April 2, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Great. Alright. Well, we're gonna call this planning board meeting of April second to order. We have 2 new planning board members. And I believe we're starting out by swearing them in. Does Mark need to get sworn in also. Oh, true, true enough. Mark is. Mark is old, but new again. I don't know. I'll leave that up to the attorney. That would be for laurel to determine whether an extended term requires a swearing in or not. Yeah, the clerk's office emailed us your swearing in of oath. So we'll probably do it to appease their office. Yeah, if that's okay with you. That's kind of like kids double swearing right? Yeah, that's true. Now, I'm not sure how this is normally done. Does the Board Secretary normally do both? I haven't done this yet before, so.

[1:04] That's been the practice in the past, but but not to say that it has to be that way. Actually, I can think of sometimes where hell is done, the swearing in as well. I. I believe when when I came on it was, Hello, that yeah. I think she might have done the last round. Well, either way is fine for me and I'm happy to do it, or happy to have Thomas do it. Go ahead. Do you have it in front of you? Laurel. Yep. Great. Apologies that I haven't done this before. I I didn't. I do have it up in front of me and we're gonna start with Mark, if that's alright. And we just because that's the first one on my list. Great. So I'm going to read the oath of office and have you repeat it back? Please tell me if that's not how it's been done in the past, but that's how I've seen it done. So I'm gonna repeat it and then have you repeat it back? We will. Then, after you guys are sworn in, we'll go ahead and circle these around. Have you sign to say that you've been

[2:09] you have given the oath of office? Does that sound good? Great? Okay. I will go ahead and draw this over to my screen. Okay, so mark so I'm Mark Mcintyre. I'm Mark Mcintyre. Do you solemnly swear or affirm. Do solemnly swear, or firm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. And of the State of Colorado and the Charter. And the State of Colorado and the Charter. And the ordinances of the city of Boulder. And the ordinances of the city of Bowling. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. Of the of a member of the Planning board which I'm about to enter. Of them

[3:00] as a member of the Planning board of which I'm about to enter. 7. It's okay. Great so we'll go ahead and have these well, circle these back. Sorry my Internet cut out for a second there, but I I heard you repeat all that. So that's great. I thank you, Mark, and one thing I didn't do is, have you raise your right hand. So if you just raise your hand. Yep, great apologies. Raise my hand, and I affirm everything I just said. Great thanks, Mark. The next one I have up is Mason. So, Mason, are you ready. Yeah, great. So. So if you could raise your right hand as we're going through this great, I'm Mason Roberts. I'm Mason Roberts. Do solemnly swear or affirm. Do some we swear, or firm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Colorado. But I will support the Constitution of United America and Colorado.

[4:01] And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And the charter ordinances of this city of Boulder, Colorado. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. And faithfully perform the duties of the office. Of a member of the Planning Board. Of the member of a planning board. I'm about to enter. Which I'm about to enter. Great. Thank you, Mason. And then, Claudia, last, but not least. raising your hand. Yes, so raise your right hand, Pete, after me. I, Claudia Hansen, theme. Hi, Claudia Hampton. Thank. Do you soundly swear, or firm? You're selling my affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. And the State of Colorado. And the State of Colorado. And the charter and audiences of the city of Boulder. And the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. And faithfully perform the duties of the office.

[5:01] And faithfully performed the duties of the office. Of a member of the Planning board which I am about to enter. Of a member of the Planning board which I'm about to enter. Great. Thank you so much. I'm gonna hand it back over to George. Alright! Great congratulations it's exciting to have 2 plus one new board members. Alright, we're gonna go ahead and go for the nominations and elections of the new planning board, chair and vice chair. If anyone wants to nominate one anybody or submit themselves, please go ahead and do so. Now. I'd like to nominate George for chair. George, is that? Are you good? With that. I will second that. Thank you, Kurt. That was why I raised my hand so everyone was quicker than me. So

[6:02] go ahead, then. Any other nominations for chair. Alright. Should we go ahead and vote on that? And then we can do nominations for Vice chair. I'll just call around Mark. Yes. Al. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Mason. Yeah. Laura. Yes. And Claudia Claudia. I think your mic was off. Yes. Sorry. Alright. Well, that's great. I I accept and will do my best. Let's go ahead and do nominations for vice chair. Kurt.

[7:00] I would like to nominate Mark. I'll second any other nominations. Alright. Well, this this will be pretty easy and fast. Then. I'll go ahead and start yes, for Mark at Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Mason. Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia. Yes. And Mark, do you accept? Do. Yes. Alright! Great congratulations! Lots of ceremony this evening, saying, I do, and I affirm, and. Yeah. Mary. We kind of are married, all of us, together in a planning board. Yes. Alright, so far we're unanimous. It's a good start for a good meeting. Alright, we have a pretty pretty decent agenda, so to try to write, run.

[8:02] I'm pretty intake. Meeting today. We're gonna start off with public participation. The public will have. I believe it's 3 min each and they're allowed to talk about anything except for the 2 projects that we have up for public hearing this evening. Correct. Because the public will have an opportunity to speak on those topics later. So, Thomas, I'll just pull up some slides, and I'll just go through some norms and guidelines for the public participation. Thanks to everybody from the public for joining us tonight. My name is Vivian Castro Wldridge. and my role in these meetings is to help facilitate the public participation. So I'll just share a few things with you. First of all, we want you to know that the city engaged with community members to co-create a vision for public participation in meetings such as the Planning Board to have productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision that was Co. Developed with community supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board Commission members.

[9:11] as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities with experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about this vision on our website. You can see the link there. Next slide, please, Thomas. and I'll just read some examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting. First, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. Second, no participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. third, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and fourth participants are required to identify themselves, using first and last name

[10:01] and for online only audio testimony is permitted for security reasons. So if you would like to speak either in this open comment, section S, part of the the meeting that we'll have shortly and later for public hearing. You can raise your virtual hand. You should see it at the bottom of your screen. I don't see anybody joining us by phone tonight. But I'll monitor and explain those rules later needed. and you can find the hand at the bottom of your screen or next slide. You can also click on reactions and and find it that way. So now I would ask for anybody who wants to speak for this part of the meeting. Open comment. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. and I'll call on you on the order. Did I see hands raised again? There'll be an opportunity later for the pup for the 2 public hearing items.

[11:02] So it looks like we have lots of people with us tonight, but probably here for the public hearing items. Oh, we have one hand making calls. You can introduce yourself again and you have 3 min. Please go ahead. Yes, this is making calls. I live at 1726 Mapleton Avenue. There. I just want to wish this planning board the best of the success in dealing with the planning issues that will be before you during the next year. As we move toward the 2025 major update to the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan, something that we do once every 10 years. But Mason Roberts and Claudia Hansen theme! What what a joy to have you join the other 5. And Mark, welcome, welcome back to you. Getting a full

[12:01] 5 year term. Now you're gonna you're gonna serve for. I don't know 6 or 7 years on the planning board, and it's hard service I have to say that, including my 8 years on Council. my 5 years on the Planning Board was the most interesting and most exciting work that I have done of a public nature in the city. It is just so interesting to be working on architecture and planning issues, and to discover that you're in a whole tradition of people that have tried to make good places of the cities that they have lived in and and and that they're part of one of the really interesting books that I've read in architecture and planning. And and one of the reason it's such a great field is because the books about architecture and planning are graphically rich with great pictures and great images.

[13:01] But a woman from University of Pennsylvania, and Architecture, wrote, why Paris became Paris. It the. It's. It's a beautiful book about a beautiful city, and it makes you realize that the way in which cities have become beautiful and created great places for people to live is something that has been done by the deliberate planning and decisions of people like you 7 over a long period of time. So I just want to welcome you to this public space and to to just just wish you all, all the the the, the the luck and and the empathy that citizens can give to you as you embark on this very hard work. When I was on planning board 5 years and 2 years. Its chair. It averaged about 34 HA month. It's a heavy lift.

[14:01] But, thank you, Mason. Thank you, Claudia. Thank you, Mark. Thank the rest of you. The other of you 4 who have been here for longer for stepping forward and doing this. We really appreciate your service and wish you a very satisfying term. Thanks a lot. Bye, bye. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. And sharing that. Okay. No other hands raised over to you. Chair. Great thank you. And we'll jump to the approval of minutes. We've got 2 sets of minutes to approve does anyone have any comments or anything relative to the first set of minutes on February twentieth, 2,024. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve them? I move approval of the February twentieth.

[15:02] 20 s, or minutes. Great, and I heard a second from Al Mal. I'll go around, Mark. Yes. Mason. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you guys are both absent for those minutes, so we'll we'll skip, you guys just for these. Laura. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Al. Yes. And I was there. So yes, approved we'll go down to the February twenty-seventh minutes. I was. I'm gonna abstain from voting because I was absent for that. Does anyone want to make any changes, or make a motion to approve them? I will move. Oh, go ahead, Mark! Okay, I move to approve. The February 27 min. I will second. Bring Go ahead and start with Laura. Yes. Ml. Yes.

[16:00] Just. Mark. Yes. And I was absent. So I'm gonna be abstaining alright. Great. the next is dispositions, planning board call ups and continuations. I don't believe we have any. Correct. Charles, do we have anything or. That's correct. There's there's no call ups this evening. Like 30. All right, then we can dive into our first public hearing. Item. Seem to be allowed to share at the end. Yeah, while Chandler is sharing chair, we usually have the chair. Read the the item that's being open for free. Public hearing. For the record. Absolutely okay. The public hearing item, tonight's public first public hearing item is public hearing and consideration of site review request for redevelopment of 2206 Pearl Street. As a mixed use development with approximately 2,021 square feet.

[17:06] the first floor commercial space and 45 efficiency living units, along with associated amendy spaces, including a Second Level community deck, common lounge area, secure bike storage and an at grade parking garage containing 18 spaces where 45 are required parentheses. 60 parking reduction requested, reviewed under case number LUR. 202-30-0020. Alright. Thank you. Vivian. I still need permission to share screen. It seems. Thomas, are you there? Can you make him a co-host? Think that. You should have the Co. Host invite. Now. Can you try again, teller? Yeah, there we go. Great.

[18:01] Okay, is everyone seeing presentation without notes? Looks, good. Yep. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Good evening. Planning board members and nice to meet the new members. I will be presenting on the on the Site Review for Mixed use. Development at 22 6 Pearl Street. so I'll go over the public notification quickly. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the property. Notice was also posted on the property. Staff has received comments and questions from several neighboring residents. Many express concerns over the development, and some of these concerns that were expressed included not enough parking potential overflow impacts to the surrounding area units being too small to be liveable units will not be affordable and too much density. And there've also been a handful of comments that have come in directly to the planning board today, some in favor, some opposed.

[19:06] So in terms of the location, the subject property is located at 2206 and 2022, 10, Pearl Street. The approximately 20,156 square foot property is located South, the Pearl Street, and north of Walnut, between 20 s and 20 third. There are 2 commercial buildings currently located on the property, totaling about 5,000 square feet to the rear of the property is an alley. The buildings on the property are located towards the northeast corner, and the rest of the site is largely surface parking along 20 s Street to the west of the property, are on street parking spaces. There are no no natural features on the site. Aside from views towards the west and south of the property. The Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. Land use. Designation for the site is high density, residential or Hr. These are areas generally located in areas planned for transit oriented redevelopment and your major corridors and services.

[20:02] the uses range from attached residential to apartments and uses that are complementary services. The intensity is anticipated at over 14 dwelling units per acre in terms of the zoning. The site is zoned MU. 3 or mixed use 3, which is defined as business areas that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary non-residential uses generally located within the same building attached residential uses are permitted by right. In this context, density is determined by open space per dwelling unit with a relatively low open space requirement. The surrounding area is characterized by a mixed by mixed use, residential and commercial as well as high density, residential development. To the north of Pearl Street or the Whittier square condominiums to the south are one and 2 story residential homes, and to the east are commercial spaces. Immediately across 20 s Street there's a residential building converted to office and a multifamily home.

[21:01] Greenleaf Park is located within a quarter mile of the site. These are some shots of the existing site. As I mentioned before. The site itself consists of 2 buildings and uses both of the uses. Our commercial art spaces. The site is located along the hot bus line on Pearl Street. and it's also within 2 blocks of 2 existing B cycle stations. This is just showing on street bike and pedestrian facilities. So the site is also highly walkable and bikable which is surrounded by on street bike lanes. on spruce and walnut, as well as on Twentieth Street. So, in terms of the proposed project. the proposal is for a mixed use development with approximately 2,021 square feet of first floor, commercial space and 45 efficiency living units. These are just above or just below 300 square foot each. And the maximum occupancy for these units is set at 2

[22:06] there's also associated amenity spaces, including a second Level community terrace. A common lounge area, secure bike storage, and at grade parking garage containing 18 parking spaces where 45 are required. This necessitates a 60% parking reduction. Request per section 9, 6, 3 of the Boulder Revised Code. No additional parking is required for the floor area that is necessary to meet the required minimum depth of the first floor. Non-residential use. which in this case is 20 feet. So, because the commercial space is 20 feet in depth, no additional parking is required for that space. The building, as proposed, is 3 stories and 38 feet tall. I'll just go over the different levels of the structure. So the ground level is where the commercial space is shown there on the north side of the site. I'm facing Pearl Street as again, just over 2,000 square feet.

[23:02] There's a paved plaza area on the northwest corner of the site The garage which is accessed from the alley to the south. includes the vehicular parking as well as 25 long term bike parking spaces. They're a total 28 short-term bike parking spaces at ground level. Outside of the building on both sides. 5 of the residential units are located on the ground level with the remainder being on the second and third floors. and the proposal includes new landscaping and sidewalks along Pearl Street and 20 s Street. Level 2. There's a common terrace area which is over 2,000 square feet in size. There's a resident common room. Slash humanity. Space. 20 of the units are located on the second floor. Each of these units has an individual balcony. There are wall mounted bike racks and all the units. There are also 11 storage lockers on the second floor level 3 is similar to level 2

[24:01] roof deck. Pv. Solar awning 20 units and 11 storage. Yeah. Blockers. Again, each of the units with an individual balcony. These are just some shots of the architectural elevations, showing the material composition of the buildings. The building materials. Pallet consists of modular brick. metal, store, paneling, wood, siding and fiber cement paneling. So just a bit of background. In February of 2,023, the Planning Board held a hearing for Concept review for this proposal. There were 10 members of the public who spoke at the hearing. 6 residents spoke in opposition. 4 spoke in favor. I'm at that hearing, which was I should mention for a very similar proposal. Planning board discuss 3 key issues. They generally found that the project was consistent with Bvcp goals and policies. However, there were some concerns regarding affordability of the units. and the board was kind of split on whether the parking reduction would be supportable. But there was agreement that a robust Tdm. Strategies or transportation demand management strategies would be necessary.

[25:10] The Board also generally found the site designed to be compatible with the surrounding area. But expressed key considerations, including architecture, landscaping, and open space programming. Following the concept, review, hearing it was sent to City Council for call up. The item was not called up by council, but it was referred to Dab and Tab, or the Design Advisory Board and Transportation Advisory Board. July tenth, 2023 was the tab. Hearing Tab expressed strong support for the project and found that the Tdm. And parking management plans as proposed. Successfully met city transportation and Tbm related goals is set forth in the transportation master Plan and the Boulder Valley Comp plan. 2 days later Dab held a hearing for the project.

[26:00] Dab discussed the project at length, and provided a number of differing opinions regarding the building design and proposed uses. I will let the applicant dive into the changes that they have made and the feedback they received from Dab during part of their presentation. But the applicant has made several changes to the plans following. The dab hearing so there are 2 key issues for discussion for the board tonight. Both of these are also included in the staff memorandum and ksu. One is whether the project is consistent with the Site review criteria including on balance with Boulder Valley comprehensive plan policies. And the second key issue is whether the proposed parking reduction is consistent with the parking reduction criteria and the land use code as well as the applicable site Review. Criteria. So I'll briefly go over these key issues and express the staff findings. And then I can open it up for questions. So key issue one again, is whether the project meets the site, review, criteria and unbalance the Boulder Valley Comp plan policies.

[27:01] staff findings, and these are summarized, but included in more detail in the memorandum staff, finds that the project is consistent with several characteristics of the sustainable urban form. Definition. It provides 45. Efficiency living units on a site designated for high density residential in the Boulder Valley Comp plan that is within close walking distance to both Pearl Street, Mall and 20 Eighth Street Corridor, as well served by transit. This is consistent with several aspects of the definition I just mentioned. We also found that it meets several Boulder Valley comp plan goals and policies. Specifically, in Section 2, built environment. Specifically sensitive infill and redevelopment and enhanced design for all projects. Section 4, energy, climate and waste energy, efficient land use and energy efficient building. Design. Section 6, transportation, reduction of single occupancy, auto trips and integrated transportation demand management programs and section 7, housing mixture of housing types and balancing housing supply with employment base.

[28:05] Staff also found that the project incorporates site design techniques and infrastructure that support and encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicles. It provides for a balance of private and common open space areas. The landscaping includes a variety of plants, colors, and contrasts. Building and sighting design are compatible with the character of the surrounding area. and the project successfully creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience with simple human scaled and high quality. Architecture for key issue number 2. Whether the proposal is consistent with the parking reduction criteria and the applicable Site review criteria as noted above, the project is requesting a 60% parking reduction to allow for 18 off street parking spaces. And this is 17 on bundled spaces for residents, and one space which would be reserved for a subsidized car share vehicle to be provided where 45 are required by the land use code.

[29:00] It's worth noting that 8 additional tandem spaces are provided. but that these do not count towards the minimum required parking, because they do not meet required backing distance as prescribed by the land. Use code. These tandem spaces effectively bring the total number of parking spaces to 26 which would equate to a 42% parking reduction if they were counted so the first criterion for parking reductions is whether the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of, and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated. Staff finds that they will be adequately accommodated. Primarily, through the implementation of the Tdm and Parking management strategies proposed by the applicant. The Tdm strategies include unbundled manage parking of the 26 bases. Tandem spaces provide extra parking beyond what is counted by code. They are providing an alternative transportation fund of $150 a year for residents who are willing to sign something as part of their lease, saying that they will either not on a vehicle, or that they have suitable offsite storage.

[30:08] There's a subsidized car share vehicle being provided ample bicycle parking consistent with all the code requirements. The applicant is agreed to enter into the business and neighborhood ecopass programs for a period of at least 3 years. and there is nearby, on street parking for visitors. In terms of the availability of Off Street and nearby on street parking, as outlined in their parking management strategy. And the applicant did do a parking study which showed that there were at least 84 available unrestricted public on street parking spaces during the study period. This was in April 2023 on a Friday and Saturday, between 6 and 10 Am. And 6 and 11 PM. Also, the use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. So as I just kind of described before. The applicant has provided a very robust transportation demand management plan, as well as a parking management plan which outline the strategies they will use to reduce the parking needs of the project and increase multimodal travel. Share?

[31:14] Now, I'm happy to answer any questions. Does anyone have any questions for Chandler? Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. I have a couple, chandler. Thank you for that presentation done with your customary excellence and thoroughness. My first question on page 85, the staff analysis of the criteria. It talks about having open space on both the east and west sides of the project on the ground floor. Can you talk about? What is that open space at the East? Is it landscaping, or is it something other than landscaping? On the east side. It is. It's just landscaping, and it's really kind of only accessible by residents. They are proposing a fence separating that landscape area from the bike parking in the street right there.

[32:02] And so really to access that you'd have to go either around the south side of the building or kind of through the parking garage, and there is a sidewalk that leads to that. But it's really just kind of turf. Okay, and. But we. What's the anticipated use of that open space on the east side. I don't know that there is much of an a anticipated use. I think residents could hang out there, and they could be passive recreation. But really, I think it's just. It's just kind of meeting. The overall required open space as impermeable surface landscaped area. Okay, thank you. And then I have a couple of questions about transportation, the tandem parking spaces. You noted that those are not counted towards the amount of parking that the project provides. Is there any plan to change that? How we count that in the future? I know we're doing an overhaul of our parking. Code. It seems we. That. There there is actually storage for cars that is not counted towards storage for cars.

[33:01] Right? Yeah. Not to my knowledge. But I agree it would be. It's definitely something worth exploring. Yeah, I think we can definitely explore that as part of the upcoming parking code changes later this year. Okay, thank you. 2 more quick questions B cycle stations. How are locations for new B cycle stations chosen? Is that something that can be integrated into a project? Or is that something that, independently, the B Cycle Company chooses. I believe the latter, but it they can. I think that applicants or property owners can talk to be cycle and ask them to put a bcycle station somewhere. but I think ultimately B cycle makes the decision whether it's feasible or not. Thank you. And lastly, some folks have suggested that this neighborhood might be ripe for a neighborhood parking permit program. And again, I know that we're overhauling that program. But my question is currently, what makes a neighborhood a candidate for a neighborhood parking pass program.

[34:02] I believe if if Charles, if you know better, please correct me. But I believe that a neighborhood has to fill out essentially a petition. That they send to the Transportation department, and then the Transportation Department does a study where they essentially determine if it's viable or not. Yeah, I think there's some criteria that need to be met. But I think there's also, if I'm not mistaken, I'm I'm gonna have to look this up. I think there might be a moratorium right now on New Mpps. If I'm not mistaken. Okay, mark is giving the thumbs up on that. Okay, thank you. Alright Kirk. Great. Thank you, Chandler, and thank you, Laura. You hit a number of my questions. My first question is about the setbacks. It looks like the east side, is actually the rear from the standpoint of setbacks. Is that correct? And the south side is the side.

[35:03] Yes. Oh, actually, I have. I have notes on this, because it is not what you would anticipate. No, it's the East Side is actually the front yard set back along 20 s street. So the side yards are pearl, and the south side. Right? So 20 s, that's the west side. Oh, sorry right so the the west side is the front yard set back. Front yard. Okay? And and just out of curiosity. Why is that? Is that? That's not something that can be adjusted. I assume. No, it's just the way that we define setback. So it's just based on the width of the lot. So the wet side of the lot is just slightly narrower. Yeah, the north side of a lot. Okay. sounds good. And then, next question, on one of the I think it was on an elevation. There was an indication of an access easement on the west side. Do you know what that is? Referring to?

[36:09] I don't, unless it's part of the sidewalk that's existing. Okay, it might have been related to the sidebar, and I can ask the applicant about this. So great. Thank you. And then the car share subsidy. The the the the Eco Pass is subsidized for 3 years. You didn't mention a time period for the car share subsidy is that time limited. That's not included in the Tdm plan. Specifically, time limit. So I would defer to the applicant on that. Okay. Great, thank you. I think those are all my questions, for now.

[37:00] Thanks. Kurt, go ahead. Ml. Thank you, George. so thank you for for your presentation. Chandler. I appreciate, always appreciate the hard work. I just have a few questions. so it it's always a challenge for me when when projects were applied for and the standards have changed code. Right? We've done updates and stuff. So I I this may be one of those. But here's my question. Am I to understand that each of the dwelling units needs to have a minimum private open space. Yes. And so that's 60 square feet. Correct. So what I don't see is that for the 5 ones on the ground for it, it's like there's a sidewalk right in front of

[38:03] of the. And then there's some gardens. But I don't see anything that would be considered private open space associated with those 5 units that Erica. So that that was something that that came up that we discussed with the applicant. And you know there is some discretion there. We don't define exactly how private open space has to look or function. So they were. They did not want to close off the entire thing with gateways. So they they put the fence there to prevent basically people from walking through on the paved area between the landscaping. So it's blocked off to the north and south, and then has essentially open entrances. Between the railing structure to access the units. I felt like, you know, Staff felt like that was okay, that it kind of delineated the private open space enough to create to allow those to be kind of patio areas. But I think the applicant is, is willing to discuss that more. And obviously planning board has the ability, if if they want that to be enclosed more to require that.

[39:18] So is the 60 square feet that is required. Is that just that big sidewalk in front of the doors, or does it include the the. Yeah, it's it's essentially the paid area between the units and the landscaping. So that square footage is is in is met in the paved area. Correct. Okay, thank you. That wasn't. That wasn't clear it. And I don't think that I saw the and and gain it off. It looked like people could walk right in front of it. But I'm hearing you say, no. it it is close. Okay, thank you for that. The other question. Now this again, I I might be confused as to the criteria that we're reviewing.

[40:04] and you identify it under key issue, 2 Site criteria, 9, 9, 6 f. 2. But I'm looking at the Site review criteria analysis that is provided. And it's actually section 9, 2, 14. H! So what what am I seeing here. So there's both. So When applicants request a parking reduction criteria they have to meet. There are parking reduction criteria in the parking standards, which are 9, 9, 6, and then there are a few additional criteria included in the Site Review criteria. So that's what's from 9, 2, 14. And they. I mean effectively. They kind of say the same things. but we do provide analysis for both. Now, okay, maybe that's my problem. I didn't find the analysis. That was for 9, 9, 6. So it's in here somewhere. I just I just missed it.

[41:05] I hope it is. No, no worries. If they're essentially the same. I I'm not. Gonna I just was thinking, oh, my gosh! Am I missing something? But I'll hunt for it. Let me see my last question. Oh. You. You're right. It doesn't look like it was included in the attachment, which is my bad but they are almost identical for what it's worth. And it is. It's in the memo, I think. Yeah, if you look up on page. Oh, yeah. Some discussion of it in the Memo. Page 12 of the of this, yeah. The packet. Oh, sorry of the of the memo. I don't know what page it is on the packet. but it's in the it's in Chandler's memo. It's in the first part. Oh, oh, oh. yeah, they are in 2 different places. Thank you. Laurel. Okay. And my last question. I'm looking. I I you know, I brought this up at the Concept review, the the notion of the commercial parking

[42:03] and the criteria, the criteria it is K. Roman numeral, the Roman numeral. 2. It talks about that. The parking for the project is adequately accommodated. So there is 0 parking for the commercial. So my question is. what was the thinking? is that a feasible truth is that do commercial spaces not need to have at least one parking area? What's the thinking? There. Yeah, in in mu 3 In order to put residential, you have to have a certain amount of ground level commercial space. But there is kind of a subsection of the You standards there that basically say for the for the minimum depth of the required commercial space.

[43:06] No parking is required. so happy. Question. Comment on the intent behind that. Yeah, I I mean the the criteria says. adequately accommodate. And I'm just wondering. Was there any thinking from from the staff's perspective as to 0 parking for the commercial. adequately accommodating. Yeah. I think you know in general the fact that there is on street parking available in the vicinity. So they're you know, their parking study which was performed by a accredited transportation engineer, found that there are 84 parking spaces typically available during peak hours on Friday and Saturdays at least. So you know the the provision of on street parking, and then

[44:00] the fact that the site is highly walkable and located close to multiple on street bike facilities. I think that we found that if if they found from a marketing perspective and from a, you know, penciling perspective that they didn't need parking for commercial. That that seemed like that was probably adequate. Okay. and then last, this is kind of a oh. did I vanish. You're still there. Vanished, my pages vanished. My last question, and I think I think I saw this in somebody's in a public comment. So with the unbundled paying for parking. That's a hundred $50 a month, I think. They were saying they were going to charge for the parking. So is there an equity issue, you know, for those who have jobs that require a commute to have that? I mean, that's kind of a big uptick to pay for if you have to have a car.

[45:00] if this is workforce housing. and you need a car to get to where you're working. Has that ever has that subject been raised in regards to the charge as an equity issue. It's a good question. you know the city city policies largely support the sump principle. And encourage shared, unbundled manage parking. So. But yeah, I mean. I'm questioning it in that. This is trying to be workforce housing, you know. Historically, we've been seeing that in student housing. which is a different population, because the university is walkable from most of the projects we've looked at. But this is attending, or at least they're proposing that it's workforce housing and given that I I'm just curious as to whether there could be an equity issue with the

[46:01] W. With that concept who who might be able to answer that question, or is it just a. I mean, it seems like a good discussion to have with the transportation department in general. I mean, it's a it's definitely a a policy issue. But but I'm I'm not sure that I can really discuss it in the context of this project. Right. Or maybe the applicants have a thought. If that's the market to go in after they maybe they have a thought. But I'll I'll ask them. Thank you so much, Chandler. And those are all my questions. Okay. Go ahead, Mason. Great thanks. Thanks, Tyler, for your your presentation. So you mentioned, just a minute ago that there were 84 available spaces from the transportation city in the vicinity. I didn't see the vicinity defined in the packet with how what kind of net was cast when counting those spaces. You know they they did list. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I think I mean, typically it's

[47:03] within a block in either direction. I would probably defer to the applicant on that specific question. Trying to get a feel of the space. Yeah. And so who would be As far as adding, charging on the street in the area? I assume that that wouldn't be the the responsibility of the applicant. But where would where's the appropriate place to have that discussion to add add charging to the street. Again, I would probably defer to someone in the transportation department. I'm not sure how we how we determine where charging stations go in right of way. I know the applicant has has shown at least one charging station in the garage, and then most of the spaces are ev ready?

[48:04] But yeah, I'm I'm not sure if if anyone else and staff knows. please jump in. Maybe we can. We can table that and and. Go ahead, sir! Project project specific questions. Yeah, that makes sense to me, as far as are differently able neighbors. Is Ada compliance the minimum required? Is there anything else. I guess this is kind of a broader question. But is there any other incentives or requirements that that the that the city code states. We don't go above and beyond Ada requirements. Thank you so much. It's all my questions. Great thanks, Mason. Go ahead, Claudia.

[49:02] Thanks. My question is, gonna echo a little bit of one of Laura's from earlier on. But mine is about transit enhancements rather than be cycle. And so I was looking at the bus stops in the area of this project, and I see that closest bus stop at least on the same side of Pearl Street as this project is actually at the corner of 20 third, so it is not directly adjacent to this project. But I'm wondering if there is any precedent for including transit enhancements. In a Tdm plan, such as adding a bus shelter, adding a bench. adding, lighting for a shelter. And if so, if there's any discretion from the city for moving the stop by a block in particular, this is on the hop line which is operated by the city and not directly by the Rtd.

[50:02] So could you tell me a little bit about what the possibilities are for transit infrastructure. Yeah, I mean, it is. It has happened in the past where we require, you know, bus stop improvements and stuff like that. But usually it's if it's part of transportation master plan or an Rtd plan. And it's basically adjacent to the property. like on right of way that touches the property. I'm not really sure what the process is for moving bus stops. I would assume that would have to be done in conjunction with Rtd, but I know that if if there's not basically a plan bus stop adjacent to the property now, we can't really require them to put one there. but that's not to say that Rtd. Might not be willing to move. No? I? I asked, because it is on the hop line which I understand. The city runs and the current bus stop is a signpost there are no enhancements whatsoever, so

[51:00] I'll come back to that. Thank you. Mark. Thanks. I just wanted to take a quick second and respond to Ml, and Mason's questions with a quick perspective. And that is that I think the equity question is really valid and very important, but I think equity in this case can be a double edged sword in the eye of the beholder that it I find it inequitable to hide the cost of car storage in rent. and make rent less affordable for those that either can't afford a car or choose not to drive a car and store a car.

[52:02] and that by unbundling the parking. Yes, there's a potential for something being. Good, mark. I'm sorry I'm gonna cut you off a little bit. Could could could you direct questions to Staff during this period? And then. That. We can get to. We can get to discussion when we get to discussion. Alright! Did. Did you have any other questions yet? You still have your hand up. Okay? ml, do you have your hand up. I do. I have 1 one question. But, George, you haven't spoken, do you? Wanna go? And then I'll. I don't. I don't have any clarifying questions for Staff. But thank you, I appreciate that. Okay, so I don't see Chandler. He's vanished. But so my question is, I saw that it that one of your slides, said Maxim. I'm still startled by the point. Maximum occupancy

[53:03] was 2. Where is that? A code thing is maximum maximum occupancy established somewhere in the code. I mean 300 square feet for 2 people. It's yeah. It's it's part of the definition of efficiency living unit. And longest go there. And it says, 2 people. Yes. Wow. okay, I I wasn't aware what the source was for that. Thank you for clarifying. Looks like Kurt. Thank you. One more quick question for staff the plan. So side plan. So if the sidewalk at the northwest corner, angling at a 45 degrees to go to a curb a curb cut right at the corner. This is probably really an Edward Stafford question, and I guess we may not be seeing Edward Stafford again. Unfortunately, but or may, maybe he's on. I don't know. But I'm just wondering if you know why was that based on some requirement in the Dcs. Or was that something that the the applicant was proposing? Or why is there that 45 degree angling? That's not the way the sidewalk goes.

[54:21] Yeah, my, my understanding is that that was a requirement that was put forth by our transportation engineering based on the Dcs. But the the applicant did not ask for any Bcs modifications. So you're right that it isn't a Stafford question, but I know that that came from us as a required improvement. Okay? And but you're not sure where in the Dcs. Or what that's referring to in the Dcs. No sorry I can. I can look it up and get back to you. Okay, yeah. If you had a chance to give, find a citation that would be fantastic. Thank you.

[55:02] Great any final questions for staff before we go to the applicants. Presentation alright to the enema. Thomas. you can bring the applicant over. Thank you. We may need Lee Payne to be able to share his screen as well. And I believe you guys have up to 15 min. Great. Someone correct me if I'm wrong instead. Lee, do you have the ability to screen share? Looks like, yes. Yes. I, Randy, when you are, if you can see it, you should be seeing the first slide with titles on.

[56:03] We can see it. Go ahead and go to slide 3 lead. Thank thank you for the time tonight, and thank you for the extensive feedback we've received so far from Staff, the advisory boards. the Planning Board Council. It's been great working with Chandler. Our hope tonight is that you see that we've listened to that feedback. I wanted to take the opportunity briefly to introduce our ourselves to the new planning board members. Also welcome and and thank you for your service. My name is Ross Holbrooke. I'm the managing partner of Stoke Investment group. I've lived here close to half of my life. Now I'm raising a family. Matt Macco and I founded the firm about 7 years ago.

[57:01] we actually met 5 blocks away from the site 20 years ago as as roommates at Cu. and when we built our our business you know, we have the the ultimate goal of being proud of what we build and develop. But this includes pride from all of our stakeholders, our residents, our investors, the environment and our community. We are a local project team. Dtj. Trestle and Jva are all boulder based firms. Next slide. Our purpose is to help solve income and equality by developing attainable, healthy and low carbon communities. We are really attempting to build a different kind of housing in an area boulder that we believe needs it. We have been thoughtful in our design and material choices, and our goal is to own the building long term and create a durable design that withstands the test of time.

[58:02] We have seen most reasonable housing be built far away, and therefore residents need to own a car which is obviously expensive to own and operate, and this counteracts that that lower cost of of housing boulder is a 15 min city, which is a wonderful thing that I certainly appreciate, and provides a great lifestyle. but is also maybe most importantly known to be a major driver in reducing carbon emissions. So we we think this type of housing should be built here. I'm gonna pass it on to Danica. Thanks, Ross. So in terms of the project, timeline, I think. Chandler talked briefly about this, but we have been working through the process for several years, starting with a pre app in 2021 and a concept review submittal that was required. This was a point in time when there were the scarcity of staffing. So we did sit on the shelf for a few months, and when Staff did review it they asked us to make changes based on the parking and Tdm. And really refine kind of a second concept plan submittal.

[59:09] So rather than go to a public hearing at that point, we revised our application and resubmitted in late 2022 coming to a public hearing in front of you. Or some of you in 2023, and then to a city council. Call up discussion later in March of 2023. Council did not call it up, but did refer our project to tab and dab then we submitted later, or early in April 2023, and went through. The submittal process went through the Tab and Dab public hearings. And here we are. In front of you tonight. Next slide. So just to quickly show where we started in concept, typically with some white boxes and very conceptual images. And now with much more refined architecture as we go into as we're in the Site Review process, and we will discuss more about the the architectural treatment of the the project next slide.

[60:09] So one thing we wanted to point out is that this is providing a different type of housing than what has traditionally been seen down on Pearl Street and downtown on East Pearl. Recent developments have been typically larger luxury. For sale condo developments. This is providing something completely different than what has been provided in recent redevelopments. So each of these projects. I know it's small print. Happy to come back to the slide. But it it shows that most of these units were sold for more than 2 million dollars are much larger with private garages. And so we're really trying to differentiate ourselves from that with a totally different type of housing type that we haven't seen downtown yet. But we do know there is a strong market for next slide. So this was interesting as a code,

[61:01] kind of junky being really involved in code updates. Since we applied. We were required to do site, review and use review for several reasons. During the process, as Ml. Noted. The code has changed significantly. So it. When we started, we were required to do both site and use review for the minimum for tw a minimum of 20 units. And because we had more than 50% efficiency living units. Now, the we aren't required to do site review based on the square footage or unit count, or the number of efficiency living units. The only thing that would if we applied today that would trigger a site review would be that parking reduction that code has changed slightly that allows below a 25% reduction by administrative uses. This may be impacted by further parking code changes. And I think you've touched on a few of the policy issues that will be discussed. But at this point our parking, our parking reduction is the only thing that would put us in front of planning board. So I think it's this is an example of the type of project that these code changes have tried to make more streamlined. But we're still following all of the Site Review criteria that was that is applicable to a project because of the parking reduction next slide.

[62:24] I'm going to pass it off to Lee Payne with Dtj. Design. Thank you, Danica. I'm lip paying the director of architecture here at Dt. Design. We're very grateful to present this exciting project to the board and thank you all for your time tonight. I'll try to keep my presentation brief, as someone noted. Chandler's was great, and it's a hard act to follow. But there are a couple of things I'd like to touch on briefly. in synopsis here. The data you can see we're under the maximum allowable far, even after part of the property is rededicated for right away improvement along the alley.

[63:01] We're over on the open space requirements. and we're exceeding the minimum requirements for bike parking. We are requesting the 60% reduction in parking, as as has been noted. But, as you see here, that's 42 with the tandem spaces that don't count as has been noted, we did get strong encouragement along the way to really dive deep on our parking and Tdm plans which we did. We submitted to staff traffic impact analysis, parking studies and management plans along with the Tdm. The highlights of which you can see here not. I'm pretty sure those have been very well covered in your packets. I'm happy to come back to any of the specific questions that are needed here. We did not receive any actionable comments from our meeting with Tab, which is awesome, and I think that is due to the great guide guidance that we got from staff and planning along the way, and we were well prepared for that, and did our homework, and and showed up, and there were not really any actionable items from that hearing.

[64:05] and from that meeting. Excuse me. You can see the site improvements that are around the site here, as well as the dispersion of parking. ev parking, bike, parking, and open space requirements. All edges of the property are effectively requiring some improvements. There are some noxious and invasive trees over on the east side that are being removed, but that space is is really meant to kind of be shaded. Passive areas for residents. As has been noted, none of. There's a question earlier on about that street improvements. Along Twenty-second Street, along the sidewalks there is a an additional access easement that needs to be granted there, because the sidewalk is required to be wider than the property line. And hopefully, that address someone else's question there agreements along Pearl Street, including a tree lawn sidewalks, and then, of course, the the main public area in the northwest corner there, that's on the corner for all in twenty-second

[65:08] our dab meeting was awesome. I thought it was a very, very productive process, and I was very excited to have such a great thoughtful discussion with them. We did receive 9 design comments during our dab meeting. 2 are non consensus. We addressed and Incorporated those suggestion suggested revisions. All 9 in the design that you see before you, we think that those are substantial improvements to the project. They're really, really good comments. I will belabor each of them itemized here the the comments effectively are rolled up together in the orange. Basically, they dealt with the corner of the building, which we opened up more towards the intersection of 20 s pearl. the material palette of the building being feeling a little dark, previously in concrete patterning.

[66:02] There was some commentary around the roofs which we studied and made some modifications for the treatment along Pearl Street was a big thing that we talked about both the delineation of individual balconies at the Third Level how we were treating the brick facades and kind of the regular patterns that were appearing in the storefront, all of which we incorporated in the design. And we think we're making a really dynamic, agile, and Pearl Street now and then. Finally, there were some concerns about the cantilever of the units. Out along 20 s, over the sidewalk. We've pulled the building back in. We do still incorporated a cantilever deck there that we think provide some good weather protection on the sidewalk in that area. That's where our garage and some of the exits for residents and entrances for residents are and our again the pallet of the building was significantly lightened. And that's what's being presented to you tonight? The railing that Chandler was talking about. I'm not sure if everyone could see my cursor, but the left image here at the ground level. You can see that enclosure for that private outdoor space of those units along Twenty-second Street again. We didn't want to take that to the sidewalk. It felt a little.

[67:18] you know, too private, I guess, for the units. For lack of a better term. We wanted to maintain that as public open space and have it more open to the sidewalk and not feel. Have the sidewalk feel so crowded by railing like that? So that was the design, thinking there, but the element picks up on the railing of the upper level decks. I will turn it over to Matt Macco. Hello, everybody! As Ross enumerated, the purpose of our organization is to try to get this close to the nexus of attainable, sustainable and healthy which build Brazilian communities. there's been lots of studies on that. In terms of both walkability and 15 min cities. In addition to low carbon communities and what those entail.

[68:08] I think that was probably one of the reasons that Boulder, you know, did such extensive transportation, planning and creating even a walkable paseo on Pearl Street. and we really see this project connecting that walkability on Pearl Street with the newer development that's occurred farther down on 20 eighth ideally being this nexus, this hub of that east perl side of of the community next slide, please. So we really feel like we are aligning with the city's vision and code. We are trying our best to provide units that are at an affordable rate. Affordability is in our mission and so ideally, these units will be affordable to the largest population of renters, which is the core. between 80 and a hundred percent of area Median income.

[69:08] By making the unit smaller, we're able to make things just a little more efficient in general. But the addition of furnishing the units with robotic furniture allows us to basically use space in a three-dimensional way and create even more efficiencies. So we're already starting with a more efficient box. And then we're further adding more efficiencies with our design. The other thing that we're trying to do is create large floor to floor expansive height, so that the units don't feel small. They feel open and luxurious. With large walkout patios next slide, please. Hey, Matt, you've got about a minute left. Perfect. Hopefully, you can see the video rendering here and how it's really transforming the space from a bedroom at night. And you know a living space or a workspace during the day.

[70:04] Every unit is just like a typical unit just in slightly more condensed format. Units are coming, furnished with all the appliances and including some in unit bike storage for your extra special bikes that you don't want to put downstairs. And then a significant amount of private open space as well, which we've discussed next slide. So really, our goal is to make this folders first 0 carbon certified project. that's a process that's administered by the International Living Futures Institute. And it's something that's pretty difficult to achieve. It requires that we reduce both the operational energy of the building by at least 25% from code, but also do our best to reduce embodied carbon, which is the carbon associated with the bricks and sticks that we use. So that's our goal. We hope to get there. It's an ambitious plan, and there aren't any other projects like this in Boulder or even Colorado, actually.

[71:07] obviously, location of the project walkability. Hopefully, our residents will also live that low carbon lifestyle that we envision and and see the, you know, benefits of doing so with such a ideal proximity to everything. Last slide. The last pieces on the healthy side of things. Obviously, you know, we had Covid, and and that really changed everything but our goal is to make not only the air quality that we breathe with inside the unit, but also the finishes and materials and everything we put in the building. We do that through fit well, which is a center for disease control, third party assessment that's administered by the center for active design. And that really, takes these 50 kind of health attributes and outcomes and puts them into a step by step process that a developer like us can follow. So our goal is to not only get it 0 carbon certified, but also to get fit. Well certified.

[72:13] I think that's my last slide, and I think I'm probably at a time. But let me know. Yeah, thanks. Appreciate it. Think, if the app then is done, we can go to board questions. Go ahead, Mason. Thanks for the presentation. And and this question comes out of a little bit of ignorance. As you know, I'm new here. I'm not familiar with your other other developments or properties. I'm just wondering, do you have any experience? Working with a tenants association or unit.

[73:05] Sorry I I can take this one. Did you say? Tenants Association like a condo association or. Or a union. I'm I am not familiar with that in a apartment building. I'm I'm certainly familiar with that in a condo or for sale community. Do? Do you think that would be something you all would be opposed to should the tenants decide. Yeah, I I don't think we're there in terms of saying one way or the other. I I'm I'm not familiar with it. So I apologize. Like it. Anything else. Mason. No. Okay. Mark! Thank you. I I find this project exciting from a Tdm standpoint. My question is, have you

[74:02] started working with a car share vendor? Or are you planning on doing the car share on your own? What's what's the status with the car share, and and how that would be managed and administered. Dirt e early days still. But I did have a a conversation last year with the the founder of the Colorado car. Share and understand kind of the the structure and economics of of that service that they offer essentially. But something that I was, you know, pretty excited about was just the the cost structure, and of itself I think it's like $12 a month, and then roughly, $10 an hour for a hundred 50 miles per day. You do that math compared to car ownership, and it's it's pretty attractive. Great, that was it. Thank you.

[75:02] Go ahead, Emma! Thank you. Yeah, thank you, folks, for your presentation. I appreciate you touched upon some of the questions that were asked earlier. So. My! Let me see here. I will start with. since you were talking about the way the units function with their furniture and that sort of thing I'm guessing, that's all. Electric the bed coming up and down and trying. So My question is. with the increased climate impacts of grid disruption. I'll will your Pv. Array, or your

[76:00] ability to capture solar and store solar on-site? I mean. Imagine that you have your bed up in the ceiling, and the power goes out. What? Ha! And and I know I wasn't used to having power outages at my house here in Newlands. and I've had some this year. So I think that this grid disruption is very real. And I'm just wondering if you have some thoughts about how people who need electricity just to have their furniture available. Is there a plan. Yes, so Ori, which is the the company we're working with has thought through that. They. They get that question a lot, and the the system is actually counterweighted. What you can't see kind of behind the headboard is a wait, essentially. And so So it's not necessarily just electric. It's it's. Correct. If the power goes out, it's it's relatively easy to lift or lower the the bed. Accordingly.

[77:01] Perfect. I love that answer. So I will get into some of the parking, because that seemed to have been the biggest concerns from the public. I will ask again about the so the criteria we look at talks about the parking needs of all uses in the project will be adequately accommodated. I'm concerned about the commercial parking. so if you had a small shop there, I don't know how many tenants you plan on having and you're a anyway, would you? Is it feasible that people don't have a parking spot? Is that pretty common downtown, or in this area? Are people to expect that small shops that they don't have a parking spot. Yeah, as as I understand it, I'm I'm not familiar with all the retail parking I know as part of K. Jed. A lot of retailers probably don't have easily accessible parking. This projects, obviously outside of that.

[78:05] Thank you. But I think the parking study that we produced last year kind of showed that there was a fair amount of availability even during peak times. So it we are. From the commercial, from the commercial expectations. Right. Needs actually more needs than than anything. Is it reasonable to assume that people renting commercial spaces won't have parking? And I I guess there was no study done on the other businesses around, and whether they provide parking or not is that, do you don't have that information. We? We did not complete that study. We do have our our traffic engineer, Chris Mcgranahan. Here. If if there's a kind of more technical question regarding regarding that. But. Function, you know, are people. Yes. It's just gonna work. Okay, so I'll hold that out there.

[79:01] So let me see. And these were specifically about your tdm, some of the information in your Tdm, so you talked about there'd be an orientation packet for parking. I'm assuming that that will be part of not when they're ready to sign. But it'll be just part of the information about the project, so that you know people understand that. Oh, and parking is an additional if you have a car 150 a month or but so that it's upfront, it's it's all pretty upfront, and and people know what they're even looking at before they get to the let me look at the lease. Stage. Is that what. What's intended? Yeah, if if you go on like a a website like apartments.com every apartment, or at least the ones I've seen show what parking costs are on. On landing page. Okay, so that's a that's a common commonly understood

[80:05] criteria. You talked about having some input requiring, although not expecting, 100 participation to your Tdm plan, and how it's working as part of your Tbm. That there'd be sort of a feedback loop. But you were saying that it's a city of boulders responsibility to evaluate that input. And I'm just curious if the as 2, why, in your parking a plan with the city. Is this a common thing that the city takes responsibility for evaluating how it's going. Chris, if you, if you don't mind, you might have more experience with with that. But I think the intent of the the survey is to just understand what's working and and versus what's not, and and obviously correct. Accordingly,

[81:00] Right. You're just. You're just putting it onto the city to be the one who evaluates. That is that a common thing? That is the jurisdiction that rather than I mean. I I'm just curious if this is kind of a new thing in our city right to have that greater reduction and these small units. It's it's a new animal. And so I'm just trying to figure out is, how how do we get the feedback loop? functioning so that we understand how this is actually working. Once it's. This, this is Chris with Lsc, can everyone hear me? Okay. yeah. Yeah. Okay. So the the travel demand management plans or Tdm. Plans. The Lsc. Has done over the last several years have all included a statement that basically says the applicant will allow their residents to fill out surveys on the effectiveness of Tdm measures, and and we acknowledge that maybe only 15% of those will get returned. So it's not necessarily about one specific thing. It's just saying that if the city sends out a survey we're not going to say they're.

[82:04] I've already. From answering it. Got it. That's that's the intent. That's the intent that we won't get in the way of the city. Okay. Polling our residents in the future. So it's not yours. It's not your survey. It's yeah. It's just allowing our our population to be surveyed and not get in the way of it. Got it. And I, I just would add, in talking with Chris Hagland Hagland with the city. He's probably not on this call. But the this 3 year pilot program is to determine the effectiveness and often employers or property managers decide to continue it because it is something that people want to use and want to have it is an attraction for people renting or being employed. So it it's, I think, trying to address also the effectiveness. Some people live in great proximity to use their ecopas, and some people don't, or some employees don't. So this is trying to figure out what is the best tool for that particular

[83:01] Eco pass doesn't work for everybody, but in this location it probably will be a very effective tool. I see what you're saying. I I understand to think now eco passes are required for all new development. So that isn't necessarily developer initiated. That is a requirement. Sort of the Tdm. Package. It's not a requirement. Some projects don't do that because they're far away from bus stops. So it's not a ma mandatory requirement. It's part of the the package. The t-. Toolkit, if you will, and so our toolkit is car share alternative transportation fund eco pass Nico pass and also paid. You have to pay for parking as well. So that's kind of the the highlights of our Tdm. You do last last question. I looked at the parking I guess. Survey or study that was conducted Friday and a Saturday

[84:00] morning and evening, I think. With the time 6 to 10 and 6 to 10, I think. Something like that. at it seems like a lot of the people who live in the area. I mean, that was, that is their number. One concern is that people will. You know, the cars. Spilling into the neighborhood is a very real concern for the people that live there. And so my question is, if if people are maxed out and and don't buy into a parking and choose to try to park in the neighborhood and all. I think I understand that there will be a part of a lease agreement that you don't have a car, or that you, if it's gonna be stored, that is stored someplace else. So as the project gets populated and people live there.

[85:04] Do you have a feedback process with the neighbors to try to monitor? How is it going? How's how is the parking situation has. Did it not come to pass? It was all you know, all the fears didn't really happen, and people really don't have cars. Do you have a feedback? I understand the survey we just talked about. But is there some other way directly with the neighborhood, with the, with the people where who will be. who are impacted by this abundance of our street. of of on street parking that's available? Is there a way to get their continued feedback. I think we're we're. Hi! This is Chris. This is Christopher. See? I don't. Yeah. WI probably should ex like, I don't really know what the way to to get feedback, because it's hard to know whose car is. But when you're out on the public space. But I can comment that the parking inventory and utilization study that we did. We did find at least 84 spaces available at any given time in the study area. And I'm looking at my map here. It's actually figure 3 in the parking study, but we showed you up and down, Walnut up and down, Pearl for a couple of blocks in each direction, and all the side streets between

[86:25] Pearl and Walnut, and I'll have to say that most of the occupied on street spaces are along Walnut, and most of the unoccupied spaces are on the south side of Pearl. We did not look at the north side of Pearl, because we don't want people crossing that street, so we look at the south side of Pearl, which is where a number of the spaces were, and likely it's adjacent to our project. So that helps. So I just. I'll say that most of the available spaces are away from where the homes are. So the residents probably don't think there's much available parking on their street because there wasn't. Most of it was on the northern end of our study area. Got it. Okay, I will. I think I'm done with my questions. Thank you so much. I appreciate

[87:03] Hours. Go ahead, Laura! Laura, we can't hear you. Sorry I was double muted because of the coughing my apologies. I I just thanked the applicant team for your presentation. Really appreciate it lots of great information about your approach and the details of your project. I have just a couple of questions. Back to that east side open space area on page 69 of our packet. It says that East Side improvements will include, quote a secure shade court with potential amenity. Can you describe what is meant by a potential amenity on that East Side. I believe that was in the applicant statement, but I could be wrong. Yeah, at at this point. It it is as Chandler kind of described a a turf area. We have, I think, had previous conversations around potential for a dog relief area, though there's

[88:06] other areas nearby as well. I think part of why we tried to secure it was just to prevent people passing through there. We'll have some mechanical equipment as well. Lee, I don't know if I I'm missing anything there, but. You're covering it. The it's it's not manicure turf. It's that's currently labeled as native turf. And we are conveying storm through there. But there's not an active program that you might think like chess board or something like that. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. This is my most important question. And maybe I'm reading the diagrams wrong. But I love that. You have a rideshare pickup spot on the street which is separate from your parking spot for car. Share that Rideshare pickup location. Is there any place to sit near there. Cause I I did notice, and I appreciated that you talked about Vm mobility which does provide mobility services for some of our disabled

[89:04] community members, community members with disabilities. But that can take a 30 min window for Vm. Mobility to arrive. So is there any place to sit near that rideshare location, or any thought that you could provide that. There's not currently one As Ross mentioned, I'm I'm sure we're open to any kind of suggestions that the board may have, but there's not currently one planned. Okay. Thank you. We do have an access, a resident access just north of that you might be able to see that door into the garage, so perhaps you could wait into weather, protected this and actually secure weather, protected environment, and then just roll right out once the car pulls up. That might actually be better than sitting on a bench out in the public domain, along an alley. Oh, and what does that residential access go into? Does that go into a building or goes into the garage? Sorry I don't have the. I could share the drawing. But if it's the west side of the garage, that's right where the bikes are.

[90:07] Okay. maybe something to think about. And I like the detail that you added of having like a a weather proof. You know, like a a structure over the head. But I it does feel like having some place for people to wait when they're ride. Sharing would would be good. Thank you so much. And just. I just wanted to add on, I I forgot to mention that Rideshare this is part of we're providing it on street as part of the city's Tnc program. So it's not exclusive to to just the residents of this building. It's actually will be a designated pickup spot as part of the city's program. Oh, the plot thickens. Okay, thank you. Danica. Go ahead, Kurt, and just a reminder to the board. This is really clarifying questions. We'll save our commentary for for the applicant. When we deliberate thanks.

[91:01] Great. Thank you. First one follow up based on what Laura was asking about regarding that open space on the East Side. You're only showing one relatively small tree. Is there a possibility for additional trees there, or is there restricted because of what's underground, or that sort of thing? I don't think the utilities would restrict it. We are conveying storm through there, and there's a drainage swell so there there could be graded impacts with with something that's more substance like a tree. We haven't really looked at that yet. Like, I said, the that area contains a lot of noxious, invasive trees. So I'm not really sure how suitable replanting in an area would be once they're removed. But, there is a drainage school over there along with a walk that's kind of attached to the garage area. Sorry if I'm jumping in, Ross. All good. Open. Thank you. And then the my second question is, I'd asked earlier about

[92:00] the car share time period, and that's indefinite from your standpoint. Right? You have an indefinite commitment to providing that car share space in the and and a some sort of a car share contract or something. Is that correct? Chris I. I can't recall what our commitment there was as part of the Tdm. Yeah, I don't. I don't recall there being a time a a sunset on that. Typically the eco passes have a 3 year review period where they potentially go away. But I don't know that we had that in our Tdm. For that particular item. I. I would just offer that it's counted. It's not counted towards our parking spaces or anything else. So it's it's in our site review. So maybe pass it back to Chandler Staff to talk about how they would administer that space is shown in our site. Review. Yeah, it's a physical space. It's not a

[93:01] a program that we're doing so little bit different than a bus pass program that can come and go. It's a physical space. Yeah, we're talking. I thought that you had a commitment to engage with a car, share some car share company to provide a car share car there. Is that not correct? We are certainly committed to engage with Colorado Karsa, as I mentioned before, in terms of the duration, though I mean, I I think similar to kind of the other programs if they're not functioning the way we want them to. And I, I did have some discussion with Colorado car share. That is a factor. They've had some cars not perform as well as others, right? And and so if it's in an area that doesn't have that same demand that it needs to make it financially faced feasible. Then I I'm I would think things would change enough to to commit long term to to a program like that.

[94:04] But they've been in business for a long time, too, but obviously that can change as well. Yeah. okay, thank you. Hi! Claudia! Hi, thanks. I have a couple of questions about what I would call pedestrian experience and environments. In the first one is. what plans are there, if any, for sidewalk lighting, particularly of pedestrian scale. Lee, do you wanna take that one. Sure. I don't have the lighting plans right here in front of me. There are lighting improvements that I believe are on property just inside the the boundary of the property line our photometric plan will probably show that depiction.

[95:00] I can. I could pull up that detail if you want more specifics than that? There are some the lighting in that areas is one basically coverhead in the south west corner. Right now, it's not great so we are. We are going to improve it. I I don't know to what level, but there will be improvements along the right away. Sidewalks. Okay. Thank you. There's scons there's well mounted sconces on the building as well, which would be nice. Okay? And then I assume you heard my question earlier to say, staff about transit infrastructure, particularly both shelter and work furniture. Is there space. In this northwest corner. For some sort of sheltering for folks who may choose to be using transit. I know the stops not there at the moment. But curious about what the opportunities are for that. My concern. There would be site triangles on in terms of that specific location.

[96:01] I I'd say anything is possible. My experience is similar to Chandler's. If it's not adjacent to. If it's not a right away that's adjacent to a property, it's just not something that we've typically ever considered. So it's it's a it's a new. It's a new thing to think about. I I think that northwest corner would be ill suited for it. Perhaps there's a spot along Pearl Street. But again, that inclusion is gonna disconnect. The storefronts from the street, which is something that you really want in that zone. Thank you. Great. Emily, I see your hands up. I'm gonna call myself first Cause. I think you already did one round. My questions are really centered around attainability and affordability on the project. So I I looked up. when this, when this came through the last time, and just recently, prior to prior to this meeting, I looked up on Ori furniture's website. They've got all of their apartments that have their furnishings in them.

[97:01] and what their rents are. So, for instance, Menlo Park was $5,800 for a studio. Austin was 3,900 for a studio. Boston was 3,094 to 3,099. La was 2,500 to 3,500, and on and on. So I guess my question is, as it relates to your targeted mi ami demographic of 80 to 120. What does that equate to, and what you anticipate to be charging for rent for these units. Yeah, feels like we've had this conversation. But I I think answer it as a similar way is, is, we don't know what we're going to charge for the units until they're built. We also don't know when they will be built that is dependent on many things, including the approval. I think you know what the rents are today for that ami demographic. I think I've quoted in the past.

[98:02] I think they're about to update them Chafa Colorado housing and finance authority. They usually do that in May. so happy to share that document once once they do. So so what what are they today? Since I mean, that's that's center to your pitch. So that's why I'm asking a targeted question, because I would think you'd be prepared with a targeted answer around that. I'm I'm if you give me a second, I can look it up. Yeah, I got them. I got them. I got them pulled up. It's it's I think, 2,000 302,400 for for this unit as a 0, it's called a 0 bedroom is typically how it gets categorized. And I think one bedroom need to have doors. But so you get the lowest, you know, you know. Calculation, and that would be a hundred percent of ami. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that's what the Median person and who makes in Boulder would be able to afford on a 30% rental.

[99:07] That's great. Okay, that that's that's clarifying. Another question around that. So that assumes. And and your presentation assumes that these are people's primary residences. Is that your intent? Will these be corporate apartments or other things? Do you? Are you willing to restrict it to being people's primary residences? That's certainly our intent. I don't know if I am able to restrict something like that today that don't know who is gonna want to rent these units. Yeah, thank you. That's it for my questions. Ml. Thank you. Intriguing questions, George I these were questions I had. I didn't know how to ask them. So thank you for asking those

[100:02] so I I wanna look at the sally again. And maybe one of you has the answer. Maybe it's staff. How wide is that ally. I believe it's currently 16, and we're granting half of the improvement to get to 20. I think. So in front of I'm looking at the site plan. You've got these sort of green rectangles along the way, and then you articulate the the car share and the pickup, and of course trash the access. and I see the property line there. So beyond the property line, beyond those green spaces and those sort of defined areas for the alternative modes of transportation they're 16 feet.

[101:00] Or did you give? Is your property line to the 16 Foot Alley. I believe the current width is 16, and the city's goals get to 20, and, as usual, we're granting half of that on our property, so it would be improved to 18. So what I do. You see the site plan you? I'm looking at your site plan. That shows the pedestrian and the car. and it shows. are you saying that that area that there's so there's a property line. and then you have defined this space for the Rideshare and for the pickup area. Are you saying that those would be narrower when you're talking about giving some back to the city for the alley? Wh, where where does that? Where is that? Well, how does that impact this plan? That that the the alley will be wider? As

[102:04] as a consequence of this project? Does the property line move? Is it shown smaller already? It does. Let me just share something real quick. Okay, perfect. I think that'll be more helpful. I think it's a pretty tight alley as it is today as it is now, and I'm just curious as to a lot of activity getting. Go on back there. Yeah. I've walked that alley quite a quite a few times. Right. Yeah, there's a lot. There's a lot going on. So again, currently, this line that I Yeah. Did. I. Free Line. Yeah. So we're we're effectively excluding an additional 2 feet from our property total property to biden the alley. But not really because oh, so that line that says property line is already minus 2 feet. Here. This probably shows a little bit better.

[103:09] And then this, this area in totality is somewhere in 3 400 square foot range that we're excluding from the allowable far for the project. But do I see that the sort of outline of those green boxes and all are still inside that 2 foot area that you're giving away. In here. Yeah, all in one. That's the that's the line of the of the pavement. We're not counting any of the open space or the No, I I'm I'm not worried about how it's being counted legally or not. I'm just worried about functionality. You're saying that Ellie's going to be bigger. But it looks like the green areas and the actual car share space and the pickup are going to go back to the property. Yeah, this is the. This is gonna be the edge of the pavement right here.

[104:02] Right. So the le isn't really gonna be any bigger than it is today. There's some legal. There's some legal business. But experientially, you're not going to feel it like it's a wider alley. Is that correct? All. All I can say is this was basically designed by the city the the tree requirements and the amount that they've asked for rededication here is based on the engineering design that we got from the city, the the specifics of where each part is landing, or how how much wider it is I I would have to just pull up some of other technical drawings. We work pretty closely with the city for this. Graphic isn't. Noted. It's it's substantially narrow. We can't recover all of the width that the city desires on our property. So, as usual, as that right of ways improve. We'll grant our half of the improvement of the of the city's requested right away with. So that 9 foot by 26, for example, foot loading, or the 8 foot by 23 car.

[105:02] that 8 foot goes out to your property line. That's that bottom line, or where does that land. This is right now indicated as the line of the alley pavement. Right here. Okay. There's a little bit of a projection. So experientially, the alley is not gonna feel any bigger. And we got a lot of stuff going on back there. Okay. I I I would disagree. But yeah, I guess I guess one could see it that way. We're a half hour into our questions. I'm gonna ask just for any last questions, if not like to go ahead and proceed with the public, so that we can. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. So this is the public hearing portion of the meeting to this item. If you'd like to speak, please raise your virtual hand, and I will call on you. Let's wait a little bit and see how many people plan, please.

[106:01] So far we have about the 4 hands raised so each person will have 3 min. and I will start with Lynn Siegel. And we have somebody with the name Nicole. If you could just send me through the QA. Your full names I can call you. Please go ahead, then. Yeah, this is outrageous, completely outrageous. This is not living space for. Oh, hey, I'm sorry, Lynn. Before before you start. Laurel would you mind reading off the conflict? wording for? Yeah. Thank you. Like, absolutely. Full 3 min. Apologies. I didn't mean to to not tag that in so just quickly at the chair asked me to just read this before the hearing starts, so that we can have an opportunity to to learn a little bit more about this. But this is the disclosure language that's being asked. So the Board request that, prior to offering public comments, all members of the public disclose any financial or business relationship with or other membership or affiliation related to the applicant project.

[107:14] or a neighbor specifically including any paid compensation. Thank you. No problem. Thanks, Vivian, if if you can put Lynn back on, I appreciate it. Okay, we'll resume. Then you have 3 min. Now, please go ahead. Yeah, tandem parking means you have to pull the car out and put another car in there. So you have to manage that. This thing is. So there's so many expenses associated with this car. Free kind of place. People are gonna be driving every 5 min to their storage closet, where they actually have all their stuff, all their climbing gear, all their, you know, people have stuff. I'm sorry even yps have stuff, and this is 80 to 1 20 area Median income. It is 1,700 to $2,600 a month without parking. It's outrageous.

[108:07] outrageous. And this developer Stoke has taken this Sto St, okay, right? That they've taken this idea. And they've already set precedent. They have already known they're kind of gonna get this thing pushed through. And so they're working on 1741 walnut. And you know what they're costing there? Or do you know what their size is? There? 375 square feet. Big F deal. private open space. This is not open space that is not open space, a little sidewalk area. Do you know what our deficit is on open space with the city of Boulder. I follow the open space board of Christie's, the Water Resources Advisory Board. This is population increase. Do you know the demand on services these people have. This is outrageous, outrageous. Now I could say, well, hell! Olive has 200 square feet for $2,200 a month.

[109:03] Shucks! You know this is driving housing costs up, striving wealth, disparity. Then you have more Dei stuff to do. This is this is, I'm speechless with anger about this project. The bikes go inside the 300 square feet. Shucks! They give a bike in the in the apartments because they know they're going to be stolen outside, like they are at up at the Armory people. That's the problem. It's the P. Word population. Too many physical people, I mean Lauren's asking about. Laura is asking about, or do they have a place to sit? They don't. Even Laura. They don't even have a place to sit in their frigging 300 square foot apartment. They don't have a place to sit there. What do you mean? They need a place to sit while they're waiting for a car. Do you know what this adds to transportation?

[110:04] They're waiting for a car. So what? So what if they don't have a car on site. They're they're filling. They're congesting all of boulder constantly with driving around because they want to get away from their little 300 square foot place. That's a hundred 50 square foot person. This is outrageous. Do not even begin to think about approving this project. Thank you for sharing your viewpoints. Next, we have Nicole Eagle Thomas. Apologies. If I mispronounce your name, please go ahead and also introduce yourself. And then next up we have Jim Thomas. Please go ahead, Nicole. So I grew up on twenty-first and Pine I went to Whittier. I spent time playing in Spruce Pool. My family owned 2226 Pearl Street restaurant called Montam Fes that was here in Boulder. For 28 years I went to the University of Colorado and lived on Twenty-third and Walnut.

[111:12] and I don't know if any of you live in that area or have spent time there, but it is. My home literally has been my home. and I am shocked at. I guess the lack of maybe the Blind Spot that's showing up around the parking issue. It's not an easy place to get around. I don't know if you're familiar. If you've driven around that block, there's it's like the roads. Don't go all the way through the alleys tight. It's a very difficult location. And so I think there's there. I'm concerned about parking. I am also really concerned about the direction that I know. We're trying to move into a more sustainable

[112:01] future for Boulder, but having 2 people in 300 square feet, and 45 units, we now have approximately, let's say, 80 people if only some of them have 2. I think it's unrealistic to actually think that people aren't gonna have vehicles and need a place to park a car, even if they aren't using the car on a daily basis because they're downtown. It's really unrealistic to look at to look at them, not having a car to go up to the mountains or or do something else that they may do once in a while. There there needs to be parking across the street is, I think it's 2201 Pearl Street. It's an apartment or condo complex. Those units are very small. They're like 700 square feet. It's tight in there. But they have managed their parking fairly well. It's

[113:01] it is concerning to me. So I just hope that you would look at the reality of what it's like to live there, and what it's like to just live and play in boulder, because this is not really the sustainability that I believe we would want to see as we're growing our city. so I hope that you would not approve this project. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Nicole, for joining us tonight. Next we have Jim Thomas, followed by Jill Adler. Gona. Please go ahead, Jim. Hello! Jim Thomas, I am Nicole's husband. One thing she didn't say is, we jointly own the building next door. 2226 Pearl Street, which we redeveloped. It currently has 4 units and 8 parking spaces on site

[114:04] for each unit. Units are bigger. but we've been down there a long time, as she mentioned, and this project. Our project has been there since 2,008, and I can tell you every time we rent it out the parking spaces are full. Again, it is a different project project size. So maybe that's part of it. But having less than one parking space per unit seems troublesome in general. I support affordable housing. There's elements of this project that don't bother me. And I think it's it's nice to have a diversity of product sizes. But I do worry about 18 parking spaces for 45 residents just like Nicole had mentioned in our experience. More people have cars, these, this assumption that that not everyone's gonna have a car or or that we might need 60% less than

[115:02] then. What's in the code seems a little disturbing to me as well. When I think of tandem parking they're cumbersome. you know. You gotta pull in. You gotta have someone pull out. You pull in like they're not going to be used the way, and they shouldn't be counted like, I know, people want to start counting those to me. That's that's an error. Talking about commercial space. Like to not have parking for commercial space and employees. There's always gonna be one to 4 employees there, plus patrons that seems problematic to me, and not setting up our commercial businesses for success if they don't, if if they don't have some parking spaces even for their employees. I think Nicole touched on 20 s Street not going through. So it's kind of a non-standard intersection. And then it doesn't go across Pearl Street so that particular corner everything gets bottled up right there.

[116:01] something for you to consider. I personally think this project. We're gonna give the the units 101, and through 105, and make it a dedicated, dedicated parking space and provide more access to those tandem spaces. I know it's a few, a few less units. but it'll make it more tenable as neighbors in that community. All you have to do is. Look at 20 Third and Pearl Street. They put 8 units up there with garages. Everybody had their own private parking space, and they still still out on 20 Third Street. And so I know. The department study said that there's 85 units. They were there twice. They don't have a realistic vision of what that area, how it operates and appreciate your time. Thank you. Vivian, we can't hear you. Yeah. Apologies on mute next up we have Jill Adler grown up, followed by Lisa White. Please go ahead, Joe.

[117:08] Alright, hey, you guys? My name's Jill Verono. I am a real estate professional here in Boulder as one of as well as one of our boulder housing commissioners. I'm also a graduate student at the University of Colorado, studying housing and a member of the Boulder affordable housing research initiative. You know, I can see listening to tonight's comments. That parking is a major pain point. But I want to implore you to prioritize people over vehicles. This city has prioritized vehicles over people for so long, and you know, the way that we move about is changing it will, it will continue to change. There are ways to deal with vehicles that don't diminish our ability to build much needed housing. and this is a housing type that we desperately need. It doesn't exist in Boulder.

[118:00] Small apartments like this are for our workforce these our small businesses on Perl. You know they're suffering. They have a hard time keeping employees. I served as the interim senior director of policy programs for the Chamber of Commerce, and we hear from them. Oh, the small businesses! Over and over and over that they need people to be able to live where they work. and this is exactly the type of product that we don't have, and that will allow for that. I want to also make a note about the slide that Danica showed earlier about what has been built around. This proposed apartment. I've done sort of a micro study of these luxury townhomes that have been built all around Boulder. And you know it's it's 14 dwelling units per acre. It's our medium and mixed use zones that cap out at that density that equals 2.5 million dollar townhomes. And they're everywhere. And so this study that I did looked at the ownership of these these

[119:05] new luxury town homes and well, over 30%. And every single one of them are owned by second, third, and fourth homeowners. These are people that don't contribute to our taxes, to our sales, to our to our vibrant city, and that's we have so much of that. We are. You have the opportunity to pro to a a approve, a really unique and much needed housing development that doesn't exist elsewhere. Please. Give this the go ahead. I you won't regret it. And if there are issues with vehicles later deal with that, but don't punish the people. Thank you so much. Thank you, Jill, for joining us. Next we have Lisa White, followed by Mark Newman, and just a reminder to others. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand so that we know how many people are remaining.

[120:00] Lisa, please go ahead. Hello! My name is Lisa White. I am a neighbor of this project. I live just a block south at Twenty-second and walnut and I just wanted to. Say that I just really support this project. I'm excited about the retail and and space that's coming in on the first floor. When some town homes went in next door to this project they replaced snarfs and espresso Rio, which were, we're right there, so I'm happy to see some of the some of the retail being replenished in in our neighborhood. And I'm also just happy to see the parking reduction. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would do like 3 shared car share spots and 0 personal spots. If people want their own parking spot. There are a lot of places in boulder that you can rent if you want that to be included as part of your rent. So

[121:09] having the the unbundled parking where people have the option of of paying for parking, I think, is a good compromise. And and just a note on the parking issue. So I think that that our neighborhood does have a parking problem. If you go on the the north side of of the Whittier neighborhood. They have neighborhood parking program on that side. Our side of Pearl does not and I think there was a comments about it. It not really impacting the neighborhood, because all the houses are north of Pearl, but those of us south of Pearl. You know, we live in a town home, but we do have homes over here. And anyway, the the place where this development is 20 s and pearl, that's the the one spot right now that currently has available parking. So I like literally, if we have somebody come to our house to to do something. I send them a map, and I'm like Park here, because this is where there's parking if they're if they're taking a car. And so I don't think that we should solve this problem by giving everyone individual parking spots. But I think that the city should do a neighborhood parking program in our neighborhood and and charge for parking, so that there is available spots when people need it.

[122:25] And then I would like to see the city actually charge more than just enough to run the program, but actually enough to fund sustainable options for those of us in our neighborhood. And then the the last thing I wanted to mention. Is, 10 years ago I lived in a development with a little bit bigger of a unit unit. I lived across the street from this development. In the the building that burned down a couple of years ago. and it was very. It was a very small unit, but it was great. It was perfect for that stage of life that I was in and I did end up buying a car, and while I lived there, and part of the reason was that parking was included, so that encouraged me to to buy a car because it was made easy for me.

[123:07] Thank you. Thank you for your contributions. Next, we have Mark Newman and I also just wanted to remind people that for each public hearing item, each person can only speak one time. Please go ahead and, mark you have 3 min. We can't hear you, Mark. You have to unmute from your end. So sorry. My apologies. That's good. Yes, anyway. Mark Newman with ho! President with Walnut Grove at 1850, 20 s Street. I represent the 14 owners here for this meeting, and wanted to first say, You know, you know, we applaud the I the goal of a 0 carbon impact on on building in the area.

[124:10] But I also want to say, from a Si sustainability perspective, we're just wondering if density is really not the problem here. We keep this building, and we keep stacking in downtown boulder. We keep talking about being 0 carbon. We talk about all these things, but all as we do is just keep building on top of building, top building and keeping, creating creating density. Which is what this project is. Again, we really wanted to really impact carbon emissions, wouldn't we just have less units and less people? so then, but then, also, we, you know, we're really kind of curious about, I think there's some great points brought up about the current market rate. and some of the quotes that we just received and heard are rental rates that that are equal or more than we're. We have here right now for one and 2 bedroom places. So to me this just seems like a lot of good good conversation, but a good way to make some money, because it's more than we're actually getting in rent in some of the places in our area. So just not sure this is at 80%. And it's really what I would consider quote unquote, affordable.

[125:13] And then you know what happens if you know if the parking is. is truly an issue which we really all believe it's going to be in this neighborhood. We actually do have problems with parking. I don't know what study was done, or how it was done, or if it was done over a long period of time. But we have plenty of time in this neighborhood where you can't find parking on the street. So how is it that we're gonna be guaranteed that all these residents don't just decide. I don't wanna pay an extra 150 bucks. I'm gonna park over here and don't need to tell anybody. And then we absorb all that parking. And then the people who are now currently living here are gonna be impacted. And we're all gonna be driving around more looking for spaces and creating more carbon emissions. so I just really, I'm really concerned about that. And and so are we all here as owners. And that impact on us and our ability to park and our ability to use our area and

[126:09] just want to make sure that things are really on the up and up here. And some of this just doesn't sound right. And and you know, in relation to what Mason A asked earlier about, you know who manages the tenants basically in such a tight space on a daily basis. I mean, is there is there a provision for that? Is there a plan for that? There's no hoa. I get that that you guys seem dumbfounded by that question. But in this is, this is like a hotel. This is not really like an apartment building. So who's gonna manage the the use of the space, the the problems with noise, all the conflicts, the conflicts with parking, etc, etc. What's what's being done to manage the space, and is there in in all your retail space? Is there an office there where there's somebody there? Is there a manager on site? What's the plan for that. Reach the end of your you have 3 min.

[127:01] Well, thanks very much. And I hope you guys just don't approve this, please. Okay, final opportunity for anybody else to speak during the public hearing. Please raise your hand. Okay, make on calls. Please go ahead. Good evening calls at 1726 Broadway. I have no financial or any other connection to the sponsor of this project. We need dense, small units positioned along the central arteries. the central corridors, and the bus routes in our town. This is a good project for this site. 5 bus lines are within a few blocks of this place. For most of us it is hard to imagine a life other than the suburban subdivisions that we grew up in. But the young people, the people of color. They're showing us a different way of living, smaller, tighter.

[128:01] more social, fewer carbon emissions. Ml, you're usually concerned about the environment. But you spent 10 min of your time expressing a suburbanites concern about parking and how cars would fit in the alley if most of planning board discussion tonight is about parking cars. It'll be a lost opportunity. We can't create a future for our planet and our town that is worth living in. If we cannot transcend, transcend a lifestyle that is locked in suburban forms, with lots of parking and lots of cars. the neighbors have expressed vehem in opposition to the parking reduction. Who's going to manage this? There's not enough parking. I won't be able to park in front of my house. Nobody really lives without a car. What kind of people would want to live like this? We're called to a different future by the melting glaciers, the crazy weather, the overheated planet

[129:05] to enable people to live lightly in individual units and to provide places for people who want to live a sustainable life. small, efficient, using bikes and transit to date in Boulder. We have turned our backs on these folks, providing no new housing for them. Are we going to really ask for 200 square feet of parking for every 300 square feet of living space for humans. That would be absurd. Do we value homes for cars more than homes for people. I support the 60% parking reduction requested at 20 s and perl. This is a 15 min Neighborhood folks. The parking reduction supports this compact development. and it's needed for people who want to escape car dependence.

[130:01] Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being here. We have one more hand raised, Eric, but please go ahead, Eric. Hi, there Eric, Bud, I live in boulder I wanted to share my personal story, living in a place a lot like this. I own a condo on north Broadway, around ideal markets, that is, it's one of 40 units, and it is you know it's a very similar lifestyle to this. It's a very small one. Bedroom units when I moved into that condo I had a car, and it was something that I was really cognizant of. How could I reduce my footprint? How could I just get around town without having to get my car so much, and you know I I lived there for 7 years during the course I was the Hoa President, and really, you know, understood the importance of this kind of housing, and

[131:04] every single unit in that complex had a dedicated parking space. And this is something that costs the Hoa a lot of money. It's something that for me. When I got rid of my car back in 2014, I was essentially paying for had to pay for the costs of this parking that I was no longer using. And you think about that. You multiply that across the number of people that may want to live there may want to reduce their footprints, you know. Take advantage of living downtown. This is exactly the kind of housing that we should be making more accessible for people. So I absolutely support this, and thank you very much. Thank you very much. Just give folks one more opportunity to raise their hand. They haven't spoken yet. Okay, that concludes the public, hearing back over to you. Chair.

[132:00] Great we're. We're pretty far into this. We've got another public hearing stacked up on top of this. You guys want to take we either go through this now, or we take a 5 min bio break, and then we keep pushing forward. As I'm I'm concerned that we're gonna start hitting some time issues. Is everyone okay? With a 5 min bio break and coming back. Yeah, alright. So it's 8 13 at least by my clock. We'll be back here at 8 18.

[137:22] Hey, Vivian. she's on. Hi. You know, I noticed. I I realized as we were wrapping up just there, that the applicants cameras were still on, and they were still in present. So, and it looks like I might. Change them? Back. Yeah. It's that. Participant. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks.

[138:21] I don't think we've had a humming chair before. Alright, Mike, I'm usually muted alright who we have left here waiting for Laura. There's Laura mesa. Alright The 7 of us are here. I think we can get into deliberations. I just before we start just a request that everyone try to keep their commentary pretty tight just cause we got another public hearing this evening. So please don't. You know. Say things like I echo so and so, but don't necessarily repeat everything. If you've got a repetitive comments, but obviously feel free to express yourselves.

[139:16] and we'll start with Kurt. Well, I had a question I wanted to follow up my question to Staff about the angling of the sidewalk. Chandler, did you have a chance to look up anything and find out anything about that. Yes. So I looked at our initial review comments, and didn't find anything other than the requirement to provide a 12 foot sidewalk. In conjunction with chapter 2 point O, 8 of the Dcs. But just kind of back and forth discussion with staff it. It looks like potentially the reason for the angle might be to match the existing curb on the east. The property to the east of this, which doesn't have currently a detached sidewalk.

[140:01] It also appears that there's a fire hydrant on the corner. so I think maybe the combination of the fire hydrant and then trying to connect the sidewalk to the existing sidewalk to the east. Which is set a little bit further north. might be the reasoning for that. So the connection to the east. I think you're right. That's on the northeast corner. But I was talking about the northwest corner, the corner of Twenty-second, and curl. I'm sorry. The yeah, every all the East. I just said, make it west, please. There's not the matching to the existing sidewalk to the west. Sorry. Across the street. You're saying. Correct. Okay. He, okay? Thank you. Thomas, can we put up the or whoever has the screen share? Can we put up the key? The 2 things that we're considering this planning board to help guide our discussion. Sure. Would you like me to put those up.

[141:00] Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks, Charles. Our camera. Sorry, Vivian, you need to re-enable me to screen share. Please. Rape. so we've typically done is, I think we've taken these one at a time. I'm open to suggestions given. This is my first meeting sharing like this. But I just want to try to be efficient. yeah, go ahead, Mark. I I think all of the mic turning on and off when we each go around I I would suggest that we respond to both of these in brief, at the same time at the same time, and minimizes a lot of

[142:05] back and forth thing. That's great. I I think that's a great idea. Let's go ahead and do that. Does anyone want to start. I'm unmuted, but in the name of efficiency I'll go I find. This project consistent with the Site Review criteria, and on balance the BBC policies. I think it is emblematic of of what? The BBC puts forth as some of our goals, and in in regard to the parking reduction. I do find it consistent with the land use code 9, 6, rape. Efficient. Kurt. Thanks. Well, I'm very excited by this project. I think that this is exactly the direction that one of the directions that we need to be going in. You know this is it? It's definitely a step towards

[143:09] so more, a more sustainable way of living, which is lower carbon, less R, 3 car light which is a transition for us, and transitions are exciting and scary and challenging, and also growth. Experience. But I think that absolutely that it's a transition that needs to happen, that we want to have happen. and that that this is taking the step towards it also provides a form of of housing, a form of living, a way of living that is almost unavailable in this city. certainly almost unavailable in this area, and so from the standpoint that it increases the diversity of housing and living opportunities. I think it's great. So, getting to the specific questions, I agree, I think that Staff did a really good job of explaining just fine. Why? And I agree with it.

[144:09] So with Staff that the project is consistent with the the Site Review criteria, with one exception, and I will provide a condition for that later, and I agree that it is consistent with the parking reduction in step. thank you! Thanks. Kurt. Sorry. Sorry. I. It's a little distracting. I've got Danica's video on my screen. Just make sure that the applicants videos are turned off. Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. I also am excited by this project, and agree with Kurt's comments that it provides a a form of living that we don't have enough of in Boulder. And so with regard to the Site Review criteria, the first key issue, I do think, generally on balance, it is consistent, with one exception regarding the use of open space meeting the needs of the

[145:14] users of the project. I am concerned about the lack of seating benches on the ground floor. There is nice seating provided in the open space associated with that commercial area, that patio, but not much else around the project, and I think it would be especially appropriate near the transit pickup spot. So I'm going to be proposing a condition around that. And then, with regard to the parking reduction. I do think it is consistent with the parking reduction criteria in the land use code. You know, boulders a city of a hundred 8,000 people, and it seems unbelievable to me to think there wouldn't be about 20 of them who don't require a car and might not want to live in a development like this that is so close to downtown so I think that the parking reduction can be supported.

[146:03] Ml. Thank you. Yeah, I I find this project to be talking about a future that we should all be thinking about the idea of. I I have a car. I drive it once every 10 days. I walk everywhere. I'm going to East Boulder. I'm walking 6 miles. I'm walking 8 miles. No second link. Thinking about walking everywhere. This is a walkable city for people who are able to. So I I love the idea of transitioning away from using valuable space. You know. Decades ago I converted my garage to a studio. So good real estate should not be invested in in storing vehicles. But that's just me, all of my questions around parking.

[147:10] That's the main concern of the people that live in this neighborhood. So I I it was due diligence to go through a rigorous understanding of what are the impacts of of the car lack of car. And this project coming to this neighborhood. Regards to this the key issue. I guess it'd be number 2 around parking. I think it meets the criteria. I don't have any any concerns with. With that I do have my concern with the parking would be, and I will propose, I think, a a condition. Hold the project accountable to continuing, monitoring and communicating with the residential neighborhoods that potentially could be impacted. Because, although this is a a look into the future, I think we have to get to the future. And I think in order to get there, we may need to have

[148:10] some continued understanding of, okay. So so what is it doing to the existing fabric of these neighborhoods? So that is my one, my one issue, the the main issue I have is as we looked at. And thank you, George, for pressing this. What is going to be? What is the cost? What is going to be the rent on these. And I think that you know. Eventually the applicant put out 2,400 a month. So that's 30% of about a hundred 1,000 a year. who? Who? The target market of workforce. which target market, which workforce is making a hundred grand a year. and is willing to live in 300 square feet.

[149:01] So I am very challenged by the price point that this will need to command in order to be feasible. I'm guessing to the developer. If this project is what it is. and they were renting for 1,200 a month all in a thousand times in that would be workforce housing people who are working in the neighborhood. The people who are working in the shops would afford to live there. But who's making a hundred grand and going to live in 300 square feet. I mean. So to me, that's the real challenge of this. And I think that's the issue that comes. I had more than anything, and that is ghost speaks to a BBC concern of affordability and middle missing middle housing. I I applaud the developers having a vision.

[150:03] but I don't see somebody earning that income level. choosing to live in a 300 square foot unit. when, as one of the people who has managed an hoa across the street, says you can get a 2 bedroom apartment for that. So that's my biggest concern. and I don't know if we can condition our way through that, because you know, it's a Bvcp policy and it. It is a piece of the policy, but it isn't necessarily. You can find an on balance by looking away from that, so that those are my concerns. With it. But I do. I do think that the a developer bringing this project onto the table is incredibly appropriate.

[151:00] I think we have to be thinking on how the car kind of moves out of our reality. However. I'm not sure that the target market makes makes any sense. I I don't see this being workforce housing, and that's really unfortunate, because I do think that's what we need. And at this size, you know, people aren't. This is not long term housing. If they're making good money they're here. They're checking out boulder. They're gonna live in a fully furnished apartment, for, you know, 6 months or a temporary amount of time. So I think that there is some catching up that society has to do, and that the the economy has to do in order to, in fact, meet the potential of what this project is proposing. But yes, on the key issues. I do believe that it does meet both of them. Yeah, sorry. My answer wasn't short. But oops move my hand.

[152:01] Someone want to speak next Mason or Claudia. Yeah, I can go ahead. so I'll try to keep my my comments short as requested. I do believe that this project meets the Site Review criteria land use code and is on balance with BBC P policy. You know the the the staff did list out a number of principals, and clearly laid out how this meets those. Just an additional comment there. I really appreciate the goal of this project be net. 0 embodied and operational carbon emissions. And you know I do find myself hoping that this helps address our

[153:00] deficit that we have in terms of housing and its impact on the. you know, 60,000 people that commute every day in to boulder. I also do believe that it is consistent with the parking reduction criteria the you know. As was mentioned in the presentation, the Transportation Board looked at the Tdm. And said it was above and beyond anything they've ever seen, and that they have seen Tdms like this. Even though they weren't as rigorous or as as as it does impact behavior. So I do expect that we will see people opting into a car free lifestyle here. And I really hope for that I do share concerns that we heard from the public and and other folks on on the board. you know my main concern is just ensuring that the Tdm. And affordability remains intact into the future regardless of ownership.

[154:08] I'm not really sure, as was mentioned, that we can. you know, work our way into that spot, but I would propose that Attendance Association or Union be put into place to represent the tenants, not only to resolve conflicts with parking or open space use as a caller mentioned, but also to negotiate with the owners, and to ensure that some of these provisions remain intact, regardless of of who owns the building. It's not completely unheard of for an owner to initiate tenant association. So I really, I really hope they do so. Yeah, that's all my comments. Rape. Claudia. I'll be incredibly brief. I think it answered a question one the project is absolutely consistent. With site, review criteria and land use code. I am particularly grateful for this addition to diverse housing types in city of Boulder. This is something that we do not have. This is a place to do it. In the downtown area, and I welcome the opportunities. For car free living in that area.

[155:17] With regard to question 2. The parking reduction. I think. And I've expressed this, I think tangentially I would be interested in seeing actually stronger Tdm proposals in the future. But I do recognize that tab checked off on this one, and I respect the work that Tab does very highly at this point in time. I think there are some issues raised this evening. In terms of just design, features of a project that can actually make some of those Tdm principles and tools. Go even farther, be more attractive to people to use, and I hope that folks will look at those in the future. But I think this goes far enough for the parking reduction at this point in time

[156:01] rape. to everybody. I'm gonna call on myself. My main concerns stem with similar to ml. as it relates to how this is pitched versus the reality of what may happen here. as I mentioned in in in my, in my comments to the applicant, when you look up where these furnishings are placed, and the available apartments that are in these things. They go from Menlo Park almost 6,000 to a studio. Austin almost 4,000 for a studio, Boston, almost over 3,000 for studio, and so on, and so on. Fourth and so. if we think that this is going to create attainable, affordable housing for people that are working in this area outside of the tech sector.

[157:00] I am very skeptical that that will happen. I'm also skeptical that this is nothing more than a hoteling opportunity for people that fly in and out of here. And have an opportunity to stay, because to the point of people making over $100,000, which is where these people will likely be coming from. It it will likely be not a primary residence for someone staying in 300, not saying that everyone will be like that. But I have a strong suspicion that that will be the case. The parking? I I I don't. I don't see much of an issue, because I see that being people flying in and out. I I don't see this being permanent residence in Boulder. It's it looks like a converted motel to me. And so with that, while I I think that boulder would be better served with different product.

[158:02] I I don't see an issue with the the parking reduction. I do think that that boulder in this area would be better served by removing the units on the first floor and wrapping that with additional commercial space to activate this area? In a better way, because those are that particular, those 4 or 5 units that are down on that first floor with that cement area fenced in. Doesn't seem terribly appealing as a resident, and I could see that being much more beneficial as activated commercial space. That being said, I think that the developer would be reluctant to do that because using their number of $2,400 a month at 300 square feet. That's 96 dollars a square foot. And commercial rents in that area are about a third of that.

[159:03] So I think it's important for us as a board to understand the economics. When you look at building other units. that these may be viewed as attainable. on a per square foot basis, they will be some of the most expensive apartments that Boulder has approved. Those are my comments. That being said Kurt, I think you had a oh sorry, Mark, do you have a something? A sec. Mark, you're muted. I I was since we had all gone around. I was just going to offer to the chair that since we're into our second hour. going into our third hour of this particular hearing. And we have another one coming.

[160:02] I have a motion and a condition I've just sent email. And Kurt sounds like he has one and if we wanted to start actually debating and addressing motions to approve, deny condition, I have mine ready to go whenever you want to make that transition. I I think I'm ready to. I think Kurt wanted to say something, but I see Laurel's hand is up as well. Kirk can go first. I just wanted to comment quickly on some condition things that were mentioned before we get into the conditions and motions. Okay. And I, on further investigation, I'm not gonna submit. My condition. Okay. we'll we'll go ahead. Thank you. Thank thank you. Tara. I just wanted to remind the Board to make sure that all of your conditions are rooted in the criteria that we have under site review. That's really important. As this is the the review criteria that you're looking at in order to make a decision on whether this particular project meets the standards in the code. So just a quick reminder on that. There was a couple of things mentioned. One thing I would steer away from a little bit is this idea of limiting rent as that could be considered rent control which is not allowed?

[161:23] Unfortunately, in this process, and it's also not part of our site. Review criteria so that's something I wanted to flag. The other thing I wanted to flag, too, is as far as condominium associations and things like that. Those are private contracts between people who live at those locations. It's not something that the city regulates or can regulate so just wanted to flag those couple of things. And just a quick reminder to look at the site review criteria. Thank you, Jerry. Great mark. You wanna talk us through your motion. Yes, so and and I

[162:00] I'm open to suggestions on how to do this with the way I've structured it, and and the in the email I just sent. And if Thomas or anyone can maybe put that up, what I have is a motion to approve with using Staff's language. and then a motion to condition strictly on the parking requirement. Just a quick variation on that on the car share. So while maybe, while. That's a getting put up. I will. Maybe I should. I'll just make the motion, see if we get a second, and and then we can. Then I can speak to the motion. Right? Okay. okay. So I'm gonna go ahead and and make this make the first motion to approve. and then

[163:02] and then we can either do it as a an amendment to the motion. or we can do it as as a completely separate motion. But the first motion is motion to approve. Site review, application. number LUR. 2023, dash 0, 0 0 2 0. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. subject to conditions as approved by the planning board. Second. that. So then, if I can, I'll speak briefly to the motion to approve again. As as we all went through the the 2 key criteria as as a presented by staff. and we all for the most part.

[164:01] agree to those 2, and and just falling on to Laurel's comments that that I actually am very excited to see this come before us. With only coming before us, for one thing, and that was the parking reduction. our good work on the Use Review tables and on the Site Review tables over the last 2 years, and those of us that were here in the last 2 years. The the Site Review criteria update and the use review criteria update would have if if we had dealt with parking. This project would have not come before us at all. and I think it's important to note that we that we should, if a project meets the criteria. meets the code meets the criteria, fulfills the goals of the BBC and

[165:00] then we we should primarily stick to conditioning and the things that are subject to condition and are subject to our our view. So I I would first say, Let's let's approve it, and then then we can talk about possible conditions. Okay. Go ahead. Laura. Happy to go ahead and approve the main motion and then talk about possible conditions. I just want to note that I also had a possible condition that I have put into the Webinar chat. Great. Why don't? Why don't we go ahead? And with the first motion, then, and then do some conditions, and see if they go up and down. Does someone wanna make the primary motion. I think I just did.

[166:01] You just did, okay. And Kurt seconded. That's correct. Okay, great. Let's go ahead and vote on it. Mark. Yes. Hurt. Yes. Ml. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a no. So if motion succeeds, 6, one. Is it okay? If I proceed or do. since we've got my condition up here. Yeah, let's go. Let's let's continue. Let's go with condition, and then we'll get to Laura's. Okay. I move to condition the application number LUR. 202-30-0020 applicant shall increase the number of shared vehicles from one to 2.

[167:00] I'm sorry. Mark, wait 1 s. Looks like Charles has his hand up. Thanks. Chair. From a staff perspective. If you wanted to increase the number of car share spaces, that would be a fine condition. What we can't guarantee is the use of the city's right of way to accomplish that. That's something that we could certainly explore with the applicant. As part of the subsequent processes that they'll need to undergo. But we wouldn't be able to guarantee that we haven't studied it. We don't have anybody from transportation on the call here. So we'd want to make sure that we weren't creating a condition that wasn't possible to implement. So thank you and I. And and this was one. So as I there's a further complication, though, and that is, if we created 2 car share spaces. not in the public right of way within the site. Does that change the whole application

[168:03] to to actually an additional parking reduction? Is that. No, it wouldn't change the parking reduction. It would just reduce the amount of private vehicle storage. I mean, they could repurpose one of the parking spaces. For an additional car, share space and not affect the the overall reduction only if they started redesigning the interior of the parking garage. Would that become an issue. Okay, I'm going to if Thomas, if you could, after an on street location. the comma, if possible. So that, anyway. So let me continue with the motion, and I I appreciate Charles applicant shell. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mark, before you go on. That sentence to me is grammatically unclear. It's not clear to me, if the, if possible refer. If it's saying the applicant shall increase the number of shared vehicles from one to 2, and that the thing that is possible is working with the city to create an on street location, in which case the applicant is still obligated to create 2 parking spaces, even if the city cannot accommodate, or if you want to move that, if possible.

[169:23] to the front of the sentence, so that it says, if possible. applicant shall increase the number of shared vehicles from one to 2. So you do want to obligate them to increase from one to 2, even if they cannot get a shared space on street. Yes, that's correct. Okay. So, but I but I. L. But go ahead and put that back. So is Laura. Is it clear? Just by leaving the, if possible, into you, that working with the city, to working with the city.

[170:01] if possible, to create an on street location period. Have that bye. I would want to know how Staff would interpret that, because when I read that I think it is clear that you want to increase the number of shared vehicles from one to 2, regardless of whether there can be an on street location. But I don't know how Staff would read that I see. Brad has his hand up. Yes, thank you. I'm gonna use this opportunity to finally, after me use years, use my English degree and suggest that if you just take the comma away it says, working with the city to create a non street location, if possible. I think you just want to remove. Elegant. There we go. That's that's super. And you know what I I have been comma happy lately. So yeah, let's get rid of that comma. And Major for the win.

[171:00] Okay. so I'll just start over with this. With this motion to condition. I move to condition the application. LUR. 202-30-0020 applicant shall increase the number of shared vehicles from one to 2, working with the city to create an on street location, if possible. at the end of the first year after receiving their certific after, at the end of the first year after receiving their certificate of occupancy based on demand and use. Applicant and city staff will agree on an adjusted number of car shares. The adjusted number will not be less than one car share subsidy shall continue for a minimum of 5 years. Mark, can I ask you a question? Oh, I I we need a second or. Well, just for clarity. I I there's a redundancy right here.

[172:03] On the one hand, you want to redo increase it from one to 2, and, on the other hand, you're saying it, can. It can go down to as little as one. After the adjustment period. Yes. So would it make sense to have the adjusted adjustment period first. No, it it would, it would be after. So it starts off at 2. I'll I'll talk about that. Why, once we get a second Got it so. Office 2 after one year it will get evaluated by the owners and city staff, and and it can be adjusted up or down. But it can't go less than can't go less than one. Got it. Thank you for that. Can I ask a clarifying question before we look for a second? So from Chandler or other staff, we're talking here about a car share subsidy, and it was unclear to me. Exactly what that means. Does that mean that the developer is providing money to the car share company to help fund resident use. So, for example, if the car share company usually is $10 an hour, the developers kicking in 5 like what does, or if the developer is providing $1,000 a year like, what does the car share subsidy

[173:17] mean? Is that the alternative transportation fund that's given to residents? I'm unclear on what the car share subsidy actually is. Yeah, it it. This is Chandler. It? It doesn't specify in the Tdm plan. The Tdm plan says that they will subsidize a car share vehicle? It doesn't specify the provider or the amount of subsidy. you know. Now that you guys are discussing this in so much detail it. It kind of makes me realize that it, that it may have been something we should have asked for more clarity, and that I think we kind of assumed that they were going to pay for the entire car share vehicle based on the way it was written in the Tdm plan. The conditions of approval require them to follow the Tdm plan as approved.

[174:03] so yeah, that didn't really answer your question. but essentially, they're required to provide a subsidized car share vehicle, but we don't really know what level of subsidy that represents. Right. The way that I read that is, that they're on the hook to provide a car share as part of their Tdm, so whether or not it says that they're it's a supplement or I. I think the way that we interpret the Tdm. Is that they're providing a car share vehicle as part of their Tdm. So I I just, I'd like to clarify. I I spent some time doing a little research and discussion today, not about this specific project, but about car shares and so my understanding is that this is a negotiated thing between the car share provider and the property owners

[175:01] the the degree of subsidy amount of subsidy because the car share companies are looking for a a specific amount of revenue from the car share. So it's not so. That may be a variable that the property owner in has to incur, and they would be encouraging their tenants to use the car share, so that their subsidy was reduced. But it it is a negotiated situation between the car share company and the the building ownership as required by cities like Boulder, requiring car shares. So if I'm understanding correctly, the cost to the Resident to use this car share might be the same as using Colorado car share anywhere in the city. But the the benefit that is being provided here is that there is a car share available on site, and that is what the developer is helping to make possible by working with the car, share some company to make sure that they make the amount of profit that they need to. Even if the residents don't use it very much.

[176:10] Correct. Okay. I would like to second. I would like to second this motion. Grant like shall we invoke. Well, okay. Can I quickly speak to it? Yeah. Just just in the just a note. at at 9, at 9 o'clock. Do we have to make? Is it 9 or 10 that we have to make a determination as a board on whether to continue a new item. Yeah, I think it's 10. I'll double check while you guys are discussing this. But I'm pretty sure it's 10. I think it's 10, too. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. Sorry. Go ahead, Mark. Okay, I just wanna say that a car share

[177:01] is effective when it's available. So the right number for a car share is having a car available when a tenant needs to use it. and and when you have only one with a building with 45 residents that builds a situation where likely the car will not be available when someone needs it. And so to me, 2 is a is a minimum, and there's a mathematical calculation that goes into that again from my car share research. So most most car share companies. And research seems to show that one car share replaces somewhere between 9 to 14 vehicles privately owned vehicles, and because we, our car, spent so much time not being driven they spent so much, spend so much time being parked that that's actually a a you know, a calculable and verifiable number. So if we take the number of, let's say 12, and we have 2 car shares. That's 24 plus the 18

[178:12] so if you look at the 18, not including the the tandem spaces, that is 40. I had the math there. Anyway, plus the tan spaces. We actually, you can calculate that this would bring the project up to the equivalent of a fully part project. While not being well, actually achieving our goals of reduced sob usage. and and addressing a lot of the neighborhood concerns and making it really possible for someone to move in here and reliably having access to a shared vehicle. So that's my, that's my pitch on this condition.

[179:04] Alright. Should we go ahead and take a vote? I'm out. Sorry, George. I I just wanna I I won't be supporting this, and the reason I won't be supporting it is, I think the market will take care of it. You know, people need another car share. and they're moving out because they don't have access to things. I think because this is a new model, a newish model for our city. I think we have to understand that some of these things are going to get fleshed out just with the use of the building and the use of the concept. And the you know, people becoming familiar. We had a car share in the affordable housing project next to North Boulder Rec Center, and it was there for like 5 or 6 years. And now it's gone. I mean, nobody used it. Course they have parking, and they have cars. They don't have enough parking, because

[180:01] That's the way the site was set up. But all all I'm I think, to encumber the motion with this added piece. I think the market will take care of it. I absolutely agree with Mark that people will begin to realize how much they do or don't, and I don't know the answer depend on the car share. But I I do believe that the market this is something that will happen. Naturally with use, and if the developers and the owners want to make it a viable project, they will keep their eyes on this sort of thing. Because otherwise people won't live there. So that's that's my position. Thank you for putting it forward, though, Mark, I think it's an important point. Laura. I'm just curious. If other board members want to have discussion before we go to a vote. Happy to have discussion. I I I agree with Ml. And that I I think the market is gonna take care of it. I mean things like uber and lyft and the lime scooters there, those things are moving so fast.

[181:04] For us to condition out beyond a car. I I just don't know that we have the technological expertise to make calculations around what and what may not be the use when in reality, I think there's disagreement on the board about who actually the demographic. This building will even be serving South. George, is it okay? If I comment as well. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I am also, although I really appreciate Mark bringing this forward and the research that you have done around what makes a car share viable. And I understand the concern that you might be shooting yourself in the foot with just one car share, because it's not a viable model, and you really need to for people to give up their car and use it. I understand that concern, but I am reluctant for us to decide. Kind of off the cuff tonight that this is the right way to help improve transportation in this area. I I feel like the Tdm plan was pretty carefully hammered out with staff and reviewed by the tab

[182:04] and asking this project to go above and beyond again and provide an additional car share, feels feels like maybe overstepping a little bit. But maybe something for Staff to consider in the future is this idea of? Is one car share a viable model, and maybe use this project as a test pilot. Kurt. Thanks. I will be supporting this. I think that Mark made a good argument, for why, just having one car share is really not sufficient for a car like development like this. I think that having to provide a lot more flexibility, a lot more certainty to the tenants. That they would have a car available when they needed one. So I think that this is the right direction to be going. and I also, as noted in my my questions. I was concerned about the duration of the car share subsidy or the card, whatever we're calling it the car share requirement. And so I appreciate that this motion codifies the duration of that.

[183:12] so I will be supporting. Anyone else want to comment before we vote? No. Mark. Yes. Laura. No. Mason. No. Claudia. Yes. Hurt. Yes. Ml. No. And me. No motion fails 4 to 3. Laura, do you want to bring forward your condition? Sure. I put it into the chat. So, Thomas, I don't know if you can copy and paste to the Revised Version into a potential condition under the main motion.

[184:05] Sorry about the coughing are we able to bring that up on screen so that the audience can see it as well. thank you, Thomas. So this is a motion to condition the application, so that ground level open space better meets the needs of the users, which is in the Boulder Revised Code that that's part of our site review criteria that the open space has to meet the needs of users and better accomplishes the intended outcomes of the Tdm. Plan. The applicant will add an outdoor covered seating area associated with the rideshare pickup spot. And I I specified outdoor, because if it's indoors, it would not be available to people who are not residents of the building.

[185:05] That's my motion. Happy to discuss more if it gets a second. Per. I'm raising my hand, saying, I'll second it, Laura. Just a point of phrasing. I think laurel usually prefers to phrase these that the plans will be modified to show an outdoor covered seating area, or something to that effect. I am totally fine with that friendly amendment, Thomas, can you? If Ml. Is also okay with that. can we modify it? So that instead of saying, the applicant will add. it would so delete the applicant will and add the site plan will be modified to add.

[186:03] Thank you. Hmm. good. Catch Kurt. Yeah. Nice. Should it just say in rather than add, include. That's fine! And roll. We can change, add, to include. happy, to discuss. If anybody wants to discuss. Otherwise. Maybe, Laura, maybe you could restate the motion one more time. If no one has any comment, then we can vote on it. Okay, motion to condition the application so that the ground level open space better meets the needs of users and better accomplishes the intended outcomes of the Tdm plan. The Site plan will be modified to include an outdoor covered seating area associated with the Rideshare pickup spot. I'll second that. Okay. did Ml, second it, or for a second. I did well. Originally I did. And we'll put them. So I. Right.

[187:00] It's such a good motion you can fight over. Who can second it. Well, we're stating it and getting a second because of the of the, and we all put our thumbs up. Okay, alright, but. Chelsea. Vote on it. For. Yes. Mark. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. Mason. Yes. Laura. Yes. I'm out. Yes. And I'm a yes. Woohoo! We agree. Okay. George, I had a condition that I had put into chat. Did you not see that. Oh, no! Hold on. I'm assuming that Thomas has seen it. Now, what if Thomas can put that condition on the screen? That would be great, and you can speak to it. Ml. Thomas, do you see it in the chat?

[188:01] Is this the the full language here. I believe it is. I guess it'd be a motion, a motion to condition. Take the first sentence of Laura's. The application to adequately, adequately accommodate the commercial uses. That is one of the criterias adequately, adequately accommodate the uses and what I the reason I think that this is important to put forth as a consideration for us is that so many of the people that live in the neighborhood that we're supporting the project we're excited about the commercial. It, you know, wasn't an afterthought, whereas when we look at okay, the the applicant, you know, made it sort of the minimum. They got their 20 feet, you know, depth. And they did, and no parking

[189:01] but it's something that the people that are actually excited about. They're interested in getting more commercial in that part of the neighborhood. So I think we want to set them up for success. IA and I. There was no study done, so we don't know what commercial people, if they have parking or not, but that's the reason that I thought I should put it forward so that the commercial tenants have the best chance of succeeding, because it seems like it is an asset. That A makes this a mixed use project and B will support the community at large. So I move to condition the application to adequately accommodate the commercial use with one dedicated parking space per commercial tenant. And I'm looking for a second. Mason. Do we do comments after the second.

[190:02] Sucked. Okay, I'll do comment later. I'll I'll second it. Can I go ahead and comment? Yeah. Although I appreciate where you're coming from. Ml, I I won't be supporting this motion. I I think the the study show that there were sufficient space to to allow for people to park for the commercial use on the public areas. And I think there's also, you know, as as we've harped on a lot, there's other modes of transportation to get here. So I think that this is a above and beyond what? What should be asked of for this applicant. Thanks, Mason. I'll comment on it since I was a second on it. I I don't know, and and maybe maybe Staff can. Maybe maybe chandler, maybe you can answer this. Is there a loading area programmed for the commercial or for this space on the street?

[191:04] The the only loading area that's shown on the plans is is just the one on the in the alley on the south side of the building. Aye. I can talk a little bit from experience in that. I own, probably have north of 20 commercial tenants. and most likely whether the owner or the business owner or receiving deliveries in and out. There are lots of reasons to have a parking space for an active business. Not all active businesses necessarily need parking spaces. But to Ml's point, on the greatest chance for viability. you know, this is this is an interesting concept in the unbund, the sum principles to the opposite. In that you're gonna have a business owner that's gonna get charged

[192:01] one rent one way or the other. And having a bundled parking spot in with the business. could be very beneficial for them to operate and so that's why I'm supporting it. I I think, from a viability standpoint I think it gives it the best chance to succeed. Retail is retail is difficult, as we all know in these main street areas. And I think we need to to do what we can to support them. Thanks more apple. Laura. Did. Thank you. So, even though I understand the arguments from Ml. And from George about why this might be beneficial to the commercial tenants. I'm hesitant to put a motion on an application that contradicts the zoning right in this mu zone. This commercial space is not required to have parking for the retail, and I don't know how we do that for this project, and not for every other mu project. Or I think it's mu. 3 is the zoning on this one? Sorry I don't have my my packet in front of me. And as the consultant pointed out

[193:20] that those spaces along. Pearl are the ones that are almost never utilized. Nobody's parking over there. And that's right where these commercial buildings are so, or these commercial spaces would be. So I'm I'm but I'm mostly reluctant to put a condition that contradicts our zoning. Hey! Kirk. Thanks Laura, that's good point. I'll also point out that there are all kinds of commercial spaces on rostered Mall, on East Pearl on West Perl that are older that don't have dedicated parking, and they function just fine. In fact. they are extremely successful in a lot of cases, and so I don't think that this is necessary. I think it would be moving us in the wrong direction, so I won't be supporting.

[194:06] Thanks, Kurt. Other comments. Can we vote? Start with Kurt? No. Claudia. No. Ml. Yes. Laura. No. Mason. No. Mark. No. And I mean yes, the motion fails. 5, 2 any other conditions that people want to put forward to the motions? Now. Alright! I think that concludes This public hearing for this item laurel. Yeah. The only last thing I was gonna say, is. Usually we have the jur in our according to our rules. Reread them. The motion. I know that Laura reread her section so, but it. I think it would be helpful just to read it one more time for the record.

[195:09] And are we rereading the entire motion with the approved condition. The main motion, I think. Main motion where. Apologies. It's in our role. So just trying to. Can you put it up on the screen? No, I'm happy to reread the main motion. I can put it in the chat, too. I don't know if that's helpful, but. Either way. I just need some place to read it. Yeah laurel. If you could put it in the chat, I'll put it up on the screen for everybody. So. Thank you. Apologies to slow us down a little bit. There. Yeah, yeah. No problem. Motion to approve. Site review, application, LUR, 2023, 0 0 2, 0. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of the review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, subject to the conditions

[196:11] as approved by the planning board. and is that it? Oh, you're you're muted. You're muted. Laurel. Sorry about that. I think I put it in there. And then. I added, Laura's one condition. You guys have. In motion to condition the application. LUR. 2,023, 0 0 2 0, so that the ground level open space better meets the needs and of users and better accomplishes the intended outcomes of the Tdm plan. The Site plan will be modified to include an out tor covered seating area associated with the Rideshare pickup spot. We're good. Yes, thank you. Alright. Great.

[197:01] I. If everyone's okay, I I think we should push forward and into the next public hearing right away. Yeah. Good. Okay. Do you want me to read the next public hearing. Yeah, yeah. And just so, you know, to go back to your question about adjournment. Anything that starts after 10 pm. Has to have a vote. So since we're before 10 pm. You're good. But yes, if you could read the agenda to start that. public hearing and consideration of the Use Review to allow residential uses on the ground floor, facing a street in an industrial service. One zone district located at 4, 7, 2, 5, Broadway. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing site with 2 new residential buildings containing 21, 3, story townhouse units with private garages reviewed under case number LUR. 202-20-0032. Alright.

[198:01] Take it away. George, I'm sorry I I I need to. Make a little announcement in regard to this project before we continue. Sure. Okay ex parte. Communications are discouraged and must be disclosed. And so I am. I don't think I'm in a gray area, but I think other people could interpret some communication I've had as potentially expert communication in regard to this use review Matt North, who is a tenant in one of the buildings is a is a friend of my sons, and I have done some business with him. He owns a Band Conversion company. He! And so Matt, in in this case. This the Planning board did not call up this project. Matt called this project up

[199:05] and did so without me being involved, but once he had called it up he contacted me. I discussed with Matt nothing about the project. but I discussed with him, planning board procedures, and how we operate, and those sorts of things. I did not discuss any merits or anything about the Use Review that we're about to embark on. But I want to be clear with everyone that I did have a discussion with the person that called this up about procedure. Just to follow up with that. One of the things that we ask board members is whether or not they think they could still be fair and impartial, and this is for quasi judicial matters, and one of the tenants for board members is that they could be fair and impartial when deciding we're ha reviewing a project for them. So I just wanna check in with Mark to let us know for us and the record. If you think you can be fair and impartial in observing this and overviewing this project.

[200:04] I I I think I can be very impartial. In regard to this use review in the subject before us. Okay. any other comments before Alison steps in. Nope. Okay, take it away. Thanks, Mark. Okay, can everyone see this? Yes, okay. We'll just go ahead and get started. Good evening. Planning board and welcome to our 2 newest members. My name is Alison Blaine, senior Planner. And this presentation is for user view to allow for residential uses. At 47 25 Broadway in tonight's presentation, I'll briefly cover the information that was provided in the staff Memo, including the purpose of the user view and process, the existing site conditions and surrounding context. a description of the proposal for the site and a key issue for discussion.

[201:03] This type of use review is typically a staff decision subject to call up. This item was appealed by the public on February seventh following, planning board meeting on February sixth. As such approval. The application is now required at a public hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the user view application. Finding that the proposal is consistent with the criteria found in section 9 2 15 e. And subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Another note. This is a bit of a unique use. Review. Well, that is proposing development of residential. It is not a site review. So we're just looking at the use and the subsequent impacts. The project completed the necessary notice. Requirements for the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and public notice was posted on the property during the initial review. Staff did receive feedback from several neighbors. In opposition one neighbor in opposition. One neighbor had questions about the scope and process, and a third neighbor supported development, but had further questions. Following the meeting on February sixth staff formally received the appeal as well as additional neighbor feedback that was included in the packet since then additional feedback has been submitted directly to planning board.

[202:16] The subject site is approximately 2.3 acres and located in North Boulder, on the western side of Broadway, just south of Lee Hill Road. The site is zoned, is one definition. Is there on the slide? And you can see, the site is surrounded by a variety of zoning districts, including is one and 2 to the north, in the south, Bt. One and 2 immediately to the north, lower density residential to the west as well as mixed, use zones and mixed density zones to the east. Like the zoning district map. The surrounding context of these areas of this area is made up of a variety of uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Single family. Residential, is located west of the St. On Zamia and further north north of Lee Hill Road. There are mixed density residential developments nearby, including the armory, which is just across the street along Broadway.

[203:13] the area also includes several commercial office uses, including the Comfort in suites. North Boulder library branch, various restaurants and mixed use developments along Broadway, areas to the north and south to include industrial uses, such as storage facilities and auto repair services. The site currently contains an industrial building constructed in 1978, about 19,000 square feet, with some accessory structures on the site the site is predominantly made up of gravel surface parking at the moment, and the existing uses include auto, repair shops. recreational vehicle sales, and a growth facility for cannabis. The site is subject to the North Boulder sub community plan that boundary shown here in blue. It is considered a neighborhood and transition for the plan. The intent of the neighborhood, and transition is to create walkable neighborhoods with short blocks that are comfortable for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and also emphasize human scale neighborhood character.

[204:11] And while the plan does encourage the preservation of industrial areas, it cites many goals and objectives, including a diversity of housing in our boulder and upgrading the appearance of the Broadway corridor. The proposed development for the site is 2 residential buildings containing a total of 21 townhouse units that will be located on the ground floor, facing a street. As part of the proposal, the applicant is constructing half the width of Samia af between Tenth and Broadway, as that East West connection consistent with the transportation master plan and or polar sub community plan. Access will be taken from Zamia with additional pedestrian access to and from Broadway via internal walkway connection. Each unit will have private enclosed garages and individual rooftop decks. Note that Staff did conduct a preliminary review of the proposal for conformance with form in bulk, intensity, and development standards as part of the user view process. However, just to reiterate the Use Review is to review the proposal for compliance with the criteria of 9 2 15 e. Therefore additional design guidelines do not apply outside of the user view criteria.

[205:22] The key issue for tonight's discussion is is the proposal consistent with the Use review criteria found in Section 9, 2, 15, staff does find that the proposal was consistent with the criteria the proposed residential use is located in an area where other residential uses occur, as well as a variety of commercial and industrial uses. The residential uses are situated on the site in a manner that mitigates negative impacts from the other properties, and the proposed development provides a transition from single family houses to the West to commercial uses to the east the construction of the zoom. Zamia app extension creates shorter walkable walks to better link residential uses to Broadway and provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists consistent with the North Boulder. So Community plan

[206:10] and I'll wrap it up there. If anyone has any questions. Any questions for Alison Kurt. Yeah. There was a question in the public comment in the the letters that we got about the connection through to Tenth Street, and I know this came up in our when we were reviewing it before, and I don't recall the answer, but just to confirm Zamia, bride or avenue will be constructed all the way through West to Tenth Street. Is that right? Yes, and that question. That comment had come through during the initial application. And there were some site design changes between the initial application and the final iteration that connection here is shown.

[207:03] That's kind of hard to see. But in that northwest corner, all the way to Tenth. Yup, okay? And and also the sidewalk. Yep. Great. Thank you. And I'll. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Ellison. We don't see you anymore. But so keeping this drawing there. the street that will be a through street is to the north of the project. Is that correct? Correct. Where your cursor is. Yep. Aren't the garages on the south. The garages are. The access is yes, from the south. So how do people get to their garages? There's an access point right here. Where my cursor is. Got it. Enter the site, and then they can pull into their individual garages. Okay? So I have a couple of questions on

[208:01] criteria. The rationale criteria. So criteria number B, talks about providing compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses so immediately adjacent north of the property is a hotel and the City Transportation Department facility. and immediately. To the south is industrial. A a parking lot, with lots of cars and and all. So how does a 2 buildings with rows of townhouses create a transition between those 2 uses. I I mean, I think the the applicant might speak to that and some of their presentation. I think they look at some of the surrounding context and why, the site was picked for the development. I think a lot of that analysis was specifically looking at connecting the.

[209:05] Sorry to interrupt you, Alison Andrew, see your applicant. Can can you wait to turn on your camera until we're done with staff questions? Thank you. Oh, I was just gonna say that that a lot of that rationale and analysis came from looking at the single family residential to the West, and those commercial higher intensity uses to the east along Broadway. Right. That is what you said in your analysis. I was curious about the the longest interfaces with what's existing, which are the north and south ones, and what you're thinking was along those and it sounds like, maybe you with I I didn't hear an answer. How do these buildings service a transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, which is the longest

[210:01] relationship that this project establishes with what's existing. Sure. I I just said that I think the applicant is gonna address. More of that in their presentation and their announce the surrounding area. Okay. So my second question to you is, number 5 of the criteria talks about the character of the area and that it should be it should consider. Take into consideration the adopted design guidelines. And obviously the Bvc, so the BBC identifies this as community industrial. There is no residential referenced in the Boulder Valley Comp plan, land use for that area. The Boulder sub community plan identify. It's part of a big swath of transitional neighborhoods. And in that definition

[211:02] it talks about the transitional neighborhoods. That each are unique and the specific recommendations are listed on the following pages. The specific recommendation for this site. In the boulder in the North boulder sub community plan in its future growth, is industrial. So I am curious as to how this project meets that number 5. Given that the Boulder Valley Comp Plan identifies it as community industrial and the future growth proposed in that area under the North Boulder Subcommittee Plan is industrial. So a residential project meet those those 2 governing

[212:01] guidelines and plans. Sure, and so I can. You know the that number 5 criteria is looking at the the character of the surrounding area as well as character of established by adopted design. Guidelines. It does not specifically call up the BBC is, you know, I think, other stuff can can chime in. But it's not typically criteria that is looked at through a use review as as far as the Bvcp policies. but I'm looking at. You know the the entire criteria which does look at the entire character of the area. Not just in our boulder. Sub community plan. We do see a variety of of different uses. And then going to the north boulder sub community plan there are some design guidelines that are intended for. All residential projects. And that includes you know, some of the

[213:08] what we see with the the front porch features. and really having that neighborhood feel But the the North Boulder subcommittee plane does cite many goals and objectives. For the area. So it's future. It's it's proposed future growth in this area, identifying that as an industrial you're saying is outweighed by some different What Different regular guidelines. Is that? Is that what I'm understanding. Yeah, no, I'm having trouble understanding your question. If it's about how it transitions to a residential zone. you know, I I think our thinking was you know the North Boulder sub community plan

[214:07] especially for this area champions a walkable neighborhood with better connections. There's a variety of uses. that can develop under the industrial zone district. And I think. it's reasonable to assume that the uses that will develop in the future will be less intense. you know. Then the heavier industrial uses that exist there today, just because that's what we're seeing being redeveloped in boulder and then, you know, there is the fundamental question of the property right? I mean. the city Council allowed residential development and industrial zone districts to help offset the jobs housing, balance. So you know that fundamental property, right? You know, in that bundle of rights, is still something that an applicant can request.

[215:04] Assuming that they can demonstrate consistency with the criteria develop to develop residential and industrial. So I think our thinking also was, you know, hotel uses are in the business of selling sleep. They're they're usually pretty. you know. They're they're usually pretty. you know, less intense type uses. So that interface for front doors are seems to make a lot of sense, and then designing the site so that the landscape and the access drive, you know, and the garages loading toward the existing residential right now we know which will, you know, redevelop at some point was a design construct that made a lot of sense, as far as transition goes. Right I was. I was asking about the North Boulder sub community plan at at at this point. At this there were there were 2 questions I had that was my second question. Was, it identified it. If future growth has been industrial, and I was just curious.

[216:13] as to as to that piece. But I hear what you're saying about the first question. Thank you for reminding that hotels are in the business of sleep. That's a great point. Thank you. Any other questions for staff before we get to the app. Thanks, Alison. we can. Now hear from the applicant you have up to 15 min for your presentation. Thank you very much. I believe Paul is going to share his screen, and I will start off by speaking. And then Paul.

[217:01] Yeah. And I think I need it to be enabled for me. You should be able to share your screen. Now, Paul. So this project's 12 years in the making, and it's almost 10 pm. So I'm gonna stick to my script for the sake of everyone. My name is Andrew Goodimi. I'm a north boulder, native. Oh, you can actually change the next 2 slides. There you go. That's the site. This is me. I was raised on the corner of Broadway, and Violet. My father was an immigrant who began managing and eventually owning industrial properties in North Boulder, beginning in 1 73, over 50 years ago. he arrived during a time when the neighborhood was known as Dog Patch. What drew him here is what initially draws just about everyone its affordability.

[218:03] My sister and I were raised by the neighborhood, spending our summers, fixing up vacant spaces for mechanics, craftsman's hippies, musicians and artists who occupied these spaces. dog, patch, informal, and on the fringe was a haven for outcasts. Being gay, and from an immigrant family I felt more accepted here than anywhere else. I left North Boulder for 15 years to pursue my studies in architecture and urban planning. I spent a decade in Europe, specializing in affordable housing, master planning, and cultural work. I've worked on projects all across the world next slide. Since my return. I worked as an organizer for the nobo bid, collaborated with nobo arts to expand first Fridays and Led design studios focused on North Boulder's future with Cu School of environmental design. Additionally, I served on the Library Foundation Board

[219:00] and contributed to various local arts, groups and neighborhood centers to ensure their long-term sustainability. Recently I worked with B. Moca to conduct extensive community outreach next slide. The required upgrades to maintain the existing building and use for the future are tremendous. Redevelopment is inevitable. but I would like to ensure that we do this thoughtfully and with the community. we recognize that developing this site will displace current tenants. To mitigate this, we prioritized openness and given advanced warning by publishing our pre-application notice. In 2019, all tenant leases expire before construction is intended to begin. Tenants were informed of development plans while signing their lease. and a development clause is included in all leases. Approved demolition is at least 12 months away, and we are offering current leaseholders. Similar

[220:07] light industrial space in our properties, in Boulder. in my outreach to the community regarding feedback on the proposed development, it emerged that 2 tenants appealed the Planning Board's Use review decision. Our subsequent communications reveal that these tenants who, I believe, will be speaking today are using the use review process for personal gain in separate legal matters, unrelated to the proposed project, diverting attention from its merits within the community. To my knowledge, at least 6 tenants and neighbors have submitted letters of support to the city. I'd I'd like to note that today we sent evidence of our communications to Hela to share with the planning board after encouraging. after encountering numerous obstacles, such as the pandemic staffing challenges and difficulty in applying code and subcommunity plan to the constraint site, we've arrived at a plan

[221:08] that both our development team and staff can be proud of. We are truly grateful for Staff's assistance and support. Next slide. Our significant, our significant presence within the community has instilled a responsibility to not only maintain what makes this neighborhood so lively, but also to envision a more diverse and inclusive future. I believe in not just thinking about who is here, but also who isn't. I value preserving the neighborhood's history and social fabric. But I recognize its inequities currently less than 30% of our roughly 500 tenants in boulder live outside or sorry, 30% live within Boulder county, meaning 75, 70% live outside

[222:00] 47, 25, Broadway is among several potential north boulder projects. I, too, advocate for preserving affordable light industrial space within the neighborhood. However, we must also balance this with the necessary housing to minimize commutes and support its businesses. We have the chance to consider this project within a holistic holistic scope of 5 sites we're developing on Broadway, between Violet and Dakota Ridge per the subcommunity plan. We do not consider 47, 25 as an appropriate use for light industrial along Zemia we intend to place the equivalent space elsewhere. The North Boulder creative campus, which includes Bemoko, will comprise of nearly 20,000 square feet of light industrial space. We are working with the city to annex Emerald City's 105,000 square feet of light industrial aiming to preserve. It's vibrant community by linking it to city utilities for long-term sustainability.

[223:01] Next slide the current site. the site currently hosts 18,500 square feet of light industrial buildings for 4 tenants, including an auto, repair luxury, camper dealership and marijuana grows. We propose a project that will house over a hundred 20 people, adding multimodal access pathways and a park along Broadway. The project is designed to accommodate multigenerational family structures and to be priced below the Median sales price over the years the neighborhood has struggled with the industrial uses at this property. as it is directly adjacent to a single family, home and park. regular sheriff and fire department visits, stem from noise, smell, traffic complaints, and excess parked vehicle as well as illicit activities. In 2018 a lawsuit was filed by the adjacent neighborhood. Over and over the odor disturbances.

[224:03] Next slide we aim to build monumental and enduring structures that showcase a variety of architectural designs. particularly ones, that resonate with the. With the uniqueness of this community. we have the chance to work on various projects within the same neighborhood, enabling us to embrace a mix of materials and design on an urban scale. Each project, each project we will put forward in the years to come will create a distinct visual interest. As you proceed along Broadway. Paul. Hi, everybody! Good evening. My name is Paul Anderson. And I'm the architect for this project. We've been working closely and continuously with the city of Boulder on this project for the past 4, 4 and a half years. The upshot of taking so long on the initial planning phase is that we've progressed through a number of design schemes, and we've been able to develop a thoughtful approach to this complex site.

[225:10] Alison explained how the proposal meets the Use Review criteria by the by, the letter of the city code. But we can answer questions on that, too. But I thought instead, I'd give you a little bit more context broadly on it. To start off just to explain why a change is needed. The current light industrial use is incompatible with adjacent uses. Specifically the mixed density housing on Broadway and the single family homes immediately to the west of the site. Here you can see that start contrast on the left, in particular, of current uses. And for most of the current buildings history. This wasn't a problem, because these residential neighbors are new, as of the last 5 to 7 years. The need for change is also motivated by the current buildings. Age you know, as Alison mentioned, that they were built in in the late seventies. You know they're nearing the end of their useful life, and will soon need to be replaced.

[226:02] So what do the proposed changes entail? The short answer is, construction of a new road and a change in use. One issue, that our work on this project is clarified is that any new development of the site will trigger the dedication of a right away along the north edge right away dedication. Excuse me along the north edge of the property and the construction of Zamia Avenue between Tenth Street and Broadway. The new street businesses, by creating a new connection for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles between the shops and bus lines on Broadway and the neighborhoods to the west. It will also improve vehicular access vehicles currently pull into the site from Broadway. But we're proposing access from Zemia once it's built and the city has received feedback and strong support of making this connection. In addition, the connection subdivides a large continuous block seen here.

[227:03] and the new smaller blocks you can see here, which is a change that the North Boulder sub community Plan recommends. And you know, as Ml, as you were asking about that plan, that plan is a factor in the Use review evaluation. And I'm gonna try to explain a little bit more about you know how we're how we're taking it under consideration. The plan calls for smaller pedestrian friendly blocks, particularly between residential neighborhoods and the businesses on Broadway. The subcommittee plan has also been a useful guide in determining the best use as well. The surrounding neighborhood contains a wide variety of uses adjacent to our site alone, or low density, residential medium density, residential a motel and light industrial, and while the Subcommittee Plan does encourage the preservation of light, industrial uses, it also acknowledges a need for significantly more housing, and recommends that some industrial properties be converted to housing. This project is a prime candidate for such a conversion, and it and it is so for 2 reasons. First, the project can act as a transitional space between the mixed density housing on Broadway and the lower density homes the West. This has been a successful approach for other projects in this part of the north boulder, and these are just some of the examples, some of the recent examples.

[228:21] Second, the construction of Zamia Avenue differentiates this property from other is one properties in the area. This is one of the most important factors actually in our use analysis with the construction of Samia Avenue over 80% of the property street frontage will face a residential street with only a small part facing Broadway. The subcommunity plan states unequivocally that that residential developments should be planned for buildings that face smaller neighborhood streets and that light industrial is not an appropriate use on such streets. Now, as Alison mentioned, user does not include Architectural Design Review. But I'm presenting, you know, a couple views of the project to explain how it complies with that subcommittee plan through some of the architectural design.

[229:08] The plan recommends that residential buildings orient their entrances toward toward the street and hide garages, open parking and driveways behind buildings, all of which we've done in our proposal. We've also followed its guidance by creating clearly demarcated facing the street, and though some recently built projects have placed ground floor residential on Broadway. We've elected to pull the building back to make room for a public forest that will create a unique feature in the emerging commercial corridor a soft landscape. Instead of building a wall, there. Hey, Paul and Andrew, you have about one or 2 min left. I'm almost done. It's perfect. Trees will buffer the project, and it's Western neighbors from the noise, light, and traffic on Broadway. A small but potentially meaningful feature of the forest is that we will commission a collection of bird houses from local artists and residents. and just to wrap up. Thank you for staying so late and taking the time to to hear about these plans.

[230:05] We are, I believe, available for questions. Yeah, we'll do questions for the applicant from the board. anybody have any questions? Okay. I have a quick question, actually. Yeah. Go ahead, Mason. I just noticed the power lines are on the north side. This might be a question more for our our staff rather than for the applicant. So let me know if I'm out of line. And the are we gonna bury those lines? If that street's very built. there's power lines along the north side of this property. I mean, I'll take that static. I don't actually like know for sure, Mason. I I but I do believe that that was part of our. We actually went through a tech doc submittal already before we came back to use review, and I believe in that we we all of that was buried. Yeah.

[231:03] there's a whole new excel like station, and of transformers and stuff on the south east corner of the so of the of our, of the of the property, and I think everything runs through there now. Thanks. that. Thanks anybody else. Have any questions for the applicant. Alright, thanks, Andrew and Paul. We'll go ahead and do public comments and laurel. If you wouldn't mind just reading off that disclaimer before the public. Any anyone from the public speaks. Absolutely. I was. Gonna ask if you wanted it here as well. So this again is just a disclosure request for anyone who speaks for public comment. And so the request is the board request that, prior to offering public comments, all mem. Up, all members of the public, disclose any financial or business relationship with or other membership or affiliation related to the applicant project or neighbors, specifically including any paid compensation.

[232:13] So I'll hand it over to Vivian, I think great. Thank you. Okay, so this public hearing for this item, please raise your virtual hand, and I'll call on you. First off we have Matt north. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Andrew, if you wouldn't mind just turning off your video, that'd be great. Thank you. Is my video on No. Matt, you just have to unmute from your. I'm unmuted. Please go ahead. Okay. Great. Here's Hi! My name is Matt North. I'm the owner and founder of tight vans. I'm currently a tenant at the 4, 7, 2, 5 property, and have been renting here for over 4 years. We are an Rv. Manufacturer employing 28 people. We specialize in Camper van conversion sales and services. We were never contacted by Emerald or any of its employees regarding the development. Nor were we or any of the other tenants at this location, contacted about help with relocation. Prior to the February sixth, 2024. Meeting, as Andrew falsely testified during that meeting.

[233:13] I built the decision for approval of the Use Review, as there are glaring contradictions with this decision, and the stated goals and guidelines of the Mbsp. As well as the Bvcp. Well, north Boulder is considered a neighborhood and transition by the Nvsp. It also stipulates in its primary concepts, and I quote to ensure preservation of the existing service industrial uses, and it stipulates that for annexation and urban expansion to occur here. The benefits to the community must outweigh the cost and negative impacts from urban development as part of the criteria for use review. The proposal does not make strong enough argument for reducing adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhoods. Currently, north boulder contains 2% industrial space and 64% residential. Allowing this property to be converted into town homes does not outweigh the impact to the loss of services and employment to the community as outlined in the executive, summary and Section 5 of the Mvsp. Because of the low availability of industrial space in North Boulder. This building is the only building with adequate space and clearance heights for the work that my company performs

[234:10] from Section 6 of the sub Community Plan. I quote, these businesses are extremely valuable to the area, to the city as a whole, and should not be displaced from section 2.2 one in the Bvc. P. The city will preserve existing industrial areas as places for industry and innovation. maintaining the industrial space aligns with section 4 of the Subcommittee plan, as well as section 5 point O. 5 of the Bvcp. As it provides more opportunity for people to work close to where they live. Currently, half of the employees that work at Titan bands live within 5 miles and are able to bite to work and thus reduce vehicle. Miles traveled. The argument made within the proposal does not adequately address the loss of employment and services that will be available to the community. Additionally, the proposal makes an argument that it is compatible with the character of the area based solely on the fact that there are other residential developments in the area. But the proposal does not attempt to mitigate the potential negative impacts to the community by supplying any retail or services space to offset the loss of businesses and services that will occur.

[235:06] I also see major issues with the proposal, and his arguments regarding the benefits of community. If it does proceed, the North boulder area is defined as very low density residential. The armal armory located just to the west is designated as mixed use, but contains many town homes. That's a total of 201 units on 9 acres, which is 22 3 22.3 units per acre, and currently has a vacancy rate of 60% proposal 4, 7, 2, 5 would only add 21 town homes on a 2.3 acre lot, which is a 9.1 3 units per acre. The high vacancy rate of already available units which are comparable to the proposal speaks to the lack of demand by the community, and thus the lack of value that this proposal would bring to the North Boulder area. Thank you. Thank you. That. That concludes the 3 min. Thank you. Reminder. If anybody's joining by phone, you can push Star 9, raise your virtual hand by phone.

[236:04] Give members the public a few. Okay. we have will shiver. Joining us by phone. Please go ahead. You should be able to speak and we should be able to hear you think you might have to unmute from your end anybody else from the public. Let's come back to you. Lindsay. Going. You have 3 min. and will Shevick. In the meantime, I'll give you instructions on how to unmute also. Please go ahead, then. Yeah. I have no conflict of interest. I'd rather not see my name staring at me. I'd rather see the board. Can you produce that.

[237:07] Thomas, as the host. Can you help with that. Thanks, Vivian. I just I like to see who I'm talking to. Thanks. Yay, okay. Well. I had to miss this part of the presentation part of it, because there was something at harsh him on the future of Israel. So lot of things going on these days. I gotta break it up. But I know something about I mean this this guy that presented. and the architect from Violet, from his history and everything. And I've seen a lot of the development going on in North Boulder, and I I appreciate that they're trying to do a good development. But

[238:00] we need to have a whole upgrade in our Bvc. P. And decide what we are going to do with this town, because it is just too much raw growth. And every time that you talk about jobs. Then you talk about housing, and then you add more jobs and you add more housing. And when you add housing, you automatically add jobs because you need all the services for that housing and that. So the 2 go together, and there needs to be some point where we say, no boulder is not going to grow anymore. There is the big P word that nobody wants to say, and it's called population over population. And that's what we have going on here, and it's a cycle of despair, and it's only gonna add more congestion to boulder. All this housing has a person with each square footage. You know, each 100 or 200 square feet. There's a person there, and people actually take up space. They use space. They use water. They use open space they use rec centers. Libraries. Please fire all this services, and

[239:18] I'm sorry, but I can't afford it tonight. I I couldn't even find the agenda to this meeting. I've never had that happen before. so I couldn't organize my night. It's just frantic. I have to worry. Can I be here? Do. I have to be there, you know, and then today, the same thing. There's not enough in the budget for them to even be able to tell me about the engagement meeting, but they're trying to engage me, and I don't even know where the link is until 15 min before, when they're supposed to have it 24 h. We don't have enough money to handle all these people. So no, unfortunately, on this project. No. And we gotta stop somewhere, and it's gotta be now.

[240:03] Oh, Vivian, you're you're muted. Thanks, George. Thank you, Lynn Siegel. We'll try, will shiver again by telephone, and if you push Star 6, it should unmute you. Let's try that. Hello! Can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead. My name is will shiver. I own mountain auto repair one of the businesses the proposed development. And I would like to speak in, I in support of Matt North's comments. it's he essentially 10. Okay. What I would would have liked to do as said, but I would also like to kind of highlight

[241:01] areas of the Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan. section 2.2 1, where it states that the city supports its light industrial areas and aims to preserve existing industrial areas. Erm. As well as section 5 point oh, 5. support for local business and business retention. Where city states that it values the mix of existing businesses. Erm. in the local economy and nurturing and maintaining maintaining a positive climate for the retention of those existing businesses and jobs is a priority. I I my automotive shop has has been here for a long time well, before

[242:04] real management has owned the property. and know I I I don't have any issue with their desire to develop it. Erm. But I I do think it's important. or the fabric of the community that have light industrial service. They're is a need for businesses like mine of. It's an important service to the community. And I I really believe that. that getting rid of these industrial service areas. even if it's not rezoned, and you just and just allowing residential use in the industrial area.

[243:03] Oh. will overall harm the the nature of the community. that's all I would like to say, thanks. great. For joining us tonight, sharing your views anybody else from the public. You'd like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Okay. concludes public hearing. Thank you, Vivian. Can we put up our items for consideration on this Alison or Thomas? That's something we can help with. Yeah, I can share the key issue. Slide one moment.

[244:11] Great. Does anyone want to speak to the key issue? Is the proposal consistent with the Use Review criteria set forth in section 9, 2 15, Erc. 1981, Kurt. Oh, yeah, thanks. I am certainly very sympathetic to the concerns of the businesses that talk to us tonight. We never want to lose our local businesses. I know it's incredibly disruptive to, you know. Have to move a business possibly out of the city, unfortunately. And so that is. it's it's something that we should try to avoid. And they did cite elements of the BBC. Which are you in favor of.

[245:03] you know, protecting that kind of small business that all being said, that is not the those are. That is not the way we're viewing this tonight. We have to abide by our our set rules, the the way the code is written and the code is written that if the proposal meets the the Use Review criteria in 1950. Me, then we need to approve it, and I think that it does meet those criteria. Thanks, Kurt. Anybody else. Let's see Mark. Yeah, I I concur with Kurt and just going through this review has made me think about I've I've often thought about the east coast of the United States, where, you can very well find residences above auto repair shops above like manufacturing, sometimes above heavy manufacturing, and and you can be in you know the Bronx or Philadelphia, or these cities that were were built on industrial and manufacturing uses.

[246:20] and yes, many times some of the coolest spaces can be those those spaces above above industrial areas. So my only point is and into Ml's point about transitions. Well, one way to transition is to incorporate those that we can have different uses other than retail, and restaurants and coffee shops on the first floor, and those can be significant parts of the community. So you transition by incorporating both in this and this would be a site to do that. However, as Kurt said we are what we are confronted with a use review, a use review and a decision based on the criteria set forth in 9 to 15. So I'm going to be reluctantly supporting this

[247:15] this user deal. Thanks. Mark Claudia. So, repeating some of what Kurt and Mark have already said, I think the the speakers tonight really do highlight a real tension that we have in boulder, and not just in this region of boulder, between housing and industrial uses. We've seen this playing out in East Boulder as well. And yet we do have a code that allows for conversion to residential uses and industrial zones. And that is part of what we're looking at here tonight in our criteria. I would also say that for the user view criteria there's been a lot of work that has gone into creating neighborhood and community in North Boulder, particularly north of Violet

[248:03] And one of the criteria that we are looking at for use. Review. Has to deal with reducing adverse impacts. And obviously the definition of that changes over time. And what that's in reference to changes over time. But one thing that I would say, in this region of boulder is that there is fairly strong barrier to circulation on Broadway, and that current uses in some of these areas just to the west of Broadway. Create a lot of disconnect in this neighborhood and community that the sub community plan has done a lot of work to try to create and so actually, disconnection, I think, is an adverse impact in parts not just industrial uses, but the actual condition of disconnect, and so, starting to recreate some of those connections in the neighborhood, I think, eliminates some of that, and I think that's an important aspect

[249:00] of this use. Review. Thanks. Claudia Mason. Yeah, piggybacking on what Mark and Claudia Kurt said. I I agree with a lot of the comments here about losing the business, and how my read of the North boulder. plan. I mean, it literally does say that while the goal of the subcommittee plan is to upgrade the appearance of the Broadway quarter. These businesses are extremely valuable to the area. and to the say, as a whole, it should not be displaced. So I mean it. It feels pretty clear. But again, back to Kurt's point, I I I still think that this passes these review criteria. I would hope that That connection of Zamia across would create a corridor that could use additional commercial space. The North Boulder plan also speaks to

[250:00] the relatively low ratio of jobs to housing in this area. And if we really wanna create neighborhoods where you can walk to your job or ride a bike, or what have you. we need businesses in this space. But also North Boulder plan also speaks to the size of town homes in this area being larger on average, and the rest of town. I think this is a relatively large town home as well. So I mean, I think I think perhaps this plan could take some inspiration? From what you know the community is asking for in the plan. But again, I I do believe it. as stated, passes the use. Review criteria back. Thanks, Jason. I'm out. Well. darn, you know this is this project brings up.

[251:02] everything that my peers have been talking about, right that we've got. We don't have very many industrial areas in boulder where small industry can flourish. And I think that this part of town has had that. That's its history, and one would hope that that would be part of the future. I will cite again the criteria for review. It's Number 5 that it's under character of area, the use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines, or plans for the area. You know the the North Boulder subcommunity plan. a very comprehensive and thoughtful document that looked at the area

[252:00] as it was in the moment, and it looked at the potential vision for it the desire. and it also went so far as to put future growth future growth. uses on the land that would then unfold the desires and the the aims of that plan. This land future growth is industrial. On the East Boulder Subcommittee plan which number 5. The criteria you know. says that we will abide, or we will reflect back on the plans for the area. So I'm not convinced that the

[253:01] use review criteria and I'm citing. Number 5 is is met. it's a difficult one, because we do want more housing. but we also want to not keep losing. you know, keep losing these important contributing parts to a walkable community. and I very much appreciate that. The some of the people that work have businesses there. Got a chance to speak tonight and to give us their story. I guess one of them is the one who called us up. But that was my concern when it came before us, and I I did not call it up, was. What's happening? Are we disregarding the North Boulder sub community plan by allowing a residential in what was pointed to as being an industrial area.

[254:05] It's not an easy decision in my in my book as to which way to take this. I I I think that there aren't enough champions for the small industrial community in in Boulder you know we we easily run over those the locations where these are have been providing services for decades. As we out try to build out the housing that we're looking for, so I don't. I don't. No what I'm I'm not trying to encourage anybody to do anything. I'm just pointing out that 5 of the criteria speaks about that we're supposed to hold to the plans for the area. and this does not hold to the east boulder. Excuse me, North boulder sub community plan.

[255:02] And I think that that's important. I mean, if we've got plans in place we should We should hold ourselves to the thank you. Laura, did you have anything to say? Oh, you're muted! You're I think you were double muted. I apologize. I'll just say briefly, you know I everything that my colleagues have said, you know, is is well founded, and I'm I'm reminded of. You know th that saying about the Bible that you can find everything that you want to find in the Bible you can find. Turn the other cheek, and you can find vengeance's mind, saith the Lord. Right! And and that's kind of what we're finding in the Looking at the North Boulder subcommunity plan and trying to compare that against the code and the standards for the Use Review. You can make a good argument in either way. And so I think this is one of the more difficult projects that has come before us because of that.

[256:06] But you know I have. So I have to go back to the code. I have to look at the code and in the staff. Memo, it's on page 1, 60 of our packet. It talks about what are or what what are the standards that apply to this project with regard to residential uses in industrial zones. and it said, You know, according to the standards. That this project is to be judged by approval of a use. Review is required for residential uses on the ground floor, facing a street in the is one zone district. So clearly the industrial one zoning district anticipated that there could be ground floor residential uses. That is one of the things that is allowed in industrial, even though it doesn't fit our notion of what an industrial zone might look like just by the word industrial. so given that it is allowed. If it meets the Use Review criteria, you know I've listened to here. What are the arguments that might be of? Why it does not meet the Use review criteria because I want to be open to hearing my colleagues analysis.

[257:03] and the the one ML. That you pointed out, does it change the predominant character. and I think Staff and the applicant have made a good argument that it does not change the predominant error character. This area will remain industrial. And, in fact, there has since been a code change that prohibits townhouses in this zone, even though this project came in under the previous code. And that's what we have to judge it by. So it sounds like the industrial uses around it are not going to change much. although, as Staff have mentioned that they are likely to become less heavy industrial uses. They might become more like artist spaces or maker spaces, or the kinds of things that we're anticipating around the Boulder junction area for some of those industrial uses. So is the predominant character gonna change. I don't think so. I think it's gonna stay predominantly industrial. Specifically because of that code change. And I do. I do think that there's a good argument to be made that it does provide that compatible transition between the residential to the West and the mixed use to the east across Broadway, and I do love that it it creates that connection on Zamia, which is primarily a residential street. So it's basically carrying that residential character through the industrial zone.

[258:22] But it doesn't change that predominantly industrial zone. So I'm going to say I think it is compatible with the Use Review criteria. and I'll speak briefly. I agree with my colleagues. I think this is a good project. I think the connections make sense. I think it fits. and it's consistent with the zoning. That being said, I think it sucks right. I think, that we're we're contributing to gentrifying this area and losing the weirdness and coolness about that area in boulder. And while I

[259:10] we'll, we'll side with the the the zoning. It's funny. It was anecdote like last storm. 2 weeks ago my car got hit with a branch. And luckily was nothing more than a dent that needed to be repaired by a Pdr. Guy, which happens to be not in this development, but in one right adjacent to it. The Golden Hammer and I went there the other day, and looking around, I said, Oh, man, this is just going to get wiped out. and I'm gonna have to go 45 min drive out. We talk about 15 min neighborhoods that we talk about all those things. We we forget constantly how important light industrial is to our community and maker spaces and artist spaces. That's fine. But that doesn't necessarily satisfy the need that we have as resonance for these types of things that are going on in these spaces and those spaces are getting pushed out. When we talk about carbon emissions and things like that. I just think we need to balance this stuff

[260:13] to Mark's point, right? This doesn't all need to be cafes and restaurants. The problem is is that this light industrial type of use is a 12 to 20 buck, a square foot type of use. And so it doesn't make sense to build it right. And so we need to understand that that if when we lose it, we lose it for good, because the guy who's building the vans and the guy how has his auto shop and the guy who's doing Pdr. Isn't going to be able to afford newly built light industrial as much as we would like it to be. unless unless it's somehow codified in a way where it has to be built and has to be used for those services. Those services are gonna disappear from our community. And we're gonna look at ourselves 10 years from now. And we're gonna say, what have we done? All we've done is gentrify boulder, and made it less affordable for everybody. And, by the way, we haven't done anything for carbon emissions, cause we're all driving out to get these services to Lewisville and Longmont and other places.

[261:15] So that's my tirade in my soapbox. But I do believe it fits of the zoning. So that's where I land. Thanks. Can I just flag, George, that I think you? You have raised a great point that I think a lot of us resonate with. And maybe we put this in the bicycle shed. not the parking lot, but the bicycle shed to think about. When we look at the Bvcp. In the the next year or 2. Of what are we gonna do? Because you're right like some of these spaces are not gonna come back once they're gone, given current zoning, and what's allowed, and how that makes this space more valuable than what can be achieved with a a auto repair shop, for example. So I would just park it for the the Bbcp update as something to think about.

[262:03] Yeah, I think that's a great idea. Thanks, Laura. anybody else have any comments? Or are we ready to make a motion? Kirk. I move to approve. Use review, application number lr. 2022. Dash 0, 0 0 3, 2. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings. The fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. We have a second. A second. Tomorrow. Seconds. Okay? Any discussion. Let's vote.

[263:01] Mission. Yes. Mark. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Hurt. Yes. Ml. No. Laura. Yes. And I'm a yes motion passes 6. One. Alright. A thank you to the applicant. Perhaps. Well, let me let me read the the public hearing. Do I have to read this laurel. Are, a. So your. Muted. Of course I am. Yeah, if you just could read the motion again for the record. It's something that our rules state that we're gonna be looking at. As we read it. Somewhere else. You. Can you throw the motion up on the screen? Sorry I don't have it handy. Yeah. I can put it in the I don't have screen share. Let me chat.

[264:00] Chat. Does that work? Okay. That's great! Great. You. Okay, motion to approve. Use for view application. LUR. 2, 0, 2, 2 0 0 3, 2. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings fact. including the attach analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Right. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the public hearing. Next item matters. we have the information. Item. My understanding is we weren't going to be discussing that, though. Brad, you turned on your camera. No good evening planning board members, and welcome to the end of the meeting. No real comments for me other than to just acknowledge. Yes, we've got that information item which isn't intended for any discussion.

[265:03] If there are, follow up questions Kurt, I know you had one but if others do, please reach out to the team here. Edward, probably in particular, is the sponsor. We'll be happy to clarify any issues or follow up on on any type of suggestions for tweaking we are full steam into the year, as we reflected on with actually, we an all staff meeting today, we're quarter the way into the year and lots more to come. So appreciate your work on on getting through these items, and I would be remiss if I didn't say as I. I try to often remind you, that we very much appreciate, recognize your your time and energy, and volunteering out of you your time and energy to this. So thank you for what you're doing, and happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks, Brad. Mark your hands up.

[266:02] Yeah, I I just had a question for Brad, and that was In looking at summer travel, schedules, etc. Is is there ever a possibility. And and we've just gone through this council chamber, remodel, etc. Can the planning board and staff ever agree to hold to do a virtual meeting instead of a hybrid meeting based on it being easier to chair easier to manage sometimes than the hybrid model. And so, as we get more members traveling and stuff. So my question is, can we just say, if we wanted to? Hey, we're going to have a virtual meeting this next week or this time. Yeah. I may need to follow up on that. I. You're very quiet, Brad. I'm happy to follow up on that. My initial reaction is that the city manager's office is really seeking for consistency across the boards in our

[267:07] access and accessibility to the public. I believe some of the boards and commissions study findings came to that as well. Don't quote me on that. So I. My initial thought is that we may not be able to do that. broad in in being able to support that concept or that spontaneous. I think we do recognize that there are gonna be times individuals are gonna be away and be able to support them, as you know participating remotely or sick, for example. But that's an initial reaction to that mark. And I'm I'm happy to follow up on that. Alright. Thank you. Just just a just a quick note on that. I I think I brought this up at other meetings. Brad. I was curious, if you have any, as it relates to public interaction, especially when we're virtual when we're hybrid.

[268:10] Is the city pursuing finally getting the public so that they can be on camera. Boy, the last I've heard, and maybe others on this call Thomas or others have heard otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge. It remains a security concern that folks having cameras on can engage relatively inconsequentially, with some of the standards that the cities adopt for behavior. But we could certainly follow up on that too. I I I would. I know it's not a necessarily priority of of you know, it's it's a it's a city wide issue. But from my perspective, I think it's it's it's the. It's the hardest thing in in virtual meetings and and also in hybrid meetings, is not being able to see the public. I think it's

[269:06] much healthier to engage people. I know. Other cities have figured it out. And I know there's been staffing issues and things like that. Anyways, I I know it's not a it's not a planning department thing, but if you wouldn't mind just bringing it up somewhere, I I would certainly appreciate it. I think. And just to be clear, you're asking about citizen participants being able to be on camera. Correct? Okay. Correct? Yeah, yeah, when, yeah, when we have public space. Yeah, which, to my knowledge is, has never been a staffing issue. It's been more the other policy. Yeah security issue. Look into that. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Laura. I have a slightly different issue. If we're ready to move on. Yeah. So I sent this in an email. I wanted to ask about assignment of liaisons to boards and commissions. And when we're gonna schedule that and in particular I have very greatly benefited from being the representative to the Housing Advisory Board in the past year, and the Housing Advisory Board is about to have their next retreats.

[270:09] I think. April 20, fourth, or 20 fifth. So we have one more meeting before that happens, and I just think it's such a great bonding experience. It's such a great experience of getting to know each other, to be part of your boards. Retreat if you can, that it would be ideal if we could assign liaisons at our next meeting, if the schedule will permit. and maybe we can speed it up a little bit by producing a list of what boards and commissions we need liaisons for, so that people can think about what assignments they might be interested in before we get to our meeting, because I know our next agenda is pretty packed as well. Ca, I don't know Thomas or others. Do do you know a timeline for that? And is it tied more to the other boards? Needs? Or do we have some of that on a cycle? We're doing. Some kind of annual cycle, but I'm not sure when we do it. Yeah.

[271:02] Or do. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly, but I can. Certainly follow up with you on that, Laura. Be great. Yeah, I would. I would love it if we could do that at our next meeting. If there's space in the agenda just so that people can start getting settled into their their assignments. Absolutely. Thank you. Come out! If I could. I? There you are, Thomas. If we could get a list of the boards that liaisons would be. Consider, considering that'd be great. Just I think there was a list produced last year. If we could get that list again that way. We can begin to look at where we've been and where we might want to go, just so that we're prepared at the next meeting to just be able to boom, boom, boom! Sign up. Yeah. And I think it's traditionally not just liaison to other boards and commissions, although there are some standing ones like tab and landmarks and tab that we have a liaison for. But in the past there have been projects, you know, or or you know, like the use tables, or had a subcommittee, and I don't know if Staff are planning any of those subcommittees that you want members to be assigned to. So just getting a sense of what those assignments might be. In addition to our planning board service.

[272:25] As you check into that one option would be to send an email. This is administrative. So it could just be an email to the planning board members in advance. So you know whether that is something we could or would be voting on in the future. I'm sorry, Brad. I couldn't hear the second part of what you were saying. There. Suggesting that since that is kind of an administrative matter, you could look into that and send it as a email. follow up to the planning board members, all of them, and then that would give them a heads up about whether we could or couldn't

[273:04] plan to vote on the next or or future meeting. Okay, that sounds good. I can take care of that. Excuse me. Well, one last thing Mr. Chair that I'll mention is just congratulations and welcome again to Claudia and and Mason, and mark as well. That's not new, and certainly again very, very happy to have have you join us, and congratulations on. I guess, almost making it through your first meeting. Twice that. And Laurel Charles or Thomas might have some comments too. So. Yeah. Just welcome to our new board members. Congratulations George Mark. Great to have you back. And in the vice chair position. And yeah, looking forward to your service, to the board. Yeah. And I would also echo, if you guys have any questions after your first meeting, if there's anything that came up, feel free to reach out to us.

[274:03] Yeah. Right anybody else before we adjourn. Is there anything we need to do on calendar checks? When's our next meeting? Or Oh, oh, there is something we're virtual. Next meeting, right? Which has changed. That's correct. Yeah. Council chambers aren't quite ready yet. Okay, so we're virtual for the sixteenth does anyone know of any schedule conflicts that they? Or is everyone planning to be present for that. I will be. If I'm able to attend it, will it will. I will be out of town. And just depends on Internet connection, etc. Yeah, and I'm sort of in the same boat. You're gonna. Are you in the same boat as Mark, or. We're we're. Admiral.

[275:00] I'm going to a different beach. I don't know. Nobody else is allowed in the boat without noticing the public. No. Question about the twenty-threerd. We're showing a tentative meeting for the twenty-threerd. Do we have any more information on that one. I don't think we have anything calendar at this point. Took it. but still, for now. Still could happen. Yeah, I think. yeah, a couple more days still. Yeah, okay, thank you. Right? Thanks everyone. This meeting is adjourned. Have a great night. And I. Thank you all.