March 19, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Great I'm gonna call this meeting to order as the vice chair on Tuesday, March nineteenth, at 6 pm. prior to going into the agenda. I wanted to do a quick roll call of planning board members if you could. Just affirm that you are here, I'll start with Ml. Yes. Mark. Yes. Laura. Yes. And George myself. There are 4 of us present. We don't expect anybody else, but that is one for the meeting. Next thing to do is to go into public participation. Do we have anyone in the meeting from the public. We do, and I will pull up the slides and present them. Just give me a second here.

[1:08] Can you see that. That's. Okay, great so thank you to the members of the public who are here with us tonight for the planning board meeting. and I will just go over the rules of public participation. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. And the city website has more information about this vision and how it was developed. The following are examples of rules of decorum that I'll read, they are found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will all be upheld during this meeting. First, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. Second, no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[2:10] Third, obscenity, racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and, lastly, participants are required to identify themselves. using their first and last name so that we can call on you. Currently, only only audio testimony is permitted online. That is correct. If you are here, we will know that you would like to speak by raising your hand so you'd look for the hand, icon, and we will, calling you on the order that you've raised your hand. This is just another way to look for it. You can look for the reactions button at the bottom of your screen. So now we will ask people from the public. And just to clarify this is. The night. Everything except the public hearing item.

[3:02] Yeah, thanks for that. We have 3 people with us so far. If nobody would like to speak for open comment, then we will move on in the agenda. Okay, over to you. Chair. Oh, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. Do you have the timer ready, Thomas? Okay, please go ahead, Lynn, you have 3 min. Sorry I'm famished. I've just had a busy day with the police at sea and and Bose, which is a cool place. It's a Coffee House at on fifteenth. at Pearl, just South and the police met with the public there. So it was a lively debate. And Now I have to think of what I would want to talk about with you. One of the things is certainly Alpine balsam that's going to be coming up.

[4:09] and my concern here is with with time. Well, we all know time is money right, and I don't know how long it's been since we had the hospital gone, but probably close to 10 years. and we've been paying money for the all that land all this time. We've got this affordable housing crisis, and we've got this policing problem. They're all interrelated, of course, and the police don't have enough money to do the right thing. We were talking about Alatore, and how a guy that that reported her for scaring him didn't have to report how he scared her. Well. she had a gun that she exposed. She didn't direct it at him, but he didn't report that

[5:02] the police came. They escorted her out then, an hour later. But in that process, you know of not de-escalating from the very embryo of the situation. She was agitated by the time they came back an hour later. They validly killed her. I admit that. but she didn't have to die if this was done the right way in the same thing. The planning board doesn't have to do the wrong thing for Boulder. and cause all of this affordable housing crisis. Remember 2206 perl, which I've been talking to about more than a few people today. 2206 had the option for 16 units. and because it was for the missing middle, it was given 40 with a height, variation and parking reduction, and

[6:00] the problem is for 1,700 to $2,600 for the missing middle. And that's why planning board gave it to them. That is a problem I want to know the ami, because the ami keeps on going up and up. The only place that it stays the same is for the homeless person at 0, right? And it's interesting because the homeless person gets one bathroom and kitchen at Bluebird and in Gaza they have 600 people for one bathroom. Thank you, Lynn Siegel, for joining us tonight. that's the end of your 3 min, and there are no other hands raised for open comment. Back to you, George. Okay, okay, thanks, Lennon. We don't have any minutes to approve this evening. Nor we do. We have dispositions or planning board call ups so we're gonna go right into our public hearing item, which I believe was a call up

[7:04] from a prior meeting. and so I'll pass it over to Alison. Thanks, adventures, cool. Can I jump in really quickly? Apologies Laura, with the city of Boulder City attorney's office. we just asked that you read the the whole thing to start the public hearing. So, okay. Day, 4. Yeah, you know. Thank you. Agenda title. Sure, absolutely. Genital. The agenda title, public hearing and Consideration of a Site review to redevelop 15 one and 1509. Arapaho Avenue. with 8 attached residential dwelling units with underground parking and 2 at grade parking spaces behind the building. Development is proposed to be 3 stories in height that will not exceed the buy right height, limit of 38 feet. The preliminary plat was reviewed and approved under a different case, reviewed under case number LUR. 2, 0, 2, 3, dash 0, 0, 0, 2. Thanks. Lauren.

[8:12] But, Tom, can you? I don't have permission to share my screen for some reason. Yeah, just 1 s. I'll promote you to a Co host, and then you'll be able to share your screen. Thanks. So then. can I? Can someone confirm? You can see my slideshow. Okay. Slides are. Thank you. Alright. Good evening. Planning board members, and thank you for the introduction. As mentioned, this item is for request for Site Review approval to redevelop the existing site with the attached residential units

[9:10] as an overview for tonight's presentation, I will briefly cover the information that was provided in the staff Memo, including the Site Review process. existing site conditions and surrounding contexts. Description of the proposal for the site and a key issue for discussion. The item was called up by planning board at the February sixth meeting, and as such planning board approval of the application is now required at a public Hearing staff is recommending approval of the Site Review Application. Finding the proposal consistent with the criteria founded section 9, 2, 14 h. And then subject to the recommended conditions of approval and just note to clarify the application, was submitted prior to the adoption of ordinance 8, 5, 1, 5, and was therefore reviewed against the Site Review criteria in place at the time the project completed the necessary notice. Requirements for the code. Rip. Notice was sent out to property owners within 600 feet and size, or

[10:02] placed on the property as well. Staff did receive public comments from 4 neighbors to an opposition and one in support the fourth neighbor just communicated over the phone and requested more information about the process. All those comments are included in the memo packet as well as a list of neighbor support that was submitted by the applicant as part of the initial application. The subject site is comprised of 2 parcels addressed at 1501 and 1509, Arapaho AV, and it's located at the northeast corner of Fifteenth Street in Arapaho. The total site is point 2 8 acres and located just across the street from Boulder High, within the Gosgrove neighborhood the site is zoned. Dt. One. That definition on the slide. But the Dt one zone is intended to provide a transition between downtown and the surrounding residential areas. This site is zoned to the north and to the west is zoned to Dt. One to the north, and then to the east is zoned our next one, and then to the south is RH. One.

[11:05] The BBC land use designation for this site is regional business. Those uses include shopping facilities, offices. And allows housing where compatible especially to act as a transition to other residential areas. The site is located within the 500 year and 100 year flood zones. However, the proposed structure, the actual housing development, will not encroach into the 100 year flood zone, and is therefore not required to be flood proofed however, there are some accessory structures just to the north, including a fence, the trash enclosures and one of the covered parking areas which will be required to obtain flood pay permits the site is located within the downtown urban interface and that interface area includes blocks that link the core of downtown to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Because of the location, the site was required. Review before the design Advisory Board or dab, who evaluated it in alignment with the intensive intent of the guidelines. To encourage new and compatible deal development.

[12:16] That preserves and enhances the existing character, and we'll go more into that a little bit later. As indicated in the zoning definition and also in the downtown urban design guidelines. The site is located in a transitional area. It's surrounded by a large variety of zones and uses. the site is specifically located in area that transitions from commercial uses in the Dt. One zone to mixed density residential to the north into the east, and then that high density residential to the south. the interface area also includes a mix of building forms and density. We see properties to the north along Fifteenth Street, containing 1, 2, and 3 story, commercial and Tach residential buildings. And then that context of the area to the north into the east is comprised of mixed sensity, residential, including one to 2 story single family houses, duplexes, triplexes, and multifamily

[13:11] in 1,974. The subject site was approved to redevelop an existing gas station into a photography studio, but our records indicate that was never completed. Later, in 1,975, the existing restaurant use was approved. And that included site upgrades to accommodate the 1,400 square foot restaurant. That beauty was later amended in 1980 to expand services and provide additional seating. The sites still operates as a residential use, but it's primarily surface parking and landscaping. and that brings us to the proposal for the redevelopment. The application is proposing a mix of usable open space, including a common gathering area for tenants. Which is located near the internal courtyard and some landscaping, and has a grilling area. Also shade with the preservation of a healthy tree to the northeast of the property. Each individual dwelling unit will also have a private roof deck

[14:13] as far as circulation the site has mentioned is located at that corner of 15 street in Arapaho, so residents will have access to the public right away, directly from their individual units as well as through internal walkways to the south and to the west, and then through the alley, the site is near crosswalks and an extensive sidewalk network. Which brings us to this next slide which is showing the site relative to the city's transportation master plan map, showing the site's connectivity not only to safe crossings, but adjacency to the Boulder Creek path, which is about half mile to the southwest as well as bike friendly streets on Fifteenth and on seventeenth, which has a separate bike lane. The area is also in an urban area. It's near several bus stops to the east and west along Arapaho, which serve the jump route and then the regional Rtd boulder Terminal, just point 2 miles to the north

[15:12] per table 9 1 one parking space is required for each dwelling unit in a Dt zone a total of 8 spaces are provided. 6 of those will be located below grade, with 2 service level parking spaces located behind the building and accessed from the alley. Short term bike parking is proposed to be located behind the building and near that surface, parking. Following discussion at the February 6, 2024, Planning board meeting. The applicant did redesign the long term bike parking on their site to incorporate a roll up garage door that is remote control activated as well as some chain link fencing with a lockable gate. As well as the ability to use ebikes and larger bike racks for cargo bikes. The proposal will meet bike and vehicle parking requirements is therefore not requesting a parking reduction.

[16:03] but the project is in a set review due to the proposed third story, and will not exceed the by right height of 38 feet. The building forms such as that setback. Third story, design details like scoop features, awnings, projecting bays, stone features, and landscaping create visual interest at the ground floor and reinfor reinforce that human scale element and legibility. And the site was designed so that parking is underground, and what is on the surface is in the rear yard with some landscaping to reduce the visual impacts of parking. There are proposed materials, such as masonry and wood signing, which complement the existing materials of the make existing make sense a residential in the nearby area. The proposed building insight, design, site, design changes reviewed by Dab in October. Generally the board was supportive of the proposed design, but recommended 2 key refinements, the first one being better articulation or variation on the Arab facade. Such as changes to the setback and the plated buffer and the second one was for approved cohesion with that western elevation and stylistic changes that would help improve. The legibility of the Southern facade, and better articulate the 2 different units.

[17:18] Following that review, the applicant provides the Southern elevation to improve that articulation by creating a vertical line between the 2 units reconfiguring the cladding along the elevation, and then introducing projecting windows similar to that of the West elevation and our key issue for discussion tonight is the pro propose project on balance consistent with the Site Review criteria of section 9, 2, 14, overall staff finds that the proposed development is on balance, consistent with the set review criteria as well as goals of the BBC. And the downtown urban design guidelines. There are no proposed modifications to the code except for that third story, and the development will meet. Set back density and height requirements.

[18:03] Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the following motion. The motion is also included at them in the memo, so I can keep this up, but if no, I'll open it up to questions. Alright, thanks, Alison. Does anyone have any questions for Alison relative to staff clarifications while we hear from the applicant? I'm out. Thank you. Alison, I have a but really general question regarding I thought that the sight criteria was required as opposed to in general or on. I can't remember the previous slide made it like you don't have to meet them all. I. Used. I thought we had to. They had to meet the criteria. So they they do need to meet the criteria, but it is on balance. So we we usually evaluate a project against

[19:07] You know we'll go through each individual criteria. But look at it as a whole, on balance with all the Site Review criteria. So, for example, if they don't meet a criteria, how would that be looked at relative to this on balance. I think it depends on the criteria, if if they're maybe not meeting it in other areas, but are exceeding criteria, and then another portion. Then we would kind of look at those together. You know certain sites have certain constraints that might not allow them to meet certain parts of the Site Review criteria. So I think that's why we allow for that flexibility. Now is that, Lou? I thought the onbalance had to do with the boulder, belly Comp plan, and not the criteria. Is that a new a new language? Or is that always been there. That's my understanding that that's always been how we've evaluated the Site Review criteria. The criteria. Okay? I do have some specific questions, but I'll let other people go while I

[20:04] gather them up. Laura. My question was the same as Mls. I. And I would love if if Laurel would weigh in here, because I thought that on balance only referred to does it meet the goals and objectives of the Bvcp. On balance, but that the Site Review criteria were required every single one. and I do not recall the on balance ever applying the Site Review criteria. Maybe you know, George, you've been here longer than most of us. Maybe you recall, but I don't know if Laurel you want to weigh in on that. Yeah. So we generally advise following each of the criteria. The very first criteria is that Bbcp on balanced language, which is the proposed site plan is consistent with the land use map and the service map, and on balance the policies of the Bbcp. So that's kind of where that on balance language comes from, but generally for criteria based decision making for you to approve it, then it has to meet all the different criteria which includes this on balance language and this first criterion and then, if it doesn't, then you make

[21:06] amendments or changes so that the plan does meet all those criteria. Yeah. And if it doesn't, and you don't think that any changes could happen such as like a motion or anything like that. That's when you deny the project. Okay, that that's my understanding as well that you know, aside from that first criteria about the Bdcp. That one is an on balance. But the rest all have to be met like a checklist. That was, that was my understanding. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm like, I'm scrolling through just to make sure that there aren't any on here that also say on balance. But all of them look like check marks. Yeah. Right? Okay. Thank you. Perfect, so that is a little bit different than what Alison was was proposing. I do have 2 questions for you, Ellison, can I? Oh, George, can I ask my question? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Mark has a question before we go back to you. Nope, okay.

[22:02] so my question. the Boulder Valley comp plan. RB. Land, use map. So under characteristics of the Rb, it calls for street activation and mix of uses being encouraged. So can you talk a little bit about how this project gives a nod to that land, use characteristic. Sure. So I think the you know the and the inclusion of the uses that does allow for residential uses where you know compatible. I think I think maybe the advocate can also address that more when in their presentation

[23:00] And how did you interpret the street activation component of of those characteristics. Of of which the which characteristics. So we're I'm still talking about BBC, Rb, under characteristics. It. It asks how about the project being consistent with the land? Use map. Designation is rb, and one of the characteristics calls for street activation. In addition to mixed abuses. So what what was your take on it, it being consistent with street activation as a characteristic. I guess, looking at treat activation in the form of, you know, some of the design features that went into it by creating those kind of stupid features. So even if it's you know not, let's say, like a commercial use in that sort of activation. But how the building interacts with. You know the public right of way and creating that that activation in the building design and form.

[24:01] Okay. thank you for that. Last question. Height-wise. So 3 stories are allowed. If there was a 15 foot setback correct. The third story is set back 15 feet. Correct and a a in looking at the building. It looks like the east and north elevation are not set back. So how can you explain. That no. The. Not being briefed, people. We can bring out the elevations that Eml's talking about. That'd be helpful. I can hold on one sec. You can see it both on the plan and the elevation, with those walls just going. Weapons.

[25:00] Okay? So you're talking about the. The the north and the east. Correct. Yeah. So this I don't have the exact measurements. Here I can. I can try to pull those up. Separately. Oh, I see what you're saying. It's from the property line. Yeah, yeah. It's not from the building edge. And the property. Make it look not as bulky. and a straight wall that goes straight up is still gonna be bulky, but that's irrelevant. The fact is from the property line it needs to be. I figured there must be some nuance that I wasn't catching. That that makes sense, and I'm looking at the north elevation, and it's probably got a 15 foot set back from that north property line. Yeah. I'm looking at the right hand. Right? The right drawing are the roof that's the upper floor and the roof. Those light colored are the roofs. Yeah. So this is where the the building form is. This is the drive.

[26:04] No, I'm looking at the other piece. This one. No same drawing but the other the other north. The step back. Oh, yeah, the step back would be like over here. Yeah. And then the building next to it. It's wall goes up the pool right? But that's 15 feet away from it as well. Move. Got it. Thank you for clarifying that I I like it when it's just like, I know that there's something I just don't know what it is. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Any other questions for Staff before I don't have any anybody else. All right. Well, if the applicant is ready to present, they've got up to 15 min to present their component. Thank you very much. I did have a presentation, and I don't see a share. Oh, sorry, miss. The big green button.

[27:09] And if you could just introduce yourself. So we know who you are and what your relationship with the applicant is. Yes, so my name is Michelle Mcnamara, and I represent the developer. and we work have been working very closely with the city to try and create a project that we feel sufficiently, and works with the city of Boulder's goals, and also trying to create a design that signifies what people really love about Boulder, and that includes creating a very walkable and neighborhood. Feel with a urban feel that you have, by walking down the street, both on the South and the West side.

[28:00] to answer the mixed use. The anything other than residential was not viable, due to parking limitations for this particular project. And so we felt that this allowed for additional housing and would be great for a walkable area. So we did encourage the bike parking and the minimum. One parking spot per unit. The bike parking was something that we did try to make as well as we could, but then was and were encouraged to create the cargo. We are happy to accommodate that as long as as well as the charging stations. In addition to one of the comments that was brought up in the last meeting. There was a question with regards to the 5 foot setback 5 foot sidewalk. We did explore that with transportation. And on the right of my screen is the email that we received from transportation that said that the less than standard width was most likely to accommodate street trees. Therefore the development will not be required to build the standard 8 foot set

[29:09] width, and so the existing 5 foot set. But 5 foot sidewalk on the south side is considered compatible with the area and to neat code. So we did go into great detail to try to secure all the bike parking with chain link fencing. We will have a roll down garage as the entrance. charging for ebikes as well as sufficient parking for cargo bikes as well as the space saver bike parking on that northern side of the the bike storage. Here's our first floor. So we did re redesign our Southern facade, based on the Da be feedback to be a little bit more like the Western facades. That design was a little bit easier due to the angle of the street that made the breaking up with the foes those facades a little bit

[30:07] easier. However, we did appreciate the feedback, and so did go back to the drawing board to redesign that Southern facade, so that it had a little bit better articulation as well as a little bit more. Feel along the street as you walk by. if it and this is really just kind of going a little bit into the details of the floor plans. Everything is between 1,850 square feet up to 3,000 square feet, depending on the unit. we do take pride in building things that people want to live in, as well as spaces that are really something that people want to engage with, including the rooftop decks which we thought were great in providing that open space. Here are the elevations. You can see the western elevation along with the southern elevation, and our renderings of those

[31:02] along with those northern Eastern ones, not quite as exciting, but they're also not as visually impactful to the surrounding area. Parking was encouraged along the alley to minimize any traffic impacts to the intersection as well as to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area and the site. I know she alison, covered the rest of my slides. I did include a few of our renderings that we had at the D. Ab. Which included that open space to the north as well as the courtyard. Open space for you guys to view. That concludes my presentation. If you have any further questions for me, I'm happy to answer anything that you have. Alright, thank you, Michelle. Does anyone have any questions from the board?

[32:01] Mark. Thanks. I want to pile. Thank you. I'm looking for. I find overall attractive project. And I didn't have any questions until just a second ago you said you were reached parking along. Yeah. So mark your your audio is a little bit scattered, maybe just speak up a little bit, and might be able to hear you a little better. Let me see if I'd get. Yeah, that's much better. That's much better. Okay, alright I was. I think I was sitting back and forth. So anyway. so Michelle, you had mentioned something about parking along the alley is. No, no, no parking off of the alley. So our parking entrance comes in off the alley. So we're not encouraging any parking off site at all. That's why we did the one space per unit. We did not want to add to the congestion of the neighborhood

[33:06] right. Thank you. So there is not additional parking. No. Alley off site or something. Okay? No, not at all. Thank you. I I got other questions. Thanks. Right. Thanks. Ml. Thank you. So my question and this is the one that I brought up when when the project was called up to be under consideration. I'm looking at number 2, site design to a open space. item. 3 3 little eyes and also see landscaping to landscape design, and both of them deal with the preservation. let me see the site design one preservation or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy, long-lived trees.

[34:04] See the landscaping. One talks about attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on and off site to among other concerns, healthy, long-lived trees. So my question is so. The site currently has 15 trees. In your on page l. 100 little chart. They all have a good designation. You know, good as as the qualifier, except for one, and that has a fair rating, and that one is being actually retained. Yet of these good trees, so there's 15 of them. 8 are being removed. which is more than half and their diameters range from 6 inches to over 27 inches. So my question is. what is the tree removal criteria when it seems like, you know, if if you just look at this chart.

[35:03] the trees are pretty much all in the same category, and they range equally the ones that are retained and not same dimensions. So what what do you use to determine which trees remain and not given those 2 criteria that were being asked to to consider. So the one that you're saying is in fair condition is actually not our tree. That's in the city right of way. Hi. Finally on your chart. Yes, we included it just because it was reviewed by the landscaper who came out and did it. We try to retain the trees that wouldn't die during construction due to the limitations of the site. It is very difficult to be able to protect every single tree out here, so we protected the one that is the oldest and largest, which is that Siberian elm

[36:05] as well as the ones to the east, which we felt. We're going to be the most likely to survive during construction by because we would be able to protect their route base. Some of the others we knew would be dying anyway, because we would have to disturb too much of their root base. And that's because of the underground parking. Correct. 100 min to go right. Correct. Okay, well, thank you for clarifying that. The second question I have for you. And actually it might be between you and A and Alison criteria F building design. The to do which is 7 it says, for residential project, the project to sits. Assist the community in producing the variety of housing types. So this project produces 4, 4 bedroom and 5, 3 bedroom units. So maybe you and or Allison can clarify is this considered a variety?

[37:03] They're they're both kind of big units. So from our development perspective, we consider that a variety it's made and targeted to go towards families which are very limited in the boulder area in finding affordable and dense homes that are within a walkable community. I know, especially in this area. There are lots of one and 2 bedroom er homes already available versus 3 to 4, which is something a family would prefer over a 780 square foot, one bedroom off of pearl. So your business model is not going to be to rent it by the bedroom. I'm sorry. What was that? Your business model is not going to be to rent it by the bedroom. No. As student, housing. No. Okay, well, that's brilliant. I I appreciate that you're looking at what's available in the vicinity as well. And the logic because we we do want family housing. So thank you so much for that answer. I I

[38:07] it's a great answer. Thank you. Thank you. Someone hasn't spoken have questions for the applicant. Otherwise I have one or 2. Okay. Thank ml, thanks for that clarification. Michelle. Quick clarification. So these are these are going to be for sale units. So there will be a few for sale and a few that are available for rental, but none of them are intended to be rented by the room. They are going to be rented berse per unit. It is not intended to be college housing. Got it. Any form. What? What's the so you have 8 units. What? What do you anticipate the mix of for sale versus rental? We have not determined that part yet. that's a little bit further down the road, but it'll it could be from a quarter to half. Eventually they'll all be sold.

[39:05] Perfect. Thank you. At just out of this is pure curiosity, nothing more than that. Being that this was a Ga. A gas station at 1 point. Did you guys have to do any site remediation at all prior to construction? Have you found anything in the soil. We have not found anything yet. We have done a soil report. And we did do asbestos testing within the building. There is a very, very small amount of asbestos in the building which will be remediated once we demo the building obviously but the soils report did not bring back anything that we needed to be concerned or aware of. Yet. If that is found during any construction, obviously remediation would take place at that point. Got it. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else for additional questions.

[40:01] Questions of staff. Thanks. Michelle, appreciate the presentation for answering our questions. Of course. If no one from the board has any additional questions, we'll go to public comment. Great. So, members from the public. If you would like to speak, please raise your virtual hand, and I will call on you. Each person will have 3 min. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min. Oh, my gosh! I can't believe nobody is here to speak about this WTF. Like the next thing we need in Boulder across the street from the High School. which is a prime retail site. is more

[41:01] 3 million dollar condos. You know the public is catching up to this. Now I see most planning board meetings, and I know what's going in ahead of time. and it distresses me big time. But the public is seeing this now, too. Now I don't know how this place got zoned in a way that it could be turned into this housing project, but something's got to be done to stop this, if that's the case and you can't, and you're not, and you're not going against the zoning. because this is the perfect space for retail, like, I say, in this area. and the last thing we need is more homeless people at 6 million dollars a year, just for the trash to clean up for them. And that's what this a project like this does. It splits the wealth divide

[42:00] and the area Median income keeps going up and up and up. except for 0, for the homeless people. and then the people that are trying to live in their places get evicted. and then we have more homeless and more homeless. and the trash is just the beginning of it. We can't afford this stuff. The city cannot afford this. It it eats into my healthcare costs go up. you know, because these homeless people don't go to the hospital for free. No, they don't. They don't go to the jail for free, and the jail's full. The housing, the lie. Tech funds are pushing population on all the American cities. And so it's happening everywhere. Sure, there's more of an attraction to Boulder. but it just increases the wealth. Divide in Boulder Moor.

[43:01] and we have more of the homeless cycle of despair. We can't afford developments like this, if this development is in any way going through legitimately, as it never should be through the Bvc. P. Which should balance jobs in housing, because a project like this requires all kinds of service. People that can't afford to live here long-term service people to service the people that are living in there afterwards. This is an outrage that this could even come before you, that this developer could even have a dream of spending this money on a plan like this. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for sharing your views with the planning Board. Like to give other members of the public few seconds to raise their hand if they wish. Okay, I think that, concludes the public, hearing.

[44:00] Alright. Well, if we could put up the key issue on the screen, you know, who can do that for us. and if anyone on the board wants to speak or comment on this, that would be a good time. People can raise their hand, we just run through it. And then. if they want to speak to the key issue hopefully, Vivian, I'm gonna try to put it on, or Thomas. Thomas, are you there? Hi! Alison's pulling it up just 1 s. Great. Thank you. Okay. Sorry I had a hard time sharing one sec. And thanks Alison for the great staff presentation, too, and very helpful, and walk them through it

[45:02] alright. So key issue number one is the proposed project on balance consistent with the Site Review. Criteria of the land. Use Code section 9, 2, 14 H. Anyone want to go first. And George I I don't know if we can modify this slide. Maybe we can't, but I think it's important that laurel clarified for us that that on balance should be stricken, it should just say, is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review criteria of the Land use code. That's good point. So let's let's speak to that to Laura's point, as we clarified earlier. You want to go first, Laura, since you're talking. I don't have comments on this project. I I it was called up. I think, that some positive changes were made as a result of the call up and I think that the project is con consistent with the Site Review criteria.

[46:08] Mark. Thanks, George, I I since I I was the one who called this up. I've taken a keen interest in this project and for the most part, which is similar to on balance. And I. And I appreciate Ml. And Laura clarifying that because I I also saw that and was trying to think about and determine if on balance applies in this case. And and I think we all agree that it does not. And the question is, does it meet the BBC P. goals and objectives through the Site Review criteria. That's down to 9 days, 2 s. 4 2 h so in calling this up, I have to

[47:02] first commend the applicant that they listened and heard in during the call-up procedure to some concerns. and I appreciate their efforts. However, I have drafted a motion. I I'm not. I won't send it off just yet, and see if there's any other board contents, but I'll send it. I have it drafted and ready. With some conditions. To the approval. So anyway, I I I'm ready to hear any other board members comments, but when appropriate, I will make a motion and send a motion language to Thomas and the board for review, and then I'll speak to the the motion. After after I meet

[48:00] great. I'm out. Thank you, George. so you know my main. The issue that I am pondering, or that this project causes need to ponder is the when we have these zones like Rb and land use like rb, and zoning. That's a trend transition zoning. And we see a project that isn't a mix and that I wonder so into zoning? It says if this should transition to residential well, it's a hundred residential. So what? How is it transitioning I and and I don't know. We encountered this again and again, and again, and again. And I still am not clear.

[49:02] On how we see a project. I mean, this is the same issue that happened up at the millennial site, right? That's a hundred percent residential. How is it? A transition in in a business zone into a residential zone. I don't understand it. I acknowledge that Ellison was talking about the RB. Character calling for street activation as happening with the way the building articulated itself as it comes down to meet the sidewalk. And I think that that's a nice logical way to look at that. But head this. these kind of projects in this kind of zoning trouble me because I you know I don't see. I don't see how they can can be considered

[50:02] as being transitional. helping to move one from one kind of zoning into another, one kind of use into another. I don't see how how they do that, because they don't. They're just pulling the residential edge closer into the business district. It's a residential project. and it's just pulling that edge over. So it's not transitioning it. Just is it? Just is one of them which is, which is not what the zoning is so I don't have a solution. I don't have a condition. I it just. It troubles me that we see this sort of thing again and again and again, and I don't. I don't understand why. As this is going through staff review. why, we aren't seeing actual transition projects happening on these

[51:03] on these kinds of sites. I it's not a question. It's more a frustration, I guess. So that that's where I'm standing. I don't have a problem with the basic. you know, design or it meeting, I understood, stood what happened with the the trees and the open space and the building design. All the questions I had. It's just it's just this other and I like, I say, I don't have a solution. But I think it's important to bring it up because it comes up often, and I would like to not feel like these transition zones are like, Oh, well, it's all residential, and we're fine with it, because we shouldn't be. I mean, we have a transition zone for a reason. So I anyway, I'll I'll stop with that. But that's my issue with with the project. Well, ml, if I couldn't, I appreciate that. You know the the Comp plan sets up the land. Use? So that a variety of uses.

[52:04] you know, could be supported there. The the fact remains that the zoning does allow for residential uses. And I think that we found that it was a transition between the High School across the street, which is a hard edge, the Commercial building that's immediately to the west. That was a hard edge. There's kind of some multi family as you march east, Upper Apost. So I think that was the the staff rationale in applying the not just the Comp plan. Land use designation, but you know frankly, the zoning that imp implements it so residential being in a loud use. I I think that was our rationale and applying the comp plan so to the extent that's helpful. Charles? Oh, George, may I? May I speak to Charles. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. So, Charles, is my understanding. and I think that this is something that

[53:01] maybe I'm beginning to recognize here is with the zoning and the land use. Even though we're looking at a particular site. you're still considering the bigger picture. because I mean, clearly, this is only a hundred percent residential, this, not a transition. It's just residential. It's not, you know, mixing or trying to be. But you're saying that. Okay, there's these other things around it, and. You know, this contributes to a bigger. So it's a more holistic view of the whole zone rather than the particular site. That's exactly right. And I think that's exactly how we look at the application of the comp plan is you know. Is it really serving as a transition into a neighborhood? You know, and what are the other hard edges that might surround it, or other uses that might be applicable. Yeah, well, this is this is the zoning that was calling for it to be a transition

[54:00] to a residential as a residential. The Comp plan was talking. The part I brought up was street activation. But it would be nice. I guess I would point out in the in future projects to include a little sentence about when we have a hundred percent, you know, either mixed 800% commercial or 100% residential in a transition area that the maybe putting it into bigger context, just as a a clarification to. Yeah, we understand that this is a transition zone. And here, how it's contributing to a transition, because XY. Or ZII think that would be useful, so that some of these criteria don't get isolated. We appreciate the feedback, we'll certainly take that into consideration. Yeah, thanks. Thanks so much. I appreciate the conversation. Thank you. Thanks. Ml, I'm gonna call on myself before we get to second round of comments.

[55:04] I I concur with Ml, I mean, I I I think overall. I I I'm I'm certainly not gonna vote against this project because I I think overall. It's been well considered. You know, when I look at the aerial, and knowing knowing the site pretty well, having picked up my nieces and nephews from the high school. what I think is interesting is that where this commercial residential transition is happening in this area right now are on the corners primarily. So you've got the pizza shop on the corner. You've got thrive on the corner and then the residential kind of bleeds from that. And so we're losing that corner anchor of commercial as we go through it. I I you know I get the constraints of the project. and overall, you know I think it, you know. Think it think it makes sense but I want to support sort of Ml's thoughts and direction on sort of just some more clarity around that when we see these coming through, because I do think that would be helpful.

[56:12] I I'm I am not an architect. But I am confused. On the street activation component of this. I wasn't really satisfied with Staff's answer. As far as how the streetscape is getting activated for pedestrians. Given this, this is such a walkable area. I don't know if if Dab did, Dab Charles or Alison did Dab comment on that specific thing when they were going through this. You know. Maybe Alison can help jog my memory. I don't know. That street activation. specifically, was part of their review. I think they were looking at some surgical changes to the building. I I think we found that with front doors out onto Arapaho and Fifth.

[57:05] she what's the street there. Sorry. Rapa. Oh, yeah. And fifteenth the balconies that are out there. The building is well fenestrated, the materials high quality, I think those were the considerations that we're made for street activation. And just, you know, the richness of the materials of the building. Okay. I? But I don't. I don't think Dab spoke to that directly. Okay, that's That's helpful. I I guess when things get referred to Dab, and given that, that's a criteria, especially in this kind of zone. Maybe that's something that should be flagged for them, too, so that they can just speak to it, because I think they're more qualified than us relative to that. So thank you for that. I don't have any further comments, Laura. It looks like you still have your hand up. Yeah, thank you. So just following up on that. So street activation for those of us who are not architects or or professional planners. It sounds like it does not need to refer to. There are ways for pedestrians to get into the buildings and do something. It doesn't have to be shopping or a gym, or you know something that you can go inside of.

[58:14] But street activation is. It's not just a boring, you know, unbroken facade, like in an industrial area, or something like that, but that it's engaging to look at is that is that what I'm hearing. That's how we consider residential in these kind of mixed use contacts is really making sure that the buildings well fenestrated, that you know we have front doors that are out on the streets, stoops, balconies that you know can help contribute to the street life. I think it would be difficult to expect that every you know building is going to have a corner, you know, cafe or outdoor seating, or you know something along those lines in in a residential typology. Those are really the things that we're looking for to help activate that street. Thank you for that definition or or description. And then I did also wanna colloquy on this idea of transition. I don't know if this is how Staff thinks about it. But, the way that I thought about it that made sense to me is that you know you have a commercial activity to the West. Then you have some high density residential that transitions down to lower density residential next to it. To the east. Cause you're not gonna spot zone for high density residential at the edge of the

[59:22] the Rb. Zone. Right? But a high density, residential use is more of a transition between a lively commercial, maybe noisier, more publicly accessible use, and more of a lower density, residential use. So so for me, that that made sense as a transition. and that's all of my comments. Thank you. Okay, great. Anybody else have any other comments? Mark, do you want to still put your motion forward and read it for us? Hey? I do. And so bye. as a as a matter of procedure, what I'm going to do is make a motion

[60:04] hope for a second and and then speak to my motion and my my thinking behind it, and the justification for the motion both in the Btcp. And the code, so I'll I'll go ahead and make the motion, and we'll see where this leads us. I I did send this to Thomas and the board so you should have it in your email. But I'll go ahead and read it. Now I move to approve site review application number LUR. 2023, dash 0 0 0 2. I think I got the right. Anyway. 4 zeros, I believe, is correct, followed by 2 with the following conditions, one applicant shall unbundle the parking from the living units.

[61:00] Cheerful applicant shall initiate a car share program of a minimum of one shared vehicle car share program may be of the applicant's design or in partnership with a car share provider. and may be on or off street. and may be in conjunction with the Gosrove Npp Zone. These conditions will be incorporated into the approval with all other parts of the application as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in staff memorandum. Be before we second, that I have a question for laurel, which is Can you speak to one and 2, and just make sure we understand that those are legal conditions to put on this.

[62:07] Yeah, absolutely. So one of the things that I recommend is going back to the Site Review criteria and just saying, You know I will approve this particular project if it meets the different Site Review criteria, and I think for this one there are some criterion around parking. But I think there are some criteria on parking which I think is what Mark is getting at. So that would be in your packet on page 40 of 79. That's this, the attachment where staff go through and look at all the different criteria on, and look at it. And one of them is parking so there's a few different ones that and maybe Mark would want to speak to this but a few different ones that maybe these would touch on so I'll leave it to Mark to to weigh on exactly what he's planning for these 2 different proposed motions. But I imagine that that's kind of where he's going with that.

[63:00] You are correct, and I and I do. I have citations for my conditions to speak to them, and I plan on citing those so in the hopes they have a second, and then we can speak to the motion. Yeah, I think that'd be great for the record just to say, Yeah, where that's going. Oh, go ahead, Emma! So my my question mark. Procedurally. historically, we had conditions separate from the main motion. and that way the main motion can not be encumbered by any complexities that the conditions might bring to its approval or denial. Do? Would you be at all interested in having that procedure follow? Or do you like the idea of having it be one giant motion with all the conditions on it?

[64:02] So. Ml, I appreciate that question because there are times where I think it makes more sense to have a main motion and then subsidiary motions. That may be contentious, or, allow board members to express a a particular view on a topic separate from the main motion, and there are times where I think that conditions as part of approval are are are necessary. And this is one of those cases where I I thought about this, and this is one of those cases where I am suggesting. And and if I don't get a second, and then maybe I'll we can all take a different path. But in this case I am suggesting that those 2 conditions are appropriate for approval

[65:04] based on the BBC. Goals and objectives, and the Site Review criteria as outlined in 9. Dash, 2 dash 14 H. And then the subsidiary sections that I will cite further. What the conversation, Mark, could you cite the particular criteria that you that you're referring to? I think that would be useful for me. Okay. So procedurally, I again, I and and maybe I'm getting too hung up on procedure. That's kind of speaking to the motion without a second, and so procedurally, I generally would think that a second, and then I'll speak to those, and then we can debate the motion and the motion may fail, and a subsequent motion may come into play, or the motion may pass in in its entirety after after the citation after the discussion.

[66:03] But again, I'm not gonna defer to George a little bit here, but that that would be what I would think. I'm fine. I'm fine if you want to go for a second, and we can just see if gets there, and then. That's that's fine. I'll I'll then I'll I'll go ahead and speak to in in support of Mike Motion. Okay? And so there are. There are 3 things. There are 3 locations that I found to be important in evaluating this project for approval by planning board under the Site review code. The first is actually, on page 35 of the applicants application one. They they, in fact. site the BBC P criteria, and they quoted as the proposed development is designed to allow for a non vehicular life site. While parking is proposed, the location allows for easy alternative modes of transportation.

[67:08] minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. And then I'll go on to just site. I I won't read all of this because I, in my email of a week or so ago. But I will point out in 9 16 dash one the definition of a Tdm of transportation demand management plan incorporates, it says, strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by development. And that goes on to say, such measures may include without limitation car share programs, bicycle parking, access to transit, pedestrian bicycle connections, etc. And then, it goes on to say, unbundle parking, micro mobility stations, member benefits ban and carpool programs. So that's in that's in the definition of a Tdm plan, and a Tdm plan is required

[68:05] under 9 dash 2 dash 14. In particular, Roman numeral little Roman numeral, 2 alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques. land use patterns and infrastructure. And this is what is important to me. The infrastructure rather than a Tdm plan being a bunch of brochures and things that are a ethereal or temporal or or temporary. We have infrastructure that support and encourage walking, biking, and alternatives to single occupant vehicles. and in in Roman numeral little little Roman numeral. 3. A transportation demand management plan will be complied with, including

[69:06] methods that result in significant ship away from single occupant vehicle use to alternative modes. So, having quoted those things. I know of no better way of moving people away from single occupancy vehicles than to fairly price parking the storage of their car and to end hidden subsidies of parking. And then, finally, I'm going to say, the Bvc. P. In sections, in in goal 6.0 2 equitable transportation it promotes under equitable transportation, shared options referring to shared whether it's shared vehicles, bike shares, etc, but it refers to shared options under the equity portion

[70:00] in 6 point oh, 7 The Tdm program in the BBC. P. Says, shared mobility. ride, sharing bike, sharing car sharing. and then it goes on to say, the city will employ the city, will employ strategy such as share, unbundle. manage and pay parking, ie. Some principles to reflect the real cost of single occupancy, vehicle travel. So that's 6.0 7 in the Bcp. And finally. in 6.1 3 of the BBC. P. Access management and parking the BBC States. the city will expand and manage parking districts based on some principles. share, done, bundled, manage and pay to support transportation and greenhouse gas reduction goals as well as broader sustainability goals, including economic vitality

[71:04] and neighborhood livability. So we've got multiple sections in the Dvc multiple sections in the code. Under 9, dash 2 dash 14 h, 2, a 2 and 3 and and in the applicant state. So those are my reasoning behind my my motion. Okay? Does mark have a second? I will second. and I can speak to that briefly, if you, if you don't mind. No, unless you, unless you I mean, want to, unless I would like to, if that's all right. So I'm remembering back to instructions we've gotten from the city attorney's office that if we want to condition the motion. We have to point to the place in the Site Review criteria. where we feel like the project does not meet the Site Review criteria. But if we made the modification that we're proposing, it would.

[72:04] And Mark, forgive me if you already mentioned this. But in the Site Review criteria that's in our memo under site design section D, this is on page 41 and it is number little IV. On page 41 of the Pdf. It's page 39, as written at the bottom of the packet. It says, alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and so well, actually, now that I read that I'm not sure that I'm bundling. The parking is an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. It encourages. perhaps, not having a single occupant vehicle, and in that way it would encourage

[73:03] having alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. So you could make that that argument. But the the answer here, you know. is a little weak in my estimation. It just talks about what's nearby in terms of bike-friendly streets and the regional bus station and the Boulder creek path. But it doesn't talk about how the design of the project encourages alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Now I think that the the applicant has made a case that with their long term bike parking and the electrification? Or did they do electrification? I don't recall electrification cargo bike, parking, secure bike storage that all of that is encouraging alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. But, mark, you're suggesting that they would need to go farther in order to meet that criterion in your estimation. I, I, Laura, we're we're we're voting. So I I wanna do. Back and forth. I. Questions, in answer. I I'm sorry. Did someone call the question, or I thought we were. We were actually having a discussion regarding the motion.

[74:05] Oh, you wanna have it just okay. Yeah, that's fine. Ml, do you want to? You want to speak. Laura, were you done. That's fine. Go right ahead. So I I'm understanding that d d 4 is one of the criteria you're citing. Mark. Did you cite 2 criteria. So I cited. Not the Pbcp. And not the ones that aren't in the 9 2 14 h. So. That we're accountable to. Was there another one that we're accountable to, that you cited? I I didn't. Okay, in fact. I can send another here. Ml, let me let me state it this way. Staffs checklist. Site review criteria. I've got it open. To me.

[75:01] and and is less important. then the actual site review criteria that's in our code. Right. And the goals and objectives, as as stated in the BBC. So I cited 9 dash 14, 9, dash, 2, dash, 14 HA. The. Hey? I'm good! Little little Roman numeral, 2 and 3, in the code which mentioned shared mobility and unbundled parking. and then I also cited in the BBC, p. 6.0 7 which mentions unbundle parking and shared mobility as well as Hang on here.

[76:01] Oh. 6.1 3 in the BBC. Access management and parking. And so in both of those, especially in the BBC. The Sit, that it states clearly in the Bbcb. The city will employee strategy, such such as shared, unbundle, managed and paid, parking. IE. Some principles. and then the 6 13, it says the city will. And again, it's not may or something it is, will. The city will expand and manage parking districts based on some principles to support transportation and greenhouse gas reduction goals as well as broader sustainability goals, including economic vitality and neighborhood ability. Right. So I'm still a little confused on the, on the criteria in 9, 2 14 h.

[77:03] Did you say? A, which is open space, which one I got. So I'm sorry. Let let me go back to that, and just so we get it. We get it right, cause the the Yeah, I think that's important. That's those are the ones we're accountable to, or they're accountable. Okay. So I want to be, be, be super clear here. 9, 2, dash 14. Little H. Numeral, 2. Capital, a. Little Roman Roman numeral Ii. Or 2, and I, I, I or 3. So those are private open space. Now those those are. I've got it open. Huh! I've got I've got. Am I confused, Laurel. I think there may be some confusion about which one version you're looking at. This is under the old site group. Correct. Criteria. So what's on our website under the boulder revised code is the new so the one that's in the memo that talks about open spaces is the correct one. Yeah.

[78:08] Right. Okay? So laurel. this is being heard under the old site. Review criteria. That's correct. Okay. Cut the old Site review criteria is the Tdm. Requirements are in my understanding and conversations with Staff. and I'm sorry to have cited the new criteria. However, the criteria is my understanding, and please confirm the criteria. The Tdm criteria is unchanged, its location is moved. but it, the criteria itself is unchanged. Is that correct? Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. So I do. It is correct. And.

[79:00] for example, when you were talking about as like the modes promoted through the Tdm techniques. That's word for word. The same. Yeah. So I think that they've just moved moved around. Right. I'm. Trying to find which section has the one. I actually I found it. I'm sorry I saved it. It's on page 41 of the packet. and it's the little V, so it's Section D. Little V says, where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternative modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques. And that's where Mark was citing the definition of travel demand management out of the Bvcp. The. Actually, the definition was was from the code. It's 9 and I I don't think that as change, that is, 9,

[80:03] dash 16 one. So we have the Site Review criteria which refers to Tdm. But then it goes on in 9, 16, one to define travel, demand, management, plan. and and and within that definition is the mention of car share programs and unbundled parking. Okay? So it is pegged to the Site Review criteria about promoting a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternative modes through the use of travel demand management techniques that is, in the Site Review criteria. And then you're citing a definition of travel demand management out of the code. Yes, Laura can. Can you cause I'm looking at at the on the page you're saying, and it's not. It's projects designed to human scale. So I'm confused. What can you. It's page 41 of the Pdf. But the numbering at the bottom of the page says, page 39 of 79.

[81:04] Oh, okay, that's. And it's and it's Roman little Roman numeral vs. Single and beneficial. Yes. Okay. Sorry for the confusion. Oh, no, you know. Since this is a something that we're we're we're legally bound to make sure these criteria are attached to any conditions we pose. I just wanna make absolutely sure that in supporting this, that we have our ducks in a row, as it were. So we have dB. And D. Iv. Are the 2 ones that are being cited right. I'm gonna speak to it myself. just in general. take. this is a really small project. So I think we have to acknowledge what's feasible for developer and what's not unbundling. The parking certainly is. There's no cost to that

[82:03] for developer. Although in this case, I mean. it's fine. I'm supportive of unbundled parking. these 8 parking spaces that are underground. If we get real for a second, they're gonna get filled with cars. There's not gonna be a single space that's not gonna have a car with it. And so to the extent that you know, one guy wants to pay a little bit less, and one guy wants to pay a little bit more. He wants 2 cars and one guy wants no cars. you know. I see the value and merit of unbundling. But we're not taking cars off the road with that concept. But maybe maybe there's some kind of affordable ability benefit. I have a sense that with 3 and 4 bedrooms that likely everyone will have one car, and the developer will want, in one form or another to offer that to each of them, and that will end up being the case in reality. Given that they're only 8 units, and they're all 3 and 4 bedrooms. But I I think that's a fair thing to ask for. I think that the car share program asking for someone who's developing 8 units to it on a on less than a third of an acre administer or plan a car share program is a bit excessive.

[83:14] To me as a developer myself, like that's a that's a weird threshold kind of project. So you know I I would be opposed to that. I'd be happy to make a friendly amendment just to keep number one. I just don't see it. I I don't see there being massive benefit, or or I just think it's overly complicated for developer building 8 units. That's my perspective. Anybody else want to speak. Mark, do you have thoughts on that? Given that I suggested a friendly. Yeah, well, so I, George, I I appreciate that. And I I am going to confess that I had a harder time

[84:04] drafting and coming up with what I thought would be an appropriate condition about shared mobility. At the same time, I I continue to think it's important in a project like this, where you cite the number of bedrooms and the potential, you know, I would hope that we don't have 8 or 16 people living here. I hope we have 2430, or something here. Right? I I hope that this is a family development. And so, and with 8 parking spaces. you know, under under our current kind of view of the world and everything one could say, this is this is under part. If you're not looking at at goals and trying to have a forward looking view of things.

[85:00] And that's where the shared mobility comes in. And so what I I I had a hard time. I didn't want to say that they had to take one of the 8 and make it a shared mobility space, although I think that would be a smart thing to do. But I didn't want to condition it that way. What I hoped would be that this is within the Gos Grove. The boundaries. I believe it's it's actually hard to tell from the city's mapping. I believe this is in the within the boundaries of the city's Gosgrove Mpp program. and that, and that. What I am hoping is that this project and a shared mobility requirement would actually spark a A a shared mobility spot that would actually be larger than

[86:01] you know, would would would start the Gosprove Mpp. Thinking about all more shared mobility. Now you can't condition. I understand we cannot condition a project with solving Npp problems. And I'm not trying to do that here. That's why I've said a minimum of one. And and what I'm hoping is that if this condition went forward that they would partner with there are car shared providers out there, and that there would be some creativity and thought, and maybe work within the Npp. That where to part one or more shared vehicles. having said all of that. if someone wanted to make a an amendment, propose an amendment to this motion to strike. Item 2. If that meant that my motion went forward. Without item 2 I I would I would vote for that.

[87:14] but it would require I am not a fan of friendly amendments. The procedure would be a board member would say, I, I move to amend Mark's motion to strike. Item 2. Pretty sure we can make friendly amendments, but if you prefer that, that's fine. yeah, I I would say that I I also I want to commend you, Mark, because I think calling this up and getting the cargo bike and the electrification, I mean some of the things you're talking about the developer has accommodated right, which I think is great, which was the purpose of calling this up. I I just want to be cautious about layering on too much complexity to a what is a very small development. And that's why, you know, I go back to unbundling. The parking is not complicated at all, adding this in a car share program. And you know

[88:08] I don't even know. I don't even know if Olive has a car share program man mandated on it down the road. I'm not sure that it does. So that's something to think of, too, because I think those are the. I think I think developments like Olive and others are where you're gonna get the most juice out of something like that. So with that, said. Yeah, I would not be a vote for one and 2, but I would be a vote for one. I'm happy to make an amendment to your amendment, or you know, we can vote this, and then we can, and then we can vote for another amendment. Laurel. Thank you. Yeah. Mark was probably saying this. I saw that he was muted, so we didn't hear you there, Mark, but it would be better to amend the motion, because if you vote and then

[89:00] deny it, that it denies the project, so better to amend this one, if you can. Can I move? Can I? May I? I move to strike number 2 from the motion? Do I have a second? I think you have to do it verbally. Ml. We'll let George do it since he offered it. And, George, you can second it. Second it. Are we ready to vote on that that amendment to the amendment? We can't strike it yet, Thomas. We have to vote on striking it. Let's vote on striking that Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. I know. Yes. And me. Yes, George. Boom. okay, that is stricken.

[90:00] Mark, since this is still your amendment, do you? Wanna do you wanna put this up again? I I I I think the the motion as as it stands now. is a is a fair accommodation to the applicant and to fellow board members concerns. and I am respectful of those, and I think the community will will benefit from both the project and the and the applicant unbundling the parking. So I I continue to support this motion. World. We need to restate the motion and go ahead and vote. Sure. Okay, I'll go ahead. Can I? Can I make a so I think this is a friendly. This is just a grammatical correction. I think we need to it now says with the following conditions, but we only have one condition, so I think it needs to say, with the following condition. and this condition will be incorporated into the approval. So we need to make that singular

[91:03] great. So, Thomas, can you go to the word conditions and make it condition? Just strike the S. And then go down to the paragraph underneath the number one and the first 2 words, just say this condition. Good catch, Laurel, Laura, Laura, and Bill. I would have figured that out when I started reading it. But that's that's great that you caught it early. Thank you. Like laurel has a comment. Okay, I'll go ahead and reset the motion. Really quickly, just, but our roles have the chair. Restate the motion. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Great. Yeah, yeah. Alright motion to approve. Site. Review. Application, LUR. 2023, 0 0 0 2. With the following condition, number one applicant shall unbundle the parking from the living units. This condition will be incorporated into the approval

[92:09] with all other parts of the application, as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. and that is, Mark's motion. Did we already have a second on this, because we voted it down. Then we added it, yeah. I I seconded the original motion. Alright. Can we go? Go ahead, Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. I know. Yes. And I'm a yes. so that motion passes unanimously of the members that are here. Congratulations to the applicant. Yeah, if I could take 1 s and just say that I I actually really like this project. And I appreciate the applicant listening. And

[93:02] so I am. Yes, congratulations to the applicant, and I am always in favor of taking a surface parking lot. turning it into housing, providing additional funds for our inclusionary housing. What? So there we go. Well, thank you very much. Guys. Thank you. Appreciate it. Alright that, concludes the public, hearing. The only other thing that we have, as far as agenda items before debrief is the preparation of the planning boards. Letter to City Council. Laura, I I think, where we left it off is we were just doing some grammatical edits and things like that. I think that's what's left in there. Laura, since you and Kurt were doing it, would you mind just getting us through it and being done with it.

[94:00] So, as Kurt noted at the top here he did some additional editing just to change numbered items to bullet it, as I think you, suggested George, which I think was a good change, so that it doesn't look like it's prioritized. And there were very minor changes to spell out numbers unify capitalization. But the words did not change. So this is exactly basically as we left it before, just cleaned up a little bit. So I guess my question would be any any last thoughts before we call this final. I have none. Neither do I anybody else. Alright! Great do we, laurel? Do we need to vote on this, or do we? Do we just instruct staff to go ahead and send it to city council. How does that work. I think that it would be cleanest to have you all. Oh, to send it off to council to show there's a majority support. So this vote is to send this letter that is now finalized to city council. Go ahead, mark.

[95:02] Yes. And L. Yes. Laura. Yes. Me, George. Yes, and I think that's official. So yeah, if you guys could take it from here from the planning board, we very much appreciate it. And when you say, you guys, you mean staff. Staff. Thank you to Laura and Kurt for carrying this through to the to the final moment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Sure. I mean, it's a joint effort. Thanks to all the fellow planning board members for your contributions, you made it a better letter. I just wanna say also thanks, and and that the I know the airport subject was controversial. But the way it's worded in here. It's it's been a value to me to have gone through this process cause I've had different people, you know. The airport continues to be a topic of discussion. And as different people, hey? Aren't you on planning board? What are they gonna do? Are they, gonna you know? Are they gonna shut down the airport, or any whatever, whatever the position may be, when someone approaches, I I say, well, you know, here is the status, and and anyway, the this letter helped clarify in my mind

[96:21] what the status is, what a path forward is. and and just how this might shake out. So, anyway, I I appreciated our recommendations as being kind of fair, and even handed and helpful to me. Alright! Great Shall we debrief and talk about? Or are there any other matters that anyone needs to talk about? See Laurel? Shaking her head. Brad, Charles Thomas. Well, I'm just

[97:00] mentioned real quickly. A congratulations to Mark. He's been appointed for a continuation. his service on the planning board, and of course, we always wanted to take the opportunity to thank all of you for the time and energy you bring to this. We do have 2 additional board members who I unfortunately have to look up. Maybe somebody knows it off the top of their head. Charles. Mason, Roberts, and. Roberts and Claudia Hanson team. Yeah. So they'll be joining us for their first meeting on April second, which I also believe is still a remote meeting. If I'm not mistaken. Oh, interesting! Yeah, that's just the tail end of the chamber building, the air chain door being re retrofitted. So we'll be in all things, you know, going according to plan. We should be in the session after that.

[98:00] and I will say we are all working towards the royal week. Charles and others are working on the on Courtney plans for for the new folks, as well as some longer term, thinking already ahead towards the retreat. Planning Board retreat. and also. you know, still planning the celebration recognition for Lisa and Sarah. So plenty in The Hopper, and we're already fourth of the way through the year. Essentially so, working on all the various things we work on outside of the item. It. Brad, Charles Laura had sent a message asking about the of pretty full agenda on our next meeting. And are you guys still thinking about that is that. Yeah, I I appreciate that. Laura, that's an error on the calendar. One of those items. The code change item is gonna come off. So we'll have 2 public hearing items. And then the last item is informational.

[99:08] So there won't be any consideration that the Board needs to make so hopefully that lightens the load a little. Will there be a presentation on that information? Item just in the packet. It'll be just in the packet. Any feedback can go via email from individual board members directly to staff. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. You bet! Hear from Staff any matters from the board. Norman and I think we we just get the head to calendar check. So unless there's anything else. We'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you, joy. Yeah. Well done. Tonight. Thank you for cheering. 7, 40, at 7, so. Well done! George! George. This should take all the. Have nothing to do with the agenda.

[100:01] Yeah, nothing to do with our light agenda. But I'll take a good benchmark. Well, thanks, everybody. Appreciate it. Thanks. Gig. Thank you. Good night. Thank you all. Have a good night.