January 21, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:03] Thank you. So I wanted to call to order this. January 21, st 2025. Meeting of the Boulder Planning Board. Thanks everyone for venturing out in today's weather before we get to our initial public participation start. Since we do have so many people in the audience, I thought it might be helpful. I'm assuming a lot of people are here for the Mountain View Church property to speak on that. And so just to give you a sequence of events. And what's going to happen this evening? First, st we have initial public participation. That's just for things that are not public hearings tonight. So anything that's not a public hearing item will be allowed to have the public speak. And then from there we're going to go right to the public hearing. Item, the 1st one, which is the Mountain View Church property, and we'll have staff. Give a presentation. The applicant give a presentation, and then the public will have their opportunity for public comment. Our rules are

[1:08] typically 3 min. If we have less than 15 people speaking 2 min, if we have more than 15 people speaking. My understanding is, we probably have that number of people just here, and probably others online. And so I wanted to give you a heads up on that so that you can tailor your comments to that 2 min period. So you get across the points that are necessary for you. And then, finally, we'll have the second. We'll have a deliberation across the planning board and discussion. It is a concept review, and and then, following that, we have the next public hearing before we close out. So that's that's the order of events happening. And now I'll go to Vivian to talk about public participation. Great. Thank you. Chair. Thanks, Thomas, for pulling up the slides. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge. I'll be going through these rules of public participation, and explain a little bit more about how it will work. And thanks again for joining us in person or online.

[2:11] So 1st of all just wanted to share, that the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives, so that public participation is positive for all. for more information about this vision and the community engagement processes that shaped it. Please visit our website for more information. Next slide, please. and I'll read through some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and that will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[3:04] 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 we ask that participants identify themselves by 1st and last name. I've noticed from the list of participants who are online. At least I can see some phone numbers and just some 1st names. So we really ask that people, if you wish to speak that you display your full name if you're not sure how to do that. You can send it to me using the Q&A function, or you can probably right click on your name and change it yourself, but I'm happy to do it for you. And also just a reminder that the QA. Function on the Zoom Platform is really just to ask technical questions about the Zoom Platform or the procedures, but not to have conversations on the content next slide, please.

[4:09] and for those of you who are joining us through telephone. I'll you'll receive a text from me to get your full name. So look out for that. and to let us know that you would like to speak either during the open comment section or later, for public hearings. Raise your virtual hand. You can do that by looking at the bottom of your screen and looking for that hand. Icon. If you're joining us by phone, you can Dial Star 9, and it will also raise the virtual hand next to your name. And this just shows another way to get to that hand, icon, by pressing on reactions, and then a little menu should pop up. So again, this next portion of the meeting open comment is for to share any comments related to city business, but that are not related to the public hearing items on the agenda for tonight. And if you 1st I'll go to maybe Thomas to see if there's anybody in the room

[5:06] who would like to speak. And I'm sorry. I just want to interject one more thing that I neglected to say up front, which is, we've got a full board here tonight. There are 5 of us on the podium, and there are 2 that are hybrid. Ml and Mason are online. Just so everyone's aware of who's here? Thank you. Thanks, Vivian. We don't have anybody signed up to speak for the open comment period in person. But if anybody would like to speak to matters that aren't on the agenda tonight. You can approach the podium and give those comments now. But otherwise we can move to online. Thank you. Okay, yeah. And in the meantime, maybe I'll just ask community members online to go ahead and raise virtual hand. They'd like to speak for this open comment. Portion don't see any hands raised, and just so, you know, for the public hearing. The public hearing will be will open after the staff presentation and and applicants presentations. And some discussion.

[6:08] Okay, think most people are here for public hearings. So back over to you, chair. Thanks, Vivian, all right. Next topic is dispositions and planning board call-ups, of which we have none. So we're going to go straight into the 1st public hearing. Item, that is the concept. Plan. Review for comment. Request for a proposal to redevelop Mountain View. United Methodist Church property at 355 Ponca Place, with a new 170,000 square foot addition to the Fraser retirement community at 350 Ponca Place. The new 4 story, 55 foot addition would contain 98 independent living apartments, with 2 levels of underground parking. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing church building. Removal of the existing surface, parking lots on both 350 and 3 55 Ponca place and vacation of the existing Ponca place right of way.

[7:11] and now I will pass it over to Staff for their presentation. Alright. Thank you. Me, just get okay. Can everyone see this? I can't see anyone. So. Yes, you're yeah. You're you're up, and you're up and running.

[8:02] Okay, great, thank you. Good evening. Planning board members. I will be presenting the 350 pocket place concept review for you this evening. So just a reminder. the purpose of concept plan. So the mandatory concept, plan and Site Review threshold is met by this project, both by the 18.8 6 acre size of the site which exceeds the 2 acre threshold for the Rh. 5 zone district, as well as the proposed project. Size which exceeds 30,000 square feet the purpose of concept review is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and to help identify key issues in advance of a Site Review submittal. The applicant is here to receive comments from the board staff and the public. and no formal action is being taken on this tonight. So, in terms of public notification. a written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet.

[9:01] Notice was also posted on the property staff has received lots of comments from neighboring community members expressing concern with the proposed project. Concerns include traffic and safety impacts on Sioux drive the parking garage size and location. The building scale and height, the project density. construction impacts groundwater and floodplain concerns and loss of the pocket. Place right of way, among other things. So in terms of the site, location on the project site is comprised of the existing Fraser Meadows, Pud Pud, at 350 Ponca place, as well as the adjacent property, at 3 55 Ponca place, which is circled here. It's a total of 18.8 6 acres in size, and is located in East Boulder, just south of Baseline Avenue and west of Foothills Parkway, within the Rh. 5 Zone district. The area immediately north of the site is zoned BC. One, or business community. One contains a mix of high density, residential development, and commercial uses.

[10:05] including the Colorado Athletic Club, Home and Suites Hotel Kaiser, Permanente, Medical Offices, and the Meadows Shopping Center. The project site at 3 55 Ponca Place currently contains the Mountain View, United Methodist Church. and is adjacent to the Admiral Burke Park and the horizons. K. Through 8 school property located just west of the church, and abutting the park on the south. Both the park and the school properties are primarily open space. so there are significant views to the flatirons from the subject property. It also creates a buffer between the property and the Fraser Meadows neighborhood. Further to the west. Foothills Parkway runs along the eastern boundary of the site separating the facility from the Key Wade and Meadows neighborhood to the east. and then immediately to the south of the site across Sioux Drive is re zone, single family, low density development. The Bbcp land use designation for the site is Hr. Or high density residential.

[11:01] These are defined as areas that are generally located close to the University of Colorado, and areas planned for transit, oriented development and near major corridors and services anticipated. Uses are attached dwelling units and apartments at more than 14 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Rh. 5, which is defined as high density. Residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units. including without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed the current use for Fraser is a congregate care, facility, and the proposed addition would be maintaining this use. which is noted as a conditional use with specific standards in the schedule of land uses. the Church would be maintaining their use as a religious assembly, which is an allowed use for the schedule of permitted land uses. So this is just a shot of the existing site. This is the the Mountain View Church building across from Fraser Meadows.

[12:01] and you can see some of the low density residential right across the street there, as well as the horizon. School. This is another shot, just pan, slightly further back to see the existing Fraser meadows facility which is comprised of a large building that's up to 55 feet in height. There are currently 7 existing vehicular access points onto the Fraser campus. There's 2 on Thonca. Place one on Thunderbird and 3 on Thunderbird to the east and one on Sioux Drive. The Mv. Umc property is currently served by 3 access points. 2 on Ponty drive and one on Siou Drive, all of which lead directly to a large surface parking lot. On street parking is available on Pawnee, Ponca, Sioux, and the Northern segment of Thunderbird Drive in terms of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Both the Fraser and church properties are served by attached sidewalks on all sides, with a multi-use path on the east side of the Fraser property connecting the foothills expressway multi-use path to the north and south via crosswalks

[13:04] into the East Boulder Community Park Path, via a bridge over the expressway. Sioux Drive is also listed as a designated bike route, but does not include designated bike lanes. Currently. so just a bit more context. You can see here that the project site is located between the Manhattan Middle School to the east and the horizons. K. Through 8 school to the west. The Fraser Meadows neighborhood to the south, which is much lower in scale and density. And then again, just looking a little to the north of the site, you can see the Admiral Burke Park, additional Low density residential to the West, and then higher density condominiums and commercial uses immediately to the north of the site in the BC. One zone. This is just a shot looking due north on Ponca Place from Sioux Drive, so you can see the existing church buildings here.

[14:05] So now to jump into the proposed project. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the Mountain View United Methodist Church property at 3 55 Ponca Place. with a new 170,000 square foot addition to the Fraser retirement community. The new 4 story 55 foot edition would contain 98 independent living units with 2 levels of underground parking. The proposal includes demolition of a portion of the existing church building. removal of existing parking lots on both 350 and 3 50 pocket place properties and vacation of the existing pocket. Place right of way. The remaining portion of the Mvumc building would continue to operate as a church, and would maintain a small number of surface parking spaces with additional spaces available in the underground parking garage through a shared parking agreement the vacated Ponca place. Right of way is envisioned to be redeveloped as a private drive

[15:03] with primary access maintained from Pawnee drive and secondary access, provided via the existing service entrance on Sioux Drive. The proposed addition would also be located within a portion of the vacated right of way. The proposal includes a large shared open space courtyard on the north side of the building overall. This site plan proposes about 31% of open space. and, as I mentioned before the applicant has indicated, there would be a shared parking agreement between Fraser and the church. Although the details are not known at this time. The proposed site design would place the new addition primarily along Sioux Drive the buildings would be 4 stories and 55 feet in height. The length of the building is broken down into 3 primary masses, which are angled to create offsets in the facade with ground to sky glass elements at interior corners intended to create visual transparency between segments.

[16:00] the proposed materials. Palette is consistent with the existing Fraser campus, and would consist primarily of stone, brick, stucco, and wood accents. This is an image of the shared open space courtyard to the north of the building. as I mentioned before, it would be shared by the church and Fraser. Some of the amenities that the applicant has mentioned are an intergenerational play. Space dog park covered outdoor patios and gathering spaces and updated walkways to connect the 2 properties. This is an image looking down. What would be the vacated pocket place private drive. Vacation of the pocket place? Right of way is being requested to increase the buildable lot area on the site to allow for the proposed addition to extend from 3 50 to 3, 55 Ponca. and to allow for a private drive with enhanced design and landscaping elements which would otherwise not be permitted for the Dcs. Or would require numerous variances, such as permeable pavers, no curbs, increased landscape areas, etc.

[17:11] It's worth noting here that right-of-way vacations are processed in accordance with section 869 of the Boulder Revised Code. Right-of-way vacation application would be required prior to or concurrent with, a Site Review submittal. The applicant would be required to demonstrate consistency with the criteria found therein. The the big criteria there are that the applicant must demonstrate that the public purpose for which an easement or right of way was originally dedicated, is no longer valid or necessary for public use. and the applicant must demonstrate, consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan and the city's land use regulations that either failure to vacate the existing right of way would cause a substantial hardship to the use of the property. or that vacation of the easement or right of way would actually provide a greater public benefit than retaining the property in its present status.

[18:07] So in terms of parking. There are currently 423 parking spaces on the site for 395 units and roughly, 500 residents. The church property currently has 132 spaces, although only 67 are required, based on the size of the building. The proposed addition would bring the total number of units in Fraser Meadows to 493, or approximately 625 residents, and the size of the church building would be reduced. So under the current proposal, the site-wide total parking would be increased by 160 spaces to a total of 715 spaces. and the asterisk at the bottom is So to explain the parking for congregate care facilities. The code says that parking for congregate care is required to to be provided

[19:01] in a manner that is appropriate to the use and needs of the facility and the number of vehicles used by its occupants as determined through review. So there's not an actual set parking requirement. The. If we were to use the standard attached residential parking requirements for this project. the total required parking would be 685 spaces. Roughly. so key issues for discussion is whether the proposed concept plan is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan, land, use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bvcp, particularly those that address the built environment issue. Number 2 is, does the planning board have feedback for the applicant on the Conceptual Site plan and building design issue? Number 3 is, does the board have feedback on the proposed building height of 55 feet, taking into consideration the additional criteria for buildings requiring a height modification found in the Site Review, criteria

[20:00] and key issue number 4, we're leaving open for any issues identified by the board. So for key issue number one, key takeaways from this discussion would be whether planning board finds that this project complies with BBC. Goals and policies that address the built environment. and whether there are any other Bvcp goals or policies with which the Board finds the project either consistent or inconsistent in terms of how this criterion will be applied during Site Review, section 9, 2, 14 h. 1. a. Of the Site Review criteria states that in applying this, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion, and consider whether a particular goal or policy is intended to be applied to individual development projects or is to guide city policy decisions such as regulatory actions. The Bbcp does not prioritize goals and policies, and no project must satisfy one particular goal or policy, or all of them. So, in terms of Staff's findings regarding the conformity with the Bbcp. Staff finds that overall the proposal is in keeping with the intent of the high density. Residential land use designation. It is a high density attached residential project near a major transit corridor.

[21:10] It's roughly a 3rd of a mile from Baseline Avenue, which is served by the 2 25, and it's approximately 3 quarters of a mile from the Cu campus it would likely also fulfill community needs related to Bvcp policies regarding populations with special needs and housing for a full range of households in terms of Bvcp policies that address the built environment. I provided some examples here of ones that are intended to address individual development projects. These include preservation and support for residential neighborhoods, improved mobility, grid and connections, physical design for people, environmentally sensitive urban design and enhanced design for all projects which has a number of subsections that are spelled out in the Memo so for key issue number 2 regarding feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design.

[22:03] Staff's identified several issues with the current design which will need to be addressed prior to Site Review submittal. These are outlined in the packet while the project does achieve a high level of design quality staff has concerns regarding the placement and usability of the proposed open space courtyard. The degree to which the project achieves a transition in scale to neighboring lower intensity intensity areas. the overall level of accessibility. the proposed site access and circulation and effective Tdm measures to reduce the need for parking, and how those may be addressed. These are some additional considerations that the Board might like to refer to during this discussion issue number 3 is whether the Board has feedback on the proposed building height. taking into consideration the applicable Site Review criteria for buildings requiring height modifications. I have these listed here, and I'm happy to come back to them as this discussion starts. But these are all just the criteria taken right from the Site Review. Criteria.

[23:07] Oh, that was key issue number 3. Sorry. There was a mislabeled heading up there. Then key issue number 4, as I mentioned before is kind of an open key issue in terms of next steps following the concept. Review. Hearing city Council may vote to call the item up for a council hearing to provide additional feedback. The applicant will then either proceed with submitting development review applications or may submit a second concept. Review application. site, review application will require a public hearing and final decision by planning board due to the request for height, modification. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the board. You have some. Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. Thank you. Chandler. As always, excellent presentation very detailed. You answered a lot of the questions already. So this will be a little bit more brief.

[24:05] So you talked about one of the reasons why the Ponca Place easement would probably not be granted currently is because of a public water main that goes through there. That was in the packet. Can you discuss what options exist, if any, that would resolve that issue and allow that easement to be vacated. Yes, the applicant could theoretically relocate the water main so they could dedicate new easements and work with utility staff to find an acceptable location for it, and then remove it from the right of way before applying. Okay, so it's physically possible. All right. Physically, possible. The some of the comment letters talked about flooding of the underground parking, especially in light of past flooding. That has happened in that neighborhood does. Did staff express any concerns about flooding of that underground parking garage. So the the church site is actually outside of the floodplain as it's currently mapped.

[25:02] So there were floodplain comments included in the staff review comments. But that's primarily because it's an addition to an existing building which is located in the floodplain. So if the site were to be joined together, and the addition would be built. I think they would still have to get a floodplain development permit, even though the proposed work is not inside the floodplain. Okay, thank you. Can we talk a little bit about the garage entrance? The per. The current proposal has that garage entrance off of a service road that connects to Sioux drive is that is that that parking lot that's connected to the current Fraser Meadows retirement community development, that is, and that parking lot is scheduled to be sort of removed and replaced with the building. But the service road would would remain. Is that what I'm hearing. That's my understanding. Yes. Okay. And so that still essentially connects to Sioux drive. And I understand why Staff felt it was located too close to the proposed garage entrance that you wouldn't want to have the service road and the garage entrance kind of side by side like that. So your proposal is to move it so that it's just one curb cut there for the service road. That also would access the garage.

[26:20] But wouldn't that still have the traffic impacts on Sioux drive like did Staff consider moving the parking garage or suggesting that the applicant move the parking garage entrance to Pawnee, for example, or some other part of the site other than Sioux. I'm not. Did we make a recommendation that they just put the garage entrance on the access drive? Or did we just point out that they were too close together, and and that they'd need a a modification to access standards. I thought it. There was a recommendation to take access off of the service road into the garage. Oh, okay. yeah, no. I think that we we would be open to relocation onto Pawnee for sure.

[27:04] Okay, thank you. I have a couple more, but I want to pass the baton. If somebody else wants to go and we can come back to me. Ml, why don't you go ahead? Your your hand is up. Thank you. Thank you, Chandler, for your presentation. I have going back to Ponca Place and the vacating of you read the criteria, but which one are they using? There's there's 3 plus three's got A and B, which- which criteria are they? They're not using any yet. They haven't submitted a formal application. So we've just done a very preliminary review of the vacation request. And just said that currently they're not meeting the 1st one. 1st one literally number one of the criteria.

[28:03] Yeah, that the public purpose for which the right of way was dedicated is no longer valid, since there's a water main in there. Right. So 2 and 3 haven't been validated or invalidated. Correct. Okay, let me see. So just honka place. Who owns that street right now? The city does. So if the right of way would get vacated. does the developer buy that land. That actually, I might ask Charles to weigh in on, weigh in on. I'm not sure if they buy it, or if it's just transferred to them. Does anyone does? Does any other staff know the answer to that. Hi, good evening, Charles Farrow. Planning and development services.

[29:00] Yeah, typically, the property would be deeded over through the. Develop. The vacation process. So the developer gets free land from the city. Ml. yeah, I can jump in. So with the vacation process with the city, the developer will be required to pay fees for the vacation, as well as all the fees required to create the legal descriptions and everything for that vacation. So it is not free from the city. They do have to pay a fee to get that vacation. Okay, I guess we can see the specificity of that some someplace else. Thank you for that. Let me see. So currently, there's a church property, there's the Fraser Meadow property, and the church is.

[30:03] It sounds like the church is going to retain church business and church parking, etc, etc. Is it going to become part of the Fraser meadow? Property? How? How is. My understanding is that they were planning on subdividing and allowing the church to basically keep a lot somewhere on the site, and that Frasier would then take the rest. Okay? So then, relative to, I guess the final property lines and all does. The pro is the project meeting all of the setback requirements. I believe they're yeah. If it once the property was created, I I think they're meeting the setbacks. Okay. And those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thanks. Ml, I just spurred on one question, and then I'll I'll pass it over. Following on Ml's question on the vacation. What is the

[31:07] far that the developer picks up through that vacation. I haven't done an exact analysis. They they've just basically said what the overall far would be of the project. And it it comes to 1.1 they have up to 1.5 in the zone. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yeah. Certainly. If we could at some point get a sense of that, that would be great. Okay, Claudia. thanks, George, and thanks, Chancellor, a couple of questions about traffic and right of way. So the 1st one is that so currently right now, Sioux, on the south side of this property is a bike route, but it does not have any physical upgrades because of its bike route status with the city. Would there be any upgrades required at the time of development. Here, for example, striping, enhanced crossings, traffic, calming. Would anything need to change as part of a redevelopment here.

[32:12] So it's not listed as future planned bike lanes in the transportation master plan. So I don't think at this time we have anything, any ability to require additional bike improvements on that street. Okay, so that designation as a bike route is simply a name that we've put on it. It does not imply any future improvements. Correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any counts for current through traffic on Ponca Place? And I'd be interested in both cars and pedestrians and bikes. Does the city have those counts, or a method of getting them. We may be able to get them. I I don't know if we have them right now. I have not seen them. Okay, is that something that could be required as part of any requirements for site review.

[33:06] Ye? Yeah, they'd be required to provide a traffic study during. And that would deal also with current conditions not just projected. Future conditions. Yes. Okay, thank you. One more on the right of way. If we have a process to vacate a right of way on a site like this? Do we also have any process for replacing or modifying an existing right of way? For example, if we wanted to maintain some sort of right of way with. with different conditions for the street. Yes. Yeah, we have the ability to require dedication of right of way or public access easements. As part of the approved Site plan. Okay, does the existing public right of way have anything to do with that? Or is that something we could do theoretically anywhere, anytime?

[34:04] Do we need to. Have an existing public right of way to talk about adding public right of way through a site. No, I mean, I think usually it's it's kind of reactive. If if the site is redeveloping, I mean, either there's something in the transportation master Plan. That shows a new street connection, in which case we have a very clear ability to require it. Or if they're proposing new streets and a new street layout which we agree with. Then we would have the ability to require dedication of those streets. Okay, thank you. I have one more question. But I'm happy to wait. Okay. so this one is switching gears just a little bit. Well, quite a bit, actually. And I'm curious. Does a congregate care use? Have any kind of affordable housing requirement. No, not on its own. The only affordable housing requirement here would just would be the height, modification.

[35:01] the density bonus they'd be required to pay. and then either the cash in lieu or the onsite for the number of units. Okay. And is there anything in the proposal thus far that suggests how the applicant would be meeting that requirement. There's not. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks. I'm going to follow up Claudia's last question. It's not even one of my questions. But are you saying that the congregate care use. If they were building to 3 stories they would not have an inclusionary housing requirement that. No, then they they just wouldn't have the extra requirement. There's there's the additional requirement for the height, modification. Right? Okay? Which is the bonus 20% for the 4th or 5th floor. Right. Okay. So they would be responsible for that. And they're just like any other developer building a number of units. They have to either have 25% on site or pay into the inclusionary Housing Fund.

[36:09] Yes, I believe so. Ok, and the bonus is for the additional height. Okay, all right. Jumping back to my questions. I just want to confirm the way I read the packet is that at Site Review, because of the use because of the use at site review, it would be planning boards, subjective view as to exactly what the parking requirements would be for automobiles and bikes. and that there is not a standard in the code that it is up to us. Is that correct. That's correct. Yeah, they. They would basically propose a certain number of spaces. Ideally, we would come to a point of agreement and make a recommendation, and then it would be up to you guys to determine through review whether you felt it was appropriate or not.

[37:04] Okay? So the way I read this, going back to the right of way issue, you found that the preliminary proposal does not meet the requirements for vacation of a right of way is conversion of a public street to a private street, any different from a broader vacation of a right of way. Do you get my question that if if we're taking a street and we're converting it from a public street to a private street, but it's retaining its function as a street. Is that any different from closing the street entirely, or any other sort of vacation. That's a good question. I'm I'm not entirely sure I would welcome any other staff feedback.

[38:01] And Chandler. Maybe I can answer this question so as far as vacation of the right of way legally, there would be no different difference between keeping it as a private street, or keeping it as a patch of grass, right? So the the property owner could then close it off. make it something else, or do as they see fit, because it would be their property. Does that answer your question? Although if it's in the Site Review what that is going to be. They would have to maintain that because it's a site review exactly. You could condition that being an access, or we could do a public access easement over it for some kind of path pedestrian pathway that may go through it. But as far as the vacation, what it does is, it goes, usually splits half and half between the 2 property properties adjacent to that road as far as who owns it. In this case it's all the same owner. Okay, So I think you've answered my next question. But I just, I'm gonna put a little bit of a twist on it. And that is so, my understanding is. So we have a private, let's say we agreed. The city agreed to vacate the right of way, so that they could

[39:10] have a private street, and that private street was subject to the Site Review criteria. Yep, and we condition that we would, we would be able to condition that so that it would have, even though it's a private street, it would a have public access, 24, 7, 3, 65 in perpetuity. That would be a reasonable condition for that understanding that the reason we're vacating this is so that they can create a private street with private street design. not so that they can close it and own it and say, No, you can't come here is to create a private street without taking a deep dive into the Site review criteria, which is probably the most attorney answer I'm going to give you is that I, if it works with the Site Review criteria to keep that open to the public. Then you all are able to add that condition, and the alternative staff could look at that

[40:05] piece of property, have it vacated as a street, but then rededicated as a public access easement instead, which was would allow for pedestrian and bike right? Public access easement over a private street. So we've been dealing with this private street thing in the city wants their own private street at 11.th Yeah, okay? Yep, But while it's a private street. and there would be continuous public access. The maintenance, the responsibility for maintenance of that private street would be the responsibility of the owner. Correct? Yeah. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Oh, oh. if I could! I just wanted to follow up on one thing that you mentioned, which was sticking on this the street. I'm curious if it if it doesn't. it doesn't meet what the city needs relative to that water main. Has there been discussion with the developer? I just don't want to be wasting our time. If there hasn't been discussion that they're willing to relocate. This seems like it's a little bit cart before the horse. If that's the case.

[41:16] So I I think there was some discussion. During the pre app where they they mentioned this This was prior to Edward Stafford, leaving so a lot of the detailed notes on that discussion are no longer available. But but there has been some discussion. Okay, all right. So I guess maybe the applicant can answer that further when they come up. Sorry, Kurt, go ahead. No problem. I just wanted to follow up one more thing about the maintenance of the private street, so the the maintenance would be the property owner's responsibility. But would the city have any mechanism for enforcing that maintenance be occur to the city standards. For example, if there's a sinkhole or something, is there any way to force them, then to fix that.

[42:09] If it were located in a public access easement, then yes. Okay, thank you. We'll go to Mason. And then I think Laura had some follow up questions. She wanted to get to go ahead, Mason. Oh, you're on mute. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm curious about the floodplain requirements. I I realize that the church itself is in the floodplain, and I remember. I know you said that since it's part of the whole property would still have to. I forgot the term that used. But apply the floodplain requirements. This is the garage is below grade, and it looks like it's relatively level to the area that did flood.

[43:00] So I guess just to put a finer point on it? Would would they be required to do flood mitigation for the parking garage? I'm not sure. I mean, they would have to get a floodplain development permit for an addition to a building that's partially located within the floodplain. You know right now our floodplain map doesn't show any floodplain where they are showing the parking garage. So I would have to probably look into that and get back to you as far as what specific requirements would apply to the garage. So when when we say it's not on a floodplain, does that? Does it take into account how far down a developer digs. I believe so. I mean our. Our floodplain map is, you know, 2 dimensional. So it just shows the boundaries of the floodplain. So I don't know that. I'm not sure if if depth of a dig is is changes, the analysis that the flood floodplain engineers perform.

[44:08] Okay, the rest of my questions have been asked. So that's all I got. Okay, thank you. Just a couple more from me. A couple of the public comments talked about the school traffic, the large volume of cars that come through for school pickup and drop off? Will the traffic study be looking at those school pickup and drop off hours, or are they based around work, commute hours. I think the traffic study at. Honestly, I don't know. I'll have to look into that and get back to you. yeah, the these are kind of engineering questions. So usually our transportation engineers are in charge of determining. I mean, the traffic study, I know is is kind of malleable in terms of what we require. So it does change depending on the development.

[45:03] so I'm happy to look into that. Okay, it looks like Charles might want to comment. Well, I think. Excuse me. Charles Farrell, planning and development services when we get to Site Review, and there's a requirement for a traffic study. I think they run points randomly throughout the day. I think it also can be focused, though, knowing that, you know we have 2 schools within close proximity one which is literally right next door. So you know, that's definitely feedback. We can take into account as we move into site review and start working with their transportation engineer. Thank you. It seems wise to consider that in a traffic study my last question. And, Chandler, you might not be the right person for this, but I wanted to put this on the table in the packet. It talks about historic preservation, demolition review application. So I'm assuming that this church property is over 50 years old. and that there's some nexus here with historic preservation. Is that correct or potential nexus.

[46:03] Yes, it is over 50 years old, so they would be required to when they applied for a demolition permit, at least go through the preliminary Historic Review. Yeah. And I. And we've this issue has come up before. When we looked at our planning board rules that there's this weird timing and sequencing issue with doing Site Review and doing a landmark demolition permit, because the applicant would not be applying for demolition until after they get their site Review approved. But you don't want to be approving a Site Review that hasn't considered the potential historic preservation aspects of the project. And I have said in the past I really really want to know from landmarks board. Is this structure? Would they consider this structure valuable enough from a historic preservation perspective? That planning board should impose a condition on the applicant that they have to voluntarily apply to be landmarked, which is what we, as planning board, are asked to do in Site review is to

[47:04] potentially require the applicant to voluntarily request landmarking, and I'm absolutely unwilling to do that without 1st hearing from landmarks board that this structure is so valuable from a historic perspective that it should outweigh the private property rights of the owner, which is what landmarks board does when a demolition permit comes before them. So there's this weird sequencing issue that I'm still not quite sure has been worked out, because I feel very strongly. The applicant deserves due process, and we should not be landmarking in a de facto way through site review with a board of people who are not historic preservation experts. and I hope my so. I guess my question is, has that sequencing issue been worked out? And and maybe this is something I just don't want it to to be an issue at the Site Review stage. I want to bring it up now in concept review. No, the sequencing issue has not been worked out. But we do have landmark staff review it during Site Review. I mean, normally, when we bring something with a recommended condition requiring landmarking. It's based on feedback from landmarks board.

[48:10] But you're right that technically, the applicant is not required to submit a demolition permit prior to site review or during site review. So it's at that point. It's still more like informal feedback from landmarks. Yeah. And if and and again, I'm not sure if that actually goes through landmarks board, or if that is a single staff member making a recommendation that it is potentially eligible for landmarking, which to me is not strong enough to require the applicant to ask to be landmarked. So I just want to put that on the table again that I really hope that gets worked out before this comes back to us in Site Review. Thank you so much. Ml, hi, Mel. Thank you. Thank you. Follow. Follow up on that. So the property, the properties have not been subdivided, or you joined up, or

[49:09] the church right now is its own property, and the Fraser Meadows is its own property. I'm guessing. When they come to Site review, they will have resolved the ownership, so that we're looking at Fraser Meadows as the applicant and the churches. not the applicant. So the question is, can. if they're if they're 2 separate properties that are proposing to become 2 separate properties, but differently configured. This demolition of a part of the Church couldn't really happen until the how does that happen if you subdivide a property, and there's a building between that goes across both of them. Yeah, they would. Well, theoretically, they they would probably both still be

[50:04] the applicant when they came in for Site Review, and ideally they would include a preliminary plat, or at least show us what their proposed subdivision is is going to look like during site review, and then we would either approve the preliminary plat as part of site review, or add a condition requiring that they go through the subdivision process prior to tech docs, etc. So usually, if there's a building that's right across a proposed property line, we would require that the building be removed prior to final plat approval. So it there's a kind of a number of ways it could work out. But it. It is kind of something we we deal with quite a bit. So if there's a landscaping, excuse me, a landmarking consideration on the table, how does that work out? If the if the property say the property does become landmarked.

[51:01] How does it get subdivided? Well, it would just it would. So there's always a landmark boundary, so it would depend on what the landmark boundary was. Well, just looking at the current property lines. Right? It goes through what would be a current building. But anyway, I think that there's a lot of complexity there, speaking to, you know Laura's concern about sequencing. There's some complexity there. And in my mind it's exacerbated by there being, too. that that the final property plat is not yet established. So yeah, okay, just noted. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions before we go to the applicant. All right, seeing none, we will go to the applicant presentation. You have up to 15 min to present. Thank you.

[52:07] Hi, I'm Stephanie Kidwell. I'm the past. I'm Stephanie Kidwell, and I'm the pastor at Mountain View, United Methodist Church. Good evening. I'm Christy Henricks, and I'm the President and CEO. At Fraser. Fraser was 1st affiliated with the Mountain View Sky United Methodist Conference and originally founded in 1958, built on land donated by Elmer and Mame Frazier. Frazier has been an an anchor for senior living in Boulder since it 1st opened its doors. In 1960. Over the last 60 years Fraser has grown and evolved to meet the changing needs of seniors, offering a full continuum of care, including independent living, assisted living memory, care, and skilled nursing care in Boulder and Boulder County. This included major additions. In 1964, 1973, 95, 98, 2,000 2,001 and 2,014, with the latter, including significant renovation, renovations and repairs necessary. Following the 2,013 boulder flood.

[53:11] Most recently the completion of the prairies independent living building in 2020 marked another milestone in Fraser's growth. These expansions have allowed Fraser to build a community that is thriving and vibrant. Now home to nearly 500 seniors in 395 units. supported by approximately 200 staff, nearly all who must drive from outside of Boulder to work. Right next door to Fraser is Mountain View, United Methodist Church. The land was donated in 1958 at the same time, but separately, for the church. And that's when we began groundbreaking in 1960 the church began worship services, but quickly outgrew that space and the original sanctuary was abandoned. In 1964, we began worshiping in our current sanctuary that you see in that picture.

[54:09] Over the years Mountain View and Fraser have worked together in many different ways in becoming really a great symbiotic relationship. In early about 19 or 2024 sorry Fraser and Mountain View began to discuss our shared futures and trying to find ways that we could meet our needs as a changing congregation and look for ways to interact with a growing senior population in the community. For the past several years Fraser, a nonprofit Life Plan community, has explored ways to address the extensive wait list of prospective residents currently encompassing 700 households on our waitlist, predominantly from Boulder and Boulder County. together with our strategic partners and supported by a design and development team. We initiated the search for viable solutions for further expansion.

[55:05] At the same time Mountain View was experiencing a lot of changes in population and the age of our building. Our original education and chapel spaces that were originally there are now either vacant or very underutilized. Our sanctuary, our old sanctuary that was built in the 19 or our current one. Sorry that was built in the 19 sixties needs a lot of updates to meet things like energy codes to become more efficient and to be a space that can be used into the future. The southern part of our building, the original structure sits mostly unused because it has antiquated Hvac issues and other accessibility challenges. As we looked at as we began to look at all of the capital campaign and projects we might need to do. We realized we needed to create a fund of about 1.5 million dollars to upgrade and repair our building

[56:03] as neighbors with a shared history and interconnected relationships, Fraser and Mountain View decided to study the potential for a mutually beneficial future with Frazier's need to expand for expansion to address the growing demand for senior housing and Mountain View's underutilized space, it became clear that a collaborative approach could effectively serve both organizations. This additional land would also provide Frazier with the room necessary for its continued growth. Ultimately Fraser needed to determine how many independent living units would address their long wait list, be financially feasible and still comply with the city's applicable zoning and land use requirements. So together we formed a joint building committee and began to meet and explore partnerships throughout 2024 mountain view needed to do our own work, to determine the right size for our building, not just for our Sunday services, but to continue to provide space to host community meetings, gatherings, and concerts along the way. Common interests began to surface

[57:12] discussions between the Church and Fraser centered on sustainability, shared and enhanced outdoor amenities. Access to parking, maintaining views towards the mountains. keeping our independence and improving pedestrian connections between the 2 properties. The church was also interested in wondering about adding affordable housing in the boulder community. The only way for our congregation to make a difference, to continue to survive and to serve community is by allowing Fraser to purchase a portion of the Church's property that would provide mountain view with a financial future to complete our essential repairs and establish an endowment, and to help create that affordable housing.

[58:01] But to secure our future, it felt like the best way to come together and make a difference, and to stay in the boulder community. establishing, establishing a clear vision for the future of Fraser and Mountain view was important before considering any design interventions. What became clear was that both organizations wanted an enduring legacy of service to the community seniors and worshipers in Boulder and Boulder County. As a group. We began to think of this project as a campus, and had a strong desire to create more shared public spaces and amenities. We also had long discussions about Ponca Place and its role in separating or connecting our organizations to create more community. Once once that we reached an agreement with the Church that we would like to move forward through a congregation vote and a Fraser Board vote. We were able to make our ideas public. while we would have loved to have had the opportunity to collaborate earlier with neighbors. It was not possible, as we respected the privacy and diligence of the Church discernment process.

[59:07] so we submitted our concept plan and held a community meeting as quickly as we could, inviting all of our neighbors that received the notice from the planning department, which was approximately 300 households. At the Community meeting, which was held at the church approximately 45 people attended, and representatives from both Fraser and Mountain view along with our design team, were there and discussed the concept plans and listened to feedback. We take this feedback very seriously as well as the comments that we'll hear tonight, and we'll be incorporating this feedback into the next design stage and review. We commit to having another neighbor meeting before we submit to our site review.

[60:06] How about now? Yeah. Fantastic. My name is Juan Ramos. I'm an architect and principal with Boulder associates, architects. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I want to thank Chandler for the work he's done thus far, and Stephanie and Christy for their support and their leadership. It has been a fun project to work on, and we've learned a lot along the way. I do want to give a little bit of context. I think they spoke to it earlier, you know, we we were hired at the beginning of 2024 to do master campus planning with Fraser. That's really to look at growth, opportunities, expansion, renovation, and remodel of their existing site. We set about doing that. But before we did, we actually sat with their leadership team. And and you know we've seen it before. We talked about their vision for the property and their goals. We wanted to make sure we had some alignment with their team prior to doing any design, ideas, or design interventions. We found that valuable. And we learned a lot just about how they work as a system in an organization, and I think we became good partners along the way. We then said about being architects. We looked at the existing site conditions. So we started zoning, grading utilities and amenities. We wanted to look at the age of the existing buildings and their use and functions.

[61:09] We learned a lot along the way we learned that they are short of independent living units by a great deal, and that 60% of those people are really residents of Boulder and Boulder county. We learned quickly that Frasier was trying to grow, and if they wanted to grow outside of Boulder or Boulder County they would have to disperse amenities and services. And they, what they're trying to do on this particular site is create a continuum of care. So you can move from independent living to assisted living to skilled nursing. There's also a health center on site. So, looking at alternative sites kind of went out the window. We also looked at the existing conditions in terms of the floodplain that came up earlier. You know the eastern portion of the property is within a floodplain. That's both the 100 500 year floodplain. As we move toward the center of their existing property and head west, they do come out of that floodplain that did restrict us from using a lot of the eastern portion of the site.

[62:02] We also studied. Just what would it mean if we, if we remodeled, renovated an existing building. It became pretty clear that if we were going to do that we were going to displace somebody, either services or residents, and that was pretty hard sell. There was really no for for lack of a better term, empty chair on the site. So we said, Well, what about the idea of of the property over at Mountain View, and we learned quickly that this idea had been studied before this. We weren't the 1st ones to think of it. It had been studied before, and the church, in fact, would probably be pretty amenable or agreeable to at least a conversation. she said, that's great. But before I talk about the church property what we learned there. I do want to point out that there's this really elaborate and complicated network of corridors that are connecting all the buildings within Fraser. And that's intentional. This is senior living, you know. We we worry about access for seniors as they move to and from buildings from their apartment to say, Grab a cup of coffee, or have breakfast, go to the Rec. Center, or use other amenities, you know, with the cold weather we've just had it. You know. We don't want people walking outside and slipping and falling, or just being exposed to the elements, whether it's hot or cold.

[63:05] so that that comes into play as we talk about the proposed expansion we have, and you can see the this sort of spider web of of connections we have here. I do think Stephanie did a good job of explaining sort of the existing conditions at the church. I will say we worked with them. We had a series of independent and separate meetings, with just a small group of folks at the church to understand their concerns and their needs. They were really concerned about their music programs and the ability to have community outreach programs, girl Scouts music lessons. All these things were valuable to them, and we talked about shrinking the footprint of their building, and said, You know we can still make everything fit. It works. And when we were able to figure that out, I think that was a big milestone for us to say. I think this might work. This might be viable. The southern portion of the property, as Stephanie said, is largely unused. It has asbestos. It has. Ada issues. It needs mechanical upgrades, electrical upgrades, and the entire building. Since the Marshall fire. We're all aware that it's going to need to have fire, sprinkler, fire, alarm, and they know this. They can't do an addition or a modification to this building without adding fire, sprinkler fire, alarm.

[64:07] The northern portion is still actively used. It has beautiful stained glass in their their pipe organ. It has a large meeting and conference spaces in the basement. and their admin functions are all in the northern end as well. It was kind of a nonstarter for us to say, What if we put our building on the north side. we would have gotten no further than for them to say no, so we look to the south, where the building is, is out of date, unused and in much rougher shape to our design itself. I've overlaid sort of our concept plan with the existing site conditions just for reference. we did look at at siting our building and looked at a couple different things through concept plan. As I was pointing out earlier, this sort of physical connection of our building to buildings across the street is important. This is a way that people can get to food services and health care services across the way. So reaching over and grabbing, that building was important to us. Obviously the biggest gesture we're proposing is to vacate Ponca. I do want to speak specifically to that. To that. I want to make it clear that even if we vacate Ponca, we want to repurpose and reuse it. We still want it to be a road, just a private road. So we allow access through. We want to enhance the paving, slow down traffic and and make it look a little more beautiful.

[65:18] We'd like the opportunity for Fraser to do the maintenance and upkeep of this. We think that's actually important for seniors. They they do a lot of snow melt systems on their sidewalks and and walkways. We think that that's helpful and removing the snow along this sideways. Good not only for the seniors, but people going to church. So we see that as an opportunity, and I think Fraser's very willing to take that on. We also see the opportunity to enhance the landscaping and use bioretention filters along that walkway as a great opportunity for us to the design itself. We have a U-shaped building that we proposed. We started there. We know that we have solar fence requirements, so we can't cast a shadow on our neighbors. The church was also very clear. They do not want us swallowing or taking up their space. They want some independence and some sovereignty, and to feel like they still have their own presence within the community. So we tried to respect that and also then enhance the space between those areas. So we can activate those spaces for community events, shared events for church and residents of Fraser.

[66:18] We then took the building that we had, and we kind of broke it into Mods or pods. We rotated those so we could break up the facade and then enhance some of the the views to the west and create these pockets of green space at the south side of our building. and then we kind of infilled those with these glassy connectors that allow the physical connection back to the canyon center and back to the rest of the campus. The garage itself is 313 parking spaces. What we're proposing to do is take away about 157 surface spots. Replace those here in the garage, and then add an additional 160 spaces. It's all a plinth that the the parking structure. Excuse me that the apartments we've built on top of. I just want to just give you a 2 min warning. Yeah, I'll go quick

[67:01] from the architecture, standpoint materials would be reflective of things we already see on campus stone brick. I think that's been characterized well by Chandler. Some feedback that we've heard. We understand the concerns with parking. We're trying to balance the right amount of parking building. Structured parking is extremely expensive. We are trying to make this a share to many and help control some of the parking we see on curbside and street side to Tdm. We do expect that we're going to have to address some of the staff parking issues that we see on site. The needs of seniors are are pretty challenging. There is rideshare car share available on site. We expect that we're going to have to answer some of these questions directly through the transportation demand and site review process. So we we see that coming. and then to density. We are at 1.1, as Chandler has indicated, versus 1.5, which is allowable that allows us to have about 15% greater open space than is required. We think that's a nice amenity for the site. And we also think getting rid of surface parking is a nice amenity for the site.

[68:03] Last, but not least, I'm going to skip to Sioux Drive. We've heard a lot of comments about the access point into the garage from Sue we wholeheartedly agree. We will move that location, and we will either move it to the access drive on the east side of our garage or to the northeast corner. We just need to work with our civil engineer and our parking consultant to figure it out. But we are going to remove that access point. We we hear it, and we understand it. We also think that enhancing anything along Sioux drive could be valuable to to our project as well as to our neighbors. So if that's bike lanes, traffic calming measures, we're fully in support of those things. I would like to thank all the neighbors who have come here tonight. I appreciate their comments and feedback. We're totally willing to listen, willing to work with them, and we have a super open mind. I appreciate them taking their time to be here tonight to to listen and to offer feedback. And I appreciate you giving us the time as well. Thank you yeah questions from the board. I'd start for myself. Since since you are on this reflecting feedback.

[69:03] I'm curious you had that meeting on December 16th with the community. But you're presenting a design that was presented to them. Right? Is that my understanding? So out of that community feedback session that you had? What are the highlighted areas that you found from the community already that you intend on changing in the plan that we are seeing in front of us. Yeah, like the clearest one, is the access to Sue. In fact, they came up over and over again from almost every neighborhood we talked. They do not want that garage access there. And so that was an easy one. Some of the other ones are going to be more challenging. If we we still move over the project. There's concern about construction and construction traffic. If we can vacate Ponca and reuse that, I would imagine we could. We could funnel most of the construction work and traffic through Ponca. But that's work yet to be determined. I think they're concerned about the noise related to construction and the impact that might have. So if through

[70:00] working with the construction partners, we can avoid what's going on, too. That's probably a win-win. I think there's issues with scale. We have to work through some design in terms of how we can address scale. And then we, we see this landscape space on the south side of our property as a pretty open amenity, where we want to talk to the neighbors about what they would want to see there as a as it becomes sort of like a viewpoint from their front yard to across the street. So those are the ones that were really obvious in my mind. Hey, there! I'm going to add a little. This is Danica Powell, with trustful strategy group. Thank you for your time. So I think the other thing that we weren't very clear on in our application was Ponca Place. And what the technical process is vacation. It is actually a bit of a chicken and egg, much like the landmarks process which I appreciate, Laura, your comments. That's great feedback. We actually did a pre app for the Ponca place, and they said, We won't even entertain a pre app or a vacation until we know what you're doing. And so, in order to understand, if Ponca could be possible, we we want. We did our concept plan. So that really accelerated also our concept plan because we don't want to spend a lot of time designing something that won't be supported by the city. So this is another chicken and egg situation. Our goal is to maintain public access over Ponca. But we really want to create a better street. We want to create a safer street. We want to put it on a road diet and slow down traffic and be able to maintain that.

[71:26] And that was a shared value of both parties. So how we do that? That's all the devils in the Details and Site Review. But I worked on many projects where you can put public access easements over private property. We did that at the Millennium Hotel on a 6 acre park, and you can even we even have maintenance agreements with the city on that example. So there's lots of solutions to maintaining public access, both vehicle or pedestrian. We're open to looking at that. And we just realized our application didn't fully express that we weren't just asking to take the land and build on it. We really wanted to make it a better community amenity. And that's something we definitely need to work on with our neighbors. And we're here loud and clear.

[72:07] Questions from the board. Does anyone want to go, Kurt. Thank you. Thank you for your presentations. The in the proposal. It looks like the average size of the the units you're proposing is about 1,500 square feet. And I'm wondering what the average size of your current independent living units is. Yeah, I do remember this from earlier. We we did talk about that earlier, the the average size of the units we're proposing here 1,400 square feet, we see units as small as about 1,100 square feet, and then units as big, about 1,600 square feet, depending on whether or not they're 1, 2 bedroom or 2 bedroom with a den. Some of the spaces in the Prairies building were approximately 1,200 square feet. Don't, if I'm wrong, but I think that's about right. So the Prairies Building, which was built recently, is kind of our model or our template in terms of room size or unit size. Okay, but you don't have a. You don't have a known average. I'm sorry I'm the data keeper. So the average square feet of peaks is 1,093 square feet. The current square footage of all independent living is 1,219 square feet. So we're proposing independent living. The average of prairies is 1483, and the average for the new building is 1,400.

[73:25] Thank you. One other question is about your current parking management. The applicant statement says that you have a parking cash out program for residents without a car, and you charge for a second car parked on site. And I'm wondering how much. Those those numbers are what the what the parking cash out is, and what the additional charge is.

[74:02] We offer $1,500. Oh, I'm sorry I'm calling Ryan Mallon. I work for Fraser. We currently charge payback $1,500 if someone is willing to give up their car, and we charge a hundred dollars extra for a surface space and $200 extra for a garage space and the $1,500. That's a 1 time. Yes, I see. Correct. Okay, thank you. I apologize. I'm sure some of your questions are going to be operational more than the architectural. Ml. Thank you. And thank you for your presentation and the history of the site. I I appreciate hearing the very long collaboration between these 2 properties? I have 2 questions one is related to the scale. And so far as the added height that's being proposed. Do you have a

[75:12] an aerial or a section that shows the relationship between the proposed 4 story building and the existing residential oh, properties there, across the street and all of them. I saw that I just saw little tips. You could never see the true relationship between the scale of this project. I'm basically, you know, continuing this tall building against the single family residential. Yeah, we we do not. There. There is a section that we can cut across to. You know, the largest building that we've been comparing is really to the buildings on the Fraser campus themselves, and Mountain View and the church. Even when we're done the church will still stand quite a bit taller.

[76:01] Yeah. The church has got a slope roof very different from a box. Okay. The jammers across the street are in the range of, you know, 1618 feet tall for their roof lines. It depends on which house. But yes, they are much more modest in terms of their height. Where would that be on that top overall section? Where's the 18 feet line? It is the neighbors right across the street. I'm gonna move my car. So. I'm just. I'm just, you know, can you just identify which of those lines? Oh. so it's basically the first, st the 1st line. Yeah, that line right there where we see Floor 2. It is across the street, too. So we do see a great change as we move across the street or head south. This is a section looking through north south, so the right hand side would be the south. Right? Okay, thank you for that. Second question it was mentioned a number of times during the presentation. Talk about Well, one of the comments was that the majority of the staff drives in from doesn't afford to live in town drives in, and then other references to affordable housing. So the question I'm asking, do any of our these units going to be staff housing? Does this project in some way address affordability and housing.

[77:22] None of the proposed units in this project would be for Staff. We know that there are approximately 200 people who are on staff at Fraser, but only 5 of them actually live in town. It's actually what what is part of the the parking challenge that we have. If you try and come to Fraser during the daytime. Curbside or street side parking can be challenging. So we're trying to address that by the addition of the garage and finding the right balance between structured parking or no parking. It is a tricky situation for us. So the bigger question is this housing, addressing, affordable housing other than the required? The code requirement.

[78:07] Well, the code. It's 98 independent living units, and our estimate using the cash and lieu calculators. This would contribute 9 million dollars to the city's affordable housing fund. and that. And I don't think that actually includes the height modification, I think. And I know it just went up 4%. So. and that number will keep going up. So I at least 9 million dollars, and that this project would pay towards the city's inclusionary Housing Fund. I think you'll hear from some of the public testimony about other contributions Fraser has made towards affordable housing in the community directly with boulder housing partners, and other projects and grants and donations. So there is a very strong tie and and goal of creating affordable housing. But this is not affordable housing for seniors. Thank you.

[79:04] I had a question about your site. Design the buildings, the new buildings that you're showing along Sioux drive. They do appear to be all connected. Is that correct? I see you've got the offsets there with the angles, but those buildings are, in fact, a that kind of one is really like, you know, connection corridor. So it's access into the particular building. But yes, they need to be connected and allowed to allow the. I'm curious about the design considerations there. Because one of the things we talk about a lot in site design is permeability, permeability of a site. And especially since we're talking about an existing public right of way that passes through. There are there opportunities to allow for more permeability, both for views and pedestrians. Connection with the larger community through that south side. I'm just curious what your design considerations are there. It will be a challenge, I think. Part of the challenge was trying to figure out how we get structured parking and use that as the plinth to build these things on so permeability through the buildings would be difficult other than through potentially views. We're hoping to maintain the access through the site through the eastern edge by by keeping that access road open and available.

[80:11] So you know, it will be a challenge. We're trying to keep these buildings connected to allow people to sort of migrate through. Okay, yeah. Just to clarify the consideration you mentioned with the parking underneath. Is that a grade change? There is. There's a pretty steep grade change as you go from the west to the east. It it falls by about 10 to 11 feet as we go from the sort of easternmost. Excuse me, the westernmost edge towards the east, so the building does actually begin, the parking structure does actually become out of grade. It's 1 of the reasons why we did locate the entrance or the access point into the garage on the East Side. It's it's sort of the easiest to get to from a grading standpoint because of the fall of grade. Okay, thank you. Just to follow up on Claudia's, and then I'll pass over to Mark on that connection piece of the buildings. Are they connected on all 4 levels? Is that the way it works. I think we would anticipate for this one a bridge connecting over to Level 2. So that way, if you're on level one or 2, you come up or go straight across. If you're on 3 or 4, you come down a floor. Okay? So there would be permeability

[81:09] than at some level on 3 and 4. That's part of the reason we talked about doing this on Ponca. But we realized if it's a public right of way or a public street, we would never be able to have this connection over a public street. So one of the reasons that the vacation came up and was an idea is like, if it's a private road and private access, we can make this physical connection. We can't do that over public right of way without a lot more challenges. George, were you asking about the connection between the sections of the building? Correct? Yes. Yeah. Okay, not. The section across the 4 would appear to be 4 independent buildings, but are really connected. I think maybe that would be different. Yeah, between the buildings. Yes, full full physical connection between all stories, as we sort of move from 1 1 MoD to the next. and that's to avoid residents having to go if you say are on the 4th floor, and you want to go to an amenity on the other side, you would have to go down and then up and then back down again. And so we're trying to make sure that they don't have to reverse, say, from the 4th floor down to the first, st across the first, st up to the second, across to the canyon center back down to the first.st

[82:10] It's a lot of circumnavigation. First, st yeah. And I realize this is just concept I'm trying to understand. because these appear to be basically residential buildings. What are the amenities that they would need? Let's say, if I'm living on the 4th floor and getting over to another section. What's the amenity that I would be going to as a resident. So healthcare services the Spa fitness center food services, the cafes over there? We're really not putting a lot of new amenities in here other than a small cafe on the rooftop. We're proposing that. Well, I guess that's kind of the reason of my question, which is. if those are, I would assume, located on the ground levels or on the second floors of these buildings. Right? So what are the amenities that you would need a connection on the 4th floor to get from 1 4th floor of one of these buildings to the other.

[83:02] Nothing other than just avoiding sort of elevator traffic, or travel up and down for senior citizens, instead of just staying on on the same floor as they migrate across the building and then get over to the canyon center. But they would need to go down to to access one of those amenities. They would need to go down to at least the second floor, they would at least need to go down the second floor. Yes, yes, they would. Can I speak to that as well. One of the most important things that that the residents who live at Fraser today have asked that we ensure remains protected is the sense of community. and they create sense of community on among their floors, among sections of the building, and then come together as a greater community as well. So part of that is also to say, you know, this is my neighborhood within this community, and I want to have easy and regular access and the ability to bump into them. you know. Often sort of thing as well. Thank you. Mark

[84:02] it it often. I often joke that I didn't realize I was going to be part of the parking board rather than the planning board. So a lot of my questions will go back to parking. Do you have an estimate of what the proposed garage of 300 and some spaces. What is your cost per space? We believe it is in the range of $100,000 per space plus it could be up to $140,000 per space. We've looked at even doing things like automated parking spaces where we would stack spaces mechanically on top of each other to increase density. So at least a hundred $1,000 of space. Okay, that yeah. I was, I was thinking up 2. But yeah, at least rather than up to okay, So how do you? As both developers? And then as program managers and programming for your residents. How do you evaluate the cost of

[85:07] 10? You know 10 underground spaces. If I could take out 10 underground spaces, and I take that capital. and I use it for carpooling. Vanpooling shared rides, different modes of of mobility and accessibility for my residents, and so, with that kind of number where you know I have a million bucks available to me if I reduce my parking by 10 spaces, so you know. Convince me. Tell me, inform me about how you guys go about evaluating and getting your residents to arrive without a car by having the kind of programming that would allow you to reduce by 10, reduce by 20

[86:04] 30 spaces, you know, from your from your garage. Yeah, I'll let my partner speak to some of that as an architect. I'm really trying to meet the intent of the code right? It's very complicated, as Chandler explained, for congregate care. There's really not a clear line. So I'm trying to say, I do not want to over park this site. That's not the goal or the intention. I don't think that's the right thing to do, but I do want to find the right number of spaces to accommodate the new residents and the existing staff, because they're parking all over the street. So that's what I see as the challenge in terms of how we might address that. Otherwise I'll probably leave that to my partner, too. Yeah, and I'll expand. I'm glad you're coming up, and I'll expand my question just to include staff as well as residents, because the staff are equally important. They have to get there. And so, yeah. there are a million other ways. I could spend that, or would like to spend that 31 million dollars. I can promise you that other than parking. But parking is already a huge problem for us. So it's a few things I can't answer your 1 million dollar question, because the hardest

[87:07] thing to address with those that live at Fraser is their willingness and interest in actually giving up their car. So I think if there were many of them here, they would say to you, it's not that Fraser is not in a position to already. or would not be willing to find alternate solutions to their transportation. They are not willing or interested in yet giving up their car. Many of them still do travel and use their car regularly. So that's part of it. We have a car share program at Fraser right now, and it is underutilized because we just it's not that they don't know about it. They would tell you they're educated about it. They understand it. They just want their own car still. So we incentivize them even as we talked about earlier, with at least give up one of your cars right? So that you know you don't have to take up 2 spaces sort of thing. That, combined with the fact that our team members most who are making less than minimum wage can't afford to live in the boulder area. They're always going to be coming from outside of Boulder until you know. And are we exploring, housing for our team members? Yes, will that be

[88:16] easy to do and quick to do? No, so that's not a quick solution. And they're leaving 24, 7. So they're, you know, we're already in a city where we are very well aware. You know, we want to manage light pollution, but they're leaving at all hours of the days and nights and already walking onto property that puts them in unsafe positions. especially this time of year, when the snow is not cleared, etc, etc. So you know, we're thinking about not only just clearing the streets of the the Fraser cars for other people, but for the safety of our residents and our team members as well. Staff. Sorry. That's what we refer to them as did that? Answer your questions? Yeah, that that does. And I'll simply say, I appreciate your comment as an architect to say, Hey, I want to. You know I'm trying to

[89:04] design to the code and to fulfill the requirements of the code. Great. I super appreciate that. At the same time. you know the question I asked of Staff earlier is, it's it's you and and the subjectivity of this Board at Site review that will determine. Are you over parked? Are you under parked, etc. And so I was speaking only for myself. Yeah, all right. Yeah, there we go. I do want to say one thing that pastor mentioned, and that we are both of us are hubs for community events, and that creates an even bigger overflow for parking. And so again, we're trying to address. You know what's currently on the road, which are staff and residents so that we can continue to be good community members and foster that sense of community. Mason.

[90:03] I I've got a number of questions. I'll I'll stick with the parking line of thought. Can you go into more? I was gonna ask what portion of residents have cars? But I think after your comments, I'm I'm a little more interested in. If you can describe the parking trouble you're having. And I'm asking because I I visit Frasier somewhat regularly, and I've I've personally never noticed something an an issue with finding parking. So I'm just kinda curious where my disconnect is. Yeah, Mason, you know, I've been to meetings at Fraser several meetings over the last year. Streetside, parking along Ponca and along Sioux, near the church is actually a bit of a challenge. At least it has been for me. I think it's really because a lot of that curbside or streetside parking is taken up by staff and residents, mostly visitors, I would assume

[91:03] by about 9 Am. There, at least in my experience. There's not been a lot of parking available on the street side and curbside, and I think some of the comments we heard from neighbors as we had our meeting at the church was, they were concerned about the ability for them to be able to park on the street. maybe there is a disconnect, but my experience has been there is actually some challenges to finding parking in and around the property, maybe not for residents, but for visitors. Staff. I think it's pretty real. Yeah, good. Yeah, I'll be interested in seeing. Go ahead. Well, and when I think I don't know if we've mentioned this yet. But currently, I believe Fraser does lease spaces from the mountain view parking lot. So mountain view is over parked. Fraser is under parked currently. So right now that I think, is it 65 spaces that they lease? Probably about 65 spaces Fraser leases, or has an agreement with mountain view for employees. So right now, those employees are are using that. And so we're trying to balance this all out. The church, I will say, also has a parking requirement. They would like more parking than what is being allocated here. So it is an incredible balancing act challenge, accepted Mark. It is our job to figure this out in Site review.

[92:16] I've been telling my team this is going to be one of our key issues. It is they have already been. I think, that even the second car buyout and some of the program elements you heard about have been in being put in place as we're on this journey to try and test what could work? Because right now the car share is not working. Why isn't it working? What can we do to change that? The shuttle, you know, is a great program, you know. So I think we it's our job to figure that out and come back to you at site Review. This is a big challenge. We're balancing 3, for you know, groups the employees, the residents of Fraser, the church, and the neighbors, and I know you're going to hear about concerns about if we don't build enough parking. That's a concern to our our neighbors as well, so we will work on that.

[93:01] My! I was looking through the pack, and I couldn't. I probably dismissed it. I think you mentioned it. There's a hundred 50 or so surface parking being removed. Is that about right? Yeah, I believe it's about 153. That's a large portion of the existing church lot, which I believe it's 132 spaces, and then the large parking lot which is located south of the canyon center shown sort of right here. It's a surface lot, most of that. In fact, all of that will be removed. As. If I do some basic math. there's an increase of about 20% on the units. and with the current parking taking to account, losing that 150. There's a 30 plus percent increase in parking. And it's just kind of curious that they don't go hand in hand. And maybe that's just because of that additional need that you're explaining. Yeah, it's trying to strike the balance of what the church needs for Sunday services and for some of their events. In addition to new residents and existing staff. So we're trying to. It is as Danica described. It's a very difficult puzzle to solve. If we've got enough parking for all the constituents who need to use that garage.

[94:16] and just. Did you all explore? Go ahead. Well, I just want to add that they're sharing now, which is great, so that that has been balancing itself out like I said, because Fraser's under parked, and the church is over that actually works, because during Monday, through Friday it works great for the employees who are on that Monday through Friday schedule, many of whom are to park there. So we're trying to figure out how to keep that balance, and the church will actually is going to only have 19 surface spaces, and I believe they but they will share the garage spaces on the weekends and during high holidays, etc. So that's going to be. That has been one of our priorities, and, to be honest, that is one of the biggest discussions we've had amongst our 2 parties in negotiating to an agreement is parking. So it's

[95:05] yeah. It's it's gonna continue to be a challenge. It's a work in progress. But we know we have to solve it. Is it possible to I don't know if you all have already explored this, but is it possible to enter not into that lower or the upper level of the garage. The lower level from the surface road. Are you from Ponca or Pawnee. Ponca, like. yeah from the East, like like, I know, you would have to go down at an angle right now. You're kind of entering flat. But is it like just from a pure engineering standpoint? Is it feasible to enter into the lower level. Yeah, we think it's very feasible to actually enter it from the east side of this garage that we're shown here somewhere along this Eastern axis, I think, is is a yes, I think we're trying to get to a yes, on the northeast corner of the parking lot. So potentially we could divert more traffic coming into this garage from Ponca rather than Sue.

[96:07] I would say we wouldn't even rule out at this point, studying at least access Via Pawnee. I don't know if that's possible, but it's it's worth a study, and we just need to spend more time with our like. I said our civil engineer, and we have a parking garage consultant who can help us understand ramping configurations and slopes to see if we can make it work. I do feel confident that we can get rid of the access point, though, along Sioux, and only have this sort of access drive that I think we can do quite quite reasonably. And I think you've already spoken to a number of the transportation services that are already provided. Car share shuttle the parking cash out. Are there any other services that are currently in use? And would they need to be expanded. They have rideshare ecopass, and I think through tdm, we expect there's going to be more more things that are being forced. Am I missing the others that are currently in use.

[97:03] Oh, yeah, I think one. The other one that we're not talking about. That, I think, is also important to the neighbors is right, I think, with well, I know with Site Review we can manage parking. So I think that also having a permitting process for. And this was came up with a lot of discussion or community meeting, you know. Can you prevent people from parking on the right of way? The answer is. No, but we can manage that by. They can issue permits to staff, and they can. They can patrol that or have a policy that Staff can't park on the street, or, you know. So I think there's a lot of tools that we can put in our Tdm. Toolkit and our site review approvals that can allow or require Frasier to manage the parking to to a better and higher standard than it is now, because I think it is kind of people are just going wherever they want, and I know that not impacting the neighbors and using our overflow. Parking on their street is of of great concern to them. So I think we can manage parking better through this site review process and put tools in place for the future.

[98:12] I just have a couple more quick ones. I think you address this in your presentation. Just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You all clear the sidewalks when there's snow correct. We do, and Mason real quick, just on your parking question. There was once a bus stop, and it was removed. So consideration of returning the bus stop could be part of the plan as well. And then thank you. And then my last question on the southeast building exit. The staff pointed out that there's a sidewalk with stairs. I imagine that that sidewalk. Yeah, right there. I assume it would be largely avoided by

[99:02] different labeled. But I'm a little bit concerned about emergency evacuations of the building. Can you explain how. if you plan on addressing that that stairway way differently, or I don't know how how this would work. Yeah, we we haven't got there yet, Mason. We're gonna have to address it in in Site Review. We need to have a ramp. It's gonna I mean, we're gonna have to have as an accessible route and accessible access to the public way. So we need to address that it can't be just a stair. They'll need to be ramping there. Okay. Great. Thank you. Hi, another parking question. Sorry. So I understand that you have the cash out for people who don't bring a car or don't bring a second car what is included in a resident for Fraser? Do they get free parking spaces as part of their arrangement? Their living arrangement. like, do residents of Fraser actively pay for a parking spot.

[100:06] They get one parking spot, one moving in, and if they want a second parking spot, that's when they pay $200 for underground parking, or $100 for a parking space on on ground. And that's monthly monthly. Okay? So there's 1 parking spot that is bundled and unpaid. Okay, thank you. They would not consider it unpaid, not separately paid. One more question about. I'm going to change the subject to parking, and I'm sorry I should have known should have determined this in advance. But where is on street parking then available? I know there's on street parking currently available on both sides of Sioux, and I'm pretty sure both sides of Ponca. And is it available? Is it allowed on both sides of Pawnee

[101:04] full extent, other than at crossings, and so on. Yes, okay. And then And then whatever street, what's the street on the north side of what's that, Thunderbird? Thunderbird? Right. It shows up better here. You can see Thunderbirds up at the very top. Here and there is. You can see cars there now on the north side, right? But then not on the East Side. No, I don't believe so. Okay, thank you. Any more parking questions. I had a question when when you talked about sort of one of the major things that was discussed with the neighborhood around scaling. And that's something that you guys are working through. And then you also talked about unit sizes and your oversubscription of people that are dying to get in here. So if I recall correctly from the presentation, sorry, bad turn of phrase, apologize. So you have 395 units, 500 residents. What I heard in the presentation, 700 on a wait list total units in this or how many?

[102:16] 98, 98, and unit square footage on this is 1,400 units that you have on average. And then you've got units in the prairie building that are closer to 1,500, and then some of the original units are closer to 1,100 square feet. That's right. And so I guess my question is with, and this, this is really this is really just to inform us on your business and how it works, and what's important to your residents. The 1,400 seems to me to be on a large size for a single or double occupant type of apartment, and you've got other units in there that are 1,100 square feet. So I'm just curious. What's driving that programming, especially since you have such a deep list of 700

[103:05] applicants, I would think there would be a range. But again, it would be really helpful just to understand sort of what's driving that programming from your perspective. Yeah? So keep in mind, they're downsizing from 5 to 6,000 square feet homes. So 1,400, if it respectfully 1,400, feels like a long ways to go from from their larger home, and more and more as the baby boomer, boomer generation becomes those that we will actually serve as residents in Frasier. There the demand for 2 bedroom homes has, or at least one bedroom one den has increased. So those on our wait list are coming from the larger homes and really wanting that extra bedroom or den. Many of them are. We have residents who are still working in their nineties and want their office, space, etc.

[104:06] Anybody else? One month in the sanctuary of the church are there views to the west. you enter on the east. Right you you enter the sanctuary on the east and at the end. Yeah. So so there are no windows on that end of the building at all right? So there's no view of anything. I guess if we put a window in there we'd be but in terms of site design, and the location of buildings. You want to maintain the entrance on the east and the the architectural structure that you have there. But but, in fact. would you have opposition if the if one of the buildings encroached more to the west, north, and west, closer to the building than what is currently drawn there. One of the things that was really important for the congregation was to maintain a semblance of

[105:14] individuality so that we weren't looking connected or wrapped around. So that's part of the design of what you see and why that new design allows us to continue open space to the street, basically, and to be seen as you drive by as you walk by, as you're in the community, instead of being swallowed up. And so I think what you're talking about would do that. I'm not quite sure where it would be. And the other piece of it is the shadows, I think was a yeah. The main entrance does actually look, the main entrance is actually on the west side. So that access point is actually right here. Yeah. And so when you enter into the narthex is right here, and then you actually come into the sanctuary. You have to kind of walk in and head a little bit east, and then you turn and come back into the sanctuary.

[106:00] So the front of the church, the entrance to the church is on the west, not on the east. It's not on Ponca. It's over on by the parking lot on Ponte. That's clarifying for me. Thank you. Yeah. Any last questions, all right. It is 10 to 8 or 7, 48 We have a large public comment to get through, and I think we would like to do it in in one section rather than break it up. So my suggestion would be, we take a little break, and reconvene at 8, at which time we'll start the the public comment, thank you.

[121:57] And there are 2 min, and we will be listening. So with that said, Yeah, Kurt.

[122:04] We had discussed in the back room about the possibility of making a determination. Now about the second meeting. Do we want to try to do that? So? I I think And is Brad Brad's not in the room yet. Yeah, I think he might be addressing this. Yeah, he might be addressing with the applicant now to see if they want to go ahead and say something, but so we've given Staff a heads up that, depending on the timeline, we might run well over 10, just on deliberations on this, in which case it'd be difficult for us to do an additional public hearing. Here's Brett. But so I just want to make sure we make a public announcement as soon as possible, so that if people are online, for example, wanting to testify about the second item, yeah, that they can be aware. And we'll make a we'll make a determination as the board at 10, you know, based on everyone that we have here. We have online. We could run over 10 through our deliberations. I don't know that we'll be willing as a board to proceed, and so it is good for the applicant to have that as a heads up.

[123:15] And if they want to consider anything. Brad, do you want to say anything? Or the applicants of the Brad Mueller planning and development services. The applicants of the second item are aware of this decision that you'll make at 10 o'clock. So okay. all right. Thank you. All right. With that said, we're going to get started with public comment. We'll start with Brian Duff Dufresny, followed by Mark Johnson, and then Jv. D'souza. and then Chair Boone, if I may just make a quick announcement. Yes. Okay. So we have noticed in the group a number of members of the applicants team has signed up for public comment. Please remember that the applicant hasn't a lot of time on the agenda. All public comments should be by members of the public. If members of the applicants team wish to speak, it needs to be on behalf of the individual.

[124:16] We would also request that and all speakers disclose any financial or business relationship they may have with the project, the applicant. and any other thing you'd like us to know. So I just wanted to make sure I put that reminder out there. So thank you. All right, go ahead, Brian. Thank you. Please introduce yourself. My name is Brian Dufresne, and I for 5 years have served as the director of Music and Worship arts at Mountain View. and during this time, and for the nearly 30 years, I've lived and worked in the boulder area, and for the 44 years I've been a professional church musician. I've seen how the needs of our church specifically mountain view and denominational worship more broadly has been changing.

[125:18] Fraser Meadows has a long standing reputation for providing excellent care for boulder seniors. I think the proposal ensures that this land will be used to provide much needed housing while respecting the character of the neighborhood, and the demolition to make way for this housing is an old building that is rarely in use. It cannot be upgraded to to meet city codes, and it neither serves the needs of our congregation or the community, nor does it represent the vibrancy of Mountain View Church. However, the building that will remain is a coveted space for many organizations. In Boulder. The greater Boulder Youth orchestra. The internationally acclaimed ars nova singers, main stage concerts for the cultural caravan. On different occasions we have concerts featuring, say, cento baroque, ensemble the Boulder Chorale the boulder, Philharmonic orchestra, the Boulder concert band, rehearsal space for the Colorado music festival

[126:24] and community organizations, such as the Boulder Boulder, mineral club aa and na meetings, a suicide prevention group and others. and I understand and recognize that there are concerns regarding the appearance of the building. And of course, parking issues that we've been talking about a lot tonight. The demolition of the outdated building, I think, will make way for thought full. And am I cut off? Thank you. I think the project will allow Mountain View to continue to serve the spiritual, cultural and community needs of boulders residents.

[127:04] Thank you. Yeah. It would be helpful if if the next speaker could, could could queue up. So Jv. D'souza is after Mark Johnson. And then Ann Zelnino. Okay, I just want to thank you guys for being here through this very long process and coming across Siberia to get here. So I'm Mark Johnson and the 313 vehicle parking garage that's spilling onto Sioux drive is going to be dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, especially students of Manhattan and Horizon schools. Sioux and the bridge that crosses foothills are part of the bike route, B, 180, the vision 0 initiative, the low stress walk and bike network. They are considered a safe route to School and Sioux is listed as a future neighborhood. Green Street. There is no safe alternative to sue to move pedestrians, cyclists, and school children over foothills.

[128:07] In addition to an increase in traffic, this project will add much more parking congestion along Sioux. My family lives on Sioux, and each day we see residents, employees, contractors and visitors completely fill, parking along Ponca, and many of the spots on Sioux. If 98 apartments are added, plus the existing parking lot on Ponca and Sioux is removed, Ponca is closed to parking. and 75% of the church parking lot is eliminated. Where will all of the new and displaced Park Drivers Park as much as we'd like to think that they'll park in the garage. Experience tells us that that's not going to be the case. So, before approving this project. I think it makes a lot of sense to do a pedestrian demand and a traffic study.

[129:01] Both Fraser Meadows and the Church will see huge improvements from this project, but those of us living in the neighborhood and commuting through it, will experience only a reduction in our safety and our quality of life. Therefore we urge you to flip the design northward and empty the parking garage onto Pawnee rather than Sue or Ponca. Pawnee makes much more sense, because it's used significantly less than Sioux and because homes won't be across the street from towering buildings. If construction must move ahead on the south side of the church property at minimum. Please push the buildings back 40 feet from Sioux. limit their height to 35 feet, and install at Fraser's expense an off-street multi-use path along Sioux, from Mohawk to foothills. Thank you. It's Jv. D'souza, and then Angelin Neo, and then Marsha Mccallahan.

[130:04] Hi I'm Jv my wife Ann right behind me here, and we own the house at 4,700 Sioux drive. It's pretty much the house right at the end of Ponca Place, and I wanted to add a couple of responses. You asked a question. One of the board members online asked a question about the section showing the scale of the houses across the street. I provided an email. I'm sorry I missed Chandler's cut off date for it to get in your packet. but I did provide that drawing by extending the architects, drawing to show you how extreme that scale shift is. And Kurt asked about the size of the units for Fraser, and I also want to note that the average size of a house on the south side of Sioux drive is 1450 square feet, so each individual little house is only the same size as one unit in the proposed project. We always expected the project, the property at the parking lot at the southwest corner of Fraser to be developed, and the development of mountain views. Property doesn't surprise us either taking away Ponca Place. That's our path to Admiral Arlie Burke Park and Thunderbird Lake and to the Safeway shopping center. That is a huge loss to us.

[131:23] My primary concern with the project is its failure to make any transition in scale between a large urban structure to small scale suburban scaled structures across the street. I want to take the architect and the design team up on what they offered. I'm an architect. I'd be happy to meet with them on behalf of all these people that live in the neighborhood, to work together to hear their concerns and find a solution that works for Fraser and works for Mountain view, Methodist, and works for all of those neighbors, something that respects all of us, and something that we can all live with and feel good about.

[132:11] Hello! My name is Ann Zelniel, and I have concerns, I guess, to express just about the insensitivity of this project as currently conceived to 3 different communities. I think it's wonderful that the communities of Mountain View Methodist can thrive and be financially secure through this project, and I want to support that. I think it's wonderful that more senior housing will be added through this project, and I want to support that. But I don't want the significant adverse impacts for the 3 communities that are also greatly impacted by this one is the people who use the corridor for alternative transportation, which is such a big goal for the city of Boulder is to use alternative transportation, and we have lots and lots of people using the corridor along Sioux drive for that. And even if the underground garage spills onto the access road, it's still going to affect

[133:08] traffic on Sioux drive a lot. So I would like the design team to work really closely with alternative transportation groups like people for bikes and the city's department for alternative modes of transportation and fix that also. The second group is Horizons K. Through 8. They're going to be tremendously impacted by this project also. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of this huge block of building very close to Pawnee horizons, instead, there was some permeability into the Fraser community. so that the horizons community and the elders have more of interconnections. And of course there's our neighborhood. All the neighbors who live south of Sioux Drive. We use Ponca place. We are concerned about not having the access and the views toward Burke Park and the access to the library. So please please consider not have not granting the height modification and not vacating Ponca place. Thank you. Thank you. Marsha Mcclanahan, and then David Chernikoff, and then David Foster

[134:28] and Marsha Mcclanahan. I have 1 1 point about the traffic survey the key times of day for that seem to be, I was told by Frazier, Team 6 Am. The majority of their staff. Come on, come to work! And then, between 8 and 8 30, the Horizon children are dropped off by their parents. and then the Fraser staff probably get out around 2 or 3 Pm. And 3 Pm. Is when the children, 3 to 4 is when the children get picked up from school. So those are the important times that

[135:04] people are using Ponca to escape the rest of the traffic. and you know our our neighborhood has only 2 entrances, one from baseline and one from Table mesa, and the traffic really backs up at the lights, trying to get out of the neighborhood at certain times of the day, and it just makes it difficult to add more traffic. I live 3 houses away down the from the intersection where this parking structure is going to be built. and this area does have a history of groundwater issues. My house I bought from the original owner. and he told me that the groundwater level is high. Therefore we have an external cistern with a sump pump. and that draws water away. In 2013

[136:00] the pressure of the groundwater just overwhelmed our house and came in on all sides, and we have only half a level down. My neighbors on all 3 sides on Pawnee, had 3 feet of water in their full basements. So also a house that I can see from my house. They found an underground stream running by their house that was causing dampness. So there are issues, and my name's David Chernakoff. I live at 2 55 Pawnee drive 3 houses sharing a house with Marsha, 3 houses from the church rather than repeat the concerns of our neighbors in the neighborhood which you've heard and read about. I want to recognize as someone who has worked with the elder community as an educator and psychotherapist for 30 years.

[137:03] The contribution Fraser Meadows Meadows Manor makes to our community. and I've had a lot of positive experiences with it and with people who live in the community. At the same time I recognize that there are vested interests of different kinds. In this situation. the interests of the Church, the interests of Fraser Meadows Manor, the interests of the neighborhood, and the interests of the city for me, and looking at this overall situation I see the validity and the legitimacy of all of those concerns. Yeah, as the group of neighbors who are not as organized and are not an entity like a business organization like Fraser, Meadows Manor. or like the city of Boulder or the Church, we, as the neighbors, it seems to me are the most vulnerable here to not be heard.

[138:04] I think we're in a difficult position, because we had to scramble together at the last minute to try to present our concerns. My one request of the planning board is that you take some time at some point and get quiet. Put yourself in our shoes as people who have lived in this neighborhood and created it into what it has been, which is a beautiful place to live for us. and consider how you would feel in our situation if you had to work with what's going on here. That's my request. Thank you, David Foster. Then Eve Dreyer, and then Susan Connolly. yeah, David Foster, I'd like to request, address the proposal's request to vacate the right of way upon the place vernacular, giving away a public street and building buildings on top of it.

[139:02] Our neighborhood is blessed with a Meadows community center within walking, biking, driving distance to the north of us. replacing the north-south Ponca Place with the proposed private buildings, would result in a quarter mile long. east-west dividing wall between the neighborhood and the Community Center and baseline road. Chandler brought up boulder municipal code. Title 8, 6, 9, subparagraph C about the criteria for vacation. There's 3 criteria. I'd like to just the interest of time. Address. Item 3, which has 2 parts. The applicant for vacation must either have a proposal consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. or show that the the proposal is a greater public benefit then retaining the property in the present status. Part B. First, st it's hard to believe that taking a public street on public property and deeding it to a private party with private purposes is a greater public benefit.

[140:11] Part B. Is it consistent with Boulder Valley? A comprehensive plan. Bbcp, I quote, section 6.2. Oh. the city recognizes neighborhood streets and alleys of where the public domain. and we'll plan a well-connected and fine-grained pattern to facilitate public access, promote safe and convenient travel for all. disperse and distribute vehicle traffic and maintain character and community cohesion. I have just a summary. The proposal is in direct opposition to Bbcp. The proposal cleaves our neighborhood. resulting in routes that are, in fact, poorly connected, coarse-grained, and would poorly distribute. Thank you. You could just finish your sentence, create community

[141:00] isolation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Hi, there! I'm Eve drear. I am a next door neighbor to Frazier, and I'm also a Frasier team member. I'm a boulderite, and my history started in Boulder when I moved here in 1982 and I stayed for 20 years until my career took me some other places, and then last year I boomeranged back to Boulder about a year ago, and I was really glad to know that the senior community of Fraser is not only still here, but that has even gotten better. I believe that Fraser is part of what makes Boulder Boulder. 3 months ago I started a new job at Fraser. I'm the Director of Advancement and a side note for that. It's the 1st time in my life I've been able to walk to work. Part of my job is social responsibility, and all the ways that our community at Fraser gives back to the community, and I certainly don't have time to go into all the details, but I can tell you that our residents, without a doubt, are very committed and deeply care about this community, and they show it with their support every single day. Thank you.

[142:17] Then we'll have Susan Connolly, Leslie Durgan and Sarah Hughes. Good evening. I'm Susan Connolly, speaking in support of the project from 3 perspectives. As a longtime active member of this community for 25 years as a member of the Fraser Board for the last 3 and a half years, and as someone who's on the Fraser wait list. I don't have to tell you that seniors within our community are sitting on family size homes because we don't have an opportunity to downsize or we're losing people who've been important in our community as they move out of town in order to downsize or to seek other aging services that are not available.

[143:05] My husband and I are such a household with a 4 bedroom home within biking distance of an elementary school that is suffering for student enrollment. The Fraser Mountain View proposal is an important addition to the senior housing opportunities in Boulder. But it's not just about housing. Fraser is a life plan. Community. It. It offers seniors the assurance of care for the rest of their lives from entry into independent living through assisted living memory, care, skilled nursing, as may be needed. My husband and I are on the wait list. For 3 reasons. We want to remain in boulder and active in Boulder. We want to free up our family size home for a family. And someday we want to have that peace of mind, of the continuous continuum of care that that Frasier offers the vibrant community of Fraser, and the extraordinary quality of care.

[144:05] This is a worthy project for Boulder, and it's an efficient one in the sense that these 98 new units will utilize the facilities, the staff, the programs of the existing Frazier. And it's an important project to meet the needs of the Mountain View congregation as well. So I urge your support. Thank you. It seems funny to be on this side of the dais after all those years. I'm Leslie Durgan, former council member, Boulder, Mayor, 11 year member of the Fraser Meadows Board, and past chair of that board. I currently am chair of a companion board called Fraser Living, and I live at 3, 45, 17th Street. There are currently 700 households on the waiting list, 426 of those are households that live in boulder. If this project is built, we could free up potentially between 50 and 98 single family homes to provide family housing in our community.

[145:17] Boulder's population of people over the age of 80 is projected to increase 220% between 2020 and 2050, including a number of us. I'm looking at Mark. Every senior living community in Boulder is full, showing a clear need for additional senior housing. Fraser is a community resource. In addition to its residents. We provide a lot of services to members of the community. and unlike any other senior living community. Once you are at Fraser, you never have to leave because you have lost access to your resources. I understand the neighborhood apprehension. But let me address 2 quick issues that came up during your presentation to remind you that the city is about to begin extensive flood protection this year on what's called Cu South.

[146:13] and will be in place before this building is complete. Although revised. Mapping takes longer than that, and to remind all of us that paca is being redesigned and calmed. It is not being removed or closed. Vacation is a city function city term. But let's remember it's really being redesigned, not closed. Thanks. And, George, I just wanted to note that Sarah has a presentation. So I'm going to be pulling up some slides if you could allow just a few seconds. Okay, great. And I'll call Sarah Hughes. Then Lori Duncan. Then Lynn Pierce and then Jason Strauss, and then Philip Ogren. and if your presentation is up we can go ahead.

[147:00] Okay, thank you. I'm Sarah Hughes. I have been a Mountain View member since I was 9 years old, and I am currently the chair of the board. I live at 6, 8, 9, 1 spring hill up in Naiwack next slide, please. So you've heard the numbers. We? It's an old building. It needs a lot of money put into it. We don't have it. We need a million and a half just to meet needs not to make anything better, not to improve our facilities. We also want to improve our energy efficiency, which is another 1 million dollars. Next slide, please. We did a lot of visioning sessions as a church to see where we wanted to go in the future? And could we afford to do it? And did we want to remain? And so these are some things that we came up with one is that our music is amazing internally because of the pipe organ, because of our programming, but also because the community uses it so much. Next slide, please. And this was the number one thing. People love our sanctuary, and they don't want to change, and they don't want to leave where we are right now. So I appreciate the neighbors thoughts of redesigning our part of things. But we really prefer to stay where we are.

[148:14] We researched a bunch of other options for what we could do with our site to not have to sell, not have to redevelop, and nothing else worked as well as the Fraser partnership to redevelop our site. So our goals are to stay put, to modernize the building in a variety of ways and optimize it for the future. And next slide, please. To improve our energy efficiency to go to net 0 next slide, please. And ultimately you've heard all of these things. But the thing you haven't really heard is, we need the money to be perfectly honest, and we need an endowment to be able to serve our community into the future without that we may or may not survive. So we want to be part of the community

[149:03] for a long time. Thank you for the chance to speak. I'm Laurie Duncan. I am a resident of Fraser. Been there 4 years now. My point of view. Your decision is on bricks and mortar and roads, and parking the issue for me as a resident of Boulder is building community with our neighbors. and I feel Fraser Mountain View Methodist, the Church, I mean the schools. The community that we live in and walk through on your streets are well positioned to develop an age integrated, vital neighborhood. The residents at Fraser are very interested in the environment. Social justice, and quality of living.

[150:10] The upcoming months and years are going to see drastic changes in our healthcare system. Medicare Medicaid programs are to be cut. Fraser offers our services not universally, but to members of the community. But I want to make 1 point, and this addresses affordability switch switch my notes. I recently began a collaboration with no authorization from Christy or anybody with lighthouse writers workshop to do a writing to art program at Frasier's with Alzheimer's and memory loss individuals. The theory is used is using senses to be creative can improve the quality of life.

[151:08] We want to bring this program to Golden West as well, and to integrate who we are with our community and our kiddos. Thanks. Hello! My name is Lynn Pierce. I'm here because I'm a member of both Fraser and Mountain View, United Methodist Church, and I love them both. I believe the proposed sale of 70% of the church property to Fraser is a win-win for both entities. For mountain view the sale is a way to right size. Our church to our current needs, and ensure that it is restored to perfect condition, and with a fund set aside for future maintenance needs. And you've heard Sarah say without it. Without that we just may not be able to make it.

[152:07] For Fraser residents. The addition of 98 independent living units spreads the cost of administration over more residents and supports, assisted living, skilled nursing and memory care residents as well, many of whom are from the community. They're not all from independent living. Both mountain View and Fraser are valuable assets in Boulder, and the proposed sale benefits both parties. It is a benefit to boulder as well, and since I have 47 seconds left. I want to mention that Fraser does a wonderful job with shuttle trips to grocery stores and drivers that take you to any appointments. and we're close enough to walk. I gave up my car last summer, and I couldn't be happier, and they do provide a lot of services for people who don't drive the services are there, and they are provided by Fraser. Thank you.

[153:18] Go ahead. Who hits. Start. You do? Great Hi! My name is Jason Strauss. IA year and a half ago bought my 1st home with my wife and baby on at 4, 6, 3, 0 Sioux drive right across from the proposed development. I've had nothing but great interactions with the staff and members at Fraser Meadows. We often play with my son at Admiral Burley Park. I often walk my dog around Thunderbird Lake. I think every member of Fraser Meadows might know my dog and say, Hi! When I bought my home I had a fantastic view of the park of Thunderbird Lake and the Front Range Mountains. As the plan proposed. Now, my new view will be of a 30 million dollars, 700 car garage, the back of a 4 story building and a service entrance.

[154:02] I am not pro-development. I'm not anti-development, but I do have several asks. The 1st one is to recognize that the applicant actually tonight brought up a slide with their goals. Me and none of my neighbors were on that list of goals. As a matter of fact, the Development Plan specifically mentioned the fantastic views that the new development will have because of the positioning of the building. That is the expense of my views. That is the expense of my community. So my very specific asks the setback, is at the minimum right now. So 25 feet from the from the street. I want that to be as far as I can. There is. It's a significant lot. They can change the layout. I'd like that setback moved back, especially as the height gets increased. Second, curb the height increase if that's possible. 3, rd I think this has been addressed already, but the location of the service entrance and the garage. Thank you. I lost track of who's next? But I think I might be Philip Auger. That's me.

[155:04] My name is Philip Bogren. I live on Shawnee Place, which is one street over from Sioux Drive, and directly south of the property in question, which I can see from my back window. This is my 8th year, living in the neighborhood where I live with my wife and our large blended family with her one car. I have not owned a car for nearly 9 years, and have enjoyed our current location with its proximity to bike trails, bus routes, shopping, and dining. Our children have attended many of the nearby schools, including horizons K. 8. Across the street. I have a few things I would like to say, one as a car, light alternative transportation enthusiast who advocates for walkable neighborhoods. There's only one thing that makes me more discouraged than large surface parking lots filled with cars. large surface parking lots that sit empty most of the time. The one acre parking lot on the proposed site is not only wasteful, but is outrageously out of character with the context around it. and it is a blemish and disgrace to our neighborhood. I welcome it, being replaced with beautiful new housing and the vitality it will bring to the church, the retirement community and my neighborhood. 2. As a frequent pedestrian. I'm particularly concerned about the intersection at Pawnee Drive and Ponca Place. It is not safe for pedestrians. In fact, I have stopped and lectured my kids at that intersection and made them watch the traffic there. Northbound traffic on Ponca Place, turning right onto Ponty Drive, is given a yield sign.

[156:22] but because there is so much pavement at that corner, drivers feel safe at higher speeds through the wide turn vehicles routinely drive through the intersection without slowing down. And I've even watched them accelerate through the intersection. This is a problem, because the distance a pedestrian must cross from one curb to the other is a staggering 97 feet. Also, just past that intersection there is a heavily used crosswalk, where wary and often elderly pedestrians routinely wait for speeding cars to whiz by, I warmly welcome a complete redesign of this unnecessary street, and the dangerous intersection at the end of it. I have something to say about less parking. And you can read that in my email.

[157:02] Thank you. Thank you. I think that was everyone in the room, Thomas, did we miss anyone? Not that I'm aware of, but if anybody was missed and they would like to speak. Please do so now, before we move to online speakers. Great, thank you. Thank you. And then we'll pass it over to Vivian to assist with the online participation. That'd be great. Thanks, thanks, Vivian. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Thomas. So now we'll move on to online participants. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. If you'd like to speak. Each person will have 2 min, same as the in person participants, and I'll also give you a heads up on the order so that you can be ready, and I'll call on you as they appear for me, if you're only your 1st name is listed here. I really do need your last name also to be able to call on you. So go ahead and use the QA. Function to send that to us if you don't plan to speak. Then you don't need to change your name.

[158:09] All right, so we'll go ahead and start with Eric Nelson, followed by Gary Schmitz. Please go ahead, Eric. You have 2 min. Thank you. My name is Eric Nelson. I live at the meadows in the Parkway Condominiums, 550 Mohawk drive. I'll be very brief. I'm very much in favor of this project. In the 10 plus years I've lived alongside Frazier and Mountain View. They've been good neighbors and responsible members of the community, and I trust them to do a good job. The proximity of the Meadows shopping center means residents will be able to do much of their day to day shopping without using their cars. Also, meadow shopping center is an important part of our community that seems to be struggling since the pandemic with by my count 2 weeks ago. 5 empty storefronts right now, and the infusion of the new residents with this expansion will help the shopping center thrive and continue to be an asset.

[159:13] and I've edited out everything that would have been somebody else, me repeating somebody else. So my thanks to the board for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Thank you so much, Eric, for being here. Gary Schmitz, please go ahead. You may have to mute yourself from your end. Gary Schmitz. if you can figure out how to unmute yourself. In the meantime, I'd like to ask other members from the public here. If you do wish to speak, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Doesn't look like we have anybody else. After Gary who is waiting to speak

[160:07] we have a couple more hands raised, so we'll go ahead and move to Megan Thomas, and we'll come back to Gary and see if he's able to mute himself. Please go ahead, Megan. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hi! There! My name is Megan Thomas. I'm the director of our assisted living neighborhood and memory support neighborhood for the last 6 years. My focus is mostly on supporting our residents and their families in our higher acuity areas of skilled nursing and assisted living. And I can tell you, about 2 years ago we had a lot of support from our Vp. Michelle Mcparlan, sending a lot of reminders to our team members to please Park on Sioux drive to allow for family members to be able to visit people that are coming to visit their members in skilled nursing and assisted living. And always

[161:05] I am parking on Sue Drive, and I can't tell you how kind the neighbors are, and I say I'm so sorry I'm parking in front of your house. You can probably never have visitors, and they're like, just as long as you allow enough room for the trash containers or for my landscapers to come through. And they're so kind. But even at those times when we're parking on Sioux drive, there still is not enough parking for our family members to come, and also. My my biggest concern is when we have our team members that are there, leaving at 10 Pm. At night because of the Boulder light laws. The streets are so dark. And so we have young team members that are really not feeling safe when they're walking out, even at 6 pm. At night, when it's dark, but especially at 1030 at night. They're walking to their cars on Sioux drive, and very scared, and they just don't have the security of a well lit parking lot.

[162:03] and also the team members at 6 Am. When there's really not a lot of traffic at that hour, and they just feel unsecure. So I just want to share. I want to support our neighbors that are on Sioux drive for them to be able to have parking for their personal lives and also for the safety of our team members. Thank you. Thank you, Megan, for being here. Let's go ahead and move to Lynn Siegel, and, followed by Gary Schmitz, to give Gary a little bit more time. Go ahead, Lynn. You have 2 min. This. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. This is all about money, money, money. I've watched it with St. Aidan's church landmarking. These churches are being taken advantage of. and you know I'm atheist. So that isn't a community benefit for me. If if we want to have a space where music can be played. Then let's create that space, but not as a church.

[163:08] You know the people at Fraser paying 50 to $60,000 a month for a couple to live in there. That's what this is about. This is big money. 5 people service workers from Fraser are commuting in, I mean, out of 200 people. 5 live in Boulder. This is not meeting our jobs housing, imbalance. You can watch me at Boulder Valley Comp plan because I will be there every minute to see that jobs housing has changed and that development excise tax is much, much more than 25%. Which is what this is happening with this project. This is unconscionable. This is just like all the condos, expensive condos going up all over town except it's 1 in one concentrated place. This needs to stop yesterday enough already enough.

[164:17] you know. I was just at a homelessness thing earlier tonight, and I had to jump back and forth so I couldn't hear. You know I can't be in 2 places at once. This. This is what drives homelessness in boulder plus the private equity investors and the rental backed securities stop already! Stop! Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for joining us tonight. Let's try Gary Schmitz again. Gary, I'm unmuting you from my side, and you may have to unmute yourself from your end. Give you few seconds, and otherwise we will move on to the next person.

[165:00] You hear me now. Yes, that's great, wonderful! Go ahead. You have 2 min. Good evening. My name is Gary Schmitz. I'm a member of Mountain View. The purpose of my comments tonight is to talk about how the sale of Fraser to Fraser will allow mountain View to achieve 0 net carbon emissions, which I understand is also one of the goals of the city of boulder. So by way of background, the church has what we call a green team, which is concerned about sustainability, global warming the environment. About 15 years ago we installed well, we undertook a program to increase our electric efficiency. We did relighting, we put in better refrigerators, energy management system and A. Pv large photovoltaic array. So we produce the result of all that is, we produce about twice as much electricity as we use. We send about 30,000 kilowatt hours back to excel.

[166:07] We're now focusing on natural gas usage. So we spend about 20,000 a year for natural gas from Excel. As has been said before, we have an aging gas gas boiler right now, and an uninsulated roof. We've gotten bids, and we've done heat loss analysis. We believe that either an air source, heat pump or a ground source heat pump with insulation would replace all our gas consumption. It's technically feasible, as you've heard from a couple other people. We don't have much money right now. The bill. Those items are more costly than just putting in an existing a new gas boiler. So we? We would look. If if this sale is approved, we'd have the resources to become net 0 carbon emissions. Thank you.

[167:08] Thank you so much. Next we have Michelle Bargo, and we don't have many other hands raised. So so just wanna ask people to go ahead and raise your hand so that we know how many people are in the queue. Please go ahead, Michelle Bargo. Are you able to hear me. Yes. Okay. Hi, I'm a parent at horizons. I've had kids at horizons for 10 years, but I actually live in Louisville. I'm also the Secretary of the Board at Horizons the last 2 years, and every Thursday for the last 2 years I help coordinate the program where from Fraser Meadows come over for an hour and read with students from different classrooms. It's a super special program for the seniors and the students, and they form great relationships. And we photograph them and we put them up

[168:02] pictures of them up around the school. So I love both communities a lot. And yeah, my role with the with the children. I feel like society should protect children as one of our highest goals. So With regard to this project, my biggest concern is that drive down Sioux drive which I've driven at least twice a day for the last 10 years, going down towards the pedestrian bridge over foothills, the types of students that I'm passing that are going towards Manhattan are coming towards horizons are not excellent at keeping themselves safe as they bike in and out of the sidewalk and crossroads. And so my biggest concern, I just found out about this project last week. I really think it's incumbent on us to protect especially the children, and make sure that the traffic is routed away from this route. I also want to point out that Boulder just spent a ton of time and money, fixing up the bike pathway on baseline, which resulted from, I believe, an accident that happened there with a mother biking with her child or children, and it would make sense to keep this bike pathway as safe as possible as well. So we can increase the setback from the sidewalk. As others have said, we can route the traffic away from Sioux drive

[169:27] so that both communities can do what they want to do and stay safe and thank you. Thank you. Next, we have somebody whose name is listed as Will Ash. So go ahead and unmute you, and please introduce yourself with your 1st and last name. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Jim Williams, and I am the chair of the Board for Fraser Meadows. I just want to make one statement.

[170:04] which is that we have an opportunity, as a community to do something that's very important for both senior living in the greater boulder community and the future of this beautiful church. I want to thank everyone for their participation this this evening on this very, very important issue, and I can't say enough about how much we at Fraser Meadows appreciate the patience and the input that we have had this evening, and we look forward to our future conversations. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim, so we have no other hands raised. But let me just give folks few seconds case. People are waiting to hear what others said, and thinking about it.

[171:04] Okay, we have. We had a hand. It disappeared. Let's see if it comes back. Okay. No other hands are raised, and I think the public hearing can be closed over to you. Chair. Quick question, Vivian. There looks to be like someone on the phone, do they? They have the same way to raise their hand. I just see a phone. Yeah, it's yeah. That's a that's a good reminder that it's Star 9. If people would like to raise their hand or get us to see their hand and be able to call on them. Just wanted to make sure we had an opportunity. Yeah, appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. And thanks to everyone who provided public testimony tonight.

[172:01] it was was heartening to hear. All the different perspectives from the community, and and a lot of willingness to work together to figure out a solution across what's being proposed. So, thanks to everyone who who commented and to the applicant and to staff. The applicant does have a chance to respond to anything they heard. If if they want to. If not, we'll go into our deliberation. Yeah, okay, great. All right. With that I will. Ask the board for some general comments. If we can go ahead and put up the the key issues that were set up at the beginning of the hearing. Someone could put that on the screen.

[173:00] And I'm open to suggestions on, on how we run this. If people want to make some general comments, or if we want to go into key issues right away, go ahead, Kurt. just as a process suggestion, I would recommend adding the vacation of Ponca drive as a specific key issue. So maybe under Number 4. So I think that Chandler had it under number 2, but I think it's maybe weighty enough that it deserves to be its own issue. If that's cool, it's fine with me. I mean it sounds like a pretty big issue. Any other. Any other comments? Do people want to go right in and speak to the 4 issues? This is a feedback session. So there's no, there's no real vote or anything like that. And I think it's been working well to have people address Mark, do you want to use your mic?

[174:00] I think it's been working well to have people rather than round Robin, and lots of mics on and off to just go ahead, get your thoughts out there, and we can always revisit or add to it. But and I'd like Kurt's suggestion of making Ponca the vacation of Ponca, really a key issue, and it can be 4.th That sounds great to me. Any other comments, if not, if someone wants to kick us off and talk through the key issues from their perspective. Go ahead, Laura. I can kick it off. And again, I just want to really, really thank everyone who has worked on this and in that. I include city staff, of course, Fraser and the church and the neighbors. Right? I heard the commenter who said, it's been a challenge to get organized from our perspective. You folks have organized very well in the last few weeks. We have heard your voices loud and clear, and I think so has the applicant as you heard tonight.

[175:05] So I'll just remind everyone here that our job as the Planning board is to determine whether a project meets the Site Review criteria that are in the building code, and we will do that at a subsequent step, which is the Site review hearing. And right now, we're just giving the applicant a preview. Basically of here are the things that we're going to be concerned about. Here are the things that we want you to address before you come back with a final site plan. And we've heard a lot of willingness from the applicant to hear that. So that's what we're doing tonight. So 1st of all, so as an individual board member, the 1st question is it consistent with the Bbcp Land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the Bbcp. Particularly those that address the built environment. My answer to that question is, yes, generally speaking, although we will have some specific concerns, I'm sure everyone here does. I have a few, but on in in general and on balance, you know, this is a piece of land that is zoned high density, high density, residential land use, and residential high zoning. So I think it is appropriate for more housing in particular on this site. I think that's a wonderful land use, especially for senior housing. So appreciate seeing this proposal.

[176:21] I do support the staff concerns which are in the packet, starting on page 16 of our Pdf. I think they were all well considered. I really appreciate Allison for working on this especially, and I think the applicant would do well to pay attention to all of those staff concerns in the packet question. Number 2 does planning board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design. Yeah, some. So I want to highlight Staff's concern that was noted about the open space being shaded because of that unbroken building that will cast a shadow to the north, and some of our public commenters commented on how that's especially dangerous for the senior population that perhaps can't afford to slip and fall, and that can have life altering consequences there. And there may be a number of ways that the applicant can address, that

[177:12] one of the things might be bringing down some of the height of the building, breaking up that massing more which is another one of our criteria. As staff have pointed out, we do have a criterion in our building code in our site review criteria that talks about varied roof form, and heights. and also stepping down the massing, especially where it interfaces with the low density residential across Sioux drive. So I think the applicant may want to think about the interplay between that requirement to be sensitive to the lower heights across Sioux Drive, and how, stepping down some of that massing could reduce that solar shading effect of the open space that is currently planned to be behind there. for the ice concerns the snow and ice concerns.

[178:00] So I wanted to really emphasize that one. and I don't. I don't know what kinds of connections you need between your buildings. I hear that it's very important to keep that connection for your community for people's mobility within your community to be able to get from residential to services without leaving the building. That said, there may be ways to have people transition to different floors as they move through the buildings. You don't necessarily need to have an unbroken 4 floors all the way across. Necessarily, so please consider that somebody also mentioned heating underneath the pavement to help prevent ice, and that could also help address that concern. So I wanted to raise that up. sorry. I'm trying to organize this by the questions moving. The garage entrance, I think, is a really important suggestion, and it sounds like moving it to the North as far as possible, would be good if you can explore that, and thank you for your willingness to explore that. But at the very least try to get it away from Sue as much as you can.

[179:08] because it seems like that is super important as a pedestrian and multimodal corridor, and for the schoolchildren, and all the number of reasons. I did also want to elevate this. The idea that that intersection at Pawnee and Ponca place is super wide and hard to see. I was out there looking around the site. And I agree with that comment that when you redesign Ponca place potentially to really think about that those intersections, both with Sioux and with Pawnee. the the height of 55 feet like, I said, I think that that is justifiable, based on the residential high zoning of this area. But I wouldn't necessarily have all of the buildings equally 55 feet. Think about stepping that down the other

[180:00] other key issues as identified by planning board. You know, Kurt, you talked about the vacation of Ponca Place being its own issue. I think Staff have identified some serious concerns with the vacation of Ponca Place, especially the relocation of that water main. I appreciated hearing from the applicant that your intention is not to close it to traffic, but to redesign it. I do hear you saying you want to calm traffic, and it's unclear to me if that redesigned street would still serve as a neighborhood amenity to to travel when people need to use their cars to get from place to place. I did hear you saying you want it to be both pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic? I do. It does sound like we're hearing from the neighborhood that that is an important vehicular pathway. And if the goal is to try to drive people away from using that, I think that that would run into problems with our vacation criteria of it has to be just as good for the neighborhood as it is now, basically, and just as serviceable. I do like the idea of redesigning it with amenities that you can't necessarily do on a public street.

[181:01] So I'm not. I'm not opposed to the idea of having it become a private street as long as that public access easement is maintained, and as long as it is justified according to our vacation criteria. So I think that's something for the applicant to really think about, how are you going to justify that in your site review packet? And then, just real quickly. there is a criterion in our code around having a variety of housing types. Section 9, 2, 14 h. 1 f. Requires that projects that have 20 dwelling units or more, include at least 3 qualifying housing types, and I don't think that you meet that one right now. And so I would encourage the applicant to look at adding an additional housing type, and in particular smaller efficiency units. I live in a 1,500 square foot single family home. So the idea of a 1,400 square foot apartment to me feels like not everybody is going to need that right. So for affordability sake and for having potentially more units as well as that additional housing type. Please consider efficiency units as a potential type of housing you could use

[182:11] in this design. And you talked about your Tdm. That you know that your Tdm. Which is transportation demand management. It's the plan that we ask applicants to put together to say, here's how we're going to reduce demand for cars for our site a couple things to really consider that 1st spot being bundled into the price that people pay. We we know very well, from experience all over the world that that just incentivizes people to have a car because they're paying for it anyway. So consider whether you could, as part of your I don't know your operating plan, but unbundle that parking spot for all your residents and have them pay for it separately. That probably will drive down the number of people that want to bring a car. It's not going to work for everybody, but it might work for some.

[183:03] And then when you think about your bike parking, obviously horizontal and secure and weatherproof bike parking. I don't think that you guys are probably going to propose the hanging bike racks that we see a lot, because that's going to be hard for people to lift their e-bike onto, especially for seniors. But that that horizontal bike parking is going to be super important. and that's including for the church patrons as well as for the residents of Fraser. And I think that's all my comments, for now. Sorry I'll pass the Mic Kirk. Kurt Dunn Mason. Great. Thank you, and thank you to Laura for kicking that off, and you saved me a bunch of speaking because I agree with an awful lot of what you already said on Key issue number one. I agree that overall the proposal is consistent with the Bvcp and the

[184:05] yeah, the the land use map in the Bvcp. Obviously, this meets an important need for additional senior housing in Boulder. We need more housing period. We need more senior housing in particular. And so I think that that's the overriding consideration to be to be addressed here. However, I think there are a lot of details that we need to look at. The general building design just on big picture, I think, looks appropriate to me. I definitely agree that some breaking up some of the massing would be important to provide. If if you're not able really to step down on the on the south side, at least to to break it up and provide some greater permeability or visual permeability, to allow some views through and and just to reduce the apparent mass of the building

[185:19] as Laura mentioned, I think that the 1,400 square foot average size is it's very large. It means that you're getting fewer units for the total amount of built space. And so I would strongly urge you to consider how you can reduce that in order to get to be able to to serve more seniors. And yeah. it'll be a sacrifice for some of them. But yeah, as you said, you've got a waiting list of 700 people, and so some of them maybe it won't work for, but there are plenty, I think, whom it will work for.

[186:04] The in terms of the the Site plan, I think definitely taking motor vehicle access off Sioux is not. That's not working. So the in general, we try to take motor vehicle access off the lowest Category Street, and even though they're all really just residential streets, I think implicitly. That would mean Ponca. I think that that would be the most appropriate place to take access. Pawnee would also potentially work if it could work sort of geometrically. One of the problems is that Pawnee has poor sight lines. and people do drive very fast there, I mean, really, Pawnee should be. It should be traffic calmed, and how to make that happen I don't know. We don't necessarily have mechanisms to ensure that in Site Review.

[187:04] But I have a little bit of concern about people driving in and out on Pawnee at least, as it's currently in and out of the parking garage as it's currently as Pawnee is currently designed. And really Sue and Ponca as well as Bonnie should. They're they're wide streets that have yeah, a lot of traffic and and really encourage very high traffic speeds. And ideally, they would all be traffic comped. I do feel maybe a little bit of difference from Laura. I do feel that the that what you're proposing meets the housing diversity requirement in the sense that we require, I believe, 3 different

[188:00] housing types. You're proposing 2, a 1 bedroom, and a 2 bedroom. But given there, there's also consideration given for for serving particular needs. And since this is particular serving the needs of seniors, I feel that it does meet the housing diversity requirement in 9, 2 14 h. 1 FI think it is. I feel that. So let's see. Key issue number 3. I think that the 55 feet is appropriate. I given what I said about breaking up the massing more to allow more visual permeability. Number 4. I think that the elephant in the room really is Ponca Place, and the vacation. I feel that as I read the criteria it doesn't meet the criteria for right away vacation.

[189:01] The the item number, or L point one of the right of way. Vacation criteria is the applicant must demonstrate that the public purpose for which an easement or right of way was originally acquired or dedicated is no longer valid or necessary for public use. Well. Ponca Place was acquired for use as a street. It's still being used as a street. It's still needed as a street, and so at least, reading that literally it absolutely is. It is it is necessary, and it it doesn't qualify for vacation by my reading. I think that an argument could be made, that if you were rebuilding the street in a very usable form, as a clearly as a as a as as what functions, and appears as a public street.

[190:01] then it we might be able to make an argument that it would meet the criteria, but the rendering that we had from the north end of Ponca in in the the packet that was looking down towards the new building. When I looked at that as I look down there, if I were standing at that intersection thing, can I get through? The answer would been, No, I don't. It's a dead End Street. So I think that if you're going to meet the vacation criteria at all, you would need to make it very clear that yeah, this is a public street it goes through, it's open to everyone, and so on. And I think that the bridge is going to be a challenge with that, because I think that that tends to constrain people's ideas about whether I can go through, and in particular, like, if you've got a second story, bridge is a box truck going to be able to go through? I don't know. So those are things to think about.

[191:11] I think that is all of my comments. Thank you, Mason. Great first, st thanks for the detailed presentation. I I feel like at this stage. We don't typically get something that's developed and fleshed out. So it's very helpful, and I appreciate it. So this is exactly what we need in Boulder and in the region in general, as mentioned, some public comments. The Denver Regional Council of Government, Dr. Cog has reported a significant increase in the aging population across the Front range projections indicate a 3 x. Rise in residents, age 60, and older compared to all of the age groups, and we can see this in the demand for for Fraser Meadows in general.

[192:00] This demographic demographic shift underscores the growing demand for facilities that offer a continuum of care and a connection to the community. This project enables older adults to remain in their communities comfortably while freeing up other housing as someone who has worked with elderly patients. I know how rare it is to have an option like Fraser. going through these really fast? in the interest of time. 0 1. Yes, 0 2, yes, 0 3, yes, 0 4. I'm going to continue to read my comments. this is a high density zone, residential area, and the height of this project is similar to much of the surrounding areas. So I have little problem with the current design. And sorry if there's a little jumbled. I was like trying to cut and paste as people were commenting. Let's not repeat myself too much.

[193:02] although I I'm mostly supportive of staff concerned. I am not as concerned about the shading of the green space as in the center of the development. As Fraser Meadows has staff that ensures the pathways are clear and safe. I would not give up housing for that concern, however, I do believe the parking is excessive. I I did go back and look at the numbers and make sure my my calculations are correct, the additional units is about a 20% increase the parking add, taking into account the removal of the the service parking is a 37% increase. If you were to keep those ratios the same, the additional parking spaces would be 137, not 322 so I would keep that in mind. I know there's other concern, considerations with negotiations with with the Church. But I would be happier to keep that ratio increase about the same

[194:01] and if the parking garage size was reduced, there might be additional design opportunities without losing units, like adjusting the roof lines, etc. I do think that vacant makes sense assuming all the engineering concerns can be addressed, as Kurt points out, not removing the public access. Easement helps it meet the requirements of vacation, and my hope is that public access is predominantly alternative modes of transportation. and I do believe that the design of this corridor could encourage that. I do like the idea of moving the entrance of entrance of the parking garage onto Ponca Place. Creating some permeability to the buildings and creating more variety and size unit would be welcome. And much as Laura pointed out, I do hope that we see a more advanced tdm, I think times are changing, and maybe you'll see more uptake in the use of your current alternative modes of transportation that we're providing for your residents.

[195:05] I do think that the parking cash lot is an interesting option. I would like to see some principles applying this, Laura. See clearly the addition of a bus stop sounds great, and I do want to see your cyclist community fully supported, encouraged. I know there's a strong cyclist community there. that is all my comments. Thank you. The 1st thing I want to say is that all the public comment we've we've read this. We've read your emails. We heard you tonight and take heart that it's some of it has been, really. We've heard it all, and and I say that in a positive way we've heard we heard all of you that you had to say, and some of it has really been really helpful. And and sometimes numbers, don't you know, it's like, well, we had this many people for this. Many people against the numbers don't always equate to outcome. So, anyway, just thank you for all of you coming and providing such thoughtful comments.

[196:15] This is a really challenging, it's a it's a i think it's a great project. I think it fulfills. Question number one on balance. Does it fulfill our Bvcp goals? But yes, it does. But the the real trick here will be in answering the our feedback on the conceptual site design and building design. And I heard a lot about setbacks and open space. And one of the things that really comes to mind for me is, there is a struggle and a balance between setbacks

[197:00] and usable open space. because if you push buildings towards the street edge and you create beautiful big open courtyards and a park like existence. Then, yeah, your setbacks are smaller, but the trade-off is. You have more open space. My suggestion and this is, you know for architects it. It can be frustrating at times to have people that are not professionals start telling you what to do or how to design, but it seems to me that that you have this challenge of wanting to. Really, really, you don't have 4 buildings. You have. You have one building that you're trying to break up visually to look like 4 buildings because you want to connect them. If you could move that building farther to the north and create your park on this, on the south side, which would address some of the shading issues, and so forth.

[198:04] and address the setback issues for those living on the south side of Sioux. And again, I'm I'm it's a challenging site, and I think a redesign could yield both a building that felt less massive on the street felt better in terms of the open space and where it fronts. So, anyway, I think I think you have a very challenging design, but once you realize that you're really building one building and not 4? Then the it's a real challenge in terms of permeability which leads me to question number 4 of Ponca vacation of Ponca. I have an antenna, for when I see what I think is the privatization of public space.

[199:03] I really bugs me when that happens. But that's not in in my view, that's not happening here. What what we're doing here is accommodating the problems that the city has created through our our Dcs. Our design and construction guidelines that don't allow us to design streets that are welcoming to pedestrians and bikes where the car or the truck is a guest. and that's what I see you trying to do with Ponca. So if if Ponco went, what I in the current design, which again is very preliminary. It isn't, and I'm I'm disagreeing with Kurt and Laura here. I don't think it's curvy enough. I don't think it has, and the a great enough degree of obstacles, and the feeling that if I'm driving a car on that.

[200:05] I need to go really slow, because I'm actually a little little confused by this design. And there's 2 examples of this. and I cite this other planning board members will will know these, but for for your benefit. 34, th and Meredith essentially 34th and Belmont. There's a private street that is really beautiful. It's like an event. Street trucks still go down. It still get deliveries on that street. But it is. It is a beautiful street that has. It's a 1 roof. It feels it feels very different from a typical street. It's a private street because you couldn't build that street. If it wasn't a private street the other one would be 11th Street at Alpine and Balsam, which isn't built yet, but that is the city. because the city can't realize their goals with the current design standards.

[201:02] That will be another street like that 11th Street. The city is doing its own private street. So anyway, I'm for the quote vacation of Ponca Place. If it remains a public street with a wound type design that is accessible. 24, 7, 3, 65. It's a public street. It's just privately owned. So I'm actually in in favor of that. I'm also in favor of the of allowing the building to go to a 55 foot high limit with with additional design considerations. So that I just think you guys can do better in terms of stepping it back and making it feel less massive, and I think moving it south and moving the park. I'm sorry moving. The building North Park to the south would would potentially accommodate that

[202:03] other than that. These guys have said everything great. So thank you. Thank you. To my colleagues. I've been revising my comments as we go, so please bear with me here. I also want to start off by appreciating the member many members of the public who have written in or spoken tonight, and while we may not accept all of your suggestions for a project, the information that you've shared about the conditions on the ground really help us to understand the opportunities and constraints on a project like this. I'm personally really excited to see a project like this and get a chance to talk about it, because a number of reasons number one, it proposes senior housing which responds to an urgent and growing need in Boulder and the broader front range region. I'm excited about it because of its resident population. I think in terms of a lot of a lot of the things we've been discussing in terms of transportation throughout the city. This really gives us a chance to lean into alternatives to private cars, and I'm excited for this particular proposal because it involves known good neighbors and engaged residents in the community. The seniors, the church community, and the neighbors that we've heard from tonight.

[203:26] So with that, said, my comments here are as follows, 1st of all, on the question of compliance with the Bvcp. I think. Yes, overall. This proposal is consistent with the policies of the Bvcp. It is especially in line with our policies around supporting housing for special populations, and I think the design that we see here is appropriate for high density, residential zone that said, like several of my colleagues, I do want to raise the issue of unit size. In this proposal my colleague, Laura, mentioned that we do have site review requirements for different unit types in a project of this size. I think it's also important to think about unit size. When we evaluate whether the project actually is meeting our housing policies and goals.

[204:17] we have needs for senior housing in this community at all sizes and price points, and not just for people who make self-select onto Fraser's current waiting list. So I think, in line with some of what my colleagues have said, I would welcome seeing a proposal at Site review that increases housing opportunities that are created by this expansion, and which makes them available to a broader socioeconomic range of our residents and size. Unit size is a tool to do that in terms of the Site plan and building design. I did want to talk some about the placement of that garage interest entrance. Excuse me, it does sound like the immediate issue here of that access point on Sioux is already potentially being corrected.

[205:03] but I would encourage the applicant to work with the city, if possible, to see what other street safety improvements there on Sioux drive are possible. It's pretty disappointing to me that the city classifies this as a bike route, and yet we don't have any design standards or improvements that would be planned for this street as part of a major redevelopment. I did hear some willingness from the applicant to address that situation, and I hope that you'll explore that in good faith in discussion with the applicant earlier, I asked a question about permeability on the site, particularly in relation to that long, unbroken facade on the south side of the project. And I just wanted to say, I, 100% appreciate the answer. That was given about keeping those resident buildings connected floor by floor. I think it's important to note that in good urban design we ask for dense street networks.

[206:04] because these facilitate connection and public life. And these internal passageways in a community like Fraser are actually the streets for residents there. That said, I think it's still important to integrate this site into the larger community beyond Fraser retirement, community and permeability is important for that. So as you work on redefine refining these designs. I would ask that you please continue to consider this issue of how people may be able to see through and pass through this now larger building site. I think it would be not an optimal outcome if this were to become a super block in the middle of this neighborhood. and I think that bleeds into the question about building height. so the boundary that we have here on our zoning maps, between high density and low density. Residential zoning has existed for some time.

[207:03] and this is not a new tension that we're talking about. Larger scale buildings on one side of the street and lower density lower scale on the other side. I do read these plans as showing a significant setback which is created by the orientation of the buildings that Fraser is proposing. If there are further opportunities to reduce the massing of those buildings without sacrificing their housing capacity, and without sacrificing those connections between the buildings, those internal passageways. I think the board would appreciate seeing that. But I also want to say that fundamentally, we we don't ask low density residential zones to step up to higher density residential zones. So I'm also not comfortable. Just making a reflexive. Ask for a project like this. To step down that boundary is a tense boundary, and it pre exists this application.

[208:04] Other key issues the right of way. I think a lot has been said about this already. I think it is important to maintain some sort of pedestrian and bike access in the area of Ponca Place to connect the neighborhood to the commercial services to the north wherever we end up with ownership and maintenance here. I would like that to be a welcoming and public access for non-motorized travelers in the neighborhood. and then finally, with the parking and transportation demand management situation. I hope that when we come back at Site Review that you'll be bringing a parking number that demonstrably meets the need of this site without overshooting it. And I really do appreciate the discussion of the complexities here about parking, especially with so much of your staff coming from outside the city of Boulder. That's a bigger problem that we're dealing with in a lot of areas of our discussions here.

[209:01] But one thing that you do have some control over are the opportunities created by having such a large resident population, with probably a lot of shared destinations in the community. So if it's possible to determine what parking you need for residents versus staff, and really lean into those incentives and programs for residents to give up their private cars. I think that will go a long ways. Thanks. Ml, do you want to go. I do? That's my hand up, let me lower it. Thank you, Claudia, so much and so well said, Thank you. For your well, Stated comments. I appreciate them. So I will go through the issues. Number one. The staff identified what they felt were relevant Bvcp policies

[210:01] and they included 2.1 0, preservation and support for residential neighborhoods, and 2.4 1 enhanced design for all projects. B, the context and J. The buildings. These are the policies that I believe are particularly relevant, and I would encourage the applicant to provide contextual information that shows compatible and enhancing relationships between the residential across the street and the proposed new construction. I believe that the Bbcp policies would look for that kind of a engagement from the project number 2, feedback on the site plan and building design. So once you have the site property line set up, please confirm that you will retain the setback adherence. Oftentimes we see projects where suddenly the setbacks have vanished.

[211:07] and Right now you have them, and it would be great to see that they continue to remain. Let me see. Site review criteria. the staff also highlighted sections 9 to 14 h. 2 BI. And double I requiring usable open space. I think that the concern that's been brought up about the capacity of the open space to be used in all seasons is a valid concern, and it would warrant some closer examination before you come back to Site Review, section 9 to 14 h. 3 a. B. Appropriate transition to the adjacent properties. I think a study of the relationship to the residential scale would be prudent here.

[212:07] and also reminding that the housing, diversity and bedroom unit types are criteria. So the Site Review criteria are actual requirements. So I would highlight to take a look and make sure that those are being accommodated number 3. The height so previously referenced the BBC policy and Site Review criteria. I encourage you to provide contextual information that shows the relationship to the residential across the street with the proposed new construction, study the relationship to the neighborhood and existing residential scale. I'm not convinced, nor have I seen any consideration for the small house, residential neighborhood. The fact that the existing buildings have 4 stories on the street, I don't think equates to a continuation of the mass. You've heard my fellow board members talk about this massing in a different way. I'm just looking for.

[213:15] Have you explored and looked at the relationship? What does you know this small scale? 1820 feet house relative to a 50 tall foot building across the distance of the street and setbacks. What does that look like, what does that feel like? And is it well thought through And lastly, I'll make a general statement. I support the goal of the project. Senior housing is vital to our city, and Fraser has provided an excellent option throughout the years. However. I will also champion the value of existing neighborhoods and patterns, and I hope that you can use the power of design to create a vibrant project that addresses the concerns brought forth.

[214:06] I believe that the my peers have made excellent points, and I hope that these are all taken to heart. Thank you so much. Thanks. Aml. I'll go, and I'll try to be brief, because I think my colleagues on the board summarized a lot of the same things that I would have said so I'll just try to hit on the key factors, at least from my perspective. So yes, number one on balance. I believe it does meet the goals of the Bvcp. Do I have feedback on the conceptual Site plan and building design? Yes, I heard, as I asked the question around the continuous floors, across all 4 stories of this proposed building, but also looking at from from Plan view, you see a zigzagging corridor with a lot of space in between those individual sort of building apartment clusters.

[215:09] And I heard you talk about the community that you want to build there. I think it's important that on balance we also look at the community and how it interfaces with that community and try to try to create some balance there. I see it as a possibility that you can create permitability and drop down the connection to at least the second floor where the where the bridge is proposed still have access to all the amenities and not sacrifice a whole lot especially given that that plan. When you look at it from a plan view. You realize the distance between those apartment clusters and the way it's set up. So some some feedback there relative to unit size that was brought up. I think that's a great opportunity, both from the standpoint of there probably is some opportunity to reduce unit size and still meet the the needs of the people that are on your waiting list. Certainly the for for 98 units out of 700. I also think that by compressing unit size you might find the needed.

[216:20] the things that are being asked from from the community, and and some people on this board relative to context, to those single family homes with being able to scale down some of the edges of those buildings and still maintain your unit count while achieving what's what's needed from a community perspective outside of Fraser. other key issues identified by the planning board on the 55 feet. I see that as a as something that's achievable here, especially if those other things are taken into account that I mentioned, if there are opportunities for greater setback to Mark's point, I don't know if there's an opportunity to

[217:04] to kind of rethink where those buildings are sited. Given the Church's location. Obviously, that would be that would be a big benefit to the community that that's outside of this, if that could be done. But I understand the site is tight. Other key issues. I agree with Kurt wholeheartedly in his comments on the vacation of the easement. I do think it's possible, but I think it needs to be strongly considered, and it needs to serve the the surrounding community without without impacting them. And so just one comment overall a lot of times when we have these public hearings with a lot of people showing up. there's a lot of tension in the room, and while I'm sure there's tension here it was. It was. It was really heartening to see an attempt of collaboration and a respect for for everyone in the as neighbors with Fraser, the church, and the community. The one thing I would say with that is that we are being presented a plan that was presented to the community without any adjustments. And so I would just urge

[218:14] to do exactly what you said you were. Gonna do as the applicant is really listen to the community feedback and and try to achieve a mutual goal which sounds like it's a possibility. The other component to that, obviously, is the the schools around there. And I think those traffic studies and and things will will have to be taken into account when when this comes back for review. But overall, I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out, and and for all your insightful feedback. With that said, Is there any additional comments from the board? If not, I don't know if staff, or if the applicant needs any clarification on what they heard. No, I just want to say. Thank you for your time tonight, and thank you for the neighbors for being here, and we will look forward to working with both of you as we move forward. So thank you.

[219:11] Okay, thanks everyone for coming out. That will conclude this public hearing. Why don't we take a we'll take a quick! 5 min break. It's 9, 41. Let's be here back here at 9, 46 for the next public hearing, and we'll get that going. That'll give people time to exit and give us a quick bio break. He lost

[227:05] George. If you wanted to repeat that we were muted during that. So oh, sorry just waiting for Ml. And Mason to come back. I see. Ml, and there's Mason. All right. We're ready to get going. It is 10 to 10. Our our goal is certainly to get the staff presentation, the applicants presentation, and to do our best, we may need to continue depending on how much feedback we're getting from the board and from the public. I don't see much public attending, but I guess we'll see when we get to their comment, but that being said, we'd certainly like to move forward for the staff presentation before before we start. Just a reminder to the board. Does anyone have any ex parte or conflicts of interest that we need to do this. Nope. Great, neither I. And so we're ready to move forward if

[228:03] The staff wants to present the application. Oh, and I'm sorry. Let me let me read. I did a little cart before the horse, and then I need to read off the Item, let me just get to my. It's all right. This is the public hearing for consideration of site Review for the redevelopment of a 9.8 7 acre site at 1855 South Flatiron Court. where, with 3 research and development buildings totaling 207,011 square feet, the proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 2, 3 story buildings up to 50 feet in height, a request for a 23% parking reduction and a modification to site access control to allow for 2 access points. The applicant has registered vested rights for a period of 9 years.

[229:03] reviewed under case number Lur. 2,024, 0 0 3, 6, great. All right. We good. We're good. I see your screen all right. Thank you for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine, and I will be presenting this next item. In this presentation I will briefly cover the information provided in Staff's Memo, including the planning process to date the existing site and surrounding context, a summary of the proposed project, key issues for discussion, and then we'll conclude with the staff recommendation. The project was 1st presented to planning board as a concept plan. In December of 2023 following the Planning Board hearing City Council, did not call up the concept plan, but did refer the project to Tab at the Tab hearing in August, after the initial Site review application. The Board expressed support of the parking reduction, and Tdm. Staff has now received, reviewed the application, is recommending approval before planning board. After tonight's hearing. City council may call up Planning Board's decision, and they will also vote to approve a request for a vesting period greater than 3 3 years.

[230:15] Tonight the board is considering site Review. It's required, based on the size of the property and size of the development. The applicant is also requesting modifications for a 23% parking, reduction, height, modification, and access exception. The applicant has also requested vested rights, and is seeking a vesting period greater than 3 years. Therefore the proposal does require decision by planning board planning board will also decide to recommend approval of the extended vesting period. The subject site is located at the end of South Flat Iron Court, just south of Central Avenue and north of the railroad. The proposed application will include the property address at 1855 South flat iron, as well as 2 outlots to the west, that are covered by flood and drainage easements, and the entire site is shown here in yellow.

[231:04] The majority of the site is designated as mixed. Use industrial. That includes industrial uses as well as retail office and commercial uses and residential uses as well mixed use industrial zones, encourage vibrant walkable and working neighborhoods, as well as amenities and services to nearby residents and employees. and then a small portion of the site is designated as Oso. However, those areas are protected by the easements. The site is zoned Ig or industrial general. It's surrounded by other Ig zones as well as that area to the east which is zoned to public. That's Osmp property. The Ig Zone includes a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and development, manufacturing service, industrial uses, storage, etc. It does allow for residential uses and other complementary uses. In certain locations. The site is located within the flatiron industrial business park in East Boulder, and it's surrounded by a hub of industrial and commercial uses, including technical offices, biosciences, manufacturing uses and local boulder businesses, like upslope brewery.

[232:12] and then immediately to the east is the South Boulder Creek and the adjacent multi-use path. The Bnsf Railroad does run adjacent to the site with the Arapahoe and 55th Street Station and other commercial uses along Arapahoe Avenue to the south. The broader context of the surrounding uses include open space and rec uses mixed density, residential and industrial uses. The site is currently occupied by the offices for Lumen. The existing site does consist of a large brick structure and accessory structure and covered surface parking. The majority of the site is covered by surface parking and asphalt, and currently lacks mature trees or vegetation. The site contains high functioning wetlands along the Southern and Eastern property line, and then is also impacted by a hundred year 500 year. High. Hazard and conveyance flood zones.

[233:06] The site is located within the East Boulder Subcommunity plan, which envisions mixed, use developments with residential that integrate with the proposed Flatiron, Greenway, and the 55th and Arapahoe Station per the plan. The Flatirons business park is designated as an area of change with the goal to provide high quality, industrial and office spaces while creating opportunities for introducing residential uses and an active lifestyle for area workers. Specifically, the area is proposed to be a walkable hub for workers and nearby residents. The East Boulder sub community plan also includes a variety of defined place types. Much of the business park, including this property, is considered destination workplace. It's shown on that map, on the screen, the destination workplace place type prioritizes business and industry industry uses while supporting the introduction of housing uses and ground floor activation and commercial spaces. The place type also calls for improved access and mobility to encourage walkability and access for all users. Specifically options for 1st and last mile connections. And the place type also calls for street level activation and streetscape streetscape character.

[234:13] The proposal being discussed, discussed tonight is for 3 3 story buildings that will function as research and development uses, with ground floor and surface parking and some ground floor commercial space existing vehicle access to the site is from South Flatiron Court. The proposal will maintain those 2 access points to facilitate vehicle and emergency access circulation with a two-way, two-way road pattern and necessary fire. Hydrant access vehicles will primarily move through the site via the surrounding perimeter road and the central pickup and drop-off plaza bike. Access to the site is also from South Fire and Court, as well as a new multi-use path connection proposed along the northern side of the site, as shown in the East Boulder sub community plan. The multi-use path will connect to the South Boulder Creek path to the east of the site. The circulation pattern directs the majority of vehicle traffic to the outer edge of the development, while separated internal walkways are proposed for pedestrian circulation.

[235:06] Bike access from the multi-use path is buffered from drive aisles and parking by landscaping and safe crossings. Parking will be located on the ground floor of each building, along the perimeter road, and adjacent to each building. Each building will also have one dedicated car share space within the garage for a total of 3 spaces on Site 66 ev parking spaces are proposed throughout all 3 buildings. long-term and short-term bike parking is provided for a total of 144 spaces. The proposal does request a 23% parking reduction to allow for 398 spaces where 519 are required. The applicant has provided a Tdm plan which outlines site characteristics and Tdm strategies that support the requested reduction. A few of them, including telework ecopasses for the employees and car share. The applicant is proposing approximately 30% of the site as usable open space where 20% is the requirement.

[236:01] So the site plan provides usable open space between and around the buildings with landscape, shrub beds, decorative paved walkways, rain gardens, and dispersed seating areas. A large portion of the site is encumbered by that drainage easement which buffers the site from adjacent uses. Open space has been designed to be flexible and serve the needs of future tenants. For instance, that central drop off pickup area can also function as an event space by closing off vehicle access to allow for food trucks and other services. Other amenities include tables and chairs, fire pit and space for potential outdoor fitness classes. The number of building material types is limited to concrete metal panels and glazing for windows and curtain walls. Primary building entries and building lobbies are delineated by glazing and metal trim and accent. Features used for entries assist in wayfinding like wood soffits. Building form incorporates terraces, overhangs and cantilevers that frame the frame. The primary entryways, front doors are oriented around the entry courtyard and the interior circulation route.

[237:02] Each building has been designed with a 3rd level terrace on the primary corner, and is meant to be expressed as a lantern. Perforated metal panels at the edge, and an overhead trellis bring variation to the roofline and visual interest by creating a glow in the evening hours and a moving pattern of shadows during the day. The project is requesting a height modification for 2 of the 3 buildings for a height of 50 feet building one will be 45 feet in height, which is allowed because it meets the requirements for a 5 foot conditional height increase above the buy right height, limit of 40 feet buildings, 2 and 3 are eligible for height, modification due due to their location within the flood zone building 3 is located along the multi-use path, and therefore introduces additional architectural elements to provide a sense of human scale to both occupants and the public as required by the Site Review criteria. These elements include a facade, recession, decorative glazing on the ground floor, and the vertical notch inserted in the building. The proposed project will be developed in 3 phases phase one will include construction of building 3 in the ground floor, commercial space. The Multi-use Path Associate improvements for building 3 and the full perimeter Access Road

[238:08] Building. 2 and associate improvements will be constructed during phase 2 and building one, and the remainder of site improvements will be developed in phase 3. The applicant expects the proposed project, and phasing plan will take 9 years to implement, and is requesting an extension of vested rights from a period of 3 years to a period of 9 years. The extension of the 3 year vesting period requires the approval of an ordinance by City Council. and I have 4 key issues here for discussion. Go through these one by one key issue. One is is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review. Criteria, including additional criteria for buildings requiring height, modification. staff finds that the project does promote alternatives to the automobile provides common open space areas for site users incorporates a variety of landscaping design and plants and building and siting is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and the area plan

[239:01] building design does successfully create visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience. Key issue 2 is the proposed project consistent with a site review criteria of land use code specifically for larger floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings. Just for some context, this site review criterion was added when the Site Review criteria were updated in 2022, and it was introduced as a result of growing concerns about the prevalence of large flat roofed buildings, and intended to promote more diversity in forms and height. And so Staff finds that the applicant has provided some measures to add roofline, variation, and incorporate varied heights overall. Staff appreciates the design decision to create visual interest with anchor corners using the lantern effect, however, staff is also requiring that the applicant propose some additional design elements that will be reviewed by staff at time of tech Doc. Application. 3rd key issue is the proposed parking reduction consistent with the code staff finds that the requested 23% parking reduction is consistent with the criteria for parking reductions found in both the Site Review criteria and in the land use code for a parking section and is supported by the

[240:13] Tdm. And our last key issue is the proposed project consistent with the East Boulder subcommunity plan. Staff finds that overall the project is consistent with the plan. The proposal includes a ground floor, commercial space to serve the entire business park and the proposed multi-use path connection to the north is in keeping with the area plans, destination workplace, place type. And then there are 2 condition amendments that we are looking at right now. The 1st amendment is for Condition Number 7. It was to change the timing requirement than what is shown in the memo, and that's the portion that is underlined there, the previous condition said prior to issuance of or application of a building permit. and then the next one is for condition number 8. Regarding the phasing plan subsections A, B and C are remaining the same, but with the added subsection D, which is underlined

[241:11] on the slide for further clarification and for the suggested motion language staff is recommending approval. There are 2 motions, the 1st one to approve the Site Review application, including the analysis of the review, conditions of approval, etc, and the second motion is to recommend approval of ordinance. 8, 6, 8, 5, to grant a 9 year vested right property, right for the approved site specific development plan. And that's the end of my presentation. I'll open up to questions. I think I just have one question for staff. Do we have criteria for this 9 year vesting period

[242:02] allowance? We'll let the attorney answer that. No, so there isn't any criteria for the 9 year vesting period. The applicant just has to show why they need it. And then it's approved by city council for that extended period of time. So it's okay. We have no, no real guidance. No. Okay, thank you. Couple of quick questions. And we're just looking for a recommendation from planning board. So it's not an approval from planning board on that ordinance. Okay? So there's references both throughout the staff Memo and the applicant statement to this ground floor commercial space, this cafe space in building 3. I don't see that on any of the submitted plans, and I'm just wondering where that is by my reading of the diagrams. All of these building lobbies look very similar in terms of their size and access. And there's nothing that's labeled as a commercial use space. Yeah, it's on the lobby of building 3 sort of towards, like

[243:07] the southern edge, I think. Maybe in the applicant presentation. Can you show it on a plan, is it on the plan? Docs? Yeah, thank you. One. Sec. Hold on. I'm not used to zoom. Oh, yeah. appreciate the patience. No problem. We appreciate the visuals. Okay, so here's the lobby. And then there's this cafe space, all right here

[244:03] and let's zoom out. And then for context, okay, thank you. I was looking inside the the rendering and not outside. Thank you. And then 1 1 other question about the vested rights. How does a 9 year period, such as they're asking for, interact with time. Limited. Tdm requirements like they're talking about doing a 3 year commitment to Eco passes. So how do we? How do we blend those things when we talk about a longer vested rights period. So I don't know if any of the planners have any thoughts on this but vested rights. What you're looking for is really just a timeframe for to develop with what you all are approving today. So with the Tdm requirements, I believe those go into effect once the building is is built and and put into place, and there are requirements in their phasing plan to have

[245:06] have the building built out in a certain period of time with our phasing plan requirements so 3 years for each phase. So I don't know if Charles has any thoughts on Tdm. Plans. I'm not as familiar with them. Thanks, Christy. No, I think that's well said. And you know again, I think ultimately it's to provide a level of flexibility for the applicant. But I agree with everything that Christy said. So just to clarify if we are approving something with a specific Tdm that has, like programmatic elements that are time limited to those disappear after those 1st 3 years, they wouldn't somehow remain. In effect, as the development continues. I don't think for the Tdm. Requirements. They'd be required to meet those within the 1st 2 or 3 years, or whatever it says in the Tdm. But they wouldn't get extended with the vested rights they would get. They would not, they would not.

[246:07] I'm sorry. So you're saying so. The way it's phased is, I'm sorry if you don't mind me. Colloquing building. One gets built 3 years later building 2 gets built 3 years later. Or it's actually, we start with building 3 building 3 gets built first, st 3 years later building 2, I guess, gets built, and then building one, or I might have the order wrong, but for each of those buildings would the occupants be required to provide Eco passes for their workers for 3 years. Once that building comes online, or is it just the 1st building in those 1st 3 years has to provide the Eco passes, and then the buildings that are built in years, 3 through 6, and 6 through 9. No requirement for eco passes. Maybe Charles can chime in this, but I believe it would just be from the development of the 1st building, because we would require the financial guarantee as a condition of the Site Review approval. Does that sound right, Charles?

[247:00] Yeah, that's correct. I'm just digging for the Tdm document. Is it possible to require the eco passes to be phased along with the buildings like? Is that something we are prohibited from doing? Or could we do that? I will have to look into that and get back to you guys. But let me do some searching. Thank you exactly. Go ahead, Laura. I thought Ml. Had her hand raised. Ml, do you still have your hand up? We can't see you. As I can see here. I do but finish your questions. Go ahead. You can go ahead, Amal, if you want. Oh, okay, so let me see, open space.

[248:01] 20% total lot area to be provided is usable. Open space. What is that, exclusive of the drainage area. No that can include the drainage area. The drainage area can count towards usable open space as far as the calculations go. So how is the drainage area usable? So they would need to demonstrate that they have usable open space elsewhere throughout the site to satisfy the Site Review criteria. But as far as counting it towards the open space calculations that would be allowed. So the criteria is 20% needs to be usable. So do we know that 20% is exclusive of the drainage area. Well we do. We do allow for wetlands to count towards open space requirements in the code. So the caveat is usable.

[249:01] Sure. So they they would meet. They can count the square footage of the drainage easement towards the total percentage. But when we're looking at the Site Review criteria. They would need to demonstrate that they provide open space that meets the needs and functions of the future tenants and users. Right. Would be throughout the site, landscaping the outdoor seating areas. That sort of thing. So, okay, so we don't know where the 20% is on this project yet, is that correct? There might be a breakdown in the landscaping plan. We could probably dig through that as far as the square footage, but I don't. Okay. Off the top of my head. But generally talking, it would not include the drainage area. You, the usable area would be actually usable. Is that correct? The 20% limitation can include the drainage area. But when we're looking at the site review criteria

[250:02] and the function we would, we probably wouldn't consider the drainage easement just it, I mean, it provides undisturbed landscaping. As open space criteria, but we'd look more internally on the site. Okay. On the height. Modification of one of the requirements is 4 BIBI, I. If it's located adjacent to a city managed public park. Avoid or minimizing blocking a prominent public views you talked about a slot. Is that what the slot and the building is doing. Sorry could you clarify the question? The the slot? Do you mean the like? The facade, the notch. Like. So, for on the public trail that's on the east.

[251:00] The height modification when the height, modification, criteria talks about avoid or minimize blocking a prominent public view of the mountains? Did the building have a notch to accommodate. That. Is, that what you had mentioned. The the notch is on the northern facade of Building 3, but on the east side, I think, given the the shorter length of the buildings. The the notch was not included on those facades. Okay? And then, I'm looking at the staff condition requiring the applicant to bring additional design elements at the time of technical document application. So I'm guessing you're looking for perceived height reduction.

[252:00] Is that what you're looking for when you're looking for additional design. Yeah, I think, looking for varied, varied heights or roof forms that can include uncovering some of the terraces or having a 3rd floor setback. But there aren't any prescribed requirements for meeting that criteria. Just some suggestions, and we'd work with the applicant as we move through the process. Can I call a quick call on that. Cause. I had the same question, and I was wondering if there's something our motion that we should condition. Right. For approval on to ensure that that occurs. Right? Yeah, that's how I was trying to understand what the and goal was. Was it to reduce the perceived type? There you go, Charles, you got you understanding my question. Well, yeah, it's it's the the Site Review criteria that we were struggling with. Is really about roofline variation.

[253:03] and the rationale behind that criterion is to kind of avoid large, flat, roofed office buildings. So I think the applicant has made some nice gestures toward that. We were comfortable advancing the submittal tonight. Recognizing that we could continue to work with the applicant to get better roofline variation. I think the other thing that the Board can consider is asking the applicant to make a stop and talk with Dab about it. To see if that would be helpful and helping to synthesize some ways to better break up the roof lines. But that's really ml, the the main emphasis behind that criterion is really just breaking up the roof lines. That's not so much about reducing apparent mass or reducing the scale of the building. We know that, you know it's industrial general. So they're probably going to be bigger buildings anyway. Criteria is really just about breaking up those roof lines. So.

[254:07] Have we have we had? This kind of a condition what the staff wants more design time. You know, it used to be something that was quite frequent, maybe when something wasn't, you know, completely baked. So it's been a while since we've done something like this, but we felt comfortable. That we could work with the applicant to land on a solution. Great. Thank you for that. Yeah, I had seen it before. So I was curious. Thanks. Those are my questions. Thank you, Allison, for that presentation. You answered a lot of questions. Really appreciate that very thorough. I have a few left so colloquying on Claudia's question about the cafe space. Could you remind us how many? What's the square footage on that cafe space? I don't have that number off the top of my head, do you? Okay? Maybe I'll I'll pop that down to the applicant. And is it required to be a cafe, or is it just a commercial space that might or might not be a cafe

[255:10] we had asked the applicant to provide some sort of commercial space whether that's retail or cafe. and I think the the route they went was the Cafe Amenity space. And does this? If we approve this Site review as written, does it require it to be a cafe, or it's just. It's a commercial space that may or may not be a cafe. depending upon what happens in the next. However many years until they have tenants. Yeah, I think I mean, I think if it's related to consistency with the the area plan and in the Site Review criteria, but it would have to be like a use that probably would be allowed by right. Otherwise it would trigger maybe a use review. But I don't think there's anything specifically holding it to a cafe space. Okay? So even though it's on the plan labeled Cafe, it doesn't have to be a cafe.

[256:01] I don't think so. I don't know if Charles, do you have a thought on the flexibility of that space? If it were to be conditioned to be something else other than a cafe space. Well, if it's reflected on the plans as a cafe, and that's included in the applicants written statement, then I think the expectation would be that we're getting cafe space. So I think if they wanted to do something different. we would probably need to amend the plans. And it, you know, just kind of depends on what they would want to do. And how significant the changes would be. I think there's also. you know, if it's a retail space that sells something that's, you know, similar to a coffee shop. I think that we could probably get there, but I think the expectation is that if it's listed on the plans as a certain use. and included in the written statement as a certain use that they would honor that.

[257:00] Okay, I'm actually not sure if it's in the written statement as a cafe. Specifically, I'd have to go back and look for that. But but thank you, that's very helpful. My next question is scrolling back up Allison. Would you mind pulling up the bicycle circulation diagram? That's on page 41 of the memo, page 148 of our packet. Sure. So in some places in the packet it talks about having showers and changing rooms in secure bike rooms, and I think I saw those on the plans in the garages. But I wasn't exactly sure where those rooms are and how they're accessed according to the circulation diagram. Yeah, the long term I'm pulling it up. The long term bike parking is sort of at the

[258:00] like primary corner of each building. Oh, here it is. Okay. So the facilities and all the bike parking. So this is building 3 here you can. It's sort of hard to see on this plan. It's a little grayed out, but they're they're all located at kind of the the front corners of each building. and it looks like it has 2 shower stalls, maybe, and a couple of sinks. I'm having a hard time interpreting what these rooms are. Yeah. Looks like showers and sinks depending on the and it there's a nearby. It looks like bathroom in the lobby.

[259:01] But I think the applicant could provide more detail in some of the programming. Okay? And those are accessed from Flatiron, South Flatiron Court, from the primary entrance. And it's a direct entrance into the bike room from the bike ped path. Yeah. So the bike ped path is up here where my mouse is and then cross into the sort of interior circulation area, and then could access from the front of each building. Okay, so they're not expected to go into the garage entrance that the cars use. No. all right, thank you? I, that helps to answer one of my questions, which is why there's no direct connection. bicycle connection through that ramble area, that sort of east-west. It's shown here as a blue dotted line which guess it's pedestrian from the parking area, you know, the bike path goes just to the east there.

[260:02] and I wasn't clear exactly why, there's no direct connection from the bike path to the ramble. Yeah. So there, there's limited access points because of the existing flood berm. So there's this access point here, just to the north. In the concept plan, they had proposed 2 connections, but in reviewing with city staff only one could be supported, and this one had the least disruption, and it also was avoids crossing into Osmp property. and so then they could move to the north. And then there's this cross, the there's 1, you know, one crossing area here. Instead of crossing from this middle point. There's also the the drainage easements and the conveyance zones. Okay, so it's city staff that didn't want that connection directly to that ramble. Correct? Okay? All right. That's helpful.

[261:00] the bike parking. I was having a hard time understanding how much is required versus provided there's some different numbers in the packet on page 207 in the staff analysis. It says that overall the property will will require 42 short term spaces and 43 long term bike parking spaces, and 43 short term and 50 long-term bike parking spaces are proposed. That's in the staff analysis. But then the Tdm plan says that it plans to provide 108 long-term spaces and 36 short term spaces, which is a significant difference. It's 144 spaces, total versus 93 spaces. So so which one, is it? I would probably need to double check that. It's possible there was a typo in my staff. Memo, I can double check that. Okay. But I wasn't sure, because the Tdm plan also seems like it might be an early version that wasn't updated. So yeah, I would. I would trust the information that was provided on their plans here, which is showing the 1, 44.

[262:07] This is the architectural plan, so the architectural plan is showing 144 bike parking spaces provided, and how many were required. yeah, that sounds about right again. I'd have to double check the just the math on that. So 1, 41 were required and 1, 44 are provided. Okay, all right. And my last question is about the wetland diagram on page 153 of the packet. Thank you for pointing that out in the email correspondence ahead of the meeting. That's page 46 of the memo If you don't mind pulling that up real quick. Sorry. What was the page number. Do you want the packet number or the memo page? The packet number would be packet number 1, 53, page 1, 53. I just gave that to you earlier.

[263:07] Maybe it's freezing. Oh, God, there we go. Okay, okay? So this is a little hard to see. But if I'm so on the southern edge. with the parking area and the where the wetland crosses, if I'm reading this correctly, it looks like some of the pavement of that access loop, and maybe parts of 2 or 3 parking spaces are within what's called the outer Wetland buffer. Looks like that's a correct interpretation. Is that allowed? And is there any mitigation required for that? Yeah, that they'll have to get a wetland permit for that. I think, for the conditional wetland permit, you can have, like up to 20% of the area within the boundary with paving. I don't quote me on that. but that's a condition of approval for the Site Review, so they'll get a separate wetland. Permit concurrent with the tech doc application, and that will get reviewed for compliance with our wetland reviewer. Okay, and is there any mitigation required for that? Or it's just a certain amount of pavement can be in the outer wetland buffer. I think there is some criteria that they look at, as far as like environmental disruption, that sort of thing. But

[264:27] I yeah, I think it was just the I know for the conditional use or the conditional wetland permit. At least there's that 20% allowance. And if it's more than that, then it's triggered to a no longer a conditional wetland permit, but like a full wetland permit. I don't know if that's the correct term. But okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Mason. I think you had your hand up for a while. Yeah, real quick one. I don't know if there's some context around.

[265:00] this type of industrial versus others. I I know in our our study. The city study saw that industrials typically over parked by about 45% and I see that we're getting we're asking. They're asking for 23% reduction which is somewhat in the opposite direction of what I expect. My understanding is that this type of workspace generally has lower per per square footage, personnel, do you know why that disconnect is? Is it just the location of this this project, or is it my misunderstanding the type of work that happens here. It's it's my understanding that you're correct, that typically these uses, based on the square footage have fewer amount of employees than maybe other industrial uses. And that's the what is the the corresponding parking requirement? And that's why they they can have the 23 parking 23% parking reduction versus other sites. But I'm not familiar with the the figure that.

[266:06] or what sites or uses that that's including. You, too. Thank you. Mark. Did you have a question? No, I was just confirmed on page 1, 82, they give their long and short term, require bicycle parking requirements in long and short term, actual numbers. So on page 181 and the 1 41 is correct. I do have a follow up to. I believe, Claudia's question from earlier on the Tdm. Plans so currently in their Tdm. Plan, it states that they will be providing Ecopaxes for the 1st 3 years of building operation. And I definitely get your question. It's not entirely clear what building or if that's each building

[267:06] based on the criteria that you are looking at on site review. If you do feel that more transit passes would promote alternative modes of travel, you can definitely add a condition on that to, for example, say, building operation. For the 1st 3 years of each building they have to provide Eco passes so it would cover buildings 1, 2, and 3 with the phases that they're built. Can I follow up on that in terms of ways of codifying that kind of requirement? So you suggest making a condition of our approval here tonight. Are there also opportunities for city Council to put something in this ordinance where they approve the 9 years vested? Do they have some flexibility in what they put in in what is actually given vested rights over that time? So no, the vested rights are really based on. There's only certain things that you can get vested rights on and those being aspects of a site specific development plan.

[268:09] things that are generally applicable in nature, where we usually say the design and construction standards are one of those generally applicable ordinances are not available for to get vested rights in which the Tdm. Plans are part of, so I would say that would not be part of the ordinance great. Seeing no other questions to the applicant, I will add one of my own that hopefully you can address while you're speaking, which is how you intend to to break up the massing. You know a bit as it relates to what Staff commented, it would be helpful. So we don't have that question after your presentation with that, said, I think the applicant can go ahead and present. Thank you.

[269:12] I have a procedural question. Clock starts. You had many really good questions. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Just a procedural question before the clock starts. I'm Salil with biomed realty, lots of great questions. We've got lots of good responses that should solve either the ambiguity or get us where we want to go. Do I use the time we have now to answer those questions, or what's the best way to quickly and efficiently get to the answers. it kind of pulled it out. Yeah, just rattle it in. Okay, okay? Because we've got yeah, we've got answers to like most of them, if not all of them. Okay. script. Thank you.

[270:05] Sorry. Yeah. You'll just click. Yes, so I can get to. My doesn't show up. There we go. Good evening. I'm Salil Paypali with biomed realty. Thank you for the opportunity. I have 2 updates that are adjacent to the project that you're looking at, but that are very relevant they represent. They're central to our mission and to many of the priorities we've heard from the community and from the city of Boulder.

[271:02] and it's also the very same mission that inspires 1855, one next slide next one. Last week, a few days ago, in partnership with Cu and Csu, and elevate quantum. CEO Boulder launched a quantum incubator at our facility. 55, 55, central, which is 2 doors down from this building. and we're very honored to have been selected as a partner, the governor, multiple senators, chancellors, the President. through many voices. What we heard was, this is a priority. Quantum technology is really important, and we've been selected as a service provider to an industry of the future. Quantum is going to be as important for the next 100 years as semiconductors was for the past 100 years, with serious applications in drug development and

[272:02] clean tech and climate change and material science and encryption, and such with Boulder, Colorado in the western region, the western mountain region. As the epicenter of all of this. The point of all of it is like the backdrop in that photograph. That's what biomed realty does. We provide a service by taking on the risk of building these buildings and maintaining them for decades and guaranteeing uninterrupted research so that scientists can focus on science. And that's what we're also hoping to do with 1855, the project in front of you. That's update one, update 2, 1's next to your point about amenities. We heard the board loud and clear the 1st time we presented to you December last year. We have voluntarily, we've commenced an adaptive reuse project, also 2 doors down at 2,100

[273:02] which is a really cool living room for the entire campus open to the community and to the public and to our research community. with a coffee shop and a restaurant and a bar and a conference facility, lounge games, etc. My point here is, you know, we we've gone, you know, over and above the little lobby cafes that you're talking about, because it's the right thing to do, I think it, you know, is very consistent with the walkable, vibrant neighborhoods that are contemplated in policy and in various discussions with that. Let's turn to Perkinsonville, Ryan, and Team, who will talk through the details of the project. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ryan Broussard. I'm an architect and the design director for Perkins. And well. so the agenda for tonight we're going to keep this as tight as possible. I know you're all tired, and it's been a long evening. Quickly touch on the context. Go through the site planning. We'll try to answer a number of these questions throughout this as well as talk about the building design, the inspiration, and how that's been resolved within the current project.

[274:07] So at our last meeting in December of 23, you'd given us 4 different kind of elements to think about. The one was the parking within the project. At that time we had a surface parking structure that was elevated. That was a key component of the site which put all the massing, then, into 2 structures. The second component that you'd asked us to consider is the parking ratio reduction which we've gone above. From what we had proposed earlier. think about the arrival and the importance of arrival and connectivity to the community. And once again there was a lot of focus, particularly on the East as an important face to the community and to the multi-use path about thinking about the arrival sequence from that and from the neighborhood question about scale. And there was a lot of focus on not just the vertical height of the buildings, but also the mechanical screening, which at that time was 16 feet, which we've reduced to 11 feet. and then also an interest in the scale of the project and the sustainable goals, how they were driving the project design.

[275:06] The image on the upper left is where we were last time in December, when we reviewed this with you, and the proposed scheme is on the right hand side. as you can see with Number one that is replacing that parking structure with a new building. What's allowed us to do is reduce the scale of the buildings to break them down. To treat this more as a network of neighborhood buildings on the site, and also has allowed us to increase the open space on the site. The second was the conversion of the loop road, which was a single lane, one directional loop road. To have more functionality in that, to allow us to place parking as well as then remove and decant a number of the mechanical spaces that were occupying the interior of the space to those edge conditions which allows us to open up the space in the interior of the project, as well as connectivity to the neighborhood. and the last was, I think, it was touched on the multi-use path rather than coming through the ramble, which is that middle space that was between the 2 buildings is now open to the entire community, and is a new gateway, not just to our project, but to the cul-de-sac and Flatiron Court, along the north edge of the property.

[276:09] which is Number 3. We also have thought a lot about, as you can see here in the green that multi-use path as being an entry point for people arriving even off of Arapahoe off the bus, stop being able to walk along that enter into the site with great connectivity to the bus, stops there, as well as 55th Street, and then the multi-use path as a generator of energy and excitement as people arrive. and you'll see that in how we thought about the architecture and that experience. we also know that these projects in this community as some of the tenants here list on the left, within this neighborhood. They look for the same things you pointed out to us at the beginning, human scale blocks boundaries with soft edges. So these buildings feel integrated in the community and the changes that this neighborhood is going to go through with continuous development bicycle, friendly open space which we'll talk about in a minute. That's intentional, accessible to the community as well as the scientists and researchers and people who work here and pedestrian oriented focus, particularly as we think about open space and blurring the line between inside and out.

[277:12] As Salil was mentioning, the neighborhood uses extend from the 2,100 central building. There's a series of existing other retail uses in this area, coffee, brewery. wild provisions, other kind of eateries, and we've extended that into the cycle number one to the cafe corner, which is around 600 square feet within that. So we have about 300 for queuing within that area seating area, and then a spillover seating for 300 300 additional square feet, and that's all within a 2,000 square foot lobby. So we're hoping that's a generator of activity that uses, in fact, the whole lobby space. And then we'll have Luke talk a little bit about our site planning. Thanks, Ryan. My name is Luke Murphy. I'm a senior landscape architect with Perkins, and will appreciate your time this evening. The landscape vision, for this project takes inspiration from the beauty of Boulder Creek as it winds through the iconic flatiron mountains like the creek itself, which sculpts the land and fosters life-sustaining environments.

[278:10] This design channels its biophilic forms to shape pathways and connect the open spaces. These flowing pathways lead to a variety of outdoor amenities, offering exceptional views and activities for future tenants and visitors. The open space has been organized into 3 distinct zones, the commons, the glade, and the ramble. and as we've discussed already, vehicular circulation for parking and loading has been routed along the perimeter to minimize crossings, reduce pedestrian conflicts and incorporate traffic calming measures we received great input from city officials during the work sessions on transportation, emergency and fire access got great feedback. And we're proud to have achieved a solution that satisfies all these stakeholders. and recognizing the importance of bicycles, we've made them integral to the project's design. Convenient. Short, and long term bike facilities are placed at the building entrances, while an E-bike station anchors the end of the new multi-use trail connection.

[279:12] Altogether the site includes 144 bike parking spaces, plus the additional 20, more or less that will be planned at the E-bike station at the end of the trail. We believe innovation thrives in connection. And so we're designing workplaces that bring people together through diverse range of outdoor amenities. from spaces for socializing and focus work to areas for exercise and ecosystem services. We're providing many ways to foster engagement and collaboration. Here's how we've thoughtfully laid these out across the site, and we'll walk you through, each one bringing the vision to life with visuals that help tell the story. The Commons is a dynamic open space, featuring a variety of gathering areas and a drop-off plaza. It serves as the campus

[280:02] public front door, highlighting the architecture while embracing and celebrating the beauty of the regional landscape. The central courtyard features a flexible plaza for drop-offs, pickups, and emergency access which can be closed off for campus events. Within the courtyard a garden room with flowing stone benches offers a tranquil space for nature-filled moments of respite. Here's 1 of the outdoor living rooms, a versatile space to take a call, enjoy lunch, meet with colleagues, and immerse yourself in nature. The terrace offers employees and visitors a great spot to watch. The sunset stepped, seating overlooking the primary rain garden that naturally filters storm water before it leaves the site. The glade is defined by its programmed spaces in tree groves that frame views to the sky. The trees provide shade in the summer and let warmth in during the winter, creating ideal spots for exercise, work, and relaxation year round.

[281:01] Here a path moves you through the glade of birch trees, where we can catch a glimpse of the outdoor fitness area just to the right. This outdoor living room is designed for flexibility, perfect for a quick meeting, coffee, break. bird watching or friendly game of ping pong. The ramble is a place for escape and discovery. A meandering path is anchored by a series of rain gardens and collaborative zones more passive than the Commons area. This place is generally for smaller groups and more intimate meetings at the east end of the ramble dramatic landforms of boulders and native plantings envelop you as you enter from the parking lot. Locally sourced stone boulders are overlaid to define the ramble and reinforce the connection to the Front range landscapes. The planting scheme for the project is intended to blend seamlessly with its context as a composition of these 5 plant communities, grove, rain garden, amenity, prairie and buffer.

[282:04] And here we can see how these plant communities are distributed across the site based on functional requirements and lighting conditions. We've worked with Christopher Ricardiello to address any species concerns and to ensure that the planting is in keeping with all landscape code requirements. A seasonal interest study was conducted for each of the plant zones to ensure an attractive landscape year round, and this is one such example from the grove plant palette. and lastly, the site design significantly improves the existing conditions by increasing impervious surfaces. 47%. I'm sorry. Increasing, pervious surfaces, 47% increasing open space by over a hundred percent. planting 169 additional trees and introducing 57 native or native adaptive plant species. Further site improvements include the multi-use trail connection, as well as nearly half a mile of walking paths and over 9,000 square feet of activated outdoor space.

[283:10] and then looking at the architecture of the space. Once again we took inspiration from the site and from many of the principles that Luke was talking about. So the idea of bringing in open space from the East, the South, and then the community and from the north allowed us to really create a porous, almost neighborhood of buildings. Within this, with views through it both to the south and the east, and then back to the community to the north. Architecturally, then, we've designed a series of moments to accentuate that the lanterns that Allison had spoken about earlier, which are framed in these kind of orange circles, which frame that kind of central space as well as act as key gateways, visual gateways, as leading your eye out and through the campus, as well as the secondary bay windows, which are large, kind of framed glazed moments which look out to the flatirons or the neighborhood, or back to the east and South Boulder Creek. So, as we think about this, this is a view looking into the campus from the community. Into this area we've changed the architectural expression at that area to once again connect the users and people within this, the visitors community to the science happening within

[284:11] you can also see the way we've introduced warm materials, wood soffits that lead into these kind of carved overhangs into the lobby. Space and cafe building 3 is to the left, where you can actually see we placed the bicycle area, the storage area celebrating that as being a kind of lantern looking into the campus and the multi-use path. we also know that the project needs to be one with nature. It needs to embrace all of its edges and its natural edges and its neighborhood edges. Here, on the eastern side, along the multi-use path. the ability to take advantage of the existing topography allows us to hide our parking by having that roadway recess slightly from the adjacent grades in the Birming. It also allows us to plant a kind of beautiful foreground of plants, trees, and other kind of spaces that really

[285:00] creating illusion of this building being shorter, and expresses a two-story building, and we'll show you that in more of the views. Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to let you know you have about a minute left. Okay, great. Thank you. The architecture is designed to frame open space both for people and the environment. We've also thought about the micro modulation of the facade and how that pattern allows us to create moments of conserving energy in terms of the careful placement windows and then banking that for other areas to connect to the community at the lobbies or the bay windows. We've used timeless materials throughout the project, including warm and native materials. And also we've worked very hard to reduce the scale and the height of the building. So you can see here, hiding the parking, hiding that lower area by raising the grade and bringing people closer to the building with activity in terms of sustainability. We've warned that really around the site specific goals of this. So think about resilience, flooding restorative spaces biophilia and using adaptive and native species. And then, lastly, really thinking about working with Alice and the team. These serendipitous moments. As you move around the building. The reveals changes in the roof line which we've incorporated over 5 different types. As you move around it, trellises allow the not just the users to connect with nature, but provide moments of relief around the building.

[286:16] And that's our presentation with one last slide. Sorry. This section, which talks through these types of buildings are very rigorous in terms of the uses. The what tenants look for to once again do the groundbreaking science that Salil was talking about all the way to the structural module. They require robust mechanical systems which account for the additional floor area that we're talking about as well as height. They also require robust structural systems to reduce vibration. And lastly, we are really looking at once again creating a beautiful building collection buildings that propel research within your community. And that is our last slide. Sorry. Great thanks. Questions.

[287:03] I have a few. Go for it. Go for it, Laura. You're teed up. Thank you for the presentation. Lots of great detail there really appreciate you walking us through all of that. So my 1st question is, you had mentioned at the outset that you had answers to some of our previous questions. I would like to ask you a question now, to provide you space to give those answers. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay? Great one headline comment that I think ripples through the entire design and touches on many aspects. When we started this, you know, we explored a lot of models that deal with. What is the prototype that we've got to work with? And there were a couple of trade-offs that I'd like to share with you. There's the minimum height for a lab that's 15 feet. And then there's where do we hide the cars? Because we really want a garden, and we want those trails, and we want outdoor space.

[288:03] And then 2 thirds of the right side of that site is flood zone, and we've got some pretty, you know, serious climate resiliency programs across our buildings where we try and elevate and lift things especially critical infrastructure out of the. So when we triangulated between these 3 variables, hiding the parking tucked under the building, getting it out of the flood zone, but also building the building that would actually functionally work for our customers, which is 15 feet. So when we triangulated all of it, we said, Okay, maybe the least bad option, the least bad solution would be one level of garage. That's 12 feet 15 of lab, one floor and then 15. So it's 15, plus 15 is 30, plus 12 is 42 and the trade-off the positive benefits of ducking the garage under there was a lot of site became available, and I think one of the other questions was 20 or 30%. And did it include or exclude permeable? I think the answer is the good answer. But I'll let the team get into it.

[289:06] And so my, my point in all of that is the height limit and the exception. All of our buildings are set up to be in that range 42, 45 feet. One of them is free and clear because it's not in the flood zone, the other 2, because of a quirk of how height is measured, and because we're elevating it out of the flood zone ends up hypothetically, looking like a 50 or 49 foot building to the passerby, to the pedestrian standing there. It's still 45 feet. but elevated out of the flood zone, and the reason we got into this whole thing, in the 1st place, was because we were trying to hide the cars under the building. So just wanted to provide that context. Yes. Did you want to supplement on that. Yeah. So so to recap a few of your questions as we had those in addition to the height that still talked about. I'm going to recap them and let Luke and myself to kind of tag team them. So there was a question about open space, I believe, in terms of the amount. And whether we count that? Yeah. So in our open space diagram.

[290:11] we are not trying to count the entire drainage easement in the open space number. We're only counting a portion of the outer wetland buffer in it. And so and you'll see this in our open space breakdown chart. We're only count of the 29.1 8% of open space total, we have 8.7 2% of that is the outer wetland buffer and so usable which I might argue. Some of that outer wetland buffer could be considered usable as that. It skirts the whole multi-use trail. But without that we're at 21%. So just to hang a little more there. A couple other questions that you asked, there was a question about where the cafe was. Is that resolved with the plan, the size. There was a question about additional design elements or design elements we explore about the roof line variation right now, the current design. And I think this is something that had discussions with Allison and and her team. We've incorporated 5 current elements for the roof line variation.

[291:12] That includes the serrated vertical roof edge. So the panels are moving, and out. It creates a vertical edge for that. Those transition to kind of a cornice overhang at the bay windows. We have the reveal the large glass reveal which drops the actual roof height down as well as the trellis area where we've actually removed the roof to open that up. And lastly, we have this kind of overhang area over the curtain wall and the shaded elements around the courtyard. So our discussion with and follow up with our Allison and the planners was really about taking those elements and accentuating them more. We feel like 5 is probably enough incorporated on each building. So it's a matter of probably working within that current language, whether some dimensional variations. for example, maybe adding additional reveals to the building to break up the length for that. I think there was also a question about, and looking at this

[292:03] quickly about the bike spaces and how many? Hopefully that's been resolved in the location, the Wetland discussion. And I think there was also a question about the parking reduction and the 23%. Yeah, that was a good question. About is 23% of a reduction, you know, relative to what what we found is traditional office ends up needing about 3 people every 1,000 square feet, you know, in our we call it 3 per 1,000 in our business, which is research and life science. It ends up being a 3rd less. So about 2, sometimes 2.2 2.3 per 1,000. And so relative to office. It's a substantial reduction over here. We've gone further past that to sub 2. So the numbers you're seeing are a reduction relative to office parking ratios.

[293:01] Okay, thank you. I have a couple of new questions. So with regard to your bicycle amenities. I heard bicycle room. with both short and long term parking that's internal to the site internal to the garages. Is that right? It's gonna try to pull up the diagram. Here. Are we still sharing our screen? No bicycle parking interior to the garage? There's the long-term spaces within the adjacent to the lobby space. Okay, so that's a separate room. It's not inside the garage. It's a totally separate room. Okay, gotcha. I thought it was in the garage. My bad the Tdm plan says, consider, including a bicycle maintenance area complete with tools and air pumps for employee use did that make it in correct? So the building? 3, which is our 1st building? Obviously, we named the buildings and numbered them before we knew the phasing. So it's the opposite, so you can never predict building 3. Keep us on our toes. Yes. So building 3, which is access directly off of the

[294:13] pathway is oversized to accommodate a maintenance internal maintenance area for that. And we've even had discussions on other projects incorporating kind of roving mechanics or other things that can include that area. It also, I could say, is oversized, because at the time, right now it has vertical racks, but it could also accommodate more horizontal racks by moving those to, as we know, e-bikes are very heavy and hard to move around. Okay. So that was another question I was going to have was around horizontal versus vertical. What percentage of your bike parking that's in those bike rooms is horizontal versus vertical. I would say. Right now, the majority of the bike parking is vertically hung, but, as you'll see in the plans and show that it's shown as a kind of a spine of parking for that piece. So once again, our thought is that you can mount some of those to the wall. We have plenty of room to accommodate more horizontal, and start to redistribute that area. Okay, we'll get back to that in the comments. And then it says the bicycle room will also include charging ports and electrical facilities to accommodate electric bicycles. Can you comment on that? Describe that? A little bit more

[295:20] correct? So that that is part of the plan. For this we have. The balance for these is we've tried to make the bike rooms as visible as possible, so you'll see the majority of them have 2 sides of glazing storefront that runs floor to ceiling. And then we typically have at least 2 solid walls. The other 2 sides are solid walls, where you can accommodate electrical charging, which is probably where we'll start to locate the horizontal kind of not the vertical arrangement of that, but the horizontal. And do you have numbers on charging ports. No, not at this time, thank you. And Another question. Different question. You talked about the Amenity center and in the statement it's described as having restaurant recreation and tenant support uses. And you talked about that briefly at the beginning of your presentation. I think that's am I understanding right that that is not on this site, this 1855 South Flatiron Corporate, that is somewhere else in the business park. Correct? Yeah. It's 2 buildings north of 1855, 2,100. It's a separate project, and it's going through building. Permit review right now.

[296:25] And and the intention is that that will serve all of your various tenants within the Flatiron business park as well as the public. Yes, public, the community, everybody. The idea is to make it a vibrant place. Okay? And how big is that facility? So the entire building is 50,000 square feet. Rough numbers, and the front of it is what we're building out at 15,000 square feet. And then, as the campus matures, and as you know, growth happens, you know, it's got the bandwidth to expand. We don't want to get ahead of our skis, but we want to do enough. And then the programming in there is not to replicate or to compete with existing business. We're not going to try and be a brewery is already one of those, or a coffee roastery is already one of those. So we're going to supplement and add the ideas, variety and bandwidth and options. Okay, thank you.

[297:14] Just a couple more questions. So in the packet, it talks about having either a lime grove or a bike share station like A B cycle station. It sounds like you landed on A B cycle station. Did I get that from the presentation. And that's on that bike path where sort of where it intersects with South Flatiron Court. Okay? So the idea is A B cycle station. Not a scooter station. That that's correct. And I think that was from Conversations City, where we landed on the e-bikes as opposed to the lime grove. Okay, yeah, go ahead. My name is Jeff Gottrell. I'm an architect, Perkins, as well as well. That still is to be determined. We're still getting in touch with lime or B cycle to make that decision. So I think the way it's written right now is it's option

[298:02] of the applicant. Okay, could be either. Okay, thank you. The better one, you know, whatever is the right thing to do. I know my team's been in touch with both of them. So whatever yeah, whatever's the right thing to do? Okay, it could be either. Okay, thank you. And then my last question, if you guys don't mind, is on one page of the packet. It says, unsightly views from the trail corridor specifically have been screened by a 6 foot wide landscape buffer of shrubs and trees along the eastern edge of the drive, combined with a series of architectural screen walls. Can you point this out to us on a map? I'm not entirely clear which trail corridor you're talking about that has unsightly views and which drive you're screening. Yeah? So I think that is. can you show us a visual yeah, can share screen.

[299:03] So I think what it's actually referring to. It's not the unsightly visual of the multi-use path or the adjacent open space. But there are a number of loading docks and service elements which are oriented in different locations around the building. So in this view you can see this architectural wall here as well as there's 1 even hidden more. Well by our landscaping. That's to conceal the loading dock and service elements of the building. Okay? So you're saying, the loading docks and service elements of the building are screened from the multi-use path. Correct? That's running on that eastern edge. Correct? Okay, thank you. That's the end of my questions. Can I answer one of your other questions? Please do. I'm Mark, Painter from Holland and Hart across the street, counsel for biomed, and you had asked the question early on about

[300:02] the 9 year vested rights. And is there a standard? There's there's a lot of discretion in terms of what staff, and what can be recommended, what the city Council can approve. But there is a standard, and the standard comes from the State statute. The State statute on vested rights, says very specifically that this is a matter of statewide concern. It was adopted to establish cooperation between developers and the city, to actually achieve collaboration between them. In this case you've got the looping of the water around the entire law, and I believe I have this right, that the staff is requiring be installed for the entire complex for all 3 buildings initially. So that's an investment. There are other investments in this that are going to be required upfront and the the language. I'll just read you some of the language from the State statute, so you can hear

[301:00] where the where the standards come from, that we have to look at in terms of what we have to put in front of the staff, and I'll tell you we have worked back and forth with the staff a lot, and the city attorney's office on the language that went into the vested rights, ordinance language, and the phasing plan as well. The language is, local. Governments are hereby authorized to enter into development agreements with landowners. providing that property rights shall be vested for a period exceeding 3 years, where warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the size and phasing of the development, economic cycles and market conditions, such development agreements shall be adopted as legislative acts subject to referendum. So there are those standards. There's other. There's another legislative declaration in there, too, that fleshes it out. I don't need to go through it all. But there are standards that city attorney's office was following. We were following. We weren't just making it up, and there may be, soil might may have some comments about why 3 plus 3 plus 3, as opposed to

[302:08] some other number, and I will say, in terms of 9 years. 9 years is longer than the the kind of fixed 3 years that you get automatically. But I did the development of ball that redevelopment, and that was an even longer period than 9 years in terms of vesting, too. So it's not. It's not unprecedented. Okay, thank you. I don't personally have any more questions about vesting. I don't know if others do, George, do you want to hear more? No, no, go ahead. Mason, you've had your hand up for a while. I think you're on mute, Mason. You're muted. Not really sure if this is for the the developer, or for the the our staff I'm what I'm struggling with is a little bit about the timing of the project related, vesting, but not the mechanics of vesting. It's more about how this area is expected to change

[303:08] over the next 10 years. Given the new Subcommunity plan like, if if this project was broken up into 3 and one was in another bill, one of the buildings was going to come to us 3 years later versus 6 years later, we may, you know, have different requests for how these buildings are are developed. I'm realizing what I'm asking for might be ridiculous and and not not possible. But I'm wondering if there is some flexibility and what we're approving here for the developer to meet the changing nature of the area. And by that I can be a little more specific. This is in the destination workplace area. This. This plot is directly next to Main Street. Live work.

[304:03] both of which, you know, may have restaurants retail, etc. we're expecting there to be residential nearby. So you know this project has one small coffee space cafe, which I mean, you know, small as a qualifier which may be totally appropriate for current. What's currently there? But again, like 6 years down the road, not really sure if if the same board would approve the same thing? Does that question make sense? What I'm asking. It does, Mr. Roberts. This is Christy with the city attorney's office. One thing I would know, though, today, what you all are looking at and what the regulations this this application is under are the regulations currently in effect. So while we can acknowledge changing circumstances, what the planning board has to look at today are the regulations that are currently in effect in this property, and not any proposed regulations that may be coming as they have rights under the current regulations.

[305:11] Yeah, that makes total sense to me. I guess what I'm asking is is like with us following those regulations. Say, the developer wants to do more, include more commercial or restaurant, or whatever are they able to do so? Or do they need to come back to us? What does that process look like. So if at another point in time they want to add more commercial space, they can come in for an amendment to the to the approved Site Review that they have now to add those additional amenities, if if they wish to do that in the future. So there is a process for them to come back in with the current approval they have now. Great. Thank you. Believe that's the direction staff has been given on the form-based code. As well

[306:13] as you know, consistency with the land use map is part of our criterion tonight criteria tonight. And the land use designation is mui mixed use industrial, which is described as mui areas should integrate diverse housing, commercial and retail options into industrial areas to create vibrant, walkable working neighborhoods. At the the Concept Review there was quite a bit of discussion about housing residential. You didn't bring it up here. I can understand. You've said that residential is not part of your part of your your business model, and that's understandable. On the other hand, your business model is not part of our criteria.

[307:09] So the question is, I'm I'm getting a little bit beyond where this particular site, but my understanding is you own most of Flatiron Park, maybe a good part of Flatiron Park. slightly under half, slightly under 3 out of 50. Yeah. Okay, so still, slightly under half. That's a lot of area. If if this is not where housing is going in. do you have plans to put in housing anyplace else. I know this isn't really what we're supposed to be looking at tonight, but it's it's context. For

[308:04] whether we have any hope of meeting this mui land use designation description. So so, just as background. Do you ever have any plans to do any kind of residential? I'm probably going to trap myself with this answer, but I'll try. I'll try my best across our entire portfolio. We love housing. By the way, you know, we want our clients, our researchers to not be, you know, struggling and sitting in traffic, etc. So it's it's a win-win, you know. We support housing. The only little detail. The problem is, we don't know how to do it. It's so we're just like a 1 trick pony. That's all we do is support the capacity to innovate. That's all we do research companies in innovation. And so so we support housing and in other markets in other locations. What we've seen is an incentive-based model that works where, for instance, we don't own half the buildings. Our ownership is splotchy in alternate buildings, in a way. And so, for the rest of the parcels that we don't control that we don't own with the right incentives. We're hoping just like you're hoping that

[309:20] housing developers who know how to do it right would come along and set it up. So we're not against housing. We support housing. We want it for our customers, for our clients, for our tenants. and we're hoping, you know, that the right incentive structure which is being debated, you know, elsewhere in, you know, in the policy discussions happening in the city. That's what's being set up. Thank you. I have a question about the height. and specifically, it would be very informative being that we're not in your business to understand why the 15 foot high floor plate is a minimum threshold for you.

[310:08] Yeah, absolutely. So should we do it together. The the shortest way to explain it is labs have once through air. So the air comes in and it leaves. Once as against 90% of air gets recirculated in an office building that once through, does 2 jobs. One is heat, dissipation. The equipment inside labs end up generating a lot of heat through whatever processes are happening. So heat. Dissipation is one reason. All of this air has to move through. The second, reason is harm, reduction, and so chemicals or substances right? And then concentrations of whatever that is, might increase in indoor environments, because all of that needs to be flushed out and diluted in a code compliant legal manner through the rooftop. And so those 2 factors mean there's a lot of air that needs to reach all parts of the floor plan, and all of that air needs to move horizontally hence. And so those duct runs take up a lot of space like many feet on top of that. There's also crisscrossing other utility systems. Sometimes it's sprinklers, sometimes it's piped gases or nitrogen, so that crisscrossing it's a Swiss watch of infrastructure above the ceiling like above this there's 2 feet or 3 feet worth of infrastructure.

[311:26] The deeper the buildings. the more air has to run, longer, the deeper that plenum the space above the lid needs to be. and so so that basic sort of fact in our business is what drives the need for floor to floor. Yes, did I get it? Yeah, pretty close. 98%. The other component is these type of buildings require very rigid structures you can't have. You can imagine looking through microscopes or other imaging equipment. You can't have vibration even from your neighbor. So what it requires is deeper than normal structure.

[312:03] stronger beams. And we also have typically in these buildings. They're all aligned to a lab module which allows. because we're trying to anticipate and future proof these buildings for the next generation of science. we align it with an omnidirectional grid, a lab module grid, which means our lab kind of our lab module ripples through the structural base which pushes the spans for those kind of to higher limits on what you'd see in, say, traditional office. So we're asking the structure to be stiffer. and we're required it to span longer, sometimes 1215 feet longer, and make the bays as long as possible for that efficiency. What that does is that reduces that area and makes the mechanical coordination even more difficult. The mechanical ducts can't go up and down, they have to run. And then, as Phil was saying, there's all kind of gases and other elements and other infrastructure way beyond traditional offices that drive that as well. So when you layer that all in we usually find, and

[313:01] these floor to floors are actually a foot lower than we would do in other markets. So we're already reducing the traditional floor to floor with this type of construction. You know, we will be working very hard to achieve a 10 foot high ceiling in the lab. We'll probably be closer to 9, 6, which is, and 10 foot is kind of standard for tenants, for those type of spaces. Hopefully that helps. And we have this. That was that was super helpful. I would normally comment earlier. But but it's a comment to Staff because we just saw a proposal that we approved that was claiming to be Lab and R&D. Space that had 12 foot ceiling heights. So it's just a footnote, because I do think it's very interesting, which was a point that I was making during that conversation. We can get back to that later. But I think it's I appreciate the explanation, because it makes a lot of sense why your building would be different than an office.

[314:03] So thank you. The only thing I would add, our baseline everywhere else in the world is 16 feet floor to floor. We've already come down, because we know, you know, we don't want to like spin around here and do things that you don't like. So we're already trying to compress and tuck and hide, to maintain. You know our height limits, you know, to maintain our building under the height limits. Thank you. Appreciate that. Do you have your hand. I I don't see you. I do have my hand up. Go ahead! No worries. But that was a great question. You know. I I these are the perfect people to answer it. They are specialists. So my question help me understand what you said about parking. I think you said that you calculated your parking requirement based on office requirements. But lab requirements are.

[315:01] require less parking than office. Can you clarify. Yes, absolutely good question. I referenced office only as a benchmark for something that's much worse than what we're doing. The excuse me. on average. What we find in terms of the number of researchers per 1,000 square feet in our kinds of buildings is closer to 2 people every 1,000 square feet. And that's and so that's what we've designed to. We've designed to less than that. But that's what we see in our business in the research space. Okay. Separately for office. The numbers can be as high as 2 and a half to 3 to 3 and a half, sometimes per 1,000. Yes. Lot. It's all people, and not as much equipment and infrastructure, etc. So I'm hearing you say you right sized your parking to your industry. Yes, absolutely. And then some, because priority is in town.

[316:01] So the question relative to the criteria is under the site, design, access, transportation, and mobility. We asked for the design of vehicular circulation and parking areas to make efficient use of the land and minimize the amount of pavement necessary. In looking at your site plan. the entire exterior perimeter of the buildings is paved. Is that correct? That's correct combination of concrete and asphalt. And regarding that criteria, do you feel like you have minimized.

[317:00] Yeah. The only thing I would add to that is that it's there is a buffer along the entire edge. So it's not just asphalt up to the property line or other components we have provided a landscape buffer edge, usually exceeding what's required along the perimeter of the site. The other component is, you'll see in this. And this is a good illustration. We've broken up the parking with trees, other landscape elements. We've tried to avoid having the the parking back to back, with the exception on the northeast corner, so we can create kind of pockets of that. And once again the majority of our parking is all under the buildings. If you recall the 1st iteration of this actually placed all the parking and the way we were able to remove it from that was we had a 3 story parking structure on site. So being able to remove that, we've pushed under the buildings. And then, as Lil mentioned, we took a parking reduction, reduced the amount even further on. Site. So do you have a building section that shows the parking being. Yes.

[318:00] Under the buildings. Yes, as we're turning to that, I also want to round out Ryan's answer to your question about the Loop road. The Loop road was also driven in large part by life safety considerations. So fire truck access everywhere around the site also drove that road around it, but without it conflicting with the garden on the inside or the bike path and the trails. And so we sort of relegated the fire truck safety access to the outside and made the inside the garden with the trails and the bike bike paths. Is that helpful. yes, and I think I had understood. You know, that basic phenomenon that you were trying to accomplish. So the parking that we see in the Site Plan is, in addition to this concealed parking. Correct. Okay, I wasn't missing an overhang somewhere. Okay?

[319:06] looking at my questions here, I think you've answered everything. Thank you so much. I've I've just got to add. I I think your Your thoughtfulness is really showing up in not just the results, the design, but in the measures you're taking to answer the question. So I really appreciate that. Thank you very much. This this. Kurt, you have a question, or I do, okay, go ahead. Go ahead because my question for staff. So so if you have questions. Okay, I have 2 other very detailed questions. The 1st one is, yeah. I don't know if we can bring up the site plan for building one. I had another question about the long-term bike parking there.

[320:06] This one? Right? Yeah. Well, that might do it. The the question is how you get from the bike parking to the lobby, to the entrance for building one that's building 3 right? So building one has we. We placed it at this location so that the bikers have the most direct route into it. They have the ability for this, then, to come right back out and exit. Come along that exterior path into the lobby. There's also a path for the bikers to move through the parking garage directly into the lobby through that. Okay? So there is a door there. Yeah, we were lobby that we're anticipating days like today. If someone biked in, they could. Then. after they take their shower, they could then move through the garage to get into the building lobby. Yeah, okay, sounds great. And then one final question, which is about the multi-use path which actually, if you just look at that upper right hand corner there, the multi-use path has that. You're adding, Yeah, it has that additional sort of extra loop. So

[321:16] you come off the South Boulder Creek path. There you go. You go straight, well, northwest, right? And then you loop around. It's like there's an extra curve there and based on the Topo lines. It looks like it. You come down, and then it looks like it goes back up and then down. I'm trying to understand what was the purpose of that extra loop? It's grading constraints. It's it's a continuous down from the multi-use trail. And the reason it's looping is to so that we can be beneath those, you know, minimum or minimum maximum slopes that we that are allowed by code for the multi-use trail. So

[322:03] okay, it's a continuous downhill. Right? Yes, okay. And it would allow. And it would allow people, then who are walking so it doesn't. And so it's a slope surface versus a ramp. So if somebody is walking along, it's a much more gentle added advantage is also slows people a little bit down off the multi-use path as they come into the site at that location. So that's 1 of the added benefits of that. I have a question for staff relative to the the height issue. How it's measured. I'm looking at different elevations of the building and trying to understand what exceptions are being proposed to us.

[323:03] as it relates to that for the building. for instance, I'm looking on there. There's some. There's some interesting measurements on like page 29, of 308 of their Pdf, and in the Pdf, but that doesn't correspond. If it's helpful, I know the question. Yeah, yeah, if you can answer that, we've got 3 clear exhibits in the appendix of our deck that could get you the answers like very quickly here, you know. Yeah, if you have a if you have a way to look at it. That would be great and talk us through it. Yeah, so is that, okay, Allison? Yeah, great, perfect. Yeah. So there's there's here are kind of 3 different building conditions cut through there. The 1st is this is through building one which is outside the floodplain zone. So what we've looked at here, and you can see in red. This is the allowable height measurement. So that's the 40 feet plus the 5 additional feet

[324:01] at that location. And then you're actually allowed 16 feet for the mechanical screen. So that's the measure height, and that's measured from the lowest natural grade point, which is measured 25 feet outside the building footprint on our site. It all slopes essentially to the north. So a lot of our grades, as you saw the building feels like it's 2 stories, because we're building back into the grade at those locations. So it's it's almost artificial constraint, as you can see here, we're almost for other sides of the buildings. We're almost 5 and a half feet into the grade with that, said the height is measured from that point. So we're under the 45 feet for our measurement to the roof line. And then, additionally, our mechanical screen is typically 11 feet at that. The other set of measurements which are over here, as you can see, is all then measured from once again, these are building heights and building calculations so that you can see, there's a different, slightly different way. We're measuring that which is measuring floor to floor. So we've tried to provide that illustration to show the compliance for that.

[325:02] So that's outside the floodplain. Hopefully, that's is that clear? Okay, great. And then the, it takes us a while to even work these sections ourselves. So it's not. It's not clear. The second buildings, 2 and 3 are actually within the floodplain zone. So the methodology there is the 40 feet. with the additional 5 feet for the conditional height. And then, because we're in the floodplain, there's an additional 5 foot for the allowable modification. And that's because we're pulling the other building were allowed to nestle within the landscape and within the site. These were actually required to pull them up at that location. So I have a question on the measurement of the 50 feet right? And I'm seeing it in my packet, slightly differently, in a different area. There's about a foot and a half above the 50 feet, which is like a parapet wall. Is that correct? There's certain number and Allison. And so that's I want to understand sort of how the code reads that, because my my understanding that's that's building height. But

[326:00] you can have like 18 inches of parapet height above the Max if it meets if it's for like drainage requirements. And so they. They put a statement in their plans, saying that it it meets the like building height or the building a pertinence section. Okay, yeah. So we're measuring the height limit to the maximum roof elevation. So you'll see, like, even in this one. you know, there's areas of the roof below that we're measuring to the kind of highest peak point of that. And then to Allison's Point, allowing there's elements like the parapet, or overhangs, or elements which can exceed that height. So just for my clarity. And this is not related to your project so much as just boulder in general. So when we have the 55 foot height limit. there's an additional 18 inches that is permissible with with something like a parapet wall for drainage purposes. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Great, great. Yeah, that's super helpful. Yeah. And then the only thing I would point out for this building. And it's similar for building 3. Once again we talked a little bit, and we talked internally about the perceived height. So even at the point where the 3rd floor of this is exposed. There's 7 feet of building height that's measured below grade that we're not even

[327:08] using. So. in fact, we're using the almost the 50 feet for the measurement, but the perceived height is 42 feet, or 41 feet 7 inches. and then building 3 is very similar in terms of that the other component, I would say, is, it looks at. It's hard to judge how the buildings relate to each other in terms of roof height. There's a 6 foot difference in the building height between building one and buildings 2 and 3. So the building forms actually step down along the site as well. Thank you. That was, that was super helpful. Appreciate that. That was that. Was it. Any other questions? All right, great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Public hearing.

[328:01] All right. Thank you. I don't believe we have anybody that's in the room still left with us to speak. But if you're online and you would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand, and we'll go ahead and call on you. We have one hand raised so far. Lynn, please go ahead and speak. You'll have 3 min for this item. Beautiful design. but free Palestine. Or else there's no point in building all of this, and putting all this effort into it. If we go down for genocide in World War 3. Just a caveat. Now, this building doesn't meet Boulder Valley Comp plan, requirements of jobs, housing, imbalance. And.

[329:01] There's the more that you build for office space or for for this kind of a use. you have to have a space for people to live. and we have a saturated housing market in Boulder. So this project doesn't belong here. That's the problem. We're building ourselves to our own demise. So stop, stop adding more office and more jobs that require more housing that require more services that we have deficits, for in all of the departments

[330:00] of the city, the city budget. the county. We have no room for homelessness, more homelessness, as all of these high paying jobs are driving the demand for more high paying housing, or for more. You know, high end housing that drive the whole market up, that displace people with rental backed securities and with private equity lenders and hedge fund purchasers buying up, housing and driving the whole system. It's it's a fight to the bottom. It has to stop somewhere. And all these people put all this effort into this beautiful building design for nothing, for nothing.

[331:06] We can't afford it. This genocide is unconscionable, and that's how we drive this whole US. Economy. and the housing is right in the middle of it. And the housing for all these people in this building that you're definitely going to approve tonight. Shame on you! Thank you. And if anybody else is online and would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand now. Otherwise we'll proceed with the Board's deliberation. I'll give it a few seconds, but I'm seeing no other raised hands, so I think we're good to move on great quick point of order for the Board members. I want to make sure that people are willing to continue to

[332:00] to continue with this discussion tonight to its conclusion, or if if people are are thinking, it's going to take a long time feeling tired, it's 1130 at night. I want to respect everyone's time. If we need to continue. So I'm curious. So here's my comment, and I'm going to tip my hand, which is, I'm not ready to approve this tonight, and I'm happy to talk about why, but I would like to. What I would propose is that we continue the hearing to a date certain to let the applicant have time to respond to some of the ways in which we think it does not meet the criteria, because I have about 3 or 4 ways that I think it does not meet our site review criteria. So I would be hesitant to just continue the hearing and then come back and say, I want to continue the hearing again, because I think it doesn't meet the criteria. So I'm willing to continue and talk about ways in which we think the applicant could improve the design, and then ask to continue the hearing, so they can come back with a revised design. That would be my suggestion if the board agrees. And of course I want to hear what my colleagues have to say.

[333:01] Yeah, I think before we consider that we would take a just a general straw Poll, make sure that that's kind of a majority direction. Because I'm not. I'm not sure that is so, I guess. Going back to the original question, which is before we get into deliberation. Because I think if we get into deliberation, I think we should at least take deliberation to conclusion. The question is, do we? Do we want to go into deliberation. acknowledging that it may or may not take different amount of people different time to get through it? So any thoughts. It's 1130. I also want to give everyone a fair shake and make sure we're mentally ready to talk this through. I'm not sure, I'm mentally ready. It's yeah. And I think it is going to be a fairly long discussion. Okay. I'm with Kurt. Yeah, I would say, if we're anticipating a longer discussion, I would prefer to continue, yeah.

[334:04] yeah, we we historical historically, we're quite slow at conditions. So, Brad, go ahead. Yes, good evening. Planning board members. Just a word of note as you think how to work through these mechanics. I know. Laura. You'd mentioned kind of trying to identify those things so they could be worked on. I'm not sure we have a real good mechanism to do that. We wouldn't want the to leave the applicant kind of hanging in this limbo. It probably needs to all be covered in the continued hearing. Yeah, understood. I think that's probably right, that we would. We wouldn't go into deliberation, because I think that at that point we just might as well take it to conclusion. So and I think that without gauging support for even possible conditions.

[335:04] to send the applicant off to quote work on something that they have no idea if it's a 1 6 level of support for that thing would not to me. That doesn't. That doesn't make a good use of anyone's time. Okay, so it sounds like everyone's on board. With continuing. Apologize. We cannot get through it this evening. I think it's I think it's in your best interest as well. Truthfully given the the late hour. So maybe Brad or Charles. we can give us some thoughts about how to continue this, and also give the applicant some assurances. Get back on the docket, you know, expediently, so that we can Well, we have plenty of time available. Chair on February 4.th So if you guys wanted to continue to date certain

[336:06] we'd be able to bring it back for deliberations. Then. I'm okay. I know we have a joint meeting on the 5.th So that's a large commitment of the Board's time given. Right now we. We have a meeting. We do. Yeah. And there's already an item that's scheduled for that night. So. I'd be okay with that. I don't know if I think we need to make a motion. Okay, yeah. A few housekeeping things in your policies and procedures before we make a motion that'd be great. So as required in your policies. You may continue a hearing before the passage or denial of the agenda. Item, the movement shall publicly state the reasons for the motion, and shall allow both the proponent, the opponent, and staff to provide any comments before that vote is taken.

[337:05] Sounds like mark wants to make a motion. I would like to move our current. I move to Continue. Continue. Thank you. This is really glad that you're definitely right. I move to continue our current agenda item to the February 4, th regularly scheduled planning board meeting. Second. And the reason, the reason being combination of late hour and anticipated debate on conditions of approval. Someone one second. Second. Second. Oh, Ml, seconded, great does anyone want to comment that on that staff or applicant? Does that date work?

[338:00] Yeah, okay, great. So we'll go ahead and and take a vote on that. Starting with Mason. Yes. Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes, Laura. Yes, Mark. Yes, Claudia, yes, and I myself am a yes as well. Thanks for your time and your presentation. We look forward to continuing it on the 4.th Okay, that concludes that public hearing. I don't believe we have anything else on our agenda except to check in on matters, and if anyone from city staff or the board, or anyone else as things we need to discuss prior to our next meeting again. Good evening. Thanks for your time this evening, in the interest of the time. I'll just ask if there are any questions

[339:00] I have a I have a Footnote, I would love for for Staff to look in for for me, because I I found the the floor plate discussion and the and the heights on lab and industrial space to be very informative relative to an industrial lab space that we just approved with 12 foot high floor to floor ceiling. It's a. It's a note I'd love to just talk about it offline. I just want to. I just wanted to. Yeah, we can look into that. I suspect some of the answers that not all labs are equal, but agreed. But we can. We can look into that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions. When is our next meeting. We have a meeting next Tuesday, the 28th next Tuesday. Okay, great. Thank you. Everyone. This meeting is churned. Thank you. Good night.