June 20, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] And perfect first item of business is approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any comments, Mark? Alright, bye. good evening. Call Yes, I am going to comment on the minutes tonight. So I'm going to begin by saying I will be voting against approving the minutes even with Laura's additions. And so when I received the minutes last week I I reviewed them, and I what I continue to be moderately frustrated with the extreme brevity of of our minutes. and that particular meeting, April 20, fifth was a

[1:03] pretty big meeting, a big chat, big concept review. But I thought, you know I I the choices. Am I going to study up on to be prepared for the new meeting, or am I going to go back and watch the video and try to make edits to the minute. So I said, I'm gonna let it go. And I'm going to study up on the new meeting. and but well, some other day I'll deal with this. But as I delved into tonight's packet there are a number of places that the tonight's back. It refers to both the planning board concept planning board concept Review and 21 and those minutes. And I reviewed those minutes, and the Tab meeting, and 2,022 about the connections. and I reviewed those minutes. and

[2:04] both of those minutes were both of those sets of minutes from our board in a prior time, and the tab board were substantive. They were accurate, and they conveyed the essence of what was put forth by those boards at the time. and although our meeting was. you know, 5 or 6 h on that April 20 fifth meeting. you know our our minutes were much shorter than the minutes from those other meetings that were shorter. and I I don't equate length with accuracy and and and value, but I do. It is one measure of of how what minutes are are supposed to be about. And so, and I and I've mentioned this before. Minutes are all on a spectrum of a transcript where every word is recorded, and some sort of refundry document that doesn't really convey the essence, and I find that our minutes have drifted to the perfunctory and not conveying the essence and and minutes are a useful tool

[3:24] or council for other boards and commissions to understand our input and our decisions. So I'm not requesting that this be an issue that we be addressed tonight. I will request. to our Madam Chair, that you work with staff to address this at a later, that we have this as a as a meeting topic sometime in the future. But, I am struggling with with our minutes, and I would request that that be a topic for future discussion.

[4:02] Hey, Brad? Thank you. Thank you, Mark, Fred. Thank you. chair, not to interject the discussion, and and certainly let the such play out. But I do want to acknowledge that One of the casualties of me taking vacation was not being able to follow up yet with you, Sarah, and the board by extension We have had internal conversations about the minutes and and city policy in that regard and resources and and details that it won't get into, you know, for for the very reason Mark just mentions But I do know you, Sarah, conversation, and and I will make sure to follow up here in the next week, so that we can have an additional conversation, and then a broader one with with people that

[5:01] great I'm glad to do that. And when we have that conversation, maybe Mark would like to join us and share his thoughts. Okay, so do. We still want to go ahead and vote on this or mark? Do you feel strongly enough that you would prefer that we set this aside for one more until the next meeting, and then go forward from there, because I think it was a concept review and a site review. Can we do that? Laurel. Sorry I should check with you first. You? Yes, you can delay it. There'll need to be a motion either to delay it or to approve it either way, so that we can get it recorded on. Make a motion, mark, do you? Would you be interested in making a motion to delay? Sure, I'm I'm happy to make a motion before we do that. Let's just see if there's any support among everyone else before you go through the process of making a motion. Would there be a would there be a second for that? A motion that would delay this a bit longer?

[6:00] Can I ask a question. Sure would the delay result in any change? I mean, are we expecting there to be some something happen? I think, that the only delay would be embroid. I let you talk in a minute is is, if people want to more closely examine the minutes and add or change things. So Brad, what what did you want to add? It's just a technical matter that I think, the probably preferred motion would be to continue to the next meeting or 2 meetings out, or, to use the language of continuing this agenda item. Thank you. Okay. So there were 3 people who supported a delay or a continuance. Mark ml, and Laura. Lisa, did you want to say something? Wait for some reason, Lisa. We can't hear you, even though you're not muted.

[7:10] No, we still can't hear you. All right. You'll call back in Kurt. What did you want to say, Laura? Lisa? We'll call back, and we'll come back to you when you do, for go ahead. I I I'll just say that I would certainly support continuing this item. If that's the interest of other people. I. I also felt that the the the note of the minutes. We're kind of brief but I probably don't feel strongly about this. Okay. I want to get. Let Laura get back in here. I'm not Laura. I'm so sorry, Lisa, to get. I'm don't get old, is my advice to everyone. Let's just wait for a minute for Lisa to get back online if she's able to. while we're waiting for Lisa. can I make a comment, Sarah, sure.

[8:04] So I agree with Mark that the minutes have become very condensed. I do go back to the video anytime I can, and try to just make sure that at least my comments reflect what I think is substantive. I try not to go on and on, but if there are different points, and in this particular set of minutes there were probably 5 or 6 different points that I felt were something that I felt was important to convey to the applicants, especially since this was a concept review, and they didn't make it into the notes. And so I understand the staffing constraints, and that it takes a lot of time to do a good set of minutes. And it's not fun. It's not a glamour job. I I do think, as a facilitator, that the purpose of meeting notes or meeting minutes is that other people and and ourselves, if we want to look back in the future from at what we did in the past, that we get the salient, important, substantive points of what was said and any decisions made. And you know I totally support being as brief as possible while still keeping things substantive. So in terms of continuing these notes, I'm happy with the changes that I made. If other folks feel that they would indeed go back and make sure that these minutes reflect their substantive input. If they would like to do that. I'm happy to support a continuance for me. The bigger issue is, you know, moving forward. What are these minutes gonna look like? And what's going to be captured?

[9:22] All right, Lisa, you're back. Thank you, Laura. She has a comment in the chat. Yeah. okay. Do you want to Lisa, do you want to also get a get a phone connection going? So we can see you. But you can talk into the phone. Okay. I think that was a yes. okay. So Lisa, are you okay? Even though we, you weren't able to in your comments for us to go ahead and do a continuance. Okay. Mark, do you want to make a motion? I think it'd be super simple.

[10:02] I move to continue the approval of the April 20, Fifth Planning Board meeting minutes to a future date. as determined by the chair and staff. as determined as best determined by the chair and staff. Alright perfect. Do we have a second? I have a second. Yes, ml. Hi, mark George, sure Sarah's and I and Lisa sent us a text, saying she was also in support of it, but I don't know if that can be counted. So it's either 6 0, or 7 0 laurel. Tell us what we're allowed to do. 6 0 6 0. Okay, yep, thank you.

[11:00] Okay, we will now move on to public participation. But before we start public participation we are going to ask Vivian to remind the public of the rules and regulations of of public participation. And just a reminder this is your opportunity as a member of the public to talk about any issue you would like. That is not either. Item 5, A or 5 B of today's public hearing items. So if you want to talk about an increase in the length of time for approval of land use for 1,345, 20 Eighth Street. Please hold your comments till later. This is an opportunity to talk about anything else but those 2 things. Great. Great. Thank you. Chair and thanks, Amanda, for pulling up the slides. We have a few people here from the public tonight, so thanks a lot for taking your time to attend the meeting My role is to help facilitate public engagement parts of these meetings and the rules I'll share now, quickly. Are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. and planning board. We'll start with open comments as chair mentioned, and there are 2 public hearing items. Later in the agenda.

[12:16] We really want our participants to know that the city is 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. Everyone who's participating feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings next slide. and we do have a lot of information on our website about what we call as an umbrella our productive atmospheres vision. If you want to find out more, you can go to our website. But I'll focus on a few things for this specific meeting. Tonight. We have rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants this evening.

[13:03] First, we ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. and we will not allow any participant to make threats or use any forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue, is prohibited. and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by and to display their first and last name before speaking, so that we may call on you. And we know who's providing the input next slide. We're all in the Zoom Webinar format, and it allows participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns. In this platform. As I mentioned, we need a full name associated with each person's participation in the meeting. and we cannot unmute you without your full name. So if your full name is not currently displayed, and you plan to speak. Please change it. You can right click on your name, or send it to me in the Q. A. And I'm happy to change it for you.

[14:07] There's no pre existing list to speak. So you just you'll need to raise your virtual hand, and on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this, the very bottom of your screen. You'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items. If you click on the hand, icon, it'll raise a hand next to your name, and that's how we'll note to to call on you next slide, and if you have an expanded menu. You can also get to the oh, sorry. Maybe previous one. Also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. and doesn't look like anybody's participating by phone But in case you are, you can dial star 9 to raise that virtual hand that reps up these rules and regulations. Thank you. and we can move into the wait. Wait, Vivian. Just been common. Amanda, Amanda, are you there? Yeah, Amanda. I apologize. All I had a little bit of a glitchy Internet. Sorry. So Lisa just texted me that she's trying to call in. But the meeting id proper interface for her does not include a call in

[15:12] option. Can you? Can you help her? yes, I will. I'll send her an email and try to try to fix that. Okay? So I see that she's back on with that audio. I mean she she's muted. Lisa. Can you unmute for a moment. Lisa Smith. can you hear us? Can you? Can you talk for a moment, Lisa? Not working. Okay. Amanda is going to get in touch with you. and I'll work through this with you. Okay. sorry. Lisa. Okay, okay. all right. We're just in public participation right now. Lisa. all right, Vivian, please go ahead and let's whoever has their hands up, we'll start. Yeah. So we I see one. If other people would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hand so that we know how many people there are. and each person will have 3 min. So first we have Patrick or work, please go ahead.

[16:14] You have 3 min. thank you. Planning board. My name is Patrick O'rourke. I'm the preservation chair for historic boulder. I wanted to take this opportunity to number one. Thank Laura and Mark for monitoring the landmarks boards, because I know it's along with your very busy agenda. It's just one more activity that you have to do to be on the planning board. However, we do believe it's a critical critical thing that you do. on May thirtieth of this year the historic folder, the friends of the Bandshell and the Tea house submitted application for a civic historic district.

[17:00] and it's gonna be held the the initiation hearing is going to be on July twelfth. and we're going to request that the landmarks board here. It within 60 days which could put it as early as September. And currently it's on the October fourth agenda. The reason for reaching out to you is twofold. Number one is, I know you have a very busy agenda, so I want to make sure that we're added onto that agenda sometime in September, October, but no later than your first meeting in November. The reason for that is that we've spoken at City Council now July of last, through June of last year. at which time James Hewett, the current, or at that time the the city historic planner. suggested that the civic historic district would be a a good idea, and that the landmarks board and the city would bring it forward to the city council in the third quarter of 2,023. The only way that could occur is if

[18:05] If the planning board responds within the the 45 days of when the hearing is so just letting you know about it more than anything else. I spoke at the last City Council meeting and City City City Council, asked Staff if there's a way that they could hear it before they moved off. which I believe their last meeting is December seventh. The reason for this inquiry is that I don't think anybody on the Planning Board ever heard of historic district, and I wanted to make sure that there's a question here because you, the planning Board, has to determine that it meets the land, use implications according to the older comprehensive plan, and I didn't see a place where there is a checklist. So I'm asking Staff whether that's somebody on this board or I believe it's Brad.

[19:01] whether we could get that checklist early so we could help fill it out. And on that note I want to thank you for your service. Thank you so much. I don't see any other hands raised. Give it a couple more seconds Lynn's raised your hand. Vivian. Yeah, please go ahead, and you have 3 min. just ditto that for me from Patrick. And let's see here. First of all. I would really like to see who's at this meeting. that is not impossible to do. You can either have a list of participants, or you can have gallery view. I like to see all of you. So maybe it's good to have you on valu the salary view, since there's so many, you know, and you don't want it shrinking down the little tiny debts.

[20:00] But I like to see not only who I'm talking to, but I think you should like to see who your responding to who your public is. I exist more than in some deep, dark shadow of a place for you, and I also like to know who I am here with. I'd like to know if Patrick is here. and without him speaking. There are many people that don't speak, and I'd like to know when Patrick leaves. and that's something I can do, not even when I'm live. Can I be monitoring that. But on that participants list I can see who's there who's gone when? What they heard. Those are important thanks for me to know who my community is who the public is who is interested in what? And I think one of the main things is the integration of all the boards in Boulder.

[21:03] and, as was discovered lately with Caroline Miller, who was just fired from the she is the one person I've heard of in Boulder that follows many boards that I do, especially planning board and tab and she's on. She was on Osbt and Rab, and the really critical boards in this town that form public policy. and there's so much integration of what happens from one board to the next. For example, see you South and its development instantly jumped. The population of this town double did. and doubles also the Osbt deficit of 300 million 2 multiples of that. and all of the other expenses of the infrastructure that we have for our community.

[22:05] I also want to recommend that you do something about individual land use. and I've just sent you something that you can read about this about multi-generate, multi-generational housing that needs to be incorporated mainstream into boulder housing and will spread out throughout the country because there's a a a real big demand for socialization of people that they don't have multi-generational socialization. Thank you, Lynn. thank you for your comments. Really appreciate it. Any other hands up. Yes, excellent. Okay. all right. Now, we're going to move into discussion of disposition planning board. Call up the continuation.

[23:00] There are 4 of them. We'll go through each one. Call up, item 1,100 balsam Avenue site, the Site Review Amendment L, you are 202, 3, 0 0 1 5 Does anyone want to call this up? Ml, and Kurt? So ml, first and current? Thank you, Sarah. I I have a question. Hi Chandler, are you here to answer a question? so my understanding is that This item is looking to remove the P. U. D. And remove the quote Hospital Park from the P. U. D. Which will allow it to be reviewed using form based code standard versus. I think the language that the staff had was valid. Site Review. And you. is that correct?

[24:02] It just puts it on a different track. Yes, yeah. The in the code says that if there's an existing ped that applies to a property that that property isn't eligible for form based code review. So we adopted the form based code to apply it to the hospital site. for the Alpine Balson redevelopment. But it was in a so they're essentially shrinking the beauty to free up The majority of the hospital site to be submitted under form based. Code review. So my second question. well. there, it's my understanding that Boulder Junction was going to be looked at for, the success for have a form based code performed? Has that been done? Do we know a form based code is given the results we want.

[25:05] I don't think that form based code is any longer considered a pilot. I think there was a post post mortem that was done as part of the 30 Pearl Development. I don't know that it was done in any formal way. But I I think that there was analysis that was performed, and weeks that were made as we started talking to their consultants on the Alpine balsam form base code from lessons learned on the Boulder Junction area where we did form based code. So I think the answer is, yes and no. Ml. but I don't think it's I don't think it's considered a pilot anymore. I think. we've embraced legislatively the form based. What is the tool? Ml, can I just like so when we voted on Alpine balsam, I don't know who else was already here. we approved a modified, or we approved some.

[26:08] The form based. Code we approved is not exactly the same form-based code that was approved at Folder Junction. It it was it picked this, this, the staff identified parts of it that they wanted to apply, not the whole form based code. So it's not meant to look like correct. I I did look at the form based code. which is in our code. So I guess my big question I'm grappling with about about this is what? So in looking at the form based code as it is in the code right now. And I see it's got the map for the Alpine Boston project. It doesn't identify it doesn't identify view corridors.

[27:02] the way it did for the Boulder Junction site. They were very clear. There was view corridors to be, and that was in the form based code. There was nothing spoken to about the Alpine Bossum. There is nothing spoken to about in existing environmental factors. There's a Creek Goose creek, and it's watershed are underneath that site. And that isn't acknowledged as in the significant existing features. and also talked about. well, there are trees, and luckily somebody went out there and put, you know, the orange protections around all the trees. There are significant trees surrounding that side. which could be impacted by the. So I'm I'm wondering if there are deficiencies such as I pointed out, and those are only just, you know, the ones that I And bringing forward in the form based code. how will those things get captured? And and and how will they inform? How will the views. How will the Goose Creek? How would they actually inform

[28:12] the next steps? I understand that this must have happened, and it was to happen so that the project can be expert that can go forward. But I'm just curious to what will we lose by not going to a use inside of you. So we did go through. We did go through a site. Review. Ml, and Goose Cree. If you look at the plans for the hospital site Goose Creek. They they're creating on the northern edge of the site right entire, of entire water management system, which is where Goose Creek would flow when Goose Creek flows. It's a it's a little messier than that. But I I hear what you I so Chandler, is there? Am I making sense? I'm just trying to understand? what does the form base code not put on the table that a use and site review would.

[29:08] you know, I think that's a it's a pretty broad kind of consideration. I mean the way I understand it. And the way that you know, I think city staff understands it is that the Alpine balsam area plan was adopted after a lengthy public process to determine what we wanted for that site and for that area. The form based code was created specifically to implement the vision of the Alpine balsam area plan. site and user view criteria are much more general in nature. So I think, when we were adopting the area plan and the subsequent form based code. these factors that you're discussing were were taken into consideration and and the end result. What was adopted was what people thought was appropriate for the site.

[30:01] So really, they're just trying to implement the Alpine balsam area plan as it's been adopted through the public process. to to essentially not allow it to go through form based code review. I don't think it would come through site and use review because the right, because the the form based code like it, it would just be it would just remain as a demolished site until some later time, when Someone else came up with another idea for it. But really, even then, if they came in for Site review, they would still have to meet or demonstrate consistency with the Comp plan and with the outline Balson area plan. So it's it's kind of a it's kind of a con under my guess, if if they weren't to go through form based code review, I don't know that site and you would get us anything extra, because just by nature it would kind of not be consistent with what the outline Boston area plan anticipated.

[31:08] Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. A curt. You have your hand up. Yeah, I I'm not interested in calling this up. But I just had a question. It seems like we're dissolving most of the people right and just leaving these residents of the pavilion and the parking garage. Is there any purpose in keeping the Pd. At all? Could we just dissolve the entire Pd. At this point. Theoretically, I guess the I think the applicant has has some strategic reasons for wanting to keep part of the Pd. I know part of it was that The existing parking garage is part of the Ped. The city on parking garage so to allow the parking garage to kind of continue to be tied in a regulatory fashion to the Pavilion Building. which I think is important for right now, since they're not planning to redevelop those until later date. the pub boundary. It was decided that the pity boundary should remain in place for those 2 lots.

[32:12] also the there's an adjacent building. The sorry. The name of the building. Yeah. Brenton Building. There's also a plan to to bring the Brenton building eventually into the pub, theoretically, to make that part of the expanded city campus. So it's it's all it's essentially regulatory gymnastics that we're doing right now. but there, there is reason reasoning behind all of it. I can't really explain it. That well, to be honest, I'm sorry. Okay, well, it sounds like it's been considered. And and that's the decision that's been made. So that's it has. I don't. I don't think that we're quite done manipulating the ped to challengers. Point there's going to be some other subsequent moving pieces that we're going to have to address as this progresses. But This is the initial step. I think that gets us into the realm of form base code review.

[33:08] Yeah, okay, thank you. So. And Ml, did you want to call this up. No, okay. Next item is, call up, item, floodplain development. Permit fld 202-30-0004. does anyone have questions or want to call it up? No, and we lost Mark somewhere. I'm going to assume that means no for him. was that a note. Okay. items. C, 4, C. Call up, item, boulder sewer, main replacement. W. Et, 223. Okay. Item, 4 d. Call up. Item, remapping of wetlands at Wonderland Creek, in Nineteenth Street.

[34:02] Kurt, you have your hand up. Yeah, I just have one question again. So this is removing, because I understand that this is removing the areas of wetland right? That. But things that are currently classified as wetland, that shouldn't be classified as wetland right? And yet for 1895. Redwood, it says, the city is finalizing purchase of this property under the provisions of the high hazard Zone property acquisition program. So I'm wondering how it's not a wetland yet. It's in the high hazard zone. Is that right? It just seems odd. Yeah, Hi, Kurt, this is Kristen Shepard. I'm the flood and wetland administrator, and my camera is not working. So I apologize. yes, it does seem odd, but the I think the main difference here. I can see how you that question would come up. The main difference is that the high hazard zone is map based on a 100 year flood coming down Wonderland Creek and wetlands are mapped, based on soil that is consistently wet over. a period of time.

[35:06] So even the Army core of engineers doesn't designate this area as a wetland, because it's essentially a small, it's ditch. But if it was, if there was a hundred year storm events that would be quite large, the water would be quite large. Does that make sense? That does make sense? Thank you. Yep, you're welcome. Okay, so you currently do not want to call it up. Okay, all right. So we are done with. Call ups, dispositions and continuations. Wait, Lisa. how do you? What do you want to? Okay, you're just there. Okay? All right, we're now going to move on the public hearing items. We have 2 today. The first is potential increase in the length of time, of approval of that of land uses potential potentially increasing the length of time that approval of land use is valid. I was informed today that this is already passed first reading of city council. So we're kind of backtracking a little bit. So we know what's going on since this is about land use. And, Brad, I think you take it away. Yeah.

[36:12] yeah, thanks. I wanted to provide some introductory comments before. Lisa. Does her not presentation. we as staff, really see this as a housekeeping item I know in the staff report we referenced some of the impacts of Covid. but it really gets to a larger direction that we got from council at their retreat. This last I guess it was February. In asking Staff to open up the code books and look at how things that are embedded in the code are elongating process where maybe they don't need to. we have gotten. And I personally get these, as you can imagine, gotten a significant number of comments of frustration from applicants and folks going through process.

[37:06] who? I think you know, in our judgment, rightfully have concerns that the process is kind of got in the way in some instances for timeliness. And we're not talking about substantive things where, you know, checks and balances are important. We're very sensitive to that, too, and we know that that has been the history and and of of the city. But we're talking about things that are uses that existed as a restaurant, for example. and we're vacant for a year in this case more than a year. And then just we're another restaurant which in every, in any other circumstance, would just be another tenant finish which we do doesn't on a regular basis. We have gotten reports of people spending literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent

[38:01] where they rented space, found out they had to go through a use review. that really, substantively didn't change anything that wouldn't have already been addressed through a building permit. so this can be considered as a very short And and quick addressing of time frames, but do know that we are working towards a larger list for council to consider, probably somewhere near the end of the year, maybe first quarter of items that are relative to code and process along the lines of the direction that they gave us at their treat. And I'm happy to answer any questions about that context. Otherwise. happy to just turn it over any questions. Or right now. Okay, so we'll turn it over to Lisa for you. Thank you, Brad. Hey? Great thanks for that context, Brad. Good evening planning board. It's nice to see you all. I have a very brief presentation. I feel like I don't usually give you brief presentation, so I'm glad to have a brief one to give you.

[39:12] This is as Brad said, and teed up really well on the land. Use approval, expirations, ordinance. You all are seeing this. The purpose of this tonight is for you to make a recommendation to the city council on ordinance 8, 5, 8, one, which was in your packet and relates to these, use review approval and conditional use approval expirations. So the current regulations in the land use code related to when an approval expires vary based on the type of approval. So a user view is only valid for one year if the uses ever discontinued. So if the business goes, or if the business goes out of business for a year, That's considered, the uses discontinued, and so, after a year that use expires, there is an option or the use review expires. There's an option to extend that by 6 months, with a conditional use they the it expires after one year, no option to extend. However, we have other types of approvals like Site Review and form based code review, which have longer expiration periods.

[40:17] so it's 3 years for each of those with options to extend beyond that. So that's the current state of the the expirations. The proposed ordinance makes a few simple changes. So for the use, review, and conditional use approvals rather than one year, they would not expire for 3 years. and then another important part of the ordinance is that the city manager is authorized by the ordinance to extend approvals that have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic. As Brad mentioned, we had a number of businesses. go out of business while during the during the pandemic, and to not either that business did not come back within one year or the property lost the user view approval. And like, in Brad's example, another restaurant wouldn't be able to take over that user view because it had been more than a year.

[41:08] so that would be the change that you'd see made through this ordinance. you would have noted in your memo. I noted, several comprehensive plan policies that this helps support, namely, in our economy section. So supporting local business and business retention, economic resilience responsive to changes in marketplace, such as a pandemic as well. The next steps for this ordinance, as Sarah mentioned it already had first reading, due to the recess and the the kind of odd schedule in summer. This is just kind of how the dates worked out. But First reading was that city council last week and passed, and then they will see second reading and have a public hearing. On July 20 all ordinances go into effect. 30 days after the the City Council passes something, so if it was adopted it would be effective. August nineteenth.

[42:06] I do have a suggested motion. It's the same one that's in your memo. But I'm happy to take any questions. hey? Laura first, and I also have questions. and we'll see who else has questions. So I think this is wonderful. I know we're not commenting. But I just want you to know I'm in support of giving businesses some extra time here, and to not have to go through an unnecessary additional review. I most of my questions have to do with how we're defining the COVID-19 pandemic. And so what period of time are we defining? Is the COVID-19 pandemic. And there's a clause about authorizing the city manager to re-establishing land use approvals that expired during that time period. Can the city manager do that indefinitely like? Could they go 20 years in the future, and then look back to COVID-19, or does is there a certain time period in which the city manager can re-establish those approvals?

[43:03] Yeah, that's a great question. So we did. set a specific time period. So it is May. It's any use that was due to the in in direct effects of COVID-19 pandemic that was discontinued on or after May tenth, 2,020, and December 30, first 2,024. So if they hit the expiration period at any point during that for almost 4 year period. Then the city manager would be authorized to extend that approval. and that's indefinitely like the city manager could, 10 years from now, look back to December 2,024, and re-establish a use that expired during COVID-19. Yes, I believe. So. That's how that would work. Okay? And why? Why is that that there's no like timeframe for making that decision like, do we think that that's needed to have it be indefinite? It just seems like that might be something that could be abused in the future by an unnamed, unknown city manager in the future.

[44:01] Yeah, I think that's something we hadn't discussed. the potential to kind of abuse that I think the thinking is per cap. Something would be vacant for 5 years. And you know, in the restaurant example, maybe that property has been vacant for 5 years, but they have the user view approval. And that just happened to that. The business left during Covid And so that use review. It's the fact that Covid extended longer than one year, and so there wasn't that opportunity for businesses to come back in because there weren't new businesses really opening up during Covid. So it was a unique circumstance. And that's why we've set that time limit of only businesses that had that expiration there. It's I don't know the exact numbers of how many businesses would be, or properties would be under that within that time limit. But I think it's fairly limited. Okay, thank you. Mark. You know I'll probably sell people like. Listen to what I say. Don't try to interpret what

[45:04] you think. I'm thinking. So I'm just gonna ask Brad and Sam a couple of questions. And is this is this prompted by the raising case denial of use. Okay, would the raising change denial of use the subject to city managers reinstatement of use? No, if we're using Keynes wanted to file another application for the location on 28, or they'd be required to undergo a full user view. This doesn't forgive applications, or or should it say operators that have never gone through the process? So, in other words, these are for properties that already had a use for correct for that same use in the past. It's essentially a continuation of that use

[46:05] for the same business company, necessarily the same type of use of a restaurant for a restaurant and retail for retail. but not not one that would involve site design, either. Right? So if it's adding a building or adding a drive through things like that, the subsequent operator would have to assume all of the operational characteristics that were approved in the original user view. So you wouldn't be able to add a drive through, you wouldn't be able to extend your hours of operation. You wouldn't be able to add more seeding. All of those things would trigger a new user view. it would just allow you the opportunity to pick up where they use left off. Okay, so just confirming. And you anticipated my question which is. had this ordinance been in effect a little about a year ago.

[47:01] would raising kings have had to gone through a use review if if this ordinance was in effect because it was a drive through at some point, and that and the discontinuance, my understanding of the discontinuous up the use as a drive through, even though it was a drive through liquor store for a little while. What a lot was! What prompted the Use review that we subsequently denied. So my question is, if this ordinance had been an effect, would the raising with raising canes have had to go through use, review? Or could they have created a new drive, a a drive through under the prior use? Yes, they would have been required to undergo a new user view. while the drive through use when it was a liquor store, had expired, and we do have a provision that relates directly to drive through uses. There was never an existing use for view on that property, so raising kids would have never been able to to reassume it, and the fact that the drive through use was vacated. for more than a year. We're not changing that section of the code.

[48:23] If if there's a a drive through that's vacant for a year. you're undergoing a new process. Okay? And and and the last my last question is. As I looked at the timeframe to go from one year to 3 years. but not increase the extension period. I anyway, I I did. You guys ever consider having a 2 year use review window. and then a one year extension. If if someone's gonna come back and go through the extension process. Actually, the the short

[49:01] thing seems to be that for me, the 6 month period of an extension did did you discuss extending the extension period and or shortening going from one to 2 years rather than from one to 3 years. Yeah, I think, going back to grabs initial points. This is really intended to eliminate some additional processes that businesses have to go through. So if we were going to have a 2 year period and then an extension period that would likely be approved. That's just another step for businesses to have to go through. And because we already use 3 years for our other approvals like Site Review and form base code review. it really just aligns our processes so that the timelines and there's often buildings or properties that are going through both user view and site review. and so it aligns those timelines. Better to just use the same. 3 year period. That's where we landed. Right? Thank you very much. okay, Kurt. And then, Ml, you have your hand up, do you still have a question? Okay? So, Kurt, you go ahead, please.

[50:07] I wanted to clarify something that Charles just said. because I, Charles, if I understood you correctly, I thought you said that this only applies to applications that are not established. not uses that are abandoned for a period of time. And yet that's not how I read. Section 5. Here it says, any conditional use, approval that is not established within one year of its approval, which is what we were talking about, comma discontinued for at least 3 years. or replaced by another use of link. So it's fire. So it sounds like the also, if you don't, you. if you don't use the the use, for it's approved use for

[51:05] 2 years and 9 months, you can still re-establish it without going through use for you. That's right. But you have to have a use review first for these regulations. To get that relief. There has to be an existing user view on the property. in order for it to expire and it to be revived. Okay. okay. And one other quick question. Then with the city manager can grant an extension. It's from. It's 6 months from the original date of expiration, not 6 months from when the it's granted right. So in the situation that Laura was asking about earlier. If it's 10 years on.

[52:03] then then that's long past 6 months from the original date of expiration. Right? Oh, sorry I I I I'm just wondering if I'm reading that right. So in those circumstances, like, if the use has been gone for 10 years. It isn't necessarily extending their approval, or it's not in an extension of like the 3 year approval from before it. Would you just be that the new use coming in, or the business coming back would be able to restart that use. But in this circumstances, in the limited circumstances of businesses that went out of business during Covid. Then they can assume that user view without having to go through the user reprocess. But to get back to what Charles said. They have to assume the exact same operating characteristics which is not

[53:09] I mean, there's a lot of different operating characteristics. So you'd have to have the same hours of operation, like Charles, that same seed, same everything to be able to assume that saint, that approval. So the likelihood of if it's a new business of it, it being exactly the same, might be might be limited after 10 years. Okay, okay, I think I was confusing. Section 4, and section 3, J, which you both changing. Okay. thank you. And so before I call on myself, anybody else have questions. All right, I'm gonna call myself up, Laura just real quick. So I I think it might have been our last meeting Zoom. Mama was moving into Chipotle, but Chipotle's use. Review headers expired with this ordinance have made it so that we did not have to spend our time on that zoom, mama, it's a great question. This is almost a direct response to situations like that

[54:09] of which we have a a number of them at this point. So yeah, they wouldn't have needed to undergo a user for you if we had these provisions adopted. Okay, thank you. okay. Anyone else before I call on myself. Okay, So I want to appreciate Laura bringing up the 10 year, the the the hypothetical. You went out of business during Covid, and 10 years later, you're somehow magically able to go back to business in exactly the same spot, with exactly the same conditions of use running the exact same business that strikes me that we're creating a very big ordinance to solve a very specific problem. And the very specific problem is businesses that went out of business. And during Covid, and I want to come back. and I'm just wondering if it might make more sense to make this a more limited ordinance.

[55:03] and maybe you add a year of instead of it being 3 years for any business, it's an additional year for any business and a end date for covid businesses. that businesses that went out of business during Covid. It just seems like the the open-endedness of the of the ordinances is a. It is something that should be make should be closed. and and I also. So that's one thing I would. I would like to suggest, and we can discuss it later. But I'm also, you know, if a business is at let's Restaurant X, it goes out of business. 10 years later. They want to reopen the exact same business in the exact same place, with the exact same hours of operation. But the world around them around the business location has changed.

[56:04] and the hours of operation which allowed outdoor drinking until one Pm. One am. In the morning. It's now in the middle of a more residential area than it was 10 years previously. Like, I feel like we're not. We're sort of not taking into account the possibility that things change. Even if the business owners don't change what their business is. What's around them could change. And it doesn't really give space for revising various uses or hours of operation. We're here. We're just talking about restaurants in a way that might reflect what the new neighbors of a business that's been closed for 10 years might my prefer. And I think that's that's something we need to be cognizant of. So those are my thoughts. I don't know if anyone has any anymore concerns thoughts. Okay, is all right. is there an applicant? Or do we go now to our discussion?

[57:06] You can move right to discussion. Vivian, do you need to reread the information so we would just look for people's hands. You would raise your virtual hand, and we'll call you in the order that the hands are raised. and each person would have 3 min. So I don't see any so far. So I mean, you're you're now inviting members of the public to raise their hands if they'd like to speak to this topic. Correct. Okay, Lynn, please go ahead. You have 3 min. I don't really have anything to say on on booze. Use reviews. But thanks bye.

[58:04] thank you, Lynn. all right. So no. Any other members of the public who want to speak. I don't see any other hands based. All right. So let's go to our discussion. we have in front of us the suggested language. although it's very hard to read at the moment. And I don't know whether folks have thoughts about the language itself. If they're perfectly comfortable with it, if they want to add any recommendations or conditions. So let's hands any hands. Okay, Kurt. then. Ml, then Laura. Well, overall, I support this, but I think that Laura's point of that The the lack of expiration date is important, and so I could see adding some sort of expiration date to the city manager of authorization in Section 4.

[59:15] Thanks. Kurt, ml. I I agree with that. And I think, Sara, you spoke to that as well. That was my my initial question, and I I it does make sense that they did expire during Covid get an opportunity to come back. But it it should not be an indefinite. Okay, Laura. Thank you. Sarah and Ml. And Kurt. I think we're we're starting to line up around this, that we think that an expiration date is appropriate, and I think Sarah spoke well to this, but I think the entire purpose of use review, or one of the main purposes, is to make sure that they use is appropriate for the context. And as Sarah pointed out, the context can change in the future. And so I guess I would ask Staff if this were going to have an expiration date. Would you have a recommended expiration date? For when

[60:10] businesses that went out of business during Covid should be allowed to be revived by the city manager like, should that be a period of 3 years? 5 years? 7 years like how? How? What is, what is your sense of how long a business would need to be able to know that they can come back or have the finances to come back. assuming that their space is still available. I think we'd want to chat with the city attorney's office to decide on an exact number. But I think, since one to 3 years is what we're talking about just for general expiration. you know, if you think about a business that might have gone out of business at the very end tail end of the pandemic before this ordinance. That's in place. maybe 3 years after that, so that they can take advantage of the the advantage or the advantageous new code language that we're putting in, anyway. but I do think that I also want to discuss it does say until 2020 December 30, thirty-first, 2024. So that also impacts businesses that might be closing now. So there's just some nuance that we'd want to talk through the exact date.

[61:16] Yeah, so can I kind of leave Laura? Can I just ask a follow up question to Lisa on this topic a business that I don't run a business. So I'm not gonna say that I know what's going on. But the Covid pandemic is no longer a covid pandemic And yet here we are with a date here that assumes that there are still businesses that are being impacted and might close up for the next year and a half. And I'm not. I'm not trying to make life difficult for small businesses, but I just don't quite understand the timeframe that's that the city has created for this.

[62:02] What is the significance of December 30, first, 2,024. How did you come up with that as the the, the date, the the businesses that would be specifically, the businesses affected by COVID-19 and I assume that this is also a an ordinance that would work for it. Business X. That closes January 1, 2,025, just because it closed. But they would still be eligible. Because this is this, it's such a broadly written, I mean, broadly applicable piece of legislation. Is that correct? Yeah, Charles, I kind of. I'm looking to you, if you remember exactly, because it's David here that drafted this part. so I think the date was intended to be. You know any use that might expire within the next year. Taking into account this adoption process for this code change, and that's where I think the December thirty-first, 2024 came from.

[63:08] Yep, I think that's where I came from, and I actually think we have an operator who is facing a an expiration and won't be able to figure out transfer of the approval until after it gets out of it's going to be subsequent to 3 years. So I think that's what it was born out of was a specific example. I don't think it's There's a number of them that are would be a would be applicable to any business that goes out of business. and they want to reopen in the same site. Not just not just Covid business Covid losses right. This is not written in such a way that it's only businesses that can prove that they were closed because of impacts. Of Kovat. I. It just uses the timing as kind of the mechanism rather than the covid pandemic effects. It assumes that that was part of the reason why they went out of business. But it does not specifically say that.

[64:11] Okay, so so if you keep that timeframe, and then there's a end date that's not indefinite, but an actual end date. which might be 3 years from December 30, first, 2,024, which would then cover all the businesses that are potentially covered by this plus 3 years that would that could conceivably solve. Or I realize you want to check with staff and lawyers and all that stuff. But if you go. If if this. the three-year extension is for the specific set subset of businesses. and it's 3 years from December 30, first, 2,024 as the last date by which any of the businesses have that three-year extension you would cover the universe of Covid related closures. Is that correct? That sounds correct to me. Okay.

[65:05] so we're not lawyers, and we're not the ones who write the legislation. But if we had a condition of approval that recommended to counsel to Stat. I don't know who we recommended to, that. There be an end date for the application of this, for the utilization of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance. Would that be the right language? Certainly. And I think that there's opportunity to clarify, especially that that section section 4 of the ordinance, so you could just include in your motion. Add clarity to section 4 about when the the expiration of this utilization of this flexibility would be something like that. Okay, I see that we've hands up Mark.

[66:01] Laura. Ml, sorry, Mark, Laura. Ml. maybe a. And I I'm looking to Staff for guidance on this. You've heard us and some of these concerns, and I understand your concerns, and saying, Gee, we're going to go back to the city attorney's office. Would this be an opportunity rather than us trying to muddle through a motion that tries to convey something kind of indefinite? Would this be an opportunity to continue this item to next week? And you have revised motion language suggested motion language for next week. We don't have a meeting on the books for next week. Right? Our next meeting is in a month. I think we're like 4 weeks from our next. Oh, okay, the timing might be an issue because of the recess. Okay, all right, we'll deal with it now. Sorry Laura. And then the Ml.

[67:00] I just wanna make sure I'm understanding correctly, and that we're all on the same page that this ordinance does 2 things, one, it says, any expiring use review or conditional review. instead of having a one-year period where you can revive it. where you've gone out of business, and then you revive it within one year. It's 3 years my understanding that correctly. And that's and that goes on forever. That's for every business forever. Nothing to do with COVID-19. The only thing that has to do with COVID-19. Is this provision? I think it was. Section 4 in the ordinance about the city manager is authorized to re-establish land, use approvals that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic. And so that I'm I'm guessing that is completely separate from this idea of expiring use reviews and conditional reviews that only have a one year window to go ahead and get your business up and running. Now you got 3 years to get your business up and running this city manager, looking back and reviving land uses is something different. Is that my understanding that correctly? Yeah, you are. And I think it's confusing, because it's a lot of the same language about expiring and things like that. But that's exactly correct, and I think I think there is an opportunity to clarify Section 4, and perhaps even just define what we mean by COVID-19 pandemic?

[68:16] So I think there's a lot of ways we could do that. And we'd wanna probably have the flexibility to chat with our city attorneys and really craft that And just. But I think there's room for improvement for that section definitely. Okay. So maybe Laurel could help us craft some language where we use staff suggested motion language. But we add a provision saying that we recommend that staff revise. Section 4, specifically, so that there is an end, date to this city manager authority to authorize approval and extend, or otherwise allow to restart or continue any land, use approval, etc., etc. There's some end date that staff will help us determine. But it's not just an indefinite look back. Yeah, yeah. if I may jump in, if that's okay, that I'm sure. If you use the suggested emotional languages. And then at the end we could say, and and then something similar to what you said. Request the staff add this language in there. Yeah, I think that would be an appropriate.

[69:16] It will be a half a sentence or a sentence that that basically says what you just said. Okay, or or laurel. Would you want to do that? Or would you prefer that I take a stab at it? either way, I'm happy to do, or have you do it, if you would prefer that it's fine. I think it'd be great if you would do it, since you're the but thank you, Sarah. I have one more question which is about what are the implications of a 3 year window of an empty storefront somewhere. like, just from a from a vital, a city vitality or city. I don't know what the right language is, but

[70:01] we're essentially get proposed. And I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But we're essentially creating the the situate situation where business. X goes out of business. and their storefront is empty for 3 years while they try to figure out how to get themselves back up and running. and I just don't like that. Seems perhaps not necessarily in the best interest of other small businesses that might be looking for storefront property. Just sort of curious. It's more of a a a policy question than a specific ordinance question. I'm just sort of curious how Staff is thought about this. Yeah, I would say that it looks like Brad popped on to. So maybe he has. Brad, you want to go. Okay. Well, I was just gonna say that I think that improved the extension to 3 years improves the flexibility for that property, whether it's the business coming back or a new business coming in. So it supports a lot of those economic related policies in our Comp plan. it's supporting economic resilience and providing more opportunities. There are other uses that could go in that don't require a user view. But a user view is something that is an additional process, an additional fee.

[71:15] it's additional uncertainty for a business owner. So having that flexibility for 3 years, where at least this one kind of use that would typically require a user view or a separate process they have the assurance that they're able to go into that property. I think it probably actually, in more circumstances, supports that storefront getting a new business, and rather than is a detriment. And I'll just add to that, too, that I have heard much more than I would say just anecdotally, but from brokers and folks that work with the business community and individual property owners that businesses are literally avoiding how many people are

[72:00] not because there is a vacant space available for them or not, because the rents are necessarily to bio, but of course they are. but because they literally The the city is developing a reputation that things that. or presume to be simply a tenant improvement or attendant finish. Now they're finding themselves going through a a zoning process. with a whole lot of requirements associated with that which. but ultimately, at the day at at the end of the day, really have very little to do with zoning or the operation of a a unique use. and so it really is that that's the context in which we're we're all right. Well, I appreciate you answering that question. Any more hands before we ask Laurel about her her additional language for emotion. Okay, Laurel, can you? I I think it would have to be Amanda who could throw up on the screen the motion language, plus whatever addition additional language laurel has devised for us.

[73:14] I was just going to say perfect. I think you have my language that I had popped in the chat. I do. I just put it to a word document, so I can share it. Now. Okay, great. Okay. Can you make? Yes, it's a little small. And I put the and in capital, so you can see the part that I added. So everything after the and in capital letters. All right. I'll go ahead and read it, and then we can give feedback planning board record. This is not. I'm not. I'm not making the motion. I'm just reading it. planning Board recommends that city council adopt ordinance. 8, 5, 8, one amending title, I. Land use Code Brc. 1,981. By increasing the length of time and approval of land use is valid after discontinuance to through after discontinuance

[74:11] to 3 years, and authorizing the city manager to re-establish land, use approvals that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic and setting forth related details and recommends. City Staff Amend. Section 4. Of ordinance 8, 5, 8, one to provide an end date to the city manager authority to authorize, approved, extend, or otherwise allow to restart. or to any land, use approval due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There's a few little awkward. There's there's a missing word there, it should say, allow to restart or continue any land. Use approval. Thanks, Laura. Yes, I'm a. Or to continue it says, or to continue any land use. Yep.

[75:00] Amanda, sorry, but there should be a 2 before continue i' to restart or continue perfect. Okay? what I I I just don't quite understand what the end setting forth related details. What is what is that? That's our standard language for for passing any sort of ordinance. It's the same thing that goes in city council packets that related details. Okay? So maybe maybe that's what's throwing me off is the is the punctuation. We should end related. Related details with the period. get rid of the and and say, planning board recommends city staff. Otherwise it just didn't make it was a little weird for okay. any of any input thoughts, concerns, comments.

[76:02] Haikus, anything at all. I have no concerns. I I like this, and I think, I'm very comfortable, relying on staff to figure out what would be an appropriate period of time. Assuming, I'm assuming that staff agree that having this be indefinite is maybe not necessary. And so you know what's an appropriate time to have that authority related to COVID-19 and I would trust, you know. But whoever is leaving here, Lisa, to work with the city's attorney's office and figure out what is that appropriate date? I guess I would just ask Lisa. Would you foresee that the city's attorney's office might come back and say, This is a bad idea. I don't do it, or no, I think it's just an unintentionally vague part of the ordinance. So I think tightening it up would be great. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other. Thank you, Laura. Any other comments? All right. So we're let's Would someone like to? Let's see if we, if I learned my lesson about motion making

[77:02] bread. Do I need to read the motion for laurel? Do I need to read the motion? Somebody needs to make the motion. I can make the motion. Alright. I move that we make the following recommendation. planning Board recommends that city council adopt ordinance a. 5, 8, one amending title, 9, land use. Code Brc. 1981, by increasing the length of time and approval of land use, is valid after discontinuance to 3 years, and authorizing the city manager to reestablish land, use approvals that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic and setting forth related details. Planning board recommends City Staff Amend section 4, of ordinance, 8, 5, 8, one. To provide an end, date to the city manager, authority to authorize, approve, extend, or otherwise allow to restart or continue any land, use approval due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[78:01] Do we have a second? A second? Okay. Ml, seconds any questions. Comments? All right, then, I am going well, I still need to read it. I need to read it one more time, so that we can vote on it. Is that correct breath? I don't see you. Is that a yes or no? Okay, I'm it' be appropriate to read the whole thing. Thanks. It is appropriate. Yes, all right. Planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance, 5 of 881 amending title, I. Land use code, Brc. 1,981. By increasing the length of time and approval of land use is valid after discontinuance to 3 years, and authorizing the city manager to reestablish land, use approvals that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic and setting forth related details. Planning Board recommends City Staff Amend. Section 4, of Ordinance 8, 5, 8, one to provide an end, date to the city manager authority to authorize, approve, extend, or otherwise allowed to restart or continue any land, use approval

[79:08] due to the COVID-19 pandemic. can I? I've just read this. And now I have a question. I'm very sorry. So if it's not okay for me to ask the question, staff, just tell me legally you can ask a question. Okay. In reading, in reading our addition the additional sent sentence this could apply to any land use decision? so I'm guess my question is, is the language of the ordinance specific enough? That is understood that this applies only to retail establishments and not to

[80:03] a a. A development of an approved development that it took 10 years to get off the ground. So the organs applies to any use that requires a use review. We've been using the example of restaurants a lot, but it's any use that required a use. Review. but I think it's clear enough that since we're referencing. Section 4, that this only applies to what the ordinance is focusing on. that answer your question, laurel. Did you have something else? I mean essentially what it could mean, and I'm sorry to. I'm sorry to do this, but what it could mean is. Project X is approved in 2021, 2,020. It can't be built because of covid. It takes another 15 years before they can build that thing that the mixed use project we've just approved. This ordinance approves a 15 year extension, even if they themselves did not ask for whatever that tool is that some applicants do ask for which is an extension of the 3 year time limit.

[81:09] Well, that's exactly why the clarification of putting an end date. And that's that's the reason to have that. So we would have an end date. And also for those kind of situations that there's a site Review. They're subject to the Site Review. the expiration of 3 years, anyway. So yeah. Well, I just, I just want to point out that I I do think in reading the ordinance. If we're going to get like legal ease here. the ordinance does say authorizing the city manager to re-establish land, use approvals, it just says, land use approvals that may have expired during the pandemic. It is not that sentence to me is not limited to use reviews and conditional uses. So if that is what Staff's intention was to limit that, I would suggest adding that in as well. because the the current language like, if a lawyer wanted to sue the city and say, it just says, land use approvals. It's not limited to

[82:01] use review and conditional uses. That or that section 4 doesn't say anything that limits it, and it And the umbrella language in the ordinance doesn't say anything that limits it. As far as I can see good catch, Sarah. so I don't know. Was that Staff's intention to limit it to just those 2 things? Or was it any land use approval that during COVID-19 that you wanted the city manager to be able to revive. Now, this is focused on us for you and conditional use with our one year expirations. Okay? So I you. So I think, then we need to change the language. We need to vote on this one, since you already read it out loud, so we'll have to vote on this one, and then, if you want to change it again. If if it fails, then so we can amend it again. It's like. Well. okay, because it's been moved and seconded and read, does that prohibit amendments? At this time? We have to vote on this first. and then, if it passes.

[83:02] we can have an amendment correct, Laura Laurel. but if it fails, then we just go down another one, which is. it seems, would be my preference. We we vote on this. Preferably it fails. and then we do it again with the right language is that that's okay? All right. So it's been. It's been. It's been. The motion has been made. It's been seconded. I've read it. It's time for a vote. I will start with myself. I'm voting no mark. no. And now. ml, you're on mute and well, we wanted to amend this. Okay, no, okay, Laura. No Lisa. no. George Kurt.

[84:01] so it failed. Let's try this again. I've got. I've got the little chart that Helen gave us. We could have done a subsidiary motion. But anyway, yeah, let's correct the language and and vote it. Vote on it. So I think I I have language to suggest perfect. Go ahead. Okay, can somebody type in real time, as I'm talking? Okay? So in the last sentence, planning board recommends city staff Amend Section 4 of the ordinance to specify that this applies to use reviews? Or I, is it use reviews and conditional uses and provide an end date? But we still need to get you rid of the land, use

[85:02] any land, use approval. Oh, a continue any use review or conditional use approval rather than land use approval. I guess you could. You could do it. There, you're right, Sarah. That would be a better way to do it. you have to. You have to be clear what? Where you want, what you want. So in the in the last sentence, the second to last line, delete the words land use. Yeah, the the second to last line there delete the words land use before approval and put in the words any use, review or conditional use. Approval is that? Are those the right terms laurel or Lisa, one or the other? I think those are the right terms. yeah. And the land use language is actually in the original word. This is where I got that from.

[86:01] So I'm just making sure that we could. Yeah. yeah. So you'd need to amend additionally, but and make all of the So at the end there, after pandemic add and make language throughout the ordinance consistent with this change. something I just wanted to mention to as well, I think, since this is under the umbrella of Use review changes under the main title of the ordinance and the actual text of the ordinance is under our user view. Section. Yeah, we wouldn't need to change the language of the ordinance. like by the language throughout. What you're talking about. It's already under our use review code section. is it? Yeah? Cause it's under 9 one, like the actual ordinance language. is under

[87:04] subsection, E, which says. existing use subject to specific, you standards, require you to be, or conditionally to approve. All. So kind of already has that use. Review. But section section 4, section 4 doesn't have a specific code section that it refers to. Section 4 of the ordinance as far as I can tell, I right? So we can amend section 4. But we wouldn't need to. as far as I can tell, though though others other staff may disagree with me, but the rest of the ordinance we can leave. Yeah. So there's sections of an ordinance which refer to different code sections, and that's where you'll see like whatever it is, 9 to 14 or whatever And then there's sections that are just text like there, there'll be often. It'll be like we're doing this ordinance for the public health, safety and welfare things like that. That's not a mending code text. It's just a part of the ordinance, if that makes sense. So that's what into different sections. And that's how all ordinances are organized.

[88:04] So it's a little confusing, because parts of it are code, land use, code, and parts are just ordinance text right? And section 4, I don't think is specific to any section of the land. Use code and Section 4 just says that it's any land use approval. So I think that was a really a catch by Sarah. And when I said, make language throughout the ordinance. Consistent. I I mostly was referring to the the very first paragraph that's in Bold at the top of the ordinance that just says an ordinance amending title. I land use code, and in that section it says, authorizing the city manager to re-establish land, use approvals, and that needs to be specific to use review and conditional use approvals. So you know, may I? I didn't know if it appeared elsewhere. Besides, there, but that was one section where I could see it needed to be consistent. Whatever is in Section 4 needed to be mirrored in that opening paragraph. So that's that's all that I meant by that is that whatever we do in Section 4, anything else that refers to section 4 needs to be consistent.

[89:05] Does that make sense? I'm sorry is that, unclear? Do we need to change the language of our motion to make that more clear? No, I think that's fine. Okay, Kurt. And then mark. Yeah, thanks to everybody for catching all this. I am just trying to understand. I did also didn't understand. The second 4 wasn't actually modifying part of title? 9. So how would an applicant know that this provision exists? for the that authorizes the city manager to extend? How, if somebody, you know, comes along 6 months from now. They didn't work following this process. How do they know that this option even exist for them if it's not in Title 9? So there's still a record of adopted ordinances. And so, and the city would be administering it. as such. So we would be giving them that information.

[90:06] Okay, so they would come in it. It assumes that they come in at all right. They might. Well, they might look at the code and say, Oh, I'm out of lock right? And a and so it would only be if they came in to sort of appeal or to clarify the staff could tell them. Oh, well, there's this option of of asking the city manager, in effect, to extend right, and maybe I'll look to the world for more legal backing, but our background. But I think that often, for things that are temporary in nature, it makes more sense to include it in an ordinance rather than to include it. like in code text that we would eventually it would become obsolete. So I think that that was the intention of why it's not written into the Andy's code, but it's rather just part of the ordinance.

[91:10] Yeah. And and I can understand I don't want to clever up the code with stuff that's going to be moved in a few years. But I'm just it. Maybe maybe it's not a particularly important concern, but I'm just concerned that. as I said, people may not realize that this opportunity even exist for them. and and not even ask for it. That seems like a communications challenge for the city versus a a motion challenge. Do you think, Kurt? Yeah, I I I guess so. It would be nice if there were a way to put stuff in the code that would automatically delete it. So you know, we're pretty familiar with having to do this from time to time in administering our code of ordinances. So it's not unfamiliar territory for us.

[92:15] Okay, Mark, did you just lower your hand? Okay, I am going to read the motion. We'll have a discussion. Then someone will make a motion, and then we'll go from there. I I I do want to clarify that it's not reading the motion, and then someone makes the motion. Someone makes the motion by. Okay, would someone like to make the motion? I can make the motion again. Thank you, Laura Planning Board recommends that the City Council adopt ordinance 8, 5, 8, one. Amending title, 9. Land use code, Brc. 1,981 by increasing the length of time and approval of land, uses valid after discontinuance to 3 years, and authorizing the city manager to re-establish

[93:17] I thought we changed that use, review or conditional use, approval that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic and setting forth related details. Thank you for changing that real time planning Board. Recommend city staff, amend. Section 4, of ordinance a. 5, 8, one to specify an end, date to the city manager, authority to authorize, approve, extend, or otherwise allow to restart or continue any use, review or conditional use approval due to the COVID-19. Pandemic. and make language throughout the ordinance consistent with this change. We have a second.

[94:00] All right. Mark seconds. Okay. Discussion discussion. Mark. You did something you wanted to tell us. Yes, 2 things. One. I think this is a brilliant example of crafting a motion that is dramatically improved over over the original proposal. And and not to just that. I'm just saying this. This is like an example of the process working, and I also want to say that while it it may seem extraneous, the the, the, the prescription to make language throughout the ordinance consistent with this change. I think, is, I think, that is an important part of conveying our intentions, because many times language is inconsistent with a subsequent change. So anyway, I'm I. I think this is a a well-crafted piece, and I certainly support it.

[95:03] Okay, Laura. I just want to speak briefly to the substance of this ordinance, and I want to really complement staff for listening to our business community. That this is one of the pieces of regulation that can impose significant barriers with very little, if any, benefit to the city. And so I want to compliment Staff for ferreting out this particular change that needed to happen, and thank you so much for bringing it to us. I think it's very supportive of the business community and the Bbcp desire to make, not, you know, not make things difficult, but make things better. And so thank you so much for bringing this to us into city council and and doing the work. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Laura. Any other comments Kurt. yeah, I'll just say, totally agree with what Laura said. You know I think we have unfortunately, a fairly well reserved reputation for not being particularly business, friendly and molded, and I think that small things that we can do to improve that our and feel that this takes a step in that direction.

[96:13] Okay, anyone else. Okay, I'm going to go to a. I'm going to read the motion. We'll go to go to a vote Planning board recommends that city Council adopt ordinance 8, 5, 8, one amending title I. Land use Code Brc. 1,981, by increasing the length of time and approval of land use, is valid after discontinuance to 3 years, and also and authorizing the city manager to re-establish use, review or conditional use approvals that may have expired during the COVID-19 pandemic and setting forth related details. Planning board, recommend city staff, amend. Section 4, of ordinance 8, 5, 8, one, to specify an end. Date to the city manager, authority to authorize, approved, extend, or otherwise allow to restart or continue any use, review or conditional use approval due to COVID-19. Pandemic, and make language throughout the ordinance consistent with this change.

[97:06] Okay? Time to vote. Yes. Ml. I. Laura, I mark Lisa. Hi. George, yes, bye. Sarah is an I. So it passes 7 to 0. Okay, did everyone vote you? Everyone voted okay. I would like to recommend that. We take a 10 min break and then come back and do. Item 5, B. Is everyone okay with that? All right. See you in 10 min.

[108:20] Can I ask a question while we're waiting for folks to come back? This is just a curiosity thing in the world of architecture. What does a vertical expression of circulation mean? Is that like saying, you can tell where that staircases are, or I don't know, or elevators. I don't know what that means. What's a vertical expression of circulation. Why don't we ask that question of the applicant. Yeah, okay. I think it was in Staff's description. So I might ask Staff. But I didn't want to take up time with that if we don't need to. But maybe Ml. Knows

[109:01] missed your question. did you? Oh, Do you know what Staff might mean when they say that the building includes vertical expressions of circulation. The best I could figure from Googling is maybe, that it means that you can tell on the outside where the staircases and the elevators, and so far. But I don't. I don't know. That would be the obvious answer. But there could be something unique, for you never have it just said that the building contains vertical expressions of circulation, and I don't know what that means. There's stairs, stairs and elevators. Yeah, sorry. I'm late to the chat, Laura. But yeah, you're really about how people kind of move within the building. So okay, and does that mean, you can tell from the outside that the building facade indicates where the staircases are, or does it just mean that they have staircases? Okay, is staff back.

[110:00] Shannon's here. Wonderful. Thank you. Shannon. laurel. Are you here? Okay, Laurel. Here, Amanda, are you here? Okay? All right. We are calling ourselves back into order. We are, gonna have, item 5 B. Agenda title, 1,345, 28 street site and use review. L. You are 222 before we have our staff presentation. we need to do a conflict of interest disclosure. I will start So I am actually now a member of the Rocky Mountain tennis center that is located on the site. I checked with laurel. Lauren. I will get laurel. I will get this correct eventually. Laurel, please don't take offense. It's been taken and taken. They're all terrible with names and faces. and She has determined that I do not need to be recused.

[111:08] but it is important that everybody know that I am a member of Rocky Mountain Tennis Center. And if it's okay, chair, I was just gonna ask you a couple of questions, just to make sure that we're all in the clear on the record. So the first question, is making sure that you or if you could confirm for me that you would be able to participate this in a way that is not bias or that you're able to be objective on this hearing item. Yes, I will be evaluating it, based on the code. Great. Excellent! so just so everybody knows. we have a section in our code that talks about remote interest. And this is kind of the idea that it's a nominal of nominal nature. Since this isn't the main part of this particular item. then it would qualify for what's called remote interest, which, if anyone wants to know a little bit more about that, it's under Section 2, dashboarding in the code, which is how it came to our conclusion. but there is a section that talks about disclosure. So since this is something that does touch on this item. We thought that disclosure would be best for everybody to come up.

[112:09] Thank you, manager. thank you. Does anyone else have a conflict of interest disclosure. Okay? No. Okay. Then let us get started. we're gonna start with a 15 min staff presentation, after which we'll take questions. Then the applicant will get 15 min and take questions. Then we'll go to public hearing, and at that point we'll see where we are and whether we want to take another break or just go through. Discussion. Great? Well, thanks, so much. Chair. Members of the board, Charles Ferrell, planning and development services. This last appear before the planning Board in November 2021. If I'm not mistaken. Since that time it's made stops at both Design Advisory Board and Transportation Advisory Board, as directed by Planning Board and Council through the concept plan process

[113:04] via the site and use review process. It's been through multiple iterations with staff as well. So I'm pleased to introduce Shannon Moller, our planning manager, shall present Staff's analysis this evening. So Shannon. Just take away. Okay. great. Thank you, Charlie, for that introduction. Shannon, you're gonna have to speak up or speak closer to the microphone. your voice is very muddled. Thanks for that. Remind you. Get a little closer here. Thank you. Okay. So again, I'm Shannon Muller, the case manager for this project. with the planning and development services department with the city. I'll provide a brief overview. we'll get the planning process to date the existing site and surround context, a summary of the proposed project and key issues for discussion

[114:01] in terms of the planning process. So far, in November 2,021. The concept plan was reviewed by the planning board that comes up. Plan was subject to city Council call up, and the Council did not call it up. The item was referred to the Design Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory Board. In May 2,022, an application was filed for the proposed Citing Research Review. The proposal has been through several rounds of staff review. as well as being reviewed by Dab in December 2,022, and Tab in February 2,023. So tonight, as the Board is considering this site and user review proposal. this interview is required based on the size of the property, and sorry, Shannon, and again your voice. I don't know quite what's going on. But you you sound like you're underwater. Not sure. Let me scoot up a little. Little. Okay, thank you very much for letting me know.

[115:03] So the site review is required based on the size of the property, and because modifications are being requested, including the proposed parking reduction and height modification. this means the proposal requires a decision by the planning board. A user review is also proposed for the ground floor dwelling units but face the street which requires a use review in this zoneing district as part of the review process. The site was posted, and public notification provided, per code, written, comments received or included in the Board's packet and transmitted to the board via email. It received after publication of the packet. The public comments primarily included concerns regarding parking as well as the height of the proposal moving to the specific site and surrounding context. Next, it's a 15.8 acre property located west of 20 Eighth Street and south of Arapaho. Boulder Creek runs through the site.

[116:04] The site contains the Millennium Harvest Hotel, a 60 foot tall, five-story building constructed in 1,958. It's a modernist structure designed by Ralph D. Peterson, A. Denver architect. It's been substantially altered since its construction, due to multiple remnants, additions, and various alterations. The proposal of the structure has been reviewed and approved by historic preservation staff and archival records of the property have been prepared and provided to the city to document the factory. It also contains 15 tennis courts used by the Rocky Mountain tennis center and other groups and 3 existing colleges housing residential uses. South of the creek. The property was annexed to the city in 1,967, and a number of discretionary reviews have been approved on the property over time, as listed in the staff members.

[117:00] and Shannon, you are very hard to hear. I am so sorry if there's any way to improve the sound quality. let me see. I could try to pause the presentation as you'd like, and try to find a different microphone. So, Shannon, what? What are you using a microphone on your laptop, or a headset, or what? I could try to find an alternative to what I have. Now, if that would be helpful why don't I just pause briefly while Shannon is pausing, I want to say, I don't think this needs a disclosure, but I love this fish observatory. This is one of my first memories of Boulder. When my husband and I first visited here before we moved here in 2,008, we stayed at the millennium, and we walked on the Boulder Creek path, and I was utterly charmed by this fish observatory, so I'm very glad to hear that it's going to stay.

[118:01] I don't know if you have other folks gone to this. This is really just a a lovely feature. I'm kind of curious to go there when the when the creek is in high high gear. I wish I had gone earlier this month. It's a pretty remarkable little duel, and not that many people know about it. I mean, I discovered it decades ago. I hadn't gone in decades. But It's pretty cool because you go to see it at all in different times, and you see the fish that are hanging out. You see the swimming by and other things. Yeah, it is cool to me to keep it. It's pretty wet down there right now, though I was just looking at it this morning, and also 2. I haven't noticed this before, but 2 of the windows are kind of either painted over or scratched up, or something, so you can really only see through one. Unfortunately. it sounds like maybe it could use a little bit of maintenance. I did see that in the agreement there will be some kind of maintenance agreement cool.

[119:03] So I'm in Florida right now hanging out with some relatives, and my dad and I went out in a 2 person, kayak and just love seeing all the fish and fisher breeding right now, and I don't know if this is the same in boulder, but like they make these egg sacks that are like transparent like jelly, like as you can see on the bottom of the the bay here. I just think it's so wonderful to be able to observe fish doing their thing. in the natural environment, not in an aquarium. This is a really cool feature. All right, Shannon. speak to us. I am back. I have a different microphone. Is this any better? it's a little muddy, but keep. Let's give it a shot. Okay, I will try to speak loud again. Okay. So as you were discussing the site contains a number of unique natural

[120:03] to trees along the creek and within the hotel courtyard, Boulder Creek serves as an urban stream corridor and the Boulder Creek multi-use path runs alongside as an important transportation corridor in the city. The site also contains a fish Observatory. Shannon. You've just frozen. you know. I I I think actually, now that I listen to it is more her Internet connection than her microphone But we will carry on. But yeah. which impacts the the end limits the placement of proposed buildings and changes to existing parking areas. In particular, the proposed buildings are required to be located outside of the high hazard zone. and the lowest floor must be elevated to atoms of the blood protection elevation.

[121:02] Shannon, you might want to try turning off your camera. You were freezing out back there. And it might be your Internet connection. So if you turn off your camera, that might give you better bandwidth. Sorry to micromanage, but hopefully that will help. So again, these flood constraints are a significant design constraint, impacting the design proposal in question. they areas surrounding the creek are also contain high functioning wetland and buffer areas which actually preserve and protect the wetlands. A wetland permit will also be required in terms of the BBC land use designation. The majority of the site is designated transitional business on the land use map. which typically includes areas along major streets and includes a mix of uses, including housing. This site also contains both urban and

[122:04] and now we can't hear if you're talking. We aren't hearing you at all. so can I make a suggestion as chair. If Charles or Brad could step in? Clearly, there's tech issues that we're not totally in control of. But we're here, and we'd like to be able to have the hearing, and I don't know how to fix the problem. And, Charles, you're muted. If Shannon can take the headset off and just use her laptop, I think she's using here pods with the microphone. which doesn't seem to be coming through. Okay, Shannon. Thanks for sticking with us. We've all been there and had a very frustrating technical issues. So we sympathize and thank you so much for trying to help us through this.

[123:10] Okay, one more try here. Is this any better so far? Yes. Okay, let me try this. This is, try number 3, we'll keep going. again. I apologize. So let me see where we're we. Okay, we were talking about the land use designations. So it contains park, urban, and other along the multi-use path in Boulder Creek. which is intended for a variety of recreation purposes and flood control purposes. The areas south of the Greek are designated High Density Residential. The overall project site is found Bt. One, which is a transitional business area that generally buffers a residential area from a major street and allows for a mix of uses, including residents. The project site is located at the southern edge. Shannon Shannon, speaking to the microphone, please.

[124:09] Yeah, it's about. It's about a half inch from my face. It it much closer. let me see here. The Bvrc is defined in the Butter Valley comprehensive plan as a high, intensive regional commercial center plan for a variety of uses. The redevelopment of the site is subject to the Dvrc design guidelines and the transportation connections. Plan for the Vbrc. There are also several plans that address the Boulder Creek Corridor, including the Greenways Master Plan and the Boulder Creek Restoration master plan this. It's highly accessible to transportation facilities, daily destinations and transit the site's well connected for bicyclists and pedestrians, including several multi-use paths and on street bike lanes near or adjacent to the site.

[125:03] The Boulder Creek path Mult, to use the Boulder Creek multi-use path runs through the site, and the multi-use path runs north, south along 20 Eighth Street that will remain. The site is served by public transit. Several transit stops are located along a Rappaho Avenue and Folsom Street, including service on the jump route between or alone around the hose, between downtown and Lafayette and Erie, and the hop route along Wholesome, which provide service to the CEO main campus downtown and street. The site is subject to the Vvrc transportation connections plan that includes plan connections through the site. It's intended to to create smaller block sizes with a fine-grained transportation network and several traveling modes. The proposal implement several of the plan connections. And of course, one amendment that will be discussed under the issue number 4 moving to the specific proposal tonight. Here, again, is the image of the existing conditions on the site

[126:07] and moving to the proposed Site plan. This proposal includes 303 dwelling minutes designed for the city's university student population. including amenities like a club room, fitness center and bike storage. The site design locates the 3 four-story residential buildings in the central area of the site outside the high hazard and conveyance zones. The buildings feature of long arms that reach south to the creek, creating programmed internal courtyards and walkways between buildings. Parking is located on surface parking lots on the east and west sides. 2 of the existing cottages out of the creek. It's certainly existing. Dream makers, preschool and community-serving office uses would remain as we plug in south of the creek in terms of access vehicle access will remain on 20 Eighth Street, at the north end of the site. The existing East-west access drive

[127:05] will be improved as dedicated right of way known as Olsen Drive. So filling a requirement in the Vvrc transportation connections plan the existing multi-use path along Boulder Creek would be realigned to better align with the Creek bridge and 2 new multi-use path connections would be created on south through the site. one of the West End and one through the center. There's an existing multi-use path on 28 that would be maintained. The proposal includes a request to modify the Bvr C transportation connection plan in regards to the the reversal can. And we're losing you again. Yeah, I apologize. I'm not sure. Maybe my Internet is really bad.

[128:04] Go ahead, please. The proposal includes open space in the form of private and public spaces. Private space is designed primarily for residents, and consists of private balconies, rooftop decks, interior courtyards with amenities landscaping and separated. The offensing. publicly accessible. Open spaces includes areas surrounding the creek, such as an open lawn, a soft trail along the creek edge. Any. a half for basketball core, 4. Pick a wall courts, and a dog park are proposed. The existing Fish Observatory north of the creek would remain. The proposal includes a request for a 52% parking reduction. New parking is not permitted within the high hazard and conveyance flood zones. So parking is provided in areas where it currently exists.

[129:00] Parking is also not permitted underground, due to the flood. Plain constraints in support of the proposed parking reduction. The applicant has provided a transportation demand management plan to encourage alternate modes of transportation. The Tdm. Includes elements for both the residential uses on the site, as well as the small non-residential uses in the cottages of south of the creek. The elements of the Tpm. Plan include those listed on this slide in terms of the building design. The proposed buildings are 4 stories, and approximately 53 feet in height. The lowest floor is elevated to add or above the flood protection, elevation. The building design is contemporary with flat roofs and upper stories are set back along the creek to create rooftop decks of the third story. Here you can see the proposed height. Modification involves a request for 4 stories and 53 feet in height, where 3 stories and 35 feet in height, are permitted by right.

[130:01] The additional height and stories can be approved through a site review through the community benefit requirements. This requires that inclusionary housing and move fees be increased from 25% to 36 for the bonus floor area, which is the fourth floor. Here you can see massing diagrams that depict the existing versus the proposed buildings, as well as examples of surrounding buildings in the area that range from one to 9 stories in height. The materials of the building respond to the various various edges of the site, including 3 tons of brick treated with metal panel and a continuous insulation system. There are a number of renderings and details in the plan set, and I'll let the applicant share more of those detailed items. Lastly, moving to key issues. There were 4 key issues identified by Staff. I'll go through these briefly for key issue. One consistency with the Site Review criteria staff found. The proposal is designed in a manner consistent with the Site Review criteria, and that the proposal to add substantial additional housing units and associated improvements is on balance consistent

[131:12] with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the the key issue. 2 proposed modifications. Staff bound the proposals for an additional story and additional height were consistent with the Site Review criteria relating to building design and with the community benefit requirements. In the code. The proposed parking reduction is supported by the applicant's parking study and Tdm. Which includes the methods and improvements noted on this slide and the properties in an ideal location near campus, and many daily amenities and transportation opportunities that allow residents to forego power use for Tsu. 3. A use review is required for the proposed ground floor. Residential uses along the street attached to our units are allowed by right in the B 2, one zoning district only if they are not located on the ground floor facing a street.

[132:04] The Zone district anticipates residential above a first floor retail. But the significant flood restrictions on the site limit the placement of buildings and prevent the location of commercial uses close to 28, as intended by the code, provision stacked down, providing ground floor residential uses would be appropriate. Given the context and design constraints on the site and would allow the development to serve the intended transitional function from high intensity regional commercial center to the north. to the residential zones, to the south and West for Key issue 4. The proposed amendment to the Vvrc. Transportation connections plan. The proposal may request an amendment to the plan subject to the Planning Board's decision. In this case the proposal will implement many of the plan Bvrc. Connections and improvements. including the construction of a planned East-west connection. Olson Drive, including vehicular access sidewalks and Trevor

[133:04] updates to the Boulder Creek path construction of 2 new multi-use paths through the site and maintaining the existing multi-use path connection along 20 Eighth Street. The transportation Connections plan depicts one additional multi-use path connection shown in a curved dashed line that would have fronted the curved shape of the hotel building. Given the changes to the site, layout, and building design, this multi-use path connection is proposed to not be provided as part of the redevelopment. This proposal requires an amendment to the Vvrc. Transportation Connections plan which the applicants requesting plan amendments require. A review by Tab and a decision by planning board. and it's February meeting. Tab reviewed and was supportive of the request for the Vdr. C. The approving authority will consider the items listed at the bottom of this line staff down the requested, and then this is consistent with these, the change in the design. So that would tell you to the departments.

[134:04] Asian and Shannon. We've lost you. The last 2 sentences we're on unhearable. Can you repeat yourself, please? Definitely? So Staff found that the requested amendment is consistent with the change is consistent with these items. To consider the change in the design from the existing hotel to the proposed residential apartments necessitates a change in the circulation design. The proposal also provides numerous transportation connections through the site via the other 3 existing and or proposed multi-use path connections provided by the project, as well as several other circulation past planned for the site. So with that Staff recommends a motion to approve the site and use review application. Happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Thank you for sticking with me through the technical difficulties.

[135:05] Shannon. Thank you for that proposed for that presentation. You may get questions asking you to repeat something, but We will open up now to questions. if you have questions, please raise your hand all right. No up. Ml. and then Laura and Laura, did you have your hand? Whoa, okay. ml, Laura, mark Kurt, it's a ml, laurel. Mark Kurt, go ahead, and they'll thank you. and thank you for the presentation. Shannon. So I am. just starting up the height modification. is it? There's the criteria up by which people can ask for a height modification. And is this one being asked for

[136:02] because of the topography of the site? it's being asked for in order to allow for the fourth story of the building. so the criteria that it's allowed on your, I believe, is the the last one in the criteria list at the very end. which is what if maybe you could just read that out? So we're we're not all able to go quickly to this the location in the code. Yes, let me try to find you that. Yes, under 9, 2 14 h. 2 K. That's where there's the additional criteria for height. Oh, okay, I got B. E. 3.

[137:04] That's not Shannon. Maybe you can tell us what is the criteria they request. What does the criteria be utilized for the request, I think, is Ml, and then under 9 to 14 E. 3, I you yeah the E. Excuse me, B. One. If I'm looking at the same code you're looking at at the very bottom. the I I the building the building. Our use makes the requirements of the sub paragraph for a height. Bonus Shannon, if you're talking, we did not hear you after something that's on like high bones, which I know is not what you said.

[138:02] I think she said. Height bonus. Yes. yes, let me make sure I'm looking at the correct code here. Can you hear me any other any better now? Yeah. okay, so I'm under 9 to 14. Scope is number B, one development review thresholds E height modifications. And then the last one is the Iii, where it allows for any height modification. But can you read that specific one that it needs? It's got to meet one of any number of options, and the only one that looked logical to me was the topography. yes, it's this. Let me see if I can just pull this over on my screen. Oh, that would be excellent!

[139:02] I think it's just the one about community benefit that if they offer us the community benefit they can request height, modification. If I'm not mistaken, they don't have to. They don't have to have a logistical reason why they have to have it. A 3 hex modification is allowed. My application is is allowed up to the greater. 2 stores of the maximum number shores were made in the building, and that was because of the topography of the, so I thought it was 3. But you're saying it's not. It's 4 Hi bonus. which is what Laura say. Yes, it's the one referring to a height bonus. It's a little. It's a little confusing, because we've modified the code so many times. But the one regarding a iphone is okay. So if it's so, do we know how many it would be for all of the fourth floor? How much did that add to the inclusionary housing.

[140:02] Do we know what what we gained. what we would, how much the fees would be for inclusionary housing. So without the without the height bonus versus with the that bonus. How much, how much are we gaining? Do we know? So are you able to hear me right now? Okay. So with the height with the inclusionary housing fees. The total amount of fees that would be provided for inclusionary housing by this project would be about 18.9 million based on our current fees. and we don't know which how much of that is due to the fourth floor. I don't have that information at my fingertips. I I could try to check through my emails and see if I can find that. Yeah. And there's a discussion of this Ml, on page 18 of the packet under proposed type modification where it talks about

[141:03] all residential projects being subject to providing at least 25% of the units permanently affordable, or the in lou fee, or another equivalent, in which case the percentage jumps up in this project from 25 to 36%. So the number of units. Consider bonus units is the number that's the percentage of all units of the building that equals in number the percentage of bonus floor area in the building. right? So that'd be the fourth floor. But is that correct? It's support for Okay, that. That was my primary question. I've got a whole bunch of others, but I'll let the people ask your questions. Thank you. Okay. So Lee. Laura was next. Then Mark, then, Kurt. you know I've got a bunch, Sara, so I'm fine for Mark and Kurt to go ahead and knock a few out before I get to mine.

[142:02] Okay, Mark. And then Kurt. sure. just in response to Ml, if if we have 25% inclusionary housing for the first 3 floors and 36 for the fourth floor. Then a rough mat calculation would say that of the 18.9 million. I'm gonna say a little less than 40% would come from the fourth floor, and about 60% would come from the first 3 floors. But that's just map in my head, and I've been known to be way wrong on that. okay. My questions for set up our first our Greenway system. The management of that is very complex in the sense of it's administered by this mix of parks and wreck transportation. Osmp, there's a lot of people involved in in. In some regards. No one is is really in charge, and that's it. Something I've

[143:09] notice as being part of the Greenways Committee for a couple of years. My question is, how is staff addressing the maintenance programming. who's responsible for what? In? In? In regard to everything, from the center line of the creek back to to what point and and is this clear in your discussions and agreements with the applicant as to who is exactly responsible for what and even to the point? I I I was reading in their management agreement. they say, Well, we will. We will. We plan to maintain. The creek is up, but, gee! We might have to close certain areas after certain hours. And again, we have this mixing of private property and public property in a very complex situation. And I just like you to address how that's been addressed with the applicant. And what that understanding is.

[144:22] Yeah. So the the conversations have been pretty expensive with the applicant. They've been involved staff from various departments, including parks. Oh, Snp. transportation forestry, trying to think who else? But virtually every department that can be involved, has reviewed this proposal and provided feedback. specifically on the question that you've raised about the maintenance of the area. this is a private property, so there is no city maintenance of the creek. of anything of that sort. It is. It's a private property.

[145:05] the only maintenance that the city would do would be plowing the multi-use path as we do for almost a use pass. So it's a private property. There are areas that are intended for public use, and those are being proposed through this proposal to enhance the Creek quarter and and provide those amenities to the public. But again, it's it's not something that the city is taking on any maintenance responsibilities of that area. Wow, okay, I mean, I I understand this private property. I always said somehow and again, my bad for making any assumptions that that there was some city control from from center of the creek or from the stream bank X number of feed in. So you're saying, that's not the case. So in terms of let's just say herbicides pesticides plantings of

[146:06] they decide. Gee, they like a particular. They they like Russian olives along the Greek bank. The city doesn't have a haven't an an authority or a control over over that area. Well, we have a trance. We have a trail and recreation that covers the alright. You probably can't hear me. We have the trail and recreation. He's not that covers the multi-use path and the area along the creek. that provides basically for public access in that area. this proposal will also dedicate additional public access easem. and the proposal would approved. the landscaping plan that's being proposed. So changes to that would be reviewed by staff.

[147:07] if such a change were proposed. I don't. I don't have any indication that a proposal for Russian would be that we can propose. Oh, yeah, I I was again an exaggerated example. Okay, my follow-on question, which is now changed a little bit. is. And and during the that meeting, and I was present for that designed Advisory Board meeting, and I brought it up then, and I read the applicants response to Dad specifically my concern that the multi-use path, as it's being proposed dips to the north quite a bit into the property off of its current alignment. And so it it goes into the property quite a bit close to the buildings. And there is a perception, I think, by people that okay, on one side of that multi-use path

[148:10] that's them. And on the other side, south of the multi-use path, that that with that it the perception could be that that is public space. And you're saying that that is not that that is private space. So I I I get concerned with with 2 things. One. this is a commuting corridor for a lot of people. They ride their bike back and forth to work for shopping, etc. And there is So the perception is okay. You've got me kind of winding around out of my way a little bit off of what the current alignment is, but, more importantly, I I just want it to be clear that this is a 20 four-seven, that the path itself is 20 four-seven, that that the property owners can't decide. We we really don't like this. I mean, I I just want to make sure that our Eas myths there have been hit historical instances where easements have been agreed to, and subsequently, you know, disputes rise up. And it's like, well, I didn't agree to that. I I'm

[149:18] okay. I'm I'm mumbling around my, I have real concerns about this public private space, alignment of the path, and the public's perception of where they can go on where they can go. And so could you elaborate on any discussions you've had with the applicant, and and why they kind of keep wanting to keep that path bush far to the north. Yes, in terms of the alignment of the path. My understanding is that that is intended to better align with the alignment of the bridge. so that it you don't have that quick turn when you're going across the bridge. How it is now!

[150:02] So that was the design intent behind the curve. Staff was generally supportive of that change, to make that alignment more of a curve and less of a sharp turn. That that would be my response to that in terms of the design of the spaces. I think. I think it's pretty. It's it's we are to me in the in the proposal that the intent is for the bulk of this space to be a publicly accessible space. the city can't compel the property owner to dedicate that space to the city necessarily. that will probably be beyond A reasonable ask. but I think the proposal is pretty clear what spaces are intended to be public. and there are spaces that are intended to be private that are fenced in the courtyard areas

[151:06] and obviously private balconies, private rooftop decks, things of that nature. in terms of access, you know, through the site on the multi-use paths. those will be dedicated easements. there's an exhibit, I believe, in the civil plan set that depicts all of those easements that will be dedicated over all of those past. So those will continue to be accessible in in perpetuity. Okay, I I'm gonna I'm gonna be done here in just a second. So I I just want to read page 119 of 5, the part 2. The goal of these programmatic elements are to provide a combination of both active and passive recreation opportunities for the community as a whole. Some areas will be available for community use from dawn to dusk.

[152:02] And so you know that kind of caveat. And I understand you. You. You have security concerns and everything else. I just I I'm super concerned and just want staff to take note that It would be to me unacceptable to have a historically public access areas be restricted from dusk until dawn or unavailable desk until dawn. If they are historically, you. So I'm just gonna express that as a concern, and maybe the applicant can can speak to that during their presentation. Thanks, Mark. Kurt. Then Laura, then Lisa. okay. Well, my first question is exactly online. So where Mark was going. So

[153:01] if Olson Drive is showing on the Bdrc connections plan right as a street, and that half of that is being dedicated. The land is actually being dedicated to the city right in a see simple transfer, or whatever the right terms is that correct because we have a transportation connections plan that outlines specific right of way dedications. we can request or or require those dedications as part of a redevelopment of a property. Yes. I see. Okay. And so the obviously the question is, why is the creek down? But the other pad is not treated the same, and it's because they are not identified as right. Anyway. Dedications in the Pvrc connections plane. There will be dedications of Eastern over the past. That would be the typical dedication we would require for a multi-use path. We would not typically request a right of way dedication for a to use past.

[154:12] But okay. But why? I mean. maybe that's historic Presidents. But the I I would bet you anything that the creek that gets more traffic than Olson drive will get. So why the difference in treatment? Yeah, that's I. I'm I would probably have to defer to legal staff. As to the difference in the dedications that we typically get right of way versus an easement. In my mind, they're equivalent in terms of securing public access to to a space. Right and sorry this is or away from the city attorney's office. The main difference there with the right away versus an easement is the maintenance right? It is taking care of the underlying ground and support when it's a right of way. Even then our Transportation department does take on more of the responsibilities of maintaining that road, and it has more transportation.

[155:13] ties to it. So that's kind of why we do that. there's also. So we snow plow that area. But then we also for the multi-use path. But we also require that they maintain you know, the area around it. Keep it clear. That's part of our easement is that we have the landowner actually do a lot of the work, whereas right away is a little bit more on us on the city to make sure that that space is clear. Now there's a little bit more work from staff, from transportation staff. That's why transportation staff will identify certain areas to be ride a boy versus this easement. So there's kind of a separation there. I'm not as familiar with the exact details of what those look like, but that's the general reason as to why they are a little bit different. Okay? Well, I guess the question remains, why, why are we treating Olson Drive and the great that differently.

[156:08] It seems like one we want to take on the the right way responsibilities and one we don't, and it's not clear to me. Why. so I don't know if anybody can clear that up. Yeah, I guess I would say that that's been the policy of the city is that improvements? such as a multi-use path, or are under a dedicated public access easement? I don't know of any that I can think of that are in a right of way. The the public access to both of those are are guaranteed. either way. I think it's in as Laurel mentioned the maintenance responsibilities. are slightly different.

[157:02] so that that would be the best answer I have at this time. Okay, I'll just continue. Go about a couple of more transportation things if I can, and then I'll press it off. The what is. Do we know what the Cross section for Olson Drive will look like I assume we do, because we know how much right away we're asking for right. Yes, there! A cross section provided in the civil plans. So the vehicular access is one each one vehicle each way, 20 foot in width, and 8 for a tree, one and an 8 foot sidewalk along there to be provided by this project. Okay?

[158:00] So so the full curb curve, face to curb face with will be 40 feet. but after, when it's completed. I I can't say that I know for sure. There may be some shuffling around in the meantime, but that was being proposed by this project is the 20 foot of the vehicle, access the tree on, and the sidewalk that will be constructed with this project. Okay. so is this? Is this cross-section specified anywhere? Or is this just sort of a general concept that we have? in the Bvr. So the connections plan? It's described as a secondary access. so that's that was the the design that was determined was based on the transportation plan and what it was asking for. Okay. But we don't have any more specifics in that at this point.

[159:05] no. okay. And so one more question then about that. So, as I understood from the memo for the time being. We'll only have the south section of of Olson drive right. and so we'll be using one traveling. plus what will eventually be the parking lane as the 2 travel lines. Is that correct? That's my understanding. the applicant has their transportation folks here, and could probably go into a little bit more depth as to how the design was designed. Okay? So okay. so. But I guess my question then is I. So I saw on the plans that there will be a ball about at the intersection of Olson Drive and 28,

[160:08] which then would interfere, it seems like with the use of that eastbound parking link as a traveling and so i'm trying to understand how that would work yeah so this this design in particular, at the north end of the property. this area has historically been used as an informal access road. in coordination with the property to the north. there is a as part of the approval. The applicant will be dedicating an easement that will involve that property owner to the north. that will allow for continued public access along the portion of the property to the north that's being used in formally over the decades for people to drive through there. so that would accommodate. I think, the job in the alignment that you're referring to.

[161:16] Okay, that sounds. I think the transportation engineer would not be keen on that, because it's a very sudden job. But would would this be a question that would be better put to the applicant. They they may know which job, specifically, you're referring to, I, not I. I may not be visualizing the correct spot. Yeah, no, exactly what you're going to mention. Okay. I can hold off on that. All right. Sorry. One more transportation related. Question. so what's being proposed is 2 accesses to the east parking area right one off Olson Drive, and one directly off 28.

[162:12] It's specified, I think, in the Dcs. Although it might be in code that access is to be off the lowest classification street. which in this case would be Olsen Drive. So the question is. why are we? Why well does our code allow them for maintaining that access directly off 28. And wouldn't it be more consistent with the Dcs in the code to only allow office access off of Olson drive. Yeah, the code does allow for variations to that requirement. my understanding is that the access point at Olson drive is exclusively a right in right out.

[163:03] So without the southern access point there would be no left into this site from 28 I would probably defer to the applicant's transportation folks to share a little bit more about the transportation design and how they expect folks to best access the site. Okay. thank you. Okay, Kurt, thank you. We'll we'll do another round of it. So Laura's next, and if I might ask Laura, since she's party for, warned us you have a lot of questions. Could you maybe ask a few, and then we'll go to Lisa and then to Ml. And then come back around. Yes. And Sarah feel free to cut me off at any time. I welcome that if I'm going too long. So my first question was very much in alignment with what Ml. Was talking about. It would be really useful in the future if we have not just the formula for calculating bonus units. But how many actual bonus units that we get in affordable housing. If we grant this fourth story, height, modification.

[164:10] good decisions are based on good data. And right now we know that it's a a bump from 25 to 36, but we don't know what that means in terms of number of units or number of dollars into the affordable housing program, and that if I'm understanding correctly. So here's a question. that fourth floor is cut away on all of the arms facing the creek, right like there's a section of that fourth floor that is missing on all 3 buildings on every arm facing the creek. Do I have that right? It's only goes up to 3 stories in those areas. My understanding is the design intent of that step back is to allow for the buildings to be perceived as not as tall from the Boulder Creek corridor, and to allow for those rooftop decks. so yes, yes, and then, to achieve those purposes which I think we all would say, that's good. We want to break up the massing and have it not be quite as imposing from the creek? Have it be shorter in some areas.

[165:10] But those those arms where they but up against the creek path, or where they face the creek path, or 3 stories rather than for right. So there's no additional height, bonus being requested in in those areas. Right? Those are rooftop decks, not additional units. Yeah. So the hypothesis. I can look at the exact language. There's a certain way that it's calculated, and so I would have to double check on on that. The intent of how it is calculated, is to avoid a scenario where a design is, is intentionally designed in such a way to like reduce the amount of these. so I could try to look at that language to see if that might be helpful.

[166:19] It would be useful for us if Staff did that calculation rather than us trying to do that calculation according to the formulas. So that was my first question about the affordable housing community benefit provision. I I I it sounds like Shannon. You don't have that number at your fingertips right now that not not mad about it, but in the future for staff in general it would be good to have that calculation done, so that we know how many bonus units did we get if we grant this height, modification, or what that's worth in terms of affordable housing fees. like, ml, said. What's the differential between having a fourth floor or not having a fourth floor? Second question. I wanted to know whether a previous comment was resolved, and that was Parks and Rec. Staff had had some questions about the fish observatory and what that would look like, and I want to know whether parks and Rec. Staff were satisfied with the plan for the Fish Observatory, or if they had, continuing questions or concerns.

[167:23] The parks and Rec. Staff were satisfied with the discussion regarding the Fish Observatory. so the the proposal to maintain that was once supported by person. Rec. Staff. Okay. And has the Fish Observatory's relationship to the main path? Has that changed with the redesign of the main path? It looked to me like the Fish observatory is now kind of off of the main path, and I don't recall whether it's always been that way, or whether this is a change. So in this image here, this would be the fish observatory. and then moving to the proposed image.

[168:09] It's located here. Okay, so people can still find it. People will still know where it is. Okay. Alright, thank you. Another comment by Osmp staff. They talked about being not supportive of having concrete steps leading to the creek, and wanting the applicant to use natural materials, such as boulders and Kabul was that resolved? Yes, that's my understanding that all of the comments previously provided have been resolved. Okay, oh, how was it? So? Yeah. My understanding is that there was a discussion between the applicant and Osmp staff regarding that design change. I don't know the exact outcome of what that conversation led to.

[169:00] The applicant could probably describe how the design was updated, based on that comment. Okay, I'll ask them if they're using natural materials, such as boulder and cobble. And if that was the resolution. Thank you for that. Tab made a comment about the 3 buildings, and suggesting that they be kind of distinct from each other. so that each building has more of its own visual identity rather than just kind of blending in to each other. And what happened with that comment? Or, if you're aware. because it looks to me like the buildings all look pretty similar. There's not like. Here's what building one looks like. Here's what building 2 looks like you said Dab made that comment. Did you say I? I said, Tab, but I think you're right that it was Dab. It was not. It was Dab. Sorry my mistake. Okay. yeah. I think there was an attachment in the packet that provides. a pretty detailed conversation of how the applicant attempted to

[170:04] address steps, comments. I think that part of the proposal in this case. in the design, and 10 was that there was a different materials on different edges of the building. so I think the applicant if I recall correctly on the back of the building, provided more variation in the materials in terms of different types of metal. and also trying to to provide I believe, some different variations on different edges of the building in response to that call if I if I'm calling correctly. Okay. okay, thank you. I I do recall seeing a lot of adaptations made in response to Dad's comments, but I wasn't quite sure about that one, so I'll ask the applicant that one I can pass at this point and come back, although I don't know if Brad's hand came up, so I don't know if that was in response to something that I just asked if Brad wanted to jump in.

[171:07] It it is, and and I don't want this to come across as is trying to discourage any of the conversation. But I will note that we have not yet let the applicant do their presentation. And and some of these questions might be answered through that and or in questions to them. just trying to balance out the overall conversation for the evening, and and also the reminder that after public hearing additional questions can be asked of Staff. So just just giving that perspective. We know they've got a lot on, for it's a good point, Brad, I'll yield at this point. Hey? So Emma Lisa has gone dark for a moment. So, ml, you're next, and then Kurt, is your hands still up, or is that okay? So it'll be Ml. And Lisa when she comes back, and then I have a couple of questions.

[172:00] Thank you, Sara. so I I just have. one more question. This is regard to the ground floor residential. And again, there are criteria for for rationale on that ground floor residential. Can you tell me which of the of the 4 criteria. This project it wasn't apparent to me which one that they were using to claim. the ground floor residential. so that would be a yes, 2 desk. 15 E. Yes. Are you asking about under Rationale? Yes. I am. Yes, The one that staff found that they fulfilled was providing a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses That was the in attachment d to the memo.

[173:03] Great. I could I? It's a huge packet. I didn't find that. But thank you for answering the question. That that's it. That's my only question is now, thanks. All right. Thank you. Ml, I have some simple questions. what agency has to provide? The wetlands permit the city. the city so, and the city, according. I read the material correctly. The city's already approved that. Or there's some other step that has to happen. So there's both of one plane permit, and that one was approved. Excuse me, in may. for the for the changes that are associated with this Site Review. There's also a wetland permit specific to the Wetlands, and that one would most likely be reviewed concurrent with the tech talk review by the city. Okay. okay,

[174:00] okay. So I'm going to follow up. sorry I'm taking notes while while I'm trying to ask you a question to follow up to the questions that that Mark and Kurt asked. Why. why the huge shift in this, in the shape of the I mean in the shape of the creek path. When I understand. I know I know that corner very well. It is a pretty sharp corner. But this the change that's been proposed creates ripple effect of other issues. So I'm curious why, the big shift in the shape of the or the curve of the This, this this project, go forward without that. Keep the right. Keep the existing creek path. That was my understanding of What was described before was that it was intended to align on the bridge. so I would ask the applicant to explain more about the exact curve and how they came to that design. Okay?

[175:08] And then this is the question that because I'm a member of the tennis come tennis business. I'm just sort of curious or tennis. Well, it's a one of the question. One of the Boulder Valley comp plan goals is about the city, nurturing and supporting and minimizing displacement of businesses. And I'm just curious what the city, which is 5.0 5 B. C. V. P. Vcp, I'm just sort of curious to understand. What has the city done to be helpful to Rocky Mount Tennis Center, which serves wheelchair athletes and low-income kids to find a new home or keep the business in the city. I'm just sort of curious what the city has done about that, if anything. Hmm! So I have not been involved in any of the conversations. Specifically. If the tennis club there may have been other staff that were

[176:03] I know the applicant for sure has been so I don't have any specific information on on that issue. so I just have not been involved. in those conversations. Okay, but as the person managing the process, you have no records of the city doing anything. When the project was assigned to me. that was not. I was not made aware of anything as part of the development review process. that's happening with that. There may be other city departments and folks that are involved with that but not as part of the development review. okay. okay, all right. Now, let me just see if Lisa is Lisa. Are you back by the chance? Lisa Smith? No question. Okay. all right. So Laura, if you have a couple more questions that are appropriate for staff versus, maybe. the applicants.

[177:12] Okay. yeah. Just a couple more. Thank you. And I maybe could ask this later, but related to the Tdm. Plan eco-passes, or I. I understand that most students get an eco-pass with their being a student, but the eco-pass is our only required for 3 years. I think I think it said 3 years. Is that typical Is that the city usually do that? Why, why isn't it an ongoing thing that they would provide equal passes as part of having a development that is trying to discourage car dependent living. Given that the population is going to keep turning over. Why is it only 3 years? Yes, that's the city's standard condition. Is the 3 years. the intent behind that is that the city is able to have the developer

[178:02] start the process and start having folks use their eco passes, find out about the transportation options. The city places those funds in escrow and manages those funds. so it's not our intent to do that in perpetuity for every project to manage those funds forever. It's really intended to more kind of jump. Start, get folks involved in that and with the with the hope that there would be that demand from from the residents that they want to continue using that and kind of an expectation that that will be provided in the future. Okay, thank you. And just one more. I see that Staff originally had some comments about the fencing, and I'll talk to the applicant about that. But one of the things it says is that a request to include a fence height greater than 7 feet would need to be re included as a modification request through Site review. So I'm assuming that the fence height has been taken down to 7 feet or less.

[179:05] Is that correct? Yes, at 1 point there were some renderings that appear to depict rather tall fences at the edges of the courtyards. Those expenses have now been better detailed, and their maximum of 5 feet high. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. That's the end for me. Okay, Mark. it's just a follow on to was going to talk to the app. Good about this, but I think it's an appropriate time to talk to Staff about this the 3 year eco-pass term, and I have lots of other problems with this but the 3 year eco-pass term that keeps being banned about. that is not as as I understand it, that's really not in the code that's in the 2,011 draft Tdm. Toolkit, which keeps being

[180:01] revived from its grave. And it so am I wrong in that, in that it's a. It's a remnant from a draft plan that was never adopted, or is 3 years some unwritten thing, or is it written? I just don't know where it is. I would I I can't speak to the the plan you're referring to specifically, but since I've been at the city it's been the policy to require a 3 year timeline for eco-passes, for the reasons I described, and that it kind of gets them started with it. But we don't manage it. One of those policies that, as far as you know, it's like tribal knowledge. But it's not in the code. Not that I'm aware of. Okay, thank you. All right. any last questions. Let's remember that some of this is for our discussion later.

[181:01] okay. thank you, Shannon. Don't go away. I'm sure we'll have additional questions, but now it's time for the applicant. You will have 15 min to presents. and I don't know who's leading the applicant's pool. I'm going to assume. It's Danica. Hi, there! Yes, I'm here. we need a few more people promoted, I think, is kalin from mine. I'm here. There. Okay. so thank you so much. I also can't share. My screen would need to share her screen. And I'm trying to see if anyone else needs to get promoted. Yeah, Cody. all right. Thank you so much. this is a huge project. We love hearing all of your discussion and questions. So far I am Danica PAL with Trestle Strategy group. I've been working on this project

[182:11] for about 4 years. And This is a big moment for us to be able to present it to you again tonight and get your feedback questions and hopefully move forward. next slide. I wanted to say, thank you for Shannon to Shannon for stepping in, as our case manager. as you know, there's been a lot of staff turnover at the city, and Shannon stepped in a few months ago to really help land this plane, and she's provided excellent coordination. We've had a lot of city departments involved in this project. Parks and wreck open space, mountain parks, urban drainage, flood. planning and development, etc. And so I'm It's unfortunate that they're not all here tonight. But I. We hope that we can answer all the questions that you brought up earlier and

[183:03] the this evening. it is a very complex project. It's a large site over 15 acres. It's a significant opportunity, and we take that very seriously. So we hope that we can continue to answer your questions. the previous slide was our team, and we've got a big one. We're all here. Some of us are on the promoted, and some of us aren't, but we will be ready to answer your questions, including the developer landmark properties. Thank you. Next slide so quickly. This is our overview of our presentation. We know we only have 15 min, so we'll do. Go as fast as we can. We've limited our presenters to 3 people so that we can be efficient. and hopefully, you will continue to ask us a lot of the questions that you have had earlier this evening next slide.

[184:01] So in terms of entitlement, we came for concept. In November of 2021, we have subsequently gone through 6 reviews with the city staff and multiple iterations and rounds of reviews, with all those departments I spoke of. We have submitted our Clomar, which is a cond conditional letter of map revision for the flood, plain changes that are needed to create this a building site and have it be flood protected, because currently the building and site are not flood protected. And then we are planning to go into tech talks and construction later next year next slide. So what was important to us is to go back and review what was important to you when we came back in 2021. one of the big questions was, how is Boulder Creek activated and improved? So we've really worked on differentiating the public

[185:02] space which there are easements and maintenance agreements and lots of things to determine how all of this open space 52% will be maintained as well as what's private, because it's also important, the Site Review criteria that the people that live here have their own space. We've worked very hard on our transportation demand, management plan and parking reduction to really prove up how this parking reduction will work and what we can do to support that with the people living here in the future solar and sustainability was identified as very important. Retaining existing businesses was also identified as very important to this planning board and then working with dab and tab as we move through the process next slide. So in terms of outreach and engagement, we've done a lot of that over the last 3 years, working with neighbors, their mind can start with parking. We've worked with the existing businesses, including

[186:04] the day care center Simba and the Lake Eldora racing team, and so they are invited to retain be retained on site. We've been working with Rocky Mountain Tennis Center to focus on a transition plan because the complexity with the the bubble that is in the flood plane, and we can get into that in questions if you have them. we've worked with our neighbor regency on access and creating this Olson drive. We've worked with you, Boulder, to talk about tennis, transportation, housing, and many city departments. As I mentioned, next slide. our Tdm. Is of high importance because of the parking reduction in the proximity to the University we are charging for parking. We are providing an alternative transportation fund for folks that don't bring a vehicle to help them buy into other

[187:00] ways of getting around eco-passes this, the student population it you does get eco-passes. So we are providing those for anybody who doesn't have one creating a lot of infrastructure improvements to the Boulder Creek path, the multi-use path and safety improvements. and we have exceeded our parking and bike parking requirements by a a lot. to provide extra bike parking both outdoor an in or short and long term. And we want to create a lot of marketing materials. Our goal is to help people understand that they don't need a car when they get here and how to get around next slide. we did take a trip to the transfer transportation Advisory Board and talk to them about specifically about combining a multi-use path alignment through the center of our site. The old transportation Master Plan had

[188:03] the multi-use path around the hotel. And so with our new site plan, we needed to adjust that and get an amendment to bring it through our site and connect to Boulder Creek Path. We also are aligning Boulder Creek Path to create a a more safe and accessible bike experience, as well as a separated pedestrian experience, and I think you have a lot of questions about that, so we'll wait for you to ask them of us. Tab did support our Tdm. And transportation Master Plan amendments next slide. and I'll pass it on Amy with shares Atkins from Rockmore, who is our architect to do a fly through the project site. Thanks, Tanika. So we have a fly through animation that we'll share with you just to walk through some of the highlights of the changes that we've made to the design, and all, before I started, I just want to call attention to the key plan that we'll have in the bottom right to help Orient. We have the red chevron to show where the the view clips will be taken from.

[189:14] so we're starting off on the northeast side, from the intersection of 20 Eighth and Olsen. This is the easternmost building where we have the main entry and the leasing area. The main amenity. Spaces are in this building. the multi-use path connecting north, south across the site. We've intentionally designed curves along this path to help reduce the speed of cyclists. How this connects to the public park on the South End we have this buffered rain garden between the public park and the more private courtyards

[190:12] crossing over that rain garden area, through the pedestrian new. We've worked with city staff in response to Dab, adding these corner balcony units, help helping to emphasize circulation through the site. adding the north entries on the north side. having a corner balcony and creating this welcoming beacon on the northwest corner. and then also developing the south side of the site with more public programmed space. It's just a a little teaser of the the recent edits that we've made to the the project. to really create more of a public amenity.

[191:05] jump back over to our slides. What Kalin jump in? Thanks, Amy Caleb Crosier, with wink associates our landscape architect on the project. you can see that that those were just pieces and themes across the site with a very large site less than to just under 16 acres in size. There were obviously many questions already about the the site that I'll I'll try to touch on briefly through this presentation. But we can circle back to more question. During Q. A. you can see that a lot of the site is open space and landscape area with Boulder Creek cropping through the bottom. Third of the project area. a key component of this design is to create a destination along Boulder creek path. that is publicly acceptable, similar to the civic center area in boulder that exists.

[192:03] and the the key framework for creating this program. And the structure is the peeling away of the Mo. Of the Boulder Creek path from the existing alignment along the edge of the creek. there've been a lot of questions already on this alignment. it. It is for safety reasons, primarily because there is a blind corner on both sides of the bridge that exists today. so that you' realignment creates a much safer connection for pedestrian and cyclists on both sides. In addition, creates a better connection for transportation and overall improves. Circulation and staff has been supportive of these changes. I'll speak a little bit more to that as we continue on, but we've also worked closely with staff on landscape materiality and creating a sense of place and way, finding throughout the site that is very intuitive through materials

[193:04] bye. as mentioned, over half of the site is usable open space, much of which is publicly accessible as highlighted in yellow, and the upper left hand corner of the screen. we can kind of touch on this more, but there will also be private resident courtyards, as Joan in Orange on the screen as well, which on the south side will be fenced with key to access. which is the view that you will be looking at on the right hand side of your screen. We've also provided a very generous buffer of landscape rain, garden, vegetated area between the public and private spaces to delineate the the difference in space and transition between these 2 areas. Next slide. this is an enlargement of the north side of the open space area. you can see here we're pulling away that Boulder Creek path. clearly identifies program space. so we are creating about a half acre open lawn area and the center of the site which is allowed by the peeling away of this pathway. it also separates cyclists and pedestrian traffic.

[194:20] creating a much nicer pedestrian edge along the creek side. there were questions about the creek access. We have removed any concrete care thing along the creek edge and replaced with natural phone at a much smaller scale. so the natural elements are brought into the pre quarter, especially within the wetland buffer. The lawn area was designed around the existing honey, locust trees kind of in the middle of that lawn area. that's a key feature for us. We worked highly with that on prioritizing those trees, and for the the preservation of those trees as well. And that will come into play. As far as I know. There were questions on the alignment of the Boulder Creek path. But the elevation and location of those trees that we were able to preserve is a key component as to the limitations we have on the alignment of that path, and how close or far it can be from the creek.

[195:18] Additionally, you see the fish observatory that we have maintained. We also worked closely with Staff to improve the connection between the multi-use path and Boulder Creek path, where the 2 intersect for safer circulation through the site next slide and on the south side of the creek we've added new programming. So the last time this project was here, this programming did not exist, and you can see where the Boulder Creek path continues to be aligned and then approved access and connect to the existing pedestrian underpass at 20 Eighth Street, on the bottom, right hand side of the corner. There were a few questions already on programming. You can see here that we are creating publicly accessible programs, space, including active lawn, dog, park and pickle ball. The intention is for all of the Boulder Creek path and public

[196:13] areas to be acceptable. there will be certain limitations and use, especially for areas like the dog park and the go ball for timing, which are in line with typical city standard maintenance hours and operations for park. so that will be due to safety concerns. But this will be a a really great public amenity. Next slide. The greatest challenge that we had on site or one of the greatest challenges, is grading and flood plain requirements. the buildings will need to be elevated several feet higher than the existing building elevation today in order to be constructed at the Blood Protection elevation so essentially the entire center of the site is going to be raised. that

[197:04] really constricted us in existing mature trees that we could preserve on site. We worked closely with staff to identify site, review, criteria and methods to meet this. we worked over the course of several months to understand implications. We provided an updated arrest report as well as created a very thorough study of existing trees on site. The trees shown in light green are existing to be preserved. You can see the ones in the lawn that I previously mentioned, as well as other trees primarily along the Boulder Creek. we're preserving 171 healthy trees, the trees and darker green are proposed, new trees to be added, about 4 440 trees. We are adding, including a succession under story planting along the Boulder Creek for future tree canopy establishment. So overall we are replacing trees at greater than a 3 to one ratio on site

[198:05] next slide. Thanks, Kalin. So we have. some slides looking at the design Advisory Board. So most of the comments were focused on the north elevation. and you can see the The comments from from Dab were wanting us to increase the design caliber, and really increase the some visual interest and having refined detail along this north elevation. So the previous elevation in comparison, we were able to introduce corner corner balconies. we have introduced to different tones and profiles of metal panel. to help introduce some variation on the the north elevation, and then also

[199:03] developing the the landscaping to communicate this and tree portal into the pedestrian. You we were able to add, and trees onto the north elevation. So a primary comment from Dab was looking at being able to activate Olson Drive and really treat it as the future street like it is intended to be. So adding the entries not only programmatically activates Olson drive, but it also brings some material variation, as you can see in the elevation being being recessed and clad in wood. and then the northwest corner was also discussed in Dab as being a focal point for the entry from Folson. Folsom, and So we

[200:00] we were able to do a couple of things. So We previously had services and a waste room on that corner. And so we were able to reprogram the corner, relocate the waste room and the Associated overhead door, we were able to relocate the transformers and electrical service equipment to the south side of the site where we'll have it fenced. and we were because we were able to relocate the the services. We're able to have these wrap around balconies to really create this, this welcoming corner beacon on on the northwest corner of the site. Well, thank you, Amy and Kalin. We had a lot to get through in a very short amount of time, and we look forward to your questions like I said, we have a huge team here to answer everything from engineering to transportation to parking. Our goal over the last several years is to really identify, like, really identify what the site needs. One of the first things we did is documented the Social History. There's a lot that happened here that was very impressive.

[201:16] An incredible Scott carpenter came here after he went to the out to outer space. so we have that documented at Carnegie Library. We have really integrated a lot of solar throughout the site on the roof. We cannot do it in the parking lots because of the flood plane. we have added storm water management and water quality to protect the watershed where it doesn't exist today. and permeability is actually increase with this project. We are decreasing the amount of buildings and pavement that are there today. We're also increasing the tree canopy and the Heat Island effect or reducing the Heat Island effect. Housing near campus provides reduces vehicle. Miles traveled it also.

[202:03] relinquishes the impact on single family housing and some of the So neighborhoods like Hill Hotel or hill neighborhood and Martin acres, so that hopefully, students will move out of those single family middle income housing and move into this organized housing. And also they provide workforce housing. These. These students will work in the retail centers near them. We mentioned affordable housing. We have been doing quick back of the envelope calculations. I have to admit that we don't. Nobody calculates this until we get to building permit. So your questions on what the 4 story provides are very important. I I think back of the envelope. it's 12 million for the first 3 stories and 6 million for the fourth story. if you want to ask us more about that. We might have more information.

[203:01] And we do want to retain the small businesses. We've worked very closely with Rocky Mountain tennis Center to identify a transition plan and work with them as they move into the future. their bubble in the flood plane is problematic, and and their continuation is a tennis center is something that we identified early on. And we we want to help them with a transition plan. and we would like to keep the day Care and Simba and the other small businesses in the cottages and flood protection. This current building is not flood protected. It is not out of the flood plane. There is no way to flood. Protect this building. given the regulations and the flood plane. So I hope that answers some of your questions. We would love to hear more and have a discussion. So thank you.

[204:03] Sorry I was muted. okay, thank you very much. I am knowing our team here will have lots of questions. So If you do have questions, please raise your hand. and I will start to call on you. Come, come, I know people have questions. Don't be shy. Okay, Laura. Then, ml, then, Kurt. Sara feel feel free to Ask me to pass the baton if I go too long. Why don't we just assume? Ask 3 questions and then pass it on. Okay? 3 questions. first, this is a transportation related question community cycles wrote to us, and I think probably other people will pick up on some of their questions, but one is they didn't think it was clear whether the multi-use path on 20 Eighth Street was going to remain. Will it remain?

[205:03] Thank you. Second question. it it on page 47 it says the multi-use path will be fronted with an activity. Amenity program uses, including a few things. But it mentions an outdoor perch. What is an outdoor perch? Would you like me to take that Danica? I don't know what that is, either. It's it's a private outdoor. Many just outside of the like Interior club room. Essentially. So, it's a enclosed elevated deck area attached to the interior side of the the building. with lounge and overhead lighting. so it's just off of the north, South multi-use path. you kind of saw it in the fly through very quickly, but it's essentially yep, there it is

[206:00] thanks for pulling that up. It's essentially an additional amenity space. adjacent to the north South multi cap. Because, could you point to it here? I don't know that it's just on the left hand side of the screen there. So yep, it'll be a a a concrete paper area with overhead Pistro lighting soft seeding. and then it's fully enclosed with a fenced area. Okay? So it's like a fence patio. Yeah, it's it's like a fence patio. But I guess it's a little elevated, which is why we're calling it the the perch. Is that a common term that I should know? Or is that specific to this project. Okay? And can you tell me where guests will park? How are you going to handle guest parking? So I think our our parking reduction is overall for visitors and guests. So everything is shared, unbundled, manage paid parking.

[207:03] I think that I I I don't actually know the answer to where guests will park. There's probably a limitation they can park for 2 h Rob or Andrew, do you want to answer that a little further, how you'll manage that. Yeah, so we would expect that. Will. Can everybody hear me? Yes, we would expect that. Many people would. You see alternative transportation routes. to visit residents of our property. but we will identify some spaces that would be for temporary guest parking so that could be in any of the 3 surface lots. Yes, yeah, we haven't defined where they would be. Exactly. Yeah. Okay, thank you. I'll pass on. Thank you.

[208:04] Thank you. and thank you, Jenica, and team for your presentation. If you clarified some things, and I'm going to just riff off of something you were something excited about which was the historic I guess, happening on this site Scott, carpenter and When you look at that picture I don't know if it was your staff, the building. the original hotel. no, the original hotel. It's just like a very it. It was a staff, a very cool building. So my question is, you know, this happens, and I guess it happens everywhere. There's something that was cool. And then it became not so cool because of all the things that happened with the millennial, all the changes and upgrades and whatnot But there is some really nice history that is unique and special.

[209:09] and it seems that we tend to lose this when new projects come to town, you know, density and the programming it is different than it was back when it was a hotel and and etc., etc. So I heard you say you were acknowledging that there was some cool history here? And it went to the Carnegie. what are you doing on site? Are you doing? Is there a nod to the history of this particular piece of land in Boulder and the buildings that I inhabited it historically on this, on this project. that's a great question. Am I? We did document, the social history which talks about all of the cool things that happened, which is a a report that's at the Carnegie, with photos and

[210:05] a lot of crazy parties and interesting things. the Site review process, doesn't. We? Don't explore what to do about signage, or, you know, talking about that, I think that we would be very open to memorializing that it's it's just not part of what we're talking about tonight. But I think that it would be totally appropriate to create signage or rooms. That document it, or, you know, places that it. express that the Fish Observatory is a way to continue into the future. That was a very like seventies, eighties thing that. And I will note that the the city would like to improve the observatory. It is not at its height at the moment. It's

[211:00] the windows are blocked in. It's a little murky and not accessible. So we have been talking to Parks and Rec. About the the idea that they will improve that area and we will maintain it. So that's part of the agreements that we've been discussing. There's a lot of negotiations that are happening and will continue to happen about how to maintain that area. the tennis, you know, has been there for a long time. So we're trying to re, you know, respect that with some pickleball and working with them into the future. and also just creating this great public space. It won't be a party zone, because it's students, and you know it won't be the Friday Afternoon Club, but we hope that it will also be a great public space kind of reflecting the civic center. a lot of our design inspiration came from what the city did with the civic center around the library and creating riparian areas and accessible areas and nature-friendly kid areas. And so you know, it's moving into the future.

[212:05] but that building is not able to be maintained blood plane. So I I wouldn't. I wouldn't. Yeah, I can't get the right language just like, no, that building should be coming down. I think that that was a good move on on your part. I am just architecturally looking for, and then you you created this sort of cool little what the little raised purch thing. It just there are things. and it and I would go back to that if you had not seen the slide that our staff put out there about the original hotel. It's a pretty cool sleep, little article building, I mean it it was. It was nice, and wouldn't that be cool to do a not. you know, back to, hey? This. There was some value here. and, you know, find those little you know, Joules, that you might be able to articulate because you got a lot of possibilities, you know, on the side. So that that's my first question. Thank you for

[213:09] actually bringing it up in your presentation. I have, 2 2 other questions. so it's encouraging you to see the investment in the creek area. So the question I have. Are there any thoughts on how to manage unintended consequences? You know, such as camping and that kind of thing? sure, I think this is a problem where I've faced on a lot of projects I'm working on. I think that currently the property, all of the property, is privately owned. So the harvest millennium. the Millennium Hotel moves people on. So the encampments and have not been happening there, because it is privately owned. I think, that would be continued to be the tradition. there is

[214:05] you know, when it. When you're a private property owner, you can work on that more effectively. Our goal is also to activate the space more intentionally, so that it is less attractive to long term involvement. This is a sensitive subject, and But I think that by activating it, you know. But we're balancing, lighting. We don't want to put a bunch of lights out there because it's a sensitive Creek habitat. And so we're trying to restore repairing areas and create pushes, but also create access. So I do think that our plan and what wink has done is really incredible. and we can continue to refine that to make sure it's a safe and welcoming space. I think the fact that it's a private. I it hadn't occurred to me that that could be absolutely a factor. You can. You can do with you, you know.

[215:01] You can manage your property to see fit, and that you've got activities. and that makes a huge difference. so my last question is, and I asked Staff, this is the ground for residential use. and the criteria or the rationale that they cited was, it provides a compatible. Your ground floor resolution provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity. Use? Can you. Clara? Can you expand on that? What, where? The higher, what. what is the transition? Where is the transition, higher intensity and lower intensity. And how is that? How is that manifested in the in the plan to warrant the residences on the ground floor? I don't know if it's about higher intensity, it's about There was a few years ago there was an ordinance created to an encourage retail on the ground floor

[216:03] in the Zone districts. But because we're set back so far from 20 Eighth Street. because and the flood plane would preclude us from putting retail right on 20 Eighth Street we are proposing that the ground floor be activated with the residential uses which are academic study centers, workout centers. so it's not about residences for amenities. It's both, but it's not like retail. That would be competing with the shopping center next to us, because we don't have that proximity to the the street and signage. Right? So I think it's I don't know if it's about intensity, it's more about use. And so what we've tried to do is the ground floor, then, has walk up units, more permeability, more accessibility, and any of the uses that would be

[217:06] especially the bike, use the multi-use path that comes through the center of the site. Everything there is like that perch that we were talking about is about activating. The people live there with the people that might be traveling through there. So it's really creating as much as we can interaction and active activation on the ground floor without throwing, you know, a bunch of retail that wouldn't in this location. Yeah. And this is a topic of discussion with initial review for a Site Review about locating those active uses immediately on that pedestrian pass through rather than on the 20 Eighth Street side. So the 20 Eighth Street side, on that very northeast corner. has some, you know. study rooms and and student entries and things like that, and that's where the entry is located. But it was a deliberate design choice from a pedestrian and active use to put those components fitness club room.

[218:02] bike room, and all of that on the pedestrian path rather than associating it to 20 eighth, because it's so far away. It's so vehicularly oriented. So good question. Thank you. I like that answer. You know I like the answer that the pedestrian pathway that goes through actually has some intention. Now that you don't just feel like you're going to someone's house. Great! Those are my 3 questions. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Ml, all right. for calling you. I know that George is operating on a completely different time zone. So, George, if you have any questions, do you want to ask them? I I'm okay at the moment. Okay, thank you. Alright. You're welcome, Kurt. questions. Okay, yeah, I will. start with my rational 3 questions. So my first question is similar to the last question, and I asked if, if conceptually, if you were to flip building one east, west.

[219:07] then you would no longer, you wouldn't have to request the use for you. Is that correct. But you chose to design it that way because of what you said about activating along the the multi that there. yeah. And it one factor among many. Right? Yeah. So there was a choice there, and there was discussion back and forth, and we did revise It was previously all units along that farthest east face. and then it became kind of a blend, so that northeast corner has some public activity, and then it breaks into residences. After that entry as you work your way south. But if you want to move all those residences to the West side and the other things to the East side. Then you wouldn't need to request use for the re user. Use it right? I think we'd have used for you. Regardless? Right? Yeah, I I think it. I? Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I think. I think that the code says that ground floor should be non residential on

[220:10] street facing buildings. and those things are considered residential because they're in service of a residential yeah? And so the the code was written to kind of support. The I I think it was actually a base. Mar was being proposed to be redeveloped is all residential, and it was like, How do we retain neighborhood retail on the ground floor and support residential above. So it it. The intention is right. It's just. We don't have the access to the street. That other, you know. Properties might have I? I I believe that's the intention. So we we the site, would not ever support a lot of retail. It's just not. And so I don't think it would matter what we did with the buildings. We just tried to make the best of it and activate the multi-use path, so that when people travel through the site they might see their friends, or they might pull over, and you know, pump up their bike or

[221:15] throw a frisbee on the lawn and make the best of this unique circumstance of a very flood from property. Non apartment uses like the fitness, center and stuff would not qualify as non residential. Maybe Shannon can weigh in now. I I see her. Yeah, we would consider those uses like accessory as as part of the residential use. So flipping it wouldn't necessarily change the situation. Yeah. Yep, okay, thank you. So the next question is, what about what appears to be a path

[222:05] on the north side of Buildings 2 and 3 between the sidewalk on Olson Drive and the buildings. and I can't tell what material it is, or really what the purpose is. And so could you talk about what? What is the idea with that? Yeah, maybe I'm gonna pass it to Kaylan. The path on the north side of the building is kind of serving a couple of things. it's one for sort of inter your site circulation. we're also utilizing that area for our sort of trash and service back and forth between the site. So we will have trash from the east side of the site that will be taken to the west side of the site and picked up on that end. And we are not allowed to use the public sidewalk as means for for that service.

[223:09] So we provided a secondary pathway closer to the buildings. that is, providing that onsite service for such trash and such other services as needed on site. So that is primarily the reason that we have it on the north side of the site. we're also, as far as material goes, that'll be an enhanced concrete with the pressure finds that shoulder on that edge, so it will be materially consistent with the rest of the site as far as way, finding and will be more unique than a standard concrete paving on the sidewalk. So the city says you're not allowed to let people roll their beans or whatever down the sidewalk. That's right.

[224:00] Yes, those were the specific words given to us, okay, and and the and the city sidewalk has to be gray and dull, but the one we're putting in for it can be not great until there's a there's a logic. There. I'm sure there is. Okay. Thank you. last question. So you're doing a certain amount of cut and a certain amount of fill, it looks like you're doing more. Fill in, cut right? And so you'll be bringing in still. And have you identified where? Well, how much? Still that will be like. how many? Don't talk loads, and where will it be coming from? Do you have any idea. Cody? That sounds like a question for you? Yeah. So, Kurt, we? So it's a great question, because we've been thinking about this a lot. The irony is that we're actually pretty close to matching our cut and fill volumes on this site to the flood plane requirements. and and really the building up of the of the buildings themselves are going to be done mostly with

[225:16] the foundations, and then we will have obviously some dirt underneath of the buildings themselves. But the rest of the site is actually at or around existing grade. And we're trying to keep that pretty well balanced in here, due to the flip-play regulations. So we're having to be really cognizant of that. We haven't done any sort of calculations in terms of Cupville volume yet. We were actually waiting for the Clomer to get approved, and it just got a approved not that long ago, I think a couple of weeks ago. So we'll start to dive into really refining our greeting in the tech talk process. And we, we could have some more answers at that point for you in terms of total cut and fill. Okay, yeah, because one of the Site review criteria is, you probably know, relates to minimizing cut until so

[226:05] yes, that was key criteria in all the flood. Plain discussions for sure. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Kurt, and mark your next. And this is not specific, because you're the one talking. But we have a whole bunch of people in the public line of who have comments. It's already 945. If we could really keep our questions quite targeted so that we can move forward to the public comment, that would be awesome. Right? I that, Sarah, thank you. That informs a decision I was trying to make. So there goes 2 questions only. Do you feel this is threat to the outlook and the you do you feel clear about who maintains what and under what regulations? you can do things program things in terms of the south side of the building and the creek path and the south of the creek path.

[227:02] And if if you are confident in what you can and can't do who maintains what? what informs you that that allows you to be competent? that's a great question. We've had a lot of discussions, lots and lots of meetings with Osmp. parks and rack Darren Wagner with parks and rack, has been especially in contact. So part I think of the next steps will be delineating those maintenance agreements. Once we know what they want to do with the Fish Observatory, we have easements over the multi-use path. The city will maintain the multi-use path, but they will have easements over the larger public property, so that if they need to make improvements. So yes, this is an incredible partnership with the city. I wish that they rest of city staff were here tonight, because I think that they see this as an opportunity as well

[228:03] to get maintenance over something that has been unregulated for many, many years. The Fish Observatory was like a handshake agreement that a few people did, and somebody was supposed to take care of it. Nobody did so. I think everybody sees this as an opportunity for the future. So our discussions with the city have been. They would improve the observatory to the degree that the public wants, and through some master planning, and we would maintain it. which is kind of a historic agreement that Harvest House maintain the observatory. So I think it's gonna improve things immensely. in a way that wasn't there before. So. but we are still working on those agreements, and that will be part of the conditions of us moving forward. Great! I I hope that you as an applicant, have, have just as much interest in detailing those agreements so that future

[229:09] misunderstandings, misinterpretations are minimized. and the same vein. Do you see how the public having historically, you know, we're so proud of our creek paths and access to Boulder Creek, and it's it's just part of every boulder rights existence, this the the creek path that with the alignment as it is, I'm coming around to the alignment. the big curve to the north. but the perception will be, I predict that that space south of the creek that is public. It's like that. This is so we assumed that that will be Osmp. People don't know who controls the creek pads now, anyway, anyway, I my concern is that Can you hold your concern until we have our dialogue. Please ask your next question.

[230:14] Do you understand that people are going to perceive that as public? Yes, and I think that that's the intention is that it's public. It's privately owned public space. So it will be maintained that way. I don't. The the private space is enclosed and fenced and off limits. The rest of it is for the community. That's what's awesome about this. I mean, I think it's really cool that we're gonna have all this open space that people can access and use for different reasons and purposes. And so A and the alignment of the path was purely to create this incredible civic space for the public.

[231:00] m mimicking the civic area up near the library. so that we have this great lawn and this access, and also controlled access to the creek. That was very important to the city, that not everybody can go the creek whenever they want, wherever they want, because that creates degradation to the riparian system. So this creates a of a like, a lot of different opportunities for different people. And quite honestly, it's a flood plane that creates this for us as an opportunity. So I think it's amazing. And you know you can have a dog park. You know pickle Ball. You can have the fish observatory. Go sit on a lawn. You can sit under a tree and you can go fishing. but that those spaces will all be available to people traveling through there. Great. Thank you. I'm done with my questions. If you have a question that is actually.

[232:02] you need to ask it in order to understand how you're going to vote on this project. Raise your hand if it's just a question, because you're interested in X, Y or Z. I'm gonna take executive privilege here and move us along. All righty. okay. thank you. Applicants for your presentation. And thanks to all the Board members for your interesting questions, and we are now going to go to public comments. Vivian will take control from here. Go ahead, Vivian. Great, so we can turn our cameras off. What? What's your expectation, Sarah? I think we prefer to have the cameras often. If we have questions, once we get the deliberations, we'll we'll call on you and ask our questions. Okay, thank you very, very much. I see a couple of people have already popped their hands up. But if others could do that as well, if you'd like to make any comments, I'd appreciate it. So we'll start with kindle September, followed by Jonathan Singer, and you each have 3 min. So

[233:06] Kendall, please go ahead. Kendall, we can't hear you. You just muted yourself. There you go. Yes, now we can hear you. Okay. Great So I I wanted to share that is, I'm sorry, Kendall Kendall. You have to introduce yourself and Give us your name and a general sense of where you live. I'm a city boulder resident. I live in North Boulder. I'm one of the 3 business owners of the Rocky Mountain tennis Center that is located on the grounds of the millennium Harvest House Hotel. and as a lifelong tennis player and 35 year professional tennis coach and tennis teacher. I have to say

[234:01] I absolutely love tennis as a boulder resident. I'm unbelievably passionate about being a tennis provider and our beautiful city for the last 20 years, while serving as the same for the surrounding communities as well. It's been nothing short of my life's privilege to have the the incredible opportunity to be part of growing and developing our sport in so many ways at the former Harvest house. and since 2,012 we've been the Rocky Mountain tennis center we at Rocky Mountain Tennis Center know this project is happening. and quite honestly, it needs to happen. We know our time here is short. but we truly and deeply appreciate all our many years with the Millennium Hotel. and we're so grateful to the Millennium and the Landmark Development team working directly with us to provide every opportunity to keep Rmtc. Tennis going strong and even growing for the last years. While they have been developing this important project.

[235:08] giving us much needed time to make our next steps. The path forward remains tremendously important to us to the tennis community. and we look forward to continuing to work with Danica and the project team on a transition plan ahead honestly, hopefully, to a new site. Thank you so much for your time and letting me speak to you guys tonight. Thank you, Kendall. So next up we have Jonathan Singer. and you can also introduce yourself a bit. and you have 3 min. Please go ahead, Jonathan. Good evening. I'm Jonathan Singer. I'm a senior director of policy programs at the Boulder Chamber and given how late this meeting is going. I'm pretty sure I live there now to you. I I wanted to thank actually

[236:03] staff for excuse me for their amazing work. not only on working with this applicant, but on the previous Discussion on issue 5 a I know. The Boulder Chamber has been working for quite some time now to really reduce the log jam and create common sense solutions. And we're really appreciative of every everyone, from Lisa to Brad to the entire planning staff team for their diligent, thoughtful work. To make sure we're balancing community and business needs that being said with this. this specific project that we're talking about today. these are the kinds of projects that the boulder chamber is thrilled to see. When you talk about a win-win case, I really look at this as a when, when, when when? When we're talking about over 15 million dollars a cash in Loo, additional flood protection. retention of those small businesses that we all value, including a day care but also decreasing pressure on single family homes which have because of market pressures, but oftentimes taken over by the student population. Today. This is one answer to help address that one part of the problem. Also, we look at workforce housing and decreasing commuter miles

[237:17] and frankly, students who are forced to live further and further out, are going to be commuting into to you boulders campus. This. This presents an opportunity to allow our students to live, study, and work in the same community. and also the creation of public space. And and I'll close on on this real point here. I was a a young lab in 1,988 moved didn't move to Boulder in 1,988, but visited boulder. The first place I stayed was the Harvest House. I don't think it was called the Millennium yet. and I remember going and enjoying all those different amenities along the bike path, and then, after moving here in 1,992 with my family biking from East Boulder all the way to the Boulder Public Library, where I was able to volunteer using the bike path going by the millennium

[238:12] and we have to honor our history. but we also have to honor our history in a way that provides a way for future generations to enjoy this. And the millennium is obviously, unfortunately, overstate, it's welcome. But now we have an application here that really looks at the long term in preserving the character, improving the the amenities and providing for the future needs of our community by ensuring that we have housing that's available for students in a way that actually enables more of our workforce, not only students, but more of our traditional workforce to be able to find that additional housing stock and the long run. This isn't a Panethea, but this is a great first step, and we look forward to the approval.

[239:04] Thank you, Jonathan. I don't see any other hands raised. If anybody else wishes to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hand. Now. Okay, Lynn, please go ahead. You have 3 min. I have never approved for this project. The millennium. Harvest House had 269 rooms. These students will be 900 rooms in the space. She is a big boy. They can fund their own housing. This is not a relief. I completely disagree with Jonathan. This is not a relief for me and others in the community. I'm at Sixth and Dewey. By the way, Lynn Siegel. and this is just a massive, massive abomination across the street. See, you owns all of 20 Eighth Street on that East. Now that you know they're like an octopus.

[240:06] There's an elephant in the living room. They are state entity. We are a city. We deserve to keep our city here. I want to ride my frigging bike along the creek path. not into the student housing. insulting myself, having to get any nearer them than I'm already forced to be all the time the students in this community have taken over. We've got. See you South, coming up doubling the size of see you. There is no excuse for you to do one exception, one height a minute, one parking restriction. no subsidies for this project. 0 4 stories. It's obscene. I'm speechless with anger at what my town has become, and I lived here from 58 to 60. My mom and dad met in the hiking club.

[241:05] and I've been here since 87, and there's not a corner where another condo is coming in. This is high end housing. Okay for the $60,000 tuition. And who knows what this is gonna cost for these students? That's 54 million bucks a year just for tuition. See you a big kid, they can pay their own friggin way. This is an abomination. It's too bad this didn't get on to the historic civic center. It should have gone all the way down to 20 Eighth Street as all the way up to even time. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you very much. No, I'm not done. I've got 25. I'm just. I'm just speechless with anger at this at this project. I'm speechless that you even have. You even can think about any

[242:08] any subsidies for them. The do you know this? The city of the City of Boulder needs sales tax revenue? We had that with the millennium. We've given it away to see you. and we're a little short on sales tax revenue. Rightly. Thank you, Lynn. Any other hands I don't see any others over due to. I would like to make a quick recommendation. 2 min by a break we come back and we start our discussion. Maybe take a straw poll, see where people are at this point, and and then we'll move forward from there. So 2 min break

[245:42] right. So all up, mark just left us. We were all here for a moment. so super interesting questions, super interesting presentations. And I'm sure that we all have a lot to say. I'm also aware that it is 10 and 5, and we often lose Lisa by 1030, and George is

[246:08] in far, far away, and it's very early in the morning, very early in the morning where he is. So I think what might make sense. I'm curious if you all. How do you all feel about taking a quick straw poll thumbs up, thumbs down on on the proposal in front of us as is. Or would you prefer to have some discussion first, and then take a straw poll. Go ahead, Mark. I I just. I'm I'm thinking about this. And I appreciate this path of my question is, should we take a straw poll? Does anyone have conditions that they would want to discuss? Because that anyway, we have conditions? Suddenly, it's a much longer night than if

[247:01] we don't have conditions. thank you for that, mark. We'll come back to your question. Ml. we have been sort of framing our discussion around the key issues. Do we not want to do that? No, I'm happy to do that. I just wanted to get a sense first of whether we have. I mean, if it's if it's 704, then we don't even need to have a discussion. I don't know that that's going to be the case, but it would be helpful to know whether like sort of where we are not saying we have to do it but it might be worth while. I have some serious I can just state right now. I have some serious concerns and I I I may be the only one but It would be helpful to know if it's 7, 0 6, 1, 4, 3, whatever it might be before we start our discussion. So. that's sort of the thinking I was putting out there. You can tell me I'm wrong, and that you don't want to do it this way, but I just once was trying to make a suggestion. Can I ask you? Can I ask a question? Real quick, sar? Just of clarification. What you just said.

[248:12] when you said you have serious, serious concerns, you have serious concerns that could cause you to thumbs down on the approval altogether, or that you might want to put conditions on it. And with and the condition what? What I'm what I'm concerned about, it can't be fixed with a condition. Gotcha. I I think that's good to know if there are other folks who are in the same boat. or if people are mostly thinking conditions, maybe it would be helpful is May. Let's maybe do it, Ml suggests, and go through the key issues. And that will highlight the issues that maybe I'm the only one who has it. But It could be a way to go. Kurt, do you want to add something, please? Oh, I was just gonna answer. Mark 2 question and say, I have conditions.

[249:05] Alright. So let's do this. Let's go through the key issues. at that. In each of these key issues we can each bring up the things that we are concerned about, or might want to have a condition of And I think if we can quick, do a quick, round quickly. Do this, and I'm I'm not trying to get us done before 1030, but I am trying to not make this a 2 h process. if we can avoid that. So let's start with key issue number one, which is is the proposed project on balance consistent with the Site Review criteria 9 to 214 H. Including findings related to consistency with the Boulder Valley Comp plan policies. Sara, can I? Can. I? I have a I'm sorry I hate to do this, but since this is our first time using the the new criteria, I have a serious concern with using the new criteria. We are using the old criteria because this was proposed back at this. That's been going through under the old criteria. Oh, okay, I I still have a a concern with how this key issue number one is phrased, because in in my understanding.

[250:12] it's not about whether the project is on balance consistent with the Site Review criteria. It's required to meet the Site Review criteria. The only on balance is applying to the Bbcp policies. As as far as I know. So this felt like a huge change to me if we're being asked, is the project on balance consistent with the Site Review criteria in general fair enough. I think you could break it down into 2 2 questions, one being consistent with site review criteria, which is really actually part of question number 2 and question number one would then be consistency with Boulder Valley Comp and policies. Are you guys? Okay, we slightly modify key issue number one to Bbt policies. Okay. T. Issue number one. what are our thoughts about? Is the project on balance consistent with The BBC Bdcp policies

[251:05] and land use map is how it's usually framed. I'm just gonna go down the line and either say yes, or if it's no say what the nose are about so, Kurt. so my nose are about the the facade design, just the materiality, the number of materials. something from the site review. That's not. That's not comp plan. That will go on then. Yes. okay. and we'll have ample opportunity for these other issues to talk about specific concerns.

[252:04] Laura comp plan. So I I don't love how they meet. Vvcp, 2.4 one section J, which talks about fostering appeal of buildings through attractive, well designed architecture and innovative approaches to design. I don't love the design of this building. I think it's a missed opportunity for enhanced design. but there's enough to love about this project, and it meets enough of the Bbcp policies that I will say that. Yes, it on balance meets the Bvcp policies, and I do think it's consistent with the land use map. Okay, Mark. Yes. Well, Laura said it for me. the design is a missed opportunity. But on hold, yes. okay. Ml. I agree. Laura, you can be my spokesperson on Key issue number one. You covered all the basis for one I 5. So I I I'm in the similar boat. My, my issues lie kind of with the rest of it.

[253:03] Okay, Lisa. Yes. Can you hear me? Same as everybody else? I I could maybe make some finicky argument that it doesn't. But overall. I think it's fine, and my concerns will come up below key issue number 2 are the modification. Well, Keish, number 2 is going to be site, review criteria and the modifications, including building stories and height and parking reduction consistent with site review criteria. can we? Sarah, did you weigh in on key issue one I I from in terms of the pu the policies, the ones I think it does not meet our tangential to the discussion. So I'm I'm fine with it as I'm fine with whether it needs Pvcp policies. I'm not fine with other elements. Right? So, key issue number 2, A is general site Review. Criteria. Key issue. To be is specifically the modifications requested for building stories and height and parking rejection. Are they consistent with review site review criteria

[254:09] hurt so? No? Oh, well, sorry. Wha I I tsu 2. A is site review criteria in general key issue. To be is the height and parking reduction criteria modification requests. So No. One A and yes on B. Okay, so no. Tell us a bit about unpack now a bit for us. right? it's about a couple of things, mostly the facade detailing and and finish building materials and the complexity of all that and also the the this access to the east parking area and the the implications for the safety of multiple travel.

[255:12] Okay? Great Lisa, I'm going to turn to you next. 8. Similar? Yeah. Yeah. yeah. Similar. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think about how much I want to say. Given the hour. I think other people will speak to this more eloquently, but I'm not convinced that we need the height change. I know why they're asking for it. I also think it leads to really boring architectural design. Sorry to architects. yeah, we we we built a box that fills the area that we could build into which we do a lot, because that's how our code maximizes highest and best use for a developer. But yeah, I'm I'm not so sure about height, specifically, and and have some other concerns as well. But other people, I think we'll talk about better. Okay, I'm George. I'm going to go to you next. Thank you. A a few quick comments. I'm kind of surprised

[256:04] that this already went through dab. And this is what we got as planning. I know. because it it just looks like a giant unarticulated box. The masses of these buildings are not they're they're just really contiguous and flat. And so I I I'm not okay with the height modification as is because I I think that some rework needs to be done to make these buildings more interesting. and not look like they're from the like a seventies tenement. I I just they. They just don't look right to me. and that's my biggest issue. I think the parking reduction once that is sorted out, I I think the parking reduction is unrealistic with where this is at and the kind of clientele this is going after. I do think that

[257:03] not providing the height or or giving the building. Some really considered articulation. We'll solve for some of that. so I'll leave it there. Let other people try it. Okay, ml, since you were being responsive. Oh, you go next. Since I'm being responsive. you were responding to what you were, you were, you were, you were. You're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you' y'all are helping me tonight. so parking reduction it. It wasn't clear to me that the population they are targeting students. That's kind of a big, broad thing. They talked about the students

[258:02] that are inhabiting houses. taking up rentals. you know, every boulder right? That went to see you, that I know they lived in houses, and they packed themselves in. These are the people who probably are not gonna be able to afford. I don't know if they're going to move people out of the houses and into. We didn't talk about cost. We didn't talk about where these are going to land in the market. the fact that they've got the significant number of units are 4 bedroom and I'm guessing that they probably have the strategy to rent by the bedroom. but you know speculation. So I didn't see any discussion or information about the parking reduction and how it's going to mesh with the people who are going to be living there.

[259:07] If this is luxury student housing, which is what we've been seeing. If this is gonna hit those price points. It's going to be hard to imagine that the students are not going to have a car. So I think that there needs to be a direct relationship between the client they're hoping to serve and the parking requirements, the realistic parking requirements of those clients. I appreciate all of the management of alternative kinds of thinking But anyway, I I didn't. I didn't see any supporting data that would convince that this population that they're targeting are not gonna want cars. in regard to the building stories, the building hype.

[260:07] It's incredibly Oh, Pelly. that they we're able to solve the problem of where to build and how to build and give back to boulder. Give back this big green area and enhancement of the creek. And some really, I think generous moves. I'm still looking at this postcard, at the staff. Put up that original Harvest House Motor Hotel was 1, 2, 3, 4 5 stories. it's a generic.

[261:03] It's a generic response. Once the site, the sighting, and the use of the land was articulating, which I think makes a lot of sense. it's very unfortunate that architecture given who the people are there doing this? It's a playing a key role. When I talk about the history. the original site, the original buildings. Who was here that started kind of building this scale of buildings in the city. It wasn't just going to get translated into. Oh, this could be a plaque in the lobby, and I'm talking about architecture. How do you go back?

[262:00] look at Scott Carpenter. I mean, it's a park. I mean. do something that drives at home. And I, this building. They solved the problem of how to get the site to function. but they didn't make architecture. So I know key issue number 2 doesn't ask in an architecture. but I I would say that our desire in order to have good buildings, good architecture and things that respond to place. That's real. you know. That's real. We want accountability to that. And I'm in agreement with whoever said what happened to Dad. I've been in red their minutes, and they're just like, huh! They were all concerned about one right, the North, the north side. And so I I have to say that key issue number 2 is bravely lacking.

[263:19] Thank you. Ml, mark. Then, Laura, and then I have some comments. yes. I believe this meets the Site Review criteria. As this is operating under the the the code that is being applied to this site. yes. I think that the stories and height are acceptable and applicable and of community benefit in light of the rough numbers we have for the inclusionary housing program. They're meeting that, and that the parking reduction is actually

[264:02] just fine with me. I think I think this applicant has a pretty robust Tdm. Plans. I have to have a complaint about the Tdm. Plan, but I'll save that for later or not at all. but and I don't think I I I agree with people. I struggle with the design, but we can't. We don't specify exact design in our code, so doesn't meet the code. Yes. Is the parking is the height. Okay? Yes. Is the parking reduction consistent with the review criteria? Yes, and cutting down a floor will not. he'll any architectural ones. Okay, Laura. Thank you. Mark. Laura. you have to unmute. Yeah, sorry. Sorry. Scrolling around. so again, I don't love the design. And I think I'm looking at the right version of the code. Brc.

[265:10] H. 3, B. Little, I says, larger floorplate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights, and th. This building would be stretched to say that that is true. But in general I do think it meets the applicable site Review criteria, I think, having all of the tree screening on this building on these buildings helps a lot with how it's gonna look from the creek path, and how it will be compatible with the surrounding environment. So I would say, yes, I think it meets the applicable Site Review criteria in terms of the height, modification. The existing hotel that is, there now is 60 feet in height, and this proposal is lower than that in terms of building height. It's only like 52, or 53 feet high, although the site will be elevated. And so, Apparently, in the

[266:01] applicants analysis and in the Staff's concurrence. It's kind of a wash in terms of whether this would be about the same height. It's about the same height as what is there now. And so I don't have a problem with compatibility to have that kind of height. And you know my understanding is that when we we we really want to have the community benefits, and that is one of the things that drives us to to grant. Height modifications is if it's if it's compatible. and it's justified on the site, and we can get the community benefit. That's important to me. And so I am inclined to say, this height modification is is just fine, and I think Staff's rationale was perfectly appropriate for why this could be granted under the code. So I'm fine with the height modification. I'm also fine with the parking reduction given that it is student housing, and you know I do think that, as I've said in previous meetings, students are among the most likely people to live without a car in boulder.

[267:00] The places they need to go is their job campus, grocery store, and any kind of like socialization and nightlife, and all of that. And this site is so well located. There is literally a grocery store right behind it. You walk across Olson, and there's the safe way right? So that's one of the big things that people need. A car for. Campus is literally right across the street, and there's an underpass there like that. I think that this is a great location for students living without a car. If this were Concept review, I probably would push for more in the Tdm. Plan. More car sharing maybe having a scooter location, scooter rentals, something more innovative and and maybe a longer period of runway for those eco-passes. But this isn't concept Review. This is Site Review, and I'm not gonna deny the project based on their Tdm plan could be better. I do think that the parking reduction is appropriate. Thank you. All right. This is where I'm going to vote. No on this. So I'm starting with the mass scale and density issue, which is the height, modification, height, variance that's being requested.

[268:09] The proposal offers a what essentially a false equivalence in terms of the height, mass, and scale of what is there now, and what is being proposed? What is there now? Maybe 60 feet tall, but it takes up about a third of the landmass. What's being proposed is 53 feet tall. and literally covers every inch of develop a land. It is a huge. huge project. and because they're trying to maximize how much they, how much they can build, they've added this fourth floor, which then. triggers. the massive amount of parking that they need, that they are requesting a 50% parking reduction for So first of all, the building is much too big. It does not need to be 4 stories. It can be 3 stories

[269:02] and adequately house less than 960 beds, but it would still be student housing and then you wouldn't have the same parking problem. plus just in terms of the parking. I I read the the Tuttle Fox report or the Fox Tunnel Report, and I also read the Pdm planning report. I read them very carefully. and I'm just going to read what I've written here. It's probably a little verbose because I was writing and trying to figure out exactly what I wanted to say. So staff States on the applicant and staff have made it apples to bananas. Comparison that's not credible when it comes to the elements of their parking, reduction, formula or or argument. So on page 17 of 141 staff States, while the city's all street parking requirements would require 728 parking spots. The parking analysis indicated a parking demand of significantly fewer spaces based on national data for multi-family apartments

[270:13] with adjustments specific to student housing and considerations for the specific location. however, this is essentially refuted by fox titles on report which quotes the quote of which is the parking generation. Manual does not have data. It doesn't have data pertaining to student housing, and there is no national standard to estimate parking demand for student housing. That's page 129 of 141 of our packet instead. Fox Tuttle has made what I consider to be a huge assumption that trip generation for multi-family housing and trip generation for student housing would be similar for parking demand. That's a huge assumption that's very easy to poke holes in. Multi-family, multi-family housing is made of a folks who are driving all the time commuting, driving to Aaron's taking kids to school, etc.

[271:06] Students don't drive as much. but that does not indicate how many cars there will be. That's about how many vehicle miles travel there will be. so fox Tuttle has. Calculations are based on an assumption that student housing generates 18 less vehicle trips than would would family housing. and it literally has no meaning when it comes to how many students are going to have cards. So that's my. That is a fundamental. huge, gigantic assumption that I do not think. Is it all applicable? It's it's an assumption we could assume that none of these students will have cars, but that is not an assumption that we should be making We also know, because we've heard this in other proposals, that least language. Restricting vehicle ownership only covers people who plan to park their car at the site doesn't mean they won't have cars.

[272:02] It just means they're not going to pay the extra money to park their car there. In addition, I don't think that the alternative transportation fund of $75 a year is enough. I actually looked up Zip car. The car student membership may be $35 a year, but there's a minimum per hour cost of $11 an hour and $8 and 50 cents a day. There's your year. There's your year $75 gone in one day. If you decide to drive up to the mountains for the day. so to me, the height and the parking is connected. Yeah. And I know we all are very excited about the fact that there' be lots and lots of additional money because of the bonus area for going to a fourth floor. But that's just a given in when someone asks for a height modification that it's we're already going to be getting 25% of for for permanently affordable housing just from 3 stories, and if you go to 3 stories, you solve the parking problem

[273:09] so to me, I I can't vote for I cannot vote for what is being proposed today, and I don't think it's, you know, fixable through a So that's my position on this. Okay, key issue number 3 is the proposed ground floor, residential, consistent with the Use Review criteria of 9 to 2 minus 15 e. start with Lisa. I don't think I have a huge issue with this given the high foot track and traffic the location, I would also maybe be interested in some more creative use. But I I think it's fine. I think it meets the use food criteria. Okay, thank you, George. Yeah, I I I I tend to agree. And actually back to your argument, Sarah, on issue, too.

[274:05] And this is where this is where housing can be obtained at this site. without the impacts of the you know a and of what you talked about. so I I'm in general. I believe it's some consistent. Especially given the circumstances. and considering the other issues that we're wrestling with. Ml. I think it is consistent. So creation number 3. yes. it's consistent with the use of your criteria. Okay, Mark. Yes. Laura. yes, and before we move on I just want to make sure they were all operating on the same information basis about the parking. I think I did read in the packet, with the proposed lease language that residents who do not pay for a parking space need to either certify that they do not plan to bring a car.

[275:09] or if they do plan to bring a car that they are paying private parking, and on other private parking property. Pretty sure I read that somewhere in this huge packet that other people see that, or am I imagining something? I didn't see that. and I don't think it would actually be legal. You can tell them they can't have a car. I I did see something about that in the operating plan. Does anybody know where that is in the packet so that we can just verify if it's there or not. Okay, it's maybe that will make a difference. But I just I I think they are trying to do what they can. I I'll look for it. I'll I'll I'll search. and we've seen that language and other in other projects. Right? Well that that that was the first time I saw about. You have to pay for private parking back to discussing this. We're trying to answer key issue number 3, or we'll come back to this.

[276:11] Kurt. Yes, I do think it's met, but not based on the the rationale that staff identified, but rather under Point C, because it needs the housing need identified in the company. All right. and key issue number 4. And I'm not going to take a position on P issue number 3, because I'm opposed to this project as it's proposed. So my position on is the relevant key issue number 4. Does the Board support the proposed amendments to the Bvr. C. Transportation connections plan. I'll start with you, Mark. Yes. Kurt. yes, the proposed amendment. is for okay, Laura.

[277:00] Yes, I see no reason to contradict Tab and Tab supported it. So yes. all right. Ml. I agree. I believe it does. I do support. Okay, George. Sorry. I'm sorry. I know, George. I'm okay with it. Because again, I'm I'm focused on a a other issue. So I think that's fine. Okay, Lisa. yeah, this doesn't concern me out of the other stuff. Okay? So what I'm hearing is that, there's concern about the design, the the design of the building there's concern about among some about the height, and there's concern concern among some about parking. Is that what would would folks say? I've accurately reflecting back the 3 things that we are not in agreement on. Lisa. You've got your hand raised?

[278:00] Yeah, I I do grew. I thought Sarah and I. I just wanted to also highlight, and I don't know who else is in this boat. but it is past 1030 on a Tuesday night. I'll be dropping off. I don't know if other people want to as well, and if this is something we want to vote to continue, or if we want to try to wrap it up tonight. but I don't want to speak for anyone else. But I'll just say, I think we're all moving slower and talking in more confused ways. And yeah, yeah, I if if people feel comfortable wrapping it up without I I don't need you to continue it for me. I'm not pushing for any particular outcome. I also think continuing would be a reasonable choice, given the hour in the time. but anyway, I will. I'll be dropping. Okay, we don't drop yet. How do other people feel about a continuation so that we are fresher, and and Lisa is not sick. I can hear that Lisa is sick, and it's like it's it's 6 30 in the morning where I am. But so I'm I'm okay. Continuing from my perspective, I also don't want to lose Lisa. I I think that's that's also a a key consideration.

[279:02] and I'm fine with continuing, how are other people? That would be 3. We is there one more person who would like to continue this at a later date. I think I'd want to know when we're continuing it to. Are we continuing it for a month, or are we continuing it and scheduling another meeting next week we would continue. We have to talk to Staff. what I would, we would continue it to whenever the next meeting is. So I I I would only support continuation. Yes. people. if board members had specific conditions that they wanted to advocate for if we just want to end up with a 5 to vote or a a a 4, 3 vote. And we want to complain about things. I'm not for continuing. If someone has conditions that they want to propose that deserve serious consideration and discussion.

[280:00] Then I would propose continuing. So I don't have conditions that I am prepared to try and advocate for tonight. Brad, I see you. Yeah, just a logistical note that if you were to continue it we would always advocate for continuing to a date certain, and we can help you figure out what would be the earliest next date not doing it to date certain means that the whole public noticing process, and such has to be Redone and can be seen as a disservice to public. What date certain. Look good, Brad. I'm gonna have to rely on other folks to tell me when the next, hearing that they would like to discuss Kurt. Yes, okay, Anyone else have conditions they would like to discuss.

[281:00] Yeah, I mean, from my perspective, I'm not necessarily a a no vote. but I but my conditions are significant, and it's gonna take some time to talk it through a around height and parking, and those types of things as our, as as Mark put it, complaints. those are legitimate concerns of mine that I'd want to talk through. And so again. I I don't know that I have no vote. I just I I just I I don't know that to to Mark's point the other thing is, we might not reach. There might be a point where there might be an impact where conditions don't make sense right? But I I don't. I don't know that we're there yet. Given given the level of the nature and and level of our discussions yet. I I do think it will take some time. Kurt, you still have your hand up, as you want to say. Add something. Brad, did you disappear to find a date? If we were to vote? You know I I just will have been looking at the calendar. So we're on recess on the 27 and the fourth

[282:04] the eighteenth. We have a full more than full agenda as we come out of the recess. and then, similarly, on the 20 fifth. You're talking about occupancy, reform and Boulder Junction phase 2. So that's a very full meeting as well. My recommendation would be if you wanted to continue it. that we explore July eleventh and schedule a a special meeting. all right. so it It sounds to me like there is an interest there, there's reluctance to continue, but there's also an interest so that we can have a deeper conversation about this when we're not muddle-headed. So let me ask, just for a show of thumbs. People who are open to a continuation of this until July eleventh. Lisa, are you open to this.

[283:00] I'm open to it. But I'm also open to continuing now. okay, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Okay. do I have to do? We have to make a motion, Brad, to for a continuation. I guess we do. Yes, that that's the boards. Well, you would. You would make jobs. formal motion, and second, to a date certain which you know Charles is giving you a one option for that. And then a vote. Okay, so is it everyone. Okay, if I just make a motion it. So a motion to continue this to to continue, I have to remember what the to continue for further board discussion until July eleventh. A second. Okay.

[284:01] any any further discussion? Ml. so we don't generally have a meeting on the second Tuesday of the month. So that is, you know, completely, not a target for our board to me, which is, I'm okay with that But can we not have a bunch of? But they're still piled on to that meeting and just have to be this period. Don't make it. It's like, Oh, they got a meeting. Let's do this. That all right, staff, do you hear that, Charles? We can't hear you apologies? Yeah, that that would be. Our hope is that we would just keep it to finishing up on this item. Yeah, so not our hope, but our reality. Because I you know, we're not usually supposed to be meeting on that day, anyway. But I would come for this project. Okay? Awesome. Okay. So

[285:00] can I get a second on that motion? Thank you. Sorry. This is how I can't remember what this is. Why we have to continue, not not just you there, all of us. Alright. So the motion on the table is to continue. Lor, 222 July eleventh both. Laura. Yes. Mark Lisa. Yes. George. Ml, yes, Kurt, Sarah is a yes, all right. 7 0. I thank you all very much. We're gonna lose, George, and we're gonna lose Lisa. Can the the the airport letter, if we can do that quickly matters, we'll do matters, but we will. It's 6 30 in the morning where George's and Lisa has a one and a half year old, so they're going. If folks are able to stay, that'd be fantastic if you have to go. We understand. Thank you.

[286:03] I'm staying, and and I. I have one request, and that is that and I I, George, I did not mean to. say that just that your thoughts were complaints. I. I am requesting that people use this time between this meeting and the eleventh, that if you have conditions to craft them, write them down. think them through so that we can. We can have something to debate other than I. I don't like this, or whatever so conditions need to be carefully thought, and so come to the meeting prepared is my only request. Great Mark. I really appreciate that. and it's good a good guidance for us. Okay. we're going to move on to matters. Want to thank the public that was here for this? We'll move on to matters

[287:00] the well. The one thing we do know we have is that letter is the letter to City Council that Laura drafted. I hope everyone read it and has. If you have comments we'd like to hear them raise your hand if you have comment. Actually, Laura, if you want to provide some context. and then we can ask you if anyone has questions, and if not, see if people want to assign it and send it away. you know, I think the context here is that This is an unusual process with the airport. I think it's it's novel for staff. This doesn't come up very often, this kind of process. It's novel for us, and we have. I've talked this over with Sarah, and she and I have very similar perspectives about what might be helpful for the the process. That is not currently planned. And hopefully, it would also be a positive thing and a clarifying thing for Staff to get some additional direction from City council. So the letter to city council basically does 3 things. One, it really thanks and appreciate staff for listening to some of our prior input and making sure that that range of scenarios for the future of the airport does include

[288:08] a couple of different levels of consideration of housing. So we want to thank them for that, and then we have 2 requests. One is that we get a hearing on this pro project here at planning board, which is not currently planned and the the letter talks about why, we think that would be a beneficial thing. But I think the main point is that we do view this consideration of the future of the airport to be a land use, change issue, even though the process is not looking at land. Use change right now. We're not. We don't have a map change on the agenda. It's a little bit more preliminary. But city council will be guiding. Do we either keep the airport open, or do we really move down this pathway of decommissioning and housing? And we think it should get a public hearing before it gets to that point. So we're asking for a public hearing at planning board on this airport topic that we would have the 4 scenarios presented to us, have a public hearing and be able to provide some input

[289:01] and then the second request is this, this idea of decommissioning the airport and having housing. Obviously, we've never done that in Boulder before, and there's some information that we think would be very useful to staff or to councils. Deliberations that staff do not currently have scoped. you know the scope is quite narrow. And so we're suggesting that they they add to the scope. And that city council, you know, request direct staff to do some pre work on this idea of in airport to housing transition. What would it take in terms of staff resources. you know, scoping the idea of a housing plan, a transportation plan and infrastructure plan. exploring what the benefits could be obtained from doing a decommissioning. And then also, what is it gonna cost, and what's the hassle? And what's the The process of trying to get a decommissioning with the Faa and kind of exploring that with other communities that have gone through this process. So we're we're basically suggesting that Council direct staff to do some of that research before it comes to council for a decision on. Do you want to keep the airport, or do you want to decommission?

[290:08] So hopefully, that's clear, and folks had a chance to read the letter and happy to take questions or suggestions. Does anyone have questions or suggestions? I I don't have questions or suggestions. But I'd like to thank you, Laura, for articulating it the way you did. I mean, I think we often find ourselves in a position of making decisions. And we don't have all the data. And you know, you're basically holding decision making accountable to, hey? What's it going to cost? What's the process? Look like? You don't know what it is. People are green. the path that is interested. I really really appreciate bringing that to the table. Thank you. Thank you. I do believe, as a facilitator, good decisions are based on good data and figuring out what are the key questions and trying to research that before you ask people to make a decision, I know Brad probably has some things to say. If I saw your hand up, Brad.

[291:09] yeah, when when the time is appropriate. I certainly don't want to jump ahead of Board members discussion, but I do want to provide some feedback from staff at the appropriate time. So let me let me know when that is well, let's does anyone else have comments or questions about the letter? Okay, so then, Brad, I think now is the appropriate time. You know we very much appreciate the Board's continued stewardship of land use and and engagement on this issue and understand and appreciate that. I also want to say thank you for giving us an advanced look like the rest of the board added, so that we could digest it, and we talked about a little bit internally.

[292:01] we and and I do feel a responsibility to kind of balance some of the administrative implications of this as well as procedural. And this is not meant to dissuade you from sending the letter or sending it, as is but just some things that we will need to consider, and and probably share with council in the past. as far as the request. to have some sort of hearing or meeting for council gets a chance to hear the information and get the information themselves. we would be a little bit concerned that that's putting the cart for the course that as the policymakers they've given direction, including at the January study session about the scope and type of feedback they want. And that's what the August 20 fourth work session is designed to do.

[293:02] to have them then, at that point, in in our opinion, refer it at, you know, after that, or as part of that meeting. to planning word from our perspective seems more appropriate than having planning work, or any you know, review but work session item before Council did. just as a maybe technical matter to it would be more appropriate to have that as a meeting rather than a hearing hearings are where the public can give input are either dictated by code when those take place. and as a practical matter, there are, as Laura knows, and and others as well. a a variety of the mechanisms already in place for public and wood, and that type of thing. So, having that awesome at a planning board meeting, could just you confuse what already is a deliberate outreach and and getting feedback from the public.

[294:04] as far as request number 2. that type of work plan undertaking is something that is typically decided administratively so. In other words, by the city manager or by senior staff like myself. in execution of Council direction. that's not to say. Council may not have an opinion about additional data or such, but that really is something that the city manager by charter is charged with determining workload and work priorities and ordered me council priorities and such as a practical matter that as described in the letter, the draft letter. It's really on the order of magnitude, of something like our area. 3 infrastructure plan. which has a commitment of thousands of dollars for consultant, and that type of thing as well as dedicated staff time

[295:06] in this year. so to add something like that, at least at this timeframe would would be a huge undertaking, and would necessitate moving other priorities. you know, out of order, and really again, the city managers, or delaying, you know things into the New Year. which, of course, maybe could come out of this. Did you know that could be a conclusion that any manager makes coming out of the study session in August? So I just wanted to provide that feedback. you can appreciate that my responsibility is balancing supporting the Board Boarding council administrating the staff, managing budgets. All that kind of stuff so wanted to give that feedback. Brad, can I ask a question in response to this? I I really appreciate you sharing with us what your, what your needs are and your responsibilities are

[296:01] But if we send this letter which I I I support, is sending the letter. it's an opportunity to open a discussion with Council about all those things that you just talked about like, what? What does council. what is Council interested in? Are they interested in what we have recommended. Are they interested in part of it, or some of it? Or if they hear from you that this would push back Xyz. They aren't interested. are we in some way is sending the letter creating a problem, or is it sending the letter starting a conversation? Well, I I wouldn't characterize it as creating a problem. Right? I'm just trying to provide some context that may may make you want to revised part of the letter or not. I think Council. you know, gets a lot of input from a lot of different sources, and how they would follow up on letter of this nature is is a little hard for me to predict, because it's not through any formal

[297:03] process or channel. They've obviously there's a department charged with running this process transportation, mobility. There's a study session. My best guess is that they would defer this kind of discussion to the study session. But I could be wrong, and of course, individuals and members of boards talked to council members about legislative non. You know, items that are not cause a judicial like this one is not regularly, and of course be your right to contact them individually and talk about that, too. but it's it's hard for me to predict what they would do in this case with the letter in terms of a body and responding to it. Can I just offer a couple of responses. Sarah, is that okay with you? Okay, so and and, Brad, I completely understand where you're coming from. And I've been part of many processes. And I understand that you get a lot of demands from a lot of different perspectives, and every single one of them can blow up your timeline, blow up your budget. you know you. You can't do everything that everybody wants to do. So I completely understand that

[298:17] in terms of whether planning board is holding a hearing or having a meeting. I do think it's useful to have a a venue for public input. that is, where people can can speak to decision makers, and whether that's at planning board or whether that's at city council, I do think that there's a role for that kind of come to the podium and have your 3 min. That is missing from this process as far as as it's been explained to me so far. And if if Council thinks it's more appropriate to have that kind of input at their meeting, I think that's fine. If they would want to have something at planning board after they meet in August rather than before. I think it's kind of up to them to sequence it. But I I do think that it is our recommendation that similar to many other land use planning processes like Boulder Junction or you know, the diagonal plaza, or see you South.

[299:11] that at least, I think to you, South, I wasn't part of that process, but planning board usually takes a look at it, and then we add our thoughts and recommendations to the packet of materials that Council gets to review. So if we're trying to be out of sequence here and Council thinks that it's more appropriate to have that input later. I I think that's fine. But I agree with Sarah that we want to at least raise this to them, that there is currently no public hearing scheduled and and give our recommendation. for the second recommendation. I I I hope it doesn't look like it's a bigger lift than it's intended to be right like. So for that first bullet point about estimating costs, resources, and level of effort to negotiate with the Faa that could be as simple as a few phone calls to managers at other airports who have done this like, did you have to go through litigation? How long did it take? What were the who did you use as an attorney? What was your result? What did it cost? That kind of research can be done in a couple of days

[300:04] the scoping of staff level or consultant studies, you know. We're not certainly suggesting that you should do a housing plan than an infrastructure study and a transportation plan, but at least have a general sense of the scope of those efforts, and I don't. I don't know how long it generally takes to scope something like that. But hopefully it wouldn't be too big of a lift. And then the third bullet point, estimating market value of the land and revenue gains in the city. That could be something as simple as using something like holiday as a reference point, and saying, if it were built to this level. in this kind of pattern. Here's about how much we would expect in property taxes and sales taxes if it were in a similar density with a similar similar level of, you know, neighborhood serving business versus residents. Hopefully, those things don't. Don't you know. It doesn't have to be like defensible in court? It can be kind of back at the envelope. But right now we have none of that. That is publicly available information, and it would be good for Council to have access to some of that before they're asked to make a decision. So that's kind of the intention there.

[301:02] It's not meant to be a a work plan, level of detail. It's just meant to be. Let's let's do something to give people some sense, because right now there's no sense of how many units. Could this be like? People are throwing around numbers, it would be good to have staff give us some. you know, some research or or some justifiable numbers rather than it becoming a political issue or a he said, she said. I I appreciate you, you know, parsing that difference. okay, so I think, what we for the 5 of us who are still here? Is there a general agreement that we would like to send this letter as it comes up. thumbs up. Kurt. I's up. Yeah. Did you have some concerns, or was? No, I mean, I think that there are some things that could maybe be further explained, especially based on the context that bread cute. But I think we could also send it as it is and explain those things in due time.

[302:12] Okay. all right, I'm a thumbs up also. So I believe we need to make a motion. is that correct, Brad? We need to make a motion. Yeah, if you're taking action you can just reference the letter that has been circulated that you don't have. To sure I move that planning board approve sending the letter that is in the packet. Wednesday, June twenty-first. Planning board meeting pack in No. No. Tuesday, June twentieth. I'm sorry. 2 stages. I'm looking at my looking at my computer. Tuesday, June. Okay, I'm going to start over.

[303:00] I move that planning board. Send the letter that is in our packets for Tuesday, June twentieth to City Council regarding the airport planning process. Do we have a second second? I'm at Ml. Seconded it. Okay, both voice. Boat current. Yes. Ml. yes, Mark. So so it's passed. and here's a question, how does the letter get conveyed? This will that be sent by planning staff to counsel. Do we send the Laura email? How do we send it? So in the past I have used the the city's portal for commenting to city council that automatically goes to city council and city manager and appropriate staff. And I just I can just give it a brief, prefacing dear city council and city manager. Riviera Vandermide. please see the letter below, which was approved on this date by planning board with a 5 0 vote

[304:08] perfect. All members present. Okay? And I can say, members Smith and Boone absent. Okay, that's great. All right. I'm not trying to speed us along too much, but I am trying to speed us along. are there? Thank you very much, Laura. are there other matters that that that Board members want to bring up. I seen shit not. No, no! Nods, all shaking heads. Okay, Brad, is there anything you want to bring up? Just 2 quick things. One. I appreciate your ongoing recognition of the hard work of staff and bringing cases forward and working through problems and such they are. I I can see this considered out here right? They can break on them. And they're a hard working group, and and it's always nice to have you acknowledged that at various time. So thank you for doing that periodically and ongoing. And then the other thing I was going to mention is, thank you for the

[305:03] what? I would kind of characterize this introductory conversation around 2 changes that are that are potentially upcoming within the next 9 months or so designed to re-examine some of the institutionalized processes that might be stringing out process, you know, for applicants more than is practical. Give another checks and balances that have developed over the years. It's you know, it's grown over the years. And I think there's a recognition by council, and we look forward to following through on there direction does on that, and bring that forward to you. Alright, thank you, Brad, and I'm certainly not one who says thank you enough, so I will. I will thank you to staff. You all do a great job, and you you stay late nights nearly every night of the week. So thank you. can I give a special thanks to Sloan for picking up that extremely complicated millennium project, dealing with all of our extremely detailed and complicated questions with such grace, especially given the technical challenges, and I thought that the packet that there was

[306:16] good detail, level of staff justification and analysis for everything, and I really appreciated how she handled that so hopefully, she'll be able to watch this in retrospect. But, Brad, if you could please pass along our appreciations tonight, especially to Sloan. We'll do, I think you mean Shannon. But yes, I'm sorry, Shannon. Did I say, Sloane? Oh, my God, it's too late at night. Shannon, you're right. You're right. all right. Amanda, do you have anything you need to tell us? Just a calendar check? We'll see, you guys, July eleventh, and send out some information or the agenda, which is just the continuance of this great thank you and laurel. Anything you need to tell us. No, not the moment. Thank you all very much. And, madam, Chair.

[307:02] all right. I'm adjourning this meeting. Everyone go get some sleep. Good night. Thanks. Everybody.