February 18, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Meeting of the city of Boulder's Planning board. We're going to 1st call the meeting to order, do a quick roll call, and then we'll go on to public participation. So let's sound off and we'll start to my left with Claudia. Yep, here, Laura, here, Kurt, here online we have George. Here. And Ml. Here. And Mason is not with us tonight. Okay, we are now going to move to item number 2 on the agenda. which is public participation. So we have. This is a time for anyone online or in the room to speak on any matter other than the 2 public hearing items we have before us tonight one of those public hearing items. The public hearing is over and it is strictly board deliberation tonight.

[1:11] maybe questions and answers of staff. The other 5 B is a public hearing. Item, that there will be public comment when we address that issue. So anyone wishing to speak about anything other than agenda. Item 5. A. Or 5 B. May do so after Thomas, and is Vivian with us as well. Yes, I'm here. Good evening. Okay, Hi, Vivian, okay. So they're going to give us a little intro into the procedure for speaking to us tonight. So take it away. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for giving a preview of the types of matters that the public can share during open comment. I'll go through these rules, and then we'll see if there's anyone in person for open comment. And then we'll move to our community members online. So 1st just want to thank everybody who has joined us in person or online. Thanks for being with us at the Planning Board meeting, and I'll read through these rules first.st We want you to know that the city engaged with community members in the past to co-create this

[2:19] vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations that we follow for such meetings, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about the productive atmospheres vision on our website. There's Link is up on the slide, and I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum, and the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. and these will all be upheld during this meeting. First, st 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.

[3:02] 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 who wish to share comment during open comment or later during public hearing. Please identify yourself using your 1st and last name, so we can call on you, and we know who's going to speak and you can do that yourself, and if you're not sure how to change your name, you can use the Q&A. Function, and send me your full name, and I can change it for you. And just a reminder that the QA. Function for those of you, maybe not so familiar. With this format, the QA. Function. We're using that really for technical issues like changing your name or if you have a question about a timing in the meeting, or something like that, but we're not using the QA. To have conversations about content. But when we do ask for participation, you can let us know that you wish to speak by hitting the raise hand. Icon. You can find it at the bottom of your screen. If you're joining us by phone, you can raise your virtual hand by dialing Star 9, and you can also get to the raised hand by hitting on the reactions. And you'll see this

[4:17] menu come up and can hit the raise hand in that way as well. So that's it for the rules of participation, and I will now ask and see if there's anybody who wishes to speak for open comment. Again, if you're here for the later public meetings. There'll be an opportunity later. So this is really just, for to speak to any other any other issue you would like to share with planning board tonight, and so far we don't have any raised hands. But I'll just give folks. Vivian. We did have one person signed up to speak for the open comment period in person, so. Great. Let's start with that. While we wait for people to see if they want to raise their hands

[5:00] signed up in person. We have Britt, Worth and Britt. There is a just a small rectangular button on the microphone. Please just press that to activate it and speak close to the mic, so we can hear you cool? Yeah, got it? Thank you. Hi, my name is Britt Worth. I'm currently a student at the law school here for reference, though I did grow up in Arvada. So I am still a Colorado native who's been coming to the Boulder area for a very long time. I just want to talk because I try to do this every time I go to these hearings, and I've talked to city Council people and I've gotten nowhere. It's about charging stations. So I have an electric vehicle, and I had to move from a house where I could charge at home to an apartment so I could be closer to school. I don't have a charger. Here's the problem you all have. You might list 20 chargers. What you're maybe not perfectly calculating is you have to be at a level 2 charger between 8 and 12 h. So just because there's 1 charger available doesn't mean it actually is servicing the people around me. I originally moved to my apartment, thinking, Oh, there's several level 2 chargers around me. Every single one of them has been broken for 3 years.

[6:11] Now I know in city code. You now have to have at least, I think, 2 charging ports per certain sizes, which I think will apply to the applicants this afternoon. But if you have 200 people in a building with just 2 chargers and more than 2 people have an Ev. That means I can't charge at night, or I can't rely on the charger being there, and, as I mentioned, most of the level, 2 chargers around Boulder, at least half of them are broken. So I know you don't make the code. But as many times as I can emphasize this A. If you're going to require chargers, I would love for you to also have a requirement that they annually certify, or even on a 6 month. Certify that said chargers are actually operational. There seems to be a trend here in Boulder, where you install these chargers, and you're very proud of yourself, and then nobody ever maintains them thereafter doesn't really do any good yet you're still able to brag about how many charges your city has. It? Doesn't the charging system for public people sucks? I've talked to city council people, most of whom they do have an Ev. They have a house. I can't afford a 1.5 million dollars house in Boulder. I'm a student.

[7:12] so they only charge at home, so they also don't comprehend the difficulty of this. You have about 8 fast chargers here in Boulder. It's simply not enough. It would be the equivalent of having about 2 gas pumps for all the regular cars for the entire city of Boulder. You have to understand. You have to be at a charger much, much longer, and I'm in constant competition for the few available chargers that actually work my hope. And again, I know you don't set. The code is, if you are approving these things, you need to have like 20 ev charging spots, not just 2. That's completely inadequate for a building of 200 people. And if you're truly sincere, as most boulder people are about climate change, you need to make sure everybody can have an Ev. Not just rich homeowners and 1.5 million dollars houses. I still have 20 seconds. So let's keep going.

[8:00] I would also encourage you to not just have level 2 chargers, which again take between 8 and 12 h. But to start demanding that these apartment complexes have fast chargers which take closer to around an hour, maybe an hour and a half, if it's cold, that's what we actually need. Nobody can afford to stop for 12 h if they have somewhere to go. And again, God forbid! Somebody's already using the spot. So just something to consider. It's not enough. Please make more. That was 3 min. Yeah. Great. Thank you for sticking to time as well. Thomas, can we move to online participants. Yes, I don't believe we have anybody else in person signed to speak. So we can go ahead and move to online. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, we have one hand raised. Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min. Wow! That's egregious. That is stunning. That is so. Not okay. I can't believe it. It only rivals my energy retrofit.

[9:01] which I'm freezing cold. It's what is it? Now? Let's see. 43 degrees in my room. No, no, it's a balmy 45, I think. Gotta read the thermostat, but I'm so cold to get out of bed for that. I just have to stay hibernating all winter long. including after my retrofit, which was a complete disaster just like this charging business appears to be. They put in a $25,000 air handler into my attic space, which I needed to finish or storage before I put on a roof, so I can get solar. and I've been waiting for this for 15 years. So they just crashed all of my plans for getting solar

[10:02] and I thought energy efficiency is what we're all about. They put a Mitsubishi hyperheat, 3 ton piece of gear in my side yard setback. That makes me just very nervous. If there's a fire, or to get around my house instead of going through my side yard setback, I have to go around my whole house to get to the other side. If something's blown back there or something, it's also unanchored. When they pressured me about anchoring it after they've done the retrofit. They dropped me in the middle of the program because I didn't like where the compressor was and installed, and the reason that I was kept away from my whole retrofit and letting them know anything

[11:01] about where I wanted my mini splits. They put one at the opposite end of a room that I don't even use and allowed air source heat, pump, hot water, heater. which you can't install in the living room kitchen area that's noisy and that needs air circulation and yet has to be enclosed. It's something they should have learned at boulder housing partners when their bills went way up. but I had told the county that they didn't operate correctly, and I got gaslighted as a result, and they didn't operate correctly because they allowed a solar install, they they blocked a solar install. Lynn, please wrap it up. You're at time. Can I finish my sentence. Please go ahead. Finish your sentence.

[12:01] The the vendor that was putting in this solar installation said they didn't want to, because there were adverse conditions for applying the solar. Okay. Alright, I'm gonna I'm gonna have to stop you just to be fair to others. Thank you for being here. Okay, we don't have any other hands raised for open comment. Back over to you, chair. Thank you, Vivian. As a practice, we generally don't respond to public participants. But I just want to say this board does deal with the issue of charging and vehicle electrification in multifamily housing projects many times and sympathize, and we are undergoing a review of our parking and charging many times as part of parking. So at our next meeting we'll have an agenda item about our parking systems, and it might be good for you to attend and speak again.

[13:05] So that's that. Okay, with the next item after public participation is approval of minutes, we have no minutes to approve. And after that item, 4. Discussion of dispositions, planning board, call-ups and continuations. We have 2 call up possible call-up items. Item 4. A use review for specialized instruction facility to operate in an RH. 2 zone at 2111 Arapahoe Avenue. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing site with one new building for the Delanda Boddy organization. The call-up period expires on February 21st 2025. Does any board member have questions, comments, or wish to call this item up Kurt.

[14:03] I just have one quick question. I don't know who this is whom this is going to, but the statement. The applicant statement says that the residential unit will not be for sale or rent, and I'm just wondering if we are const constraining that in any way or or requiring that, or if that's just a an observation sort of by the applicant. We're not including anything in the conditions of approval for that. But it's for the exclusive use of the the teacher on site. Okay, but there's nothing that they they even they say that which is fine. But they could legally still rent if they choose to per the code. Yes, yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm going to go to Claudia. And then Ml.

[15:01] thanks. Just a clarifying question for staff. So in the applicant's written statement. They included a Tdm plan and various commitments to infrastructure upgrades related to that. Despite these not being part of the Use review criteria. So I'm curious. Does approval of their use? Review application require the applicant to keep these Tdm commitments. Compliance with the Tdm. Will be a condition of approval, so they will need to meet those requirements. Okay, thank you. Okay. Ml. Thank you. Yes, Hi, I've got 2 questions. in the packet. It refers to the Naroba campus as the former Naropa campus so I'm a little bit confused. Is there no longer a Naropa institution on the south side of Arapahoe, across from this site.

[16:05] It's my understanding that that property has been sold and will be redeveloped at some point. But I don't know anything else as far as applications moving forward on that site. So then my second question is, so the rationale for the This specialized facility at this site is that it provides a direct service or convenience to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. So if there's no university in the neighborhood. how is this? A direct service or convenience. Well, I think it can still serve the surrounding residents and those who want to learn at the Institute. It's not necessarily tied to Naropa, though. So a school isn't use by write on the site.

[17:08] I don't know about school, but this would be a specialized instruction facility. A school might be allowed by right, but I don't have that in front of me. So in the redevelopment everything is by right. The specialized instruction facility is triggering. The use Review. If is that the question? Yeah, that is the question. And I guess I'm just curious as to what neighbors it's serving. If there's no longer the the Naropa across the street. Okay. I? I hear you say that there's a broader need for this than than a robot institution. Correct. And we recently approved that Pud

[18:04] being separated from the Naropa campus. Correct. That was a Site Review amendment which removed this property from the Naropa, the Pewdi that approved Naropa. Right, and when we had that when we approved that. there was an understanding that the Naropa campus was going to remain as it was. But in fact, I'm hearing you say that that isn't true. It's it's been sold. That's my understanding. But I think, Laurel, I don't know if you were going to say something. Yeah, that wasn't part of the the Sire view when we did split those 2 properties. So there wasn't an agreement that no rupa would stay at a particular property right. It was just a comment that was added in describing the site. And so I was just curious, given that.

[19:01] That a requirement, or anything or part of the agreement. I see. Okay, well, those are my questions. Thank you for clarifying. I am not going to be calling this up. Okay, Laurel, introduce yourself. Thank you. Apologies. I'm Laura with the city attorney's office. Yes, thank you. Okay. So I'm taking it. That last call on calling this item for a up. Okay, no takers. Item 4, B call up. Item, final plat to subdivide lot 18, shining mountain subdivision filing number 2 into 20 lots for detached single unit residential development. The plat also includes dedications of drainage and public access easements. This application is subject to potential call upon or before. February 20, th 2025, reviewed under case number Tec.

[20:02] 202-40-0046. Again, questions, comments, or an action to call this item up. Okay? Seeing none. We are moving on to agenda. Item 5 agenda. Item 5 a. I'm going to go ahead and read this agenda. Item title again, and then we'll get into some possible direction here. Agenda. Item 5. A continuation of consideration of a site review, application for the redevelopment of a 9.8 7 acre site at 1855 South Flatiron Court, with 3 research and development buildings totaling 207,000 11 square feet.

[21:02] The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 2, 3 story buildings up to 50 foot in height. a request for a 23% parking reduction and a modification to site access control to allow for 2 access points. The applicant has requested vested rights for a period of 9 years reviewed under case number LUR. 202-40-0036. The opportunity for public comment on this item has been closed and will not be reopened. So this brings us to an interesting state of affairs. So we've continued our public hearing. The public hearing is concluded. and it is now strictly board deliberation. We may ask questions of staff, but as board deliberation about our

[22:04] course of action, and I want to read from the our packet. The planning board has 3 options. Tonight we may one approve the application and adopt findings of approval. 2. Approve the application with conditions, and adopt findings of approval, or 3, deny the application and adopt the findings of denial. At our last meeting, where we continued this item, we, the board, based on some straw polling. requested the staff draft denial findings. And we have those, and we've been reviewing those individually prior to this meeting.

[23:01] So it's a little awkward for George. I see your hand up. Do you. Oh, yeah, I was just going to mention that. I was at the presentation of staff and the applicant I was absent during your deliberation. But I did review the video, so I am prepared to participate in that. And I'm up to speed. So I just wanted to make that disclosure ahead of our discussions. Great. Thank you very much, George. Appreciate that. So As chair typically, I would take. I would defer to board members who want to make a motion. However, I have. I have a motion tonight for for approving the application with conditions.

[24:05] and so I want to be very careful and respectful about what comes first, st so should we choose to 1st here to debate and vote on denial findings. I think that is not the best order. I would, I would request and and be open to suggestion of hearing a motion to approve with conditions. If that motion does not get a second. or if that motion fails, then we would move to the denial, the motion to deny, and the denial findings. So I would like to hear your thoughts on this, Laura, so

[25:02] I'm I'm glad you've come prepared with an idea for how this could be approved with conditions. My suggestion, what would help me is if I hear what you're thinking, what those conditions might be before we try to put a motion on the table about it, so can we have a little discussion of what those conditions of approval might be before making a motion. because once we get into the motion making process, it gets very procedural. Okay, however, me being the kind of formal guy who has carefully drafted the conditions so I can. Just if I paraphrase them, I would just as soon go ahead and read my motion and see if it gets a second. Okay, so you're saying that when you read the motion it will include all of your suggestions for conditions. Okay? Okay? In fact, I've given Thomas my motion language and I'm ready to hit. Send and send it to all of you

[26:10] that would work for me. What do other folks think? That's okay for me? Sure, I'm certainly curious to see the conditions. And yeah, my sort of operating assumption had been that we would start just entertaining any motion. But if if you want to run this by us, I think that that would be great. I would like to see them up on the screen. Of course. sure. And of course, Google just signed me out. So I it's like one of those things. Okay.

[27:01] I was going to say, I'm I'm also happy to hear conditions of approval. I think this is a difficult undertaking. It seemed fairly difficult to do on the fly at our last meeting. Given the magnitude of concerns that were raised about this project, so I'd like to have an opportunity to hear some thought on how we could condition this. Okay? So my promise of emailing the so everyone could see it in writing in front of them on their device. Thomas, do you have it to put up now? And can you actually also maybe send it to the planning board address so that everyone has it? Yes, I can do that. I can go ahead and share the document. I don't know what's gone on here, but anyway. it's it's 1 of those wildly frustrating items. and so I'll just go ahead and

[28:05] read. Read my motion, and then we'll see if we get a second motion to approve. Site review application. Lur, 2020. It's going to like, close my screen. Now, read it up there. Yeah. Okay. motion to approve site review application, LUR. 202-40-0036. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the following conditions of approval. One cafe and amenity space in building 3 1st building to be built will be enlarged with a focus towards amenities that reduce trips to and from the site examples could include, but are not limited to more cafe seating and a greater variety of offerings, bike, maintenance, and repair area, a small store for sundry items, workout area, child care center.

[29:14] All retail amenities shall be open to the public during normal operating hours. Amenity space will be pushed toward the entrance of the building, so that all visitors visitors to the site know of their presence. 2 removal of additional parking to accommodate the additional amenities is encouraged. 3. Prior to permit approval or technical document review applicant shall resubmit a Tdm plan that will focus on substantial trip reduction by car examples could include but are not limited to better and more convenient horizontal long term bike parking beyond the city requirements that accommodate longer wheelbase and heavier e-bikes, as well as e-bike charging at a majority of bike. Parking spaces

[30:14] applicant shall enumerate proactive Tdm policies that will inure and be binding upon any tenant for a 10 year period from certification of occupancy. Possible policies are parking cash out program, company sponsored transportation to and from the site more car shares than what is in the current application, subsidization of, and coordination with micro mobility. Providers. 4. Site design will be refined at the cul-de-sac to create a larger or more welcoming entrance for pedestrian and cyclist to the central open space of the site

[31:01] and access to the multi-use path connection applicant shall create a pedestrian connection from the path between buildings 3 and 2, and between buildings 2 and one. These pedestrian connections will require removal of some parking spaces to create a clear and landscaped connection. Multi-use path connections will be open to the public at all times, unless closure is needed for repair or maintenance. 5. The city will have sole authority to close the path. that condition was somehow in the formatting. That's become an additional item. But anyway, that was actually part of item 4. That was item, yeah, there we go. Thank you. Item 5. To accommodate the site. Review conditions above. an additional parking reduction will be allowed and encouraged.

[32:00] This approval includes an increase in the allowed parking reduction from 23% to 32%, or a total of 350 spaces on site. So that's the motion with the conditions, can I? I can either wait till after the second or no you can. There's 2 main things that stand out to me as could be problematic number 2. If you scroll up, Thomas. just something to think about as you guys are doing, this encouragement language is hard to enforce, like we don't know how we would enforce that. So I think it would. It's it's not really a condition, right? Encouragement. Language isn't a condition. So somebody think about there. I don't know if we need to. Wordsmith that or not. and then number 3 and the the 3rd condition there we would need something in there that says like staff can approve it, or to the satisfaction of staff. Yeah. So something in there that says, like

[33:03] staff will say yes or no to whether or not it meets subject to staff, so subject to to staff planning, staff approval. Staff approval. Yeah. Okay, let's assume we add those things in yeah, and again, this is the procedurally. Well, that's actually laurel. Let's make that modification regarding the staff. Yeah. And just put it after providers and say, these conditions are subject new sentence after providers. These conditions are subject to staff approval just for that. Yeah. So if Thomas captured those in condition 4. I also think the word encourage is being used.

[34:06] So I think we would want to strike that. I think it's 5 allowed and encouraged. Right? Okay, we're just allowed right? And then in 4, I think the city already has the sole authority to close rights away paths when we need to. So I think we can probably strike that language, since it's already stated in the code. even when a connection is on private property, if it connects what my concern is obviously they couldn't close the the creek path. But the connection that's got it on their site. That's a different concern. Okay, that that's my concern. Yeah, we'll have to think about that. Yeah, there's usually a public access easement on it. But I want to ensure that public access from the path to the cul-de-sac remains as public access

[35:06] at all times, without out, subject to other than maintenance or repair. Yeah, that makes sense. And then the other one that I just wanted to touch on was number 2. I don't know if you want to amend that removal of additional parking to accommodate the additional amenities is encouraged. That's just a hard one for us to enforce. That's fine. We actually take care of an additional parking reduction specifically and numerically down below. Let's just strike number 2. Thanks for the friendly amendments. Mark a question on Number 5, which is, Are you? Is now number 4, which John number 4. Are you giving the developer the option to reduce the parking? Or are you trying to cap the parking at 350 space? And what's your intention with that.

[36:05] My intention is to allow, because these conditions require some site design changes that they would be allowed up to our approval would allow them to have a parking reduction up to 32%. And we can just delete the 350. But it calculates to a total of 350 spaces on site at a 32% parking reduction down from 3, 80, 3, 3, 80 whatever 3 nineties. But if if it makes it simpler. We can just strike the 350 spaces as a number. And just, we would allow a parking reduction from 23 to to 32%, Laura. So so just procedurally, we have a motion on the floor, and I know we shouldn't be debating it before we get a second or not get a second. But I would like to make a comment if that's okay, sure. And that is, I really appreciate the work that you put into these, and I think these are all positive changes in the site design

[37:15] for me. They are not sufficient to say that this project meets the Site Review criteria. The applicant is required to meet all of the Site Review criteria, not just selected ones, and I think there are a lot of things that are not addressed by this, including things like, do the entries connect to the public realm? Is the amount of parking and land use devoted to parking minimized the fact that all of the the entire site is designed to be inward facing rather than connected to the public realm. There's very little transparency on the ground floors that faces the public realm. All of these things to me. to me it's too massive of a design change to do it as conditions. I would like to. I would think I would encourage the applicant to make these changes and come back, but I think they would need to do it as a new site review. I don't think that we can condition this project and know what we're actually going to get.

[38:08] So that's my feeling about it is for me. This would not be sufficient to approve the project. Okay, so I do think so that drifts into debate. And so this may not go anywhere but with the edits that Laurel and I have worked on, I think debate on this would proceed with a second. and it and it may fail. based on these objections, and hearing your objections, etc. But I think procedurally, the question is, is there a second? Is this motion complete? At this point the motion is complete. At this I will second this. I would like to hear some debate.

[39:01] Great, thank you. So it's been. It's been moved and seconded, can I just confirm if we're striking the currently highlighted? Yes, portion or a total? Yeah, sure spaces. Okay, yes, please. Okay. So Then. Now that this has been moved and seconded as the motion maker again. This is awkward as chair. I'm going to speak to my motion. and And all my careful notes are gone. So this is really, really kind of frustrating here. But I'll do my best, and the 1st thing I want to say is that. Wow! It is. It is not listed or enumerated in the code.

[40:03] It is you know what I'm going to work on my login here a little bit. And so who who would like to speak to this mark? Do you want to take a break for technical difficulties while you get your notes back, because I feel like you need to be able to hear the debate and not necessarily be looking for your notes while we're talking, because you're so critical to this debate. I would suggest, we take a break 5 min. Okay, we're going to take a break for 5 min.

[44:46] George and Ml, with us. Okay, okay. all right. Okay, we're going to be back in session. And Thomas has reminded me that just as a reminder to those in the audience, if you wish to speak about the next public hearing item on 30th Street.

[45:11] there's a sign up sheet over there. So if you're not the applicant, but you want to speak about it. be sure and sign up in advance. Okay, back to the motion at hand. And as motion maker, I'm going to speak to my motion. Briefly, and I for me, this project fulfills the requirement of the code we have today it. It may not fulfill the requirements of the of a code that we would like to see in the future. but fulfills with the conditions I've proposed. I believe it fulfills the requirements of the code as it exists today, and that while no project is perfect,

[46:06] And some criteria is direct and numeric and less subjective, much of our criteria in the Bbcp. And in the code is subjective. And I so rather than go through lots of specific code citations, I'm just going to make 3 points about what I like about this project as it pertains to the code. And this is one that's not in the code, but I can't help but support the conversion of a multi acre surface parking lot, with no public access, no public benefit, no, nothing into a, I think, an architecturally attractive R&D site and

[47:05] and a campus and a campus-like field. I also really appreciate the functional open space created by the central campus courtyard. A number of projects that come before us fulfill their open space requirements with linear strips made up of setbacks. Parking dividers, you know, borders, edges that fulfill technically the open space requirement. But are not functional as open space to people and humans who are visiting the site. I think this design actually honors that and that honors the functional open space. and I think that that we need to be cognizant of that, as in our judgment about how we apply the requirements for for open space.

[48:11] I also think that this is a very challenging site. It's the end of a cul-de-sac in the back corner of an aging suburban industrial Park this, and and the design of the park. Was this park was developed with few, if any, of our current goals in mind. and given this challenge. I think the applicant has done good work relating the buildings to the courtyard and the street, and for me the street is defined as the street, the cul-de-sac. It is not. It is not the parking row around the back. and I understand that that we like buildings that are designed with 4 sides, and that

[49:01] that surface parking at the back is. we want that to be attractive as well. But the back of the building that faces the Creek path is not the public realm, as I read it defined in the code, the public realm is the cul-de-sac, the end of the street and the courtyard. That's that's planning on that is planned for the development. Finally, I have I've really studied up on parking. You can call it podium parking or stilt parking whatever system you want to define it, as I prefer the parking solution, as as it's shown today over either a separate, a separate building. a completely structured parking garage or more surface parking.

[50:06] And given the world we live in today with cost, constraints, etc. The only other option would be undergrounding. and I think that that the that what the applicant has done fills the design requirement and is. is maybe the best solution. And I also want to remind us that in our code, in 9 dash 2 dash 14 h. 3, a. 2. It says, wherever practical, considering the scope of the project. Parking areas are located behind buildings or set back further from the street cape, further from the streetscape than the building facade. I think this is exactly what the applicant has done, they have fulfilled that requirement.

[51:03] And so, when I look at 9, when I, when I revisit the Revisited, the Bbcp. And our code in relation to this site. The citation of 9 dash 2 dash 14 h. 1 a is familiar to us all. where we apply the on balance standard. and we also state in the Bbcp. That no project must satisfy one particular goal or policy, or all of them. And while I was rereading the Bbcp. I came across something that I've never heard us discuss before, and it's policy number 5.0 7 5.0 7, says industry clusters. The city will support an industry cluster approach to business development. This approach involves a focus on supporting multiple businesses in an industry and considering special financial and technical assistance programs and other tools to retain.

[52:07] expand and attract businesses. In those clusters. Boulder's key industry industry clusters include aerospace bioscience. and it lists a number of other industries. The city acknowledges that these clusters and their needs will evolve and change over time. End quote. That was something that I had not paid any attention to before, but I think is applicable in this case. So I think again, that concludes my my comments on the motion, but I think the combination of the motion, and as I read it on balance fulfills both the code and the BBC Bbcp requirements. Okay, I'm looking for hands, Claudia.

[53:01] I'll also speak to the motion. So just to preface this by saying that I am not fully on board with the findings of denial, and for that reason I'm very interested in this attempt to craft some conditions here that allow us to approve this project. I think this Site Review demonstrates that there can and will be at times site specific barriers to implementing area plans and place typologies. And some of the more subjective areas of our land use code. And I definitely see a concern in some of my colleagues comments on this project. That this site has some issues around limited connectivity. I largely agree with that concern. But, in fact, we haven't actually required additional connections in any approved plan that we're allowed to mandate as a standalone parcel this site. The only access here is at the end of a cul-de-sac.

[54:03] or from a multi-use path that is separated by a significant grade, and in some cases wetlands. So, without adding to the street grid or other connections plans. I'm not sure how we expect substantially different proposal in terms of site design for some of these concerns that have been raised. I think there are some changes to building siting that could be made to strengthen the end of the cul-de-sac. As a public face of this development. I do think there are some aspects of the kind of ring of parking that we've been discussing here that are problematic. However, I also appreciate the applicants, effort to underground and screen much of the parking as Mark has discussed here, and to reduce the need for surface parking lots. I think that's very much in keeping with our area plans and our site review criteria here.

[55:00] I think when it comes down to it, we've had a lot of concerns about parking here. But if we are going to allow parking, and in fact, mandated on sites like this, it does have to go somewhere. and the choices of where it goes are quite limited in a site. With this kind of limited connectivity. If it's in the interior of the site, the site becomes parking oriented. If it's on the exterior, it prevents connections to adjacent sites. We can kind of pick our poison on this, but there is going to be some poison involved. I do have one substitute condition that I will offer, and one additional condition that I could offer to what Mark has already put on the table here in support of this approval, and I will move those if there's interest in proceeding with a conditional, a conditioned like, I said, this is a challenging site. But I am looking for ways that we can move forward because I am not in agreement with a number of the denial findings. Vora.

[56:01] So thank you, Mark. Thank you, Claudia. You know I agree. This is a challenging site. and I would, if we are going to proceed with conditions of approval. I would. I think that there's a good tie in here to the findings of denial and talking through. Why, they're there, and how we have a condition that that makes those findings no longer relevant. Or if we don't agree with those findings right? I do think we would need to talk through that because, as I mentioned previously, Site Review, conditions are not an on balance. Finding they are, every single one must be met right, and we have quite a number of them that were proposed as conditions of denial that the applicant did not meet them. So I want to talk through those. I just want to make a couple of comments, and and I don't want to hog the air time to do that right now, because I think that would take some substantial time. But I do want to make just a couple of general comments. Number one. The bike path, I think, is an incredibly critical part of the public realm. I don't think we can exclude the bike path from our consideration of how this project interacts with the public realm. I do appreciate Claudia as you mentioned the difficulty of creating connections with the change in grade and the Wetlands. The original Concept Review

[57:19] had a connection that came into the site rather than going up to the top of the cul-de-sac, which I think might bear some reconsideration. The original site design also did not have a ring of parking. It had one parking garage and a little bit of parking on the north north end of the site by the cul-de-sac. It did have a service road around the project which has now expanded to be not just something that's used in emergency cases, or for hauling out trash, but a a main feature of how people access the site and move through the site on a daily basis. And that change, I think, was, was not beneficial for meeting the site, review criteria, and

[58:00] the fact that it had a parking garage allowed it to have the activated ground floor uses that we're looking for in the Site Review criteria. So in my reading. even if people aesthetically don't prefer a parking garage, a parking garage is a better solution than dispersing the parking through all of the buildings, taking up all of the ground floors, making those ground floors not transparent and not activated, as well as that ring of parking that did not previously exist. I do think that with a greater parking reduction some of these challenges could be addressed. but I don't know that we can do that adequately in a condition, because I feel like that is something that's going to require some back and forth between staff and the applicant to figure out the best way to consolidate that parking without having the entire site. You know there, there is no building here that fronts the public realm. They are all encircled on all sides by parking by this ring of parking, and usually on 2 or 3 sides of the building there is parking right? So there's some site design challenges with how you address that issue of reducing the parking and what that actually does to the site.

[59:07] And I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, Mark. I do appreciate the beauty of the courtyard that they have created, but that is not public realm that is, on private property. Behind a brick wall at the end of the courtyard is a brick wall wall, currently with 2 gates that you have to go through to enter the site. And the way the site is currently in the plans, and as just was described to us, there is nothing inviting the public into the site other than this one cafe that you are proposing to expand into additional amenities, and I have some questions about that about whether those would be public amenities or private for the site users. Right? So I just think that there's a lot of challenges with how this design meets the Site Review criteria, and we could go through one by one of what those are. But but again, for me, it's too significant to try to condition the project. We would have probably 5 pages of conditions, and I don't know how we make it specific enough that Staff could enforce it right, and one that you didn't even mention was the one that Staff pulled out in their memo about the varied roof heights that don't currently exist which connects to the concern Ml. Had about about view sheds and opportunities as expressed in the East Boulder subcommunity plan.

[60:18] and I agree that this site cannot be everything to everybody, and it cannot meet all of the aspirations of the Bbcp. And maybe not all of the aspirations of the East Boulderside community plan, but it does have to meet all of the Site Review criteria, and I'd be happy to walk through those one by one and talk about how it does or doesn't, and if a condition is possible. thank you, Laura. I agree with pretty much everything you said, so I won't add much. I certainly agree. It's a challenging site. There's no doubt about it. But that's why we have brilliant architects and designers in this world to be able to meet that challenge and and come up with a plan that meets the Site Review criteria, and I do agree with almost all of the findings of denial that that staff

[61:11] that staff put in the memo. I think that those were based on the discussion in our meeting last time, and I think that they well captured the very many and significant concerns that we had. the particular ones that that seem most prominent to me are the design. What Laura mentioned the design of the vehicular circulation in the parking areas making efficient use of the land. That's a Site review criterion, the variety of forms and heights which she just mentioned, and then the East boulder sub community plan, calling for street level, street level activation and streetscape character. And

[62:06] so I think, yeah. I'm just. I think that the the number of and and detail of the conditions we would have to impose, impose would just be unreasonable, unmanageable, and I don't feel that it's even really appropriate or fair on staff to try to make them interpret those and decide what what actually is, is satisfying them and what is not. So I would. I think it would be great if we could come up with conditions that could allow this project to go forward. But I I just don't see how we manage that. They're the fundamentals to me. The fundamental designs is not

[63:02] going to lend itself there. There aren't minor tweaks that I'm seeing that could be made to allow it to meet the Site Review criteria as I read them. George. I I was just gonna make a make a point of order because it sounds like both Laura and Kurt are no go, because they think that the conditions that we'd have to put on are so lengthy that that they're not willing to do that. And so I I would suggest, rather than belaboring this too much. Let's let's at least put it to a vote, or or try to try to move something forward because we could spend a lot of time talking about this, but it doesn't sound like at least 2 board members are going to move. Yes, I would concur. I want to give Ml. An opportunity to speak. But, George, I hear what you're saying, and and depending on what Ml. Has to say. We can. I'll try to craft a path forward here.

[64:05] Yeah, I think we should move to a vote. I don't have anything to add. Okay, I want to remind and and rather than a vote. I'm going to say, let's take a straw poll. And I want to remind folks that any motion. whether it's a denial motion, an approval, motion, or approval of conditions requires 4 affirmative votes, and that so I just want to want to make make that clear. I just want to. One last thing before we go to a straw vote. Laura, you are. You are correct. That Site review criteria we have to meet. An applicant has to meet all the criteria, however. Oh, there's a whole lot of that criteria that is wildly subjective, and it is not all

[65:05] X number of parking spaces per square foot, or whatever it is, it is subjective criteria. So so it is. It is by by its nature a site review is. is has a high degree of subjectivity to it. So, and I just want to make 1 1 last comment, and that is that the denial findings that staff produced were based upon your and Kurtz and Mls. Feedback. It does not technically represent Staff's opinion. They they, their job was to create a set of denial findings to support your view. It it it is not a finding of fact or their their judgment. It is, it is in it is drafted in support of your your views. It is a finding of fact. Sorry not to interrupt. It's a finding their findings of fact, based on what you guys said in the last meeting, findings of fact based on what they said

[66:11] for for us to approve as finding of facts. You're right, it's not Staff saying this is Staff's judgment. However, I will say that Staff are not shy about pushing back if they think this is not legally supportable. They will tell us that. Do you concur with that? Yeah, we'll try our best. So I want to say, procedurally, I'm really glad that you're moving to a straw vote rather than a vote on the motion. Because if we were going to vote on this motion, I think this motion needs a lot of work before we should vote on it, because once we vote on it, it's done right, and I think Claudia had some additional things that she might want to add, if we're going to move forward with this, I would have additional things that I would want to add so. But but a straw vote at this point. Are people even open to approving? This, I think, is a good thing to to test right?

[67:02] Okay? So here, here's, I think the question before us is, raise your hand or speak up. If you would like to proceed with continuing to craft a motion for approval with conditions, and I'll just since it's a straw vote. I just like a show of hands of those that would like to proceed working on a motion of approval with conditions. and I can't see George. Okay, George, are you raising your hand, or are you not raising your hand. I'm not raising my hand. Okay, so great, we can efficiently conclude, I do think we have to take a vote since it was on the floor. And second, oh, yes, yes, okay.

[68:01] Could it be withdrawn laurel once it's motioned, and second, because it's now belongs to the group. I think. No, I don't think so. I think you have to vote on it. Okay, let's we will. We'll take a vote on the motion. And I, knowing the outcome, I'm not going to reread the motion in the name of efficiency. I think we all have it in writing here before us. So I will call out the vote, Claudia. no, Laura, no Kurt, no George. Nope. Ml. No. Okay, I'm a yes, all right, that motion fails now. The floor is open to any other board member to make a motion. May I ask a procedural question, sure, my question is for laurel. so I've only done one other motion of denial in my time on the board, and my recollection of that motion of denial was that there was a collection of findings of fact.

[69:10] and we did not try to achieve unanimity on every one of those findings. We just basically said. we are denying it. And here are the rationales that were given by individual board members. Or do we need to have unanimity on what all of those findings of denial are. No, no, it's just a collection based on individual board members, as you said initially. so you may not agree with every single. Okay? So then, I would ask you, Mark, as the person chairing the meeting. Do you feel like we need to go through the motions of denial before we make a motion or the findings for denial, before we make a motion to accept them? Or does anybody want to modify the findings of denial. What what do you want to do? Procedurally. Procedurally. I think the floor is open and the floor is open to a motion to to adopt the drafted

[70:08] denial motion without reading all 5 pages, and just adopt that. I think there's motion language at the there is in the there is. There's motion language there at the top, does anyone? Well, I guess procedurally there are a couple things I'd like to add to those just for clarification on a couple of them things that were not described in the denial findings that I think would be useful to have in there for the applicant when they're thinking about potentially doing a new site Review. If this were to pass. then procedurally, here's what I'm going to suggest is that you use the suggested motion language which encompasses the entire denial finding, get a second. and then make a motion to amend those denial findings

[71:01] with whatever suggested additions you have, we vote on those additions. and then we go back and vote on the modified main motion that works for me. Does anybody else have edits? They wanted to make to the denial findings you did, too. Does that procedure also work for you, Kurt? Then I would like to make a motion. I move to deny site review application, lur. 2024, 0, 0 3, 6. Finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the application meets the review criteria, and adopting the denial findings of fact as prepared for the Planning Board's consideration of these applications, as revised by the Board during the February 18, th 2025, meeting. I'll second that. Okay. we have a motion and a second and now we're ready to debate that or amend that motion. Does anyone have anything that they're ready

[72:10] to propose with specific language for an amendment. Kurt. Yeah, I just had one suggested modification of finding effect. 3 e. Which relates to the roof form. Finding of fact. 3 E. Currently reads, the roof is consistent throughout the project, and does not provide for a variety of forms and heights which is a little bit stronger than I would put it, and so I am suggesting, modifying that just in in recognition that the applicant did make an attempt to modify the the roof forms, I would suggest modifying that to the roof is consistent throughout the project, except for relatively small breaks, and does not provide for a variety of forms and heights in a meaningful way.

[73:18] Okay, so that is a proposed sorry. That was a motion to amend the findings of fact. Finding if that 3, 3 E, okay, Thomas, did you capture any of that? Or you want him to reread it? So this is this would be, we would be editing section 3, E. Or You could reread it if you want, or you could send me the language, and I can just copy it into this document. I have going and project it for people to see. Or, let me ask you, this does does anyone? Can we get a second to that, to your verbal language.

[74:00] and to the to amend it for your verbal language, and maybe everyone just says yes, and then you send it to Thomas to include, do we have a second for Kurt's language? Second, okay, so we have. We have a motion to amend in a second. Is there debate on this. Does anyone have questions? Debate? Okay. we're going to take a quick vote on that. Mark. I have a question. I'm sorry. Ml. I I have a general question for staff. It was my understanding that you said that we didn't all have to agree with everything on these findings. In fact, can you can you explain that a little bit because it sounds like right now we're trying to get it to a place where we're we're in agreement with don't know it. Can you just clarify that relationship? Doubt this denial has to these to these findings. And Mel. We've got a motion. We've got a motion. We've got 5 pages of denial findings that Staff has drafted.

[75:07] We're in the process of making amendments or modifications to those denial findings, and ultimately you will vote up or down on the modified denial findings. I understand, understand that, Mark, but I just wanted Staff to just clarify what they had said about the need to have unanimous support of all of the findings. Do you want to address this great? Yeah. So in the denial of findings? Right? Those are a summary of all the different things you had said during the hearing previously, before it was continued, and some of them are drafted, based on comments of different planning board members. Here. We're trying to compile all those comments and put them in denial findings. You are not going to agree with every single one, but as a whole. Do you agree with the denial findings. The reason we're not going to do every single one is

[76:09] as a whole. You all have different opinions about why this doesn't meet the Site Review criteria. So on, balance or not on balance. Generally, we say, this doesn't meet the Site Review criteria because of these things. Some of you have different opinions on that. So that's why not every single finding effect on there is going to be met by every single one of you, but as a whole. You say this doesn't meet the criteria, and maybe Laura agrees with one through 4, and Claudia agrees with one and 2, but as a whole you have decided that it doesn't meet this Site Review criteria. So the reason that we don't need you to agree with every single different denial is that of course you're all different, and you see each each of the criteria differently. But all of you say, if you're voting in favor of the denial motion, this does not meet our site. Review criteria. Here are some of the reasons why we believe that.

[77:00] Thank you for clarifying that. Does that make sense? Okay, okay. I'm going to move on with a vote adopting Kurt's addition to item 3. E. Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Kurt, yes, George. No. Ml. No. And I'm a no. So that's 3, 3. So that it fails that that fails. Okay? So that's not a modification. Okay? Any other. Laura, I have 2. The 1st is in the denial, finding number one in the second paragraph. It talks about the commercial space being one small commercial space, and not being adequate to meet the mixed use. Industrial designation.

[78:01] I'm sorry, Laura, while you're talking this through, can could someone put that up so that we can just take a look as she's speaking, I think that'd be helpful just to go ahead. So. Thank you, George. I think I agree. That would be helpful. The finding is about the mixed use, industrial designation, and the fact that this project has one small commercial space, and it calls it a cafe in one of the buildings, and I just wanted to put into the record that that is 600 square feet, which amounts to less than 1 3rd of 1% of the project square footage. Just kind of helping understand and clarify why we are calling that small and inadequate to be the mixed use. Industrial land use category. So I'm basically just wanted to clarify that that small commercial space is 600 square feet, which amounts to less than 1 3rd of 1% of the project square footage. And this is an amendment to finding one. A. Is that correct? Correct? One? A. Yes, sorry one, a thank you.

[79:00] Or are you proposing a simple substitution of the word 600 square feet for small. I am proposing putting in parentheses after one small commercial space parentheses 600 square feet. a cafe in one of the buildings, with a single commercial space amounting to less than 1 3rd of 1% of the project square footage. So be adding that clause also amounting to less than 1 3rd of 1% of the project square footage. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion to amend. Do we have a second. Yes, I'll second that. Ml. I have a I have a question for Staff now, now that's been seconded, which is, yeah. I'm concerned about getting into a lot of wordsmithing here. Is it, is it? I mean it already. It already notes that it's small, and you'll have the record of what Laura has on it. I mean, just a question is, if that's sufficient from your perspective as a direction, rather than going through this line by line and starting to wordsmith it down to the minutia.

[80:13] Can I just clarify, George? What my motivation is? Well, no, I my question was the staff, Laura. So that's my question. First.st I will fill the space for just a moment while Brad's walking up here, I think from a legal perspective, we can show that small, is 600 square feet. That's what's in the record. But I think Brad had good evening planning board. Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services. You know, it is always the Board's prerogative to continue making specific changes to the motion, so we can't really advise you against that. I think what the attorney's office is saying is that you do have, with the recommended language a totality of the record captured, but it'll have to be between all of you to decide to what level that needs to be captured.

[81:10] Okay, thank you, Brett. Thank you. Staff. So in the name of expediency, I think I would request that one. We we have a motion, we have a second, and we go on and just deal with this. And then, following that. we carefully decide what what additions changes need to take place. And if they're worthy within the context of a large denial, finding if they're worthy of additional board time. Is that? Okay? So we have a motion. We have a second. We're going to quickly. Is there any further discussion you may? You may speak to your motion. Yeah, thank you. I just one of the things I'm cognizant of is that this may get appealed up to city council and city council will probably read these denial findings, and it may be expedient and helpful for them to see what is small, and that what this applicant has proposed is 600 square feet. And what percentage of the project that is, that was my main motivation.

[82:16] Okay? Any other comment. Okay, we're gonna I'm just going to keep voting in the same order, so everyone can anticipate this. Claudia. Yes, Laura, yes, Kurt, yes, George. No. Ml. Yes. And I'm a yes, so that particular amendment to the motion passes staff. You guys captured that and we will go on. Are there other proposals to amend the denial findings that anyone wants to make.

[83:03] Okay? So now we're back to the denial findings as a whole, any final comments, any clarification anyone wants to make, or we're going to roll. Call this vote. Okay, we will proceed. So again. The I will read the motion motion to recommend denial of ordinance. 86, 85. Granting a 9 year vested property. I think you're. I'm sorry, Mark. That's the second one. Okay, sorry. There we go. Thank you. Motion to deny. Site reviewed application. LUR. 202-40-0036. Finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applications

[84:05] that the applications meet the review criteria, and adopting the denial findings of fact prepared for the Planning Board's consideration of these applications as revised by the Board during the February 18, th 2025, and including Laura's amendment, what's that? And including Laura's amendment? As well? Should it just say as as revised or as amended. Thank you as amended. Okay. Hey? I have a quick procedural question. George. If let's say this vote splits 3, 3. What what happens next? In our procedures. Okay, Laurel, please answer this, but I studied this up. But go ahead. Yeah, you're welcome to answer it as well. So in our procedural rules. If if something doesn't receive an affirmative vote of 4, then it results in a tie according to the rules. That's what they call it, even if it's not a tie the applicant can be, is automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within 7 days. But it is denied if there's not at least a vote of 4 of you.

[85:17] Was that your understanding right? And so an affirmative vote is an affirmative vote to deny. Okay, so just so, there's no confusion. So if you're voting, yes. you are voting to deny if you're voting. No, you are voting against denial. That's not the same thing as approval. You're voting against denial laurel, and they have 7 days to reapply. Yeah, and that one's for approval. So that's for rehearing, I think in this case, because you're voting for denial paper of approval. Sorry. I'm rereading the rules. Yeah. An affirmative vote of 4 or more of members is required to pass a motion.

[86:03] Any agenda item requiring a vote of the planning board is denied, if it does not receive an affirmative vote of 4 or more. If the 1st vote taken results in a tie, or in a vote of 3 or 2 to 3 and one in favor of approval, the applicant shall be automatically allowed to rehear. So I think that this would just be denying the denial. If anything other than a 4 yes, vote. then they would have a rehearing correct. and is there they would apply for the rehearing within 7 days. But it doesn't state when the rehearing would be correct. We would have to schedule it, and they have the right to request it. They don't have to. They have a required to request it. They don't have to. Okay, right? Okay, their option would be, accept our denial findings, accept our denial findings and go to council correct. But if we do deny and they accept them, then they can't reapply for a year for rehearing correct for a rehearing. So if you vote, at least 4 of you vote and deny it, accept the denial findings. Then it would go to council.

[87:10] If only 3 of you do, then they have an opportunity for rehearing or go to council. Right? Okay, just to be clear, I'm going to take a roll call vote an affirmative vote is a vote to deny. Okay, Claudia. No, Laura. Yes, Kurt, yes, George. No. Ml. Yes. And I'm a no. Okay. So the applicant has 7 days that they can request a rehearing in writing. Okay, all right. This speaks to the importance of attendance.

[88:00] Mason. Okay, all right. Thank you all for bearing with us while we worked our way through that. And I want to express appreciation for all the Board members for the really careful consideration that was given to this project. None of us arrived at our thoughts without careful study and Staff did an admirable job drafting the denial motions, apologies to interrupt. There's a second motion that we have to consider. Okay, yeah, can we just go through that. Yep, okay. There's a second motion motion to recommend denial of ordinance. 86, 85, granting a 9 year vested property. Right? So I'm just, gonna I'm just gonna move this. If that's okay, I move to recommend the denial of ordinance. 86, 85, granting a 9 year vested property right for the approved site Specific Development plan for a property located at

[89:11] 1855 South Flatiron Court and setting forth related details. So I just want to understand this. How would how would Laura laurel? It would only make sense to just without debating it a lot to vote the same way we voted on. We don't have to vote the same way. Right? What's that said? You don't have to vote the same way, right? But we're it's it's the the vested property rights is really part of the site review process. So it's it's all wrapped up together. So okay. can I ask question? I'm confused actually now by this motion, now that I read it more carefully because it talks about the approved Site Route Site Specific Development Plan

[90:09] we and it has not been approved. It's also not been denied. Yeah, we're kind of in it. So it seems like the wording of the motion is not appropriate. Well, technically, it has been denied right, laurel. If it doesn't get an affirmative. 3, it's a denial. I think that's kind of an I don't know the answer to that question, which is why? It's something I'm looking up as you guys are deciding this next motion. The reason that I don't know is because because there's denial findings you denied to deny it. So we're kind of in this. Actually, it hasn't been denied, because a denial takes an affirmative vote of 4. It has neither been approved because an approval takes an affirmative vote of 4. So it's a tie of vote situation. So far I don't think that's what I heard. When Laurel, can you reread that section about 33 for a motion to deny, I will absolutely reread it and apologies. This is from 1987. So it's a little confusing.

[91:09] So in our rules, it says, effective votes. An affirmative vote of 4 or more board members is required to pass a motion approving any action approving any action, right. But but any agenda item requiring a vote of the Planning board is denied. If it does not receive an affirmative vote of 4 or more. If the 1st vote taken results in a tie, or in a vote of 3 to 2 or 3 to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within 7 days the failure to receive an affirmative vote of 4 members on any subsequent motion on the same item, shall result in the defeat of the item. So but what's being denied? If you don't get an affirmative vote of 4. The motion is being denied, not the project, not the site review, the motion itself. the motion, the motion that we had was a motion to deny the motion to deny received 3 votes.

[92:06] But you also denied approval. Right? So that's why we're in a tie situation. But so we have. We have neither denied through an affirmative vote of 4, or approved through an affirmative vote of 4. Any action takes an affirmative vote of 4. This may all be somewhat academic, because the project cannot go forward without an approval, so they either have to get an approval from us or from city council, and otherwise the project is denied, and they haven't gotten approval from us. They can get a rehearing from us, and the last the last sentence may be helpful to again, just to repeat it. The failure to receive an affirmative vote of 4 members on any subsequent motion on the same item, shall result in a defeat of the item that was tonight was a subsequent tonight was a subject. Well, we didn't deny it. We didn't deny it last meeting. So no, we just continued it. Okay, all right. Brad Brad, good evening again.

[93:03] I think there's a it's. It's clear that the original motion did not get approved. nor did it get denied, I would say. In either case the question of vesting seems moot at this point, and I wonder if a vote on that's even necessary. That was more for the record to make sure that it's yeah, yeah, that it was considered. Oh, that that the motion was considered. Okay, I guess. So you're recommending that we do take a that they do take a vote on for the record just to make sure. Yep, okay, yeah. Thanks to deny any thoughts. So just to be clear, I'm going to recommend. I'm going to make the motion. We'll get a second. I'm going to recommend that each of us vote in the way we voted on the prior motion, so that this travels, this vesting of property rights is in the same condition as the motion to deny.

[94:02] and the motion to approve with conditions that it's all. We have not received a threshold. So I think it would be odd to have vested property rights. for without a site review, approval or denial. So that's my recommendation. I'm going to make the motion. We'll get a second. I don't understand how we can vote on a motion that has language, that there's been a site review that's been approved. Yeah, that that was my concern. Yeah, I think I think you'd have to amend the the motion language to take out the approved. So are you amending the motion language? Is that what you're doing? If you, if somebody is going to make the motion, I would recommend, not including the word approved in the motion. Yeah. So I would like to make a friendly amendment because it has not been seconded. So I would like to make a friendly amendment to strike the word approved from that motion.

[95:09] Yes. Yay, okay, I'm going to read the motion. and we're going to see if we get a second motion to recommend denial of ordinance. 86, 85, granting a 9 year vested property right for the site, specific development plan for a property located at 1855 South Flatiron Court, and setting forth related detail. Second, I have a second. Okay, we've got a second. Okay, any debate. I'm I am truly confused. Why, we're voting on this. This is just for the record, so that we make sure we've addressed both parts of the application. So this is to say that we're not recommending, or that you're voting on whether or not to recommend. It's irrelevant, isn't it?

[96:02] It's still so. If it goes before city council, they would still consider this part as well, so we would want them to be able to consider both, if they are, gonna call it up. Okay. Okay. Claudia? No, Laura. Yes, Kirk. Yes, George. I am. I'm at loss here. Okay, can I abstain? Because I I truly I I'm struggling with it. Yeah, I again, my recommendation is that. Heard your recommendation. But I I just don't. It's not computing to me entirely. And abstention, I think, qualifies as a no. And I'll abstain. World. Okay. George abstains. Ml. Yes.

[97:01] Okay? And I'm a no. Okay, that concludes that. Okay, it is now 7, 37, and we're ready to move on to the next item. are people feeling the need for a quick break? Nope, okay, all right again. Thank you. To the applicant, the board and staff on that particular difficult. Item. Yeah. no, no. Do. Do you need to. Are we ready? Okay, okay. all right. Meeting meeting goes on here. Agenda. Item 5 B.

[98:05] This is a public hearing, a consideration of a site and use review for the redevelopment of 2555, 30th Street, with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing car dealership, and proposes 142 units, including studio 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, totaling 111,495 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55 feet in height. a request for a 6% parking reduction modification to setbacks, number of stories and building size in the Bms zone. The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit village Area plan.

[99:02] The applicant has requested vested rights, reviewed under case number LUR. 2024, 0 0 4 7, and LUR. 2024, 0 0 6 5. So this is a public hearing item. And just for everyone's information, we'll have a staff presentation. We'll have clarifying questions of staff the applicant presentation. clarifying questions to the applicant, a public hearing. any possible response from the public hearing by the applicant. and then, finally, we'll close the public hearing, and the board will deliberate. So, having said all that, we're ready to go with the staff presentation. all right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine, senior Planner, and I will be presenting this next item

[100:11] in this presentation I will briefly cover the information that was provided in Staff's Memo, including the planning process to date the existing site and surrounding context. A summary of the proposed project some key issues for discussion, and concluding with the staff recommendation. the project was 1st presented to planning board as a concept plan in May of 2024 there was no council call up, and the applicant proceeded with a Site Review application. In August of 2024 staff has reviewed the application and is recommending approval before planning board. After tonight's hearing. City Council will have the option to call it Planning Board's decision scheduled for March. The Site Review is required, based on the size of the development and requested modifications, including a 6% parking reduction height modification to build up to 55 feet setback modifications to the front and side yard modification to the number of stories to allow for 4 stories and increase to allowable building size in a Bms. Zone. The applicant has also requested vested rights. The height, modification, and vested rights require a decision by planning board.

[101:14] The application also includes a use review for ground floor residential in A. Bt. One zone, and lastly, the site was posted, and public notification was provided per code. Several public comments were received and have been included in the packet. Some of these primary concerns are related to the building height and offsite bike connection. The subject site is located on the western side of 30th Street, between Bluff Street and Mableton Ave. And the site is shown here in a pink square. The site is designated as mixed use business which applies to business areas throughout the city and anticipates both business and residential uses, however, does rely on the zoning code to define building, form, intensity uses, etc. as a note. The mixed use. Business designation is not meant to apply to an individual site, but is meant to introduce mixed uses to an entire area.

[102:06] The site is split zoned between Bms and Bt. One. I have the zoning definitions on the slides because of the split zone designation, the development will be subject to different standards, depending on which zone the portion of the building falls within for the purposes of determining far open space setbacks, parking, etc. Each zone district will essentially function as a separate and individual lot. Parking calculations will be based on the 2 different ratios, but the location of parking can be shared on site for the surrounding context. Immediately adjacent to the site. The Goose Creek, Greenway, and Bike Path runs just south of the site with residential to the west, and some mixed use across the street on 30th Street. The overall character of the area is varied. Nearby commercial uses include the 29th Street Mall and Crossroads Shopping center with whole foods. Mixed use development in the area includes steel steelyards across the street, and the Rev. Development. Mixed Sensei residential is located throughout the area.

[103:10] 30th Street is a transit corridor and is also located close to the Boulder Junction and other multimodal facilities. Overall. The area is walkable and transit oriented, and contains a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 4 story building heights. The site is currently occupied by a Hyundai dealership with a 1-story structure, large amounts of surface parking, and some existing landscaping due to the proximity to Goose Creek. The southern edge contains a small portion of the outer wetland buffer on the southwest corner and the 500 year flood zone in the southeast corner. The site is located within the transit village area plan. This area is specifically designated as the 30th Street Corridor District, and that's intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses in 2 and 3 story buildings located adjacent to the street. The vision of the area is also to transform 30th Street into a business main street that serves the neighborhood and introduces a pedestrian friendly street front.

[104:06] Additional objectives in general tvap goals include mixed use, land designation, new residential and diverse housing and connection to natural and environment. This is sort of just a general breakdown of tvap, and does not address all of this plan specifics the site and surrounding parcels are subject to the plan connections found in Tvap as well as those identified in the Tmp or transportation master plan. The property is impacted by those identified connections, including a proposed expansion of Bluff Street from 29th Street to 30th Street, with 2 options that's shown in the Orange dashed line by the note where it says Cmap, note and then a proposed North South Alley connection that is, north of the site shown in a yellow dashed line. Although included on the Tvap plan. There is a preexisting plan connection over city owned property that is identified on the Tmp and connects the Goose Creek Bike path to the subject site that is shown in the purple dashed line.

[105:02] and then the subject site itself does contain 2 planned alley connections to the north, south, on the western edge of the property and East west, running east-west on the southern edge. That's also shown in the yellow dashed line. So the proposal being discussed tonight is for the redevelopment of 2555, 30th Street, with residential uses and a ground floor. Commercial space proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership and proposes 142 units, including Studio 1, 2, and 3 bedroom existing vehicle. Access to the site is from 30th Street and will remain that way bike users may access the site from 30th Street, which will have a protected bike lane as part of the 30th Street right-of-way improvements triggered by the redevelopment of the site. Other points of bike access will be from the multi-use path connections on the southern and western edges of the site. Pedestrian access is from 30, th 30th Street, the multi-use path to the south and west, and internally from the parking garage. Distinct building access points are located along all sides of the building and are separated from vehicular traffic.

[106:04] The pedestrian and bike access ties into proposed on-site open space, adjacent and off-site open space and existing bike bike infrastructure parking will be located within the footprint of the building, with surface level parking. To the north a dedicated car share space is located on the northeast corner of the site, and long term and short-term bike parking is provided for a total of 288 spaces that serve both residential and non-residential uses. As mentioned, the proposal includes a request for a 6% parking reduction to allow for 145 spaces, where 154 are required. The applicant has provided a Tdm plan which outlines the site characteristics and Tdm strategies that support the requested reduction, including bike maintenance stations. The multi-use path, ecopasses and car share the applicant in partnership with the city and per feedback from planning board at the Concept Plan stage has provided plans to construct the off-site connection that crosses the city, owned Greenway and identified on the Tmp. To the west of the site. The multi-use path will be located on portions of city owned property as well as the subject property.

[107:10] The design will be finalized at time of tech doc. But the conceptual layout will remain the same, which includes access points from 30th Street and the northwest corner of the site, and then shift on site to connect to the broader network the wetlands permitting will also be done at time of tech dock. The applicant is proposing administrative amendments to tvap to better connect with the greater transportation network in the surrounding area and align with the vision of Tvap as well as applicable. Site. Review criteria. These amendments include the removal of the proposed secondary street or alley connections that were shown in the yellow dashed line on the western and southern edge of the property, and instead replace those with onsite multi-use path connections. An alley reservation is also provided at the northwest corner of the site to align with the other connections shown in Tvap. When the adjacent parcels are eventually redeveloped. The reservation will also allow for access. If the 30th Street curb cut is closed at some point in the future.

[108:05] There is also a slight Tmp. Adjustment proposed to shift location of the plan multi-use connection which is currently drawn over the creek and within the wetlands. The applicant is, instead proposing to construct the connection north of the creek. Outside of the wetland buffer open space requirements are calculated for each zone, and portions of the building that fall within that zone. So for the Bms zone, the minimum requirement is 15% open space with a 60 square foot private open space requirement for each dwelling unit. The Bt one zone requires 30% minimum open space, but does not have a private open space requirement. Open space is provided throughout the site in the form of landscaping individual balconies and patios, and a shared courtyard which also has a mixture of hardscaped areas, including an outdoor kitchen and bike patio landscaping terraces and a lawn area. The ground floor commercial space does have outdoor seating to better connect with the public realm.

[109:05] Proposed materials include metal panels, fiber cement panels, metal details and dark brick. The building design provides a change in massing and materials for different elements of the building. The mass of 30th Street facade is split by a vertical sterile, with a change from a flat roof form to a gabled roof, form along the transition from commercial to residential uses. and the grand floor has also been designed to interact with the public realm and create a welcoming sense of entry. Dark masonry on the ground floor contrasts with the blue and wood look siding on the upper floors. The 30th Street facade is highly transparent, with storefront glazing around the secondary points of entry, and the main entry is well defined with facade recessions, additional glazing change of materials and details like slanted beams. The Southern elevation is located adjacent to the proposed multi-use path connection, and opens up towards the creek. There are defined entries along the southern elevation for resident access building materials and storefront windows along the 30th Street facade, wrap along the southeast corner and on the southern elevation.

[110:07] fenestration, material continuity, and terrace landscaping provide visual interest and introduce human scale elements along the public realm. The overall building form is made up of 2 wing elements and adjoining hyphen element that is differentiated by change of materials and roof forms. The applicant is requesting height, modification for up to 55 feet, and eligible for height, modification per sub. Paragraph 9, 2, 14 h. 6 c. Which will be further verified at time of building permit. and it will be also subject to additional criteria for buildings requesting height, modification. And there are 3 key issues for discussion here on the slide. I'll go through them individually. 1st one is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review criteria, including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height. Modification staff finds that overall the project promotes alternatives to automobile, provides common open space areas throughout the site, incorporates a variety of landscape design.

[111:05] and the building and siding is compatible with the character of the surrounding area as well as Tvap. Sorry my mouse is in the way. and the building design successfully creates visual interest in a vibrant pedestrian experience. Key issue 2 is the proposed vehicular parking reduction consistent with the parking reduction criteria staff finds that the 6% parking reduction is consistent with the criteria found in the Site Review, as well as 996 f. For parking reductions. Our final key issue is the Pros project consistent with the Transit village Area Plan staff finds that the overall project is consistent with Tvap. It includes ground floor commercial spaces and activated facades along the public realm. Varied roof forms and heights right away, improvements on site and offsite transportation connections, and a link to the open space parking is tucked away from the public realm. Where possible.

[112:02] Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of the project with the suggested motion language shown here on the screen. and then I will open it up for any questions. Great. Thank you, Allison. It's always a nice presentation. Okay. clarifying questions for Staff at this moment, Kurt. thank you for the presentation. I have a number of questions which pretty much all relate to transportation, since transportation is a key aspect of this. The 1st one is this in the memo you write. If Bluff Street is expanded and the alley to the north is constructed, the property may be able to eliminate access from 30th Street, and instead use access from a future alley. And so my question is, what does maybe able mean?

[113:04] And is there a way to make this binding? Or would this be binding? Or is this just sort of in the realm of an observation? It wouldn't be binding just because it's contingent on the future development of the adjacent parcels and the construction of those paths. At some point in the future. I believe the Tvap identifies trying to close some of those 30th Street closures. So by providing that alley reservation, it gives the option and makes sure that the site is still functional in the event that that 30th Street closure happens. Okay, but it would be totally up to the discretion of the applicant or the owner. Yeah. And they would. They would work with the city on that. Yeah, yeah, and and there wouldn't need to be a turnaround. Then at the East Side. If that entrance were closed there wouldn't need to be a turnaround in order to to to meet fire code and so on. The Alley reservation includes a turnaround space.

[114:05] So they they'd be able to turn around there. But wouldn't they need it at the end, which would then be the East side? Yeah. Might defer to the applicant on that one as far as the turnaround points in the site. Okay, I will ask the applicant about that. Then the next question is about the multi-use path shown on the south side. So the west section of that multi-use path appears to me to be on city property. and I think I read in the memo that some thing about that. That was because that allowed them to meet the in the permeable space permeable surface requirement is that yeah, it has to do with the the wetlands where the location of the wetlands buffer is

[115:05] in order to move it out of the there's like a 20% limit that would push it into a bigger wetland permit. If they wanted to stay within the conditional wetland permit, then it would need to be out of that 20%. So basically they are, as I understand it, they are requesting to use city land, feel the multi-use. This portion of the multi-use path is that they're working in partnership with the city on that one. Yes, okay. And is it standard for the city to allow use of its land for situations like this it seems a little bit surprising. This was something that came directly from the board at the time of concept plan, so we pursued it, and we have a pretty big staff team working together with utilities. Greenway, Greenways transportation to

[116:07] because I think the Board found that there was more value in that connection there than where, where it's proposed. Further to the south, in the actual transportation connections plan. So it's rare is my is my point. Okay? I'm I'm talking about the section right on the property line, the South property line of this property that in the TV app connections plan, it's shown as an alley correct? And they're proposing changing it to a multi-use bath in the West. About 2 thirds is shown on as running on city property. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. And that that I didn't see any reference to that particular location on city property in concept review.

[117:01] So that it's specifically about that question. It just. it seems very surprising for a private applicant to be able to basically use city property to meet one of the requirements basically on their property. Yeah, and that. So that's a a partnership that we're working with together to see that off-site connection get constructed. So in order to do that, why, why is it an off-site. Why isn't it an on-site? Because the planned connection is shown off-site crossing the creek. No, no, no, this isn't the portion on the creek crossing the creek. We get a map up. Sure, this is this is the portion again, but it connects to the the portion. That's let me go to the slideshow. If you look at Figure 11, your open space Site plan, I think you can see the portion that Kurt's talking about on the Southern property line.

[118:01] Figure a, yeah, that that shows it on the bottom, on the bottom, right there. So the the proposed multi-use path along the south property line of the property. The East, 40% runs on the site. the West, maybe 60% runs on city property is my understanding. So it's that that specific section, not the portion to the West. It's that specific section that I'm asking about. sure. And and that was there to avoid the the wetland that Wetland issue. But the wetlands to the south. Yeah, I don't understand. Yeah. As as Laura just said, the wetland is further south, so I don't understand how pushing the multi-use path further south avoids the wetland. It seems like it puts it closer to the wetland. Sure. So it looks that requirement. And I'm not an engineer. So I'm just speaking from my understanding of of that code. But

[119:07] it's looking at the individual site. And so the the sliver of the outer wetland buffer that goes into the subject property. If the path was located north onto the subject site it would be the entire. It would exceed that 20% limit. And so that's why it's been shifted down. Because when you look at the entire, the entirety of the parcel to the south. it takes up less than 20% of the wetlands area. I don't know if that made it more confusing. Oh, okay. And what would. So if it if it did take up that 20% threshold of the wetland buffer. What what then, does that imply? It would change the type of permitting, instead of a conditional wetland permit. it would be a bigger process would be a public process.

[120:05] And is the city K. This is not really a site review question, I guess. But is the city getting any compensation then for the use of that property? No, we wouldn't get any compensation. We'd have an easement on the portions that aren't, you know, that would be on our property, but we wouldn't be getting compensation in the same way that when we vacate a piece of right of way we don't get compensation from a property owner. Okay, so it is in some sense, kind of similar to a vacation in in conceptually, maybe. Okay, that is helpful. Thank you. Can I do one more great? The the next question is about the western alley connection.

[121:06] It the again the the memo says the western alley. Connection, as shown in Tvap. would not align with the rest of the alley network to the north or meet Dcs spacing requirements between properties. And so, for one thing, I'm unclear. It looks to me like where they're doing. The connection is where it's shown on the Tvp map. So I'm not clear what actually is changing in that regard. I think that's supposed to say the Eastern connection where it connects to 30th Street. Oh. because it's looking at the access point. If it were to be built, as shown on the connections plan, it wouldn't meet the spacing requirements for the property to the south.

[122:09] Okay, so that should that might be a typo. And I apologize. Yeah, that makes much more sense. Great. Okay, I will yield the floor for the moment. Thank you. Okay, I'm just gonna ask our online board members quickly if they have any Amel or George. Oh, George, has your hand up. Okay. Yeah, I just have a quick question for staff regarding the buildings. Mass, as it relates to being what is, you know essentially one large continuous structure like this without permeability. If I was to go end to end. I'm not familiar with any building of this scale

[123:03] in Boulder. Curious if you could give me some context to what I know in Site Review and in the concept plan. We talked about this a bit. I just wanted to get some feedback from Staff. are there any comparables that we can look to, and your general thoughts on sort of not having any permeability in this structure. I think the building size and orientation is comparable to a number of buildings, particularly in the area like the Rev. Development as well as 30 pearl other similarly scaled buildings in the Tvp area. Allison has the dimensions off the top of her head. I don't. I think the Max length is 180 ish, yeah, they're under the the 200.

[124:00] That 200, I think. What you're referring to in the Site review criteria. That's, I think, like 150 or 60 along 30th Street, and then like 180 on the other side, on the south. Yeah. What? What is? What is the length on the on the building, on the on the south. The Max is a hundred 80 for that that middle piece. Yeah, and and what? And I'm sorry. What? What is the length of the building? Then. The frontage on 30.th No, on the south. A 180 for that that middle piece. And then there's the 2 separate wings. It is a hundred 80 back right? And you're saying the Max per code is 200. That's right. That's that's helpful to understand. Thanks. Just to clarify? Are we considering that the wings are separate and that they are not one frontage? No. I see Allison nodding. Yes, in Charleston. Well, I'm sorry. The in the interior measurement correct is a hundred 80. Yeah. What? What is the length along the north from the northwest to the northeast corner. That whole frontage.

[125:06] Hold on. Sorry. Yeah. That number. I don't have right right this minute, but the applicant might have that, or I can try to get that, we just need to measure it. Yeah. okay, that that would be great, because that appears to me to be one building, not 3 buildings. Right? I concur. George, did you have a. No, no, that's it. If we could just get some answers on that, I think that's helpful, and thanks Laura for. I'm going to go to Ml. Thank you. Mark. I I have one question that's referenced a couple of different times in the criteria. So it's in the TV app, and it talks about the land. Use prototype for this

[126:02] this land use in the tbap plan as being a 2 to 3 story mixed. Use building. So the height modification also talks about the height being consistent with adopted design guidelines or sub community or area plans. So how? So this is a 4 story building. How does that speak to the criteria reference in those 2 locations? I don't know that I understand the question. I'm sorry. The TV app is looking for 2 to 3 story building. And we've got a 4 story building. Yes, sorry. So the area plans are meant to be sort of a general guide and don't typically prescribe maximum heights or far, that that land use prototype was meant to create a mix within the area of one to 2 stories. So some may be one story, some may be 4,

[127:18] so this one does exceed that that 2 story limit. That's correct. Oh, yeah. Well, it says 2 to 3 stories is what they anticipate. So you're you're saying that you don't see them, that as a kind of 3 stores, being kind of the maximum. Correct. Okay. Let me see, I have. I'll I'll ask my the rest of my questions to the applicant. They're more about the design. Thank you. Hmm, okay, Laura. So I have a bunch. So I'm happy to pass the mic at some point and come back. If that's appropriate. you go as long as you feel comfortable, and then we'll go to Claudia. Okay, thank you. So again, thank you for the presentation. Allison, always very enlightening. So at Concept review. I wasn't present at Concept review, but I did watch the video

[128:14] at Concept review. Staff had some concerns about introducing varied building heights to be more in line with Tvaps vision for those 2 to 3 stories that Ml. Was talking about that was brought up at Concept review as a staff concern. How did the applicant respond to that concern? And his staff, satisfied with the response to that. the introduction of the different roof variations with the flat roof and the gabled roof. And then I think there's additional like, parapet height changes in that middle area. Staff felt that was in keeping with the intent of tvap. Okay? So varied roof lines that still go to 4 stories. Okay? And then you also had concerns about meeting the Site review criteria for building length. How did the applicant respond to that?

[129:01] how they've broken up the building in the fact that it's opened to the south, and how we are looking at the measurement and then introducing some of the human scale elements, I think, also helped break up some of that building length. Concern. Thank you. So my next question. I know that we love multi-use path connections, and I think it's really admirable that the applicant has offered to build that multi-use connection off of their property. I am curious about, you know. There is an entrance to the Goose Creek path about a block and a half away over on Mapleton. I guess I'm not clear why the Tvp Connection plan wanted an additional connection in this area, like, is there input from Tab or from the cycling community that we need another connection to the north of that pond. because basically paralleling the path that is just right there to the south of the pond, and that is accessible in like a 30 second bike ride or a 5 min walk.

[130:03] I don't know. I don't have the history on on that connection. so I don't know if other staff have anything to weigh on that. Yeah, can I just chime in and just clarify that in the TV app. It's actually shown as a sidewalk. It's not shown as a multi-use path. Do you know why they wanted a sidewalk there? I mean, it's shown as a sidewalk with a basically a bridge across the pond. Yeah, I I can't speak to that. But I mean, generally the there is an attempt to break up large blocks. Right? Right? Okay. And is there a staff opinion on the necessity of that path? Not as far as necessity, but I think in how the site meets the criteria and links to the adjacent and broader transportation network. I think it is in keeping with that. And I think also just the overarching goals of the Tvp connections plan and breaking up super blocks and really maximizing opportunities for

[131:06] all modes, particularly bike and ped, that would ultimately be serviced by the Rtd regional bus facility. If in one that becomes more operational. Yep, okay, okay, we could talk more about this in the deliberation. But thank you? next question, the the courtyard being elevated in the way that it is. Do you have any thought about the rationale for that? Is it just to accommodate the podium parking. Or why is that courtyard elevated? Yeah, it's my understanding it's to accommodate the parking. 10 grade parking at grade isn't the parking like half buried, isn't it? Podium like half underground? I think a portion is yes, and I think that I can defer to the applicant, too, to address some of the design considerations in that parking layout. Okay, and that courtyard.

[132:00] Forgive me. I'm not great at reading the diagrams. I'm trying to pick it up. But is there an accessible entryway into that courtyard for for folks who can't take the stairs? How would they get into the courtyard and down from the courtyard to the multi-use path. Yes, I think those would probably be through the internal connections from the I guess it would be like the second floor. There would be a connection there, and that would be accessible, and they could come out that way. Are we looking for a ramp? I think I heard that there might be a ramp. Hold on confirming on the plans. One sec. Thank you. Laura. I just want to clarify. Your question is, how would a person who needed accessibility go from the courtyard, let's say the pool to the the multi-use path to the south. Correct.

[133:04] How do they get out of the courtyard without using the stairs. and it could be through the building. But I think we're checking to see if there's an external ramp or something. I can also direct that to the applicant. If that's easy. Yeah, I think the applicant can confirm. But I do believe it would be internally through the building. Okay, thank you. I have just 3 more. Do you want to pass the mic or keep going? Okay. Page 132 in the packet proposes that the commercial space that's on 30th Street there be available at affordable commercial rates offered by the city. But if it remains vacant after 24 months it would be returned to the building, presumably for internal resident non-commercial uses. Is that currently reflected in the Site Review approval conditions? Or was that an idea that didn't go anywhere. I didn't see it in the conditions. But can you repeat the question on page 132 in the applicant statement. It says that the commercial space would basically, if it is not rented within 24 months, be returned to the building, which I'm guessing means it would no longer be a commercial space. It would be used for tenant uses.

[134:12] And I'm just curious to know, did that idea get solidified into the Site review that we are considering? Or is that an idea that is gone with the wind staff's understanding that that would be a commercial space? So the site, review, approval and condition would reflect that in the commercial space, right as long as the building is there, it's a commercial space. Correct? All right. Thank you. Another question about an idea that maybe it's time has come and gone. But the Tvp plan calls for on street parking on 30th Street. all up and down 30th Street, and I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the packet. Is that something that is no, the city is no longer promoting, or what happened to the idea of on street parking on 30th Street.

[135:01] So there was an amendment for some of those 30th Street right-of-way improvements that happened as part of the fire station that did not include the on street parking, and so the improvements on this site would reflect and match what was done for the fire station. As far as I'm not as familiar with all the properties that that amendment impacted. But it did. Yeah. The whole street took out that on street parking because of the new fire station. We don't want to constrain the street because of the fire access, the emergency access, or what's the rationale there. I don't know what the rationale was. It was done as part of that site review, but they did. There was a Tvp amendment that happened concurrently. I don't recall the rationale for removing the on-street parking. But it did happen at that time. Okay, so that's no longer a Tvap condition or vision for? Yeah, not for this area. Correct? Okay, thank you. The the tbap plan that's online doesn't reflect that. So just

[136:04] curious about that one. Okay, last one, One of our site. Review. Criteria talks about when excavation occurs, the location and design of the building conforms to the natural contours of the land with tiered floor plates and the site design avoids over engineered tabling of land. I confess my ignorance, I'm not sure what over engineered tabling of land would mean in this context, especially in in relation to those tiered courtyard spaces like what would constitute over engineered tabling of land and following natural contours. I think that criterion is really trying to get at. Not if you're familiar with the term benching a property, or an excessive amount of cut and fill on a property which wouldn't be the case here. This is actually pretty sensitively graded to address the flood concerns that are adjacent to it while still trying to rise up to the street level.

[137:08] But I think that's what that individual criterion is getting at is really benching a site or over excavating where you'd have to make up for that with a tremendous amount of fill. So I don't think that we found that to be the case here. Okay, so the courtyard wouldn't be an example of that, because it's built over a building. It's not like a bunch of fill. No, again, I think it. That wasn't really a design consideration for the building. It's really more about how the earth is how the earth is graded to accommodate the building. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Okay, Claudia, you're up. Okay. I want to start by appreciating Laura's question about the the commercial space. It's also something that I caught in the packet. So I appreciate the clarity on that. I just want to confirm.

[138:05] If there were to be any changes to ground floor uses in the future. Would this property require an additional use review beyond what we're doing tonight. It depends on what the proposed use would be. So the pro the use review is triggered by the residential uses on the ground floor. There aren't any dwelling units on the ground floor, but the amenity spaces like coworking space lobby office that serves the residential uses, and therefore is considered residential. So if there was a future use that were to go into that commercial space, they would need a use review, they would need an additional use. Review. Yeah, the use review is just for the residential use. Okay? Great. Thank you. Other questions that I had some questions about the multi-use path connection. But more in relation to the western section where the path actually is going to be crossing city land.

[139:03] And I'm curious what are the what are the currently allowed public uses of that city owned property around the Goose Creek Pond and Greenway without a multi-use path? There? Is there any official public access to that land? Sorry could you repeat the question? Yeah. So the the area where we are projecting the multi-use path to cross city property along the the pond and to the south side of the current Goose Creek Condominiums. Is there any official public access to that land at this point like water city regulations have around the Greenway land. I don't think there's any formal access to those areas. It would just be where the existing paths are okay. And I'm just curious. If, if adding a multi-use path connection in that area actually creates any additional access or would access still officially, be limited to the path itself.

[140:05] I think it would just be to the path. Okay, thank you. One thing that I saw in your presentation that I wanted to circle back to is the diagram of on-site open space. Do you happen to still have that slide handy? One moment I think that was the one I was trying to read the subscript by the hardscape turf trays.

[141:01] I'm a legend. Is there any way you can make that larger? Yes. so it says, not counted towards open space. See? Detail. 3 of the sheet. Okay, yeah. I was curious. If you could explain that. So yeah, so that's the central lawn area. And it's including turf. artificial turf. So it's not counting towards open space. Okay, that does not count towards their their square footage requirement for open space can it be used to meet the more qualitative requirement of having open space to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the property? Yeah, okay, so that is measured separately somehow, from this space that is being used by the residents. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Let me see if there's anything else. We haven't hit yet.

[142:00] I think that's it for my questions for staff. Thank you. Okay. Any additional questions for Staff Kurt. I have more. But do you want to check with the folks online? Oh, I we already did as. okay, they're good. Yeah, okay, sounds great. I will. Follow up with more transportation questions. The conditions require construction of 30th Street improvements, including a buffered bike, lane. curb, and cutter. This is not consistent with what I've understood to be the plan for the the changes to 30th Street under the core arterial network, and you, in fact, mentioned that it was intended to be a protected bike Lane. and so I'm I'm wondering.

[143:06] I mean, the the 30th street changes are going to be happening fairly soon. Is there any way to to get up some sort of a payment in lieu of these changes, or somehow not avoid the situation where they change something, and then the city has to come along and change it back in a few years, because that's not what the design is. That's a good question. I think, since that the that project is still in the very early stages. I think they're just starting for that 30th Street area. I don't think there'd be anything we could really do as part of the Site Review related to the can improvements. So, as I understand it, there are 3 designs proposed, potential designs proposed could, instead of

[144:03] buffered bike lane, which is not one of the proposals. Could would it be possible to require that they build one of the proposed designs? I. We probably need to look into that, especially how it needs to align with Tvap and some of those right away improvements and the amendment that we're discussing but we can. Maybe I can get back to you on that one. Okay, let's let's come back to. That sounds great. then. just 1 1 quick question about the Tdm. Plan. The Tdm. Plan, says the applicant, proposes to follow the city's sump parking principles where possible. and then it lists things that it says it will do. And so I'm trying to understand in terms of what regulates.

[145:02] Is it? Is it what they say that they're going to do? Or is it the where possible? I'm how? What if you're as staff, if you're judging? Is this meeting the approved Site Review and the included Tdm plan? What are. Are you reading the the things, the the specific things that they list? Or are you reading the we'll do this where possible part? We're looking at what they're listing. So with what they've listed, we felt it. It met the criteria. Okay? So you're ignoring the where possible part. Ye? Yes, just wanted to clarify. Okay, very final question, really.

[146:00] So again, looking up at this site, at this Site plan, there's the path on the south side that I was talking about before, and my understanding is as part of the site development that Southern, that Southern section will be constructed and then sometime later, potentially, the western connection across the city property, the more into the city property will be constructed. Will will that connection? So so we've got a connection on the south side, a multi-use path, 8 foot multi-use path, I guess, on the on the south side that for some period of time just ends, and the question is, will that be blocked off. Will that be open so that people can continue through there? Is there any policy about that or expectation?

[147:06] So the the design will be will continue to be worked through through tech doc and finalized at that point and then constructed later through the building permit process. Can you clarify the you said the blocked off portion. Well, my understanding was the portion of the multi-use path that goes north of the pond, as proposed, is something that potentially could get built later. I think the term was, if feasible. So that will not be happening in my understanding. That won't. That construction won't be happening at the same time as the multi-use path construction along that South property line. And so it was just a question of will people still be able to get through there and use the existing social path to get to the Goose Creek path that way, or will there be somehow blocked off or fenced off or something.

[148:17] so I don't think anything would change, and our intent in working with our partners across the city organization is to get this built with this project. So no lag time between the 2, and really try and mobilize construction similarly. to get it built because it makes sense to do it at the same time, if, for whatever reason that connection couldn't occur, we would have to figure out, you know, an alternative alignment with the applicant. But at this point. Our city team feels like there's there's a connection that could occur out there. So I don't think that it would be blocked off or dead ended, and if for some reason we ran into feasibility issues, we'd have to look at alternatives. Yeah, okay, thank you.

[149:01] Okay. Ml, you got another one. I do? I I found some questions that I had about the land use code. So in the packet there are a number of modifications that are being requested. and I'm I have some questions. So there is a modification being requested to 9 dash, 7 dash, one form and bulk standards. modifying the setbacks. So I'm curious as to where the setback reductions are happening. And are they happening in order to comply with the transit area plan or some other. So those setback modifications are happening to the front yard. So along 30th Street, which brings the building closer to

[150:06] the street, and then along the side yard interior, on the southern portion. Oh! The Southern lot lot line. Right where that path that everybody's talking about. That area. Okay, okay, perfect. The second one is 9, 7, 1 modification to the maximum number of stories. It says, to allow for 5 stores. Is this a 5 story building. That's 4 stories. The building is, for I think in in your doesn't it? Say 5 stories in the comments there. I'd have to double check that. Okay. Yeah, cause I just cut and paste. And it says 5 stories. So I was curious. Are we approving 5 stories?

[151:02] Are they getting a modification for 5 stories. And I'm hearing 46, 4 stories. It's for, okay, and lastly, a change to the floor area ratio. building size modification to allow for more than the maximum floor area of 15,000 square feet for any principal building. How many square feet are they. So it's not a it's not an far. So in table 7, 1 the bms has a 15,000 square foot maximum floor area for any principal building. Right. So they would get a modification so that the portion of the building that's in the Bms zone, since it would be over the 15,000 square feet. What? What is? How much over is it. I don't have that number in front of me, but we could pull that up.

[152:02] Right to know how big the modification is. That would be great. Perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no more hands raised, I think we're ready for the applicant presentation. let's let's do the applicant presentation, and then we'll take a break. Okay, we're going to do the applicant presentation. Q. And A, and then break, or we could. I mean, if you want to break now, okay, all right. Fuck it. Yeah.

[153:13] Okay, just so, everybody knows we're going to do applicant presentation. Then a break. Then we'll do Q&A with the applicant. So you guys can proceed. Turn on your mic, please. A little square button on the there we go. Okay. thanks. Good evening, Scott Holton. With element properties. Nice to see you all on behalf of element, Coburn design and our amazing team of sub-consultants. We're excited to show you the updates to this project after the direction that we received at Concept review last year as housing creators, we set out to design and build a modern yet enduring place for boulder, and this project's future residents.

[154:04] and that goal has not changed, and we're eager to get to work. One of the points of feedback we heard at concept review was, bring us back a great Tdm plan. Our Tdm plan is now a product of this Board's feedback. The Site Review criteria staff feedback market research with our property manager guidelines from our lender and our traffic engineers recommendations for best practices. Our Tdm. Plan has some exciting incentives for residents, but is anchored by 2 incredible characteristics of our location. The 1st is a walk score of 83, and the second is a bike score of 100, not to mention a world-class bike shop just 2 blocks to the south. As for specific Tdm measures, we've included adherence to the sump principles for car parking.

[155:00] and we can strike where possible, if desired car share on the site for those who don't want to own a car use of the property's bike share fleet, including e-bikes and e-bike charging. we have a total of 288 total bike parking spaces, which is twice as many car stalls than we're proposing urban shopping carts, so residents can shop at target or whole foods next door and leave the car behind. Bike, wash, and maintenance station for bikes and participation in the Rtd Nicopass program. Our parking will collectively serve the building residents and their guests. Prospective residents for leasing retail staff and customers and management and maintenance staff as well. Aside from these Tdm measures, our on-site co-working space will enhance residents, ability to telecommute. We'll provide them with community-wide wi-fi open and private co-working areas, printing capabilities and community building events and networking.

[156:02] The idea is that this is a really comfortable and convenient place to live in central boulder. and when you do venture out for errands and entertainment, it's an easy decision to walk bike, or take the bus. Thanks. I'm Bill Holickey with Coburn architecture. This site's really exciting for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is what Scott pointed out in terms of the 100 bike score and the 83 walk score. The other thing that's really interesting to me as a planner is that it's a missing residential tooth, and what is turned into a residential street, 30th Street is developed from Pearl North into a residential facing street, and that was really what was anticipated by Tvap in the area plan that this would be a mixed use. You know. It's got the commercial all around it, but you have to get the residential in there to populate it 24 HA day. and right now this block is a missing tooth. The only residential on it is the bluebird site to the south, so this in green has the ability to help bridge that gap and really turn it into the bottom. Half of this block now becomes residential, at least on one side of the street.

[157:05] and it can continue moving forward with the development of some of those properties north of the fire station, so that connection of the urban fabric is pretty cool, and then when you look at these and I won't try to go into the detail, the site's very well supported by open spaces green and recreation areas, as you can see on the left. It's got Goose Creek and the Expanded Goose Creek section. Right there to the east is Belmont Park, down Goose Creek. To the south is the Belmont ball fields. There's and then on the right. I won't try to explain what that key is, but you know it has shops and restaurants and gyms and climbing gyms, and just all kinds of stuff immediately accessible all around. So one of the reasons that you pointed out a concept plan. A really robust Tdm is because there's every opportunity to people get for people to get out of their cars. So one of the things we'll address in here in a moment is, how do we make that easy for people? There also is good mass transit up and down 30th Street. It'd be nice if the headways were a little shorter, and hopefully they will be at some point. But the bus goes right there, and then, of course, all the bike paths causing that bike score of 100. The split zone is weird, and it causes some some weirdnesses with the way the building lays out on the site, and I do have to thank Allison and the team

[158:17] for helping us understand that and work. It's like a ruby's cube. If you move the building 6 inches one way or another, it starts to change the way the calculations work, because the Bt. One and the bms have to be figured individually for one building. So it's an interesting scenario, but we do have it to a place where everything works and and works well. So this is the concept plan that we showed you. This was the general layout. It was this U shape, and we walked you through how we got there, and I'll hit that really briefly. you probably remember. So the existing car dealership is on the left, and then the 1st plan is to hide the parking, and that's consistent with Tvap and our goals as a city. And that gives you that white box which is the building mass. And we start to erode that so on the north we erode for vehicular circulation. That's essentially back of house on the west. We erode for the pedestrian connection

[159:05] and then moving forward. We have identified that the East and the West are the most important parts of the building, because the East side is the 30th Street public face, and the West Side is the Goose Creek public face, and both of those, in my mind at least, are main streets, and they need to be addressed. And then the erosion of the middle of the site allows for that green space. And we'll talk a little bit about how that green space is not only a continuum as it goes south to north. but it also is a variety of heights, and it benches all the way up from the lowest of Goose Creek's water level all the way up to this site, and it creates this really nice cascading effect. Then, per the Site review criteria, the building is broken down with those blue removals and changes of materials. And then, lastly, in the yellow at the end, we're really trying to configure the building to the thing it's facing so 30th Street, of course, would be parallel. That's good urban design practice. and on the west the natural features are slightly canted. Right? You have Goose Creek that comes through at a bit of an angle, and the Front Range and the way the Goose Creek Greenway works it just felt like we should modify this, to address that change and be more receptive to the natural kind of features. And we ended up with this.

[160:16] We did talk about this extensively with you as a board. I would, it would not be accurate to say everyone was on page with everything here, and I think, George, you brought up some of your comments that you had a concept plan, but generally we discussed things like board members said they'd rather see 4 stories in a smaller footprint than 3 stories in a wider footprint. You'd rather see varied roof forms. You thought the general erosion on the south made sense. So we did talk about that. And that sort of reflects what Tvap wanted and what the plan is calling for. The other thing I should note is that all of this is being viewed through the code changes that city council put in place that encourages this amount of density in this number of units on this site. This is exactly what the code changes for zoning, for affordable housing. I think it was called. This is what was contemplated with those code changes, so

[161:06] it was far from perfect, and we've been working on it pretty hard, and I would. I think Allison would also characterize. We've had a lot of conversations with staff. I think it's been really productive. And they've brought up things we've missed or considerations to to think about. And I think also, it's very responsive to what you guys said, and the fundamental change to try to address a lot of the things was, and you've alluded to it already. With the parking. The parking was half buried when we came, and so it created a whole building that was about 5 feet out of ground. One of the things that your board said you didn't like about that was you thought it wasn't properly responsive to fronting commercial or amenity space on 30th Street. It did create privacy, because now this amenity space was up 4 or 5 feet, but it didn't feel like that to you, and I think to me, after you described it, it didn't really meet the intent of Tvap. It didn't really meet the intent of making a nice urban interactive space.

[162:02] And so by pulling the parking up out of ground and shoving it into the middle of the building. It was reduced in scale. We're using less carbon and infrastructure and resources on that, and we were able to drop the eastern wing right down the grade. By doing that we were able to increase the pitch of the roof. So now we have a more varied roof line. and the other thing it does is it takes all of the car parking and bike parking and daylights it. It brings it up out of the ground. One really nice thing about that is for the bike parking. Now we have those bike workrooms are right on the south side. I'll show you in a second. We have windows into them, and it also allows now for the parking to be converted over time. If parking's underground, it can only ever be converted into storage, but above ground it could become retail, commercial, residential in the future. And you know we've been saying that's going to happen in 10 years for 20 years, but maybe at some point we'll have less of a need of parking that can convert to other uses. So that's all possible now. So that results in in this Site plan. And maybe I'll try to be really quick about this, Kurt. I understand your questions about the the path. I'm going to do it in 30 seconds for time, and if you have more questions, please tell me

[163:07] the the path an alley. It was originally an alley is actually shown on the city's property, not on ours. It is typically kind of convention. Then, when that happens and it's close to a property line that both properties sort of share that connection. They each take half of it. We've worked really hard with the city transportation staff and the pernomating Department for Wetlands to understand exactly how we can get this through and technically have it work. And I think Allison alluded to some of the challenges where, if it's too much on the western southern portion of our site, it exceeds the amount of impervious surface you're allowed to put in the wetlands on a single property, and the city felt by sliding it here they could get that wetlands permit more easily. The other thing is the the connection. As Kurt, as you alluded to. The connection to the West is a. It will be a city project. but we're more than happy to tie into it. Obviously, the other thing that we've agreed to between the groups is that the construction would happen at the same time the construction would happen for the rest of the path on the Southern side and be done by the same contractor. So we would cause it to be done, even though it's a city city project just for that connection. And just to be sure.

[164:15] because it is a wetland permit, there's another permit involved that's out of the scope of this of this Site Review. If it couldn't happen for some reason that nobody can see now which we don't think there's any barriers to, we would actually continue that loop up to the North, so there wouldn't be like a stub. There's actually a design for how that would connect in a loop. But I think everyone's anticipating that it's done at the same time, and there's no barriers there regulatorily. Okay, so parking brought it all up out of grade. You can see the dark blue is the bike parking, and you can see that the main bike parking entrances are in the southeast and the southwest right along that bike path. And that's really cool now, because now there's direct access for people right out. And let's see, can you see all this like? Yes, you can. So this is something you challenged us on, too, which I think was a good thing. And we'll do this for all projects moving forward. You're like, well, how like if somebody is on the western side of the project.

[165:07] How do they get to whole foods? What is that path like? Does it have to cross the driveway? All those kind of questions. So we worked hard on this, and maybe this was partly in response to your comment about a robust Edm. The vehicular circulation is an orange green is bikes. Blue is accessible routes. So I think there's actually a question about how you get in and out of the of the courtyard from an accessible way, and then pink is is pedestrian. So what we're really stoked about is that none of those cross the orange right? They all are separate, and the whole C shape of the building south and the 2 east and west are permeable all over the place. I think when we came last time we only had a couple of building entrances, and you challenged us on that. So I think that was a good point. So we've added these entrances all along the building. So if you're going to the Y, or if you're going to whole Foods, if you're going to Boulder Junction, Mason dumplings a little plug for them. If you're going to Mason dumplings, you know there's an easy way out of the building in that direction that wasn't there a concept plan?

[166:07] yeah, I think that's that's most of what you had asked about there. We still have the unit mix and Allison sort of talked about that. So the unit mix was received. Well, a concept, we've kept that. Oh, okay, that's the other thing I wanted to mention. So this is the resultant site plan and open space. The idea of the open space is that it's really very telling when you go out there. And, by the way, this is another reason why the multi-use path is where it is. The site's really naturally benched. And honestly, I should say I don't know if it was that way, naturally, but it's been that way for many years. It was probably done when the city rechanneled it 25 years ago, or something. So the way the open spaces work in our mind is that the plaza is sort of the highest open space, and then down a bit is the multi-use path, and there's a whole bench that exists onto the city's property about 20 or 30 feet there, and that's sort of reflected in the higher version of the wetlands, and then it drops again

[167:02] in a sort of a slope down to the Goose Creek bank edge, and then Goose Creek is lower still. So it's this really cool kind of cascade effect of open space, and we thought that the plaza being open space, we also have that great open space on the west and at the path. But the plaza open space sort of continues. That sort of stepped natural condition which we thought was was really neat, that is, though, part of the building. So your accessible entrance to it would be off the elevator. and there are multiple elevators and stairs in the building. I won't go into the materials very much. Allison covered it. It's intended to be a really dynamic building, and this area of town is maybe a little less stayed, a little more interesting, and can have something a little more sculptural to it. And what I'm really psyched about for this building is that it has sort of levels. And so the 1st Level, and this is partially because of your encouragement to bring the 1st floor down to grade. The pedestrian path now is very supportive. We have an overhang at 1214 feet to create that outdoor room. It expands at the wood portion, which is the co-working space. So it sort of announces that this is important.

[168:15] The coffee shop is in the corner here with the glass, and you know we've got this brick on the base, and all of that will continue to be refined as we add signage through the sign permit, which is separate brick detailing blade, signs, awnings, all those things will continue to support that pedestrian realm. But the sites also experienced at 30 miles an hour. because 30th Street is A is a pretty big driving street, and hopefully, Kurt to your point. It will be a bike street. So the sort of dynamic nature of the of the bottom of the building in the base, with these, with these flying beams, and then the bill. I'm just going to give you the 1 min warning. Perfect! I can do it. The moving nature of the roof kind of gives you some some movement and some dynasism at from the car. So it sort of works on both levels. And we were going to show you it on the south. And we put we took this picture and put the model into the picture. And we're like, Oh, well, that doesn't show much because of the vegetation. So we went closer.

[169:11] and the same kind of attitude was applied on the southern side. So we're looking at a variety of different experiences from the pedestrian bike level. The far West has a little more of the wood on the bottom. It has these columns. It's a little more of that natural material on the Far East where the coffee shop is. It's the brick base, and then the sculptural garden in the middle, and you can kind of get the whole picture from here, so I know I didn't quite cover all of the questions you ask, and I apologize for that. But I'm here to take questions and hopefully get some answers. I bet we'll dream up a couple questions. Okay. all right. Thank you very much for that presentation. So as we discussed. We're going to break now and then. We'll come back at it's 8 50.

[170:03] We'll come back at 8, 57, and we'll have a lot of questions for you. Oh, good! We're not going to go 10,

[178:48] all here, and we're running a little over. So I'm going to call this back to order, please.

[179:06] Okay, great. Thank you. Everybody. Okay, we're all back. We've got the meeting back in order, and it is now time for board. Questions of the applicant. Followed by public hearing. Right now it's questions, who's ready, Claudia? I'm ready. Thank you. So you have just given an extensive presentation about your Tdm plan and the various site advantages here supporting alternative transportation in an area that we do envision in our plans as being car light. So given that context. Could you explain how you arrived at a 6% parking reduction? Yeah. And I can also tell you we knew you were going to ask this question we have. We are also sort of it's. It's a confluence of different

[180:09] things. The 1st is that the you know, the bigger part we have the 2 zones. The bigger portion of the site is under a zone that actually, unusually only requires one space per unit, no matter the size of the unit. So our parking requirement per code is significantly lower than would normally be the parking requirement by code. So the code is already reducing the number of required parking spaces. So what we're doing is we're providing one parking space per unit. Normally, the code would require something more like 1.5 parking spaces per unit. But in this particular case, because of that quirk, the code only requires, like 1 point, one parking space per unit, or a little bit less than that. Actually so, while it looks like a more minor parking reduction in another part of the city, it would look like more. but still, in order to finance it, and the applicant can speak to that. We have to provide one space per unit. There is a requirement. One of the financing sources that is being considered is HUD financing. And there's actually a HUD program that is being looked at, or that they're considering doing. They're trying to figure out how to make it work.

[181:12] And when I tell you the name you're going to see why it's challenging. It's the green middle income program, both of those require and a quote unquote, adequate level of parking which HUD has generally enforced as one to one ratio. But we're getting around that and going further by saying, we're not going to provide any parking for employees or the commercial or any of the amenity spaces. So we're just doing one to one. It results in a 6% reduction. We do wish we could do more. But it is a little bit artificially low because of the code. Okay, thank you for that. some more questions about parking and transportation as long as we're on this besides, or beyond the designated car share parking space that you have in your plans.

[182:02] Do the plans that you have contain any other spaces for other shared mobility. Options like Rideshare pickup, scooter parking, etc. Think maybe I should defer to to you, or do you want me to? Okay. So all the things in the Tdm plan that Scott outlined are they are spaces that not the the spaces that we're showing as car spaces are car space. I should probably just pull up the it's like picturing into my mind trying to figure out how to describe it when I can just show you. So I'm sorry. Bear with me a moment or potentially a long moment. Okay, here we go. Okay? So the blue areas are predominantly bikes. But that's also where we have things like the shared scooters, the shared cargo wagons. What else is shared? Oh, we have an E-bike fleet that is shared. So the e-bikes are in the blue areas. So they're

[183:05] essentially in the parking area. But they're their own spaces. Does that get at the somewhat? Yeah. Do you have additional long-term bike parking for those shared bikes? Or are you counting that towards your code requirements for long-term bike parking. Yeah, it's part of the we have the 288 spaces. They are counted in the 288 spaces. What we found. Is this the? And we talked about this at diagonal plaza? Historically, those 2 spaces per unit are really underutilized. So our approach to that diagonal plaza staff said, Hey, why don't you ask for a parking reduction? So we worked together on that. You guys thought that wasn't a good idea for bike parking. So our new approach is to say, Okay, we've got these underutilized bike parking spaces. How can we make them different and make them attractive to people? So we've taken what used to be just rows of bike parking and broken them up into different different ways to do it. So some people have $4,000 bikes, and they don't like to put them in the general room. So we have bike rooms that are up higher in the in the building that people feel are more secure. So that's some of the bike parking. Some of the bike parking is more traditional down low. Some of the bike parking is adjacent to work areas so that you can leave your bike. There, go, get some parts, fix it up, and some of the bike parking is for like a cargo or an e-bike. So we've sort of.

[184:18] and I would. It would not be true to say I've got every single bike parking space figured out where it's going to go. But the areas are distributed amongst the different bike types to try to tackle that problem. Okay, one more transportation question. If you'll indulge me. and that is, we heard from a public commenter earlier, and I believe they are still here at this point about ev charging opportunities at multifamily housing sites. and I regret to say I did not read your plans with that question in mind, so could you let us know if there is anything there in the plans to support future residents with. Evs, yeah, we were just having a good conversation about it. Yeah. So I think that element is seeing more and more people using the car. So there's 2 parts to this. The 1st is that the city has a much more strict requirement than they used to have, and the second is that the applicant

[185:08] does not want to ever turn away somebody because they can't plug in their car. So the 1st thing, and, Kurt, you probably know this better than me or or Nick, but I believe the current requirement is 10 to 15% somewhere in there of the parking spaces need to actually be wired with. Chargers need to be charging. and our intent is to, of course, do that. It's code. And then another. What is it? The next 50% or up to 50%? Yeah, is required to be pre plumbed essentially so that you can pull wires. And the building has to have infrastructure in place to allow that to be done without retrofit. The biggest issue we have with that is convincing. Excel to give us a big enough transformer, because without a load that I can point to, they won't size the transformer to it. But the point is, yes, the intention is to put them in. The city of Boulder has ramped up that standard quite a bit, and I believe the new sustainability code is being looked at over the next 9 months. I expect it to be ramped up again. Okay, and then access to those spaces. Would that be managed under your sump principles? That is, that's not assigned to particular donors. Yeah, none of the parking is assigned. It's all managed under sump. Okay? And I believe the intent is to monitor it to make sure that people who need to use it can use it. And if they can't, changes would be made. Either infrastructure ads

[186:20] or changes to how people can use the spaces. Okay, thank you. And then, can I get one more question. So changing gears, I did have a question about usable open space on the site. and I'm interested in what do you see as the proposed use of that artificial turf lawn area in the courtyard? How large is that? What is the intent for use? Yeah, we talked about that a lot with Staff, and, as you probably know, the State has a coming prohibition against using artificial turf in certain conditions. And so the compromise that was made with staff was that it's artificial turf is allowed as open space right now under the city of Boulder Code. It's most likely going to change, I think, in June to come into compliance with this with the state rules.

[187:04] So we said, Okay, that's fine. We won't count that as our open space. But the intention is, you have a lot of people with dogs and themselves in a small area and turf tends to struggle in certain conditions. So what we're trying to do is provide, you know, a small area of walking surface or a game surface that's not going to fall apart. That's softer than than like pavers. And it's not the whole area. It's a relatively modest portion. But that's the intention. Okay? So that do I hear you correctly, that that is a space that people could use for dog exercise and relief. That's the intention, right? Maybe not the relief part. I think there's actually a relief area for dogs that's different than turf. Okay? And where is that in the plans? Or where would you expect people to do that? I don't know that. Sorry? Oh, that's right. Yes, I'm sorry. It's in the southwest corner of the site at grade southwest corner of the site, so that you see the open space at grade part of that area. And that's all you know, natural surface. And part of that area is okay. I read that as rain Gardens. I didn't realize that was actually accessible to people on foot. Part of it is rain gardens, but it's Curtis. Do you know how deep those are?

[188:12] It's just a swale. So for the record, it's a shallow area. It's not a pit. It doesn't have steep sides. It's just a depression. So we wouldn't expect dogs to relieve themselves in that area. But next to that area and that area where the depression is is all accessible for people. Okay, thank you. Yep. Laura. You are you? Oh, sure, I'm sorry. Yeah, but I'm looking. I don't see, George. I don't see Ml's hand up. So. okay, I figured you might have a question. Sure. I got a couple. Thank you for the presentation. 1st question in the applicant statement on page 132, it says, the centerpiece of the 30th Street elevation prominently features a 3 story mass stacked with a single story mass on either side.

[189:05] That's not, I think. What the plan is. Is that like a legacy statement? Where did that come from? You know, I think it's really intended to talk about the public parts of the building. And so the 3 story mass, I believe, is trying to talk about the stair tower, and we always move the stair towers to the outside of the building and put glass on them, which is a little bit unusual, but it encourages people to get exercise and use them. And then there's the one story mass on either side, which is the public space. So coffee shop on the south and the amenity space to the east or to the north, and if it's not that, then it is a legacy statement. That is a mistake. But I believe that might be what it's referring to. Okay? Because all those areas are actually 4 story, right? Yeah, I think it's just talking about a particular kind of space. Okay. okay, thank you. Can you speak to the courtyard elevation? Yeah. The reason why you did that. Yeah, that was purposeful. One reason was because pulling the parking up out of grade

[190:02] caused a whole lot of positive changes in the building. The other thing I would mention is that it was elevated on a podium when we came at Concept, and everybody thought it. All the board gave us the feedback that it made sense, so we relied on that. But the major design. Reason is because we felt like this cascading elevation was a really good thing, and if you stand on Goose Creek, and again, this this rendering is not very helpful for a lot of reasons, but one thing that it does do if I can. Oh, it's down here. Sorry is is show you that there's a pretty significant elevation change between the Goose Creek path and this building. So pretend the vegetation. Isn't there sorry I should have taken this picture in the winter. It really does go up a hill pretty significantly, like 20 feet from the water elevation to this site, and a continuation of that made sense. The other thing it does is it is a. This part of the open space is a resident open space. It's a little bit more private, and then we have that other area to the west that's at grade. So it felt like it was a good division between public and private, while still allowing a connection through

[191:03] and respecting kind of natural topography. Thank you. 30th Street. Can we show that elevation? Yep. My question is, where are the doors? Can you point to the doors on this? I don't know if you have a laser pointer or some capability to do that? But let's see if this works. Okay, I'm going to look down because this is not working. If I look up. Okay, so and this definitely isn't as developed as it will be, and I'll also point out that we're not allowed to approve signs and site review. So all signage awnings are yeah awnings and blade signs would all be done through the sign burning process. So we have 3 entrances. This is the coffee shop entrance here. Where is it? Is on 30th street, or is it on 30th Street? Yeah, it's a little unclear on this, but it is on 30th Street. So some of that fenestration is actually a door. Sorry. Nick is correcting me. There's 2. There's 1 on 30th and one that fronts the bike path on the south. So it opens both ways. Okay, okay, thank you. And then this is a secondary residential entrance. But

[192:11] when we came to you last time, I think we were convinced by your sort of comments about, hey? You should be able to get in and out of this building all over the place. To say that this is just as much of an entrance for the residents as anything else, because it's a little more convenient to get to the South. We do have this area here, and we're not quite sure if there's a door in it yet or not. But it's the coworking area for the residents. Probably it would have a door to get out to maybe chairs and tables, but I think we had planned on using this door in the stair to get out to the chair and table area, and then this corner, which is the cantilevered area. And I have a better picture of that cure. There, there's another residential entry to the building here. Okay, okay, thank you. Your plans. Talk about having an elevated amenity space at the 4th floor. Where is that located?

[193:05] It's on this. I'm looking for it, looking for the rendering of it. Where's the best way to see this nick right here? Yeah, it's just it's a little cut off here. But yeah, it's it's this area here. This is 4 stories, and that's 3 stories. And you walk right out of the hallway onto this elevated space here. So it has a connection to the podium space, the podium open space, and it has connection to Goose Creek. Okay, thank you. I have a few more, but I can pass the mic. If people want a break from me. Okay, keep going in your Tdm plan on page 175. It says you will have sufficient electrical service for E-bike charging for 20% of the bike parking. What does sufficient electrical service for E-bike charging mean is that actual e-bike chargers for 20%, or it's pre-wired. Or what does that mean? Well, each bike comes with its own charger, because not all of the batteries are the same. So typically a bike has its own plug. So it's outlets for those plugs to go into. And enough power, so that at any moment, if 20% of the bikes were all plugged in and charging the building could support that.

[194:16] So 20% of the parking spaces have an associated outlet. That is functional. Yes. Okay, thank you. Did you want to colloquy on that? Yeah, no. What I heard you say initially was that you had power, the power requirement fulfilled, so that 20% of the bike spaces could be charging at any one time. That's different than 20% of the bike spaces have an outlet for a charger. In my mind, they're the same. So we have an ability for 20% of the bikes to plug in somewhere. And when you design electrical system by code. You have to assume that everything is being used at once.

[195:03] Aha! Thank you. So that means 80% of the spaces do not have an associated outlet to start correct. Thank you. I should. You know what I'm gonna I should point something out. There is a pretty significant chance that by the time this building goes in for permit there will be rules about bike charging and fire ratings in the rooms that they're in. So we just had a pretty good meeting with the fire department about that, and what might be coming down the road, so that may impact like we may put all of those in one room, because if they're being charged, it needs to have a 2 h rating on that room, and that might be something you start to see. not sure when it's coming. But it's almost certainly coming. I think we saw that when we saw some fire code updates, potential updates. Thank you for pointing that out. So back to this idea of some principles will be applied where possible. Why, why is that in there? Is there some place where you think it would not be possible. Strike it, strike it. It was an error. That's an error. Okay, just strike that. Yeah. If you want to put it as a condition. We're perfectly fine with that. But the intention is not is to do the things on the list. Okay, thank you. Sorry

[196:16] claudia asked the question about scooters. Was there any thought to having a scooter like a lime grove or some kind of scooter share station? What's that. Yeah, go ahead. Hi, Scott Holton again. Here we started looking into that. And because the 1st day of business, if you will, for this project is 3 years away. That's an eternity for someone like Lime to engage with us to make a commitment to the project. And so we envision micro mobility options like lime, you know, being adjacent to the building. I know they're not popular in the right of way.

[197:02] and so, you know, perhaps they could be sort of on the north side of our building. Obviously, that's an agreement between the property owner and the micro mobility provider. But that's absolutely something we'll look into. We would see that as an amenity for our residents to have something like that conveniently located there. I can envision someone wanting to jump on a lime scooter to get down to the movie theaters quickly. So it's something we're very much looking forward to. And it's totally feasible to include it in this project. Did you want to add something, Bill? No, no, I was just going to say that that bully owners love lime because they maintain and take care of their own scooters. So anytime you can get lime on your project. It's a great thing to do. Okay, thank you. This one's just mostly out of curiosity some of the windows appear to have like a really black box around them. Is that in response to a code provision? Or can you talk more about what the design thinking is. There? It's cool.

[198:08] you know. No, there's not a specific criteria it's in response to. But one of the things we're always fighting is flat buildings. We don't like flat buildings. The Site Review criteria specifically speaks against it, and, you know, doing a variety of windows and variety of window expressions helps with that. And we, I mean, we've drawn this elevation 250 times close to that, and we have all different kind of window expressions and ins and outs and changes, and we thought this one looked cool, and it provided some interest along the elevation. Thank you. I'm sorry, did you. You might have spoken to this, and I missed it. But the courtyard you talked about how people can get into the courtyard from the building. How do people get from the courtyard down to the Goose Creek path? If they cannot use the stairs they would go into the elevator, so the the elevator is immediately adjacent. So you just go from the open space right into the hallway, and the elevator is right there. So it provides Ada. Access to it.

[199:04] Okay? And then from the elevator down into the parking garage. Or where does the elevator go? There's a sorry I didn't really look at the elevator shafts. I should have. No, it's fine, so you know we have. Those are immediately accessible to the, to the corridor, so they could go straight into the coffee shop or straight out the door onto the pedestrian path or out the front door on the 30.th So once they're in the corridors, the corridors give them connection to everything they can go wherever they want, and all of that's required by building code. Every unit on every level of an elevator serve building has to be fully accessible as well as every amenity in the building. Okay, thank you. And just last question that that idea on page 132. That talks about having the commercial space be in the city's affordable commercial rate program. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. I forgot to mention that. So that actually came out of something that Claudia said in concept plan. And I think, Claudia, the exact quote was, well, it wasn't the exact quote, but you mentioned something about, you'd rather have amenity space than empty commercial. And we started thinking about that and said, Okay, well, the intention is to have commercial. We'd like to have commercial. But if, after some period of time and

[200:15] 24 months was just arbitrary, it isn't filled, would it be better to have amenity space with people in it. So it was actually our intention to have that in the approval. If that's something the Board is interested in, we would like that, because again, it's way better to have something than nothing. The intention is to fill it. We believe that by using city of boulder affordable rates for that, we can fill it, or the applicant can fill it. But in the case that it's just not a good location, and nobody wants it, for whatever reason, we can at least put something in there. So that was the intention in that language. Okay, thank you. And is there a commitment to have that space be in the affordable commercial program or affordable commercial rates? Yeah, I think that it wasn't going to be in the actual commercial program, right? Because it's going to be managed by the building.

[201:05] Yeah, why don't I defer to you? We had the idea as just another community benefits offering? If if it's important to this board. We're absolutely willing to make good on what we said that we would do in the written statement. You know, I'll point out that the retail space that sits vacant at 30th and Pearl is in the affordable commercial program. And it's just not attracting interest. And so I think that's why we tried to put the 24 month tail on on offering it to the community. If you walk around Boulder Junction, you can see a decent amount of retail that is sitting vacant. And I think we did listen to that comment about just trying to balance, you know, forcing retail on the community. And if it doesn't work out, what's the alternative, and what flexibility do we have to return that space to be part of the lively pedestrian environment?

[202:00] And if we just commit to it in being retail, we're sort of handcuffed into the future. Thank you. Thank you. So I just say, if the Board wants to make it a condition. Sounds like we're we're cool with that. Let's just talk about how to craft it. And you could think about what tail would be appropriate. Okay, I see Ml's hand up. Thank you. And thank you for your presentation, I guess before the break. So I am. seen the evolution of the T vap. Desire for 30th to have a Main Street pedestrian. Intention. and I'm looking at your ground floor along 30.th What is the distance between.

[203:03] So you've got your building as close to the street as you can correct. That's where the setback was reduced. Is that. Yeah, and I am remembering that I think you were one of the champions of doing this. So thanks for your comments. It's better for sure. So in some zones, and this is one of them. The city setback was written 30 years ago, and it's really suburban. And so there's this expectation, both with applicants and city planning that we'll ask for a setback variance, so we can bring the building at the appropriate distance to the street. So we end up like an 8 foot sidewalk. And that's that's essentially what's done. And I don't know exactly what the setback is from the property line, because it sort of varies project to project where that property line is in the tree lawn. In this case, I believe we've got about an 8 foot sidewalk in front of it, which is what the city typically looks for. Right. Can I take on one thing because you just brought up something else that's really important? If it's better to do any other configuration on 30th Street to match the 30th Street thing? Or is it better to do an escrow where the project is totally happy to do whatever makes it easier to do the improvements on 30th for the new.

[204:10] Plan. Do you have a sort of a developed site plan of what that frontage on to 30? th How is that being developed the plan, talks about right street furniture. pedestrian oriented public space, gathering spaces potential and that sort of thing. And I was having difficulty finding what that actually looked like. Yes, I am trying to pull up a Pdf plan if you could give me one second and I can. It isn't. It's a little bit difficult to read just because of the line work, but I'm pulling it up and we can zoom in on it. I'm just trying to get one I can zoom on. So I appreciate what you were saying about the commercial and if my understanding is correct, this

[205:05] rest of that ground floor facing 30th Street is it's called residential, but it's really residential use. such as co-working, and that kind of thing. Yeah, that was the idea. And yeah. this is a bigger and bigger problem. Because, as we ask for commercial, all on the 1st floors of all of our streets. There's just not that much population and people are, you know, moving to online and all that kind of stuff. So one of the things that we're trying to do is figure out amenities that aren't like game rooms. They're something that people have to do that feels like more of a commercial thing. So that's the the Co working area. And you know, there's a world that feels like very much a public space, and that people invite friends in, and that kind of thing. So we felt like that was a nice way to create some some interest on the street and still have it be something we know people are going to be in. Another thing while I'm talking about it is some of these little rooms up here like this little room right here.

[206:09] One of the potential uses for that is a music listening room. So it'd have, like a record player, and records on the wall and all that kind of stuff. You go in there and blast the music. It's all kind of soundproofed, but you still have a window right to the street. So people come by and they see something cool happening. So we're we're really trying to come up with amenities that would create some interest in life on the street. And ml, back to your original question. Like. It's it is hard to see, and I apologize. But I'm I'm zoomed in on the space right outside the co-working. So the co-working is here. And then this is sort of this extended patio. You can see the sidewalk goes from like this face of this building here, out to this, right about just past this line. See that! Yeah. So down here, where the co-working happens, the it's a much bigger. It's almost a plaza. So it gives us an area to put in tables and

[207:03] whatnot. And how do you get to that? Did you get to that? You're calling it your outdoor plaza? How do you get to it? Yeah. So what we decided to do was, we're sharing bathrooms here with both the coffee shop and that Co working space and the the coffee shop. You can go into the coffee shop and come out here, or, what's more likely, for the residents, they'll just go right through this entry lobby. Okay. So people are are not coming directly from that Co working space or anything. They're coming through another. Yeah, I don't know that. Yeah, I don't know that that's a critical thing to us. We originally kind of had a door there. And then we ended up with really liking the idea of doing a work counter all the way along this wall, because then people would sit at the work counter and look out the window. But you know it's it's probably still something in development. Whether or not there's a second door there. Right. There'll be furniture out in that open area. That's the intention. And I can appreciate what you're saying about the commercial not being viable until you have the population there, the critical mass there potentially in the future.

[208:07] Could that residential defined area become public? Yeah, cause access. Yeah, I think because the way it works is, we actually need a use review to make it, not a commercial space, but by code, it's allowed to convert into a commercial space. So perfect example, if that Co working area is super popular and it makes sense to just say, Okay, you know, if you want to pay 50 bucks a month and you live in the area and you can come to this building and use it. That would be an allowed use under the code. If that's something that happened in the future. So the possibility of and further activating that street with actual public use is is out there. Yeah, right? So because of the way the use review works, there isn't any hearing even required for that. We can just do it. And that coffee shop, that in that commercial at that corner does it have an outdoor area.

[209:01] Yup again. It's it's probably more like 2 tops that are along the building is the idea. You know. It's not like a big sprawling plaza, because that's that's up at the co-working. But yeah, the idea is that there would be some outdoor amenities, little bench to chat 2 tops that kind of thing. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate. The move to create a more pedestrian friendly area out there, even though we it's hard to be one of the first, st you know, projects trying to trying to get this main street going. But I I appreciate the efforts here. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I mean, think we had when you're designing a building. Sometimes you just get caught in a loop and you get convinced that something's a good idea, and I think we were pretty convinced that you know a grade change out front was a good idea, and then, you know, you guys sort of pushed us on it and made us realize that was maybe just a self-referential mistake. So buildings definitely better at grade.

[210:00] Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Ml. I'm gonna see if George George, I can't see you at the moment. But do you? You have questions. No, I'm I'm good, thank you. Okay, all right, Kurt, are you ready? Yeah, thanks. I wanted to follow up on a question that I asked 1st to staff about the eventuality that the alley or the access on the northwest side gets built. And then what would you say about closing the potential of closing the access off of 30, th and I also had the question about it. Seems like you would need to turn around at that end. Yeah. So we talked about. I mean we? I don't know. We've had 6 conversations with Staff about this. We've been trying to figure this out as a group for a while, and what we finally came down to is the the possibility of the alley connection

[211:03] from the north is pretty slim, because the property line of the building to the north extends past our western boundary, so they would actually have to put an alley right through the middle of their property. To get that to work. Their property line actually is like out here here. It's right there, I think. But anyway or maybe it's the property. I'm sorry it's property one north. It's this property north, one north, that's the one that goes further out. So in talking with Staff, we're like, okay, we wanna we want to support this. You know. Everybody understands we're trying to get access off of alleys rather than off of streets. But the other problem is that this particular alley access is very, very convoluted. You have to go all the way around. It's not like just a normal alley. We can get right to the building. So there was a concern about fire response. If there wasn't a curb cut we can get through that. We can just do an emergency cut on 30th Street right just for emergency vehicles, but then every uber drop off, every door dash, and you know, where are they parking? There's no parallel parking on 30th Street. So what we finally came up with was, let's do a reservation in the northwest corner, so that if an alley goes in it's got a turnaround that is like essentially right away on the property. So it works.

[212:19] I don't think we would need a turnaround on our thing, because we still have an emergency curve cut, no matter what, and you just need that one like pull in parking space to turn around. But it after talking about with Staff, it wasn't a condition of approval that it be closed because it's so likely to be 20 years in the future because of the properties to the North that nobody wanted to try to predict that there was a condition that had to be there. So it's there. It's possible everything's designed for it. It can be closed off. But it didn't feel right to require anything because of the unknowns. Okay, that makes sense. Staying just quickly with the that area at the northeast corner.

[213:05] as you well know we have standards requiring or or suggesting that parking be set back from the street be screened, and so on, and certainly the the tuck under parking. That is done. But there's the row of parking on the north side that isn't really screened or set back. Did you contemplate doing anything with that. Yeah, the intention is to fence that. And you know, the fence permit's a separate process. So typically with a tight site like this, we felt that. And I think Staff also felt that the open space adjacent to Goose Creek was the most important open space. So in citing the building, we felt like that that north side which is currently entirely paved and does have a connection between the properties which eliminates the landscaping requirement between parking lots. What we would do is a small landscaping strip and some trees, and some fencing.

[214:09] and tighten that, parking up as much as we could, and get the open space to the South. So that was an intentional move. Okay? Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was talking specifically as view from 30th Street. Oh, I see. No, there is whether it's set back and screened from 30.th There is a landscape buffer there. There are trees and plantings. I suppose we could do a fence, but I think the tall grasses and things would probably be better, would read better that we have right now. Okay, so it's it's a little bit, unclear, but I think I can zoom in on this. Yeah. So this landscape area is all of this. And I think that's also a transformer screen transformer location. So it ends up blocking the parking. Pretty well. Okay. Kurt, while we're while he's got that up there, can I just ask, is that a is that a write in right out. Or is that a full

[215:03] left? Can you make a left as you exit? I believe that's full movement. That's what the memo said, Yeah, okay, format full access. Okay? Let's see, I think just one other question. You show these. So angled pillars, I guess, or elements in various places. Are those timbers? Are those actual wood. the product? Okay? So we love wood. The city of Boulder loves wood. Wood is terrible in Colorado. So we're constantly searching for a wood product that doesn't fall apart. And we are the current leader in the clubhouse. For this piece, for this wood product is not cement board. It's actually made out of rice. It's it's like pressed rice, it it does not. It's not exact. It doesn't have like wood grain. It has like a texture to it, but it's really cool looking. It's beautiful, and it has the same characteristics of warmth of wood, and it's, you know, made out of pulp essentially rice pulp. So that's what we would expect it to do would have the same kind of warmth as wood, and because of the way they

[216:19] put it together with epoxy, you can pretty much put it under water, and it doesn't warp. I actually am putting a sample of it in my backyard for the next 6 months to see if it works. But that's the intention. And I should also point out that that north elevation you guys mentioned the 200 feet a couple of times. 2 points on that one is that council specifically directed that all those things are things that should be considered and not must be done. But the most important thing is, 200 feet applies on public ways, and the north side of this building is not on a public way. So that section of code doesn't apply to that elevation. We still want it to be really cool, and that's why it has those sort of pillars in the movement. And again, you're going to see that from 30th we want it to be kinetic. But that particular portion of the Site review criteria doesn't apply to that side of the building.

[217:04] Okay, getting back very quickly to your rice epoxy, epoxy, rice. Is that the same material? Then that is used for the siding. Everything that looks wood is that it's that same stuff. Yeah. And then the blue is intended to be a metal siding that's that's bent, and then the black. There's not much of it, but it's really like a dark color. The in-between spaces are a cement board panel. It's made out of cement. And again, all of those things are things you can put on a building, and they weather for a very long time, which is all in keeping with sustainability goals. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. Okay, last, call for questions for the applicant. Go ahead, George! Yeah, I just had a a question again. Since Bill brought it up about that 200 feet

[218:01] relative to. And it's not a question for Bill. It's a question about his statement relative to what Staff understands about the code, and and that in that side of the building. I can quote the code, and maybe that gives Staff a moment to respond. So the code section says the building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right of way, and the what brings that factor in it says in determining whether or not this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors and council specifically directed it be, consider, and not meet. What? What is the length of that building? Bill. On the north side, which I believe is what you're asking. It's about 350 feet. Yep. From corner to corner. Yeah, longest point to longest point. Yeah, okay. And if I may colloquy, what is it? On the south side, southwest corner

[219:00] to southeast corner? I'm going to assume that, you know, and it's not a continuous wall, but from that point on the southwest to that point on the southeast, that is. 300 270 feet, which is 300 300. So roughly measured. But again, it's not a continuous wall surface. Those wings are yeah. The portions of it that are on the south edge are. One side is about 75 feet, and the other side is about a hundred and 5 feet or something. But there's a parking garage. That is a story of parking garage with an elevated courtyard above it, right? And that has a wall on the end of the parking garage. I can show you that. Bear with me a moment, I'll pull it up. So we worked with Staff pretty hard on this to make sure that we were compliant with the cert review criteria, and hopefully you can see it here so you can see that that is is handled in a bunch of different ways. And again the code speaks to this. So if you have a building that's longer, it's supposed to be broken up in different ways. So the West hand side. On the 1st floor is wood and columns

[220:02] on the eastern side, on that southern side it's hidden behind trees. Here on this one it won't be. It's the brick material. So it's a different material. And then the building steps back and down and angles in the middle. So again, that's a garden that buffers that wall. So there's a lot going on on that. And that's purposeful. Okay, thank you. Okay, all right. I think that concludes the questions we're going to go to our public hearing now. And look, there's Vivian. Okay. So I'm back. I'll be working with Thomas. He'll help manage any in person comments, and I can help facilitate the online participation. Okay? And traditionally, I think we're trying to do in-person comments first.st Correct. But I would also just ask, anybody joining us online who'd wish to participate. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand, so that we have an idea of how many people wish to speak, and we can get a a queue going.

[221:12] Thank you, Vivian. We do have one person signed up to speak in person. That's Britt Worth Britt. If you'd like to approach the podium and go ahead and give your comment. Hello, am I on a timer again? Okay. I should say we. I actually originally came here because it's actually a requirement for my land use class, and we were hoping to have lots of public participation. But thankfully my fellow student now gets to write about me instead. So that's fun. I was originally going to talk about my concern that I didn't see ev charging stations listed on the document, but after speaking with the applicant. Those will be there. My concern has been alleviated. What I would add is, if you're trying to make those ev charging stations just for the residents. I would encourage those spots to be in the underground parking as opposed to the above ground parking, which will make it much easier for other people to try to use those spots, which is something I may or may not know from maybe having done that.

[222:12] But I would also say it would be a lot easier if you had fast charging stations. The reason being a fast charging station, you can charge a whole car in about an hour and a half versus a level 2 charger, which is 8 to 12 h. You could actually get away with less charging stations if you had fast chargers. Now, as my applicant friend over here reminded me, though one of the issues is about load management, and a fast charger uses far more electricity, and one of the issues has traditionally been excel and trying to get these fast charging stations. And I know that's an issue. So if you are able to maybe use your influence in city council to encourage that fast chargers, ie. Level 3 chargers be part of the official code. It might go a long way to forcing excel's hand. Here's my gripe about this. I say there's only 8. Technically there's 10, but 2 of them are always out of order over by the trader Joe's.

[223:03] That's how many were here when I 1st started law school almost 3 years ago. It's still the same number we are bolder, y'all are supposed to really be on top of the climate change stuff, the Eb charging stuff. And yet I see the same number of chargers from 3 years ago. So I'm just trying to say, I know everybody has good intent. But let's try to see what push, what pressure we can put on City council, what pressure we can put explicitly on. Excel. I want fast chargers. I want level 3 chargers. I want them everywhere. I do not have a house. My apartment building is really old. I don't have a charging station there. I literally rely on nothing but public chargers. It's a nightmare for me. I'm actually about to sell my Ev, and go back to a hybrid. I've been incentivized to go backwards. Think about that for a second, so talk to my friend over here. I would love fast chargers to be part of the code. Let's make that happen. Please put them underground. If you're actually trying to reserve them for residents. Otherwise people like me will use them. That's all my time kudos to my friend Michael, who now gets to write about me in a paper.

[224:05] Thank you. Thank you so much, and that's all our in-person speakers. So I'll pass it over to Vivian, who can assist us with the online portion. Great thanks, Thomas. We'll start with Virginia Winter, followed by Lynn Siegel, and I believe Virginia has some slides to speak to, and also just ask members of the public, even if I'm calling on you. Please go ahead and just introduce yourself for the record as well. Okay, please go ahead, Virginia. You have 3 min. Can you go to the beginning of the slide deck, please? Thank you. Good evening. Board. My name is Virginia Winter, and I'm a resident and property owner at 2930 Bluff Street. I've lived and operated my small business for 17 years at this location. I don't have any financial or business relationship with the applicant or the project. And I trust that you have my written comments handy. That cite specific site, review criteria, of which there are several.

[225:12] I'd like to use my time to take you into my neighborhood and offer visuals to help you focus in on what my concerns are. Next slide. This view and the open space buffer on the north side of Goose Creek explain why I invested in Boulder Real estate in 2,008. Also the fact that there is an accessible paved multi-use path close by. I'm concerned about the addition of a new paved multi-use path crossing open space on the north bank of Goose Creek. What's the need next slide? Here's the here's the Sunrise view. Looking east from my deck. The three-story Bluebird apartments are for scale. The proposed 4 story apartment building in the Hyundai lot would block sunrise and sunlight for my building, and my neighbors. The wooden fence you see running along runs along the western boundary of the lot being redeveloped, a question remains as to whether the city plans to remove the mature trees, and this wooden fence. These changes will diminish the quality of public open space and affect natural habitat. Next slide, please.

[226:22] Here's an aerial view of my immediate neighborhood, showing the lack of available green spaces. The oval that's red is my residence. The heron is not to scale Goose Creek. Greenway runs east-west, as you're well aware, through this part of town with an underpass at 30th Street. The red lines show the paved route to Mapleton Street and the Greenway available today for bike and pedestrian use and wheelchair use my point being that any extension of the multi-use path north of the pond will duplicate a safe paved route. Next slide.

[227:01] This view brings you closer to the pond. The blue.is where I live. The red circles point to areas where I have public safety and floodplain concerns the orange circles, highlight places where two-way transit from 2, 2555, 30, th is being designed in by the city in collaboration with the applicant who would be the primary beneficiaries of paving and landscaping across this open space. The losses of doing so are considerable for the entire city. Next slide, please. This is the 29th and bluff blind intersection. This photo speaks for itself increased density. Here, at this curve is an accident waiting to happen. This is directly northwest of the development. My written comments, highlight multiple public safety issues in this area. It is next slide. Letting you know your time is up. Please just wrap it up with a final final message or thought.

[228:01] I think this is. Probably I'd like to have one more minute. It's important to visually. If the board chair. Apologies. We can't provide you. One more minute. I I defer to the chair. But that would not be fair to the other participants. It's it's not at my discretion. Thanks. Laurel. Can I get some advice? Please. We can't give you an additional minute, but go ahead and finish your last sentence, and we'll we'll continue on. This. I you have the slide deck. I hope you look at it. This is probably the most important slide. It shows you the proposed multi-use path, and I took this photo. In 2013 the proposed path would run directly along where this red arrow is, and. Yeah, thank you for cooperating and fairness to others as well. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

[229:02] Are there any others. Next up we have Lynn Siegel, who will also have 3 min. Please go ahead, Lynn. Where's the geothermal? Why am I saving $90,000 for geothermal for my house? And these huge projects don't have geothermal. This, you know, I love electricity as much as the next guy. But geothermal uses, you know, like 30% of the electricity that that standard electric heating and cooling uses, and that's the biggest expense of people. Also, I want public hearing for any open space, or wildlands, or floodplain. Or what have you use public hearing for any any seating or multiple use of city and

[230:05] private developer space. This is a much too large project for the function that it's going to have. The better function is the hyundai car dealership, because the more density that you increase in boulder, the more people you have, the more people you have, the more services you have in a constrained environment and with constrained housing costs. and with the cost of housing and the employees. For example in this place are going to have to drive in from Erie and everywhere else, and they're going to use a hyundai car dealership more than they are more housing in boulder that's just driving up the cost of housing. and that we can't afford it with all of the open space.

[231:02] backlog and maintenance and purchase and everything else, and also the parking, being not completely underground. is an advantage only for the developer in the long term, because, as as that partially exposed space from not being completely undergrounded. it makes itself available that just offers them more density and more people to move in there. What the developer wants these days is every square inch to be housing, because that's what makes you the most money, and it the the most money, just drives up the cost of housing, and causes our current housing crisis, and the homeless costs and all of this. So oh, gosh! Way! Too many units way too much density.

[232:05] No, and I like the design, but it much less than 4. 4 stories here, and no parking reductions. And thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Minutes are up. Thank you for joining us tonight, and thank you to members of the public for hanging in there with us almost 10 o'clock. Just want to make sure check if others would like to speak for this public hearing. If so, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand, so I can call on you. I'll give it a little bit of time. Okay. Seems like there are no other people wishing to speak for the public hearing over to you, Jared. Thank you, Vivian.

[233:00] Thank you to the commenters. I'm going to close the public hearing. and we are going to have board deliberation. And so unless someone objects, I think maybe a quick initial round of comments, and then we can move to motion making and any proposed conditions. So does anyone have comments that they feel the need to express? And we can also just thank you for putting up the key issues. There we go. In fact. Let's just go around and each of us give our initial thoughts on all 3 key issues. Is anyone anxious. Mark? Could I just suggest we add a 4th question to this as well, and that is whether it meets the use review criteria, because that is also one of the things we're discussing.

[234:04] Sure. So Without changing the slide, we'll just have a question. Number 4, I think there's a good suggestion. B, does it meet the use? Review criteria. since we will be voting on that. Okay. does anyone want to go first? st Have comments about the criteria? Claudia? I can start, and I will take the questions in order tonight. It's an organized night for me. So the 1st question is the proposal consistent with site review criteria helm? Well, no. Maybe I have different questions than you all have here. I'm going to talk about site, review, criteria and height modification. So I agree with the staff analysis that this project is consistent on the whole, with the Bvcp. In particular, it supports core policies that encourage infill and compact development. The jobs, housing, balance, and walkable and connected neighborhoods.

[235:16] I think, in terms of site design. It does satisfy criteria. I had some concerns about parking and transportation access, and also usable open space, but the applicant, I think, adequately addressed those in the Q. And a. I do want to say, I think it's incredibly unfortunate that the financing here hinges potentially on parking, because over parking. And I think that is what is happening here undermines some of the things in our site review criteria. namely, promoting alternatives to the automobile via site design and Tdm plans, which I think is quality in this case, but potentially undermined by overparking. I think the project does meet requirements for height, modification.

[236:01] as staff notes. The building form and massing does exceed what we're anticipating in the 30th Street corridor plan. But it also responds to Area and street conditions in a way that meets the intent of that plan, namely, bringing more neighborhood pedestrian activity to the area. and that height modification, I think, also supports the tvap goals of increasing housing, and I would note that using the height bonus as a tool was not available at the time that tvap was approved. That is something the city has added after the fact. I think, with the additional height the proposed building preserves mountain views from public spaces. and in response to some folks who provided feedback to us from the public. I did want to note that there is no requirement to preserve views from private spaces when we add height. So this building, I think, also does a good job of orienting its common areas towards the mountain views and the courtyard meets the requirements that we have for height, modification.

[237:04] Taking advantage of light views and site topography to create a shared space that I think is going to be a real asset to the residents here. Consistency with parking reduction criteria. I think this is quite obvious. I think even the most minimal transportation demand management plan in this area could support the 6 6% parking reduction that the applicant is requesting. There's good bike access transit access and many walkable neighborhood services in the area. and I'll refrain from editorializing more about parking, since I think that's off the table at this point. I think one of the meatiest questions we have in front of us is whether this proposal is consistent with the vision of the Tvap plan for this area. And I think that's in part a meaty question, because we are now more than 15 years out from Tvap being approved. And I think that means some of the key assumptions on which that plan was based are no longer true.

[238:08] And we also have some benefit of experience from seeing that plan implement implemented in multiple projects in this area. So I think there's 2 core elements of the tvap that are in play here. So the 1st is the overall vision of creating a dense, mixed use neighborhood that decenters the car, and I think the second, then, is the more limited vision for that 30th Street corridor which envisions a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood serving Main street. So, starting with the overall neighborhood vision. I think this plan, by adding housing units and variety, contributes to that vision for the neighborhood. It also continues to build out the fine grid of mobility connections that's really at the core of the Tvp. In that sense I fully support the amendment to the connection plan substituting the multi-use path connection for the alley that is currently in that plan. And I do think that that connection itself is essential to that area plan, making that fine grain grid of connections

[239:16] in terms of the 30th Street corridor. There are some differences between this building. both its form and massing and its use and what was anticipated in the Tvap. However, this is a case where I think it's important to consider how the plan has aged. So since 2,007. We have witnessed structural economic changes resulting in lower per capita demand for brick and mortar, retail spaces and office space. These are things that Tvap wanted on 30th Street. and the city has also allowed 30th Street to remain a high speed high volume thoroughfare which works against many of the property specific efforts that we might want to create a main street like pedestrian environment. And so given those realities, I think it's appropriate to evaluate this project for meeting the intent of the 30th Street corridor rather than holding it to specific mechanisms.

[240:10] and I see the intent here is needing to make 30th Street part of a larger, dense, walkable, and mixed use neighborhood making that more into a neighborhood center and destination rather than simply a thoroughfare. And I think this proposal for the most part supports that vision by bringing people to that corridor, by adding homes, by thinking creatively about ground floor uses, and providing what I consider to be a strong physical framing for this portion of 30, th 30th Street. That is a building that is actually in proportion to the street. Last question. Use Review. Because I added that question. I do agree with the staff analysis that this proposal meets the Use Review criteria for ground floor residential uses in the Bt one zone. Most importantly, I think the planned ground floor uses mimic commercial and office spaces. Office uses rather

[241:05] while minimizing the risk of additional vacancies in this area. So in that sense, the proposal uses the proposed use. Excuse me, minimizes adverse impacts on the surrounding area. And that's what our criteria requires. I did have some concern about that commercial space reversed, reverting to residential use without review. But if I understand Staff correctly, this could not happen in the future without an additional use review, and I think that is a satisfactory protection that still allows for some flexibility. If the market doesn't end up supporting retail here. thanks for bearing with my long-winded comments. Thank you, Claudia. Very well informed Laura. Okay, so I'll go next. So this is hard for me, because there is again

[242:01] like our last site Review, so much to like about this project. And also I'm a firm believer that the code that we have the plans that we have. we need to follow them right, and be very careful about making exemptions or subjectively interpreting the criteria such that they're not literally being followed right, and maybe we can be subjective in that way. But I'd like us to be very thoughtful about it. So I'm going to pose some questions to my fellow board members in talking about these things. So I don't have a firm position. I really want this to be a conversation, because I think what we do has the potential to set precedent here. So again, I'm going to encourage us to be thoughtful. So with the Use Review, I'm really wary of setting a precedent, that a resident only serving amenity as long as it kind of looks like a commercial use, or is kind of active, is the same thing as having commercial space right?

[243:06] Because it doesn't serve the same functions as commercial space. It doesn't serve the neighborhood. It serves the residents, and of course this is not a comment on this particular developer or this particular development, but as a precedent any developer would rather have private amenity space than have to rent out a commercial space that that is the pattern that we are seeing. So I'm really wary of setting that precedent. That ground floor commercial use is equivalent to active looking, resident serving uses, and in this particular site this is not just a general mixed use site. This is in a adopted plan as a main street business area, right? And it is a main corridor. And you know, as as was pointed out by the applicant, this is turning into mostly a residential area.

[244:01] and I don't know if I'm ready. I want to ask the board. Are we ready to give up on that vision of 30th street as a main street business area. That's in the Tvp. Because, Claudia, as you pointed out, conditions do change over time. But once this is claimed by the building as private space. It's very unlikely to revert back to being a commercial space. So I want us to think really carefully about whether we want to make that kind of precedent in a use review, especially for something that is pointed out as wanting to be a main business corridor. Similarly, with the Bbcp land use map. This is zoned as mixed. Use business. And again, we have a site review before us where we've got 3 quarters of 1% of the site is devoted to business space. And do we think that that is sufficient for a mixed use? Business zone? Right? They're not asking for a rezoning. They're not asking for an amendment to the Tvap plan to make this not a main street business. They're just asking for us to consider these things as as being sufficient.

[245:00] And that's a precedent that I think we should be really careful about. yeah, I do appreciate the creativity to try to meet some of the intent here with these resident serving spaces that kind of look like business uses. But you know, one solution might be that the co-working space, as the applicant suggested, that it might eventually evolve into something that's open to the public. I'm not sure. Maybe we could consider that it needs to be that now, rather than relying upon uncertain future conditions. that maybe that coworking space could become commercial. With the Site Review criteria. I agree that it does generally meet the Site Review criteria. The one concern that I have is 9, 2 14 h. 1 b. Again, consistency with the sub community plan, you know, when I I've told this anecdote over and over, but when I sat down to interview for planning board the city Council member who happened to be our current mayor, who was asking questions, said.

[246:01] What do you think is the appropriate course of action? If there are criteria or code that you don't personally agree with, or you think needs to change. Can you enforce them? What would you do in a site in a quasi judicial setting? And the answer that I gave. That, I still think is appropriate. Is you go by the code you have now, and if you think the code is inadequate or the plans are inadequate. You fight hard to change them, but you don't just ignore them because you don't personally agree with them, or you think something has changed in the environment. You work through the process and you enforce what you've got now. So again. I don't want to just throw out this idea that we have a Site Review criterion, which is consistency with a sub community plan. and in this case, particularly with regard to this idea of a business Main street environment for the height modification. Again, we have a criterion. This is a criterion for a height. Modification. The building's form and massing are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable applicable to this site. That is the Tvap plan. So I'm very reluctant to just say, Well, it's old, so we don't have to do it anymore. Although I agree with you, Claudia plans age, and the city has not had the capacity to keep up with

[247:16] even revising the plans that we have when we have all these new plans that don't exist yet that we want to create right? We just don't have the staffing to keep up with it. So it's a bit of a conundrum. But again, I'm I'm really leery of setting that precedent that we are just not going to pay attention to inconvenient older plans. yeah. It specifically says, the building's height is consistent with building heights in the adopted design guidelines or subcommittee or area plans. This building height is not consistent with the building height that is recommended or put into the adopted area plan in Tvap. And it's not just the Mu one prototype in the Tvp. It's also the character of the 30th Street corridor district. And this hurts my heart to say, because you guys know, I'm a density advocate, and I generally have no problem approving height modifications, especially height, modifications that are maybe one story higher than the things around it.

[248:09] But it just simply is not consistent with what the TV app says. And the TV app specifically says on page 7, the guidelines for character districts and streetscapes will be used in the Site Review process to help determine whether a project meets the Site Review criteria. And again, these are not optional criteria. It's not on balance. They have to be met. And then I think, just a couple more reservations that I have and like, I said, I'm not solid on any of these. I'm not 100% convinced by my own logic. I want to have a conversation 9, 2, 14 h. 3, a Roman numeral 3 says, along the public realm, building entries are emphasized by windows and architectural features that include one or more of the following, and it talks about detail and protruding and recessed elements. But the idea here is that you can easily identify what is a building entrance, and I find that 30th Street frontage

[249:04] really confusing, like the main feature that is emphasized currently does not have a door in it. And that's that co-working space. And the 3 areas that do have a door. One is kind of tucked under and not very visible under a recessed area. One of them is in that glass tower, and it just looks like every other part of the glass tower there might be an awning or something to come, but it's not very emphasized. And that corner on the south. What is that the southeast corner? There are 2 doors into the cafe that might be the most visible door. But again, it's not the most visible architectural features. It's not emphasized by the architecture along the public realm. So I have concerns about that. That one seems fairly, maybe easy to resolve. and then the last one under additional requirements for a height. Bonus open space specifically says that the courtyard will be at grade level, and there is no provision there for an elevated courtyard that you access with staircases or a building.

[250:02] a parking garage that has a concrete wall, and has some planters in front of it, like I think people will experience that as part of the building they will experience that as a wall in front of them. some stuff going on above their head level, right? That's not a ground level courtyard. So I think there might be some potential conditions that we could put on it about the ground yard court level about neighborhood serving uses on 30th Street about the architecture along 30th Street. Maybe some stuff in the Tdm plan like striking that language about where possible for sump so I'll stop there. Those are! Those are my thoughts, and I really am hoping we'll have a conversation, even though this format doesn't really lend itself before I call on anyone else. I'm and this is not directed to any one of us in particular. It is 1010 and and I. And as we go through these key issues and and answer these questions, I would encourage us to be thinking

[251:03] about concise conditions that are generated by our concerns, because I have concerns. We all have concerns, we all have thoughts. and I would encourage us to be thinking about how to make those actionable? Or are they something that we're going to just step back from as much as it might be difficult for us personally. So with that, I see George has his hand up, and we'll carry on. Great I'll be pretty concise I I I concur with a lot of what Laura said. as it relates to. Actually, I don't have to even repeat much, because I I think those things that you brought up Laura are worth

[252:02] discussion. And I generally concur with everything you said. I also think the building is too massive and need some permeability. And I I don't believe it meets the intent of of of. I just feel it's far too long and massive. And tall at the corners. in addition to that, around the the public space or the commercial on 30.th I'm of a very opposite end of the spectrum from the developer. I I don't believe we should give any lenience on commercial space with the intent that the market will set the rate and what the developer needs to do in order for that space to function properly.

[253:00] It may not rent for market rent. It may actually have to be subsidized ultimately, but they've got a large rental building with luxury apartments in it. And that's a criteria. That I think, is important to activate this streetscape. And I don't think we should provide any flexibility for it to be ultimately reverted back to an interior facing amenity for the building. It's the kind of thing that ultimately will be filled and will be filled with something that works for both the developer and the community. Because they'll need it to work in order to make that apartment building attractive and functional and ultimately it may need to be a 0 rent situation, or even subsidized by the developer in order to make it work. Certainly the build out, etc. But I don't think that that's reverting will meet what's trying to be achieved here. Ultimately, I don't really have any comments beyond that, I think Laura kind of summarized where I was as well. Thank you.

[254:17] Okay, Kurt, you ready? Sure. I had a bunch of comments. But really Claudia summed up a lot of what I was gonna say, so. I won't go into all the details. I support the general architectural design. I think it's the I really appreciate the relative simplicity of the design. Sometimes we get these really sort of over articulated and over over busy buildings, and I feel that this is not that I really appreciate the gabled reforms which we get so rarely in

[255:06] bolder these days, and I think that that will add a lot of interest along 30th Street, and also, you know, just make it seem like less of a monolithic building. I appreciate the mix of unit types as was discussed at the At Concept Review. I very much appreciate that the developer reduced, lowered the grade or the entry grade at 30th Street. I felt that that was a serious impediment to making it pedestrian, friendly and really approachable at all on 30.th So I think that that's a big improvement. and I think that the reduced setback is very appropriate on 30th to again to make it feel more connected to the street, and active and more less sort of suburban feeling.

[256:13] I understand Laura's concern particularly about the height and consistency with the tvap. On the other hand, there's terminology about using the the Tvp plan to help determine consistency with the with the Site Review criteria and and based on that, you know, I think, that there's a lot else in the Site Review criteria that are consistent with the with the 4 story height and the height modification. So I feel that

[257:01] again, looking at all the the countervailing influences and and inputs to this decision which are not all consistent. Certainly I feel that the the height modification is appropriate, and in some the project is consistent with the Site Review criteria I feel that the parking reduction is appropriate. And I talked about consistency with the Tvap plan. I do have some concern actually about the location. The proposed location of the of the path, the change to the location of the path to the west, which was shown in the Tvp connections plan as a sidewalk going straight west from the southwest corner of the property. I would like to see ideally. I would like to see that crossing the creek there, and and so going sort of southwest from the southwest corner of the

[258:13] site, I think that that is probably the the primary desire line for people leaving the site in that direction to go to the whole food Shopping center or to the Y.M.C.A. Or something like that. That's the direction that most people, I think are probably wanting to go if they want to go straight west. It's not that much out of the way. However, that would require a bridge which we have heard may not be feasible, and so that that may be a nonstarter just from the the cost standpoint. But I think that that's a little bit unfortunate. and in terms of the Use Review. I do think that this is appropriate. I mean, this is the point of use. Review is not to set a precedent, but to determine consistency with the criteria, and I feel like in this case it is consistent with the use review criteria

[259:14] to to to have that residential use on the 1st floor. Given that it will be, it seems like it will be an active residential use, a commercial feeling, residential residential use as much as that is possible. And so I I feel that it does meet the use review criteria as well. Can I chime in just really quickly. One of the things that I noticed that you said current and has been said before is that we're worried about precedent. So we don't worry about precedent. We worry about the Site Review criteria as applied to each application. Right? So we care about site review criteria here in this moment. So I just wanted to correct that a little bit.

[260:03] May I ask about that laurel? Because one of the things that has been emphasized to us in the past is consistency in how we apply the criteria. And so if we make a decision. basically saying we support commercial, like residential uses as being the equivalent of meeting the need for Main Street commercial that does not is that's not something we would have to be consistent on in the future. Well, so the with. You know, when you're looking at quasi digital, you look at the actual criteria and decide on each application as it comes before you. I think if you want to be consistent for the purposes of applying it in your own minds. But we are concerned about how you actually apply the criteria in front of you, not how you've applied it before, or how you applied in the future. We care about the criteria specifically in front of you, and how this application meets it or doesn't meet it. And the reason for that is, you start to add on additional criteria, right in in your minds to say like, oh, it has to meet this in this way.

[261:04] Am I getting that right? But I see Brad has it up here. Yeah, I think the reason Laurel is kind of chiming in on that is, this is kind of drummed into our heads in planning school that every decision in a quasi judicial setting is site specific and time and place specific and specific, to the findings and the circumstances. So we, we kind of emphasize that no decision creates precedence. There should be consistency in how the code is applied. And of course those are kind of competing ideas. But I think that's why you're bringing that up. So just a clarification point. Thank you. Okay. Ml, are you there? Are you ready? I can't. I am there, and I have my hand up. Furthermore. Well, I yeah. So I

[262:02] thank you, Laura, for your very well articulated concerns about what about TV? You know it. It's referenced. A number of places. It's referenced. In the Site Review criteria under the Bbcp portion B, consistent with applicable plan. It's listed under the height modification. So I am very conflicted about the you know, it says very specifically, 2 to 3 stories. I hear back from. you know, Staff and the applicant that well, city Council has said this, and maybe it's

[263:08] it can be something other than 2 and 3 stories. So it it's a challenge. I I agree. It's a challenge to try to decide. Well. what is. When is the criteria? Actually a criteria. And when does it get fuzzy? So I and I think that that particular tvap one. the main street ground floor. you know the whole conversation about that residential use along 30th Street, potentially looking like it's public looking like it's activating the street? could it be public? Might it be public. Should we change that use requirement again? I think that this is

[264:00] I understand what the developer, and if the applicant is talking about that it's hard to go forward anticipating that you have to find commercial uses when there's across the street. There are vacant commercial spaces that are trying to activate the same thing that we're asking for here. But at the same time I agree with what George says. Right? Is this like this is part of what this zoning and what this Tvap plan have asked for, and for that suddenly, to just be not suddenly, but probably just be disregarded. Let's just write over that. And let's just, you know, find a way to to make it. Not so. This Main street. 30th Street does not feel like a main street. Why do we have this vision? And why haven't we changed it? If it's not going to be that? So I agree, there's a lot of complexity here. My 2 main issues

[265:10] are the height. the height, the 4 stories. And I went back and I looked at our packet in the packet. It does say 5 stories. So you might want to change that if we're if we're approving these as as written. yeah, I think that the hype might be a challenge. And that north elevation. I don't know that we ever saw north elevation, but that's a really long elevation, and you know, we may not think of an adjacent property as as public access, but we all see it right driving up up and down 30th Street, whether you're on your bike or walking or in a car, you're going to see this big face of a building. So these are impacts. And

[266:01] I think we need to be a little more. we have to make some decisions that have to do with. Do we follow the criteria. or do we? Create kind of these gaps and say, Well, let's let's go ahead and do a 4 story building. Let's go ahead and do a you know, over 200 linear feet. Well, let's it. It's a challenge. But I do. So that's where my problems lie. They they lie with the points that Laura made and the points that George made, and I I think there's probably ways to condition to condition these. Thank you. Ml, and your concluding comment, I think there are ways to condition this. I'm going to speak, and I hope that we all take

[267:02] the time to again. This, it actually comes down to words on paper and specifics about conditions. And I so use your use your time to elucidate your your thoughts. So my thoughts on this, and I'm going to respond to a couple of things. and that is. you know, the world changes as you know, plan as we might, and plan as slowly or speedily as the city does. The world changes. Things like Covid happens. And the other thing I want to emphasize, is there? There's a lot of the code that is subjective. And and if it wasn't subjective we wouldn't need to have a planning board. It would be all numerical, it would be.

[268:00] does plug the project into a spreadsheet, and it says yes or no, but that's that's not either the code or the world we live in. And so, dealing with the question, a couple questions of ground level retail on 30th Street, When when we suggest that that a developer, an applicant. put ground level, retail in an area surrounded by vacant ground level, retail, and tell them. well, the code says you have this. but you just go ahead and rent it at 0. 0 cost to me something's wrong when we tell someone that their business model needs to operate at 0 expense to a tenant. Some something says, Hey, this is this is this is not right.

[269:03] I think the other thing that we're as as a board and as planning as a city is going to have to start acknowledging is that things like parking and building types and materials are going to be driven more and more by financing companies and insurance companies. What doesn't matter? What our sometimes what our code says? If the if you can't get insurance to build it. You're not. You're not doing it. If the financing company says fine, I'm not giving you the money unless you have this much parking. Then things are not going to happen, and so I don't like it. But that is, that is a reality that we, as a planning board and the city planning department are going to have to start dealing with because all our applicants are dealing with it.

[270:00] The other thing I want to note is that the our ability as we come into compliance with State law and parking minimums go away. It is going to be the market that starts dictating how much parking there is. I'm not a parking advocate. but there are, there are these other forces. And so when we send minimums away. then suddenly, we don't have a stick by which to measure is this, is this X reduction? Is it 6%? Is it 15%? Is it 23%? Is it 32%. And suddenly we we have, we have acknowledged that the that the market and the drive for housing versus parking versus retail is is something that is now much more external to us than when it's written in the code that you will have 1.2 5 parking spaces per per unit or bedroom or whatever. So

[271:09] okay. So I find that this is consistent with the, with the height criteria for additional building height. I find that the parking reduction could be greater, but it is within what it is, and within the zone and the criteria I find it consistent there. I also find it consistent within the Tvap plan. The acknowledgement that that the plan, like the East Boulder subcommunity plan.

[272:03] has allowances for variation, and it is not in the and our area plans have to be acknowledged, have to be adhered to, and at the same time are subjective, and have have some variables in them. Finally, as far as the use goes, I don't have a problem with the residential use. and I'm going to take a second, though, and say what what my greatest concern with this project is, and I didn't have questions about it. But it's it's the. It's the architecture. I have a real problem with the architecture. And and I look at the some of the buildings in diagonal plaza that reflect the kind of it Lego look extruded roof line, the Sawtooth roof line, that when you

[273:00] look at some of those elevations you have these really large flat walls. some with the window articulation of the boxes, but others of them are just big, giant, flat walls with that that Sawtooth roof form without any extension, without any overhang. And I was trying to think, okay, I'm not a design professional. So I went back to pattern language. and I started looking through there about roofs. What is it that bugs me about this this roof form. and I just came up with this. I'm going to conclude with this. The roof plays a primal role in our lives. The most primitive buildings are nothing but a roof. If the roof is hidden, if its presence cannot be felt around the building, or if it cannot be used, then people will lack a fundamental sense of shelter.

[274:02] The sheltering function cannot be created by a pitched roof or a large roof, which is merely added to the top of an existing structure. The roof itself only shelters, if it contains, embraces, covers, and surrounds the process of living. This means very simply that the roof must not only be large and visible, it must also include living quarters within its volume, not only underneath it the space under, under or on the roof must be useful space space that people come in contact with daily. The whole feeling of shelter comes from the fact that the roof surrounds people at the same time as it covers them. So I find the combination of these really large flat walls. and that that particular roof form to be deficient. I'm I'm not going to try to condition that. But I have to get that that one off my chest. So

[275:04] that concludes my comments, and I'm ready for motion, making, conditioning, etc. Kurt. I move to approve. Site review, application, lur. 2024, 0, 0, 4, 7, and use review application. Lur. 2024, 0 0 6 5. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Second, right, we have a motion and a second as the motion maker. Would you like to speak to that motion?

[276:04] And okay, it's 1030, or whatever. No, I don't speak. Okay. As a second, you're you're next. I have already done most of my speaking in my comments. Okay. before we move on. Does anyone else want to speak to this motion or propose any amendments? I guess it's on me to do that. So I still have a real problem with approving the height modification. I I don't think that is, it is consistent with the building height in the adopted guidelines or sub community plans right just on a literal reading. It is not And so I would move to deny the height, modification.

[277:01] I'll second that. Well, I guess I would say I would move to to amend the motion, to remove the approval for the height modification. Ml. Still seconding. I'll second that. Okay. So now we're on to the amendment. Would you like to speak to that? Yeah, I mean for me, this is this is fairly black and white. This is a site review, criterion for a height modification. The buildings, form, and massing are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines, and the building's height is consistent with the building heights in the adopted design guidelines or subcommunity or area plans. So for me, that's that's pretty black and white it it just simply is not. And so my question to you is your citation

[278:01] of a failure to meet the criteria is failure to meet specifically in the Tvap plan. What wording in the Dvap plan does? Where does it fail? Point to the site where it fails for me. Okay, so again, I just want to clarify. This is a criterion in the Site Review criteria for approving a height modification. And this place in the Tvap plan. Let me find that language. so you're you're citing 2 places in the code, in in the Site Review criteria and in the Tvap plan or so in the Site Review criterion, right? It specifically says, to approve a height, review modification. It must be considered. I don't know if it says, must. Let me find the exact language. I don't want to misspeak here.

[279:03] It says, additional criteria for buildings requiring a height modification, or exceeding the maximum floor area ratio. and it says, a building form, and massing the buildings, form and massing are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site. It says they are consistent with that character. Right? And then it also says, this is 9 dash 2, dash 14. I'm losing sorry I've lost the citation H for a building form and massing. So again, this is additional criteria for buildings requiring a height modification. That's the building form in massing and then under additional requirements for a height, bonus

[280:00] for buildings taller than 3 stories, subject to a height, modification. guidelines, or plan. The building height is consistent with the building heights anticipated in the adopted design guidelines or subcommunity or area plans. Right? Specifically, thank you. And then the height bonus also says, for open space. If the project site is greater than one acre in size and inviting grade, level, outdoor garden, or landscaped courtyard is provided so to get the height bonus. You have to provide a grade, level, courtyard, or gathering space which this one does not. The courtyard is elevated, it is not grade level that is not a grade, level, outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard. It's for you. Okay, thank you, Bill. So one could interpret that. But like that, that courtyard that is designed as a gathering space for the building users, which is what it says. Grade, level, outdoor garden, or landscaped courtyard is provided and designed as a gathering space for the building users, which I would argue the western portion is not.

[281:10] Isn't it also a requirement for a height bonus in the code? So it doesn't meet the courtyard requirement, and it doesn't meet the consistency with the area plan to get the height modification. And in Tvap, the 2 places that it talks about this are, let me find it. The character of the 30th Street Corridor district. So let me page 35 in Tvap. Let me find that. Thank you, Kurt.

[282:12] I don't think it's in that page. Yeah. Sorry I have so many notes. Page 31 30th Street corridor district. Does that talk about the building heights. Kurt, yeah, can you? Do you want to quote it? It says, with a change to a mixed use designation.

[283:01] the district will evolve to take on the character set by the steelyards project a mixture of commercial and residential uses in 2 to 3 story buildings located along the street with parking behind, supported by a network of new streets and alleys. Yeah, so that is the description of the 30th Street corridor district that it's a mix of retail and commercial, and that it's 2 to 3 stories. right? And that's about as specific as an area plan ever gets on the building form and massing and heights. And that is specifically called out in our code that in order to get a height bonus, you have to be consistent with the area plan. If one exists. Laura. May I also cite additionally in the TV app land, use prototypes for the mu, one. Please. Go right ahead. Land use prototypes for the mixed use. Number one states 2 to 3. Story mixed use buildings.

[284:02] Predominant use may be business or residential, so that also cites the 2 to 3 stories. So I think the choice here is clear. I think it's for me pretty black and white that it does not follow the Tvp. The question is. is that something that we're going to stick to as a planning board? And for me, and what is consistent? Right? That's the consistent language in the Brc, yeah. consistent with the tbap Claudia. I have a question for staff. and that is given this reading that Laura is proposing of the Site review criteria and of the 30th Street corridor district in the TV app. Does the Tvap essentially prohibit a height modification in this area?

[285:00] Does staff agree with that interpretation? No, it doesn't. Again, the the area plan is a guiding policy document. It's not an implementing document. It's not zoning. The prescriptive implementation happens through the zoning code. The Site Review criteria set up a process by where you can request that these standards be modified. Assuming that you can meet the Site review criteria. So yeah. The answer is, no. The area plan really just kind of sets up the general framework. The zoning code allows for other considerations to be made. So if the area typology calls for 2 to 3 story buildings primarily, if you can address the Site Review criteria, you can modify that through the zoning code. So so again, this feels very circular to me, because the Site Review criteria require consistency with the area plan. The area plan describes the format and massing and height as a certain thing.

[286:02] so I don't understand why that is not part of the Site Review criteria that they would have to meet in order to get an adjustment to their by right zoning. because that is right there in the Site Review criteria that you must be consistent with the form and massing and height that is described in the area plan. Yeah, I mean, I think it is circular. But and this is why I emphasize the consistency language, is it consistent or not, and not something that for you guys to determine if it does meet that consistency requirement. actually leave the factory. So yeah, it. I. I sympathize with the circular logic. Does the on the prior site review this evening. This is, you know, this. These issues keep recurring.

[287:00] Let's be clear. What does the underlying zoning allow for in this zone under site review? Does it allow for a 55 foot height in this zone as it's zoned under the site review process. So 38 feet, I think, is the base height along 30th Street for the Bms portion of the property by right, by right. but modifiable up to 55 feet under site. Review. Correct meeting. The Site Review criteria which Laura will point out includes the reference to the area plan which is not lost on me, the circular nature of it, but just in the in the again in the prior. Sorry I'm not. I'm not tying the 2 together. It we had the housing issue, and and again, the underlying zoning

[288:05] is what is granted with the property rights. The by rights, is what is granted with the property rights. Site Review is a process by which you get exceptions. You get additional benefit. That is not an entitlement in your zoning if you meet the criteria, so we are not required to approve. Site. Review requests for height exemptions. If they don't meet the criteria. and this is where I'm getting stuck, because if we didn't have this provision in the plan, I would be happy to grant this height exemption right? This is a case where my personal proclivities clash with what I perceive as my duty to follow the code and follow the site. Review criteria. So. yeah. So that's why I'm proposing the amendment. We can go ahead and vote on it if you want. I don't know if there's more clarification that's needed. Unless someone has additional new information, I think we should move to a vote on this amendment. So could you

[289:08] state your amendment again, please? Yeah. And I don't. I don't know if Thomas, if you were able to write it down, but the gist of it is I move to amend the Site review approval to not include the height modification, or to deny the height modification. Okay? And Ml seconded that. Okay, I'm Kurt. You're looking at me like you're you want to do something before I call for a vote? Well, I will not be supporting this. I'll just say so, you know I think you raise excellent points, and I've been trying to read more carefully what exactly the Tvp says and also what the Site Review criteria say. And

[290:04] I mean, it seems like, there's quite a bit of fuzziness, actually, especially in the Tvp plan. I'll reread what I read earlier with a change to mixed use designation. The district will evolve to take on the character set by the steelyards project. and then it describes, as I read it, the character of the Steelyards Project, which is a mixture of commercial and residential uses in 2 to 3 storey buildings located along the street. So - to me, that's not saying that everything needs to be 2 to 3 stories. It's saying it will evolve to take on the character set by the Steelyards Project, which happens to be 2 to 3 story buildings. And so

[291:01] it it doesn't read to me as a hard. You will not go above 3 stories. I will also just point out for context, really. that the the site Review criteria. Say, okay. The building's height. So for buildings taller than 3 stories, subject to a height modification. One. The building's height is consistent with the building heights anticipated in the adopted design guidelines or subcommunity or area plans. So you know they are anticipated, I guess, but it also says. if no such guidelines or plans are adopted for the area, or if they do not specify anticipated heights for buildings which

[292:00] it's not clear to me whether they exactly do. The building height is, then the requirement is the building height is compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area. So that's taking into account the context or the building is located, one near a multimodal corridor, with transit service, which this is or 2 near an area of redevelopment where a higher intensity of use and similar building height is anticipated. which this is so. Yeah, it's not super clear, but I certainly feel that it is not by any means unambiguous that nothing can go above 3 stories. That's just not how I'm reading this at all. Can I just respond to that real quick. So it it says specifically in 2 places in the 30th street

[293:01] character, the street character, and also, as Ml. Pointed out in the Mu one prototype, which is what this site would be. 2 to 3. Story mixed use buildings. Predominant use may be business or residential, but they want mixed. Use buildings that are 2 to 3 stories in this mu one. And that's on page 17 of the Tvap land use prototypes. A land use plan does not get much more specific than that on building heights. To me like that is beyond argument, that that is the anticipated building height for this particular property, and the idea that the district is going to evolve. This is this is the evolution that you don't get another shot at redeveloping this property for probably 2030 years at the minimum, right? So it's not going to evolve any other way than through site reviews like this. So okay, I'm going to go ahead and call a vote, and then we can move on to other possible conditions.

[294:04] Lottie, I'm starting with you. No, Laura. Yes, Kurt, no, Ml. Yes. And George. Yes. And I'm a no, so it fails fails. Okay, are there other proposed amendments to the main motion? I will propose another. Okay. Again, my reading of the height. MoD. Well, okay, the height modification failed and that includes the ground level courtyard accessibility. I move to amend to require that at least 50% of the 30th Street store or 30th Street frontage be commercial neighborhood serving uses?

[295:01] Could you say that again. I move to amend that at least 50% of the ground floor space along 30th Street be commercial neighborhood serving uses. Do I hear? A second. One second. Okay, George. Seconds. Okay, let's let's discuss it. As I said, I'm I want to know what other folks think. But I'm not quite ready yet to give up on the idea of this 30th Street corridor being a Main street business typology, I think that 50% of that one, the ground floor along that one frontage is reasonable. This is probably the shortest frontage in the whole project. The current square footage is, as I mentioned before, 3 quarters of 1% of the building square footage. So I don't think this is an unreasonable criteria to try to come into alignment with the main Street business character that is described in the Tvp plan and consistency with the Tvp plan is a separate criterion of Site Review. Apart from the height modification

[296:23] I'm gonna call him myself and Say that when we I applaud the effort to have a Main Street typology, and when I envision a main street I envision a street which is one lane going one way, one lane going, another, cars parked and people backing in and out, kind of like Pearl Street, just east of the Mall.

[297:01] I do not envision a strode which is a combination of a really more of a road. 30th street is A is A is, is not a street, it's a road, it's a high speed. It's by design. It is high speed, high throughput, and it is. It fails as a main street, and it fails not because of the developments along it. It fails because our failure as a city to implement a Tmp that calms. narrows and makes more bicycle, friendly, more pedestrian, friendly, and so to Take a the site, and we can only deal with the site before us, and to to place the burden upon it, to make it feel like Main Street when we, as a city.

[298:07] fail to have the collective will to design a street that actually feels like a main street. you know, and we just we just did 30 pearl and stuff. And you know what we failed at those moments to narrow 30th to protect bike lanes and to make 30th Street because of maybe some future planning process that we're going to begin and go through for several years. But we just reconstructed 30th Street just south of here. And how do we reconstruct it? 4 lanes, unprotected bike lanes, you know, inadequate pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. And so, you know, we're we're here, and we've got what we've got. And and again.

[299:00] while I drive at 35 or 40 miles an hour down this dangerous 4 Lane Street. I look at all of the for rent signs on the ground level. So anyway, I'm I'm opposed to this. if I may respond, sure. So you know, Mark, I probably relate to a lot of what you're saying, and and what I hear you saying is, you think that this is a failure of design of 30th Street. But what I'm responding to is a site Review criterion that requires consistency with an area plan and the area plan envisions. This as a main street business location with mixed use, including commercial and residential. And I don't find that 3 quarters of 1% commercial is sufficient for this particular site. So that's why I'm proposing this amendment. Okay, I'm just going to respond to that and say that one of the key characteristics of this site is the pedestrian walking distance to

[300:04] Barnes, and noble Whole Foods, a massage. Place the cycle shop, and and so The idea of let's let's say we doubled it. Let's say we tripled it. Are those retail spaces going to be successful in light of the actual retail shopping attraction which is literally feet away. So so again, may I respond? I like this conversation. Thank you. You know I hear what you're saying, and at the same time one of the things that the city is desperately trying to do is to integrate residential and commercial right. And we did these area plans with that in mind the Tvp, the Tvp to the East Boulder subcommunity plan, and so we did not envision it. As there is a Mecca of commercial surrounded by single purpose residential. We, we imagined, integrated spaces, and maybe that's poor planning, and maybe we need to revise our opinion. But again, I'm responding to what I perceive as my duty as a planning board member to uphold a site review criterion that requires consistency with a plan.

[301:20] Let's hear from someone else. I'll I'll speak and I wanna speak really quickly, which is. I think we gotta. I think we gotta be shorter with our comments. And we gotta vote on things and move on because we're it's it's past 11. Okay, we gotta get moving. Otherwise I gotta check out. Okay on that note. Does anyone else have any comments on this? Or are we ready to vote? Okay? So the motion, let's just be clear, is to amend the approval to require at least 50% of the ground floor uses along the 30th Street frontage to be neighborhood serving. Commercial.

[302:01] Okay, Claudia? No, Laura. Yes, Kurt, no, George. Yes. Ml. Yes. And I'm a no. So that's another 3, 3, and that one fails. Any other amendments motion to amend to require that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of Staff. Could you? Do you want to use a direct? You said I clearly identify the interests that the entrances are clearly identified by the structure, or what? I'm not sure, so criterion 9, 2, 14 h. 3. A Roman numeral. 3 says that along the public realm.

[303:09] particularly in this case, I'm thinking. 30th street building entries are emphasized by, and it gives a variety of architectural features, windows, and architectural features, and in in my view, the current design does not adequately emphasize or identify those entrances. I find that the architecture along 30th Street very confusing, as I said, that main feature there has no door in it, and the doors do not appear to be prominently featured or emphasized. Is there a second? I will second, I share this concern. I think that to some extent, as far as I can tell from the site plan to some extent this is it's addressed in the paving, but I'm not certain about that. So in any case, I think it's a it's a good thing to call out.

[304:05] I'll simply say, it seems like an innocuous clarification to me. So how about, in the spirit of George's efforts to move us along? If there's not a lot of debate. I'm ready to call the call a vote on that Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Kurt, yes, Ml. Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a yes, wow! There we go! I I've got a I've got a question, a practical question. Given the time, which is, we've got the We've got the primary motion that's been seconded that hasn't been voted on because we're making amendments. But the amendments that have been attempted that have failed so far are pretty significant, and it seems like the Board members that are voting either for or against. These amendments are also pretty

[305:07] consistently positioned in a place that I have a concern that it's gonna affect the main motion now, because, at least for myself. I can't vote to move forward with this this project without a number of the amendments that we've put up that have failed. And I would think, and maybe I'm wrong. But I would think that there are other Board members that feel the same way. So I also want to be respectful of our time if we're getting back to the main motion, and it's going to fail because we've failed to agree upon some of these amendments that were attempts to bring this into a place where people were comfortable, that it satisfied the criteria. I bring that up only because it's 11 0. 6. And if we go through 5 more of these things only to return back to the 1st one, and it just be denied.

[306:01] We should consider that. Thank you. All site Review. Motions and approvals are subject to. You know we motions and amendments that are incorporated into the main main motion to make those amendments consistent with and part of the approval. So I don't see a way around this other than each board member must vote, using their judgment as in quasi-judicial using their judgment whether or not the applicant, the application should move forward and meets the criteria, so I don't know how else to proceed other than to quickly move through any other amendments, and then judge

[307:10] on the whole, the main motion, as as amended. I'm just putting up as a as a as a straw poll of one that the motions that have failed are enough for me to vote against the primary motion. and if that's the same for the other Board members who have been consistent on that. then I don't know how much further, we need to take this only to get to the same outcome. Can I respond to that, George? Yep. I just from a facilitation standpoint. I agree with you that there's some time spent here, but if the motion were to pass, or if it were to be a 3 3, and the applicant requests a hearing. I think it a rehearing, or goes to city council. With this I think it's important to have on the record what were the amendments that Board members were interested in the ones who were willing to approve it.

[308:06] so I don't see a way to. I agree with Mark. I don't see a way to shortcut it, although I'm sensitive to your concerns, and I would also like to go to bed. Alright. Sounds good. I'm I'm in agreement with that as long as we can keep moving. Okay, we're going to keep moving any other proposed amendments. I have one more. Okay regarding the Tdm plan. I move that the application be amended. That sump principles are required for all parking, and the language quote, where possible, is stricken from the Tdm plan. I'll second that one. Okay. I don't even think we need a lot of debate on this unless someone objects right now I'm going to. We're going to vote on this one, Claudia. Yes, Laura. Yes, Kirk. Yes, ml.

[309:00] Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a yes, okay, there we go. Anything else from anyone else. Okay, I'm looking at. Ml, I'm looking for George. Okay, we now have come to the main motion. which has been amended successfully amended. 2 items, and I I don't know if anyone has captured that. So, Kurt, you made the the original motion. Okay? And Claudia seconded, yes. Okay. So can we restate? Does anyone have okay? Can we add. did anyone capture our last 2 successful. Okay, can you

[310:03] dictate to Thomas so that he can add the the 2 adopted conditions please. The 2 adopted conditions are to amend the plan to require architectural emphasis and identification of the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of Staff. That that may be a slight reframing, but apologies for interrupting, this is Allison's slide, actually, so she'll just need a second. Do you know you're okay? Do you want to swap it to Thomas? Apologies? Thomas, do you want to pull up? If you want to read that back? much slower, or send it over absolutely. Absolutely. The other alternative, why don't I type it up and send it over. That'd be great. Thank you. Apologies for interrupting.

[311:54] I do have the second one that passed. Great Laura made a motion to amend the application to reflect that some principles are required for all parking

[312:03] and the language where possible, be stricken from the Tdm plan. Excellent. Okay, so I just need the 1st one that passed. I just put it in the chat for you. Okay.

[313:02] okay, so what we need is the is the main motion with the 2 adopted amendments incorporated into that is, that, are you? We can include the original motion language, and then just say, as amended, below. yeah, or as revised. You could say that, or Laura could read it as well. Okay, we've adopted the amendments. If, if, as amended below. yeah, or as revised, okay, I think you would say, as amended by planning board on February 18, th 2025, or something like that. Okay, so we need the main motion language backup. Alison, do you want to send me over the main motion language or or just share it?

[314:30] Okay, I'm going to read the main motion, and then we will vote on the motion as amended. So the the motion before us is a motion to approve. Site review, application, LUR. 2024, 0 0 4, 7, and use review application. Do we need a separate motion for the use review? Or is this incorporated? Okay? All right.

[315:03] and use review application number LUR. 2024, 0 0 6 5. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and as amended by the planning Board on February 18, th 2025. Okay. in Europe, Claudia, are we voting, or are we speaking to this package? We're voting. Excuse me. Yes, Laura, no, Kurt. Yes, Ml. No. George. George, are you still with us.

[316:02] I think? Or I thought he might be thinking, George. is he frozen? Hey, George, are you hearing us. No, he's moving. George! George! Hey, George! Hello! Okay. It's not a matter of volume. Can you chat with him? Must have muted us. I don't know if he's monitoring the chat. You guys have a cell phone number.

[317:00] I just sent him a text. Looks like he might be having technical difficulties. you know. I'm gonna see if I can get him on Speaker phone, either that or he hasn't. He's always. This doesn't seem to be working. George. You having trouble hearing me. Mark. Yeah, George, we are actually voting on the main motion, and

[318:06] and you and we've been yelling at you. And you. Oh, oh, my! My speakers are off! Huh! That's so weird! It's been sitting here thinking you're crafting it. Okay, we're going to hang. The phone. Okay, all right. Can you hear us now? Don't know what to do here. I'm gonna sign out. While we're waiting for him, just as a reminder. If this motion doesn't pass. If we could have a continuance to draft up denial findings or a motion to that. If there, if this motion doesn't pass, if it fails because it's a tie, if we could continue it to do denial findings like we did last time, or somebody get a motion for that. That would be very helpful. I see George back in the room, so I'm just promoting him to panelists again hopefully. He can hear us clearly now.

[319:02] Now I can hear you. Okay, very much. No. Glad to have you glad to have you back while you were in silence. So we actually we actually have. You were the next to last person to vote on the main motion, as amended by the planning board. So the 2 amendments that passed are just noted as being. I'm a no, I'm a no, I already I know the whole motion, everything. I'm a no. Okay. Okay. So it's your turn to vote. He's a no, he's a no, he said, no, excuse me. Okay. And I'm a yes. So there we are again, with a 3, 3 split. So I would move to continue this public hearing item, do I need to state the number? No, that's okay. Okay. 2.

[320:02] Do you want to give me a date now? March 18th to March 18, th 2025. And can I ask question, is this the situation? Where? Because it's 3, 3, where the applicant can request a rehearing with a full board with a full board. But we have to wait until the or the entire project. You know, we're continuing the hearing until 8, 8 or 3 18. Sorry I'm stumbling over myself. It's getting late. We're continuing the hearing until 3, 18. Once the hearing is complete, then they have 7 days from then to request overhearing. In writing. They can either do that, or it can wait until planning board, call or city council call it. and if we have a full board at the next meeting the results might be different. So one way or the other. and that is a possible outcome just like with our other hearing. Tonight there could have been a motion to approve that would have passed for the people who were there is that is that the case like when Mason is present, there's another vote.

[321:04] There is another vote. If he's able to go back and watch the whole hearing right and be able to participate. I will say this time we did have a a motion to approve, and then denied it. So we might have to look at. It's a little bit different than I think. The last one. Okay, that was. My question, yeah. Okay, so we'll find the next meeting. If there is the option to try to approve it again, because it could be a slightly different version of the motion to approve. That's true, or an slightly amended version. Yeah. Can we ask for a clarification? Is that okay? From this procedural standpoint? Sure, Brad Curl Packard, duking for for applicants. So if we have a a motion to approve. There's a 3 3 tie. It's not a denial. I guess. I'm wondering is the time frame to request the rehearing. You're talking about a continuance is a time frame to request rehearing. Does that not start now? Such that we have to request their hearing 7 days from now? That's question number one and question number 2 is, we're talking about a continuance

[322:06] versus a rehearing, rehearing suggests that there's a whole public hearing. And that whole process. Yeah. So under our rules, which I can give you this afterwards, if you want to see it, it says, any agenda item requiring a vote of planning board is denied if it does not receive an affirmative vote of 4 or more. Okay, so it's an automatic denial. And then we have. But you're continuing, we just had a motion for continuance. Yeah. And the idea of continuance is to write up denial findings, and then the Board can either vote to approve those denial findings or approve it. Okay, so there's I'm sorry. So there's a denial tonight. Technically, you continue to come up with the findings or the denial is not complete until after you come up with the findings. While you're coming up with the findings within those 7 days from today, we're going to request. That's the time period we have to request the rehearing, or is it following your adoption of the denial findings? Do we have? Do we then have 7 days. Yeah, it doesn't specify. Of course, it says if the 1st vote taken results in a tire, a vote of 3 to 2 or 3 to one in favor of approval, and I get it that happened here. The applicant shall be automatically allowed to rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within 7 days.

[323:13] I mean, it's spoiler, alert. We're going to request a rehearing. So I don't know, you know, if that just procedurally for you guys, if if you to avoid having to draft all those things. If that helps you. If we do, we have to wait for you to draft the findings before we request the rehearing. We're going to request the rehearing to be on the safe side. I would think that there wouldn't be anything. There would be no disadvantage to submitting your request for a rehearing, agreed, agreed. And I'm I'm just saying for for Staff's time coming up with all this stuff, if yeah, and they haven't voted on the motion or seconded it. Did we get a second for the continuance? We haven't voted on the continuance, but we have not voted on the continuance. I guess I feel like it's a little weird, because we by the rules of procedure, we just did a denial.

[324:10] Yeah. And so we're continuing the hearing to adopt the denial findings. Right? So we want to be able to have time to write up the findings and be able to. For you guys to approve those denial findings, just to have them in writing vote again on the denial right? We would have necessarily writing, although we could consider an approval at that time you could, which is what we did, which is correct. and also why we need to update our rules of procedure. And the second part of that. The idea of the rehearing. It's not just a rehearing by the board. It's a rehearing such that we then have the opportunity to get up and speak to issues like, for example. a policy document versus a regulatory document, the tbap versus full revised code. Those kinds of things. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean you. You can. But I think that we're all familiar with that argument. And it's this circular question of

[325:04] yes, the tvap is not regulatory. It is advisory. But our site review criteria are regulatory, and they require consistency with the Tvp, which is an interpretation. So I don't know that that's going to. I mean, you could try to change your minds. I bet the the snippet would be tvap is a policy document. I don't think we should really be debating right now. I don't think that's appropriate. Yeah, yeah, no, it's fair. Okay, yeah, I I But I think this. The question for me is this the 7 days? And what does a rehearing mean versus while we simultaneously continue to a date much farther away than 7 days? Well, 7 days is just for the request. Right? That's not. We don't have to have a rehearing in 7 days. Right? Okay, so this is what the rules say about rehearing the Board shall rehear a matter upon the majority vote of the board, when the substantive basis for the rehearing is either the desire of the applicant or the planning department to present new material on the matter that was not available during the initial hearing, provided such requests for hearing are made to the Secretary of the Board within 7 calendar days of the hearing at which the matter was decided.

[326:14] Okay, interesting. But it was prefaced by the applicant can request or will be granted if they request a rehearing yeah. within 7 days of the denial. So the clock starts. Yeah, she'll be automatically allowed if they request a rehearing. And, Brad, maybe you can clarify this again. It is a question about staff drafting. Denial findings versus a rehearing. But so I'd like to make a suggestion. And, Laura, you can correct me, if not, but I think if the board were to go ahead and make a second motion for a directing staff to put up findings of fact.

[327:01] But the applicant goes ahead and does make the request. Within the 7 days we could potentially make a conclusion administratively that that has come in and make separate recommendation to the board, that that continuance not stand, and that instead, the the hearing follow on that same date. Yeah. And maybe we could, instead of saying a specific date certain. We could. You could direct us to draft denial findings. And then, if and then we can do scheduling of it. Yeah, we can do scheduling of it. So I think the point everybody's trying to arrive at is if there's a practical end result that that there's going to be a rehearing with all 7 members. I think everybody's trying to work toward the point that we don't need to probably draft findings at that. But if we don't get that request within 7 days. But if we don't have the request, we'd want to have that as a okay as a motion. So so the motion still stands

[328:00] without a second at the moment to continue this to March 18.th Subsequent to that. So let's say, we vote on that, and adopt that which I think we should. Then we'll let Staff and the applicant work behind the scenes to fulfill the various obligations, including, if they want a rehearing. They submit that in writing. if they don't, and you draft denial findings, or if you draft denial findings anyway. But the point is. we are not taking any further action tonight other than to continue this to March 18.th And we trust you guys will figure these complexities out. So we have a motion to continue our hearing until March 18.th Do I have a second second? Okay, Claudia? Yes, Laura. Yes, Kurt, yes, George. Yes.

[329:00] Ml. Yes. And I'm a yes. Alright. I had a quick question on the rehearing, so did I hear you correctly, Laurel, that it's for new information that's what to be is to be presented. If anything. Yeah. So the rules are a little bit internally conflicting, but it says the applicant shall automatically be allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same writing within 7 days, and then later in the rules, it says that the Board shall rehear upon the majority vote, though it previously said that they shall have a rehearing to present new material on the matter that was not available at the initial hearing is what it says in the well is, is that particular circumstance of a rehearing different than the one automatically granted by a Thai vote. A Thai vote to me is like it says, right there you get a rehearing if you, if you request it. the

[330:00] and again, I'm not just advocating for a rehearing for these guys. But just make it seems clear to me that that the that the rehearing is allowed upon a tie vote. and upon the request by the applicant. And it does seem like they're 2 different things, even though they're called the same. I think that's what's confusing. They're both called rehearings in the rules. One is for typo, and then one is, if they're requesting a rehearing likely, if they've come across some sort of new material that's very pertinent to your decision, then I imagine that's a different. whereas this is an automatic rehearing. So yeah, I would agree with you that we could hear a full rehearing. Okay? And then I think the other thing that is super essential is a well advanced quorum check. For that rehearing date! So that we have 7 board members present. Is it a requirement that all 7 board members be present for the rehearing? Or is it just? Whatever quorum is there that night? It doesn't say in the rules. So

[331:01] it's not required just having a quorum is required. Yes, we just have to have a quorum to have a meeting. Given the circumstance, I would encourage us to query board members before that March 18, th hearing, so that we have the possibility of of a 4 vote one way or the other. it would be it would be a drag to have a rehearing and to be tied again. Yeah, not my decision to direct staff, but we will seek to do that, but to the point. The only requirement is a quorum. So we will do our best. Okay. So so just just circling back to that question of because Laurel, you said 2 things you said a full rehearing or new information. So I just wanna set expectations on the applicant side, too. I mean, I don't really want to hear the same stuff again. So the question is, what are we? What are we? What are we getting in a rehearing.

[332:02] Yeah. So the rules say, the applicant shall automatically be allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within 7 days. It doesn't limit. What is spoken about in that rehearing. Okay. So it can be broad. So what was the new information? What? I'm sorry because you you referenced. Yeah. New information. There's another section that talks about rehearings for or reconsiderations, and that's also titled rehearing. That's the one that talks about new material that is allowed. If an applicant is asking the Board to have a rehearing, and the board votes yes, in favor of it. This is different, because it's if the applicant requests it, then the board shall have a rehearing so the difference would be between the 2 roles. As far as as I can read, between the 2 different sections. The one related to discretion of the board is, if new material comes up and the applicant wants to represent this new material, they can come forward and do that.

[333:00] The type of rehearing we're talking about now is because there was a typo they're allowed to represent their rehearing. And and and there's public comment in that one as well. Then in a rehearing. I believe that would be a full like a hearing. A rehearing is a rehearing Thanks. Okay. Yes. Okay, we're closing out that item. We've we've continued it to March 18.th And there's going to be some things done in the background. We have agenda. Item 6. You guys don't want to stick around for this matters from the planning board, planning director and city attorney and Brad's at the podium. Yeah, I think we just wanted to advise you of the planning retreat. It sounds like we've landed on a date. So April 20. Second or Yes, I think we're looking at April 20 second, which would be our

[334:04] 4th Tuesday, are typically our tentative meeting that we hold aside. There's no items currently scheduled for that. So we're looking at that for our retreat date. Thomas, could I ask you to maybe send a follow-up email so folks can check their calendar. We'd want to make sure that the the majority can make it, if not everybody. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I'll get an email out tomorrow just to. And who's going to be setting the agenda for? Said Retreat. I don't know that we know that yet. We'll figure that out. Could you repeat the question. Sorry! Who's going to be setting the agenda for the retreat? Well, I know that Mark and Kurt had formed the Retreat subcommittee, but that was last year. At this point. I don't know if we want to form a new subcommittee for the Retreat. or or we? We have a little bit of time. Why don't we kind of discuss that internally? And then

[335:02] we can come back to you all for request, for who might want to do that? Just given the hour. or or we can just take requests for agenda items, and, you know, fabricate something not fabricate, create something. I don't remember what it was, but Laura and I were talking. I was like, well, that's a great topic for the retreat. So yeah, how big is? Typically, what's for the time? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Any other matters, Brad. Not for me. Laurel staff. Okay, nothing for me. Anything from the board. Laura. I have several hours of discussion. Okay, you may be joking, Laura. Maybe not be okay. Let's let's hear it. I don't joke at planning board ever, never. I do.

[336:00] I just the hour's late. I just want to remind folks that the East Boulder sub community plan plan amendments and form based code are coming before Council on Thursday. It is not a public hearing. There's no opportunity for public comment. But if you are so inclined to make your voice heard, you can still write a letter. Staff have proposed some amendments after city council, basically, continued the item, and ask them to go away and work with the landowner. You can read all about it in the packet, whether you agree with staff or not, or the public comment or not, I think it's useful for city council to hear what we think about this, since it has evolved since the last time the Planning board saw it. So I intend to write a letter, and I would hope that maybe some of my other colleagues who care about East Boulder and the form based code there, maybe dip into it and write a letter if you are so inclined. So thank you. Watch out what you ask for. Go for it, go for it. Diversity of thought is okay. Anything else from the board?

[337:02] Okay, I would like to adjourn this meeting, and without objection it is adjourned. Right.