September 19, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Which is why I am following the meeting order. Thank you for saying the recording and I think first we're gonna do off the top our public participation announcements and meeting standards. But please, anybody, staff anyone other planning board members interrupt me. If I go off the rails at any point, please let me know. So should I go ahead with the rules for engagement. Please proceed with the rules of engagement, Vivian, unless I've forgotten something else that happens before that. Think it's okay. Go ahead. And, Devin, I'll pull up the slides. Great! Thank you, Lisa, the chair. And I thanks everyone from the public for joining us. We really do appreciate you taking your time, your time to attend planning board meetings. My name is Vivian, and my role in these meetings is to facilitate the public engagement parts, and the rules I am sharing are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions.

[1:00] So I'll start with open comments from community members as soon as I finish reading these and then there's a public hearing item later in the agenda. So we want every one to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that we worked with our community to develop these expectations, and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue. while also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone who participates feels safe and welcome. And we want to ensure we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it leads to more informed decision making next slide, please, Devin. And we have more information on our website about this productive atmosphere's vision. And I'm just gonna narrow it in on what we need to know for tonight's planning board meeting. There's a number of rules of decorum that are found in the bold and revised code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with everybody here tonight. First, 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 session.

[2:12] Proximity's racial epic, 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 the name they are commonly known by, and to please display your first and last name. If you would like to speak during open comment or public hearing next slide, we're in the Zoom Webinar for participants from the public to speak at designated times, but we are unable to turn on video for community members because of security concerns and Zoom Platform. There's no pre-existing list to sign up and speak today at the designated times. so you can let us know by raising your virtual hand. If you would like to speak when we call on the public. So you'll see a couple different ways to do this. At the very bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items.

[3:05] and if you click on the hand, icon, it'll raise the hand next to your name. I will know to call on you. If you have an expanded menu can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And I'll monitor to see if anybody is joining us by phone, write some instructions if needed. So again, this open comment coming up is a chance to speak about things not on the agenda tonight and just letting me know that the QA. Function can be used if you're having some technical difficulties or process related questions, but not to have side chats about content. related to agenda items. Thanks again for joining us tonight. and if you would like to speak during open, please go ahead and raise your hand, and I will call on you. Thank you, Vivian. So just to reiterate that that was perfect. But, this is an opportunity for anyone from the public who wishes to comment

[4:00] on items that are not on the agenda. We have one public hearing item which is a concept plan, review, and comment. Request for proposal to develop 31 2530 Fourth Street with 44 permanently affordable 10 house units. So we'd ask that you not comment on that. You'll have an opportunity to later. But this is public participation for any other items. So please, as Vivian said, raise your hand if you'd like to speak. and I do not see any hands rates right now. So great. Thank you, Vivian. I think our next item on the agenda is approval of minutes. So these are draft planning board minutes from July 20, fifth, 2023. Did everyone have the chance to comment who wished to comment, or folks prepared to vote on those. All right, just to keep things moving. I'll go ahead and move to approve the playing board minutes from July 20, fifth, 2023. Do I have a second? Thank you. Seconded by curt Nordbach.

[5:02] and I'll do roll call Kurt. Yes. Georgie. Yes. Amel. Yes. Laura, yes. and I am a yes, all right, those are only minutes for tonight. We next have 2 call-up items. The first is an amendment to the Shining Mountain Waldorf school phase, 2 site plan and locust neighborhood design guidelines to allow for subdivision of the approved town home lot and do 17 individual town home lots and amend phase requirements for the single family lots. Forgive me, staff and members. Is there anything else we need to say or do we just open it for any questions that folks have or anyone who wants to call that up? That's right. Yeah. Questions. Anybody has a motion cool. So any questions to Staff. Please ask us now. Eml, go ahead. Thank you. Lisa. So I have. I just have a couple of questions. one of the requests is to change the scheduling of the construction. Is there a reason, reason, that it was originally scheduled the way? It is

[6:11] a compelling reason that it was originally scheduled the way it is. You know, it's it's a little unclear. The original requirement for the phasing of the single family homes is only found in the design guidelines that were adopted. It's kind of just a blurb in the design guidelines that required them to be built in blocks of 4 homes at a time, starting on the west and moving east. So we talked about it as staff, and there there may have been some reasoning, thinking that it would create kind of a buffer between future construction sites and the existing single family homes to the West. But according to the applicant, it's it essentially makes the the construction, timing, phasing, and financing a lot more complicated to have to follow that particular order.

[7:06] so there were no identified impacts or conflicts with the existing houses adjacent houses in the neighborhood that came to your attention. And then the second question, I have. I'm looking at the 2 figures, one the approved one, and then the proposed one and there are no trees on the proposed one. Is that just an oversight? Yeah, that that may have just been I think I think that was an open space plan that I included in the memo. And really I was just trying to show that the overall site layout wasn't changing except for the new lot lines. The the landscaping is not changing. One of the the minor changes is removal of dwarf trees. There's like individual dwarf trees that are on the loss that they're proposing to remove and replace with other shrubs and other landscaping. But other than that, no, none of the. There are no changes to the landscaping plan. Okay, so all those big trees that are shown are essentially still proposed to just not on the dry

[8:11] cool. Thank you so much. I have no need to call this up. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else have any questions or desire to call this item up? All right? Moving forward. Our second call up. Item is a minor subdivision of the existing 3,346 square foot property at 2198 upland into 2 lots falling subdivision lot one will be 15,157 square feet on Lot 2, 15,189 square feet. There will also be a dedication of a 10 foot wide. Utility, easement, known modification, slampus band use code are requested. Does anyone have questions or desire to call up that item.

[9:03] Yes, Kurt. just a quick confirmation. If the what's currently proposed under zoning for affordable housing is approved. the minimum lot size in this zone would go down to 7,500 square feet right? And so in theory, if if the applicant were to wait, this could become 4 lots. Is that correct. Yeah, I believe it is okay. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm sure good question any further questions or desire to call up this item. All right. I think we'll proceed on to our single public hearing item for tonight. This is a concept plan, review and comment, request and again, I'll just emphasize concept, plan review. We're not voting, but we are giving feedback for a proposal to build 31 2530 Fourth Street with 40 44 permanently affordable townhouse units

[10:09] before Staff goes into their full presentation. We, as a board, need to decide if we're comfortable with noticing requirements and how that unfolded. So Staff's gonna speak to that briefly. We'll have a chance to ask questions and then take a vote on how we wish to proceed. Alright. Thank you. Can you all see the presentation view? Or you guys still seeing my notes? Okay? So I'm just gonna do one slide and then I'll get into the the noticing. So good evening planning board members. As you just said, this is a public hearing for concept plan review at 31, 2530 Fourth Street. So I'll go over the concept, plan and purpose. The public notification which we need to discuss. Planning context, project, background, summary of the proposed project and key issues.

[11:08] So the concept, plan and purpose, as you all know, is to review a general development plan. including arrangement of uses, land uses, circulation, alternative transportation, architecture, environmental preservation. This process is intended to give the applicant comments from the public city staff and the planning board early in the process, and there's no formal action required by the planning board tonight. So, for public notification, written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet. Notice was also posted on the property. Staff received inquiries from several neighboring property owners, as well as some preliminary comments. One neighbor expressed general support for the proposed project, and several neighbors have since expressed concerns over potential noise and lighting impacts, as well as concerns over loss of existing mature trees on the north side of the site. So the the September nineteenth meeting was noticed in news from City Hall on Sunday, September tenth, but the public, hearing agenda title for 31, 2530, Fourth Street did not make it into the classified ads.

[12:12] so the Board will have to make a finding whether or not the defect and notice impaired the surrounding property owner's ability to participate in the review process. If the board finds that the surrounding property owner's ability has not been so impaired, the Board may hold the hearing, but if the Board finds that the ability to participate in the review process has been impaired, the board would then have to continue the item for at least 10 days. So if you guys would like to make a decision on that right now, before I proceed? That would be great. All right. Does anyone have questions? Yes, Amel, go ahead. Do we have legal advice about this? I would defer to Hello! The language that Chandler put on the screen here is is what the code essentially says. If it says this, if if there's a minor defect in notice, then

[13:07] it shouldn't invalidate an action of the board, and in this case you're just holding a hearing and if any defect is brought to the attention of the board prior to the hearing or at the hearing. Then the board has to make this, finding that chamber put on the screen, and if you find that the fact that the 10 day notice that's typically required under the code for this particular hearing on this item. Impaired the ability of neighboring property owners to participate. Then you would have to continue the item for at least 10 days, and if you find that, then I would recommend that it'd be set out so far that the notice can be given as anticipated in the in the code. But if you find that it was only a minor error and there were other communications that allowed surrounding property owners to participate. Then you can make a finding that it didn't impair property owners ability to participate and continue tonight.

[14:09] And let me just interrupt. Sorry. Hello. This, I think, is not quite as comprehensive as the email we received, because it was then noticed. This past weekend right, which didn't meet the 10 day require it was, it was noticed, but without the hearing agenda title. So the meeting was noticed. and then it was noticed with the hearing agenda title. but not 10 days. That's right. Yeah. Last weekend there was a notice in the paper that had that notified about this particular item, and that that hearing would be today but 2 days before the hearing versus 10, Laura. just a couple of questions when you say that that agenda title did not make it into the classified ads. That's the classified ads of what is that? A newspaper is that some city publication?

[15:01] It's the newspaper. The particular agenda items are to typically typically posted. it. It seems like there was definitely effective outreach to Arbor Wood. Because we got a notice from their Hoa as well as several individual members. I am wondering about the other neighboring property owners, the San Juan del Centro and the Orchard Grove Mobile, Home Park. Was there any particular outreach to those those folks? They they receive mailed notice, which is the standard. So we create a mailing list for all property owners than 600 feet of the site. And we send that out right when the application comes in. So that's how the harbor would. Folks were initially noticed and contacted me, and then II notified them the hearing date. But I didn't receive any comments from San Juan Bell Centro or the Orchard Grove folks, but they did receive mail notice.

[16:00] Okay, II will just say, for my part, it seems like that direct mailed notice to those property owners is probably more likely to catch their attention than a notice in the classified ads. So I am comfortable. Proceeding with the hearing tonight. Okay? And this noticing requirement is based on the requirement in State law. Is that correct? It's a noticing requirement under the boulder revised code for concept plans. It's so. It's strictly city code. Okay? And so so city code refers to the surrounding property owners. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. well, but yeah, II agree with Laura that this seems like a minor defect. Would anyone else like to comment or weigh in before. Ii I'll say something shortly, but I want to give everyone else who wants to weigh in an opportunity.

[17:01] yeah, III read what Staff had sent previously, and understand what we're talking about here. I guess from my perspective, I as much as I want to go through things. I don't understand even a minor defect of of avoiding code for noticing meetings to the extent that someone would feel scared didn't get noticed the way that way that we've outlined in the code gives me some pause. Because II always believe that public participation in these things is is the absolute right thing to do. So the question is from perspective. why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we notice this properly and move forward when noticed properly? I just even if it's minor, what? What's the what's the concern?

[18:00] Why wouldn't we just do this appropriately? Yeah. 100%. I don't know who can answer that. But II just I don't. No one's giving any kind of valid reason to move this forward. If we haven't noticed this properly as a city. why shouldn't this just be punted until it's until it's noticed properly? Would anyone from staff like to wait, weigh in on on the reasons why you wish to keep it on the agenda and kind of move forward. I mean, I think it's the the fact that it's a concept plan that any subsequent application would need to come back to the board for a review which would then be noticed appropriately. I think we felt, since the site was posted and the direct mailing went out. that we were comfortable, moving forward and having the advisory concept plan hearing. But you know again, certainly the board can make different findings other than you know the way Staff has viewed it.

[19:02] Yeah, I guess, Charles, is. The my question is more. If we haven't noticed it properly, thoroughly. even if it's minor. what's the like? What's the harm? What's the harm in moving this to some other date beyond just kind of all of our time being sure beyond the logistics. Really nothing. You know, and I think maybe the applicant would. You know, assert that they'd like to get going on their their site review application, and they're, you know, would like to get the feedback from planning board. And you know, potentially council, recognizing that it's a Php. Project. But you know ultimately, George, I don't think that there is any real harm. any further comments. Yes, I know. It seems to me that this information it's up on the screen, and that Hela referred to as well.

[20:00] that there's a little bit of more nuance to the. It's not just black and white. Well, it didn't get noticed, so don't really. you know, thing to do is just to to notice it properly. It sounds like. because there are not just the noticing in the paper, but there's a mailing and any other outreach that was done. It's one of many meetings to inform the surrounding neighborhood that was compromised. And II think that that's what this sentence or paragraph gives us is the opportunity to say, Well, okay. one. many, many ways of letting people know was was compromised. We did put a notice that was only 2 days, so II don't think I don't have a problem moving forward with it. I understand what George is saying.

[21:03] but I think that because there are kind of other opportunities that have been taken. I don't see that it has impaired surrounding owners ability to participate, so I will be agreeing with with Laura. Thank you. Thank you. Amel. Anyone else before I weigh in looking for hands back and forth. Yeah, I think I think Georgia's point's a good one and I'm I'm also Gonna fall on the side of Ml. And Laura, I think, because of the concept review and because of the other forms of notice, and also as much as I love old newspapers daily cameras behind a paywall. So you know, I understand why, that's legally how we do it, and that's written into the code. But ultimately, I think I find other forms of noticing, including direct mail, to be more informative and and more inclusive. That, said II do see kind of a wiggly space there and within myself, which is that this weren't a concept review. If this wasn't coming back. And if we're really controversial project, I think I would be saying we absolutely cannot be hearing this. So

[22:21] III think that's kind of an interesting nuance in my own reaction. And how I'm I'm gonna be voting on this particular decision. Yeah. So that's kind of where I'm at. Does anyone have anything else I'd like to say before I call a vote? Okay, let me make sure I can make introduce this language. Yes, go ahead, Helena, please. Yeah. I was gonna suggest that you formulate it as a motion. I will. Yeah, I'm about to. Don't worry. Okay, so I move that planning board make a finding that the defect, minor defect and notice did not impair the surrounding property owners ability to participate in the review process.

[23:10] Are you happy with that, Hela? Okay. I'll check in that. Thank you, Amel. All right. I will now call a roll call, vote Georgie? No. Ml. yes. Kirk. Yes, Laura, yes. and I will also be a yes, so we will proceed with this item the public hearing. Item and again, I'll reiterate for any members of the public who are concerned by that. First, I apologize that you're concerned by that, and secondly, I want to emphasize that this is concept plan review. You will have multiple opportunities to weigh in. All right, Chandler, please proceed. Okay. Thank you. So the project site is located on 30 Fourth Street, north of Almont Road. The site is bordered on the west and south by the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park, San Juan del Centro to the east and Arbroad Condominiums and the Howard Houston Park. To the north

[24:09] the site is roughly 4.6 acres in size and is currently vacant the Bvcp Land use. Designation for the site is medium density residential, which is described here as being characterized by a variety of housing types. Medium density areas are generally situated in your neighborhood and community shopping areas, or along some of the major arterials of the city uses consist of a variety of housing types ranging from single family, detached to attached residential units, such as townhomes, multiplexes, and some small lot detached units, not necessarily all on one site, and the anticipated density is 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre in terms of the zoning on the site, as you can see here. The site is zoned rm, one. and this is described in the land use code as medium density. Residential areas which have been or are to be primarily used for attached residential development, where each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions

[25:08] attached. Residential units are allowed by right in R one density in the Rn. One zone is based on open space with a minimum requirement of 3,000 square feet of open space for each unit. Therefore, 44 units would require, roughly 132,000 square feet of open space, and the maximum allowable height by right is 35 feet. So these are going to be some shots of the existing site and surrounding area. As I mentioned before. The site's roughly 4.6 acres, and is currently vacant. The site was originally part of the property known as 3,003 Valmont Road, 27 acres of which was developed with the 216 Unit Orchard Grove, Mobile Home Park, in 1963 in 2,000 and 8 City Council approved, rezoning the 27 acre portion of the property containing the Mobile Home Park, which are parcels A, B and C to Mobile home to address concerns about potential loss of affordable housing and the displacement of residents that could result from the redevelopment of the park

[26:07] parcel d. On which the project site is located, maintained a land use designation of medium density residential, and is zoned RM. One. As I mentioned before, boulder housing partners who the applicant purchased the subject property in 15 so this is a shot of San Juan del Centro, looking east. The architectural character of the surrounding area is very eclectic, with mobile homes to the south and west of the site, the two-story San Juan del Centro Apartment complex, immediately across 30 Fourth Street to the east. and the 3 story Elizabethan style, arbor, wood, condominiums to the north. which you can kind of see here, and there'll be additional pictures in a second the boulder and white rock ditch occupies the northwest corner of the property. This is looking across the dish towards Arbor Wood. There's dense vegetation and mature trees along both sides of the ditch channel, essentially enclosing the parcel along the west and north property lines. As a result, surrounding development to the north is not widely visible from the site.

[27:07] This is a shot of on the north side of the ditch, still on the subject property, but looking across at the Arbroad Condominiums, which are immediately adjacent to the site lying to the north. So the proposed project. as indicated in the applicant's plans. The proposal consists of 44 townhouse units, with a mixture of two-story, 2 bedroom units, and one story, one bedroom units. The proposal shows a series of fourplex layouts with each fourplex, consisting of 2 one story units, flanking 2 2 story units. as noted in the applicant's written statement, which is included as attachment B in your packet. Bhp. Is exploring modular construction in order to capitalize on repetition the floor plans and allow for distinguishing features, using exterior materials and color palette while decreasing construction, time and cost. improving accuracy and construction, and providing a sustainable building solution.

[28:01] The site. The proposal includes about 138,540 square feet of usable open space, which exceeds the minimum requirement for RM. One, and they're showing 65 off street parking spaces which is consistent with parking requirements plus a little extra. So the current proposal shows 2 particular access points of a site off of 30 Fourth Street, which are designed to align with the adjacent entry points for San Juan del Centro As noted in the Staff Review, comments to the applicant which are included as attachment. C. Transportation staff has recommended removing one of these proposed access points off 30 Fourth Street, and coordinating with the neighboring property owner of Orchard Grove to potentially link the southwest area of the proposed site plan to the private street system within the Mobile Home Park to the south. The proposal also includes new multi use path connections and sidewalk connections through the site and largely preserves the ditch corridor

[29:02] the site will have a variety of new sidewalk connections, as I just mentioned. it should be noted that. Oh, sorry. okay. So the sidewalk connections through the site and around property include a new multi use path connection along 30 Fourth Street and along the north side of the property, to connect into a future multi use path connection which is shown in the transportation master Plan, and that's shown in the dotted blue line right there. It should be noted that Staff has received comments from residents of the neighboring harbor. Wood condominiums expressing concerns over the proposed multi-use path connection along the northern edge of the site. Specifically, residents are concerned about removal of existing vegetation and landscaping along the Northern property boundary, as well as a lack of buffering between the proposed multi-use path connection and the adjacent homes to the north. This site plan also just shows kind of the open space layout. You can see that there's a centralized community building as well as community open space areas and what they are showing as pollinator gardens.

[30:09] As noted above, the proposal appears to exceed the minimum open space requirement for the arm, one zone, which, with much of the usable open space being provided on the northwest corner of the site, along the existing ditch, and just south of there the applicant has indicated that the existing ditch area and adjacent meadow will largely remain, as is, but will be enhanced by some cleanup and restoration activities to preserve and protect the natural area. While the application packet does not include specific architectural renderings, the applicant has provided numerous reference images as well as detailed massing studies, showing the intent behind the proposed massing. The applicant's written statement expresses a desire to provide a transition in massing from the northwest to the south and east sides of the building. Nope, okay. so key issues for discussion. Key issue number one is, is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan

[31:09] and case you number 2 is, does planning board, have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design. So for key issue number one. The proposed density of roughly 10.4 units per acre is consistent with the density anticipated in the Pvcp. And the proposed housing type which is attached residential. We'll add a variety of housing types in the surrounding area. In addition, the fact that the 44 units are intended to be 100% permanently affordable housing managed by boulder housing partners makes the project consistent with a number of Bbcp policies related to housing, including the ones listed here, 7.0 1. Local solutions to affordable housing, affordable housing goals, mixture of housing types, balancing, housing, supply with employment-based and integration, and permanently affordable housing.

[32:01] In addition, the proposal currently includes several features that appear to meet other comp-plan policies, including compact development, pattern. preservation and support for residential neighborhoods, improve mobility, grid and connections. wetland and riparian protection, energy, efficient building design and equitable transportation and transportation facilities in neighborhoods. For key issue number 2, which is whether the Board has feedback on the conceptual Site Plan and building design just listed some considerations here that are drawn from the Site review criteria so for the discussion, it might be worth focusing on site design, street layout, access, building, sighting, and orientation, public realm, interface and parking location. and in terms of building design, focusing on materials, mass and scale and consistency with the character of the surrounding area in terms of next steps following the Concept review, hearing City Council may vote to call the item up for a council, hearing to provide additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submitting a development review applications or may submit a second concept. Review application if they wish

[33:13] a Site review application would be a staff level decision, subject to call up by the planning board. And now we can move on to questions and discussion. Alright. Let me reiterate one thing that I didn't say I did not verbally call the vote. So it was a 4 one vote that passed. I'm sure that's in the minutes. But just to read into the record questions for staff. Please raise your hand. Saw Laura. I saw your hand first. Please go ahead. Thank you. I have a couple chandler. Could you show the image again that has the clubhouse on? It shows the site layout? Yes. that one will work. Okay. So the clubhouse is that building that looks like it's in between the 2 drive access points.

[34:07] If you went down to 1 one access point on 30 Fourth Street as Staff are recommending. Would that clubhouse have to be raised or moved like it? Looks like you can't drive through it. It looks like it's a one story clubhouse that blocks that drive Lane. Am I looking at that correctly? I think it would have to be moved. Yes. and I can defer to the applicant when they're ready to discuss potential options for that. Okay. and then just 2 more quick questions related to if the zoning for affordable housing ordinance passes as it is written. would this site be able to have increased density? Would that change the open space requirements in this zone? That's a good question. Charles, do you know, if we're proposing changes to the Rm. One open space standards. let me double check, and I will loop back.

[35:02] And then another question related to the zoning for affordable housing ordinance. I believe that that ordinance, as currently written, exempts projects that are 100% affordable housing from site review. Would this project have been exempt from site review? If that passes, or is there some other trigger that would make this project have to have site review. I mean, right now, the only trigger is just the minimum lot size in the RM one zone. So if that ordinance exempts projects that are 100% affordable housing, that I think this would be exempt. Yes. yeah, I'll double check on that, too, Laura. Okay, thank you. Those were my questions. I will pass to the next person. Thank you. Laura. Amal, go ahead. Thank you. So yeah, I think one of my questions initial questions is about density. Is this

[36:01] proposed plan maximizing the allowable density? Yes, okay. So Staff was wanting to discourage the 2 entry points. Why. our designing construction standards and the the land use code require minimizing access. Basically. So they? They say you're supposed to take one access point off the lowest category street. So whenever we can, we try to minimize access just to manage, you know, traffic and circulation. And the suggestion was to make it through street to the project to the south of this. Has that project? Is that possible feasible? Is that something that can actually happen? W. We're not sure. It would really be up to the applicant to have that discussion with the neighboring property owners. Those are private streets in the Mobile. So transportation staff just felt like it would improve access and circulation of the Mobile Home Park, because right now it's kind of a

[37:13] kind of a closed loop system in there. so it's really kind of a it's a third party negotiation that the city wouldn't really be a party to but but from an engineering perspective it's preferable. And if this only had one entry off of the 30 Fourth Street. Does Code require it to have a second entry a second access? No. so it could only have the one and not link up to the property to the south. Correct trees. so I don't. I didn't see

[38:00] on any of the drawings where these trees that are being referred to by the residents are located. Do you have any drawing? That shows I don't have any drawings, but I can show it. So this this is the picture of So II did a walkthrough of the site with one of the residents of Harvard and and we did a careful walk through of the ditch and the Northern property line. So these are basically the trees that they're referring to the ones that are in front of these units. Boom! I'm I'm gonna use be annoying and use the privilege of running this meeting. Are those Russian olives. And is that a farmer's ditch? I am not sure the species of tree. I believe they were mentioned in the email that we received from the Hoa and the farmers ditch is actually like this picture is basically taken from kind of the edge of the trees that surround the farmers. Ditch.

[39:03] Does the farmers just have jurisdiction over those trees. No, those trees are located on arbor wood property that we're looking at from where you're standing to that that who owns that piece of property? This is part of the project site. Okay? So really that those trees are along the Northern property line. They are like right at the property line. Is that correct? And the issue is my last question. The multi use path that is being proposed. Currently. it is a it doesn't exist on the area, the the path that this is supposed to connect to doesn't exist. It's a feature, proposed path. Is that correct on the master plan? So the potential for this to be tweaked a little in its location.

[40:16] Is that possible? I mean, cause connecting doesn't exist yet. Right? Yeah, the path would basically go right across this turf where you're seeing. And it kind of connects to what's basically like a dead end street in the Mobile Home Park right now. but there is, you know, there's the ability. There is some flexibility in terms of connections in the Tnt. So the path could you know the the exact alignment of the path can be moved a bit, I think, as long as it connects to where it's supposed to connect to, there's definitely some flexibility in terms of how it travels through this area. So potentially, the multi use path

[41:01] wouldn't have to interfere with those trees that are not on this property. Yeah, no, I don't. I don't think that it would have to. Oh, no, I was just gonna say, the applicant may want to talk further about this. But there's also, you know, potentially, some landscape buffering requirements. We could add, or, you know, some some various things to kind of increase the buffering between the path and those and the arbor would condos. Right? I yeah, I think what I was hearing was that the multi use path was gonna require taking out trees. But I'm I'm hearing that that's not necessarily a given no, and I don't think that would be the case anyways, because those trees are not on this property. Yeah. great. Thank you so much, Chandler. No problem. Kurt, please go ahead. Thank you. And thanks to Staff for the presentation. I have questions about the same. Follow up some same things that other people have asked about. Do you have any kind of a rendering of Staff's concept of how this second access that's being proposed off the Mobile Home Park. Streets would go

[42:09] because there are multiple streets in there. So I'm just wondering. Is there any concept about which one would connect? To which way would go, or just have you not gotten that specific? We have not gotten that specific yet. Okay? And then regarding the multi-use path on 30 Fourth Street. So when I look at the Tmp map. as far as I can tell. It's not. It's not specifying one side or the other of 30 Fourth Street. is there? Is there a reason why it's being required on the west side? Is it? Is it just being required there because the development is happening there? Or is it because there's something specific in the map that shows it should be on the West side. 34.

[43:03] No, it's just because this this property is the one coming in for redevelopment. So that is what kind of gives us the ability to require. That they construct new transportation connection. Okay? But there's it's not connecting. Currently, it's not connecting to anything further south. Right. It would just be this section that would be constructed. Yes, okay. And then also with regards to that. So the design construction standards. If a multi use path is required along the street. Is there no requirement for a separate sidewalk? That's a good question. I don't believe so. I think usually, if we have a multi use path, it it kind of is intended for to be both the sidewalk and for bicycle travel. Yeah. okay.

[44:01] okay, I think those are all my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Kurt. Georgia, go ahead. Yeah. Just quick question for staff. I may ask same thing. The applicant in our design instruction standards, but also just in general to work with the applicant Wi. Were there any opportunities to put the vehicles behind some of the buildings looking at this. Actually, the the the thing on the screen here looks like a lot of vehicles are parking directly in front of the home. So I'm just wondering if there were alternate discussions around trying to tuck the vehicles behind the buildings. So that the frontage is little bit more neighborhood like I mean, I'll probably defer to the applicant to. There's nothing in our standards that requires that, like, you know, not having

[45:00] the say, review standards do say that you need to basically minimize the visibility of parking. But it's usually it's from the right of way. So technically here they are kind of parking. If if the you know backs of the buildings, they're facing 30 Fourth Street and they're parking in the front, they're minimizing, parking from the view of the right of way. really stops with the right away, not not going back in in a case like this, where I mean, we have. We have some discretion to to ask them to make parking less visible during site review. Okay, thanks. Laura, go ahead. Thank you just a quick follow up on the questions about the multi use path across the north edge of the property. In some of the letters that were submitted by neighbors. It sounded like there was a question, or people had the impression that the multi-use path would be half on this property and half on the Arbor Wood property, and could potentially require taking out their fence.

[46:07] I think I heard you say, Chandler, that the multi-use path on the north edge would be completely on this property, and not half and half did I understand that correctly? Yes. okay, so it'll be completely on this property. Their fence is safe. That's correct. Okay, thank you. And I'll follow up on that. Sorry I'm stolen. Trees. The, I think. looks like those are Russian halls that it sounds like. They don't mind, perhaps, that those are removed, but they also planted a bunch of crab apples. Are those crab apples on this property that we're talking about, or are they on the adjacent property over the property line? II would assume they're on the adjacent property. starting defense. It was just grass

[47:00] starting at the fence and then coming onto this property that that we're looking at the overview of like from here. Okay? And then the tree that the trees are on the other side of that chain link. Okay, thank you, Tanner, cool any other questions from board members. I think our next step will be public comment. Once we're finished with questions for staff looking for I'm I'm sorry, Lisa. Do we go through the applicant presentation first. Oh, yeah, you're right. Thank you. Yes, Laura. Yes, yes, applicant presentation questions for applicant, then public. And they can go ahead and bring up their presentation. Thank you, Vivian. Hi, everyone. I'm just gonna get a second to share my screen and make sure everybody's seeing the correct thing. Thank you. Erin.

[48:20] Okay. no. Is everyone seeing the slide without the notes. Yes, Okey, Dokey, okay, thank you all very much. Chandler, thanks for that presentation, and I appreciate being able to. We all appreciate being able to present this to tonight, cause we're very excited to show it to you. We've got a great team. We've been working with older housing partners. I am. I'm sorry. Didn't introduce myself. My name is Erin Bagnell, principal at Sofaspan architects. and we're also working with studio Terra on landscaping and site works

[49:02] for the civil and storm water and utility design. So our team is here tonight. If you have any questions we're happy to answer. Whatever whatever you have, and I'm going to hand it over to Laura Sheinbaum from boulder housing partners to introduce boulder housing partners. The applicant. Thanks, Erin. Good evening. I'm Laura Shinbaum, with boulder housing partners. It's great to be in front of you this evening. It's been a minute since we've been here, but I wanted to assure you that we're busy building some of the things that you guys have approved for us in the past couple of years. Just a reminder, Aaron. Maybe you could go to the next slide. We are the housing authority for the city of Boulder. We are an owner. Not only a developer, but owner and perpetuity. Property manager. We provide resident services. We're a champion of the environment. We also have a voucher program of about 1,400 units. And we are currently at about 1,600 units total in our portfolio for city affordable units.

[50:06] We're busy working on some projects that are a little bit different than the one you're seeing from us tonight. So we've got 60 units of senior housing coming up in South Boulder rally sport is about to break ground next next month. That's about a hundred units of more of a workforce style housing, and then we have 73 units that we're in the process of financing over at Diagnosa. That'll be family units that are again relatively dense in their in their nature. So we're excited about orchard growth because it's a little bit less stense. It breathes a little bit more. We have a focus on larger unit sizes community spaces, gardens, and just trying to provide different products that I think that we've heard that the city is looking for in terms of a variety for affordable housing. So all of the the metrics we've gone through already. I did want to mention in terms of community engagement. We we have noticed, we have an interest list. We did send out some notice to people that have expressed interest in the project in the past, that notice notification did go out also from Bhp, and we have gotten some. We've done community engagement done some

[51:17] surveying and polling and Erin's gonna talk a little bit about that here in a minute. But we we feel like we have reflected back to folks some of the things that we've heard and one of the biggest ones is that buffer with the open space and having a wildlife portal along that ditch area. So I think some of the decisions that we've made, and perhaps even the parking. The visibility of the parking is sort of a intent to keep that to the east and and have that wildlife corridor supported along the ditch. It's also a preservation of some of the trees that are in that area. So we look forward to your feedback and your comments, and I'm gonna hand this back over to Erin and let her walk you through everything. Thank you.

[52:02] Okay. So moving forward you've seen this, Chandler did a great job. So some of these things are, gonna be a little bit repetitive. But, as you can see, the project site is a relatively rare empty site. about 4 and a half acres in Boulder central boulder. So it's just east of, or sorry west of Foothills Parkway, and the rail and just north of the Boulder Junction phase one. and as as Laura mentioned we did a recent outreach dhp, I believe, has yeah. Has on this property since 2,018 or 2,017. I'm gonna get that wrong. But they've owned it for a while, and so they they've done a couple of outreach events. But this recent one was more comprehensive and had everything to do with how? What you're seeing tonight, and the design that was chosen to be put in front of the staff and planning board for Concept review. So Bhp did a an organized online survey.

[53:11] and people were given lots of questions and they were given lots of opportunity to comment. And what came out of that study was and majority of people wanting the townhouse style concept, which is what you see today. So just some high level stats. It's about a 4 and a half acre site. There's gonna be 44 affordable housing units. 70% of the entire site is open space. A lot of that is a result of the zoning but regardless. It's a nice stat we are, as Laura mentioned, going to preserve the what residents term the Wildlife corridor. It is a ditch, but it's also a very nicely inhabited and used riparian area. So we are excited about being able to improve upon that and preserve it.

[54:09] There are 12 buildings. There's fourplex, mostly fourplex, and then 2 duplex buildings. We have a community center and playground, 65 off street parking spaces. You might have seen in this in the Site Plan. There are also on street parking spaces along both sides of 30 Fourth Street and a community garden. So one thing about our design and our concept is that's important to note is the scale and how it works well with the existing neighborhood, and as we mentioned the manufacturer home part to the but it's surrounded by on the west and the south, and then there's lots of variety of multi-family apartment style housing all around it, and we believe that the orchard Grove typology fits very nicely, transitioning in the middle of it.

[55:05] So a couple of things about the site plan. I'll I'll go over my spiel about the preservation of the the wildlife corridor and it and this definitely ties into, George. Your comments about the parking. If you could see. I don't know if you guys can see my arrow. Pause. Okay, so there the the site plan is nice. The buildings are nice because they're 2 sided. So they have a front facing part porch, and then they have a back facing porch because of the nature of the site. The this, the porches along 34 Street are all hiding the parking lanes or access areas in internally. Likewise the these front sides of the interior units will front a path in the landscape area and have circulation north-south through the site.

[56:00] and then the parking would be in their their back entry doors. So 2 sided sites. The parking is relatively concealed, especially from the public right of way. the multi-use path that you're seeing along the north side and also along coming down north, south along 30 Fourth, and it wraps over. These are all results of. You know, we've all seen the transportation plans and their lines on a map. So this is our concerted effort to make the best multi use path connector from the Mobile Home Park to the south, up towards Howard Houston Park. and then also an East-west connector that I believe, connects to Glenwood Avenue and that east-west portion of things. So you can see in here we have. We're not. We're staying far away from the the existing ditch and the riparian zone and our hope is that that's noticed by the neighbors in the community

[57:08] and will be appreciated another interesting thing about the site is that we're designing for modularity and we're exploring modular construction so that we can find the efficiencies in construction, especially on the site where it is a special opportunity to have an empty site, and it's gonna decrease construction, timeline and find economies of scale and hopefully become a model for how to do this more in the future. In our city. You've seen this before from Chandler. So it's it's a we're trying to economize and make a distinction between the buildings, but at the same time find ways of capitalizing on the modularity. So there'll be our different articulations of each fourplex, and we'll start to develop that as we go into the next phase and site Review, so you'll see more of a building design, and how we

[58:13] make more of a neighborhood the next time we come in front of you. These are all some views of the site to from the southeast aerial view from the southeast from the west. We were just looking at this on Chandler screen some views about of the gardens and the community space and the clubhouse. so we will just briefly touch on the single access and recommendation of transportation staff to change to one access. And I believe it's been my understanding through the years that a lot of the time the single access is is a result of trend of safety.

[59:01] So they're trying to minimize crossings, and especially of multi-use paths which we do have going north south along 30 Fourth Street. So True. If we were to have 2 spots we would cross the multi path twice. So I think in the next iteration we'd probably need to explore one access point and slightly rearrange as you as you noted. We'll have to move the community building. But one thing I did want to note is that it's slightly contradictory, because if we were to go towards the south. We would also be crossing a multi-use path. So we'd be adding one if we were to. And and again, there's a lot of challenges to crossing into private property and streets that are owned by the city. So that's all we have. Thank you. And we're here to answer any questions that you might want to ask

[60:07] thanks. Thank you so much for that. Kurt. I see your hand up. Please go ahead. Thanks. Could you return first of all to that previous slide. Do you guys see my screen still? We see some interesting 3D shape. So you said that this would cross a multi use path. Yeah, we have. So the in the transportation master plan, there's a connection that they'd like to make on this from this side of from basically from or to growth mobile Home Park to this path up here.

[61:04] If you see mine, can you see mine? Okay? So in in the transportation master plan. It basically is just a swath across the site. But in our plan we're bringing it along that set southern edge. And then up the 30 Fourth Street to connect. I see, I see. Okay. understood. Thank you. my. My other question is about, I guess. Just sort of your approach to the access to these buildings. So if we stick with this rendering here this perspective, rendering these these units, these buildings that are on the east side. you consider that east facade to be the front side? Right?

[62:01] But you're not showing any sidewalks access sidewalks from the street to the front doors. Correct correct, correct, correct and that that's gonna be another lei level of development. As we move into site Review. There's a lot of rain garden stormwater that will have to occur in this area. So we'll figure out how they work together. But we we would also intend on developing that streetscape for pedestrian. Okay? And what about on the west side? Also the the western most, the, I think, 2 Western most buildings they're quote unquote front entrance is on the west side. But currently, there's no path shown there on that west side. So again, would you imagine access to the front.

[63:01] to the to the front doors of those. Yeah, I think there's probably gonna be another level of connection path. And if we so if we. the the each, each living room as it's if you look at this site plan or the site, this floor plan. The parking is on this side and their back porches. It's it's meant to be architecturally a fronting element, but it really is their it's not their front door. The front door would be closer to their parking spot. So okay, so you're not actually expecting people to go in their front door. It's more an appearance of a front door, correct where it's we're trying to promote the neighborhood and the the pedestrian experience along the green space. Yeah. Okay. Another question about the parking. I think in the memo that we got you showed 60

[64:07] parking spaces, and that's what I counted. But then, in your presentation, you said 65, did we have to add some? Yeah, we have 60 parking spaces. And we have 5 around the community building. Okay? So so those along that north, south. Yeah, right? There. Okay. yeah, right around here. And here. Okay. such. All right? I think that's all. For now, thank you. lisa, should I go ahead. sorry am I, these are going in and out, please go ahead, Emily, and then, after you will be Laura. Thank you. So I'm gonna follow up with those questions. There you are, Erin. Hi, Erin. Thank you for your presentation.

[65:10] so I don't see a building section. I think that this idea of the porches is kind of it. It it it's interesting, you know, and kind of confusing, because I'm seeing those porches coming like top of a bedroom off of the kitchen, and that's what was being proposed. So where is the I'm looking at the floor plans. Where are the garages? Where's the parking spaces? Right, aren't they? Garages? Aren't they attached garages. They're not. No, there's just if we go back to the the site plan, there's on grade parking in front of this side of their entry.

[66:04] Oh, okay, so that was what you meant by saying 2 sided. But for something, there's porches on both sides. There are no garages. It's on street parking. You would enter. so when I'm looking at the typical ground level. there's one side that shows the kitchens, and one side shows the living rooms. Where is 30 Fourth Street relative to this plan. 30 Fourth Street in this plan would be on this side. So Samantha, kitchen kitchens on the street, kitchen and bedrooms and bedrooms. And the parking would be off of the living room. Sites correct? So the the

[67:08] community could happen. Either end on the bigger unit, but probably will only happen off of the living room side insofar as interaction with your neighbors. Yeah, fair fair enough point. And that's really just a, you know. restriction of the floor plan. There may or may not be another way to organize that. And we can take a look at it. Right? Okay. So let me see, you said that the project resulted from community input, so who's the community? I'm gonna hopefully drawn, Laura, your memory of this, but I can speak to it if you need. No, I'm here. We have an interest list. So we sent out survey information to the interest list, which also included all of the Mobile Home Park of Orchard Groves. So we have connection to the manager of the Orchard Mobile Home Park. Anybody who is on our interest list was also sent information, and then

[68:12] back, and before the pandemic we we did pause during the pandemic. The progression of the the work here, but we did some on site meetings that you know. The entire neighborhood was invited, including San Juan Delcentro neighbors to the North, and then the the Mobile Home Park membership. So sounds like Bhp, the Bhp community plus the adjacent people. So there's no Bhp community here. Currently we just own the land. So we everybody in the neighborhood, when you said your interest. Oh, the interest was right with these people that signed up on our on our website. These are all for sale. Is that correct? No, they will be rental. Oh.

[69:00] okay, So let me see how close are amenities to this project. ie. We talk about the 50 min Neighborhoods we talk about, you know, being able to walk to. I didn't see Where's I know. I guess there's a bus on Belmont. Where is the closest services for this? What would be the 15 min kind of circle? And what's in in in that. I can speak to this. Oh, thank you, Erin. So if we you see my screen and this is the project site. It's it's very nicely located along an existing Maltese path. So if you were to hop right on the I don't know what this path name is, but it go. It links up to everything. You can take it around here and go to the safe way on Iris and 28 and all of the development that's happening at diagonal plaza.

[70:08] You can take 30 Fourth Street south and link up with all of the development that's happened at Boulder transit phase one. And then a little bit further to the Pearl Street and the whole Foods, and the Y.M.C.A. And all of the amenities around that. So I feel like it's it's very close, especially it's walkable and very bicle do you know where the sort of 15 min line goes? Does it capture? I mean II don't know precisely. But just because I live in this area of town, and I walk, ride my bike all the time. I think in 15 min you could walk to whole foods. okay, good walk to save way.

[71:01] Got it? Yeah. Okay. I think that those were my questions. I was mostly curious about these double porches. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Laura. I see your hand is up. Thank you. I'm gonna have lots of nice things to say in the Comments section. But I have one question quickly, which is I noticed that all of the units are one and 2 bedroom and when we talked with Michelle Allen she also talks about demand for larger units, like 3 bedroom units for families. Was there any consideration of building some of these as 3 bedroom units. Given that, you know the densities fairly low. Because of the open space requirements in this zone. So I didn't know if this might be an opportunity for some of those slightly larger units, or if those are elsewhere in your portfolio, or or what you're thinking about. That is Erin. You want me to hop in here? yes, please. I mean, I can answer. But

[72:01] yeah, I think we are planning on some 3 bedrooms is my recollection that we have that conversation, and they were supposed to be incorporated at some point. So, whether or not they were in the packet or not. I don't. I don't know that for sure. But yes, I think the intent is to have some of those 3 bedroom units larger family size. Certainly it's a site that would be really conducive to family life, you know, with the community center and playground. And you know, again, access to open space, and the multi use paths and and all the amenities that are nearby. So yeah, I think that's a great comment, and certainly something that we we see demand for. It's we don't see as much as people might think we do for the 3 bedroom. It's actually one of the harder product types for us to lease but once we do find the right family generally, they stay for a long time. So our occupancy rates are quite high for the 3 bedroom units that we have in our portfolio. So we'll be excited to incorporate that at this this location as well.

[73:03] Great to hear. Thank you that that was it for me. So back over to you, Lisa. Do we have any other comments for questions. Yep, I just saw a hand. Let me scroll back. Charles, please go ahead, Lisa. That's me. I just wanted to respond to laura's questions about the pending zoning code changes for permanently affordable housing. So there's no changes proposed for the intensity standards and the exception for site review requirements as proposed for 100% middle residential housing developments where no modification to development standards are requested, and all the units are townhomes, duplexes, or attached dwelling units locating located in buildings that have no more than 4 dwelling units. Those would be the projects that are exempt from site review. So I think in this case this would still not just one into a site review.

[74:04] Okay, thank you, Charles. Thank you, Charles. All right. Any other comments from, or questions from board members or from staff. All right, let's go ahead and proceed. Now, I believe, with public comment. Please raise your hand. If you are interested in speaking to this item specifically. thank you. Chair, and just wanted to remind members of the public. If you wish to speak, to please indicate your first and last name, and if you're not sure how to change it, and you wish to speak, you can also send it to me through the QA. So first up we have Greg Farfola. Please go ahead, Greg. You have 3 min greetings. I'm Greg Varola, Resident of Arborwood, 32500'neill Circle, Boulder, Colorado, 8 0 3 0 1. I have no financial interest in the origin of

[75:12] Neighborhood project. I'm speaking as a resident owner at Arbor Wood, and former. Ho! A President regarding the public notification regarding the public notification. There was. I don't subscribe to the Daily camera and our Board of Directors of our hoa. and neither our management company were contacted directly by BHP. Or the city. About this project. There's been no signage adjacent to our property regarding

[76:00] this upcoming plan. and there have been no no presence from BHP. Or the city at our HOA. Meetings since 2018, I and Arbor wood residents have a deep concern about the multi use path planned for the area on the south side of our property. The current maps cite the path at the property line. and, as I've seen in BH. P's presentation here. the multi use path is sited straddling the property line on both BHP. Property and arbor wood property. The maps that I've seen to night clearly show this a fence and a line of mature trees, or right there the potential loss of the fence in the trees could jeopardize a fundamental pillar of our community. And that's security.

[77:01] We have seen the unintended consequences from bike paths in boulder. We experience them every day because of this, the security fence and trees that the South property line of arbor wood must stay. They are vital to the security of our community. I urge the current design to be re evaluated, and the siting of the multi use path clarified and the maps revised were all in the same boat. Thank you. Thank you so much. Greg and I do not see any other hands. Maybe give folks a couple of minutes. Okay, we have Alfred Shock. Alfred. Please go ahead. You have 3 min to share your comments. Just have to mute from yourself. Okay, I just, I just wanted to clarify the issue about the trees that you saw in the photograph.

[78:00] You saw the big, swirly Russian olives. Those are embedded in the in the chain link fence, but I think the majority of the root stock is in Bhp property between those 2 olive trees, you might have noticed a green tree. and there are 9 of those that are planted. We planted those in 2015, and they're now over 7 inches in trunk diameter. Dat's our concern there is there. Excuse me, there is no room. There's only 6 feet to the property line. There's other other items like the location of a 50,000 volt line you would have to put. We have a slope there. You would have to put in retaining walls. It would be a mess, and we'd loose the trees. There's all they all they have on their side of the property is the open field. I don't know.

[79:05] Yes. the bike path excuse a multi use path, retracts, retracts from open space. I don't know if if if that extra 6 feet for the length of the property is inflicting in a negative way the open space commitment. But that's the choices between heaven 12 feet instead of 6 feet on their property. or ye tear down the trees. That's it's a pretty simple thanks for the support you guys are doing a great job. I know your hands are full, that's enough. But as involved with this project from the get, and well, the only the only way I knew this was coming was, the city has a nice mailing list

[80:00] and I'm on the neighborhood so II knew right away, and I try to help our board. Thank you very much, that's all. Thank you so much else for that. Thank you for coming and sharing your comments. Anybody else from the public wish to speak. Now just go ahead and raise your hand. So we know to call on you. Okay, thank you. Chair. Great. Thank you so much. We're at 7 20. So I'm going to go ahead and call a 9 min break. We'll come back 8 min now. We'll come back at 7 30 and then we can discuss. So thank you so much, members of the public for speaking applicant and fellow board members, and we'll be back at 7 30.

[89:02] So okay, sorry. I've got a Kurt. I don't see you back, but I see your hand up so I don't know if the hand was still left up, or if you had something you wanted to say. Sorry hopefully. You see me now. I just had a follow-up question to the applicant based on the public comment would now be an appropriate time for that. If we're reconvening. I think so. Unless somebody corrects me that that seems fine. Okay, great we don't. We don't have George back yet. Yeah, if you wanted to wait just a minute to get George or II don't mean to. Interrupt Lisa. You're sharing. So if you want to move forward, please. Fine! I think we'll wait till 32, and then, whether we have shows you back or not, we'll we'll have curt ask this question, but we can wait, you know, another 30 or 40 s, whatever. That is

[90:07] all right. Go ahead and proceed. Kurt. Okay, thank you. So applicant, you heard the questions from the public about the exact location of that multi-use path on the north side. Do you have any response to that, and whether it would be half you're imagining it half on your property and half on the adjoining property, or all on your property. Yeah, I'm I can take that we are happy to have the multi path be all on our property. I just there's we've we see nothing wrong with that, so I think that should be assured to the to the neighbors. That being said, I will just point out to the board that this is one of the one of the stricter open space requirements zones. And he, I mean, he was right to mention, does the multi use path count towards open space. I actually don't know if it does, and maybe Charles can comment on that. But regardless we are down to the nitty gritty on our building footprint, and the amount of you know drive access that we can't park count towards open space. And even though we have, you know, 70 open space

[91:21] that gets us 44 units. Any negative in the other direction could potentially knock off one of those units. So I will be able to manage it. And II think that then the neighbors to the north should be assured that that will work with them. But I just wanted to say to the board that this is one of those open space restricted zones that's not being changed in the land. Use code with the ordinance. that still has a very strong open space requirement that is restricted to number of dwell units. Curt. Did you have a follow up? Yeah. And then I had a follow up to staff based on that is the open space requirements, something that we can vary with. Site review in this zone district.

[92:09] No, okay. alright, thank you, Kurt. Steph, did you have any further response, or anything you don't necessarily need to weigh in? And just you got mentioned. So I wanted to give you space if you'd like to take it. Okay. Charles, you just came off camera. Okay, alright. And I think that means we are ready to have board discussion. Could we perhaps get the 2 2 prompts back up on screen to help guide our discussion. And again, I just want to remind everyone we are at concept reviews. We're trying to provide a useful feedback and information, and our takes on this. We will not be taking a vote

[93:01] Oh, sorry. Do you? Wanna you want me to pull the key issues slides back up. Thank you so much. I was like the things the prompt stuff. Key issues one and 2, I think, to help guide our conversation. And I haven't spoken a whole lot tonight. So Maybe I'll kick off. I'll just say yes, I do think it is generally compatible with a Vvcp. I could go into more depth, but other people, perhaps, will will do that for me, so I won't get particular, I think. Yes, it is generally compatible. And then the feedback that I would offer is that I'm seeing some good things happening. And I sure would be interested in any ways that we could handle that multi-use path specifically to protect those crab apples or otherwise alleviate some of the neighbors concerns while keeping in mind the importance of trying to keep units in place. So, in other words, I'm I'm sympathetic and empathetic to some what the neighbors are bringing forward, and it would be a shame to

[94:03] have outside impacts on trees. They planted and watered and kept alive on their side of the property line. If we can find a way to work around it. Other board members, if you would like to speak, please start raising your hands, and we'll go through. And probably what I'll do, guys, is I'll go through everybody, once, perhaps everybody, twice and then, you know. Listen, listen for what other board members are saying. Try not to repeat either yourself, as I sometimes repeat myself, or repeat other Board members, except to agree, and perhaps we'll get out of here at a nice reasonable hour. All right. I'm just going off of who's in front of me on the screen. So, Laura, please go first, and after you will be Ml. thank you, and I will try to be efficient as well. So for key issue number one. I agree that yes, it is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bbcp. I thought Staff did a bang up analysis. Starting on page 74 of the menu, and cited about a dozen or more policies that this is helping us get toward. I mean, especially, I love how this is providing housing for low, moderate, and middle income households.

[95:07] And that this is an appropriate location for the type of housing that is proposed. I do agree that it's a great transition. So I agree. Number one. Yes, it is compatible for all the reasons Staff said on page 74 for key issue number 2 feedback on the conceptual Site plan and building design. I have just a couple that I'll try to go through quickly. So again, very supportive of the town home design concept. I love the modularity and the use of. I assume you're going to use that modular home factory that we're we're trying to build if it's available. And trying to be a model for that. I love that concept. Thank you for paving the way there, and I am very supportive of trying to add some 3 bedroom units depending upon the demand that you're seeing for them. I think that's a great idea. Those are so scarce, and this seems to be a good location given that, you know you can only build so many units, and that's your limiting factor rather than the footprint of the buildings. So seems like a great, great opportunity for that.

[96:04] You talk about off street bike parking. And since Mark Mcintyre can't be here tonight. I'm gonna channel him and say, you know, you say that you will meet the requirements for off street bike parking. We always like to see more, if possible, if that makes sense, I think, especially around any community center or common areas. I know that when I was living in multi-family housing you would often invite guests to come and join you to grill out or to use the amenities. And sometimes those folks are arriving by bike, so probably the residents will largely want to keep their bikes close by, but that off street bike parking would be great for visitors. I do appreciate that you're maximizing the amount of units you can put on this lot totally supportive of that, and would not like to see any of them go away if you can avoid it. and very supportive of your stated desire to work with the residents in arbor woods for some buffering for that multi-use path, and to have it completely on your property. It sounds like that is

[97:02] sort of the major bone of contention here, and that you have a good plan for how to address it. Very appreciative of that. And lastly, I'll just say I'm not sure I entirely understand Staff's logic for wanting to connect to the Orchard Grove Mobile, Home Park. Through this property they mentioned in the Memo that they want. It's mostly because they want the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park residence to have an additional exit. But this part of 30 Fourth Street is a dead end, and it just exits back out onto Valmont, where they already have 2 curb cuts quite close by for the Orchard Grove Mobile, Home Park. So I'm not sure that there are many residents of that mobile home park that would head north through your property and come back out on 30 Fourth Street, only to end up back on Valmont, pretty close to where they would exit anyway. So maybe there's some emergency use. I'm not understanding. But I would love to get more information from Staff about why they see that as a desirable connection. And I don't know that many of your residents are gonna wanna travel on those very slow speed private streets with lots of children playing to exit directly onto Valmont. I just don't know that we get used that much, so

[98:12] I will stop there. Thank you. Amal, you're up next, and we'll have curt. Thank you. Lisa. So regards to key issue number One, Bbcp, I think I do appreciate the extensive list that Staff has put up regards to what is being addressed. And I do agree with most of it. The only question I would have would be, the neighborly quality. That is a result of those double porches. I. And so yeah, number one.

[99:03] Yes, I think it does meet the requirements for boulder belly to comp plan my concerns lie in Psu number 2, where I think I think that the porch face off of a bedroom. I understand. Well, I don't sugar, I understand, but the idea of having sort of 2 public places, 2 public spaces. Maybe creating more of a sense of community by seeing all these porches. II think that that needs needs some further thinking about how it's gonna be used and what is facing onto or what what the community itself. And I'm I'm thinking about how the people, the residents that live in that

[100:01] housing development. how they will interact with each other on those sidewalks that are yet to be developed, and how those porches actually will help create community. I greatly appreciate that you got the gardens and clubhouse and all. But the idea is that people will be walking, and will be, you know, going from A to B, and hopefully we'll be walking to amenities, because it is within a good, a reasonable reach of of amenities. So I think that that's an important part. And I think that the actual functionality, or what's really going on with those porches? As opposed to, you know, just having a facade of a porch. How they're gonna actually be used. I think that would be an important thing to pursue in your for the next and to that end I would consider going to Dab to get their input about the double

[101:00] sort of porch side. concept dab is the design advisory board, and I think that they might be able to give some input a whole other perspective about that. So the other, I agree with the multi-use path. I think we have to be very careful to make sure that the neighborhood is heard. and that trees aren't removed, and that there's enough of a buffer between the path and that that existing neighborhood to the north. So it it sounds like you have a strategy in place to deal with everybody but you know, when you come back we'll absolutely be looking to make sure that the neighborhood to the north has been listened to, and that that is, that that is resolved. And lastly, I will also speak to the entries. II think it'll be kind of a challenge that be bringing people through

[102:04] that existing neighborhood to the South. So I don't know again. I'm not exactly sure I don't. I think that the staff was making a recommendation. But I'm not sure that it is. It would get you a better. Better circulation to go through that neighbor to the south, and then you'd have to rethink your community, space and all if it was just one entry, so I guess, pursue that deep in in. However, it needs to go with Staff, but I don't see any overriding reason to not have the 2 access points as you're showing. I think that there's complexity either way. as you pointed out. So I I'm I'm not I'm not leaning to where you bought, you must follow and and get rid of the 2 on 30. Fourth, I think

[103:05] I would say you have options available there still and consider, considering that and I think that those are my input comments to you, just think about how the people are gonna actually use those paths on the site and how it's gonna become a community. And the idea that we've got, you know, an an all affordable housing project in Boulder I mean. This is what we we look at all the in lose and right. This is the where the in lose land. So I appreciate both their housing partners and the project. And I look forward to seeing it come back inside where we thank you. Thank you. Amal Kurt is next followed by Georgie. Great. Thank you, Lisa. I want to second others comments about the unit types. I think that it's great to get these kinds of more family friendly units that. You know, we've we've expressed the desire for for quite a while, and it's great to see them happening. I'm hopeful that we'll end up with

[104:11] actual families here. With kids. Which, you know, we need more of obviously there a fair number of those at at San Juano Central. And I think that this would complement that really. Well. I wish that we could get more on this site. But that's not what the current phone allows. My main concern with the project relates to the the general layout and the large amount of just pavement in the center. So I imagine, being a kid living in maybe the Southeastern. Most of these buildings. and wanting to go meet a friend who lives on one in one further

[105:03] to the to the west, say, and in between it feels like there's practically nothing but pavement. There's a the pay, the the playground, which is pave near the clubhouse, which is great great to have a playground. but the the best spaces for kids that I've seen, and I've seen this in, for instance, university family housing in in places in the United States, and I've seen it a lot in Europe. I was just in Europe, and just just got back about an hour ago. And I saw in developments in the Netherlands, and also in Slovenia, where we were, where you've got a central green space, and then housing around, arranged around that that provides sort of a enclosure of the green space, and it's a great place for kids to to play.

[106:07] So if I had my brothers about this. And if I were interpreting, for example, the Comp plan, when it talks about on-site open spaces under policy 2.4 one enhanced design for all projects and talking about incorporating well designed functional open spaces. I would move the parking further to the outside, maybe mostly to the north. and and then arrange the buildings around the a central green space, perhaps with a club clubhouse and with a a playground to really provide a space that could a great community space. I feel like

[107:02] the the parking certainly is not a great community space. The drive owls are not a great community space. The community house should be a great community space. But it's not very. It's not really central. It's not sort of a natural place of your kid to necessarily meet other kids. And it's not very large, and we've got a lot of space. As you said, we've got 70 open space on the site, and a lot of it is not so usable, but there's there's room for I feel, really high quality. open space that that is, could just be unstructured. Play space for kids. But I'm not seeing that happening. And I think primarily, it's because we're bringing the parking right to everyone's door, and that because of the amount of then access

[108:03] dry vials, and so on. That requires it. It. It breaks up the the green space and really doesn't. doesn't allow for it. So other people on board may not agree with that, but but that's a significant concern for me about the general site design. I do also agree with Ml. About the the design with the porches. II think form should follow function, and I I like the idea of creating certainly a a a street state feel, you know, with with a feel for porches. But if they're just basically fake porches that probably people aren't gonna use, and they're gonna get all dusty or filled with old furniture, or, you know, for storage or something.

[109:05] I don't feel that that's productive. I would love it if we could have really active front porches. But the design, as it currently stands, is not encouraging, that I see very inactive front porches. and then active parking spaces, which is not really, I think the design that the Comp plan or site review criteria are aiming for. So I have concerns about that. Regarding the accesses. I don't have a big problem with taking 2 accesses off of 30 Fourth Street. I certainly understand the concern about multiple crossings of the multi-use path. But but I think that this multi-use path is not going to get a ton of use, even if it were completed.

[110:06] It's an important connection to have, but it's not gonna have a huge amount of feast. but I think it would be great if we could get a you know, a pedestrian, or possibly bike connection to the Southwest through portrait growth, because I think a lot of people are going to be inclined to walk, for instance, to the little convenience store that's in the gas station at the what is that? The southwest corner of Belmont and Thirtieth. or or to some of the the shops to the west of there. There's a a meat. the meat store and some some other, I think, fairly affordable shops there. I think those are going to be

[111:00] pretty primary destinations, and it would, it would be great to have a fairly direct and convenient walking route through those through basically to the corner towards the corner of 28 and towards the corner of Belmont, and 38, and as it stands, I think you would have to walk out on 30, fourth and down basically the same way you would drive. and if you're gonna walk the same way you drive, you're more likely to drive, whereas if the walking route is feels more quicker and more direct, and maybe very quiet through or to grove. I think that that would be great, whether or to Grove would allow that, I understand, is a whole different question. But I would love to see us explore whether, just just as a small biped connection across there would be possible.

[112:06] and I think those are all my comments. Thank you, Kurt. Georgie, you are up next, and if people have anything further to say, you can start thinking about raising your hands again. As well cool. as as as relates to number one. I agree. It's the plan. I appreciate all the effort that's been put into this so far, and it's nice to see a development that a little bit more spacious and targeted maybe a little bit more towards families. I think that's it's been lacking what we've seen. That's great. As others have mentioned. Like to echo, make sense to make sure they're larger, you know. 3 bedroom units and and solve them like this. It sounds like that's already being taken into account. false concerns are into account, and we'll get some further refinement there. So II don't need to

[113:05] saving that. Ii really agree with what Kurt was saying around sort of the missed opportunity on the site relative to creating some, some, some more ability to activate spaces, especially in the center of the site. II don't think that what Kurt was saying. I don't think that the parking needs to needs to drive up to every unit, especially since there aren't. There aren't barrages connected to these units. And it's really just surface parking. I think that parking and the unit layout could be reimagined a little bit where you could create some real active central green spaces off of that off of that clubhouse where that parking is in the center.

[114:02] I just think that's a it's a huge opportunity for the site. We certainly got enough room to work with it, and and maybe actually even save some some drive lanes, some apple drive lanes because of consolidating parking. I it's not defined. The porches to me are not defined enough to understand how active or inactive they would be. But I also sensitive to what Kirk and Ml. Brought up with that cause. I think that that's also potentially an opportunity. But I think that also kind of relies back on to where you guys had, as you kind of refine this design along with what? with what you guys had said about connecting the the porches with sidewalks and how it's all there's a there's a pedestrian connectivity level of the plan clear to me. But I think maybe through some sort, for the refinement would would get me there. But overall excited to see the project excited about the modular component of it. Excited to see some larger unix for a family and some some quality open space. I just hope we don't miss the opportunity

[115:14] for the quality of the space to really volume space and and and and I you know what Kurt said to me resonated a lot. in that I think the center of the site could be could be rebuilt and not have parking there, but rather another lot of open space connectivity there and as a hub for the for the unit, so I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thanks everyone on all way in again and just echo a few things that I heard. A lot of wonderful comments including oh, small child! Including that, I think the open space. to be a bit more inspired. I guess. I realize that we have various constraints we have to work within. But I agree that that it kind of feels like a lot of a lot of pavement and not somewhere. You'd want people to congratulate, especially children to be moving.

[116:10] yeah, I think that's the thing I most wanted to emphasize. Alright, does anyone else have anything they'd like to add. I'm going to scroll and look for any hands up. Okay? In that case, I think that concludes this item. Well, then, thank you so much to the applicant and to staff for presenting today and answering our questions. We look forward to seeing how this moves forward. And yes, Kurt, I have. I have a matters item in a moment. But go ahead, Kurt. I was just wondering if we should ask if this if the applicant needs any clarification. Often I think that. Yeah, yeah, sometimes they have additional questions. Yeah, if applicants or staff have anything they feel we haven't provided, or something you'd like clarification on. Please feel free to speak now. Thank you.

[117:01] Thank you. No, III think those are all great great comments. And we'll we look forward to developing the concept more and bringing it back to site. Review Yup, I agree. And yeah, we will accommodate the multi-use path. So we'll we'll work with the neighbors. And then I would just say, in terms of access through the Mobile Home Park to the south. We will reach out and see what kind of opportunities there are there. It's hard to draw on somebody else's property, as you all know, so we will. We will do our best to see what kind of partnership we we may or may not be able to achieve with them, but I know that they are open to conversation, so that will be reflected on our next round of submittals. Wonderful! Thank you, Laura. Thank you. All right, I think with that I will proceed to matters. So. We do have one item, I believe. From staff

[118:03] and staff I may ask you to speak to this, Brad. I think this is you, but we are in need of a delegate from planning board to speak at city council, and in a moment, Brad, I'm sorry I'm gonna ask you to repeat what the 2 items are they? Wanna hear about? I've gone straight out of my head and Sarah will still be traveling for work in DC. And unfortunately, the time when at least one of the items is likely to come forward again. This is this Thursday. the twenty-onest I will be at a back to school night. So I will not be able to go either. So, Brad, could you speak to what exactly you need from us, and then perhaps, we can see about selecting someone. Sure, some of you may know that the Council a couple council members meet, and they rotate every Monday morning to look ahead to the following agenda. This it's called the Council Agenda Agenda Committee might have that somewhat wrong. At any rate. At this Monday's meeting

[119:04] the couple councilmembers in representation asked if it wouldn't be possible for a representative planning ward to be there this Thursday. The 2 items are, first. the Boulder Junction, 2 plan amendment that you've seen, and then, secondly, the zoning for housing affordability that you've recently seen as well. there is at the top of the agenda an allotted hour for public comment. They have not always been reaching that hour. So it is possible that these items could come up as early as I wanna say, 6, 45. It would also be fine if the person representing the board was simply available. Virtually hearings are in person, but for that type of secondary

[120:00] support. Virtual participation is fine. Typically, we would start with the chair representing the Board but, as Lisa indicated, she's not available in in order to deserve mischief. So it's open. open nominations or individual volunteering. Go ahead, Laura. I would like to nominate Kurt if he's willing to accept, since he was our representative on the Multi Board working group for Boulder Junction, and I also think Kurt has a really good grasp on the but zoning for affordable housing, perhaps a more detailed grasp than than it. many of the rest of us. So that's my nomination. Thank you, Laura. Any occur? Would you like to accept that nomination. That doesn't mean you're necessary selected yet. But you could accept or decline. I'm looking in my calendar room. I was, gonna say, yeah, check your calendar. We all need to. And, Brad, II apologize that so many of us aren't available, I think and and criticism. It just came up fast, and so last minute request sometimes they anticipated a few weeks in advance, and

[121:15] Just didn't happen this time. I could make that work all right. Would anyone like to nominate anyone else or nominate themselves or should we perhaps proceed with Kurt's willingness to give up that time on his Thursday. I'll I'll second the nomination. Okay, we've we've got a nomination and acceptance. And a second anyone else have anything to say to speak to Georgia. Yeah, alright great do we need to take a formal vote? Or can we just say that we approve of curt as our appointee? Yeah, unless Helen says we need to do something. I'm gonna say, we we picked Kurt. Let let the record so show

[122:03] you can contact me. And I think any of us would would do this. And, Kurt, I have genuinely have full faith that you, you, of all people, will, but whenever we go, and especially when it's a tricky split vote. You always wanna represent the board as a whole and kind of be like, well, some people really say, Listen, you know. So you have to be that representative cool? Alright! Are there any other matters? I never remember the order of matters. But are there any other matters from staff matters, from legal matters, from fellow board members.

[123:02] No, Hela, please go. Oh, no. I was just saying thanks for checking in, but no matters from? Oh, good. Okay. Cool fellow board members. all right. Oh, yep, I see a hand, Laura. I'll just follow up on you know another one of these split vote items the recommendation from planning board about the cip regarding the airport items. There was a recommendation to try to delay accepting faa funding where possible, in 2,024, until Council has had a chance to fully process the public input and hear back from staff on their questions and give direction about the future of the airport. So that item, I believe, will be discussed or could be discussed this coming week, as Council deliberates on the budget, and any requests that they have for budget changes. I did hear back from Natalie Stiffler just today that their intention from transportation is to avoid taking incurring any additional Faa grant obligations

[124:11] to the extent that they can do that without pausing work that would be essential for safety, especially so I think they're trying to thread that needle. I think that they, you know, have received feedback. They have listened and and I think they're kind of on the same page with we don't wanna incur a lot more faa grant obligations if it can be avoided. But also not certainly not wanting to hamper the operations and save maintenance of the airport. So we'll see where that lands. But I'm encouraged. Thank you for the information anything further from fellow board members or anyone else who hasn't gotten to share something they were hoping to share. All right, I'll declare this meeting adjourned at 8 6 PM.

[125:00] Great job tonight. Lisa.