October 8, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Sing. There's Claudian. okay. and okay, we're gonna start. And Ml, I hope will join us soon. Okay, good evening. Everyone. I'm going to call the Planning Board meeting of the City of Boulder on October 8, th 2024, 6 30 pm. To order as a fully virtual meeting. And tonight we have a a good agenda, a good agenda with 2 public hearing items, but the 1st order of business is going to be public participation for any matter not related to our 2 public hearing items, items 5, a. And B. So Vivian and Thomas, if you would help us set the stage for public participation. That would be excellent.

[1:01] Will do I'm seeing some black spots. Do other people see that as well? No, okay, just mine. Then I'll go ahead. Good evening. Everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge. Thank you. To all the members from the community who have joined us online for this meeting tonight. I'll just read through these rules of public participation for planning board meeting cities engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about the productive atmospheres. Vision on the city's website. And the following are specific examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines to support that vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[2:04] No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial episets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and we ask that all participants who wish to speak during open comment, or later, during public hearing. Please use your 1st and last name, and if you're not sure how to change it yourself. You can use the QA. Function to send us your full name, and we can change it for you. And also just a reminder that the QA. Function is really for those kinds of technical zoomie type issues and not for conversations that are content. Related. Next slide, please. And if you want to speak at the designated time, and let us know and get in the queue. You can raise your Ver virtual hand, and we'll know to call on you, and if you're joining us by phone. you can dial star 9 on your phone and it will raise your virtual hand as well so you can participate.

[3:06] And next slide just shows another way to get to that virtual hand. You can go to the reactions button and then click on that. raise hand virtual virtual hand. So this next section is for open comment, and it's for matters that are not on the agenda later as a public hearing item. And so I'll go ahead and see we have a couple of hands raised, and each person will have 3 min to speak to the planning board, so we'll start with. Vivian, I just wanna pause for just a second. Thomas, are we recording. Yeah, I pushed record. Okay. And thank you. I just wanted to make sure before we got going. Mark. That's. Could I also suggest that because we have a lot of different items on the agenda with a lot of different addresses that you just remind the members of the public, which are the 2 items that are the public hearing items which addresses are those.

[4:06] Sure. Okay. So before anyone speaks in the public participation portion for non agenda items. The agenda items that are up for a public hearing are 1840 and 1844, Folsom Street, which is a concept review and 2040 14th Street, which is a site review. Those are the 2 public hearing items. So if you desire to speak in regard to either of those 2 items, wait till we have the public hearing. Thank you, Laura, and carry on Vivian. Thank you. And so we do have. Douglas had raised something in the Q. And a. So I'll just go ahead and unmute you, Douglas. But just as Mark said, this period now is not to speak about the public hearing items. So I'm going to mute you, and you can go ahead and let us know.

[5:02] Please go ahead. I'll go ahead and mute you for a little bit, and we'll see if I think you raised lowered your hand. So probably you wanted to speak about the item later on the agenda. Any other hands? I'll just give it folks a few more seconds, and otherwise we will move on. With the agenda. Okay? Looks like there's nobody for open comment over to you, Mark. Okay. Then the We have no minutes to approve. Apologies. Lynn Siegel has her hand raised. Would that be okay? Chair. Yep, that's fine. We can accommodate like. Okay, thank you. Please go ahead, Lynn.

[6:03] have you. I thought there were 2 people before me, so I was just waiting. And so that's why it was a bit of a delay. But do you know, do you need me to change my name? You see, on my end? I don't see my name anywhere to change it, to know what to change it to what it's okay. Oh, okay. I wanted to comment about Papillios, I guess when I looked up 1840 it almost looked like the Mecca, because it has kind of that same architecture. but I think that's a difference place. I think that's a bit north. But the problem I have with Papellios. one of the big problems. The biggest problem is that we need service space and Boulder Valley Regional Center.

[7:00] which is, you know it has to meet the criteria for and it's walkable and all of that. But the problem is all of these developments. And we're talking the millennium, the just all over in that area. Mckenzie Junction. Boulder Junction. all down Folsom townhomes. Papellio's is just going to compound the problem, especially because the folks who can afford less in the in the project are not allowed to use a swimming pool are not allowed to use the open space, which is largely compounded in rooftop benefits for

[8:01] the wealthy people. and that means, if the the affordable people are going to be driving their cars more to get away to get to open space and to get to a swimming pool. And this is the same case in Mckenzie Junction. They denied the lower class people. It's very discriminatory. And this is why developers probably don't want to do affordable on their projects, because they feel like they're, you know, putting the rich people and the poor people together. And you really have to do that. But in the way of the public amenities I mean, Mecca was going to be there as a fitness center when Papelio's already has a fitness center in it. What we need for all this development is services, not more development that will require more services. So

[9:01] please consider what you're actually doing, and the congestion great. Thank you so much, and Siegel, for joining us and sharing your comments. That concludes the open comment. Back over to you, chair. Okay, thank you, Vivian. Now, our next item of business is a item for a a call up item, and I'll read it out here. Site Review amendment to amend a previous approval, to convert existing offices into attached residential dwelling units. There are no proposed changes to the size of the existing building scope includes updates to the building facade and materials and improved landscaping interesting to note. I hadn't realized until just now that this is not noted by address.

[10:00] and the I'll just turn to that 1st page, and the address is 1525 Spruce Street. So do any board members have clarifying questions or comments, or want to call this out. I'm sorry, Mark, can I just make another process suggestion? I think I think you also need to include the Lur number on the record. Okay. Which is on that same page. It's now need to enlarge it. Case number, we're referring to 1525, spruce street case number LUR. 2023 0 0 0 3 7, and I have Ask Charles, and I'll I'll just ask him directly in the meeting. Now.

[11:00] is this subject to the new 2 person call up, or the prior. one person call up requirement. Thanks very much for the question chair, Charles Farrell, planning and development services. If memory serves me. This application was submitted in advance of the changes that now require 2 board members to request a call up. So if I'm not mistaken, and Hella, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm wrong. I think a single board member could call this application up for a public hearing. Okay, great, thank you. Kurt. Oh, oh, I'm sorry, Hela, you've appeared. Is that correct? Yeah, that's my understanding, too. Okay. Alright. Great. Thank you. Kurt. Go ahead. Thanks. I was wondering if the if staff had any response to the letter, the neighbor comment that we had included in our packet from Chris Mihalik, who's on the board of directors of the Hoa for the adjoining condos. He raised a number of issues that it just wasn't clear to me whether those were addressed or not in what we're seeing. So I'm wondering if you could talk to that a little bit.

[12:18] Hi, sure, Allison Blaine, Senior Planner Case manager on this project. It's my understanding that the applicant worked directly with Chris and was able to resolve those questions. Okay, great. So this letter predates some changes that have addressed this. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Claudia. I see your hand up. Thank you. I had a question about the planned parking for this project. and I was curious if the the street level parking at the back of this unit in the alleyway.

[13:00] If those spaces back there are required either to meet parking minimums or for accessibility purposes so separate from the ones that are below grade. Talking about those ones in the alley. Are you talking about? Like the 3 parking spaces just north of the building? Yeah, I think there were 3 or 4 of them on the north side. Yeah. I believe one of them is required for accessibility requirements, especially as it relates to the downtown urban design guidelines for universal access as far as how the applicant organized the parking. I don't know if the other 2 are but the applicant is here who could address some of the the parking design and layout. Okay? And another, just a process question about parking before we maybe ask it of the applicant are, do we have ways as a board to? Or do you, as staff, have a way to allow or encourage removing extra parking spaces at this point in the process, without us doing a call up. I think that would probably be difficult. I think if you wanted to have that conversation, it would probably need to be in the context of a public hearing through the call up process.

[14:07] Okay. Thank you. And before we got started I, I, Charles, and I, had a brief conversation, and you all had received my questions in advance, and the The applicant is here tonight, and the applicant has responded in writing. what I am concerned about is and, Claudia, you're you're final question kind of addresses this and that is, When we discuss a call up and have questions about a call up. it is it is not a Mini Site Review. It is not things like that, as Charles said. If there are concerns that can't be addressed with clarifying questions for staff or the applicant.

[15:05] Then a a call would be the the correct thing to do, and and I know none of us take calling something out lightly due to staff and applicant time. But so I'm rather than me. Go into my questions because some of my questions and and the answers by the applicant lead me to think that if no one else does. I will likely call this up. But is anyone at this moment? want to call this up? Okay? Okay, so I'll I'll try to. I'm gonna ask a quick question, and then I'll make a determination if I'm going to call it up. My question for the applicant or Allison is when I asked

[16:00] about compliance with some principles and the existing hoa agreements it would be my understanding that the new portion of the the newly created units that are that don't exist today. And those parking spaces that are associated with that If you're modifying hoa agreements, I I still don't understand why you wouldn't be able to. Under the modification of your existing Hoa documents leave the existing deeded, parking spaces tied to the existing units, and have some principles applied to the new units. So can someone clarify or explain that to me. Thanks, Jim. If do you want to address that. Jim Bray. Bray architecture.

[17:00] So, Mark, I suppose if if we split the existing parking spots which you know, I I think you're you're you're gathering the the point. And that is, it's it's it's very hard for us to modify the relationship that the existing units have with their parking, and they're deeded and they're assigned. So we we we can't mess with that, you know, we're doing we're obviously impacting those residents by constructing this next door to them and and taking something away from them, is not something we can do at this point. In relationship to the assigned parking spots that we have in relationship to the units they're assigned for various reasons. 1 1, for instance, is that you know we are roughing in electric charging for that that is going to be charged off of their panels rather than having some other, you know. App based charger, that is there. And in addition to that, there is some hierarchy of those parking spots that relate to

[18:12] potentially the cost of these units, we've worked very hard for the lower levels to be, you know, smaller. There's there's several varieties of units. And so, you know, they have associated different parking requirements. Okay, cool. Kirk. Thanks for your response to Mark's questions. You you talked about different levels of basically the the of the units and associated different levels of the parking, but it wasn't clear to me if you were charging for separately unbundling the charge for the parking

[19:01] from the the units. No, we're we're we're not charging. But these these parking spots would come deeded with with the units themselves. So if you're buying the the the upper unit versus the studio unit. I think that there's an associated expectation that you might get a different parking spot in the parking garage, and and I also appreciate the comment you know made by one of the other board members, that there is some excessive. There is excess parking. There's 5. There are 5 guest parking spots which I don't necessarily think is totally excessive, based on the number of units that we have. But this is a. This is a topic that I think is something that we'll continue to see. It's not as if we are developing this project with extra parking. It's not like. We're the Walmart out there to have you know, the 300 parking spots.

[20:05] This isn't. This is a outcome based on the conversion of this office use to residential. And obviously the the office use had much more of a parking requirement. And and we're just, we're infilling that with the use of the residential units. In addition to that, we have in the on the northern part, we have broken that down significantly by removing, I think, over 5 parking spots in the back that we've been filled with private open space. We've also used that as decks to screen the remaining amount of parking. Anyone else, anything else?

[21:02] Okay, I'm I'm not gonna call this up and I I I'm reluctant to call it up, and I'm reluctant not to call it up. And I I would, simply I'll I'll just use a moment to encourage the applicant to I. This project has many things that are admirable about it. and but the the Tdm planning is, is, in my view, deficient. But to delay the project and go through expense of calling it up. I would simply urge you that you have. You have been in that your your plans are inadequate for accommodation of larger, heavier e-bikes and smaller lighter weight riders that need horizontal surface. Parking.

[22:07] Your, I I find your plans inadequate on the vehicle charging side, and I find your plans inadequate on the bicycle charging side. So I would super appreciate you reevaluating that and taking it as a bonus that you didn't get a call up, but looking at those and and proceeding with changes that are much more in line with the the flexible but subjective Tdm. Requirements that exist in our code. Laura. Mark. I think those are all fair comments. Thank you. and we will. We will look at them. I just. Thank you, Mark. I just want to echo. Mark's not the only one with those concerns. I'm not going to call it up either, but I'm especially concerned about e-bike parking. I do think that e-bikes are the future, and I think that your your

[23:05] they're not going to be tenants. You're going to be selling these units, but the the owners of those units would probably appreciate having a place to park their e-bike. That is not a hanging rack, and it's not in their own unit where you know they get snow and mud and stuff inside their unit. So I think that it would be good for you in terms of a selling point for your units to have more e-bike parking. So again, thank you very much for your work, and I'm not going to call this up. Thank you. Hello! I agree as well, and my main concern is the lack of unbundling and pricing of the of the parking. We do have the the allowance for flexible Tdm plans and so some principles are not mandatory. I think that they should be and so I I hope that we will be moving in that direction in the future. Given the special situations with this pro this project, I'm not going to be calling it up either.

[24:07] But I certainly was thinking about it as as were others. It sounds like so thank you. Alright that, concludes. That agenda item. And we're going to Move on to our public hearing items. The 1st one public hearing. Item 5. A. A concept plan, review, and comment for the redevelopment of 1840 and 1844, Folsom Street. The proposal includes demolition of the 2 existing office uses and redevelopment of the site with 183 dwelling units, including studio 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units for a total of 160,296 square feet.

[25:06] Parking will be primarily located below grade. This is reviewed under case number LUR, 2024, dash 0, 0, 2, 9. Okay? And so we're gonna begin with the staff presentation. and we'll follow that with clarifying questions. Thank you. Just one moment. I'm trying to get the sharing set up. There we go. Okay. Well, thank you for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Alison Blaine, senior Planner, and I will be presenting the concept plan at 1840 and 1844, Folsom. In this presentation I will briefly cover the information that was provided in the staff Memo, including the purpose and process of the concept plan.

[26:07] the project, proposal, and background and some key issues for discussion. The purpose of Comp's plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues ahead of a Site Review submittal, so the applicant will will receive comments from the public city staff and planning board. and just as a reminder, no formal action will be taken tonight. On the proposal the applicant completed the necessary public notice. Requirements for the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and a sign was posted on the property as well. Staff did receive comments from several neighbors, and those have been included in the staff packet, which was also updated this morning with additional comment. So the subject area is comprised of 2 parcels 1840 and 1844 Folsom. They are located on the east side of Folsom Street, between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street.

[27:03] As such there are 2 Bvcp land use designations. The 1st one is high density residential, which consists of attached residential units and apartments at a density of more than 14 dwelling units per acre. and the other one is general business. This consists of a mix of business uses, and also encourages housing more compatible with surrounding businesses, and as a transition to other residential areas. the subject site is zoned to br. One, and is surrounded by other br. One parcels to the north, south, and to the east, across the street is Bt. 2 zoning and some Rh. 2 further west. Intensity standards for the zone are based on a combination of the following and far limitation of up to 3.0 the provision of a minimum of 20% of usable open space for the site due to the proposed height and the application of height and setback standards per table 7. 1 of the land use code buildings for the Br. One zone are limited to a maximum by right height of 35 feet.

[28:02] The site is located within a commercial quarter of Folsom Street, containing a variety of office and retail uses. It's also adjacent to the village shopping center. Marshalls Plaza, nearby the 29th Street Mall Immediately adjacent is also the horizon, West Condominium Building and other mixed density residential. Further west there are 2 applicable area plans that will help guide the further development of the project. The 1st one is the Boulder Valley regional, comprehensive or sorry regional center design guidelines. These guide development objectives, including high quality, redevelopment, walkable commercial neighborhoods, more connections, diversity of land uses and strengthening ties to the downtown and university. It also includes specifics on site, streetscape and building design. And then the second is the Boulder Plaza sub area plan, which also looks at mix of uses, building, massing and landscaping and pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The subject site is located in an area identified in this plan as the Folsom transitional.

[29:04] and this lists objectives to maintain and enhance a transitional office. Slash, retail development, character. encourage new residential development, develop a unified streetscape along Folsom and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings. There are 2 planned connections off street bike connections shown on the site. The 1st one is along the northern boundary, traveling east-west, and the other is on the eastern boundary, traveling north, south. These paths paths link to a planned Eastern connection to 28th Street, as well as a planned North South connection to Walnut Street and Canyon Boulevard, which you can't quite see on this slide. But just note that the adjacent plan connections have not yet been constructed. The existing conditions for the site include an existing 2 existing office buildings. These office buildings are situated right now, currently close to the public, right away along Folsom Street, with some parking located in the rear screen from view.

[30:07] The site is also impacted by the 500 year Flood zone, which will require additional permitting at time of a future application. The applicant is proposing to develop the existing site with a new residential development containing about 180 attached dwelling units. As previously mentioned, these proposed unit types range from studio to 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. Parking is going to be located underground as well as on the ground floor of the eastern side of the building. Open space will be provided in the form of private balconies, rooftop decks, courtyards, and landscaping on site, and the building is proposed to be 4 and 5 stories. The ground floor uses include residential uses, including a lobby and amenity space as well as a commercial space on the southwest corner roof heights will vary between the 4 and 5 story levels with some facade recessions to help reduce the sense of scale, and then interior courtyards with that are facing south and accessed from

[31:08] the access drive and mostly screen from the public realm and staff, has identified 2 key issues for discussion tonight, the key issues will be detailed in the following slides. key issue. One is the proposal generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bvcp. And the vision for the area, as shown in the area plans. Staff finds that overall the proposed use and design for the site does align with the key Bbcp policies. Such. Some are listed here on the slide by providing housing in an area that is active and near amenities and transportation connections. Bbcp policies also encourage the addition of a variety of housing types to create more walkable and vibrant neighborhoods and overall staff finds that the proposed residential use is generally consistent with the plans. The proposed building, siding close to the street and screen parking in the rear of the lot is encouraged in both plans.

[32:00] and both plans also support height, exceptions greater than 35 feet if found consistent with regulations such as a site review criteria. There are some areas that could better align with the area plans and staff encourages the applicant to closely study the plans and evaluate the design through those lens. Examples of some of those areas include streetscape design and landscaping standards, functional, accessible open space. The Folsom transitional objectives and pedestrian amenities and connectivity key issue. 2 is, does the Planning board have feedback on the conceptual Site plan and building design staff finds that the proposed site configuration is appropriate for the site given the screened parking, and is also supported of the modulated massing. There are some concerns about site, access, and potential conflicts with pedestrians. Given the 2 access points as well as the functionality of the courtyards given their location adjacent to the access drive and the change in grade and above a parking lot or below grade parking lot staff also identified some concerns with meeting the Site Review criteria specifically for building length

[33:11] as far as next steps. After this hearing this item will go before council, and they can vote to call up the item for another hearing and provide additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submitting a development review application, or they can submit another concept plan. and, as proposed, due to the proposed height, a Site Review application will require a decision by planning board subject to call up by city council. and I will open it up for questions. Hey? Thank you, Allison. I'm gonna take a queue from George at our last meeting, or the meeting before. and thank staff for excellent presentation, and their good work on this so that. And anyone can do it. But I'm just wanted to, so that we move along. We really do appreciate. All of us appreciate Staff's efforts and the presentation Kurt, you're up.

[34:12] Thanks, Allison. A 1st question is, you mentioned 2 access points to the property, but I only see one on the plans. Can you explain what you're saying. There, seeing there. Yeah. So there's an ingress and an egress. Drive there stacked above each other. I can pull up the let's see if I can get that site plan up again. Visuals are great. Thank you so much, Alice. Yeah. Taking care. Of us. Spare with me one moment. I'm not used to the zoom. Okay? So it might be hard to see in this slide. And there's this tree here.

[35:06] but there are 2. There's the ingress and egress. Access points. and the the applicant might also have some clear images when they present their site plan. But I I don't know if this is a more helpful. Let's see if this one there we go. This one's a little bit more helpful. So if there weren't that just to clarify what you're saying. If there weren't that island there separating those, it would be considered a single access point. Okay. Correct. Great. I have another question about this driveway, so it's shown we we can see it right there. It's shown as 24 feet from my reading of the design and construction standards. The minimum with for a residential, multifamily residential driveway is 10 feet. Is that correct?

[36:07] I I don't know those widths off the top of my head, but I can certainly look into that and confirm for you. Okay. If you don't mind looking into that, that would be great. Also, I have another question from the Dcs about access spacing, which I think was referred to in the Memo. So the Dcs. As I read it. the table 2 dash 3. I think it is says access spacing is required to be 75 feet from the property line and 250 feet from other accesses. I don't understand how that could possibly be met in this case. Am I reading that? Right? Because I mean the property itself is, I mean, it's maybe 150 feet of frontage, so maybe you could get 75 feet from the property line. But there's an an access just to the north and access just to the south. So the 250 feet from other accesses seems impossible. Am I right?

[37:17] That I mean your your reading of the Dcs. Sounds correct to me. That would probably be a citing challenge that the applicant would need to address and comparing to the adjacent properties. But I can also double check on that one for you with the Dcs standards. Okay. I guess my main question is, if that's impossible. we can just that can be varied, based on the site constraints right? I I don't. I don't trust. Do we have a way to amend some of those Dcs standards? I know we have site access control modifications that are allowed through the Site Review. Yeah, they can be modified, I think. As long as you have a traffic study that shows that it's safe.

[38:02] Great. Thank you. Thank you. Kurt. hi, okay. Claudia is coming up next. Is that correct? In the order? Here? Ml, did you have your hand up before Claudia. Well, anyway, we're I'm gonna go to Claudia, and we'll then we'll go to. Alright. Well, Kurt got my question about the entry. Drive go to the next one on my list. and that is What? What can you tell us right now about the other transportation context in this area? Specifically, what's going on with Folsom and City Council's core arterial arterial network project and how that will potentially intersect with the planning timeline at this site.

[39:00] And I'm also curious about the location of nearby transit stops and bike share facilities. Sure and so sorry. What was your 1st question about the time. Question was about, the core arterial network project. And if this portion of Folsom is slated to be part of that. I will double check that. I I think this is part of it, but I'm not sure on the timing, and I'll just wanna double check on that before I give you a different. Okay, I'm sorry. And then the second question was about the locations of nearby transit stops and bike share facilities. I believe that is shown in the attached tdm, there are some definitely, some transit located, I know, along Pearl Street. I think also I'll I can double check on that, too. But that it has been identified in the Tdm. Yeah. And with transit, I'd I'd specifically like to know, is there anything on this particular street frontage with this property.

[40:14] Great. Yeah, I can double check on that. And then second question. totally different direction here. But I seem to recall somewhere in the packet reading that our kind of solar shading regulations don't apply in this particular zoning district. and so we wouldn't have any study of that. We are, of course, hearing from a lot of folks at horizon, west about views and shading, etc. Are we going to have any actual data to evaluate those kinds of shading impacts on the lower floors of the horizon. West Building. As we move further into this review. We do require a solar shading diagram, for projects that are requesting a height modification.

[41:02] even if they are in areas that are exempt. So that will be part of the application. Package and staff will will review that as part of the Site Review. Okay. appreciate that. I'll let some other folks ask questions. Hey? Ml, you're up next. Thank you. so, Alison, I I was not clear on the question I had asked earlier, so if we could just revisit that. So I'm looking at. 9, 6, 3, and the use standards residential use in the Br. One so that particular standard allows attached dwelling units under with with certain conditions. So can you explain to me what conditions are we

[42:04] has this project? Is this project intending to move forward? For of that 6, 9, 6, 3, a, a. I, and then I has got, or maybe double. I has got a B and a B, and. Yes. You know which area. That's section 9, 6, 3D. 4 a 1. Think that's all, all of it, for. A 9, 6, 3. A specific use standards. Residential uses, a residential uses. Household living. The. Yeah, it's. Attached, you know. So there is a d, yeah. Sure. So those. So that code is saying that if attached dwelling units are allowed by right. if they meet one of the 2 following standards, because it's an or statement

[43:05] so they can either meet A or they can meet B, and then they can be allowed by right. However, on the you know, 9, 6, 3, 4, a 1, 2 for attachable units that are not not allowed by right, then they may be approved only pursuant to a use review. So if the proposed attached dwelling units are not meeting either of the 2 standards, then they can be approved. They would just need to be reviewed through a use review, and that can be submitted and reviewed concurrently with the Site Review. Okay. So they're they're not going for a variance to be. In that case, we know they're not doing permanently 100% permanently affordable. But I was just wondering if the 2 units that were facing Folsom we're trying to come in as variance to be, or if

[44:00] the whole allowing dwelling units on the ground floor was coming in as a use review. Yeah, and and since. And since those 2 ground floor dwelling units as well as like the amenity spaces, since that is considered a residential use, and how we review it, because they don't meet the I think it's that 30 feet away from measured. Yeah. So since they don't meet that. Then they would need to be reviewed through a use review. Got it. So this this project is automatically heading to a use review. With what they've submitted. Yes. Okay, thank you. That that was my question. I've got others. But that that's my basic question. Thank you so much. Okay. Ml, thank you. And Laura. Thank you, Mark. So, Allison, thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the very informative packet. Really appreciate it. I wanted to ask you to kind of walk us through a few of the things that you said in the packet, just to make sure I'm understanding them.

[45:04] So 1st you talked about. Potential constraints include heavy traffic along Folsom Street without a center turning lane. The street system may pose difficulties for southbound traffic turning left into the site, especially at peak travel times. The angle of the 2 access points may impact access from southbound Folsom Street. and that the 2 access points may present conflicts with pedestrians and the interface of the commercial corner. Can you just kind of show that diagram again and walk us through what you're thinking about how how traffic is going to move from Folsom Street, and why you think that the configuration of the access points right now may may pose some challenges. Sure. And, Leah, I can share that. And this is this is conceptual. So once they submit, you know, like a full traffic study and kind of understand how that works. I think that will shed some more light on the the traffic generation and traffic surrounding the property. But let me find that

[46:07] slide again. Sorry. Keep on sharing. Okay? So yeah, looking at, I think. When I was reviewing the the site design and and understanding how pedestrians might move through the site. Especially given that there is this sort of anchor corner with a commercial space. So you'd anticipate at least some foot traffic. There is a sidewalk here. It's not shown on these plans. Understanding how pedestrians are maybe moving on Folsom and given the right turn in right, turn out and how vehicles tend to enter the site and its proximity to the commercial anchor corner. I think that as a planner gave me some pause, and why it was highlighted. Under the traffic constraints.

[47:10] also understanding. the you know the trip generation that will come from the proposed development. Given the number of units and the new use and and understanding how traffic that is coming southbound on Folsom, how they would access on that site whether they would need to keep going and turn around and head northbound to access. I think that was just something that Staff wanted to raise now, and maybe better understand either now, and see if that would need necessitate design changes in the site, or if that would be supported in a future traffic study. Thank you. That is super helpful.

[48:00] Sure. My next question. Similarly, if you could walk us through, you talked about the courtyards and. There's. You talked about some of this in the presentation as well. You said, there are concerns with the functionality of the 2 courtyards given the limitation on available plantings due to the below grade parking. And I'm assuming that means they can't be very deeply rooted because they're sitting in planter boxes and the subsequent potential environmental impacts. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. And then you also talked about how is the courtyard access from the building and how it will interact with the driveway and the change in grade. And I'm not great at reading diagrams. And so if you could kind of walk us through how you're thinking people are going to access these these courtyards or like what your understanding is. And then also that comment about potential environmental impacts. Yeah, sure. And so I think that's something that we usually ask for and review at time of a site review is a circulation diagram. So we wanna know how all users, you know, residents, visitors of the commercial spaces of the residential uses, how they're moving through the site, how they're accessing the site that includes

[49:08] pedestrians, users of all abilities, bikes, cars. All that sort of thing. So we don't really have that information right now. But in looking with the the conceptual information that we do have, it wasn't immediately clear. Whether these courtyards would just be accessed internally. If there's if you know there's access from the units here. Or there's a shared space or hallway that that's accessed. But as far as the the other piece of it. There is this this ramp down and the grade changes here. I think it's shown maybe better in some of the plans that are attached to the memo with some some different elevations. But whether these courtyards are raised if they're not, how, how our users, who are maybe going, if they're going through the courtyards and then exiting the site, how they would navigate that transition.

[50:04] again. It it might be something the applicant can touch on in in their design process, but with the information that was provided, and without having that you know, additional elevations and that detailed site circulation diagram. That was just a concern that staff wanted to highlight at the conceptual phase. Thank you. Also very useful to understand keeping going another point that I was hoping you could elaborate on. You say in the memo there is little information about the northern facade of the building, and how it will interact with the proposed multi-use path that abuts the building. Anything more to say about that one. Yeah, sure. So right now it's it's the multi use path, as mentioned in the planned connection slide. It's shown to be right on the northern edge of the property. It's showing here in this kind of teal blue color. And right now the buildings abutting right up to the

[51:00] Either I can see it better on the the width of the multi-use path. But whether or not that building is right up to that path. If there's any sort of building encroachments or patio encroachments. if there's access from that portion of the building, I think, without the elevations staff just wasn't able to see how people are maybe entering or exiting through that part of the building, and just better understanding how that building interacts with that path, whether or not, there's a bit of a buffer, or if it's right up against it, and taking into account potential encroachments. Great. Thank you, you said in the Memo. Building. Encroachments and overhangs are not permitted within public access easements. So that helps explain that comment, too. Thank you. And then I think I just have have one more, and this is about the other proposed multi-use path on the northern edge of the property, and in the memo you noted that this design omits the North South connection.

[52:06] and did Staff have any comment about that? Why was that omitted? And did did Tab think about that, or could Tab think about that before Site Review. I'm I'm not sure why it was omitted. I think in looking at the Tmp. we saw those 2 connections. And so I think maybe if the applicant might be able to address the some of the site design and consideration for the those connections. But Folsom is still in its design phase, and so the applicant will coordinate with transportation as well. At time of site, review. Okay. Is there some thought that that connection in the in the transportation plan might get overtaken or superseded by changes to Folsom Street? I'm not aware of that at the moment. but I can connect also with some of our transportation staff or

[53:01] and see if I can get an answer on that one. Okay, I I just thought I took that away from your comment. But maybe I was reading too much. Oh, no, I I don't know that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. This point. All right. Thank you, Allison. Those were my questions. Guys. Mason, I can't see you at the moment. but if if it's okay with you, I'm going to follow on to Laura's comments, and then I'll come back to you. Since Laura's and my questions focus are focused on the multi use path. That means. Okay? Alright. So as in its current configuration. the East West multi-use path on the north side of the building I was. I spent a bunch of time out riding my bike around in the 2 parking lots that make up the eastern side of the 2 buildings, and that that path

[54:01] would go. Nowhere is is that correct as far as as your understanding of this of the site design. It. It is further east, supposed to connect to another connection that will then cut through to 28th Street. But right now it, then these other sites are developed so those links and connections have not been constructed. Well, well, I I think actually so. There's a bunch of fencing, and those sites are developed so like where your cursor is now, just to the north and east. Yeah, I mean, that's There's a a apartments there. There's a driveway there's covered parking, but they're all divided by fences. And and I'm I'm gonna phrase this as a question.

[55:00] it. Let's say we have a multi use path on this site. And I understand sometimes we build pieces of a plan that aren't complete. And so then, sometime in the future, someone else does something. And we get to say, Okay, to do that you need to connect to this piece that we built 10 years ago. And that's the only way we get connections going. But do we have. were any of the adjacent sites to the east, to the northeast, or the the missing connection to the south, the the path that was drawn but is now omitted. is there any way or any of the adjacent properties ever conditioned in their puds or site plans that they had to allow a connection should these parcels or parcels redeveloped? So the question is, is there some way to force the connection to any adjacent property, or are we stuck

[56:10] with essentially a multi-use path that dead ends into a fence. I think at this stage we we can't require another property to develop the connection. If they were to come in at a future time and redevelop then than we would, I think, especially for this site. Transportation understands the the context and the current inability to connect to those paths. So that's why they would require public access easement versus construction of the multi-use path. Just given the surrounding context. But to answer your question, no, I don't. I don't think we can require any of the other properties unless they're going through a development process. So. So when those other processes went, when the when those other parcels went through their development process. have we done any research about? And I know that that maybe these were developed under Pud or Prior Site review criteria, or whatever. But has there been any research done

[57:12] about conditions or agreements that would allow us to connect and you know, if the answer is, we haven't done that in this concept review. Anyway, it seems like we we get into this little bit of a circular. It's a it's a, it's a bad circle, and that is, we can't require other properties to create a connection. So we we just do a piece of the connection. But we don't really condition this property. I I don't. I don't know. Let's say this, this building gets built. and there's an mup on the north side. Have we conditioned this to say. if this this MUP. Must be

[58:01] allowed to connect north, south, east, west. 2 adjacent properties. If those properties redevelop. do we condition that and say you have to allow access. I I think the condition, you know, they would have the public access easement, and then, if the other parcels were to redevelop, then they would work to look at the ex. What is been dedicated, and and work to make that connection with the 1840 and 1844, Folsom. But it's my understanding that a lot of these parcels predate some of those connections, and that's why they don't have them. And they have the fencing. Yeah. Okay? All right, that's I. Your answer is not just at this point. It's it's our old code and implementation of it. Is disappointing. So ml.

[59:00] Thank you. all of this access has prompted a question I didn't notice, and maybe it was there, Allison. But the proposed access, egress and entry to the site is located at kind of a interesting part of Folsom, where it just begins to split. So there's some complex geometry right? There. Is that not a concern to the traffic folks, traffic engineers, that there is such close proximity to the divided Polso. It's like a little stone stole right there. Yeah, I think that the access in general there are some concerns, and so the applicant would need to work closely with transportation. And I think once we have the, you know, fully fleshed out traffic study and analysis. We'd be able to better understand that those access pain points. Okay, it just, I'm looking at. I went to look at the actual map in the area. And I'm thinking, Huh, I know that spot. It's it's it's challenging without having a big access there. But thank you for your answer.

[60:08] Okay, any more clarifying questions for Allison before we move to the applicant presentation. Okay? Seeing none. Then. We'll go to the applicant presentation. The applicant will have up to 15 min. I'm gonna get a timer going when they when they're available. Hey? Thank you, guys, can you hear us? Alright? So give me one second to share this, and then we'll get on the clock, and hopefully, do something, do something good here. So just one moment. Are you able to hear me.

[61:00] Yes. Thank you. Okay? And hopefully, you can see a black and white drawing outstanding. Chris, when you're ready, take it away. Right. Hello, Chris Jacobs, 1637, Pearl Street. Thank you for your time. We're excited to share our concept. For 1840 and 1844 Folsom, Folsom Street, and to hear your feedback. the Folsom Development team has been committed to the planning. placemaking, and creation of a wide range of housing throughout Boulder. For more than 20 years my team at element has provided boulder with new and refurbished apartments for sale townhomes, dorms for neuropa University students, and approximately 500 permanently affordable homes, serving seniors, workforce families, and formerly homeless individuals. 100% of elements projects have been infill developments.

[62:00] and in all of our projects. Location within the city of Boulder is the driving amenity for residents. Boulder is the amenity. 1840 and 1844. Folsom will be no different. Located at the nexus of downtown Pearl Street, Boulder Junction and University of Colorado. Future residents will be in close proximity to grocery stores, shopping restaurants, healthcare and education. Folsom will offer a mix of studio, one bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3 bedroom apartments designed to serve a wide variety of residents. individuals, couples, roommates, and families of all ages affordable retail, is planned along Folsom Street. divert to diversify the neighborhood's commercial offerings and bring additional light to the Folsom street corridor building building design will prioritize access to light and air

[63:00] with balconies or Juliets, as well as a range of common usable open space. Our common open space will include a courtyard of grade. an elevated courtyard. and 2 outdoor patios on the 5th floor. For all residents to enjoy. Additionally, residents will have access to a host of common area amenities. including onsite Co. Working collaborative spaces, a fitness, gym. Rideshare, lobby parcel delivery lockers and best in class secure bike, parking. while Tdms are often 1st addressed in the next step at at Site Site Review. Part of our envisioning process includes Tdm. Measures such as some principles access to microtransit Eco passes and car share. Folsom Place is an opportunity to create much needed housing and neighborhood serving retail along this vibrant core arterial network.

[64:03] where retail services and transportation infrastructure are already established again. Thank you for your time, and I'll turn it over to Bill Holocke at Coburn. Hey? I'm Bill. You all know me. I'm happy to be here. This is a really interesting site, and it's probably interesting because of the the fact that it's on this transitional, wholesome corridor. And that's the the kind of the split, or that transition between these sort of old single use zones that we have still in our city. The green is the residential, and that's the western core. That's that's really residential. Only through Boulder and to the East. We've got the 2829th Street Commercial core and that was all zoned like 80 years ago, right when when we didn't know any better. And then, 50 years after that, in the late nineties, early 2 thousands, we all figured out that hey? Splitting our zones up and having just single uses is really detrimental to the health of a city and a community. and Boulder acknowledged that they knew that was a was an issue. And that's when we start to see the rise of the Boulder Plaza, plan the Boulder Valley Regional Center Plan, and both of these plans address this area specifically trying to fix this zoning problem, which is which is really interesting to me as a planner and architect. So the idea was, okay, well, we know we've got these these zones that don't make any sense. Let's take the Br one area and let's get other uses in there, and you'll see. And Allison pointed them out.

[65:26] There's these support for residential support for people walking, and in a real I like to think of it as a back turning to cars right when those areas were originally conceived, it was all car based. And those 2 area plans switch that. So let's get people in here and let's change it to a pedestrian, oriented city. And that's why this Folsom quarter is so interesting. Now, the fact that they did that makes tons of sense when you look at what's in the area. There's so many supportive services here which are important, not just for people that might live here to use, but also the fact that all of those supportive services need employees.

[66:00] So the idea that we can get people into our commercial core, both to use the services and to service the services by by working there makes perfect sense, and you can see that they're all concentrated to the east in the Br. One zone right? And there was a nod to this in the zoning that I showed in that last slide with that bt that ran through as a business transitional strip. Folsom was intended to be that transition back and forth. The other reason it makes so much sense is the the alt modes. And I think someone had asked earlier about where the bus stops are. All the bus stops are in blue, and, as we all know, Canyon Pearl Street, Folsom, highly serviced by transit. But there's also the secondary network of bike paths. They're on street. And we've talked a lot as a community about what Folsom's bike amenities should be. I bike on it all the time to get to our office so I can tell you where my vote is. But you know, we've got all these other bike paths on street. And then we've got the secondary and tertiary network of other bike paths that that are and walking paths that are also accessible.

[67:03] So all that kind of comes together and says, Okay, we've got this street in Folsom that was conceived at a time when we didn't care about people, and it's really broken on the left. You can see in in this maroon color what the street looks like right now, and it it doesn't work to be blunt. It's got all of these kind of buildings as objects in a field which was popularized in the 19 twenties or so with the idea that we were going to do machines or buildings as machines, and we don't care about the people. They're just units. And we found out pretty quickly that building a tower in a field, or building a box in a field of parking just isn't supportive to the human condition at all. So what what's cool about this project to me is that we can start to fix that right. We can bring. Bring this project to the street like you see on the right hand side. We can give it an appropriate front door and entries. We can do support for pedestrians, sidewalks for the improvements that are coming on Folsom, and we do believe this section of Folsom is supposed to get those improvements. We can support bicyclists, and we can't fix the whole street. But we can be this island of a correct attitude towards bikes, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the middle of the kind of worst stretch of Folsom.

[68:08] and by doing that it's almost like island hopping right? It gives people a place to get to that feels better, and then they can move off. And it's also kind of the clue for the rest of the street, which hopefully changes over time to do it in a more pedestrian and community focused fashion. And you can kind of see the existing buildings up here at the top of this slide. They really are like that box in a in a field kind of scenario. So hopefully, we can fix that to give you a little idea of how we came to the form that we we have now on the left of the existing conditions. This is just the 2 existing red buildings. At least they had the parking behind them. But again, they're just objects pulled back from the street. So the 1st thing we want to do is get rid of the parking, tuck it underground so that you don't experience it as part of the community. And then the yellow box is what's left right? So that's the envelope that we can build in. And originally, when the zone was written, this was the expectation, because it was written for office buildings.

[69:03] So we have this huge 3 0 box without any ins and outs, and without any kind of erosion to it. And that was appropriate in 1990 or 1980. That's what they thought they were going to get, we all know. Now, that's not such a good thing. So we want to start chopping that up. So the 1st thing we want to do is cut in the multi-use path that's shown on the north side of the site. and I think a couple of people asked why we haven't been showing the the bike path that runs north south on the eastern side, and there's a very good reason for that, and that's that I missed it. So I'm sorry it's our intention to do that, and I just missed on the original tmp, so we would absolutely propose to to put that multi-use path on the eastern side as well. And then we continue to erode the vehicular emergency access showing pink on the south side of the site. And and we'll get into why, it's there in more detail. But you can see on the right hand slide that that allows us to do erosion into the building for a residential pattern.

[70:01] and have some light narrow on the south side, which is actually a set review criteria. Now, the reason that we're doing this format is pretty interesting to me. I think one of the things we we forget as architects is that when you get rid of the car from the equation and we start to try to figure out what building forms make sense. Well, we've been doing it for hundreds of years, and we forgot over the last 80. This kind of W or E shaped building is an absolute staple through urban settings all over the place, and the reason for that is that it works really well. It's 70 feet wide, so you can do a double loaded corridor. No edge of the unit is further than like 30 feet from a window or 35 feet from a window, so it reduces the need for ventilation, it reduces the need for mechanical fans. You get more light and air into the units. You don't have as much energy put into into lighting. And it's a really sustainable footprint. You also get the benefit of these intimate courtyards which work for the scale of building us and pictures of precedents of that later. But there's a reason that this is a very repeated pattern, from like the 17 hundreds to the 19 hundreds. It works really well for people that aren't dominated by cars, and then you continue to erode that with the roof decks, and then we start to the gray and the brown. You know it's very conceptual. At this point

[71:21] some architectural stylistic differences and breaking up of the volumes, and you end up with with this residential form as opposed to that earlier yellowish form that I showed you that was really commercial based. So here's how that works, and to show how the buildings entered. We have this front door along, Folsom, and that's very purposeful. And then all of the vehicular access is along the bottom, and I'm going to try to weave in without going over in time some of the answers to these questions. Well, actually, maybe I'll do at the end. But the pork chop came from a project that was originally proposed as a commercial project on the site years earlier. and Staff had wanted that. We don't think the pork chops. A great idea would love to eliminate it. We agree with Staff, and we can talk more about that. As Allison mentioned, and and Chris mentioned, there's a variety of building or unit types from 3 bedrooms to studios.

[72:09] and the parking is tucked behind, and that allows us to do this with the open space. We've got these 2 upper level decks here, and then we have a courtyard right behind it, and an elevated courtyard behind that, and they're intended to be sort of intimate spaces. And again, this is a really standard building design that was developed in the 18 hundreds and 19 hundreds that works really well. then, the area plans contemplate larger spaces for people in these higher density buildings with Greenlean Park, Emma Gomez Park and the green space north of the dairy. So there's a kind of continuum of intimate large scale and rooftop open spaces that people can get to. And then, finally, the building design. The idea is that we really want to support the street. We want this to be a stately, elegant, and, and, you know, timeless kind of building. So the idea is that we have these 2 materials on the outside to sort of make the place and make the corners. We have a recess and a welcoming 1st floor with a big foyer. And then these balconies on the units that are along Folsom Folsom may be a high traffic street, but it's a low speed street and thankfully, with the new speed limits. It's even a lower speed street. Lower the speeds, the less the noise. These balconies really allow the building to interact with the street and the rooftop decks do as well.

[73:23] And then, lastly, so that you can get a sense of scale, because this came up a few times and and setback. This building is pulled to the street. As the code contemplates, you can see how much forward it sits compared to the other uses on the site. and to give you a sense of height. This is how tall we are that 50 feet or so above grade. Compared to you know, we've got some lower buildings in the back, some taller buildings in the front. But again, none of those are really pedestrian oriented. So the whole point is to bring this to the street and keep it at that pedestrian scale. So with that I would. I would stop just because I don't want to run over and we I do have some answers to some of the questions that people posed with a couple more minutes. Maybe I'll just jump into them.

[74:06] Yeah, you've got 2 min, and and then we'll we'll ask them if you don't get to them. So go ahead. Okay. So, Kurt, you had asked why the drive aisle was wide. Oh, boy, I just messed that up, and I apologize for that there we go. The drive aisle is that is that with because it's also serving as emergency access easement. So it has to be 25 feet wide by easement for Dave Lowry and his fire trucks. The center divider that was brought up. I just should point out that that drawing is incorrect, and if you look at the aerial, it actually starts to divide Folsom 2 properties to the south. So our proposed access point isn't very close to where Folsom divides. We also agree that the we don't really know how the Dcs standards could be applied to the street. But I think the reason that Folsom's this weird street is because originally it was viewed as a major North, South thoroughfare, and it's changed into a much different street. So it is a Major street is sort of different than, say, 28th Street.

[75:09] yes, I'm not entirely sure which way the project will satisfy the units on the 1st floor requirement, as Chris mentioned. on at least part of it, we're proposing a commercial space that would fall into the city of Boulders commercial, affordable program. The other side, the northern side. On the left side of this picture we've removed the residential units and have used amenity space there. So if amenity. Space is viewed as residential. We might need a use review for that amenity space, and if not, or if we do more commercial, it may not need a use review. We haven't really started to design the northern side. You can see from that original kind of model that I showed. We do agree that it's a longer facade, and it needs to be broken up. So we're showing some breakup there. But we don't really know what that means yet. And the courtyards, was the other question I had on here, and I'll I'll end at this. The courtyards are accessed from inside the building. They're they're off the central corridor so everybody can get to all of them. And the grade level courtyard that's closer to the start of this image is there for the the amenities wrap that around. So it's not just units on that level.

[76:18] So I think hopefully that answers some questions and also ran me out of time. So thank you. Yes, you're perfectly on time, thank you. And so I appreciate you trying to answer some of those questions. I'm sure we have a bunch more so. Who would like to ask additional clarifying questions of the applicant? And Claudia. you're up. No, I'm fast. I gotta be ready here. Well. I was curious. Why, the vehicle parking access is all the way towards the east side of the property. What kind of grade are you dealing with there?

[77:01] And why are you taking that access? Drive all the way around the south side to the to the east. Yeah, that's a great question. And essentially, it's because we're trying to satisfy a bunch of things with one drive. We want to keep the amount of paving down as much as possible. We have to serve trash, because the city requires that Western disposal, not park in Folsom, and have a place to come in, and you know, Park for a little while and deal with it. They also now require off street locations for moving trucks. They require emergency access vehicles. We have to get a fire truck about halfway back in the site, and we need to get the vehicular access. So the way this is working. and it's it's not. It's not completely shown on this, because it's a pretty conceptual drawing. But to about maybe the start of the elevated courtyard. The drive is flat, and that's so that the Western disposal truck and fire truck and moving truck can all get in and get out without going up and down a ramp. The ramp starts at that elevated courtyard, and in order to get down all the way to 10 feet underground, it takes us all the way till we get back to the East Side to do that. Now we have figured out since we've done this drawing, and, Kurt, you referenced it. Once we get past that point where the the access emergency access vehicles

[78:15] have to go, then we can shrink that driveway down to 2, 10 foot drive lanes. So it's it's thinner, and we can get it around tighter and have more green space in the back. And that's how we're gonna get the the multi use path on the east side so hopefully. That gives you some clue on how all that works. Okay, yeah, that's that's interesting to hear that you can narrow that space because my my other question was, gonna be, is there any opportunity for kind of decking that space as it makes its way subgrade. Interesting, like a landscape, checking. Well in in the same, in the same way that you're talking about this elevated courtyard. Be a way to do. Say green roofing as you start to go below grade on the site. yeah. My other question was actually about the courtyards. And could you give us some sense of what the size of these courtyards is intended to be.

[79:09] Yeah, sure can. The the courtyards are 50 feet wide. So you know, if a if a normal one bedroom with living room unit is about 23 feet wide or something. It's like 2 units wide, maybe a little bigger than that. The elevated courtyard is about 40 feet tall, so it's a little bit 10 feet wider than it is tall. and the courtyard on the west that's down at. I'm sorry. Yeah, on the west that's down at grade is about 50 feet wide and 50 feet tall. So it's about that one to one ratio. And you know, I know that section of the code where it says, you know, if you get a height exemption and you have open space. Here's some some guidelines to follow. I know those are not Dow shelts. It's all just a series of shoulds. Please consider these, but that is purposeful, because that gives us that kind of one to one ratio anticipated in that section of code. and we are using those 7 guidelines as the guide for how to do these open spaces.

[80:01] Okay? And then last question, you haven't shown us at this point any elevations or conceptual drawings of the north facade of this building. But do you have some sense of how that building will be interacting? With the multi-use path? In terms of entrances, exits passageways through from courtyards to there. What's going on on the north side. Yeah, I mean, one of the interesting things about the way concept plan works is we submit it. And then, of course, we keep working on it right, but the submission is like a point in time. So I'd be lying if I told you we had it all figured out, because we certainly don't. But you know, since this drawing we've created more space between the southern edge of the multi-use path and the building. Because. you know, staff made that comment, and we kind of hadn't really thought about it too much yet, because we hadn't got to that part of the building. But like the idea of a multi-use path, you know, smacking in concrete to a to a vertical wall doesn't seem very welcoming. So we created some room there, so we can do a landscape island. We've accentuated this cutback that you see in the building, so we can have some modulation there. And you know we're cognizant of the fact that we can't put like awnings and things that go out over the multi-use path because it's public access easement.

[81:12] But we do have some ins and outs there. One of the things we're contemplating is potentially like, you know, garage access. That's there. So people can go directly out onto that. And we do have units that open out that direction. So that's another reason to create that separation between the multiple use path and the unit. So it doesn't feel like somebody's whizzing right by your front window. so I don't have it all figured out. Any thoughts on that would be absolutely welcome. All right. Thank you. I'll let some other folks ask questions. Okay, Laura, go ahead. Thank you. I have a few, and thank you for that presentation. Chris and Bill, again very informative. Really appreciate it. So you mentioned that the grade level courtyard would be accessed from inside the buildings, and that everyone would have

[82:00] access to that. Is it also accessed from that drive that I understand it's not a ramp yet. It's not descending in grade. But is it also accessed from the drive? There. You know, we haven't. We haven't decided to do that. We thought about that. And and the way this works. And I'm gonna flip a couple of images here, and here's a good one is, you can see on level one. That's our lobby. So the lobby communicates, and we we've kind of expanded this connection the lobby communicates directly to the courtyard. So in our mind, the way people should move through the space is through the lobby and the courtyard. That's all very common space to everybody in the building. So the the lobby and the courtyard are sort of all part of the same amenity, package and the and the lobby could be multi use. It could have a bunch of functions, and those could tie directly into the courtyard. So that's where we chose to put that connection. and we think that makes the most sense for the building. It's not. It's not contemplated that you would walk like directly from this driveway

[83:01] to the to the courtyard. And, in fact. just something to keep in mind is that we need. We need services. It's a 4 sided building. And we need trash and things. So like some of these areas would be, you know, an enclosed trash room that Western disposal can get to. So it isn't this is more of a service area, and probably fenced from the courtyard, and not so much something that somebody would just walk onto. Okay, good to know. So these courtyards are truly internal. They might as well be rooftop decks in terms of they are just for the use of the residence. Yeah, that's the way they were historically gone. And I think there's a lot of good reasons for that. So that's the way we were, they were conceived. Okay? Thank you. Speaking of setbacks, I think, in the package, it looks like you are requesting a modification for the side yard setback to the north. for it looks like it's about a 10 inch modification. Why, why is a side yard setback modification needed? Can you walk us through that.

[84:00] I think the building is just in the middle of trying to figure out what it wants to be, and I'm not, you know 10 inches is probably something we might try to modify the building to remove. We're just trying to figure it out. And like I said, we've created a little bit more space on the north side. So I'm not convinced that we still need that. Okay. okay. Thank you. We'll look forward to seeing where you land on that. Say more about the affordable retail you mentioned in the packet. You call it affordable retail, and in the presentation you said it would be part of the city's affordable retail program. Can you tell us a little bit more about that. Yeah. And we're a little bit at the cities. Cities win for that, right? Because they run that program. And they've only got a couple of projects, maybe only the 30 pro project that's in that as a pilot the intent is to provide affordable commercial. It's something that you know boulders lacking. It's it's a nascent kind of idea and program. And so if we can get into the city of Boulders affordable program, I believe that the the applicant really wants to do that. If we can't, and they have to administer it themselves, then they'll have to figure out how to do that. But the intention is to say, Hey, you know,

[85:10] how can we help support? Maybe some business users that want to be in the area that otherwise would find the rents too high, and and crucially would be a good partner for the residential part of the project. And with that, Chris, if there's anything else that that's more specific, that you want to jump into. No, I I think you. I think you put it well, you know it. We definitely have a desire to put some commercial space here to activate the Folsom corridor. and we felt like, you know, lowering the rents and putting in that affordable program would would actually give a diversity of retail offerings. Thank you, and I have one more question for the applicant applicant. But can I do a follow up to Staff real quick on that affordable retail mark. Would that be okay? I just wanna ask either Allison or Hella or Charles. Is that something that can be conditioned through site review, that it has to be affordable retail, or is that more of an aspirational?

[86:09] The applicant would like to do it, and they're letting us know that they'd like to do it, but we can't actually hold them to that. That could change. Yeah, that's more of an aspirational standard. It's not something that can be required. the the only way I can think of it being required. If that was a way the applicant was meeting the requirement for our hype bonus I think the typical requirements for dwelling units is an increased fee. But there is an alternative method of compliance. If if there's a finding that the benefit is equivalent and also meets another important, really comprehensive plan goal. I remember when we worked on that language. Thank you, Hella, for reminding us. It's something that would have to be proposed by the applicant to be considered for that purpose.

[87:03] Okay, they could propose that instead of or for part of their Ih requirements. Okay, for the height, modification. And I should just clarify. That wasn't the intent of the proposal. But that's an interesting way to maybe make it a condition. So we're not against that necessarily. We'll we'll talk about it internally and with staff. Thank you, and I'm not necessarily proposing it as a condition. I was just trying to figure out what is what is actually possible. So thank you for that. And my last question for the applicant. You talk about having best in class secure bike parking. And can you explain more about what that means like, are you talking about parking for e-bikes, cargo bikes, trikes like what? What's best in class secured bike parking chargers? What do you. I'll probably defer to Chris on that, and and let me just preamble this with you know, as Chris said they, they put a lot of workforce and affordable units on the market or in in service in boulder. And they have really good understandings of what kind of things work and what don't. So maybe, Chris, you can elaborate a little bit on what you've learned and what you want to do.

[88:07] Yeah, sure. I would. I would start by saying that we we have seen a a variety. Okay. Of of parking needs for bikers. So there's plenty of users that just need the traditional hanging bike racks. And so there's gonna be a lot of those, but we're also envisioning, you know, more locker style where the bike can be driven in, and it's large enough for e-bikes. We're also envisioning, you know, for people that are maybe more heavy users of their bikes. They may have hanging bike storage, but with a vertical locker that, you know, might have a little shelf helmet. We envision electrical feeds for all these rooms, so that we can, you know, offer a base case, you know, plugins for the e-bikes, but then allow to expand that as the electrified adoption increases.

[89:08] so I would say, it's a it's a it's a pretty you know, it's still conceptual right now, but we know that there is a demand for it, and we really want to respond to that demand and kind of the variety of bike users that are going to use this parking. Okay, thank you. We'll look forward to seeing your Tdm plan on that. Just 1 1. Sorry, one more really quick. Follow up to that the bike lockers that you mentioned The one personal experience I have with bike lockers is that they were purchased and deeded to someone along with their units. Are you envisioning that these bike lockers would be things that people would buy or rent? Or are they sort of 1st come 1st serve. how does that work in your experience. That? That's a great question. they certainly wouldn't be like assigned to a specific unit. So I'd see them being unbundled

[90:01] within the within the some principles. And I imagine that there would be kind of different levels where maybe some where. It's just like a basic hanging rack within a within, a bigger locker, with multiple bites that might be free, whereas if you really wanted the you know the secure and separately locked locker for your e-bike that might come at a fee. So I'd say there's a lot more to be figured out there. But I do hear that input that's helpful. Yeah. One thing I want to point out is that you know, part of this is coming from personal experience. I mean, you know, Chris is a heavy bike user. I used to run a bike team. I you know, mountain bike road bike I commute all the time on bikes and and one of the problems that the current kinda requirements are you just? You know you have a place to lock your bike. Well, as a cyclist. That's sort of a pain in the neck, right? Because you have to walk downstairs in your cleats. You have to bring your helmet, you bring your water bottle. All this kind of stuff. So one of the things that's being envisioned is the idea that you could leave your, you know. Leave your house or unit, and maybe even with like shorts and a t-shirt on. Get down on your bike.

[91:06] take your shorts and t-shirt off and get your bike clothes underneath. You've got your helmet there on the rack. You've got your shoes there in the rack, so you're not like walking like a duck to get down there, and you can put on your stuff, and it's really convenient both ways. So in my mind, the barrier to cycling, commuting, and and for exercise is that it's that last little piece like, Oh, my God! It's such a pain for me to go down there, and what we're trying to do is brainstorm ways to remove that little pain right? So that it's super clean and part of these are coming from just our experience. Hey? Was it like when we go, rider bike to work. What do we have to do? How can we solve for that problem? So it's nascent for sure, like we don't all figured out and any ideas I mean, I know that we've got some really educated transportation people here. Any ideas on that would be helpful. But that's that's the intent. Thank you. I'm done with my questions. Okay. Ml.

[92:00] look ready. Great. Thank you. so this is about movement of people. You mentioned something about the South west corner and the Commercial, and it sounded like you said that it kind of wrapped. Can you talk about how a pedestrian, walking down this sidewalk would experience the commercial opportunities that the project is proposing. Yeah, thank you. And this is one of those things that the thinking has progressed since we've submitted this. So I'm looking at this level one. and this gray spot in the middle is the lobby, and it's still we have a lobby in the middle, and this space to the southwest would be the affordable commercial. That's what we're currently thinking. I think you've got the wrong you've got unit mix up on the screen. Yes, and I'm I'm trying to point to level one. Oh!

[93:00] Sorry. Oh, I see it. Little tiny. Okay. I apologize. Ml, I know it's small. No worries. I couldn't see your cursor. Oh, yeah, yeah. So I think you know, Allison correctly pointed out that when this is a pork job it really pinches that. So we're really excited. This staff wants us to be just a straight, single entry. I think that frees up the area in front of this affordable commercial in a in a much better way, and then a lobby. And then this area that you rightly pointed out was units. The more we thought about that, the more that felt maybe not the most appropriate thing on the 1st floor, a. As referenced by the code. Right? The code kind of says, like, you need a use review to put residential there. So we're currently planning on this being amenity space. I conceivably that could change. And we might want to do some sort of commercial there. But assuming that that stays amenity, then we would ask for a use review just to allow that amenity space to be there. But our view of that amenity space is like Co working. It's active things that would be good for the interaction with pedestrians on the street. So I don't know if I totally answered your question, but this whole area is intended to be either amenity or commercial. At this point.

[94:07] Okay, so it wouldn't wrap into Into the. Site. Right. No, no, it would just be on that base, you know, 40 feet or something. Got it. And then my second question is about pedestrian as well. But it's pedestrian within the site. You talked about people coming in off the sidewalk, going into the lobby and into that 1st courtyard. So what happens to that second building? How do people come in off the sidewalk, or as without a car, or with the Bi without a car. How do they come into the the eastern. Yeah, so. Guilty. thank you. That's a that's a good point. And I've I've got my annotation worked up here. So I'm gonna be able to draw hopefully. We'll see if this works. So the idea is they would they would come in off the street right? And then we have an elevator and stairs right here. and then they would. If they're just on the 1st floor. This pink is the corridor right? So they would just move back and get into the units or get into the amenity space. But if they were going to the upper floors they would take the elevator up on on level 2, and they just take the corridor to wherever their unit is.

[95:15] So if they're on the first, st oh, so the second building doesn't have a 1st floor. Is that correct? Because it's got parking. Yeah, it's all one building. It's all connected. Right? So the first.st Got it. Or on the east side is, is somewhat, but after that it's all one building. Yeah. Right? Okay? So The only way for people to get to their units is by going inside the building. Yeah, that that's the intention. It's a multifamily building. With this, you know, it's corridor accessed. That's how the Fha contemplates them, too. Right. You can't have stairs to get up to second floor units. There's gotta be accessible access to everything. And so the way that's done is we have a common front door, and then 2 sets of stairs and an elevator for everybody, and it's all it's all one building.

[96:05] Right. So everybody comes through the lobby and down that corridor. Yup. And hopefully, that helps build community because all the amenity spaces are around that front lobby. Right? So everybody's coming and going through the same amenity space. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you very much. Yeah. Sure. Go ahead! Great thanks. 1st of all, just to follow up on this east elevated courtyard. So on this diagram that we have up here, it's not showing any common access to that. But you're you're gonna figure out some way to get common access into there right. Yeah, we did change that. So now there's a common access to each court or each courtyard that comes straight in at the end on every floor, I mean on the first, st every floor that accesses it. Sounds good. Second question is about the parking access. So, as I understand from the drawings.

[97:02] the access to the parking area is on the lower level. and then you go up to this half level at half parking area at level one. Is that correct? I. I may have described it poorly, and I apologize for that, Kurt. So the I'm gonna let me go up one. So the access to this parking is at grade, so the the parking here is at the same level as the 1st floor, which is essentially at the same level as Folsom the the whole site down a couple of feet, and then you actually go down underground to this layer of parking. I'm sorry that I didn't describe that. Well. No, no, there it wasn't you. You described it fine it just from the diagrams. It didn't look that way. But okay. Okay. Sure. Fine. Great. okay? And then oh, the last question about the parking is so the on this underground parking diagram on the lower right hand corner.

[98:07] The the parking doesn't extend. The full footprint of the building. Is that because you can't efficiently use that full footprints worth of parking? I'm trying to understand why you did this 2 level or one and a half level thing as opposed to a larger underground parking area. Yeah, totally like. Not only do I understand your question, but we've been working on the same thing. So we're essentially doing parking like you're saying kind of like this and if we. The the issue is that the site with is too narrow to get another bay of parking in there because we still need our access down to it, which we're doing, as you know, right here, so we can't really park under most of that. And you can't park under a city of boulder public access easement. So we can't extend the parking any further north. So because of that, there's really not an efficient way to take advantage of that of any more underground parking there.

[99:09] and we certainly can't fit in this much parking underground. And, you know, the the realities of financing. The project is, we've pushed the parking down as far as we think we could possibly can, and still have the applicant get funding for the project. So the intention is only one space per unit which requires a parking reduction. and that requires 2 layers of parking just in terms of physically fitting it on the site. Okay. thank you. I think that's all. Okay. I have had all my questions answered by the excellent questions from the other planning board members. And unless Mason has

[100:01] raised his hand. I'm going to close the question portion of this. and I'm going to make a suggestion that we take a quick break. We've been going for 2 and a quarter hours now. and we'll come back for the public hearing, and this will give us 10 min for a bio break, and I want to announce that we have 32 attendees to our meeting tonight. and as reluctant as I am to do this. I am going to as chair limit the speakers to 2 min each tonight. I'm anticipating we'll have more than 15 speakers

[101:00] and so 2 min a piece, and so if any adjustment needs to be made to your comments. that would be great. And we'll come back in. My clock says 8 12. So we'll say, 8, 23. Okay.

[111:59] okay.

[112:05] good. We're at 8, 23. I'm gonna call the meeting back to order. And we are now moving into the public comment for this particular agenda item, and before the break I had said that we would limit the time to 2 min. What I want to do is to have those that wish to speak raise their hand. and we'll do a quick count and see if, in fact, limiting. The time to 2 min versus 3 is necessary, and we'll give everyone a chance to raise their hand if they would like to speak to this agenda item. So while people I'm looking at the

[113:00] attendee list here. Also, there's just a question in the Q&A mark. If you can repeat which agenda item, we're on. I'm I'm sorry. Say that again, Vivian. Oh, yeah, there's a a question in the Q&A, which agenda item we're on. If you could just repeat it. Oh, I'm sorry. It's agenda. Item 5, a. Which is the the 2 addresses on Folsom Street. It's a concept review. Thank you. Okay, at the risk of people, not. I'm I'm just looking here. And I continue to see

[114:00] people that I would think would want to speak, but are not raising their hand. So I'm gonna give it just another 30 seconds. And if you would like to speak, please raise your hand promptly here, and that will help us organize this public comment. And just to reiterate, please raise your hand if you do intend to speak during the public hearing. And Vivian. or another reminder that people need to have their full name. as they're commonly known. by no single 1st names, etc. Yeah, correct. Thanks for that. I just see one person who's raised their hand. Who

[115:05] can send me their full name through the QA. Function, and we can change it for you. Okay, alright. Let's proceed, then. This is fewer speakers than I expected, so I appreciate the the reminder in the Q. And a. About this, the question about this. So we'll go back to a 3 min time limit we do have other agenda items tonight. So as speakers, I would just simply say, get your important stuff out first, st and if you don't take up your whole 3 min great we'll we'll we will be appreciative of that. And Vivian, if you want to go ahead and start calling on public for our public participation. Yes, will do so. I'll just start at the top and go down my list in the order that they appear. Start with Douglas bent. You have 3 min, and after Douglas we'll have Lindsey. Go. Please go ahead, Douglas.

[116:14] Oops. Let me just unmute there. Sorry my name is Douglas Bent, resigning on the 11th floor of horizon West. False as proposed, Folsom Place is to have a floor area ratio of 2.4 5 in 5 stories. I urge the city staff and planning board to strongly encourage elements to submit a revised concept design to reduce the building to a hundred 1,000 square feet on 3 or 4 stories which would lower the floor area ratio to approximately 1.6. This level would be compatible with existing neighbors, that all have floor area ratios no higher than 1.6. These include horizon west. Despite its 11 story height.

[117:00] the apartments at the view, a five-story building to the east. the combined dairy Center and Sinton Park and the Water street complex. In addition, Folsom Place, at with its floor area ratio is not compatible with other residential complexes that are large, but in a nearby area, such as 2 9 north, which has almost twice the amount of livable space, but its far is only 1.6 3 and 4 stories. Moreover, almost all the buildings of the Transit village are only 3 or 4 stories, including sparks and sparks, project on 33rd and Bluff, which is an elements project. So I'm wondering what makes Folsom Place so special that it serves multiple concessions, such as the height variance along with variance or concessions, to allow residential units on the 1st floor altogether reduced number of parking spaces, narrow perimeter setbacks, and only minimal open space.

[118:06] So I'd like to suggest some possible changes to reduce the far and improve compatibility. such as the broader perimeter setbacks, as noted by earlier speakers. possibly reduce footprints on the north side of the upper floors, such as the Google Buildings, the Microsoft Building on Canyon, or the Olive Building on Canyon. or possibly a lower building height on the Folsom Street facade, with heights, with heights step-ups toward the rear. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Douglas. Okay. Next up we have Lynn Siegel, followed by Douglas Hennick. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have 3 min. It's far time that the developers in this town

[119:03] suck it in less profit. The wealth disparity in this place is untenable. We don't have overflow protection for the homeless shelter. Boulder County is 30% low in their budget. The city unfunded liabilities. The developer needs to pay. They should not get one concession on this job, and I agree with the previous person. 1.6 or smaller FAR. People are not going to come here to tour apartment buildings. They aren't interesting. much as you know. Ollie, with Aspen is coming to do Pavilio's look at Rally Sport.

[120:00] Kundai, Hyundai, where they're going to put in new place. There's all this housing. There's more demand for services. There's no balance of jobs housing. So the more people we get coming in to service us. the less we can accommodate them, the more affordable housing we have to create in the community. It's all spread out. I don't want my Art Center in North Boulder. I'm not going to go there. I don't go to North Boulder. I'm sorry many of you live there. I don't like it. I don't like South Boulder. I don't like East Boulder. I live in Central Boulder. That's where I want to be, and my amenities are going away, not coming to me. So the developer needs to have no parking. you know. Variances, height variances, parking reductions.

[121:00] none of that. Absolutely. I mean. they can build. So let them build. But, you know. built. consider. Boulder has rules. That's why we have the parking that we have. That's why we have the height restrictions that we have. so keep to it. Don't beg you're making a handy profit on this. The developers in this town are laughing all the way to the bank, and the wealth disparity here is horrendous. It's unacceptable. It's like I was saying earlier. No one can use the swimming pool, the fitness center, the this the that if there's affordable housing in it, I don't think this place even has affordable housing. Stick to the rules. It's going to be better for you when you have better wealth. get equity in this community.

[122:01] Thank you. Next up we have Douglas Pennick, followed by Brian Ott. Douglas. Please go ahead. You can introduce yourself. You have 3 min. You may have to unmute yourself from your end as well. Oh, excuse me, thank you for your consideration. I'm a resident of Horizon West and the the architect seemed to imply at the beginning of his talk that the existing structures on Folsom Street, particularly ones like Horizon West, are sort of non-functional and antiquated. I think it's important to understand that while Horizon West is 120 unit apartment condominium that's almost 50 years old, it's also a place where many, many older people

[123:03] live without any need for institutionalization and in an affordable setting. and that at the same time the building is home also home to a lot of college students and young professionals at the beginning, people at the beginning of their career, and other others in midlife. In that sense this building conforms to the stated desire in many of the planning documents to produce vital neighborhoods and lively neighborhoods. so that's really all I have to say on this. It's it's it is not just a building or a structure. It's it is actually a community of people who are able to live decently and in non-institutional settings.

[124:01] So the building that's proposed on on the south side is far larger than anything else on the block. It almost doubles the the population. Density of this block. and that doesn't seem to be so. Anyhow, I would wish that all of that get reviewed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Brian Ott, followed by Dell Armstrong. Please go ahead, Brian. again. You might just have to unmute yourself from your end. Oh, sorry did that time time. You guys are lucky. I whittled this down to the 2 min version during the break, and I'll stick to that. What I'm speaking about tonight is bicycle safety along Folsom Street. I am a very long time and frequent commuter on the bicycle lanes on Folsom, between Spruce Street and Colorado Avenue.

[125:08] One of my concerns is that an influx of residents from the proposed apartment building Folsom Place, coupled with the design of the property and the multi-use path would increase dangers for bicycle traffic along Folsom. A bicyclist, headed to the University from Folsom Place, would have to cross Folsom to get the South Bike Lane. because Folsom Place is a mid block property. This risk is increased for those tenant cyclists. The high trip generation created by false in place, development, and the heart of this can corridor is incompatible with can goals as currently designed and proposed. A development concept will create a treacherous life safety risk contrary to the purpose of the Can initiative. So what to do then? I have a couple of thoughts.

[126:01] The developers design team should start working with the Folsom Street Multimodal Improvement Project as soon as that project gets underway at the beginning of 2025 it would be good to finalize the easement easements per city staff comments connecting the multi-use path with the dairy arts center to the east and to the greenhouse scholars parking lot to the south. Otherwise the multi-use path entry exit is only on Folsom Street. One obvious solution would be to reduce the number of trips for all modes of travel to and from Folsom Place. My question is. is a compromise to reduce the size and scope of this project possible. Look, I know that this is a tough job for you people. And I'd like to thank city Staff and the planning board for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Brian.

[127:01] Next up we have Dell Armstrong, followed by Jonathan Singer. Please go ahead, Dell. Good evening. My name is Dell Armstrong, and I live at 1850, Folsom Street. I have very strong concerns about many aspects of the Folsom Place project. But in the interest of time I'd like to focus on a specific concern. The developers of this project are proposing to significantly exceed exceed the normal height requirement by taking advantage of the exemption provided in section 9 2, 14, of the boulder municipal code, which allows for exceeding the height requirements. If and I quote, in part, at least 40% of the floor area of the building is used for dwelling units that meet the requirements for permanently affordable units. In chapter 9, dash 13 end quote. It is only by taking advantage of this well-intentioned loophole that the developer is able to so greatly exceed the boulder Height standard which would otherwise apply.

[128:05] There are numerous other requirements in section 9 13, that are intended to ensure that the permanently affordable housing provided by this developer are compatible in quality, design, and general appearance to the market rate units. One of the challenges I believe the city of Boulder will face would be to ensure that these potentially onerous requirements are all complied with and importantly are complied with for the life of the building. Section dash 9, dash 13. Dash 3 of the code also states, and I'll quote again. no person offering a permanently affordable unit for rent or sale shall fail to lawfully reference in the grant deed conveying a title of any such unit, and record with the county recorder a covenant or declaration of restrictions in a form approved by the city management such covenant or declarations of restrictions shall reference applicable contractual arrangements

[129:05] restrictive covenants, and resale restrictions as are necessary to carry out the purpose of this chapter end quote. I would strongly urge the pining board to please. If the developer insists on using the affordable housing exemption to exceed the normal requirements please aggressively act to ensure that the developer permanently meets all the requirements for this affordable housing exception. The incentive for this developer to skirt the skirt. The rules provide substandard affordable housing, and then cut and run is just too great. I believe that the residents of this neighborhood are being asked to pay a high price to advance the laudable goals advanced by the requested exception. If this project goes forward as requested. please don't let that sacrifice be in vain.

[130:04] Thank you very much for your attention and time. Thank you for being here. Okay. Our last 2 speakers, Jonathan Singer, followed by Hannah, George Jonathan, over to you. Good evening, everyone. I'm Jonathan Singer, the senior director of policy programs. Excuse me with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce 2440 Pearl street. Planning board members and staff. I want to 1st of all, thank you for your due diligence, and taking into account all the different facets of this issue. Our boulder chamber and the boulder transportation boulder chambers, transportation connections team are expressing their support for projects like this. There's a few reasons why, that I'll briefly outline in the 2 min I have remaining here. But one thing that we have been focused on in our community as a business community, but also as a broader community, are 15 min neighborhoods.

[131:03] This plan is centrally located near transit employment centers and essential amenities, such as grocery stores. and really could serve as a standard for future development proposals. There's also the enhanced pedestrian and bike experience. I've heard the concerns around traffic, but we're seeing a walk score of 89, and a bike score of 100. This plan actually increases accessibility which could actually significantly reduce traffic congestion, not only in this area. But in surrounding neighborhoods also, we can't forget that we need to be supporting workforce housing with 183 residences, including units at price points appropriate for single adults and families. This diversity of attainable housing options will help actually keep our workforce in the city. and last, but not least. having not necessarily been a resident, but a worker. In this geographic location there is a concern about public safety that we've faced in part due to the unhoused population.

[132:06] We share the concerns with the neighbor, our neighbors about vandalism and other criminal activity. and this proposal actually activates the area in a way that could improve many of those safety concerns city staff, and the Planning Board has given thorough review to this, and given a recent Dr. Cog report citing the need for 10,000 units of additional housing in boulder to meet our basic needs. We hope applications such as this can serve as a template to locate density in the right places to serve our community and the economy. We hope you approve this, and look forward to the discussion. Thank you. On to Hannah. George, please go ahead, Hannah. Good evening, everyone. My name is Hannah George, a resident of Boulder near the North Park area. And I work about a block from this development.

[133:02] Proposed development. I am really excited about this. I am a normal person that lives and works in Boulder. I do not own a car. And this is exactly the kind of housing we need. I think I really enjoy biking along, Folsom. I think it's a great bike corridor. It's close to the transit options that take you to Denver and beyond and it's just exactly, really, I think. a refreshing example of what we can do in this city. Of building housing for actual people rather than multi 1 million dollar condos that are sitting empty in areas where I walk around in the evenings. so I really hope you consider this. I would even go as far as reducing the underground parking. I think underground parking can have a kind of creepy vibe. And if we're encouraging the city of the future that we need to address the climate crisis, the housing crisis.

[134:05] all these twin and interconnected crises. I think we really need to double down on our commitment to creating these kinds of interconnected and sustainable housing options that will be used by regular people. So thanks so much for all your hard work on this. Everyone, and have a good evening. Thank you. Okay, we have. Betsy Dimmick. Please go ahead, Betsy. You have 3 min. and you may just have to unmute from your end. thank you for hearing my concerns. They're mostly directed to the setbacks, driveway and lack of green spaces. As I said before, the multipath use pass as drawn. Now it goes nowhere onto private property. It should be not considered as a setback.

[135:11] A 200 unit apartment generates a lot of service vehicles. and I don't think it looks like there's enough space for them to turn around to park for an hour at a time. I'm talking about fire, ambulance garbage, recycle, postal Amazon ups Doordash pizza contractors, moving trucks, appliance, delivery. and plus all the residential cars that will be there. And there's just no accommodation also for loading or unloading and for people like disabled people to get out of their cars because of the narrow driveway. And I think that Folsom places also doesn't have the setback in front, that all the other properties from canyon to pearl have. They're all at least 20 feet back from the sidewalk, so it wouldn't look in character with the rest of the buildings.

[136:15] and all the other properties also have attractive landscaping and green spaces with lawns, garden beds, mature trees. The one and a half acres of Folsom Place have. Art is completely concrete. The the open spaces that they have one is elevated. And so it has issues with environmental issues as far as drainage as far as raising the urban Heat Island effect. And it's just not an attractive place to be to walk. I mean, they emphasize walking.

[137:01] and the green spaces are important to our health environment. Make Boulder a great place to live and work. We're going to look like Mini, New York, if we continue with these kind of large buildings. and I don't think it's what the people in Boulder want, and it's certainly not what the people of Nick Horizon, West one, and that's where I live. My name is Betsy Emig. So thank you for listening, and I hope you'll address our concerns. Thank you. Next we have Barbara Cresant. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Thank you. My name is Barbara Croissant, and I'm a senior resident of Horizon West at 1850 Folsom Street. The subject of my talk tonight is height. I would like to see the planning board staff and the applicant take into consideration its effects.

[138:00] I believe that code is allowing, allowing for too much density, and I'm arguing for more flexibility to accommodate circumstances on a case by case basis. Folsom Place, as currently proposed, severely obstructs the mountain views of up to 50 residents who live on levels 2 through 6 on the south side of horizon west, about 35% or more of the residents at Horizon West are over the age of 65 seniors who live on the lower half of the south side of the building, however, are especially affected, they not only lose part or all of their view and access to natural light, but crucial property values as well. Would the city ever allow a 5 story building that abuts Presbyterian Manor, another 100 foot tall building, with senior citizens and blocks of views of the flatirons. Certainly not. Let me tell you about some of our senior residents. Joyce lived in Louisville, and took the bus to work in Boulder for years until she was able to purchase a 1 bedroom condo at horizon west, that allowed her to walk, to work and come home to a peaceful view of the flat irons.

[139:06] If Folsom Place is allowed to have 5 stories. She won't be able to see them, and will live perpetually in shade. Michelle and Albert moved to Horizon West 12 years ago for the location. Albert has Alzheimer's Alzheimer's disease, since they are already stressed financially and cannot afford assisted living. Michelle is a full-time caregiver. Mountain views and natural light are absolutely essential to keeping her spirits up. Elizabeth is an artist, and she put her entire savings into renovating a retirement condo with a studio that has a view of the flatirons and ample natural light. The total destruction of that dream is absolutely heartbreaking. Finally, myself, I've been meditating for over 30 years, and the anchor for my practice here in Boulder is the view of the flat irons. 3 stories would be fine, and I'm on the second floor. 4 stories not great but tolerable. 5 stories. Complete loss of view. Nowhere can protection of already existing views be found in 9 2, 14 h.

[140:11] Section 5, 2, 1 0 of the building of the Boulder Plaza sub area. Plan, however, reads as follows, quote, in addition, in addition, heights may reach a maximum of 55 feet. Where the development provides for protection of views from existing residential or public areas. End of quote, it logically follows that if existing views cannot be protected at 55 feet, reducing the height should be mandatory. Thank you for your time. Thank you. thank you. To all the members of the public who provided testimony. we have one more hand. We knew they would creep up. If that's okay, please go ahead and make them calls. You have 3 min.

[141:03] My noble peers upon this board, so wise attend, I pray, and hearken to my cries, though 30 voices, loud in protest, sing tis clear. They own the lands the neighbouring cling. These folk from horizon West do stand, yet feign their cries from far table Mesa's land, and Daniel Chang, who boldly doth proclaim, high rises more we need must quell and tame his dwelling. Tall at West Horizon's height yet builds afar where mountains frame the sight. These elders speak of shadows cast too long of parking lots where light no more belongs. How strange, quoth I, that they who tower high doth grumble at a 5 floor reach to sky, and thus, with parochial tongue, they chide whilst need for homes is urgent far and wide.

[142:03] Lo! This project is a triumph to behold a fruit born of the changes past so bold the laws that freed us from old space, confined and brought more homes where all could comfort, find in Boulder's heart, a place both fine and neat, where folk may live and work their needs complete. The small and humble unit is the way where many souls may shelter night and day. yet quakes the condo lords in rich array, their voices loud but false. They block the way, but we. as stewards of this growing town must not let selfish aims bring progress down. I sing the praise of Carl Geylor's hand. Who led the charge and freed this noble land from rules that bound and stifled home so fair, and brought us hope, with housing in the air

[143:07] for tis the work such as he, I say, that makes this project rise in light of day. Yet one small thing doth vex my heart with care, this dwelling hath too much of space to spare for cars, I mean, for parking is too wide, and thus the courtyard suffers in its pride a. W. It shapes so rare and bright, yet raised too high, the courtyard hides its light. So question I with humbleness of heart, that this perchance may see some form of smart revision, yet that all may thrive in peace and boulder's growth in wisdom may increase. Thank you. Thank you.

[144:00] Okay, give it a moment in case there are others who would like to provide testimony. and otherwise I will hand it back over to the chair. Alright. Thank you, Vivian. I just briefly wanna say that that was one of the most cogent, respectful, and informative group. The group of public comments, I in my 2 and a half years on planning board, hearing lots of comment tonight I thought, very exceptional. And I think that the way people presented themselves tonight made it easier to hear their thoughts. So thank you to all the public participants. I want to give the applicant. And and I also just want to say that it was also even a little entertaining tonight. So that was fun. So I want to give the applicant a moment to address anything that they'd like to address, that they heard in the public hearing.

[145:08] Thank you. Besides some minor notes on iambic pentameter and its usage. We just wanted to thank all the public for their commentary tonight, and we took notes. So we we appreciate the feedback. Thank you. Okay, great. So I am going to close the public hearing. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to the participants and staff, and we will move on to board deliberation and to help guide us in that board. Deliberation? Allison, if you could come back on and put up the. I believe it's 2 key key questions. Yep, I will pull up the key issues right now.

[146:13] Okay? So we have these 2 key issues which are standard for our concept. Review. Is the proposal consistent with the BBC Bbcp. And the vision for the area shown in the Bvrc plan and the Boulder Plaza sub area plan. And the second, does the planning board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site design and building design. So as of late we have gone person by person answering both questions. And So we're gonna carry on with that mode tonight. And

[147:05] Whoever might have their thoughts in order. Raise your hand and we'll we'll hear your thoughts. And Mason. Thank you, Mason. You know from might as well go first, st since I haven't spoken much tonight, so I think to the 1st point. Well, I guess I guess 1st I did. Wanna just echo what you said. I appreciate all the public comments. Very well spoken and I do hope the developers continue to engage the public in this process. But more specifically to the 1st point, I do think that this proposal is consistent with the policies of the Vvcp. largely with the goal of increasing housing density and addressing our housing imbalances.

[148:04] And also along the lines of increasing walkability and reducing car dependence. This is a great place to address our community housing needs, as others have spoken to people here, should they choose to, can live and work in a car. Free walkable neighborhood. As far as feedback. I I am echoing again some some comments that we heard. I would like to see, perhaps, a further reduction in parking, if possible, in exchange for any number of things, additional green space view shed considerations or increase in units. There is a bit of a some flexibility there in the far, since it's at 2.4 5. I also share in some concerns around bike and pedestrian safety. I do expect, when this comes back to us, that it will have a very strong and thorough Tdm plan

[149:03] in order to reduce traffic impacts on the neighbor on the neighborhood and to minimize and to increase the uptake of the use of public transportation and cyclists. I do think that an increase in cyclists in this area will lead to increased cyclist safety. The more cyclists are on using that infrastructure, the more likely they are to be spotted by folks driving service vehicles or cars, etc. I do think that I do hope that as this plan develops, that the developers pay particular attention to access points. And do have strong coordination with the Folsom bicycle infrastructure redesign. I know there was some concern about you know

[150:00] these paths that are being included. are past to nowhere. Currently this is the 1st step in breaking up on this super block. If you look at the maps on the boulder, low stress walk and bike network plan. This is the second highest priority and developing of those networks. And it's really the 1st opportunity that we've had to. They really speak that development. So I think it's super crucial and glad to see that those right-of-ways are included in this plan. I think that's everything. I have appreciate the opportunity to speak. Great. Thank you very so. Claudia, you're up now. Thank you. I think my comments are going to echo a lot of what Mason just said. I will start by saying that I think this is absolutely an appropriate site for intense housing uses that is anticipated by most of the plans that we have in front of us from the Pvcp. All the way down to the sub community plans the area plans.

[151:09] and that a rebalancing of office and housing uses is very necessary to keep this critical region of the city vital. I think that this site would support a significant parking reduction. I do hear what the applicant said about financing sources. Obviously we do not have any control over that as a planning board and what those requirements are. But since we will be seeing this at site review. Regardless, I think of of how this project proceeds. there's certainly an opportunity to ask for a larger parking. Reduction. If there's any way to accommodate that. I think that improve the Tdm situation for this particular site, and also potentially improve some of the open space amenities and the like in the area so that would help us meet a lot of goals for both the site and the surrounding area.

[152:09] 3rd columns. I'm really interested in the in the current site design of the building that classic W shape, I think, that has a lot of potential I would be looking at some more opportunities for internal circular circulation on this site. and a bit more permeability, perhaps, within the site itself, so are there ways to increase access for the residents to these courtyards are there even potentially ways to create connections between the courtyards. I know that requires traversing an elevation. Likewise, are there ways to create connections from the southern side of this site and the buildings to the multi-use path that's being projected on the north side. So giving people who live there more pathways through this site that aren't necessarily traversing through the hallways, through the lobby, etc. And since I think it is important, as Mason said, that we start work on this segment of a larger

[153:14] set of internal paths in this particular super block, having some interaction between this existing building and that multi-use path segment that will be constructed is one way of starting to use that space. So give people some other ways to enter this property other than through that front lobby or down that ramp to the parking space. And yeah, my last point was, I think, following on from that a little bit, doing some serious thinking about the northern facade of the building. However, that design comes back, being sensitive to the fact that that yes, we do have neighbors to the North that are somewhat concerned. There's certainly every right possible in the code here to go to 5 stories. I think we have a housing need that supports it, and I expect that the developer will come back with an affordable housing plan that gets that bonus space.

[154:11] But to be thinking a bit about the context in which this building is going to find itself, and I hope thinking in terms of foresight, of design, will improve the project and make it a good neighbor to its folks to the north. I'll stop there. Thank you, Claudia and Kurt. You're up next. Great. Well, mason and Claudia both said, everything that I want to, almost everything that I want to say much more articulately than I could. So I'm I'm in full agreement with really everything that they said. I also am very appreciative that the East Side multip will be included. As others have said, this is the 1st step towards breaking up the super block.

[155:02] You can't do it all at once. You gotta start somewhere, and this is the place to start. There were some concerns expressed about the set, the front setback but it is consistent with what is the suggested by the bull belly. the Bdrc plan and the Boulder Plaza sub area plan. Oh, I'm sorry, and I skipped the first.st The the 1st question here. I I fully agree that this is an ideal location for this type of relatively intense presidential usage. It's very close to lots of shopping. It's close to see you. It's close to Europa. It's close to downtown, relatively close to downtown. It's an ideal location. And I think that that along with the other things that others have said makes it very much consistent with Bbcp

[156:04] and area plans. I agree that if it would be possible to reduce the parking, especially if it allowed for it to become a single level. That that would be great. I think that that would be a tremendous improvement, and it would allow for additional flexibility, either in open space, possibly additional units or additional articulation of the building the couple of things that I think, haven't been said consistent with the Site Review criteria, 1914, H. 3 B. 4 and 1914, H. 3 c. 3. I would like to see the facade simplified a little bit. I it feels like there are more materials and more colors than would be necessary are really necessary. For a simple and clean design as desired by the Site Review criteria.

[157:15] The last thing I'll say, and I meant to ask a question about this, but I'll just throw it out there. I think it might be worth consideration flipping the building north, south so that the the fingers go north instead of south. So currently, there's horizon west to the north, of course, to the south there's nothing but blank wall. It's completely uninteresting area and not the kind of thing that at least as building stands now, not the kind of thing that you want to be looking out on when you're sitting out in the the open space.

[158:00] I also feel that as the climate changes. sun, access to sun and warmth is going to become less and less important, and access to shade and cool is going to become more and more important. And so, I think, having open spaces that open to the north actually are a good investment in the long term future. So I would just suggest consideration of that that would also open up for a little more light and air on the north side, addressing some of the concerns of people to the north. and those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you. Kurt. Flora. ML. Anybody ready?

[159:02] Oh, and okay, there are. You guys keep jumping on and off my screen. Sorry. Ml, please go ahead. Words. I'm busy talking to you with my mic muted. Yes, Mike Mark, I'm ready. Then, I remember. Put your hand up. Sorry. Okay, great so I'm gonna speak to the key issues in reverse. My comment about key issue 2. So the building typology that was referenced by the applicant as providing precedent for these proposed buildings. Has has been significantly updated from the precedent that they were using such that the interior courtyard concept in current use of that typology. These have become living gardens that are available to all the inhabitants. So the input that I would give is in this project. and my peers had made this point as well. There appeared to be significant limitations to access by the residents of of their open areas.

[160:07] So I am hoping that the issue of how those open areas become a viable part of the residents life and livability of their units. I'm looking forward to that being to that evolving as we get to site, review it it right now, it's not apparent that the residents will have good access to that area. Secondly, still regarding key issue 2. I totally appreciate the U-turn away from residential along Folsom and the nod toward activating an experiential street level pedestrian experience. Again, I look forward to seeing this develop with Site Review. Regards to key issue one.

[161:02] my primary input is are to the livability guidelines that are addressed in the Boulder Plaza sub area plan and in the Bdrc. And I really appreciate you know, Barbara, quoting the objective in the Boulder plaza sub area plan. That buildings exceeding 35 feet should protect these from existing residential. And I think the suggestion that Kurt was making is kind of what I was gonna put out there is that perhaps you can open some green space to provide a near view for building relief and to create a near view for all the horizon projects that people that are going to be blocked from the flatirons.

[162:00] So you could look at again, giving the horizon an opportunity to still have a view. It would be a near view rather than a far view. So I appreciate, Kurt, that you saw that opportunity as well. The Bdrc has some pretty precise design guidelines. and they have a lot to do again with livability. So I would really encourage you to go through and look at the different design guidelines about. especially about how people walk past the site and through the site. And what is the pedestrian experience? I think that is one of the vital things. That both of these Plans area plan and Bbrc

[163:03] have is to have Folsom become a pedestrian experience and have the properties along, and in these areas contribute to something other than themselves, so that they become a a part of an experience that begins to define an area. So I would encourage the applicant to take those to heart as you evolve your building, and there's a lot of really good information in there. Yeah. And those are my comments. Thank you very much. Great thank you. And now, Laura, please go ahead. So I just want to start out by appreciating all of my colleagues comments, and I'm not going to repeat them. But I am just going to say for the applicants benefit, that I think there's pretty wide agreement on a lot of things here amongst this board, and and I didn't hear anything that my colleague said that I disagreed with or wouldn't support. So

[164:00] so I'll start there and then I'll try to stick to some things that are haven't been said, but I do want to say I do think that Kurt's idea of of flipping and having some of that green space on the North is a very intriguing one, and that if the applicant can find a way to make that work, I think that this Board would be would be very appreciative of that, and supportive. At least, that's that's what I would anticipate, based on the comments I'm hearing tonight. And that's certainly where I'm coming from. I want to point out that the applicant said in the State, in your statement, which I really appreciated, that this project is an opportunity to activate and reclaim Folsom as a place for people, and not just an auto thoroughfare. which I think I heartily applaud. I agree, and I agree with my colleagues that I would support a higher parking reduction to help make that a reality. So if that can work for the applicant and maybe solve some of your other challenges. I think a higher parking reduction would be warranted. The applicant statement also talked about avoiding large and unaffordable luxury units, and totally appreciate this too, and encourage you to stick to that concept in every way that you can

[165:03] also really appreciate the idea of best in class secure bicycle parking, looking forward to seeing more of that in the Tdm. I think I'll emphasize that as well. I've talked about this in some of the other concept reviews. But assuming that you're going to allow the renters in your building to have pets think really hard about. Where are those pets going to relieve themselves because they they will destroy your landscape and make your courtyards basically uninhabitable. If you don't have a better place for the pets to relieve themselves, and some kind of logical. user, friendly way for people to get there. I want to support and highlight and underline some of Staff's comments. I talked with Allison about some of those comments of where Staff had concerns earlier in the meeting, and there's more of them on page 96. I think the staff's comments are really good, and look forward to the applicant and staff working through those challenges together. I do think that it generally is consistent with the policies of the Bbcp. As we are seeing it today

[166:03] and the Boulder Valley Regional Center Plan and the Boulder Plaza sub area plan. And I do think that a use review could be supportable. If you want to have that amenity space on the ground floor, I do appreciate that the amenity space that you're talking about would be more of an active use with a lot of glazing, and it wouldn't. It wouldn't just be private residences, although I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I do think that having a livelier streetscape would be a good thing. and then I do. I do just want to emphasize again that all of our planning documents we look for? Where are the areas in boulder that are appropriate for more density? And all of the planning changes that we have been doing recently allow for increased density. We are not. the city cannot grow, the city cannot advance if we are held to the standards of the past, and that nobody can be bigger or denser or higher than their neighbors. And so that is anticipated in our planning documents. You know Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan says that boulder.

[167:07] The city of Boulder is going to be the job center, and we're going to be where growth is concentrated so that the county of Boulder, the unincorporated county can continue to be a source of rural and agricultural uses and be less dense. We don't sprawl in boulder, we densify, and so this project is a part of that trend, and I think it's a very appropriate part of what we need to do to respond to climate change. to respond to our housing crisis and for Boulder to play its role in the region which is not a suburban role. It's not a rural role. It's not a this is where you go to have a lot of land with few people role. It is a densification and inviting the people of the region to come to boulder to work and to live. And then, just on a final note around that this is something that it took me a couple years on planning board to learn, and I just want to emphasize it.

[168:03] because I think it's so critical. There is no place in the city of Boulder where you can build by right to 55 feet, and yet 55 feet is the height limit that was deemed appropriate by the voters in, I think, the seventies. as the tallest buildings in Boulder. Right? That's what the voters said, 55 feet, not 35 feet, not 40 feet, but that 55 feet could be appropriate. and the process that we have developed for well, which building should be that tall. How do you get permission to be that tall is to say that there are certain limits that are by right. And then we have a process for going higher. And if you want to go higher, you have to do 2 things. You have to meet additional design criteria through our site review process. and you have to provide additional community benefit, which is a process that I think, is completely appropriate. And unfortunately, the way that our language is it makes it sound like we're giving out exemptions, or we're giving out modifications, or we're somehow breaking the rules. We're not. This is how the process is designed to work is, if you want to build a building that's shorter. You can do that by right. If you want to go up to the voter approved. Height limit, there are additional criteria you have to meet, but if you meet those criteria, and you're in a place that's appropriate for it.

[169:16] That we are. That is part of our role is to make sure you meet the criteria and then approve that height. So, and this project, I think, is a very appropriate place, and it sounds like the developer is doing their best to rise the challenge and meet those criteria, and we look forward to seeing how that plays out in site review. So I'll stop my comments there. I choke right as it's my turn. Thank you, Laura, and I want I want to thank the entire board as I've sat here with my comments, and I've watched my comments be whittled away because there is almost complete unanimity tonight. On the board. In regard to this to this project, and I think the

[170:05] applicant would do well to make sure this is all recorded. I'm sure you will. But you know, take. take our thoughts carefully. I'll only say that in regard to key issue number one. Yes, it is consistent with the BBC policies, the Bbrc. And I think laura's point is well taken in regard to height, and how that is structured. and the inclusionary housing, ordinance and community benefit all those things, and I always appreciate it when we have a little primer on that for all of us to be reminded of, but especially members of the community that don't deal with the code every day. In regard to item number 2. I concur with literally every single comment that and I don't find any of them conflicting that that other board members have made. I'll I'll simply make my addition

[171:10] is when I went to visit the site this afternoon, and I I commute on my bike a lot. I have 4,000 miles on my e-bike during the last couple of years, and that's those are all in town trips. That's not recreational riding that's just in town trips. And I had to really think, how am I going to come from the North? Get on, Folsom, and how am I going to safely make a turn to the east into one of those 2 driveways because it, it, Folsom, is very awkward in its current configuration for someone wanting to visit one of those 2, the the 1840 or 1844 and it's also, when I look at the site design. I also see

[172:00] a. Because the connections are incomplete, and because of the way we do things, it's going to be a circuitous path for a pedestrian or a cyclist, and less. we're somehow going to creatively connect with other properties to the east and to the South and and to the north, too. Why, it's going to be a very circuitous path, and pedestrians and cyclists tend to start making casual holes and fences and stuff to avoid going around the block. And it's 1 thing to go, you know. Have an extra couple of minutes around the block in your beamer. It's another thing to do it with groceries on a bike. So I I just I I don't have a very specific comment. I just really want when you come back for Site Review to have thoroughly exhausted all the possibilities for

[173:05] getting pedestrians, people who might be mobility impaired and cyclists in and out of the site and making them feel connected to the broader community that's so close to the Mcguckin center, to the Marshall center, etc, and try to do that without a lot of circuitous and dangerous movements. And and lastly, you know I I am encouraged by your words on your Tdm plan, and I know this is Concept review, and you don't have a complete Tdm plan. I'm encouraged by your words. I really hope you come back with something that is creative and robust and avoids What we've had in some recent cases, which is conditioning at site review. And I find creating conditions on Tdm. And access and stuff at 11 o'clock at night Site Review.

[174:07] It's it's not great. And so if the if the applicant can come with Tdm. Plans with connection plans that are so robust. We don't. We don't think and argue about conditioning them. We're all better off. So that concludes my comments. Okay, anyone, anything else they missed or anything before we move on. Okay, thank you to Staff and the applicant, and we will move on to our next public hearing, which is agenda. Item 5 B. Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review for a 2,096 square foot. 3rd story edition at 2040, 14th Street. Within the downtown. 3

[175:00] bracket, dt. Dash 3 zoning district. The proposal includes the construction of a 3rd story and a 100% vehicle parking reduction. The applicant has requested vested rights. This is reviewed under case number LUR. 2024, dash 0, 0 0 9, 4, zeros. 9, okay. Kurt. I just want to disclose. Sorry I want to disclose that I saw this sorry same same problem market. Then I saw this at landmarks board as the liaison from planning board to landmarks board. but I feel that, having seen it before, it will not affect my ability to be fair and impartial in our decision making tonight.

[176:03] Okay, thank you, Kurt. Anyone else have anything before we proceed with the Site Review in regard to this this property. Okay, we'll move to staff presentation and go from there. Great. Well, good evening. Planning board members, Charles Farrell, planning and development services. It gives me great pleasure tonight to introduce Adam Olinger to the board, Adam. I don't know if you want to click your camera on adam has is apparently sitting in the dark. There he is. Adam's been a planner in our office for a while now, but he is taking on more complex case work. So tonight is his maiden voyage in front of the planning board, so he'll be presenting staffs analysis tonight. So, Adam, I'm happy to turn it over to you. Thank you, Charles, and good evening planning board members. Let me go ahead and share my screen for the presentation.

[177:01] I believe it should be up. Please let me know if it's not I think it. Adam. So we have, and I'm not sure what's going on. This has happened a couple of times where there's a a dark rectangular box both across the top and down the side. With that current slide. It doesn't really matter, but I'm afraid with future slides it will, maybe impair our view. For sure. Let me try again. See if the bug will fix itself on this. we doing okay or. No, it it's not And so I I'm not sure what's going now. It's down at the bottom and across the top and the bottom, which is probably better. Yeah, it seems like it's getting better. I'm not sure. Thomas, if there's something that

[178:01] we can do. It's now small enough at the bottom and and off the edge at the top for me in my view, anyway. Mine too. Let's let's just let's proceed, and if we up it's it's continues to improve. So there we go. Okay. yeah, and feel free to just interrupt me. If things are going haywire, I will gladly try to troubleshoot it, because I wanna make sure all the information's presented as best as it can be. With that. as Charles introduced me, my name is Adam Wallinger. I'm a City planner with the city of Boulder, and I have been case managing this project at 2040 14th Street. So, as the chair mentioned earlier, this is a site review request done under case number LUR. 2024, 0 0 0 9 for a 2,096 square foot residential addition above the existing building at 2040 14th Street.

[179:10] With the Site Review. The applicant is asking for 4 variations to the boulder Revised Code, the 1st one being a request for a 100% parking reduction. the second one being a request for a modification of maximum stories, the 3rd one being a request for a sec or for a setback modification, and the last one a request for an open space modification. Public notice was mailed out to all property owners within 600 feet of the property, and a notice sign was posted on the property staff only received one comment from neighboring residents, and it was more of a request to be kept up to date with the project as opposed to providing any sort of opinions on the project. The project is located at the southeast corner of 14th Street and Spruce Street, next to the Boulder Theater, and across the street from the Boulder County Courthouse offices and 1st United Methodist Church.

[180:04] It is also across the alleyway to the east from the parking garage at 1434 Spruce Street. The site is directly adjacent to the hot bus line which provides service to the 29th Street, Mall, 30th Street and the University of Colorado. The site is also within 2 blocks to the skip bus line which provides service to the north and south ends of boulder as well as the 2 blocks from the downtown boulder station, which provides service to local routes throughout the city, and Greater Boulder County, as well as regional routes to places like Denver Golden, the Denver, Denver, International Airport, etc. There are also 2 B cycle stations within a 3 min walk of the site, as well as for bike and pedestrians. There's a number of on street bicycle lanes and routes to provide access in every direction from the site as well as an expansive sidewalk network connecting the site to downtown to the local neighborhoods nearby, and plenty of spaces in between.

[181:03] Boulder Creek multi-use path is just off the cropped edge of this image. It's about a 3rd of a mile from the site to the south. The Boulder Valley Comp plan designates this area's land use designation as regional business it's characterized by retail office and financial uses with compatible housing as well. and the site is zoned downtown 3, which is a business area mainly providing for retail centers and other kind of stores, but is also expected to balance new development with the established historic and urban design districts the Dt. 3 zoning does allow residential units as well. This is the existing conditions of the site the applicant is taking the existing 2 story office building and proposing to build a 3rd story residential edition. The residential edition is one unit.

[182:01] The proposed addition is located away from the edges of the building along all 3 right-of-way frontages. 14th Street, Spruce Street and the alleyway. The site would have 2 access points, one in the front of the building via the elevator that would be to access directly from the main front door along 14th Street. and the other one would be in the staircase from the alleyway in the rear of the building. The proposal would provide landscaping improvements by planting trees along Spruce Street that do not currently exist, and installing tree grates along both Spruce Street and the existing trees along 14th Street. The proposal also includes landscape planters along the perimeter of the rooftop deck to provide an additional green space at the residential unit. The proposed addition is complementary to the facade of the existing building and the facade of the Boulder Theater next door. It, features, flat roof, large windows, stucco walls and metal accents the proposed project, and its architectural features were approved by landmarks board at their July 10th meeting

[183:07] the proposed part project is requesting, like I mentioned earlier, 4 different variations from the code. The 1st variation is a 100% parking reduction as currently built, the park project is fully office building which, being in the caged parking district, does not require any. On off street parking spaces. However, a 1 unit residential. Or excuse me, a single yet residential unit would require a single parking space to be provided on site However, there is, like I mentioned, no room currently for any sort of parking on site. and the applicant has provided a copy of a lease agreement for a space in the garage next door, and as well. We'll provide Eco. Passes through Rtd. For the residents of the building for a minimum of 3 years. the second modification being requested by the applicant is a modify excuse me, a modification of maximum stories.

[184:04] The applicants are asking for the allowance of a 3rd story, where only 2 stories are allowed. With this 3rd story edition, however, the height of the building will not be above the maximum height limit of 38 feet for the pro or for the zoning district. The proposed height is 37 feet and 8 and a half inches the only thing that would extend into that height limit would be the necessary rooftop. Appurtenances like the elevator overrun on the right side of the screen. Here, as well as a couple of parapets that are needed for maintenance the applicant is also requesting a setback modification to allow for 3rd floor uses to be 11 feet 11 inches from the front property line as opposed to the minimum of 15 feet, which is required. this would be allowed, or this would be done, to allow the existing elevator to be used for this pro or for the site as the elevator, as it's built for the 1st and second floor would be difficult to move within the scope of this project, and currently is less than 15 feet from the property line.

[185:18] The final request or variation, excuse me from the code is an open space modification to provide 3.8% open space on the site where a minimum of 15% is required. As I mentioned before, the existing site is built to almost all 4 corners of the property. There's only a little bit of available open space currently on the site no open space is required for non residential buildings in the downtown 3 zoning district, but by being a residential building and increasing the height it needs the additional open space requirements of 15% the applicant has provided a very large patio on the roof here, as you can see in the hatched area in the middle of the screen.

[186:00] That patio area is 1,328 square feet where 15% of the lot would be 1,058 square feet. So just under 300 square feet larger than the required minimum. However, the municipal code does not allow residential patio space above the 1st floor to count towards the open space space requirement other than up to 25% of the open space requirement. So between the 33 square feet of open space that's currently found on the ground level of the building. And then 25% of that 15% requirements that leads to a 3.8% amount of open space that the applicant has provided with the submittal. The key issue for this discussion is whether or not the proposed project, with its modification to vehicular parking standards, maximum stories, setbacks, and an open space modification are consistent with the Site review criteria of the land use code. In section 9 to 14 H.

[187:02] Staff finds that the proposal of a 3rd story, residential addition above an existing office building is consistent with the land, use, map and the policies, goals, and objectives of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and is designed in a manner that is consistent with the Site Review. Criteria in section 9 2 14 H. The proposed project will meet the Boulder Valley comp plan goals of compatible development pattern. A mix of complementary land uses. Compatibility of adjacent land uses the role of the central area commitment to a walkable and accessible city. sensitive infill and redevelopment and a mixture of housing types. And so, as it's also written in your packet. But Staff is recommending a motion to approve the Site Review application and adopting the staff memorandum as findings of facts, including the attached analysis of review, of review criteria, and subject to the conditions of the approval recommended in the staff memorandum. and with that I open it to any questions that the planning board may have for me.

[188:01] Thank you. Great. Thank you, Adam, that again speaking for the board. That was a great 1st presentation. Thank you very much. And I see Laura with her hand up, ready to go, followed by Ml. Laura. Go ahead. Thank you. Well, thank you, Adam. Great presentation! I echo Mark's comments and welcome. We're glad to have you as part of the team that supports planning board from the planning department. My question is actually for Hella. If she's still with us, I think it's a legal question. and my question is about this idea of vested property rights that the applicant is requesting vested property rights. And if if I'm I think this is for this application, yeah. And I, this is not something that we've talked about very much at planning board. It's not a typical part of a site review most of the time. So my my question for Hella is, you know, why is the applicant requesting this? And what are the factors that we should consider about? Why this might be a good idea or a bad idea to to grant this as a planning board.

[189:07] Yeah, this is a that's a great question, Laura. for to create vested property rights, it's actually something that State law prescribes that the city has to offer that for certain types of applications. and there are no criteria to consider whether or not to approve it. It just requires certain processes, and including an approval by the planning board. So you should just be treating this just like any other application that would come before you, and then in follow up to actually create the vested rights. There are some publishing requirements in the under the code in the paper that announces that vested rights are being requested. But the review process is exactly the same, and what it does is it creates some protections against future amendments to the law, and that they won't apply to this particular project.

[190:05] So is this just kind of standard for a project like this like, why don't we always get a request for vested property rights? If it provides protection for the applicant against future law, changes. Yeah, it's for each application. That's a site review or form based code review or user review. That's a question that's asked of the applicant, and they fill out a form to say whether or not they're requesting vested rights. One. Some applicants might want to avoid a public hearing in front of the planning board and go the call up route. A public hearing is mandatory to create those statutory investor rights. but in in my opinion also. So these are statutorily created investor rights. There are statutes that set forth how to create them and and what they do. and they don't actually completely protect the development. I think the city could adopt some changes, but would have to pay compensation to the developer.

[191:06] But apart from these statutory vested rights, there are also common law vested rights that already protect a developer, at least if they obtain a building permit and have made additional investments based on an approval that they have gotten that would also prevent the city from changing the law and applying it to an existing approval. So. in my opinion, the additional protection that the statutorily creative vested rights provide are limited. And I think that's why we don't see it very often. Okay. So I think I'm hearing that this isn't really a big decision for us that this is more of a formality. And we should just proceed with the Site Review and not really worry about this question of vested rights. It's just kind of packaged in. That's right. Thank you. That was my one question.

[192:02] Ml, go ahead! Perfect. I have a follow up question on this best to write. So in the vested rights, statement, the applicant identifies the things that they want included. And There's no mention of the staff conditions or any future conditions in that. Would they be included in those listed rights. Can you explain that a little bit more? What you mean by that? There's nothing included about conditions or. Yeah. So if you look at. And I I was trying to pull it up. If you look at the actual copy of the vested rights. I guess. Application. What do we call it? Whatever we call it? It identifies the things that are included.

[193:02] That they're seeking, test it rights on. Correct, and you know oh, gosh! I don't know where it went. I I looked at it earlier. It identifies particular things that are included. and it doesn't include any of the staff conditions as part of the best in rights it includes. Well. do you have a copy of that vested rights. It's in here somewhere. If anybody remember what page that's on Adam. Do you remember what page the vested rights form is on. I found it. It's on page 2, 74 of the Pdf. and okay, yeah, this is actually the standard language that we recommend. Applicants use. To list the items that they are seeking vested rights, and without being very specific, because sometimes we have conditions of approval where

[194:07] where something changes a little bit. That's right. This is set up in a way that even if there are small changes based on conditions of approval. and that the ultimate square footage of the residential units, for example. Then there would be a vested right in that, even if there were small changes through the let's say the tech doc process. So any conditions that the staff has put on the project at this point would be automatically included. Well. Those commissions apply to the project. Right. Divested rights are created in those items that are listed here, square footage of residential unit building height and so forth. As it is approved by you. It's not. Okay. so that that get to that questions. Secondly.

[195:07] one of the one of the ways that they propose to address. The parking space required is to the parking has a lease, a lease of a parking spot. that this agreement that is also so I am the question I'm having about that is, The lease agreement, as shown in the packet. was for was big and broad. It should like 19 spaces, and it, and it talked about an office attendance of the office property. Would that automatically include the resident.

[196:01] That is the understanding for staff. I think you can speak, or the applicant may be able to chime in a little more about the details of the lease agreement. But that was the understanding between transportation Staff City is that that would also apply to the Resident should this project be approved. Right and I didn't see any language that made and current lease for the parking space be a condition. What if they didn't get a lease one year. Well, I think the conditions of approval say that you have to abide by the Tdm and I think that the having the maintaining the parking space was part of that. Okay. So there is a the way that that isn't okay, perfect. And then, Charles, you might wanna stay for this final question. I'm looking at the plan. And

[197:01] does an elevator count as an exit. an emergency exit. As an emergency exit. Don't. We need 2 exits. but we need 2 exits. I I would need to study the plans in more detail. Probably a good question for the applicants designer on the call tonight. I'd have to dig through the building. Oh, okay, I thought, yeah, it's just my understanding that. A. Anyway. there's the stair. There's 1 stairwell. And then the other. At the other end of the building there is the elevator. Yeah, I'd have to look into the building typology. I'm sure that their designer will know it off the top of their head. Okay. yeah, those are my, those are my 2 questions. Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Helen, and thank you. Adam. Hey? Any more clarifying questions for Adam. Other staff? Okay, seeing none. Then we'll go to the applicant presentation

[198:03] and follow on questions from there. Adam, can you let me know who needs promoted for the applicant team? Yes, please. That would be Aaron Grant. najiva zoda. I apologize if I mispronounced your name, and Nancy Blackwood. And do you know who will be sharing the presentation. I believe it's Aaron Grants. Okay, I'll go ahead and give Aaron co-host permissions. Good evening members of the planning commission, Aaron Grant. 2020 Pearl Street.

[199:05] Does everybody hear me? Okay. okay. Great. thank you for your time tonight. I the the vesting. Well, let I'll I'll let my architects lead the the presentation, and then I'll be here for any questions including the vesting rights issue. And and I'm sure he can address the the ingress egress. Andy, are you on. Nancy's joined as a panelist, and I'm trying to promote Najiva now.

[200:19] I guess nobody can hear Andy orally. Is there a way to unmute him? Who is that that you're. Andy Orly with the design edge. He's he's my architect. I don't. I don't see that name in the participants list. I see a name that has their hand raised that's just called iphone. Do you know if that would be. That sounds perhaps him. you see.

[201:06] Yeah, that's that's handy. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I'll go ahead and promote that. Alright. They should be joining us in just a second. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Hello. Yeah, we can hear you. Sorry I had to leave my computer, and I'm on a phone So I apologize. My name is Andy Olry, with design edge architects 600 South Harrison, Denver, Colorado.

[202:04] I think Adam did a wonderful job doing the presentation, so we do not have much of an extended presentation other than the thank you all for hearing us today. and is kind of obviously stated. Some of the variances we requested are more out of necessity than any other reason. The existing office building fully occupies the site. So obviously we cannot add additional parking on site. The existing elevator overrun currently violates the setback. So we are not. We can't. It's not technically feasible to move the elevator. The open space, the building takes up 99% of the site, so we can't add additional open space. So all the requests are more out of again. Not that anything that we didn't want to do, but just didn't physically have the ability to do.

[203:00] and with respect to egress the number of occupants on a 3rd floor residence, only one egress point is required. We provide the elevator more out of convenience to the residents. It would not be a means of egress if it was, it would require emergency power and a generator, and that's something. Again. We don't technically have room for on the site to be able to do if there's any. As Aaron had mentioned. I'm here to answer any technical questions that I can, anything related to vested rights. Aaron could answer those questions, and I'm going to turn it back over to you all unless you have any specific questions for me. Any questions from the board for any portion of the applicant team. I have 1. 0, Laura, go ahead! You go first, st Mark. You never get to go first.st

[204:02] that's usually just fine. But while we have Aaron, the architect on the phone. I'm did you ever consider it during your design process. Incorporating the older traditional red sandstone that is incorporated into the rest of the building. I find the I find the building to be a nice little office building that speaks to a particular era. And did you? Why didn't there? Why did you consider incorporating sandstone into the design? If not, why not? I would say, the Why not? In most projects we have done, even though this is not a contributing building from a historic perspective. it lies within the Landmarks Review Board. and it has been my experience in most projects that I have done in a historic district.

[205:06] the historic district would prefer that you design more to the current times of today than try to replicate or duplicate something from the past. and so out of historical. whether you call it knowledge or practice throughout my 30 plus years of experience. That's 1 primary reason. Also. I think when you look at a lot of the rooftops around the rooftop residences in Boulder. I think we're being a little more consistent with the typology along Pearl Street Mall and some of the other residences within the surrounding area. I'll just. I'll I'll drift into a comment against our

[206:02] rules a little bit. I'll just say I agree that when dealing with historic sites that that sometimes is better to just have it be completely different. I just find this to be somewhere in between the completely different and trying to speak to or or mimic some past thing. But I I understand your point. Thank you very much. Okay, Laura. Now you're ready. Thank you. I just have one question, which is, you know, it's a this is a 2,100 square foot addition. And it's 1 unit. And did you folks consider doing more than one unit? Why, just one unit. Once you get to the exiting issues and the amount, the limited amount of square footage that we had on available based on the far and the I'm gonna misquote. So I'm gonna just generalize the other rules and regulations within the boulder code.

[207:05] to to get to that exit from 2 residences became more of a challenge. Then we're also asking for additional parking. We're asking for additional. So it seemed that the one residence was a better fit, and then. from my owner's perspective, the the size and configuration worked better as one, and then to try to divide it up into 2, and then to try to also sacrifice another 15 to 20% of that square footage to common area space from an egress and exiting standpoint. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, any other questions for the applicant. Okay. last, call on that. Okay. Thank you to the applicant.

[208:02] and we will move on to the public hearing. and I just closed my window. There! There we go! and I don't know if Vivian is still with us. Signed off for the night. So I'm going to be running the public hearing and I will be having to jump back and forth between unmuting people and the timer. So just bear with me there. Yeah. Just begin speaking when you see the timer. Pop up, please, and if you would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. So far we have no raise hands. We can give them a couple more seconds if you'd like, otherwise we can move on. I think we've given fair notice. Okay.

[209:00] I will now. Oh. Do you have one? Has raised his hand. Okay. alright! There we go. Hello, Lynn! Sorry. Just gonna put timer for you really quick. Sorry about that, although this is a smaller project. I feel kind of contested about it, because I like to say, follow the rules, you know, and and just. And I think that's the case for everything. If you want to change the rules, then change the rules. but giving every developer. Every person who's doing a project. a parking reduction, a height, variance, and other benefits that don't show a community benefit. In this case it's not so much a loss as the other cases that I see you do one after the other. I mean rally sport, Hyundai. It's

[210:06] every other block and every block, sometimes that's crowded with these apartments. Now, Erin's not doing that so. and I think it's a sensitive adjustment that he's done with the property. And so I think this one is probably okay to pass, but to be consistent, I'd have to say no amendments, no changes in parking reductions. Now you've got Jared Polis saying no parking reductions at all. And so people just have to go with what they think. And then we find out later that it's so congested, and there aren't enough parking spaces when we've had too many in one case. But then we have not enough. And with all the quantity of human beings we're getting into this space. We are going to have not enough, because guess what

[211:02] people drive. And I say this from only driving 5 times a year, and I'm sure none of you drive that little. I ride my bike everywhere I live downtown, but it doesn't matter. People drive. and so I say. if you want to change your regulations, change them, but follow them. Don't put the public and yourselves through all of this deliberation and negotiations. You know you don't get to choose. If people have bad taste in architecture. you know, you don't get to say that's an ugly building. Don't build it. You'd go through planning board procedures a lot faster if you just approve things without a big discussion and without spending a lot of staffing time and other kinds of time. Other people's time like mine watching these things.

[212:05] It's just like they meet the Regs, or they don't. So please think about it done. Thank you, Lynn. Thomas, I don't see anyone on the list with a raised hand. So I'm going to close the public hearing. And Adam, if you could. If you have a slide for us with the key issues that you can share with us. All right. So is the proposed project with this modification to vehicular parking standards, maximum story setbacks, and an open space modification consistent with the Site review criteria. The land use code 9, 2 14 h

[213:08] so we're gonna open it up to deliberation, does anyone? And, in fact, if let's let's let's just go around. If you're if you're in agreement with this key issue. Say so. If you have other thoughts, let's hear them. But I think we can make this one go pretty quick. Who's first? st Mason? Hey? 2 for 2? So I'll keep it short. I think on balance. I'm a yes, I see very little being asked for equally very little public benefit. So you know. whereas, like, I feel like a normal price, we're usually seeing a lot on both. So I'm just gonna say, I guess on this one.

[214:05] Ml, you're next. Yes, thank you. Yeah, actually, really appreciate this project. It's you know it's it, it. It fits the site. It accomplishes the owner's goal of providing a residence without I think, creating any public distress. and I I think it's a very well done visually well done. Addition to that particular rooftop, that adjacency, that context. So I'm in full support of this. And I I'm prepared to move forward with the motion when we're ready. Great. Thank you. Amel. Laura. I would say yes. The proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria.

[215:04] All of the proposed modifications are just to allow for a site that is already basically completely developed to add one residential unit. So it lets one more family live downtown. There's nothing about this project that violates our standards. So I would say yes, and I also would say that I know how carefully landmarks, staff and the landmarks board, and the design. The their subcommittees look at projects like this for consistency with design guidelines. So I'm not inclined to monkey around with anything design wise. and I'll stop there. Thank you, Laura Kirk. Thanks. I agree that the project and the proposed modifications are consistent with site review criteria. So I will be supportive just quickly. Mark referred to the materiality and the possibility of

[216:02] using materials that are more consistent with the historic building. And I just wanted to say that landmarks board actually in in the discussion when it came to the board, as I recall, did have considerable discussion about materiality, not so much in the context of potentially using sandstone, but some of the other materials, and in the end they supported what was being proposed. Thank you. That's interesting. Claudia. So I think the project does meet our standards. I think the variances, the modifications that the applicant is asking for here are sensible. Given the context of the building and the site they're well motivated. The solutions that they have provided are also well motivated. So I'm comfortable with those modifications. I want to note, too, that we're going to see a slight improvement here in the public right of way, with the addition of some trees there on Spruce Street

[217:04] and that there's not a lot of space for for real new things in this project, but that that is something that we're going to gain out of that as a minor public benefit, and I appreciate that. Right and I concur with my fellow planning board members that it does. It is consistent with the site, reviews, criteria, and the requested modifications, I would simply say, I, I kind of wish we would see more of this, but I think the inhibiting factor. This is just a comment. The inhibiting factor is, we don't have that many buildings. Oh, shit! And when I think about small office buildings that are that are cool enough and interesting enough not to be torn down and to have a rooftop residence on there. We don't have that many, because we've spent the seventies and eighties and stuff, building some really crappy.

[218:06] ugly office buildings, and and that's too bad. So but as we go forward as a board and as a planning department. I I just hope that we make sure that we're building buildings, that 50, 60, 70, 80 years later, we say, Oh, this building is worthy of staying here. And let's add a rooftop residence to it. So, Adam. Do you have suggested motion language for us? You can put up. Yes, I do. It should be on your screen now. Okay, thank you. Board members. I'm happy to make a motion. Please, do. I move to approve the Site Review. Application LUR. 202-40-0009.

[219:03] Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria. and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. A second. Hey? We have a motion, and a second. any additional discussion by anyone want to speak to it. Hearing none, I will take a vote, and I'm going to go across my screen and, Kurt, you are first.st Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia. Yes. ML. Yes. Mason. Okay? And I'm a yes as well. So that's a unanimous vote of 6. Thank you to the applicant. And thank you, Adam. and congratulations to all. Okay.

[220:02] now, we're going to move on to matters. I'm just going to adjust my go back up here and 6. A. The information. Item, ordinance, 86, 58 boards and commissions. Okay, this is the historic preservation to remove the appointment of planning board member to the landmarks board. who is handling this particular item from staff. Well, it's just an informational item this evening, so we thought it would be a good opportunity to introduce another new Staffer. So welcoming Jeff Solomonson to our team. Jeff, if you want to pop on camera. there you are. Jeff has joined Carl Geylor and Lisa Hood on our code amendment planning team.

[221:00] So he'll be directly supporting that work with Carl and Lisa. This is his 1st kind of toe into the pond of code change work. So we have some proposals moving forward through the process that are sort of non substantive procedural changes. I think the most significant thing is the removal of the Planning board. Liaison. as a non voting advisory capacity and kind of opening that up. Recognizing that planning board members already have quite a bit on their plate, so thought it'd be a good opportunity to introduce Jeff in case there's any questions for him. Jeff has been practicing for a while now. He comes to us most recently from the city of Omaha. But has worked I'm sorry most recently in the consulting world. But prior to that with the city of Omaha. So If there's any questions of Jeff tonight, he is here to be the expert. Hey? Welcome, Jeff.

[222:02] is there? I'll just. I'll just ask real quickly. Does any board member want to make any comment or give Staff any thoughts. Kirk, go ahead. Yeah. Well, as the current liaison to the land export. I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in on this, and I'm fully supportive of this. In fact, this I had suggested this change. I don't know if this actually was prompted by my suggestion, or something that was already in the works, but I certainly enjoy being serving as liaison to landmarks board. It's always informative. It's always enjoyable. And I I have no problem with the additional time commitment. But it feels a little bit extraneous, or sometimes very extraneous. that really there it feels like. Very rarely are there planning related issues coming up in a landmarks board discussion to the extent that I'm able to contribute. It's mostly because I formerly served on landmarks board. And so I think it's completely appropriate to remove this as a

[223:19] a a standard liaison position. I assume that, you know there, there will still be the opportunity for a planning board member to go to landmarks board member as a special to to landmarks board as a special thing when necessary, in order to give planning boards perspective on a particular topic. But I I feel that this is quite appropriate. Based on my experience as the liaison. Thanks. Thank you, Kurt. Laura. Thank you and Jeff welcome. We couldn't hear you when you were talking earlier, so I hope that if if somebody does have a question for you. We'll be able to hear you. But great to have you on the team.

[224:04] I want to concur with Kurt. You know I was the landmarks, board, liaison, my 1st year on planning board. and while I did not mind the time commitments, and I very much enjoyed learning about landmarks, board, and seeing them in action. I didn't say much because it didn't feel appropriate. That's not a code section that we administer. It's not an area of expertise that I have. I was mostly in like listening and learning mode. and I guess I just, you know, for Staff's consideration. I'm wondering if there is a way for board members, especially in our 1st year Planning board, maybe to do some kind of rotation amongst the other boards that we should know about, you know, like landmarks, board and housing, advisory board and Transportation Advisory Board and the water the Rab. You know all these boards that the parks and Rec. Board the open space board that play such a crucial role in our city and that have connections to what we do. It'd be great to sort of learn about them, and and meet the people, and see them in action without

[225:10] having to do just one per year like, spend a full year with landmarks, board, and a full year with each board, because we're not going to get to them all, and you and you're not going to get to some of them until much later in your tenure. So I'm wondering if if maybe there's some consideration of doing more of a rotation in your 1st year to kind of learn about the boards. That's just an idea. Maybe that's not very practical, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Certainly make a note of it. I think it's a great suggestion. Sure. Yeah, Laura mentioned Tab, and I think, especially now, that Tab is considering more and more concepts concept plans. I feel that it really would be quite beneficial to have planning board member at those if we can work out. I know that there may be legal problems with that in terms of the quasi-judicial process. But

[226:03] I I as I've watched Tab consider some concept plans where they it's been referred from council. I feel like they've struggled a little bit, because they're not used to dealing with with with the the Ladies, code, with development projects, with what's possible, with what's not possible. And so on. And so I do think that that is a situation where, having a planning board member, there could be quite beneficial to the board to tab, and potentially also to be able to to help relay information back from Tabs decision to when it comes to planning board. So how that would work. As I say legally, I don't know. That's question. But I think that that could be beneficial as a process. Okay. Ml.

[227:01] Thank you. So can gently to what Laura was saying. Isn't there gonna be a a boards and commissions get together in the next month it came to me through hab that that the boards and commissions are gonna get together just so that everybody can kind of like what Laura was saying, know that the others exist and and have have a a connection with them. Okay, do you know, does anybody do anybody else know anything about this? Or should I go back to have and find out? I'm not aware of this. But was this raised last week under matters. No, it came up to half. I'm the liaison to have Housing Advisory Board. Yeah, I'm not aware of. And yeah. Was it a? Was it a volunteer appreciation thing.

[228:03] cause they- they. It was for boards and commissions, for boards and commissions. Yeah, for boards. It was a. The city does do, seemingly annually a kind of boards and commission volunteer appreciation thing. But I I haven't seen anything about it. It's coming up in the next month, I think. Okay. Or to it. One of these this year. Okay. Oh! Keep an eye out for. One way, for you know, boards and commissions to kind of get to know each other, I think, is the way it was described at at the at the Have meeting, and anyway, just thought I'd put that out there. Alright. Great. Thank you. Okay. Any final discussion? I'd I'd like to move on to. we actually have a few. We're gonna have a few minutes in our next item, and it's getting late. So okay. Anything else. Good. Okay. Thanks. Jeff.

[229:01] Thank you so much. Nice to meet you, and. Nice to meet you all. On we go to item 6 B discussion of virtual versus in person meeting rules for hybrid meetings. And so this topic is, hell are you gonna kind of bring us into this one. Yeah, this, this is a topic that's coming back to you from. I think maybe last week's meeting brought it up. It has come to our attention that and and we, of course, knew that the Board has rules or guidelines for public participation in in-person meetings, and then a separate rule for electronic meetings. But for a little while now the board has been meeting in the hybrid fashion, and there are no specific rules about that. But both the in-person rules and electronic rules are posted on the website and have created some questions from members of the public on what rules apply. And the questions came up specifically because the electronic rule does not allow pooling of time for testimony during public hearings. But the in-person rules that the Board used prior to Covid do allow for pooling of time. So we wanted to come with this to the planning board

[230:20] for the Board, to clarify which which set of rules should apply. and and maybe consider whether you want to open up pooling of time even in the hybrid setting. And as part of that, at first, st we just ask you to choose between the 2 sets of rules that I sent you yesterday. Some revised rules that would. It's actually a proposed revision of the electronic meeting rules to address both hybrid and electronic meetings and to follow the electronic meeting rules which I think should be followed generally for legal reasons. but also asking you to consider whether or not you want to

[231:01] want to allow pooling of time or not in that setting and overall. This is only supposed to bridge the time until you do your bigger overall of the procedural roles. It's just come up because of a a public hearing that's coming up not too far into the future. So I I think I first, st quickly. Does anyone have a strong preference about pooling time? Not pooling time? Any thoughts? There? I do. But let's hear from anyone else. First.st Okay, I'll go. I I am in favor. When I think about the I I think we we need to acknowledge that sometimes proponents, opponents of projects, or whatever come before us, and A pooling of time makes sense from an efficiency standpoint from a fairness standpoint, and it and it makes us more consistent with

[232:19] Council rules. and I think that we should accommodate it on a consistent basis in a hybrid mode, whether that so we could be meeting fully remote. fully in person, hybrid, that accommodating that under similar or the same rules as council does make sense to me, rather than because the choice as as a applicant protester opponent. Whatever is to have your people lined up. each of them submit a 3 min

[233:00] presentation, and it just it just makes for a lot of technical and mechanical hoopla that only consumes in my book only consumes time. So and I don't mind modifying our rules in it for this subject in advance of our bigger rulemaking project. So now we have some interest. Okay. Ml. Yeah. I think that Helen might have made. This point is, you know, the city Council allows pooling of time. but they also have a process where you sign up ahead of time. I don't know how far ahead of time, but far enough ahead of time, such that the any betting that might be done about? Are these actually 3 different people, or 8 different people, or whatever can can happen? And there's no concern about.

[234:05] you know the I think Laura used the word gaming of the system to try to get more time in without actually being having more people. So would mark when you're saying follow the Council's lead. Would that mean that we would also have people who want to pool time to sign up ahead of time. so that there could be kind of that checks and balance. I I think that in answer to your question I think that the amount of staff that Council has to administer that procedure is council has more staff and I think that are slightly more ad hoc procedures would be sufficient for planning board.

[235:00] and in general, if we require a name and the person to be present, whether they're present online or present in the room would be sufficient to for for my purposes. Laura. So yeah. So I'll concur. I think Hela did a great job of blending the in person and virtual guidelines, and has given us a draft that I would support. I did express some concern over electronic time pooling. But you know, if that has worked for council, I think we can. We can go ahead and give it a try. I'm always sort of torn between. Let's prevent something from happening so that we don't have to deal with a conflict later versus. Well, let's trust people that it won't be a problem that people won't try to gain the system. So I'm in this case in favor of going forward with. Let's be trusting. Let's try it out and go from there. So I would support what Hella has put in front of us.

[236:01] Claudia. Health and support. What what Hella has put together here. I'm happy to hear that that Laura is willing to give that a try as well, and if she had some concerns about the logistics of how we would do pooling. And I'm I'm happy to leave that question about logistics like, how do we manage pooling to people who have stronger feelings. or like? I said, just go with what Hella said. I think my 2 bottom lines on this process are, 1st of all, that I think that access to opportunities to testify should be the same across meeting formats. One of the reasons that we have hybrid, and in person meetings as an option is to increase access for people. So I would like to make sure that they have the same opportunities, no matter how they show up to a meeting. And I also think that pooling of time is a form of accommodation that is important to offer diverse members of our community. So it does provide, I think, more members of our community. Obviously they have to be present, but

[237:02] makes participating more possible for some people to be in that pooling position. Hello! Procedurally. So it sounds like we've we have some general consensus that your red line proposal which I'm looking at here now. Would you then accept all of this redlining? And and then come back to us? Or is this something we could actually complete in the moment. I think you could complete it in the moment. Okay. Good. I could. I could put it on the screen, and I could maybe just accept the changes cool. Thomas, could you

[238:00] authorize me for screen sharing. Sure, yeah, just one second. To make a formal motion. This is also a good opportunity to try the pooling without advanced sign up and see how Thomas and Vivian can handle it. The clerk said that it. the advanced sign up, helped her keep track of who was testifying, and who to call on and so forth. But, on the other hand, it also creates additional work before the meeting. but it might be something that you can then check back in on. When when we adopt. the bigger will update. And and while we're doing getting the screen sharing, going, I'll simply say that. you know, we we don't have the amount of participation in most cases that Council does on a lot of issues. And so I think logistically, this will be an a very occasional

[239:02] thing where we have to manage the are people here, etcetera. So anyway, we is. we don't deal with quite the number of controversial items that Council does. Can I just comment that if we go ahead with pooling, I think we need to be very clear with people about what that means, and that if you pool time with another person, then you don't also get to make an individual comment. For sure. Everybody would understand that without it being like explicit in the rules. Yeah. And the way I anticipated it. the speaker would be called, and then they would have to identify who is pooling with them. And then whoever manages that public meeting would would call on the people to see whether they're in the room, or whether they're actually

[240:00] attending and listening. If they are participating in electronically. And are we assuming that people could pool across platforms like someone could show up in person, and the 2 people that they are pooling with could show up online. That's what counts at this. And to Claudia's point, I think that is the real accommodation for people that can't come to the council chambers don't want to, don't. don't can't be present for any number of reasons. So anyway. So it looks like you have. Cleaned up the rule and actually whoops! Oh. There you go! You've got an Oh, look at this! A split screen with a motion ready to go.

[241:03] You're good. Hello! Anticipated that it was gonna be late. So. Okay, well, it's it's a little late. Alright. any more discussion on this, or I'd like to entertain a motion from someone. Please. I move to adopt the planning board participation rule for electronic and hybrid meetings and to ask Staff to update the Board's virtual meeting rules that are published as part of the Board's meeting packets and the city's website. Accordingly. Second. We have a motion, and a second any additional discussion. Hearing none going to take a vote, Kurt. Yes. Laura. Yes. Ml. Yes.

[242:00] Claudia. I don't see you, but I'm sure you're there. Yes. And mesa. It's. Okay? And I'm a, yes. So wow, that was good. Okay. okay, well, that's that's what happens when you have really good work in the background. it makes it easy for us. Right? Okay. So thanks to Hella for that. Alright. Now, I'm going back to okay. any other items from planning board, director or training. Nothing from staff. Okay. Alright. Well, this was a good meeting. thanks. Participation was great. Oh, Laura. Yeah, I just had a couple of questions about, you know, thinking about the landmarks, liaison role, and the idea of rotating liaisons made me think about some of the things that we've done as a planning board over the years, and I just wanted to check in about. Are we? Are we going to have a retreat

[243:11] at some point? And then also, you know, in the past we've talked about that planning board has a little bit of funding for people to do things like buy planning books or go to planning conferences. And it's never been entirely clear to me like what that funding is or how it's distributed. So I was gonna ask, and I don't know that it's been talked about with our new members. So I thought I would just check in and see? Do we still have some funding? And what are we planning. We have a pretty healthy training budget for the board. So if there's things that are of interest, Thomas, maybe we can ask Martha to take a look at what our training budget is right now for the board, but that's a great reminder. I believe we had a a $2,500 budget the last time that I asked Martha about it, because Ml. Was asking about a conference. Got it.

[244:03] So if there are things that are of interest to the board, we have we have some funds that are available. And is that just more on a like we need to initiate and ask for it. Kind of. This is, yeah. okay. Thank you. And the idea of a retreat. Yeah, Thomas, I thought that we had pulled the board. At 1 point. Did I lose sight of that. A while ago we had oh. You lost. Mention the Retreat and Flying Board. I'm sorry for you right now. I'm not sure if you're welcome. No, you broke up. Can you start over? Please? Okay? Sure, yeah. Sorry. My whole screen was freezing. Oh, several months ago we had mentioned the Retreat, and the planning board formed a 2 person committee

[245:01] to further plan the retreat. I'm not sure who that committee ended up being. I can go back and check on that. Yeah, we'll have to. We'll have to bring that back and. So this was, I think, June or July. Yeah, because typically our retreats are in the fall. So I'm glad that you raised it again, Laura, cause I'll be honest with you. I've completely lost track of it myself. So. Thomas, maybe if we can go back on the record and figure out who our volunteers were, then we can get back to the planning. Sure. Yeah. I'll do something. Had other things to do. For you guys. You all have been very busy. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yup, you bet! Thanks for raising it. okay, anything else? I have a brief comment, but we'll let anyone else proceed. Okay, my comment unsurprisingly deals with Tbm.

[246:00] and you know our call up item tonight. you know, kind of presented a bit of a conundrum, and you know we have a a heavy workload as a planning board, which is nothing in comparison to Staff's workload and so and you know, and and as board members we can't direct staff or anyone to do anything. So I'm I'm speaking strictly for myself, and I can do what only what I can do and control only what I can control. And when I am confronted with projects that come before us for Site review, concept, review, and really for call up with what I think are really inadequate. Tdm plans. And our current Tdm code. as I've said repeatedly, is both subjective. It's thin it's subjective. But to the developers advantage is very flexible.

[247:04] And so and I I voice this to Brad on a late Friday afternoon call last week that I don't want to be the bad guy that creates call ups and extra work. and I would request that staff do their best, so that applicants know that the likelihood of being called up is greatly increased if they read our thin subjective Tdm code as being, yeah. You know, I don't have to do this stuff and you know, or I'm I'm I'm betting that my bare minimum is enough, and I think I think the applicant tonight got away with kind of a bare minimum, and by their statement of, well, I'm we can't do that. It's kind of like I call Bs on that

[248:08] so anyway, my, the point being no one wants extra work. No one wants extra meetings, and to facilitate that, and to reach the city's goals, whether they be transportation goals. trip reduction goals, climate goals, equity goals. creative and robust Tdm. Plans from applicants as encouraged by staff would be, would be super greatly appreciated by me. and and then it relieves me of the struggle of you know. Do I call this up? Do I condition this or not? And I and I am perfectly fine with Staff telling the applicant we have this, you know, we have this jerk on planning board that's got his underwear and a bunch about this particular issue. You better, you know.

[249:07] Better step up. That's fine with me, anyway, that's my comment. And I would just encourage that. I'm not asking for something that's not in the code. Our code is thin, our code is subjective, our code is flexible. And let's let's have our applicants do their best best work on that. To avoid call ups and and conditions done late at night. So that's that, Laura. I just want to support what Mark is saying. And and, Mark, I'll be a jerk alongside you. So it's not. It's not just you who would call projects up for this. You know, the more I talk to people, the more I read, the more I understand these things, the more I hear about pedestrian deaths and avoidable accidents right? The more I understand that our infrastructure is destiny right, our infrastructure shapes behavior.

[250:01] and we need to be doing everything that we can to be creating environments that are safe for bikes that are welcoming for pedestrians that encourage multimodal and that help get us away from a car dependent car designed city. And all this legacy infrastructure that we have. because if we are always designing for the past and the the hangover that we have from our past planning decisions. We'll never have the future that we want. And so I feel like it is incumbent upon us to really push these Tdm. Plans because it's the one tool at least, that we, as a planning board, have. Now I know that the Transportation Advisory Committee and the council and staff have other tools. But I think we, as planning board, need to do our part to recognize that planning is destiny. Infrastructure is destiny, and we need to be pushing these concepts forward so that we're not always tied to our past. Well, that was fantastic. Thank you, Laura. Okay. any other. Any other comments before we go?

[251:02] Okay, seeing none again. A great meeting tonight. Thank you all. lot of work went into this. So thank you very much, and it's not as late as it might be. So. Have a great night. Thank you. Good morning. Everyone. You all. Good night. Bye.