January 28, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:32] Hi! All just letting you know I can't hear any audio in case you've started.

[1:34] Hi! Can you hear me now? Hi, Vivian, we can hear you. Are you still unable to hear us? Dialogue. Vivian, can you hear us now? Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. And can you please let me know if you can hear George when he speaks as well.

[2:02] Go ahead! You hear me? Good. Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty faint. Can you hear me better now? Yeah. Great well, just called the meetings or Vivian. We are ready, for your part, for managing public participation. Okay, great and apologies for the technical issues. So my name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge. I'll be helping with the. We're having a hard time. I don't hear much audio in here. That's honestly, I think it's just coming through here sweeter. I'm not sure what's happening, since our all of our settings are the same as they normally are. But let me tinker with it a little bit and see if we can get it fixed. Is it my audio? Is it helpful? Our audio in here. We can hear you. But you're just coming through computer speakers. We're gonna try to get it broadcast and check. Okay.

[3:00] And, George, you are also pretty faint. It's not that easy to hear you. Oh, interesting! If you're just joining us, please just hang in there. We're sorting out some audio issues. All right, they've rejoined. We'll see if that's better.

[4:07] I can't hear you at all. I don't know if anyone's speaking. Can you hear me?

[5:19] Not sure if I should go ahead? I can't hear anybody in the room. Maybe Thomas can go ahead and read the rules of decorum if you can't hear me. Very well. Great. And just so, you know, for those of us online, we can't hear you at all.

[14:21] Hooray! I did hear you for a couple of seconds. I think you only heard me for just a second through my laptop audio. I don't think the room audio itself is still connecting. Okay. And we're still only hearing you through this ipad. Can you hear Vivian in the room? Okay.

[16:23] If you're just joining the meeting online, we're having some audio issues. We can't hear the room. So please hang in there. Thanks for your patience.

[58:41] Alright. Looks like everyone is getting convened. You were quick. George got everybody home safe. Everyone is home. Well, Mark's home safe. I don't know about Claudia yet. She's not on, but

[59:03] she looked like she. Well, Claudia's online. So she's here. So. Okay. Good. Yeah. George did an excellent job driving. Nice one. Hey, everyone. Hello! Hey? Everybody was that Mason? Hi Mason! Jason. You made it at home. Okay, too. Yep, absolutely. Awesome. Like we just need. Kurt. Well, I hope Kurt stayed right side up on his bike. Ride home. Oh, did he bike. Yeah. He was hoofing it. He said he could be home in 10 min. Yeah. Why don't have any ice.

[60:00] Right knock on wood. Scrolling through the list. It looks like Charles is here. Laurel Thomas. I see. Actually, Kurt is in the attendee list, so as soon as we promote them. Hey! Laurel. There we go, you know. Hey, guys, there. We're in the room still. So. You're in the room. Okay? Yeah, audio. But we're we're all here. Yeah. And then you said, Kurt needs to be promoted. I think I. Can you hear me? I can't hear you. Yes, we can hear you. Can you hear us, William? Oh! Wonderful! Great. Great. Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and

[61:04] call this meeting to order again. so this is the January 28, th 2025 planning board meeting in the city of Boulder. Sorry for the technical difficulties. It seems like everyone is online. And we're doing an online only meeting. So I'm going to pass this over to Vivian to take over our public comment section of the meeting. Great. Thank you. And again, thanks everybody for your patience. I'll run us through these slides quickly about public participation. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more about our productive atmospheres. Vision on our website next slide, please.

[62:08] and I'll read some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support the productive atmospheres. Vision for public participation, and all of these will be upheld during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial 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 see a few people online, and where the name appears as ipad or initials, or only 1st name. So if you don't, if you're not sure how to change it yourself, and you would like to speak during the hearing. You can also send me your full name through the QA. Function, and I can. I can change it for you

[63:01] next slide, please. So for open comment, which will be right after I'm I'm done reading these slides. You can let us know that you want to speak by finding the raise hand button and I'll just call on people as the hands pop up, and I don't think anyone's joining us by phone, but in case you are, you can use Star 9 to raise that virtual hand, and I'll know that you want to speak. and you can also find the hand by hitting on the reactions button, and it'll take you to this menu of icons. And so we have open comment. Next, each person would have 3 min to share any comments with planning board not related to a hearing item that's later on the agenda and if you do wish to speak for the public hearing. That will be later on after the presentations and and some discussion. So please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. If you'd like to speak now at this time during the open comment

[64:05] section of the meeting. And again, just a reminder that the QA function is really just to help with like logistical zoom issues. Or if you want to send me your full name and not really to have conversations on on content. Okay, destiny, destiny, and I can't see your last name. Please go ahead and introduce yourself. You have 3 min, and you may have to unmute yourself on your end. Okay, hopefully, the audio is coming through now. Yeah, yeah, it's perfect. All right. So my name is Destiny Asottic. I'm a long term homeowner at landmark lofts. I do not receive paid compensation or have any business relationship that would affect my testimony.

[65:00] So I wanted to bring up a few points. I see that parking is talked a lot within this plan as well as open space. So referring to appendix c. Excuse me, I think this might be related to the public hearing. Item. Is that right? If so, we'll just ask that you hold your comments until the public hearing is that right? Is that other others, understanding as well. Yes. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thanks for holding on. So, this is really just for items, not on the agenda. And we'll call on you during the public hearing. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for being here. Okay. I think we don't have anybody who's wants to speak for this part of the meeting back over to you, George. Okay, great. And just for information for destiny. Since we have had a little bit of a late start here to give you a sense of and the public in general. In case there's anyone else that wants to speak for the public hearing, typically, what we do is we we have, we have. The public hearing is called. Then the city staff will give their presentation. The applicant will give their presentation, and then you'll be able to. You'll be given time

[66:15] to speak to that, and you may have heard some things in the presentations that might also be helpful. So with that said, We don't have any meeting minutes or discussion of dispositions or planning board call ups or continuations. So we're going to go straight into the 1st public hearing item on our agenda. The public hearing item on the agenda. Next is the concept, plan, review, and comment request to develop the site at 1,128th street as a mixed use student housing development with 80 to 90 units in the residential high, 3 rh. 3 zoning district. The proposal includes 65% parking reduction request and a height modification. Request for 55 foot tall buildings reviewed under case number Lur. 2024, 0 0 6, 3, and prior to

[67:15] handing it over to city staff for their presentation. I just want to check with the board and see if there's been any ex parte communication or any other conflicts that anyone needs to disclose. and seeing none, we'll move forward with Staff's presentation on this item. Thank you so much. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yes. Perfect. Okay. okay, wonderful. Well, good evening, board members. My name is Shannon Moller, with the city of Boulder Planning department, and I'll be taking you through the staff presentation for the 1,128th Concept plan.

[68:05] So I'll cover the information in the memo, including the purpose of a concept plan. The review guidelines the existing site and context, a description of the proposal and some key issues for discussion. So the purpose of a concept plan Review is to review the General development plan for a particular site and help identify key issues in advance of a more detailed site Review submittal. The applicant will receive comments from the Board staff and the public. No formal action is being taken tonight on the project. The property was posted and written, notification provided per code staff did receive some written comments on the proposal, including concerns about parking and blocking of views, and these were included in the Board's packet. So here you can see the location. It's just southeast of the intersection of 28th and Colorado, north of College Avenue, and it's along the 28th Street Frontage road. The site is about 1.4 acres.

[69:08] and it's a developed property. It has 51 apartments, the Bova's market and grill, and the Boulder Property management office. The buildings are mostly 2 stories in height, and there are exterior staircases to access the upper level unit entrances. There's surface parking and access to the site from multiple frontages. Most of the site is paved or developed with buildings. There are some areas of open space and a few mature trees on the site. The University of Colorado, main campus is located just to the west of the property, and it's accessible via the pedestrian underpass just to the west to the south, along the frontage road are several properties, such as the landmark lofts on this slide that were redeveloped. Following rezoning of this area to Rh. 3, which we'll talk about later on. In the presentation

[70:01] to the southeast and east are a mix of one and 2 story apartment buildings, such as the blue spruce apartments just to the east and north of the site across Colorado Avenue. There are office buildings at the intersection, as well as single family homes over to the east. This site is located along several major transportation corridors and connections where the city has made significant investments toward alternative transportation, and this continues to be a focus for this area. Most recently the intersection of 28th and Colorado was updated as a protected intersection in 2024, the multimodal transportation network in this area is guided by the city's transportation Master Plan and the 28th Street Frontage Road Transportation Network Plan. It describes the city's vision for improvements in the area, and the objectives of the plan are to establish a fine grained network of multimodal transportation connections to support the redevelopment that's expected. As a result of the new Rh. 3 zoning that was applied to the area.

[71:04] Many of the planned improvements in this area have been implemented, including the multi-use path connection at the north side of the property and the on-street Bike Lane in the frontage road. The plan also calls for establishing an on-street bike route in College Avenue and College Avenue is also identified as a neighborhood. Green Street. In the low Stress Walk bike network. It provides a connection over to the underpass, and a pedestrian crossing a neighborhood. Green Street is a low traffic street that's prioritized for walking and biking, where all feel safe and comfortable. The site is located within a half mile, walking distance to a number of bus stops and bus routes, such as the hop, bound jump, and 2, 25, and those routes are shown in blue. It's also served by the buff bus with a stop just next to the site on Colorado Avenue, and those routes are shown in the gold lines.

[72:00] Here you can see the topography of this area. The site slopes down from the high point at the southwest corner down to the low point at the northeast corner. It's about 10 feet in grade, and the slope across the site is consistent with the adjacent public right of ways. The Boulder Valley comprehensive plan designates the property as high density residential, which is described as generally located close to the University of Colorado. Its plan for transit, oriented redevelopment and its near major corridors and services. This is intended for attached residential uses and complementary uses, and it's planned for higher densities more than 14 units per acre. The property and the adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned residential high. 3. The Rh. 3 zone was a new zone created in 2,004 to implement the strategies at the culmination of the jobs population study for higher housing densities on parcels next to the University of Colorado.

[73:01] The intent of the zoning district is to provide redevelopment opportunities for areas of the city that are in the process of changing to high density, residential uses, and to provide pedestrian, oriented neighborhood retail uses so attached. Dwelling units are permitted by right and some complementary non residential uses are also permitted so moving to the project tonight. The proposal consists of a redevelopment of the site as mixed use student housing with about 87 dwelling units designed for the university student population. One level of underground parking is provided with 5 levels of primarily residential space above it's organized into a west and east building around a central courtyard. The 1st Level also includes nonresidential uses, such as a cafe and a study area in the northwest corner and a restaurant market in the southwest corner, and amenities are also provided for. Residents like fitness and wellness spaces.

[74:01] The unit mix includes bedroom counts between studios up to 5 bedrooms, with most of the units being 4 to 5 bedrooms. It also includes a 65% parking reduction request and a height modification up to 55 feet. The Rh. 3 zone district has a 30% open space requirement which is designed to be met here with the central courtyard, which must meet additional requirements per the height, bonus requirements. Open space is also provided at the edges of the site as rooftop decks and as individual balconies for the apartments. This proposal, again, would require a height modification, request. So the applicant has provided a number of detailed massing studies and images in their plan set, showing how they broke down the mass of the building, and provided some of those upper level outdoor spaces. and the applicant also provided a number of conceptual images in the plan set to help visualize the project

[75:00] in terms of required processes. The application would need a demolition review by historic preservation, since the existing structures are greater than 50 years old. Then the proposal would enter into the site Review process. It would be reviewed, and any modifications proposed, such as parking, reduction or height modification would be part of that request. and then it would move into technical documents and building permits. So I'll go briefly over the 5 key issues listed in the packet. So for the 1st key issue for consideration tonight is if the concept plan is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. So again, the Bbcp designates the property. High density. Residential staff found the proposal for this mixed use project at this location, largely consisting of residential units with some complementary uses, is consistent with the intended use. The additional student oriented housing is appropriate for this location near the university, and multimodal corridors, and assist with alleviating pressure on the overall housing supply.

[76:10] The proposal also made several Bbcp policies, such as 2.0 3 compact development pattern through its redevelopment of an existing property, and taking advantage of existing urban services, 2.1 4, it provides a mix of complementary land uses, and 2.1 6. It provides a mixed use and a higher density development at an appropriate location staff is recommending that the proposal better address the following Bvcp policies at the time of Site review policy, 2.3 6 physical design for people, and 2.4 1 enhanced design for all projects. These center on the design of the site, as it relates to people the context and the public realm. Since these are very similar to what's in the Site Review criteria, I'm going to move on to key Issue 2, which is feedback on the site plan and the building design. So for the purpose of this discussion, Staff reviewed the Site Review criteria and provided a preliminary analysis in the memo.

[77:11] So Staff is recommending some revisions to the relationship between the site and the adjacent right of way to improve site, accessibility, and connectivity, including for those with limited mobility and for pedestrians. Staff is concerned about the proposal to submerge areas of the building which introduces the need for ramps and stairs to access building entrances and the courtyard, and create some accessibility and design challenges. So we would like to see those addressed, as well as the permeability of the entrances into the courtyard. Space improved. We would also like to see refinements to the design of the courtyard space and in the design of open space and the setbacks at the edges of the site to make those areas accessible and as usable as possible for residents as open space.

[78:02] And lastly, in regards to the site design, we'd like to see how the design can better relate to the pedestrian underpass. That's just to the southwest. In addition to providing the minimum sidewalks and tree lawns in the streetscape in that area, we'd like to see how that corner could be enhanced as a distinctive entryway into the site. In regards to the building design, Staff again noted that the proposal to partially submerge portions of the ground floor, including the entry spaces and entry points, doesn't create that positive relationship we're looking for to the public realm or inviting entries. So we would recommend revisions to the building design in particular, at the ground level. To ensure the design is comfortable to the pedestrian, and that it meets the transparency requirements in the code. The 3rd key issue tonight was board feedback on the proposed parking reduction. This parking reduction is proposed at 65%. It's some parking is provided in the underground garage. The garage also provides 40 tandem parking spaces that don't count toward the minimum requirements, but could serve long-term vehicle parking storage needs of university students

[79:13] note that the city is currently moving forward with the changes to the parking code consistent with state requirements, and this would eliminate parking requirements for this site later this year. for the 4th key issue is, if the board has feedback on the proposed height modification up to 55 feet, the modification request would allow the height of the structure to exceed the typical Rh. 3 maximum of 40 feet and 3 stories, and it would allow up to 55 feet and 5 stories. A public hearing before the planning board would be required, and the project would be subject to the adopted community benefit requirements. So Staff provided an analysis of the additional criteria that apply to buildings requesting the height modification that's listed in the memo, and it provide those requirements, provide for specific building form and massing requirements, compatibility, guidelines, preserving and taking advantage of views from the site and requirements for open space.

[80:11] So generally, Staff found, the proposal is compatible with the heights of buildings in the surrounding area. The Rh. 3 zone was intended to allow for higher density housing in this location, and many of the properties along the frontage road have been developed at a similar height and scale staff did find that some additional refinement and relief could be provided at the time of Site review, such as on the east facade. some additional detail would be needed at the time of Site Review to demonstrate how all the building facade. Requirements are met, and some revisions are needed to the courtyard space to ensure that it meets the overall intent provided for an inviting landscaped courtyard space. So in terms of next steps following tonight's concept review, hearing City Council will consider whether or not to call the item up for an additional public hearing. The applicant can then proceed with development review applications if they so choose this Site review application would come back to the planning board for a decision based on either, or of the height, modification, request, or a proposal for a parking reduction.

[81:19] so that concludes Staff's presentation. Happy to take any questions before turning it over to the applicant team. Great thanks, Shannon. Great presentation. Would anyone like to ask any clarifying questions of Shannon or Staff? Go ahead, Kurt? And then Mason. Thanks, Shannon. I just have one question. As you know, the site is kind of L shaped. So there's an a triangle at the northeast corner. That is, I guess, city property, and I'm trying to understand why that city property, what it would be used for is it intended as right of way.

[82:02] Sort of what? What the purpose of that is. Do you mean kind of where this jog and the property line happens like. At the north property line, right. Of this site. My guess is that some right of way, most likely was acquired at some point that created that jog. When a property is redeveloped. We'll typically take a look to see if we need to acquire an additional right of way, I think. for this site, I believe we either have adequate right of way, or we may, if required, we could potentially acquire a public access easement for any additional changes. So I think our transportation staff would make sure to take a look at that at the time of Site Review, and just make sure we have adequate right of way and or easements. So if it's right of way, but it's it's not really being used for transportation infrastructure.

[83:01] What happens with it? Like who's who maintains it, who decides how it's to be improved or used, or whatever. Generally, the property owners just responsible for maintaining it. That area right away adjacent to their property. It would typically either be landscaped if it's not being used like actively, for, like a sidewalk, or something of that nature. And would this city ever determine that it has no use for this little weird little triangle, and would consider selling it to the property owner. Yeah, people can request a vacation of public right of way. And there, there's a process that they could go through to request that if they so chose, and if it seemed like the city, no longer needed it for right of way. So we saw that last week a possible vacation or a vacation request. In that case there was no.

[84:02] there was no provision for any kind of payment. Is there ever any kind of provision for payment. That I don't know. I have not seen seen a situation where there was a payment involved. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Great mason, and then Laura. Just one question. We received public comment that their current properties have water issues. I saw from the packet that listen. It didn't really appear to affect this property. It seemed pretty low risk, as far as flood goes. I didn't know if that was because the maps haven't been Updated. If there was additional thought to those issues here. And if it's just a non concern. I think there's 2 separate things we would look at. One would be the floodplain, this property. There's a very small area of the property that's in the 500 year floodplain that would not impact the development of the site as as what they're proposing to do. So I didn't touch on that during the staff presentation. I think the other item, as you mentioned, that was brought up was the groundwater concerns.

[85:18] My understanding from our engineers comments was that groundwater is and can be, a concern in this area. So during the engineering review of the of the project, they would take a look at those those the groundwater. During that time. Okay. Thank you. Laura. Thank you. Just one question. The packet mentions historic Preservation Review. So I'm assuming, you know, the buildings are over 50 years old. Are we expecting historic preservation to be a concern for this property, like is the property relatively unchanged, since it was built.

[86:00] Yeah. This was our historic preservation staff took a look at this while it was in the Concept Plan Review. They didn't anticipate it being an issue for the property. But it would just need to go through the formal application and review process to do that demolition review formally. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Claudia! Oh, I feel like I'm jumping the line here, wasn't there anyone in front of me? Okay? Well, a few questions. The applicants plans suggested that they were asking for a larger than required side yard setback on college. Am I reading that correctly? Shannon. I don't remember off the top of my head for that one. I think when the applicant comes on they could they could go into that.

[87:00] It's a minor point. I just wanna make sure I'm reading things correctly. One of the reasons I was interested in that is one of the things that I see being a significant feature on the site right now are some of these mature trees along College Avenue, and you can even see them in the picture that you've got up here on our screens right now. These evergreen trees that are there when and how are mature trees evaluated during the application and review process. And what if any rules are there governing their removal or preservation. Yeah, for trees that are on private property. There are no specific rules prohibiting their removal. We do have site review criteria that encourages the preservation of mature trees, so we would need to balance those with all of the other design related criteria for this site. so that that could be a questionnaire concern to bring up with the applicant tonight to see how the design that they're proposing might impact those.

[88:05] Okay, thank you. And then I had a couple of questions about mobility and access in the area. So currently, it's possible, by kind of weaving through parking lots, internal passageways, and so on. It's possible to move north, south, in the area of this site between Colorado and College Avenue? Does this proposal preserve any of that kind of North-south permeability? Or are there other any other North South kind of mid block connections and city plans that are going to be preserved or required. As more of this area redevelops. Yeah. There aren't any requirements in our transportation, master plan to preserve, like a public access Easement or any type of North South connection on this plan, I believe there would be the opportunity to pass through the site as a pedestrian like you said to just kind of informally, not as like a formal

[89:08] dedicated easement or that sort of thing. So the applicant could probably touch more on the kind of their design. And what they're thinking for that. Okay? Yeah. And I, I asked that knowing that's that's not a question specific to this site, either, that there's a number of properties. Kind of in that East West transect that we could ask that question about. But thank you for that context on this one and then my last question for now is, are there any existing neighborhood parking programs in this area? And if not, what would be the process for evaluating this neighborhood for one of those programs. That's a great question. I don't believe there are any in this area is what I'm hearing for evaluating those. I would probably have to double check with our transportation staff, or if Charles is pulling it up right now, it sounds like, so we might get some intel on that.

[90:10] I'm happy to let Charles do a bit of digging. If other folks want to jump in with questions. Yeah, we could come back to that if you had some other items. I I will defer to my colleagues. I may ask. A few more, later. Mark. Other folks out. Thanks. Claudia just asked the question. That was my 1st question, so I'll just jump to my second question. Shannon, you've been part of lots of different site reviews and concept reviews with this particular board. And you know that this board takes a dim view of vertical bike racks and has high expectations in regard to Tdm. Did you? Did you

[91:03] tell the applicant at all about our dim view of vertical bike racks and high Tdm expectations. Or is that really not the role of you as a staff member, and that applicants get to submit whatever they want to submit. Yeah. I think, as part of this review for the concept plan, our transportation staff did kind of take a look at what they were proposing, and give them some feedback in regards to, you know, definitely providing a robust Tdm plan, considering the the depth of the parking reduction that they're requesting. I don't recall that there was that level of detail in the comments of of reviewing the type and style of the bike racks, but that could definitely be some feedback that would be helpful for the applicant tonight. I'm sure they'll get some. Okay, that was my, that was my only question, and I'll and I'll wait on the answer to Claudia's Mpp question.

[92:11] Okay? Any other questions? My questions were answered in that, too. So why don't we go over to? The applicants presentation. and it's 7, 32. So once they get started they'll have 15 min to present. Yeah. alright. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? You can. Great. Well, thank you for pivoting this meeting and allowing us to continue tonight. We appreciate it. We're here together in a conference room at the city. So just want to say thank you for allowing us to have this concept review with you tonight. It's great to see you. I'm Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy Group.

[93:18] And we are here to present the concept review for Student Housing Project at Colorado and 28th tonight, we're going to focus on these kind of 4 key areas, just to organize you and kind of tell you a little bit more about the design and end up with next steps. As concept is really is not iterative. We get comments back from staff and from planning board, and we want to go back and start drawing right away. But we we have to finish this round so. But we've already started to think about how we could address those. So we're going to just show you some of those ideas that we have. I'm joined tonight by the development team, or right now, Andrew and Andre is here, and I also have Matt, with architecture firm, and the rest of our team is all locally based, have done a lot of projects in Boulder and have a lot of experience, and we've all worked together many times in the past.

[94:11] Let's talk to Andre. Awesome well, good evening, and thank you for your time to hear our project tonight. My name is Andre Sahaki, and and I'm the Development Manager with Lv. Collective in charge of this exciting new project proposed at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and 28th Street. This campus adjacent pedestrian oriented project will support the corridor tying main campus to East campus and help address the housing demand in Boulder Lv's mission is to create experience-based environments that encourage personal growth and foster the formation of relationships and memories that will last a lifetime. Lv. Has completed and under development several similar projects on other campus. Adjacent sites in Ann arbor, Michigan, Austin, Texas, West Lafayette, Indiana.

[95:02] and College, Park, Maryland. To name a few. we bring a focus on design, particularly to the public realm. working closely with our architects, landscape architects, and interior designers to create vibrant spaces as part of each art of our developments. We bring a coffee shop that opens with the property, bringing life to the project on day, one by creating a beautiful space to meet work, study open to the public and our residents. Additionally, we work with existing retailers on development sites for opportunities to bring them back into the future retail spaces. I'm proud to state that Lv. Has worked with Bobus on an agreement to bring them back into the new space at their current rent. assist with equipment, storage during redevelopment and assist with design and permitting fees to facilitate the transition with me today is Matt. Post with Oz architecture, sitting here on my right, who I'm grateful to have completed several projects on in our portfolio across the country. And of course. Mechanical Powell, who? I'll turn the laptop over to

[96:15] thank you. Oh, and here are the coffee shops that I think, are in your existing development. Oh, thanks for yeah. Yeah. all right. So now I want to talk a little bit about alignment with city goals and the alignment with the Boulder Valley Comp plan. I think Shannon talked quite a bit about the Boulder Valley Comp plan values in terms of this project and its location and what we're proposing we see is value that we can bring to the community is energy efficient building. Matt will talk a little bit more about that. I think Andre just mentioned the agreement with Boba's to stay in place. This is a, I think, a really important one. They were relocated from the Moxie Hotel site to this site. They actually really love the site and would love to come back to it. It's a it's kind of a food desert in this part of the neighborhood, and so they would love to return and be back in the frontage road near the connection to the University. So we have plans in place and agreement to do that. Housing, building, housing near the university does alleviate pressure on the housing supply throughout the city, particularly in single family neighborhoods.

[97:24] We create street activation. This transit rich location means there's less cars to store and park. And we want to create on-site amenities to serve, not just the residents here, but the neighborhood. Shannon mentioned the community feedback we received and we did respond. We reached back out to them, and we'll continue to talk to the the neighbors that we've heard from so far. We might. It sounds like we might hear from some more tonight concerns about neighborhood parking. And one letter about impacts on the views. I believe today we received a letter from community cycles about their support for high density, housing and parking. They did make a lot of really great recommendations for better access for long term bike spaces that's easy, safe to use

[98:06] protected lit, monitored bike spaces, non vertical bike storage and ev charging for bikes and scooters. So we'll take all those recommendations into account and would like to continue to work with them, to really make our bike program strong and then improving bike safety along the frontage as part of it is a designated area. And so we have a lot of opportunity to make that better than what it is today, which on the along the front is basically one big curb cut here in front of Bovis. And then we have several curb cuts around the property. The site is really dominated by cars and parking and curb cuts, so we have a lot of opportunity to improve that and make it a much better and safer space. In terms of how we want to approach this. We talked a lot. I talked a lot with Lv. About what they've done in other communities. A lot of them very similar to Boulder in that they've reduced removed parking minimums. And they've done a lot of enhanced Tdms already. And so we're really excited to figure out how to do that here. So I think what we're starting with reducing the amount of parking and designing for great spaces.

[99:11] Lb, has a lot of experience in educating, informing, and tracking transportation choices, residents far before they ever arrive in boulder, and they talk about cost comparisons and transportation options. They create peer-to-peer, content to really get people to think differently about how they might not need a car when they in boulder, and then engagement with the parents incentivize and motivate. So offering discounts for people without cars, alternative transportation fund monies. If they don't have a car charging for people that do, building excellent bike parking and offering other options if they need to find a storage option for their car, and then we'll be improving. The bus stops and overall transit experience throughout the site. I'll pass it on to Matt. Thank you so much, Danica. Thanks to everyone here this evening. I appreciate your time. I'm Matt Post from Oz architecture and kind of walking through our overview for the project, and what we see is its overall positive impact on the city, the community, the neighborhood, and ultimately the focus on the human scale. So we're very sensitive to the importance of this site as a contribution to the city for really future generations. And

[100:27] as we look at the the location and the High density residential block of the 28th street, Straight corridor. We see it really as a gateway to campus into the city. and currently, as stated, it houses just a 2 story student housing development with only 145 beds distributed among 5 buildings. And we're really looking to increase that residential density. To add to the desperate need for student housing in this area by 260%, essentially among 2 buildings. and then also bring in those commercial and mixed use activities, enhancements by incorporating Bova's, and then also the cafe space that's inherent within all of these wonderful Lv projects that have become on online.

[101:11] We see this as kind of the the current configuration of the neighborhood being enhanced, and really the end caps being the projects that's already started under construction on the south side of the the Blanc, and then ultimately our project. That's kind of continuing and bookending in a very appropriately scaled manner. On the on the north side we see the benefits of the location as it relates to the multimodal connections. And we've done a lot of analysis that demonstrates kind of just the walkability, the access for bicycles and public transportation, a very high walking score of 70 and bike score of 92 as we looked at the site and began to really analyze the opportunities on the site, seeing the overall zoning envelope, and then the enhancement of the density through the height modification, we began to analyze the setbacks as we begin to look at the overall distribution of how we can really configure an optimized site, an optimized project on the site

[102:15] carving out the courtyard to define the residential scaled proportions, and then ultimately linking the north and south through a courtyard with visual access from either side. increasing the density by situating the mass on the north side of the property, we're able to capitalize on the height, modification opportunities and extend those vertically to really allow for maximum light and air into those courtyards that are being provided. The overall distribution of the program really focuses on the activation of the human scale and the community on facing the west side, where we envision a highly activated pedestrian corridor that links campus

[103:05] through Bova's to the north. Excuse me, Bova's on the south, where it's highlighted in commercial, and that cafe on the north side. So, and then along the frontage, as as stated, there's been some some concern about the porosity and transparency in that zone, and we were taking all those into consideration as we move into the next steps. So the access to the service garage we're seeing on the the far east side of the property. We're really trying to focus. not so much on the automobile. So removing all of that surface parking from from the property itself and really focusing on those activation points and those points of entry for the pedestrian scaled experience. As we look at our sustainable strategies. We're really beginning with the reduction of the car usage and enhancing that pedestrian experience and also, of course, designing to exceed new energy codes by 10% through the robust envelope and high quality windows and assemblies.

[104:08] So ultimately, we're looking to align with the the city community and neighborhood context and really focus our energy on these activation points, these moments of discovery through visual connections, the North and South, as well as really considering this iconic corner at the intersection of of 28th and Colorado, and seeing where we can really address the critical need for student housing. So what you're seeing are where the development began, and we see this as a departure point to incorporate, to utilize the opportunity for really appreciate the the thoughtful feedback that we've been receiving, seeing how we can incorporate those comments into how we move forward. And so, as we look to those next steps. we've begun to look at the specifically this, the southwest corner, where there's the underpass connection to campus, and seeing how we can elevate that as to ground level as was brought up as a concern and make that a real, visible and physical connection. To allow for incorporation of the sidewalk

[105:17] entering into the commercial space which will ultimately be Bova's on that south side and then really activating with increased transparency along that west facade. As we head into Site Review, we we look to incorporate additional comments that Dani's Danica's already addressed, and we look forward to your your feedback. and that concludes our presentation. Great. Thank you. Thanks for that presentation. Does the Board have any clarifying questions? I I have one before we get started. Could you put up the last slide that you presented the one right before this one? Yeah, so this is just for clarification. This is modifications that you're suggesting, based on some real time feedback that you've gotten recently versus what's in the packet? Correct.

[106:12] Correct. Okay. I just we know we're not. We're not presenting new information. We just wanted to show you where we're headed and how we can solve some of these problems that we would start working on insight review. So. Okay rate. And and just to get a little bit more clarity on that, could you? Cause it might address some of the questions that are gonna come up. Could you address specifically what in sort of order priority of what you're trying to accomplish in this piece, as it relates to the feedback you've already received. To address some of the things that may be in the the staff's concerns or community concerns. Yeah, I think that very much the Staff Memo. So we submitted in October, and I believe we received staff comments at the in November in November, so you know, it gave us a little time to think about what what they were saying, and then how we solve. There's a lot of great difference here. And so we were really struggling with how to create these stories and the height and then create this ground floor. And one of the things we realized is we really need to figure out how to get the building out of.

[107:17] So it's at the ground level and not submerged. And so then, that started to let us play with the heights. And how do we have? Maybe a taller height. Bova is on the corner, and so this is just really showing how we're creating a little bit more porosity, a better ground floor experience and a connection to the public realm. And so these were the ideas we have having more entrances and porosity. But really it was. It was that grade that seemed to really not be creating the best It's great! You know, streetscape experience, and that's something we want to achieve as well. Got it, and if I you probably don't have a A a diagram related to this, but I know that there was some staff concerns around the the

[108:02] the the courtyard space as well, and how that interface, especially with the grade. Do you have similar thoughts that are happening at that courtyard space. Then. Yes, we just didn't bring those to share with you. But I think we've been really working on how to make those a more usable open space that has, you know, good shade and light. I think one of the key moves. We said we did. That's in the proposal you see, in front of you is dropping that building on the south to 3 stories, to allow more sunlight and air to enter into those open spaces. But we have more to do in terms of, I think, the width and and depth and and access into them. And so we just didn't bring more ideas on that. But that's definitely something we're we're working on as a design team. Okay, I don't wanna hog the time. Who else has questions they'd like to ask account. Go ahead, Mark, and then Kirk. Okay, thank you for that presentation you definitely answered some of my questions in the presentation.

[109:05] I I'm curious about the 5 bedroom units versus 4 bedroom units is is 5, an upper limit of what's really practical to to manage as far as roommates and and that sort of thing. And anyway, we've seen a lot of college oriented student oriented projects lately, and I don't remember seeing 5 bedroom units. Yeah. So the the 5 bedroom unit. What that does is introduce a higher level of affordability. In into the project. And so we found that model to be very successful in a lot of other markets as have as kind of the the whole industry. And so there is a growing trend, especially with the concerns of affordability, and then access being very campus adjacent for that to be a very hot commodity, and and very, you know, access kind of accessible to a lot of

[110:04] potential students. Thank you. Am I correct in assuming that all your parking is unbundled and paid. That that's correct. And could you just briefly elaborate on both what your plans are for automobile charging and bike, charging. So I know. We got some feedback specifically on the bike charging for you know the goals of the city to hit a certain amount of bike spaces with an outlet, so that those spaces can be charged. So we'll certainly be taking that into account. I know this is a common trend across a lot of our projects, and the increase of E-scooters and e-bikes are growing. And so what we do is is try to get access to outlets for a certain amount of

[111:03] of bike spots. In terms of ev charging spaces. I believe that's code driven and so we'll be, you know we'll be. I don't know if we have an exact tabulation to pull up right here, but we'll certainly be following the code requirements. Did you consider north roof decks in addition to your south roof deck? I think we looked at multiple options for roof decks, and I think you know, Matt can probably talk about the massing. We did. And we looked at kind of those kind of shadow impacts and seeing how we get collections of snow on those north decks and just looked at, really, where can we optimize the opportunity for an occupied roof space which we're planning for that southwest corner. And, you know, situating the mass to that north side allows for additional light to go in

[112:01] air, to penetrate essentially into those those deeper spaces, so situating the mass for connectivity of cores, as well as kind of the use and accessibility of views on the south side made kind of the most sense for this project. I think, on on top of them. On top of that was the views towards the flat irons from the elevated amenity spaces. I think that aligns with the with the Vvcp. Okay, I'll have comments later. But thank you. And that's the end of my question. Great we'll do, Kurt! And then Laura, and then Claudia. Thanks. I wanted to follow up on this issue of the grade, and I agree with the staff concerns about the grade. Certainly on the south west corner there, where you're showing in this image, and also to some extent, it looks like on the northwest corner. There's a stair up to their stairs up into the cafe

[113:00] if I'm reading it right. And so both of those seem like they're a bit of a concern. And it seems like part of that is driven by making the entire West Side a single building. And obviously you've got really great designers, and I'm sure you've thought about all kinds of options, but I'm just wondering what you what you played with in terms of more breaking up the building along contour lines rather than sort of across contour lines as you're doing, and what obstacles you ran into, and and why that didn't work. Yeah. So we're we're really focused on highlighting the corners. Those have become the priorities. And where we're identifying the entry points for those being at that south component where we've identified where we can raise that part of the building, and then on the north side again, kind of fronting the the main

[114:02] street, where we do have less of a grade difference between what's happening from the south as it slopes down to the north, and so kind of defining those entry points, 4 points of transition, and then really serving the more activated components. Where we anticipate, there be a primary entry. Right. And I I'm sympathetic to all of that. Really, my question is your courtyard. You're breaking up the building with a North south courtyard, and if, instead, you broke up the building with sort of an L shaped courtyard that kept that sort of followed the contours which go more or less from southeast to northwest if that would help with addressing some of the the grade problems. We also, as I'm sure you know, we've got a set review criterion that talks about avoiding over using tiered floor plates and avoiding over engineered tabling of land. So if you.

[115:14] if you had a courtyard or an open space, and broke up the building sort of in an L that that went from college over to the 28th Street Frontage road. Would that allow you to be at grade at both of those corners. and address some of those problems. We'll have to look at that a little bit further. Just how this contours are. I know this is the high corner, and it slips diagonally across the site back to also trying to break up these 2 buildings. Right? Right? Yes. Oh, I think I'm gonna go. Yeah, essentially, I mean? Essentially, this is the high corner and the low side over here. Right? So then, wanting to break up these, this long expanse,

[116:08] in alignment with the the overall building length requirements. Was a concern. Right, and that all makes sense. Really, my question is, did you consider, instead of having the courtyard go more or less straight north, south sort of turn the corner if you're if you're on, if you're following it from yeah, if you're following it from a college there, heading north. If you then turn the corner to the frontage road. So you have one building at the southwest corner, and then the rest of the building wraps around that that would follow the contour lines a little more. I'm I'm just. I'm trying to understand whether that would be a design option at all. I so I guess I'll just leave it as that. I'll I'll make a comment to that effect

[117:10] later on. But I I think you answered so. Thank you. We appreciate the comment. It's something that we'll look into further. Oh, grandmother! Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. I have a few questions about the design. Could you further describe what you mean by a beacon at the northwest corner. Yes, let me jump back to what we're considering. You know, the the overall elevated element that we're providing from an architectural gesture, perspective. We're we're seeing this as as an as a an element that we will then apply materials to, and further articulation beyond what you're seeing here. But we definitely wanted to look at this as an identifying feature on the building. And then it's ultimately supported by more of those kind of transparent activities that are happening below?

[118:09] Does that answer your question? So so the beacon element is the balconies. Sorry we're looking at the entire. We're looking at the entire box essentially as kind of a an element that is really standing standing out on the on the overall facade. So you're gonna emphasize that in some way, through your materiality and design choices. Correct. Okay, thank you. Can you further describe the rooftop amenity and outdoor deck that's on your southwest corner? I think. What can you tell us about that rooftop amenity and outdoor deck. More. Yeah, so we have. Let's been back. Yeah. So we have an enclosed amenity component that will then spill out into an occupied deck here. So the intent is to have both an enclosed area with many functions that allow for gathering, and maybe you want to speak to more of what you're anticipating for some of those interior programmatic zones.

[119:17] Sure. Yeah. So usually typically on all of our developments, we'll try to have an an elevated amenity space with indoor and outdoor space. With multiple functions. We find that a lot of these spaces become study spaces. And so we saw. If it's a lot of potential here, as you know, indoor and outdoor lounge and you know, weather permitting, you're able to bring your laptop here, and have a great view of the mountains, and be able to study. Okay? And is that just the southwest corner, or does the deck run on that eastern on the east building as well. So we're looking at a portion of that east building having an amenity. However, we do need to reserve some space for rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment for for the building. So primarily the amenities are, are in this conceptual state in the West building, within a smaller program of that rooftop amenity on the east building

[120:19] pulled all the way to the south southwest corner, also just to orient them towards views. The southwest corner of the east building. Okay, thank you. The courtyard. What can you tell us about the layout and the amenities of that courtyard area? And is any portion of that courtyard going to be gated or access controlled. So in its current design, that courtyard is a private amenity towards to the tenants. we're contemplating a pool or spa programming with again lounge seating outdoor flex study space and potential game day type of environment viewing area more more of a social gathering space most of the time for our tenants. And so it is currently an amenity, an outdoor amenity for for the building tenants.

[121:15] Okay. So when you say a private amend, it would be access controlled, gated. It would be. Or nothing. It. Yeah. And it does need to be, for because of the pool function, it's required to be enclosed. Okay, so there would be no pedestrian permeability through there. Not in its current state. No. Okay, thank you. Can you tell me about? I just have a couple more questions. If that's okay with folks. The center courtyard in the East building. Does that connect at all to the the rest of the outside like? Can you get out of that courtyard without going through the rest of the building. Not currently no, it's it's essentially intended for to bring in the the light and connection to the outdoors for those units that do face that that light? Well, essentially.

[122:06] Okay. And I'm gonna confess my ignorance here. I'm sure you folks know more about this than I do. And staff. But does that meet our code like. I would think that if one of the purposes of having a window in a residential space is for fire escape. But if you just go to a courtyard that goes nowhere. That's not very useful for fire escape. So I'm sure Matt can be can jump in here. We'll we'll certainly be designing towards fire. Code. I I none of the egress paths. Have window escapes. For for these buildings. And so but you know, if you're considering egress for the courtyard, there are, in this design 2 means of egress. Yeah, that would that would It satisfies all the required codes. Yes. Okay, thank you. And last question, and I apologize. I don't think I caught everything that Danica was saying on the slide about parking and working with parents and helping students, maybe find another place to park their car.

[123:05] Have you guys considered having anything in your Tdm plan about having lease requirements. We've had some other projects where the proponent has put into the lease that the student either will have a parking space, a paid parking space for their car on site, or they will demonstrate that they have a parking space paid for somewhere else, or they will not bring a car, and that that is a pledge that they sign with their parents. and I don't know if that is something that you folks are familiar with, or have tried in your other properties, or have considered for this property. Yeah, I mean, I think that would be expected. That's that is what we're seeing with these student housing projects, especially with these deep parking reductions, and I think the millennium project would serve as an example of that where they have to. Their lease states that they can't have a car if they haven't purchased a parking pass, and then the the the monitoring of that is through the management program. But I I'll direct the question of, have you dealt with this before?

[124:03] Andre? Yeah. So I mean, we'll work with with tenants to reduce the amount of single v vehicles brought to the site. It's we've had various kind of strategies in in different places. And so I think we've worked with our traffic engineer with Danica, with you all to incorporate those those lessons learned those best practices that that you guys see here in in boulder and incorporate that into our Tdm. and so at at this point we have. You know, we have these strategies that we've incorporated in the past. And we're happy to to work with you all and and understand how to address these better into our Tdm moving and and operations moving forward. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Great Claudia and Mason. Thank you. I wanna here a little bit more about that small courtyard on in the eastern building that Laura asked about. What is the approximate size of that space. And how does that relate to the height of the building surrounding it?

[125:16] Yeah, I appendix. there's a dimension. Yeah. But the the way you designed it was with regard to the height and the the courtyard as required is is a courtyard for the the property, and we're envisioning. You know this space to be the a light. Well, essentially for access to the views and and overall light for the the building. Yeah, I I understand the programming and the purpose. I'm just trying to get a sense of how large it actually is.

[126:04] The the width. The width was approximately the the height of the the south portion, the south portion. So yes, it's I think it's approximately 30 feet. Thank you. And then I asked Staff, and they weren't quite able to confirm this. Am I reading the plans correctly that you're asking for a larger than required side yard setback on college, on the south side of the property. He was moving. That's not the intent, as we understand the required setback. Is one foot for for every 2 foot of vertical. I see. Okay. We are setting back as required. Okay, so you get to the 17 feet. Then I I saw some comparison to a 10 foot required. So. Yeah, I think it's a unique characteristic of Rh. 3. That requires the side yard setback to be one feet for every 2 feet of vertical height, minimum of 10 feet. So you're getting these weird

[127:03] dementia. Sure. Side. You're as much. I mean that said, since that is a somewhat larger setback than we're used to seeing in some of these zones. What are your plans for design or landscaping of that wider strip. There along college. We're including a number of street trees along college. And then also we are creating the The rain gardens as required for the water retention on site. Okay? So some of that area will also be the services for the building. So service access like trash, and so on. Correct trash transformers. Yes. At this location. Okay, a couple of other questions about transportation and access. We got some comments from community cycles that pointed out the kind of circuitous route it takes to get to the long term bike storage the way you're mapping it now are there ways to provide more direct access to long term bike parking, without having to do that whole path

[128:08] through the garage. So currently we what we have is a large bike room adjacent to the elevator in the garage. So there, there's extra parking spaces in other corners of the garage. But the idea is that our elevator is located adjacent to the door on the north side, so that you can ride the elevator down, grab your bike, ride it back to ground floor, and be right next to the multimodal path and kind of Zip, Z, you know. Get on the path in that in that way. So if there are, you know, if there are better practices, we're happy to to work through those and address them. but that was the intent with the initial layout, and we have some overflow options for additional pipe parking to get our ratios up. Located in other corners of the garage.

[129:00] Okay, okay, so let me just make sure. I understand that correctly. The intent would be that you would have some sort of a utility elevator that you could use to access that bike parking space. I'm not. I'm not sure if it would be a utility elevator. I think I'm not we. We haven't planned in in detail right now what we have are 2 2 elevators, one of those would be utility type of size, so to speak. service elevator, and then another kind of standard pedestrian sized elevator and so that the thought is The thought is both of those would run all, all floors. Okay? And then do you have any plans for specific ride, share and or micro mobility infrastructure, something like designated pickup and waiting areas? scooter parking other things that that would actually be physically reflected in your plans and not just in a Tdm. We've talked about it. I think we we're just not down to that level of detail. We've also had a lot of questions about that

[130:05] jog jog in the property line, and if you look at it, you know. would there be a space for Lime Grove there? Or you know we just haven't gotten to that point to talk to be cycle or lime, but we certainly know that if this seems like a great location for those amenities, we also haven't talked about a rideshare drop off. and we're just not to that level of detail yet. But I I think those are great ideas, and I I don't know if you asked about car share but I think I think you asked about ride, share, and like like Uber and Lyft, and where they people could have a place to wait for those services. We just haven't. I don't think we have that designated at this point, but we will be looking at it. All right. Those are my questions, for now. Great make some. Hmm. Yeah. So it seems like you put a lot of thought into the comments around. The garden level portions of the building. I'm curious if you have thought about the trade offs of, you know, elevating the building, and what those trade-offs look like.

[131:13] El- elevating by essentially reducing the height. Or is that what you're. No, I'm I'm asking. If you don't do the garden level. Is there some kind of service that the building currently has, whether it's number of units, or or whatever is there some kind of trade off and making that change in the building design? Ye? Yeah. I mean, if if so, raising essentially this commercial space starting, there would would reduce the amount of units above. We'd we'd be losing a floor of units in that section of the building. To to address the the comments into, you know, to ensure that it it meets, you know, a good public realm for for that commercial space. But yeah, there, there is a trade off in program.

[132:00] Appreciate that. I think I read that the bike stalls were all vertical. Did I read that correctly? I think that that was a comment that came through. And in the basement we've configured based on a space saving vertical configuration. We understand that that's not desired. And so that would be one of the comments that we're looking to address as we head into the next phase. Great appreciate that. You also made the comment of improving bus stops and the transit experience. I'm wondering if you could expand on that a little bit more. Well, there is a planned bus stop to the north. That's being accommodating. So we're we're essentially planning around. That is the way we're envisioning it and and seeing how that can really be an entry point to where we activate the cafe to the north and then provide just those points of access where we are identifying that southwest corner as an entry point for the commercial space. So, seeing how those can tie into those connection points for both pedestrian bicycle and

[133:06] bus traffic. And so with with the bus stop being right there on Colorado Avenue, we see a unique opportunity for accessibility for into our lobby, into the cafe. And so that's part of the reason why we have an entrance to the building on that on that side. So anybody using the transit system there and that bus stop are able to come and access the the coffee shop and in the lobby very easily, without without any ramps. Great, and I you touched on briefly just now, but I was wondering if there are any more details around. How you're improving the connection to the nearby pedestrian underpass from that southwest corner. So that's something we'll definitely need to to work on right now working with Bovis. They their preferred location was is where we're showing commercial on the plan right there. And so I think we'll we'll have to get into that with with more detailed plans and understand how to work around our our internal

[134:13] programming to create some kind of entrance to the building so that it's not only at the the north side, but we'll have one, you know, at the South End as well, and have have interface there. I think overall, too. I mean, it just does a dramatic improvement to the current curb cut that exists all along the frontage road here. We're creating a pedestrian sidewalk, and it will, you know, be a much more safe condition for anybody walking to that underpass. Great. Thank you. Final question, because someone brought up earlier. It's fresh, my mind, and I don't think it got asked. So I wanna make sure it's out there. Is there any consideration to the mature trees in this design? So currently currently,

[135:01] we, we've done a survey of the trees, and we're looking into opportunities. of preservation. But it'll have to work. We'll have to kind of negotiate that with the layout of the buildings that that we're proposing and the best use of the site. Along with understanding the the current inventory of trees on site versus what we're proposing here, which are would would would exceed what's what's existing on site with the amount of street trees on all the on all the right of way frontages. Great. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hurt. Great thanks to my colleagues for all the great questions I just have one additional one. Have you done any modeling of where most of the students. The student residents will be going. Will they be going? I mean, I assume most of them will be going to main campus. Do you? Have you done any modeling about? How many will be going to East Campus or done any research on that? I'm asking just in the context that there's not really an entrance at the northeast corner, and so I'm just trying to think about the direction of traffic flow.

[136:14] May I? I think maybe I can trust that if you don't mind. I I think maybe it wasn't terribly clear. But there is an intended. This is a a view here from that north side. And so there's, you know, really an act, an active entry intended for that north side as well. So we're we're seeing this as kind of a both. you're talking about. Sorry. Are you talking about this? The north, the corner here. At the northeast corner of the entire building. Yes, so there's not something currently planned for that. But instead, just a little bit further down, the block is essentially how we're viewing it. Yeah, okay. But you don't have any particular data or modeling on where the most people will be going. Not currently, but we're seeing it as providing kind of multi multi options. From either corner.

[137:05] Okay. I I think, as part of the the site use, we'll be doing a lot of robust traffic study and and submitting that material. I think part of all of our developments is a matter of security and and securing kind of perimeters for all attendants. And so a lot of that is creating these main entries in highly visible areas. Just for the sake of everybody's safety. I mean, if if you're kind of a daily. If you're exiting out out to the east, there are egress doors, and and fire fire doors to quickly kind of navigate over to the east. but from a from a safety point of view, we try to kind of control entrance points in a way where where there it just increases the safety on site. Sure. Okay, thank you. Charles

[138:02] Hi, good evening. Planning board. Charles Farrow, planning and development services. Just wanted to loop back to the neighborhood parking program question that was asked by a couple of the board members, so the site would be eligible for consideration of a neighborhood parking program. They're now known as residential access management programs or ramps. But there's a petition process that would be involved. There are some metrics that need to be satisfied. There's a whole study that goes along with the petition, but it would be eligible, based on the zoning and the location in the city, so just wanted to follow up on that. Can I ask a quick follow up question on that, Charles. when you say there's a a petition process for that? Who makes that petition, particularly in a rental, dominated neighborhood. So it would need to be a petition signed by 25 adult residents from a minimum of 5 households, or 100 or 100% consent, whichever is the lesser number.

[139:02] Okay. Thank you. You bet for that. Any final clarifying questions before we go to public comment, seeing none. I'd like to pass it back over to Vivian. take us through public comment. Thank you. Thanks to the applicant. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone from the public who is joining us virtually. If you would like to speak for the public hearing, please raise your virtual hand, and I will just call on community members as the hands appear. I asked that everybody introduce themselves as well. 1st and last name. We'll start with destiny. Please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[140:03] All right. Thank you for circling it back around to the public and for everyone on this meeting, including the public in communications and hearing from the community tonight. So again, my name is Destiny Aslodic. I am a resident across the street at Landmark lofts, and am a long term homeowner. I don't want to repeat some of the points that were already addressed tonight, but I do want to say that I agree with some of the public comments from Roger and David about concern for street parking, and it was refreshing to hear Laura, as well as Charles's ideas for lease requirements as well as the ramp program. So I would be on board with those ideas. My biggest concern is of the open or the usable open space plan.

[141:11] Existing conditions identify the area on of open space, with mature trees on the southeast. So there are owls and falcons that perch on those pines. So if there is potential of keeping those trees, as well as looking at the quality of the vegetation for local and migrating species. But those are my main points. The on street parking as well as the usable open space quality. Great. Thank you for being here and sharing your comments. Next we have Lynn Siegel, and I ask that if others would like to speak. Go ahead and raise your hand so that we have an idea of how many people will be participating in the public hearing. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have 3 min.

[142:11] Lynn Siegel. I guess nobody else cares about what happens to Boulder, who owns Boulder Cu owns Boulder tonight. I was at the Dick jesser Ibs opening, and I met a friend that lives by St. Aden's. They're putting in a 6 story thing. I thought it was this, but I guess it's across the street. He's lived in his house for 40 years. and people have come forward trying to, you know, offer him 50 50% above the assessed value. I don't know if this is a Cu property, but Cu has no height exemption. So it's 6 stories. This looks to me like 5

[143:01] mark. I don't know if this has come before you yet at planning board, but 7, 7. Broadway has 5 bedroom apartments. This is the new model for student housing rent by the bedroom like the millennium, 930 bedrooms at the millennium. We've got hotel row. We've got uber rich students in this town, and they're driving the housing costs in all of boulder up. It's not the, you know. It's not the friendly, vibrant at neighborhoods situation. It's the hostile. dead neighborhoods situation that's coming to boulder this density program, these triplexes, quadplexes adus. And I want an adu in my place, and I don't live anywhere nearby here, and I never hear anyone at any of these meetings complaining about any of this. They complain plenty once this is built out

[144:10] shame on the rest of the community for not standing up against these things. No Hyde amendments. no parking reductions. This is not a community benefit. This is a community detriment to the detriment of the housing in boulder to the 6 million dollars we're paying for homeless people because we are adding all of this high-end housing. It's just like the Condos downtown this project is, and the one across the street and the millennium, and 777 Broadway. Everywhere you turn. It's student housing, you know it's going to be the downfall of this town. The the services are not affordable. I mean that, you know it's lost the carrying capacity.

[145:05] The population just rises, and it's all for light tech, low income housing, tech funds, you know, Federal bribes. You get more and more density, and I don't buy it. Thank you, Lynn, for being with us and sharing your comments. Next we have Steve. Steve. Appreciate. If you can introduce yourself with your full name. Please go ahead. Yeah, I'm Steve Shoemaker, and 2960 Pennsylvania Avenue. Owner of home on the the east Ridge sub on the north side of of Colorado. The value of the view corridor to the flatirons will be transferred from the Eastwood sub property owners to the 1,100 to 1,128.th They request that no further design considerations above 40 feet be considered.

[146:00] The North Facade match mass does not align with the appearance of the residential properties in North, revise the design by breaking up the appearance of the north facade. No east Ridge parking sub parking permits shall be allowed for occupants of 1,128.th Not sure. It's possible, anyway, the Board should deny the concept as designed. That's everything. Thank you. Alright. We don't have anybody else with their hand raised at the moment. Give folks few seconds in case you're thinking about it. I'll wait for 10 seconds or so before passing it back over to the chair. Okay, back over to you. Chair. Thank you, Vivian, and thanks to the members of the public that came out to speak this evening, quick! Quick question to the board.

[147:02] we're about an hour and a half into this, I imagine. there will be some substantive comments from from everyone. So we're going to be in it for another half an hour. The question at minimum question is for you guys, do you want to take a quick? Might be appropriate to take a break and then be able to get through the comments, and the next item on the agenda to close out or we can take a break after a comments. Anyone have a opinion on that? I prefer right now. Alright. Well, there, there you go! Mark has spoken I'm with you. Let's take a a 7 min, 8 min break. We'll be back at 8 35.

[156:00] Alright. Looks like we've got everybody but Claudia. I'll give her one more minute, and then we'll get started. and we wait for Claudia Shannon or someone from Staff? Is it possible to put up the They're they're are there. They're not really key issues, right? This is just a there's Hilary issues to organize our thoughts. Maybe Shannon's not back yet.

[157:01] Is there a key issue slide for us to organize our thoughts or or are we just going through in order to provide feedback to the concept review? It's showing as it's. Nope. Yeah, yeah, I see it. No? Oh, okay, I see it. Sorry. I was looking at a different screen. I've got it perfect. Alright. Great Why don't we? Just go around the table. And why does everyone just kinda hit all 5 of these or anything else that might be on your mind and try to get through it. Mason, go for it. Hey? Okay, go 1st off and yeah. So I am not gonna go in order. I apologize. Hope doesn't make anyone's life harder. But kind of running down the 1st one, I do believe. So. Contact infill mixed use mixed unit types. There's a number of other reasons.

[158:00] I'll speak more to number 2 here in a minute number 3. I do think the parking reduction is appropriate. Given the location. But we'll be reviewing in detail the Tdm plan and then for I will talk about that soon as well. So so part of what I really love about Boulder is the fact that it's a college town. Student population is a 3rd of Far city. And they're obviously a very important part of our community. So I think this project is important. Cu boulder provides on campus housing for fewer than 25% of the student body. Now I know Cu is building more student housing. But given the current demand and growth of the school, I think what they're building is being outstripped which puts a lot of pressure on our traditional single family neighborhoods like the hill. So I think this is a much needed project in the right place. With the right mind towards the students, needs

[159:13] so a few ideas. I'm sure others will comment on this in great detail. But we will need a very strong Tdm plan. What I'm particularly interested in seeing is permanent alternative transportation infrastructure, like bike maintenance stations, etc. And I would like to see you approach city for the vacation of that small public lot to the north, especially if this can improve transportation connections. I am excited to see the full design of the North Side hopefully, with more design interest given the permanent nature of of that street, there's a a lot of traffic on that street. And, as Kurt pointed out, an improved access point to the northeast, I think, would go a long way. I will say that I agree with with most of Staff's comments. They do a very good job. We're lucky to have them.

[160:11] But I'm not personally as concerned about the garden little level features in this project as was noted in the packet. I do think the southeast corner is going to be a busy pedestrian area. So I do want there to be careful consideration related to those comments. But I do want to see A careful weighing of the trade-offs associated with making those changes. Those are my comments, and I look forward to seeing you all in a in a future presentation. Can I follow up quickly with Mason Mason? You referenced the southeast corner. Were you by chance in the southwest corner. Southwest. Thank you. Yes, that was my. Alright thanks, Mason. Claudia.

[161:01] Thank you all. I am going to try to run through these questions in order for once a real experiment for me. But to start with in terms of compatibility with the Bbcp. I think that we are definitely in the right place here, according to the Bbcp land, use designation and also our zoning of our H. 3 here in the city. This was created for high density student housing near the Cu campus, and I think is doing a lot of work towards our goals for compact and mixed use development in that regard. I also really appreciate the inclusion of commercial spaces in this preliminary plan. If you spend any time in this area around Colorado between 28th and 30, th it's really striking just how much housing we have in that small area, and how little commercial activity there is. And so I think, making sure that we keep a few spaces like you're proposing in this development in the mix can hopefully help this area to evolve into a more complete neighborhood and more than just a place that folks go to sleep and study at night.

[162:13] Some comments on site plan and architecture, mostly on the Site plan. I asked city Staff specifically about those potential connections moving north to south between Colorado and college. I understand that's not a requirement for your site. and that you have some security considerations for residents with creating a public access through or around the site. I think it is still important to the extent that you can to create opportunities for residents of this site to access Colorado Avenue, not just to be exiting on college. And that's because of those bike connections there, and also the transit so as you refine the design, making sure that those internal circulation patterns also give folks access to Colorado.

[163:04] I am intrigued by the deeper side yard setback that you were apparently required to have there on college. I think that provides some relief from the massing of buildings on that street, and also a real opportunity to improve the streetscape there. I did mention those evergreen trees that we can see on all of the photographs of the area. They're really evident. If you go for a walk down that particular block. and I will note that we have a Site Review criteria that encourages you all to preserve trees like that, if there is an opportunity to do so, especially given that you have a deeper setback there. I think that would be appreciated, but doing something with that setback space to really make that street feel a bit greener than it might otherwise given the size of buildings in the area. I think the zoning in this area. The Rh. 3. My colleague Laura pointed this out in an email earlier that you know you're required to have some additional setbacks up on your 3, rd 4, th and 5th floors. Right? You can't cover the entire area of your building

[164:14] on those upper floors. And so there's an interesting question, then, of where you where you step the building back right, and I think it's totally correct and understandable that you've done that mostly on the south side. Right? You've put the mass of the buildings up against 28.th You've put it up against Colorado, and put those setbacks on the south side. If there is some way to further tweak those, or, as you start to think about the final design to tweak those in a way that can do a couple of different things for the project. 1st of all you could do it in a way that reduces some of the shading that this project is going to throw on its neighbors to the east. Okay, so we're already looking at a bit of a slope as you go downward to the east, transitioning to 2 story buildings that are suddenly going to have something kind of in their solar lines. So using some of that setback to

[165:11] create a transition to those buildings and or using some of that setback to open up your own interior courtyards a bit more. Get more light into those somewhat narrow spaces. I'm not as bothered. Excuse me. I'm not as bothered as some of my colleagues. by the grading and garden level spaces. I think I'm I'm in a similar place with Mason. On these I I recognize that the kinds of elevations that you're creating at corners, particularly that southwest corner. can actually make for some interesting and funky spaces. And I know you know tenants are not forever. But when I think about a business like Bova's having a little bit of a subterranean space like that is not necessarily a bad thing for the right tenant.

[166:06] So I think as long as you can manage access according to Ada standards and be creating a viable space for your commercial tenants. That's not a particular aspect of the design that I'm going to get hung up on parking reduction. I think this is a totally appropriate place to have a large parking reduction given its proximity to Cu and the focus on the student population. And that, said, I think, as other members of the board will probably reinforce that a parking reduction has to go hand in hand with a really thoughtful and robust transportation demand management plan. Okay? So some things that I would like to see at site review in that regard would be accessible long term bike storage. And I know Danica's already talking about. You haven't heard. Some of that feedback accessible to me means horizontal storage 1st of all, but it also means ease of entry and exit right? So that is a very natural thing for folks to do to come and go on their bikes without creating any additional barriers to access.

[167:08] I would also be looking for physical infrastructure that encourages transit, use, shared rides and micro mobility. Okay, so things you can actually build into the design to promote those particular forms of transportation and then to the extent that you can strategies to prevent residents from parking in that public right of way. If that's not a Ramps program, as Charles described, then leasing strategies and the like that others have mentioned. and I do not then have any further comments on the on the height, and we'll let my other colleagues share their thoughts. Thank you. Hey? Looks like Mark wants to go next. Thanks. So I wanna I don't want the applicant to feel like I'm taking something out on them. But I just want to be clear. We we've had as a board. We've had good luck

[168:06] recently, I think, with concept reviews where we've provided real, really good feedback that ultimately has resulted in better projects, and I think we get there. by being clear. So I may seem didactic or obvious, some of my comments. But I'd rather have that than come to site, Review and play a game of well, we didn't really know, or whatever, or try to do conditions late at night. In regard to the 1st item. I do think that the project fulfills the items as noted in the Bbcp. And the goals. So I don't have a problem there. I don't have a problem with the proposed building type. and I also concur with Claudia and Mason in regard to I don't have necessarily, if it's done right, have a concern about those garden level, partially submerged spaces. Those can be again, if landscape properly. So those can be great. My 3 areas are going to focus on, of course, Tdm.

[169:21] open space and and the general building design. So in regard to Tdm. At the risk of being repetitious. So our Tdm requirements are really come down to in the code. One sentence, which is a transportation demand management plan will be complied with. including methods that result in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes. So that's 1 sentence that is, provides flexibility to you as the developer and subjectivity, in order to us

[170:05] as a planning board in the city. As to whether or not you fulfill those goals, and so this board can't make demands. But we can certainly make suggestions about how to fulfill that subjective requirement. And I'll note that your Tdm statement, which I again, I understand this is concept review. This is not this is not Site Review, but your Tdm statement on page 82 really focuses on what the city is doing rather than and and this and the surrounding areas, and so forth, rather than on what you're doing and come site review. This flexibility that our code affords. I would expect to see a Tdm plan that incorporates what Claudia had suggested. Where you have

[171:03] things like horizontal bike storage is truly accessible. And the and the whether it's pedestrian or bike facilities that they are really part. They're part of the infrastructure. They're part of the design that that comes back. And and we say, Gee, that's a stellar Tdm plan, and they have really. They've really stepped up and accomplished. What what our simple one sentence code sets out to to do so things like shared. shared micro mobility, shared car mobility, share car rentals, all those things I would expect to be incorporated. And again, it's not a requirement, but the requirement is to, you know, for excellence in a Tdm program.

[172:04] And and when it comes to programmatic elements, and I know this is a student project. Students already have Rtd Eco. Passes. But when you have programmatic elements, the other thing that the Tdm plan should demonstrate is a long term commitment to those programmatic elements and improvements in those programmatic elements over time rather than we're doing Eco passes for 3 years, because we think that's what the city wants. And and that's it that you understand. I'm saying that you need to have a commitment to your programmatic elements in addition to your infrastructure elements. And I'll make a final note on Tdm. The the nearby residents have have summed up one of my frustrations, and that is that we tell developers charge for parking, employ some principals, and yet the city gives it away for free

[173:03] yards away. And so my comment is partly to our city. I know we're undergoing a holistic review of these things, but until until we start charging for parking, we will constantly have this tension between what we tell developers to do and what we actually do as a city. Okay? That was a lot. My next 2 things are going to be much shorter open space. I support Staff's comments and community cycles, comments. It seems like the and the amount of functional open space for the number of residents here. is is simply inadequate. Now it it may fulfill the letter of the code, but I am suggesting that this density and number of residents, the type of residence

[174:04] really will be looking at amenity spaces and and so far it doesn't seem quite adequate enough to me so, and I and I think about the the roof decks, and I asked my question earlier about north, facing roof decks so south, facing roof decks sometimes of the year can be great the rest of the year. Summer and stuff without really proper shading and design, so that they're usable are just like blazing hot, untenable spaces. and just like north roof decks and the dead of winter can be, can be problematic. I would suggest that due to building massing, and that you should consider having rough decks north and South, accommodating functional open space different times of year, and that you create shading and awnings, using solar awnings, and but that that would step back the top levels of both sides of the building.

[175:10] I also, in terms of stepping back both sides of both the North and South elevations. I also find that the North. at least in your in in the in the packet, and I realize you've been working on this right up until this meeting. But the the massing and the design of the buildings, for on the north and west side are particularly boxy and and blank. And again, I'm I know I'm looking at a white. you know, conceptual box. But when I compare that to the south elevation, I think that that looks more more interesting and more appropriate. finally, yeah, that that's really it is you may have to to achieve the open space

[176:05] Goals and the amenity goals and possibly to achieve some of your Tdm goals. You might have to cut a few units, but those are. Those are my my thoughts. Great kurt. Great. Thank you. I will take these in order. 1st of all, I think that Staff and my colleagues did a good job of thumbing up. how this is compatible with the goals and objectives of the Bbcp. This obviously is an absolutely ideal place for dense student housing. It's right across the street from Cu. There really couldn't be a more appropriate place. I also appreciate the inclusion of the cafe and the commercial space I was there visiting the site yesterday, and I was amazed at how many people were going in and out of Bova's

[177:03] sort of lunchtime. So you know, people were getting their heroes and stuff like that. But that, obviously, is a very valuable space. It's very much appreciated space in that sort of commercial desert, as you described it. So I think, in terms of the land use and the general mix of uses and the overall the whole big picture design of the of the site. I think it's appropriate. I have a few comments regarding site plan and architecture. let's see. Well, I mentioned, or sort of in my questions, I suggested the possibility of breaking up the billing in a different way, to more follow the contouring of the of the natural grade in order to avoid having the the. The entrances on the northwest and southwest corners be different from grade. I am. I realize that some of my colleagues are not bothered by that. I do think that that's inappropriate, and I think that that's

[178:14] not a very useful thing when the Board is disagreeing on on concept plan, and I'm sure it's difficult for applicants to know what to do with it. But, I think that from the standpoint of of just pedestrian accessibility from the standpoint of sort of building friendliness. It really is extremely beneficial to be able to walk into a especially commercial space right at grade without going up and down, up or down steps and obviously it makes it more particularly more convenient for Ada accessibility, so that someone in a wheelchair doesn't have to go around on a ramp and so on. So whether that's possible I don't know. But it was it. It just occurred to me that breaking up the building in a different way could potentially alleviate that problem.

[179:09] I also was concerned with the I think there are 4 different bridges, 4 bridges at 4 different levels connecting the 2 buildings. It's interesting. We ran into this same sort of issue last week on a different project where they were. They were connecting different buildings and really connecting them at all levels. And it ended up being it. It sort of felt like one building. And I, even though there's a little more transparency here with the bridges, I still feel that it probably is not necessary to be connecting at every level. I think it could be, connect. The the 2 could be connected at ground floor and the 3rd Level, for example, or the 4th Level, and still provide perfectly good accessibility between the 2 buildings, and really give much more of a feeling that these are 2 separate buildings, as opposed to the feeling as it appears from viewing it from the north or south side like this is one building with a sort of a transparent element.

[180:18] So just like you to consider that regarding the setbacks, I realize that one foot of setback for 2 feet of height is the code, and I heard Claudia very much appreciating that I'm gonna take a different perspective, because I feel that those long, basically long, narrow setbacks end up not being very productive space. They're not really usable open space. They provide some separation from the sidewalk, for example. But I personally, and I may be alone in this. I personally would entertain the possibility of

[181:06] a reduced setback with the space gained being consolidated. Better someplace, perhaps, at the southeast southeast corner, in the area that already is sort of a green space in order to make a more usable open space, because I feel like the setback that linear setback, 17 and a half feet of setback is not really going to be very usable space. It kind of opens it up. But it it's not. It's not a place where somebody's gonna sit in on the grass and study, or something like that. It seems to be So I think those are my only comments on site plan and architecture. I think my colleagues have done a great job of summing up number 3. The issue of the parking reduction. I think this parking reduction is absolutely appropriate. If it's combined with really good Ddm. Plan. Claudia talked very eloquently about the need for highly accessible

[182:14] bike parking, and I agree with that again. I was there yesterday on a day. That was kind of snowy, and it wasn't the greatest biking day, and there were bikes all over. It was amazing. And I can't imagine what it's like on, you know, a really nice day. And so obviously, people are gonna be using bikes a lot here, we want them to be using bikes as their primary mode of travel ideally. And so that's gonna happen best. If it's really easy to use a bike much easier ideally to use a bike than to use your car. And I think that the building height of 55 feet is appropriate. Again, given this location on the corner of 2 really pretty giant streets, I mean 28th Street is truly a giant street. Colorado is a very wide street, and it's right across from Cu. So I think 55 feet is completely appropriate.

[183:16] and I think I think that's oh, oh, sorry! Nope, going back to number 3. I missed 1 point. I would. I know that the engineers who do the traffic studies are used to thinking about cars in this place with the 65% parking reduction, and really a mode split that is going to be primarily pedestrian and bike. I would urge you to request your traffic study to focus on pedestrian and bicycle travel. So what are where are people going to be going on foot? And by bike, how many are going to be going there? And so on

[184:02] so, a different different focus than we typically get with our traffic studies. Okay, now, I think I'm really done. Thank you. Great Laura. Thank you. I'll try to be brief and per se. I really appreciate my colleagues comments. I think they're all well considered, even though they may be diverse. So, and I know the applicant will not be able to satisfy every comment from every board member, but appreciate you, taking them all into consideration. So I just want to start out and say, I'm really, really glad to hear that the applicant team is working with Bova to bring them back after project completion. You know I also visited the site, and Bova is exactly the kind of Bodega or market and grill that we would want in this location, and it seems to be a thriving business. So thank you so much for working to to try to bring them back. So I do think that the proposed concept plan is generally compatible with the BBC piece I want to elaborate on that. I think my colleagues and staff talked about that in detail. I do think it is a great location for reduced parking.

[185:07] In the 1st place, this isn't an easy site to drive to, anyway. There's a couple of places where you can't make a left turn into it, and the entry is blocked from those directions. So, and it is right by the university is right, by that expensive infrastructure that we have added, to create good bicycle and pedestrian connections and underpasses. So this is a great place to take advantage of that great walkability and bike score that you guys talked about, and just like my colleague said, we will be looking for a very robust Tdm. And I think that that has been talked about at length. So I won't repeat those things. I do think it is a perfect location for student housing, and that the height as requested is appropriate in this Rh. 3 zone that was created for exactly this purpose of providing that density so that students can have that walkable accessibility to the campus. So I'll just say, you know. in terms of feedback on the conceptual site plan and architecture. I think Shannon and the other staff need a good call out here that they did a great job of outlining some of those concerns, and I think the applicant would be well advised to pay attention to all of those staff comments that are summarized in the memo.

[186:16] as well as the really good comments from community cycles. You know, they're one of our as as the local folks here know. We really rely on them for their expertise in bicycle infrastructure and bicycle accessibility. So I would really pay attention to those community cycle comments. And, as my colleagues have said. and as you folks have said in your application. This is the site where walking and biking and micro mobility are going to be primary. And so we're going to be looking to see that reflected in your design that the ease and accessibility from the point of view of those non car users is really primary, and that they get precedence over car use. So be looking for that in the Memo, and with your Tdm. Or sorry in the Revised Site Review and in your Tdm. Especially.

[187:04] and I do want to emphasize that both the hard infrastructure as well as the programmatic elements, will be important here. I really do love, as Danica described the lease requirements that some of the other student housing developments are using. I'm glad to hear that you folks are are considering that that you know that there is something that is an enforceable clause in the lease that says that students will not bring a car unless they can prove to you that they have a parking space either with you or in some other garage that their parents have signed that So I don't love the gated courtyard and the lack of pedestrian access. But I do understand security concerns, especially with students. I would encourage you, though, to think about. Is there a way that you can preserve that gated access for your pool feature, for example, but also provide a pedestrian corridor somewhere through this very large massive structure that you're going to be building from the perspective of someone using the street corridor.

[188:03] And speaking of that courtyard, you know, I agree with some of my colleagues, comments that there may be ways to make that more functional. I am concerned about that Eastern light well, in the eastern building that it just doesn't seem to be very usable space. Maybe one thing to think about is, can you connect that Eastern courtyard to the main courtyard? And I understand that that would change your building design, and you would probably want to find other places for units. and that raising the street level up to, you know, raising those garden level amenities up to street level would also affect your unit, count. But I do note that you already have this requirement in the in the code that you can only have 70% of your 3rd floor area reflected in your upper floors. So maybe there's a way to to move some of the massing around so that you don't lose as many units, and I don't know if I'm thinking about that in the correct way. But if there's a way to move your massing around to meet some of these other needs, such as potentially connecting those 2 courtyards or raising that ground floor. And also, as Kurt suggested, I also would entertain

[189:10] a setback modification in order to create a more usable open space, and maybe that that connection there. I think those are all my comments on this particular project, and I just want to say for the future. You know I appreciate Mark's comment that we, as a board, have seen some of our comments be reflected between concept, review and Site Review. which is always very nice for our egos. But I do want to encourage all applicants. These applicants and the consultants who work with them don't hold back in your concept review because you're saving something for the Site Review to make us feel like we made a difference. I don't think that we need that much of an ego stroke like bring us your best in concept review, and then you'll have shorter comments, and I promise that we will appreciate it, and I will continue to encourage my fellow board members. We don't always have to change things if it comes to us in good shape. Right? So let's not always be pushing and pushing and pushing. Let's encourage the applicants to bring us something good, so that it's not like this theatrical. Okay, we. We made a difference

[190:13] if that makes sense to people. Okay, those are my comments. Thank you so much. Great think I'm the only one that hasn't gone. I'll make mine quick one. Bbcp, yeah, as just as my fellow colleague said, I agree with that. Does the board have feedback on conceptual site plan and architecture? I thought the last slide that you presented with some thoughts about what Staff had put in the memo is the direction that I would want to see this project go as well, and so I hope that. You keep working with Staff on those recommendations. I like Kurt, and and being a a developer myself, and and and paying attention to accessibility and equity. I think it's it's critical that the commercial space meet the ground level and not be submerged

[191:09] on that southwest corner. Feedback on proposed parking reduction. I don't have an issue with it given its location so long as you know it has a robust Tdm. Plan which you're not there yet, but I'm sure. You'll get there. Given all the other feedback feedback on the proposed building height of 55 feet. You know, similar to what Staff said in their memo in general, I I don't have an issue with 55 feet here, however. I would like to see the building be a bit more porous. The edges be addressed. And not such a monolithic block. Obviously, it's conceptual. And so you just got like a what appears to be a white rectangle that you're showing us. Hopefully, when it comes back from site Review. It's it's tweaked accordingly with materials, etc, but also to to what Claudia said about sort of those setbacks. Those 70% setbacks, you know, trying to

[192:19] make sure that that wherever possible the building is articulated in a way that makes the best use of views that are available in other places and reduces the mass of the building. Without necessarily having to reduce the far beyond sort of what you're doing to raise up some of those spaces from those submerged areas. Other key issues identified by the Board, you know in general, agree with what Laura said around. You know it would be great if you could figure out ways. To have to to have the site feel more porous on the ground level for pedestrians.

[193:06] and public access. I, too, understand the the the pool issue and the security issue of students. I think there might be some clever ways to design some things in but I just want to echo that particular feedback. you know. I'd love to see more green space in general. I think that light well feels a little tight to me, as it relates to. If I'm you know, looking up from the bottom of that. Is that going to feel like a comfortable space that I would want to spend time in? Or are we just you know, creating some natural light for those interior units. And so I think that potential you know, reorientation of the building massing the the site is not that big. So I don't know what opportunities you have. But I'm just trying to think of the experience of actually using that interior courtyard, and it feels really tight.

[194:09] From sort of what's been proposed. So another thing to pay attention to other than that I would just echo that that I think Staff's comments are are really are really good on this, and and that would be sort of the general direction that I would. I would feel comfortable as a board member as well as you progress towards site. Review. Those are my comments anyone have any additional things. and then if not I'll ask the the applicant, and staff if they have any clarifying questions from what they've heard or feel comfortable with the direction. I don't have any other questions. I appreciate everybody's comments and feedback once Matt and I and the rest of the team get back back to work. I'm sure we'll we'll reach back out to to Shannon and and some other folks, and make sure that we have everything clarified.

[195:06] we look. We look forward to moving forward with the project. And thank you for your time. Absolutely, really appreciate all the good feedback and insightful thought. Great and thanks again for the public for their comments as well. Hopefully. The applicant takes those into advisement as well. All right, we're going to move on to our second agenda item for the evening. Hold on one second and we will pick that up. Sorry. My computer's in a little bit of disarray from move. Give me one second here. right? Tonight's second item is an ordinance amending title, 10 structures. Brc. 1981, and adopting by reference the 2024 international codes regarding property maintenance building.

[196:13] electrical fire, mechanical fuel, gas and plumbing and setting forth related details. Hopefully, I got that all right, and I will go ahead and pass it over to our friend Rob, who is the chief building official, but that correct. Yeah, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Let me just try and share my screen here.

[197:10] Can everyone see my screen? Okay. We can. Cool. Great. Yeah. So good evening, everybody. I'm Rob Adrians. I'm the chief building official here for the city of Boulder. I've got with me here tonight. Jen Ross, who's our code compliance manager, and Dave Lowry? Who's the the fire marshal for the city? We bring forth to you tonight the ordinance, 8,684, which is the 2024 international building code adoption. Yeah. So the purpose of this is to provide a recommendation to approve, deny, or sorry, modify ordinance, 8,684. To council. Our schedule for this ordinance is to bring it forth to council for 1st reading on February 6th and second Reading on February 20, th and the targeted effective date or Go live date of this new code, if approved would be August first.st

[198:01] Our question for planning board tonight is, does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? So a little bit of background for you. What are the international codes? The International building codes are a body of building codes developed by the International Code Council. They're a nonprofit based in Alabama that develops building codes through a collaborative process involving experts from fields like construction, engineering, architecture, and industry stakeholders. Proposals for code changes are submitted to the public and renewed by technical committees which consider factors such as safety, sustainability, cost and feasibility after discussion, revision and extensive public comment, eligible voting members, including government officials and professionals approved the changes and the finalized codes are published reflecting the latest technologies, safety standards, and best practices while balancing sustainability and cost effectiveness in construction. The goal is always to ensure that buildings are safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible while being financially viable for stakeholders. So international Code Council develops a new series of codes every 3 years. But the city of Boulder adopts a new series of codes every 6 years. So the last time we updated our codes was in 2019, when we went from the 2,012 edition of the International Codes to the 2,018 edition.

[199:13] So the key objectives for staff as we went through this code update, were to adopt the 2024 codes with minimal local amendments to reduce code complexity to identify and reduce code barriers to racial and socioeconomic quality through the use of the racial equity instrument, and to try and reduce construction costs as much as possible by aligning boulders code with the international codes and the codes of our surrounding jurisdictions. And the most important reason we want to update our codes is to reduce future premium insurance premium increases, and to improve building safety for boulder residents by adopting the most up-to-date and current building codes. So in terms of community engagement. We 1st published a notification that we were planning on updating our codes in the Pnds Newsletter, back in December, and then on December 19th we had a virtual office hours that was open to the public. This time it was mostly attended by local architects and builders, and then, on January 8th of 2025, we had a second open office hours, was also open to the public, and was more broadly attended by local residents, homeowners, landlords, and builders

[200:13] in terms of feedback from the community. We heard some concern about proposed timeline and its impact on projects that are already in a land use process. And we did clarify that our policy traditionally and moving forward would be that if you're already in a land use process such as Site Review, we would allow you to submit under either code as long as you're making significant progress on that application, we wouldn't hold you to the new code. We heard some positive statements about the reduction of local amendments and the simplification of the ordinance. Previously we had a lot of local amendments, and most of those are no longer necessary because they've been a lot of the things that were pioneered by Boulder are now actually part of the international code. So we no longer need to have our own local local amendments for those items. We heard a lot of positive statements about the new lower basement and attic ceiling heights for existing buildings and international residential code. And I'll talk more about that when we get to the significant changes slides.

[201:03] And we we heard some concerns about the impacts of the new imaginary lot line provisions in the international residential code relating to adus. And once again I'll talk about that as we get to the changes slides. So these are the codes that are part of the update, the most important one being the 2024 international building card. This is the code that regulates all structures built in boulder apart from single family homes, duplexes, and townhomes, and those are regulated by the international residential code. In addition, we have the international fire card, the existing building card property maintenance card, the fuel gas card, the plumbing card, the mechanical card. And we're not adopting the 2023 national electric code that's already adopted. We do have some proposed changes to local amendments, and by adapting by we'll be adopting by reference the 2024 International Swimming Pool and Spa code, and the Icc. A 117.1. And that last code is the

[202:01] Ada accessibility guidelines. So there's 2 codes that are not part of this update. 1st of all, is the 2024 city bold energy conservation code. We just updated that code last year. So we don't need to update that one again until 2027, and then the 2024 international Wildland urban interface code. We will be bringing this code forward to planning board and to council. I believe in April of this year. but we we feel there is more significant public outreach needed because there are some pretty disproportionate and significant cost impacts for certain homeowners that might be impacted by this code adoption. So we're pushing that one off a couple months. all right, moving on to local amendments. So, as I described earlier, the codes are developed by the International Code Council and then jurisdictions, local jurisdictions have the ability to make amendments to those codes to suit their local conditions. Now, traditionally, Boulder had a lot of amendments, and, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of those are no longer necessary because they've been incorporated into the base code. These are the changes that have been made to our local amendments that we feel are necessary.

[203:02] So the 1st one I'll go into is previously we had an amendment that exempted replacement windows and siding from needing permits, but with the increasing risk of wildfires in our community and our strict energy code, we feel it is now necessary to permit those 2 items to ensure that they're in compliance with the Wildland urban interface code and energy code requirements. Particularly like I said, siding in the Wildland urban interface zone. Another change is previously so in the international code. Decks that are under 200 square feet and less than 30 inches above grade are exempted from permitting. This had been deleted from our previous code adoption. But as we went through the racial equity instrument and developing this new code and looking at some of the impacts in our community. we found this was really having a disproportionate impact to the residents of our Mobile home parks. Nearly every single mobile home in Denver has a noncompliant deck that is under 200 square feet, less than 30 inches above grade, and there's really no life. Safety concerns with those. So Staff are proposing to add that exception back into the code

[204:02] likewise, with the next exception on the list. So under our current code, you can build a storage shed of 80 square feet without any permitting. We're proposing to increase that to 120 square feet. We get a lot of code enforcement cases on sheds that are, you know, 80 to 100 square feet, over over 80 square feet, but less than 200 square feet. We're just proposing to bump that up a little bit. These are just garden storage shits with storing tools and things of that nature. There's no real life. Safety concerns with those. Another change that we're proposing that came about through the use of the racial equity instrument and 107.1 of the international residential code. There's an allowance that you can build up to 150 square foot addition on an existing home without requiring engineers or architects design professionals. We've heard a lot of feedback from folks that they'd like to increase that a little bit just for small additions, you know, and single family homes. So we're proposing to increase that from 150 to 200 square feet. The next change to the local amendments is playground equipment. So under our current code, if you're installing playground equipment in a residential private property. You do not need a permit.

[205:07] We're just proposing to increase that to allow that that same exception to apply to property that is owned by hoas. There's really no difference whether the property is owned by an Hoa or just a single family residence, and in terms of building code requirements. There really isn't much for playground equipment. There's not much we inspect on those. And then the final one is a pretty impactful one. This is what I mentioned earlier, the National Electric Code. Previously we had an amendment to the National Electric Code. We're the only community in the United States that required this where we required arc fault breakers to be installed for replacement panels. Now, this is a really disproportionate cost impact, while it does improve safety a little bit over the base code. It can cost as much as $6,000 more than just replacing a panel without installing outfall breakers, and sometimes it's not even possible to do it, depending on the age of the building. So we're proposing to delete that amendment and just come into alignment with the National National electric code along the lines of what all the surrounding communities around us do in the front range.

[206:08] We made some changes to the Mobile home chapter update. So there's a section regarding commercial use of mobile homes. Mobile homes aren't suitable for commercial use. We believe that was put in sometime around the floods as a temporary emergency measure. but they do not meet accessibility requirements, structural loading requirements. The doors aren't big enough for a wheelchair to get through. So we're proposing just to delete that entire section, likewise the section on foundation and tie downs. It's more than 20 years old. In 2,006 the State took over the responsibility for the installation and permitting of mobile homes, and that's regulated by the division of local affairs. So the city doesn't have the authority to regulate how foundations are installed on mobile homes, anyway. So it's really just a code cleanup to remove that section. And we put the guidance that people with mobile homes should seek permitting through the State for those

[207:00] okay moving on to the changes. This is the significant changes to the 2024 international residential code. I'll try and get through these quickly. I apologize. They're a little techie. So there's some new requirements for energy storage systems. There's new protection requirements for storage batteries and garages. That's things like Tesla power walls shared. Accessory rooms are now an option for 2 family dwellings, which is a pretty big change from previously. This next one's an interesting one. So in previous editions of the code, it wasn't really clear how we were supposed to handle setbacks, internal setbacks. If you had 2 single family residences on a single property. So now what the code does is it creates what they call imaginary lot lines. So if you're building 2 homes on 2 separate lots. and they weren't fire rated. You would have to have a minimum of 5 foot setback from the property line from each house. So that basically creates the same requirement. If you have 2 homes on one lot now, even though they're one property, so you would have to have 5 feet separation to the imaginary lot line, and then 5 feet to the next time, or if they were fire rated, you could shrink that down to 3 feet in each.

[208:04] that we did hear some feedback that people really concerned. This would impact adus in the city, but thankfully, this only applies to totally separate dwelling units that have totally separate meters, totally separate utilities. So by definition in our code adus, are not allowed to have separate utilities in their accessory buildings. Accessory buildings are not subject to this requirement, so it really won't impact the development of accessory dwelling units within the city. Okay, some other changes, ear exhaust openings are now allowed near operable windows and doors. This is the code getting a little more permissive than it previously was, and that just means things like bathroom fans can now be exhaust close to a window before you had to run them out through the roof, or an area where there was no windows or doors. This next change is pretty significant and a impactful one. So a 2 l. Refrigerants have been added as an option for cooling equipment. So what an a. 2 l. Refrigerant is. It's a moderate flammability, low, global warming, potential refrigerant. And that's really significant. Because in January one of this year the Federal Government started to phase out of the previous generation of refrigerants

[209:07] which were not flammable at all. So the previous refrigerants you could run into a residential home. But you were not allowed to use these A. 2 L low global warming refrigerants because of the flammability problem. So now the code has been updated to allow those refrigerants to be used, which is important, because soon they'll be the only option on the market. The accessibility requirements for care, facilities, and single family homes has been clarified. and the next one here is a really significant change and a real benefit here in Boulder. So for the last 100 years of building code, the minimum ceiling height you can have for a residential home for a habitable space. So that would be things like living rooms, bedrooms, etc. Was 7 feet. The current International Code Council is recognized as a real desire to increase housing affordability, and that a lot of people have low basements or low addicts. So now that height requirement has been lowered to 6 foot 8 inches. So we have a lot of people that come in for building permits and can't finish basements, you know, to use the habitable space, because their ceiling height might be 6 foot 9 or 6 foot 10. So now, hopefully, that'll make it a lot easier for folks to finish basements and create adus in those spaces.

[210:13] Okay, moving on to the 2024 international building code changes. So there's a pretty significant change in Section 104, which is the duties and powers of the building official and specifically around the area of alternative means and methods. So alternative means and methods have always been in the building code. An example of that would be if you came to Staff and said, Hey, I want to build a building out of hemp, Crete. That's not something that's in prescriptive code, but I believe it will perform just as well previously that really there was really no guidelines for how we would approve that it was purely up to the building official to make a determination. Now they've just added some clarification and some steps to go through to try and increase. You know the the repeatability of that process. this new, updated and expanded provisions for temporary structures, and there's new provisions regarding wind resistance of aggregate, surfaced roofs. I know that doesn't sound very exciting, but in boulder that's a big change for us in the 2,012 code, and earlier, you could have aggregate surfaced roofs in boulder. And then in 2018, the code changed and said you could no longer install aggregate surfaced roofs in areas with wind speeds over 120 miles an hour, which is the entire city

[211:17] that caused quite a few problems for folks, especially folks that have existing aggregate surface roofs and wanted to replace them. These roofs perform very well in our climate zone. They're extremely hail resistant. They're fire resistant, have low embodied carbon. So now you can install those roofs up to 1, 65 mile an hour. Wind zone again with certain requirements for the size of the aggregate to prevent it blowing off roofs and parapet walls. Another positive change, the allowable height for R 2 occupancy buildings. That's a residential building with an Nfpa. 13 R. System sprinkler system has been increased. So that's a cost saving measures for residential development. It's a positive change some other big changes. The occupyable space requirements now apply. If a roof is usable for anything more than maintenance and repair previously, you know, you might have a area that looked like a roof deck. But the the design professional, the homeowner would say, oh, it's it's it's it's only used for maintenance repair. Well, now it gets treated the same as a rooftop deck, because we recognize that people probably go out there and enjoy it. If the space is available.

[212:20] There's new regulations for adult changing tables. Previously those were already required in many occupancies, but there was no clear guidelines about how they were to be installed. So that's an oversight that's been corrected in this version of the code. Another big change is carbon monoxide detection. Co detection is now required in any occupancy where you have a Co. Producing device, and that detection notification be addressed in quite a few ways. We actually had a local amendment previously that required that. So the local amendment has been deleted. And now we just follow base code because they've caught up bolder. Okay, moving on to the Iebc. This is the international existing building code, same as the Ibc. There's some changes for occupiable roofs, for maintenance repair.

[213:03] There's some changes to the smoke compartment requirements for existing institutional buildings. Those might now may now be required to divide stories into no fewer than 2 smoke compartments, to provide, to provide more escape routes and a fire for folks. And just like the Ibc. This changes to the adult changing stations. And those regulations being clarified in that code, too. There's a pretty significant change in Section 15. This was added to address the need for owners to develop implement and maintain a Site safety plan during construction. So now, if you have an existing building and you're renovating it, you need to have the owner needs to have a site safety director who is designated and responsible for conducting daily fire safety inspections. And there's a new appendix appendix E. And this is A. This is a pretty cool one. So this appendix is created to provide guidance for designers, engineers, architects, and fire and code officials to allow temporary emergency uses of existing buildings with respect to minimum code requirements.

[214:01] So it's really like a checklist. Let's say, if you came in, and you said, Hey, you know we want to operate a s. 1 which is a warehouse as a warming shelter in an emergency rather than making you go through an entire, you know, change of occupancy building permit process. This is just a checklist to make sure that the most basic items are taken care of and minimum code is met, and that structure can be used in an expedient manner without going through a lot of bureaucracy. So really positive change there. Okay, moving on to the plumbing code. There's some new provisions added to support buried piping beneath buildings where expansive soil conditions exist. This is really common in boulder, so it's probably a good change for us. There's a requirement added to add tracer wire for varied sewer piping. There's a new option for vacuum testing of drain waste and vent piping. And this new exception added for special locking mechanisms for doors to multiple user toilet facilities and all gender toilet facilities. They finally incorporated shower head and fixture flow requirements to the code. So previously, we had a local amendment that had very similar requirements. And now the base code is stricter. On this shower heads are actually limited to 2 gallons per minute.

[215:09] There's some new installation standards have been added for solvent cemented plastic piping joints and new standards been added for chemical waste piping materials. Okay, moving on to the international mechanical code, the provisions that previously, in the in the 2018 version of the code, you could not use domestic range hoods in an institutional occupancy. So that's occupancies, like hospitals, prisons. large daycare facilities, things of that nature. So those those provisions have been removed, and the code has become more permissive than it was previously. as mentioned earlier. There's new requirements for these, a. 2 l. Low global warming, potential moderate flammability refrigerants and B, 2 l. Refrigerants. b 2 l is an ammonia refrigerant. So it's not a flammability concern, more of a toxicity concern. But that's a considered to be a low global warming. Potential. So it's permissible for use. Now.

[216:01] there's new requirements for machinery rooms containing both of these refrigerant types, and the refrigerant types have been added to the to the mechanical code and recognition of their requirement for use by the Federal Government. Now there's an addition of a new minimum landing at roof roof hatches for personnel to use safely when they go up to the roofs to service, rooftop units for maintenance and repair. They could have a 30 by 30 landing at the roof hatch now. and there's a new testing option for grease duct work. So that's you know, like your grease hoods in restaurants, things like that previously for the last 100 years we've required the use of 100 watt light bulb dragged through in darkness to see if there's any cracks in the welding and a new testing option is using high pressure water jets, which has proven to be much more effective at finding cracks and welding defects in the previous solution. And there's also a new standard requirement for refrigeration systems containing Co 2. Okay, I'm going to let Jen Ross present real quickly on this card. This is the International Property Maintenance code. So some significant changes that we saw in the 2024 version are new sections under 105 that clarify the types of experts that are required for owners and operators to employ when we are requiring testing and reports for compliance. So that's a significant change. It really kind of clarifies

[217:17] what we consider a subject matter expert in in the Ipmc. Also, there's a insertion of the word and section for warrants, so that it clarifies the use of a warrant for a code. Official. one of our local amendments includes administrative procedures and remedies which include civil penalties and investigative fees in chapter 10, title or title, 10, chapter 3 violations. So we're just asking that we amend the Ipmc to bring it more in alignment with that particular code section since rental licensing and housing code violations are closely linked together. And so we're trying to streamline that.

[218:01] And then the next one is what I feel is pretty significant. It's changing unsafe structures and equipment in 109 1.1 to use the word hazardous rather than dangerous. So it just allows us a broader placarding build to use when we feel like something is hazardous, and it doesn't quite meet the threshold of dangerous, which would which would be, say, like a collapsing building rather than maybe some materials falling off of a building. If that gives you guys some clarity about kind of what that is. All right. Now, the final code that we have updated here is the 2024 international fire code. So there's a new appendix appendix O. In the National Fire code that boulder fire is planning to adopt, and this will allow valet trash services. So I'm not sure if members are familiar with what that is. But if you live in a multifamily building, it's kind of like living in a single family home now, where you can take your trash cans and put them out on the corridor

[219:05] on a certain designated time and day. And they have a have someone come through and collect those trash for you and take the recycling out and put your trash can back so previously that wasn't allowed, but by adopting Appendix O, where the corridors are wide enough, and boulder fire can accommodate it. We'll be able to do that now. So that's a good advantage to our city. There's 2 new sections that have been added to chapter 3, that specifically address the storage of lithium, Ion, and lithium metal batteries as well as powered micro mobility devices. You know things like scooters and hoverboards of that nature. And there's some 2 couple requirements here that were updated for fire sprinklers to specifically address the storage, research and manufacturing of lithium, ion, and lithium metal batteries. I will note that the city already requires sprinklers in these areas with the adoption of pass codes. There's really no change to our current requirements with this, and there's new fire protection requirements for storage of distilled spirits and wines and new storage facilities.

[220:03] So with that I have our suggested motion language for the planning board, and any questions go on. Go ahead, Mark. Oh, sorry let's do, Mason. Let's do Mason first, st and Steve had a stand up first, st and then mark. Sure. Thank you for your thoughtful presentation. There's a lot to get through, and I I appreciate the way you presented it. So I was wondering, do you have a way to reach out to folks who were denied permitting, based on you know what the rates were for the ones that have loosened up to let them know. You know. Perhaps project they were thinking about is now available. I I assume you're talking mostly about the basement and attic pipe problem. Yeah, I can also see, like the addition, or even the shed. You know, any of those.

[221:02] Not really. But we. We do plan on doing like some pretty significant public outreach, closer to the adoption date, you know, for folks to to explain what these code changes are and how they'll impact the community so hopefully, some of those people here, through that or through word of mouth, that, you know, the code has gotten more permissive than it was in the past, and there's now more options to. It's a lot like the The adu changes that we're dealing with at the moment through the planning side of things I'm hearing from a lot of folks. Oh, I can. I can actually do my adu. Now, like, yeah, come on, and we can actually accommodate that. Great so I I've read the memo that it these changes will result in lower insurance premiums. Increases lower premium increases. Sorry. Was that quantified? How was that quantified, or is that just. Every every time we do a code update, or automatically, every 3 years we do this thing called the Big Survey. That's the building code trying to remember. I think it's in the memo. But basically there's an insurance. A 3rd party company called Versk that assesses all of our codes and then assigns a risk based on everything that we do. Like the amount of amendments we have, our wind speed, how current our building codes are, and how how many fire stations we have.

[222:20] So and then insurance companies use that data to set their premiums right? So it's a it's a part of what they do. We don't have any control over obviously, what an insurance company charges! They're a private entity. But we do have control over how strict our codes are, and how many local amendments we are. So by by adopting the latest codes and adopting them with as few amendments as possible, we do potentially lower the increase, the premium increases in the future. Right? And then my last question, I did notice that some of these code adjustments impact our renter population. I didn't see that renters were a part of the outreach. It might just been voluntary, or maybe it just wasn't listed. Did did I see that right?

[223:06] Our what population? Sorry I didn't. Winter. Oh, our renter population! No, we didn't do any specific outreach that I mean, they were open to the public, but we didn't hear anything from renters. Usually we. Yeah. Input from Barha, which is our boulder area rental and housing. Actually, no, we did have a representative from Baja at the second. But yeah, that's more, I guess, more of a landlord than it is a landlord thing. So our property maintenance code impacts tenants a lot, and how we use that property maintenance code which is the Ipmc and so, and we also use that for our occupancy. Now. So we that's an integral part of our rental community, and how we assist them in housing code violations. Yeah, definitely. what I think, what you provided was as I read it, and as you present it was more of like a overview of like the major changes. Is there a way to see those those changes in terms of how it impacts tenants in detail?

[224:13] Be a question for you really, maintenance code. Most of the the property maintenance code didn't have incredible significant changes that would impact the rental community as a whole. The biggest significant change, I think, would be to our local amendment, which would be to mildly increase the civil penalties that are assessed to say, like a property owner or an operator for housing code violations that aren't brought into compliance. And that's kind of a significant thing for renters to be aware of. There have been some state changes that actually impact tenants a little bit more, but those are handled on a State level rather than a city level or a local municipality level, and that includes some major revamping to what a warranty of habitability violation would be at the state level.

[225:12] So that's more impactful than adopting the newest versions of the Ipmc. I believe, because most of it didn't really have a lot of changes that would have impacted a renter per se. It does have a little bit of changes in it that would impact a private residence owner that for their own personal use. They they have to comply with parts of this code as well. But for from a renter's perspective. It's almost static. As far as the adoption goes. you know, we won't see very many significant changes that would be extremely impactful to the rental community.

[226:01] It's just it's just the latest versions, and it brings us a little bit more in alignment with what the 2024 adopted building codes are for residential and and multifamily dwelling. So okay, if that works at all. Mason, I'm sorry if that didn't. Oh, definitely, I might might try to do some research on my own. But yeah, no, I appreciate those those answers. Thank you. Mark, and then Claudia. Thanks. I I thought that was a fascinating presentation. And so a a couple of spots I was like, wait. And so my thoughts are. My questions are about the the window requirement permitting for windows, so there's no threshold. I I mean, if I am replacing a window on a back porch area that I I added on in 1962. And I need to replace a window. I've got to go pull a permit for that.

[227:12] Yes, and that's a that's a base code requirement. So bold is unique in that we do not require permits for that. We're the only community across the Front Range. I'm aware of that doesn't. And I will say it's not like a it's not a full blown like 6 weeks in review process. It's more of like a Hey, I'm coming in. You'll submit for a permit online. We'll look at it. We'll go. Yeah. The window meets the point 2 7 u factor requirement for the energy code. And yeah, you're not in the Wildland urban interface code. Here's your permit. you know. That'll be it pretty much. It's a pretty straightforward process, but it's really critical, you know, if we do have a property that's in that class, one or class, 2 ignition, resistance, zone in the wildland face. That might be the only time in 50 years we get to actually make sure that that building has some compliance with the code, and you know, with the evidence of the recent fires in California. That might be the difference between your home burning to the ground or not so. It's really critical that we actually verify these things at the opportunity. But I understand your point about you know the frustration of hey? It's just a window. What's the big deal?

[228:09] So. Maybe. this is Brad, I Brad Mueller, planning and development services director. This is an instance board Member Mcintyre, I think, where we have to recognize a lot of these aspirational values that the community has can only be achieved through incremental efforts. And and as rob illustrates. These are, quote unquote bites at the apple that only come around maybe every 20 years. So we will. We will only build on those energy and wildfire and related kind of values over time, institutionalizing these kind of matters. Okay? So I have a a, an additional question on that, let's say, and I don't want to create an Enforcement opportunity here at my home address.

[229:13] but let's say a homeowner has direct set windows from a house built in 1962, meaning they're not operable. They're just fixed panels that have to be fabricated so, and those tend to leak and get foggy over time. So 10 years go by, you might replace a particular panel would that require permitting, and with that permitting subsequently require? The upgrading of them all, I mean, these are these are wood exterior wood, trim windows. Would that, in fact, trigger a bringing it that help that home up to Code.

[230:01] No, I mean that that would be a repair. You're just repairing a piece of glass for a sash that's not replacing a window, in my opinion, or the codes. And really we're talking like, Hey, I'm coming in. I'm going to take out my whole frame and install a whole new Vinyl, or Lumen, or whatever window in that case, and only that window right like. So if you left all the windows in your house, and you're only replacing the one. Only the one you're replacing has to conform with current code. We're not going to come in and make you replace every window in your house. Okay, alright onto lithium ion batteries storage. You know, we we talk a lot about bike charging all sorts of things and the and we don't really talk much about the battery charging safety and battery, safety and battery storage. and my question is, I I noticed that the sprinkler requirement was related to the storage of lithium ion batteries, but

[231:07] I thought that water applied to a lithium. Ion battery fire was actually a bad thing. Am I wrong in that. I'm gonna let Dave Lowry take this one. He's our fire chief. Yeah, I I hate to ever tell a board member they're wrong. But you're not correct. How's that sound? No. Does that make you feel better? No lithium is obviously water reactive. But there's very, very little lithium metal in a lithium ion battery. It's more the lithium chemistry that is in the battery. So the preferred and the recommended extinguishment of lithium ion battery, and I'll quote is copious air quotes maybe even to help copious amounts of water is what we try to put on lithium ion batteries right? So they are not water reactive or not. They're very difficult to put out because of the stored energy that they have in them, and that the fact that they're all encased.

[232:12] and it's very difficult to get water to where the fire is right, and then, obviously, that stored energy keeps creating heat and keeps reacting and reigniting. But water is really the preferred method to extinguish them. Great. Thank you. That's very helpful. brad still has his hand that Brad to do it, but he's wrong, so I don't. I think that's a mistake. anyway. My final one is about when you have direct vent gas appliances, meaning you have a plastic pipe air in a plastic pipe. Air out! It's I found it to be an anomaly in the code that you still were required to have makeup air

[233:05] or and Co. 2, detection. Now I. The Co. 2, detection is really a small thing. It should be everywhere. But but with that type of system do you still have to with the code? Do you still have to have makeup air? If it's over a certain Cfm, and you still have to have Co. 2 detection with that in and out sealed system. So with the new code update, you need co detection any anytime. You have a Co producing appliance. But even if the previous code, our local amendment. We required co detection. You do not need combustion and dilution air for a direct vent appliance, you know, like you described. If it's got a complete closed combustion appliance with 2 PVC. Pipes, one feeding air and one feeding the exhaust. It does not need combustion, dilution air that's only required for natural draft appliances.

[234:01] Interesting. Okay? Alright, that's a subject for another day. And happy to talk to you about it in the future. If you have more questions. Okay. Right. Thank you very much again. That was a very informative And carbon monoxide detectors are required in any structure that has any type of fuel, burning appliance, or a fireplace, or a detached garage, or we're very particular about carbon monoxide in particular, because it is one of those slow killers, and it's paramount, and especially to Mason's Point, with a rental property. We're extremely neurotic in particular about that particular part of our code regarding carbon monoxide detection. So. Great that makes sense. Thank you very much.

[235:04] Yeah, no. Go ahead, Claudia. And then Laura. Thanks, George. I was laughing as Mark asked his 1st questions there, because out of all of the sprawling presentation, we're both gonna ask questions about windows. So I will. I will forego some of the preliminaries. I understand the logic of requiring permits and making sure that things are up to code standards at that time. But I I focused on that section of presentation because I think that can create a substantial burden based on the way that a lot of folks do window replacements on buildings. That kind of work is often done in a kind of piecemeal manner on a lot of our residential buildings, so like one room or one unit at a time, an individual window when a casing or a seal is broken, so really small scale projects, and I think in particular, like my self managed Condo association. Here we're doing window replacements in individual units on kind of long timeline, based on how badly degraded they are when we get budget etc.

[236:07] So it's a permit here. It's a permit there. And I'm just curious in situations like that. Or with this particular kind of permitting requirement? Does the city have a process, or any kind of a plan to reduce the administrative or financial burdens on individual property owners doing small projects. I mean, certainly. I mean, if in the example of a Condominium Association, I would say that the way we would handle that is, if they came to us and said, Hey, we've got a 2 year, timeline. We're going to replace all the windows on this condo. We would be able to permit that, and then just inspected over a 2 year timeline. There's no real rush on our end as long as progress is being made, so that would be definitely achievable. Okay, yeah, and I. As I mentioned earlier, like. That kind of. Release. Administrative process is not what you're what you're actually asking us to make recommendations. Right, right. But just context for how these things play out. And I, yeah, I firmly appreciate the concern. You know. Really, I I tend to agree with the points that the board has raised tonight on these windows. But the challenge we have is, as I mentioned earlier, we really only get one chance to do this right. And even if we say, exempted. Okay, you can replace one window.

[237:12] I'm telling you right. I hate to be cynical, but I've been in code enforcement a long time. People will just replace one window at a time to get around pulling a permit. So unfortunately, that's not really an option for us. Okay, yeah, thank you for that education. That's my only question. Right now. Thank you. Great Forum. Not to prolong the window conversation too much, but I just wanna say I'm very glad to hear that repairs are not required to pull permits having a a dog that likes to break our 19 seventies. Original single pane glass windows. She's broken, 3 of them. And so yeah, glad to hear that, so can you help me understand the line between a repair and replacement. Sure if you were replacing the frame of the window, not like the sash, but the actual frame that's secured to the framing of the house. That that's when we would trigger the permit requirement. If you were just, even if you were taking out, like, you know, in a vinyl double hung window. A lot of them. You can disconnect that whole glazing piece and put a new one in. That wouldn't require a permit. That's just a repair.

[238:13] So really. So it's the connection. This is the whole front time. Yeah. The frame. Okay, thank you. The imaginary lot lines for calculating fire, separation, distance. - Is for multiple dwellings on a single lot is that multiple detached dwellings. Yeah, it's a really kind of obscure thing. I think Icc came up with it because it's becoming more common, you know, nationwide to have 2, and I'll use the example of single family dwellings, but wouldn't necessarily have to be that. But that's probably the most likely scenario like, if you had literally 2 houses on one property, which we don't tend to see that here we'd have a duplex if that was going to be the case. Most likely the concern, as I mentioned earlier, from the public, and I agree with that concern until we researched it further was that would affect accessory dwelling units. But it doesn't. It very clearly exempts accessory units. It's only if you have 2 completely separate dwellings with separate utilities and everything. Just imagine basically having 2 lots. It just would apply the same requirements to 2 lots as it would to a single lot.

[239:17] Do we have a lot of that like, I like cottage courts. Or I'm trying to imagine where we have that in the city where we have multiple detached dwellings on something that's defined as a single lot. If I can jump in on that, I mean that that scenario really is pretty obscure, because you essentially are going to create a lot line at that point through subdivision. And and they're going to be on their own individual lots. So I mean, when when Rob and I've talked about it. I frankly can't even envision the scenario where that would be relevant. But. Okay. So cottage courts. I know we have a couple examples of those. Yeah, I I don't quite know what what you're referring to as a cottage court, but if there's

[240:01] common open space that's going to be a condominium kind of situation. or it's gonna be individual lots that then have a common area next to it. Actually, that's the neighborhood I live in. But those are all still individual units on individual lots at that point. Okay. Can't remember. There's 1. Houses that exist in the city of Boulder, and they're considered a 2 single family residences on the same parcel. And so we do have that existing. But those are historic, right? Most of them are historic, and we have had a couple of things built in, I think maybe even the holiday neighborhood, where where it's in. It's 2 single family dwellings on like one little parcel. It's a very bizarre little thing that happens every once in a while. And I. So this just creates that fire barrier between those 2 structures. Okay, thank you. And just a couple more quick ones about battery storage. It. It says that new protection requirements for storage batteries and garages are added. And you you explain that as being like energy panels like a Tesla battery kind.

[241:13] Yeah, they do it because the power wall at the end of your garage you've now got to have a bollard, so you don't drive your Suv into it and burn the house down. Basically, it's a. So good idea, good idea. It's a pretty common sense and smart code change. I just didn't want to talk about it too much, because the presentation will get too long, but happy to go into more detail. No, I love it. I love it. Tesla. Owners don't. Don't drive into your smart wall. I'm just curious if that has any kind of impact on electric car charging or bicycle car charging or sorry bicycle charging electric bike charging. Sorry it's late at night. Okay, yeah, no. And then. Those already acquired by our energy code. We're already we're probably the leading jurisdiction in the State, if not the country, with requirements to ev charging already. But that was in the 2024 energy code. It's not part of this update.

[242:00] Okay? And then the storage for lithium battery devices. And you talked about that, including micro mobility devices. Does that do and forgive my ignorance here. But personal mobility devices like wheelchairs like electric wheelchairs, if those also have lithium batteries. And would this requirement impact that in any way. Yeah, a lot of them do, and some of them don't. But a lot of them do these days. It would it most likely would not impact them. Because, the new section that was added to the international fire code that addresses the micro mobility devices specifically exempts residential uses of micro mobility devices. It's really concentrating on commercial type uses of these micro mobility devices like there's a place up on the hill called Snag and they use e-bikes to deliver snacks and things like that. It's kind of like a Doordash type service, but they only do

[243:06] like snacks, like chips and sodas and things like that. And they exclusively so it would be. It would apply to someplace like that that has that are charging their micro mobility devices in a commercial building. If it's for your if it's a residential for your personal use, it nothing applies to that. Okay, so like somebody has their own mono wheel or their own scooter, it doesn't apply that. Okay, alright, thank you so much. On that. What about so that makes sense. Why, it would be commercial. They're charging a fair number. What about residential buildings that have say, like, multiple units that have like charging area for bikes where it's like a number of bikes. Would that still apply? There. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly what the code is wanting it to do. Right? They're actually asking for that designated charging area in lieu of them carrying it up to their room and charging it in their room. So that's that's exactly what the code wants.

[244:12] Happen is a is what they refer to as a charging area. Right Kurt. Great. Thank you. And yeah, thanks to Staff for your encyclopedic knowledge of all this, I'm amazed there's so much there, and you seem to know the answer to every question which is wonderful. So I have a few specific questions. The 1st one is something that was called out in red in the memo, and I'm not sure why. But we have a prohibition on separate utilities for an adu, and I'm wondering, 1st of all, why, from a content standpoint. Why, that is. And second, just from a presentation standpoint, why, we have that in the definition of an adu.

[245:19] Thank you for that. So in the now I wish I had it in front of me, and this is where I don't have the answer, but I know it's in there somewhere. We might have to find it for you. But in the land use definitions of accessory dwelling units, it clarifies that you cannot have separate utilities, and we run into a scenario very frequently in the building side of things, where people come along and they go. Hey? I want to have a separate electrical meter for my accessory dwelling unit, and we say, Well, you can't. and they get upset with us and go. Well, what? Why? And then we have to point them to the section in the land use code. So we thought it would be a good positive change to put it in the definitions just to clarify like upfront when people are looking through it. Hey? This is this, is it? Says it right in the definition. You can't have separate utilities. It's intended to be an accessory to the principal dwelling, and then from a building code standpoint kind of, as I mentioned earlier with the separate 2 separate homes on a single piece of land. If it has separate utilities, it's no longer an accessory building. It's a it's its own home

[246:17] right? It's we want people to be sharing the utilities from the principal dwelling. These things are intended to be affordable low cost units. They're not intended to be a duplex where we don't allow duplexes. Alright! Is that sort of answer? I know. Sorry. It's a tough one to explain. Yeah, that that is helpful. It looks like laurel might have some input. Laura with the city attorney's office. I haven't introduced myself yet, so that's good. But it's 9 16. If you're looking for the definition. Oh, okay, thank you. Great. And I think Brad jumped on too. I don't know if he had something to add. Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. And then I see that we still in the building code, we still have definitions related to co-ops. And I believe we've removed all of the Co-OP related

[247:14] content from the from the land use code now is that something that should be removed from the building code because co-ops are basically no longer relevant. That's a good question. Rob, I think I can answer. We will continue to have existing co-ops, though, and people may do amend, you know, may do additions and things like that. So it would be important to keep that in the code. Okay? So so the existing. I mean the existing co-ops, will they continue to renew their co-OP licenses? Why would they even do that?

[248:06] You might retire that type of license. But that doesn't mean that that use of the building has changed. They might still, as a business entity, call themselves. And and to the point of of the building code may still. you know, structurally be relevant in in the context of the building code and maintenance codes. Okay. Well, maybe not get into the details here. But I would suggest that this might be something for Staff to think more about, because I'm not sure. Certainly a number of the co-ops are just houses, right? And they can be considered a house. a single unit house, or they can be considered a co-OP. And if people, there's no reason for people to get a co-OP license anymore, and so

[249:03] seems like potentially that could be removed. So, anyhow, just something to think about. We also have other definitions that we don't necessarily use that or approve those uses for a property anymore. But again, because it was something that existed in code prior to and was an approved condition. We want to leave those definitions in there. For if we're trying to research a property like to give us an idea of what that legal definition of that property, type or use was prior. So sometimes we leave those definitions in there to just give us some clarity about what historical use there was on a property. It I found that that I've seen that before, and maybe Laurel can give us a kind of a little bit more of a legal like. Why, we might leave a definition or something in code, just for us, for later.

[250:07] I'm happy to jump on. I think it's the same that Brad talked about earlier. We don't get rid of these uses. They, you know, phase out over time, we allow uses that were previously approved to stay until they change uses. So I think it's more looking back historically. Like you, said Jen, and trying to make sure that we're aligning to those that still exist, even though they're starting to phase out. And maybe in a future addition, we would. Wanna amend this. I'm not sure. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. I do think that co-ops are a little bit different than a nonconforming use, because the the it's really the sort of the definition or the legal structure that has changed as opposed to the use. So, anyhow. won't go go into it anymore. But just something to think about.

[251:02] Then I had a couple of questions about the Mobile Home Section. So section 1012, 19, says Mobile Home streets need to comply with the Dcs. Which as we've seen, is problematic. The city itself doesn't want to comply with its own Dcs, which I think is appropriate because the Dcs. Makes us do things that are not I think not what we, the direction that we want to be going. But then the the code also requires 28 foot one way streets and 36 foot 2 way streets and a hundred foot corner radii which are not consistent with the Dcs. So it seems like there's some. There's some inconsistency there like it's saying you have to comply with the Dcs. But then it's also saying you have to do these other things which

[252:02] are different from the Dcs. So maybe just something to look at and think about, a little more. Yeah, sure. I'm not super familiar with the Dcs, because I only deal with the building code side of it. So the updates we did were purely around like the building permitting standpoint. But I'd be happy to talk with our engineering team about those those suggestions. I think that's good feedback. Thank you. Okay, great, thank you. And yeah, this is existing. I don't think anything changed here. Right? Yes. As I was reading through. And I appreciate it because, as I mentioned in my presentation, that code hasn't been updated for about 20 years, and for 20 years we've been breaking State law by having our own foundation and tie down requirements which we weren't allowed to do. So it's good that we're finally getting the chance to fix some of these things. Yeah. And then one other minor thing in the Mobile home code 1012, 23, B basically has put certain restrictions on Clo closed drawing in mobile home parks, which I think is something that is not consistent with

[253:12] our general sustainability goals. So just something to think about, possibly removing. Yeah, that's great feedback. Thank you. Sure. Note of that? Yeah. And then my last question, I think, is about so. The my colleagues were raising questions about windows. I have a sort of a similar question about siding. So with windows, we have particular efficiency requirements. Right? So it makes sense to require a building permit for any window for siding. I don't think that there are any corresponding requirements. However, there are requirements in the so and yet we're it sounds like we would be requiring a building permit everywhere in the city, even outside the

[254:02] even though the only thing it seems like the building permit process would be to say, You're outside the Wui, and so it's approved. So can we, can we change? Is it possible? Do we have the mechanism to change that so that we would only impose that requirement on properties within the. The challenge there is that the point of requiring the permit is so we can flag properties that are in the Wui that they need to comply. I mean, if we just say, Hey, you only need to. There's a little. I would say the majority of the people in the Wui aren't actually aware that they are in the Wui, or you know they don't, they don't necessarily want to comply. So if we'd kind of be back to square one where we're at right now, where we're having properties in the class, one ignition, resistant zone where people are installing cedar siding. And that's actually a kind of an equity issue for us, too. I mean, the last thing I want to do is have someone spend $80,000 installing beautiful cedar siding on their home and then have Jen here. Come along with code compliance and say, Hey, just kidding. You're in the Wildland urban interface zone. You needed a permit, you need to rip it all off and replace it with hardy board. So we're trying to just sort of get on top of that. And I understand your point about the collateral damage like we're

[255:12] kind of catching everyone with this net, and that seems maybe unreasonable. But I really don't think there's any other way for us to do it. The other thing I'll mention, too, is, there are a few more requirements other than just ignition, resistance. The other thing we want to check is the weather resistant barrier. To make sure these buildings are waterproof correctly. I've seen with my own eyes driving around boulder people installing, siding directly over oriented strand board, with no tie vehicle, no weather resistant barrier under it. So we want to make sure that kind of thing's not happening. So our building stock, you know, lasts for the long term, right? And we preserve all that embodied carbon in our structures by making sure that they're being. It's being installed correctly, even if it's not in the Wildland urban interface. But the principal concern, I will agree, is still the Wildland urban interface. Yeah, okay, that makes sense great. Thank you for that answer. And I think those are all my questions.

[256:01] Great I don't see any other hands. I don't have any particular questions, but you know presentation was great. anyone else. Alright, I think we have a motion for this right. So. Public hearing George. Oh, yeah, do we have a public comment section of this. yeah, cause we advertise as a public hearing. And then the other thing, too, is there'll be a motion that's on the slide it wasn't included in the memo. So just so, you know. Oh, I can pull that up when we're ready. Great. Let's go to public hearing section of this. Thank you. George. Vivian went ahead and signed off for the night earlier. So I'm just gonna do a quick call for people to go ahead and raise their hands if they want to participate in the public hearing section for this item. So far, I'm seeing no raised hands. Okay, we have one raised hand. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You'll have 3 min.

[257:02] Lynn Siegel, 1st free Palestine divest from Israel. And all of this work that you've done tonight is all for naught. When we go to World War 3 with Iran and Russia against Israel. This is not okay. Number one, number 2. We went in in 2021. We had R. 60 for insulation ceiling insulation. Then it went. I mean, it was R. 49. It went up to R. 60 and 21 in 24. It went down to R. 49. This is a big problem. You know. What? What about me? Who's deciding? If I'm how, how much space I have in my attic, and I'm planning the whole thing, and I'm planning it on R, 49 when it's R 60. And then oh, R. 60 is switched. Now I can switch back

[258:02] because of the return on investment. So it makes me not trust the process. I wondered also about gas shut off versus capping plumline told me I can shut off. I don't have to cap my gas products that I'm getting off of. I had a recent solar. Well, I had a recent retrofit. There was an issue. I was being gaslighted from the county, from David Hashimanji with energy. Smart. And 10 years ago, and this gaslighting process caused a total botched retrofit on my property. That one thing is, there's a compressor that's filling my entire set back on my side yard, and to me this I've never seen anything like it. I never. I had to be sequestered from my own energy. Retrofit.

[259:03] Carolyn Elam, and the city. Administer this program, Care and Eoc and I was shut off from everything. This compressor is a fire hazard. If a wind comes through and blows it off, and it's 220 and starts a fire. I'm going to be held responsible. That's a big problem for me, Dave. I spoke to Mike. He's supposedly coming by this. Been a couple weeks now I really want to know if this is a fire hazard or not. and Carolyn took a month before she even asked me to anchor it. When she asked me to anchor it, I said, I don't want it there. It shouldn't be there now. I didn't have any choice, so she should have anchored it. She should have anchored it a month before for a month it could have caused a fire. It shouldn't be mounted there. In the 1st place, because it can be on the opposite side of my house, flush with the wall within the setback. It's like

[260:03] had 3 hot water heaters installed wrong in my place. It's like I've had it. Thank you, Lynn. That concludes your 3 min. If there's anybody else that's in attendance. Still, that would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hand, otherwise I'll pass it back over to the board chair. I'm not seeing any other raised hands, so I think we can conclude the public hearing for this item. Thank you. Great and, thanks to Lynn for participating in the public comment. do appreciate it. Can we go ahead and put the motion language up on the screen. And while we're doing that does anyone have any comments that they'd like to make

[261:02] Kurt see your hand up. Yeah, well, I just have a question. I raised some. I guess suggestion slash questions about possible changes. Is that adequate? Do we need to have, like a formal motion or amendment to the, to the motion, or or have those been conveyed adequately from Staff's perspective. We do we have. The suggestions are, that we've written down are regarding the cooperative housing definitions that are in there. Then we have a couple with the Mobile home sections for clothes drying, and then also for Dcs sections, the Dcs section. I believe we're going to have to talk to our other engineering partners prior to making any kind of amendment to that particular section of the code. So we need some time in order for staff, and we also have the opportunity to

[262:13] correct some of these things later on, because we are looking at anything that does not get amended at this moment that staff or council feels we need to amend again. We are looking at some code cleanup that will happen again towards the middle end of this year, so all is not lost if we don't amend that right now, and we decide to amend it later. We are leaving room for some amendments to go through later on in the year. Okay, thank you. So what I'm hearing is we don't need to formalize that in an amendment to the motion. At this point I don't believe Staff would need that. But

[263:03] Brad's input on that different opinion on that. Yeah, Brad Mueller, planning and development services. Director. No, I would agree with that, especially. You know. I think Key Point is, we've we've heard the questions that are raised. and we will get another bite at the apple to to address that after we look at it closely. Sounds great. Thank you. Hi! I'm Laura! So I just wanted to make sure that we thank and appreciate Rob and Jen and Dave for being with us at this late hour, and for your patience and thoroughness, and explaining all of this to us, it's been really informative and helpful, and I am ready to make a motion if there are no other comments. Go for it. So I move that Planning board recommend that city Council adopt ordinance, 8,684 amending title, 10 structures in Brc. 1981, and adopting by reference the 2024 international codes regarding property maintenance building, electrical fire, mechanical fuel, gas and plumbing and setting forth related details.

[264:18] Second. George, I believe you're muted. Any comments, or are people ready to vote? See Claudia. Just a quick comment. This is an area where I can totally defer to staff and outside experts. As long as there's been a deliberate review process, and it sounds like that has, in fact, occurred. This has been a really educational presentation. I just want to note in supporting this and appreciating staff that I really appreciate that a lot of the changes that you highlighted for us result from reviewing these codes using the racial equity tool. And this is not a place where I would have thought to look for equity impacts in our city policies. But you've demonstrated quite clearly that the city is doing some deep thinking in this area. So just an appreciation as I support this motion.

[265:13] Great. Thank you. You seconded. What? I'm just seconding Claudia's comments. Sorry it was a joke too late. Awesome. All right. Let's vote. Claudia. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Amazing. Yes. Mark. Yes. Or Yes. And I am a yes as well. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for all your work and for staying with us in this late hour. I believe that concludes our public hearing. And actually concludes all of our business except for matters. Don't know that we have any matters. This is specifically to talk about. I'll add just real quickly, if I may. Mr. Chair.

[266:02] Yep. I do appreciate. I want to thank Jen and Rob and Dave again on this item, and appreciate the acknowledgement of the racial equity and instrument in in practice. But I also want to highlight in addition the simplification of the code that this represents. It would have been easy for the team to have kind of let a stale items that have been in the code for a while, but been essentially superseded by national code updates. But instead they did a deep, deep dive to to clean it out from redundancy or minor inconsistencies. And I I just want to publicly thank them for that mindset and value of working towards our operational excellence and simplification goals. Other than that. I'll mention, too, that the 4 body

[267:04] comprehensive 4 body event is next week, and we look forward to seeing you. That's an in person event as a reminder with dinner. So hopefully, that's an enticement for you all we will mention this at that event and others. But the next large public event relative to the Comp plan update, then, is in February, February. Pull up the calendar 8, I believe. on a Saturday in Chambers council chambers. Actually. So just keeping you appraised of of that ongoing work. After that I'm happy to answer any questions. Anybody else have anything, as it relates to matters. Otherwise we can adjourn this meeting, gap it out.

[268:02] Thank you. Thanks. Everyone. Cool. Thanks for your flexibility. Thank you. Okay.