April 16, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] That to great so I'm gonna call this planning board hearing meeting for April sixteenth, 2,024 to order and the first item is public participation. pass over to you. Then. Great. I'll just wait for the slides to come up. So thank you to everybody from the public who has joined us here tonight for this planning board meeting really appreciate your participation. I believe many of you are here for the public hearing. but we want you to know that the city is engaged with community members to create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members. staff and board Commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:05] And we have more information about this vision and the process to develop the vision on our website. Next slide, please. And these are some of the examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that guide and support this vision. and these will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, another speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using first and last name before we may call on you to speak online next slide. So my name is Vivian. Sorry I should have introduced myself at the beginning. Vivian Castro Wldridge and my role in this meetings is to facilitate the

[2:02] public participation. So we'll ask you to raise your hand at the right time. The first part of the public participation will be open comment, and later in the meeting we'll have public hearings. But when we call for public participation you can raise your hand, your virtual hand, and we'll know to call on you. And you can see how to do that on the screen and on next slide, please. You can also go to reactions and then choose the raise hand function there, and we'll know to call on you. So this first open comment part of the meeting is an opportunity to speak to planning board members about any item not on the agenda. So the public hearing items will be later on after the presentations. But if you would like to speak. Now. please raise your hand. And I will call on you.

[3:03] Okay, we have one hand, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min. I think it's a tribute to the character of this Board that there is only one person here speaking every single time this happens for open comment every single meeting. That's your fault. Why don't you have a pile of people here? Because I hear complaints all over this community things I'm going to bring up tonight are Peacock Place and the jobs housing, imbalance and Liechek funds, which are the enemy. Low income housing tax credits are a Federal subsidy for population growth which do not benefit communities. The high proportion of now boulder progressives on this board.

[4:03] It's not progressive at all. It's very digressive. because growth does not pay its way. and the very people that seem to support low income housing and the middle income housing, which is like at 2206 peral. 1,700 to $2,600 a month, and that was a year ago without a car space. This is not progressive. This is reductive reasoning. and it's not helpful for for the affordable housing in this community, promoting, promoting the airport, promoting every growth everywhere all over town that you can see it's gonna do nothing but increase the wealth and equity in this community. Put more and more homeless people on the street, and I don't want to pay for it.

[5:04] I don't want to pay for your subsidies to developers. 6 million, probably a year cleaning up trash E. Coli in the creek. From all of this development that is not beneficial. It's upper class development, because that's what always happens in a community, particularly like Boulder, that has high a Mi and the ami is not indexed to growth. So I'm requesting that you do something about Peacock Place. It was heavily objected to this. Further growth on a flood near a flood plain of Hogan pancos that will disrupt the alluvium in that area and flood people south of there.

[6:00] and no one was given good ahead of information. I speak up, but I speak up at everything, so I don't count when Erin says, Oh, but Lynn Siegel is there? That's nut. Thank you, Lynn. Your 3 min are up, and thank you for being here. No other hands are raised back to you. Chair. Thank you. Thanks, Lynn, for your comments. The next thing we're going to talk about is that we don't have any meeting minutes this week. We do have before I get into things. We do have a a monster agenda tonight, as we have 2 separate public hearings of concept plan reviews. We budgeted 2 h for each of those. Before we get into those. We're Let me just cover the 3 call up items that are that are on the docket. I don't believe there's any presentation for that. It is an opportunity to ask questions from the board, but I would ask that everyone

[7:05] just pay attention to time given. Given that we've got 2 public hearing items that are both gonna be. Take a considerable amount of our time this evening. so with that, said Charles, I'm not sure what the process is, for. These call up items. Is it just a QA. If the Board has any questions about either of the call ups, we can take them one by one, and we have staff on hand respond to any questions, and if there's a desire to call them up, then the Board can vote on that. Does anyone have any comments or or items that they'd like to talk about under this section. And actually, I apologize. The Board doesn't need to vote. I think it only takes one board member to to call it up. Apologies. Go ahead. Ml. Thank you, George. I have a question on call a

[8:03] and at I'm guessing. Charles, is that is it you who would be, anyway? We're pretty busy. It talks about a public input, a good neighbor meeting. and that there was 0 comments coming in from the outreach on that. So I'm curious. I'm guessing that the residences that are on the second and third floor of the adjacent building are rentals. and it said that the announcements only go to owners. So is this correct? The people that actually live there and that would be impacted didn't wouldn't have gotten an information. It's standard that our public notices go out to property owners. And then it would be typically their decision how that is shared. So it's my understanding that it does not go to individual units and tenants.

[9:00] The property was also posted with a posting sign. Oh. yeah, be. My next question is, how would people that, you know actually, are there no perfect? Let me see. And thatlet also has a QR code. So it'll take you right to the the project. You can get the public notice and all the information right off of the sign. Perfect 20 first century communication, and my second question on that under the management plan. It talks about the music and the sound. 10 small speakers. and it says that it's intended to be background music. So should there be any people impacted or complaining about that, how would anybody actually follow up on that. It's not a decibel that's established. So how does that?

[10:00] How is that managed when it just says it's intended to be background music and that sort of meeting. The fact that it's not going to impact people. Yeah, it's a great question. So the city has a noise ordinance that specifies decibel levels different times of day and night. Their management plan also addresses outdoor music, if I'm not mistaken. But Alison can speak to that and if neighbors felt like the music was too loud or they weren't abiding by the management plan. Then they could file a code enforcement action, and then we could follow up on that. Right? Yeah, I don't think they're they didn't say they were gonna have outdoor music. But I would. Just curious about that statement, you know background music. But thank you, Charles, for reminding that the city the city does have sort of the the maximum allowable. Thank you for that. And those are my 2 questions. I and I will not be calling it up. Thank you.

[11:01] Any other questions on these 3 items. Mason. Yeah. On item a just for my information. Has this already gone to the liquor board? Or will it need to go to the Liquor Board? I don't know off the top of my head. I do believe they would need to. They may need to apply for a new sony verification. But I I actually have the applicant on the call. If if you want to ask them about the their liquor license, it's not information we typically review for the use review. Do they need to unmute. Who's the applicant, Alison, so I can add them. It's Ashley bought. I just promoted her to panelists, so she should be joining in a second.

[12:01] Thanks. We can move on to other questions, for waiting. That might be the number one. Hi, everyone. Sorry about that. I had to unmute. Yeah, I'm Ashley, one of the owners of the the lab bar invites, which is in option a there we do already have our liquor license. So this review is actually just to extend our hours from our understanding of the new ordinance that was passed. There is not anything that has to be done with the Liquor Board, but of course, if Alison and I can talk about that more. If there is, then of course we would go to the Liquor Board if necessary, but from what our understanding is is that the hours of operation were a zoning requirement, and since the new ordinance was passed through zoning this user view is just to extend the hours. So the liquor license has already been obtained for over a year now, so.

[13:01] That sounds like a No. Appreciate it. Yes, of course. hurt. Hi, I apologize. I was having connection problems. So I missed part of this. And if this is already been asked, I'm sorry about that. It says that other businesses in the area are open past 11 Am. 11 Pm. Are any open as late as one Am. Yes. So there's multiple. Well. one establishment just got their license revoked. So I wanna make sure that that's clear. But there were essentially licenses that were grandfathered in under the old and previous liquor license app operating hours that were permitted to stay open even when the new ordinance was approved to change the hours to end at 11 Pm. So there are already establishments on the hill that do stay open past 11 Pm. Any new licenses after that

[14:07] new ordinance, which I believe was passed in 2,013, saying that any applications after 2,013 could only see open past 11 Pm. Or until 11 pm. If you hold a liquor license. The new ordinance that was just passed in December of this year has repealed that previous 2,013 ordinance. And so that is why we're at this time seeking the extra hours. Right. My question, though, was specifically about until one am. Are there any businesses that are open until one am. I believe so. Yes, I I do not know every operating hours for all the businesses adjacent to us, but I do know that the location right next to us is was open till 2 Am. There is a tattoo shop. I know it's not the same thing. They're open until I believe 3 am. So there is

[15:04] There are definitely businesses open past one am. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. Does anyone wish to call any of these up alright? I think we can move forward. And so with that we'll move forward to our public hearing items. Thanks for everyone who attended the call of items. Vivian, could you kick us off for our public hearing? Number one? George, I think you need to read the title of the the item as the chair.

[16:01] Sure. so we are gonna commence our public hearing for the first public hearing item on tonight's agenda. It is the concept, plan, review, and comment for the development of the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Spine Road and Gunbarrel Ad. Addressed as 4,600 highway, 119 in city mapping. The proposal includes development of 79, 2 and 3 bedroom townhouses with 10 buildings and a central courtyard refuted under case number l. Ur. 202-40-0013. Alright. Thanks for the Intro just confirming. Everyone can see and hear me. Alright. Great thanks. Good evening. Planning board and members of the public. The item before you tonight is a concept plan for new development at the corner of Spine Road and Cumbria. I'll have

[17:04] address at 4,600 Highway 1 19. In this presentation I'll briefly cover the information provided in Staff's Memo, including the purpose and process of concept plan, the project, proposal and background and some key issues for discussion. The purpose of concept plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues in advance of any Site Review submittal. So the applicant will receive comments from boards, staff, and the public just as a reminder there'll be no formal action taken tonight on the project. The applicant completed the necessary public notice. Requirements for the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and signs are placed on the property as well. Staff did receive comments from several neighbors. Those are included in the staff memo, and also transmitted directly to planning board and the email. The subject site is located in gunbarrel, the northwest corner of spine road and gunbarrel AV adjacent to diagonal highway or Highway 1 19, and the Bnsf Railroad. And it's just north of the celestial seasons properties. And west of the Medtronic campus.

[18:17] The majority of the site is zoned industrial menu oops. Sorry. Skip the note. The majority of the site is designated as light industrial, and that includes uses such as research and development. Light, manufacturing and complementary residential uses were appropriate. The western portion of the site is designated as open space development rates and is precluded from development by an existing conservation easement which I'll touch on shortly. The site is zone industrial, manufacturing and surrounded by other IM zones. Intensity standards for the zone are based on a combination of the following fa limitation of 1 point O for residential uses, the provision of a minimum of 15% of usable open space for the site due to the proposed height and the application of height and setback standards. Per table 7. One of the lanes. Code. Industrial buildings are limited to 3 stories and a maximum height of 40 feet. By right in the IM Zone

[19:15] the site is near a variety of industrial and commercial uses to the east, specifically the Covidian slash Medtronic campus, and then the celestial seasonings, property and development to the south on the other side of Spine Road, to the south east of the site. This makes sense residential within the county as well as a future residential development. Just south of the site on the other side of the highway city owned open space and the 6 mile reservoir, and then, about a mile northeast of the site is the Gunbrave shopping center and other industrial and commercial uses as well. The site is currently undeveloped, and those structures would be demolished as part of the redevelopment the lot contains limited vegetation, with some mature trees along the rights away. There is an active prairie dog colony as well located on site

[20:07] the subject site also known as Lot. One of their various subdivision was established as part of the Celestial Seasons. Pewdie, in 1982, in 2,010 a Site Review amendment was granted to add lot one to the Valley Lab and Slash Covid and Pewdie at the time one of the conditions of of that approval was to allow for the transfer of 53,150 square feet to floor area from lot one to lot 10 a of that Covid and Pud to allow for the development of a parking garage. That condition also imposed a maximum density of 41,842 square feet. On that lot, one. As I previously mentioned, the site is encumbered by 150 foot wide conservation easement that was granted to the city in 1982 as part of the original Pud the conservation easement is currently held by the city and stewarded by the open space and Mount Parks Division, and is meant to preserve the scenic and open condition of the area

[21:07] as such development within the easement will be limited the Easement prohibits the destruction of active prairie dog boroughs. Certain fencing and structures, irrigation systems, free removal and access by motorized vehicles. City mapping does also indicate a 15 foot wide, public pedestrian and bicycle trail easement. It starts at the northern corner of the subject site and then terminates the southeast corner of the Celestial Seasons development. That pedestrian and bike trail isn't, was originally dedicated as part of the a various subdivision, and intended to serve between the lots and that celestial seasonings, pewdie. So the path is not part of the Tmp transportation aspect. It does not connect to a network outside of the boundaries of the site. The applicant is proposing to develop the existing vacant site with 10 new buildings containing 79, 2, and 3 bedroom townhouses. Vehicular access to the site is from Spine road and gum barrel af

[22:03] and the site will provide parking private parking garages, parking off of the internal alleys, and on street parking along spying road and gumbbar o open space on the site is provided in the form of a central common area as well as private individual balconies. Just as a note, the development can count that area within the easement towards the total allowable site. Open space but it will be subject to the conditions of the conservation easement. The architecture of the project is contemporary, and building materials include include great brick, wood, composite panels, and stucco some of the proposed materials appear to meet the site review criteria for durable and long lasting materials. But that will be further evaluated that time of site review, and the site is oriented so that buildings from either the public realm or that courtyard in the center and buildings along the the units along the western boundary are oriented to face the conservation easement with access to the use of the flat irons.

[23:06] The proposal is largely 3 story flat roof buildings. The project appears to meet fa requirements per the zone, and proposes 177,458 square feet which comes out to about point 5 fa. Or however detailed floor plans will be submitted in future applications for staff to verify the floor area calculations. Note that at time a Site Review. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the fair requirements for the rest of the Pd. And and request an amendment to that previous condition. Limiting for area on lot. One staff has identified 3 key issues for discussion tonight, and I will go through those in the following slides is the proposal generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bdc. Staff finds that overall the proposed use and design for the site aligns with BBC policies. specifically introducing housing units, and fill housing on develop properties and protection of open space through the existing easement.

[24:03] and it also is consistent with the Li designation for the area. Alright. Second key issue is does planning board have feedback for the applicant on the Conceptual Site Plan and building design. Staff's initial assessment of the proposed site and building design is included under the concept review criteria overall staff appreciates the inclusion of improved alleys in the proposed site design, although more information will need to be provided. As it relates to the pedestrian experience and traffic holding with those alleys overall. There are some concerns about meeting the some some of the Site Review criteria, specifically related to materials building length and balconies to name a few and for the last key issue. Just other key issues that identified by the board that they would like to bring up as far as next steps. Following this concept, review, hearing city Council may vote to call up the item for a council hearing to provide additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submit submitting development review applications or submit a second concept review, application

[25:14] site Review amendment will be required, in which case staff will review the proposed modification to the existing Pd. As well as potential modifications to the code, including access and setbacks and the rest of the Site Review criteria as proposed, the application would not trigger an automatic public hearing, and would therefore be subject to qualified planning board. and I will open it up to questions. Right questions for Alison and Staff thanks Alison for a great presentation. And now. Thank you, George. Thanks, Alison. That was very well and concisely presented. I appreciate that. I just have a couple of

[26:03] So one of the things that has come up in many of the people putting comments on. This is the lack of a subcommittee plan to guide. And I'm wondering if we have any input from P. And D about is that on anybody's agenda will we be? Is that coming someday? Or should people in that neighborhood in that area, in gunbarrel in general. What should they be thinking regards to that. As far as the sub community plan. It's it's my understanding that it is not been identified as part of the work plan for the long range planners. And they're looking right now to Bbcp updates. And some of these older sub community plan. But as of now, it's it's not part of the work plan. Yeah. There was a sub community plan for gunbarrel adopted in our in 2,004. I think it was amended in 2,006. But I don't think that there's any anything on the work program right now that would either expand the area of the plan.

[27:10] Aye. We're kind of freshen it up at this point, I think. All the focus right now was on the upcoming comp plan update. Right, those. Yeah, it just. It seems like most people were just referring to that. And I wanted to go public with, we recognize that it's it's a you know. It's a concern. And I and I think the plan you're talking about Charles is the one for the central business district. I think. That's right. This property wouldn't actually fall into the area of influence of the existing gun barrel sub community plan from 2,006. Ride and the other question I have, and I'm not sure you would be able to answer it. But so they talk about the transportation options, and that there's a proposed bus stop.

[28:03] But we can't. Garrett. Isn't that Rtd. Or can we guarantee that there'd be a bus stop, or what is when there isn't a bus stop in the vicinity and and part of the multimodal transportation. I guess proposal thinking is that there's a proposed bus. Stop! How? How does that? How does that work? When we don't know that we'll we'll get it. I don't think we can require a bus stop. I think if there's an existing bus stop, we can require improvements to the bus. Stop. But you know Staff has been working and chatting with Rtd. About the existing bus routes, and that will be explored further in a future Tdm and once they submit for site review. Right. So can the applicant included as part of their tdm, thinking if it's not guaranteed.

[29:00] I think that that depends on what Rtd comes back with, as far as the plan service for those stops. Yeah, I think I think the answer would be, no, unless we have a guarantee from our TV that it's either going to be upgraded, or there'll be new service that's included, as you know, part of the Site Review. This just being concept, we're just identifying key issues at this point and if and when they submit an actual site review application, we would get a little bit more serious in our our discussions with Rtd. Perfect. That's what I was looking for, whether we would like it versus we have, it is allowed. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thanks. Amel, Kurt. Sorry, dealing with my my ipad. Let's see. the first question is about the floor area, so my understanding correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is under the Po. D, with the transfer of floor area, 41,000 roughly square feet

[30:08] are allowed, and they're proposing a hundred 77 1,000. Is that correct? That is correct. And so part of the Site Review application. It would be technically a Site Review amendment to amend the the beauty and the previous condition that that limit limited that far. The applicant would provide an fa analysis of the lot, and how it needs the Zone district Fr. As well as far for the entire beauty. Okay? And are there standards. The. the, the standards that would apply are the usual site Review standards. There's nothing specific for that sort of. No, it's our regular site. Review criteria, all the Site Review and. Okay, sounded sounds good. Next question so I ref. So one place a reference to a height modification. But it also sounds like there

[31:04] building to the the 40 foot height limit. Is that correct? It's my understanding. It's building to the the 40 foot height limit. I think the applicant has a presentation will be able to also touch on that. Yeah. Okay? And then the memo says that the path in the conservation easement was not intended to connect to a broader transit network. Do you have evidence for that? What? What is that based on. It. It's not. It's just from from our analysis of the transcript, the Tnp, it's it's not shown on the Tmp, it doesn't connect to any other routes. And I'd have to go back and look at the language of the dedication but I believe the intent was to serve the existing duties in in that way.

[32:01] Okay. thank you. Next question is, is my recollection? Is the project to the South that is not yet under construction was to help pay for a shuttle accessing sort of downtown gun barrel. Is that right? I'm not familiar with that. That project was before my time. I don't know. Charles maybe has some historical information on that, or I can look into it also. Here. Can you repeat the question for me? Please. Yeah. My recollection is when the the project to the south on spine was approved. That part of the Tdm. Plan for that project was to help fund a shuttle to downtown gun barrel and to the the future. Brt stop along Highway 1 19. So I'm wondering. Since since that project has not been constructed.

[33:04] If you have any information about the status of that shuttle, is it still in being planned any information about that. I'd have to go back and look at that approval which we can do while we're talking here. If it was included in the in the approval. Then they would be required to, you know. Make sure that they're providing the shuttle and running it. We just need to go back on the approval history. I don't recall off the top of my head. Okay, basically, the question would be, then, if that is still happening, could they. Yeah. Roger. Little bit. Sorry. Could this project be required to also help pay for that. Okay, that's a good question for how I think. But it looks like she's struggling with Internet. Okay, yeah, aren't we all And then let's see one more question. It talks and.

[34:00] Turning off my my video. Maybe that fault. We can hear you now. Hello! Oh! Okay. I hope you can continue to hear me. Yeah. I remember that there was a question of approval on spinal project. Have but what you're saying? Maybe you could hello! Maybe maybe it'd be possible. That required contribution. That, I think, was. but I did it. We're not. We're not hearing. Am. Yeah, would it be possible, maybe, for Hela to put a response in the chat or something. Yeah. We could work behind Kurtab respond to that.

[35:01] Okay, thank you. And then. George, is it I have, 2 more questions. Yeah, go for it. Go go for it, go for it! Go for? Okay? The the proposal talks about vacation of an easement for an underpass under the diagonal. Can you talk more about that? Yeah, the the original. There was originally, I think it's like a 30 foot wide reservation that was dedicated part of the language of that dedication said that after a certain amount of years the reservation essentially goes away. And that time has passed. I can try to find the exact date but since the overpass and has not been developed, that reservation is essentially dissolved. Oh, okay. Okay. Then. That's our move. Yeah, okay. Sounds good.

[36:00] then Oh, my last question. Finally, my last question is, the the memo talks about a drainage easement on spine, and I'm wondering what restrictions that imposes. But I think. Into 2. 25, foot drainage, easement. Yeah, I'm just trying to pull up the mapping. So I can familiarize myself with that. yeah, usually our our engineers would look at that during Site Review. To confirm what development is allowed. But I'll take a note of that and try to get you an answer. Okay. Yeah. While we're waiting here. Okay. yeah, any. Any implications in terms of what can be put in the easement? And what impact it has on the layout would be helpful.

[37:02] Okay, I am finally done. Thank you. Alright, Mark. Hi, I'm gonna follow. This is kind of good timing. I'm gonna follow up a little bit on a couple of Kurt's questions. The first one is the the project which we assume will be going forward to the southwest. I can't tell from the plans from this project. Do any of the. Is there any going to be any connection or streets that align? So there's a natural connection to the Southwest from this property to the property. To the Southwest when it's developed. I'm I'm not aware of any proposed connection to the the Southern property. I I think the applicant can also specify their future plans for connection.

[38:05] Okay? The next one is kind of following along with the Kurt's question about the underpass, the proposed, and I think, future boulder bikeway between Boulder and Longmont will as far as I understand. And I I if anyone on staff has additional information or counter information, I'd love to know it. That bike way, for the most part. will take place in the median between the north and southbound lanes of the diagonal. And so without an underpass. Is it everyone's understanding that, in fact, there would really be no access to that other than a J. Road, and that

[39:02] 60, fifth, or whatever what? Whatever it is, when at the next stoplight, you know, you have a stoplight at J, and then the next one to the north is whatever numbered street. That is so. And my question, I'll go back to the question. does anyone on staff have any confirming data that the bikeway will be in the median between the lanes. I I don't have that information off the top of my head where the the bikeway will be if it's between the Medians. But I can also look that up for you. Okay? Alright. And again, that that's a project that's in in design influx, you know, is, I think the county is really the lead on that. But but both the city of Boulder City of Longmont are participants in that. But okay,

[40:01] I think that's it. For now, thank you. Thanks. Mark. Go ahead, Claudia. Thank you. Couple of questions here. My first one is about the conservation easement and the existing conditions there. It's mentioned in the packet, and also quite visible on the site, that there is a berm in that area that is running parallel to the diagonal and I'm curious if we know is that is the Burma natural feature. Is it a human, constructed feature? And in the course of you know, doing construction on this site. What are the limitations on dealing with topography and other things in the conservation easement? Because I do see this part of the plan. That that shows some landscaping improvements in that area. Yeah, that that is a good question. It. It's. you know. I think the

[41:01] the conservation easement will require additional analysis as it comes through for site review, and what can and cannot occur inside of it? It's my understanding that the development within it is pretty limited and so excavation and changes to the burn would probably be pretty limited. You know that said it. The conservation easement does allow for certain things like pond and a jogging path. So I think if you know those features were to go in then we might be able to look at it from that lens, and whether or not the burn would preclude some of those allowed developments. Okay. thank you. Second question is about internal circulation. In these alleyways that I'm seeing on the plan. And what requirements does the city have for internal circulation, for cars on a site of this size, and with this many units.

[42:03] It'd be subject to. You know, one of the the concerns that we had is providing more information on some of those traffic pulling measures. Due to the the design. So we would look at that as well as the site review criteria for access and circulation. And then I believe that some of the Dcs standards will also apply. Okay? So specific question that I'm I'm seeing this kind of triangular wedge of housing and the open space area in the center of this plan? And does that need to have? I mean, essentially does do the alleyways need to connect around a feature like that. Whether or not they need to connect around the the courtyard. If if that's like a a city requirement or

[43:03] I I don't. I don't think that is, I think it. It probably more has to do with the site design from the applicant, and how they were laying out the buildings. Okay. Fabulous. Thank you. I'm I'm getting to know some of the details of the code in this. In this way. Okay. I appreciate that. And then my third question does overlap a bit with questions that I think Kurt and Mark have already raised. And that is about a future transportation demand management plan, and in particular, is there is there any guidance on having plans that essentially will intersect with each other in some way. So we have 2 sites here. Adjacent to each other. Where, parking and traffic is likely to be an issue? And the question is, is there any way of bringing Tdms into conversation with each other? I think there probably is. We're still waiting for Hela to reconnect. I think she's gonna try to reconnect on her phone. But in the meantime I was able to find that condition of approval from the 4 7, 7, 5 spine project to the south. So good memories here tonight. So the applicant was required to contribute $200,000 to fund a first year of a gun barrel shuttle.

[44:16] provided the shuttle is established no later than 3 years. After issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the development I think the original standard was 18 months, and I think the board bumped it up to 3 years, so I don't know that. It's a very active site right now, as far as permitting goes. I think they've made it through the technical document review process. But, I don't believe that they've entered building permit at this point. Okay, thank you. No more questions right now. Mason. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Awesome presentation. Tagging on to some of the questions about the conservation easement.

[45:03] and the I wanted to bring up some notes that are read from public comment. And that was around. The comment tree that's there, the dot perk that might be built, and I I believe that you already kind of touched on this in your answer, Alison, that these things will review further, as what's allowed in the conservation easement. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. I think our our initial take that. Our initial read of the conservation of the easement is that some of like the fencing and the dog park. Would not be allowed but that will be reviewed more closely. that's overview. And as far as the extensive prairie dog colonies are on this property. The package that speak in length about relocation and other options that would need to be taken to account. What I wasn't really sure of is, I know that open space mountain parks does. Studies. As to populations in certain areas of open space of prairie dogs, and whether or not they were meeting their targets for this area.

[46:07] do we have any knowledge on that there, above or below? I I don't have that information on the prairie dog relocation. As far as any sort of metrics for the area. I can try to PIN that down. Thanks. Jason. That's something that we would probably get more into at the Site Review phase at Concept. And we're really just kind of raising it as an issue. That's absolutely something that once they get into Prairie Dog permitting. That we would absolutely follow up on as part of the Site Review. Okay, that sounds great. I'll look forward to hearing more about it. Then I know in some areas they're above target. And they're relocating in some areas or below targets that'd be interested in knowing specifically about this area as far as the railroad are there. I I looked up and down. I didn't see any housing developments this close. If if I'm reading the plans right?

[47:01] Are there any additional regulations that we need to consider when building a site of houses. This close to breve roads. We do have a site review criterion that discusses. I'm just trying to pull it up. The actual number that talks about proximity to railroads. and sort of the materials in the design that would need to be incorporated. I think Charles Charles are muted. Sorry. I think there's also some noise attenuation construction typology. to ensure that it's not completely disruptive. Yeah, that's under the building materials. 9, 2, 14 h. 3 c, 5. Yeah, I can see that I just didn't know if there any. Does that get to? I didn't see any rules or regulations specifically around railroads is, that is, that required those the noise about statements.

[48:04] I think, other than the the building permit, and therapy criteria that there aren't. But great. And my last question has to do with the comment that I saw and that was that there was a concern that this land was pre supposed to be a park. But I'm gonna say, in the past that Pd, that turned it into Lot One. And I did look at that, and it looked like it was a sub. It was labeled as suggested, future use. Yeah. I just wanted to confirm that that wasn't part of a a promise for this land, or something. No, yeah, I was included as like in a future master plan. But it did not propose this review amendment did not specifically propose a park, and it was not included in the approval or stated in the condition the specific condition on that law. I think it was just kind of a future plan that could happen. I think it's a few 5 to 7 years

[49:01] which have now now passed. But so it was not proposed or approved as part of that Site Review amendment. Great thanks. That was my retail. I just wanted to make sure we covered. Hmm. That's all my questions. Great thanks, Jason. And I'll good. did I? Did I already have you once. Did I? I can go whenever. Yeah, I'll I'll I'll just I wanna circle to Laura and then myself, and then I'll come back for a second round of comments. Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. Somebody saying. Sorry I'm interrupting. This is this is Heather. I just. But yeah, we can't. Phone is working. Do. And before we move on I wanted to mention that we do actually have a new site review criterion that imposes some noise reduction requirements for residential units within 200 feet of a railroad. So this is probably within 200 feet, and this this would then apply in this. in this case.

[50:01] Do you have any specificity as to what those, what those noise, reduction requirements, are. Yeah, it says, it has to be designed to achieve an interior day, night, average noise level of no more than 45 decibels. and then it has to be measured consistent with standards for the Federal Housing and urban development standards under Federal law. Thanks, Tyler. Alright just on earth that. And to loop back to Mark's question, it does look like the 9 miles of the Lobo trail between Longmont and Boulder that needs to be completed. It looks like there will be a big stretch of that that'll exist in the median between 1, 19. Bars. Laura. I just have one question. Alison, did I hear right in your presentation that you said that if this project is constructed as currently proposed that it would not come back to us for an automatic hearing. But it would be a planning board. Call up item.

[51:06] Yeah, as proposed, since there's no height modification, I guess the other option, if they are requesting vested rights. That's an automatic public hearing but with what they've shown so far, it doesn't indicate it would trigger automatic public hearing. So yeah, it would be subject to planning board call. Okay, thank you. That was my only question. Thanks, Laura. I I just have one question before we go another round. If anyone has any additional follow ups before we get to the applicant. I I wanted to circle back to something that Kurt was mentioning. It was in the memo around the 41,000 square feet. The deal that was made around with this pud. I I I've I've like a little bit more clarity as it relates to so is everything above 41,000 square feet. Then a an exception to that Pud.

[52:03] I I think it would be the amendment. Would either change that condition or strike it entirely, so that they would not be limited to the 41,000. I don't know. It looks like Hella unmuted. I don't know if she has more to add to that. Yeah, what was approved under that Po was what was allowed to be constructed based on that approval. But you can come in and seek a different approval, and at that time, when that was approved, the man use code standards were different as well the residential, and IM. And IG. Zones. Opportunity was not created at that point in time, I think that was created in the in 2,004. So so that was not even something that could have been considered at the time. So the times have changed a little bit, and with a new application changes can made to the Pd. Consistent with today's loss.

[53:02] Okay, but it's up to. It's up to us as a city to approve an amendment that would supersede what is actually possible under the po d. Is that correct? Yes, but your decision would have to be based on whether or not what's proposed meets the code standards. Got it. Okay, thank you. And that that's that's helpful. Anyone for a second round of clarification questions between Staff. I'd like to keep it kind of brief, just because we got a lot of stuff to go through. So if people can distill their stuff pretty quickly, if you're ready. Go ahead and talk. I think Ml was up first. Yes, thank you, George. I'm ready. So I'm looking at criteria 3 under concept, plan, review, and just talk about the Site review information. So a Alison. One of the Site Review.

[54:00] I think it's H. One f talks about housing types. And so this project has got townhouses. It's got townhouses and what they were calling white townhouses are those 2 things considered different types. No, the the different housing types would be duplexes, attached building units, townhouses, live work units and efficiency living units. We don't differentiate between different types of townhouses. Okay. So for the greater than 5 acres, they must have 2 qualified flying, qualified housing types. And right now they only have townhouses. Correct. Yeah. And and they would also need to provide at least 5 dwelling units of each of the 2. Ha qualifying housing types. Okay. and then my last question. concerning the and but again, it's a site review criteria. But it comes up in other places. And we've been hearing

[55:05] section G, environmental preservation talks about mitigating as adverse impacts to a species of special concern. So the county has identified the black tailed prairie dog as a species of concern, so would that imply that they really can't do much of anything to that conservation easement to preserve the colony. I I you know, I think again, there's something we definitely look at more closely at Site Review. Since this is still at the concept phase. I think you know the the conditions of the conservation easement will also play into it. And certainly, you know, this criteria will be evaluated. when we review that conservation easement and the the protection of natural features and

[56:03] species. So in the open space requirement. So this kind of plays into the open space requirement. let me see if they're greater than 50 units and more than one mile from a public part. Then they have to create. I'll recreational opportunities on site. and if that conservation easement has to retain the prairie dogs. You can't. They're kind of like in conflict with each other. So my question is, does this project? It's greater than 50 units, and it's more than one mile, so it would need to meet the require. Those extra requirements of open space that comes in under the site review. Is that correct? Yeah, excuse me, that is correct. And you know they could provide that 30% elsewhere on the site they could. Also, the easement does allow, for I believe it's called the jogging path.

[57:02] So there are ways that they could meet those active, recreational purposes within the conservation easement. or else we're on Site. Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Thanks, Ml, Kurt. I saw your hand up briefly. Are you. I'm good. Thank you. Guy anybody else? I have one more question. I had a question on the for staff regarding the length of some of these buildings. So I counted on the plan. There's some pretty long buildings here with 2, with, I think, 12 townhouses and and and one with, or one with 13 or 2, or 13 either way, some some pretty long bill. What? What are the stand? Are there standards? We're seeing a lot of these townhouse developments are there standards that that are in place to break some of these these large masses up.

[58:04] Yeah. And I think that that was one of the concerns that we had highlighted was you know the building length for especially those buildings that you called out that have 12 or 13 units? We do have that in the set review criteria, and we have further condition or further criteria for height, modification. Again, if they're not applying for a height modification, those wouldn't apply. But we do have site, review criteria that looks at building. This is what is what's proposed here that we're looking at in violation of the Site Review criteria as it stands. It's it's hard to say, because we didn't review closely against the set review criteria. Since it's in concept plan, I think that's why we raised it, since it's at concept that it may be an issue and should be considered in the further design as they kind of fine tune. The. Let me ask with more specificity, and it does the site review criteria have a building length maximum that.

[59:02] It doesn't have a maximum, but if it's a certain length it, it needs to be broken up or have the appearance of different buildings. Actually, the additional criteria for height Mods might have a max length. Maximum length. Yeah, I think it might just be for the if you're requesting a height modification, there are additional criteria that limit. I think it's like. Hold on! Let me see if I can find it. Well, maybe we can put a PIN in that. I don't need an answer right now, but when we get to discussion I'd like to talk about it more. But I don't. Don't, don't need to. Pull this up. Any other questions for staff before we go to the applicants. Time. Alright. Thank you. Thanks, Alison. But gosh, yeah. Applicant. I believe they have 15 min up to 15 min for their presentation.

[60:09] Good evening board members Adrian. So far so for sparring architects. I'd like to be able to share our screen if I can. And and John Grant, can you see the screen. I can. Okay, hang on a second. Okay, I assume at this point you can see my screen. Yes, just real quickly. My name is John Grant. I'm with Crescent real estate. Thank you for having us here tonight. Crescent is a real estate firm, co-headquartered in Denver with an office in Boulder. We have owned and developed properties in Boulder since 2,011, and we've participated in the East Boulder Working Group and the Airport group. Greson employees, 6 individuals in the Boulder office

[61:01] and utilizes local service providers such as sofas, barn, and Dean Callen. I appreciate everyone's time this evening, as we discussed our proposed middle housing project on the diagonal highway. I would be glad to answer any questions at the end. But we'll now turn the presentation over to Adrian so far. Thank you. Thank you, John. I'd like to go through a little bit. The process that we have gone through to develop this concept plan. You're all I know familiar with site the project site is directly adjacent to diagonal highway, which is, of course, got a major impact on the form of the project the other obvious thing of of of of of value to recognize is the distant mountain views available beyond diagonal highway. So of course, there's the sound and the of, and the and the impact of the highway itself on the property as well as the the train line. But beyond that there's tremendous views of open space, the the

[62:08] the reservoir, and the and the and the bird sanctuary associated. So, looking at how people in this, in this area, which is zoned industrial manufacturing, have addressed that view. We. We start adjacent to us on the on the south west is a celestial seasoning site, and you can barely see it from the road. But what you do from the highway. But what you do see is essentially it's loading dock, and it has somewhat distant from the from the highway. But you can definitely see it's the back of the building. Next to us, on the opposite side is the Medtronic facility, which actually doesn't front very much onto the highway itself. It fronts onto Spine Road, which is then adjacent to this particular parcel, and it takes the the perspective of that. The long view of the of the mountains is something that is a a a great value to them, and so they have long ribbon windows that a face that face that view, and actually the the the element that is directly adjacent to the highway is one of their parking structures.

[63:19] Next to that is one of many office buildings. Along this strip. This has a more of a sort of multifamily feel to it in terms of the way they've dealt with amassing in the openings, but it, too, has in front of it their their parking lot and it treats it as an amenity for the views, but not so great in terms of how it's fronting on the on the highway itself. And then, as you continue on, there's more parking lots and strip windows. So it's it's all meant to be seen, really, as a something that you move by very quickly, and not terribly engaged in in in the highway, which is perfectly understandable because the highway is not terribly engaged with it.

[64:06] But it is. It is definitely a different kind of criteria to deal with than what is found on the other side of the project which is spine road itself, and in that regard spine road leads into the residential areas that are mostly in the county, but also some parts in the city. As you move southward along Spine Road. There is, as I said earlier, the Medtronic building again, not a very pedestrian friendly zone, as it moves a little bit further to the to the south. It's it. It gets even less engaged in that pedestrian environment, and then finally scales down and then turns into Spine road residential zone which has existing flats of 2 and 3 stories, and across the street from that is what's recently been approved by you as our our neighboring new multi family development. This is, I believe, almost all flats.

[65:12] So that's the context in which we designed or attempted to design this project. Looking at the project site diagonal highway is to the, to this, to the the west, northwest to the north Medtronic. and then the housing. Pardon me to the west, to the east medtronics, and then housing south of that that's either existing or planned for and approved by the city. The the access along Spine Road is a major truck delivery route into celestial seasonings which turns in on Gunbarrel Avenue and turns again to sleepy time drive. Also we have. We have a, I believe, a requirement for a buffered bike lane to be included, as well as a deceleration lane that leads into Gunbarrel to the south

[66:07] and along spine and gun barrel we are proposing on street parking that would then serve this property and its guests. The Multi use. Path is a part of the connections plan. It's unclear as to whether it's required or not. I'm I'm a little bit unsure myself, but there is. We? We'll talk about that, I'm sure, as we go on the the underpass reservation is actually half on this property and half on the property to the South. It's not reserved particularly for bikes. This is a major underpass that I think was anticipated, and is now not intended. I believe that that allowance is expired, but we would request that if it has expired so that it'd be vacated completely, so it doesn't interfere with us moving forward when we go looking for building permits.

[67:01] Beyond that, looking at how we enter the site. We we we are only providing or showing one access to the public right of way along Spine Road. We've moved it as far north as we could to not interfere with the deceleration lane, and allow as much parking closer to the residents as possible. And we're also showing that it link to the neighborhood to the south that is both approved and potentially a future neighborhood on the adjacent property to the Southwest. We have no idea what will go there, or when it will go there, or if it will go there, but we feel it's important to not disconnect neighborhoods Staff has has commented on only one access is allowed. We are showing only one access from public right away, but we believe it's important to provide this access to the South. The the fire marshal has also weighed in on that, and actually does want the second access point so that we can come back to through site Review as well.

[68:03] We mentioned already the views to the to the mountains, to to the the northwest and west, and the impact of diagonal highway is very significant in terms of sound on this property. The conservation easement is the green and the berm that's that's there today. Or actually, I'm not sure there's a detention pond, I believe in the in, in, in this area of the site that would that is really serving the celestial seasonings. PUD. And this and the and there's the easement is to serve. I believe also the future development to the South. and we are maintaining that as a 25 foot easement, we are also showing actually that it is moved to the West to allow for the future deceleration lane and the what and the the protected bike path. All of that will have to impact the site by by moving everything westward on it.

[69:00] We are also showing that we, we're we're trying to take advantage of the potential for pedestrian access directly into the site from Spine and Gunbarrel Avenue, and treating those as entries along the street to the townhouses, while the internal link serves as access both to residences along the West. And we we feel that actually is an important secondary loop to to connect that internal link which, by the way, the fire marshal is requiring us to do, too, and we have to make this serviceable to his emergency vehicles. We started out looking at the possibility of doing stack flats over tuck under parking. But Crescent felt very strongly that we needed to address the the middle middle missing middle housing, and particularly in relation to townhouse units. So, as we've submitted it.

[70:01] everything on this site is shown that way. And then we Carol Adams, our landscape architect, is here to address whatever your questions you might have, but in the in the interest of time I'll let it stand for now that we can. Address her your your comments as they arise. But basically all of the housing is intended to meet the street along the public street and the private drives, and provide an internal circulation loop that allows access to housing along the western side. So in this case, rather than put any parking in a street along the the, the, the, the visible side of the highway. We're saying that the front doors and the and the the garages are accessed from the internal drive, whereas along the the public access routes and the private drive at the South and the east. The the parking is not visible. It's pedestrian oriented. Only

[71:04] a word about townhouse typology in the missing, missing middle. That's that city council and planning board is aware of the need. By then, by their nature we are talking about a long horizontal structure that is generally repetitive along its frontage. That's basically the nature of the townhouse. And there are limited opportunities for varieties along that frontage. And at the same time they typically front onto a street and make for a very walkable neighborhood. And they can vary quite a bit in terms of how much, how how close the sidewalk is versus how much further away, and the character of that street! These are a little bit more urban in their nature than what we have here. What we're showing right now is there is the the drain adjacent which will be between the new sidewalk and the parking and the bike path

[72:03] that drainage easement is about is 25 feet wide. Excuse me a little too quickly, and then crossing that with access directly into every townhouse unit. But in order to create that pedestrian, oriented street, the car has to go somewhere else, and otherwise you end up with which is very common in certain parts of town, and in other other jurisdictions, where the the whole frontage is essentially given up to a garage door and a small accommodation for an entry. and to avoid that, we've we've taken the the street frontage side and made all of those into access into the townhouses on the front, but that means then we have put the car on the backside and and treated that more as an access lane, whereas on the the the side that is parallel to diagonal highway. We've widened those units and created, and we were still working on how that character of that street works and and traffic calming, which I'm sure we'll get to as move forward the combination of both entry into the units as well as the garages.

[73:14] so that allows us to free up the backside to the towards the view and towards the the the visibility of this project from the highway. as we've mentioned before. By their nature, townhouses are long and Ca, long and horizontal in character, etc, and typically varied. At the rear, the non street facing side. They oftentimes will be completely varied in terms of how they meet their alley and and access drives. But in this case we're trying to take advantage of that great view towards the mountains and and and so we're looking at how we can break up that that stretch of of units into multiple buildings and break up the

[74:07] incremental aspect of the townhouses. And we're doing so by saying, well, we can take advantage of the third floor views and increase the height, create some projecting elements, and allow for some units, particularly at the corners, to have roof decks, because we have enough height to work with As we do, that we also can incorporate second floor balconies, some of which are narrow and deep, some of which are shallow and proud of the of the surface of the building, some of which are on corners and wrap the corner. and then on the ground floor. We get likewise have the opportunity for terraces that open out to the green space in front of them, all of which starts to create a pattern which can vary. You can see they. They don't necessarily line up with the townhouse units as discrete elements, but can move from one townhouse to the next, and create larger and smaller masses that

[75:05] can start to play in various ways as they move from building to building, which is where we are in terms of developing the the the face to the highway. And at this point that's as far as we've developed. We're looking for your feedback and thoughts as we move forward, and I'll stop there. Unless anybody wants to add anything from our team. I assume we're all just available to take questions from you. The board. Thanks, Adrian. Anybody else from your team before we go to board questions. Nope. Alright great thanks for the presentation, and for all the clarifications. we have any questions for Adrian and his team. I'm out. Thank you, George.

[76:01] Good evening, Adrian. Thank you for the presentation. I'm not sitting across the street from you right now, but. I was gonna disclose a Adrian is my neighbor right across the street? So I have a question. I'm thinking that I read your drawing such that you are proposing more cars and is required. You're like 213 or 100. Do you remember what that number is? And anyway. I I think. 100 and 13. Yeah. We're showing right now 2 cars per dwelling unit where one car is required. And we're also showing guest parking. So that is, I believe what you're referring to. That's what I'm referring to. And the number you have is 200. You're providing 213% of what's required. So my question is, regards to both older valley Comp plan and site review.

[77:02] If this is, if this is having a relationship to the walkable neighborhood. Criteria that we like to incorporate! How does that sort of over overindulging in cars contribute to a walkable neighborhood concept. Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. As you know. the code just recently changed in relation to townhouses. In in relation to multi family altogether, whereby you're only required now to provide one car per dwelling unit and multi family projects such as this, or, I should say, in townhouses whereas it has previously been required on a bedroom basis, one car for one bedroom, one and a half for 2 cars for 3, and so on this being a project in gunbarrel which is not

[78:03] exactly like being in spark development, which, by the way, is right. Next to the railroad tracks, as you may recall. It doesn't have the same level of service to their residents. And I'm gonna let John from Crescent speak to this a little bit, but they felt very strongly that to not presume that one car in this instance was going to be sufficient for the needs of the residents here, John, do you want to add to this. Yes, Adrian, you're exactly right. We we believe the clientele, the missing middle here will either be a roommate situation or people in families sharing living quarters and likely to have 2 cars per unit

[79:00] plus with the boulder lifestyle. We also considered that the need to store bikes, kayaks, other outdoor equipment to be very important to the overall success absorption of the project. So that is why we insisted on 2 car garages. And I'll just mention that if if there's not a need for that second car, we have a lot of confidence that Boulder residents will fill up that space with stuff such as bikes, kayaks, and so on. Okay, thank you for that. I have one more question regarding the site criteria. And that is the same. When I asked Staff you show just one housing type. So what would be your strategy to try to meet the 2 housing type requirement.

[80:00] Well, I think we're we'll certainly abide by whatever whatever site review criteria is. And Crescent felt pretty strongly that the townhouse Typology was what was most needed in this community. And you know, if if the Board has some thoughts about that, and if the Site Review criterion demands it. I'm sure Preston will respond accordingly. Okay, I I was just curious as to whether you had a the way you articulated the development of the buildings themselves and the way access works. You know, it's it's pretty townhouse focus. So I would just curious as to how that that is a that is a required criteria in the Site Review. So I just, I just wanna put that out there. You don't. You don't need to try to solve the problem. Well, I I think that the requirement, if if it's if it's a hard and fast one. I'm I'm sure we'll respond appropriately. You know the end units particularly along the the street side. And there are opportunities for turning those into flaps. I I think what you're talking about is not a lot of units. So

[81:12] if we have to go that route, I'm sure Crescent will respond appropriately. Right great. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thanks. Ml. Kirk. Thanks. Hi, Adrien, thank you for the presentation you mentioned the need for a deceleration lane on spine, and I either miss this in the presentation, or or in the Memo or or something. But can you talk more about who's requiring that? And and why? And maybe this is more of a staff question. Well, we we we do have a wire Dubois from or is it to Bose? I don't know from from Jba and Wyatt, do you? Wanna I think you're there.

[82:01] Don't see you. Why are you there? Well, maybe Staff has somebody that can address it, but it's not coming from us. I'll tell you that. Okay. okay, well, I I will ask later of Staff. Then one other question for you, I thought, and I'm I may have been confused about this, but I thought you were saying that the diagonal. the the units that are on the diagonal that are facing the diagonal highway. that the front door would be on that western northwestern side. No. But okay. The front. The front door is on the street side. Correct, correct, and we we see that as a shared street we will be providing traffic, calming measures and and treating that as more of a winter flight space, because we we do see that as part of the the life of of of that neighborhood on a daily basis adjacent to the green space, and so on.

[83:05] and we did not want to put cars on the diagonal highway side, which meant we would end up having garage doors along there, and it just felt like it was inappropriate. Okay, thank you. That's all. Volume. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Adrian. I have 2 questions about, I think, call it internal mobility in the site. One of them is about access to that shared triangle of open space in the center. And what do you see as pathways from some of the outlying units to that space. Just for clarity by the outlying units. Are you referring the ones to the west or to the south and. Yeah, I'm gonna I always get a little bit disoriented with cardinal directions in Bunborough. So I'll refer to street names.

[84:02] units, a long spine. and then the units along Gun Barre landing. Let me just pull up the the drawing again. I think this gets back to the point that I was starting to make with with Kurt is that we see this as a a calmed interior internal roadway that would provide a low speed limit. We've we every time you come into this we would, we would interrupt it with a break in the building which provides opportunities for for planting to be visible, and then you'd have to come in at a right angle and turn, and then eventually likewise from the secondary loop you come in and turn, and then from the, from the, from the right of way. It slowed down immediately. So

[85:04] we'll do everything we can to make this a pedestrian, friendly environment. Yes, there are right now. breaks in it that allow at these points transitions from both sides of the the warf itself. it's I'm certain it's it's it's we're trying to provide as much guest parking as is practical, and so how much we we will need or be allowed will still have to work with staff on, and likewise guest bike parking is associated with those with those linkages and that green space internal to the site. I don't know if that's answering your question, but. Somewhat. I'll I'll save more for for comments later. Okay. The second question was to ask about your your strategy for the amount and placement of guest parking. I I'm seeing most of that, I think along that

[86:03] main diagonal access way next to the shared green space. So how fast parking are you looking for? And. Well, there's also added parking along the street, which doesn't exist today. I mean, there's nobody there. But we're actually showing that in board of the protected Bike lane. and you can see here the deceleration lane, then turning in and then providing additional guest parking along these, the street frontage on, on Gun Barrel Avenue that is accessible directly to the units of sidewalk link. And then what are you showing for? Guest parking adjacent to the central green area? Along here. Yeah. You mean? How many or. Yeah, so, and that is, am I reading that correctly? That that is program. That is guest parking there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Kate, you know how many we got.

[87:05] Hi, sorry. Let's see, we had about. I think we had about 19 spaces there. Give or take. And what are you aiming for? Per unit? In terms of how much per unit. Yeah, cause I know you got 2 car garages on each of the actual units. So how much additional parking parking are you trying to achieve here. I don't know that we can actually say that we're targeting a number. What we, what we wanted to do was make sure that residents were not parking in the guest parking spaces, that they had sufficient parking, that they weren't spilling over into guest spaces. And John, do you want to speak to this in terms of Crescent's intention. It. It's just to make the community as accessible and friendly as it can be. I I think we're

[88:05] expecting you know, visitors to come and and meet with residents. I. We don't have a specific target. We're just trying to make it easy for people to visit residents, and also to access the park which will be open to the public. The little triangle there, as well as the conservation easement. Okay. Thank you. Mason. Yeah, thank you. So I I was just. I was also kinda curious about the parking situation. It seemed like a a lot. But understand your points that are made the have you all explored any share? Parking arrangements with the businesses on either side

[89:01] of of this area. We have not. Medtronics doesn't really have a through the site that's accessible from the residents. Celestial seasonings. Parking is I believe, on the south side of their building, which is quite a distance away as well. No, no, we haven't as I'm I'm not really sure how practical that would be! Great? That was my only question. Mark. Adrian, did you got? Did you or your team? Inquire with staff evaluate sketchup any plans that might have vacated or moved the bike path

[90:02] more to the central area of the development. pushing the belt, the development a little more to the southwest and creating more open space in the center. Or is the is the Bike Path Easement something that you are just treated as a given that you had to deal with in its current location? Yes, thank you, Mark, that's that's a very interesting point. We we did not question it's location. in part because it, I believe, is connecting to the requirement for a similar bike path on the property to the south. I think if it did show as coming through the site as a kind of shared street as opposed to a dedicated and a protected bike lane. There's a logic to support what you're suggesting, and I'm I'm I'm intrigued by it definitely

[91:04] because that does push everything western along with the Deceleration lane, and so on. I mean, if we don't need to do that deceleration lane. If we don't need to do that bike path, we don't have to then move that drain adjacent. That gives us 25 more feet to deal with, probably, and I shouldn't say 25 more feet. It would give us significantly more space on the internal Greenway. Yes. But but you didn't. It's not something that you have really evaluated other than just kind of on the fly here. No, but I think it's a great idea honestly, and I'm happy to to discuss it with transportation. If if there's a if there's a direction from the board to look into it. Okay, thanks. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. What's the other questions? I'll go. I don't have that many questions just a quick question for you, Adrian. If if you wouldn't mind. Do. Do you have access? Can you pull up the the site plan again?

[92:09] Yes. So kind of follow it up a little bit on what Claudia was. Nope, I'm sorry it was talking about. Yeah, no problem. Wait for it to be back up, because I think it's helpful to look at it. We talk about it and back to the question that I had for staff around building length along with. I think some of what Claudia might have been getting to was sort of permeability between these buildings and how people like if I look at the long building on the north side by Spine road if I'm living in the middle of that building, and I want to get to that triangular park area, internal community area.

[93:04] How do I go about doing that? And have you thought about permeating these structures in the middle somewhere, both that one and the one that that that fronts that triangular park to allow better access. Yeah. I I think it's a fair point, and I guess the question for me is, how long is too long? When you consider. A city block in Boulder, which is not very long, is 300 feet. is a city block. This is in the older part of town is a city block too long. Also. you know, if you look at the context of this, and how often their buildings are, are are penetrated. In the adjacent neighborhoods. I think you won't find that we're much different from it. But

[94:00] of course the planning board has prerogative to to say, this is what we want, and we'll certainly do what we need to do. Okay, yeah, I, yeah, I just wanted to understand your your perspective on that. Yes. Yeah. I don't have other questions. Does anyone have any laura didn't see a question from you and anyone have any other clarifying questions before. We go to public comment. Alright. thank you, Adrian and John and Team appreciate it. If if you guys wouldn't mind turning off your video. Yeah, that'd be great, and I'll leave it to Vivian to conduct the public comment. Thank you. Chair. So we have about 6 people who've raised their hand so far. If you do not have your first and last name displayed here. Please go ahead and send me that using the QA function which is meant for technical issues such as this or process related questions, but not for discussions related to the public hearing. Item.

[95:13] each person will have 3 min, so I'll just calling you on the order that you raised your hand. We'll start with Chris. Goodman. Nope, and then. On! Before before we start. Vivian. I just wanted to use that same disclosure language that we have in the past. If you don't have access to it. I can read it off at the board request that, prior to offering testimony the Speaker, disclose any financial or business relationship with the applicant, the project or neighbors. This includes any paid compensation. It would also be helpful if, the speaker disclosed any membership or affiliation that would affect their testimony. So we we asked that as a board, just so we understand. Perspectives. But appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for that. Okay, Chris goodman, followed by Julie. Dive. Please go ahead, Chris. You have 3 min.

[96:06] and you have to unmute from your end we can hear you. Now go ahead. Okay, great. My name is Chris Goodman, and I live in Orchard Creek, which backs to celestial seasonings. As a resident of Boulder for more than 30 years I've seen a lot of empty promises from the city. We feel we, the residents and taxpayers of the city of Boulder. Out here in select the celestial property area have been neglected and let down repeatedly with empty promises from the city with the city parks of gun barrel, with promises to sub of a sub community plan never implemented by the city. Currently city boulder planners say we need to preserve industrial lands and not build more residential housing. The plans for this property have 1 19 highway address. How would residents access? Highway 1 19. This is a closed neighborhood. This build would offer nothing for the existing community. It is not a walkable community. We've lived here for 20 years. Never have we walked to King Supers. Once we rode the bikes with the kids, and it almost killed everybody. And we're at relatively athletic, you know. It's just a long path there.

[97:08] There's 0 open space or green space included in these plans for the community. We already have no public parks. Close by, nothing is walkable. The community open space for residents of gun barrel. We have nothing. We lack parks, recreational centers, trails, dog parks. The list is long. We don't feel included in the city of boulder. We feel that this is the primary area that they're building without with disregard for the community that exists here. I'm concerned about the conservation easement issue. I'm concerned about the prairie dogs and protecting them. Gunbarrel needs a sub community plan, one that's well thought out and considers the community that lives here. I just feel really frustrated with the whole thing and feel unheard by the city. Anyway, one of the top priorities, in my opinion of the city needs to be getting a plan together for the gun barrel area.

[98:02] this. I don't know if this is a green build or not, but that's a concern for me, the parking that's proposed on spine. This is a one lane road that is already deteriorating. And it's just gonna get worse with the more people that we have traveling on it. We are not a walkable community. We're hardly. I don't believe we're a bikeable community. Everyone's going to need a car. A 1,000 new residents with both developments combined. Our city, our community can. Sorry I lost my place in my notes. I wanted to mention that Rtd. Pulled their bus service off of Spine Road. We've had to drive our kids to high school the entire time they were in high school, so there is no bus service along spine right now, at least not one that's usable or dependable. anyway, I guess that's it. I really ask that you please consider the wildlife habitat that would be destroyed, and the fact that we have no public parks. Thank you.

[99:00] Thank you for being here and sharing your comments with the board. Next up we have Julie die. You have 3 min. Please go ahead, followed by Rona. Unsell. Please go ahead, Julie. Can you hear me? Yes. Pay. Hi! I'm Julie dye. I live in Gunbarrel and the City of Boulder. I'm on the board of the Gunbarrel Community Alliance. Here we go again. New board members, new proposal. So let me reintroduce you to gunbarrel. You can't see us, but we're here, and gunbarrel is tired. Why? Because the city and the county go back on their promises to us over and over. despite approval. In 2,006 we lost our designated gun barrel, downtown space and pedestrian area to another development. The city did not honor the celestial seasonings, PUD. Which promised community recreational spaces, and we were there on November seventh, when you extended the rules to give the developers of the Celestial Seasonings Development an unprecedented total of 7 years to complete their build.

[100:12] gunbarrel is the poster child for what happens when developments are permitted without a comprehensive subcommunity plan. we comp continue to lack amenities in our much more than 15 min neighborhood like the 33 min, 1.4 mile walk from the proposed development site to the grocery store. to the closest public playground at 2.6 miles across the diagonal. And now our only public school in gunbarrel. Heatherwood Elementary is on the chopping block. This rental development offers absolutely no benefits to our community, not even on-site affordable housing, and we lose IM. All these developers do is take the gunbarrel subcommunity plan was a top 5 issue at the 2021 City Council retreat, marked as a priority for the Bvc. PP. Midterm update.

[101:08] The previous planning board also unanimously voted to prioritize the gunbarrel sub community plan. You all don't remember, but we do. Each time we get new members on any board we lose all institutional history, all promises. Gunbarrel is again, asking that you hold approval on this until there is an approved plan. Fulfill your promises. We also feel it is important to remind you that we are the affordable housing part of boulder. We are more diverse, and we support affordable housing. We are Yimby, but with a plan that is supported by services and infrastructure we are asking for planned and orderly growth. Lastly, based on the comments tonight, we are asking the Board to please come by this site when the trains go by, and when the trucks are coming to and from this working 24 h factory, and hear how extraordinarily loud this location is.

[102:10] Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Next we have Rona Unsell, followed by Linda Zeep. Please go ahead, Rona. There we go. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. I couldn't agree more with Julie. We I've lived here for 24 years, and I have seen planning birds come and go. Same thing, she said. You ignore our request to to help our community form, to have a to have parks, to have you know, a sub community plan. This has been promised to us, and now we're right back, starting over again. We have. You know, we have no green space on this plan. They dis. You're disregarding existing residents of gun barrel. We we do feel and heard tremendously unheard. You're allowing developers to just go and Cherry, pick

[103:14] our habitat out here. Just pick the lots they want that have the views that make them money. There's not even affordable housing in this project. so there's nothing in it for our community. This brings, you know we have 1,200 vacant units in Boulder already, and 2,000 vacant units in Boulder County. I mean, we don't need more housing out here. Gunbarrel, as Jubilee said. Gunbrell is affordable housing. We have plenty of vacant units. You're disregarding the people who live here and just turning it over to developers. It's just so frustrating for all of us. I'm a good community. So you know, citizen, I I work to help my community, and you ignore us.

[104:02] Just ignore us. Thank you. Thank you for joining us tonight. so we'll continue to Linda. See? Followed by Irene Hilson. Linda, Europe drip. We can't hear you, Linda, please introduce yourself. I'm not sure I pronounced your name correctly. You have to unmute from your end way to couple seconds. and otherwise move on to Irene, and then come back to Linda. Alright, Linda, we'll come back to you. Irene. I know you're joining us by phone, so you have to hit Star 6. To unmute yourself.

[105:02] Hi! This is Irene. I also am a resident of Gunbarrow. I have no financial disclosures. I did want to say that I agree with. The first public speaker and with Julie that that area is very hard to access. And looking at the apartments that were built in gun barrel center and apex and also boulder views. A lot of them have high vacancies. So I don't understand why we're building more developments other than for the developers and investors, and that is a concern for me, and I will just make a statement on the train noise. I do know that a study was done when apex was built and they addressed the sound issue. So I don't think that's as much an issue as the safety of the railroad being so close to the buildings and sparking fires.

[106:12] We've had a few of those, and we've also had piece of train wheel break off. so that would be my comments for this project. I have many more for the next one. Thank you, Irene. Let's try Linda again. See if we can hear you this time, Linda. so we can't hear you, Linda, but you can try sending me a message through the Q. And a. And letting me know if you're joining by phone, and I can help you. Troubleshoot next we have Angie Mashaw, followed by April lions. Please go ahead, Angie.

[107:04] Hi! Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Hi. My name is Angie Michelle. I live at 4, 6, 2, 6, Burgundy Lane in Huntington Point. Townhome style Condos, and these are so different than my townh style condos. And I'd really like Mr. So far, and all of you to come to the neighborhood and take a look at what is in the neighborhood and the connectivity that we have between buildings. between developments. We have Hunter Creek. We've got powder horn. We have Habitat Willoughbrook and Huntington Point Condominium Condos. all different units, all different styles. And this doesn't look anything like anything in this neighborhood. The stacked over garages my unit as a garage, but I have one. It's a 2 story with a basement.

[108:03] They can build basements if they'd like to spend the money to dig a hole and provide that to the residents. and I really do encourage you guys my name. You have it my phone number. I can give it to you. Please come. I'm the president of my Ho a. And I'm also the president of Gumbarrel Commons Park. That is a private park. It is not a public park. It's a 10 acre park. It costs well over a hundred $1,000 a year to maintain. It's for our residents. It's not for these new developments. The pet area has not been approved. If you allow dogs in this property, I know exactly where they're going to go. They're going to come to my private park with their dogs, and it's not a dog park. and it's off leash for well-behaved dogs. But we have our own issues. But when I look at the size of that open space that you're providing. It's a half an acre.

[109:04] a half an acre, and I bet some of you grew up in neighborhoods that had quarter to half acre to acre lots that you lived on when you put that many units with half an acre and cars parked all around it where the kids are gonna go. They're gonna run out in the street. I mean, there is no you. It's just the most bizarre layout for open space. In my opinion, and the place needs amenities. There's not amenities for your community. That Half Acre Park is not gonna cut it in boulder. so there's a lot of other things we need a sub community plan. Plan. Rtd is not servicing this area. The light industrial is disappearing. And again, please, I would absolutely meet with you, and so would my neighbors. Thank you so much for listening. I really hope you hear us.

[110:03] Thank you, Angie. We have 4 more people waiting to speak. April lines your next, followed by Dorothy Donahue. Please go ahead. April. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. okay, Katie. alright. So I'm April lions. I live in gunbarrel and I'm on. I'm a board member on the Gun Barrel Community Alliance. We represent 500 disheartened members who have almost given up on having our voices heard. So I own a small business in Boulder. I'm worried about my sustainability in Boulder, because since night since 2,017, the city has lost 6,000 residents, and it's predicted that the city of Boulder will lose 6,000 more in the next 5 years. So it makes sense why this is happening. The views are being blocked. The wildlife is being paved over. There's tons of traffic and emissions.

[111:04] All the housing is overpriced rentals. Many people live in Boulder because of the beauty and the fresh air. But it's becoming too much of a fight for the missing middle to contend with. This project will not help. It has no community benefits has been said especially for gun barrel. It has no opportunity to buy and no affordable housing. Even the people who might occupy occupy these rentals or these townhomes. They're going to be paying so much. They're going to be paying over $6,000. I mean, efficiency out here is is more than 2,000. They'll have no community of benefits, and they'll have 6,600 residents moving in across the street with that celestial Seasonings development. If these residents. If they could wanted to drive 20 to 40 min in any direction, they would have the opportunity to buy something. 85% of people and Erie and other surrounding areas own their own houses or condos

[112:01] in boulder only 46% of people own. That's pretty sad. So I think we really need to look at this is this really what we want? So we know this land at some point will probably be developed. That's might be obvious. But this is industrial land for a reason. You know the boulder, the Boulder city planners. They said that future economic growth depends on industrial land, not just housing. So I think we would feel better in gun barrel if we had some kind of plan in place that would add value to this area. Future generations wouldn't resent us completely. Seems like the city is making room for all these future, this big future rush of residents coming in. But they're not listening to who is already here. This this isn't green. The open space is on the easement. the path that's in the back. It leads to nothing. That walking path. the river prep the river tracks. I mean, they have vibrations. It's loud out here. It's loud. And then the bird sanctuary they talk about. We're killing all their food.

[113:06] They eat the prairie dogs out here. They're not. There's no bird sanctuary that's gonna happen. This is not the same middle housing at all. And thank you so much. Thank you. April next to Dorothy Donahue, and then we'll try Linda again. Please go ahead, Dorothy. Hello to the planning board. I'm Dorothy Donahue and I live in Gunborough for the past 25 years. Pay taxes to the city of Boulder, and I am a member of the Gunbarrel Community Alliance. I think this has been said a couple of times. But have you any of you been over to Gunbarrel and viewed where this apartment complex is going to be? If not, I hope you do encourage you to come and stand on this land and feel what it feels like to have be so close to the highway. 1, 19, the trains, the tracks, and the 24 7 Factory.

[114:10] We were assured by the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan that the buildings would be up, and I have this in quotes appropriate to the area and the benefits provided. Do you truly feel another poorly planned apartment, complex shoved onto Spine Road is appropriate or beneficial. My second question is. will the developer compensate gun barrel for the wear and tear on spine road will suffer after the trucks and the debris from the construction. We who live close to the proposed development will have to put up with the dust, trucks, traffic, debris, and noise during the construction. After the apartments are built we will be left with more potholes, more traffic, less parking, and ugly buildings blocking our view of the mountains. My third question is, does the developer have a plan for relocating the prairie docs.

[115:04] The developer, who is from Texas, I hear, had a bizarre idea that the prairie dogs on this land would just scamper off into another area. What is the real plan for the prairie dogs? And lastly, which is the most important, is, will the Planning Board keep their promise to have a subcommittee before this vote is on, voted on both the City Council and the Planning Board unanimously voted to prioritize the gun barrel. Subcommunity plan. Gunbrell expects you to live up to that commitment. Thank you for my time for letting me talk. Thank you, Dorothy. Alright! Let's try Linda. And if that doesn't work we'll move on to Randall. Erica Clark. Linda. hope we can hear you this time. Okay, not successful. Randall. Erica Clark, please go ahead. You have 3 min. And then Lynn Siegel will be up.

[116:05] Go ahead, Randall. Oh, I see! Did I unmute correctly. Yes, we can hear you. Very much. I wanna say that I really appreciated some of the people's questions, many of your questions, because I think you were hitting the heart of what concerns a lot of us, and I'm also a member of the Gunborough Community Alliance, and, as she said, there are 500 of us, and I think that what you do out here is going to affect the whole city. and I I think everything that has said before me. I really wasn't prepared to speak tonight. I don't have a speech. So I'm just gonna say, I agree with absolutely everything everyone has said. And I think it's made me realize. I think you really need to have someone from our community. Make it Angie, make it April, make it somebody from Gca. The Gunbrella community alliance to to talk to you about this. We walk this neighborhood all the time. We do not walk

[117:01] to King Super. This is not a walkable neighborhood. That's a myth. And basically Boulder said, they want walkable neighborhoods. So why, they're building this out here makes no sense to me. And I think it's very important to realize that what Boulder needs, what you all need who live downtown don't come out here. Is individual homes. If we really want to grow boulder in a way that is going to be good for everybody. I think that it's crazy to think of parking on Spine Road. Spine Road is 2 very narrow roads. 2. It's 2. It's one lane, 2 lanes. It's not one way like there was a picture of a one way street between town buses. So to think they're already parked there, and it's very close, and it's pretty dangerous. People do park there on one side, on the east side, but not on the west side. There's no room for any parking on the west side, so somebody has not really looked at Spine road, nor watched or nor measured traffic.

[118:01] and to give this an address on diagonal is crazy. You can see there's no way to enter from diagonal. So that's that's that should be eliminated right away. There's no diagonal address here. I think it's very important to understand what Angie was talking about about. As far as public parks. There is a park that people use who have dogs. Every single person in this complex, since there is no place for dogs, is going to be walking their dogs over to the other park, and therefore they need to contribute to it. But to bring in another 1,000 families, which means 2,000 cars. Let's be real. We already know that it's going to require 2 cars to live in this neighborhood that's not walkable. So I think I really think we have to go back to the Drawing board, get a sub community plan, which once again. if you would have somebody from Gunbarrel on your committee, we all have an institutional memory. We have taken detailed notes. We can tell you absolutely everything that the city has told us they would do, and we were guaranteed. Nothing would go forward without a sub a gunbarrel subcommittee plan. I think it's really important for you to do that with us.

[119:10] We have a lot to offer. Thank you. Thank you for being here next, Lynn Siegel, followed by Regina Macy. Please go ahead, Lynn. Hi, yeah. I I don't even live in this area. I live in Central Boulder. But this area affects me. I mean th. Let's face it. This was a land grab. A long time ago we should have never had, you know the sales tax revenue annexation it, and and now the like. This one little quadrant is left, and it's being filled up. The subcommittee plan. Of course I agree with everyone. This is an indictment of this development. This every single person has spoken against it.

[120:04] a. And I watched, you know, years ago the spine celestial seed seasons development go through, too. there should be. I know that they have a right to, Bill. Okay, but they should got not one subsidy, nothing. not one height amendment, not one, you know, and it should be industrial. I mean to start with. And the prairie dogs that should be done now. Not wait for Site review, like someone said. You know, this is waiting for a a predestined outcome. When you say Oh, leave it, you know it. The trains already running. Then, when it comes to site review. Then it's just tweaking things later on. This thing needs to be stopped now. A subcommittee plan made up ahead of time. You know, people don't live in balconies.

[121:03] They don't live in little compartments. They try to get out of them away from them, and then they jam up the rest of boulder with congestion. As to the portability. like, I've said many times before, the more housing you build. the more unaffordable it gets, and especially in Boulder, where there's no indexing to the area Median income. you know, in in town, in Boulder 300 square feet. at 2206 pearl for 1,700 to $2,600 a month without a parking space. without one parking space. This is this is a developer's wet dream. The missing middle is is is like Elon musk in boulder. That's what the missing middle is, because the sky's a limit for the ami. It needs to be indexed.

[122:05] Let's see here the parks. You know it it it people want to get out of their little compartments. and there's nowhere to go except into town congestion, the rest of boulder. And there's it's already flooded for the rest of the area. You need 15 min neighborhoods. This is just horrific. Thank you, Lynn. I want to remind people to go ahead and raise their hand if they wish to speak for this item. Please go ahead, Regina Macy. Hi! I'm Regina Macy. Everyone has been so eloquent. I'm fairly new to gun barrel. And yet I'm appalled at the whole thing that developers keep winning. It's like, what what's going on here. Why aren't we sticking up for? What's going on? What for the environment?

[123:04] I love land, and we're losing it minute by minute in the whole State. Not just boulder the whole state. It's being racked up by by development. The other thing is, we keep thinking, okay, well, people come in and they say no problem will change. You know the we'll change the industrial to residential. You'll get your land. Don't worry about it. So it's like you. You make this comprehensive plan. and then developers come in, and they do hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of presentation. Everybody's like, well, what do we tweak this? What if we tweak that? What if we tweak this? What if we tweak that they get what they want, even though they come in wanting. They want maybe 30 units, and they they propose a hundred 50, and then when they get their 30. They're winning. It's very strange, and it's very. It's heartfelt for me cause I cry a lot when I'm I lived in Louisville, and I

[124:06] drove by Superior when that was being built, hill after hill after hill taken away to housing and I lost my house in the fire, and yet, and when I came out here I had a little bit of a sigh of relief. Because I'm I'm near. I have a view a little bit of the twin lakes, and I thought, Oh, my God, there's there's a spec. and my time! My my condo is tiny, but I have a spec to look at, and I'm so thankful. But more and more people need this spec. They need places to go. Why don't we have a park that was proposed a while ago. We should have a park, you know, and you know the only, the only people that are going to be winning here are developers. And I just, you know, before this, when everybody was asking questions, I said, Oh, my God! We're decorating the chairs on the Titanic again. Here we go, and it's it's nerve wracking.

[125:07] And I've moved in after the celestial thing happened. And I thought, Wow, and yeah. And Louisville was number one in many, many magazines for years, cause it's a great little city. Well, the developer saw that, and they came in. And now we're not on the list at all. So that's kind of an interesting phenomena. We don't want to be that way. and Boulder has always loved nature. Always been a been a been a you know, around for the environment and fought for the environment and and so on. And I hope we can can continue to do that and say no to this situation. Thank you. Thank you, Regina, and for everybody who has joined us tonight and contributed for the public hearing. Back over to you, chair. Thank you. And thanks everyone for coming out and speaking.

[126:00] Your minds, and I'm supporting boulder in the community. Why don't we take a if everyone's okay with it, why don't we take a 5 min? Let's do. Let's do a no, let's do an 8 min break. We'll be back at 8 15 to get a glass of water and a bio break, and and then we'll conduct our comments. Thanks

[134:32] alright. Looks like still waiting for Claudia. Happy. You're back alright cool. At least the the board is back. It's 8 16. so Thomas or Vivian. Would you mind putting up the

[135:03] the key? Considerations for the board for Alison? Sorry. George, you seem frozen. I'm sorry. And we have clerk. Someone put that up for us. Georgia. I had one more question for Staff. If I could ask that. Yeah, absolutely. I I just want that popped up so we can have a discussion. But go ahead with your question. Okay, thank you. Steph. My question is about the the proposed what the applicant referred to as the requirement for a deceleration lane. Is anybody on staff available who can talk about? Why. why, that might be required. I assume it's something in the Dcs. But I'm not familiar with anything referring to that. So if there were any illumination of that, that would be great.

[136:02] Oh, yeah, I can try to answer a as far as the deceleration lane. I'm not sure I do know that part of the I'm just pulling up my notes. The the portion of the right away along the spine. Will require certain street improvements. Including a 7 foot wide, buffered bike lane 8 foot wide on street, parking 8 and a half foot wide, buffered planting strip and a minimum of 5 foot wide, detached sidewalk. and then still allow for a 12 foot wide. Travel lane. And that will be part of a right away dedication. Once they submit for site, review. Okay, thank you for that, Alison, but you're not aware of the deceleration lane that they were specifically referring to. I I'm not but that didn't. Come up. I you know, that would have come from probably the engineers.

[137:01] Yeah, I'm but I'm not aware of the deceleration link. Yep. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. before we get started. We've got the the key issues for discussion. Last time we went through them each all 3 Mark, do you have a preference? I I I kind of. I could go either way. So curious what your thoughts are since you had a preference last time. It's pretty detailed. As hum. I I think, in in terms of a speaker kind of unmuting that sort of thing. There's some efficiencies to be gained by doing that. I think there's some continuity of thought that sometimes when we say, Gee, does it meet BBC goals? And do we have comments on Site Design. I think that.

[138:01] I am so. Kind of naturally flows. Let's do. Let's do it. One board member by one board member and hit all 3 issues. I think that's a great idea, especially since we're trying to be relatively efficient with our time given, we've got a whole other public hearing. That's probably going to be just as involved. So, Kurt, are you ready to speak to all this? You have your hand up. Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean to have it up, but yes, I can go ahead. Alright. Why don't you go first, Kurt. since you volunteered yourself. So I'll start off by saying that I'm okay. Can you hear me? No? Hello! Can you hear me? Can hear you. Oh, okay, great. Sorry. I am very familiar with this site. I used to work for many years on long boat right across from Medtronic. So I would go by this

[139:01] twice a day riding down Pioneer, and then through the celestial seasonings property. and then right past this. So I saw it twice a day for many, many years. and so I have. Let's see a number of comments. First of all I'm concerned about the floor area transfer that was that's referred to. This seems like a very significant change to the Po. It may be justified. But it the the mechanism. Seems a little strange so I certainly if that key, if it came back for Site Review as a call up. I think it would be something that would be very important for the Board to consider. I do feel that this is a a pretty appropriate place for residential from the standpoint of the immediate surroundings

[140:08] the west side of Medtronic is very benign in terms of activity. and so I think that there there wouldn't be disturbance, for example, of residential uses here. It is unfortunately very far from most kinds of services or attractions. As many speakers pointed out, there's no park nearby. It is quite a long ways to the to the king supers and to most of the other services is beyond the mountain brewing right on longboat. There used to be the Celestial Seasons Cafe, which I think is still closed now. So there's not much available right nearby. I have concerns about the amount of usable open space given, the that's being proposed. Given that the conservation Easman area, my understanding is it's kind of a strange situation, but

[141:11] and my understanding is that that Osmp would not allow that to be really usable. Open space other than possibly the multi use path it certainly sounds like a dog park, or other kinds of active uses would not be considered compatible, and it would probably be Osmp. Would want it to be largely the bird dog habitat. And so the really, the the usable open space is just the very small triangle in the middle. I am strongly supportive of town, house style, development. I think we we have got a real shortage of that in Boulder, and so I like seeing more. However, these are bit quite large

[142:01] 2,000 2,500 square feet, with double car garages, those the the given, the size and the and what. as a result, will be the the cost of them? I find the designs not compatible with Bvcp. Policy, 7 point O. 2 affordable housing goals, 7.0 7 mixture of housing types and 7 17 market affordability. So I would like to see significantly smaller and more affordable townhouses. I'll note that in the the item that's coming up townhouses are proposed, and they're proposed at 1,200 square feet. I understand the applicant probably wouldn't want to go that low, but I think 2,000 2,500 is is higher than is appropriate for, and and higher than consistent with the BBC policies the parking, especially with the dedicated

[143:07] double car garages. is not consistent with our some shared, unbundled, managed, priced parking policies. and so I think that as proposed. It it the it's not consistent with a a lot of the the Bvc policies in that regard. I would I could imagine a a single car garage, and then more shared parking of some sort. I would also like to see an encouragement of on street parking as much as possible which would activate the street. I'm concerned that all these garage loaded units on the east and south side in particular. Would. The the fronts would just be sort of fictitious fronts?

[144:06] That would not be activated because everybody would drop be driving into their garages in the back. I would like to understand more about this deceleration lane. I think that if that could be well, yeah, if that could be avoided, then it would allow more flexibility. Allow some of the the units on the east to be pushed further east and allow more of the open space at the center could potentially gain quite a bit of usable open space as opposed to the the not very usable, just sort of setback space on the East Side. And I would like to see if at all possible, in a Tdm plan. I I asked a question about the the shuttle. That is proposed to be paid for by the Celestial Seasonings property for in part, and I would like to see a Tdm plan include significant support for that approximately on the same order of magnitude as the celestial seasonings

[145:19] property would be providing. So those are my comments. Great. Thank you. Before. I don't see anyone else's hand raised yet. Before before we go to the next set of comments to see Mark just popped up. If if everyone could try to bucket their comments into those 3 categories concisely. And also if if you're if you find yours, if if we find ourselves repeating each other as I I sense we might if you could. Just try to be concise with agreement with different colleagues, and and specify the issue and then move on just because we're trying to give feedback to the developer.

[146:06] But but I don't. I also want to respect what we've got coming up. So thanks. Go ahead, Mark. George, did you just call on me? Is that. Soon! Okay, thank you. Yeah, I I'm again a little shaky on the Internet connection. So I well, I concur with Kurt on many things. I I actually am appreciative of the applicant. Coming forth with housing types that are more designed around. What a a 4 member family 4, 5, 3, 4, 5 Member family might be interested in. And so and as a planning board lately, we've seen

[147:02] a lot of a lot of projects that have single housing types. And I've said repeatedly that well. other projects will fulfill the requirement of the Vvcp for a variety of housing types. And here we have a project coming before us that yes, the units are larger. And yes, we may be able to have more units if they were smaller. However, I I do appreciate that some family, some places will want to have a house housing type that is, in this sort of size range. So in general. I think that this project, based on its location and housing type and design in general fulfills the BBC requirements.

[148:01] I have 2 really deep concerns, though, and those are focused around connection and open space and specifically usable open space. But and and these are interrelated. So I want to say that we have a housing development that will be completed someday, just to the South and West. and that coordination and connection between this site and the other site. And I know that we we we can't really condition one site on what another site does. But we can. We can condition and advise that these properties need to connect. and you need to be able to walk or ride your bike from this site. as as Kurt described to through the Celestial property over to Pioneer Street, Pioneer Street leads to Jay Road and the Cottonwood Trail. Cottonwood trail leads to Thirtieth and Valmont.

[149:14] And so it's it's there. There are some to the south. There are definitely connections that are possible and need to be enhanced. conversely, we have a bike path on the western edge of this property that seems to be a foregone conclusion from some bypone era. That really goes nowhere and and does nothing for even us counted as open space. It's it's not usable open space, and it's a it's a path that that doesn't really serve many purposes. I would be in much great favor to see the project.

[150:00] Take that path and that open space that is West as linear. We keep seeing projects that have linear open space and accounts towards the open space total. but in terms of functioning as a space that a person wants to be. It's a long linear strip next to a highway. and I would much prefer to see that brought to the interior of the project where it would be the potential for much greater community access, quieter open space with additional programming. I think that that this this project is lacking programmed open space. You have a triangle there with a grilling area. But absent, a pool absent. A clubhouse, a shared space absent. A pump track, a kids playground

[151:01] these sort of amenities and even a dog park. If you're gonna have a dog park, let's bring it to the middle where people get together versus out at the edge of the highway where the road noise is going to make meeting with your neighbors difficult. So I I think I would really encourage the applicant to work with our staff to see what An. OS. And P. Parks, and Rec. To see what can be done to to make those open spaces and community spaces so attractive that people want to be out in them. And I think about community gardens. There's several in Boulder, and that, and that we need to have community gardens. We need to have spaces for people to grow things and to congregate. And it, it shouldn't be perfunctory. It should be central to this. So my concerns are that the design.

[152:02] from what I can tell at the moment, has a lot of linear open space that's not particularly attractive and no real core open space. And there are a lot of ways to enhance connections that are not currently being taken advantage of. Cuts. It. Thanks. Mark. Go ahead, Claudia. That's very tough to follow, Mark, cause I think you elaborated on many things I just wanted to touch on briefly. So I'll be fast. The first question, key issue is the proposal consistent with policies of the bbac. I think, in general. Yes. I agree with the Staff's analysis here. This is an appropriate place for housing. And there is a need for additional housing and of the townhouse type as well, and this does satisfy some of our goals around compact development. I think Kurt's comments about the possibility of market affordable townhouses in this area is a good point.

[153:01] I don't know what that magic size number is. But that is something I would keep in mind, as this plan is being refined. In terms of the Site plan and some of the comments that we've heard around that like Mark, I am very concerned about usable open space. In my questions to both staff and the applicant. You may have noticed me really circling around that triangular wedge and open space in the center of the community. I think that is the key to making this a functional pleasant high quality, neighborhood or pocket neighborhood to live in as opposed to just another generic development, and I would be looking for ways as you refine this proposal. To increase both the size of that space as possible, and also increase the connections to it. From all of the units, and this proposed development so particular, some of the ones on the border of the property where you really do have to go for a fairly long walk to access that key community space

[154:04] and related to that. I was asking questions about the guest parking surrounding that space. Because again, I'm concerned that that use of space is cutting into the usability of that community space on the interior and I'm particularly concerned about that. If there's not a clearly articulated strategy for parking and what the needs are. For both the residents and visitors to this community. Yeah. So I think those things are incredibly important. Also, considering what we have heard from the Gunborough neighbors about the lack of usable recreation open spaces in the area. And since the extent that we can provide more attractive spaces within these developments, we're going to be helping with that problem, even though we do not have the ability at the moment at this moment in time to address the larger issue of the sub community plan workspace for the area. The only other thing I wanted to mention was the issue of noise mitigation, which I see is coming up as this moves forward. And I'm specifically thinking about the railroad and the diagonal there.

[155:11] I appreciate your your interest in preserving views for folks who happen to have those particular townhomes. I am worried about noise impacts on this area and to the extent that there can be planning done in that conservation easement, that strip of land that is there. That that be planned in a way that actually does some natural noise mitigation in addition to the materials that you might be using on the townhouses. So whether that is planting of vegetation, whether that is doing some work to to raise or extend the berm that is there already. That, I assume is providing some separation. I would hope that you'd consider those things as well to make these better places for people to live. That's it for me. Right. Mason.

[156:00] Great. Yeah. So starting with the first one, I am a little more online with Kurt on this one. There's, of course, many of the goals, objectives, recommendations of a BBC that this does is compatible with. I do think affordability is one of the big issues I I am. Gonna disagree a bit with with Mark here. I live in a town home with my family, 2 kids. That's our place is considerably smaller. And have love our space and have a great time living in a in a smaller size. So I think it's totally fine to have something that's maybe more on the range of the 1,500 1,800 square foot for raising a family. And I know the the applicant mentioned this being a roommate situation that would be more than month for that as well. Speaking words more towards my experience. Living in in this

[157:02] it has similar space. It's also a 30 min. 30 min walk from my house to the nearest grocery store. and we have one parking spot for our units with, and it's not a guest spot for every unit as well. It's less and we have no problems. With parking in our area. We do live across from the high school. So sometimes there is, but only when there's a big event. I will say that I think there's more people going towards the bikes. So I, I know that even biking sometimes can be an issue for some folks. But there are more accessible alternative means of transportation than having a spot for 3 cars, you know, for for most units. I am concerned about the lack of some principles in this. That's been mentioned already. And then going on to more of number 2.

[158:00] so I agree with. I agree with Claudia. She brought the noise. That was a big point for me. Being this close to the road track. I do agree with all the comments around the activation of the green space I have concerns around the the conservation easement. It counts. But it's not going to be I I don't see it being super useful for folks. I'd like the idea of that Mark brought up about the having the bike path help activate the space. And Claudia mentioning. having the guest parking there, making the space in the middle more unusable. I'll add the same thought when I reviewed this and I do think, as Claudia mentioned that focusing more on activating that space in the middle will help with some of the concerns that we've heard from the community around. Adding public benefit from this design. I do have a concern. I think this is my only

[159:02] only have 2 new comments. I I do have concerns around the underpass easement. I think it was Mark that really dove into this. Maybe, George. Sorry if I'm getting this wrong. But that future Bike Lane going in between diagonal up and down. It's it would be very nice for this neighborhood to have direct access as well as the other neighborhoods around it. Otherwise they're gonna have to go a far distance just to get to that bike path which is gonna make it much less attractive to use. So I do have concerns around vacating that. And I also didn't see any mention, although it could be coming inside plan of green building concepts and design. I didn't see any drive towards creating a a 0 carbon building design. So I I hope to see more of that when Site Review comes around. That's all my comments.

[160:04] Ml. Or Laura, Ml. Yes. so let me see. I I think that the big issue regards to the Boulder Valley Comp plan and the direction we, are desiring our new neighborhoods and projects to go into is this whole idea of walkability? And I understand that you know the site is where the site is and there aren't so many amenities, even recreational amenities beyond commercial amenities easily available. And to that end I think that the project might want to start considering. That was the idea of the shuttle for a project that hasn't yet started construction. But I think that the

[161:03] responsibility to start getting people out of their cars and into the community. Albeit a unwalkable. maybe unsafe for bikes, etc, etc. The notion was put out about ebikes. There are the E shut. There are the E scooters. There are ways for people to move, I think if they become available, and if they become safe. and I think it would behoove this project to look beyond the fact that oh, well. you can't get anywhere without a car and create a lot of park parking spots. But to think, okay, well, how can we start making an alternative reality out there regards to

[162:01] moving yourself move movements outside of a car in the neighborhood. So I think Walkable is a big part of the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I don't think that this is is addressing that in a very direct and maybe creative way. The second one. And I think a lot of my colleagues. And certainly the public spoke about this is the open space, the reality of it. And again, you know, discounting. we've got it. It's created there. Yeah, the prairie dogs inhabited. But it's open space. I think we have to be realistic about how the site would be used and put forth a vision in a proposition that actually give us back to the community and creates the ability for the people who are moving into this area of gun barrel. regards for the conceptual site plan and building design.

[163:04] I would encourage a rethink on what exists out there. I know that there was a very beautiful presentation. Adrian did on looking at the exterior. What would be the experience from the cars coming from on the diagonal, and what they would see. And that's sort of the formal relationship of the site and the buildings to that. And then, of course, addressing the view. So this is all looking beyond an outside. I would suggest to have a rethink and look at the interior of the site and the community connections. And how is this project contributing. Look at that with as much rigor as you looked at the sort of more formal relationship to the outside. I think that is missing, and I think the BBC. And certainly the

[164:01] the Site Review criteria begin to speak to. The experiential qualities of the project. What will it be like to to live here? Is it just? Is it a suburban development? It looks like an urban project. So just getting onto what the building designs. It looks like an urban project, but it's a suburban site plan. Everybody gets in and out of their cars to go places. I think we have to kind of like, break through and create a hybrid in some manner, and and that will take some creativity. Because it's not an easy site to it doesn't have all the answers already there. It's not amenity. Rich in the same ways that other neighborhoods might be. I would encourage the same amount of rigor and creativity that went into sort of the formal relationships to look at at what's happening on the inside and within the project and within the community.

[165:01] And I do believe that my my fellow board members and the public have have spoken up pretty pretty clearly that you know. There, there's not enough open space. There aren't enough amenities here. And let's let's take a look at what this project can do to actually make it a better. a better community and start to meet the values of the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and how we want our neighborhoods and communities to develop. Those are my comments. Thanks, Amal. Laura. Thank you. I'm gonna be very brief here and say, I do think it is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bvcp feedback on the conceptual Site plan and building design. I agree that I think one of the number one issues here is the usable open space. Ideally, you have, you know, public parks and and shared open space for people to go to. This site doesn't have that luxury, and we do need to have places for people to get outside, to congregate and to recreate.

[166:13] And so this site is going to be burdened a little bit with the need to have that open space be really really usable. and I do want to also agree with. Excuse me with Kurt, that if this comes back to us for Site Review. If it's called up, I would want a much better understanding of what's going on with that transfer of floor area. And and how? How is it being brought back to this site in in the proposal that staff has is might be supporting, and that the applicant is proposing. and in terms of the size of units. I mean, it sounds like. put one of the Site Review criteria is that they're going to need to have a variety of types of units, and it can't just be all townhomes. So I think we will get naturally some some probably some smaller sized units here. But I do agree with Mark that there are families that are going to want larger size units. So I think that some of that is appropriate, but probably not all of it that you know. Very large townhouse sizes.

[167:11] I live in a single family home. That's 1,500 square feet. So. You know that that size category does seem quite large for a townhome, and I think oh, and I also agree with Mark on the the need to take a good look at those transportation connections. I don't know all of the legalities of the things that Mark has proposed, but I think it bears looking at them for viability, because I think they are good ideas. Those are my comments. Thanks, Laura. I'll try to be brief, too. Be before I start on my comments. I wanted to make a comment. To the public, because almost every comment I heard from the public was talking about not being heard and wanting a subcommunity plan.

[168:00] And number one. I want to be sure that you know that. I this is as much your meeting as anybody else's meeting and your opportunity to interact with the the the city and us. So I thank you. I'm very supportive of a sub community plan and gun barrel. When when we look at a project like this. We're essentially looking at an island, right? We we can't see beyond what we're looking at right here. and it's very challenging as a board to make determinations when you look at you know, when you can't see the forest from the trees, and so thank you for illuminating the board a little bit on your perspective. Given that you guys live out there. what I see here is kind of what Ml alluded to, which is kind of a dense town home community, where no one might know each other. It looks extremely car oriented to me it looks like it's designed for commuters that are going to be pulling in and out of their garages.

[169:03] and returning home and going to bed and there is to echo a number of my colleagues. I think there is a complete lack of usable open space, especially if this is targeted towards multi-person dwellings and family dwellings. I I don't see enough place for those people to recreate in reality. I I also echo the the concern about connections to the adjacent development and the overall community. I am amazed as a developer myself. It. It bears repeating that this developer acquired a piece of land that was entitled for 41,000 square feet, and is asking for north of quadruple what he acquired. And I would imagine it's quite a windfall from that perspective. So I would urge the developer to take a step back and maybe look at the density that you're putting on here, and instead, try to make it a really communal space.

[170:11] Reduce the number of surface parking spaces. For quote, unquote guests maybe bring down the spaces parked in the townhouses to one or 1.5 and open up, maybe maybe delete a few units and open up that for to amenitize what is not an amenitized area to create something unique and creative, that to Ml's point would be maybe a hybrid of A, of A, of an urban and suburban form given where it's at, and and where a gun barrel is in its evolution. trying to think if I and I I do think, you know, I don't know if any of my board members brought this up directly. I I am concerned about the environmental impact of this development. I I don't see this being green at all.

[171:06] We're talking about 3 cars per unit. It just seems counter to a lot of the things that we're reviewing here in Boulder. You know, I thought the the micro unit thing was a bit extreme, and I think this is a a bit extreme the other way. And so I would encourage the developer to to to think about that, too. I think that generally categorizes my comments, but just to just to be blunt. No, I don't believe this is compatible with the Bvcp to I I think the design needs a rethink relative to parking open space permeability and overall density given, the windfall of this developer is experiencing and other key issues identified by the board, I I'd be supportive of making sure that this site has proper connections. The vacated

[172:03] that that the easement, or however, that's termed where it could make a connection to an an interior bike path on the highway. I also thought that was an excellent point. Maybe it not have been thought of, and maybe it wasn't intended that way. But the truth is, a lot of things on this site weren't intended for this outcome and so I think that when we shouldn't say, one thing's not intended. But but yet this is okay. And so those are all my comments. does anyone have any additional comments that they'd like to share that they before we close this out? Okay. thanks everyone in the community for coming, thanks to the developer and city and staff for their presentation. I think it probably is appropriate to jump directly into our next topic, given. How how much time I anticipate that taking as well give me 1 s. I'm just gonna pull it up

[173:07] so This second. Oh, I I don't know. Oh, before I close that out, I I don't know. I'm trying to remember someone on the board correct me if I'm wrong. Does the board have does. Does the developer have an opportunity for any clarifications that they want from us? I guess I would put that out there to Adrienne. and his team to make sure that you guys have have heard, and you don't have any. Follow up questions. Well, thank you. Board chair and board members. We definitely hear your comments. They're fairly consistent in relation to parking open space, usability of open space and so forth. I think that we haven't addressed a number of items because we felt that it might be more appropriate to talk about the the

[174:05] the legal issues associated with both the the the conservation easement, and the far or the allowable area at the time of Site Review, since they were not brought up by staff, and this is supposed to be an opportunity to review the mass and scale and the proximity of of building elements, etc. So it didn't seem the right time for us to bring that up. But it certainly was on your mind, and please know that we're well aware of these issues, and whatever windfall this this developer might meet I can't really speak to. But there are. There's more to this legal story that we'll be happy to get into with Staff and before the board. as we may need to come back to you. In terms of some of the other points relative to what we can and cannot do in the open space. Pardon me, the conservation easement that likewise is an an area of legal agreement that that will be of issue. And hopefully, the city attorney and and our our team will be able to work through that. And frankly, I think some of the suggestions about

[175:14] bike paths and how we might do that more effectively. I'm really happy and intrigued to look at I want to just also mention that at the level of Concept review, I think that there's there's only so much that we can show you in terms of presenting the basic intent of the project. And I appreciate board member Robless is recognition of of what we put into the the highway facing side. Believe me, we're gonna do it on all the rest of the project, too. Taking into consideration all your comments. So we're happy to move forward and thank you for your concerns. Thanks, Adrian.

[176:00] Alright. We're gonna move on to our next public hearing. Item. the next public hearing item is the concept plan, review and comment. Request on a proposed boulder housing partners, redevelopment on 3.7 4 acres, located at 6,400 to 65 70 gun park drive, and 65 60 spine road, with 23 townhomes and 2 buildings, 124 apartments and 5 buildings and one community building. The site is largely undeveloped. To existing office buildings on the property would be demolished. Reviewed under case number LUR. 2,023, 0 0 6 0. Alright wonderful. Good evening. Planning board members. Can you hear me? Okay, and see my screen? Great. Okay. I'm a Shannon molar with the city boulder planning department, and I'm pleased to be here tonight to give you a overview of the Sunset Park Concept plan.

[177:08] So, as Alison mentioned earlier. This includes, the information provided in Staff's Memo, a basic description of the site and surroundings and some key issues for discussion. So again, the purpose of a Concept Plan review is to look at a general development plan for a site so that the applicant can receive feedback from the board, the public and staff prior to development of more detailed site plans. So no formal action is being taken on this project tonight. This property was posted, and public notice was provided to property owners within 600 feet of the site. There were some written public comments that were received that were included in the boards packet. These included one comment in support of the proposal, as well as some comments with questions about the development. And it's concerns about its design and relationship to neighboring properties.

[178:07] So here you can see the location of the property. It's at the southeast corner of Gunpark Drive and Spine Road. It's approximately 3.7 4 acres, and bordered by developed properties on all sides. As mentioned earlier, it contains 2 existing 2 story office buildings upon redevelopment, with the proposed affordable housing project. Those buildings would be removed. Surrounding properties include to the west, a 70,000 square foot, 32 foot tall warehouse building, partially occupied by Blue Mountain Arts. To the north, across Gunpark Drive is the gunbarrel shopping center, anchored by King Supers with a mix of retail restaurant and service uses to the northeast, across Gunpark Drive is the Gunbarrel Center Apartments, which includes apartments in 42 foot tall, 3 story buildings as well as commercial space.

[179:01] Just to the east are 2 32 foot tall, 2 story office buildings, and just to the south, in Incorporated Boulder County are the Meadow Creek Apartments, which are 2 story buildings. Here's some additional photos of the site and views towards surrounding properties. This site has been previously prepared for development, so there are no significant natural features on the site. It's largely flat, with some gentle slopes. There are a few mature trees on the site near the existing buildings. As you can see. There are existing sidewalks along the edges of the site, and from the property and the adjacent public right of way. There are some obstructive mountain views to the west and southwest, which are partially blocked by the large wet warehouse building across Spine Road in terms of transportation. There is a there is a multiuse pass called for in the transportation Connections plan which is shown here in Green. there's an existing on street bike route on Spine Road, just next to the site, and the nearest transit route is the 205, which is about a thousand feet from the site, and provides service to downtown boulder and gunbarrel with stops along J. Road and 20 eighth.

[180:15] The Bvcp Land use designation is transitional business which calls for less intensive business uses a transition to residential uses, and can consist of a mix of uses, including housing. This property is within the Gunbarrel Community Center plan. This plan was originally adopted in 2,004. It was created to address land use and transportation issues in this gunbarrel center area. The land use concept provided for a higher intensity area in the retail core to be surrounded by other uses. The plan intends to create safe and convenient transportation connections between the center and surrounding areas. The Sunset Park property is within the office mixed use area, which is also referred to as the transitional business district.

[181:05] It provides for a mix of uses and a visual transition between the higher intensity uses in the core and adjacent residential neighborhoods. When the plan was created, this area was characterized by a mix of small scale office and personal service uses, and it was planned to include additional uses over time, including lodging and residential. The plan encouraged landscape buffers, detached sidewalks, parking lot screening and a quality pedestrian environment. The plan also provided guidance for gun, park, drive and notes that the pedestrian environment should be enhanced, and that blocks and building masses should be no more than a hundred 50 to 200 feet long. In terms of the zoning. The site is on business regional, 2 which allows for a wide range of retail and commercial operations. Adjacent properties are also in the Br. 2 zone as well as properties. In a mix of zones to the West. Business, transitional, industrial, and the property to the South being in unincorporated Boulder County.

[182:10] attached residential uses are allowed in br. 2, subject to specific use standards. Because the property is along a major street which is Spine road. Because of this, if there are ground floor residential units along spine road. If the entire lot or parcel is affordable dwelling units, then the use is permitted by right. If for some reason that did not happen then a use review would be required. So, moving to the specific project tonight, this would redevelop the overall 3.7 4 acre site with 147 dwelling units. There would be 2 town home buildings at the east end of the site, 5 apartment buildings toward the central area, and one community building at the north end of the site.

[183:03] There is a proposed multi-use path connection which you can see that coincides with the transportation Connection Plan location and the community building would be within a central open space for the project. This proposal includes 2 vehicle access points toward the east end of the site as well as an emergency access, only access point toward the west end, and vehicular circulation runs between the buildings to garages and tuck under parking as well as to surface parking areas. At the south end of the site. Internal pedestrian circulation would be provided largely in the central open space and along the multi use path. And the zoning in this area calls for a minimum of 40% of the site to be open space, and also for a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space for each dwelling unit, which is typically provided via balconies or decks or private patio.

[184:05] Parking here, as I mentioned, is provided in garages for the townhomes, tuck under parking and surface parking. This proposal, includes about 1.1 7 spaces per dwelling unit, because we don't know the final count of bedrooms, and per unit. We don't know the exact amount of parking that will be required. Staff estimates that a parking reduction in the range of 10 to 20% might be expected based on the amount of parking proposed moving to the architecture. The applicant provided these renderings. The residential buildings are primarily 3 stories and height, and the central community building would be one story. The applicants indicated that this proposal may include a height, modification, request to allow for adequate ceiling heights, and some modifications to the roof form to provide variety. If that were to happen, planning board would be the decision maker on the item. If it includes a height, modification, request

[185:09] and moving to required processes, so this would a set review would be required for the proposal. If a height modification request were included. Again, it would be a planning board decision. A use review may be required. If the entire water parcel is not permanently affordable housing, then it would move into technical documents and preliminary and final plots. So here were those key issues for discussion. The first one was, if the proposal was generally compatible with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan Staff found the proposal consistent with the Bvcp designation of transitional business. It would provide for housing uses and allow for a transition between the higher intensity core area to the north, to the lower intensity residential uses to the south in unincorporated Boulder County.

[186:04] The proposal would provide for affordable housing in the gunbarrel area which is considered a major employment center and the retail. Or, excuse me, the infill residential development especially affordable housing near a major employment center helps to create more integrated neighborhoods in line with many Bvc policies, including those listed on this slide for key issue number 2, is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the Gun Barrel Community Center Plan staff found the proposal to be compatible with the Community Center Plan, including the transitional business land use designation within the plan. The proposals in line with the intent of the plan to address the imbalance of jobs to housing in gunbarrel, and is consistent with the concept of adding residents in close proximity to the retail core and allowing for a transition between the core and lower intensity areas. The proposal also follows the transportation network plan and would be close to existing transit connections and bike routes.

[187:07] And the third key issue was feedback on the conceptual Site Plan and building design stuff on the overall. The conceptual design included many features of a successful site design, including the placement of the buildings surrounding the central open space and with parking areas placed toward the rear and under buildings. Staff would like to see at the time of a site review a high quality pedestrian realm provided internal to this site, which is largely vehicle oriented. Right. Now the proposal would require revisions to address transportation comments regarding the number of access points to the public right of way and to meet emergency access requirements. The proposal would also need to ensure that adequate open spaces provided a minimum of 40% of the site is required as open space in this zoning district, and at the time of Site review it'd be appropriate to identify the type of programming and amenities that will be provided for the residents in the open spaces

[188:07] moving to building design. Staff was supported of the conceptual materials and precedent imagery that was provided. Pitched roofs would be appropriate in this location, or a mixture of pitched and flat roof forms. We'd like to see how the building designs can be updated to provide a quality interface specifically along gunpark drive by providing a face to the buildings along that edge in terms of next steps the proposal would be up for city council. Call up consideration. Then the applicant would either proceed with submitting a development application or potentially a second concept plan review. If they so chose. The application would require a site review, possibly a use review if necessary. If a height modification is proposed, it would be a planning board decision, or if, for some reason the parking reduction was greater than 50%, also a planning board decision that concludes, and Staff's presentation. The applicant is also here with a presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions as well.

[189:16] Thanks, Shannon. Any questions for Shannon, which city is enough quiet. So thank you for that, Shannon and especially for highlighting the multi use path going through there. I somehow did not catch that. I did not catch my eye in the packet. And that's what my question is actually about. So we see a little segment of a multi-use path. And I'm curious. What the planned connection is for that. And if any existing connection does exist. Yeah, my understanding is that stems from the the Community Center plan. Part of the plan was intended to help create safe connections into that retail core for folks. So there is a drawing that kind of depicts this path being created and potentially it continuing on into the county. So I believe that was the intent of of that plan connection. There.

[190:14] Okay? And are there any obvious connections or connection points to the apartments that are adjacent there with? That's the Meadow Creek apartments. Yeah, as you can see in this, in this image. If the trail were to be in approximately this. excuse me, this location, it would stop at the property line, obviously, and it would be up to the neighboring property owner if they so chose to then connect up with that in some way. Okay, and Meadow Creek is unincorporated. Boulder County. Is that correct? That's right. Yep. Okay? And are there any special considerations in that kind of interface on property lines? How how we deal with with connections made, missed, left for the future. How does that work.

[191:02] Yeah, that's a great question. We do see that a lot as one property is being redeveloped. There's not always that next connection point yet I think the idea is that as properties come in and are redeveloped, that connections that make sense are implemented with the hope that future connections will then be connected up with if that's able to happen in the future. Okay. Thank you. I'm Al. Thank you. Hi, there, Shannon, thank you for your presentation. and I totally appreciate your your using evolved language by saying that the buildings are being removed rather than demolished. You know, we gotta we gotta start rethinking how we speak about these things. So thank you for that. I have 2 questions one is, if this is I think it's considered a transition both

[192:07] land use and zoning from high intensity, commercial to residential. Do you know the scale of the building, the commercial buildings that it's transitioning and the residential buildings it is transitioning to? Is there a shift in scale? Or how is it providing a transition? Mayor. Yeah, I think part of the transition would be the use. So it's providing a higher intensity or higher density. Residential use. Adjacent to the commercial area that then filters down to lower intensity. Residential uses further down. These buildings are proposed to be 3 story buildings, so that could be an item for discussion is if there should be some variation in the heights or forms of the buildings in certain areas of the site.

[193:07] Is the Meadow Creek, 2 stories. These are 2 stories. Yes. Okay, thank you for that. And I looked on the plans, and I couldn't find, you know. Talks about the the intent of breaking up the super blocks and having 150 to 200 and feet 200 feet. Max, what are the lengths of the buildings that are being proposed. I believe, the longest building right along Spine Road. If I can find this plan, this building here is right at just under 200. Okay. okay, yeah, those are. Those are my questions. Thank you so much for having answers. Go ahead! Kurt. Thanks. I have a couple of questions about access first of all. With this.

[194:00] the the the slide that you have up here. So there's this long U shaped access that terminates on the left side, the west side. It? Yeah, exactly there. So that is not a public. a a a public curb. Cut right? It's just a fire axis. Yes, my understanding is the intent that this would serve as an emergency access point only. Okay. And so somebody who's building is or who's who's unit or parking space, I guess. is up at the end of there would drive all the way through that you to get out. Okay. Yes. And then relatedly, so I know that W. There's a requirement of only one

[195:00] curb cut which could be modified, but is, would a curb cut on spine be allowable if assuming it was still just 2? I'm. Intentioned. I know there's there's a requirement for taking access off the lowest category. 3. Yeah, the lowest category is gunpark drive? So that would be the preference. Again, we could look at like you said different configurations and possibilities. But yeah, gun Park is the lowest category. Okay, but that that requirement in the Dcs is something that could be varied. I believe the number of access points per property. I believe it can be varied, but I can double check and try to see if that's correct. Okay. But yeah, my, th, that's good to know. But my other question was about taking access off the lowest Category Street. Is that also something that can be very.

[196:04] I think I don't. I don't recall off the top of my head. I could try to look at the code real quick and see. Okay. Think it can. And okay. Yeah, I think you'll need a traffic study to, you know, to demonstrate it. But yeah, I think that that's something that could be examined. Great. Okay. Thank you. Mason. Yes, my question is kind of piggy backing, offing all these questions that that connection. Over to Gum Park drive? it looks like it. It kind of just drops off onto the street, and you still have to walk like a good, maybe like 400 feet or so to get to the nearest crosswalk. is there any discussion around, including additional access points to the shopping center across the street. like I'm a crosswalk, for instance, could one be added there, or is that beyond the scope for a discussion.

[197:03] like so like this. I'm sorry. Use you were speaking to the multi use path, and how you would then cross cross over. Yeah. Yeah. On a in terms of a crosswalk. Specifically, I don't know. I think that would be a good question to bring up in terms of the configuration of this multi use path. I know that in the Gunbarrel Community Center plan there is the possibility for for network connection locations to be amended? So the Board could think about. Is is this the best potential location for this pass? And what would be you know any thoughts regarding regarding how it is portrayed here. Great thanks cause to me. It seems like if I if I was walking on that path and I got here I would

[198:01] be tempted to either Jaywalk or just walk down, which, if I was gonna walk down, then not really sure how much use that has, especially connecting to the other units, if that were to occur, the the other complex behind it. Great! That's my my question. Anybody else. Other questions for Shannon. I'm sorry I remembered one more. It didn't really speak to in the packet. The community building Has there been much discussed around the uses for that building like we'll have a community kitchen. Or is that too detail for the stage? Yeah, I think the applicant could probably share what? They're kind of envisioning so I don't. I don't wanna speak for them, but I'm sure they have kind of like you mentioned some ideas on what they want to put in there.

[199:00] Right. Speaking of the applicant, if we don't have any other questions it's good time to segue to them. Thank you, Shannon, for the presentation. Thank you. You guys have up to 15 min if you could introduce yourself. And thank you. Good evening. I'm Laura Shinebaum. I am chief real estate officer for boulder housing partners. I'm really happy to be here this evening with you all thanks for hearing us on this concept review for Sunset Park renamed we didn't wanna well, go with a gun park. We were sure that that was the the perfect name for our future affordable housing site. So Sunset Park it was so happy to be here. This is a property that we're under contract for at the moment. So we're trying to get a read from planning board to understand if we are in the ballpark in terms of our

[200:02] yields. Our open space calculations unit sizes just generally sort of how you feel about this project. And and it's location. We are excited for that feedback. Generally. I think you all know a little bit about boulder housing partners, but we are the housing authority for the city of Boulder. Our mission is to provide quality, affordable homes and really foster thriving communities. So to that end we develop property manage and maintain all of our own property. We have 1,600 units under management right now. And then we've got another 160 under construction and just closed on another 73. The financing for another 73 units. So we have quite a bit in our pipeline. Bunch of property also lined up. So this is intended as probably a future project for us in the next couple of years we wouldn't be pursuing entitlements super quickly. So this is really deep.

[201:00] Get a read so that we can move forward with a closing with some confidence that we are in the ballpark of what we're looking to do. With affordability. There. So just a couple of things, you know, we're super excited about this location in gunbar. I think that there is an imbalance of jobs housing ratio up there, and and we don't have any affordable housing as boulder housing partners in the community in gunbarrel. So we believe that this would be a great location to, you know, really represent our community with some affordability, with, you know, capital, a capital H affordable. We we always design and build and develop with intention. So you know, we've not done a ton of outreach yet with the neighborhood, and we have talked to the neighbor to the south, but we would do a robust community engagement process down the road when we go to fully entitle the site. I can speak to that connectivity. We did speak with the neighbor to the south. It has the boulder. I think it's Boulder meadows site

[202:05] and they would be interested in at least initially putting in a gate and providing some thorough fare to be able to access a multi-use path that we would install to be able to get to the commercial sites to the north. So they're looking very much forward to working with us as we design in the future. We do like, I said, design with intent. All of our sites now are all electric. Well, not not the entire portfolio of anything we develop. Now, isn't designed to be all electric. We have really good community services. The Community Center would have, you know staff offices open space for people to, you know, have meetings and things like that. And you know, we would program as we see exactly who is gonna be living at the site. But generally it, we try and get a community center at all of our sites to provide for that. You know, space making and and places for people to to meet and and be together.

[203:06] so I think that's about it. I mean, again, we're looking to get some feedback from you. All this is you know, into the future. But we're excited to get some. yeah, just some some good insights into what? If we're on the right path, I will now hand off to Pete Weber with Coburn, and he will walk you through the details of the property, and we look forward to your questions and comments. Thank you. Everyone, Pete, we ever with Coburn. I'm not yet able to share my screen. Can somebody allow that? No, got a few things to show you. There we go. Thank you. Alright. Are you able to see that now?

[204:00] Okay, so the first couple of slides here were for Laura. She breeze through that. So I want to start with a little more information about the context in the site. we think this is a great spot to put a bunch of people. Immediately adjacent to the gun barrel center. Most notably having the grocery store right there. Basically just just directly to the north. It is a transitional zone, as Shannon did a good job pointing out between that commercial core and the residential to the south, and quite industrial to the west. so that that use combination alone, we think, is is super strong. In addition to that it is actually quite well connected. The 205 runs from gun barrel to downtown boulder past 20 Ninth Street Mall down 28 Street. It's a it's a it's a great route, actually and does a good job of connecting gun barrel to the center of town. In addition to that, you could see a bunch of different bike paths and multi use paths that that are around the site, including the one that that we've already talked a little bit about that is suggested to run through the site

[205:16] so this is our site plan. Shannon pointed out a little bit. I'll maybe go into a little bit more in detail. We've really designed this centered around a central green space with a number of buildings opening up onto that green space. There are 5 apartment buildings that one community building. And then 2 tone homes over on the East Side. Shan did point out that multi use path connection that runs here. And I wanted to talk about some of your questions. Maybe wanna talk about the access points. One of the reasons that we did the access. The way that we did with a separate town home access from the from the apartments is so that we're not having a drive across that multi use path connection.

[206:02] So we have no conflict with the vehicular traffic. The connection that Laura pointed out in the conversations with the neighbors would happen right here, and we've aligned this so that it could connect up fairly easily to the sidewalk in the neighborhood to the south. Kurt's comment about potentially connecting to Spy road here, I think, would be really interesting to explore if we could get support through our traffic analysis and staff. The long drive here is a little bit seems a little unnecessary. Except for city code. and we've I also wanted to point out that the way we've oriented these buildings we have the our largest building facing Spine road. So that would be a front. We would treat these buildings, their ends as fronts as they front along Gun Park Drive, and then the town homes face to the east and to the west.

[207:01] and this building E here forms a little courtyard, which I'll tell you a little bit more about in a minute. This is gives you a little bit of a 3D view, I think. Ml. Asked for a sense of scale in in terms of what's around us. we are proposing 3 stories for all the buildings on the site. The buildings at the Gunborough Center are largely single story. They're a fairly tall single story, but they are single story with the pitch roof. The apartment buildings that are to the south are 2 story again, with a pitch roof. And then these light industrial buildings. I'm just betting. These are pretty darn close to 35 feet tall. In one or 2 stories. So this gives you an idea of kind of how we relate to the neighbors around us. the. And you can see how the buildings are gathered around that green space with that smaller community building in the middle. That building, of course, would also then sort of have be affront to the project as it faces gunpark, drive.

[208:03] and then this one, just looking at the same model from a little bit different angle. You can see a little bit here how the parking is working, and I'll get into that later. But this is combination of service parking along the back and then tuck under parking for the remainder of the apartments with the town homes being parked a little bit at the surface for guest parking, and then individual garages in between. I won't go into a lot of detail here, but just point out a couple of things we haven't yet figured out our unit mix. And exactly how we're gonna do this, we're anywhere from 800 to 850 square foot average for the apartment sizes, and that's based on work we've been doing with Bhp. And kind of where they think their sweet spot is in terms of a mix of one twos and 3 bedrooms. the town home component. Our town homes are 1230, 1240 square feet. so the fairly small, especially compared to the project that you just saw earlier. And then that commercial community building is about 3,200 square feet.

[209:07] and it might be good to take a moment. Talk about potential uses for that. I think that the best answer we give right now. We just don't know yet. We want it to be something for the community, for the folks that live here. And I think the question that we haven't yet answered amongst ourselves is whether or not it has an outward reaching component as well. Or is it really just for the residents? So we're gonna we'll be working on that before we before we make any presentation. So the overall Nick's here is 147 total units, 124 of them are apartments 23 of them are town homes. I think Shannon did point out our parking ratio is, we have 172 parking spaces. That's 1.1 7 per unit. I suspect that if we do not have

[210:02] updated parking rules yet that we would be asking for a relatively modest parking reduction. But I do think we would ask for a parking reduction. I think it's warranted. Given our proximity to Gumbrell Center and the access to public transportation and alt modes. This slide just gives you an idea of a better idea of how that parking is organized. We really tried as best we could to kind of hide that parking, keep it at the perimeter and leave as much green open space as we can in the center of the project you see the combination of the the surface really, is this piece at the back of the townhomes, and then these spaces along the south edge. The remainder of it is all tuck under the and then architecture. We are thinking of something that has that pitched roof component. This might get into the height discussion, and we'd like to hear your thoughts on that. We may. We think we'd like to get some more movement and not just have flat roofs. In our 3 story component, which could put us into a position of asking for some additional height beyond the 35 feet.

[211:15] It also allows for a little taller ceiling height which we think could be appropriate. We're looking at something that has a little bit of a more contemporary look, but does kind of keep some of that. that pitch roof. and then a couple of views this is a shot looking down that multi use path that would connect us connect us and our neighbors. Up to Gore Center. The town home building is on the left, and in the part one of the apartment buildings is on the right. So a little share green space between those 2 buildings, and you can see how we're kind of playing around with my modulate those roof forms. And then this is a shot of that green space with the one of the apartment buildings in the background. And then the community building kind of in the foreground, that single story structure. We'd love to have an outdoor component to that. That that is, protects us from the sun and makes that little more usable and more seasons.

[212:14] So that's what's depicted there in the foreground where that red balloon is. So I think that's it. We'd love to answer any questions you have. Awesome. Thank you, Peter and Laura. Questions. Mark. Thanks. I I jumped in to go first, cause I am gonna have to drop off here shortly. Due to battery life and a flight. So Ellen. for the applicant. Sometimes it feels like we're the parking board rather than the planning board, but my questions are centered around parking. Has Bhp ever implemented? Some parking principles, unbundling, separating, unbundling.

[213:04] and requiring payment for parking at any of their projects? Yeah, thanks, Mark. That's a it's a good question. And and yes, we've done a moderated modulated sump application. The shared, unbundled and managed piece of some are all very easy for us to accomplish. We support all of those, and pretty much any property that we own and manage the paid component is a little more complicated. Given tax credit rules, and the Irs. When we get money from the Federal Government to build these projects through the tax credit program. The paid piece for parking is not allowable. So we, if parking is an amenity that is at the site. We are not allowed to charge for it. It has to be included in the rent of the unit. We've tried a number of different ways to try and

[214:05] work around that, such as you know, reducing rents for people who don't bring a car to the site and things like that, and to date we've not had luck with that, being okay with our tax credit investors in their council. So so yes, we support some. We love it. We do it as much as we can. But when we have these millions of dollars that come in to really fill the gap in our project, cost and project, financing to date. We've not been able to figure out a way to have them be separately paid for stalls that would be sort of independent of the units. Okay. Great. That's a interesting answer, and they'd be frustrating for everyone but interesting. Does BHP. Ever provide whether it's paid unpaid as an amenity.

[215:04] truck slash trailer. Parking for contractors, people who make their living doing landscaping work that sort of thing in any of your units, or they expected to, if they're in that in those businesses, to have a yard space somewhere else, or, anyway, have you ever encountered request for that? Or have you ever dealt with that. Good question, so we generally have a mix of compact and regular size stalls, so we don't set aside truck stalls or trailer stalls or anything like that for the use that you just described? It's an interesting concept. But again, generally, we're asking for parking reductions. And so that type of use would happen either off site, or if there is, you know.

[216:03] an excess of spaces. Which we actually do have occasionally at our sites. I. I have seen those types of trailers for folks that are working in those types of trades at our properties. But we don't set aside or have to date, set aside that that the parking cell for that use. Okay. okay, I. And since I'm gonna drop off, I'm just gonna and ask for a little indulgence. I'm just gonna comment on the on the roof. I I I think that in this area pitched roof sort of design and answer to Pete's question would be something, I think would be preferable. So I'm gonna end it there. Thank you. Thanks, Mark, are you? Are you dropping off? Are you sticking around or. I'm I'm gonna stick around for another 10 min or so. Okay, alright. Thanks any other questions for the applicant

[217:02] where we go to the public hearing, and I'll. Thank you. I just have one question. I'm not sure if this would be to to Laura or to Pete. But the public input there seem to be a recurring concern about water issues. Is there a issue with precipitation and how it drains or doesn't drain on this property? We haven't gotten there yet. Ml, we will have to provide both detention and water quality across the site, and we haven't yet. to design that system, that concept level we know what the issues are, and we will need both detention and water quality and the site design will have to accommodate that. Okay. So the concerns are are well founded, and it's just coming in the future.

[218:03] Salmon. Yeah, no different than any other site. Yes, we have to accommodate. For some reason it was sounding like it was an extraordinary amount of of concern. And I'm like, Well, I so it it's not. I'm hearing you say it's not out of the ordinary. No, and Shannon might have some input on that as well. But I we don't know of anything out of the ordinary on this site. Okay, I appreciate your answer. Thank you so much. Go ahead! Kurt. Thanks. 2 hopefully. Quick questions. Did you happen to count the number of on street parking spaces in front, both on spine and Gun Park? No short answer. I I I think we looked at this some months ago, and maybe in the neighborhood of 30, depending on the curb cut configuration.

[219:00] Okay, that's good enough. Great. And the other question is about the the this community building in particular. So all of the buildings you show oriented with the cardinal directions, even though gun park curves. Did you give any consideration to angling, especially this community building and or reducing the setback to increase that amount of internal open space. Yeah, especially following the comments I've I've watched the previous presentation and the the thoughts about open space. And I was staring at our site plan while that was going on. So yes, I think that something we should definitely consider is trying to maximize this internal space and angling that building? Pushing it actually further to the street, maybe getting a little more setback variance or, to accommodate that, I think could be appropriate. Great. Thank you.

[220:00] For your still account. Yep, there it goes! Claudia. Thank you and thank you for Kurt for that question about the orientation of the community building. I was. Gonna bring that up in comments. I think that's a fabulous thing to be looking at my question. Actually had to do with orientation at the other buildings, and in particular, like what is considered the front. I heard you mentioned with the townhouses that those would have both east and west sides. So 2 fronts on those buildings for the apartment buildings. What does access look like for those are those interior corridors, are they walkups? Have you gotten that far yet? We haven't. I, the buildings that we, as we kind of put those things, those together, it did feel like a walk up condition. With multiple stairwells might be the most efficient way to do that. And that might warrant. this kind of thing. If you, if you look at the building. Department. You can see here this

[221:03] stairwell that is in the center of that building. That kind of thing would be a central stair that would then serve probably 4 units on each floor. And then be able to connect back to the parking as well. That's kind of what's in our head. We again. We haven't figured all that out yet, but right now, that's I think that's going to be more efficient way to handle it rather than essentially loading corridor. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. And I know it's early. But it's also extremely helpful to start to evaluate like how buildings interact with each other. And how these interior spaces function. Thanks so much. Any other questions or clarifications. None for me, either. So we appreciate that. I I think we're gonna go to the public hearing component of this. you guys wouldn't mind turning off your cameras. Thank you.

[222:02] And Vivian, I'll hand it over to you. Great. So we already have a couple of hands raised. Each member of the public who wishes to speak. I'll have 3 min to speak on this item. We'll start with Julie Dive, followed by Irene Hilson. Please go ahead, and the timer you should be able to see the timer. Hi! Can you hear me? Hi! You already heard me tonight? But I'm Julie dye. I live in gunbarrel in the City of Boulder, and as a reminder, I'm on the board of the Gunbarrel Community Alliance. Despite exhaustion, I stayed on the call to make a very impromptu speech. I'm in support of this development, particularly in light of its proximity to amenities into the gun barrel center with affordable housing. I would just comment and ask a few things. First take a look at the bus and Scott shuttle options. While this location makes sense, it does not address the need to drive to amenities outside of the grocery store and a few restaurants.

[223:02] You mentioned the shuttle for Celestial Seasonings location. And I just wanna note that the plan. Shuttle, as Pete Weber knows, is a gun barrel, only shuttle from Celestial over to 60 third and King supers, and not to other parts of boulder. The 205 is a great option, as mentioned, but it ends at 9 pm. Even on the weekends. Again Heatherwood is on the chopping block. And so, if you add a thousand people at Celestial and the other site proposed tonight, and several 100 in the 124 apartments here. you know. Where will the kids go? Families will have to drive far to and from just to be part of a school community. Our oldest went to Crest View elementary and just to help people understand. From Orchard Creek it's a 1 h and 35 min walk to the elementary school about a 12 to 15 min drive, and from this proposed location it's a 2 h and 9 min walk to Crest view. I will add again that we have no public playground on this side of the diagonal, and when I look at all of these developments dropped into Gunbarrow without any effort to add community amenities. It's so frustrating to me.

[224:09] It's a 45 min walk from this sunset site, Tom Watson Park. We raised our children in gunbarrel, and I I know you know, and I want to be clear that our children have no place to go and recreate other than to get in the car and be driven into the city just to play. Lastly, I'm going to add that as the affordable part of boulder, our rental prices here in gunbarrel are often cheaper than the affordable housing in the Bhp housing program. You can compare. I guess it's my set, the crossing versus rental availability here. So just please take a look at that, and compare as you build and offer this housing to the community. Thanks. Thank you, Julie. Hey, Vivian? Sorry to interrupt you. I just wanna just insert that language that we did in the last public hearing. Yeah, go for it.

[225:00] That the Board requests that, prior to offering public comments that all members of the public disclose in a financial or business relationship what or other membership or affiliation related to the applicant project or neighbors, specifically including any paid compensation. Appreciate that, thank you. Yep. Thank you. Irene Hilson. a reminder. It's Star 6 to unmute by phone. Okay. My name is Irene. I have no financial disclosure items I'd respectfully request to be addressed, or as follows, when the good neighbor, meeting on March twentieth was held, planning noted that no neighbors attended. The residents of gunbarrel were not notified of the Bhp redevelopment proposal. Letters only were sent to very few property owners within 600 feet. Residents only learned of this proposal once the legal notification was published. I think that's why we have so few people on the call that being said, it appears that the Bhp Rd project is based on a 2,002 market study. I'd like to know if there was in the update to that market study that took into consideration the 550 apartments that had been built here after that study.

[226:10] Boulder View has 68 gum barrel center, 251 and apex 55, 10 has 231, where the vacancy rates of these previously mentioned buildouts considered. Many of the buildings built for the gunbarrel center remain empty where any current traffic studies done, will any police response times be studied and addressed. That still can is, remains an issue for boulder African barrel. The 3 story height will block prominent views of existing neighborhood buildings has this been considered? Will any playgrounds or dog parks be included in this development? Many of the Hoa parks welcome and have neighboring residents come to the our parks, and we're impacted by the growth of the 550 apartments previously previously mentioned, and the residents of the hoas are incurring costs of the usage impacts with the fear that the developers in boulder planning are bent on building in gum barrel. No matter what may have mentioned the tennis court debacle. I'm forcing myself as a resident of gum barrel to consider any compromise that would respect the residents' desire to maintain feasibility of living here

[227:19] with the limited low income housing for the elderly, and these apartments, and 124 apartments and 23 townhomes be designated for low-income seniors. Location would be ideal for seniors. It's quiet here. They're not going to deal with students. There's a place to shop, there's coffee places. There's dinner places. Caretakers could move into the vacancies that the poor mentioned buildings have cultivated in gunbarrel, and they've provided volunteer services to the elderly. Have the developers of this or longbow negotiated a cash in lieu agreement to meet affordability requirements.

[228:01] I guess that's my almost 3 min. So I would say, Thank you for listening. I can talk really fast, because I'm from Boston so hopefully you caught most of that. If not, I am happy to repeat it. Thank you. Thank you, Irene. Just remind people members from the public. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. So we know to call on you. Okay, we have one more hand raised. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. First of all, the pre-existing buildings on this site. I'm I'm gonna use the dword demolition, not removal. I say, reuse. not recycle. And and I think that in Boulder we need to determine the full life cycle analysis, the embodied energy of everything that is going to be potentially torn down for demolition.

[229:07] and first have it evaluated for adaptive reuse. and this site the other site. If it's industrial and this site's gonna be housing, then the other site needs to be industrial. Well, this goes to the issue of a a sub community plan for all of gunbarrel, a master plan for all of gunbarrel to determine just what needs to be where. and absent of having a jobs housing balance that is quantitatively made, you know, specifically made with population in mind. I don't think that there should be any of these low housing

[230:00] light tech funds used at all. They're a bribe. They're a bribe from the Federal government to grow population population that doesn't pay, and that drives up housing costs. and that drives up homelessness. And that's why we've got ourselves in this pickle in the United States, where everything's overpriced. So housing causes more the demand for more housing. It doesn't solve anything. and population needs to be managed. So when and when you're talking about Boulder Valley Comp plan, it's very lofty kind of things that there need to be specifics in the Bvcp that you're agreeing to. And it's not just the numbers and the vagueness in all of the parameters with the various parts of the BBC. Needs to be very specific and and very

[231:03] quantified. And this this space, we need industrial spaces. and they need to be kept industrial. and that needs to be determined in A, in a thoughtful, comprehensive. urban plan. and not just thrown together with more housing, solves the problem. It doesn't. It creates the demand for more housing and unaffordability, and a lot of vacancies, too. Thank you, Lynn. I don't see any other hands raised. So that, concludes the public hearing for this item. Great. Thank you, Vivian, and thank you for the members of public that, spoke. I suggest as a board that We go straight into our comments unless people feel otherwise that we need a break.

[232:06] anybody. everybody. Good. Okay. Great. Would you mind? putting up the key considerations. That was. thank you. That's great. And we'll do it the same way. We did before. I thought that worked pretty well, If if we could go one by one and talk to these 4 items that would be great. Anyone wants to speak first. Go ahead, Mason. Yeah. So I do believe this is, generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Vbc.

[233:02] I also found that it was generally compatible with the umbrella community centered plan As for the concept conceptual site, plan and building design. I think there were good comments around exploring. That multi use path to make sure that has the best connections possible. The the road connections on the west side and central reorientation of some of the buildings. We're all all great comics to be considered as far as other key issues identified. I agree with Ml. That there seem to be a lot of focus on drainage. In the comments. For the neighbors. I know that some some of the neighbors had issues. and we're doing some remediation. They were specifically concerned about this this building on the site. So I'll look forward to hear more about this, that in the Site Review.

[234:09] Great. Kurt. Thank you. Well, first of all, it's really great to have a a plan that we can really be excited, that I, at least can really be excited about after the previous one, which was sort of more grudging semi acceptance. So I'm I'm I'm excited about this. I think it is consistent with the BBC and the Gun Barrel Community Center plan. My main concern is about the site design, and sort of the awkwardness of the accesses. I think it would be great if there were a way, and I realize that there are various constraints. But it would be great if the western portion of it west of the multi use path could be designed

[235:00] to be a little more grid based a little more permeable. And yeah, without without that big you, I would note that on one of the staff slides there was a very clear desire line across this property from the southwest corner of the parcel up to the King Supers Shopping Center. And so, if there were any way to again make it the the site more permeable, the design more permeable, more of a grid, and allow for that kind of movement through the site. I think that that would be really great. I understand that there are concerns about having too many people go through the site, but but that would be ideal. But overall, I'm excited about it. I think it'll be great. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt, go ahead, and I'll

[236:06] who you're on. Mute. Cheeky little microphone didn't wanna didn't want to come active. Okay, well, thank you so much. For the presentation. And I'm in. What? What agreement? A 100% affordable. We don't get this this privilege very often. So hopefully, it stays that way as it goes through its process. I know you said you got a long timeframe, so good luck with with the timing, and hopefully it won't change that. My biggest comment would be so I think it meets the Boulder Valley comp plan, goals, objectives and recommendations. I also feel that it is compatible with the gun barrel community Center plan my comments have to do with. I would support Kurt's

[237:04] Suggestion about looking at the circulation and how that works both on site and onto the site. It seemed like although there was a lot of attention to making sure that there was plenty of green space around the buildings and between the buildings. It seemed like there might be a mighty lot of car pavement. I don't know how you might reduce that, but I think revisited, that would be would be useful. The 1 point that I would make is that I thank you for bringing that little massing site and context drawing to the table. Because the what what did it show? It showed that the commercial was a tall one story and the residential were 2 stories. So you're proposing a Thi 3 story buildings. And then you're thinking you want to go even higher. I would suggest that you don't go for a high increase.

[238:10] and especially, you know, I don't think that it would be the taking the role of being a transition project like it's supposed to be if it is taller than everything around it. So I think that's a point that you might want to take a look at. And I would also suggest that if you do within the allowed hype choose to go with some slow proofs. make them useful. So make sure that the roofs are actually gonna accommodate some photovoltaics, not just about creating lofty interiors. But can they be intelligent and create opportunities for smart photovoltaics on buildings? I know people put photovoltaics even on the north side of buildings these days. But, if you're going to use the roof to accommodate some functionality, I would suggest putting that toward on-site renewables.

[239:09] So those are all my questions, and thank you so much. Thanks, Emily. I mean my comments, all our questions. Go ahead, Claudia! Alright. So we'll start with the first 2 questions about compatibility with plans. And I'm gonna answer them both in the same breath. I think I I think this is a great place to do housing according to our Bdc principles. Particularly around compact development around affordable housing. But I am most excited. About how this location for housing can really support what we have as a neighborhood center there in Dundar and also, that's part of the kind of plan as well. So getting some housing directly adjacent to that retail, I think, really strengthens that core. Beyond that I have a few comments on the conceptual site plan.

[240:05] Let me see. Here, I was trying to put these in order here as other folks were speaking the first built on comments that Kurt was making earlier, and questions that he had about getting access, that second access point on spine as opposed to on Gun Park. If that is a possibility, I think that gives some interesting opportunities to reduce the amount of pavement there in the site to make it better for pedestrian circulation internally. And I really I really like, despite it, not having connections. I think that's a an issue. But I like the concept of that multi use path going through between 2 of your buildings. I think that those kinds of internal corridors where cars are not welcome. But people are can be really good for building community and getting folks out and activating space. So you know, I looked at some of the other long alleyways that you have in the current design. And if there's any way to create more of those people, spaces between buildings rather than car circulation spaces. I think that would improve the design

[241:10] palm. Beyond that. I would think it's important to think about pathways through this site, and I think several of us have mentioned that as well, we have this multi use path to nowhere at the moment. And Kurt, I think I also really zeroed in on that path of desire that we can see on the aerial photograph. Clearly, people in the Meadow Creek Development just the South are looking for convenient walkways and passage through to the shopping center. And I think if we're looking at how this fits into how this plan fits the surroundings, but paying attention to that kind of movement to the extent possible. Is something that we want to encourage. So to the extent that you are able to work with adjacent property owners to facilitate that kind of passage across. I think that would be helpful.

[242:00] And then I also shared Kurt's comment earlier about pulling that community building back? Really to have it match more of the curve of the street? I think both to create a stronger front on this kind of development. As it faces the the street, and also to open up some more of that space on the inside. And then just one more thing that just struck me from coming from the public comments. this issue about kids and families in the Denver area. And I am aware of the situation at the Heatherwood School. And just something to look at as as this is being planned. You know what is the intent for the mix of family types living in these units. And I think it could be a very good thing to bring in affordable housing for families in particular with kids in this area. That is a possibility for this kind of site. These are investments in this gun barrel community that can actually help keep some of those public services in the area. So I'm as I'm as interested in the possibilities for

[243:06] strengthening the community and the demand for those services as I am worried about something not being there when families eventually are on. If that makes sense. I'm finished rape. We're up. Again. I'm going to echo the great comments of my colleagues in particular. of thinking about the open space, and how to make it more usable, especially for families, for kids, for place spaces. I think that will be really important. The comments around oh, sorry. Pardon me the first 2 questions I'm going to answer with it. Yes, in terms of generally compatible with the BBC and the Gunbarrel Community Center plan. So getting on to feedback on the conceptual site and plan and building design. So the open space amenities, the circulation and connections excuse me, are an interesting challenge, and I think I read in the packet that

[244:03] staff have already pointed out. That little hammerhead which I think is between the townhouse buildings as being something that would need to change. So I don't know exactly how you change the circulation. But and and maybe it's sacrilege to even suggest that it might cross that multi-use path. But somehow you're gonna have to improve that circulation design so that you have the appropriate number of curb cuts and get people to and from where they need to go. I do like Kurt's idea of trying to connect on Spine road, if possible. Height. you know I consistently. I am okay with being one story taller than things that are around you. I understand the concern around this needing to be a transition or intended to be a transitional use between the commercial center and the residential. But I do think that having a little extra height for sloped roofs is appropriate. That's something that we've decided in the past

[245:05] that we want to encourage and allow a little extra height for that. And I do think that having the 3 stories is important to ensure the affordability component for this 100 affordable development. So I'm I'm not super concerned about the height. If this comes back to us for Site Review and I know Shannon had sort of very subtly suggested that maybe there could be something done with variations in the height. If if transition is a concern, so I would be open to some transitions at the edges, but I don't think we need to take the whole site down by a floor. Certainly. and I think that's about it. I do think that it is to be commended that this will be a 100% affordable development. And this is not a concept on this or not a comment on this particular site development. But the lack of parks income barrel is quite concerning. And so I would ask staff.

[246:03] If they have any information for us about parks and Recs plans for parks and gun barrel. If there are parks planned, I think that would be really good for us to know when we're doing these concept reviews and site reviews in gunbarrel to know the greater context and and what might be planned for the future. So I will stop there. Thank you. Cool. Thanks, Laura. I I agree almost completely with my with my colleagues. One and 2. I'm a yes feedback on the conceptual site plan a as as I think. Kurt started, and my colleagues continued to the extent that we can remove asphalt from the from the site and and and open that to green space. Especially given Laura's comments around. you know the lack of and what we heard from the community, the lack of park space, the lack of gathering space. Fortunately or unfortunately, it creates an opportunity to

[247:05] to to to build some of that in directly into a development like this to make sure that the people that are living here have those kinds of amenities. as far as as heights go. You know. I'm okay with, with with functionality of of height. Articulation. So if there's a functional reason why? You know, or at least a functional component to it, I think it makes it easier to accept. I would also, you know, if we were looking at some height modification for some for some for some pitch roos. I would suggest that, you know, trimming trimming the edges of the buildings to to to mitigate some of that would be helpful. But outside of that I I don't really have many other concerns. That haven't already been voiced. So those are all my comments.

[248:08] Kurt has a bonus comment. Bonus comment I just forgot to mention about the height. I would also be comfortable with the height, modification, especially in the interest of a variation in reforms. Thanks. Oh, and my! My one bonus comment, too, is I I think, pulling that building, as many of my colleagues said to the to the the community space building to the street. Maybe even moving some of that community building community space into one of those other. you know, taking a few units and tucking that space inside one of those larger buildings. To even open up more green area might be another idea. But again I know you're early in the concept plan, so I'll leave it at that. Anybody else with bonus comments. No, and it looks like Pete. You have your hand up to respond or get some clarifications.

[249:07] Yeah, I just have really one question around. That multi use path connection. And if I could share my screen, I'd like to point point something out and just get your quick feedback on. It really has to do with the alignment of the neighborhood to our south and in the Cumbria center to the north. And so I'm just gonna share this real quick. And I'll be quick about this and I'm gonna move. Do this. Okay? So this is a Google Earth view of what's going on out there. So our projects down here in the South. And this is the. And this is the Gumbarle center. Kinksuper's is the white building in the middle, at the top of the screen. I think that is by far. I live in the neighborhood. So I I traverse this quite a lot. I think it's by far the most desired place for folks to walk to in particular, our neighbors to the south.

[250:08] The front door is right here. And this is a natural path of movement, including what was pointed out about the desire line across our property where the multi-use path connection is shown is over here. This is the back of all of this stuff, including the loading docks of the king supers the back of these buildings. There's no doors over here to any of that. There is. The these buildings do kind of front this water quality treatment thing here. But but for the most part this is the front, and this is the center of the Become borough commercial core. So to me. If we were trying to connect the neighbors to the south, to the core.

[251:01] we should think about doing it here. Where pedestrians already move and where they want to go. not here, where it's the back of house, and there, but and there's no sidewalk. By the way, that that moves through here there is at least a little bit of a sidewalk here. And then you have to deal with the parking lot. But clearly people are moving that direction. So I just love to get your input on that and see it. It may take a a modification to to the connections plan. but it seems like it might be more appropriate. I'd love to get your input. So. So I I don't want to do a whole other round of input from the board. Because I think I think we've already passed that section. But I I at least I I think you put it. You put it. You you guys know the site better than we do and if you think it's important to explore that, I would encourage you as you, as you're pretty early on in the concept plan to explore those types of things?

[252:03] Right? That that adequate feedback from us. Yeah. That's adequate. Thank you very much. Alright Any anything else. Otherwise we're gonna oh, Laura. Sorry really quick. I know it's late. I just wanted to say we heard you or I heard you on some of the family comments, also the amenities on the site. So it's a lot of units. And I think, as we develop the site more with more detailed design work and community input, there would be, a focus on a variety of housing types. I've heard senior housing, family housing, but given the breadth of site. I think that we would probably be able to accommodate quite a bit of all of those things. Actually. So that's sort of exciting. And then to that end we would amandetize the site to an end that would allow for the things that those different

[253:03] folks that would be living there would would be interested in and utilizing. So playgrounds and community areas to gather, and things of that nature. So again, as as it's been mentioned, this is for early on. But those are all things that we will definitely dig into as we move forward. Thank you. Alright. That concludes our public hearing. or that content plan review. We'll go into matters. Nothing from staff tonight. Right a lot anything else that no. Laura. I've brought this up a couple times now that hab is having their retreat, I think it's next week. and if they could get their planning board liaison appointed, then that person could be part of the retreat, which I think is a really it's just such a a choice opportunity for the the liaison to bond with the hab board and understand what they're all about, and be part of that early conversation. So I was wondering. I know that we don't have our full list of boards, and we can't do all of our liaison appointments tonight.

[254:22] but if if it's appropriate, if folks would like to select a have liaison tonight. Then that person could be part of that retreat next week. I don't know how folks feel about that. I I think we should appoint people all at once. I don't. I don't think we should selectively appoint people, so if we want to go through the process. If that's that's critical to us tonight. To get. Do it not, I suggest we go to the next meeting would be my feeling.

[255:01] Oh, sorry I'm muted sorry, Kurt. No problem. I agree that it makes most sense to do them all at once, and given that Mark has left. I think that we can't really do it tonight. but but I do appreciate what Laura said. It would be ideal if they have. Person could go to the retreat. But I think we're gonna have to sacrifice that. Anybody else. Well, I can at least tell Michael Letchise that I tried. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Any other matters anyone wants to bring up. I I do think that we should if we don't already have that on our agenda. I haven't seen the agenda for the next meeting, but that's probably something we should make sure that we do in the next meeting. so we can we can. We certainly try to insert that for the next meeting.

[256:00] Anything else meeting debrief and calendar check. What is our next meeting? I think we're in person next meeting, too. Laura. You're you're you're muted. Sorry double muted, I think. Next week was listed on the calendar as a potential meeting, and it has not yet been confirmed one way or the other if we're gonna have it. But there are no agenda items for next week, and next week is also Passover. So I don't know if staff can confirm one way or the other. If we have a meeting next week or not. Sounds like we should pass that one over. We do not have a meeting next week. Our next meeting will be on the seventh of May. and we'll be back in chambers for that. I think Council is back in chambers for their meeting of the eighteenth this week, so I guess they'll do a little bit of a trial run by the time we get in there on May seventh. Hopefully. It should be fine tuned.

[257:04] great. Anything else before we adjourn. Well, thanks, everybody. I thought that was pretty efficient. Given. We had 2 public hearings and able to give. I think the applicant some really good comments tonight. So thank you. Thanks. Everybody. Good Leadership, George. Yeah, I have to say, that was like 4 h of public hearing like to a Ti think we started at 6 18. So well done. Yeah. So to everybody. Job. All the public coming out. Like to think I did my part by keeping it short. Have a good night, everybody. Alright! Thanks. Everybody! Thanks! Bye, bye. At night.