September 24, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] audio solved is your is your audio solved again can you Vivian can you hear us I can hear you you're quiet to me but well am I am I louder now well Vivian usually reads our rules I just want to make sure she's set up before we start hi just testing my audio trying a few different things can you hear us

[1:18] oh I've been told that you can hear me Mark can you hear me Mark looks Frozen

[2:27] hi all I understand we're waiting for Mark to rejoin just want to see if you can hear me now we can hear you can you hear us okay yeah finally I can now okay good um assuming Mark's gonna join us so I think we can get the meeting started um I'm going to call to order this September 24th planning board meeting um uh Vivian's going to walk us through uh the rules of uh public participation

[3:00] yeah thank you um thank you chair planning board members everyone from the public who's joining us in person and online I'll just go through these rules of public participation um before we have the open comment the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations and this Vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and board commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives and we have more information about this productive atmosphere's Vision on our website the following are examples of rules of deor found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision and these will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epods and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impede the ability to conduct

[4:01] a meeting or prohibited participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by an individuals must display their first and last names I see a few people online um where there's just a a phone number or just a first name so please rightclick um on your uh name um and you can change it that way or otherwise you can send me your name through the Q&A function which is just meant to be used for um such things as changing your name on questions about process but not content um currently only sorry uh only audio testimony is permitted online in this um Zoom webinar format and to let us know that you would like to speak at the appropriate times you can hover over um the raise hand icon which you can find a couple different ways so one is going directly to that hand and another is by pressing the emoticon um icon and you'll get a few different things that pop up

[5:01] including a raised hand and if you are joining us by phone you can raise your virtual Hand by um dialing star n and it'll raise the like it does for everyone else joining us by computer so that's it for the uh rules of public participation and we can move right into the open comment portion that's okay chair yes thank you yeah for this we ask that um the community members who wish to speak um focus on items that are not part that are not related to the public hearing which is later on in the meeting and each member will have three minutes to speak so far we have one Community member with their hand raised so we'll just go ahead um with Lyn seagull and then see if others rais their hand please go ahead Lynn you have three minutes yeah um I wanted

[6:01] to let's see here call up have you call up 5675 arapo um life science building no parking reductions um and if we have parking reductions period we shouldn't be violating them and we shouldn't be adding extra height and stop the subsidies Boulder's growing way too much were over congested already I don't want to ride my bike anymore because it's so I I'm it's 10 minutes to get out to The JCC just in stop lights um waiting for cars and I'm just not going to do it I'll just get in my car instead

[7:00] um and I only drive my car five times a year and you shouldn't be shrinking um Iris you should be enlarging it because of all the construction um where the People's Clinic was that's a new development Alpine Balsam you know Weather Vein the Millennium National Geographic the hyai site there it's just long chain of more apartment buildings Apartments where people don't want to live because they don't have much open space and that they want to get out and they go in their car to the mountains and it's just too much con congestion and you know you end up basically killing the Golden Goose so please just don't give these subsidies um people yeah I mean if you don't want the

[8:01] rules then don't make them to start with but we have those parking restrictions for reason don't reduce them um I mean we have you know a a certain level of parking that we allow don't reduce those amounts um as it is Jared pois is just trying to turn every square inch into housing which just creates more congestion and by lifting the housing reductions anyway so don't hand them out really um let's see um I think anything we need to do is to lower the population in Boulder lower by far than it is done

[9:00] thank you so much Lynn for joining us tonight I'd also like to um give folks in the that are joining you there live in person and opportunity to speak during open common as well I can't see the audience but maybe Thomas can help and let me know I didn't see anybody signed up on the open comment sheet but if anybody would like to speak for open comment period please go ahead otherwise we'll move on I think we're good to move on thank you yeah and just you know I I can't hear you that well so can you hear me now yeah okay a little bit closer thank you thank you all right great um thanks Lynn for uh your comments during public participation uh we don't have any minutes this evening um so we'll go to our um callup item for the evening which is site review lur 2023 0036 um to develop the site at 56 uh 5675 rapo Avenue in the IG Zone um

[10:02] they're looking for a parking reduction of 19% to allow 420 spaces where 518 were required um does anyone have any comments or concerns or would like to call this item up yeah ml okay um yes hi I have a question I think Chandler were you the person on that I have a question um one of the statements that was made uh and I'll just quote it uh staff found that the project is consistent with the development standards of the land use code and on balance is consistent with the site review criteria can you um explain to me what you mean by on balance that is consistent I I thought we were required to meet the site review criteria um yeah we are required to meet the site review criteria and it's not really an

[11:00] on balance question with that okay did I say I guess I said on balance with the site review criteria that's okay if it was an oversight I would just yeah that may have been no what I think I'm finding is that that's a vestage from um the templates that exist in our Memo from before we changed the site review criteria when it was an on balance argument got it so okay make sure that we get that yeah sorry I think that's the second time you've caught that recently you know I I put it on myself to think I know what I'm doing and then suddenly I look at that and I said well I don't know what I'm doing then so but thank you for uh explaining it I we all have those vestiges somewhere thanks so much that's my only question and I won't be calling it up hey Mark I saw your hand up hi everyone um joining remotely tonight and on kind of a odd setup and with uh very shaky Wi-Fi so anyway let me know if

[12:03] you're not hearing me if I'm breaking up or whatever um I am we now are operating under the new planning board requirements of having two members uh required to call this up to call an item up and so I'm going to initiate that and uh I initiate this call up somewhat reluctant ly but I um I hearkened back to our concept review where the board thought that the concept review uh materials were thin and uh it made it hard for us to judge and provide much feedback but I do remember talking with the applicant about the site design and the TDM planning that they presented at the

[13:00] time and as I reviewed this proposal uh again I'm reluctantly calling it up because I understand the burden that places on the applicant I understand the burden places on staff but I'm going to State my reasons for calling it up and if any other planning board member wants to uh agree with me and state their own reasons then that will get us to the two requirement or or more but I'd like uh any of us that want to call this up and I haven't uh been talking with most of you to State the reasons my reasons are I think a project of this magnitude that uh should be a large contributor to the boulder business Compu community and the built environment for decades needs to have uh adequate TDM uh

[14:03] planning and a TDM program and I um I've talked with staff and applicants about this that our current TDM requirements which will be undergoing revision are both flexible and highly subjective which puts burden on applicants to uh if they're coming forward with a project of this kind of magnitude to be um really forward-looking creative and uh extend themselves in their TDM planning so this one uh I think is um fails it's or it's inadequate in its uh bicycle infrastructure the way I read the plans are it's it's a they meet the numerical requirement for number of long and short-term bike part parking spaces but

[15:00] they they have no plan for excuse me larger bikes electrification charging charging infrastructure they um they have no planning for they have the the only programmatic element that they have is RTD Eco passes which I applaud but no programmatic elements for shared vehicles uh uh van ride share programming uh no micro Mobility for scooter or bike planning no uh parking buyouts such as uh Google has um and so I think their parking reduction uh request is actually inadequateness of parking Forward Design so those are the reasons I am calling this up but um I need a second person and uh I'm interested in other planning

[16:02] board members feedback so we don't actually need a second since this application was submitted in advance of the code changes that now require two board members to call something up so Mark's call up request I think would stand okay so we'll go ahead and schedule a public hearing okay great uh sound like Laur had a comment well I I had a couple questions I can either save them for the public hearing or go ahead and do them now if folks have an opinion it's called up okay I'll save them for the public hearing um yeah I had a comment um someone else did I'll get to you um my comment's just quick which is um I I agree with Mark as far as the call up I think it makes sense um I have a slightly different take on it so I want the applicant to think about it which is um this is coded as R&D in life

[17:00] sciences the floor plates are only 12 feet um to 12 feet to 12 feet which is different than some of the the um the the Florida ceiling um are only 12 feet verse vers some Life Sciences buildings that we've seen where we've seen space for lab space and hoods and things like that this to me looks like an office building in cognito uh the parking reduction as light as it is also kind of symbolizes that um and so um I'd like when this does when this does come back to to be prepared to talk about that and uh make sure it's defensible as R&D and not just a big big office building Kurt thanks I also support the call up not that it matters but just for the record um um and my concerns also regard

[18:02] primarily the TDM plan I'm grateful to see that the the applicant was using a different engineering firm consultant faen Pi which has great um reputation for really some Progressive thinking in terms of Transportation design and so on but the content was remarkably limited for only a 19% parking reduction this is a highly car dependent site and so I think it's going to take some work to really achieve significant TDM there was no reference to pricing parking or even parking um cash outs uh but parking pricing would be the most effective way to reduce the amount of of vehicle travel to the site um EOP pass is only three years which okay three years is great but then after three years uh there's nothing and

[19:02] so that to me doesn't feel very adequate um and so uh those are my those are my main concerns about TDM great anybody else have comments before all right thank you so that item will be called up and scheduled um we are now going to go to our public hearing do you want me to read read this whole thing in it's like a page long it's up to you I think it would be good if at least you read in the the addresses and types of application and application numbers I'll just I'll just try to read it quickly and and um hopefully that's acceptable so um we're going to ENT our public hearing the agenda title is

[20:00] public hearing for consideration the follow uh uh following items related to the proposed Alpine Balsam Redevelopment project at 1100 balam a and 1155 Alpine AV uh item one uh form-based code review for site infrastructure improvements with a form-based code area generally located at 1100 balam Avenue and Redevelopment of the site with 2117 housing units split between seven buildings with a total of 157 permanently affordable housing units and 60 market rate units as well as 2100 ft of commercial space reviewed under case numbers L 2023 000034 L 2023 0042 L 2024 0017 these applicant applications include a request for an amendment to Alpine Balsam area plan connections plan to relocate Mobility hub from the west side of 9th and Alpine connector Street on the southwest corner of the site east

[21:01] side of the street and to allow the 11th Street to be a private Drive instead of public Street item two site review and use application to amend the Boulder Community Hospital PUD lur 2023 00005 generally located at 1155 Alpine Avenue and 2655 Broadway to allow for renovations and a four-story addition to the existing Pavilion building and renovation of the city parking garage including a request for a height modification to allow building Heights of 55 ft this application also seeks to extend the Pud to include properties located at 1125 and 1136 North Street 1136 Alpine a the use review is to allow a principal parking facility use at 2655 Broadway as proposed on the ground floor and bc2 Zoning District along with parking structures Broadway Frontage proposed to replace the existing commercial space case number L 2023

[22:04] 0053 and finally uh item number three recommendation of an ordinance amending Title 9 land use code brc1 1981 to adopt Tri reduction standards and revised regulating plan for Alpine Balsam area and eliminate some principles for certain buildings with permanently affordable units and setting forth the related details thank all right great um and I'd asked because this is so complicated I'd ask kind of um the staff and Charles and and whoever is presenting to just keep us on track as a board and um do a little airic traffic control for us to help us through it thank you and before we get started if you could check in if there are any disclosures from any board members absolutely um and I can start uh so so like a few other board members um on this board I live in the Newland neighborhood I don't a jent to the site but I am very familiar with it um did

[23:01] participate in a number of the meetings uh and the early stages of um the city's planning um but I I live several blocks away and I I don't feel like I'm conflicted at all so you question you can be fair and impartial in making your decision on this application and base it solely on the evidence presented to you here yes thanks any other Kurt similarly I live very close to George and very close to the site uh across the park but um and I also participated in I guess a couple of the sort of neighborhood oriented meetings um but I feel that I can be fair and impartial if is that the right terminology I'll let you do it that's great terminology and I I have one follow-up question did you get um mail notice about the pending

[24:00] applications no I don't believe so okay and you'll be able to make your decision based on the criteria and evidence presented here today I will thank you okay okay another new L's person here um as uh George and Kurt I also live in the neighborhood uh farther away I think than than either of you um and I only participated in one of the public meetings prior um did not not get a letter about this uh application and I absolutely can be fair and impartial and um give good input on this and you'll be able to base your decisions and the evidence presented in the criteria totally you're reviewing under yes yes thanks Claudia I am not a resident of the Newlands neighborhood um but I did participate in some of these cities meetings early in the planning process

[25:00] for this property and can you be fair and impartial in your review of the project yes thanks Mark uh like Claudia uh I am not uh a neighbor to the project um and like Claudia I did uh participate uh back in the early days of this uh project uh in a number of uh different public meetings uh sponsored by the city um but that was long before actually before my time on tab or planning board and I believe I can be fair and impartial and base my decision solely upon the um information presented in the meeting tonight great I don't see Mason so I think we're good all right perfect so um we'll go on to the presentation Al

[26:00] righty good evening planning board members um this as you all know is uh the public hearing for the Alpine Balsam Redevelopment um I'm going to kind of apologize in advance this presentation is quite long um due to the very technical nature of a lot of these it's also quite wordy um so I will you don't have to read all the words on the slides um I will try to summarize for you as well as I can um I'll also let you know that um just due to kind of the extensive nature of the project um my presentation will be focused a lot on um kind of process and the technical issues um and the applicant will be diving a lot deeper into the design elements of the project so you get boring words with me and pretty pictures with them okay and let's see if my okay um so as George um just read these are um there several public hearing items tonight um three of these are form

[27:01] based code reviews um the first form-based code review is for site and infrastructure improvements for the form base code area that's L 223-0034 uh Redevelopment of the site with 2117 new housing units in seven buildings and that's a total of 157 affordable and 60 market rate units and 2100 squ feet of commercial space um those are the other two which are l -7 um as previously mentioned as well the infrastructure plan does include a request um for amendments to the Alpine bosam area plan specifically the connections plan to relocate a Mobility Hub um from the west side of the ninth and Alpine connector Street um to the east side and to allow for 11th Street to be a private Drive instead of a public Street there's also a site and use review application um this is to amend the Boulder Community Hospital PUD to allow for renovations and a fourth story addition to the existing Pavilion building uh as well as renovation of the

[28:00] parking garage and extension of the Pud to include um essentially what is the uh Brenton building site uh this includes a request for height modification to allow for the Pilan to reach up to 55 ft as well as a 33% parking reduction to allow for 295 spaces where 463 are required and as mentioned um there's also a use review request and this is for um the parking facility it's replacement of the existing retail space along Broadway with additional parking spaces and then finally um recommendation of the ordinance um which I will dive into the purpose of the ordinance um further later but uh adopting trip ruction standards and revising the regulating plan um as well as eliminating some principles for certain buildings um so in terms of the kind of the order of operations and the objective of the meeting um planning board will hear presentations by myself and the applicant and may ask questions um following each presentation will then be the public hearing um the opportunity for the applicant to respond to public

[29:00] hearing comments and then we have uh key issues in motion language essentially broken down um to these four parts so we'll first ask planning board to take action um on the form based code applications and that includes the requested exceptions um we'll then ask planning board to take action on the proposed amendments to the Alpine bam area plan connections plan and then take action on the site and use review and finally make a recommendation to city council on the proposed ordinance um so a little bit about form-based code review um as a new Redevelopment project within the Alpine balam area The Proposal is subject to the regulations and review process of the form-based code uh the form based code regulations are found in appendix M of the land use code and the review process is within section 9216 um form based code reviews are typically staff level reviews which are subject to planning board callup or citizen appeal however uh given the scope of the project project and the additional items that require actions by

[30:00] the board staff is referring the form-based code applications to planning board for a final decision at a public hearing um form-based code reviews do not require height modifications like site review applications so that is not um a request that's included with this unlike site reviews form-based code reviews are largely prescriptive in nature and are subject to compliance with detailed regulations found in appendix M um to allow for some flexibility exceptions may be requested and can be approved if the criteria of section 9216 I are met so for the area plan amendment being requested as part of the infrastructure plan um these require a legislative action separate separate from a decision on the form-based code application by the planning board uh as well as city council any Amendment to the connections plan will be permitted upon finding that one of the criteria has been met either that there is a physical or practical hardship uh that the connection is being made in a manner that is equivalent to the

[31:01] connection shown in the connections plan uh or that such amendment is consistent with the objectives of the connections plan so for the site and use review um The Pavilion building and the city parking garage are located with the within the amended Boulder Community Hospital PUD um and you all may remember when the amendment came in 2021 I believe maybe 2022 when we basically Shrunk the Boulder Community Hospital PUD um this was done intentionally um by the city in order to um basically free up the housing Parcels to be subject just to the form based code um we could not remove the Pavilion from the Pud um because otherwise it would just be the parking garage and it would be a non-conforming use so essentially we had to leave two buildings in the Pud in order to make the P still meet code and those were the Pavilion and the parking garage so they're they are the remnant of the Boulder Community Hospital p so the site review amendment is required

[32:00] for renovations and um the expansion of the Pud boundary as well as the height modification and the parking reduction um The Pavilion building is still located within the form based code area the code has uh special Provisions that apply to puds that are within form based code and that's basically that it goes through site review it has to meet the site review criteria but it must be to the extent practicable compatible in terms of Building height Mass scale orientation architecture and project configuration with form based code standards um so they're not required to meet all the form-based code standards but they are supposed to try to meet them to the extent practicable um as I mentioned before the Ed review is required for replacement of the commercial space in the garage with ground floor parking uh this is because it's located in an area subject to special use restrictions in the code um in the bc2 zone um as part of the use review criteria in addition to the standard criteria they have to show that the use will not adversely affect the intended function or character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate on the ground

[33:01] floor um these require planning board action subject to city council call up then finally um for the draft ordinance uh this would amend the FBC regulating plan map in appendix M of the land use code to reflect the requested area plan uh connections plan amendments so basically just moving um changing some words around 11 Street and moving the mobility Hub icon on the map uh it would amend section 996 I the land use code to allow the city manager to exempt buildings with permanently affordable housing uh permanently affordable units that are funding with li Tech funding or low-income housing tax credit um from the unbundled parking requirements in mu4 and rh7 uh we'll jump get a lot further into that later um it would modify the trip generation requirements of section 9922 to require a 20% instead of 55% um trip reduction requirement in mu4 or R6 or

[34:00] rh7 um without adoption of the proposed ordinance the form based code and site and use review applications cannot meet all all applicable code requirements and cannot proceed as currently uh proposed um this requires a planning board recommendation to city council so this is just the decision-making Matrix we don't have to spend too much time on this um essentially it's showing that you guys are asked to make decisions on um three of these items in a recommendation not one of them okay um so jumping into the background the subject site is located in North Boulder it encompasses the former Boulder Community Hospital site between Broadway and 9th to the east and west and balam and Alpine to the North and South as well as the city- owned parking garage on the southwest corner of Broadway and Alpine and the adjacent Brenton building properties um Michelle crane is going to uh give a bit more background on um the adoption and process for the Alpine balam area plan um I will just say

[35:01] following adoption of the Alpine balam area plan um land use designation changes to the city-owned site were adopted in the 2020 midterm update to the Boulder Valley comp plan followed by a city initiated rezoning of the site and Adoption of new form-based code standards in 2021 um so the image there on the left is the um recommended land use map from the Alpine bossome area plan and the image on the right is the current bbcp land use designations which um correspond largely to to the area plan um this is just the conceptual diagram of uh future city uses and improvements which is taken from the Alpine balam area plan and this also informed um the land use designation changes so the zoning of the area is a mix of rh7 mu4 P or public uh bt1 which is business transitional one and bc2 which is business Community 2 um this image also shows shows just the overall project area which is the white dash

[36:01] line versus the form-based code area so the form-based code area is in red overall project boundaries in white um just quickly as well some background um in 20121 the city entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Boulder housing Partners to allow them to act as the developer for the portion of the site designated in the plan for housing um the IGA sets forth anticipated development outcomes for the site goals and responsibilities of each party and each phase and schedule of development milestones so now I'm going to jump into the form-based code applications so the first FBC application is L 223-0034 this is the infrastructure plan uh this is showing the project scope within the red dotted lines and so this is for all the site infrastru site and infrastructure elements that are part of the form-based code area of Alpine balam the these include uh North South multiuse path connecting Alpine to

[37:01] Balsam between Lots one and two a new Point 11 acre pocket park between Lots one and two um which is also and when I say lots one and two apologies that I'm referring to the preliminary plat that was submitted with this as well um a new local ninth and Alpine connector Street which uh bends across the southwest corner of the site there's also a Mobility Hub shown there a new two .02 acre Greenway flood Channel along the south side of balam Avenue and a new 11 Street connection proposed to be private between Alpine and balam so um as I mentioned before this application requires two amendments to the area plan and regulating plan map the first amendment is to shift the mobility hub from the west side of the ninth and Alpine connector Street to the east side of the street the second requested amendment is to allow for 11th Street to be a private drive and type B Frontage rather than a local Street and

[38:01] type B Frontage this application also includes um a request for an exception to the form-based code standards to allow for 31% total impervious and semi-pervious coverage within the greenway and flood Channel where 30% is currently the maximum allowed per the FBC so in terms of the mobility Hub relocation um the image on top shows where the regulating plan map um shows the mobility Hub which is on the west side of the connector Street and the image on the bottom shows where the applicant is proposing to place the mobility Hub which is on the east side of that street um relocation Mobility Hub is intended to better accommodate the ninth and Alpine connector Street um pedestrian access and travel Pathways and overall connectivity of the small scale Transit components um staff finds that it will not create any adverse impacts to Residents that it will provide better connectivity um to the m ility Hub Transit components to the rest of the site without um the separation

[39:01] that would otherwise occur by the connector street it also allows for a greater buffer between the transit program Transit programming excuse me and the existing adjacent property um and that the intention of the regulating plan is being met with the general site location programming elements and adjacency to both public and private users in terms of the uh requested Amendment for 11 Street um so this this came about as um dis as a result of discussions between the applicant and city transportation and Engineering staff um during which time it was determined that a private drive would allow for a more aesthetic pedestrian friendly design than would otherwise be permitted um under the city's design and construction standards um specifically making the connection a private access drive would allow for enhanced curbside demand management applications including flexible loading zones and designated Transportation Network company um AKA Uber and lift pick up and drop off locations the use of permeable pavers um and

[40:00] narrow raay Crossing Crossings at both the enhanced poo and Greenway for increased pedestrian uh visibility and safety it also allows for enhanced access to Mobility Hub services including micro Mobility um the private Drive is proposed to become a subdivision Outlaw so um even though it's a private drive this is will be owned by the city in perpetuity so it's essentially acts as right of way um because it will be a city-owned Outlaw forever same outlot that the flood the greenway and um flood channel will exist in so we're calling it a private drive but um it will be publicly owned Private Drive um in terms of the exception to the outdoor open space requirements um as I mentioned before they're requesting to allow 31% total impervious and semi-pervious coverage within the flood Channel where 30% is the maximum allowed um it meets the intent of the form based code and the area plan and that is provided in the required location it meets the required minimum and average

[41:00] Dimension sizes and provides the required pedestrian connection Pathways um it's consistent with the area plan goals to establish a linear naturalized Greenway connection from Broadway to North Boulder Park um it includes all of the zones identified in the area plan including landscape and pedestrian zones to the south of balam conveyant zone for floodwaters and a pedestrian Zone on the south side of the floodway um this request really came about after uh you know design details began to be formulated um they realized that with with all of the um requested Street sections and sidewalks Etc that um they found that it was it was not feasible to um meet the 30% impervious so they're just over okay um so moving on and I guess I'll also say um I'm only really focusing on the exceptions and amendments so we have found that all of these meet the form based code unless I State otherwise so l223 042 is for buildings B and

[42:00] D um this is the project boundary shown here in the red Dash lines and then kind of a massing study down below that shows which of the buildings are included as well so this is the the middle portion of the site um these would be 89 per permanently affordable housing units in Building B and 55 age restricted permanently affordable housing units in building d uh Building B is inclusive of buildings B1 B2 and B3 which are connected via Bridges um this application would also include construction of a portion of the enhanced poo between the pocket park and the mobility Hub area to the west and 11th Street to the East and then adjacent sidewalks Courtyards and outdoor Open Spaces um to these buildings so uh this application is subject to the Poo standards of section m110 B uh the requested exception included with this is to allow for a 14t minimum easement width for the enhanced poo rather than the 35t minimum easement width which is currently required uh they're also asking for an

[43:02] exception to the General Building type requirements of section m117 which specify um oh no sorry they're not asking for an exception they're subject to the General Building type requirements of section m117 which specify the build to requirements for type A and B frontages maximum building Heights floor to floor requirements building length fenestration building entry and cap requirements Etc and then the building design section of the FBC which is found in m123 and m129 um so a little bit about parking here no on-site parking is provided um for these developments 139 spaces are proposed to be reserved for residents in the city owned parking garage with 89 for Building B and 50 for uh building d section 996 I requires parking spaces to be leased or sold separately from the rental or purchase fees for dwelling units with in rh7 and mu4 zones in the Alpine balam

[44:00] area however uh Federal low-income housing tax credit regulations require that residents must have access to a parking space with their deed restricted unit in order for the cost of the parking facilities to be financed through litec funding and there's some other um nuance and details there that that we're prepared to discuss later um but essentially the proposed ordinance is to allow the city manager to exempt buildings with uh that are using litec funding to construct permanently affordable units from the requirement to unbundle parking so for the uh requested exception to the Poo design standards um this is just the diagram showing the proposed easement width um again it's just to allow for a 14ot minimum easement width rather than the 35 foot minimum easement width which is currently required um we have talked about this extensively with um the applicant with fire with engineering um we found that the requested exception meets the standards of 9216 I um in that it enables required building and poo features while meeting the

[45:01] intended design function of the Poo uh the proposed poo meets the surface material requirements in this case a combination of concrete with decorative scoring pavers um it also meets the minimum pedestrian travel way which is 10 feet and the overall P width and minimum fire access width of 20 feet so the overall poo will still be 35 ft in width it's really just the easement that has to be um reduced and a big part of the reasoning behind this is that the Poo standards require a lot of permanent features to be located in the Poo um including Stoops and Landscape seating walls and things like this um the code anticipates that people would obtain revoca bles to allow these um however we don't really like to issue revoca bles for permanent structures um so it would be just another several layers of essentially administrative burden on both staff and the applicant to issue a bunch of of really long-term revoca for things that we're requiring

[46:00] be in the Poo so they're basically providing the Poo as it's intended to be designed but they're just reducing the easement width to avoid having to get um long-term revocable leases for all of the features that we're requiring um so jumping to L 20247 this is for buildings A1 through A4 and Building C this proposal is for 51 units 38 market rate and 13 permanently affordable and the 2100 ft of commercial space in Building C uh and 22 market rate town home style units in the a buildings so again showing the project scope here in red as well as the massing studies of the buildings on the lower right um so this similar to the to the last one is also subject to the Poo standards um they are requesting the same exception Building C is subject to the General Building type requirement of m117 uh the a buildings are subject

[47:00] to the row building type requirements um this application includes requested exception to the general and road building type sighting standards to allow for the maximum impervious surface coverage um for both Lots uh lot one and lot three to be increased on lot one it would be 75% or 60% is the maximum allowed and on lot three it would be 82% or 65% is the maximum allowed um so for the exception for the PO designed standards it's the same analysis essentially um they will all be they will be meeting all the standards except for the U minimum poo easement width or Public Access easement width rather um and are requesting same reduction in easement width for the same purposes um in terms of the maximum site impervious coverage um staff finds that this exception meets the criteria of 9216 I as well um the site layout is intended to maximize the number of units on the site which is supportive of um Alpine B area plan goals to provide a

[48:02] diverse mixture of housing types that balance market rate and permanently affordable units um it will not create any adverse impacts to neighboring properties um we there have shown that there'll be no increase in historic runoff patterns um the sites comply with all the other building design and sighting requirements so in keeping with the overall intent of the form based code and area plan um and based on lot layout and required building two zones as well as geotechnical guidelines to limit infiltration within 10 ft of structures and the applicant has shown that it is not practical to meet the form based code requirements of permeability on these Lots so staff is supportive of that requested exception so these are the three key issues um and I will bring these back up once we're all the way through the presentation so we can go through these in order um but the three key issues are just whether the form based code applications are consistent with the form based code regulations uh are the proposed amendments the Alpin balam area plan consistent with the criteria and then

[49:00] does the planning board find that the requested exceptions meet the standards of 9216 I so now jumping into L 20235 3 this is the site and use review application for the Pavilion building garage and Brenton site um so this shows the site and use review location the project area boundaries in the context of the greater form based code area um so I feel like we've already said said these words a bunch but but now we're we're in it so I'll repeat them um so the site review amendment is for renovations in additions to the existing Pavilion building and parking garage and site improvements to the Pavilion garage and Brenton building properties located at 1155 Alpine 2655 Broadway um 1125 and 36 North Street and 1136 Alpine The Proposal includes addition of approximately 55,1 100 ft to the Pavilion building including a new fourth story uh Renovations of the parking

[50:00] structure include demolition of the existing brick facade elements on the north and east facades in addition of new curtain walls and metal panel facade elements oops and um as mentioned before includes a request for height modification to allow for building Heights up to 55 ft as well as a 33% parking reduction so in terms of the Pavilion building um this is the site plan shown for the proposed building um the renovation and addition of the Pavilion building is intended to help achieved several important goals for the city um including consolidating community services and City departments that are currently spread across the city into one centralized location for better delivery of services and better collaboration between staff and departments um to create a welcoming inclusive and Equitable experience for both the community accessing services at this location as well as staff using the building as contrasted with current city buildings that are unwelcoming do not meet current standards for Ada and inclusive design and provide uh great disparity across service and work environments uh investment in this new campus enables the city to meet and exceed climate

[51:01] action plan goals for City buildings while also achieving the goals identified in A and B above rather than making significant investments in current infrastructure that keeps Services scattered and does not achieve other social values uh consolidation further allows the city to dispose of properties to help fund new infrastructure investment in the WCC or Western City Campus as we are calling this um removes buildings that have been identified as needing to be deconstructed and are unsafe and allows for other City Planning projects in the Civic area to advance so um again there's an approximately 55,000 foot addition to the existing 62,500 foot Pavilion building including the addition of a fourth floor and there's also a new public Plaza proposed on the north side of the building next to South of the Poo um replacement of the existing building envelope um the building is proposed to be um all electric and highly energy efficient um they are uh the building envelope will be replaced including the exterior facade to optimize um energy

[52:05] performance um sorry and the um efficiency is uh aimed at achieving an energy use intensity below 20 um reuse of three existing concrete structures increases the project sustainability um the addition is also to be proposed to be constructed from Cross laminated Timber that will be sustainably sourced um new public entries into into the building are proposed at the corner of Alpine and Broadway as well as along the poo and a new staff entry is proposed along um 11th Street connection so and I promise I'm going to show you pictures of the building soon um so design of the Civic building and garage is based on attributes of existing Civic buildings um so use of material such as brick and stone repetition of fixed and recessed Windows um Etc the existing Pavilion facade will be removed and replaced with a high performing Envelope as I just mentioned um the applicant has um kind

[53:00] of broken the building down into two parts the chassis or the workplace component will include uh Stone metal and vertically oriented rectangular Windows uh as well as a vertical solar shading component to mitigate Eastern sun and the gem component of the building is at the northwest corner of the plaza and corresponds to the multi-purpose room that will host a variety of events this facade will be high performance glazing and a solar shading component to mitigate Western Sun so here are some pictures I feel like these are the first pictures in many slides um the top picture is showing both the Pavilion building and the garage basically looking Due West from across Broadway um the lower left image is looking at the Pavilion building from the southeast corner of Broadway and Alpine and the other images um looking at the Pavilion building from uh west across Broadway near the entrance uh of the P um these are also uh renderings provided by the applicant top left is showing the Alpine and Balsam um primary

[54:00] entrance and the um top right is showing the entrance that's located off of the plaza and then bottom images a bit closer up view of the plaza um so quickly go over the garage in Brenton site um proposal would add a new elevator and refurbish existing elevator equipment to improve uh safety and use of the existing garage infrastructure um it would include the existing stairs in the Northwest and Southeast Corners with a glass curtain wall system rebuild the stairs uh remove existing brick facade elements on the North and East facades um it adds a three-story glass curtain Woll enclosed Lobby in the northeast corner as well as a mechanical room on the fourth floor uh it would renovate the existing Bank office space to create a public safety office as mentioned and as is the reason for the use review uh would replace existing retail space on the Southeast corner with six new parking spaces would add a new pre-cast concrete facade finished with the thin stone veneer over the north and east elevations and uh then it

[55:02] would make significant circulation improvements to the Lots south of the Brenton building including a new two-way garage access storm water detention pickup and drop off Zone um new pedestrian pathway from Alpine Aven Avenue and a reconfigured an improved parking area so this site plan on the left there illustrates some of the proposed site improvements um south of the Brenton building as well as around the parking garage and then I've just provided an elevation the west elevation of the parking garage as well as the um same rendering that we saw before just to show it in context um so we did refer this project to the design Advisory Board it went to dab on May 8th 2024 um at the time we found that the project was generally consistent with the site review criteria in terms of design um but just wanted some additional feedback on a few key project elements uh mainly relating to the area plan goal to achieve welcoming public

[56:02] buildings um the board discussed the project at length and overall really just supported the project design as proposed um and did not ask for any significant changes there were a few tweaks that the applicant um can discuss but really overall there is a lot of support for the design um so I'm going to jump into the parking and the TDM and this is kind of a big piece of this one um first I'm just going to go over a few things that are included in the Alpine bosom area plan um so the area plan really kind of dives into access and mobility and parking approach as as part of the overall planning process um and the applicant has really been trying to um follow these goals as closely as they can um So the plan talks about utilizing sum principles an existing parking structure for most needs so it really anticipates that the city parking garage is going to provide shared unbundled and managed and paid parking for the entire

[57:01] development um there's also discussion that there should be minimal or no investment to construct parking so they do not want the city spending a bunch of new money to build new parking and to the extent possible to use the existing parking that is in the city parking garage um in terms of the required parking so this Mobility scale which I believe may have been kind of blurry in the packet and I apologize for that um really what this is getting at is it's kind of showing what the the desired parking rates would be for the Alpine balsom area um that's kind of based on TDM and other measures but what they're really aiming for is about 0.9 somewhere between 08 and 0.9 um parking spaces per unit for residential and that's reflected in the existing zoning which has no minimum parking requirement and a maximum parking of one space per unit and then aims for about 1.9 n spaces per 1,00 square F feet for commercial uses um which for office

[58:02] represents about a 53 parking 53% parking reduction and for retail represents about a 60% parking reduction um so the applicant was able to kind of come in with a parking reduction slightly lower than what the area plan actually anticipated um this is a parking diagram that we don't have to um spend too much time on but it really just kind of shows so the the purple and the uh blue building those are the affordable housing buildings those will have reserved spaces in the garage which are shown um on the kind of colored bars in the garage the pink building which is the Pavilion building will also have um parking provided in the garage through uh shared parking the orange and yellow building which is Building C that's the mixed use building that has um a mix of market and permanently affordable units and retail space we'll also be using shared parking in the garage and the green buildings which are the town homes are self-parked so I am going to verbally

[59:02] summarize this table for you this is taken from the TDM plan so essentially there are 404 total spaces in the garage 139 of those would be reserved for the affordable units in buildings B and D as I mentioned before a total of 295 spaces which will be a mix of reserved and shared spaces will be available to city employees and customers during business hours so that includes includes 30 spaces on the Brenton lot those are surface spaces provided on the reconfigured um Lots below the Brenton building and then 265 spaces within the garage 49 of those spaces will be reserved for Pavilion customers during daytime use still paid 18 of those spaces are reserved for special uses um such as facility Vehicles fleet vehicles things like that and then 198 spaces will be shared and paid spaces so those will be available to city employees as well as uh residents of building C so um

[60:02] if if you guys read the the TDM plan the parking plan it's all it's fairly complicated um but essentially the the 51 units in Building C will be able to have parking permits but it does not guarantee them a space so they can essentially um they can buy a parking permit which allows them if there is a space available to park in the garage and they will get a lower rate by buying a parking permit but it doesn't there there are no save spaces for them so the the permit essentially just allows them to pay ahead of time at a slightly better rate than if they just show up at the garage and try to pay for a parking space um the TDM plan anticipates a 30% trip reduction through TDM um with that 30% trip reduction the anticipated Peak demand is about 318 spaces um so the project is providing 295 spaces in the garage um there are also 43 on street parking spaces available able on the adjacent rights of way within the project and um the

[61:00] parking consultant for the applicant also did a um parking study during the peak hours on a weekday and found um 300 available parking spaces within one block of the development and that's within the one block of the entire development so one block um from Alpine and um balam so uh the TDM adjustment includes a variety of on-site infrastructure amenity and program atic measures intended to incentivize travel modes other than driving uh these include uh residential parking and TDM strategies such as um parking policy and pricing again just unbundling and charging for the market rate units um and shared parking then TDM programs and services including car share access onsite shared M micr Mobility options um B cycle memberships and provision of neighborhood Ecco passes for residents then terms of uh City employee parking and TDM strategies um all of the

[62:00] office parking for all of the office space will be paid and shared um the project will provide electric vehicle charging stations um we also will implement the TDM commuter benefits program uh which provides a number of incentives for employees renewed parking cash out um continued hybrid work environment and tele workk options and annual ecopass annual B cycle membership fpol subsidy uh carpool incentive program pressed Work Week options access to City own vehicles and potentially to a fleet of ebikes an end of trip facilities including showers and bike parking um one thing it's important to note that Chris agan is here and can talk about more if we need him to um is that you know this is the kind of the great thing about the city being the one to implement the TDM plan for this Pavilion building is that the city can kind of pull levers as we need to right and if we find that things are not working the way that we want and that we're not achieving the trip production measures that we anticipated um we can can modify things because we own the building and it's there are programs so it's um it allows us some ongoing kind

[63:01] of control and flexibility when it comes to TDM measures um so in terms of just facilities and these are across the site so um 58 bicycle parking spaces um 70 long-term spots The Pavilion six spots for ebikes um four bike lockers for specialty items two service station racks 60 hanging stalls uh bike repair station both within the building and at the mobility Hub um variety of new and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle corridors throughout the site RightWay improvements on the surrounding streets and then a bunch of micr Mobility features as well um So currently there's one 13 do B cycle station at Alpine uh between Broadway and 13th three more are proposed uh one on the corner of balam and 9th near the mobility Hub and at the Broadway bus stop and the project also proposes three new lime Groves um which are uh areas for lime scooters um Broadway near the transit stop at the alley um and in the residential section of the

[64:01] site um so moving on to the use review component of this um as I said before the proposal to remove the existing commercial space requires the use review in addition to site review and you have to show that it will not adversely affect the intended functioning character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate so this is just a a graphic image provided by the applicant showing um the area to be removed from the building um as well as the new parking spaces that will be accommodated by removal of the existing retail space um it's approximately 120 um linear feet of ground floor commercial space will be removed from the existing parking structures East and North facades U much of that existing space is less than 5T wide um and is not very functional for typical seating and other retail functions um oh I provided additional analysis in the memo but um essentially what what staff and the applicant found is that um the existing retail space is

[65:01] is underutilized and does not really add a lot to the um kind of lively Frontage of Broadway uh specifically because there's no parking on Broadway there so access to the existing retail space is a challenge um will continue to be a challenge because there is no new parking provided or proposed on Broadway um and the applicant has really made an effort to make the facade along Broadway uh visually interesting um they'll be able to discuss more but um The Proposal includes um basically making space for art so there can be kind of ongoing and rotating um art installations along the Broadway Frontage um further it was just found that based on the area plan goals and kind of the tightness of the space that the six additional parking spaces um would provide a much greater benefit to the project than keeping um the extremely narrow retail space and having that be owned and managed by the city so the key issues for discussion here are are is the project consistent with site review criteria including height modifications and parking

[66:01] reduction criteria and is the use review consistent with the use review criteria oh so I do actually dive into staff findings here sorry forgetting my own presentation um so key issue number four staff findings staff finds of the project is consistent with the Boulder Valley comp plan land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the bbcp particularly those that address the built environment uh consistent with several characteristics of sustainable Urban form definition implements goals and achieves the vision of the Alpine balom area plan and meets several comp plan goals and policies in section two built environment section four energy climate and waste and section six Transportation uh the project also incorporates site design techniques and infrastructure that supports and encourages alternatives to uh SLE occupant Vehicles provides for a balance of private and common open space Landscaping includes a variety of plants colors and contrast building and sighting design is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and successfully

[67:00] creates visual interest and a vibrant pestan experience with simple human scaled high quality architecture um the additional criteria for height modifications in summary um staff finds that the building's form and massing are consistent with the character established in the area plan and form based code uh which anticipate up to five stories and 55 ft it also largely complies with the form-based code standards for civic buildings um there's a few areas where it doesn't meet that I can let the applicant go into that um designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability to and through the site and meets the um specific open space requirements for buildings requesting a height modification in terms of the parking reduction criteria um staff finds that the mix of reserved and shared unbundled and managed parking uh as well as the programs and services to incentivize alternate modes um combined with enhanced facilities and site design techniques and the on street parking proposed as part of the project as well as the available on street

[68:01] parking found by the applicant um all combines to say that the probable number of all Motor Vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to the project will be adequately accommodated um as I mentioned before they also found that there will be available um off or on street parking um in addition to the 295 um spaces off street that I mentioned use of multimodal Transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis and this is really the robust TDM plan and parking management plan which outlin the strategies that are proposed to reduce the parking needs of the project um again overall a 30% trip reduction is anticipated due to TDM strategies and city has control over implementation and can adjust as needed um so I forgot that I included this so I kind of jumped ahead but um staff also finds that the use review is consistent with the zoning and non-conformity um so the consistency

[69:00] with the zoning really just says that uses that require use review can be approved through use review so it's going through the required process um it does provide a direct service or convenience to or um and reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood um specifically by providing as much parking as possible for the new development it is reducing potential off-site parking impacts um we find that it is compatible with the surrounding area the parking garage has been there for over 20 years um and really they're not they're adding six parking spaces um to the existing parking garage so it's not a a change in the level of compatibility compared to the existing level um all the existing infrastructure required to serve the development is already in place um and then in terms of the predominant character of the surrounding area as established by adopted plans for the area um so this really came about out as the um as a result to the applicant's desire to meet the goal of the Alpine balam area plan to provide shared managed

[70:02] parking for the entire Alpine balam Redevelopment area um the area plan goal related to parking is for current structured parking facility at the corner Broadway uh to be utilized to accommodate the parking demand for the land use plan to the fullest extent possible um the excuse me um as I mentioned the existing parking structure has been in this location for over 20 years the Alpine bostom area plan specifically references the uh parking structures the primary location for off-site parking um and the proposed changes to the parking area would greatly improve the functionality of the parking structure and ensure that the character of the area as envisioned by the area plan is achieved um so the area plan does show this as um mu2 um which is a mixed use to land use designation which anticipates active ground floor uses um as I mentioned the existing 450t

[71:02] space is underutilized narrow and has difficult access um there's greater benefit to the development to add parking the uh applicant intends to integrate artwork and high quality materials into the campus's design to improve The Pedestrian environment um and finally the remainder of the Broadway Corridor shown as mu2 is also Zone bc2 um and not owned by the city and not designated spefic specifically in the area planned for parking so the chances are very strong that Redevelopment in the bc2 zones on the rest of the Broadway Corridor will follow um the bc2 zoning intent um so the overall Corridor will still remain uh neighborhood serving retail dominated area um with just this exception for the parking garage so we're almost to the end of this one um so key issue six does planning board support the proposed osed ordinance the title of which is an ordinance amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 to adopt trip production

[72:01] standards and a revised regulating plan for the Alpine balam area and to eliminate some principles for certain buildings with permanently affordable units and setting forth related details so um it updates the form based code regulating map basically to reflect the area plan amendments that are being requested as part of the infrastructure plan again those are just the change from 11th Street from public RightWay to a private Access Lane and the location of the mobility Hub um it allows the city manager to not require unbundled parking if it conflicts with the ability to get low-income housing tax credit funding for permanently affordable units which the applicant has indicated it does it applies a 20% altern alternative modes requirement to Alpine Balsam instead of the 55% offset required in Boulder Junction um we're prepared to go into this in more detail but essentially the 55% offset required for Boulder Junction um was applied because um Boulder Junction's anticipated level of

[73:00] multimodal access and transportation was extremely high um so with bus Rapid Transit with a train that was supposed to be there with a district approach to parking um there were just a lot more things that the um city and developers could use to try to reduce trips in Boulder Junction many of those things um most specifically the parking district is not present uh in Alpine balsom so the the 55% trip reduction was found to be an unreasonable burden on Redevelopment in the area so we are we are asking to reduce it to 20% um but are happy to discuss that in further detail um and then finally it creates um consistency for TDM terminology and this is just some um kind of words words smithing based on current best best practices um okay so this is just showing the regulating map oh here we go um so again the 11 Street connection there this is

[74:01] the um ninth and Alpine connection and the relocation of the mobility Hub so staff recommends approval of ordinance 8653 because the code changes would enable the proposed project to proceed as designed um create trip avoidance and reduction standards appropriate to the Alpine balsom area um per policy 6.03 of the bbcp it also supports the comp plan's affordable housing goals by authorizing a waiver of unbundled parking requirement for certain litech funded permanently affordable housing projects and it meets uh another many other um Boulder Valley comprehensive plan policies so I will now happily answer questions and I have um a recommended discussion format as well as um key issues and motion language I can pull up as needed great thanks I'm sure everyone

[75:01] has a lot of questions um so why don't we try to WR why don't we try to keep it to two questions each and then if people want to Circle back to additional ones after different board members get to um have questions just a process question go ahead would it make sense to get all questions like on each piece like all questions relating to the first uh site review proposal and then second rather than jumping around by board member yeah I mean that's not a bad idea um I'm certainly open to it if everyone else is I mean I I don't think there's a there's an easy way to attack it um so I mean my only concern about that is that we're g to get that's like six rounds versus one round and then additional rounds after that that that would be my concern how about I promise I'm not going to expand my questions based on the way that we order them I appreciate Laura's suggestion

[76:02] that's actually the way that I have organized my questions so I think that would be helpful to uh go through in that order okay well I was going to ask a different process question which was that the I think there's more presentation right isn't there the applicant presentation so I'm just wondering if it would make sense to combine staff questions with applicant questions what do you what do you think Charles since you've run through it's up to you guys we typically will do a round of clarifying questions for staff after the staff's presentation um just based on the procedural um information that we've presented as well as the recommendations that we've made um but we're happy to accommodate you either way I was just thinking and because of the complexity it might be helpful to come either way you know personally I'd be favor of that just because there's so much to get through and there's probably a lot of qu our

[77:00] questions that might get answered through the application so you guys are up for that all right so let's continue then um how much time do we have allocated to this component 30 to 40 minutes 30 to 40 minutes we're hoping 35 minutes okay all right so Target around 8 which is 40 41 minutes from now and then um maybe we'll take a quick break and then we'll go from there do do you guys mind if I try to dim these lights while you're giving the presentation it's a little bright in here okay Thomas um can I share or should they plug in directly

[78:17] Mark are you are you a vestage there are you what what's your no I I'm I no I I just I raised my hand and I thought well uh the technical things are going on I have a extremely general question that may uh result in uh people thinking uh deriding me or whatever but if I could just ask we are we are just so you know I don't know if you heard us but we're gonna hold our questions until uh the applicant okay finishes up okay my question was who's the applicant good good question is it the city is it the city very it's a very good clarify fing question that' be a great way to start the presentation okay

[79:03] yeah all right I think we're ready um good evening uh planning board I'm Michelle crane a deputy director of facilities and Fleet and we are very excited to be here uh presenting this project to you I am going to give um a really brief overview in some context of the process that has led us here tonight um for the whole Alpine ballson project starting with the purchase of would you mind just tilting your mic a little bit closer to you oh sure thanks um and I will address the applicant question um as I get to the end of this um so really high level before I hand it off this uh City purchased this site all the way back in 2015 and there were two key interests in that purchase one is to help guide the development of this area that had been influenced for nearly a century by the Builder Community Health hospital being in this area and also to address um an opportunity to modernize our city buildings um we've talked about a lot of the challenges that we are

[80:00] currently facing with City buildings failing infrastructure dispersed staff and services so those were two of the key motivating factors really in the original purchase of this property sure we there now we're going too far okay so uh following that purchase um of the site the city embarked on a long planning process and we spent roughly four years engaging the community through a vision planning process first an area planning process it sounds like many of you participate in some of those events um there were more than 600 individual contacts numerous events over those many years as the plans iterated and as we brought different concepts forward through the community um and so that ultimately resulted in first a vision for the site but then the area plan that was adopted

[81:01] by city council um back in October of 2019 and these were the goals and objectives really put forth in that um area plan so looking at the land use and urban form of the area a focus on the public realm and the public spaces again looking at local government services in this area developing housing um providing good access and mobility and being a kind of a leader in these areas and also then addressing our environmental sustainability and flood mitigation it is these goals and objectives that have really guided the process moving forward and a lot of the design work that has um been resulting in in what we're bringing forward here tonight so then following the area plan the kind of last pieces of the planning process were to as um Chandler had mentioned earlier is to um put in the land use changes and then ultimately um apply a form-based code to the area and

[82:00] that form-based code um helped really become the guiding regulatory document that you're seeing and we're reviewing under tonight and helped Implement that clear direction for the adopted area plan so to the question about the applicants here tonight following these planning processes and and the regulations um put into effect the city has partnered with uh Boulder housing Partners to co-develop the site and so the applicants are the city and Boulder housing Partners um the city has really taken a focus on the western City Campus and has been working with our selected design team zgf to develop that project um Boulder housing Partners has been working with Coburn um to develop the housing portions and collaboratively we have been designing the infrastructure and informing the infrastructure across the site and so those are the two teams that you'll be hearing from tonight as we bring the project forward and so with that I am I think I'm going to hand it over to Ian with Boulder housing

[83:01] Partners to to start that part all right good evening planning board I'm Ian swallow with Boulder housing Partners I'm a senior development project manager nice nice to be here nice to see you all I think um I will I will be brief this is a project we've been involved in for a number of years uh very excited to have it at this point um this is a slide you probably see something very similar every time we're at planning board I think you know you all know who we are as BHP but just it's a very technical process that you're reviewing tonight I think it will continue to be a technical process but just really want to ground the discussion sort of in you know who BHP serves and really what we're going to be able to achieve at this site which is some you know really well-designed really thoughtful affordable housing for families and seniors really in one of the best locations in Boulder so um

[84:02] won't get into any of the details sort of um in the small font that you see here but just wanted to really bring it back to you know what we're going to ultimately do is create homes for people to live in this community and live in a really nice part of this community um that don't exist today so just a lens to keep in mind when we're going through kind of the the technical aspects of this and just quickly U before I hand it off to Pete Weber with um Coburn architecture just to give you a little bit more detail on the housing components so in the center of the site sort of shaded in the light blue you'll see the b and d buildings those are the permanently affordable buildings that will be developed by Boulder housing Partners those will use the low-income housing tax credit um as their primary source of financing um build D which is sort of on Alpine on the Southeast corner of um Alpine and 11th there will

[85:02] be 55 Senior or older adult housing units and then Building B is 89 units that's sort of connected through three different buildings that will be sort of a family site or or really just a non- ag restricted community um parcel a which is on the far west side of the site will be 22 town homes and then parcel C on the east side of the site will be 51 uh market rate units so the the real idea here in the partnership with the city both facilities and HHS is that a and c will be sort of entitled by BHP they will be then sort of sold um to a market rate developer to ultimately develop but with a very predictable outcome for the city um and those proceeds would go to support the affordable housing as well as the site in general so um it's model we've used before at 30 Pearl um and a model that has really worked well so that's what you're sort going to see with the housing um and I'm going to

[86:02] hand it off to Pete but happy to answer any questions that come up um especially related to sump and low-income housing tax credits and and all those things so hand it off to Pete with Coburn thanks iany I'm Pete Weber one of the principles at Coburn architecture um really excited to be here I've been working on this since the area plan days we were Consulting with the the design team um what you're looking at on the screen now is the overall site plan and I'm going to kind of go through how we got there uh first just have a little hard time hearing you just you're okay you're okay be great if you just thanks um just a reminder uh about the form based code regulating plan and the prescriptive nature of the form based code basically the form based code says you do these things and you're good um so rather than discretionary like review the form based code is really quite different uh the various aspects of the form based code related to the

[87:00] infrastructure plan include the greenway to the north with which doubles as a flood control element there's the Poo that runs down the middle of the site in the east west Direction the 11th Street which Chandler hit on a number of times which connects Alpine to Balsam and aligns with 11th Street to the North and then the mobility Hub at the western edge of the property and a pocket park that um lives right between the town homes and some of the affordable housing we're going to go through each one of these rather briefly The Greenway again doubles as flood control on the north side of the property there are a number of things that the form based code dictates about the um physical characteristics of the greenway including its uh overall size its minimum Dimensions um and just as a reminder on that flood control aspect it is in process with FEMA and the city to go through the clom ler process to actually um the primary benefit of which is to

[88:01] take get the rest of the site out of the 100-year flood plane as Chandler alluded to in his presentation there is one exception related to The Greenway um that is really a technical issue regarding impervious area we need to be just a little bit above what's required by the farm based code and that's really due to first of all when the reging plan was created we didn't know right we didn't know exactly how all this was going to play out the details were not figured out on purpose leave it to the design team to interpret the form base code and create the um the ultimate design for the site but then there's overlapping aspects of the form base code that the impacts of which were not always anticipated so by the time we put in the multi-use path on the north side of the site the various pedestrian connections and 11 Street were just shy of uh the form based code requirement the poo is a pedestrian connection um that runs through the

[89:01] middle of the site uh connecting Broadway ultimately all the way up towards 9th um it also has several requirements in the form base code chanler touched on a few of those the minimum width of 35 ft um the pay mean is dictated by the form base code um and it reminder this is an enhanced pay which is a little bit bigger and has a few more elements associated with it like Stoops and that kind of thing that um a normal poo would not include um and here's what that looks like this is the Poo uh looking to the Northeast from the pocket park um with the B building in the foreground and then the Poo from the plaza looking across 11 Street to the Northwest and Chandler I think did a good job of explaining the exception here I won't go into too much detail but just a reminder that we are maintaining the 35 ft for the enhanced poo poo from

[90:00] building to building it's really just a matter of the actual Public Access easement and narrowing that up to allow us a little more freedom with regard to Stoops and other building projections the mobility Hub um really we're just moving to the other side of the street you know the primary reason for that is that where it was located put everything on the opposite side of the street from where all the people are that's the primary reason but as we started to think about the mobility Hub and argued amongst each other on the design team it really occurred to us that really the entire site is really the mobility Hub and so we've scattered various aspects of Mobility across the site did not just con they are concentrated at the location uh at the corner of 10th Street there but there are also scattered throughout the site the bus stop for instance is on Broadway we're not moving the bus stop over to 10th Street right so you can see in this this diagram um how the scooter Corrals B stations way finding is scattered throughout the site and then the pocket park is a um

[91:01] small pedestrian Park uh that is meant for the local residents as is not competing with North Boulder Park um it is small in nature it's landscape and a combination of passive and active elements um some minimum requirements and it is required to include a playground which we've provided and this is that pocket park looking south from the uh where the little Bridge crosses uh The Greenway um and you can what you're seeing there where the folks are walking is also should point that out that's a multi-use path that connects um Broadway to Al Alpine or Balsam to Alpine and then 11 Street um this is a new street with a type B Frontage the type B Frontage is not meant to be the primary fronts for buildings but is really secondary and as we came to design the site in detail we realized that 11 Street is really the primary um service Street for all those

[92:00] buildings that face it so the Pavilion building the c and b and d buildings on our part It's where all the services need to be taken from so trash pick up and drop off package delivery all that is going to happen on 11th Street the Street's been designed primarily as a pedestrian street um you can see the paving pattern there is really meant to encourage pedestrian movement and discourage vehicular movement so while that street does need to accommodate these Services we're trying to design it primarily um for pedestrians and I think chanler did a nice job of explaining the city-owned aspect of this so I won't go into any detail there this is 11th Street looking south from The Crossing At The Greenway you can see um the market rate bu C building on the left the B affordable building on the right and then the city building Pavilion building in the background and this is what it looks like when we put it all together um we designed this site along with our partners to be a

[93:00] site that's porous um we actually went above and beyond the pieces that the form based code calls for to provide easy access throughout the site we have a variety of building sizes the entire site is really designed for pedestrians after all the parking is across the street um and then there's a variety of open spaces there is the things called out for the on the for base code the pocket park The Greenway but then I also I want to point out the um the courtyard that exists between uh building D and the B buildings um not called for by the form based code but because of the geometry the site provided an awesome opportunity for a Central Court um in the middle of the project form base code for buildings um the form based code for buildings is similar to the site in that it has several things that it dictates um it talks about building placement functional characteristics the form of the buildings design character and quality the windows and doors the

[94:02] fenestration um the materials and the balance of materials along with several elements like Stoops and balconies and and that sort of thing and then a number of details are also um suggested and dictated by the form based code things like vertical and horizontal Expressions so as we design the buildings we need to pay attention to all these things and actually demonstrate how we've complied with the form based code this is just one of the sets of buildings the a town homes and how we've diagrammed how we comply with the various aspect of the form based code with regard to how the building sits on the site um the get hitting the build to zones providing the vehicular access the Stoops and the building entries so we we' done this for all the buildings the the number of diagram sheets I don't even know a chanler there's I don't know 80 of them or something is an enormous amount of information um and then the buildings themselves um there is form based code requirements for changes in materials and the amount

[95:00] of materials and how those how that's handled across the building again the fenestration we have minimum requirements for Windows on the various facades major and minor materials have to be balanced at certain percentages and then those uh add-on elements like balconies and Stoops also have to be shown how we've come into compliance and we've met all of the form based code requirements with regard to the building design the exceptions um oh sorry here's all that how that all sits on the site plan we're going to go through this building by building rather quickly the B buildings are uh affordable buildings 17 on B2 42 on B1 these buildings take their primary accesses uh off of the Poo so that pedestrian walkway that's how you get to your front door is off the poo and here's what those buildings look like this is looking to the northe East um from the pocket park um buil these buildings are primarily brick with some some wood accents and a little bit of

[96:01] metal panel this is the same um building on the right looking from the plaza uh back to the Northwest with the D building on the left and then the B3 building uh is at the corner of 10th Street and and Alpine 30 affordable units that is a primarily brick building although this corner right on the corner there with the where the residential entry is uh we've put some solar panels as sightings in addition to solar on the roof we actually have solar as sighting on the corner of the building and then here's the building looking from um the south end of the pocket park across the mobility hub and then the DB building is a age restricted uh building with 55

[97:00] affordable units it takes its primary entry off of Alpine and 11th but then there's also some entries off of the poo and that building is a primarily brick with some metal accents across the top and to accentuate some of the entries and I want to point out in this one that that courtyard um that lives in the middle of the project um for all the residents and here's that building again looking Northwest uh from Alpine and we put those together in look down Alpine um looking East with the Pavilion building in the background and the two affordable buildings in the foreground so here's how it all fits together um when it sits on the site there are um oh sorry the a buildings let get back to the a buildings um these are the town homes that are across the street from North

[98:00] Boulder Park they are individual town homes they all are self-parked one parking space for each unit in a garage on site and those are again primarily brick you can see the greenway in the foreground here and then the buildings in the background there is as Chandler pointed out um some exceptions to impervious area for both the a and SE buildings um when we similar to The Greenway when we get everything on there um the numbers just don't quite shake out um and so technically we need to get a get an exception to that and then the SE building is uh market rate building on the corner of Broadway and balam 51 units and it is um seen here from 11th Street um looking back to the southeast with the green way uh to your left and again that impervious exception

[99:01] here and one of the things I want to point out about that that impervious exception while technically the A and C buildings are a little short the b and d buildings are long on impervious area by virtue of that courtyard so again the form base code when it was put together didn't know exactly how things were going to shake out across the site um but quite a bit more prvious area on the site certainly there's today as a reminder that site was entirely paved just quick hit on parking I think Chandler covered this pretty well so I won't be labor it 22 individual garages for the 22 units in the town homes uh the B and D affordable buildings park in the garage as a designer of this project is kind of a dream project too often we spend an ordin amount of time designing around parking and this was a great relief not to have to do that um and and then the C building is part of the shared parking program in the garage and then additionally there is

[100:02] street parking oops sorry I'm too far um street parking has been added along balam balam currently doesn't have parallel parking we've added that on the south side of Balsam we've maintained some of the uh parking parallel parking on Alpine and then there is uh accessible parking to the west of B3 and then in building c one of the things the forign base code did not anticipate is the proximity needed for accessible parking and then uh there is additional short-term parking on 11th Street part of that service Corridor short-term parking for package delivery pickup and drop off I went the wrong way sorry and then bike parking uh is all over the site um I won't get into the bill Pavilion building but for the residential portions of this a mixture of short-term and long-term parking uh short-term being at bike racks and the long-term parking being within the buildings uh the a buildings have their

[101:02] their garages and then there's bike rooms in all of the affordable buildings to house the long-term bike parking and then um lastly just a note on sustainability part of bhb's mission is to create a diverse inclusive and sustainable Boulder and here's the way that this site um has helped with that we have a mix of housing types um mix of income levels and a mix of unit sizes to add that diversity that diversity of unit types will lead to age diversity including kid from kids to seniors with the parks nearby and the age restriction on the building D it's combinate mixture of residential commercial um service and Retail across the site the site is super rich in transit all the TDM measures that we put in in addition to the access to Broadway and then on the energy side the site is all um a lot of PV the roofs should be covered with PV as well as that facade on building B3 all of the

[102:00] affordable buildings will be Net Zero ready and we're trying to optimize natural light by keeping our building our Footprints narrow so light can get deep into the buildings including we're trying to incentivize movement through stairwells rather than elevators by keeping the stairwells well lit that's it for me thank you I'm GNA hand it off to Justin ggf all right good evening planning board and City staff thanks for having us here tonight we're excited to share our project work um so we'll just jump right in so we're going to focus uh in this piece on on the um site design review for The Pavilion building and the garage as well as the use uh change for the

[103:02] garage so I just want to start by um sort of laying out the design goals of the project for us certainly one of the first is is we've designed to meet the city's aspirations and guiding principles those around creating um Equitable uh accessible and high performing workplace as well as a project that is fundamentally sustainable financially sustainable and efficient in its use also um want to point out the sort of start point for us was really as as in much of our design to do more with a little bit less in this case this is a very large adaptive reuse of an existing facility image on the top left represents the existing Pavilion building that is to remain with its skin removed there is some surgical demo to be done and then a new Mass Timber super structure to be put in place uh the gain here is that we really get a big benefit on the projects embodied carbon impacts so looking to that sort of sustainability and um environmentally uh

[104:03] environmental stewardship that's part of the city's goals we also needed to design to meet the city's programmatic requirements uh this took a fair amount of Investigation I think Chandler laid out fairly well that there's some vertical expansion as well as horizontal in the end we had to think hard about uh where to grow vertically and horizontally and what programs to use and how to maximize uh efficiency in our floor plates to ensure that people have access to views natural light and flexible long-term office space ultimately uh We've wound up creating a building that is expanded in the western Direction you can see that in the sort of red block that sits towards the west of the existing Pavilion with an additional fourth story the key public or sort of representational spaces within the building exist as what Chandler referred to as the gems these sort of yellow uh blocks that you see reaching out to what I would call are sort of 100% uh Urban Corners those being the new uh Plaza as well as the Broadway and Alpine

[105:01] intersection an underlining um priority for us in everything we've done uh as we've moved through this design is is with sustainability in mind certainly um we are producing a large amount of of electricity through the on-site PV but in order to achieve even better goals we've uh reduced energy use through the Building Systems reduced water use and shown and I got this in your report it's fairly small here but a significant reduction in uh embodied carbon energy use and a fairly low eui for the project so we're very proud of that in terms of the design criteria that we needed to meet um as was explained earlier we sit at this sort of overlap between the site design review process um sort of abstractly outline there and the form based code process here uh we feel we worked hard to meet the site design review process requirements um and have to the best practicable ability U met the form-based code requirements as well with some minor exceptions uh we can go into those in a

[106:01] little more detail if there are questions um a little bit later on in terms of connections um I think that uh Peter did a good job explaining this sort of multi multim modal transportation across the broader site that exists here at the Pavilion as well uh with key noes on East and West Ends of bike parking uh wave finding and signage as well as um drop off parking access uh points and connections have been reinforced and improved from the site to the South uh coming across at the improved crosswalk from the parking garage up to the Pavilion building the key here is that all of these connections really serve to knit together a series of new and we think really um um inviting and accessible public realm spaces as being the new Courtyard as well as the sort of Gateway corner at Alpine and Broadway as well as an improved connection to the South from the parking garage so really trying to activate and increase that paracity and connection across the site through the architecture and the site

[107:00] design Pavilion site design um is designed with sort of a richness of texture um a broad range of of plants certainly a focus on low water intensity plantings as well as pollinator plantings and then a richness in the textures of the perious and impervious um Landscaping elements including the use of wood concrete and other textures that uh very rich pallet is extended to the South and continues to drive sort of a sense of cohesion and connectivity down to the south side of the preton building as well as create connection to the parking garage circulation systems we think that those materials are going to be really very Timeless quite beautiful quite rich and and I would say very inviting for the community to use these um new Civic spaces the connections in our mind also need to involve the inside of the building and so the way that the the sort of public functions of the building have been

[108:00] organized they're intended to extend out into that exterior public realm and vice versa the new Plaza space is imagined almost as a porch that extends that yellow block on the northeast corner which is a multi-purpose room almost extends that functional space out into the landscape through the use of transparency glazing and windows uh so that really the sort of public engagement elements and events happening with in this building do become participatory in the outside and inside Space likewise a two-story um sort of gallery space uh that had joins some function function um training room programs on the bottom level of the building our adjacent circulation elements on the Southeast corner of the building again trying to create that transparency in and through the building in conjunction with transparency across the site this is reinforced by the use of uh public art certainly looking at our our us of the 1% for art program to key pieces within the Pavilion site plan that we've looked at are within that two-story space on the Southeast Corner

[109:00] inside the building as well as in the landscape on the northeast corner in the new Plaza we also have sort of indicated in the yellow wrapper uh developed a a graphic story a mural if you will that extends inside and out of the building that really is intending to sort of talk about the character and story of Boulder as a place and of culture um and that starts to activate and draw people in and through the building so the intent here is that this is building that's connected both inside and out some of those broader campus connections but also these interior spaces um really are connected to to um key moments of transparency and openness here on the top left you can see that um multifunction space that sits within the plaza uh we're facing in this case downward on the page um and that transparency of the windows behind would really let those events spill out into the public realm on the top and the bottom right you can see the um sort of connection through the building that lets you actually pass through the physical

[110:01] space um and and see that that North and South Main Building entry I think it's really important to keep in mind that this should be thought of as a campus uh and so the relationship between the parking garage something I'm doing perhaps yeah if you're on the zoom meeting in the on Zoom meeting if you could make sure that your audio is muted on your laptop I supp maybe something that one's so we'll keep going if it becomes worse let me know just need to share it

[111:12] again cool all right so thinking of this as a campus that there's a relationship between these two buildings both in the massing and form and the use of the materials I think that becomes a bit evident in this elevation view first the criteria from site design is that is this Co is this cohesive with the existing character certainly we're changing some of that character these are the existing buildings on the bottom the parking garage on the left the existing medical office building on the right or the Pavilion um however we are still sticking in in a sort of language uh an architectural language of solid Stone elements and gled elements uh that relate to each other we've worked to break down the building form and mass as Chandler said into pieces

[112:01] that we call the chassis so thinking of the Pavilion on the right side the chassis is outlined in the lighter Stone it's a limestone it's intended to be light and fairly refined as the building lifts up from the ground plane while these other elements that lock into the landscape are a more rough he Sandstone so the intent is that there is a play of massing a breakdown in in scale and a step back in the building form as you move back from the street Edge in terms of relationship to the street Edge um we've largely inherited the footprint of the existing building uh we have worked to bring the building out some extent towards Broadway so we're meeting um close to those minimum setback requirements one of the areas as as Chandler mentioned that we do uh not quite meet the form base code is on the south side of the site where the existing building and the additional new skin just asks us to come a little bit closer to Alpine than we otherwise could within the setback now I'll just do a little walk around the building and think and talk about the architectural character so if

[113:01] we start from the major Civic corner on the Southeast uh side of the building there at Broadway this is that new sort of Gateway experience showing high quality materials the use of um Stone metal panel that's perforated and shaped in a way that's intended to create a very sort of uh expressive almost iconic solar shading strategy for both our south and east facing facades at the Corner um and then the use of of glazing at the base of the building here really to just lift the building up and create that paracity and inviting moment into the space so we think about the key building entries uh primary entry off of Alpine occurs about quarter of the way down the block um this is again is part of inheriting this existing building and its floor t- floor conditions and relationships to grade we've worked to manage that grade through the use of retaining walls integrated landscape and um I think very elegant um Ada accessible ramping installations that let you come up into and actually engage the landscape under the building uh

[114:01] We've created uh glazed canopies the use of fins and other articulation really did bring visual energy to show that this is primary building entry as we move around to the Poo end of the building and look up through that sort of more campus connected connection um The Long View is that this gem this multi-purpose space which is also shrouded in these um formed metal louvers starts to peek out and actually become part of the wayfinding strategy so really you see that expressive piece of architecture and it's intended to draw you in one of the things we heard from the the design advisory meeting was thinking about breadcrumbs in the landscape that bring some of that language down what we've done uh based on their advice is bring signage elements down into the landscape that pick up on the shapes and forms of these folded fins as we move into that entry again um we are asked to manage grade due to inheriting that sort of um funny relationship in the existing building to the current grade conditions but we've

[115:01] worked to integrate seating Landscaping uh transparency within the facade as well as finer sort of more human scale detail elements within the architecture and if we come around to the Courtyard um this is sort of the longer view looking down the P where really we're sort of cing and creating that new space with the gem element that sort of becomes the iconic piece reaching out into it as we step in closer the hope is that this is a really inviting and habitable space at the richness of textures within the landscape uh the sight smells sounds even the sense of play with the water uh is something that really invites the public in and this is an extension of the Civic facility we'll come around to what is if there was to be a back of this building it's largely a four-sided building uh but here on 11th where we have our service entry and staff entry there in the sort of recess about mid page uh we have our trash and and deliveries as well as access to an internal Bike Room

[116:00] uh for staff in the context of form-based code um again working with um an expansion on the existing building footprint we worked hard to break down the building scale into multiple elements almost as if multiple building facades and we did that through the use of these multiple Stone applications the smooth versus the rough the grounded versus the floating as well as the use of vertically oriented windows that sort of break up that facade Rhythm uh so while it is a long facade um any one section is less than 90 ft which we think is within line of the spirit of the form based code and there is always a change in the sort of patterning of that finstra as you move around so also the use of the golden section in the proportion of the window layouts something again that the form based code asked for and a leaning into those sort of primary materials in the sense of stone St uh in different typologies as opposed to metal panel which is really the secondary material so something that's Civic and permanent in

[117:03] nature I keep spinning around here as we look at each of these massing building break massing breakdowns we've also worked to put the as much of mechanical equipment uh set back from the edge of the roof as we can to minimize its appearance uh within the architecture the materials of the building are intended to be really Timeless um really beautiful really Rel to the natural environment here in Boulder so the use of that um sort of beige Sandstone the use of a rougher HED stone that type A in the landscape and then this lighter smoother limestone in the upper bodies of the building which is offset through the use of folded solar shading fins and then um in certain areas of the building that wrapping uh um sort of wave finding strategy that wraps inside the building in the bottom there being something that's very colorful vibrant and inviting so just a quick time check are we we CL four slides from there all right so on to the garage uh so the use review requests uh the as as

[118:01] chener laid out land use code for the bc2 uh where retails type stores are predominant ask for a a retail use at the ground level um we know that we're as was explained we're inheriting some of that ground floor use right now it is quite small 5et deep in areas and not terribly efficient um it's also at least a southern part is essentially a midw condition uh which does not have really adjacent parking nor is there adjacent parking on Broadway so something that is actually um hard to access and and hard to support particular given the parking constraints on site uh I do want to point out that the northwest corner where it's the the green square here uh we are really improving um that Civic corner by creating that multi-story um space with play Frontage with the hope that the city programs can use that in the future and so in our our view that the balance um of the retail space going to the parking need is probably the higher and best use for the project but that is um

[119:00] I think something we should keep discussing the garage itself is designed uh with the intent of picking up on many of the architectural cues of the of the Pavilion building massing form and materials as well as tonality including some of that finer detail of the fored folded perforated forms we look at those improved entrances enclosure of the stairs which will improve safety and accessibility within the facility then if we come back down to the Broadway Frontage can see that we have that sort of enclosure of the stair is that multi-story you know this becomes the the new enclosed future program use for City use so still thinking that there's activation at the corner and then thinking of that as part of this kit of Campus parts and that Alpine really acts as the Campus Gateway so with that um I'll leave it there and welcome from your questions and comments so thank you great thank you um I think we'll take a quick it's

[120:01] 802 uh why don't we take a quick um eight minute break for everyone we'll be back at 8:10 um just process from there I think uh uh Laura's suggestion was good relative to that sound like we had agreement on sort of going through each item um when we get back I would like to really uh limit us to questions and not a whole lot of statements obviously we'll have an opportunity for that as well and then we have to get to public participation as well so um we'll be back at 810 thanks everyone

[121:20] e e

[122:20] e e

[123:20] e e

[124:20] e e

[125:20] e e

[126:20] e e

[127:20] e e

[128:20] e e

[129:20] e e next

[130:24] uh so before we get started uh a few points of order if there's any public in the warro that would like to participate in public comment please see Thomas to sign up I think there's a sign up sheet over there on that table um I I'll thank staff and and the applicant on behalf of the board that way we don't spend time thanking you guys we we we all know how much time and effort has gone into this it's a it's an army out there and I'm sure you guys are just thep of the spear that exists on this entire project so we thank you for that um I think the the structure that we'll use is we'll go

[131:00] item by item uh and ask clarifying questions only so try to stay away from personal statements and things like that try not to be redundant as a board as it relates to the questions um I think we should probably do one or two questions each obviously if someone has burning questions um go ahead and ask them but we can always Circle back around through the board uh again and again until we get all the questions out I just want to make sure um to get everyone's priorities uh out there um any other input on process or thoughts from anybody before we get started no okay all right um why don't we start with um the items I don't uh do do you have the the list of the actual items yeah yeah the ls or maybe one by one because it's hard

[132:02] to understand even what we're looking at a little bit yeah for for each one there were multiple exceptions that were being asked for and that's how I organize it in my brain is you know an exception for moving the mobility Hub or an exception for making 11th Street Private Drive that kind of thing that level of detail yeah thank you great yeah that's super helpful um let's go ahead with questions on this plan someone wants to kick us off uh great so I have questions for um staff and one is I've got two questions one is um so we've heard about this Mobility Hub getting moved um what did we gain by moving

[133:00] it um so there are kind of a number of benefits to moving it I mean the biggest one is just that it puts the mobility Hub as Pete said um closer to the people where the people live right so um the mult by moving it to the east side of the street it basically becomes the Terminus of the multiuse path um people within the development don't have to to cross the street to get to it um and so it just kind of allows uh greater connectivity with the actual development as opposed to making people have to cross 10th Street to get to the mobility Hub and the accessible parking and is is it aligned to the um bus stop on Broadway is that dotted line there would you be able to see this Mobility hub from the bus stop uh I don't think you'd be able to see it from the bus stop um I think you you you can really just see it either from the multiuse path or from Alpine but yeah it was really just kind more it's mostly just a functionality thing right um okay so my second

[134:02] question is having to do with the impervious semi impervious um score footage it sounded I was understanding from the presentation that um it went up to 31% versus 30% now is that um is that explicitly specified in the project that it won't go beyond 31% um or that that's the max yeah the current design results in the 31% total okay so that is specified in the project okay those are my questions thank you great anybody else questions Kurt so I asked asked a couple of questions by email um one about the mobility Hub I'm still not totally clear

[135:00] what all the differences are between the the what the the infrastructure the connections and so on would look like if the mobility Hub were placed as intended on the area plan versus what's improved what's proposed so for example does the location of that north south portion of the connector Street does that move as a result of this uh what are there are there other things that are moving around it's just not clear to me what all the ramifications are yeah I mean the the area plan you know is pretty conceptual right so I mean o overall the location of the street stays the same I think the the main thing that's moving is that either the mobility Hub would be on a narrow strip between the street and the

[136:00] adjacent property um or it would be on the side of the development um in terms of the DCS like specifics um I might defer to the applicant on some of that I mean I know that you know there were lengthy discussions with engineering staff just about whether this street needed to be a street or whether it could possibly meet Aly standards um because they were having a hard time fitting in the number of units they wanted on um on the town home site um ultimately we kind of came to the you know the minimum Street standards that the DCS would allow that includes sidewalk um we went with an attached sidewalk as opposed to a detach sidewalk um just to kind of create space um so the main thing that changes is really just Mobility Hub on one side versus another and the same thing would probably apply to the accessible parking that's provided so right now there's head in accessible parking um on the same side of the street as the mobility Hub that would likely have to be on the other side of of the street as well um

[137:00] so I think just functionally everyone felt like it would just make a lot more sense for the mobility Hub to be essentially attached to the development instead of separated by the street and what is then where the mobility Hub would have been that's now the street so the street is moving um yeah I mean again like this doesn't this does not anticipate minimum required RightWay width or turning radiuses or DCS standards it's just lines on a map so I mean the street maybe is moving a eight feet or something compared to where it was but again it was never specified um I mean there's another place in the area plan that shows the mobility Hub in in a different location than that this is just what ended up on the regulating map but there's a couple of different like conceptual maps that show slightly different locations for the mobility Hub which is why I felt like we we all thought that shifting it to the other side is not a huge change from the

[138:01] overall intent okay thank you um then I also had an emailed question about the 11th Street [Music] and I I I think that I've been explained this multiple times but I still don't really understand what the difference is between having a street be a private Street versus a public Street if it's better to have public streets if it's if it's okay to have private streets why aren't all our streets private you know I'm just I don't understand what the ramifications are and I think a big part of that is we I mean we were all talking about all the different modifications of the DCS that would be required to have this be a public Street and then we remembered the city owns it any ways um so it's If This Were A privately owned lot and they were requesting it to be a private drive it would probably be a very different conversation but the

[139:00] fact that this is city-owned um and this is all going to be essentially part of the city-owned outlot right the same outlot that the um Greenway and flood channel will be on really gives us like it's it's still essentially a public street but we're just calling it a privately owned or it's it will be a privately owned street by the city in order for us to allow instead of giving 15 modifications to the DCS and essentially achieving the same thing by have it having it be dedicated right away we're just keeping it as a private Street under City ownership so it'll still function as a as a public street but in theory the city could sell this tomorrow right could what could sell it in which case it would be it would we would we couldn't sell just we couldn't sell just the outlaw The Proposal is for the outlaw to be designated for City ownership on the Subdivision plat that's required and it can there can be any sale until the

[140:01] subdivision is approved and there was actually an analysis to see if it if there could be modifications or variations approved to the DCS to allow this and the determination was no it couldn't be approved through that process um and that's why we're pro osing it in this manner thank you great thanks um next okay great um let's see Mason or Mark's hand so I'll wait for them but I um I've got just a few quick questions uh mostly around um the perious and semi-pervious so so understand 30% was the goal we're at 31% um question is the following that 1% is roughly what on a square footage basis and number two if you had to

[141:00] optimize and get to that goal with our with the project what opportunities exist within the design to do that so uh a more granular question around that would be a as I saw it on the plan I could be wrong um in the town home area the paved area going to the parking is looks impervious but I don't know if it's semi-pervious or not but that I saw as potential opportunity I'd also be curious I I don't I don't know that green roofs or things like that count towards that but I'd be curious to get some clarification on all those things um I can answer the basic math question um so it's about 871 square feet Loosely is the is the 1% um my understanding would that there would have to be some other exception requested to basically get there at least within the The Greenway itself

[142:00] either a reduction in sidewalk width or reduction in Paving in some other area um and then as far as the if I understood correctly it was kind of a combination question about the impervious area on the town home lot as well I would defer to the applicant probably to answer that one yeah the I think the drive you're referring to is specific to the town home lot which is a so if we're talking about yeah that it was just it was an example that of an area that I saw that looked like it was it was paved as impervious that could possibly be semi-pervious but I don't I don't know was asking for it's actually a combination we can get to that one it's a combination of semi-pervious and pervious on that particular piece of it the um for the infrastructure we're just talking about the greenway itself and that does have also a combination of perious and semi

[143:00] perious all right so uh maybe to Target my question a little better because I was trying to get to math outside of the greenway but assuming you had to do it within the greenway what are the opportunities to get that 1% since it was a project goal well simply reduce the other amounts of Paving but a lot of those pieces are required d by other aspects of the form based code the multi-use path we want to provide a walkway that connects the pocket part um up to that multi-use path the sidewalk along ninth so some of that would have to change Andor go away in order to tip the scales you know when we designed that Greenway we didn't purposely didn't want to worry about that we tried to design a beautiful Greenway that fit within the overall design requirements and desires for the site and the result after trying to tweak it and try to do these little things like hey it's 1% it's a beautiful design is just really an issue so that's how we wound up what we did thanks that was my question uh Mark or uh Mason I

[144:02] don't see your hands up do you have any questions relative to this issue none for this issue I do uh sorry can't see my hand I think it's raised Al L um so I had a I feel like most of my questions been answered I one quick one I know that the mobility Hub has areas for um lime scooters and this I know it's a little bit of an education doesn't really matter but I'm just curious why specifically line is that something our city does can defer to Chris yeah uh Chris hegland principal planner uh so to organize lime scooter parking we use Geo fencing with our partner at lime and so we create mandatory parking zones so that people who use scooters don't they can't park them just anywhere they want

[145:00] uh within a mandatory parking Zone we create what we call lime Groves which are designated areas typically with a painted rectangle and the lime scooter symbol and then scooter users who end their trip within that Geo fenced area must Park the scooter in that designated location and so you know this concept of the mobility Hub and kind of being dispersed throughout we would have several different lime Groves in order to organize that parking so that we just don't have people leaving scooters anywhere on the site and I assume those spots have space for if line decides to go uh to to uh using a docking station uh it it could be uh eventually you know we have a space dedicated for the parking it could be used for a dock station but uh at this present time with our micro Mobility plan we are um foreseeing that we'll be sticking with the dockless E scooter system U the dock

[146:01] system that we'll have is will be continued to be the Bike Share system yep makes sense thank you was that it Mason are you have any followup ones good um why don't we go to the next yeah go ahead sorry no no go no no absolutely I have more infrastructure plan questions um the first is about the 9th to Alpine connecting Street I think you said that that had an attached sidewalk and that's the entire way including the north south section um no I believe it's just the East West Section just the East West Section okay and that's on both sides of the street just on the North side okay would if the south portion were the that corner cutout Corner were to redevelop would they be required to provide a sidewalk yes okay okay um great second

[147:04] question is about the north south uh multi-use path which on the plan the area plan there shown as a nice straight line but in the in what's proposed it definitely does not look like a nice straight line it has all kinds of Jigs and Jags as far as I can tell is that that right am I reading that right um yeah and I think there's there aren't any specific requirements in the form based code that require it to be a straight line um so I think they took some you know design flexibility to try to make it more inviting and more welcoming um yeah I mean the the poo is kind of the same the poo is shown as a as a completely straight line as well and it it wanders a little bit I guess so that's sort of a question to what extent do we need to be bound by

[148:03] the area plan what's shown on the area plan I know that to some extent that's conceptual but we can't have something 100 feet off of that and say it still meets it so what right yeah I mean the thres they're meeting all of the all of the things that they're required to meet in the form based code um so I think there's there's kind of a question of just intent is it meeting the the intent of the connection in the general location um and meeting the minimum standards for the connection I maybe add just a little bit of color to that you know it is a multi-use path that connects Alpine to Balsam but it doesn't have continuity beyond that and so it's not we saw it as not the need to create a bike thoroughfare but really just access access from the internal parts of the project um it's it's a block long um and it it moves through the pocket park and so some of the movement in that path is

[149:00] is specifically so to to kind of slow traffic a little bit because we are immediately adjacent to that Park in a playground so the design is not just aesthetic but it's actually purposeful to kind of slow that movement a little bit and I was thinking about it more in terms not in terms of people biking because you're right it doesn't really make sense for that but for people walking if you live up on 10 Street and you're going to so the north side of Alpine and you're going to Mental Health Partners on the south side of balam for example I think that's Mental Health Partners or whatever that is you want an efficient connection and I'm not sure that that's a terribly efficient connection that's my concern more steps are good for you Kurt say it again more steps are good for you okay um last question also about p pedestrian connections is about the sidewalk on Alpine at Broadway it doesn't look from the plans like it lines up really with the curb

[150:04] cut is that am I reading that right it looks like you're going along in a straight line as you're eastbound along on the south side of Alpine oh sorry Balsam Balsam south side of Balsam oh and then all of a sudden you get to the corner and you have to jog over a ways to get to the curb cut to get to the curb cut on to to cross Broadway um so sorry what's the question is that well the question is am I reading the plan right I'm I'm not always sure that I'm looking at these things right and that I'm can tell what is concrete and what isn't and so on but it looks to me

[151:03] like you you the you're heading straight for quite a ways and then all of a sudden you have to jog over eight feet or something to get to the curb cut I'm going to um share my screen one more time and just we're going to look at the here we go so the very upper right hand corner there so that that that speckled area is the sidewalk right correct but then the isn't the curb cut offset from there I see the truncated domes I I think there here Here Comes Curtis Curtis Stevens need us I'm the civil engineer on trying to piece all

[152:01] this together um you're correct there is a little offset for the cross SWAT you're talking about the crosswalk right curb cut um and that's really standard as far as and many of these sites the crosswalks are set well in this case we have a signal pole and a few other structures including the the condition on the other side of Broadway that we're matching right now so we're holding that but then we have a prescriptive or in the code requirement for a new treeon so you're right like I think there's a three or four foot little jog right there when you get to the concrete Landing I know everyone has a different opinions I always think an intersection that's good because it keeps cyclists from just blasting out into the street um so it's a little bit of a safety to have a little jog there but um other people yeah but that's exactly what's driving that is there's utility poles utility boxes and a lot of stuff I'm just wondering about it from the standpoint of someone with

[153:01] limited like a visual impairment or something it seems like you're going along straight all quite a ways and then all of a sudden you get to the street and you're I would say it's more design like you've got two paths coming in and then there's a concrete landing area at the intersection to for crossing and then you've got to to make a decision which way you want to cross the street is really how that's designed is you kind of have your detached walks come in and then you've got a flat area for you one might say staging and then you go hey do I want to cross this way or this way and you execute okay yeah I understand great thank you appreciate it uh Laura okay um is this the right time for questions about the Poo that part is that part of the infrastructure plan uh that's not part of the infrastructure plan that's part of the the next two okay I'll wait all righty well why don't we uh

[154:02] that's a good segue let's go to the next one Laur you want to kick us off exception poso design standards yeah I I think I understand the what's driving this is just not wanting to have to make a lot of modifications to the um you know for Stoops and things like that can you help me understand what is the purpose of that 14 foot easement that's a public access easement but the Poo itself is still 35t wide P itself is still 35 ft wide so that extra 11 feet that I guess is like five and a half feet on each side um is there any problem with Public Access like if people stray into that area like does this create any kind of issues for the public trying to use the poo is it like delineated you can only use the middle section or how's the public experience change if we make this decision if at all right um I don't

[155:02] think it changes um I mean that so the the code has the minimum Public Access easement width and then the minimum pedestrian travel path width which are both 14 feet or which I'm sorry the the minimum pedestrian travel width is 14 feet so the requested exception is just kind of to match what the the actual path width is supposed to be um but the Design's been intended they have to require or um they have to provide a minimum of 20 feet access for um emergency vehicles and fire so they were involved in this but um no I mean you can't put fences in there or anything so I mean it it's all still effectively public so so why does the code require or why does the the regulating plan require I'm sure I'm not sure which requires it but why is it supposed to be a 35 foot wide easement I don't know um yeah I mean because we require a bunch of stuff to be in there and and then it does say that revocable permits

[156:01] you know will be used to handle all of the required encroachments essentially um but again we don't we're not really in the practice of issuing revocable permits for permanent structures so it seems like maybe a code thing that needs to be rethought definitely thank you other questions do you do you have the overall L slide for this one um yes is the think this might be the overall L slide which yeah I think that's these are the only slides I have on this one so I think this is the overall great so it's basically just the Poo exception on this one

[157:03] correct there questions yeah go ahead would this be an appropriate time to ask about the um litec parking situation or would you prefer to save those questions for the garage I mean we we could we are talking about buildings B and D so okay so um I think Kurt asked a similar question by email earlier today um but my question is um about the parking uh reservation as it were for the b and d buildings in the garage and I do understand that litec funds um cannot be used on an amenity that is separately priced in a development but does does the arrangement that you're proposing for reserved spaces imply that litec funds are in some way being used um to fund the park and garage that the city already owns could somebody please explain that situation Ian Sol with BHP again and

[158:01] yeah that that's sort of exactly the Crux of the issue right we in order to use tax credit financing and to be able to use that funding to pay for costs to basically you know upgrade a portion or a you know sort of allocated amount of the upgrades needed to the parking garage which we intend to do um we we can't charge to for parking um so yes we anticipate BHP through um each Project's financing would have a contribution you know allocated based on number of spaces or square footage I think TBD um but to pay for a a share um of the parking garage upgrade costs for that answer here somewhat yes um adding on to that would the affordable units then be I mean assuming everybody gets a reserved parking space are they also subject to the pricing of

[159:01] the parking or is that then essentially free parking for those units so we would not charge individual residents for parking that doesn't mean the project itself can't pay for costs associated with the parking um and then I think sort of a kind of key component of it is that really the rest of some applies and and we sort of operate our parking that way generally so you know Unit 101 doesn't get Space to marked in the garage that is your dedicated space right residents have access to the spaces they do not have an assigned spot they are not guaranteed a spot we don't have one space for per unit for every single um unit at the site so really it does operate as sort of shared and unbundled um it's just residents really cannot be charged for parking and or not charged for parking

[160:00] right we can't have that sort of disperate impact on people so it won't be a situation where a specific unit has a specific space and they have a right to that space 24 hours a day seven days a week um it will be more you are you know if there is a space available in the garage in the allocated spaces is for the affordable housing you can park there if there is not you can't is is sort of how that will function uh another question about the the ltech exemption for unbundling um in the presentation and in the memo it said the city the the what is being requested is that the city manager May wave the um the unbundling requirement but in the ordinance it says the city manager will wave for these projects which is intended May wave or will wave will

[161:02] wave and it's been um drafted that way because what won we made it a city manager decision because at this stage in the process projects typically don't know yet if they will get the litech funding and even apply only after the entire dment process is over so what we're anticipating is that it would be if a project anticipates to get litec funding that that would be a condition of approval that they demonstrate that later that they're proceeding with litec funding and if not then they would have to meet their criteria that otherwise apply okay and so this is intended in the ordinance it's not just for this Alpine balsom but for any project in the city that's intending to use litec funds the city manager will wave that requirement requirements but if the project doesn't actually end up using litech funds that gets rescinded is that what I'm hearing yes yeah then then um the Su principles would have to be met and yeah it is intended to generally

[162:01] apply in the code um it's right now under current standards only an issue in mu4 rh6 and 7 because that's where those requirements apply but we didn't know that the issue existed because we also had it at the polard site at Boulder Junction and there was a special ordinance for that to to deal with it so we thought since we are aware of the issue we should just address it in a way that doesn't require us to pass ordinances so this ordinance would apply going forward to all sites that are like this correct okay thank you another followup on this so just so that I understand this is all driven by the costs of the changes to the garage right it's not that that that's what we're talking about being able to wrap into the litech

[163:00] funding that's right yeah it's the ability to include those costs basically in the tax credit bases which is what generates the investment and and sort of funds the project but yeah that's correct and do we do you have any way of estimating at this point what I guess the cost to BHP would be if this were not to be approved oh in terms of the equity that would not be available oh boy yeah that I'm wondering how many how many how many affordable units would it cost us for example to say oh in this case you need to meet the sum principles yeah but I I don't have a number for you I don't want to throw something out we really haven't gotten to the the pricing at the parking garage and how that works I you know I will say the the Practical side of it is that you know it sort of

[164:01] creates a an issue where we have difficulty sort of attracting that investment if we have sort of too many issues that come with uh you know we have parking out of basis we're charging residents that can sort of create an issue where we have fewer investors who're just interested than the project in general because it's it's sort of a risk point for them and and and sort of reduces um really the folks who are interested so I can certainly work on an answer as the project progresses but I don't have like a you're losing 50% of the units it wouldn't be that high but you know you're losing 12 units because of this um it's just a little complex in terms of how that kind of shakes out yeah I understand that and no you don't need to work on that because we're making the decision T it'll be under the bridge at that point okay thank you yeah I I I had a question around um

[165:01] building D specifically that kind of applies also um to some of the other buildings you see there's not really any roof articulation those seem like pretty straight and tall facades I recall we're going through form based code although I I don't know what's been there and what's not I haven't haven't had the chance to look at it but what have you guys thought about sort of articulation the corners you know pulling tucking the edges of the building to make it a little bit more um interesting yeah I'll probably invite Pete our architect up to to speak to that just to be clear you're referring specifically to the DB building you're you're referring specific to the D Building d

[166:01] as yeah there isn't a lot of differentiation of the roof the roof is actually an overhanging roof on the on the D building so it doesn't have a parit that would move around it's actually more of a hat that sits on top of it so yes that's that's correct it does meet the requirements of the form based code that does uh yeah um maybe this is a question for staff then because I I I I recall when we were talking through this that that was one of the sort of thoughts and considerations um but I don't know if you guys had additional thoughts on that or whether I'm just um misremembering what we talked about yeah I mean I'm not sure what discussions we had uh are you talking about prior to adoption of the form based code yeah I'm just what what's what's interesting here is the the sort of the right because there was a lot of minutia in that form based code but my general sense was the outcome would be a little bit more articulated in building rather than just

[167:01] one Mass uh that we're seeing so um I mean I think for different buildings it it varies um you know these are the General Building type and whatever ended up in the form based code is what they complied with okay all right thanks I will point out that the B3 building does that corner that has the solar on it does poke up above the rest of it it does not have the hat like the D Building thanks um anybody else here Mark you have a question I don't see your hand on the screen it's weird oh oh that's that's weird this I I braised my hand okay um uh I I'll follow on to George's question first and then go back to the litech parking um and I'm confused about which building I'm talking about but in uh some of the elevations there was one building that has a uh if you're looking at it

[168:05] uh in in profile it has a saw Toth shaped roof that the rid lines terminate in a facade that has has zero overhang and I don't know if that's building b or d but that particular sort of uh a a very flat facade that goes kind of from the ground right up to the peak of a ridge line doesn't seem to be something that uh speaks of uh Timeless qu quality High material materiality it it speaks of to me of of cheapness and George I is that is that the facade that you were referring to no

[169:01] I think you're referring to uh Building B or B1 yeah um I was referring to D which is just one big block with a with a hat on it okay ah well I'd almost rather see a hat than an extruded shap shape where again if I if I'm looking at it and I see the roof material itself the pitched Roof then that pitched roof as it comes down and meets the vertical wall has an overhang while uh if I go 90 degrees to either either side of that at least to my perception there is no there is no overhang there is no top to that it just goes up and becomes the roof at a 90° angle am I misreading that or is that actually the way it's designed uh you're reading it correctly

[170:02] if that's your question yeah okay and and so like George's question that is compliant with the um both both the letter and the spirit of the form based code uh yes I don't know of any provision in the form based code that dictates the overhang of a pitched roof um I will though say we will take your comment under advisement we haven't submitted for permits yet we're a long way off of that so something you okay all right uh thank you for uh that okay um uh and then back to the litech parking funding I I understand uh and would certainly not be interested in trading units for uh strict adherence to our some parking principles or anything like that however um does uh litech funding and the operation

[171:03] of BHP uh units allow for uh rewards for those that would uh arrive uh without a car meaning like again this is uh it's carrots versus sticks can you offer someone well you're a resident and we'll give you a $40 per month discount on your rent if you don't uh if you don't have a car and as part of your lease that you don't have a car so are discounts available rather than uh charging for parking yeah yeah Mark great great question and this is actually one that we looked at a number of years ago when we brought 30 Pearl through which is a similar form-based code head some principles we actually went down a path of doing just that as a way to comply

[172:01] with some where it was you know we would look at offering basically a rent concession uh to someone who didn't bring a car um as a way to sort of quantify that um the outcome of that was basically we we you know made it through through entitlements we were working with a lcome housing tax credit investor who basically looked at that and said we don't think this complies with the IRS and and basically was ready to put a stop to the project which resulted in us coming back for a special ordinance at that time to basically exempt the project from sum so it is a yeah it's a great idea and in my mind it was one that did not really stand up to that same rigor of what the IRS tax code would allow and that that was sort of uh where we ended up was a a special ordinance in that case okay thank you then answers my questions thank

[173:01] you I do I do have one more building D question again it's around form based code um I just want clarification I'm looking at what appear to be nonfunctional balconies uh on building d faade you talk about those balconies and and how they exist in form I mean are are they are they that are can you actually step out onto those spaces yeah those are for Juliet to talk to Romeo um we refer to them as Juliet yeah no I understand I understand so they are not um you cannot walk out onto it um but you do have doors on the other side that allow you to open the door the full the full depth they are not an aspect that is dictated by the form based code one way or the other okay so we don't we don't Define balconies and and the form based code to actually be functional Beyond sort of a Juliet type of

[174:01] condition they're not a requirement of the form based code one way or the other so well yeah I guess my it's question of St staff so so so if we have a balcony it doesn't have to be functional yeah yeah there's a minimum size requirement that allows you to open the doors you know like Pete says that you can have a full door swing but other than that there's no when you mean open the doors you mean that these doors open into the interior because they're they're juliets balcony shall be a minimum of wait hold on a second yeah there is a statement that says fall balcony false balconies are not permitted on type a frontage facades is false balconies consist of a rail and door and any outdoor platform less than 18 in in depth and then it says in general there's a size requirement for a minimum of 4 feet deep and 5 feet wide but

[175:01] that's for actual balconies not for false balconies apologies yeah the Juliet Balcony up put balcony in quotes it's not actually a balcony it's just a way for you to open your door with a guard rail in front sorry I was reading the I was quoting the wrong line okay so these do protrude a little bit so you can't you can't step onto these all these are just a railing sent correct that's right which again I think the form based code acknowledges they acknowledge the Julet balconies yeah false balconies sorry can you just read that statement around false balconies again so I false balconies are not permitted on any type a frontage facad false balconies consist of a rail and door and any outdoor platform less than 18 in than depth the requirement of the subsection C shall not require shall not apply to false balconies I'm so conf sorry I'm I'm am I

[176:00] okay so so maybe you can because this is a type a front edge right uh what's that do we want to show some images yeah that might be helpful uh I have to pull up this is building yeah so this image is 11th Street um I don't have the frontages in front of me 11 stre to type type B yeah it's a type B 11 stre 11 stre type B front I don't have your packet so it it looks

[177:00] like there are Juliet balconies along Alpine would that not be a type a frontage I think that is a type a frontage and do you consider a Juliet Balcony to be a false balcony I would consider it to be a false balcony because you cannot walk out on it so it sounds like you can't have those on Alpine from what Hela read it I'm confused by the language there but maybe slide 37 yeah it is it is complicated language but it does say false balconies are not permitted on type a frontage facades and then describes those as rail indoor and any outdoor outdoor platform less than 18 in in dep so page 26 on our packet says rendering of building D from Southeast

[178:00] corner of Alpine and 11th and it has those balconies along both Alpine and 11th yeah it does you can see it in the image there this is Alpine so if I'm hearing Hela correctly we may have missed this one less than 18 in they don't personally bother me but uh I think they look nice and it seems like a nice amenity for the folks we're we're not com we're not commenting at this point so we're just asking questions fair enough sorry I overstepped right yeah all right well you guys can do some

[179:00] research on that and then we can jump to other questions any other questions yeah can you see see Hands no I see now so thanks if I if if for some reason you have your hand raised and and and I don't call on you just just shout out because sometimes I can't see you on the screen yeah no worries um one quick question about the Poo uh is this I don't know how the regulations work will the Poo be walk only so you have to dis like a Dismount Zone perhaps um I'm not sure that we have that kind of programming set yet I the area sorry go would this be the time to have that programming or when does that occur and whether people are going to be allowed to ride bikes on the

[180:02] Poo um yeah I'm not sure why people wouldn't be allowed to ride bikes on the Poo um uh I know them over sipping my bounds by saying a comment but that sounded like a question so I'm going to try to answer it um um for from my perspective it would be because we have a uh uh have the uh age restricted affordable housing and the AO is not straight it might be hard to to view um I I see that kind of jaunty nature of it I like it keeps maybe more visually interesting and gives CTS more steps but at the same time like it might be a little more accident prone um but maybe I'm I'm overing my BCE um I'm just not sure that we have the ability to set regulations about the

[181:01] use of the Poo through form based code review um hello maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong there yeah I I think you're right about that I think it would be done through the traffic engineer and signing okay that was my only question great other uh questions on this item nope all right maybe we can move forward to the next one Mark I can't see if you have a hand up so just just shout out if you do great 17 anyone have any questions on this specific item go ahead Claudia okay just to confirm we're looking at yeah buildings A and

[182:02] C um my question is about the Alleyways uh between the a buildings alleys are not in the infrastructure plan and I'm wondering what their status is in the form-based code um and what regulations there are on alleys that we're looking at the purpose of those alleys is to access the garages um and I don't know of anything in the form based code that says anything about the nature of an alley or a drive um I don't recall anything having gone through it that dictated the form or characteristics of uh those drives yeah yeah I think they're the just the minimum 24 foot width if I recall maybe so that that would be a backup distance in any case which it does

[183:00] meet so I I think the areas you're talking about referring to are they're designed as driveways you know they're just shared private driveways to access unit they're not designed as an alley from like an alley design engineering standpoint so they're basically designed based on a 24 foot backing distance requirement to operate out of the garages some clear Zone and then those are primarily permeable papers actually in there I guess I'm still wondering if the form-based code has anything to say about driveways or alleys whatever we choose to call them um what are the standards for these kinds of passageways I don't recall that there's that they're even mentioned in the form based code no because they're not considered a frontage type I mean the the form BAS code generally just addresses specific Frontage types um I mean I can the alley in the code falls under an alley defined under the code falls under the DCS would be my

[184:00] interpretation which is where we'd have concrete and no permeable pavers and utilities typic typically in in this case they're a private driveway hence we're allowed to use permeable papers but it's not spoken to in the code Beyond permeability right yeah they're they're not a listed um RightWay or streetcape or poo type in the form based code so the form based code is silent on private access drives questions so um I my questions are getting back to the um impervious requirement you see the slide is gone yeah sorry I was looking at the form base code pull it back

[185:02] up so it looks like that I don't know the 1% that um we've gone over on the whole site is the majority of that happening at the market rate location is the majority of the um impervious requirement the um the incre the bigger increase is actually at the building Seas site that's the 82% impervious actually well six that's 17% above and the other's 15% above yeah so Building C is um slightly slightly larger request so the question I'm I'm having um one of the um possibilities of managing excuse me

[186:01] impervious is to um manage the storm water off of the roofs in a way that it is dealt with as a it feels like it could be a perious type of a situation but it's the roof um and and the reason I'm at I'm just concerned about this is the second one that I bring up this impervious nature and and the overage is Right we've got Goose Creek down there and I'm just concerned with are we it will it be uh recharged to the same capacity it is as it has historically been so um few things things here to and kind of talk through on the clarify this is the 30 31% is only related to The Greenway design like the building sites are not part of that calculation the compliance

[187:01] so we are 1% over only in the green way and adding permeability to say a would actually not change that Cal because it's it's a separate cal um but to your bigger picture question um I I guess back up a little from the if we were to take the 1% out of the greenway basically we'd remove an amenity right like it is um we're slightly over because once we put in the paths and the little park spaces and the benches and stuff that's where we landed and as a team we looked at it and said I don't think the 1% there is worth pulling pulling a bench out right because that's what would kind of situation um to your I think related question and the real concern might be the the runoff and how we're managing on on the site and how we're handling things we are reducing runoff uh from the existing development with the

[188:00] Redevelopment and basically well 80% actually it's over 80% of the site is being in the developed area is being run through water quality features so in this case it's primarily rain Gardens so a those Town Homes all the roof water either goes through the permeable P treatment system which is a filtration or there's a few rain Gardens in the design on the North side and that will take out any pollutants before it goes in the flood way and the Green Way and that's that's all the buildings are set up that way so well yeah hopefully that helps a little bit well I'm just looking at the um so on a the a buildings were 15 % over on the sea buildings were less than 20% over so those are kind of significant numbers but I'm hearing you say that the um storm water

[189:02] that does come off of those impervious areas is being pre-treated absolutely and furthermore um when as I think Pete kind of mentioned in his presentation the the initial Master planning phase they're like yeah we we kind of see this whole area as these percentage goals well A and C are over B and D are under so if you kind of look at the the intent of the goal on the project were a lot more in line when you balance them balance them out it just happened when we looked at the realities of the type use at each little parcel and these little pockets this one's spiked up because it's a little more intensive use this one's down and that's but all the water and it's required by code is being treated before it goes down the storm system or I guess it's 80% is the code we're above

[190:01] that but right and I I think I heard you say maybe just confirm that the um amount of groundwater that is going down to recharge Goose Creek is it going to be historically the same great groundwater recharge is would be a separate issue um we don't really look at the groundwater recharge we look at the surface water um well that's the that's the implic that that's the um resultant of pervious versus impervious it is no so there's a con in my world they're in my world they're different kind of parameters but I get where you're going with it um you know have we run specific details of infiltration like down a rabbit hole of like you know soil types no the key thing we've looked at here is we have reduced the overall

[191:02] Pro permeability or impervious area from existing conditions and reduced runoff and that was obviously a project goal and then all of that has been looked at pretty holistically with the flood design I'm also on the flood design team and that's because we had the big asphalt parking lot yes so anything's G to be better okay yesk that that's my qu I I'm gonna think about it but that's that's the extent of my question thank you very much other questions this one Claudia I have more questions about the town houses um so the a buildings um as I understand it are in the rh7 zoning they are subject to the sump principles they have garages how is ownership and access to these garages managed in this plan um so it's the rh6 and seven um sump

[192:00] requirements only apply to buildings with six units or more [Music] yeah or maybe it's seven but they're they're below the number of units where it kicks in um I've got some questions about the the townhouse buildings as well um just trying to validate so the the the height and form that we see sort of as the conceptual there um I'm talking about the rendering uh for A1 to A3 uh on our packet in page 34 uh and I I recall seeing in the packet as well the overhead with um solar panels on the roofs of these buildings so there is uh no roof Terrace contemplated on any of these is that correct that's correct there are some balconies on those but not a roof

[193:01] um and I mean it says they're compliant in our packet with the form based code and again I recall trying to get some articulation and residential sort of look there but if it is it is is I I I just want to make sure we're we're studying that um and what the intent was when we approved it so um sorry that was that was probably a comment so I will save that for comments um other um questions no no one online all right let's go to um the next one is um okay so you guys feel like you we've talked about the area plan connections Amendment uh requested exceptions and the form base code okay next one

[194:21] the key issues for discussion for this one um C can you just clarify for us the height modifications that are being discussed in this um yes so it's 55 feet for the Pavilion and this is the additional story on the Pavilion building is that correct okay and then the parking garage is the they're not adding any height um but it's I think 48t for the parking garage um I can I can start with it a question um I had it on the facade of the parking garage um it has to do with the um those Poes

[195:03] and that little hat that extend beyond sort of the two corners of the parking garage um obviously that uh if you're if you're looking from the street or if you're looking from uh Community Plaza you are seeing the mountains from there why was it chosen to put some kind of false structure one story above the building across the way Jeff Dawson was Studio architecture member of the cgf team uh we were the design team for the parking structure the idea there was to can I can I have just speak a little closer to the mic thank you yeah I was just looking at the image here um the idea was to connect the corner elements of the building together to create a more cohesive mass

[196:00] for the building so we looked at it multiple different ways we looked at it with just the towers themselves and then the facade treatment that's along the face and we decided that the connection across actually made a more cohesive design relative to the uh Pavilion design okay so did you take into account that you're actually blocking the mountains with no usable square footage blocking the mountains from yeah I mean you can see in the can you see in this bottom it actually is a really good picture of that um like it's actually it's actually an aerial photograph so certainly from some location you know in the uh parking lot potentially there would be some blockage of uh the mountains but you thought that was that was a worthy tradeoff I didn't qualify it okay thank thank you other questions go

[197:07] ahead um I think this is a question for staff so I am um looking at and there's various different references to um not having removing the commercial use MH on the uh so 925 E2 um establishes the the rationale for um the changes and so what I'm curious to is it doesn't seem like removing the

[198:00] commercial which is a requirement of the Zone I think um meets any of those criteria is there a a question well it's supposed to meet one of the criter a criteria but it I don't it's supposed to meet all of them and I make my argument in the analysis where I I provide the responses to each of the review criteria and it sounds like you don't agree um so the rationale for removing the commercial right um so it doesn't provide a direct service or convenience so I thinking it because right now the the there are commercial Enterprises there that the public uses it's it activates that that sidewalk it's directly across from another commercial use so there's there's um reciprocity and there's activation of

[199:02] the sidewalk so removing it I I don't think that it provides a direct service or convenience does it provide having it just be a parking garage with no a blank facade as I'm seeing up there does it provide compatible transition between higher density and lower densities um I don't think so does it Foster a specific City policy um as expressed in the bbcp uh I I think that supporting small businesses is probably a value of the bbcp so I don't I'm not sure that it meets see and um is it a legal non-conforming and it isn't I don't see which rationale which needs to be you need to meet one of them you're supposed to meet all of them if you'd like me to represent my argument can says either but well for the use review you're supposed to meet

[200:00] all of them yeah I think AML is talking in particular about E2 E2 and I wanted to clarify that what you analyze is the proposed use not the taking away of a use but what's proposed um so you would be looking at whether or not the parking use needs one of these four criteria and which one does it meet so my argument is that the parking provides a direct service and reduces adverse impacts to the neighborhood by reducing overflow impacts associated with the new development by reducing overflow parking impacts associated with the new development so the six parking spaces being provided were deemed by the applicant team to be of Greater benefit and and and needed for the development part of the overall TDM and parking strategy um they were deemed to be more valuable than keeping the 450q foot existing retail space so that's that's my argument okay

[201:02] yeah okay okay I'm I'm hearing that okay um that's what I was curious about as to how it responded to that let me see uh I think uh I have a second question [Music] um and I can't find it so I will I will come back uh Mason I see your hands you're muted if you're talking sure am uh so my my question about the connection between the garage uh and the uh across Alpine um I saw that there's a crosswalk uh which I appreciate um what I'm

[202:00] wondering is I think I saw in the drawings that it's going to be a race crossrock was that is that correct I believe so yes yes it is okay great um and that is my only question sure first just quickly following up on that so there's currently erased Crossing there is it it just going to stay the same sorry it's being fully reconstructed being fully reconstructed okay but same design basic design okay great um my second question is I guess a little more legalistic so I think it's in the area plan that it says there shall be minimal to no new investment in parking right that's in the area plan right

[203:01] and so ordinarily we don't think about economics right or we don't our purview is not how much a building costs or whatever in this case it's kind of saying that we need to think about that do we have any estimates for how I mean this is some pretty extensive changes including facade stuff that's strictly aesthetic and so on do we have any way at this point of knowing what this new investment is and whether it's minimal um I don't know the numbers maybe somebody does but um I think also I mean it's it's a balancing act because it's in site review so the existing parking garage probably would not meet site review criteria for design um so they they kind of have to do something to improve it because they're in this

[204:01] process um that being said Michelle can probably talk about the economics of it a little bit Yeah and first I just want to start with the intent in the area plan about no new investment there was a lot of study um done about whether or not we expand the parking structure at another level or actually add additional parking um sort of infrastructure Elsewhere on the site so I think that the intent in the area plan is to talk about that there's not additional other new Investments elsewhere rather we're relying to park the entire site in this one existing structure um so I think from that perspective it wasn't about the amount of money or the capital expense in this ex existing structure it was about not building new infrastructure Elsewhere on the site to support parking um but is it's related to the actual investment in the parking structure where I know you know a lot of what we're seeing is aesthetic images the vast majority of the actual capital

[205:00] investment is to uh support the actual infrastructure that's failing we actually have a closed stair right now because the stair um is not structurally sound um we have issues and we've been improving a lot of the structural issues in the garage and so a lion share of the C capital investment is to actually support the physical infrastructure the structural infrastructure and like the Life Safety Systems of the garage the aesthetic improvements are probably a low factor in the overall cost of the the parking structure okay thank you one other question on this so is about the what's been termed the lobby which I think is where Premier is currently I guess the first question is why does a parking garage need a lobby but the second question is I there was some reference to well maybe it would be used by City programming somehow sometime in the future I'm just wondering if we can get any

[206:00] clarification on that yeah as we've um been looking a lot at the programming of this building in particular and consolidating roughly 500 City staff to this one centralized location the this corner actually has presented in of a number of programming studies a key opportunity for us to um provide either additional support to the customer service aspects of the Pavilion building across the street some of the things that have been brought up is whether or not it's a police Annex or there are there some other sort of more parking related services that could be accessed out of this corner and it really can act in concert with some of the the services of the entire campus so we are trying to look at the three buildings as as a new Civic campus and how the the three kind of activate and support each other and so that um corner there as it's been presented here as much a gateway to this campus but it also can programmatically

[207:00] help support some of the physical functions um that are going on here and so that's why it it does present as a key opportunity from a Civic programming standpoint rather than kind of having a bank or some sort of retail space on this prominent Civic campus corner so yeah it's a preservation of that opportunity we're still Landing those kind of programmatic elements and and still working through what exactly that is but that's that's the rationale thank you just a quick cqu on Kurt's question around the facade of the garage I think I heard that it's not that it the facade itself is structurally unsound there are things that are structurally unsound like the elevators and stairways and things like that but the facade doesn't sound like it would need to be replaced from a structural standpoint but that it aesthetically doesn't meet the form based code is that is that what I'm hearing more like site review criteria site review criteria okay okay thank you

[208:19] it did have a question um and if you don't have an answer I can save it for for commentary it was around the retail space um I guess the question is given this is a small business that's I think being displaced but I don't know obviously don't know the circumstances what are the circumstances of the existing tenant in there is there an expectation that they have have because the city is the applicant I think it's particularly sensitive so I'm curious um what what thoughts you can give us as it relates to that uh I might defer to Michelle again on that one I think the flower pepper is

[209:02] that the is that the restaurant there yeah um they are not extending their lease and so it's been under property management and so those current retail um uh buildings are are yeah they're not extended their leases um and that's about the extent of okay so they they don't have a I understand they're not extending leas do they have a desire to extend their lease or they're just not extending the Le we are not extending the lease yeah wow that's a different answer yeah so is the city as the landlord denying them the ability to renew a lease there we have not extended their lease I don't know about denying but I mean there's a lease term that we have come and we have not extended that lease so the the city so so the city is choosing not to renew for this small business that's there so that they can put

[210:00] parking spaces there is that is that how understand in well so we can redevelop the site in you know with the goals of the area plan and and the building of a new Civic campus on this site so yes I mean as Chandler has presented we've done a lot of evaluation on the parking needs and the rest of the Redevelopment of the site in comparison to this business and and so we are choosing to not extend that lease great thank you other questions on this particular issue no okay great um what's the next one or is this the last one that we went through that's the last one questions great well there's the site review the pav building for the Pavilion yeah no they just kind of talk about that um if you want to talk about the Pavilion that's the that's the extension of the height of the Pavilion is that correct Pavilion has the height modification yep

[211:00] there's also um I mean the parking reduction if you guys want to talk about that I I I I do have a question and it's more around sort of the the um the parking calculations you know when when this went through uh we didn't have this litec funding thing that that kind of isolated uh what appears to be about a little more than a third of the parking in the garage is that correct roughly directionally um and so my question is that there were a lot of assumptions made around sort of sharing of use and garage and we're keeping the ratios that were in the original the plan that was approved my understanding but yet we're we're removing a component of shared use across the site and my question is what is the impact of of

[212:03] separating that out to the share use and has there been an analysis done to make sure that we still have the same capacity that we thought we did when everything was being shared um yes I mean the the TDM plan and the parking plan both have a a ton of analysis on both the characteristics of the use the kind of the hours of expected demand um so the result of the TDM plan anticipating the 30% trip reduction is takes that into consideration um and you know from what it sounds like the the 139 spaces for Building B and D um you know they're not exclusively reserved like he was saying there's not like each unit has one space that is theirs and theirs only for 24 hours a day like they have the right to park in there without paying because it's bundled with their rent but they're not

[213:01] guaranteed to space I I understand that but but they are exclusive to that component of the development so my question is specifically around there were assumptions presented and made around the overall shared use of the parking and that parking is not now overall shared what is the impact to the project well it is overall shared though right because there's still no one's guaranteed a space so there's no difference in the exclusive use of one component of the site for that component so there's no there's no what you're saying is there's no impact because one has been isolated from the rest of the shared program well I think the only difference in the shared program between buildings B and D and the rest is that they just don't have to pay everyone else has to pay the if I can quote cqu the parking diagram showed a specific sites colored

[214:00] as these are designated for buildings B that may have been just for diagrammatic purposes um I don't know if Carly or um somebody wants to speak to this but I mean the answer is that we you know they worked backwards into essentially the number of parking spaces that were existing in the garage so the whole shared program is intended to accommodate everybody on site and what the study found is that Peak Demand with TDM measures would be just over the amount of spaces provided across the site and that overall the amount of on Street Park I understand what you're saying but but I'm asking a very targeted question which is you have a you have a you have you have parking that appears to be isolated from the rest of the parking of the development to serve a specific use what do you mean by isolated isolated meaning only 100 how many how many spaces 1 15 so I it is exclusive for the use of the housing so that so that is correct that parking is not shared off hours peak times that

[215:01] parking is exclusive for the use of B and D it's not dedicated per resident but it is exclusive so that's what I was getting to so so my my my specific question is is that um I was under the impression that as a overall development we were targeting a specific ratio that made sense when everything was shared because you have a mixture of uses people are commuting people are coming in and out and so there's benefit because there's there's cars moving around right and now we've now we're we're separating the garage into two separate zones what is the impact of that to what we had planned I mean I think the impact is just that the Pavilion and garage have to ask for a parking reduction now right where they wouldn't have had to otherwise they would have probably been way over the targeted parking ratio in the area plan if everything was shared but because

[216:01] we're breaking off a piece of it then we only have 295 spaces available for the pavilian use so I think that's the impact well but that's not the impact the the you're you're asking for a reduction but that's not the Imp what's the impact there must be an impact there must be something that's that's that's consequential and how are you addressing that I think I think sharing the table that has each of the different buildings and whether it's shared or dedicated might be helpful so the analysis has the the most updated I'm not sure oh sorry I'm Carly with faen pi uh so we did the TDM parking and traffic study analysis there's that um a table from the parking memo that has for each of yes um so this kind of outlines which of the buildings are dedicated or shared in the garage or self-parked um and so the analysis that shows that percent reduction is this

[217:03] representative of of this breakdown of of share dedicated so I don't know offand when we if you you know the change um what the impact is in in that case but what we did look at is in the shared parking we use the Urban Land institute's best practice knowing that different land uses are going to have different peak times of shared parking and so what is that worst hour which is 10: a.m. and how many um and of what is the deficit in that that peak hour but I can't tell you that number off hand without going into our our RW numbers oh yeah I don't know if my question was really answered but okay I'm just not sure I I still understand the question like I understand you're asking what the impact is of providing dedicated parking to Affordable units and how we've addressed that impact so this goes back to my recollection about the site right so there there were there were there were a few there was there was a lot of thought

[218:01] put into the ratios for the site and my understanding was a lot of that thought hinged upon the sharing of uses and how those things played out now you have two separate pools and there's still obviously a lot of overlap right where where you you would have get the same benefit but my question is because we have two separate pools and not one pool what is the impact of doing that it would be interesting for us as a board to understand that because someone must have thought that through and said we need to do X Y and Z more because when we don't have those sh that sharing of entirety you know do we need 20 more parking spaces or do we understand that the that the impact is 20 more parking spaces and so we need to do X Y and Z in our TDM to um you know to to accommodate that so

[219:02] board member maybe I can ask a question that may help for clarification if I'm hearing you correctly you're recalling back during some of the original approval when when the area plan and everything was the area plan and everything and you're saying at that time your understanding was that there were synergies that became part of the justification for the parking ratios that ultimately got correct codified and I think you're asking the question now of are those synergies still there um given that the two at least two of the parts have been bifurcated um even though there is as you're admitting some relationship between them they are nonetheless bifurcated are those synergies still there I don't know the answer to that but I think that's is yes to the best of our ability question yeah well no wait hold on a second the answer can't be yes to the best of our ability because if there are differences we need to understand them and and they just can't be you know because we were told one thing that sharing of parking

[220:00] accommodates a certain ratio and now we're now we're separating these two into pools so they can't be the same or if they are the same let us know that they're the same but someone must have put some thought to this yeah well Chris hegland principal planner so origin orally yes we thought all this parking is going to be shared now we have this issue with the low-income tax credit so we know that a portion is not going to be able to be sharable so when we did this analysis we did this analysis knowing that some of those spaces were not going to be shared so in the end what we see is there's going to be a difference in the peak time uses and that peak time demand and then we know that we've got to do the the different TDM things in order to make up for that demand the biggest levers we have are on the employees that we have they're the ones that are likely to have the largest mode shift uh than anything and we have the most control over that but we do know under the current situation at that extreme peak time now that we have these

[221:03] shared things that are kind of Untouchable or unshared things that are Untouchable we know that there is going to be a deficit in the supply versus demand at that peak time and I believe it was 23 spaces yeah yes yeah it was 23 parking spaces but what we're not counting is the on street parking that's also provided uh around the adjacent area so hoping that that will make up for that Peak demand but we also think we could probably pull some more levers uh to make uh you know uh vehicle trip generation change with especially the employees which again we have the largest levers on in terms of what we charge employees to park and also the renewal of a par parking cash out program which was very successful in the Civic area uh we saw a 14% reduction in vehicle trip generation after we raised the cost of parking in the Civic area and then offered a parking cash out for those that did not drive so we know

[222:00] we have those levers that we can pull but I think the answer to your question is when we redid the analysis there's a deficit of 23 parking spaces at the ultimate peak hour due to this unshareable ratio of Supply thanks Laura I have a couple I'll try to be quick I know we need to get to public comment and I am so sorry for members of the public who have had to wait this long uh really quickly um I want to channel uh Lisa Smith here for a second with um the plaza feature on the Pavilion building I know that there are playground features in the pocket park and there's a water feature that invites play it sounds like in the plaza um were any other playground features considered for the Plaza area given that you know a lot of people are going to be coming to this Civic campus to access city services and some of those people will have children Justin Brooks principal of cgf Architects um good question I think the focus of play in the plaza area is uh

[223:01] sort of nature play based so yes the water feature is part of that as well as some of the rock formations seating elements and other things that may not in their outward appearance look like playground equipment but are intended to have a sense of Discovery and delight and therefore invite a sense of play to the public okay thank you uh next question has to do with bike parking at the Pavilion um I saw that there are 60 hanging stalls and that is the main it looks like the main long-term bike parking at the Pavilion and those uh in my experience and my experience is potentially out of date those hanging stalls are not very useful for electric bikes with electric bikes being so heavy and you know potentially seniors needing to use those kinds of facilities was that considered in the design of the long-term bike parking in the Pavilion it was and I may have to lean on one of my teammates to give some specific numbers but I believe we have some space for those electric bikes and and larger

[224:01] sort of trailer bike type apparatus I think I saw six six spaces out of the 70 bike stalls yeah six spots for ebikes and four bike lockers for specialty items two service station racks and 60 hanging stalls okay thank you just want to make sure that my understanding of hanging stalls not being great for electric bikes still stands um thank you for that and then my last question is around the um uh the TDM plan and and I may just not be connecting because my brain isn't keeping up but in the um uh in the memo it talks about the trip generation requirements and uh for for um Boulder Junction it was 55% of uh trip reduction and for Alpine Balsam you're looking at only requiring 20% of trips rather than 55 be reduced but in the TDM plan it says you're expecting a 30% reduction are those the same number

[225:01] the 20% and 30% well it will take me a little bit to explain but uh once again Chris Hagin principal planner so when we look at I think to answer your question first we have to start at Boulder Junction and uh cheler mentioned that you know part of that 55% reduction from it rates for Boer Junction was based on the vision of Boer Junction in terms of the level of multimodal service you've got a new bus station with dedicated routes future rail Goose Creek path micromobility and you also have the district approach so we used the general Improvement districts that provide the benefits then also the parking enforcement and everything of the Su principles so there's a lot going into Boulder Junction but that 55% was also a number that was backed into because the vision of the transit Village area plan was to redevelop Boulder Junction without producing new vehicle trips so basically

[226:01] we're going to intensify the site we were going to add residential units but we were going to add no new net vehicle trips the calculation we did to figure out that based on what projected future land uses were Square foots number of units turned out to be about a 55% reduction so that's how that number came about um but it also has the district approach so what the ordinance says is if you're in Boulder Junction that there are two ways then which you can meet that reduction you can not join the district and meet it on your own or you join the district and the district as a whole meets that knowing that there is going to be prop properties above and below that line but as a whole the district has to function and equal that 55% reduction if you look at the Alpine Balsam situation yes our our studies show the parking and the TDM study show

[227:01] that we need that 30% reduction but if we're not going to have a district that evens out the variance between properties the way in which you can think about it is that 20% reduction goal is kind of that minimum level um you know in Boulder Junction Google can have a 70% reduction you know I'm just picking out a name Boulder Commons could have a 30% but when they even out it's 50 I don't think we want to have a situation where we have to look at individual parcels and I believe there's going to be five different Parcels in there that each of them all have to meet or get to that 30% reduction and so setting it at 20 allows the variation between between properties in order to reach that goal of the 30% uh you know we need to reach that to make have the parking function as a site and make the site workable but not all the different Parcels are going to be

[228:01] right at that 30 so thinking that the employees and the Pavilion that parcel we probably looking at at least a 50% reduction because that's what we were really experiencing in the Civic area before Co when we had all our DDM programs the parking cash out the paid parking but other Parcels could be a little less overall we're looking to even out at that 30 but we know that not all properties are going to be there we've got to get that kind of average at 30 but what the ordinance essentially establish is what is that minimum that we want to see out of an individual parcel okay so you're saying the 20% avoidance or alternate mode requirement is per parcel yeah applies to every parcel equally but the TDM plan is for the whole site overall and you're expecting 30% on average okay thank you that's very you're welcome appreciate that Chris don't sit down if I can follow up on that I'm

[229:01] still I'm sorry I'm still not clear what these These are trip reduction trip generation reduction goals it's not like we have a police offer officer stationed out at bullet Junction saying you know the the the area has generated too many trips today and so you can't drive your car what what are the what's the real uh result of these numbers whether they be 55% or 20% or whatever yeah so what we do in Boulder Junction is we have the ordinance that says the district as as a whole has to operate at this 55% reduction from it rates of trip generation based on the square footage the number of units so that's the goal and it's the average of the whole District different Parcels may be at different levels but overall it has to be that so we do a trip generation study we did one in 2017 we just did one in

[230:01] 2024 and we look at what that trip generation is compared to the ordinance Target so when we firsted in 2017 granted very early into the development of the trans Transit Village area plan in Boulder Junction we were at a 57 uh% so we were only at a 43% reduction so we were not in compliance we did this last one and we were actually in compliance I think a lot of it had to do with hybrid work environments and telea work uh you know really playing a big factor in in the red in the reduction of vehicle trips but what we can do in Boulder Junction because we have that district and we are collecting property taxes we could raise that mill rate to collect additional property taxes to provide additional benefits so in Boulder Junction currently through the property taxes anybody who lives or Works in Boulder Junction they get their ecopath their bicycle their B cycle membership their carire membership um all of those things

[231:01] if we were out of compliance we could say what are other TDM benefits that we could provide to employees and residents of Boulder Junction using that property tax money in order to again change uh travel behavior and reduce additional vehicle trips so maybe we could introduce line credits so if someone wants to use lime everybody in Boulder Junction gets x amount of lime credits per year so those are the mechanisms that we have in place in borderer Junction is that we're if we're out of compliance we can pull those levers we can change the mill rate we can collect additional property tax money and we can use those to spend on District provided benefits in in looking at Alpine bosam the Western City Campus where we don't have that District to do that and the ordinance would be applied to all those different um properties you know so that's why we're looking at okay we we

[232:01] know we need to get to 30% trip reduction in order to make the site work and make the amount of parking work because we were told don't build more parking make that work so then we we've got to you know figure out what that balance is but where are the levers we can pull in the district in Boulder Junction we can raise Mill rates we can add more benefits I think what we have at Alpine b or at Alpine bosom is we have the levers on the city employees they're the the group that has the largest elasticity in terms of travel Behavior change because what the city has the power to do in terms of what do we charge for parking what do we provide into a parking cash out and what are the other benefits we provide we already provide Ecco passes Bike Share memberships we have a vanpool subsidy uh we have hybrid work environments we have compressed work weeks we have showers and changing you know all those things but we there are still some levers we can pull we can make van pooling free we

[233:02] can pay fully subsidized van pooling we could raise the price of parking we could raise the parking cash out so those are the levers we're going to have to pull in order to make this work so but as we were just saying that there at Alpine Balsam there's not a district it's all split up so if we're looking at for example the people living in the tow houses right what what enforcement mechanism is there what what are the practical implications of if we say it's 20 the the goal is 20% versus 55% what is what are the practical implications on someone's lugs yeah well we'd certainly be out of compliance with our own ordinances but is that it the I don't know what uh maybe Hela could discuss what I don't know what the recourses would be but from my

[234:01] standpoint I would say what other types of benefits do we need to provide to our residents or our employees in order to change their travel behavior and make those differences so it would be incumbent on the city then to yeah take action to I think I can answer that so that essentially would be a zoning violation and we would and we do enforce on ourselves through Code Compliance so we have the mechanisms to hold accountability whether by observing that that is happening or whether it gets reported as a violation and we've got an obligation to enforce on any property owner including ourselves that will be a very interesting situation well we do do it already so okay there are in the I actually missed um the question that maybe was for me but I wanted to mention that in the trip Generation section itself it

[235:00] requires that property owners continuously evaluate and submit that to the city on a by anual basis and if they do not me meet the requirements then they have to revise their plans so there's kind of an ongoing monitoring built into the code and enforcement language that allows us to charge a property owner if if that's not being complied with and so again for the building a for the UN the townhouse units those are individually owned right and so technically each individual owner is going to have to submit their own report on how much they drove that's a good question I think it's more like what Chris was saying with with a a study right that they would maybe conduct sitewide or hire somebody like a

[236:01] transportation consultant to do a study for each property and then submit the results by annually okay I'll I'll see this floor okay continuing to belabor this because I'm just not understanding here I am in attachment H which is the draft ordinance um and I'm trying to figure out how these numbers of 55% reduction versus 20% reduction actually compare to each other I don't see anything about it being measured by parcel on the Alpine Balsam site um could you please help me find that I am on Page 395 of our packet which is very close to the end I think it is Page 286 of the memo in attachment AG um I'm not sure that it's uh are you talking about the part of the code that Hela just referenced that requires the biannual

[237:01] reporting um I'm not even looking at reporting right now I was still trying to get at this how we are measuring 20% 30% 55% and how things are different between Boulder Junction and Alpine balson H do you I'm not sure that we specify who has to report in the zoning code does anyone yeah go ahead Chris I I was just going to try and answer so the 55% for Boulder Junction was determined because that would equal the net new or no net new vehicle trips despite redeveloping so the 55% reduction from it rates is very specific to the goals of the transit Village area plan because we said to the

[238:02] people of Boulder we're going to redevelop this but we're not going to add new vehicle trips we looked at what the current vehicle trips were and then we projected out what the doand uses would be the new residential units and we said if we were to redevelop but not have net new traffics what would that mean that would mean a 55% trip reduction from the what it says those land uses would produce right so that was developed when we started on this plan we didn't think that that 55% was relevant to alheim bosam because that 55% was strictly related to Boulder Junction and all the things that are there new bus station future rail Goose Creek path the district approach that provides the TDM

[239:00] benefits in you know forever right so that's the first part do is that good I not sure we're going in the same place here if I understood correctly you suggested that the 20% that you're asking for in the ordinance here for Alpine Balsam was a floor a kind of bip parcel floor um but that there might be some variation between Parcels I am not seeing in the way that the or draft ordinance is presented to us that that 20% is measured by parcel within the site rather than being 20% for the site as a whole that's what I'm not seeing I think what I can I might just jump in um so in um in section h of 9922 it just says the owner of any property that has a travel demand management plan should be responsible for ensuring that the monitoring and evaluation component of the plan is completed as required by this section so I think that's what puts the onus on

[240:01] property owners if that makes sense and that part of the code we are not changing yeah and you know with within Boulder Junction you can meet it on your own as a property owner or you join the district and the district as a whole is responsible for meeting that without a district you know my thought was well the ordinance as it is would apply to individual properties and I we wouldn't need you know not everybody's going to be at that 30% that we need overall average we know some are going to be more some are going to be less and so the thinking was that 20% represents basically a a bottom okay of what and generally when we look at it rates in Boulder generally we we kind of take that 20% off because we know we travel much differently from the it rates which are really based on kind of suburban America okay Chancellor could you repeat that section of the code I

[241:01] want to get that number that you just mentioned um it's 9922 H okay so I know ml had some additional questions I want to time check us a little bit um want to get to the public hearing and then take a break so I'd ask for kind of final questions if any um go ahead Emma so these um these are the questions that I didn't get to before they're for the um uh Architects I think it's the Coburn um so are the market rate units are those for sale I think the intention of the Town Homes is that it will be for sale the C building on the corner of Broadway and balam I don't know that the ownership has been identified yet how that's going to work I don't think that that's been decided and the rest of the boulder

[242:00] housing Partners would they be rentals the rest would be rentals okay and then um is the only commercial because the presentation talked about commercial and Retail is that only in build building d uh it is in Building C there's 2,000 square fet yeah okay so if one is walking along the poo or um any of the other uh public amenities it's all residential there's no commcial except for the very Eastern Edge um that sea building the commercial component wraps the corners so yeah there's there's a little bit of exposure there at the very Sou Eastern Edge okay thank you I'm sorry just a clarification on on that commercial space has that been programmed as to what that is or not yet uh I believe there's some limitations it should be um it's uh retail or personal service I

[243:02] believe it was it was dictated in the form base C I don't remember the exact okay okay yeah look it up that thank you um any final questions uh before we get to the public hearing Charles just looping back to our Juliet balconies so Juliet balconies or false balconies as they're defined in the code are not allowed on a frontages so the options tonight there's nothing that requires a balcony so the applicant could agree to delete them could agree to install uh full-size balconies which would probably require a little bit of thought on their part with regard to setbacks um or the board could make findings tonight as to whether or not those Juliet balconies um meet the criteria for modifications to the form base code so we can start talking about that when you guys deliberate but wanted to lud back on that thank you uh one clarification on that if I could um my colleague Vanessa corrected me um both 11th and Alpine are type B frontages not

[244:04] type A so I need I'm going to double check that because I thought that I just double checked that it's okay we we'll back please do I I on the regulating plan I think it's where it calls out the fites we can we can Circle back to that thank you um all right I think we're ready uh for the public hearing component and then we will break after that um all right we'll start off um with people that are in the room with us I don't believe we have anybody signed up to speak but if there's anybody in the room that would like to speak for the public participation section um please approach the podium otherwise we'll move Thomas we're having a little hard time hearing you just okay um yeah otherwise we'll move to the people online um online first up we have Lynn seagull Lynn I'll go ahead and unmute you and you'll have three minutes to talk please go

[245:02] ahead yeah did someone answer my question what's it it's not answered the acronym it it uh if you're Lynn if you're referring to it that is the Institute of Traffic Engineers they produce uh essentially a manual on vehicle trip Generation by land use based on size and number of units Lyn the time is running if you would like to continue with your comment I was

[246:01] muted could you start me again sure you were not muted on your on our end but I will go ahead and restart your time yeah I was somehow my there was a glitch and it muted me okay um if it's all right with the chair we will go ahead and dig in your three minutes now thanks um yay well we'll stop you at one minute sorry I'm having trouble with the timer you can go ahead Lyn I know there's lots of glitches here um ltech I kind of consider like heroin for growth so I'm not really supportive of it um Elders I don't think should be in separate housing it's not healthy to split them into one unit

[247:00] um I'm concerned about overflow because I do live near this area um so overflow and parking um the architecture on some of the spaces look okay but I think the frontage on Broadway with that stone kind of building that's kind of just a big wall um I I personally am not attracted to that architecture um I like flower pot stain there if that's the name of the Asian Place restaurant um I don't think there should be any parking reductions given um and I actually wanted this to be a hospital um I understand like like it was from the start um you know there's nothing I can do about that now

[248:02] but that was a much better use for me considering my neighborhood this is an intensive development it's adding a lot lot of people they might not be driving as much because it's a Transit oriented um development situation but it's still without some kind of jobs housing balance which we're not meeting I just can't really support in spite of all of the you know affordable housing and everything I can't support these kind of projects because first you know you have to meet jobs housing balance and that's not being done and and then we just get

[249:02] more and more intensity of use and the more housing that you have the more cars you have even with Transit oriented development and then you're just working to catch up all of the time so that's my problem with this development overall um and I understand the city has to have the space because of the flood plane and it's it's a lot of trade-offs but that's all I wanted to mention about it I had a project I was working on so I didn't follow the whole meeting this time but those are notes I took thank thank you Len if there's anybody else online that would like to speak please go ahead and raise your hand otherwise we'll move on with the meeting I don't see any more raised hands so I think we're good to go thanks Thomas and thank you Lynn for your public participation and comment

[250:00] appreciate it um I think we will take a 12 uh let's reconvene at 10:20 Charles Final Answer Alpine is a type B Street Julet balconies are not an issue so can that one 11th also yeah okay the Grays are very similar on the map so I apologize great uh all right uh we will reconvene at 10:20 uh and start deliberations I will do a time check with the board when we get back as it relates to how we you know make sure we continue this in a reasonable coherent um ability to to to make some decisions thank you thank you George

[251:12] sh e

[252:12] e e

[253:12] e e

[254:12] e e

[255:11] e e

[256:11] e e

[257:11] e e

[258:11] e e

[259:11] e e

[260:11] e e all the effort and for being here this

[261:02] late um check in with Hela as it relates to what are op so what are options as a board we've got five motions to get through um I'm not sure how long six six sorry um how long this will take us so can you give us sort of the protocol or any thoughts on protocol as relates to oh are you thinking about when to consider whether or not to continue cor another meeting I'd also like to acknowledge that for Mark he's two hours ahead of us so it's after midnight for him he's in Pennsylvania canvasing doing his Democratic uh civic duty ah he's still on Colorado time [Laughter] though Mark thinks that's very [Laughter]

[262:00] funny so the the board ruled State the board's goal is that all regular 30 p.m. generally new items will not be p.m. by majority vote of members of the board present the board may agree to adjourn at a different time I think we've discussed this before there's a little bit of ambiguity in there I I think it's it's a goal to end 30 but it's not required but you might just want to check in with everybody and see where everybody at so I'd like to check in with everyone just to make sure everyone is interested in continuing now vers continuing to another meeting um does anyone have any objection to that or have any hard stops that they need to do I'm in favor of trying to power through okay sounds like it and then from a I just want to check from a staff perspective we got a lot of people here so is is that okay from everybody okay

[263:02] all right great then what I suggest is we is we start with um we go sequentially just like we just did um through the motions and um I don't know if we want to do um talk about the motion and and talk about commentary and then and then someone make the motion um or if someone wants to make a motion right away um and then see if there's a second and then and then do it that way I'm kind of up for thoughts I'm losing my train of thought so I I think it works well I know Mark is in favor of this um making the motion and putting the motion on the table and then debating the motion okay before we you want to debate it before we second it so that we have an or you want or you want to Second it because then we have to vote if we second it then we have to vote on it right away right discuss we can then we discuss and we can make um uh motions to amend at

[264:02] that time after it's on vo when it's once it's seconded yeah there shouldn't be any discussion until there is a second on a motion but I also wanted to mention that I think we haven't given the applicant team an opportunity to reply after the public he oh after the public hearing of course if the applicant wants to reply after the public hearing is there any no okay great thank you all right um so we have the motion language um does anyone want to talk about this or make the motion I can go ahead and make the first motion I agree with the plan of I mean these motions are very Broad and they are basically to adopt what staff has recommended so we put the motion on the table second it and then we have any discussion including any people who want to move to amend so I move to approve form-based code review application lur 2023 oh the it's covered up by the I can't see the

[265:04] number okay 000034 l223 d0000034 adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval second okay so we'll have a discussion about this and this is for the infrastructure plan yeah that would that would be helpful can you just since you just said what what what components are we what because so these are these are all for the form based code applications um so so these are the three form based code first one's infrastructure second one's buildings B and D and the third one is buildings A and C and then I have separate motion language for the um area plan amendments so this is this is just the infrastructure plan but not the um not

[266:03] the 11th Street and not the moving the mobility Hub um no the 11th Street of Mobility hover are the amendments so that's a separate motion language that's a separate motion so that's not this correct but this would include the exception for the greenway okay this does so this is basically the greenway is the only exception that's in this otherwise it already complies with form based code for the infrastructure plan correct so any discussion or wanting to amend based on the greenway or anything else in the infrastructure plan that's not covered by another motion C go go ahead Kurt sorry I'm I'm in my own level of confusion go go go for it uh I have a um I would like to uh suggest a an amendment um I'm sorry do we need a second first I forgot to get a second I second oh you did okay

[267:00] yeah and this is based on my question about the connection the the the routing of the sidewalk on um balam at Broadway this is my particular Obsession about efficient um and and intuitive pedestrian connections especially for people with disabilities so I um move uh to amend the motion or uh to add a condition that reads as follows the plans shall be modified to show the East End of the sidewalk on the south side of broad of Balsam adjusted to a line with the Broadway curb cut and crosswalk Kurt did you send that language to Thomas so he can show it on the screen or or to I did not I will send that or should it go to Chandler

[268:01] who's who's should it get to I have the motion languages up in a Word document and I can add the amendment in there as well if that's helpful while we're getting that proposed amendment to the motion language on the screen can I ask staff to respond to that because I think I heard staff say that there's some existing infrastructure that would be in the way of that like telephone polls or something yeah I'm going to defer to Curtis Stevens he's the the project engineer Mo momento I heard okay So for anybody who's still following Along online or watching the video we're going to get an answer well and and and I guess the question is does anyone want to second that or not because I can cut it short too No One's Gonna second anybody so George you're asking if there's a second that's what I just

[269:03] asked okay um any other amendments or comments um comments are welcome too because we didn't really comment on these so if you have something specific that you want in the record now would be a great time to do that anybody okay well shall we uh shall we vote on this particular one then yes all right um Laura made the motion who second it again a CT did ml yes Laura yes yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I'm a yes as well all right one down on to the second motion would

[270:01] anyone like to um discuss that or make a mo I move to approve form-based code review application l [Music] adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended condition approve of approval Second Great uh we'll have a discussion on that or any proposed amendments um just go ahead Mark just a quick clarification just like the prior one where we summarize exactly what this is yeah which yeah can you tell me yeah Chandler thanks yeah this is um for buildings B and D so these are the permanently affordable units 89 units in Building B and then 55 AE restricted affordable units in building D and this includes um the exception

[271:03] request for the poo this is also the removal of the sump is that this one for the litech because it's the affordable or um that's really just the ordinance okay yeah okay I I have a comment may I okay um I I I support this motion I support the P what I I only comment and this is the end of my comments for tonight is that find it so telling and interesting that the city chooses to private ize its own Street even though public because wait Mark Mark say that say that again you just got garble just when you when you started okay the city is choosing to make a private Street out of

[272:02] this when and the reason they're choosing to is because the DCS the city document is uh keep prohibits us from creating the kind of streetcape and street crosssection that we all want and so it's a it's a comment that uh sadly our design and construction document uh that uh is the guidelines for constructing things keep us from doing the things we we really need and want to do to reach our goals and as a consequence the city is privatizing a street so it's a it's just a comment on the problems associated the DCS and the reform that's needed of the DCs so that we can go and have beautiful streets like what's proposed here so I'm in

[273:00] support of this motion but I wish we had a design document that actually functioned to help us reach our goals great uh other comments Claudia also a comment and not an amendment I just wanted to say that I I appreciate the elevated walkways that are in this design we did not talk about them at all and I'm sure there's something that are not addressed in the form based code it's an Innovative thing um I think they add some interest to an otherwise fairly constrained project and I hope that they create some uh connections between those buildings in terms of community with the movement they facilitate so thank you for including that yeah that's cool I have a few comments um I'm supportive of this as well um but I'm I'm pretty disappointed with um at least the conceptuals that the form based code has yielded um specifically with um building

[274:01] D um and building B3 I think B1 and B2 and to to claudus point the elevated walkways are quite Innovative I also want to um say as it relates to D and B3 um I think the courtyard is a is exceptional so I'm not I'm not not completely negative on the design I just think I think we can do better as it relates to these squared off blocky buildings um not something I would want to reside in uh I I do not agree with the applicant that this is a Timeless design I think there are um Timeless designs on the site but I do not agree that D and B3 are um and I would urge the city the applicant city council um to ask for a bit more creativity a bit

[275:02] more um thought around residential design and to the to the goal around timelessness stated in the application um I think there's work to be done there and so uh as I said before I it's very difficult as a planning board to um go through form based code in the abstract um trying to yield something that may be um more aspirational than what we actually got and so I'm hopeful that uh the applicant will take those comments um as they're intended which is to be uh productive and not not disparaging and hopefully um maybe maybe create a better design for the final outcome yeah sure I just want to say with with all respect to George and your aesthetic um judgment on this I have

[276:00] lived in big blocky buildings at the pelaton and I don't think that they are necessarily a bad thing I would not want to have an entire city made out of big blocky Square buildings um but I I don't personally have that aesthetic negative reaction to Big blocky buildings at the pelaton they did have one of those elevated walkways right so I think that there are opportunities to be uh creative and beautiful with the design I do encourage the applicant to try to make the buildings interesting and the facade is really nice and I'm sure the materiality doesn't really come through in the drawings as well but um I just want to say it's not a unanimous opinion that big blocky buildings are bad but I do know that there are many people in the city that share your opinion George and I respect that yeah I think we're speaking for ourselves so we can all speak for ourselves comment um and my comment has to do with

[277:01] and I think it's uh there are two of them that were talking about the P um and you know the imagery that we saw um for the pil is not um I mean we've all been to beautiful pasos right we've been to laas and we've been to places where we know we're someplace um so I I don't know the um regulations that are being um that are driving the design and the direction of the p uh other than what we've talked about tonight which is the uh um width of it 14 feet versus 30 something

[278:00] um I would just encourage the development of that if it in fact is intending to be a a pedestrian pedestrian and have uh something other than it's not called a path it's not called a multi- um use area it's called a Paso and um I would encourage there to be some uh very focused um directives designed about what is that and what makes it a place you know we just saw some big paved area with some you know jogs and um I think the intent of the Alpine Balsam project was that it was going to create this very active and dynamic um piece that would that would become a positive contribution to

[279:00] the neighborhood uh and I think that this idea of a pedestrian um component that would move through the site and maybe connect it to the other ends the east and west and um is was very enticing so I would encourage the design to to kind of step up and and make it the worthy of the name b and um create something that will become an interesting you know we saw in those original pictures that there was this this pedestrian area and there was commercial and there were things happening and you'd want to you'd want to be on the site not just if you lived there but if you were in the neighborhood so I think that's an

[280:01] important piece to um and I don't know if it belongs with this particular uh this there's two that had to do with the B and this was one of one of the two motions and it's not like I'm looking to to change anything but I would just like to in in following up what you know George was talking about as far as the architecture um let's make sure that the people places um really step up and become people places the neighborhood is waiting for this project and you know there's neighborhood across Broadway in the neighborhood around on the west side of Broadway around this project a lot of people are looking and um let's step up and make the public spaces truly um live up to being an asset to uh our neighborhoods other um comments amendments yep go ahead

[281:01] Mason um something feedback on a lot of uh what Laura had to say uh including all all due respects to George's opinion I I don't mind the design I think it looks nice and the including the uh a bit of architectural um additions to the top of the building that maybe blocking a little bit of the mountain there you can still see through there and I understand that this community cares a lot about those views and any kind of obstruction is going to um be attended to um with great detail but you know I kind of liked it honestly um the only thing I guess new that I have to say is um this is it's a really cool project that is likely going to have a lot of foot traffic in bike traffic and just people um in that middle section

[282:03] and a fair number of people uh Crossing Alpine to uh the parking garage and and you know um I do want to make sure that we're paying extra attention to safety um for uh the broad diverse group that's Bound To Live um uh in this area so um I know that that you all have thought about that and I know I've been told that this is not the place to ask for those additional safety measures but I hope they thinking thoroughly about that to make it truly a as ml said a place for for people to you know be playful and and not be um poy up against each other if you that's all great thanks Mason um Mark any I

[283:00] can't see you so just want to make sure I get you okay anybody else okay um who made the amendment who second just so I know you did and Claudia second okay ml yes laa yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yeah Mark yes and I'm yes SP all right onward to um 17 and Chandler can you do the same thing for us and just summarize 17 y um so this is buildings A and C which are the 22 market rate town home buildings on the northwest corner of the site and then Building C which is the um 50 units that are mix of market and affordable and 2100 square feet of retail on the corner of Broadway and

[284:03] bson and these included the exception requests for the impervious area for each site um anyone want to discuss it or make the motion I move to approve form-based code review application l nobody Claudia so comment here I am disinclined to support the impervious surface exception in the area of the a buildings um based on what that extra impervious

[285:00] surface is actually facilitating so the criteria I know that we are supposed to consider here is whether that um exception creates adverse effects and it seems that staff's interpretation of adverse effects in this case is focused on water runoff um and measure it over the site as a whole the whole Alpine balsom site I do understand that um I want to suggest that what this impervious surfac is being used for which is access for private cars to private garages also has effects on the entire project um in terms of what it does for trip generation on this site um for the sump principles that is governing the rest of the site and for The Pedestrian or oriented goals of this site and I have to say it's extremely disappointing to see access drives and alleys whatever we choose to call them um in a site that is really otherwise quite unique in terms of how well it supports um pedestrians and centes pedestrians so um I had a follow on

[286:03] question as it relates to what Claudia just mentioned because I I am also supportive of what you're saying um so a question to the to the applicant maybe for clarification which I was trying to get to at the very front I just I just placed it in the wrong place which is the imper impervious areas that Claudia was just mentioned where were the drives to the garages um is it possible um not that it's that there is a cost associated with exess is it possible to make those drives semi-pervious and still achieve um access like those units need uh those drives are actually a combination of perious and impervious as they are now so in theory the amount of imper or semi- could be increased um and the amount of

[287:01] impervious decreased uh I don't know that that gets us to be in compliance however go ahead those drives are actually designed as uh permeable pavers so they're a full water quality Mile High flood District compliant EPA compliant water quality facility we can't expand the area further because we need a certain amount of concrete apron for the transitions to get you know I'm trying dealing with a bunch of grades across an area and you actually need a fairly flat area but um it might not be clear on the planning sheets but on the Civil plans uh which I think are buried in there there's a hatch for pavers showing basically almost all those drives once you get up over the apron so permeable papers so thank you for that maybe less granular but in the same direction are there other opportunities that you guys can think of that for semi- perious or or

[288:02] areas that are not reflected on the plan in in that area my professional opinion is that we've honestly extracted as much out of that area as we can as far as rain Gardens and permeable pavers um the sidewalk areas along the perimeter really don't function well as permeable pavers for the those users and we're going to have to run electric lines along that side to serve the buildings and those can't go under permeable pavers unfortunately and then the public Street on the south side has water and sewer and storm lines out there and we can't put peral papers on top of those so that's been the um yeah and that's that's also why we have rain Gardens on the north side of those buildings as well to treat additional runoff is yeah okay thanks yeah other yeah go ahead Emma um so those are alleys is that correct

[289:02] those are private driveways the in sorry in the code an alley is like a a city public roadway with concrete usually so these are considered private driveways accessing those garages which is one of the things that allows us to use permo pavers uh is that they're a private driveway so the paving on those private driveways is permeable yes so it's it's those P like P blocks but they have special engineered joints and like you know two feet of gravel for filtration and then a drain system um yeah they're they're an EPA pollutant discharge actually compliance system um I will add that in that zone one thing we've learned with these drives is trying to add additional little landscape Planters between the garage doors to plant some of that um

[290:03] we've had to rip that out because the car turning movements out of the garages hit them and it doesn't function it's wasn't unfortunate Learning lesson in another project thank you thanks um other questions or comments I just wanted to address a few things because because I think I understand what you guys are getting at and trying to solve how do we increase either either shrink that Gap or you know sort of eliminate it I think some of it is just a function of where the property line is drawn right that is sort of a key piece the way the park which is adjacent to it was shown is included with Building B and that's a function of Maintenance and ownership being able to be done by Builder housing Partners so there's a property line that got drawn on the east side of a that is very tight so that's sort of you know if we move that property line to the middle of the park the calculation looks a lot

[291:01] different and and we probably meet it the really the only other way is to lose a unit I mean that's with keeping the property lines how they're shown are intentional the way we meet it is to eliminate a town home that's helpful thank you that's an excellent point on the lot line we spent a lot of time with those lot lines and that changed the Cals a lot when we moved it over other questions or comments um I remember correctly that Kurt made the motion Laur second um vote well I guess Claudia are you offering a formal Amendment to the motion I'm having some difficulty crafting an amendment um but I would be interested in offering an amendment is anybody interested in seconding that and I just want to say I want I do want to comment and say um I appreciate that this site is intended to function as a whole

[292:00] and that you've had to parcel it out in various ways that have created complications for meeting certain code requirements and I know there have been reasons for why you had to parcel it out that way so I personally am not inclined to hold people's feet too closely to the fire on a percentage of permeable pavement on one particular parcel knowing that there are other areas like the The Greenway the flood um feature the the pocket park the um Courtyard in between the uh affordable buildings that if you average it across the site it probably would meet all of the requirements and so uh I probably would not be supportive of that Amendment although I appreciate where you're coming from and I also do appreciate the value of having some uh Missing middle housing on this site that it's not all apartments and that there are some of the more family oriented units that we have asked applicants for in the past and I don't particularly want to um punish uh the applicant for providing

[293:00] those units I appreciate that Laura and I think I will pass on offering that Amendment but I do hope that those comments are heard all right great um so let's go ahead and vote ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I am also a yes thanks for those explanations that was helpful for all of us all right moving on um there this is this is the um Alpine ballon connections plan Amendment that's associated with the infrastructure plan but requires a separate legislative action does anyone want to I will move to approve amendments to the Alpine Balsam area plan connections plan to modify the location of the residential Mobility Hub at 10th Street and Alpine

[294:00] Avenue to the east side of the new 10th Street roadway and to modify the 11th Street connection between balam Avenue and Alpine Avenue to an access Drive second second oh Claudia got it first there all right Mason gets it you already you already seconded something right Mason seconds um any comments or questions on this one this one this one's pretty as I'm reading it it's pretty isolated right I mean it's not like the other ones we were reviewing this is just for the 11 Street and for the mobility Hub Kur I just have a question about uh we say modify it to be an access Drive that clarifies that it's private okay yes okay glor just a quick comment that I want to Second Mark's earlier comments that it is a little ironic that we had to exempt ourselves as the city uh from the DCS standards in order to achieve

[295:01] the outcomes that we wanted and that we probably wouldn't have done that for a private developer and that's unfortunate because this is a beautiful plan you guys did a really good job with this and it would be great if our code standards allowed more things like this so just a comment for the future and thinking about how can we enable more of this stuff when it's not necessarily the city that's going to own and maintain it okay can I just concur um on that I've been trying to fight against the design and construction standards for many many years now in various capacities and we've made some very tiny incremental progress but for some reason we are unable or unwilling to comprehensively revise it to make it more to to make it reflect our transportation master plan and our vision zero goals and so on and it's been extremely frustrating and this is an indication of that and so I hope that

[296:02] the city takes this seriously that it's time to sit down and just re basically rewrite the DCS because I think that that's what it needs okay anything else and that was Laura and Mason uh ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I am also a yes okay next one uh can you explain this for us Cham yes sorry um this is the site news review for The Pavilion building um including the addition of the 55,000 foot addition the addition of the fourth story um the modifications renovations to the parking

[297:00] garage and then the site improvements to the Brenton building site includes the the TDM so there's the parking reduction and the height modification request as well and the use review for replacement of the existing commercial space with parking um does anyone want to make the motion I'll make the motion move to approve site and use review application L 2023-the the attached analysis of the review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval for both the site and use review I'll second um I have a few comments uh for discussion um number one uh to the point around investment in

[298:00] the parking structure I do appreciate that we've got a lot of structural work to be done there and uh facade work to to do the site review stuff that being said uh um I take particular issue with um the elevated section connecting the towers of the parking garage that seems suurus it seems um a bit uh anti uh what a lot of us consider is one of the reasons to live in Boulder which is the view of the mountains sometimes we make uh exceptions for height uh and I don't even know that's an exception for height just as as an aesthetic I I don't I don't believe we should be blocking the mountains um for uh essentially connecting architecture um and not any functional purpose I also think that by deleting that we'll actually save on some cost um so I think there are a lot of good reasons for that uh that's number one uh number two

[299:03] um I I do want to have a discussion uh if there are board members that want to have that discussion with me around the um the the retail component in front of the parking garage that currently exists I understand and actually very much appreciate that we're picking up six Spaces by deleting that um I have some concerns that that um it's the city that may be displacing a small business um even though it's not renewing something um which I understand as a landlord as well um but I I think it it merits some consideration or at a very minimum um the applicant thinking about what ways uh if that tenant wants to stay um what ways we can we may be able to accommodate them um if that makes sense um and I also along with that outside of that is the activation of in front of that parking garage and I it's not clear

[300:02] to me that um that we're getting a net benefit by the space basically appearing to be deactivated on that on that side of the street those are my those are my comments um other people can make comments or go ahead for yeah following up on this last Point first of all I guess a question the use review is only for the change of the the the the the removal of the commercial from the parking garage right it's just to allow parking on the ground floor yeah instead of retail you're supposed to have retail on the ground floor and bc2 so if we approved the site review and not the use review that would that would allow for everything to happen except for that change of use right

[301:00] okay yeah so I will offer an amendment to delete from the motion the words and use I'll second that second can I speak to the motion okay I am appalled actually that the city is proposing to evict basically a small local business minority I don't know if it's minority owned it's minority run um from a a site like this for six parking spaces is really is that is that really what our values are is that really what our bold Valley comp plan says I don't think so I I'm I'm utterly shocked that this proposal is coming in this form and so I am strongly opposed to this change of

[302:01] use yes um thank you for putting that on the table so clearly Kurt uh I would also just um I can read the tiny print here um refer to the uh well refer to the code which talks about um that a change will not adversely affect the the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate on the ground floor as I mentioned before um you know people that that's a very active sidewalk people walk by there all the time and to have um a basically parking garage or a blank wall um I think would be a great disservice to the um character of the neighborhood the use of the public spaces um in that area and

[303:02] uh visually I think it um it would detract from uh unexperienced that you know we're we're used to having an active ground level and to have that taken away I think would in fact um adversely affect the uh the character of the existing um and you know just seconding everything Kurt said about this is a little tiny business that it survived covid um and so it just seems like this is an unnecessary move um cars over people right we're g gaining six cars and yet we're asking for a three 33% parking reduction so um it doesn't equate it really doesn't equate and I think it probably goes against uh some of our Boulder Valley comp plan values around

[304:00] uh supporting um small businesses I'd like to ask a couple questions of staff that would be okay so uh first question is if we simply uh eliminate the words and use so that the use review is not approved what does that mean for the credit union space could the could that space still be repurposed or would the credit union have to stay yes no I think because it wouldn't be parking it would be a city Lobby parking yeah so I I think with the flexible programming I think that that the current plan could continue to exist I don't think the bank would have to stay okay okay so that space on the corner there could still be repurposed by the city in the manner that you have proposed with this change okay so that's a good clarification um second question is if we retained these spaces you know

[305:01] you noted that they're only 5 feet deep um would that potentially offer an opportunity for the city's affordable commercial program that piloting I think it's a community Vitality I think is I'm is affiliate or is working on that um so I don't I think if if this does go through I think that's a suggestion I would have is to try to use those spaces for the affordable commercial program because that they seem like they would be ideal for that very small spaces um and I had a third question but I can't remember it so I'm going to pass to Kurt and see if I remember I have a comment um so the site review and use review are are truly two they're under one application number but they are two applications so you can act on them separately if you delete and use from this motion language then you should

[306:02] separately act on the application for use review um and also if you don't want to approve uh parking space in in those commercial spaces I would also recommend that as part of that motion you ask that plans be revised to um to show retaining of that commercial space and you should think about whether the parking reduction requirements are met with a few less spaces that that was my third question is if you don't have those six parking spaces what does that do are you then out of compliance with something thing do you have to change something else well they have definitely have to change the TDM plan and the parking plan um to readjust and reallocate um it would change the parking reduction percentage um so we'd be approv it I mean it is probably only like one or two percent I can do the math real quick here but um yeah I think it would it

[307:02] would have a few kind of cascading changes that would have to happen but I'm sure that we could come up with motion language to address that um so uh the the motion on the table is the amendment so I would like based on the suggestion from staff yeah what if we want to make an additional amendment to vote on this first no no uh don't we though we we need to vote on this this amendment has been seconded and don't we need to we didn't we it's just like the main motion right we we have we have moved and seconded the main motion then we made we didn't vote on it we made the amendment we we moved and seconded the the amendment now we can have a motion and second to an amendment

[308:02] to the amendment and then we move back up the treat yes that's that's correct and maybe before we go down all that do a a straw poll oh on Kurt's Amendment yeah and and that's good the concept to to not approve yeah the use review and to make findings that the the criteria are not met for the use okay review application so does anyone disagree with that because I think I'm seeing a lot of not no I I I'm sorry I'm trying to raise my hand here this is Mark yeah go ahead um so counter to form I actually uh do not support proposed amendment as as it stands now and I find myself in a strange position of supporting the

[309:02] politic reform of the parking garage to achieve the greater goal of the kind of site that we're developing just to the north and that is one that is truly pedestrian bike oriented that minimizes the car and if if by repurposing and you know we talk a lot about how we embodied energy and saving uh the the current infrastructure and so for me in this case the two retail spaces are not particularly attractive or active I walk on that sidewalk all the time uh I I understand ml's point but I for me the greater goal the realization of what we've already approved with the parking

[310:01] reduction and the benefit to the site to the north I'll I'll be fine with those two spaces going and I also will point to the incredible variety of ground level retail space that is going unfilled now uh in in many of our develops at 30 Pearl at Spark all over uh that we we need those we need those people in some other spaces that are already built and we are not short on vacant ground level retail space we are short on housing so uh I I am I am actually in support of the uh original uh motion but not the amend so marks a no on the straw pool anybody else okay so stra holded it um sounds

[311:01] like it's 61 um I I would like to uh make an amendment uh motion as well um and I would like to move as it relates to the parking garage to remove the additional structure placed above the top deck between the two towers of the parking garage fronting Broadway to expose the mountains and reduce cost um and ask the applicant to come up with um an alternative design for that top so point of order I think we need to resolve the First Amendment first and then come to yours okay yeah you can make amendments to Kurt's motion to amend right now okay um but then the motion to amend by Kirk needs to be acted on and then you can propose it

[312:00] other motions to amend the main motion all right you need to walk me it's late so you need to walk me one more time are we voting on Kurt's Amendment and then we can we can make unless there are additional amendments to Kurt's Amendment no yeah and I think Hela recommended that we add we amend it or we could pass potentially I guess let's let's vote on your Amendment that's what we should do and move forward we can vote on the original Amendment and then add an additional amendment to add the words that H was recommending okay all right so we're going to vote on Kurt's Amendment right so my amendment was to delete the words and use and use but something changed oh secretary deleted sorry no I had the wrong yeah great so that was your motion um and who

[313:03] was the second on that ml was the second on that so let's go ahead and vote on that uh ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark no and I'm a yes on that motion Amendment carries 61 so chair can we finish with this and then come to yours just Clarity so uh I move to add to the end of the motion um the words uh uh and modify the plans to show the commercial space at the southeast corner of the parking garage preserved does that

[314:01] work I'm unclear is it yeah what are you saying yeah what are you saying what are you what are you trying to accomplish and then what can you can you restate the motion Hela recommended that by by just deleting the and use it leaves the plans as submitted inconsistent with this motion so I think she was recommending putting words in her mouth I think she was recommending that we add a condition to also require that the changes that the plans be changed to reflect the fact that we're not approving the use review that's a commercial use needs to stay is that is that correct H or should they make a second motion just to not approve the use review um that's correct I I think you won a requirement that the plans for the site review be revised to show the the commercial space to stay because that needs to be reflected on those plans but then you also separately

[315:00] have to act on the use review so both yes and I would also recommend to add a finding if you if you find so that this would result in a deeper parking reduction um and that you approve that if you if you find that so some of the parking spaces will be removed and adding back in commercial space comes with its own parking requirements so Cher said that the commercial spaces have required two additional parking spaces y so as well which would bring the reduction up to 35% I think is oh as opposed to 33 and just for my own Clarity when we're talking about the use on the corner that's not included in this because you have the ability to flexibly was that what you were saying before so we're we're we're just in this case we're just talking about the retail

[316:02] where flower pepper is essentially just to clarify so it's it's essentially essentially removing eight Spaces by keeping the retail space because the six that would otherwise be there and then the two that are required for the retail space which is not City owned on the other Street they not on Broadway four were on Broadway they're four on Broadway and two on Aline four what parking spots they're not all on Broad they're not all facing Broadway where the flower pepper is there's two around the corner can we show the showing on your plan can we show the plan that shows where the parking spots are that you were proposing to add by removing commercial space because there were two separate they're on both sides of the credit union correct we're only reducing it by four noeding it by four but add right so it's

[317:02] six as opposed to eight those two yeah see those one two three there's three over there so what are what are currently in those spaces that have the six parking spaces the rest of the bank and so it's only one two and three corre so we're only deleting we're only deleting three and then we're adding back two for the commercial use of flower pepper is that correct I'm going to let Jeff try to address the specifics of that so so we're looking at the commercial space and we're looking at keeping the space where flower pepper is and it appears on the plan that that is stalls one two and three and that four and five and six have to do with the

[318:00] remodel of the the bank correct not the flower pepper space that is correct okay so we're we're only losing three spaces but then we have to accommodate an additional two for the user of the flower pepper space okay correct five spaces far so it's only five spaces there okay so essentially we're losing five spaces so it would be um 290 as opposed to 295 so clarification around the shared use and stuff like that so that those when when you have a commercial use like that it does not do those PES need to be dedicated or they just need to be available these are all things I think we still need to figure out yeah I maybe yeah maybe um Kurt could consider adding to his motion also a requirement to revise the TDM and parking plan

[319:05] accordingly one more question yes around these these two these two spaces that are required for the commercial it doesn't matter in the City Bowl it doesn't matter you need two spaces irrespective of the SI because this is only like a 450 foot space I mean we theoretically they could ask for the parking they could expand the parking reduction to ask for elimination of the two- space requirement for that space Oh okay okay CTS it's up to you Hela can you um say what you said again about revising the the revising the TDM plan and the parking reduction was it were those two things you were referencing um where is where where is the parking in the P the TDM plan I

[320:03] think needs I was just going to suggest perhaps it's updating the parking study and the TDM plan they're two separate documents one is a a parking study and the other one is the TDM plan if we're changing the number of parking spaces available then I think we're just really updating those two documents the parking study and the TDM plan because they reference those numbers of parking spaces and if you want I mean in order to be safe instead of doing all of the math right now maybe we could say up to a 35% parking reduction and that would accommodate if if there do end up being spaces that need to be removed or provided for the restaurant space I think the 35% is the highest that the parking reduction could possibly go Um can can we just it doesn't seem like

[321:03] it needs to be that ambiguous because your your plans are pretty clear right I mean you're just you're losing three space and you're you're adding two back at a maximum whatever that might be so maybe we just do that just because I don't want to I don't I don't want to I don't want to give flexibility if we don't need to relative to an additional reduction that we may not be anticipating do we have to specify the um the parking reduction tonight what percentage it is or can we just say that we want to make this change and that includes updating the parking study and TDM plan I think that would be okay as long as it's clear whether you're expecting other parking spaces to be established somehow or if if we're just taking those three away and and you're okay with that total number um I I also think the applicant wants a chance to address the board if that's if that's possible I think Jee and I will both I I think we just want to ensure that there

[322:01] is some flexibility as we reassess design of this space um just to make sure that we aren't kind of painting ourselves in a corner because we are working in a constrained budget I think and just also for awareness in one of our evaluation I do appreciate we we grappled with this for a while no matter what we will likely have to vacate tenants during construction which in in reality would likely mean that they're going to find a different space and so we're going to be left with a vacant space um but that's I think we just want to ensure we have some flexibility as we look at this and kind of look at the recladding and make sure we do do it within a budget but also you know we will then be looking to refill a tenant space and to the point that was made I think that was you know we know that there's an opportunity further up the street on that parcel C that's a a better use of space but it's going to take us a little bit to to make sure that this is an active space and that we aren't now a city building we're not really in the business of being landlords um operating a vacant space so

[323:04] one is just asking for some flexibility in the redesign and reassess ing this but also just wanted to bring that to the attention is when we look at this the practicality is there's likely vacating okay so when you're asking for flexibility can you can you define what the flexibility is exactly you want just to not have it well for instance and and this like flies in the face of the the cost issue but let's say you were to provide some flexibility on the setback to Broadway we could actually take the existing retail space move it out in front of the parking structure retain the parking spaces that we're planning to put in there and maybe even provide better retail space in the future than that silly little 5 foot strip that's attached to the building we're just trying to think of ways that we can accomplish everyone's goals here obviously the challenge will be caused

[324:00] and we'll have to you know you know figure all that out but I think there are some ways that we can get creative in solving this problem to hopefully achieve what you're trying to achieve as well as what the city's trying to achieve with the parking gos that was super helpful yeah I really appreciate this discussion oh sorry I really appreciate this discussion because these are things that you are going to have to Grapple with in reality that us sitting here 30 might not have thought about and this is making me think about the fact that that particular tenant so so one thing that I think about is we shouldn't be designing buildings around one particular tenant who may or may not move or closeup shop at some point in the future and we've had this discussion with other projects and I really appreciate what you just mentioned it's Michelle yes M what Michelle mentioned that we are building new commercial space in Building C and there is other probably vacant

[325:00] commercial space up and down Broadway that that could be utilized and that tenant is going to have to move during construction which will probably be a period of years they might not even want to move back into the same space that they're in so perhaps we would want to reconsider the amendment oh at least for my perspective this wasn't about necessarily the tenant this was about activating and keeping that space active um that understand as a landlord right I mean you've got multiple years of construction and and and and you may lose a tenant even with you know bending over backwards that might still not be feasible for them but that was at least my perspective I wasn't really focused on the individual tenant and I agree even though I didn't make it clear in my statement I I totally agree with ML that this simply doesn't meet the use review criteria which is really what we need to be evaluating and as I read it it it just doesn't it doesn't meet the

[326:03] criteria um Kurt do you want to try to craft something sure so um based on Chris's suggestion I am hopefully we can modify the Robert's Rules a little bit and let me just revise my motion to uh be to add the words to the end of the motion and revising the site review plans to show the commercial space at the southeast corner of the parking garage retained and updating the parking study and the TDM plan accordingly question as to that amendment to provide them the flexibility that they just asked for because if we say it's retained then I'm

[327:00] a concern that we may constrain them to the actual situation that exists there you could say a retail space of equal or greater size or something like that or a commercial space so to show a commercial space at the southeast the southeast corner of the parking garage of [Music] current uh of equal or greater size than the current space retained and updating the parking study and the TDM plan accordingly I guess I'll I'll get rid of retained I'll read this again motion to add to the main motion

[328:03] the words and revising the site review plans to show a commercial space at the southeast corner of the parking garage of equal or greater size than the current space and updating the parking study and the TDM plan accordingly can I ask a question on that language when you're saying the corner it's not it's all along this East face it doesn't go around and create a corner but anyway so maybe just we the existing or you think that's clear enough I think yeah I mean I think we can I think we understand I think we know I think we understand the I'll second it just just a question that that doesn't deal with the setback issue that

[329:00] the applicant raised that that would just eat more into the garage if it was larger um I I think the only concern we have is the word existing was that in the in the language no existing is no longer in the language so just for your to to make sure that it works for you let me read it again so we're adding and revising the site review plans to show a commercial space at the southeast corner of the parking garage of equal or greater size than the current space and updating the parking study in the TDM plan accordingly does it do you feel that that gives you sufficient flexibility I believe so yes okay great thank you and as far as the setbacks go um I'm not I'm not sure if you guys are right at setbacks or not currently but they could modify setbacks through like a minor mod if they had to

[330:01] um administratively yeah great oh I I can I haven't sent the revised revised version but I'll send it to Thomas you haven't typed that already one okay and I did just send it if you want to cut all right um you made that motion and I'll second it um ml yes Mor yes Claudia yes yes Mason yes Mark yes yes uh and I'm a yes yeah thanks sorry you surprised me with your yes well I at this point it's it's

[331:02] better well and and maybe and maybe um around this before we before we get off this this subject I it would be nice that the that the minutes reflect that we're we're trying to provide some flexibility for the applicant um that it would be great if we didn't have to um eliminate the the the parking that was made space for um on on the site and so I'd like that added to the minutes at least from my perspective that I think that's what we're one of the things that we are trying to accomplish but we're trying to give the applicant flexibility to add the retail and still um manage TDM and parking to the best of their builing so I think we have one more item of business on this thing which is to move uh so I move to deny the use

[332:02] review finding that it does not meet the criteria in shoot 9215 what was it 9215 9215 I'm sorry do we do that now or do we do that as a completely separate motion it is a separate motion you're right yeah we have not yet voted on the main motion you're right you're right we've amended it oh you're right I'm out of order you're right okay so we have to come back to that one but George you had an i and I need to type it up but I want to do a straw poll on it before before I go through the effort of of of doing that um so so the the the amendment I'd like to make is um the elimination of the uh top connection uh between the two towers of

[333:00] the parking garage um that's that's that's the motion I can explain what that is about which is I think it will reduce cost I think it will expose the mountains more um I think it adds to plous height and I think that the applicant can come up with an alternative design that's just as attractive uh and not have that so that's that's the reason behind that um George can I make a comment yeah absolutely so I don't know if if you would be interested in kind of expanding the idea of superflous bits on that building um can we it would it would be great to put up the uh the rendering that we had for the garage can I just ask aor question I uh confess that I am not great with diagrams I'm I'm a word person not a picture person and I just would like the applicant to explain what

[334:01] that thing is does it have any purpose or is it is it just purely Superfluous with no functionality or is there some functionality that you're anticipating from from that bit that connects the towers yeah it depends on if you're an architect or not has right um it is a it's an aesthetic device um yeah it it it really just connects the massing of the building it it the building looks a little bit odd when there are two four-story towers on either side in glass that we absolutely have to have for the you know for the use of the or the enclosure of the elevator and the stair so um I I would just mention that it's also on the North side so if if you have issue with it you might want to address both sides of the building and and and what is it is it

[335:00] you can't walk on it does it provides shade it provides some shade yeah but it would be hard for me to say that's a shading device because it's not that large how wide is it does it cover the whole roof or is it it's hard to tell from this it's purely just a parit extension so it's like a 2x4 or like how wide is that thing it it's a steel structure so it's it's kind of like a uh it would look almost like a wi Wing if you cut a section through it if you cut it cut through it so you can kind of see it where it bends here or or over here on posts that come up steel posts that come up and then a roof that's on top we're we're open to your you know your comment I think we can look at some options and the removal of it I just want to point out that it's also on the North side it connects the towers on the North as well and so its width is rough what five seven feet something like that seven

[336:01] eight feet something like that yeah go ahead em um so I have another question those panels that we're seeing um what are they the vertical panels that you're looking the big panels that are covering the facade of the um garage they're an aluminum metal panel but what are they doing they're they're basically obscuring the sloping of the parking structure the idea was to try to you know create a an architectural device that would link the character of the parking structure back back to you know the the really handsome proportions of the Pavilion and so this was really trying to create a an architectural vocabulary that's similar to what's happening at the at the Pavilion so we're creating more of a campus atmosphere at the corner so it's really trying to tie the architecture across Alpine so it's happening on the Broadway

[337:03] and on the north side of the building as well it's happening on Broad Broadway in Alpine yes mhm um and it's it's pretty much for aesthetic purposes yes they no structure yeah it's just to provide a to conceal the pre-cast concrete that slopes because of the ramps you know to try to make it look a little bit more like an actual building rather than a parking structure that's just exposed to and did we add a floor to that parking garage no okay thanks can I ask a question too of course uh is it safe to say that by removing that those that element it would save some cost oh yeah okay yeah thank you absolutely can I ask a question before he goes away this is Mark yeah go okay um the illustration that is

[338:02] shown uh in the lower right hand of the screen right now is from an from some elevation some distance east of the garage uh if I was sitting in front of bread works or the coffee shop or kts looking West but my butt on a chair that's 18 inches off the ground would the uh architectural design element be up in the sky or would it be in fact obscuring the Foothills do you know I think it's safe to say that it would be up in the sky um but certainly from some vantage point this being one of them it would obscure the mountains but but this vantage point is

[339:01] like standing on the roof of KPS yeah yeah so uh so I I just want to point out that what we're discussing I am all about viewsheds and I think viewsheds are critical and important but I think that we have got ourselves concerned about vied that doesn't practically exist it exists if you're yeah it does but you may want to consider one thing um which is at some point because we're in an area plan at some Point those parking lots May redevelop and this will obscure if if if if if if there are developments that go up Beyond a story that could obscure Mountain views um for what is just an aesthetic uh device so so so just to to your point right there there may be there there may be today where you're sitting at KT's um you may not see a mountain but

[340:00] from a second or third story from across the street you may something to consider should we straw poll this one yeah yeah absolutely I'm in know somebody still talking I'm sorry Mason were you saying something sorry I thought we were straw pulling I was giving my vote I was going to add something um to the conversation before we um so uh George the thing that I was interested in it was I wonder if we can just speak about um all of the aesthetic moves um you know that parking garage has been the parking garage on that site for I I don't know how many decades uh I don't think that anybody is um

[341:01] especially offended by it um or I mean it's a parking garage and we now know it's a parking garage um so I am wondering why the city would invest all of this money to decorate a parking garage so that we don't know that it's a parking garage and I wonder if that could somehow go into a motion that sounds something like um superus design or superus elements that um I think I I it just it just seems to me that um it's it's going Beyond uh a um so as as the person that was trying to make a motion Sor I personally if if you if you want to

[342:01] pursue that I'd like to separate it because I do think that there's a very clear reason reasoning that that this particular aesthetic is adding Mass to the building without any adding mass and cost to the building without any function and specifically Mass uh is my concern um I know that was a concern in the community um and I get adding Mass when we're when we're when we're doing you know affordable Housing and Community benefit but this is adding mass for Mass sake at least from my perspective which is a little bit different than you know contemplating the design elements um so that's why I would like to separate it out um that would be my preference goe I'll say I'm I'm curious to hear the comments of the rest of the board but I'm inclined to support George's motion

[343:01] um I'm just like I'm not bothered by big blocky buildings I'm not bothered by buildings that step down you know that look like a series of different heights of blocks and I agree that um keeping the cost down would would be good on this site the city is budget constrained and um you know people's architectural tastes differ it doesn't particularly bother me to not to not have this um element it looks a little odd to me I don't really understand it but I'm not very sophisticated in architecture anyway those are my comments I don't mind losing this particular piece of the structure I think if I made a couple comments um I I see what the uh this Des element is doing I think it achieves a more interesting and better looking building and uh you know I like I would rather look at something that is visually

[344:00] interesting than looking at a a blocking garage so definitely don't want to remove anything to for sure I know that's separate and as far as blocking the The View I I take Mark's point I think that you know in the distant future should something we built that's multistory yes we would see something like what we're seeing on the screen here but again it's just a it's not blocking even the full view I know it's blocking some mountains I can see that myself but it's not like it's just a a blank wall so I don't know I I think it has some nice trade-offs in terms of um you know view shed and Architectural interest to a type of structure that usually is the least interesting of all structures in our community I take it are you a no on straw pole yes okay Kur I'm a yes I am not particularly

[345:01] concerned about the views I am very much concerned about the cost and for the record I agree with ML about the facade it's a parking garage it should be ugly you know frankly uh and so I I agree with that part as well and though I know that that's separate okay uh and Claudia I thought you said yes just okay so Cloud yes on stle and Mark what are your thoughts uh I concur with Mason I'm a no on the straw pole I actually find the kind of floating er uh to be of visual interest and I absolutely think that something other than ugly is important yes okay um so it sounds like we have support in a straw pole um so I'd like to make a motion um and um the motion is

[346:04] um I move to um eliminate the additional architectural element between the stair Towers on the parking garage and have the applicant revise the design to accommodate that to minimize the cost Associated and expose the mountains one second seconds and if if you could add I'm sorry if you could add at the beginning um you move to amend the main motion to add a condition okay I move to amend the main motion to add a condition Thomas were you able to get that most of it until the very end last

[347:01] 10 words or so okay uh let me let me uh let me let me restate it I move to amend the main motion to add the condition to remove the architectural element between the stair towers of the parking garage to minimize the massing and costs associated and expose The View shed to the extent possible is that good um um do we have a second because I modified that slightly differently I'll second second that ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mark no Mason no and I'm a yes

[348:00] okay what ml did you want to suggest something else no I just want to I but I think that it's a comment that hopefully won't fall on deaf ears um uh you know we've got a building that has a very um a big purpose right across the street from it which looks the way it looks and it's part of uh an a very um intentional um move on that corner and I'm not sure that the parking garage um should try to match it I think it's a it's a secondary function on a site and um to have the expense of developing these um big facade elements uh

[349:00] that I think it's an unnecessary move and I would suggest um that you all reconsider consider spending that kind of money to accomplish um basically an aesthetic move Kurt you SEC yeah I would just like to concur I I think what you uh as The Architects have done on the Pavilion building is amazing I think it is fantastic I will be so proud to live in a city that whose whose offices are in that space I think that's wonderful I don't feel that it's necessary to try to reflect that in the parking garage I think the parking garage should be the parking garage and it is what it is and let that the Pavilion building that beautiful completely renewed Pavilion building Standalone and really proud as it as its own architectural

[350:00] element so um I'll make um in that first I fully respect my colleagues opinions on that um and so I'm speaking for myself which is I I I actually I I think that the park and garage should be a cohesive component of this development um everyone's going to be accessing it everyone's going to be seeing it um my understanding from the applicant is that uh the major investments in the garage are structural um but I also like the idea of um it aesthetically um matching the um the development that being said I also respect their opinion on cost and and trying to do more with less to the extent that we can um I think that there's a there's a great opportunity to thread the needle and design um something that may not match the

[351:00] Pavilion um but may give a a positive aesthetic to um an aging structure that's my uh Mason yeah um picky backing up for you George I agree I think it's a little arbitrary to say that one structure should shouldn't look good but another structure should because of what's inside of it I think we have to live with these structures so we should make them you know like you said George cohesive and uh there are things that are going to be standing for you know 50 plus years like you know so I don't know and I think we're I know it's not as much as the costs of the structural element but requiring redesign and coming back to us at its costs too so I don't know what the net is there but it's you know we adding costs by doing this okay any yeah Laura so I am strongly ambivalent about this because I

[352:01] see I see the logic on both sides yes Ambi veent both sides um I agree that we definitely uh would like to keep cost down um and at the same time this is a structure that's going to last for a long time and we only get one shot right like if you pass up the opportunity to make the match you're not going to be able to go back and find the same materials in the same Builder and make them match in the future and then also just the fact that we would be out of compliance with the form based code for me tips it into we should go ahead and redo the parking garage but I agree let's not get extravagant with decorating a parking garage so um to the extent that we can keep cost down that would be great sorry the site review not the form base code my bad any other comments before we move on Kur so we need to vote on the main motion oh all right I think didn't the main motion pass and then you guys just voted on the

[353:00] two amend voted on the main motion oh yeah you haven't voted on it do you want to uh since you're the cat you want to make a motion well we already made the motion who made the motion I think I did that was so long ago I but we need to vote on it I think I think I made the motion in Mason maybe second the motion and Mason seconded La made the original motion and Mark seconded Mark second Mark seconded okay great thanks all right ml I was waiting for it to show up on the screen yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I'm yes as well okay yes go go yes so uh to follow up on the changes that we made uh I would like to move to deny the use review application for L

[354:02] 2023 uh darn I lost the number 53 0053 finding that it does not meet the criteria in buer Revised Code 92-15 second that could you be more specific in what Criterion it doesn't meet because there's several in -2 D 2-15 and and findings around that yeah it was those three um shoot there were the three criteria

[355:01] so hell would it would it actually be the conditional use standards that add the um it it depends on one what you like me do it it looks like it's 9 to 15 15 E1 E2 right the the use either provides a direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse effects provides a compatible transition is necessary to foster a specific City policy those are the it it it needed to meet those it needs to meet at least one of those but it doesn't meet any of them and right so the finding is that it does

[356:01] not meet those so if if I'm looking at the right Space Place in the code I can add that also if I can interject I don't want to speak for Hela but I think she's asking uh for the you know request we generally make which is if you're offering up a reason for denial or against City or or against uh staff's recommendation that you specify how something's not meeting a particular Criterion or criteria which may just be re rearticulating some of the conversational points you were making okay um so okay yeah go ahead

[357:08] uh yeah so ml ML and I were both making reference to a different section of the code dealing with use review um in the bc2 zoning district and that is 9- 6-2 C3 and that says the use on the ground floor um use on the ground floor with a combined floor area larger than 10% of the total floor area as applicable will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail type stores predominate on the ground floor so that is with reference to

[358:04] bc2 I feel like we can word Smith that to make the finding you're basically saying it doesn't removal of the retail space does not meet the conditional use standard requiring that the proposed use does not affect the surrounding character as a neighborhood whatever whatever that Criterion says but you're referring to the conditional use standards for bc2 you actually quoted it Chandler in the memo um it's on page 50 of 295 50 of 295 has that quote from 9- 6-2 c1a Roman numeral 3 the applicant must demonstrate that

[359:01] the use will not adversely affect the intended functioning character of the area as a neighborhood serving business bus area where retail type stores predominate on the ground floor so the finding is that you have not demonstrated that did I get that right Claudia and Kurt yes and you reminded me how I found that thank you Lord yay for search function do we have what we need um just to clarify I think you're talking about section 962 C 1 capital A little Roman 3 it's there several subsections okay then we'll assume that's what the motion says but it would be great if you could do some fact finding around that why do you find that having garage space on the ground floor there will um how the application doesn't show that that will not adversely affect the

[360:00] intended function of the area as a neighborhood serving retail Center I would think that goes to the comments folks made about uh that area of um Broadway having retail for The Pedestrian experience of people walking along that west side of Broadway yeah and that that block shouldn't be an unbroken parking garage or that part of the block and could you address a little bit more directly you're talking more about

[361:00] pedestrian experience that's not actually in the criteria at least not directly um how having a garage there will not adversely affect um I guess would adversely affect it being a neighborhood serving retail area where exactly those stores predominate right yes it's hard to have a functioning brain at midnight all right so what do we need to do to to finalize this maybe you could talk about um looking at at the particular Parcels being redeveloped and and the neighborhood serving retail area and how having garage space in this will affect that maybe looking at how long the stretch will be where there is [Music] no no retail space and that having that effect of an

[362:04] impact well the so typically when you for for example in your approval motions you make findings of so you have to make findings of how the application doesn't meet the criteria and most of the time you do that by adopting the staff findings in the memo but we don't have sta findings for denial so I'm rather than setting it over to draft them up in writing for another time I was hoping that we could do that on the record okay can I read you what I have and see if this passes muster yes um so motion to deny the use review application for lur 2023 53 finding that it does not meet the criteria in BRC 962 C1 A3 in that the loss of commercial space on the ground floor and the resulting loss of pedestrian

[363:01] activation would adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail stores predominate on the ground floor is that specific enough I think that's good okay thanks thanks CT um did I second your motion already well that's you might as well second that that's just so I sent that to you Thomas okay so you're seconding that yes okay um if there's no discussion we vote sounds good and out yes Laura yes Claudia yes yes Mason yes Mark no Mark no okay I'm sorry I'm getting crank I'm getting cranky fair enough fair enough uh and

[364:00] I'm 61 um all right what's left ordinance the ordinance all right can we put the ordinance up so this is the ordinance Chand your mic's not on but the podium mic is yeah this is so far past my bedtime it's not even funny um so this is the ordinance that amends Title 9 of land use code to adopt revised trip ruction standards and a revised regulating plan for the Alpine balam area um and to eliminate some principles for certain buildings with permanently affordable units so just to go over each of those a little bit the trip reduction standards it's proposing to change it from 55% as was adopted for Boulder Junction to 20% for the alpen balam area um the regulating plan changes are just to reflect the requested amendments to

[365:01] the area plan connections plan which you guys have already approved and then then the elimination of sum principles is for the permanently affordable um units with litech funding which we discussed a bit earlier and it's just worth noting that um approval of all of the other applications um are conditioned on approval of this ordinance okay does anyone want to make a motion I'll make a motion um I move to recommend to city council approval of an ordinance amending Title 9 land use code BRC 1981 to adopt trip reduction standards and a revised regulating plan for the Alpine Balsam area and to eliminate some principles for certain buildings with permanently affordable units and setting forth related details second second Kurt seconds um have a little bit of discussion I I would like to bring a few things up myself um so I get the

[366:02] elimination of the some principles because litech fund makes sense uh I don't really it's it's very abstract uh to go from 55 to 20% I understand the whole Boulder Junction thing however this was like a hospital site right and that was like that was the discussion early on hey guys like it was already an intense use right there were nurses and doctors helicopters and all kinds of stuff coming here and it feels like we're backing away from The Challenge of one of the things that we set out to do as a city at this site um so I would like to put up I don't know what the right number is but it feels like um we should be challenging ourselves and holding ourselves to a little bit higher standard um I don't know what that is I'm open to discussion or just being shut down but that's what I want to put on the

[367:02] table I totally agree that we should be aiming for higher but reading the ordinance it feels like there's not a ton of meaning to these numbers basically if you don't meet the requirement that if you don't meet the the um reduction goal then you make another you make a plan for meeting it next time and that's kind of it uh and so I think in in in the absence of more effective enforcement mechanisms I feel it's a little bit arbitrary Claudia I was gonna say I think the the most effective enforcement mechanism that we have at the moment is actually the limited parking Supply and there's not a lot of mechanisms to change that um so I I also agree that

[368:00] 20% is a is a low number I don't know what the correct number is um but like Kurt I don't think there's a lot of enforcement potential anybody else I mean from from from my perspective I I don't think there are a lot of enforcement mechanisms but to what was being talked about there are levers right and if we don't hold ourselves to a standard um or if we accept something I'm not saying we have to push ourselves to the 55% % but I mean this was the the promise of this site was to do a lot of things and I think we are doing a lot of things I just think just because there isn't there is an enforcement mechanism here because we're you know the city is the applicant so there is an opportunity for the the the the applicant to make adjustments with the levers that we have to meet some of our goals um so um I

[369:02] don't want to take up more air time uh just quickly the the reduction is based on it the it numbers right it's relative to the it numbers yes so so if we if we are only if our goal is only reduction of 20% relative to it that is pretty sad for old I totally agree uh Mark I just want to say that I while I can't uh I couldn't Chris's explanation of the difference between the numbers of Boulder Junction and here I am generally highly in favor of the infrastructure of the of the site design that is designed to minimize the use of the car separate the use of the car put it over in the garage and to

[370:00] somehow say Okay I want a higher number without tying that to actual additional uh physical infrastructure or programmatic changes on the ground it all gets arbitrary and so I look to the site design the infrastructure and the programming and I say this is pretty great and um I'm ready to go with it other thoughts and comments I'm just trying to to find the language in the ordinance maybe Chandler you could point us to or or pull up on the screen the language in the ordinance because what I'm seeing is the applicant shall demonstrate how it will achieve the alternate mode use and trip avoidance required pursuant to subsection C at the highest peak travel time so it doesn't specify a number in the ordinance unless it's in subsection C

[371:02] it's in there somewhere um I mean um one other thing just to keep in mind is that you you've approved the TDM plan so all of the metrics in the TDM plan um those are now essentially regulatory for the site review approval so and the TDM plan anticipates a 30% trip reduction um so whether the code says 20 or 30% they're basically required to follow the TDM plan which is saying 30% um so yeah just in terms of what's actually going to happen on the ground you guys have already kind of approved the the regulating document for that um okay I I did find it actually it says in the Alpine Balsam area at least 20% of the trips generated by the development shall be by alternative modes or avoided but you're saying Chandler that even though the ordinance says 20% it's still bound to the TDM

[372:01] plan which says 30% which maybe gets at George's point about being a bit more ambitious correct yeah and if I just may add we we know with the amount of parking for it to function properly without negatively imp impacting surrounding neighborhoods for example we know we need to get to a 30% shift in those vehicle trips the only reason of proposing to do the ordinance lower is was related to the idea that we would be looking at individual properties and we know that the property are going to have different levels of reduction and reduction potential and so we know we need to get to the 30% to make the parking work um and as a whole the property needs to be at that 30% but if the ordinance is looking at individual properties and assessing each individual property we didn't want a number of properties to be in non-compliance just because we set

[373:02] the number at what the whole area needs to be hopefully I've explained that better but you know if there would be a way to say we want to look at this these sets of parcels as a whole and say as a whole we'd like the trip reduction to be up 30% and I think that's that's good if we eliminate that being a requirement for individual properties now I don't know could be causing hella massive headache with that but but that may be a way to say you know individual properties are not required to meet that but as a whole which is how the voer junction functions that's how voer Junctions functions it's as a whole so so I'd like to respond to that I mean if there's a way to craft it that way I I would certainly be a proponent of that and I think the 30% if

[374:00] it's agreeable and it's what we can do that that means it's kind of like um go back to the planning board meeting we had a few weeks ago where we had like this you know the units were going to be 1,900 square feet but then you know the developer wanted Insurance up to like 3500 square feet or 3,000 square feet and that that's where the disconnect is for me right it's the 20% versus 30% which doesn't sound like a lot but 30% is like 50% more than 20% um so if we can view it as a whole somehow in in this I I would I would I would like to do something like that can can I ask would this satisfy that so we're looking at the ordinance 9- 9-22 C2 which currently says in the Alpine balsom area at least 20% of the trips generated by the development shall be by alternative modes are avoided could we say in the Alpine Balsam what is it an area plan what's the whole thing called

[375:02] I I think the the piece that's getting us is the a maybe the monitoring and evaluation I'm not sure can can I ask a question about that because it h only talks about the development and I don't actually know what that means does that mean an individual parcel or does it mean the project as a whole it kind of sounds to me like the entire area says it says the owner of any property that has a travel demand management plan well isn't the owner of the property the city of Boulder for the whole area well oh there's private the TDM plan applies to the overall site yeah yeah um I I think it could be interpreted as applying application wide each owner of a property would still be responsible for making sure

[376:00] they comply with the plan that's approved for the application but it does talk about applicants for development so I wouldn't go beyond the scope of an application the owner of a property that has a transportation demand management plan but we approved a TDM plan for the whole area at the 30% level so does that mean that every individual property owner is already committed to that 30% level because they are the owner of a property that has a transportation demand management plan they're they're committed to the TDM plan and everything it says it's going to do but the 30% trip reduction is anticipated so it's it's not like guaranteed that's what's expected based on all the TDM measures which they're bound to I think it's too late at night for me to think about how an individual property owner would be bound to Monitor

[377:01] and evaluate for a group goal well but we're only talking about if we parse it out right if we get into the detail we we're really talking about the town homes which have individual Property Owners which is a small component of the site which is 22 units and then you've got basically three other large components you've got the the city BHP and then uh building on the corner right and so there really only three th those are not for sale there are three owners there um could we could we could we if the concern is kind of like the same thing that was talked about with you know there's six units or or or less in in this you know contiguous row we talked about that briefly right we we're we're really concerned about the 95% of the development I mean sure it would be nice to get the town homes to comply but to your point right individual H homeowners there's no way you can put that burden on them even in the TDM I don't know how it with parking spaces complies right

[378:02] yeah but the the it actually requires that the plan the monitoring plan state whether the monitoring shall be done by the owner occupant tenant or other designated organization I think that still has to be done in this TDM plan and that there are requirements for a final TDM plan to be filed I think that may not be in there yet so that's something that can still be worked out but it has to be specified I'm not sure I understand what you're saying H you're saying there could be an organization that is specified to do this for the whole development um oh go ahead well what we'd have to we'd have to figure out how it applies whether it's over the whole development or not but we also have part of the development is not even part of the form based code

[379:00] area and some are in sight riew some are in form based code so could there be um is there maybe an option under um subsection I that says city manager May issue rules might we already be covered it says the city manager May adopt rules necessary for the implementation and interpretation of this chapter such rules May address without limitation the following topics methods for determining how programs and Facilities impact trip generation rates methods of evaluating approved travel demand management plans during the biannual review process and monitoring procedures and practices for Approved travel demand management plans that's something that can be done I don't think that has been done it has not but would that maybe give us a way to to apply it to the entire site without having to create specific motion language to amend the ordinance right now I think that might be possible i' I'd like to review and think about that when I haven't worked for about 16 hours

[380:02] I I I mean I think e either way you're going to want the 30% and the flexibility over the whole site because the 20% is still not workable for an individual homeowner that we're talking about anyways right I mean there's no way to get some individual to comply like that so so I think you need it sitewide yeah I I think it would be better for us to evaluate the site as a whole much like we do in B Junction because we haven't had a property in Boer Junction redevelop without joining the TDM access District because it's beneficial to join the TDM access District because you're not required to meet this on your own you're part of the district doing it um and you get all the benefits of being in the district in this case you know perhaps we could make a city manager rule saying that this area will be evaluated as a single

[381:01] entity with the goal of a 30% reduction from it rates to be monitored by anually um you know and the TDM plan has all the components that we're saying these properties must do and so we have the mechanisms to do it it's really just determining what that Target is and how that Target is evalu whether or not we can do it as a whole can I make a recommendation yeah can I suggest that this is a very complicated thing and I think that staff are seeing that there are inherently problems whether we change these numbers or not and that I I think our intent is I hopefully is fairly clear that we would like to try to push a little further and let them work on

[382:00] figuring out how to do it and maybe come back to us with revision or something you're saying you're saying continue the ordinance no no I'm I'm saying let them work on it pass the ordinance let them work on it and maybe come back to us with an amendment at some future time if we pass the ordinance we pass the ordinance you're making a recommendation to C on the ordinance only Council can pass so we could recommend that Council approve it with a higher with the 30% C reduction and with a way of looking at with a way of looking at it as in its entirety which I think that they so so if that works that that would be great because I don't think the way it's drafted right now doesn't sound practice either in reality so sounds like that would be beneficial for all parties and would give us it's an opportunity for a new tool in your yeah no and you know it's really we're trying to fit something

[383:01] that was created for Boulder Junction Boulder Junction specific okay and now we're trying to fit it on to another development project so so I get back to would it work to amend in the ordinance 9- 922 C2 to say it currently says in the Alpine Balsam area at least 20% of the trips we could amend that to say in the Alpine Balsam area as a whole at least 30% of the trips and then let staff figure out how to do that does that does that work okay so I'm going to suggest I'm going to make a motion to amend the main have we already made the main motion no yes it's been moved and seconded oh yeah okay thank you for keeping track of that because I am not I'm going to move to amend the main motion such that in the ordinance 9- 9-2

[384:04] to C2 shall read in the Alpine Balsam area as a whole at least 30% of the trips generated by the development shall be by alternative modes or avoided I'll second that um any discussion is that clear we vote and out Hela does that create any issue you okay I I think we understand it well enough okay ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I'm also a yes all right um that motion and the amendment

[385:02] passed is that it is we're back to the main motion on the ordinance now we have to do the main motion but we already we already um who who firsted who second ml firsted Kurt seconded Kurt seconded the original motion ml moved ml moved and C all right great yeah that's what I have too uh um ml yes Laura yes Claudia yes Kurt yes Mason yes Mark yes and I'm a yes okay great now we're done can I just make a comment uh not amending any motions I just want to ask stff to think really carefully about the bike parking in the Pavilion building because those hanging bike spaces are not going to work for ebikes which are the future and as we

[386:01] talked about this building is the future and needs to last a long time thank you so much for thinking about that and seconding what George said we all want to gush about how great you are and how much work you've done and thank you thank you thank you so much yeah thanks everyone I should have I didn't thank you all right that was awesome uh it is 1228 um I don't believe we have any matters but um anyone wants to bring anything up I was going to pair down my hourlong prepared notes yeah I was going to say so many matters for you this evening an interpretive dance I think I'll hold off thank you thanks for all your work tonight yeah nothing else thank you everyone this meeting is adjourned appreciate it appreciate everyone's hard work nice