September 30, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:21] Okay, good evening. Oops. No, that was… okay, that was also me getting reverb here. Okay, good, afternoon, all. Welcome to the, City of Boulder Planning Board meeting for September 30th, 2025. We have four, Planning Board members here in the room. We have two online, Mason Roberts and Laura Kaplan, and, George Boone is absent until 6 p.m. tonight. So…

[1:01] We are doing things a little differently tonight, so the first order of business is to do some agenda rearranging. As chair, under our new rules of procedure. If it facilitates the meeting, I may rearrange the agenda. And I am doing so, and, putting Agenda Item 5A as our first item of business. This agenda Item 5A is a continuation from our planning board meeting two weeks ago, when we had a power outage mid-public hearing. So, the plan will be that, I will go ahead and read the, agenda… oh, okay, I'm sorry. We need to, do our, rules of public participation. Thomas is going to do that for us now, because this item is a public hearing item. Then we'll begin… then I'll explain how we're going to proceed. So, Thomas, if you want to…

[2:13] do our, rules of public engagement, that would be great. Thank you, Chair, and thank you everyone for joining us tonight. I'm just going to read some basic rules for public participation. 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 process, please visit our website. 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.

[3:00] 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. 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. When we get to the open comment period or public participation section for each item, you can sign up to speak by hovering your mouse, or your finger if you're on mobile, over the bottom of your screen on Zoom and looking for the raise hand feature. If you're calling in, you can press star 9 to raise your hand. And if you don't see that raise hand feature right away, you may see a reactions button. You can click on that to expand it, and then use the raise hand function from there. And that's all. Back to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Thomas. Okay, a couple other items of business in relation to Agenda Item 5A. First, are there any Planning Board members that have

[4:09] Any ex parte communa… this is a, quasi-judicial item, so we, need to disclose any ex parte communications or potential conflicts of interest. So I need to disclose that I was not at the original meeting last week, but I have, watched the meeting video, and I have, read the packet and am prepared to participate in the meeting from this point forward. Thank you. Great, thank you. Okay, So, here's how this is going to go. I'm going to introduce, agenda Item 5A by rereading the, agenda title. We will then go immediate… because this was continued. After staff had done their presentation, during clarifying questions from the board.

[5:02] But to expedite things, we will go directly to the applicant presentation. You'll have up to 15 minutes to do your presentation. Then we'll have clarifying questions from the board both to the applicant, and if we have some questions for staff, we can also do those at the same time. And we will then end the questions, go to a public hearing. Once the public hearing is done, then the board will provide their feedback on the conceptual, site design. So… That is… that's how it's going to go. I'm going to begin with reading the agenda title. Agenda Title 5A, Concept Plan and Review and Comment for 5469 and 5515 South Boulder Road to develop 35 residential homes on a combined 2.8-acre site.

[6:01] Dwelling units will contain a mix of duplex, triplex, and townhouses. A height modification will be requested due to site grading associated with drainage and floodplain. Reviewed under case number LUR2025000. 5, 7. Okay, so we're going to welcome the applicant, up to the podium, and if you have any other materials, or you're just speaking, let us know, and I'll start my timer when you begin. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thanks for making the time this afternoon to accommodate. Interesting circumstances before. I think that's the first for me, is losing power. Had other situations to continue, but never that, so, never a dull moment here. Mike Cooper with Boulder Creek Neighborhoods, 712 Main Street, Louisville, Colorado, 80027. Very excited to be here for a conceptual review for you on our South Boulder Road site. Very similar site to the site we're developing up in Peacock Place, just north of here. I'll show you on a map at 55th Street. Little different context, but similar kind of scale of the project, a little higher density here.

[7:15] And little different product types, which I'll talk through the rationale for that. So, yeah, with that, we'll get into it. If you don't mind advancing the slides, I appreciate that. Boulder Creek neighborhoods. We've been a builder in Boulder County for close to 20 years now, going back to, I think, 2005. Started building homes around Boulder. Never built any homes in Boulder, so we're excited to start with Peacock as our first, pilot. pilot neighborhood in the city of Boulder. We're known for our active adult patio homes, and our wee cottages, and providing missing middle housing. Particularly, our high-density detached homes, which we are building up at Peacock Place. But really, we're noted as a low-maintenance home builder. We're kind of the only builder that kind of solely builds products that are low-maintenance for the homeowner.

[8:06] And looking at the site context here, this is zoomed out a little bit. As you can see, open spaces to the south of South Boulder Road. Our site is highlighted in blue. We're just west of 55th Street. There's a church directly to the east of us. the Greenbelt Meadows neighborhoods to the north, Key Waden is further to the northwest. And we have multi-family and commercial developments, directly abutting us to the west on South Boulder Road. Off the picture a little bit is the, park and ride, the Table Mesa Park and Ride, which is in… Didn't measure it, but probably a 5 or 10 minute walk to that park and ride from our site. Okay, I'll go to the next slide? Zooming in on the context a little closer… We have some homes backing up to us on Manhattan Street to the west, on the left of the blue rectangle, and then right on the other side of Manhattan Street is a 4-story hotel, 3-story multifamily and 2-story office, and some lower-rise commercial to the southwest.

[9:08] And, as I mentioned before, open space in the church is to the east and the south. The site isn't a floodplain, so that's kind of a unique feature of the site, and we did a lot of investigation early on to examine the feasibility to develop within the floodplain. We did have a neighborhood meeting with adjacent neighbors only. We figured that they are the most impacted by the neighborhood development. Concerns that they had were obviously flooding, because there's a floodplain pretty much on the majority of this property. So flooding is a concern, the heights of the homes, the views… And traffic were their main concerns, so we're excited to work through the process early on with them and see if we can improve their drainage situation, hopefully, through the development of this neighborhood. Looking at the comprehensive plan, it is currently in the comprehensive plan as low-density residential.

[10:04] Allows 2 to 6 homes per acre, and a single-family detached use. The site, as you can see, the orange rectangle on here, the site is bifurcated. There are two portions of the property. On the left side of the site, maybe go back one slide, I can show it better. On the left, two-thirds of the site is the Rose annexation, so that portion of the property is already annexed. And I can talk through the terms of that. On the east side, there's one house that we actually own that property. We bought that about a year ago. When we originally looked at this site in the comprehensive plan. designation and the zoning. We looked at kind of a similar product mix as what we're doing on Peacock. It just didn't… it was a different context than 55th Street, with South Boulder Road's a much busier street. We tried to kind of replicate that concept, and it just didn't fit different configuration. We couldn't fit the stormwater detention on there. There's an encumbrance on the west side of the property. There's a 50-foot drainage easement that we want to talk through.

[11:03] So it just didn't work out, so we looked at a slightly higher density, attached housing units on this project, given the context to South Boulder Road. Talked through that with staff in terms of doing an RMX2 zoning. Amending the comp plan, and it seems like we have some good support to deliver more units, more affordable units as part of this project, so we're pretty excited to show you our vision for the property, through this presentation. As I mentioned, MXR would be our proposal for the comp plan map amendment, which allows up to 20 units per acre. The RMX2 zoning allows 10 units per acre, with a density bonus for affordable housing. We would be looking to tap into a little bit of that, to get slightly over, 10 units per acre on the property. We do a proposed attached housing, 3 acres, 35 homes total, for a total of around 12 homes per acre. I'll walk you through the site plan here. South Boulder Road is obviously the street on the south. We'll be taking access off of South Boulder Road just to the east edge of the existing median there. That'll be a 3 quarters access, so there'll be no left outs, but you'll be able to take a left in.

[12:14] We do propose an emergency vehicle access on the west side of the property. That's something we'll… we still want to work through that with staff, because they're saying we can't have two points of access, which totally makes sense. And we originally proposed a write-in right out there. We've since changed it to an emergency vehicle access, and we don't really consider that as an access point, so… And I can walk you through some of the ramifications of that if we had to take out that emergency vehicle access. In terms of the homes, on the east side, the right side of the site, you'll see 4 buildings. Those are 3-unit buildings. Those are the affordable, townhomes that we'll be proposing. They all have 1-2 car garages, they're about 1,400 square feet-ish. the homes are inter… the way that those are facing the street is kind of mixed. The units in the middle are facing either the street or into a courtyard shared drive court, and then the end units have the entries on the sides.

[13:14] So it's kind of a unique product type. I'll show you some images of that. Kind of hard to envision on the site plan, but there's a reason why we structured the site plan like that. On the top part are two-story townhomes. Those are market-rate attainable townhomes, about same square footage as the affordables, about 1,400 square feet, 3-bedroom, two-car garages. Those are fronting onto a shared courtyard pocket park area in a small detention pond area. Is in kind of the central part of the site. On the left-hand part of the site, those homes are fronting to kind of the backs of… the homes that back on, from Manhattan Drive. There's a ditch that runs along the backs of those homes. It's pretty well vegetated, it's hard to kind of see those homes through the vegetation. And there's a pretty nice 50-foot buffer there. That's the drainage easement that's been dedicated to the City of Boulder, that we were seeking to amend that by making it a little bit narrower.

[14:09] Currently, we're showing about a 35-40 foot setback from that property line with these homes. And then, backing onto South Boulder Road are 2- and 3-plex market rate homes, about 3… up to 3,000 square feet, or a little over 3,000 square feet in size. two-car garages, and we think that this… we looked at fronting homes to South Boulder Road, and just weren't comfortable with the… just the design and the busyness of that street. So we are… I'll show you some images of the character of the public realm along South Boulder Road. Value your opinion and feedback on that, but we think that the setup is really the best of both worlds in terms of how those homes relate to South Boulder Road, and how those homes relate to the internal. Aspects of the community. In terms of buffers, we're having about a 30-foot buffer, 25 to 30 feet on the east side of the project adjacent to the church, so there's probably about a 50 or 60-foot separation between homes to the church.

[15:10] The 3-story affordable homes side to no homes. It's the tennis courts there for Greenbelt Meadows. And then there's 3 homes that back up to the property, or side up to the property, just to the north. And those are… so we have two-story homes next to two-story homes there, so we're being respectful of those neighbors. And we have about a 45-foot buffer there on the north. And about… 50 or 60 feet to those adjacent homes. That's about it, the site plan. So, some things we want to talk about are the drainage easement on the west side of the property, the public realm, and the frontages here. We'd really like these to be public streets, and we're hopeful that we can work with the city to design those as public streets to keep the HOA fees down on such a small community.

[16:01] We do want to talk about… frontages onto streets. I know there's issues with the code about all homes must front to a public street, so there's some technicalities in the code we'd really like to talk through, not necessarily come to a decision here with the planning board, but bringing them up as issues that we'd like to work through with staff through this process. Next slide. This is an overview looking from the… Northwest to the southeast. So you can see the two-story row homes are in the foreground here, fronting that big buffer area to the west. So you can see, or not see, sort of, the… it kind of gives us the distance between the homes on… in Greenbelt Meadows. There's a lot of trees back there in their backyards. Next slide. This is the view of, the entryway in from South Boulder Road.

[17:01] So we're really capitalizing on views to the open space and to the southwest of the mountains. Got some upper-level balconies and living area there. About a 15, 20-foot backyard or so. Excellent. As you come into the community, this is one of the public streets that we're proposing. Giving the character of the market rate homes along South Boulder Road. This is looking from the north part of the property through that pocket park courtyard area at the two-story market rate townhomes. Have some covered and uncovered porches. Yeah, next slide. And it's just another view across that courtyard area. And finally, the affordable townhomes Kind of a mix of modern and traditional, upper-level balconies. We do need to work with staff on the front doors, and there's issues with what they call defined entries, and so some things to work out there, but, really think they're nice-looking units, and…

[18:09] These homes kind of front to the street, and then the other two buildings to the north kind of front onto a shared courtyard area. And so there's some technicalities on the site. With the floodplain, we have to elevate the living spaces of these homes, and there's… code requirements that we have to do with attached housing to provide visibility into these units. So that's why we have the entries into some of these units are on the sides of the building, so we can ramp up to get the zero entry into those units and check some of the boxes on the code requirements there. So, it's kind of tricky with a floodplain, having to elevate the living spaces for all of the homes. don't want to go in… get too into details, but there's a rationale for how we're positioning some of these homes, and why entries are on different sides of the buildings. So, just wanted to give that… background.

[19:01] So the rose annexation, that was done in 2019. Over the past 6 years, that family has tried to market the property to developers, but just given the size and the floodplain and the drainage easement, I think it's just been… hard to make that pencil for developers, so they've been marketing it for a while. We bought the land to the east to kind of make it a more developable site, improve the access points there, so we think it's a better situation adding that other acre. We're here today with a concept plan application. We've held a neighborhood meeting. And next steps will be our formal annexation and site review application, which will continue into mid-next year. And then the following year, we'll be doing our final engineering and hopefully doing our land development in 2027, and delivering the homes 2028 and 2029. So some of the key issues that we want to work through are the emergency access… Just gonna give you a heads up, 2 minutes. 2 minutes? I'm wrapping up here, thank you.

[20:05] The emergency access, the 50-foot drainage easement on the west side of the property, how we can get fee-simple lots for all of these attached units. That's very important to us on the development world. The public versus private streets, and the public realm talking through how these homes are oriented, and making sure all of the public views of the neighborhood are thoughtfully thought through, and the livability of the homes are considered as well. So overall, we're providing 34% affordable units, as I mentioned, going a little bit above 10 per acre. This provides much-needed middle-income housing to the City of Boulder. There'll be 12 affordable homes in that 100 to 120% AMI. for the direction of the housing department. 16 homes will be market rate attainable, row homes. We'll be improving the frontage on South Boulder Road with a detached sidewalk and a pedestrian connection to the

[21:03] To public transportation, and overall, we see this as a very walkable and livable neighborhood. We're very excited for your feedback tonight. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. And you finished a little early, so that's great. Okay, yeah, I think you standing right there is good, and I think we have, we're gonna have a bunch of questions, and they may be mixed between, questions for staff and you, and maybe a little bit of jump ball in answering those. So, who has, clarifying questions ready to go? I think Claudia does. Thank you, and I am one of the folks that has questions for both staff and the applicants, since I was cut off by that power outage two weeks ago. So the question that I left off with for staff, I think, is going to be a segue to some of my other questions here, if I could just start with that. And that is, I had some questions about

[22:06] the analysis of intensity standards for RMX2 zoning in the memo, and I think that was on page 7 of the memo for this item. So, by right, density at this site, this 2-point acre site is 28 units, 10 per acre, right? And so then going to 30% would give a 5-unit per acre bonus. If I read the code correctly, that gets you up to 42 allowed. Going to 35% gives an 8 unit per acre bonus. which is an additional 22 units, or up to 50, and going to 40%, which is the max for RMX2 zoning, gives a 10 unit per acre bonus. 20 acres per unit… 20 units per acre total. Right, or up to 56. Am I… am I doing that math correctly?

[23:00] That's correct. Okay, so the 35 units that's being proposed here is significantly under the capacity for RMX2 zoning, is that correct? In the applicant's presentation, they said that it's about 12 units per acre. 10 would be the buy rate, and then up to 20 would be the max. Okay, so they're just asking for a little bit more. Correct. Okay. And then a question for, I think, the applicant, but if staff has… has commentary on this as well, because I think you were suggesting, approving this. What is the… what is the rationale for requesting a larger maximum home size? than that previous annexation agreement. So, what's the rationale for going from 2,200 square feet to 3,300 square feet? So, I'll field that one. The rationale is that's subsidizing the affordable housing, so there's no way we could make anything pencil At 35% affordable without providing a home that's, you know, not absurdly large, but a decent market rate home

[24:00] That can help to subsidize and offset the loss that we have on every affordable home that we deliver, to the tune of $100,000 to $200,000 per home, oftentimes. So we're delivering 12 affordable homes. You can do the math of what that might be to our, you know, the hit that we take, profit-wise. having just a handful, like, just similar to the Peacock Place development, we had 6 market-rate homes that were 3,300 square feet, similar, similar deal here. So it's really the same model as what we did there. Okay, and I see this as, like. There should be some sort of function line here, right? Like, you are not maximizing the amount of housing you can put on this site, you are instead building larger units. Where is that tipping point? I mean, to be honest with you, I think we take pride in our community design, so there's a certain level that we're comfortable with kind of cramming units in. I think this is a variable… we have close to 40% open space on the plan right now. We're not looking to build

[25:02] for-sale condominiums, stacked flats, so we're trying to keep everything, like I said, with fee-simple lots. We can't get insurance to build condos. We'd love to build condos, but not with… construction litigation in its current state in Colorado, so we're trying to keep everything 2- and 3-story, fee-simple lots, and we're, frankly, maxing out the development to the extent that we can, that we're comfortable with, to make the project economics work. Okay, thanks for speaking to that. And I know staff also suggested they were comfortable with this approach to affordable housing. Do you have anything to add to this analysis? At this stage, staff conceptually supported the proposed increase, but I think Sloan may be able to give a more detailed analysis if that's what you're looking for. Yeah, I would. Thank you. Alright, good. Yeah, as Allison said, I think conceptually we support it. We realize the challenges in providing affordable units on-site, so I think an increase in the market rate

[26:06] units make sense, and it's similar to what they're doing at Peacock. Sloan, can you introduce yourself for the record? I'm sorry, I'm Sloan Wahlber, I'm the Inclusionary Housing Program Manager. Can you introduce your sidekick, too? Oh, sorry, yes, this is my daughter. Just swear in the consultant you've brought along. I didn't realize she was in the picture, I'm sorry about that. We're so happy she is! So, the rest of my questions are about, site design. So, what is the size of that pocket park that you were showing at the center of the site plan? That's a good question. I'm not quite sure. We'll probably put little front yard fences in there, and so the space, I think, at the end of the day, might be, like, 30 or 40 feet wide, and then little front yards on those units, perhaps. I'd just be guessing, that it's maybe, like.

[27:03] tenth or a third of an acre, quarter acre, or something like that. Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. And I know you… you gestured towards wanting to speak about this reason for asking for a second emergency-only access point. Could you elaborate a bit on why that's important to your design? Yeah, so if we don't put that in there, in the rare instance that a fire truck would pull in and need to use that as an egress, or an ingress, I suppose. We'd have to put in a hammerhead, and those are very large, you can't park on them, they take up a lot of space. And frankly, it's not clear what they're going to allow us to do if we have to keep that 50-foot drainage easement. So we might have to keep that thing out of the drainage easement, and then we're gonna have to crunch that pocket park area, maybe lose some units. It's really… it could blow up our whole site plan, so… We think it's not really considered an access point if it's just for emergency use. So it just makes for a much more efficient design. We can get a few more parking spaces on there.

[28:01] And… yeah, so it's… we're just hopeful to work with the city staff and Public Works to understand what improvements they need to put in that drainage easement. We'll plan appropriately and, you know, not encumber it in any way that's going to hinder them, or we can work with them on installing anything that needs to be installed now. Sooner than later than after the fact, it's always easier to put it in before the housing comes than after. So, yeah, we're hoping to narrow that up a little bit, and… Yeah, does that answer your question? Yeah, great, thank you. And then a question for staff. This is also about street design. Since this is an annexation. Do we have the ability to approve public streets that do not follow the DCS, or are we bound by the DCS if these become public streets?

[29:02] So, I think it's possible from a process perspective, you know, annexation is a… it's a contract, but I think there'd have to be a compelling reason and some sort of benefit to just… Okay, I'm just… I'm recalling, I feel like we had a discussion about something like this at J. Road in 36. That's right. Some time ago. Okay, so there is some… Space for discussion there. Would you mind if I just, while we're on the subject of public and private streets, I just want to clarify, when I look at the site plan, you say public street. And then you say access lane. So, is the access lane synonymous with a private street? No, that's… that's from the… that's a standard, city all… it's not an alley, it's an access lane, but it's… An alley, I think, technically, that might be considered an alley. I'm not sure if you have buildings on both sides, or how that works. Okay. I get… I go a little crazy with the nomenclature and the traffic classifications, and when I… we come up with a plan and we say, you know, can we make this work in a public framework? And that's what we're looking to…

[30:03] work. So your preference would be to not have private streets, to have dedicated public streets and dedicated public access lanes, and no private streets. Correct. Within the development. Correct. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay, last question is actually going pretty deep into your documentation, but this stuck out to me. So you have a draft transportation demand management plan at this point. It mentions shared unbundled parking. But your site plan and renderings show garages attached to individual housing units, so I'd just like to know what is the actual plan for parking provision? I don't… I don't… to be honest with you, I'm not familiar with unbundled parking. Dash, do you?

[31:01] Hi, Don Ash with SiteWorks. We're an engineering, planning, and design firm in Boulder. LSC did our trip generation letter, and I believe there's some TDM strategies in there. Yes, most of the units have garages, there are some public parking spaces, and those would be, unbundled. Available for visitors. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I'll let other folks ask some questions. Okay, great, thank you. Mason, I saw your hand up, and now it's down. Yeah. I had a follow-up, Claudia was asking some great questions along the same lines that I had, but I can… I can ask them out, that's great, thanks. Sure. Go ahead. Yeah, so… Let me gather my thoughts, actually. the… I was wondering if you could expand a little bit upon the challenges with building condos that you mentioned, something about litigation, insurance, etc? Yeah, right now, it's very challenging to even get insurance to build stacked flat condos that are for sale, due to…

[32:06] Lawsuits and construction defect litigation, so we are not… building condos. Most builders are not building for-sale condos. There's rare instances where you will see that, but I think right now, condominiums make up less than 2% of the housing stock being Offered as new construction in the state or the metro area. So, even townhomes are becoming rarer and rarer. The city of Boulder might be not experiencing that as much as other suburban areas. But most… most builders, including us, are really hesitant to build Attached housing. For sale attached housing. We will more typically build attached housing as rental. And then if you're doing it rental, you can build multifamily fine. There's no issues with insurance or construction defect litigation. Typically. I… Did I hear someone chime in?

[33:03] That… that answers the question, I appreciate it. I'd love to know more about it, but I realize that's outside the scope of this discussion, so I will, probably be asking staff more about that. The only remaining question I have is for staff. I don't remember seeing anything about the long-term plan for South Boulder Road. Is there anything in the works around, calming similar to what we're seeing on Arapahoe? Not that I'm aware of. Easy enough. That's all my questions. Okay, thank you. Ml. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. I have a… few questions. Just briefly going back to the questions that Claudia was asking, I just want to confirm what I thought I heard, and then ask a question around that. So 12 of the units would be affordable.

[34:02] Townhouses. 16 would be middle income, you're calling them market rate affordable. Not sure exactly what that is. Market rate attainable. Not affordable. Attainable. And then the rest, 7, are market rate. So when you're asking for this, square footage increase. From, so basically 1,100 square foot from 22 to 30… to 33, Which units would be subject to that? Right now, the ones along South Boulder Road. Are those considered the market rate? Correct. So, 7 units. would be subject to that. That's correct. Thank you, What kind of setback have you provided along South Boulder Road? Are you keeping with the required setbacks? I don't know if there's a setback… South Boulder Road per se. I'll defer to… To staff on clarifying that. We're providing roughly 15 to 20-foot backyards on those units.

[35:07] And there might be a little buffer to the right-of-way, so I'm… perhaps, if there's something greater than that in the code to an arterial street. We might be asking for a modification during site review for that. So that'll be my question to staff, is… I think you called them all buffers, but I'm guessing that those are the setbacks, and if you could just speak to the setbacks on all sides of the property? Yeah, for the RMX2 zone, the minimum front yard landscape setback is 15 feet. Minimum front yard setback for all covered and uncovered parking would be 20 feet. We lost my page here. Let's see, for the minimum side yard set back from a street, that wouldn't apply, And then minimum side yard setback from an interior lot would be… Zero for attached dwelling units, or 1 foot per 2 foot feet of building height.

[36:03] 5-foot minimum for detached. Okay, so the ones on the north that face the backyard of those other houses, that would be a zero lot line, is that what you're saying? Those would be the rear yard. Right. Yeah, so that would be, I believe that was, 15. Oh. Okay, So, the… I'm looking at the paved area, and, you know, in thinking about, has this been minimized? Right now, it's 100% pervious. And I'm wondering, what percent is going to remain pervious? I have not considered that yet. We could look into that. I try to avoid pervious pavement, personally, but we can certainly explore that. I've never… considered that recently on projects that we do. Okay, I'm not asking about pervious paving, per se, I'm just saying what percent of the site… Oh, I see. Because we've got a flood issue, right? This is in the flood zone, and we know that, the flood easement

[37:10] it's probably not negotiable to the smaller area you're proposing, and so I'm just curious as to, how much flood mitigation is naturally Gonna be retained on the site, through non… impervious. surfaces, which would be the grass and whatever other garden. Yeah, as I mentioned before, about 40%, close to 40% is… is grass… not grass area, but open area, you know, pervious… pervious area, up close to 40% of the site. In terms of the flood mitigation, we've studied that pretty extensively in our diligence when we purchased that one-acre parcel to ensure that the… we're able to mitigate the floodplain. And what I didn't point out on our site plan is we have a conveyance area along the perimeter of the site, which will take the…

[38:01] Kind of remove the site from flooding on-site, and kind of convey it along the edges, to the… north… northern part of the property where it naturally flows to, so instead of flooding on the center of the property, it'll be contained and brought around the edge of the property, conceptually speaking. So we hope that that'll improve overland flooding on the site, which is probably impacting neighbors during big storm events. So, final question, has there been any historic value, established with the existing houses? I don't believe so. Was that… did that come up at all? I know it's in the county… Sorry, can you say that? Can you ask that question again? Historic value of the existing houses? I believe the, our landmarks team looked at that, and I don't believe there, there were any. Eligibility concerns. They didn't identify any? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, those are all my questions. Great, thank you. Kurt, you ready?

[39:06] Thank you, and thanks to my colleagues for the great questions. My questions are primarily follow-ups to those. One is about this flood control easement, which… it sounds like there's sort of a fundamental problem here, because you say… I think that, you, as the applicant, said that you couldn't make the project work with a 50-foot flood easement, but I think I also read that staff Could not accept the 50-foot flood easement, so… Can you guys talk? One of you or both? to, explain how… how or whether we can resolve this? Well, I'm not arguing with Allison personally on this matter, but yeah, I know. But I think the… I think from the public works standpoint, they… we… they were granted an easement, they want to protect their rights in that easement, and I believe… there is a flood control project plan. Perhaps Don could speak to that, but it's more of a city… I think it's more appropriate that the city would explain what… what improvements they propose in there as part of a flood mitigation… future flood mitigation project.

[40:10] We acknowledge that an easement has been granted, and we respect that. We're just asking if there's any way we could narrow it by 10 to 20 feet, and they can still get their maintenance, or storm pipe, or whatever they need to… what improvements they need to put in there, we'll certainly cooperate with them. If there's any way we could work through narrowing that a little bit and preserve the integrity of what we're proposing on the site plan, that would be great. If not, I'm not saying I can't say point blank that it doesn't… it's gonna kill the project or anything like that, but it's going to, as I mentioned, probably narrow some of those open spaces that we have, and… and functionally, with the street circulation, it would really, I think, compromise the site plan in that regard. So, we haven't really gotten into the details. We've done a conceptual review submittal, gotten one kind of formal set of comments back, which are very general in nature, and I can certainly understand the city wanting to protect their easement

[41:05] Rights that they've been granted. I wouldn't… just willy-nilly go and say, yes, we'll do whatever you want, but I think through the site review process, hopefully we can understand what improvements are planned there, and Work together to collaborate on how we can make it all come together. Okay, and Allison or others, do you have input on that? I think our staff found that the 50-foot easement was important to the upcoming capital projects of the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Phase 2. I think there's probably an opportunity to continue the conversation through site review if there's modeling that can be done that, you know, shows that 30 feet isn't gonna be a detriment to that upcoming project. But I think on the face of it, that's what was ident… I think that was the issue that was identified. Sounds great. And then, my other question is a little bit similar, is about the emergency access, which… and so, I guess primarily the question is for staff.

[42:03] Why would that not be acceptable? I mean, I realize we have standards about 1 access per Per property, but an emergency access seems like it's a different kind of animal. Yeah, and that was reviewed by both our, fire staff and transportation staff, I think, just at this stage, conceptually. Given that it's a major road. It would probably need further discussion and review, but this was the conceptual response from staff for that second access point. But potentially, there's some flexibility there. Potentially. Yeah. Okay. I think those are my only questions. Thank you. Okay, Laura. Thank you. I have just a couple questions. The first one, and I apologize if I just didn't read the packet carefully enough, but… Does the app… do the applicant and staff agree on both the proposed land use designation and the proposed zoning?

[43:07] Yeah, I believe so. Yeah, okay, great. And I wanted to ask the applicant, you talked about wanting to explain your logic about not having those units on South Boulder Road having their entrances facing the road. Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Because we do like to have our entrances facing the public street. Yeah, so there is an element of density here, so, you know, if we were to front homes on there, we'd probably want a good 50 feet, I would say, from South Boulder Road, and when we laid out product that fronted to South Boulder Road in that fashion. It didn't really fit, given our stormwater requirements and mitigating the floodplain. And then furthermore, just, I mean. the drive along South Boulder Road is beautiful, but the road itself is not that beautiful in the amount of traffic. And I always go through the test of, I'm going out there in the morning and getting my newspaper in my bathrobe, am I comfortable going out in my front yard and picking it up? And frankly, on South Boulder Road, I don't think I would feel that comfortable doing so.

[44:10] So, that's my litmus test, and to be honest with you, I think we can come up with a very attractive streetscape where we wrap all the homes. These are higher-end homes, we can spend a little money on all the facades. And yes, it's not front doors, but we can make them very visually appealing. The homes will live very well, from our standpoint, and from the homeowner's perspective. And furthermore, if you were to front the homes. it's a conundrum. Then you have the garages on the rears, and now you're internal to community, you've got kind of an alley situation. And then you've got to, like, double load that alley to kind of mask those garages, and your whole site is now jacked up, and that's kind of where we were running into… we couldn't make it functionally work with a street system, going through there, and having homes front to South Bowler, and then double-loading the alley. It was just… it just…

[45:01] I've been planning communities for close to 30 years, and I've looked at every way of slicing and dicing the site to make that work, and just from a livability perspective, we didn't think it was the best situation, and it just frankly didn't fit on the site adequately. Okay, thank you. And then, I think I just have one last question, and this might be more for staff, but, there is city open space on the other side of South Boulder Road. Could you tell us a little bit more about what's over there and how it functions? what amenities are there? What do people use it for? Like, I haven't been to that particular open space. Well… I don't know that… I can actually answer that question, because I use it all the time, but I… just in terms of whether or not it's applicable in this particular case, I… From a timing standpoint. I just want to know, just in terms of the planning of the open space on the site, it needs to be functional and meet the needs of the residents, and so if that open space across

[46:06] South Boulder Road is not generally very inviting or accessible or useful, it's a very different situation than if it is, so… It is, it is. It's very inviting and useful, and it's used heavily by residents from all over the city. You can connect to that open space on the south side via, the multi-use path That goes from, East Boulder Wreck under South Boulder Road, parallels along South Boulder Road, and then goes south into what is predominantly along South Boulder Creek, an agricultural area, but with a very nice gravel path. Over the 36, under 36, and then over to Marshall Road. And it's actually used by, mountain bike… mountain bikers, gravel cyclists, runners extensively. It's an extremely popular area with trailhead parking.

[47:02] at, Marshall Road, and not so much on South Boulder Road. Okay, thank you for that, Mark. So it sounds like the major feature there is a multi-use path. Are there any other amenities there? Playgrounds, or a grassy area. Oh, wait, hold on. side, water access. Beautiful. It's a wildly beautiful agricultural area that cattle graze, coyotes are there, right along the creek. It's a wonderful spot. Okay. Thank you. And does staff have anything to add to that? No, that was a fine response, thank you. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Okay. We are at 5… 20, and I would like, staff to put up our, the questions that, In regard to a concept review that we always answer, is there… Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, are you ready to go again? And the public hearing, too. Oh, oh, jeez, the public hearing.

[48:04] Thank you. Okay, we go now to our public hearing. Okay. Well, first of all, I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Any more, important questions that need to be asked? Okay, hearing none, we move on to the public hearing. Thank you. Alright, okay, Thomas, do we have anyone online? Thank you. We do not have anybody signed up in the room. We have one hand raised so far online. This is the public hearing opportunity for item 5A. And we have a couple hands up, I'm seeing 3 at the moment. We'll start with Karen. Karen, you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and once I unmute, you can begin speaking. Thank you. Hi, I'm Karen Farley from 113 Minnie La Court. My heart kind of sank when I saw the public sign going up about the property development. I'm disheartened by it a bit.

[49:06] Thinking it could set a sad precedence, leading to other privately owned properties with small amounts of acreage being scooped up and combined for the sake of crowded housing sites. I fear this happening along the rest of South Boulder Road, between that Manhattan Drive intersection in Louisville. and stretches of other Far East portions of Boulder with small acreage, private property. And the current properties are part of a unique, vital, but shrinking wildlife habitat zone, leading into and out of the edges of Boulder, and a shrinking supply of land for people who want small livestock, horses, or farm businesses. The properties in their current lower density state are a benefit to important ecosystems, not just humans. a good balance for wildlife and people, and I think it'd be a shame to harm the balance. It could hurt the coyote, bobcat, deer, wild turkey, birds of prey, and frogs, toads, even insects that make this area of South Boulder Road their home, or part of their roaming range.

[50:02] I would argue that this area is part of a wildlife corridor, based on what I see from one season to the next, and that we should protect that land and nature. I sent in pictures and emails about these nature topics, plus other reasons the proposed plan is risky and not a fit. Other reasons are the obvious floodplain status, the negative impact on the closest homes and the church, including blocked sunlight, blocked views, and new water flows directed toward them. that congested traffic flow in and around the site, and new sources of light pollution. I think you would hear more opposition like mine to the plan, but the less densely occupied and open land that exists around some parts of the sites And the animals that do live in and around those sites can't speak up for themselves. So I'm doing my part to speak up today and be that needed voice. Just a few other points. I would ask the City to reconsider moving ahead with the concept and upsized zoning. However, if some sort of build has to be permitted, please allow scaling it back in height, size, and number.

[51:06] Require some wildlife and bird and bat population land use surveys first. Add a requirement for new homes to use bear-proof garbage bins to reduce the risk of larger animals being drawn closer to the road for attempting food sources. South Boulder Road, that is. Require further setback from the power lines, and add signs to prevent parking on South Boulder Road in front of the complex. Also, please require another traffic study. About the site, as I believe the one provided by the developer's vendor may not match real-world experiences. And show too low a trip figure for the number of units, generated by the number of units, which will each be capable of housing multiple driving residents. Please protect this land and properties like it from maxed out overdevelopment.

[52:02] Thank you, Karen. Thanks for joining us tonight. We'll move on now to our next speaker, Rob Whitley. Rob, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. Please go ahead. I'm Rob Whitley, I live at 91 Illini Court, the black immediately to the north of the proposed development. I'm here to share my experiences and observations over the 35 years I've lived here, concerning, in particular, the groundwater situation. This localized area teeters on the very edge of groundwater calamity. Every time any project has been undertaken that involves moving earth, I and my neighbors see the patterns of water movement and resulting sump pump activity change, and disturbingly, always in the wrong direction. As an example, until the year 2000, my sump pump had only triggered once in 10 years, namely in May of 1995, which was, to that point, the wettest month on record.

[53:12] But ever since fiber optic cable was laid in 2000, my sump pumps run. Incessantly, whenever there is water in the ditch that constitutes the west border of our block and the west border of the proposed development. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars putting in protection from groundwater incursion into my home. So far, it's been sufficient, I'm happy to say. I've not had the basement flooding that many of my neighbors have. But as projects in the area over the years have occurred, I've experienced new signs of impending incursion, and have had to pay for additional protective infrastructure. So I share with you my deep worries about the groundwater issues that any development is certain to trigger. And to implore the city to require the developer to incorporate wholly adequate protective measures, and to hold the developer to those requirements.

[54:04] And I must say that everything I've heard tonight, heightens my concerns. The talk is of reducing the… drainage easement, the talk is of moving the water from the center of the property to the north, and that's right to where the houses are that are impacted so directly by this. So, I hope you'll take my thoughts under consideration. Thank you, Rob. Next up, we have Rudy Fatig. Rudy, please go ahead and speak. You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. Yes, this is Rudy Fettig. I live at 52 Illini Court, the same neighborhood as, the previous speaker, Rob Whitley, also lived here, just under 35 years.

[55:03] I'll note that in the… one of the planning memos that was prepared by, I guess it's the City of Older Land Use Review Results and Comments. It's in 42 of your packet. a Note 13 there's a comment that there's no groundwater issues with this site, and that is so far from the truth. It's almost laughable. When they dug our foundations to build these homes, they had to stop construction and figure out how to deal with the groundwater because our foundations were half full of water. You could have used them as swimming pools. we have had groundwater issues from the day we moved in. I think our basement first flooded less than a year after we moved in. It's flooded countless times. Obviously, the flood of 2013 was horrible, but… the problem is all the water comes from the south. This site, the water comes down onto the property when there's any storms.

[56:08] And it, frankly, drains straight into the basements of not just my home, but most of the homes in our neighborhood. And so it scares me to death to see this site plan. which shows a detention pond being built literally 35 feet or so from my home. And I know that detention pond wouldn't just go into my basement, it would go into everybody else's basement. Once you have that detention pond and you collect all that water. The only place… the whole point of the detention pond, I know, is to have that water drain underground and away. So… We certainly hope that the planning, Committee looks at that very closely and figures out a more responsible Development, excuse me, drainage plan, because putting a detention pond right across, the other side of the fence from our home is gonna, once again, worsen all of the problems that we have here.

[57:08] Should have prepared some notes. I'm just kind of winging it, but I just can't emphasize enough The drainage problems we have experienced in our neighborhood for 35 years. our objection isn't that not in our backyard with this development, but our objection is it's got to be done correctly and responsibly. You know, I would put out there, I don't know enough about development, but Why have a detention pond? Why not just have drainage provisions made to drain away the water, as opposed to collecting it and having it drain underground and cause problems for the neighborhood? Thank you. Thank you, Rudy. We have one more hand raised. I'm seeing an email address displayed, so we'll need you to begin by stating your full name for the record, please.

[58:09] My name is Rob Wardell. And I'm at 88 Illini Court. I'm in the, same cul-de-sac as Rudy and Rob. And I concur with everything that they've said. We have had flooding… the 2013 flood was massive in our neighborhood, and all the way through Kawedin Meadows as well. So… I think it's imperative that, that much more attention be paid to flood mitigation From the developer, and how that, you know, rather than just waving a magic wand and saying, we're good, it really needs to be addressed. With the 2013 flood, we had… We had a huge dumpster in the middle of our cul-de-sac, and every house in our neighborhood

[59:08] Filled that thing. So much damage was done to every single one of our basements in the… in the cul-de-sac and beyond. It… it was… really disturbing. So, I think it's imperative that a lot of attention be paid to the flood mitigation, and as Rudy said, I just don't think that detention pond is gonna do the trick. The water seeps out of that and into our basements. I… as Rob stated, you know, we have… we also have a sump pump. And most springs, our sump pump is running Full force for a month or six… 6 weeks. every spring. So I don't know how this development… and plus, raising the site level

[60:06] is only going to make that worse, and when you add that to the Peacock property, what they're doing, raising that level. that as well, is going to impact us, as well as the rest of Greenbelt Meadows and Quaden Meadows. So, really hope that we can, we can get a lot of attention paid to… not just some Band-Aid fix, but actually addressing a severe problem that we are all in that neighborhood facing. Thank you. Thank you, and there is one other hand raised at the moment, Catherine Wardell. Catherine, you'll have 3 minutes, please go ahead. Please feel free to bother me. I wanna… I want to echo everything that Rob has shared, and Rob Whitley, and Rudy FedEgg.

[61:03] And some of the neighbors who are not here also have these similar concerns. My name is Catherine Wardell. I live at 88 Illini Court. I've lived there for 34 years. As you've heard from Rob and Rudy, they've lived there since the development was started. It's called Greenbelt Meadows, but we live in… a, a meadow that is not… not ever really should have been built on. We didn't realize that, when we bought the house. And it's… it has been a serious, consideration for all these years, particularly for the three houses to the north of the proposed development for Vince and, The folks right at the apex of the… cul-de-sac, and for Rudy and his family.

[62:01] We can't even imagine the amount of money that those three folks, as well as other neighbors, have spent, like Rob has suggested, trying to mitigate the water issues that we have been afforded. My concern is at some point, you can't make this legitimately, a development if you can't address the… if you can't mitigate the water issues. And I do have some experience with development. My family was able to develop a beautiful multi-hundreds of acres in Placidas. So we went through all of the boards, and all of the approvals, and the cities, and the counties, and the local adjacent communities. So I get it, it's not an easy thing. It takes years. But you can't, as other folks have said, just, you know, brush it down the road. This is… this is not a problem that can be forgotten.

[63:03] In the development plan. My concern also is the Peacock property. We had family that is abutting the Peacock property that had to move because they both worked from home, and they had a young baby, and they could not live with the noise, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. All day long. Imagine that for 18 months to 2 years, to get this place built. It is a serious consideration. Most of us are retired, and we are at home. So, I want… I want you to take serious consideration also about this 4 feet rise in property. That mitigate… that doesn't mitigate any flooding, that just increases the flooding risk, and that's what they've done at Peacock and proposed to do here. Thank you so much for your consideration in that… in the planning. Thank you, Catherine, for joining us. If anybody else would like to speak to the public hearing for item 5A, please go ahead and raise your hand now, otherwise we will be moving on to board discussion.

[64:17] I'm not seeing any other raised hands, so… back to you, Chair. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thanks to all who took the time to speak. Alright, and here are key issues. I think, again, the way we've been doing it, which is to do all four, all three or four of the, key issues, at once, by person, is, is the most efficient, so we'll start. Anybody have their thoughts? Ready. Okay, Kurt? Yeah, thank you, for the presentations and for the input from the public. Overall, I feel that, or I do support the land use map change and the rezoning, I think that that is appropriate.

[65:14] I have a couple of concerns about the proposed changes to the annexation agreement. The… they're proposing a three-quarter access instead of a write-in, right-out, and I have some concerns about whether that will work in terms of the existing median on South Boulder Road. So if traffic engineering says it's okay, then I'm fine with it, but I think that's a concern. I also am concerned about the significant increase in allowable unit size to 3,300 square feet. I would, that's 50% increase over what was… is in the original annexation agreement. And I would support smaller, more, potentially more, but smaller units instead of the very large 3,300 square foot units.

[66:04] In terms of items 3 and 4, I have a few… things to discuss. First of all, as reflected in the public comments, I think the flood implications certainly are a concern. And probably this has been considered, but it just occurred to me, as we were discussing this, that It would be interesting to think about whether the drainage conveyance whale and the detention pond could be moved to the south side of the site, adjacent to South Boulder Road, and the dwelling units pushed north. Which would, keep that detention pond away from the existing buildings there. So, probably been considered, but, if not, just something to think about. And certainly, again, from the flood standpoint, I would encourage minimizing the street and pavement area, including…

[67:02] potentially, as suggested by Claudia, variances to the design construction standards to allow for smaller streets, narrower streets. If possible, I would support allowing the emergency access as proposed. I think that that makes a lot of sense. And… And I would urge the applicant to consider whether it would make sense to stub some sort of a connection to the north. I think that a lot of people are going to want to move. travel. from this development to the north, potentially up to the East Bulldirect Center area, and so on. And there's really no good way to get there, walking or biking, and it would be contingent on changes to… in the properties to the north, but at least stubbing in some kind of connection there, I think, would be appropriate.

[68:07] And those are my only comments. Great, thanks, Kurt. Mason has his hand up. Er. Sorry, I'll go one by one. So for the first point, yes, the site is well-suited for additional density, given its proximity to helpful road transit. We need to consider an existing neighborhood services. The proposed land map change and rezoning to allow medium-density residential is consistent with BBCP policies, which encourage compact continuous development and infill. For point 2, I am willing to accept the applicant's request to reduce the affordable housing requirements in order to seat this project move forward, recognizing the challenges raised around condo construction and insurance and financing. That said, I continue to encourage staff and the applicant to explore opportunities for allowing additional units with smaller square footages. While I understand the applicant's rationale, smaller homes would better align with the BBC goals around compact sustainable development.

[69:08] And broaden affordability in the long term. 0.3. Yes, I think that this project is generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the BDCP, with the caveat that the proposed increase in maximum dwelling size should not foreclose future exploration of smaller unit alternatives, much like what Kurt just said. I think this project would better advance BBC housing goals by adding a range of unit types in a compact… in this compact, well-located site. Additional analysis on how more smaller units could fit here would strengthen consistency with those principles. of efficient land use and affordability. And… on the last point, I feel like I'm starting to sound repetitive, but I… I would like to see applicant staff continue to explore whether the site could accommodate, Instead of…

[70:06] You know, raising the square footage, If it could accommodate smaller units alongside of the other ones. While the applicants had explained, why it was not feasible. I still think more, units could be possible locations worth fully exploring before site review. That's all my comments. Thank you, Mason. Okay, Claudia. I'll take the questions in sequence. Question number one… The land use map change. Yes, I agree with this proposal. A land use map change to MXR facilitates an affordable housing community benefit, and more on that in a moment. But that is a priority of the PPCP, and I think it also supports other city goals around compact and infill development.

[71:05] Regarding the annexation agreements, I have, like some of my colleagues, concerns about the specific way in which relief from affordable housing provisions is being proposed. So, I do understand that changing market conditions make the original agreement infeasible, I don't argue with that, but I am not convinced that allowing larger home sizes is the right way to provide relief. Like my colleagues, I would prefer to see more adjustments to the mix of middle-income affordable units. And to the total number of units allowed on this site. That is more smaller units. Modern, smaller family-type houses are, in fact, a missing housing type in Boulder. And in that sense, they provide some community benefit, even at full market rates. 3,300 square foot homes. We do not have a shortage of those in Boulder. So if we're looking at a proposed annexation and rezoning to RMX2, I think we should be asking for closer to the full housing potential of this site.

[72:08] Question 3, is the project generally compatible with the goals, et cetera, of the BVCP? I agree mostly with staff's analysis here regarding the appropriateness of providing middle and mixed-income housing at this site. And then question 4 on the site plan, a couple of comments. First, given the request for a reduced drainage easement and the neighbor concerns that we've just heard. I think it will be very important for the applicant and the city to work out a robust water management plan. Hope to see some strong details on that at site review. Second, the applicant is calling this a pocket neighborhood. And I like that concept, and I would really encourage them to lean into that for site review, given that this site is going to be largely closed off from surrounding development.

[73:02] despite being very close, right, it's only accessed through South Boulder Road. What can be done to design it as the most complete place and community for its residents? So I'm thinking about the arrangement of open space relative to the homes, the relationship between the homes and the street. Can more of the homes have direct access to that central park area? Are there site designs that would allow that central area to be slightly larger in size to allow the shared open space to be more contiguous and thus more usable for residents? Can any more of the garages or car traffic be moved more to the periphery of the community? Can the internal streets and access drives be designed to be safe and inviting for walking and crossing and playing and outdoor life? And so these are questions for the applicant, but I also think there is some role for the city in making this possible. So that gets to the question of, do we have the flexibility to design living public streets in an annexation?

[74:03] Or is that only possible with private streets? And can we define the public realm or fronts of these buildings in a way that supports neighborhood life rather than focusing on an aesthetic along South Boulder Road? So I think there's some things there, too, for the city to look at in what we're willing to allow here. Great, thank you, Claudia. I see Laura's hand up. Oh, you're still muted. Sorry, sorry about that. I haven't zoomed in a while. Thank you, Mark. So I'm gonna try to be brief here. I generally agree with everything my colleagues said. I didn't hear anything that I would strongly disagree with. I do want to thank and support this applicant for trying to bring some products to market, including affordable, for-sale townhouses, which is another one of those product types, like Claudia was talking about, that we sorely need in Boulder.

[75:02] So I just want to, boost you up, and thank you for bringing that kind of concept forward. Like my colleagues, I would support the proposed land use and zoning that is being proposed here. I think it is appropriate, given this site's location along a major arterial street, with access to shopping, to transit, to the Table Mesa RTD. This is a location where density is appropriate within the city boundaries. But like my colleagues, I would also be glad to see this site have more smaller market rate units. you know, what I'm seeing when I look at the proposal is a very suburban type of feel with, you know, away from the public street and very internal-facing. And that is something that we're not wanting to see so much of in new development here in Boulder. We are looking for developments to front the public street. to embrace the connection to the public realm, to embrace the walkability of walking out your front door and getting to those commercial areas, and getting to that public transit, rather than being sort of private, internal-facing, get in your car and don't ever address the public street. So.

[76:14] So I would very much support that concept of smaller units, and I support staff's, Staff's comments about there may be some changes needed to the site design to address our criteria around addressing the public realm. I do, in general, support staff's comments on building and site design in the packet. That's page 15 of the memo. For this particular agenda item. I agree with my comments that the flooding issues sound pretty significant on this site, and we don't generally… we're not the water board, we're not very technically involved in how these flood problems get solved, but we do care that they do get solved, and that this development honors whatever legal obligation it has to not negatively impact the flooding on the neighboring properties. So, I'm glad to hear the very collaborative attitude of this applicant, and look forward to hearing how that gets worked out.

[77:11] Similarly, like Kurt, I would support the emergency access if that can be worked out with staff. Don't see that there's a great benefit to making the fire trucks do a turnaround in a hammerhead when there could be a pretty well-integrated emergency-only access that, you know, presumably would not add to any burden on South Boulder Road. Same thing with the 50-foot easement, sounds like something to work out with staff. And I did want to talk briefly about the, open space. I was glad to see that in the application statement, it's from the applicant, it said, the park and open space will be activated with passive amenities, such as a park shelter, outdoor cooking area, benches, and informal play areas. I would ask the applicant to please pay close attention to staff's comments about having programmatic elements, like a playground, a play area, a dog park, or community gardens.

[78:04] One of our criteria is that the site meets the needs of the residents for active and passive recreation. And so, I think those things are going to be important things that we look at. And I think those are all of my comments. Let me make sure I addressed all the questions. I do think it is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the BBCP, and will be a fine addition to the City of Boulder here along South Boulder Road. Thank you so much. Great, thank you, Laura. ML, you're up. I'm… I'm in agreement with my colleagues, and I will add the following, briefly, so as not to, overstate the things that have been said. So, regards to number one, supporting the land use and zoning suggestions, the property gets a significant value and becomes developable through annexation. I will encourage the annexation agreement to maximize the amount of permanently affordable housing per the proposed MXR land use.

[79:05] that goal of providing substantial, quote, substantial amount of affordable housing in mixed-density neighborhoods, I think, going through the effort of, agreeing to a land use and zoning change, we need to make sure that The project, responds to the new zoning requirement. Number two, regarding the annexation agreement, specifically. I will encourage the annexation agreement to discourage the square foot increase, but at the very least, limit the increase in square footage to 7 market rate units, so establish the, number and the maximum. In the agreement. Number 3. I encourage the applicant to consider the significant concerns the neighbors have regards to height, views, wildlife, and most significantly, drainage. Water movement is not insignificant.

[80:00] You're going from almost 100% pervious to 40%. I, along with my colleagues, will look for mitigating measures when you return for a site review. And number four, I would encourage the site plan to adhere to the 15-foot setbacks onto South Boulder Road. That's a, as, I think everybody has agreed or noted, including the applicant, that's a pretty busy street, and, to have houses backing right up to it is, not in keeping with what the area around it is doing, and I would, suggest you adhere to the minimum required setbacks on that. What would be the front yard setback? And those are all my comments. Thank you for your proposal. Okay, great. Thank you, ML. And now I'll, give my own thoughts, which… I don't have a thought that hasn't been… that hasn't been voiced. So, in regard to number 1 and 2,

[81:07] More smaller units. Market rate units. I would contend that The potential is there for the degree, or even more, a higher degree of profitability, with, 2,400 square foot, more 2,400 square foot units, 2 or 3, additional units, rather than the 7 3,300 square foot units. Again. You're the developer, you're the market expert, but, you know, there is value to the consumer in a kitchen, a living room, etc. And so, if you, by making some bedrooms smaller, etc, efficient use of space, you can have a lot of space. You can have a great 5-person family living in a 2,400 square foot home. It's really quite nice.

[82:00] So, more smaller units. I, am in support of changing the, describe… the annexation agreement. I think it is consistent with the policies of the BBCP. In regard to number 4, the conceptual site plan, I'm going to disagree specifically with Laura, and I'm not trying to be contentious with Laura, I just want to make my comment that the, spending time… I mentioned that I ride frequently, out there along South Boulder Road, which is many times as busy and as loud as Arapahoe, east of, east of 48th, and it's just… it's really… the intensity of the traffic there, the concrete paving, it's a very loud street. So, fronting, trying to, make… make those units successfully front on a South Boulder Road. I think that is not a great errand to undertake. But I commend Claudia for discussing making that neighborhood,

[83:12] just more… even more of a neighborhood. And so, and I… I do support the idea, certainly, of exploring, how to move, more of the flood control, et cetera. south of the project site. And again, you know, it's always, frustrating when you do a lot of work, and then people come along and say, well, why don't you do this? And, you know, they haven't explored it as well, but that's part of our job, is to encourage, exploration of those kinds of solutions. And of course, the final thing is, is the neighbors' concerns, I think are… are very real, and so at site review, robust engineering and robust site design, that

[84:03] Is able to support The kind of development and the raised elevation, with data, with science, is what I'd be looking for. So, okay, annie? What's that? Oh, yeah, okay, thank you. Boy, I'm really not doing great tonight. Okay, we usually allow any rebuttal. If the applicant wants to address anything they've heard, you don't have to, but if you want to address anything you've heard tonight, you're free to at this moment. And your mic is on and ready to go. Thank you. I… just to touch upon the neighbors' concerns, we… like I said, when we first started looking at this property, that was the first thing we studied, was the floodplain. We reached out proactively to the neighbors and under… to understand their issues, and, you know, we spent tens of thousands of dollars studying the drainage before we even… Plant any kind of street or where homes would go.

[85:01] we actually studied a… hired a fluvial morphologist, if that's even a thing, but it is a thing, because I was like, wow, I'm paying a fluvial morphologist to study the drainage on this site, so… We have experts working on it, experts in… who are working on the drainage in the greater Boulder area, regional drainage. We have Dash Shash, our engineer, who is very, very well versed in the drainage practices in Boulder and developing in floodplains, so… We've studied it, and we think we can improve the situation. Right now, everything's draining right to those homes. That's where the floodplain is, and we think that's an unmitigated floodplain. We think a mitigated floodplain is exactly what will hopefully improve this, and fully confident the City of Boulder will hold us to task in the design of the drainage, so… Happy to get back with you all the details during site review. I appreciate the feedback about South Boulder Road. It sounds like it's kind of a little bit mixed of, you know, the frontage type there, but At the end of the day, we'll have a community that really looks great, along South Bowler Road. We're keen on that. And I take to heart the size of the units, and we'll look into how we can

[86:09] get a few more smaller market rate homes out there. I think that's good feedback. We'll certainly look into that, and we have our architect here, but I'll download with her later, and we'll look at how we can skin that cat. So, appreciate your time and all the feedback. We're excited to come Through the next part of the process, and be back for you in 6 months or so. Great, thank you very much. If you would hit the, turn that mic off, that'd be great. Okay, that concludes Agenda Item 5A. And even though we ran a little long, it's 5.58, and our next portion of the meeting begins at 6, And George has arrived just in time. I'm going to call a 15-minute break, and… and Thomas, I'm hoping you can put up… put it up, and even though we're supposed to start at 6, we can start it.

[87:03] Yeah, 6.15… give me 20. Thomas, do we have dinner? No, okay. Okay, 6.15. Okay, alright, great. Okay.

[105:04] I see… I see several of us eating, one here next to me, so, we have… we just have had a tight schedule tonight. So, I am going to call the, September 30th, 2025, City of Boulder Planning Board meeting back to order. We've already begun the meeting, and we did, earlier we did some schedule rearranging, so if you're looking at the agenda, we have, already dispensed with The public hearing item, agenda item 5A. So that one, is off the list for the remainder of the evening. So we're going back to, the order of the agenda as it appears, and since I've called it to order, and we have… I'll just note that we now have all seven planning board members present, either, virtually or here in the room.

[106:04] And so the next item is public participation, and even though we've already, discussed the, rules of public participation, I think Thomas is gonna walk us through it again, because we do have… or, oh, Vivian is here. Okay, great. Hi, Vivian. So Vivian's going to walk us through the rules of participation. And then we will open it up to public participation. When we open it up to public participation, this will be for any item, that is not on our public hearing item. So you can speak to any topic other than Agenda Item 5 B. So, Vivian, if you'll take it away, and then we'll go to our public hearing. Our public… Comments. Great! Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro-Woldridge. I'll just read these rules of public participation for the meeting. We would like, all participants to know that the City has engaged with community members in the past to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations that all

[107:07] Present, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members. staff and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And we have more information about it on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll read out some examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants in open comment and public hearings identify themselves using first and last name. Next slide, please.

[108:05] And we will take comments from people in the room and also online. If you're joining us online, you need to click on the raise hand button to let us know that you would like, to speak. If you're joining by phone, you can dial star 9 and it'll do the same function. You can also get to this hand, by clicking on Reactions. So we can move to open comment. Each person would have 3 minutes, to speak to, Planning Board. Again, this is not for the public hearing item that is, coming up, so this is for things that are not on tonight's agenda. Thank you, Vivian, and we do not have anyone registered to speak for open comment in the room. Okay, thanks for letting me know. This is their opportunity to go ahead and raise their hands if they'd like to address the board for open comment.

[109:01] I don't see any hands. We'll give folks… Few more seconds. But we might be able to just move on without open comment. Over to you, Chair. Great, thank you very much. Okay, so, we move on. We don't have any, minutes to approve tonight, we don't have any call-up items, and so we're going to move immediately to, our public hearing item, Agenda Item 5B. I'm going to read the agenda title. This is a site review and use review. to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of an existing 9.86-acre site at 2952 Baseline Road. With 5 new buildings containing a total of 427 new dwelling units, including 122 units for students, ranging from studios to 6-bedroom units, and 58,365 square feet of commercial space.

[110:11] The redevelopment retains the Broker Inn and a portion of the adjacent parking. Proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for buildings to reach up to 55 feet in height. This is reviewed under case number LUR202400071 and LUR2024-00072. Okay, so this… there's a couple, items of business that we need to take care of, kind of up front here. The first one is a call to any planning board member That might have, had ex parte communications that they need to divulge, Or any conflict of interest.

[111:06] And I'll be… If you are online. I want to raise your hand. Okay, I'm not seeing any here in the room, I'm not seeing any online. Okay, we can move on. One other item of business before we go any further is, I am going to request that we allow the applicant, because of the size and complexity of the project and public interest, the applicant has requested 20 minutes for their presentation, and, so rather than kind of flow into it and end up with time limits and questions and stuff, we're just going to, take a vote on this now. So I move to… Mark, apologies. Can it be applicant and staff? Presentations? Excuse me? Can it be applicant and staff presentations? Okay, both the applicant and the staff presentation. I was gonna… figured staff could do what…

[112:05] They will, but anyway… I know, the rule says 15 minutes, so we just have to… Okay. Thank you. Yeah, traditionally, staff is 15 minutes. Okay, but we're just going to, I'm gonna make a motion, I hope I get a second, to allow both the staff presentation and the applicant presentation to extend beyond, normal time, so approximately 20 minutes for each. Second. Okay. Moved and seconded, We're just gonna have a show of hands for, all in favor. Okay, that's unanimous, so we now have our… so, now that we have, taken care of those pieces of business. We, Here's how this is going to go. We're going to have a staff presentation. Oh my gosh. Chandler, who is online. He has a cold tonight. He's not here in the room with us. Channel will do that presentation. We'll have clarifying questions from the board, followed by

[113:07] the staff presentation… followed by the applicant presentation, and clarifying questions for the applicant, followed by the public hearing. Then we'll close the public hearing, and then the board will deliberate. So, with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Chandler, For, the staff presentation. Alright, thanks, Mark. Just gonna get this set up. Can you guys see… The regular presenter view, or are you seeing my notes? We're seeing notes. Okay. How's that? Better… Okay. Alright, thanks, Mark. Yes, as you said, tonight's public hearing is about the site and use review at 2952 Baseline Road.

[114:05] So the public hearing items… Our site and use review to redevelop approximately 7.96 acres of the existing 9.86 acre site at 2952 Baseline Road. With 5 new buildings containing a total of 427 new dwelling units, including 122 student housing units. And about 58,000 square feet of commercial space. The redevelopment would retain the broker inn and a portion of the adjacent parking. And as mentioned, the proposal includes a request for a height modification for the buildings to reach up to 55 feet in height. So as Mark also just kind of went over, the objective here is, Planning Board will hear the applicant and staff presentations and may ask questions. You'll then hold a public hearing. There will then be an opportunity for the applicant to respond to public hearing comments, and then Planning Board will, take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the site and use review applications.

[115:01] So, the location of the site… It's approximately 9 and a half acres. It encompasses the triangular area located east of Highway 36 and south of Baseline Road and west of 30th Street, excluding the baseline crossing site on the northwest corner and the McDonald site. The site is zoned BC2, or Business Community 2, and is adjacent to BT1 zoning to the north, public zoning to the east across 30th, which is where Williams Village is located. To the west, across Highway 36, lies the… 2700 baseline site, which is also zoned BC2, and the Martin Acres neighborhood, which is zoned RL1. The BC2 zone district is defined as business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods where retail-type stores predominate. The site is also located in a business community area subject to special use restrictions per Appendix N of the Land Use Code, which I will get into more later.

[116:00] The BVCP land use designation for the site is split between community business on the northwest corner and mixed-use business, for the remainder of the site. This land use designation… sorry, the land use designation for the eastern portion of the site was changed from CB to MUB during the 2000 BVCP update. But the site's never been rezoned to reflect that designation. Further, the Williams Village Center is identified in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan as a neighborhood center, which I will also discuss in further detail later. The site currently contains 5 existing, 1-3-story buildings containing a variety of retail and restaurant businesses, including the Sprouts Market, the Dark Horse Bar, Cosmos Pizza, a liquor store, bank, and other restaurants. Not including the hotel, there's about… 55,000 square feet of commercial, space currently on the site. There's a Conoco gas station on the northeast corner of the site, and on the south corner of the site is the Boulder Broker Inn, which is a legal non-conforming hotel use.

[117:07] Both the Dark Horse and the Broker Inn have been in the location since 1974. The property is not individually landmarked or located in a historic district. In terms of existing site access, not including Baseline Crossing or McDonald's sites, there are 9 existing access points to the site, with 4 curb cuts on Baseline Road, and 5 curb cuts along 30th Street. Of the four existing access points on baseline, only one has full movement turn access, which is between Baseline Cross and McDonald's, with the remainder being right in, right-out only. Similarly, the existing access points on 30th are also right-in, right-out only, with the exception of the access serving, the Cosmos Pizza Building. With only a single drive aisle providing access to westbound lanes on baseline. The current access configuration severely limits opportunities for westbound travel from the site, with U-turns on either 30th or the signals intersection at 30th and baseline being required for the majority of exit points from the site.

[118:09] So… Jumping into the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to redevelop the 7.96 acres of the site as a mixed-use development, with 5 new buildings, ranging from 42,099 square feet to 209,890 square feet. There would be 427 new dwelling units, including 122 units intended for students, ranging from studios to 6 bedrooms. There'd be approximately 58,365 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The proposal also includes 534 new parking spaces, as well as retaining the existing Broker Inn and 103 spaces located on that site.

[119:00] In terms of site access, the proposal Reduces the number of vehicular access points from 9 to 4. 3 of which would be full turn accesses, and one of which, the north entrance to New Carter Way, which is just east of McDonald's, would be right-in, right-out only. In terms of pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. The site plan includes a new multi-use path, which runs north through the site, between the existing multi-use paths along US 36 and Baseline Road, that's shown here in pink, and also provides three new pedestrian-only accessible routes. 2 accessed via the US-36 multi-use path, and 1 accessed via 30th Street. Those are shown with the red arrows. New detached sidewalks are shown along 30th Street and along the private drives within the development as well. Open space for the project is proposed as a mix of at-grade open spaces, plazas, landscape setbacks, and rooftop decks. They're providing 101,481 square feet of open space, where 85,883 is required by the land use code.

[120:06] Shown here with the red circle is the central plaza, which is the focal point of the site and contains a variety of hard and softscape surfaces. Ample landscaping and flexible seating and event space. This rendering shows a view of the main Wooner-style drive and Central Plaza, along with several of the proposed rooftop decks and the pedestrian area south of Building D. As shown in the rendering, the Central Plaza is a focal point of the site, and, includes, as I said before, a variety of hard and softscape surfaces, landscaping, flexible seating areas, etc. Buildings surrounding the plaza have been stepped down to allow light into the space, and rooftop decks create additional activity around the perimeter. In terms of land use, as I mentioned, it's a mix of attached residential and commercial uses, totaling approximately 555,061 square feet and floor area.

[121:04] So that's, with the broker in, which is, $77,000 and change, the site-wide FAR would be about 1.46, where 2.0 is the limit per BC2. It increases the commercial area from 54,222 square feet, existing, to 58,365 square feet as proposed, which is an increase in a commercial floor area of about 7.6%. And then in terms of the ground floor residential uses, it's about 48,405 square feet. In terms of the building design, the proposed project would add 5 new buildings to the site. While keeping the existing broker in on the southern portion of the site. The new buildings would range from 50 to 55 feet in height. Buildings are positioned towards the edges of the site to create a well-defined urban edge, with the tallest building, which is Building E, shown on the left there.

[122:05] Located on the northwest boundary of the site, intended to act as a buffer between US 36 and the interior of the project. The buildings are stepped down at strategic points along the interior drives to create a pedestrian-friendly scale. As well as along the exterior of the development to help break up building mass and provide transitions to nearby buildings. So I'm just gonna quickly go through, each building here. So Building A is located on the southeast portion of the site, north of the Brooker Inn, facing Williams Village Towers. The building is approximately 117,896 square feet in size. It would contain 111 units, ranging from studios to 3 bedrooms. 51 structured parking spaces are provided in a wrapped garage, with access taken from Williams Way on the north side of the building. The east elevation includes 5 townhome units along 30th Street, with ground floor commercial uses on the north and west elevations along the internal private drives.

[123:04] The east facade, as shown up here, has been divided to create a more direct pathway into the site from the existing pedestrian path across 30th. A small portion of the building separated from the rest by a pedestrian bridge is intended to be a jewel on the site. Terminating the view along the wound earth and announcing one of the key entries into the site. This jewel is proposed to be CLT, or cross-laminated timber construction. These are just renderings of Building A, one looking north on 30th Street on the upper left, and on the lower right, is looking from inside the site, south on New Carter Way toward the, detached, jewel portion of the building. Building B would hold the northwest corner at baseline and 30th. It contains the proposed grocery store use. And would hide the larger of the two parking structures, which would include 406 spaces. The larger, scale of the building is shown on Baseline Drive. The other street faces are more pedestrian-oriented and broken down into smaller retail spaces. There's a total of 92 upper-story units proposed, ranging, again, from studios to 3 bedrooms.

[124:15] This building uses different materials to call out the retail. There's larger wood. Wood and larger expanses of glass on the lower level, and brick masses grounding the corners. The building steps back along baseline to reduce the scale, and to respond to the one- and two-story buildings located across baseline to the north. The upper floor also steps back toward the village center, as shown previously. There's also a loading and delivery entrance on the west side of the building off New Carter Way. And the parking garage access is located on the south side of the building. These are renderings, again, of Building B, The first one on the upper left is, looking east on, Williams Way, I believe, towards the Williams Village Towers, with Building B, the smaller retail spaces shown on the left.

[125:10] The image on the right is looking north, New Carter Way toward baseline, just showing the corner and more of the, smaller scale, kind of pedestrian-oriented retail space. Building C would transition the building scale along baseline, between McDonald's and Building B. The building has four fronts, with retail uses being focused primarily on the east side, along the new private drive. And the west side containing entries to the residential units, so essentially residential lobbies. This building also includes small step backs of the north and south, reducing the height along baseline and the height at the village center. This building would include a total of 44 units and roughly 7,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space. This rendering is just showing Building C as seen looking west on Baseline Drive. The white… white block is McDonald's, in terms of the mass and scale.

[126:06] And Building C is shown just to the west of that. Building D anchors the long edge of the new village square, and the north portion terminates several of the views into the site. It's intended to create a second joule and anchor the other end of the new, Woonerf-style drive. The ground floor bordering the plaza contains two flexible restaurant spaces, totaling approximately 4,000 square feet. There are 11 ground floor residential units provided on the southeast and west sides of the building, the former fronting on a small plaza and pedestrian pathway, and the latter facing the US 36 multi-use path. An additional 48 units are proposed on the upper floors of this building. These renderings are just, also showing Building D. The one on the left is as you enter on the pedestrian pathway from the US-36 multi-use path, showing just the south end of the building, done in metal.

[127:03] And the, image on the right is looking up the Woonerf, to the north, showing Building B on the left, with the taller portion of the building, extending along the Woonerf. Finally, Building E is proposed to be student housing, and is intended to act as a buffer between the site and US 36. The building has, been designed so that it appears as three different buildings, with each segment comprised of a different primary material, and with changes in window patterning and architectural detailing. Five pedestrian entries have been located to provide access from each side of the building. With the primary access being on the north side of the building, fronting a small plaza on Williams Way, vehicular access to the garage. It's located on the east side of the northern portion of the building. The garage is located along the southeast portion of the ground floor, adjacent to Highway 36, where the higher grade of the bike path and the highway would raise pedestrians as well as drivers going past the building up to the second level, helping to camouflage the space containing the parking.

[128:06] Amenity uses have been located along the multi-use path, adding activity and interest along that corridor. These are all renderings showing, Building E from different perspectives. In terms of… parking and TDM strategies. The site provides, ample… Bike parking. Building E is providing 268 bike parking spaces, where 246 are required. Between buildings A through D, there are 750 additional bike parking spaces provided. Whereas 702 are otherwise required by the land use code. There's also 637 vehicle parking spaces total. And again, that's split between a total of 521 new garage spaces, 13 on-street spaces, and 103 existing surface spaces at the Broker Inn.

[129:00] The TDM plan, which was included, as an attachment. Includes orientation packets, which include brochures, maps, and other resources to inform residents of transportation options. Monitoring and evaluation, which would, be annual surveys regarding use and satisfaction with TDM programs, which would be through a sales or lease agreement. That the residents would agree to participate in that. Several micromobility features. Including a bicycle share and longboard program that will be available to both residents and employees. That program would be managed through a third-party service, and typically provides 4 bicycles and 5 longboards at a time that are securely stored on site. The applicant would also provide collapsible carts and wagons for use by residents, as well as multiple e-scooter parking areas for parking and storage of e-scooters. A bicycle maintenance and repair station is proposed to be located on the ground floor of Building E. The applicant would also provide, ECO, or, Business Eco Pass and Neighborhood Eco Pass.

[130:06] sorry, BECO and NECO passes for, residents and employees, for a minimum period of 3 years. And then they're also proposing an alternative transportation fund, where they would offer $150 a year in transportation subsidy per unit if the residents do not require on-site parking, and can demonstrate that through their lease. In terms of parking management, and the parking management plan was also included. So again, they're proposing a total of 637 spaces. 521 of these would be new garage spaces. There'd be 13 short-term on-street spaces located along the private drives. 103 service parking spaces at the Broker Inn, which, as of now, would remain for use by that building. There'd be 51 garage spaces in Building A.

[131:02] 406 garage spaces in Building B, which is where the grocery store is. And then, all garage parking spaces in Building A and B would be unbundled and paid separately from the unit lease. Per the applicant's parking plan, the on-site parking garages will be controlled by a gateless, online, real-time parking access permit, license plate recognition, and revenue control system. There would be 64 garage parking spaces located in Building E, which is the Student Housing Building. All parking spaces in Building E will be managed separately from Buildings A through D, and would be unbundled and paid separately from the unit lease as well. So, jumping into the process… So the project requires concept plan and site review, because the site is over 2 acres, the proposal's greater than 25,000 square feet, and a height modification is proposed. The use review is required because the project site is located in a business community area subject to special use restrictions, and the proposal includes ground floor residential units.

[132:05] So they must demonstrate that the use will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood-serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. This proposal requires Planning Board action, which will be subject to call-up by City Council. Just to remind folks, I'm sure you guys all remember, but, a concept review application was submitted for this project in July of 2023. The hearing… The planning board hearing for this took place on January 16th, 2024, where Planning Board reviewed and commented on the proposal. This is an image taken from the original concept review submittal. Just also as a reminder, so the concept review, which came in, included 610 attached residential units. Showed about 70,000 square feet of ground floor commercial. It also included a new hotel use, which was proposed at about 77,000 square feet.

[133:00] 7,800 square feet of restaurant use, and, 6 4-5 story buildings. With a net FAR across the site of 1.9. Council called up the concept review in February of 2024. They held a hearing in March of 2024. In general, Council expressed support for the proposal, but did refer it to the Design Advisory Board, or DAB, the Transportation Advisory Board, or DAB, and the Environmental Advisory Board, EAB. Council also expressed a willingness to see private drives instead of public right-of-way within the project in order to facilitate more creative pedestrian-oriented design. The project did go to all of the advisory boards that it was referred to. Overall, the boards expressed support for the proposal. They focused comments primarily on the following areas. EAB expressed the desire to see solar incorporated into the project, and support for small local businesses. TAB expressed the desire for strong creative TDM strategies and parking management measures.

[134:07] And Dab, expressed the desire to see more entries and wayfinding strategies incorporated into Building B, as well as a desire for additional roof tailing, detailing, excuse me, and… You can see the applicant's responses to all of the board comments in the meeting minutes included as an attachment to the packet, but the applicant has made several moves to address the comments and feedback that they received from the advisory boards. So, the key issues for discussion tonight, one is, is the proposal consistent with the site review criteria? Including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height modification. And two, is the proposal consistent with the use review criteria and specific use standards of Section 9215E and 963E? So, jumping into Key Issue 1, which is whether the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria.

[135:01] Staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with both the underlying land use designation, as well as, the neighborhood center designation, the BPCP. It's also consistent with several characteristics of the sustainable urban form definition. Staff also finds that the project meets the intent of neighborhood centers, as outlined in the BBCP. It provides goods and services for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents, workers, and students. It is easily accessible from surrounding areas by foot, bike, and transit, and would contribute to a sense of place in the achievement of walkable 15-minute places with a mix of uses and a range of services. In addition to the policies related to the neighborhood centers and built environment, the project is consistent with the following BBCP goals and policies. 111, jobs-housing Balance. The project would provide additional housing in a location convenient to transit and employment centers. It would have more commercial space than is there currently, and a better designed and more pedestrian-friendly plan.

[136:05] And allows new residents to support existing and newly established retail and restaurant businesses in the area. Also supports Policy 2.24, which is a commitment to a walkable and accessible city, and that the project will provide a mixed-use business area with easy and safe access by foot, bike, and transit. In terms of the site review criteria. The building and site design establish a sense of entry and arrival to the city by creating a defined urban edge through design elements which are visible upon entry into the city. It improves safety and connectivity, incorporates site design techniques and infrastructure and TDM strategies to support and encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicles. Provides a mix of private and common open space areas with a mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas and green spaces. Landscaping includes a variety of plants, colors, and contrasts. Building and siting design is compatible with and improves upon the character of the surrounding area, and the project successfully creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience with simple, human-scaled and high-quality architecture.

[137:04] For the additional criteria for height modifications, staff finds that the building's form and massing improve upon the character of the area, consistent with the intent of paragraph 3, building design criteria. The project is designed to a human scale, and to create visual permeability into and through the site. While buildings A, B, and E are over 200 feet in length along public rights-of-way, all of the buildings are designed using distinct breaks, and the building's form and material to visually resemble separate structures. This approach serves to conceal the parking areas while enhancing the pedestrian experience. All building facades that exceed 120 feet in length have been designed to appear as multiple buildings, whether or not they appear along a public street or internal to the site. The variations in massing and form are designed to maintain a human scale. And materiality changes are, meant to support that as well. Emphasis has been developed through the use of facade recessions and variations in building height.

[138:04] The site is located near multiple transit options and along multimodal corridors, and is also in an area anticipated for higher intensity development, as it is within a BC2 area identified as an area for additional floor area ratio. Buildings B, D, and E include roof decks on their top floor, which are accessible to tenants and designed to take advantage of mountain views. Building A includes a roof deck with a pool amenity that would be shared across all of the residential buildings that are not the student housing building. The central gathering space is designed for residents and visitors, and has been designed to be flexible in use. The width of that open space is approximately 74 feet. The Central Plaza has southern exposure and sunlight, decoratively scored concrete, amenities, landscaping, and sidewalk visibility. So for key issue number 2, Which is, whether the, is the use review consistent with the use review criteria and the conditional use standards?

[139:05] So again, the use review in this case is really just required because the proposal includes ground floor residential units. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, and I'm sorry, there is a typo here, so it is just because there's ground floor residential units, not because the floor area of the attached residential exceeds 10% of the total floor area. That is not, a consideration in the use review standards in this case. So as mentioned before, the land use code says, in addition to meeting the use review criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate that the use on the ground floor Will not adversely affect the intended functioning character of the area as a neighborhood-serving business area, where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel and in the area. So just to quickly go over the use review criteria, the project is consistent with zoning. All of the uses except for the ground floor residential uses proposed are allowed by right, and the ground floor residential uses require a use review, which is, the process they're going through.

[140:17] Staff finds that when viewed as a whole, the project provides direct service and convenience to the surrounding uses and neighborhoods by improving safety and connectivity through the site. For students in the adjacent Williams Village development, reducing vehicular access points, and providing a variety of welcoming public spaces adjacent to the new commercial uses, and that the ground floor residential uses Are located such that they do not detract from these benefits, and rather enhance them. In terms of compatibility, location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use will be reasonably compatible with, and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. In support of this criteria, the size of the development is well within the maximum allowable FAR for the BC2 zone. Again, it's 1.46, where 2.0 is the maximum allowed.

[141:03] The site design transforms an auto-oriented shopping center that is largely paved service parking into a pedestrian and bicycle-oriented mixed-use development with improved access and connectivity into and across the site. And in terms of the commercial uses, the commercial uses will… the operating characteristics will likely remain largely the same as they are now, with businesses operating per the zoning district standards. The site's designed with a minimum amount of parking to support the proposed uses and includes a variety of innovative TDM and parking management measures, to reduce SOV travel, and manage parking and traffic impacts effectively. In terms of infrastructure, the project as a whole is within the allowable intensity set forth by the zone district standards, and the 26 ground floor residential units would not impact the project's overall impact on the infrastructure of the surrounding area. In terms of the character of the area, the use review criteria require that the use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans.

[142:09] There are no… there are no adopted, design guidelines or area plan for the area. The ground floor units would not change the character of the surrounding area. The project as a whole is consistent with the intent of the BC2 Zone District and the BVCP Neighborhood Center guiding policies, and would remain as such with or without the ground floor units. The ground floor units are located along the periphery of the development in areas where retail uses would not be desirable, and the presence of ground floor units would not detract from the overall character of the development as a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use project. So staff finds that the proposed use meets the conditional use criterion and does not adversely affect the intended functioning character of the area as a neighborhood-serving business area. Where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. As mentioned before, the project would increase the overall, amount of

[143:00] Ground floor commercial square footage by roughly 7.6%. Greatly improving pedestrian accessibility to these spaces and adding residential density to support the businesses located therein. I'm now happy to answer questions, and I have, motion language prepared for, whenever that time comes. Great, thank you, Chandler. That was a great presentation. Okay, it's now time for the board to ask clarifying questions that staff can most likely answer versus the applicant. And, george is jumped to the front and is ready to go. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Chandler. I'll be quick, and just kind of shoot things off, because you may have to look some things up. So, one, you had mentioned the FAR calculation at 1.4 inclusive of the broker-end landmass. If you were to exclude that, what would be the FAR for the actual project that's being built out?

[144:05] For the 7.96 acres. I will, I'll calculate that. That'd be great, thank you. Second, I'm assuming the open space calculation, similar to that, I'd be… I'd like to understand that outside of the broker-in, because as I see it right now, it looks like the brokerage might be a future phase of what could be built there, so I just want to understand that the land that's being touched, what the FAR and open space calculations are. I'll go on with my questions. The other question is… is really around the commercial. So, Do we know… are there vacant stores there today? What percentage of the retail is vacant? I would defer to the applicant on that. Alright, I'll ask the applicant on that. And then, along with that, I think, trying to understand, given that we have,

[145:06] the height modifications being, requested. What guarantees, Do we have, of the commercial spaces, not only being built, like the grocery store, and replacing what's there, but actually getting occupied and up and operational. Well, I… I don't think we can… require them to find tenants. I think we can require them to build it as commercial space, but I don't know that we have a method of requiring, That the commercial spaces be… Occupied in a certain time frame. Okay, maybe I can ask the city attorney, are there any mechanisms, although we may not have them, traditionally, where, certain things are being requested of a project, like,

[146:06] like this, any mechanisms, lights-on mechanism, some… something to try to ensure that a project like this actually gets occupied on the commercial side, specifically the grocery. Thank you for your question, George. This is Laura with the City Attorney's Office. I am not aware of any mechanism, and I checked with Charles as well. I see Laura's hand is up, so maybe she has… Something on this, or maybe that's something else about… I have a colloquy, but I can't answer that particular question. Okay. I'm not aware of anything in the code. Okay, great. That's helpful. And along that line, and then I'll… and then I'll give up my time for others to ask questions, along that line, Laurel, Are there… you may not be aware of any mechanisms, but given the requests.

[147:03] do you think it's possible that, we could develop mechanisms for something like that? And what comes to mind specifically, when I think about this, is Oliv. And, my very strong understanding that that developer is not making any concessions in order to occupy that space. That space was required, and I don't want the same thing to happen there. So, is that something you can look into for us, is to see what might be possible? Yeah, we can look into it outside of this. process, I think, for this particular one, we could require, right, them to build commercial, and we could limit the use. But there isn't anything compelling them as to what to put into that space. But I can look outside of this, because you've asked this before, just to see… Yeah, and I really don't want to look outside of this, because I want to address it in this project, so it'd be great…

[148:00] producer. research. The code right now, yeah, the code right now only allows us to limit the use and it to be commercial. Okay. But, yeah. George, I will say, I mean, the applicant probably has some interesting, responses to this, because I know that they have been Talking extensively to existing tenants and to Sprouts, etc, so they might be able to elaborate more on some of the agreements that they have. Yeah, and I'll get into my comments later, but I appreciate that, and I'll let the next person go. Thank you. And then, Chanley, you'll get back to us on those few questions. Yeah, I just looked up, so the FAR without the broker in is 1.6. Okay. And the open space might take, a bit… a bit more time. Okay, appreciate that, thank you. Yep. Okay, Laura's got her hand up. Thank you. So, I do have a colloquy on George's question about the potentially vacant retail. So, in the applicant's statement, there's a line, or a couple lines, that says, to address the challenge of vacant retail, Williams Village 2 proposes competitive lease rates.

[149:08] In cases of prolonged vacancy, spaces may be converted to residential uses to maintain vibrancy and activity in the area. And we've seen things like that before from projects. So I wanted to check in with staff, under what conditions can you foresee entertaining a use for you to take that commercial space to residential? Well, we would… if… if they submitted a use review, we would… we would review it. We can't really prevent them from doing that, so… They could do that on day one, they could do that before they… Thank you. After they build it? Yeah, they could theoretically do that on day one. So they would just have to meet the use review criteria. as written. And there's no additional restraints on… Changing the commercial to retail.

[150:01] Changing the… changing the commercial to residential. No. No, there would be no other restraints. They would just have to come back in with a use review, and they'd go through the same review process, where they'd have to… they would have to show for each Space that they were converting that they weren't… Detracting from the overall character of the area as a… You know, where ground floor retail uses predominate. And that would be subject to call-up by Planning Board. Okay, so it's a staff-level decision, but subject to call-up by Planning Board. That's correct. Okay. Would we be notified if that use review application comes through or is approved? How would we know that… It was approved, because we would have to do… we'd have to do the call-up period, and we'd have to submit the call-up memo to the planning board for call-up consideration, but, we don't typically notify Planning Board when applications are submitted. We would just provide a standard public notice. Gotcha. So if it's approved, we would get notified, as this is a potential call-up. Okay, thank you. It's good to know.

[151:04] Or denied. Yeah, you would still… you'd still have the opportunity to call it up. Okay, good to know, thank you. I have just a couple more questions. In the letter from CU, the comment letter, they talked about anticipating significant pedestrian traffic crossing 30th Street between Williams Village and this new development, and they asked for the incorporation of a minimum of two enhanced ROW crossings mid-block. Do you know if that comment was addressed? I apologize if that's already been asked and answered. So, I think there are, there are two, marked pedestrian crossings on baseline. So, I wasn't sure if CU was asking for those to be relocated, or… It looks like they want it on 30th Street, between Williams Village. Oh, is it… Perfect. I'm sorry, that's… that's what I… that's what I meant, is on 30th Street. There's… there's two, marked pedestrian crossings on 30th Street.

[152:05] And is that what they mean by an enhanced ROW crossing mid-block? I'm not sure. Okay, I don't know, Kurt, if that was part of your questions that you asked, transportation, or if you have a sense of that. I know you're kind of our transportation expert. Yeah, it's related, I think. I thought that they stated, they were asking for RRFBs on 30th Street, is that not correct? I copy-pasted, and it said, project should incorporate a minimum of two enhanced ROW crossings mid-block. And I'm not familiar with all the acronyms about this, I just wanted to know if CU's concern was addressed. I can… I mean, we don't typically require applicants to make changes based on public comments. I can let the applicant, address that. Okay, thank you.

[153:01] Mcdonald's also had a concern about solar shading and easement on their property. Is there a staff response to those? Yeah, I mean, the easement is a private matter. The easement is a… it's a private easement, My understanding is that the applicant is working with McDonald's to come up with a solution to the easement issue. In terms of solar shading. You know, unfortunately, McDonald's is in Solar Area 3, so there are no regulations that prohibit rooftop shading. So there's really nothing in the code that precludes this property from building taller buildings adjacent to them, which would potentially shade their solar system during the winter months. Okay, good to know. Thank you. And then my last question was around the balconies. In the memo, it talks about there are protruding balconies on Building B that are not individually integrated into the building facade.

[154:05] Even though the code requires that balconies on buildings with attached dwelling units, that the balconies be integrated into the form of the building, and that the exterior walls partially enclose the balcony. And there was, a rationale given that, well, these balconies are located within a larger recessed area, and so that could potentially qualify as an enclosure, even though it's not within the face that the balconies are on. Can you… can you comment on that? Is that a typical way that staff addresses balconies? I wouldn't say that I've seen it a bunch before. Also, it's not a requirement, right? All the site review criteria, you don't have to meet Any one or all of them. They're all considered imbalanced, so… I think in this case that we felt But overall, the, the effect of what they had done with the sides of the building protruding out and enclosing the overall, like, massing of the balconies, kind of served the same purpose as, having each of the individual balconies enclosed by the…

[155:07] Building itself. So, in that… in that instance, we still felt like it was… it was good building design, and that it overall met the intent of the building design criteria, even if it didn't, you know, specifically meet the letter of that one criterion. Okay, I'll go back and check. My understanding is the site review criteria are basically a checklist that you have to meet everyone unless it's located in a section that says the following factors shall be considered in meeting this criterion. So I'll have to go back and look at that one and see where areas within the… section, but thank you, it's good to hear what the rationale was on that. Those are my questions. Okay, thank you, Laura. I'm looking right, I'm looking left. Anyone ready? ML? Great. Thank you for the presentation, Chandler, there you are. So, I have a few questions,

[156:07] I'll ask a broad one first. On the phasing, I don't know if you have… do you… does the city have any input on the phasing? Of the construction? How do you mean input? We have. So there's two phases being proposed. On the first phase, it's the, it's the dorms, or the student housing that's being built, Sprouts remains. Phase 2, remove Sprouts, and then, over the course of 3 years, kind of build out that area. Yeah. Would the city have any input? to, have… the Sprouts, and I'm using sprouts for that commercial area of whether or not, right, there's that store, site. could be fast-tracked, because it seems like it's a pretty significant amenity in the neighborhood, and is there any way that that can be, sort of, percolated to the top of the Phase 2 process through the city?

[157:10] Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we… so we worked, you know, I didn't get super into the phasing plan in the presentation, but, The phasing plan, I think the applicant would argue, has probably been the biggest headache for them through this process. We've been… we've worked really closely with them to try to figure out a phasing plan that works in terms of easement dedications, vacations, how they're going to provide utilities, how the construction phasing occurs, etc. It's really complicated. They… they are really trying to maintain Existing businesses for as long as humanly possible during construction, and to really minimize the disruption of those spaces. you know, the issue with the… they did approach us, and I'm sure they'd want to talk about this as well, they have approached us with

[158:01] Requests for… you know, exemptions to basically leave buildings in place following subdivision. One of the main issues that arises is that our subdivision standards, require buildings to be demolished before you can approve a final plat, right? Like, we can't approve A new plat for the property, where there's a lot line or an easement that goes through an existing building. So the buildings have to be removed in order for the plat to be approved. There are some kind of minor workarounds that may be possible through the subdivision process, but overall, it's pretty… cut and dry in that regard. And we can't really… I mean, I know that their intention is to build Building B first, I don't know that we can require them to, like, speed up that process, or to, you know, to force them to… Approach their construction phasing in a certain way.

[159:01] I just don't know that the code has any legal mechanisms that would support that. So their phasing, language is a concept, not a fact. No, the phasing plan is included in the conditions of approval very specifically. Because the phasing, talks about Phase 2, and it's at Phase 1, and that the Sprouts site would remain. Those buildings wouldn't be demolished. Correct. It's very, pretty precise, and so I was just talking about Phase 2 when it's coming time to, you know, kind of deconstruct those remaining buildings, and prioritizing just a piece of construction on that site so we get a grocery store sooner rather than later. That's what I was concerned with, with the Phase 2, as described. Right. Because right now, they're saying it's 3 years, you know, to build that. Right. So, anyway, am I hearing you say that not so much? I mean, not to my knowledge. If Laurel has anything to add to that, maybe she can correct me, but as far as I know, I mean, all we can really do is require

[160:09] the second phase to occur in the timeframe that it occurs, but I don't know that we can force them to build part of Phase 2 first. Got it. No, and they tried to avoid it as well by keeping sprouts open as long as possible during Phase 1. Right. So they're only going to take down Sprouts when they're getting ready for Phase 2 is kind of the goal, to try and keep it as short as possible. Yeah. Okay. Just curious. I don't know if that's their reason, but I think that's… I got that. Yeah. Okay, so let me see, I've got a couple of other… can I ask some more questions? And I think that you, made a comment on this, Chandler, in the… in the, packet, but I'm just curious, under the criteria, the numbers of, The diamond. diversity, Dwelling units and bedroom types. Did all of that Meet the requirements?

[161:07] Did those… Yeah, yeah, they're, for the site of over 5 acres, they're just required to provide, 2 of the… Qualifying dwelling unit types, which, they essentially accomplished by providing the five, ground floor townhome units. In Building A. And then… Of these 5 dwelling units of each required qualifying housing type. Yeah, so they're meeting the minimum standard by providing the townhome units, yeah. Okay, perfect. Let me see… So, in talking about the height modification, it didn't meet any of the requirements except for the one that will… Create that height bonus in additional affordable units.

[162:01] Do we know how many bonus affordable units this height measure would provide? No, but it would just be… the, inclusionary housing fee, right? Like, I think it's 1.46 times the… The standard 25% inclusionary housing fee. But that's not actually calculated until the time of building permit. So… So we don't know what we're gaining. We're gaining… I mean, the formula is the standard. formula that applies to all projects, but… but no, I don't… we haven't calculated the exact… Anticipated additional inclusionary housing fee that we would get from their 4th and 5th stories. And Mel, I want to, clarify something here with Laurel. Actually, discussion… is it… is… isn't.

[163:03] discussion of… number of… Units. Created by, which we can't really discuss the number of units, because we don't know, but even the fee which is calculated subsequent to this, is not part of the site review criteria, nor is it something we can make a determination on, or anything else. In fact, we should be very careful, or not discuss that at all. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you. So, Emma, I just want to caution you on that one, please. I'm just questioning it regards to the height modification citation. Right, and I'm saying it's not part of the criteria. 9214b1… Well, the bonus is part of the criteria, but it's not part of the site review decision-making criteria. Right, it's automatically applied. Like, anyone, yeah. Correct. I was just wondering how much we gained by actually doing that. I'm hearing that we don't know. Cool.

[164:01] So, next question. Can you bring up a slide that shows the solar, the shadow patterns on the property, and I'm concerned… the question I have is regards to the open space. And it talks about, that the open space has adequate southern exposure and sunlight. And I'm looking… if I remember in the packet, you had the, shadow, solar shadow diagrams, and it looked like that open space was always in the shade, but I could… be wrong. I'd just like to look at that and, Get your perspective on that criteria. Yeah, I can show you that. Cool. And just also as. As just a reminder, the solar shadow analysis they provide is only required to show the solar shadows at the winter solstice at 10am and 2 p.m.

[165:05] So it's essentially showing what the project would look like On the shortest, darkest day of the year. Shortest, so, winter… winter solstice, yeah, so, like, December 21st, that's… that's the day. Worst case scenario. Exactly, yeah, worst case scenario is what those solar shadows show, so I do have that slide, but just as a, caution? That's what it's showing, yeah. Cool. Okay. So this is the solar shadow analysis, that was provided, so you can see… Yeah, there's… there's some shading, in the central open space. And that's the worst it would get, is that… That's the worst it would get, yeah. Morning and end of day. Or morning and aft… early afternoon, is that 10 a.m? Correct.

[166:00] Okay, perfect. That's what I wanted, and thanks for clarifying that it is for the worst case scenario. Those are all my questions. Oh, oh, I'm sorry, you know what? That was… so that was buy-write height. So this is the actual project. As proposed. Worst it would get. So we're talking. Bigger shadows. The big plaza… can you put your cursor on top of the big plaza? Yeah. Right here. So yeah, worst it would get it, it would be about halfway shaded in the middle of there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. Those are all my questions. Okay, thank you. Claudia, Kurt, am I ready to go? Kirk? I have one quick question, which is a follow-up to a question that I asked by email, and thank you to Chandler and to transportation staff for responding to all my questions. I had a specific question about…

[167:05] Condition of Approval 4E, which requires that all transportation plans meet the DCS, But the streets, at least, are private, and so don't need to meet the DCS. The transportation engineer responded that Basically. the engineers looked at the plans and said they were okay, and some of the things don't need to meet the DCS, but maybe this is partly a question for Laurel. Sorry, Laurel, I don't know if you were… Paying attention, but do we have concerns about saying that the transportation plans need to meet the DCS, even when They… don't? The question, Charles, was about this condition of approval 4E, which says that all transportation plans must meet the DCS, but they're building private streets, and so they don't really need to meet the DCS, and

[168:12] I got a response from the transportation engineer, which didn't quite address the question, so I'm just wondering whether that condition of approval should be reworded. Well, I think maybe it could be reworded. I think the concept is that, we're memorializing the things that, don't have to meet the DCS through the private streets on the plan sets, but there are elements of those streets that are still meeting the DCS, so, like, the drainage. So I think our response kind of lined out the couple of things that were required to meet the DCS. Right. So yeah, the, planning profile, those kinds of things. Everything else that isn't compliant with the DCS is just memorialized on the actual plans that would be, considered tonight, if that makes sense. Okay, so effectively, the exceptions are written on the plans, and so… okay, great, now I understand, thank you.

[169:08] Claudia? I just had a couple of questions also about the private streets, so thanks for getting us there, Kurt. I was just curious, what are the… what are the specs on those private streets, and how do they compare to what would be required by the DCS? I'm not… I don't have all of the… specs memorized, but, I mean, essentially, the… the things that were, not in keeping with the DCS, Yeah, let's see… So I know that they're narrower in parts, Yeah, the type, basically the… the marked, permeable paving that they're proposing to use is not allowed by the DCS.

[170:06] Yeah, some of the atypical layouts that aren't, necessarily consistent with the street profiles that are lined out in the DCS. There's water quality features, street furniture, lighting, things like that that wouldn't typically be in alignment with our usual. Beautiful. We think it all works great, and I think our engineers were okay with it, but those were the things that kind of jumped out. Okay. And then is there still… is there a public access easement? Is there full public access to those streets, despite them being… Yes. Yes, there is. And then, last question about those streets. Are there any features in the plans You know, other than street width and so on that would control vehicle access or speeds on those streets. Do you mean, like, like, speed bumps, or… Yeah, these speed tables, speed bumps.

[171:03] I would… They're describing it as a Wonerf, and I'm just curious what design features are… Yeah, stop. regarding that. I might defer to the applicant on that. Our transportation engineer is not here tonight. But I know the applicant could answer that in more detail, for sure. Okay, great, I'll ask then. Okay. Great, thanks, Claudia. Mason, do you have any questions for staff? There you go. Okay. I do, and it's mostly about code interpretation, and I think we've discussed this a little bit, so excuse me if I'm being repetitive here in questioning. There's additional criteria for building requirement type modification. And it talks about how the buildings form, mapping, and length are designed to human scale and to create visual permeability into and through the site. And it says, I'm gonna quote it, in determining whether this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors, and it has just two.

[172:04] Factors under that list. One of which is the building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way. And this is addressed in the staff memo. I was able to find that, and I really appreciate the thoroughness of the memo. Answered a lot of my questions. This one's not quite clear to me. It says, while… and I'm going to quote the memo, while buildings A, B, and E are over 200 feet in length along a public right-of-way, all the buildings are designed using distinct breaks, then it goes on about how it's broken up. And that second point, going back to the code. So the first one I quoted, the building does not exceed 200 feet in length, any public right-of-way, period. And then bullet number two is all buildings facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street. Including alleyways, are designed to appear at at least two distinct buildings, and then it gives a list of how that could be achieved.

[173:00] And it seemed that… what I'm reading in the code as all buildings with size 16, 120 feet. But these criteria was being applied from the staff to the 200 feet And I guess my question, if I boil it down to, is, like, can I get clarification on whether the phrase The approving authority will consider the following factors means that the project must meet both of those factors. Yes. Do you want me to weigh in? Chandler? Yes, sir. So, if it… if it's required to meet both factors, it will say must, you know, must meet both factors. This says will consider. So in that case, I would say no. Chandler, were you gonna say something? Apologies that I. I was gonna say the same thing. Yeah, the fact that it says, we'll consider… means that they're… they're considerations, right? They're not… Yeah, there's discretion for you to consider, and it isn't a must meet both of these. And that is… and also just, you know, for background, like, that's something that we,

[174:02] Discussed with the applicant at length, and commented on, and met with them about, And really, we determined that, you know, their argument was that those lengths where they do exceed 200 feet were essentially necessary to hide the parking and provide the interior parking garages, in a reasonable way in the buildings. So we worked with them until we felt like Their design was appropriate, and that we could still say that the… those lengths that were over 200 feet were still, you know, met all of the design intent of buildings requiring a height modification. Yeah, great. That's helpful context, but more interested in that, like, legal definition of what will means there. Welcome. No. Right, if it just said will, then you'd have to meet it. So if it said, must consider, then we would have… I think… well, I think if… I think if it was just a different sentence, and it just said, in determining this, the applicant shall meet the following requirements, then it would be…

[175:01] Pretty clear, but… So, some discretion for you. Thank you. There's another part of the code. Same… section, but it's under building and site design requirements for height modifications. There's… One of the criteria, and you addressed these all very clearly in your presentation. I appreciate it. The one I didn't catch, and sorry if I missed it, it says that… The project preserves and takes advantage of prominent mountain views for public spaces, for common areas within the project. If there are prominent mountain views from the site, which I believe there are, you can see it from I know from the Dark Horse's parking lot, you can see the mountains. Usable open spaces on the site, or elevated common spaces on the building, are located and designed to allow users of the site to access such views. it… it seems that the elevated common areas, it's pretty clear that… that most of those take advantage of the views, but I was thinking more about that… that central courtyard.

[176:07] Does it meet that criteria? Am I interpreting this correctly, or am I way out in left field? So let me see… My… My understanding was that it was essentially, yeah, the buildings… themselves. Sorry, let's see. Yeah, it says common areas within the project, and I was interpreting that to mean. Oh, yeah. And it says usable open spaces on the site. So I was interpreting that to mean that main… that main corridor, and maybe not the whole corridor, but maybe, like, that… that central part. Yeah, usable open space on the site or elevated common areas. are located and designed to allow users of the site access to such views, yeah. So I think… I think the applicant can provide some… probably some better images with that, but my understanding is that there would still be some views, from… even from the central plaza and from that second-story rooftop deck. There… they would not be, you know, completely unobstructed.

[177:15] But there would still be some views. Yeah, it doesn't sound… it sounds a little squishy, that language, at least, so… but we'll hear more about that, so… from the applicant, so I appreciate it. And then my last question was around use review, and you went into this in some detail, and I guess the part that I got a little confused on is it seemed that in the memo, when talking about whether or not use… The use review… excuse me… was, was, being met was really purely around the 26 ground floor units. It was not taking into account the whole project. So I guess just a little bit of, education for my… my benefit. When the use view is triggered.

[178:04] by the Ground 4 units, the whole project doesn't have to meet the use review, just the Ground 4 units, is that correct? Yeah, it's just the use that requires the use review that we have to make the findings on, which in this case is the ground floor residential units. Great. Perfect. And that's all my questions. Great, thanks, Mason. I just have one question, and it's not so much a question as a point of clarification, which I think will be important A little later. So… We are evaluating this project under the current site review criteria, which was recently updated, but we've got that. The… our parking ordinance has gone into effect. And so, parking, car… automobile parking is not… Part. Oh.

[179:02] is not part of the criteria at all. Okay. That's correct. Great. And staff didn't address it, we haven't discussed it, fine. But that's not to be confused with our new TDM ordinance, which has not gone into effect. So, this… our evaluation… is under the existing section in the site review criteria 9-2-14H2A. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Yep. So… which is a much less detailed and subjective TDM. review. That's correct. And the new one doesn't go into effect until April of next year, just so everybody knows. Okay, so I just wanted to make sure everyone's got their, criteria, and make sure I have it as well. Okay, we're going to, have the applicant do their presentation. The applicant has 20 minutes, and. Hey, Mark, I just had one quick question to follow up with Laurel, if I might. So, Laurel, as it relates

[180:04] to height modification requests in general, that's discretionary by this… by the city, right? I mean, that's… by the code. Yes. Okay, and through discretionary measurements, measures like that, the city can put in place a development agreement? With negotiated… negotiated terms within that? Right, so we have conditions of approval, and the conditions of approval are based… are, the part that we talk about, that they have to meet these requirements before we can give. Building permits, you know, and things like that. Generally. Right, but you could… non-negotiable. So you don't have… so… so what I'm trying to understand is, does the city… Have the ability to negotiate, terms in a development agreement.

[181:03] When a height modification is granted. No. Right, yeah, so… Typically not. They have to meet the criteria in the code, and that is where the discretion lies, but typically not in the development agreement. Okay. So, when you say typically not, is that a yes or a no? No. That's a no. That's a no. So that's an absolute no. We don't have that capability. Right, it's in the conditions of approval, and like I said, the discretion in the criteria itself, but not in the development agreement. So, so when do we put a development agreement in place? It will have a development agreement, we just don't have the ability to negotiate the development agreement. Right, the development agreement is almost a pro forma document. That memorializes the disposition of approval that the planning board and or the Council would approve that lines out those conditions of approval. And then it has some boilerplate language in it about enforcement,

[182:05] Duration and things like that. Okay, well, I guess that's my question around the conditions of approval. The conditions of approval are negotiated. Those are things that you guys… put and staff put on during this process related to the site review criteria, right? So, at the end of this, you might add a motion that says we want to do X, Y, and Z in the conditions of approval. Okay, so you can negotiate a development agreement. That would be the negotiated item within the development agreement. So… No, we're not negotiating a development agreement. If you wanted to place additional conditions of approval on tonight, that would be… associated with, discrete site review criterion, that would be memorialized in the development agreement that comes way down the road. Okay, appreciate that. That's helpful. Thank you. Alright, Laura, I see your hand up. Thank you. Mark, I just wanted to colloquy on your point, and maybe I misunderstood you, and this is not what you were talking about, but with regard to the city's parking,

[183:04] ordinance, we eliminated minimum parking requirements, which means we can't… this site review doesn't have anything to say about the amount of parking that is required, but we still do have site review criteria that address parking. In the access, transportation, and mobility section, such as saying that streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, trails, open space, buildings, and parking areas are designed and located to optimize safety, etc, etc, permeability. And then also that the design of circulation and parking areas make efficient use of the land and minimize pavement, so… Not trying to make a point with regard to this particular project, but just to point out that there are still criteria in the site review process that address some things having to do with parking. There are, that's correct, and those are qualitative, you know, parts of the criteria. What we were referring to is just really those qualitative parking minimums that we used to have. Quantitative. Thank… yeah, thank you, Charles, that's a great clarification.

[184:02] Yeah, okay. So, I… yes, I… Laura, thank you for that clarification, because, yeah, I didn't mean to say that… We can't discuss parking, we just can't… It's not a numerical criteria as it has been in the past. But there… and in fact, the TDM portion deals with just how cars are dealt with, and the encouragement of non-automobile access, those sorts of things. So, yeah, I think we're… I think we're in agreement. Okay. Okay, and as the applicant, comes up, I just, I just want to, advise, we've got 20 minutes for you. I would not spend a whole lot of time trying to address questions that are gonna get asked of you. Use the time to make your way through your presentation, and not chew it up answering questions that you were anxious to answer while sitting in the audience, and I'm sure we're going to have lots and lots of questions for you that you can answer. So, I just want to make sure we don't cut your presentation short.

[185:16] Thank you. Can everybody hear me? I'm Andy Bush, and I'm a principal and founder with Morgan Creek Ventures, and we've been working with Coburn over the last 2 years on developing this overall master plan. So, staff hadn't seen much of us But they know us fairly well. We've just finished our 12th building over in Boulder Junction in partnership with BHP and Coburn, all-electric buildings that we started building… we started planning 12 years ago, and we just got a CO on the last one about a month ago. Thanks for allowing us to present for 20 minutes. Yeah, it's gonna go really fast. But, Bill Hollick, he's really good at presenting two years in 20 minutes, so I'll let him do that. But the whole idea was really to create a sense of community and a place that people could walk, and I think we're really excited about

[186:07] what we believe is presenting a next-generation neighborhood center, something that Boulder has 8 or 9 other sites that have to try and do this same thing. And we're proud about that, and kind of it being this center of relationships. Relationships between housing and shops, relationships between the space and the university, relationships as an entry to Boulder. relationships about parking, and we'll talk more about that. It's all electric, it's environmentally driven, it's walkable. It hides parking, it designs vibrant streets as part of it. It's a chess game, not a checkers game. And we've been working with all of the tenants as part of it, and I'm happy to say that, Austin's Barbershop wants to be part of it, Moe's wants to be part of it, Cosmos wants to be part of it. We've created a design for a grocery store, and we've been working with Sprouts, and we hope that they want to be part of it, and we can make it work and fit for their parameters as part of it.

[187:04] We've been working with the Dark Horse to find an interim space so they can have a long-term space. It's not easy, it's a chess game as part of it. But I'd say that what makes me really excited about it, it's been this collaborative process, not only with us as a team and the Williams family. But with the tenants that are there now, with our neighbors, with McDonald's on easements and others as part of it, and you couldn't do that Without the Williams family, who's been part of that area for 50 or more years, we've been working with two generations of the family as part of it, and that's not something you see very often in real estate, is this kind of a collaborative process with the city, with the neighbors. with the tenant, so… I can't thank the family enough, and… I'm excited to see what Bill does in 20 minutes, and we'll take more time and questions to talk about phasing and the FEMA process and why we can't go right into the grocery store and stuff, but we'll get into those things in the Q&A side. So, thank you.

[188:05] Hi. I'm Katherine Vanderspeck, I'm with Coburn Architecture. When the Williams family came to us and wanted to discuss this project… Catherine, can you speak closer to the mic? Oh, sure. You gotta work this thing up a little taller, sorry. When the Williams family came to us initially to discuss this project, they had a really clear idea of what the vision was for this, and we used those ideas and those thoughts to create a mission statement for ourselves. We have them off on the screen here, but it was essentially to create a real neighborhood center where people would come, they would gather, congregate, stroll, interact with retail and food services. They wanted it to have a mixture of users, a mixture of housing types. They wanted this site to become lively and active, not the asphalt that you see in front of you any longer. They wanted it to be something a little bit more, and to have a real heart to the project. So we came in for concept, and we shared with you our ideas, and you shared yours with us. And what that turned into is thinking a little bit outside of the box. We heard you say that you wanted things to look a little bit different. You wanted to make it a place for people to come, you wanted there to be density, because we need the housing.

[189:10] but you wanted to make sure it was permeable and lively, and that it invited people into the site. No walls on baseline, we need things to step back, have interesting roof deck spaces, to have interesting architecture, to make it a really great place for people to come and interact with the spaces and the retail, but also to be a nice place to not have a car. So we took that feedback, and we went back to our drawing boards, and we looked at the site. We laid out spaces for cars to move through the area, we laid out places for services to move through the area. We laid out a wound roof so that we could still have that car access on the southern end, but we could make sure that we were prioritizing the people and the bicycles instead. So this starts to bring people into and through the site. We pulled the multi-use path down from the north so that it connects with the multi-use on the southern end, so now we're really bringing in the bicyclists… oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about this, guys. We're really bringing in the bicyclists and moving people through and into the site, getting that permeability that we were missing before, and creating a safer zone. We've added sidewalk in that start to bring those connections across the site, and really invite people through, and give them a designated place to be, so now it's safe, they're able to move through, there's a pathway for them to move, it's not just on the outside of the site.

[190:18] So we end up with something that has streets and buildings that are broken down. They're still large in scale, but we've really started to try to pull that pedestrian aspect through. As we do this, we're looking at the neighborhood center part of this. We want to keep that. We want to keep people in this site, we want to keep the services that are there. So we have a grocery store that we've been working with, Sprouts to Design. We have restaurant spaces that are oriented around this neighborhood center to enlive it, to activate it, to have people able to move through at all hours of the day. We've brought in retail so that we're keeping those services on-site that we need to be here because it is a neighborhood center. We've brought amenity down from the upper levels of the building so that the people that are interacting with this as a housing sense are being pulled into this public realm and starting to use their own energy to activate this, and you get a real bleed inside and outside for people in the site.

[191:04] Some of this amenity space is public amenity, so it's open to the public to come in, which just increases the dialogue between the two. I do want to point out here, we discussed the numbers on commercial a little bit earlier. For the entirety of the triangle you see here, I believe Laura had questions We have about 70% of this as commercial space, but if you do focus on just the site that we're redeveloping. and the public-facing streets, almost 100% of that is commercial. We're keeping that aspect of this alive, except for the portion that is adjacent to the student housing and that crosswalk. That is shown as residential to start help that transition from the student housing element into this commercial site where we have more housing. And I'm going to turn over the public realm to Bill, so you can talk more about that. Thank you very much. So you get me for the geeky part, Bill Hollicky with Coburn. So as we're designing these spaces, Cad kind of walked through how we came up with the framework, how we broke down the superblock, and how we created the public… public spots, but we still need architecture that supports it. So the whole first floor of these buildings are designed, you've heard me say this a million times, right? The first 12 feet of the buildings are the most critical.

[192:08] the… all the aspects that are in the form-based code for really great, you know, first floor, street-facing public spaces, we follow those, we believe in those, right? So we have horizontal elements at 12 to 14 feet, we have bases, we have you know, windows that are designed to welcome you in. We have extended doorways, a lot of decoration in there. That's what connects you to a building. I would point out that, in terms of the way the site review criteria apply to the architecture, I would very much encourage staff to remind us all of the history of this. When they were rewritten two years ago, Carl Geiler brought them to City Council. They were all written as, you must do. So it was the entity or the governing agency shall find that these criteria are followed. Council directed those to be rewritten to be things that should be considered. They are not binding. That's the way we've been told that they are, and that's the way Council directed us to use it. And the reason Council said that was so that we could have more creativity in the site review process. So we care about those, we follow them greatly, but in little things like a balcony here and there, if it makes a better building.

[193:12] We do vary from that, because that's what we were told we were supposed to be doing. So hopefully staff can speak to that. This follows all the way through the project. It's not just the first floor that's had this attention to detail. All of these buildings have been designed by different people. It's not just Coburn folks. We had outside architects come in. We have every… all the buildings sort of were brainchilds of different groups of people, and that creates this variety throughout the site. It's not all like a campus. And that, that creates this sort of… Lived-in feel, or a feeling that it didn't all just arise out of a single brick color, you know, in one place. So now that we have these buildings surrounding the site, the public spaces are really important. So again, the heart of this thing, which we heard strongly from Council, do something different, create a center. So we have this center of this project that's

[194:01] A place where people gather. It's where you don't move. It's where you stop and eat, or see a concert, or talk, or go to a food truck. And then around that, we have these other public spaces. The next set are places that you walk. You're still engaging with community, right? You're still going in and out of stores, you're still talking to your neighbor, you're still kind of meeting your community and engaging with people, but you're doing it while you're moving. And then the last level is you're doing it a little bit faster. You're on bike, or you're running, but you can still engage with people in a much different way than you do in a car. You can still meet your neighbor on a bike, or while you're jogging. So these public spaces were handled differently. The only space left over, as you can see, is this little L that's of gray, which is dedicated to the car. We were really adamant at Trout Ball trying to keep the cars from getting into the site. There's some service aspects of the Woonerf in this little L over by the western side of the project. But the main car traffic is just in that little L. And this is that center space. Again, it's now up to about 86 feet wide. It's gotten a little bit bigger. That's just the space from the building face to the edge of the Werner where cars can go. Overall, it's about 116 feet wide.

[195:11] All of the energy of the site focuses down into it. The buildings step down. All around this, there's upper-level balconies to look down into it, and so it's a great place to have events. And remember, this is a private street. One of the beautiful things about the private street, and the fact that it's not designed as a necessity to put vehicles on the street, even from a practical day-to-day use of the site, means it can be shut down any time. So, for concerts, for food trucks, for a pop-up retail center, for a farmer's market, all of those things can happen day-to-day without, you know, a whole lot of permitting, things like that. And it still works. All of the businesses can still function without taking out that Pedestrian and truck traffic, not being able to go there. This is all working because we hid the parking. So all the parking is inside buildings, and as Chandler said, we did this in the smallest way we possibly could. So if you look at that building on the left.

[196:03] That is the footprint we've been working with the Sprouts Architects on for the last, I don't know, 9 months, or something like that. We originally wanted it to be long and thin, they couldn't make that work. This is what they need, so this is the footprint they need for the space, it's the loading docks, the trash, everything works, according to them. So next to that, the smallest footprint they could get away with, we then put the smallest parking garage that we can make work, because that's the smallest one that will work with a two-way ramp. So it's the smallest parking garage we can do and get up in the air. with other levels. And then we wrapped it with the thinnest amount of commercial that we could, and so that's what determines the building length. It would be a hell of a lot more efficient to join this with the building directly to the south and make it one big parking garage. But it wouldn't fit the intention of trying to drive this down into, you know, small blocks, walkable blocks. So, at considerable expense and really inefficient parking garages, to be blunt. we split them apart. That does result in buildings that are over 200 feet long, which, again, is something that should be considered, it's not a requirement, and we worked heavily with staff, the staff urban designer, and DAB to come up with buildings that

[197:09] reflect different designs. In fact, there's different functions within the parts of the building. So this is that triangular building, Building A, This is that jewel box on the end, and this is the 30th Street side. It's really designed as multiple buildings, so much so that the townhomes are in that dark brown part of it, which is different than the lighter part on the end, which has commercial. They're really separate buildings that happen to join a parking garage on the inside. That's how they're conceived from an architectural standpoint. So we went, kind of, to the nth degree to do this. On the student housing side along 36, we did some other moves that are pretty interesting to me. First of all, 36 comes way up. It's about a story to a story and a half up in the air as it goes along this building, so the building's much shorter than it otherwise would be if 36 was down to the ground in terms of what it perceives like as you drive past it. We also, normally a student housing developer would want this to just be a box building.

[198:03] But we were able to not do that, which is great. By putting all of these cremulations and ins and outs into the building, we've created two things. A bunch of interest, and natural breakpoints, so that we can make it perceive as three separate buildings. And really, the way the building functions is really two buildings joined at a knuckle. And that knuckle is where the elevator and stairs go, that's like the vertical circulation. But from the outside, it appears it's 3. The other really cool thing about this design, and this is purposeful, is that these large insets and these angled walls create the same acoustic principles as baffles. We've designed recording studios, and you do this with the acoustic treatment, because it doesn't reflect sound. It bounces it all over the place, essentially scattering it. So we heard loud and clear from the Martin Acres neighborhood that they were concerned about reflected sound off 36, and this was an approach to break that down and not have that happen. The TDM measures, I think we've talked about this a lot, you know, a couple of the more salient points are that just by virtue of reducing people's commute by 12 miles a day for 200 days a year for a certain number of people, you know, we save somewhere between, like, 1.5 and 2.5 million vehicle miles traveled off the road every year by putting them in a place where they want to live closer to where they have to be.

[199:13] But the other really cool thing about this, you know, and we can talk about all the TDM measures, if you have questions, but what's really neat about this is I've never worked on a site like this before. I don't know of any site in Boulder like this, and very few in Colorado like this. This site is not about cars. Cars are tertiary to this site. There's just a little L to get them in and out. Everything is really about bikes and people. And so that's the main TGM measure. We're getting people into a site where it's really great to not have a car, and then we have all these ways for them to move around once they get out of their car. But the site is the main TDM measure. It's very exciting to me. Chandler talked about height, and I'll just mention that we've kept the 5 stories closer to 36, where 36 comes up, so it's not perceived as high. There are no five-story buildings on the west side. We heard you loud and clear when you said, and some other folks said, like, let's keep some of this a little bit lower. And then there's a difference in how that's handled. So again, the five-story portion is in the student housing behind McDonald's, behind that baseline shopping center building.

[200:13] And on baseline, we've kept it much lower. So this is more the urban fabric. This is that grocery store. So it's a mixture of four stories, three stories, and, like, a tall one-story, like, grocery store, single-story height. And it has this really cool aspect of not only looking like multiple buildings. But also feeling like there's a variety of things going on on the urban plain, and it's very comfortable to walk along as a pedestrian. Sustainability came up. Two things I want to point out here. The first is that, really interestingly, when we went to council, we were told to think about habitat, which had never really been told before, and we thought that was really cool. Our landscape architects loved that, and they came with this idea, came up with this idea that left the more wild landscaping closer to 36, and a more kind of formalistic, urban, normal landscaping along baseline, and a gradient.

[201:01] It changes as it heads north, which is really cool. So it provides this gradient of habitat for, like, bugs, bees, birds, critters, that kind of thing. It's pretty neat. But the main thing this project is doing is something we've been trying to do for, like, 8 years, which is get a CLT residential building put together. To my knowledge, there's only a couple CLT buildings in Boulder. They're both commercial. Residential is really hard to do. We feel like we've got it solved from a code standpoint, and we're committing to it. So, in the Wooner, which is already this commitment to getting rid of carbon use, right? It's already getting people out of cars. On each end of this, we have this jewel box, and that jewel box is a CLT building. It's very low carbon use. It's all made out of wood from a structural standpoint. So, it's this kind of laboratory for how you can create a lower carbon, type of project. And… I love… this is a… this is a real rendering. This is the towers. We went out on site, we got the model, we know exactly where it is. This is what it'll look like. And I love the juxtaposition of my profession 70 years ago with these non-human, geometric, very massive, super-carbon-intensive forms of the towers.

[202:09] behind a more modern interpretation of something that's really low-touch, human-scaled, and really low carbon use. It is an awesome thing. Like, I'm really excited about this. The, the Woon Earth, again, we talked about this a little bit, so this is the open space, and I think, Mason, you were asking the question about that criteria. The criteria actually says you need a mountain view from either the, the open space, the community lower level, grade level open space, or the upper levels. We feel we have it from both. We didn't render it because the upper level is so obviously has mountain views that we, okay, the criteria is met. But you can see, through the corridor that gets to the multi-use path at the south end of that… of that open space. The cool thing about the Woonerf is that it really lives in kind of three sections. The first section is the part that's always pedestrian, and then you can close off part of the street to make it

[203:02] you know, about 100 feet by 200 feet, and then you can close off the whole wound earth to make it a really huge space. So, it's really cool in that it's got these multiple ways to use it from a public Aspect, and here's what it looks like. And again, we've got all of these open spaces and decks. Every building has one that looks down into it, and we have found over the course of a number of projects, including some of the Morgan Creek projects over at 30 Pearl. that you can create this really cool vertical community interaction. It's not just horizontal, it's not just people coming together in a plaza, but when there's people up in the, you know, couple stories up, up in the second story, up in the third story, there's this vertical interaction that happens as well that starts to break down that residential versus commercial barrier and make it more of a community, which is pretty exciting. So again, sort of wrap up, this mission statement was a big deal to us, and we wrote it as a narrative. When we do a small project, you've heard me say this before, like, you gotta have one idea and reinforce that one idea. But there's so many competing fabrics that are coming together here. The neighborhood center, CU,

[204:04] The overall, the 36 coming in, all this stuff. That it became a pretty, interwoven mission statement. And we feel like we've worked really hard at doing this, to make a real neighborhood, not just a neighborhood center or a strip mall, but a real neighborhood center with services, food, and retail, places for people to go. with people actually on the street. Remember, there's 5,000 CU students that walk through here every day. Normally, when you design a project as an urban planner, you're worried all the time about whether or not there are going to be people on the streets, but there are people on these streets, all these students, so we can harness that energy. plus all the people driving in from the neighborhood center, or biking in from the neighborhood center, and the people who live here. So there's actually people on the streets this… for the first time safe and welcoming to everybody, with this mixture of different people living here. We really think the architecture is exceptional. We worked really hard on it with a whole series of designers. And again, making sure that project has that heart at the middle. So, again, that's it. We're incredibly excited about this. I have never worked on a project like this before, and I think it'll be a real, hopefully a shining light for how you can do better. So, thanks a lot.

[205:13] Great, thank you very much, and… Yeah, that was, just perfect timing. Oh, good job, guys. And no technical glitches. Another, another kudos. Okay, so now it's time for, the board to ask clarifying questions of the applicant, and, I'm sure we've got a bunch. I am going to, look online as well. I don't see… Who's… anyone ready? Claudia? I actually only have a couple at this point. I want to talk about cars. Are you planning for grocery customers to arrive by private car on this site? We are. We think it's a bridge too far to, expect people to do all their grocery shopping on bike, and in talking with the people that live in the area, especially to the northeast and to the southwest of Martin Acres.

[206:10] They just are not… feeling it's reasonable to do all their grocery shopping by bike. So, we worked with Sprouts on where people will park in that garage, so essentially their customers get the first floor and some of the upper floors as much as possible. It's all… it's all the modern parking thing, so it can be adjusted over time as we see use. But this is an important point that I didn't have time to mention, so I'll mention it now. It's gotta feel really great. You can't go into a parking garage and have to go through a little tunnel and a back door and a side alley to get out to this space, so… all of the garage entries are, like, big tunnels, like, very wide walkways, and you can see in and out of the garages, so hopefully it's really easy as you're driving along to say, okay, I'm gonna park in there, and I'm gonna walk in that big tunnel to get in and out and get to my, you know, get to the owner, or get to the grocery store. So, we've tried really hard to make You know, acknowledging that, that…

[207:02] Maybe we'd love to see alt modes. People are gonna drive here, and it's gotta be really easy to drive here to make it work as a neighborhood center. Okay, so… Yeah, if you were arriving at the grocery by car, you would go somewhat into the site, into the parking garage. Correct. And then is there a direct connection for pedestrians moving from that parking garage into the retail space? There is, well, into the… Or do they have to exit again and go out on the streets? No, they can go directly into the grocery store from the garage. Okay. Some of the smaller retail spaces, obviously, they would have to go outside. Okay. Let's see… Then I had a question that I asked staff, and they thought you could answer this better. What design features do you have, planned to control, car speed and access? Yeah. Especially as the streets that you have planned kind of converge on that central plaza area? Yeah, it's a really good question. We do have some, like, where the bike path goes across the street, there is a table there, for example, to protect the bike path, but generally, the way we've approached it, and we worked heavily with transportation on this, is the streets are narrower than the normal street. And coupled with the on-street parking, and the changes in pavement.

[208:12] that's intended to just slow everybody down. They're also very short streets, right? Because of the fact that it's been broken down so much, the streets are really short. So between… and I assume there'll be speed limit signs that we'll put up as well. So between all that, there's just so much going on, so much activity in such a narrow street, that we didn't feel that it was necessary to do speed bumps. We're certainly not against that. But it felt like we have a really tight street, and we'd have really slow traffic on it. Do you have anything like bollards around the plaza area? We probably will. That was really designed… we were going to work on that in Tech Talk, essentially. Okay. But the idea, yeah, because we need lighting in there anyway, so usually we do the kind of bollard light combination. Okay. To explain where the edge of that is. And actually, I do have a rendering of that, kind of.

[209:02] Yeah, this… so you can kind of see, this isn't a perfect rendering, but it kind of shows that little curve between the two different pavement colors, and yeah, we would expect to see some sort of protection there, because we can't have people just driving on… Okay, yeah, I'm just thinking about our experience so far in the Boulder Junction area, where our car drivers seem to have some difficulty navigating what we… considerable roof there. A really, really terrible paving striping pattern there is what leads you to the wrong side of the road, so you have to be really careful to cut your, Concrete lines in the direction of travel. That seems like a minor detail. It's resulted in a lot of broken bollards there. All right. And then I had a question about your TDM plan. So, in our packet, we had some correspondence with CU, where they mentioned potential impacts on their BuffBus service. And I'm just curious, like, where does that service fit into the mobility dynamics at this site, and is it addressed at all in your TDM? It isn't, because… so we talked to CEO about that a lot, and I think the conversations have been great. As you saw, they wrote a letter of support, and we're not done with those conversations.

[210:06] Their general idea or concern is that that buff bus is paid for by dues paid by first-year students. So, they didn't want all these people getting on the bus and not paying for it, and they would have to add buses. So, the question is, like, are we going to police our folks and not let them get on the buses, or are we going to contribute somewhat to the CU bus structure so they can add some buses? And I think both are on the table. I don't think we're concerned, necessarily, with either one. We just have to kind of get through that conversation with CU. Anything to add to that? We'd like to keep going the scene and see if we can get more of our students on the bus and support it financially. Okay. It's gotta be a dialogue, and we just start. I'm sorry, could that person speaking use a microphone, please? Yeah, I was just going to repeat that, because I knew he was off microphone. Andy said that the ideal goal would be to actually allow any students on this site, especially in the student housing, obviously, to use the Buff Bus and find a financial arrangement with CU that would support that. We just haven't gotten to the end of that conversation. Okay, so that's not currently in the TDM plan. It is not. And staff, is there an opportunity to get that on the record at any point before the

[211:13] You know, in tech talk phase, or at some other point. Probably not in the conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Claudia and Kurt. Thank you, thanks for the presentation. I have a couple of follow-ups on issues similar to what Claudia raised. Just to clarify, so you were talking about garage parking for customers, for all of the retail. None of that will be charged, I assume? None of that will be priced? No. It'll only be for the tenants? I mean, in today's environment, charging for retail parking is a great way to not have retail customers. So, no. Don't plan on that. Okay, thank you, and then also, similar to the question about the, the…

[212:01] design of the Wooner, will there be traffic control at this exact intersection that's shown up here? You know, okay, so this is the… Like stop signs or something? Yeah, this is the biggest one roof in Boulder, and it's the only real one, with the possible exception of that little one at Spark, and I… I don't think we have all the answers. I'd love any feedback that your group has, and I think the plan is to work with transportation to make that as functional as possible, but yes. like, we can't have people driving south on the road and just whipping into the Warnerfin and then finding out there's people there. So there needs to be signage. It may be the whole thing. I think the whole thing was going to be raised, we were talking about. So there's got to be something there that lets you know you're doing something different, and I think that's really more of a technical detail that we need to figure out moving forward, but ideas are welcome. Okay, so that'll come in TikToks? Yes. Yeah. Okay, great. I have another question, but… oh! The other question was about the easement… the access easement between the McDonald's and Baseline Crossing, or whatever that's called. Yep. Which I guess is your property, but this narrow strip that you can't really use. Yeah.

[213:09] Are there restrictions in that access easement about… the width of pavement provided there, or I'm wondering whether there might be room to reconfigure that a little bit, narrow the pavement, add a sidewalk there, a dedicated sidewalk that is actually part of your property, as opposed to… I think there was a pedestrian access way shown on one of the documents in the In your submission, it showed people walking on the baseline crossing, or whatever that is, property, which, you know. who knows, that could go away, they could gate it off, whatever. Yeah, so the access easement itself, our part of the parcel, is just wide enough for vehicular traffic, there's really no other room, and the access easement rights for the other two properties are pretty robust, and so…

[214:00] There's really no way to take anything away from that, but I would point out, like, in this diagram, you can see that if you were in the student housing building and wanting to go to school, we've set it up so there's a protected walkway heading west to that, you know, where you get through the intersection. I think that because of the nature of that easement, and the fact that almost all of it is actually the neighboring property, when that project redevelops is when we could continue that sidewalk the rest of the way to the north. We just don't really have any legal right to modify what's inside that little sliver of parcel. Okay. Because they, they essentially… both properties on either side of it, and this was set up, I don't know, 60 years ago or something like that, have full vehicular movement rights to the entire 20 feet. I see. Okay. So, I'm sort of stuck. We did have that conversation. Great, okay, thank you. ML, if you're ready? Thank you for your…

[215:01] presentation. I have just a few questions. So, in numerous places, it talks about the 122 units intended for students. Yeah. Who do you see using the rest of the units? What is the tenets for the rest of the… Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question. We spent, like. hundreds and hundreds of hours talking about this. They're really designed… We feel that, you know, CU is the largest employment center in Boulder, and, in speaking with the CU reps, they do not have places for all the people that work there to live, and we think, when we say people who work at CU, we're thinking, like, everybody immediately, I immediately think of professors, but that's, like. 25% of their workforce or something? There's all of these people that make CU go, and they're commuting in from… all over the place. So, in my mind, that's one of the primary people that would live there, is CU staff of various kinds. The other group that's been, especially targeted within it is recent graduates. So, one of the things that keeps coming up is, like.

[216:04] You know, you're living with all your friends as a student, you've got 4 roommates, it's the greatest time of your life, and then you leave, and you're all by yourself in a little apartment, and there's this big movement within the industry to find, you know, 3 or 4 people who recently graduated and live in that same sort of co-housing arrangement, like little informal groups of people living together, but live there as young professionals, and it makes it much more affordable. So that's the other target market, would be people who have recently graduated from CU, and are now entering the workforce, and they're 25 years old, and they're living with two other people. That's what we have in our mind as the primary users, but of course, it's open legally to anyone who wants to rent it. So, on the 122 units, you describe it, ranging from studios to 6-bedroom units, on the remaining… Those are… those are student… those are student-specific units. Correct. And I'm… so my question is on the remaining units that aren't… What is their… What is that, bedroom range of those? Studios to 3 bedrooms.

[217:05] Okay. So again, you know, a lot of that is trying to set up for people that are just, you know, joining the workforce. They can have a little private unit, and it's not very expensive, because it's pretty small, or they can get a few roommates and have a bigger unit. And they will be, apartments and, townhouses. Yeah, yeah, there's… there's not a ton of townhouses. It was actually a way to address the street. It's kind of nice along the street, because townhouse living is pretty nice on the first floor. But yeah, those are the two types of units. Okay. Thank you for that. Let me see, I have… One more question. It is kind of a big… a big question. So, I saw some potentially conflicting information. In the packet, you talk about the both setbacks and the heights for all the buildings. And nothing was below 51 foot 4 inches or something.

[218:04] And yet, you talk about there being a one-story building, you talk about there being a two-story building, so… it appears that there is a discrepancy between the two, so can you talk about that a little bit? Yeah. What your intent was to… you're asking… I'm guessing you're asking for the height variance to be across the board for anything, and yet the truth is, you're not. using that height variance everywhere? Well, okay, so all the buildings have a portion that is 4 stories tall or higher, right? So, we have… we're required, when we list the building heights, we're required to list the tallest point of any place on the building. And actually, it's really interesting, once we leave here, if we're fortunate with any one of these meetings to get an approval. then whatever you approve is the absolute maximum height we can get, so if somebody in our office makes a mistake with how thick a floor needs to be, we take it out of the building. We can't make… the building can't even go up an inch. So what we do is we draw a worst-case scenario, and that's the height we have to ask for for the buildings, and for construction cost reasons, we try to come in under that if possible.

[219:08] The blue is all 4 stories, and the green is all 5 stories. The 1, 2, and 3 stories are the other colors, and it's the street-facing portions of the building, so we're dropping the building at the street, so the, you know, pedestrians can experience that drop. But generally, the buildings are either 4 stories or 5 stories tall. For the most of it. Are either 4- and 5-story buildings all intended to be 55 feet? No, I mean, I think we… don't we have some low… the… Yeah, we've asked for between 50 and 55. Like, generally, the 4-story buildings on the… east side, you know, we're trying to get that 14 foot, 12 to 14 foot first floor, so it's a nice commercial space. So on those buildings that have all this commercial on the first floor, it generally makes the four stories a little taller than the first floor stories of, like, student housing, where the first story is much lower, because it's mostly residential.

[220:01] So that building can be shorter, you know, it's only about 4 or 5 feet bigger for 5 stories of student housing than it is for 4 stories with commercial. So it is shorter. But it's not, like, 10 feet shorter. Right, right. You also spoke about, dropping… I'm looking at, baseline. Yeah. And the… there are two things that, I understand from your drawings on baseline. One is that you've asked To reduce the setback by 50%. Instead of 20 feet, you're asking for a 10-foot setback there? Yeah, we work with staff on that, and, you know, there are plans for baseline. They have a whole Improvement plan for the sidewalk on that side of the street. So we work with staff. There's also another little aspect that there's a main electrical line in there, so it alters where the street trees can go. So we work with staff to figure out where they thought the appropriate north side of that building was, what the walking service should be, where they wanted us to put the trees, and where they wanted the curb line. So all of that is essentially coming out of the city staff and what they wanted, so…

[221:07] Yeah, generally, one of the things we often find is that the setbacks on urban sites, are… we're requested to vary those because they're sort of vestiges of an old suburban kind of model. So, I'm thinking about the, as you move down baseline, you come across Willville, and they've got, what, 50-foot setback, huge setbacks, and 12 stories. Here, we're looking at 5 stories and a tiny little setback. It seems like the, rhythm of the context. is, not really being acknowledged, and I'm thinking about across baseline. Those are basically two, maybe three-story buildings, and or 1-story residential. Yep. So tell me what your thinking is in regards to

[222:01] The response to the context of the… of the fabric Especially across baseline. Yeah, yeah, that's a great question. We spent a lot of time on this, and actually, Chandler and staff pushed us on this pretty good, so… you know, like, just like when you do a street plan, like, you're required to put in a street, and we put the street in for what we want the final street configuration to be, I think there's an element of this with the setbacks. Generally, in urban placemaking, you want the building close to the street, so that people are walking along the stuff that they want to interact with. They get to interact with the shops. They get to interact with the entries, they get to look in the windows. And so, in an urban setting, you don't want a big setback. The Williams Towers are a vestige of when we all of a sudden decided, for some reason as a profession, that we were going to put towers in a park, and it's pretty awful. Walking along that site is… I don't know if you've ever walked past it, it's terrible. So, compare that to walking along Pearl Street, where you're walking right next to the building. So that's the general principle.

[223:01] On the north side of the street, there are, I believe, proposals in to redevelop some of those buildings now, and the future of baseline, according to what's allowed by code, is going to be 2, 3, 4, 5-story buildings whatever you all choose to allow, but in an urban context, with urban sidewalks and that kind of interaction. So. This building is designed to do two things at the same time, and one is step down, so it's not a five-story building wall here. We have elements of different heights, and that is probably more, in our mind, responding to the single-family neighborhood catty corner to the northeast, less to the north baseline, because that will change and become more like this. And the other thing it's trying to do is create a really vibrant, walkable sidewalk. So, that's the thinking behind it. Of course, you know, I think we can all agree or disagree on that, but it was purposeful. So, the, I hear a lot of, the pedestrian activation, etc.

[224:00] This is the north side… Yep. …of a five-story building. I think that pedestrian experience Is gonna be severely challenged in the winter. What are your thoughts? Yeah, well, as we know, you know, in the winter, a one-story building will shadow that sidewalk. So, once you get past one-story, it doesn't matter anymore. You're still going to have to maintain that sidewalk from a walkability standpoint, and this is a four, not a 5-story building. But it's just… it's just not… like, in the winter months, any building of any height will shadow that sidewalk. And we see that on Pearl Street. Pearl Street is 3 stories, along the south side, and sometimes higher. And, you know, that's a really wonderful place to be in the winter because it's maintained. So that just means that our urban spaces have to be maintained anytime we put a building on the sidewalk. Right. So this is… not really Pearl Street, right? No, it's not. This is not an urban… this is not an urban context, per se. It maybe is an evolving

[225:05] context, I think that that would be, appropriate, because we do know that across the street, there are, you know, buildings that have reached their… the end of their useful service, that type of thing. And I'm just concerned about some of the language that is being put forth. And how the experience will actually unfold relative to that. You know, walkable… Pedestrian-friendly. When you've got, a 10-foot you know, space, 10-foot setback, etc. So, that… thank you for clarifying my… your perspective on what I was trying to understand. I just want to say, please don't think I'm conflating this project with Pearl Street. I would not do that. We're not… we're not saying we're that good. I was just trying to use an example of someplace that was shadowed. Perfect. And I'm trying to think, that might be my… my last… set of questions. So,

[226:02] Long story short, you use the 51 to 55 foot height request just in case. Part of it is just in case, yeah, because of the way the law works. Perfect. Thank you. Great, thank you, Amel. We're gonna go to Mason, and then Laura. Great, thank you. Did you see the great questions for my colleagues? I really only have, One, maybe two questions left, and this is about the bike parking. I see there's an amazing mouse faces that I think it was, like, around 820 or so, but I did notice about… only about 45 of those were… Cargo and e-bike. I was hoping maybe you could expand on that, whether or not I'm understanding it correctly, if there's room to change those paces to be more cargo, more e-bike, as riding behavior change? etc. Yeah, absolutely. We're just doing the best we can with what we have, and if the planning board feels that you would like to, like, for example, if you want to remove two regular bike spaces and replace it with one cargo bike.

[227:12] Any suggestions, you can either make them as suggestions, and we will do them, I'm telling you, or you can make them as a condition, and we'll be happy to accept it, but yeah, I mean, it's all an evolving space, and we're just doing the best we can with our guesses. So I'm jud… I'm reading a little bit into your question here, that… that if… if need were to demand. Over time, say 10 years from now. Two of those spaces could be converted to something else. Yes. As far as the charging availability. Is there long-term planning in expanding that? Yeah, and that's a little bit of an evolving science. I spoke to you about this before. We're pretty sure in the next code adoption that rooms that charge bikes may have to be fire rated.

[228:02] So, we're sort of waiting to see where that goes. We've been speaking with Dave Lowry, the fire chief, about it, or, you know, not every day, but now and then, and I think that… what you may see is we have one room where all the chargers are, and another room that's for non-charged bikes, just from a building code standpoint, but yes, you know, they take very little power, so it's not like we have to upsize a transformer for it, like we do with a car. So yeah, And you'll notice in the TDM measure, there's a survey that we have in there, so there's an ability to ask folks how they're getting around and what they need, and part of that is to ascertain what's working, what's not working, and what needs are not met, so that can change over time. Great. I think that covers my questions. Great, I'm going to, Laura, I'm gonna interject here, just so that I have the same… a similar question as Mason on the bike barking while we're on the subject. So, the numbers I have…

[229:02] based on a quick addition of… from the numbers in the narrative in the staff's portion of the packet, I have a total of 1,018 bike parking spaces. Does that sound right? Okay. We think that sounds right. And then, of those 1,018, 32 are e-bike. Yes, 32 are e-bike charging. station. Ready. have a 3-prong outlet you can plug into. Right. Okay, so 3%. The cargo bike is 15. Or, of the 1,018, 15, or 1.5%. Does that… Yeah, it seems light, doesn't it? We should add some, shouldn't we? So, I don't know if you need to do any calculation, you're… No, no, it sounds… I mean, I'm listening to the numbers, and I'm feeling like, boy, we ought to pump that up. You know, I mean, we're absolutely not against it. I think that's a really good point, and it may have just been,

[230:03] Little bit of a vestige that we didn't catch. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, that was mine. Laura, are you still there and ready? Yes, thank you, Mark. I also had a question about that, and it's great to hear that you are amenable to pumping those numbers up. I just want to clarify, so when you say e-bikes. parking spots. That means it has a place to plug in, or that means that it is on the ground and big enough to accommodate an e-bike, which tends to be larger and heavier. Yeah, I think it's more clumsy and harder to park. Sorry, yeah, I think it's all of those things, you know, there are some bikes that are bike racks that are pretty good for raising up an e-bike, but again, it's not like we have 500 of them, so yes, putting them on the ground with a little more room and a plug, sure, yep. Okay, thank you. I have a bunch of questions. I will try to go quickly. I do want to thank the applicant team for sending the diagrams today about massing and ground-level commercial. Thank you, that helps so much. And in looking at that, I saw something I hadn't seen before, which is amenity space for public use that is shown in Building A. Can you talk about what that amenity space for public use is?

[231:10] Yeah, I mean, frankly, we kind of stole that from some of our previous discussions. You know, we've had a couple of moments with you where we talked about a space that was an amenity space, but open to the public, and… since the last hearing, when we talked about that, we've actually sort of made that real, right? We've had to go out and kind of figure out how to do that. And we really like it. Because what it does in a space like this, you know, there's gonna be people coming to shop at the grocery store, for example, that have no relation to the people in the buildings. So, we were trying to wrestle with this idea, well, how do we get people that are living here to come down to the first floor and interact with people that are coming here from Martin Acres or something? And the idea of a co-working space that's shareable by everybody, and a fitness space that's shareable by everybody, we got really excited about. So that's what that is. It's modest, it's like 4,000 square feet, and

[232:00] Probably the bulk of the amenities for the residential would be on the second or third floors, but we wanted some amount of space that was specifically amenity for the building, but also open to the public, so we could have that kind of mixing idea, so… Yeah, it came out of the discussion we had at, 2555, and How much we liked the outcome once we drew it. Okay, so there would be, like, a co-working space and some kind of fitness facility, like a Pilates studio or a gym, that people could buy memberships or day passes if they're… even if they don't live there. Correct. Okay, great. And we haven't, like, formalized what the actual uses are yet, but that's exactly the type. Okay, good to know. Thank you. Next question. You say in the applicant's statement, nearly 28% of the site will be set aside for new public parks, plazas, and open space. I understand the village center or village green concept. Are there other parks or larger gathering spaces besides that Woonorf and Village Center space? The… the wonder from the Village Center is really the…

[233:01] the focus of everything, so I don't wanna… pretend that there's other competing large-scale things like that, but we've added these green connections throughout the site, so if you look at how the bike path extends, like, on this diagram, you can see it running from the north on the left side of the page to the south on the right side of the page, and it opens up as it gets to the end. And that, again, is… it's not really… I mean, to be blunt, it's not really for people. This was part of that response to the habitat comment from City Council. So, that green sort of opens up, it's planted with a bunch of natural gas… natural gases… oh, no, I hope not. Natural grasses. And that kind of vegetation, so it's really meant as a… harbor, almost, for, like, the little bees and bugs and rodents and that kind of thing. So, not as a main gathering spot, but as open spaces on the site, that's the other main one. Okay, thank you. Back to the… are you calling it the Village Center or the Village Green?

[234:00] Oh, it's really the village center. We started with the idea that it was going to be a soded area, and that really rapidly didn't work, so now it's, that's where that… when I… if I use that term, that's why it's left over, but it's the Village Plaza. Okay, the Village Plaza. Can you talk about… so, if I'm understanding correctly, it's being used for restaurants and seating and potentially events, like concerts. There's some kind of a stage or something. Yeah, so, I'm just getting to the slide, sorry. No, I love it. Visuals, all the way, thank you. Yeah, sorry. Right, so the idea is… This sort of came out of two things. First of all, somebody on the design team is from Britain, and in Britain, I guess, there's all these little, tiny little towns that have this little village gathering spot, so that's where the village green concept came from, because that's the term you use in Britain. And then the other thing we… when working with the dark horse, we talked a lot with them about, do you want outside seating?

[235:01] So that kind of came to a nexus of, okay, how can we do both? And so this area is, like, 70… well, now it's 86 feet wide by, like, 140 feet long. And the idea is, on a normal day, it's… it could be, like a beer garden, it could be an outdoor place to eat, it's, you know, for… for landscape seating and benches and all that kind of stuff. But, since it's private, and we don't need a permit to shut it down, and also because it's not, you know, that vehicular access is not required for the function of the site, it can shut off at any moment. And so, some of the things that we talked about were, like, the dark horse gets a ton of traffic on game days. And so, can it be a big outdoor, you know, party on game days, or not party, but like a, you know, dark horse serving area, or a restaurant serving area on game days? Can there be a band there, like, you know, a Friday night band or something like that? One of the things that popped up a lot was the ability to, nurture startup… retail, because retail is so hard. And CU is right around the corner, and I happen to have some family members who are in college who have, like, their own little businesses, and in talking with some of these folks, the idea, you know, they have these little kiosks they set up, and they sell hats, or they sell mugs, or whatever the heck they're making.

[236:12] And so, being able to have, like, a little, nurturing pop-up kind of thing. So those are the farmer's market came up. So those are the kind of elements that we'd be able to do, and we could do it just in that 86 by 140 foot area, but if it was a big one, we could shut down the Woonerf, and we could get a really big area for a really big event. Okay, two more questions about this area. One is, you know, presuming there is some seating available for people just to use and not buy anything, not be a customer, is that delineated in any way? Because we have had issues in other places where it was intended to be a merge between Place where you can sit and do whatever for free, versus commercial space, and having some confusion, even amongst the tenant and the servers of, are people allowed to sit there and not buy anything? Yeah, that's a good point. So, it's not delineated now. We were sort of gonna try to figure that out once we got tenants, and we could figure out where their area wants to be, but I think I can tell you that no restaurateur is going to be able to take up 86 by 140 feet

[237:14] is seating, it's just too much. So, the idea was to have some portion of that be… If you serve beer, you have to have what's called a defensible space by the alcohol board, so it needs to have a fence around it, doesn't have to be, like, a chain-link fence, but just a defined area. So we would define some area that would be for the restaurant, and then the rest would have, you know, just, the owner's association would put out tables and chairs and benches and that kind of thing. But we hadn't defined it yet, because we don't have the tenants yet. Okay, but the intention is that that… and the requirement would be that that would be, defined at some point. And maybe that changes for events and things like that, but there's some kind of delineation of, you can be here without paying for anything. Yeah, and we wouldn't want that stuff to be permanently installed because of the events, but it's really important,

[238:03] So, Andy said, the reason all of these restaurants, or these little shops want to come back is because they think there's going to be a lot of energy on the site. They think there's a decent amount of students that walk through now, but if you add a bunch of residential units, then they'll have a lot of people. So, in order to keep them healthy, there's going to have to be a reason for people to show up and hang out, and it can't just be… you know, if you're paying, it has to be for people that want to go there and shop and hang out. So, I think it's pretty critical just to the health of the tenants. Okay, thank you. And then with regard to those big events, who makes those decisions? Who makes that happen? Is it just at the… under the control of whomever owns the whole site, or is there some kind of tenant organization that would participate in that? Like, how… how did those decisions get made? So the site's really gonna be owned at the outset by two bodies, right? The student housing is owned by a group, and there's the, the Phase 2 is owned by a group, and they have a lot of common spaces that they have to maintain, so there'll be some sort of ownership agreement, association agreement. So our, we're assuming

[239:05] That it would be that… those groups that would plan those events. And, just like, you know, the… the downtown, the Downtown Mall District has events to… essentially kind of bolster the tourist traffic into the retail spaces. This would be something that the owner's group that owns the buildings that's running to the tenants would do to support their tenants. But there's not… The plans are… the space is there. There aren't any plans yet made, because there aren't any tenants yet there. Okay, thank you. I do have a few more questions, but I'm conscious of using a lot of time. I don't know, Mark, if you want to move on, or if you want me to keep going. Let's, let's let George go and see what his questions are, and then we'll come back to you in a minute, if you still… if they're still unanswered. Great, thank you. So, a question, Bill, my questions are gonna center around

[240:03] The commercial spaces. Okay. And I wanted to understand today. What's the vacancy of the plaza that exists there today? Is there vacancy, or is everything 100% occupied currently? I'm gonna bring Andy Bush up to help answer the questions. When you combine the hotel with, different retail spaces, I would guess it's probably about 20% vacancy? 20% vacant, okay. And I think there's… Dark horse that you would say are highly underutilized, except for a few days a year, so maybe 30%? Yeah, got it. So the question I have… Is… you've got a retail center that's, that's occupied, in general, with a grocery store, a few restaurants, a bar, and a few other things. I would assume their rents are pretty reasonable, given the nature of the plaza that exists, and what you guys want to do, and keeping things pretty flexible for yourselves in order to redevelop it.

[241:15] how… and I would imagine… so the reason why I'm asking these questions is around something like Oliv, and around something that other developers have brought to us, which is, if you weren't forced to build retail here, would you still bring forward this plan? Let's say if the zoning didn't dictate it, Or would you do this almost all housing? I think that we do something close to what we're doing, in that I think to create a neighborhood center and a place… it's one thing to create a big apartment project, but I think to create a neighborhood center, you need a certain retail mix as part of it, and we've talked to all the existing tenants and seen the interest of people who want to stay. We've also done a market study that suggests maybe we're pushing the limits a little bit.

[242:01] But that there is a market for retail as part of it. And I would say that from the tenants that we've talked to, we've told them what the rents are going to be for Cosmos, for… Moe's for the barbershop, and a couple of them want to get a little bit smaller. For example, Cosmos is saying. We probably won't do delivery out of this location. This will be more of a pickup spot as part of it. Awesome. The barbershop said, I actually want to get a little bit bigger. And we've told them what the rents are, and they think that's reasonable. I think there's a concern over Boulder being… over-retailed, or developers on a street like Kenya being required to have retail in a street that they don't feel really has retail potential, and I agree with some of that. I think in this location, we feel like it's a good location, and while we're pushing a little bit, we think that's also going to be part of what makes the multifamily successful, is to have a real space there. I will tell you, we've done… retail at the corner of 30th and Pearl, and we have 20,000 square feet there, right at the corner, and we did the first affordable retail program with the city.

[243:03] We're about halfway leased in a year and a half, so it takes longer in this environment as part of it, or halfway building out, actually, and we're about to sign a few more leases, so we probably have another year to go till we're fully leased out there. But we're getting reasonable rates and a really great mix of tenants, and in the right location. I think it can be successful. So that may be a long answer, but… Yeah, yeah, along with sort of the rate aspect, right, because you've got, you've got all second-gen spaces currently that exist on site. So, And obviously, the build-out of these interiors is a big impediment for people jumping in, especially smaller retailers and things like that. How… I heard it in your answer, but how committed are you guys, and it's impossible to codify this, but I'm just trying to understand, how committed are you guys To actually, building out these interiors along with the tenants to get them up and running, you know, simultaneously, or as close to simultaneously as possible with occupancy of the residential.

[244:12] I think that, in my experience, and we've done at 30th and Pearl. almost half a million square feet over there. That's a mix of some office, mostly residential with some retail. I don't think it works without the retail on the first floor, and we're actually out aggressively trying to bring people in before we even Have plans for the building, because we feel like the most successful way to open a neighborhood center like this is to have the retail come in with the building of the residential. We think, honestly, selfishly, we get better rents and occupancy on the residential by focusing on the retail, so I think this is a good location for it. I honestly think that some of the other locations in town maybe aren't the best first floor retail, but we think this works very well here.

[245:00] Yeah, I bet. I could just add one thing, George, because I'm really sensitive to what you said, and I think you're making a really good point. There is a reason that on this project, the student housing is away from the commercial center and doesn't have commercial in it. Student housers house students. Mixed-use developers do mixed-use development, so we separated it. That's why it's Phase 1 and Phase 2. And we think… the other thing that we think is we're really… banking on, you can see how convoluted it was to get sprouts to work in that building. Like, that was super, super painful, but it works. And so, by designing a footprint that works for a grocer. despite all the other stuff that we have to do, we've got, you know, if that gets leased, that's like half the… half the retail square footage. So it's a huge leg up on getting things filled. Right. And that's an interesting point, so I want to ask a little bit more about Sprouts in particular, because we've got a vacant grocery store on Bacemar. An urban grocery store in this format is quite a bit different

[246:03] than something like a surface-parked grocery store, to your point around convenience. it sounds like you guys have worked with Sprouts directly in order to retain them. Are they gonna… are they gonna be signing a lease for this space in advance of this building getting built? Is that something you're gonna have in hand? That's our hope, but there's no way to guarantee that that would be in hand. But we have designed it to their specs with their group, and honestly, if we didn't think that we had a good possibility of a grocer, if not them, and we've talked to a couple others. we wouldn't be taking that big a portion and committing to it on the first floor. That's not a space that we could come in for use review and convert to residential. It wouldn't work. So, this is a big commitment on our part to design and build out a space for a grocer. are… and I appreciate what you did with the parking, because it makes a whole lot of sense to me. Do you think you're parked well enough

[247:02] for the neighborhood services for that grocery store, is that a point of contention at all in your leasing process? Are they comfortable with it? Yeah, the parking amount hasn't been a problem. I think that the honest truth is by… essentially surrounding all the parking with buildings, and making it all internal, and one of our desires in terms of designing the streetscape? That's a gutsy move. you know, I've never done anything quite like this before. We went and looked at similar situations in other cities, and it has been done. And I don't think that, at the moment, Sprout's concern is not… it would be structured parking, not how we've done it, right, versus surface. And I wish I could tell you it was… I knew this was a slam dunk. It's not. It's, I think a move that we've made to create what we believe is the next generation neighborhood center, and a model for Boulder, but we're taking some risk.

[248:04] what a… along with those risks, because I'm sure you've got some… some… at least some backup thoughts, maybe some… not some backup plans. But… if… Sprouts didn't work out, and if a grocer got too nervous about not having any surface parking, which I think in Boulder is, to your point, a very gutsy move. What do you think the… what do you think the alternative uses for this space make sense as it relates to a neighborhood center? Or it just doesn't work without a grocery. No, I don't think it doesn't work without a grocer. I think what we'd end up with is shallower retail spaces on that corner, and we'd probably have some vacant space back in the middle that would either be additional parking space or would be vacant. It wouldn't be the best scenario. We're gonna work really hard for a grocer, trust me. Got it. Okay, those are my questions on the retail specifically, and I had a question. If you wouldn't mind bringing up the elevations, again, that focused on the grocery store, I just had a quick question, because it was reading differently than

[249:10] Then how… so I'm trying to understand… it reads… the grocery reads as a three-story space, and I haven't… I haven't looked at the… at the floor plates in detail. Can… can you tell me why that is? Is that… is that because you have a lot of height in there, or is there something… some kind of clever architecture that I'm not seeing? Yeah, the grocery's only one stories, and then floors 2 and. Oh, no, I don't… I'm sorry, I didn't mean… I didn't mean the grocery being 3 stories, I meant the… it looks like 3 stories from the… from the street there. Yeah, so it's grocery on the first floor and two stories of units above, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. Okay, I thought this was… because I see other parts of it that are a four-story building, so above the grocery, it's only two stories? That's right, yeah, it just… we were just trying to make an appropriate corner, and again, try to keep the scale a little bit lower along baseline. Got it. So, are the floor heights on,

[250:03] On that second and third story. higher in that part of the building than, as I look, sort of, you know, more towards, the, the end of the site. Yeah, I see what you're saying. No, the… all of the second floor of the building is on the same level, and I'm turning to Kat, just to make sure that's true. I'm gonna let Kat answer that question, that seems like a better idea. Sorry, I think what you're asking is about the heights of the first level. The heights on the… I'll get there. The first level… The first level of the grocery is the same height as the first and second level of the adjacent portions of the building, so if you look on the right side of the screen. Kat, Kat, I'm sorry, could you just speak a little bit closer into the mic? I'm so sorry. If you look to the left side of the screen right now, you're gonna see that red brick portion. You see how that's 3 floors and there's a floor above it? Yes. When you move over to the right-hand side of this, that grocery level is the same height, it's like a story and a half. So our building is as tall as a four-story building, and we have windows that are designed to bring light in through clearer story levels, but it's only three floors. That first floor just happens to be sitting at about 20-22 feet in height.

[251:14] So that they can get the mechanicals and things that they need to make a grocery work in there. Got it. That I understand. So, so my question then is, sorry, I just want to get to the point of what I'm trying to figure out, is the, the floor-to-ceiling heights of floor 2 and 3 above the grocery area… how are those different than that red big building all the way at the end? What are those floor-to-ceiling heights? No, so that's the second piece of that. The second and third floors of this building are actually… they're 9-foot plate heights, so they have the 9-foot level that happens on the same one. It's just an optical illusion with the way the building pushes and pulls back and forth, so that we make it look like it's different in scale and height. Got it.

[252:00] All the way across the building. Okay, appreciate that. That's, it was just, I appreciate that explanation, thank you. Those are my questions. Thanks. Okay, laura, you had some more, yes? I do, but Mark, you haven't asked. Do you want to go next? No, I actually, nope, everything's been answered, and so, nope. Okay. Carry on. Okay, I have just a few more, and thank you all for your patience. So with regard to the Alternative Transportation Fund. It is a transportation subsidy per unit if the residents do not require on-site parking. If they do have a vehicle, they will need to show it will be parked in an acceptable location off-site in order to receive the subsidy. How are you defining an acceptable location off-site? Yeah, so in talking with how the group that's going to administer that, essentially the… and you can imagine, like, the idea is that somebody doesn't

[253:03] try to park their car in a neighborhood, you know, to the northeast, or something like that. And so they need to show a lease somewhere off-site that's a place where they can store their car. Is that fair? Okay, I'm checking. Yes, that's the… that's how it works. Okay, so they'll have to sign something that says either I don't have a car, or I do have a car, and here's where it's parked. Exactly. Okay. And that's true with a lot of students, for example. Like, they need their car to get to school, and then they just don't use it, but it needs to be not being moved from space to space in a neighborhood somewhere. It's gotta… it's gotta have a home. Yes, it's in their parents' driveway, or it's in another parking garage or something. Okay, great, thank you. In the TDM plan, you talk about collapsible carts and wagons. Where… where are those located? Are they per building, or are they in some central location? Sorry, I'm gonna work the mic right this time. Those are actually located in the bike parking stations in each of the buildings that have a leasing office slash somebody to guide that tenant experience. So in the student housing, there's bike parking, there will be wagons there for students to be able to check out.

[254:11] Similarly, for the rest of the site, where the amenity spaces are located in these buildings, the bike parking that's adjacent will have a locked wagon, or cargo bike for rent that somebody can just kind of check out. And I say rent, it's not paid rent, it's, hey, I want to check this thing out. You kind of sign it out like you would a book at the library, you use it, and then you bring it back. Get the key back, and there just needs to be somebody to manage that on-site for those aspects. Okay, great, thank you. Similarly, you talk about having a bike repair station in Building E. Is this open to everybody on site, or is that specifically for Building E, for the students? So that one is specifically for Building E. There's also a bike repair station that's planned for Phase 2, and that one's exterior to Building A. That just wasn't mentioned in the packet, and that could be because we missed calling that out. I apologize, Chandler.

[255:00] If you're listening. Okay, thank you, good to know. You mentioned that there's a, the pool and spa are open to all of the residents of… of Phase 2, is it? Phase 2, I'm going to turn that one over to Andy, because there's been discussions about if it's just Phase 2, or if it's actually, for Phase 2, as well as the public, and I'm not sure where those conversations have landed. The honest truth is, we don't quite know yet. We know that it's meant to be shared for all of Phase 2, and we have talked about whether it's something that we would want to open up to the outside, but I don't know that we're ready to make a commitment there, and that we don't really know the specific program of it yet. Okay, just wanted to make sure it was shared, and not just for that one specific building. Thank you. And then the rooftop decks, are those also shared access amongst different buildings, or is it each building has its own special rooftop deck for just that building's? The intent is shared, similar to what we've done over at Boulder Junction. There, I think we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 rooftop decks, and they're really open to all folks, and we use OpenPath as kind of our tool for that, and it's nice because some are shady, some are in the sun, some are a little bit bigger if you want to have a group.

[256:09] The biggest one has bathrooms, so it would be similar to that. Okay, so they… so someone who is a resident of the project could go to any of the rooftop decks. Yes. Cool. Okay, I believe those are all my questions. Thank you. ML, one more? One more. I think I heard you say that this is an all-electric project, is that correct? That's right. With the exception of what we do have to say, with the exception of restaurants, because we have yet to convince a restaurant to use no gas. Want to expand on that? Because you're the one who's trying to get restaurants to use no gas? That's okay, I believe you. So, the question… I think all the buildings have flat roofs. Is this gonna be fully photovoltaic up there, or are you… what are you thinking about to bring on-site renewable energy?

[257:04] into the project, given it's an all-electric building? Yeah, I think the goal is to do it… we've done it in Boulder Commons, kind of Boulder Junction. We produce… when we look at all-electric buildings, we kind of start with saying, let's design a building that uses about 65% less energy than a traditional new building, so we have to start by… doing that, and then we try to produce as much power as we can, reasonably. I'm still not totally convinced that buildings are always the best place to generate energy, but at Boulder Commons, for example, you know, we consume 30% on average than a normal new building, and then we produce about 65% of our own power. So, will this building have, on-site battery storage for the electricity? I mean, is it going to be as much off-grid as it can be? Yeah, we'll create… Given electricity is unreliable sometimes? Yeah, we'll create rooms for batteries. Battery will be still in… and, you know, this is…

[258:03] for better or for worse, meant to be… make sense financially as part of it. We're still struggling with battery technology in terms of Whether it works in the mix of these size of smaller buildings. But at the same time, we're providing rooms for all of it, because battery storage is basically on the same curve that solar was. 10 years ago. So, the goal is, we're gonna get there soon, and it's gonna make sense financially. Okay. One thing to add to that, we've actually found that the consumer side batteries work a little bit better right now than the building side, so we actually are considering putting little battery packs in the wall for every unit, so that if you lose power, you at least have a place to charge your laptop and your phone so you can still communicate. But rather than trying to centralize it in the building, because we've researched these battery packs and they're not… quite ready for prime time. These little ones are, and so there's a way to kind of decentralize it and make it work. In 2 years, it'll be different. And, you know, Phase 2 starts in 3 years, so… Right. Best practice at the time. Okay, perfect. I appreciate your thinking about it, and I appreciate your answers. Thank you. Sure.

[259:06] Okay, last call. Okay, hearing no more questions, even though we have a significant number of people, especially online, lined up, I think, for the public hearing. I want to have… give them… give all participants, our full attention, and so I'm going to suggest we have a break for 10 minutes, and then we'll come back and do the public hearing, and then board deliberation. So… We're going to break for 10, and we'll return at 9.02.

[271:51] Yeah. Harry, we can… We'll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. We've concluded with our questions for staff and the applicant. We're now going to our public hearing, and

[272:05] we do people in the room first, is that right, Thomas? Okay. Alright, take it away, Thomas, and… Thank you, Chair. Yes, well, we do have two people signed up in the room for the public hearing. First up, we have David Ensign. David, you can step to the podium and give your comment. You'll have 3 minutes to speak. Trip out? Professor, no problems. Great, good evening. Thank you, Planning Board, for your service. My name's David Ensign, and I live at 4020 Evans Drive in Boulder, Colorado. I wanted to give you perspective as someone who lives near the site, about halfway between 30th Street and Meadows on Foothills and Baseline. This is a great area to provide housing for both students and non-students. It's near services and adjacent to both the university and existing student housing. It's at a transportation crossroads, so it's a model area for transit-oriented development.

[273:06] And due to demand, we've been seeing single-family homes in my neighborhood being converted to student housing, so we know there's a lot of demand. And this development will help ease this demand with offering housing that may be even more appropriate for the needs of students. Existing conditions are clearly rundown, surface parking lots and outdated structures, so it's appropriate timing for redevelopment. Its adjacency to Basemar across 36 make it a key neighborhood it's… I call it a… we've called it a string of pearls of mixed-use areas. And, we've seen excellent improvements to the bike lanes north across 36 recently, and there's, connectivity under 36. So let's continue to make these wonderful improvements to our bike and pedestrian infrastructure. This area is on my daily running route and biking route, and I enjoy taking different, paths through Williams Village already, so having more pedestrian-friendly spaces will be really welcome.

[274:05] And when they open new streets through these kinds of neighborhood centers, it can be really game-changing. I work out at 24 Hour Fitness in Diagonal, and when I go from downtown to Diagonal now, I go through this nice new street through the residential area, it's really cool, and it's just a total game changer. Looking forward to when the lanes will be protected on the can along base… baseline, and also, just wanted to say that the path along 36 is amazing, but there's a bunch of concrete. Bill mentioned how 36 is raised up. That concrete could be really ripe for some murals, to kind of Make it beautiful for the new neighbors that are gonna be living there. I support, you, considering additional ground floor residential. The BC, zones were kind of developed when there was more demand for commercial, and, post-COVID, we're really seeing a decrease, and our zoning doesn't always take into account changing market conditions, so I'd be really, sensitive to, use,

[275:06] flexibility around actually having ground floors. We know there will be a substantial amount of commercial as well. Height allowances up to 55 feet make a lot of sense. There's a lot of much higher buildings on CU property just to the east. So this is a great, great proposal. I'm looking forward to welcoming it into my neighborhood. Thank you. Thanks, David. Thank you, David. Next up, we have Bill Rigler. So weird to be on this side of the dais. Good evening, Planning Board. My name is Bill Rigler. I'm the former, chair of the Transportation Advisory Board. I also serve on the board of all routes, but I'm here in my… both personal and professional capacity. I think some of you know that several years ago, I formed my own consulting company to focus on public affairs and public relations in support of projects that I felt were upholding the highest standards in affordability, sustainability, mobility.

[276:06] In climate. My biggest signal regret as a professional was that, the Park Hill Golf Course project in Denver Which would have converted a long, vacant golf course into new housing. Commercial space, a grocery store, and created a fundamental public good out of a blighted space that was no longer being used. That project, unfortunately, was turned down by Denver voters, and the third lowest turnout in Denver history. Denver has now decided to go ahead and purchase that same land to create the exact same park size for $80 million without any housing, any grocery stores, any commercial. So after that failure, when I, first learned of this project and its, And the desire to replace 7 acres, excuse me, 70% of a parking lot, or of land that constituted a parking lot, with new housing, with a focus on a community-serving grocery store.

[277:10] grocery store with mobility enhancements, I jumped at the chance. And so, for the last several months, I've been serving as a facilitator on behalf of this project and the Williams family, with reaching out to community members and key stakeholders across Boulder. Over the last 6 months at the family's direction, we've met with representatives from the Housing Advisory Board, from Open Space, from Martin Acres, from the University Hill Neighborhood Association, the University Hill Management Commission. the Boulder Chamber, the Sierra Club, and so many more. We've taken a very deliberate and intentional effort to speak to neighbors to find out what matters to them. And so, for example. For the residents at the University Hill, they love this project because it alleviates their long-standing desires for more student housing elsewhere.

[278:05] For the neighbors that live immediately north of this project, they love the fact that Sprouts will remain their community-serving grocery store. And for students and for CU officials who we've spoken with, over 20 of them. they're grateful for the opportunity to… the collaboration and the coordination that we've had on mobility and affordability and safety, and they've also, really appreciated the chance to bring more student housing. So, thank you all for your time, and thank you for your service. Thank you, Bill, and we didn't have anybody else registered to speak in person. I had a… I had a question. I had a question. Does… does Bill work for the applicant? Bill, actually, it's been one of the things that we have been discussing at Planning Board, is just, as speakers. Identifying whether or not they have any financial interest to the application.

[279:02] I was the outreach consultant for the project, yes. Okay, thank you. Did you hear that, George? Yeah, I did, I'm confused. If the applicant had 20 minutes to speak, why is someone paid by the applicant coming up for an additional 3 minutes? George, I don't think there… I think the identification Of someone having a financial… Laurel, could Laurel answer that question? Actually, let me speak for just a second. I think… that… someone having… identifying a financial connection with the applicant is different than prohibiting that person from speaking. So, Laurel may address the legality of it, but I would challenge anyone to find a section of the code that prohibits Someone from the public, speaking.

[280:03] Even though they may have a financial connection to an application. Well, no, no, my point is, is he's paid by the applicant, and essentially is part of the applicant's team. That's a little bit different than someone having a financial connection, that's my point. What was it? Part of the applicant's team. Right. While it may be different, I would… It would be great for Laurel to answer the question, because I really think it's a question of legality. Thanks, George. I'm just looking at our rules under Section 6.4. It doesn't specifically limit this to Non-applicant speakers, it just says the public. And I don't think we have that defined in there, but I'm gonna look at the code really quickly. Okay, thank you. Sorry, I don't want to derail us, I just had a question I wanted to answer. Thank you. Okay. Any, no one else in the room.

[281:00] Is that correct? Okay. Thank you, we can move to our online. Attendees, we do have two raised hands so far. If anybody else would like to register to speak, please go ahead and use the… Raise hand function on Zoom. We're gonna start with Eliza Grace. Eliza, you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and you can go ahead and begin. Heather. My name is Eliza Grace, and I want to first say that as a woman, I advocate for dense, vibrant developments that bring energy and activity to a neighborhood, because these areas that are well populated make it possible to walk with a sense of safety. As it currently exists, I would never walk in this area of town by myself at night. I think the changes that they're proposing with green spaces, bike lanes, and density would make a drastic change to my experience in this neighborhood. Secondly, this space could be a huge benefit to CU students and alumni. As a CU alumni myself, who has since started a business here in Boulder, I've seen how important it is to have access to collaborative environments and makerspaces that support builders and entrepreneurs, and developments like this expand those opportunities.

[282:21] Making it more realistic for people like myself to remain in Boulder long after I graduate and contribute to the city's growth and creativity. In general, I think Boulder needs more welcoming, shared spaces in this part of town where people can gather, and this project provides exactly that. I think transforming a vast parking lot into green space and community space feels like the kind of Boulder that I want to see in the future, and aligns with Boulder's vision. Thank you, Eliza. Thanks for joining us.

[283:00] Next up, we have David Baccholder. David, please go ahead and speak. You'll have 3 minutes. Hey guys, yeah, my name is David Batshelder, I'm a CU Masters alum. And you know, as I've been sitting here listening to all these different points being made, I'm kind of reminded of the somewhat cliche quote, but I think it's somewhat pertinent, and it is, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. And I kind of came here tonight because I feel this sense of obligation, almost, to speak on behalf of future students who would directly benefit from this new housing. And look, I could… I could go off and list many of the reasons that this is a wonderful redevelopment that have been eloquently expressed tonight. I'd just rather give my personal perspective, which is when I have walked through this current asphalt jungle that is this site. I kind of get hopeful about the opportunity of what it could become, and how that aligns with Boulder's vision for a better connected and more sustainable future that provides more housing. And, that's it.

[284:19] Thank you, David. Thanks for joining us. I'm not seeing any… Any more raised hands at the moment, but if anybody else would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. Otherwise, we will conclude the public hearing portion of this item. And seeing no other raised hands, we can move on. Thank you. Great, thank you. Do we get a chance to address public comment? Yes. I just want to say George's point resonates with me, and while Bill Rigler wanted to speak about the project personally, I think George is making really good points, and I know what it would feel like when I was on the other side of the dais when I was on planning board, so my apologies, and I will make sure that doesn't happen again on one of our projects. So, thank you.

[285:06] Okay. Alright, so, we are now, the public hearing is closed. We are, hey, Bill, if you could shut off that microphone there. Thanks. Okay, we are now into, board deliberations. So, Chan… is Chan… Chandler, I assume, is still with us here? Okay, alright. We're, we're ready for our, Some criteria. If you're ready. Yep. Okay. Okay.

[286:09] Okay, do we have a sound issue here? Nope. Okay, alright. So, I'm going to propose the following, that we, each, address the, the two key issues. for discussion. And, and then we'll move on to, motion-making and, any, conditions that, that. if anyone has any, etc. But let's, let's just take a round of each of us, addressing the two key issues for discussion. And, I'm looking for someone who feels ready. Kurt? Sure, I'll be quick. I will just give a few general thoughts quickly. I think that this is really an outstanding project overall. I am super excited by what I've been seeing here. I think that it has been improved tremendously from what we saw at concept review.

[287:17] Which was good, but it wasn't up to the kind of standards that we really wanted, and I think now it really is… it's an exceptional design. I love the diversity of the architecture. There's… there are different types of architecture, different types of finishes and so on, without the kind of, sort of, gratuitous changes of materials and colors and stuff that we so often see. So I think that that's really successful. I think that there's outstanding public, space design within the project, especially with the Wunerfs. And with the, not public, green, whatever.

[288:00] Public Plaza space. And I really appreciate that the… that the developer is demonstrating a commitment to bring really beloved businesses back, as well as provide a very significant amount of housing and great urban spaces. So, with that being said. I feel that it is consistent, the proposal is consistent with the site review criteria. And is consistent with use review criteria. For, for residential uses on first floor. Great, thanks, Kurt. Who's next? Are you ready, Claudia? Okay, alright. Mason's got his hand up. Thank you, Mason. Wanna be short and sweet, just going in order. I find the proposal consistent with the site review criteria. It advances BBC goals by providing density infill near transit, offering a broad mix of unit types, and incorporating sustainable design with energy efficiency and expanded green space.

[289:11] The site plan promotes safe multimodal access, functional open space, and high-quality landscaping. Building design is oriented to the public realm, uses durable materials, and… and manages masting effectively, even where lengths exceed 200 feet. Height modifications are appropriate, with preserved views and well-designed courtyards. Overall, the project creates a strong urban edge along Baseline Road and meets the standards of review. On the second point, I agree that the proposal is consistent with the use review and specific use standards. It strengthens the character of the area as a neighborhood-serving business district by expanding ground floor commercial space. improving pedestrian access and adding residential density that will support those businesses. In my view, the project enhances rather than detracts from the intended function of this area.

[290:07] Great, thank you, Mason. Laura. Thank you. I'm also going to try to be short here, and I generally echo the comments of my colleagues. I just want to emphasize that I think this is an incredibly well-done project, probably one of the best that I've seen in my time on Planning Board. Really, really appreciate the applicant's desire to create a real neighborhood center, despite the challenges of retail, and despite, kind of, some of the challenges of this site. It's a really nice blend of exactly what we would want to see in this part of town. I do think it is, mostly consistent with the site review criteria. I will probably be checking with my colleagues to see if you would be willing to add just a couple of small conditions, one around the e-bike and cargo bike parking, which the applicant seems to have agreed is currently inadequate.

[291:12] And then the second one is just about open space. I love the concept that they've got with the ability to have events in that Unerf. I am a little bit concerned that there is, there are no active uses. No play areas, no dog park. nothing that is more active than just seating areas. So, if I get a second on a motion, I'd love to discuss that further, but I won't belabor that point here. With regard to the building lengths over 200 feet, I did have concern about that on first read, but as has been pointed out, and I take to heart, this isn't a hard and fast requirement in the code, it is something that I think is a design principle that staff take seriously, and that we as a planning board should take seriously, and I think this may be a rare case where, the applicant has done an outstanding job of addressing the concerns around visual permeability. I think they've been very successful.

[292:09] With their varied rooflines, the angles of the buildings, the facade recessions, the significant erosion in height, to give that visual permeability. And just looking at the travel pathways getting through the site for, like, actual physical permeability. I can't see that breaking up the building massing would significantly assist people from getting from where they're likely to be to where they'd want to go on the site. So, in this case, I'm okay with the building lengths over 200 feet. With regards to the balconies, I did check the code, and Bill is right that this is in a… this is also in a section, and Chandler is right, that this is in a section of the site review criteria, where it's in a list of things that we should consider, and it is not a hard and fast, and so I'm… I will go with staff's rationale on the balconies and, and leave it there. With regard to the youth review, I do agree with staff on this, and I do appreciate the additional analysis that staff did, that they provided to us in an email, showing that, retail uses on the ground floor will still predominate in this triangle between 36 and baseline and

[293:15] 30th Street. So, numerically, it works, as well as just in terms of how people are going to use this site. Retail, the character will not change as having predominantly retail on the ground floor, and I appreciate the applicant's work. To make that work. So, I do agree the use review criteria are met. And that's it for me. Great, thank you, Laura. George. Yeah, I'll make myself pretty quick. I think this project is a million times better than the first project that we saw from you guys, and I really appreciate all the work that's gone into this, in trying to figure out what is a, difficult.

[294:00] thing to do, putting… All this residential together with these retail uses. And doing it in a way… That may end up being possible. In general, on the, on the first… criteria, I don't… I think the height modification Is, you know, generally, consistent. With the site review criteria. I am… desperately concerned That we are taking a grocery store out of order that serves a neighborhood. And we're taking a bunch of other, retail out. That serves a neighborhood. And we're introducing a massive gap in time of what might be 3 years. It may be more. you're not the city, but, you know, I look at things like Alpine Balls, and they've been under construction for years, and it hasn't even gone anywhere, and I know you guys are private developers, and we'll move a whole lot quicker, because you've got money on the line.

[295:05] To do that. But I… I… I… Absent any mechanisms To fulfill the promise of what is being promised here. I can't say it meets the criteria, because I'm not sure at all, and I don't think the developer is sure, that this will remain a neighborhood center. And I'm… I'm very concerned about that, and I think we all should be. You know, we talk a lot about 15 minutes neighborhoods, and if this all works out. it's gonna be fantastic. And I hope that it does, because I'm definitely in the minority here. But if we had a mechanism as a city. Like other cities do, by the way, and that's why I was fishing around development agreements, you know, there are other cities that have… that are able to put development agreements in place that have, for instance, as an example, that the retail in a mixed-use development

[296:08] must be CO'd before the residential CO. And it's put in place that way because of exactly circumstances like this, where we might get a bunch of housing, and then we might get vacant retail, and we might get retailers flaking, and we might have developers, or even not these guys, who are local, known guys, this development might get sold. And it might go to someone who is more of a housing focus, and just doesn't want to sink any more money into the retail to get it occupied. And so, under all those circumstances, I don't believe that, we can be sure that this will actually function the way it's intended with the tools that we have. So, I'll leave it there. Thank you, George. ML's ready?

[297:04] But I will give it a whirl. George, thank you for that. I totally agree with your concern. There's a lot of unknowns around the phases, which is why I was asking the questions at the beginning. But we don't seem to have a means to address that, So, I will… Hey, ML, I'm just gonna interrupt you for a second and say, hey, Chandler, I think you need to mute yourself. We keep switching back and forth to… I think your mic's picking up, so… Thanks. Okay. Oh, did Chandra just say what I mean? No, no, I, it was, I, I… That was a joke. Okay. I haven't been making any noise, or any notices coming from my house, but I will turn it off. Are we good? Continue. Anyway, thank you, Chandler. Okay. Okay, onward. So I also agree with George. I find this proposal greatly improved from the concept review proposal.

[298:01] I appreciate that the input from this board, City Council, and the advising boards has impacted the current application. So, my remaining concern has to do with the requested height of between 51 feet to 55 feet across every building, along with the requested modifications to the setbacks. Both of these will have significant impact to the public experience on baseline, 30th, and the southeast public multi-use path. Having to do with, site review criteria 9214H3AV and 9214HBB2. That speak to the impact to the human scale of the context. So I think I brought this up in my questions with the applicant, is, like, how do you relate to, The scale of the existing neighborhood. So that being said, I appreciate the public space activation that you're proposing. I appreciate the diversity of buildings.

[299:00] In this case, I think the devil will be in the details to elevate the human scale and experience to the level that it should… it should be at. Speaking about the use, I understand, and I may be wrong, but that there was a statement in the applicant's packet that refers to the commercial sites changing to residential after a certain time frame. I'm not sure if that is… will be part of the, project, as, as accepted. And if it is, I'm not sure how to deny that, but I would like to propose that any changes to use go through use review. I think that's what staff said, but I'm not sure how that statement in the packet can be addressed precisely so that it doesn't become part of the record. It's just a matter of procedure. If they ever wanted to amend their application, they would have to go through the process, and then it would come back before you for call-up. Cool. So regardless of what is stated, I like that. Yeah, and so that's it. I… I don't have any issues other than the one stated about the site review criteria.

[300:11] And, that was my concern with the use review. Are you ready? Yes, I've been editing my notes down. Thank you. I'll take the questions in order. First dealing with site review criteria, and the BVCP. I think this is a completely appropriate location for infill development and high-density student housing and other, housing due to its location near CU. And major transportation corridors. I think it also fully satisfies the vision of community business and mixed-use business that we have in the BVCP. And the proposal strengthens the functioning of this location as a neighborhood center. By making it a site to, not just shop, but to gather, right? And adding population to support, retail in a more difficult environment that we're now seeing.

[301:11] I think it further shows many of the characteristics of sustainable urban form that we claim to be looking for in the BVCP, including a strong public realm, pedestrian interest, and minimal surface parking. A few things related to site design, I think… The transportation connections and approaches to mobility that we're seeing here are great. I really appreciate all of the efforts to hide cars. And to preserve the majority of the shared spaces, the interior spaces here for pedestrian and bike use. I have a few concerns about vehicle traffic calming on the private streets, which I thought I might address in a condition, but I'll be listening for my colleagues' appetite for that. For additional height, I support additional height for additional housing in this area. Even with those few 200-foot-long facades, I'm glad that we do have some flexibility, around applying that portion of the code. I think the building designs that we're seeing here

[302:13] Actually mitigate adverse effects much more than they create them. They mitigate, noise from Highway 36 for the remainder of this community. They actually, block some views of highway infrastructure, which I think is also important for this area, and they block views of parking that's being hidden, as the applicant has described. I also like that these larger buildings, are being used to facilitate a grocery store underneath housing. I think that's a really bold experiment for retail. I've seen it work extremely well in other urban contexts, and I'm excited to see it here. Hope it works. for the use review, I would note that overall this proposal is actually adding commercial space, and in sizes and configurations that I think are going to enhance this desired neighborhood, neighborhood center function.

[303:08] I think allowing some of this ground floor housing actually helps to prevent a glut of retail space. It actually allows… it also allows the existing commercial activity to be concentrated, in this area to enhance activity. And absolutely. the residential that's being proposed for those ground floor areas is a direct service to the surrounding neighborhood, in the sense that it actually creates a more viable setting for some of these commercial services. It does not adversely affect the intended use as a neighborhood center. I think it enhances it, so… I'm supportive. Great, thank you, Claudia. As I look at the two key issues. I find them so interrelated that I'm going to address them together, and I'm going to do it With the premise that the…

[304:07] The allowance of ground floor residential under the use review Is much more likely To make the ground-level commercial Successful, along with the building height. The combination of Density, number of units, number of people, and attractiveness of the design is what I think addresses ML and George's concern about the success of the ground-level retail. And… and that, so, the attractiveness of the design, the wuneriff, the… the green spaces that, in our concept review, were way out on the edge, and linear, and now, here at site review, they're… they're focused on the center, they're focused on bringing people together.

[305:03] All of those things, the density, the number of people, all those things make the retail, the possibility of success, in a difficult retail environment right now. I don't think anyone argues that retail is difficult right now. Much more likely and much more possible. So, I am in support of the use review. And I am generally, more than generally, in the 99% range in support of, of the, of the, additional height and, it meeting the site review criteria. I, like Laura. Have already, asked some questions about the bike parking, and again, it's kind of standard procedure for me to… talk about bike parking, but I think in this context, it's important, so when we get to, potential conditions, maybe Laura and I can work together and address bike parking. But in general, I think this is what an exciting

[306:07] project that truly does, offer the possibility of, yes, not going to be downtown Boulder. But I just wanted one more thing. I was in, a year… almost exactly a year ago, I was in, Philadelphia, and we were staying in a neighborhood that had… that was… it wasn't downtown Philly, but this neighborhood had it downtown, and it had a Whole Foods that was in a two-story building, three-story building, with an underground parking garage on a narrow, busy street, and it had a lot of two- and three-story townhouses just around the corner. It was… it was kind of like this, only not a wooner if it was a street. But, the success of that store, people were accessing that store from the garage, people were parking in the garage and coming up by the store, and then going to other retail establishments. It really was like an example

[307:07] And I think most of the buildings were probably in the 40 to 55 feet tall, in this neighborhood. Again, it's not downtown Philly, but it was a neighborhood center. And, you know, much older than this, but it just had this… had the feel of what I think this could feel like In, in some number of years. So anyway, I'm, I'm supportive, and, we'll get to, we'll get to motion-making. Okay. So, speaking of motion-making, I think this is a case… again, under different cases and different circumstances, we have a main motion, we might adopt that, and then have subsidiary motions. In the case of site review, I advocate that we have a main motion, and then, proposed amendments

[308:01] to that main motion, if there are any, in terms of conditions. So, I think the way to proceed is to begin with the main motion, and before adoption, find out if anyone has amendments to the main motion. May I make the motion? Yes, you may. I move that Planning Board approve Site Review Application LUR 2024-00071 and Use Review Application LUR2024-00072 Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact. Including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Secondly. second. Did ML also second, if we're… if we both did?

[309:00] I, I seconded. Yeah, I think Kurt beat you, so even, okay. So we're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna… it must have been the digital delay, you're in Florida, or, or wherever, so, anyway. You were limited by the speed of light? You can tell by the glow on my forehead that I am in Florida. Okay, I'm sensing that this main motion will pass, and I would like to, in the name of expediency. Find out if anyone has, potential conditions that they would like to amend the main motion. If you guys wanna… you made the motion, if you want to speak now to it, you may. If, Anyway, you may. I will wait to hear conditions, if there are any. Okay. I am.

[310:04] Mark? Yes? I do have the two to propose that I mentioned in my comments, one around the e-bikes and cargo bikes, and one around asking for an active use in the open space. How do you feel about making the second one now? Sure. And I'm sending you and Thomas some language that I have, and we can see if How we… how we agree on the e-bike thing. I am sending the language around open space now, the proposed language.

[311:33] Mark, may I make a very brief pitch to see if I get a second? Yeah, go, yeah. Okay, just very briefly, so the proposed language reads, and I'm open to modifying this if there's a better way to do it. To meet the open space needs of residents and visitors to the site, applicants shall add an active programmatic element to the site, such as a playground, play area, dog park, or community garden. This language came straight from the project that we just saw in concept review, where staff were suggesting an active

[312:04] programmatic element. That's where I got those examples from. My concern here is that right now, the open space need… or the open space areas that are on the ground floor. Are primarily just things that you either walk through or sit in, and it doesn't really… there's not really a whole lot else to do there. And I really, really appreciate that desire to hold events and have it be super fun and lively and have things like concerts and farmers markets, but we all know that that could or could not happen, and we don't know what the frequency of that is, and so… I do think that it's useful for the… this is a very large area with, you know, hundreds of units, potentially thousands of residents, and or over a thousand residents. It'd be useful for people to have some other kind of active recreational thing to do on-site. That's my pitch. I'm not trying to dictate the size or what it has to be, but just that there's… the applicant could choose something.

[313:00] And there will be families, people with dogs, kids, that kind of thing. Okay. Laura, I would… I will support this… Do you want to second it? Was it made into a motion already? Yes. Well, no, okay, let's be clear here, yeah. Laura, are you make… have you made this as a motion? Are you making this as a motion? I can go ahead and make it as a motion, unless folks want to Tinker with the language. I do have one thing, if that's okay. Yes, Laura. Okay, Laura? I just want to make sure we add in language about making sure that the city manager or staff are the ones approving this. condition. Could we add, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of TechDoc. Yeah, that would be great. That's how… that's language we've used before. That'd be great, thank you. Yes, thank you for the reminder, Laurel. Really appreciate that.

[314:00] Timing is helpful for us, too. Okay, Laura, go ahead, and let's make this… And… Make it official? We'll… we'll pause… so, again, the procedurally, you're gonna make this motion, If anyone has wants to… propose an edit. then they would do it before the second comes up, okay? So… Okay. Okay. I… I move. To meet the open space needs of residents and visitors to the site, applicants shall add an active programmatic element to the site, such as a playground, play area, dog park, or community garden, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk. Are there any proposed edits to this so we don't get into amending the amendment? Okay, if not, is there a second? I second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Laura, do you feel, that you want to speak to this again?

[315:02] I think I have said all I need to say. Okay, and Mel? I… I'm interested in this, motion because There are a variety of spaces, designated, areas designated as open space. But, I think that… that the idea that there could be, some specificity applied, as I said before, you know, the devil will be in the details of this project. So I… I'm supporting that, because I think it… To bring, an intent that let's at least articulate in… in an area something that you're doing in all of these… in one of these varieties of open spaces. I think that will only make the project better. Okay. Is there other discussion? And those online, I'm, I'm…

[316:01] Anyway, my screen is such that I may not see you. I should, if you raise your hand. Anyway, is there other discussion? Kurt? Thanks, Laura, for bringing this forward. I will not be supporting this. I certainly support the concept, and I think that if there's demand for such active uses, then I would strongly not just encourage, but I would expect that the manager, owner, and so on would provide them. But I don't think that it's appropriate for us to try to impose from the top down something… if we don't know even what it is, or where it is, or anything like that, I think that it's the kind of thing that can happen based on the needs and desires of the residents, and any smart property manager We'll be responsive to those needs and desires, and… and create the kinds of things that will

[317:05] make people want to be there, and stay there, and pay their rent. So, that's why I will not be supporting it, but I appreciate your thinking about this. Any other commentary? Claudia. If I may, yeah, I agree with Kurt on this, and would also just point out that there already is some evidence of this thinking happening, with things like the rooftop decks and the pool that is programmed for at least one of those. So, that is absolutely an active programmatic element, and I expect there may be some others as well. Appropriate to the folks that will be living there. Okay, oh, Mason. Yeah, it's interesting, Claudia, because I'll be supporting it for almost the exact same reason that you're not, which is… I think this is more of a, Because of exactly what you said, to me, this feels more like a,

[318:00] We think this is a good idea, you should be doing this sort of thing, and… More of an encouragement, it doesn't feel like a very hard lift. Based on what we're seeing, So, I'll be supporting it, because it does show our desires for the project. Okay, I just, again, if I'm missing someone, shout out. If not… We'll go to a vote. If I could just make a comment, which is, that I realized from hearing Claudia's comments that I forgot a couple of words here. My intention was that it would be a ground-level active use, where you don't have to go up a floor, go up into a building to do it. And that it becomes part of the streetscape of the project. But I recognize I did not add that to the motion, that I'm not sure that procedurally it's worth trying to edit it at this point, but that was the intention.

[319:00] Can you accept, like, a friendly amendment on it? We can amend the… we can have a motion to amend the motion… amend the amendment. Okay. Okay. Can I move? Before we vote on this. Can I move to amend? To add the words. ground level. Active, ground-level programmatic element. Outdoor, sorry. Amend the above motion to say, active outdoor ground-level programmatic elements. Okay, we have a motion to amend. Do we have a second to that motion to amend? I will second. Okay? I propose that we just… that that this improves the proposed motion to condition. So…

[320:09] I… we now have a motion and a second. I think… I support this amendment that makes The original motion better. Does anyone else want to speak? To this motion to amend the amendment. If not, we're going to vote. Okay. And tonight, I'm gonna go to my right first, and then around, and then on mine. So, ML, you're first. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Laura. Yes. George. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. So, now we're… now, if you would incorporate

[321:00] I… oh, you don't even need to incorporate it, we… okay. Now we're back to… The original, motion. to condition. Okay, any other discussion on this, or we're going to vote on this as amended? Mark, is it appropriate to ask the applicant at this stage to comment if they have any concerns or any thoughts about this before we vote? I, I, I don't… no, I, I, I, I… Well, I mean, we are… we are proposing changing their site plan, and if they're like, yeah, this is easy to do and a great idea, that's one thing that the board might want to know, or if they're like, actually, this would be really hard to do and wreck everything, I think we'd want to know that. I don't know. I know in the past, before we suggest changing somebody's site plan, we let the applicant comment. Okay, the applicant did. So.

[322:01] Oh, we didn't, we didn't hear it online. They gave a thumbs up, Laura. Yeah, they gave a. Oh, okay. Okay. So, I'm going to, I'm going to read the motion, and then we're going to vote. But I'm now, okay, you've edited it, okay. This is the third… this is the… this is… okay. Okay, the motion is… To meet the open space needs of residents and visitors to the site. Applicant shall add an active outdoor, ground-level programmatic element to the site, such as a playground, play area, dog park, or community garden, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of TechDoc. Okay. ML. Yes. Kurt? No.

[323:02] Claudia. No. George. Yes. Mason. Yes. Laura. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, we have, one condition down, and, we are ready for any… Other. Laura, did you… have you had… I know you've been busy with this one, I see. I have something written up. Oh, you sent something. How did you send it? I sent via email, and again, I… Oh, okay. maybe should have used the chat. I sent the… an email to you and Thomas Thomas. Actually, I'll just go ahead and put my language up, and thomas, if you could put that up?

[324:12] So, I'm not going to speak at length, I just will say, as I read through the packet. I found the, TDM plans to be Completely adequate with this exception, and that was the number of electrified, bike charging spaces, long-term bike parking spaces, and the number of cargo bike spaces. And in fact, if you look at the drawing. Some of those cargo bike spaces are, like. have walls on three sides. It would be impossible to use them. So, anyway, so I wrote this motion, and Laura, before I make the motion.

[325:00] And since you had, motion language drafted as well on the same subject, Do you, find… This to be of interest to you. So, I, I would have a couple of questions that I would want to ask before we formalize the motion, just to make sure that we don't accidentally shoot ourselves in the foot and ask for something that it would be really hard to do. Is that okay if I ask my questions? Sure. And I think your language is more specific than what I was going to propose, but I like it if it works. So… First question is, the applicant has proposed a certain number of bike parking spaces that is over and above what they are required to provide, and they had said, you know, they could merge some of those spaces to provide extra cargo bike spaces, and for example. Would merging those spaces be adequate to meet this, this revised language here, or this condition here? Or would this condition require them to carve out additional bike parking space?

[326:07] That's my question. Does that question make sense? I understand it. And, to some degree, that would be a problem for the applicant to solve. To meet the subjective requirement of 9-2-14H2A… B, etc. The TDM requirements, because we're operating under subjective TDM requirements, and I, How they… how exactly they do it. is… It's up to them whether they, use… The bike parking spaces that are over, whether they carve out a car space. how they do it, I… I am… Is up to them.

[327:02] But I think the numbers that we are looking at here are an absolute… Minimum for electrification in cargo bikes. I guess I would love to hear the applicant, but my second question was going to be to ask if we could get the applicant to comment on would this be easy to do? Would this be burdensome? How did they see themselves meeting it if this were a condition? The same, you know, I think it's always appropriate to ask the applicant to comment if we're talking about a change like this. approaching the podium. If I might. So, there's some technical issues, that we have to solve with this, so I'd ask for two things. The first is that if the language could Because this is essentially going to be approved by the city manager, whatever we propose. If the, if the language could allow the city manager to allow us to convert two regular bike parking spaces into a cargo bike, that's really what's required, because the cargo bikes are so much longer. As you say, we do have more bike parking than we need, so we just want to convert, like, two of those spaces to one.

[328:06] We still will have a lot of bike parking spaces, but it would allow us to accommodate the cargo bikes. The second thing is, with the electrification to every room, if it could just be clear that what we're doing is running either conduit or wiring to a stub in a room, so that that room is ready, but it's not being distributed through the room, because without knowing what the actual bikes are, we can't run that distribution. So, with those two, I think that works, right? I would add that just in the context of the same way we look at EV charging. To pre-wire for a thousand bikes? Actually, it's a lot. And we probably wouldn't ever have all thousand bikes electric, so… and one of the other things that we're finding, for example, in EV charging is that, XL, for example, can't provide the ability in their transformers to even wire for all of the cars in our buildings, and so what we're doing is XL just agreed that they would actually allow us to

[329:06] wire for more and use software to go from a full charging rate down to trickle charging, if we get that many part of it. So it's a pretty complicated strategy. I think we could live with what Bill said about how we look at the bikes for two-for-one, and we can split those, and we've got extra spaces. I would ask that we strike the last sentence, or just say, as Bill said, pre-wire each room with conduit. But it's a software and a hardware solution. But I think, in general, we're comfortable with the direction. Okay. Then… Let's modify the last sentence. Will, in addition, all long-term bike parking rooms will be pre… well, stub in, pre-wired? What… what word? I would say we'll provide conduit for future wiring of additional electric bikes, or something.

[330:10] Okay, we'll pro… we'll be… we'll have, conduit provided. Conduit provided. for… additional… For, for future, sorry, not additional, for future… Bike charging electrification. Right, that makes sense. Okay. So I'm gonna make this motion, and then, see if we get a second. And, and then I'll address a couple… a couple issues, but I don't want to do it until we actually have a motion made. So… I move to require that the number of long-term bike parking spaces that accommodate charging is increased to approximately 20%.

[331:04] You know what, I'm gonna modify this and include the staff. Thank you, I was just gonna ask that for TechDoc. Okay, sorry, after, after the final sentence, thank you. this condition will be met. To the satisfaction of staff, Tech Docs. And I'm sorry, let's put that sentence after… The real final sentence ending in charging electrification, so if you just cut and paste it down there. Okay, now I'm gonna make the motion. I move to require that the number of long-term bike parking spaces that accommodates charging is increased to approximately 20%. The accommodation of cargo bikes be increased to approximately 10% Of the total bike spaces, and all cargo bike spaces be electrified.

[332:03] Electrified cargo bike spaces can be counted towards the total electrification requirement. In addition, all long-term bike parking rooms will have conduit provided for future bike charging electrification. This condition will be met to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Tocs. Is there a second? Well, that was a lot of work. Okay, there's no second. Mark, I'll second it. Oh, okay. Alright, we do have a second. I'll just speak to this, and I… I appreciate the applicant's concerns, and I… I… but I do think that, The charging of e-bikes is a low voltage, low wattage.

[333:01] easy-to-accommodate situation. No different than having… than outlet spacing in a living room. Because… E-bike charging is low wattage, two-prong. 120-volt standard electrical accommodation. And I don't want to dismiss the expense of running that into a bike room, but I think that the that a project like this, that is so forward-looking, in terms of its TDM, in terms of its accommodation of bikes, in terms of its accommodations to pedestrians. Is… is… would be making a mistake not to… Ensure future bike electrification. And again, it's a completely different infrastructure requirement. Then charging cars, especially charging cars quickly. And is much more similar to,

[334:04] charging a couple phones, or running a blender, or whatever it might be. So, that's mine. Laura, you're seconded. Would you like to address this? Sure, Mark, I think you make great points, and I absolutely believe that e-bikes are the future. They make getting around town so much easier, especially for people who live at, you know, up and down hills. It just… it's a game changer for getting around Boulder, getting to the Hill area, getting up to the NCAR area, getting up to the Chautauqua area. A lot of the places that people want to go, you need an e-bike. It's just… it just makes it so much smoother, even though I know there are a lot of hardcore road bikers that are not electrified on this board. My only concern with the motion as written is the 10% of bike spaces being cargo bikes. That's a lot of cargo bikes, and I don't know what the current you know, use… what are the current use percentages? What are we seeing in terms of cargo bikes, and how many people have them? You know, bike parking spaces can always be converted.

[335:09] But, requiring that many spaces to be cargo bike spaces, I'm a little unclear about whether there's the need for that. I don't know if staff have a comment about that, but I'm also interested to hear what the rest of the board members say. the applicant's up here. Go ahead, Bill. So we just did some quick research, and there is a code provision that says if you have an electric bike… charging station, it's required to be 3 feet by 10 feet, which was great, it accommodates a cargo bike, but it also just means that now 20% of our bike spaces under this proposal would grow in size by about you know, what is that, 50% or something like that. So, I know for sure that we can't accommodate that within the space that we have on the site, so just be aware that if this were to move through. It's not because… I mean, we can just put plugs at stations for bikes, but because of the city code, it would greatly increase the required space for bikes, and that would impact our first floor.

[336:08] So we would have to probably convert some commercial or parking space to bike parking space. I want to be clear. You're saying that… If a bike parking space is electrified, it becomes a 3x10 foot space. Within the city code, so one way around that would be you would maybe… have a criteria that they just need a charger but can meet normal bike parking space requirements or something. It is a weird little artifact of the code that would change how much space is devoted for bikes pretty considerably. So, sorry to bring that up, but we just figured that out. That… is that in the… 996 parking standards. 996. Yeah.

[337:07] Kurt, you got an idea here? You got an amendment to the, I don't, but it's interesting because we've never heard about that before, and we've required… we've, you know, required electrified spaces. In the past, and people have talked about. Various ways of… accommodating it, okay. Looks like Charles is on it.

[338:02] Section 996E4G. Oh, there it is. Oh, jeez. Wow, there it is. Black and white. Can I ask you a question, Mark? Sure. So, I'm wondering, what if the motion, It's simply that last… Sentence. All long-term bike parking rooms will be… will have conduit.

[339:02] You know, that way, it has the flexibility to become whatever percent the demand requires. It's market-driven. Rather than the percentages being… prescribed from… Up high. Kurt? as I ride… read this 9964G, whatever, it says… When more than 100 bicycle parking spaces are required, at least 5% of bicycle parking spaces must have electrical outlets suitable for charging of electric bicycles. So that applies already in this case, right? So we're just going beyond that. And then it says, The required bicycle charging spaces? Which, to me, would read as that 5%, which is already required. regardless of any condition we're imposing here, must be horizontal and shall be sized 3 feet by 10 feet per space. So, it could be read as any additional electrified spaces don't have those requirements imposed upon them. It's not totally clear to me, though.

[340:24] Okay, I am… In light of this. I, I'm… here… here would be one way to amend this. one, I think we should just trash this. N. Voted down, and then, We will need a vote on it. What's that? You will need to vote on it. Yeah, yeah, we'll need to vote. We'll need to get rid of it via a vote. But just to entice people to get rid of it, then we would, specify that the applicant has to meet 996…

[341:07] et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, G. Or ex… they, they, they don't. The 1018… Doesn't have… it has 3% electrified, not 5. So… All this new code, you're saying? Newer than what they're subject to. What's that? The current… your current application… Yeah, would have to be raised just to meet it on the current application. It was something that was just missed, so it wouldn't be raised in the tech talk submittal. So… The, the, the motion would be… to exceed the requirements in 996 blah blah blah G. By… By some amount, but… Okay, but you heard that he agrees that they need to meet the 5% regardless. Yep.

[342:05] Let's, let's get rid of this motion, and let's take a vote. Or… or do you… or does someone want to amend it? Kurt, are you thinking about how to amend it? Well, if my legal theory is correct. That the 3x10 requirement only applies to the 5%. Then, this could be an additional… It would… the 5% would already count in this. This would be… imply an additional 15%, basically, but the 3x10 feet per space would not be an… would… that requirement would not apply to the additional 15%, but this is a Laurel question. I would agree with you, but it might be helpful to include it in the motion, just to be really clear, if you don't intend for that to happen. Yeah.

[343:03] Also… So that would sort of preserve this. Chandler? Oh, I ju- I may have just found something in the code that might, help out, so in… 996… Sorry, E, or where bicycle parking is, 6. Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking? It says, upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria and the approving authority may approve Reductions to the minimum number of spaces, modifications to the ratio, reductions to the minimum number of larger spaces. And modifications to the maximum number of vertical or tiered racks, if it finds that the long- and short-term bicycle parking needs of the use will be adequately accommodated. So I don't know if that might work here in terms of granting a modification to the number of Larger racks, or if we could squeeze the requirement for the 3x10 parking space into that, and grant a modification.

[344:09] So that they could fit more without having to meet that standard? Just an idea. I'm sorry, just to ask for clarification, Chandler, did that section you just read allow for us to modify the size of the e-bike parking spaces? So, if Laurel wants to read it too, that would help, but I think, it says… Reductions to the minimum number of larger spaces, and modifications to the maximum number of vertical or tiered racks. So I don't know if minimum number of larger spaces is what we would be… Looking at… Like, if you were… If the larger spaces are the 3x10, and the minimum Wow.

[345:06] Yeah, maybe it doesn't work. Well, and that's also meant to be an administrative standard, not necessarily a standard that the planning board would… you know, we would have had to bring that to them. Right. So I think we're on the right track in crafting a new condition, I think. Okay. Sorry. Still need to vote on the motion, maybe that's a good first step. Bill, do you have input? Yeah, just, it might be simplest just to say that you are requesting an extra 15% of electric spaces, and that extra 15% does not have to meet the 3x10 parking requirement, just be done with it. And that would work, I think, for our purposes, for understanding what we need to do. So, to do that, rather than amend this, which Let's just get rid of this.

[346:01] And then… we'll develop another motion. So, I'm calling a vote on this motion. Ml. No. Kurt? No. Claudia. No. Mason. Oh. George. No. Laura. No. And I'm a no. Can I do that? Can I vote no on my own motion? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So, we have a clean slate that failed. Fabulously. Okay. Bill, you… the number you gave… was 15%. Well, you had asked for 20, so 5% is required by code, and I was saying maybe you would just defer an extra 15% above the 5% required by code, and that extra 15% not subject to the 3x10 requirement.

[347:03] Okay. So… I move. That the applicant Add an additional 15% Electrified long-term That, that 15% Of the long-term bike spaces beyond… The 5% required by code be electrified. The additional electrified spaces do not need to meet the 10x3 space requirement. Did you get that? Laurel, did you write that down? Oh, I, okay, oh, I, I… Sorry, I was answering a question. As much as I wish I was that skilled… Okay.

[348:02] Okay. Mark, I can write it as you speak, or I can just try to write it up based on what you just said. Just, just go ahead and write it up, that'd be great. And I can as well.

[349:03] I have on the screen what Laura sent over as she captured it. Mark, Laurel, does this language work? Does it need to be refined? Yes. I think that's excellent. Can we perhaps say… An additional 15% of required bike parking spaces Over and above the number required in BRC996… Five… G… If I have that right. It was, it was, E, I think, little E5. E5G, right. E5G. Yes, E5… Did…

[350:04] So, so… It's a little late for me to be editing, I think, on the fly. E4G. So, after spaces… comma… I think I've got it, Kurt. over… Oh, you got it, Laura? I think so. Over and above the 5% electrified spaces required in 996E4G. Yeah, sounds right. So, Thomas, you would put this language… After the word spaces. I swear that typing was the best, most useful class I ever took in high school. Yeah, I'm alright with it. If you can just send that code section over so that I can… Directly put it into here, that would be ideal. I put it in the chat. Okay, Bill. The last part was to ask if you could specify to staff that the cargo bike spaces could replace the regular bike spaces on a 2 to 1 ratio, so that we can

[351:07] Use our extra bike parking spaces to accommodate the longer cargo spaces. So… the 5%… That's required by code now. That's electrified. That's 50, 51… Spaces that would be electrified and 10x13. So we're not… I'm… I'm… I think leaving that… at the 50. Which, which is implied. Because you meet… you're meeting… 996E4G. So, what this is doing is simply saying, Above and beyond that 50, That 5%, you're gonna do 15%. And… And I'm not… I don't want to get into reducing the minimum

[352:08] For you to meet the 50. Okay? Is that… Totally agreed, and don't want to write your motion or suggest anything. All I'm saying is that by going from the 5% required 10x3 cargo spaces. To the 10% that you're asking for, or asking for those additional… that additional 5% of cargo bike spaces that we can use our extra Single bike spaces to join them together to accommodate those cargo spaces. I'm not asking for more. I'm not asking for more cargo bike spaces. That first section… Oh, I'm sorry. That's the motion that failed. Yeah, I apologize. Yeah, so we've got, yeah, you can get rid of all those words. Okay, so it's just… Okay, no problem. This is all… this is all super helpful. Okay. The only thing is that…

[353:02] do we need to have any sort of, like, double-check by staff at Tech Talk or anything? That would be my preference, yeah. Yeah. Oh, with the tech doc, okay. Yeah, just to confirm, to verify. Okay, so, yeah, okay, let's copy that. Thank you. Just to verify that it's being met. Yeah, no, that… thank you. This is, no, thank you. I'd rather do it right. Okay. Laura, you wrote this, you want to make this motion? I would not take that away from you, Mark. You can make the motion, I'll second it. Okay, just to get this moving along here, I move that an additional 15% of required bike parking spaces over And above the 5% Electrified spaces required in 9-9-6E4 G, Isn't that a big…

[354:03] Yes, it's a big… it's a capital G, okay? Shell be electrified. These additional spaces shall not be subject to the 10x3 Foot space requirement. This condition will be met to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Tocs. Okay, is there a second? I'll second. Okay, who was that? That was Mason. Okay. After all of this, is there discussion, or are we ready for a vote? Anyone? Okay. we're ready to vote, and ML, I'm gonna start with you again. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Mason. Yes.

[355:00] Laura? Yes. George. Yeah. And I'm a yes. Okay. Well, that was a team effort. Okay. Any other… Discussions, conditions, If not, we're back to… The main motion as amended. Would it be now appropriate to speak to the main motion board? It would, Claudia, yes. Fabulous. So, I just want to say a few things about this proposal, because I think it's quite significant for the city. I think this is a big change for this area. A lot of folks recognize that, and it's caused some heartache, but I think it also is a change that incorporates many things that we have been working on and towards in Boulder. Things like adequate student housing, pedestrian-friendly environments.

[356:00] Neighborhood centers with strong public activation. and reduced surface parking. So I think while we can always find flaws with plans for a site of this scale, I want to recognize the really kind of transformational quality of this proposal. I think it shows what we can do with surface parking lots, and it shows what we can do when we start thinking about streets. And the interiors of superblocks as places where neighborhood life actually happens. And I think it's an example of how a neighborhood center, of which we have nearly a dozen in Boulder, can be rethought as more than a variation on a strip mall. I think it's interesting and also somewhat of a shame that we are doing this first in a student area. And when I say that, I don't mean, like, it's a shame that we're doing it. It's really great for the student population. I'm really happy for the folks that will get to live. And… and work and gather in this kind of space, and maybe that's where we need to start, but I think this kind of design can be good for more than just young adults in our community.

[357:07] So this is simply to say, I think this is a forward-looking proposal. I think there's been a lot evolving in our comp plan and in our code that is pointing towards redevelopments like this, and I'm really excited to support it for those reasons. Thank you, Claudia. Who seconded this meeting? Kurt? I think I seconded. And, thank you, Claudia, for those words, I totally agree. The only, thing that I would add is, I feel like this project is finally getting to where we really wanted to get with Boulder Junction, and we were a little too timid. We were a little afraid of making this kind of change, and so we did sort of a halfway, project, which, you know, has had a lot of successes, but didn't… was not as successful as it could be, and I feel like now, with this project, we're finally getting to what is…

[358:07] really, I think, going to be a model for other spaces in the city, hopefully, as Claudia alluded to. So, I'm excited to be supporting this. Any other… oh, Laura? Thank you. Just very briefly, I second and put an exclamation point on everything that Claudia and Kurt just said. And I just really, again, want to commend the applicant for, you know, job, really well done. You have some very creative concepts in here, some very community-centered concepts in here. You're taking a very challenging site between a major arterial and a highway, and making it a place that people are going to want to be. And I think you have really listened, and this project shows the team's experience with the planning review process in Boulder. Thank you, thank you, thank you for bringing us a project that very clearly does meet our criteria.

[359:01] And does, more important than meeting the letter of the law, meets the spirit of it. In really trying to make this, a very future-oriented place. you know, you are taking some risks here, and I think it's going to be a very beautiful result, so thank you so much for what you're doing for our community. Great, thank you, Laura. Any other comments? I'll make a quick comment, because I'm going to be a minority in not supporting it, and it's not because I don't think the project's a great project. I do. I'm… As I mentioned before, I'm very concerned that we're taking out a 15-minute grocery for a neighborhood, with no guarantee of getting it back. And I hope it all works out. Genuinely, I want this project to succeed, but I think, our city needs mechanisms like other cities have. This is not a unique thing.

[360:03] that… ensure that the retail and, neighborhood center that this area is zoned for will actually continue to be that. And we are gambling without any Guarantee that this neighborhood's gonna get back its retail. And there are mechanisms that are available to the city, not for this, but in the future, I strongly recommend, as we look at other things, that we make sure we have those safeguards, so we're not taking neighborhood centers out. Without the promise of getting them back. Other than that, I love the project. I wish I could support it. And I appreciate the developer really working hard to change it up from the first thing. It's markedly better in almost every way. Thank you.

[361:02] Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, thomas, I'm going to need the motion Back on the screen. And Laurel. we need to read the motion, including the amendments, or just as the main motion, as amended? You could say as amended. Okay. Okay, so the motion on the floor is a motion to approve site review application number LUR2024-00071 and Use Review Application Number LUR2024-000. 7-2. With conditions, as recommended by staff, adopting the staff memorandum as finding as fact, Including the attached analysis.

[362:09] Of review criteria, and as amended, by the planning board. Okay, that's the motion. And I'm gonna start with ML. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Claudia? Yes. George. Nope. Laura. Yes. Mason. Yeah. And I'm a yes. Okay, congratulations to the applicant. And, we are closing out Agenda Item 5B. After a lot of good discussion and work by everyone. Bill, applicant? Just two very quick things. First, thank you very much for the engagement on the motions. It saved staff and applicant a ton of headache moving forward, so thank you. And the second thing is, we know there are very good comments that you made that aren't in motions, like safety and speed on the lunarf. We heard you, and we'll get them in there. So thank you for that. Great.

[363:08] Thanks. All I can say is thank you. Okay. Okay, we move on to… let me get my agenda back up here… Yeah, thank you guys. In the order written here, are there any matters from From the board, from any board member. Nope. Okay, Charles, are you, going to be our director for the evening? I have several matters tonight for… I'm just kidding. No matters from staff tonight, and thanks very much for the bit of a marathon, but, we're happy we were able to make up the concept plan tonight, so thanks again. Okay, and, Laurel, any matters from the City Attorney?

[364:02] Not at this time, no. Thank you all. Okay. All right. Oh, Kurt? Can I ask one very quick question? I don't know if… I'm asking… if I should be asking you, but you're the only one here. So, I'm… The question is about the single stair, bill that passed at the state level. Are we working on… legislation or ordinance to… to comply with that? Well, I think we're required to, so where that's folded into the work program and what the actual, effective date is on that, I don't know, but eventually we'll be, yeah, backing our way into that. So Rob Adrians, our chief building official, will be working on that. Okay, maybe a question for Brad sometime. Yeah, I'm happy to follow up on that. Okay, yeah, if you got a chance, I… somebody was asking me, and I didn't know, so thank you. I… I have a question for George under Matters. And, George.

[365:00] Would you be willing, at a future meeting, under Matters, to share Some of your knowledge or research in regard to the kind of requirements That a city, a municipality could make In terms of leases. you know, anyway, you've brought forth points. I understand what you're saying, and yes, absolutely, I would love to talk about that in matters, in a brief… thing when we're together as a planning board, because I do think there are opportunities for us to, especially as this may roll forward, to Claudia's point, this is not the only shopping center that's going to get targeted this way, and we need to… We need to… we need to be cognizant of that and make sure that we're not taking out people's grocery stores and leaving them with nothing at the end of the day. I flagged it from our office, too, to do some research to help, too, George, so we'll probably want to connect with that at some point.

[366:02] Oh, yeah, yeah, I'd be happy to connect with you offline, too, and then we could bring the matters, together, if you want. Great, yeah, I flagged it for our city attorney's team. Great. Okay, We're not gonna debrief the meeting, we're not gonna relive it. the calendar's online. We do have a meeting next week. And, I haven't looked at the packet. What's our big agenda item next week? Anything you can tell us? There's two items, from what I remember, this is just what I remember while Charles is pulling it up. There's a couple of call-ups, there's, an annexation, right? This is for October 7th. And… He's pulling it up. Okay. Two sets of minutes. Packet will be out tomorrow morning. Yeah. Oh, oh, you haven't sent it? It's not posted yet. I knew you guys weren't gonna… Look at it today. Yeah, there are two call-ups, though. The annexation of 5th Street, and then there's one more.

[367:05] He's almost got it. Okay, if… I thought it was just me that I hadn't looked at the packet. Yeah, Chandler has a single-family annexation. G-Safe review. 1844 Folsom. Oh, we… we… Charles, we can't hear you, if you're talking. Sorry about that. Two public hearings, so the first one is a very low-impact single-family, annexation on 5th Street, and the second is the site review for 1844 Folsom. What you guys saw as a concept plan? Then we have a couple of call-ups. Okay. All right. Kurt? Not a quick meeting. Okay, not… no, it's not a quick meeting, but hey, it'll start at 6, not 4.30. Okay, this meeting's adjourned. Thank you all for attending online and in the room.

[368:02] Thank you. Alright, thank you. G'day. Thank you.