May 7, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Recording in progress, recording great. Alright calling the May Seventh Planning board meeting to order. We will start out with a public participation. Great. So I will start by reading the rules of public participation for the meeting. Can you see my screen? Is that showing. Yes, you're good, Vivian. Great. Okay? So I'll just go through these quickly. And wanted to thank everybody from the public for joining us here tonight. So I'll read these rules for participating. And first, just wanted to let our participants know that the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy for

[1:02] people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And you can find more information on this participation and engagement vision on our website. And I'll just go through some examples of rules of the quorum that are found in the boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be upheld during this planning board meeting. First, 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. It's another speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And lastly, participants are required to identify themselves using the name they're commonly known by it. So first and last name, typically so that we can call on you, and we know who's speaking. So I see, for example, that somebody's joining by telephones. I'll get in touch with you to see if you plan to speak during the public hearing portion.

[2:07] Similarly, if you only have your first name, you can send me your last name through the QA. Function, and I can change how that appears on our side. So just let us know you want to speak at the right time we'll be. We'll ask for people to raise their virtual hand, and you can hover your mouse or finger over that virtual hand. Icon and if you're on your phone you can raise your virtual hand by pushing Star 9, and then later, Pushing Star 6 to unmute yourself. And this just shows another way to get to that hand by using the reaction. So now we just share my screen. This is open comment. Part of the meeting. If anybody from the public wishes to speak at this time. We're asking for people to keep their comments to items that are not

[3:03] public hearing items later in the agenda, because you'll have a chance to speak to those items, then. So if you want to speak to anything else. we can call on you at this time. and you would do that by letting us know and raising your virtual hand. Okay, I don't see any hands raised. I think we can move on share. Thanks, Vivian. mute. My sorry everyone. I'm just getting used to our new setup. Second here. Better? We're going to go through the minutes for approval. We've got a set of 3 min to approve. The first one on March fifth. Does anyone have any comments, or does anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes.

[4:07] I move to approve the minutes. We have a second. I'll second. Ml, seconds. Okay, just go around. Kurt. Yes. Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. Claudia abstain. I was not present. Mark. Yes. okay, and yes for me. Alright. Moving on to the next set of minutes, which was on March nineteenth. And Does anyone have any anything they want, or to go ahead and make a motion looking at you? Mark.

[5:02] Move, to approve. Ml. Mo moves to approve. I second mark seconds I think it's just me laura was not there, and Kurt was absent. So I approve. and we can move forward. And finally the many minutes on April second. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve them? Move, to approve. But second. Audio seconds. Okay? ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Claudia. Yes, Mason. Yes. Mark, and I'm a yes. Hey? And I'm sorry I need to adjust my boat on the first one. I wasn't. I need to abstain as well. I was not. Thank you. Alright.

[6:01] Moving on to the dispositions of the planning board call ups and continuations. this is not a call up right? Does anyone want to call this up? Does anyone have any questions? What kind do we need to move to approve that? Or is it just? It just is what it is. Just is what it is. Okay. Alright. we're going to move forward for why. most people are here this evening, which are the 2 public hearing items, the first one. the public hearing and consideration of a Site Review and use review at 3 3,300 Penrose Place for 100% permanently affordable housing redevelopment with 113 residential units, an on-site leasing office and a daycase daycare center head start classroom with play area.

[7:00] The proposal includes pursuit of landmarking and repurposing the original portion of the Geological Society of America Building and developing 4 additional residential buildings on the site. The proposed day. Care requires a use. Review reviewed under case number LUR. 202-30-0044. Alright. alright! Good evening board. Can you hear me? Alright wonderful. Okay. My name is Shannon Moeller, with the city of Boulder Planning department, and I'll be giving a summary and staff presentation on this site and use review. See here. So first, we'll take a look at the planning process to date the existing site and surroundings. A summary of the project key issues and the staff Recommendation planning board originally heard a concept plan a proposal on this item back in 2022 and provided helpful and positive feedback. We'll touch on that a little later on the presentation the item was not called up by city Council at the time of the concept plan. So tonight's site and user view applications are the next step for the proposal.

[8:20] So again, tonight's considering a site review, this is required based on the size of the property, and because modifications are proposed. These include a parking reduction, height, modification, and setback modifications. The proposal requires a decision by the planning board due to the proposed height modification. The Board's also considering the Use Review for the Daycare Center use, which is the proposed 20 child head start classroom in a portion of the existing Gsa. Building, a use review is required for a daycare center use in this zoning district.

[9:00] This site was posted, and public notification provided per code. Some public comments were received on this item. These included primarily concerns regarding parking the proposed height, modification, and impacts to wildlife. The written public comments were included in the boards packet. So moving to the specific site and surroundings. This is a 4.7 5 acre site, located south of diagonal highway and north of Iris. It's located between Thirtieth and 30 Fourth Street. Wonderland Creek is open along the southern edge and flows through the site before being piped below Iris Avenue. The site has been developed since the early 1970 S. As the headquarters of the Geologic Society of America Organization. and the original portion of that Gsa. Building was designed by a local noted architectural firm, and the actual design was attributed to architect art. Everett. This building has been found to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places. It's an exceptional example of brutalist architectural design.

[10:10] There was a later addition to the west end of the building that was completed in the 1990 s. But the original portion of the building is intended to remain and be adaptively reused through this project an individual landmark designation has been submitted to the city's historic preservation program. and review of that application will be finalized. Following the Planning Board's decision on the site and use review applications. So here you can see some photos of surrounding properties. The surrounding area was constructed across several decades from the 19 sixties through the 2,000 tens it encompasses a range of land uses from office non-residential to multifamily creating an eclectic mix of architectural designs, and ranging from buildings from one to 4 stories in height.

[11:02] Just to the southeast are one and a half to 2 and a half story office buildings. To the northeast is the crisp mortuary. To the west are 3, 2 to 3 story financial office buildings that have parking or vehicle circulation at the ground level and to the south, across Iris are high density. Residential uses. The Wimmington Post condos are 278 units in 12, 3 to 4 story buildings, and there are also 2 large Brookdale assisted living facilities at either end of the Iris block. These are large multi-story buildings, with heights of 40 to 43 feet. Wonderland Creek passes through the south end of the site where improvements were completed as part of the Wonderland Creek, Greenways Improvement Project. This provided flood, mitigation and a multi-use path connection along Iris. Following these improvements, a letter of map revision was reviewed and approved by Fema just recently in March of this year, and this resulted in the current floodplain extents that are shown here.

[12:08] The proposal will follow this established flood plain and allow for the creek channel at the south end of the site and the accompanying flood, plain and wetlands areas to remain and be protected. The site is well located to take advantage of multiple transportation connections. As shown here, the sites directly adjacent to the existing separated bike lane and multi-use path along diagonal as well as the multi-use path south of the site along Iris and Wonderland Creek. The site's also located close to several transit lines and facilities. The bolt transit route providing service between downtown boulder and downtown. Longmont has a nearby stop at 30 fourth and diagonal. The bound transit route provides service along thirtieth between base Mar and diagonal plaza, and the nearest stop is south of Iris and Thirtieth.

[13:06] and the 205 and 2 8 transit routes. Both have stops nearby at the corner of 20 Eighth and Iris. They provide service between downtown and the gunbarrel area and out to 50 Fifth and Arapaho. And there's also a bus spike shelter close by a diagonal and Thirtieth street which assists with last mile connection options. So moving to the Bvcp Land use designation. This site and surrounding areas are designated high density residential. So that's where attached residential residential uses predominate. The property is zoned. RH. 4. Residential high, 4. Primarily used for attached residential uses and where complementary uses can be allowed. So the proposed attached residential units are permitted by right and the daycare center use can be approved through the use review.

[14:00] So moving on to the more specific proposal. This is just a comparison of the concept plan reviewed by planning board back in 2022, and the current proposal. So you can see they're very similar in design, both with the general same building types arranged around a central open space area, and they both include adaptively reusing the original Gsa. Building they both included, proposed height, modifications, parking, reduction, and setback modifications. and at the time the Concept Plan Review happened, the Planning Board found that the site was an appropriate location for higher density residential. The Board appreciated the site, layout, and incorporation of existing of the existing structure and express support for the building and parking designs. The Board also recommended good bicycle and pedestrian circulation and connections throughout. So, moving to the proposed project. Again, the applicant is proposing the adaptive reuse of the Gsa. Building, which is labeled as building A and construction of 4 new residential buildings that would provide a total of 113 new, permanently affordable apartments. These would range from efficiency, living units through 3 bedroom units.

[15:21] The proposal also includes the head start classroom for 20 children on the ground floor of the Gsa. Building, along with a leasing office. The site plan is derived from the adaptive reuse of the original portion of the Gsa. Building and the development of a campus-like configuration with a proposed building surrounding a central open space. That's the focal point of the design from the central gathering space. Pedestrian pathways move outward, connecting the buildings across the site and connecting to the multi-use paths at the north and south edges of the site. Here you can see access and circulation vehicle circulation makes use of existing conditions where the site takes us access. From 30 Fourth Street, via Penrose place a private street access that is part of the subject property

[16:13] vehicle access is maintained largely similar to existing conditions. Pedestrian circulation paths extend from the central gathering area out toward the edges of the site. The proposal provides a unique mix of usable open space areas. The central gathering area provides decorative paving as well as lawn areas, pedestrian paths, seating, planting beds, and a playground. Other areas retain the existing natural features, such as the Wonderland Creek quarter. At the south end of this site and the landscaping surrounding the historic Gsa building overall. This proposal provides 42% open space where a minimum of 30% is required as noted earlier. The proposal is located in a well connected area for transportation via bike and transit, and it encourages use of these modes of transportation with the vehicle parking, reduction request and a transportation demand management plan.

[17:14] a total of 99 vehicle spaces are proposed on site where 146 would otherwise be required. This results in a 32% parking reduction request. The request is supported by the Tdm plan that includes Eco passes for residents, infrastructure improvements, such as connections to the adjacent multi-use paths and provision of 235 bike parking spaces. The proposal provides an E. Scooter parking pad designed for use with Lyme E. Scooters to encourage last mile connections, and the proposal provides discounted car share rates for all Bhp residents. The proposed parking reduction also allows for the design of the site to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking, and also allows for locating parking in less visible areas of the site with the bulk of it provided as tuck under parking and podium parking within or under the buildings.

[18:10] Okay. here you can see the proposed building designs. The existing Gsa. Building again would be adaptively reused. And the 4 new apartment buildings shown on this slide would be constructed around it. Buildings B and E are 3 stories, and are designed with tuck under parking. Building. C is 4 stories, and the lowest level is partially below grade, provided as parking the 3 upper levels face onto the central gathering space. And this building also provides upper level community and outdoor gathering spaces for the residents. Building D is 3 stories and is located internal to the site, with entries directly onto the central gathering space. and the architectural design allows for the existing Gsa building to be highlighted against the contemporary designs of the new buildings.

[19:05] These buildings are designed to provide a nod to the elements of the historic building. The proposal is eligible for, and has requested a height modification. The proposal is eligible for a height, modification under criterion. V. Which is shown on this slide, where the proposal is a 100% permanently affordable development. Development with at least 40% permanently affordable dwelling units is eligible to request the height, modification. the proposal includes modification requests for the 4 new buildings. These range in height from 39 feet to 49 and a half feet, where a maximum of 35 feet is permitted by right. The Site Review criteria was updated in 2023 to include additional criteria specific to buildings requiring a height modification.

[20:01] The proposal has been designed to comply with all these applicable criteria and staff found the proposal to be compatible with the height, mass in scale of surrounding area which includes many larger floor plate buildings of 3 to 4 stories in height and an eclectic mix of high density, residential and business uses. So moving. Lastly, to key issues. Staff identified these 2 key issues the first being, if the project meets the site review criteria, and the second, if it meets the criteria for a use review for the head start classroom in terms of the first key issue as noted earlier in the presentation staff, found the requested modifications which are listed at the bottom of this slide for height and parking, met the Associated Review criteria as noted in this slide. The proposal also includes 2 small setback modifications at the corners of the site due to the angled layout of the buildings that are derived from the existing Gsa. Building staff is supportive of the setback modification which allows for the arrangement of the site and for the open space to be gathered in that central area rather than at the edges, where it would likely be not as usable.

[21:21] So overall Staff found the proposed modifications were appropriate, assisted with the development of a high quality, design and metal review, criteria and overall staff found the proposal consistent with the Site Review criteria, including with the underlying Bvcp. Land use designation of high density, residential, and with many policies of the Bvcp. Supporting preservation of historic resources, a mix of land uses and development of additional housing, providing a high quality design and locating infill inappropriate locations. Moving to key issue. 2. A use review is required to allow for the proposed head start classroom for 20 children, which is located on the ground floor of the existing Gsa. Building. The proposed headstart classroom is intended to serve families residing on the site.

[22:11] and would allow for direct service to the neighborhood, and allow for a complimentary mix of residential and non-residential uses, while having little to no impact on surrounding areas as it would adaptively reuse the existing Gsa. Building that has been used as a non-residential use for many years. Staff found the proposed headstart classroom was consistent with the use review criteria. So with that staff recommends a motion to approve the site Review and user view applications. The applicant is here, and we'll also have a presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thanks. great presentations. Anyone have any questions. Ml. Thank you. Yes, Shannon, thank you very much for the very concise and clear presentation. I really appreciate that. So my question is, on Key issue number one. You talked about the setback

[23:13] that was part of the request there. and I don't see any. Do we know what the impact of that setback might, or that reduced setback might be to the adjacent properties. Is there a room right west of this and along that? I'm not sure what that building is on the southeast. anyway. Do we know what the impacts are to the adjacent properties? Because that's generally what setbacks are all about. There we go didn't turn my mic on. Yeah. So the setbacks we did evaluate those. I think the main thing that we typically see with setbacks is to provide adequate spacing as well as landscaping.

[24:15] Allow for many of our other development standards to be met. In this case we did find that there was still adequate space, and that our other design guidelines and development standards were met. So we didn't have a concern with modifying those to allow basically those corners that are highlighted in the blue. I don't know if you can see those. They're quite small. Just those little corner edges of the buildings. Okay? And. Otherwise the rest of the building needs to set. Team. The setbacks. That's right. It's really. Ours. Yeah, it's really those small corners that are highlighted in blue. Negligible. Thank you. Thank you for pointing that out, Shannon. I appreciate it. That was my only question.

[25:02] Mason. Yeah, thank you. Great presentation. the head start classroom. Do you know if this is an expansion of the head start program? Or is this a classroom that's moving someplace, some from someplace, else. I don't have any information on that, but I think the applicant could speak to that in their presentation. The other question I had, and it was a little unclear from the from the slide on the movement of cars and bikes and that sort of thing. It looked like the main connection for bikes is probably gonna be on the south side with the Wonderland trail. I mean, obviously, you could. You can go out on the road and and get to it a different way. I see that that's marked as walking trail going down south there. Do you know if that's meant to be paved and not accessible or or not accessible to bikes? Sorry that wasn't very clear.

[26:03] My understanding is that that you could take a bike there. I think it is designed as a little bit more of a walking path surface. But I believe you could take your bike down there and make that connection. Yes. So the delineation between multi use and walking passes just that the multi path is this, the city multi use path. Yeah, the city multi-use paths are those that are in either the public right of way, or we have an easement, for that's right. Great, that's super helpful. that's all the questions I had. Go ahead. Okay, this may be a question for the applicant, but maybe you know it. What are the neighborhood schools associated with this site. I don't remember off the top of my head. I know we do. Generally send a referral to Bvsd, so they can comment on the application. I could see if I have that in my files.

[27:06] Okay. maybe they know. that's it. For now the other questions for the applicant. Thank you. my colleague? Mason poached my question. Kurt, do you have any questions before we move on? No. I have no questions for stats. Thank you. Okay? Great. I I have. And one quick question. I know that the the heights referenced in the document. Don't include the mechanical correct. That's correct. So when you go to that elevation slide. where you have all the buildings in there? Yeah, that one. So I'm I'm mostly curious, and this is probably more a question to the applicant. But ask Staff, just as we see all these flat roofs, buildings, and some people have creative ways of handling the mechanical? Are we seeing any projects that are able to just

[28:07] contain that mechanical in a different way, where it doesn't sit on top of the roof like a hat. yeah, I know there's been different approaches to that. I would say currently, what we're seeing a lot of projects having to address is the increased requirements of the energy code are resulting in a lot higher height, mechanical units to meet that energy code. So the applicant could probably better address. If this design is somewhat responding, I can't read it on on this page. What is the what is the height of that mechanical screening. Let me try to zoom in here real quick. And then I thought it was interesting while you're looking that up, that the older building somehow I don't know if it's just omitted on this particular document that we're looking at, but somehow it doesn't have mechanical on the top

[29:04] and I guess I can ask the applicant as to why that is. yeah, that may just be not shown on this, on this image. yeah. And I can put a PIN in the. You can get us the height later, and and I can put a PIN sort of I'd love to have a discussion at some point on how we like holistically as a planning board, understand the different options that are available to developers. For to meet our energy code and still somehow address the mechanical. Beyond just these large screens the mechanical is 9 feet, but per the code it has to be below 16 feet. That would be the Max. So that's pretty significantly under that. Okay, thank you. I don't think we have any other questions unless anybody else does. Oh, ml, does. You triggered my memory. Thank you, George. So I do have a couple of other questions. I'm looking at.

[30:05] When you did your analysis under the BBC P. Criteria, C reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And I am curious what? I am not sure that the current energy code has any references to carbon reduction. I know that the proposed changes will have that. So I'm curious. will this project? Have they already applied for a building permit. No, the the applicant would have a few more steps to go through before a building permit application. I would probably direct more questions about the energy code to the applicant team. I know they do have plans regarding how to address the energy code specifically so they they may have more thoughts on that.

[31:08] Okay? And can we look at that perspective again? That was just up to see the roofs. Those are fine. I don't see any photovoltaics? And I know that solar ready is a part of the requirements, are they? Well, again, you might not know. We don't know. Are they proposing to have photovoltaics on these flat groups? And if so, of course they would add another dimension to the group, because they probably wouldn't be flat. Do we know the answer to that. I can try to look at the plans I don't recall. If those were shown on the roof or not, I would say most of our projects tend to have those just in order to meet the the energy code at this point.

[32:15] Do you have any other follow ups Ml. Or. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I thought Shannon was looking something up. Yes, I do have one last one under the site design criteria site Review. Criteria B, the building, a site design requirements for height modifications item or art article B, 5 talks about the hard surface areas are provided with unit papers. Blah blah. Given the option of purview versus non purviest, and it sounds like this project is proposing all non purvias for their hard surface in the outdoor. Is that correct? And I'm curious as to

[33:00] why we aren't asking for that to be purview material. Given that there's a creek close by, and the difference in heatsink between the 2. Yeah. So I think this this central area is kind of the area that's intended to meet. That site review criteria for kind of a central gathering space, sometimes referred to as like a courtyard. So the these sort of what color is that? Like a light brown at the edges of the courtyard, I think, are a decorative paving, and then the central area has this big kind of great lawn oops. Excuse me. switching slides here great lawn space. So I think there is a mix of purview and impervious space in that. In that. Right. I'm looking at that decorative that criteria talks about. You know. Purpose or decorative, and I'm curious as to whether there was a conversation to

[34:03] persuade the project to go to the previous versus the impervious. Did that come up. I don't think that came up during the review. No, not that. I recall. Okay. those are my questions. Thank you so much. Alright, thanks, that's all the Board's questions. Want to go to the applicant's presentation.

[35:14] Perfect. Thank you. Good evening. Planning board. I'm Ian Swallow with boulder housing partners. I'm a senior project manager and charge of the 3,300 Penrose project. So happy to be here tonight. And yeah, I'll be happy to answer a lot of those questions that came up. When you were chatting with Staff. So I will keep our my introduction fairly brief here. I think you all are very familiar with bhp, we're the housing authority for the city of Boulder. Always like to share sort of this first slide, just to, you know, give you a sense of our mission and vision. We really are, you know, focused on creating a more affordable, inclusive, diverse boulder. And we think this project will really help. You know us continue to fulfill that mission again. I think. You know this slide the a lot of numbers about who we are, what what I like to highlight. We have about 1,600 affordable homes in 39 different communities throughout the city of Boulder. And so, I almost wish that Google map was a little bit bigger, because one of the things we really focus on is providing housing options throughout the city, and I think that map

[36:20] shows it well. So that's, you know, affordable options for folks who may need an efficiency up to a 3 bedroom, which I think we're excited about at this project. And those options kind of throughout the city of Boulder. We're the largest residential landlord outside of the university, and we take that, you know, role and responsibility very seriously. Especially with our new developments like this one. And then this slide. I'll I'll hand it over to Bill, who can talk much more about some of the planning aspects I did just wanna highlight, you know something. I think we're really excited about, especially in the development side at Bhp, which is this third bullet point, which is an area. I think we've had a lot of success with recently, which is taking what you know we would consider underutilized infill sites in the city of Boulder, and sort of transforming them into much more. You know, community focused providing housing in areas that maybe didn't have it before. So you know, I'll just quickly. We're nearing construction completion on our Mount Cavalry Senior Housing site.

[37:23] which is the adaptive reuse of a historic church with senior housing. We're also under construction on the Rally Flats community, which is a hundred units. That was the site of a former gym and sort of a evolving part of town. And then, you know, a site like this which you know, really came to us through Covid with an office use that you had a user who decided, you know, they have a massive building. They have about 4 staff that permanently work in that building. And you know, could this be better use both for the Gsa. As well for the city of Boulder? And so I think it's those types of partnerships that have really made some unique communities and allowed us to create housing in areas that, you know, maybe would have been possible

[38:05] 5, 6 years ago. So I think we're really excited about that, especially at this site. I'll hand it off to Bill, who can give you, you know, much more of the details, and then happy to answer any specific questions. Thanks. So Bill Halliki Coburn architecture. we're really excited about this project. You don't. You don't get to do this. This is like, I don't know of another project in the country like this. So our our whole team is, is really very excited to be part of it. It's a We're reusing an existing building. So in that existing building is all made of concrete, so we don't have to get rid of any of that. Embody carbon off the tossing on landfill. All that embody energy gets saved. But it's not just ha! It's not just the building that happens to be a concrete building. It is a really incredible structure, you know. It's it's certainly of its time. It's this kind of horizontal prairie style, brutalist building that you would never kind of think of when you think of affordable housing, but it ends up being like the perfect perfect Center Pieces project. So we get to save that we get the land market. We get the landmark. The whole site to the north side of it. So it's presentation. All this existing old landscaping gets to stay.

[39:14] and then we get to convert what's really a kind of a bygone commercial billing from an era that doesn't really exist anymore. And, as Ian said, like 4 people are in this building right now, we get to transform that into housing that we need as a community, but not just any housing, 100% affordable housing. Right? So it just keeps getting better. It's it was originally designed as this sort of rock on a hill. It was this Big 4 5 acre site, 4 and a half acre site, and there was this concrete rock up on hill, which is, you can guess why. I mean, it's the Gsa. The Geological Society of America. So we get to take that sort of unique sighting and then build off of that and create a campus which we never get to do. It's always buildings on streets. And this particular thing gets to have this sort of really walkable focus, which is, which is very cool. It's going to be extremely sustainable. There was a question about solar panels.

[40:04] We're not showing any, because Bhp separately funds the the solar projects that are done through grants and other things. So this commitment is to meet the energy codes for the city. But if you go back through Bhp's portfolio, they've slowly added solar to every project, and this may have a full solar canopy by the time it's done in permit, but it would be done separately. so it'll be extremely sustainable. And then, because of the way it's cited, we get to like, take the emphasis off the car completely and the one slide that Shannon had up. We'll come back to the the focus isn't on the car at all. So you just don't get to do this. This is this is pretty cool. Shannon, show this. I won't dwell on it, but sites highly served by alt mode. So getting rid of the car as a primary organizing focus makes a lot of sense from a site planning standpoint, and although the sites commercial. Now, Shannon also pointed out, it's in the middle of our H. 4. So this becoming residential fits, the pattern of the zoning and the pattern in the surrounding properties.

[41:02] But you end up with a site that's really rich, you know. It's not just a rectilinear pattern, but it's highly organized. The the original Gsa. Building sets off at an angle which really kind of points to the mountains and down the slope. So by bringing the buildings around it, and and instead of like one big building or some kind of, you know, massive structure, it's really kind of a neighborhood feel we create all these little moments throughout. We'll get to all of that in a minute. But just to touch on some of the stuff that Shannon was talking about when we came here. A concept plan, and I realize there's been a lot of turnover on plenty board since we're here. A concept plan. but there was really good feedback. I think there was a lot of a again. It's a special project, so you can probably surmise that there was a lot of support. But a few of the things that came up that we've been focusing on was this idea. If you're gonna deemphasize the car, let's make sure that the the bike and Pedloca connections are really tied in to the northern and southern city. Wide connections. I'll point that out in a minute. Release a lot of support for landmarking the existing building

[42:01] the one thing that came up which is really kinda cool was, remember, this was all a big landscape site, and there was a lot of trees that have been here for 40 or 50 years. So one of the directions, which was a good suggestion, was, Hey, when you're organizing these buildings you got a bunch of smaller buildings. Can you cite those in a way to preserve as many trees as possible? And you saw Shannon's diagram of the concept plan. To this one it looks really similar, but the buildings are scooted a little bit to try to capture the trees, and you can see on this drawing. It's a little bit tough from that far away, but all the trees that are lighter green are existing trees. So we've kept, you know scores of trees that are on the site now. The new trees are in the darker green. so we've managed to keep a lot of those existing trees. the the the height modification came up. Primarily, because, I think the rules were a little different at time, but still true 100% affordable is needed for the height. MoD. So it's still 100% affordable. That's like a a check. The box. And then

[43:01] right sizing the parking was sort of a big conversation. So right now we have 113 units with 99 parking spaces. And so we we talked about that a little bit. Bhp has a really good data for all the other properties that they have. And so they went back and tried to game. Play like, who's gonna live here? What types of folks will live here? How many cars will be needed who has access to bike paths and all of that, and then put into that the idea of this third party user like a a head start. And what was the right number of parking spaces? So that's what they've come up with, and feel pretty confident that that's the right number. It's a good mix between being aggressive in terms of removing, parking and the cost of parking from affordable units, and still keeping enough parking for the folks who will need it. But with that parking oh, we'll we'll talk about parking a second. Sorry. Got my slides out. Order. This is the organizing pass of travel, and this is a new slide that Stas requesting, and since we've been doing it. We think it's extremely useful to figure out how the pass of travel will move through the site. So we've added a little bit to this to I think it was Mason's question.

[44:07] where will be you be able to bike? So I won't go through the same stuff that Shannon did. But just as a quick overview, what we're trying to do, bigger picture is keep the cars on the outside the site. So the orange is the cars. They're kept on a north into the perimeter. So you park your car? Then you get out and you walk. Bikes can go all the way around the site. So that's the red on this or the or the magenta. So the magenta is the city paths and the red are our paths. But that's where we expect the bikes to go so they can get to all the all the sides of the site and get really close to the buildings. But the heart of the building, which is blue and the accessible paths are in green. Those are walkable. That's where you walk. So we're not expecting bikes to whip through the middle of this that's kept to pedestrians. But bikes go to the outside, and cars are kept to the periphery. and the way we handle that with a parking is that we put the parking for the most part on the outside, indoor under buildings, so the the blues are showing up pretty close on this monitor. But the darker blues are underneath buildings and hidden from view. Shannon sort of alluded to that that we're trying to keep the the footprint, the visible footprint of the bill of the parking really low, and then the lighter blue is the parking that's actually exposed. There's not too much of it.

[45:15] The orange kept into the buildings is the bike parking. So we have 2 main repositories of bike parking. One is in the existing building, which is right where you come to the site from the north, and the other is in building C, the building on the south side, and I should highlight. That is the second floor of this part right here. So you just take the elevator up and get to the built bike parking. So the bike parking is secure in buildings. One of the things we found is that there's so much focus on bike theft. Putting the building, the parking into the buildings is safer than putting in a cage or or outside. And then this open space is a really unique opportunity. There's a couple things going on here. One is that we have this excess of open space per code. Quite a bit of excess. Part of that's because in the light blue we have conveyance. So we can't put a building there, nor would we want to, but it allows for really

[46:05] open area of open space, and it can be utilized in a different way. Right. It can be contemplative. You can walk through it. There's actually a path that you can kind of stroll around. You could do things like throw a Frisbee, or a baseball or something in there, and it's a kind of a unique resource that most residential projects. Neighborhoods don't get to have, and that also allows us to really be directive about how we're using the rest of the open space. So the bright green, for example, on the 2 corners is. It's still pretty good size, but it's smaller, and it can be used by like a family or or a couple of people. or a place to hang out with your dog or read a book. We've got this central core. That Shannon also brought up, and we're viewing that as like the extra living room in the project. So that's that the white circle in the middle. And that's this grassy center spot right next to is that darker circle. That's the playground. So we've got a place where all the eyes can be on the project. There can be real community interaction, and it's a really safe place to let your kids play playgrounds right there. There's a lot of eyes on it. You're not worried if they're wandering off

[47:12] off the site, and you know I won't go into the rest of the detail. One other thing I'll mention is the north side of the site is really sort of a garden the way it's currently landscaped with the existing trees and bushes leading up to the, to the landmarked building. That will all be landmarked, too. So it's sort of landmarked in place as this original nod to the intent of the first design. And there's plenty of other different landscape moments, too, just to highlight the the the big ones. There's this real richness in the open space that we don't always get to do. And then a few more renderings. You've seen some of them, but I want to talk about the architecture a little bit. So this is that central living room, this whole outdoor living room, and the the architecture of the buildings. We went around on this a couple of times. We had an architecture that was fairly similar to this when we came a concept.

[48:01] and then we started drawing on it. We changed it quite a bit and had these other ideas for what we're going to do, and sat down with Staff, and the more that staff and we kind of worked on it, the more we came back to the original concept as the right one which was to really have a nod to the existing building, but not have it be a replication and not have it be completely different either. So we're doing things like the the protruding roofs, the existing building, all the corners, the roofs flare out. It's a really cool move. We have public spaces up on the upper floors. You can see on the upper left of this, and the roofs fly out over that to have a nod. But it's a very different application. Right? It's not this heavy, concrete thing. It's this flying wood thing. So it it responds to the existing building. But it's not at all a replication. It's of its own. So we we sort of do that throughout the project where we're using some of the same language, some of the same, massing, some of the same vertical windows and things, and putting them into the project as reverberations. Kind of of the original design. And this is that same inter living area. This is looking the other direction.

[49:09] and you can see it from up above. So it it. W. What's really cool about this space is just because of the way the existing building laid out, and the way we kind of put the buildings around it. When we were laying all this out. Sometimes you get these these heart spacey spaces in the middle of projects, and they feel like you're very much on display. And that's not a great thing right? It just erodes that feeling that you can use it in the feeling of say privacy from the balconies that look out on it. or they can get too big. And you just don't have that feeling of of neighborhood or community where you're all the way around it. In this particular case it worked out to be kind of right in the middle, just just perfect. So that there's enough space here and enough landscaping in different areas that people can have privacy, but you still feel like you're part of a community. We're pretty excited about that. And then the other part. This is the southern side of the building. As you're looking at it from the southern road, we can't bring the building up to the street like we would typically do because we have this floodway. But we can design this building so that it has, you know, a really approachable front. And it feels like we're trying to put a front of the building on the street. This is really the back of the building. But again working with Staff, we've designed this as a front

[50:17] so, even though it's 150 feet away, it still feels like it's giving an appropriate face to the to the city. And then one last view. This is from the west. Looking across the site again, this is a floodway here, so we can't put a building in it, but it has this sort of, and to be honest, this is sort of unintended when we laid out the site, but it has this memory of the original conception of this rock up on a hill. These buildings sort of sit, and maybe it's a screefield. Now. I don't know. That's what I've been kind of calling it, but it has this memory of what the original design intent was. So with that I'll quiet down and answer questions if there are any thanks for the time. Thanks, Bill.

[51:00] questions. Mark. Thanks, Bill. This this is to me an exciting project, and my first question, as in this pertains to your project, but it pertains to the business of planning board. And maybe Bhp, or you can tell me how much money comes to develop this project from the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. Let's do. Question. Yeah, great, great question. I can speak to that. So it it will certainly vary by project. So it's a, you know, a competitive application to the city for those funds. We have typically seen in the range of probably 80,000 to $120,000 per unit that comes directly from the Inclusionary Housing Fund, and then, you know, we would expect, you know, a total development cost which will include a a

[52:03] I. I qualify this because the number can scare folks. It'll include an appraised value of the land at the time we start construction essentially but that would probably for a project like this, be around $600,000 per unit. That's not what it cost us to build it, but that just to give you a sense of like percent of the total capital stack. You know, the city, say $100,000 out of a $600,000 unit is what we would expect from the city of Boulder. would you'd be able to do this project without the city's roughly 100 k per unit. No, we yeah, absolutely not. Okay. And of course, I asked this just we are routinely peppered with comments and questions about well, it should all be on site. And this, the developer gets away with this. So anyway, to me, this is shows a product that where our inclusionary housing funds have been put to good use, okay,

[53:03] does Bhp provide ecopasses for all of their residents across all your sites in the city? So we we do not have a blanket. Eco pass program. We do, of course, provide the passes for the first 3 years to all residents after occupancy. We, you know, we, we track usage and then work with the city on whether or not we continue that program and basically our policies, we're not. If if there's a community that's using them. If there's folks that using them. We're not gonna take away a resource right? But we do not. you know, blanket provided for everyone. And and frankly, we have very wide amount of utilization depending on the site depending on the location. You know it tracks as you would expect. You know, those in more transit. Rich locations get used more. We've seen a little bit of a I don't wanna call it a skew in the data, but you know, in the last I think it's nearly a year Rtd. Has been free for folks 19, and under which is a huge percent of who we serve

[54:02] and who utilizes ecopasses. So I think you might see that utilization a little less today. But a lot of that is because you know, right now there is no fare, you know. We hope to see that continue, because that's a real benefit. But that's how we handle Co passes. Okay, sticking to transportation for just a second. Then how many car shares are you planning? I know car shares is part of your Tdm. Plan. What is the number? And do you have the ability to adjust that number hopefully upwards over time. Yeah. So you know, as of now, we don't have any firm commitments with Colorado car share, they're, you know they're a very close partner. I think we have them at 4 sites right now. So here a site like this, we would, you know, plan on at least a single car share car. But we would like to see that number go up. It's you know. Some of it is capacity from them, and some of it is demand from us. And then you know also that that Karshare is not just for Bhp residents. They wanna look at the surrounding area. Knowing the density around this area, it seems like it would be a good location. But that's that's where we would start. And then, you know, of course, depending on demand, look to increase, and and kind of go from there

[55:15] alright, and then final question, probably for Bill. I am all for the adaptive reuse and and appreciative of what you guys have have done there. Does it actually represent a cost savings when compared to deconstructing, tearing that down and rebuilding something that would be more traditionally and less brutalist daycare center. Yeah, that that's that's a great question. And one Ian and I have spent quite a bit of time with contractors trying to understand, and I would say, Don't, please don't extrapolate this answer to all projects, because I think the answer probably changes in this particular case, because so much of the outside, the building is not being modified right? It's a landmark building. So this concrete facade does not have to be up kept

[56:02] repainted, fixed. We're not changing anything except for the windows. So what we're really doing is doing the inside. And the Hvac system is is what's happening in this particular case. It is cheaper for us to leave that super structure in place and add units inside. That would not always be the case, especially when you need to make exterior modifications or renovations. Then all of a sudden I would say that would maybe not be true. But in this case it happens to be true. and the the daycare is interesting because we have on the first floor a bunch of common space that we're not putting units in for a variety of reasons. And and that's the intent is to bring a community used both for this community and the surrounding communities. the general public or Bhp's other projects, and add that kind of community based. I don't know interaction or service into the project, and we just happen to have space for it. So it's fairly inexpensive to add it here. And we can do modifications on the inside to make it pretty palatable. So it just this one happens to work really? Well, that won't always be the answer.

[57:02] Great. Thank you. Alright. virtual per second amount. Thank you, George. I'm not sure, Kurt, were you hand up first. I can't tell. I don't know who's first. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Don't. Wanna don't wanna step in front of you. Bill, thank you so much for the presentation, and I appreciate your enthusiasm. On a number of grounds. One is that Gsa building has always been one of folders, 2 best buildings. So you know, the the term brutalist sounds kind of horrific, but in fact, I think it is an absolutely brilliant example. and Machiall was one of the best architects Colorado has ever had so kudos that we are able to keep and reuse and I think I might have misunderstood. Gsa. Is not remaining on the site. Is that correct?

[58:02] That's correct. Yup. Okay? So my questions, I have. I have 3 questions. following up on Mark's question about the alternate transportation modes. I'm understanding that you're using data from your existing, from BH. Ps, not yours. Bhps. Other projects to help establish what might be the appropriate car cars needed to service this project. So my question is and and I I live, you know, fairly close to the Bhp project next to North Boulder Rec center. And I see what happens with cars there. And I see what happens with the car share. And you know it's basically vanished. And I'm just curious is how

[59:02] how transferable is that kind of information cause? I think that was one of the things that came up from the neighbors was the cars and the reduction, and especially the mortuary, I think, which is just like right adjacent to this site. So can somebody from Bhp just talk about how transferable is the data that you're citing to justify the right sizing of your cars. And I'm gonna I'm gonna talk about Bhp in front of their face for a second because they won't, and then I'll turn it over to Ian. But Bhp is unique. Every other project essentially has an individual ownership group, right? So they have to do their Tdm individually. Bhp has an ability to look at all 1,600 units and figure out, you know, ways to aggregate or learn lessons from one place and move it to another, or look at, look at their entire population of who they serve in a different way. So they're always able to right size and make modifications as they move

[60:03] forward. So with that. And yeah, it's a great question. And I think, you know. there's broad data where right we can look across a large portfolio and see general number of cars, general number of units, but that does not necessarily transfer to an individual site in an individual location with its specific circumstances. So you know, when we come up with these parking ratios, you know, it's not sort of a you know top down the development side says, you know this shall be the parking. We really engage with our operation side, our community managers, who are sort of boots on the ground. and we would look at. You know what communities near here, you know, that have similar unit mix what's the population and sort of use that to make an informed decision? It it's certainly not an exact science. But you know we have our Calmia community, which is just north of here. We have some communities diagonal plaza which is just south of here. That's a family site that those are the kind of sites we look to, and we're

[61:04] you know, sort of dialing in that that general parking ratio. And so, you know, if this site I'll use our you know, our 30 pearl community example right at thirtieth and Pearl. we would we have a lower parking ratio in that location? Because it's it's better served by transit, and it's better served by, you know, neighborhood services. This site is still really well served by transit, and I think it's still well served by, you know, neighborhood services and and things that allow folks to live without cars. but maybe not as good as another site. So that's kinda how we get to that. That 99 s. And then, of course, also factoring in a use like a head. Start childcare, and looking at what those demands are. So yeah, it's certainly not. Just. You know, we have this many cars for this, many units across the city of Boulder. It's it's much more nuanced. Right? Right? is there like, should there be a parking issue? Because I think you're correct. The the site on Pearl and thirtieth, you know, you basically walk across the street and you have shops in all directions, and especially if your families you don't. You may not need to get in your car to go to the grocery store. But

[62:19] is there ever a sort of plan? B. If it turns out that okay, the parking isn't working. What happens then? You know. I mean, it's the it's the same thing as any community. Folks look to street parking. We look to manage it on site. Of course, you know, when we have neighbors that are businesses, we'd work very closely with them to mitigate any impact. So you know, in this example, the mortuary. We would, of course, be very astute to, you know, making sure folks are not parking in that lot. But you know it would function similarly to any other community. I I don't think that's an issue. We would. We would see given this site and given the the amount of parking we're proposing, which, you know, is is actually sort of on the higher end of what Bhp has been doing on recent projects.

[63:06] for this site. But that that's kind of how we approach that. I remember just a quick addition to that. Remember that you know one of the tools that they have at their disposal is to alter the Tdm. So if there was a demand for cars that aren't there, the car share could go up. There could be you know, a different way to to incentivize folks to to use all modes and keep in mind that from the services around here. You know, you've got a grocery store straight west. You've got services all around. So it it is a really good location for folks to stay out of cars. I? Well, I would agree to that, but not everybody likes to walk that distance to get to their grocery store. But I I I think it is a highly amenitized site. In that there are a lot of options for for people to come and go without using their car. So I'm just kind of wanting to make sure that the concerns that are raised

[64:08] and the understanding on how we get got to where we're at and what we'll be approving. What we're asked to prove tonight. So I have one last question. And I think actually, this is the one that follows up on what Mark was talking about. So what percentage? We're talking money, right? So this is a hundred percent affordable because of the city's inclusionary housing. Input contribution to it. If this couldn't, what percent of the project say, this was, gonna be a market rate project whip on-site affordable. Is there a

[65:00] rule of thumb? I we don't get on site. So I'm curious how how might that happen? This is a hundred percent in the other direction. We're used to getting 100% market. So where's the middle ground? Yeah. So well, I can just explain a couple of things in Ian. If you have anything to add, please jump in. But if this was a 100% market rate project. the project would be required to either provide. I think it's about 28 units on site, or they could buy out of 28 units. This, as you elude this project, you know, when you buy out of a unit, it's it varies. I think it's like $212,000 a unit or something like that. Now to buy out of a unit. So of that 212,000 that that buys out a unit. 100,000 or so of that comes here and creates a unit. So you can see that there's like a there's a leverage of that money. Right? We're getting a unit for a smaller amount of money when it's when it's off site. So the in order to leverage the money. You really need to use the Federal tax credits of 4% or 9% tax credits in order to do that, it's almost always. And and some would say, always a fully affordable site. Because then you can leverage the money. So that's why, when they aggregate, you know the off site, when people pay the offsiting fees when they pay the cash in lieu that's aggregated into sites that then get spread throughout the community by Bhp.

[66:17] Right. Get it. What you're asking. Yeah, it it it, you know. It would be nice to see to find a way to get on site affordable in the market rate projects, just because we're getting some interesting projects coming into town that have, you know, 0 on site. And it would be kind of cool to to find a way to get that dispersed in the city, so that the mix is, in fact, a mix of income as well. So I will, I will say to the to that point. So this has been an interesting education for me. So we used to design mixed use projects we always considered to them to be mixed. Use buildings. The first floors gotta be one thing in the floors above, or something else so like retail and residential above and over time, you know, that was like 30 years ago. We're trying to make everything super micro mixed use like that. And over time we realized that wasn't really necessary. What you could do is concentrate the commercial like on the corners, and put residential in the middle of the street. And so you have.

[67:16] You know, it's not vertically integrated anymore. It's horizontally integrated. And I'm starting to feel the same way about about residential. I I understand your point. But by turning the money over to Bhp, they can kind of go around the community and say, Okay, here's an area of town like Gunbar. I think you saw a concept plan for recently where there isn't any affordable. So this is an appropriate place to distribute that affordable throughout the community. This is another place that really doesn't have another affordable project close except for diagonal court. So one thing to keep in mind is, you know if you've got an affordable project, you know, a half block down the street. It's still mixing it throughout the community. Just one super quick that we can wrap this up. But you know, the other point on this, I would just add, is, this project will be 100% affordable. It does not, certainly does not mean it will not have economic diversity. You know, we serve 0 to 60%. Ami. Primarily, we have the ability to go up 70% ami with, you know, new Irs regulations. So you know that can be. That's a very wide range in income. So even though it is 100 affordable, the actual community itself will have.

[68:22] So right. And income range. Hey, ml, do you have additional questions? Otherwise, I wanna. Our dad. Need a round robin. Alright! That was, that was me. Thank you very much. I appreciate the time. Kurt. Great. Thank you. And like Mark. And I think, ml, I'm very excited about this project, and I'm really grateful that you have found a way to preserve this building, which is very solid, and there for a long time, and and really architecturally very distinct. So I think that's great. My first questions are about site access by, particularly for pedestrians. If you live in building D or E say.

[69:06] and you want to go to the southwest. Yeah, let's look at that. You want to go to diagonal plaza walking. How would you get there? So I'm sorry I was getting this slide up. Can you repeat the building that you're talking about? Yeah. D, or E. So the one of the buildings to the northwest. I think you'd have. Yeah, I think you have 2 options, and you'd have the maybe the more pleasant path or the straighter path. And if it was me, I think I would go out. There's a bike path that runs along the diagonal directly to the north of building E, and it's it's well protected. It goes straight to the corner of 20 Eighth and and and Iris, and then you're you can cross the street and you're at the grocery store. for example, the other way you could go is head south and go through the natural area, which would be a pretty pleasant experience, and then you would pop up on the bike path that's on the road to the south, and then take that across into, you know, essentially into diagonal plaza at the light, and then go down that street, and you would cross at the pedestrian crossing that runs across 20 Eighth.

[70:09] going through the new project that's being built at that corner. So I think there's a couple of options. If it was me I would be on my bike, so I would be on. You know the Iris bike path to the north. Okay, thank you. And so, following up on that, did you consider. or or would there be any possible feasibility to a more direct connection towards the southwest, across Wonderland Creek drainage. Obviously that would require a bridge. Yeah. Something that you looked at or considered at all. I mean, that's that's again a good observation. Yeah. We looked at that. I don't know if it was really to make it quicker, but just to create some more circulation through the site. But because that is that creek has been recently been remapped.

[71:00] proved by Fema. That's high hazard. So if we put a bridge in there, it would need to clear span. We can't even put down like a support into the high hazard zone, and it would have to be what 18 inches above the flood level. All of that means it's a pretty significant bridge, and since the city already had the one on the East Side. It was pretty cost prohibitive to put that into an affordable housing project, and it would have limited value because people only have to go a couple of 100 feet to the east to get around it. So we ended up abandoning that pretty quick. Do all those reasons. Okay, thank you for that. Next question is about parking. When I've been out there. I've seen people parked on pen rows. Is that something that would continue to be allowed. Well, I don't know if it's allowed now, but it happens. Yeah. So we we talked to Steph about that. Technically, Penrose is not wide enough to parallel Park on it. So all of our parking studies and calcs assume no parking on Penrose, with the exception of this small number of spaces on the north, which is really intended to serve as kind of a pickup drop off for for head start if that were to move forward. So

[72:06] yeah, there may be informal Penrose parking now, but that would not be the intent, and that is an emergency vehicle access. It's like the fire truck turnaround, so it would have to be clef kept clear for fire. Look at the. Thank you. Next question, and you can keep up the same slide at the very southeast corner of building. C. There's sort of a polygonal element there, and I haven't been able to figure out what that is. Can you tell me what that is? Yeah, that is yeah. So I'll I'll go into a little bit of an explanation. A lot of the sites that you see are fully paved now when they're being reused. And so you don't have stormwater detention, because if it's already paved, you don't need to add to it, this site is not paved. So we're adding, the buildings are impervious surface. So we need to capture that storm water before it's exhausted into the city's system. So that is a storm water

[73:07] capture basin is, I say, that it sounds like a big concrete structure. It's not. It's just a bit of a depression. But that's what that's for. Yeah. obey. Sounds good, thank you. And then I think my last question is. it sounded from your description, like all of the secure bike parking is just in 2 buildings in the Ts historic Gsa building and in building C. Is that correct? It is, and the reason for that is security to be blunt. So throughout the city, and certainly Bhp. Has seen a lot of this. there's a lot of bike theft and even break-ins to secure bike locations to take bikes. So by concentrating it in 2 areas that allows Bhp to make that very secure, and you know, make sure those bikes don't walk. And I would just add that if housing attainability is an issue for you, the last thing you need to do is lose your means of transportation. So security for bikes is a pretty big deal.

[74:06] Sure, but I assume, following up on that I assume that it would be more costly somehow to to distribute the secure bike storage into each building. Yeah, it would make the buildings bigger. And that would start to eat into the site area, because we'd have to add right now, the buildings are fully comprised of units, and so we wouldn't shrink. The units. We would add bike parking, so would make the footprints of the building bigger. The other thing is to Mark's point. We already have this building and we don't have to pay for it. So utilizing that existing space for bike storage allows us to put it all in one place for a really inexpensive amount of money, make it totally secure, and then add amenities to that bike parking area like bike tools, pumps, that kind of thing. So it's not just the bike parking area, but it's also a place to fix your bike up and make sure it's running. Yeah. Oh, good

[75:02] that's all my questions. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt Mason. Oh, I'm sorry I'm gonna can I add one answer to that? Remember that there's there's storage required storage in all of the units. So if you really don't want your bike in a central location, you want to put in your unit, you have a pretty sizable storage area that you can store your bike in. So there's an option in every unit to put your bike. Okay. Great. Thanks. Great thanks. So awesome questions and great presentation so going back to the the oh, my goodness! Why am I facing an early start. Is that the name? Shoot. The head start. Head start. Thank you. Going back to head start program. Do you know if this is an expansion of that program? Or if this is, a group moving in here from a different area. So. Yes, so this would be an expansion. And you know, as of if the

[76:02] the community were to open today. We would not have a finalized plan with head start. I think we're still working through that. I think there's some work to do on classrooms and layout and costs. But we really wanna preserve the ability to have them. But this would actually be a new classroom for just growing demand that they're seeing within the city of Boulder. Of course, the one thing I noticed is there's not really, I mean, I know there's the central area, but there's not really a like a playground. For instance, for the kiddos, is there so any plan for outdoor place space, or you expecting to just use the what what you have proposed here. Yeah. And I apologize. I don't have a more detailed plan. But the way the existing building works is there is a the first floor space would be the the head start area. There's a stair that goes directly from that space as a short stair to the to that north lawn, so we would use that landmark north lawn as the kids play area, and that would be just theirs. That's one of the reasons why those head start pickup drop off. Spots are on the north, so the whole headstart area is focused on that northern lawn.

[77:05] For both outside play and pick up and drop off. So yeah, we we have a spot for that. Given. It's near the street I'm assuming there will be some kind of fence or. Yeah, I think that by code, if it's a daycare, there are certain fencing requirements. You can't just not have a fence. So yeah, it would be. you know, wouldn't be 8 feet tall, but it would be a fence for the for the kid area. You don't need that for a 3 foot tall human! I guess I guess boulder kids can climb pretty well, so I don't know. True. True. So I know there were previous discussions when you came for use review around expanding the number of units I. I did notice that you expanded the decrease units by one, but did increase add 9, 3 bedroom, which I actually really appreciate. I think that's gonna improve access for for larger families and things of that nature. But I'm wondering, how that discussion went

[78:06] internally on trying to expand and and meet those questions from the previous board. I can. I can jump in, and then Ian can can answer. But We actually did expand the units. We we added, I think 15 beyond this, and exactly what you surmise happened. We there was a desire to make bigger units instead of more smaller units. So, Ian, maybe you can just speak to that. Yeah. And that that is really just based on. You know what we're seeing in the market where demand is, you know, 3 bedroom units fit a very specific household type. They can often be our most difficult unit to lease, just because they tend to be the most expensive. But this site felt really appropriate for adding those those 3 bedrooms in. And so that's always just us working with our operations, folks based on on what they're seeing. And then, you know, total number of units. We, you know, a site of this size. We we really get to a point where it becomes difficult to finance beyond, you know, number of units beyond what we have here. This is about as large as a, you know. Stand alone, affordable

[79:09] project that you'll see, you know, in the Metro area, and that is a result of the way the Federal and State resources work. So we sort of. You know, we don't have the same economies of scale that say a market rate developer does who, you know they could do 200 units. They would for us that maths a little different. So I'll just add one thing. With family units there's having a place for the kids to play is a big deal. And there's 3 kinds of places for the little kids. You need a highly controlled place for the medium kids. You need a place where they can play and kind of keep an eye on them, and for the older kids you need a place for them them to roam, and most sites don't have all 3. This one happens to have all 3. So I think that's one of the reasons why it felt like an appropriate place for 3 bedroom family units. You can. You can support kids throughout their lifespan or growth cycle, which is pretty cool. Does that mean? You're expecting that the daycare play area will be accessible outside of Daycare hours.

[80:06] I don't think that's been talked through yet. Yeah, I I actually don't think you can. Childcares are extremely prescriptive with those rules on who can use what? When? So I actually don't think that would be accessible to the public, or. The age of. Yeah, residents, yeah. That's my understanding, too. I'm on the board for my my kids Preschool. It's all State State regulation based. So we don't have a lot of options. There. So where would be the area for the the littler kids? Also Let me switch slides quick. I'll make it. So there's a there's a playground right here, and it's. That's. There's a fence on the side of it. So that's you know. They can't wander off that way. This part is a raised plent that walks along the the building entry. So the only open part to that playground is at the this outside plaza. So it's pretty controllable for for people. They can let their little kids there and sit in the on a bench and

[81:02] really easy to watch. And you've got the whole queue whole community looking into. So seems like it's pretty pretty watched, pretty controlled area. Great getting the the baby monitor for my kids. Speaking of which? the last question, I there's a lot of outdoor space which I love. I love this project. For a lot of reasons I didn't notice any mention of any indoor space. I know another. The only other Bhp project that that I've reviewed. There was a indoor use area like, perhaps communication or something of that nature. So anything like that in this project. Yeah, we actually have a couple of spaces. So the main entry to the the original building will be leasing offices and common spaces. So it's kind of a cool. There's a a skylight that comes down so that'll be a common area. And then they're actually roof what I call roof deck. Gathering spaces on my building. Numbering is eluding me, but the

[82:08] the large building on the south side, so on the north east corner, and I want to say, the south west corner there are covered, you know, kind of roof deck spaces within the building that quarter that quarter. Yeah. I have to mention this because it's crazy. So inside that main entry to the existing building in that skylift space that he had mentioned, there is a 5 ton geode that apparently they're leaking for us. So that's very exciting. It's called Al cool. If Mason, if you don't have any other questions, Claudia, do you? Yeah, I've got a couple. Thank you. Am. So yeah, first one dealing with the the Youth Review component of tonight. And I'm curious where else in the area that we have head start programs or similar subsidized preschool programs.

[83:01] Yeah. So we have a partnership with headstart at a woodlands community which is at 20, Seventh and Mapleton. So we have. I think it's 35 family units. And then a community building that also houses a head start. So it's a partnership that exists today that we already have success with. I wanna say, as of today, that's their only other classroom in Boulder, and I know they are either have currently have classroom space, but that that may be moving in Lafayette and then Longmont as well. So the head start program is run through through Boulder County. Okay? Great. And then, you know, building on that. And you've talked a little bit about this in response to Mason's question. But what other kinds of community spaces and programming are common at Bhp projects? Do you work from like a menu of things that you try to include in projects. You're looking at things, but on like a per resident basis, like, how does this project compare to what you're normally trying to do? Yeah. So this project would benefit from our resident services team. So we have, you know, our organization. We have operations which would be like your your property manager, but then we also have a resident services arm.

[84:07] who is, you know, very intentionally, not your property manager, right? Your property manager is there to make sure everyone's following their lease. Make sure you're paying rent, and you're able to do those things. Your resident services, advisor, is there to connect you to resources, to be an advocate for you with your property manager, so that spans all Bhp sites and it and it is tailored. So you know, senior site is different than a family. My site. So at this site we would expect to likely have, there would be probably half time resident services coordinator. It's obviously funding available, and that person is sort of, you know, a navigator for family. So you know, we don't. Always, you know, we're not providing food stamps. We're not providing Medicaid, or, you know, affordable care, act resources. But what we do provide is that sort of liaison who can help you navigate the system? Who can help you. You know, with income qualifying paperwork that you've already provided for. Bhp, so we can help you work through that for another program if you need it.

[85:11] You know. And then the other program we have. You know. I I don't know that this site would be an expansion of it again. It's it's difficult to say when we're still a couple of years out. But you know, bringing school home is the partnership we have with Mileh United way. That is that a lot of our family sites which is sort of a wraparound school program for kids living in Bhp housing. So those are, you know. kind of the kind of programs we'd see. But it is sort of site, specific and and more tailored to that resident profile at a specific community. Okay, I appreciate that. And I guess my other question is about the central space, the courtyard, the great lawn, whatever you'd like to call it. I'm curious. First of all, how big is that central turf?

[86:02] I'm guessing I don't have. And I should have this absolutely right. It's about a hundred, and you know, at the widest running. Let's call it east, west. Sorry at this diagonal. I think it's about 120 feet wide, maybe 130 feet wide as widest, and then the other direction is maybe 110. From the from the existing building running on that diagonal down to the. You know the the play area. But you know, lots of it is a bit smaller than that, more like 90 feet, depending on where you draw that. Yeah. So I really like that concept. I'm glad that you've done that in this design. I think that's a great space for community, especially since there does not seem to be any private open space in this development. I assume that's not a requirement for this zoning area. I see no balconies, no patios, etc. Correct. Okay, yeah. So this is an important one. And I'm just curious what you have done then to with the design of the buildings to actually make that feel like a community space. You talked about patios and balconies being a place where people feel like, maybe they don't have privacy if they're being overlooked. I think about this in terms of like.

[87:11] how are people accessing that space? How have you set up building entrances, windows, etc. To actually make that to make it. For example, as as a parent, could you watch your children out there? Are people coming and going from buildings in ways that they'll be interacting with that space. I mean that that's a great question. So I'm gonna try to answer this without geeking out on it too much and taking up a half an hour. So I'll be. You're welcome as far as I'm concerned. Okay, so we have a bunch of different responses for the different buildings. So the big building that runs the billing C that runs east, west. that whole bar that you see that kind of gold colored bar around the north side. That's actually elevated about 5 feet or something like that, 4 or 5 feet. So what we're trying to do there is create this sort of difference between where you enter the building and the the space that you recreate, and that gives a little bit of privacy to the residential. That's up a little bit it also creates is really cool.

[88:08] Originally we had a couple of stairs that came up, and we had this this sort of we called it the boardwalk, but the more we thought about it, and actually it was a it was rendering that somebody in our office did. It would be a great place for people to kind of sit. It's like almost like stadium seating. So you can. Just we. We just sort of tiered the whole thing. So now you can kind of sit there, hang out. Your kids can be down there playing. You could be socializing or sitting up in the boardwalk. So that was like one area. The the smaller building on the west side has 2 main building entries which you can kinda see, there are these 2 yellow paths in, and so that has a different approach. Right? Th. Those have, you know, more formalized building entry directly off the space in order to deal with that, we have this landscape area right out in front. So you're not going directly out of the building into the grass area. So there's When we talk about building thresholds or building entries, we we talk about them in terms of the the these different layers, and one layer is where you actually pass through the building. The next layer is where you're getting ready to pass through the building. The next layer is the the walking path. And then there's a layer outside of that where you're actually like stopping the walking.

[89:09] And then there's a socialization. It's like all these different 5 layers that we kind of build up. So that's what we're doing here. We've got the entry location. Then we've got an awning that comes out. Then we've got a landscape zone along the building. Then we've got that walking area. Then we've got an eddy on the outside of that to protect this interior grassy court from all of that. So we're kind of creating these these veils that help give you this sense of privacy or the sense of removal. So you're not on display. And then with the existing building, we're a little more our our hand is a bit more forced because it exists, but we do have. The the building does not enter directly onto the open space. You come down this walkway cause. The entry is sort of up a bit, and you come down this, this meandering walkway which is actually existing, and we're landmarking it and come down into the space sort of in a more

[90:02] organic fashion. But again, there's that great separation there. So that helps a bit. So I can. I'll stop. Sorry, thank you. I really like that, especially on on building C, that elevation. And that wasn't clear from any of the drawings. Thank you. I think everyone. When I'm gonna ask you a few quick questions one, was my question about the mechanical. Oh, we got. We got a bunch of questions from the public about height. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the mechanical top. Has there anything that can be done to somehow mitigate those? Yeah, again, I won't. I won't take up 2 HI have lots of thoughts on that. So the primary problem is exactly what Staff is saying. So we used to use individual residential condensers on roofs, and they're only like 2 feet tall. And that wasn't a problem. But what we moved to is a system called Vrf. And Vrs are great from a sustainability standpoint. They can run in heating and cooling, and they can actually like in Colorado when it's 50 degrees out. You might have one side of the building that's in the sun, that's in cooling the other sides. In heating, you can actually use the waste heat and cool to do the opposite sides of building super efficient, unfortunately for 5 and a half feet tall, and they need to sit on an 18 inch curb, and they need to have a 2 foot hood on top to protect them from snow, and that makes them 9 feet tall. So now we've got this 9 foot screen.

[91:20] There's a couple of things that could be changed in the code, in my opinion, that would help the first is that the the mechanical screen is required to go as high as the unit is tall, and that works great. If you're 40 feet up in the air or 50 feet up in the air, looking straight at it. But in reality we're required to pull that screen away from the unit because we need air flow and things. So we're we're we're supposed to keep it in the middle of the building, so it's hidden. But then you pull the screen out. And now, all of a sudden, it's 9 feet tall. We really could probably hide that unit line of sight with like a 6 foot wall, so we could we could drop it like that. You never see it. That would be great. Second thing is, you know, we're we're always up against the height limit. This site's a little different. We really want flat roofs because the existing building is a flat roof. But when you have

[92:04] when you can incorporate a sloped roof. this is Alpine balsam 4 based code. You're gonna see a lot of this. We can actually put a well inside of a slope proof. And you don't see a mechanical at all, right. It's just hidden in the hole. what I'd really like to do, and what we're really trying to do as an office is. take the architecture of the building, and design the and design the mechanical system to be part of that architecture. So while it may be taller with these new systems, it looks like it's part of the design rather than something's punked on. And we're we're trying to do that here, too. yeah, it it. It's a problem. It's getting worse because of the changes, and I think some tweaks to the code and some tweaks to the way people approach projects could help appreciate that. Where is the mechanical on the on the existing building? Yeah. So the the existing building has 2 heights, and there happens to be an area well cut into the taller one. So the mechanical equipment actually sits in a hole in the roof.

[93:01] And that's because it's only 2 stories tall. We have the height to do it. Got it? Those are my questions. Anybody else have any last questions for the applicant before we go to the public. Alright, thank you. Thank you. So this is the public hearing portion for this agenda. Item, please raise your hand. If you'd like to speak. I'm sure I also wanted to point out that we had a problem with the zoom link. Hey? Viv! Vivian, we're we're having a hard time. Hearing you out. Let me do. I need to get closer. How about. Oh, yeah, that's much better. Okay. so we had a problem with the zoom link that we had provided to the public. And at least one member was unable to. One member of the public was unable to connect in time. And so we propose to reopen the open comment.

[94:02] But perhaps after this public hearing item. Yeah, absolutely that that'd be fine for that person. Great. So let's focus on public hearing now. And I ask the few members from the public who are here to please raise your hand. If you'd like to speak, each person has 3 min. Okay, we will start with Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Who there didn't know that it was me that couldn't get on. okay. First of all. there's a problem of Dei diversity, equity and conclusion. And this is a program for the 0 to 60% income range. And that's just not

[95:02] okay. the second problem. affordable housing does not meet. make housing more affordable. Affordable housing in a saturated market in an inelastic market just makes more people. It makes no matter what you do with the cars, no matter how much car share, no matter how much bicycles, no matter how much you've got people. physical people that crowd all the places in the town. and they all all the events at all, you know congestion on the roads. More people good God! I mean the dark horse. the all over town

[96:01] there is nothing. This is the biggest building boom. you know. It exceeds all the others that I've heard of. Stop already. We just don't need more affordable housing that drives up the demand for affordable housing. It's an endless deep hole boulder housing partners. so, of course, what I say is, do not give any parking restrictions. Do not give any height. Amendments for anything. do not give any benefits of any type. No height limit increases nothing. I mean, they have a right to build. I don't support this project.

[97:00] It's very creative, Bill. You're great creative guy, you know. But if you're gonna Landmark Geological Society of America. God forbid! Landmark! Gilbert White's place that Pete Weber is working on the little house stuck between these huge condos at 6 13 walnut! That's what needs to be landmarked. Thank you. Let's see. Go for your comment. Is there anybody else from the public who would wish to speak to this item? Will Bremer, please go ahead. Okay. So I really appreciate you guys, being so thorough. There's a lot of questions that already got answered. I really appreciate that. The design does seem

[98:01] really well thought out. I do appreciate a lot of lot of what you guys went over. I do have a few concerns. and I'm not just speaking for myself. I so I live in the apartment building right across the street from this in Remington Post. I have one of the balconies that will be facing building. C, and I am considerably concerned about privacy on my balcony. I'm concerned about being able to look out my balcony and have it be useful at all, or rather, instead, be able. Just see a wall of another building and a bunch of machinery on top of it. I didn't even know that that was gonna be 9 feet of machinery on top of it, and I already was not super happy about a 4 story building right across the street.

[99:01] th! There's a good chunk of property value in Boulder that is about being able to see mountains. and right now my condo can see mountains, and with a 4 story building with 9 feet of machinery on top, it will not be able to see mountains very well. which will impact my property, value a lot as well as everybody else in my building. Which I'm not happy about. I also in a similar, I guess, maybe related vein. The flood mitigation area. Is going to be saved. But where the solar panels are in the geologic survey area is home to wildlife that's enjoyable to see makes me feel like I'm not stuck in a city. It makes me feel more like I'm in Colorado instead of Denver, I guess, Denver. But downtown in the city.

[100:03] I I live in Boulder because it's green, and I have a potential to see. You know, animals, even though I'm close to a job that can actually pay me enough money to sort of live in boulder or sort of live in Colorado and having a big development like that. take up the open space that's right across from our building kind of completely destroys that I'm also concerned about the car situation. I know it. Sound sounds. What you're doing is great with trying to limit the amount of cars and encourage biking and walking. but people have cars, and they will bring cars, and if there's not enough parking on the spot for them, they'll park all over the streets. We'll park in places. They're not supposed to park. Thank you. Will. That concludes your 3 min for the public hearing.

[101:03] Any other members from the public who wish to speak to this item. please raise your hand at this time. Okay. so that concludes this public hearing. Item. chair. Do you want to do the open comment now, or wait until the. No, I'd like to. I'd like to wait until the the hearing is over for this section, and then we'll do it before the next hearing. Sounds good. Alright. So we're gonna go in deliberation. Hopefully, it won't actually take too long, because I think the board is relatively aligned. Does anyone want to? Can we? Can we put up the key issues on the screen and the staff have a motion

[102:00] as well on deep into it. You got it. You got it. Okay? Good, alright great. So the key issues for discussion. If we can round-robin. And unless people have a lot to talk about. I'd like to hit it kind of quick, so we can get to our open comment. And then our next hearing. does anyone want to start off. Go ahead, Kurt. Thanks. So I just starting with Number 2, I feel that definitely. Both daycare center is consistent with use. Review criteria. I think that would be great, I think, getting to Number One. I think that the project is consistent with the Site Review criteria in almost every way my one concern relates to

[103:01] the walkable site access as referred to in 1914. H. Well, I lost it. But there's a site review criterion and so I will be proposing a minor a con minor condition that would that would require strengthening and more efficient design of the the paths, especially to the south. Okay, if you wanna draft that and put that in the chat so we can talk about it when we're ready. That'd be great top. someone want to go next. Go ahead, ml. Thank you. Yes. Speaking to key issue number one, I think it generally meets a site review Co, not generally it does meet the Site Review criteria. The comment I would make about hype is that the fact that the existing

[104:06] Gsa building will retain its landscaping? I think it will not be dwarfed by the added height that we are will be granting this project, so I don't see, I think, that the problem has been nicely solved, and it not only meets the criteria, but I think it It allows that existing rather remarkable building to remain visually intact and not impacted by the height. Modification key issue number 2. I see no problem with this head start. Classroom meeting the use of criteria. so yep. yes, yes. Thank you, Mason.

[105:02] Yeah, thanks. So, starting with Number one, I do believe that. This is consistent with the Site Review criteria. I think it's consistent with the land use code being that it's a hundred percent affordable, and that it is on balance consistent with the BBC. I also think that the in addition to the to the height. I think that the setback modifications that are being asked for are reasonable. Given that it's the corners, and not like a full wall against it, and that does allow the plan to be more consistent with the layout of the landlord building as far as the daycare center. I do find that is consistent with the Use Review. I think that it's a great expansion of a much needed program. And I think that it'll add to the community in this area. So yes, yes.

[106:02] Claudia. I'll speak to number One. First consistency with Site review criteria. I think this does meet them in large part. I'm especially excited about portions of the Bvcp. Where we are doing a mix of compatible uses at this site. I want to see more of that. And also I appreciate the change in the unit mix since this came through concept review to accommodate a larger range of households. It's another important goal. I think the modifications to heights that they are requesting are absolutely justified, supported with 100% affordability. I also think that's quite reasonable at this site, because it does deal with some of the topography on the site, which is actually an asset to the site. and the setbacks accomplish some of the same goals. allowing us to do preservation there in terms of the use Review. I think this does meet the criteria for use review, including getting services to the surrounding area, which I think it's very clear that the head start classroom will be doing for this affordable housing community.

[107:12] And I also think that that kind of mixing of uses is something that we should be paying more attention to in our affordable communities and not just doing that to do market rate amenities in market rate communities. So I'm happy to see that at this site. Alright. Mark number one. Yes, I think the project does fulfill the Site Review. Criteria and land use code in section 9, 2, 14. And I am appreciative of the applicants. Use of perceived height. Some sites where the buildings drop down, and and we, the way we measure height sometimes creates buildings, sometimes that seem

[108:01] taller than than what we what might be allowed, and sometimes seem shorter than than what might be allowed. So I appreciate the notation of the perceived heights in relation to the site. And so I believe it fills that criteria. And I'm a big yes, on the Use Review and the use of a daycare center and head start facility. I have. Well, my colleagues, I think it's an awesome project. I think it's rare that we see a project like this where we get a really cool building that's adaptive reuse. That It's really well cited. You know, around the neighbors concerns around parking. I think what's what's unique about boulder housing partners is all the other sites you guys operate and the commitment to try to balance those things and use that data across your different sites. I think that's really interesting and unique.

[109:07] as far as the height. I think it's to to M. Al's point. I think there's there's some height that's going to be offset by landscaping. I think the open space is amazing. We're seeing a project that can really breathe that that's available for all sorts of different walks of life. The the different unit types. I just think it's a lot of what we've been wanting as planning board, and it's it's a nice project to see. So That's all I have to say. I think Kurt had a modification that he wanted to do. Do you want to do the motion first? Does anyone want to do the motion. I'm ready. Go for it. I move. Hope to sorry!

[110:01] Oh. Did you? Did you need something? Ml. And no, I didn't see Mark's hand up. I had my hand up as well. Okay? Oh. okay, I'll go motion to approve site and use review applications under L, under case number LUR. 202-30-0044. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis and review of criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Second. Oh. I'm a. I'll I'll second you alright. Should we take a roll on it? Go ahead, Claudia. Yes, Mark, if I may interrupt my recommendation is, if there are any changes that the Board would like to impose to make that part of this motion before voting on this one. So Kurt could propose a friendly amendment which you would have to accept, or you could do a formal motion to amend at this point.

[111:13] Okay. so, Kurt, do you want to move, to amend them. Yeah, I would like to move to Amanda. I did email Amanda and Thomas the wording of my condition. But I can read it if you would like. The condition is. the plan shall be revised to show the walking trail around the southwest perimeter of building C and connecting to the iris multi use path to be straighter and more efficient for residents walking to Iris and to the southwest. So the motivation for this is well. First of all this it sounds like was brought up in Concept review that we need better connections to this out, and I think they were primarily talking about to the southwest, over to diagonal plaza, and so on. There is the walking trail there.

[112:03] But it was designed the way. Unfortunately. A lot of landscape architects like to design path which is not very direct, not really thinking about them as transportation connections, but more as a place for people to go out and wander, which I think is not typically how they would be used. So this is just requesting that that be revised, to make that connection to be straighter and more efficient for people walking, especially to the southwest. Okay, does anyone want to second that. So, so I would move to a man. the the the motion, the existing motion to add the condition as shown on the screen. Is this the proper time to have a discussion about the motion prior to seconding? Or do we second and then discuss.

[113:01] Second and then and then discussion. So if there's a second. now would be the time no one wants to second it kept That was easy. That was easy. Alright, so we'll go back to the original motion. Mark already stated it for the record. So I think we're good to vote unless there's any discussion of that motion or any other amendments. Claudia. Yes, Mark, yes, Kurt. Yes. Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. And I'm a yes as well. So that motion passes unanimously congratulations to boulder housing partners and to staff, and everyone's hard work. Thanks for the time. Everybody and I just have to thank Staff. This is really convoluted the way all these different components landmarking everything else, work together. They were a huge portion of making this work. So, thanks to Staff, thanks to plenty more.

[114:10] Yeah, thank you all. We appreciate it as always. Great. What I'd like to do is do the one open comment person that we had left out there that wasn't able to tap in. And then after that we'll take a short 7 min break chair. Yeah, could I make a comment? Sure before? Come. I do my best to try not to respond to Lynn. But in this case, before Lynn speaks in the open comment period. I have to say that. I would request Lynn that you think more carefully about your choice of words.

[115:00] The word pogrom. To describe a housing project of this nature of this quality at this site is, it's I find it offensive to the board, to staff, to the applicant. and it you. You may think what you want. but please choose your words more carefully, and you'll you'll go farther, you'll have more influence. And in this case I found it really upsetting and distressing. Kai. Thanks for that. And that was related to the the the prior. Public hearing. Okay, thanks. Vivian. I think we're ready for open comment. Okay. Open comment. So, Lindsay, do we have 3 min. Please go ahead. Well, Mark, I'm Jewish, so I can talk about pogroms.

[116:03] But my point was, it's it doesn't meet Dei. and that's what's happening to boulder sequestered housing like this. It's not appropriate. I like Bill's design and everything. But no. we've we're we're built out now with my place. I am going to get free heat pumps because I'm low income, but I'm not going to use them because I don't want heat pumps. I want ground loop pump. And for a project like this you should definitely have a ground loop pimp me in my little 1,800 square foot house. I'm not going to use them. I'm gonna take 'em because they're being given to me. but I'm going to unload them as soon as I can afford ground loop pump. and this is a huge project. Why shouldn't they use one?

[117:00] I don't. Wanna you know, I'm not even getting to take showers anymore in the winter, when I'm freezing cold because I'm not using my heat pumps. and I hibernate all winter because I'm going to get an air source heat pump. electric hot water heater, and I'm not gonna pay excel to use it. So I'll just be cold holder. I'll be even crankier than I already am, and you know how bad. That is so. there are some changes that need to happen. Big time changes with regards to adaptive reuse. true adaptive reuse of properties in boulder that are getting demolished. Case in point. Western resource advocates also known as Environmental Center of the Rockies, and was the Land and Water Fund. The law fund at the corner of Baseline and Broadway.

[118:00] This needed to come before planning board before it went to landmarks, because you know what happened. They went to get their permit. Gavin did I forget which firm he's with, and they got an extra 16,000 square feet of residential because they were switching from commercial to residential. So instead of 30,000 feet, they get 46,000, and guess what? They can't fit the parking and lead the building there. So they're asking for demolition. June sixth. I mix it up with Gilbert White's project at 6 13, walnut, because one of them's June sixth and one of them's June first. and they're both water projects. There's a huge water project. only 4 in the State of Colorado at Western resource advocates. This is a crime to put down that building that is integrated landscape to.

[119:00] Thank you, Lynn, for your comments back over to you here. Thanks, Lynn, and thanks, Vivian. We will reconvene for the second public hearing. Item at 8 10

[128:02] slow. So a bit of a bit of a coffee line. We'll get started in another minute soon as Claudia's back. Kurt, you are! You are our screensaver. While we were gone. You're like frozen in time. Just a big current up here on like 4 different screens. I wasn't frozen in time. I was sitting here very still. and then how I be. Okay, looks like we are back. my place here, we're gonna do the next public hearing. This one is a public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 8, 6, 2, 2, amending title, 9, land use code, Brc. 1981, to simplify certain development review processes and setting forth related detail.

[129:09] All right. Good evening. Planning board. I'm Lisa Hood. I'm a senior planner and really looking forward to talking over these co-changes with you tonight. The purpose of the item on your agenda is for you all to make an recommendation to city council on ordinance 86, 22. So any changes to the land use code. You all review and make a recommendation. This project came from direction from City Council last year. The Council directed staff to look at potential policy or code changes that we could make to simplify development. Review processes, make them more predictable for applicants. You all have probably heard challenges yourself. But council members and staff regularly hear challenges about how long it takes to get land, use approvals and permit approvals. And also there's been additional work and analysis done on our boards and commissions, and just the workloads that appointed boards like yourselves are taking on. Currently.

[130:11] we've been working on a number of process improvements in planning and development services from our transition to online phone and in-person services staffing arrangements as well as a lot of code changes over the last couple of years, such as the changes to our site, review criteria. the changes to accessory dwelling units, process and simplification of language, the mini modules of the use, table and standards, projects that allows more uses by right. We also extended the expiration for land use approvals to provide more flexibility on older approvals. The zoning for affordable housing updates from last year allowed more flexibility for different housing types. And then our residential growth management system that was repealed reduces permit time overall. So there's been a number of different projects that have all touched on process improvements. And these are some additional kind of Fo code focused changes that we can, that we're looking at tonight.

[131:12] The engagement plan for this project. Some of you are not on planning board yet, but we had a matters item back in January, where we discussed a lot of these topics. and we also had several stakeholder meetings with applicants. Some of our really frequent applicants that are really familiar with the process, and even and some less familiar applicants to hear their perspective on potential improvements. And then we're really focused on kind of targeted engagement. So we'll have the ordinance. The typical ordinance review public hearings like the one tonight as well as public hearing before city Council on June sixth. So that's a consult level of engagement. as you would have seen in the memo and the ordinance. There's a number of different topics that we're touching for these process improvements. So for tonight's presentation, I'm going to focus most of my attention on the the top 5,

[132:06] which are kind of the more substantial changes and then less less. I'll give less detail. So we're not going through 10 different topics. But I'll focus on those 5, and I'll kind of pause. If you have questions at that point, if you don't, that's fine, I'll I'll move on. But just kind of to give us some breaks in between. That's the plan I have for the presentation tonight. So I'm going to start with planning board callups. Obviously something that is close to your hearts. So call ups are. This is the process for callups call ups are a way that applications can be approved administratively by staff, but they're brought to you all to determine whether you want to bring it up to the point of having a public hearing. So Staff does all the analysis makes a decision, then brings it like you all had tonight a call-up opportunity that's brought to a planning board. You decide whether or not to call it up. That determines the next steps. If it's not called up, then that staff decision is just final.

[133:05] If it is called up, then we schedule a public hearing before you all to make a decision, and then any decision of the planning board can be further called up by city council. So that's kind of the step-by-step process of call ups as part of this project. In addition to the stakeholder feedback, we did a lot of data analysis on our applications over the last 5 years to try to understand and see opportunities for improvement that we were from our applications. So we looked at all of the applications that were brought to the planning board as call-ups from 2018 to 2023. So a five-year time range. and we looked at what those application types were, and which of those applications were called up. And we looked at all the data together. We saw, as you can see in this graph that a vast or about 40% of these applications that were brought as call ups were floodplain permits or wetland permits, and of those 2 only or of those, I think 74 applications. Only one floodplain permit was actually called up by the board.

[134:10] And so, in looking at those numbers in total, only 6 of, I think, a hundred 74 applications were actually called up. So that just gives you a picture of how the call up process is has been working over the last few years, and the applications that you're seeing as call potentials some of the feedback that we've gotten related to the planning board call ups when we had those stakeholder meetings we heard a lot about the call ups adding significant time to the process and unpredictability. So there's time added to the process while applicants are waiting to get scheduled for their call up item, to be on the agenda, and then they're not sure whether they need, you know, 4 more weeks after that, if it gets called up from the applicant perspective, they thought that the call up rarely leads to a different outcome, since the vast majority aren't even called up from the planning board matters. Item in January. What we heard from the board at that time was that the Board was supportive of removing those call ups for flood, plain and wetland permits. There was some interest in maintaining call ups for site and use reviews, and then we had also talked about the potential, if you remember, of increasing the number of board members that would be required to call something up right now. Only one member has to be interested in calling something up for it to get called up.

[135:26] and we heard mixed opinions on that. So some Members board members wanted to keep it at one. Some other board members expressed an interest in increasing that potentially to 3. What you'll see in the ordinance, 6, 86, 22, the proposed changes. We've removed the call up for floodplain and wetland permits. We've also removed call ups for a subset of use reviews. So those use reviews that don't have site changes and are for nonresidential uses. And I'll talk about that a lot more in the next topic. We've also in the ordinance changed it to require 2 planning board members to call an item up and the rationale behind. That is that, as we've seen tonight, you need a motion, and a second to discuss anything so kind of expanding upon that it would be 2 people required to call something up instead of just one.

[136:15] And then, as part of this project, it's not just code changes. We've also identified some just process improvements that aren't in the ordinance that could improve things. So we've also been talking about ways to standardize and make more efficient. The staff call up memos and drafting all of those memos. So with these changes related to call ups. We just by looking at those last 5 years of application data, we expect that there would be approximately a 40% reduction in the number of call up memos that you all would see. We don't think that because there are only 6 applications over the last 5 years, we don't think that that would be a significant number that would change. But the actual memos that are brought to you. You would. You would obviously have a shorter packet agenda packet.

[137:02] Of items to review. So that's related to callups. Are there any questions before I move to the next one? Yeah. The question was on the 2 planning board member call up an item. I remember the discussion. And one thing that sticks in my head is that Is it? One member of the public isn't is a lot that that was the contradiction and trying to change it to multiple planning board members was, can you. You talk about what? What is the public aspect of that, as far as who can call something up or or have it brought up? Sure, yeah. So a member of the public, any member of the public can appeal an application. And so it's not technically a call up unless you all are calling it up to your board. But so yeah, it only takes one member of the public to call something up, but it's a little boulder

[138:05] current rules are a little atypical for other communities. Appeals are much more common that you would just have an appeal rather than having everything come up for call up potential and so other cities might have more specific restrictions on those appeals. But not have that call up opportunity. So so and help me because I'm I'm not entirely clear the difference between an appeal and a call up and what the mechanisms are. as far as what that means for the applicant. Essentially, it's the same result. The appeal is just by a member of the public call up is by planning board. So as a just question, because again, it's it feels like a contradiction takes 2 planning board members. But as a member of the public one planning board member could actually appeal the item. Yes, but I think we've talked about this. I think they'd have to do it. Paula, do you want to

[139:01] dressed on? Yeah, we we discussed this as we were drafting it. I think if a planning board member then would call would do an appeal. The planning board member would be come interested and should recuse in the actual discussion of the item. Alright, it's just helpful clarity. Thank you. Other questions. No. alright. So moving on to user view is another one of the main. I had a question. Sorry I had my hand up. So this would approximately reduce 40% of the number of cobs. Do you have a sense. I know you did a lot of data analysis here. You have a sense of of those 40% that are removed. How many of those 6 that were called up. Would they hit? Have hit. Yeah, we can look at the so it would not impact the user site reviews. Necessarily, or. Ding. Yeah. So it would just be the flip plane. So that's why I said that the actual number of what got called up based on those numbers. And obviously, that's only 5 years of data. We went through Covid in those 5 years. So yeah, we're extrapolating, based on those 5 years.

[140:07] So it would have reduced this 6 to 5. Correct great. So as I look at this. the final item, additional process, improvements for staff to standardize and increase efficiency for drafting call-up memos has the potential of being a far greater time. Saver for staff reduced workload to me. Seems like then actually making it more difficult to call something up because the number of call ups. as your data shows, we had one flood plain permit. So if if we eliminated flood, plain and wetland permits. is staff still doing

[141:01] the work to approve or deny those permits? Correct? Yep, the permit would still exist. so they'd have to do those review. So is it. How is the call up process creating the additional work beyond the yeah. Anyway, how? How was the call up process creating additional work? Well, we have to craft a memo you know, and then that gets reviewed internally by a number of people. So there's definitely some staff hours that go into the preparation of the memo that's outside of just a general review of the permit for consistency with with the code. And then we know we have to have staff after 5 Pm. Staff the meeting. So there's time associated with that. Anything that we write our attorneys have to review. so it, you know, kind of hits, a lot of branches of the tree. Okay, I'll I'll say comments for later. Thanks.

[142:02] Okay, great. We'll move on to use reviews. So this is another important topic. another one. We dug into the data. This is something. We heard a lot of comments from our stakeholders about issues with use reviews, and then we also saw that matched in the data. So this is kind of looking at the same numbers in 2 different ways. But looking at the different use types that have received use reviews over the last few years. You can see that certain use types are more frequent, like restaurants and nonconforming uses. We have made changes to the use table and standards that will impact those numbers on their own. But just looking at that, we also looked at how long the approval timelines were for each application type and use. Reviews really stood out as something that we needed to dig into more to identify what was going on. Because we have a, it's a fairly common application type. We have 19 applications per year. On average. the median days to approval for a user view is 200. So that's almost 7 months to review a user view. And sometimes that's just a gym going into an existing space or a restaurant replacing another restaurant. And so the Use Review kind of rose to the top as something that we needed to identify what the issue was and how to fix it.

[143:18] I went through this on during the matters item, but I'll just walk through it. Since we have newer members, I'll walk you through the process for a user view. So after the application is submitted, it's routed to city reviewers. Lots of different departments. Review it in best case scenario. It only takes 3 weeks for that initial review and then a decision. But sometimes there's multiple iterations back and forth between applicants and the different city reviewers so that can take up to several months to get through that first step, then through the staff analysis, we come to a decision. and since all use reviews are subject to call up. It takes about 2 to 4 weeks, usually for a callup to get put on your agenda to even be considered. Then you decide again. This is similar to the other Flowchart. You decide whether to call it up or not. Call it up if you don't call it up. The staff decision is final. If you do call it up, then we have 30 days to schedule a public hearing before you to make the decision again. There's the 30 day potential for City Council to either call it up or not, call it up

[144:19] and then at the end of either option, for a user views also require a development agreement. So that's a legal agreement between the city and the applicant. That there are. There's 90 days in the code to complete the development agreement. So you can see there's a number of different points in the user view process that can add time depending on which which way it goes and how that step goes. So in best case scenario, it can take about 80 days to get a user view approval. But as we saw through the data. The median right now is 200 days. Some of the feedback that we got on use reviews from stakeholders like I said, we've heard. We've heard a lot about used reviews that they're a significant barrier for new businesses. The time it takes for approval the high fees for the application. It can often discourage new tenants from taking over new spaces or existing spaces

[145:13] from the applicant's perspective. The review process rarely adds unique conditions or different outcome. and then we also heard and talked about the development agreement step that it's unusual compared to other communities and adds more time and uncertainty to the process. From the planning board. We talked about this in the matters. Item there were mixed opinions about when we brought this to you all. As a matter's item, we talked about potentially exempting proposals that didn't have site changes. and there were mixed opinions there. There was concern expressed by several board members about unintended consequences of that change, and there potentially being loopholes for some certain situations like for residential going into non-residential space. And then there's not an opportunity for call up. If it's just an existing space without site changes.

[146:02] And we also heard some interest in limiting development agreement requirements. So based on that feedback and our analysis of the data. The ordinance has a new process included which is called the Minor Use review process. and it's limited, based on that concern that we heard from you all on the loopholes potential loopholes. It's limited to only nonresidential uses in non-residential zoning districts that don't have site changes so in many circumstances that'd be like a restaurant replacing a restaurant or a gym going into an existing industrial space that doesn't change anything about the outside of the building. So these for the minor use review. It would not be subject to call up, and it would not be required to have a development agreement at the end. There would still be public notice to all neighbors within 600 feet, and there, and neighbors could still appeal that process the the approval to the planning board. So there'd still be an opportunity for you all to see it. It just wouldn't come to you immediately, as a call up

[147:06] in addition similar to the last one. We're looking at other process improvements that could expedite the development agreement step of the used review as well. And looking at the last 5 years. We think about 40% of the use reviews that we reviewed in the last 5 years could qualify as a minor use review. So that means it was in a non-residential district was a non-residential use with outside changes so that could reduce the overall number of use reviews. And then, obviously there would be a reduced approval timeline for user views which I'll show in this graphic. So going back to this flow chart with the changes in the ordinance, this is what the steps would look like for a minor use review. So obviously, you're skipping going from this to this, and if we add it all up, the potential for additional time. The changes for minor use review, we think, could cut up to 6 months off of the process.

[148:04] Stop there, if you have any questions, Mason, I see your hand up. But I'm gonna I'm gonna ask question first, because we've seen this already. And then I wanted some additional context, because a lot of the stuff that you brought up Lisa feel like is already like what's what's hard to what's hard to absorb in. This is like the restaurant example. right? Because that change has already taken place. Right? So that's not related to this. But it's being used in this as a component of this. So I think what we had talked about was when we see this again is to be able to see what's already been approved and the data that we're being presented doesn't reflect what's already been approved in the code changes which I think was the vast majority of what of what this is trying to address is already addressed, and what has already transpired.

[149:00] Relative to restaurant for restaurant. And I think it's sites under what 4 or 5,000 square feet. Could you? Could you? Elaborate? Because I think some new members aren't who haven't participated that discussion? Yeah. Yeah. So we did look into that after it was brought up at the matters item. And so we looked at all of the restaurant approvals. And like the indoor athletic facilities, and we think about 15% of the restaurants in the last 5 years would still need use review with the new roles. So that would be a reduction of 15% of those restaurants. And then indoor athletic facilities based on the the changes that we made, about 40% of those would still need used review. So significant reduction for restaurants, pretty significant reduction for indoor athletic facilities. We didn't recommend any changes for non-conforming uses, because those are pretty unique situations that would require kind of more discretion. So that's those are the that would be the impact on

[150:03] so when you're presenting this data to us, like, for instance, these restaurants, these 26, what would have been in the use? Review? What what have we already accomplished prior to this change? So whatever 85% of 26 is okay. I guess that that it just troubles me the way the data is being displayed to us. And I feel like we had this exact conversation because we we have new board members that that are seeing this data for the first time. And it's it's covering stuff that code changes have already accomplished. And same thing when we go, if you go forward on the slide to that 40%, so that 40% of use reviews in the last 5 years would have qualified for a minor use. Review is that without the code changes that we made a few months ago. So this data doesn't reflect the actual code changes that we made already. Right? And so sorry, there's like a lot of numbers. But so if we've looked at 32 used reviews in the last 5 years. 40% of those, so say 1415 of those wouldn't need a use review at all anymore.

[151:20] So if you that would reduce that 26 number cause that I just from my perspective, I think it would be. I think I think I made the same comment a few months ago, which was like. we're being asked to look at data that doesn't reflect actually what is actually happening in our code today because we already made changes which accomplish a lot of what this is trying to accomplish. And so if it's going to be presented to us and the public and city council. I would just like it to reflect the changes that we've already processed so that we really understand what we're doing because it doesn't feel like it's not clear to me. Okay, yeah, I think that. Obviously, the presentation is just a summary. But there's a lot more detail in the memo about that, and about the data. For each one of those. Yeah.

[152:12] Mason. Sorry you had your hand. Yeah. 1 one question. I'm kind of wondering, going back to the data that you're showing. And I think in 2 of the slides I saw 18 through 23, and then one slide is all 1620, 16, through 2023. Can I? Curious why you chose different time ranges. Yeah. So we changed our permitting system in 2,018. So we have much better data starting in June of 2,018. So that's why we can more consistently compare those years. 2,016. The applications from 2,016 were included are brought into that new online permitting system. So we're able to look back a couple more years using that. So that's why there's some differentiation. But generally we've tried to use 2018 to 2023, because it's a five-year time range. And we have all the data in one place.

[153:06] Next ups. Lisa. I recognize I'm coming into this process somewhat late, but I'm wondering if you could give like a 30 s rundown of what's commonly in development agreements that are part of the current use review process. I'm gonna pass it to hell for that one. Yeah. Our our development agreement is is a pretty standard agreement. It's just one page long, and requires the applicant to agree to comply with the conditions of approval. To indemnify the city when any claims that may occur in. You know, in connection with the construction of the development it has language in it that the development agreement runs with the land it gets recorded. So it's it's a way to notify future property owners that the development approval is on the property and will bind them to and the use of the property

[154:08] and gives and and requires the developer to agree to the city being able to withhold future approvals. If the developer is not in compliance with the development agreement. And then the rationale for getting rid of that in a minor use review. Yeah. So we've looked at a number of communities nearby and boulder is unique in requiring a development agreement for use reviews. Those are typically in other communities used for kind of your planned unit development, larger scale, something that includes public improvements, that there needs to be a legal agreement related to other communities for a use, something like a use review. It's called different things in other communities. But for some that type of application is typically simpler. You know, if there's a a gym going into an industrial space. There's not a street being built that needs to be agreed to, or things like that. So that was also something that we heard from the stakeholders. Ads

[155:11] concern to the the applicants. And it adds up to 90 days in the process, and it is kind of you know it can. It can go smoothly back and forth, but there is often a lot of back and forth, and it can take time to get through that development approval or the development agreement to get to your final approval. Okay, so just to summarize. And what I'm hearing is that there's not a lot in a standard development agreement that is relevant to what you are calling minor use reviews. Right? Okay, thank you. Good Summary Mason's. Your is your hand up. It is so going back to that that flow chart with the different days, the full one, not the that one. Yes, thank you. I noticed that you said the average was around 200 days, and it looks like you. You hit about 200 days just going through the city process itself. So I appreciate

[156:01] well, looking into like the development agreement to reducing but one thing that tells me, and I don't know how accurate these are. These could just be rough set, rough estimates. So maybe my my question isn't pertinent, but it looks like, no matter what you do, you're gonna hit about the 200 day, mark you have 3 weeks, 30 days, 30, 90 days. You get to to about 200 without touching the board. So what that tells me is either like. Does that mean that there's a very small percentage of items that come to our board to get addition, which brings that average back towards, you know, just kind of the minimum. Or does that mean there's like a huge variance? And we've got. you know, some balance on. You know. There's some that are taking one week, and there are some that are taking, you know, 300 days.

[157:02] I guess I don't have a sense of that that spread. Yeah, so I don't know the exact spread off the top of my head, but I think it's about 80 days to about 300. So that's why we use the median instead of the average but for projects that go smoothly through the whole process, not called up. Staff decision is final, get their development agreement done quickly. That still takes 80 days. But thank you. Alright. Next up is non-residential uses in residential districts. This is somewhat related because it's also a use review. But in the code right now there is a an automatic planning board hearing, so it doesn't come up for call up. It just automatically comes to you for a public hearing, for non-residential uses and residential districts. That is something that's been in our code since the early 19 eighties.

[158:05] And for those of you that have been on the board. Several were recently brought to the board over the last year or 2 all of those were approved. The Automatic planning board process adds at least 60 days to the approval process. It's harder to get something scheduled for a public hearing than for callup because you have busy schedules. And so the proposed change would be to remove the Automatic Planning Board Review. It would still be able to be appealed or called up if their site changes. So if it couldn't be a minor use review and then, while we were looking at that change, the part of the code that discusses it also requires an Automatic Planning Board Review for residential uses in the public zoning district. And so we in the ordinance we've recommended removing both of those automatic hearings. The anticipated result is that it would eliminate a few public hearings at planning board per year, and then reduce the approval timelines for those non-residential uses and residential zoning districts

[159:07] you give us. Sorry. What? Why, if you here in that number it seems like you're able to provide numbers before in here you get you. There's more disparity over certain years. So I think we had 4 last year but one or 2 in the the years before. It would be really helpful, at least to me, maybe to other board members. because it's it's very abstract. Can you give us an example of a public hearing that we would have heard that we wouldn't hear in this case that would make sense. Well, the friends school came before you guys. A few months ago, and they were adaptively reusing what was originally a single family detached home that had been used as a daycare. They're proposing the exact same operational characteristics and numbers of students.

[160:02] It was a very turnkey operation that forced a public hearing. and that another example. I think there's been a couple that are in planned unit developments or old planned unit developments that were like an acup. I can't remember the exact detail, but like an acupuncture clinic taking over a chiropractor clinic, but it's in residential zoning district, and it was in a pud that was already set up for offices. But it still had to come automatically for public hearing, even with the change that we're talking about on the the prior. The prior slides. because it's a use you're talking. The the 2 examples you brought up are kind of use for use. Right? They're existing their existing commercial uses in a residential district. And someone's, you know chiropractor is coming in for a dentist, or whatever right so is. So are we talking about those uses? Are we talking about? Also uses that are

[161:01] taking residential and changing it to commercial for the first time. Does that fall under this category? 2. Or is that a different thing that would fall under the cat this category for the minor use review, it would not, because that has to be a non-residential use in a non-residential zoning district, taking over non-residential space, so the the shorter process wouldn't apply to them. But for this one it would impact that wouldn't need automatic public hearing. But there would still be a call up opportunity, so it just wouldn't automatically come to you. Do you have any examples of a something that we've seen that's residential, that's converting for the first time as a planning board. I remember one on Arapaho. and maybe around Fifteenth Street. There. There is a building that I think hasn't been used super well over time, but there was one residential unit in there, together with some workspace, and a cafe was proposed, and it had to come before the planning board, because

[162:13] part of the proposal was to eliminate that remaining residential unit in there. So under this scenario like that, like what you're saying is someone converting a residential unit to a cafe would not have to come based on, based on what is being proposed so right. It would only come forward as a call up correct. Yep. but and they never building on George's Point. and I appreciate the Friends school example. Well, and I'm sorry it might have been the Jarrow School jar. I think it was the Jarrow school, right? Yeah, it was. It was Jarrow. Yes, anyway, that was a lovely evening, and and it seemed. yeah, great gee whiz! We we are going from a it was a great situation. We're going from daycare to daycare, however.

[163:02] Would we? Would they have? I believe that was under that came that that application process started under the prior use review criteria. Is that correct? I'm not sure about the details of when that got when that was applied for, my question is, would that have come to us under the newly adopted? It would have, it would have. Yeah, cause it's a non residential use in a residential zone. And that's that wasn't ever tinkered with this. Yeah, alright, thank you. But they wouldn't automatically need a public hearing. Is the difference. Correct? Yeah, with these change. And yeah, some of the rationale for this is, it's been in the code since the early 1980. Si think, explained that in the memo, but mixing of uses was a lot less common. There wasn't planning guidance that said we wanted mixed uses, and so there was more concern about having those non-residential uses in a residential zoning district. There's only a few uses that are even allowed to ask for a user view in a residential zoning district.

[164:07] So the rationale for this change, or reasoning is that over the last 45 years we've gotten a lot more comfortable with mixing of uses from staff and public perspective. Understanding what types of conditions might need to be placed on that use review and the standards that they need to meet. So. And I think as a staff, we maintain referral authority as well. So if we're reviewing an application that we feel like might be too intense for the location, or there might be impacts that you know, would raise the attention of neighbors, we could always refer the application for a public hearing to the Board. I wanted to add one more thing about conversions from residential to non-residential. There is one criterion in the Use Review criteria that creates a presumption against a conversion of a residential use to a non residential use, and and requires a finding that there is some other compelling

[165:05] reason why there should be a conversion, and it it lists examples. It says it. The use serves another compelling social human services, governmental or recreational need in the community, including without limitation a use for a Daycare Center Park. Religious Assembly. Social services use the Netherland organization, use art, studio, workshop, museum, or an educational use. So there, we don't see conversions very often because of that presumption. Thanks all. I also just feedback that we've heard on this topic is from stakeholders. The public, the automatic public hearing adds significant time and expense. So they were supportive of removing that automatic hearing requirement. And then, when we brought this to planning board. As matters item, there was general support for removing this requirement, I think it's come up a couple of times when we've had the public hearings. From board members questioning why? Why, this is something that you automatically see.

[166:12] Yeah. And I'm I apologize. I'm gonna miss this earlier. But so this applies to even things that are allowed uses in residential zones. So, for example, in Rl, one open space park or recreation use to them allowed use, would that still currently come. It's related to those that are used. Review uses. So it's a in the Use Review section. It's 9, 2, 15, where it says. That are allowed things that are used for. Yeah. Sorry if I misspoke. Yeah, things that require a user view. Yep! Gosh! Other questions on this one. Okay. alright development review extensions. So right now, currently, applicants have 3 years to substantially complete an application. Before the their approval expires. If they're getting close to those 3 years, they can request 2, 6 month extensions through staff. So 1, 6 month, and then additional 6 months, and then, if they need further time to substantially complete it, then planning. But it'll come to you all. To further extend. Beyond that.

[167:25] The proposal in the ordinance before you tonight is to allow 2, one year extensions by staff, and then remove the the planning board extension beyond that. And that's mostly because we would be replacing the substantially complete requirement with something that's much more common in surrounding communities. It's just a requirement to obtain applicable building permit all the building permits that you need and start construction. So rather than kind of monitoring, that the construction is continuing and getting close to completion within 3 years. It's just that the building permits been obtained, and the construction has started within 3 years.

[168:02] So we anticipate that that would reduce the number of planning board hearings that you all would see for extensions. They're relatively relatively rare. But there is staff time involved with the staff extensions, and by changing the the threshold, basically from substantially complete to building permit. We actually think there will likely be fewer extensions. And when we talked about this as a matters item in January. The Board asked whether there's been an increase due to covid because construction timelines have just we all are kind of aware that that's increased and kind of interesting looking at the data, it didn't increase in 2020 or 2021, but in 20 or 2022, but in 2023 we saw an increase in the request for extensions, and that is, I assume, because it's 3 years from the people that got approvals in 2020, so we would anticipate that all of those approvals in 2021, 2022. So for the next 3 years would continue to kind of run into that same issue.

[169:08] But the feedback that we got from stakeholders is that the substantially complete requirement causes a lot of stress for applicants to try to complete their project in that time or get those extensions. Lots of other communities use the start of construction, which is more straightforward and kind of more of a point in time thing than continuing to monitor. and they would support the staff level reviews of extensions. When we brought this to planning board. There was general support for changes to these requirements. questions on this one for it. and the last bigger topic is minor amendments. So after a Site Review. Oops. Sorry after a site review is approved. If there are changes, and this could be within months of an approval, or where we regularly talk about changes to plan unit development approvals from 1975. So we're using the same process to amend. There's 3 options. You can do a minor modification, a minor amendment or a site review amendment, and those kind of

[170:16] increase in the level of change that's being proposed. What we've heard through staff and applicants is that existing minor amendment which is kind of that middle bucket. The standards that we have in the code today are often difficult to meet, and that means that small projects with relatively minor changes get pushed into that full Site Review amendment which is really an entirely new site. Review. application. And so it's very, very thorough and extensive review for something that maybe isn't a change that should need that much. So the the proposed changes in the ordinance, we actually simultaneously change the standards for minor amendments and minor modifications which is the lower level of changes

[171:02] to make sure that small changes were falling into either the minor amendment or minor modification option rather than the Full Site Review Amendment. We also wanted to make sure that the language was drafted more parallel, and that it was more clear, qualitative, and quantitative standards between those, and just make the language more clear because it's something that regularly we're looking at and dealing with on a day-to-day basis. So the anticipated result is that we would probably see more minor amendments than Site review amendments, since that's the purpose both of those are call up so it doesn't really make a difference in the number of applications that you'll see. It's just what application type they are, it reduces the cost significantly for applicants and also the Staff Review time. What we heard from stakeholders is that any changes to approve site reviews. They feel are difficult. They need that. There's a need to redefine the minor amendment process and really focus on things that have impacts on properties outside of the site, and we got a lot of good examples of minor changes that ended up requiring the Full Site Review Amendment

[172:11] Planning Board indicated a desire to retain the call up for the so Full Site Review amendments, making sure that you're seeing those. But was open to changes for those lower levels. Questions on that one. Okay. alright. So additional changes. I haven't put as much detail on all of these, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, but I just wanted to go through those a little bit quicker. So first related to subdivisions. There's some minor changes in the subdivision section of the code first is, or the the main one to highlight is removing the planning board notification of lot line eliminations. This isn't something that you see a lot of. But when we have a lot line elimination staff prepares a notification for you all. It's an administrative decision. So there's not actually a call up or anything that planning board

[173:06] can do with that notification. So and our lot line adjustment application, which is very similar, doesn't actually have that notification requirement. So it's just aligning those. So you wouldn't see those notifications anymore related to substitutions of use transitional regulations and use reviews. This is really a code Cleanup issue with interrelated parts of the code related to nonconforming uses. And what happens to uses when we change the code that just had a lot of opportunities for adding more clarity. We have our utility and drainage easement vacations. Currently, they require a city council call up. So we looked at some other communities and examples to see some that were approved administratively. I think on some of our longer term staff can't remember a single one that's ever been called up. So it's very infrequently called up. But, adds significant Staff, time to prepare the memo

[174:06] bring that to council. Things like that. So it would remove that and make that an administrative process to be clear. Right of way. Those kind of easements, those would still go to city council. our vacations. parking for unlisted uses. This was something that where we created some additional flexibility by establishing a new alternative, parking standard option only for unlisted uses. So those are uses that are not in the use table and don't have a specific parking requirement. It's we think it will be a relatively rare. But there are some circumstances where uses require a much higher parking standard than they actually, that actual kind of unique use would really require. And if they're if it's not a large enough development, they can't qualify for site review to request a parking reduction that they would need. So this just gives a way for those relatively rare applications to for the city manager or staff to determine a different standard through a parking study, establish best best practices, or looking at other similar uses.

[175:15] Finally, for solar exceptions. This is an administrative application, but we would just be modifying the public notice requirements to align with the other administrative variances. It kind of has a a different public notice process. But this would align it with similar applications, like administrative setback, requests the anticipated results. For all of these is really just reallocating staff time to other applications. So rather than spending staff hours on these types of applications they would go to. You know, improving the efficiency of the other applications. and then also adding flexibility for applicants. I did want to ask. Add this additional slide, because we've continued to work on the draft since the memo was published for you all to see. So there are a couple changes. I wanted to highlight

[176:09] we had some new language in 9 1 for E related to substitution of owner tenant, and that was describing a process that we already have been doing for many years. But just in thinking through it, it it doesn't necessarily need to be in the code, because it's an administrative practice. And so we've removed that to kind of reduce complication in there and then related to maximum permitted buildings on a lot that's in our section 992. There's a small change to specify. Rl. One, if you can see that in the red instead of rl, and that's really just to give some flexibility for the Rl. 2 zoning district, which is largely, has largely been developed through plan, unit developments and things like that that have kind of a more typical

[177:01] site condition where there's multiple buildings on a lot. So that adds some flexibility for those. and that I can stop there for those additional questions. Thanks. First of all, going back to the solar exceptions, I was reading the code and trying to understand what the impacted what is it called affected? Lots are in the case of a of a solar exception that that would get public notice. Is it just any lot that potentially could be shaded. Yes. Okay. okay, great and then if I'm sorry if we can go back, we we don't need to change slides. But I missed a question about the Site Review minor MoD and minor amendments. So in the stakeholder comments

[178:00] there was reference to. Oh, if you want to just move a window. For example. Then you have to go through. I forget what they said. But one of these complicated processes does this address that concern in in any way. We've tried to make it more quantifiable. What the changes would be that would qualify as a minor modification. There are not as many substantive changes to the minor modifications. That's more language cleanup but there are for minor amendments significantly more specific direction about what can be approved as a minor amendment. But for that that specific kind of design change, there are not new standards related to like moving windows or things like that. A lot of those fall back on one of the standards which is related to the intent of the approval. And so we'll look really closely at the intent, and if the intent related to the design of the windows or doors, or things like that, then that we'd have to make that determination at that time.

[179:07] And so which of those processes would that go through. Minor modification. My mind. Okay. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Mal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa, for this information. Can we go to the slide? That the next slide that you were this one here, so the maximum permitted buildings in the and I and I think it might have been in the affordable housing changes we put in there that you could have duplexes, triplexes on Rl ones, and the limiting factor was the size of the lot. Is that.

[180:10] I'm going to bring Carl up because he's our expert in that not code. Update. Good evening, Carl. Pool. Carl Giler, planning and development Services. They! The zoning for affordable housing. Ordinance did change the Rl. Zones. In respect to allowing duplexes and triplexes. We did not change this particular section which limits in the Rl. One zone, one principal building per lot. So the intent was to allow duplexes and triplexes. If you met the lot area per dwelling unit requirement. So I think that answers your question. So if you had a triplex you you would have to have a certain amount of land area, but you could only have it in one principal building.

[181:01] But that. So that's the that's the caveat here. They're not detached dwellings. Yeah. It doesn't allow. So this would still, this would still hold, because it would be one building. but it could have 3 dwellings on it if it met the dent, the intensity. That's right. Correct. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Another question. Alright! Good morning, Brad. Did you want to? I just have one more slide. So just the next steps for this ordinance. We're scheduled for city council, May sixteenth, and then we would have the public hearing on June sixth, with City Council. There's usually a 30 day effective date. So if that gets approved by city council, that would be effective on July sixth and then go ahead, Brad.

[182:05] So obviously, we appreciate Lisa and her ability to distill lots and lots of detail into concise slides and memos and things like this and the whole team. I wanted to go back to the very beginning of her presentation and kind of the context, and give maybe a little color commentary to this. When I think you all are aware, planning board members, that the Council has a retreat on a yearly basis, and last year at their retreat. So I'm talking about February of 23 now. We had presented various changes that the Department had made relative to the administration of all the things that we do, the big project. Other things you've heard about in the past. But in that conversation they said to me, Well. okay, those are things you're telling me that you know you can manage from from a operational excellence standpoint. But are there things in the code

[183:05] that could be changed to bring simplification to development? And we said, well, there there certainly are. In fact, I remember talking to Charles, and he's like, Yeah, we've got a list. We keep a list all the time. But we had never been asked that as it was relayed to me, at least not in in many, many, many years. So we've been following up since that time, and I will say that I get asked this question many times a week now, whether it's by the public or by the city manager's office, or in the context of different conversations for council with council. And it's again, how do we make sure that we are facilitating the various city goals that we have that are related to development, whether that's housing or 15 min neighborhoods or development of transit area. areas, you know, like Boulder Junction and east boulder. So I just want to give

[184:02] the context of how frequently this has been talked about. Now, in the last year, in terms of how we can create efficiency not to just allow development to happen. Willy-nilly. I mean, obviously, guardrails are important. and I feel like Staff is done. A really really good job of parsing all the different pieces of that. This is not about saving staffing time, although that's a that's a secondary benefit to it, because if we've got more time, then we can process things more efficiently and and and more in a more timely standpoint, too. But it really is just about recognizing the the real costs that are associated when there's an additional 60 days, 90 days, 120 days. and I hear this, I hear it on a regular basis. And again, I want to emphasize, this is not me. It's not us wanting to bend over backwards to make sure everything's possible, because not everything is possible. And here, Charles and the leadership team are real good, too, about setting expectations when we have those pre-application meetings for for folks. But I do. Wanna emphasize that you've seen a lot of individual things. And really the recognition that we've come to as staff is is to make a discernible difference to move. The needle is having multiple tools in the toolbox, and you'll debate, you know those.

[185:26] But we have purposefully brought forward a lot of small things because there are no big things. All the low-hanging fruit was thought about probably decades ago. and I want to also emphasize that whenever there's a turn of the one cog. The implications are much bigger cogs down the down the line, and so yes, there's a memo that gets produced. But, as Charles indicated. There's a memo that gets produced that takes time. There's a review by multiple staff by the attorney's office. There's production of support staff. So so there are implications to all of those things which, again, I don't want to over, emphasize or say that they're not important. But I just do want to bring to your attention the very real

[186:14] implications that come in terms of timing, cost and resources, and doing that there will always be challenges with law and the ability for people to overcome the intent. Again, we feel comfortable that the guardrails are in place to overcome, that we also watch out, for in other ways as well. At the end of the day law tends to be especially in land use law. It's tends to be a hammer where we wish sometimes there was a price water. So it's not. It's not easy. And really I I want to elevate just the complexity and also the detail with which Staff's gone through that and give you that context and be available to answer any questions myself. Thanks. ml, you have a question.

[187:04] I do have a question, and it it kind of feeds into exactly what you're talking about, Brad. Thank you so much for broadening the conversation. But, Lisa, if I read the ordinance update correctly. There was a part in the ordinance in the update where you were talking about Site Review requirements, the requirements for an application, the amount of information an application needs to provide is that am I? Did I see that? Is that correct? We haven't. The ordinance doesn't change any of the application requirements for site review. It does change the criteria standards that we would be using for minor modifications or minor amendments. But for the overall Site review. We reviewed those criteria. And last year that was adopted. So we didn't really tackled the Full Site Review.

[188:10] Yeah, but I'm not thinking about the actual criteria. I'm thinking about the application requirements. I think there was a conversation in there somewhere from the stakeholders. around. What is required to be submitted at the various review processes is that changes to that effect. It might have been something that we discussed with the stakeholders. But it's not something that's changed in the ordinance. Some of the application requirements. We can change just by changing our application. So they're not necessarily in in ordnance text. So that can be further discussions on what you know, our application forms are actually saying. Okay, so that's a different conversation. Yeah, cause. The changes before you tonight are all the just. The ordinance changes. So the code. Yeah. And there was a conversation in our packet around that. But it just didn't translate into anything the ordinance is gonna do is that.

[189:06] Right? So yeah, some of the conversations that we had with with applicants, especially like, we talked about tech docs with applicants. But that's not something that's in the ordinance. And we talked about pre-application meetings. That's not in the ordinance. So there's more to do like, Brad said. This is all very interrelated. And my mom. Lots of other process improvements that we're working on. So there will be next steps after the ordinance changes as well. Perfect. I totally appreciate it. And you know ultimately, I think on on planning board the goal is to be able to comprehensively review the information before us in such a way that we can actually advance the goals of the Comp plan and the community. So everything we can do to get us there many thumbs up. Thank you for your hard work, all the staff, and thank you, Brad, for bringing the broad picture

[190:03] up to night. I've I've got a couple of questions I've kind of been saving. I I thinking I might get a better understanding and answer my own question. But I want to go back to the 2022. I'll refer to it as raising Kane's drive through, since they were the applicant or the applicant's client. Anyway, was raising Kanes, which was the came to, which was a planning board. Call up. so is our option to call it up. First question is, under this proposed ordinance change. Would we have seen that as a proposed column? Yes, you would have, because there were significant site changes because of the site change. Okay.

[191:05] okay, does. Why is my understanding is final. Plat approval? Is not something a change to that is not proposed? Is that correct correct. And it seems like that is the most perfunctory item that comes before planning board. And so if we're making an ordinance change, why didn't we tackle that. So subdivision and plats that's actually set out in our charter. So the voters in 1,951 decided that you have to see final plats. And so we can't think it also goes back to State law as well. But it's a charter provision that we wouldn't be able to amend. Okay. we did look at it, though, we would like to. Yeah, we feel the same way. Yeah, alright.

[192:02] And you know, it's it's I I look back on the 2 years and some months that I've been on planning board, and I I can't think of an instance of what I would say was a gratuitous call up. yeah, I I think Mark's been doing like 90% of the calls. Well, I I think I look back at the at the few call ups that have happened, and I've had one, and you know. But I would have John Gerssel called up raising canes, and I would have called that up had he not Kurt called up the wetlands permit, and I would have called that up had he not. So I actually, I'm so I'm in support of the 2 person I I I struggle with, and any anyone struggles with the relinquishment of authority. Right? I mean, that's you know. Gee, you're you're an involved citizen, and like someone gives you authority. It's like, Oh, now you want to take it away. And so I am all for I'm really, really I'm almost all for this, but there are times where I guess what I'm getting to is there are times where

[193:14] I have seen items that have been called up. that I was really glad that a board member reviewed that item. and and and they they took it upon themselves to do that. And and I don't think any board member has. My experience has done that lightly, or with anything other than actually the desire to seriously review that item. And you know, in in the case of raising Keynes that was denied. And and your data shows that, in fact, most most items that are called up are ultimately approved with little little modification. So anyway, so one thing I think, that

[194:02] the idea of if if an item is going through Staff's process for approval. If that data just fed into a 4 page template instead of a 40 page 100 page, you know, sometimes a call up. Item. yeah, it it can be huge, right? And so. But I look back, and I think I would have called up raising Keynes. And again, I know that would have come before us, but anyway, I would have called it up if it was a four-page memo. It didn't need to be a 8,020 page memo to decide to call it up. I would have called it up off of much less information. So is so is part of this, that when we see a call-up item it will be a much thinner set of information. But we'll still be able to

[195:04] make that determination. If that peaks our interest or or concerns us. Yeah, I think, though, you raise good points, and we had a really great discussion with all of the case managers and people that bring items to you. And I think the idea for the further process improvements for the memos, like standardizing them is not so much that you would get less detail. It would just be that things like maps are automatically, you know, we've developed some system that the maps automatically create so that the planner's not creating those maps. you know, every time, or we have our mapping team do that, or something, you know different. just streamlining that part of the process, but it wouldn't be that you would get less detail. We've Charles has a lot of history over the years at Boulder, and I think there's been different iterations where we've had more or less detail in the call up memos. And so just that experience of how that went, I think, also informed why? Why we took the direction that we are proposing tonight.

[196:05] Okay, thank you. That's the end. I have the suggested motion, if you need it. But I also just made this summary page. If it's helpful. it does look like Kurt's hand is up. Kurt, do you have your hand up. I do, but I have a question for the chair. Do you want comments now? Do? Are we still on questions? Yeah, we would, we would public. We have a public hearing still. So this was, this was questions for for staff. and now we have to open it for public comment. Great. I forgot that it was a public hearing. Thanks.

[197:00] Why don't we do that now? Alright, we'll go ahead and open it for public comment. If you're attending online and would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hand. Okay, first up is lynn. Siegel Lynn, you have 3 min. Please go ahead. I didn't figure anybody else would speak about this issue. much as I'd like to see things streamlined or things reduced like I was trying to get my my adu on at my place, and I got a spigot, and God forbid! I can't have a spigot when they're putting, like the rest of the infrastructure under my outbu. I just wanted a place out there to water things. I don't even water, but I wanted to have the opportunity to. So it seemed pretty restrictive. But in general, I think this is

[198:09] part of a bigger picture of expanding development in boulder. So I have to oppose it. Because of that. I'd rather delay things for people. I think that we could streamline small businesses, opportunities, and we could streamline things for preferred boulder accoutrements like 15 min neighborhoods, anything that would improve 15 min neighborhoods. I also wrote down the development Review extensions. they were talking about starting, construct other communities, use the start of construction, and that kind of seems to make sense rather than having these

[199:02] delays. before you even start the construction. generally. I'm pretty opposed to making things, I mean. I'd love to not be spending all the money I am with the city, with the staffers doing things that they don't need to do, and especially with Lisa, you know, working hard to figure out things to, to to make it simpler But in general I'm so jaded against this development. Push in Boulder, you know, and I've gotta say, by the way, free Palestine and I'm Jewish cause. I had to say that at every board meeting that I go to, because all of this is all of getting in the weeds of all this kind of thing tonight is useless. If we are. if if we're in a World war and we're headed straight for one so so we need to change our foreign policy. Big time with regards to Israel Palestine. That will be the end of the world as we know it. So I have to say that even at planning board, but, the the growth and expansion going on here is just increasing, the wealth divide, and so anything to slow it.

[200:20] I'd say, unfortunately, has to be what I would suggest. Your 3 min are up. Thank you for joining us tonight. Anybody else? No, that's that's it. Okay. that concludes public comment. does anyone want to talk about any of this? Discuss it? Go a quick, round robin of discussion of things that people go ahead, Kirk. Thanks. Yeah, overall. I think that this is great. I I'm always in favor of simplification when the complications that we're getting rid of our

[201:07] not producing, not helping us get what we need to get. And I think that that's the case of an awful lot of these. My main concern relates to the issue that George brought up, and I think it touches also on Mark's concern that by getting rid of the opportunity for for planning word, call up, but retaining the ability for an individual appeal. It feels like there's a logical inconsistency there. And Ella said, well, if a a planning board member could appeal. But then they'd have to recuse. But to me, that doesn't really make sense. Because currently you can. as a plan board member, we can call something up, but then we don't recuse.

[202:03] and so I don't. To me there doesn't seem to be a real distinction there in the in the rationale. So it I I I feel like as I say, it feels like there's a logical inconsistency. We should either increase the threshold for an individual appeal, so require a certain number of people more than one in order for something to be appealed. Or we could retain the the opportunity for playing board call up and we could. is something along the lines of what Mark was alluding to try to move to a regime where we have a greatly stripped down, notification greatly stripped down, memos

[203:02] where it even could just be so, as I imagined, in a line item notification. And we could go and look at. you know the with the the the item in the the development review website, or something like that. If we're interested and then have still retain the opportunity for calling up, but eliminate or largely eliminate the burden on staff, which clearly is large, currently of developing, draw, drawing up, in in developing the the memos. So I to me, those 2 items or issues kind of feel related. And I, I I think that where we're going currently in the proposal doesn't quite fit.

[204:00] There. There's there's a there's a logical inconsistency. and I think we need to go one way or the other to to rectify that. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt. anybody else have thoughts. Ml. Thank you, George. I I would just like to. I think that the concept of creating greater efficiency and predictability and streamline processes. To accomplish the developments that occur in the city is a is a great goal. I absolutely sympathize with and agree with the point that Brad brought to the table, which is.

[205:05] and the underlying goal is that we're trying to meet the goals of the city uphold the values of what we want and how we want them. And I think that that is one of the challenges on planning board is. Sometimes we look at projects and we wonder how is this getting us? What we want to go? And so I so much appreciate that that driver that we're trying to create the city that we're trying to create is somehow overarching. The process. Because I think to me that's the ultimate goal, you know. Are we getting closer to what? What we want to see getting built in the city. And if these are helping us get there. Excellent, you know, if these are making life easier for development

[206:04] and not necessarily achieving the other goals. I'm I'm I'm not sure why we would be doing that. But I didn't see that in any of the information I did read carefully the comments from the stakeholders. I'm guessing the stakeholders are the people wanting to build in the city. And I I think it's for the most part, what's what's been presented and what is propose to move forward, I think, is It's a great step toward helping us create better processes. So thank you very much to the, to the staff for doing this. Thanks, Kamal. I have. I have a few thoughts. I'll just run through them real quick I and I think I brought these up before, so I'll just put them out there.

[207:02] what the the areas I'm concerned. I'm not concerned about much of this. I think it's I think it's all fine and dandy. The the concern I have is a few areas one, it's the 2 person call up. and it's not because it's it's a bad thing. It's just a question of when it was brought up last time. It felt to me like change. For change's sake. We don't have a problem as a board. There is no problem that's been identified. If someone is passionate on the board or has a specific interest for a call up call ups are very infrequent. And so if a board member wants to call something up. I'm not I mean, what we're end up doing is, they're gonna end up convincing a colleague, hey? I'm really passionate about this, will you? Will you support me? That's reality.

[208:07] we already have a system that's working. This creates no efficiency. We're just changing something for change sake. So that's one thing. then I really don't like change for change sake, I think change for efficiency is great. I don't think that's one of those things. I meant I mentioned to Lisa, and sorry if I if I got a little, a little, a little bit passionate about that. I did not wanna direct that to you. So so please accept my apology for for being a little passionate about it. I we made changes in the code specifically around allowing restaurants, allowing athletic facilities which are a big pain point. I'm a I'm a commercial landlord, and and in that retail space. And so I understand that really well. And now we're doing another change in that same space. When I think that change did the majority of it. I'm okay with the additional changes, because I think they make sense overall in that space.

[209:04] It's just a little dizzying as a board member. because. as I mentioned, the data that's being presented doesn't even include the changes that we made in the code a year ago, although in the in the longer memo I see the the discussion in there. But it what I'm concerned about is that you know, next year we're going to be making changes to this again. And and I just want I want at some point to be able to see what we're doing. And if it's causing the right effects. And this is one area that I think we did the majority of what this is going to do already. And now we're just changing it again, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I just I just want to reflect on that that. I think that I'm hoping that we? We give ourselves a little space after we do this before we attack it again. That's not a thought. And finally, the the one the one that that didn't resonate with me. And again, it sounds like Charles to your point. It sounds like Staff has some good guardrails around it.

[210:08] but the the the things that we talked about in the non-residential uses, for in residential zoning districts I very much get. you know, changing a chiropractor to a dental office in a residential area or doing it. It's more the first time that I have some pause around that. And and I know you have some guardrails internally. Well, the code sets up those guardrails, or there's a presumption against transferring existing residential uses over into commercial uses unless there's some other compelling interest, like a house of work. Maybe it's not terribly valid. It just feels like, you know, if someone's putting a cafe into a house I'd like to know about it as a planning board member. So you would still get you would still get to see the call up. It just wouldn't force a public hearing.

[211:06] Okay? So it would still be a call. Absolutely. Yeah. So it would still be transmitted. You guys for review. It just wouldn't force the public here. I wasn't clear on that. That's super helpful. Thank you. You bet. That those were. Those were my thoughts. Mason. Yeah, thanks. so this might be overstepping what we can ask for. I'm I'm still learning some of these boundaries here, and all these seem reasonable, and I'm totally fine with nipping at the edges of things to make everyone's lives better sometimes. That's just where you are. So I appreciate the the detailed work that takes to get to something like this. What I would like to see in this gets to my my first comment. I don't know if I can ask for this or not is after some period of time. I don't know if that's 6 months, or 9 months, or a year, whatever it is. If we could get kind of a summary of what was impacted by this that went through

[212:02] it will kind of see. I don't know if it's like a a monitoring sort of situation, but just kind of see what it is, and make sure that this this feels right. is that a reason is that something we can ask for. I'll answer, I mean looking at. I I definitely think that that would be helpful. We did that for the accessory dwelling unit changes kind of incremental changes and looked back after it might be like, definitely a year at least. Yeah. But looking back to see how that data changed. I think, would be really interesting, and would further, you know, I think we always wanna continually be in be improving our processes. So that would be very informative. Yeah, he, just yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. And just add to what Lisa and Charles are saying, I I don't know if you heard it, Charles said. Probably not 6 months, but a year, and these these are things we don't

[213:01] see a lot. So to get the trends would be at least a year, and maybe more like, I would think, 2 years. Yeah, yeah, I think 2 years is probably more realistic for better data. But yeah. Yeah, and the trends will be helpful. But I think also, just maybe a summary what those project look like. And I know some of them are going to call up anyway. So we're gonna get. See? I'm maybe I don't need those summaries, but just the ones with that kind of flew under the radar, because kind of this would be nice to just be able to skim and say, Yeah, okay, I'm glad this didn't take up any else time? we're not. But matter. Does that make sense. Yeah, definitely, yeah, and and we can do that. Thank you. Cutting. I guess I'm the last one. First. I want to say I really appreciate Brad's summary of the rationale of why we're getting in the weeds on these things. I always appreciate the big picture, and that's what I would focus on in my comments as well

[214:02] when I'm being dramatic and talking about planning and development in Boulder and the goals that we have here, I often like to say, like in my lifetime, please. And I think that's really getting to the heart of the matter is some of the things we're dealing with. I'm comfortable with most everything that was brought up tonight. My overall take on these rules is that we put a lot of limits on planning and development change through things like our use tables, zoning, etc, and the code that we should actually try to reduce some of the administrative barriers that come along with that and work on reducing the number of weak veto points that we have in the system. As a new member of the planning board. I obviously want to stay relevant for the next 5 years. In that sense it is hard to give up some kinds of authority over things that we might be seeing here. I definitely recognize that but I also think that for the most part we here on planning board are not necessarily here to be code experts. That's what we have staff. For

[215:05] my colleague Kurt is maybe an exception there. He is an incredible code expert. But most of us are here because we have more holistic skills to supplement some of what staff brings and to represent other skills in the community. So I would say, yes, let's let Staff do their thing when it comes to some of the smaller details. And let's let boards like planning board focus on what we can do best. Okay. any other thoughts before we go to a motion. Okay, anyone want to make a motion? Hope. I'll make a motion. Now is this written.

[216:00] Yeah, it should be written. Yeah, there it is. It's up on the screen. You see, it. Okay? So I move that planning board recommends that city council adopt ordinance 8, 6, 2, 2, amending title, 9, land use. Code, Vrc. 1981, to simplify certain development review processes and setting forth related details. Second. this where we can make an amendment or an addition. I I I would I would like to propose that we return to a one planning board member call up as mentioned for my rationale. This has never been an issue for planning board. and I want to be cautious about baking change for change's sake, and it is also inconsistent, I believe. with how the public interacts on this particular issue.

[217:00] So that's my, that's that's my recommended change. I will second it. State does a motion, and I'll second that. Okay, so move to. I wrote this down move to strike the requirement for 2 planning board members requirement to call open. Yeah, there you go. So I I will move to to amend the 2 person planning board call up and return it to a single planning board member to call up an item. I second that motion and eat further discussion on that. Go ahead, Kurt. Yeah, I agree with that. As I stated in my earlier commentary, I I don't actually have a problem with 2 2 person call up threshold. I think that in a lot of ways that may make sense, but to have a 2 person call up threshold, and a one public person appeal. Threshold to me does not make sense, so I will be supporting this.

[218:06] Okay? Alright. So do. We vote on the amendment, the, do you want to vote on the amendment first and then the motion? I like, yeah, we vote on the amendment. And then and then. if the amendment passes, then we vote on, then it becomes incorporated into the main motion. That's correct. Okay, great alright. So we're gonna vote on the amendment. Mark. Yes, Claudia. yes, Kurt. Just. Ml. Yes. And Mason. No. Okay. all right. The amendment passes so it will be incorporated into the main motion. Do we need to restate the motion with the amendment. Hello! Only if it's not clear to everybody, what's only if it's not clear to everyone what the motion is, I guess. Yeah. Okay, so let's go ahead and vote on the main motion. Go ahead, Mark.

[219:08] Yes. Claudia. Yes, Kurt. Yes. Al. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes. okay. That concludes that public hearing. Thanks everyone, and thank you, especially Lisa and Staff, and everyone's hard work on that. Alright. Give me a second to get back to my agenda. Yeah. alright. The rest of the stuff should be pretty quick. We're talking about appointing board liaisons. We have 4 boards to appoint liaisons and backup liaisons to

[220:04] pull that up. Me a second here. Well, they're they're they're Housing Advisory Board. transport Dab Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board and Greenways design Advisory Board, dab and Greenways. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Design not. Someone said, transportation. Right? Maybe I forgot. Yeah. Okay? Alright. So we'd need a primary and an alternate. And landmark was landmarks housing, Dad. career. Yeah. Kurt Kurt's volunteering for all 4. And please, run. Yeah. There's No. 10, but. My question is, where this list of 4 comes from. Is this just tradition? Because I don't thinking about it sort of from first principles. I don't think that this is the 4. If we chose 4 boards. To have liaisons to. This is not to me the most logical set of 4 boards to have liaisons to in particular. I don't see.

[221:18] I don't see that there's a huge amount of benefit to having a liaison to the landmarks board, I mean occasionally planning or zoning. Related things comes up in in landmarks, but I served on landmarks board for 3 years, and it was extremely rare, whereas Transportation Advisory Board, I think, would be a much more logical board to have a liaison to. They're dealing with land use and planning kinds of things frequently in particular, when concept plans are referred to them by city Council as has been happening quite a bit lately, and then it would be extremely useful, I think, to have.

[222:06] Why, why don't we do this? Not to not to cut you too short is, why don't we? We do have these 4 that we occupy for exficios. I suggest we we place people in these 4. And then, if you want to suggest tab and maybe the idea of the idea of Tab, or maybe deleting one for the next. Go around. Let's go ahead and have that discussion. And I well, and that might be something you guys can even talk about at your upcoming? Yeah? And I, I do wanna clarify that the code actually requires an ex officio appointment to both the landmark sport, and hab Didn't. There's no such requirement for the app. That's just been done for a long time, because Dab often sees the same projects that come in front of you. So it would be, and I was just going to say it would be an ordinance change to remove one of us from.

[223:01] as I'm official from Landmarks and Housing Advisory Board and the Greenways Committee. I think it consists of members of different boards, and they advise on greenways projects. I think they only meet once or twice a year. Maybe when a Greenways project requires when there's no other board that that's directly responsible for making a recommendation. And it's just a green waste project and maybe also a recommendation on the capital improvement projects. Okay. And and just to respond to that, I have heard that Greenways have not met for many years now. That. No, that that's actually not true. So I've I've served on the Greenways Committee twice for Tab and and they do meet. And actually, anyway, I I without going into it too much. I think. It's something that actually needs and deserves attention. And I'm gunning for the seat this year.

[224:15] All right. Mark's got it all right. That's that's who wants the plumb backup position. Take the backup position, Mark. Alright, I know. Now we'll be the backup. There we go. We're getting cooking before we go further with this. Could you summarize, please what the requirements like. Time wise for these positions are so so Greenways is easy, peasy. One meeting a year. Landmarks, I think, is probably the most intense they meet. How often do they meet monthly and it the packets like a planning board pack? I mean, it can be like a pie, and is the liaison required to be? Is it expected to be at all meetings at at those? But you have a backup? So so we're gonna point a backup to Housing Advisory board meet. What?

[225:02] Monthly, monthly and Dab meets when? Yeah, when they need to. It's it's typically every other month. Yeah. So I would say, landmarks and hab are probably the more intense ones. Okay? And then fixed meeting times. I know that hab is what a Wednesday evening. Yeah, but I don't know the other boards. Landmarks is first Wednesday of the month. Right? Time of day. 6 6 pm. Yeah. Yeah. Deb also meets on Wednesdays at 4 pm. Alright with with that exciting news in mind. Would anyone care? I've already served on landmarks? I think it's a really interesting board for planning board members just because there's so much history about the city and you you cover adjacent topics. Anyone interested in that? I'll I'll sell it a little bit, so I'm the current one coming off, and

[226:01] I thought it was going to be less interesting, and I found it fascinating, and yes, the the packets can be big, but the staff is really excellent. And so and since you're not voting your, the the pre-work. maybe I'll divulge is not huge, as the non-voting member staff does a great job in the presentation. So you know it's not. I don't. I didn't put the kind of work we do into planning board packet, but. like George says. great history and great staff, and you can influence the board while not voting, and I think they're very appreciative sometimes of a planning board member's input and into some areas when sometimes parking comes up or other things. And well, I'll make one more sell on it, which I really enjoy the I think the the most Marcy was. Marcy was doing landmarks when I was there, and we would still, and we would do. You know, when something specific came up.

[227:13] There would be a tour of the site where the landmarks members would meet and review that site, and I thought that was super interesting. I I think I had 2 tours in in mind that were really, really. very, very interesting. So anyways. we don't have to. If no one is interested, we can skip to the next board. or someone interested. Well, I would be willing to do it. I was hoping to allow one of the people who have not served on online works board to do it. But if the other people are not interested. I could take it on. Alright, Kurt, you seem to be thinking.

[228:02] No, I'm I'm not. I have a I have a statement. I could potentially be a backup if necessary, but I cannot commit additional weeknight evenings because of childcare and work. So I'm here Tuesdays, and beyond that it's very. very hit, and Miss. That's that's where I am, too frankly so I could. I'm happy to be a backup. But right this this year feeling a little strapped. And and I would. given your guys personal situation, Kurt, if you wanted to take it, I would be happy to be the backup if. hey, mail, you guys, I'm not trying to take it away from you. I'm just saying you don't even you don't even have to sign up for backup. Well, and here's the here's the here's the important thing. If a backup can meet the may, if the primary can't make the meeting in the backup can be. It's not the end of the world really any outcomes. So that's something to to consider.

[229:08] alright. But why don't we? Why don't we do that, curt and mark let's go to Housing Advisory Board. Anybody interested in that Housing Advisory Board kind of adjacent to planning board. We sort of have the same problem. Yeah. I agree. Like. Just had meat 1 s. Does anybody know. We're checking. Oh! Always trying to figure out how I had served on hab dab and landmark. So I've only been here 2 years. I'm I don't.

[230:01] I don't know how that worked have meets on that. Retriever. Have meets on the fourth Wednesdays of each month, at 6 Pm. Wednesdays. And I'll say that because Tab is not quasi judicial. And so your input there, I felt, was more constructive and more germane to being a planning board member. So if that sells it at all, I think it's a I think you can. You can make some real influence there. With that said, and just to clarify and correct me if I'm wrong when you're an ex officio you're representing planning board, not yourself. Right. Which is, which is a which is a which is important. Because when you're talking about influence, everyone has different positions, and it's important to represent planning board, and not yourself in the.

[231:05] Nights. Yeah, I want to qualify that a little bit more. You you're not speaking on behalf of the planning board, because you don't know what your fellow board members would say. But I think your role is to speak as a planning board member with with the experience of what the Board does and bringing in that perspective. And you're liaising. Yeah, right? So that's important. I'll volunteer for half. Oh, ml, excellent! Well, you know, landmarks is is something. I'm glad you guys took it because I I was backup. I guess I don't. Whenever and it's too hard. you know. These are real people with real implications right there. And I just I. It's not it. Hurt too much to be on landlords, I'm like, Oh, my gosh! I hope I'm so! I'm happy to be on ham.

[232:06] Is any interested in being a backup on half standing in people's bedrooms? You know. George, are you taking nothing? I'm sorry. Are you not volunteering for anything. I I I'm interested in Dab. I have not been involved. Cool. Yeah. I'm similar to Mason and Claudia, right? I mean, I've got a childcare being remote has been helpful. Just with kids at home and stuff like that. However. I do think it's important to diversify as a planning board member and and get your feet under you for different things. And Dab is dab is one that I have not served on before. I've served on landmarks and greenways, and Deb meets remotely as well, and Dab meets mo perfect. So I I will be the I. I would be happy to be the first on Dab, just because I've never done it. I'm interested. So if you guys are okay with that. Cool Does anyone want to be the second on Dad?

[233:02] I think that's a super interesting board, too, because it it is relevant to planning board. and and that one is not actually required. It's just been a practice for a long time. I just came off. Dad. So I. I would backup. I'll I'll fine. You want me to back up on that, sure. down, back up on him. Okay. Does anyone want to be a backup on hab. Okay. it would be nice to have a backup if you can't make it. I don't think anyone's gonna be bummed out. Anybody no harm. she said. You can. How's it? You know, Laura? Well, alright, we're gonna put Laura on Laura. Right as a backup. It's not full time. Backup is not. Is nothing. Okay? All right, good. We have our list. can I? okay, do. Do you have this? Or do you need me to. You got it. And do you want me to run through it real quick? Sure, if you want to. Yeah. So dab.

[234:07] George, backup mark. Have ml backup, Laura. Landmarks. Kurt backup, mark and Greenways. Mark backup. Ml. okay. And I I I think it's an excellent idea to add our retreat to revisit these, the whole list and concept of what we which which things we liaise with. Well, maybe that's a good segue into our another matters. Item, to talk about the Retreat committee appointments. And then I think Thomas is gonna work on trying to wrangle us all together and a date. But I think that was one of the other things we wanted to accomplish tonight was.

[235:00] get a couple of volunteers to figure out an agenda. And I think it was Kurt and Mark last year is Kurt. And I. Yeah. if I'm not mistaken. I have a feeling it's gonna be curtain mark this year. You guys were so good. You guys are really, really good. but it is it it? You know it's it's an opportunity for involvement. I can't tell you enough how great it is. So. okay. No, it's not. We did it last. I I would bow out just because already sharing is a tearing is a a bunch of stuff to to focus on for me. cart. I'd have to go back. Alright! Okay. It's really, it's really we'll help you. We'll help you guys. I mean, we'll help you guys. Well, I think most of the agenda setting is really happens under matters. I think you guys just bring forward. We'll make sure to help you guys.

[236:08] We actually did remarkably little last year. Alright. I resemble that remark. You can meet the high standard. does anyone other have other matters to bring up? I think the council recess? Yeah. So I think we just wanted to make sure that we'll see if the typically the Planning Board would take a recess around the same dates as Council, which is when the June 20 eighth through July seventh. sounds great. So if that works and we can go ahead and put that on the calendar. and then people can start scheduling vacations. So we still have the board meeting that week on June 20 fifth.

[237:02] It is a fourth. Let's see, I'm sorry that cause that 20 eighth June 20, eighth is a Friday. And then that goes through Sunday, July seventh. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. So I think we would still keep the 20 fifth open for a potential meeting. It's the third. I'm sorry, though. The July second meeting Thank you. Cancel. There would be no July second meeting, and there'll be no meeting on July ninth, either, cause it's a second Tuesday, I think, if it makes sense to do that for city council, and no one has opposition, it makes sense for everybody on staff. Great, that makes sense to. I mean probably more, you guys than us. Hello, do they need to vote on that, since they adopt the schedule at the beginning of the year? Or maybe only council does that.

[238:01] or maybe you'll vote at a future meeting if if we don't know off the hand. I don't think we ever voted on a schedule. Okay, yeah, I don't remember voting on this guy. Yeah, I think it's it's fine to just not schedule anything that day. Brad, do you have something your I do have a few things so. Can I just quickly interrupt just about Calendar also? Oh, we have a meeting scheduled for the 28 of May, but nothing on the calendar. Do you know if that's happening. as of right now. We don't have anything. I would like to keep it open for another week, just in case. Okay. Great thanks. Breath. Just a couple of closing thoughts. One I I appreciate the comment that landmarks seems hard. If it helps you feel better. They think planning boards hard. So you all appreciate each other. So that's nice.

[239:04] we always appreciate your time and recognize that this is volunteering work. So thanks. So much for your your time tonight as always, and thank you especially for recognizing the work that Staff is doing relative to our processing and administration, and and acknowledging the thoughtfulness of that. So I appreciate that just as the director I did want to just share a little bit of feedback. One of the items that came up earlier. And this isn't a critique of an opinion, or even dissuading an opinion around this, but just about affordable housing in the in lieu housing and human services over the last year has made a couple of different presentations to Council. and and some of those have included additional leakage fees and things like that. And out of that has come some data that shows that the city is actually able to leverage the in lieu better than onsite

[240:07] affordable housing, which is not to say that it doesn't have its space. but I do know that from a policy standpoint there's been a little bit of a shift in in terms of emphasis and support from that. And again, that's not to say you need to hold that opinion. I just wanted to share where some of the discussions been going over the last year, and and and make you aware of that. The the last thing just in this kind of safe space, of having a relatively straightforward application that you approved for the affordable housing. Obviously not any controversy. Nothing like that, but maybe just to share kind of a best practice reminder is that before the public hearing has taken place you, you'll I I just wanna advise you, or remind you that making comments like this is a good project, or it seems supportable when you're still in the

[241:02] stage of asking questions of staff, or it's an extension of the staff. Presentation is the type of thing that can get us in in trouble. If there's a more controversial case or such, because it suggest that there's prejudgment before I'm hearing the facts of the case and and public testimony, and those types of things. So just a reminder, being a little careful of those things, and and hold the opinions to after the public hearing. So all's good. Just just wanted to use that space, to, to provide a reminder device. Thanks, that's all. I appreciate that reminder. It's easy to forget in the moment, especially when everything's copacetic. So I had. I had a quick thing. Think it's a Charles question. I was driving by the new Moxie Hotel

[242:00] on Broadway last week, and I remarked to myself, and I was gonna send an email. I was like, you know, I wanna bring up a plan board because I just, I want I want some memory back on this. So there is as you as you're driving up Broadway, there's a wall on the building, a brick wall, and it's got some brick articulation, and that was, as I recall supposed to be. And er it's pretty unanimous across the board. It was supposed to be this art feature. Wall thing. Do you recall. You know what I'm talking about. which must be like an art in public places. The developer was going to do something artistic. There. I'm assuming. That's what. Why there is that brick articulation, or whatever it is. What I found disturbing, was that slapped in the middle of that wall is a Giant Moxy sign. And my question is. am I remembering that correctly? And if I am. why is the Moxie sign there?

[243:02] Is it because we couldn't codify that, or is it? Am I just completely misrep? Remembering that I'll be honest with you? That was a really long time ago. I'd need to go back and look at the record on that one, unless you can recall. I remember that I recall discussions about the like art. Wall, but I I don't know how that was memorialized in conditions or in the plans. Yeah, I remember the discussion, too. I I suspect we drafted a condition about it, but I don't remember it well enough of my head and the sign codes the sign code. You get a certain amount of signage to put on the building. But yeah, I can go back on the record. It would be. I would just be interesting, because if we intended for an art wall to be there and to have their logo slapped in the middle of it. It just feels wrongish so, anyways. But but I'd be curious either way, because because I do remember that being a discussion, and I just didn't remember how or if that was codified and our that makes 2 of us. But I'm I'm happy to go back and follow up with the board.

[244:10] Anybody else have any other matters or thoughts? I think we already did the calendar check. Is there anything else we need to talk about? Calendar wise? We're just keeping the 20 eighth open for a week or so. Nothing for me. hello! Any words of wisdom. Nothing for me. Alright. I think we're adjourned then. Thanks. Everyone. Thank you. Here speak to.