May 21, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:01] We are going to start with public participation. So I will hand it over to you, Vivian, to cover the rules. Are we recording? Yes. Can we start with a roll call, too? Oh, yeah, of course, just for the record. Thank you so much. I'll do a roll call. Remember doing roll calls. We haven't done roll calls lately, have we? So what do I do as a role colleges? Yeah, just sound off. Yeah, for who's here? Yeah. And then you say, who's absent here. Mark? Here, Claudia. here, Kurt. Here. And George Boone. I'm here. We are expecting Mason to join us in a few minutes. but we have a quorum, so we're going to start without him, and Laura will not be joining us this evening. Thank you. Great. Thank you all for joining us this evening. I'm just gonna go through a few rules of decorum. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:18] For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using the name that they are commonly known by, and individuals joining us online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak.

[2:07] For those that are joining us. We've got some people, some folks in the audience, and we have some on zoom. If you're joining us on zoom tonight, you can, when we go, get to public participation here in just a moment. If you'd like to speak about any item other than the public hearing item scheduled this evening. you may raise your hand and zoom by hovering over the icon on the bottom toolbar there. and when it is your turn, Vivian online will be helping us unmute those folks. You can also find this raise hand function in the reactions button as well. We'll start with in person and then go to virtual for public participation. But we don't have anybody signed up in person unless anybody wishes to right now.

[3:05] so we'll call upon our virtual attendees. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. If you'd like to speak and I'll call on you. This is for speak to items that are not on the agenda as a public hearing item later. And each person would have 3 min to speak. So we'll just I'll wait a moment to see if anyone raises their hand, and I see Mason has joined us as well. Okay, chair looks like nobody. Has raised their hand to speak. Oh, we have one person, Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. I like to wait and have the last word. but I have to wait in order to do that, to be sure. but it's generally expected. Nobody cares enough to testify at planning board, and yet they complain constantly about housing affordability.

[4:03] Now regards to the thing that I sent you. That's about 20 pages long, and I hope you read every single word of it. because it's very important stuff. You should have a planning board liaison on the landmarks board because they're taking down 2 very important water related properties, the structure the structure, and the land of 2,260 baseline, which is Wa. Western resource advocates and is one of only 4 water demonstration projects in the United, in in in the United States, one of 4, and it demonstrates water efficiency and nonpoint source pollution issues.

[5:01] By the way, the building's designed. The runoff goes and drains into the landscape in a way that it gets filtered. And we really need this. And we need to learn this because we have Boulder Creek that's getting clogged with all kinds of crap. And that place is going to be demolished as of the first of June. The day of demolition ends that day. It should not. and you know why it went through because of you, because the planning department and the housing pushers in boulder which pushes housing at the expense of everyone in a so saturated market, our housing costs. Only get higher and higher, and guess what everybody's figuring it out. And you're all gonna get voted out and sorry we're all good intent. like Claudia and Kurt have. You know it's it's a bad, bad policy to just get more and more affordable housing, because guess what? For every affordable housing you have. You've got 5 unaffordable houses that drive up the cost of housing, and it's a cycle of despair, and it gets worse and worse and worse.

[6:11] And what what you did with. Well, they went for their permit at Wra, because they wanted to go from commercial to residential, and of course they got a Perk to go residential of 16,000 square feet, but of course they couldn't fit the parking in that way without demoing the building. So we lost another resource that draws people here, but pretty soon guess what housing doesn't draw people here as a tourist attraction. They don't care. They want places like WRA where my friend's kid went and did a study him. Sorry, then, that concludes your 3 min for the open comment. But thank you so much for joining us

[7:00] back over to you. Chair. Thanks, Vivian, and thanks Lynn, for your comments. Seeing no other public participation, we're gonna move on to approval of minutes. We don't have any minutes today. dispositions call ups continuations. I don't believe we have any right. So we'll go right to our public hearing item. And tonight's public hearing. Item is the concept, plan, review, and comment for a redevelopment proposal of 2 5, 5, 5, Thirtieth Street. The proposal includes demolition of an existing car dealership and redevelopment of the site with residential uses. The new development proposes approximately 150 units, including studio 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, totaling. ranging from studio units to 3 bedroom units for a total of 118,927 square feet. Parking will be located on site and below grade, reviewed under case number LUR. 2,024,

[8:04] 0 0 0 1 8, and just a comment on the agenda title. It looks like there might be some kind of redundancy in there, so just take a look at that after the fact. But we can go ahead with the staff presentation. Thank you for the intro. And good evening. Everyone as mentioned, I will be presenting on the concept plan at 2555 Thirtieth Street. In this presentation I will briefly cover the information that was provided in Staff's Memo, including the purpose and process of concept plan. The project proposal. the and background and some key issues for discussion. The purpose of concept plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues in advance of any site review submittal.

[9:06] The applicant will receive comments from the public city staff and planning board. and just as a reminder. There'll be no formal action taken tonight. The applicant completed the necessary notice requirements per the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and signs were posted on the property as well. Staff did receive comments from 3 neighbors who vocalized support of the project. The subject site is located on the western side of Thirtieth Street, between Valmont Road and Mapleton, AV. Located immediately adjacent to the Goose Creek Pond and Greenway, and just north of the 20 Ninth Street Mall. The land use designation for the site is mixed. Use business mixed. Use business zones generally apply to in business areas, including the 20 Ninth Street, Mall, as well as 20 Eighth and Thirtieth Streets uses include business or residential uses.

[10:05] The subject site is a split zone between bms to the west and bt, one to the east. Section 9, 9, 2 states that building additions or site improvements must be regulated according to the zoning districts in which the additions or improvements are located. So, therefore, for this project the development will be subject to different standards, depending on which zone the portion of the building falls within for the purposes of determining far open space setbacks, parking, etc. Each zone district will essentially function as a separate and individual lot. and note that while parking calculations will be based on the 2 different ratios, the location of the parking will not be limited to the boundaries of the respective zones, and can be shared on site at this time the applicant is not requesting to reson the property, and will instead design around the split zone designation. The character of the area is varied, includes a transition of uses. There are residential developments immediately to the south.

[11:04] as well as Spark Orchard Grove, Mobile Park Depot Square Apartments. There are commercial uses Lining, Thirtieth Street, and then the 20 Ninth Street Mall. Again, further to the south the site is linked to nearby transit networks. such as the Goose Creek Bike Path, and then the Rtd. Station at Boulder Junction. Other uses include the crossroad commons and mixed use developments such as the Rev. And steel yards. The site is located within the Transit village area. Plan phase one or TV app per tivap. This area is designated as the Thirtieth Street Corridor District, which is intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses in 2 and 3 story buildings located adjacent to the street. The vision of this area, as specified in the plan, is to transform Thirtieth Street into a business main street that serves the neighborhood and introduces a pedestrian-friendly street front. Additional objectives in the plan include a mixed use, land designation, new, residential and diverse housing and connection to the natural and built and environment

[12:08] as part of tap. A connections plan was developed for the site. Tap calls out 2 connections. The first one is a proposed secondary street or alley connection along the western and southern boundaries of the site, and the other is the proposed off street bike connection that crosses the pond and connects to the bike path the existing site is already developed and contains a car dealership and is relatively flat, with mature trees, especially along the boundaries of the site along Thirtieth and the adjacent Greenway. The the lot is oriented, such that new development would benefit from views of the flat irons, and then that park just immediately to the south the applicant is proposing to develop the existing site with a new residential development containing about 150 attached dwelling units.

[13:00] Those proposed unit types range from studio to 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units parking on site will be located below grade in a parking garage, as well as some on surface parking to the north. as submitted as part of the concept plan, open space will be provided in the form of private balconies on some of the units, as well as a shared courtyard, which includes some amenities, such as a pool, and the building is proposed to be 4 stories. With a possible parking reduction. More information about the parking will be determined a little further on. In the Site Review the building is oriented so that the open courtyard fronts and interacts with that Goose Creek, Greenway. To the south we can see from the south the roofs are flat, and on the eastern facade from Thirtieth Street we see introduction of roof pitches to add variation to the facade as well as an inset entry to add visual interest. The ground floor on that eastern portion of the building contains a gym. Mail room, offices, co-working spaces, etc, to serve the residents of the development

[14:04] staff has identified Key 3 key issues for discussion which will be detailed in the following slides. key issue. One is the proposal consistent with policies of the Bbcp. And the vision for the area, as shown in the Transit Village Area Plan staff finds that overall the proposed use and design for the site does align with key BBC policies and the mub designation for the area relevant policies include the jobs housing balance, compact development pattern commitment to a walkable and accessible city, and sensitive infill and and redevelopment. as far as tbap staff does find that the project is compatible with certain areas of the plan, such as the inclusion of diverse housing and the orientation of buildings along the Thirtieth street and screened parking below grade. There are a few areas that staff has highlighted for further consideration. The first is related to improved connections both for transportation and open space. Staff finds that the site would benefit from a proposed connection along that southern portion of the property to link the proposed development to Thirtieth Street, and then the bike path to the West. Further, that connection could also be used to better link the site to the open space to the south, and some of those existing social trails.

[15:16] Second, the plans show ground floor uses that currently only serve the residents of the site staff finds that consideration should be given to some ground floor uses that might help activate the area and invite users from the public realm. And then, last, the plan does call for this area for 2 to 3 stories with a 1.0 FAR. Staff finds that perhaps, and introducing some varied building heights, might help address some of the intent of that portion of the plan. Our second key issue does planning board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design staff finds that the proposed site configure configuration is appropriate for the site. The orientation of the building enhances solar access and proposes open space adjacent to the Goose Creek. Greenway, separated from the more intense uses. To the north and to the east. However, some more information is necessary to understand how bikes, pedestrians and cars will access and move through the site, as well as how the height modification can be supported.

[16:14] There are also some concerns about meeting some of the Site Review criteria for building length and visual details. As well as just general concerns about how the Eastern facade will interact with the public realm and be more inviting. And the third key issue is just the opportunity for a planning board to bring up any other key issues they'd like to discuss as far as next steps after the concept review hearing tonight. City Council can vote to call up the item for additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submaining a development review application, or they can submit a second concept. Review application as proposed because of the height modification. The Site Review application would require a decision by planning board subject to call up by city council. and I'll open it up to questions.

[17:04] Thanks. Great presentation any questions from the board. I'm out. I think this is I'm not sure if this is going to be for you or for the applicant, but under the application requirements 5 c. It talks about providing the mixed size and anticipated sale price of the residential. Do we have that? I heard the mix? But I didn't hear the sizes, and I didn't hear the anticipated sale price. We don't have that. But the applicant can provide more information. Okay, cause that that am I correct? That's a requirement for the application for concept review. It's 5 CI can double check. Thanks. Mason. You all hear me. Okay.

[18:00] Yep. great. Mine, was. My question was along the same lines one of the requirements is to and as you pointed to is the diversity of housing. And I I was trying to do some research, and I was unable to come up with a really solid idea of how similar or dissimilar. This type of housing is to the areas, say, across the street. And I didn't see in the packet. Let's see how many units do. Do we know if these units are much larger than smaller than same size? Then units in Boulder Junction? That's it. I don't have the info that information. But I do think the applicant can help answer that question. You that's that's it, Mason. Yeah. Okay. Kurt.

[19:03] Thanks, Alison, thanks for the presentation. I am still confused about the fa limits. So my understanding is, there's a base fault of point 6 7, and then a potential point 5 additional far. But it then is there also a potential for additional fa on top of that. No, there's not. So. The Max will be that 1.1 7 because of how the code is written and the intent behind the code is to have the base. And then, if you're in a site review, you can have the additional point 5, and if you're not. I think it's an additional point 3 3 for areas outside an improvement district in Bms. Okay, so 1.1 7 is the limit period. For the Bms zone. For Bms, right? Okay, thank you. So sorry just to follow up on Kurt's question. So where does this project stand with the upward limit of far?

[20:03] We don't. We don't have the information at this time because of the split zones. We'll need a little bit more information. because they will function as 2 separate lots, different portions of the building will be subject to different floor area ratios. Okay? But so whether or not overall the overall square footage matches, what's possible? Again, we haven't been able to do a very close analysis at this point, since it's just a concept, but they will be required to provide a more detailed diagram showing exactly how much of the lot is in Bms. How much is in BT. One. And then how much of the building falls in those respective zones, so we can calculate far. Claudia. Thank you a couple of questions about connections that may or may not be part of this plan. I see that in tivap. There is. That alley that you mentioned that is drafted to be on the southern end of this site. Is there anything in the proposal showing where that might be in fact, located. I know there was some language in the memo about relocating that alley.

[21:09] Yeah, they'll they'll need to relocate it, and we can do that through an administrative process, as far as how that's incorporated into the design. I think the applicant can address some of that as well, okay, in the proposal that we have in front of us is that is it intended to be in the parking access area? Or is it in the is it in the plans at all at this point, I think right now where the alley falls? It would be, since it's along the west edge and the southern edge. It would be part of that port, the parking, and then also where the courtyard is. But that can be again relocated. The alley. Okay? And second question also about connections would be, what are the opportunities either in this existing proposal or through city processes, to connect this up to the Goose Creek Path area. What kinds of permissions are needed? What is already in the plans? What would have to happen to get this site better connected to the Goose Creek path. Yeah. So there is the the shown that off street bike path that is currently crossing the pond that would most likely be shifted up so that it's not crossing the the wetlands in the pond.

[22:16] I need to check in with our transportation team on where that is. But that's why we're looking at providing some sort of connectivity on site, so that when that connection does get developed it will link to the bike path and then to Thirtieth Street. Okay, is there a way that that connection can be accomplished within the context of this particular development review? Or is it contingent on the city doing other things on the side. I think we could maybe discuss doing that. Yeah, it's an off site connection. So part of it would be an off site connection. And for development review we can only require things within the envelope of the the development. So that's something that we'd have to look at as a whole. We couldn't require them to connect the Offsite section, though, because it's not on their property. Yeah.

[23:06] thanks. One more question. If I could. So different different topic here. My most suggested you don't have. You? Don't have You don't have height proposals on this yet, but you're assuming it's gonna come in at 4 stories to do some of the things that they're planning and require a a height adjustment and just looking forward. What are some of the ways that this project could be qualifying for that height? Addition? So we'd have to look at the it's 9, 2 14 b. One e, which are the the eligible eligibility requirements for height, modification. So things like, if you're located in a floodplain for this I think the applicant can also discuss. But there's the community benefit piece but would need to look at which of the requirements they would fall under

[24:03] mark. Thanks. I'm gonna go back to Claudia's question regarding the connections to the Goose Creek path. So the way when I look at the drawing the drawing show. The the drawing shows the actual Goose Creek Path at the kind of southern edge you have the buildings. and then at the very southern edge you see the actual concrete Goose Creek multi-use path. The the drawing then shows 2 additional paths that are labeled Goose Creek Path. Those are social trails. Those are not the Goose Creek Path and between those social trails and the actual Goose Goose Creek path is both a wetland and a creek. I think the creek run and the creek runs most of the year. I traverse this area frequently, so

[25:04] my question and and thank you for pointing out that we can't condition or require something that is actually off-site. So so my question is. how do we. as a planning board in a concept review without conditioning it. get the city and the project development team to create that connection. So when it comes back for Site review. that connection's there versus us during Site Review. Going wait, you know. If. And so, because I think connections at this property are critical, and they're they're critical to the concerns of the board, and as it stands now, someone wanting to get on the Goose Creek path

[26:03] from the noted entrance and exit of the of the site would go to a sidewalk on thirtieth. and then over to Mapleton, and then up and around, and then it's a very circuitous path. So my question is, how do we go about this in a way that works for everyone and is procedurally correct? I think as long as you can include it. In the boards record as a recommendation for exploration, you know, as we enter the next phase of the development process, then we can, you know, go ahead and get to work and figure out what that looks like and what the possibilities are. Okay? another connection question. So we're building the new fire Station and Bluff Street. What? What is the final configuration for Bluff Street between Thirtieth and 20 Ninth.

[27:02] where we're also there's also a I think I think it's a Bhp project going up where rally sport used to be. So will Bluff Street eventually go through in some form? Or will there be a pedestrian bike connection. What? What will it look like? Ultimately. I'll need to double check the TV plan. But if memory serves me, it's supposed to be a roadway connection. I think there's a daycare, maybe in a veterinarian's office that are still. But if and when they ever redeveloped, I think that would be the time when that connection would occur. And ml, you are correct about the application requirement for pricing information on units. Okay? So maybe someday, when that site is redeveloped when when the daycare I was over there today, daycare site gate, etc. Okay? So that would actually turn into a connection. But not until it's redeveloped.

[28:00] Okay? does the recent State legislation, promoting development along transit corridors relate to this project? And if so, how would this project help us fulfill that requirement. Are we already ahead of the game? But how? How would? And maybe this is a question, for you know. Anyway, yeah, it's a good long term question and something that we can bring up again. It's not the the start date of all. All of those requirements aren't happening right now it's it's a few years out. So this particular product, because it came in under our current standards wouldn't necessarily apply under those you're talking about the transit. Oriented Communities house Bill 13. So it wouldn't fall under those particular rules. But this would potentially be an area that we would explore. Having a higher zoning density under the the requirements of that depending on

[29:00] you know how we interpret that as staff, though final one is the entrance and exit. Is that a right in right out? And is that so? For the site? Is that right in, right out only? Or can you make a left into the property. That's a good question. I don't have that, but I can look, or the applicant might be able to touch on that. Okay. alright, those are my questions. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. We'll do a second round of questions for staff Kurt. Thank you. And following up on the connections questions. The my understanding is that if they that that ally that is shown on the Tb. Plan gets constructed. then that would become a public right away.

[30:01] and it would be a lower classification public right away than thirtieth, and therefore access would be required to be taken off the out. Is that correct? And and and Ali is adequate. considered adequate. For that. I think you cut out a bit at the end. But yes, that's correct. The access would be taken off the alley. Okay, okay? And what are the standards then for that alley? Is it 20 foot? Right away, or something. I'd have to double check on that. Okay, that that's okay. Just curious. If you knew. All right. That's all. Thank you. Thanks. Kurt Mason. Yeah. Sorry just to to follow up questions. Again. Going back to the Tr to the connections. The I assume that, you know, given. We recommend

[31:02] the for the design of this project be in partnership with the transportation department. that that alleyway could be changed, or or but a different part of the property, and maybe instead have a a by multi use path connecting to other parts of the property or Thirtieth street in in. I guess my question is, is that to be determined in that partnership between the city and the developer for designer? So can you. Can you ask that question again. So when when I was thinking about the other way, I remember reading. and it's already been mentioned that the alleyway might be moved or or you know, put someplace else if you will And thinking about how crucial you know that Alliway would be for that additional bike connection, because I assume that's how

[32:06] the bikers or pedestrians would would get to you know, either the new Buff Bluff Street once it's built or to thirtieth. So I I guess my question is. if that Alliway moves, I assume, since it's crucial for connecting the new multi-use path. Assuming that's built since it's crucial that either the alleyway would be where it is in the, in the Tb. Or there would be an additional multi-use path where that alleyway is in the Tb app. and my question is with those sorts of details, be laid out in partnership between the designers and the developers in the city. Yeah, I think we would have our transportation team. Look at the proposed location of a future multi-use path and make sure it lines up with

[33:03] the off street connection, off-site connection. Great. Thank you. And then my, my last question is, I I saw your notes, and they were really good, so I appreciate them in the in the packet. They talked about the ground floor commercial facing of Thirtieth Street being a I think it was like a it was worded something like a vibrant co working space, and I think in your nose it mentioned that You might request that other uses of that space for commercial uses that would better serve the neighborhood. Am I interpreting that correctly? My reading that correctly. Yes, that's correct. The the existing uses right now, though technically nonresidential, serve the residential uses and per, the code would be considered a residential use. Thanks.

[34:01] Other questions from the board here. Ml. Alison, could you put up a Site plan showing this alley situation? I am. is is the term Ali here being used? Is this a car access, Ellie? And am I understanding that right now it's showing on the I think it's on the applicant applicants map is showing it on the Site plan is showing it along the north. and that's where all their on street, a whole bunch of their on street parking is. So I'm just confused about what the nature of this alley is, or if it goes to the they don't look like. I don't think they have enough room on the South in their own property to put an alley on the South. I'm confused. Can you explain how an Ellie might work. Is that yellow dashed the alley?

[35:00] Yeah, the yellow dashes are the proposed secondary street connection per tb, app. Got it. So this is where they're proposed to be. If the applicant would like to do an administrative amendment to relocate the alley they could. Right? And so they're proposing, am I understanding correct. They're proposing. It's on the northern edge of the property, and that's where they also proposed on site. on street parking are those all parking? There is some parking. Oh. hold on. let's see if I can zoom in. Okay. I'm glad I'm not as confused as I. So as it as it appears. So, okay? And that's the location of the alley is flexible. As long as everybody agrees that it's serving the purpose correct. Okay, cool. Thank you so much any other questions for Alison. Go ahead. Claudia. I wonder if we could get a quick side by side. Comparison of BT. One and bms zoning, and is there any

[36:02] history that you can give us on? Why, we have a parcel like this that crosses zoning lines? What the intent is there? And I also find it a little confusing. The tap talks about Thirtieth Street as being a kind of business Main Street concept. However, in our own zoning map. We've got Bms on the west side of the property in BT. One on Thirtieth Street. And is that just? Is that just a language difference. What's what's happening there? Yeah, I'd have to go into a little bit more on the background of that zoning. I know it has changed recently with some of the changes to the area plans. I just don't off the top of my head. Earlier in the project we had looked at it, but I don't know. Looks like Charles might have some thoughts. Splits on lots are pretty typical throughout the city, particularly in places like North Boulder, on both sides of Broadway. I think the Bms zoning was put in place along thirtieth because of the main street character that it drives in the active uses at the ground floor. So I think that was the policy rationale to link up with the

[37:05] the intent of the TV app plan. So I think that's where it came from. But you know, split zone lots are pretty typical, as far as the differences between the intensity of Bms and Bt. Alison would has that at her fingertips, I'd have to look it up. Yeah. So they have, like, different, the different fr limits. Open space requirements. So for Bms, it's the 1.1 7 far. Max, bt, one is 1 point O, as far as open space, 30% for bt, 1 15% for bms, with an additional 60 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit. And they have different setback requirements parking ratios also. So am I understanding correctly, like in general terms, that the Bms zoning is a more intense zoning. BT. One is a less intense okay, thank you.

[38:09] I have. I have one quick question. in looking at the buildings massing. It's hard for me to scale off what we have. but it looks like the building is is one continuous U-shaped building that they've proposed. and if I'm if I'm reading it correctly. looks like it's about a hundred 60 feet of frontage. and then about 400 feet deep. and then another 160 feet. If I was to stretch that U out. that would be like 720 feet long for a single building. one, I'd like, I know you put some comments in there. I'm curious to get staffs. Perspective of that. And 2. Can you flag us to any other built of the other residential building in Boulder? That's that massive.

[39:08] I can't think of another one at the moment, but as far as the building length, because of the the height modification with the 4 stories and the change in the grade, there are additional site review criteria for building lengths on individual frontages. So there will be additional design criteria related. What is there is? There is a at least a maximum length that we consider before we start breaking up the Max. I think it's 120. It's 120. Yeah, I think I I'd need to double check on that one, though. So even the frontage of if I'm if I'm reading it correctly, which I don't know if I am maybe the applicant can bring clarity, but I looks like about a hundred 60 feet fist of frontage. and then 400 feet deep, without any break in the building. and it would just be the individual frontage. We wouldn't add them all up. So the frontage from Thirtieth Street, and then, considering if the multi-use path is developed on the southern side, then that would be an a separate frontage. But they wouldn't all be added up

[40:11] in the building. Given that 400 foot section that that pulls back from the street. Well, we'd look at it relative to the the southern frontage. Got it? Oh, so you'd you'd look at each on the you'd look at each front edge as it almost like it's its own separate building. even though it's right as far as the lengths. We wouldn't add them all up. So it'd be the, I think, I think, 120 on Thirtieth Street, and then from the southern elevation from the multi-use path. That would be a separate frontage that would need to have different changes and massing. But you're not. You're not aware of any other building, this mass. We have buildings downtown, that residential buildings like this no usually mixed use. So you're not aware of any residential buildings that are this mass, I'd have to think about it. Okay, yeah. But the to your question, George, the Site Review criteria. Talk about buildings not exceeding 200 faint in lee length along a public right of way, and then building is facades exceeding 120 feet in length along streets.

[41:11] Then have some design criteria that they'd have to meet. Any other questions before we wrap it up for staff. Okay, great. Thank you, Allison. Great presentation. The applicant has up to 15 min to present their proposal

[42:30] shown. Good evening. I'm Scott Holton with element properties. wanted to take a brief moment to introduce ourselves and provide some background. First, my team and I have at element have been working in Boulder Junction since 2,012, with the spark project that we still own. Today.

[43:00] Spark made significant contributions towards an equitable mixed use. Mixed income place with retail office apartments, 33% affordable housing on site and 24 for sale town homes. Additionally, we recently completed the Bluebird apartments for individuals exiting homelessness in an affordable housing live tech partnership along with bulldozer shelter. We provide 24 h onsite staff, wrap around services and a safe and dignified place to live tomorrow happens to be our grand opening gathering. Secondly, we believe our concept plan responds to the community's recent adoption for zoning, for affordable housing code changes that makes possible a greater number of apartments in the same overall. Far in a project with our average unit size under 700 square feet per unit across studios 1, 2, and 3 bedroom unit types.

[44:03] These compact typologies serve many more households than would have been possible with the regulations in place just 6 months ago. Lastly, the Thirtieth Street building might be the first apartment building in boulder designed and built in the post Covid era. and we're prepared to confront some new and emerging issues that our future residents may face. Consider the following with remote work. and the Zoom Meeting revolution like tonight. the burden to providing a place to work is being shifted from employers to workers at their homes. We respond with floor plans that accommodate Zoom Rooms or functional desk areas, and also have, we've also programmed a Co working style lobby and office quality conference rooms available for resident use. with the ubiquitous use of smartphone devices to control seemingly every aspect of our daily lives.

[45:04] We respond with new technologies, like paperless leasing, electronic door entry, onsite networking for ride, sharing and child care connections, e-commerce parcel, delivery rooms with cold storage for groceries and energy, saving smart home features like nest thermostats again, all controlled from your phone with more time at home during the day. walkability, access to lighten air and providing safe, recreational, and in contemplative spaces are paramount to physical and mental health. Our design responds, and that responds with an expansive courtyard with southwest views. Access to Goose Creek and other on-site residential amenities that I'll work to address these new imperatives. So, when combined with our locations, access to some of the city's best active and passive transit options as well as shopping, education, healthcare, recreation and services. We believe that we can provide both a high quality of life and low impact living.

[46:08] Thanks, Scott. Bill Halliki, with Coburn architecture. As you guys know, we are really excited about each individual site. What makes it special which makes it different. So that's how we look at each project. And elements really good partner in that. Because element doesn't have a formula. They're a local developer. They don't say, Hey, this is what we do, and that's what they always do. They get a site. They sit with it for a while. They understand what it could be, and they do very unique projects that are really rooted in where they are. So, for example, right next door is the Psh building that they did, which is a really different project than this, which is a really different project than the affordable housing. They did another block up on Thirtieth Street that we helped them with, which was a renovation and keeping existing stock in place. So one of the cool things about this one is, it is on 20 Eighth. It's on Thirtieth Street, right in 20 Eighth and Thirtieth are 2 kind of most broken North South Streets. 20 Eighth has a long way to go before it's walkable. But the north section of Thirtieth is pretty close, thirtieth, and Pearl change that part of Thirtieth Street, and just to the north of this block. There's a lot of residential units in that area which are pretty walkable. There's old growth trees there, and it's a nice place to be, but this section is kind of the missing tooth, and you can see it in this slide on the left.

[47:18] The residential is in pink, so that's thirtieth and pearl to the south and the residential to the north. across the street is steelyards, while not residential on thirtieth it still is new urbanism, so it's pretty walkable. But on this side, with Blueberry to the south, the fire station to the north. And now this site, switching from a car dealership to something that's a lot nicer to be around. It feels like this. Site has an opportunity to really kind of fix that. And Alison mentioned, it's it's highly served by by alt modes. You can get a bus here. There's there's a major bus surf around Thirtieth, and of course Goose Creek, which we'll get to in a minute. But all this leads to the fact that it's extremely walkable, right? You don't even need a bike here. Everything in purple on the left is a recreational opportunity which, within a quarter or a half mile and to the right, are all the services you know. In this area you can

[48:06] walk to get groceries. You can walk to your job. You can do go to a climbing gym. There's just it's it's a really unique place and a great place to be if you don't want to have a car, or at least rely on a car. I also mentioned the split zone. There's a lot of good questions, Claudia, your question about why is a site split zoned? This is why. up here in this northern portion of the site. This is the property line all down through up to about here. Oh, you can't see my cursor, I just realized, okay, cool. Then it changes. So where the Bluff street connection would happen. The sites get deeper, and when that site gets deeper they didn't change the the break point of the property or the zoning. So that's why we have the split zone. It'll come back in the alley. It becomes important. So just to briefly explain how we got to this configuration sites currently all autos, which is kind of funny. So we're gonna keep some of the parking and kind of pushing under the building right? And that'll be the parking for the building. We don't want to see that we'll hide it, and that leaves us with that third diagram, the white box that's the billing envelope. But of course we don't want to take up the whole site. So we start to erode it. So Emma will get to the alley question because you have some really good questions, all of you did on that.

[49:17] But putting some sort of connection on the North Side for cars and a pedestrian connection on the west, and then another pedestrian connection on the south that we added, after we talked to staff starts to erode the site. And then we realize, okay. The 2 important parts of this building are the part that touch thirtieth, because that makes the urban street, and then the part that faces Goose Creek, because that's this other very public front. As you come down Goose Creek and head east. It's a big deal. So that deserves a a real designed front of the building. And then there's there's a lot of language in tivap and other places that say, you know, trying to blend the building into the natural environment. There's a real focus on that. And that's the other really unique thing about the site. So by pulling the plaza out of the middle of the site, we can bring the natural Edge Goose Creek into the building instead of presenting a wall there, like the building directly to the west of it does.

[50:06] we can provide an open space bleed to tie the building into the landscape. And then. George, to get you your question about the length of buildings about 130 feet as we've drawn it along thirtieth and about 340 feet deep. To answer your question on other buildings. There's a host of other buildings much bigger than this in Boulder that are residential. East Point is the Water View building in the middle is almost twice as big spark is I think a couple of buildings in 30 pearl are bigger than that. So it it is. It is not a large building, but the intention here. I mean, it's it's large, but it's not as large as those. The intention here is to break it up into parts. So the architecture is very conceptual, and staff, I think, correctly pointed out that if we want the height exemption we need to break the building up, that's the intention. Love, to get feedback from all of you tonight on how to do that. But the idea that we have is that there's like these 3 white areas that are kind of the bones, and then the blue areas are are

[51:00] card of cartilage that they recess, they drop back, they change material. So it's really 3 buildings that are joined by something is how we're we're sort of viewing it. And then, lastly, on the right, we realize that the Goose Creek it bends there, and there's also sort of the angle to like the mountains that you can see that that kind of kink it. So it made sense to kind of warp that western edge to respond to the geometry of the natural kind of world. So that's how that configuration occurred, and you end up with this and the answer to the question about the fourth story. The intention is to what we didn't want to do is end up with a big box, so we could shove everything down 3 stories, but we fill up the whole site. So, pulling it up, there's a couple things that we can do. There is now a tax credit for sustainability. If you have a 4 story, it requires a 4 story. We can also get into the community benefit conversation. So we can contribute more to affordable housing when the building goes up, and it allows for the open space to occur on the first floor, which otherwise would just be in a big box. So that's the idea. 4 story is is allowed through the community benefit clause.

[52:04] So here's the site and couple of couple of questions on that. So the alley when Blue Bird went into the south. So this building went into the south. The alley was shown splitting the lots, and Bluebird was the reason that Ally was there. It was there to serve kind of that building. They didn't need it, so the alley was not approved during that by right approval. So in talking with Staff, it made sense like. nobody really wants to put some big car thing here right on the edge of open space separating the 2 open spaces. So this was subsequent to our submittal, but in talking with Staff yes, we we believe that there should be. We agree that there should be a pedestrian connection that runs across it would be in a pae, so the city would have access to it, be permanent. And yes, the building is happy to contribute the connection around the north side in in yellow here, around the north side of this lake, to stay out of the Wetlands area and tie into the spur of of the Goose Creek path right there. And yeah, the building is happy to have that as a condition of approval of some, however, that works, even though it's off-site. We think that's a really good idea.

[53:10] The alley is super interesting. It can't connect to anything, because I mentioned before, the alley is drawn, not here, not at the edge, but the alley is drawn over here, where the other buildings to the north, where those property lines split. And the intention is typically that the alley is built half on one property and half on another. We don't see any way for it to get through this property to our north, which extends, is the full length west as ours, so they'd have to split their property in half to get an alley through. So in talking with Staff, we're actually proposing that the alley be converted to this walking cycle path. The yellow dash along the bottom, and that the alley be removed because it can't go anywhere. There's no reason to create an alley access off a thirtieth. If we can just do the same job with a drive cut. And so, you know, if the city wants a reservation or something, so that if eventually a alley comes through the South. That's fine, but there's really no need for an alley or or point to it.

[54:08] and we can talk more about that. I wanna be cognizant of time. Unit typology and mix so 146 units with an average size of 675 square feet. And if you really wanna get into it, we can give you the average unit size for each type. But it's early. So it's still being moved around, but that's that's how big they are. On average, they are not for sale. So I don't have sales prices there. This is a rental project. Open space. Right now we're considerably over the requirement, mostly because we have this big center plaza and we're trying to erode the property on the south side, the parking. So the other, okay, Pt. B. 2, one versus bms, bms. the right? I'm trying to answer questions as I go. So I apologize, and hopefully, I won't run long. Bms, 3, 3 min, 3 min, I think I'm good. I'll try to go quickly. So bms, we actually are showing 1.5, because we we read, read, read the code that Kurt read it pretty clearly, reads to us that the maximum is 1.5. But in talking with staff.

[55:15] The city attorney feels it's 1.1 7, so we would propose to shrink the Bms side of the building to 1.1 7 the Bt. Side can go up to 1.4 with the bonuses, so is actually under the current ruling the Thirtieth Street side is denser than the other side. It also has a higher parking requirement. So we're proposing to park it one to one and Bms is one to one Bt is a little bit higher. So it requires about a 12% parking reduction tap 17 years old. It's being updated now for phase 2. What we have to do the way we have to approach this is anything that's in the zoning code we have to comply with is required. So the new zoning for affordable housing is the most recent zoning code that we have. So we are 100% compliant with that. And really, this building, as proposed, is the exact outgrowth of what that Council zoning change was. It is what they were trying to. Well, that's the direct embodiment of the code. Change.

[56:13] Tap has all kinds of language in it about flexibility and a whole host of requirements. So, as an example, the 6 tap goals are listed on the right hand side, and there's things like connect to the natural world. Right? So we're trying to erode the open space of the building on the south side to connect into that. It also has all these points around flexibility long term change creative chaos. No 2 buildings should be the same. Things shouldn't be designed to all be similar. So again, we feel that we're meeting. The intent of tap staff feels like there might need to be some modification of tap. We're okay, either way, but we do feel. A strict reading of tap is fairly inappropriate, since it's just an area plan, and the zoning code trumps it because it's more current. And here again, is the goals of of zoning for affordable housing, smaller units, more of them, and the goal specifically stated within the that policy change was more attainable units. So this is what this project is providing.

[57:15] Lastly, the architecture is very early. We are definitely open to suggested on this. We'd love to hear your thoughts on all of it, obviously. But we're really trying to get away from those flat roofs by dropping the building down 4 stories fairly tight. We can create some movement on that upper plane, and we can peel the building back away from the south edge. creating a differentiation on the first floor. Again, TV app encourages a commercial first floor area. And we're trying to make it feel like that pedestrian walkway. That first 12 feet is different. It gives you that sense of place. And then, as you move around the project sort of changes and again erodes back from that open space in the middle. So I tried to capture your questions, but I'm sure I didn't get all of them. I think most of the things you asked we can respond to, or happy to set some light on. So thank you.

[58:08] Thanks. Alright. Questions for the applicant. Go first. Claudia. A quick one at least I may have more later. But you're showing quite a grade change on the Thirtieth Street front. And can you explain what the purpose of that is? Yeah, that's something we're, I think, open to thoughts on. So what we're what we're currently proposing to do is essentially put the parking like half underground. And in doing that we kind of raised the first floor of the building up, which felt appropriate. Because, again, it's sort of a residential building. So a little grade separation creates some privacy. That's sort of at odds a little bit with the idea of this common space being that commercial. you know, connection in there. So one of the interestingly, sort of disappointingly the not being able to put as much square footage in the Bms side. We think there's another strategy for parking, which is essentially like a wrapped podium condition. And if we did that, then we could put that

[59:17] commercial ish space at grade. So I think we're open to either one that we kind of put the common spaces right at the sidewalk level, or that we have them like 4 or 5 steps up. So it's more separated. I think we'd be open to your thoughts on that. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I have a number of questions. I will start with the tvap questions. so it talks about connection to the natural inbuilt environment. It talks about 2 to 3 story buildings.

[60:00] so my first question is. I think I understood. You don't have any topography showing, so it's impossible to see where you're altering. The terrain unless we look at those elevations to see that you've actually got the building a certain amount of feet above Thirtieth Street. So the question I have is from the original topography. how tall is your building proposed? Yeah, this is a great good question, because of the way the city measures height. It's a little goofy we're. I think we're open to that. If we wanted to keep the building shorter we could do flat roofs. We're getting pretty close to the 55 foot height in order to make those gable pitches, and you know, if you would prefer to see a shorter building with flatter roofs, please tell us, but I think what we keep hearing is a little bit of dismay that everything is a flat roof building. So we're we're using the height available under the 55 foot limit to create some moving roofs.

[61:12] Okay, and did you consider a 2 to 3 story building? We did. And that's exactly the kind of what it was mentioned earlier. So if we were to make the building all 2, all 3 stories, it would essentially fill up the whole site, and it would still have far left over. and that kind of erodes, that whole eroding it rose the eroding it. It kind of destroys the notion of eroding the building on the south side to tie it in. Better to the to the Goose Creek area and allow that open space to bleed into the site, so it seemed like it was a much better decision, more in keeping with the Site Review criteria, which are law and more in keeping with the intent of the area plan, which is a guideline document to make that choice and go up a story than it was to just fill up the site. So the choice. To push the project to the maximum far is a choice.

[62:03] It's not a requirement. that's true, but it is exactly what the Council was encouraging in the zoning for affordable housing. So we're doing what they asked for there. Okay. So next question, So the staff did note notice for key inconsistencies with the tap, and I think that that would be definitely worth paying attention to. So the other question, the peaked roofs. I'm guessing, are those set up so that you can maximize your solar access. Is that? Yeah, they're doing a couple of things. We talked the last time I was in front of you all. We talked a little bit about hiding Hvac stuff. So the idea is that behind those peaked roofs we can cut a hole in the roof and put Hvac mechanical equipment inside that to hide it. They also, the south facing parts of them work work pretty well with solar, although I think that a lot of that space would be used for mechanical hiding mechanical.

[63:02] So you don't see it? You don't, you know you don't have to put it. Yeah, but that. But the geometry is intended to house photovoltaic. The face of that geometry facing in in part. Yeah. I think the the East West Bar is probably a better location for the bulk of the photovoltaic cause. It would be seen less from the street. But yes, some of that. Some of that geometry would work well for panels attached directly to a roof. Thank you. So, looking at the zoning bt, one is the vast majority of the site. Yeah. And it it's a business transitional and so I'm curious to understand how your proposal of pretty much residential how do you see this as speaking to the BT. One. as a buff buffer to residential. primarily used for commercial and complementary residential uses. How does this project

[64:06] address, that requirement of the zoning. Yeah, that's a good question. We try not to interpret the code. We take our marching orders directly from Council, and I think Council spoke pretty clearly on this. With the zoning for affordable housing, they removed the per unit open space far specifically to allow more residential units throughout the city, and I think Staff is tying that back fairly well with the comment, like, what is happening on the first floor to thirtieth. So again, it isn't proposed to read as an entirely residential building. But yes, we're taking the directions directly from the code change. Okay, let me see. And so my last question. So you were involved with the spark. What percent of the spark is is rented if that whole area seems kind of like, really not very active. Then

[65:04] can I do? I'm going to defer to element. Okay? And that's my last question. Yeah, cool. So can you just address the comment, how much of spark is rented right now. as I mentioned earlier, it's a mixed use project. So our offices 100% rented. Our residential is a hundred percent rented. All of our for sale town homes have been sold, all of our affordable housing is 100% occupied, and our retail is hovering at about 25 to 30%, and is in the process of further lease up. And the retailer are what's at the ground floor essentially, which represents about 5% right and everything else footage, everything else is 100% correct. Thank you for that. Thanks. Ml. Mason. Great sticking with the sparkline of questioning. I'm curious how

[66:01] I don't know a lot about spark. that's my fault. I'm new to this. Could you tell us how this project differentiates to this? The spark units. Yeah. It's similar, or very different, or. But Scott was mentioning that, Mason, I remembered your question, and I didn't get into the presentation and my apologies. So in the overall tivap area phase one, there were identified different sections of that overall area for different types of units. So part of spark and actually part of outside spark in the steel yards is identified as townhomes. So when Scott was talking about the town homes, those are the units directly east of this site on Bluff. There's a there's a string of buildings that are townhome units. And then, as you get deeper in the spark, and I guess I think I'm also speaking for? Wanna make sure I'm not. Yep. I'm also speaking for the Boulder Junction units. You start to get into some bigger units. There's there's 2 kinds of units in there. I'd say there's some bigger ones, like 1,200 square feet. 10 or 1,000 square feet, 2 bedrooms. And then there's a bunch of smaller units that are probably in the 700 square foot range, 800 square foot range for the ones

[67:15] that would be same very similar to the boulder Commons projects in the steel yards project directly across a street. There are also a bunch of townhomes, so there's, I'd say, 2 thirds of the site area is townhome units of various types. And then there's a small number of loft buildings and those units range from, I think, 800 to about a thousand square feet. I think that's most of that area to the east. Great. So this area is already pretty diversified. And this is just adding to that stock. Yeah. And and honestly, I mean, that's not. That's not anything magical that was actually in the area plan. So that's why it happened. Great. And I appreciate Claudia's questioning around the the

[68:01] kind of the disconnect between the street front and commercial. I'm I'm not. I'd be interested to see what that looks like in Site pan. I don't really have any questions there, but it it was a little off putting to me, and I do appreciate all your comments around. the transportation connections on the south other way, that that was really where my line of questioning was going. So I appreciate you getting to that my last question so. And I don't know if this is appropriate. So someone tell me if I'm I'm way out in left field. But this area is unique in terms of somewhat unique in terms of the access to the different alternative transportation options. So I assume you all are gonna have a very strong Tdm. are you willing to speak on? Am I allowed to ask this question? Maybe is the first thing. But I I would be interested in hearing how you guys are approaching your the design of your Tdm. Because I would hate to get the Site plan, and then

[69:01] not like it, essentially. Yeah, yeah, that's a cell review criteria. So it seems perfectly in bounds to me. But I'm just an applicant. Yeah, I think that's being developed. I mean, obviously, with this much bus tie in this much bike access, we want to get people out of car. So you know that that would be a focus. I don't know that we have a real developed plan yet. Okay, Scott's gonna talk to it. And then if you have other comments on it. We'd love to hear it. I'll be brief, but you know I'll say with my history, with Spark and the the Tdm. District there, and what Tb, app sort of portended, you know, from the plan in 2,007, you know, we were expecting a 50 to 70% mode share because of train and and bus options right? And so obviously, that's a little bit behind the schedule right now to get us to that 50 to 70%. So the burden really does fall on property owners and the Tdm district to try to do what we can, you know, within our capabilities and and financial constraints.

[70:11] We fully expect, similar to what we did next door bluebird, and at Spark to provide ecopasses which are being administered by the Boulder Junction access district and their Tdm group. I definitely expect you know, sort of a best in class bike bike storage program at our at our at our site. Possibly participation with scooters. What's so great about having all this local shopping so close is you could walk there. But the problem is, if you get a whole bunch of groceries, how do you bring them back? So I expect us to have, like some sort of urban carts. Where you can actually take a cart. The whole foods, fill it up, walk that back. It belongs to the property. Maybe we have 5 or 6 of them for for people to use. I've lived in a city before and carrying a ton of groceries is really hard, so we want to be practical and provide for things like that.

[71:09] That's probably the extent of my notes at this time. But it's definitely something we're giving a lot of thought to. Thanks. I appreciate that. That's all my questions. I'll just. I'll just add one quick thing. Staff is now recruit, requiring it like an access plan for bike, pads and cars, which is awesome. It's actually forced us to change the way we think about things. So we're spending a lot of time with pedestrians trying to figure out how they get in the building. Because if a pet has to walk around the building, it's it's sort of a barrier. So your thoughts on access points, and where people be coming from would be would be great. Any feedback on that would be helpful. Thanks. Kurt. Thank you. Bill. First I was. I'm too slow to follow what you were saying about the alley on the west side, and why, it would require splitting the lot to the north. Can you go through that again?

[72:04] Yeah. Sorry. I went really. Fast. Okay. I think slowly. But okay. this is the the split zone and these properties from this is bluff here. These properties north of Bluff break on the zone line. That's the that's the property break. And then starting with this property north of the site, it doesn't break there. The the property actually goes all the way back. So let me flip to that slide. So that's this property. So the site above breaks here. But this site doesn't. It goes all the way back. This there was an alley shown essentially. It ran right through the middle of this parcel, and right through the middle of the parcel to the North and all the way up, and it's kind of been determined in our discussions with Staff, and when Blue Bird was approved that the alley through this site doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Bluebird does not need the alley access, so the only site that would need that alley would be ours.

[73:01] So why not just run the alley to the north side of our site and allow the southern part of our site to be open space? And that's where, you know, pedestrian path just makes so much more sense. And again project is committed to connecting it to Goose Creek, heading west around the pond. But now, when we're looking at that alley access. there was a realization that this property to the north, the only way that Allie could connect would be for the property to be split in half. which is highly highly unlikely. So because of that. And when this alley is limited to the south, there is no access point for this property. You can't get to it off an alley, because no alley exists. So it has to come off Thirtieth Street. So once this property has a driveway off Thirtieth Street. Even if this property to the north were to develop someday and put in an alley, there would be no need of anyone for that alley. So what we are proposing instead is, you know, the pedestrian path along the south, a pedestrian connection from that property to the north along the west side of this site. But there's really no point in an alley. It doesn't go anywhere, so our proposal is to eliminate it alternatively. If the city wants to hold out that someday, perhaps that could be an alley if needed.

[74:18] This project could provide a reservation so essentially a 20 foot strip down the middle of the drive aisle for the city to claim as ally right away. Someday, if they wanted it. If it's reserved to the city, then the city has the reserve rights to do that anytime they see fit. But that's that's how we're approaching that if that makes sense. So maybe the part that I missed or was missing was in the Tmap connections plan the alley on the west side north. that is shown, not on the property line, but on the line between the 2 zone districts.

[75:00] It sort of jumps halfway down. Do you have? Is it possible for you to pull that up? Yeah, I'm looking at the connections plan shown in Tb. App right now, me and you know, Curt, as you know, the connection plans are a little bit sketchy. Well, right. I I know they some. Sometimes they were just people sitting around the table and drawing lines. I'm just not sure. Alright. So it's right here. Yeah, hold on. I got to. So it does. This. Property Line. It does this jump here. So it splits. But the problem is that where Bluff is going to connect, so bluff is shown as 2 connection points. So if Bluff were to connect down here on the lower one. then the alley could jump. But again that the only thing that Ally would be serving is this property and that alley note does not currently exist. So it's impossible for us to take access off of that alley today. The only way for this property to develop today is to put a drive cut into thirtieth. That's the only way. So once that drivecut goes in. Even if Bluff were to take the Southern configuration. There's no reason for an alley cut to happen, because this property already has a drivecut.

[76:23] and if Bluff were to stay in the Northern location, then in Alley. I'm sorry if Bluff were to move to the other location, then an alley would bifurcate the property to the north of us. It also wouldn't work. Okay, I'm still confused because Bluff has been constructed right for a portion of it south of the fire station. No, isn't that. That's what Frank. Yes. So which? Yeah. that's right. So I I apologize. I shouldn't have said 2 options. But still, the point is, this, property does not have Allie access. So the only way to get access to this property is off Thirtieth Street. And once that occurs, there's no point to an alley anymore.

[77:13] Kidding. but I mean, theoretically, the alley could be constructed. Then you would have Ellie access. Correct crew, correct. This whole thing. Yeah, that's right. But we can't put an alley on somebody else's property. They're not part of this review, and, unlike the city property where we can commit to putting in a path. I mean the the you know private party is not going to let an alley improvement and cover their land. Per right. But I'm sorry to dwell on this so long. But the the alley, if if the alley were constructed on this property. as shown on the south side, and then the west side.

[78:00] Then you would have licenses. That's correct. However, keep in mind that the alley is shown on the property line all the way around the property, so it would need participation from the Bluebird property for that alley access cut off thirtieth, which has already been approved without an alley. so that means this property would have to take the entire alley onto it, which is not typically done in the city. To my knowledge, I've never worked on a property where this property has taken the whole alley. It's always split between the properties that it's shown on. Also that property would then we'd be be putting a drive lane in the middle of open space, which I don't think is in anybody's best interest in city staff. I won't speak for city staff, but we did have a conversation about that, and this. either removal or or move was determined in conjunction with staff. Okay.

[79:02] Alright. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, need to follow up with staff on that. But that is helpful. 1 one follow up on questions on TV app. And I agree, team app is not. It's not code, right? But it says if tuck under parking is provided located at the rear or rapid. Did you have any thoughts about how to address that cause? It feels like you're not really doing that right now. Like, I think. Let me just share a site plan. And, Kurt, this is an area where I think very respectfully. I think I have a different opinion. The Goose Creek is a front, and, in fact, Alison mentioned, if that if that pae goes in that's considered a Front Street yard, and the building has to meet all of the street requirements in terms of design and height and length, and everything on that southern side. Thirtieth Street is a front for sure, and I would argue that the West Side that faces Goose Creek is much more of a front than the north, so the only back of house that we have is the north side of the site.

[80:14] So just in in deference to the to the public way. that's where our trash is going. That's where our emergency vehicle access is going. That's where our parking access is. So that's that's the intention of reading. The north Side is the back. I see. Okay. Alright. I think those are my only questions. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt, Mark. While we have the site plan up. And while we're talking about connections, and I appreciate you guys discussing it might be frustrating if I had to exit my building to get around to go south. So, using your cursor, could you tell me if I lived in that center building.

[81:03] and I want to go to whole foods. What would what would you do as a resident with the current drawing and site plan as you have it, how would you amble along and get to whole foods? What would you take? So this is. I wanna make sure that I'm being clear. So this is one building. It has connections and corridors through it, and it's designed to have you know, the cartilage feel like a removal. But this end we feel is very important. And the reason it's angled like that is because we think this is a primary entry. We're not quite sure where it goes, or how it's designed, or anything like that. So I think that this is the primary whole foods access. And this entry to the building becomes pretty critical. Because if you're a pedestrian, it's the shortest path of travel. Okay, let's say I live in the Western segment of the building. This one building. I live in that Western segment, and I want to go to whole foods.

[82:03] You you would I? Still you. You would suggest that I would walk through the center segment and through the east segment and out that door? Or is there planned, or at least in your concept, would I be able to come out of the building on the south side, go through the courtyard, and then connect past the pond or over a bridge over the creek. you know. Oh, I see what you're saying. That's interesting. Okay? So I don't think we've fully figured this out. My original answer was, gonna be you would come out probably into the courtyard and then walk, you know, over and down the street. But you're pointing out that the more direct path of travel is kind of straight over by the ball fields over here. That's interesting. So it is really important for us in our minds for the project to connect to Goose Creek. It's not just, you know, civic duty. It's also really good for the project. But the problem is, there's like

[83:00] 140 feet like wetlands. And so I don't think anybody's going to let us. I mean, first of all, the bridge would be extremely expensive, and second, it would be a flood hazard, and third, it would be unsightly. So I don't think we're gonna be allowed to do that. But if if yeah, city staff can let us do a social path through there. It'd be awesome, or or would I? Just the the yellow dashed line would, yeah, would I just take that West so that I went west past the west end of the lake, and then come back to come back south and go across the pedestrian crossing on. Yeah, yeah, there's it's not shown. But there is an intention for pedestrian path here. So yeah, maybe there's another connection right from here. So you come. There's a stair right there, come down, go to the path. and then head down to whole foods. That's a good idea. There's no reason why we can't do that. Yeah, okay, so sticking to questions because I have comments about that. But sticking to questions, do you

[84:00] and I again, I appreciate the fact that your Tdm plans are not fully fleshed out. Do you plan on car shares at the site dedicated? I don't think we've quite formulated that yet in my mind, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this in my mind. This is not. It's much. We're going to have enough parking. We're going to be like one to one. So for me, that's kind of like car storage. And it feels like with all those stuff we have right here. It's less about car share, more about pads and bikes, but interested in your thoughts on that when you get to comments. and then I'll get to my thoughts when we get into the commentary. are you unbundling the parking? Yeah, it wouldn't be assigned parking space. Right? Yeah, it's all sump. So like straight sump. I think that's actually a requirement now under code. Well. hmm, no, really. Okay. I'm not speaking for them. But we're planning on some not as far as I've experienced is not a requirement, or I would have been pointing it out. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you.

[85:06] Great I think that's our first round. I have a few questions. the first question. You've referenced the far a few times. So you guys done the counts, then on the Bms. And yeah, we did them wrong. We did them wrong, apparently. But yes, we were so this building is shown a little bit too big. Right now. The bms on this side is shown at 1.5, and it will need to be reduced to 1.1 7. Okay. but yeah, we've we've done those calves. So so this building doesn't fit that currently. But you're gonna got that got it great. You talked about the bones versus cartilage. I thought that was eloquent. But we've seen a lot of this Site plan. Can you bring up what's in our packet? Which is the elevation? It's on page 8. Believe possible. Bring that up. Yeah, I haven't missed 3 separate slides, but I can flip around. It's a larger elevation actually shows yeah, that one.

[86:07] So I'm not seeing the cartilage. All I'm seeing is bones. I'm just seeing a straight building across. Not what's shown on the site plan. Yeah, I think that's looking through that. I think that's a fair comment. I mean, this is early architecture. This white thing is our. I mean, this is kind of an artist rendering this white thing is sort of our nod to that. It is not reading as it needs to read yet, and I think that is to make it read like like what you're talking about first, what it's actually showing. Yeah. And I think if you guys have any comments about like, you know, is that a change of material. Is it Classier like, you know, thoughts about that would be would be great. But yeah, we're not. We're clearly not there yet. Okay, thanks. Next question. So you talked a lot about Bluebird. We know about the fire station. I'm trying to think what else is going there. You talked about crossing the road to the climbing gym. I don't know if that's already under contract or not. I don't know what that's ultimately going to be. If that's going to stay there.

[87:03] Guess my question is talked a lot about sort of the great local shopping and things like that. Yeah, and that the street is a little broken right now, and how it functions the possession. Experience. A bit of a concern around losing the opportunity here for some neighborhood confronting retail. So I wanted to get your thoughts on that as to why you've programmed it this way, and what your thoughts are relative to having something available to the neighborhood. Because it sounds like it's an important part of your presentation. But yet I don't see it reflected here in this project. I I think that's something that could definitely be considered. And if that's something the Planner Board feels is important. You know, there is a significant amount of common space that we want to provide. But if a portion of that should be dedicated to some neighbor serving neighborhood serving retail? Tell us.

[88:01] yeah. those were my questions. I think the other questions were asked. Anybody else have any other follow-up questions before we get to public participation. Claudia? Just one last one, and this is building on some of Mark's questions about access to the South. How do you envision people in the building? Accessing that courtyard space? We spent a lot of time over the last few weeks discussing that, so I don't have a perfect answer for you yet, but there is, you know, there's going to be some sort of public amenity pool, or, you know, soaking tub or something. So there would be an access point here. That's sort of revolving around this kind of major access point to get out south and to get into the plaza, and then we don't want everyone to have to walk around, so there'd be another access point on the other side. So you're kind of dropping into the corners and coming out, and it hasn't been fully resolved yet. Oh, I should mention all of the individual units that are on the first floor surrounding that open space would have doors and their own little private gardens there. We're thinking of that as a street. So we're designing it that same way, right? So the first 12 feet, probably some kind of awning, little separated, defensible space, little garden area. And then the public space is inside that to make it richer.

[89:21] Anything else. Clark. anybody else? Okay, thank you. Great presentation guys appreciate it. Thank you. And we'll go on to the public. Now we have an opportunity for public comment. If you would like to speak to this item. And you're online. Please raise your hand virtually, and we'll call on you, and you'll you'll have 3 min to speak. I don't believe anybody assigned to speak in person. First up we have Lynn Siegel. You can go ahead, Lynn. That's it. Nobody else right?

[90:02] Hello! Nobody else. I guess I'm gonna ask again and again and again. Is anybody else here? Hello! Yes or no would do. You're the only one who signed up to speak. Lynn. Thank you. I can start your 3 min when you're ready. That sounds good. Yeah. okay. First of all. smaller is not better. Smaller is not cheaper. Ok, what you need to do is design units that can get fit multiple people in family or nonfamily units multigenerational. And that means guess what more refrigerators per unit and more freezer space. because more people are using all the amenities

[91:00] so like at Bluebird got one homeless person for one bathroom and one kitchen. and we got 5 other 500 other homeless people that are using the creek as their bathroom. So you know, how is that a public benefit? It's not. It's not a public benefit to have these amenities, which is a sink and a toilet for for the use of one person. because they aren't on the toilet all day, and they aren't at the sink all day in the kitchen all day. It's not maximal use of space. so what needs to be done is you need to re align your ganglia and your brain as an architect, and figure out how people need to live these days communally. and then you don't need to have giant. ugly apartment buildings all over boulder

[92:01] that have minimal open space, and everyone wants to get out of them their little prisons. So they want to get away. And when they want to get away they use. They don't use their car, they use the bus, and then the buses are full, and then, or the trails are full physically, of human bodies, too many bodies. That's the problem. Older needs to manage the population seriously. Manage it. I mean, holocaust did a great job of a beautiful development for New York City. This is Boulder. We don't need big, huge apartment buildings with rental which drives more people into lower and lower income brackets because they aren't getting tax benefits for buying a place from their income. So you got to pay them more, and the ami grows and grows, and as the ami grows.

[93:04] the affordability grows with it like 2,206 pearl, which is going to be fought heavily for their 2 years ago it was 1,700 to 2,600. Now it's 3,000 to 4,000. It's Ka ching, kitching. and rent. There's no stopping it. So sorry. I can say one thing. No. Thank you, Lynn, if anybody else would like to speak. Please raise your hand now, and I'll call on you. Nobody else has raised their hands alright. Thank you. I think we're gonna enter. Our comments. No, we've already. We've already. We've already done but before we do that I'd like, take just a quick 5 min, break for everyone, and then and then we'll be back. So why don't we reconvene at 7 36?

[94:05] Why don't we give ourselves 7 min? So what would that be? 7, 43, 7, 43.

[102:22] There's Kurt. This is just. But this is really just our comments. There's no voting on anything. so we can just go around the table and provide our comments to the applicant and staff. Someone wants to go first. If someone's kind of consolidated their thoughts. George, can I ask a follow up question of staff first. Sure! Thanks. Stay up with the. I was discussing with Bill the applicant about the alleys.

[103:04] They mentioned that when Bluebird was constructed there was no accommodation made for this alley access on the south side. And so I'm wondering but the but the team app connections plan was not amended. Do you have any input on what the thinking was there? And what the implications might be, I guess, for this building. So Bluebird was a buy right Project Kurt. So we didn't have the ability or the authority to require the connection based on the fact that it didn't undergo a discretionary process. Interesting. Okay? So I didn't realize that these would only apply in yeah, in that case. So so then. as staff, what is your approach in this case if

[104:01] the determination were made, and I'm not saying that that would is the determination that would be made. But if the determination were made that the alley on the south side is shown on the team app connections plan is appropriate. Would it be then acceptable, I guess, to require on that front section to require all of the access. Be on this property. I'm sorry, Kurt. I'm not sure I understand the question. Well, so Bill was saying that usually when there's a connection shown like that, that is, along the property line. That half of the right away with gets taken from one property, the other.

[105:00] In this case Blue Bird was built, as you say, by right. No accommodation was made for that. The alley access in the right away for that. And so would it be appropriate if we. if the city and the whole were to decide that that access was appropriate, as shown on the team app connections plan on the south side. Would it be acceptable and legal and appropriate than to require that this property provide all of the right way. I think there would be a design solution there. I think there's probably some kind of magic in the details, but I think there's a solution there that we'd be able to work towards. Can. Can it? Can I jump in, and can I. Can I jump in with just a point of clarification? Bluebird is the recent housing project correct, Carter. You think Blue Bird is immediately north of this property, because it's not.

[106:12] The but the the the teeth up that that yellow dotted line Secondary Access street, whatever it was called is shown on the tab connections plan between this parcel and the blue boom person. Ye? Yeah, that's the clarification. I think that's being confused. Blue Bird isn't immediately adjacent to the north. It's one property farther north of that. So there's no common lot line between Bluebird and this property unless I'm confused. The other. Hoover is to the south. Okay, I will stop. Using the issue. I'm sorry. No, you're right. Book it so so, Charles, I'm sorry to harp on this, but you say a design solution is possible.

[107:03] Can you explain what you have in mind. I think what we would do is we would take the boards feedback tonight and work with the applicant, you know, to see, you know how we'd be able to honor that as part of the Site Review process. I I don't have a design solution tonight. I'm not sure if Coburn has synthesized anything to this point. But that's our job here tonight is to take your feedback and figure out how we can synthesize it and see if we can realize those goals as part of the Site Review process. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's forbearance while I follow up. I don't know who has a screen control, but if if we could put up the key considerations to help people formulate their thoughts an organized way that would help the applicant staff. Yeah, I can pull that up.

[108:03] Okay, there it is. Great. Thank you. Does anyone have their thoughts together and want to go first seeing Kirk. Yep, there you go, Mark. Go ahead. Okay. I'll just quickly run through the questions. Then I have some some comments. So is it consistent with the policy, the BBC and the and the area shown in the Transit village area plan. The answer is yes to that, and I think, Staff, I concur with Staff in their analysis of the Bvc policies that are fulfilled by this project. In. I think we've ask a lot of questions about connections tonight. I think that those questions to me Betray both concern, and I think for me possibility and excitement that this site

[109:07] offers in terms of connection, especially pedestrian bike connections. And so I'll I'll just simply say that the the open space that that south-facing courtyard, and I'm so lost in this alley discussion that I'm I think I'm generally in favor of that. The this this alley that would be located to the South would be eliminated and converted to open space. I am all for maximizing the open space as long as the pedestrian bike connections that might cut through that open space create really great connections. So I don't have. I don't have a desire to create more even slow moving car connections. I have a desire to create really great

[110:01] ped bike connections, especially to the South and and somewhat to the East. I think about transit oriented development, and I think someday maybe Rtd will reopen the bus station, and you know they're in in in tbap. And hey, we can have people getting up to catch a plane and walk over to the bus station and take the A B 2 when it ever comes back and go to the airport or whatever. So, anyway, my input is really thoughtful programming of the open space, so that that south view that access to Goose Creek becomes a super big, both amenity and attraction. And I'm I'm have some confidence that you'll have a Tdm plan. That's a kick-ass Tdm plan, but I appreciate you incorporating some. and I would encourage you to, even though it's a pad bike paradise to have car shares as well, to really give people the opportunity to just not have a car there and be able to use car share

[111:13] in terms of the product, the the project design. I have some some greater concerns there. When I look and I realize this is early architecture. but when I look at the elevations that have been provided. it reminds me of the Hyatt place over over across the street those kind of flat, flat walls. very shallow window punctuations, and and during the process of going through the Site Review criteria year and a half or so ago. that particular type of design was pointed out as being. Gee, let's not do this much anymore. The Hyatt Place Hotel was was pointed out as

[112:08] that's that's not what we want, and I think, directly across the street. Many of your products directly across the street are examples of design elements that I could really support. But the the elevations that I see here seem to use material color and differentiation to break the building up into these flat planes, that that it's a material change and a color change rather than a real depth or design change that that would make it more interesting. And I'm tired of this vertical striped one. On one section we have vertical metal panels, the next we have a horizontal wood, and then we go back to the vertical metal panels. It's it's kind of a design

[113:03] language that I think going to wear about as well as diagonal rough cedar siding. So that's that's just that's my input. I am in favor of the pitched roofs. but the way it reached to me now is pitched roads that are extruded. You have a flat face that when I say extruded a flat face of a building. and that and you have a pitched roof. But there's no extension to that roof. There's no sense of a top. It's the wall goes up and the wall is shaped into a triangle. but there's no sense of a roof or an overhang, or anything that would. Again. There's lots of examples, I think, in the current tfap, one of roof forms that come out that project that soar that make for visual upper interests. And

[114:03] again, maybe I'm misreading these elevations, but these kind of triangular. extruded rough shapes don't do it for me. I am in favor of 4 stories and the density it provides. And I'm in favor of the open space that the 4 stories allow, so that we don't. We have more open space. That's it. Thanks, Mark. what's connects Claudia? Okay, I'm gonna echo a few things that Mark said. And then I have a few other comments as well. I also appreciate the trade-off that you are proposing in terms of height and making that usable open space. I think that's a really good use of this site. and enhances some of the public around Malongous Creek if you pull it off. Well. I also agree with comments that have made about the alley and relocating it. I don't think it serves any purpose. In fact, I think it is harmful to insist on that alley on the south side of the property. It works against a lot of our goals for this area in terms of walkability

[115:13] in terms of activating space, and so either relocating that alley or eliminating it, I think, would be supportable in this case. In any case, we should be focusing in terms of the goals of the Tvap plan on making that area between 20 eighth and thirtieth permeable to bikes and pedestrians, but not necessarily permeable to cars throughout. So I think that's an acceptable substitution. If you can come to agreement with Staff on how to do that. I think, as you may have guessed through some of my questions and some of my colleagues questions the connections to Goose Creek for walking, biking, and recreating, just living are going to be key to making this a good place to live. And so I would encourage you to lean into those connections. As you refine the design.

[116:02] particularly in terms of how residents of this building will actually be accessing those spaces. So to make that an attractive accessible front to the building, not just an aesthetic front to the building, but a place where people will want to come and go from to activate that space along the creek. And then my final comment is about the front on Thirtieth Street, and I think we've, you know, talked a little bit about this in our questions. Kind of what the vision of Tvapap was for Thirtieth Street originally, and the language in that plan talks about it being a business main Street. We've had, you know, 15 some years now of development along the street, trying to achieve that vision with, I think, some mixed success. Right? We have some buildings across Thirtieth, directly from this property, that kind of Thirtieth Street side of the steel yards where the design might be good. But you see, it's a real struggle for businesses to establish a front on Thirtieth Street.

[117:02] and I think, especially given how we've seen that plan. Age. It would be a mistake to really lock into demanding particular kinds of uses on that Thirtieth street side. So I am open to seeing residential accessory uses in the ground floor of this building. If that does turn out to be the best approach, because I think that is preferable to having empty or unactivated retail space. and I get the impression we may be seeing more of that in this thirtieth street corridor. So I would like us to take those trade-offs seriously. What we might risk in getting too prescriptive about actual building uses in this site. so I I'm I'm interested in what kind of what kind of residential accessory uses you could put on that ground floor that would actually activate that streetscape. I think that's it for my comments.

[118:01] Great. Go virtual to Kurt. Thank you. Let's see, I guess I will agree with some of my colleagues, and disagree in some other ways regarding the connections so I do not think that it would be appropriate to actually relocate the alley to the north side. because that would put the hour just across that fairly narrow lot. It's north of this lot that that distance which is maybe 60 feet, or something like that away from the existing bluff, the newly constructed bluff. and that to me there, there's no point in having us a street, and then an alley just 60 feet or so away. It may also not be consistent with our Dcs

[119:04] access spacing standards. I don't know about that. so I I guess I will disagree with my colleagues in saying that I think that it would be quite appropriate to have the alley on the south side, as shown in the Vdcp. Sorry the TV app connections plan if the access, then we're taken off of that out. so that would completely it, it would open up that north side. It would allow for the entire building to be moved north, or from our green space on the north side, or I don't know what. but it would, it would significantly change the the layout. and it would allow for what seems to me to be a more efficient use of space in that you're taking the access off of that alley rather than having a separate drive.

[120:04] off of 30, and then some other kind of connection, non vehicular connection. But a multi use path or something on the south side. To me it would end up resulting in less payment, which I think is an appropriate goal. So I would either support keeping that alley connection, as it is shown on the south side, and then on the west side of the lot, and then connecting up to who else. or just limiting and and yeah, me, and put in a just a pedestrian connection, I guess. on the south side I certainly agree that connections to Goose Creek and Goose Creek have are very important. And I think that that message is coming through loud and clear here.

[121:00] I also think that the height is appropriate, especially given the pitch roots, and I'll get back to that in a moment. I I don't think so sorry. Still, talking about consistency with the BBC. And the Tb. App. I sort of talked about consistency with Tbap in terms of Bbcp. I lost the particular policy, but whose policy or actually mobile policy is talking about the pedestrian realm and the quality of that, and I think that the grade, as shown the elevated grade. does not appropriately result in a welcoming pedestrian environment. To me it feels like a very off putting bill. I'm reminded of some castles in Europe or Japan or something where they're. They're sitting up above everybody else to show their power.

[122:02] And that is not what we want to have here. I think we can agree. So my understanding is that the alternative is, the applicant states it is. If we don't have that elevation, then there's more parking around to the rear. and that I think would potentially be an acceptable trade off. Another possibility, of course, would simply be less parking, and I think that Mark at least talked about other possibilities for ways to to create a really robust Tdm plan and incorporate less parking into the the project overall. So I would. I would support that. But in any case I would support some kind of alternative that doesn't result in that grade elevation that results in a I think a poor pedestrian environment on 30

[123:02] in terms of the the just building design. I actually really like the blue portion of the building with that serrated roof line. To me it's reminiscent of an industrial building. Often they're metal sided like with corrugated steel galvanized steel. It has kind of a blue tint, and so the combination of the color and the the is offline to me actually is premise in the I think about it when you're on the Ff. To Denver, and you're staring out on your on I 25, and you're staring out to the right. There's that Zimmerman metal building down there to me. It it reminded me of that a little bit. and I see that as a potentially I don't know if this was the thinking, but potentially a little bit of not a nod to steel steel yards across the street.

[124:02] So I like that design overall, although I definitely agree with Staff that the administration pattern is whoa super confusing it needs to be way simplified and and I mean, I think that there's some fun things that you can do with it to maybe offset the simplicity of that, the the facade overall of strictly that blue section. But the what is what is there as it stands with demonstration to me doesn't work. I agree with Mark that this tendency we have of just dividing up buildings vertically, with a little bit of color change, and may maybe some material change or something is not working.

[125:00] I I hope my my computer is not smart enough to run a zoom background. But if it were. I would put up the Chicago Mercenyle Exchange Building. which is an absolutely massive bill. It's I don't know 8 of a mile long or something. It's all one column. It's all one. but it is the most regal and elegant building you can add. It is a. It is a vast building. and I find it to be absolutely stunning. And that's the kind of architecture that we are not getting them virtually in boulder because of I think historic tendency to sort of over articulate or or over differentiate. The sections. So Just something to think about there.

[126:01] But I appreciate the overall the relative simplicity overall of the the design relative to some of the things that we've seen lately, which I I feel I'm even more busy. too busy. So I appreciate that those are my comments. Thanks. Kurt, go ahead, Mason. Yeah. So now, a lot of new things to say. I think that everyone's touched on the importance of the connections for the pedestrian bike. I am totally in line with with Kurt's notion of needing to bring this on the street level, and understanding there may be some trade ups there. Given the location, the access to bike bus things of that nature. I think that the Tbm could be supremely robust. And just by working reductions, which I think is in line

[127:03] with Bvcp and the Transit Village Area plan. I do think this overall project is in line. I think if you redeem the tbap literally. And this was mentioned that there are some issues. But there's been, as also noted in presentations. There's been updates in zoning prioritization and when the and this plan is due to be updated to maybe catch up with some of that. So I'm not for those areas where it is a little bit disjoint. I'm I'm not as worried about speaking to the so I do believe it's it's largely in line speaking to the number 2 here. I think, rather than repeat what's already been said. Well.

[128:00] give my little nuanced view of the much discussed alleyway. I like the idea of getting rid on the South. I thought a pedestrian path made a lot more sense there. I also like the idea of the pedestrian addition on the West Side. I do think that alleyways are useful, for you know, as Chris said. We don't need to create more methods for slow moving cars. I I 100% agree with that sentiment. but I do think there are other uses rally ways such as you know, movement of service vehicles. movement of emergency vehicles, things things of that nature, and I think it could be an opportunity for for the distribution of pedestrians and bikes and things of that nature. So I do like the idea of reserving. not only at the the split. You know the much talked about jog that we have, not only reserving right there for an alleyway, but along the the west side as well.

[129:04] just in case it works out in the future that we can have something that would then continue that pedestrian movement. and to the Bluff street from there, and that would avoid people from having to go all the way over to Thirtieth, and then go up, which may be. force them either be on thirtieth themselves, or, you know, walk along the sidewalk, which hopefully will be busy with people using the shops and things of that nature on the front. Here, let me look at my notes real quick to make sure I touched everything yeah. Just to maybe drive home. I do think that, you know. Obviously, this plans gonna be coming back for for Site Review, and there will be asks for exceptions. And I do hope in my mind that the community benefit through the transportation at the Tdm.

[130:04] warrants that. So I am looking forward to seeing something rebuust and perhaps a little innovative. Think it's all my my comments, though. Thanks, Mason. Come on, tango. Yes, here I go. Great. Thank you. So regarding to Key issue number one, I Boulder Valley Comp. Plan. I think it. It does nicely address a lot of the policies of the BBC. It's nice, I think, to point out, as Staff did the the parts of the Boulder Valley Comp plan that are supported through this. So thank you for that. Tiv. I think one of the purposes. And and even though tbap is as old as it is. I think that's been pointed out. That it, you know, wasn't done this

[131:02] in the recent handful of years. An area plan creates synergy and connection beyond the site. I mean, that is the point of those area plans. And on that note I think that the staff pointed out that there's an existing view shed. There's an existing view across that site. And so I don't think anybody spoke to that but one of the things I'm going to stress and kind of help remind the project is that it is part of a bigger vision for that area and the reactivation or the activation, because really it wasn't active before of Thirtieth Street as a place. And I think that the work that's been done at Pearl and thirtieth and north and south of that has started to point to what's possible. So I think that the question about

[132:02] the contribution of this project to a business main Street. I think that needs to be activated. And just as a note site review does require tbap consistency, so you will have to come back with very direct how you considered the requirements of Tbat. And and I would just go holistic. You know, it's a bigger. It's a bigger area. And if you're not doing it exactly on your site. Where is it happening? I appreciated your you know your diagrams of 5 min, 15 min sort of thing. but I think we have to think about it as as that not every single site can do everything. But we need to know that it is contributing. So those are my thoughts about number one, on number 2. I think you've heard it over and over. Obviously the la needs to be resolved because it'll change your project. A lot needs to actually have that on there. And if it does go on the South, you know, how is it activated and part of a connection to the Goose Creek and everything that's happening down there. But I think that needs to be resolved.

[133:12] I will go back to the zoning BT. One bt, one points to a primary commercial as one of the components of that zoning. and it I would encourage you to strengthen and create a relationship to thirtieth. And so you've heard it again and again activating a public connection. I think that that's a really important opportunity for this site. and I look forward to seeing it activated through the BT. One requirements again, site Review will require zoning consistency. So I'll be looking for that. The building itself. I think once you begin to address the tbap and BT. One consistencies.

[134:02] I'll look for the mass and scale to be reduced. I think you have to take a look at how this building fits with the adjacencies. And again, the view and the relationship to its bigger context, I think that that is really important. It's not an isolated project. Let's get, as you know. Let's get the highest far we can. Let's get as many units on here. I think we have to think about it as a piece, and I think that was your language, a piece of sort of this whole development that's going on out there. So I would. I would encourage you to to continue with that train of thinking that it's part of something bigger than itself. let me see. right? So the overarching thought is that this is part of a quarter, and it should accommodate that role with more intention. and regards to 3 I I have. I have a question for the staff, and and that is so the applicant pointed out. It seemed to imply that tbap and zoning compliance are overarched by city councils, housing and affordability. You know directions. So it would be nice to clarify this because it seems to me that planning board is held to concept, plan, site, plan and use review criteria.

[135:25] So if that's not the case. it would be nice for us to know that we're held to something other than the criteria that those get those and you don't have to do it now, just by the time we come to the next phase which criteria is is governing. That would be great. Thank you so much. Those are my comments. Thanks. Ml, provide a few comments. Try not to be redundant with my colleagues. I agree with the general sentiment around connections. As it relates to the BBC overall. Yes, I do think

[136:05] that neighborhood serving commercial is important here. I think, that especially given to Ml's point the context of the street. With the fire station and bluebird. there's really no active neighbourhood serving commercial on this side of the street. like there is at the steel yards. I I disagree that that with some of my colleagues relative to that. There there, we shouldn't be prescriptive around something there as it relates to neighborhood serving commercial cause. I want there to be a there, and as an example, right? Something like dry storage at the peloton really attractive. It doesn't have to be huge. It just has to be something to engage the community and the pedestrians and the bikers and and the people around that area. I think that would be highly beneficial to the streetscape into thirtieth.

[137:03] yeah, I don't think it's a question of viability. It just depends on the developer's willingness to create a space and contribute enough to its build out that it enables a business to be viable. having a lot of experience in retail. That would be sort of my overall direction there. As it relates to the design, I kind of echo Mark's design comments around the Hyatt, and and just making sure that there's enough articulation around around the building. I don't. As as I mentioned to Bill, I don't think the site plan that we saw that kind of illustrates kind of 3 masses actually reflects itself currently in the elevations. I I'd like the developer to consider greater permutability permeability in the site. possibly even breaking up that middle building connection to Ml's point of.

[138:03] you know, just respecting the overall site to the extent that we can. And view sheds and things like that relative to far. You guys are going to Max, your far. The the site's not currently there, I think. Maximizing your far is appropriate here, especially given the open space that you're doing. I'd like to see, you know where where you have to shave things off to meet your far requirements. I'd like to see that come off on the corners and fronting thirtieth and and possibly on the other sort of side fronting the the open space, and possibly, you know, separating that middle building in some way to to make the site a little bit more permeable, but appreciate the amount of open space that you're providing. Obviously they'll they'll be in lieu funds attached to this, which is great.

[139:00] I do find it just a commentary on overall boulder, right? That it's fascinating in this interest environment, interest, rate environment where apartments are not being built in other places, somehow it still makes sense here. And it makes sense because these these units are gonna be expensive. And so I don't think we're really addressing much of a middle market. But I do appreciate the developers mix of unit types. And some of the 2 and 3 bedrooms that you're putting in here, too. I think that's that's great, because we're seeing a lot of just studios and things like that. So wanted to provide that as commentary, too, as it relates to the alley discussion. I think what the developer is proposing makes sense to me. So I don't have any further comment on that and and that's it. Those are all my comments. Anybody have any other additional comments that they want to add

[140:02] do you have any clarifications that you guys need? No, I that was. I mean, honestly pretty exceptional in terms of the round of comments. There's a lot of stuff for us to work with there. So thank you, although I will say my heart kind of hurts that you compared anything we drew to 45 degree cedar siding. But I'll make my piece with it. No, but no, but seriously That was. That was a really good discussion. I think we we hear you on the Commercial, on thirtieth. We hear you on the connections plan. We hear you on the architecture. I think there's a lot of stuff for us to work on and thank you. It was very productive and constructive. Appreciate. Thank you. That closes that out. we have matters. Item.

[141:00] so if someone wants to lead us through that, I don't think there's much of a there's much there's no presentation right? It's just that's correct questions. So I wanted to bring this before the planning board I wanted to bring this before the planning board just to offer a new revised version of the rules, the Planning Board rules of procedures, as you saw in your packet. The original version was written in 1987. So we needed some updated rules, and I wanted to bring this before you. So this is an opportunity to comment on these rules. We'll bring them back before you, too. So if you wanna digest the rules and and make comments via email, that's also, of course, very welcome. So I welcome any sort of comments, small or large, or anything, that you guys wanna debate or talk about? So we wanted to bring this before you. Now, just to give an opportunity to comment on on any of the the rules that you see before you. Anything that we need to explore more anything you want to take out that sort of thing. So I didn't have a presentation form just wanted to bring this and see what you guys think. And I, I obviously there's a lot of detail in here. So would it make sense. I don't know the varying degrees of people of what you've been able to read through and whatnot. But can we provide some feedback after this meeting and writing to you? If we have

[142:14] commentary? Yeah, absolutely. And I would encourage that definitely. We can. We're gonna bring it back, probably in a few weeks or a couple of months, you know. We'll give some time for everyone to read through and give detail, and I know there's Member Kaplan's not here, for example, who may want to weigh in as well. So we'll bring it back forward. And what I'm thinking is I'll take all of your commentary, put in a red line version, so you can see that just the differences that's great. Does anyone have any clarifications or things they want to bring up now? Otherwise I would recommend that the Board send our comments. Marty, go ahead. Thank you. So I am looking at. Chapter 3, section 3.2, regular meetings and special meetings.

[143:01] Okay, yeah. And it seems that our, and I don't know if it's it's tradition or what. But we've it seems like we always have the fourth Tuesday reserved on our calendars unless otherwise noted. And this doesn't seem to imply that. So what? Yeah. So this, originally, the regular special meetings came from our original rules. We could amend them the way that it works now. And please planning staff clarify if I'm wrong. But we reserved the first and the third Tuesdays for for meetings, and then the fourth one is kind of a hold in case there's more things we need to discuss. Yeah. and we don't meet on the second Tuesday, right? So this doesn't really imply that this special meetings yeah. Doesn't say that it's held. Oh, I don't have to hold that fourth one, but if we do, it'd be nice to see how we do. We should. Yeah, it's I think the practice has been. We hold it, and then we cancel it if we need to so we could do that, and then maybe just have a note that says, if we need to add an extra meeting.

[144:02] we'll talk to you guys about it because we were. I think we're at correctly if I'm wrong. But I think we're asked to have that fourth Tuesday. Yeah, it's on the calendar, right? It's on the calendar and everything. And so this doesn't imply that we should put it on our account. Anyway, that's okay. I'll amend that clarifying just for those of us who take things literally. Yeah, absolutely. And then I had put a note out about, and this would be just in the I guess it'd be the agenda order or the agenda page about the. Does it make sense for us to include an indigenous land acknowledgement as part of the planning board. Yeah. And I'm going to defer to Brad on this one. Actually, thank you for your email. I saw it earlier today. Thank you, Brad. Yeah, thank you. Good evening. Planning board members. Brad Muller, with planning. We've talked very, very briefly or exchanged messages internally about this one thing. I want to bring to the Board's

[145:08] consideration is that they Council City Council currently does not have that practice. We do try to defer to them in terms of the nature of our agendas and the order, and and noticing and and have some parity with that. I would be a little hesitant to to get out ahead of a practice that Council isn't currently undertaking. you know. Obviously, if if the Board feels strongly about that, I could bring that up with city manager's office. But I I do know that they try to balance efficiency with consideration for those. And there are many other mechanisms where we recognize those indigenous land? Acknowledgements as well. So just something to to keep in mind there.

[146:00] out did we? Just recently craft our acknowledgement? I mean, that's kind of a new. Is that a new thing that came out? It's been a couple of years. Yeah, in in a couple of different context. I mean there has been. And, Charles, maybe you can keep me honest on this, but I think there's been a years long rolling and increasing engagement with indigenous communities. And and that's been kind of a tiered approach of interactions, including with open space and things like that. I think the acknowledgement that is available on certain documents is maybe a year year and a half old is kind of what I'm remembering, and it's labeled by staff like land acknowledge. Yeah. And it's more in correspondence, and things like that. so not not terribly new, I guess, is an answer question. I guess I would. I would encourage us to see what we can do to to get it onto. I mean, I attend

[147:04] meetings in other jurisdictions, and especially the Pacific Northwest. and they and Vancouver and other, and they always acknowledge the indigenous sort of land. And I wonder why we don't. Yeah. So maybe just I'll be happy to raise the question just for clarity. Are you talking about adding that maybe to the agenda cover and things like that as a written acknowledgement, I don't. I mean, I would defer to what can we do? Okay, I just think the fact that acknowledging it. I think the timing is good, and especially as you say, I love that parks and open space are bringing in indigenous voices when they're working like that that particular park that they're working on right now. So I think it. I think it would be a right time for us to step up. Well, I'll definitely raise that with with the executive management.

[148:04] Thank you. I do wanna say a thank you to Laurel, and maybe, Charles, you were part of this. I don't know, so keep me honest in that regard. But for you know, lifting this up is something for us to take a look at all. Laurel, all laurel. Okay, thank you, Laurel, but I think it was your initiative laurel. We look at it in recognizing it. It hadn't been done since 1987. So I think, yeah, so thank you for doing that. And maybe just a recommendation of the board. When you submit any comments, please make sure you do that in 1,980 d. Sevens typewriter font, so that we are tracking clearly on our efforts individually to you and not copy everyone versus matter. It doesn't matter as long as you don't start a conversation about them. Right? So if you submit something, and then Mark responds all and says, I agree, or whatever we don't want to do that but feel free to sell them directly to me or to planning for yeah. Oh, sorry, Kurt. I was. I was muted.

[149:06] Thank you. Cause I have this question. I think. Yeah, just so you just so you heard what I asked. I'd ask when we submit any commentary by email? It's totally fine to copy the planning board on it. But what's not fine is for us to comment as a as a group against whatever someone sends it. Obviously, then it turns into a meeting, a digital meeting. Thank you. Appreciate that clarity. Go ahead, Kirk. Great. Thank you. Nope, that was my question. Thank you. So just a quick comment. I haven't been on this side of planning board meetings long enough to have a good sense of which parts of this are like medi, and which are not. But I thought it was really interesting to see how the practices have evolved since the 1980 S. And in particular, how much we seem to have professionalized this process in giving more power to planning director and staff to set agendas, and I think, while it might.

[150:02] it might might sound like a great idea to have a resident run planning board. It was totally wild to me to see that we once tasked a volunteer board like this with the responsibility to set its own agendas and to keep its own documents. And I really appreciate that over time we've moved to a system that is more professional, more transparent at the same time. and also more accessible, I think, to diverse community members who might want to sit in these seats who would not have the ability or qualifications to be setting agendas for time, maybe more time. Yeah. So thank you. Thanks. So. And and just to note on that one of the things I was thinking about is, we may want to do like a regular check in every few years or something. For folks like you that are a little bit newer, but maybe want to change things down the line. As many of you know, I'm kind of a procedural kind of guy, so I have some comments, and and I've I've written them up, and I'm happy to submit them in writing, but I think some of them

[151:01] at least I would like to present to all of you. So that as we provide written comments, maybe there's some thinking that goes on between between now and then. So if you indulge me for just a couple of minutes, I I do have some comments, and the first one is how appreciative I am of this effort, because we've struggled at different times in my tenure on the board. which is only 2 years and a couple months with some procedural things. So I'm I'm super appreciative of this. And speaking of meetings and keeping what we can and can't do. I'm also appreciative of your acknowledgement that the Board can. Should we want to actually create a meeting and notice it? And we could have a we could at our behest rather than at Staff's behest. We can have a meeting, I think, that that is sometimes

[152:08] in other boards and commissions, and it may be different for planning board than for other boards, but that is not clear, or staff squashes that ability. So anyway, I think that I would. I'm not advocating that we use it, or if we do use it, we use it judiciously. But that's that's an interesting point, and I'm glad you clarified that. and I think something we need to keep in mind should an occasion arise where we have something we want to discuss, and it may be different than a staff set agenda. Item. okay? I have some comments about motion making. And I would. I know that this is a technical document, and it's rules. But there are moments in here where we encourage certain things.

[153:08] And I would I would encourage in the document that that you, that staff that Board members do their best to prepare motions in advance. at least a draft of a motion, and that that motion might, you might edit it in real time during a meeting, as circumstances change, but that that Board members Both not rely solely on staff to draft a motion. and 2 that they task themselves with crafting a motion as best they can in advance, and that if they need Staff's help, you need to go to staff in advance versus on the fly in the meeting. So anyways, language around

[154:01] drafting motions in advance in kind of like an encouraging way. Yeah. Good. The the other thing about motions. And I we have. We have all fallen into a habit that we we discuss and debate a lot before a motion is made rather than what my suggestion would be is, we maybe have one round of discussion. But then we get to motion making. And then we actually debate the motion, because a lot of times our discussions may be longer, a little more circular, because we aren't debating language. We are debating kind of a well, you know this, that, or the other, but we don't actually have a motion before us where we can, that either we can amend.

[155:00] advocate for work against but without emotion. I think I think our deliberations sometimes go longer than they would than if we had a motion, so I would encourage us that after kind of an initial round that we get to motion making, and that our debate is lengthier after a motion is made and shorter before a motion is made. That's that's my thought. And you guys can counter me or anything. But that's that's my thought. and in regard to quasi judicial hearings. When I started on the board, we, at the beginning of a quasi judicial hearing. we would ask the question. Does anyone have any exparte communications that they need to divulge, and and we sometimes we would go around and say, Well, I went to the site, that's not ex parte communication. But anyway, so we kind of dropped it as a efficiency thing.

[156:06] But I think it's an important question to ask, and I think it ought to be in the procedure to just, and and that we only divulge real ex parte communications. But if we do have some, then I think it's important to divulge in. But I think it's important to ask the question before each quasi judicial hearing. If we are going to, George, I think you drafted some language that we have adopted occasionally where a speaker, a public comment, or in a quasi-dusual hearing has to state. do they have a financial relationship? It wasn't, wasn't me. It was the city attorney. Okay, but it was your request, or

[157:02] are we adopting? Are we? Are we doing that for public speakers, and are we? Is that part of our preamble before a public hearing on a quasi judicial matter. And if so, then I think that I think that language needs to be clarified or edited because it's and this is I. I attribute this to Kurt. He and I had a little discussion about this, that it's it's unclear. Well, if I have a if I'm working, if I work for Coburn and I get up and I take my 3 min. And well, obviously I need to say I work for Coburn and not portray myself as a you know the street. Yeah. But if if I am speaking about a project that the subject property is going to block the view from my house, and my house will be devalued

[158:00] because of a view. Well, I don't know. Is that a financial interest is that something that if we're anyway? So I think I think if if we're going to continue to use that language, I would suggest that we think real carefully about how to delineate. Is it just contractors or employees that we're making sure are identified? Or is it? Is it people that have? A neighboring building that would be enhanced, or to that building's detriment. Anyway, I want us to think about that, and I think that that would be something that would go into this document. the last thing is, and I'm not advocating for this, but every every landmarks meeting the chair swears in each speaker. Do you promise to tell the truth? And I'm I I think they could be disabused of that particular procedure. But anyway, if that's something that's in our code, then we either need to do it or not. But anyway, I always.

[159:10] when you're sworn in as a member, you guys take that oath right? No, this is, this is public to the public, like, yeah, Abby, Abby says. do you promise to tell the truth? And yeah, so anyway. okay, thank you. Okay, all right. And the last thing I had was, I appreciate the option to withdraw a call up. okay, yeah. That was Hello's idea. I like it because I've called something up, and then kind of maybe I shouldn't have done that. But where you find out more, maybe about your question and gets answered, yeah, right. But I have a question would be. if person, a board member, a calls up an item.

[160:02] then only board member, a can withdraw the item. Right? Right. Okay. Only the person who says right. but would, after board Member A withdraws the item if it was still within the allowable time window. Good board Member B. Say, no, no, no, I'm I I want to carry on with that call up period. Usually the call up period is, it ends usually the day after the planning board hearing. So yes, if it's within the call period. And the other thing that we discussed, too, is if 2 members are interested in one withdraws, and the other person is still interested. Then it would stay a called up item. okay. Last thing I said last thing last time. But last thing I I do want us to be consistent about our 24 h submission window. And I I think sometimes we grant applicants a a greater flexibility than public speakers, and I think sometimes our our public contributors are, have some really great things, and anyway, I would encourage us to

[161:21] if we're extending flexibility to applicants, then extend that flexibility to public commenters. or be rigid about both or whatever. Yeah. And one of the things that we want to avoid is a few meetings ago somebody brought something to the meeting to share. But then those who are online can't see it. Yeah. So that's part of the reason we want to try to avoid is keep everything in the past. Yeah, in general, I think I think it's a good rule, and I support it. But I just if we're gonna have a little flexibility, if someone's at hour 23, or whatever or 8 am that morning or something. Yeah, yeah, okay, sure. Just make sure. We we kind of have a a general flexibility that extends to both.

[162:02] Okay, that's really it. Great. Anybody else. I'm planning to submit my stuff in writing great. And you'll see the red line version so you'll see all the changes yeah thank you appreciate that great alright! Let me get back to our agenda. Think that was it, except for any additional matters or other things that we have to discuss anybody regarding the June, for this is more of a calendar check item regarding the June fourth meeting. We just have that one matters item on the agenda right now. I checked with people in department and with Brad. It looks like we're okay to move that one forward to the eighteenth meeting which would allow us to cancel the June fourth. Okay, that's great if you all want to. Yeah, we had talked about that in our agenda setting meetings. We're just. We have a light. And the reality of planning board is especially for new members, right? Like.

[163:06] there are times when we have very little. And then there's gonna be times when we're gonna have to insert a meeting because we just are slammed with stuff. And so to the extent that we don't, we can keep our meetings as simple. And just as long as you guys are okay with stacking agendas like that. But I think it's a great suggestion. Okay? Great kind of lumps at 2 comprehensive planning items together in one night. So yeah, what do you think? I mean, we're still within what? Like a 3 h or so time. Yeah, probably. So yeah, I would say, 3, 4 h, Max, 4 h. Max. Okay, that's great. Alright. that's awesome. Which meeting are we canceling? June fourth and fourth Anybody have anything else that we need to talk through alright? I think this meeting's adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. No, thank you. Awesome.