June 3, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] City of Boulder planning board meeting to order, and we have our usual next item of public participation. But before we go there I'm going to turn it over to Brad for just a second to introduce one of one of our new staff members. Yes, good evening. Planning board members. Thank you for being here this evening. I'm Brad Mueller, the director of Planning and Development services. and wanted to take a moment to introduce, reintroduce Dashana Zazuetta, whose last name I'm realizing. I haven't had to say many times in the past. So hopefully, I'm saying it correctly. But Deshawn has been shadowing Laurel and Hela. I don't know if shattering is the right word, but accompanying them at some of the previous meetings. But she's here in full force tonight and representing us, and we're super happy to have her here. I think it's the 1st time in person. Right?

[1:05] I think you have to push the button there. Yeah, on. It is my 1st time in person. Happy to be here, and that's a good pronunciation of my last name. It is Sasweeta Sasweeta. There you go. Okay, well, so we are ably represented again this evening. So thank you. Welcome to Shauna. First.st Good meeting for 1st time out in person. I think so. All right. I'll just simply note that we have 6 out of our 7 members with us tonight, 3 online, 3 here in the room and and planning board. Member Nordbach is absent. Our next item of business agenda. Item 2, as always, is public participation, and

[2:00] Vivian will walk us through our rules of community engagement, and we'll go from there. Vivian. Thank you. Chair and Thomas, I'll pull up the slides. Good evening. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge. I'm on the city's engagement team, and, as Mark mentioned, I'll just walk us through some of the rules of public engagement. I understand we don't have anyone from the public in person. We do have one person online. So it's good to read. These cities, engage with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And the vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives and for more information about this vision and the process to develop the vision. You can see more on our website next slide. And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum from the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support the productive atmosphere's vision, and all of these will be upheld. During this meeting

[3:07] all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants in open comment and public hearing identify themselves by 1st and last name. Next slide, please. and to raise your hand. If you're joining us online, you can use the icon at the bottom of the screen, which you can also get to from the reactions menu. And if you're joining us by phone, you can raise your virtual hand by dialing Star 9, and if you're in person you can sign up with Thomas, who's in the room. So those are the rules. I'll just wait and see if anybody would like to speak for open comment, which is meant to be a part of the meeting where members of the public can share comments not related to the public hearing item on this evening's agenda.

[4:19] and it seems like we don't have anybody here for open comment over to chair. Thank you, Vivian. So, Thomas, we have no one in the room for public participation outside of, do we? You're you're saying, no, okay. unless any of these folks are wanting to give some comment for open comment. I assume they were all with the applicant team. Right? Thank you. Okay, that closes public participation. We do not have any dispositions. Planning board call ups or continuations tonight, so that moves us on to our public hearing items. Agenda. Item 4, a, which is

[5:04] a concept, plan and review and comment. Request for a proposed redevelopment of 7 lots, totaling 2.9 4 acres at 2955, 2969, and 2995 baseline road, and 7, 35, through 7, 75, 30th Street. All existing buildings are proposed to be demolished, and 2, 4 to 5 story. Multifamily student housing buildings. with a total of 100 units, are proposed. The proposal would include rezoning the properties at 7, 65, and 7, 75, 30th street, from RM. 2 to RH. 5. Reviewed under case number LUR. 2025 dash 0 0 1, 2.

[6:00] So what's going to happen is we're going to have a staff presentation and clarifying questions from the board to staff. Then we'll have the applicant presentation. Clarifying questions to the applicant followed by our public hearing. Where anyone from the public may comment on this agenda item, and finally common commentary from the Board in regard to the concept plan and how that fulfills the requirements in our planning documents, the Bbcp and our site review process. So with that, Shannon. take it away, please. All right. Good evening board. Can everyone hear me? Okay, great. All right. I'm Shannon Moller with the city of Boulder planning department, and I'll be taking you through tonight's concept plan.

[7:04] So in this presentation, I'll briefly touch on the purpose of a concept plan. The public notification that was done, the surrounding context, a summary of the project and some key issues for discussion. So the purpose of a concept plan is to review the General Development Plan for a proposed site. It's intended to give the applicants feedback early in the process before detailed development of a Site review. No formal action will be taken on tonight. On the application. Written notice on this proposal was provided to property owners within 600 feet, and notice was posted on the property staff did receive one written comment from a member of the public. So here you can see the location. This is a about 2.9 4 acre site. It's just northwest of the corner of Baseline Road and 30th Street.

[8:00] The 3 parcels along Baseline and south of Canyon Creek Road are developed with 3 existing buildings. These include an office building, the Greenwood and Myers mortuary and the Alto sports, physical therapy building. And then there are 4 parcels further north along 30th Street, north of Canyon Creek Road. These are currently developed with 4 residential buildings that have a total of 12 dwelling units. Here you can see the surroundings. This property is less than a 3rd mile walking distance to the University of Colorado, main campus to the west. and to the west, along Baseline Road there are a variety of commercial uses, such as other office buildings, a gas station, and a salon. The Buffalo Canyon apartments is located just to the northwest of this property, and further west, along the 28th Street Frontage road, are several student housing developments. To the east, across 30th Street is the baseline subdivision which includes duplexes and single family homes that was developed in the 1960 S.

[9:08] To the southeast, across 30th and baseline, is the Cu Williams village dormitories which have the 12 story, Darley and Stearns Dormitory Buildings and the 6 Story Bear Creek Apartment Buildings, and just to the south, across Baseline is Williams Village Center, which has a mix of retail and restaurants like the Sprouts, Dark Horse Saloon, cosmos, Liquor Store Bank, other restaurants gas station on the corner and the Boulder Broker Inn. Here you can see the transportation connections in the area. The site is adjacent to multiple thoroughfares and transportation corridors. There's an existing protected Bike Lane in Baseline Road and on street bike lanes in 30th Street. This area is included in both the 30th Street and or excuse me, this area, including both 30th Street and Baseline, have been the subject of transportation studies and safety projects, and it was also included in the 30th Street and Colorado Avenue study and is near the baseline Road Transportation Safety Project. These studies and projects are intended to create safer conditions for all modes of transportation

[10:19] with the redevelopment of this site the city would require, build out and dedication of right-of-way in 30th Street to meet the city's design and construction standards. This would include a buffered bike lane, a landscape buffer and detached sidewalk. The site is located within walking distance to several bus stops and bus routes, including the bound and 2 25. The routes are shown here in blue lines. There are also 2 transit stops directly adjacent to the property that would be updated as part of the redevelopment, and there are also some buff bus routes that pass by the property that stop at Williams village, and those routes are shown in the gold lines

[11:00] and the properties slope downward from south to north, with the high point at the southwest corner, along Baseline. and there are mountain views from the site and nearby the Bvcp. Designates the northern group of properties along 30th Street as High Density Residential, which is described as close to the University plan for redevelopment and near major corridors and services, and is intended to include attached residential uses. The Bvcp designates the southern properties along baseline as transitional business, which is described as at intersections along major streets zoned for less intensive business uses, providing a transition to residential areas, and includes a mix of uses, including housing in terms of zoning the northernmost. 2 parcels are zoned RM. 2. Residential medium, 2, and then the middle, 2 parcels are zoned, RH. 5. Residential high. 5,

[12:00] and then all the southern properties along baseline are zoned. Bt. One. Business transitional one. This proposal would involve a rezoning request to rezone those Rm. 2 parcels to Rh. 5, and it would require a use review to allow ground floor residential uses facing a street in the Bt. One zoned portion of the site. So moving to tonight's project. This is a proposal for redevelopment, for housing, serving the university student population. The proposal includes 2, 4 to 5 story buildings with 100 attached dwelling units. It would have a mix of bedroom counts from one to 6 bedrooms as well as a ground floor, amenity, space, and an upper level community deck. In the southwest corner of the Southern building. Parking is provided at grade and behind the buildings, and a 62% parking reduction is proposed because the property is split. Zoned. Open space is required to be met within each zoning district. The southern area zone bt, one would have a 30% requirement and the northern area would have a 20% requirement.

[13:08] Open space is proposed in entry plazas, detention and water quality features, landscaped areas, balconies and patios for the units and with the upper level community deck. This proposal would require a modification request for height up to 55 feet, and the applicant team has provided renderings of the proposed buildings to help visualize the project in terms of required processes. The application would require a demolition review by historic preservation for any structures greater than 50 years old. Then it would be require a rezoning review for the proposed rezoning of the Rm. 2 portion along 30th Street to be rezoned to Rh. 5. It would then require a site review, including any proposed modifications like the parking reduction, the height, modification, setback modifications or other items.

[14:03] The proposal for the ground floor residential uses along a street in Bt. One requires the use review, and then, following all of those, the proposal would then proceed into technical documents, a subdivision and building permits. So Staff has identified a few key issues for tonight's discussion, and I'll go through those quickly. Next. So key issue one was, if the proposed concept plan is generally compatible with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. So, as mentioned earlier, the Bvcp designates portion of the property as high density, residential and transitional business. So Staff found the project site is an appropriate location for student housing near the University and near multimodal corridors, and would meet several Bvcp policies like providing a compact development pattern by redeveloping an existing property and providing higher density development close to multimodal corridors, and the university

[15:02] staff is recommending the proposal. Better address other Bbcp policies, such as policy, 2.1 4, that strongly encourages a variety of land uses in new developments Staff's recommending reconsideration of the residential only nature of the proposal. Given the land use designation of transitional business along Baseline Road. a baseline serves as a major vehicle and transit corridor, and would benefit from activity generated from a mix of uses, especially on the ground floor, and these uses on the ground floor would provide separation and buffering for the residential uses from the busy street. This would also provide space and opportunities for local businesses which would be removed from the redevelopment of the site as proposed in regards to the proposed design staff, is also recommending the proposal be revised to better address policy, 2.3 8, which is to provide space for large maturing trees in the landscape. Setbacks and rights of way to better address urban heat, island effects

[16:00] and staff is recommending revisions to better address policy, 2.4 1 to provide for better visual and physical permeability into the site where the proposed links of the buildings currently limits pedestrian access and views into the site staff is also recommending better addressing the onsite open spaces where much of the ground level open space is proposed as water quality facilities, or in setbacks, or along the right of way. So Staff is recommending revisions to the design of those open spaces to ensure it's functional for the residents as well as to meet the requirements for a proposal that includes a height bonus. So for key Issue 2 staff is requesting feedback from the board on the proposed rezoning of the portion of the site from Rm. 2 to Rh. 5, so Staff found that the proposed zoning change would be consistent with the underlying Bvcp. Land use designation of high density residential in this location, and it would be consistent with the rezoning criterion which states that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. Map

[17:12] staff also found the rezoning would be compatible with other similarly designated and zoned properties that are adjacent to the site for key issue. 3 is feedback on the proposed use. Review for ground level dwelling units along the street in the southern area of the site that's zoned Bt. One shown here outlined in light purple. A use review is required for attached dwelling units at the ground level along a street. In this zone the purpose of a use review is to determine if a particular use and its potential impacts are appropriate for the proposed location and would be reviewed under the Site Review criterion in 92, 15 E. Which are listed in the memo, and on this slide past proposals for use, review for ground floor, residential and bt, one have met the rationale criteria by providing a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses. So Staff would appreciate any feedback from the board on the Use review, criteria

[18:19] and key Issue 4 is feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design staff is appreciative of the general building for its site design with entrances along the public realm due to the length of the building staff's recommending revisions to improve permeability through the site, such as by adding a portal element for pedestrian access and views, or by breaking up each building into multiple buildings in terms of the design of 30th Street required right of way. Improvements would be needed to build out and dedicate space for a buffered bike, lane, landscape, buffer, and detached sidewalk, so those would need to be incorporated into the site. Design and staff recommends adequate setbacks be provided between the building and those improvements for large maturing trees wherever possible.

[19:08] Similarly, Staff is recommending additional attention to the design and amount of surface parking which is competing for space with ground level, open space, high quality ground level, open space is needed to meet the needs of residents and with much of it serving water quality and detention purposes or being located along the major streets. It'll be important at the time of Site Review to show how the quantity and quality of open space is met. Proposals requesting a height. Bonus such as this must also show how the site meets the height. Bonus requirements that require providing an outdoor at grade gathering space in terms of the building design. Staff appreciated the renderings that were provided and the focus on providing a high quality and unique building design. The proposed building materials and design of elements like the balconies and the defined building entries along the street meet many of the Site review criteria

[20:02] because these buildings are larger floor plates and hundreds of feet long. Variations in the roof. Form and height is necessary, and the length of the buildings along a public right of way needs to meet the limitations in the code for 200 feet along a public right of way, and any facades exceeding 120 feet in length, need to meet the requirements to be designed to appear as at least 2 distinct buildings. and, lastly, staff recommends some additional attention to the relationship of the 2 buildings to one another, to provide pedestrian circulation and wayfinding, and also to show how the buildings are designed to transition to the surrounding context in terms of next steps. This proposal, after planning boards hearing, will be sent to City Council for potential call up, then the applicant can proceed forward with an application for review that would include the rezoning the site and use review applications. So that concludes Staff's presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

[21:04] Great. Thank you, Shannon. That was excellent. Now time for clarifying questions from the board. and if anyone's ready we're going to. We're going to move this through tonight. So raise your hand. I'm looking on up. Okay, I want to let Ml. Go 1st and then Claudia, and then Laura. Great, great. Thank you, Mark, and thank you, Shann. I appreciate You know I really appreciate that you go through and you say what works and what doesn't work. So I, you know, kind of leaving us with the thoroughness of your review. So thank you very much for that. I believe I have a couple of questions. So. but the question I'm going to start with is not about thoroughness. It's about

[22:00] a bit of confusion. So what I'm looking at is on page 7, and I'm looking at the way we are asked, or the way the relationship to the Boulder Valley Comp plan is described. So at the bottom of page 7 the statement is. Now is that? Pdf. Page 7 versus memo. Page 7. Demo. Page 7 of page 7, of 78. Okay. That should clarify. So the statement is, projects are preliminarily assessed for compliance with the Bvcp Land use designation and relevant goals and policies as part of concept plan. During the Site Review the project will be evaluated for consistency with the Bvcp land map, etc, etc. So 2 different ways of looking at it right now. We're supposed to be preliminarily assessing for compliance.

[23:01] I think compliance implies a more rigorous and strict accountability to the Bvcp. And then it says that in Site Review will be evaluating for consistency, which I don't think is as rigorous as compliance. So there's a discrepancy there that. And I'm I'm bringing this all up because we we've been talking on planning board about the specificity of the language, and how we hold ourselves accountable to these overarching guides like the Bvcp. And then the 3rd thing I will refer to in the same conversation, which the question is, why are we using such such a huge range of of descriptors for what we should be doing with the Bvcp. So the last one is again on the same page where you just outline content, plan, review, and comment.

[24:02] Under community policy consideration. Saying that it it likely conformity with the proposed development. Excuse me, likely conformity of the proposed development with the Bvcp. So it goes from likely conformity evaluated for consistent consistency and preliminarily assessed for compliance. Shannon is there a takeaway as to how we should be holding the Bbcp to our I guess comments and questions to the applicants. Yeah, that's a great question. My understanding is that we just typically use all of those terms you mentioned pretty much interchangeably, just looking at the code just now. I do see the term compliance under the concept plan criteria, and I see the word consistency under the site review criteria. So I think we're pulling those words directly from the code. But I think we're kind of generally using them interchangeably. So yeah, I appreciate the question trying to clarify.

[25:19] Right, and I think it could. It could result with some measure of misunderstanding on the applicants, not just planning board, but on the applicants. So maybe we want to think about using language the way we interpret the way it we intend to interpret things. So anyway, that just that's not so much a question. But it is a question I I would I would like there to be consistency in how we use these terms, because they do mean different things. So moving on my question.

[26:01] You you mentioned in your analysis about the open space. And so my question is, the project identifies landscaped areas that are primarily in setbacks and in the public right of way. It talks about patios. building entries, detention and water quality facilities and and the upper level floor day. But these are supposed to be usable open space. So can you tell me how landscaped areas in the setbacks in public right away are are usable. Yeah, I think that's exactly what Staff's concern was regarding the open space. I think. Okay. That reflects. Yeah, the same concern that still. That was, that was okay. And in the criteria. And this is probably speaking more to what we're looking forward to in Site Plan Review. It talks about the characteristics of the surrounding area.

[27:10] and one of the things it talks about prominent views. And you mentioned in describing the context that there are open and significant views across the site from around the site and obviously from the site itself. did you have any? I know you talked about permeability? What was there any other thinking regards to trying to provide some views that were historically there from around the site? Not necessarily on the site. From a code perspective. I think the main area where we have a mention of views is in the height bonus criteria, where there's a requirement for providing an upper level space to to take in the views for residents. But yeah, we would welcome any other, you know, feedback regarding the views.

[28:11] From the board, the permeability from public public right of ways. I think it's also a criteria. I'm just okay. So your concern at this point had to do with them, providing it on site at upper level deck. Yeah. And I think regarding the permeability that was one of the just, generally from folks, you know, walking along the site and being able to enter the site and kind of see into the site is, does the you know, the design of the buildings along the right of way provide some opportunities for that, and that could potentially also address the the views. So my last question under the concept review, I think there were 8 things identified one is consideration for housing, and it talks about

[29:08] The application talks about Cu housing's master plan, noting that the availability, quality, and affordability of housing has increasingly become a factor in recruiting and retention and retention, decisions of students, faculty and staff. So the university is identifying this as a problem. The fact that there is no housing. My question is, what is the city's responsibility to alleviate this. That's a good question. I don't know if I would. Sure Brad is here. Brad's, Brad's. Excellent. Thank you, Brett. Brad Mueller again with planning. So board member, I would say. As you can appreciate, that's kind of a philosophical question. The city and the university work in partnership on a wide variety of issues, including housing, not in defense of one position or the other. But the the University is currently undertaking

[30:17] a number of housing potential efforts, including redevelopment of the site north of the Boulder Creek, which will add more density and more student housing as part of that and then longer term. They've expressed an interest as things, too, but it is definitely a balance between the private market and and the public sector at Cu, providing that. But we don't expect or pursue any kind of quotas at this point. And and so I think what you're seeing with this application is really the private sector responding to a market need.

[31:00] Okay. Thank you for that. Those are all my questions. Okay, thank you. Ml, Claudia, thanks for getting us started. Ml, I actually want to follow up to start off on one of Ml's questions about open space in the public right of way. And Shannon. I was wondering if you could maybe put up the submitted site plan diagram that we received. And and could you actually walk us through which portions of the site are on the public right of way. Yeah, I can try to pull that up really quick. I can find it here.

[32:11] Yeah, I believe there's a diagram in the packet. My packet is just opening very slowly. I apologize. if there's another question you want to go to while I try to get my Pdf to function. I can do that this one might also benefit, though, from seeing a a Site plan diagram I was noticing. There seems to be a large amount of area dedicated to water detention and water quality in these plans. And I'm curious if that is typical for a site of this size, or is this in response to particular hydrological conditions at this site.

[33:01] Okay, I think I got it. Here, let me try to. There it goes. Okay. Yay, thank you. That's it. Yeah. So this was the diagram that I was looking at when I was taking a look at the open space numbers that were provided in in the in the proposal. So yeah, the the city does allow for some amount of open space to be provided in the right of way with a modification request. So I believe it can be up to 10%. And it has to be areas that aren't, you know, planned to be used for improvements in the in the next 10 years. I believe. So. There's just some limitations on that. We typically like to see the open space.

[34:00] You know as much as possible to be usable spaces within the site that folks can, you know, use for gathering or or whatnot? So that was kind of the concern there and then, in terms of the design of water quality and detention. I think that's, you know, on a site by site basis, just like what the site's going to require. The applicant team may be able to speak a little bit more to the design here, and you know what was needed to accommodate the proposal. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that, and thank you for walking us through that diagram. I hadn't seen the differentiation in the colors. There, that's really helpful. Couple more questions which car and bike parking requirements will apply when this project comes for site Review. Is it going to be held to those that are in place now, or those that might be in place at the time that they actually file for site Review. Yeah, it will be whatever is in place when they apply for Site review. Okay? So that's somewhat of a very open variable here. Okay, thank you. And then just a process question about a use review. If and when we do a use review for a site like this, do we get asked to consider an exception for all of the ground floor? Or does that use review generally specify portions of a building for which they'll be requesting exceptions.

[35:27] I believe the Use Review would apply to to any residential use facing a street on the ground floor in the Bt one zone. So any, since this property is largely fronted by streets on all sides, it kind of comes into play basically for for that whole ground. Okay, so it would be like a specific portion of the building where they want to do residential uses. That is what they would ask for the review for. Okay, thanks. Okay, thank you, Claudia Laura. If you're ready.

[36:04] Thank you so much, and thank you, Shannon, for the excellent presentation as always. My 1st question, could you bring up one of the diagrams that shows the streets around this property, and in particular, at the north end of the 30th Street building there's a North South what looks like a north, South Dead End Street with parking. That's just I think that's on the west of the northern building. I'm just curious what that is. Is that a city street is that private property. Yes, I'm trying to. Oh, there it goes! Yeah, what is all that head in parking? Just on the west side there. And I believe that's a private property associated with the apartments just behind it. Is that right?

[37:02] And Adrian says they can talk further about that when they come up for their presentation. So all that that parking that's to the west of the building is private property for that other set of apartments. Yeah. Okay, that's helpful to know. Thank you. the portion of that site along 30th Street. That is currently rm, 2. That's like a little carve out, and it's not Rh. 5, like everything around it on the west side of 30th Street. Yeah, right there. That little red anomaly on the west side of 30th Street. Those 2 little blocks. Do we know the history there? Why, why is that carved out as Rm. 2. When everything else on that side of the street is Rh. 5. That's a great question. I I don't know the history on that. Yeah, so I can't. I can't speak to that. Okay. I was just wondering if maybe that whole thing was our M. 2. And then it got rezoned to Rh. 5. Except for those 2 buildings or something I don't know. It's it's a little strange.

[38:02] Okay, thank you. Could you tell us how long are the longest building lengths along baseline for the southern building and along 30th Street for the northern building. How long are those building lengths. It's a great question. I meant to try to measure that earlier, and I did not do that. I know they were both longer than 200. So if you. If you want to circle back to that one later in the evening. That's fine with me, but I'd love to have the numbers, actually the numbers for the baseline facade, and actually both of the building facades on 30th Street for the North and South buildings. It'd be good to have those numbers. And then my last question. So we have that height bonus criterion in the code that you pointed out, that requires an open ground level, gathering space or courtyard for the building users, and I was just curious, given that this is

[39:01] one site, but it is split by Canyon Creek Road there. and currently there are sort of 2 large building forms that are proposed. Would they need to include one courtyard for the whole project, or one courtyard per building. Yeah, that's a great question. The code doesn't specifically speak to that. Staff's thinking was that if there was a way to design the project so that it's kind of clearly integrated into the site. And everyone can use the courtyard. And there's there's a little more relationship between the 2 pieces of the site that potentially, you could just provide the one courtyard. If they're really intended to function separately, then we would be looking for for 2 separate meeting that criteria in 2 separate ways. Okay, thank you. Those are all of my questions.

[40:00] Thanks. Laura. Mason, or George, do you either of you have questions. Mason. You're shaking your head. No, okay, I do not have any questions. All right. How about you, George? Just a just a quick question. And it relates to parking on the site. And it it appears that everything is surface parked. Is that is that what I'm looking at? Is that correct? That's correct. There's a little bit of of tuck under parking under the north building. But yeah, it's surface does the city have? And I know we've seen a lot of projects lately. And actually, one of the things that's been nice on a number of projects that we've seen is an abundance of tuck under parking and really using surface areas for open space and other things. So do we have anything specific in our in our guidelines or anything that or requirements. It just seems awfully surface park versus a lot of other projects that we've seen lately.

[41:01] Yeah, I think both the Site Review criteria and the BBC speak to like an efficient use of the land in terms of use for parking and things like that. So I think that would come into play with the review. Got it. Okay, thank you. That was all my questions. Okay, thanks, George. I'm going to call on myself now. my 1st one deals with Canyon Creek and it separating the 2 sites. And this is really a question for staff in the sense of what can we require. and what can we allow in terms of changes to a street cross section to enhance the connection across a street between 2 sites. So is is there an allowance for actually requiring changes to a cross section, let's say a raised pedestrian crosswalk or narrowing of the street at certain crossings, that kind of thing

[42:13] by an applicant of a street that divides 2 properties that are both owned by the applicant. Yeah. My initial thought where you're speaking was that it would have to do with meeting like a site review criteria. So if there was a relationship between the you know the proposed changes and needing to do those changes to meet a Site Review criteria. I think that would be part of the analysis. We would also obviously be looking for it to meet all of our design and construction standards that the city has. So okay and then carrying on with the same line of questioning. The city has recently

[43:02] chosen to privatize a portion of public right of way, so that they could design a street that does not comport with the Dcs. I'm thinking of 11th Street between Alpine and Balsam, as was one example. And then we had another concept review, where we're talking about taking a public right of way and and privatizing it for the function of changing its cross section and not meeting the Dcs. So is that strictly up to an applicant to request that, or is that something? To meet Site review, or BBC policies that we could actually request of them, or require of them. That's a great question. I I suppose it would.

[44:03] It would definitely be something we could. We could look at as the as the review continues on, I'm not super familiar with the context of the other 2 projects you mentioned, and how this one might compare to those 2. Okay. all right. My last question is so in your commentary. and I agree with you. You expressed concern about detention facilities. You say something along the lines. I should cite it by page. But I'm not going to right now, anyway. Something along the lines that detention facilities may not qualify as open space. So it's kind of it was not a they do not. It was not that they do qualify, it was it was it was gray. My question is, do detention facilities qualify as open space or not? It depends to say that. Yeah. So I think typically for a detention facility, water quality facility. We have counted those in some instances where, where the design of those is, you know, potentially more naturalistic in terms of the design, it really looks and feels like an open space, but it just also happens to serve water quality features.

[45:22] So so we are looking at kind of the design. Is there some usable feature to it. So we're trying to get away from something that's purely just a structural detention facility that would be something we would not count, but you could design it in a way that it could potentially meet some requirements and be counted in some way. Okay, that's the end of my questions. Okay, last. Call on any other questions for staff, and then, if not, we'll move to the applicant presentation. Okay? Seeing none. Away you go.

[46:00] And I was just going to mention quickly on the question of the building links. The building along. Baseline is just a little under 350 feet long, and then the building along 30th was just around 320 feet long. Thank you, Shannon, and I'm sorry. Could you also give the the length of the southern building along 30? th So it's 350 feet along baseline. But how long is it along 30.th Sounds like, Adrian might have the answer for us, okay, great. Okay. And just note, I'm I'm allowing 15 min. But you don't have to use it all. Thank you. Everyone, board and staff. Oh, we appreciate it. My!

[47:01] Excuse me, I'm sorry. Could you please turn on the microphone so that they can hear you better online. There's just a small square at the base of it. Yeah, there's a bar there. Push that there you go. Thank you start over on that. There we go. So again. Thank you to the board and staff for the time today to consider our project. My name is Alyssa Glena. I am a development manager at corespaces the developer for the Hub Baseline project. I'm joined today by Adrian Sofer of sofer spar and architects as well as several other members of our design team, both in person and on the phone. I just wanted to give a little bit of background on core spaces for those of you that may not be familiar. We are a vertically integrated developer, owner, and manager of both multifamily and student focused residential developments throughout the country. We focus on delivering high quality and innovative product in a plus locations that are very well accessible by various modes of transit

[48:07] I mentioned, you know, some of you may be familiar, as we do have a couple of projects that we have both completed and are under construction. So we have the Olive Boulder Project on 15th Street that was delivered in 2024, and then we also have the Hub Boulder Project that is under construction on 28th Street that's supposed to open in summer 2026, and the sofer team has been a part of both of those. and I'm not sure if we're we're trying to screen share. It looks like it's trying. I just got logged out of connect Boulder and the Wi-fi has been unstable, though so far the whole evening, and I don't know if that has anything to do with it. But anyway.

[49:00] just saying. if you all want to email the presentation over to me and had just had me advance the slides. If that works for you, we can try that. Sure. I could have the same issue when I go to share. Maybe wait. Can I try something? It's reconnecting to Zoom

[50:13] Thomas. It's not connecting to me. Lost it. Okay? Yeah. If you have the sub drive available, I could try to pull it up on mine. We might be having trouble with that connect Boulder public. Wi-fi, yeah.

[52:32] Well, so to pick up where we left off. As I mentioned, we have some projects, local to the market that we have both completed and are under construction. So you see some images here from both of those 2 properties, as well as some renderings of hub boulder, and then some progress images. Let me go to the next slide, and you can go. Oh, pack one.

[53:01] And one of the things that we also like to focus on is both the, you know, curating the resident experience, as well as how our buildings interact in the public realm and how we interact with the street level. So these are just some images of our amenity spaces, many of which are street facing. And they're just demonstrating, you know, some of the activation and how those interact at the ground level. So with that I will turn it over to Adrian, and he is going to discuss our project in more detail. Thank you. Thank you. Board members. I'm Adrian sofer with sofer sparn architects. The the Hub boulder site is surrounded really by high density housing. To the to the west we have a tremendous amount of not just student housing, but also other high density residential. As you front on the 28th Street, and you can see the project site is in yellow, about

[54:05] a major block from 28, th over between 29th and 30, th or Canyon Creek, which is akin to 29.th To the south also is the Williams Village, 2 proposal, which is 5 stories in a very significant project directly south of our site, and then to the east is medium density residential, which, as Staff has presented is a smaller scale structure. But if you look closely at what's there across 30th Street from Baseline, going north past our site. They're really all student housing projects. They all have a significant amount of parking in the front yards. And and really, if anything, one could imagine these turning into larger duplex type units. They require 3,500 square feet

[55:01] per per per unit. So each of these can handle approximately 2 units. They're all almost all of them rental. You can see the property owners listed to the right of the of the of the aerial, and there's only one of those properties according to the Boulder County's website. That is not that I'm sorry. That is resident of that property. All the rest are addresses elsewhere in the county. Why is that relevant? It's student housing, and it can be redeveloped. So when we talk about what? What can happen across the street as opposed to what's across the street today. Please do keep in mind. Just the question was asked of Staff, what responsibility the city has to provide student housing. Well, obviously the city wouldn't. But at the same time student housing being created for students relieves pressure on neighborhoods adjacent to the university, like the one to the east here, like the one north of the University at Goss Grove, like the one west of the University at University Hill, so, though there is no direct responsibility. It certainly has an impact on the city. Students will

[56:17] go where they need to go to get housing. The properties we talked about or staff has talked about in terms of rezoning, based on bringing it into compliance with the comp plan. It's an interesting question as to why those sites look out of place there. My only guess is that all of those sites along 30th Street both sides of 30th Street may have been a different zoning at one time, and that the land use map changed back in the late nineties, when the student housing area was created from 28th down towards 30, th this property is surrounded by by floodwaters. The 500 year floodplain is the orange area, and and residential properties are not affected by 500 year, but all of the blue areas are 100 year or

[57:07] more substantial high hazard and and conveyance zones. If this project were a little bit to the north or a little bit to the south. we would not be able to do below grade parking at all, because Fema regulations would not allow it. So bear that in mind that the only real viable parking on these sites is surface parking, or it becomes extremely expensive. And we know this because we've done it. So that's why you're seeing all the surface parking. The other thing to note about this site is that on the southern site there's a drop from south to north of 8 feet from. I can't see it from west to east of 6 feet, and on the northern side a 9 foot drop from south to north that ostensibly it has a huge impact on how you measure height on these properties, you're basically losing a floor

[58:05] at the start. So any building that you put on this property is not going to be larger than 2 stories. If you stick to the 35 foot by right height. Really, there's no place that that can be measured and do anything that's wider than 60 feet, or even a 60 foot building without it being impacted by that drop. This property! Let me see. Why am I showing this? Oh, we know about the 30th Street transportation improvements. We tried to accommodate them in the plan we did not capture the improvements required for the separated sidewalk, which we'll we'll we'll definitely do, I mean. We looked at the we looked at the improvements in the transportation Master Plan recommendations. I did not catch the additional detached sidewalk, so we were doing an attached sidewalk, as the other plan shows. But we'll pick that up, and that's fine. We'll get it at Site Review

[59:04] in terms of what's in the right of way. I think over the years there's been increases to the right of the the public right of way to accommodate. Not just, of course, the planting strip, but the 10 foot bike path running along, Baseline. So you've got 20 feet given away right away. But before you started anything which is fine. there's another 20 foot, however, utility easement that we've tried to get rid of, but we can't. So in that utility easement you can't plant trees, you can. You can't do any any structures that are permanent foundations for planters or anything like that. So just to give you an idea of what that looks like from the curb line to that to that 1st building face that's 40 feet. So as a commercial street. it's not terribly viable. That's true. Of all of these. This is the greenwood mortuary, Greenwood Myers mortuary, which is the next building along the along that.

[60:04] as we move eastward along the street face. and we are working with the applicant to relocate this building or not the building. Sorry. but this use to another site. Everybody dies. We know that we have to take care of that provision. So that's going to happen the next. The next building and it is a building, is a two-story parking structure. It's entered both from Baseline and from Canyon Creek, the lower level from Canyon Creek, because the site slopes that much. and then, of course, the building on the corner, which is really an office structure, and we looked at this for the owners. It's it's half vacant, like any office building in this town. So in terms of using this street as a commercial retail, activated street, it's very questionable as to who would be using it, recognizing that there's a 10 foot bike path on this.

[61:04] And there's no parking allowed on Baseline. It's it's a it's questionable who is actually going to inhabit this as a commercial street front, and how usable it is as a pedestrian area when really you've got a bike path where people are going to the university. They're not particularly engaged in this as a storefront activity, and you can see even there's there's fences along it at Greenwood, of course, that has not got walk-in traffic typically, but it's not the best commercially viable street. When we 1st started laying this out we we had, we We put the the multifamily residential lobby and the amenities of the north end of the structure, and we looked at doing street facing townhouses all along the other streets, but we also tried to do street facing Commercial at Baseline, and frankly also at the corner, and

[62:06] we found that we just really couldn't make it work. We have. We have put doors on the street, on all of these units. They are. They're all all of the all of the ground floor units have access to the all. The units on the ground level are accessed from the street. We believe that the street facing Commercial is unsupportable. And just to note that Core has another building on Canyon, you might recognize that's been there and operational for 2 years. 13,000 square feet of retail space 0% occupied. Now we recognize that things change over time. There will be more of a need hopefully for commercial storefronts. Hopefully, with more and more of a population to support it along those street faces. But in the meantime this is really a burden that is difficult to support. and if there is a need for storefronts they will happen just as today. There isn't a need for storefronts, and I think the board and the city is starting to.

[63:08] Well, let's put it this way. Council is starting to recognize that I'm not sure how the Board feels about it. One thing I want to note in this photograph of Canyon which I'm going to come to later on in terms of changing the mass along the street. If you walk along Canyon, or you drive along Canyon. That's what you don't notice is that all of those elements that you're seeing on that street face are at the same height. and I mean the the gray material in the front and the red material in the back. They're all at the same height, and when you step a building back forward to back. It looks like you've got different heights on the building. So in terms of working with the heights in the city's code moving a building in and out really affects the way you perceive it as you move along that street, and I'm sure you've all been down Canyon, and may have noticed that before. So I'll come back to that later.

[64:01] I'm assuming I can keep this moving. Can you move it? One, Thomas? It's probably going to move. 6. Now, okay, so in terms of where the Site Plan is. Now, we're showing that we've elongated the amount of street facing public access and and activity spaces as much as we can along baseline. And we're adding in secure bike parking in that area. But the real issue here is that we are adding stoop bases, and doors on the street all the way along both 30th Street and south of the public spaces at the southwest corner of the site. So if you look at the kind of bases of the kind of street front we're looking at, it's more like what's in the form-based code as the stoop bases and doors on the street, that you that are allowed through that process. These are both on 16th and walnut, and they create an active zone that is private adjacent to the public space. We're still set back by 40 feet. We still have a difficult time in terms of adding trees. I don't think we're going to give up on trying to get some modification to that that easement zone. But if we can't.

[65:25] all of our trees are going to be out in the tree lawn outboard of the multi-use path. By the way, 10% allowable open space. Counting towards this, we have lots of open space on this site. When you consider that open space includes interior open space and the kinds of areas we have inside and on the top floor, we will definitely meet the requirements. So just to continue on. Do we have landscape? Are you on there anybody else, Bill Allison? And she is in the attendees list. I can give her promoted access, if you would please to speak to the landscape planet. Sure.

[66:05] thank you. Sorry for this, but the nature of our world. I've stopped the clock, but you've got about a minute and a half left. I'll we're not going to make it so you can stop me anytime. Adrian, we'll just move on. Have the open space. Yeah, if you could give us a just a brief synopsis. Hi, I'm Allison Graham with dig studio from the design team. And and we really looked at trying to create open space in 3 kind of main areas in this site area in the Site Plan one, the baseline plaza that you'll see in the southwest corner of the site. It's really kind of like Adrian was talking about that that activity area at the ground floor of the building. It's a 50 foot long plaza incorporating, seating, and some gathering spaces and temporary bike

[67:10] areas that that's really kind of got some beautiful Western views and really a highlight of that corner of the building. the other area on the 30th building. It is not street facing, but it is in an area where the building will be accessed heavily by the residents. So it's kind of tucked behind the building with some great Western views. It is adjacent to detention, but we did not count that as the usable open space. We've accounted for a plaza there with seating and landscaping. Some tables, and probably some hammocks and different things like that. So there are lots of different opportunities for the residents in that location. But it's really an area where people are going to be bringing their bikes and having impromptu meetings and and gathering in that area. And then the 3rd space is the roof deck that is also on the southwest corner

[68:08] of the baseline building up on the 3rd floor, incorporating shade and a spa and dining and cooking amenities as well as great views of the mountains and game opportunities. Thank you. Allison. Sure sorry. I probably talked too long. No, I've talked too long. Yeah, Adrian, just if you would finish up in any way focusing on things that you want to say, I think you can anticipate a lot of questions and a lot of time to answer those questions. Thank you. board Chair. I'm going to just say that we have as I. We have all the plans in the packet. I but I think we've gotten we've gotten through this already. I don't need to go over too much here, so I'll just move through to the elevations.

[69:03] I've broken this down a little bit so you could see what we're what we have here on the on the baseline side. This is 350 feet long in answer to your question, and 110 of that are active uses on the ground level, and a two-story mass that is 80 feet wide. And then there's a series of Let's call it the main surface of the building in the background, and then on the ground level, there are intermittent elements that change the scale of the mass along the street. There are also projecting second and 3rd floor elements that come forward, and there are receding elements for balconies up above as well as receding decks. Pardon me, receding porches that are these bases that I had alluded to earlier. So there's actually a tremendous amount of articulation along the street that gives it interest, and it is a block long building. There is no question about it, and I don't mean to be too blunt about this, but there are thousands of cities that have block long buildings on them, and everybody seems to be fine permeability, I can tell you. When I was on the planning board, if I may give an anecdote.

[70:09] The 1st time I heard about permeability as being an issue was when another board member wanted to walk his dog through the site. That's great. But how does it actually support the life of a place? And is it really of benefit here? In this case I question that the other building just you've seen already, but similarly, in terms of the elevations, I'll just get to that. We've broken them down in such a manner that the masses, 200 feet on the on the baseline side, 320 feet on the 30th street length north of Canyon Creek. Again, the masses are all broken down in such a manner that it creates visual interest along the street as you move past the buildings, and so I'm happy to take any questions, and I'm sorry to have gone over. Great. Thank you, Adrian.

[71:00] Okay. now it's time for questions from the board. I'm going to bring my zoom screen back up. See if anyone has their hand up. and or if anyone here at the dais is ready. Okay, George. You know what we're going to have. You go first.st Great and I'm gonna ask a very targeted question, and then I can jump to the project. I wasn't planning to ask this, but since They brought it up in their presentation around Olive and the 13,000 square feet that are vacant on that property. I went up and looked online. And you have that listed for between 47 and $53 trip. Gross, including the Nats per square foot. So it sounds like it's been vacant for 2 years. But I'm curious what efforts the developer has actually made to get this space occupied, because that's pretty expensive space. So I'm curious what accommodations you're you're making to get those spaces occupied. Get them built out and get get people in there.

[72:14] Yeah, I appreciate the question. If you don't mind board. Member Boone, did you check on what the other comparable rents are in downtown boulder. Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm I'm very, very familiar with them. Yeah, okay, I'm going to let our my clients respond. So full disclosure. You know, the releasing responsibilities of that are a slightly different side of the house than what I'm on, but what I will say is, you know, we, of course, are very financially motivated to have a tenant there. And we certainly would much rather have that filled than vacant. But unfortunately, the reality is is that the price has been set based on you know what

[73:00] it cost to construct that space. So again, I can't intimately speak to. You know the pro forma for that project, but all I can assure you, is that you know, if the finances of the project would support it, we certainly would be charging less, and also to Adrian's point. We are basing that on also comparable properties in the area. So I guess I'm going to make a comment. I know I'm not time for comment yet, but I find it very frustrating that you're bringing this up as a defense for not putting retail on this space without giving us full information on this space. Because what I see online is very expensive space that's not built out. with no, at least, no references of accommodations on what you're going to do as far as free rent and Ti other things to bring small businesses into those spaces. and my understanding very much so is that having these retail spaces and these mixed use spaces are important to the city, and that that was sort of a compromise in your profit. Maker is the is the student housing that's being brought in. So again, it's not time for comment, but I sure would like a whole lot more data if you're asking us to relieve you of that obligation.

[74:14] That's all for my line of questioning at the moment. Thank you. Great I see Laura. Thank you very much to the applicant for that presentation. I have just a few questions. Could you pull up your diagram? That shows the bike parking, and where that's located in the buildings. And could you walk us through how people from different units will get to and from the bike parking. Thomas, we need your help. It's pull. Pull the Powerpoint back up again. Yeah, please. Sure. Let me know if I can help navigate to a specific slide on there. Yeah, I'm not sure which one.

[75:13] I know it was in Shannon's presentation, showing kind of the the layout of where different things are in the buildings, and I don't recall if it was in the applicants. Presentation, too. If you could go to 28. Please believe this is slide 28. Okay, so this is what we have right now. And it's showing bike parking to the northwest and on the next site it's at the it's down below. I'm going to just show if you don't mind something else that we wanted to show. But I didn't get to, which was in response to staff comments about scale and mass that we were looking at, possibly relocating some of this

[76:02] by pushing the building further north on the on the western side and pulling it down on this on the eastern side. But in both cases we're showing bike parking on the northwest corner, and that would be off of Canyon Creek. There is access if you come south along that inboard side of the of the building. I'm sorry. Do you have a laser pointer or a cursor that you can show. I'm afraid. Oh, gosh, okay. My, I can point at my screen, but it's not going to help you. But if you look at the lobby north, the north. east of the lobby there is a access way that faces the parking area that comes into the backside of the lobby. and of course you can come in from the Canyon Creek side, as well on the adjacent site, which would be slide. I'm sorry if we could stick with this one for a minute. So you're saying people who live like on that northern edge in those apartments would need to cross through the parking lot to get to the parking.

[77:08] Through the parking lot. There's a sidewalk that connects to the to the lobby before you hit the cars. A sidewalk that connects to the lobby before you hit the cars. So you're saying they would go up to Canyon Creek and walk on Canyon Creek and come down to the bike room. No, I'm talking about east of that wing of the building. East, of that wing of. There's a sidewalk on that vertical dashed blue line. It's. Along the sidewalk. There. I would also mention that each of those townhouses have back entries so that they could park their bicycle in the unit. For all of those units along the the street faces. Okay. So I'm I'm concerned with how the units on the north edge of the property are, gonna get to the. Okay, let me show you the other drawing. Then, of a moment.

[78:02] Well, I mean the north edge of this building, right? So. This building again. Gosh! I'm sorry I can't point to it. But at the very north end of the of this building, in the northwest corner is a large enclosed bike parking area. and they would have access moving along either Canyon Creek, or east of that wing of the building to a sidewalk that leads directly to the lobby. Gosh! I can go to you. Area here. There's a microphone here. If you want. See your cursor. Thank you. Apologies for the technical complications here. Thanks for your flexibility and problem, solving.

[79:01] Yeah. Well, I apologize as well. I'm not sure. I'm answering your question adequately. I'm hearing you say that there's 2 2 bike parking areas. There's this bike parking that I'm seeing on the southwest edge of the building. And you're saying there's another bike parking area on the northwest edge. There is. There is a on the northwest edge of the of the building. There is an protected and enclosed large bike parking area on the southwest corner of the plaza. There's Guest parking for bikes in the plaza itself. You want to. I don't think it's gonna work, Jake. Because what I'm seeing on the diagram looks like bike parking and storage on the southwest corner. Right there. Yes. Parking area. That's the Northwest. That's Northwest. Yes, and then the southwest and the plaza, which I'll go. Is that not baseline? On the left hand side of the screen.

[80:01] No baselines at the bottom. Oh, gosh, okay, I'm totally disoriented. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm sorry. Please go ahead. Yes, so there's Guest parking. There's Guest Bike parking at the southwest corner. There's resident parking at the northwest corner. This is the way we have it shown right now. We are also showing the possibility of moving the lobby northward and and shifting the building so that it's higher on the west side and lower on the east side that does affect where the bike parking is nominally, and it moves the detention over to the northeast, which is what this is showing, and reduces the scale of the building in these areas, which was one of the comments from Staff that we consider re revising how we are adjacent to those neighboring of buildings across the street. so that affected the bike. Parking a little bit. If you could go to slide number 23, please.

[81:01] I think it's 23. No, I'm sorry. 2022. And then this shows the bike parking on the northern building. That bike parking is actually a half a level down, but it's accessed via a ramp that's at one to 20 slope, which is very shallow, and you can ride your bike down the ramp and into the bike parking area, which is again a half a level down. Okay. And how are the the 3 story townhouses on 30th Street? How are they getting to that bike parking. They have the ability to put bikes in the back area of where the cars are there. And there's another small bike parking area adjacent to that lobby zone and off the other bike parking area. In this building you can go directly into the lobby for the elevator.

[82:06] Okay, thank you. That's helpful. I have a couple of other questions. I don't know if you want to go back. I think you're over by Thomas, if you want to go back to your podium. But No? Well, I've got a I've got an associate. Okay. Arrow. Great great. Thank you. So next question is, how do you get from the north building on 30th Street to the Elevated Amenity deck? Well, that has been a there is no easy answer to that, except that I'm going to go back to the Site plan. Let's see here. Oh, it's on. It's again 29. Jake. Yeah, it doesn't show the any changes. But essentially, if you, if you go back to 29. I think it might be a little easier.

[83:23] Just go down to the okay. So with the movement of the of the detention and green space to the northeast corner, you would cross the street and then come along the sidewalk internal to that there's an internal sidewalk that goes adjacent to the units, and then to the west again to that lobby zone, and you can enter in the elevator. There.

[84:01] I'm sorry. Where's the lobby zone? Jake, can you? It's for that inboard of that purple arrow. Okay? And then the elevator takes you up to the deck. That's correct. And the deck is where, exactly on the Site plan. It's to this. To the southwest, on the 3rd floor. Southwest on the 3rd floor. Okay? So at that corner of baseline and 30.th Correct. Okay, all right. Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. You answered one of my questions. And then so my last question, you know this project does not have, at least, as far as I can see, the ground level, open space courtyard that is required for a height. Bonus, can you tell us a little bit more about what you are thinking about that requirement in the code, and how you're going to meet it.

[85:02] Yes, I mean, could you leave that on, please, Thomas? So today, let's see, let's go down here. So what we have submitted is, can you go to the presenter view? Please? Thank you. What we have submitted. A concept review showed that the courtyard is 40 feet back from the street 40 feet deep from the street, which is what we have to do in terms of staying out of the easements. multi-use path, and the and the existing landscape buffer. But we, what we're proposing is that we push that whole wing to the north, which is what that purple arrow was trying to show, which gives us another about

[86:11] 30 feet of plaza zone outboard of the entry. which is what I was trying to refer to earlier, and we didn't get a chance to go over. I'm sorry for that. So we're moving essentially the lobby back so that we can get a larger outdoor space on that southwest corner on the ground level. Okay? And that's the corner of Baseline and Canyon Creek. And can you give us the the dimensions of that outdoor space? It's probably to the multi-use path. It's going to be about 40 feet. 40 feet by. By about 60 feet 50 feet wide. That sound about right, Jake. Yes. Okay, okay, thank you very much.

[87:01] Those are all my questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. Mason, you have questions. So let's see. Here, give me just a quick second. So, just for my own curiosity. 30th and and baseline is very. It's a very busy intersection. and that's where I thought I would see the entry, the main lobby. Do you mind just speaking to why you chose canyon and baseline if I'm reading this correctly. Yeah, I I think the main reason is because it gave us access to a rooftop deck that would be facing towards the mountains and open towards the west and the southwestern views.

[88:00] It's not to say that we couldn't have had a lobby on the on the southeast, but it wouldn't have been able to connect to a rooftop area directly in that way. No, I appreciate that explanation. in your comments, and you know, correct me if I'm quoting you incorrectly. You said that if commercial retail space is desired, then it will happen. Can can you maybe expand upon that thought a little bit? Sure, I think that this is just my view of the world is if there's a need for something. Somebody's going to provide it. And right now there does not seem to be a need for something such as commercial space. And we're seeing what impact that has on commercial space in this town. I think if the issue of having commercial space is to have places for people to shop that will occur if the issue of having storefront is really more a matter of activating the street.

[89:03] My personal feeling is in this location that's not going to happen with a 40 foot wide zone before you can get to a building, and that, having the ability to have stoops and residential access that put doors on the street is a much better way to try and activate that street than having a questionable set of storefronts, even even if you could rent it for half the price of what they're doing at Olive. I'm trying to think of how to phrase this as a question, so I don't put words in your mouth. In your presentation you speak to the increased amount of density that's happening in this area. William Village to the potential of for the development across the street on 30, th etc. So it seems to be that the expectation will be that there will be more population in this area. Do you think that will that will have an impact on the need for commercial. Yeah, I do. And I think that Williams village is.

[90:02] as far as I understand it. putting in more commercial space than exists there today. So it's very hard for me to. I'm I'm not a economists. I can't really tell you how much streetfront commercial is going to be supported by the amount of population that increases here. I think, as things continue to change, so will this area. I'm confident that it will affect the vacancy rate of of student housing to some degree. I don't know how much, and and that that activity I'm not. I mean, how many coffee shops are students going to go to? I don't know. I mean in helping me further understand design decisions. What alternatives to surface parking were considered. We're providing a parking ratio here of 15% of

[91:02] of cars to beds. So it's a pretty low percentage. But this is actually in keeping with what core is experiencing generally in student housing areas, but also specifically here in boulder the the parking that's required is not is not commuter cars. It's car storage. I don't know. Staff raised the question of Do we have too much parking? I think that's an interesting thought. I don't know where that's going to go. But yeah, I guess my my question was more around, what was podium parking considered? Were other types of design options for parking? Considered. if we did podium parking we would not. We would have more building square footage than we need relative to the far allowable unless we put it under the the building that we're designing, which means that it makes it more difficult to do. Street facing

[92:06] residential, commercial or anything else. It's not impossible. I'm I'm not sure. I mean, basically, what you do is you take out the backside of all of the residences that are facing on the street, and we turn them into tuck under. And then but to do a full podium underneath this thing is is really, that's a lot more cars than we're going to want. Yeah, yeah, I understand that. So if I were to just kind of paraphrase, and you let me know essentially just due to far limitations in order to do tuck under or podium, you actually end up with more parking. Not a better use of space. Well, I think they're they're a little different. The tuck under and the podium. I think if if you did just tuck under you, you might be able to make it work.

[93:06] But again, you then have to deal with. What do you do with the outboard face of those cars? You're going to have to create units that are like we did on 30.th The front is a unit. The back is a tuck under parking space. It then pushes the beds up higher. I mean, it's not out of the question. To do. A podium. I think, is a much more complicated animal. I mean, they're both complicated. But the podium would would have to go. Where would it go over the existing, or that? What's the parking that is shown? Which would mean that you're doing a deck over the top of it and landscaping all of that. That's a pretty substantial effort. I don't think you can, really you can. You can really rationalize doing underground parking on this site. I'm just looking through. You've already answered a fair number of my questions

[94:02] I'll stop for now if I read through this. Ml, if you're ready with your questions. I am, and Hello, Adrian. Hello! Board disclaimer. Adrian is my neighbor right across the street. We never talk so. You're out there. Know we see each other doing our domestic stuff anyway. Hello there! So I have A couple of simple questions. And one last simple question is everything you're showing on the ground floor a townhouse. Yes, except for the lobby areas, of course. Great So you talk about the massing being broken up. Do you have some street views to show us? I don't remember seeing any.

[95:00] Well, we have some renderings of street views. If you go to Jake, you got them. This is the 30th Street building. Eye level on this? Are you in a car? Is this like a driver's eye level. This is a Google eye level. Yeah, let's let's see people walking walking by the building or across the street at those houses. I think those those people on the upper drawing are a little bit miniature. Yeah? Or the car is really big. So the question is, do you have any street perspectives? Well, we have another one from the other building. Jake. you gotta there you go. Yeah. So I think that would be a beneficial thing if you wanna want to talk about how it feels, how it's activated and how these layers that you were talking about layers from the street to the how they actually work. Because these are fictions right? Nobody's this tall nobody's looking at the building in this elevation. So just, Fyi, in the future, if if you want your point to drive home, we need to be able to experience, what is actually being created.

[96:14] Yeah, I appreciate that. Ml, and I. I apologize that we don't have more precise renderings. I will remind you that we're still at concept review, and we will get them to you. Oh, yeah, no. This is just you know a perspective, the street level. That's I'm sure you could have put the sketch of down. Done that. You're right. So? My last question. So core states that they're committed to providing student housing. And Cu talks about lacking affordability and housing being a significant concern. So given the 2 prior projects that Core identified. how is this project going to address affordability as part of providing student housing.

[97:02] So in this case we are planning to contribute to the affordable fee in lieu. That is, you know, the plan at this time, in order to address that concern. Yeah, I guess I'm thinking about the way you described it. You talked about it as like a vision and a goal of your prop of your projects. Paying cash in lieu isn't about fulfilling a vision of creating housing for students the students that your garden variety student can afford. And this is a problem for Cu Cu states it that they don't have affordability. And this is this is a problem that they are putting out there. I know this is a market solution to that problem that I questioned earlier. You know, what's the city's responsibility to to provide affordable housing for Cu students. you guys are a private developer that is coming in to address student issues. And I'm just curious us, beyond the in lieu of.

[98:11] is there anything about this building? And I'm guessing? The answer is, no, because that was the answer. It's all. All the affordability is going in a a check to the city. Is that correct? So what I will say is that we do aim as much as possible to provide a variety of price points within the building, so you will notice in what we've submitted that we, you know, are going all the way up to. Yeah. We are going all the way up to 6 bedroom units. And as those units do accommodate more students that does drive the price point down fairly, significantly. So you know, we we aim to do that as much as possible. and you know I will say that in some jurisdictions we have, you know, some more unique solutions as to how to

[99:01] how to be a little more space efficient. And those are not permitted here. So we're we're doing the best we can in terms of driving that price point down per person as far as what's what's allowed in boulder. Chairman, intervene? Oh. Like, who's talking. Hi! This is Missueta from the city attorney's office. I'm requesting permission to intervene here. Sure. Affordability is not a criteria that is, before the Board this evening for the Concept Plan Review. And so I would caution further inquiries in this line. It's a reasonable question, but it's not in the scope of this meeting, and would be something further discussed at a site review. Thank you. Great. I appreciate you interjecting yourself at that point. So back. Was just responding to what the what was presented to us from the applicant. So I understand I understand the concern, and that was my last question. Thank you.

[100:02] Great, can I colloquy? Sure, as long as it's not about it's not about the affordability. But you said something that piqued my interest. You said other things that aren't allowed. What are those other things that aren't allowed? So we do actually have a very unique furniture solution that takes a slightly larger bedroom and accommodates it for 2 students, while provides a lot of privacy for each person. And that creates typically a much lower price point than you would see as a standard single occupancy bedroom, and that, to my understanding, is not permitted here in Boulder. Can someone educate me as to why I feel like I should know this. I am only guessing here because we've come across this before. and I think it has to do with how they're leased.

[101:00] and whether or not that's legal to do. That's my memory of this from a project that we saw some years ago. But I could be wrong. Okay, Claudia, I think your next thank you. I have a few that have not been answered yet. Oh, I'm sorry. One other thing that project had to do with bedroom count, and and the and the number of bedrooms affected the parking count in this site, it might not be the same issue. Yeah. okay, please proceed. Okay, quick one, to see if I'm reading the plans correctly in the baseline building. Those townhouse unit entries along the interior parking lot. Are they showing as one floor lower than the street frontages. Is that where you're doing the the changing grade? The building steps down all the way along. But it's it.

[102:01] We have some flexibility on the southern half of that building as to how much we step that lower floor because we can't step the second floor. whereas on the on the northern half of that building they're each individual townhouses so they can step more readily, and they step in parallel with the the parking, so that the parking driveway is not an excessive slope. So you'll see, or if you notice that they're each each of those northern townhouse, 2 of them together would step, so is the surface parking. Then, below the grade of baseline. No? Well, Baseline's 20 feet higher than 30th Street. Those 30th Street units at the northern end. Okay, I'm I'm struggling. There's a big slope from Baseline to the northern end of this. Yeah, yeah, I'm just. I'm looking at the floor plans that you've put in there, and there's something called a lower level, which seems to be where the parking is, and then there is a ground floor. I'm sorry I thought you were talking about the 30th Street, the northern section. No apologies. I am talking about the building on Baseline, on Baseline. Yes, as you go north along 30th Street the grade drops quite a bit. So we have the ability to do a loft floor

[103:18] on on those townhouses, Jake, do you want to say more? Where are you? Here you are. Jacob Schneck with silver Spartan architects. Yeah, so essentially, baseline. You come in at ground level. The parking is at the lower level behind. You would step down to that and these units along, baseline. step down and have the parking lot entry on the back. Okay, thank you for helping me read that. some more questions here. I really appreciate that you shared how you kind of calculated car parking demand for a student project like this that 15% car to bed number is new to me. It's useful along the same lines. I was wondering, how are you determining bike parking demand for the student population?

[104:05] We are attempting to provide one bike per student. I don't know that we've hit that number. We're above the parking requirement. That's in the code. I don't think we'll hit one per student. We found that at Olive, where it's not specifically a student housing project. There's a lot of vacant bike parking that is secure in the building. So we're we're going back and forth on that. We're providing the area for additional bike parking. If it's needed. If it's not going to be needed, we we hope to be able to turn it into some other form of storage. That's for the residents. Okay. The count that I was seeing in the plans was somewhere around 200. So that does seem pretty low. I think that what's required by code is a lot less. And again we were. Our attempt is to get up to one per bed. If it's needed. We have the space for additional bikes. Okay. there's it, says Bike, parking and storage. Thank you.

[105:04] I asked this question of Staff. You might have a better answer for me there is seems to be a large amount of area dedicated to water detention in your plans, and I'm curious what are the particular hydrological needs at this site. What kind of a precipitation event are you designing for? And how will that impact the programming of those larger green spaces? I can't answer all of that. But I do know that the detention is based on the conditions today, on the site that the we have to provide water quality based on runoff, and we have to provide detention in to meet the existing needs. So, for instance, all those parking lots are considered hard surfaces in the runoff. We don't have to detain. But any of the non hard surfaces building non-building surfaces. We do have to manage the detention so that we do not increase the runoff off of the historic. Okay, so this is based on things like square footage of the site and impermeable surfaces. Correct? Okay, thank you.

[106:08] And then just one more for you. So we've talked a lot about these proposed residential units on the 1st floor in Bt. One. Obviously that requires a use review and regardless of market conditions, and how we feel about that a successful use review requires that you do meet specific criteria. So I am curious how you are intending to justify that request for ground floor residential uses with reference to our use. Review criteria. Yes, thank you. And I have. thanks to Shannon, got that right here, which, of course, I haven't got it in the staff. Memo, because at concept it's not an actual application. The rationale under C is necessary to foster a specific policy as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and I and the one this is the one we would try to address in terms of providing housing and for for group living arrangements and special populations. But I think also

[107:06] in terms of recognition of the viability of this as a commercial street. I'm sure I could find some comp plan policy that might support at least my view of it, and whether or not it meets anybody else's, the second one is compatibility. The location, size and operating characteristics of the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. If you look at what's there today, there is no walkable commercial on this street on either of these streets, so the impact is no better or worse in that regard than it is today. And 3rd infrastructure will not significantly, adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including wastewater drainage and so forth, and we believe that that would not be the case. And we'll have backup for this. Okay, I appreciate that. And of course you have some time to assemble that before you submit a final plan on this lots of time, but I think that may affect some of our comments, knowing where you're intending to go with that use. Review. Thanks.

[108:05] Okay. I'm going to call on myself with a few questions, and the 1st one I'm going to ask. I'll just ask Staff to listen in and correct you if you're wrong. But I think you're fully qualified to ask this. You talked about the slope of the site and how that can affect your ability overall building, height, number of units. And in fact, the number of floors does the code measure building height. If you've broken a building into pieces so that the the piece just a little north and 2 or 3 feet down the slope. has its own set of 25 feet from the lowest point to the 1997, Topo, etcetera. So you you get my question? I do. Yes, and so

[109:03] would. Breaking the buildings up both. possibly be an answer to the permeability, and we can debate whether you want that or not, but but break up the building and provide relief and flexibility in terms of the height requirements. Slide 10. Jake. Okay, so it may be a little bit hard to see underneath the yellow there. But can you take it out of presenter view and just zoom in on that stop? Presenter view.

[110:05] please. Now zoom in by hitting that slide on the lower right as far to the right as you can. No, the bottom slide. Wait there. You go far to the right. Yeah. Now move the image over to the left oops. Easier said than done. It's the other slide you're going to have to use. 10 was close. Okay, so maybe you could zoom out a little bit, but you can see the amount of grades on. There are those one foot contours. Yes, they are okay. Now, that's the that's the okay? So you can see now on the baseline site how much it drops behind those existing buildings. So when you measure height on a building in the city of Boulder. You measure it 25 feet away from the lowest point of the building.

[111:03] as I know, you know. So you're losing a floor right off the bat. I don't care which orientation you put the building in. If you put it parallel to the slope. That's the best case scenario. You put it perpendicular, perpendicular to the slope. It's even worse. Okay? But does breaking. Oh, break it up. So just say all you did was a building on Baseline. You did it 60 feet wide, which allows you to do a double loaded corridor and units on either side. You're going to be hitting that bench. That's there right now and then you measure 25 feet away from there. You're going to lose 6 to 8 feet right off the bat. Okay? Sure. So that that seems obvious for Baseline, the the 30th Street buildings. It's a little less obvious to me that that's the case. Let's take a look at that.

[112:02] If you put a building along 30th Street the you can see the grades along 30th Street. It's even more steep. So if you did a building that was just in that 1st lot, just on the 1st lot. running parallel to the slope and then broke that building up. You could do that building, and you may, you may get a 3rd story. but then, when you break that building to the building, to anything to the north, and you run perpendicular to that building on on Canyon Creek, and you run parallel with Baseline. You've got to cover all those grades. So you're going. You can see the grades on the street more easily. You can see how base, how 30th Street drops. You've got about 6 to 8 feet across the length of those properties. When you add that 25 feet at the northern end it's even more. Okay. This is just the fun of working with these codes.

[113:01] Will is the plan to unbund, to separate and charge for parking for all parking spots. That's my understanding that they're not. They're not associated with any particular unit. and this is a question. I hope the city attorney allows it. It's not a but will you be leasing by the room or by the unit? By the room? Is my understanding. Okay? And the reason I ask that is in relation to the to the parking. So I'm not familiar with your leases at other properties. But do they? Require either rental of a parking space or a commitment not to bring a car or to have a parking space that that the tenant we'll use somewhere else.

[114:01] You get my question. Yes, like, you don't want someone bringing a car, but not parking it here. Basically. Yeah. So, generally speaking, that is not something. We write into our leases, so we, generally speaking, give our residents the option to rent or not rent a stall from them or from us, and we, you know, don't put any restrictions on what they can do outside of our building. However, I do believe we have a recent project where we did add some language similar to that. So I like, I said, I have not read the language. I'm not a hundred percent sure, because this was very recent on exactly the language that they landed on. But I I get what you're saying, and that has been requested of us in the past and something we could potentially discuss. Okay, thank you. in the long-term bike parking area.

[115:01] Do you have a plan? It may be too early for the percentage of bike spaces that would be that would allow charging, IEA 3 prong outlet in proximity to the to the parking space. We have not yet develop that. And we're certainly open to any recommendations, because it's not clear in the code right now. And I understand that that might become clearer. I don't know. Okay, yeah, we'll have more on that. During comments. Same sort of question for your parking. Do you have a plan on charging scheme for your parking number of number of site number of parking spots that are electrified, proposed to be electrified. Electric ready. Any of that. Is that too early? It it is something we will be happy to address. But we don't have a a plan for that yet. Okay, great. That's the end of my questions. I'm going to just take one more quick look and see if anyone has a quick concluding question.

[116:09] Okay? If not, we're going to stop with questions. We're going to open the public hearing, which I expect to be brief. and then we can go on to board commentary. So, Thomas, do we have anyone online that may want to speak. Well, we still don't have anybody in the room, but we can go ahead and open it up to folks online if you're online. And you would like to speak for the open for the public hearing. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand, and we will call on you. and we have one hand raised so far. That's Lynn Siegel Lynn. You'll have 3 min. You can go ahead and talk. Thank you. The last thing we need in Boulder is more student housing.

[117:05] I mean. I'm sorry I wasn't here for public comment. I was kind of overwhelmed after I was only 15 feet from where this fire thing happened on the in front of the courthouse, and I've been entertaining press and friends and a lot of stuff since then. So I totally spaced out. But for one, the most important thing is free. Palestine. Now, okay, for 2, 6 bedrooms. Okay, what is it? Up at? 777, Broadway, 5. Bedroom apartments there, what are they trying to do here? I'll tell you what they're trying to do. They're trying to do expensive housing. I mean, they're going to have a penthouse bedroom now out of the 6 bedrooms, you know, and the point is the more diversity of expense between different units, the more it drives the need for more affordable housing, because it drives the wealth divide even in the student population for the parents that are paying for this, if they're paying.

[118:16] or for the students themselves, the same old, same old, same as just as regular housing. you know, and this is another High End Project Core, you know, down at Olive, or whatever you call that place. You know we don't need that we got millennium 930 by the bedrooms. This is outrageous. Seriously, this is so. Not okay. God forbid that I lose 1 min of my time at planning board ever. I will not do it again.

[119:01] Please have some sanity. This is not working. Our economy is going into a full, free fall. and you know you spill more money into the economy. Print money, and what do you get? Inflation? And what do you get? More unaffordable housing? And in lieu is out dead. You don't have any power for that, but you have the power of the purse to talk to city council and tell them no more in loop. That's outrageous. It just creates sprawl like out at Waterview, or what is called now weather Vane. What is this? What are you doing? The whole of of 28th Street is student housing. Stop already.

[120:02] Thanks. Lynn. Okay, Thomas. Anyone else online. We've got no other raised hand. So we're good to move on back to you. Chair. Okay, thank you. So I'm going to close the public hearing. and we're going to move into board commentary. And I'll just say that I I think concept reviews are a time to really get our thoughts out, especially if we can ground those thoughts as to how the project either meets or doesn't meet our code requirements and the goals and policies of the Bbcp. So I would just ask that we comment directly.

[121:02] Honestly, and we don't need to worry too much about her feelings, but keep it grounded within the the code, the code requirements, and and what the what the purpose of the concept review is. So who is ready. Mark. Can I ask one more question of staff to respond to something? The applicant said. Yep. Thank you. I don't know who on staff might be the right person to answer to this, but the applicant mentioned the Willville 2 project, and that their understanding is that that will actually create more commercial space than is removing. That's not my recollection of the project. But I confess I did not go back and look at it. Can staff either confirm or correct that Willville 2 either will or won't reduce the amount of commercial space along that corridor. I'm I'm going to jump in and say that what happens again? We've been admonished at other times about relating

[122:04] one site to, even though it's across the street, it's really close. That site has been through a concept review. Nothing else. It is not built. It hasn't gone through site Review, and consequently I think. whether the applicant brought it up or not, or whether or not that's appropriate, I think our commentary should not address the possible design of the other site. but with an unrelated applicant across the street. Well, I mean I hear your I hear your point, mark. I just the reason why I ask it, and I understand you make a very good point that that site hasn't been built yet. It hasn't been approved yet through Site Review. The reason why, I ask is in terms of the project context. And what is happening along that baseline corridor. So I don't know if Staff are still willing to answer the question. I really appreciate where you're coming from Mark that we need to be careful about relating one project to another. I'm just trying to understand the project context of commercial space available on that corridor, and how that may or may not change.

[123:17] Shannon Brad, either. One of you. Yeah. Yeah. We don't know at this time. The answer to the question. Okay, that's fair. Thank you. Okay, Laura, since you're on screen, you wanna are you prepared to start us off. Sure I can kick us off. I'll try not to be too wordy. I want to just start out with a general comment that you know this is a project that will increase density and add student housing in a very appropriate location at the intersection of 2 well loved and well used streets, one north, south, one east, west, near a lot of great services, and with great access to transit in the University. And that is a good thing.

[124:07] however, as density increases, it is important that aspects of the built environment that increase quality of life also increase right? We don't want density to be decreasing all the other amenities around, like open space, quality, architecture, commercial space, and recreational amenities and transit and mobility. So can we have a denser city that is also greener, more beautiful, more activated, and more interesting. And I say that yes, yes, we can. And that is what our site criteria are designed to do, and that's why I take our criteria so seriously. You know, as I've said many times. If we don't like what we're getting from the criteria in terms of outcome. Then we have processes in place to change those criteria. So I do stick to the criteria pretty closely. So that's that's where I'm coming from the criteria, help us have quality of life in addition to the density that is very appropriate and welcome in this area. From my perspective.

[125:04] Next, I want to commend the applicant on some really great design features in this project. I really love the cutaway balconies and material detailing. I love the recessed verticality of those townhouse units on 30th Street. We cannot require interesting and attractive architecture with our current code, but you have achieved it, in my opinion, in many ways with this concept. I like it, and I wanted to commend you on that. I hope some of those features reappear in Site review. So, in terms of the criteria analysis. I'm overall supportive of Staff's excellent analysis and the comments in the packet. I think the applicant would be well advised to address them all. I don't think I read anything that I strongly disagreed with. There are a few specific things I want to call out. so one, I think the rezoning on the west side of 30th to residential high is very appropriate. 2. I am generally supportive of the height, modification, for all the reasons I talked about before about this being a very appropriate location for increased density and student housing, and I think that the height modification is in character with the development and redevelopment going on in this area.

[126:09] But as Staff flagged in the packet we will be looking for a sensitive transition to those single story buildings those single story rental apartments that are across 30th in the baseline subdivision. And I can see in the design there already some efforts made to be sensitive, you know, for example, with the lowered height at the corner of 30th and baseline and those lower townhouse style units. This is something that we'll be looking for in site review is that that sensitivity remains or is improved. The parking requirements, I think, is that everyone here knows that that may be gone within a month or 2 to try to correspond with State law, so very likely to not have any parking requirement. But I was very happy to see the applicant requesting that 62% reduction in parking, I would like Staff would encourage them to go even farther, perhaps as a way to free up some additional open space at ground level. You know, this is student housing. So students are a great target population for car share bikes and scooters. And I think we can push that even farther. I know students like to have car storage for the weekends. But can we do something around car share for that

[127:16] in the packet on page 22. That's that's the Pdf. Page 22. But the Memo. Page 18. It talks about how people will move from one part of the site to the other, and you know that there's a relevant comment on the next page that the 2 buildings should be revised to more clearly relate to one another, and offer functional pedestrian circulation and wayfinding between the properties north and south of Canyon Creek Road in particular, to use those amenities crossing the site. And so I think we will be looking very closely at those pedestrian and bicycle circulation diagrams. People will go the most convenient way that makes the most sense to them. So the site has to be designed so that the most sensible way to get, for example, from units to the bike parking is not through the parking lot, and I don't know that I followed the applicants explanation of that entirely. But it is something I'll be looking for in site review. Maybe you already have that covered

[128:14] and how people get to the Amenity spaces for the Use Review. I'm okay with ground level, residential along Canyon Creek, which is a public right away. But I do think that retaining commercial space along baseline is appropriate where that land uses transitional business, and the zoning is bt. One. I do agree with Staff's rationale here. So again, this is criteria based, as Claudia pointed out, so I'll be looking very carefully. If the applicant does not come back with any commercial space along baseline in their proposal, I'll be scrutinizing their rationale very carefully, because my instinct is that commercial would still be very appropriate. Here I will say that I am a user of the commercial space that exists right now on the site is my optometrist.

[129:00] and that that building also includes a chiropractor and a natural path and an electrolysis place, and maybe some other places. There is commercial use going on there that will be lost when this is redeveloped, and I think that they do provide a service and convenience to the neighborhood that would be lost if there is no commercial on baseline here. So I understand that appreciate the applicants point about setbacks. But people are using that space right now. It is successful. and I will note that if if across the way, if we are not successful in retaining that sprouts grocery store, the nearest grocery store will be a safeway a little over a mile away down Baseline. And you know something that might be quite good as a commercial model. That would be successful might be something similar to Bova, where you have, like a quick sandwich kind of place with some grocery essentials. maybe something to consider. I think that's always good in proximity to student housing. I do agree with Staff's comments about permeability and on-site open space, the visual permeability into and through the buildings due to the length of the buildings along the street facing sides.

[130:11] Staff recommended adding a portal element to allow pedestrian access and views into the site or breaking up each building into multiple buildings, appreciate the applicants, comments about the difficulties of this site. We do have some pieces of the code that try to offer relief when there are topography challenges, but beyond that the challenges of the site are the challenges of the site, and that permeability and building length stuff is not in my mind something that we we negotiate about based on. There are some challenges on the site that's just part of the code And additionally, that ground level courtyard is going to be important. And so I appreciate that the applicants already thinking about how to meet that. I think that will also get some scrutiny and site review. It needs to be functional, and it needs to meet the specifications in the code.

[131:03] And oh, I also wanted to uplift Staff's comment about reformatting potentially portions of the building. This is on Packet page 23 or memo. Page 19. It says there could be a change from double loaded to single loaded design, incorporating additional tuck under parking or eliminating a row of surface parking to accommodate the necessary space adjacent to 30th streets. And you know they talk about allowing adequate space for maturing trees and landscaping. So I agree with Staff on that, and we'll be looking for that. And that's it for me. Thank you. Everybody hope that wasn't too long. Great. Thank you, Laura. That was complete. George, I see your hand up and. Yeah. And I should be relatively brief, because I actually agree almost entirely with laura's comments. So just kind of to lift up some of the things that were important to me within her comments that I think she also brought up similar to her. I support a lot of the stuff that was in the staff. Memo, I think these buildings need to be broken up. I think there needs to be permeability. I think they're just far too massive. I understand the applicants perspective that it works in different cities. I see they have properties with the same names across multiple cities across. They have

[132:29] almost 46,000 bedrooms under management is what they claim on their website. And so just because something works in one city doesn't mean it necessarily should be working in boulder, and so I would encourage and be looking for permeability, and possibly breaking up these structures to, you know, create better views and sight lines. I think in general the height is appropriate again, just being sensitive to views and sight lines, but also agree that the density in student housing is appropriate in this area

[133:07] similar to Laura, and by the criteria I I do think commercial could be viable in this location. I do not agree with the applicant just a little note on the applicant. They present themselves as a pure play investment manager of student housing and built to rent single family homes. I do not believe they necessarily have an interest in developing retail or commercial, and it is incumbent upon cities like ourselves. If we think that is important to create a place and environment that we that we focus on the criteria and what we have in in front of us, because I think that it would behoove us as a city to do that. And so

[134:00] That's my plug for commercial on the site similar to what Laura said. I also agree that with Staff's memo around the potential for some design tweaks for some additional tuck under parking and eliminating more of the surface parking area for potentially some additional open space. Those are in essence my comments. Thank you. Great. Thank you, George Claudia. I fear I'm going to be repetitive. But let's go through it quickly. I wanted to start with 1st key question consistency with the Pvcp. Just to echo my colleagues. I think this is absolutely an appropriate area for high density student housing based on both our land, use map and proximity to Cu, and also that it is an established use in much of the surrounding area. Like my colleagues, I do have some concerns about the single use nature of this proposal. We have a lot of new housing being added in this area. I think it is important to preserve some space for neighborhood serving businesses, particularly with a pedestrian focus. I think also, the transitional business designation on our land use map in this area really reflects the intensity of traffic that we have there on baseline, and that this may be a problematic location for ground floor residences.

[135:27] I really wish we had been aware of the requirements of that utility easement along baseline before your presentation. I do recognize. That's a significant limiting factor in how you program that particular street frontage. But I think, as you've heard, this board also has very strong feelings about ground level commercial space, and this is going to come up again at Site Review. So I would strongly encourage you to think creatively about non-residential uses and really dig into the code as you craft your use review request for those ground floor spaces.

[136:02] as you read through, Adrian, there's several justifications for approving a use review in our code. You cited one that requires the use to be quote necessary to foster a specific city policy. I think student housing definitely satisfies a Bvcp policy for special populations housing. But again, with this board, there's going to be a burden of proof on you to show that the ground floor residential units are necessary to do this. and I get the impression, past experience that we will be more receptive to a plan that incorporates at least some ground floor. Non-residential uses on that high traffic front. Regarding the rezoning rm, 2 to Rh. 5. I think that makes sense from a general planning perspective. That stub looks like a stub of rm, 2 looks like a relic, and the buildings currently there don't seem appreciably different from those in the current. Rh. 5 area that's proposed for development. I also think the resulting interface of Rh. 5, on the west side of 30th

[137:05] and Rm. 2 across 30th Street is fine. That's a very wide public right of way. and the zoning on the East Side there does anticipate higher density development. So no concerns there. I do have a few things I want to say about the site, plan, and building design. I think, again echoing my colleagues. The design that we're looking at tonight does seem to be putting off dealing with some of our major Site Review criteria around open space and building design. And I know there's a lot of moving parts at this point in a proposal. So it's hard to propose specific solutions, but I do have a few suggestions. So the 1st has to do with parking. I think the surface parking that you currently have programmed is clearly limiting how you can provide usable open space on this site, especially with regard to how you assemble enough space for a garden or courtyard that's going to satisfy our requirements for height, modification.

[138:04] And so I hear you that there's hydrological conditions there that might not allow for you to underground parking. But I would encourage you to look at opportunities for some tuck under, maybe consolidating more of this parking at an outlying portion of the site. or even a further parking reduction. If our codes evolve to allow that regarding the bike parking, I think, given the intended population here, the bedroom count that you're planning, and also the limited car parking. It does not seem likely to me that the proposed bike parking is going to meet the needs of the project. and so I would expect to see more of the bike parking at site review. I think your site design could also more credibly meet. Transportation needs with additions like infrastructure for micromobility. ride sharing pickup and drop off and also transit access. Staff pointed out that there's 2 bus stops adjacent to this property, and I know we have standards for what those needs to look like in the Dcs. But if you're going to be relying heavily on transit, use in your Tdm. And things like that.

[139:10] I would expect some enhanced construction and design on those bus stops. And then, finally, the building frontages, as mentioned, they are long. They're unbroken. I don't think they appear at the moment to be in compliance with our design requirements for visual interest, for pedestrian experience and for site permeability. and I think you could remedy this by adding some ground level passageways into the site interior, particularly along baseline and passageways, if you choose to add them, might also be appropriate places to locate things like mixed uses. shared amenities or bike parking because they would be higher areas of pedestrian traffic and higher visibility and potentially less appropriate for those private residential spaces. So I'd wrap up by saying, I'm I'm being critical tonight because

[140:03] I think student housing is not a throwaway for the city. I don't think it should be a throwaway for student residents, either. They may have different space and budgetary needs than other members of our community, but I think we should be. We can be, and we should be building quality homes and neighborhoods for them. So my comments are directed towards that. Thanks. Thank you, Claudia Mason. Well, I agree with pretty much everything that's been said. let's go through it. I'll try to be brief. That's not to be too repetitive. But first, st just thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for coming here. Really great presentation. It's obvious how much work you've put into this. I appreciate the project's intention to contribute student housing near the University of Colorado and support the overall goal of increasing the housing supply. I also second Laura's comments about the architecture. I think you've done a good job.

[141:00] So for BBC. Compatibility. I do think the project aligns with policies that encourage compact and high density development near multimodal corridors in the university has been mentioned. Though the transitional business zone, the exclusive residential use, does not fully comply with Vvc. P. Policy, 2.1 4 which encourages mixed use development. I'm going to actually consolidate some of my comments on that. I was going to say later. I think that you've heard from a lot of us that that's a bit of a sticking point here, just off the cuff. I think that when folks say creative creatively. Think about it. I don't think what we're asking for entirely is like a solid block of commercial like. Maybe maybe it's communal zones, for. you know, co-working, studying, or or something of that nature. It is, I think, a

[142:02] I know there was a comment around, that. This isn't really a walkable commercial. I see people walking this area all the time. I'm in this this neighborhood quite often. So I do take a little bit of a I don't think that's quite correct as far as rezoning from Rm. 2 to Rh. 5, much like it's already been said. I think, that this is completely reasonable. It seems like an artifact that this should be done. Regardless of this project, it's definitely appropriate for student housing, giving the proximity to see you as far as the Use review as been mentioned I. If there is at least some mixed use at ground level, I don't think this will be an issue. I'm not going to say anything more there, because it's already been said, and as far as site, plan and building design feedback. this has been touched on some

[143:00] in both previous comments and commentary in questions. But it does seem like something more creative could be done with that inner space. I know there's that parking is already lower. Maybe there's a way to cover it. Create more usable space in that center area, maybe opening up the buildings to that center area could be a more interesting and effective use of the space. I think that would meet a lot of the concerns that staff and board members have already stated here. I'm obviously not going to tell you what to do with your design, but I think that that might. There might be some sort of creative option that gives you both permitability and greater usability of of open space. And I think that is literally everything. It's quick enough. Did I do get? That's good. Okay, thanks. That was. that was great. Ml, are you ready with your comments? I'm ready with my hand up and everything.

[144:02] Okay I had. I'm I'm operating, not off of my phone for Wi-fi, and so. Anyway, it's it's so. It's a thing. So I'm good. Yes, I do. I am ready. So I'm going to just kind of speak to these issues. You know the key issues directly, but I will concur. I don't think there's anything that's been said by my peers that I don't agree with, so just add a little tick. Mark next to next to my name regards to what everybody else has said. They. They spoke very specifically about a lot of the same concerns. I have regards to key issue number one. I think the biggest concern with the Boulder Valley Comp plan is the land use. And I think it needs the high density residential compound land. Use. The question I have, as everybody else has raised is with the transitional business. The Tb.

[145:03] Which very clearly identifies a mix of uses, including housing, is the way it defines it. So I support the 3 points that the staff makes 2.1 1 4. The mixed use 2.3 8 streetscape and 2.4 1 permeability. I so I don't think that at this point this concept is in compliance or in conformance with these Vvcp policies. So just put put that out there to pay close attention to those key issue number 2. I have no concerns with the rezoning of of the property. It would have been interesting to hear the history how that little piece there must be some reason that we're not aware of. But at this point it's it makes sense to consolidate it. Key issue number 3 ground level dwelling units

[146:06] not only support what my peers have said, but I also support the points the staff makes. 9 dash, 2 dash 15 E. 2. Compatible transition, and also number 3. Infrastructure housing puts much more pressure on utilities than shops, and that's not something we usually bring up. But I think it is relevant and important to to put that on the table. Key issue number 4, you know, one of the key criteria that I find most useful in site review is understanding the characteristics of the of the surrounding area. So the built environment for this project is either these sort of nondescript, 19 sixties houses, or you know, this assaulting 12 story Will Bill.

[147:08] But their common. Their common ground between this site and the context is relative point I'm going to make is relative setbacks. So the 12 story buildings are set back between 175 feet and 125 feet from the street. That's about 10 to 14 feet of setback per floor. The one story houses are set back 20 foot to 45 foot average, with an average of 30 foot set back per floor. The proposed project has 5 feet to 4 feet per floor on Baseline and 30th street and has 0 or less. Then foot set back on Canyon Creek Road.

[148:00] So it may be meeting code, it may be, you know, reducing the setback in some areas. But when you're asking for a significant height, I think it's important to think about what the context is doing. So we all comment on how tall Willville is! But that's a huge setback. It set itself away from the street and gave an opportunity for there to be some relief from the hide. So that would be my suggestion. And I and I brought this up with the applicant questions is to provide information on how the 4 to 5 story building steps down to accommodate grade. So we need to see a site section. We need, we need to understand how you talk about losing a floor. How does that impact the way the building sets the buildings set on the site relative to? Again, you putting these potentially

[149:01] 5 story building, you know. pretty close to the street relative to the context. I would also suggest that you provide eye level perspectives from the pedestrian and from the car, so that the true impact of the height of these buildings is experienced and recognized, and you might want to take some pictures at street level of what it feels like to walk by the houses. what it feels like to walk by Willville, and then what? It'll feel like to walk by the proposed project. I think it's it's critical to extend your thinking to, in fact, include the context. And I think that that is something that is not quite as it isn't brought up as often as as it should be. I think the context is really important, so that those are my comments around.

[150:08] I'll criteria or key issue number 4. I think the staff's questioning about the permeability of the site right now people enjoy views across the site and of the flat irons in that area that's going to be gone. And so permeability, not so much as somebody needing to, you know, walk through the site, but to be able to view through it and catch a glimpse. These are, I think, important factors that create livability in our city. And we need to think beyond our site. And how is this impacting the area around it? So I see the characters characteristic of the surrounding area? Not just what

[151:00] does the surrounding area do to your site. But what do you do to the surrounding area? So and other issues? No, I I think I still yeah, this is a, this is a in agreement with the rest of my peers. Yeah, this is a great place for student housing. I just think we have to make sure that it's also going to be a great building for the city. and those are my comments. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Ml, okay, I'm going to conclude with an initial comment, just about concept review. And this Board's work at concept reviews, and I think that you've heard a lot of comments tonight that there's some real unanimity here about amongst the board, about our comments. I can't find fault or much disagreement with comments that have been made by any board member, and those comments, I think, align pretty darn closely with Staff's comments.

[152:15] The other thing I want to say is that in the last year or 2 we've had a couple projects come back to us for a second concept review. and I don't try to diminish the expense and the time associated with that. But I think that. When you get when you get a message really loud and clear, you know. Open your ears and accept it so, and I would rather I would rather see us have unanimity at concept review than struggle at site review with conditions

[153:01] 1130, or midnight that we're trying to draft that start to really change a project. So anyway, that's just some words about the way this Board has applied the code very carefully, and worked very hard to try to adhere to the city's code and acknowledge the limitations that there are things that we might not like and wish were different in the code. But this particular board has been really good about working within the code. So I'm going to answer the questions quickly. Yes, one. The Boulder Valley generally. Fulfills the goals and objectives and policies of the Bbcp. I don't have a problem with rezoning from Rm, 2 to Rm. 5,

[154:02] I'm going to go to Number 4 on the conceptual site plan and building design, because I think that the the big problems that we've talked about in terms of usable open space. And this is something that again, I wish our code addressed this differently, but usable open space as opposed to detention facilities as opposed to linear open space. Next to right-of-ways, where I'm not going to use that to have sit down with a friend. I'm not going to use that to have a cup of coffee. I'm I'm not even probably going to use that to access the view which I think the view from this site is an important consideration. And so I think that changes. And I'm I'm not going to propose specific changes because this is a concept review. But and this and that's your job.

[155:00] but changes to the site plan and building designs could potentially address the Bt. One question by by opening up and providing some depth into a courtyard into an open space that maybe has tuck under parking, you know again. These are these are things for for you guys to deal with. But some of that could be addressed, I think, in Site design, creatively in site design. and I would urge you to really think about how open space gets used. Outdoor open space view access, open space, not just the interior open space, and what the intention in the code is about those requirements. And again, intention, and what the code says numerically may be 2 different things, but there are some. There is some subjectivity there, as Shannon pointed out with.

[156:06] do detention, facilities and stuff account for open space. And this board I'll give you fair warning, is very interested in pedestrian and bike movement within the site and access to the site. And I can say that, for instance, the access to the long-term bike parking at the north side of the Baseline building. You have it covered with parking and and a small sidewalk from either end, that if I'm trying to move my e-cargo bike, and I think, hmm! Do I want to go? Try to go between the cars to access the sidewalk, and then make a little sharp corner and a jog, and so forth into that long-term bike parking, or how am I going to get there? And I think you need to put yourself in pedestrian and cyclist positions with a bike, with panniers, with groceries.

[157:07] whatever. And and how do I want to access that? Because I think a lot of times we design properties. We lay down sidewalks and we lay down access, and then everyone does something different. And and your plans to me look like you just laid down the stuff in a very geometric pattern. So, and this board has been very vocal and about making changes to bike Ped access and all sorts of projects. So I think that concludes it for me. But I just want you to know that that what you heard tonight we're as unified as we've been in a while. So take that to heart. So thank you very much for for your efforts and coming to see us tonight.

[158:04] Okay, all right. Do you do you guys any concluding comments? Okay, so say, thank you for your time. We appreciate your comments. So that's all I have. Okay. Great, thank you. Yeah. I think it's pretty clear what you have in mind. Okay, great. Good. Okay. Thank you. All right. That concludes. Agenda. Item 4, a and Hey, Mark, can I? Can I just make one more comment. Yes, sure. Laura, please. So this is not directed at this particular applicant, but just at, you know, from concept review to site. Review. Oftentimes things change significantly. and what we would love to have is have projects in front of us that we can say yes to enthusiastically. We don't have to monkey with anything. We don't have to put conditions on your project. It very clearly meets the code in a way that is good for Boulder. What we don't want to be in is a position of saying

[159:17] you've brought us something that we cannot in good conscience say it meets the code, and we have to deny your project, or you have to try to get city Council to make a different determination than planning board. I think that that is, that's not the best thing in terms of how this planning board interacts with our developers. So whatever we can do to encourage our applicants to bring us projects that very clearly meet our code, and that we can enthusiastically say yes to, and not change a darn thing we would. We would love that so again. Thank you. Thank you very much, and there's so much to love about your project. And I'm looking forward to seeing the Site Review or the next concept review. Whatever you decide to bring forward. Thank you for that final remark, and

[160:02] we'll get there. Okay, great, thank you. Okay. Now, we're really going to close. Item 4 a, and move on to matters from planning board, planning director and city attorney. In this case we have 2 items. Item 5, a, which is an information item. land. Use review. I'll just go ahead and read it. Maybe that's the right thing to do. Okay, a land use review vacation of a 20 foot wide alley right of way, ordinance, 8,704, generally located north of 1729 Athens Street, and southerly of 1328, 17th Street and 1712, Marine Street. This is Lur 2024, 0 0 6, 0. Okay, who's who's handling this one? I don't believe we have any presentation. Oh, there's no presentation you could reach out with any feedback or questions to Julie Defoe, whose email should be in the packet. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other matters from the city attorney or the planning director, who, I think, looks like he went home.

[161:22] So no matters in the city attorney's office, I believe our director still with us, may have stepped into the hallway. Oh, okay, all right. Great. Okay. We'll give a Brad just a second, Brad. Okay, under matters while we're waiting for Brad. Does any board member have any matter that they'd like to bring up, discuss, put forward. Well, while we're waiting. I would love to know if any of my colleagues are planning to go to that middle income housing. I forget if they called it a summit or.

[162:04] But I think are. Summit workshop. I think it'd be great if at least one of us goes. And if if you know, if the city's picking up the tab for our attendance. I think it's a reasonable request to say, hey, come back with your takeaways. and let us know what you learned, or what was insightful to you, or surprised you. I am attending. Is attending. Okay, yeah. And Mark, are you willing to bring your wisdom back to the board of of what you take away. Through through my filter. That's the only way I know how to. No, I can. I'll try to be as objective as I can. Yeah. sure. I I might be interested in going as well, but it takes the pressure off me if somebody else is going. But I do would really suggest that anyway, if it's a it's a it's a something the city is willing to pay for, and certainly middle income. Middle housing is a topic that has been lively for us. Okay, anything else.

[163:11] And we can carpool if someone goes. So okay, Brad, we have heard from the city attorney. We've heard from the board, and if you have anything to tell us, we're all ears. I feel like I misjudged. I thought there were a couple of call-up items, so went and got a power cord. So I guess I guess you whipped right through that. So well, we call up items. They were information. There were information items. And I was like, Okay, who's presenting that information? Successfully transmitted? Right? Yes, okay, good. Yeah. I didn't get to it. But anyway, okay, well, good. Well, yeah. Thanks for the chance for some last comments. It sounds like you talked about the housing

[164:01] event that's taking place. We appreciate your time tonight, as as always, we know it's a lift for for you to keep up with the materials. We've given you a lot of focus in the city, of course, about the tragedy from this week. So that is resulting in a bit of scheduling changes and those types of logistics as you can imagine. So if Staff writ large across the city is a little bit off in its timing, please please be understanding on that. We will also be moving to new software for the agenda setting. which also has implications for the memos. You're going to be seeing some changes in the format to the memo for consistency across the department and city. and in conjunction with the software, I think the 1st one of those starts showing up for planning board in July, early mid July, maybe.

[165:00] to my understanding, I don't believe we're going to use that with planning board for a little while. Still, the 1st council meeting they're using one meeting for is the July 24.th Okay? Well, you will nonetheless see it. And I think planning board is is going to be the 1st one, though, of the non Council boards that it gets implemented for. Yes, we will be the boards and commissions guinea pig for one meeting. There you go. Any questions of me? I'm happy to answer any questions. No, not we'll just. I mean, software is a big thing. So it's like we'll we'll just wait and see what that entails. Hopefully, it's transparent to you other than a slightly different format for the demo. Okay? kudos on the online calendar, even though the Pdf. I would say, Oh, okay, I haven't looked. And I would look at it. And then I update my calendar. So now the burden's on me to just look at it anytime. I darn well want to. So. But anyway, kudos on on getting that online and having it be updatable and accessible by

[166:09] many more people than just us. So thank you. It's the team's worked. So thanks, okay. And can I make one comment? Mark. I'm sorry, Laura. I was looking down. I didn't see your hand up there. That's okay. I just popped it up. I just wanted to say to Brad, and I think I probably speak for everybody here that I think every member of our community has been, you know, seriously impacted by the goings on of this this weekend. and we appreciate the difficulty for staff, both on a personal level and a professional level. And what this has, you know, this is not a national incident. It's huge for various segments of our community and various individuals and 1st responders, and throughout the city it has ripple effects. And so I just want to say that you know, I just want to share some comedy and some community and say that we're thinking of you all. And if there's anything that you need from us to adjust or adapt because of the pressures that you are facing. Please just let us know and and please share our deep appreciation for all the work that Staff is doing.

[167:14] I appreciate that, and I will pass that on, and I'll say we. We may need to ask for some grace on workload, and some things like that. So but we'll let you know, of course. Great. Thank you for that, Laura, and. Brett. Yeah. So, Brett, I had a question, and maybe it's you and Thomas. But regards to the packets, format and whatnot changing. Will the change help make the graphics more legible because oftentimes we get packets where we can't see the drawings or the information on the drawings, and I'm wondering, will this alleviate that issue?

[168:01] Sure thanks for the question. Ml. and Charles has clarified in our chat here that and this was this was my thought as well that this this won't be rolling out for planning board until later in 2025, probably probably mid fall, or or even later. But it will be an improvement on that front, because there won't be file size upload limits, which has been part of the problem for getting these planning board packets up when we have large plans. Right? I end up having to compress the files. and there won't be upload limits to my knowledge. So we should be able to upload the the full quality files which should be an improvement on that front. Great, great, excellent looking forward to that. Thank you very much. Okay. any, any concluding comments by anyone else at this point, if not, thanks to everyone, good meeting. And here we are, 8, 49, and we are adjourned.

[169:02] Night. Everyone. Thank you.