October 1, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:33] Mark. Just just a heads up. Vivian is saying that she can't hear us online. I. Hi! There! Hi, everybody! Good evening! I played around with my settings, and I can hear you now. Okay, great. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption.

[1:25] That is an issue that I don't know how to address, but microphone check test. Sounds good online.

[2:05] It's checking. You all can hear me. Yes. The light's turning on on this one.

[4:11] Vivian, can you let us know if you're able to hear Mark? He's the only one whose microphone in the room is turning on on the dais. Does the applicants. No, I hear, Charles. but not but not very loudly. Just a note to members of the public who are joining us online.

[5:00] And in person. We're just facing some technical difficulties with sound. So please bear with us.

[9:56] That sounded good. Think we could hear you.

[10:00] Seeing lights. That was us. Sorry, Vivian. It's okay. Yes. Again, especially for our folks joining us online, just letting you know we're facing some sound difficulties. Apologies. Please bear with us.

[11:43] Testing testing. Yes, we can hear you. Long as this one's testing, testing.

[12:00] We can hear you. Thomas. Thank you, Vivian. We're working on switching the board members over to the staff section and then Staff is going to present from the podium. Thanks for letting us know.

[13:20] Testing. We hear you. Hello. okay, we're going to try this again. Welcome to the October 1, st 2024. City of Boulder planning board meeting. The 1st item on the agenda is for public comment. This is for anyone from the public, either in person or online, to comment on any matter other than our public hearing item tonight. So, Vivian, if you can walk us through the

[14:08] rules and procedures for public comment we'll go from. We'll go from there. Great. Thank you. Chair. And thank you, Thomas. We can just move back to the top of that deck. There we go. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for bearing with us thanks for your patience. I'll just read through these rules of public participation cities engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members. staff and board Commission members as well as democracy, for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. Thomas, there's a big black box that's showing up on the slide. There we go. Thank you. And for more information about this vision and the community engagement process. If you want to learn more about our productive atmospheres, vision, we have more information on the website.

[15:07] and I'll read out these rules of decorum that are in the folder Revised Code and other Guide I. 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. racial epithets and other species that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves by 1st and last name so that we can call on you for open comment and public hearing. And in this platform only audio testimony is permitted. Online. The zoom platform next slide, please, and we will know that you would like to speak during open comment or public hearing. If you raise your virtual hand, and you can do that by scrolling and pressing on the virtual hand at the bottom of the screen. If you're joining us by phone, you can raise your virtual hand by Dialing Star 9. And you can also get to this hand icon by going to the

[16:19] the emoticons menu, which is on the next slide. So that's it for the rules of decorum. Now we can. We can hear from community members if they would like to speak during this open comment. Portion of the meeting and all comments should be should should not be about the 2 public hearing items that are later in the agenda. So if you go ahead and raise your virtual hand, I'll know to call on you, and each person will have 3 min to speak. And Thomas, is there anybody in the room who would wish to speak? I don't see anybody. We don't have anybody signed up in the room to speak for open comment.

[17:00] Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. I'm just trying to read the packet so that I can see what's on the agenda for hearings tonight. Need to get a little bigger. Oh, yeah, I know that from landmarks. Board the well, no, no, no, I don't excuse me. That's a different spreadsheet address. I have to get this a little larger. Sorry going as fast as I can here. What I wanted to talk about is greater and greater congestion in Boulder, and the effect of this gal getting killed on Broadway. and I know you're not in the transportation department, but you're directly affiliated with how congested this town's getting. Not that there would have been congestion at 4 58 in the morning when she was on Broadway.

[18:11] but for generalized congestion all over town, and I'm waiting inordinate amounts of time to get across Arapahoe or to get across 28th or 30.th And the developments are just obscene. I'm sorry you know, Hyundai National Geographic. These road diets. People are talking about road diets now for all over Boulder. Not just Iris And the situation is. there's so much growth everywhere. Papellio's is Folsom and Pearl the Boulder junction of 30th and Pearl Mckenzie.

[19:01] the little city within highways. weather vane out Arapahoe see you South the millennium. the the massive amounts of subsidies for things like the olive, where you get 200 square feet for $2,000 a month. or 22, 0, 6 pearl, which I hope is going to be heartily argued against, although it's pretty much passed that these are, and I talked to all my friends in town, and it's like these are seen as well, ridiculously expensive. They are following the ami, 1,700 to 2,600 for 300 square feet, but the way that was approved oh, and this is my best one. It's Marpa House. I really can't forget that we've seen so many plans.

[20:01] Carl Geylor showed me once, I remember, in planning board a room that looked like it was being, you know. The wall was being put up. It looked like a dining room, but the wall was being put up, and Carl questioned. No, you can't have a door to a dining room like that that looks suspicious. And that's just what this developer that had already scammed this neighborhood up at Marpa House. They wanted to buy their place. The neighbors were helping them because they didn't want it to turn into the hill. And that guy who's a hill developer, scammed in these dining rooms into bedrooms. And this is just. You win. Thank you, Lynn. Sanctioned by you, sanctioned by you. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn, for joining us tonight, and we're just gonna take a small break to move the cameras over to the board and also see if we can show the timer for for public comment.

[21:03] I see we have one more hand raise. If anybody else joining us from the public would like to speak during open comment. You can go ahead and raise your hand at this time, so that we know you want to speak great. We can see the timer. Let me know, Thomas, when you're when we're ready to continue. We should be good to go now, if that looks better. Okay, yeah, that looks great. Okay, we have Tila Duham apologies. If I'm mispronounce your last name, you can introduce yourself. You have 3 min. Thank you very much. You got it really close, Tila, do him. I am the current chair of the Transportation Advisory Board. I will be staying on and hoping to talk during the public comment about a project later on. But I I did want to weigh in about

[22:03] Iris Avenue and the project that got sort of pocket, not veto, but pocket approval by city Council last week on Iris Avenue, a conversion plan for changing for through traffic lanes and insufficient and uncomfortable painted bike lanes into a sort of a more fulsome style. One traveling in each direction with the center turning lane and physically protected bike lanes. I have been frustrated in my 8 years on tab. I'm I'm finishing up my 8th year. That these kinds of roadway designs are relegated predominantly to the Transportation Advisory Board and Transportation Staff, because I think it is fully within the purview of a

[23:01] citywide planning network Staff and Advisory Board to be considering how people are entering and exiting the discrete parcels and the development projects that you regularly consider. I think it is a travesty that we separate out. Transportation planning from land use planning. and tab has been for my entire time on Tab asking city council to integrate them more closely. I believe that if planning board and planning staff were also vocal about wanting to integrate these things. that we could actually move forward as a community better understanding how movement through and to development projects would be

[24:00] important for proper city functioning. And so, you know, moving Iris Avenue over the threshold that we did last week was important to me as a as a person on Tab and as someone who's been watching this for a long time. But I know that there's a lot of crossover between the things that concern Tab and the things that concern planning board, and that we ought to be able and and encouraged to cross pollinate thoughts, including among staff, including among the advisory boards. And I would just say, if you can put your weight behind support for Iris Avenue that would actually help that process. Thank you, Tila. And can we just ask you to clarify for open comment if you're speaking in your personal capacity or as a member of the Transportation Advisory Board.

[25:01] Thank you. I really appreciate that I am speaking as a member of the Transportation Advisory Board, but not on behalf of the Transportation Advisory Board. This is in my own capacity. Thank you any. Follow up questions from the team there. Thank you so much for joining us. That, concludes the open comment section. I don't see any other hands raised over to you. Chair. Thank you. tonight, tonight, 1st of all, I'm going to ask everyone online and in the room, just be generous and patient with us as we kind of work through these technical difficulties, we're all in different seats and so forth. So, having said that we've concluded public participation, we have no minutes to approve. We have no call ups to discuss. And so we're going to move on to agenda. Item, 5 public hearing items.

[26:06] Our 1st one is 5, a agenda public hearing and consideration of the following one site review for the for the redevelopment of a 2.3 3 acre site. including the properties generally known as 25, 0, 4, 25, 0, 6, 2536, and 2546, Spruce Street. 2055, 26th Street and 2537, Pearl Street, with 52 residential units. a total of 48 market rate, and 4 permanently affordable units are proposed among the 10 proposed new buildings. The proposal includes a request for height modification to allow for 4 story to allow for

[27:02] 4 story buildings up to 49 feet 7 inches in height. as well as a request for a 25% parking reduction to allow for 97 spaces to be provided where 129 spaces are required. Reviewed under case number LUR. 2024, dash 0, 0, 0, 2 0 and 5, a number 2, an amendment to the Boulder Valley Regional Center transportation connection plans to to remove the East-west Secondary street connection and the North-south multi-use path connection through the properties, generally known as 25 0, 4, 25, 0, 6, 2536, 2546 Spruce Street. and 2055, 26th Street and 25,

[28:03] 37, Pearl Street. So our 1st order of business for this item will be a staff presentation, followed by clarifying questions from the board. Okay, thank you. Good evening. Planning board members. My name is Chandler Van Skok. I will be presenting the Site Review for 25 0, 4 spruce I won't read all of what you just read again, but it is a site review for redevelopment of the site with 52 residential units, including 48 market rate and 4 permanently affordable units in 10 buildings does include a request for height modification as well as a request for a 25% parking reduction. and it does include a request for an amendment to the Bdrc. Transportation connections plan as well.

[29:00] So, in terms of public notification, written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the subject site. Notice was also posted on the property staff, received comments and questions from several neighboring residents. Those were included in the packet. Primary concerns expressed by neighbors include not enough parking and potential impacts to the surrounding area. There's also been a number of comments just in the last 48 h or so that have come in most of which, I believe are in support of the project, and several of which are basically supporting, maintaining the existing Mecca building. So in terms of location, the site is located in Central Boulder on Spruce Street, between Folsom and 26th Streets. and includes a small adjoining lot on Pearl Street, the 2.3 3 acre site, or about 101,000 square feet and change currently contains 5, 1, and 2 story, light, industrial, commercial, and retail buildings.

[30:01] It also contains a single story, single family residence, with a detached garage at 2537 Pearl Street. This is just a shot of the existing buildings on the site for planning context in terms of the comprehensive plan. The site is part of the Boulder Valley Regional Center, which is considered one of the city's 3 regional centers. Centers are defined as generally places with potential for infill and redevelopment, and are higher intensity compared to established residential neighborhoods as a regional center. The Bvrc. Along with downtown and university, it is defined as having a wide range of activities. The Bvrc is further defined as an area that should invite walking with a pedestrian orientation on a human scale. The site is located in the northwest corner of the Bvrc. At the edge of the Bvrc. And as such it is subject to design guidelines which were adopted in 1998.

[31:07] Because of the site's location within the Bvrc. And near downtown. It is uniquely surrounded by a significant amount and variety of services from retail to office, recreation and schools also as part of the Bvrc. There was a transportation connections plan adopted. The intent of the connections plan is to improve access and mobility through the Bvrc. By developing a multimodal grid. Among other goals for this site the Tcp. Illustrates a north-south multi-use path and an east-west secondary street on the south side of the site. And we'll these are the connections that are being requested to be removed, and we will get into that further down the road. Other aspects of the transportation context include the transit rich area that the site is located within. As you'll note within a quarter to a half mile. There are dozens of bus stops serving multiple local buses.

[32:01] and within a mile of the site there is access to 2 regional bus facilities in downtown boulder and Boulder Junction. The site is also highly walkable and bikeable, surrounded by on street bike lanes within easy access to several multi-use paths. So the site's Comp plan, land use designation is primarily mixed. Use residential. This is defined as predominantly residential uses with neighborhood scale retail and personal service uses allowed. There are also a few areas of the site that are smaller areas of the site that are zoned. Mixed use business and general business in terms of the zoning. The entire site is zoned BC. 2. This is defined as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where retail type stores predominate. pursuant to the recently adopted ordinance, 8, 5, 9, 9. Density and intensity in the BC. 2 is based on a maximum far of 1.5,

[33:04] because the site is not located in an area subject to special use restrictions. Residential, attached, residential is allowed by right foreman bulk standards in BC. 2 typically require a 20 foot front yard setback, 15 foot side yard setback. 0 or 12 foot interior side yard setback, and a 20 foot rear yard setback buildings are limited to 3 stories and 35 feet. The surrounding context has residential uses along Spruce Street and Rh. 2 as well as retail uses. To the east there's a four-story retail office building to the south, along with a marijuana dispensary. Across Folsom is Greenleaf Park, and the boulder and White rock ditch parallels the site on the west. Well, did I already show this? I think I did. The site itself consists of several warehouse, light, industrial and retail buildings with auto, repair, scooter, rental and repair a furniture store, a thrift store.

[34:07] and at the northeast corner of the site is the Mecca building, which contains an existing gym use. The building was initially determined to be eligible for local landmark designation, but was ultimately not required to pursue landmark designation. So in terms of the project background just quickly. this project has had a lot of previous review several previous public hearings. There was a concept plan submitted in September of 2021 that was brought before Tab in 2021 that went before planning board, and then ultimately City Council. also November of 2021. In November of 2022, the applicant submitted a second concept plan that went to planning board as well. and then city Council called that up, and that was heard by City Council in January of 2023,

[35:03] they submitted the Site Review in 2024, and in August of 2024, we brought the Site Review in front of the Transportation Advisory Board to ask for feedback on the requested amendment to the Bvrc. Tcp. And then, in September 6, th 2024, the project went before the boulder. Urban renewal, authority, or bureau, also for the requested amendment to the transportation plan. So the proposed project is for 52 townhome style units, including 4 onsite permanently affordable units. The total far of the project is 1.2 7, so within the allowable 1.5, about 129,000 square feet. a total of 10 buildings are proposed. The maximum height is 49 feet and 7 inches. Although there's variation in the heights of each building. The project includes 15, 4 bedroom units and 37, 3 bedroom units.

[36:02] The project proposes to keep the existing Mecca building in its current state and allow the existing gym use to stay there. The project is providing roughly 41,928 square feet of open space. That is significantly above what the BC 2 code requires, which is 15% of the site and right-of-way improvements are proposed along Spruce 26, th and Pearl on Spruce Street, that includes replacing existing diagonal parking with 18 new parallel parking spaces and providing a detached multi-use path as well as new landscaping. The 26th Street and Pearl Street improvements include new sidewalks and landscaping, and a yes. this is just an aerial rendering of the site showing overall how the buildings are laid out. The proposed project is oriented to have 2 buildings facing Spruce Street.

[37:01] one building facing 26th Street. one building along Pearl Street, and one building facing Folsom Street. The additional 5 buildings are internal to the site. with dedicated drive aisles that access private garages. The roof decks are proposed to have interior stair access and a shade structure of pertinence that is topped with semi-transparent photovoltaic solar panels. The roof decks are intended to replace traditional backyards that would typically be seen in detached single family homes, which in turn allows for a higher density design. So in terms of the building, massing, and architecture. the primary materials in the project are brick, painted, cementitious siding, and middle trim accents. There are defined ground level unit entries for all units along Spruce Street. The building has been stepped back at the 3rd story to reduce mass. and, as explained in the memo and and shown here. There's really the the reason for the height modification is to allow for the stairway access to the rooftop decks.

[38:06] So there's not actually full enclosed stories above the 35 foot height limit. It's really just the parapet and the stairway access. So the result is that there's minimal 4th story, massing and staggered facades, staggered parapet heights, and varied roof angles, especially with the solar panels. These are just some additional renderings showing the general character of the architecture in the project, as well as just how the how the massing is represented, and the solar panels, with some variation in the angles of those panels and variation in the setbacks of the stairway access in terms of access, parking, and circulation. The project proposes one vehicular access point off of 26, th which is shown there with the Yellow Arrow. There are 4 internal north-south pedestrian pathways, one of which is required to be public and located within a public access easement.

[39:06] And then there's an east-west trail that runs along the bottom of the site and kind of connects the the 3 north-south pathways to Perl. As I mentioned before, there are 18 parallel spaces proposed on Spruce Street. the project provides space for Rideshare pickup internal to the site. There are 88 private garage spaces and 9 surface spaces total. The surface spaces are proposed to be shared between the Mecca use and guests to the development. This is a parking chart which we don't need to study super carefully, but it just shows overall the bedroom count of the units, and then the parking requirement per unit as well as the spaces provided per unit. So 14 of the 4 bedroom units will have 2 car garages. One will have a 1 car garage. and then 22 of the 3 bedroom units have a 2 car garage and 15 of the 3 bedroom units. Have a 1 car garage

[40:08] so for the Bvrc transportation Connections Plan amendment. The current proposal does not include the North South Multiuse Path connection or the East-west Secondary Street connection that are shown in the transportation connections, plan. plan amendments, represent modifications to the Tcp. Document or modifications to the map based component of the plan that propose a change in connectivity. These require review and recommendation by the Transportation Advisory Board, or Tab and boulder, urban renewal, authority, or bura. and a decision by the Planning Board, subject to city council, call up so, as I mentioned before, this proposal has been, or this project has gone before tab twice the 1st time in October of 2021, at which Tab recommended removal of the East-west secondary Street connection.

[41:01] It was then realized that they didn't ask for the North-south multi-use path at that hearing. So we went back in August of 2024, wherein Tab recommended removal of the North-south multi-use path connection under the condition that a 5 foot a minimum. sorry that a public access easement, a minimum of 5 feet in width, be dedicated along essentially the path of the central North, South pedestrian pathway. After receiving tab recommendations on those 2 connections, we brought the project to Pura that occurred, and on September 26, th 2024, Bureau reviewed the project and recommended removal of both connections from the Bvrc. Tcp. Subject to the recommendations made by Tab and directed staff to convey that opinion to the planning board. So the key issues for discussion. There are 3 key issues, which is whether the project is consistent with the Site Review criteria, including the additional criteria for height modifications.

[42:05] Whether the vehicular parking reduction is consistent with the parking reduction criteria. and is the proposed amendment to the boulder bvrc tcp consistent with the applicable criteria for amendments to that plan. So for key issue number one staff findings. The proposed project is consistent with the Bbcp land use, map, and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bvcp. Particularly those that address the Built Environment staff finds the project is consistent with several characteristics of sustainable urban form as defined in the Bbcp. And also meet several Bvcp goals and policies which I've listed here, and which I will not read the entire list for you right now. Staff also finds in terms of consistency with the Site Review criteria that the project incorporates site design techniques and infrastructure that support and encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicles.

[43:00] It provides for a balance of private and common open space areas. The landscaping includes a variety of plants, colors, and contrasts. The building and siding design are compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the project successfully creates visual interest in a vibrant pedestrian experience with simple human scaled and high quality architecture. So also it has to meet the Boulder Valley Regional center design guidelines. That is, part of consistency with the comp plan. and as consistency with area plans is referenced. Several times in the Site Review criteria as I've mentioned in the staff analysis, there is a lot of overlap between what the Boulder Valley Regional Center design guidelines anticipate or encourage, and what the Site Review criteria require. I will not read all of these, but the project has been designed to meet the Bvrc design guidelines. This is a list of applicable design guidelines. And yeah, I already noted that the intent of many of these guidelines is addressed through compliance with the Site Review criteria

[44:08] in terms of the additional criteria for height modifications. So there are no buildings that are greater than 200 feet in length along any public right of way. There are 2 buildings that are over 120 feet in length, which are buildings 5 and 9 each of these buildings, we found, had been successfully designed to appear as 2 distinct buildings by varying material color and massing. The project is located near a multimodal corridor with transit service, and near an area of redevelopment where a higher intensity of use and similar building heights are anticipated, basically south and southeast in the Bvrc. The project is designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability into and through the site. and it meets the intent of the open space requirements. The one consideration in the Site Review criteria that the project does not meet is to have a an At grade open space that is

[45:00] at least as wide as the buildings are tall, and this is something we discussed with the applicant extensively. and staff really found that, based on the design of the open space within the project, as well as the rooftop decks, for all of the units that the need for such a wide at grade space is reduced. So we still felt that the project meets the overall intent of the open space requirements for buildings requiring a height modification. Key issue number 2, which is whether the proposed vehicular parking reduction is consistent with the parking reduction criteria as well as the applicable site review criteria. As noted, the project is requiring or requesting a 25% parking reduction to allow for 97 parking spaces to be provided where 129 are required. The 1st criterion here is the probable number of all motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of, and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated through robust Tdm. Measures. They are providing neighborhood Eco passes for residents for a minimum of 3 years each unit does have a minimum of one garage space.

[46:08] There's a scooter station provided on site. There's bicycle parking, I mean. Long term is provided in the garages and within the units, but then, additionally, 8 short term and 2 long term spaces are provided for Mecca. As previously mentioned, the project is located near several major transit lines, and is within walking distance of many nearby services and businesses. and there is nearby on-street parking for visitors as well in terms of availability of Off Street and nearby on-street parking, there's on street parking available on spruce and pine as well as multiple. Nearby North-south streets there are 18 new parallel spaces provided directly adjacent to the site on Spruce Street. and use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for onsite parking on an ongoing basis. and this is largely achieved through the Tdm measures

[47:01] as well as just the the site, location and characteristics. Key issue number 3, which is the proposed amendment to the Bvrc. Transportation connections plan So in terms of the required or the criteria and the Bvrc. For amendments to the transportation connections plan the Bvrc. States that the approving authority will consider the following, when reviewing a proposed plan, amendment. change of circumstance, physical hardship, practical hardship, and equivalency. Again, the removal of the connections has been recommended by both tab and bureau. Upon finding that the area surrounding the site has changed since adoption of the Bvrc. Tcp. There's a left turn Lane and a curb median on Pearl Street. which precludes the North-south multi-use path from having a logical connection point there and then it dead ends essentially at the single family neighborhood to the north, so that represents a change of circumstance.

[48:03] The existing ditch on the west side of the property presents both a physical and a practical hardship in terms of the East-west secondary street connection. and then the existing and proposed bike and pedestrian facilities on and surrounding the site, including the proposed public pedestrian pathway connecting spruce to Pearl Street, provide equivalency for both of the planned connections. The Bvrc transportation connection plan also states that the alignments of these connections are specific to the area shown, but are not intended to be precise so long as the connection illustrated is created in a manner that facilitates efficient travel. So the intent of the Tcp is to maintain flexibility in the implementation of these connections so as not to hinder redevelopment potential of a parcel or parcels development or redevelopment proposals should illustrate that the intended connectivity is achieved. So, again, Staff has found that they have demonstrated that this intended connectivity is achieved, and both Tab and Bora have found the same, and recommended removal of those connections accordingly.

[49:00] Now I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chandler. That was a great and very thorough presentation. Before we go to clarifying questions from the board to staff. I failed to offer an opportunity for any Board member to state any conflicts of interest they might have in this project. and or any ex parte communications that need to be divulged in relation to this project. So we don't have to go down the line and say, No, I don't. But if anyone does now would be the time to state those Claudia. So a disclosure I participated in a public hearing on the original 2021 concept review of this proposal. So that was September 2021. In my notes.

[50:09] I think this works Hello, Planning Board. This is Laura with the city attorney's office. Can you just state on the record, Claudia, if you think this could affect your decision making, or you think you could be a fair and impartial judge? I think I can be a fair and impartial judge of the current proposal. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else. And Mason, if I fail to see you, just unmute yourself and shout out, please. Will do. Okay, thank you. Okay. Seeing no further, we can carry on with clarifying questions for Chandler or other staff. Thank you. I do have some, and if I'm going too long I'm happy to pass the baton. So, Chandler, thank you very much for a very informative presentation and a packet very thorough. Thank you.

[51:03] I just want to verify in the packet. In the applicant statement it says that for the inclusionary housing requirement that there will be 4 affordable for sale housing units for middle income provided on site. And in that statement they say that this is half of the inclusionary housing requirement that they're required to meet, which would mean that they're only required to do 8 units which would not be 25%. And in the communication that we had ahead of the meeting from Sloan. It looks like their requirement is actually 13 units, not 8. I just want to verify that that understanding is correct. Yes, I think that that may have just been a typo in the written statement. Or, yeah, it may have changed over the course of them, determining the total number of units. But yes, you are correct. 13 units. Okay, thank you. And then for the the 4th floor, if we permit the height modification, as we know, the requirement for inclusionary housing goes up. It's, I think, 36% instead of 25%.

[52:02] And it looks like that only added one additional unit. Right? So like 25% of 52 units without any bonus height would be 12 units. And they're required to do 13 by Sloan's calculation. So I'm just curious. How is that bonus floor area, that 4th floor, square footage? How's that being calculated? Is that just the stairwells and the you know, enclosed parts of the building that rise above the 3rd floor. Is that what you're calculating? That square footage on? Not the whole rooftop deck? That's correct. Yeah, it's based on just the definition of floor area in the boulder Revised Code. So it's enclosed floor area, which in this case is just the stairway access. Okay, thank you. And if I'm calculating that right, that's about 51 square feet per unit that was calculated for the 4th floor square footage. If that's what was shown in Sloan's calculations then. Yes, I think there's a bit of variation. I think some of them are a little bit smaller than that. But yes, just about 50 square feet per year. Okay?

[53:02] And is that also how you're calculating? The far is using that 51 square feet per unit on average for that 4th floor area. Yes, I mean that plus the floor area of the other 3 stories. Yes, yeah. But that's the part of the 4th floor that is contributing to the far. Okay. thank you. And so the rest of that rooftop deck that's considered to be open space, not building floor area. That's right. another question about that. That rooftop deck open space. I recall from previous site review processes that there's a certain required amount of open space that would be shared versus private open space. And when you talked about the one thing that this project doesn't meet in the Site Review criteria for the height. Amendment, I think, is that there's not the wide area of ground level shared open space.

[54:04] but does it meet the required breakdown of common versus private open space? Or does that not apply in BC, 2. Sometimes I get confused about which things apply in which zones? Yeah, there's there's no minimum required, like private open space per dwelling unit. It's just a 15% site-wide requirement. And then the 1.5 far. But is there a breakdown? Of how much of that open space has to be shared versus private. There's not. So they meet the 15% just on the ground. I mean, they exceed the 15% on the ground without the rooftop decks. so yeah, even even without the rooftop decks. If this, if they weren't asking for height modification, right? That they would meet the minimum zoning requirement for open space on the ground on the ground. Okay. good to know. Thank you. Quick question about the rideshare area, and I'm really bad at reading plans. Is there any kind of seating associated with that rideshare area.

[55:02] or is it? I don't think so I might defer to the applicant, if there is no, there's there's not Should I keep going or pass the time? Keep going. Keep going. Okay. I have just a couple more. So the applicant statement says on page 1, 49, this project will provide the highest potential density housing for its zone. and I'm curious to know what is the maximum theoretical number of units that this site could have on it, based on the zoning. Well, it's it's far based. So theoretically, it depends on the size of the unit. right? So they. The site is just over a hundred 1,000 square feet, so they could. Theoretically, however, many units one could squeeze into 150,000 plus or minus square feet. But there's no, there's no limit on number of units or density. Okay, so it's not being limited by something in the code about BC, 2, zoning, for how many units they can have?

[56:06] No, just the far. Okay, okay, thank you. And then, lastly, I did want to ask about the landmarking historic preservation. And I think I I saw in your presentation and in the packet that even though the Bvcp. Allows the approving authority which is planning board and city council in this case to require the application and good faith pursuit of a local landmark designation. What we are doing here tonight we are not requiring the applicant to pursue landmarking. Is that correct? That's correct. This this issue came up during the Concept Review, and they submitted a demolition permit which went to landmarks board. or went to landmarks staff, which at that time James Hewitt was director of, and I think at that time James felt like it should be landmarked. James then left, and a new director came in, who who disagreed and basically felt that it should not be landmarked. So the current position of landmark staff and landmarks board is that

[57:09] the building is not required to be landmarked or worthy of landmarking. But I think, as Marci mentioned earlier, they are very happy that it's being preserved in this project, and they're very supportive of it. Okay, just as a heads up for the applicant, I will have a question for you about, why did you change your mind and decide to preserve this building, but we can wait until after your presentation. So thank you. Okay, thank you, Laura. Ml. thank you. So I will follow up on one more affordable housing question. do you know where they're located on the site? There's 4 units on the site. Do you know where building 10, which is on the pearl. Little notch. Yeah, on pearl. Okay?

[58:04] Okay. Other questions. So the 41% usable open space. The excess of what the 15% is all on the roofs. Is that correct? No, I think that they exceed 15%, even on the ground. I would have to look at their open space chart. I don't have all the numbers memorized. But okay, so that 41% includes the roofs. Yes, okay. Do. We know about the heights of the buildings in the surrounding area. I know the Cox building is is 4 stories. Are there any others that are taller than 3 there are. It's they have a building height map, including included in the plan set that was provided as attachment. A. I think it's page 5 or 6 of their plans. But most of the taller buildings are to the south, southeast and southwest.

[59:02] Right? I did. Look at that. I did. Look at that map you're referring to. It seemed to be more about the buildings on the site. But okay. So we don't talk about the setback modifications. and I am curious to find out how how much square footage I sent this to you earlier, how much square footage has been claimed as a result of reducing those setbacks. Yeah. And I wasn't really able to come up with a good number on that. I mean, in general, both the Site review criteria and the and the Bvrc design guidelines encourage pushing buildings towards the street, you know, minimizing setbacks, making an urban environment and an edge to projects. So that's kind of what we were looking at. I mean, people reduce setbacks and site review virtually all the time. So it wasn't. It's not something that we would typically

[60:01] look at. I did forward your question to the applicant so they might be able to answer that when it's their turn to speak right. I just was looking at the the amount of sort of public area that is not going to that was consumed by moving from like 20 foot to 0 feet. And I mean there's significant moves across the site to reduce. I think I think every setback was was modified. So yes, I will be looking for an answer to that. And lastly, I just have a a question on definition in the parking area. It talked about one car, private parking versus standard parking. They both look like single cars. What? Sorry I'm I'm not sure. I'm following on the private attached garages right

[61:03] in one area. They're identified as one car, private parking, and in another area they're identified as standard parking, and the sizes are different. And I'm wondering I'm guessing they each only have one car. Why are some bigger than others? I'm not sure I will have to look at that. That might be a question for thee applicant as well. Those are all my questions for you. Okay, thank you. By the way, page 31 is where the the surrounding height map is located. Page 31 of the packet, Charles. Just let me know. Okay, thank you. Claudia. I think I can be brief, because my colleague Laura, has covered a lot of my questions about usable open space and affordable housing. but just a couple of details still out there. What is actually the width of those interior corridors that you discussed with the applicant the ones that are not

[62:01] not meeting criteria. I'm going to defer to the applicant team if they'd like to answer that, I can save it for them. And I have the same question then, or a similar question about the dimensions of the ground level, open space, that's, I think, between Buildings 7 and 9 on the diagram that's in the southwest corner of the development. So I'd like to get some sense of the size of those. The other question that I still have for staff has to do with our site. Review criteria in particular compliance with Bbcp. Criteria. letter F, housing type and bedroom type. I did a fairly close reading of this passage that describes what kinds of housing type we need on different sized sites, what kind of housing variety we need and that passage talks about different bedroom sizes or bedroom unit sizes. They're measured by bedrooms, and that ranges from studios to 3 bedrooms.

[63:05] So it lists. Studio, one bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom. And I see in the analysis that a 4 bedroom count is actually being used to satisfy a different. You're supposed to have 2 different unit sizes, as it were, and I'm wondering if I can get some clarity on. That is the listing of unit sizes, bedroom types in our criteria specific, or is it suggestive? I had never noticed that before. Thank you for pointing that out. I am trying to look at it right now, I would assume that it's suggestive and that they're trying to just say that bedroom count counts as different unit types. I don't know why they would. Why, we would intentionally exclude 4 bedroom units. But I'm going to look so this is in yeah, F housing, diversity and bedroom unit types

[64:05] potentially livings in bedroom types shall mean studios. One bedroom units, 2 bedroom units or 3 bedroom units. and then that's, of course, following a list of different housing types which are duplexes attached, dwelling units, townhouses, etc. And for that criteria for the size of project, I think one is adequate. The townhouse type is adequate. But there's an additional requirement for different bedroom types. and that's the one that I'm asking about. Right. I I would have to ask Laurel maybe if she has an opinion on this, I mean, it says bedroom type shall mean I don't. Yeah again. I don't know why we would exclude 4 bedroom units for being included in quote, unquote bedroom type, definition. but they are not there. So that's it's a good question.

[65:16] Apologies. Just give me one second to pull up the packet. The page page 182 right points. Subsection. I mean to an extent, since it's under 5 acres, they're only required to have one qualifying housing type, as you pointed out anyways, but

[66:03] so it'll be good to know moving forward, but they are required to have at least 2 different bedroom types. Oh, right? Yeah. You said. Page 182 in our packet. This section of the analysis is on page 182, yeah. And I think that there are 3 and 4 bedroom units in this. A mix of both of those 3 or 4. Yeah, thanks. Doesn't see. Yeah, it doesn't see.

[67:03] Yeah. I mean, I kind of can only assume that the intent was for 3 or more bedroom units. so we just wouldn't count 4 or 5 bedroom units. It seems little weird. You did say it was less than 5 acres, right? So yeah, I think the issue is that they're required to have 2 bedroom types.

[68:01] and the definition only calls out, studios 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units as meeting the definition of bedroom type. Yeah, I think so. It looks like the code does say, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom types. But I think that there could be an argument. The 4 also meets the intent. I think we'll have to look at it. I'm stubbling through this because I don't know the answer. And the section below 6,

[69:01] section 6 below modifies. Section 5. Is that what you said? And section 6 just says, if it doesn't meet the requirements that the applicant shall demonstrate that the project fulfills another at least equivalent community need related to housing policies identified in the Bbcp. How would we handle omissions? Typographic? I mean, this could almost be construed as a an omission. And do we not have clauses that protect applicants, the board, etc, from omissions

[70:01] as such as as they might be in the code. Yeah, I mean, it happens sometimes we have to update code and things like that. And then this is like, an we're looking at the Bbcp. As a whole. Right? So we can take into account some of the things that you're talking about the balance of all those housing. So no, this is a site Review criteria, and they have to meet all of the Site Review criteria. It's not an on balance. Yeah. So I think this is something that happens sometimes our code is outdated, especially as we've been like trying to amend things. We'll notice it sometimes a lot in the in like the tables. Sometimes. Those are not accurate. You guys have probably caught those a couple of times as we've been going through it. So it's something that we could take note for future reference. The question here now, you know, take note for future reference, try and amend it as much as we can on the next cleanup as we do, and we have a few cleanups, I think, coming forward later this year. The question for now is that can we meet that later criteria that Chandler read out into the record. Right? Yeah. Yeah. If if we decide that they don't qualify for the 2 2 bedroom unit types, do they provide

[71:04] another at least equivalent community related to housing. which which they argue that they do in the written statement. I didn't include that in the analysis, because I overlooked that 4 bedrooms were not included in yeah. And we can ask the applicant when they come up, what their what their argument is, and have it stated on the record. And then we can add this to our list of things to update. And what you're talking about. Mark is kind of like this idea of like a scrivener's error like, maybe we missed something. Maybe we left something out. And so sometimes we do update that. But it doesn't help us on this current application. Laura. Yeah, I I'm not sure that it is just an omission, right? So like 3 and 4 bedroom units are quite large by boulder standards for new construction. Right? We don't. We don't see a lot of those. And so I think it's a value question of, do we want to encourage projects like this that only have larger units, and I don't know the I'm not presuming what the answer to that is. Maybe the answer is. Yes, maybe the answer is no, but I'm not sure that we've discussed it.

[72:05] so I don't want to just assume that this is an omission, and that we are wanting to encourage projects that only have larger units, although we would allow projects that only have small units like just studios and just one bedrooms. Yeah. And that's how like, if a cleanup I call it a cleanup ordinance. But if a Nords comes through to add this, then you guys can weigh in, and Council weighs in to decide if you want, do want to include 4 bedrooms. I think the applicant is arguing that the voluntary provision of 4 onsite units instead of cash in lieu, is attempting to meet that additional community need related to housing. It seems to me like a good process suggestion to let the applicant speak to what they think is how they meet this F. 6. Of what's the equivalent community need? They're meeting, and then we can maybe deliberate about it. So are you suggesting that that happen now? No, okay. But at later in the meeting. Yes, thank you. Okay.

[73:03] Claudia, carry on any other any other troublesome. careful reading questions. Okay, Mason, I'm looking. Did you have any questions? I do, I do so it was asked where the portable units are, and building 10 was mentioned. Building 10 looks like just 2 units. and I'm hearing 4. It's a 2, 4, and if it's 4, which other building is it. I believe building 10 has 4 units. Nope, Nope, it's got 2. Pete. Hop in if that's helpful. Oh, I misspoke. Sloan said she could jump in and help. Based on the information that so I'm Sloane Walmer. I'm the inclusionary offering program manager. based on the information they have given me so far. They are dispersed through the site. So there's 1 in building one.

[74:07] one in building, 3, 1 in building 4, and one in building 6. But I would like to just take this opportunity to point out that they are proposing for onsite units, but because this is intended to be inclusionary housing. they can change their option and meeting Ih at any point. So I appreciate that they're they're proposing this. But there is a chance that the proposal will change, and as long as they're still meeting their inclusionary housing requirements, we're obligated to let them do that. I want to thank Sloan for that clarification, because I think that's important for the Board, for the applicant and for the public, which we don't have a lot of here tonight, but I think it's important, based on perceptions from past history that that's really clear to everyone.

[75:01] That meeting the inclusion. Inclusionary housing requirement means you've met the inclusionary housing requirement. However, you do that, so thank you. So I I did look at the traffic pattern study. I had a question about emergency vehicles. I see that there's I'm I'm trying to get to it in the packet, but it's going to be slow. So I'm just going from memory here. But if I'm reading it right. An emergency vehicle will have to make a 3 point turn to get out. Is that correct? Yes, I believe that's correct. but I know that they discussed this with transportation engineering staff, who also talked to fire and found it acceptable. So I'm assuming that there's some provision for that. And the fire code.

[76:01] Sounds good, and they're the experts. Obviously not me. But I was a little more curious about that southwest corner. Looks like it would be troublesome. Did. Was that addressed anywhere in their notes that you saw. Southwest corner. just the of the drive aisle. Yeah. For some reason it looked like it would be hard to get to. But I'm assuming there wasn't any concerns. No, everything's been signed off by transportation engineering staff. Then see my other questions were asked. I did have a question about the Mecca building, but this may have, maybe, for the developers. just wondering if there was going to be if there was any mission of improvements to the building, or if the business would be disrupted during the construction.

[77:02] I'll defer to the applicant. I know they're I don't think they're proposing any changes to the building, but and as far as disruption to the business during construction, I can let them address that. It's all my additional questions. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to call on myself, even though almost everything has been answered for me. But in terms of staff clarifying questions. I don't believe this went to Dab for this iteration, or ever correct why not? And did? Would. When do we have the ability to recommend something, go to dab. And why? And did we have that ability at our prior concept review? And because it changed so much. I mean, just explain to me why this

[78:00] didn't go to Dab. I think only council can refer projects to Dab and Tab. I think Planning board can recommend. I know we can't send stuff to Ted that only council can. But I thought we had the ability to send something to Dab. We. Do you do so? Yeah, I guess it just wasn't referred to Dab in either of the previous iterations. And and in this iteration, this is really the 1st time we've seen it. Okay. I'll make commentary on that later does. If we approve this for a site review with the transportation connections, plan changes, removals, etc. and we approve the especially the north-south connection through the site

[79:03] is the language very clear in that site. Approval process in in that documentation that that north-south connection. by being deemed public right of way is accessible. 24, 7, 3, 65 in perpetuity. I mean, that's really just. It would be a public access easement. So the conditions have been modified to require a public access easement no less than 5 feet in width, be dedicated along that path. And public access easements you you can't block them. So just by nature of it being that it would have to be open to the public. 24, 7. Okay. Does that prohibit gates? Signage that might. You know. I've encountered many times a sign that says private property that's at the entrance to a public

[80:00] public easement, and I find those deceptive and wrong. So do we actually prohibit that sort of thing? Or is it just something that would be on a complaint basis that we would enforce? They could not have a gate on it. There couldn't be any structures within the access easement. As far as you know, theoretically, signage outside of the easement. That's not something. I think, that we regulate through the easement dedication language. So so yes, in that in that scenario it would be complaint based. Okay. that's my, that's all my questions for staff. Ml, go ahead. So I'm thinking about the public comment and the vast majority of the comments that were against the project we're talking about the parking.

[81:02] And so the question I have is. do we have any data that shows that parking reductions are, in fact accommodated by alternate mobility modes. Do we have data that shows, okay, we reduced by X percent. and had these alternate modes in place, and that really did meet the parking need. So we're not over parking the neighborhoods. Do we have data that shows that this works? I mean the data. I guess kind of comes at it from a different angle, like there's there are formulas that Tdm plans or transportation engineers use where they basically predict the trip reduction that's anticipated by adding all the things like transit availability of on-street parking. you know, multimodal facilities, etc. So I don't think that we I mean, except for places like Boulder Junction, right like Chris was talking about last weekend where they're actively monitoring.

[82:05] Usually it's kind of the Tdm. Plan proposes what they think the reduction will be. And that's based on data that shows that certain things support a reduction in vehicle trips. Right? So I think when we look at a Tdm plan like this. And we look at a request for a 25% parking reduction, we basically say, are, are there enough pieces that they're adding to their formula to show that this 25% reduction will work right. And in this case our transportation staff found that yes, there are enough features between the site location between the Nico passes. I mean Chris Haglin would, I think, say that just the provision of ecopasses itself is usually about a 20% reduction in trip generation. Right? But we're talking about cars that that they won't have a car and be parking it somewhere else. That right, you know, so they may again, that idea of you have a car for the weekends, or for

[83:00] I mean, everyone has a parking space, right? So it would really just be units that that wanted to own more than one vehicle. Yeah, but there's 4 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms. So these are big units. And this is not. I mean, there's no playground. It's not like they're encouraging families. Yeah, I mean again, all I can say is that our transportation staff looked at their Tdm plan and thought that based on site location, all the characteristics and the provision of Nico passing scooters that that they would be okay. So do we have any preliminary data from the Boulder Junction? That shows that these things are are working or no. not yet. Yeah, I think Chris Haglin has lots of data. It'd be nice to have it in the future just to see. Yeah, you know. the theory of transportation management says that this should work. And here's the fact, it does work. Yeah, it doesn't work or part of the time it works. But I think that that is the biggest public input that I wanted to just make sure. Got on the table. Thank you

[84:02] and, Mesa, I see your hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to call it we on that Didn't we have a presentation? Not that long ago? It's been since I've been on the board that showed that the current parking requirements tend to overbuild based on current usage patterns. Am I remembering that correctly. Yes. Do you remember about what that was in residential percentage? Wise. Off the top of my head. I thought it was about 30%. But I don't want. That's what Mark believes, too. Yeah. Okay, that's my. That's my memory as well. Thank you. Claudia, did you have another? I just wanted to colloquy on the connections plan questions that Mark asked. and I'm glad that you brought up about the public easement in the in the center of the property. I am seeing on some of the diagrams in our packet, actual gates on that passageway and just want to clarify. Given the discussion that you just had with Mark.

[85:09] does the agreement about public easement kind of supersede, then what we are seeing in those diagrams. Yeah, okay? So the yeah, they haven't amended the plan since Tab made that recommendation. So we just added it as a condition of approval. Okay, so yeah. And then there's also some discussion of reconstructing the sidewalk along Folsom. Again, in the context of like, what is equivalent conditions for the transportation plan. Is that essentially going to be the same sidewalk that's existing there currently? Or is there any plan to widen that buffer it from fulsome. Anything like that in the plan. I thought it was a widening of the buffer and the detached sidewalk. Okay, hearing no more questions from the board for staff. We'll move to the applicant presentation, and in our agenda meeting the applicant

[86:10] has requested a 15 min time. Slot and George and I and Staff agreed to that kind of based on its number of changes and newness to the board in its current configuration. So unless there's an objection, we'll go to the applicant presentation, and I'll set my timer for 15 min, and then we'll ask questions of the applicant. I thought 15 min was standard mark. What is the standard. Well, all I know is that we agreed to 15 min in the is it, Chandler? Is it normally 10, or is it 15? Or I thought, Oh, yeah, I was. I thought it was 10. But I guess it is 15 in the in the digital. Okay, so good call on that. So we're going to give them a special 15 min. Okay.

[87:14] are we able to share our screen? Are you on Zoom as Chris Mcgranahan? No? Oh, okay. What is your name on the Zoom Meeting. We are on the Zoom Meeting. Oh, okay. I need to promote you to a panelist. No, we're not. We're on the right here. This is the Zoom Meeting. Oh, he's signed in at Zoom. Maybe that's a Zoom Meeting. You can share what? Zoom Meeting panelist 11. Oh. you should have a name in the bottom left of your screen. We aren't seeing ourselves on my screen. We're only seeing what's on the screen above.

[88:05] Did you stop there for food. Raise your hand. I just raised my hand. If that helps. Whose computer is it? Mine? What is your name? Tyson Tyler? Yes, okay, I'll see if I can see you under the attendees. Oh, okay, understood? Because I should have to promote you from attendees to panelists. Okay? And then I'll make you a co-host understood. I joined from the Zoom link online, so I don't know if I'm logged into zoom under myself. But sharing is not turned off.

[89:05] you should be able to share. Now I'll just make you a co-host. Okay. good evening. All advocate for paced development. Good to be back here again. But anyway, I'm going to be very brief. I'm going to give you a little bit of history from when I saw you last, and the major development is that I became partners with trailblake partners from Denver to get this project done. and they joined me last May. So we've been working together to come up with this scheme in this latest iteration we have, since the apartment building became not possible to pursue because of

[90:00] zoning issues. We have gone back to the board, and I've come up with a scheme that we think is great for the site. It's really about families. It's about units that will serve families. and we have the park across the street, and my fellow consultants will go through this in greater detail when it's their turn. But central to all that we have been working on for the past 3 and a half years is to create an environment where a variety of income. persons of different incomes can live together, and that is why we have the affordable units on site here. And just so, you know, and Dave will get into this in greater detail. Those are extremely expensive for us to do. and we don't intend to give them up. Okay. So having said that. Dave Bacon is development director with trailbreak. He's going to go next. Danica Powell will be after him, and then Pete Weber, with Coburn architecture, will follow them.

[91:05] Thank you. Thanks, Ali. I'll be very brief. My name is Dave Bacon. I'm director of development with trailbreak partners. We've partnered with Ali. We mainly do development in private equity, and we focus on housing. and I'm excited to be here and excited to be working on this project because I'm from up here. I've been living here since 2,009. My wife has a business here, so I know the site well, and I want you to be able to put a face with the name. and excited to turn it over to Danica, and happy to answer any questions you have when we get further down the line. Thanks. Good evening. Thanks for all your patience and the technical difficulties. This doesn't even bend the right way. I'm Danica Powell with trestle strategy group. I think Chandler did a good job explaining the timeline on this project. I've been involved since almost the early beginning part of this. and as we've mentioned, we had 2 concept plans. Our 1st one we brought forward to planning board and city council. We were encouraged to explore more density, which we did. We brought forward a second concept plan that looked at a rezoning of the site to try and get a higher density. And after that concept plan was made its way through Planning Board City Council.

[92:18] We had a couple case manager changes, and in that in about 2023 we found out we couldn't do what we had originally intended. There was some code interpretations that changed. It's a long story. And so we spent much of 2023 trying to regroup and come back with a proposal that could meet the zoning. meet the market, meet the goals of the developers and all of the codes as they were changing as well. So here in front of you, you see the submittal that we brought forward in early this year, and, as mentioned, we went to Tab again for the second time to discuss those connections. Chandler again did a great job, explaining that we also went to Burra, which was kind of exciting, because it's the 1st time borough has met since, I think, 2,000,

[93:04] at least 14. And so we met with Borough, and and they reviewed that transportation connection removal. So again, as Chandler described. We had the the green North, South, and the Black East-west. and the other connections are the ones that are on the plans that we are that are already in place, or that we are improving just a close up of that North South, as we really dug deep into how to provide that across Pearl it became very apparent that it would be a very unsafe connection to travel through what is a median and a turn lane there, and it really doesn't connect to anything. and the North South also hits a similar dead end as you hit the ditch on the west side of the property. So here's our proposed circulation plan. It provides a lot of the the dotted lines are the new circulation, and on street off street bike circulation, as well as that green dot that was added by our visit to Tab to create a 5 minimum 5 foot public access easement through the site.

[94:04] The Orange are other off street pedestrian networks, and then the rest of it is what's either in place or shown in the transportation plans. Chandler also showed that this was a really great centrally located site where we're very walkable within close proximity transit services. shopping, etc. Mecca, which is one of those personal services, is planning to stay on site and hopefully purchase that building, to remain there forever, and with that I will pass it on to Pete to take us through the rest of the presentation. Thanks, Danica Pete Weber, Coburn architecture. Nice to see you all again. I'm going to walk you through kind of how we wound up with the plan that we have, and go through some of the details. As Danica pointed out, extremely well located site. Our office is just 2 blocks from here, and you can walk to just about anything you need from this site within very short distance. There's 3 bike shops. I don't know if you notice on that

[95:04] graphic there 3 bike shops within 3 blocks of each other. The other thing that's great about this site is that it is located in between the single family neighborhoods to the north and to the west, in the multifamily and commercial zone to the East. And it's really the townhome opportunity that we're that you're going to look at today offers an opportunity to help address the missing middle in terms of housing types. The missing middle is something that we really barely exist in Boulder. If you're from the East or the Midwest. These these types of housing units exist in in quantity, but they just don't in boulder. So we're offering a a type of housing that really barely exists in the city of Boulder. In particular, we're talking about townhomes. Townhomes provide energy efficiency, and that they have shared walls. The long walls of the units are actually shared. So we're not heating

[96:01] as much of the exterior of the building. Less resource. Use those walls now, don't have exterior materials on them. As adequately pointed out, we are extremely close to transit here, and the townhomes are very efficient use of land. And here's how that works we take. You know what would be single family home lots. We stack them and we put them together, and what we're able to do is basically get twice the number of units on half the land. So very compact and efficient land use. And here's how we come up with the site plan that we have. The 1st thing we did was to decide to keep the Mecca building after all the other ramifications, and we'll go to that in Q. And A, if you like. But the ultimate decision was to keep that building, retain that local business and keep the building on site and that anchors the northeast corner of the site. And it's a cool building. I mean, it's just a nice little example of kind of 19 sixties car oriented buildings.

[97:08] And here's what it looks like in the context of the project. The building's largely going to stay the same. We have to move a mechanical piece of mechanical equipment, but otherwise the building will stay, as is next thing we did was remake the streets. All of our townhomes on the perimeter face outward. So they're facing the streets. 26th Streets, Bruce, Folsom, and Pearl. and we're going to fix the streets Spruce and 26th Street in particular are a bit of a mess. Far from being complete streets, there is no sidewalk. There's no bike lane. It's actually quite dangerous on a bike coming down spruce here. I do it all the time, and the combination of diagonal and parallel parking and curb cuts makes it very confusing and difficult to navigate. You really got to get your bike out there in the Travel lane to have any sense of safety? There is no tree lawn. The visibility is horrible.

[98:05] So here's what we're going to do. Instead, you can see the Townhome buildings on the left, there little front yards. We added a sidewalk, a tree lawn parallel parking, which is much more predictable, and then actually a buffered bike lane along Spruce Street. the vehicular circulation on the site. All the cars will come off of 2826th Street. So just one curb cut at 26th Street and then circulate internally to individual garages. And here's how that works. We have a combination of large and small garages, one and 2 car, if you will. Those are all a little bit oversized. So there's room in there for your other stuff bikes trash. whether you're a 1 car or a 2 car. There's there's a little bit of extra. and then we have surface parking for the Mecca building in 2 locations, one in front on Spruce Street and the one behind.

[99:00] and one note about some of the letters that you got. They indicated. I think, a 39% parking reduction. It's actually a 25% parking reduction. Just to be clear. I think there was some confusion about various iterations of the plan while we were in the staff process. And then, in addition to the garages, we've actually added a significant amount of on-street parking. with adding 13 total new on street parking spaces in parallel along spruce and along 26th Street. and then we also have a significant amount of bike parking for all of the individual townhomes that they've got space in their garages. and then some short term and long term bike parking in multiple locations on the site, and a lime scooter grove at the corner of 26 and spruce. The pedestrian circulation is around the perimeter. So again, we fix these sidewalks, and then we have a series of pedestrian paths internal to the site

[100:01] that connect all the various aspects to the, to the public way. And here's what some of those look like. This is looking down the path that runs in the south side of the site. These walkways are a mix of various paving patterns. and they are accompanied by rain gardens all along the way. This is one of the internal ones. This is actually the the public access easement as it runs in between 2 of the 2 of the central buildings, and again you can see the rain gardens in the mix of paving patterns. And here's all that all that comes together, how all that circulation works together on the site. And again, that public access easement through the center in the north south direction. Next is we looked at a network of green. We start with Greenleaf Park, which is immediately across the street. This is a great. a great little park. If you haven't spent any time there, there's a playground for kids. There's Basketball court for older folks, and then ample green open space immediately across Folsom.

[101:08] Next we took a look at internal green space, so the space between the buildings and around the buildings again, those are a combination of rain gardens and pathways. And then the last thing is to consider open space at the roof level. And here's what we're doing there. We're taking what you would normally see in a single family condition. And we're dividing that up in different ways across the site. There's in front of the units between the units. Those are accompanied by rain gardens. Then we run pathways through those gardens, and then finally, we take the yards and put them at the roof level. And here's those open spaces again. This is where the public access easement is with the rain gardens. This is where the entries are to all those internal units are off of those green spaces. and then that one that's in the southwest corner

[102:01] again. This is the this is the largest of the gathering spaces, and I can give you some dimensional aspects to this, if you if you like, when we get to that in the Q&A, and then the roof decks. Each unit has its own roof deck. They are all covered with solar panels that are translucent. So you get some of the light through, but enough shade to allow you to get out there in the middle of the summer. And here's how that fits on the site. There's 182 total bedrooms, 11 buildings, 52 townhomes, including 4 affordable, which are, I want to emphasize this. They are for sale, for sale. Affordable is something that we rarely see, it's very difficult to do. It's expensive, but the project can provide it. and this site is very sustainable. I mean, the location is probably the most important piece which we've we've probably said enough about, for now there's the solar on the rooftop, the permual pavers and rain gardens which take care of our water quality for the site.

[103:02] This site currently is virtually entirely paved. So all that you green the green that you see is new. There is currently there might be one tree coming up through the cracks in the pavement, but otherwise this site is currently paved. And then we're keeping the Mecca building on the corner, and all of the residential will be all electric a little bit about the units. We have a variety of units. Okay? Sure. So size ranges that you can see here, including the on-site affordable. The architecture is a mix of brick and and other materials. This is the townhomes on spruce. We tried to break this up again. There's 11 buildings. multiple architectural moves to try to keep it varied. Here's the the buildings along Folsom. and then these try to move quickly. One thing I want to point out about this one is that we have purposely set back the upper level, so that from the street you really have a two-story component that you're experiencing from the sidewalk. and then again, the the courtyards

[104:02] in the center of the site. And then you haven't seen this one yet. This is the looking at the corner of Folsom, and Spruce across the the ditch towards the townhomes there. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Got a bunch of folks here that can help? Thank you very much. You concluded that with 5 seconds remaining. So right on. Okay. thank you to the applicant. Okay, we'll go to questions from the board who would like to start. I see Claudia moving her microphone. I'll try to keep them. These ones a little more short and specific. I have some questions about the site design in particular, the open spaces, shared spaces, etc. I think I asked one of them in the staff presentation, and was hoping to get an answer on the

[105:03] size of the interior open space corridors like, what is the width that you're talking about there, and then the size of that open space on the southwest. like, I'll start with this one because the slides convenient. This is a kind of a trapezoidal space shaped space, and so the dimensions vary. If you go from the face of the brick building, there to the chair where that bike is, that is, get my dimensions correct. That's about 33 feet. If you go to the face of the other building which is across the drive there. It's about 55 feet. So, depending on where you're drawing the line. you get different dimensions, and then, as you move to the north, it gets narrower. And then you mentioned the internal buildings. The other 2 courtyards are 28 feet from building to building, and 29 feet from building to building respectively.

[106:01] So where your where your internal paths cross the access drive? Is there any differentiation there planned in terms of paving in terms of elevation and grade. The grade does not change trying to get back to the site plan for you. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Yeah. So you can see how the paving does change with the paths. So we've got pavers that follow along with the path. so that the pedestrian is clearly delineated and the cars are slowed by that differentiation. Okay, one more connections question. Is there any pedestrian connection between the the internal walks there on the west side of the property and the actual city sidewalk on Folsom yet. No, there's not. Not until you get to the corner of Spruce and Folsom. The ditch is there, and we don't have the ability to cross that ditch.

[107:00] There is a sidewalk on our side of the ditch that we're that we're putting in that runs parallel to the city sidewalk on the other side of the ditch. Okay, but will it connect to either pearl or to spruce on the north or the south? That internal sidewalk. Yeah, it it does connect to the sidewalk on spruce and via the southern sidewalk. It would come over to Pearl and and down. Okay. and then one more question the little stub of land that you have to the south, where you have a bit of a T connection there to Pearl Street. Do the units that you've put down there have any entryway on the interior of the site? I mean, I know there's some requirements that you actually have building frontage on Pearl Street. But how do those buildings interface with the with the majority of the site to the north? You said the walkway does come past that building and down their vehicular entrances to the north, but their pedestrian and entrance is off of Pearl Street.

[108:02] Okay? So if we were to look at, say, the the vehicle entrance side of those buildings. So the north side of those buildings? Are we just looking at garage doors? Or are there actual ground level entries to the units at that, no ground level entry to the unit. If you look at garage doors at the lower level, and then above is windows. And okay, thank you. Laura. Go ahead. So just go down the line. Here. Hi, thank you again for an informative presentation. Very well done. So I want to ask you the question I gave you a heads up about in the last Concept review that we saw when it was a big apartment building. The plan was to demolish the Mecca, maybe retain some architectural nods, but not to keep that building. And we're hearing tonight that it was your voluntary decision to keep the Mecca building. Can you tell me how that happened? How that came about? Why'd you change your mind? Yeah, I might hand that one off to Dave. I like the building personally, so I was always a champion, but

[109:07] sure happy to address that one. There is a few different reasons, and one when we were doing our due diligence. It was kind of clear from past meetings that some people thought the building was special, but a lot of people thought that the tenant and the the business itself was special, and we also were trying to figure out well, what kind of amenities do we have within walking distance of the site. Do we need more? And this ended up being an essential amenity, I thought, for people that were going to be here. And then, lastly. we got to know Rebecca, who owns the business, and she really wanted to stay here, and it was fortunate that she wanted to stay there long term, and we thought maybe we could find a way to do a purchase and sale agreement so she could control her own destiny. And so that's kind of the way that we've been pursuing this. So we've been negotiating a Psa so that she would be able to control it on her own. Okay, thank you. And then I just have a couple of very small questions I asked earlier about the rideshare area, and whether there's any seating associated with that is that something that you folks considered?

[110:07] We don't currently show any in the plan. Okay? And is it like space constrained? Or is that something that you might consider having a place for people to sit while they wait. Okay, I'm not going to make that a condition of, or I'm not going to propose it for the Board to consider as a condition of approval, but I would hope that you would consider that I think it's a nice amenity for people, especially if they're injured or older, to have a play or children to have a place to sit down. That's a great point. And then similar, just sort of human point. As a dog owner. You probably have thought about the fact that your site basically takes up a block. And if people have pets and pets need to relieve themselves outdoors. They're going to be relieving themselves on your landscaping. And so did you consider that in your landscaping plan of how that that function of life gets accomplished without killing all your landscaping. You know our landscape architect isn't here, so I guess I can't say that that plant species were considered based on dogs. But but we did talk about having areas up on the roof where the yard is

[111:08] for that which sounds odd. But we thought, we've talked about having patches of artificial grass for that purpose. Yeah, there are things you can buy for that. Having had a senior pet that could not exit the roof deck. Yes. okay. So just again, something for you to consider in your landscaping plan, because I've lived in a condo development where all the landscaping died for that reason, so I would hate to have that happen to you. Thank you so much. Ml. so I'm going to come back to this question about the setbacks, and I'm not sure why this became became interesting to me on this project. I think it's because that idea that you're putting the backyard on the roof, and you're condensing.

[112:01] the buildings on the site. And I began to think, Well, what else was you know? How else did more. How else did you gain more land? And part of it was through the setbacks, so do you know how much square footage was gained for use on the property. It's a really difficult question to answer. One of the things that makes it difficult. Is we never really went through with staff to determine what's front, what's rear, what side? There's multiple lots. And they, the city's determinations of what is front, side and rear is a little bit difficult to navigate so. and I think Chandler put it well. I think that we did not consider the setbacks in the Site review process to be sacrosanct, and so we designed the best site we could given the program that we had. And you know, instead of having larger front yards, for instance, we've taken some of that space and put it internal. So the 3 green spaces that we talked about and tried to design a site as best we could given, given the parameters that we had.

[113:09] The the space on the roof is also part of it. I'd also point out that we. you know our open space. We required a 1515% open space. And we have 40, some percent open space on the site. So although, do you know what percent of that is on the roof. 25% is on the roof. You can only count 25%. We actually have quite a bit more on the roof. But in terms of the way the city calculates open space, you can only count up to 25% of the requirement on the roof. So you've got like what? 40, 41 minus 25. Yeah, there's about 30,000 square feet of open space at the ground level, and then about 40,000, actually at the upper level, but we can only count 10 of it towards our, towards the requirement. Okay, those those are my questions. Thank you for it is, I agree the setbacks are complex, because where is the front? But you know they're 20. They're 20 feet front and rear setback. So that's a lot of land, and I'm just thinking, huh! Wonder where that went, or how much that actually turned out to be. But I understand that it wasn't on. Everybody's mind is to make that a calculation.

[114:20] Thank you. Mason. Do you have questions for the applicant? Do so I'm making an assumption here that the sidewalk along the west side of building 10 is there because of the needed setback of the building on the west side. Is that correct? It is both a setback that allows us to have openings along that side, but it also provides for that public access easement to connect from Pearl up to spruce. Right. It seems like it would be more logical to have it on the other side, but because the building is on the west side. It's stopping that possibility.

[115:01] Yeah, we did consider that ultimately the west facade, we thought, was more important for openings than the east. Makes sense. And then I wanted to ask about air quality. Are there mechanicals on these buildings for air filtration, that sort of thing? What kind of considerations have you all put into that? Given how traffic heavy this area is. Yeah, so our mechanical systems, we will have Ervs that will be filtering outside air. So yes, there is. There is air filtration built into each unit. And I know the my last question. I know the nerf. If I'm saying that I'm saying that correctly style drive aisle is intended to be pedestrian, friendly, and I really appreciate that.

[116:02] I was just wondering if there was any additional consideration for pedestrian cycle safety in this design, in terms of like side lanes, etc. Yeah, you know, I think you hit the nail on the head. We really tried to design that east-west drive to be as friendly to pedestrians as possible. Cyclists. you know. You're probably not going real fast on your bike in here. Hopefully, there's not enough room to to do much on a on a bike until you get to the edges. But the from a pedestrian standpoint, you know every every spot where you're supposed to walk was given careful consideration to try to make it as friendly as possible, and let the pedestrian win to the extent possible. That was my last question. Thank you.

[117:00] Okay, I'm going to ask a few. And they're also my 1st set of questions also is in regard to the north-south pathway. And I realize that what we're looking at is a set of site plans. It's not fully detailed drawings yet, but I see corners there. Well, 1st of all course. Question. is it paved the whole way, or does it transition to from concrete to soft surface and back? Is it paved the whole way? It's paved the whole way from sidewalk to sidewalk. Great? Okay, that's good. is it? 5 feet or wider the whole way? We intend to provide the requested 5 foot public access easement. You know, technically where cost is a drive. It's wider.

[118:00] but that's our intent is to provide provide the full 5 feet. Okay. will. Some of the corners just based on the the drawing. And again, you know, a little yellow line on a page is not a not a set of construction documents, but it looks like some of those corners are are greater than 90 degrees, as the path when the path kind of winds, and then it makes what would be a 90 degree corner if it was just a straight path? Some of those corners are greater than 90 degrees. Do you plan on easing the radii in those corners. I'm concerned about accessibility for people in wheelchairs or whatever other wheeled mobility and cyclists. And I realize this is you don't want cyclists speeding through here, but older cyclists, younger cyclists, kids, etc, anyway, and people tend to cut things off that are 90 anyway, or greater than greater than 90. So do you plan on easing those radii and making making that a softer radius at all those 90 degree corners? Because you do have several through there. Yeah, there's a couple interior corners there that I think we should take all that into account. I think your points are well made. Okay.

[119:22] all right. I'll end on the on that. And my next questions are. in regard to your choice for horizontal cement cement siding in some relatively large to me, large areas. What went into your design choice on that? Was it mainly cost? Are there other design considerations? Because I've been exposed recently to large swaths of horizontal cement siding.

[120:01] and if done with the slightest defect, the eye picks up on that, and it looks really cheap, so, anyway. But I could be dissuaded of having that opinion if newer siding products are superior to old warpy ones, etc, so can you comment on your choice for that cement siding in those large panels of interior, more of the interior space. You use brick. a lot of the exterior sidewalk facing ones, but the interior faces seem like they have a lot of that. Yeah, there is. There is a fair amount of that we are looking at, varying the profiles. 1st of all, so that it's not just one consistent lapped profile to your point about cost. It is a factor I have yet to work on a project where cost is not an issue. and those cementitious products are less expensive than brick. There is a pretty large difference in quality level across various products, and the ones that are crisper tighter are more expensive. And those are the materials that we're considering for this. We're not considering the bottom of the barrel rounded warpy as you point it.

[121:17] and the other thing we've done is on those facades that do have greater amounts is tried to break them up with fenestration. So that we're not looking at really large expanses, we try to break it up. And actually, we're talking just today about potentially modifying the way that we that we break it up where there are not windows. And if you, if you look carefully, there are some regulates that are shown to try to break that up. We're considering doing that differently to break it up even further. So I hope that helps. Yeah. I'll have some comments. But I'll leave it at that as a question. Okay, I think that's it for me. Anyone else come up with anything they didn't ask in the 1st round. Okay, thank you very much.

[122:03] Oh, Mason, you have your hand up suddenly. Okay, yeah. Real quick, sorry. Will there be 2 40 access in the in the garages for Ev charges charging. We have a combination of ev charging options. I can't tell you exactly which ones are which, but at least some of the units have the ability for that. Yes. Thank you. I think we're. Actually, we decided to have ev charging for every parking spot. I think we have, at least for every car. Have it ready? Yes, ready. So whether that power is provided, some of them do, and some of them don't. But 2, 40 is part of it. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Okay, that concludes the applicant's presentation. do board members want to take a break? Or do we just go right into public hearing

[123:02] aim. Okay, Thomas, we're going to take a short break. It is 8 0. 3. We'll return at 8, 13.

[132:51] Slight agenda change before the public hearing. We're going to let Laurel from our city attorney's office representing the planning board.

[133:04] Come, talk to us about the question that Claudia raised earlier. about the requirement for different bedroom types. So take it away. Laurel. Thank you so much. Hi, everybody, my computer's not turning on. So I'm going to try and do this from memory as much as I possibly can. Thank you, Claudia, for bringing up the bedroom issue. So as we're looking at the criteria, there is the criterion that says mixed bedroom units that they're studio 1, 2, and 3 like we were talking about that there aren't 4 plus or other units in there. We asked around a little bit and potentially could be about student housing. We're not really sure what the background history of that is. We can get that for you at some point in the future, or maybe look at it for a potential code change in the future. One of the things that we wanted to point out is that like you said, there's that catch all provision in the bottom that talks about. You know what are the other community needs, or I don't have the exact language in front of me, because my computer is turning on. But there's that language in there that says, what are the other community needs and goes back to the Bbcb. So one in the Bbcp can we cite back to? And there's a few housing policies that could potentially be used. If you want to consider that such as

[134:15] there's some stuff in there about. like different housing types in 7.0 7 7.1 0 talks about it as well in the Bbcp. So those are kind of some options. The other option is, of course, to add a condition on to the approval that talks about how to get them into compliance under the Site Review criteria. If you don't agree, or with any other arguments that the applicant has already made in their materials. So those are kind of the different options that you can do as far as moving forward with that particular criteria. So you're saying, we can either accept under the final Roman numeral, 6 or 7, 6. Yep, 6. We could accept for the 4 bedroom type, as

[135:00] if you think that it meets this language about demonstrating the project fulfills at least another equivalent community need related to housing policies in the Bbcp. So that, being those things I talked about are the housing. Okay? Conversely, we could condition the approval. Yeah, like, you can with any other criteria. Yeah, right? Okay, yeah. Okay, yeah, so that it? Then that condition helps it meet the criteria as you see it. Okay, while Laurel is up here, do people have questions for laurel? Yeah, I do have a clarifying question here. So in that in that condition, 5. About needing 2 different bedroom types. Is there any place that specifies what the then mix of those at least 2 different bedroom types needs to be. Is there any minimum number of I'm not seeing it in that particular section of the code. But is it anywhere else? No, it's not so, and the Bbcp is even more general. It doesn't even specify the bedroom. So this is the most specific that we get. Okay, yeah. So it could be one. It could be one. Thank you.

[136:09] Thank you. Laurel, yeah. Okay, sorry about the confusion earlier. All right. We will now go to the public hearing for both. Again, this is a public hearing for agenda. Item 5, a, the site review, and 5 B. The changes to the connections plan. So. And we take people here first.st Is there anyone here that wishes to speak? I don't. Yes, we do have. We do have one person signed up for public participation. And that's Rebecca Bach. Doc, yeah, please go to the podium and you'll have 3 min to speak. Thank you. Hold on. I'm in my reading glass era. Give me a second. Okay. My name is Rebecca Bach, and I am the business owner. At 2, 5, 4, 6, Spruce Street.

[137:02] I rent the entire building and it houses one of Boulder's last, locally owned created female-operated fitness concepts called Mecca fitness. Mecca is not a national chain. It was founded in Boulder specifically to address the fitness needs of this unique community, and we have operated in Boulder for over 10 years, and I employ over 20 people. I dare say we're one of the most loved local fitness brands left in a town that has survived the pandemic. In fact, we recently won best gym in Boulder best Pilates, and 3, rd best independent business in Boulder in the 2024 awards by the Boulder weekly. I'm thrilled that the spruce street development which is being discussed tonight has been designed to keep my unique business. The building is attractive, with huge wooden beams and big glass windows embracing an aesthetic that's both retro and modern, and I think suits the neighborhood. I'm grateful for Dave and Ollie's support fellow Boulderites who understand the value that my business adds in the community.

[138:04] But not only does the development plan to preserve the building. They have agreed to sell me the building as part of their plan, and I can't express how delighted I am to finally be empowered to serve Boulder in my own space. I'll finally be in control of my own destiny in Boulder, and can be my own landlord. Lastly, I have seen all the plans for how the block will be designed, and I'm really relieved that the design is a variety of buildings that offer green areas and garage spaces for owners. And it isn't a giant block of a building. This is a huge plus, because it'll still feel like a neighborhood and hopefully bring more clients to Mecca and and other local businesses. I also appreciate the extra landscaping and green areas with a new bike lane, because I do have a lot of clients that bike frequently to classes. But there will be parking options, too, which is helpful, as we do have many commuting clients that live too far to bike overall. I can't wait to move forward with this project and get past these final approvals. So I can buy the building and have the confidence that I can continue to invest in my small business in Boulder, knowing that I will have a really great home for the long term.

[139:10] Thanks for your time and consideration. Thank you, and congratulations. Anyone else here in the in the building. Okay? And how about online, Thomas? We should have. I, I can help with the online participants. So far, we have one hand raised, and I'd like to just remind others if they would like to speak to send me their full name person last name through the Q. And A. Function, and I can change it and then call on you, but we'll go ahead and move forward with Kila Duham, who has her hand raised, and I just ask Tila if you could please share whether you're speaking on behalf of Tab, if and if they've authorized you to speak on their behalf, please go ahead

[140:00] 3 min. You got it. Thank you for that reminder. I am Tila Duheim. I am definitely here kind of in with wearing 2 hats but generally here, speaking on my own behalf, I am also here, as I had mentioned to the applicant when they last appear before Tab that A member of Tab was intending to attend this evening to assure that sort of the gentleman's agreement that we had arrived at a tab being a purely advisory committee would be honored. And so I am. I am pleased. With the general tenor of the conversation. I am absolutely pleased to hear from the owner.

[141:00] At the gym on the corner at Spruce and 26 one of my concerns, or one of my questions was, would the amount of parking that is in the current plan feel sufficient to that business, and I am very gratified to hear her, you know, testify before me and say Yes. in terms of the public easement. So Tab was asked on 2 different occasions to sort of approve changes to the connections plan and a secondary road from essentially the Folsom and Pearl Corridor intersection through this project. That was, that was not a difficult decision. But more recently the applicant came to us to ask for a revision of a master of of a multi-use path

[142:01] north and south through the site that would kind of aim it toward Mike's camera as it is now. Yeah, our neighborhood to the north. I. I agree with Staff's analysis that there has been some change in circumstance in terms of the bike ability and the comfort level of cycling and current and future plans to improve that on Folsom 26 spruce i so we as tab agree to remove the multi-us path connection, because that is a 12 foot wide, concrete paved path that really would not go directly anywhere but we remain concerned about pedestrian access and low skills, low confidence cyclists. And so to the extent that we planned

[143:01] connections through the site between spruce and pearl could be improved with wider radiuses and better curvature, or more direct connections, and in particular paved stuff on the the community. Do you. That's in pat. Please wrap it up quickly. Yep. The community path is supposed to be soft gravel. I I believe that Tabs Discussion intended it to be paved for all users and abilities. Thank you. And for the record, Tila, can we please just ask you to confirm if Tab authorized you to speak on their behalf? So we did discuss at the Tab meeting that a person, and that ends up being me would attend to represent Tab, and to represent what Tabs understanding was about the conditions for approving the relinquishment of the multi-use path requirement in favor of a public access easement. I will say the

[144:10] my comments about the pavement conditions and disfavoring the soft surface section of the proposed easement is entirely my own, because we did not, as tab discuss the surface conditions, but I will say that I was authorized to come to Tab to represent what tabs the tenor of Tabs discussion was on relinquishing a multi use path in favor of a. Okay? Permanent. How many is it. I think that's enough for for our purposes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other members from the public joining us online who'd. Wish to. Participate in the public hearing. You can go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[145:06] I never approved this project 3 years ago. It's completely inappropriate the whole thing. I'm especially concerned about the fine arts and woodworking business at on 26, th and of course through the landmarks board. I wanted to preserve the Mecca and have it be, you know, not demolishable, anyway, which that didn't happen, but they incorporated it. These businesses are necessary now. I have to drive my car out to Belmont for Hoshie. I only drive my car 5 times a year. But one of those times is going to be driving it out to Hoshi way out of town this place that there's too much intensity of use in this area. All of these people that are coming in, you know, there's the hyundai development. There's, you know.

[146:00] 30th and pearl. All these people need grocery stores, department stores. services. We don't have that many. This is not New York City. This is Boulder. We do not need another development of huge amount of housing. The missing middle is a joke. 22, 0, 6. Pearl is a perfect example. 300 feet for 1,700 to $2,600, and that was 3 years ago. So it's higher now. this is the the oh God! So many reasons the the people can't swim in the swim pool. you know all the affordable, the inclusionary housing. This is like at Mckenzie Junction. Oh, they're separate things now. No, if you have a swimming pool. Let the poor people swim in the pool, too. no parking reductions, no height amendments, nothing, no benefits to this developer.

[147:02] we need this area for services, not for more housing, for more people, for more people to drive all over town for the services that they can't get. I'm glad that Rebecca has the Mecca, but I'm sorry, and the connections need to be restored north, south, and east, west, and welcoming to the community because who wants to go into a little private community? You need to make it welcome. But I won't say anything to to assuage the guilt of the people that are doing this project. I don't want to make this better, because this should never, ever have happened. In the 1st place, this is a huge development, not 4 levels, not no height, restrictions, no parking reductions. None of this. This is not. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you, Lynn. That's the end of the 3 min. Thank you.

[148:06] Vivian is there? You're you're muted again, somehow. Thank you. Just giving it a couple more seconds in case others from the public would like to speak doesn't look like it. That concludes the public, hearing back over to you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, the the applicant. It's funny. This needs to be formalized in our procedures, but we do give the applicant a moment to respond to anything in the public hearing that they may want to respond to. It's not required. But if you'd like you may. you just have one thing to to address, which is potential Bbcp criteria. There are 4 that I think could qualify. 2 of them relate to affordable housing. I don't know that they can given the inclusionary housing how that all ties in, but nonetheless they are Dvcp criteria. One is local solutions to affordable housing. We have it on site.

[149:11] The other one that relates is integration of affordable housing. And again, we have it on site. There is a mixture of housing types, varied prices, size, and densities. and the 4th is housing for a full range of households. So one of the things that that often leaves out is families, and we have 3 and 4 bedroom units which can allow for that. Thanks. Okay, thank you. All right. That's going to close the public hearing, and we'll move on to board. Deliberation and Chandler, if you can put up those key questions.

[150:17] Okay. yeah, I it's that's 1 of those zoom things. I don't think you can move that black box. But okay. And so again, we're not really. We're missing with the review credit, huh? Just see with the site review criteria. Okay? So I would propose that we. if someone's ready that we go ahead. And what we've been doing in recent meetings is to just begin with whoever's ready, and answer

[151:02] all 3 questions rather than cycling through everyone on each question individually. If that's okay with my fellow board members. we'll begin. And is anyone ready with their thoughts on our on the key issues for discussion. And, Mason, if you're like itching to go, and I'm not seeing you or hearing you you can. You can let me know. No itches here, thank you. Okay, Laura. Laura's gonna gonna be our starter. I'll go first, st and I will be brief, and I will. I'm a yes, on all 3 of these, I think the project is basically consistent with the I think it is consistent with the Site Review criteria of the land use code

[152:03] that that one area with the 3 and 4 bedroom units. Nice catch, Claudia. We are at the point of Site Review, and I think it is arguable that this is a section of the code that needs some cleanup right? And the applicant is unfortunately being caught in the middle of that. And so I think that we can use that section that says, is there basically meeting an equivalent and intent in the Bbcp. we do need a variety of housing types 3 and 4 bedroom units are better for families. I think we do have a concern in this town about very expensive townhomes being built, and that that is one of the housing types that we get very expensive housing for families. I do appreciate that the applicant is meeting their inclusionary housing requirements, and that some of that will be on site at a cost to the applicant, and I think that that is a great thing that they're offering, although, as Sloan pointed out that can change. You know, market conditions can change. Construction costs can change, and despite everybody's best intentions, we can't hold them to that. So I don't think we can use that as a justification for how they're meeting the Site Review criteria.

[153:04] But I do think that, like I said, I think this is an area of the code that we need to think about. Do we want to intentionally leave 4 bedroom units out of that definition of of the bedroom types. Or do we want to put it in? Let's have some discussion about that. But let's not trap this applicant by that, and I think we can make a good argument that they are meeting the equivalent intent. So I'm good on one. I'm fine with the parking reduction, you know, as as Mason reminded us. These sites are code requirements over park things, and we're about to change those code requirements, probably, anyway. And so I think that with the Tdm plan that they have proposed that I'm I'm fine with their proposed parking reduction, and with the support of the tab and the the borough. I think we're fine with the approving the changes to the transportation connections plan. So I'm fine with all 3 of these. I do have a comment for staff that I can either make now or later.

[154:03] Let's you know I have. I have a so I have a comment that doesn't necessarily relate to the 3 key issues here. So let's let's go through the 3 key issues. and then we'll find time for comment. That is additional. I do want to say, just in case this is something that is on my other colleagues, minds as well regarding using the rooftop decks for the open space, which is totally code consistent. But the very paltry amount of additional community benefit that we're getting from that 51 square feet per rooftop deck of living space. We're only getting one additional unit as community benefit from providing additional heights. the height modification, even though it's a very large benefit to the applicant. And again, I think it's a loophole in our code that the applicant is not responsible for. I don't blame you. I think I would have done the same in your position, but I think I don't want to hold the applicant to that, but I think that we should reconsider how we calculate community benefit for something like a rooftop deck

[155:05] that allows the applicant to build out more of their site, and we don't get a lot of benefit from that. So I'm going to stop there. Okay. ml. so you know, I'm I'm really intrigued with the concept to push the open space to to a height modification. And yeah, the question for me is, do we grant a 4th floor that does not essentially give the city community value. and I do think that it it. It will block the current open view of the front range, the Flat Iron sanitas, etc. So there is a a loss of open access to our front range that will be, I think, exacerbated because it isn't just the little stair towers that are going up.

[156:07] There's canopies up there that will have translucent of some kind Pv panels, but you'll read them as a mass. They'll they'll read as a they will block they, they will block the view. So that is the part that is troubling me about the project that we don't really gain a lot, and I think we're giving a lot, and I'm not sure about the how about the height, modification. So number one, I'm concerned that it does not meet some of the criteria around the the views and the blocking of the views. Number 2. I. I don't think I have a problem with the parking reduction that's being

[157:02] that's being requested, especially with those added 18 spaces along Spruce Street. Spruce Street is a street, you know, that people use for parking. It's very heavily parked right now, and that, I think, will be a big benefit. So I don't have a problem with Number 2. I support the parking reduction as far as Number 3 with the connections. The change to the connections plan. I do think that creating a path that, in fact, does go through and land somewhere, because right now the current one, you know, lands at a I think there's a fence there. at from the Cox Building, so you can't get to Pearl Street. So I think that it's a great improvement in at least the the North South connection there. So I don't. I will concur with Tab and Vera on that. And I don't have a problem with Number 3, either.

[158:06] Thank you. Thanks, Amal Claudia, are you ready? I can try to be We'll go one by one, I think. Yes, on the balance. the proposal does meet our Bvcp policies and our Site Review criteria in terms of the Bvcp. I think there are some good alignments here around land use and infill. I'm somewhat less convinced about meeting housing needs. But I agree with my colleague, Laura. that some of the problems we're seeing are actually in the code and not in the application in front of us in terms of the types of housing that we are generating. I do want to add an additional concern about open space again. I don't think this is compliance issue in this particular proposal, but while something like rooftop decks, I think, are a really interesting addition here to our mix. They have a lot of benefits for

[159:08] intensity of use on a particular site. I do worry that we are potentially allowing them to be exchanged for shared open spaces. and those have their own benefits to a community and to a neighborhood that really cannot be met through private rooftops. But again, that is not. That is not a condition under our code at the moment, but just something to flag for the future. Second question parking reductions. Yes, I think we are fine doing a parking reduction as requested here. As others have pointed out, we've been learning a lot about how we've been tending to over park our developments here in Boulder recently. and the last question, the amendment to the connections plan. I would follow Tabs advice on this so long as we have that North South public Easement.

[160:04] I may ask a question later in the discussion. To folks who know better whether that 5 feet of dedicated easement is actually enough to get what we need out of that circulation. Thank you, Claudia Mason. Yeah. So for the 1st one, I do believe this project is consistent on balance, the BBC especially in certain areas like voting alternatives seeking single occupancy vehicles. The Bbcp does emphasize the importance of developing housing and areas with access to transit and mixed use developments making this project's location. Very good for this type of project. I also think that it meets the site design criteria. The project in place building breaks pedestrian pathways, gathering plazas enhanced visual permeability.

[161:01] And it links to public spaces and parks which further promotes pedestrian access. Also think the project aims to create visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience while remaining remaining relatively simple and human scale. As far as the parking reduction, the project does include a decent Tdm. Which outlines strategies to reduce parking demand the permission of transit passes scooter station, ample bicycle parking, as many folks have said, on this call, and overbilled by about 30% over park, about 30%. And this is asking for less of that. In the 1st place. So I think we're actually going to potentially see a great reduction than what's being asked for, which is really great? For point 3. the connection plan? Yeah. So it's like others have said, I agree with Tab and Bura and their recommendations. I think that while the project

[162:08] removes those connections from the transportation Connections plan, I find that the proposed internal and external transportation improvements provide an equivalent level of connectivity. I also believe the project aims around alternatives to automobile through set design and infrastructure. Think in advance. Yeah. I I do hope I will just add in here. I do hope they're able to. although not required. I do hope they do stick to their plans of having affordable housing mixed in. I think that's really important. It's a great. Thank you, Mason. Okay, I'll go and - So I'm yes, on all 3. But I think this is an interesting project where the

[163:04] in all 3 key issues for discussion. I feel like the applicant has fulfilled and honored the code. And we have, we have, as we continue to go through this and other sites. You know, we find failings in in the code, and and we can't hold applicants responsible for that. And we can't hold applicants to our aspirations and our wishes and our preferences. So sticking to number one for a second, I will simply say that again. And I talked about the the architectural design of some of the interior spaces of the buildings, where, when I say interior, the interior spaces between the buildings and the use of the horizontal siding

[164:02] I find, as I as I've had this packet, I've driven around town for the last week, looked at a lot of Coburn, other Coburn projects and tried to note other materials, and how they were used, and I would certainly encourage the applicant to review what it's going to look like from some of those interior courtyards, because people as they drive in and out, you know, people spend a lot of time looking at their garage doors and looking up at their unit and stuff from the backside. and sometimes much more than from the street side of their union, because they go in and out through their garage a lot, and if it's on their bike, or whatever, they're still going in and out through the garage, so I would again. I'm not going to condition anything, because I don't think it's it would really be either to the letter or the spirit of the code. But I was actually surprised that when we talk in the code about materials that are authentic and stuff, we use a lot of subjective words about these materials.

[165:12] I was surprised that we have the cement siding in there. and I realize sometimes it can be fine. But anyway, I would caution against the extensive use of it that is noted in the application regarding number 2, I would simply say that not only do I think this is potentially still over parked, and that we could have a couple more if the, if done with a slightly different design, potentially, we could have another unit or 2 if we reduced parking spaces. I don't think that every anyway, I'm going to say the unit is potentially over parked, and that and that question number 2 will soon go away. This, I believe this as State law comes into effect, and we bring our code into alignment. With that

[166:07] this will no longer be a question. It will be a market determination. We will not have parking minimums and at a site in this location. in this transit, rich area. And so this would not even be a criteria for us at some near future date. And then, as far as the the connections plan. I support Tab's work and appreciate their careful look at this. And I would. And in regard to Claudia's comment about community open spaces, community open spaces are so key for building community, right? You know, rooftop decks are open space, and that's private open space. But you know this is a project that yes, people people should feel like they're in a community. And and so, and functional usable open spaces are are key to

[167:08] people feeling connected to their neighbors. and there there is, even though the the applicant has fulfilled the requirement. I just want to emphasize that the it's critical, that that path design, be usable by people of all sorts of ages and abilities, and and still maintain its interest. You know I'm not asking for a 6 foot wide, super straight, white, concrete, linear strip. But at the same time I want to make sure that corners are radiused in such a way. And and it's designed carefully and thoughtfully for a great deal of accessibility. So with those thoughts, that's a that's those are my thoughts on those those 3 key points.

[168:03] Does anyone have anything that they want to say or comment? Or they forgot to say. And they want to add in. we need to make a motion. Yeah. Oh, yeah, we will do that in a second. Yeah, yeah. But anything in regard to the criteria or any other comments. Okay? Oh, Claudia, I do have one more, and just that I do have. I have some concern for those 2 units that are sitting down to the south, fronting onto Pearl Street. And I recognize totally this is a. This is a very difficult site to work with, with that little stub of land. And what do you? What do you actually do with it? How do you make sure? Whatever you put there is integrated into the community. and I am curious, if we can create any space, to actually have entrances to those units and the interior of this development, our rules around this, the Site Review criteria, talk about

[169:03] requiring buildings to be street facing and having connections to the public realm. And I think there's an argument that the the public realm, in part in this particular site is now oriented in a different direction. It is oriented towards The other parts of this development, and not the the 5 lanes of traffic happening on Pearl Street behind it. So I am a little concerned about those units being isolated. I'm concerned about them not having a connection to the rest of this development. Okay, let's keep that in mind as we get into motion making and possible conditions. Okay. okay, it's time to look at the staff, recommended motion. And

[170:00] again, as we've done in the past, I'm going to suggest that we begin with a motion, and then we make proposed amendments as board members see fit, and go from there. Laura, I would like to make a motion, please. I move to approve. Site Review. Application, lur. 2024, 0 0 2 0. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Does she have a second second? Okay. Moved and seconded. Now would be the time for you to speak to this or begin any amendments you want to make.

[171:00] Thank you, Mark, so I don't have any amendments to propose, and I think we have spoken to it in talking about the staff's key questions. I think this is a good project. I think it meets. The community need really appreciate that you folks have been down a very long and winding pathway, with things changing as you go along. And I think you are providing this project does provide a valuable housing type 3 and 4 bedroom units that we don't often see, especially not in a location like this. And so I'm I'm not going to offer any amendments to the main motion. Okay. any other comment debate anything on this main motion? I would like to offer a minor amendment. Okay? And I've lost my screen. I'll do that, too, later.

[172:06] all right. So my amendment would be in order to meet the requirement for having defined entries that connect to the public realm. to add the equivalent of front door entries to the north side of building 10. In this plan I'll second that. Okay. Now. Claudia, you made that motion. You may speak to it, and and the applicant seems to have something to say, so as as the maker of the amended motion, if if it's all right with you, we can call on the applicant. But do you have anything you want to say to speak to your motion? Now. to speak to this notion, I would simply say that in terms of creating a more livable and cohesive community. and also to honor what I think is the the intent of these requirements for having facings on the public realm that we need to

[173:06] do some reorienting on these particular units. The facing on Pearl Street. 1st of all, it is 2 units isolated on a large block face. It is definitely not a particularly conducive environment for coming and going from buildings. And really the action is on the other side. And so I think we need to get some connection and not just garage doors on that side. Thank you. Just a couple things to point out about that. 1st of all, I think that when the code talks about public realm, it does mean the public realm which is our streets, not the internal portions of the project. Your point is well taken, however. if we were to provide entrances on that north side. we would need to remove one of the parking spaces in each unit which would change our parking reduction. I don't know how that fits in the context of the overall way. This is all set up. We could add a side door on the western unit. That would be possible without changing the parking situation.

[174:11] Thank you. I'll just comment to say that, Claudia, while I appreciate your your concern, I think about. If I lived in these units I would want to go out my front door and walk to the natural grocer, or walk to whole foods, or walk to the park, or walk to a bicycle shop. and walking into the interior of the site doesn't accomplish any of those things it would accomplish if I wanted to go visit a neighbor. or if I wanted to just cross through the site to go somewhere else. But if there were a large community, green space, or something that I thought people were going to gather in, then I would be more inclined to support something like that. But I guess I'm hesitant to try to make a significant change to the architecture of these buildings for something that arguably, the code doesn't require.

[175:00] So for those reasons, I probably wouldn't support this, although I really appreciate you asking the applicant to think about that. and to make sure that those units do have some good ways to connect with the rest of the site. I also just think about human behavior, which is that if these folks really are driving a lot, they're going to be coming in and out through those garages. And so that does provide some connection to the interior of the site. and I've certainly walked around plenty of neighborhoods in Boulder where the front door never gets used, and the garage is the way that people come in and out pretty much exclusively. I I understand where you're coming from. With that I think it is a troublesome little component of the site. I'm really glad that the affordable housing isn't located in them. And it's a it feels like a suburban solution in the suburbs. People come in and out of their out of their garages. And I think that might be

[176:06] What happens with those accesses that that you know to have a garage attached to your unit in the way this is done it. It is a somewhat suburban solution in in an urban setting. So there's a lot of curious bits to this project. that you know kind of sit in a gray area like like the height modification. And I and I I understand that 3 and 4 bedroom for sale units are a rare thing in the city. so I am. I am of 2 minds on this project, you know I I don't think it meets some of the height criteria B, 3, I and B, 4, 7

[177:05] but it. On the other hand, it's it is giving unit type and for sale project that we're not seeing in the city. I'm not sure that families are actually going to be living on this property, because it is very urban. There is a park across the street. But I I'm very conflicted. I'm very conflicted about who's going to be on this site and and on the one hand, and then the impacts of the building and and those it seems to me like it's it's a luxury to have these rooftop yards with these incredible views that are going to happen up there at removing a view from you know the rest of the public. So it's a. It's a difficult project for me in that regard. And I think the point you're you're making with with this little piece of land.

[178:05] And how are people interacting with it? how are they coming and going? And where is the community for the community itself? I I don't think that those are answered in a in a good way for me. So. but thank you for putting for having the consideration and having a way to having a way to put a condition together that makes sense. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Ml, I am going to say so. We are debating the amendment to the motion right now. So and we're going to take your comments both for the amendment and the general the larger motion. So does anyone have any additional commentary before we vote on the amendment to the motion. Okay? All right. point of clarification. And this may be for brad or laurel.

[179:04] we have the motion, the the amended, the amendment, the motion to amend. And I've seconded. Am I required to vote in favor? Because I seconded. okay. we okay. no, you don't have to vote. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, all right, we'll take a vote on the motion to amend, and unless someone wants me to restate it. go ahead. Laura. Laura. No. okay. Claudia. Yes. Ml. this is on the amendment. Correct? Okay? I'm just making sure. Yes.

[180:00] yes, to the okay. And I'm a no. And Mason. Yeah. okay. so the amendment fails. Now we're back to the main motion. which, as as proposed by Laura, is what we have on the screen. Is there any additional commentary or debate on the main motion or any other amendments anyone wants to propose? Okay. when there's don't, we need 4 people have some. Yes, okay, so 3 can. As it was, 3 3 did not support. We have to have. So the amendment failed. Okay, excuse me, the amendment. So we're we're. We're only referring right now. Okay. the amendment failed because we it can happen by 3.

[181:01] I thought it meant you would need 4 to vote in the affirmative to pass the amendment, and it did not get 4 affirmative votes. So 4 was an issue. Yeah, okay, now we are debating and about to vote unless there's additional debate or additional amendments on the main motion. as made by Laura and seconded by Claudia. so are there additional points of debate, clarification on the main motion or amendments, any additional amendments? Okay? All right, then, we. I'm going to take the vote on the main motion. And I'll reread the motion motion to approve. Site review, application number LUR. 2024, dash 0 0 2 0. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of the review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

[182:12] Okay, I'm going to start with you, Mason. By voting on the sorry. We voting on the main motion. Yes, thank you. Okay, Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml. no. And I'm a yes. okay. The main motion passes. Now we have. Does anyone want to introduce the second motion. I will like to make a motion. Okay, please. I move to approve an amendment to the Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections plan to remove the East-west, secondary street connection and the North-south multi-use path connection through the properties subject to the proposed site. Review. Application, lur. 2024, 0 0 2 0.

[183:14] And that's the motion. I would like to clarify that my understanding is that that Site review application does include that 5 foot pedestrian thoroughfare north-south, as suggested by Tab. I'll second that motion. Okay. Laura, as motion maker. If you want to go 1st to speak to that. Anyone else want to speak to the motion or propose any amendments. Okay. seeing none. I'm going to start with. Ml. yes. Laura. Yes, Claudia.

[184:00] yes, Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes. okay. I think congratulations to the applicant and good work by staff. And let's hope we took some good notes so that we can make some make some corrections to the code for clarification at future future times. Okay, Mark, can I just make a comment? Yeah, I just really want to emphasize hopefully, it was clear. But the way that we calculate community benefit does not appear to appropriately account for the benefit the applicant receives from doing a rooftop deck because it only it only includes calculating the square footage from livable floor space. I don't think it should be equivalent for a rooftop deck. Obviously it's not the same benefit to a developer as livable floor space. But there should be something it shouldn't just be a wash in the code or not considered at all, it does seem like we got. I just want to emphasize again 52 units each got a rooftop deck the whole size of their entire unit.

[185:09] and that was not calculated in the community benefit that they received for that height modification. I'm all for the height, modification. I think it's a really great idea to make that into usable space. I think it's a wonderful design. I want to encourage it, but I also want us to get more community benefit out of it than we. We got from this project again. No fault to the applicant. That's just how the code is written. okay. all right, we're on to our next agenda item. And again, thanks to the applicant and staff. Okay. okay. our next agenda item is under matters, I believe. Let me just get my

[186:01] get it back open here. And okay, yes, matters from under matters. And we have a discussion of virtual versus in-person meeting rules for hybrid meetings, and this is pertinent and timely given some future meeting items. Yes, yes, I'll give the quick background. So while the planning board. Rules of procedures are being amended, and we are going to bring them forward. Our goal is by the end of the year. We're trying to get it scheduled to get it added on there. I know it's been like the punting thing. But while they're under revision, the Board currently operates under these 1987 rules of procedure, these older rules of procedure. Under these rules there's allowed to be additional guidelines that we use, which the Board has done over the years, including things like in person. During Covid we did a virtual set of rules. Often these tend to reflect what the Council is doing. The 1987. Formal rules are silent on matters of pooling time, for example. So we use these rules to kind of or these guidelines to kind of supplement the 1987 rules.

[187:08] But it's come to to our attention. The Planning Board website includes several sets of documents. There's quite a few on our website about which ones to follow. And there was an a future public hearing matter that's come before us and said, Well, which rules do we follow? Which ones do we do of these guidelines? Members of the publics have been questioning, questioning this since Covid. We've been using the virtual rules mostly. That's what's been attached to your packets. For example, it says, after all the agenda items, it says, here's the virtual rules, these guidelines. And then, but now we're kind of in this hybrid environment. So neither one fits. Our goal, of course, is the new rules to overtake all of these and be able to do the hybrid environment, virtual in person. All of that. however, we still need to do some sort of direction until we get to that point where we can adopt the 1987 rules. And so one of the things that has come to our attention about a future public hearing that's coming forward is

[188:02] that the virtual public rules don't allow pooling of time, but the in-person do so. We went back and asked about city council. So just a little bit of background around that city council used very similar virtual rules during the pandemic. They're back into kind of a hybrid format, like you all are. And so they allow, pooling their specific pooling rules. Are any 3 people can pull their time during public hearing testimony, not open comment. It's not about open comment for them. 3 people for up to 5 min. So that's just just as I know. They also require people to sign up ahead of time, because I know sometimes pooling can get a little bit complicated as you're sitting there on the dais. So what we're asking basically of you all is to kind of decide, do we want to use the public in-person requirement guidelines and Thomas will have them both pulled up on the screen in a second, or do we want to use the virtual ones. Again, the virtual ones are what we've been using. We can still amend them, though so virtual says no pooling. But if you want to allow pooling of time. Then we can do that. The reason I'm bringing up pulling of time so much specifically is, that's what the public has been asking about.

[189:03] So, yeah, so here are the the 2 different roles. There are other sets of rules or guidelines also. But yeah, I'm not sure why these squares are blocked out. These are why, where I have other windows up, I think it's because I'm running the Zoom Meeting. Well, if you go on our website. There's there's these 2 different sets of rules in the packet, the 1st page you can see the virtual one, and I have a copy of the in person one. If if anybody wants to take a look at them, they look at council. So when you say in person, you're referring to Council's current. So planning board actually adopted these so planning board adopted the in-person and the virtual rules at different times in our past, and so our in person. So the virtual rules are, what is the second page in the packet, and what we adopted during Covid? And so the virtual that planning board adopted no pooling of time in person. Planning board has adopted is allows pooling. Yeah? And you can adopt the virtual rules

[190:02] plus pulling up time if you want to. Okay, yeah, because you guys can change your guidelines. Yeah, absolutely. So. and planning board does planning boards. in-person rules match the current councils? No, because in-person rules were before the virtual. And so it doesn't include hybrid sort of environment. So the in-person rules don't include any of our online. which is kind of why we recommended the virtual ones. Yeah, I think Mark's question was specifically, if I understood it, about pooling time. the ones that we have a rule for pooling time. That's in our in-person rules. Does that match what Council is currently using for pooling time? Yeah, I gave Ml, so maybe she could tell me. But Council's pooling time is 3 people during public hearing only can pool time up for up to 5 min.

[191:01] and they have to be so. I just recently did this pulled some time at a council meeting. Those 3 people have to be present in the room when it happens. You can't just say oh, I'm speaking for this person and that person. They have to be present in the room and say, yes, this person is pooling time with me. which I think, is a good rule, so that people don't just claim. you know. And they, I don't think that they can be online. I think they have to be in the room present to pool time. Yeah. which we can do that we just want to make sure the rules say it before the next public hearing. How many minutes does Council excuse me? How many minutes? This says 10 min total is the permitted time? Yeah, for the planning. So council is 5 min like 3 people can use up to 5 up to 5. So ours is double what Council has. Yeah, in the in-person rules. Yeah. in the in-person, and that's really virtual. Says we can't do it at all. So it's really that if we're going to amend to have people so you can amend the virtual roles to have allow polling. That's fine, because they're your guidelines. Yeah.

[192:06] so this is council. Is this, this is planning board. Does Council do Council's rules have a no pool time. Presentation will be permitted to exceed 10 min. Total, 5 min. Okay, so the way I this is so, if I had 12 people. and we have plenty of hearings where you can organize 12 people quite easily. Right? So if I had 12 people each 3 per, so I have. I would have 4, 5 min slots. So if I was an organizer. I mean, really, it's like, Okay, I'm an organizer. I say, I've got these 3 you get this 5 min slot. These 3, you get this 5 min slot. And as long as they're different people, right as long as they're different people, not one person talking all time. Yeah, right? The way I would. I would read, this

[193:09] is no pool time presentation. I would read that that if if each speaker spoke for 5 min, but had the same present. was actually proceeding with the same presentation that that presentation couldn't exceed 10 min interesting. Yeah. So because I and I point this out because, the email that George received was, Hey, we have a lot of people. And we want to present. I forget what his number was, but it was more than 10 min, and they wanted to pool time. and it was to Council's rules. and so I don't think Council Council doesn't have this, that limitation, as I recall in the email, they were pointing out that planning boards rules say that the chair can modify speaker time, which I think traditionally, has been used like

[194:14] somebody's microphone's not working. And so you extend them an extra minute or something to account for technical difficulties or something like that. But it doesn't specify that it just says you can change, basically gives the chair complete power to modify. which I'm not in favor of no, because then that's a great way to start. Not that. Not that I'm not talking about our current chair, but I'm just saying, in general, you don't want to encourage that kind of raw power in one person that might or might not play favorites again. Nothing against our current chair. I'm not talking specifically so, and Mark, and to your point. If people wanted to try to organize groups of 3, and they wanted to try to chunk up their presentation. They could do that right? They could say, Okay, we're going to have these 3 people pull time. And we're going to give background information. And we're going to have these 3 people pull time, and we're going to give our

[195:03] rationale, or what. However, they want to chunk it up. They they could do that. And I think that's okay. Right? If there's that kind of community support to have multiple 5 min presentations cool, right? But I would be in favor of adopting the Council. Rules of up to 3 people in person can get 5 min. I think that's reasonable again. Having just gone through this, I think that was perfectly reasonable. Yes. alternately. We could have a maximum if we keep our 10 min. No pool time. Presentation on one public hearing item to exceed 10 min. so people don't do. What you're saying is that. you know. overpopulate the public presentation with one group's perspective by bringing it in from all these different things. But they're basically one group that would be the other way to sort of spread the public input

[196:05] from being monopolized. So you also want to make sure that both sides are heard. Both sides get to correct, so they would eat. They could get a maximum of, you know, 10 min. I do think that would be hard to enforce to say, yeah, you're in one organization, and so you can't get 2 chunks or 3 chuck defining, what is the beginning and end of a presentation? Yeah. in the planning board context. we're talking about an application. And the applicant has been able to present and staff has presented, and so forth. And so I while it may present additional logistical challenges. I think the chunking of time, as as you phrase, it seems appropriate and and and I think that that from an efficiency standpoint actually is, is good in comparison to

[197:02] 20 people saying the same thing over and over, and and some of them struggling with how to try to say it differently. And and so, if they want to organize themselves. I I'm I'm in favor of organization and and good use of of everyone's time. I would also like to have pooling available in some form. I think that's an accessibility issue. You get folks to come to a meeting that doesn't necessarily mean everyone feels comfortable. Speaking has the skills to speak, but it definitely. You make them, of course, be present in whatever form for the pooling of time. But you do allow other people to take that time. Do you want to require them to be present. That was one of the Council. Do you want to like exactly Mirror Council? Or I mean, I think it's important to have people present in the meeting in some form. Now, whether you could be in person and be pooling with people that are in the virtual meeting.

[198:06] either way. Just so we know how to write. Yeah, that's you know, and I think that you know, just reading and discussing accommodation under the under the formal use of the word under the Ada accommodation. you know. May be seen by some people as I want to attend. I want I just. I need to attend virtually. And so, on the other hand, it's so much easier for people to. you know it. It lowers the barrier for those that don't need the barrier doesn't need to be lowered for by so much that if if we're if we are, if we went got into a situation where that we were. We were going for hours. I mean, council does limit total number of speakers, virtual or in person, on certain topics, just so that they're able to conduct their business.

[199:10] They don't do that for public hearings, though they only do that for open comment. As I'm aware, public hearings, infinite numbers of people could speak and get their full amount of time. They don't cut it off. My one concern with pooling time virtually, and and again, human behavior. I understand why people do it. It's so much easier to game the system with virtual like you can sign on from 3 different computers with 3 different names right like there's it'd be very difficult to verify that those are actual people with, just because they're names in a virtual meeting, whereas with bodies in the room. You can see like again. When I just did this. the mayor verified. Who are, you know you're pooling with this person and this person? Can these 2 people please raise their hand so we can see that they are here right? Much easier to game the system online. So I think

[200:02] I would be reluctant to allow online pooling. Okay. so just like for moving forward. We do need to know if you want, in person or virtual. And if you want pooling. So some sort of vote or not? Or yeah, Laura, you were very persuasive on that. And so I would say. Yeah, we that I, you know my recommendation, after all of this would be, we adopt to be for the sake of, partly for the sake of consistency, and not that I'm a big consistency guy, but for the sake of consistency with council, that we adopt their public hearing rules of procedure, and which would allow. the the somewhat unlimited groups of 3, 5 min.

[201:02] just to ask Laurel, are we talking about adopting the whole page of virtual or in person rules? Or are we just talking about this one pooling element? The whole page? Yeah. So we'll need to know which one. I think I would like more time to read them then, because I didn't, wasn't prepared for that question, and there might be some differences. I also think that Council's rules they allow for less time than we do. I think each speaker gets 2 min instead of 3 min, or something like that. And it's adjusted, based on the number of people who sign up. They have a sign up in advance. And actually, our rules allow the chair. based on the number of speakers to adjust the time from 3 to 2. We don't do that very often, but we have done that on occasion when we've had a popular item that people want to discuss. And sometimes I've I've really struggled with it because we didn't allow pooling.

[202:00] and we forced the speakers at the last minute to cut to 2 min, and they had prepared presentations and stuff, and I was really unhappy with how that played out in in a public participation fashion. Yeah, you want to make sure everybody has the same. What's that? Everybody needs to have the same amount of time? Yeah. Yeah. So to Laura's point, I don't know if this is a good proposal to come back next week and talk about this. Yeah, we've got a meeting next week. So yeah, can you just add it to the decisions that we're going to make next week. Can you add it to matters for the thanks? Yeah. And Hella will be here so and provide us with the well, you're great, too. So but either one of you you're both great. Just add, you know. Send us a virtual copy of. and and just clarify the decision. Like, what exactly, are you asking us to decide? Yeah. Virtual in person. And then maybe I'll add the council. Yeah, yeah, that'd be great. Yeah, it's in our code, and I'll just pull it. Our reference. I can just add both sets of rules into the packet, if that's helpful as well.

[203:03] Great. Yeah, thank you. Okay, 2 separate ones for virtual and for in person, or did they combine it? They did during covid. And then they've combined it. Yeah, okay, because that makes sense. They've got a hybrid. Yeah, one hybrid for hybrid. Well, theirs is a little bit different because they do study sessions virtual. So there's a whole, there's a lot of layers to theirs. Yeah. okay, thank you. Any other matters. Items. Here comes Brad. We cut him off the other night at 1230. That's right. But now he's got it. That's right. Now I've got my hour. Got your notepad. Yeah. Do we get the interpretive dance? So so sad do we get interpretive dance? Not this, not this week, but next week. But you're not we meeting next week. We're gonna hold you to that. Okay, also on vacation next week. So I did want to thank you for your careful deliberation, as you always do, and for your time

[204:03] again, we've got a lot coming up on the docket, so we may have some schedule adjustments between now and the end of the year. Did want to remind you, too, of the Comp plan, Kickoff on October 19.th Hopefully, you've put that in your calendars. If you're so inclined, one to 4 at the Dairy Arts, the kind of formal presentation is going to start at 2. So you might want to be there for that. Okay? And I'm happy to answer any questions about anything. almost anything. Okay. great anything else. Okay. Brad. Do you know when the opening grand opening for the modular factory is that next week I do. I can find that for you. It would be nice for the Board to know you should have received the board received an invitation to the grand opening, and I saw it it had. But I don't remember seeing it come through. I can find it. It is next Wednesday. Yeah.

[205:16] just Fyi. I didn't think it was next week. Wait Wednesday the next next Wednesday. Okay. Now, now. why is that? Not? That doesn't sound right. It's not next Wednesday. Oh, wait a minute. No, it isn't. It's 23, rd 23.rd When does hap normally meet? 1, 2, 3, 4. It's the 23rd Wednesday, the 23rd grand grand opening. Boulder. MoD. Yes. 4 to 6 pm. On the 23, rd I was like. did you get it on yours? Okay, I know

[206:01] we all right. That project came through us. It would be great to see it. Thank you. Okay, unless there is objection. I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Okay. thank you. Thank you, everybody. It's really cool and quiet in this corner.