August 8, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Deja on. Thank you on sorry I'm I'm operating with one tiny little laptop today. So my apologies, we are having a hearing today on allergies LUR. 2, 0 2, 2 0 0 2, one the current millennium, harvest house and proposal is for the standard. Alright. Hold on. I just gotta get back to the visual. Okay? So because it's a special hearing, we will have open comment on any issue other than this particular project. Then we will go directly to the public hearing item the applicant will have 10 min to present their proposed design changes.

[1:01] Then we will go. We will have time to ask applicant questions. Then we will go directly to there will be no public comment on this proposal, because we've already had public comment on this proposal. And then we will have us planning board discussion of. I suppose, of the proposed changes. If it looks like there is majority approval for the plan to change, we will ask Staff to quickly draft a motion that reflects those changes? if there are other motions or conditions, we will address those as they come up. Just so, you all know, if the vote on the motion is tied. Since there's only 6 of us today that in essence is a

[2:01] vote to deny. and then it goes directly to it, will go to City Council for City Council to determine how it wants to move forward on the project. So I just want you all to be aware that a tie vote is the same as a motion to deny in this situation. Okay, so let's start, please, with open comments. If Vivian, if you could pay. See if anyone has other than the public comments. I thought I would start and ask the attendees from the public to raise their hand, if they plan to speak during public comment. because, if not, then I think we don't need to, or sorry the open, open comment. Rather. So we just have one hand and that's from Lynn Siegel, who's very familiar with our rules, as she attends frequently. So I think we don't need to go through the rules.

[3:03] Alright, Len, please go. and I can. Let me just ask. Let me just double check with laurel. Do we need to do anything to bypass the reading of the rules. I would prefer the rules to be read as the record. If that's okay. okay. And, Lynn, I'll call on you after this. Okay? So I will go through the rules and they're in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. And let me just check that. Oh, great! The slides are pulled up. Thank you, Devin. So we'll start with open comments from community members. And as Sarah mentioned, this is only a time for people to raise issues that are not on the agenda. We want everyone to know that the city is striving into the vision, co-created by city, staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And we would also like the public to know that we have worked with the community to develop these expectations for meetings and the visions really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue. While also helping ensure that everyone who participates feels emotionally, physically safe and welcome.

[4:20] We wanna show we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings because we do believe that leads to more informed decision making next slide, please. And we have a lot of information on our website about the productive atmosphere's vision. Number. We have a number of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder revised Code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited, and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by their first and last name so that we may call on you. And we know who is providing input next slide.

[5:12] We're using the Zoom Webinar format, and it allows participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not turn on video for community members because of security concerns in this platform. So, as I mentioned, we need a full name associated with each person's participation in the meeting. And it looks like not all people have their full name. So if you plan to speak. Please change that. You can right click on your name, or you can send it to me in the QA. And I'm happy to change it for you. There's no pre-existing list for signing up. So if you're in the meeting we welcome you at the appropriate time to raise your hand, which will let us know that you would like to speak, and you can do this by looking at the horizontal menu with 3 clickable items, and if you click on the hand, icon, it'll raise a hand next to your name.

[6:04] Next slide with an expanded menu. You can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And it doesn't look like we have anybody joining by telephone tonight. Great. Okay. So that brings us to the end of the rules and now we can go to the open comment, and let me just bring up my timer. Do we have any? But is there any hands up other than Linds? Nope. Only Lynn Siegel? Alright. So, Lynn, you have 3 min, please. actually, Devin, can you either quickly make me the Co. Host, or just allow Lynn to speak. Yeah, II would say, both are today, and you would be surprised at me. I didn't have a negative thing to say. I supported this expansion of this old. We bought one of these houses at

[7:16] Hamilton Court in Martinacers in 1958, when I was in kindergarten and the one of those ones with the cantilever thing and brick next to it. And these guys are adding onto their place, and they wanted another 12 feet because of the setback which I said, yes, go for it because they're giving a bigger house. Those houses were about 1,600 feet. I guess I was saying 1,000, but I was thinking back in time, and you know that 4 people lived in him, you know, but these days, of course, we have much bigger houses, so it's fair. Fair's fair. They're getting 2,600 feet once they're done, you know. That's decent. But it was interesting, because

[8:07] thing I really like is that it was not being demolished. And That's such a good thing. And the other thing. Larger houses, you know, in a larger house, and this through all your planning process, sh should be kind of foundational with more people in it. If you can design some kind of a motivation for people to have more. You know, multiple families in a house. This works really well, too, if you had like. 4 families say that 2 families are divorced and the kids have to jump between. But if they're in the same house, but they're living separately as individuals. It like works. or, you know, hopefully, it would work. But it could work a lot better. And just having more people means instead of a washer dryer for every bedroom. You know, you can have a washer dryer for 10 people, and you know you're not using up all the infrastructure of little rooms.

[9:14] You've got one living room, and one, you know, rooms for different things, rooms for for themes or for hobbies, and an office room at that everyone uses, and then you have so much better use of the space than having all of those big spaces that you can only be in one place at a time for so the thing that I wanted to say it's negative, though, is about Fruit house, and that is, that fruit house was supposed to be built into 95 units. To my understanding this would be in excess of 50 million dollars or something, and so it isn't a good deal that we got 8 million instead of 3 on inclusionary housing. It's a bad deal, because 3, 11 walked

[10:07] on the will. We, you know, with seniors and one way out. And that's why Lynn, please try to wrap it up. Yeah, that's why they got approved. Is that affordable housing? And then it doesn't happen, and it's a termination clause. I was just stand. It was terminated. Thank you, Dylan. There are no other hands raised, Sarah, so I think we can close the open comment. Thank you. So I'm gonna repeat some of what I said here, since Mark, am I just a tad bit late? Which is understandable. Okay. The way this hearing is gonna go is we're gonna applicants is going to present us and propose design chain we will then have some time applicant will have 10 we will have time questions of the app, at which point then we will

[11:02] have artscape. If it appears that were that for support, for the design changes. staff will quickly draft them. A motion that reflects those the information of the design change. make a motion, or to an emotion, or talk separate motion. I mean, we figure that out and again, a reminder. If the vote on a motion is 3 3 at this point, since there's only 6 of us here. That will be considered a motion to deny, and it will be sent off to city council for their their own, their decision making on this project. We have scheduled 2 h for this hearing in hopes of not having another super long hearing. Many of the questions and comments about this proposal have already been put on the table. We do not need to rehash those same questions.

[12:01] So we are. Gonna try to stick to 2 h. Hopefully, we can get it done even quicker than that. Laura. Yes, what is your question? Just a process question. You said that if we have a 3 3 vote that's considered a denial. I assume that you mean that if that's the final outcome, and we don't have a different proposal that might get approved right like there might be a motion that fails, but then somebody else has a different idea. Yes, II presume that's right. But II think yes. But why don't we? Why don't we see how we do first before we start trying to like negotiate a solution to. I just wanted to make sure that any failed motion was not an automatic denial. So it sounds like that is not the case. And thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. Okay, hold on. My, I'm having trouble with my computer. Please hold on 1 min. Okay, Mark. Yes. So just a point of clarification.

[13:02] If we have a 3 3 vote, I understand that that is not considered. A a motion to approve is that by code. And this is probably a question for laurel. actually a motion to deny, because that a motion to deny is different than planning board having a tie and not reaching a conclusion. So I just wanna make sure I understand that. Yeah, is it? Okay? If I jump in yeah. And so in our rules of procedure, it says, that an affirmative vote of 4 more board members required to pass a motion approving any action, any agenda item requiring a vote of the planning board is denied, if it does not receive affirmative voter 4 or more so here, since there's 6. If you split 33 that it would be, I don't know. Yeah, right? I appreciate that clarification. Thank you.

[14:02] And, Brad, you've appeared as well. Did you wanna add something? Oh, and he's gone. Okay, thanks, Brad. Okay. So the applicant, please. Devin, if you can please. Reveal the applicant present to to us. I don't know who's going to be speaking on their behalf. Okay. lots of people. Okay? I. It's my understanding that from our end to setting meeting yesterday. You have minutes, and then we'll have. I'm sure people have questions. You want to start? We do. Yes, Amy is gonna start the presentation. And then hopefully, we can start our time. We're on. I think Kevin, sharing his screen. Sa are I think you need to mute in the conference room. Can you hear us?

[15:01] Great? Well, thank you to planning board and staff? Who have devoted another evening to discuss this project on behalf of our entire team. We are grateful for the attention to detail, thorough review and constructive feedback we have received to date. We appreciate having these 10 min to quickly present some programmatic and design changes. That we have made in response to our last 2 meetings. I'm going to go quickly through these next 2 slides about our Tdm. And parking, and devote most of the time to architecture right next slide. So just to reiterate our Tdm plan and parking reduction. We're based on a lot of data. We have our traffic engineers here to talk about this. But what we wanted to just really reiterate is that for anyone who does choose to have a car, we will sell parking spaces. and we are. Lease requires that the resident and cosigner agree that if they bring a car to boulder they either have to park it here or show us evidence of an off site place, and we will enforce parking next slide

[16:11] next slide. So just to show you the parking in the area. This was in our package, but it was important to show that there really isn't any on street parking in all of the neighborhood within a thousand foot radius. and we also will be having towing contracts and the there is a parking district to the south of us which our residents would not be eligible, for, as well as we have talked to all of our neighbors who do have privately manage parking lots about our intention to not impact them. Next slide. This is a new slide to show where all of the off. The long term storage from Cu is located. So if residents do choose to bring a car and not buy a parking pass, they can buy a pass at one of these long term storage

[17:09] parking spaces next slide. and for those of folks who decide not to have a car, we have these incentives you provides. P. Cycle and Eco. Pass. The new thing that we wanted to show you is that we have been in discussions with commutify who will manage the alternative transportation fund. We have also doubled that because we feel that is appropriate for this project, and we are committing to one year of management with commutify. It's similar to what the city of Boulder is doing with their mobility card. And so we just wanted to offer that as we move forward, and I will pass it off to Amy. So we we really appreciate the substantial discussion and feedback that we've heard to date from planning board. We even went back to re-watch the previous planning board, City Council hearings, the Design Advisory Board Review meetings, and what we heard were 3 main concerns. So one focused on Twenty-eighth Street being an entry or gateway into the city of bulk.

[18:13] and needing to step down the massing and length of that eastern facade to visually delineate the entry points into the building and way, finding throughout the site. and 3 increasing the design, caliber of material, and detailing at a finer scale. In response to these concerns we've made pretty substantive changes to the design. Emphasizing this 28 street frontage. We've reduced the mass and height at both the northeast and southeast corners, relocated the main entry, created a way, finding element along Twenty-eighth Street, introduced additional breaks in massing to help scale down the facade, and incorporated a variation and massing and materiality and additional detail

[19:02] in the materials. So, looking at the before and after, here, you can really start to see the changes that we've made to the 28 street elevation. We stepped the massing back on both the north and south corners and activated these spaces with amenity roof decks. We've relocated the main entry to the project that helps identify the entry for the project and give this sense of identity. Thanks. So you can see the the setback in the massing on this northeast corner, and having entry on the northeast corner as a way finding device on the next slide we see the entry sequence and the previous location, how it was recessed off of the front along Twenty-eightth Street, and the new location is much more prominent, and brings that activity of the resident common, a common areas and leasing and lobby more front of house, and focused on 28

[20:11] with the ghosted overlay that you see here. You can see the reduction in massing, scaling down the the height of this entry and really making it a welcoming beacon. We've introduced corner balconies, which is a similar language that we have elsewhere on the site to be used as wayfinding portals. And again, with the overlay, you can see that reduction in the setback from 28 zooming into the scale and materiality we've focused on introducing the secondary metal panel with a different profile and tone to help group windows and a base of and a base at the the building.

[21:03] The setback on the southeast side, you can see, helps reduce the the height of the building and introducing level of wood materiality on the fourth story helps bring that warmth to the eastern facade, and then also you can see the break in the masonry massing to help scale down the facade similar to the metal panel. We've introduced brick detailing to help group between the windows, and then also at the base of the building again. Here you can see the the South End reduction in massing and the break in the material and overall massing of this Eastern elevation. the ghosted overlay for the reduction in in height and scale. So, looking at it diagrammatically, we UN, we you can really see that we're understanding the concern of the unbroken planes and the size of of the masses that we had previously. And so we were able to study the extent of having additional subtractions to help scale down the building

[22:17] along 28, and then just looking at additional details and seeing the side by side elevations. You can compare the the before and after, and reduction in the height on both the north and south ends, having a way. Finding portal entry. Really brings a sense of presence and entry onto this elevation. Thank you again for letting us take the time to present and reviewing the the project. We appreciated the the feedback to date, and we'll stay on the call and can provide provide answers to any questions that might come up.

[23:01] Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Is there any anyone else from the applicant want to speak? Nope, I think we did what we wanted to do, and we went as quick as we could, so thank you for the time. Alright, thank you. Alright, Devin, can you take? So I'll get you in a second George Devin, can you just take down the the picture so that we can all be on the cause? It can't be everybody alright. So we're not gonna time for questions with the applicant. George has his hand up, so we'll go to George. And then Kurt. quick question for the applicant. Was there any with these changes? Was there any reduction in unit count? In the project there was a reduction of 8 beds to the the overall project.

[24:03] Oh. thanks. thanks, George. I'm currently Ml. thanks. I really appreciate the moving the entry way out close to 28 Street. I think that makes a lot of sense. I had one question, though it seems like the handicapped access now really is coming from the north side, as opposed to East Side. Did you consider moving the handicapped parking spaces to that north side to make them closer to that entry way? Look at the the handicap spaces when we were rearranging the the industry, and it it felt like having presence on that northeast corner where we were able to locate the the staircase and entry, so that there's an entry from the north, and then also front from the east, facing 28. So there there will be a direct route for stairs coming up from the north, and then a ramp that that routes from the handicap up to the main entry.

[25:10] Thank you and L. Thank you, Sarah. And thank you. SAR. Folks for the work and the presentation. So I have a question in the public areas of the site. and I believe that there are still 2 pathways that go through the project. So can you describe what? What is the pedestrian experience in those in those pathways. I think my interest is in the public interaction on

[26:01] the property given that there's a commercial experience to the north, and then there is the creek to the south, and this is kind of between boulder has been used to having actual access to this site as a public space. So I'm just curious as to what our those 2 pathways, it seems like. One kind of doesn't really go anywhere. Get into the back of a building. But so what is pedestrian experience the wits, the heights, and what are people seeing and experiencing that aren't students? They are. They are the public coming to the property. Yeah, I think I'll take this one. Thanks. I'm Li think you're mainly referring to the south to north path right? That's through the the property. So total with building face to building face. I don't know, Amy, if you can help me there on just sort of how big that area is, and I don't know if we can get a plan.

[27:09] But generally the the the experience is that we want it to feel public, and so we have limited to some degree. You know how many sort of porches or or openings we have. We? We have quite a few openings, but the the one area that you see there, and sort of the tan color that is raised up a little bit in grade. I believe it's 2 feet above the path elevation. So that is sort of the private realm. And then the public realm is what is the path connecting you to the property to the north? So that path also is meandered intentionally, so that bikes will go slow through that area. And then I think we've provided, you know. Given that. That is, I believe it's 40 feet building face to building face.

[28:09] I think we've given quite a bit to to landscaping in that zone. So it's a balance, right? It's a balance of of providing that public access, but also providing public seating areas. But it it is very much intended to be public. There are no fences or anything. Blocking you from that area. Thought so. I think that was the main main area. And then, of course, in what you're seeing to the south and along the the creek are the the public paths. All of that will be public, and it ranges from pedestrian. So did I understand you to say that the width of that pathway is 40 deep. I'm sorry, but you've I don't know your name, but you've frozen, so if someone else from the applicant might be able to answer em, else questions.

[29:07] Yeah. sorry it was a little. I'm sorry. I don't know who's speaking and I've made. I've made an error, which is you all need to re acknowledge your name. Speak your name before you speak so we have that on record, and I don't know who just spoke, but it was very garbled. So if you could repeat what you just repeat your name and repeat what you just said, that would be very helpful. So I'll see if I can answer the question, and Amy can with sar the width of the opening between buildings, the for the multi-use path from building face to building face is 42 feet for the multi-use path, and then for the pedestrian, you between buildings 2 and 3, it's 40 feet.

[30:03] And how tall is that area? It's 4 stories feet. How tall is it? It is just shy of 55 feet. So 49 and a half. And what? How would you describe the pedestrian experience? So I heard talk somebody mentioned seating. What are people seeing? What is? What is the experience? Because it it's it's unclear as to what the public will experience in those 2 pad. And there's 2 pathways that I understand. One goes through, and there's a slot in the buildings in the commercial buildings that that would end at the other one. I'm not exactly sure where it goes. Can you talk about both those.

[31:02] Yeah. I'm trying to pull up some renderings, too, to help communicate. The pedestrian experience. But the intent is that they're well vegetated, and especially the multi-use path we've have. Most of the amenity program will be along the the multi-use path, so there'll be the club room and fitness room and highly activated common spaces for the buildings along that multi-use path. So there'll be a a strong indoor outdoor connection between the program in the building, and then the multi-use path. Those aren't public spaces, though, is that correct? They're not open to the general public. There'll be common spaces for the residents of the building. Right? Right? Oh, okay. So this is you called one a multi. Yeah. So if there's 2 walkways that connect north south across the site. We're referring to one of them as the multi-use path. That's where we have the the multi use path that connects along Boulder Creek and takes you up through the

[32:12] the development north of the site. And then the second one is more of a secondary connection that we've called a pedestrian. You. That is more focused on pedestrian movement through the site, and primarily would be residents. But it would be open to to anyone. Where does that new go end. It would take you to Olsen Drive. which is the proposed new street along the the north edge of the property. With that perspective that you showed along the multi-use path. Is that the only drawing you have, or the only rendering you have in that

[33:00] in that area for the pedestrian view. So it is not. I am pulling up the old plans. Our landscape architect is trying to pull up the current perspectives. I'm doing my best to navigate and pull up these plans, which are a little bit old. But II Amy, can you help me? With these views? So there's other perspectives. Those are in the private courtyards, though. Right? Yes, I think the one I pulled up was the common. and I know I saw a rendering of it yesterday morning. Is there on the screen? One thing I'm Cody grabbing with. Jb, Hi, everybody! One thing I was going to say is, ml, I think your question was, where do the connection? So I think we actually have the West connection, which is the north-south multi use path along the Western property line. That's well quote wide, and that's per the city's transportation and master plan. So that's what that

[34:08] multi-use path is on the west side. And then the one that Amy was talking about that goes through buildings 2 and 3. That's the smaller one that isn't a multi use path. But we are having public access through it. And that's this one that is up right now. Thanks, whoever's showing it. And then we have the third one, which is the multi use path in between building 1, one and 2, and that's the one that kind of weave through the courtyard kind of as Amy was discussing. And that's 12 foot wide as well. And then we obviously have the 12 foot. Multi use path on 28 street as well. So those are our connections through our site north-south. Thank you. Thank you for helping me understand what the pedestrian experience is there on the side? And I have 1 one additional question, are there any commercial areas on the property?

[35:08] Yes, I. So we're retaining the small businesses to the south of the creek. There's currently a daycare and Simba, which is Single track, mountain Bike Alliance and the Eldora lake racing team. And so they're in the 2 cottages to the south of the Creek. We're keeping those cottages and keeping those businesses. So those would be nonprofit Daycare commercial uses. And then in the main floor of the building, we are doing. A lot of public facing amenity space. And I believe there's a small commercial space along the multi use path. Is that correct. Jamie? Rob. No, okay, I'm sorry. So the commercial is on the ex. We're retaining the existing commercial on the site. Yeah, okay, thank you so much. Those are my questions.

[36:09] Alright, Emil, thank you. Last opportunity for questions to the applicant, although, of course, if something comes up during our discourse, we can always turn back to them. Alright, thank you all very much for your third presentation to the Board. Much appreciated. We will now. Devin, if you could just make sure it's the board members boxes that are showing that would be very helpful. Oh, I can see us. Thank you. Thank you. Waiting for if if Devin can't do it all. If you guys who are applicants don't mind turning off your video, that would be awesome. Thank you so much. Okay, goodbye. Thank you. But don't go anywhere in case we need to ask you questions. And, Danica, if you don't mind turning off your video, that'd be great. Okay.

[37:06] that's just us chickens. Okay? So we've seen the new proposal, the new design proposal. I think it'd be helpful to get everyone's feedback and see where we are in terms of of that. Who would like to go first? Nobody. Come on. Okay, Mark. I'll I'll simply say that I appreciate the applicants efforts at at changing the massing and and and hearing hearing the concerns. And II went back, and I I've been going back to the prior meetings, and you know the the common thread

[38:02] to me. What I heard was was not parking. It was not open space. It was not these, these other issues, it was. It was building design and and e, even those that were in favor of motions to approve had concerns about the building design, and in the subsequent weeks I've taken some time and just really ponder different buildings and entrance ways and roof forms and so forth. And anyway, II think they have done a good job listening to us. I am not above additional conditions regarding the design. If people have those. but II appreciate their efforts, and I think the major improvements have haven't sued.

[39:02] Thank you. Mark. Kurt. Yeah, thanks, Mark. I agree very much with that. I was certainly concerned with the especially the 28 street elevation, and I think that this is a significant improvement. I was starting to work on some kind of condition as a non architect that would basically end up sort of similar to this, except not nearly as good, and so I appreciate that they were moving in the same direction. I feel like, as I mentioned in my question, I think, moving the entrance main entrance out to 28 or as close to 28 Street as possible, helps a lot in terms of providing a street presence as much of a street presence as we can get given the flood considerations. and I think the greater articulation of that east elevation really helps, and certainly stepping down, particularly on the south, and which I think was a a a significant concern among the board. I think that will make just for a much more attractive building, as viewed from 28 Street, from the multi-use path there, and so on. So I think it's a a significant improvement. I'm sorry to lose

[40:22] a few bedrooms, but I think it's a a good 3 off. Thank you, Kurt. Emel. thank you, Sarah. So my my concern has from the beginning not so much been about the building per se And I think, like Mark, I've I've spent the last couple of days or weeks has been kind of pondering. What?

[41:02] What? Why is this project so? Been so difficult? And I think it's because this project is essentially taking what's historically been a completely public, accessible site, an amenity at the tennis club. a gathering venue, a hotel, an event center. And it's making it an exclusive luxury student housing project with minor access pathways. That was my concern. With what are these pathways? How does how do the city of Boulder residents continue to enjoy the site, continue to enjoy a very rare access to a creek site. Experience. Right? There's there's not a lot of these. There's some at the along the Red Rocks Park area. There's some in Central Park, but this is a creekside experience

[42:01] that has been enjoyed by residents of the city. for you know, publicly accessible. And it's kind of turning that into a a private experience. In that building. and the what are being called the amenity spaces are all for use of the tenants. So it's not a public experience insofar as can people get a cup of coffee to enjoy the creek? Is there a way for people to actually engage in activities. I understand that on the south side of the creek those particular businesses will remain, but they haven't been the public. They haven't provided a public amenity, as it were, like the tennis club, like the harvest house and the events of the hotel.

[43:01] albeit you know it hasn't function in its highest, in its highest capacity. Of recent years. So what I'm interested at this point is in. So what is the public experience. How is the site retaining the historical use by the city of Boulder residents to a very prominent Creek side experience. and to the role that it at this site is supposed to play. as the Bdcp. Put forth in in putting it on the Bdr See map and saying, This is this is part of something that has to do with people places. This is about the public and so I'm I. I've been speaking about this Vbrc. Since day, one on this project, and

[44:02] As I went back and Re looked at what that was. Those are kind of timeless. The design guidelines in that packet are timeless. They may be old, but they're timeless. They're talking about experiences for people. They're talking about making a cohesive hole out of our commercial center. They're talking about creating it. They're there. It is literally the center of boulder. If you look at the map that Bd Rc. Designated area is the center and I'm concerned. That were were disregarding some long term planning that has been been there since decades. And how is the public?

[45:00] What are we losing? What are we losing by by removing an experience to the property and reducing it to a pathway that has stuff you can look at? But it's not nothing you can go into right. It's the students having their amenities. It, it's not public, it you're going from A to B and going. I didn't ask how long the pass were. Having, you know. hundreds of feet getting through and having an experience. It's like. Where is the there? There. There has historically been there there on that property, albeit it is lost. It's gloss, right? I I'm not. I don't know what they do with the side anymore. And it's it's it's

[46:04] but it does have a history. And that's been my number one concern from the the beginning is that we have these intentions. We have a dream, we have visions, we put them on paper, we put them in the Comp plan. We intend to give ourselves some guidelines. and then we completely disregard em. So I have. No. I to me, this is not architectural problem. It's a planning problem and perhaps a use problem. so I I'm not sure what to say about you know I appreciate the fact that the architecture team has gone back and and tried to understand. What? What is it just being asked. I have. I have been talking about the zoning and the inferences the zoning puts, and the actual requirements. These are

[47:05] the criteria or not. Meet them if you can, the criteria or requirements. So I do have some specifics, a specific a specific condition that I could bring forward. But that is the nature of my of my concern. And II I'm not it. II don't. I'm not looking for a discussion with the applicant or or a justification, or I. It's a concern I've had since the beginning, and it it has more to do with. How do we? What attention do we pay to our own regulations? Because III think. and I can go through and site all the little pieces that I think aren't being attended to. and some very specific ones it should be but anyway.

[48:02] that that's where I met. Thank you. Eml, Danica, because that was not a specific question. It was more of a rhetorical question. I'm not. I'm not gonna call on you. Mark, you have your hand up. Please go ahead. ML. Do you take into account, or do you? Disagree with the applicants? Open space calculations? When I look at the site. Now I look at the re route which I was initially opposed to. But now I've I've I've really studied this and come around that. The re route of the Boulder Creek path, moving it farther to the north, closer to the buildings, creating a greater lawn. Then what is there now? There's a lot of people traverse the creek path and then sit to the south of it near the creek currently. But this is a relatively narrow strip. My question to you is

[49:03] is based on the applicants, open space calculations, and just the general site design by moving the path to the north, making a safer for cyclists across the bridge. It creates this much bigger lawn that is, that is, quote public space, and I do have a condition drafted to make sure that that would remain public space and be considered public space, although it would be an easement. But to ensure public access, so does does that larger lawn and the better access for people going north, south, and people going east, West. Does that ameliorate any of your concerns, or am I misunderstanding you? thank you for being so careful about that long, because you have been about that path, and it being public, and the conversation that I brought up with the concern with you know people wanting to move in there and put up tents and that sort of thing. And promptly being reminded, this is private space.

[50:17] and they will deal with it as private space. So I think that's still in my mind, kind of a fuzzy situation. I didn't see anything in the plans or in the discussion about developing that as and there, in other words, a place where people will go, they'll be benches that there will be landscaping that there will be an opportunity for people to actually inhabit it and use it as you know, a, a, a, an environment that is, for the residents of Boulder 4 people along is cool, but you can't do a lot of stuff on a wall, and you really do need to articulate

[51:04] experiences that will promote the kinds of activities and engagements that I mean, think about a park. If a park is just a big field it's different than, say, a park that's got picnic area and a a grove area where there's trees and an area that maybe's got a little send lot for base, you know, when you start to pop it. This is a planning one on one back. You know, you have this big urban space that nobody uses because it's empty. And then you start putting things together. People start using it so that I didn't see that. But I hear what you're saying. And I think that that could begin to kind of give back to this is a public space. This is for the citizens. Bolder. We know what we're losing. We're losing a big tennis center. We're losing a place where people could go and and and enjoy a drink and and have dinner and and be at the creek and and

[52:03] have those experiences. I don't see that in what has been proposed. But I do understand what you're what you're saying, mark that to include that as a to kind of begin to address the fact that yeah, this we're used to having that in our public realm. Oh, I'm going to take an executive privilege moment, Laura, and I'll call on you. I want you all to know that I asked staff to draft a motion that reflects the new design component components. And think that as a starting place for further discussion. and what I'd like to do after Laura does, whatever she is planning to say is begin to turn our attention to

[53:00] whatever conditions folks might have. And put them on the table and then see if we can draft up something. I that but just we can draft up something. So staff is gonna work on that, and we'll continue our conversation. So, Laura, you're next. I guess I have a question about what are the current uses at the millennium? Is there a restaurant. There. Is there a coffee shop there? My, I don't recall. I know I've stayed there in the past. It is currently still a hotel during Covid it used for how is it? It has fallen on somewhat hard times, a lot of broken windows that have been not lot. There's not broken windows that forwarded it.

[54:04] I believe there are still being residents there. but the isn't working the the the I don't are available any long. So it's even in advance, essentially, as was for quite some time, precisely because of covid. And then this process has taken a while. So. But I will just say Ml's point, which is that this has been prior prior to covid. It was still a point of where the public participate be the active public space. But at this point it is the public space is really the the tennis court there, and the 2 nonprofit organizations are really busy because there are a lot of campers, kid campers that that utilize those sort of.

[55:04] Okay. Thank you. Ii will have. I do have some comments, if you don't mind. So II don't think that there are any picnic facilities there. Now that are open to the public. I could be wrong about that, but my experience with the millennium passing by on the creek path is that there's a tennis center there. I don't play tennis. There's a dome there that looks like it's for private events. But II have not been invited to any of those. and so for me. It is not public space, right? It's some place I pass by when I'm on the creek path. I've been to the Fish Observatory. That's public. If they're adding Creek access. That seems like an additional public amenity. If they're adding a dog park and a pickle ball court, those seem like additional public amenities beyond. What is there now which some folks may not think is a fair exchange for the tennis courts and the whatever the past historical Friday night club uses were, but I do think that they they have accounted for some public amenities. I also note that that Regency shopping center to the North

[56:00] has all kinds of opportunities for people to get some take out. You can get thai. You can get Indian. You can get ice cream. You can get cakes. You can go to Flower, child. There's a Greek cafe. There's a lot of stuff that you can get in that regency regency shopping center. That's just a few steps away and carry it down and have a picnic on the lawn if you want. So I think that that space can still function as a public space as it's designed. And and I do appreciate the idea that you know, we have to stick to our criteria. And I look at our site. Review criteria, the old one that this project is coming in under. and the ones that seem to really stand out to me were 9, 2, 14 Roman numeral, one which talks about open space, providing a balance of private and shared areas for residential uses and common open space. but is available for use by both residential and non-residential uses. so that one I could not in good conscience say they're not meeting that because I think they have provided a balance of private and shared areas.

[57:05] and then there are the ones that have to do with the building, height and mass and scale and orientation being compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by adopted design. Guidelines and Ml, I take your point. And, by the way. That's 9 minus 2 minus 14 H. 2 F. Roman numeral, one and Roman numeral, 2 in that same section. and Ml, I take your point that in the Bvcp and in the be the Boulder Valley Regional Center guidelines. It is this should be a commercial use, was the intended guidelines for this area. But I think Staff made a strong argument for why this could also be residential as a transitional area. So I don't have a problem with saying that I do think it meets those 2 Site Review criteria. So you know, that's that's where I'm coming from, and reasonable people can disagree on those things. So I did appreciate the changes that the applicant made that I thought they were listening to us. I'm not going to repeat the wonderful things that Mark and Kurt noted about how it was responsive to some of our input. As you all know, I was voted in favor of approval. Last time I intend to vote in favor of approval again. So that's where I'm at.

[58:17] Thank you, Laura. Alright. So why don't we turn to conditions? I I know Mark has something he wants. He has a condition that has to do with the public access or space. Not exactly sure. And Mel. You said you might have some conditions as well, so why don't you just voice articulate them, and we can turn our attention to those. Sarah? Can I? Suggest a process point here? Can we go ahead? And can we go ahead and put a motion on the floor to approve the applicant's project. discuss conditions one by one, and vote on them, and I don't care if we vote on them one by one, or vote on them as a package. If we put a motion on the floor and get it

[59:08] a. we can. We could just go ahead and vote. But then, if it's 3, 3 essentially to denial. Well, I think that we all like once the motion is on the floor and seconded. It belongs to the group, and we have the ability to offer conditions as an amendment to the motion. and I think that would be the cleanest process for considering the amendments kind of one by one, and then they either get attached to the motion or not, but we vote separately on each of those conditions to either we approve attaching it to the motion or not is that laurel? Is that consistent with our process, laurel? I don't think we vote on conditions. We can discuss conditions, and then we could vote on amendments, but A condition would be an additional to the motion itself. Right? Each of each. Each condition would be an amendment like we would amend the main motion. To add Mark's condition, we would amend the main motion to add Ml's condition.

[60:06] So I'm just suggesting we go ahead and move to that process rather than discussing each of the conditions and then trying to package it later. That's fine. By me, that's fine. I appreciate that, Laura Laurel. You're muted just somewhere. Yeah, thanks. Thanks so much, Laura, with the city attorneys office to introduce myself earlier. So more. And either way works. I think that Laura's process is the is one of the ways that we do it through. Roberts was order creating amendment based on each condition. And I think your idea was to discuss them before it goes to the amendment process. So either way works alright well, I'm happy to go with Laura, with Laura's approach. mark before I call on you. Staff, can you please pull up the motion that you've drafted?

[61:06] Thank you. Hold on. I gotta close this out. Okay. alright. I will. Make a motion and then ask for a second. I make a motion to approve site and use Review. Application, LUR. 2, 0 2, 2 0 0 2, one, as amended at the August eighth, 2023, Planning Board meeting and proposed amendment to the Bbrc. Transportation Connections plan. Adopting the staff memorandum as finding the fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. We have a second. Yes, sir. I got lots of Mark seconded it. Okay, so now we can. It's open for discussion. I would suggest, if you have conditions now would be the time to raise them as an amendment.

[62:03] Eml, you have your hand raised. Yeah, I just had a question. When the motion said. something about today's meeting. Does that mean what the applicant presented at today's meeting is now the project. Yes, okay. thanks for that clarification. Okay, Mark, you're the one who has an already written condition. Why don't you please tell us what it is? Okay. Mine with the help from staff, is a little lengthy. So if I email it to Devin this second, then he can put it on the screen. How does that sound so? And then I'll read it. Okay, while he's while you emailing it, he's putting on the screen. Why don't you start talking about it?

[63:02] Okay? Actually, cause I mean, so we don't know what it's about, Mark. So talking back. it is it is in regard to. I just sent it to Devin. It is a regard to the concerns that have been voiced by me and Ml. And others regarding the open space designation that the apple can has put on there, and the kind of conundrum confronted by public easements on private property, etc. So wow! I can. I will start reading it. But II think that while I'm happy to start reading it, since that's part of the process. And then Devin can put it on the screen when when it is available. Is that okay?

[64:00] Okay? So I move to amend the the motion that's on the floor with the following condition. in addition, the following conditions will will also be part of the Site Review approval. Before a building permit application. the applicant shall submit and obtain city manager approval of a technical document review application for the following items. everybody, and and if Staff is following along, this is not your exact wording so don't be alarmed. II did my editing. This is my motion. a revised written statement that describes the management, programming and hours of operation for quote, public and quote semi public spaces that include public rights of way and access, easements that are shaded in yellow and described as quote public space

[65:08] on the Site Plan on page 135 of 160, part a of the July eleventh, 2,023, planning board packet. public spaces, such as the Boulder Creek Path, and the lawn to the south of the path. and access between the building for traversing from the path to the shopping center to the north shall be open to the public to traverse at all times. unless the property owner and the city agree in writing to a temporary closure. Semi-public spaces will allow. I got a little typo here will remain open to the residents and visitors at reasonable hours. Reasonable times include the times. That comparable city facilities or parks are typically open limitations of access may be placed on active program. Recreational uses, such as pickle ball courts and the fence dog Park

[66:11] access may be limited when required, because of misuse of the area for the protection of the residents and visitors, or or others, other public safety purposes or maintenance activities. and the end of condition do I have? Is there a second for Laurel just popped up? Laurel? What did you want? And then we'll come back to you, mark. Yeah, apologies I just wanted to clarify. So the very beginning, when it talks about before building, permit application. The applicant shall submit. And review that that language is what's in the current condition so just wanted to clarify that Mark is adding this section to like a subsection of other things that have to be given a technical review. So just wanted to clarify that. That's why that language doesn't like

[67:07] and laurel, can it? And it beep an an amendment, an amendment to the motion. Are are you asking the, can this be an amendment? Yeah. Yeah. So Mark Mark offered it as an amendment to the motion. Yep. so hold me a second, and then we'll vote on this particular. Wait, wait, wait, wait! Wait! As I, as the motionmaker, can accept or reject right? So you, as the motionmaker had a second and then, now that motion, the original motion, is up to the board, so it's the board's motion. So now Mark comes in and gives this motion. So in order for it to be adopted, somebody has to second, and then you vote on whether it's going to be included in the original motion. I'm not. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just trying to understand. So a. it gets seconded, and then we vote on the amendment, but not on the full motion.

[68:04] Correct? Okay. alright so. And the other thing that typically it would be. I have moved to amend your motion. So you have the original motion. I move to amend. and if I receive a second, then we would debate and then vote on the amendment. and whether or not to include the amendment in the original motion. Okay, so we before, Emel, if you're gonna second and you'll but you have your hand up, but I think we don't want to discuss until we either had a second or not a second. I would like to second. I was looking for a clarification cause. He refers to drawings, and I don't see the drawings. The other thing that we might wanna clarify, too, is it? Says semi-public, which isn't a defined term in the in the application materials. So with that laurel that was your like. So my public was your language. So before we debate so to? Can we note that Kurt has seconded this, and then we can

[69:11] begin to parse it. Yes, unless there's a friendly amendment. I've moved. Curtis seconded. So. I'd like to speak to my motion to amend So, Laura, I'm a little confused. even though I did not take all of your wording, and I didn't make some substantive changes. The semi public spaces that that definition. Well, so That was items. As, for example, pickleball courts. Fence dog park is is, did you provide a a definition of semi public spaces when you sent that? Or how? What language I had didn't have semi public in it, but we could define it as

[70:09] It was a part of your like. Oh, sorry up the language, as I said earlier today. Yes, yeah. It was part of the language you sent earlier today. Semi burden. Okay, there we go. Fine semi. That does this require a friendly amendment? Or does this require an amendment to amend a, a, a motion to amend this amendment? How about we just change the language and then reread the motion, and second. revise, please, instead of trying to amend, to amend, to amend. So, Devin, if you could please work with Mark, Mark, if you can read out what you need to have changed.

[71:10] and I'll I'll appreciate any. Can I make a suggestion, mark? Instead of trying to talk about public spaces and semi public spaces. I would leave the paragraph about public spaces such as the Boulder Creek path on the lawn to the south. I'd leave that alone. And this one, I would just say, instead of saying, semi public spaces, just use your language that you use later on saying active program, recreational uses will remain open, such as pickle ball courts in the fence dog Park will remain open to the residents and visitors at reasonable times. Right? You're you're just saying active, programmed recreational uses instead of saying semi-public spaces. So we would strike from semi public and just. I would strike semi public spaces will allow I would go ahead and strike that.

[72:02] and I would move up your language of active, programmed, recreational uses, such as pickle ball courts and the fence dog park move that up to start the sentence. With that I'll cut and paste it. Active program. Recreational uses, such as pickable courts and the fence dog Park. You can delete spaces and will allow. will remain open to residents and business at reasonable times. Reasonable times include Yada Yada. Limitations of access may be placed on these active program, recreational uses. Well, I think that's a thing of beauty. Thank you very much. I deeply appreciate it for that edit. Thank you. Thank you. I would take a bow. But I'm sitting down. Okay. Okay, thanks. Laurel. Do we have to reread this motion and second it again, or can we go forward and have discussion on it.

[73:00] II would recommend reading reading it again. So it's in the record, and having a second sorry to make you do that again. it's okay. In addition, the following conditions will also be part of the Site Review approval. Before a billing permit application, the applicant shall submit and obtain city manager approval of a technical document. Review application for the following items. a revised written statement that describes the management, programming and hours hours of operation for public and semi public spaces that include public rights of way and access, easements that are shown in yellow and described as quote public space on the Site Plan on page 135, of 160, part A of the July eleventh, 2,023, planning board packet public spaces, such as the Boulder Creek path and the lawn to the south of the path and access between the buildings for traversing from the path to the shopping center to the north shall be open to the public to diverse at all times, unless the property owner and the city agree in writing to a temporary closure.

[74:16] active program, recreational uses, such as pickleball courts, and thence dog park will remain open to the residents and visitor and visitors at reasonable times. Reasonable times include the times. That comparable city facilities or parks are typically open limitations of access may be placed on active program. Recreational uses, such as pickle ball courts and the fence dog Park access may be limited when required, because of misuse of the area for protection of the residents and visitors. Other public safety purposes or maintenance activities.

[75:02] We have a second kirk, do you wanna second it? No. I wanna propose a friendly amendment. Alrighty which is to remove and semi public from the second paragraph, since that is no longer term that's used. Confer with that. Okay, then I will second Evan. Can you remove the in the and semi public, perfect, the and perfect. Okay. And now we can discuss. Okay, I'll I'll simply say that that is is the motion maker. that this is a combination of my initial language from our prior continued meeting with

[76:01] like some language from staff that I've rearranged. Then they're probably I don't know if they're cringing, or what. But this. What this is trying to address is, first. that that this allows for staff and the applicant to reach an agreement of a technical document which is, will have more detail and be more legally correct and enforceable than this particular motion. but is. But it does try to create the protection for the public spaces and direct staff to create that technical document so that we can all. Rest assured that the spaces know to this public will remain as public. Now into the future. Thank you, Laura, and then ml. you know, in keeping with our procedures, that any amendment has to correspond to a criterion that we think is not met unless we have this amendment. Unless we have this condition. I do think that Mark's amendment is consistent with 9, 2, 14, Roman numeral, one that talks about providing for the balance of private and shared areas for residential uses and common open space

[77:22] that is available for use by both residential and non residential uses. I think what Mark is trying to do here is, just make sure that that balance is maintained into the future. And so I do find this to be consistent, and a good assurance that this condition will that this provision of Site Review will continue to be met. So I am supportive. ML. So I, when I saw advice on how to address the concerns that I was having. I'm not sure where this would set Mark if it would be a

[78:02] amendment. a friendly amendment to your proposed amendment. But what I'm interested in is also one of the criteria which is criteria. which talks about projects in their human scale. And especially at the pedestrian experience. I can read. I can read what that says, since projects are designed to human scale and promote the safe and vibrant pedestrian experience to the location of building frontages along public streets, plazas, sideways, sidewalks, and paths, and through the use of building elements, design, details, and landscape materials that include without limitation the location of entrances and windows and the creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian level. That criteria is the one that I was looking for compliance with when I asked about

[79:05] the public pathways especially with regard to transparency and activity at the pedestrian level. So I laurel. I don't know if can a criteria be required as a condition? Can meeting a criteria be required as a con as a condition? Or should it be met? I, mark Mark, let's let the lawyer answer that question, please. Laurel. wherever you are. Thank you. Apologies, Emily. Can you restate your question. My question is, can the requirement to meet a a site use criteria

[80:00] become a condition? So it I guess it. It depends on. If we added as a condition here, I think it it again. It kinda depends on what you're trying to achieve. So if we're trying to have a Site review criteria would be met. It is required by the code that they meet, that criteria staff is laid out in their memo about how they meet you to the required criteria that apply. If you think they don't meet the criteria, then we can add a condition that changes or have them do. XY. And Z. Things to meet that criteria. But they do have to meet the Site Review criteria. according to what you all believe, the Planning board believes in order to be able to move this application along. Does that make sense? It does? And I guess I don't see it meeting this criteria as it stands. So I'm kind of wondering how we could

[81:01] make that kind of appointed. I like the idea that this is what Mark is putting out. There is part of the technical document review application which gives it a fine toothed comb. But and this the creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian level. human scale pathway that is 42 feet wide and 45 feet tall. I don't know how long it is. I don't know that anybody could consider that a human scale. So I don't know how to get how to get that criteria to be met almost in a literal way. It's just like. put a little person in there and let's see. How do we do that? And I don't know, Mark. Maybe you don't want it on on to your. I'm sorry I'm gonna back range from Ml, I actually think that if you feel this doesn't meet a criteria that you think is very important.

[82:05] Then the the answer for you is to vote down the motion when we get to voting down the full motion, because what you're asking isn't would require. Significant changes that the applicant has not made. Despite you bringing up the human scale, I think in every meeting we've had on this project. So unless you have specific suggestions, the way markets had specific suggestions about how how they can meet the criteria. What would allow them to meet the criteria in your estimation, your evaluation and analysis. Ii don't think That a generic! Generic amendments to say you you don't meet. you know. Code XYZ.

[83:01] And you have to is not. Is not adequate guidance based on the code. So that would be my take on this, and I sorry that it kind of puts you in the position of having to vote. you know, not have a way to accommodate what you want to accommodate, but I think that's kind of where we are. I reached out, and this was the advice I got. So Laurel, do you have something that I missed. No, II would agree with Sarah actually. So, in order to move this application criteria. If you believe that an amendment or Con or I can start on that condition couldn't change the application in such a way that it would meet the criteria then. Yes, voting no would be the appropriate next step. So I was just gonna support Sarah and what she was saying. okay, II did reach out and ask you. And I thought your answer was to propose that it meet that criteria as a condition. But I'm hearing you say

[84:05] that's that's what I'm trying to. I'm trying to think. If you're I don't know if you're I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm not sure if I'm going to the point where I'm going to be able to. Where there are pedestrian pads. The height of the building can only be X, so that height and with our estimation, more human scale like that would be a condition that could would then be a solution. Your solution to the problem that you've identified in terms of meeting criteria. Laurel had to work, had responded to in my question. You know, last week, when I said, Okay, here's sometimes do. How would I do that? And it was like, make this criteria emotion a condition. And I'm like, Oh, that's easy. But that's not the answer. Apparently we can't do that. So thank you for clarifying.

[85:11] And Mark, there is no friendly amendment on the table. I'm not exactly sure where to go with this. So if I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mark, let me just. I just want to bring us back to the amendment that's on the table. Is there anyone who wants to speak against the amendment cause? II kind of would like to move this along, and we we so if there's anyone who wants to speak against the amendments. raise your hand, Mark. You want to speak against your own amendment. No, okay, alright. So it seems to me that we can go ahead and take a vote on this amendment because nobody wants to speak against it. Kurt, are you gonna suggest a change, or did you just want to comment? I just have a quick question about this, the proposed amendment I just wanna confirm with laurel laurel mentioned that the public spaces as referred to here for those with public access easily is the does the lawn, the proposed lawn have a public access point?

[86:14] Yeah, I'm actually gonna refer to Shannon. If it's okay with you guys. She's telling me it does not. But I don't know if she wants to speak to that at all. She's a little bit more of an expert on this specific. The areas of where the east ones go. I mean, really the first of my of my question is, do you feel that this as phrase or as framed this, is clear that it clear and enforceable? So the what I'm hearing is the public spaces are defined on the plan as both easement and non easements area. There's a couple of drawings that show in the written statement where the different public spaces are and where they overlay the easement. But it is. This language as written is clear and enforceable.

[87:03] I can make a slight wording change suggestion that it might make it clearer. I know that means we'd have to read it again, but I think you could take. It's it's good. I think you could take that phrase. including public rights of way and access easements. Take it out of that sentence there in the middle and move it to the end. So that you just say you're asking for a written statement that describes the management programming and hours of operation for the public spaces that are shaded in yellow and described on the Site Plan. including public rights of ways and access easements, so that public rights of way and access easements doesn't encompass everything that's shaded in yellow, but it is included in what is shaded in yellow. I think that might make it clearer. II don't know, Kurt. It seems like your concern was that it might seem that public rights of way and access easements are the only thing that you're concerned about, and you're actually concerned about everything shaded in yellow.

[88:01] No, my concern was that. And I may have misunderstood Laurel. I thought Laurel was saying that all of the things that are framed here in paragraph 3 is, public spaces have associated access users, but that is not through the law. But I'm satisfied she feels that this is clear and enforceable from the legal standpoint. And so I'm actually fine with it, as it seems. Okay, Mark, are you going to make another comment. Or do you just want to reread one more super super quick comment that Kurt's concern with the law. That's that's why my wording addresses the law to the south of the path. And so II simply would defer to Staff to make sure that when they draft their technical document that the law, the path and the lawn to the south, to the creek bank

[89:00] is included in their in their document. Alright, thank you, Mark, do you want to restate your motion? And then we can vote on your amendment? Okay? So prior to the vote, here we go. In addition, the following conditions will also be part of the Site Review approval. Before building permit application, the applicant shall submit and obtain city manager approval of a technical document, review application for the following items. a revised written statement that describes the management, programming and hours of operation for public spaces that include public rights of way and access easements that are shaded in yellow and described as public space on the Site Plan, on page 135 of 160, part A of the July 1123, planning board packet public spaces, such as the Boulder Creek path and the lawn to the south of the path

[90:02] and access between the buildings, for traversing from the path to the shopping center to the north shall be open to the public to traverse at all times. Unless the property owner and the city agree in writing to a temporary closure. active program. Recreational uses, such as pickle ball courts and the fence dog park will remain open to the residents and visitors at reasonable times. Reasonable times include the times. That comparable city facilities or parks are typically open limitations of access may be placed on active program. Recreational uses, such as pickleball courts and events. Dogmark access may be limited when required, because of misuse of the area for the protection of the residents and visitors. other public safety purposes or maintenance activities. Alright, we'll take a vote Laura.

[91:01] You have to speak. Thank you, mark. Yes. Kurt, George. Yes. Ml, yes. And Sarah is a yes. okay. Alright. Are there any other amendments or conditions to be proposed? Amendments or conditions to the original motion. Thank you for that clarification mark. All right, Laura. I just wanted to speak to Ml's concerns and say, Ml, I think that you have one other option besides denial, which is, if you know again, if there's some tweak that you wanted to propose that would make the project meet this condition of having a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience. You could add something like II want to see more benches or more picnic tables or a glass in cafe on the ground floor, like any of those are fairly small tweaks

[92:04] that would be consistent with other kinds of changes that might be conditioned at site review. And so, if that's something that you wanted to propose as a separate motion to amend, I think that you have that option. If you think that that would help the project meet that condition of F. Roman numeral 5. Thank you, for he's trying to figure out how to II I'm not went to micro manage someone else's design. II just recognize which is that's my line of questioning that you know this does not meet that and I am completely befuddled. That staff believe that it has, and that we've gotten to displace around that I don't get it. But I'm I'm not going to try to micromanage the design at this point I think that plenty of people have spoken in about it.

[93:05] and II think, adding some balconies and changing some glass does not change the fact that we've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, very tall buildings and some articulation. But the scale is not human scale, and I think the pedestrian experience is is going to be not what our are vision and our codes and our goals propose. We've done everything right. Gab has weighed in. The planning board has weighed in. And yeah, it it continues to move forward. So I don't think that by trying to to say, Hey, Hello, please, let's let's have this be a really awesome public experience is is really gonna change the project at this point. So

[94:04] thank you, Laura, for kind. I step side. Thank you. Thank you. Eml, okay, so no more conditions to be on, Mark. I need to ask Emel a question. and this kind of goes to the heart of the matter. Mark. We we do have a full motion on the table is I don't know if you're trying to add, I don't know if you're trying to convince them. I'll devote one way or the other, or whether you're trying to help or craft the condition. But like, I'm not really sure what? Well, if I actually, I was just trying to get those words out. So I'll I'll make my question emo the the question, Ml. Is earlier today I had drafted conditions addressing

[95:01] the portions of the Site Review that you were referring to. and my question is. do you? Plan voting for the original motion without any modification based on 9. Dash, 2, dash 14, and with Ensign little Roman numeral 5 or or is some condition required for your approval. You know, Mark, I am weighing the impact of the amendment that we just approved. Because I think that that goes a long way to reminding us that this is a th. This project has a very public base. and we need to protect that. And so the question I'm asking myself is.

[96:04] Wow. what else can be done to protect that public area. And given that, we got 55, we got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 55 foot tall buildings. masses on the side. I think it's a critical point. But I I'm not. Do you have an idea you said you were looking at a condu, a condition, possible conditions? I'd love to hear it. Fine. I'm going to send it to Devin. And and this is II had decided not to. Propose these conditions. Well, let me ask before, is there anyone else that has design conditions, conditions that address? Ml's concerns that are written and ready to go anyone else?

[97:02] Mark, thank you so much for managing the meeting. Really appreciate it. I already did ask that question. I think you've put a question to Ml. And she has told you that she's thinking it through. I would like to hear what Mark's condition might be fine. Then Mark, introduce your conditions. You don't need to ask everyone if they have already asked them. So you seem to be the only one who has them. So please go ahead. I just send it to Devin, and I'll he can put it on the screen. It is not as quite as fully formed as cause it might be, but I appreciate it is better than the full. Then I'm fully formed one that I have in my brain. Thank you, Mark. And so this is a separate we've already approved that. Just just remind everyone to know

[98:00] this is some draft language. This is not no one's made this as a motion. and so I'll I'll just address this quickly. The prior to the changes in the design that the apple gets submitted yesterday, or whenever I finally got back from traveling, was able to really look at. I had been considering. Conditions that would generally address the what the Board had the Board's concerns regarding building design, massing, etc. I'm not a design professional, and that was the only one here that's a design professional, and consequently, there was an attempt to go between. What was a deficiency, a perceived deficiency in the Co. In 9 days, 2 days 14, 2 F. 5,

[99:06] and telling the applicant what to do versus telling them, hey, thank you. You're doing a good job. You made these improvements. You need to make some continued improvements. So this is what I drafted. I am not submitting this as a motion if you want to. If this speaks to you, you go ahead, someone else. But this is this is an example of what addressing your concern would look like as a condition to be made as an amendment to the original motion. II would like to. I would like to propose an amendment. Can I? Can I ask a question of staff? First? My my question for staff is, would these conditions, as Mark has drafted an Ml. Maybe about to propose. Do these give enough definition that you could work with the applicant and fulfill these as conditions of site review.

[100:04] Are these specific enough for you? I'm I'm happy to speak up on this A as they are currently drafted. That doesn't give us exact direction in order to fulfill the condition. In other words, if it's put forward as a condition to make continued improvements that that's a very discretionary comment at a minimum, you'd say to the satisfaction of city staff, or something like that which I'm not sure the Board's read. Willing to concede that level of discernment to staff. It would be better to articulate specific items. And see if the applicants willing to work on that and consider it for another hearing. But you're asked to vote on a specific application that's in front of you, with

[101:01] potentially, you know. discrete and definable amendments as you might submit them. Thank you, Brad. Hi, I think I'm I'm understanding understanding, Mark. I appreciate. II would like Now, I know this isn't. I don't have access to this to this particular information. What I going to articulate here is and I'm understanding. We can't just say continued improvements to the design. because that's that's too broad, but I think increase engagement of pedestrians. by creating seating areas. transparency and activity at the pedestrian level.

[102:01] If somebody are you writing this down, Devin. are you amending this? I would encourage qualitative. The intent statements like improve the pedestrian access. That's not actionable bias. But if you were to say, you know. Add a side walk between Point A and Point B, that's 4 feet and length. You know that that's an actionable type thing. So be happy to look at anything that might get drafted. But but do keep in mind that it needs to be something that can be completed or were achieved, and therefore it as a condition of approval, make the approval polls. If that makes sense.

[103:09] do you have something that would add to Eml's work while we go on a 5 min. Break. Yes, just in reference to defining the fourth floor better in the proposed renderings that we got for this meeting. There's a I don't know what to call it, but it's a definition line sort of of the parapet that's seen on the on the east elevation, and so far as I can tell, that is not continued around the building. But one thing that might help with that to meet that goal is to continue that definition line all the way around the building. The other thing is also a as shown in the the new renderings. There's different material for the first floor, which I think also relates to

[104:01] the pedestrian experience. So you might want to include both of those. Yeah, Kurt, my concern is human scale in the pedestrian. I don't know if anybody is aware of this, but most of us just walk into a space. We don't have much of a sense of what's going on up to the fourth floor, fifth floor, or up there, that that isn't That would be the people off the site. That would be the cars that would be somebody off site. Those are unrealistic experiences, elevations, unrealistic experiences. We never experience the building that way. We experience it with our senses at the personal scale. I I'm gonna try to craft some language. So how long is our break going to be? I just wanted to say, if if Ml. Is going to change that condition, number 3 about setting off the fourth floor of the and talking about the top of the building, I would specify the number of the building that you're talking about and the elevation, unless you mean all buildings and all elevations.

[105:12] That was my comment. If you're gonna do that you might not be going to do that. I'm I'm taking the first sentence to address deficiencies in needing. And then I'm crafting the specifics. I I'm not going to use those 3 elements, but I think that it gave me the starting point. Alright. We're gonna take a 5 min break. Thank you.

[107:07] Remember Sanders, Labor's secretary school. I think we're we have an open mic right now. I know. SAR. Architect. Thanks.

[108:13] Where's this? Sorry?

[111:06] Alright, everybody. Please come back so we can move. Keep moving this forward while Ml. Still typing. Brad, I see that you have made yourself present your presence known. Is there something that you want to share with us before Ml. Makes her condition or proposes her condition? No, not before him. But I do wanna just be available to comment on any proposed amendments for our ability to administer it. So if II can be at the ready for you all in that regard, please. Thank you, Brad. All right. Eml, you're muted, could you? Unmute yourself and

[112:03] if your draft is ready to both text it to Devin and then read it to us. Why, how do I get it to Devin? Just put it in the chat. Okay. I'm still seeing Devin screen. Are the people seeing Devin screen? Oh, interesting. So here, let me see their goals. The start of it. It. It talks well. Brad, if you can look at that and give some input, I will read it. I move to amend the motion to include the following conditions to address deficiencies in meeting 9, 2, 14 fd. Increased engagement of pedestrians in the public spaces, receiving areas, including covered spaces and treat landscaping, create transparency of building to break up long walls

[113:02] as far as I have gotten Brad, or any of those something that you guys can work with, do you have additional language that would make sense? Yeah. thank you. Board member. rebels. I you know our. It is our job to support. The planning board as well. So we we're happy to try to take these things forward. But kind of the general comment of of increasing seating areas and creating transparency and breaking up long walls. There. There are many, many different ways that both the applicant could interpret that. And we as staff. If your intention was for us to make a final call on whether this condition is being met. I think we would be uncomfortable to try to make a final call on something that's that generalized as opposed to. you know. Again, something specific, like.

[114:06] add a break every 3 feet, or or something more specific like that. I think you know there, there's probably going to be a tipping point in design where we're back into redesign and that is probably not something that can be resolved, added Diaz, in my experience. Hmm, and of course it's up to the board to decide whether to continue this conversation on design or not. You know, in again a hearing process. I think the applicant has made it clear that they're hoping for a final decision tonight. And many of you on the board have expressed that but we would not be able to make reasonable determination based on on that language.

[115:06] And, Mel, what are you thinking? I am thinking that to to articulate how often seating spaces should be included! How many covered areas where treatment. I mean that that that's a design. I'm and I'm only talking about the public spaces I'm not talking about. We about building changes. I'm talking about the public spaces as Mark articulated, what's yellow? On that? On that plan? those are my areas of concern are that they have that they have in pedestrian engagement. you know. And I'm hearing Staff say, Brad. that needs specificity. Something like phone based code would give

[116:02] But III don't think that that's you know, I'm surprised we got to this point in the architects haven't stepped up, and and to find pedestrian friendly spaces. So II can let it go. Thank you, Laura, for suggesting, and thank you, Mark, for bringing it forward. I don't see a way out without designing the public spaces. And that isn't my role on planning board. Thank you, Amel, I really appreciate that. And the time you put in to try to draft something that you could be comfortable with. Alright, so does someone have. Is there? Are there any other conditions? If not. I'm not saying people can't. But if we don't have any other conditions, we're going to go back to the full motion, and we will vote on the full motion, including the amendment. Alright, Devin, can you please pull up entire motion with the amendment, please?

[117:03] Laurel? Yes. Paul, just before we get a little bit further, we have a couple of small tweaks we need to make to the standard conditions. No, that's okay. So we just wanted to present those to you. And I don't know. Now is a good time. More. Is that right? So there are changes to the recommended language from staff recommended conditions to include the materials that were presented today or on August third by the applicant. So just a few little language changes we need to make are these language changes you are making to the motion, or these language changes you are making to the material that Staff prepared. So it's to the material the staff prepared. But it would need to be an amendment. Because. yeah, because you're adopting that those conditions. So you need to give us the language so that we can make that an amendment, please. Great. So I think Shannon should be sharing those.

[118:07] I see a white page apologies. Sorry to slow down the process just a little bit. We just wanna make sure that these. it's okay. But it's, fine. we are not seeing anything just so you know, laurel thank you, Shannon. Oh, boy, so how do you? How do we do this? Look, laurel? Do I read the whole thing, or like, what am I doing? Yeah. So what? What I see we could do is just walk through and just show you what all the different changes are for you guys consideration. And then we can have a a motion to amend the motion, the main motion to say that we're adopting these changes. These language changes and I can help with that mushroom language. and I don't know. Shannon. Do you want me to go through this, or would you prefer to go through it? I can go through it real quick. Can you all hear me? Alright? Okay, wonderful. I'm Shannon Molar with the planning department. I'll go through these real briefly here with you. So these are the conditions of approval we originally recommended with changes identified in red

[119:13] as you can see here, we have added a reference to the supplemental materials that the applicant provided. That was that attachment that modified the design. So we have added that into the condition and refer to that as the supplemental materials. And so we've just added that throughout, in terms of the final architectural plans as modified by the supplemental materials, the Site Plan modified by the supplemental materials further down. This is the condition that was discussed tonight. and then we have the at the very end for the used review, same thing as modified by the supplemental materials. So that was that, was it. Okay? Thanks. So so thank you. Shannon Laurel. So what I'm doing is reading. Since I made the motion. Originally I'm reading the motion. and with the as amended that reflects

[120:11] all of the changes that Shannon just read. Is that correct? Yeah. And then at the very end, if it's okay, just adding this language, and I'll put it in in the chat so you can see it. So we're gonna do what's called adoption by reference. So say the motion. And then, including the amendments proposed by staff to incorporate the supplemental materials into the conditions of approval. so I'll I'll send this. Can Shannon just type it into the suggested motion language. Yeah, Shannon, I'll just send you this language. Just add another last sentence, if that's okay. And you could just add that in the last little part, and then that would be great apologies for slowing that down a little bit. That's okay. I'm sorry. So is it going to be added to this first paragraph? Or is it going to be something I have to come to somewhere else in the late in the material.

[121:06] It'll be added to the first paragraph, unless Shannon. okay, you you tell me where to put it this right here? This is it? Alright, let me just business. Okay. right here. Okay. Alright, yes, that should be the motion. Thank you for your indulgence. Alright. So we now have to second this motion again, because it's a new motion. Is that correct. Laurel? I'll go away apologies. I didn't mean to disappear. Since you guys adopted this original motion language. This is just like a minor amendment. So I would read it and then vote on it. It's okay. If you don't second this one. Yeah. Alright. At last. making a motion to approve site and use review application. LUR. 202-20-0020ne. As amended at the August eighth, 2,02023, Planning Board meeting and the proposed amendment to the Bvrc. Transportation connections plan adopting the staff memorandum is finding the fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, including the amendments proposed by staff to incorporate the supplemental materials into the conditions of approval.

[122:22] We're now Gonna have a voice vote for. Yes, Mark. Yes, Laura. Yes, George. no. ML. Oops, ml, we lost you. and I'll come back. You're you're so muted you're muted. Ml. so I had a cat emergency. I had to go rescue a cat from outdoors. What did I miss. You're voting on the final motion. We it's now free yet 3 eyes one day or next, and then me

[123:06] is there. and it includes March right. Yes, it does. I have a question for laurel. Can I vote and note my concern about that? Criteria? Yeah. So since you talked about it on the record in the discussion period, all that is on the record, the concerns about the criteria, all of that is already on the record, so you can vote, and then you can also vote or say it after the vote as well. And then, after the vote is done, any additional comments. You can. Okay. you can do it all right now, too. So whenever you feel like it. But just so, you know, all the previous discussion is on the record as well. Yes.

[124:08] with this huge qualifier that I do not believe that this project has met criteria 9,214 h. 2 Fd. And others that reference the human scale. However. I think that the project has gone through so much that I am not going to standard way. I hope the architecture listening, and we'll do something to fix that as they move forward and create a human scale experience in the public areas, I think the city of Boulder deserves that. Thank you. And I vote no. it passes 4 to 2. Thank you very much. Applicants. Very glad that this project is behind us, and you all can move on to city council.

[125:00] All right, that is over. Do we have any matters? Nothing from staff this evening, Brad, unless you had anything sorry. Slow on the buttons. Nothing for me. Thank you. Alright anything from any members of the board alright. Yes, ML. Thank you, Sarah. II sent out everybody the information about the ice challenge for the Pacif House. and I you know II don't know. You may or may not have heard me talk about the probably one of the highest building standards available out there right now that it's for commercial and residential, and they're doing what they do around the country. They're doing it in Looseville, which is they build a little structure according to the highest code.

[126:01] and then they build a little structure according to the seat House standards, and they put this. I don't know how. I can't remember 2,000 pounds of ice in it, and it sits in in each of these little buildings, for I think it's a month and Friday in Louisville, the Looseville Fair, at 50'clock. They're opening them up to see what percent of ice is remaining in each which speaks to them how? What? The what the capacity of the building is to mitigate. It's it's client. So it's always an exciting moment. And it's very cool. It's happening here, and if anybody is around Friday evening at at the Lewisville Fair. thank you. Amel. alright I am going to wrap up this during this meeting. Thank you all very much, and we'll be right back here a week from now.

[127:01] Have a good night. Y'all have a good night. Yo.