July 11, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] For the meeting. Excellent. okay, this is a special meeting of the planning board. July eleventh, 2,023. we will have a if there's anyone in the public who wants to participate and speak to any issue other than the continuation of the discussion of you are welcome to put your hand up is Oh. so I'm taking care of all that for tonight. But first, is there anyone? Can you see if anyone has put their hand up. Yeah, as of right now, I do not see any hands. But again, as a right reminder, if there are any public participants. Please raise your hand at this time for the general public comment for any items not pertaining to the, to the item for discussion tonight. I I do have one when for the one before you go, then you just have to quickly go through the rules, please.

[1:20] Alrighty. So since we do have public participation in public comment tonight. we do have to go through the rules and procedures here for public comment. So the city has engaged with the community members to create co-creative vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as the democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all test remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats or use of other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behaviors that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited.

[2:11] Participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and an individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted permitted online for the public Comments section. It's pretty simple. There's a few bars at the bottom of your screen there. So just click this, raise hand button, and that will let everyone know that you're interested in commenting. also, if you are on a phone, you can do star 9. if you're on a Mac, you can click option y option y, or if you're on a PC. You can click outline, and those will all raise your hand for you. And with that that is the rules of declar.

[3:00] I didn't realize I had muted myself. So let's go ahead and take click comment, please, Devin. Only 2 min. I see 3. You have 3 min, Lynn. Please go ahead. Thank you. I was told to, and then I see 3. So I'm just trying to follow instructions. Boy. A boy. Okay, what? What? I want to talk tonight is about the survival of the city city of Boulder. and how the city of Boulder needs to no longer be wagged the tail by. See you. This this is gotta stop we already have, so that his room in this town you watch. In 5 years you won't know this place. They'll be

[4:10] congestion parking transit all kinds of disasters. you know. I drove past on my bike because I don't like to go East, but I had to go to to the Jcc. So I'm driving on that 70 mile an hour, you know, Arapaho. And then I run into. I think it's Waterview, right? So, Sarah. it's Waterview out there across from the Jcc. I thought it was on the other side of the street, but now I get it, it's 400, some units. It's a whole city within a city, you know. I want to testify the other day for Kanamoto, which is a conservation easement vacation request for a developer.

[5:02] on the way to Longmont at Airport Road. and you know what? There's one person that testified there. She had a sister, who's a a first responder, you know, an emergency room person and can't afford to live in long months. So she lives in in berthid. And what I said in my testimony is, I said, you know what a a. And ironically, this woman you know her sister is, you know, in this position, and this woman is testifying on behalf of the developer. So she doesn't have a clue herself. What impact this would have on her own sister if that development happens. Her sisters gonna have to move further to can towards Kansas, you know. We'll be lucky if there'll be one affordable place left in Des Moines. you know, at the rate that we're developing.

[6:01] Stop already. Stop! This is ridiculous, you know. See, you does not own this town. I'm not going to use the M. Word, because I can't speak about that. But you know what what I have to say right now. It involves this thing you're talking about tonight. There's no way you can extricate it. All of these things are interconnected. It's all a big web. and it's got to stop. and you are within the power of it, at least advising the city Council to stop already. Pleased. Thanks. thank you, Lynn. Looks like we have no other hands up. If anyone wants to put their hand up, now is the time alright. So no hands. All right. So public participation is closed, and we are going to take up. continue the the

[7:02] Hearing that we had last but 2 weeks ago on Lor 200 200 two-one. It's a site and use review for the property at 1,345 20 Eighth Street. let me just quickly walk everyone through what? Our again, how we're going to manage the meeting so that we're all on the same page the applicant. has, requested some time to Claire to provide some responses to questions that we had raised. Actually, when we'd already moved into the deliberation, a little unusual, but they requested this time, and the city would like to honor that request. Well, they can make some clarifications. And then. if board members have further questions for the applicant. we can. you can ask those questions. Then the design Advisory board chair is going to provide us with about 5 min of

[8:05] discussion of their deliberations, and we can follow up with questions to the dab chair, and I apologize. I don't actually know the damp chairs name so my! My apologies for not naming you at this moment Once we've concluded with the dab-chair summary, we will enter into our planning board deliberations. When we get to the deliberations. The way we're going. What I'm going to try to do is so to go down the line of everybody to get your comments and thoughts which we had started 2 weeks ago. and then See who see who has some some conditions they might want to. propose we'll do some straw polls on any conditions that are put forth. and then, as we as it shakes out like what it looks like may path or not path we can then decide if we want to actually take votes on any of the straw polls, any of the conditions.

[9:04] and then we will make a make make a final motion which may or may not include conditions depending on the previous component of the conversation. I appreciate everybody coming back for this meeting. and I appreciate George, who's doing the morning in Sweden? Very nice with him to be awake to join us. Thank you very much. all right. So Let us ask the applicants, please applicant and their consultant. I think there's a raft of people here who are here to clarify some things for us. and if I may say one more thing. The materials that were sent to us today, I believe, were sent to us

[10:05] at the request of the applicants. it didn't. If I'm not mistaken. Staff, is that correct? That's correct. Here, there, forward it to you on behalf of the applicant team. Okay, thank you very much. I just want to make that clear that this is not the bath sending us additional information to read. Okay, so Charles, wherever you are. Can you just tell me how much time we want? We have available for the applicant to clarify some points? Should it be 10 min 50? What what should be the amount of time? Well, the typical presentation time is 15 min in the hybrid environment. So maybe that's a good place to start an unexpected standard where the applicant gets to come back and do a second presentation is, what do we do? We? We have a typical

[11:07] response, time to comments or questions that have been raised before we go into not a prescribed amount of time. And that's why I just thought the analog that we have is typically the 15 min, for we'll make it 15 min. so if Devin, if you'll just keep track of that, that'd be great. All right, Dan. I could take it away, please. All right. Thank you. We appreciate your time tonight. I I want to make sure everybody's promoted. I think our whole team is here, and if they, if anyone's not, we're just gonna raise our hand and hopefully get promoted to panelists. We are just going to quickly run through the materials that we shared with you. And we were. We did not prepare a formal presentation, but we wanted to provide the information that came up for discussion that was included in our packet.

[12:01] and hopefully answer some of the questions that started to be asked at our last meeting, and then we would love to entertain more questions. We have, as you mentioned, a whole slew of consultants here that are ready And able to answer questions, and with that I would ask for Amy to share our Pdf. She might need sharing opportunity. I'm not sure. Thank you. If you could allow me to share my screen. and we just wanted to thank you for spending an extra evening with us tonight. We recognize this is a very large project. It's a complex project, and we appreciate all of your time. to spend a whole another night on this, and we hope that we have a productive discussion and look forward to it

[13:00] next slide. So there's some key areas that we just wanted to touch on that were discussed at the last meeting. One was just the kind of the public facing aspects of this project next slide. So in terms of community benefits. We did work with Michelle, with the housing and human services to do a calculation on the cash in Loo that would be generated by this project. It's a 20 million dollars in cash in Loo that would be paid to the city's affordable housing fund at the time of building permit approximately 8 million dollars of that is associated with the fourth story or the the height modification. And we which is second bullet. the public improvements here are approximately 7.5 million dollars. we really tried to design a space that looks like the civic area up near the library and the civic area space.

[14:02] really creating a huge public benefit that with pickle ball courts and tennis courts and a Dog Park Creek access habitat restoration. So we feel that this is a significant benefit to the community as well as providing the ongoing maintenance and management of this public space, so that we, the Parks and Rec Department and or Open Space Department, do not have to provide maintenance. They would provide snow removal of the multi-use path. but the rest of that ongoing maintenance would be provided by the developer. and we are bringing the site under modern flood protection. As we probably mentioned last time the building and the site are in the high. A lot of them are in the high hazard zone. So big Part of this project was designing the buildings to be out of the flood plane and creating a public safety opportunity for everybody that visits the site or would live on the site. and we're retaining the small businesses. Amy can show the cursor. There's 2 small cottages that are here. on the south side of the creek, one that one is actually home to Simba, this and the Lake Eldore racing team and the single mountain.

[15:10] single track, mountain bike alliance, and also a small day care. They both have been there for many, many years. I think the daycare has been there over 25 years, so we would allow them to stay. And then this other building, which is currently office building for the tennis center, would be open to small businesses as an affordable commercial space. We're also retaining the Fish Observatory, which has been there for a very long time, and would, we are working with parks and rack to bring that up to current standards and make it more accessible. We'd also be providing maintenance for that space and rooftop solar which was brought up during our concept plan, hearing and incorporating as much solar as possible. We are unable to put it on the ground plane anywhere that's in the high hazard flood plane. So we had to maximize our rooftop space next slide.

[16:00] So this was We wanted to really show where the public and private space was, as you can see, on the site. A lot of all of the space out there now is private space, and so we will be turning a lot of that into public open space with access easements. as I mentioned. And so we're significantly improving that we're tripling the public outdoor space. We're improving the creek access. Have a safer alignment for the Boulder Creek path and creating those amenities that I described that would also be open to the public. The orange areas would be the private open space for the residents that live there, and they mostly are private courtyards and recreation areas next slide reducing the impervious surface. This is a graphic that we included in our site review, you can see the existing impervious area in orange. And so we're reducing that through this redevelopment, introducing more previous areas, more storm water quality which is not there today, and protection of the Boulder Creek also increasing the tree canopy and reducing the Heat Island effect. So we are in increasing the number of trees that will be planted there

[17:05] and While we're doing the impervious surfaces next slide. we feel that building housing near campus will reduce impacts on the broader community. It will bring students that traditionally live in the hill or other single family neighborhoods out of those neighborhoods into a managed student housing project. thus reducing the vehicle. Miles traveled, reducing stress on those residential communities and encouraging this modal split that we've seen through data that the city has collected, that students, when located near campus really reduce or reduce their single occupant, vehicle, travel and use. they walk and bike and do other things. And we have a lot of data that was provided from the city over many years and having direct access to Boulder Creek next slide. I'm gonna pass it over to Amy with Sherz Atkins to talk about design, as I know that was an area of a lot of questions and

[18:04] at the last meeting next slide. He so looking at it. I there again. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry, but you are very. You sound like you're underwater. Okay? if I speak a little more and just have to project over So there is this kidney bean shape that's on the site. That is the area that is developable on the site. And so the footprint of the proposed buildings are roughly the same size and area as the existing Hotel and the buildings are situated carefully in the landscape. In response to this, this creek and the flood planes.

[19:01] and I, I might have Kevin help on, on, on our team. So we have our massing strategy, which it also responds to to the site. But, Kevin, if you want to walk us through these and we just wanted to share a little bit of the process. I think this was provided certainly, for Design Advisory Board, and probably for the initial concept plan of our top concept. Or you know, the the initial response to a site from a developer point of view might be what's on the top left of 3 kind of courtyard buildings, or something surrounded by parking, or, you know, an encapsulating parking. but we intuitively felt that this wasn't the right approach to the site. And then we felt like this really needed to respond to the site by opening up to the creek. so that started to inform the design. by removing those components which does take away, of course, some developable area

[20:01] but really focusing on the feature of the site opening to the south and then responding to the creek. Really the the arc of the path that we've created through their response to the geometry of the creek and then reducing scale along the creek where that's certainly the most sensitive area where we want to be mindful of the height of the buildings and then accentuating the points of entry by a different chain, you know, change in material utilizing wood at the entry point to the building, and you know, different different entry components, and the entry pavilion associated with the far East building, and then really being informed by the circulation of the site. allowing that green space within the that we're creating and an increasing along the creek to to enter into the site and become integral to the buildings and the overall landscape. So I think we had had that in the concept meeting that we had quite some time ago, but we didn't share that, and there were some new members of the Board that might not have seen where that strategy origin originated

[21:05] hopefully. Look at the next one. and there was some concern about the materials last time as well. and this is a discussion we did have with planning board. that there was a a concern, perhaps, that there should be more materiality distinction between buildings, and we wanted to emphasize that we? We thought about this quite carefully in terms of an umbre approach to the brick of going from a lighter brick material to a darker brick material with both of those in place. and they sort of span across the buildings as you go down the creek, so that your lighter materials are at the west end of the creek, west end of the site, and then we do changes. We approach the east end of the site, which is where most of the public spaces are. And then, similarly, on the north end of the project. that there is a materiality strategy there. And this is something we work with carefully, with Design Advisory Board. We really appreciated their comments about it feeling like the backside of a building. which is true, Olson drive presently is very much a service. It is the tail end of a safe way. It's a it's a service alley

[22:09] and Dab and staff both encouraged us to contemplate. What would it look like if that changed down the line? So how would we also drive the activated And that caused us to reconsider our materiality strategy. where we have 3 stories over one or one story over 3 and adding several entries on the north side as well as adding an accessible entry on the west side, was a consideration that wasn't there previously. and then really looking at reconfiguring the building articulation of between buildings 2 and 3, which are in the middle and the most westerly buildings. So this shows a little bit more about that ombre approach of what we're trying to do with the bricks. The brick color, as we approach through it's hard on screen. It doesn't even look great on mine. this this is masonry. but it does look in these, you know, and viewed online. If we had nice big boards in front of you. It would look like brick, and it doesn't so much right now. But we did add images of, you know, the specific brick material that we're thinking of using associated with that, if I might. You have 3 min left.

[23:18] Thank you. yeah. And here's that that view along the north side, adding the the entry and the the wrap around corner balcony. So maybe if if we want to jump to the access plan and Tdm, we'll have I think we have Cassie here with Box Tuttle so she can walk us through. I think you I'm has to say it's functional, so I will run through quickly. we have a pretty forward thinking. tdm, plan. and we are looking at different items, such as giving a a monthly benefit back to this, this that decide not to bring a car to campus, and we also have very strong language in the lease to make sure that if they are going to bring a car they have a

[24:10] place to put it. we also know that students have eco-passes, and they have the bike share program. We also on site. I have a a lot of short term and long term bike parking. And again, a lot of people have a lot of our team has talked about how we are across the creek, and there's a lot of multi past that connect around town, and especially to school next slide. I don't know if you want to take them. I'm happy. I can do that one. Yeah, and we apologize. Chris Mcgann again, Mcgran. A hand from Ls who did our Tdm. Is backpacking with his voice. So I'm going to fill in for him. our our Tmp plan and Trans or our the Transportation Advisory Board and our alignment with the Tmp plan we felt was strong. We have 3 North South connections, multimodal connections. We're adding 2 new ones with the realignment of the Boulder Creek as well as Olson Drive, which is shown on the Tm.

[25:08] Mp. As a road connection, we are building our half of that, and have gotten an access easement across our neighbors property to do that, and the Tdm. Was well received by The Transportation Advisory Board, and as Cassie mentioned, we have an alternative transportation fund as well as paid parking and unbundled parking next slide. So in terms of the parking reduction. This is the Modal Shift report that I was mentioning earlier is in terms of the The what we're seeing with students in a report from 2,018 is that the the students travel at 60 62% choose non auto options for all trips within boulder. So they have been taking advantage of our multimodal system and opportunities, and we feel that those will increase even more with our access to scooter share, and with our alternative transportation fund. So there's a lot of data in here. I think this. I'll leave this for questions if you'd like to dive into it.

[26:10] But the point here is your your 15 min are up. I'm so sorry. okay, so I've now like to ask board members if they have questions to raise your hand so I can call on you and please limit your questions to things that have to do with code and not curiosity. I'm just trying to make sure that we don't end up in sort of the same situation we were in last week. So who, if you have a question, please, show me your hand, and I will call on you. Ml. thank you, Sarah. I have. I have 3 questions. I'll Since we're on this slide is up. It says that 52% of the students

[27:02] prefer non auto option for all trips within boulder. So my question is, what percent of the students have a car, regardless of how they get around the city, because this is what we hear again and again and again. as people provide the tandem parking, and that is, if they're going to bring the car, you're just not going to use it in the city. So do you have statistics on how many people will be bringing a car regardless of how they. So this is the city's data I would defer to the city transportation engineer if they would be able to answer that question. Well, I'm asking about student and and your projected tenants. I I hear. I hear all the things you're trying to put in place to, you know. Help them not need to use the car in the city. But what about if they have a car, anyway. where are those cars going to go?

[28:01] Well, we are either they can park here or off site, but they wouldn't be allowed to bring a car. And so we're we're providing those options for them. So they would sign a lease with their parents that says they don't bring a car unless they have a paid parking spot. And then, you know, the idea is, maybe some of those cars stay, and they use this multimodal, or they don't have a car at all. and they would be taking advantage of all of the multimodal opportunities and the and enhanced multimodal opportunities. a lot of the Cu has done a lot as well. They provide the cycle and the eco-pass. And so we're just layering on top of that. We are also talking with commutify to manage that alternative transportation fund. That's fine. I I was more concerned about the people who are using it, for in town. You know they have a car, but not taking advantage of everything you're talking about. I I I'll get to my second question. Can you talk or explain. I don't know that this was given before. What what do you see as the occupancy model? Will this be vetted by the bedroom?

[29:07] So there's a range of units from studio to 4 bedrooms, and typically those every, I believe each person signs their own lease, and sometimes they come together as a for some, if they're in the larger 3 or 4 bedrooms, or 3 or 4, or they are put together through roommate selection process. And so there's a as different types of units depending on what kind of situation? Yeah, I saw that. so we could have it if. And I did the count on the number of bedrooms, and I counted studios and my as one each. That would be 944 tenants. Here is that sound about right? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. And last question. And this is kind of more big picture. the older belly cop plan identifies this property as being in the Boulder Belly

[30:02] Regional as being part of the Boulder Valley Regional Center and 28. So I'm curious. as to how what the thinking was, regards to the role. This, this is a significant part of that map. It's been. It's the kind of Southern. most edge what is intended to be a high intensity regional commercial center. And I'm curious as to what the thinking is regards to that significant component of the so the area north of the creek is transitional business, which brings us from the large format big box retail towards the creek. So this the uses are mix of uses, including housing, and then south of the creek is high density, residential, and so that really transitions south of the creek to the there's a lot of high density, residential and more student housing, senior housing south of this. So the

[31:10] this site is providing the land use that was envisioned in the Boulder Valley call plan. Get, make up. I can interrupt you for me to get. I, referring to the Boulder Valley Regional Center. which is this is, this is. and one of those boulder belly comp plan, identify regional centers. I I would defer to staff on that question. I don't know exactly. What can you repeat? The question is, how does it conform with the Boulder Valley regional center? Or right? What is the thinking about that? Because that is a high intensity. Regional commercial center is the the way it's described, and it talks about housing and all. But this is a question for the applicant. I will ask Staff in in a, in a different context. I'm just curious as to how the design and planning team

[32:04] considered that boulder belly Comp plan designation in the in the proposal. Well, it's a high, it's a center of higher intensity. And so this is a higher intensity, residential use. And so it does conform with those desired uses of higher intensity in these regional centers. So it's a you know. We have these nodes along the Boulder Valley Regional Center, that in which we want to concentrate that intensity. the site is not suitable for retail or large format retail. So, as a residential site. It is kind of meeting those goals of higher intensity, and I'm looking at the Bdrc guideline design guidelines which it does provide me all of the design guidelines, and it meets kind of the intensity of use that was envisioned in that regional. Thank you for your for addressing my question. I appreciate it. No problem. And that's that's the end of my question. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ml, okay, Mark, And then Laura. And again, please focus on code questions.

[33:11] as I went back to the packet today, and later on, when we get to conditions, I might have a condition. But one of the things that my research in site business today, and then re-reading the packet the packet refers to a good neighbor agreement. And yet I couldn't find the good neighbor in the packet. Am I missing it, or is it a separate document, or is it not yet complete? It is complete. I it. It has been reviewed at length by the city. It includes, an information like parking management, which was something that was significant. Brought up early on. So we met with all our neighbors to talk about how we would manage parking. It talks about how the property would be managed.

[34:04] I'm I'm looking for it in the packet, and I don't know if anyone else on my team. it's in the packet as attachment. I it's called the applicant's operating plan. I'm sorry I'm going back to the original 3 part packet from our original meeting date, which was the smaller first portion, and then and then this item was broken up into 2 pieces and if anyone could. It was a item 5. The part one or I am 5. B, part 2. yeah. Appendix. I you say. it's on page

[35:01] one. It's let's see, it's 113 of 141, 113 of 141. Okay, the standard operating plan. Okay, my 1, 13 of 1 41 is the title page of the operating plan. Hey, Mark, do you want to take a minute to read? And I'll let Laura ask her question. Yes, that that sounds great, unless unless anyone on staff, or the applicant can direct me to a more specific page other than Why don't you go ahead and read it, Mark? I it's probably not. What I'm saying is what I'm saying is that I I I've I've found 114 of 141, or whatever, and I and I have gone through this, and again it references the good Neighborour Agreement.

[36:05] But it does not include the agreement itself. As far as I could find. So we. the, the the agreement you're talking about? I apologize in the packet. It's attachment I it's in part 2 of the packet toward the back. I will try to find the exact page number where it begins. Thank you, Sarah. and thank you to the applicant for their clarifying presentation. Tonight. I wanted to follow up on. Yeah, you talked about. There is strong language in the lease agreement that talks about parking, and I wanted to bring this into the public meeting. that I think in the packet you say that you propose to include the following language in your lease document. Is this what you were referring to when you said strong language. in the event that the Resident does not elect to Lisa Parking, space Resident, hereby acknowledges that resident will not be parking a vehicle at the facility, and either A does not have a vehicle in boulder or B resident has a range to store their vehicle on private property through a separate and unrelated agreement, so they would be signing a lease with their parents. That says they're not going to park a a car on the public street that they would have to either not bring a car or a range to park it on private property.

[37:24] Is that what you're talking about Danica. Yes, and they would provide proof of that. So you have some long term storage options at Williams village for long term parking, and there's you know they they might find another arrangement, but they would have to provide proof that that is what they are doing. Thank you. That was my question. mark just just to clarify. maybe what my problem is, or maybe I don't understand correctly. I am looking at attachment. I in the second portion of the original packet. 141 pages. Attachment I

[38:07] is the applicant's operating plan a. And I. So to me, a good day for agreement and an operating plan or 2 different things in this case. Are they the same? Yeah. this is for my own clarity and for the clarity of the board. I think this is a question for staff. we just got a presentation from the developer. The first 5 slides were titled community Benefit. There was a lot of stuff in there which was great. But I just want to clarify what was

[39:00] what was talked about. What's what's the city's definition of community benefit as as it relates to how we view it. because I I don't think all those things fall under that. Charles. I see you wait? You you muted. Yeah, thanks for the question, Georgian. I may ask Laurel to opine on this also, but from a regulatory perspective. I think the only thing related to community benefit that we're talking about here is the increase in linkage fee for increased height on the site. I think that's the only thing from a regulatory perspective that's considered community benefit. And more. I don't know if you have. Yeah, I agree. That is the one spot in the high review criteria that applies to this project. Everything else that was in there was was not related to community benefit. We view it as the city. that's helpful. secondly, we, we're. This is Site Review, right? So the inclusionary housing component of this is not necessarily a component of site review as it relates to how we review it as planning board. Correct

[40:13] laurel, can you reappear? That's correct. Yes. So the yeah. The inclusionary housing is an administrative process that happens after side review. there is some stuff in there related to high modifications. But again, that only applies. If we get a high modification. Then there's a separate administrative process after the start review process. that applies equally to all people who get the height, modifications, all developments to get high modification. So that's separate. and then the the height modifications in in that particular section of the code. it says, May, so you may allow height modifications. but it's not based on inclusionary housing. It's based on a and on honestly, it's ambiguous the codes as may but doesn't directly site back to conditions. so we recommend signing back to the Site Review conditions, design things like that that are inside review.

[41:06] Great thanks. thanks, George. Ml, your hand quickly went up and then went back down. Did you have another question? You know I'm I'm kind of waiting into staff questions here because I I continue to be, I think, when I ask the question at our initial meeting about what? What is the basis for this height? modification? I was directed to the occasionary housing benefit. And so it sounds like laurel is saying something different here. Is not the occasionary housing directly relative to a community benefit that would come into effect should the hype modification be? Granted.

[42:00] yeah. So in the height modification. and I could be messing this up a little bit. So please, Charles, I saw you pop on, so please feel free to interrupt. So the question is. where does inclusionary housing come in with height modification. Is that right? Yeah. So underneath. that particular section of the code? which is under the side of your criteria of 9, 2, 14, it says, planning board may may allow for height, increase or height modification And then it says that the applicant has to meet certain criteria, and one of the criteria for residential uses is inclusionary housing. We've mentioned linkage to, etc. And then there's also an alternative community benefit. so it could go one or the other for our purposes. To say staff prefers it to be under residential uses, because we have that increase in inclusionary housing. but that deciding whether or not you get inclusionary housing isn't a part of the actual decision of whether you want to allow high modifications that as a result of. So if you say we like the additional floor, it's, you know, it's got great design, etc. We want that additional height. Then a result of that is that we get more

[43:09] inclusionary housing through that process as an administrative thing before the building department process. Does that make sense? So if you take that off the criteria that you're meeting outside of that I keep looking at those. I think 4 or 5 items that are the option for considering a hype modification. Which one is this one meeting? Yeah. So our The staff's understanding is that they they are meeting the inclusionary housing, the residential uses. Yes, I know it's a little bit confusing, so it says that planning board may approve high modification if you approve high modification, then they have to increase inclusionary housing. Right? So the the May is ambiguous. It's not tied to any sort of conditions in the code. So those criteria under the height

[44:05] modification requirements for it. It needs to be one of these criteria. none of those say inclusionary housing, and so I'm wondering which one of those are we going for? And I'm hearing you say we're going for houses. Are we going to catch 22 years? Should I? I think, about the confusion. So under. So you're saying, under 9 to 14, okay. little h. okay. I think it is additional criteria for height bonuses. And then can you clarify your question just so that we're on the same page. Which one of the criteria is this asking for a height under it? It's not inclusionary housing. It's not the consideration we should be using which one is. So that's the part that I mentioned is kind of ambiguous. So we're saying that residential developments. Little subsection I.

[45:06] Is the option that the app can originally put forward, as they will increase inclusionary housing if they get this additional high modification. But the decision on whether or not you're going to allow high modification isn't actually part of this criteria, because inclusionary housing is an administrative process that happens after you decide whether or not you get the additional bonus land. So when it says planning board may allow for additional height, it's not based on inclusionary housing. it just says May, it's not tied any conditions. So we, as the city attorney's office, recommend tying this sort of decision to some sort of criteria. So we recommend that site review criteria. It doesn't meet things like design building, etc., all the different criteria that you want, and if it does. If you do want to give the high modification. then they will implement with the inclusionary housing.

[46:01] I don't know, Charles, if you wanted to explain it differently. Maybe I'm that's very variable. It's a little confusing. I know it's just because it's ambiguous with the May, and it's not tied to specific like criteria. It's just saying, you know, if it is a residential development. If you do get this additional. he if you give that to them, then they won't do that. So we can. We can go for the height modification based on whatever we would like. Yeah. And I recommend doing that to make it more legally defensible later based on criteria in the code. So that would be the side review criteria. It doesn't specifically say, look at the Site Review criteria. But that's my recommendation. Thank you, Laurel, just to clarify the site. Review. Criteria does not conclude. Inclusionary House. Yup, yeah, and this is it, I think, what? so so. So I let me rephrase this. I understand it. So so so basically, inclusionary housing is an outcome of of the height modification. But it is not necessarily considered as it relates to site review, for that type of modification.

[47:08] And the reason for that is, we don't want this. The inclusionary housing to be discretionary. It's if you get this X, Y and Z. Thing approved. Then, administratively. you're gonna go through these different things under the inclusionary housing ordinance. It's kind of a separate ordinance. So just to drive it into the exactness of of the Site Review criteria, I'm looking at B. E, which is height modifications. Which of those? And there is 6 options which is required. which of these is it so? All of these are required of the app to show if they're requesting for additional height. under e, so my suggestion for when I say site review criteria

[48:02] is to tie it back to those under h sub section h. The criteria for review things like, is it compatible to Boulder Valley or on Mouse the Boulder valley? Comprehensive plan. does it. 9 to 14 is title site Review. And this is, and this is B, this is an item under cycling. So you saying, it wouldn't necessarily V. E. Has nothing. Those aren't the criteria we are to be considering beyond. Ih excuse me, I I I'm I'm actually searching the meeting code. I just want to be clarified. 9 dashboard. It's the old one mark. Okay? 9, 14 B small. And then big E

[49:00] type modifications. Can I make a recommendation. I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt this conversation, but what I'd like to do. We we can have this dialogue with staff during our deliberations. If you don't mind, let's If there are other questions for the applicants, raise your hand. If not, let's go on to the dab representative and their presentation. If everyone's okay with that. Okay. who is our? Oh, Brendan Ash. Hello, Brendan, I'm sorry I didn't know your name. I apologize. Hi, yeah, I'm I'm Brendan as I am. I'm actually the acting co-chair this evening. Okay, and you'll have 5 min. Oh, okay, And my understanding is that I've I've been asked here to to summarize essentially how the what the meeting was about and our conclusions for

[50:01] for the project. Is that correct. Okay, yes, we'd like to under. There were a lot of questions from the board about the the design stabs. feedback and I think it would also be helpful if you will explain to us which code criteria you all use for your work because we use the planning criteria from chapter 9. I do not know if you all also use that planning criteria, or whether you use design criteria. So it'd be helpful if you just help us to understand which part of the code you reference? I I mean, I think in general, the the conversation was based on just that in overall materiality and design concept. So I guess. Let me back up a little bit. The meeting that that we had with the applicant was I thought this was very productive. It was very long. and I and I can see that a lot of that conversation is not reflected in the meeting minutes.

[51:07] So the way that we set up our meetings at that is that we'd like to start out. You know we have the introduction to the project, and then we'd like to start out with something that is, that is. that we really found to be positive about the project and just kind of start the conversation. as a conversation and in a positive direction. and then we we really. as a board, try and focus on the key issues that are given to us from staff and from planning board And so we really focused on, we had, we had 4 issues that we focused on for this project. So some, you know, some of these issues had been referenced by planning board and by planning staff had been referencing whether it was design or planning code

[52:04] But as as a whole, I think we try and and really focus on, because this project is so big we really needed some some direction as some guidance and to help the conversation be dared to to be most helpful to the planning board. so the the first key issue was the relationship. It was the north facade. Essentially We've we've touched on that a little bit tonight that it just seemed a little bit like an alley street elevation that there wasn't enough material change. The massing of it was was a little relentless and it's like the finestration was broken up in huge parts of the facade. We're we're missing administration and Any relief. I think the ground plane.

[53:04] we talked about how the ground plane was. and I this a common thread throughout this whole meeting was that because of this being built in the flood plane. It had to be on this podium. And so, the podium being a design constraint and issue, you know what are some techniques and detailing and architectural material uses the we, and and also circulation uses and entries that we could help break up this podium feel, and this back of House feel and transformers and circulation. So that so our recommendation was it. It seems, you know, in the packet that I've looked at tonight, the materials that that, or the elevations that were shown in the in the packets, that it seems like that north elevation has really come a long way. I think that a lot of those recommendations for psu one were were heard and recognized.

[54:08] I think key issue number 2 was to Re. review and provide recommendations to help improve circulation patterns and way finding for different use types. that was a little that was of it. It it did open up a good conversation and discussion about the perimeter parking lot areas and and then how some of the access was in between buildings, and because there was the podium and that and the floor plane height changes the there was an issue with accessibility, and the accessible entrance being less desirable and a little harder to find, a little harder to navigate to and

[55:02] I think that that was I think that that has also been been booked at. Well, hopefully, And then key issues 3 and 4, I think, really led to a long discussion about massing and just sort of overall. the overall treatment of of the building. you know, on the site, and that that led to quite an extensive conversation about the the elevations of the interior courtyard space where, you know the residents are. which seems to be a little bit more of a private space. we're really well detailed. There was. There was good materiality, good material changes. good change in plane change, and the with

[56:00] good use of grading. I thought that it worked really well, but I think the dad's recommendation was to bring a lot of that detailing that was happening in the middle of the of the courtyards to the outside, to the public-facing facade of the building. and in particular the facade I think. that I was struggling with was the East side. So you where you had kind of this gateway into boulder And the east facade did have a parking lot, and then it had this platform and then it had which was, which was somewhat blank. and then it it and then it just sort of had the same continuous parapet line going all the way across the entire East as out of that of that first building, or, yeah, just building one. Yeah. So our recommendations were to explore additional landscape treatments.

[57:05] you know, creating somewhat of a landscape buffer or a landscape zone to accommodate or hide. I guess some of some of that platform, that that that was a little lesson, but it was less detailed. And then the buildings to. and 3 they, if you look in that threed model. They tend to have a a step down, or sort of a tiered design to them. When you're going from north to south they do step down. And I've I found it interesting that this building one, which is again this gateway elevation, east elevation, looking to to to 20 Eighth Street, you know, Highway 36 that that one building didn't have a step down. So while the you know height of the building.

[58:06] I didn't necessarily, I don't think we necessarily took issue with. It was more the sort of the the relentless parapet. a height that was happening across the east elevation and then the North, the north elevation, like I already. I guess I already touched on that. And then There were other that members that we're talking about the West elevation and how you know accessing Cu, and that there's more of a pedestrian circulation. public circulation happening on the streets to the west, and so ha! How to treat that elevation with some level of respect and materiality, and not as it just a back of house garage, entry type facade.

[59:01] Brendan, and we may we ask you questions? all right. I know I have a question. George has a question I'm going to guess. Ml. Has a question since she's there. No? So my question fertile. Thank you very much for that explanation and contextualizing the framework you all use to provide feedback. Another point. Was there any discussion about trying to have a new building that reflects the historic components of the old, the current building? I'm not saying to use what's there but to capture some of that beautiful flagstone, river, stone, shape, or wall that right now is so I is it such an iconic piece of design. I was there any discussion of that at all that no, that did not come up in our meeting? Okay, thank you. That was my question, George.

[60:04] yeah, thanks. Brendan. It was super helpful to understand your process. I. The question relative to the east facade, especially with the outcome of what we're seeing as planning board. Now. do you feel that that reflects the direction that Dab wanted? As it relates to you? You talked about this sort of unrelenting mass and sort of featureless lack lack of any sort of articulation relative to the parapet. I'm still seeing that on the East Side I'm curious what your perspective is on that. Yeah, I mean, I I was trying to do side by side, comparisons of of what you know, what we originally were looking at, and then what was in the planning board packet today? And I I think some of the elevations have like. I said, the North Street elevation, I think, really has improved quite a bit. but I I am still concerned about the east elevation.

[61:15] I don't know if a lot was really changed in it other than that. There, there is nice the landscape shown. yeah, I just I think it's mostly just trees, we're added. which is what we talked about. We did ask for some some element of landscape to help break up that that bottom base. And you know, hopefully, in addition to some additional architectural articulation or more detailing or you know, we we mentioned that it would be nice to see a material change, to call out the building's base. and it looks like that was sort of I don't know if that was done. It looks like that's just grass

[62:09] to kind of give the building an element of maybe of some grounding. But that was that was a recommendation. Not necessarily. 7 stone. Okay? So just to just to understand a little better. So if obviously, you're representing the board, not just yourself. So I, not looking for a specific feedback, but as as far as you see, that east elevation, that gateway elevation, the General Boards feedback, was. provide some break up of that mass, and so far as you see it, beyond landscaping. That has not happened. Correct. I mean, I I yeah. It was mentioned in the dad meeting that that

[63:00] then it was curious. The buildings 2 and 3 had that stepped tier, and to break up the net, massing and building one did not, and it seems like that to me it would be the most. I mean not to me, but that seems to be one of the most important thinkers of that project to have some relief in massing. Thanks that that's okay. any from Deb Brendan? Thanks so much. Is there anyone else on the board. What? What is happening? Who has questions for Brendan. Okay, great Brendan, thank you so much. You are welcome to stay or welcome to go about your evening. but thank you very, very much for joining us tonight. Really, yeah, thanks for having me and and The general consensus is as a as a board, we would we'd be happy to help additionally, or if you want another quick review. just let us know.

[64:02] Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Okay, we are. Now. am I correct? Charles, that we're now going to start planning for deliberations? We don't have anything else on our list of things before planning board can celebrations. That's correct. Okay, awesome. All right. Well, thank you. To everyone who presented tonight. Thank you for coming back after a 2 week break. I think what we what I'd like to propose. What I think we're going to do is I'm going to go down the line of people as I see them on my screen and ask you for your feedback, your thoughts, your concerns, your questions your comfort level, and if you have a condition to at least tell us generally what that condition references. We're not going to take a straw poll yet. I just want to try to get everybody everybody's ideas on the table first, and then we can shape the conversation from there. So ml, do you mind if I start with you?

[65:13] Thank you, Sarah. my. the outstanding issue I have, and I don't know if it's a question or what is this is part of the Boulder Valley regional center. which, if you look at that little map. really is the center right? If the green bell provides an an outline. This, this really demarcates the center, and I am Not understanding how this meets that I think significant.

[66:03] All designation to the Boulder Valley Comp plan. So I think maybe I would benefit from the hearing. I read what the staff had to say, and it talked about co-locating. housing? I have. I have questions about so many questions. So that is my really big problem, which is why I wasn't. I'm not keen on. But I can't speak to the for questions for consideration that the staff had put out there, and reference specific oh. criteria and policy about specifics. But I think beyond that, bigger than that is what's happened to the Boulder Valley Regional center. And why are we talking about its role?

[67:05] and trying to have this sort of large-scale planning relationship to what was identified as Hey, this is a commercial center. and it should have some attention paid to it. And I'm I I just I'm not seeing I'm not seeing that. And so again, if Stack wants to weigh in I could. Just this is the conversation I'm really keen on, because it's not just about the university. This site is not just about the university. and it's got the significant relationship to the Bulgar Creek. And yet there really isn't any. It it could do something marvelous to that regional center by opening up to the creek

[68:00] and creating a relationship. Sure, see, you and the creek and boulder and the regional center. So there's, I think, a very big, huge, missed opportunity here that I just don't understand how we okay, thank you. And we're I'm going to go through the line and then I'll come back. So Kurt, you're next. Okay. Thank you. So first of all overall. I feel that this concept is appropriate. I feel this is a very appropriate location for a significant amount of student housing. It's kind of a hop, skip, or jump up to campus. It's a nice walk or bike ride up the Greek path, and then a fullsome or straight up 28, and so I think the the general concept is completely appropriate, and something that we desperately need. Frankly, we here, I'll say the same thing that I said on the 2,700 Morehead project the time and again, how much

[69:08] we need student, student, oriented housing. And this is very much student oriented housing, and I think that providing a lot of options for students here will take help to take a little bit of the pressure off some of the neighborhoods that are feeling a lot of pressure to heal, and Martin makers, and so on. So I think it's it's very appropriate. From that standpoint the overall site design is not something that I'm wild about, but it's largely driven by the flood point. If it weren't for the flood plane I would be pushing for something very different. But but given that, I think it is where it is. I really appreciate. That's input, I think that they achieved some some great improvements, especially on that north elevation. so I really appreciate that. I think that the parking reduction is appropriate given the the, the, the operating plan that they have in mind, and you know that it'll be students I would love at some point if this is approved and goes forward. I would love at some point a

[70:20] study or report on the actual parking utilization of the residents here to, so that we can get some data on. Is this working? Is it right? Is it wrong? And so on. In terms of the use Review, I I feel that the rationale is met under point. See, not by the description, not by the justification that Staff used. because it needs the housing need identified in the. So I do feel that it's met, but you with a different rationale than Staff identified.

[71:03] the to in terms of the design. I feel that the design is rather busy, actually, and the reference images that they showed seem much simpler and cleaner. But I appreciate that Dad actually wanted more detailing, more articulation, and it sounds like the board. Some of the other members of the planning board do, too. And to me that's largely a matter of aesthetics. And so I'm not as concerned about that. I think that the proposed amendment to the Vulnerability Regional Center Connection Plan is justified. and I feel that the proposed first floor residential use on 20 Eighth Street is justified. Given that there's such a large set back across the parking lot

[72:03] from 20 Eighth Street, and there's really kind of a lack of walkability along 28 Street. And so I'm less concerned about pedestrian interest from from 20 Eighth Street than I might be elsewhere. just to respond to Ml's point about the velvet regional center. My reading of the bull of our account plan description of the bullet on the regional center says, is it? Says the Bvrc. Is a primarily commercial area. providing retail and of a range of scales, restaurants, offices, and hotels. There is also some high density housing. so to me. I I'm not seeing that this is inconsistent with the plan or guidelines.

[73:00] and certainly the rest of the Bdrc remains primarily commercial. My one concern, I guess, more than concern. The one condition I have for this relates to the direct access off of 20 Eighth Street. which I find is not consistent with Bolivar Folder Device Code 995 C. Which is the Site Access Control section which says, well, maybe I I won't read it all at this point. but it says that there should only be one access point or curb cut through property. that there shouldn't be a direct access for residential, no residential structures. She'll have direct access on to an altar, or which 20 Eighth Street clearly is, and access should be taken from the lowest Category Street.

[74:08] which in this case would certainly be Olson Drive, and not 28. So I would propose a a. A. A condition that that direct access to 20 Eighth Street be eliminated from the cycling. Okay, thank you, Kurt. oh, sorry. And and and just to to to explain that I feel that I think it implicitly a variance to this 905 c. Was given, but I find that that is not consistent with the mobile account plan policies, 6.0 1 6.0 2 6.0 5 6.0 8 and 6.9, which are all related to transportation. Multi model transportation, transportation safety, and so on. Okay, no, sir.

[75:00] thanks, Kurt. Okay, I'm gonna go to George, and then I'll go to Laura, and then I'll go to Lisa, and then I'll go to Mark. So, George, you're next okay. try to make it relatively brief on on my thoughts. I think overall student housing is an appropriate use here. I think it's desperately needed, as as I mentioned before. I I think we're an overall. The the approach to the site. is good. I I think we're we're we're where my hesitations lie, are in the maximized height modifications. The applicant is requesting. the I thought dabs, I thought. Dad's use of unrelenting long expanses, especially facing 20 eighth Don't sit well with me. I I it it want to remind people when I see a lot of new developments that you know it. Landscaping at the ground level

[76:13] is is not taking care of that, and and and how that, how that manifests over time. is a it's not terribly enforceable by the city. And when we see new developments we see dead trees. And you can even see it on the where the daily camera building is right now, where we've got basically, these tree wells that are completely scraped, and you've just got concrete there. And so I don't expect that to happen here. I I do think we need to pay attention to the structure. That's permanent. and we'll change over time. And right now that facade, especially on 20 Eighth Street, is the gateway of Boulder. I think it would be a travesty if that was approved like that. so I'd I'd want us to consider that

[77:01] as one of the main areas that I like to focus in on this evening, and then. you know, is Ml. Brought up. These are. These units are are rented by the bedroom, so we've got 940 plus tenants and while I appreciate that the applicant put in their leases, the idea of of them signing some sort of pledge that they're not going to bring a car that's completely unenforceable from a city standpoint. And I I don't. I don't think that's practical and reality. I think it's a it's a nice thing. but I don't think it really does much and so I'm concerned again. It brought it up last time. What the the parking ratio related to specifically the height, modification, and bringing those things more into a reasonable alignment. Given that this is luxury student housing. and I expect a lot of these people, even if they're not using their cars to have to put their cars somewhere.

[78:09] and if we don't put them here, they're going to end up throughout the neighborhoods and putting more pressure on on on the streets. And so those are my, my, my, major areas of focus. that that that I' to discuss more this evening other than that I don't have much of an issue. Thank you. All right, I said, Laura next. Yeah, Laura, you're next. Thank you. I'll try to be brief and say, I agree with just about everything that that Kurt said about the appropriateness of the site for the proposed use. And ml, I I know you read the staff packet, but it's so huge. I just wanted to point to one piece that I thought was compelling to me in terms of why this is not commercial, a commercial use, and that is in part 2 page 19, where they talk Staff's rationale. They talk about significant flood restrictions on the site limit the placement of the buildings and prevent the location of commercial uses close to 20 Eighth Street.

[79:14] as intended by this code provision, a significant setback is instead required from this major thoroughfare due to the location of the high hazard zone. so it feels like it's not a great location for a commercial use because of all of the flood restrictions on the site and the limited access to the pedestrian there on 20 Eighth Street. And I do recall reading that With these regional centers they are intended to provide not only commercial uses, but also transition from higher intensity uses to lower intensity, uses like residential. And so this this project. The argument here, whether one agrees with it or not, is that it does provide some transition with those step downs towards the creek and it not being a a high intensity, commercial use, but being residential instead, it's providing a transition between the more residential uses

[80:08] and the commercial uses in the Brvc Boulder Valley Regional Center. And I do recall reading that those transist transition zones are intended to be located within the higher intensity use. So it's not up to the neighborhood to provide the transition zone. It's up to the Brvc Boulder Valley Regional Center to provide the transition some. I see you're not in your head so cool. We're on the same page with that. So I don't have any conditions that I would propose to attach. I'm interested in in hearing and discussing my colleagues conditions, and I assume that now is not the time to be responding to each other about the conditions, but just talking about our own and so I think that I will. I will stop there. But I would ask my colleagues to consider. Where exactly is it with parking, if we're concerned about students not parking on site, but parking in the neighborhoods. Where is that opportunity for them to park and create havoc for for other neighborhoods, because in walking around this site, which I did for about an hour, you know they could. They could park in the

[81:09] the safe way, shopping center or parking lots, but they probably would get booted or towed, especially if they're planning that, as their long term plan. There is residential to the West, but they're going to have their own parking areas that I assume that they monitor, and there's parking to the south. But there's not really a lot of like Free street parking like we see in some of these proposals where there's Free street parking all around. So I just would ask people to be thinking about. Where are we afraid that they're going to be going to be parking for the long term with a car that they keep all semester. so I'll stop there all right, Lisa, you're next, and then Mark. thank you and thanks everybody else. I'll try to be relatively quick. So some of my concerns that I want to go super in depth on include. I'm not necessarily opposed to the provost height, but when I see the design and

[82:02] the parking on site, and so on, just all together, I find it not terribly compelling which makes me sad because I feel like this is kind of a major entrance to the sitting. You've got a major frontage on the 20 eighth, and I understand that there are a lot of site constraints here, and also financial constraints and desire to maximize the buildable envelope. But. gosh! I wish I like this more. I think the regional center thing is very interesting, as well, you know. I wish that there was more mixed use and kind of transitional use built into the actual building. you know, and lovely cafes and such and things, you know, along the creek would be really more of that would be nice to see. I don't mind that. It's student housing beyond big things that are beyond our control. I do think it is a sensible location for student housing. I don't enjoy the fact that you doesn't choose to invest in student housing, and so this gets externalized to the city into developers who necessarily provide it. but that's not a problem we're going to fix tonight.

[83:04] for the parking, I mean, I I also. And and I guess if if the city signed off on it. Perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about this, but I worry about all these cars and what is essentially a conveyance zone. it seems like the cars got pushed into some areas where maybe a building can go on that. Maybe I'm just misunderstood. But that puzzles me a bit because cars float real quick. and I. But yeah, I don't quite get that I do appreciate The effort put toward doing some adaptive reuse, and retaining some of the small buildings and spaces for small business owners, particularly the day care and other long-standing businesses. I I really appreciate that. I think we talked about that earlier, and I just thank you for doing that. and what else? I I guess. Yeah, I I feel like I'm harping out the design a little bit, but And again, maybe it looks really different. And if we're in person and looking at the cool brick cladding in the ombre. I would be like into it. But

[84:02] it it isn't really reading you know, and and I almost you know, I I kind of agree, like I almost wish it were a little more stark and like more modern materials, or something kind of interesting, and it just feels like a bunch of boxes covered in brick, and maybe that's me having poor aesthetics and not appreciating the design. I'm not an architect. but yeah, it's a major. It's a major development, and in a very visible location, and at least for me personally, it doesn't do a whole lot, so I'll I'll leave it there. Other people are doing a better job of calling out specific instances, and so on. And I'm curious to see what conditions might come forward, but similar to a lot of people. I I just have questions about design and concerns, about height, and how all those play with each other. Thank you, Lisa. All right, mark your turn. Thank you. First I want to concur with Kirk Kurt and Laura that in general

[85:02] I think this fulfills many missions of the BBC. it fulfills a need for student housing that the community and planning board have requested supported. And so it's council. So it. It does all those things I want to address Ml. And the Bvrc. And I want to just read one additional item that in the same section Kurt Red, where he pointed out it says, there is also some high density how high density housing. it goes on to say, the following plans and guidelines continue to guide redevelopment and evolution of the area into a more attractive and pedestrian bicycle and transit

[86:00] transit friendly place. You don't get more attractive pedestrian areas until you have that that warrants it. And I think this applicant has done a great job with their Tdm plans. And so I I think it fulfills the V. The Rc. Which I also know is a plan that was completed in 1,998. So we are somewhere around 25 years. Hold on that plan, and it is, if if you look at it, it is, it is out of date, and it and it gets short drift in the BBC. And I think rightly so, because it's one of those things that we haven't updated, and and it might still provide some guidance for us. But I think this project falls within the guidance of the Vvrc. And the BBC.

[87:01] going on to my concerns for possible conditions. So I'm I'm playing not to type tonight. It is not so much a transportation. Oh, I want to. Okay. One more. One more thing I want to address is I. I also concur with Laura that I I surveyed the I go by there all the time, but I went around it today. and looking at parking and you know, we recently had a anyway, predatory parking control is a thing in boulder and it. It will be very expensive. If someone thinks they are going to park their car at the Safeway center or to the to the to the south and the other residential area across the Greek. There just isn't or 20 Ninth Street. All those places have 2 h public parking permits, and those are those are enforced, so I don't have a concern with

[88:02] the people violating their agreement with the parking. They they will be punished for that. Finally. I would note that you know we we have goals in the Bbcp. And as a city about parking and about not letting, parking dominate design, dominate our need for housing and we will never change until we change, and we, if we continue to support the status quo which is over parked. and sees of asphalt and cal telling to automobile storage we will never change. And so I think we have to take a view of this that is forward looking, and that parking and a parking reduction are stated goals, and here an applicant has come to us with a written agreement with their tenants, and a plan that supports a parking reduction. So I I I remain. I'm concerned about that. My one concern

[89:10] and possible condition is the public private mix of spaces to the south of the building. and the multi-use path. I am concerned, and I have a condition prepared that would mandate written agreements that those spaces that are noted as public in the packet in yellow on page I'll give you a page number here, anyway. 135 of 160 of the of the 2 sections. That section one. there's a nice drawing that's that denotes a very large percentage of the property to the south of the building as public space.

[90:10] and by denoting that of public space. The applicant is not deeding that to the city they are saying we are going to allow public to access. What I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that that is not only public access, but that that the property owner in this case cannot close public that public access at some future date. And future time, geographically or temporally. without agreement from the city that that if if they are designating that as public space, and that is part of our criteria for approving the project. then I I simply want that to be spelled out in writing, so that at future times, when someone says when some other property owner, these properties change hands as as is allowed in the in, in our, in our system. some new property owner doesn't say, Well, hey? I don't.

[91:14] I I I I'm not cool with that I want to close the creek path at night. I want to close it in the morning, so I have a condition prepared to address that. And I I trust the applicant currently. But you know we all. We all move on. We all pass, and and it needs to be in writing in such a way that it can never be misconstrued as a as possible private private property that the public does not have access to. That's my concern. Okay, Mark. Thank you very much. I'm sure at some I have comments, but I'm just. I'm sure that at some point Laurel will want to check in on whether the legality of that kind of control over

[92:00] someone's private property. But, Laurel, can we come back? We'll come back to that. So thank you all for your comments. I agree with George's concern about the I'm not exactly sure the phrase used, but the lack of alignment between the height, variance and the parking variance. I think the I'll just read what I have here. I'm the applicant request, significant and perhaps unprecedented variances, which, if approved would set the stage for other developers to request the exact same variances which could create a domino effect that would render our regulations almost meaningless. The the reference in the code is 9, 9, 6 f. 3 The manager. May the city manager may approve reductions of up to and including 25 of the parking requirements. If and then there's a list of things that They have to meet their their ores, not all 4, but their wars.

[93:03] The applicant is asking for a 52.2% parking reduction of the 728 parking space is required by code. You should know that only a request of that size is extremely rare. And actually the only types of buildings that tend to get a 50% parking reductions are those that do not have a lot of parking like the jail and warehouses and storage. This is none of those things. This is a very densely very dense housing development. and I think it would be a terrible mistake on our part to begin the process of of allowing a dense development with people who will have cars to not have to provide at least parking within the

[94:01] realm of what is a what the city is. The city allows the city manager to to approve without coming to planning board. the. So the applicants asking for this 52.2% parking reduction. And then they've tried to move the goalposts by reframing the parking reduction request from what's required by code. by picking their own number and asking for a 30% reduction from the 502 parking spaces that their own transportation consultants calculated in their own an analysis. That's the fox title analysis. so. I think the project does not meet the 9 9 6 requirements. I think the Tdm plan is very nice, but it's inadequate to the reality of how many cars are likely to be associated with the individuals expected to reside at this proposed building.

[95:02] As as the George noted, the leaf language is essentially unenforceable. In addition, the alternative transportation fund of $75 a year barely covers a few lift rides and a dip car membership maybe $35 a year, but that ignores the minimum per hour cost, which is $11 an hour or 8 $80 and 50 cents in 8 the. And I think Ml, was right to point out that none of the data has anything to do with how students use cars to get out of town to go hiking or skiing, or into the mountains, for whatever recreation or pleasure they might be pursuing. so, and I would argue that Fox titles. Report is based on a significant and unproved assumption that to they know fox title notes at the parking generation. Manual does not have data pertaining to student housing, and that there's no national standard to estimate parking demand for student housing which

[96:06] to, I think it was Kurt to Kurtz Point. That's probably something we need some data on probably, nationally, there's needed some data. So instead, fox total is developed. It's student parking demand formula from a totally different housing population, which is multi-family housing mid rise, using trip generation data which is not the same as parking data. Instead, the applicants consult with worked on the assumption that the difference between trip rates of the 2 residential types is would be the functional equivalence of the difference between multi-family and student parking demand. Now we already know, because we all of us here have seen a proposal from an applicant who acknowledged that students store their cars. They don't use them that often, but they store their cars. So to Ml's Point there are a lot of students who have cars. They don't use them every day because they don't need to. They can walk or bike to campus, but they have cars because they use them on the weekends

[97:05] and this I think this request for a 52.2%. Reduction is just it's it's too much. So I I am going to offer a condition that tries to find a a happy medium that might help us get to a place where the the mass and scale of the building is reduced. but it's matched to a parking. It's matched to a reasonable parking reduction. So what I've been thinking about is sort of backwards math is how I've been thinking about it which would allow the 348 parking spots which we know is the maximum that they can fit. Given the flood plain issues right, we get that. but would require the applicant to reduce the math and scale of the building until those 348 parking spots

[98:04] are equivalent to say 30 or 35, or maybe even 40% parking reduction. So it's a moving number, because you can't. Just you don't just lop off part of the building. You you it. That number changes over. Time is the number of dwelling units or beds changes. But I doesn't put us in the position of trying to tell them how to change the building, but rather creates an instead. put them in position of having to change the building. Maybe that would create some opportunities to address some of the design issues that still seem unresolved. even with that and would also, bring the parking reduction into a more normal range rather than this extreme range, which, as I said to me, sets up a very healthy

[99:01] standard that we will see many other student housing developers address or try to take advantage of. And the other thing I want to talk about, which is something I don't remember who brought up. Maybe it was Lisa. And this is not. It's not going to. We're not going to solve it tonight. But the the the idea that Cu has externalized the cost and impacts of student housing onto the city. something that the city needs to address. this. The university has a lot of land that they have not yet developed, and they could partner with these private developers to build student housing which would leave some of this land for housing, for people who work here live here, families who work and live here. In addition, the argument that somehow this will get students out of single-family homes is will only be true if Cu stopped adding 800 to 1,000 students a year.

[100:05] There you can, if you keep stuffing people into the city. I mean, if you keep bringing students to the city. And this is not the student's fault. This is Cu's business model building, more housing. Unless you cap the number of students build more housing. It does not take students out of single family home. So I I just want to. I found that argument that the Chamber made last in the last meeting to be. I did not find it have much validity. so I think there's a way to balance some of the concerns that I've heard raised here, which have to do with mass and scale has to do with whether the hyper pipe modification that is a good art. There's a good argument for the height, modification, and addressing the parking modification, which to me in my mind is extreme. And it's this sort of formula, and I'm open to negotiation on what that percentage is, but I I think that's a way to approach it, so that will be my condition.

[101:08] wait a minute Kurt Laurel just came on board. So, Laura, what did you have to tell us? I had a couple of comments on some of the conditions and thoughts that were brought up just legal comments. So when there's a good opportunity, but this is a fine opportunity, and then that can help us frame our conversation going forward. Great! Great! I'm gonna read off my notes a little bit. So sorry I'm looking at the other screen. So one of the things that I wanted to. just clarify The first one is with Kurtz. Note about getting rid of the carpet on 20 eighth. There are a couple of concerns about that one. We'll have to go through the Tdm process re-review again. That was also done with c. so we're not sure of our entire authority around that. it sounds like. potentially, there is access concerns with the Regency center to the north. So just some things to think about with with that particular getting rid of the cup curve. But it would mean we would have to go through that process of reviewing it again.

[102:03] oral. I'm sorry I don't. I don't entirely understand that comment. So you're saying that the city and C. Dot went through a planning process and decided because it's on Twenty-eighth Street, and decided to keep that curb cut, and that if we, as planning board, made it a condition to eliminate it, then that would require the city and see that to renegotiate. And there's no guarantee that see? That would agree to that right. And I don't know it's how it looks like Brad just jumped on. Somebody has a little bit more a a knowledge about that one. So the Site plan that was brought forward to you with Staff's review, assumes a certain set of traffic patterns, including volume to the north, and internal circulation for safety and such. So, if there were condition that that access were removed. Not only does it, but. yeah, get into the discussion with C. Dot, but it would mean that what whatever did get approved would have to be reviewed for compliance with. of writing things that that are addressed through life, safety, circulation, and volume, on to a rep of all of those premises that were brought forward.

[103:13] would need to be reviewed and brought back to you then, with confirmation that those could either be accommodated or not under the device plan with the condition. We don't know that it would, but we would need to. We would need to be able to verify that before we could move to building permit. Okay, so let me just double check. You're just you're you're just giving us fair warning that we can. We could conceivably agree to Kurtz condition. But that does not mean that correct Kurtz condition is would end up being enforceable. Is that correct? Well, it yes, in the sense that it may not result in a plan that meets various criteria for access, for safety and things, and and volume, you know, limits a volume on their app for that type of thing.

[104:03] I just want to ask a question of what happens if what we approve through Site review is deemed not feasible from a traffic perspective through the city's negotiations with, see that? Does that mean that this project can't be built because it doesn't comply with what we approve through site review, or what happens. So see that I I'm trying to clarify C. That is just one element that the others would be also access to the site for fire, safety, life, safety issues and access to the North. in terms of volumes under that. Not prejudging whether that's possible or not. It's just that this plan does meet all those criteria we would have to re-evaluate whether it get under. Thank you. That's helpful to clarify that it's not just see that. But if we approve something through Site Review that ultimately ends up being in feasible from a traffic perspective, for whatever reason that the city can't approve it. Then what happens? This is the Site Review, then prevent the project from being built, and the applicant has to start over and come back or cause we would have approved the Site Review and said, This is a condition so legally, what what happens there?

[105:10] We'd have to your. We have to do a modification. you know, upon approval, or something like that. We could tailor it. That the city manager has the final say on that particular part of the approval that makes sense. Thank you. Laurel. I think you have other things you wanted to comment on that, Brad, since Kirk has his hand up. If it's relevant to that question, I I have to stay on them. Okay, Kurt, is it? Is your question relevant to this particular moment in time. yes, I have one question about that. And I'm just wondering. Is, is there specific brand? Is there specific code that relates to the the fire safety aspects that you're talking about is that something in the Dcs.

[106:04] Good evening, Edward Stanford, senior manager of engineering from a Fire and Life safety access. It would come under the fire code requirements. we would want to review, to ensure that they have adequate access, which is a concern given the number of units and the limited access that would be here and those limited movement points. So we would need to take a review of that. Thank you. right. And I believe there are also agreements with the Regency shopping center as well that we would need to evaluate for like loading in trucks and things. yes. yeah. Apologies. That was, that was a little bit long. The second thing I wanted to touch on We had previously talked about height modifications. I wasn't sure if Ml. You wanted me to clarify that it didn't sound like that was a condition, or are you good? I just wanted to clarify with that. you know. I think I think your point that there is some amount of degree to the

[107:06] I can tell you what the number is. It's 9, 2, 14 h. Little h. 2 big K is where the is just the way it is. So I I don't need any more conversation about it. I thank you for your one of the yeah. And if it comes up again during conditions, we can talk about it a little bit more. The other piece that I wanted to. just mention is the parking code section, that chair silver you had talked about. we just wanted to clarify that the code section for parking reduction is 9 to 14 little H, 2 big L as opposed to. I think you said 9, 9, 6. Yeah, I was referring to the part of the code that

[108:02] describes what the. the, what, what's required, given the number of bedrooms for dwelling units. That is part of that. So I was referencing that because they're there. there, that's the code that they are. They? They're not meeting that number great. Yeah. And then one other one for Member Mcintyre. One of the things you'd mentioned was open space making sure that that's available to the public. One thing I wanted to note is if they, because it is part of the approved plans. If they did want to change it and make it not available to the public. It would have to go through a Site review amendment in order to change any of that. So I don't know if that changes your condition, but just wanted to let you know. But that's kind of the it would have to come back to the city if they wanted to change that. I'll I'll I'll I get to. I I might I might be convinced at with some additional discussion. Thank you.

[109:02] Great, that's all I had for. Now. Thank you for your time. Yeah. I wanted to follow up on your statements about the parking, and my recollection, which could be very false, is the 50% partner. Reduction is not unprecedented for for student housing, and I was wondering if Staff might be able to weigh in on whether there have been parking reductions of that, and to issued in for a building for a building of this density, and I will tell you that I check with staff before I asked that question. Not not of Charles. It was a car. But that's where my data comes from. I didn't just pull it out of thin air. I think the most reason why we did was the Hub at 7 7 28. So that was the former best Western motel, and it was a 96 unit project where we did a 55% parking reduction

[110:04] was that the one with the double parking where people were the storing their cars thing? So does that mean that the parking spots counted as one? The tandems counted as one correct. So what was really the parking reduction? I have to go back. I'm I'm operating off a memory here, so I'll have to go back and and double check. But I'm happy to do that. That would be helpful. Thank you. So. all right. So it sounds like we have 3 possible conditions. Why don't we discuss? We'll start with the Kurtz condition. Sarah? Hey, Sarah, can we just take like a 3 min break? All right, we'll be break. We'll break for 5 min. Thank you all

[115:13] for has the sun started rising in Sweden. It never really sets. Does that make it hard to sweep? you know, it's more that it's more the birds they're just always they're always they're always out there. But no, no, no complaints, really, the sunlight's quite nice. and it's cool here. So. George, what what part are you in? I'm in loomed, which is actually a university town. It's it's such a. It's such a great town. It's it's actually very similar to it's scale to boulder. Hmm, yeah, guys. hey, Max?

[116:00] Hi, Max. you're muted. Lisa. my favorite planning board number. do we? Who we missing here? Ml. just fy is this is staff back, Charles and Laurel and Brad, are you guys here? Charles is here. You never leave. I'm sure it feels that way. Okay. all right. So everybody is here and oops. Wait, ml, I just lost you. Oh, there you are! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, all right. We're all here. all right? So it sounds like we have 3, 3 possible conditions. Let's do a straw poll on

[117:02] We don't have the language exactly. Yet. We? We know that Kurtz condition has to do with eliminating the curve cut on 20 Eighth streets. I dependent on All the feedback that the city would need to get from the relevant agencies and and stakeholders. Is that a fair summation, Kurt? Okay. So thumbs up. If people are comfortable with the Sarah. But before we do a straw poll, can we just talk about a little bit like we wanted to reserve discussion, and so I don't know what people might think are the pros and cons of an amendment like that. I'm not ready to do a to uphold without knowing a little bit more about it. Okidoki. I actually do want to know what people think about it. So I guess If I if I could just say some of the things that I'm curious about. I know the city has this policy that says that for a development you only get one curb cut, and it has to be on the the lease. the smallest street, basically not big arterials, but the smallest street possible. Is there any limit to that like this? Is it? Potentially 900 bedrooms? and we're talking about putting just one curb cut onto Olson, which is currently an ally, and I think is intended to stay that way for some time.

[118:26] you know. Are there any concerns or limitations to the I've had this concern with other projects as well of you? How how many people can get emergency access off of one curb cut to one small theatre street. And so I don't know what the city's thoughts are around that or Kurt. Maybe you have been part of these discussions, and it seems kind of from just a a a lay person point of view somewhat in inadvisable to try to direct 900 people to a very small street in an emergency. and if I can clarify, or maybe ask the question. I think that there are 2 curb cuts on to Golson, one from the west parking lot and one from the east parking lot.

[119:07] if that's correct. So I want to. I this is a question for Kurt or Staff. If we, if we're counting a curb, cut onto Olsen, which is an alley which doesn't. The way I read it and was there today doesn't get you anywhere. So if you need to exit the site that you would have to take Olsen West to Folsom or East to 28. And so I I'm I'm clear as to how counting curb cuts on to Olson. Kind of satisfied satisfies those health, life and safety requirements, for, like Laura says, for a project of this size

[120:02] does Ed or Charles, or anyone want? I can certainly give you the staff view, if you'd like, in terms of answering a little bit of what's being asked here. So the first is that in 995 on side access control. It presumes the starting point is the single, and then there are. I'll call them criteria in there for additional access which do relate to things such as circulation, safety, those types of items. you're correct and evaluating. Right now, this site actually in terms of access points. public rural road. Public pride of way has 3. There are 2 on Olson. I'm as proposed from the 2 parking, and then there access the 3 quarters limited access to 20 Eighth Street, And so we have found through 995, and through the traffic analysis and the circulation material that supplied The staff's recommendation is that that does meet the side access control requirements in terms of limiting access, but within certain bounds of ensuring adequate circulation and safety

[121:16] you, your condition would eliminate the curt cut on 28. Is that correct? For you ask me, yeah. Eliminating the curve cut, then, is the direct access from East Parking Lot on to 20 Eighth Street. So there's there's really 2 accesses as proposed on to 20 Eighth Street. One is a direct access from the East parking lot, and the other one is false and drive right. And so my condition would eliminate that direct access from the parking lot across the multi, you staff there, which to me it seems like a dangerous and problematic crossing, and also is an additional, you know, an additional conflict point over what we clearly are going to have at Olson Drive.

[122:19] and so it it. To me. It feels like it would improve safety. It would improve mobility for people walking and biking, and just clean up the the the streetscape, there to eliminate that access directly from the parking lot, between. No, across a multi-use path which we know are problematic movements. and put the the movement all the false and drive, which again to me is. as in my reading of 9 9 5 c. It's completely consistent with what is being requested there.

[123:02] So just to clarify some of what my concerns are. currently, that access on 28 is the 3 quarter which allows the left in. So anybody hitting northbound The Olson access is limited to right in right out. There is not an opportunity to turn that into a 3 quarter because of the other access points. So the challenge that we I'm concerned from circulation and fire, safety or piece of fire safety! Is that In order for anybody headed northbound to get into this site, you're going to have to loop them all the way up to Arapaho, back down fullsome, and through the private property, Eastman, and also some drive into here. So there is a a limitation to the maneuverability that occurs with that. I would want to have a robust conversation with our fire department in terms of limiting access to a development of this size in that way, and only off of the single 20 foot wide. as it will be built in this project, public OS. And drive. So that's where our concerns are.

[124:08] And I would say, You know, I I to fully acknowledge those concerns, and I don't want to jeopardize fire safety in any possible way. but I'm trying to. I'm also thinking about the safety of people walking and biking along that multi-use. Yeah there, and also that that access the just motor view the potential for motor vehicle conflicts on 28, I know that, you know, left turn uncontrolled. Left terms are one of our most dangerous movements in this city and the the northbound left turn off of 20 Eighth Street would be an uncontrolled left turn off of a very major arterial street across wide and relatively high moving traffic, relatively fast moving traffic. And to me that just seems like a very dangerous design.

[125:07] So so can I. Just ask, this is existing condition right that there is that left turn off of northbound 20 Eighth Street. And this does cross the multi-use path, and it serves the current millennium Hotel. Do we have? you know. Is this a Hotspot for traffic accidents? Is it? Is it a dangerous intersection? It has not been identified as a high crash location. And for the pedestrian movements and bicyclists on the path does that is that also included in that, Edward. There's yeah, that we would be be included in crash data. That's not to say that. You know there are always a concern at any point when you have a vehicular crossing, of course, of a bike, and ped in a consideration to be made there. So I don't want to say that there's not any concern there. It's always a trade off of that

[126:02] the goals and needs that have to be accomplished. So this project is proposing to modify that to ensure that the entire crossing, so right now half of that crossing is raised to the multi-use path stays a grade. The projects proposing to raise the other parts of the entirety of the multi-use path is elevated at that crossing a questions, comments. are we ready to do a straw poll? Okay? So the straw poll would be, do you support a a condition to the motion that would eliminate the curb cut on 20 Eighth Street, depending on stakeholder approval.

[127:08] All right. I see one person sorry about that, Kurt. We can. We can come back and vote on it. See if we get a second. But for right now it's a one person, all right. all right. So the second is the Kurt second condition, which is about a parking utilization study. and although this may not be the final language that that is proposed. Essentially, it's at the applicant shell. No sooner than 2 years after the last certificate of occupancy is issued, and no later than 3 years after the last certificate of occupancy is issued, submit to the city manager a parking utilization study. using methodology approved by the city manager. and to clarify. I had not actually intended this, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I had not intended this as an actual condition.

[128:03] I would be fine with this condition. but that had not been my intent to. It was just sort of amusing. But I think it's worth considering it as a condition. Yeah, I think if it's not meant to be a condition, then we should set it aside as a matter because it would be very helpful, since almost everything we get these days is student housing to have some actual data about student housing, car parking and utilization. That seems like a valuable piece of information. So we're not all just. you know, making this stuff up. I actually like it as the condition it seems pretty easy to do, and extremely valuable. Well, it's valuable for one building. It doesn't. It's not. I mean, if you really want to condition. If you really want to understand data. you need to look at more than just one building. So my point is.

[129:00] this would be a requirement of one particular applicant who's building student housing rather than a citywide. a evaluation of what is happening at all. The student housing, private student housing that we've been approving. which seems like a more valuable piece of information. I I think that's true, and I'm not sure that it needs to be either or like, I do think that There's value in like a pilot, or there's value in like we, we can at site review, attach a condition that this has to be done, and we can make that happen. It seems like it's pretty easy for the applicant to do and it wouldn't be a deal killer hopefully. To do. A citywide study would probably require like making it a work plan, item and staff involvement, and and be a little bit more involved. So I'm not saying I'm against that. I think that's a great idea, too, but I don't see why we couldn't get this this one piece of data that would be useful as well. Laurel. I just want to circle back and say, if we do have conditions, we need it to be tied to the regulations right back to site review criteria. So just think about what this would be tied to

[130:05] if we do require a study. Thank you. So I'd like to suggest Kurt did not intend this as a condition. It would be one data point. It's hard to know. I I don't know that there is a code that you could reference this back to her. so my suggestion is that we set it aside for right now. and it thumbs up on that or thumbs down. Are we thumbing up on setting it aside, or we're summing up on it, is it? On the condition? Setting it aside? Alright? Oh, so okay. it was insofar as thumbs count. It was 6 1. Okay, the next. don't lose that, though, Devin, because I do think we will want to circle back to it and not in today's conversation, but in some other conversation, since clearly we're get a lot of student housing requests these days.

[131:08] Thank you. Excuse me, are we? Are we looking at Devin's screen. Yes, that's Devin screen. the next item that we're I, I I have official language, and I sent it. And so if Devin can pop it from his email. Okay? And while he does that mark, ml, has her hand up. Okay. So I would like to add a condition as well. And I I know I didn't talk about that when I that's okay. So generally,

[132:02] how do you want? Do you want me to send something to Devin? Do you want me to talk about it first, or how do you? Why don't you send something to Devin? And while you're doing that, then we can talk through marks, and then we can talk for years, and then we can talk through mine. Does that work for you? Then? Yeah, I don't mean to jump ahead of your if I can go last. That's what it doesn't matter. It's I. I just hadn't mentioned it to get on the queue. There's no, there's no, there's no specific order except what it was on on Devon's page. So if you send something to Devin, and meanwhile we will work through marks. Okay. So mark Devin, that I can, you make that bigger? I'm sorry my eyesight is not good enough to read. Teeny, tiny. okay, thank you. okay. So Marx Mark's language, he gives us an or an option. Approval is conditional upon the applicant, and the city reaching a written agreement.

[133:04] laying out each party's responsibility for maintenance of the multi-use path that traverses the property. Either a. The agreement will state that all outdoor spaces south of the north edge of the multi-use path and north of the southern creek bank, shall be fully acceptable by the public at all times, unless a closure is required and agreed to jointly by the city and the property owners, and that such closure should be rare. or the agreement will also state and memorialize at all outdoor spaces noted in yellow color and as noted as public space. On page 135 of 160 of the Planning Board packet, entitled, Item 3, a part 11 shall be fully accessible by the public at all times, unless it closure is required and agreed to jointly by the city and the property owners, and that such closure should be rare. I think you're saying the same thing. You're just trying to define it. It's yeah. I I get in terms of visiting the site and trying to create a definable boundary, and what people would perceive as public space. I think the lawn

[134:13] to the south of the of the multi-use path. And going across the creek. The perception by the public currently and and in the future is it that's public space. And so all I'm trying to do here. And I can be convinced potentially that this will all be taken care of. And of course, the city would never allow a a to ensue, but we have a history and open space properties, and in the city and in the county of creating what people think our public spaces. And then, at some future date.

[135:00] people discover. Well, actually. it's not, or that there is. It's not as restricted as or as publicly accessible as they had once thought. And so I just simply want to clarify that if this applicant is showing us a drawing and saying, these spaces are public. but they're not relinquishing. They're not. They're not donating that to the city. They're not giving it to the city. They are, they are saying, it's theirs, but it's publicly accessible. And if you look at, especially at the at the at that page, the one page 135 or 160. There are a number of North South connections off the multi-use pad multi-use path, noted in yellow. that someday in the future. For some unknown reason, some future property owner that my own, the property might generate a reason to close

[136:04] public access there. And so all I'm asking for is for the applicant and the city to actually formally agree that those shall not be closed to the public in perpetuity on the for life, health safety. The city and the property owner agree. So mark the only comment I would make to that is. it's not uncommon in development processes for someone to someone to get the entitlement, another developer to build a building and a third developer to actually manage the building. So I think actually, instead of using applicants. It's you you have to clarify that it will be. Whoever owns the property at any time you have to figure out how to get that in there. Well, I I would simply request we change. I I think that's excellent. Input, Sarah, and change. I I have property owner. I I've mixed it up between applicant and and property owner

[137:09] in there. So I would. I would just eliminate applicant and change wherever it appears. This applicant to property owner. So I see that Laurel has shown her beautiful face. Laurel. What do you want to share with them? Very good. Yeah, if and I don't want to interrupt your discussion on this at all. Just wanted to comment on a couple of things. legally speaking. one of those is So for the easement part, where the multi-use path is that's done by code and access and maintenance are already defined in that easement process. So I I just didn't want to like duplicate that here, because it's already done in code. Yeah. So just I'm happy to eliminate that first paragraph. There was any question about that. That that's not a question great then, but the other 2 still are a question for me. Yeah. And then the other thing I just wanted to let you know again, just for your discussion is There is a piece in the management plan that talks about this.

[138:04] it's on page 1, 19 of the packet, and it describes Boulder Creek programming and maintenance landmark. And it talks about the pickle ball courts, etc. So I want to let you know about that, because that is something that will be in part of the development agreement and and something that they're being healthy. So again, just for awareness. So from the management plan, part 2, let me check it. Okay, the boulder creek programming and and maintenance. Yeah, and it just talks a little bit about the means that they're going to do so again. I'm not saying that this you, from your discussion, just want to lay out that they would be held to this as part of their development agreement. Okay, so you're saying that 30 years from now

[139:00] 2 owners a 2. This is changed hands 2 times 3 times that in a in in court the city would prevail in maintaining public access based on this wording it. So what we can do is enforce based on the morning that they agree to in this development agreement, which this is part of it. so we could enforce what it says here. which I don't. I don't know if it necessarily exactly lines up with what you have, but we can enforce what it says about. So I I read this, and and I I I looked at this, and to me it seemed you know, full of intention, full of aspiration. I didn't read like a like a a legal property access document that I would. You would typically get from a title company when you know someone has a driveway that goes across your property, or whatever those are usually very specific and and

[140:01] much more specific than this. and much more legally enforceable at a future day, because this does run with the land. But but, like you said, it's it's a little bit more aspirational language than maybe what you're looking for But this particular language would run with the land, not who owns the property necessarily And and the other thing they they already tipped their hand a little bit provide a combination of active and passive recreational opportunities for the community as a whole. Some outdoor areas will be available for community use from dawn to dusk. so And and we have. We have had battles in in city of boulder, open space and non parks about timed access. And you know this is a property, and some of the North South access points the creek path. some of the area, anyway.

[141:00] to my way of thinking cannot be subject to the property owners. Decision ad hoc decision to have a night time closure. anyway. So I I I find this interesting and helpful, but inadequate it for what my concern is. And again, that easement, right for the the path itself, like the actual path, is on an east month, and that is controlled by the city a little bit more so. Just wanted to let you know my recollection, which could be wrong from our earlier meeting is that the developer, the applicant wants to make sure that the safety of residents is is assured as much as it can be assured, and then the

[142:02] private, so that that private space or the privatization of what we're calling public space is matters to them. Do you feel that what you are proposing here is adequate to make sure that the residents are. I mean, close closing that space from Don to duck. There's a reason from that to Don. Excuse me, there's a reason for that right? so I'm curious if you feel that in any way your can, your proposed condition. Yeah. So I'm relying on the applicants drawing on page 135. And if you look at that they have 2 large lobby areas to the south of the buildings that are in yellow, and then, a primary north, South corridor, between building one

[143:02] and building 2, I believe. yeah, between building one and building 2, the the the the North south corridor. between building one and 2, and the 2 blobs of yellow are are my primary concern. The rest of the yellow, I think. could be closed, and then they note the areas in brown as as as private and and close to the public, and as they should be, and so I don't have any any problem with that. And then there's some. There's a a green buffer area that is not shown as yellow. And I, I would consider that to be under their jurisdiction and under their control. And I and so my point would be that whether it's language or a drawing or a survey that gets referenced. that the the one primary north-south connection, and the 2 blobs that kind of are. One is north of the Greek, and one is south of the creek.

[144:10] are, are stated to be public, broad, or seen, as it be fully, publicly accessible, and all I want to do is memorialize that that is fully, publicly accessible unless the property owners in the city agree otherwise. Laura, you have your hand up. Yeah, I have a question about the dog park and the pickleball court. So, Mark, are you suggesting that people should be able to play pickle ball at midnight if they want to, and have their dogs in the I think that could be accepted. Certainly. Sure. Same with the dog Park. I'm I'm also not sure that I feel like those are uses that could change over time right? I don't think we need to have pickleball court in perpetuity. necessarily pickle ball popularity. May Wayne.

[145:08] I don't play it, but it seems very popular now. I guess. My my general comment is, I definitely think it's important to keep access routes open, including overnight, like, if people have emergencies and they need to be, you know. riding their bike through there. I think all of that should not be closed at night. But If they want to close, you know some of these other amenities at night. I don't. I don't have a problem with that, so I don't know how to refine your language, to say that the public access pathways are, are open and accessible to the public at all times, but some of the public amenities like, what does it mean to have these big blobs, these big yellow blobs that are lawn areas accessible to the public at all times. Does that mean people can be picnicking at midnight outside of the student housing like, I I just, I'm not sure. Why, what's our interest in trying to make sure that that's accessible at all times? The pathways? I can see that.

[146:08] Well, okay. So maybe the the language, maybe what we simply should say is, unless it unless the closure is agreed to jointly by the city and the property owners leave off the with adjective of should be rare and and then let the city and the property owners agree on on hours of access for dog, park, pickle, ball, etc. But you're right. My my greatest concern is is a creek path, access and connections, and and there in in the Us. We have a long history of property owners closing what has long been regarded as public access to extract something from a a. A a city, a town, an agency for a service whatever. And so

[147:08] I I'm looking forward. and and and if the city, if the staff says, Hey. we got this, or we understand your concern, or we would prefer you word it this way to give us greater flexibility and and drafting this. I I'm I'm ready to. I'm ready to hear Staff's ideas about this and and and address my concerns. Maybe I'm just being nutty about it. But I I I don't think so, but I might be. Can I make a recommend? So is there other comments on this? it would people be comfortable if Mark spends a few minutes talking through with whoever staff is he needs to talk through to Clara. Make this a more clear language. Okay, Mark, if you don't mind working on that, that would be awesome

[148:04] Devin. Can you put up Ml's condition? And Ml, maybe you can start talking us through it while he's doing that. Yeah, Sarah, were you suggesting that Mark should talk offline with Staff to refine this or just ask Staff to send him some line edits that might reflect the narrowing, the clarifications, and then Mark can decide if he's comfortable with it, and then bring it back to us. I just I don't want us to be line editing right now, collectively. I think that's not a use. Good use of our time. Gotcha. I I would also be interested in knowing if Staff think that this kind of condition it helps in some significant way with a problem that we have.

[149:00] I can just jump in just to clarify. We wouldn't have any offline discussions with the board member. but we can work to refine the language, and then, when we come back with what we think reflects the discussion here, we can also, speak to speak to the essence of it as you mentioned. Thanks, that would be great. Thank you very much. And just so, you know. George has also has a condition he'd like to add so, and we'll talk through. Ml, we'll come back to you, Mark. You have not been forgotten. ml, let's talk through years, and then we'll put up George's. Sarah Devin has 2 ahead of me. These are the things that right ahead of you are. I think. What is this year's condition that the project go to that? Oh, is it there? I don't see it. Yeah. Oh, okay, then. okay, so I'll read the condition as it's currently written. And then you can share with us your thoughts condition that the project go to dab for actual input on building design guidelines

[150:01] massing 5.1 a breakdown. Great, I think, breaking down the massing of it. Is that what you meant? I'm just. These are the way it is written in the guidance. Okay, 5.1 B provide pedestrian breaks in long buildings, 5.1 c. Transition to adjacent buildings. Boulder valley Comp. Plan 2.3 6 physical design for people 7.0 7. Mix of housing types. Site Review. Criteria, 9 2 14 h. 2. Site design a and the Roman numeral for open space provides relief to density both within the project from surrounding development. Do you want to walk us through? I'm not sure if what I'm not sure if what your ref the code you're referencing here is what you want, dad, to consider, or if he or if you're I mean, it almost sounds like you're you have some objections

[151:05] to whether that you you you don't necessarily feel the project as is meets code. So there are specific components of the project that I think need to be addressed in greater with greater attention, and I think Dad would be the appropriate agency or the appro appropriate entity to provide that input. And I'm stating that they are actionable so that it's not just like, Oh, yeah, we kind of step down the building by a few feet here and there. That and Dad would be the people to have the conversation. So I'm referencing 3 different standards. One is the

[152:10] I you let me go and look at what I actually sent this. It looks like it's missing some parts while you're while you're looking. Charles has his hand up. So I'm going to call on Charles. And while these policies are helpful and would probably be more appropriate for a concept level. you know, the design is pretty well developed at this point. So we would want very specific direction from dam for elements of the buildings or the site plan for them to review and provide comments on. okay, so that's why I put in the language actionable. so the building design. Guidelines are from the Bdrc

[153:06] guidelines, and one of them is massing 5.1 A, and that is just as it states, it encourages requires that the massing gets broken down. I don't think this building, I mean, we've all said it. We've all seen it. The building does not break down. It's massing 5.1 d. provide pedestrian breaks in long buildings. We've seen these what the you still is 280 feet long. the pathways, the public pathways, or what? Maybe 25 people? Why. there's no breaks. So you're just going down to speak along. So that's pretty specific for my prediction breaks, and long buildings 5.1 see transition to Jason Buildings. the buildings that that But this property

[154:00] range from what 19 feet to 28 detail, 19 feet to 24 feet tall. So they're not very tall. The buildings that are directly adjacent to this proposed 53 foot tall building. so that is something that should be looked at. The other references to boulder belly, compliant physical design for people. And I think this is why it way in Charles. physical design for people. What does that mean? you know, they talk about having. Well, okay, so that might be as a fuzzy 7.0 7 mix of housing types. There's one housing type here. It's student housing period. so I think some of these are are desire to have housing in this

[155:02] adjacent to commercial adjacent to, to to create the 15 min Neighborhoods to create the ability in our city. I think it's talking about the the working middle income housing people that are going to be there all year round. Student housing goes empty during the summer. It goes empty during holidays. It's an interesting it's got an interesting use impact on the adjacent adjacent context. That I think is not being taken into account. That is what this Boulder Valley Regional center is wanting to do is integrate and create. We want housing as part of our commercial. We want to create vibrancy in our in our regional center.

[156:02] and we want to create dense housing and more housing. I I would look at well if student housing. giving us the mix that we really should be considering in the centers and driven by the Golden Valley call plan. I apologize for interrupting you. I I how do we get? How do we get like really specific as to what you're looking for? So we've got something actionable to that up or down, because I'm I'm struggling with it a little bit. Yeah. And I would add that Hello would remind us. And I'm sure Laurel is itching to remind us as well. in order for us to put a condition on the project, we have to say that it does not meet a certain part of the Site Review criteria. We cannot, we cannot reference the BBC the boulder rally regional center and just say what we don't think that we want student housing here.

[157:01] We can't reference. The Bvcp. In general, unless we are willing to say that it does not on balance meet the Bvcp. Like it has to be tied to what of the Site Review criteria, does it not meet? And this condition would help it meet that part of the Site Review criteria? It has to be really specific to be legally defensible if I can, if I can add something. Ml, and I'm not just plumping for my some version of my condition. The massive scale of this building that makes it impossible to meet some of these design guidelines. that if we were to approve a condition in this case related to the parking a reduction. It would allow the applicant to go back a bit to the drawing table and reduce the mass and scale of the building and take, and hopefully, also

[158:05] in address, some of these design issues does not just that you. It's not just that the building becomes a bit smaller, but that they have more. They've given themselves a bit more, for they are given more space to do some of these things because they no longer are maximizing the build out to every square inch on which they can build. Like, I, I feel like, that is a tool. I recognize that. Yeah, when you put it out there, I recognize that that would be one way to begin. What I'm really suggesting here is to give Dab a when Depp explained to us how they had kind of looked at the building and what they had referenced. What I'm suggesting is, take these specific things into consideration in a dab review. and I I would

[159:04] leave it up to Dad to determine how they can be actionable. Now I'm hearing, perhaps from Fred and Charles, it may be legal that we can't have a condition. We let them exercise some authority on the building or at least provide some point pointed direction. Because I I think that if I understood Dad speaking about their review they weren't looking at sort of the same kinds of things that you know we're looking at. There's they were looking at it a little bit differently, and I think that these are the big ticket items. you know. Let them that there's something challenging about the Massey. And it does that relative to you know. the pedestrian is gonna walk through there. And what's their relationship? The person living on the third story gonna stare across 25 feet, at another. You know window of a person

[160:08] that they're all of these very specific things that are directly referenced. If somebody reads this design factors some result in action of all items, and I I don't think it's up to us to say, do this to that to the other. I I would like to have them go to Dab to get input on some specific kinds of things and massing being. I'll be. Well, so, ml, I'm going to call on Brad, who has his hand up, who might have some some in some thoughts about this. Yeah, I just want to talk about process a little bit, so any condition would need to be actionable to conclusion, and and unless it is the Board's desire to defer all authority to tab in this for a d in this case, which I don't think is your intent. Probably not advisable, anyway.

[161:06] the the the clear condition would be something to the effect of, you know, move approval with the condition that the massing be redesigned. for example, or and or the pedestrian breaks be shortened. Come up, you know. with referral and recommendations from that prior to reconsideration, but works out. I actually think that the the formula, the parking reduction formula is a tool to addressing these design issues because it push it. It requires the applicant to it, gives the opportunity, the applicant and opportunity to to redesign a bit and create some of these. it makes some of these changes. But that's my, are you suggesting that the

[162:05] condition. the inter connected. I think we the parking and yeah, I don't want to jump off into mine, but just because we've got comments on yours. And George has a condition as well. But the way I was imagining the way mine would work is. whatever the math, the math, either it's the building has to have a 30% parking reduction or 35 or a 40% park reduction, which then will lead the develop of applicants to have to redesign the building to meet that reduction, and that creates the opportunity, then, for some of these issues to be incorporated into their redesign. So I'll leave it at that, because we're not actually talking about my proposal yet. Yeah, I think it opens up a, it's potentially.

[163:02] if 4 or more people are comfortable with it. It opens up a possibility for what I don't hear. I will say just as a I'm not hearing great love for what has been proposed. As it is like, I'm not hearing that. So So maybe Laura likes it. But everyone else is like, Yeah, I'm not so sure. But can I just I, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm not going to talk about this anymore. I just wanted to connect my, what what Ml, is saying to what I'm trying to say, yeah, now, Laura. And then Mark, and I think Brad is to speak. Yeah, and I'll I'll jump off. I just want to make one more process point. As you finalize your discussion around these conditions. It would be helpful to us if, as staff, if we could take a 10 min, break to craft and and capture those so that we can come back and then see if that reflects your discussion. because we're we're taking copious notes here. Thanks.

[164:03] alright. So, Laura. Thank you. Thank you. Ml, and we're not. We're not moving away from it yet. I'm just Laura and mark. Both have their hands up. Thank you. So I want to say that, Ml, I really appreciate your attention to which policies you think this project could better meet. And I really wish that we had had this level of input at the concept review stage before it went to Dab, so that Dad knew exactly which things planning board felt that this building did not meet, and Dad could have given that advice, and then it would have come back at site review hopefully with some of these things responded to. Okay, well, I I I appreciate what Ml. Has done here, and I think this is a good roadmap for the future. But we're not at concept review. We're at site review. And I think that Ml, what you're proposing goes beyond what at least I would be comfortable, approving as a condition, because my understanding

[165:03] of a condition is that once we put conditions on the process, the project, and then we vote yes, on the project with the conditions. We never see it again. It doesn't come back to us. So unless we're gonna deny the project and then make a recommendation. Hey, go to Deb, and come back to us with a new Site Review application after you have done these things. That's different. So I don't think this is a condition on approval. I don't think that that's the process that we want. I don't think that that's legally defensible, either, that that we put this kind of condition on it, and say, we're going to approve the building. and here's your condition. Go forth and meet it. And I, I just to to go to Dab again. Yeah, but then it will never come back to us. I I I to me. I don't feel like that's the authority that, you know it's our job

[166:11] and go ahead and do a straw poll on Ml's, and if we want to do it on mine we can do that, too. And so, at the at the risk of I would, I would do a softball. Okay, Lisa, is that what you wanted to say as well, or did you? You haven't said anything all night? Yeah. Yeah. So I'll speak up before we do the stroke pull. Can everyone hear me. First of all. I I think you make a really good point, Laura, and and I just want to say, and Sarah was kind of interjecting this as well that we actually did give all this feedback at Site review. And then this is what got kicked back to us like we told them all of this, and this is apparently what we got. Sorry I'm a little tired. I'm not sure it's necessary, so I'm not necessarily saying that I would do it, but I'm not necessarily opposed to kicking this whole project back and saying, Please do something better because I I am not thrilled with it, and if we have the votes to do that.

[167:09] I would almost rather do that than have this meeting extend we far into the night. I'm not sure we do. I'm open also open to maybe do some conditions if we don't have enough votes to kick this thing back. But I'm I'm not thrilled with it. Writ large. and I think all's points are great. I think everyone else's points are great, and I wish that this were overall a better project. In some ways I would rather just say, Hey, please take all the feedback we already gave you the first time, and we're now giving you the second time, and just go redo this thing again. Sorry, but you didn't get it right rather than trying to condition the heck out of it. trying to fix it. So honestly, I'm I'm I'm actually fine with denying this. I don't know that we have the votes, and if we don't have the votes, then let's actually, I'm I'm not in my head. I think Ml. Was not in her head. Is that a fair comment, ml, were you not in your head in agreement with Lisa.

[168:02] I'm nodding my head in in acknowledgment that these comments have already been made. This is what we got, so I don't know what the next step is, and so does everybody say. The next step that Lisa is proposing is. send it back because it. I'm not saying that that will get 4 or 5, or 6 or 7 votes, but that is what Lisa is saying. So the question is. I'm happy to do a straw poll right now about whether I'm sorry, Laurel. What apologies just to clarify? Does that mean you are denying the application and asking for reach the middle? I just wanted to clarify that versus just like kicking it back about whether or not there are 4 people of the 7 who are not going to approve this project as is

[169:03] so. So I'm one. Well, I I would really like for us to have some discussion of that. That's a big decision to make to say, we're going to deny this application. because if it's not for people, then that's not gonna it's not going to happen. We there's nothing to discuss, because it's not going to happen. So. So the straw poll is that as is this project? you don't approve this project as is so, I'm one. George is one. Lisa is one. and Ml. Is one. I think that that is a very serious decision to make, and I would really like to have discussion on it before we vote on that. Let's have a discussion Mark first, and then Laura and then Kurt. So a motion!

[170:00] My, I don't get a motion, yet we have not made a motion yet. Let me let me speak. Thank you. My learning experience was the raising King's denial. and And if we remember that denial. we continued the meeting so that Staff could take the very, very specific items that we refer to, both from the code and the Bbcp. And draft a a very complete denial motion. So what we're what we're we're not talking about. Oh, let's kick it back. Let's go to dab again. We don't have a process for that. We have a process for approval, approval, with conditions or denial. And so I I am questioning if the folks of the 4. Are you prepared to have staff

[171:04] draft a denial motion? And if so, are you prepared with the sections of the code and the Bbcp. That would warrant a denial. If you're not prepared, then then maybe we need to continue it again. But that is what's required, and I think that that is the experience we need to learn from, was the raising kings denial. So I will respond to that with, yes, the parking root parking reduction does not meet code. That is my argument for this, and that's why I've been trying to come up with an alternative that would not deny it, but also not allow a huge parking reduction. So I'm going to call on George. And then Laura, and then Kurt yeah. well, I'm trying to think of of where to put this in. So I I really kind of want to keep things moving forward.

[172:05] a. Similarly to your parking reduction comment, I have a very specific item, which kind of dovetails into what Ml. Was putting up, which was the facade on on 20 Eighth Street? and I I think I had put the I had sent a little bit of language to Devin. I don't see it here. Can you put up whatever language George said it was not necessarily official language, but it at this it would help me kind of articulate it. yeah. So so this is addressing one of but probably not enough of what Ml's concern watch, which is the facade facing 28 Street, shall feature a greater articulation, height mass, and break up the facade of the expansive parapet which we heard directly from David, which we had feedback from on the initial concept review to that we got, and it doesn't appear to the developer is listening to anybody relative to this.

[173:06] and this is the entry and exit out of boulder. And it is immensely frustrating that we're here this far into this process, and the developer still has not taken this concern. in. because I think it's a massive concern. And I think everyone on this board has voiced it in one way or another. people may or may not feel as passionately about it, but I don't think there's a single person on this board that hasn't brought this up. and I don't know why the developer hasn't hasn't addressed this to appease the board and dad but it's frustrating because we're in this position now getting to a place where we're a thumbs up and and downing sort of moving the project forward, and I would rather to to your point. There, I'd rather come up with some kind of formula and some direct guidance like this that would allow them to move forward in this process. And so that's that's what I was trying to achieve in this. I don't know that

[174:05] I I I want to be cautious about sending this back to Dab, to and and removing our authority as a board, because we also have the authority to weigh in on these things. And even prior to data in existing. So I put that out there because I'd like to get to specific things like this, or to your parking proposal to get us to a place where we can bring some conditions that we can move something forward. But I also want to acknowledge. what? What other Board members have said especially ones that that have been here for a longer period of time. A lot of this feedback was given, and this is what we got. And now we're in this position, and it's really not incumbent upon this board to give feedback over and over again. And then get something that we're we're not being listened to and then just expected to try to push something forward on behalf of the developer. and it seems like Dad had a similar experience, especially when it comes to this facade fronting 20 Eighth Street. So putting that out there for discussion and trying to move us forward in in some direction. Thanks

[175:17] Jordan, Laura Mark. And then Lisa so related to the discussion of whether to just deny the project entirely, I would be extremely reluctant to do that. You know, the city of Boulder has a well-deserved reputation for being extremely difficult to develop in, and our processes are long. They are expensive. and we have very specific criteria that the developer is required to meet, and they can make a legal argument about how and why they have met them. So if we are going to deny a project one. we have got to make sure we have a rock, solid legal argument of how they have not met those criteria. And so I would be interested to see for the conditions that are being proposed, or for the denial that is being proposed. What code sections, specifically are we saying that we don't think it meets because I think we need that to be able to vote on it.

[176:10] So, George, I think you know you are right, that we have all expressed that we think this project's design could be better if we were going to deny the projects based on the idea that the facade facing 20 Eighth Street doesn't have a good enough articulation and height and massing. Where is that in the code that they are required to, they're asking for height, modification, Laura. There is. There is code specifically around that. Okay, so let's look at the the Height modification section and talk about how it does not meet the requirements. And and maybe your argument is around compatibility with the neighborhood. I'm not sure exactly what the argument is, but I think we need to make it and articulate it so that the whole board can consider it And maybe it's sort of unstated here. But I think I think we need to be really explicit and verbalize it because Staff are going to need that right? I think we're going to rely on staff to actually craft. It is that I think that will be our process

[177:06] that route, and that it's not going to be a sort of it down to exactly. We're going to give the the specifics as articulated as we can, and and then they will. They will definitely help us with the wording. That's for sure. But I think we have to be the ones to point to the code sections that in our judgment as the planning board, it doesn't meet, and why we think that this condition would help it meet it if we do the conditioning route. Mark, then, Lisa, then, Laurel. Sorry about them. I I I concur with Laura and I again. George said. I want to move forward. But with what? Going back to that, if it's our choices are super clear approval, approval with conditions, as as Charles said, that are actionable in detail in the extreme and or denial. So we there is not. There is not a process to go back to death that they would go back. They might go back to Dad if you kill this

[178:15] project and they go through the entire site review process again, which, if that's what we're going to do, and you have the code to support you. Great. Let's let's bring that forward and and make the vote. But I just want to be super clear. We do not have some in between process that says I don't aesthetically like this east wall, and we're going to send it back for Some improvements to the east side of the property. I don't need the parking requirement, I mean, you haven't brought forth your proposal yet, so we'll what I'm anxious to see your proposal. Okay, Lisa, you're next. And then laurel.

[179:00] I, yeah, I this is, it's just so interesting because I I don't. I think it's completely appropriate to tell a developer. This does not mean, I mean, the fact that we have this many proposed conditions, and that we're in a second meeting that has now gone 3 h long, and we still cannot reach any meaning. I mean, I understand it could be a 4, 3 split on denial. But this says to me that this project is not ready. This project is not meeting requirements. Everyone's got a different condition that they're bringing forward, trying to fix it. And then we're all arguing with each other over like whether that's right condition exactly how a word method this is what happens when we provide very clear feedback when we raise a lot of concerns, and and that this is a very experienced developer on Boulder, who addressed a lot of it and has a very constrained site. And it's trying to also make this make sense financially. I appreciate that it's not there yet. And and I and I just don't think there's anything wrong with denying something and saying, Hey.

[180:03] we said this to them. We said it to you again. Now we're saying it one final time it 3 h. And this is where we're at. This is the only thing we've had on our table tonight. I I think that alone should be a sign that something isn't right. And you know, I I I just want to push back against the notion that denying necessarily means that we're not going to prove something, or that we don't want to approve something. I don't think we would have talked about it for 3 h again if we weren't trying to make it work. We're not finding a way to make it work. And I think that's a sign of this project. Just isn't ready. and as for the particulars. I think you're absolutely correct. This is the kind of thing the city can and does get sued over. I will rely on staff to ensure that we do this correctly. but but I just want to point out that I think the truth is in the process. and and that's why we're where we're at now, and it it feels kind of like an impasse in a yuffy place, and I don't see this as meaning that I I am excited to someday vote. Yes, on a version of this project. I'm not there tonight.

[181:01] Laurel. yes, I just wanted to speak to process. So if other board members want to talk before then. I can speak after. why don't you go ahead and speak now? Okay, that sounds good. I just wanted to suggest that if you are going to move forward with this, that we do need a continuance to draft those findings so it can come back before the board and review it. So I just wanted to say that that might be the best path moving forward as far as drafting the actual document of findings. If you guys move forward with the denial. that's kind of what we've done in the past. I think it's what we did with the raising. Keynes mentioned that somebody mentioned a few months ago. So That's just a suggestion, as far as making sure that it's as legally sound as we can make it. Okay, thank you for that laurel. That's very helpful. And I would just like to remind folks that our job is not to always say yes for Job, right? I mean, I realize that there's some comp discomfort for folks. when we are, we can't find agreement on a project, or when the project is not ready for prime time. I you know so, and I realize that that's an uncomfortable position. But it is

[182:12] part of our work to sometimes saying, Say, it's not ready. so I'll leave it at that for right now, Laura, and then mark so I am not of the perspective that this project is not ready. I am ready to vote to approve this project, and I am ready to consider reasonable conditions that other board members might want to put on it. I think that this project would provide. You know, all of the things that we have talked about. It does provide valuable student housing. It's in a prime location for that. It does take a building out of the flood plane that is currently in the flood, plain and and vulnerable. It does improve our open space. It does all of the things that that Danica and her team worked so hard to convince us of what are the benefits of this project? It provide millions of dollars for affordable housing. There's a lot to recommend this project, and I do not see a strong legal reason of how it does not meet the criteria. I know other board members may differ. I will not be voting to deny this project. So I just want to make that clear that

[183:10] even though I might not be thrilled with the design, and think it is the most beautiful architecture I have ever seen. To me it meets the criteria I would vote to approve, and I would vote to I would be happy to consider reasonable conditions like, I think George's condition could be could be added and that that would not kill the project. So I'm not sure that we have 4 people here tonight who would like to vote to deny this project. And I'm hoping that we have some discussion about that mark. I try and and Before our June meeting the first meeting on this subject. I reviewed the planning board minutes from the November for 2,021. I have subsequently reviewed them again.

[184:02] searching for references that say, gee! I hate that these facade there should be more articulation on the north. It's not there, and I just sent the minutes to everyone. and I'm happy to have anyone disabuse me of my reading. But this this I think it's a. It's a a a bit of a a. All of our memories. We struggle at times, and this also speaks to the importance of minutes. so either the minutes are inaccurate. and there was a lot of feedback that didn't get reported. or the minutes. Reflect something that is not fairly being spoken to tonight. Thank you, Mark Lisa. I think before I would have anything meaningful to add to that, I need to literally go listen to the recording of the meeting, but I I think, Mark, you'd be the first person to say that sometimes minutes are not completely comprehensive, and don't capture everything that we say. So thank you for bringing that point up at the end.

[185:14] Thank you, Lisa. So I'm going to take another straw poll. Now you know what I want to do, so I believe that the condition that I have put out here. which has a very wide range for parking reduction issues could be a way forward. It would require the developer, the applicant. Excuse me to kind of go back to the drawing board because they have to meet. They have to come much closer within spitting distance of the actual parking reduction allowances of the code but it would also give them an opportunity to address these design issues that people have raised. I realize that there's at least one person who

[186:01] it would vote for the project, as is no problem. But I'm curious if there are other folks who would be comfortable with a condition like the one I have proposed. That opens up the opportunity for a redesign, and is based in a code for a code variance that is massive and creates the opportunity for them to come back to planning board with a so a building that has that is better designed. more humans scaled and closer to the parking reduction allowances. So. But, Laura, before you say anything, I just want to do a straw poll. Just. It's just a process thing, Sarah. I think if you're asking them to come back to planning board with another design, that is a denial. We don't have a process to improve it with the condition that they have to come back. If we approve it. With this condition, then we would just say, Go forth and do this, and whatever design you come up with is approved, done. We never see it again. With this they'd be working with Staff.

[187:06] and I trust Staff to have heard everything we have said today. And to her everything that Dad said. okay, I mean, I I don't. We have, we basically have 2 points of view right here. One is either to deny, as is end, a story or to create a path forward. I believe that my some version of my condition creates a path forward that is based in code. and also creates the opportunity for addressing almost all the other issues that have been raised by members of the board. Now to me those are the 2 paths that are in front of us. If there is a third path, someone should bring it up. But to me those are the 2 paths. That's what I'm hearing. Mark. And then, Laura.

[188:00] they just want to be clear that you're I I appreciate trusting and staff. I trust in staff. Also. however. I would point out that the trump, the staff brought forth the Concept Review and the recommended motion language. There is the Planning board voted 70, To move this project forward in November of 21. Okay, I'm sorry. I I'm just looking at a different part of that. Excuse me. I I just want to reiterate that it is Staff's recommendation that we approved this project tonight. So and they have. They have not address your concern. So the idea that you create a condition that would

[189:01] markedly or radically change the design. and that it would be up to Staff to meet that condition and go forward, and we never see it again. That's to me. That's not a that that doesn't achieve your ends and your trust and staff to accommodate your design Preferences might be misplaced. so I don't want to put words in Staff's mouth. But Brad just told us they are taking copious notes. They are very clear what our design issues are. They've heard it from us. They heard it at Dad. the the the tool that exists for us to empower staff to work with this developer who has thus far not been responsive necessarily to most of the commentary on mass scale, density, intensity, and design and parking is

[190:08] to require a different formula for their 348 parking spaces, which is all they can fit on to that parcel because of the flood zone and back into a building that is appropriate for 348 parking spaces. I, personally wouldn't want a building to be designed for the parking, but that is, they are asking for a reduction. That is so outside the scope of our code like I cannot I cannot I can't vote for that. I could vote for a building that is smaller, has more of these design features that people are concerned about that I'm concerned about. It's still not going to be a 30. It probably won't be a 30% parking reduction. It'll probably be a 35% parking reduction still problems. But

[191:01] we will get a better design. We will get a better design building. Because Staff has been listening to us. They've been listening to that. And now we have given them a tool. We've given the staff the tool to push the developer to actually respond to our concerns. That's my take on this. You don't have to agree with me. You can vote, we can. But that is my argument for this. So, Kurt. And then, Laura. yeah, just to respond quickly to that. the planning board has the purview to approve any parking reduction. Right? So any parking reduction going through side review is within the scope of the code. So I just want to clarify about that. And secondly, we have seen multiple other student of our hands developments. They have similar parking levels of parking reduction. And so this is not out of the ordinary in that sense. Thank you. I believe we've seen one. And that was a 96 unit building. This is a 303 unit building with 900. And

[192:08] I understand the difference in size. I'm aware of that. The the other one had a 55% parking reduction. There was also a very significant parking reduction that I think was close to 60 for a project that was on Broadway. It was right across from See you. And I think that was a close to a 60% partner. That's the hotel I think you're thinking about. That's the only one that had a such a huge reduction. And that's going to be a mess up there, too. But anyways, we're gonna take a straw. I'm sorry we we have gone over this ground. We're gonna take a straw, Sarah. I have things to say that I have not said. Okay, you say what you haven't said before. Okay. so with parking, as you know, I'm not concerned about that. And one of the reasons why I'm not concerned is because of the physical geography of this site. It's bounded on 3 sides by. There's a creek on one side, and there are major thoroughfares on other sides, and there's no on street parking that is convenient and free anywhere near this building.

[193:11] Students would be very inconvenient to leave their car someplace else for weeks or months at a time, and then come back to it right? So I'm not concerned about the parking, and I think I agree with Kurt that we can approve whatever parking reduction we want. I also want to talk about the height for a second, and I want to make sure. Can we pull up a diagram of what's around this building? We have not yet talked about this. The compatibility with the surroundings which is actually the criterion in the Site Review. Maybe this won't be convincing to anyone. Can we get like a map like the aerial view map that shows what's north, south, east, and west. I think there's on the first packets.

[194:02] here we go. This is a good diagram or a good rendering. So to what is there on left of the screen, which I think is the south side? These are 4 story student housing buildings and a 9 story senior residential facility 9. I counted 9 stories when I walked by there. And then there's see you off in the distance, which also doesn't conform to our height restrictions. That's the south side of the creek. Nothing there is under 4 stories. on the east side, which you can't see. Here is 20 Eighth Street, which is a 6 lane divided highway plus a frontage road. and then on the other side of that is a commercial area. You got dentist's office. You've got doctor's office, you've got insurance and law offices. It's not residential. On the north side of this. You've got a shopping center with a grocery store and a whole bunch of parking. That's part of the Boulder Valley regional center. So I'm not worried about those people and blocking their views. They're just looking at their shopping center

[195:12] and then on the West side. Here you do have a 2 story residential building that I'm not sure everybody knows that has already been approved for demolition, and that developer certainly is not going to come back with a 2 story building. So the surroundings around here, I think, are perfectly compatible with the height exemption that the developer is asking for. This is where we want intensity. And there's there really is nobody here that is in. I mean, it's not like it's single family residential and 2 stories tall anywhere near this building. Right? So I'm not bothered by the height in whatsoever. There's also a wealth of mature trees already on the site. The developer is going to plant more. There are trees along 20 Eighth street in the Median, and along that frontage road that block the view from the east. Like it's just. It's not.

[196:01] There's nothing about this building, and it's already a 60 foot building, right? Like we're not changing the condition. We're not raising the height. I understand that it's a larger building. There's more of the site that is covered. But the height is not being raised here, so I have no problem whatsoever with the height that said, I do want to talk about Sarah's condition in particular. So are you proposed rather than a what is it? A 52% parking reduction going down to 30 to 40, if we go on the high end of that? If we go to a 40% parking reduction. Has anybody done the math of how many units we would be slicing from this project? Are we talking about slicing 100 units? If you're saying something. it's not our job to do the negotiating, it's our job to make a decision on the proposal that is in front. I'm I'm sorry because we I I'm asking what is the impact of the condition that you're imposing. We know what they all are. so we haven't. We don't know how many units we're losing. We don't know how much inclusionary housing we're losing

[197:04] Laura. That's not a condition of approval, Laura. You are directly, Sarah, that we would reduce the parking and then reduce the number of units or the scale and massing. I'm not actually reducing the parking. I am letting them stick with the amount of parking the they are maxed out on the parking that they can have on that part of me. You're reducing the allowable parking reduction and tying that to a reduction in the building itself. So to allow for that level of parking at a 30 to 40% level. Yes, and so that would slice units out of the building to in order to meet that requirement. So I'm trying to understand what is the impact of we if we make that this I don't think it particularly matters what the impact is. I think we could put in a component of this that says something to the effect of if if this is reduced to somehow below the 35 by right like, which I don't think it would be. We allow the 35% by right, or we allow it to be 45 feet or something. But it's up to the I'm I'm trying to come up with a formula. Here, here, here's my take on this lord. You want this building as is.

[198:13] You're fine with it, as is, I think that is the attitude of at least 4 people on this board at this moment. In time. That may be. but I I would like to say one more thing before you cut me off, Sarah mit Ctl. And and that is, I suspect that whatever reduction in in massing and units will simply come out of the fourth floor. It's probably not going to change the building footprint. That's what the applicant is most likely, in my opinion, to come back with. And so one like I said, I don't think that that reduction height is gonna matter. All that much to anybody around here, and what it will do is slice into our inclusionary housing benefit that we get so, which is not a criteria for our. So I just want to say for my fellow planning board members to consider is, it is taking the height down a little bit worth it to you to lose that inclusionary housing benefit which will be the impact of this decision.

[199:04] which I think would be a poor decision. But I understand why some people are arguing for it. Thank you for letting me make my argument all right. So, Lisa, your next and inclusionary housing is not part of our decision making. Lisa, please go ahead. hey? I already said the thing where I again, I I think when we get this crossways with each other we're arguing about 20 different things. It is a sign. and it's fine. We can have a 4, 3 vote. I would really prefer that. We just moved to those 4 3 votes earlier, and council can see that we are split down the middle. If I lose fine. I I I think one I'd like to see as someone who, if I am still on planning board. maybe in Sarah's position next year. I'd like more recognition of the fact that this was an unscheduled meeting during break that we all took time for, and that Sara is trying to run an efficient meeting. We are all starting to repeat points that doesn't mean they are bad points. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't have time to speak.

[200:06] But please think about how much of the time we each are taking up compared to how much other people are talking, and that when we have a split vote, however, that ends up falling out. it's hard. it's emotional. You feel like. Oh, if only I could convince people of my opinion, they would agree with me, because these are smart people who I often do agree with. and when we get into positions like this, which we will other nights as well. Whoever is running the meeting, let's make an effort to defer to them when they are trying to get us to an efficient meeting and trying to get us to a point of getting to a vote before 1010, 30 at night. I don't think that means you're being shut down. I don't think it means you're not being heard, and that that isn't targeted to you in particular, I have felt that we frequently in the past. I think it means we're trying to get to a point where we wrap up the meeting for staff as well, who did not expect to have to be here on this evening, and for the applicant.

[201:01] All right, Mark, if you have something additional to say that has not been said, please say it. Yes. I would request that my fellow planning board members thank very hard before they trade housing for car storage. and that is exactly what is being proposed is a reduction in housing for people in the name of more, better car storage. So that so I'm not going to vote for that. And I would ask that you think about your vote in those terms. George, and then and George, you the last one. And then we're going to figure out what we're doing. Yeah, understood. I I I just have to mention that I that that's as it relates to that. I I don't. I I think that's mischaracterized, and it may be the way you want to characterize it, Mark. I see it as a complete opposite. It's it's voting around the massing and scale on this building.

[202:08] the the parking is finite. so it's the parking is going to exist one way or the other. It's really the massing and the scale of the building that I'm voting on. At least. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. total. Again. I'm going to come back to where we were 5 min ago, which is, we can either vote on the motion or we can vote on, or we can vote on a condition to the motion that creates the opportunity for the applicant and staff to to, to come back to. we to revise the design. taking into account all of the concerns that have been raised at Dab and here. So I'm going to do a straw poll. Who would like to vote just on the

[203:09] suggested motion language right with ml, what do you want to say? I don't think I understood what you just said. Are you saying that? We both, on the motion as it stands vote on the motion with a condition conditions. But if we go on the motion with conditions, it doesn't come back to us. Correct. That. I believe that is correct. Is that correct? Laurel bye? And I believe that Staff have asked us not to vote, to deny until they can craft a motion for us that would be a denial. So we we would be straw polling on a denial. Right? So so can we accept the motion or deny them? Can we let Laurel answer the question, since he's the attorney? Oh, just one. Just one additional question. Since you asked for clarity there. You can move to see it again within 60 days and see it.

[204:12] The project redesigned. I know you had said it could go to Staff. That's one option. If you go to dam and then staff approval. You could also have a come back before you. If you are going to do that, I'd recommend hearing from the applicant. If that's something they would be interested in. If I can get clarification to there, I I'm actually perceived to different things that are being, and maybe about following. It is getting a bit late. Sarah. just for Staff's clarification. Were you doing a straw full on approval, with the condition that the various items that staff that have been discussed, and I'd be resolved at the staff level for approval. Was that your figure out which of the 2 paths we're going to go down, which is either vote for approval, as is because we haven't even voted. We have not voted on any of these conditions, or

[205:10] are we uncomfortable with a vote on a condition on the motion, with the condition of the the back, the backwards map, whatever. It's 30 or 35 or 40%, which then sends it back to to a process by which the the applicant and staff would work to redesign. And then they could incorporate all these comments that we made in 21 and are making again now, and that Dab made because that, remember, Dab was not looking at code planning code. They were looking at design code. So that's that's I'm trying to. I'm trying to give us a a set of options. Right? We either vote specifically on the prop. But the milk motion that the staff suggested

[206:02] for a motion that allows this project to move forward but requires changes. That's what I'm trying to get to. Okay in in the general. If it does go that way, we would need to have a conversation about the precise direction on those changes. So we'll we'll circle back if we go to that direction. Okay, and let me let let me just ask one more question. I think it's of either laurel or red. If we were to vote first on the suggested motion language and it gets voted down, it is denied we don't get a chance to vote on a second motion language with a condition that would allow it to move forward. But with changes is that correct? You? You you can make a million motions and votes. You can do vote on the same thing multiple times before the meeting includes. Okay. I did want to clarify to you with what Laura said. We can move to deny the application. We'll just have. I move to den on the application and direct the city attorney and planning board to craft finding. So there's there's a way you can do it if you move to the denial. Just so, you know.

[207:04] Okay. ml, and then Lisa. please bread come back. So, Brad, you said something. That was very intriguing in that. It sounded like you said that we could. and I don't remember if the path was some kind of a motion, or or what, but that staff could take into account all of the concerns that have been put on the table tonight. And craft. What did you say? Oh, well, I I didn't. I didn't elaborate on the second one, so I'll do so now. My understanding says that you're positioning 2 different strawberries, one approval on the proposal as

[208:01] brought forward second approval on the proposal with a variety of conditions to be satisfied by staff. What I was going to elaborate on is, that is probably that not probably that's not enough direction for us to ever resolve that matter. So we would need to have it be more precise than that. that. That leaves too much interpretation for us. even though we are taking copious nodes to distill all of that into a complete realization of of what that condition might be. So. I'm hearing that we that the condition could be more inclusive than the parking if it was just the parking, and that was the condition as as long as that was state. Clearly I I understood that the structural suggestion was to

[209:02] incorporate all of these various different elements that I've talked about including such, so we could conceivably have let me just let me just put out something as an idea. We could conceivably vote on a motion of approval. with the condition of something related to the backwards math. and a redesign, or a revision of design to be more to to address pedestrian, whatever the language was that you were referring to Ml, and some of the we'd have to figure out exactly how to say it. But there would be a way, I think. to craft a condition that creates the guidance that incorporates what we've been hearing tonight. And do any of these options read that include that the projects comes back to us.

[210:03] boy! There, there's a lot you're asking right now, so let me try to break it apart here. If if you craft a condition that's very discreet, like with the condition that the paths be shortened to the satisfaction of staff. That's actionable if it's just shortened period that that doesn't give us any. You know enough clarity on on how to make that actionable. if it's. you know. take into account all the design considerations that have been discussed that's too broad for us to be able to bring to conclusion. So it seems like the specifics we've heard. And, Lisa. I'm sorry to to jump ahead. We've heard specific requests on the pedestrian path. We've heard a specific request on the east wall. We've heard a specific request from Mark about protecting

[211:01] or defining the open space and the public nature of the public space and the public nature of the open space and we we have it. Some we have at least, I think, 3 who are comfortable with using the utilizing the parking reduction issue as an opportunity to reduce the mass and scale of the building like that's what I think. I'm hearing from everybody. We've kept track of those. We we have some language for each of those, and we can bring them up individually. And you can. You can discuss them individually. All right. Lisa, you had your hand up. Yeah, I'm at at risk of not taking my own earlier advice. I guess I'll try to be brief, but I would just reiterate that. But to me there, there too many disparate sprinkled all over the place, conditions to be able to get to a good place on this, and that's why my recommending station would be one. I I'm not sure if 60 days is enough for the applicant, and we might want to hear from the applicant on that. If we want to consider kicking it back and then seeing it soon, I I don't know if they'd like more time.

[212:08] or my bias would be toward denial for them to be able to take all this in and and incorporate it. It it it feels like we're conditioning every little thing on this property and and that just doesn't seem good. you know, so it to either accept it or to deny it. And then, you know, to address them. All's question about. Does it come back? Well, if it were to end up that we have the votes to deny, then yes, it would have to come back. We would see it again. Mark, you have your hand up. You just want to point out that Lisa talked earlier about efficient meetings and sympathy for the chair, running an efficient meeting. one of the things that it's incumbent upon upon us all. and I suggested that at the last meeting is come to this meeting with your conditions written and prepared and formalized, this idea of

[213:09] of of we are, we are, you know, going on 3 h. 3 and a half with, and we have not. People are operating on the fly. I think people have been unprepared. and and that is what is driving the length of this. My suggestion in the email today was to come with your motion, and we address conditions and and vote up or down. So this particular methodology has fallen apart and the straw poll is not working. We operate under a system of motions and votes, and I suggest we get on with motions and votes, and if you have a motion that you want us to vote on.

[214:02] put it down on paper and put it in front of us rather than the circuitous path that we're on. Mark Mark. I have tried very hard today to give everyone the opportunity to put their conditions which people all came to this meeting with. and I am seriously, I do not appreciate your criticism, especially since your own emotion was it could be a or it could be. The opportunity is for us to talk about the motions. I am happy right now to make the motion that suggested by Staff, and if it gets voted down it gets voted down. What I've been trying to do is to create the opportunity for us to vote on something that wouldn't vote it down, but would give the applicant the opportunity to revise their proposal so that it better fits our criteria. That's what I've been trying to do you. The fact that you don't want me to. You don't. You don't like my Mo. My condition? Okay, that's fine. You don't have to like the condition, but we are options here are pretty limited. We can either vote on the motion Yay or A, or we can create a motion that would create a path forward for the applicant.

[215:17] but they would have to revise their proposal like, those are the 2 options. That's what I'm that I think it's pretty straightforward. So if you'd like, we can vote on the suggested motion as is, I don't know whether it'll get approved or not. I I think it's a 3, 4 vote at this point or a 4 3 vote. But we can vote on that if you want me to. If you want to. Do you want okay, we'll do it. Who would like to make the motion to approve the site and use review application. Lor. 221, and the proposed amendment to the Bvrc. Transportation connections plan adopting the staff memorandum of findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Would someone like to make that motion?

[216:09] I will make that motion. Okay, move motion to approve. I'm sorry. Go ahead with someone like the second. The motion mark you're on mute. Mark is seconding the motion. I will second the motion. Okay? Oh, is there discussion of this motion? Okay, I'm going to read the motion, and then we will vote. I think that there's the opportunity to add amendments if folks want, I think that's part of the process. But thank you, Sarah, please go ahead we will vote on this motion, yay, or nay, and then we can vote on a separate motion. because that's what we can do. Here. Is that correct laurel you don't you want to add them amendments at this point before you vote on the full motion. So it's been moved and seconded. And, Sara, I think you.

[217:02] if I could just clarify. I think Sarah is trying to get a vote on just the motion as it exists. If it gets mooted, voted down, then people could restate the motion, adding amendments. So let us. I would like us to vote, please, just on this motion. It's exactly what Mark just asks for. So let's do it. Is there any discussion of this motion? Okay, I'm going to read the motion, and then we will vote on it. Motion to approve, fight and use Review. Application, L. U. R. 202-20-0020ne, and proposed amendment to the Bvr. C. Transportation connections plan adopting the staff memorandum of findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. Laura yay. mark Lisa. Okay. George Kurt.

[218:00] Yes. no. Sarah is a no. So the motion is failed. So we now have an opportunity to consider a second motion. Does someone have a second motion? I would make the same motion hope for a second, and let people have the opportunity to amend it. If people want to add conditions, it would be my strong preference for us to see if we can approve something tonight. If the applicant doesn't like it and doesn't want to implement it, they can always just come back with something else. They're not obligated to implement it. So I would like to see if we can make their plan work for them. So I make the motion. I move to approve site and use review application, Lor. 2,022, and the proposed amendment to the Bvrc. Transportation Connections plan adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. I second, that

[219:00] we just voted that down. Laura people have the opportunity to add conditions. That's our second option is to approve the motion with conditions. So now, this is the normal process. People can suggest amendments to the motion to add your conditions. Is that right, laurel? Yes, that's right. So if somebody wants to make an amendment, they can do that now. So, Sarah, if you would like to add your proposed amendments, or if you'd like to discuss what is the appropriate parking reduction to put into the amendment before you add it, I think. Now is the time to do it. Well, okay. So my condition would be that we allow the we allow the applicant to have the 348 parking spaces, which is the maximum that they are allowed that that it's not that they're allowed. It's the maximum that they can build. They can have given the limitations of the parcel. and that they have to work backwards from that number.

[220:00] To get to a it could be 30, it could be 35. It could be 40% parking reduction. And I'm happy to have that discussion. but it would allow for over a revision of the design of the building. You state that as a motion, as a motion to amend high move. It's a it's a it's a it wouldn't be, an it's it's still begins. Moral, correct. I move to condition the motion with this specific set of words. I mean that that that is the process. Correct? Yeah, thank you. It would be. I moved to amend. We've been using condition language, and I know it sounds kind of funny, but since you're admitting the actual motion to add this condition. to allow the 348 parking spots, but require the applicant to reduce the mass and scale of the building until those 348 parking spots are equivalent to

[221:05] fill in the number, I would say 30 or 35% parking reduction to the number of dwelling units per code regulation. You could say 30 to 35% give a range 30 to 35%. Ml. so question, Sarah, the number of that you're using 335 is that 348 is the maximum number. It's it's the number they're requesting right now. But it is. That's a that number is a 52.2%. Reduction from the number of dwelling units. So you're saying, approve the number that they're asking for. but which would then trigger they're having to revise the math and scale of the building, so that that number the 348 is equivalent to 30, or between 30 and 35 of a parking requirement. So it it require it forces the building to become smaller. Right?

[222:10] How many are they proposing right now? 348. Oh, that's what they've got now, and that requires a significant 52.2% parking reduction. So so the impact is, we get the same amount of parking. But we get less housing correct. I mean, we could reduce the amount of parking. I mean, I'm trying. I'm trying to get us to within spitting distance of code. I understand. So that's what I'm trying to get to. So just as a matter of formality care, Silver would need a second, and then you can have a debate about it. And then do we have on this amendment? Do we have a second? The debate? a second. Okay.

[223:00] okay. Discussion. I. It's, I think this is an interesting amendment because it's and it's reverse. And I can understand how it can be polarized into some people. So I I it may fail and we may need to. We look at how to maybe restate it in a different way. Because I I I I see Mark's point of view relative to this this positioning of par parking over housing right? And and Laura and and I don't think that's how it is intended. but I see how people could polarize that conversation around it. so I'll put it out there that I'm supportive of the concept of what it's trying to achieve. but I also think, I I don't know the another mechanism that we can get there, but I think what you're trying to do is address the mass and scaling of the building. Not the parking, but you're using the parking to do that. so I'm supportive of the amendment. but I'm also supportive of someone coming up with a different amendment. If this fails to address the same thing in a different mechanism, if we can think of one. Thank you

[224:24] all right, Lisa. Then Ml, and then Mark. very similar to George. We still try to be brief. I appreciate the creativity of this and the thought and effort, that when, like you obviously thought about it beforehand, it came up with a way to to try to condition it, to get to address at least your concerns, which may be shared by other board members. this may just be a personal preference, but like I, even though I know this is how code works and how law often works my knee-jerk responses that I don't love condition trying to get to an end by conditioning a different thing, and it kind of being this round about thing. I'm not saying I have a better solution I don't like. That's why I keep talking about like let's just deny it, which may or may not be supported. you know. But but I I appreciate where you got there. I'm I'm not sure I have a yes, code on it, because I I think it's

[225:16] I think it's creative which I love, and I love, that you brought an actual condition to try to move it forward. But ultimately I have concerns, is kind of trying to get somewhere in a complex way that I'm not sure will get us to the actual outcome we want, and I'd sort of like to see this come back to planning board honestly, because it's just not there yet, and I do trust staff, but I wouldn't mind seeing this project again. Amel. so, Sarah, I'm I'm kind of where Lisa is. and I guess, George. it's I'm not I. Is there a way? And I know this isn't speaking to your to your amendment. But

[226:00] and this might be a question for laurel. Is there a way that we can propose the height variance for a percentage of the project. so that the entire site isn't given. The Hi. like you do with it like appointments like moving, having it set back like that. Is that what you mean? I know. What I'm saying is that can. you know 60 of the buildings be at that height, and the rest have to comply with what the existing code I mean, that will specifically start to break down the massing that will cause a redesign of the severity of the long corridors, the unbroken buildings. You know these kinds of It's not very livable for for pedestrians. It might house a lot of students.

[227:05] but it's not creating a an environment that is liable. And I mean, imagine you're on the third story, and you're one of those interior courtyards, and you're looking across 25 p. It and another person's window. It's there's a lot of pieces that aren't speaking to the values that are embedded in our and some of the cold things that I pointed out. And I'm wondering. can we do that? And if so. this isn't about this particular amendment to the motion. But you can do it. You would have to go. You'd probably I'd recommend sending it back to Dab to review because it sounds like there would be some design changes based on what you're talking about. Well, it will. It is just like qualifying the height.

[228:01] We accept the height variance for you know 60% of the buildings period good would start to release some of the some of the issues with the context. The buildings to the north and the buildings to the west are like 19 to 23 feet tall. And that's the building that are posted to it. It's not about a view or not. It's just about scale. What's happening in those interstitial spaces. Right? This is gonna be. This is, gonna be good. So that's that's my. That's my concern, Sarah, and that's why I'm hesitating to to believe that the parking. The strategy that you're proposing

[229:04] is. since it's not gonna come back to us. We're not. Gonna we don't know what will happen. We don't know how this is going to play out. but a posting, a percent reduction. We know what's gonna happen. It's gonna be shorter. and we don't know exactly where or how, but it will be shorter. and hopefully they will speak to some of the issues. But that's why I'm hesitating about the part. That's fine. May I suggest that you consider that as a separate condition, and then we can vote on this one and and then move forward. I'm prepared to go to a vote on this, because I see I don't have the vote. So unless Mark and Laura have something additional, they want to add. I I just want to say that if this amendment fails, I think that there could be an amendment that is something along the lines of having varied form and height along certain facades to break up the massing. I think we could craft an amendment like that that would probably succeed.

[230:02] So I just wanted to put in a vote for that. But I think we can maybe get to the same place. Sarah, you had said. Maybe if someone has a different amendment that could help achieve the same results. so I wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right. So we will vote on the condition. I guess we don't even need to vote on the position, because we know we don't have. We don't have the. I don't have the votes. Since you had a motion in a second, you'll have to vote on this one. Okay? So the condition. So we have to vote on the entire motion with the condition. Just the amendment. Yeah. So my. the language again, is amendment to condition, right motion to to amend as well with a condition that would allow the 348 parking spots, but would require the applicant to reduce the mass and scale of the building until those 348 parking spots are equivalent to a 30, or between a 30 and 35% parking reduction relative to the number of dwelling units for code regulations.

[231:02] All right. Do I need to repeat that, or does that count? As the repeat. I come to the 0 P. And then. Lisa. no. Mark got it about. No. George. George, you're you're muted. Yes. correct. no. And Sarah is a yes, so it fails 5 to 2. Okay. next. Ml, did you want to? Do? You want to try to? Do you want to try to craft something, or do you, or do you want to? So we just move to continue and have have staff explain why we're denying why we're denying this proposal. I think we have a motion on the floor that we would have to vote down before we could move on.

[232:01] we've already voted down the motion. We just put it down the amendment. Yeah. So you'd have to vote on the actual motion that Laura. Well, I think that if people want to offer another amendment, a different amendment like, if George wanted to offer his amendment about breaking up the mass like this is where we can add all the conditions that we want to add, and then see if the package is something that people can vote for. So George had a condition about like adding a pedestrian through fair on 20 Eighth Street, I think. or if you wanted to add something about varied roof line on 20 Eighth on that facade to break down the massing, or I would leave it up to George to to craft what you think would work for you, and the group might be able to agree to. I I think I got to a point where I kind of feel like what Lisa was saying, which was, we've gotten to a point of too many things, and I I think that I'm not prepared to move that forward.

[233:00] So there's a motion on the floor. Does anyone have an amendment? Ml. and I probably need some. I I asked the question to laurel already. considering an amendment that would reduce the height modification to only a percentage rather than a hundred percent of the project. No, at some point you need to make them up. You need to move, to amend, followed by words that we can, that we can debate and vote on. And so I understand. I understand. So I'm trying to figure out how to get there. I'm trying to figure out how to get there because there's I understand from moral that we can do that. And what I've tried to get a sense of is

[234:02] Are there any? I guess Presidents are limiting factors that would suggest a percentage. For who's that? Yeah, you you can do that. I think. one of the other options you could do is wait on this motion and continue, and then have language drafted for the next continuance. But we could work on in language together to if you would like to do that instead. it kind of depends on what the Board would like to do if they want to continue this hearing to have those findings drafted, or or if we want to try and do it, can I just call on? Let me call on Lisa and see if he yeah, I I don't have an amendment now, and and I'm I'm so sorry. I sound like a a broken record here, but once again we're pushing up against 100'clock. so I, I would suggest that one way or another, again, it might be appropriate to continue it. And I again, I think the fact that we get so caught up in this is is indicative of where the projects that but I I I would be happy to support, probably either of those depending on exactly the language. But either

[235:04] you know, doing a full, formal denial, or just saying like, Hey, we're gonna try to keep amending this. and as much as we all, I assume, as much as me, kind of hate that we might be coming back and looking at this again. You know that that we're going to try to do something, because I do think that your idea and all is, is a creative one. And it was interesting to me when we were staring at the kind of the overhead aspect that Laura, you, I think, intelligently asked them to put up there, that what I was seeing was just yeah, just the massing and how it doesn't step down toward the creek, and it doesn't step down toward anywhere else. And it's these weird, narrow channels. rooms looking at each other, and which is the same feedback we gave last time. you know. yeah. And and so I I'm just again. I I think we're kind of at the time of night where I I personally don't trust my decision making. I don't want to say I don't trust anyone else's I think it'd be appropriate to either. Continue and try to do amendments, and I I believe, Laurel correct me if I'm wrong. But we can individually like, if not not 2 or more playing board members talking to staff. But we can individually talk to staff and request support on crafting

[236:09] amendments or motion language. Right? We we can. I mean it. It takes up your time, obviously. But I think we are allowed to do that. Yeah, you're allowed to do that, and we could also do it, you know, if you want to do it right now, if you give me a few minutes, I can work with Staff to create something, but that's just a thought. But you can work with me individually, but I think Brad has his hand up. So I don't know if it's okay. If, Brad. yeah, I'm a little worried, we're conflating things. One is, if the original motion, which is the same motion. That was a gets voted without amendments. Then that represented as Nile, and we would just ask that, you. you know, give instruct staff to come back with findings. I think we're conflating that option with the option of email making an amendment. But then putting it in language that that has an amendment to

[237:01] to do something. So I think that's the request on the table for that that option of the 2, and I just want to make sure, we're not conflating things here. Can I ask a process question thank you, Sarah. so I think that laurel mentioned one, other option. And I would be interested in getting data on this, which is, we could move to continue for 60 days and let the applicant come back with a new proposal based on what they've heard, and she said we'd want to check with the applicant on whether that's even something that they're interested in. I would be interested to know if the applicant thinks that they can come back in 60 days with something that we might be able to approve it. Can we ask the applicant that what do you say? The applicant is prepared to answer that question. If you did that, you know, if if they weren't yeah, so they are prepared to answer that question as opposed to them. Okay, applicant, where are you? I'm here. I just don't. I can't turn my video on I'm sorry. women, Devin, will you turn her video back on.

[238:09] please? Hmm! There you are. Hi! Thank you so much for your deliberation. I I think our preference would be to get a decision tonight and be able to move forward. it versus a continuance. I think you're getting close, and we would like to If you're interested. We could propose some options for redesigning the east facade and pulling back some of the building, and you know it. That seems to be where the concentration of focus is on the architecture, and we would be willing to work with dab and staff to achieve that. but I think a continuance at this point would probably not be in the best of all of our interest, and so we'd love to get to a decision. Be happy to talk to you about that.

[239:08] Okay, so I'm inclined, if it works for folks, to offer a proposed amendment in line with what Danica just described, and see if that works for the board that we could approve this tonight with a condition something along the lines of that along the east facade along 20 Eighth Street. The building height would step down and the massing would be broken up with a pedestrian corridor or something like that. and if if the East aside is not enough, we could talk about other places where the massing needs to step down. But let's let's think about whether we can approve something tonight. I'm not sure that we're gonna I mean, maybe people are too brain dead, and they just want to continue it. That's fine, too. I I would defer to what people want, but I would like to try to see if we can improve something tonight. It's my preference, but I defer to the chair.

[240:00] Lisa. Sorry. I'm just trying to figure out as you and be talking. I I I think my concern is that at this time I and I don't mean this. I think I would have phrase it very similar to how you did, Laura, that I feel like well, we could do something like this or something like that. Or maybe if we did this, this would sort of start to fix it. And I just I don't. I don't think that's what we should be doing on this plan, and I don't think it's an issue doing at this time of night, you know I so I I would be more supportive of either a continuous to keep talking about this. I'm just concerned that we're going to get caught up in exactly the same conversation. We're having right now. or applicants heard a lot. They have a strong sense of what we want, staff through a lot. one or another. I'd love to see this come back, and I totally appreciate that 60 days of what they want. That's fine. But I I just I I don't know I've never. I haven't known from the beginning how to condition this in a way that fixes all of the things. and I I still don't know. Now at 100'clock at night. so at least, what is your what is your proposed

[241:03] actions? Hmm, sorry, Danica. I I would like to vote on the condition again on it as proposed, without an amendment. or if we don't, so that I'd like to continue okay. I believe the motion is still on the floor without an amendment. So we need to vote again. Okay, so unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to. we read this suggested motion, and we will vote on it again as it without any condition. motion to approve site and use review application. Lu. R. 221, and the proposed amendment to the Vvrc transportation connections plan adopting the staff memorandum and findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review. Criteria.

[242:01] Laura. Yes. Lisa. no. Ml. no. Mark. Yes. yes. George. and Sarah is a no, so it fails. 4 to 3. Sarah, do we now need to ask stuff to Pr like what Laurel was saying about making sure that we do this a legally defensible way. Do we now need to direct Staff to provide that back to us? Or what? What is the right step? And maybe that's a question for a little of breath. Then the next up, I think, is the right. So you just turned on the motion to accept. So now you need either a motion or a continuance either way. the motion to deny if that's the route you guys want to go, and I can give you like some language I can replace some language to deny and then direct us to font. Do findings or do a continuance, or if there's another option to And, Brad, I saw it. Yeah, apologies.

[243:08] Let me just put this out there, brand. You can respond to it. My suggestion would be that we vote on a motion to continue, and if it passes it passes, and if it fails it fails, and then we know we have to vote on a motion to deny. What do you think, Brad? That's certainly the Board's prerogative. I think we've heard the applicants say that they're not particularly interested in continuance, and I think that means under brilliant circumstances. to to clarify and build on what Laurel said. If there's a motion to deny I would recommend folks give just a very. You don't have to be lawyers. Just give a brief statement of what? Why, you are denying it. And then, as part of the motion, direct staff to capture that in a motion for DNA, memo for future. approved yeah, so it could look something like it. If it's a very prat, if I just jump it inside, I move to deny this application and direct the city attorney and planning director draft findings that are consistent with this discussion and bring it back to the Board's consideration at X meeting something like that.

[244:15] Okay, So that sounds good. Can we just ask Devin to kind of type that up while George gives his comments? Yeah, yeah, Brad, sorry. I just wanted to clarification what you just said. So you you're suggesting that we don't vote on a continuance. I I'm just saying the applicant has really asked to not do that, but it's completely well in the, in the the purpose of the just to clarify what the purpose of the continuance basically to continue this conversation and potentially come up with some, all some some things that some conditions that would allow it to move forward. Is that right? Absolutely your prerogative to do that. I think the applicant is reflecting, and I I don't want to speak for her if you want to have them speak again. But

[245:03] my understanding is, she was agreeing that there seems to be a a split of opinions and many conditions that may not be reconcilable at the end of the day. Yeah, I I at least I I mean I'll speak myself, for as a board member I I don't think I'm in it. I I don't think I'm in a place necessarily where I'm suggesting full denial, and to to the extent that what Laura was talking about, for instance, that he's faced with that. That was a specific condition that I brought up. I I just think that was one specific condition of a several, and to what Lisa is saying is, now this meeting has gone on for 4 h. I I'm not opposed to trying to bring this to conclusion and a continuance, because I do think that there is a possibility that we could move something forward with the right amount of conditions. But I don't know that at least a number of us are in a frame of mind that we can get there right now. It's not my preference to continue, but I don't have another solution beyond denial. And I I don't know if that's the right thing

[246:09] for the project, either, because I liked where Ml. Was going with a number of things, and I think we could get to greater specificity and come to probably agreement where we could get, you know, 5 or 6 votes to to move it forward, and then be in a comfortable place. At least, that's my my my opinion. Ml, and then lead the Ben Laura. I think Laura had her hand up for, sir. Oh, sorry, Laura. I'm sorry. I'm just going by. Who's in line? That's okay. I I think that. no. I would not want to move to a denial on the assumption that that's what the applicant prefers without checking with them, because I think what I heard Danica say was that she thought we could get there. And so that sounds to me like, if we can't get there tonight. And I agree, it sounds like people are not able to do to stay the amount of time that would absolutely take for us to get there tonight. So I'm in favor of a continuance. If folks think we can get there

[247:06] And our next next time we pick this back up, and I think that is what Danica expressed, she would like to. But if we're going to do a denial, thinking that that's what the applicant wants, I think we should check first. I think. Thank you for asking, Laura. I think our we've worked really hard on this for 3 years. I think it's a very large project. It's complex. We have listened to your feedback and all of the boards and staff. I think, continuing it without. you know, just continuing this discussion was, I'm not sure that we're going to get there. We we have heard feedback around certain elements of the project. That's why I offer the east facade that keeps coming up. It's the gateway into boulder. It's the most visible part of the site. And so we were, you know, if there was a condition that could be crafted to look at, how to make that more interesting, more dynamic, you know. If if we could create a beacon on the on the north side of the project, or, you know, break up the facade on the east, change up the materials, you know. I think those types of direction would be very helpful to us. At this point where I think we don't know if we can get.

[248:16] We can go away by ourselves for 60 days and come back with something that meets your expectation. So we would like to get direction to move forward with conditions. but a continuance at this point without clear direction is difficult. We have been working on this. We have a huge team with great architects. We're willing to take that direction. We just, we do need it at this point. And so a continuation to ha! To have this discussion without clear direction is challenging for us. I'm sorry, but if I could ask Danica, I think your choices are between. We continue this discussion, or we deny tonight, which would you prefer? Because I don't think that people are prepared to give you that direction tonight.

[249:01] I I guess I I would call on. I am not the developer, so I would ask my client, Andrew or Rob to join in and make that final decision, because if we're continuing it to craft conditions, I think that's one thing. If we're continuing it and you, we want us to come back with something different. I don't know if we can do that without clear direction. So oh, I I think it's the first. I think it's we would be continuing it so that the board can craft conditions. Is that right, Sarah? We've been trying to craft conditions for a total of 8 h, and we have not been able to do it. So I don't know that we I'm not sure we'll be able to find conditions if you all think that, having this conversation a third time. I'm happy to have a vot emotion on that, but it's a we haven't been able to do it yet. So

[250:00] Andrew, can I ask you to join with landmark to make this decision that I I feel like it shouldn't be up to me. Yeah, I'm here. I don't think I can start my video Devin. Can you turn on Andrew's video, please? is it working? Yup? We can see you? So I you know I agree with Tanaka. It's, I guess, a little bit unclear to me. What the what we would be doing in the in a 60 day period. if it's potentially something that we could do is maybe a shorter continuance to come back. I I think the from what I've heard. there are many things that the Board likes about our project. but there are some things that you would like to adjust through conditions. It seems like we've you know, we've had a very long discussion tonight.

[251:06] and I think to some extent run out of steam and coming up with the condition that that works for the board. which you know. seems like a a real loss for the project to end up in denial because of that And so, you know, our our strong preference is to not wait 60 days to come back and and have this conversation, but instead. give the board, you know, potentially a chance to to come back with conditions that we can reach an approval under, you know, A, with the benefit of a clear mind and some more time to think through the conditions. I'm I'm going to go to Brad first. I just want to share that. If the Board is interested in a continuance that would be sooner, we would be able to do in the August eighth a special meeting as one option.

[252:01] Okay. ml, you have your hand up. but you're still. You're still muted. and by my UN, you but I I think that what we're getting at is so, Brad, you're suggesting August, so we don't have a meeting scheduled for on the state you suggest. We create one rather than put it on the fifteenth. Our schedule is still on the 50. Yeah, we're actually full until September. Got it. I think that the idea of a continuance to be able to craft a motion or to get to craft amendments that would get this motion approved. would be something that I'd be interested in. I don't. There is.

[253:01] There's a lot about this project that is good, and then I'm supporting. I am not. I think that there is some lethal gets to the massing and the pedestrian experience. with these long buildings, and I don't know how to craft that amendment. on the fly tonight. Well, I would say, ml, that I don't think tonight's gonna be a night where we craft any amendments at this point. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is some coalescing around willingness to continue the hearing, including from the applicants. He would prefer not to be 60 days. But the truth is, our schedule is very packed. We have board meetings every Tuesday, apparently, except for Tuesday, the eighth of of August, when it sounds like we may now have one on Tuesday, the eighth of August.

[254:00] so If can I just get a thumbs up? If people which which staff are in, not staff, I'm so sorry which board members are open to a continuance thumbs up 1, 2, 3 for in 5. Okay, so we're at a Mac. We have. We have a majority. So I'm sorry, Devin. We're going to need you to redraft that motion that you just directed about denial and redirect it as a continuance. and and then we'll have to figure out with direction from Staff. how we go about breaking the log jam because we have a log jam. and I'm not sure it's as simple as just the East, I I think. There, I think it's more complicated than that. to Lisa's point that there are multiple. We each of us has our own little thing we're trying to widget with. And

[255:01] I'm a little concerned that when we have our continuance hearing, we're going to end up in this exact same place. and But we have a majority of people who want to continue in. So we will do that, and we'll make a motion, and we'll vote on it, and I'm sure it'll pass, and then we will have a continuance. But I think we need help from staff to get past our log G, and we're not going to do it tonight. But maybe we can talk about it in matters at our maybe our next meeting, or we'll find a time to collectively discuss laurel. You have your hand raised. and I just wanted to say it before you move to continue. I was any correct about being able to help you draft your your amendments, that since it is caused that additional hearing, since we are continuing it. It is a matter for the board. so I would recommend to try and draft something, and then I can help.

[256:00] or and the staff can help create these actual yeah, drafting. So apologies for that. That's my, I'm just concerned. We're going to just end up right back in the same washing machine. Okay, I'm Mark. And then, Laura. Oh, I I I actually want. have Laurel repeat that this, the the time between our the last meeting where we reviewed this and this meeting. I had to ask you and hella about contact with other board members about staff, and so is quasi judicial and my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we cannot. I can't call up Kurt and say, Hey, what do you think about this condition, and I can't call up at Stafford and say, Hey, Ed, what about we move that curb cut on 20 Eighth Street? So is it. It is my understanding is

[257:00] that it is incumbent upon us to draft conditions essentially on our own. and that at the meeting. then anyone can comment, argue for or against supplement. But until then we are on our own. So and I I see back, I jump on. So I'm just gonna jump in and and say this, and then Brad feel free to to add whatever you'd like, so you can contact staff can't contact each other because it's qu judicial. It's supposed to be in front of the in front of the public. you can contact us. It's subject to disclosure. we just can't draft the like amendment language for you. because it is an amendment of the board. Does that make sense? But you can calls with questions or anything like that, and Brad feel free to jump in if you have any thoughts about that. But that's my understanding. I was gonna I just say that. yeah, there's a distinction. You you can definitely contact staff to get clarifications on the case. Hey, Edward? I'm thinking about crafting a condition that does this

[258:05] 28. What what would be the effect of that, you know. That's that's information gathering. You can get that from us through the process. But look. Laurel, right? I just wanna commend the board members and staff and the applicant for we. We're working hard on this. We're trying to make something work, and I appreciate everybody's good will and patience with each other as we are moving through this. I will offer. I will volunteer to go back to the video and look at what everybody has said about conditions and try to craft some language. Obviously I have my own opinions about this, and I would have been happy to approve this project as is, but I do think it's important that we, as a board in, in in deference to the great amount of effort that the applicant team has put forward to try to get this to work, to try to offer something that would work for us. So I'm going to put my own feelings aside, and try to draft something that I think perhaps the Board can take up next time.

[259:04] subject to the board tinkering with, and all of our normal process. But I will at least try to break the log jam as you said, Sarah. So If that is okay with folks, or even if it's not, I'm gonna give it a shot, so you'll see what I produce and see if you like it or not. All right. Well, thank you, Laura for taking that on? Okay, Devin, do you by chance have a motion for us? Okay, I'm gonna make a motion. Do I need to? I must need to list the site review number. So I move to continue this. The site review for for the Board's consideration at the August eighth special planning board meeting

[260:03] a second. Okay? Any discussion. any conditions. any amendments? Okay? I'm going to read. I'm going to reread the motion. I move to continue the Site Review for for the Board's consideration at its August the Eighth Special Planning board meeting. Okay, Laura. Yes. Lisa. Yes. Mark. Yes, George. yes, yes, yes. Sarah is a yes, okay. We'll be back right here on the eighth of August. Okay, Brad, you have your hand up.

[261:00] Yes, I didn't want to interrupt the flow. And it's not substantively a problem. But we do need a motion to hold a special meeting on August 8. And second and approval. Okay, do. I just say a motion? okay. we have make a motion to approve a special planning board meeting for August eighth, 2,023 to review L. U. R. 202-20-0020ne. So moved. Okay, any discussion. I was seconded by Laura. All right. Do I need to reread it? Bread? No? Okay, Laura. Yes. Lisa. Hi. smart. Yes. Kurt. Yes. George. Yes. Ml, yes.

[262:00] and Sarah is a Yes, okay. Brad, and then Laurel, and then hopefully, we can wrap this one up. Brad. Go ahead. I. I have no comments at this point. Okay, you're just. You have your hand up residual hand. I just wanted to remind the board. just really quickly, since this is a continuation of a cause I digital hearing. Be careful of exparte contacts, if there's any outside information that should be that you get, please make sure to share it with the Secretary of the board with Devin, so that you can share it with everybody just as a reminder, since the continued quasi additional hearing. Okay, thank you very much, Laura. Just a real quick announcement again about the Airport Open House. This is an opportunity to see the 4 scenarios and register your opinion. July eighteenth, 4 to 6 pm. It's before our planning board meeting. It's on a drop in basis. There will be a staff presentation. at 4 30 pm. And again at 5 20. If you want to see the staff presentation, and there will also be another be heard boulder survey, and it'll be open from July twelfth to July 30. First, I will send you all of this in writing. But I just want to remind people this is going on, and your input is very welcome as individuals, not speaking for the board, but just as individual residents of Boulder.

[263:19] Okay, thank you. all right. I am adjourning this meeting. Everyone go home and go to sleep. Good night. Thank you.