October 22, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:01] hi everybody I just hit record and I can walk us through the rules of public participation okay give me a second to just pull it up how's that is that okay yes we can see it thank you okay uh good evening everyone thank you to everybody joining us in person and online we really appreciate your participation tonight and I just wanted to start out uh by sharing that the city has engaged with community members to create this vision for productive meaningful and inclusive Civic conversations that I will go through um but just want everybody to know that this Vision really supports physical and emotional safety for community members staff and board commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages

[1:01] identities lived experiences and political perspectives and we have much more information about this vision and and how it was developed on our website and the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision and these will all be upheld during this meeting first all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited and participants in open comment and public hearing are required to identify uh themselves using first and last name if you're not sure uh if that's if we can see your first and last name or it's definitely not you don't know how to change it you can rightclick on your name or you can use the Q&A function

[2:00] on the zoom platform to send me your full name and I'm happy to change it for you and just a reminder that the Q&A function um was really only meant to address technical issues in the zoom platform and not to discuss um any matters of content so to let us know you want to speak you raise your virtual hand at the at the moment when we open up the Flor to public participation and you can do that by finding the raiseed hand icon on the bottom of your screen um if you're joining us by phone you can raise your virtual Hand by using star n and you can also get to this raise hand uh by going to the reactions Emoji so chair if it's okay I think we can move to open comment yeah thank you so uh this is a public comment for anything besides the public hearing items correct and um do you want to just

[3:01] State what the public hearing items are uh yeah the the public hearing item this evening is um uh for the uh 55 foot tall structure uh on the um L 2023 0046 I'll read the whole thing when we get into it great and just so um everybody is on the same page we will have an opportunity for public testimony after the presentations so this part of the meeting is for any other matters that are not related to that public hearing um and each person would have 3 minutes to address the planning board and I'll just give folks few minutes to see if anybody would like to speak now otherwise I think people might be here for for the later public hearing okay we have no hands raised oh we have one and Lind seel please go ahead you have three minutes please watch the timer

[4:01] yeah um I was at the Boulder Valley comp plan um initiation gathering this week and I couldn't find any sustainability folks there or um anyone concerned with water um all of these developments see you South area three Alpine balam I'll talk about the St jul and later but um you know the development at Waterview was Waterview now Weather Vein The pellos at falam and pearl um it's on and on the Hundai development is going to be there the north um the geographic Geological Society of America project um the McKenzie Junction 30th in

[5:02] Pearl all of this cannot handle or the water that we have from the Colorado River cannot handle all of this you have to stop you can't be giving developers subsidies without assessing them the impact fees of what they're doing until you realize later that whoops we have no water to support all of this de velopment that we have no you know also part recreational centers like South B Center oh well the neighbors down there are pretty upset that now after all these years they're not going to have a recck center it's it goes the opposite direction you have more people in South Boulder and you're going to have even more with CU South and with alpine Balsam you're going to have much more demand demand for the North Boulder

[6:01] Center so what do you want people commuting from South Boulder to the North Boulder Center or the East Boulder Center and then you've got carbon footprint and everything everything with car associated with carbon footprint is based on water water is life it's everything data centers text centers you know Health um Sciences industry that's going all big and Boulder from CU um all of this stuff requires water and you've got to consider this so get someone from RAB as EX officio on this board because this is just not okay that these all these projects are moving forward with no infrastructure for them in the future we will have less rec centers less police less ability to take care of the people that you've overpopulated the whole

[7:02] place with done thank you ly seagull for joining us there know their hands raised back over to you George thanks Vivian okay um we don't have any minutes this evening to uh go through nor do we have any dispositions call-ups or continuation so we're going to go right into our public hearing item and the public hearing uh is for um a public hearing and consideration of a site review Amendment for approximately 55 ft tall structure with 50,60 square ft of floor area with a first floor meeting space mechanical mezzanine and upper level hotel rooms connected to the existing St Julian hotel at 900 Walnut Street reviewed under case number L 2023 0046 before I hand it over to staff I just want to since we have so many people participating in the room I want to sort of set the table of what our

[8:00] process is so first staff is going to give their presentation then they're going to be some follow-up questions from the board for clarifications um then the applicant will have time to give their presentation then the board will um ask questions of the applicant if they have any um then we will have uh most likely a break a short one um just a little bio break uh and then we'll have public participation right now in person we have uh 24 25 people signed up um so when we get over 15 people uh we uh have the time allotted for each individual at two minutes so if you want to think about your presentations during that during this time um to make sure you get out the points that you want to um and then finally uh after the public uh participation uh the applicant will have a chance to respond as well as staff and then um we'll go into a bit of deliberation and comments and um Direction from the board um so that's

[9:01] the process and I'll hand it over to staff for their presentation all right good evening board is everyone able to hear me okay great all right uh my name is Shannon Mohler and I'm with the city uh of Boulder development review staff and I'll be presenting a brief overview of the 900 Walnut site review Amendment for you tonight so we're going to be looking at the planning process ESS to date um the site history and context a summary of the proposed project uh key issues for discussion and concluding with the staff recommendation so the proposal is a site review The Proposal is a site review amending the existing site review on the property that was approved um under SI 19992 The Proposal was reviewed by the

[10:00] design Advisory Board back in December 2023 Who provided feedback on the design and then was reviewed by the boulder urban renewal Authority in September of this year for consistency with the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan guidelines Section 3 C and D so the board tonight is considering this amendment to the existing site review on the property the existing site review approved phase one for the existing underground parking garage and the St Julian hotel and set aside the area known as the Civic use pad for future development as phase two modifications are being requested tonight including to height and the number of stories and setbacks The Proposal includes or requires a decision by the planning board due to the proposed height modification and because the applicant is seeking vested rights so the site was posted in public notification provided per code written

[11:01] public comments were received on this item which were included concerns regarding the proposed height size of the building blocking views from the adjacent building to the East traffic and parking concerns the use of the building among other items and the written public comments were included in the board's packet so next we'll move to the site context and history so here you can see the subject property as it exists today it's a 2.71 Acre Site located north of Canyon south of Walnut and east of 9th Street it was developed as an existing 656 space caged underground parking garage in the existing St Julian hotel in the early 2000s as part of that approval a pad east of the hotel was constructed with a concrete structural deck designed to support a future building which is the location of the subject proposal tonight um subsequently a site review amendment was approved in 2001 for a 55ft tall building for a children's

[12:01] museum and dance facility but that structure was not constructed due to financial challenges um here you can see outlined in white the public access easement known as the 10th Street pedestrian easement this was dedicated through the site review to connect the Civic area to the South with downtown to the north and here's a photo of the subject location so I'll provide some property history going back to the establishment of the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan which was an important document that guided development of the property when the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan was originally established in 1988 the site was largely consisted of surface parking and was in need of infrastructure improvements the purposes of the urban renewal plan included implementing the boulder valid comprehensive plan eliminating existing conditions in the area that were detrimental developing redeveloping and

[13:01] rehabilitating the area and effectively utilizing underdeveloped land this plan was again adopted in 1988 and it was later amended in 1995 and in 2015 here you can see an aerial photo of the site from 1999 prior to Redevelopment of the site so in 2000 a site review application was approved for the St Julian hotel and the cage and parking garage these improvements again were considered phase one incorporated into the project design was that pad east of the hotel that was uh a concrete structural deck designed to support a future building for phase two um concurrent with that site review was a use review that was approved for the use of that future building as an indoor amusement establishment for the village Arts Coalition which was uh planning to use the building for dance and music performances the design that Phase 2 building had not yet been completed so a

[14:02] future site review amendment was required for the design of that building so then subsequently in 2001 the site review amendment was approved for the 55 foot tall building for Children's Museum and Community Dance facility due to financial challenges this building was not constructed so the St Julian hotel and the CIT underground parking garage were completed in the early 2000s uh St Julian partners and kid entered into a Condominium Association and agreements regarding the use and maintenance of the property the 1995 urban renewal plan anticipated an opportunity for a Civic use on the pad in the Southeast corner of the Hotel Site the pad is owned by St Julian partners and agreements anticipated that the pad would be leased to Civic uses for a 35-year term the right to lease the Civic use pad was agreed to expire January 1st 2020 after

[15:00] such time unless the city and St Julian entered into further agreements the Civic use requirement would end over the years there were numerous efforts to get a Civic user to take advantage of the site but um these attempts were unsuccessful to identify a viable user there were four different task forces that sought various approaches to achieve a Civic use in 2009 the fourth Civic task use Civic use task force was appointed with a charge to provide recommendations to city council regarding the use of the site uh the task force conducted a comprehensive investigation of challenges options and possibilities presented by the Civic use requirement based on the feedback the task force concluded that a single Civic user concept was unrealistic given the size character and Financial Resources the 20% minimum required building space for a Civic use entity was too much for anyone user to afford and the urban renewal plan would need to

[16:01] be modified to meet the realities and needs of a development proposal the task force also recommended a public private partnership with the St Julian to help achieve a successful result based on this feedback in 2013 a designed concept was commissioned by the city with participation by St Julian Partners it included a building with a first floor multi-use Civic use space a rooftop Terrace and additional Hotel facilities in the upper levels connected to the hotel in January 2014 this concept was supported by city council at a stud study session it was later determined that the proposed rooftop deck was not viable due to highight constraints in 2015 city council updated the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan in order to facilitate implementation of a Civic use on the site by providing greater flexibility in implementation of the use the ordinance updated the urban renewal plan to state that Civic uses will occupy up to 20% of the gross floor area pursuant to a plan agreement or

[17:02] other Arrangement approved by the city and the implementation of the plan would result in a floor area ratio consistent with zoning the city and St Julian Partners also entered into a letter of intent specifying next steps then in 2019 city council authorized the city manager to enter into a management and operating agreement between the city kid and St Julian Partners concerning the use of the facility the agreement contained conceptual images and information regarding the operating characteristics of the space the agreement ensured that a multi-purpose Civic use space would remain part of The Proposal rather than the Civic use requirement expiring on January 1st 2020 the proposed site review Amendment tonight seeks to develop the space um consistent with this 2019 agreement so moving back to the current day um we'll take a look at the broader context the property is located in the highest intensity area of downtown and

[18:01] adjacent to Canyon Boulevard a major thoroughfare through the city the area has experienced significant Redevelopment over the last few decades and includes a mix of uses in the area south of the site is the Civic Center area which includes Boulder Creek the multi-use path in the building we're in now east of the site is the four-story 55ft tall approximately 78 foot th000 aret building the site review for this building was approved in 2006 and because it was known that future development was anticipated on the subject property consistent with the urban renewal plan the applicant was required to record a declaration of use to notify future purchasers that land use plans for the subject property uh are subject to an urban renewal plane with the potential for development with buildings up to 55 ft in height uh also nearby to the north and Northeast of the site along Walnut a mix of building sizes uses and Heights exist ranging from 1 to four stories including uses

[19:00] such as restaurant retail office and financial many of the buildings are four stories in height and between 48 and 55 ft tall including those noted on this Slide the project site and much of the surrounding area is located in the 100-year flood plane of Boulder Creek portions are also in the high Hazard and conveyance zones flood restrictions and necessary improvements were part of the design of the existing site the flood restrictions require non-residential buildings to be flood proofed and hotel rooms to be elevated above flood protection elevations flood proofing requirements have been incorporated into the design of the proposed structure the site is located in the central area of downtown near numerous businesses offering shopping dining and daily needs that can be accessed on foot the site is also located near multiple Transit lines including the Hop skip Dash among others and is located about 1500 ft from the downtown Boulder transit station at 14th and Canyon here

[20:00] you can see the existing bike lane along 9th Street and the existing on street bike route along Walnut Street a pedestrian activated crosswalk is also located just south of the site excuse me go back the transportation master plan connections plan calls for an off Street path through the site known as the 10th Street pedestrian corridor which is shown in the yellow dashed line we'll talk more about that with the design of the site the transportation master plan connections plan also notes a two-way protected bike lane along Canyon Boulevard in review of the subject proposal staff found that the site is already appropriately served by existing off street bike infrastructure paralleling this proposed Lane and significant alterations to existing infrastructure in Treon would be required to install additional on street bike infrastructure which wouldn't be commensurate with the impact of the subject proposed proposal and wouldn't be recommended in this context due to

[21:02] lack of adjacent bike connections on neighboring properties the site also contains existing bike racks that will be updated to meet current standards there's also a lime scooter Grove at the southwest corner of the site at 9th and Canyon in terms of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan the site is located in the RB Regional business land use in downtown where the highest intensity development is anticipated to occur the project site is zoned downtown 5 dt5 which is the business area within the downtown core in the process of changing to higher intensity use and the area with the greatest potential for redevelopment within the downtown core Hotel uses including lodging and meeting rooms are permitted by right in this Zone District The Proposal is located in the non-historic area of the downtown Urban Design guidelines um so it is subject to those relevant guidelines and again the sit's within the ninth and

[22:00] Canyon urban renewal plan so we'll touch on these guidelines further on in the key issues so next we'll move to a summary of the proposed project um here you can see that the proposal does include a new structure of approximately 50,000 squ ft of floor area contains a first floor meeting space with connections to the lower level parking garage a mechanical mezanine and three levels of hotel rooms with an upper level connection to the existing Hotel the structure is located just east of the 10th Street pedestrian Corridor a key design feature through the site that allows for pedestrian access through the subject property and connects the Civic area to downtown the proposed main building entry is designed uh to face onto the 10th Street pedestrian Corridor and toward the existing hotel and on-site Open Spaces the corridor is proposed to be enhanced with new way finding signage lighting decorative arches and land skape Planters visitors arriving by

[23:01] vehicle can park in the below grade parking garage and proceed upstairs or an elevator um or they may be dropped off at the existing vehicle turnaround at the North End of the St Julian hotel and proceed through the building which will be jointly managed guests arriving via bicycle will be able to use existing and new bike parking and vehicle access in the alley is intended to be limited to deliveries and trash recycling Service as is typical in the downtown area the applicant has provided this circulation diagram as well as a TDM plan chip trip generation report and Alley management plan in their uh application materials moving to transportation and TDM The Proposal incorporates new on-site bike parking including short and longterm to meet or exceed current code requirements in terms of TDM the applicant has uh encourage the use of alternate Transportation modes the site

[24:02] is located in the downtown area where many opportunities exist for the use of alternate modes including numerous Transit stops bike pedestrian facilities and nearby businesses the applicant TDM plan does include uh Ecco passes provided through kid for employees short and long-term bicycle parking provision of luner ebikes and traditional bikes for hotel guests a shuttle provided for hotel guests within a 2m radius and locker rooms and changing facilities provided for employees The Proposal will continue to provide the expansive area of open space at the corner of Walnut and Canyon consistent with the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan which called for open space to be oriented to the South take advantage of views and incorporate flood plane conditions this space includes a mix of landscaped areas with mature trees and shrubs decorative hard skate walking paths outdoor seating and dining served by the hotel The Proposal also includes new upper level balconies for

[25:01] hotel rooms and new Landscaping along the building and along the tents Street pedestrian Corridor as planters here you can see the proposed building design and incorporates traditional elements into the proposed design including a defined bottom middle and top and maintaining a distinction between the ground and upper floors the ground floor long Canyon uses Sandstone ledg stone with larg expanses of glazing and upper floors are distinguished through the use of lighter appearing materials such as Limestone panels a fa facade rhythm is established through the use of columns and pesters the height Mass scale of the building uh is similar to adjacent buildings along Canyon both the adjacent existing structures of the St Julian and the Rett building to the east were approved at a height of up to 55 ft and are four stories in height the proposed structure will be uh just under 55 feet

[26:00] and will appear as four stories on the front facade although there is an internal mechanical mezanine level that's tucked inside the structure which is considered a fifth Story um the proposed structure is located at a similar setback to the ett building and provides relief in the facade uh excuse me through its rhythm of Bays areas of balconies a rounded entry feature and elevated walkway and skybridge the rear North facade is also designed to clearly distinguish publicly accessible areas from service areas the existing entrance down to this down to the Caged parking garage will be incorporated into the building design and enhanced with as a clear pedestrian access point with wayfinding signage and lighting and service areas are integrated into the design of the alley faad including egress doors and additional screened trash and recycling storage

[27:00] the design of the 10th Street pedestrian Corridor is an important element of the overall proposal the corridor will extend under the proposed upper level skybridge it will be visually defined by the proposed structure and enhanced with new signage lighting decorative arches Planters and nearby bike parking and it will have a um ground level uh building design with back lit perforated metal and lighting washing the walls underne the sky Bridge an additional 99t area of Public Access easement is proposed to be dedicated as part of the corridor while an approximately 4 squ foot area is proposed to be vacated to accommodate one structural column The Proposal um does include modifications to the land use code which I'll go through next um The Proposal is requesting a height modification um it is eligible uh under Criterion v i I for your proposal seeking a height bonus for

[28:01] a fourth or fifth Story um the applicant can choose uh to pay additional affordable housing Capital facility impact fees at a rate above the base requirement for this bonus floor area or the applicant can propose an alternative method of compliance through provision of a community benefit objective um of a through provision of a community benefit objective of the bbcp that is a value equivalent or greater than the benefits uh required through the additional impact fee uh staff estimates the total additional impact fee um that would typically be required would be about $8,000 the applicant has provided a summary of the proposal's benefit to the community as a multi-purpose meeting and event space in downtown that provides for below Market uh meaning space and first right to reserve the Space by Community not for-profit and Civic

[29:00] groups consistent with the 2019 agreement between the city CID and St Julian partners and uh provided information that the total benefit would be in excess of $638,000 a year one based on this information staff found the proposal consistent with the policy objectives of the bbcp to provide Community Gathering space and facilities for the nonprofit community and that the amount exceeds the amount required through payment of additional impact fees um the site review criteria also were updated in 2023 to include criteria for buildings requir requesting a height modification the proposal has been designed to comply with these and staff found the proposal compatible with the height Mass scale as outlined in the downtown Urban Design guidelines and the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan and with that of the surrounding area and it meets the requirements for providing open and Gathering spaces on the

[30:01] site The Proposal also includes a modification to the number of stories um it's a fivestory building is requested where two stories are typically permitted in the downtown five zoning District um the applicant has also requested setback modifications um the first is a setback modification to the center line of Canyon Boulevard a 65 setback foot setback is required and the applicant has proposed 63 ft consistent with the building to the east the applicant has also proposed a 6 foot uh interior sidey yard setback for the upper three stories of the building the ground level may be set back to Z or 12et on this side and upper stories may be set back to either 0 foot 5 foot 12T or more or the distance required by the building code this proposal provides a zot side yard setback at stories 1 and two permitted by right and typically

[31:02] seen throughout downtown The Proposal pulls back the closest point of building of stories 3 four and five to six feet in order to provide for increased space from the building to the East and the majority of the upper stories is set back even farther because the six foot proposed setback distance is not either 0 12 or gther five or the minimum required by the building code that's why the model modification request is required so that concludes uh the summary of the project I'll briefly touch on key issues so the first key issue is if the proposed project U meets the site review criteria in the land use code AS noted earlier in the presentation staff found the requested uh modifications to height the number of stories and setbacks did meet the associated review criteria and overall staff found the proposal consistent with the review criteria including the underlying bbcp land use

[32:00] designation of regional business and with many policies in the bbcp supporting the role of the Central Area a compact development pattern and the design of The Proposal moving to key issue two staff found the proposal was consistent with relevant design guidelines for the site including the downtown Urban Design guidelines and the urban renewal plan guidelines Section 3 C and 3D The Proposal was reviewed by the design Advisory Board in December 2023 Who provided helpful feedback and the proposal was revised to simplify areas of the design and address the design of the building entry and public realm interface a summary of the changes was provided in the applicant's plan set so staff found the updated proposal was consistent with the applicable downtown Urban Design guidelines The Proposal was also reviewed for consistency with the Nan Canyon urban renewal plan the plan notes that section 3C and section 3D are to be applied in a site review process

[33:00] and that these guidelines are not intended to be a design checklist but to suggest the type and range of options to be considered these include the context guidelines in section 3C and the site development guidelines in section 3D The Proposal was also reviewed by the boulder urban renewal Authority in September 2024 who found the proposal consistent with these guidelines and staff also found the proposal consistent with the guidelines so with that staff recommends a motion to approve the site review application and I'm happy to take any questions thank you and thank you for a thorough presentation um does anyone have any questions go ahead ml thank you for that presentation that was complete the history every review process and and where we're

[34:01] at today thank you very much um so I have a couple of questions um so I'm curious about the open space it it refers back to the original so wouldn't the Civic Center as not being the hotel wouldn't that require open space we look at properties on the overall site so the overall property um being one they're all allowed to share that same open space so there's no requirement for anything that would be particular to the Civic Center and the way it might be used and serve a public purpose um the yeah the requirements are just based on the size of the site and and how it can be used so okay so in aggregate okay um next

[35:00] question so uh so there's a mechanical mezzanine and then there is mechanical on the roof so um what's the purpose of having a mechanical mezzanine I mean five floors is so I'm I'm just curious is to you think it'd be either or yeah I'm I would be happy to um defer to the applicant so they could share more about the design of that okay uh next [Music] question no I think your open space answer answered some of my other questions I think there's one

[36:00] more oh so um in the proposed Community benefit uh option um wasn't the Civic use required by agreement um yes there is the current agreement the 2019 agreement that outlines uh the terms of that space yes that's right so how can it also be a community benefit if it's if it's required yeah the the code for site review doesn't exclude um a separate agreement from also being requirment so they're not exclusive of one another so they would have I mean the Civic use would have had to be done regardless we think of community benefit is being a benefit in addition to what the requirements are and you're saying we yeah they they're yeah they can both

[37:01] exist it would be up to the planning board's you know discretion as to whether or not you know you feel that that met that Criterion is that um information in the criteria yes okay I'll take a look at that um because it does expire you know that um that data um Civic use being required by agreement Community benefit it ex it expires in 20 years right the agreement that was written there's anend so that's not that's not a forever Community benefit it's only for 20 years that's correct and we are using it as the reason to get the height exemption there're yeah so they either have to um provide a community benefit that that the board agrees is equivalent or greater to the value of the um affordable housing requirements or they would need to pay the additional impact

[38:02] fee required right yep and would the value that was assigned to that Community benefit um is that I mean clearly it's speculative because nobody's using it yet and we don't know what the use would actually be um is was that provided by staff or was that provided by the applicant it's provided by the applicant yeah they provided those calculations and information within the written statement and could probably share more about how they came to that perfect those are my questions thank you so much all right Laura so I have a lot of questions so maybe I'll take a few and then we'll pass the mic um so regarding the open space uh following on ml's comments I didn't see an analysis in the packet of how much open space is required for the site as a whole I understand that phase one and phase two go together in the site review so are we saying that the open space that was constructed with

[39:01] phase one was sufficient for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 yeah it's just a percentage based on the size of the property um so it it well exceeded the the minimum requirement and is that do we have access to that analysis somewhere those numbers of how much open space was required based on the square footage of that I believe it's in the applicant's plan set they have it um information in there that list the minimum requirement and the amount that was provided um would staff be able to point us to which of the 900 pages that is thank you and don't you don't have to do it right now but um I I'll keep going um so that 2019 agreement included a lot of terms about things like the discounted rate for the use of the nonprofits for the um the Civic uh space and um you know the anticipated uses of the facil ities for nonprofit uses is all of that 2019 agreement would that be

[40:02] memorialized in this site review Amendment and it would be binding upon the the applicant for the next 20 years the agreement would be the binding part the site review is separate and we're looking at the site review criteria in this site review so we don't have perview over the 2019 agreement in this process but is that 2019 agreement binding if we approve this building in terms of like they offer a 50% discounted rate and here's the how they're going to manage it and how they're going to determine which organizations are eligible and right so the 20% requirement comes from the urban renewal plan um and that is the purview over the city council so city council had decided that the 20% is met by the agreement in 2019 so that agreement in 2019 is binding on any development for the St Julian um and is in place until 20 years after the first certificate of occupancy okay and so all of the terms about how that space would be used and how it's

[41:01] going to be managed those are all binding for years how it's amended how more nonprofits are added to the list all of that remains binding great thank you um my next question is you know is there current analysis or evidence of unmet demand for civic meeting room space given that you know we have a whole lot of new construction with the hill hotel and Alpine balam and the North Boulder Library the JC has any current analysis been done of what kind of usage we can expect from this Civic meeting space the most recent analysis I'm aware of would have taken place back when the Civic use task force was evaluating things and around the the time that the agreement was entered into in 2019 um as part of this process we don't have purview over the uses on the site in terms of whether a use is allowed or not if it's allowed by right okay thank you you um and then after the 20year

[42:00] agreement expires from 20 years from when the certificate of occupancy would be issued then what happens I believe then it's just under the management of St Julian partners and so they would just be renting it with no Civic use required okay so it would be basically market rate rental space for meetings and events okay right at this time I would remind the board though that the Civic use has been decided by C city council to meet that requirement um so today we are looking at the Sate review criteria okay thank you okay one more um the proposed rooftop deck which is noted in the uh 2013 um feasibility study and the 2015 letter of intent um contemplated an outdoor rooftop area available for use by community members and visitors through rental and then exploration of when that space could be used for free and in the presentation the packet it says that um in 2018 a study session

[43:01] update provided to city council basically said that uh the previously proposed rooftop deck was not viable and Shannon you added a detail that I didn't catch in the packet saying that it was not viable due to the height restrictions can you elaborate on that because we have a lot of buildings that do have rooftop decks as part of their open space why why was this considered to be not viable the information I have is coming from that 2018 study session memo it's not super detailed my recollection was that it was due to height restrictions if you have a elevator that goes to the top of the building we take the height from the top of that space and so in order to place an elevator up there that would exceed the 55 foot height limit so it couldn't go on top of the proposed building but we could potentially carve out some of that fifth floor for a rooftop deck that would not exceed the height

[44:00] requirements yeah I believe that's possible if it didn't exceed the height requirements yep okay thank you I will pass the Baton I have more questions for later though all right look down here first Claudia or Mason Claudia I was just gonna say that I think both EML and Laura have covered some of my big questions so I will sit back and wait and see if anyone else raises things I thought Kurt looks like he has some questions yeah thanks um I wanted to follow up on the discussion of the height modification alternative compliance calculation and its interaction with the Civic use agreement the 2019 agreement whatever that's called so the height modification is part of the site review approval so for I guess first of all I just want to

[45:00] clarify that is within the purview of this of of of this approval right to to look at the basically whether that meets the site the height modification alternative compliance criteria yes the board would be able to determine whether um whether or not it meets that yep okay and then it was a little unclear to me though um whether it sounded like there's been a history of uh allowing allowing uh hype modification compliance via requirements that were already imposed as is the case here right the because the 2019 agreement imposes the the Civic use requirement

[46:02] which is how they're meeting the alternative compliance requirement um so I guess I'm I'm I'm I'm not totally certain whether we can look at the whether those can be separated or whether the they we have to consider them um what whether we can require additional uh some some sort of additional alternative compliance requirements in or in addition to the 2019 um what what's specified in the 2019 agreement or if because they overlap and and history says we allow that to happen that we can't really look at that I'm sorry I'm not being very

[47:01] clear in this question but I guess the question is can to what degree can we examine that question of do can they overlap or does it really does the alternative compliance really have to be an additional uh an additional measure right so the standards for alternative Community benefit are laid out in the codee and there's really only two criteria for whether or not you guys can choose if this Civic use or if another Community B benefit may meet that criteria so that being um will improve the facilities or Services delivered to the city um or is in a value equivalent or greater to the benefits required by the sub paragraph it does not exempt something that may already be required by a different plan in the city so you can take that into account um but I would just ask you all to look at the community benefit that they're offering and see if it meets either one of those criteria as well as

[48:01] the comprehensive plan criteria for that okay okay okay uh thank you my other question is about the alley so the eastwest portion of the alley is City RightWay is that correct and then the north south section is an easement is that correct I believe if I'm remembering correctly it is also right of way um I can try to pull that up yeah okay oh they're both right away okay great and they're those are regulated they're they're considered exactly the same as any other alley in terms of how they're regulated and so on okay great uh that is it for now thank you I'm going to on with the legal questions so

[49:03] um yeah welcome okay um page 13 and Page 285 and Shannon's presentation all referred to the Declaration of use acknowledgement and requirement for the ett so is it true that not only the developers but the subse quent owners of the Condominiums Etc at the aret all have had to agree to that Declaration of use and acknowledgment of excuse me of the uh uh possibility of a 55 foot building being built to their immediate West so my understanding is that the Declaration was recorded on the property records correct me if I'm wrong Shannon so that would have been um would have come up in any title work that someone would have um had when they purchased those units so yes those declarations would have been

[50:00] available but not necessarily like okay you want to buy here as part of your contract you're signing this acknowledgement it might come up in the title work but as a separate document or not do you know um it would come up in the title work um I've seen title work for this property where it appears it's listed there and you would need to read your title work documents in order to to read that document it's not a separate like contract that you would sign right thank you um on page 158 the operating agreement that we've all been talking to November 18th uh 2019 so that agreement um just barely kept the uh by 40 some days kept the whole C iic use thing from expiring okay and um uh and

[51:03] that agreement superseded any prior agreement that we we had multiple agreements along the way but that agreement is the agreement of record currently and that supersedes all the other records all the other agreements prior to that as it pertains to the Civic use yes yeah okay um is there any recorded ownership by the city of any portion or interest in the Civic pad the kid owns the condominium that is the underground parking garage so yep so CIT owns beneath the like from the surface of the concrete down yeah there's a there's a condominium plat that shows the different areas yeah okay you should have included

[52:00] that one more page another we would have gotten to 900 pretty quick there I think um okay uh and then on page 162 in that in that agreement uh under General conditions little B and little C uh the so that agreement is adhered to under both the city of Boulder code and laws and the state of Colorado laws and it says it is explicit that there is no third-party beneficiary um and the agreement is only between the city kid and the St Julian and there is no there are no other parties uh as part of that agreement other than those three just confirming that yes correct okay and does any prior development agreement give uh the city any rights or

[53:04] do we incur any rights that is not stated in that agreement so there might be other rights as far as like easements that go along but as far as the Civic use no this is the occurrent agreement okay yeah that's all my questions thank you thanks Mark um I I'm just going to do one and then I'll pass it down uh uh quick question on the presentation that you gave and it was in one of the first few slides where it showed this new building in between the eret and the St Julian and in that elevation what struck me as something different than the other two was this mechanical um shielding that was put up there actually I can see a little bit on the a at I guess that was my question is it relates what were were the were the requirements different when those

[54:01] buildings were built um as it relates to the mechanical space uh above the 55 foot limit not that I'm aware of the only requirement I'm aware of now that we've seen taller mechanical screening being necessary is our energy code that has increased the height of mechanical units on the rooftop so sometimes we we're seeing taller screening on the rooftop but I I don't believe the screening requirements were different at that time so maybe similar and we'll I guess we'll ask the applicant whether they address it in their presentation or not I'm curious to know what's different about the massive St Julian and not having any mechanical on the roof at least as it appears in this elevation vers the new building that's proposed so I can table that um and I think Mason do you have some

[55:00] questions yes is there um going to the Civic use is there any mechanism to notify nonprofits that the subsidy is available sir um I'm not familiar with with how any notifications or or anything of that nature so okay and then on the flood plane I was trying trying to follow it through the document but it just to confirm uh the separation elements between St Julian and this uh new building um have been demonstrated so substantive Improvement wasn't triggered which would require yes the applicant provided information I believe in the written statement um to resolve the you know questions about what needs to be done to the building uh regarding flood so um yeah so I guess I can ask them more about the proposed Drive flood proofing

[56:00] and all that um does it impact the uh does it trigger anything with the garage underneath not that I'm aware of no okay that's all my remaining questions go to Claudia and then back to Laura okay hopefully a quick one here I have a question about the um management and operating agreement from 2019 um that agreement describes a um City subsidy that could be available as part of this agreement to nonprofit groups using the space um do those let's see yeah how do we frame this question does that it talks about that being an optional subsidy program and I'm curious if that subsidy um is kind of stacked on top of the discounted rates that are part of this agreement that is does it benefit the potential nonprofit users of the space or is that subsidy designed to compensate the St Julian for reduced Revenue that they may have from offering

[57:01] below Market space so the city subsidy is for um any not for-profit group um the process of that is um according to the agreement as well as the letter of intent that was signed previous to the agreement um is going to be discussed once the Civic use is underway on how that subsid is going to work um but it is for um I guess is in addition to the reduced rents and everything else that's already accounted for in the agre oh so okay so just to clarify that I have this straight if I was a nonprofit group potentially renting under this regime I would be paying um first off that you know half price or whatever the discounted rate that the St Julian has put in the agreement and potentially the city would then be reducing my rate further to use that space okay thank you thank you um and Shannon I think I

[58:01] forgot to thank you for your presentation really well done thank you very informative as always um the 10th Street pedestrian Corridor some some concerns were expressed about it being you know near trash pickup and dumpsters can you walk us through what that do you have visuals that show us what that pedestrian experience would be like going through that 10th Street Corridor for and I also wanted to see do we have an image of the entry Court by the door of the new building and then kind of walking us through what that Corridor would look like from a pedestrian experience yeah these are some of the renderings the applicant team provided um so the one on the left is facing nors when you walk up the steps from Canyon and the one on the right would be facing south when you're just about to pass between the two structures um So currently I think uh there was an number of concerns with um the existing

[59:00] recycling uh facilities that are located in this Corridor um those would be removed as part of the development um so they would no longer be in the location they're in now um and it would basically appear as this um I can let the applicant describe more about the design okay because I think some of the concern was about what is immediately to the east of this South faing view right like you're going into the corridor but you're coming basically through an alley and then off to your left is a bunch of Bays that have you know dumpsters and Recycling and maybe trash trucks and things like that going through um let me look see if I can find if you can see my mouse so on this are you um speaking regarding like the alley elevation of the proposed building I think so that North SL alley elevation

[60:00] that kind of so if I understand it correctly all the way to the West is the corridor and then immediately to the east of that is the stairway down into the parking garage and then to the east of that is where these trash and recycling facilities are is that is that correct yeah here if I'm not sure if it's showing my mouse there it goes um yeah so the corridor um would be located here the um entry to the parking garage is this door here that folks can use to get down into the cage garage this is a egress door um service access and then there's a screened trash and recycling additional facility in this location here so you say screened so there wouldn't be like open dumpsters on the Alley in that position no it's required to be screened and it's kind of within the building footprint in that location okay thank you that's helpful and then this pedestrian Corridor is it usable by

[61:00] bikes and wheelchairs I couldn't quite tell if there were ramps cuz there are stairs at that end going down onto Canyon yeah you can see I think you can see here this is a an existing Ada ramp um so you'd want to use that uh for wheelchair and bike access this is the existing staircase okay so you can get into that ramp from the street from Canyon B basically where that Corridor is okay great that's helpful I'm sorry I'm bad at reading diagrams thank you um uh another question in the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan which I know is not a binding document it's not you know you don't have to meet every detail of it but in that document it talked about having an on-site Transit Center or stop integrated with the sidewalk and the buildings to facilitate Transit access and it looks like that is not part of the current plan can you talk a little bit more about why that idea was did not make it yeah my recollection was when the

[62:01] earlier proposal was proposed to be a children's museum there was a design that incorporated a bus drop off on Canyon and there was a drop off pickup area um that was the only extent that any type of on-site Transit facility was ever proposed um with this design um you know there is no proposed for a bus drop off or pickup as part of the design um and it's just felt to be not needed or I think I think so there's a number of other bus and Transit facilities right in this area so that was my understanding okay thank you and then my last question um there was a suggestion by one public commenter that um on those Extended Stay rooms rooms that are being added to this you know above the Civic use facility that some percentage of

[63:00] them be earmarked for low income visitors or affordable housing units um consistent with the 25% requirement in the boulder inclusionary housing program which I know applies to residential units not to hotel rooms but was anything like that considered for Community benefit was there any conversation around some of those hotel rooms having Community benefit no not to my knowledge all hotel rooms um even if they're quote unquote Extended Stay would need to follow our hotel room use requirements which is a maximum of 30 days stay so they're not intended to be like a long-term stay environment um but no it wasn't it wasn't discussed as a community benefit type option okay thank you one more question following up on Laura's question about the ramp uh the on the ramp on the south side off of Canyon does that current ramp meet our

[64:01] code our current code uh for ADA requirements yeah for Ada and I this is designated in the TMP as a multi-use path isn't it not in this location no um the the yellow line that went through the site was an off Street pedestrian path if I recall correctly okay um but yeah I I would defer to the applicant on this the slope of that the exact slope of that ramp yeah I'm wondering about both the slope and then the radius because on a bike going up that ramp you really can't get around there without picking up your bike um so I guess there was no there was the the the upshot is there was no trigger requiring upgrading of

[65:02] that facility is that correct the like to add a a ramp where people could bike across Canyon up through this area well to upgrade specifically that ramp that is next to the stairs there just since there's new construction sometimes that triggers a request reement to upgrade the the on-site facilities right and so I just I wanted to see if there was any requirement that this and I'm specifically calling out the ramp because that's the part that I've experienced that seems to be problematic um there's but there was no there was no trigger requiring upgrading that facility not that I'm aware of it it is shown as an accessible route on this diagram so I would defer to the applicant if they can tell us a little more about the slope there and if that does meet slope

[66:01] requirements okay thank you anybody else before we go to the app Claudia one more here um in the absence of a phase 2 building that we're considering tonight what regulations and agreements have been governing the use of that concrete pad for the last 25 years um um there are agreements between uh kid and the and the St Julian about various things I'm not aware of anything specific that is governing the use of that right now okay and presumably until we do approve some form of site review amendment that same regime would continue into the future okay I did have um an additional question um it's in regards to the the structure that's proposed and

[67:01] the existing parking garage that supports it um I know the city is doing an evaluation of um the city's parking garages relative to maintenance Etc and when we talked about that um there was a point brought up around um the mass of uh um EVs and the fact that they are about twice to three times the weight potentially of ice vehicles um and as we uh evaluate this proposal has has has that been looked at for this garage and for supporting this structure that there maybe some new vehicles that might have a different weight and is that has that been factored in at all has anyone thought about that yeah I think the applicant could talk more about the structural requirements because I know

[68:00] that was a a major part of the design of the building yeah perfect thank you other questions yeah sorry was staff able to locate that page that has the open space calculations page 76 of the packet thank you Charles all right uh with no further clarifying questions thank you um for taking us through that and we'll show over to the applicant's presentation I don't think you've requested additional time to you have about 15 minutes uh to present

[69:18] there's a button in this right adj yeah there you go okay can you hear me now yeah okay great uh hi my name is Matt CES I'm a principal at 4240 architecture representing the applicant St Julian partners and uh just wanted to do a brief introduction and also thank Shannon and the rest of the crew here for presenting and all the questions that you've asked because I think my job's gotten a little bit easier um so we've been working with Bruce on and off for actually probably 25 years give or take on the original ST julan which we're really proud of and and excited and honored to be able to present the annex for the St Julian as well and we

[70:01] really believe that this will complete the vision that was started in the 1990s so just thank everyone for this time here uh and I apologize I kind of have to look at all these at the same time uh okay so this is an original rendering if it's showing up okay so this original rendering from this multi- uh decade history of the project the St juling as an idea began in the 1990s through the urban renewal plan and the grand opening was held in 2005 since then Gillian the spa the bar the lounge even the meeting spaces have

[71:01] conted not only as a hotel but more importantly essentially a living room for the community where people can gather for drinks to celebrate a special occasion where business skills can be had and people can treat this like a base camp as they Venture off into the flat irons and Beyond sorry we're having technical difficulties here this work I'm GNA try a different think that should work apologize for that it just keeps scratching on

[72:08] me you could be Wii one second I apologize the Wii here I'm just trying to get back on so this is the internet again so we have to open up the is that we were saying yeah we have to focusing onless internet still

[73:03] sorry could we do it without Zoom oh no we can man the presentation okay I don't know why it's Jesus sorry guys we had all this figured out beforehand

[74:01] no it's well if you like a potty break you can uh we just lost connection with zoom sorry about that guys um I used the four here this one see

[75:15] yeah um when he's clicking the share screen um do you want me to put the mouse on here do you have a mous the mouse I don't need a mouse oh

[76:00] hi all it wasn't very easy to here for those of us online um so just letting everyone know that we'll resume around 7:20 just a short break well yeah but I I understand that we need a just when they ask us about a little bit later I won't have I can't look it up now

[77:02] speaking I'm just trying to look at I just want to make sure that that was it okay well it does I just don't know where how do you share your screen oh well so it looks like you were sharing it C but it was crashing yeah I scented it might take a little bit okay it is the um when we share screen the internet keeps crashing and so that's

[78:00] the is because we can see it here but it's just not casting so we just resume yeah so trying to find a work around I'm sorry okay that's fine with me might be better okay might be more

[79:23] e e

[80:13] testing Vivien can you hear me yes you back audio and we can also see the screen great thank you we're going to get started here again in just a minute thanks

[81:23] e e

[82:23] e e

[83:23] e e e

[84:53] all right uh we're going to try this again if everyone could uh have a seat and I'll let the why don't you

[85:00] start over if you can introduce yourself we also got some feedback from the audience while we were here and the feedback for the board and for everyone with mics that there some of them are having a hard time hearing us so if everyone could try to speak up into their mics including the applicant that would be great appreciate it sure uh thank you sorry for the technical difficulties my name is Matt CES I am a principal at 4240 architecture and and I'm going to go through this beginning a little quicker to save everyone some time but we've been working with Bruce and St Julian partners for about probably 25 years give or take on the original in St Julian and really delighted to be here to be able to present the annex to complete the vision that was started in the 1990s um on this next slide this is an original rendering from approximately 2002 uh showing the existing hotel and the vision for uh creating the St julan and the uh experience Beyond so we want to get into this a little bit more by talking about St Julian as an idea in

[86:00] the 1990s grand opening was in 2005 and this hotel is really a uh a living room for the Boulder Community and with this Annex we see it as an expansion of that loing living room uh uh idea with jillians the spa the bar the lounge the meeting rooms Etc where people can share drinks and celebrate where they can go to uh make a business skill happen they can go to a conference that can be a base uh sort of a base Point uh for folks to go into the uh flat irons and so looking at this slide this is really the uh site plan that Shannon showed a little bit earlier the initial phase of the project also included public parking below grade to support the neighborhood open space and a vision for a future Civic use program that would further contribute to the community the hotel parking and outdoor space was completed as part of phase one the Civic use pad and pedestrian Corridor was conceived to be completed in a later phase while various Civic

[87:02] Concepts were discussed and designed through at sessions for years leading to the hotel uh groundbreaking the collage Children's Museum was a front runner at the time the pad structure was designed to accommodate the museum with the uh with the museum subsequently withdrawing after unsuccessful efforts to engage the boulder History Museum Andor The Village Arts coalition to replace collage the Civic p was left dormant for many years and I don't want to uh elaborate too much on the timeline because Shannon's already done this but there's been several iterations of this really trying to bring this into fruition since 2001 all the way up until the present time and then on this next one what you'll see here is uh this is really focusing primarily on open space uh in sort of mass form but I did want to take a moment to talk about the Boulder Creek flip Lane this will become a little bit more important uh later on in the presentation that is what's on the lower left hand corner the garage is elevated

[88:01] 4 feet uh above to make sure that we're above that place base flood elevation and it's flood proof but I think another part about this it's really accentuating what I indicated before is when you look at the lower rightand corner this Civic use building is really an extension of this idea of this living room St Julian's already part uh participating in this and now we're trying to expand that to make this a great amenity for the community as it were uh let see here let's go to the next one here so this was also another one that shanon uh discussed earlier and I don't want to elaborate it upon it too much but just really emphasize the fact that if you really look at this plan Kenyan Boulevard is this sort of east west dividing line or Stitch or zipper if you will between sort of the Civic uses along the South where it's more I guess I call it landscaped or pastoral for

[89:00] lack of better term and then the northern side of that where this is really an urbanbuilt edge creating these outdoor rooms between the buildings in the streets and then towards the South all of the buildings uh really create that great facade and this is really completing that final portion of this where the buildings vary from about 35t to 55 ft four five stories it's it's it's managerie but there is a consistent height and an urban Edge to the master planning that is going on here this is further accentuated and we talked a little bit about this pedestrian path but this pedestrian path uh continues even further north on W Walnut but continues through the site and then continues further down into the Civic area and this is simply showing the context that's around the site we talked a little bit about the flip proofing and we talked a little bit about the garage and it's an existing garage uh that's a condominium through kid but one of the interesting parts

[90:00] that we really had to work with here is working with the existing structure that has a 28 foot by 28 foot grid and there are some limitations that we couldn't really work around but we're pushing and pulling and getting creative without creating any real impact to the structure below with the exception of an elevator pit so there's a minor change in the floor slab above in some addab beams but the additional Surplus load does not affect structure in any negative way because the structure was planned to be a children's museum that was already 55t tall and then looking at this pedestrian Ean I think this is a really important one to enhance so we've really been looking at how this connection it's it's a little it's sort of funny these pedestrian passageways that we find in Boulder and other communities where the passage zigs and zags through so it's coming from Walnut toward the right and or towards the east and then JS over which is has always been the plan since 2000 and then it reenters as it's

[91:02] Crossing Kenyon Boulevard and so we really played off of that idea to create an immersive experience you can see the images on the right they're just showing the the gateways and the thresholds and some really fun ideas about creating screens that perhaps we were looking at the mpa uh Archway that's in Denver that some folks may be aware of that was built gosh 25 years ago but just something to celebrate the past the present and the future of Boulder and the citizens uh here and these plant are just a reference we've already talked a little bit about this it's a 55,000 foot building uh it is uh five stories although it presents itself like four this mezzanine there's a question about the mezzanine I'll answer that right now what we were trying to do is because of this Civic use nature it's very similar to the St Julian the St Jullian has a mean mezanine at the second level and that really serves the meeting spaces there's large volumes of air large volumes of people and it really requires

[92:02] that we went further though we didn't need all of this Meine what we tried to do uh is bring some of that mechanical equipment down to that mezine from the roof to reduce the footprint so we're well below the roof coverage requirements that are uh outline per code and then um maybe one other part that that want to reference here's a Civic event space is about 6,500 square fet and then their supporting space largely in the north and especially on the East once we get to levels two three and four those are all guest room suites they're 13 bir level roughly so 39 uh keys if you will or guest rooms and then the rooftop above this is a really important one uh to focus on here this is the overall Street elevation going from almost 9th Avenue uh or 9th Street sorry to uh almost 12th and what's really important

[93:01] here is under scan the scale there was a question about the uh building apperences the rooftop equipment do apologize we didn't articulate all of that's on the roof but the St Julian does have a four four pipe mechanical system with rooftop equipment uh we could provide that but it's somewhat similar in height to this Shannon did make a good point with regard to the screening Heights the equipment because it is getting more and more efficient becomes more and more voluminous in many instances some instances it's really getting smaller but in this one we really need that screen height as at that height we'd love to keep it lower it's one of those things that we can't control but we did try to pull this back I think the more important part with regard to this elevation is really how it Stitches the ideas from the St Julian with the ideas from the ett in a harmonious way where we really truly have a base a middle and the top and then because of uh certain zoning requirements here we're really trying to

[94:01] step the building back so what you'll see in this middle portion here is it's about 87 feet 10 in wide that is the portion that projects out the furthest that is the most proud it has the highest uh level of finishes and then everything else steps back further and further as you go through the building so we start with something heavy then we go lighter and then the top is supposed to really dissolve as we're going through there and getting a little bit more into the elevation uh this is looking first at the South and the west elevation so these are the primary uh pedestrian experiences that everyone will have uh and so again it has that base it has the middle of and that has a top and one thing that I probably should have mentioned on the previous um uh slide here is when you look at the west side of the NX we're really trying to create a bridge that is mediating between the St Julian and between uh and the annex so it is set back it's glassy it's a little bit different in aesthetic and it's trying

[95:01] to go away and then we're lifting it up with an arch down below the materials are really high quality Shannon mentioned earlier that we have leadstone there's Limestone there's interlocking metal uh zinc paneling there's uh curtain wall and storefront all of this is on the front facade but then we add another level of detail where we're getting into uh uh lighting we're getting into armatures we have uh canopies we have planting and vegetation which is really important we have to be at this front edge but we're really trying to set it back as much as we can to line uh along the Canyon Boulevard sidewalk all of this vegetation that's there and then the vegetation that's on the uh Southeast Corner if you will and then there gets into metal uh steel channels we have metal railings we're looking at cornes and caps and really trying to get that fine grain level of detail that really is required in this public realm and that's all pretty much in the South

[96:01] elevation what we'll see when we're looking at the west elevation is that same basic composition along with the hanging balconies and then as we transition towards the alley side the materials still uh show through but it does start to convert from some metal at the top to some stucco especially as we turn the corner on the next page so when we're looking at this North elevation it's sort of a a sister or cousin or sibling if you will uh to the South elevation but it's downplayed a little bit and it's softened because what we're trying to do here is ADD even more vegetation not only at uh grade but also at levels two three and four if you will and so those become great planter boxes to soften that edge and we have this Frame built of primarily all of the same materials Shannon mentioned the idea of the passageway that's further to the West we have a a garage access that is in the middle here and then the surface NE to the East and then as we talked about earlier uh the trash enclosure uniquely enough the East Elevation we we

[97:01] do this deliberately but we have a uh blank facade if you will there's no fenestration maybe it's a better way to say that and what we're trying to do here is respect the neighbors because we are in close proximity we're really trying to make sure that there's a sort of a neighborly response there and we don't have views going back and forth within a relatively close proximity here uh stepping to the next topic here this is looking at the children's museum that Shannon showed uh a little bit earlier and we just want to elaborate upon that without getting into too much detail but this is showing the elevations of three sides and then the existing uh footprint and the elevations that we really want to focus on is really at the East Elevation down below what you'll see is that that Eastern facade was built or conceived to be built right on the property line it was going to be blank and there are going to be murals but nothing else and and you can see how this is also 55 feet tall it covers

[98:00] essentially the same expans along the east property line which I think is an important point to note especially as we pivot to this next one I don't want to belabor this too too much here but there was this declaration of use that was uh provided and required we're not quite sure what the uh Builder developer owner did with that and how they communicated that to the residents but you can see that initially uh the facade was conceived as something that was a little bit simpler flatter cleaner uh with very little uh finra there was a request by the planning board at that time to figure out a way to articulate that more not necessarily with balconies or Windows but what was conceived ultimately is in what is in place here is on the lower right hand corner uh so has high quality materials and such but it wasn't really taking into account this declaration of use this one one's a really important slide to think about when we're looking at the basic mass and form but I think more importantly is looking at how this

[99:00] building sets back not only on Kenyon Boulevard but especially on the East facade uh we don't have the calculations here today but I think it's roughly about 3,200 square feet of area that was pulled back at each level starting at level two on up and uh we're pulling this back as Shannon mentioned about six feet at the minimum and that's really at the staree and then we're pulling back more and more and more we have a use by right to be able to go to the property landine but we think this is best for both parties it really does create views and earlier on at a design Advisory board meeting we did present uh views from the atet looking at the flat irons and for the majority of those they're still preserved until you get to the alley side and then this is showing the overall site plan again about a minute left so I just wanted to I'm sorry yeah sure great thank you uh this is really showing an emphasis with regard to site

[100:00] access and really loading and trash so the primary Hotel entry is still off of Walnut and the guest rooms above can access there the primary access to the Civic use is on the southwest corner the hotel loading and trash is all dedicated in this place it is not going to have recycling bins outside and then the four yard waist bins that are located along the the alley are solely for the Civic use and there is no cross I guess uh usage if you will so this is where we are thank you thank you um we'll go to some uh questions from the board uh I may start one off and then um have others chime in uh a question for the applicant um you mentioned the idea in in comparison with with um you know the the children's museum that was approved at 55 ft when you look at those

[101:00] plans uh it had uh access from the public it had a museum shop um it had other things where the public could engage with the building and you talked about this being an extension of the um your words it was a community Gathering space base camp Etc MH what aspects of this building will be open to the public and how will the public engage with it um are there are there spaces like like I I didn't see any in the plan but I'm just kind of curious if you can outline what the ground floor spaces are and how the public engage with it like let's say the museum was kind of viewed I think as part of that so curious sure where your thoughts are I want to get to the I think this would this plan here I apologize for the audience this is a smaller plan but I think this does a

[102:01] good job that Civic use Museum and dance scooo was still something that you had to pay to enter perhaps there were fewe days I'm not sure um but that's a similar way that the hotel is operating and similar way that the Civic use will operate and so there it's really an Open Stage so that could be scho be for dance it could be for art galleries it could be for conferences meetings uh uh dispute rle sh it can be anything for folks when we're looking at the actual plan and I want to get back to a larger plan of this when we're looking at this what you'll see in sort of an off yellow tone if you will is that Civic use or Civic event space and then along the north are restrooms everything that's in Blue and Gray on the right is support space so we have a catering kitchen we have storage for chairs things of that nature but everything that is in sort of this off yellow or cream color is really the Civic portion of that and everything else is supporting okay so there's

[103:01] nothing open to the public except for if you want to rent the facility and come into agreement with that's right okay got it um one other question uh and this is kind of a a macro question with the new hotels on the hill that have come up um and what you have going on at the St Julian I'm curious um to understand if there are economic needs relative to this structure and the 39 Keys along with the additional conference space that are important to the hotel because you've got new competitors entering the market and new product I don't know if you have any thoughts on that but I'm just curious as sort of background on why why this is important verse just leaving it be which is not a great idea either but sure uh I don't know if Bruce could answer this as the architect we don't deal with the financial assist sure of

[104:00] course hi Bruce pelli uh managing member of the St Julian Partners yeah you know the uh we were always trying to uh comply with the Civic use and if I can just give a little historical background is that uh when we bought the property in 1994 it was under the 1988 urban renewal plan and Civic use wasn't actually a an element uh interestingly we took title in December of 94 and and the city council had a study session in February of 95 and started talking about buying the property land banking it uh let's put in a Civic use uh even though what we're doing is actually original intent of the 1988 urban renewal plan which was a Hotel and Conference Center so as we went on and actually before the collage Children's Museum there there was there was the tea house there was the train depot there was the uh was a number of other uses at the when we

[105:01] started getting close to construction drawings of the collage Children's Museum was the front runner at the time and so the all the structure in the garage was built for the Children's Museum and uh when they withdrew for various reasons um we all worked to try to get the uh the History Museum to take their interest and uh they decline they studied it declined uh Village Arts Coalition was a dance studio they they looked at it then declined it's not an easy thing for a Civic building because there's no fee simple interest in it it's it's a it's a Condominium Association and there's no there's no long-term rights to it per se um the there's a the CID is a the garage is a condominium unit the St Julian is a condominium unit the and uh the actual pad getting back to one of the earlier questions whether the city has any interest in it the the pad is actually a

[106:01] limited common element of the St Julian condo unit so the city interest or the cagent interest would be probably somewhere in the below the the airspace and or the ceiling of the garage getting that's trying to a long way around kind of getting where we are so uh when we all kept trying to do a cdic use and people uh it started people started talking about private uses and well you know well uh we'll have a private use but part of the private use will will give to a a Civic user or do something else and we'd say well wait a minute if there's going to be private uses on this site then then we'll be the private use and the the meeting space actually if you think back is is always considered uh it actually should have always been considered a Civic use because what the city wants is economic Vitality a vibrant downtown and it's bringing in people to downtown so with the hill yeah

[107:02] there is more space up on the hill but if you talk to a lot of downtown business owners they would say what you're doing on the hill is great but don't forget about downtown downtown still needs there's there's low vacancy rates in the office buildings there's restaurants still trying to reopen it's uh this this uh extra meeting space yeah it actually because this has been in the work since since before the hill properties were were on the drawing board uh but I think everyone feels like it still makes sense in 2019 uh when the city council was a was uh approving this and signing the agreements people were fairly excited they said this is great and you know we thought St julan did not let the clock expire and run out uh we said Gee thousands literally thousands of man hours thousands of person hours with all the Civic use task forces were spent years I think one of the uh someone was

[108:02] quoted as saying it was 15 exhaustive years actually it was it was more than 15 years and to actually come up with something that had some element of Civic use to it I think people were happy that at least finally something was getting done so do we need it yeah it makes us more competitive but does the town need it yeah it actually helps down Town bowler more than uh more than having meeting space out in East bowler or having meeting spaced up on the hill I don't even though to us it's not that far um I wouldn't I wouldn't assume that everyone feels like Chi the hill the hill and the in downtown Boulder is the same feel it's not there's going to be a lot of people at wannabe downtown and a lot of these I I don't want to I don't want to cut you off but but I just want to give time for the board members to ask I I think you answered enough of my question appreciate that go ahead I do have a follow-up question

[109:01] that's probably appropriate for you I'm sorry tell me your name again I'm sorry name your name again please Bruce Bruce Portell thank you um in the uh applicant statement you estimate that half of the room would be rented 75% on average each day for 70% of the year for events by nonprofits so this equates to nonprofits spending about $1,350 and maybe there's some escalation there because I think this estimate was from like 2013 but you know over $1,300 renting this space 255 days out of the year do you have have you talked with nonprofits in Boulder and you have this level of interest that 255 days of the year nonprofits are going to want to spend over $1,300 well you know early on sorry early on when we were having these surveys done in conjunction with the city or the downtown management

[110:01] commission and we we hosted meetings we brought in as many nonprofits as we could Josie Heath was involved uh with the Community Foundation and and uh um yeah nobody was signing up saying yeah by the time you get built we we commit to this space or that space but everyone felt like yeah there is demand if if you build it we'll we'll use it but the using is is the different sizes these are not all 150 300 person groups a lot of nonprofits just want to room for 20 30 people in fact most of even on our for-profit side most of our groups are less than a 100 people and a lot of the uh when you say the space the space is divisible some of the nonprofits yeah they they meet in one room but they eat in another or vice versa and I want to bring up another element of the civicness to it because and this is

[111:01] something that is not being done on the hill or other properties but we what we agreed to was for the nonprofits didn't have to if they catered it they didn't have to use St Julian Services uh we have a list of or we'll keep updating a list of uh of approved Caterers and that's that's a big it's a big deal uh the fact that uh we can't you know any hotel if you want food and beverage you can't charge whatever you want they can they it can be competitive and they can order catering from from a from a list of people we just want to have some control and the city does as well so that the space doesn't become uh abused uh but that shouldn't be underestimated too the fact that because that's how okay thank you I think I think you've answered my question but just just to clarify you think that 250 days of the year you will have a nonprofit in that space renting about half of that space or more yeah or on average I mean you could say there

[112:01] could be three groups in one day and one group in the next day I mean this is this is trying to say not 255 straight days 255 user days okay thank you quick couple quick Transportation questions um to date have you ever run out of parking for an event uh the garage hasn't that I know of I mean there's six yeah when I when I say if you run out of parking I'm including the cage the multi-level cage garage Street have you ever said oh my gosh we shouldn't have booked this event we're having a yeah we have you know uh we have what we call our valet spaces and yeah things get very busy sometimes we just uh we close that down or we keep

[113:03] it only to uh to overnight I don't know if everyone can hear you in the back so maybe you could speak up so the uh our spaces have gotten full our hotel spaces but there's five acres of Park and below grade there's 656 spaces and to my knowledge that the the garage has never been packed or full okay well I'm sorry when you say our spaces how many valet spaces do you have well technically it's 100 but it's valet so we could put more than a 100 in our spaces and and that goes to uh when you think of trips hotel guest we have 200 rooms we have 100 parking spaces and that really takes care of her overnight guest having additional hotel rooms does not mean additional or roughly 50% of of uh of single occupant users thank

[114:00] you and do you have any sort of partnership with bcycle in the application there's some mention of like yeah there's U we have some micromobility stations nearby but do you actually have a partnership with bcycle or any other micromobility uh vendor for your specific to your guest or a program with them actually we give uh we we allow we have bicycles for our guest to use um so the uh there isn't I think there was a b cycle station on the Walnut uh in front of the med for a while and and it wasn't getting utilization whatever so I think that b cycle station was moved to uh uh over to Pearl or or further where they get the utilization on the corner of uh Canyon and Ninth there's a there's a green lime Scooter Station and I think that's getting heavy

[115:01] utilization so there so that seems to be staying put okay that's it thank you um my questions are for the architect thank you uh so let me see um I will start with just some specifics you mentioned that you see this um addition to the site overall site um as an extension of the living room can you um and this is kind of following up on some of the questions George was asking about can you elaborate how the public would engage a living room extension sure uh let me think about how to do that more precisely I think it's just that maybe living room isn't exactly the right term U but folks can it's your term I'm sorry I just used your term no no no no I appreciate that

[116:02] uh I think it's an extension of the living room in the sense of it's it's a place where the public can come together but it's not a living room in the sense of it's free so when we're looking at this figure ground that's on this slide right here you can see all of the areas that are shaded and darker are to some degree Public Access but largely they're really not it's really primarily when you think of the gillions uh when you think of the bar in the lobby Lounge when you think of the meeting spaces in the boardrooms this is really an extension of that same basic approach and it still tries to capture the views to the flat irons it tries to engage as much as it can with Kenyan Boulevard not withstanding the fact that we have to be raised because of the flood plane I don't know if that answers your question a little no it doesn't really um so if there if if the actual enclosed building is not being used for an event how does the public engage this um

[117:00] addition how is this addition how do we feel welcome as this is part of our of our C of Civic use and you know given the fact that the Civic use really almost took a backseat here which I understand um I'm just trying to understand how the public um yeah I I hear what you're saying I think I understand uh and and I think it's very similar to the rest of the building and rest of any any um any structure known right whether it's a municipal building such as the one that we're within whether it is a house whether it is a restaurant there's going to be times of higher activity and then times of lower activity and during the times of lower activity there's still this pedestrian passageway that we're trying to enrich with with uh artwork with landscape with the paving system with lighting and and then connections and Views and so that is really the public

[118:01] Armature there there's also some bike racks in the middle so I think we'll act in a somewhat similar way that passageway will act in a somewhat similar way as today but it's it's much more curated of an experience where there's going from one zone to the next to the next there's something that's unique about each sort of segment of this as you pass from the North to the South or vice versa I don't know if that answers your question a little bit better um it it leapt to my kind of biggest question and concern which is with this passageway which really is important to um as as an area right is connecting um this part of the Civic site of the correct Boulder Park and all and the creek and all across to the Pearl Street Mall so that's a really really important um passageway and um when I look at those at those sketches those um uh drawings

[119:02] there they don't feel very human they don't feel very friendly um and so I'm I'm wondering about there's a lot of um criteria around open space and given that this is part of the open space for the whole project right um I'm I'm looking for it meeting that criteria for The Human Experience for what's The Pedestrian experiencing um and I'll just give you an example of what I'm wondering about so the if I'm coming from the Pearl Street Mall and I'm zigging my way next to the downramp go across the alley and come to the widest part right the widest part of your um passage there and you know then

[120:00] we look we're looking there where that bicycle is right at the bottom of those we're seeing that and that out there at the other end is the narrow it gets really narrow before it opens up that's the view of the flat irons or should be the view of the flat irons um so it seems like it's kind of backwards the biggest the biggest experience is happening on the Alley and the tightest experience is happening you know so I'm just curious as to the criteria for open space and how that um kind of fulfills it Beyond these pictures is there more information there is more information we don't have all of our landscape plans here I I apologize for not bringing that but there are Paving patterns we're bringing in uh brick and other types of behaviors here trying to deal with the grades here which are rather shallow so we have to get creative with how we're mitigating water and how that transfers

[121:01] through um relative to the Views what we really focused on was that pedestrian easement that you can see that uh runs diagonally that was something that originated even when the initial idea of the Civic use was conceived and that was always on the diagonal it was never intended to go directly north south and so we're playing off of that and that uh it's hard to describe I guess and it's somewhat subjective but this idea of expansion and compression is something that is really uh creates a rich space when it's just a single shot it it doesn't work quite as well and of course that is a very subjective notion um but we're trying to create that intimacy and connection and compression right where the passages are happening so there are two elevators there's three or four doors there and they're all interfacing we want to make sure that that connection is happening and then it releases again on the south side where you have that accessible ramp that we were discussing earlier and then there seating areas there as well as as

[122:01] you get to that view so there's a sense of excitement and suspension if you will thank you um thank you for that uh I have I have that uh additional question it was about the um the mezzanine the mezzanine for the mechanical sure so am I if I'm understanding your drawings the uh you've got the mechanical kind of off to the North and then Center is that just volume is that what what you're calling a m it's a volume for the Civic space that's yeah sure that's right and and so the floor to floor on that first floor that Civic use space right uh is about 20 feet and because of the large trunks because of transfer beams because of a lot of sort of technical things addressing structure and mechanical uh we we needed that whole 20 ft to get to that volume and then on the Northern

[123:00] portion where we were mentioning you can see here in the plan we have circulation we have restrooms we have stairs we have kitchen back of house circulation supporting spaces storage Etc that's where we locate the mezzanine and it's and it's a delicate balance but it's something very very similar to how it was addressed with the original s so the salmon colored area is where the mechanical is that's right and I I didn't show this at uh before and Sharon I'm sorry Shannon showed this earlier uh but here is a section cutting east west through there and you can see most of this is Civic use and then there's a small mechanical area that's uninhabited um most of this is really simply for duct work and then if we go back up you can see another version of that so it's even though it is considered a story by code it really is supplement for mechanical only okay I I get it and and all of the mechanical didn't fit in there not all of it we need some that is

[124:01] on the rooftops with cooling tower and things of that nature that need to be outside okay those are my questions thank you so much thanks ml go ahead Kurt I wanted to follow up on ml's question regarding The Pedestrian pathway I asked uh staff about the ramp on the South Side based on your your knowledge of the codes is that so the existing ramp that is to the left as you're going north of the stairs there is that something you could build by code today to the best of my knowledge it is I don't know if we've really examined that but it accessibility hasn't really changed relative to the ramp slope it's been 112 for as long as we've been Architects uh 25 30 years something like that so I would have to we would have to look at that very closely but we don't believe that there's anything that has changed with regard to the slope nor the Turning radi okay of course we're not uh designing

[125:00] for bikes per se in that application right okay and then one more question about that and that regards that column on the Southwest no northwest corner there this here um yeah I'm I'm not seeing yeah but that right what is the distance between the edge of that column and the wall the wall to the east the wall of the space I don't know that off top of my head um but just looking at it in proportion it's probably about four to five feet four to five feet yeah okay did you look at the possibility of eliminating that column definitely yeah we we've looked at a lot of structural um gymnastics through this process being able to transfer the slab was a very large one uh looking at trans tring of can this was another and uh we're a little bit limited based on the structure below and so we were forced to utilize the structural uh grid that was established

[126:02] below okay and did you look at pulling the corner of the building back further I think it would infringe on I think that's the women's bathroom there that's right did you look at pulling that back any just to open that up more we did there's been uh a balance of trying to get all of these so Port spaces the restrooms the service the loading the trash all of those along that small facade it's a rather small facade for a facility of this uh caliper if you will or in intricacy if you will okay thank you thank you any other questions go ahead Mason um a quick question about theou uh for the nonprofits it says that uh individual nonprofits May reserve the facility up to 3 days per year which may not include successive weeks uh and it goes on am I reading that to it does say

[127:01] if excessive days greater than three days in succession are agreed um does that mean that not for profits can have more than three days in a year reserved actually that Clause it was done in conjunction with uh U with the staff with the DMC and and such and I what it was intended was that uh there's actually if you look at our exhibit there's like 261 nonprofits in Boulder Valley and and that list was just as a base to uh and if we didn't want collectively we in the city didn't want seven groups doing one day a week for all 52 weeks so someone could potentially tie up the whole facility for uh for every day for for year so we'd said okay you know we'll limit it to a certain number of days but uh obviously if if there's a one group

[128:00] and they have a multi-day art festival or if there's some other group that's in for days it's uh we certainly work with them it's it's just a matter of trying not to have one group tie up the facility week after week or for two length of a time great yeah that makes sense and I think this question might be for the architect I was hoping you could expand on the proposed dry flood proofing sign and it's compliance with FEMA and City requirements I'm sorry I'm not hearing you very well oh um could you could you expand upon the pro proposed Dy uh flood proofing design and its compliance with feminity requirements so the garage is the garage is already Drive flood proved uh let me I know that's not exactly your question but it leads to the answer here uh this plan might show it so so while while we're talking I'm purposfully talking loud if everyone can kind of

[129:01] speak up in their mics because I think I think some people are having trouble hearing us sure sorry about that um there's Drive flood proofing already for the garage including the entry to the garage from the uh from Walnut street but the building also has uh it's designed to have Tri flood proofing as well so that's in the wall construction it's in the windows curtain wall and in the doors and I forget the exact height but I think it's anywhere from 2 to 4 feet above the Finish Lor height so I'm not sure if I I could get into greater detail but essentially that complies with FEMA's requirements that's all I got Claudia so I have excuse me two questions having to do with the site and building design and I'd like to start with the question of the East facade of the building where you've chosen to pull that back from the property line um and eliminate windows and I understand your your strategy there is to provide some

[130:01] relief um to the neighboring neighboring building but I'm not seeing much else um in the way of design on that side and I wonder if you can explain a bit more about your design considerations on the side of the building are there options um that respect the privacy of that neighboring building but also acknowledge in some way that this um this building that you're proposing will become the new view for some of those neighboring residences sure so first off we we mentioned this a little bit uh earlier but we were looking at the ett and I think that we should commend them for high quality materials that are on their facade largely sandstone a little bit of Stucco towards the back curtain wall uh glass can be Etc and we tried to emulate that and reflect that in our construction as well so when you look at this uh everything that isn't right at the building property line is uh Sandstone Limestone interlocking metal sink panels and a small portion of Stucco on the rear facade and we did

[131:02] talk about the windows we talked about murals I think we're open to any of those but we just really want to respect the neighbors's privacy and we didn't want to presume that they would want a certain piece of art which you could imagine be rather subjective but we're definitely open to those types of ideas as well and second question is transportation related so I was looking at your transportation demand management plan the trip generation reports in there and there was some discussion um about bicycle parking and this idea that the the long-term bike parking that's already part of the facility um is somewhat undersubscribed but that there may be more opportunities for short-term bicycle parking in conjunction with an event space um so I just wanted to to follow up on what is the location of any additional planned short-term bike parking in this proposal and how would users of the facility interact with that

[132:01] like where are the entrances what are the pathways through the site for people arriving by bike hi my name is Jen nean I'm with 4240 also um Matt do you have planes in here the garage planes yeah sorry oh the garage No I um on parking level one so one floor down from the uh main level of the convention area we have um enclosed caged long-term parking we've also added additional short-term parking um based on restrictions in the flood plane we're not allowed to put bike parking along Canyon so we are trying to find other areas where we could add additional short-term parking we've added some along the corridor but the bike parking in the garage is literally adjacent to the elevator so the idea is you bike into the garage down the ramp you park your bike and then you come up through the elevator okay and is the is the existing

[133:00] ramp signed and designed for that use or is that an addition that needs to be made in this proposal I I do not I do not believe the additional ramp was intended for that purpose originally the hotel elevator excuse me the garage access elevator that is there is sized to accommodate a bik bike so if I'm being honest I I would probably want to take my bike down the elevator and go down but some might choose to try and go down that ramp if it's more accessible for them if they're on Walnut Street okay and is there any surface level um short-term bicycle parking provided in this proposal there is there's additional existing bike parking on Walnut Street I believe there's a couple on 9th and then there's also a series of racks that we've put in the actual pedestrian Corridor okay thank you hi I have a question about the calculation of alternative Community benefit is there someone here who can speak to that Bruce can speak to that

[134:02] okay so here's my question I'm looking at the packet where you talk about you calculate the costs of the building including the construction of the building the annual operating cost your property taxes your Staffing cost and then I see an offset of the rental payments at estimated for the Civic user groups and then you subtract that and you get community benefit but did you in any way account for the revenue that is being generated by the market rate rentals well the no because I mean this is also assuming that it could be all Civic we don't we don't really know so it's built to to provide to uh the to the nonprofits and actually even the revenue from the uh if you go through our agreements it's it's uh it's intended to be cost neutral to St Julian so in conjunction with the city we have to show the cost of utilities and maintenance and repairs and things like

[135:00] that to see what we're charging the Civic users is is somewhat netting out it's not intended that St Julian make any money on the Civic users uh now whether it doesn't include if we do have private users in and rent to them or um because a lot of times on a private side isn't rent we're letting private users use the space and uh we we have room rentals we've got food and beverage or other things so it's not it's not Apples to Apples but as far as the uh the benefit to the actual Civic users that are uh it's on it's on us to provide very good detailed records and accounting and of the revenue and costs so so you're not assuming any Revenue at all from market rate r of this facility not for uh for Community benefits no I'm not asking about the community benefit users I'm asking about the market rate because you've you've said here's here's

[136:00] what this facility costs us to own and operate and then you've said here's the revenue that we'll be getting or you know here's the benefit to the community to the nonprofit groups but what about the other uses of this space that accre to the St Julian um are you looking to the nonprofit private users of that space and we we have Revenue off the off for profit uses of that space yes are you anticipating that yeah so we're we're not assuming that because it's a more complicated if if there is any for-profit use it may not be through room rental okay thank you um we're getting we're getting pretty deep into things so I'd ask the board to try to try to make precise questions and so we can move forward to the public participation anybody else have um burning questions that we need to ask the applic okay nope okay great thank you um does anyone need a break up here

[137:01] if not I think we'll start with um public participation uh assuming and so um as we mentioned at the outset we we have a lot of speakers I'm not sure how many speakers we might or might not have online we're not sure yet right um but we have at least 25 speakers in the room um so I'd ask that everyone try to keep their comments to two minutes uh you'll get um you'll get you you have a two-minute clock that will start um uh when you introduce yourself uh and we'll start with um Peter Neil then Stan Garrett then Steve shafor shafor so apologies if I mispronounce anyone's name name in advance chair this is viian online would it be okay if I just read out um some of

[138:00] the pooling time rules before we start yeah absolutely okay and I actually um develop just a quick little slide so that people can follow along um so as the chair mentioned tonight each speaker will have two minutes um to provide their testimony and we ask that you introduce yourself provide your address and share any uh relevant affiliation or financial business interest um and tonight we're trying something new which is pulling of time or we're allowing pulling of time and I'll just explain what that is and how it will work um so three or more people may choose to pull their time and what this means is that they designate one person who will speak on behalf of that group and that one person would have five minutes to speak and for that to happen each of those uh people have to be present either online or in person um and so either if if the designated

[139:01] speaker is online then only that person should raise their virtual hand uh if it's in person then they should sign up to speak and then when that person introduces himself they must also tell us that they are um they the time is being pulled so that they'll have five minutes and they must identify the three or more people who have given up their time and will not speak because they've designated somebody and give us those first and last names and then we will have to confirm with each of those persons that they have indeed given up their time so those are the that's how pulling time works and we'll go ahead with speakers in person and then move to our online speakers but I do ask that um for those members of the public joining us online please go ahead and and raise your hands so we can start to see how many people um online wish to speak thank you go ahead please introduce

[140:03] yourself no no press the uh press the button and you'll see a red light at the mic okay uh my name is Peter Neil I'm uh I have no uh Financial benefit from this speech tonight I think we're asked to mention that uh I'm the probably newest president in the ett my wife and I moved in just about three months ago um I my concern I think you can see there's a lot of displeasure as a result of the St Julian deciding to build the 6,000 square foot uh building on the Civic useth pad and what I wondered many people approached the St Julian and said how about a one or two story structure something that would give Civic use something that could be uh a beautiful structure different things were suggested there was no uh

[141:00] desire on the St Julians to even dialogue about that so I started to wonder what is so important about a 60,000 foot structure the expressed intent of the St Julian is that they they will use the 60,000 feet and they'll put 39 Extended Stay rooms into that structure they need to do that to generate the income to to finance the $50 million that is needed to build the structure I did a little bit of arithmetic and I looked at Google and I looked at what is the room rate for an Extended Stay room on average it's about $100 to $300 per night um I gave them $300 and I at a0 65 occupancy rate over a year and that calculates to about $2.75 million the opportunity cost on $50 million at even 10% is $5 million so it doesn't make sense that these Extended Stay rooms are going to pay for

[142:00] themselves in addition to that I took the 45,000 square feet that they say they'll put these 39 extended rooms in divided that 45 by 39 and it comes out to 1150 Square ft per per room the national average for Extended Stay room I'm have to cut you off if you want to finish your sentence I'm sorry the national average is 400 to 600 square feet for an Extended Stay room why does the St Julian need thank you thank you appreciate yeah you um you you can email your comments if if you like um if you didn't get something out that you wanted to so thank you I appreciate it uh yeah and it's it for everyone's benefit to to the extent that you can tell your comments the two minutes I think that's going to be really important to make sure you get your major points across thank you I want to be as precise as Lyn seagull if I can um good evening my name

[143:02] is Stan Garnett I'm a lawyer I represent uh the group protect Boulder Civic space most of the folks here tonight are that group and we really appreciate the chance to talk to you tonight I want to tell you too in my long career 42 years as a trial lawyer I've served on a lot of boards like this and we really really appreciate your work uh I know how hard it is I know how committed you all are to doing the right thing and to being fair and we appreciate that I'm not going to talk very substantively because I only have two minutes um I want to kind of set the table for what you're going to hear for all these folks who are great people and we've tried to be precise and focus on things we think you need to hear about this I will note as a trial lawyer I'm very attuned to what we call procedural fairness and people were a little frustrated we couldn't get extended times to do a presentation like the applicant did but I think we can lay it all out both in the papers that we did and what people are going to say basically we're going to ask you to

[144:02] treat this neighborhood the same way you would treat any neighborhood in Boulder the people you're going to hear from are people that are going to be impacted by this and we ask you to apply the criteria in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan and in the boulder code to make sure that their interests are protected just like any Community I uh my office is at 900 rapo I talk to folks about Boulder stuff all the time and a lot of people have said to me why would anybody care what happens that's not really a neighborhood that's just a bunch of people in a condominium bottom line is the boulder that I know and that I've lived in my whole life treats everybody the same even people that live in a nice condominium in downtown Boulder deserve the same consideration and attention to the impact on their neighborhood that somebody in Martin Park or Table Mesa or any other part of Boulder that's all we ask you to hear and to listen tonight because you're going to hear specific observations about all the things that are brought up

[145:01] here and and that's what we ask you to consider thank you very much Steve schaer and chair if I may just to let everyone know in the room um there have been a few folks that have submitted um visual aids so and Steve is the first one so I'll be displaying that on the screen as as well great thank you thank you so my name is Steve schaer me I am a resident of the irat um I apologize for the small pictures all of these images are in the the applicants presentation when I first heard that this extension of the uh St Julian was going to be built I the first thing I did was walk across the street into the park and look at this View and imagine what it was like with this building in

[146:01] it and my impression was that it feels out of scale to what else is there and there are a number of issues that other people will bring up in the bbcp uh my concern is about scale and mass and when I look at this building if you look at the top you can see that the other buildings on either side the ett to the East and the St Julian to the West are very interesting structures the St Julian is the same height but curved and the ared is a variety of setbacks patios decks to create a very interesting View and this building is essentially a large rectangular block block um it certainly has some interesting Design Elements and it is designed to reflect the ett but in general it looks very different from the

[147:03] other buildings and this is the last open place literally in Boulder certainly on Canyon which is the view that people often get introduced to Boulder through and I believe that there is a way to have this building modified to fit better into the rest of the view from the south of Canyon and really create the kind of VI visual we want in Boulder thank you very much thank you and I'll ask uh Mitch Ember Mark ML mlin and then Mark plink I'll try to put some people on Deck as we go forward appreciate it thank you uh my wife I'm MIT chimber and

[148:01] I live at the ett my wife and I have lived at the ett on the second floor in the middle of the building facing the alley for 13 and a half years uh it's our full-time and only residence Our Deck and balcony Overlook the alley uh we prefer to keep our windows open as much as possible so I I just have a couple of things about living there and I'm uh cognizant of what Urban living is so let me just read a couple of things before during and after construction the alley must be kept open for through traffic commercial vehicles backing out of the alley either have OSHA backup beeping or use their horns constantly to back out of the alley um so hopefully we won't increase that uh construction staging must not block the alley with vehicles or construction parking just small stuff workers must be told that they're in a no smoking Zone

[149:02] and adhere to that and not come under our deck and windows uh for smoking uh the middle of the alley is designated as the loading zone it's really worked out well since it's been that way prior to that people knew they could park in the alley all day get out of their cars and go to work construction people too because there were no signs the city making a a designated loading zone has worked well that needs to be continued to be enforced delivery trucks for the Julian and previously the med uh park in that loading zone and deliver with dollies uh to to the um to the Julian often times they're running their engines for long periods of time it must have been cooperative when I ask them to turn them off some say they can't for refrigeration equipment or liftgate controls so we we have that and the last thing I want to say is uh we know with

[150:01] our windows closed dumping recycle from 55 gallon containers into the recycle we hear it in our bedroom with the windows closed thank thank you uh Mark mlin then Mark plank Then Pete Doric is is Mark mlin here if not we'll um we'll move to uh Mark plink and then um we'll I'll just highlight Mark ml oh sorry I also live in the so um could you could you speak into the into the mic just bend it bend it towards your your face yeah thank you appreciate I'm Martin mcdi I also live

[151:01] in the ett uh this building won't affect my view so I'm not here about the view I'm here about I understood that when this was going to happen it was supposed to be a mixed use when the people from Boulder supposed to use it now I haven't heard one thing thing about how you're going to get the regular people in Boulder Colorado to come down to do something in this in their building in this what they're what they're doing to enhance the experience of the boulder people to come downtown I thought that part of this was that the people were supposed to be able to come downtown and enjoy this okay you have two new hotels coming in with same kind of convention stuff that these guys have they also have their own so what's the deal I mean other than building another monolithic building here it doesn't seem like it does anything for the citizens of

[152:01] Boulder and the taxpayers I think that's something important that's all I have to say thank you uh Mark plink and then Pete Doric looks like Mark you have a presentation yeah great yes hi my name is Mark plinka um I live in North Boulder I own a greenhouse company in Boulder 25 employees we buil green houses for heads of state um overseas we built hundred million facilities for strawberries and other fun crops and we built have built at least 20 backyard green houses in Boulder and um the surrounding area we came up with another idea of how to use the Civic space because the question came up um is the community

[153:02] benefit of what is suggested by the San Julian enough and here is an idea of something that could look differently it could have the possibility of having weddings my kids are grow up in this town they're going to school here they are luckily not quite getting there yet but um boyfriends and girlfriends are showing up and there's no place in town that I would have a wedding for them or organize a wedding for them so I'm wondering if this is an alternative worth considering and I thought maybe I asked the board if they had questions about what that could be or for me as a expert in greenhous so so we we typically don't engage in a in a back and forth in this period okay that's fine I mean I'm just saying it's

[154:01] it's another alternative that we could do um and um I think that's it then thank you thank you um we'll go to Pete Doric and then uh sidowski hi Pete Doric I live in North Boulder as well I have no ties to to the ett or any Financial ties to the project and my main concern is that this is another monotheistic wall in Boulder you know we've got a lot of new buildings that take up a lot of space and it seems like we're not giving consideration to an up and down look to streetscape and by putting a five-story building here I think we're missing an opportunity to keep more openness to the flat irons which obviously is a big part of boulders character and like you to consider uh what I'd always heard when I I've been here a long time in fact this used to be called The People's lot not just a parking lot and I remember taking

[155:01] the bus from there and I remember going to the chamber when it was there um so it's gone through a lot of iterations but the one thing that's always been consistent is that Boulders got a character of openness and Views to the flat iron so again I'd like you to consider a two-story building which is something that from the very beginning I think was really pushed in the newspapers when we were talking about changing the citizens lot to the St Julian great addition to Boulder now we've got other buildings around it that I think the character of which will be spoiled by having just a five-story box sitting on Canyon Boulevard okay I'll give up more but thank you uh sidowski and then Hubert farbs hello my name is sidowski I'm an attorney also here on behalf of the protect Boulder Civic space group want

[156:01] to use my time to focus on safety and this pedestrian walkway that the St Julian has proposed as this safe clean delineated area if any of you have ever walked through this area you would know that that is not the case there are dumpsters in the right of way there are constantly delivery trucks large trash collection vehicles and other vehicles parked there for hours on end throughout the day it's congested and it's dangerous and these trash bins are out in the open not behind any enclosure now and to believe that after we add another 60,000 square foot building here that somehow all of the trash will somehow now be behind a screen area is not believable further adding guest spaces where you're going to have hundreds of guests piling in and out of this Alleyway on top of the already congested area with big vehicles parked there moving back and forth is going to make

[157:00] this a dangerous place for pedestrians this is not a safe clean delineated walkway where pedestrians are going to enjoy going from Canyon to Walnut Street they're going to be weaving in and out of big vehicles parked there engines running as we've heard and it's just simply not not safe and also importantly it's not safe for patrons and residents in the area this congestion makes it impossible for any emergency vehicles to respond adequately to any sort of emergency be it fire or medical emergency the alleyway is too blocked up as it is and adding this giant 60,000 SQ foot monolithic block right there is only going to make it worse this building is too big and out of place for this area in Boulder thank you thank you uh Hubert farbs and then Cindy

[158:01] Lindsay good evening board members I'm Hubert farbs I'm a lawyer and I'm representing the protect Boulder group that you've heard from already what I'd like to do is go straight to the point there is a requirement in Boulder that a variance from a height limitations is supported you've already focused on this issue so I'll just repeat some of the things that you've already started there's an alternative Community Development precept that is unsupported here Beyond speculation yes it is true that one could calculate a benefit of $640,000 from what's proposed here but there is no evidence that the need and desire for utilization of this space by nonprofits a laudable concept is actually going to

[159:01] occur and the responsibility for demonstrating that reliable predicate is the applicant's responsibility what I would say to you further is that the people who live in this region who are organized in the organization I represent those people are are interested in the proper and appropriate development of a Civic youth space they have sought collaboration with this applicant to accomplish that purpose and been rejected what we would ask of this board is that you hold the applicant accountable to the responsibility for a viable predicate for a height variant that does not exist here we ask you to treat that proposal cons consistent with its content thank you thank you um Cindy Lindsay and then Craig

[160:00] mcon my name is Cindy Lindsay and I live in the ett I want to follow on to some of the points that Sid made around safety that's the biggest issue for me I've had a couple of close calls in that Alleyway with trucks and cars zooming around and my main concern is there's a very very nice walkway from Walnut to the alley the proposal has a very nice walkway from the 10th Street area out to Canyon there's nothing that has been considered in this proposal for the safety of somebody Crossing that space between the two walkways there's no signage there's nothing proposed to Mark the The Walking area um they just there trucks there all the time and um there's just not there's nothing currently planned that helps guide people through that uh crosswalk area um and it does

[161:00] cross both the alley and also into the uh into the the top of the 10th Street area um uh the other thing that uh that I wanted to show is a photo of the uh the type of trucks and things that show up in that alley they're large they block things um the other picture is where the trash is currently located and how what the plan is to move that out of the way it's not a Pleasant area that would call somebody to to be pulled to walk through there to head over to the Civic area so it's just it's a point where there's some attention that needs to be made I've talked to the vision zero people I've talked to the traffic engineer for Boulder and to community cycles and they're all concerned that the design is not set up to be safe thank you thanks

[162:01] um Craig mcon and then Patricia dler and give me just one moment to pull your slide up to transition between you two okay thank you or your a couple of images okay okay by by my name is actually Craig man which is close um despite the significant concerns of Boulder residents the St Julian has refused to meet with adjacent Property Owners which is a requirement of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan why is the St Julian allowed to ignore this requirement the traffic study is based on 37,000 squ foot building not the 60,000 foot building that's being proposed currently the St Julian is using the Civic pad for parking large Vehicles special setups

[163:00] and Equipment delivery often taking hours to unload and load if the expansion is improved the hotel will have no other option but the 10th Street loading dock for special deliveries is this an outcome that that the city is willing to accept given the responsib ability to build a Civic event space the St Julian named it Civic but has not guaranteed that it will be used by nonprofits the hotel did not conduct the needs assessment important considering there are several new venues in the area operating on tight budgets it's necessary for nonprofits to carefully allocate resources including the selection of venues for special events what if there is not an affordable Civic need that justifies this new facility in the event that the planning board does not terminate the agreement I believe that the appropriate response now is to further consider the following ask the St Julian to engage an independent

[164:01] traffic study to assess the impacts of The Proposal two meet with residents to listen to their concerns and consider alternatives that will better serve the community three survey non-profits to determine their interest in and requirements for the use of a new venue in summary the expansion of the St Julian does not meet the criteria for civic use it does not adequately consider the traffic impacts and it has not addressed the concerns of adjacent residents I urge the planning board to consider these important issues and deny the expansion thank you um Patricia dler and then Dan dler my name is Patricia deedler it's fine and I live at the ett and I do agree with all my fellow residents for all their concerns that are there but tonight uh the reason that I am here is to be reading a letter from

[165:00] a former member of the city council George kikian and I have been uh acquainted with George for about 15 years he's sorry he cannot be here tonight but the letter as re as written is members of the planning board I served as a member the Boulder City Council from 2009 to 2015 including a term as mayor protm during my tenure and even before I was involved in a number of development projects throughout downtown Boulder including the St Julian in reviewing the current proposal put forth by St Julian I can say without hesitation I would not have voted to approve this project during my time on the council and I think many of my colleagues would have been hesitant to do so as well I agree with many of the concerns that have been put forward including adding traffic and parking issues to an already congested

[166:01] area of downtown as well as the increased number of large delivery vehicles that will come with the addition of more ballroom and hotel space further I am concerned about the mass and height proposed for this space I believe that this project needs addition additional review based on these concerns before it is approved George all right thank you and I got a I got a second chance Dan Deeter thank you and then um and then and then we have um Buffy Andrews who'll be pooling time with Carl Whitman and Doyle Alby uh they'll all need to be present in order to do that okay thank you my name is Daniel dietler on Friday October 18th I delivered a letter to miss Mohler and to you the planning board members I hope that you had an opportunity to read that letter and examine the exhibits thank you what the St Julian partners are

[167:01] proposing is not a civil use building as is noted on the drawings that they call it a civil use building it's it's bit deceptive to call it a Civic use building it is a commercial building with no proof that the Civic use aspect that was originally conceived will be uh will be used I've looked at my title policy and the appraisal of my property when I when we purchased it 2011 I was aware that something could be constructed on the pad but lot Line Construction was not communicated to me my deck will will now be immediately adjacent to this brick wall that the applicant is proposing they step it back when they get to the next floor it's not just me but Mr Neely who has the property uh near me it will will also be impacted so uh the city approved the the

[168:03] construction of my unit with those windows with the deck and now they're you are at a a Crossroads where you can approve or deny this application or make them modify it uh I respectfully ask that planning board reject the current St Julian proposal thank you thank you uh Buffy Andrews pulling time with Carrie Whitman and Doyle albe if they can just um raise their hands that they're here was this on yeah hi I'm Carrie Whitman I'll be speaking with Buffy Andrews um a Colorado Native Boulder native grew up here my whole life I'm disgusted by this um to sit at the kitchen and look at the old Daily Camera building which is now a wall this is exactly what we're doing again I own fort properties in Boulder I do not

[169:01] enlarge them I do not make them larger I do not try to make financial gain I do not live at the Rett I live on West Pearl I am very very against this project I don't understand I have a nonprofit I've never been reached out to see if I would put my nonprofit or rent that space for any reason um I'm a designer Builder um I design ethically I design sustainably um I feel like putting a monstrosity of a chunk of square footage um and not have any impact to the value of the creative side the organic side of Boulder um I I doubt that anybody will mandate the community benefit the nonprofit benefit who's going to oversee this and in 20 years what's going to happen then is it all going to be about money um so I I highly am against this project um we also did a little study

[170:00] and it shows that the what is it called again the solar aess the solar AIS panels um uh are are with the mechanical on the roof are covering 80% of the bulk plane on the solar axis panel of the ett I don't live at the Ed I don't know but it's um it's something that I'm I'm highly against and um I really hope you all consider that Boulder supposed to be an open space feeling supposed to be a small town feeling supposed to allow anybody from all ages to all Financial statuses um so I highly highly vote against this and I hope you will consider this as well you're okay okay thank you um Charlotte Keith and then tatiano

[171:11] tibo hello my name is Charlotte Keith and I moved to Boulder in 197 4 I've owned property and um Built Homes in Boulder for all those years um many times over I'm now retired and I had a choice of a number of of places to um retire to and I chose downtown Boulder I felt that um it still had that small town feel and the views were incredible well my view is the uh pad and um I'm looking directly at what will be hopefully will not be but could be a monstrous

[172:01] structure that exceeds with the mechanical I don't understand how they can exceed the height limitation and still call themselves a Civic use building when they have not been able to come up with any nonprofits I mean I'm sure that there hasn't been a big bunch of research done about that it doesn't seem like it um I like the greenhouse anyway I'm very highly opposed to this whole um structure to the height the massiveness and just the um occlusion of the feeling of open space and openness and the flat iron view thank you thank you um Tatiana tibo and then Aaron Coburn Tatiana Tiba I also live in theat

[173:01] um I want to just add to a subject about the parking garage under the Civic pad uh St Julian submitted a report uh stating that parking garage has 17 137 permits available to purchase and about 40% dur occupancy during the peak demands so this is example of how the numbers have been manipulating don'tplay the real statistic because this report is uh based on postco numbers we have the report documented report saying right here in front in front of us that um when uh pre when M Restaurants and um uh Frank CH Frank ch house were were in business their capacity of garage was way above of 60% in average and uh reaching the peak um in business uh in um in the PE hours uh also I want to say

[174:02] about the uh ared um back alley anyone who lives in a red and long enough knows how congested this area is uh so actually right here we have some images of the uh 10 Street Corridor you can see how tight it's only 20 ft wide and it's a electric Transformers there and so there are no way get two big trucks can pass by you cannot stop on this area so talking about this also area where the S julan has back up the house operation always filled with the uh with the huge trucks and try and cars try and um uh you know drive by you can see example like food delivery trucks right there blocking in Charlie uh 11 Street 10 Street Corridor and here's the recy uh truck trying to back up through the alley all the way to 11 Street maneuvering from the from the trucks so

[175:01] um I'm prepared for three minutes and I have to cut it short thank you for listening thank you uh Aaron Coburn and I apologize in advance Dennis uh joaning Meer hi everyone my name is Aaron Coburn I'm the general manager of the St Julian I also sit on the board of directors for visit Boulder um I know firsthand how important travel and tourism is to sustaining our local economy uh recent survey commissioned by downtown Boulder partnership visit Boulder and city of Boulder reported visitors spending almost double the amount per visit compared to local residents uh bringing visitors downtown uh generating economic vitality is more important now than ever especially with o office vacancies downtown still far far greater than pre-pandemic levels many downtown businesses are still suffering uh yes may through

[176:00] October Boulder can be inundated with tourists but what about the remaining six months of the year uh can we rely on locals to support downtown businesses during this time uh I'm not sure we can the Civic use extension to St Julian will offer additional downtown lodging and new meeting space that will allow civil Civic groups and nonprofits alikee to meet at all times of the year specifically in the shoulder season when our local economy needs it the most in addition programming efforts whether it be fundraisers art shows movie Nights community- based Wellness Artisan markets or other community-driven events will give people a reason to visit downtown Boulder and be reminded of what a great City we have next year the St Julian will be celebrating its 20th anniversary in Boulder and what I'm I'm proud proud of most proud of working at the St Julian is the trust that the hotels built within the community during that time and uh we have people celebrating 20th anniversaries 50th birthdays every day not every Hotel can

[177:01] say that and I know that we'll be able to create these same Traditions within the community nonprofit community and the Civic groups um and I look forward to you know being at the St Julian for a long time and very proud of what a pillar the St Julian has been in the community during that time thank you great thank you uh Dennis Johanna Meyer and then Jennifer maybry I'm Dennis johanningmeier I live at uh the ett I also have a business at 1209 Pearl Street and I'm a member of the downtown Bower partnership I live in the 600 feet notice area that's my life I want to shed some light on the applicants representations in the in the travel demand management plan uh there is is a diagram in your

[178:00] your uh papers uh the a53 it shows the pathway uh of uh access to the uh primary entrance the applicant States for guests arriving uh attending an event in the proposed Civic use space arriving at the main will arrive at the main entry of the St Julian Hotel they will then proceed to the primary entrance the primary entrance is approximately five times further from that service ENT entrance than the alleyway it's approximately 10 times further than the canyon access further the applicant represents Transportation Network companies such as Uber and Lyft are expected to use the existing hotel entrance on Walnut

[179:00] Street we've all observed the chaotic nature of these Uber drivers has anyone thought what in the heck are they stopping there for anybody well we all have I offer for your consideration that the guests will be like water and they will float the down the path way of the easiest path to their destination I ask you to reject the proposal thank you uh Jennifer maybry followed by Sophia BR books good evening my my name is Jennifer Ma and I'm a boulder native I seen and experienced the dramatic transformation of our downtown and our city during the last five decades some of the infrastructure and development has been good for our town but much of

[180:01] it has been disastrous like the permissive building of ginormous concrete cubicles across the street across the city like those constructed in 2012 at 1048 Pearl Street and 1023 Walnut Street which used to house The Daily Camera and provide beautiful mountain views for all visitors to Pearl Street to enjoy I strongly object to the St Julian Hotel ownership plans and urge Council and the planning board to reject any control over what was meant to be a public Space Mr pelli owner of the St Julian says the expansion of of his hotel will draw more visitors downtown however the city of Boulder does not lack for National exposure or recognition tour and visitors are drawn to Boulder and downtown because it is a unique public Commons nestled beneath the beautiful flat irons Mr portelli's Hotel already obstructs much of that view and now he wants to control what

[181:01] little remains and sell it to patrons and citizens that picturesque view is not intended for just a few to enjoy but for everyone Mr pelli said in an interview with a camera quote not everyone can be accommodated to all their wishes and he is right the planning board and the council have accommodated too many wishes of developers like him in the last two decades to the detriment of Boulder residents and our environment I urge you to uh I urge you to deny his request I implore you and with regard to new development in Boulder TDM it's too damn much thank you thank you um Sophia books and then Lucas devau hi my name is Sophia books I live at 19 and Canyon and I am a leadership student at CU Boulder and a volunteer

[182:00] with the United Nations Association of Boulder County which is a local nonprofit um I have been looking into Civic use spaces for a while now I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Camera back in June and I am against the 50,000 foot expansion from St Julian onto the Civic use pad so that they can create the new hotel rooms and ballrooms I think that this is very clearly building for a for-profit venture since it is a for-profit space controlled by the St Julian which is not Civic use and it's also very expensive like I said I volunteer with a nonprofit and I just planned a ballot information session for the citizens of Boulder County and I know that my organization would not be able to afford using this space because it is so expensive I also don't understand why this is a NE necessary Venture because Moxy Hotel just opened on the hill and they have an event space and hotel rooms as well also

[183:03] this expansion doesn't meet the original intent of the Civic space and it is the only space left in downtown Boulder with a view of the flat irons so I don't understand why we don't turn it into something that is used for real Civic use like a skating rank or the the greenhouse pyramid like we saw before as a student who has been involved in leadership activities on campus and planned many events this space doesn't seem to align with the student Civic use either I would love to see this space turned into something that is of its original intent and I do not support this expansion thank you thank you um Lucas Devo and then John cor Corti uh good evening my name is Lucas too and I'm a secondy year law student right here down the road at Colorado University while I'm interested in studying both real estate and L land use

[184:01] in Colorado the views I expressed today are entirely my own and are not intended to represent those of my peers the school Andor any of the faculty I've come to voice my concerns on what I believe has been a slightly misplaced cause for opposing the St Julian hotel's Expansion Project while I sympathize with concerns over block views congested Alleyway traffic and the potential diminishment of property values I do not believe these to be the appropriate grounds on which the opposition to the project should be argued rather I believe the more appropriate grounds for opposing this Expansion Project should be directly tailored toward those very Provisions that that the St Julian hotel is seeking to make height modification proposals under the height modification proposal in this instance is being analyzed under the requirement set forth by section 9214 b1e and sub paragraph 9214 h6c of the boulder Revised Code specifically St Julian has elected to pursue an alternative Community benefit under 9214 h6c under this provision the approving Authority May approve the alternative method of compliance and

[185:00] height bonuses if the applicant proposes an alternative method and demonstrates that the proposed method will improve the facilities or Services delivered by the city or will provide another benefit that is a community benefit objective in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan the argument should rather be that the St Julian hotel has whether they have demonstrated this effectively enough for the proposed Bill to be approved for a height modification request the St Julian Pro hotel has provided a summary of the proposals benefit to the community as a multi-purpose meeting and event space in downtown Boulder that provides for below Market meeting space and first right to reserve the space by Community nonprofit and Civic groups while there are potential rationalizations for this proposed Community benefit satisfying objectives of BV CP policies 1.12 and 8.13 I would like to see more evidence as to this effect without more demonstration the St Julian hotel's ability to serve these policy objectives as truthfully as they propose I'm left unsure of whether they able to do so again I sympathize with other grounds but I think this is the True Heart of the issue thank you thank

[186:00] you um uh John cor corar and then um Michael Bitner good evening my name is John coratti and I'm a graduate student at CU Boulder the views I expressed today are irely my own and do not represent the universities uh I live in the Fraser metos Community here in Boulder I have no ties to this project or to the spefic specific part of Boulder uh it is in um even so I'm here to ask the board to listen to the community's thoughts on the project the community is benefit that is being claimed here as cific use that we have not seen enough relevant data for we have no proof that the space is needed by nonprofits we have no proof that there are even nonprofits that would actually use the space overall we have not seen enough evidence that there is a Civic use that will ever be realized with this project the community benefit that has been claimed has no relevant evidence uh to support that it will ever be realized but we do have evidence of the community will suffer as a result of this project the profits of a private developer should not come

[187:00] before the enjoyment of the community by the community uh by the community members that the development is being developed in as a result I kindly ask that the board reject the request for this property as approving it would cause irreversible harm to the community thank you thank you Michael bner and then um I have someone down as Evan but I don't have a last name so um when when you're ready Michael Bitner Jennifer thank you first for glamorizing the what's known as the super block back in the 80s it was a dump vacated can you speak into the microphone it was uh vacated by Boulder Lumber it was a it was a mess so you planning board back in the 80s came up with a concept and passed this concept with the approval of council members of the community retailers across on walnet Street to do three structures office building Civic Center Hotel pelli did the hotel by the way thank you 32 days in your hotel after the fire we did the office building but between the office building and the

[188:00] hotel the buildings were built down meaning the the entry to the hotel was on the east side more humanistic side the walkway from Pearl to wallnut is fantastic open and sunny the walkway to the alley is nice but if you put a five-story structure there sorry Bruce it's going to destroy this concept of the walkway second thing is parking we represented and work for the city of B independent contractor commercial real estate in the management and uh leasing of their Office Buildings specifically 1100 Spruce 1500 Pearl which are the parking structures with offices above we also worked on the parking of the St Julian hotel we have a very intricate knowledge about parking in downtown Boulder unfortunately there's two parking lots I'm sorry parking is done two ways in Boulder one by permit and two by open you you go in you pay then you walk out there's two lots in Boulder 1100 Spruce and unfortunately St Julian hotel that had waiting lists all the way

[189:00] through 21 when we finally left the city so I don't know what happen Beyond 21 but those two are crowded I'm sorry Bruce again but to add more parking and more use in that area would be very very difficult and I agree the Alley's a joke most alleys are I'm done thanks guys I can keep going but you don't thank you uh Evan and um I don't have a last name uh and then uh James colano so uh James colano and then Katherine gasman yeah so if if if James isn't in here I'll just highlight him and we'll we'll try calling him one more time before uh uh we go but um and then after Katherine gasman Jimmy Keith okay hi I'm again my name is Katherine gasman I live in the ett I called Boulder home from 1977 to 1982 I was excited to return in

[190:01] 19 in 2021 to call it my home again um I have a concern about the 10th Street pedestrian Corridor um as it's now designed I question whether residents and visitors will access the Pearl Street Mall from the Civic area along the 10th Street Street pedestrian cor Corridor as I've read as it was intended the proposed pedestrian Corridor has a very private feel given the entry steps the entry's high and extensive walls in the front of the building the massive three-story glass walkway that connects the existing hotel to the proposed building and its overall Monumental scale figure 15 in the site review confirms this unwelcoming feel as it depicts an almost tunnel like entrance from both the South and the north with few design elements that open up the space and create an open welcoming feel that would lead pedestrians to the downtown business Corridor I urge you to require a redesign of this Corridor to make it match the open inclusive and welcoming

[191:00] nature of our community and of my neighborhood thank you thank you um Jimmy Keith and then that is that's all I have for iners so if there are other iners um be great to get to us I'm Jimmy Keith and um little uh bold a resident for over 50 years I'm going to speak on a little different perspective um I started my career right across the street at Lars machine shop on Walnut and next to the Ritz and worked right down on the 1111 building for years the smallness of the neighborhood is What attracted me to work there the neighbor the massiveness of this structure completely violates the whole Boulder concept downtown people do not want want to walk over and see a massive building they certainly don't want to go through that little alley toward the library which is so nice now uh the just a masteress of the building it's just played incorrect is

[192:00] really what I have to say thank you thank you and so Amanda I don't know if we have any other in person I do not have any other slips okay so then is it Vivien who's uh checking on the online yes viven we can go ahead and proceed with um virtual participation great thank you so similarly please introduce yourself um and any affiliation um when I call on you we will go one by one and also just a reminder that if um you're not sure if your full name is displayed you can send that to me uh through the Q&A function so I know how to call on you we'll start with Lisa bartl followed by Barbara M and then Jackie Reich Lisa please go

[193:00] ahead you do have to unmute yourself on your end okay let's start with Barbara M and we will come back to Lisa Barbara M please introduce yourself by your full name my name one second here I can't hear her from my end can you it looks like she dropped off do you want to try that again Vivian okay Barbara try now can you hear me yes okay my name is Barbara Nuna I've been a boulder resident for over 30 years and I moved here shortly after completing my masters I moved to

[194:01] Boulder for its natural setting that feed your spirit and allowed one to enjoy its small town Village feel it included seeing numerous aspects of mountain and flat iron views and the natural rolling Foothill grasslands what could be more def in than taking that away Boulder was supported by appropriate continuity of architecture for the setting and it lacked urban city sprawl that residents moved to Boulder to escape the proposed expansion of the St Julian eliminates the only open space left in downtown Boulder with a view of the flat irons an expectation for the sizable influx of tourists who visit Boulder throughout its Four Seasons and for residents who live here the proposed 55t tall building is too massive and not in line with Boulder's downtown Urban Design guidelines in regard to specifically and I quote downtown Boulder is blessed with exceptional Mountain views and projects should be

[195:00] designed to preserve access to this extraordinary asset from the public realm and surrounding area and also that one two and three story buildings make up the primary architectural fabric of the downtown with taller buildings located at key intersections it does not fit into the character of the area the proposed 39 extended stay hotel rooms an 8600 SQ foot Ballroom would significantly increase traffic compounding the safety and traffic access issues that already exist on this busy section of Walnut Street it's common for cars to have to wait for uncoming traffic to pass before proceeding down the rest of the street many have questioned the necessity of an additional Ballroom space given the facilities provided by the brand new Limelight and Moxy hotels and Jewish Community Center thank you thank you next we have Lisa Bartlett

[196:01] let's um try Lisa again my name is Lisa Bartlett I'm a resident of the ett uh one of the most important issues uh which really hasn't been disc discussed is fire safety if the currently proposed structure is built it will create one building stretching from the corner of 9th all the way to 11th along Canyon the number and severity of fires over the past few years has skyrocketed and going forward the prospect is even more uh Grim as an example the woodier place condominium fire in 2021 resulted in a total or partial destruction of all 81 units with Terror reigning as residents fled for their life without separation between the building and sufficient access for fire trucks and emergency personnel as you've

[197:01] seen in the pictures and the drawings the potential consequences could be catastrophic uh additional comments are uh based on the presentations tonight uh the trash area uh uh as has been described and depicted in pictures has been a joke and not a pleasant experience for anyone that uses the corridor uh and then now it has been added by the St Julian a proposed smaller uh area that would also be trash immediately next door to the St Julian which is not appropriate with the smell noise and increased uh traffic uh C certainly isn't consistent with uh what should be happening the ett also looks uh according to the uh drawings at a solid wall that is not reasonable I do not

[198:01] know anyone in the ett who wants this uh first half of the alley uh walking and biking uh is very narrow and pedestrians will have to compete with the endless cars and trucks thank you next we have next we have Jackie Reich followed by George Bartlett just go ahead Jackie and thank you Lisa hello my name is jacqulyn renator I'm a part-time resident at theet um my concern is do we really need more event spaces in 2018 the Boulder City Council indicated a continued Civic and nonprofit need for C centrally located and affordable space to conduct meetings fundraising events celebrations exhibits and performances however since 2018 many new event spaces have been and

[199:04] are currently being developed by the city the newly built Moxy hotel and the Limelight Hotel which is currently under construction are just a half a mile away from the St Julian will and and will add an additional 35 square feet of meeting space and a 15,000 square foot Ballroom the relatively new Jewish Community Center already accommodates nonprofit events contributing to reduce traffic congestion in downtown Boulder Additionally the limeline is donating 10% of the accommodation taxes collected to fund grants for Community organizations nonprofits further reinforcing the hot 's commitment to serve as a hub for Community engagement and collaboration this is an outstanding example of Civic use commitment in contrast the St Julian has

[200:00] not made such a visible or concrete commitment raising concerns about whether their development truly serves as public interest or merely maximizes profits thank you thank you next we have George Bartlett followed by Ronald mccormac please go ahead George good evening my name is George Bartlett the Civic use pad is a tangible symbol of the city of Boulder's enduring commitment to support its Community organizations the St Julian now claims that its so-called Civic use building supports that commitment I disagree where does the St Julian specifically describe any Outreach to Boulder Community organizations to find out what specific features they want and need in a Civic use space where does the St

[201:00] Julian specifically describe its response to the particular needs of the nonprofit Community where are the representatives of the boulder Civic organizations which actually support this specific project in 2018 the city Council the staff provided the city council with survey in information indicating a community need for affordable spaces for civic groups to conduct meetings and other events in its Community benefit analysis the St Julian never mentions affordability rather it m merely touts a 50% discount from its for-profit rates does a 50% discount on a new Rolls-Royce make it affordable where are the represent atives of the Civic organizations which can set pay that can actually pay what the St Julian wants to charge finally uh a comment about the purported uh Community benefit amount uh the uh the the the manner in

[202:03] which it has been calculated results purportedly in $650,000 of benefit but if you have no Community benefit using their calculations the the the value increases to a million dollars that's straight out of Allison Wonderland thank you thank you next we have um Ronald McCormack please go ahead Ronald you have to unmute yourself from your end okay do you hear me yes sorry I'm Ron McCormack I'm an architect for 52 years um I am not local but I know and love Boulder uh I put a daughter through NOA

[203:01] there and family members live there many years so love the city I am the architect who designed the alternative solution for the glass Pavilion for the Civic use pad that you displayed when Mark linky was speaking uh and he did a great presentation we offered this concept form as a for a true Civic excuse for the property um architecturally you may have seen it's a two-story step glass structure that gives a much improved open streetcape and much nicer scale much needed relief for the what I would call the canyon wall of two five four five story structure all along Canyon Boulevard um this concept in my opinion would be a true icon for the boulder be oneof kind distinctive landmark in this

[204:01] very visible location in Boulder of course fabulous views of of the flat irons the interior would be the interior would be a large meting space but would also include Green Space would be lovely in the winter when in those cold months I see it as a highest and best use for this unique parcel and we hope the concept is embraced by the community and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you thank you for being here um any other hands any other speakers from online participants who wish to provide testimony okay we have a couple more hands ly seagull please go ahead yeah I signed up for the hearing Vivian I don't know what happened um the from the very start this was supposed to be Civic space I don't care what's happened over time clearly

[205:02] Boulder Public wants Civic space here the folk dancers the performance arts Children's Museum things that we can do here actually even more than those those entities and that is free things in Boulder because guess what people like me who pay the high property tax here and live here on Dew and six can't afford to do any of these things downtown um this just brings greater and greater wealth disparity it's all about profit when is enough enough for Bruce when is enough enough hasn't the St Julian had a great run and isn't that enough the greenhouse sounds great don't give any subsidies to this development Boulder Valley comp plan 2.2 role of Central Area the role of the

[206:02] central area is for the people not for the profit too many hotels as people have said the nonprofits were not engaged they were not reached out to um and they don't have the money anyway so the developers have to pay people don't come here to look at walls of apartment buildings and hotels they come for some soul in this town um 1100 square feet of Extended Stay rooms those are too big the homeless shelter here we're not going to have any PL any hotel rooms for them this year for the first time they will be dying the wealth disparity issue is a big deal big deal um Aspen pilos we don't need those kind of things we need a real thank you Lyn please finish your your sentence we need a real space to come to a real something

[207:02] thank you thank you okay we have one more person who wishes to speak uh the name is displayed as CA and so I'm not able to call on you by your full name please start by introducing yourself if you know who you are go ahead you need to unmute yourself from your end give this person a few moments I've tried contacting you through the chat function um but that hasn't been successful chair and advice on what to do um I if if uh they're not available to speak I I suggest we move forward okay there are no more hands raised that

[208:00] concludes the public hearing thank you Vivian and um I know I speak for everyone here uh uh we tremendously appreciate everyone who spoke this evening who came out we're Boulder citizens just like you um and we appreciate um all of your experience and and your comments and thoughts on tonight's um hearing uh we the the applicant has an opportunity now to address anything if they'd like to um that they heard in that public comment um otherwise if not Bruce you want okay go go ahead and uh just real quickly the things that come up about the trash in that alley um those are ecycle it's recycling it's glass plastic cardboard we actually have a 20 yard trash compactor behind our

[209:01] wall on the loading dock and compost is there so it's not it's trash it's waste but it's not it's not trash trash and actually with our compactor we have overc capacity to take care of trash for for ourselves and any addition uh from this building we've talked about screening uh trying to screen the ecycle bins and uh but uh planning uh isn't crazy about that idea that it's still too close to the right away and so we're we're working on a system to get the the the the recycling out of that alley um the um yeah I get you know the ett doesn't want to see the building get built I get it uh I would like to say that uh you know a lot of the operable balconies Windows whatever on their Western facade really you know really shouldn't be there uh and they did sign a declaration and recorded declaration to the city attorney's office acknowledging that a

[210:01] 55- fot building would be uh built next door to it so they know this was coming um as far as protecting views like to remind them that the aret completely blocked the exitor building uh to it's north across the alley I mean all that southerly views from that exit or office building just got completely annihilated by the by the aret and what we're doing is yeah there's some Due West views but we're not affecting anyone's southerly views like the Ed affected the transwestern the uh as far as on the the setbacks on the uh the East our East Side their West Side our team kind of estimated that they setbacks are about uh 1,900 Square ft on the air facade our setbacks are about 3,300 square ft so we actually have gone sort of above and beyond trying to create setbacks to uh to provide some space between the

[211:01] between the two buildings which for infill urban infill where buildings always go up to sort of the property line um I think we're we're going above and beyond what's what would should really be necessary the uh you want P hi sorry it's Jen nean with 4240 um just a couple of really quick points with regards to safety and the existing 10th Street Corridor right now it's open there are no guidelines trucks are going to Mill in that area they are going to pull in and pull out of a big open lot it's not being policed what we're trying to do is create an area with Paving and lighting um that's safe that'll draw people in um we are actually reducing the length of that Corridor by 80 feet by enclosing part of it so it will be more sheltered there will be more eyes in this area and it will be safer than what it is now um typically the traffic

[212:01] in this area the ett and the adjacent buildings on the opposite side of the alley go towards 11th but most of the loading is happening between walnut and on Tenth right adjacent to St Julian our goal would be to enhance Paving add signage um invest in the area from Walnut along the um entrance into the parking garage and across that alley in a way that would be safer than what it is right now right now it's just open so what we would like to do is try and create something a little bit more um sheltered and more um uh intuitive the other small item I'd like to address is the existing utilities on the site um the idea of a green house or a folk Courtyard or some of these ideas are beautiful and wonderful um but our entire site is located over a parking garage Excel Energy will not allow a Transformer or any additional power to

[213:00] be brought onto the site so the idea of having a separate structure entirely from the St Julian is not even a possibility so just something to keep in mind um one thing that we're able to do by combining the Civic use with hotel is utilizing the existing utilities from the hotel we're not bringing in new utilities for the addition um and we're able to do both we're able to provide an area for civic use as well as offset that payment by having some rooms for the hotel so thank you thank you um I think it's probably best for us to take a little break uh so uh it's 9:35 um why don't we reconvene at 9:42 give us seven minutes thanks everyone

[214:23] all

[215:14] y e

[216:14] e e

[217:14] e e

[218:14] e e

[219:14] e e

[220:14] e e

[221:14] e e e

[222:35] all right uh we are getting reassembled um we typically put up the key issues that we'll be discussing uh but before we do that I think some board members might have some clarifying questions that they want to ask staff so if uh Amanda or whoever's Manning it um if we could put the key issues up for when we start talking that through but

[223:01] in the meantime if there are members that want to go ahead and ask any clarifying questions uh to staff uh feel free I know Laura you want to start thank you I have just two the first is um that that pedestrian Corridor um some comments were made about concerns by the traffic engineer or concerns by the fire department have staff the traffic department or the fire department expressed concerns about the design of that pedestrian Corridor with relation to the alley no this has been reviewed by Transportation staff and by U the Fire Marshall and they did not express concerns about the design okay thank you and then my other question is could staff this is probably in the memo but could you just please clarify for us the property ownership history right was it ever owned by the city is it owned currently by the St Julian like what is the history of the property ownership of the area where the new

[224:02] structure would be located yes of the the Civic pad yeah that was um I think I have a diagram here yeah the um um that parcel was owned by the St Julian and prior private property owners it was never owned by the city where the Civic pad um is located thank you any other Kurt just one quick followup regarding The Pedestrian path would it be uh within our power I gu guess to require some sort of an upgrade to the crossing of the the alley there as part of the transportation infrastructure um it seems like there's a Nexus to this

[225:01] development so does that seem legally defensible I think it probably does I think you would need to tie that condition to one of the site review criteria about access and circulation yeah okay thank you so I I have a I have a question that I'm still confused on and I think it was touched on at the beginning but um around the Civic use as we talk it through uh I know that's independent of the site criteria that's my question is it independent of the site criteria yes that's correct so the Civic you and what is meets the Civic use criteria of the urban renewal plan has already been decided by City Council in the 2019 agreement so what you all are looking at at are the site review criteria and the criteria an analysis provided to you by Shannon okay

[226:02] so am I understanding you correctly that as as the planning board we're really not looking at the Civic use as our part of our deliberate deliberations correct correct all right that's yeah go ahead just a colloquy on that it seems like that there is a crossover into this alternative Community benefit that they are claiming that the Civic use provides the alternative Community benefit which is part of our purview is that would that be correct that that's correct so the the criteria of approval for your alternative Community benefit that you all are looking at can include um talking about the Civic use but okay so that that's our Nexus then is that all but what and what it entails and how that is achieved um to meet the urban Ral plan has already been decided by city council and is not part of your decision-making today thank you so can I call to but we

[227:01] can I mean part of the we need a flowchart yeah part of the alternative Community benefit Criterion is the relates to the valuation of that correct and that is something that we can address exact yeah thank you yes other questions Mason thanks one followup so I see that there's a $80,000 total increase affordable housing uh fee but I think if I read correctly and please do correct me if I'm wrong they're they're avoiding that through that U alternative benefit calculation but that alternative benefit is largely based off of you know the cost of building the building and things that they're doing perhaps for profit in the long long run am I understanding that correctly so I'm not sure I can speak to the second part of your question I think um the applicant's presentation probably speaks to more how they got to that Community benefit number um however instead of doing the alternative Community benefit they could

[228:00] pay that $8,000 fee um and the alternative Community benefit is building the building from what they've provided and Shannon correct me if I'm wrong the alternative Community benefit that they've provided is the Civic use how that's being provided as a meeting space to um nonprofits and the community 20 years of amorz of building the building the operating cost the property taxes the Staffing cost Etc right yes what they've included in their application materials yes okay well yeah I I have a followup to that so so when you say that they they can provide that instead of the alternative Community benefit can you explain what you what you mean can you elaborate on that a littleit yeah so let me pull up the specific section in the code so what it says is for in order to get a height bonus which they're asking for which you guys are reviewing um they have to meet one of the following

[229:01] criteria one of those criteria is a um for non-res residential developments is a capital impact fee which is the $80,000 that you all see in there another one of those criterias that could be met is the alternative community benefit so they've chosen to go with number four which is the alternative Community benefit in lie of paying that fee okay so just to just to clarify on that just because they provide let's say the $80,000 as the community benefit right or the alternative Community benefit of what they've proposed um that doesn't necessarily um based on how the board deliberates um may or may not satisfy what we think is needed in order to meet a site review criteria if we can site what it is that we're looking at that's correct okay thank you go ahead Mark so to further

[230:01] clarify let's say um the applicant has entered into a contract with the city and with kit that says they are going to provide this alternative Community benefit that in the application they have valued at 638 950 okay however would they not like uh when other applicants come to us and say gee we're going to do affordable units on site and then at the last minute they change their mind which is their prerogative and it's well within it's not against the law or anything else they say you know what we're going to pay cash and Lou can that same scenario not happen right now where uh the applicant should they want to say we're just in

[231:00] spite of having a contract with the city we're going to come up with 8,400 bucks and call it a day so yes they could go that way with the caveat that they still do have to do the Civic use that they've agreed to in 2019 okay so that that's the question so they have to do the Civic use so they've entered into a contract with the Civic use y they valued that at 638 so in fact they couldn't just pay the 80,000 can I take a stab at this I just want hear well deliberating my head um so the standard says that if one of the following criteria is met so one of the ways you can meet that criteria is do the $80,000 the other one is providing an alternative Community benefit of which there's

[232:00] two um criteria on how that's met I think they could pick either or now yeah but this Complicated by the fact that that we have a contract that we the city is part of and the applicant is part of so this may be Moot and it's probably a waste of time to debate this because we have a contract and the contract between the city it says this is what's going to happen correct we're going to provide a Civic use and it doesn't whether the number is 638 or 510 or whatever it is we've got a contract between the applicant and the city that says this is how they are going to meet the alternative benefit for the height and that alternative benefit is through the Civic use as agreed to in the contract so no not necessarily what the city and the applicant agreed to was

[233:01] that the Civic use would meet the 20% Civic use requirement in the urban renewal plan so that agreement is not related to your site criteria that you're looking at today as far as what satisfies right so the agreement satisfies the Civic use um requirement in the urban renewal plan and then you have the two criteria here that if um alternative Community benefit is provided in a site review plan that improves facilities or is the value equivalent to the benefits required in the first subparagraph then that could meet it as well so it's it's two separate achievements in the Boulder land of law I guess I would call it so there's one on the urban renewal plan one that you're looking at here at the site review criteria so I just want to clarify this meeting is going to be so clear so clear it feels to me like they

[234:01] are trying to use this Civic use to do two things they're trying to make it serve a double purpose meet the urban renewal plan agreement from the 2019 with the city MH and ALS use it for Community benefit and I don't think it's the applicant's choice of whether they get to do that it says that we the planning board May approve the height modification and use this as the justification we do not have to we could require them to pay the um inclusionary housing fees instead if that is our choice and I I just want to bring us back to the discussion we had when we modified the site review criteria this is the first time I think that we are doing a project that has requested alternative Community benefit and when we talked about this we said let's let people propose it and we don't have to accept it right we have a system for uh impact fees and one of those impact fees is this inclusionary housing benefit and we have opened it up to creativity and said show us a different Community benefit right and and make

[235:00] your case but we don't have to agree with them that that is sufficient or just as good as the inclusionary housing fees but if the co if if the alternative Community benefit and well I'm sorry if the Civic use is being fulfilled by discounted uh access to the space and that is that fulfills the urban renewal portion then but they discount so if if if we said hey we don't we don't like it or we don't think the 638 is a valid number you've overestimated that then they still have a contract that says they have to provide discounted space but then it would be it would we get into a very muddy area of then Val of us valuing how they might meet a different requirement than paying $80,000 because they could say we're not

[236:01] discounting this access anymore paying the 88,000 I don't think they do that they would still have to because that's what's stipulated in the agreement the agreement so they still have to Discount the base pretty much regard has to follow the 2019 agreement and give the discounted space no matter what and I would argue that they're trying to double dip to be quite Frank well and board member Cap's right if you made findings tonight that the alternative Community benefits didn't satisfy the criteria you could look at the um $80,000 uh yeah are we are we um I I have one more question on this whole specific thing and I realized that that's an agreement that was made with Council when you say it it meets that that the decision was it meets the 20% why isn't this an evergreen contract rather than capped it 20 years I I that is what I don't understand because I don't how what's the justification that it meets the 20%

[237:01] if it expires yeah yeah I I I'm not sure I have that answer I um I think that was what was decided between city council and the applicant on on what meets that and what satisfies that criteria yeah but I thought the 20% was predates that agreement right so how does how what's the justification yeah that the agreement was um sparked by actually an amendment to the urban renewal plan in 2015 so the council the St Julian worked in 2015 to amend the urban renewal plan for um a require a hard requirement of 20% to up to 20% pursuant to an agreement so the urban renewal plan which really only covers the St Julian property on Ninth and Canyon was amended to accommodate this 2019 agreement but it was was amended in 2015

[238:01] the renewal plan yes so when the renewal plan was amended with a letter of intent that set forth what the provisions of the 2019 agreement okay but the the amendment itself had a hard 20% actually said up to no up to 20% okay goad quick quick clarify sorry this is very fast I promise I promise you've been patient you said or on am are you sure it's not and I didn't mean or what it's and so one A and B okay great thanks so my different question is um depending on you know what this board ends up deciding and all can you speak a little bit to what the implications of the vested um rights are are they bound

[239:01] to whatever decision We Make Or there's some yes yeah so they've requested statutory vested rights which is um their right and honestly the city really doesn't have any um steps to take in that we just we have that form so they let us know that they're requesting those additional vested rights so what statutory vested rights gives you is three years on any approval of a site specific development plan so three years to develop in accordance with what you all approv today so if it's not approved what happens to vested rights they don't get vested rights if with it's not approved got it okay thank you it's only on an approval any body else have questions there I just have a quick clarifying question I think that's what I read but their by is 38 feet here in dt5 yes okay so on on the clarification of by

[240:01] right what can they do they have this agreement with the city what can they do by right that doesn't involve this board making exceptions like what's the what's the what's the volume of the building what what are we talking about I think they get a 1.7 F at 38 feet what is that 20 20% open space 20% open space on the site in total in total the site includes the St Julian right which already exists right yes and so they have a 1.7 f with 38 feet which would equate to what in square footage for the site I would have to do math and a potential zero lot line on the on the east side of the subject property that's correct correct zero watt line there okay and still the required Civic

[241:02] use yes and and still the required Civic use always the Civic use so always the Civic use even if they would if they did by right if you could if you could do the math just so we understand it um that would be helpful at this hour my goodness I I don't need to write away but but it would be helpful I know I think we'll be talking about this for I would also note chair Boon the 20 years that you all asked about is in line with what they had approved originally as well the 20 years suns setting period on the Civic use requirement um was when they approved the S jilan as well I'm sorry just a follow on a cot weed to what George just said that 2019 agreement which I have not read word for word doesn't it refer to a five-story building so how can follow agreement if we liit them to a 38 height limit like a if we don't approve the height um exemption would they still be subject to that 2019 agreement that assumes a five-story

[242:01] building one second please board member Kaplan could could you reference what section of the agreement that you're talking about CU I cannot find it no I probably couldn't I just thought I remembered reading in the agreement that it talks about the five stories and it being like three stories of Hotel uses and one you know a high ceilinged

[243:00] meeting space I'm pretty sure that's in there it does pretty correctly describe the building that's being proposed in terms of uses and and site and size what page does that agreement start on it's like 150 or something I could try to find it Mason do you want to give the page number that you're looking at if this is in the 2019 agreement yeah it's 158 uh recital B St Julian blah blah blah um including three floors of extended state Hotel units and ground floor flexible amenities intended for use by guests and Civic groups and non for-profits I don't see the top floor mention

[244:01] there yeah and then the next section c similarly is pretty closely describing what we've are seeing it doesn't say height yeah the recycles don't mean anything right let me take a look at this and you all can continue and I can Circle back if that's okay okay and in the meantime the 1.7 F the Ed Max is out at about 50,000 Square fet so similar to what they're proposing but that similar in volume but it be limited by 38 Yeah by by the height and the um setbacks okay thank you I'm sorry but wouldn't I'm

[245:01] sorry wouldn't the F be calculated on the whole site basis including the St Julian yes that's so you're doing that okay correct yeah okay thank you great okay uh other any other clarifying questions no um do we can we put back up the uh and so we're still we're still holding on the one legal question in the meantime we can put up the key issues for discussion um I'm open to suggestions on how we attack this it's so my suggestion would be that we start with a motion and then we talk about amendments and if we want to propose an amendment we have to justify it based on the code and then that gets to this question about is it consistent with the site review criteria and the Urban Design guidelines etc etc because we would only be proposing an amendment if we think it is not consistent with those things I mean that is assuming that

[246:00] there might be a majority on the board to approve the project in perhaps some modified form I don't know if you want to straw poll that before we start with a oh we can certainly I mean are you are you proposing I would propose we do a straw poll to say are we inclined to approve the staff motion with I'm assuming some kind of amendments and then if that is the case then we just go ahead and put a motion on the table and start proposing amendments that that's my proposal just to Speed it along proposal that's that's fine to do a little straw poll of so you want to restate that just so that everyone's clear on what you're so my straw pole suggestion is are we as a board or individually inclined to approve the motion approve the project with understanding that we will be proposing some amendments as a group Mason's a thumbs up Claudia's a thumbs up Laura's a thumbs up Mark ml Kurt I'm gonna abstain at this point I

[247:01] just don't I don't know one way or the other but we have plenty in the drw pole to to to bring that forward so then if that's the case um perhaps one of us would like to make the motion and then we can start start getting amendments on the table could we please have staff's recommended language I found it oh okay uh I'll move to approve site review application under l recommended in the staff memorandum I'll second that okay sound like people wanted to discuss amendments so as in terms of process

[248:00] maybe we just get out what are the kind let's just discuss what are the kinds of um amendments we might want to propose that works for people Kurt yeah I just have one fairly minor uh proposed condition regarding the crossing what what I was asking about the crossing of the alley and improved signage and marking for that to help guide U pedestrians across that way I'm a little unclear are you moving to amend it would be a yeah it would be amending the motion to add a condition yeah and and in terms of process right now Mark I think we're just discussing what kinds of amendments we might want to put before we put them out before we actually put them out there okay anyone else have any thoughts that they yeah go ahead La I I have potentially three uh one is moving to require the project to provide the community benefit for the height modification in the form of

[249:01] inclusionary housing fees rather than the alternative proposed Community benefit two would be um again regarding the wayfinding signage making it really clear that this is not private property but this is a public access uh Corridor just looking at some of the proposed um renderings like you walk up to that tunnel from Canyon and it says St Julian and you have to walk further into it to see 10th Street this way and I think you need to make really clear from the street that this is a pedestrian Corridor so uh um maybe maybe that goes with Kurt's Amendment and then the third one is um and I want to put this out here for board consideration is potentially requiring some public rooftop access so carving away a little bit of that fifth floor which would set the facade back a little bit from The Pedestrian View and provide some Public Access space and whether that is for rent like the meeting space or whether that maybe has some time when it's free to the public we could be discussed but

[250:01] but potentially requiring some open space on the roof so you're you're talking about in that scenario that's a that's a major design change because they would have to delete some Hotel Keys probably to accommodate that correct okay to clarify on that the the reason I think that the reason that the rooftop space was deemed unsuitable unworkable was because elevator shafts have to extend above right same with same with stairwells but stairwells don't qualify as an ADA access so that space if you said even if you said I'm going to cut out one of the rooms and my Elevator Shaft top is going to um occupy that space of the fourth floor room that still doesn't get a person who can't make it up the stairs

[251:00] onto the roof I think she's talking about putting a portion of the roof down a level so that they can access it oh basically part of the building would only be four stories tall and have a rooftop deck instead of that fifth carve away a piece of the fifth floor basically and make it a rooftop deck um other thoughts go ahead ml um I uh so one of the things that I'm um interested in um expanding is if the open space is if the open space is inclusive of what EX exists uh I think we can apply the open space um criteria and there's a lot of criteria that talks about um the human scale and it talks about having Furniture in the open space it talks about um amenities um and so I would be

[252:02] interested in uh pressing the um criteria around open space um to be adhere to I guess because it doesn't appear to me that it is at this point in time so I would I would want that criteria to be acknowledged um secondly I think that there are a number of things with the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan and um that is a part of the site site review criteria talks about uh if there's any um plans area plans or um other things that govern it needs to adhere to those so we're it's subject to the ninth and Canyon urban renewal Plan and there's a number of things that talk about The Pedestrian access um it talks about the functionality of that pedestrian access it talks about 10 Street alley um and I

[253:04] would want there to be um to adhere to the requirements of the ninth and Canyon and I've got and I've got the spe specific items within the ninth and Canyon urban renewal plan that need to be adhered to um but I think the bigger question I don't know if staff is looking at this or not is whether or not this um meets the alternative Community benefit um strategy because it seems to me that the uh you or the benefit that was the benefit dollars that were attached to the Civic Center um were all speculative and so I'm just not convinced that they would meet that criteria so if if that criteria isn't met uh alternative Community benefit um

[254:00] what I'm interested to find out and what part of that agreement does that agreement specify the building height what does it specify it as aside from the fact that there's a Civic use it specifies that you have to go through site review if you want to do a fifth Story or if you're required to um pursue any other development approvals so it doesn't specify any prescriptive standards in the agreement for a two-story building a fivestory building it says um if you want to do a fivestory building you have to go through site review okay correct perfect thank you for looking that up um so so those are my concerns that um we've got this five story building and we don't have really much of a community benefit um so i' I'd like to find a way to uh to address that other uh thoughts or

[255:03] amendments I wish I could propose just amending to the greenhouse because I thought it was cool but um I don't think that's right on exactly can I can I just on that I I think that all of us like if you gave us a choice between a five-story hotel and a really cool Greenhouse design that looks kind of like the Lou we'd be like yeah that's a cooler thing to have in Boulder but it's not our site the city doesn't own it we did not buy it we cannot require them to build a greenhouse there and actually I would encourage us to rather than be interested in or be I I I'm I I want to I want to urge us all that if you want to amend this main motion now is the time to do it precisely and in writing and to make that motion and that other concerns

[256:04] other thoughts we're at the amending portion of this uh Kurt well following up on that I sent Amanda a proposed amendment so I don't know if we want to take that up yeah why don't why don't we why don't we start there unless okay um um so I move to add a condition reading as follows in collaboration with City staff the applicant shall design improved Crossing markings and signage for the intersection of the 10th Street

[257:00] pedestrian way and the east west running alley north of the site and the plans shall be revised accordingly second all right do you want to have any um discussion on that one thing I I thought that you brought up that was interesting um was that column and I heard the architect and the owner um talk about how infeasible that was but um you know that that is it's interesting right when you think about this um near tunnel that's being created because you've got this three-story bridge that sits above it um and the idea that you might have pretty massive wall of building without much

[258:02] transparency through the site and to your point wayfinding is a great signage and things like that but I guess the question is does that go far enough to make that space an AC an accommodating um pedestrian pathway that people will take without more transparency um without some more enhancement and I I don't know I just wanted to before before we before we I don't know if you have thoughts on that since your motion if if if it's worth discussing that yeah I I feel that they are somewhat independent but certainly related issues I think that they could happen independently okay um but I would support a requirement that the column be removed and they they can they could figure out the the engineering to make

[259:02] it happen so your motion was really clean so maybe we want to want to vote on motion like I don't I don't know what kind of impact that's going to have on the building I know that there was a need to dissociate the buildings from each other so to not trigger you know flood plane requirements and things of that nature there's a lot of discussion so I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting the column unless knowing what impact that actually has on the building designs what could fall out to something like that you can you can't deliv things you can do things um it's a question of materials let's get sacrificed in the building to point procedurally we've got a motion to amend that's been made and seconded and we should be debating that and then the column unless you want to amend this

[260:01] proposed amendment I suggest we debate this and then go on to debating other things yeah that's fine and if I can just speak to this I feel that this is uh Justified based on um side review criteria 9214 h2a which speaks about the The Pedestrian access um uh on the site and also B Val comp plan um policy 6.01 all mode transportation system 6.02 Equitable Transportation 619 Transportation infrastructure and 620 neighborhood streets and alleys other discussion otherwise we can vote on this who who seconded it sorry Claudia did okay uh Mason yes Claudia yes Laura

[261:00] yes me uh Mark yes ml yes Kurt yes and I'm a yes as well okay so that motion carries unanimously um well um Laura Laura has one teed up so maybe we maybe we switch to that one while you put you you can put it in writing I see yours and we'll type it out okay I'm sending you all three I've sent you two and I'm just working on the last one so I'll be right with you oh

[262:04] man cannot see my okay I'm ready when you are Amanda okay go ahead with your first one okay um I move that the project shall provide Community benefit for the height modification in the form of customary inclusionary housing fees rather than the alternative Community benefit proposed by the applicant I'll second up second we all [Laughter]

[263:00] seconded and I'll I did George did and I'll just I'll just speak to the motion to say um I do think a height modification is appropriate in this area I've I speak about this every meeting but we have a process in place for approving Heights up to 55 ft and it is this site review process it's not a special dispensation it's not a subsidy it is just this is how we do it if you want a 55 foot building I do think a 55 foot building is appropriate in this area it has been discussed for decades it's been part of the previous agreements um and this is the area of town it's dt5 right it is the area that is zoned and the land use is for the most intensity um and this is the corridor along Canyon where we have tall buildings that's all around so it is it is appropriate to the context I believe and I do think that we this is where we want intensity in the city is this downtown area so I support the height modification I do not support using the um proposed Civic use to as I

[264:01] said to double dip and use it to meet the 19 or the 2019 agreement as well as the alternative Community benefit and I agree with ML I the applicants numbers are hard to parse they don't appear to include any Revenue stream from the market rate use I don't know if the applicant says they're not anticipating any revenue from market rate how are they coming up with their Market rates in the first place if they don't think anybody will actually pay that um so it just I'm not convinced that that we would be getting an alternative Community benefit that is the equivalent of our known need for inclusionary housing and the formula that we have for customary inclusionary housing fees I would say we stick with what we've got instead of doing an alternative Community benefit can I speak to the motion yeah sure um I'll keep it really short because I also support before a different reason even if the numbers are correct it's 20 years and I think that these sorts of um alternative uh methods should be for the life of the

[265:08] building okay I clarify yeah I I I'll speak to I I don't know whether I support the hype modification but if the hype modification were to take place I see no reason why we wouldn't include this um to Laura's point I I just see it as a a double dip there's already a requirement on the table that they've got to provide this um uh provide the uh the Civic use so I I see no reason to exclude them from the inclusionary housing should should this go forward any other comments yeah Kurt just quickly I certainly support the hype modification I think that the this the from the beginning that this building has been conceived uh both back in um when when it was conceived as a as a a museum and the dance space it was conceived of as a fivestory building

[266:02] in 2013 or 2015 or whatever there was a concept plan that was a 55 foot building um and so I I think that all along that's been the conception and so I support it but I definitely support um Laura's Amendment yeah I I also support based on all the reasons Kurt just enumerated and in including mainly the the being surrounded by other 55 foot buildings you know I visited the site repeatedly you stand on the pad and you look around and you you are surrounded by other 55 foot buildings and architecturally the design fits in there there is no there was no case to be made that this one building regardless of Civic use or anything else would not fit

[267:01] within uh the and it's funny we you know I'm not a fan of the word neighborhood character but in this case the the local character is a bunch of 55 foot buildings and so it fits within that so you're a fan when you can use it yeah no I I I I did not use it local local building character but I I support I don't think we're we're we're not talking I mean I think we got carried away with the height thing anyways because I don't think that's what your amendment's about your amendment's about supporting the well it's it's about meeting the requirement to build a 55 so so the motion that we made to accept the proposal includes the height modification and so if somebody did not want the height modification we would have to amend it to not approve the 55 ft because as proposed it's a 55 foot building my amendment is just about how are they going to meet their um

[268:02] requirements in the site review yeah yeah yeah um and if I could just propose some clarifying to this um condition just to keep in line with the boulder Revised Code um if you'll bear with me so in here I think it should say instead in order to satisfy the additional criteria for height bonus and land used intensity the applicant shall pay the affordable housing portion of the capital facility impact fee in section 42062 BRC as required by section 924 HC I believe it's only HC but we're checking on that I will send it over to Amanda I just want to make sure we had the right terminology I completely accept and appreciate you using the specific code language um here so yes if if who was my second George are you okay with

[269:00] modification second yeah absolutely okay okay so I think we can probably go ahead and vote on this understanding that yeah the record will reflect what Christine said about which code sections this is referring to that's great uh Mason yes Claudia yes Laura yes Mark yes ml yes Kurt yes and I'm also a yes okay great uh next motion I think it's uh also Laura's motion I have a second if Amanda wants to pop that up I'll go ahead and start reading it um I move that wayfinding signage shall make it clear to pedestrians that this is not private property but a public pedestrian corridor may I make a suggestion um usually we're encouraged to frame our conditions as the plans shall be revised to show x uh let me work on that thank you

[270:06] Kurt I have a question a legal question maybe it's a legal question Charles are you um when we provide a motion just as is happening right now we need to refer it back to a criteria is that correct a condition it needs to be referred if you're proposing conditions you should be tying it back to a site review criteria a specific criteria okay did you got it yep okay Amanda I've sent you a slight modification and I might need some help from Christine to cite the exact code

[271:00] sections for conditions like this as long as you guys put on the record what exactly um what site criteria you're looking at I I can work with this and I will be so um I move that in order to meet the access and circulation criteria in the site review the plans shall be revised thank you Kurt to show wayfinding signage shall make it clear to pedestrians that the 10th Street Corridor is not private property but a public pedestrian Corridor proposed friendly amendment I think missing a that in there the plan shall be revised to show wave finding signage that shall make it clear I think that's fine accepted do I have a second may I speak to the motion just briefly sure I I think that we have had

[272:00] um instan instances in the past where signage was either inadequate or confusing to um delineate private property versus public access and you know Mark you talked about this extensively and eloquently with regard to the Millennium Project uh we've had some issues with the uh proposed public well the supposed public rooftop deck on top of the corita restaurant or with the K restaurant and I just want to avoid that I want to make sure that pedestrians can quite clearly see that's not just a hotel entrance that's not part of the St Julian that is a pedestrian Corridor to get to downtown all right um should we vote on it Mason yes Claudia yes yes wait can I have one friendly amendment to this um I just want to make sure that um you all are okay with this being reviewed by staff

[273:02] staff determining that that meets the public Corridor um or that the signage is good enough um not good enough but meets your intention that saying here tonight so I just wanted to add one little amendment to that so in order to meet the access circulation criteria the plan shall be revised to show W shall make that shall make clear and then maybe as reviewed and approved by staff just after that I I'm totally fine with adding at the end as reviewed and approved by staff or the city yeah let's put the city by the city oops who had second than that was that Kurt he was Mark who's Mark you okay with that too I agree okay all right um so with that intention let's vote on it Mason yes Claudia yes Laura yes Mark yes ml yes Kurt yes and I'm also a yes

[274:02] okay next I have one more who you're I have one more and it might take some discussion Andor input from staff but I'm going to go ahead and put it on the table and I sent this to Amanda um so in order to meet the site review criteria regarding open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents occupants tenants and visitors of the property I move that the building include a public access rooftop deck of at least one quarter of the available fifth floor area and I hope that that's clear that that means carving out the floor rather than adding on top of the fifth floor can can you can you talk about what what goal you're trying to accomplish would be helpful to understand yeah I mean so so we're taking the Civic pad which currently uh

[275:01] doesn't have anything on it and filling it up and um with a building which is the right of the property developer right and and staff have talked about how uh you can't really add a lot of greenery or open space on top of that rooftop deck because you know the the roof it's on top of a parking garage right you can't have trees you can't have a lot of plantings and stuff it doesn't really make sense to have um open space on the ground level but we often have open space on the top of the building right and so previous plans for this facility have talked about having a rooftop deck that could be accessed you know the same way that the meeting rooms are accessed it could be um you know part of a Gala event could be you go up to the rooftop and have drinks or you go up to the rooftop and there's music um there could be food service there if the hotel wants to provide it or if a caterer wants to provide it um but it and it also um honors the idea of having Public Access views from this part of the site so I really appreciate all the

[276:01] open space that um the St Julian provides um but I do think that we could have more open space on this site by having a rooftop deck I think it also helps to honor a little bit the concerns of the residents about the building being monolithic um and you know there are criteria in the uh the downtown guidelines that talk about having varied roof lines and and varied building Heights I don't think we need to bring the whole building down but I think carving out a little rooftop space meets multiple needs in the plan but especially the need for open space meeting the needs of the anticipated residents occupants tenants and visitors so I had a question on that because you you had two different things in there one is access by the public and one is akin to how the Civic space is used downstairs which are different right because the Civic space is Civic space but it's also private and controlled vers Public Access so is that your intention is a different kind of use or are you looking to let them still

[277:02] privately control it but have it as part of the Civic space plan well so the previous agreement when it talked about this rooftop deck let me see if I can find the language I have so many notes so many notes um oh I don't know if I can find it quickly but the um oh it says the building will be designed if deemed feasible through the design process um as to architectural constraints and Commercial functionality with an outdoor rooftop area that will be available for use by community members and visitors through rental of space by Civic groups and not for profit organizations at a reduced rate and exploration of circumstances when the space could be used for free and that is [Music]

[278:00] from I think the uh 2015 letter of intent which is superseded by the 2019 agreement but I like that idea from that 2015 letter of intent that that space could be a able for rent and if feasible could be made available to the public I know we have like I said that kind of failed experiment with the rooftop Public Access deck at Cita I don't know if we have solved the challenges um but I would be interested in having that rooftop deck and then letting the city and the applicant work on whether it is for rent or just open public access and how that gets worked out I I think we're g to talk this through I mean I I realize that it impacts the design of the building if he's gonna speak he should

[279:00] speak into a yeah you can you can you can speak for one minute if you want to get up to the mic for a clarification around this topic so for the uh the rooftop deck was was discussed at length in 2016 and the uh the city actually it was considered very seriously and and it wasn't in feasible because of public access and elevators and Facilities on that floor and restrooms and everything else it just uh and the height yeah the elevator actually put it over that rooftop but uh again countless hours were spent design charettes with the city and it just was not samha fessa I think was the uh it was part of the planning at the time and it just uh there's more there's much more

[280:00] to it than than you might think and in fact the city uh took it so seriously that you might remember the uh they wanted to consider putting it on the ballot uh to amend the charter to allow the building a few more feet to be able to do the rooftop deck and uh in fact Mr tibo and I were in city offices in 2016 and and uh Mr TBO objected to that rightfully so saying you know we can't single out one building to to create a waiver for rooftop when nobody else gets that waiver uh so we all spent a lot of time on it and if you'd like to say you want it to be considered again or uh if things have changed or something like that but to actually make that a stipulation um it's it's just not doable in its in its in its form thank thanks for your thanks for your comments appreciate that yeah

[281:01] yeah go Ahad I I just want to ask staff we have plenty of buildings that have rooftop Decks that are up to the height limit is there some reason why this building like physically cannot have a rooftop deck oh it can have a rooftop deck it's just going to require a redesign and again bringing I think some of the roof elements down so yeah I think it's possible but it's going to require some back to the drawing board a little bit yeah I I think what the applicant was talking about when we're talking about infeasible is exactly that right putting an elevator up to the fifth floor but what you're talking about is quite a bit different but it does require you know some some reconception yeah I mean I'll acknowledge I don't know the exact specifics of this building and I don't know whether there's some kind of like elevation due to the garage being elevated for flood control reasons that we might have fixed with our recent allowance for hype modifications due to you know the building being elevated for flood I don't know if that would have fixed this like one or two foot problem

[282:00] that the applicant's talking about I think it works against them ultimately but you know again I think we'd have to figure that out in the design if it were the will of the board okay thank you ml um so Laura I'm going to speak to to this um I I really appreciate what you're trying to do I think let's try to get a real Civic use happening here so and and I do not see it as a structural issue or anything the fifth floor is already there there's probably already Plumbing up there so there could be a bathroom um and I think if it was if it was thought through in the spirit of a public use it could even start to happen back in that area to even pull the building away so that the people in the apartments in that you know close building would have some breathing room up up at that floor I I think it could create a win-win I'm really supporting the the concept of it

[283:00] yes it will be um a rethink and a redesign but you know I think it's very clear from the beginning that this project the Civic component of it was really not the driving force that's not why this building is getting built just does not you know you look at the elevations it doesn't Stand Out o there's a cool place for public to go nothing about it is is deferring to um it being a Civic uh a civic-minded um building that is going to attract people and do all the things that you know all the all the things that we wanted it to do so I think to try to get something somewhere that could create a win-win I I I like I like what you're suggesting and um I don't I don't think that it would be um a structural problem and certainly as Charles said you know if it's already there already an elevator going to the fifth floor it's not going to impinge on any additional height issues I I will

[284:01] support this um because I do think we've got to find a way for this project to give something to the community was that was that a second ml were you looking for a second sure yeah I think I need one thank you ml um other points of discussion that anyone wants to make yeah I I I'm not going to support this as much as I like rooftop decks as much as I like uh Community open space I think that um when the planning board gets into conditioning things with um major design uh changes and and I think this is a major design change um I that I don't find it grounded in a deficiency

[285:02] in the code I don't see the project as designed to be deeply deficient in the code I can't point to a section of the code that says wow they're missing the rooftop deck portion in -214 I3 so I I I think it's it's it's uh it's too late for this sort of thing and because of that I'm I will I will be a no vote Claudia I concur with Mark's analysis of this again a big fan of public spaces and rooftop de this is extremely late in a design process to introduce that kind of amendment and I also think that the the site as a whole having gone through review is meeting the open space requirements in our site review code um and furthermore the 2019

[286:00] agreement with the city does also anticipate those three stories and I think we do have some responsibility to respect that other thoughts could the amendment be adjusted to remove sh in order for exploration to see if this is feasible no yeah that wouldn't really be effective as a condition yeah I mean you could advise them to ex continue to explore that with St but I don't know that we'd want to put it in a condition got it could you Laura could you help me think through what what part of the site review criteria this would support as and is your justification would be helpful yeah so I'm looking at the site

[287:01] review criteria um oh 9-2 D14 h uh to B open space thank you Christie and it says the open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents occupants tenants and visitors of the property um in mixed use well this isn't a mixed use proc uh project um so this is kind of a judgment call does the open space that is provided with the project meet the needs of the anticipated residents occupants tenants and visitors of the property and you know in my judgment adding uh adding this building with no new open space does not meet the anticipated needs of residents occupants tenants and visitors of the property uh can I ask a question of Staff when we are evaluating the site review criteria and we're talking

[288:03] about the site the site here is the full site of St J ion it's not just the project right okay in that case I do not feel that I feel that we are meeting that the proposed project meets the site review criteria in this regard well here's a question and because I think it's really it's super interesting because the the question is because we have the Civic space the Civic space and the the agreement in the Civic space is for use of that Civic space Where is the space for that Civic space the in the I think that question got asked and in the applicant statement they say that it's basically the entrance to the building that people could gather there but they don't really describe I I can't imagine people just Gathering outside the entrance to the building with their drinks or whatever and you know mingling

[289:01] at a Gala event like or at an Art Exhibit or like that's not a lot of open space for people who are attending some kind of community function in this building but my understanding can I my understanding is we need to evaluate the building as a whole and that includes that all that area on the south and Southwest of the existing St Julian which is a very large Courtyard um and sort of patio area and that to me that's what I'm thinking of when I say I feel the current building needs occupants of the building to what Laura brought up I guess the question is those occupants are going to get uh uh those non for-profits Etc are going to get discounted space to operate in but where is their access to open space because there might be open space on the property but the occupants of that Civic space are not guaranteed access to that

[290:02] open space for their use if it's not included somewhere in this property or in that agreement there guaranteed access to the open space that already exists Elsewhere on the site it's one site review it's being this is an amendment so it's being it's still considered one site review the whole site is still tied together so they would still get to the benefit of the access of any of the amenities in open space that are that are on the St Julian property and just as a clarification there there are plenty of things in the site review um like TDM plans that are highly subjective open space is a numerical calculation is is it not and it's objective it it's both objective and subjective um we have qualitative standards for what we consider open space and how it should be amenitized in order to be considered for the metric that's required in the code so it's a little bit of B so one of the things that um I have

[291:00] been questioning is how is the open space around this particular piece of the site how is it being articulated so that the public knows you did that with your you know wayfinding um or it's not a private area where do the people who are coming to this piece or even just walking through or looking for the Civic component without going it's not like it's just right adjacent next door you got to walk through and over and across to get to the open space that is assigned to the whole thing so I I think there is a a qualitative difference and that is proximity and and that's and that's something that I've been concerned with and that's what my motion if we ever got did we get it out what my condition will be about because I think it's about proximity and that's why I appreciate um the specificity of yours go um I'll just say

[292:02] so my profession is facilitator and I have facilitated meetings that were held in hotels in hotel conference space and your people that you are meeting with you know they want to know where do we go on the break where do we get our food where's our bathroom where's the place where we go to mingle during the breaks right and so um it's harder to direct people to flow out onto shared open space with a hotel and with a restaurant um and then get them back than it is to say oh we're going to go up to the rooftop deck and we're going to have a half an hour to meet and mingle and have cocktails and then we're going to come back to our meeting space right if you're doing a dayong event so I personally appreciate your line of questioning George which is how does the open space serve the people who are coming to event functions at this piece of the hotel right and so I can tell you what I would prefer as somebody going to

[293:00] a conference or going to an art exhibit or going to a dance event um in terms of the usability of the open space um on the site shall we uh vote on it yes okay Mason before we vote I I think we have some proposed amendments to this just to make some specifics on what the rooftop deck looks like and what kind of space you all want or what amount of space you want to um add to the rooftop deck um so I don't know went yeah it's hard it's hard to know whether or not we should put a prescriptive metric in in for how big the rooftop deck should be because we haven't studied it there's a lot of mechanical going on up there between the mezzanine and then you know just the rooftop um units that are there so wanted to see if the board had any feelings without that or whether or not it should be something that's um left a little bit less

[294:01] prescriptive for staff to work out with the applicant which also gives me pause um so just wanted to see if the board had any direction on what you're thinking side wise alternatively we could vote and determine whether conceptually this this meets a a threshold of four affirmative votes and then we can not then if if it doesn't then we can that works skip that debate yeah that works can we just straw poll it so that we don't have to officially accept my Amendment and then go back and revise it can we just draw a poll whether there's support for this yeah so that's three thank you for your efficiency Mark um all right next uh next thing I will say I I loved your your thought process I was I was torn but but but I

[295:01] but I thought your thought process was really cool okay uh next so while she is typing it up um the um Amendment the condition that I'm interested in making is in order to meet the additional requirements for the height bonus uh I well there it comes I'm I'm looking to have the space around this um addition yeah meet the requirements of the um open space and and it's got the criteria the

[296:00] full criteria number because at this point it doesn't seem to meet them there isn't any place for Gathering there's no place for benches there's there isn't any um de development of the and really the public space is that passage uh there really isn't any uh public how is the public going to use that area um outside the building as their open space rather than saying my open space is over there at the hotel and this is just a passage I I think it needs to be inclusive of P of um Human Experience so that's that's the intent what's your motion I will make the motion motion to amend with the condition well okay so my language isn't perfect motion to amend with a condition in order to meet additional requirements for how height bonus that the plans be revised to show that the open space around the addition meets and that's the criteria

[297:03] number and so is the intent to increase the amount of open space at the ground level or is it to better ameniti the open space that already exists out there okay then I I think we would need to get a little bit more specific otherwise I I wouldn't know how as a staff person I wouldn't know how to actually enforce this condition so the numbers four I to V2 um are pretty specific they identify specific things um such as um seating and other design elements are integrated with the circulation pattern um we've got the Southern Exposure hard surfaces are paved with unit pavers Quarry tiles or po so it gives some specifics amenities such as seaing tables grills planting shade and so you're okay with that entire menu of things because right now we saw nothing

[298:01] we just saw big blank spaces and I think that that is um with the answer that the open space is already out there at the St Julian existing site I I think this site needs to have the same care and attention that helps but I think Christy has some language though however this is a site review Amendment right yeah in total it's a site review Amendment so so and and the way this reads now is that that the whether you amenitie it or increase it or DEC increase it the open space your motion ties it to the hey bonus my understanding is the hype bonus may be the requirement the requirements of the hyp bonus are met through one of three very specific things and amenities

[299:00] in open space is not one of those things requirements yeah so in this particular case it's um for the benefit of height modifications open SP okay this this particular passage a long number but but I have to I have to chime in this is where is that right now the motion just says that the plans have to be revised to show that you meet the criteria well if it doesn't meet the criteria then it doesn't we can't approve it so you have to be specific about how you think it is not currently meeting the criteria well I just did Charles was okay with it well I'm okay with the menu of options because I understand it but I think Laura's probably probably right like do you want to be specific and say it must include seating it must include uh pavers it must include some kind of amenity such as grills planting shade horseshoe pits playground equipment that that one there number three

[300:03] number uh six number seven or number eight so the one you're talking about the ones around seaing amenities and trees right it that those are the specifics that um the criteria that we have the authority over those are the criteria that we have the authority over now there are some general ones under General open space um which would be I could I could reference the General open space as well I don't so would it worth worth being specif like like trees seating it's not going to have horseshoe pits or playgrounds right right

[301:02] right the app uh yeah I don't even have a second Mike please thank you we are not able to put any kind of deck amenity or operable openings along Canyon because of the high convenience zone so if we were to add open space on the west side of our building um we would have to decrease the size of the banquet facilities not discussing adding open space I think you're talking about the open space that exists correct okay you are not asking for additional open space no no that's part of the drafting we're working on to is that anything that we do at the grade level has to be compliant with the flood regulations just recognizing that there's a lot of constraints out there with high Hazard and conveyance we can't cause a Rise um I think there's very specific uh regulations about what you can put in there and how it can be installed so we're going to have to craft some so so are we talking about

[302:00] adding amenities Into The Pedestrian Corridor and so pretty much the open space that has been ass assigned to so you're suggesting adding seating and trees and some kind of amenity Into The Pedestrian Corridor correct so that it's not just a big underpass one more one just one more comment on that right now we're supposed to have or maintain a size of a banquet hall for events for the Civic space and that space will have to get smaller than our 6,500 Square F feet the city the the size of the banquet and the meeting spaces that we're providing for the Civ City Civic use will have to decrease in size to accommodate this exterior addition we're not suggesting adding more greater exterior we're not suggesting that is there some limitation around the width of the corridor that you're suggesting that if we added benches and trees we would be decreasing the width of the corridor unacceptably

[303:00] if I may there are some limitations on what they can put in the corridor correct according to the easement so there's there's ancillary there's there's space to work with with it's not just passage their plan was correct there certain obstructions that they will not be able to put in the corridor so correct correct I understand in the middle of I understand it's it that's the only open space that we have with this new project and I guess my intent is that it has an experiential and a human and a public feeli so that people will be invited to use it and to activate and to actually um engage the site in a positive way rather than oh I got to Scurry through you that that it's a joyful experience and um again in light of the fact that we are having we're creating a Civic

[304:00] opportunity here so I don't do I even have a second or even a proper motion I would be supportive of a second if it was more specific it's really sorry ml I'd be supportive to Second it but for me it would have to be more spec it would have to be very specific and also acknowledge that uh to to uh to their point that um the constraints you know to the extent that this can happen in the constraints of the flood plane right so let me ask the staff this question just let me because I might not even need to make the motion if this um so Charles um in as you see more detail on the project will you be looking at that especially the public access that that access to the site will you be looking for it to meet these criteria anyway

[305:03] well they have to point they have to bring us plans that are consistent with what it is that they've got entitled through through the site review process so when they bring their plans and we'll be reviewing them for consistency with what it is that you're seeing tonight so if we don't have a and the conditions of approval that you guys put on it obviously if we so if we don't have um a a motion saying that such as what I'm proposing would staff be looking at that passage with the intent of it needs to meet um open space criteria well I think we've made findings already tonight in the packet that indicate that we have found that it satisfies those criteria and I think the again our rationale was really about the 45,000 square feet of open space that you know exist in the courtyard further to the West right um you know and then the the other spaces that are around the periphery of the um

[306:00] kind of the main campus right of the St Julian so yeah I I I just want to make a comment the appli is in the hospitality business and it is their goal to have customers and to have events and to Make spaces welcoming and accessible and uh the last time I visited St Julian I think it's exemplary in terms of what they have done with their public spaces on the West in the Interior Space um and you know pretty much in every way other than the Civic pad which is now just a concrete pad and I I I think that this that staff has found that it meets the open space criteria objectively and that the sub that the subjective quality especially of trying

[307:01] to specify amenities in a high conveyence Zone in a flood zone with a with a narrow public RightWay intersecting it I I trust the applicant I think that this is this is an example of where we've gone um too uh too fine grained in our process and you know it's it's we're we're here to approve a an amendment to an existing site review and I think this is too fine grained and I won't be supporting it what I don't think I have a second well then if we don't then let's go on well I think so I heard George say he would second it if it was more specific yeah but I I think I think Mark Mark made it Mark made an excellent point which is I I think his Hospitality point so so I I I'm supportive of what you just said I think that's that's fine yeah I'm just concerned that the I've heard it again and again tonight that

[308:01] the open space and all that amenity is over at at the current St Julian site and so I really feel like this site um you know is is is not going to get much more upgraded than what it already is do you want to see there's a is there a second so if there isn't a second but that that that's the reason I'm I'm doing thank youon I don't want to waste any more time never mind what oh no no I I was there's been a lot of talk about movement of people through this area and activating and I I don't know if everyone knows but just across the The Pedestrian pathway is a door leads to a hallway to more event space that takes you through to the Green Space to the hotel to the lobby and all that stuff so I I think it's pretty it works in my mind any other

[309:01] amendments being proposed I just want to clarify so the amendment that I made about the rooftop deck did we act we never actually voted on that Charles had proposed maybe staff refining it we took a straw poll is there something that we have to do to conclude that that motion uh yes I don't think you have to withdraw you didn't yeah you neither withdraw withdraw or vote right right what do you want to do good catch up is anybody inclined to change their vote potentially if if staff make any Laura would you like to have it on the record though to have us vote on it on the record well staff were not comfortable with us voting on it the way that it was and they wanted to potentially sharpen it upot on the way it was and it fails then your intention your your intentions clear there and so I I I I think that might be

[310:00] both the quickest and the best way to convey your ATT intention and and to move on to other things so just go ahead and vote is what you're saying mark sure sure let's go ahead and vote okay um should we I'll second to do right yeah so should we reread it just so people are clear on what we're voting on sure um Amanda could you scroll back up to the one about the rooftop deck no we did not because we we did a straw poll and they stopped working on a re on a revision in yeah that's good that's good um right so we can Circle back to that um are there other amendments anyone wants to put up no all right on that one I'm sorry we're we're done with public

[311:05] comment I I'm sorry we we just we can't accept public comment in this period thank you I I I'm I'm I'm I'm sorry to cut you off it's just not appropriate for us it's not fair to every to the process so thank you okay so where are we now Mr chair waiting for Laura's amendment to get okay Happ okay let's get through this yeah let's get through it we're not that

[312:03] far uh yes okay I'll read it to meet the site review criteria regarding the open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents occupants tenants and visitors of the property I move that the building include a public access rooftop deck of at least one quarter of the available fifth floor area and I'll second that M seconds okay great uh Mason are we voting or discussing we're voting I will this hold or is this is this appropriate to vote on yeah okay

[313:02] yes no yes yes no yes no okay no that was four to three that yeah that carried so wait what just some somebody changed their vote okay so do you understand that the that the that the motion that was made was is not what staff would that's what I was I think we need to amend it now if staff want to amend it if staff want to propose amend we can we can amend it now so we need a motion to amend this amendment yes so maybe let's see what what staff want us to amend about it all right so um what we had brought up before the straw poll on this and

[314:01] deciding whether we wanted to go on down this track was um whether or not you all wanted to include a specific um area that had to be required so square footage percentage of building area that kind of thing um we would recommend something like that just for ease of um implementing it in the future creating some kind of expectation because if you just say because the mechanical that kind of thing we need to create some kind of expectation of what that will look like yeah and I mean that's why I said at least one quarter of the available fifth floor area so if staff want to suggest subtracting the mechanical needs from the available fifth floor area although the mechanical is going up on top of the fifth floor and this is about carving Away part of the fifth floor so it's not competing with the mechanical well un mechan OCC yeah on the Flor car if the mechanical

[315:03] occupies more than three4 of the top of the fifth floor I think we've got a very strange building do you have a different minimum that you char Charles that you'd be comfortable with I mean maybe maybe one quarter is not the appropriate minimum in your head maybe you have something yeah because one quarter is like around 2000ish square feet of open space um which is quite a bit for a rooftop deck so I I'm open to proposed amendments if you want to say like a 1,000 ft rooftop deck or what would be appropriate size of a rooftop deck to meet the needs of the people attending events in this conference center assuming that they rent the whole first floor a minimum of a th000 feet I I think I'd also want to hear from the applicant just about whether or

[316:01] not off the top of their head there's a something that guard rails that are feasible for them I I think if we don't put a number to it and we get 20 square feet no one's going to be happy with the condition being satisfied um 2500 square feet probably seems like a lot so maybe we'd be able to consult the applicant about what they think is feasible right right now you're talking about I mean is that yeah I think before you okay continue crafting the condition do you all want to speak to that um a th000 square feet would require us to have two means of egress so we would need two stair access points as well as the elevator that would cause everything to kind of come up um we have a solar array also on the roof so we might not be able to accommodate the full solar array size to meet energy code um and then another concern is we would have to add transfer beams in the in the parking garage which would need to be coordinated with kid to be able to accommodate that step in our floor slab and that's all doable but there's just a

[317:01] lot of additional parameters so if we're looking at doing a rooftop deck you want to go less than um 700 square feet we you can't go more than 700 square feet or else we need two stair cores to go up okay so how about a minimum of 600 square feet it's your it's your it's your motion so um up up to up to I would say I would say a minimum of 700 feet and then we're likely to get a 700 foot rooftop deck and I think if we go lower then we're likely to get low lower so I would say a minimum of 700 ft so uh the building include a public access rooftop deck of at least 700 Square F feet does your 700 square feet include the method of egress she wouldn't need they wouldn't need two aggresses if it's under I understand but you still have to have

[318:00] one so um well I mean they already have an elevator up to the fifth floor okay so the the idea is that the fourth floor there's rooftop as part of part of it and then there's a fifth floor on the rest of the roof of the fourth floor yeah I have a question when it says Public Access is it clear I guess this is a question of staff is it clear what that means no no and we haven't had great luck with the karita Rooftop at this point with enforc so I would be comfortable using the language from the 2015 agreement that I quoted earlier um that talks about yeah and I apologize I don't have the page number here um but it it's the 2015 letter of intent and it says the building will be designed if deemed

[319:00] feasible um with an outdoor rooftop area that will be available for use by community members and visitors through rental of space by Civic groups and not for-profit or organizations at a reduced rate and exploration of circumstances where the space could be used for free so that's that's the language that I would carry forward okay so instead of saying Public Access Amanda can I can I give you this language how fast can youp yeah I got some language too if you want me to just jump on in there sure Christine okay so what Amanda's typing right now is what I've been chatting to her in order to meet site review criteria regarding open space um and then I cite the section 92 24 h2b the applicant shall revise the building plans to include a roof rooftop deck that is at least 700 Square ft of an orientation and design acceptable to the city and accessible to the public under terms that are consistent with the 2019 agreement which is the agreement that incorporates the 2015 letter of intent

[320:02] that and who the user should be oh board member K is yep I think that is an acceptable way to frame it thank you Christine very nicely done on Flay do you want to make that motion to amend your yes amen so I will move to amend my previous motion regarding the rooftop deck to instead be staff's suggested language in order to meet the site review criteria regarding open space 9-2-1 14 h2b brc1 1981 the applicant shall revise the building plans to include a rooftop deck that is at least 700 sare ft of an orientation and design acceptable to the city and accessible to the public under terms that are consistent with the 2019 agreement and I'll second that again okay um should we vote Mason yes Claudia I'd like to clarify what we're

[321:01] voting on are we voting on amending what we what we accepted or are we voting on supporting this as an amendment in it's right in its own right I believe we are voting on replacing the previous Amendment with this language again I'm not entirely sure I did not support the previous amendment I would not like to support this as a standalone Amendment so what am I voting on well maybe you can clarify my understanding is it's an amendment to the amendment we just did correct yeah so this clarifies something that is going to happen already according to the action that we have taken yes okay then I will support this yes I would just want clarification from you all um so when you all say rooftop deck you mean the fourth floor not the fifth floor okay correct uh which is the top floor you call it Fifth no it's it's the what what it is is the the it's not going to be on the

[322:01] actual tippy top roof it's not on the it's not on the roof it basically drops a level down does do we need Clarity in this it's going to have to be consistent with the city's height regulations yeah right so default it will have to be because it has to be consistent with the correct I don't know whether call it a rooftop deck or a patio rooftop deck rooftop deck is fine but I just wanted to make that for the record consistent that you all don't mean the tippy top of the building instead a floor down okay do we need to clarify that in the amendment language or you understand that from the record I don't feel like we do because at the end of the day it has to meet code it has to be yeah it can't be over 55t so to me that's implicit but all right so this is amending the amendment that Laura put forward for I'm just going to restart the vote since we were doing a lot of clarification um Laura had uh made the motion ml had seconded Mason yes yes yes I'm

[323:02] yes yes yes and yes okay um any other amendments that anyone would like to put forward you'd like to put forward an amendment I I I don't we've already we've already kind of going through comment period so we're not we're not discussing anything in addition saying it's consistent with the 2019 agreement but it's not the 2019 agreement say first floor three floors of guest rooms and then you're saying now it's going to be Flo guests and we separate the froms so thank you for the clarification I I my understanding of what you were saying consistent with the N 2019 agreement was around the use of the Civic space the users correct users it's um clarified that accessible to the

[324:01] public under terms that are consistent so available to the users of the Civic space we can amend that you already if we want to put the super specific language in there about the uh visitors to the site then yeah we can do that is it is it clear to I mean I guess the question is is it clear to staff and is it clear in the record I'm happy to make an additional it's clear to staff who um what we're trying to do with this what the intent is and then who the rooftop access is is meant to serve so I think it's I think it's clear it's for the users of the Civic space yeah and I'll just State for the record that you can have three four floors of guest rooms and not all floors have the same amount of floor area right we have plenty of buildings where the top floor is reduced in size in order to have step backs and and rooftop decks and that kind of thing so it's still a third it's still a fifth floor it's just not as big as the others okay great um other amendments

[325:01] Mark your your mics on I don't know if you um if not we'll Circle back back to the main motion uh and if Amanda you wouldn't minding that up Amanda can we clean up the dock a little bit just for record sake so condition one is fine condition two I sent you a clarifying that includes the correct language which I think you might have added below I think that paragraph Was superseded by the one below it so I think um no this is on the inclusionary

[326:00] housing fee not the one below you're right it's the one that was changed [Music] no it's the in order to meet the site review criteria regarding open space or no sorry not open space um in order to satisfy additional criteria for hype bonus and L use intensity the applicant shall pay pay the affordable housing portion of the capital facility impact fee according to section blah blah yeah okay sorry it's past my bedtime

[327:28] yeah I keep on doing that too my hands are like sweaty

[328:00] that's fine it's clear enough yeah Y and that one's good yep and then we just voted on the amendment to the one that's above staff suggestion so we're deling what's above staff suggestion needs to be deleted just a point of clarification on that I I don't think you can actually delete that because as Claudia pointed out she did not she did not vote to

[329:02] support the idea of a rooftop deck but she did vote to clean up the language as staff suggested so I think we need to keep that one and say that one passed by 4 to3 same with Mark and same with Kurt that one p 4 to3 and then cleaning up the language past 7 to zero just as a a cleanup um the third sentence it it should say that is at least 700 square feet not that it and and a bottom paragraph yeah that should be an is that is at least 700 square feet we could always do the clean up later as far as what that looks

[330:02] like so who was the original motion maker and the original second on this now we're at the beginning I didn't I made the original motion for the yeah um there any uh discussion before we vote I I will say um from my perspective I I struggle greatly with this because I heard the history and the community feedback um unfortunately we're not judging it on the agreement that was struck with city council because I don't think that's a very good deal for the city and the people in the city um but that's not the criteria that we're um voting on it for and so for that reason I'm going to be supportive of it um but I do think I I do think that the changes in

[331:01] the Amendments that we made are are are great I would have liked to have gotten a better Civic use I do think that the the height of a children's museum is way different than a height of a hotel um and just because that was approved doesn't mean that this should be approved at this height but at the same time we we I think we there were some good compromises made tonight so I just wanted to put that out there as feedback and also thank everyone out for coming out uh that was impassioned about this issue tonight um other comments or I'll just say I agree with a lot of that I I I certainly feel that the agreement made in 2019 was not a great one on the other hand you know we'd been trying for 20 years at that point to get a Civic use and we had failed and so we probably got the best that we could but it still it feels like I I think it was it's problematic because expectations in the community had been

[332:01] set that this was going to be a really great Civic space and that didn't happen uh for various reasons that we don't have to go into but I think that expectation has continued in the in the community and now we're ending up with something lesser and so people feel like oh they're losing out um so but there's a complicated history there mark my my comments actually I I wrote comments at length I'm I'm going to not go through them but I I will say this is a a boulder project full of Shoulda would a Coulda um and it's not dissimilar to um CU South where you know the city had an opportunity to buy CU South and we didn't uh this space I I think people have had a mistaken view that somehow the city owns

[333:04] this we we've we've we haven't um um and and we haven't owned it from the beginning and that somehow the uh the the terminology of Civic space um is Broad enough that everyone has a fantasy in their mind of what it is that that this might be and at the same time our job is to you know um administer and adjudicate on a code and a law and you know I I think we've done that pretty well tonight um but uh you know we we don't we are not given the world we wish for we're given the world that we have and we're given the law and the code we have and I think that um this project uh fits within the code and deserves uh a side

[334:01] approval um just really briefly I agree with everything that my colleagues have just said and I want to say that this idea that discounting meeting rooms qualifies as a Civic benefit is probably not something that I would have supported if I were being asked to vote on the 2019 agreement but we're not that's not what we're being asked for but I do think we need to keep an eye on that because it looks like people may be proposing that as an alternative benefit which is something that planning board deals with so I would really strongly encourage us to actively monitor how much is this Civic space getting used what you know um what rates are being charged like how is the community benefiting from this space over time to see whether this is a deal that we would ever strike again um so I just I just want to say that um I think it was brought up that the St Julian is really um an asset to our city and and a Class Act and I absolutely concur with that and I really

[335:01] hope that the public space around this addition is given the same level of attention and beauty that the current hotel has because I think that that would be a real asset to the community and um a great gesture and I know you guys can do it because you've already done it with the main Hotel so thank you for for having that space already available and let's just carry it Forward um into this one thank you okay any other um I agree with everything that's been said and I do think if those expectations had had been set this would be a completely different meeting where we'd be talking about the community benefit of having event space having a more activated area having you know beautiful Frontage etc etc so I do appreciate um everyone working together here for for the best possible solution great that's a great note um shall we vote on this one

[336:03] Mason um yes Claudia yes Laura yes Mark yes ml yes Kurt yes and I am also a yes so that motion passes unanimously with all the Amendments attached to it that we voted through anything else that we need to do on this public hearing item before it closes out okay great um thanks again for everyone's participation on this and thank you also to the St Julian it does get lost in this process that I think um probably everyone on this has been there enjoyed it and and does believe it is one of the living rooms if not the living room in our community for a lot of things that happen downtown so thank you um all right uh we didn't vote on 40 kind of got away from us a little bit um so uh we

[337:02] have uh some matters items we have an information item and then we have the matters item for review for area three and planning reserve the informational item is that a discussion at all or that was just yeah going to speak to both items real quickly so thanks for your patience this evening and thank you to the staff who've uh waited on these two uh matters item Mark Garcia is here to answer questions he can certainly speak for himself too on the um uh the first item uh but we really didn't intend that as uh an item for questions on the second item regarding area three uh we do have prepared for you a 15 to 20 minute presentation but we've got a deal for you so I'll let uh an alternative proposal although we do need a decision on that tonight because of some timing things associated with Council so as Christopher Johnson gets in here he can speak to that and I'll just see if uh Mark if you want to come up here and uh

[338:00] see if we have any questions on that first item for them thank you both great job thanks Shannon thanks Charles thank you and Mark doesn't have a presentation so just if you do have any questions I do have a question yeah go ahead Laura um so thank you for being here tonight uh and thank you for the information item in the packet about the narrow trenching uh very informative I learned a ton um I did want to ask about that email that we got from Alexi Davis Davies on um from Community Cycles who was concerned about the safety implications for Psy lists of having bicycle lanes that are uh greater than 3T in width would not have to be resurfaced after this narrow trenching does staff any have any kind of response to that concern yeah definitely we we did uh take a look at various factors what it came down to that decision and um actually do have a follow-up meeting

[339:00] with Alexi on Thursday to really iron out some of the decision and and pretty much the facts behind the the the call to uh make that three foot or less uh requirement um into the DCs so there's a there's a few different uh you know overall reasons why we're going to pursue that option one is it's actually less impactful to uh the community overall for the narrow trenching to be in an already existing seam and uh there's some other details that we need to go through with Lexi directly just to make sure that that group understands that the uh overall uh remedy to restore the that area is actually going to benefit uh that seam itself actually making it more structurally sound than not having uh that that little sliver of of patch using a material called mastic one so

[340:00] there are some details we will be going through to make sure that those concerns are ironed out in full detail so if I'm riding my bike on a bike lane that has had this narrow trenching done I don't have to worry about like my wheel getting like like it happens with railroad tracks where your wheel gets aligned in the wrong way and then you go up flipping that's correct yeah yeah so uh just keep in mind that if they're if they're away from the uh what we call the Lip lip line or the edge of the um the curbing gutter which is the area between the asphalt and the concrete Cur itself you know if they happen to have to place the narrow TR beyond that point um you know again specific to the the whatever the width of the bike lane is uh that is going to require a mill in overlay so when uh whenever that it does actually occur um you we have our full discretion to determine what's going to

[341:01] happen in that bike lane uh and also keep in mind uh the measurement that um wasn't uh specifically called out uh in in Alexis's information was that you know the the width the bike lane is going to be measured From the Inside Edge of the the striping to the uh the edge of the concrete curb it doesn't incur the the pan so that was another factor that we talked about today over the phone to kind of help clarify what that actually means uh for for the dimension itself so yeah we're hoping to get some more answers to Alexi by on Thursday okay thank you yeah um thank you for being here of course uh so um my question is um you know what I saw when I was reading this was the uh cons right that it it'll

[342:01] it'll create less strong streets right there more more to need maintenance and repair right and so given that our streets are kind of a mess already um I'm wondering is this micro trenching only to be used where um you can't do the direct trench where you can't do the the deeper one are are they because you said that it works best right where there's roots or existing utilities or there are big rocks and things so that's the benefit of the micro would the direct trenching which doesn't bring with it the um additional potential maintenance and damage to the streets um happen otherwise yeah so there's a couple of you know items I need to address uh there's few questions in there so uh the cin method right now is directional bore um and you've probably seen it around

[343:02] town they the very large bore Rings go through the barar pits and then ultimately go through our very rocky soil very costly to do takes a lot of time and very impactful overall so narrow trenching micr trenching shallow trenching all the same term those actually end up um just being another tool in the in the in a a tool belt or to speak another option to pursue if someone were to be looking to install Comm lines uh as far as you know the the impact of our infrastructure that was taken into account as far as part of this there you know at the end of the day um Trying to minimize the impacts to our existing infrastructure was a big factor and part of that was actually the the the direct lip line um item that was

[344:00] in that that packet calling out for you know the the microtrench to be at the concrete lip line was the uh biggest factor to reduce the impact to the street so that's where the the call out came from uh We've we uh looked at multiple municipalities and other jurisdiction to see what has has been done and quite frankly what shouldn't be done uh so we took a lot of those those items and and really try to come to the best conclusion of what could be allowed without impacting our infrastructure more than what needs to be of course you did the due diligence thank you so much of course that that was my question uh did you consider doing the microtrenching on the curb side of that lip line as opposed to on the asphalt side so that that would not then reduce the width of the the the usable width of the bike lane yeah that that's always

[345:00] going to be uh one of the the top priorities during the permit process is to actually determine the best location not just what they're hoping to do and we do that currently with with all projects including boring uh one bing sure we're meeting separation requirements making sure we're keeping our tree Lawns clear for future plantings and um there are corridors that are available that are outside of the asphalt itself and if they are available then those should be the preferred methods okay but I'm talking about in the The Gutter pan is are you you're actually talking in the actual gutter pan or back of the Cur so so three inches or whatever into the gutter pan as opposed to three inches into the asphalt yeah that actually creates a a more significant issue when it comes down to the freeze thaw water penetration related issue because there isn't actually a good material uh to that that's similar domastic one for um

[346:02] let me rephrase mastic one is the is the the material that we're we're specking out which is a SE DOT approved material to seal and and and protect our asphalt at the end of the day uh there is a similar product for uh M you know it's mastic one gray uh that is used in concrete but we're not approving concrete Cuts uh for for narrow trenching and you either way you're one edge of your trench is at the Joint between the asphalt and the con conrete right what you're proposing is one side of the mastic is at the gutter pan I guess I'm confirming that this is correct one side is at the edge of the gutter Pan and the other side is three inch or however wide the microt trench is yeah what to three in sorry one to three inches one to three inches into the into the asphalt right so it's the

[347:01] mastic is is bridging between the asphalt and the concrete if you cut instead one to three inches into the gutter pan you'd still be bridging between the asphalt and the concrete so my question is did you consider that that would it as I see it that would not then result in a reduction in width of the of the bike plane oh great question U overall the question did come up during in our process with some of the um internet service providers about cutting into concrete uh it's really not an optimal option to be cutting in concrete itself it requires a whole different blade uh and then they pretty much actually don't make the uh blades to to meet the the width requirements in order to cut through asphalt in the time frame that's needed to make this even worthwhile so

[348:03] the cost Effectiveness wouldn't be there to cut into that to concrete regardless okay and it also causes some impact to our infrastructure because most of our kbon gutters do have some some rebar and other materials within it and uh you know depending on how the road was built could be a significant impact to the structure Integrity uh of the of the concrete itself okay um one other question in the the runup to this uh project Garrett Slater talked with me about possibly integrating some changes to the curb standards and I'm not seeing that in here and it may just be that that didn't wasn't ready or whatever I don't know if you're familiar with that but I was just wondering about the status of that yeah I'm I'm familiar with it it was it was a you know a

[349:00] possible uh scenario to include this in uh in this DCS update I was actually uh considered uh or determined to to push this to the next one which will actually be late 2025 in the 26 uh to you know change and add uh some more DCS items for transportation related purposes so it's it's coming but it was not included on this one at the end of the day it was determined to just wait and and and get it on the next one okay so we won't see those for a year or more correct thank you thanks anybody else anything else no if you have any other questions or you think something Beyond this my my email address is in that packet so just reach out to me thank you so much thank you all I heard there's a deal on the

[350:01] table a there we go uh good evening planning board Christopher Johnson comprehensive planning man manager um so the item that we were going to present to you uh um during matters this evening is on the area 3 planning Reserve Urban Services study uh as we described in the memo uh planning board's role of re of um at this point in the study is just to review the study you take you don't take any formal action or make any formal recommendation to city council um they have the um essentially the the job or the authority to accept the the urban Services study which essentially means that they deem it to be complete um and then the process around the area 3 planning Reserve would move forward um we believe that uh based on the fact that we have provided you uh the draft of the urban Services study um scheduled this item you have the study itself in your packet that essentially constitutes

[351:02] your opportunity for review and so um we would not be required to give you this presentation this evening but you are welcome to uh review that and then reach out to staff with any questions or comments um ideally before the end of the day Monday uh because we are uh in the process of preparing our final memo for uh city council that acceptance would occur at their November 7th meeting um and really the November 14th uh joint public hearing between yourselves and city council is really the opportunity to dig into the uh the results of the study and and more of a policy conversation of uh are the two bodies interested in exploring the next step uh surrounding the planning Reserve which would be to incorporate a community need study into the comprehensive Plan update so the the deal on the table is that we are able

[352:00] and willing to give you the presentation tonight but it is not required um to consider your review complete so I I just have a question around that so um you need uh if if if it's wanted uh feedback from questions and feedback prior to or on end of day Monday next week is that correct yes that would be great okay y um and so the only challenge that I see and and I'll let other people chime in is that we don't have the benefit of each other's comments while we're in here um now procedurally if we wanted to email comments to you all and copy the planning board so they can well so they can wait a second so they can see the comments as long as no one responds to them does that count as a serial meeting

[353:01] directly I don't think so not directly I don't love it though um because if one of you responds back okay we automatically have an open meeting that was not noticed so um I I I try to keep that as closed as possible um and and my other comment you all aren't making a decision either so it's not like something that needs to be you know public needs to be aware of it and all of that but you know as a compromise and we've done this before if you just send them to Christopher Sarah whatever designated we can make sure that they are then collated in a space that you can see them okay that would done that before I think that would be better okay Laura can I make another request yes of course I love staff

[354:00] presentations but I don't want to stay past midnight to see one can I suggest that maybe tomorrow your desk you record your presentation and then send us a link to view it so that we can have you walk us through it the way that you would have in a presentation to just to help us kind of grock everything I think we can do that uh at a bare minimum we can share uh we can share a PDF of the of the presentation itself but yes we will definitely look into doing a a brief recording and finding a way to send you a link of that I would love to have a recording put it on the city's YouTube channel like I think that would be totally appropriate all right we'll figure that out anybody else I guess I'm trying to figure out what is the most productive than probably not giving input at this time just asking

[355:00] questions and then asking asking any questions that might have bearing on input that we would give in the joint meeting with council is that a reasonable way to frame yeah I think I think that's yeah I think that's probably the right approach um you know the the comprehensive plan is clear and that it states planning board's role is to review the urban Services study but it doesn't go beyond that so it doesn't you know it doesn't describe exactly what review con is constituted of or what that even you know what that would mean so um you know we we presented this as an opportunity or an option to be considered a review and offer you the presentation and take questions and and any feedback um and I think we would just in the absence of doing that in a meeting we are we are willing to accept those directly to to staff after you have a chance to review it great thank you sounds like a deal okay thank you and thanks for staying

[356:02] with us tonight um any other matters or discussion items from the board or any the staff that are present Brad anything else from youly mention we'll just briefly I will'll just briefly mention the uh kickoff to the conference plan on Saturday and those of you could attend that was wonderful those that couldn't certainly we understand and there'll be many other opportunities but it was a smashing success in certainly uh from my estimation and great appreciation to Christopher and the comprehensive team and many others because it was a team effort uh I won't go into detail there'll be a posting on the web and all that kind of stuff but uh it was it was fabulous and we are excited we're we're in the season now but that's all I've got thank you that's great well oh Mark it's it's almost we got one minute before midnight okay make not tonight I

[357:02] was going to ask for it tonight but the next meeting maybe under matters can you please give us an update of what's going on with uh parking and TDM holistic review slash workking group Etc sure okay thanks just just I'm sorry just really quick um I've noticed that we have not had many meeting minutes in the packet to review and maybe not tonight but at some point if you could let us know like has something changed in terms of minutes being reviewed or we just have a big backlog we have a little bit of a backlog but you are um going to get some hopefully tomorrow morning from Thomas to review and we're going to space them out through November and December to approve them all okay thank you yep all right this meeting is adjourned midnight you made it two

[358:00] seconds i s