November 7, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[51:55] Wanted to see if that argument held with our legal counsel or not. Yeah, Charlie is right that there is no description of.

[52:04] The length of the extension period for an extension granted by planning board. However, this section, starts out with and The general rule is if nothing differently is approved in the original development agreement that a development has to be completed within 3 years. From the time of approval and if a phasing plan is approved each phase actually has to be 3 years. So there is a clear intent. That 3 years is generally considered to be the right timeframe to complete. The development, and if that's not the case, then a development plan, development phasing should be considered. As part of the approval, but that's a different process. And what we're in right now. Okay. And I'm not, I don't know that they'll want to this seriously. We'll see where we go with this, one option for this applicant or another applicant could be to come back in a separate.

[53:02] Hearing and request. Phasing like could it be turned into a phase product? Yes. Yeah, okay. Alright. Okay, so that's not I realize a lot of money and time has already gone into this. Voting for that but sharing that that's an option. Thank you, Hela. Alright, I've been talking a lot. We've been hearing great deal from the applicant, members of the board, questions. Mark, please. If. In light of lots of new information tonight. I came into this meeting tonight thinking. Yeah, we'll approve an extension. Makes sense. Okay. But obviously this is, things are. Changing and there's lots of interpretation going on here. How would phasing and phasing of extensions. Be seen by your lenders. Are they are your horizontal and vertical lenders? Are they?

[54:03] In for the whole thing. You don't have different lenders on different pieces and and anyway, how would they view it rather than me? Because of the affordable housing along with the market rate housing. There's a concurrency requirement between the affordable. And the market. And so those 2 things sort of by statue need to at the same time. And then the market really all is one project that all comes at once. So. A phasing wouldn't really assist us in any way but I appreciate the thinking. Okay, and then for staff. During the pandemic and and you're you've stated that you're seeing a large influx of. Staff level, extension requests. And, and we made modifications to the use, the use.

[55:03] Review criteria to accommodate. Some of that because of the pandemic. So we have some precedent, it seems to me, for interpretation or modification of the code. Based on. Based on a highly unusual circumstances, unprecedented circumstances. So, Would there be a If we if the if it was the board's desire to Have the extension go till 2028. Is it a better precedent? Any thoughts on? Putting the 3 year extension on top of the 2 6 month extensions. Or canceling those out and using a more liberal interpretation of the code. Granting a four-year extension.

[56:02] Or is there some other way that without just Totally bending the code that we could. Based on these circumstances that we find ourselves in now post pandemic. To accommodate them. Does the staff have feelings about a methodology? For getting to the applicants request and not that that's our, our goal but I'm. If we're trying to figure out how to. How to do something other than kill this thing. That would, my understanding, my request would be, what do you guys think would be a path? Forward for us to consider. Well, I You do have an obligation to apply the code consistently. So in night of that I would recommend that you apply the 3 year rule.

[57:11] I do think that they're Is a better argument for. Allowing the 2 6 month extension plus the 3 years. And not counting from today in light of the fact that this is a new circumstance and maybe the interpretation is. An applicant getting get 2 6 months extensions plus 3 years. But. Not less than 3 years if. If the scheduling ends up being such that it. The planning board calendar creates an issue. For a timely extension to be granted. When were the 2 6 months except were they were they granted? Simultaneously or was it another consecutive? You can't, why no, I mean, Were they granted at the same? Did you guys say, did they come to you and say we'd like a 6 month extension and another 6 month extension?

[58:08] Cause that's what you can do. Or did they come to you and ask for one and then later ask for a note. That's correct. Yeah, that's the latter, the latter. The code does talk about. When the city manager. Grants the 6 months extensions. The manager has to make a finding that the applicant will be able to substantially complete the phase of the development or it can be granted if it's necessary to allow the applicant to request an extension from the planning board. So it seems the circumstance. That the applicant already knows that to 6 months extensions won't be enough. Was anticipated. But they're not actually using either 6 month extension yet. Yes. Okay.

[59:01] Is it possible to withdraw those 2 6 month extensions? Grant a 3 year extension and then you grant them. 2 6 month extensions. Not that that it ultimately results results in the same date, but I don't know if that's any. No, the It says after the applicant has exhausted any extension granted presumed to paragraph one which is the administrative extensions. The planning board can grant. An extension. Thank you. I think we're going to keep talking to staff later on, but I also want to make sure that we're asking questions applicants Laura, did you have one? No, anyone else questions for the applicant specifically? I do. So Yes. Hello. So you had up your schedule. And on the schedule you had a 27 month construction timeframe.

[60:06] And you were anticipating. 9 months for permitting. So we're talking. Most of 3 years. Yes, that would be if we had permits today. There's a couple things we've got to do prior to being able to submit the permits. There's a financial guarantee that we're ready to put up. The bank has a a say in us putting up that financial guarantee as well. So they wanted to make sure that we had a clear path. To being able to construct the project before we put the financial guarantee up. But couple of steps we've got to do. But sure, 36 months in a perfect world if we started today would get you all the way through. You know, in construction things always go wrong. Well, the term is also substantially complete. So I'm hearing that there are 2.

[61:09] Qualifiers. One is what the bank sees. And one is what the city. C's. So substantially complete may not look the same. From the city as it would from your lender is that would you agree to that? Am I understanding that there's a difference there? There could be the issue with us with the lenders that we can't start. Unless the lender will give us the loan. But yeah, I think there is probably a difference in. The way they're looking at it versus. The way you guys really Substantial completion is a defined term. Code in the building code and you're really done. I mean, you're all but like a few touch-up items. The project is And does the bank see necessarily in a phased project what the code says is that substantially complete means the time when construction is sufficiently complete so the owner can occupy the work or portion thereof.

[62:06] For the use which is intended. So on a you know, property with 20 buildings. You know, I think we have some discretion there. Well, that's the reason that we actually do have the various tech docs in there so that we can actually close out some portions of the project and be substantially complete. Before the other piece is substantially complete. But you can't occupy it till you get a CEO, you can't get a CEO until you really, But you can, because of the way we've done the sequencing of the tech docs. People could be occupying part of the project before the thing is entirely complete. And I think I heard you say earlier that you could submit for a permit tomorrow. Except for the couple things that Matt mentioned the drawings are ready so once we get the hiccup why not hiccup you get the financial guarantee in place we can submit. There's a few pieces of. Paperwork that need to be done. Platt has to be recorded.

[63:02] There's some steps but they are they're all contingent on that financial guarantee. Thank you. I had a question for the applicant. Can't see my hands. Yeah, go ahead, Jersey. Thanks. I'm trying to get my head around, the 27. Months of construction. Because these buildings don't really look like something that would take 27 months for substantial completion. Are you intending to phase the project? As you construct it. Not true phasing. There are 20 buildings, so the 27 months that Matt was mentioning is really from the start of construction of the first of those buildings to the completion of the last. Any one building might take. What would the first set of buildings? How long would the for? I just trying to understand a realistic timeframe for the for the first set of buildings that you're When did you intend to have those completed?

[64:05] Yeah, that might be a, you know, 9 months to a year to finish, a couple, couple of the first few buildings somewhere in that. Somewhere in that range. Why does it, why does it take the, why would it take you 27? Why? I couldn't she complete the buildings simultaneously? Is it a funding issue or? Yeah. No, you know, the contractors don't have unlimited manpower. We don't. Build 20 foundations all at the same time. They would move from one set of buildings to another. With the various trades as they go through. We don't bring things up simultaneously. Their manpower contracts are built that way to build 20 buildings at all at once. That so I mean for for our clarity that As far as your schedule goes, you, you know, you have a phase program that brings you substantially under that 3 years.

[65:08] Needed it's just a question of how you want the project approved, not necessarily how it would actually be built. Which I think is probably the. Difference between what we're seeing here because 3 months is 3 years is pretty long. Time. So thank you. Appreciate it. I'll figure it out. Thank you, Georgie. Other questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you. Hello, I'd like to ask a question of clarification to staff. I think you probably said this perfectly clearly and I did not take it in perfectly clearly. Could you speak again to where you see? Planning boards discretion tonight and kind of particularly in terms of Okay. Okay. So.

[66:00] Yeah, I. What I said was I encourage you to follow the three-year role as that's been very consistently applied. The ambiguity really is. When does the planning board level extension start? I think that's where the biggest ambiguity is and that interpretation to started with the planning board. Approval date. Occurred with the project. Or I believe. The 6 months extensions had both been taken advantage of and they had passed by the time the planning board heard and because application for the extension was filed within the right time period has to be filed. Before. The expiration of the approval occurs. But then it took somewhat some time to get a hearing in front of the playing board is 0 aware and sometimes you're very busy. And project get pushed. Few weeks or months. So the planning board discussed there's ambiguity here.

[67:07] How do we interpret that? And they decided to interpret it. That it was gonna count from the day on, but it was. Having in mind that they didn't want to penalize the applicant for having this. Period of unknown that was solely due to the planning board calendar. So I think there could be an interpretation that the intent of the code is to give at least 2, 6 months, twice plus 3 years. But then if the planning board hearing date. Would take away some weeks or months. Because of how it's scheduled. That the planning will always grant 3. 3 years from the data of its approval and not NAS. Okay, so approval date would still be tonight, not the end of their second 6 months. Oh, I think you could you could draw a distinction to that situation when the planning board made that decision.

[68:07] Okay. You also think that at least 2 6 months extensions are intended to be rented plus 3 years. And Charles, as you're kind of looking ahead to a whole bunch of these potentially coming up in front of us. And you were talking about potential code review, I realize this is really planning board making a discretionary decision about how we interpret code where it is not 100% clear. So we're not making any code changes at this time. We're exercising discretion and quasi judicial hearing. But would such an interpretation leave some of the pressure, potential and other? Projects if we were to consistently apply such an interpretation? You know, it's a great question and I appreciate the consideration. Our hope is that we'll be advancing a package of code changes by end of Q one next year that would address this. So I think hopefully that out runs the ones that are keeping me up at night. So that's the hope.

[69:04] Alright, we have a question from, Good night. So, Hello or Whoever would have the answer. When was the original 3 year expiration? This project. Extensions were. I don't think the 3 years have expired. 2022. Right, so next July. So. On the hella if we had some interpretative Leeway. And could just add the 3 years to the original.

[70:00] Exploration. That would give. The project to 2027. Is that something we could do or are the 2 6 month? Extensions. Like. Have to be. Used. Well, that's, I'm just trying to keep it. It doesn't expressly stated. And I think in the past interpretation. Has been to not go from. 3, that original date. Okay. Thank you. I saw someone from the app of the team really eager to try to answer address something. I'm gonna let you come up. This is probably your last chance. So. You know, I just wanted to clarify I guess that.

[71:06] What Hell is saying is something that I would agree with. And I think that I just wanted to make clear that there's not daylight between us on that interpretation. With what I'm understanding, Hell, what you're saying is that in some other circumstance. The date had already expired by the time you guys had. Your hearing on it. And so granting a 3 year extension. From that expired date would have short changed the applicant in that scenario, they would have gotten something less than 3 years. This is a different situation. And so you could still abide by the city's traditional three-year rule. We don't have to. About whether that's the right thing or not, you can abide by that. But still extend the date from. The extended date. Yeah, so which would be fine with us.

[72:02] Great. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Alright, at this time I'd like to request that members of the public core either present. I'm not sure exactly how it works here so I may hand it over to someone shortly and then if you're online, I think This is that moment to use that raise hand function. And again, if we have more than 15 total across the 2 forums, it will be 2 min each. And go ahead. People that have signed up ahead of time here. I'll give you the names. Probably can't hear me very well. But as As you mentioned to, anybody that's participating online, go ahead and use that raise. So we will be hearing from folks in the room first. I think I'm being brought some names. Thank you. And if anyone in the room has not had the chance to put their name on a card, if you could go up and make sure you get the opportunity to speak.

[73:03] Alright, first is. Okay, let me let me count real quick. So tight everybody. And Lisa, just letting you know we have about 6 hands. Raised online. Thank you. Okay, so everybody will get 3 min. So if you planned for 3 min, you have your 3 min. So if you've planned for 3 min, you have your 3. And number one, please, Julie, die if you could come forward and number one, please, Julie die if you could come forward and speak. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. I'm Julie Di. I live in Gunbarrel and the city of Boulder. I'm speaking on behalf of the Gun Barrel Community Alliance representing more than 500 people in Gun Barrel. It's been 4 years since we started this conversation and much has changed. One thing that has not changed is the fact that you approving this development, again, would remove one of the largest pieces of industrial manufacturing spaces remaining in both gun barrel and the city. This past year, Boulder's Director of Planning and Development Services and City Planners recommended to City Council that residential development should be prohibited in I am areas like this one deemed critical by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce.

[74:14] We don't actually know what's critical here because the city continues to go back on promises for gun barrel planning. The celestial seasonings PUD made a legal promise to our community. The annex agreement requires 5 acres of land for recreational space because even then city leaders recognize the lack of amenities in gun barrel. Not only were none of these promises delivered, the PUD was entirely omitted from documents provided by city staff and the developers when you approved this the first time around. The Gun Barrel Center community plan was approved in 2,004 and completely pushed aside by development in 2,015. Promises ignored. On a motion by David Ensign and Harmon Zuckerman, the planning board voted unanimously to prioritize gun barrel, establishing the urgent need for a gun barrel sub-community plan and the importance of delivering on this commitment before major land use decisions were made.

[75:10] The Gun Barrel sub-community plan was again marked as a top 5 priority for the 2,021 bbcp midterm update Yet again, promise is ignored. And now as we enter 2024, gun barrel remains uninformed by the community's vision to be developed in collaboration with city and county planners, resiliency specialists and other experts. We have clearly reached a tipping point in gun barrel. We are asking you reject approval on this development extension again. Until there is an approved sub-community plan. Keep your promises to go to Gunbarrow. And I just want to acknowledge the fact that they've asked for 7 years to build from their 2,021 approval 7 years and you're talking about granting them 6 Okay, Pella said tonight the way it's been interpreted and applied is 3 years from approval.

[76:03] She said you have an obligation to apply the code consistently. So I'm going to ask you now what are the ramifications if you open the door to 6 or 7 years to developers. If you open the door to 6 or 7 years to developers, there are 500 people in gun barrels, there are 500 people in gun barrel listening to your response. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. And this is our first meeting back. And I just wanna say it's really nice to actually see you in the room. And I just wanna say it's really nice to actually see you in the room and have public comment presence. So we love the people online too. We love inclusive that way, but it's just. Nice to see people. So hi. All right, next up, Carmen. Ron, please come up. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for this chance to comment on this proposal. My name is Carmen Baron. My husband and I have lived in Gunbarrel for 8 years and we urgently request that this project be allowed to expire. Adding up to 600 new residents at Spine Road was never a smart or realistic idea. This project is high density.

[77:04] With low affordable housing, low parking. 3% low mixed use. Yet this project was thoughtlessly approved during our international COVID crisis. Since that approval, numerous economic factors have evolved that need to be considered, including the current glut of high cost rental apartments in Boulder. A drop in school enrollments forcing school districts to consolidate and strategize to close education buildings. Changing workforce needs. Companies are supporting work from home business models and pairing down costs. While evacuating existing business and commercial spaces, such as Gun Barrows Medtronic. First Bank and Crispin Porter in Bugowski ad agency. Maybe cutting edge boulders should incentivize commercial owners, developers, and BVSD to create real plans to repurpose such empty buildings already standing within the city's current infrastructure.

[78:04] This Spine Road site is a light industrial use area. Was a thriving wildlife, wildlife habitat for many species and is one of very few open space areas in our neighborhood. Older held no one accountable for the PUD and annexation commitments made back when celestial seasonings was first built. And instead the city allowed a lotish to have just pre-dog colony to be uprooted. So now this parcel sits as a barren eyesore surrounded by chain link fencing. This project has very few affordable housing units and highly insurgent parking plan. Yeah, a potential explosion of 600 plus residents and their vehicles could be dropped on our community. Parking would naturally spill over into existing neighborhoods. And these 600 plus people would also be frequenting Gun Barrel, Commons Park. Up next door, a private park that belongs to neighboring condos.

[79:02] Shouldn't the city protect these existing neighbors? At this moment, the city has the chance to correct this course. Take down that chain link fence. Stop the unnecessary infill of this land. We do not need more of housing here, including possible empty housing. We need a gun barrel sub-community plan that incorporates local neighborhood input and focuses on the needs of the existing gun barrel community. One last thing. Perhaps this developer should abandon the spine road project with a goodwill donation of those land to the city. Much like the recent dead in the water, Fruhoff's project at 30 third in a wrap up. In the city could actually honor past commitments to make this site a wildlife preserve. Project is still not appropriate for gun barrel. These numbers do not work for anybody. And proving an extension now would again simply be disrespect. Thank you for your time. And for speaking. Next step we have April Lyons.

[80:09] Hi, my name is April Lyons. I live in gun barrel and I'm sit on the board of the Gun Vale Community Alliance. The pandemic brought unanticipated changes to daily life and the workforce. In January of 2019 Only about 4.7% of. Of the US workforce worked remotely. As of now, 27% work fully remote. The Celestial Seasonings project was proposed in 2,019 and presented as jobs to housing. Because of remote work people have the option to live where they want and have more space. It's obvious that remote work offers any advantages. That prove beneficial to families. People can look outside of folder. And that's one big reason that Boulder shrinking. Since the pandemic started, Boulder City has lost 5,200 individuals. The pandemic has changed life.

[81:07] As we know it. As of right now, they're over 1,400 vacant apartments in the city of Boulder. And there are hundreds still in the pipeline. But yet we have no housing. And no need for these apartments somehow. And we need these apartments somehow we need them. The major reason this project got approved. And got the green light in the first place was the affordable housing aspect. But is affordable housing in Boulder really affordable? The answer is no. For example, at the ellipse, which is thisle housing. A one bedroom, one bath. Apartment cost $1,500 a month. You would have to make 60 grand a year to afford. . A. 566 square foot apartment We need a real solution to the affordable housing crisis. Let's take an honest look at the data and listen to the community. Free and post pandemic are completely different worlds.

[82:08] Thank you. Alright, next up we have Dorothy Donahue. Hi, my name is Dorothy Donahue. Can everybody hear me? I am part of the Gun Bureau Community Alliance. And I've lived in Gumbaro for 26 years. Older families are leaving the city in search of. Single family homes to the east of Boulder. We see the Exodus. In the declining enrollment in bolder schools. What began prior to 2,018 was exasperated by the pandemic. Current projection from the board school board. Will be that they'll be 2,100 less students in the next 5 years. Mark Wallace told the gun barrel community alliance.

[83:06] There used to be an old but affordable family housing on thirtieth street. The homes were turned down and replaced with high density development. Very similar to what we as proposed dick celestial. They were only a handful of children who moved into the development. And now the city is tasked. With a critical decision around schools. Closures. 60% of celestial developments are studios and one bedroom apartments. The city says housing, housing, housing, and despite all concerns, high density is approved. Other family friendly housing like duplexes and townhouses make more sense. There's a low-term economic and equity issue losing families. Walter needs to address the problem and not the symptoms. On a final side note. Remember that small 1,000 foot library annex that was promised in this development?

[84:07] We were told by the library directors another place was selected in Gunbridge for that annex. Not this one. Knowing there is will be less interest in apartments in the future. Why would the city boulder? City Planning Board approve to have more half empty departments. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Randall Clark and I think that's the last of our in person. Yeah, I just wanna say. I hope you can hear me. I can't be as eloquent as my. Other members of the Gun Bureau Community Alliance. So I'm not going to repeat anything they said, but I will say. That one of the things we have heard over and over, which was repeated more than once by them. Is that we do not need more apartments and we definitely don't need more single or 500 square foot apartments we need.

[85:00] Homes for families to live. In this town. And I think that's one major consideration that we have to take. That we all have to consider because even the closest. A set of apartments which are built right in the middle of foothills, but it somehow works. Is still uncompletely occupied by what percentage I don't know, but they've been sitting vacant. For as long as the thing has been built. There's still science for, you know, apartments available and I'm sure that's true in Boulder and all over Boulder. And I think it's something that we all have to really consider. In a very big way. This is not just the decision about one builder. And this conversation about interest rates and changing. Interest rates have changed and been fluctuating for many, many years. Obviously COVID had an effect and will have an effect. But. I just don't think we can hinge every decision that they're going to make and that we're going to make.

[86:01] On the possibility of interest rates changing. And that's all you really want to say, but I support everything that everybody else said. Thank you. Thank you to everyone here in person. Is that I'm looking to make sure we've got everyone. Alright, great. We will now be shifting to online comment. I think someone else is going to be running that's all. Silence myself. Like this is Vivian. I can help out with that. So I'll just run down the line. Each person will have 3 min, same as people in person. You can go ahead and introduce yourself and then go ahead and speak. So we'll start with. Chris Goodman followed by Nora Swan Foster. Chris, please go ahead. You have 3 min. And you may have to unmute yourself from your end. Thank you. I'm speaking today because I know that I already wrote a letter to you guys. I hope you got it. And I'm repeating a lot of what's already been said, but it really does require emphasis. One thing that's not in my notes is I did want to emphasize that somehow the materials have all been available to rebuild the might the fire marsh, the partial fire homes.

[87:05] That subdivision is nearly, it's doing a magnificent job of building back and those materials have been available. Anyway, to my notes, it's since the developed, the initial development proposal 4 years ago significant changes have occurred in our area. Metronics was has departed and Boulder now faces an oversight over supply of high cost rental apartments. Please, please do your research and check the prices of this particular builder's apartments and see what the current availability looks like in his listed. You can go to the live@mysa.com in my essay. Head to the bottom of the page and see the availability. Here they have a 570 square foot studio apartment. Listed today for $2,192 to $2,751. This is for an efficiency. And, and on top of that, they charge for parking and trash.

[88:00] The gun barrel area still acts essential amenities and grapples with the deteriorating infrastructure. We do not even have an accessible park. The closest public park. Requires the community to travel across Highway 1 19 and is not safely walkable or bikeable. In the past year, the city staff has advised. The city council to ban residential developments in industrial manufactured zones. While this may benefit the developers in the short term. It really doesn't been the fit the community. It could lead to a long-term loss for Boulder by eliminating one of gun barrels largest part of schools. Industrial manufacturing parcels. BVSD enrollment has declined as families are leaving the city in search of more family-friendly housing. Parking is inadequate for this. Development causing an overflow into the neighborhood areas and we just can't support that. The Mesa development by the same architect faces numerous parking complaints. Not all studio and one-bedroom homes can manage with just one vehicle. Especially in a location different. Distant from amenities. Gunbarrel lacks public transportation and even the proposed shuttle only serves gun barrel.

[89:08] The nearest grocery store is a 34 min walk away and requires crossing a major busy street, 60 third. The developers plan designates only 3% of the space for other uses while claiming to be mixed use. True mixed use developments, which the city and its residents desire should offer more substantial mix of commercial and residential spaces. A successful example by true definition of mixed use is the prospect community in Longmont. But that's not what we need here. We need we need a public park. Please consider the residents of the city of Boulder who live out here in gun girl. We pay city taxes and we're technically city. We know the struggles and what the community infrastructure can support. Thank you, Chris. That's 3 min. If you could just wrap it up. I'm sorry I'm checking out that. Please also look at the Zillow rentals there.

[90:01] There's so many currently available condos across the street from this plan development. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Nora Swan Foster followed by Stephen Foster. Nora, please go ahead. Good evening. My name is Nora Swan Foster and I live in the Deerfield subdivision. And I'm a member of the Gun Bear Alliance and our home backs up to Spine Road, a road that's not been kept up and which has unreasonable truck and car traffic for its size and neighborhood. I've lived here for 30 years and this land. That is being developed was an amazing wildlife space for our neighborhood. I spoke in several times against the proposed development at 4 7 7 5 spine road and I'm respectfully requesting that an extension for this project be denied. It never should have been passed. I'd like to remind people that while these are unprecedented times as you all are talking about, we were in unprecedented times when this process went through a COVID planning process, which was highly unsatisfactory and it was approved nonetheless.

[91:09] The reasons I'm against any extension is that the educated concerns and I will say very educated people weighed in on this from over a hundred residents who attended the first planning meeting were not considered. The concerns of parking traffic, lack of manatees are not part of this extension. News of the library having a new location is very towing. Further, hearing that it will take 3 years to build this project out 3 years of construction, trucks on these roads, noise is even more mad and disturbing to hear tonight. It's clear the communities who live around this project are not being fully considered. It's so upsetting. If the extension goes to 2028, this is completely unacceptable. Market conditions are and will change between now and then. There's no guarantee that this project will be any more appropriate for our future needs, for our environmental and energy responsibilities.

[92:03] And requirements for our nature zoning changes that the city might dare to consider regarding sustainable building and a time of climate crisis. These issues really seriously need to be considered and I really it surprises me that in Boulder where we are supposed to be so progressive we are not considering climate crisis issues and the Gumbar alliance has not been faithfully respected in their concerns and I think they've done an excellent job laying out the points. So I'd like to see this application expire without renewal. I would like to see the fencing removed. It is interfering with wildlife passage. It is damage and it's an eyesore. And this is one of the first examples actually that illustrates just how the builders and the project managers are not considering the concerns of the neighborhood and the Gunbar Alliance and their great work. So thank you to the Gumbar Alliance for being continued faithful advocates for what we need in our community. Thank you.

[93:04] Thank you, Nora. Next we have Stephen Foster followed by Stephen Zawowski. Please go ahead, Stephen. Good evening. You probably have heard already what I will say this evening, but. My name is Stephen Foster and I live in the Gearfield subdivision on Spine Road. I'm also a member of the Gunbell community of lives, alliance and slogan. The planning board concerning this development on Spine Road in the past. I am speaking tonight because I respectfully request that you deny the expansion requests by the applicant. I understand that the questions from local residents that have not been addressed as you've heard at some of are not up for discussion here, which I believe is also wrong. I believe local residents concerns should be addressed in this process. The applicant is requesting a 3 year extension to 2028.

[94:02] This is unacceptable after the extensions already given. I understand from the discussion here tonight that this is not been done before by the planning board and this would be a spectral consideration for this applicant again. And it is an inconsistent application of the code. I think you should ask yourself why are we doing this? This is an important issue for Boulder, not just And at a minimum, it could be clarified and presented to the public before any decision is made. On this extension and other extensions like it. I believe it's better to accept this, reject this extension. We have heard from the applicant that they cannot meet their current approved extensions. Clearly, the project is too big for them and it's probably too break for anyone. And the project of this size. Is appropriate. Only and probably smaller only in discussion with the Boulder Community Alliance and as part of a gun barrel community plan.

[95:12] And as Nora said, over 2 years of construction on spine road is a huge burden on the gun barrel community. And an example again of one area where this community has not been heard. By the planning department or the city of Boulder. And finally, if the extension is approved, I really believe it's important to remove the fencing. It's frequently damaged. It has not been repaired by the owner. It's dangerous and it is an ISO. I'm concerned that at some point the child will find their way in there and be unable to find their way out. And this is a real concern for this community. So please reconsider and reject this application. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen. Next up we have Stephen Zawowski followed by Angie Masha.

[96:00] Stephen, please go ahead. Hello, I'm unmuted. Yep. So. Go ahead. I'm I'm muted. Yeah, I'm okay. So I'm Stephen Zelowski. I live in Gunbarrel. I've been there for about 8 years. So I'm actually taking the time out of my Hey, it's 9 years because this is such a horrible thing that's been happening in the community. In general, but I wanna address some of the main point here about this extension. So the first meeting happened during COVID when you're already in. A drastically changing financial situation. Interest rates are already trying to spike. We knew these things were happening. We had over a hundred people in these meetings come in and more even more come in email and talk about. Problems we're gonna have financially and develops for developers promised us the applicants that they would be fine, able to fund it, they didn't get the things.

[97:05] And now here we are in, you know, 2023 and. They're asking for the same things again. I don't see any change. The economy hasn't improved. The US actually has been downgraded by the Fitz ratings. So our economy is looking pretty bad. We're in the highest interest rate in the last 22 years. I'm not seeing how they qualify. For this. I is the city taking their financial burden on? Meanwhile, where other housing projects were able to find labor and materials and costs, especially in superior Colorado after the fires, they were able to rebuild. They're asking, they're asking us to bend the rules again for this little development that they have. Why? Are we doing this? It doesn't follow suit. This doesn't make any sense. And it's just additional points that have happened. So you know that fence has been up there. It's been I sort of commuting, it's falling apart. It's you know, wildlife inhibited inhibiting wildlife passage. Another key point. The original proposal, part of the huge discussion point we had in the original bait that there was gonna be a library extension there that fell through they failed on their promise in the proposal this proposal needs redone this extension needs stocked.

[98:16] This can't, this can't keep going on and bending. Our backs over for these guys. We're trying to do all these, you know, build this. Yes, if they need a better design that fits, we need a sub-community plan. And it's basically everything that everyone said before me. I think that's about it. Okay, I can, I'll let you guys go. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen, for your contribution. Next up we have Angie Michelle followed by Jan or Jan Rasmussen. Please go ahead, Angie. Hi, my name is Andy Micha. I live in Huntington Point condos east of the.

[99:00] The development. I'm a member of the Gombero Community Alliance and I really appreciate the those of you that appeared there in person tonight and all the hard work. You've done for our community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support my neighbors that have that I've already spoken. I asked the planning board to please listen to those of us that already live here. Tonight seems to be about a developer in a vacuum, not in a living, breathing community. That has been here for a very long time. 4 years has passed. A very tough 4 years of waiting, watching, seeing what happens, a very ugly, disruptive fence that we have to look at every day when we're out walking and enjoying. Trying to enjoy the. The view. Things have changed. The, major, major employer, Metronic is all but gone. There's a glut of market rate apartments in Boulder.

[100:04] And that aren't full. Apartment frequency rates are increasing. This is not a mixed use development. Only 3%. That's not apartments And please let this return to the light industrial zoning that we are lacking that kind of zoning space left in the city of Boulder and in Gun Barrel. We need a gun barrel community, a sub-community plan. We need a public park. We need some decisions made and not allow our lives to be disrupted by a developer for. They're asking for almost a decade. To do this development. And that was never part of the deal when this was approved. And it's like, we're just keep moving those goal posts and moving that. Moving the chains just to see where and how we can bend over backwards for a developer when we're a community and we need infrastructure, we need support from.

[101:06] Planning board for us. We already live here. I've been here 43 years. Please let this expire. And please remove the fence. And please do not approve the extension. Thank you so much for your time and your service to our community. I know it's a difficult job. Thank you, Angie. Thank you. So next we have Jan or Jan Brasmussen. Please you can introduce yourself with your correct pronunciation followed by you like Kalan. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. Jan or Yan Rasmussen. Good evening. John Rasmussen. I am a city of Boulder resident, since 1968, resident of gun barrel. For over 30 years. I am aware. Let me say to the planning board, I appreciate your service.

[102:05] And understand the limitations of. What choices you can make this evening in the planning code. That said, I'm, certainly a gun barrel alliance member and support the comments tonight and all the way through the process that were ignored. This isn't a good addition to our community, nor does it add. Anything to our community. And to hear tonight that this disruption. That started several years ago in our community in anticipation of this possible approval, then approval. Then not getting to permitting. and asking for an extension to 2028. To possibly build it out indicates to me that possibly we have the wrong contractor and applicant for a project of this size.

[103:01] If they do not have the wherewithal to move to permitting. Without financing in place. They may not be able to finish the project in a timely fashion. I would ask this doesn't get extended because I don't have any faith that this is going to go well for our neighbors. I live a few blocks from here. I already know what the traffic is. On spine. We have no bus system anymore that supports this plan development. So everybody who lives there and goes to the grocery store town is going to drive and we gave up. Having parking places that would accommodate the number of residents. This is really is not worked out in the long run to be a good decision by the planning board and I would ask that you don't extend it.

[104:01] Thank you again for your service. Good evening. Thank you. Okay, final participant from the public is, Eli Kalan. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Alright, I'm officially on muted and speaking. Well, I just wanna say thank you to the planning board for. Yes, ultimately it's a self selfless contribution to come here every Tuesday night and listen to What the future of Boulder will be. But I also wanna take everybody on a journey back to 1967. When the basically when open space was voted in. And we created this utopian society. We were amazingly forward thinking. And moving forward into creating a Ultimately, this amazing community that we all are able to enjoy. And nurture and grow in. But going forward, I also want you to think about the fact that Are we on the fringe of evolution right now?

[105:13] Are we thinking about where a boulder is going to be? In the next 2030, 40 years. Like I am actually pro-development. But I wanted to be in a way where the. Community as a whole. Can ultimately grow and foster and be. Be present with each other. So I would ask you to take a step back. And deny the application. Until a larger plan that implements a forward thinking boulder. Is implemented. And thank you very much.

[106:00] Thank you. So much and thanks for everyone online for bearing with us with this moving timer. We'll try to figure something out, something better for next time. Over to you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who came to speak in person and online. We really appreciate your time. We're going to go ahead and take a 10 min break because we've been going for quite a while. I give everyone a chance to get up, stretch, move around, round the bathroom, whatever you need to do. And then, when we come back, we'll move into planning board discussion. So thank you.

[107:44] Okay. That's pretty nice.

[108:19] Yeah.

[109:37] . Okay You end up recording. What is it?

[110:19] Thank you very much. Yeah.

[111:04] Oh Okay.

[116:30] Alright, on my iPhone and the big clock are slightly in disagreement, not just the hour, but I'll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. So we're now at the part of this public hearing item. We're planning board, will be deliberating. I'd like to ask staff if you could please put back up. There was a slide from the staff presentation that kind of talked about. In this quad judicial hearing, the criteria that It was like a short version of ABNC, I think. If we could just get that back up. Cause I think that's gonna be important. Yes, remember locked out of the lockdown.

[117:04] Okay, I'll get it up in a second. It was the the review criteria. That's like the A B and C. And the reason I'm having that pulled up a look at it in a moment is that, Particularly in quasi judicial hearings, the playing board is. Limited in the kinds of decisions we can make depending on the item that's in front of us and what the code. Sets out that we can and can't do. And I just wanna make sure that we're referring back to that as we start our deliberation. So that's why I'm. Putting that up first and foremost just so that we hopefully Stay on target. And on task.

[118:05] Make a suggestion. Oh yes, go ahead, Laura. So Lisa, I appreciate you pointing us to the criteria and the these are, you know, the decision in front of us is does the applicant meet the criteria for an extension. And these are the criteria we have to use. And so my suggestion would be that we go through them. Everybody talk about A, did they meet A, everybody talked about B, did they meet B? And then are there any additional conditions that we think are appropriate based on the code changes? That seems to me to be the only thing we can really discuss tonight. That is my interpretation as well. Any other? We'll get into that shortly. But any members of the plane would have concerns with that path forward. Okay. And I'll just briefly. Use my mic to say that I think we heard really heartfelt commentary, for members of the public and, for members of the public.

[119:02] And again, when we are in a quadratic proceeding, we are in a quadrudicial proceeding, we must obey the code and carry out our appointed duties according. . Yes Hey. Lisa, just so you know, it that whatever is on the screen there is not. Thank you, Sergey. Popping up online. I'm fine with it. But if it's all in long, that might be helpful. Yeah, I think that'd be very helpful. Maybe, if you could, speak back up to that one, it reappears in front of us. Yeah. Or for you, I mean not us. I just wanna point out that. Is not that is exactly what's in the code, not it's not a condensed or modified version. It's exactly what's there. It's not a condensed or modified version. Okay, hopefully we'll hear shortly that this is visible to, Georgie and also to members of the public. So I'm gonna read off A and then we can have any discussion to A. So A is criteria for demonstrating reasonable diligence.

[120:00] An applicant may show that it has exercised reasonable diligence for providing evidence. That it's done substantial work towards completing the project. Such evidence may include without limitation, drafting plans for building permits or technical document review, applications for building permits or other permits that are required prior to issuance of building permits, site preparation and greeting or commencement of the construction of a portion of the project. I'll just briefly say that I thought that was demonstrated, and open the floor for other members to, agree, disagree, or speak to that. And just so you know, it has popped up on the screen now. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Georgie. Actually, Georgie, since you're, you're there. Maybe I'll start with you and then I'll move to work and go this way to start and next one I'll go the other way. It has. Yeah, so so overall I agree that the applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence around this I will say that it's interesting to me. That, they have, phasing at their disposal as the way to have this the timeline be met as is.

[121:09] I mean, one thing that's that's interesting and and again, like it's confusing because the applicant talked about 9 months of permitting, then 27 months for construction. But, to substantial completion for the entirety of the project. Which is essentially if you know close to a 3 year timeline. As is that has nothing to do with the extenuating circumstances of financing, etc, the permitting and construction of that. Nothing has changed there. And so the question I have is, you know, if they would have had the 9 months of permitting and then substantial completion for the first phase of the first grouping of buildings, which is only 9 months to maybe a year. That would be well inside a 3 year timeframe, extension that we could grant without. Without concern and so I'm mixed on this because of that because there is a clear path to be able to, because of that, because there is a clear path to be able to to meet that and I don't see on this because of that because there is a clear path to be able to to meet that and I don't see how the

[122:20] extenuating of circumstances of finance and kovat impact the permitting and construction time. Online that they discuss. That, to me, it seems fixed either way. And so I'd love for other, board members as you guys consider this. To think through that because that doesn't seem right and this has. yeah, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. So to follow on to. George's questions he brings up. Interesting interesting points and I should have asked staff this during the time but I'll go ahead and take a little liberty and ask them now.

[123:02] . If they came in tomorrow and dropped all of their applications for permits on your desk at one time. What would the lead time be? To fulfill. The permitting. Process. 20 buildings. It's really tough to say. I mean, It's 6 months. And you have requested that they phase their permitting request. Yeah, we, yeah, try to group them in. You know, chunks that make sense that are intuitive. Okay. Your staffing level, you know, we we the community. Made lots of accommodation for staff.

[124:04] I'm not saying this in any organizational way. I'm just saying, you know, Gee, staffing for all city departments during the pandemic. Okay, hit and we struggled. With staffing levels. And we were struggling a little bit. Before the pandemic, but. We're struggling certainly during and post-pandemic. Is is your current staffing level. Affecting lead times for granting building permits. At this point on our building services side were for the most part fully staffed. We have some new staff that are still getting up to speed. So I think that's impacting us a bit. But. Our runtimes have improved. I would say with additional staffing and outsourcing some of our reviews as well. You know, in that 6 month timeframe, I would qualify that a bit. I mean, really the speed in which you advance through the process really depends on the quality of your initial submittal.

[125:04] So, you know, how well all the, subs are aligned, the quality of the plans, you know, there's definitely some qualitative things that, you know, factor into speed, but, how quickly you can get to the top of our pile, I think is probably one of the biggest. Obstacles but to answer your question we are. Almost fully staffed at this point and I think our runtimes have improved. Okay. My only other comment is, yeah, I, it seems like the applicant is. Certainly. Moving along and demonstrating diligence. In their in their processes. Thank you. So I'm going to answer the question, has the applicant demonstrated reasonable diligence? And I agree with the staff analysis on page 93 of the memo. They've listed, you know, 5 technical documents, including the preliminary plat. That have been submitted and so they the applicant clearly wants this project to happen they're making progress towards it they're investing in it so I would say yes they have demonstrated reasonable diligence.

[126:13] And I, ask a dolphins to ask one quick question of staff. So I know that there has not been an example like this where the applicant has requested. Their 3 year extension prior to exercising those 2 6 months extensions that are granted. But is it unprecedented or has it been done before that an applicant has had their three-year window, has had 2 six-month staff extensions and has been granted a three-year extension on top of that. Is that unprecedented or has that happened before? So completion of the 2 6 month administrative plus an additional 3 years. Yes. It has happened before. Yeah, and I think that's the what the intent behind the code is just is to support. Ostensibly one year of administrative staff level approvals. And I think the way that we've interpreted is, an additional 3 years. Okay, just I just wanted to clarify that because it sounded like there might have been an impression that this has never been done before and we're bending over backwards for this developer.

[127:09] It seems like the only thing that is different is that they applied early for their 3 years. Right, I think the only thing that we haven't done before is applied the extension date to the end of an administrative approval that has yet to expire. Right. They basically just applied early in anticipation that they're not going to be able to get it done and wanting to reassure their lender, but they have reason to believe they won't be able to get it done. And that they will need that 3 year extension. But I think our code, the construct of our code supports that. One year plus an additional 3 years. That would probably be my interpretation too if we agree as a board that these criteria are met. Thank you. I don't find any, problems with. The criteria number A. I believe that they have demonstrated reasonable.

[128:03] Diligence in getting the projects so they've been at this for, 2 years. And I think that they have exercised the diligence. To use those 2 years. So yes. And I agree with my colleagues. I think that the criteria for a Alright, I think we're hearing that criteria for A have been met. Oh, let's move on to B. So this is criteria for demonstrating good cause. So an applicant may show good cause. This to wine extension should be granted. By providing evidence that includes without limitation the following, a demonstration of the applicant's ability to complete the project within the extension. The extension is needed because of the size of the project or facing of the development. Or economic cycles. And market conditions prevented the construction of the project during the original approval period. Largely what I think I heard was the third. We'll go through again. Georgia, you're gonna be last and we'll start over here.

[129:08] Thanks. And I think that this has also been met. And I think that Georgie's objection really applies more to or his concern maybe applies more to the second one and I'd like to hear more from him. At the end, but certainly these have been on. Almost unprecedented since the Spanish flu as you pointed out, almost unprecedented times and yeah interest rates go up and down and so on but this is this is truly a an unusual time with, with novel challenges. For development and I think If it were just this one developer, then we could potentially say, oh, you know, it's mismanagement on their part or something, but what I'm hearing from staff is. The this is a common problem that we're going to have to deal with quite a bit as times go forward.

[130:02] And so I think that that pretty clearly B is also met. So. I think that the part of B that I wonder about, which I think is also what maybe George was talking about. Was D. Applicability to complete the project within the extension. So I'm Hearing or maybe I'm understanding some. Conflicting information about. Does the 3 year extension. As staff has proposed work or not. Good cause. I think the question in my mind is the applicant is asking for 2028 and the staff is proposing.

[131:10] 2026. And I think that that Sort of gap is. The ask the applicant is asking for. I, I don't know that I. Greed that there is good cause to grant. 2028. Extension. Do see them substantiating the need for the 3 years. So. Give you a straight, a straightforward enough answer there. So I would say that yes, the applicant has demonstrated good cause primarily for that last condition there. Economic cycles and market conditions.

[132:04] Prevented the construction of the project during the original approval period. That is the good cause for why they need the extension. I will point out that the sentence isn't or it is not an and all 3 conditions do not have to be met. Just one of them is sufficient and I think that that last one is clearly met, you know, as has been described. They are not alone in the challenges that have been faced during COVID. So I think that they have demonstrated good cause. And it seems to me that staff have discussed that the intention in the code was to grant a year of administrative extension plus 3 years of board. Extension if that is the board's desire if we see that that is justified. So I would not have a problem with doing that. I concur, especially on the economic cycles and market conditions. I think that post pandemic during pandemic and post pandemic rank everyone from an individual to a family.

[133:03] To small businesses. 2 large businesses all have been roiled. By economic cycles and market conditions that They're not, it's not that they're unprecedented or you've never seen them before, but they are, we're certainly coming off of a long period of economic stability. And this is a period of. High volatility and You know, I listened to a lot of. Economics news and you know, a lot of economists can't quite figure out exactly where the economy is going. What this economic cycle means. So anyway, it's a lot of volatility right now. So I certainly think they've demonstrated. And it's apparent to everyone. That we're going through strange economic cycles. Alright, Georgie. Yeah, I generally agree with the towards consensus there. Certainly we're experiencing some, strange economic cycles. I, like, I, I think, a 3 year expansion that we ran on top of the one year staff administrative.

[134:14] I don't I don't see necessarily an issue with that. I think I understand as I understand, trying to understand the timing of everything that brings us through November of 2,027. I would be concerned about doing anything beyond that. Only because we are in strange economic cycle times and you know what we don't want as Boulder is to put entitlements out there and then have them language unnecessarily. And the applicant has at their. Disposal, a tool. To phase this project administratively. To fit within substantial completion well within 3 years based on the initial. Permitting and then the initial phases of the project which which you know by their own determination would happen somewhere 9 months to a year.

[135:14] After permits are approved. And so I don't know there's anything more to be done here, but the way I hate to do in HC is We approve an extension. And then for one reason or another economic cycles, yada yada, dirt doesn't get moved at all. And then they're back a few years later, requesting another extension. When, if they had phase the project. They would have, you know, had a little bit more, ability or more of a more of a a hammer to actually get those things done and less of an excuse for, things dragging on beyond that.

[136:04] But in general, I, agree that, this criteria is demonstrated for good cause. It's just I'm a little confused why the applicant hasn't. Looked at phasing to accommodate the timelines that Boulder has put in front of them. But maybe staff can clarify that. Maybe I don't understand fully the process. Maybe it's on risk, but. At some point outside of this would be interesting to get, get an explanation from staff, the different alternatives around phasing that were available to the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I would say also that the Has the met set for before us, specifically to economic cycles? And again, you know, if This were the only applicant coming forward, then that wouldn't be true, but we're seeing or perhaps wouldn't be true, but we are seeing a whole lot of these coming up.

[137:01] And we've all seen what happened. Over the past few years. What's go ahead and move to see and then I probably will have a couple of questions for staff just around timing. Let me look. Actually, let me ask that question now. So we're hearing a lot of numbers. We're hearing 26. We're hearing 27. We're hearing 28. So. If the board were to approve for 3 years from tonight. Which is one option as I understand it, that would be November of. 26. Correct. And then is there any proposed date that would fall in 27? No. Okay. That's what I thought too. I think what it is that the applicant has requested of the board. And that's that consideration of 3 years from the expiration. Of the second administrative.

[138:09] 6 month extension that has yet to expire. Okay. Which would be when it expires on July 20 seventh, 2025 which would put their. Approval out to July, 20 seventh of 2028. Okay. Thank you. So we're talking about. Early November of 26. Or July, end of July of 2020 under the things that we have discussed. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, anything further on criteria B? Right, moving on to see, additional conditions as part of a hearing to consider an extension, the planning board may impose additional conditions on the applicant. In order to ensure compliance with any amendments to TED 9, land use regulation BRC. 19. 91 enacted after the date of the original approval. What I believe I remember staff saying in the presentation, the packet is that in staff belief no such conditions apply, is that correct?

[139:12] Yes, that's correct. Okay. Does anyone in plan board? We can go through the line, but does anyone planning board wish to speak to see? Yeah. Okay. Just yell at me, Okay. Okay. So those are the review criteria. So According to that, I would say that plenty of words would find that this has met through review criteria. And so what I think is now before us is this question of when this 3 year extension will count from and therefore also count 2. And that is kind of the, what is before us. Yes, go ahead, Laura. I would be happy to go ahead and make a motion and see what the board thinks. And I would ask staff if you could please draft for us a motion changing the, you provided motion language for us on page 94 of the packet.

[140:06] That talks about 3 years from the date of the decision. If that could be revised to reflect 3 years. From extending the staff. Extensions that we talked about. And I would be fine with you making such a motion, Laura. I'd also say that I Probably not ready to vote positively on it. I would love to make the motion, see if there's a second and have discussion and then, you know, Coli, how we go. So I had drafted motion language to that effect in Senate. To Amanda and staff. But if you want them to drop, anyway, it's up to you, but I would love to have staff look at what you've drafted and then give us what staff thinks is appropriate if this is going to be something language that we might need to reuse in the future. I want to make sure staff is comfortable with it. And they did seem to think that there was a pathway and that that was the intention of code to add 3 years onto the existing approvals.

[141:01] And, once, that's ready to view, we'd love to see it up on the screen, but we'll wait for you to be ready to put it up for us. Yeah, and just thank you. Just to let, man, sorry, my microphone's not. Very loud. Just to let Georgie know online that I'm going to have to stop screen sharing, but I can drop it in in his chat on Zoom. Okay, but I can share with you all here in person. Kirk, go ahead. Thanks. It seems to me that we could adopt a consistent interpretation. Saying that the extension applies the three-year extension applies.

[142:14] From the end of the second, the expiration of the second. 6 month administrative extension or the date of approval. By planning board whichever comes later. And that then would be consistent with the situation here and its own like the situation that we dealt with, it was dealt with before. That's. I agree with you, Kurt. I think that's probably not something we need to do as a planning board tonight but that might be something staff would do in the update to this that they're going to be bringing forward in a few months. I think that your proposal makes sense from what I have heard. And I think the interesting question there will be.

[143:05] And I think we'll be talking to this some more depth once we get some language up. Is that because I would want that to apply consistently, right? If we set such a rule and is such. A long term of approval. Something that we want to be. Applying consistently, you know, like in this case we're seeing it come forward. Perhaps we will perhaps we won't decide that that makes sense here. Whatever we do decide needs to be applied consistently and fairly. That's a really long time to let someone develop or not develop. And we'll get into it in more depth, but you know, this was a originally approved in 2021. That would basically be an automatic extension. For 7 years after an initial approval. I have concerns. Yeah. I don't think it'll be an automatic. I think it would be it would have to meet the criteria first for the staff extensions and then for planning boards to grant the three-year extension, which seems to be what the code anticipated.

[144:08] So I don't think that it's doing anything new. I think it's just cleaning up how we apply it because the circumstances under which they tried to do it. Earlier were different where the approval had already expired. And they didn't want to back date it and have them lose part of that 3 year extension. And so in this case, we're just applying a little bit early saying, we know we're not going to hit this date. Our funder knows we're not going to hit the state. We can't get funding. The project dies without funding. So we wanna apply for that extension early, but they still need to meet those criteria of extenuating circumstances, having good cause and having due diligence. Yeah, 7 years is a lot. Yeah, you know, and I'm not sure how hard it is to meet those criteria. I'm just raising that that's something I'll be wanting to go into more depth.

[145:01] I think we've got some, motion language up and Laura, you were interested in potentially introducing it and looking for a second. So please do so if you would like. Thank you, Chair. I move to approve an extension to site review and use review case number LUR, 2020 dash 0 0 0 6 3 for a period not to exceed 3 years from the date of the decision on the date of the decision on the request. In corporate. Oh. Is that what we needed to say? The date on the decision of the request? That looks like the old language. . Language Okay. Strike that I don't move this. Let's wait for the new language. I could send just some language and just read it in the record. I feel comfortable with that versus having it on the screen.

[146:02] Probably need it on the screen. It's on its way. Hey, while we're waiting for this kind of Charles a quick question.

[147:04] Charles can you can you briefly you know explain the phasing tool that's at the developers. Disposal. I'm still confused that if they if it takes the 9 months to permit. And another 9 months to a year. To build the, to build conceptually. What could be the first phase? What's stopping them from doing that so that we could just meet a 3 year timeframe and they'd have over over a year buffer for substantial completion of the first phase. Well, the, phasing plan. You know, anything other than our standard 3 years to get to substantial completion would have need to be negotiated through the site review process. In this case, there was no phasing plan proposed. The applicant just move forward with the standard 3 year to get to substantial completion arrangement that exists in our code. It's not uncommon as you guys know. Where we see phasing plans that, you know, maybe break things into 2, 3 year phases.

[148:11] You know which we've seen the fast in the past and you know there are times where we have very specific language about when those phases start and stop or you know that they have to be consecutive. So that didn't occur through this, site review process. George so they would they would ostensibly have to. You know, have met that. Substantial completion within 3 years. Then you have that little section of the code that gives you a couple 6 month extensions. So that's where those come in to the conversation. So does that. Does that answer the question? Yeah, that's super helpful. I mean, I guess my only my only concern in general. For that you know going forward as if we've got we got a project that a developer thinks is going to take them.

[149:01] 9 months to a year to permit and then 27 months to build it sounds like it was approved. To a certain extent knowing that we were gonna need some sort of extension based on based on just how something like this could be built out. Is that right? Okay. That's fine. We can cover a later time. You answer my question. Yeah, that's probably a better question for the applicant. Good. That's very helpful to understand. Sort of, where that fits in the process. Thank you. In the meantime, Emil is gonna ask a question. Charles, can you? Clarify, I think you said that it's pretty common or applicants to get to 6 month extensions and then a 3 year. So that puts us at a, 7 year. Oh, time frame for a project. Is that, is that?

[150:08] That was the But I understand you just say that that was up. Common? I wouldn't say it's common at this point. I wouldn't say it's common at this point. We've brought those requests to you in the past. We've brought those requests to you in the past. We've brought a handful of them in the last couple of years. I think based on. Our concern is that we're starting to see more of them. I think based on the current financial environment. So that's why we've been suggesting some code changes. And I don't wanna put you too much on the spot, Charles. And I don't want to put you too much on the spot, Charles. We're getting some echo here. We're getting some echo here. If anyone has their mic open. Turn it off. It has their microphones. Sure. Are you ready to share and share? Or like what kind of things you're looking at. Are you ready to share, able to share with those code changes might be or like what timeframes you're looking at? We're looking to advance a package that will, will be considered. I'm we're looking to advance a package of what we consider clean up code changes. End of quarter one of next year. But the tax But we haven't synthesized what the text would look like or. Again, what the regulatory construct would be.

[151:04] Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I was just curious. Zoom. That screen is frozen, so I don't know. We are going to take a 5 min, sorry, and we're gonna start a computer and be back. We are going to take a 5 min break and we're gonna start a computer and be back very shortly, hopefully. Sorry guys. So. I just Oh my. Okay.

[152:14] Okay. So. Just, just like. No, it was. I see my screen. Okay. Okay.

[153:03] Okay. For your testing.

[155:50] Yeah. Oh, thank you. Alright, we're gonna rejourn in about a minute. So if you're wandering or chatting, you've. Less than 60 s.

[156:32] And I'll take this 30 s to say again, thank you all for public comment and much of what you said without speaking to this project specifically and our quasi issue role that many of the things you brought forward are things that we talk about a lot too and hold very dear. So thank you. All right, we are reconvening. And we now have some motion language up. I think Laura the floor was yours. Thank you, Lisa. I move to approve an extension to site review and use review, case number L, you are, 2,000, and, 20, 0, 6, 3, for a period of 3 years from the end date of the most recently granted administrative extension incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact.

[157:17] I'd be happy to speak to this if there is a second. There's a second. Seconded by Mark Mcintyre and moving to discussion. So I'm making this motion because it seems. I'm making this motion in order to be consistent with code and consistent with precedent. It sounds like this is what the code intended is that if there are extenuating circumstances, if there is good cause. And the applicant shows reasonable diligence. That they can get these extensions. They can first get the 2 six-month staff extensions and then they can get a three-year extension from planning board. Those are the provisions that we have at our disposal. I'm not sure that there's anything else we could do tonight that would be consistent with code and would grant an extension as the applicant has requested from planning board.

[158:01] Maybe I'm not seeing the options, but this seems like the thing that we could do that is consistent with both code and precedent. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Are you are you asking me to vote? Is that about the? No, I can No, no, sorry, sorry, Georgia. I was discussion is still open vote will be probably shortly. Just wanna make sure you have the opportunity to speak if you wish. No, the only thing I wanted to mention was kind of to echo what you said, Lisa, which is I really appreciate the community coming out. Irrespective of this vote around, the, the extension. I think. As planning board, but we'll need to follow to Laura's point. What the code has intended related to what we have in front of us tonight.

[159:03] But I wanted the people to spoke know that that I and we heard their voices and concerns certainly take that into consideration. On future projects. So I just wanted Thank you. Alright, no further discussion. I will go ahead and call the vote. Starting with. Yes. Aye. Aye. Hi. Yes. And yes. Thank you. All right, passes unanimously. Lisa, can I make a comment as well? You may? I want to support also what you and George said and that the members of the community, we do hear you and we are also concerned with things like the gun barrel sub-community plan, your available parks, how people in the area have access to services, neighborhood serving businesses, the vacancies in your neighborhood.

[160:04] We are very much concerned with those things. We just have to follow the code that's in front of us for the application that's in front of us. So thank you so much for coming out tonight, making sure we understand those things. We really do appreciate your civic participation and thank you for being here tonight. Lisa. Just real quick. And I would encourage the applicant to use best. Construction practices in regard to site maintenance, fencing. Etc. I'm not directing you to do anything. I'm just urging you to use absolute best practices. As you develop the site. In in in all of your construction things to minimize. The services to the neighbors. Thanks. Yeah, go ahead, Emil. Yes, I would like to, also concur with. Thank you, members of the public that we see and that we.

[161:06] Don't see. For speaking up those are the kind of comments that will make the most sense at the actual use in site review. So should you be involved in the future project? That is where your voices will have the most power because that's where we have the most opportunity to. To affect. The kind of outcomes that we're looking for. And I would also agree with what Mark was saying. They're seeing that the community engagement piece of the project. Might have fallen through some cracks of the COVID and the whole disruption of process. And I think the project would be well served. If some of those things could be attended to in a in a manner that, you know, become good neighbors before it's even built. Thank you so much everybody. And I've been on the board long enough to remember that you were present at Sight and Use Review.

[162:03] So you have been a very active from the get go and I want to acknowledge that. Alright. That, wraps up, this public hearing item. We will now move forward with matters from the planning board, planning director. And city attorney. I see one item, an informational item. I'm sorry I was having a sidebar count. You're all good, Charles. I was wrapping up the public hearing item and moving to matters and looking at item A. I'm not sure who might be speaking. Oh, item A. I'm so I apologize. That's simply an informational item for a lot line elimination. It's kind of a technicality in our code. We're required to transmit these to the board just for informational purposes. There's not a lot of magic to this. They're just dissolving some, existing lot lines I think that have been there before we were Stop allowing buildings to spam

[163:05] We have a question. Yeah, it just seems very strange that there's this requirement that this be communicated to us when we have absolutely 0 to do with it. Do you have any history for why this is required? Yes. So if you can get it on the ballot and get people to vote for it then. Yeah. I'll vote for Curt if you get it on there. It goes back to a time though, when there was a lot of concern about bad subdivision design. There was a lot of concern about bad subdivision design. Do we have some other things in our charter that kind of allude Alright, thank you. Any other matters from, planning director city attorney staff in general? I see you. Yeah, I have an item and we discussed it briefly at the agenda meeting. It looks like both Lisa and Sarah would be absent at the next meeting on Is it November 20?

[164:09] Tuesday the 20 first Okay, yeah. So if both the chair and vice chair are absent at that meeting board. Has to elect an acting chair for that meeting. It is not that meeting yet, but whoever might take on that task might wanna know ahead of time to be able to prepare. So we thought that it might be a good idea for you guys to discuss. Who might want to take on that task? And see if there's support from the rest of the board. And you will need to attend a meeting at one PM on the Monday prior. That's the agenda. That's right. Good reminder. So I guess I'll first say, and I know that Amanda has been very on top of this, but it sounds like we will have Quorum. Is there anyone else who knows that they will be out? Tuesday the 20 first Tuesday before Thanksgiving.

[165:03] Okay, so well looks like we'll have a quorum. Is anyone interested in nominating them? You're not really from the nominee yourself because you'll need to be elected, I believe, selected in the meeting. However, we want you to know that you might need to attend. Did you know the meeting and that you're gonna have to run a meeting? Is there anyone who's super excited about this or wants to volunteer someone else to do it? Well, I would say Mark did a good job last time we were in this situation. We can hardly contain his excitement. Mark, will you be volunteered? Can you accept? Would you accept that? I would accept the nomination. I nominate Mark. Great. And Mark, would you be able to attend an agenda meeting at one PM? On Monday the twentieth. It might be possible to shift it around a little bit if not but Looks fine. You have been fallen told. Thank you, Mark. This is why you shouldn't do a good job in the first place.

[166:02] Okay. Thank you. And planning director. Well, other than looking forward to Mark's extensive campaign materials leading up to the 20 first. I don't have much to add other than to congratulate you all for your first hybrid meeting in however however long. A big thank you to the staff for getting this all lined up. Sorry for a few. Okay. And is, not only this board, but also landmarks and our others. So she's had a lot going on, especially with Devon having moved on. So. Thank you. To her and to everybody for your flexibility. And Successful meeting. Thank you. And then the last thing I'll say again, Amanda has been super on top of it. I'm just looking out ahead as we look at future meetings. And I know I already sent an email about it, but just week before Christmas, let us know if you know you won't be available or on the second day after New Year's.

[167:02] Just like. Keep us appraised. Looks like we're probably gonna have quorum. It'd be nice to know if we won't for any particular. We have items actively like being scheduled for those meetings. Actually, we have. Items already scheduled for those meetings. So it would be important for us to know if we don't have. And I'm going to try to make at least one of them, but probably will not be able to make both of those 2 dates. Just do the holidays. All right, anything from the board? Yes, Mark. I took no and I again this is not a criticism I just want to say I was discussing with a council number. A prior meeting and Anyway, the topic is kind of irrelevant. But. I, they asked me some questions about the results of motions and votes. In one of our meetings and I went back and I said well I you know I forget things as soon as the meetings over.

[168:01] So I worried about them and now, you know, it's done. So I said, I'll go back and look at the minutes. And so, I could not find the minutes. And I think we have done minutes subsequent to that. So anyway, I, I don't think we have minutes for August fifteenth. Which was the. The big, we had a big. Topic which included the, hill. Restaurant. Use and Yeah, so anyway, that was, that was interesting. And then when I couldn't find the minutes I. Went and watched the video to refresh myself and was able to answer their questions. But during that discussion, they also said that, well, you're not the only board struggling with minutes and now that.

[169:02] Evans gone and everything else I'm not asking that minutes come fast and furious but anyway it was interesting that we were missing minutes from that meeting. Do you have any insights into? And we can get back to you. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know about the. Fifteenth I'm looking at. A set here. And maybe I just couldn't find him. It certainly could be me, but. No, I'll double check our central records online. That's where you are working, I'm assuming. For them. Why don't we just commit to getting back to you about that? Yeah, yeah. Thanks for that. Yeah. Thanks for that. Yeah. And one last thing, for all of us recently and It was suggested by one of the council members, well, you know.

[170:07] This might be. An actual productive use for something like AI to have it go through the transcript, produce minutes, and then have a human. Kind of do a little bit of editing. It's like, wow, what a thought to, you know. Doing evil. I do know the IT, department is interested in. Delving into AI next year. So. Those would be hundreds of pages. Right. But if you, if your request was, you know, condensed this down to meaningful, you know, with, with a 2,000 word count, you know, it's like, you know, I'd enjoy seeing what it came up with anyway.

[171:00] You could potentially train Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the missing minutes. You're done. You may. I have a question for Steph. So the boards and commissions report that the consultant was hired, they did a bunch of interviews, they did a survey, and there's a report that I think is going to City Council is it this week? Yeah, this week on Thursday. So that reports available as part of the packet for council. I read it. I thought it was very interesting. I didn't see a whole lot that looked super relevant for planning board. Of course, that looked super relevant for planning board. Of course, there I think there are things that will change about planning board. Of course, there I think there are things that will change about the recruitment process to planning board. Of course, there, I think there are things that will change about the recruitment process to try to make it more diverse and accessible There was a note in there about trying to perhaps shorten the terms so that people aren't committed for quite so long. So there was a suggestion to have planning board members be a 3 year term instead of a 5 year term. Were there any other what you thought were significant recommendations that might impact planning board that I might have missed? You know, we've reviewed that as part of the management team for the department and flagged a few.

[172:00] Not sure I'd want to do that on the fly, but we can certainly share that out with you next time about some of our thoughts about that. I think we were going to have a subsequent conversation anyway, weren't we about that? Those are the standouts though at least in my mind. You know, then there's just the mechanics of, you know, how you serve the border, the memos too long, you know, what's the homework like, how are you stacking agenda those kinds of things, but the ones that you have identified were the ones I think that resonated with our group. I think we added training too. It's standardizing some of that. Across the, the organization and not just the boards that exist out of PMDS. And there were some suggestions to to potentially eliminate or condense some of the boards, but the planning board was not on that list, as I recall. I think we can be confident. I did find it to be a very interesting report if people are interested in that.

[173:06] All right, anything further from board? Our stuff. This meeting is adjourned. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for sharing tonight, Lisa. And you're still not feeling great. Okay. Cool. No, no, you're fine. I'm just putting food away. It's all good. Yeah