March 18, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] 2025, planning board meeting for the city of Boulder to order. We have a full board this evening. All 7 members are present and in person we will go straight to the public participation. I'll hand it over to Vivian to walk us through that Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge, and I will read the rules of public participation before open comment. Thomas, if you can just pull up the slides, please. Sure pulling them up right now. Just one second Just give me a second. I see some people to promote great, thank you for everybody who is joining us in person or online from the public. We really appreciate you being here and just wanting everybody to know that the city previously engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations that help guide our public meetings, and the vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:19] And we have more information about the productive atmosphere's vision on our website next slide, please. I'll read some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision, and all of these will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person, obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants identify themselves by 1st and last name, either how it appears online, and also when introducing yourselves when called on

[2:04] next slide, please. And this is for our online participants. So when we do ask for who would like to participate in open comment or later public hearing, let us know you want to speak by raising your virtual hand, and you can find it at the bottom there. If you're joining us by phone, you can Dial Star 9, and it will put a hand next to your name, so we can call on you. And you can also get to this hand by clicking on reactions, and you'll get this bar and you can find the hand that way. So again, open comment. We can. I think we can move into open comment. Each person will have 3 min to speak, and we ask that that people, you know, stick to agenda, that things that are not on the agenda later on that are not related to the later public hearing. Is there anyone in person, Thomas We don't have anybody signed up in person. But if anybody's in the audience that is here for the open comment, please go ahead and step up to the podium, and you'll have your opportunity to speak.

[3:07] But I'm not seeing anybody. So I believe we can move to online Great if anybody would like to speak again, not for the public hearing item which is later on. In the agenda. Please go ahead and raise your hand. I don't see anybody so far that will give folks a couple more seconds. okay, we have Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead 3 min I'll save you the time, since nobody else is there and waiting. Why don't we have more people than just me speaking each time? I'm just really curious. Why is this? This is a huge city of, you know, a million and or 107,000 people headed for a million, no doubt. and nobody cares. do they? Well, maybe it's because you're not engaging them properly. They're not feeling they have any voice. Maybe you ought to do something about it, just just a suggestion.

[4:03] because they complain about it all the time. I hear it constantly. You know the growth and the expansion in this place, and tonight you're entertaining gun barrel. More development out in our flagpole annexation, which should never have been a flagpole annexation. In the 1st place, it was just made so we could get in some sales tax revenue from that area. Now, we can't even get sales tax revenue from our main downtown, because nobody's, you know, can afford the rent to have their restaurant there, or whatever it is that can get us some revenue. I've got to say about the Peacock place, because that was something I was watching over the years. And you know the problem with planning board then was that, and with the whole situation here is that people are pressured. That Guy only wanted to have expand his house, which he'd already moved from like near the highway. And why can't he just expand his house? Why does he have to? Why does the city have to go in and make a deal with him for more development, for more expensive housing. Now, there's 15 houses there, and 9 of them are market rate.

[5:21] I think that's what it is, and 5 are affordable. Don't quote me if I'm wrong, but sex affordable, and 15. Total 9 unaffordable market rate, which drives up the cost of everything in boulder and is a perfect example. There should be 2 market rate, and you know 13 affordables, because that's the proportion that's probably more realistic. It's still not realistic

[6:01] for every affordable house or for every market rate house. I should say you develop the need for probably 20 affordable places, probably much more than that. And that's what you're doing each time you prove these expansions and this kind of a development out at Peacock Place that should never have been proposed. In the 1st place, just let the guy build his little space there and leave him alone. Don't bribe him into making Thank you, Lynn. Your 3 min is up. Thank you for joining us tonight. I don't see any other hands raised. so I think that concludes open comment back over to you, Jack. Thanks, Vivian, and thanks Lynn, for your comments. This evening we've got a public hearing, but prior to that we do have a discussion of 2 potential call ups. The 1st one is a Site Review Amendment to develop a vacant parcel south of Winchester circle in the Gun Barrel Tech Center, currently addressed as 0 Homestead Way. The proposed 2 story building will be about 60, 66,000 square feet, and we'll have future industrial and office uses

[7:23] the call period expires. March 19, th 2025. Does anyone on the board have any comments or thoughts to call up this particular item? I have a couple of questions about this item. The 1st one in regards the what I believe is multi-use path on the western edge, cutting from southwest to northeast across the western edge. So there's an easement shown on the plans. And this connection, I believe, is shown in the Tmp and the low stress walking bike network.

[8:01] But so my question is usually in this context. An applicant would then be required to construct the facility. And yet that doesn't seem to be part of the plan here, and I'm trying to understand why. That's correct. There are a few reasons why the construction was not required. I think the the biggest one is that the the planned connection is more of a neighborhood access, and it would connect to another private property to the north, and then just sort of spill out there. It doesn't connect to a wider transportation network. The connection would also require the construction of a bridge which is expensive and would require approval by the ditch company stakeholders. We do have our engineer on the call, if there are further questions on that connection, but those are sort of the high high level reasons.

[9:02] So would there ever be an opportunity to construct this? Or are we basically writing it off? I don't think it's written off, but it would probably be something that would be led by the city. In what kind of context I'm just trying to understand. Will there be another opportunity to construct this realistically, or is this really our one and only opportunity? I might let Tom weigh in on the the future constructability of that connection. He might be more aware of those opportunities Hi, yeah, good evening. I'm Tom Pankow, the review engineer, for transportation and floodplain for this project. Ultimately we decided not to require this bridge connection, as Allison said, because it'll be. I don't know if the applicant can speak to this, but receiving approval from the ditch companies. the 1st hurdle. The second hurdle is a high cost of engineering, permitting and constructing of an accessible path

[10:04] that would connect to the boulder and left hand ditch, multi-use path. and seeing as how that existing trail is a crusher, fine surface, and it's not maintained in the winter it was more classified as a recreational trail rather than an accessible trail for commuting and connectivity. There's also a an existing bridge further to the west, about 1,300 feet. It does create a longer pedestrian route, but it does exist. and people are able to cross the ditch Just a quick follow up that one to the West that doesn't connect to Winchester Circle, though. Right I had my map open.

[11:05] So the the future planned. Tmp connection that you see there we did reserve in a public access easement. Just so we can reserve that space for future build out it'll most likely end up being a public works project with a huge cost. So not too likely to happen, and there is a long, roundabout way to get to Winchester Circle with that existing bridge over cityland Okay, okay, can. Can I just colloquy on that real quick? So I walked around this property this morning. And so there's 2 ditches there, right there's the White rock ditch and the left hand ditch and the bridge. The existing bridge goes across the White Rock Bridge, white Rock ditch, but it does not cross the left hand ditch, so you can go north and east and connect to the street system and get to Winchester Circle that way

[12:05] from the I think it's the reservoir trail, like there's the Cottontail trail to the south, and then the reservoir trail kind of takes off to the northwest, and then it kind of bends to the east and connects with through a property into Winchester circle, so it is possible to do. But it is pretty roundabout. There's not good connectivity there from the neighborhood to get across that left hand ditch. Is that correct, Tom? Am I characterizing that correctly? Did I miss something Yeah, I that seems right. There is There's a roundabout way to get to Winchester Circle So hey, Tom, just just for my own clarification. So this, the proposed connection that was there. It would just dead end into someone else's private property is what you're saying. Right? Yeah, and there's Act correct, and there's no

[13:00] Easement dedicated to that neighbor, and we can't require that through the Site Review I don't. I'm not sure that that's so. Looking at the map that George has pulled up of the subject site, I don't know if we want to display that. But that bridge that goes across the left hand ditch. It would then connect to the trails that the applicant is planning to construct on their own property, and then it would go. You know there's an access easement through that private property that they're going to have to have for the site. Anyway, it's that Northern connection up there. for cars to go onto Winchester circle. So if that bridge were constructed, there would be a way to get. Yeah, there would be a way to get to Winchester circle through the applicant's property. If I'm understanding the diagrams correctly, which I don't always. if I may, Mr. Chair, just elaborate on Tom's 1st main point, just

[14:02] for awareness. Through the planning process, we never can compel an applicant to acquire off-site improvements on private property, because we can't know that that's going to be possible if they bring it forward as part of an application. Of course it can be accepted to meet certain criteria, but requiring a situation where they would have to cross the railroad tracks, for example, or have an access easement on somebody else's property, or in this case get approval from the ditch company. We can't know that those things are happening and and are possible, and therefore make it part of a final decision. Again, if they bring it forward as part of an application that's a different thing, but compelling. It is outside of our our ability can just follow up on that, though, could we require a good faith, effort to come to a negotiated agreement with the Ditch Company to to create that.

[15:00] Is there some way of formulating? Yeah, I think Laurel probably would advise us that that's not an actionable condition of approval, you know, if you were to make the approval based on that, I suppose, in the abstract, you could say, you know, make the effort, but it it certainly wouldn't guarantee an outcome, and it probably just creates an unnecessary step that would have been talked through and attempted already as part of the review process. Yeah, I agree with Brad. Oh, sorry. This is Laura Witt with the city attorney's office. Yeah, and I should have introduced myself, Brad Mueller, director of planning, and I have a follow up question to that relative to so just stay there. You can't compel the applicant to jump through a hurdle like, you know, they have to negotiate with a 3rd party right? But my understanding is from Tom that we're keeping that as an easement, so that public works could follow up potentially one day and do something. There.

[16:03] Is that correct? Yeah. And you can always create the opportunity for things. That's why we have roads that dead end, you know, with the hope to attach to a future subdivision those kind of things. Is it possible, then, outside of the bridge. over the ditch, that the city could require the applicant to construct everything but the bridge, and then the city would follow up with that from a public's work standpoint down the road. That would be a possibility in the abstract. I'd rely on Tom and others to to speak to whether there's a practical reality in doing that. But I would also say there's no guarantee that the city would follow up to do that right or have the ability to. And there's a few more layers to this. I think Mark also had a comment, if that's okay. Hello, Board, all right. I'm Mark Garcia, civil engineering senior manager, just to add on to Tom and

[17:05] and Brad's notes is that that easement on the other side of the ditch is actually a scenic easement which prohibits the ability to call out required improvements to it. can you? Can you? Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I'm not familiar with what a scenic easement is. Scenic easements. I believe they're primarily on open space property. They're not similar to a public access easement like you would see, and adjacent to a roadway where we're trying to get a trail or multi-use path, or they're different in the sense that they're they're usually gravel based currently. And they're not in, you know, they're not dedicated to be a paved surface under that easement. So the purpose is just so that it won't be developed, or what what's the purpose of the user not developed in the format of being improved.

[18:02] Yeah, I had a follow-on question about this bridge issue, and then a couple quick questions about the remaining site design. There was a place in the packet where you talked about that there's currently some sort of unauthorized bridge over one of the ditches that is going to be removed as part of this approval. and I want to make sure I understand where that bridge is. So if you look at the aerial photograph of this site, there's there's a path that connects the Homestead neighborhood to the Cottontail trail with a bridge over the White Rock ditch, and then there's also what looks to be like a social trail, leaving the Cottontail trail and then crossing the left hand ditch, which might also include a bridge. But I can't tell that from a aerial photograph, so which bridge is slated to be removed? And are the residents of that residential neighborhood still going to have access to the cottontail trail? It would be the bridge that you're seeing with the social trails it was built by, I believe, residents or volunteers, so it didn't get ditch company approval. There's also some safety concerns with the bridge, so it would need to be removed. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same bridge. The other questions that I have.

[19:14] I've been trying to figure out how large the distance actually is between the residential neighborhood on the south and the kind of boundaries of the proposed development. so I can see a bit on the map, but it never extends, for farther to the south there's some language about there being a 40 foot wide. County owned parcel, and then the scenic easement. And I'm curious is that scenic easement in addition to this county parcel is, is it contained within the county parcel, like, if we were to take a tape measure from kind of what's proposed as the boundaries of the parking on the south side of this proposal, and the neighborhood on the south. What is that distance?

[20:00] Sure. And I'm just pulling up my mapping to get sort of a general sense. But to answer your your 1st question so that 40 foot width would not be within the scenic easement. It's the it's further south of the parcel, so there would be the scenic easement, and then the Southern property line, and then there's another like 40 foot wide parcel, and then the adjacent neighborhoods to the south. Okay, yeah. So I guess I'm looking for them. The width of the scenic easement. I think, from probably like the southern point of that parking area to the Northern property line of the residents to the south would be about 200 feet. Okay, thank you. And then last, question about site design for this type of building? What are the emergency access requirements? And is a circular drive around the building? The only way to meet those access requirements. Yeah, it's my understanding that the circular drive is for emergency access and is required by our emergency services team.

[21:04] Okay? So it would need to have an access road. Yeah, for all sides of the building. Okay, thank you. Yeah. I want to follow up Mark. If you could come back up, I. I still have a question about the easement, because in the packet on page 27, it's the site plan. What's horizontal control plan. There's the easement running from southwest to northeast across this western section, and it's marked on there 16 foot access easement. It's not described there as a scenic easement. Whether that matters or not I don't know. but I just want to confirm that that is the the easement that you're talking about. for that I'd actually see if Tom can jump on and possibly use some more reference. I don't know that answer at the top of my head

[22:09] I might be able to clarify that question a little bit. So the scenic easement is the easement that runs from east to west on the southern portion of the property. This would be separate from that scenic easement. It's currently would be crossing that that portion like perpendicular to the scenic easement. But that would be the separate public access easement for the future construction of that connection. Okay? So that gets back, I think, to what was the the question was earlier. It sounds like, if it's an access easement, then it could be a paved. It would be expected to be developed as a paved path. I think that would require coordination with Osmp, which, because that scenic easement does limit improvements in that area. Okay? But at least the portion that's on that's outside the scenic easement and on the property correct outside the scenic easement. Right? Yeah. That portion we would expect would probably be paved path.

[23:07] I think, to meet Dcs requirements. It would be yeah. Okay. I think, for me, and in looking at this and questioning these easements is As a city we have a Tmp. We have connect a connections plan. and whenever we do a site review. We're confronted with this conundrum of we can't force someone at an adjacent site to do something. but we can force the property owners as part of the Site Review process to facilitate

[24:01] a connection on that property on the subject property. And and and if we don't. then it's this rolling. No, of? Well, we didn't do it on this property, so now we can't do it on this property, so we can't. We don't have a connection. And it's this rolling. No. And so if we don't ever do it, if we don't ever will it to happen, then it never happens. And so all these things we draw on maps and make plans for connections never come to fruition. And if you look at Google Maps, and you look at the the legitimate bridge and the illegitimate bridge and the social trails. There are people making the connection, whether you call it from left hand circle or homestead way, but there are. There are people using these facilities. And I think in in large enough numbers to get to Winchester Circle or somewhere else. And

[25:06] for me the question is, is, are, have we exhausted as a planning and development services Department? The have we exhausted all the possibilities? And should we just say no, it's damn impossible. It'll never happen and take it off the maps. Or do we, in fact. call this up and pursue facilitating a connection as best we can within the legal boundaries of what's required in the Site Review process. So I have a quick question to colloquy or comment to colloquy, and then I have one more question. So again, having been out there, I can testify that those social trails, especially the ones that lead from the unapproved bridge up to Winchester Circle. They are hard packed. They are completely bare of vegetation where there's grass growing all around it, and there's a multitude of tire tracks, and they are eroded down significantly. So they are being used

[26:10] and being used significantly from what I can see, maybe not year round. But but they're being used by bicyclists, by a lot of bicyclists like tire tracks dominated over footprints. So there's that my question has to do with the height modification. So the Pud has a 35 foot height limit, and the applicant is proposing 40 feet, which is in conformance with the underlying IM zoning. What are the rules governing height modifications for puds, because that's not the same as Site review criteria. I don't think there's specific criteria for a height, modification for the Pud. I think we just look at general consistency with what's in the area we do. There are other buildings in that same Pud who have received the Pud height, modification, but still meet either the buy right 40 foot or the conditional 45 foot height. And that's even just that property, I think, to the micro motion property. So there are other buildings that are over that 35 foot pud limitation.

[27:12] Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, can I just follow up on board member. Mcintyre's comments about the you know theoretical conceptual question of Can can you, as a board, you know, contemplate these what I would call stubs for for the future opportunity. I would confirm that that absolutely is the purview of the planning board. To do that I do want to share with you in this particular instance. Staff did explore that question pretty exhaustively about Bridge and that possibility in the future. And and I will say that ditch companies, just historically, are some of the very hardest to get permission to cross. So do know that, you know our recommendation comes forward with a good deal of effort in that regard, but fully respect, that it also remains the

[28:08] Board's decision to make that. And and I will say I've personally, throughout my career, advocated for stubbing things in particular cases, subdivision to subdivision, that kind of thing. So just wanted to share kind of the color color history of that. So so on that. And the idea of stubbing. Is it possible to put in the agreement with this developer who's putting this together that they don't necessarily need to build that connection now. But if the city was able to come up with a a an idea to put the bridge in, they decide to fund that. Could they compel the developer, then, to complete that even after their development is put up, not not after the fact, not after the fact. Yeah, that'd be that'd be kind of clawing back a requirement that didn't have a nexus originally, and came subsequent. What would be a requirement of the development that if that was put in place that that would need to be so it wouldn't be clawing it back. Yeah, I didn't describe that very well, but it would be compelling something that could literally be a decade later and wouldn't be appropriate to the

[29:14] the approval process. Laura, keep me honest. Yeah, we wouldn't want to do something 10 years now you could compel an easement to be created. Follow on question. So, Brad, you said that ditch companies are historically very hard to negotiate with. Has the city actually had conversations with the Left Hand Ditch Company about this property. Doesn't look like it. No, no, okay. And I can't speak for the applicant whether they have maybe Tom or somebody who knows. Tom, are you able to confirm? And of course the applicants are available too. But Do you know if the applicants have reached out to the ditch company They had in the Tmp. That they were gonna work and reach out with the ditch company.

[30:04] and I imagine that's where it ended, dead ended. But maybe the applicant can share more Is, is the applicant here to talk about that? Yeah, the applicants are in the attendees list. If we could just promote them. I just sent them the panelist invite, so they should be rejoining as panelists in just a moment Can. Haven't done this recently. This is Robert Van Pelt. Can everyone hear me? Am I on Yep. You have to. Okay, yeah. Robert Van Pelt, our Vp architecture. So yeah. So we initially, I mean, we. We talked to the ditch company in a couple, on 2 instances or over a couple of items. One was

[31:12] trying to figure out if there was a history of this unapproved bridge, which we they didn't have that any showing of it, and the city didn't either, so we determined that then we were working forward with the ditch company early on in the application, or we're sorry we were going to contact them in conjunction as to whether to construct this bridge. Had the requirement moved forward as part of the process, but when transportation deemed it non viable for what's been talked about, we did not pursue it any further with them, and again. As kind of has been said, we said, Hey, we're happy to create an easement there for the future. But we didn't move any further on how that should progress or or be left in place, so

[32:00] Thanks, Laura. Thank you. That's really helpful. So just following up. it sounds like the transportation department deemed this non-viable. Can we just clarify? Why that was. Maybe it's already been said, and I'm just not connecting the dots Most. The biggest camera freezes. The biggest issue was that the connecting trail was not accessible with the surface being a crusher fine, and it wasn't maintained. So it wasn't exactly a commuting connectivity trail. More recreational And and is there a plan to upgrade that trail as part of the Lobo trail, or any other transportation improvements Not that I know of Thank you. I'm I'm 1. This is kind of getting into the weeds on whether or not we

[33:05] just call this up or not. But I'm hearing that the At the Lobo Trail Cottontail Trail is not accessible, and yet we have Accessibility is a key element of many trail systems and a ditch trail. A crush, refined ditch trail, is. It? Doesn't meet. I'm not an expert in Ada requirements, but we have. Those trails are used by wheeled wheelchairs all sorts of different wheeled vehicles frequently, because they are, in fact, a a crusher. Fine surface that's relatively flat. So I'm I don't know that not meeting a specific Ada sidewalk requirement is a reason not to

[34:03] make a connection to a trail that is important to pedestrian cyclists and people using mobility devices. pulling this up. Anybody, anybody. I'll second it. I move to call it up. I'll second it. Okay, okay, so we'll call up this item. Thank you. All right. That wraps that one up. We'll go on to the next call up item. which is the final plat to subdivide the 5.3 acre parcel at 5, 6, 9, 1 South Boulder Road into 16 residential lots for development of the site, with 15 new homes comprised of 6 permanently affordable homes and 9 market rate homes and 6 adus on the 2.4 acre western half of the site.

[35:09] and one new home in a general location of the existing currently vacant single family home at the east end of the site per the approved annexation and Site Review, Lur. 2020 0 0 5, 7 and 0 0 5 8. The plat also includes dedications of the right of way for residential streets, Peacock Place and Peacock Lane, 5 outlots for stormwater detention, water quality and drainage improvements, private drives and pedestrian and open space facilities and dedication of utility and access easements. This application is subject to potential call up on or before March 18, th which is today 2025, reviewed under case number tec, 2024, 0 0 1, 2. Does anyone have any comments, or would like to call this item up.

[36:00] I just have one very quick question again the well again. hopefully, this one is actually quick. The the plan. The the subdivision plan shows a 60 foot right away for Peacock Place. When this came to Site Review Planning Board, approved an amendment reducing the curb face to curb, face with the peacock. Place to 20 feet. so that leaves 20 feet on either side of the curb, for behind, behind the curb, parts of the right of way, which is fine. I'm not objecting. I just want to make sure that that is all. As I understand it. Hi, this is Chandler Van Scott with planning and development services. Yes, I think you are reading the plan correctly. I'm not sure what the question is, but we did work with the applicant to address the added condition that came through with site review

[37:00] Okay. So there will just be a very wide tree lawn or something there outside the sidewalks. Is that is it? Correct. Okay, great, that's fine. Just wanted to verify anybody else. No, okay, thank you. We're going to go ahead. And it's not going to be called up, and we're going to go ahead to our public hearing item for this evening. This is interesting because it's rehearing. So I'll just go ahead and state it. Public rehearing and consideration of a site and use review for the redevelopment of 2 5, 5, 30th Street, with residential uses and a ground floor. Commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of existing car dealership, and proposes 142 units, including studio, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. totaling 111,495 square feet. The proposal is a request for a height modification to allow up to 55 feet in height. Request for a 6% parking reduction modification of setbacks, number of stories

[38:06] and building size in the Bms zone. The proposal also includes an administrative amendment to the Transit village Area plan. The applicant has requested vested rights, reviewed under case number Lur. 2024, 0 0 4, 7 and lur. 2024, 0 0 6, 5. And with that we'll pass it over to Staff for their presentation. Thank you. Thank you for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine. I'm the senior planner, and I will be presenting this next item in this presentation. I will briefly cover the information that was provided in Staff's Memo, including the planning process to date the existing conditions and surrounding area. A summary of the proposed project, some key issues for discussion and a recommended motion.

[39:03] This item was 1st brought to planning board as a concept plan. In May of 2024 at that time planning board expressed support for transportation and open space connections supportive of alley eliminations, mix of unit types and some ground floor residential and felt it generally aligned with Bbcp and Tvap. There was no council call up for the Concept plan, and the applicant proceeded with a Site Review application in August. Staff reviewed the application and recommended approval before planning board. On February 18, th with one member absent, the vote was split 3 3, which means that the item failed, and planning board continued the meeting to draft denial findings. However, as stipulated in planning Board's rules and procedures, the applicant may request a rehearing in the event of a tie vote. The applicant did request the hearing within the required 7 days, and so we are now scheduling that item for tonight. City Council will have the opportunity to call up the Planning Board's decision, but that has not yet been scheduled.

[40:06] The Site review is required, based on the size of the development and the requested modifications, including a parking reduction height up to 55 feet, front yard and rear yard setbacks, number of stories and Bms building size. The applicant is also requesting vested rights. So the height, modification, and the creation of vested rights requires a decision by the Planning board. 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. Those primary concerns included issues with building height and the off-site connection. The subject site is located on the western side of 30th Street, between Bluff Street and Mapleton. It's shown here in the Purple or Pink Square.

[41:05] The site is designated as mixed use business which applies to business areas throughout the city and anticipates business or residential uses. However, it does rely on the zoning code to define building, form, intensity, etc. As a note, the mub designation is not meant to apply to an individual lot, but is meant to introduce mixed uses to an entire area. The site is split zone between Bms and Bt one. I have those definitions here on the slide 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. So, for the purposes of determining far open space setbacks parking each zone district will essentially function as a separate and individual lot. Parking calculations will be based on the 2 different zones, but the location of parking can be shared on site immediately surrounding the property is residential to the west, some commercial to the north and mixed use across the street to the east.

[42:05] The project site is also adjacent to the Goose Creek, Greenway, and Goose Creek, Bike Path to the south, which connects to the east and west. The character of the area is varied. Nearby commercial uses include the 29th Street Mall and the Crossroads Shopping Center, which contains the whole foods. Mixed use developments in the area include the steel yards across the Street and the Rev. Development. Mixed density residential is located throughout the area, and 30th Street is a transit corridor. It's located close to 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. It's a 1 story building. A majority of the site is covered by surface parking and some landscaping

[43:01] due to the proximity to Goose Creek. The southern edge contains a small portion of the outer wetlands buffer as well as the 500 year Flood. The site is located within the Transit village area plan, general tvap goals and objectives include mixed use, land designation, new residential and diverse housing and connection to the natural and environment. The area is also located within the 30th Street Corridor district, and that is intended to provide a mix of commercial and residential uses and buildings located adjacent to the street. The vision of the area is to transform 30th Street into a business main street that serves the neighborhood and also introduces pedestrian friendly street fronts. So this is just a sort of general breakdown of tvap and doesn't go into all of the specifics. The site is also impacted by a tvap amendment that was passed in 2022 is approved by City Council with planning board recommendation, and the amendment was to change the 30th Street Cross section to remove on street parking and replace trees and grates with an 8 foot wide planting strip and a 10 foot wide. Detached sidewalk as well as protected bike lanes.

[44:14] The rationale that was identified in that memo was to improve bike ability consistent with the low stress network goals by making room for protected bike lanes. It was also meant to be more consistent with steel yards which predated tvap and did not provide on-street parking. Also looking at the location in the proximity to transit where parking is not as necessary, and then the removal of tree grates was in response to the removal of on street parking. As the grates are meant to protect trees from foot traffic, from getting in and out of cars. As a result there were some changes to the street typology. We're seeing faster, moving vehicles, and less of the rambling main street that was originally intended, and this was factored into Staff's analysis of the project.

[45:02] The site and the surrounding parcels are subject to connections found in Tvap as well as the Tmp. For instance, just to the north, there's a proposed expansion of Bluff Street from 29th Street to 30th with 2 options that's shown in that Orange dashed line. There's also a planned North-south Alley connection also north of the subject site shown in the yellow dashed line. That sort of jogs over there is also a planned connection identified in the Tmp. That connects this property to the Goose Creek path and crosses the city owned Greenway. and then the subject site itself does contain 2 planned secondary street or alley connections, one north-south on the western side and one on the south, going east-west. That's also shown in the yellow dashed lines. And that brings us to the proposal for tonight, which is the redevelopment of the site with residential uses and a ground floor commercial space. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing car dealership, and proposes 142 units, including Studio 1, 2, and 3 bedroom

[46:13] existing vehicle access is from 30th Street and will remain that way. Bike users can access the site from 30th Street which will have that protected Bike Lane as part of the 30th Street right of way improvements that are triggered by the redevelopment of the site. Other points of bike access will be from those path connections on the southern and western edges. Pedestrian access is also from 30th Street, the multi-use path, and internally from the parking garage. There are distinct building access points located on all sides of the building and separated from vehicle traffic, which is mostly to that that north and then within the garage. the pedestrian and bike access ties into proposed on-site open space adjacent and off-site open space and existing bike infrastructure to the east and west of the site.

[47:01] Parking will be located within the footprint of the building, with some surface level parking to the north. There's a dedicated car share space in that northeast corner, and long term and short term bike parking is proposed for a total of 288 spaces, and that includes both the residential and non residential uses. The proposal includes a request for a 6% parking reduction to allow for 145 spaces where 154 required by code. The applicant has provided a Tdm plan which details the site characteristics and Tdm. Strategies that support the requested reduction, which include the path Eco passes car share a bike fleet and a bike maintenance station. The applicant in partnership with the city and per feedback from planning board at Concept Plan has provided plans to construct the off-site connection to the West. That multi-use path will be located on portions of city owned property as well as the subject. Property

[48:02] design will be finalized at time of tech doc. But the conceptual layout will remain the same, and that includes access points from 30th Street and then the northwest corner of the site and then shifts off site onto the city, owned property and the broader transportation network and wetlands permitting will also be done at time of tech. Doc. The applicant is proposing administrative amendments to tvap to better connect with the greater transportation network in the surrounding area, and then also align with the visions and goals of Tvap and the Site Review criteria these amendments include the removal of the proposed secondary streets or alley connections and replace those with onsite multi-use path connections. Part of those amendments also include an alley reservation at that northwest corner of the site to align with the other connections that are shown in Tvap when those adjacent parcels are eventually redeveloped, so that includes the future alley which links up to the Bluffs Street Extension

[49:02] and that reservation will also allow for access if the 30th Street curb cut is closed in the future. And then there's also just a slight Tmp adjustment to shift that shown connection to the north. Outside of the Wetlands area. As mentioned earlier, the development will be subject to 2 different open space requirements. The minimum open space requirement in the Bms zone is 15% with a private open space requirement of 60 square feet per unit, and then the Bt one zone has a minimum open space requirement of 30% open space is provided throughout the site in the form of landscaping, as well as a central courtyard that opens up to the south, that includes hardscaping and landscaping, and includes amenities such as a pool outdoor dining or grilling area and a fitness area. and then the commercial space on the southeast corner will also have some tables and chairs to better link with that public realm.

[50:04] So there are 2 main spaces, and the applicant did include additional detail about a grade level open space along the multi-use path to the west of the property includes a communal seating area and some play areas on permeable pavers. The applicant did provide additional information demonstrating consistency with the set Review criteria for height. Mods 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 the 30th Street facade is split by the vertical stairwell with a change from the flat roof to the gabled roof form, and also separates some of those commercial uses from the residential uses. And then the on the ground floor, the it's 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, and the 30th Street facade has been designed to be highly transparent with storefront, glazing

[51:07] facade recessions, change of material and details like slanted beams. Then the Southern elevation is located adjacent to the proposed path. It opens up to towards the creek. To the south there are defined entries along the southern elevation for resident access, those building materials and storefront windows along 30th Street facade, wrap around the southeast corner and onto the Southern elevation, fenestration, material continuity and terrace landscaping, provide visual interest and introduce some human scale elements along that path overall the building form is made up of 2 wing elements and adjoining hyphen element that is differentiated by a change in materials in roof forms. As mentioned, the applicant is requesting height, modification for up to 55 feet, and they are eligible for that per sub paragraph 9 to 14 h. 6 c. That will be verified at time of building permit.

[52:04] and they are subject to additional criteria for buildings requesting height, modification. And then we have 3 key issues for discussion which I will detail in the next few slides. Key issue. 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 is consistent. It promotes alternatives to the automobile provides common open space areas incorporates a variety of landscaping and finds that the building and siding is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. But also the area plan. The building design creates visual interest and vibrant pedestrian experience and incorporates human scaled elements. Key issue 2 is the project is the proposed parking reduction consistent with the criteria of the Code 9, 9, 6, and Site Review. Criteria staff finds that the requested parking reduction is consistent and supported by the Tdm.

[53:06] And key issue 3 is the proposed project consistent with the Transit Village Area Plan Staff finds that the overall. The project is consistent with the area plan. The proposal includes ground floor, commercial space and activated facades. varied roof forms and heights, right-of-way improvements, on-site and off-site transportation connections, and a link to the open space parking is also tucked away from the public realm where possible. and that brings us to the staff recommendation with the motion language here on the slide. and I will now open it up to any questions. Great! We'll have some clarifying questions from the board. Just one quick, clarifying question for me at sort of broad brush, which is. we saw this not that long ago. Has there been any new information brought forward by the developer, or any anything changing in their plans relative to the feedback that they heard that evening that you've seen.

[54:11] I think that the applicant will be able to share some of that in their presentation. But they did provide some additional drawings for that open space to the west. for the the grade level, amenity space and additional areas to gather, but no modifications to the building, or in general, no, okay, And then I know there were a whole number of clarifying questions that were brought forward the 1st time. Obviously there are 6 board members that were here during that there's 1 that was absent to the extent. It would be helpful when we get into further clarifying questions. If maybe you can anticipate some things and and kind of dive into some things deeper if need be. I think that would be helpful just to expedite things. But I understand this is a rehearing. So we'll take it as it comes. Claudia. Yeah, thanks, George. I also had a process question before we get started, which I think follows on from some of this, and I'd like to know how we are actually expected to treat the discussion that we had back on February 18, th

[55:10] and other portions of the public record from that original hearing. Do we need to re ask questions if we want things in the record for this hearing, etc, like, can we take as a given what we have already heard? Right? So the rehearing the idea of a rehearing is that it replaces the previous hearing. So if you want something to be in the record itself, then yes, I'd recommend you. Ask it again if you got your answer answered, and it wasn't something you need to have in the record. Then think about that as well, since I know that it can be repetitive for everybody. So on that I mean to your point, re-asking versus just making it part of your comments, since we already know what's going on. Maybe that'll be a way to expedite things that'll get it on the record one way or the other, right? And and commentary. It actually may may be more powerful because they're they're the comments from the board.

[56:00] Yeah. And I know this is, this is a little bit confusing, because we haven't done this with your board. We actually haven't done this in a very long time. So, but the idea of it is that this is like a new chance to hear the same. And along with that process question again, just because it may come up. And the public comment that was brought forward during that that was include is that that's included in our current packet, and we should still take that into consideration. Yes, yeah, we included the presentation into the current packet. And I believe there's also some public comment waiting. Okay? Again. Great. Yeah. Okay. Questions. Clarifying questions from the board. Perfect. Thank you for the presentation. Allison. So the 1st floor along 30th Street has a commercial space which I think is 828 square feet.

[57:02] and then it also has some amenity spaces and a leasing office that have a high percentage of glazing along that 30th Street frontage. How much square footage is on that 30th Street frontage for the 1st floor combined the total square footage or the building length. the total square footage of those spaces that are along the 30th Street frontage. I don't know how deep they are, but yeah, I'd probably need to double check the plans, or the applicant might be able to share some of that. That would be great if you don't have it on the tip of your tongue, which sounds like maybe not. That's too much to expect the South elevation. Could you remind us what is the total length of that south elevation, including the 2 wings and the one story parking garage all as one length. I'm not sure I have all of the one length, but I had measured the the interior, and then the 2 wings, that sort of overlap.

[58:05] But that 1st wing is a hundred 15, and the second wing is 70, and then the interior is that like 1 80? Okay. But I mean. It is one elevation right like there's a wing, and then there's a 1-story parking garage with a staircase, and then there's another wing. So it is one elevation. So that's the number I'm looking for. If if you could get that at some point that'd be great. The rooftop deck over that single story parking garage. What is the height of that rooftop deck where there's the parking garage underneath? And there's the pool deck. What what's the height of that deck to the top of the roof. I'd probably need to double check the elevations on that. Okay, yeah. thank you. And then, from our previous hearing, I think I heard you confirm that the public multi-use path is considered to be a public right of way. correct in public realm.

[59:01] Great, thank you. I have a couple more, but I'm willing to pass the baton if other folks want to get in here. Okay, I can keep going all right. Could we bring up the map of the Tvap land use plan from the I think it's the same in both the 2,007 version and the amended 2023 version. But the it was on page 13 of the tvap is a land use plan. Yeah, it might just take me a minute to pull that up. But I sure that what page did you say it was? I think it's page 13 of the Tvp bear with me. I'm working with one screen.

[60:06] Can you see that? Yes, thank you. That's the map I was looking at. And can you confirm that this property is in that light yellow mu one zone. Correct. Okay? And then the high density residential, the Hdr one and the Hdr 2. Those are in the brown. Right? Correct. I'm circling them with my mouse. Okay? And is my general understanding? Could you zoom back out and show the whole Tvp area? There is my general understanding correct, that in this Tvap land use map, all of the areas that have a 1 behind them, like the Mu one, the Hdr. One. the Imu one. All of those are envisioned to be 2 to 3 stories height. and all of the ones that have a 2 behind them, like the Hdr. 2, the Mu. 2, the Imu. 2. Those are envisioned to go up to 4 to 5 stories. I can't speak to the Imu, one or 2, or some of those other land or designations off the top of my head. I can go and look through Tvp. But I know the mu one was 2 to 3 stories. Yeah, I mean, I think that was my general impression from reading through the land use prototypes. Was that anything with a 1 was envisioned to be 2 to 3 stories, and anything with a 2 was 4 or 5 stories, Max Height.

[61:26] But it'd be great to confirm that. Yeah, I can look through the plan. And then my last question is. so the Tvap plan, you know, it 1st rolled out in 2,007. But we did an update in 2023 that you know, 5 out of the 7 of us were here for. and that was not just looking at Tvap 2. But there were, I believe, some amendments to the entire Tvp plan. Right? So it's considered to be an amended Tvp plan 2023. Is that right? Yeah. And I think it documented some of the phase 2 changes. But from my view of that

[62:04] amended Tvap it, it didn't apply to this property. Yeah, I don't think that that's my reading, too, is that there were no changes. But I think I remember them saying that you know, they considered reopening Tvap one and decided to focus on Tvap 2 for this update. And I think it was because they felt that the tvap one was still sufficient and applicable and didn't need a lot of tweaks. Is that is that a right understanding, or is it? I would I wouldn't. I don't have that information. I don't have the context for the the plans that went into the amendments for Tvap. Okay, all right, thank you. Go ahead. I'll call very quickly on while the map is still up there in the mu one zone. Assuming that the vision of the plan was for 2 and 3 story units.

[63:03] This is an instance where we have a plan. and we have the code, and we have zoning. And while the plan provides a vision. it is not zoning, and it is not the code and buildings if they meet the Site Review. Criteria in 9 dash 14, 9, 2, 14 HC. 6, etc. May apply for a height variation up to 55 feet. Okay, I just want to make sure I got that. I also have a question. As long as we have the land use map up here from the TV app? What other projects have have been approved or completed in this 30th street corridor? And how have the Tvap guidelines been applied. In those cases, I think most of the

[64:03] east side of 30th Street was already developed around the time when Tvp was approved. That's steelyards. But what has happened on the west side of 30th since this plan was approved. The 1st one that comes to mind is the fire station redevelopment. that was a few properties to the north, and that was the trigger for the 30th Street cross section right away. Changes but I would probably need to do a little bit more digging to look at those other properties. What were those changes? The removal of the on street parking, and the change in the landscaping strip and tree grates. And I think that was okay. So a change in the street profile. Yeah, for 30th Street. Okay, yeah. Corridor and Bluebird, too. Right sorry to interrupt. But yeah, Bluebird, just to the south. But that was a buy right project, so

[65:00] didn't have the tbap requirements. Thank you for your second presentation. So I sent you a note about the I'm wondering about the North 30th Street Design project that is currently ongoing. So right now the city is undertaking a project to design 30th Street, and one of the goals is looking at its pedestrian friendliness, etc, etc. Do we know how that design or how the goals of that project might impact this site. It looks like there's 3 design proposals that have been that have come out of that study. It's my understanding that that won't get selected until the summer. Therefore, this project would be subject to what's shown the current regulations which would include Tvap and can't really anticipate or plan what those future right away changes might entail.

[66:16] So is that 30th street designed primarily about right of ways. Doesn't it have a yeah, it's for the right of ways. There's a few different options and the number of lanes. I think it. The option one is keeps the 5 lanes, with the 2 in each way in the middle, turning lane, and then goes all the way down to one lane in each direction, in a central turning lane. What varies is the size of the sidewalks? Multi-use path protected bike lanes. So those 3 options are pretty varied at this stage in the planning process is, and but the goal of that is to evolve 30th Street to become a pedestrian, focused and and alternative mode of transportation. I think. Yeah, the goal is to

[67:04] provide safe connections for bikes and pedestrians. 30th Street right now, isn't I? Don't think a very biker friendly, arterial. So okay, thank you for that. I have a couple of more questions. On the 30th street. Facade face of the building. The majority of that is designated residential with the entry and the office worker space. Maybe a gym. Something like that, but it isn't public. So my question is as it is, identified as residential. Could that residential space ever become dwelling units? I think how the code's written, if it does allow for residential, and it doesn't say whether that's amenity, space or dwelling units. So in the future that could be dwelling units on the ground floor.

[68:09] Let me see, I have one final question. So the tdap has a reference to far do we know what the far is on this project? Yes, so there! There's 2 different far ratios, for because of the split zone, the Bms maximum is 1.1 7, and I think the proposed is 1.1 5. The Bt. One maximum is 1.4, and I think they're right at the 1.4. I'm just real quick when you say the maximum in those zones is that the buy right maximum or the maximum through Site Review through Site Review. There's the base far. And then for the Bms zone. The base is, I think, 0 point 6 7. But you can go up to 1.1 7 without a site review. Just if you're outside of a improvement district for the Bms zone. The base is, or sorry. Bt. One. The base is 1.0 up to 1.4 in a site review. So one half is through the Site Review, and one half is just by right, based on location.

[69:18] Thank you. So I'm understanding that one of the Fars is 1.1 5, and the other is 1.4 1 point. The proposed is 1.1 5, and the Max is 1.1 7 for the Bms. And then yes, 1.1 4 1.4 on the other side. Proposed. Got it? Okay? Now, last question, under talking about the modifications to the land. Use code. 9, dash 7, dash, one schedule, a form and bulk standards. talking about the maximum floor area of 15,000 square feet for any principal building in the Bms zone. So they were asking for a modification. So what floor? What is the floor area that they are asking to that be modified to.

[70:11] I think that's in the applicants plans. I think they might have an answer for that. But I can get that up, if not, but I don't have the number off the top of my head. Okay, that would be good to know. Just see how much, how much increased floor area are is being requested. and those are all my questions. Thank you so much. Mark's got a super quick follow-on question. I thought I was tracking on this far question, and then I got lost at the very end. What is the far for the site? I know it's split zoning everything else. But what is the proposed far of the project as proposed on the site. We really are looking at it. We have to treat it like 2 separate lots because of the the split zone designation. So we don't have the the total far for the total parcel.

[71:05] Okay, thank you. Yep. all right. Seeing no additional questions from the board. We'll go ahead with the applicants presentation. When you're ready you'll have up to 15 min to present. There's young

[72:02] you guys ready for me. All right. Great thanks. Good evening. I'm Chris Jacobs, with element properties on behalf of Element Coburn and our amazing team of subconsultants. We're excited to show you the updates to our 30th Street mixed use project after the direction that we received during Concept review last spring. As has been mentioned, we're in a little bit of a unique circumstance here, because this is a rehearing. we will be representing the project so apologies in advance for some repeat information as housing creators, we set out to create a modern yet enduring place for boulder. The goal is not changed. We're eager to get to work. One of the points of feedback that we heard from the Concept Review was to bring us back a great Tdm. So we got to work on that. Our Tdm. Is a result of Planning Board's Feedback and Concept Review. the Site Review criteria discussions with Staff and our traffic Engineers recommendations.

[73:05] Our Tgm plan includes some exciting transportation resources resources for future residents. And this is all anchored by the project's central location with a walk score of 83, and a bike score of 100 specific Tvm measures include 288 bike parking spaces twice what we are offering for car stalls. a bike wash and maintenance station adherence to the sump principles for car parking. It's worth noting that on our traffic engineers last draft they mentioned that sump would be adhered to wherever possible. However, we will be definitively be following some principles throughout the project. Our car parking will collectively serve the building residents and guests, commercial staff and customers and management and maintenance staff. We'll have on on-site car share

[74:01] access to the property's bike share fleet, which will include e-bikes. urban shopping carts and participation in the Rtd Nico pass program. One thing that is different from our last discussion. As you can see up here. we have kind of the gray box on the northeast. That's going to be the kind of the residential lobby ancillary, for, you know, access to the elevator and a small management office. The blue box in the middle will actually be a commercial space, and the red box on the southeast will also be a commercial space. We envision the red box to be either a coffee shop or maybe a small retail area. and then we envision the blue to be a a coworking space with memberships available to the public. The vision for this project hasn't changed to create much needed housing.

[75:00] and not just any housing, but convenient and affordable place to live and work in central Boulder. and when you do venture, venture out for errands or entertainment. It's an easy decision to walk, bike, or take the bus. Thank you. Bill Holiday, with Coburn architecture. And again, since much of this is rehashed, I'll try to be efficient. It's a really central spot. We've talked about how well located it is for housing. One of the interesting things about this section of 30th Street is that this is a missing tooth in terms of residential. So to the north it's really good residential street to the south, along the 30 Pearl area. It's a nice walkable street, but in the middle it's missing. This building, combined with the affordable housing parcel that's scheduled to go in a couple lots to the north would help fill that in and help start to attain the vision of this as a walkable street, and I won't rehash just how well served it is by by amenities. We've talked about that quite a bit same with transportation, you all know, and have seen this a million times at this point, with Goose Creek to the south, and all the buses around.

[76:09] As Allison mentioned, it is a split zone, so it creates a lot of technical challenges with with making the Rubik's cube all fit. But I think we've worked through that. And to go back to concept plan. This was the plan you saw at Concept. We talked a little bit about how we got there. I'll rehash this just briefly, for the record went too far. Getting rid of the car dealership then hiding the parking, which is important for some of the questions, Laura, that you had. We're making a choice to hide the parking rather than open the building up in terms of length on that Southern side. Because that's also a site review criteria. Then we erode the building envelope, and then we start to create the form. So the 1st is the understanding that the East Side and the west side are the 2 critical faces for the public. The East Side faces 30th and helps to make that street and the West Side faces all the users of Goose creek. So once we've established those as the important parts of the building that face the public realm, the middle can be eroded for the open space to come in.

[77:07] and then the building mass can be broken down into 3 parts so that it can change architecture. And then the last one is, there's a difference in how Goose Creek comes past the site on the west. It's at an angle we wanted to respect that natural moment that also allowed us to get the ground floor grade, level, open space that's suggested by code. So all of those things created this form that you all saw at concept plan, and as Allison mentioned at the time we talked about Tvap, it was found generally consistent with both that and Bvcp. There was general support for the the cars to be eliminated on the south side and replaced with the bike path. And then there was a number of comments that you would rather see it be tall than be spread out all over the site. There were, as I mentioned last time, a bunch of changes, though from concept, mostly based on your feedback. One of the main ones was. We had the parking sort of half buried under the building that created a 30th Street frontage that was up about 5 feet from the street.

[78:05] and at the time we thought that was mostly amenity space, and that made sense. It kept it a little more private. But I think this board rightly pointed out that a little more commercial face made more sense, and it could never be converted to commercial if it was up in the air like that. So we there was also a comment about reducing the parking infrastructure. So we did both. and that allowed that 1st floor space to be brought back to 30, th and, as Chris said, after your latest comments, the applicant has taken that to heart and has replaced everything. That's not the lobby, and like mail delivery and all those kind of services with true commercial space, and is willing to have that be a condition if you'd so choose. So all of that will be commercial, open to the public. You also mentioned access points to the building and how that worked. So we'll get to that in a minute. The the final site plan is this, which you've seen a bunch of times, so I'll just keep going. Alison already showed you this with the parking in the middle. But the important part of this to me is the change from concept. Plan was to move the long term bike parking to short term bike parking. Those are in blue and purple respectively, along with the scooters and the like. The carts we have that people can take the whole foods to the perimeter of the site, and that's really in support of another comment that this board made, which was a good one. We've started to do this with all our projects. It's kind of a cool way to think about a project.

[79:22] Take any user coming from any direction. So by foot, by bike, by scooter by car. How do they get into this site, and what other modes do they cross to do that? So that's where this diagram came from, you guys brought it up a concept plan. So cars are in orange and they're kept away from all the other users. The other thing that you all pointed out, was having multiple points of entry to the building. No matter which way you're going and what mode you're using is helpful. So that's where all these building entrances came from, and again the the green is bikes. The pink is is pedestrians, so I think the building is set up a lot better than it was a concept for people going in all different directions with all different modes. The unit mix remains. It goes. Everything from studios to 3 bedroom units won't belabor that.

[80:02] and the open space is then sorted by by zone. So everything that dash line that runs on the back quarter of the site, everything to the right of that meets the meets the one zoning requirement. Everything to the left is the bms zoning, and it all is compliant so to zoom in on this. This was the area that I didn't spend much time on last time, and my apologies for that I just didn't know it was something that you would want to pay more attention to. So this is that ground level, open space, this. The code says that any project that's over an acre that asked for a height. Change needs a grade level, open space, and then it sets a series of things that should be considered good elements of that it doesn't require them, but we have hit all of them. So they're listed on the left hand side. and those are a width no thinner than the height of the building walls. Seating other design amounts. It's a gathering space. It has Southern light and exposure. Any hard surface should be decorative and not just plain concrete amenities, such as seating tables, we have fire pits and seating, and that kind of thing visible from an adjoining sidewalk. In this case the bike path. So while those are not strict requirements that you have to have all of them, we do my apologies for not getting into that in more detail last time.

[81:12] This is a this is you didn't see this last time. We just put this together so you could get a sense of it in all. Just to be frank, we removed a bunch of the green on the right hand side so you could get a sense of where you are, but I don't think you would ever see the foothills. It will be those those the brush there is very thick, so you would see we would see brush. I won't go through the materials you've seen that, but generally human skin materials at the 1st level, like brick and and composite wood and other materials up above that one of the things you pointed out in the last meeting that we hadn't gotten to yet, and we should have was denoting the entry better announcing that better. So you'll see over here on the side. We've added our intention there. We were assuming that we would do this in tech doc, with staff, where we often refine the building. But we've added that same wood element to this to show where the building entry would be and get in and say, you know, this is where the signage would be. Also, we can't approve signage here. We have to do that through the sign permitting process later. So we typically don't so show it. But we thought that would help

[82:15] also show that again in a second, one other note that was brought up by this planning board was, there was some concern that this gabled roof was. I think, the concern was that it was fake, so we just wanted to show that it is not. Those upper units do have profile ceilings inside of them to take advantage of that volumetric space. So that's real. Those gable roofs are then reflected in the upper units again, back to showing the 1st floor. We spent a lot of time trying to make this a really appropriate human scale element, the building protrusion, the little overhang helps create that perception of an outdoor room. There's lots of details. The wood announces the different entries. We do have that awning element shown now to announce the entry to the building and the co-working space, which again is a public space. Now. or whatever commercial space goes in there is announced, as well as their coffee shop space. But again, it's not just humans that will be walking past this. Cars do drive past the site at 25 miles an hour. So the kinetic nature, the sculptural nature of the site, hopefully provides some dynastyism to people driving by and experiencing the building

[83:16] in car, which will still happen as much as we would prefer it to be all pedestrian. We did render it from the south, I said. The the green is is too thick to see through. So we zoomed in and looked at it this way. One thing I will note when to talk about the length of the building. That is not a strict requirement in the code. It was originally drafted as a strict requirement brought to council on council, directed staff to go back and make it a suggestion. So it's only a suggestion. The second thing is, it is only existing here because we're choosing to cover the parking. We could easily shrink that plaza in half and open that up and expose a parking lot. But we felt and this is an expense to the project, obviously, but to be more compliant with the Site Review criteria, and the vision that the city has for the area, that the parking should be completely hidden. So we created this kind of garden wall, this hanging garden kind of thing, and we're happy to augment this further or change it. But there are 3 distinct portions of the building, which is one of the suggestions. If you're over a certain length.

[84:09] there's a wood section on the left. The this section in the middle, and then the brick section on the right. So that's how it's intended to read as different things when you're walking along the building on the ground, but that's entirely to hide the parking rather than have an open parking lot which would then have a gap in the building. Lastly, Tvap. We've talked about visions and goals, and I don't think anybody's concerned that the practice is consistent with that. It's more the individual criteria. I was on planning board when this was adopted, and I wanted to just point out a couple observations about how the plan works. On page 5. The idea was, the plan was supposed to bridge the gap between the Bvcp. And the regulations, but not provide regulations itself except on page 7. It describes how it's to be used. It's supposed to be a a snapshot in time. That was a vision. The city had at the time it was supposed to be updated annually, and has not been certainly not for phase one. But the other thing that's important is the guidelines for the characteristics and streetscapes

[85:04] were to be used in the Site review process, but none of the rest of the document, not the land. Use prototypes, not the mu, one or mu 2. It specifically says on page 7 that it's just the streetscapes and character districts. If you look at what those 2 things say. The streetscapes was originally supposed to be this this business main street, and it says in the plan that it is absolutely vital to have parallel parking on the street to create that streetscape ideal that's been removed. The city decided that that was no longer the vision. So that Bms. Main Street is no longer the vision that the city has, even though the plan has not been adopted or updated. That said, we're still proposing to make that commercial on the front of the building. I just wanted that to be clear. The second thing is, the characteristics do not say that this character is supposed to be 2 to 3 stories. It was specifically written, because at the time it was all one story. Buildings with parking lots around it, except for still yards, which we happen to design across the street

[86:02] steel yards on 30th is is 3 stories and a couple of two-story things right behind it. And the ideal was, Hey, this was all this parking lot. Now, it's this 3 story kind of new urbanist thing. That's what we want. So it literally says, evolve to take on the character set by the steel yards Project Colon. So now it's defining the steel yards project a mixture of 2 and 3 stories, buildings located along the street. But it wasn't intended to limit. It was only intended to aspire to. That's my recollection when we adopted it. So I wanted to throw those observations out. And then, lastly, the zoning for affordable housing that Council adopted is the most recent vision for this area which relies on the benefits of the height bonus to get to those those things that it was that it was aspiring to. So again, this project is a direct outgrowth of the zoning for affordable housing changes the Council made, in my opinion. So with that I'm sure I missed a bunch of the things that you guys asked about. I tried to keep it quick, and thanks.

[87:06] questions, thanks and thanks for elaborating specifically on the the changes that were made between the 1st and the second one. That was helpful questions. Claudia, quick, clarifying question, how many of the apartment units are on the ground floor of this building. Thank you for putting me on the spot, so the ground level units only exist on the western bar, and I think there are only about 7 of them that face west. Okay, so 7 units on the west side do those units have access to private open space. They do. Okay, thank you. At. At our last hearing we had some discussion about a 24 month window for leasing the commercial space. And what would happen after that? So could you just reiterate that for me and then for all of us. And and has anything changed in your proposal?

[88:15] Yeah, we want to defer to the board on this. So we're happy to make it the original proposal, which was commercial space, like a coffee shop on the south, and then an amenity space like Co. Working for the for the residents in the middle, and then the lobby to the north. We're also happy to say, there's a 24 month window on that, and if it can't be leased, then it could convert for any of those spaces. We're also happy to say, it's commercial space that needs to be open to the general public. I think that there's concern throughout the city about filling up retail space because we just don't have the population and online retail and all that stuff. But if it's the Board's will, we'll take any of those conditions onto the project. Follow up on that. I tried looking around, and I didn't see it. I didn't know if there had been a a market study focusing on this location and and the type of commercial use proposed.

[89:04] We don't have a market study. There was one done when 30 Pearl was approved, which was now 5 years ago, or something. You know the South East. So sorry. Southwest corner of that. A lot of that. About half of that space is affordable, commercial, and very little of that space has been filled, you know. I think the problem is that the the study that was done was pre-covid. So I'm not really sure how applicable that study would be at this point. But we don't have one in particular. No. Is it still accurate to say that that vacancy is around 30%. And that there, there's an expectation that. Okay, yeah, I. Unfortunately, I I don't know those answers. Yeah. on on that same, I think I heard sort of conflicting different things. One, when you did your presentation, I thought I heard you say that the entire ground floor along 30th

[90:04] was commercial, and then I think I just heard you say that it could be a number of different things. So yeah, I can clarify that. So the the proposal that we submitted, which I believe you have to go by, and it has a use review attached to it is showing that only that 820 square feet to the south is true commercial, and the rest is amenity. Space. If you would prefer it to be entirely commercial, which we are completely open to. I think you would have to put a condition on the project if you did that it may remove the necessity for you to move on the use Review, because I don't think that would be applicable anymore. And just as a note, this is really minor. But I think you'd have to approve it with it would actually have the impact of increasing the parking reduction slightly. So if you do make that condition, if you could please add that you know a slightly increased parking reduction as as established by the city manager, or something like that? It would, it would save that because it would. Essentially, it adds, like 7 parking spaces. So it has, like a 5% parking reduction to move it from 6 to 11.

[91:07] Thank you for clarifying. Sorry. I'm sorry to back, go back and forth. Is it safe to assume that if we were to move forward with the original proposal that it could be converted to commercial if there was desire to do so. Yeah, there's no regulatory barrier for making a commercial. I believe that the Use Review could be abandoned at any time right? It could just be rescinded, and it could be filled with a commercial use at any point. Yes, yes, as long as the commercial uses by right and wouldn't trigger an additional use review. Thank you for the presentation and Clarifications Bill. I just have 2 questions going back to. Can you show the diagram of that open space to the west. Please, yeah.

[92:00] thank you for bearing with the scrolling. Yeah, no worries. So when this was initially presented to us, this was described as a rain garden, and I think there were some questions about, you know, could people use it for pet relief? And the answer was, no, it's basically a rain garden. But there's a path around the perimeter. Can you describe where people would actually be using this? Would it just be in those defined seating and play areas. I'm gonna give you the legal answer within the hearing, and I'm going to give you a second answer as well. So when the concern was brought up we work with staff a little bit, and we actually came up with a way to move the rain garden. So it essentially sits along the south edge and create more open area there, just to be more, you know, as as good as possible. In talking with Staff, there was not time to review that change to the stormwater drainage, so it would still be our intent to maybe modify this further. After this hearing in tech Doc, to make it even more usable as it sits right now. So as your approval would sit, this light green area is a rain garden. So that's you know, 24 h water treatment only in rain. And it's a

[93:09] you know. It's a it's full of plants. It's a pretty thing to look at. So the area to gather would be in these sections around here. So this is a fire pit. This is a seating area. This is like a stone playground kind of thing that you can see on this. And yeah, it's it's not. There's nothing. We've been through this in a couple of hearings and with Staff before. It's not really intended to be a gathering spot for the entire community. It's just places for people to socialize. So that's the intent is that it would be in those areas. But it's not like a dog relief area. Or, you know, dog walking park. I don't know if that answers the question that helps. Thank you. And then the you know you talked about that provision in the code that talks about the garden or open space should be the width of the height of the walls. Yeah. So what is the width of this green area? So? Oh, is it

[94:03] sorry I've got my little the little window showing you all is on top of it for me. So the width here and we picked this section because it's kind of in the middle is 51 feet. The building wall at this point is 47 feet tall. Obviously this is at an angle. So if you move down here, it's much wider than that. As you head north it shrinks. But somewhere in here and south it's 47 feet wide or wider. Those brown squares is that private open space. Yeah, those are just areas for for people to hang out. Yeah, is that like somebody's patio? Or what does that delineate? Somehow as private open space for those units that Claudia was asking about. That's a good point. Yeah. I think right now where I'm trying to remember. I'm stumbling because I can't remember if it's fenced, but those are, you know, there's a door out from those units to those areas. So yes, those are patios for the that's counting as private open space. Yes, okay, thank you. And then my second question, the long term bike spaces. Can you describe what is the configuration of those? Are those horizontal racks or those stacked racks? Is it hanging bike?

[95:13] Yeah, we're working through. Typically, we identify all of those in tech doc. And there's pretty strict criteria. This is actually something that's been on my mind because we've seen the proliferation of new types of bikes. Specifically, e-cargo bikes are a lot different. And so what we have done in the past is that it's essentially one of the things that city transportation staff has encouraged and liked is a 2 layer parking system. And there's these kind of roll up racks. So even the upper rack is relatively accessible, no matter how strong you are. But cargo e-bikes don't work at all for that. So one of the things we need to figure out is Oh, and the other change I think I mentioned last time was that we're probably going to be looking at fire rated rooms when this ends up being built. So I don't know the answer, but all of those things need to be figured out for this. So

[96:01] there are like 2 city standard racks that we typically use for in those spaces. And what are those city standard racks. Well, the obvious one that you can do is the U. The inverted U is always allowed the other one. It's a roll-up rack that I don't remember the manufacturer name. I'm sorry about that, and and forgive my ignorance when you say a roll up rack is that the one that has like stacked horizontal bikes. Or what's a roll up rack? Yeah, it's like a it's it's got like a ramped tray that you roll your bike onto So it's a way to get the bike up in the air without as much effort, and it's like a double stacked rack. So it has one rack has 2 parts to it. It has a bike on the lower part and a bike on the upper part. and then do the bikes move somehow like like a vending machine. No, no, no, it's just like a double height, individual. So I'm describing this really poorly. And I apologize. Think of a normal bike room with Uracks, but instead of being one layer high, has 2 layers high, and there's a slight stack to the bikes that you can get both of them off.

[97:04] but it's all human powered, and they roll up on ramps to get to that higher level. I would be lying if I told you I knew exactly how they worked. Does anybody understand how they work on the applicant team? Well, again, it's just the do we do we have a cut sheet of it. Oh, we have images. on page 25, page 25. In the packet out of 2 81, that second link. It's the top right? There's images for the different bike racks. Yes. So you're pivoting and using leverage. Do you want to turn your mic on so that it goes on the record. Yeah, it's a yeah, it's a, it's a ramp. Put your bike on the ramp, and then it hinges or pivots using leverage so you can

[98:02] take a 30 pound bike, and one hand put it up very common in in European compact cities. But but I will say that bike parking from the Transportation Department has codified requirements, so you can't just propose anything like we couldn't design some sculptural rack and use it. There are only certain racks that you're allowed to use. I wanted to see your sculpture of Iraq. Oh, trust me, we've got some designs. Thank you so much. Thanks. Just quick question about what you were describing with regards to the south facade and the situation with the parking, and then the sort of garden area on top. I just want to clarify that I'm understanding this correctly. What you're saying is that in theory you could remove the south wall of that area and some portion of what is effectively the roof of the parking and also the floor of the garden area and just make it into surface parking right area. Okay, it would be a lot cheaper to just cut this part of the plaza off.

[99:10] and then we would have a building with a break in it, and and but it seemed like it would be much more preferred to hide the parking, especially from Goose Creek. So that's what we did. And again, just like with the western open space. All of the criteria in the Site Review are are guidelines. They are not requirements. So you know, we're we're looking at the entire guideline set and trying to to join these differing and mutually exclusive portions of site Review, and to find a happy balance for all of it. Thank you. Can I just confirm with Staff. If you don't mind me colloquing. Sorry, Kurt, I interrupted. Can I just confirm with Staff? If that wall were not there? But that were still a parking garage, with a roof on it and a pool deck over it. Would that not count as being, I mean, that's not a break in the building. That's part of the structure. And well, in this, in this scenario. This I'm sorry. I'm asking Staff what their interpretation would be

[100:04] if it's still like a covered garage, then it would be part of the structure. But if it's just surface parking, then it would have that break. Okay. So as long as it is covered parking, it's still considered to be part of the building facade. Yeah. And like you said, if there's a carport or whatever it would be within the like building footprint. And in this scenario we're talking about taking half the plaza off so it wouldn't have a roof. It would just be parking open to the sky. Okay, thank you. Oh, so this question was asked before, but we didn't know the answer. The height from the path. the public path there, the height of that wall. What is that? You know? I think that's about 9 or 10 feet, you know the clearance for parking is about 7 and a half feet, and then we need the structure to hold it up. So let's call it 9 and a half feet. But there's a pool on there. Doesn't the pool, I mean, does the pool dip down into the parking garage or sits on sits on top? It protrudes up so the pool part is elevated above the rest of it, right like there's a

[101:07] the pool's like 3 feet deep, and you have a little elevated deck around the pool. Oh, it's only 3 feet deep. Interesting. Okay, are we? 3 or 3 and a half for the pool? It's it's it's shallow on purpose. Just for that reason we can't set it down into the parking, or that deck goes way up in the air. Oh, that's right, and the pool is also on the right hand side. So there's not parking underneath the pool. There are some equipment rooms under there. Good to understand. Thank you. So we've got about 9 and a half feet from somebody walking by, and you didn't show it this way. But you said those gardens that you've got in front of it could potentially be step gardens so that that wall would basically vanish. And it would be all landscape. Is that correct or no? Yeah, this is the intent that we have now. But again we were thinking about it, and if the Board was interested in like doing that as hanging gardens coming down, we're happy to do that

[102:04] to have that that could all be landscaped. What is now like a box just be filled. Yeah, it'd be like a step garden. My grandmother had a rock garden when I was growing up, and it would be like that. Sorry I find my moves in my grandmother's rock garden. That's cool. Thank you. Okay, back to you, Kurt. Sorry to interrupt. I just had a question to follow up on that. So if we were to take that south elevation across, including that wall. What's the total linear footage? We were looking at it. We saw that question before, and we were looking it up. Do we have that looks like it's close to 300. It's probably right around there. I think that's probably right. Okay. sorry. I guess I do have one follow up if you were to step, want to step that back there? So starting at the same location. But then kind of tier it back. Yeah, that would.

[103:04] It probably would affect the amount of parking then available if we really pushed it into the parking area? Yes, we'd lose parking spaces, and we feel like after the comments at concept plan, we've already trimmed the parking spaces as much as we possibly can. Okay, thanks. All right. I just wanted to. Okay, go ahead. Let me see, we had it. Did you find the answer to the book form in bulk? Standard? What? The floor area is? 22,293 square feet. which is an increase of about 2,200. The it's the Max is 15, so it'd be about 7,000 over the

[104:00] it Bms requirement. So it's plus 7,000 about or 8. Yeah. not very good at math. But yes. Can you clarify what you're referencing. So I'm I'm looking at The modifications that are being proposed under the land use code. and one of them is to 9 7 1, which is the schedule of form and bulk standards which sets the building's maximum floor area at 15,000 square feet, and this is in the Bms zone. Correct? And I. My question was, how much have we gone beyond that in the proposal? And I'm hearing you say, around 7,000 correct feet. The total is about 22,000 square feet in the Bms zone. Okay? And so what are the criteria for allowing greater floor areas than what our allowed? There isn't specific criteria. It'd just be subject to the Site Review criteria. I'm sorry there aren't specific criteria for that. Bms principal building

[105:02] increased. It would just be subject to the Site Review criteria for that modification sort of like with a setback or any other modification in the land use code. We don't prescribe criteria. I've had my Bdi on all of these kind of free, free, square footage, free, free land for a while. Thank you for answering that. Sure great any last questions for the applicant. All right, thank you for the presentation again, and for elaborating on some things from the last one. We will go to the public comment, section after public comment, because we only have probably one or 2. Why don't we do public comment real quick, since they've been waiting, and then we'll take a break. Sure sounds good. We do have at least one person signed up in the room. Notice that there's a couple others in the room with us, so if anybody else would like to speak

[106:03] after the 1st person, just please go ahead and approach the podium and make sure you give your full name. 1st up we have Solomon Beers. Ariel. You can step up and you'll have 3 min. Please know there's a small little rectangular silver button on the microphone. You press that to turn it on. There you go. Can you hear me? Yes, cool. Hi! So. My name is Solomon Berzariel. I'm a boulder resident and a law student at Colorado. I'll try to make this pretty quick. I just wanna say from the get-go that I'm fully supportive of this project. I think it's great. I think more than just being a good project. It's something that's really needed. Because. in my opinion, and I wouldn't presume to pass this off as fact or anything. We have a housing crisis, and we have an affordability crisis in boulder.

[107:01] It's expensive to live. and so the question is, how do you? How do you confront a housing crisis and affordability crisis? And I think the answer is, you just have to build more. You have to build more homes. and it's it's pretty much just economics demand outstrips supply prices are high, not enough homes. But when you build more. there's the human element. You're building more homes for people to live. But you're also bringing down prices in the aggregate. So I don't view these projects as like luxuries. It's it's more something that's really really needed. And I did. I watched the original hearing. I was not there for it when it happened, but I saw the recording. and I came back to this word that I kept thinking, it is very cough gasque and maybe that's a little unfair.

[108:02] but I don't really think it's that unfair, because, you know, we have a crisis. And what are we doing? We're we're quibbling over minutia. We're, you know. We're trying to whittle down a pretty good project into something into something less. And I just I don't really know how else I'd describe it. It it flies in the face of common sense, and it really doesn't signal to me. It doesn't give me confidence. That is an issue that's really being taken that seriously. And it's just a little disappointing. but it's the season for second chances. And I'm I'm happy. It's getting reheard, and I just hope that you will all agree with me when I say that this is a good project and and one worthy of support. So thank you for your time.

[109:01] Thank you, Solomon. Thanks for being here. Is there anybody else in the room? Okay, we have one other person in the room that's approaching to speak. Just please make sure you give your full name before you speak. Thank you. Hi, can you hear me? Okay. My name is Michael Farrington. I'm a lead with housing Advocacy group. Emb, I'm speaking today in my personal capacity. I don't live in Boulder. I live just down the highway in Broomfield and some of the new development there in what's a neighborhood called Arista? Nevertheless, I am here to testify in support of the 30th Street housing project under review. I go to school here in Boulder. I go. I'm seeking my Jd. And I'm getting my law degree up at Colorado. Law. I also work in Boulder. I work part time in a law firm just a few blocks from where this project is proposed. I, like thousands of students and part-time workers, go to school or work, or both, in boulder. but cannot afford to live here. This is in part because of the previous land use policies that prevented construction of housing both affordable and market rate housing from being built in Boulder and its neighboring communities for decades.

[110:05] Now, thanks to the leadership of city council, parking minimums were reduced, density was rewarded, and this project fits perfectly into the vision that aligns with the goal of creating a boulder that works for everyone. that everyone includes not just a handful of neighbors today. but also the future neighbors, neighbors who will have the opportunity to live in these homes. If this project is proved. this project adds 142 homes. not units, not studios, not luxury apartments, but homes. What's more is that this will replace a car dealership. This isn't a park. The community is being asked to give up. It's not a Greenfield development that would take down old growth trees. It is a project that takes one of the worst land uses in the entire city a car dealership and replaces it with a place for 142 people and their families to call home right now. We have people living in their cars here in Boulder that includes students at Cu.

[111:02] and you have the opportunity to approve a project that will replace a car dealership with 142 homes for those students. People should live in homes, not cars. This project gets us one step and 142 homes closer to solving the housing crisis we all know Boulder and Colorado is dealing with. I'm asking you to approve this project to build 140 new, 142 new homes. and to further not require commercial retail in excess of what is needed for the project. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Is there anybody else in the room that's planning to speak? Thank you, sir. Just please make sure you give your full name before beginning. Apologize. I'm making calls from the Whittier neighborhood. I'm going to argue that this building at 4 stories should be approved. And that's consistent with tvap.

[112:07] a process that started 20 years ago when I was a chair of the planning board and which was revised in 2010, when I was on the City Council. Tvap on page 9 says something very important about urban character. The area's present low density automobile oriented environment will gradually transform into a higher density, more urban environment. Most new buildings will range in height from 2 to 4 stories. It's not rational to diminish the importance of Tvaps language about building at 2 to 4 stories more, urban, more dense by focusing on either the one in Mu one or the mention in Tvap. That 30th Street is part of a 30th street district

[113:01] which, by the way, was language imported into Tvap from the public Art Master Plan. We know a lot more now than we did in 2,007, and it calls on us not to grab on the steelyards, which is the mu one across the street and say, this is the character for the rest of 30th street climate change has escalated from concern to emergency since 2,007 transit corridor density is no longer optional. It's essential. Every dwelling unit built along transit routes directly reduces carbon emissions. This 4 story project delivers 142 units into a neighborhood with a walk. Score of 83, and a bike score of 100 that is phenomenal. Boulder's housing prices, as other speakers mentioned, have exploded beyond recognition.

[114:02] Median home prices now range. They've gone from 350,000 in 2,007 to 1.2 million today. Page 9 of Tvap and those urban design criteria. Look at them. It supports four-story buildings along 30.th The staff support for this moderate height increase acknowledges that this project is consistent with tvap while still maintaining the core intent. We have a lot of four-story buildings along 30th Street, not just at 30th and Pearl, but north of here on O'neill Parkway. Why not 4 stories here? There is nothing inconsistent with Tvap in this proposal. In fact, the urban character description at the front of Tvap invites this, and I hope you'll reconsider and give approval to this plan. Thank you.

[115:00] Thank you, Makin. Thanks for being here tonight. If there's nobody else in the room that would like to speak. We can go ahead and move to the online portion of public participation and We can help Looks like we are good to move to online. So I'm going to pass it over to Vivian Great. Thank you. Thomas. Looks like we already have a few hands raised. So we'll go ahead and start with those and to others online. If you would like to speak, go ahead and raise your hand so that you can get in the queue, and we have an idea of how many people wish to speak for the public hearing. We'll start with Margo Smith, followed by Virginia Winter and Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Margo, and you can see the the timer on your screen Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Now. Yeah, we can hear you. Please. Okay. Great. My name is Margo Smith, resident of 3,335 14th Street, in Boulder. I'm opposed to the project is currently designed because it includes additional paving of the Goose Creek, Greenway.

[116:11] The Greenway is a part of the Greenway Master Plan. It, it is, has a primary purpose of preserving nature. Yes, human movement is a goal in the Greenways Master Plan, however, this Greenway already has a multi-use path directly on the other side of the creek. Since this proposal includes development of publicly owned land in an area of the city already lacking in green space, it should have a public process to see if it's what the public wants. not a rushing through of development because of shared costs and providing a contractor to get the path done. This proposal has been moving along quickly, without adequate public visibility. the use of outdated plans. The tbap is 15 years old. The Tmp. Is a year overdue for revision should not alone be used to decide on a permanent loss of natural habitat.

[117:12] The Greenways Master Plan should be given equal consideration in this decision it would bring balance to this decision process, since the above mentioned plans are clearly weighted towards the goal of transportation. despite despite small adjustments in the angling of the building on the west side. This building is a large mass building right up to its property lines. There will be a lot of people living in this building. I feel the new proposed paths on public open space. or a subtle encroachment of private use onto public open space. These additional amenities allow the property owner to charge highest dollar for units and the rest of us.

[118:03] It's to the rest of us. It's a a loss of quiet natural space and space for other species. Lastly. an additional path in the Greenway takes away potential pedestrian Main Street liveliness of 30th Street, clearly a desired goal for this section of 30th Street. I ask you to reject this project. As it is. I'm not opposed to there being housing here, and lots of it. I'm opposed to the fact that we are not taking adequate time or proper consideration by the general public of this public land. Of whether we want these changes to the Greenway, of whether we want additional paving, additional movement and less space for other species. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Virginia winter, followed by Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead. Virginia.

[119:09] Good evening. My name is Virginia Winter, and I live at 2930 Bluff Street. Here in Boulder. I want to start by thanking the Board for its service to my community. I've been here before. I'm here again, and I'll read my statement. A paved extension of the multi-use path westward from the south side of 22, 5, 5, 30th Street is not needed. It duplicates what exists today for pedestrians and cyclists. Any new path would primarily benefit residents of this proposed development. I need to be a voice for the over 50 bird and animal species. I have observed in this riparian zone. If this planning board approves, the staff and applicant agreed upon westward paved extension, it will forever destroy the ecological values of this natural area. I'm not alone more than 15 written comments have been submitted by Boulderites since December, expressing concerns about the degradation of Wetlands and the loss of natural green space.

[120:17] I don't believe this Board has to accept a December 20th agreement made between city personnel and the project team to include a path extension over city land to the west on the north side of the pond that is integrated within this site Review. Such a design is not found in the existing 2019 transportation master plan in December staff changed their advisement to this board. Citing feasibility issues for not following the Tmp. Which led to the agreement with the applicant staff should fully clarify the feasibility issues. A wetland permit. Application will be required for any

[121:00] any activity in this regulated area, and we know it could require a public process. both of which take time. Time, we must take to preserve inner city natural open space. Thank you. Thank you. and we just have one more person with their hand raised. If you haven't spoken yet, and you would like to please go ahead and raise your hand, Lynn. Segal, please go ahead. You have 3 min I agree with the Greenway commentary? Looking at this from the aerial perspective, where's the t in Tvap? There isn't any, is there? We don't have transit village. Remember, we didn't get our amtrak. We don't have transit that's really viable. We don't have enough people that'll even drive it. We don't have enough schedules to people to use it. Guess what? In 500 years we're still going to have cars.

[122:04] and we do have them here. And you know what this needs to be. Hyundai the car dealership because we need it to be multi-level for all the cars that people are going to need to come in here to commute in to service all this massive density of all these high end. You know, this is the elonization of Boulder. It really is, the Elons are Gibbons white Coburn element element. Does bluebird, too? They take care of the homeless people afterwards. So then they look. You know, you know, this expression, philanthropy is the barometer of social injustice. Remember that for every affordable housing now, and this project is not affordable, this is high-end housing.

[123:03] This is rental backed security type housing. right? This is the taking down of America, just like Trump has designed it right here in Boulder WW. Reynolds limelightization up on the hill. 15,000 square foot ball ballroom at the Conference center. vested rights. I don't know what these vested rights are. Specifically, it wasn't really clear to the common public. because these meetings aren't really for the common public, are they? They aren't designed that way. They're, you know, for an interior process to go on. and for the developers to further manipulate the staff and the and the city government of Boulder

[124:04] into caving in. To all of this you can't build your way out of this. There's just no way. This is up high demand. And then I say this again and again and again, and it doesn't sink in. And people say, Oh, you can build your way, build, build, build. People do not know. They do not understand. It's a closed market. and it's it's a high demand. Stop! Thank you, Lynnziegel. Thanks to all our speakers so far. If anyone else would like to give testimony, please go ahead and let us know by raising your virtual hand. I'll wait a few seconds to see if any other hands pop up before we move on. Okay, I believe that, concludes the public, hearing

[125:02] Thanks, Vivian. And so, with the conclusion of the public comment, we'll take a 10 min break. It's 8.0 5. Does the applicant want to respond to any? Wasn't there? Isn't there a procedurally, certainly the applicant can respond to any of the or, for that matter, the Board, if anyone wants to respond to any of the public comment. Just super. Briefly, it went on record with the last hearing. But just so, it's on record again. The applicant is the Western path. Connection is, whatever the city decides, it has to go through a wetlands process. The only agreement with the applicant is, if the city chooses to move forward with that path. The applicant has agreed to use its contractor to construct it. So whatever anybody decides is with that, we'll take a 10 min break. We'll adjourn until 8 16.

[137:31] All right, we're going to reconvene. The board is back. Everyone's staff is back in their seats. I think we've got everybody here. I've just asked for the. We can put up the items for the board to consider. And the suggested motion language. Oh, awesome. Everything's consolidated on one page. Perfect. All right.

[138:01] I'm happy to open this up and have people kind of talk through those 3 key issues. Simultaneously when you just go down the row, or however, people want to do it. we can also go straight to a motion. We've already 6 out of the 7 of us have already seen this. So it's up to whoever wants to start to kick us off. But I'm open to just having someone start and give their thoughts to these 3 key issues. And then kind of going through things. If we're doing the 3 key issues, I'm I'm ready. Okay, why don't you go ahead, Mason. can I make a process suggestion? And, George, I raised this at the previous hearing as well? I think there is a 4th key issue which has to do with the Use review. And so just make sure that we're discussing the Use Review in addition to the Site review. Great thanks. Mason, I don't know if I'm prepared to talk about the user review. I'm prepared for these 3. I'm just going to do it. You can always tack it on later. Go for it. Okay, cool.

[139:04] All right. I'm going to try. I've been finding comments awkward. So I'm going to try this way, which is, I'm just going to go through the 3, and I think I've prepared my notes so to key issue one. I do believe that the proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria and of land use Code section 9, 2, 14 Hbrc. 1981, including the additional criteria for building requirement, height, modifications for key issue 2. I do believe that the proposed parking reduction is consistent with parking reduction, criteria of land use. Code section 996 F. Brc. 1981, as well as the applicable Site Review criteria. and for key issue 3. I do believe the project is consistent with the transit area, the tvap and I want to talk about that in a little more detail. So on the TV app, it says that it.

[140:02] Buildings in this area should provide pedestrian interest along 30th Street by selecting active ground floor uses such as real retail and commercial services, where feasible it doesn't see, say, a feasibility is limited to physical feasibility or financial feasibility. I'm sure there's other varieties of feasibility. And currently there's a glut of commercial spaces in this area and in boulder in particular. adding more vacant commercial space is not financially feasible. If there is a amendment that 24 month amendment that was brought up earlier. I won't be supporting it primarily, because I think it's going to take longer than 24 months for commercial demand to bounce back as Bill mentioned in his presentation. this development, in its currently proposed form. could be converted to commercial. If that ends up being a better use of the space on the lower floor.

[141:01] So in my mind. just to just to summarize, it doesn't make sense to do the 24 month amendment, because well, I'll address that if it comes up I don't need to go into it. No one's brought it up. The project does meet other key. Other key elements of the neighborhood plan, the tvap orients, the main facade to the street and provide interest on the ground street side of the building, etc, etc. I'll skip over these to shorten my notes. and lastly, I think they really did a good job listening to us in concept review, they changed the building design to meet site review, criteria. our comments, etc. And I think it does meet the relevant area plan. Criteria having additional housing in this area can help make this area more robust and vibrant. And I'll just skip over that last paragraph just to save time. Let's move on right next.

[142:08] Claudia. All right. I will address these questions in a modified sequence. So, first, st consistency with site review criteria, including the height, modification request. I agree with the staff analysis that this project is, on the whole, consistent with the Bvcp. In particular, I appreciate that it supports our core policies that encourage infill and compact development. The jobs, housing, imbalance, and the creation of walkable and connected neighborhoods. I've taken a detailed look at the site design on this site. I had some initial concerns about parking and transportation, access and usable open space before the hearing. I think the applicant has addressed those.

[143:00] I also think that the proposed modifications to the access and transportation connections actually improve on the grid that was proposed in the TV app. And these connections, as proposed, keep the internal connections in that super block that we want to be adding, and they also have the potential to make bike and pedestrian trips. The most obvious trips to and from this site, which is exactly what we want in this area. I think the project does meet the requirements for a height modification. I'll talk a little bit more about Tvap at the end of my comments. But I think, as staff notes the building and the building form and massing exceeds what we see described directly in the 30th Street Corridor plan, but they also respond to area and street conditions in a way that meets the intent of the 30th Street Corridor plan, namely, by bringing more neighborhood pedestrian activity to the area.

[144:02] This proposal, I think, also supports the tvap goals of increasing housing. And they're doing so using a tool, that height bonus that was actually not available at the time that tvap was approved with additional height. I think the proposed building preserves mountain views from public spaces, which is a requirement. It also does a good job of orienting common areas of the development towards those mountain views and the proposed courtyard, even though it is somewhat elevated, is located, I believe, on what is functionally the ground floor for the vast majority of users at this location and that location uses the site topography to take advantage of light and views. And I think that does create a shared space that's going to be a real asset to the residents speaking here about the courtyard. Not that sliver on the West that was highlighted for us today. Parking reduction criteria, I think the requested parking reduction is a very minor one, on a site which could accommodate much more based on its location and likely residents. I do appreciate that the applicant is including a substantive Tdm plan, despite the need to include what many members of this board likely consider excess parking. So I have no concerns there.

[145:17] Speak briefly about the Use Review. and I've just made my notes too large to read. Let me shrink them back down twitchy fingers. I agree with the staff analysis that this proposal meets the Use Review criteria for ground floor residential uses. Most importantly, I think, that planned ground floor uses mimic commercial and office uses, while at the same time minimizing the risk of additional vacancies in this area. I want to be very clear that for any neighborhood or commercial district, empty storefronts are an adverse impact. So in the sense, the proposed use that co-working space, the office areas of the actual apartment building

[146:02] minimizes adverse impacts on the surrounding area as our as our criteria require. And now consistency with the tvap, which I think is probably the key issue for the Board, based on my understanding of our previous discussions. I think that area plans are incredibly useful and also incredibly problematic documents. so their limited boundaries allow them to be highly detailed, which is something that we really like. but without realistic mechanisms to update or amend them, their specificity becomes less useful and can even become harmful over time. This is somewhat like in science or statistics, where precision that would be. A literal reading of this plan is different from accuracy, which would be fidelity to its goals. or put differently following the details of the plan when baseline conditions and assumptions have changed, doesn't necessarily get us to the desired outcome

[147:05] phase. One of tbap was approved 18 years ago. and that plan, which I believe was an excellent one, did not and could not anticipate many exogenous forces that now affect its successful implementation. These include structural changes in retail and office markets. The implosion of Rtd. And I want to recall here that the densities and land use patterns in the Tvap were oriented around a bus and train station that we do not have the lack of city action on the right of way and street transformations and some changes that have, in fact, subtracted from that original business Main Street model. In the last 20 years. We've also seen the city reconsider height as a tool for housing creation, including a deliberate policy decision to allow height modifications to the 55 foot charter height limit when design and community benefit criteria are met in 2,007. We literally could not see beyond 3 stories in this area of town, and we can now, and in fact, our code asks us to

[148:14] baseline conditions and best practice change faster than area plans. And in some cases zoning rules do, too. And for these reasons, in the real world area plans must sometimes be considered advisory. and I think grappling with this becomes more and more important and contentious. The further we get away from the ground 0 point in time. So this is a choice. I realize my fellow board members, like many judges, might adopt a different philosophy here. but I think that if taking an unnecessarily originalist view of plans walks us into bad outcomes, whether those bad outcomes are dysfunctional places or vacant lots and storefronts, then we are doing something wrong. I asked Staff earlier about completed projects in the 30th Street corridor.

[149:02] Because I think it's important to recognize that not only our area plans advisory in theory, but in this particular area they have already been applied as such. Bluebird, which you said was a buy right project. I want to point out has no commercial uses on that ground floor. It is all residential. The fire station on this short section of 30th Street. We've been flexible in applying the corridor guidelines as well to facilitate meeting other city goals. Meanwhile we have buildings on the perimeter of the steelyards on the East side of 30th Street, which is ostensibly the building prototype for this corridor. which have ground floor vacancies, and which have chosen to put their functional primary entrances on the backside. To me this invites learning rather than imitation. so does the proposal in front of us deviate from the building forms described in Tvap. The answer to that is, yes. but in line with Tvap it adds housing, units and variety. It continues to build out a fine grid of mobility connections. It provides a strong physical framing for a problematically wide street, 5 lanes on 30.th And it puts more people and eyes on the 30th street corridor. It continues the Tvp vision of transforming this area into more of a neighborhood and a destination.

[150:20] a home for people and a place to gather rather than simply a thoroughfare. So I think it does meet that criteria. Well. there's there's so much to say here, so I'm probably going to miss some of what I want to say, but but I'll go for it anyway. So I appreciate the thoughtful comments from staff, from the applicant, from the public, from my fellow board members who make a compelling case for why? It's okay to be flexible with how we interpret our code and how we interpret our plans.

[151:01] And I'm going to take the unpopular opinion that that's too much flexibility. Right? So in our seats here, on planning board, we are playing a quasi-judicial role. and our duty is to uphold the criteria and the plans that we have which are part of our criteria. It is a criteria based decision. We are not elected. We are not making a plan, we are saying, is this project consistent with the criteria and the plans that we have in one of the public comments, which I thought was a brilliant comment. This board was called Kafkaesque. In some of our comments. Last time I looked up the definition of Kafkaesque. which is nightmarishly complex, bizarre and illogical, often involving absurd bureaucracy and a sense of powerlessness and alienation. And I am going to agree with Lynn Siegel that these proceedings are not designed to be understood by the general public to do that we would be here for days, doing a seminar every time on what are our criteria, and how have they been applied? So it's abbreviated, and it's hard to understand.

[152:12] But we, as board members, have a duty to go through those lines and lines and lines of code and the plans that have been put in place and say, Is this project consistent, or is it not? And the word that comes to mind for me when I look at this project is a I love a lot about this project, and I want to say I'm fully in support of addressing the housing crisis, increasing density, and in general I am always happy to grant height exemptions where they are consistent with our criteria. I would argue in this case that it is not sadly I wish we had been presented with a project that was clearly in compliance with our criteria. but instead, the word that rings for me is Orwellian doublespeak, where we are told that ground level doesn't mean ground level 2 to 3 stories doesn't mean 2 to 3 stories.

[153:01] 200 feet doesn't have to actually be 200 feet and so forth. And it just feels wrong to me in a quasi-judicial capacity to grant all of those flexible definitions for a project, just because I like the project, and I think I like the goals of the project where I would not be willing to grant it for a project that I was not as happy about. And that's not fair, and that is not consistent, and that is not what you do in a quasi judicial capacity. So I am going to point out where I think this project doesn't meet the code, and if this board you may disagree with me, but if this board does choose not to approve the project tonight, I would hope that the applicant would be able to go back and make some changes to make it consistent, clearly consistent with our criteria, not flexibly, with a lot of interpretation and creativity. Maybe possibly we could argue, it's consistent, but consistent with the criteria, and I think that could be done. And I think this project can be built with some small changes to make it consistent with the criteria that we are pledged to uphold.

[154:13] So I will say for the use review. I do not think it is consistent with item 4, that it will not change the predominant character of the area or character established by the adopted design, guidelines and plans for the area which is a business Main Street, and I do appreciate that we have made some exceptions in the past for critical key services like the fire station and a buy right project to provide affordable and transitional housing. I do not want to completely abandon the view of the Tvap plan without public consideration of, should we be changing the Tvap plan. Should we be abandoning 30th Street as a business main Street? I don't feel like this board. I don't feel like I have the discretion to say, this is no longer a business Main street concept in contradiction to our Tvp plan.

[155:02] So I do think that is not consistent with the character established by the adopted design guidelines. And let me just reference that really quickly, that is, in Tvap. So the 30th Street character district says. a mixture of commercial and residential uses. In 2 to 3 story buildings located along the street. The vision is to transform 30th Street into a business main street with neighborhood and community serving retail restaurants, commercial services and offices. So the way the project is currently, I don't think supports that vision in the Tvp. I did appreciate the applicant statement. They would be willing to transform that entire 30th Street frontage into commercial that I did not ask for that last time, and I'm not asking for that this time. I do think that saying 50% of that 30th Street frontage being commercial.

[156:02] And I do think that the applicants plan to make that Co working space open to the public achieves that. I think that that is a modest and reasonable modification. If this board wants to make it. 50% of that 30th Street frontage should be neighborhood serving commercial, which the applicants proposal would do. So with that I would say that it would be consistent with the use. Review. The Site Review, criteria 9, 2 14 h. 1 b. Says, subcommune and area plans or design guidelines. If the project is subject to an adopted subcommittee or area plan, or adopted guidelines. The project is consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines. And again, I would say, it's not currently consistent with that 30th street character district. It is not consistent with the Mu, one prototype of 2 to 3 story mixed use buildings, and I understand that those are not a hard and fast thou shalt, but it is something that this board is supposed to consider as the vision for this area.

[157:03] I would be a lot more comfortable if even just that 30th Street frontage were 3 stories rather than 4 to make, and then it steps back up to 4 stories for the rest of the project. I think that that would be arguably in line with the 30th street character that is being described there, but it currently is not. and that would help it come into conformity with its subcommunity plan, which is one of our site review criteria, and I know that we have discussed. Area plans are not regulatory. Well. area plans are not regulatory, but what we're doing here tonight is not strict zoning, regulatory. It is site Review. It is discretionary. They are asking for concessions from the city to go beyond their buy right zoning in accordance with the Site Review criteria. So that's the that's the change, the exchange. They have to meet the Site Review criteria, one of which is conformity with the area plan. So I would make that argument and and advocate for that change.

[158:02] 9, 2, 14 HB. 1 b. One. Building and site design requirements for a height modification. This is written right into our code that they have to have it in order to get a height. Modification. a. The building form and massing is consistent with the character established in any adopted area plans or guidelines applicable to the site. So again, I would argue for lowering the height just along 30th Street, not the whole building just along 30th Street. Criteria for a height. Exemption 9, 2, 14 h. 4 a 1. The building does not exceed 200 feet along the public right of way, and Bill is correct, that that is not listed as a hard and fast requirement. But I would say it's more than a guideline. It is. It is listed. As let me make sure I get this correct. It says, in determining whether this criterion is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors. The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right of way. That is part of the staff analysis, and it is part of what we are supposed to consider.

[159:07] Well, I mean, it currently does right. It currently does exceed 200 feet. That south face which is along a public right of way is, as George calculated, and I think Staff confirmed about 300 feet long. They don't. The building was presented to us as if it is constructed in 3 sections, and that somehow makes it meet. This criterion. That is a separate criterion that says that if it's over 120 feet in length. It has to. The frontage, has to be broken up and appear to be different masses. The criteria, about 200 feet in length, is not about appearing to be less than 200 feet. It's about being less than 200 feet and a 1 story. Parking garage that is covered with a deck is still part of the building. It is part of the structure. It is part of that frontage, and the the way that the building was presented to us, it would have a wall. That is what you experience at ground level is a wall

[160:03] 9 or 10 feet. Did we confirm how tall, that is. I did a measure, and I got about 10 about 10 feet right? So the building varies between 4 feet tall and 10 or 4 stories tall and 10 feet tall, but it is still one frontage, and even if you took away that wall, you're still looking into a parking garage right? It's still part of that frontage. So it's very hard for me to say that it meets that criterion. and that is something that we can consider. Let's see. I do appreciate that the applicant has addressed the legibility of the building entries in accordance with 9, 2, 14 h. 3, a little Roman numeral 3, and I'm I'm satisfied on that one. So I think that if we add a condition like we did last time about the legibility, and the applicant has already said, here's how we'll address that. I think that that's great. I love that one.

[161:05] And then the last thing is the additional requirements for a height, bonus, open space. It says that if the project site is greater than one acre in size and inviting grade, level, outdoor garden or landscape courtyard is provided it doesn't say elevated, or on top of a rooftop deck. It says, grade level. So hopefully, we can all agree that 10 feet in the air is not grade level. The applicant is proposing that that western portion, that little triangle there, that is, a rain garden with a path with some seating and a play area along it meets that criterion. I think that's a stretch, and I don't think that that is something I would like to. Consistently. We have gotten a lot of projects that have the open space in scraps around the edges, and I don't want to say that that is sufficient for getting a height bonus right? And maybe the applicant could come back with something that takes down that rooftop deck

[162:02] gets rid of the wall and actually makes a courtyard in that area that is usable and is not just a landscape terrace. I think the applicant could probably address that they might lose some parking, or have to figure out how to move the parking around. But this is a criterion that's in our site. Review criteria that we just adopted. Was it 2 years ago that it would have a usable courtyard that is designed for gathering space for the building users. And Bill's right. It doesn't have to be like every building user is going to assemble. And we're going to have live music tonight. But it does need to be more, I think, than just a scrap of seating around an edge. So so that's where I'm coming from. It's not because I don't like the project, but because I think that the way that this project is asking us to be extremely flexible about things like sub community plans and area plans, height, modifications, and building design is not something that I want to see continually coming before this board, stretching and stretching the meaning of plain English words that are in our site. Review criteria.

[163:06] I'll stop there already. So I am going to be a lot more concise. I agree with a lot of the specifics that Laura has put forth. I will express my response to these key issues in some broad statements. So, firstly, I'm I'm concerned with the precedent. This building will set at 4 stories and 55 foot height. The existing pattern along 30th Street is that there are taller 4 story buildings on the east side of 30th Street, with shorter, mostly one to 2 story buildings on the west side, which is where the project lies and the T vap land. Use. Map recognizes this pattern as well.

[164:04] You know my biggest concern and take on the project is, how does it fit the bigger fabric? And that's what an area plan is intending to do is to say it's part of something bigger than itself. The zoning on this parcel that is facing 30th Street is bt one zoning the majority of the project lies in that zoning is generally a buffer to a residential area, and I think that that zoning height is set at 35 feet. So I am pointing out that if we set a precedent for tall, dense buildings on the west side of 30th Street, that's a new precedent, because that's not the pattern that exists in the urban fabric there. Currently. Furthermore, I'm concerned with undermining the Tvp, which also sets a dangerous precedent for encouraging projects to think of themselves as isolated from their context and from contributing to the fabric of our city and the neighborhoods.

[165:12] Area plans involve significant time and monetary investment from the city Tvac took 32 months with 11 consultants, 27 staff members, and 4 boards or councils involved in its crafting. It included lengthy public outreach and input as well. And I don't believe that planning board should be overstepping the authority of area plans and specific to this project to be overstepping tbap the specific things that I believe do not meet the site. Review. Criteria. R. 9. Dash, 2, dash 14 h. 1 Bvcp. B. Requiring the project to be consistent with the applicable plan, and guidelines. 9, 2, 14 h. 3 a. VI. Consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site.

[166:10] 9, 2, 14 h. 4 b. 1. 1 additional criteria for buildings requiring height, modification. The building's height is consistent with the building heights anticipated in adopted plan and adopted design guidelines or subcommunity or area plans for the area. Excuse me. the applicable area plan. This application has not been consistent with is the transit village area plan or tvap mui is the land use prototype articulated in Tvap. It establishes a 1.0 far 2 to 3 story mixed use building in this area. The project proposes 1.1 5 and 1.4 far and 4 stories. additionally 7,000 square feet from a modification to the land. Use code 9, dash 7, dash one.

[167:05] which increases the building bulk and height. The other tvap. Specific reference is the 30th Street corridor district which says, a mixture of commercial and residential uses in 2 to 3 story buildings located along the street. So I those those are my concerns. I think I think we're in the process of setting some pretty significant precedents. not just for the 30th Street and the existing fabric of what 30th Street is but for overstepping both what the site criteria directs by referring us to area plans. And by assuming that we can translate the TV app

[168:01] as we choose, give and take. I think it's important to remember that area plans goal are to create a whole fabric. and they generally are very conscious of the patterns. the urban patterns that are existing. and I think that this would set a precedent of a existing pattern on 30th Street, where we don't have tall buildings on the west side of 30th Street, and I think this precedent this could set a precedent, for let's just ignore the pattern, and let's just have tall, tall buildings there. So there's a lot of specificity that goes with this, and I think my colleagues are bringing that all up, and I thank everybody's attention for bringing forth so much consideration about how we should and shouldn't use the Tvp. But I think that

[169:00] the instructions are clear. I'm I don't feel confused that you know we should refer to and respect the hard work that's been done to put these area plans together and abide by them. So I. I don't believe that the project meets the Criterias as I have articulated. So I spent my much of my day to day today. thinking about this project in terms of a different plan. And that's the Bvcp. And before I, because the Bvcp is referred to in the Site Criteria Site Review Criteria 9, 2, 14, a. 1 that the project needs to comply with BBC goal, Bbcp goals

[170:04] and have consistency with the Bbcp. So I spent my time rereading the Bbcp. And you could practically take the goals of the Bbcp. And throw it at this, and they would all fit almost all of them. But there were a number in particular that rang true for me, and I won't. I'll enumerate them. But I'm not going to read them other than a few quotes 2.0 3 compact development patterns. I feel like this project. Both articulates and fulfills a compact development pattern, open 2.0 4 open space preservation. We have a project located adjacent to significant open space. That is a real community asset. 2.0 9 neighborhoods as building blocks.

[171:02] And this is worthy of a quote. Projects will will encourage amenities such as views, open space creeks, irrigation ditches, and varied topography and distinctive community facilities and commercial centers that have a range of services, and that are nearby and walkable. I don't know of a project more walkable with a broader range of services nearby than this. with its proximity to the shopping center, to the south, and the other amenities to the east and southeast. 2.2 4 commitments to a walkable city. This obviously fulfills that particular goal. 2.2 6 trail corridors and links this. This creates an additional housing with excellent links to trail corridors and and other

[172:06] community links 5.0 4 vital and productive retail base. And here's another quote, the city will develop and implement a retail strategy, a retail strategy that takes into account emerging trends, such as shifting demographics and changing consumer behavior. addresses the market opportunities and shopping needs of the community and ensures an appropriate mix of retail and identifies opportunities to improve the retail base. Just opening up more retail in an area flooded with vacant retail. does does not fulfill that particular requirement, that particular goal of the Bbcp

[173:04] 6.1 9 walkable 15 min neighborhoods. So you don't have a neighborhood if you don't have people and you don't have housing, you don't have homes. As one of the speakers mentioned. This takes a if you want to talk about the character currently just to the north of this we have one. The site itself is a car dealership. Then we have an auto parts store. We have a bunch of both outdated, outmoded, and not particularly successful single level strip retail, which the Bvcp says we are not going to encourage more of. So the character that's surrounding it is. is ugly, ugly strip retail 7.1 6, minimizing displacement of of people in homes.

[174:00] We are displacing a car dealership, and I support that 7.1 1 the jobs population balance. We are replacing cars, car dealerships with housing. I finally want to say that I think it is inappropriate to hold a developer, an applicant, a developer responsible for the street cross section of 30th being built, being rebuilt as a high speed high throughput pedestrian, unfriendly street, and I know we're on the cusp of maybe someday, after many years of planning. changing from Pearl Street north to Iris. But if you look at what we just did from Pearl Street south to Walnut. We rebuilt that whole section with the Google campus and the other buildings there, and we did nothing

[175:01] to improve the street typology in that area. And that's not that's not anyone's fault. The city's fault. Also, the developer is not responsible for COVID-19, and the subsequent changes to the retail and commercial markets that this is this is something that as much time and effort went into Tvap that went into the current. Bvcp. No one anticipated. and we have to live with and deal with the outcomes of recent history. So, in answer to the questions, I think Staff did a great job supporting that. This project meets the Site Review criteria. I'm on board with the parking reduction, and I think this is consistent

[176:00] with the intent and the goals of the Transit Village area plan. Thank you for that, mark. That was great. I could go on at great length, but I will try not to, since I think my colleagues have already stated the arguments very clearly. I'll go through the issues and then talk in a little more detail. I do find that the project is consistent with Site Review criteria, including the criteria for height, modification. I think that the parking reduction is appropriate the number. The parking reduction number is appears very small, but, as the applicant explained last time, the actual requirement here is is relatively low, and so the the total amount of parking being provided is not actually, it's not out of line with other projects where we've seen a significantly greater percentage

[177:06] reduction. So I find that this is appropriate. In terms of the use review. I I find that it meets the use review criteria and and I believe well, and that that goes into then issue number 3, which is the Transit village area plan, which I think is the crux of the of really the issue here, and it's it's a conundrum for us, right as we've all seen. There are ideas and concepts and wishes and desires and urges, and so on in the Transit village area plan. And the question is, to what degree are those things binding? To what degree are they binding when they are potentially inconsistent with the actual code

[178:05] and And what does it mean when they are inconsistent with general other changes that the city has been making in terms of actual code changes to allow for increased intensity of development, reduced parking requirements, and so on. And so, as I read yet again through the Transit village area plan which actually, I was involved back in the mid 2 thousands. I was involved because I'm so old I was involved in crafting some of that and And at that time it was, as Mason said, it was a very different world. We were looking at a very different market, a very different, very different demographic predictions, a very different expectation for the way the city would change very different expectations about transit

[179:14] and and just just a really different worldview at that time than we are looking at now, almost 20 years on. And so when I, when I read the the Transit village area plan and what it talks about in terms of these prototypes for MU. 1, without stating really how a prototype is to be used when it talks about the evolution of 30th Street. the 30th Street Corridor district, and so on. To me. It doesn't feel it feels like something that is trying to evoke a particular

[180:06] general approach, and it does not feel nothing in there feels binding. There are no shells in the Transit village area plan. There are no hard specifications. It is a fairly vague and therefore unclear document, unfortunately. And so I do feel that in sum this project is consistent with the Transit Village area plan as viewed in the context of what is currently going on in the world, in the city, in our code changes and in the general context. And so I feel that it meets the the

[181:06] the requirement there, I guess, for key issue number 3, so I will be supporting the project. Great I'll try to keep my comments relatively short. I think, zooming out. this is almost. This project has been almost presented as a binary choice between a car dealership or housing. and I hear how housing support across this board I hear it from the public. What we're really talking about. or what some of us are talking about is bringing it more in line with the Tvap and the site criteria, as they're being interpreted by several board members. And that's also my position very similar to Laura and Ml. Except for the fact that I would urge my other colleagues

[182:06] say, this is not a binary decision. You can still get a lot of housing and get everything that everybody wants on this site. And so I would. You know Lupita Montoya was on this board, and she used to always say, You know, we're not the we're not the welcoming committee. We're the Planning board. We're bound by criteria. We're bound to review these things, and our role is to make these things the best they can be for Boulder and the project as presented. I don't believe, fits into that. but I believe it can, with not that many tweaks, as Laura put it. I don't think there are that many changes that would need to take place in order for it to meet the criteria that others are looking for, still get a tremendous amount of housing for boulder, and meet all the goals that everyone's trying to achieve here this evening. So put that out there as a general statement.

[183:09] I also want to make a statement on retail. because I'm very familiar with that space. I make my career on that space. I own over 20 retail sites myself and I've experienced no vacancy in any of my retail sites. And the reason why is because those retail sites are strategic in that they're experiential real estate. These are not Nordstrom's or best buys or things that are going out of business. They're not big offices. These are coffee shops, small restaurants, salons, things that can't be interneted out. And that's what we're talking about, as far as retail here is. And I would argue if we looked at a study in Boulder and actually looked at the retail spaces that were available. we would find either that they're the large spaces. or that there are spaces that the developer has created an impediment for someone to occupy that space, or maybe not creative enough incentive.

[184:06] That's not why these spaces are empty. This is an opportunity to activate this space at the ground level. I see no reason why the developer is going to make plenty of money on the apartments. The retail spaces are not a profit center here. They're an amenity both for the building and for the public. And to activate this space I very much disagree. There is not a glut of this kind of space available. It may not be available at the right price. It may not be built out in the right way, but these are all things that the developer can accomplish. That's my experience of over 20 years doing this. So if we were to go forward, I would recommend to what they said is, you know, create these. You're talking about an 800 plus square foot commercial coffee shop, plus a however many square foot co-working space that they're going to build either way except make those both open to the public and try to get some activity here. The developer will make it successful because it's in their best interest, because they've got whether they've got 1, 42 units, or whether they, whether they trim down the project to meet different things, and they get 120 units here. They're still going to need to activate those spaces and make those amenities

[185:31] as far as the parking. I'm actually surprised that my colleagues, again. the developers proposing a 6% reduction, and everyone more so than me on this board is looking for more reduction, and I think by reducing the parking by a slightly larger amount number one. Someone also said, You know, where's the transportation in the Tvp area plan? And and if we allow people to develop things that are car based, which this is still at 6% reduction. I don't know that we're really accomplishing what we want to here, but by doing that, by reducing it slightly more, you could suck in that building on that long right of way. You could create a berm. You could actually break up the building on that single floor level

[186:24] and and not not impact parking a terrible amount and also disguise that a whole lot better than as currently envisioned other things, I think my colleagues handled them elsewise. I I also believe that there should be. as I mentioned in the in the the early design Review. Greater transparency in this building. I mean, when you look at it at the north elevation, it's just a 330 foot.

[187:01] 4 story building straight across, and I think there could be better articulation there. And I think that's where you could find a compromise in that vision the 2 to 3 story vision as well as what's been done on the streetscape. And that's it. I don't need to belabor it any more than that. So that was my comment. Anyone have any additional comments? If not, if anyone wants to make a motion, we can start that process. I move to approve. Site review, application number LUR. 2024, 0, 0, 4, 7, and use review application number LUR. 2024, dash 0 0 6 5. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of the review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

[188:09] I'll second discussion. I'll just speak to the motion, and just simply say that I I have heard and understand fellow Board members concerns and respect those, and I hope that you have come with concise, actionable conditions to that might manifest those, because otherwise it is a binary decision and a vote of this particular language. So if anyone has amendments, I'm curious. I do and can offer them at the appropriate time.

[189:06] And thank you for that invitation. Mark. Okay, so I will speak and say, you know, I think George characterized it right that we all support housing at this site, and for those of us who have objections to the project. It literally is about the quasi judicial function of trying to make it very clearly meet our site review criteria, including consistency with the area plan. And I will just note that we are having pushback even on the East Boulder subcommunity plan, which was literally just adopted. And we are seeing developers that like to develop residential and don't want to add commercial, or they like to develop industrial and commercial, and they don't want to add residential, or they object to adding a production, business space, or whatever the requirement is of that plan that they don't want to follow. They're pushing back, and I'm very hesitant to set a precedent. That

[190:01] area plans are simply advisory and visionary, and they don't really have any practical application by this board. I think they do so with that with that context. And and I agree, we need to have more conversation about, do they at some point age out or expire? Or is there some demising of how seriously we apply what's in the plan based on the age of the plan? I think that's perfectly appropriate. And I hope we discuss that during our retreat. Okay, so, I want to ask Staff, do you have the precise language that we talked about on February 18th regarding sump principles and legibility of the doors along 30th Street, because I would add those again as amendments, and just to clarify the sump was to strike the where? Feasible. Yes. we had agreed upon language for that, and voted on it, and it was approved on February 18th by a majority of the Board, and I would like to propose the same language that we used last time. I don't have that right now, but I could probably try to track that down. Okay.

[191:03] There were 2. There was one on some principles that was affirmed by the board, and one on the legibility of the doors. I don't expect either of those to be controversial. So if we could just get that language, that'd be great. I move. So this is a different one. While we're looking those up. I would add, I move to amend that along 30th Street 50% of the at least 50% of the frontage be used for commercial uses that are open to the public. and I think that that is consistent with what the applicant has proposed with opening that coworking space to the public. Can I just add something in there? If that's okay, I just want to make sure that we get that approved. Do we need to have that approved at tech talk. Do you think if we have the? So there's 50% of the frontage on commercial or should be used for commercial. Do we need to have that confirmed. Or is that okay? To just add that as an amendment.

[192:02] I think we could probably put a timing requirement for tech Doc that way, just to make sure that just it's consistent they make is approved by staff at tech talk. Is that okay? If we do that. what? What's the wording you want to add as approved by staff at tech, Doc, just add a timing requirement, for when they need to demonstrate the consistency. Yeah. so you could say at time of tech, Doc, okay, so how about this? Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. I move that at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public as approved by staff at the time of tech doc question, Laura. Yes, we heard from the applicant that if we were to approve a condition like this, that they would like something attached to it, reducing further reducing the parking requirement. Okay, is that something that you are willing to add to this. Yes.

[193:00] I will. I thank you for that friendly amendment. Claudia. Yeah. yeah, we would be increasing. The parking reduction is how we would phrase that. okay, so I move that at least, and I can send this to Thomas. I move that at least 50% of the frontage along 30th Street be commercial uses open to the public as approved by staff at the time of tech doc and modifying the parking reduction percentage as appropriate. Or, second. would you like me to speak to the amendment real quick? I'll just say I think this is consistent with what the applicant has proposed. I think it's minimal burden. They're planning to construct that coworking space. Anyway, this is really just about allowing the neighborhood to use it, which is a minimal burden, and does provide a service and convenience to the neighborhood, and is more in character with the 30th Street as a main street business area with neighborhood serving uses

[194:05] any other discussion, or should we vote on that one? Can I just confirm with the applicant that that statement was true. That's minimum burger burden. They've offered it as their as as they said, they were fine with it. Yeah, I remember them saying it was fine with it. I remember them saying it was just making it open to the public, or if it would actually change if you if you want to. Yes, I think we offered that just to make it a commercial space, and then that not entirely sure what the question is. But the idea is to make a commercial space. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. The question was, is it? I feel like what you just said, Lord, which tell me if I'm wrong, is that really this change is just about making it open to the public. Yeah, yes, because if it's open to the public, then it meets the definition of commercial space under the code. I think that's the intent, and that's fine with with us.

[195:03] Thank you, Mason. Thank you, Bill. Any other questions. Take a vote, Mason. Yes, Claudia. Yes, mark. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm yes as well. Okay. Next amendment, Laura. Do we have the wording from those 2 previous amendments? Not at this moment, but working on it. Okay, all right. So this one may not get the support. But let's try it. I move that the let me wait. Let me write it out 1st before I, rather than trying to catch up after I say it. Give me just 30 seconds

[196:10] while she's typing. Can I ask a question, Allison, do you know if 50%, which would be the coffee shop and the work area of the remaining area, the other 50% is that primarily lobby and entry. or there are other things I would believe it'd be the lobby. Maybe some like the mail room. So there's some offices in there. Yeah, some offices. So they'd be administration entry and administrative things. There's there's not like a a workout, no other correct.

[197:40] Okay? I move that 25% of the elevated courtyard along the south frontage be lowered to ground level to provide gathering space for building users to comply with the additional requirements for height modification as approved by Staff at the time of tech Doc, with any appropriate changes to the parking modification.

[198:02] And I think that. Well, let's see if it gets a second, and then I can comment on why. I'll second that. And I heard you say that you're seconding it so we can have a conversation which I appreciate. Maybe maybe this needs some friendly amendments, or maybe it's not going to fly. But the reason why I'm saying this is, I think, that it does. It does 3 things that I think are desirable. Yeah. And I will also send it to Thomas, and I'm open to modifications to this, if it's not quite right, but it's close or something like that, and maybe it will, or maybe it won't get board support. But I'll talk about why, why, I'm proposing this. So I've just sent it to Thomas, and hopefully it can get popped up quickly. But it says, I move that 25% of the elevated courtyard along the south frontage be lowered to ground level to provide gathering space for building users to comply with the additional requirements for height, modification, as approved by Staff at the time of tech Doc, with any appropriate changes to the parking modification.

[199:05] So the reason why I'm saying this is one. It would actually provide a functional courtyard at ground level, which is what one of our requirements for height modifications. 2. It would remove that wall, that unbroken frontage of a building that is either 4 stories tall or one story tall. That's 300 feet along the Goose Creek path which is in conflict with the idea of having no frontages that are more than 200 feet long and 3. It also, as George pointed out, it probably would have some consequences for the number of parking spaces. and as all of you have pointed out, and rightly so, this is along a transit corridor, even though we don't have Boulder Junction, 30th Street is one of our best bus corridors. It has, you know, plans to make it much more pedestrian and bike friendly it is in the heart of some of our shopping districts. I'm on this part of town all the time.

[200:08] It's extremely walkable, right? And so, if there are places in town where people can live without a car, this is one of them, and it sounds like the applicants desire to have a 1 to one parking ratio is more driven by their desire to use a certain lender that has that that desire. And I'm not. I'm not a developer. I don't know how binding that is, if they could find a different lender. But certainly there are plenty of developments in town that do not have a 1 to one parking ratio for all of their units. And, as you've all pointed out, this is a great place for walkability, bikeability, excellent bike score, excellent walk score. And, as George pointed out, you know, we're not trying to encourage a lot of parking here. We're trying to encourage a walkable 15 min neighborhood. So I think this helps us meet our criteria in several aspects. and it also makes me much more comfortable about the repeatability, defensibility, and consistency that we can provide as a board with applying our criteria.

[201:07] I speak to that, too, because I I think that's an interesting amendment. I'm also looking at the the ground floor plan, which shows the parking. And so, just for everyone to think about parking deck only, or the the deck that Laura is talking about reducing by 25%. does not cover 25% of the covered parking right? The covered parking is significantly more than that, because the whole back of the building also has parking under it. So the reduction that you're talking about I don't know exactly what number of spaces. but it's less than what it sounds like. That you're talking about. So I'm I'm in. I'm in general support with that to to try to to try to get to a place that gets us comfortable.

[202:01] and I don't know if 25% is the right number, right? I put it out there for us to discuss and think about and try to test the feasibility of. So I understand you are trying to get this more in compliance with the literal code. Laura. I'm not going to accept this amendment for 2 reasons, I will be voting against it. 1st of all, I think it results in lower quality, open space for the residents of this building. It does that by breaking up what is currently a fairly large contiguous area of open space. It also, by lowering it down to the ground creates more shadow effects potentially from the surrounding buildings. I think that's 1 thing that actually works out quite nicely about the courtyard as proposed is, if you start to look at views and shadows around it, it only has 3 stories presenting above it as opposed to that 4th story. So when you drop it down, you actually create some effects more of a canyon type effect

[203:07] which I think they're avoiding in the current design. I also think if you lower that portion of that courtyard and open space, you actually make that less accessible to most of the residents of this building as designed. So the way we've designed that they have designed this. Currently. that second story of residences is essentially at ground level relative to that courtyard. There are only those that one row of residences on the ground floor on the west side that are at that same elevation. Everything else is, in fact, up higher, and so I think it is a more usable space to those folks if they have direct access to it. So I will not be supporting this. neither will I thank you, Claudia, for that, because it summed up most of what I had to say. I will point out in addition that let's just say you take

[204:02] the depth of the current deck community area, which is highly functional open space. And you dropped a strip of 25% of that depth down to ground level that does not make it into a public park that does not make it publicly accessible. It reduces the security and most likely due to market demand, etc. The developer will fence it. So now you have a fenced, less accessible strip at ground level that does diminish both the access for those with accessibility needs and just the usability. And again. functional usable open space is so much more important to me than

[205:02] quantity of of general open space. It's how much real functional, usable open space for gathering for building community is present. So I won't be supporting it either. No, we vote yeah, you ready, Mason. No, plenty of no, no, I'm a no, yes. sorry. I'm a no, I'm a null. Are you folks ready? Yes, we have the language, and I think Thomas has them up on the slides.

[206:00] and we do recommend that 1st one have, like, tech Doc, some sort of timing requirement. Okay. I move to amend the main motion to require that the architecture clearly identify the entrances along 30th Street to the satisfaction of Staff at the time of Tech. Doc. I'll second this. should we go to a vote? Do they want to have any discussion on this? We covered this once before? No, seeing Mason, you have a I just have a question it it sounded to me when this was brought up by the the applicant that this was something that was normally developed at a later time. And that is this. So I'm wondering what impact this has. Well, they're saying at the time of tech, doc. So so it's up to staff. And and actually they they went a little further along already in what they. So I think it's not. My gut is a non-issue. I'm ready to do. But okay, yeah. Mason. Yes, Claudia.

[207:04] Yes, Mark. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. okay, thank you. And I move that the application be amended, so that some principles are required for all parking, and the language, where possible, is stricken from the Tdm. Plan, I'll second any discussion, seeing none. Mason. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Mark. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes. Who seconded that? Thank you. Please send it. Yeah. I will make one more motion which may or may not pass, but I feel it's my duty. I move that the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories to better align with the 30th Street character district in the Tvap plan and align with the sub community plan as required by site review criteria.

[208:10] I'll second that can I speak to that a little bit because I think that addresses it doesn't get me all the way there, but it gets me to be able to support the project in general, whereas I don't know if I'll be able to support it outside of that. because it gets some more articulation of the massing of the building, which I think is super important. I think it aligns more with tbap. I think it. I think it's a i think it's a it's a it's an olive branch of a compromise to get this board a little bit more aligned on this project. and I do not believe it takes out that many units in order to do that. And so, with all that being said, that's why I would support that. I have a question for the motion makers.

[209:02] Your your motion is to make it 3 story along the length of the 30th street. Do you have any ability to define how far to the west that that one story reduction? Is it 5 feet? Is it 50 feet? That's a great question. Can we pull up the site plan for that top floor. Break it at that point. There's a there's a clearly defined wing. right? That we, the building's really talked about in 3 wings. So it's it's I you're making the motion. I would assume it would be the can I? Can I ask a staff a question if we can pull up the diagram of those that shows the top floor with those wings that George is talking about. Yeah, I I might. And I am. I correct to assume that it's just the front portion of that wing from the hallway out. That is the

[210:03] glazed retail spaces on the if it were the 1st floor. How how deep are those commercial spaces? Do they occupy that whole wing, or do they just occupy the front portion of that wing? It looks like it aligns on the ground floor with that commercial? Yeah, I know. But if it were, if it were the ground floor. it looks like that hallway. Are you talking about where this hallway is. That hallway is where the commercial spaces break corner of the restaurant? Oh, there we go, and maybe maybe you don't break it on that whole wing. It looks like it's about where that hallway is, but by the front bill might be able to clarify. There, right I would. I will put this out for my colleagues for the purpose of this amendment.

[211:04] I'm not sure that it needs to be that whole wing, that whole easternmost section of the building. If you think of it in 3 parts, as George was talking about. I would say, probably for the depth of those commercial spaces. That's the portion that I would want to see lowered to 3 stories. So you're only taking out how many units is that on the top top floor. I think it. I think it was 6 when I was counting about 6, 6 or 7 units. Yeah, 7 7 units. Yeah. And that would help it. One of those is the stairway 5. So I think it's 6. So it'd be 6 residential units, and that would help break up the massing and make it be more in line with the Tvap plan, and would not be unusual for what we see when buildings are trying to have varied heights and roof lines and break up their massing. Okay, can I ask a question? Would you also require, then, the stairway

[212:10] that stairwell to be lower? Because then I'm not sure it provides access to that top. Yeah, I wouldn't. I'm not concerned about that. I would. I would think that it would be approximately the depth of those commercial units. If they need to keep where the stairwell is. If they need to keep the stairwell, they can keep the stairwell. I'm not super concerned about the stairwell. I'm more concerned about, how does the building appear from 30th Street in line with the 30th Street Character district trying to think of how that impacts the roof articulation. Yeah, can we see that east. the east elevation drawing? Yeah. So it would just drop the front of the top portion. So some of it would still be 4 stories high on that wing, but the the front layer, the very top floor, would be lowered.

[213:05] I do you I would think we'd want to maintain the gabled roof detail and not make it. I just want to make sure we don't make a flat roof if you're okay with something like that, I can add that as a friendly amendment. Yeah, my question just briefly is how you want to incorporate this as an amendment or defer to Staff, or how exactly you want to do that. So I can. I'll send language to Thomas perfect. Thank you. I'm so okay. I'm I'm opposed to this, and I think we have to ask the question. to whose benefit to lose 6 units, 7 units, whatever it might be. To whose benefit is it to the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk in front of the cafe? They can't see the step back. is it? To the Resident driving in along the access alley into the underground parking.

[214:08] Well, it's a is call it 20 feet of that wing. So it's a little L. Step down to. How does that benefit them? Is it to a benefit to the 3 story units across 30th Street to their top floor residents? No, they're far enough away. They still see the mountains, whether you step it down for 5 feet, 15 feet, 30 feet. to whose benefit I can't think of anyone, and I think it presents a odd design challenge, and it loses units without without any benefit to anyone I can think of.

[215:00] You know, one of the one of the relationships that I think is missing from this building is its relationship to the to the bigger patterns in the neighborhood, and so to whose benefit it's to the benefit of This is an auto centric area, and that will be very noticed by people coming and going in their cars. I think people on the opposite side of the street. Anybody who looks across the site is going to recognize that this scale of the building feels different than the East Side. It's not as big, it's not as massive. It's not as imposing. And I think that that is a perceivable benefit that people will be able to recognize that. Yes, there is a difference between the west side of 30th and the east side of 30.th A lot of people were pretty surprised at the scale of the buildings on the east side of 30th Street.

[216:19] and you know that didn't compound with we're losing any views or potential for views because there aren't views. Looking to the east, however, looking to the west, people are used to wanting to see some layers and something happening. And so I think that this is an excellent compromise to be able to start speaking to the patterns of the scale and the massing of what's going on on 30th Street. and to begin to integrate some of the intentions of of Tvap. And I do think it would start to satisfy those needs and put me in a position to be

[217:03] more amenable to approving the project. and I'll just, I think that's a great question, Mark, and I'm glad you put it that way. I hadn't really thought about it. When I answer that question of who benefits? I think there is a benefit to the community from having some integrity in how we interpret our area plans. An area plan is an expectation that the community has. And usually, when I hear people say, Oh, the planning board is running roughshod over the rules, and they're granting all these favors and all these exemptions, or that Council is doing the same thing. I feel confident that. No, we haven't done that, that we have faithfully applied the plans and the rules that we have. And so, you know, I go back to what I said last time, is that whether I like it or not, this is the plan that we have. and I do feel that just like a judge has a has an obligation to uphold the law, even if it results in a suboptimal outcome. In one case, that upholding the integrity of the process and the general principle has a lot of value for the community to rely on, that. Judges are going to be fair, and we're not just going to substitute our own opinions for the plans and the rules that we have.

[218:13] So that's that's my main motivation. I do think that this would be a better project if the applicant had simply taken a denial and gone back and redesigned it a little bit better. But we've got what we've got. I think this board is going to approve it. So I'm doing what I can to at least propose what I think would bring this project into alignment in a way that would make me more comfortable voting. Yes. okay. So I'm going to oppose this amendment for a couple of reasons. 1st of all, I'm incredibly uncomfortable with us as a board trying to do this kind of architectural redesign here on the dais. I don't think that's appropriate for any building given most of our levels of professional expertise. A couple of other reasons as well. I think the 4 stories here given the context of 30th Street as a 5 lane across street is actually very appropriate framing to create the kind of pedestrian environment that we are looking for on the street. Strong framing

[219:11] is a tenant of an urban feel that is part of what tvap has been trying to do in this area. And I think that framing is consistent. Relatedly, wedding cake type step backs is not consistent with any of the forms that have been proposed here in the Tvp area. And if we want to talk about building form and being consistent with building prototypes that have been proposed in this area. Height is not the only variable that we're dealing with here, and so you can tweak height on some level that also creates other changes in building form. And there's not things in our building prototypes in this area that are specifically embracing of those kinds of setbacks as well. I think there's some strong precedent here in this area of Tvap for that strong framing along the street. So I'm not going to be supporting this

[220:08] one else want to discuss anything. Otherwise I think we should vote. I think we probably need to modify the language just to specify the depth. So I'm going to Thomas. Maybe you want to make this change on the fly. No more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the commercial spaces on the ground floor. or maybe, rather than saying the commercial spaces saying, the the street front spaces on the ground floor. because not all of them are commercial. So the street front.

[221:02] Yeah, I think it's assumed that it's the 30th Street frontage. So the 30th Street frontage be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth, with the street frontage street front spaces on the ground floor, maintaining the gabled roof form in order to align with the 30th Street Character District and the Site Review criterion that the project align with this subcommunity plan as approved by Staff at the time of tech, Doc. There's something not quite right in there while you're looking at that, is it? Okay? If we change the last as approved by Staff to say to the satisfaction of staff, just to mirror the other conditions to the satisfaction of staff at the time of technical, the satisfaction of staff at the time. Yeah, thank you. Just to be consistent there. And I think I seconded that before. So I'll just second that now. So that chair would it be appropriate to ask the applicant what impact this would have on the project. I don't think so, because I don't think that they really would would know without more more detailed study of it. So I don't know that

[222:08] that's really going to benefit us. If you want my opinion, I don't think it matters at the end of the day I think the project will still go forward one way or the other. That would be my! We'll see. Let's go reverse order. Kurt. No. Ml, yes, Laura. Yes. Oh, I don't think you're on. Yes, Mark. No, Claudia, no Mason. I'm really struggling with this, but I think I'm I think I'm moved to vote. Yes. and I'm a yes as well.

[223:00] Yeah, I was just counting. That's 4. So that passes, although they can still appeal to city council if they want to. Kurt. Hey. yeah, I have an amendment. I've just been looking at this, and sorry I didn't comment on this last one, and I'm still thinking about what it would mean in terms of the architecture. I think that it would result in a very strange. Are you commenting over what we've already passed. I'm about to propose an amendment. Okay? Because we've already. We've already the ship has sailed. I understand he can move to amend the amendment. Yes, and if he doesn't, I will. And so I propose to amend the amendment which is to change the this to apply just to the south, east. Yeah, the southeast

[224:01] element, the with the the. It's the flat roof section at the southeast corner, which I think I'm not an architect, but to me it feels like dropping. That would be an easier and more appropriate way to do this than to drop that entire gable section. Half of it. I think that that would to me that would produce a really weird design. And so I just want to propose amending this to apply only to the element south of the stairwell. the southeast corner section south of the stairwell. Are you proposing that for the whole southeast corner, or just the street frontage part of it. Just the street frontage portion.

[225:05] That would mean you'd be losing a one to 2 units 2. It looks to me. Yeah, I'll second that motion. I'm sorry. I think we need a more clearly stated yes, okay, Kurt. so I would amend this to change the street. The 30th Street frontage to read the 30th Street frontage south of the stairwell.

[226:04] Is that clear enough for the Board? Clear enough for me? I'll second it. I think you would need to add the consistent depth with the street front spaces, if that's what you're intending to mirror the language on top there. So it would read the 30th Street frontage south of the stairwell. Be no more than 3 stories for at least a consistent depth with the street front spaces. Okay, I see what you're saying, Okay, Gotcha, yeah, you're just amending that one phrase correct. You seconded. Guess my question to you, Kurt, is what you're what are you trying to accomplish there, because I don't. I don't see it. I mean, I'm looking at the east elevation

[227:00] and dropping that down doesn't really have much of an impact visually to me. So the question is, what are you trying to accomplish? I'm trying to avoid totally weird architecture, which is, I think, the result of this with no do no disrespect. I think it would. It would just. It would result in a very strange looking building, really. And so, yeah, and so I'm trying to avoid that, whereas, reducing the height of the flat roof section that to me feels appropriate. In fact, there's there's already a module on the West end of this same section. That's at 3 stories. I think it's the appreciate what you're trying to do. I disagree. I don't think I think I think we've got some skilled architects in the room. I'm sure they can figure it out. But on top of that I think what Laura's amendment was trying to do was trying to make it defensible that it's meeting to her point. You can look at the public in the eye. This city has spent a tremendous amount of money and effort consultants city time, public time going through this process. And we're trying to get to a place where we're not turning our back on all of that.

[228:19] and so respectfully, I think that's what her her amendment. I would like to take it much further. I'm trying to get to a place that I can at least get comfortable, that I can look at someone from the public and say we've respected the process that this city has gone through, and the way I read it. I don't think this accomplishes any of that. I mean at that point you might as well just leave the building as is because I don't think it accomplishes at least that to me. But that that's my perspective mark. I think this is an interesting discussion. Because if you are trying, if your goal is to is because you believe that the area plan is on par with code and zoning.

[229:07] And the area plan says 2 to 3 stories, and hence hence it is on par with code and zoning. Then you would vote against the project, regardless without regard to whether you step back 6 units worth 2 units worth you would you would vote no on the project, because you disagree with Staff's analysis. That says this project is eligible for a height, an exemption in height, and to pay the cash in lieu, and to provide the community benefit of this, the 4th floor. So either either we are practicing architecture at the dais and bending the rules as you see them.

[230:02] from the rules provided by the area plan or the fact that the area plan is a guiding document and is not on par with zoning and code. Then this whole, this whole exercise is wrong. I have to respond to that mark. I really appreciate where you're coming from, and and I agree we shouldn't be practicing architecture from the dais. But we have what we have, which is a project that's about to be approved, that we're trying to do what we can to make it consistent. And I will state again, and I know you've heard me. But I'm going to state again. I reject the framing that the area plan is on par with zoning and code. Clearly it is not. But the Site Review criteria, which is a discretionary decision, says that in order to approve a height exemption, the building must be consistent with the area plan, and I cannot with a straight face say that this is consistent with the 30th Street corridor district, without at least making some modifications to this 4 story height.

[231:04] to bring it more in alignment with a 3 story building along 30th Street, which is what the 30th Street Corridor plan is concerned with. So I appreciate your interpretation. But I'm going to strenuously disagree that it has to be all or nothing. I think for me this satisfies the criterion of consistency. Other comments should we vote? Kirk? Yes, ML. No. Laura, no mark. Yes, Claudia. Yes, Mason, no. And I'm a no. Yeah. The motion passes. 4, 3. Oh, it fails, it fails. Sorry. Sorry it fails. 4, 3.

[232:09] I'm going to ask a fellow board member a question. Yeah. I have a feeling. It's me. Yeah. Do you regret your vote on the prior motion to reduce? Hey, mark, Mark, I think this is totally out of order to be pressing to be pressing board members on their votes, fines out of order. I have a motion. Go ahead. I move to restore the the 30th street frontage to 4 stories. Laurel, is this appropriate? This feels like relitigating the 2 motions that we just discussed?

[233:03] Is it appropriate to once again make a motion on this. I'm not going to opine on appropriateness necessarily, but I think for this it has already been moved and voted upon, so I'm not sure if this is a slightly different motion, maybe we could consider that. But we have already voted upon this motion. But you can. I've made a motion. Is there a second Mega mushroom. Second is your motion up there. I will say, as my purview of chair, I think we're stepping into really dangerous territory. and I think this is bad precedent for the board. You know this is a collegial atmosphere. People are making amendments. They're voted upon, whether they fail or whether they pass. I think there has to be a level of acceptance and and ability to move on.

[234:12] I think coming out and pressing board members on their votes or relitigating things as I believe this amendment is doing, I don't think is terribly appropriate. You're welcome to make the amendment, and you have, and you have a second, we'll vote on it. But I really caution the Board that we should not be doing this type of stuff. and I'll simply say that. Yes, we are in dangerous territory here. and it is dangerous territory in terms of designing from the dais and from I think, shortchanging the actual impact that some of our motions have. So that's I've spoken to the motion. The chair may call a vote.

[235:03] Sure you can speak to it. I'll just speak briefly that this is not the 1st time that we have asked for a change to architecture, whether that is to lower the. We did this with the parking garage at Alpine balsam. We made a similar motion for the millennium to alter the street frontage and lower it along 30th Street. Saint Julian, Saint Julian, we added a rooftop deck. I think that this is, you know I said it before. I think that this would be a better architecturally designed project if the applicant and it's still the applicant's right to say, Hey, we don't want to build it the way that you approved it. We're going to go away and do another site Review, and come back with a better design that we think meets your intent, and that you can approve. But my goal is to say. to be consistent with the criteria. Here's what we think needs to happen, and I do think that they could go away and come back with a better design, and, in fact, I hope they do that, so I'll stop there

[236:02] all right. Should we take a vote? I'll start with Mason. No, Claudia. Yes, Mark. Yes, Laura. No, Ml, no kirk. Yes, and I am a no. I thank the Board for indulging my second motion. Thank you. Okay. Other amendments. Should we go to the main motion while you're going to the main motion? I did want to say that we looked up Robert's rules back here, and you are allowed to revote on the same motion if it is a rescission or an amendment to the previous motion. So that's how that works. I'm sorry if it is a what or a what a rescission or an amendment! So rescission! What's a rescission kind of like rescinding sorry, rescinding, not a rescission rescinding sorry, different form. But so if you change the motion slightly, you're allowed to vote on it. I appreciate that that's in Robert's rules. I still caution the Board. I think it creates a

[237:11] a possible negative environment for this board to be relitigating motions. Whether you win or lose. we got to be able to move forward and move together. Can I just ask Laurel a question, a legal question? What happens if the Board votes one way on the motion, and then they revote and vote another way. That's why you phrased it. It's like an amendment, or you rescind the previous motion. So if you were to change your mind. Say, if somebody were to change their mind, then you could rescind the previous motion. Gotcha. Okay? Noted for the future. That's very helpful. Thank you same exact thing over and over again. because it's weird to have 2 contradictory emotions that both pass. I think it's I'll comment one more thing on that I think it's that's it's an interesting idea. My gut would be that that probably likely stems from someone making a mistake or misinterpreting a motion or motion not being worded properly, and people needing to readjust it, not necessarily relitigating the same motion. So that would be my gut of interpretation, of why something like that exists. Not that it's to do this endless back and forth.

[238:19] So I'll put that out there as as a potential reason for why that's there which is not the way it was used this evening. Should we go to the main motion? Does anyone want to read it? Who? Who? Who who made the motion. I made the main motion. Okay? And who seconded it? Kurt seconded it any further discussion. Shall we vote when you reread the motion? Since there's several amendments you could say great in addition to planning boards. Sure. So

[239:00] motion to approve. Site review application number LUR. 2024 0 0 4, 7 as amended. Oh, you've got it. You've got it. Okay, fine. You've got it there. Okay, sorry I was. I was trying to insert it earlier. Okay, 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 as amended below. Do you want me to read? Is it necessary to read the amendments that we just adopted. You could say as amended by the planning board, okay, yeah, that we got that. Okay? And does someone want to second that officially. it's already seconded. Okay, okay, let's vote. Kurt.

[240:05] Yes. Ml, yes, Laura, I will vote. Yes, as amended Mark. Yes, Claudia, yes, Mason, yes, and I am a yes, as amended as well. That, concludes this public hearing. we'll be moving on to matters. Thank you to the applicant and staff for your presentations appreciate it. Oh, Brad, can I look to you for any matters to discuss, if any. What is that? The retreat? Yeah.

[241:00] Sorry I don't have. Yes, you may look to me. Look all you like, Prack Mueller planning and development services. Actually, I think Charles was going to talk a little bit about the the retreat. Oh, hey, Charles, I don't have anything to add beyond that other than comp plan. Stuff keeps coming. So we're going to keep loading you up with information. Lots of good outreach continues. etc, etc. Please keep plugged into the up a boulderfuture.org website, and hopefully you've signed up for the newsletters and the calendar. Lots of excitement there. Charles Great. Well, thanks so much. Good evening. Planning board members. Just a real quick update. Wanted to thank everybody for the emails that have come in on suggestions for retreat topics. So our hope is to get a draft agenda out to you guys sometime next week. and if there's discussion that we want to have at our meeting of should just close my calendar.

[242:08] thinking we might be able to discuss it at the meeting on April first.st If there's any changes or amendments that need to be made before the retreat on the 20 second. So if that sounds all right, Brad and I will continue to work on the draft Sounds good to me. Any discussion, Mark. I know you put out a big email around that. That was Kurt. It was Kurt, you, yeah, but, we're anxious to see your your proposal. Yes, and hopefully it will take into consideration our proposals as well. I did have one question for Brad, you responded to one of these suggestions regarding the cip, and you said that planning board has no purview over budgetary matters, or something like that which obviously is true. However, there is a provision in the Boulder charter that says that the Planning Board shall review all.

[243:15] I forget what the term is, but basically all public improvements. And so my understanding is, that's why we why, the cip comes to us in the 1st place. And so I don't think that it's something that can just be removed. So really, my my notion in bringing this forward was to try to figure out, well, how do we deal with this, either. The charter should be amended to get rid of this if if it if planning board really is not going to have a a practical role in reviewing the cip, or if this charter provision is to remain, then

[244:00] it feels like the mechanism needs to change somehow, to make it more, to to be able to for us to provide more useful. Input I recognize what you're saying. I'm realizing as we're talking, that I was thinking budget, when that was there not? Cip you? You are correct. We do have a traditional role in the cip that falls in Christopher Johnson's realm. And traditionally. there. There's been, you know, a function there, and I don't remember how we've historically brought that to the board. So thanks for keeping me honest on that. I was. I was just thinking of the wrong thing when I responded on that. Charles, it's not just Charles and I, but but Christopher is also helping with that draft. So we'll get that figured out in that context. Sorry about that. Trying to do too many things this afternoon, Brad. Am I understanding that the process that you all are proposing is that

[245:04] You look at this list and see but what is actually feasible to get somebody there to talk about these things, timing wise and all. And then next week, we or next April 1st we vote on it. Yeah, process is probably a little bit of an elevated term. It's just we're putting a draft together of an agenda, and you know you'll all get it, and we'll talk about it. And so, you know, putting that into a form and thinking about timing and all that. Okay, are you thinking that these 7 items will be on it? And then we'll just vote, and to see what we have the ability to accomplish in the amount of time. Or how does how does how do these 7 items get integrated into the next step again. I don't. I don't know that it'll be that formal of voting and all that, but of course that's up to the chair. There were a few of those that didn't feel like they needed a whole agenda item, and that was part of the reason for my response. But of course we can talk through that. Okay, I'm thinking it. I'm overthinking it. I'm all about less formality when we don't have to do that. Thank you, Brad. So the plan is just to summarize it you got will be presented back in an email. Yeah, you're going to get an email with the draft, and then we'll discuss it at our next board meeting on April first, st

[246:18] and we'll point out that's April Fool, so we won't be able to take any of what you say at face value. So you'll need to. What if we present an interpretive dance? That's always welcome. All right, Laura. So I, just in response to the email that was going around. I just wanted to clarify. I think I'm the one who proposed Number 6 similarities and distinctions between quasi-judicial process and negotiation. One of the things I'd really like for the Board to to think about, to have put in front of us, and to have a discussion about is some of the unconscious norms of negotiation that we may be trying to take into a quasi-judicial process, that you know things like the idea of horse trading or compromise towards the middle or

[247:09] brinksmanship, or where people propose something outlandish, and hope that your other board members will feel compelled to fall into line on something more moderate. We don't want to be doing that right. And so, but I think that those are things that are quite normal in everyday negotiation, that we may experience in our lives. And I think we want to consciously like, name those patterns and avoid them in our in our board discussion. Yeah, that's I think that's good elaboration. I would kind of put that into the broader personally into. And we can talk about this into the broader category of norming and kind of the board self regulating or self-governing itself. I agree with that. I just feel like that might be a and I don't know if the other. My other board members have thoughts about that, but I think that it might be useful for us to think very deliberately around norms of negotiation that we don't want to bring into this boardroom.

[248:07] Laura, can I ask question? Thank you. Because when I read this so 1st of all, I was trying to summarize what you had put, which was much more extensive and more articulate, and so I apologize for any lack of clarity there. But When I was reading what you had written before my interpretation was, you were also thinking in terms of how we interact with applicants. Is that was that also part of it, because sometimes applicants will regard this sort of as a negotiation as well. Yes. And so, okay, yes, not just with each other, but also with applicants.

[249:01] Anything else. Nope, just as Charles, I'm happy to answer your questions, Mark. So I I've been pondering the last few minutes our little final exchange, and I want to comment on it for a second. I first, st I I agree with you. I think I was out of line to turn to Mason, and ask if he regretted that vote. That was not procedurally an item. and and I apologize for that. Now, having said that I am a fan of comity and respect amongst board members, and I think this Board has this just in abundance, and The right thing to do would have been to simply make a motion, which I ultimately did, but

[250:02] on the heels of something that that wasn't part of our procedure. So, anyway, I am all in favor of rigor and procedure, and I think this board has upped its game in rigor of procedure in this last year or more, and I'm glad we have, and I violated that in that in that moment. But I would have made the motion regardless. because that falls within the bounds of procedure that we have adopted as our rules of order. So and I'll just say you didn't hurt my feelings. We're good. You gotta do better than that. And honestly, I feel like it's not wrong to ask a board member to explain their vote like I didn't really speak to my vote at all. I don't.

[251:03] You could probably do it in a different way. But I think it's reasonable to ask people to explain explain their thought process. And I'll just point out we did have a case where someone voted one way in a straw poll and a different way in the actual vote. So I think it's appropriate for people to listen to each other and change their minds if they're persuaded. I appreciate your comments, Mark. Thank you with all that being said and collegial board who Kumbayade and ultimately voted 7 7. We adjourn this meeting. Let's take it to the parking lot