August 5, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:13] Okay, good evening, everybody. I think we are ready to begin. I call to order this. August 5, th 2025. Meeting of the city of Boulder. planning board and welcome everybody. So here in the room we have 3 planning board members myself, Laura Kaplan. I'm the vice chair. I'll be chairing tonight. Our chair is remote. Kurt Nordbach is here as well as Mason Roberts, and remotely we have Mark Mcintyre, George Boone, and Ml. Robles. member Claudia Hansen theme is absent tonight. So we will have 2 public hearings tonight, and

[1:01] we will start with public participation for any item that is not a public hearing tonight, and those 2 public hearing items are. get to my agenda here. The concept plan for 2985 East Aurora and a consideration of a site review and annexation amendment for 59. Excuse me. 56, 91 South Boulder Road. That's the Peacock place. So if you are here to comment about anything else. Now is your time, and we will start by reading the rules of engagement, so I will pass it over to Thomas, who will help us out. Thank you. Chair. Just give me a minute to get these slides pulled up all right. So we're just going to be going over a couple of basic rules for public participation. Thomas, I'm not sure if your mic is picking up.

[2:00] Can you all hear me online? Okay, they can. Great. Thank you. I'm just going to be going over some rules for public participation at city meetings. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes. Please visit our website at the link below the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code. and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[3:02] Participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. So when we are when you're given the opportunity to speak during the open Comment section or the public participation section for our public hearing items, you can hover your mouse or your finger. If you're on your phone over the bottom section of your screen and look for the raise hand, icon. please click on that so that we know you would like to speak. If you're calling, in which I don't see anybody calling in right now, you can press Star 9 on your phone, and that'll do the same thing. And then, if you don't see the raise hand icon immediately, you might see this reactions button, which you can click to expand, and then you should see the raise hand icon there. So we are going to move now into

[4:01] the open comment section, where you can speak on anything that is not on our agenda tonight. We don't have anybody signed up in the room so we can go ahead and move to online participants. If you'd like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand, and you will have 3 min each. Go ahead and call on you first.st Up we have Patrick O'rourke. Patrick, I just unmuted you, and I can go ahead and start your timer whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, you guys. I had the opportunity to watch the hearing on the silver saddle, and that's why I'm calling. But I'm just amazed at the effort that you guys put into what you do. So I congratulate you on that. It's it's always just. I'm so impressed by your your commitment to the community regarding the silver saddle. I'm the land historic boulder. and I've been tracking the silver saddle now for going on 7 years, and this is the world I lived in for probably 1520 years. I represented whole brothers, Dr. Horton, James. Anything under 50 acres came across my desk and the due diligence we used to have to take our projects to the bank. The reason I bring that up is

[5:22] a couple things came up in the conversation that should have been asked. That warrant number one is. did this developer ever go back to Ldrc when they were modifying those historic structures on it. The reason, I asked that is, I audit that pretty closely. I don't remember this developer ever coming back, so as far as I can see, is, this is demolition by neglect or demolition on purpose. And so the fact that Laura Kaplan would recommend be landmarking a property would be. oh, mind, just mind boggling. And that should have been asked this developer the second question, and it's the one that I used to always ask our developers, how much are they asking per square foot on this, you know this gentleman, Mr. Mcdonald's. I empathize with him because back in Chicago, where we did our developments getting over 10% affordable housing on a project was hard to do. Setting it at 45% is almost impossible, but he chose to do it.

[6:27] and he chose to do it through the Annex Agreement annexation agreement. So the question I give and I did. The back of the envelope numbers is, this is a hundred 1 million dollars project when they're done. And if you take all Mr. Mcdonald's numbers, you take the $600 a square foot. You take the $100 a square foot soft cost. You take the 10 million dollars cost overruns. He's still in this project for under 80 million dollars. And guess what he's asking between 1,000 $401,800 a square foot, 3.6 million dollars for a

[7:02] or a a townhouse. So you know last week when One of the other speakers commented on it. He mentioned Aspen in the foothills of the mountain, and I kind of generally tend to agree with it. This was our opportunity to hold this project up, and maybe we could have done a lot better. So I want to thank you for your work. I think that there were some things that were missed. I appreciate it. Thank you, Patrick, and we do have one more raised hand that I see so far. Lynn Siegel, I'm going to go ahead and unmute you, and you can begin when you're ready. Wow, Patrick, I did. That isn't what I heard. I heard that the developer was saying that since he started the project at $400 a square foot. It had gone up to $600 a square foot because of overruns. Among them, which I duly noted was Xcel energy put in an electric line and then had to redo it, and as a result they had to wait 6 months for them to fix it. So I encourage you to

[8:12] say something to the City Council, for you know. for keeping housing affordable here that Xl energy, we should not keep excel energy. We should get out of the agreement that we have with them, and start our own municipalized electric supply and the other things with silver saddle. I agree with Patrick on the demolition by neglect. Issue is is just not okay. and the 45%. I disagree with him. I think it should be much, much higher. I think it should be a hundred 40%, because the impact on this community is tremendous. And look at what we've got coming here, Sundance, we've got the roots. Music Festival that's preceding sundance. We've got performing arts complex from Sundance. We've got the limelight with 253

[9:12] hotel rooms like every corner of this place. And now we've got 6 bedrooms, 7 bedrooms on the Cu campus that are that is just eating into our lives here as citizens of our town. It's like an octopus eating us alive. The the latest one is coming up tonight. Later I can speak on it. And Europa, you know, going up to 7 stories on that project in places, and you know the diagonal Mackenzie Junction, Nobo, this barn place up with the mountain. That school that's up in novo like it's just stunning. It's breathtaking. It's not okay. It just drives up homelessness here to the point. We are never going to deal with it, you know. It's

[10:12] it was, Bobby, Yates said. It's $2,507 a day to just go along now get out of town and the other options are $54 a day for rough camping and then for permanent housing. It's $154 a day. We cannot. We can't take this. There's 2 2 homeless people for every one that leaves. You know. It's just undoable. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn, and if anybody else would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. I'm seeing none so far. so I believe we can move on share. Okay, thank you, Thomas, and thank you to our 2 public commenters tonight.

[11:01] The next item on our agenda is approval of minutes. and we have 4 potential sets of minutes for approval. So I want to check in with the board. I had suggested that we prioritize the believe it is July 20. Second meeting minutes for approval tonight, since these need to go into a packet for City Council pretty soon, and I'm seeing some thumbs up online. Is everybody okay, with starting with the July 20 second meeting minutes? Okay, did anybody have any additional comments or edits to those minutes? I know that a few changes were added and uploaded to our packet, for today's meeting any additional comments or edits. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. I move approval of the July 20, second, 2025 draft planning board minutes.

[12:00] I'll second ready to vote. Okay, we'll start with folks online. Mark. Yes. George. I think that's the one I wasn't here for. Oh, sorry, thank you. Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes, I'm Mason. Yes, and I'm a yes, so that passes 5 0 with George abstaining. Is there another set of minutes that folks are ready to approve tonight. Where would you like to go next? Should we just go in order on the agenda? Then starting with April first? st Sure. April first, st any objections to going ahead and approving the April 1st minutes. or any edits or comments? Okay, I don't think there were any changes to the draft. Thank you, Thomas, for that draft. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. This is for April first.st I move approval of the April 1, st 2025 min I'll second.

[13:09] and we'll vote mark. Yes. George. I I wasn't there either, but I'm I'm just looking at the minutes. I I wasn't looking at them because I wasn't. I was absent, but it has me mislabeled as chair and mark as vice chair on that particular set of minutes. I think that was cool, correct, for that April. Oh, is it? Okay? Oh, yeah, of course. Okay, okay, that's long. Yeah, that's fine. Thanks. Appreciate that. Okay. So George was absent. So not voting. Ml. Yes. Thank you, Kurt. Yes, Mason. Yes, and I'm a yes. So again, that's 5 0. With George abstaining June 17, th any objection to going ahead and approving those. There were some changes uploaded to the packet for today.

[14:03] Okay, any additional edits or corrections comments. I would entertain a motion. I move approval of the June 17, th 2025 min. I'll second mark. Yes. George. Yes. Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes, Mason, yes, and I'm a yes, 6 0. That one is approved. And and finally, the July 15, th 2025 planning board meeting minutes. Anybody have any objection to going ahead and approving those. seeing none, any additional edits or comments. I'll just note that I had one late edit that was uploaded to the packet. But folks may not have seen it. Let me pull up that email. So this was just with regard to the

[15:07] pardon me, let me pull up what project that was, or Thomas, perhaps you can remind us so. June 17.th June 15.th Wait, this is July 15, th right. Are we looking at? July 15? th Okay, yeah. July 15.th Sorry. Thank you. Mark, for. Direction. Laura. I believe the agenda title you're referring to is Site review, Amendment and Use review, 1830, at 1836, 19th Street. So this was that the 19th Street use Review and Site Review.

[16:00] This was the denial. The adoption of the Denial findings meeting. Correct, and the sentence that was added to the minutes had to do with the motion that I made to strike references to the use of the property as a single unit dwelling from the Site review, analysis, and findings of fact which did not get a second and did not pass, and I just suggested adding a sentence about the rationale that I had suggested that amendment in order to be consistent with the denial of the Use Review. So it's just explanatory of why that motion was made. Okay, I'm seeing some thumbs up. Okay, so and any comments or objection to including that sentence in the minutes.

[17:02] hearing none. I'm not seeing that in the July 15th minutes was that in the was that in the July 15, th or was that in the June 17.th I believe the edit you're referring to was on the June 17, th I think, okay, okay, my mistake. Okay. So there is no additional edit to the July 15.th Apologies for the confusion there. Why don't we go ahead and look at the approval for the July 15th meeting minutes, and then we can go back and make that amendment to June 17, th if the Board is so willing. So for the July 15th meeting minutes, any other comment or discussion or edits. if none, I would entertain a motion to adopt. I moved. I'm gonna relieve Kurt of the heavy lifting. So I move to approve the July 15th meeting minutes.

[18:00] L. Second, great and voting mark. Yes. George. Yes. Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes, Mason, yes, and I'm a yes, so that's approved 6 0. And then I would. If folks will, indulge me, like to go back and add to those approved meeting minutes for June 17, th that one sentence explaining the rationale for the motion that did not get a second. This was which the date on those minutes. Is June 17, th Thomas. Maybe we could pull them up and just show where that sentence is in the minutes. So this was the ad that came in a little bit later than the other edits. Just this one sentence right here. So it's that second highlighted sentence

[19:07] doesn't change the outcome. Of course it just explains why that motion was made. So we have already approved these minutes, and this is now just clarification or an opportunity. If anyone didn't see this, is that correct? Thomas, is this the version that was uploaded to the packet? This is the version that is in the packet. So technically, we did approve this. Okay, so technically, this is already approved. But if anybody has an objection to adding the sentence, we could unapprove it. This is really the Board's decision. It's the Board's minutes I'm in favor of adding this, and and I apologize for my mistake as chair here that I didn't realize which set of minutes this was in. Are folks okay with the fact that this was added and approved? I certainly am any objections? Okay, seeing none. Then this is already approved. All right. Thank you. Everybody.

[20:03] All right. Moving on, moving forward on our agenda tonight, our next item of business would be call ups. But we have none tonight, so we'll move on to our public hearings. Our first.st Hey! Laura. Yes. I'm sorry I I raised my hand late. There, I I just I just wanted to mention that. I found this set of minutes to be comprehensible and functional. and I appreciate the work that went into these sets of minutes. And I think it's a i think the addition of the Timestamps, and the additional explanation. the additional words that are attributed to each of us. I found them found it very helpful. So just appreciation to Thomas and the team for this particular set of minutes, and I think, that good work is reflected in

[21:01] the Board's adoption of the Minutes, as edited. Seconded commendation to Thomas for your great work. Thank you. And the team. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to our public hearing items. Our 1st public hearing of 2 is a concept plan, review, and comment for the redevelopment of a lot at 2985 East Aurora. To add additional dwelling units. Where currently there is a surface parking lot. the proposal includes 36 total dwelling units, consisting of 2, 3, 4, and 6 bedroom units, and below grade parking. The building is proposed to be up to 5 stories and 55 feet in height, reviewed under case number Lu. R. 2025, 0 0 3, 8. And because this is a concept review, the board will not be taking action. But we will be discussing and providing advice. So take it away, Allison. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Alison Blaine, and I am the case manager. Presenting this next item

[22:06] in this presentation I will briefly cover the information that was provided in Staff's Memo, including the purpose and process of concept plan, the project, proposal and background and some key issues for discussion. The purpose of concept plan is to review a general development plan for a specific site and help identify key issues in advance of any Site Review submittal. The applicant will receive comments from the board, staff and public, and as a reminder no formal action will be taken tonight. The applicant completed the necessary public notice requirements per the code. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet, and a sign was placed on the property as well. Staff received comments from 3 neighbors which have been included in the Memo packet. The subject site is located east of Cu Boulder, between 28th Street and 30th Street, along East Aurora Ave. The land use designation for the site is Hr. Or High Density residential. These uses consist of attached residential units and apartments, and may include some complementary land uses. The anticipated density is more than 14 dwelling units per acre.

[23:11] Subject site is zoned RH. 5, and surrounded by Rh. 5 zones on all sides east of 30th Street the zoning transitions to Rl. One intensity standards for the zone are based on the combination of the following and far limitation of up to 1.5, the provision of a minimum of 15% of usable open space and the application of height and setback standards per table 7. 1 of the land use code buildings are limited to a Max height of 35 feet by right in the Rh. 5 zone. The area is predominantly residential, and the uses immediately surrounding the subject are subject. Site are high density residential with the university campus to the west and lower density residential to the east. Commercial uses are located south along Baseline Road and north along Arapahoe Ave. There's a variety of building forms and heights in the area, for instance, the existing sterling apartments on site is 4 stories and two-story quadplexes and triplexes are located east of the subject site along 30th Street

[24:05] development closer to 28th Street, such as the Spanish Towers in Golden West, are over 5 stories, buildings, forms scaled down mostly to single story. To the east of 30th Street. The city's transportation master Plan shows a sidewalk connection along the Northern property running east-west as well as bisecting through the site running north, south. Construction of the sidewalk will be required, and should be shown on all plans and documents as part of a future submittal. The site is already developed with attached residential for the sterling apartments, a surface parking lot, and some vegetation, and landscaping along the edges of the property. The site is near Skunk Creek, and is therefore impacted by the 500 year and 100 year flood zone proposed redevelopment of the site will require floodplain permitting and additional design considerations. and that brings us to the proposed project for tonight. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing site and redevelop the western portion. Currently a surface parking lot with a new residential building containing 36 dwelling units, and up to 55 feet in height. Parking is proposed to be located in a below grade garage as well as some surface parking east of the new building.

[25:14] As submitted as part of this concept plan, a majority of the open space will be provided in the form of private balconies and rooftop decks. A cafe slash amenity. Space is shown on the ground floor along Aurora Ave, and the roof heights vary from 2 to 5 stories. Design also incorporates facade recessions and projections in the forms of bays of different materials. Simple details include awnings, parapet caps and brick detailing and the facades provide a repeating stoop element. Staff has identified 2 key issues for discussion, and I'll detail these in the next slides key issue. One is the proposal consistent with policies of the Bbcp. Staff finds that overall the proposed use and design for the site aligns with key Bvcp policies and the land use designation for the area by providing housing in an area that is active near transit and close to see you. Boulder

[26:04] key issue. 2. Does the Planning board have feedback on the conceptual site. Plan and building design overall staff supports the general design, including the building form and site layout and finds it generally consistent with several site review criteria. for instance, the larger floor Plate building incorporates varying roof heights and forms to provide a relief to the proposed height and mass consistent with criteria. facade projections and recessions add additional variety to building form and design elements like high levels of transparency along the southern elevation, create an anchor to the building form as well as a vibrant pedestrian experience. Staff supports the inclusion of simple detailing material material assignment to building forms and lack of in-plane material changes. There are some specific concerns about usable open space for the site which is predominantly private balconies and roof decks as there's limited ground floor public gathering areas. Additionally, a defined entry should be included along the Southern elevation to align with criteria and staff recommends the applicant. Better review the design, as it relates to solar encroachments on adjacent properties.

[27:06] and then, last, the applicant will need to consider some design options for the below grade garage, which is currently not allowed in the flood zone as proposed. for next steps following the Concept review, hearing city Council can vote to call up the item to provide additional feedback. After that the applicant will then either proceed with submitting development review applications or can submit a second concept. Review application as currently proposed. A Site Review application will require a decision by planning board subject to call up by city council due to the proposed height. and I will now open it up to questions. Thank you so much, Allison. Always a very informative presentation, and speedily done, which we appreciate. Thank you. Okay. Questions from the board for Allison. Kurt. Thank you. Yeah. I have a couple questions to start off. One is follow up really on the question that Laura asked by email about the flood, plain flood development, and particularly with respect to the garage in your presentation you said something about evaluate options or something like that.

[28:13] Can you elaborate a little more on what options are available other than not doing that? Yeah. One of the options, as it's described in. believe I don't know the exact code reference, but if they were to change the uses and include some commercial or mixed use, I think it's up to 25%. Then the garage may remain. and the applicants also hear who can answer questions? The same question when they present. Okay, that's interesting. Good to know. Thank you. And the second question is about the solar requirements. I was reading your. I think it was your. So this this staff

[29:05] comments about Solar, and I wasn't totally clear on what the what the infringement, I guess, was, and so maybe you could give a little more information on that. And also, when I look at 9 9 17 FI think it is it says the planning board can grant an exemption to the solar requirements, so maybe you could talk about that. Yeah, that's correct. You can get a solar access exception through the site review process. there are criteria that need to be met. I believe that's in 9 9 17 might be F, but it's in the solar access section. My comments are related to some of the encroachments in the adjacent roofs. The surrounding zones are solar access area 2, and those are predominantly meant to protect the rooftops of adjacent properties. So Staff didn't complete a full analysis as part of the concept plan, but as part of the Site Review

[30:07] would encourage the applicant to further review that criteria and the design to avoid some of those encroachments on the adjacent rooftops. Okay, that really, I guess, was my question. So it's it's really just rooftop. Only correct? Yeah. And the solar access area, too. The encroachments in the the parking areas, or some of the side yards, were not of a concern, especially if they're meeting site review criteria and the criteria for the access or solar access exception. But those rooftops is primarily what's protected in solar access area 2. Yeah. Okay? And it wasn't clear to staff that it that they were infringing, but also not clear that they weren't, wouldn't be infringing. Is that yeah, they were showing a few areas they had circled on their plans. But we don't have. We didn't have a detailed solar access diagram, so we couldn't confirm.

[31:01] Thank you. I see hands up. I think, Mark, you're first, st and then Ml. Great. Thank you. Okay, my questions are, gonna begin with a discussion or question about balconies. So I was reading the code, and so faults, or otherwise known as Juliet. Balconies are prohibited on certain faces and allowed on others are, if a if a false balcony is allowed. is a regular balcony allowed on that same face. typically a Juliet balcony could be allowed. The criteria is really written for protruding balconies that aren't enclosed by the building form at all. It also discusses finishing the undersides of balconies, so

[32:06] there could be a variety of forms of different types of balconies on a building facade, but they would still need to meet the criteria, and at least be partially enclosed by the building form. I see. So so that's the restriction. So if if someone wants to put a balcony or incorporate balconies into their design. that balcony has to be enclosed on 3 sides or 2 sides. It just says, partially enclosed. So I don't think we look at how many sides we just wouldn't want it to be fully protruding off the side of the building. Okay, so do regular balconies count towards open space requirements. And I know there's a ratio that has to be fulfilled between public and private, but regular balconies do count towards the open space. Requirement. Is that correct?

[33:05] They can if they meet the minimum dimensions, and they can only count towards up to 25% of the total usable open space for a site, but as long as they meet the minimum dimensions and size, then yes, they can count. And do regular balconies do? Does the surface area of a regular balcony count toward. FAR no. Okay? And so my, my final question is, is the current. So we've been presented with a concept design that I had a hard time, understanding exactly where the entrance to this underground parking would be. But in the current design. Did I just hear you say that without mixed use underground parking would be prohibited.

[34:00] as as shown in the current design. That's correct. But if they added ground floor A, is there a specified percentage of ground level mixed use that would retail whatever amenity space. Is there a percentage that has to be of a different use other than residential to allow? Then the underground parking. It would be 20%. About 20% of that floor, or 20% of the whole project. I? Yeah, I would have to look unless the applicant, the whole project seems. Oh, 20% of the whole project. And if there's further questions, I think the applicant can also describe them. Okay, familiar with the code off there. Okay.

[35:02] but could you could? Maybe someone is, is there anyone on staff that could tell me the logic. I'm trying to understand what the logic would be by saying you can have underground parking. You can in a you can have this parking in the flood zone if you have retail on the ground floor, but you can't. If you don't have retail on the ground floor. If it's a it doesn't seem like it's a life and safety issue it. I'm not sure what issue it is or what we're trying to. It. It doesn't sound like, Hey, Mark, it doesn't sound like it's retail on the ground floor. It sounds like it's 20% commercial within the project. So I don't think it. It's level, specific, or it didn't sound that way. Oh! That's correct. Can. Can someone confirm that? Okay, great. Thank you. George. Okay, that's it for me. Thank you. Wait. Oh, wait wait So so you're gonna have someone explain the rationale from Staff. I I think that would be helpful because I.

[36:04] Yeah, no, I well, someone I'm sorry. I I didn't want to take up more time. But yes, I I would certainly love to understand that if someone can explain. Well, I'm going to defer to the applicants engineer who's here tonight so we can have that conversation as part of Q&A with their team. Okay. Thank you. And I'll just say I think it's also Mark. It's in the email that I sent. I quote. I quoted the part of the Staff Memo, where they quoted the Brc. Regulations about when those buildings have to be elevated versus they could be flood protected instead. I think it's in there. So it's a Brc. 9, 3, 3, 17 d. And it's it's in that email that I sent that quoted directly from the staff. Memo, so thank you to staff for pulling that code section. Okay, thank you. Laura. Okay, Mark, are you done with your questions for staff? Yes, I am. Thank you.

[37:00] Sure thing. Okay, on to ml. Thank you so much. So I have. I have 3 questions starting with So the project is 36 dwelling units. But there's a hundred 9 bedrooms. Is that is that correct? Oh, that's correct. And if I remember the way these projects go, each of those bedrooms has a bathroom. Is that correct? I believe so, but I don't have the floor plans in front of me for the bedrooms. Okay? I will ask the applicant that question. Other staff question. So bike parking, it refers to bike parking requirements based on units. But given the way the units are actually used that you know, they're independent people renting each bedroom. Is there?

[38:08] a way to consider that the bike storage be relative to the unique renters rather than to the unit. to the bedrooms, or something like that? Is there any pathway. Are you referring to the amount of bike parking spaces required. Yes. They would just need to meet the bike parking requirements in. Let's see table 9, 8, 9, 8. So it would be 2 per unit. So my question is, because of the way these units actually exist in the world. Actually, are used that. So it's, for example, the 5 bedroom would have, you know, 5 separate renters for each one for each bedroom.

[39:00] Is there a way to require or to propose to suggest that the bike storage requirement actually reflect, reflect the potential users. I think the applicant can provide additional bike parking, but we don't have a requirement in the code. That's based on bedroom count, even if it's rented. Okay, okay? So there's there isn't any work around on that perfect is the project maintaining the building segments. Sorry, maintaining the building. What? I believe so. Okay? And those are my 3 questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Ml, George or Mason. Did you have questions for the staff, Mason? Pretty much. All my questions have been asked. I was just hoping Staff could speak to most of my questions revolved around the balcony spaces and open space.

[40:03] but I was wondering if you had an example of a similar project where the balance was achieved effectively in this type of project with the open space. How was that done? I'd probably have to look, but typically like a courtyard or other ground floor, communal gathering spaces. Since there is that cap for 25% that combines both the individual balconies and the common rooftop areas, so they would need to provide additional open space in some other way that isn't counting towards the balcony or the common roof deck, and that could be a courtyard patio. There are some other options listed in 9, 9, 11. I think most of the projects along the 28th Street frontage, which are similar. Density and mass are pretty good examples of how they've achieved achieved those balances. I'm not super familiar with those projects. Can you just like high level describe? You know, a little bit at the well, I shouldn't say a little bit. Some have significant ground floor amenity spaces. So sand volleyball pool, you know, ground level gathering areas. And then there's a combination of the rooftop.

[41:16] private open spaces in the decks. So just kind of a really good spread across the board of ground level, private, and then rooftop space great, and those projects seem pretty pretty bulked up. I didn't see a lot of space for like pool or anything like that. So we're talking mostly rooftop. because it can't be inside the building. Right? Portions of open space can count. Internally, there's very specific. And they're typically related to more mixed use development. So I think they'll they'll probably have to explore a little bit more of a balance of at grade, open space alongside the rooftop and then the private open space. Okay, thank you. Can I colloquy on that?

[42:00] So since this is one site. the existing open space that's in the, I guess the eastern portion of the site that's already developed. I'm assuming that that does not, cannot count towards meeting the open space requirements for this new portion. Is that correct? I think they can average some. I'd have to double check what it's explicitly states in the Site Review criteria. But there is some some language in there. Can I follow up on that? Because, as I understand it, the entire site is being considered as one site review. Is that correct? That's correct. It'll come through as one site review, and I believe the plan is to submit the preliminary plat for the subdivision concurrently with the Site Review, and then do the final plat as a condition of approval at Techdoc. Okay, but because it will be 2 parcels. You can't completely include everything. You can't. You can't just consider it entirely as one site. We would look at it, since they're proposing to have 2 sites, we would look at them separately and make sure they meet all the

[43:06] requirements for each individual lot. Okay, so if it is, could we pull up the image of the the site that shows the 2 existing buildings and the interior courtyard between those 2. Sure. And then the site that we're talking about. Yeah. So there's kind of the grayed out the 2 rectangles that are the existing buildings. And in between there, there's like some courtyard area. There's also a small building that's like their leasing office and a clubhouse that's got a circle on it. But you're saying that if they subdivide the property, then they cannot average the open space across those 2 sites they'd be treated as separate sites if they do a subdivision. There are some allowances through the Site review. I would just need to double check what it states explicitly. As far as I think you can average the open space between the 2. I can look at that and get back to you. But for everything else, as far as you know, the 15%

[44:06] that would be looked at as individual lots. Okay, all right. Thank you so much. Mason, did you have more questions? Okay, George, any questions for staff? Okay, I have. I have just a couple. So Allison, the memo, says that, due to the building's orientation, there are no conflicts with building length requirements, although the construction of the sidewalk connection would require additional analysis for consistency. Can you explain that further? Yeah, so as the building is currently oriented and with the lot, the only facade that would be subject to that regulation would be the southern elevation along Aurora, which is significantly less than 200 feet. However, that construction of that sidewalk that runs North South, and that would sort of bisect the property would then be considered public realm, and therefore impact some of the review, as it relates to the building length, criteria for additional height.

[45:13] It's part of the height modification process. So as it's currently shown, since there is no sidewalk, that's that was what the the statement in the memo was referring to. Okay, but and then that sidewalk would be on the east side of the building in between the 2 parcels. Correct, and then that would mean that that east facade cannot be longer than 200 feet is that. as the Code's written, they would need to provide some additional considerations if they wanted to go over that 200 feet. But that is a factor that staff reviews for the height modification. Okay, thank you. And then going back to the below grade parking that could be allowed. If 25% of the project is mixed, use.

[46:01] I'm assuming that that mixed use would have to be actual, open to the public mixed use, and not just. It appears to be something that looks like it's active. It can't be an accessory use. It actually has to be a second principal use on the property. Okay, so it can't be resident amenity spaces. But if those resident amenity spaces were open to the public like, it's a gym for residents, but it's also a commercial gym, or it's a co-working space for residents. But it's also a commercial coworking space. That is a potential. Okay? All right. Thank you. Any other questions for staff. Ml, you have your hand up. Sorry I wasn't sure you saw me. I found a couple of more questions prompted to so getting back to parking. It seems that as this is, a parking lot is being developed. Does this review have jurisdiction over where parking will happen for that existing building.

[47:04] Yeah. I would probably defer to the applicant to explain. If there's any shared parking between the 2 sites in the building. Okay, yeah, they kind of said they were working on it. I just was curious as to So it's 1 site. But it's being broken into 2 parcels. The one of the parcels looks like it's not gonna have any parking. Is that? Isn't that something Staff would look at, or I'm hearing sort of an agreement with between the 2. Between the 2 projects. We would probably. It'll. Sorry. No go ahead! We'd probably review it as far as the operational characteristics and the circulation between the 2 properties. But there technically would be no parking minimum parking requirements for both lots. So that would not be included as part of the application.

[48:01] Okay, so just the impact to that. Okay, and good to know. And my last question, would this property be able? Is gray water. An option for this property for the proposed project. I forget where we're at with great water initiative. But is that an option for. I don't believe it is, but I would probably need to check with Staff on that. Okay, that would. That would be great. That's 1 of my concerns is the 109 bathrooms that were being proposed among the 109 bacters. Thank you. Hmm, okay, just a quick colloquy to clarify the parking and forgive me. I haven't kept up. Has city council officially said parking minimums are gone. Yes, correct. Okay, so we're waiting for them to take effect. And they're the parking is no longer a consideration as part of the site review. And this would also be subject to the new State bill. So even if the code didn't change, this would still not have a parking requirement. Okay? And is that just for the the new parcel? Or is that retroactive to the old parcel that

[49:13] just for the new? So the the old parcel is still subject to its existing site. Review. Unless we were to modify that in some way there is no existing site review on the other parcel, right? Not that I found in my research. Wow, okay, all right. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Kurt. yeah. Just following up again about the flood. I still was not clear. If you had an explanation, or if you know why, we're imposing this restriction on subterranean parking in the floodplain only for residential. I believe the applicant was going to provide some more clarification. But this is in the code. Well, no, it's it, this it's Fema, and how the 100 year floodplain is regulated, and the reality is that mixed use buildings that have a commercial component are treated differently than residential. Don's going to tell you all about it?

[50:13] Okay, as part of their presentation. But we have base flood elevations that are specified in our code. But I think the you know, kind of overarching policy underpinning of why residential and commercial or residential and mixed use are treated differently. I think Don can explain. Okay. It is also in the code. But it sounds like that really comes from the Fema rules. Right? Okay? Got it? Thanks. Any last questions from the board for staff before we go to the applicant presentation, and then our public hearing after the Board asks questions of the applicant. Okay, seeing none, we will go to our applicant here. Presentation. and I believe the applicant will have 15 min if we can put that up on the clock for them.

[51:02] Sounds good, thank you. Can you all hear me? Yes. Thank you. So, Chris Russell, with studio architecture? I feel like I should just dive right into the questions. You guys had some great questions, some of the questions I had myself. Actually, you know, for Staff, you know this comment. You know, when their comments came back. But you know always the iterations of these projects, and and how they evolve something new always comes up right with every project here through boulder and this is. Chris, I do want to say we have 15. That's free to present, and then we have an unlimited amount of time for us to ask you questions. So use your time as you, will you got it? Okay, thank you. I will start sharing my screen here. Okay, so well, let me back up a little bit. Thank you to all the board members, and Alex. I'm sorry we're not. We're not seeing your screen yet. Can we get. That.

[52:00] Sure. Extra button there. Yes, thank you. There we go. Thank you. Okay, no thanks for the heads up. Thank you. To Allison. You always do a very thorough job here. Make my job a little bit easier, and allow us to jump into some of these great questions by the board members. So good evening. I'm Chris Russell again the applicant, the architect for this project. Here we saw this as an important site, that it is with a great access to transportation, outdoor amenities, and university. The owners really saw the opportunity to essentially replace the surface parking lot and turn it into something better that benefits the neighborhood and the university, and better meets the goals of the neighborhood outlined in the Pvcp. The Boulder Valley comprehensive Plan. We propose to provide valuable student housing to the University of Colorado in a location where its proximity to the university, and the abundant access to multimodal transportation and surrounding amenities reduces the need for the automobile dramatically

[53:04] just overall what we're looking to do here we're going to subdivide the existing sterling apartment property. As was noted. We're going to reduce the impacts of the 100 year floodplain on the property again. A lot of questions have already been raised about that some that I have as well. and to turn the existing parking lot into a complementary 5 story residential building with underground and surface parking that serves both the new building and the existing building. I know that was a question that came up. the new building, as you noted, added 36 new units to the housing stock through a mix of apartment types of 2, 3, 4, and 6 bedroom units. So a good mix there of a total of 109 new bedrooms. Student housing, we feel, is the best use for this site as it supports the purpose of the Rh. 5 zone that it's smack dab in the middle of.

[54:00] and the university. The vision of the University sub community, which is to support growth of the University by 2030. Again, Allison already showed this, but Rh. 5, smack dab in the middle of that just east of the University and Highway 36. Allison talked about the vision and goal for the Rh. 5 is to support that density for more residential units. This is a good aerial. I think that shows the surrounding of the sites. There's 2, 3, 4, 5, and even like a 10 plus story building to the west. So taking, we're proposing to take advantage of the allowable modification in the code to elevate the building to 5 stories and a maximum of 55 feet. It feels appropriate in this location in order to provide some much needed housing in this area.

[55:03] So what are we proposing to do? Diagram? One like, I said before, just initially subdivide this site into 2 separate sites. They're both going to be compliant lots, one serving the existing sterling apartments and one serving our proposed new construction. We're going to relocate the 100 year Floodplain closer to the South property line. and both of these, as Elsa noted, will happen concurrent with the land. Use review application from there. Diagram number 2 shows. Taking that existing parking lot. We're not getting rid of all that parking. We're pushing it down and underneath the ground there. We're going to make room for the residential building up on top, landscaping usable open space that I'll talk about in a second and a surface parking lot of 21 spaces on the ground floor and the 3rd diagram we're taking advantage of the allowable height and number of story modification to provide a 5 story residential building.

[56:03] and then diagram number 4. As you can see, we start to sculpt the building to make it more consistent with the character of the neighborhood, provide solar access to the adjacent properties, provide interest along the facade, and a pedestrian scale feel at the ground floor. Diagram number 5 is showing further refinement of the mass and the program to provide as much private semi-private and public amenity space as possible in the form of you guys mentioned. Roof decks, tenant amenity spaces a public plaza on the south side, and potential amenity slash retail space along Aurora Avenue to really really activate that side there Major moves here. This is probably where the bulk of our questions will be asked and answered here. So the major moves of the projects regarding circulation and the location of the mass in the program.

[57:08] First, st the surface of the new lot is split essentially in half with the east, half for vehicular circulation and surface parking, and the west half for the building and open space. The below grade parking would bridge the 2 and span from the east to the west property line on the surface. On the east half the 2 way access off allure Ave is maintained and accesses the 21 new surface parking spaces there on the east property line. and then continues north and accesses the parking garage and trash enclosure on the northwest corner. I know there is a question about how the parking garage is accessed, so you'd access it kind of in a counterclockwise fashion around the back of the building there. The one way circulation going clockwise around

[58:00] the existing buildings would be maintained. And then on that east side there are actually 25 existing spaces that would remain. And all of this parking on the existing site and the new site would be available for all tenants of sterling one, and what we're calling Sterling 2, so they would be a shared, shared parking agreement there. The pedestrian circulation. We talked a little bit about this along the south side it would be improved. We provide a new detached walk there, connecting east to west along the south side, and then the North South connection that isn't quite highlighted, and I don't know if you can see my mouse. but I'll try and zoom in here, but there is one provided going north south. That supports the vision of the transportation, the master plan there that would connect to one running east and west, and we got some follow up questions about how that looks like implementing. If you know for staff the questions for staff, what that looks like and how to implement that East West sidewalk, and how the properties share that.

[59:17] Let's see, the other thing to note here is that a direct connection would be a strong and direct connection would be provided for the residents of the existing building and the new building again to share those amenities. I know you guys, were you guys had a question about that. It's not just the landscape and open space on this side, but the advantage of the same owners for each parcels would be that they can access. This quite generous. It's a pool deck. It's a fitness area. It's an outdoor pool. It's quite a generous amenity space here on the existing site. There is a door that's not shown here, but it's shown on the very tiny 1st floor plan on the next the next slide there. That would access this retail space.

[60:11] I know it's not the main tenant or resident access, but there is a main public entrance, just about centered on this retail space on the west side, we on the west side of the project, is the building footprint. Obviously the entrance to the garage in the northwest corner, the trash in the northwest corner, and then open space would wrap the entire west side in the form of, you know, landscaping and a sidewalk there. and would wrap all the way to the south side of the building into a public plaza. There's also these small little pocket gardens or landscaped areas between the units unit entries on the ground floor that we would also count as surface usable floor area and something to note here is that the 15 or 20% required would be based on the new parcel on the west side. So not the entire project itself.

[61:21] Another thing to note here on the ground floor is that we are providing little stoops on each of these ground floor units to further activate the the public space along the ground floor and to provide permeability through this site, and people accessing and walking north, south through that site. The main resident access here, as you can see, has the short term bike parking, and I'll talk about the long term bike parking, as I know there was questions about that as well on the next slide. So going right to left we'll kind of take us out of the ground 1st

[62:06] below grade. Here is the access to the parking structure, and, as Allison noted, there is a conflict here. I'm still not sure if you can see my mouse, but I'm trying to trace where the floodplain the existing floodplain is. So one of the options is just to essentially shorten this parking garage and lose about 18 spaces there and try and recover those elsewhere. But that's 1 of the options we're looking at. But also in the parking garage is the long term bike parking area. Again, we're going to propose propose to go above and beyond, well, above and beyond the code required bike, long term bike parking for this project, and also there's a spot here for tenant additional tenant storage in the form of like lockers, you know, 3 by 4, 3 by 3 lockers there.

[63:01] on the ground floor. We talked a little bit about this. It contains mostly residential units, with an amenity space on the south side, and then you can really start to see how large that public patio is on the south side upper floors. I'll zoom around a little bit contain residential units, private balconies for the 6 bedroom units that you can see here, and we can see those on the elevations in just a moment. Roof decks for resident enjoyment and a large amenity space on the 5th floor. Here on the south side, with incredible views of the front range, as you can imagine, on the roof. We're stepping back the massing significantly and proposing a lot of usable roof deck area. A vegetative roof area and the remainder would be clear area for a future Pv system. I know I'm running

[64:00] short on time here, so I'll try and go quickly here. Here's an aerial just showing the consistency of the masking color and materials with the surrounding context. It highlights the stepping of the mass from Aurora Avenue up to the 5th floor that Allison talked about. Here we are floating above the existing sterling apartments, this highlights, the amount of permanent materials being used, 2 colors of brick, the tan, the red, the dark color being a fiber cement panels. This also highlights the stepping again of the mass along the front and rear of the building, and how it kind of crescendos up to the amenity space. On the 5th floor you can see the private stoop entrances along the ground floor, and the main residence entry here that connects to the existing sterling apartments flipping around to the other side. If we were looking from flat irons here from the front range. highlighting the attention paid to the upper roof, and how to best utilize that space for resident enjoyment, using the vegetative roof not only to beautify the space, but also to reduce cooling loads of the building and using the remaining available space for the Pv system.

[65:17] This is from Aurora, looking southeast at the at the southeast corner. The variation along the mass along Aurora. and the transparency of that 2 story amenity space. You can't quite see it there. But there would be a door here in the center. It would activate and and really create permeability into the site. With this 2 story mass. Sorry again. Just showing this. There would be doors here. I think I might have it on this side, but there would be doors accessing this from the south spot. this perspective shows the same 2 story space along Aurora and the potential for a local artist to create a mural to provide some interest along the street and within the neighborhood.

[66:05] just as a as an additional amenity space there. And as we talk about solar access with 7 seconds left. This is shaded to where the extent would happen. And I will try to answer a quick question about how that affects the north. Bruce, as you can see at 10 Am. It actually will hit the building, but will save the roof free of of shadows from our project. So I know I'm up. I'm over time. Thank you guys. And really looking forward to this conversation, continuing and answering to the best of ability any questions that you guys have, and we have dash in the chambers to answer anything civil. Thank you, Chris, and are there just for the Board's information, so that Board members can ask a question if they would so choose. Is there anything that you meant to cover in your presentation that you did not get to any topics that we might want to inquire about.

[67:07] My Presentation. Yes. No, I think we covered it all. I'd love to answer the bed bath ratio the additional bike parking. I think we went over the shared amenities between the the 2 sites there. I think I think we covered covered most of it. Okay, all right. Well, I'm going to turn it over to my fellow board members to ask questions and follow up on anything that they don't feel has yet been answered, or new questions that they have. So who's got questions for the applicants who's ready to go? Okay, we'll start with Ml. Thank you, Laura, and thank you, Chris, for the presentation. I haven't number of questions. So yeah, we can start with what you pointed out as far as the bedrooms and bathrooms.

[68:00] Your attachment, a proposed plans, has a chart. That I was curious about, and I'm not sure if it's incomplete or it's incorrect. Anyway, it says unit type number best number of baths. I think it only shows unit types. But it shows 0 units on the 5th level. So I'm curious if they're just a contradiction. This wasn't completed. Or do you know which chart I'm talking about? I do, and those are pretty unique units there. So the ones highlighted in blue, the ones that you're are the ones that you're talking about. Those. I'm looking at the chart itself that says unit type. And then in parentheses, number of beds, slash number of baths. and it's attachment, a proposed planes.

[69:00] It's on a bigger sheet. Yes, up in the top right corner. 6 floor plans. Yep. Up in the top right corner. Yes. Yes. Sorry. What was your question? Again? My question is this is indicating that there aren't any bedrooms on the 5th floor. Is that not correct? Is that incorrect. So it's it's 1 of those unique things. If you notice on the 4th floor there's 2 6 bedroom units. I could have put that since. So those units what we're proposing there is essentially 4 bedrooms on the 5th floor. 2 bedrooms on the lower floor, and they're connected via an internal stair. Got it. So I could have either put him. Got it. Was the assumption correct that the there's a bath per bedroom. So there's a hundred 9 bathrooms. Is that correct? You got it? Yep. Okay, that's that question. Thank you for clarifying.

[70:07] So the staff pointed out that this area boulder is considered a high heat area on the heat mapping. And thank you, Ellison, for including that. So it looks like the majority of the site is hardscaped. I heard you talk about some garden on the roof. But How are you thinking of attending to that high heat? We do have environmental questions on the site review. So I'm just kind of anticipating. Yeah. Where where this might, the the concerns that might be brought up, and one of them is that it's in a high humidity. Yeah, it. It's a great question, right? It's it's always that fun balance of how do you provide enough. you know, density in a building right footprint of a building, parking and access to the sites, and then open space in the form of landscaping. And so

[71:07] you know, this project is is no exception to that. That fun little challenge there. So we are going to provide at a minimum the you know, the minimum amount of landscaping trees, shrubs. You know the whole west side and south side. To be landscaping and green green growing things. and then again to try and mitigate the Heat Island effect, you know, up on the roof. Either you know where we're not covering it with a vegetative roof or the roof deck to do the white Tpo that we can also use for the Pv system as well. The Pv. System does a lot of good things. It does shade the roof as well. So that's another strategy we're using. There was a great comment that came up from Staff, you know, questioning the dark use or the use of the dark material. That's something that we will consider in the future, you know, just to reduce the heat it attracts.

[72:05] Okay, thank you for that. So. Speaking about open space is that sort of strip of green along the west? Is that usable. So technically. Yes, the sidewalk is the part of the usable, because it meets a certain width, and if it needs to be a decorative material. It can be and maybe Allison, you know, you can refresh my memory on on that part of the code as well. But half of that is and then the landscape portion of it also has the depth required to, so that it's technically usable. Open space. So would you be putting, like seating, and at opportunities for people to actually- actually use it again? This is something that is looked at, especially with the hype. Modification is usable. Open space on the ground floor.

[73:01] Yeah, and it it. I guess if it is it a physical use of the space or more of a psychological use of the space being open. To your answer. Yes, it would be sod so that they could walk on it and it yes, I guess to answer your question. So you'd be providing Cv. And opportunities for people to actually do stuff there. Correct. Not a yeah, not at this point. We don't have benches or anything there to make it. Right. Active open space. It's more of a passive space now. Okay, that'll that'll come up. 3rd site review, it's 1 of the criteria for high. So we'll just look and see how the open space is being used. Thank you for that. And my last question is kind of So you're asking for a height modification. do you know, did you? I'm sure you did the calculations. How many dwelling, dwelling units and bedrooms could you get if this is used by right

[74:02] without needing to ask for hype modification. It's a good question. I think. I don't think we looked at a use by right. It's a good question. I don't know off the top of my head. Okay, cause, because I was gonna wonder, how do you know how many additional affordable units we are getting? Beyond the use by right. We don't know because we don't. Or did you calculate what's the benefit to the city of getting this height in, as in so far as affordable dollars or or tickets. I don't know how expensive it is. Yeah, I don't. I haven't done the connection of the it's the cash in loop, right? The calculation there. Right. I'm I'm not sure about that number. I can ask Staff that question. I just was curious as to whether you had looked at things by right option to be given And last, but not least, given that your students, their-, their target market, our students.

[75:05] And I agree. And I think everybody would agree that it's a. It's a a very rich area for options to a car. however. It seems that students also come to the area because they want to enjoy the mountains, and we have been in Colorado, so seems like they bring cars. Do you have? Is there a plan or a strategy for dealing with the fact that students would probably bring cars, so just not going to lose them every day. Is there something like that on the radar. Yeah. And I think that's why we didn't jettison parking altogether. You know, there's a very cost effective option of not providing underground parking. Right? But in order to, you know, serve the folks who do bring in a car again, we have 81 currently 81. It's probably going to, you know, reduce a little bit based on that. You know, Fema, 100 year floodplain.

[76:10] But currently we have 81 in the basement, 21 up on the surface, parking so 102 for the new construction, and then the additional 25 existing on the east side of the existing building, so there is some provided there. But we will again heavily be relying on. You know the the not transportation management plan. But the tdm, plan that, we will provide extra bike parking spaces connectivity. That kind of thing. Yeah, I see, Mark, did you want to piggyback on that, or should I keep going? I have one last question. let's go ahead and finish it out. Ml, and I'll just remind everybody that we do have 2 public hearings tonight. So let's try to be efficient with our questions. Thank you.

[77:00] So my my last question is, you're talking about relocating the flood flood plain area, and that's a fema process. But I think I also understood you to say that you're gonna coincidentally continue developing the project through the various reviews. Oh, so what happens if Fema doesn't agree. That's something, you know, and Dash can probably speak a little bit better to that. And you know, and then how it dovetails, you know. Maybe Dash and Allison can talk. You know how it, how it dovetails with that. I think there's a conditional letter of map revision. Then it turns into the full letter of map revision, and when that happens, dash is the expert there. And I'll probably lean on him as well. When you come back to Site Review, you'll have some indication of how it's going. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, that- that should be good. That's it. Thank you, and I do see that we have. The other member of the applicant team has approached the podium. Did you want to add on to the flood

[78:04] question, whenever you guys are ready, that'd be fine. Why don't you go ahead? Because I think other members have the same question, okay, great Don Ash, I'm a partner at site works. We are an engineering planning and design firm in Boulder. I'm working with Chris on this project here. 1st of all, I want to apologize to Allison because I was incorrect about the ratio, and my wife says I am seldom in doubt. Often hell did he put that seldom right often in doubt. No. I can't remember how they put that I was wrong. The ratio is 25%. So you guys were right. We started out this project about 6 or 9 months ago, and we wanted to do what's called a conditional letter of map revision. We were going to create a little bit of grading in the front and move the flood line about 25 feet south. We did some modeling. The modeling showed that it would work. And the plan we presented in the concept plan shows that we were going to actually

[79:01] remodel the creek and do a clomer and a Lomer. If you look in the packet from Staff. In the comment letter, I think it's item 5 and 6 from Will. There are some problems with that one of them is the timing on the Clomer and Lomer. That takes a long time to complete, and we weren't sure we could actually do that in time, and then the second piece of that which is kind of a bigger deal, is, if we do a clomer or a Lomer, and we fill in the site. The code requires that we treat this as it's still in the floodplain, and Fema doesn't allow parking garages underground, parking garages for residential structures in the floodplain. So that's kind of putting the kibosh on our clomer Lomer process. And we're going to try to manipulate the building a little bit. So we're outside of the floodplain. If we did we could push the building back, say 2025 feet. That would give us room, so we'd be out of the floodplain. There might be an opportunity to keep the garage further south, but we might have to push the whole thing further to the north.

[80:12] There's another option we looked at where we'd actually separate the 2 story amenity space. Keep that where it's at, maybe move it a little further south. So it's a separate structure, and that would allow us to build the parking garage under the residential building. The discussion we had earlier about the mixed use aspect of that good example here in town would be 1155 Canyon. or the Orette, which is at 1095 Canyon. Those are both floodproof. They both have underground parking garages which are flood proof. There's commercial on the 1st floor, and then there's commercial on some of the second, 3, rd and 4th floors, and then there is more than 75%. I'm sorry there's more than 25% commercial in both those buildings, less than 75% residential. So that would qualify as a mixed use building and fema, and then we would be allowed to flood proof. It.

[81:13] So bottom line is, we're going to work with the confines of the current floodplain. We're going to massage the plan a little bit so we can get out of the floodplain and do the underground parking. Thank you so much. Very, very helpful. Thank you. Okay. I see Kurt has a colloquy. Yeah, just quick question about that, because the floodplain map that was shown earlier seemed like it covered pretty much the entire site. So I'm confused about that. The 100 Year floodplain comes down from Skunk creek floods certain parts of that side of town, but only goes 2025 feet into our site. The rest of the floodplain that you probably saw to the north. That's 500 year floodplain. Oh, that was 500. Yeah, okay. got it. Thank you. Thank you. And okay, I missed that. Thanks.

[82:02] Thank you and Mark, I apologize. You had your hand up next, so I'll go to Mark. Mark. You may be muted. We're not hearing you. Okay, great, thank you. And it might be good to have Mr. Ash stay up, since I'm have some. This whole flood garage thing is both fascinating, complex, and kind of frustrating. 1st question is, does is, I assume that you are having unbundled paid parking, given the small supply of parking in relation to the number of residents. So 1st of all, you have unbundled the parking. Yes. Chris can answer that. I think it'll be unbundled. Yes. Okay. does a? And this is like, and I'm not looking for loopholes here, but just does a parking garage, a paid parking garage count

[83:08] as a business, and towards mixed use. That's challenging. I would say no, because it's ancillary to the residential units at that point, like Charles was saying earlier, you know, we could have amenity space on the 1st floor like the coffee shop, but that wouldn't count towards the commercial space which would be required for a fema mixed use. Structure. Okay, thank you. I'm gonna just try to be quick here and move through these quickly. you noted that you might use parking spaces on the south as you move some some of the parking up or out, or anyway, whatever to comply with the fema requirements.

[84:02] Can't is bike. Would would you take car parking and and move the bike parking to the south? And would that be allowed under fema guidelines to have a larger with fewer vertical racks more horizontal ground level cargo bike kind of storage. If you put that at the south and moved your car parking to the north. Would that comply with Fema's requirements? I think Chris was talking about the underground parking garage, and if we push the garage to the north. then we might extend the garage even further north, to gain a few more spaces side of the garage, sort of like wrapping around the east side of the ramp a little bit, but to your point about the bike parking on the surface we can certainly provide more bike parking on the surface in the floodplain.

[85:06] All we would need to do is get a floodplain development permit for that. Okay? Okay, switching to your open space. have you? A lot of your open space currently on the ground level. It's not on the rooftop deck is very linear and narrow, and not not particularly usable in the in the sense I mean. I know it counts. It fulfills the city's code. but it's not particularly usable in terms of human beings wanting to sit down and be there and use it. My question is, is that using adjusting setbacks, moving things around, is there? Have you evaluated a way to have a modest ground level

[86:01] open space, maybe associated with an entryway. That would be more usable. I think, with the shared amenity right over at Sterling One. That's really where you know, it's 300 feet away. That's quite an amenity space for all the residents, I mean. That's that's 1 of the larger amenity spaces I've seen just in boulder, and that's not going anywhere. So to your point. You know it would be interesting, you know, if we do put benches along that western side, or you know little pockets, and I don't want to pave everything, either. So what can we do something with permeable pavers, or get creative with how to use those, you know, make those linear spaces a little more impactful. I think that's all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. And can I just colloquy on that last question that Mark had about usable open space.

[87:02] which also piggybacks on Ml's question? This might actually be directed at Staff, but in our code. when a project requests a height, modification. and I think I have the code citation correct here. But forgive me if it's not right. 9, 2, 14 h. 4. Capital B. Roman numeral, one small. B for Roman numeral one. This is additional requirements for a height bonus open space. It says, if the project site is greater than one acre in size, an inviting grade, level, outdoor garden, or landscaped courtyard is provided. designed as a gathering space for the building users. Given that this site is being subdivided. does that requirement for a grade level, landscaped courtyard which has specific dimensional requirements that I'm not going to read. Does that have to be on the subdivided parcel? Or could their existing open space count for that requirement of the height bonus. And if you're not sure you don't have to answer now. But that is a key question, I think, for the design of this site.

[88:06] Yeah. So I think we'd be looking at it together. Also, I think once we have a better understanding of, I know Chris kind of touched on it how the sites are going to work together? And also going back to your original question about sharing open space. I did double check our site review, and it does allow for averaging and sharing of open space between lots in the same zone if they're under the same site. Review. So some of those questions about the 15% open space would apply in that in that case. Okay, so it sounds like, maybe it could. They could use the existing open space as long as they are meeting all the other requirements. Correct? Okay, thank you. Other board members have questions. Mason, yeah, just one quick question. And this may be obvious. So sorry if it is. And I just didn't pick up on it. What is the benefit to the subdivision?

[89:10] I'm guessing it has to do with density. But I think that would defer to the applicant on their decision for the subdivision. Yeah, that's an that's an ownership to decision. I don't think it has anything to do with the site review or the you know open space, or you know anything regarding the site. It's more I think it's financially tied you'll have to. I wish the owner was here to to answer that. But I think it's on ownership side. Okay, great. I might have more questions about that. Come site Review. So. Okay. Other questions, other questions for the applicant, Kurt.

[90:01] I had one question about the north side, east-west sidewalk you expressed in in describing it. You sounded a little bit, maybe hesitant, or something like there was a question about where it would go or how it would go, or something. Can you elaborate on that. Yeah, no, I'm I'm glad you brought that up. It is shown, you know, as as this future sidewalk, right on the on the master plan there. It's shown, actually, I believe, on the north property the adjacent property to the north. So if that's you know, where does that lie? Is it half on our property, half on theirs, you know. Where is that line really drawn? And what does that have to look like? I guess that's that's kind of the basis of my my question, and and how we tie into. Okay, thank you. Other questions for the applicant. George Nunn, okay, I have a couple

[91:03] so on the property. Currently, there are fences that separate you from. I think all of your neighbors, I think, except for along Aurora Avenue. But the other 3 sides of the property are fenced. Are those fences intended to remain. And how will that function with your new sidewalks that are required by the transportation master plan. Great question. We haven't discussed I'm assuming that the fence on the West Side would would be you know, taken down and and rebuilt so that it's new. We haven't quite covered that in scope yet. But it's a great question again. Kind of you know, along the the questions that I had about that east west sidewalk there on the north side. Yeah. Is it? Does that sidewalk live on the north side of our existing fence. Does our fence come down? You know what is the public private separation there? How does that look.

[92:05] Okay, thank you. And then I wanted to ask a question about your bike storage. You say in your applicant statement that you've identified long term bike parking that goes above and beyond as a key. Tdm, measure. That's a little bit of a paraphrase. But I think that's accurate. and that you'll be providing, quote bicycle parking that allows for the storage of larger bicycles, cargo, bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters. But on your floor plans on page Co. 6 it says you have 72 vertical spaces and only 10 horizontal. Can can you tell us a little bit more about your plans for bike storage? Because I think we're all for storage of larger bicycles, cargo, bicycles, e-bikes, and scooters, and we're not generally loving the vertical hanging racks. But can you tell us more about what you're thinking. Yeah, that's a good it's a good question and a conversation that you know I'd love to continue with. Staff. Is that you know. What's what are you seeing? As you know, most beneficial right? Are we seeing the density of these vertical racks and just getting multiple bikes? Right? It's a density thing right at that point and providing you know what percentage you know, a lower percentage of these big cargo bikes? You know, obviously, the cargo bikes take up a lot more space, and therefore right? It's kind of that balloon. You squeeze it on one side, and it, you know.

[93:23] shortens the other side. And yeah, I mean, that's open for discussion as well. obviously, we only have as much space as we have on site. And how we utilize that space. Open to that discussion. Thank you any other questions for the applicant before we go to our public hearing. seeing none. Oh, Mark, yes, Mark has the hand up. Yeah. Literal. A literal hand. Yeah. It's easier to raise my hand and wave going going back to my balcony question for just a second.

[94:00] Why, is it? Is it cost or some other design criteria that's driving you towards a lot of the false balconies versus actual balconies on the units. It's a it's a good question. I'm not struggling to remember here why, we didn't provide balconies on each unit. There. Yeah. And okay, if you can't answer it right now, that's that's fine. And I'll comment on that. During our comments. That's good. Sorry about that. Thanks. Great last call for questions from the board, for the applicant. seeing none. I'm going to turn it over to Thomas to run our public hearing for this agenda. Item. Thank you, Laura. We're going to move on to the public hearing for this item. We don't have anybody signed up to speak in the room. So we can move straight into online participants.

[95:05] If you're joining us online and would like to speak for the public hearing, please go ahead and raise your hand. We'll start off with Tom Tunnor. Tom, I'm going to go ahead and unmute you, and then I will start the timer once you begin speaking. Okay. Can you hear me yet? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. My concern is just on parking sounds like that has been addressed a lot. But especially if there's no longer minimums. I haven't counted what they're adding versus what they're removing, removing and what they'll need. I do know. Several years ago I was at a meeting. I think it was at the City Council level for another nearby redevelopment, where they argued, if they didn't provide enough parking for every unit, the students simply wouldn't bring their cars. That was accepted. But that's not how students work. They just park on the street sometimes blocks away and often leave their cars long term. That building has now been completed, and parking has gotten noticeably worse in the area. It's it's often impossible to find a space on the street. So I just want to ask that

[96:14] parking is a big consideration, and they be required to provide enough parking both to replace anything they're eliminating and to provide for the units they're building and not just assume that students aren't going to bring their cars, because that's just not how students work. They'll still bring cars. and that's all I had to say. Thank you, Tom. And next we'll move to Lynn Siegel. Yeah, they're 35 feet by right. Do not go over 35 feet.

[97:03] Like the last guy said, pay paradise and what you get in return is congestion all over boulder invasive congestion from the massive density. Now, with the rent by the bedroom and 6 bedrooms from the Cu contribution quote unquote to our community. Does not meet the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan 1.1 1 jobs versus housing for the quantification like I have suggested before, of each person's contribution towards the demand for services at the Rec. Centers, at the libraries, by the police, by the fire. All the people that can't afford to live here. These students contribute to the jobs in jobs, housing, imbalance, and that does not meet. Staff is wrong that does not meet Boulder Valley Comp. Plan 1.1 1

[98:10] the below garage flooding issue should not. There should be no compensation for in any way, no subsidies. What I'm saying, basically, is certainly not one subsidy for this development. I mean, we can't help what they can do, but don't feed them. We are in times of trump. Our economy is going to melt down shortly. You know the cost of everything going up to repair our streets so they can drive their cars. If they aren't driving their cars, they're riding their bicycles, and the bicycles are actually using up, you know, carbon footprint in the tires in the you know, in the, you know, making the bike. Everything uses up carbon footprint

[99:05] for a human being, and just their physical bodies. and the physical intensity of use at the football games, the police, the you know, the firecrackers, the fire danger, all of these things are imposed upon the community, and residents like me. and we don't like it. and we don't want to take it anymore, and it is invasive and it is obsessive. I mean the olive, the millennium rent by the bedroom. 7 bedrooms practically, you know, per apartment, and I understand they have a bathroom for each. But guess what? They have one kitchen and they have one laundry, so the developer's laughing all the way to the bank. Don't do it. Thank you, Lynn, and I'm seeing no other raised hands. But if anybody would like to speak on this item, please go ahead and raise your hand.

[100:07] otherwise we will move on, and I'm seeing none. Okay, thank you, Thomas, and thank you to our 2 commenters on this item. Now it is time for board comments back to the applicants, some feedback that we there is no decision. There's no voting on this. This is just individual board member commentary, although we can, of course, colloquy and support or disagree with each other as we will, and we usually we just let each board member go through their thoughts, but it may help to put up the key questions identified by Staff. So if we could pull those up board members on your marks, get ready.

[101:01] So do we have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design. And do we have thoughts about consistency with Bvcp policies? Are 2 key questions for the evening. Who would like to go first? st Okay, so I'm seeing Ml, and then Mark. Mark. Did you want to jump first, st or are you good oops. I think Mark is deferring to you. Ml, go right ahead. Okay, perfect. My screen is frozen. But you guys can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, so my thoughts about the Bdcp, and thank you, Allison, for doing some research for me. as we've seen with city currently. We're concerned with water and water use. And so one of my

[102:06] one of the concerns that I will bring to this project is a hundred 9 bathrooms to go to these 109 bedrooms. and the compliance with Bdcp. There were in Ellison's research. There were 4 specific policies that she identified. I'm sure that there are more 3.1 3 3.2 6 3.2 7 and 5.1 2. So consistent with BBC policies. I think we have to be concerned about our water resource. And I would like, for the conversation to happen or staff to provide the input to the applicant as to whether or not gray water can be used on this site. So that's that's my only concern with the Bbcp and excuse me, comments on that

[103:02] relative to the rest of the project and the site and the Site review criteria. I think you've heard the input, the input about usable open space. We don't think about it as conception conceptually usable, but actually usable. So that would be a good thing to look at, and have resolved. Whether you know the amenity that's on the existing building is is the option for the open space for this project. I I've heard conflicting things, but I think usable open space will be a concern in addition, of course, to the water usage I've already spoken about, and my other question, and maybe Staff can have have this for site Review is, if this project was developed, used by right, how? What does our community benefit? Look like in that scenario versus? What have we gained by

[104:08] amending the process, modifying and adding the 2 floors? And whatever square footage is associated. So I'd like to know what we gain as community benefit from the height, modification in particular. And I will say this in general to the applicant that Delighted to see that you came with a project that actually steps back. and that wasn't trying to do. You know some paste it on, you know, hit groups and and just outrageous forms. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the building as proposed, and I think that Allison's comments about the materials and lightening things up and providing entry. All of those are valid. But just I do appreciate what you're proposing as as the architecture on that site, and and thank you for, you know, stepping the building back and reducing the mess and doing all those things that make the experience of the building of a tall building. Actually.

[105:24] it diminishes the impact to the people around in the community and walking by and driving by. Okay, those are my comments. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ml, mark, you're up next. Okay? in my questions about amenity space and open space on the ground level, I'll just simply turn it into a comment that it's just issue. You should certainly evaluate adjusting the ground level design to provide even a small bit

[106:06] of ground level, functional, usable gathering open space that doesn't require walking over to the the larger pool area and stuff. And and maybe that's just better for smaller groups. Or if you don't want to go to the pool or whatever. So, anyway, I'm always wary of projects where the entire open space requirement is fulfilled. With linear open space and Laura's already, Laura, I suspect you'll have a comment on that courtyard. The next thing would be recommendation to move the bike parking up to a to the ground level, and actually make a really attractive bike, storage, maintenance, facility, etc. And and then redo the bike parking to eliminate or drastically reduce

[107:02] lifting and only accommodating standard lightweight acoustic bikes versus cargo bikes given the parking. And I'm I'm all for you guys converting a parking lot. And I I'm in support of us, not having parking minimums, but just in in the in the world of things given the amount of parking for the number of bedrooms and people making bike bike parking the focus would be, I think, I think, wise and then be certain when you come back that in your Tdm. Plan that you have unbundled, and you are charging for auto parking. I think, is that that will be a a test of your Tdm plan. Rooftop decks, while

[108:03] when we see them on drawings and everything are can be really fantastic, and we envision being up there on a on a on a breezy day, and it sounds wonderful they can be incredibly hot and inhospitable. And I think you should consider enlarging your Pv system and making some of the rooftop deck space actually be under solar awnings for additional shading additional space out from the heat or sheltered from rain or snow. Finally, I I question the number of Juliet or false balconies. And why not, have a real deck, albeit it could be very small. A deck in again in a you have a 4 or 6 bedroom place and a small deck can be that space that

[109:13] someone a respite from the rest of the crowd. So I I don't see a reason not to do that, and then, it may be in the code, it may be in your design. It may be an expense. but Juliet balconies versus real balconies. I don't think there's a great case to be made there, and that's it for me. Thank you. Mark. Next up, Mason. Great thanks. 1st thought. Thank you for the thoughtful presentation, both Staff and the applicant. I appreciate the direction of this project, particularly its contribution to addressing our housing needs in a location that's close to jobs transit and the university. I do believe this is consistent with our Bvcp calls of compact infill development and reflects a physically and environmentally responsible pattern of growth for the city.

[110:04] I do think you've heard a lot of these comments already from other board members, so I won't land on them. But you can definitely expect us to drill further into it. Site Review. Enhancing this entry, incorporating usable, shared open space at the ground level. making this a place where it's desirable to own a bike storage maintenance. Wash off areas. I'd love to see a design that. you know. Should a student show up with their car, rethink having a car and and and getting living more of a bike lifestyle. The subdivision question that I had. This may be more to staff and due to my ignorance of anything else, but it seems it feels inappropriate to judge a site based on shared amenities when those amenities could be sold off and not be shared at some point. So I would need to know the justification for that, and whether my, whether or not my concern is warranted again, that's probably just just me being a little bit ignorant on that

[111:06] other than that. That is all my comments. Thank you, Mason Curt. thank you. I think overall. This is a really positive project. Repurposing surface parking, I think is a is a great way to go. It's about a block from Cu. It's hard to find a more appropriate place for an fairly intensive project that's student oriented, and that is relatively car light. So I think that that's completely appropriate. And as a result, I feel that overall the proposal is consistent with the Bvcp policies. My colleagues made a number of comments that I agree with. I won't reiterate those I will. Well, one, I will reiterate, which is about the additional horizontal bike parking. It's not just cargo bikes, it's electric bikes which people are using more and more. And those are very difficult to lift into vertical parking spaces, and so accommodating more of those in a better way would be great.

[112:13] The other thing I want to talk about is just the exterior design. I really appreciate the simplicity of design of the existing building. sterling one, or whatever it's called, which has this nice, simple, repeating pattern on the facade, and I think you have mimicked that in a successful way on the west facade of this project. But I find that the east facade is a little bit overly complicated and not particularly consistent, and doesn't have that nice symmetry and a repeated form that is shown in the in the original building. And so I would urge you to consider redesigning the east facade a little bit to be more similar to what you have on the west facade, which I

[113:04] find is more successful, and those are my only comments. Thank you. George, yeah. That's. Yeah, I'll I'll just echo the comments of my colleagues. I don't have I don't want to reiterate. There are things except to emphasize a few things. One, as Ml. Stated, I really do appreciate the way the building's been set back. I think that makes a lot of sense off the bat. I share her concerns with a bathroom per bedroom as far as water usage. I I share Staff's concerns that I I do think there there needs to be, some additional. some kind of open space, some kind of congregation space more than what's shown in the project. I understand the idea of shared amenities, and as related to shared amenities, as Mason says. What I would look to to make sure. Because I think this project and Sterling one are going to be

[114:12] It sounds like there'll be a relatively symbiotic. I'm assuming that unless told. Otherwise, the reason why we're doing a separate parcel is probably there are different owners, or there's there's financing considerations, etc. Which is understandable. I would look to staff and the developer to potentially put either some easements or some some agreements that exist in perpetuity between these 2 structures. So that to Mason's Point, you know. Something can't be sold off. And all of a sudden someone doesn't have access to what we thought was a shared amenity. You know, 20 years down the road. So something to think about as it relates to how the project is presented back when it comes back. And that's it. Thank you.

[115:05] Thank you, George. Okay. And I'll finish up. So my comments, this is exactly the type of project that we love to see. It is taking a surface parking lot and using it for good, with infill and for residential. In this wonderful location near transit and near the university. You know, I've been on this street. I've walked it. I've gone through that underpass. This is a wonderful location for this project, and thank you for bringing it forward. as far as the height modification. I don't perceive from my perspective any complications with approving that as long as you meet the Site Review criteria, the Site Review. Criteria will be closely scrutinized, and they are not optional, and I have voted to deny projects that do not meet the criteria. I'm not super flexible about that, some of my colleagues, more or less, but you have a better chance of success if you stick very closely to meeting those criteria, but as far as the height in this area. I think it's very appropriate. As long as you meet those criteria, and I agree with my colleagues that I think this very much matches our Bbcp goals.

[116:11] I do support Staff's comments in the memo about the things that need some potential tweaking. This is starting on page 12 of 52 of the memo. It's package page 28 of 173. Regarding open space, defined entries, mitigating Heat Island, effect integrating balconies, building length. Once that North south sidewalk is incorporated in the design and reducing solar encroachments. And Tdm. All of those things, I think Staff did a great job of pointing out what needs work. And I wanted to uplift those comments. I do want to talk about the breaking up of the massing that there are very specific requirements about building length. Not just that the building has to appear to be 2 separate structures. If it's over 120 feet if you get a height modification 120 feet in length. but also it can't be over 200 feet in length.

[117:02] Arguably. A courtyard which is also required for a height. Modification would help it to meet both of those all 3 of those requirements. So you might consider the east side of the building as a logical place to incorporate a ground level landscaped courtyard. But it's not the only place, but but that might help you meet those 3 criteria for height modification. I do think I'm going to be very interested to see what you do with that below grade garage, and it sounds like staff have a really good handle on what's required by code and by Fema. the fences. We really want these public sidewalks to be usable. And so please think about that when you think about what you need in terms of fencing your property. I don't know what the Tdm regulations will be at the time you bring this back for Site Review. Those things are in flux right now at the city. But one thing that we do tend to look at. In addition to having unbundled parking spaces is really those those bike racks. If you're really intending for this project to be very bike friendly, we would love to see a lot more horizontal versus vertical bike space, as Kurt pointed out, very important for e-bikes.

[118:16] I'm not personally concerned about the number of bathrooms. I'm not sure that we have data that correlates number of bathrooms to the amount of water used per person. I, personally don't use more water just because I have access to more bathrooms or more time in a bathroom. I'm going to use what I'm going to use. So that personally for me is not not a concern. but I am concerned about this idea of the usable open space being shared and the property being subdivided. I know that Staff will help you work through the code complications on that. But I, too, would like to see some kind of unbreakable agreement that's either tied to the Site review approval or some other mechanism that would prevent the some future scenario where the residents don't have access to that amenity.

[119:01] and I'll stop there. I just want to thank the applicant for all the hard work that went into this project, and thanks staff for the great analysis. And Charles has a hand. Yeah, just real quick. Since board Members Boone and Roberts raised it also. All of this. The 2 properties would be bound together by one site review, so there wouldn't be shared amenities that could be sold off into the future. This would all have to be looked at as one approval when it comes through Site Review. So there wouldn't be that concern in the future that a property could be subdivided off, and was originally considered with the project next door. Now, it's not conforming that kind of thing. All of that will be shared in perpetuity and will run with the property. That's wonderful to hear, although I don't know if that complicates the applicants plans for ownership. But so I want to ask the applicant, do you have any responses to what you've heard, or any questions for us before we let you say good night. No, this is fantastic. I appreciate everybody's time here. And comments, you guys are so so useful and then helpful as always. So I think. No, I'll take this back to the team ownership team design team. Dash, and I will. You know, continue to work on this. You know we're definitely not done yet. We will take all of these very seriously. And consider how to how to make this project even better so appreciate your time here this evening.

[120:20] As we appreciate yours. Thank you for being here with us tonight. And that concludes this agenda item. do folks need a short break before we move on to our second public hearing of the night. Do you want 10 min, bio, break anybody for more than touch? How about 5? I'm hearing 5. Is that sufficient thumbs up? Okay, 5 min break. Get some water. We'll see you back here at 8 0 7. We will restart.

[125:42] Okay, do we have all of our online board members. I can't see folks. Video. But Ml, mark, George is back. Hi, George, how's Sweden? We're we're we're back. I'm in your.

[126:00] Oh, you're back! Wonderful! Bare, barely barely in your time zone. Yeah. Hope you get some good sleep. You probably jet lagged. Do we have Mark? Do we have. Ml, I see ml, popping online. Okay, well, it is 8 0. 7. So I'm going to go ahead and read the title of our next agenda item, and I am sure that Mark will join us shortly. So our next agenda item is a public hearing. It is the consideration of the following, related to a site at 56, 91 South Boulder Road, also known as Peacock Place. Public hearing, in consideration of a recommendation to City Council on a proposed annexation agreement amendment for 5,691 South Boulder road to increase the allowable height for accessory dwelling units from 25 feet to 32 feet. This is case number LUR. 202-50-0018, and also concurrently, action on a Site Review amendment, including a height modification request to amend the approved design guidelines and allow for 6 market rate units to be up to 40 feet in height within the approved Peacock Place development at 56, 91

[127:14] South Boulder Road. This is Lur 2025, 0 0 2 2. As always, we'll start with our staff presentation, then an applicant presentation and public hearing before board, deliberation, and decision. So with that I will turn it over to Chandler for the staff presentation. All right, thank you, Laura. Good evening, everyone. Chandler Van Scott, principal Planner. I will be giving the presentation tonight on the Site Review Amendment and Annexation Agreement amendment requests at 56, 91 South Boulder Road. So, in terms of public notification, all public notice requirements in the code have been met. Written. Notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet. Signs were also posted on the property staff received several verbal and written comments from neighboring residents, expressing opposition to the request that height, increase concerns included potential groundwater impacts, neighborhood compatibility issues and wildlife habitat impacts. Those comments were included as an attachment with the packet.

[128:16] So just a bit about the process. A Site Review amendment is required because the proposal includes a request for height. Modification Site Review. Amendments are subject to the Site review criteria found in section 9 2, 14. A request for height. Modification requires a staff recommendation, with a final decision by the planning board at a public hearing, and is then subject to call up by city council an annexation agreement amendment is required because the applicant is requesting modifications to the terms and conditions contained in the original annexation agreement. These are legislative actions requiring a recommendation by planning board at a public hearing, followed by a final decision by city council, at a public hearing. Following the Board's recommendation, city Council will consider whether to approve the proposed annexation agreement amendment on August 21.st

[129:02] So a bit about context. And you guys are probably still fairly familiar with this. This came just about 2 years ago, I guess. So the site's approximately 5.3 acres in size, and is located on the east side of 55th Street, north of South Boulder Road and south of the East Boulder Community Park Slash rec center. Surrounding single family. Residential neighborhoods are greenbelt meadows adjacent to the south, and Kiwaden meadows to the northwest city owned open space lies adjacent to the site to the north and east. This is just another aerial photo showing sites location. So in terms of site characteristics, it's important to note, the site sits within a slight depression. So the existing grade slopes down to the north and east, such that the 6 market rate unit lots that are requesting the height modification for both the mark, the market rate units and the adus

[130:01] sit between 5 and 7 feet lower than the existing grade of the neighboring Greenbelt Meadows neighborhood to the south and to 55th Street to the west. So some background. On December 5th 2023 Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend a City Council. Approval of the original annexation request, with the initial zoning of Rl. 2 or residential load 2, and with the proposed Wetland mapping, subject to the recommended conditions of approval at the time. Planning board also unanimously approved the Companion Site Review. Application for the Property City Council did not call up the Site review application, and on February 1, st 2024 Council approved the annexation of the property. So, since the property has now been annexed well, it was already low density. Residential land use designation. But I'll just go over this again. Pvcp land use for the site is low density, residential. most prevalent land use designation in the city, primarily single family, home neighborhoods, including historic neighborhoods in Post World War 2

[131:06] consist predominantly of single family, detached dwelling units, and at densities of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The zoning that was adopted for the site at the time of annexation is Rl. 2. This is residential, low. 2. This is defined in the land use code as medium density, residential areas primarily used for small lot, residential development, including without limitation duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. I'm now going to go over the original site review quickly. So the existing Site Review approval included 15 new homes plus a replacement home for the existing vacant Kent home. 9 of the homes are 13 to 1,500 square feet. These are known as the cottage homes. 6 cottage homes are required to be permanently affordable to middle income households at 100 to 150% ami.

[132:02] 6 of these of the homes are market rate, single family homes at 28 to 2,900 square feet, with detached garages, with adus above, and the adus are required to be constructed per the Annexation Agreement. a mix of attached and detached garage and service, parking 11 on street spaces with 47 total spaces. The proposal included design guidelines which set forth the architectural and development standards for the project. Modern prairie style, architecture, features like gabled roofs, covered porches, wood trimmed windows, siding with changes between floors, a variety of options for floor plans and elevation styles and color schemes, specific requirements for side yard elevations facing streets to ensure transparency and visual interest. So as part of the original annexation, we did require that 40% of the total units or 6 units, whichever is greater, are to be permanently affordable.

[133:01] These are detached single family homes with a minimum floor area of 1,300 square feet. At least 2 of the units are required to have 3 beds and 2 baths. All of the other affordable units are required to have a minimum of 2 beds and 2 baths. The 2 bedroom units are deed restricted at 100 to 120% ami, and the 3 bedroom units are at 120 to 150. The new dwelling units, including the replacement dwelling unit, are required to be constructed on a 1 to one basis. This is a concurrency requirement. So basically, it's requiring that at least one affordable unit is constructed at the same time as each market rate unit. We also, as I mentioned, previously, required the construction of 6 accessory dwelling units. So every new market rate unit over 2,000 square feet in size. Except for the replacement, Kent home is required to be constructed with the detached accessory dwelling unit. We also required mapping and preservation of existing wetlands on the site, and we did get significant wetland easements through the annexation as well.

[134:07] So the proposed project just a bit of background on why they're in here. So, following approval of the Annexation and Site Review. The applicant submitted final plat and final engineering tech Doc review. During the tech Doc review process, the extent of fill required on site increased an additional 2 to 3 feet to meet several technical requirements of utilities and storm drainage. The finished floor elevations increased roughly 3 to 3.7 feet from anticipated finished floor elevations of the Site Review grading plan. So the height measurement from existing grade is approximately 6 to 7 feet below that of proposed finished floor areas. So just as a reminder. And I should have probably put this as a slide. The way that we measure height in the city of boulder is, we measure it from the low point of of natural grade within 25 feet of the tallest side of the structure, and the way natural grade is defined means the grade

[135:04] that was in place prior to any redevelopment of the site. So it's historic grade. Essentially so, despite the fact that they're required to provide, you know, up to 6 feet of fill, we are requiring that they measure height from the existing grade as it sits currently. So this has created a major problem for them in terms of how we measure height. So the scope of the proposed project is is narrowly focused. The Site Review amendment is requesting a height modification for a maximum height of 40 feet for 6 market rate homes, and the annexation Agreement amendment is requesting a maximum height of 32 feet for the required accessory dwelling units. It also includes several changes to the approved design guidelines, which are intended to reflect the new proposed maximum building heights allow the cottage homes to be up to 35 feet in height. Currently, the design guidelines limit them to 30 35 is the maximum height allowed by zoning.

[136:02] Add clarifications regarding the peacock aviary. Allowing solar panels allow 80 use to be up to 800 square feet, as opposed to 720, which was originally included in the design guidelines. That's also consistent with existing. Buy right code requirements to allow cementitious or composite trim around windows not just stained wood trim to remove the requirement for the use of 2 different widths of siding material on upper and lower level, while maintaining the requirement for the use of 2 materials. and just to allow additional roof forms, including shed or hip roof forms to distinguish styles, and and allow for more options and elevations. So key issue one is whether the proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria, including additional criteria for buildings requiring height modifications. Staff finds that the project meets continues to meet all of the applicable site. Review criteria there are no changes proposed to the previously approved density site design, open space landscaping. Really, the only changes proposed are relate to the measurement of the building heights, and then the the design, guideline modifications that I just listed.

[137:14] we found that the changes to the design guidelines do not affect the intent of the original approval and still maintain a high degree of architectural quality proposed building designs do not increase the actual building heights as measured from finished grade. They maintain the existing architectural compatibility achieved by the approved design. Guidelines in terms of street level building forms and materials. This is just an image showing some kind of prototypical building forms as measured from finished grade. So as you can see here. These are still 2 story buildings they're still measuring, you know, between 31 to 32 feet in height from the ground. But they are. These would exceed our building height limitations as defined by the code.

[138:01] This is another image showing some of the cottage homes which, which, as you can see, here are are 28 foot 2 story structures which they're requesting to be allowed to be measured up to 35 feet. and then the images below are just some of the prototype elevations that were provided by the applicant showing some of the additional changes to the building elevations that could result. As a as a result of allowing the additional shed and hip roof forms as opposed to just gables. So key issue number 2 is whether the proposed annexation agreement amendment is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan policies of annexation as well as the intent of the original annexation terms in this regard as well. Staff found. Well, I'll just give a reminder. So annexations with additional development potential are required to demonstrate community benefit consistent with Bbcp policies in order to offset the negative impacts of additional development.

[139:01] The amount and types of benefits are considered as a comprehensive community benefit package through the annexation process, and, as I mentioned before the community benefit package that we came to with the applicant, which was approved by planning board and council was the 40% or 6 units being permanently affordable. These are again detached single family homes at 100 to 150% ami, which is a a range of affordability that we do not get very much in the city, so we were very happy about that. We also got the required adus. So we did get 6 accessory dwelling units that are required to be constructed. And then again, we got the mapping and preservation of existing wetlands on site so overall a fairly robust community benefit package. The applicant is not changing any of those elements of the community benefit package, so we would still get all of the affordable units, all of the adus and all of the wetlands. They're merely asking to increase the height of the adus to allow for essentially more usable floor area within the adus themselves.

[140:05] So this diagram is basically showing the difference between the the 25 foot adu as currently allowed by the annexation agreement with height as it's measured versus the 32 foot allowance and the increased livable space within that unit. And I'm sure the applicant will be able to provide more details on the exact amount of livable space that it's increasing by. But you can see that it is significant. So in terms of planning board action for the Site Review Amendment planning staff finds that the application meets the Site Review criteria, and we are recommending that the Planning Board consider consideration of this matter in action in the form of the following motion, I do have motion language there prepared, which I can go back to. and with the annexation agreement as well, staff does find that the proposed agreement, the Annexation Agreement amendment remains consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan, policies of annexation.

[141:01] and with the intent of the original annexation terms and the community benefit package. Therefore we're also recommending that planning board adopt a motion to recommend approval to Council, and I have the language for that as well. So next, steps following this public hearing City Council may vote to call the Site Review Amendment up for a public hearing. If they do not then planning Board's decision will be final. The Annexation agreement amendments are legislative action requiring a recommendation by planning board, followed by a decision by council. City Council is scheduled to consider both of these items on August 21, st 2025. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Chandler. Wonderful presentation, as always, questions from board members. Kurt, go right ahead. Thank you for that presentation I have a question about, I guess the fundamental issue with regards to the heights. So you said that the finished floor elevation is going to be 6 to 7 feet above the existing rate. Right?

[142:10] But some of that, presumably was known in in advance. Right? They knew they were going to do fill, but they're having to do 2 to 3 feet of additional fill. And so really, the difference from what was expected is only 2 to 3 feet, right? Not the 5 to 7 feet, that is being asked for in terms of additional height. I just want to verify that really, in terms of physical, the physical facts on the ground. The change is 2 to 3 feet. Is that correct? Yeah, I think. And the applicant would be able to give the specifics on each each of the building heights. But I think the 40 feet is really just for the the. I think there's 1 building that's going to need to go to really close to 40 feet. So they asked for the maximum. But I think the majority of the units would be 38, 39.

[143:08] So yeah, okay, thanks. And then one specific question about the design guidelines. There was. Most of the changes were about the heights and the width of the siding, and so on. But then there was one proposing, eliminating the requirement for blown fiberglass insulation in the adus. And my question is, you didn't talk about that in the presentation? Presumably we require blown fiberglass, because it's more sustainable. Is that right? Or better insulator? Or, I think, better, insulator. But I will have to defer to the applicant about that specific request in the design guidelines. Okay.

[144:00] okay, so it's not something that's in our code anywhere. No, it's not required. No. And at the end of the day they'll be required to meet the residential energy code, which is, as you know, is very robust. So how they choose to do that at the time of building permit. I think it just provides more flexibility in how they do it, but they will have to do it regardless of the material typology. Yeah, okay, thank you. Thank you, Kurtz, who's ready with questions? Ml. Thank you, Laura. Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate the reminding us. Yes, we've seen this before. I thought it looked familiar. So. I am wondering about so in the Bdcp. Does the housing diversity apply to this project? If it's over 5 acres I'm looking at

[145:10] under Site Review criteria, one F. Oh, Roman numeral 4. Is that is that applicable. It was not in place at the time of the original approval, and they're not proposing to change it now. Okay, was just curious. I'm thinking, 2 unit types. We don't. I don't see that excellent answer. Thank you for that. So I'm with Kurt. so I understand that the request for added height is due to grade, but it seems like the 2 to 3 foot of fill is what we're talking about yet. We're asking for 10 feet and 12 feet of height.

[146:01] Could you help unravel that a little bit more. Yeah. Well, so they're asking for 5 and 7 feet of of a height. Increase not 10 and 12. Okay? Well, so, oh, okay, isn't the house currently 30 feet? And they're asking for 40 feet. So the homes that are currently limited in the design guidelines to 30 feet are the cottage homes. And that they're asking to go to 35 feet and just to be clear. That's something that Staff could approve administratively. They just included it in this because they were already coming in for Site Review. But they're allowed to go to the buy right height. That's not something that they really need. That's 40 feet. So the 4 40 feet is the height modification request. Yeah. So previously, the the design guidelines limited the height of the the larger market rate homes to 35 feet. They thought that they could meet that even with the 2 to 3 feet of fill that they thought they would need. But I think once they started doing final construction drawings. Once they went through tech Doc and saw that an additional 3 feet of grade was needed. They realized that they were not going to be able to make 35 feet.

[147:08] So as a result, they're asking for 40 feet to accommodate, I think, the tallest of the 6 buildings. So that's actually an additional 5 feet from 35 to 40. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. And and the adus. yeah. So the 80 user allowed to be up to 25 feet per the code. If they have a roof pitch of I think 6, 12, or greater, 4, 12, or greater. So they got Well. Yeah, 612. So initially, the Annexation Agreement amendment allowed them to go to 25 feet, even with a slightly lower pitched roof, so the current Annexation Agreement Amendment says they can have up to 25 feet with a roof pitch of 412, or greater. And so that was the ask that we granted them through the Annexation agreement. And then the same issues that have arisen. I think once they did final construction drawings, incorporating

[148:00] the height with the additional fill. They realized that at the lower roof pitch they were essentially reducing quite a bit of the livable space, or at the higher, higher roof pitch. I'm sorry. Yeah. So so that's why they're asking for the additional 7 feet on the adus. And we also kind of feel like we're since we're requiring them to build the adus. If if they feel like, this is what they need in order to make these units more livable and more marketable that we're, you know. We're willing to help them with that if we're still maintaining the full community benefit package. Okay. So I thought, I'm very curious about that. So 80 users are considered a community benefit. Yes, in this, in this negotiation. Yes. And why. Because they are more units. Well, just more housing is being provided on site. I mean, yeah, they're they're they're more housing at a different price. Point. You know. I think like housing was very

[149:07] was very excited that we were able to get these adus. We didn't count them as affordable housing as such, but it's kind of filling a similar gap that a lot of the affordable housing fills. So we thought, like, yeah, we felt that getting an additional 6 apartments out of the 15 units that we were also getting in the city was was definitely a community benefit. And this is. These are for sale. Is that correct? The main houses are all for sale. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, so it would be a benefit to the people buying the main house. They would have a rental opportunity there. Correct. Okay, and let's see. are we getting any? So we're not getting any additional public benefit with the height modifications. Is that correct? Depending.

[150:07] That's correct. Okay? Oh, yeah, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ml, who's ready to go next Mark or George? Mark's saying no questions, George, do you have any questions. Nope. Nope, Mason, any questions? Okay? Then think I will go ahead and go. I just have 2. So thanks again, Chandler, I just want to clarify that I'm understanding correctly that the reason why the extra fill is required. It says that it is to enable the site to drain properly to the proposed Detention Pond, and ultimately the outfall of the detention pond at the north central portion of the site is, that is, that responsive to some of the community concerns around

[151:03] site, drainage, and how that could affect other neighborhoods, or what's what's the concern here with the drainage? No, those those were just engineering concerns that came up through tech, Doc, I mean, that was just our engineers, basically making sure that they met Tcs requirements for drainage. Okay, so it's just as you analyzed it further, you realized you needed more elevation to get the the drainage right? Okay, thank you. And then something in your presentation that it's it's me I'm just not understanding correctly. I think your memo says that the requested height modification is not to allow for larger buildings, but to account for this extra fill, and how that changes, how you measure the height. But in the presentation you mentioned that there's more usable floor space is that just because the roof would be too low. Or can you explain more about what what is creating the more usable floor space? If it's not a larger building? Yes, it's basically by allowing the roofs to go higher, they can create

[152:00] larger rooms as opposed to having the gable sit lower. And that's that's the main concern. I think, mainly a concern for the adus I think the adus they realized they could build at 25 feet. But it would essentially be yeah, like a you know, 6 foot strip with 8 feet of ceiling height and then slanted roofs on either side. Again, I will definitely let Mike get go into more of the details on that in terms of floor plans. But but what I meant is that they're not asking, you know, a lot of height. Modifications are asking for an additional floor, or, you know, to actually make the buildings larger. But these are the same building designs that they showed us in site review. They just realized that they had to bump them up several feet. Okay, so there's not actually more floor area on the floors of the floors, the building floors. It's just that the roof would be so low that some of that would not be usable if they had to stick to the original heights. Well, the way we measure floor area like, use usable floor area or habitable space. You are required to have an 8 foot ceiling. I see. Yeah, so it is actually increasing floor area for the adus, but not

[153:10] really the building size. Still, if that makes sense, I don't know. I mean, I guess it. It is making a slightly taller building in order to create more floor area. But just for the adus. okay, as someone who lives in a 19 seventies house with a gable roof, and we have to like put the bed and some furniture that you can't actually stand up in the edges of the rooms. I understand what you're talking about. Okay, thank you. All right. Any other further questions from board members going once, going twice on to the applicant presentation. Please come on up, welcome. You'll have 15 min for your presentation, and then we will do Q. And a. Followed by the public hearing. Give me one sec. To share again. You gotta press that button. Mike Cooper, with Boulder Creek neighborhood 7, 1, 2, Main Street, Louisville, Colorado. 8 0 0 2 7.

[154:06] So we're, I would say we're excited to be here, but we have to be here. So we we are doing the land development now for the project. We spent all of 2025 doing the tech review tech. Doc review this year has been land development, and we're eager to go for building permit. And through my presentation I'll kind of show you where we're at in the process. So once we can hopefully clear this hurdle tonight, we can apply for building permits and get the housing delivered next year. So thank you, and I'm sorry to interrupt Thomas. Could we get a clock for the applicant, please? It's like I got a friend. Thank you. Please go on. You can go to the next slide. So this is just showing the overall site. If you skip to the next slide. I just wanted to highlight where we're talking about when I say, the cottage homes. Those are the homes that are clustered along 55th Street on the left. The single family homes are the larger homes between 2,000 803,000 square feet, with the detached garages and the adus, and then further further to the east is the shared open space and the Kent residents that will be also reconstructed through this construction project

[155:15] next slide. So, looking at initially, are we eligible for the height modification we're required to have meet one of these criterias. We actually meet 3 of them, the 3 that we meet are the roof pitch is greater than 2, 2 to 12, or greater, and with 3 or fewer stories. The proposed height does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by more than 10 feet. We're well below the 10 feet threshold. The second one is to allow the greater of 2 stories. The height modification is necessary because of the topography of the site, as Chandler has mentioned. And I'll talk further about that. That is the primary reason that we're having this discussion tonight. And then, 3rd is the 40% of affordable housing which Chandler covered, that we are providing that. So we're meeting 3 out of the 3 criteria where one is required. So

[156:08] next slide. this diagram just shows how the the existing conditions of the site naturally drain to the northeast. The blue line is the natural drainage, and the green line shows kind of how the drainage needs to wrap around the homes and eventually drain to where the detention pond is, there on the right needs to be a certain elevation, and then the drain drainage of the detention pond needs to outfall to that existing site. So just to get the drainage to work on site, we had to elevate the entire site about anywhere from 3 to 5 feet in various places. But that is the low spot, that top right lot there. Lot 13 is really the biggest problem that we had. We knew that, to begin with, working through the accessory dwelling unit on that lot and a couple other lots were challenging. We brought that up during the original site review process.

[157:01] We worked with the staff and the city attorney to work some language into the annexation agreement to give us a little relief on the roof pitch, and our architect kind of worked through that and said, we can probably make that work with some customized trust design and and roof pitches, and maybe we compromise the living space area a little bit. But we could essentially make that work. So through this process, if you go to the next slide, Chandler. this is just getting back to the building. How building height is measured. This is showing that most compromised adu unit in that top right corner of the site that I mentioned. And when you're talking about the livable area of the unit, we're essentially not able to get any livable area in that adu unit right now. So if we had to construct it to 25 feet per the annexation agreement. What's allowed in the adu code? You can see the unit on the left is is the kind of the livable area that's 8 feet, and above is the blue area. There the the unit on the right is showing are the kind of designed unit that we had in the design guidelines. It's 700 to 800 square foot maximum adu. And really there's no compromise design to the to the building space

[158:12] next slide. So yeah, the Site Review process one item in the package that you received was showing the delta of where we thought the homes would be sitting in terms of the finished floor elevations. And how that changed in the Tech Doc Review. We originally proposed design guidelines that we we thought we could, with a few design modifications to those homes that we're depicting, such as roof pitch changes that we would be able to design these adus per the code and per the annexation agreement next slide, and then through the tech. Doc. Review. we have our civil engineer dash here to if you want to get in more detail about that. But basically we to meet some utility requirements that were unknown during the site review process. We had to elevate this, almost the entire site, or the eastern portion of the site by 2 to 3 more feet.

[159:04] and yes, you bring up a good point. If it went up 2 to 3 more feet, why aren't we just asking for 2 to 3 more feet? I can kind of show you how that? Why, we're asking for that, and we're not taking things right to. We have a little threshold in there as we go through plot plans, elevations can change a little bit, so we don't want to design everything to the exact inch. So there is a little bit of leeway in there, and I can kind of show you what that threshold looks like for different homes on different lots, because it's not the goal for what we want to do is propose, you know, that we're not pre planning every home that's market driven for the bigger homes that you could pick the home and the lot that you wanted if it met solar requirements and other criteria. So I'll talk through that a little bit and explain that a little more. But it's a good question. Valid question, for sure. The chart there, if you go back one more the chart that's in your packet, it's it lists all of the existing elevations or the lowest elevation around each home. It shows what the measurement is, either 25 feet for an adu, or 35 feet for an existing home, or for a proposed home what that elevation is, and then it

[160:08] shows what our finished, proposed finished floor is, and what we anticipate as either a 25 foot or a 32 foot home, which is approximately what the heights of the homes in the adus are, what our peak roof elevation are, and it calculates the Delta, and so that chart has a variation anywhere from 5 to 7 feet for the homes, and it has anywhere from. I believe it's about 6 or 7, 5 to 7 feet for for the adus, so we just chose to make it simple rather than take each lot and say the maximum roof, elevation or height is on this lot is this, and this lot is this, we chose just to create one uniform height for each lot that would cover, and that would give us the maximum flexibility to put different homes on different lots rather than to prescribe each home on each lot. So so we'd prefer to keep it open to the market. In that regard.

[161:11] The set that you have is very technical in nature, and just wanted to walk you through what the logic behind that. So the 1st sheet on the top left is just showing the existing conditions of the site. The second sheet to the right shows the proposed grading plan and the elevations of the homes, and shows the cross sections that we drew on subsequent sheets. The next sheet on the right is showing the difference in change from our site review to our tech Doc. The 4th sheet shows the peak. Our architect shows the peak roof elevations for each homes what the anticipated peak elevations are. And then all that information is put into the cross sections. There's actually 2 sheets of cross sections. And if you look in detail on there you can see what the different heights are, 35 feet, as measured from existing grade, 35 feet measured from proposed finished grade.

[162:03] and how much below each of those homes would be below that 40 feet that we're requesting as measured from existing grade. And if you look through those sections you'll see that most of the homes are 2 to 3 feet below. You know. They're not all maxed out. The intent here is not that we are building every home 40 foot from existing grade to peak elevation. That's not what we are proposing at all. It just gives us a little flexibility and leeway in citing the homes, and that we're not getting into trouble later at plot, plan and building permit review. and then finally, the last sheet on there, if you go back, is just depicting the homes from the design guidelines, and showing that the intent is not to change the heights of the homes get any more square footage. We just want the right to build exactly what we're depicting in those design guidelines, similar traditional roof forms and architecture. We're not asking for anything additional.

[163:00] And this is just showing some of the cross sections. These are the cottages really, as Chandler mentioned, these are not an issue. When we went through the initial process, we typically build these homes about 2526 feet tall, we added 5 feet, and we put that into our design guidelines. I think that was a mistake on our part, knowing that there's 35 feet allowed for under Rl, 2 zoning. So we're just asking to be allowed to go up to 35 feet. Really, these homes are just approaching 30 feet. So they're we're just very close and tight. So we just need the flexibility. To be able to build a little bit over 30 feet is all we really need. There you can skip ahead into this one. So the next 2 slides are through the cross sections of the the single family homes and the detached garages with the adus. and on the bottom is a blow up. And of this of the right side of that top section there's a bunch of sections, and I just picked one out to kind of show the intent. Here on the far right, are the existing homes in greenbelt meadows. Those homes are about 29, or 30 feet tall, as you can see the adus in the middle. There are well below the heights of of those homes. They're still in proportion and much lower than the proposed single family detached homes.

[164:19] and we're only a few feet above those existing homes in greenbelt meadows. We're the same scale and architectural design, traditional roof forms and architectural forms as well. and on this slide is highlighting the kind of the worst lot on the the accessory dwelling unit. It's kind of hard to see on this one, but I just wanted to show if you. I can't see the numbers from here, but it just shows the kind of the the predicament of that corner of the site. You can see the several feet of fill there and the previous slide and another slide. I'll show you kind of more detail on that. The slide just shows the what we depicted for architectural character in the design guidelines showing homes about 28 feet for the cottage homes.

[165:06] and on the next slide. This is kind of the direction that we're taking, the styles that we are creating for specifically for Peacock Place. and those will also be about 28 feet tall. and in the design guidelines. These were the images presented for the single family detached homes. They were 31 to 32 feet tall, and in the next slide is the direction that we're taking for the styles that we want to create for Peacock. And really the key here is, we don't want to just design to the single, the lowest roof form. We want to have a variety of architecture here. So, having these 3 different floor plans 3 different styles. We really can create a much greater variety of architectural diversity. So this is another reason why we want to have a little bit more leeway on the height, and not just have to squat all the homes down with 3, 12, 4, 12 roof pitches. We want to have a variety of roof, forms, and character.

[166:01] So this is kind of where we've held our architect off in terms of design, and this is what we will proceed forward with likely if we get the approval tonight and going on to the adus, so on the on the left is the unit that we would be left with if we had to build it at 25 feet from existing grade on. This is showing the worst condition lot there, lot 13. And, as you can see, there's only about 100 usable square feet down the middle of the the structure. The floor plan. It's really not a livable or buildable unit at all. It just doesn't work at all. We just want to build a typical 2526 foot garage with an adu above has proper ceiling heights 6, 12 reforms we are able to accomplish so really matches better in character with with the homes. If we can get this flexibility, and these are just blow ups of those floor plans little more up close.

[167:06] The image on the left is what we showed in the design guidelines for 26 feet, and and this is the if you go back one more the additional criteria for height modifications. I think there's either the 2 main ones. The key is that the buildings, form and massing are consistent with the architectural character of the area, and it specifies that no building shall exceed 200 feet in length along public right away. We obviously do not exceed 200 feet in length. and we feel that the proposed homes are all 2 story with traditional elevations, pitched roofs, building height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration compatible with the homes to the south and greenbelt meadows. So we feel we're meeting those criteria Chandler went through a lot of the comp plan criteria, that's all highlighted in our written statement as well.

[168:03] And can you go back to the other one? We feel that the modifications of design guidelines only enhance the architectural variety. Those are administrative in nature. For the most part, the main reason why we're bringing the design guidelines forward is to adjust the building heights in that document. And we think there's minimal visual impact to the adjacent homes. There's about 100 120 feet between the single family homes and the homes in greenbelt meadows. And really the perceived building height that you'll see in this community is really unchanged from what we originally presented. So appreciate your time on this and your consideration. Thank you so much for that presentation. It is now time for questions from board members. Who's ready? Kurt, go ahead. Just 2 quick questions for the large dwellings that you're building. What are the ceiling heights that you're planning on.

[169:05] I think we will go with 10 and 9 foot ceilings. 10 and 9. Okay, yeah. And then I had asked Staff about your proposed change to the insulation of the adus. Can you talk about why you're asking? I think that was a typo. I believe we took that out, and the reason why we originally put it in there. Our architect had advised us that if we were customizing these adus in some really really funky design, that we wouldn't be able to blow insulation in some parts of the unit if we get the site modification. That's not not a relevant factor. So it's it doesn't make any sense to put it in there. Because if we get the approval tonight, we can build them the way we need to. And we don't need that criteria in there. Okay, so it was a mistake. It's not part of the requested changes. No understood. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. Who's next?

[170:03] Mason? Do you have questions. Nope. George, do you have questions? Nope, Mark, Nope, ml, Nope, and I'm a Nope. Okay, I think we can move on to our public hearing. Thank you so much. I'm going to turn it over to Thomas to run the public hearing for this agenda item on Peacock Place. Thank you, Laura. We can go ahead and get into our public hearing for this item. We don't have anybody signed up to speak in the room. So we'll go straight to online participants. We have one raised hand so far, but if anybody else would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand 1st up. We have Lynn Siegel. I was just trying to get a drink of tomato juice, and I hadn't even raised my hand. Oh, no, maybe my hand was raised from before, but I wanted to speak, but I just need to get to my notes just having a drink break.

[171:02] Hang on a moment. Here, get to my notes. 1st of all, I never wanted this development to start with because of the flooding of the neighborhood in this area. As a result of the effect on the alluvium, and any extra landfill just accelerates that. And so I I don't think that should be given They asked. These people come to you, and they asked for height amendments, and they asked for expansions, and if they, if they bought it, if they got their design, just go buy right, buy right exclusively. Because if they want these adus they can use it for storage. If people can't fit in there.

[172:01] that's what they use it for? Why? Why should we give them? What benefit do we make from this? I don't understand this. I really don't. And my glasses here. Okay. if you want. If you can fix it with the roof pitch, go for it if you can't. Good storage space. For the adus Read Palestine, Bray Palestine. That's where we need money here. This whole country is going to go down an economic meltdown. That's what we're talking about. And that's directly relative to our build building in Boulder. It's it's all it's follow the money. These developers are thirsty. They're hungry and don't feed them.

[173:00] You know you've got you've got guidelines. Follow your guidelines. Don't let them beg to you each time for 5 feet here or 10 feet there. They have to build up that extra fill in that area that hurts the houses all around this area. I've heard this for years and years we've been talking about this. It affects the alluvium. the natural alluvium building. Does that a lot of boulders on a flood plain? Sorry it is, you know. That's where it is. You buy on a floodplain. You deal with it. You don't make out with it, because, oh, geez! We need more At least this isn't like Silver Saddle, where they're asking for, you know different affordable housing. That concludes your time. Thank you, Lynn.

[174:00] Excuse me, we have no other raise hands at the moment. If anybody would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand now. Otherwise we are going to conclude the public hearing session. and we have no raise hands back to you. Chair. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you. Lynn. Okay, so we are now at the portion of the meeting for board deliberation. And we have one decision item to vote on related to the Site Review, and a recommendation to make related to the Annexation Agreement, amendment. and Chandler. Could you put up for us Staff's recommended motions. so we can see what we're being asked to do. And then I'm open to board. Member suggestions about how to facilitate this. I don't do. Folks want to do general comments, or do you want to move right to motions? I guess 1 1 question I would ask board members. is anyone planning to move to deny either of these or to amend?

[175:04] If so, let's talk about that before we get to actual motion making. So I'm going to pull up my zoom. So I can see anyone planning to do to recommend a denial or any kind of amendment to what Staff has proposed. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Does anybody want to make a general comment before we move to motion making? I'll just make one and say that from from my perspective, as one of 7 board members as one of equals is that this is a fairly straightforward site review amendment and annexation agreement amendment that is due to a tech something that was discovered in the tech doc process. and that what the applicant is proposing is consistent with what we approved at site review and annexation agreement, and if we had known at that point that it was going to be this amount of fill, I would have been fine voting for what the applicant is proposing, so I don't know if other folks feel differently.

[176:03] But to me this feels very straightforward. Mark you went off of mute. Did you want to comment. No, I was I was waiting for an appropriate moment to make this 1st motion. I think your moment is. Now, Mark, I don't see anybody else itching to comment. Okay? All right. Okay, I move to approve. Site review case number lur, 2,025, 0 0 2, 2, incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached Site Review criteria checklist as findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. I'll second mark. Did you want to speak to your motion? I I almost everything's been said. I think this is a a great example of something that shouldn't engender a lot of angst or

[177:11] discussion. I think the applicant and staff have made their case quite clearly, and I think it's worthy of our support. Mason a second. Did you want to speak to this? I agree. A 100% with everything, Mark, and you said so. Nothing new. Any other comments or questions. I just have one quick question for Staff. The. Ml, has it. Oh, I'm sorry. Ml, I didn't see your hand. Thank you. Mark. Ml, go right ahead. You're on mute. That's okay. So I just wanted to point out that in the annexation agreement number 3, paragraph 2, as part of the revision is that. You know all of these changes are are for the purpose

[178:06] are necessary to be able to construct a livable, detached, accessory dwelling unit due to physical circumstances. So it it provides step, the flexibility for applying the the changes, the height, modifications based on what the applicant is saying. It's for which is livability. So I really appreciate that statement being in there that it clarifies that this is just a blanket. Make them, as you know, tall as they can wherever that they're in the review process. Staff is going to hold the project accountable because the rest of us out here in the world building adus. Yeah, we have to. You know, we have to abide by the 20 foot, and we all know that it's measured 25 feet out and all that sort of thing, but I understand that these are extenuating circumstances, and I appreciate that particular revision that is added to this amendment. So thank you very much for including that.

[179:10] Thank you for that comment, Ml, and just a quick question for Staff. You know, Kurt clarified with the applicant that there was that section about the blown fiberglass insulation striking that that request to eliminate that provision for adus is that in what is before us for approval? Do we need to make an amendment striking that out. Or is that really just a typo that staff can take care of? We can fix it. Yeah, I think we can just administratively, when we do the final approval and transmit it for council consideration that? Well, it'll be cleaned up then. Okay, great. Okay. So we don't need to make any kind of motion, so we can consider it a typo, and we still have time to fix it. Great. Okay, thank you all right. So we have a motion and a second on this approval of the Site Review Amendment. Any last discussion before we vote.

[180:02] seeing none, we'll start with our folks online. We'll start with you, George. I'm a yes. Thank you. Mark. Yes. Ml. Yes. Mason. Yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes, that's a 6 0 approval for you. Moving on to the next suggested motion. Or sorry. This isn't a motion. This is well, it's a recommendation, not an approval. And staff have suggested motion language up here for us any discussion, or should we entertain a motion. I think we're ready to entertain a motion. I just have a quick comment. Oh, yes. Okay. Ml. I'm looking at my prior comment. It really was about the Annexation agreement. The paragraph I was citing was in the Annexation agreement. So my apologies. I attached it to the Site Review comments, but it's really in the Annexation Agreement.

[181:00] The paragraph 21 is revised to include that piece that the staff it as a staff reviews it. It will keep in consideration that this is to create livability, not just, you know, to randomly get taller buildings, so that appreciation goes to the Annexation Agreement. Okay, thank you. Ml, so noted. And if we can move that comment in the minutes to be attached to this agenda item for the approval of the Annexation agreement amendment. Okay, thank you. Ml, I think we're ready to entertain a motion if anyone has one. Do ready to go. Mark. Okay, I move to recommend that City Council approval of the proposed Annexation Agreement amendment for 56, 91 South Boulder Road, reviewed under case number LUR. 2025, 0 0 1

[182:05] 0 0 1 8, 3 zeros. Finding that it is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan pertaining to annexation as well as the intent of the original annexation terms. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Any discussion. Seeing none. Let's vote, George. Yes. Ml. Yes. Mark. Yes. Mason. Yes, Kurt, yes, and I'm a yes, that's a 6 0 approval for you. Thank you so much. Congratulations to the applicant. Thanks for bearing with us on this administrative process and this planning board process. Do you have any questions or thoughts for us before you leave us tonight? You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, so we are done with both of our public hearing items for tonight and going back to our agenda. I think we are up to matters from staff

[183:07] director of Viewer, has Director Mueller. I think I did. Good evening again. Brad Mueller, planning of Director of Planning and development services, wanted to follow up with you on the question of a liaison to Tab. You'll recall that when we went through the different appointments after discussion with the Transportation and Mobility Department, who is obviously the sponsor department for Tab and and the attorney's office. There really is nothing formal that needs to be done on their side of things. It is like some of the other liaisons you've had in the past, and I think we're currently on the list. You could simply among yourselves designate a person to be that liaison. Of course they wouldn't have any voting rights or any formal role at Tab. It'd be much like

[184:04] citizen observer. But presumably, if that's a role that you wanted to fill, that would be a person committed to going to those or watching those meetings and just giving feedback to the rest of the planning board members with any observations. I suppose. Reciprocally, too, if there was a you know, general aspect about transportation that you wanted to convey to the tab during the public comment period. So, as I understand it, the only mechanism you all need to consider. If you want to continue moving forward with that idea is to talk among yourselves for a designee, and we'll add it to the list that Thomas had brought up earlier. As we went through that review. Thanks for that information. That's great. Would it be possible for that person, whoever they may be, to at least get added to the email list for the or the yeah, the email list for the for Tab, so that they know, for instance, when the concept review is coming before tab or something else. You mean just notification about the agendas.

[185:13] Yeah. I don't know if that's prospectively pushed out to them, but to the to the tab members. But if it is, I'm sure we could get that person, added Tab definitely gets their agenda and their packet, you know. Okay, yeah, that would make sense that they do, imagining it might be really useful for this person to be. We can certainly ask. I don't. I mean off the top of my head. I don't see any reason why that'd be a problem. Thomas. Maybe I'll ask you to help me remember that and follow up apologies. I kind of missed. The the whoever they end up designating tonight be added to the email distribution for packets that goes to tab members so it would be interacting with their counterpart, your counterpart at transportation and mobility. Yeah, that's definitely doable. Yeah, that's great. Just the idea is just so that they know when a land use or planning related issue might be coming before the board as opposed to something that really is not. It's strictly transportation, and where they wouldn't necessarily be as

[186:18] yeah as needed. or any items that were of interest. Say again, it were any items that were of interest to you. Yeah. Fix. thank you, Brad, sure, and maybe we can continue this discussion and say, I mean, does somebody want to be a liaison to tab? Do we have a volunteer? I mean, I would be happy to be the the liaison, but I think I already got placed as a liaison to something else, and I've already forgotten what it is, I apparently haven't been to any meetings. I think you're on Deb.

[187:02] Oh, right, I'm on Dab. Oh, good! And speaking of that, Kurt, there's a there's a meeting on the 13.th I'm still on the email list. So I don't know how we get you to to the point about getting correspondence. I'm on their list, but you probably have not been getting notifications. I've been getting nothing. Yeah. So they're they're for there. There's a meeting on August 13.th So I don't know how we get what process there is to swap out existing liaisons with the new ones that were appointed. Thomas, is that something you'd be able to manage? Yes, and I believe I could probably reach out to John Morse, who works with a lot of our boards and commissions to update him on our current liaison slip. Sure the dab one we probably manage, though, don't we? Yes, yeah. Yeah. For? Dab. Yeah, yeah, that's Amelia. Yeah. It's coming from Amelia Harvey. So if you could follow up with her on the swapping out George and hurt there. Yeah, definitely

[188:05] so. But to get back to tab. Yeah, I don't want to be both. Does anybody else want to volunteer to be the tab liaison? Amel, are you? If you're speaking? We didn't hear you. Talking to myself, I said, so that's that. Is Tab requesting a liaison, or it's just if we would like to have a liaison. You all had requested it. So I went and followed up with them. Great, thank you. Why don't we keep that one bumping along for now I think we're all really busy. But if somebody wants to be the tab liaison. It's good to have that option. So all right, or if someone else wants to take Deb, then I could take Deb any takers, but I don't see excitement about that.

[189:00] given that. My only assignment is the Greenways Committee. And Dab hasn't been needing much, but I actually enjoyed Dab I would consider taking Dab if you wanted to take Tab. But I don't. I want. I want anyone who wants to take Tab to have it. But if it's going to go unfilled after all this discussion about creating this liaison I would consider taking Dad so that you could take Tab. Sure that would be fine, but you would also be fantastic on Tab, since you're a former tab member. Yeah, no, I I tab, is I, I find, Tab to be a significant, more significant commitment than dap. Okay. So, Kurt, do you accept the nomination to be the tab member and let Mark take Dab. I accept. Okay, you will be the tab liaison, and let the record reflect that Mark has volunteered to be the dab liaison. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Kurt.

[190:04] wonderful! And I can be your backup on Tab. I think I'm the backup on Dab as well. Potentially, I can be backups. Okay, I feel like we just sealed a marriage or something here. Wait annulled. Wait kidding. It feels like we've had enough shifting that maybe you could, Thomas, add an updated copy of that appointment list to the next agenda just for reference. Sure. Yeah, we'll get that on the next meetings agenda, so we can. I'll be clear on that great thank you, which doesn't need to be voted on just to clarify it. Be just for the record. that's all the information I had. I'm happy to defer to Charles Charles and Deshana. Hello! Nothing from my office. Thank you. Thank you. Deshauna. Charles. Anything from you. Nope, I have a quick calendar check. Thomas. We current. This is just looking ahead, we currently have a

[191:02] meeting. This was raised in our agenda meeting. We currently have a meeting scheduled on election day in November. Do we want to think about canceling that meeting. I know some people express interest in in not having a meeting on that date. I know I will be busy that night, and I would very much prefer not to miss a planning board meeting because of it, and we traditionally, if we do have a board meeting, be at the planning board or council used to be on Tuesday nights. We would always cancel that meeting and reschedule it if we needed to. Are folks okay with canceling the meeting on election day in November, and then we can add another meeting to the calendar if we need to. I suspect Claudia would very much appreciate it. I suspect that as well. And just a another note about the calendar for November the following Tuesday is Veterans Day, and then we would have a regular scheduled meeting on the 3rd Tuesday, November 18, th and then

[192:02] November 25th is Thanksgiving week. So we have currently no meetings planned. So there's not a slot for another Tuesday meeting that month. but we could always schedule a special meeting in somewhere else, if necessary. Is the city off on Veterans day. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. okay, all right. So it sounds like November. Might be a light month for us, but we can try to fit something special in if needed. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay, do we need to take an official vote to Shauna to cancel that meeting? Yeah, since since we or you all set the meeting for the year. I'm pretty sure you have to, you know. Take a vote, but I'll defer to Deshaun. I believe Brad is correct. Yes, you need to take a formal vote. Okay, anybody want to move that we cancel our meeting on, is it? I think it's November 4th election day I move to cancel our planning board meeting for November 4, th 2025. My second. Taking a vote. Mason. Yes. Kurt, yes. Ml.

[193:05] Yes. George. Yes. Mark. Yes. I'm a yes, that's unanimous. 6 0. Okay, thank you so much. That seems like that concludes matters from staff matters from the board mark. Madam chair I was just going to. I was just looking at my calendar, and so the 3rd Tuesday, the or the 4.th Anyway, the last Tuesday in October. We have a tentative meeting, and I haven't looked at the calendar lately, but anyway, I think we should expect that that might be more than the likely replacement for the meeting. We skip rather than an additional November meeting because of Thanksgiving, etc. So, October 28, th I have in my calendar as a tentative meeting. That seems very plausible, mark that we will end up having a meeting that day. Thank you for pointing that out.

[194:05] Any other matters from the board before we adjourn tonight. Any objection to going ahead and adjourning. hearing? None. It is 9 16 Pm. And we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. So much for a great meeting. Good night, folks. Good night. I just I just wanna say that. Well done here. Here it is, Laura chairs, and we're done at 9 15. I don't know what that says, but. I think that says we had a light agenda. You can remove the chair under the new rules of procedure. So. Duly noted. I don't think you're in any danger, Mark, but thank you. Good night.