant who builds a certain kind of thing, and is trying to get that thing approved, even though it doesn't

[248:01] fit with what the zoning is. And I don't feel that we should be throwing our zoning up into the air, because the applicant wants to build a certain thing. I I do agree we need student housing, but I think going to 55 feet which would overpower everything that is in that neighborhood, literally everything, including what's across the street as well as the single-story homes that primarily make up what's in that neighborhood? So I would be okay with 45 feet. And I I kind of agree with Laura that maybe push the the part of the building that's pushed to the or it is in the northern side that goes up against the highway access. Maybe that could be 55 feet. but not the whole building, and and they have to take into account the retail space on the first floor, and not having that much residential access through the first floor, given the the zoning that is.

[249:09] part of BC. 2. So, and I want to appreciate what Ml. Said, and also what I looked at about the height, but also what Mark said about design excellence. It's a little hard to tell. And this is actually the second or third time we've gotten the concept plan that's still vague enough that we can't actually comment on stuff. And I I do understand that applicants don't want to go too far down a path before they get feedback. but you know white boxes with with green spaces and blue lines, are not helpful to most of us in being able to give you adequate feedback. so I will. if if no one minds i'm going to wrap up on that comment unless somebody wants to respond to tell me i'm i'm wrong at this moment. Okay, I don't want to tell you you're wrong. I just want to. I don't know when the appropriate time is for this, but I would like to recommend that Council refer this project to Tab, because I think there are a lot of transportation aspects related to this.

[250:15] and I think it would be very useful to get tabs and put on this. Charles, can you remind us when what that pro what that process would be? Yeah. So Council has the authority to refer projects to Transportation Advisory Board, and typically what we see as the recommendation come when they submit the that the review come when they submit their site review application. They're welcome to visit Tab in advance of their site. Review. Submittal. But I think that's what we've seen most recently here. Okay. So so the staff just note that Kurt suggested that

[251:03] this be referred to tab that city council. Refer this to Tab. And yeah, we can include that in the call up memo that we transmit to council. Okay. Is there anyone who disagrees with Kurt on that? Okay. Not only do I not disagree. I I am concerned that If it is in the call up Memo post site review. then it's too late that it is not clearly defined in the code. It's because clearly to find that Tab can't weigh in without the request of council on any land use matter what's Unclear is right when when the referral should take place, and in this case with the complex traffic patterns, etc., I would say that

[252:01] Site review would be awfully late for this to go to that. I think the reason we see it go with the initial site. Review. Submit. A mark is that that's one of the several drones become a little more developed. But that said, there's nothing precluding them from going in advance of their segregation. Middle. Okay. But Hella just popped up. Hella. You have something to say? Yeah, I i'm not sure. I find maybe misunderstood what Mark is saying, what I was wondering if mark you had concerns, then maybe that a site review decision considered for call up would result in the referral to Tab, and that that would be I. I i'm sorry if that was the misunderstanding Mark. What I was saying is that we'll include planning Boards recommendation for Tab to review this as part of our call up memo for the concept Plan Review. So once you guys finish your hearing tonight. We'll draft a memo next week. We'll transmit it to the Council. Yeah. So I apologize. If that was confusing.

[253:08] Thank you that totally addresses my concern. I thought you were referring to Postsite Review, and I thought, Well, it's all that's. It's done so, anyway. Thank you that that addresses my concern. Staff, Did you get what you needed from us tonight? Yeah, absolutely. Who is here, Brad Brad? Do you have anything for matters? I know, Lisa, and at least that Laura has something. Brad, do you have anything? Yeah. Good evening. Thank you for that. As we wrap up that last item, I do want to circle back to some of the discussion about. You know the number of minutes for

[254:02] public comment. I think it's important to recognize that the role of the chair is to manage the meeting. and in that context the chair does have discretion in in how to manage that inspect the decision. Now, it's obviously prudent to maybe straw polls. You know each of you to see what preference would be your to use rule of thumbs, such as the number of folks that preliminarily indicate what they're doing. But fundamentally, that's the chairs role is to be able to do that and and to handle. But the number of the minutes. How the folks are speaking that kind of stuff within the guidelines that we have with the city, you know, regarding pooling, and some of those things so happy to talk to you individually if you've got some thoughts about that, but just wanted to reinforce that. and also just know that we administratively will always reinforce the fact

[255:03] that folks can send written correspondence in in advance, and they afterwards as well. because it's going to go through additional processes. same with Powerpoint, and that type of thing, too. And and Sarah, i'm sure you you know you'll take that opportunity to remind folks that, too, when when that gets called the question. But other than that, I don't have anything to add other than we did have, as some of you note a open house a week or so ago regarding older Junction 2, we I I did see the email traffic about kind of being aware of those in advance, and we we'll make sure to be careful about that, as we move forward with others. But a successful emergence from you know the Covid Bubble, as we get into some of those more typical kinds of public outreach efforts that we've been able to do in the past. And with that i'm happy to answer any questions.

[256:04] any questions for Brad. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Brad. How are you? You've turned your face on. So are you. Do you have something for us? Nope. Just since it's matters. I thought I turned it on, but nothing for me. Thank you. I know Laura has. Laura wants to do a quick, quick catch up on what's happening with the airport discussions. Shall I do that now? Please do it now? Yeah, okay. I want to remind you where we left this as a Planning Board was that our April fourth meeting. We approved a letter from planning board to City Council about the Airport community conversation expressing some concerns about that design in particular about whether housing would be included in the set of scenarios that are developed for public outreach and public comments. In order to honor Bbcp 6.2, 3, and I wanted to let you know. I mentioned this briefly last week that the news is good. I think that Staff heard our comments, as well as other people's comments.

[257:10] and have made some changes to how they're messaging about this, and also potentially to their their design and what they're anticipating, including in the scenarios, I can give you more detail about what I have heard from Staff. That makes me think that I don't think that we have heard a specific promise that Yes, there will be a scenario that includes housing, or there will be a housing hybrid scenario developed. I don't think they've gone as far as a promise, but I think they have made several indications that give us good reason to believe that that is the likely outcome. I'm happy to go through that with you in more detail, if you'd like. But the main purpose of me talking to you tonight about this is just to update you and give credit to Staff, for I think that they have heard us and made some changes that were very appropriate and very positive. And also I do think it's appropriate for us to circle back to city council and close the loop, because the last thing that we did was ask them to give some direction to Staff that might no longer be necessary. So my intention, if folks are okay with this, I wanted to check in with you

[258:11] is to go ahead and write a communication from me as the airport liaison. I don't think we necessarily need to have the whole planning board word Smith a letter. But just basically to say what I have said to you that that the news looks good, and we're very encouraged by the direction that staff is taking. and that we are looking forward to seeing how this moves forward. Lisa, do you want to respond? Yeah. I think i'd probably be willing to be overruled. I agree that we don't need to for Smith it, but, if possible. And, Helen, if you could weigh in on how to do this in a appropriate and transparent way. I think it might be nice to just read over with the verbages, and then, if if there's any, I I don't. I don't interested in making a lot of edits, but i'd love to see what was going to them before i'm like Yes, I sign off on that. I also agree that we probably. unless there's some procedural reason why we have to. I'd love to not, you know. Sit around and do that. I'd I'd love for it, maybe you to draft it

[259:06] great something. I don't know what the exact timeline is, and then, perhaps briefly, it matters. You know anyone who has comments can make them so that it's transparent, or whatever their appropriate processes. And then. before what are your thoughts? Is that something that could be addressed that next week's meeting, because I think the only item we currently have scheduled is the the motions practice training. If that's what folks would like is to see a draft, and then make any comments at the next meeting, and make changes together. I'm. Totally open to that. I think we would have to make changes together in real time, though, for it to be not a serial meeting. If i'm understanding that correctly, Helen. I think so. And and again, Laura, I I don't know that i'm gonna have any recommended changes whatsoever. I just sort of have this. I don't want to say knee, Jerry, but i'm like, wait. I'm setting off on what? No, no, no, absolutely absolutely. I'm totally on board if folks want to be involved. I was just trying to minimize the time commitment. If folks didn't think they needed to be involved. But if you would like to, certainly I welcome that.

[260:08] Is there anyone who has a problem with Laura drafting, and also looking at it next week. seeing nobody disagreeing. Laura, that sounds great. Thank you very much for taking this on and for your hard work on this any other matters. Nope. Kurt. And then Ml. There was an article just in the paper today about the potential code changes required in order to get prop 123 funding, and i'm guessing that Staff have been thinking about this, and so at some point i'm not right now, obviously, but at some point I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on, what if any code changes we might need to.

[261:00] and i'm starting to get a hard time hearing. That was that regarding the State law, did you say? Yeah. Proposition: 123, Not a single but what? Have a the housing one. Okay. thanks for the clarification. Alright, Ml. So i'm just curious. And maybe I don't know who would be the person to Last week we did the board liaison's. and i'm not exactly sure who's going to reach out, and how we're going to know when to show up at our board, and who our contact is. So. Is this something that Hi, Amanda? Oh, it's gonna help us. I have no clue. I I I volunteered for DAB, and

[262:00] i'm not exactly sure how I hopefully I haven't missed a meeting this week. I apologize. I'm not sure exactly who is appointed to, or who has volunteered to be liaison for each board. But Devin is also your board a specialist for DAB, so i'll relay that to him. But typically I I would think that any of the board secretaries would probably reach out all over there for each board. Yes, okay. perfect. I just keep thinking. Should I be doing something? But and you, Haven't missed out. There's a one coming up here in May. Oh. cool. Thank you, sure, Laura. I just just in to colloquy on that. I want to say, I very much appreciated the warm handoff that Mark did for me with. Have he basically wrote to the Hab chair and secretary and said, hey, you can take me off your mailing list, and please add, Laura, she'll be your new rep, and then I return the favor for him on landmarks, so I don't know who the last DAB rep was, but that was a nice way to handle it. I thought to kind of do that transition between liaisons.

[263:20] Thank you mark All right. Mark Mark's doing his pantomime. All right. Last call for anything under matters. All right. I am officially closing this meeting at 1022 Pm. Thank you, everybody. Good night. Thank you. Right. Everyone.