October 7, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:03] Okay, good evening, all. I am going to call to order the City of Boulder Planning Board meeting for October 7th, 2025. We have. for planning board members here in the room, Planning Board Member Kaplan and Robles are online, and planning Board Member Boone will be absent this evening. Our first order of business is our, public participation. This is a time where anyone can speak about any topic other than Our, our public hearing items. Those will have a public hearing later in the meeting. And so Thomas tonight is going to walk us through the, rules of public engagement.

[1:12] Thank you, Chair, and yes, I'm just gonna cover some basic rules for our public participation this evening. First of all, we want to let you know that the city has engaged with community members. to co-create. Yes. I'll… Speak a little closer. 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, you can 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.

[2:03] 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 our public participation opportunities, if you are joining us remotely. and you would like to speak, you can use the raise hand icon on Zoom, down on your bottom bar. If you're calling in, you can press star 9 to raise your hand, and if you don't see that raise hand feature, you might need to click the reactions button. And once you expand that, you should see the raise hand function. And that's all for our rules, and we are in the open comment period now, so if there's anybody that would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hands.

[3:14] And we do have one raised hand. Lynn Siegel, I'm gonna go ahead and unmute you, and you will have 3 minutes to speak. Yeah, I'm gonna ask you to call up, the… well, it's… it's hidden to the public, but it's clearly Papelio's at where Hoshi was, and… the mecca, and a scooter shop, and furniture arts, and some good public services for people to have in Boulder. So I ask you to call this up. It's the last day. Furniture arts. How can you turn down a furniture arts place for a giant housing development that's going to elevate the cost of housing in Boulder big time. stop already. And on the other one, 600 Hawthorne, Let's see…

[4:11] That one, I pulled that one up, 600 Hawthorne. Hmm… well, block that one, too. I don't know exactly what it… Oh. I know. Oh, nope. Whatever it is, I don't trust any of you to do the right thing for anything for Boulder. You're… blocking height amendments, you're increasing FARs, you're giving flood zone opportunities to the millennium, which is the last thing we need in Boulder, and Sundance, and CU South, and everything else that's just grow, grow, grow, make it more and more

[5:05] Expensive to live here. Stop already. Stop. And we need these services. We're hoshi is. I took my father there for years. And now, I don't… I drive my car 4 times a year. But one of the times is having to go out to Hoshi Motors way out east of town. Because it's not central anymore, is it? Shame on you, shame on you. You got dollar signs in your eyes. And I see it all the time. It's like, why? Why are you doing this? It's wrecking this town. the more… The more jobs there are, the more housing for the jobs, the more jobs for the housing, the more jobs-housing imbalance.

[6:02] What are you doing about that? That's in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. You're violating it every day. Shame on you. Shame on all of you. Stop already! Done. Thanks for joining us tonight, Lynn. If anybody else would like to speak, please go ahead and raise their hands. Otherwise, we will conclude the open comment period. Anyone in the room? That wants to speak during public participation, not one of our public hearings. Okay. We have no other raised hands online. Back to you, Chair. That, finishes agenda item number two, public participation. Moving on to agenda item number three, we have two sets of minutes to approve, and,

[7:01] I was just reviewing the latest… Packet, which came… Anyway, more recently than the first packet. And I'm a little confused by… what is in the packet here. So, the first agenda item, 3A, is the August 26th draft planning board. meeting minutes, and as I scroll through the packet to get to those, minutes… I see two sets of minutes for September 2nd, is that… what I'm seeing here? Just target this, and it says August 26th. in your packet. As you scroll through, First one is August 26th. when I downloaded it, both September semester, correct? I think you all might have both pulled that up during a…

[8:02] I was uploading a different… replacing the version that was on there, and there was a mistake in the packet for about 15 minutes. Oh! So if you refresh that, you should see the current packet. Okay, so is the first set of minutes in the packet, the August 26th minutes, just mislabeled. No, they're labeled correctly in the current packet. In the current packet. In my packet, they're mislabeled. In the current packet, they're correct. Okay, so, Then, do we have any changes, corrections? or modifications to the August 26th. minutes as they are in the, I see Laura's hand up. Hi, thank you, Mark. I would like to suggest that we not adopt the August 26, 2025 minutes tonight. You folks may have seen an email that I, shared with staff.

[9:02] that this set of minutes, had a matters item for us to discuss staff's proposal about the BVCP update. And some policy choices. And we provided some substantial comments to staff But these have not yet been captured in the minutes, and staff have said that they are working on summarizing our comments for City Council, and so I am suggesting that we wait to adopt these notes until we can include a staff summary of our comments on this very substantial and meaningful item. perk. I would support that, and I, give thanks to Laura for… for calling that out. I… didn't occur to me that we could have… we could ask for that, but I think that that's a good idea. Laura, would you be interested in just going ahead and making a motion to postpone approval? Until a future date, and… and… When staff resubmits them.

[10:02] I move that we postpone approval of the August 26, 2025 Draft Planning Board minutes until such time as staff has been able to update them. Second. Okay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Okay, I'm gonna go left to right tonight. Mason? I feel like I should abstain, because I wasn't there, or should I vote on this? If you weren't there, then no, you would abstain. Oh, that's not. Yeah, abstain. Okay, Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. ML? Yes. Laura? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, we have postponed… those minutes, Now, we go to the, approval of the September 2nd, 2025 draft planning board meeting minutes. Are there any, is there any discussion, suggested changes, modifications?

[11:06] Okay, seeing none… Do I have a motion to approve? I move approval of the September 2nd Planning Board Minutes. Second. Okay. And Mason, I think you were there for this… no, you were not there for this one either. Okay, you're abstaining. Okay. Claudia. Yes. Kurt. Yes. ML. Yes. Laura. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, the September 2nd minutes are approved. We now move to agenda item number 4, call-up items. We have two possible call-up items today. I'm going to read them out, and we'll begin, with item 4A, call-up item. A final plat to subdivide the 2.33-acre site, including the properties generally known as 2504, 2506, 2536, and 2546 Spruce Street.

[12:09] 2055 26th Street and 2537 Pearl Street into two new lots. The plat includes dedications of utility easements, drainage easements, public access easements, and emergency access, and an emergency access easement. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before October 7th, 2025, reviewed under case number TEC2025-00009. Are there any questions, any discussion? About, this particular final plat call-up item. Kirk. I just have one very minor question, which is about the public access easement that's shown on the south side along Pearl Street. It's about a nine and a half, I think, foot wide public access easement, and I'm just wondering what that is for.

[13:11] The plat indicates an 80-foot right-of-way for Pearl Street, which is probably enough for Earl as it's currently built. Do you… does anybody know… About that. Chandler, is that you? Okay. It is, but, I might defer to Curtis. I have the plans up in front of me. Can you introduce yourself, Curtis? And, turn on your mic. There's a little button there, you go… oh, you… There we go. Check, check. Yep. Chair, board, Curtis Stevens with Sinitas Group, civil engineer, On a lot of the docket tonight, apparently. And this one. That is an easement. We actually are doing a detached sidewalk and a wider sidewalk, so we actually needed… the right-of-way didn't quite cover it, so we're adding additional PAE to cover that, and I think…

[14:05] Does that look right to you? I didn't have the plans in front of me, but I've… Spent enough hours staring at it that… Okay, I figured that, but thank you. Any other questions, comments? Allora. Forgive me, I didn't study this one super closely, but is the purpose of the subdivision Does that have something to do with the Mecca building and the desire of the tenant in that building to Purchase it, or make some arrangement with the site owner about that building? Yes. Sorry, this is Chandler Vanscock, Planning and Development Services. Yeah, I mean, the subdivision is both to allow the development outside of the Mecca lot to be built as shown on the approved site review, and then also to create a separate lot for the Mecca owner to be able to purchase. Okay, thank you, that's what I thought. And so this is a completed site review, the only thing we're looking at tonight is just subdividing out the Mecca building.

[15:04] Well, it's changing a whole bunch of lots into two lots, so it's kind of combining the remainder of the lots that are outside of that, the new mecca lot as well. But yes, that is… that is one portion of the subdivision that you're looking at. Got it. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other comment or question? Okay. Any desire to call it up on any board member's part? Okay. We move on to item 4B. Call-up item. A final plat to subdivide 600 Hawthorne Avenue into two lots, And dedicate public act… and dedicate public access easement and utility easement along 6th Street and Hawthorne Avenue, and a utility easement along the east side of of proposed Lot 1. The proposed lots will be…

[16:01] 10,632 square feet and 8,000 square feet. This application is subject to potential call-up on or before October 8th, 2025, reviewed under case number TEC2024-00054. Questions, comments? Desire to call it up. Kurt? I will ask the same question as I asked in the last quest… the last… Sounded like it was a valid question. Yeah, which is about the public access easements, both along Hawthorne and 6th Street. Do you… I'm… my understanding is, generally, this is my neighborhood, and generally in the neighborhood, there's about 8 feet of additional right-of-way outside the existing sidewalk, so that would be enough to provide a detached sidewalk. But… so the… I'm surprised at the need for a public access easement.

[17:00] Alex Pichaz is the case manager on this one. I think those, Easements are to accommodate future detached sidewalk, if and when the property is redeveloped, but Alex, do you want to speak to the easements? Yeah, that's correct. They are for detached sidewalks. Okay. Which will be required as part of the… any development, I assume. Right, if two new single-family homes develop in whatever sequence they'll be required to construct. Yeah. Okay, alright, thank you. Okay, any other questions, comments? Okay, anyone? I don't see anyone desiring to call this up. Okay, that closes out our call-up items. Neither were called up. We move on to Agenda Item 5, which is our public hearing. Agenda item 5A. A public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a petition to annex an approximately 0.96-acre property, generally located at 915 Fifth Street, with an initial zoning designation of

[18:12] residential estate, RE, case number LUR2024-00062. So, the way this is going to go is, we're going to have a staff presentation, clarifying questions from the board. The applicant will have an opportunity to present. Clarifying questions to the applicant, and then the board will deliberate on the, possible annexation. So we're gonna begin with Chandler. All right. Thank you, Mark, and good evening, Planning Board members. As Mark just said, we're here tonight to consider the annexation and initial zoning of 915 15 15th Street.

[19:00] Just to quickly go over the review processes, So, annexation, as you all know, is the process whereby land is incorporated into the municipal boundaries. Land may be considered for annexation if it complies with state annexation statutes, as well as the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan provides a framework for annexation and urban service provision within the city. Per annexation Policy 117B, The City will actively pursue annexation of substantially developed Area 2 properties along the western boundary of the city below the blue line. Which is what this property is. If a property is annexed, zoning is established consistent with the land use designation in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So in terms of the location of the site, Sorry, I had to print out my notes today. The subject parcel overall contains about 1.2 acres. It is about .96 acres that is currently, up for annexation.

[20:03] That site is located on the western edge of the city of Boulder, on the west side of 5th Street, and east of Flagstaff Road. The eastern approximately 110 feet of the parcel, which is shown in orange on this image. Was annexed into the city in 1952 through Ordinance 1696. The previously annexed portion of the property provides continuity with regards to eligibility for annexation. The property is not directly adjacent to City of Boulder right-of-way, as 921 5th Street lies between this property and 5th Street to the east. 915 5th Street is accessed from 5th Street via a shared driveway that crosses the adjacent 845 5th Street property to the south. The shared driveway also serves the 845 5th Street property. An existing driveway easement covers the shared driveway. City of Boulder Water and Sewer. is present in 5th Street and currently serves adjacent parcels, including the unannexed 845 5th Street property.

[21:00] The existing shared driveway easement allows for the installation of water and sewer services along the shared driveway to provide connection to the existing residence on the subject parcel, 915 5th Street. In terms of existing conditions. The property is currently not being served by City of Boulder Water or Sewer, but rather has been provided water via water delivery service and a cistern. No water well exists. Sanitary sewer is currently handled via a permitted septic system. The property was originally located above the blue line and not eligible for City of Boulder water service. But a blue line amendment approved by the voters in 2016 placed the existing residents below the blue line, and eligible… made the property eligible for water service connection upon annexation. More recently, in 2023, one of the primary water delivery service providers in Boulder County ceased operations, and as a result, property owners have been struggling to consistently have reliable water. This has become a significant concern during wildfire season, and as such, the owners of 915 5th Street find annexation and access to City of Boulder water service critical.

[22:13] The property is located in BVCP Planning Area 2. Area 2 refers to land that is now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with city policies. 1.08, adapted to limits on physical expansion, 110, growth requirements, and 117, annexation. Annexation is required before adequate facilities and services are furnished to properties in Area 2. The blue line runs through the 915 Fifth Street property. The portion lying west of, and therefore above the blue line, is not eligible for water or sewer services, and is therefore undevelopable. The Boulder Valley Comp Plan land use designation for the site is low density residential. The density anticipated for LR areas is 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre, and the anticipated uses are detached single-family units.

[23:13] The applicant is requesting annexation into the City of Boulder with, an initial zoning designation of RE, or Residential Estate. The site is designated as low-density residential, as I mentioned. Which anticipates, low-density single-family units. Lr land use anticipates predominantly, oops, single-family detached units. The proposed zoning is RE, which has a density range consistent with the land use designation and would be compatible with the surrounding area, which, as you can see here, is also, in the nearby blocks zoned RE. So, as I just mentioned, the proposed zoning designation is Residential Estate, or RE. There is an existing detached dwelling unit on the property, which will remain in place following annexation.

[24:01] The proposed annexation agreement, which was provided as an attachment in your packet, prohibits any new development on the .48-acre portion of the property above the blue line. And restricts future development potential for the remaining portion of the lot to one dwelling unit only, so there's no additional development potential for the property proposed for annexation. The only new construction proposed as part of this annexation is the addition of one water line and one sewer line within the private driveway easement serving the property. And a new fire hydrant at the base of the driveway. So as I mentioned before. Annexations are required to comply with state annexation statutes, as well as the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances of the City. Pursuant to Colorado revised statutes. 3112-1041A. This property is eligible for annexation if the annexation is completed in a series. A series annexation occurs when the property is annexed in portions concurrently, to achieve contiguity through approval of two separate ordinances.

[25:04] The first ordinance is intended to annex a portion of the property that can currently meet the one-sixth contiguity requirement. Approval of the first ordinance would then establish the new municipal limits and create at least 1-6 contiguity to the city limits for the remainder of the property. Annexation of the remainder of the property would then be approved in a second ordinance. To meet the terms of the series annexation, the applicant filed two separate annexation maps and requested a serial annexation in the petition. This process will require at least two public hearings. The first hearing, which we are at now, is where Planning Board will make a recommendation to Council, and the second hearing will be City Council making the final determination to approve or deny the proposed ordinances. In terms of public comment, noticing was, noticing of the application has been done consistent with the land use code requirements. Notice was mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property, and a sign was posted on the property for at least 10 days prior to the hearing.

[26:04] All notice requirements of Section 942 of the Boulder Revised Code have been met. No public comments or questions have been received in response to the public notice. So there are 3 key issues for discussion tonight. The first is whether the proposal The proposed annexation petition complies with applicable state annexation statutes. The second is, is the proposal consistent with the City's annexation and other Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies? And the third key issue is whether the initial zoning request of RE, or residential estate, is appropriate for the subject property. So for the first key issue, which is state statutes. Staff has reviewed the annexation request for compliance with Sections 3112, 31, 3112-104, 3113-105, and 3112.107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.

[27:03] And with Section 30 of Article 2 of the State Constitution, and finds that the application is consistent with the statutory and constitutional requirements, refer to Attachment F. For staff's analysis of the state annexation statutes. Key issue number 2, which is whether the proposal is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies. As I mentioned before, the property at 915 5th Street may be considered for annexation due to its designation as an Area 2 property. The Area 2 designation for this property refers to the planning area now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with BVCP policies. Pursuant to Boulder Valley Comp Plan Policy 117C, because the developed portion of the property is located in Area 2 and was moved east of the Blue Line in 2016, the property is considered substantially developed, and no additional dwelling units may be added. The annexation will allow connection of the existing home to the city's water systems, and will provide a critical public health benefit by providing safe and quality drinking water, as well as a new fire hydrant, thereby reducing the public health threat that can occur from failing septic systems and improving wildfire safety on the property and in surrounding area.

[28:19] In terms of the zoning key issue. Initial zoning is established pursuant to Section 9218, Zoning of annexed Land in the Boulder Revised Code. If a property is annexed, zoning will be established consistent with the goals of the land use map and the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. As described above, the site is designated as Low Density residential, or LR, which anticipates a density of 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre or less. LR land use anticipates predominantly single-family detached units. The proposed zoning is residential estate, which has a density range consistent with the land use designation and would be compatible with the surrounding area, which is also zoned RE. Considering that the adjacent parcels and surrounding area are zoned RE, staff finds the proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying land use designation and the community's desired future.

[29:03] Land use for the area. So, in conclusion… Staff finds that the proposed annexation is consistent with state statutes, as well as the policies of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, and that the initial zoning request of residential estate is consistent with Comp Plan goals and the land use designation as well. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board adopt the following motion, which I have here. And I will not read the whole thing out to you, but it is there for when we need it. And now I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Great. Excuse me. Thank you, Chandler. Are there questions for staff from anyone? I'm just looking online, and ML? Thank you. Thank you for that presentation, Chandler. My question… concerns…

[30:00] The area above the blue line. So, I understand it cannot be developed. So, won't be benefiting from city services, but it also doesn't provide a community benefit to Boulder. So, I'm curious as to why that piece there is being annexed? Can we annex, you know, everything below the blue line, and not annex the part that there is no benefit to annexing? So the comp plan actually only requires substantial community benefit for properties that have remaining development potential. So, for properties that are on the western city limits that are below the blue line, they're considered substantially developed. So, we don't require substantial community benefit as part of this annexation. That's… that's the part of the policy that says that the city will actively pursue. Annexation of these properties, as opposed to other properties, that have substantial development potential, that's where we negotiate and we get the community benefit.

[31:02] So in this case, OSMP doesn't really want the property, but we also can't require them to subdivide it off and leave it in the county. So that blue line can't be a cutoff line, I'm hearing you say. That isn't an option. There's a cut-off line for development, but we can't require them to sell a portion of their property because of it. Or just to have it remain in the county. That isn't possible. It can't be in two jurisdictions. You know, maybe it could be, but I think that typically the city's policy is just to annex the entire property. Got it. Thank you. That's my only question. Okay, Kurt? First of all, to follow up on ML's question, I believe currently it's already split between the city and the county, right? The lower 110 feet, or whatever. is already annexed, so it certainly would be possible. To annex part of it, an additional part of it, it seems to me.

[32:04] Yes. And then, regarding the development potential, that's… really staff's interpretation of whether something has development potential, right? That's not specifically outlined… defined in the code. It's stated in the comp plan. It is stated in the comp plan, but it's not really defined in the comp plan. Isn't that correct? Well, and I think when we're talking about future development potential, we look at the potential zoning district that's going to be placed on it, and do an analysis of how many units it would support in this particular case. But it does actually say in Policy 117C that properties on the western edge of the city that are below the blue line are considered substantially developed. Correct, yeah. But we do that analysis based on the zoning to determine whether or not there's any additional potential. Okay. So, following up on that, what is the square footage of the existing house? Do you know? I would have to defer to the applicant. Okay.

[33:07] And if the entire property were annexed. What would the floor area, allowable floor area under the compatible development rules be? Not sure. Okay. I can look it up. Yeah. Okay. Okay, those are my… I can do it if I stop sharing my screen. Okay. Claudia? So, Chandler, you talked about water service, as being important for fire protection in this location. And I was wondering if, as part of the proposed annexation agreement, there are any requirements for this property to come into compliance with WUI building or landscaping codes? No, because they're not proposing any changes to the property as part of this. Okay, is there… is there any mechanism for recommending such requirements?

[34:09] So the comprehensive plan also… States… that for… So annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on terms and conditions that respect existing lifestyles and densities. The City will expect these areas to be brought… To city standards only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject area or of the city. So, there's nothing in there currently that requires them to come into compliance with their new… I mean, they've been in this process since way before, the WUI standards were adopted. So, no, there's nothing in there currently negotiated. Thank you. Mesa.

[35:00] So, a lot of my questions had to do with WUI, but I think you just kind of negated a lot of them. But one potentially remaining, the driveway geometry has… is there an opportunity to… have Boulder Fire look at the grade with turnouts, things of that nature, to make sure that… that this is accessible? Yeah, we did work very closely with David Lowery, the fire chief. He's been out to the property and worked with them. He has determined that they can get up the driveway if needed. Okay, cool. And then my… this other one is a more general question. And maybe I'm just being dense, because I feel like you've talked about this a little bit, but I'm not… I'm not picking up on it. Should there be a broader Hills annexation framework to avoid piecemeal precedents? Like, should we… I don't quite understand the process as to why we're doing it in piecemeal, not just as, like, a whole, I guess. Yeah, I mean, so the…

[36:01] The way that we kind of interpret the comprehensive plan policy about actively pursuing annexation. It's really just about not providing, or not requiring, additional community benefit and being supportive of proposed annexations, but the city historically hasn't really gone out and kind of proactively, force properties to annex. It is still voluntary. So in this case, these property owners came in with an individual petition for annexation. if the other neighbors had expressed interest, they could have come in and offered as a group annexation. We would have reviewed that and supported it, but… They didn't, so… So the policy basically is just not to erect barriers and… and to… okay. And that's all my questions. Okay, and I think Laura… Laura, if you're there and you have questions, raise your hand, otherwise we're going to skip past you. You had mentioned that you may not be available for this.

[37:01] most of… I'll call on myself, most of my questions were answered. Chandler, thank you very much for doing the map work and so forth, and I don't know if you had a chance to read that. memo, but I was… I was pleasantly surprised that all the surrounding property owners had Whether annexed or not, had city water, so this was the… Last holdout. I do have a technical question. You said… so, annexations are… subject to… the, advice of Planning Board, but only council can actually Adopt the ordinance to Approve the annexation. But since we have to do this because of the state law of the contiguity issue.

[38:02] are we… We are just advising approval or denial of the annex… of two annexations, one and then the other. Okay. And then Council would then actually formally approve… those in sequence. Correct. Alright. Okay, I don't have… I don't have any other questions for staff. So… Oh. Okay, and Laura is here, no questions. Okay. Alright. Any, any additional last questions for staff? Okay. It's now time for the applicant, if they have anything to say or make a presentation, now is the time to do that. And the microphone is on, and please introduce yourself. I will. Hi, my name is Rochelle Woods. And I want to, first of all, thank you all for your time, because this property is…

[39:01] special, to say the least. My husband Lee, and I, Lee's a veterinarian, and we've lived here about 30 years, 30 plus years. In that time, we both owned two really small businesses, a veterinary clinic that nobody here is older than us, but was Marshall Road at one point, and now is, Broadway Animal Hospital. Lee has since retired. I still have a little business. We both employed employees from the City of Boulder. We were, we've been very involved in community, putting the first mobile adoption unit on the road. We bought our home in, 2001. We came from Missouri to Colorado, like many have from other places. And, we love our property. Someone asked about square footage. It's not… it's a two-bedroom house. We didn't build big, we… it's my husband and I only.

[40:03] We have been trucking water to our property for 20-some years. And, as we've gotten older, it just gets scarier. We've been, involved in almost to this point, so I can't tell you, if I sound a little emotional, how good it is to finally be here, because We had to, you know, bring it to a ballot. We started this process in 211. 211. So, it's been a long road. Water delivery is becoming less and less reliable. We've been left without water multiple times. It's scary, because if you don't have water, as I was told years ago, a small kitchen fire can turn… I always likened it to, I didn't want to be Mrs. O'Leary's cow burning down the city of Boulder. So, this water would allow us to sleep better. We really appreciate everybody's work. This started way back with Edward Stafford and Chris Maycheck, for those of you who

[41:13] know, and I know how many hours planning, you know, you all have put into this, but we would just be so grateful if we could get this to Council again. You know, it was way before the blue line, and we want to… I always kid, I wanna go out toes up in my house, but not in a fire. So, I'm hoping this goes smoothly, and we're here for any questions you have, but we have no plans to move. We're, committed to the community of Boulder, and even though we've lived in the county, we've employed in the city, and have done all our charity work in the city, so… Thank you for your time. I know this property's complicated. I think it's a really special place, and I started communicating with Dave Lowery, wow, back in 2011.

[42:09] So, he has even gone as far as to say we've really followed the rules. We don't have… you know, things within… much foliage within 5 feet of our house, and so we've tried to be conscious of where we live, and also, haven't tried to expand the house. We've just… Loved being there, but we'll sleep better if we have water. Our engineer, Curtis Stevens, is here. He's probably better for more technical questions, but if anybody has anything for me, that's why we're here. Great, thank you very much. We appreciate your time tonight. Okay, questions for the applicant. Okay.

[43:00] Okay, Kurt, you look like you may have one, but no? Okay. Okay, alright. We're going to then, go to our public hearing. Which is an opportunity for anyone, either online or in the room, to speak to this particular item. And, thomas, I don't know if we have anyone… online that wants to speak to this? Sure, yeah, we don't have anybody signed up in person for this item. But if anybody's online that would like to speak to Item 5A, please go ahead and raise your hand. We have one raised hand so far. Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you will have 3 minutes, and I just unmuted you, so you can go ahead and begin speaking, and I'll start your timer. No one seems to be curious why this land was Outside of the blue line in the first place. No curiosity whatsoever.

[44:02] I'm just gonna trust that it was there for a reason. And that… This is… this is an up-valuing of the property. To be annexed, and to have, you know, that… I think we've got enough… housing cost issues in Boulder without upvaluing things like you did with 1015 Juniper, when, oh, it's on a flood plain, and we can't, we can't expand our place into that. Now they're building every square inch of that place with a subsidy from the city of about 5 million bucks. That's just not okay with me. That 2016 decision isn't okay with me. I don't know the circumstances of it, and I don't know why it was outside of the blue line, and now why it's inside the blue line. And I think that's… A fair question to ask. And to understand. Before you go and approve an annexation.

[45:01] I mean, as much as the next person, okay, I can empathize with the people that they need water. But they bought this place without water. So what gives? Free Palestine. Get the heck out of Gaza! Stop the occupation. Reparations, big time. Then we wouldn't have people so desperate. In this country, For getting an annexation. that… You know, when they were… they were outside of the blue line. You buy it outside the blue line, that's what you get. I know they've been great philanthropists to the community. That really shouldn't have anything to do with it. Why was it outside of the blue line in the first place? What happened in 2016? Why? Have you no curiosity?

[46:03] I think the blue line's just, you know, a figment of our imaginations. The blue line is why this place is what it is. So that you don't have any building above it. And like I say, It's… Obscene. that the United States is not supporting. Palestine. And that's where all our money's going. Everyone, Phil Weiser, Bought by AIPAC. Everybody. Governors? It's all… This nefarious plan. And I won't see a local city issue like this annexation. They just accepted without protest.

[47:00] Thank you, Lynn. If anybody else would like to speak for the public hearing on this item, please go ahead and raise your hand. Otherwise, we will conclude this portion of the meeting. Okay, that concludes the public hearing. And now we're moving on to board deliberation, and Motion-making. So, does any board member have… Thoughts about this before we move to motion making? Hurt. Overall, I support the proposed annexation. I think that it makes sense in a lot of ways. My only concern is about the amount of actual development potential that remains on this lot, and I understand that the current property owners have zero Plans to develop it, which is great, but at some point, someone else is going to own it, and By my calculation, And I think that I actually undercounted

[48:03] But, it would be about 10,400… 10,454 square feet of floor area allowed under the compatible development rules. Which… is a lot. So, I would, I'm, I guess, putting forth the possibility of an amendment to the annexation agreement to limit the allowable square footage to, say, 3,000 square feet. And so I can put that as a motion, or just get people's general thoughts on that. I have a question. When you say 3,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet additional, or 3,000 square feet total? Because I… and this may be a question that goes back to the applicant. I was looking at the county records.

[49:00] And… I… I… I can pull them up again, but I thought it was… Let's just ask the applicant, can you tell us what the county thinks your square footage is? Yes, that's what we're taxed about. Right. About being very exact. around 3200. Could we please have the speaker use a microphone? I'm sorry. Yeah, come on up, tap, tap… Tap, tap the button there on the, Yep, there we go. Thank you, Lee. Okay. Okay. So, we're not… huh. I haven't pulled the records and probably not paid enough attention, but I think we're around 3,200 square feet. So my intent was in making this proposal was not to limit them below what is currently built. So I had… that was why I asked the question before, and she said, well, it's a two-bedroom house, and so I thought 3,000 would be sufficient, so higher would $3,500 or something.

[50:14] would be fine by me. I'm not fixed on that number, but I think that it would be appropriate to limit it well below 10,000 square feet. Two other board members have, thank you, Lee, you… Thank you. Yeah. Ml. Yeah, I was curious about that as well, and that's why I was wondering about the property that's above the blue line. I know it's not developable, but I'm guessing it's a square footage. Would count as total square footage, which impacts the amount of buildable land. that remains. So… You know, it's… I… again, I… I don't…

[51:08] I don't… I'm not interested in, kind of limiting what the current people are able to do, i.e. get water and city services. But I do think we are opening this for potential redevelopment into a McMansion up on the top of the hill there, which, are always a challenge to Boulder as the blue line shifts, to see housing going up, where we all think that this is, not developable. So, I think I would be interested in supporting something, to… along the lines of what Kurt is talking about. Okay, I'll make a comment that, Kurt, I… I actually, Count.

[52:07] the area. above the blue line, as A being undevelopable, and it makes logic, logical sense, to exclude that. from… a… Floor area calculation of what is developable. And I think that, while, the addition of a fire hydrant is an advantage to the city in that location, the… The connection to city water is a… a great advantage to the applicant, and I don't begrudge them that, but is also adds… A significant value to the property over a property that is, is not connected to city water. So, I think a reasonable development limit. Understanding that any development About… with… with our new…

[53:05] inclusionary housing ordinance applying to single-family residents is that there would be… benefit to the community at that point as well. So… I would be interested in supporting that at a higher number, 4,000 something. 4,000 total, according to The way the county calculates it, which is different It's a variable item in terms of square feet of walkout basement and stuff. Anyway, I've been doing battle with the county on how you define what is the total square footage. So, Do you have a… do you… do you have a draft of something that you're… Ready to… ready to pursue? I do. Okay. Before… before we do that, can… can we just ask staff a question about, just to fact check, and verify or modify Kurt's estimate of the development potential here?

[54:06] His estimate was accurate, around 10,000 square feet. And in the annexation agreement where it says this lot is considered to have no additional development potential, does that just apply to additional units, but does not apply to additional square footage? That's correct. Can you explain why that is? Because I would think that a larger house would also have larger water demands. Yeah, again, that… It's a stock clause that goes into annexation agreements like this that is designed to limit additional units, not additional square footage. A residential water line that's being brought to the property is going to be sized for a property that's, you know, 1,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet.

[55:04] Okay, thank you. And according to the county, the current, square footage is 2,300 square feet, but they do calculate Florida area quite a bit differently than we do. So, I move that Planning Board recommend that City Council amend the annexation agreement to limit built floor area on the property to 3,500 square feet. Okay, and before we go to a second… if anyone… we have this brief moment in time where we may discuss wording. Does anyone want to… address Kurt or his motion before There's a second. I, I would, even though… A 4,000 square foot home is a very large home.

[56:01] I would, I would be much more likely to support this if the total square footage was 4,000. Why is that, Mark, may I ask? I think that, when we talk ab- the, there is a… I don't know if it was in BBC Policy 1.17, that discusses, and I don't have my… BVCP packet open, but there is an acknowledgement of the types and sizes of properties Adjacent to this, and some of these are very modest, some of them are… ridiculously large, and, so, I think that, allowing… For, a subsequent owner to…

[57:04] modestly increased the size up to a total of 4,000 in that location, on a lot that size, in that zoning. area. is a reasonable amount. And, so, that's… that's my thought. Speak to that. I actually agree, for the most part, with Mark on this. I think… the goals that we might have in trying to limit the size of a structure on this site do not have anything to do with whether or not this is going to be luxury housing at any point in the future. It already is. It always will be based on this location. I think our interest here should be in You know, preserving some sort of, what's the word that I'm looking for here? I mean, the very things that we were trying to get at with the blue line in the first place, which is not having visible development above certain elevations and the like, and I think in that sense, $3,500 versus 4,000 is not the real issue. I'm inclined to go with the higher 4,000 to allow for…

[58:06] you know, modest modifications on the site in the future, and also because we do have some uncertainty between how the county measures, your home size and how the city seems to be measuring it, so I would also support that slightly higher number. Kurt. I would accept a friendly amendment to 4,000 square feet. I'm not gonna fight too much over 500 square feet. I do feel, though, that any kind of a limitation close to what is currently there actually is most in… most congruent with 1.17 of the BBCP, which says. Annexation of existing substantially developed areas, which is this, will be offered in a manner and on terms and conditions that respect existing lifestyles and densities. So. the… the size of the house is not specifically about lifestyle… it's not about densities. Maybe to some extent, it's about lifestyles, but really, to me, it's saying.

[59:09] We want these things to stay pretty much the way they are, which actually Speaks in favor of a limitation on substantial increase in size. So, Are you okay if Thomas modifies that to 4,000? I am okay. Thomas, can you change that? Thank you. Okay, I will second that motion. Wait a minute, I have a question. I have my hand up. Sorry, I didn't think you saw. Well, ML, hang on just… I'm, okay, let's go ahead with your question, but we do have… we do have a motion and a second, and we can speak to the motion and the second now, if you'd like, or if you have a question for someone in relation to the motion, go ahead.

[60:00] I was trying to ask the question… I had my hand up before you… it was seconded. However, so my question is, and I think that Chandler or Charles would be able to answer this. You've been talking about the difference between the way the county figures score footage and the way the city figures score footage. Right now, the county says that the existing property is, what, 20… did you say 2,500 square feet? What would the city say that same property square footage is? Is it higher or lower? I don't know, we don't have… records of the construction, because it's in the county. So I'd have to look at floor plans and measure it out. I'm not sure what the difference is between the county's definition of floor area And the cities. If anything, I would imagine ours is probably stricter, so I would guess that our floor area would probably be smaller than what the county is saying, but… Again, I'd have to look at actual floor plans to make that determination.

[61:02] Okay, it's just that, you said that All along that the county and the city figure them differently, but you don't have any historical overall reference as to whether one is Yeah, it's… Bigger or lower, you just know they're different. Is that correct? Correct. So I'm guessing what we're saying is 4,000 square feet. we're saying… as calculated by the City of Boulder, since it'll be in the city, is that Is that… Yes. Oh. Okay, thanks. Okay, ML, any other question? Okay. All right, we have a motion and a second. Kurt, it's your turn to speak to your motion, if you have anything additional.

[62:00] Yeah, I'll just reiterate that I feel that this is most consistent with the policy, BVCP policy 1.17, as I explained. I think that a… Allowing for a vast increase in housing size would not be consistent with that policy. Great. A second, I concur. Any other comment? Or debate. Okay, then we will go to a vote, and Mason… Actually, before we vote, I did have a comment. I'm sorry, Laura, did I… I'm missing hands. I was… I was slow on the hand raise, it's not your fault, Mark. So I wanted to comment and say I'm not going to be supporting this. So my concern here, I share everybody's concern with not being a fan of large, very, very large single-unit homes. My concern here is with fairness and equal application of our policies. It does not sound like this has been required of past annexations. We have no guarantee that this would be required of future annexations, because this is not actually written into the policy.

[63:11] in the BBCP, and it is not the way that staff has interpreted it in the past. And I do have some concern about the, you know, what it might mean for future properties that we do actively want to annex, who might then become scared off of annexation because they don't want that limit on their development potential, which they would have if they remain in the county. And many of these properties are already being served by city water, so they don't have that strong incentive to annex into the city. I would also point out that, as other board members have mentioned, because we do not have occupancy limits, you know, a single unit home can become home to many family units, in the future. And, it does seem that if we, in the future, change what is possible in terms of number of units on RE lots.

[64:02] It sounds like this development, annexation could be amended. And if we write a size limit into it, that becomes harder. So I just feel like this is a very complex thing that I'm not… Not going to support changing it in this way tonight. Thank you, Laura. I'll, take the opportunity to reply to that, in that… Annexations, as we have been taught and studied, are a negotiation. This is not a site review, this is not a use review. This is a negotiation. And as evidenced by the annexation agreements that I've been involved in, they have each been unique and different and subject to the best advice of this board in relation to BBCP policies and, benefit to the city, so…

[65:01] I… I don't… I understand the concerns about consistency, but we're… we're dealing with the BBCP and annexation, not site review and code. So, that's my, that's my reason behind allowing for and being willing to discuss this sort of variation, amongst, amongst sanctions. So, anyway, any other comment on this This motion. Okay, and if I'm… I don't see any hands up. Okay, I've got to look at everybody. All right, we're going to, vote. Mason? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt. Yes? Laura? No. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, so that is a 5-2-1 in support, and unless anyone has anything else they need to say, we're going to close out Agenda item

[66:05] 5A. Congratulations upon your… Well, we… we only amended the annexation agreement. Oh! Okay, alright, oh my goodness, God, I keep jumping ahead here, I'm… Got, okay. Well, and to be precise, we didn't amend it, we just recommended that City Council amend it. We, we, yes, we, we had a motion to add a recommendation to Council. Now, is there anyone who has a, a motion, and fact, Chandler, could you put up your suggested motion language? I can pull it over into the dock. Thomas, okay.

[67:05] Kurt, you got your hand up? Go ahead. I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed series annexation of the property located at 915 Fifth Street, with an initial zoning designation of residential estate, RE, pertaining to case number LUR2024-0. 00062, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement. As amended? As… no, as proposed amended. in Attachment D. Sorry, I shouldn't have made that. Editorial comment. I, I, yeah, I'm not sure we should be adding as proposed amended. We already made the recommendation that City Council amend it. I think we should just have a recommendation to approve the annexation.

[68:02] Yes. Should I do this again? That was… I put that in as a… Humorous aside, but that was not… Yeah, let's just make a clean… a clean… Okay, let me try this again. Sorry about that. I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed series annexation of the property located at 915 Fifth Street, with an initial zoning designation of residential estate, RE, Pertaining to case number LUR2024-00062, incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the proposed annexation agreement in Attachment D. Thank you, Kurt. I will suck in. And Laura has seconded. Okay, Kurt. It's your turn to speak to your motion. Okay, yeah, I have nothing to add. I think that this makes a lot of sense, given the, the annexation,

[69:01] the policies in the comp plan, especially 1.17. So, I think that this is something that will be of benefit to the city, and certainly of benefit to the property owners. Laura, anything to add? Nothing to add, I just… I think it meets our criteria for annexation. Great, thank you. Any other board member with Any comment on this motion? Okay, now we can go to a… a vote on the, on the main motion. Okay. Mason? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Correct. Yes. Laura? Yes. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Now, congratulations to the applicant who just left. Okay. Okay, thank you, Chandler. Okay.

[70:01] we, does anyone need a break, or are we ready to jump into the next item? Okay. Okay. On we go. Our next item is a public hearing item, agenda item, 5B, public hearing and consideration of a… of a site and use review for the redevelopment of 1840 and 1844 Folsom Street with residential uses. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing office buildings, and proposes 144 units, including studio, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, totaling 124,749 square feet. The proposal includes a request for a height modification to allow for 55 feet in height, modification to setbacks, number of stories, and bike parking standards. The applicant has requested vested rights.

[71:12] reviewed under case number LUR2024-00077 and LUR2024-000. 7, 8. Okay, so… As I had explained in the previous item, we'll begin with a presentation from staff, followed by clarifying questions from the board. A presentation from the applicant. With questions for the applicant. And, followed by a public hearing. and then board deliberation. So… We will begin with… Staff presentation. Allison?

[72:05] All right, thank you for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine, I'll be presenting this next item. In tonight's presentation, I will cover the information that was provided in staff's memo, including planning process to date, the existing site and surrounding context, a summary of the proposed project, key issues for discussion, and then conclude with the staff recommendation. The project was first presented to Planning Board as a concept plan in October of 2024. At that time, the board concluded that the project aligned with BBCP policies and overall were supportive of high-density residential. The board did provide some suggestions, including a more cohesive connection to the internal courtyards, additional open space amenities, and a simplified material palette. City Council did not call up the item, and the applicant proceeded with a site review application in January of 2025. Staff has reviewed the application and is recommending approval before Planning Board tonight. City Council will have the option to call it Planning Board's decision, which is scheduled for next month.

[73:03] The site review is required based on the size of the development and requested modifications, including height modification up to 55 feet, setback modification to the rear yard, variation to the percentage of long-term bike parking and the location of short-term bike parking, and the percentage of compact spaces. The applicant has also requested vested rights. The height modification and vested rights request, requires a decision by planning board. A use review is also required for ground floor residential in a BR1 zone that is less than 30 feet from a major street. The proposed ground floor uses do not include dwelling units. And last, the site was posted, and public notice was provided per code. Several public comments were received and have been included in the packet. Primary concerns are related to building height and construction impacts. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Folsom Street, between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street, and it's comprised of two properties located at 1840 and 1844 Folsom Street.

[74:00] The northern parcel is designated as high-density residential, which consists of attached dwelling units with an anticipated density of more than 14 dwelling units per acre. The southern parcel is designated as general business, which consists of a mix of business uses, and states that housing is encouraged and even may be required in areas where housing is compatible with surrounding businesses and as a transition to other residential areas. The site is zoned BR1, which is defined on the slide. The surrounding area is zoned BR1 to the north, south, and east. transitions to BT2 along Folsom into the west, and then to RH2 further west. Immediately surrounding the site is high-density residential to the north, commercial to the south and east, and mixed residential and commercial to the west across the street from Folsom. The larger surrounding context is also quite varied and consists of office, retail, and residential uses. Further east are activated commercial cores, such as the 29th Street Mall, the Village Shopping Center, and Arapaho Shopping Center. Further north and west, the context shifts to lower intensity mixed-density residential uses, and further south shifts to higher intensity commercial uses.

[75:05] Building form and intensity also varied in this area, with 1 to 3 story buildings immediately to the south and across the street to the west. The Horizon West building, which is to the north, is about 10 stories tall, and then the building form and uses do intensify to the east and south with taller commercial buildings, especially along Canyon. Overall, the area is walkable with direct access to many services and shops. Both properties total about 1.49 acres. The existing property at 1844 Folsom contains a one-story brick office building constructed in the mid-1970s. The existing property at 1840 Folsom contains a three-story stucco medical office constructed in the late 1970s. The buildings are set back between 27 and 40 feet from the street, with parking in the rear, and the sites appear to be primarily impervious area with minimal landscaping except for the front yards. The site is impacted by the 500-year floodplain, as shown on the slide.

[76:00] And the site is subject to two area plans, the Boulder Valley Regional Center design guidelines, which were adopted by Borough in 1998, to guide development objectives including high-quality redevelopment, walkable commercial neighborhoods, more connections, a diversity of land uses, and to strengthen ties to the downtown and university. These design guidelines provide specific plans for site, streetscape, and building design, and overall are more focused on building form and site design. The other area plan is the Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan, and that was established in 1992 to address planning goals at a more detailed neighborhood level. The plan details the purpose, overall design goals, key planning concepts, and character districts while providing guidance on building form and massing, site landscaping, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The plan does envision types of uses as well, and the subject site is located in an area identified in the plan as the Folsom Transitional. The site is subject to plan connections identified in the Transportation Master Plan, or TMP. These connections include an east-west multi-use path connection along the northern edge of the site, and a north-south multi-use path connection along the eastern property line. That eastern connection does span the subject site and the adjacent property to the east.

[77:11] The two planned connections are intended to link to a greater network that connects Canyon Boulevard to Pearl Street and connects Folsom Street to 28th Street. Oh, nice. Went too fast. The site is also located on a portion of Folsom Street within a priority core arterial network. Preliminary design for the Folsom Street improvements began in January 2025, and the recommended design was approved by City Council in August of this year. The recommended design includes lane repurposing for two lanes in each direction, a protected bike lane, two-way center turn lane, and associated sidewalk and landscaping strip improvements. The preliminary design will be completed by early 2026, but funding has not yet been secured for final design or construction. And that brings us to tonight's proposed project, which is for the redevelopment of 1840 and 1844 Folsom, with 144 dwelling units in varying size and unit type. The design features two elevated courtyards, a roof deck amenity space, private balconies, and three grade-level open space amenity areas, and new multi-use path connection.

[78:12] The only vehicle access is from Folsom Street and down the drive aisle into the parking garage, whereas short-term bike users can utilize the bike racks along Folsom Street with direct access from the sidewalk. Residents with bikes will primarily enter the site from the northern building entrance, immediately accessible from the multi-use path. This entrance also provides direct access to long-term bike parking and reduces conflicts with vehicles in the garage. And primary pedestrian access will be from Folsom Street, with secondary entrances to the north. ADA access is also from Folsom Street, as well as the northwest and southeast parking areas. Short-term access for deliveries is located adjacent to the garage entry with a loading stall. And, a crosswalk positioned several feet from… feet from that entry garage with see-through garage door will facilitate safe and convenient access for deliveries.

[79:00] A total of 126 parking spaces are proposed, and will be located within the footprint of the building. Two dedicated car share spaces are located at the southwest corner of the parking area, and a total of 288 bike parking spaces are proposed. Long-term bike parking is included on each floor and will also provide for e-bike charging. The applicant has provided a transportation demand management plan that outlines the site characteristics and strategies to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles, including eco-passes, bike wash and repair stations, on-site fitness and co-working spaces, a bike fleet for residential use, and then the multi-use path construction. Based on the proposed height, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 20% open space, which equates to about 13,000 square feet. The applicant is providing almost 18,000 square feet with a variety of communal and private open space areas, as well as site-wide landscaping. The proposed amenity areas include two elevated courtyards with outdoor grills, pool, play area, and a covered exercise area. Roof deck with flex space and outdoor cooking, a courtyard with bike amenities and art, a gathering space with a pet relief area, and a plaza along Folsom Street to sit and work.

[80:09] The subject site is within an urban context. It's located along a major arterial and near higher intensity residential uses and commercial nodes. The building is positioned close to the street and sidewalk, consistent with the context of the area, the area plans, and the site review criteria. Building entries are well-defined with double-height glazing and facade recessions and modulation. Higher density and intense… intensity developments are anticipated in this area, with a maximum FAR of 3.0. To provide a variety to the form and height of the building, the design features alternating 4- and 5-story volumes and modulated facades. High levels of transparency, material changes, landscaping buffers, art, and architectural details provide visual interest in a pedestrian scale at the ground floor. And then last, the design includes a simplified material palette comprised of high-quality and durable materials, including metal panel, wood-look siding, and dark masonry. The southern elevation opens with two elevated courtyards to provide variation to the building form and a relief to density. The northern elevation is broken up by the bike and art garden, which includes a vertical facade recession that runs up the entire height of the building.

[81:11] All balconies are integrated into the building form with a variety of colors to further blend into the building's mass. And facade projections and recessions on all sides of the building provide visual interest and introduce a sense of human scale. The material assignment will also complement the building's form and function. A height modification is being requested for up to 55 feet, and it is eligible for the height modification per 9214H6C, and subject to additional criteria for buildings requesting a height modification. And we have, three key issues for discussion tonight. I'll detail them in the next slides. Key issue one is the proposed project consistent with the site review criteria? Staff finds that the project is consistent with the criteria, promotes alternatives to the automobile, provides Common open space areas incorporates a variety of landscaping, and building and siding design is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and the area plans.

[82:05] The building design successfully creates visual interest in a vibrant pedestrian experience. Key Issue 2 is the project consistent with the use review criteria? Staff finds that the proposed ground floor residential is consistent with the use review criteria. The ground floor residential does not consist of dwelling units, but contains residential amenities that reduce vehicle trips and lessen impacts to the surrounding area. Folsom Street is a transitional corridor, and the surrounding area contains a variety of mixed uses, and the activated ground floor residential use provides a transition between those higher and lower intensity uses, and is not incompatible with the surrounding area. And a final key issue is the proposal consistent with the two area plans, and staff finds that the proposal is generally consistent with both the BVRC design guidelines and the Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan. Specifically, residential redevelopment is encouraged in this area, and the building design is situated close to the street with screen parking. Provides a unified streetscape, facilitates pedestrian and bike connections, and the building massing is broken down.

[83:07] And that brings us to the staff recommendation, which I have here on the slide. And I will now open it up for questions. Thanks so much. Great. Thank you, Allison. Okay. Clarifying questions from the board. I see Laura's got her hand up. I think? Is that right, or am I seeing… Okay, sorry, that was, an audience member. Sorry, Laura. Okay. Anyway, does anyone, have clarifying questions? Claudia, you… I can start with one, at least. So there's this proposed multi-use path on the north side of the building. And is that going to be considered public right-of-way for the purposes of evaluating the height modification request? That's correct, it's considered public realm. Okay. And we got some guidance, last week.

[84:13] About how we apply this criteria, dealing with building form and massing, and, like, the length of facades. Could you… could somebody from staff give us a refresher on that? I think we got some guidance on… the code language saying we will consider certain things versus shell, etc. Could we get some clarity on that? Yeah, sure. So the building length… sorry, I'm just gonna pull up the criteria so I have it in front of me, but the, the building length number in the code is a consideration. It's not an absolute, and I believe it's, 200 feet, along a public realm, and then if the facade exceeds 120 feet along a public street, then the design should incorporate some other design elements to help break up the mass.

[85:01] And just as a heads up, the applicant does have some additional diagrams, that they'll be sharing on the building height and length. Kurt? Thank you, Allison. Following up about the north side multi-use path, it appears that the plans do not show a curb cut. For that, is that correct? That is correct. Right now, there's not a curb cut to Folsom. And do you know why that choice was acceptable, I guess, to transportation? I think… once the project starts, the Folsom Street improvements get further along, that might be looked at. I don't know if Transportation and Mobility will look at how those Folsom Street improvements will connect to planned connections, but at this point, transportation staff felt that it satisfied the criteria, so there's still access to the sidewalk and Folsom.

[86:05] Okay. Meaning, access to Folsom, Via the sidewalk, I guess. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And another… question. The… the plans show at the… driveway… In the median, then, the middle of the street, it looks like they are going to install this median. That's a… Tough Curb delineator system, is how it's marked on the plants. And I assume that transportation also looked at that, and that was… acceptable? Because that does not look at all like what we ordinarily install as a median. Yeah, so there's gonna be, and maybe the applicant can speak more to this, but, there's a required temporary barrier per the DCS,

[87:04] to restrict left turns onto Folsom, so for now, it'll be a right, right in, right out, until those Folsom Street improvements are furthered along, and they know the exact location of that median and center turning area. But for now, the… it'll have the temporary, barrier, but… Looks like Curtis is standing up. He might be able to address in the applicant presentation. This is it? Up to you. You know, let's save it for, after your presentation. Okay, well, I'll just follow up with the applicant, then. Great. Thank you, I think that that is it. Okay, Laura, I believe you were next. Thank you. Allison, thank you for that presentation. I have a couple questions. One is, in one of the public comments that was in our packet, there was a suggestion that the reason why the ground level, or underground parking

[88:04] was changed is because staff did not allow the applicant to have underground parking. Can you comment on this? Is there some… some reason why the applicant would not be allowed to have underground parking? That? No. The short answer is no. There's nothing in the code or from the staff's perspective that would prohibit, below-grade parking. Okay, so maybe that was a misunderstanding on behalf of that comment. It's possible. Okay, thank you. I do have some questions about the open space diagram, and thank you for pointing me to that on page 33 of 81 of the applicant statement. Could you… could you pull that little green and orange diagram up? Yeah, sure, one sec. Okay, thank you. So this is a figure, that displays just the ground-level open space, not those rooftop decks above the parking garage or on level 5.

[89:01] It's just what's. this one here? Yeah, it's that little orange and green one. It's one of several diagrams on the page. Yeah, thank you. Could you just walk us through what are those orange and green spaces, and how they correspond with the applicant's description of the different spaces? Sure, so I'll start over from… let's see if I orient myself… Folsom Street. Okay, I think… I think we're not seeing your screen anymore, or at least I'm not. I can see it. We are… Yeah, we are. Oh, huh, why am I… oh. Somehow I flipped to something else. Okay, all right, thank you. Sorry about that. No, it's okay. On the west, here, so that this kind of… I'll try to circle it with my mouse. This would be the, the Folsom Plaza, so the entryway with some seating. There's some bike racks down here, and as you move further north, this area, is the short-term bike parking.

[90:01] The longer rectangle to the north would be the multi-use path, and then… this area here is the, sort of the bike, garden, and art courtyard, which provides bike amenities. It's the primary bike entrance and also provides, seating areas. I believe there might be a short-term bike rack there. And some art. And then here on the southeast corner, this is another sort of area to gather. It includes a, pet relief area, places to sit, and it's near one of the entries, on this corner here, and then everything else in green would be, things that count towards landscaping. The areas in white that don't count would be some of the transformers, or the rain gardens. Which in this case are not counting towards open space. Okay, and can we see that whole diagram? Yeah, thank you. And can you tell us what those colors represent, the orange and the dark green and the light green?

[91:04] Yeah, the orange would be what's considered enhanced, paving, so that could be, pavers, bricks, colored or scored concrete. And then the light green is the portion, I believe the 10% along the right-of-way that can count towards open space in a site review. And then the darker green would be the site-wide landscaping. Okay, and… that wrong, I think, Bill or someone can correct me when… Okay, and do you know what of that dark green And light green landscaping that is not, you know, enhanced pavement, but is actual landscaping. How much of that is actually planted in the ground versus in planter boxes? I'd probably defer to the applicant. I think most of the grade level is on the ground, and more of the planters are on some of those elevated courtyards, but I'll defer to the applicant to give some more specifics on that.

[92:06] Okay, thank you. I'll ask the applicant about that, too. Thank you so much for walking us through that. Sure. And then I had a question about the… the hardscape. It says that that in… there's a number there in that… on that page for. 15,400 square feet of hardscape. And does that… It says it includes the drive… the drives and, oh, sorry, and sidewalks. When you say the drives, what are the drives? Does that include drive aisles in the parking garage, or what are the drives? It would probably just be the… let's see if I can find a… The access drive here to the south. That's just used for vehicular access, but it would not include anything that's within the footprint of the building, or the garage. And then it would be the public sidewalk, here on the west.

[93:02] I guess I'm just trying to understand where it all is, because that number is… bigger than the number of landscaping and open space on the site, but I'm just not seeing a lot of sidewalks and drive areas. Well, and so the sidewalks, and I think the table might be a little confusing, the sidewalks and the drive aisles would not count towards open space. The only hardscape areas that can count towards open space are… that have to meet the definition of enhanced paving, and there's a variety of ways to meet that. So that's why in this other diagram, they're whited out. Whoopsies. Because it's not meant to count towards the open space, I think the figure is just meant to show the difference between building coverage And the remaining site. Yeah, no, I understand that the hardscape is not the open space, and that the enhanced paving is open space, but it's not considered hardscape. That is a little confusing. I just am not seeing where all of the sidewalks and drive aisles are that add up to being more than the open space, because the number that's provided for the hardscape is

[94:05] I don't know, like, 1,000 square feet bigger than the number provided for the ground-level open space. Maybe I'm… maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, but the $15,000 does include hardscape open space and drive aisles and sidewalks. Oh, of course, the hardscape open space, too. Okay, all right, that makes more sense. Okay, thank you, thank you for that. And then just one more question about the, the… well, I guess two more questions about the open space. So, of those ground-level open spaces that you walked us through, in that diagram, how many of them are tucked under an overhang? Which ones are tucked under the overhangs? I believe that the… a portion of the southeast corner is tucked under, and this kind of green area is outside. The northern areas open to the sky. I think my mouse is not working. And then… Portions of the… the most… the westernmost point are, covered by, facade projections, but are also exposed and open to the sky.

[95:10] Thank you. And then, there were some illustrations of the north, south, and east elevation open spaces on the ground level, and there seems to be some kind of, like, metal mesh, or perforated metal? Yeah. What is… what is that, and what's behind it? That's the, screening and ventilation for the, parking. Okay, and how close are the parking spaces to that mesh? That's a good question. I don't know if I have the exact numbers, but I might be able to get a… Rough sense here… I don't have that number off the top of my head. I don't know if the applicant has that, but I can try to… Get that information for you.

[96:03] That'd be great, thank you. Okay, I think that that is all of… oh, just one more question regarding the community cycles, input. They said that in their letter, or one of their letters, that, policy 2.11E2 appears to not be met because of the compact vertical bike racks. And I just was, curious about staff's, analysis of that. Does staff agree that that policy is not met, or disagree? I'd probably need to double-check on that comment, but I can take a look and refresh. I don't know off the top of my head. Okay, thank you. Alright, that's all my questions. Okay, thank you, Laura. ML, I believe you're up next. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Allison. I have just a few questions.

[97:05] So… the zoning? is BR… one… That's consistently across both lots, is that correct? Correct. And when I looked at the BR1, zoning in the code, so… Residential is not one of the… Standard uses, but it can be Tell me how residential is encouraged in the BR1. What does the zoning say about that? Well, it's allowed through the use table. There is a path forward for, ground floor residential, and the, if all the residential were above the you know, on the second level, there wouldn't be a use review. The only trigger for the use review is that it's

[98:00] The residential is less than 30 feet from a major arterial, in this case Folsom Street, so it's consistent with the underlying zoning in the case that they have a path forward through the use review, and it's consistent with the use review criteria. Okay, so along that same line, the land use… On the northern part is HR, and on the southern part is GB, is that correct? Correct. And then the whole site is Zoned BR. So, where are the business uses? Did I miss them? Do we have… Jesus? There are no proposed commercial uses for this project. So, what is the staff thinking about meeting Sort of the zoning… And… land use. Business. Yeah, the… so the use review criteria doesn't require consistency with the zoning. That's… that was taken out of the use review criteria.

[99:06] It is consistent, though, with the underlying land use designation, which high-density residential encourages, residential and even general business, encourages and says housing may even be required. in areas that are, near commercial areas or as a transition to other residential. So I think looking at the site and the surrounding uses, that ground floor residential is compatible. So having no business use at all on the site is, is not a… is not a concern in these… in these zonings. Is that what it is? We're reviewing what the applicant is proposing, and they're proposing residential. And it's allowed through the zoning, so it's… staff found it consistent with the criteria. Okay. Second question… Has to do with the, boulder Plaza Sub Area Plan.

[100:11] It has a section, 5.2.3, Which is titled, Required Plan Elements in Development Review. And, O… in that section. Talks about heights. Heights may reach a maximum 55 feet, where the development provides for, one, protection of views from existing residential or public areas, and two, buildings are stepped to maintain the pedestrian scale of the street. So… what do we know about the loss of views? This, this is… specifically pointing to protection of views from existing residential. Do we know how many, residential units are losing their views?

[101:03] I don't have that information, no. So, what was your thought of the project meeting that required? Required plan elements from that, boulder Plaza Subarea Plan. I mean, staff is reviewing the project, and consistent, consistency with the plans as a whole, generally consistent. The area plan does actually encourage residential in this area, and says that additional height may be, requested or granted if it demonstrates it meets criteria, such as the site review criteria. So in looking at the site review criteria and the area plan as a whole, staff finds it's consistent with the, Boulder Plaza sub-area plan. So, this particular… One that states that it's a required piece,

[102:01] is not being considered as necessarily being required. Is that what I'm understanding? The plan is looked at as a whole, and staff finds it generally consistent, so it was not looking at each individual, aspect of the area plan. Specifically. Okay, so, let me see, I think that might be my… And as far as stepping down at the public side, can you pull up those elevations on the, I guess it'd be the Folsom, maintain the pedestrian scale? Yes, I can do that, please. Wait one sec.

[103:07] Is this a helpful perspective? Is this the… is this the… oh. Maybe. Is this… Like, if I'm walking along Folsom. This would be if you're across the street looking across Folsom. Right. If I'm walking along Folsom, it talks… this particular talks about the pedestrian scale at the street. Do you have… something at, in that area? Is there a perspective in that area? I'm not sure if there's a perspective from the street at that area, but if the applicant has one, they might be able to share when they present. Okay, so what I'm seeing is, what's that at heights all along Folsom? Is that… The maximum height will be 55 feet, probably at that northeast, sorry, northwest corner, but along the street, it does step back to 4 stories, has a 5th story setback, sort of on that whole corner.

[104:08] Right. So… And it's a tall first story. Oh, so yeah, I see what you're saying, you're counting the first two as two, so it's a total of four. Okay, it's hard to see. Hopefully they have, Some perspectives of the pedestrian experience. Yeah, I think those are my questions. Thank you very much. Thanks, ML. Mason. Yeah, I really appreciate the staff's analysis. I don't have a ton of questions. I was trying to count… And this might be a question for the applicant. But I was looking at, The bike storage maps, and where everything lays out. I'm seeing, 6 cargo bike cages in the middle of the 2 to 5th floor. Are those e-bike ready?

[105:03] the e-bikes are kind of laid out differently. Yeah, I'll probably defer to the applicant on that. Then I don't have any additional questions for staff. Okay, any other… Oh, Claudia. Very quickly, what is the setback from Folsom that's being proposed? I think it's 20. I'm just trying to get the… Sorry, I've had the setbacks in front of me, and then I lost them. Yeah, it's 20. Okay, so in the use review, the, what triggers use review in BT? Let's see, wait a second… in BR1. is residential within 30 feet of a major street, is that correct? Correct. So they're off by about 10 feet there, and that's why we have to do the use review. Correct. Okay, thank you.

[106:06] Okay, any other clarifying questions for staff? Okay. Hey, I'm gonna suggest we do a quick break now, and then we'll be able to go through the rest of this Rest of the agenda, versus breaking it up after the public hearing. Okay? So, you guys get… Another, it's 7th… $7.50 will return at 7.55, and… 9 minutes. Okay.

[115:45] All right, I'm gonna call the meeting back to order, and I'm going to take care of one piece of business that I am inconsistent about at the beginning of site reviews and use reviews, and that is asking board members if anyone has a conflict of interest, a potential conflict of interest, or any ex parte communications that they need to divulge.

[116:11] So if you do, you can raise your hand or shout out. Otherwise, will carry on. Okay. All right, so we're now gonna hear from the applicant. The applicant has 15 minutes tonight, and just… like the last time, this applicant was here, I'm going to suggest that you may have heard some questions that you want to answer. Go ahead and go through your presentation and let us ask those questions, After your presentation is concluded, versus just… versus shortening your presentation. Okay, thank you very much. Away it goes. Great, thank you. I'm Bill Hollicky with Coburn Architecture, and we'll walk you through the presentation here at the end. Chris Jacobs, the applicant, will jump in with a few comments from the ownership team.

[117:00] So, we were gonna start with a site like we normally do, but everybody knows where this site is, and I think Allison's covered it pretty well. It's really well served by transit modes and services, and it's a great place to put a lot of people to help bring 24-7 activity to our commercial core. Allison also showed this slide, so without going into too much detail, it's worth noting that this is the highest density zone in the city at 3.0, and then it transitions to the BT2 to the west, and then further down to the residential of the RH2 further west. We were in front of you a concept plan, and as far as I'm concerned, that was a really fertile conversation. This is what we showed you, and you can see that one thing to point out is that ramp down to the underground parking garage wraps the entire site, comes in back from the east. So, Allison already kind of touched on a bunch of this, but it was a really good conversation at Planning Board. Generally, Planning Board, as Allison illustrated in her presentation and packets, supported the use of residential here, they supported the density, they supported the height.

[118:01] They said it was consistent with area plans, but you did have some really good comments, and it… it pretty dramatically changed the project. One was the concern about providing so much parking here. We had 191 parking spaces, and we had a big underground parking garage, and then half of the first level was parking, and the concern was, hey, you know, can we do a little bit less? get away with a little less parking here, so we'll get into that in a second. There was concern about how you got into the building, how the building addressed the street, talked about the northern facade a little bit, and then a pet relief area, some other smaller things were also considered. We took notes on all of those. So we thought we could get into the changes that we made here. They're all kind of pointed out on this 3D model, which we can bring back up for any specific questions later. To first talk about the parking, the top was what we had a concept. So we had this underground parking that was the whole site, and then the back half of the first floor was parking. And that was, as you pointed out, a lot of carbon and a lot of parking spaces for a spot that's really well served by walking and bikes and transit. So,

[119:05] Element was able to go back and figure out how to get the project financed with a very different level of parking. So we had 191 spots, now we have 126 spaces. That's less than one space per unit, which is really cool. It's very rare for a developer to be able to do that. So we're excited about that, and as has been pointed out, some of that is actually car share and other things, so it's even less than, than it seems like. What that did, and this was a suggestion you guys had, there's two things that occur when we pull the parking out of grade. The first is that it takes the left, or western grade courtyard and puts it on top of the parking podium. We'll show you that in a second. And the other thing that it does is, it allows for future reuse of that parking. So this is the new parking, layout, which is what you suggested. Hey, just, you know, behind the entry, bring the parking up to grade, and do a lot less of it, which is what we did. And then this would allow that… some of that parking to go away and be infill units later. So if in the future we can get away with even less parking spaces, we can add another 20, 25 units around the perimeter of this thing, and still have space for car storage for autonomous cars at night, or for, you know, just less parking

[120:16] That kind of thing. It also has the impact of lowering the amount of paved area for cars between the driveways, the ramps, and the parking spaces from 70,000 square feet to 39,000 square feet. So, good suggestion, and made a massive impact on the way the building works. Oops. Trying to move forward, there we go. The next was the change to the western side. We were trying to put 5 stories on the western side of the project along Folsom. Folsom's the highest part of the site, so what that did was effectively squish all the stories really tight. The other thing we had was the first floor of the building entry was 3 feet or so below the sidewalk. And that was discussed, it was discussed internally with staff, and it's really just not the right way to do an urban plan. So, we pulled units out of the second floor of the building.

[121:04] The other thing that we had, and we'll show you that in a second, the other thing we did was we, in keeping with the BVRC, we said, okay, well, can we create a little more, a smaller scale along Folsom? So the right-hand side of the project, where you see the five-story element, that was reduced. So here's the new version. And the new version has a upper floor setback for most of the upper level. The other thing it does is it combines levels 1 and 2 into one level that we can now pull up out of grade. So now the entry to the building is right at the sidewalk level, and it's only 4 stories on Folsom. So the first story is about a story and a half. So it provides a really good and appropriate urban transition for the building, an entry, the co-working is all there, so it's a really nice human scale. And then there's only three stories above it, only two of which are out at the street, and one is pushed back. So, I think… Maybe ML was talking about the human scale, but this was the intent of these changes, was to change the perceptive scale along the street, make it feel a lot more comfortable.

[122:06] So this is the resultant site plan. I do have a diagram that we sent in very similar to what we sent in last week, and I have copies of it here if anyone's interested. This is the heights of the roofs with key codes, so everything on the five stories is blue. Orange steps down a story, and green is a one-story portion of the building. So hopefully that kind of clarifies the mass of the building, and if you want the handout, I do have it. So, here's how you get in and out of the building. We talked a little bit about better arrivals. As Allison pointed out, you know, we had this bike path that we were going to put in, but it kind of doesn't go anywhere, and it's likely not to go anywhere for quite a while, because of the landlocked nature of the eastern side of it. So, we utilized that, to put in a bike-only entrance. It's a pedestrian bike entrance on the north side of the project, and we'll show you what that looks like. But it got really exciting to us, because now we've separated the use entries for the mode types.

[123:01] On the western side is where you get in for pedestrians. The cars are completely separate, you can see in the orange, and then the bikes have their own entry to the north, right into the bike storage room, and the bike workshop, and all of that stuff that supports their use. We also then coordinated that with the open spaces at grade, and I know there were a lot of questions about this, so I'll just explain what we were going to say, to Mark's point, and then I can answer more questions later. There's 3 different main grade-level open spaces, and I'll… walk through each one. So the first one is on the front of the building, and there's a little key plan for each one of these in yellow, with a little arrow that shows where we're looking. So this is looking at the south side of the Folsom elevation. This is the main entry to the building. There's a little covered waiting area there. It's nice to get out of the sun in Colorado. I would say out of the rain, but that's much less of a concern. But it's a little sheltered area for hanging out or meetings. And then if I move a little bit to the north on Folsom, we have,

[124:02] the… the co-working area. So this is showing that sort of protected outdoor area in that 20… it's a little bit further in this area, it's more like a 28-foot setback from the right-of-way line, and this is where people… that's like a third space, right? So it's where residents and people co-working and visitors and the community can kind of interact, but it's still a little shielded by these planters. And to answer the question about the planters, this is the only area On the first floor, we really have raised planters. Everything else is at grade. And then the short-term bike parking to the left there. This is the north side, so again, you're looking at that bike entry, which is also serving as our art plaza, and the reasoning behind this, waiting for the slide update… was, you know, we thought that, hey, someday there are going to be people moving on this bike path, hopefully, and it's… it's sort of… You know, the idea of a moment of surprise is really cool, and so along this building, we said, okay, well, if we can make this entry for the bikes, but we can also make it this little art moment, so you don't know it's there, and you hop on the bike path, and you ride along, and…

[125:04] oh my god, like, what's this, right? So there's this little sculpture garden, we've got a 23-foot setback, pushed the building in, and then we've got the corridor there with glass on it, so we want to do a 5-story mural, or sorry, it would be a 4-story mural. that kind of goes up through all these glassed corridor walls, and when, you know, dust starts to happen and it lights up, you can see this art appear inside the building. So we were really excited about that, along with this bike-first entry location. And we have no problem with a curb cut on Folsom, by the way. The Folsom improvements are shown exactly how transportation wants them, so if there's any changes that need to be made. No, no, we're happy to make them. This is the southeast corner, so this is the pet relief area, which, again, was a suggestion from Planning Board. I think. Laura made that suggestion. It was a really good one. People do have dogs. And, the idea was to create an area that was specific to them, and it's all grassed. This is the area where we have that sod, which is for the pet relief. It also happens to be the place where you do your move-ins, right? So if you need to,

[126:08] to load in or load out if you're moving in or moving out. There's a specific loading zone, there's an elevator right there, and there's a place to do that, a little place to sit and rest, which I know I need when I move in. So then, to move up, open space on level 2, because we brought the garage up to grade, or the parking up to grade, now all of the main, common open space is at the same level, which allowed us to join it together, and one of the things we heard from Planning Board was make it more accessible to each other, make it more linked up. And, make sure it's accessible to all the residents. I think, ML, that was one of your comments, make sure everybody gets access to this. So it's right off the quarters, everybody does have access to this, and it's programmed differently. It all joins together outside, you don't have to go inside the building to go anywhere in this… in this U. So this first one is looking at the eastern side. This is the more social side. So this has a pool, and it has a cookout area, and all that kind of stuff. The other side has,

[127:05] It's, now we're on the west side, looking south, and believe it or not, one of the people in our office actually goes to the dentist that's in the current building, so this is a picture we actually took from the dentist's second floor window. And so this is a more contemplative or private, you know, these are little reading areas and spots for smaller groups to gather on this side. And then we do have the fifth story, which is addressing the site review criteria of having an upper-level open space for people in the building to see views, if there's views on the site, and it also helps us break down the scale at Folsom. So this is just the diagram showing all those different open spaces and how they interact with each other. Every single one is programmed, everyone is different, and they each serve a purpose, and we worked pretty hard on making sure they each had a function and were, you know, really attractive and welcoming places to be. The other thing we worked at that wasn't, shown was the eastern side of the building. So when we came to concept, we really hadn't talked much about that, and we realized, and I think someone pointed out, that we hadn't included in our plan the north-south path on the eastern property line. We intended to, we had just missed it. It's there now, protected.

[128:18] When it eventually goes in, right now it's landlocked, but when it goes in. this side of the building will be a face of the building, and rather, differently than all the other buildings, we don't want this to be a back. So we want it to be a four-sided building. There's an entry on this side, which is part of the reason we put the loading zone here, because it serves as an entry off that eventual bike path. In terms of the area plane compliance, a lot of what they talked about, as Allison mentioned, are walkability, bringing the buildings to the street, and trying to make that pedestrian realm. Right now, none of the buildings really do that, so the change in this building will be to bring that front, to the street, to create that pedestrian experience, and hopefully that, you know, essentially breaks the block in half. So, I've walked this many times, especially, like, coming back from a CU game and walking back north, and it's… this is a grim block. Like, all the other blocks are pretty nice, and then McGuckins gets a little challenging, and this one's pretty grim, and then as soon as you get past this, it gets interesting again.

[129:16] So hopefully this provides a little oasis of pedestrian interest, and helps, You know, people through that gap that's a little less walkable. The north side was something that we really hadn't given enough attention to, a concept, to be blunt. It was sort of blank, and it was sort of long, and we're sort of stuck with it because it's a 3-0 FAR zone. And there are these really narrow, really deep lots. So it's anticipated, and you can see from the other buildings in the area, that the buildings essentially fill up the lot. that would be fine, except for the fact that we happen to have this multi-use path. So we put it on the north side to increase the separation between our building and the folks to the north, to help give them more space. And then we really worked to break that down, and realizing that, yes, the 200 feet is a suggestion.

[130:07] We wanted to, really, really work to make this as good as we could. So, and I have a handout for this as well. We've really worked to modulate that side of the building. And this is a diagram that shows the plains. The biggest relief is the magenta plains, so that's at that art, cutout. That goes back 23 feet. We have other areas that go back quite a bit as well, and the whole thing kind of moves in and out. It's really broken into two parts, and again, with that art. Court in the middle to hopefully provide that sort of… you know, excitement for somebody who's coming down the bike path. Like, you get halfway through, and like, hey, this is something really cool and different, and this little caught moment of art, on the north side of this building along the bike path. And then this is the building… we provided you this rendering of concept, felt we needed to here, too, just so you could see the changes. This is showing all these buildings sort of sit back in a suburban fashion, which is what they are now.

[131:04] And then our building is pulled forward to helpfully make that pedestrian realm. And you can see that it's really reading as a pretty pedestrian-scaled thing. And to zoom in closer… oop, not yet. Because I'm going to skip this, because Allison talked about the compliance with the area plans. We can go back to this if there's questions. So, this is that… that building, we're looking right at the northwest corner of that. And I'll get rid of that little thing. So this is, again, trying to provide that pedestrian scale. We've really worked on the first floor of this building and made it much more welcoming, it's more generous, it has that, you know, that roof to give you that feeling of the outdoor room, and then really working on the feeling of the bike path, so that when you get down there, you get a pretty cool moment. And with that, I'm gonna turn… You're over 2 minutes. Okay, Chris, you're up. Thanks, Bill. As you can see, we spent the last year diligently incorporating your feedback, as well as neighborhood input. And while many of the aspects have changed, the overall intent of our proposal remains the same.

[132:06] To create much-needed housing along this vibrant core arterial network. to activate the Folsom Street frontage in this transition corridor, and to offer a mix of Studio 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments, and to help fulfill Boulder's aspiration for walkable, transit-oriented, 15-minute neighborhoods. I'll close our presentation with a summary of our TDM plan, along with some proposed revisions to the conditions of approval. First, our TDM plan. We're creating new connections. 1844 will include a new sidewalk, a new multi-use path along the north side of the property, and dedication of land along the east side of the property for a future multi-use path. Lots of bike parking, 288 parking spaces. We're planning a fleet of bikes for residents to use that'll have shopping baskets, 7 traditional, and 3 e-bikes.

[133:00] Our, as mentioned, our car parking has been significantly reduced, based on your feedback from concept. And of course, we will be following the principles. We're planning to dedicate 2 parking spaces for car share, and we'll be participating in the NECO Bus Pass program and providing Eco Passes to residents for 3 years. Regarding these conditions of approval, we actually have a few requests, for amendment to staff's, recommended conditions, and there's no controversy here, it's just that we received Am I out of time? Okay. Great. And there's no controversy here, it's just that we received these conditions last night, so we had some… some proposed things to suggest. The first thing is we'd like to offer a new condition of an additional 20%. Bike parking spaces would be wired for charging, but not subject to space requirements.

[134:01] Looking at Condition 3, we're proposing the northern multi-use path that we're constructing. That results in a dead end. And until the connection can be made to 26th Street. We were hoping the board would consider a reservation instead of a, public access easement. Yeah, thank you. And then under Condition 5, there's a financial guarantee for the cost of providing eco-passes. We were hoping that that would be required prior to certificate of occupancy, rather than building permit. And then the last one is Condition 6. We're requesting that the public improvements, be required to also receiving certificate of occupancy Rather than during building permit. The way it's written right now is it's requiring us to put all these public improvements in before we build the building, and we feel there's going to be a lot of negative impacts to those improvements. It'd be better to build the building and then do the public improvements.

[135:02] So thank you for these, concerning these changes, and we welcome your questions. Thank you. Great, thanks to the applicant. Before we go any further, these Can you point us to the page in the packet with the conditions As… as proposed by staff, that… The applicant is just… proposed modification of. Yeah, let me… Either memo page or packet page. Yeah, I just need to find the… my memo tab again. I've lost it. Yep, it's on page 114. of the PDF, which would be packet page… Yes, 16 of 157. And these conditions have been out for about 10 days.

[136:00] Okay. So, I'm sorry, this was… Okay. Memo page what? Memo page 16. And packet page 118 of 259. Okay, thank you. Is everybody got that? I'm just slow. on this. Okay. We're now going to clarifying questions. from the board to the applicant, I think there's going to be some, so who's got some ready? And if I, let me open my… Anyone? Okay, Mason? Thank you for your presentation. I think you heard my question earlier. It was really more about, which of the

[137:03] parking… bike parking is, e-bike ready. Because it looked like there was only 3 or something from the diagram that were clear, but… Yeah, that's why we just proposed to have a condition that made it, 25%, so… An additional 20%, yes. 20%. Yeah, an additional 20%. So, yeah, we, You've heard me say this before. Yes, I think that's a miss. We want to make sure that people can charge their bikes. And, I will note that Community Cycles sent the letter in June. We met with them, based on a new letter in support. There's been some changes, but this is one of the things that didn't get picked up after we met with them. So we like to make that modification. If you don't put it as a condition, we're just going to do it, so… but we just wanted to offer it as a condition. Thank you, Mason. Ml.

[138:01] Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, applicant, for your presentation. I have two questions. First one is regarding the perviousness of the site. What percent of the site is pervious? It looks like most of it's paved. Bear with me one second, because I do have those numbers. I'm just going to look at it quick. We have 11% of the site is pervious surface. The bulk is the building, and then there is another, say, 15,000 of impervious surface outside the building. So… 40-60 split for the area that's not covered by the building, give or take. Right. So, this is… 500-year flood, etc. How is the site precipitation being managed? Can I ask our civil engineer to speak to that? Is that okay? Oh, Mark? Is that okay? That's confirmed.

[139:01] Completely fine, yeah. This is… this is time for the applicant team, the most appropriate person on the applicant team, to answer any questions. So, introduce yourself again. Chair Board, Curtis Stevens with Sinitas Group, civil engineer. Okay. And, yeah, we had a… A very extensive, discussion about the drainage design on this site with the city engineers, because it's unique in that right now it pump… it's mostly paved right now. And water gets pumped up to Folsom, which is not really allowed. So with redevelopment, it was a unique design, and we actually accomplished something on this project that is something the city's been trying to do, but we never get to, which is infiltrate our runoff back into the ground. It's a city, you know, current standard that goal, but most projects, either we have clay soil. Or we're too close to… below-grade building facilities. So this site actually has really suitable gravel soils for infiltration, and in the southeast corner, there's a large rain garden on the project.

[140:09] And that is what it is, is it's an area to capture the stormwater. treat it with water quality treatment. It's got a filtration system, but then due to the cobbled soil, the water will, infiltrate from there instead of Flowing off-site, so… Right now, half the site flows into the neighbor to the east, and half gets pumped up to Folsom. So anyway, we… yeah, it's kind of a… So, I'm hearing you say that, it's the dog park area that is basically, going to be recharging the groundwater? Is that what you're saying? It's going down, and it's recharging the groundwater from that location? Correct, and it's actually the area south of the, dog park. Is the dog park on the… yeah. Yeah, it's not the dog park itself, but it's… Right, yeah. It's kind of around where the dog park is. We actually don't want people on the rain garden, because it compacts the soil and impacts the…

[141:08] function of these things. But we've done extensive infiltration testing on the property, over multiple years, groundwater monitoring, and a lot of safety factor analysis in this thing. It's a fairly evolving… You've got to figure it out. So… Yeah, it's a big improvement, and… Yeah, both, the pervious surface amount is improved, and the stormwater is dramatically improved. And Curtis can talk about that for another hour and a half, if you want. No, I have a second question. It's more architectural. So, what's happening at the parking edge around the building? I understand the parking is all at grade now, and I… so what do we see if we're… Walking around the building, When we're not on the fulsome side. Oh, okay, I think I understand the question, and please correct me if I start to speak to something else. So, for 3 sides, you don't see any parking, really. The Folsom, obviously, has the lobby entry co-working packaging.

[142:06] Right. All that kind of stuff. The north side, we have the art in the middle, but then we have screen walls, I can show that. Right, I'd like to see that. Yep, I can show that. Give me a second. Sorry, flipping rapidly. Yep, here we go. So on the right-hand side, you can see we worked with the, the landscape department at the city, to work on that, so we've got grasses and plants in front of the screen walls, and then we have actual vines that are gonna grow up the screens. So those gray boxes are actual… they're screens, they're not just solid gray walls. No, no, there's screens, and that's providing the purchase for the vines. Okay. And the cars are then parked right against that. That's the parking lot. That's correct, and that was another question that somebody had on the south side. The cars essentially go up to the screens, which is why the screens are there. This north side is the place that we have the vines growing, because it's more protected from the sun, so they won't get baked as much.

[143:02] So, is that detail, to have the… Parking area basically opened With screens is that I don't see that on the left-hand side there of the stair and all, but is it intended to be that same kind of detail? Yeah, it's. You get some relief, you get some, you know, visual texture. Yeah, that's right. It starts again. So, the solid areas, the mural on the right-hand side of that court, and then the darker area on the left-hand side, are both bike rooms and bike service rooms. Oh. But then they stop, and I can… I can show you. I have a… don't… don't just believe my words here, I can actually show you the thing. If this will catch up… I think I killed it. There we go. Thank you for bearing with me. I'm just gonna pull up the… there we go. So you can see… where is it easiest to see here? Oh, I see. Right, so that this is, the bike room.

[144:01] This is parking again, but again, the… this side of the building modulates in and out, and so this is a more solid thing, this is the screen with the vines, this is a more solid screen with the vines, so again. The idea was, as you ride along this, or bike along, walk along it, it's changing every 5 seconds, every 10 seconds, so there's something to keep your interest. We didn't want it to be unbroken, unchanged. So on the… on the south, we have, Is that kind of gray line going across there? Is that screens? Fear? There's no screens on the cell. In… in… Right here. One… on the other side of that first row of parking. Oh, here? Yeah, that's a… that's a screen, yes. Okay. But the first row of parking is open to the drive, so that the drive can… you know, again, we're trying to reduce the amount of paving as much as possible, so making the entry drive and the fire truck, because that has to be there for fire service, as well as deliveries, loading trash, making it do double duty reduces the amount of paving on the site.

[145:05] Okay, that's my question. Thank you very much. Of course. checking here for… okay, any, kurt? Trying getting back to the front. Thank you for the presentation. One material question. You talk about this wood-look material. Yep. What is that actually made of? I was hoping you were gonna ask. I'm all excited about this. Okay, so it's a material made out of rice husk. It looks like wood, you can stain it like wood, you can cut it like wood, you nail it like wood. I didn't really believe it when we first got our hands on it a year ago. I put it up on a fake wall in my backyard, and so far it's been awesome. So, it's… it looks like wood, but it's, it's all made with recycled materials, so that's what it is.

[146:00] It's really cool, and it doesn't weather. And it's basically organic material. I think I actually asked this before, now that you have the answer, but… Yeah, sorry about that. My geek is coming up. So, it's mostly organic material, but then with some binder. It's like a… it's like a… Yeah, they do recycled vinyl that binds it. So it's, it's a recycled, recyclable material that's all, like, essentially binding rice husk. Yeah, it's really cool. The next question is back to… ML's question about the screening of the parking… Yep. I'm just curious why you went with screening as opposed to just a full enclosure. Yeah. I mean, I guess you need to have a certain amount of a ventilation, but… Well, yeah, I mean, you can mechanically ventilate a garage, and I think this is probably, you know, there's different opinions on the best way to go. We think that allowing natural light into the garage makes it feel more comfortable, especially for folks that maybe are…

[147:03] less confident walking through a parking garage. Lighting makes a big difference, painting the ceiling makes a big difference, but having it open to the outside so people feel like they're not in an enclosed space is a big safety consideration for folks. So we tend to err on the side of screening, because it lets light in and lets some visual connection in. I think that you could make a case that a solid wall, especially on the north side, might be better, and the people on the bike path then wouldn't have to see the cars. And I think we'd probably be okay with either one, but we just felt like the safety concerns and the perceived comfort in the garage Sort of tipped the scales in that direction. Gives a little more, light and air to the vines as they're trying to grow, too, but that's probably a small concern. Okay, great, thank you. One other detail, the… Looking at this picture, there's the crossing of the driveway in and the sidewalk.

[148:01] Is that a raised? Does that raise… does that… does the sidewalk maintain its elevation across that? Yes. Great. Okay. Thank you. It's like a driveway ramp condition, that's what the city wanted, more like a driveway, not a… Yep, correct. Cool. Okay, and then last question, Bill, can you go back to the… The, the, the transportation, the, the, the… the routes within the building, all those dotted lines. Yeah, give me a moment. Got the right keys going now, so… won't be quite as hard. Here we go. Yep, passed it. There you go. Can you talk through… if I'm coming in with a bike, and I'm going upstairs… Yes. So I'm taking the elevator up. Can you talk how I would get there? There's sort of two answers to that. There's the current answer and the future answer. So, we have two elevators. One is near the front, and one is near the back. The…

[149:07] If you wanted to come in directly to the elevator, the easiest way in probably is right through the lobby, which, you know, we're bike-friendly, we want that, it's great. You can also come in through the bike entry room in the bike court, and then just go straight into the door, which is right here. on the drive aisle. So generally, in our experience, traffic is moving really slow in these one-level garages, and you can just bike through here, and go right through this door and up the elevator. The future answer is, we would expect people to come down this bike path, get onto the north-south bike path, and go right into this bike and loading, unloading elevator, which is really for move-in and move-outs, and for bikes for the future path. So… Sort of splitting the difference between all these different things, using two elevators to try to make it better than one. Okay, but it will definitely be possible and reasonable, I guess, to come in just the front door. Absolutely. That obviously is the most…

[150:09] direct. Yeah, absolutely, and that's where all the short-term bike parking is, too, on both sides of the door. So, if… you know, a visitor forgets their lock, you know, which happens quite a bit. You just go in the front door, go up the elevator, and you're good. And there's bike storage rooms on the upper levels as well, so the expectation is that a lot of people will do that. There was a really good observation about cargo bikes. Which is, you don't always want to take your cargo bike in, unload your cargo bike, and then carry your stuff upstairs, especially if it's, like, groceries. So lots of people want to just wheel their bike with their stuff in it to their door, unload it, and then drop their bike on their storage, on their floor. So it's all set up for that. pretty hefty part of the, of the, the rental sales pitch, I assume. Okay, that's all my questions, thank you.

[151:02] Okay, thanks, Kurt. Laura, you have your hand up. Yeah, thank you, and thank you for the presentation to the applicant team. I just have a few questions that deal with, the site. And I'm trying to understand if there are constraints on the site that preclude certain design choices. Or if it really is just a design choice of balancing different features that are all desirable, and you had to make some choices. Sure. So the first is the underground parking, that that was… that design choice was changed. Was there some constraint on the site that forced that choice, or was it a choice? It was suggested at concept plan pretty strongly by this board, and both the reduction of the overall parking So we had 191 spaces for 180-something units, and it was pushed pretty hard by this board that we reconsider that. So we're pretty proud of the fact that we now have 126 spaces for 144 units at

[152:08] pretty good emotional stress for the developer, to be blunt, but they were able to pull it off. And then it was also suggested by this board that that would allow, the parking to be at grade, so we took your advice. Okay, I do remember that pretty much everybody supported the parking reduction. I don't remember which board members exactly were strongly in favor of not having underground parking. I didn't go back and look at the video. Do you happen to remember which board members? Oh, I know. How many, how many board members? Sure, I know that… I believe Kurt is the one who first mentioned it, but I believe there was general… agreement, as you guys kind of say, yeah, what he said. But the other thing it allowed us to do is greatly reduce the amount of paved area on the site, because now, instead of having to come all the way to the east side to get down, because that's the lowest part of the site.

[153:00] now we don't have to have that big ramp and all of that paving. So that also allowed for things like the pet relief area, the enhanced, eastern side, and the rating gardens for a nicer stormwater infiltration, so… Overall, it was a change that had a lot of positive impacts on the site. Okay, thanks for helping us understand that decision. Similar question about the courtyards. You know, the site review criteria talk about having landscaped courtyard, if you want to have a height modification that has, like, seven factors that they list in there. Is there anything that prevented you from having a courtyard that met all of those factors? I did read with a lot of interest The materials in your packet about how you see different spaces on the site contributing to those factors in different ways. But my question is, is there anything that would preclude having all of those factors in one courtyard on the site?

[154:00] It's a good question, and I think there's multiple answers. The first is, from a design standpoint, it's… it's much more desirable to have the courtyards where they currently are. The reason for that is the lowest level of residential units is on floor 2. And you want those courtyards to have residential energy around them, you don't want them to have parking around them. So if we were to drop a courtyard to grade. we would, first of all screw up the parking and make the site plan a lot more paved, but the second thing is that that courtyard would now be surrounded by parking. And I think we've talked tonight a lot about what that feels like to have a screen next to a bike path. It would be considerably worse to have your primary open space next to cars. So this allows the common areas, the amenity spaces, and the residential units to be the level that touches that courtyard, which is a great improvement. It also shortens them, so now they're, instead of being 52 feet tall, they're 42 feet tall, which I think is an improvement as well. We also feel that, it… it allows for the residential, the folks living in the units to feel like it's their space. One of the things we have to understand about urban dwellings is that if we want people to use them.

[155:11] They don't have yards. They're not single-family homes. They don't have townhome-protected yards. They have shared spaces. And it's one thing to say, okay, you know, you're living in a 100-person community, and we want you to live simply and small. It's another thing to say, and by the way, all your open space is accessible to every passerby. And that's just not a recipe for people to have a positive environment to live in. So by putting these on the second floor, they're still connected to the street, you can still see in, because they're right on the drive, and it's not very far back. But it allows people to feel like they have space that's their own, which is the primary deterrent for people living in multifamily homes. So from an experience standpoint, it's pretty important to the way people actually live if we expect them to live in this kind of an environment. Okay, thank you. And then, same question for the, building facade on the north that fronts the multi-use path.

[156:05] That is 308 feet, I think, rather than 200. Which is the factor that is listed in the code. Was there anything that precluded you. From keeping your building facades to the length that is desirable or listed as a best practice in the code. Yes, the FAR allowed on this site is 3.0 FAR, and that's what the BDRC and the Plaza Area Plan expect. They both list this as a high-density site. And that's… this is the highest density zone in the city. As drawn, this building is a 1.9 FAR. We're not even coming close to what the code expects in terms of our residential yield on this site. If we were to make it 200 feet, we would drop that FAR to about 1.2, because we'd lose the back part of the building, and there's no way to get access to that building. We couldn't have that second building have a front door on the street, we couldn't have it have fire access in the same way, we couldn't have it, have a reasonable entry or connection.

[157:07] to Folsom. So the only way to do… all of the sites in this area are set up to be long and thin, so they have to be this length. If there wasn't a bike path there, it wouldn't be an issue. But because that was an unintended aspect of when the site review criteria went in, that a site like this would then not be compliant with the suggestion, that's why Council made a suggestion. So, even with the building length that we have. All the modulation, the reductions, all of the things that we've done have taken a 3.0 FAR site and turned it into a 1.9 FAR site. So it's really the only way that we can thread the needle between what's expected in the code, what's requested in the area plans, and what's suggested in the site review criteria. Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions.

[158:02] Does anyone have additional Questions. Okay, I've got a couple. And… I'm gonna put this in context, and I'm going to try to avoid what I admonish myself, and Our fellow board members, to, save the comments for our deliberations, but I have to put a little context to this. So, first of all, I appreciate you coming forth with your… Bike electrification increase, and is that… That's very helpful. So I spent some time with the, with the, Title 10, the electrical code, which points to the NEC, and the NEC in terms of specification for outlets and outlet spacing. And then, so, outlet spacing is 2, 6, 12. Any wall more than 2 feet gets an outlet.

[159:04] No, no… There should be, a 6-foot cord should reach Any outlet along a wall. And no more than 12 feet apart in a living room, bedroom, etc. Outlet to outlet. Yep, hence the 6 feet. In the kitchen, it's down to 4 feet, or 24 inches. Between, because of short cords for safety for electrical appliances. Okay, having said all that. And then I… then I counted on the first floor of my house, 1,200 square feet, first floor. 3 bed… 3 rooms. Living room, kitchen. 70… actual receptacles, or 35 outlets. 35… dual outlets. That's a lot. And, you know, but it meets it… it was required to meet the code. So my question is, so… There'll be a similar number.

[160:02] in these apart… in these apartments. My question is, in a bike storage room, What is the reluctance to just electrify. I mean, you know, we're shaving numbers here. Oh, we'll go from 10% to 20% or whatever for electrification. Why? Why, in a bike storage room in this particular area, do we… do you… Want to… Is it a big deal to just electrify it? As suggested in the, in the Community Cycle's original letter from June. Yeah. That was a lot, that was a lot to get to a question, I'm sorry about that, but… congratulations on reading the NEC, like, I don't know many people who have done that. I certainly haven't. So, you know, I think it's just… there's a lot of things that have to be thought through. There's not a reluctance. It's just a matter of getting people to accept it, and it's much like the sustainability code, you know, it ratchets up over time, and that allows people to kind of get comfortable with each step as you go.

[161:05] One of the big things you have to keep in mind is we can't use extension cords or power strips, right? So every bike needs an outlet on the wall. And every bike needs a safe way to run the cord so that people aren't tripping over each other's cords. The other thing that's a concern, and you've heard me mention this a bunch of times, is that batteries keep exploding, and we're not quite sure how to deal with it. So I think all of those things combined lead us to trying to figure out what we're doing, and we really don't know, so doing it incrementally is a little bit easier. As you mentioned, it's not so hard to add outlets, it's not a big deal, you know, and certainly the way the chargers work You can, like, very soon, Okay, so, when you… trying to figure out how geeky to get with this answer, but I will try to keep it a little bit surface. If you have a bank of outlets, the engineer has to design it for the biggest things that could be plugged into that, all running at the same time. It's actually required under the NEC to do that. But that's not how bike chargers work.

[162:04] Car chargers and bike chargers to different levels are able to all plug in, and then if there's not as much, you know, current as they want, they can trickle charge. So if you have something that could support one bike on a full charge, it could support 8 bikes on an eighth charge. that technology exists, but it's not approved yet. So that's kind of one of the things, is that we're sort of waiting for all of this to catch up with itself, because, frankly, electrification and battery power are all Pretty new, building backup batteries. We want to be able to use car batteries to charge the building, and then the building to charge the cars, depending on the time of day, can't do it yet. The bike trickle charging isn't really available yet. So… I don't think it's reluctance. I think what we generally try to say is, hey, I know how to do this. I can do 25%, I know what that looks like, I know I can get through the Excel design program with it, and I know what to tell the electrical engineer. And it's not gonna blow up the panels on the building.

[163:01] We haven't yet done one that's 100%. And to be blunt, I don't know how nasty that's gonna get under the NEC with the low demands. So, that's why. Great, that was a good answer, thank you. And then, on a more mundane and simpler level, the, if you look On the, plan view of the parking garage. the eastern spaces. The, the shows, depending upon which Drawing, and which page. there's a treatment above… like, those spaces are either, like, I'll point to… I'll point to a… on… PDF page 112, which is memo page 10. It shows the parking. And then those eastern parking spaces become almost like a comb. There's a bunch of lines.

[164:05] And there's… there's combs, and then in a different one, it's a different kind of set of lines. What's going on there above those eastern parkings? Is it above, below? What am I seeing? Oh, okay, I know what you're saying, and I do have a slide that'll show that. Bear with me a minute, I'm going to show the eastern side of this. And essentially, this comes from trying to reduce the parking enough to squeeze it all onto the one level. And again, you know, we're down to 126 spots, 144 units, I said that before. That's… cars sticking out, because they didn't quite fit under the building, and we didn't want to just have cars sticking out, because eventually that's going to be a multi-use path. Okay. And we want to make that pleasant, so we shielded it, both with a trellis and with Okay, so my car, actually, if I… It's like half hour. …nose in, my car sticks out, but I have a screen beyond my car, either a fence, whatever. Yep. Okay. Yeah, I mean, normally it'd be back at building and people wouldn't care, but that's gonna be a multi-use path, so we care.

[165:06] Gotcha. Okay, and let me just check and see if I have, What is the surf… okay, just, Chuck Brock's comments in the Community Cycles letter does bring up the question of, okay. I went to the grocery store, I don't have a car, and I did it in the rain. The hallway surface, you know, again, like, the whole, kind of, dirty bike thing. how are you addressing that hallway surface? Are those hard surface floors? Are those soft? Are those… You know, we haven't really gotten there yet. What we generally tend to use is a carpet that's water resistant, because the same issue happens if people get, you know, dogs, mud, wet shoes.

[166:02] And so there's certain carpets that you can use that have a water-resistant backing. Most carpet, like normal carpet, if it gets wet, the backing slowly kind of falls apart. So there's… there's carpet that you can use that's a little more expensive that has water-resistant backing, so that's what we would tend to use. And then it would be cleaned. There's a cleaning staff, so as long as you don't grind the dirt in, it comes off. Pretty well. But again, it's… it's more like… It's the zeitgeist of the project. This… you can see from this front elevation, this is designed to be an urban project. Like, that's the whole image of it, and, like, from the beginning, we had in our… in our heads, and this was the applicant's vision. Like, what would a classy. downtown building look like? What would feel really upscale and really nice? And so that's what this is supposed to be. As part of that urban feeling, like, it's really important that you're able to bring your bike in, because that's, like, the urban experience, and this is a super bikeable place. So, you know, there's just little things inside the building that we're gonna have to pay attention to. Like, on certain corners, the drywall might be backed by plywood, so if somebody bounces a bike handle into it, you don't get a hole in the drywall. Doors open different ways, just things like that, but that's part of the zeitgeist of the project.

[167:10] So all of those things are sort of considered in the interiors. We're just not there yet. Great, thank you very much. Okay, Kurt. Sorry, one other question about the bike parking. You requested to change the long-term, short-term ratio from 75-25 to 85-15. Can you talk about why? Yeah, we just felt, because the number of parking spaces required for 144 units just created an absolute sea of short-term parking out in front of the building, and it started to erode what the area plans expected in terms of the building-to-street sort of experience. And you can see that, I won't try to… if you want to see it, I'll shift the pictures, but we already have, you know, a ton of bike parking on the north side against Folsom. The short-term bike car parking is supposed to be within 50 feet of the front door, so it just became…

[168:05] incredibly burdensome to meet all the other criteria and put that much short-term bike parking there, so we thought a couple things. First, we thought there was plenty of short-term just for the use of the building. with the 15%. The second is that lots of times when people come to visit friends, they just bring the bike up to the unit, and the building's gonna be designed to that, so that sort of worked. And lastly, anybody living in the building could meet their friend to put the short-term bike into their long-term spot, because every unit's going to have two long-term spaces. So it just felt like without, you know, a big commercial driver of people coming shopping or something. It was all manageable, because people would generally be visiting friends. So that was the… that was the reasoning. It was really just to reduce that huge sea of U's out in front of the project to a reasonable number. Thank you. Appreciate it. Claudia, do you have additional… I haven't asked any yet, Mark. Oh, no! I'm so sorry! But I only have two. Okay. If you'll allow it. Yeah.

[169:07] So, thank you. So we're doing a use review for these ground floor quote-unquote residential uses along Folsom. And I was curious, what is the square footage of the lobby and associated areas that you've got going on there on the ground floor? Give me just a second. Crack Researcher is on it. Can we go to your next question? I mean, sure, we'll go to the next one. Different topic. How… Do your buildings and the courtyards in particular interact with the existing buildings to the south of this site? So, we haven't really seen anything dealing with, like, the rear facades or elevations of the buildings directly to the south. Can you tell us anything about those? It's the… I guess I don't fully understand the question, but you're just trying to see if we have a good… are we being a good architectural neighbor to the buildings to the south? Is that the idea? It's… it's more like, how are your spaces designed to…

[170:13] interact with them, right? So we've… we've heard from, Golden West, your neighbors to the north, you know, that they have concerns about your facade. Yep. What are you looking at in terms of views, light, etc? To the south of your side. Well, we were able to separate the building from the property line pretty well on both sides. At one point, we had both the bike path and the drive entry together, and once it was on the north and another time it was on the south. And that was really to create that separation. But we felt, just to your point, that both sides mattered, and so we were able to… and also, you know, having those things next to each other just didn't feel great from a conflict standpoint with, you know, cars and bikes. So by separating them, we were able to pull the building pretty far away from the property line. On the south side, I think it's 24 feet from the property line, maybe a little bit bigger, and that's mostly because that's what the fire trucks need for the fire access.

[171:06] But that creates sort of a light well there. And then we have the courtyards that face south, which is one of the site review suggestions, the courtyards face south. So, that's a pretty decent-sized space. We do know that eventually somebody will build a 5-story building there, and it won't have the same sort of views that it does now, and I think that's fine. We would hope that the neighbor… would, you know, much like we're doing on the north side, would think about what we're doing on the south side of this building, and design something that would be, you know, that would kind of work with it. And that doesn't mean stepping the building way back, it just means creating this sort of interest along that building that would be a good end to that courtyard. But again, it's… It's gonna be, 10 feet off their property line, so it's gonna be 35 feet away from the closest part of our building, and that felt pretty good. Okay, yeah, I was curious, like, if there's existing shading to those courtyards, or if they actually do get up above.

[172:02] They will be above the neighboring building to start, because that's a one-story building, but again. you know, we know that that should redevelop, it should change. Okay. Yeah, and then back to that question about the lobby space. 3,880.173 or something. And if you were not to get a use review approval to have that be residential space, where would you provide lobby functions, or how would you provide lobby functions? I don't think we need a use review just to have the fundamental requirements for the building entry, so we can do a lobby entry, we can do, like, mail drop-off, that sort of stuff is allowed without a use review. What we need a use review for is essentially the co-working area being residential use, and I think, as we sort of outlined in our written statement, and as Allison wrote up in her use review analysis. this is a great spot for people not to drive to work, and if they want to work from home, what we're seeing more and more is, you know, people are just not going into the office every day. I mean, I think city staff is in the office, like, half-time or something, just as an example, that's hundreds of people.

[173:11] So the idea that somebody can still leave their apartment to go to work and go down to their first floor is why we have that co-working there. And we felt like, really, that provides the function of commercial and that interaction to the street. Without making people get into cars, so there's a transportation benefit for doing that, that was identified in the use review submo. Thank you. Okay, any final questions for the applicant? Okay, great. We're going to close this portion, and we're going to open the public hearing. And, I'll just request of, any of the speakers, if you have, to just… if you have any financial relationship to the applicant, that you state that, during your comments.

[174:10] Don't we ask whether the public has a financial… Interest. Interest, including as a neighbor? Okay, so… This was not adopted. It was not. It was not adopted. specifically in… Let me just… Okay. I didn't mean to slow things down. Yeah, no, I, Let me just open the rules real quick, and we'll just take a second, if that's okay with everybody. I have the rules. handy. But at our last public hearing,

[175:00] You know, we had a little bit of a… Okay. While you're doing that, I want to observe that Laura Kaplan just pulled a mug of coffee out of the sky. That was pretty cool. Okay. There is, in my, quick re-reading.

[176:01] In our rules of procedure, there is nothing there. And, so, I think as a matter of good practice, but Just like our… The enforcement of keeping on topic during, public hearing items for this sort of thing is not particularly enforced, and And I'm not going to try to do it. Anyway, it was a… it's a request that, if you have a relationship, and if you're a neighbor, you can… you can… tell us that. That would be appreciated. So… If I may, just to clarify, it sounds like you were referring to the rules of procedure, but I believe what you all are speaking to would be in the virtual and hybrid meeting guidelines. That does specifically state that, prior to offering testimony, the speaker will disclose any financial or business relationship with the applicant, the project, or neighbors, including pay compensation. Also, it would be helpful if the speaker disclosed any membership or affiliation.

[177:10] Point me to the, section, please? Yeah, so this is not the Planning Board Rules of Procedure, this is the City of Boulder Virtual and Hybrid Meeting Guidelines. Thank you. Okay, so can you repeat that? so that… And repeat it, we'll do it for all of the participants here tonight who may be speaking. Go ahead. Yeah, so I am reading from City of Boulder Planning Board Virtual and Hybrid Meeting Guidelines. This document was included in tonight's packet. It appears to be page 3, and in bullet point number 2, public hearing, there is at Number two, bullet point 2, the board requests that prior to offering testimony, the speaker disclose any financial or business relationship with the applicant, the project, or neighbors. This includes any paid compensation. It would also be helpful if the speaker disclosed any membership or affiliation that would affect their testimony.

[178:14] Great, thank you, Deshaun, I really appreciate that. And… It is… it is an interesting… it is interesting that that is actually not part of our rules of procedure, but it is in page 3 of our packet in the hybrid meeting. Thank you very much. Okay, having, clarified all of that. we will go to our public hearing, which, Thomas, we traditionally, go to in-room speakers first? Yes, that's correct, and we do have one individual signed up to speak in person, and that's Jonathan Singer. Jonathan, if you would like to approach the podium and give your comment. And meanwhile, for everyone online, this is the public hearing opportunity for item 5B.

[179:00] If you would like to speak to this item, please go ahead and raise your hand now so we can get an idea of how many speakers there will be on this item. Thank you. Hey, Thomas. I just want to look at the, 2, 3, 4, 5… If you are online. And you are planning on speaking. would you please raise your hand now, just so we can get a count? I don't think we're going to have to shorten anything but… Yeah, we should be fine. Okay, thank you very much, Thomas, and jonathan, carry on. You just turned off the mic, if you could… there you go. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Commission as well. I am Jonathan Singer, and this is the maiden voyage of my bifocals. I, I want to mention that the applicant is… are members of the Boulder Chamber, and I am the Senior Director of Policy Programs for the Boulder Chamber.

[180:03] In light of today's holiday, I did want to mention in the spirit of Sukkot, with its temporary dwelling, I hope it reminds us of our shared vulnerability and inspire a commitment to peace as we hold in our hearts all those who have been hurt by the October 7th attack and its devastating aftermath. In that vein, I also want to talk about the, abode that is being built here today. As you can see, this… projects like this truly represent a gold standard. They represent an opportunity to take advantage and use of the fact that amenities such as a grocery store and other retail environments are close by. But more specifically, I want to, mention the fact that there's a proposed multi-use path along the north side of the property, and the applicant's building the path now, and we commend that, but until that connection to 26th Street can be constructed through the neighboring parcel, the path will dead-end at the property line.

[181:06] Why is this important right now? Well, from a Vision Zero standpoint. Boulder's commitment to eliminating serious injuries and fatalities on our transportation network are Paramount. And we believe opening a public path that ends abruptly could inadvertently introduce new safety risks. Cyclists and pedestrians expect continuous facilities, and the sudden dead end forces users to stop abruptly and make unsafe U-turns, increasing the potential for conflict with vehicles, residents, or other travelers. So, the Boulder Chamber, supports this proposal to temporarily limit access to building residents only until the 26th Street connection is complete. And this upholds that Vision Zero principle. Safety by design. It prevents foreseeable conflicts before they occur. At the same time, it allows the developer the infrastructure now

[182:00] Ensuring it's ready to seamlessly open once the full network connection is in place. This is a sequencing issue, not a policy retreat. We can protect public safety today while preserving Boulder's long-term multimodal goals. This will ensure that the infrastructure is in place and ready for eventual public use, aligning with the City's long-range network plans. It avoids near-term safety and wayfinding problems associated with public dead ends, and it allows housing and site improvements which are the heart of this project, to proceed without delay. So, in closing, we support the housing and its core elements, but we also support the applicant's temporary access restriction, and we hope that you consider this in your deliberations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for joining us, and next we will move to our online participants. First up, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, I'm unmuting you now, and you will have 3 minutes to speak. Please go ahead.

[183:05] I'm opposing this project not because Bill didn't do a great job designing it, but because this is just too much. We've got the Rally. We've got Depot, we've got Diagonal. We've got the Glenwood one. It's… we got papelios. This community cannot handle this level of Congestion. And all this housing, drives jobs. And then jobs, housing balance doesn't get balanced. It never gets balanced. Boulder Valley Comp Plan is supposed to balance jobs and housing. Nobody is balancing jobs and housing. The more housing you put in, the more jobs you're gonna have. High-end jobs? And many low-end jobs that can't afford to live here, that need more housing.

[184:03] Right? So this is more apartment buildings. People don't like to live in apartment buildings, even if they have their, you know, work… Study, place, you know, co-working. Still, they don't want to be trapped in their place, or they're going to use carbon footprint. If not to go to Europe, they're going up to the mountains, or they're going just to Sinitas, and they're moving around. They're going somewhere. Going, going, going. Because they live in an apartment building. They live in an apartment building at all those places that I mentioned, and many more. And then, with the student population crushed into apartments and tinier and tinier spaces. We need our spaces, our open space, and that's why many people come here. But ironically, it brings them just exactly what they don't want, which is more confinement to a small space.

[185:06] So they leave, and they go out. And basically, the bicycles just add to it. They still have their cars. It's nice that it went down to 126 parking spaces, but 144 units is not okay. It's not… I mean, let's go… Glenwood is 150. Diagonal, who knows what that is. Depot, Bill knows all these numbers. Rally Sports… place. Like, this is just… too much. And then throw in Sundance, and throw in CU South, and throw in, where do we put the homeless camping now? You know, they don't want it in North Boulder. It wasn't supposed… you know, all of this. All this expense. AIPAC owns everything. You know, this is all about… Israel and Palestine. That's what this whole subject is. It couldn't me be more of a local issue.

[186:06] And you know it's not October 7th, it's November 2nd, 1917, Balfour. Thank you, Lynn. Your time is up. Thanks for joining us. We're going to move to our next speaker. We have Beach H, we will need your full name, so please begin with your full name. Hi, my name is… thank you, members. My name is Beach Helterbrand. I live at 1850 Folsom, the neighbor to the north, where I'm on the HOA board. Additionally, I own a small business with an office on this block. This is my neighborhood. I have a financial interest as a neighbor, as I own my unit, am 35 years old, and intend to live here until they put me in the ground. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of the residents of Horizon West. To start, a board member asked about the multi-use path being used as open space for the height modification, and I'd like to follow up with a question of how a multi-use path from the street to a fence can be considered public access for the height exception.

[187:04] Even the applicant admitted it goes nowhere, so why does it count? Additionally, ML asked how many of our units' views would be impacted. The answer is at least 20 units, or one-sixth of our building. I would love to address the falsities espoused by the developer as regards this block, but they are too numerous to cover in my allotted time. I guess with all the exceptions they are asking for, they have to make my home sound like a blighted area. The more I have talked to my neighbors and thought about this building in 1840, 1844 Folsom, the angrier and sadder I have gotten. This city has heightened solar restrictions for a reason. This is not a big city. Property owners in this city do not expect that a five-story building will be built 30-odd feet from their window, removing their view of the Flatirons, and forcing them to live in constant shadow. But this development intends to subject at least 30 of my neighbors to this fate, to say nothing of ending Our building's goal of utilizing our southern covered parking for solar energy.

[188:01] We are not entitled to the shadow protection that most residential buildings in this city have, because for some crazy reason, we are zoned as BR1. I will never understand why our plan is zoned as a business development. We are a 50-year-old residential tower that has always been residential. But thanks to this zoning quirk, we are not entitled to the same solar rights, which makes it incumbent upon this board to protect our rights and quality of life. I am crushed and saddened for my neighbors. Some of those losing their view are in their 80s and have lived here for 30-plus years. Some rarely leave their units. They invested their life savings in a piece of property, and now they will lose their view, and the unit they plan to leave to their children, or use to cover their end-of-life costs, will be worth pennies on the dollar. Even sadder, once this building is complete, those who are unable to leave their units will spend their final years living in constant shadow and never seeing the sun. What for? Affordable housing? Units in our building rent for less per square foot than any of these new cookie-cutter, five-story sardine cans these developers call apartments.

[189:01] The only reason for this height exemption is so that a developer can add floors and make more money. This development will put a rounding error of a dent in the housing supply shortage in this town, while crippling my neighbors financially and forcing them to literally live in the shadows. This development will destroy my neighbor's nest egg and wreck their quality of life. So unless you are an evil Robin Hood and want to steal from the working class and elderly to stuff the pockets of wealthy developers, you must vote against this project due to the hype modification and protect our residents' right to see the sun. Thank you, that concludes your time, and we are going to move to the next speaker, Douglas Bentt. Douglas, please go ahead. Douglas, I am unmuting you, I'm not sure if you are… If your microphone.

[190:03] Can you hear me? Yes, we hear you now. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Sonia Christian Bent. I am Doug Spence's wife. We own a condo at 1850 Folsom, which is the adjacent building. First, I have to say, after looking and listening to all the Beautiful, architectural drawings. Wow, this residential building looks amazing. It will be very nice to have it next to Horizon West versus the commercial space. Just walking up the block right now, we just see commercial. When this building is built, we're going to actually have neighbors, not just a commercial space where people leave, and you don't see them until the next day. Second thing I would like to speak about is I would like to speak in support of the proposed parking allocation for 1844, 40 Folsom. While some residents have expressed concern that 126 parking spaces are allocated for 144 units may not be sufficient, I believe this ratio is actually appropriate.

[191:07] And forward, looking for the younger demographic that will most likely live there. And to conclude, this plan aligns with how younger residents are living today, and how cities like ours are evolving. I encourage the Commission to recognize that the proposed parking and bike facilities are not only adequate, but well-suited for the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you for joining us. Our next speaker is Mark Thompson. Mark, you can go ahead and begin. Yeah, hi, I'm Mark Thompson. I have a residence there at 1850 Folsom. I'm also the president of the HOA there at Horizon West. I had a prepared statement as president, but after listening to the presentation, I think I'm going to kind of go a little sideways on it.

[192:03] I have an answer to the question about why we're not, I think there was a question posed about the number of electric bike charging stations. Why is the number higher? I think that's what I heard earlier. The reason why it's not higher is because there's no demand for it at this point. If everybody had an electric bike. Then there would be a demand for it, but everybody who owns a bike obviously does not own an electric bike. And I feel like that… Concept is true to this entire design of this building. The parking spaces alone raise a lot of questions and concerns for… for me as a neighbor to this building. you know, I think the racial that needs to be looked at is the number of bedrooms to parking spaces in an apartment building, not the total number of units. Because if the clientele is going to be students, which it feels like it would be, given the nature of the building, then I think it's logical to assume that there's going to be a lot more cars than there are parking spaces available. So what's going to happen to all that parking?

[193:04] And what's gonna happen to us being right next to us, right next to this development, that, you know, this parking would be affected by? The only other thing I'd say is on the variances, it just feels like this formula For variances, and in this particular case. It just feels like there's a potential for a lot of problems going forward. The parking plans alone, to me. pose a significant… financial burden on Horizon West in the future, as far as, you know, needing to get gates to secure us and to keep out people who shouldn't be parking there. And it just doesn't feel like it's a good formula for success in the future, so… I'll just leave it there. Thanks. Thanks for your time, Mark. Our next speaker is Jacqueline Chavez. Jacqueline, you can go ahead and speak, you'll have 3 minutes.

[194:05] Hello, Planning Board. My name is Jackie Weinheimer, formerly Chavez, and I live on Folsom Street next to the proposed development. I really like living in this area because I'm so close to many different places in Boulder. We can walk to downtown Pearl Street for food and drinks, a quick walk to the grocery store, and Greenleaf Park, where I take my dog. I even walked to the dentist from where I live. And I think future residents next door would probably also love living here, and being able to walk to so many different places in Boulder. Right now, the proposed site is severely underused. The office buildings have been half-empty since the pandemic, and the only people living there are those in the occasional encampments that pop up in the parking lot. The plan for more apartments would be great for Boulder. Housing here is very unaffordable, especially for young people like me and my friends who have been priced out of Boulder, which is very sad. So the 144 new units would be very helpful. I support the site plan before you tonight because it would support Boulder's goals for housing.

[195:10] And be much better than what is there today. Thank you for your time. Thank you, and we have one more raised hand. Alex Weinheimer, you can go ahead and speak. Alex, we have you unmuted. Are you hearing it? We can hear you now. Good evening, Planning Board. My name is Alex Weinheimer, and I'm speaking on my own behalf. When trying to determine where in Boulder I wanted to live, there was one primary factor for me. Walkability. I wanted to be near many day-to-day destinations. That's how I wound up living on the 1800 block of Folsom Street.

[196:07] In the years that I've been here, I've lived both car-free and shared a vehicle with my wife. We're a short walk to a wide choice of grocery stores, restaurants, and parks. We can take the hop downtown to CU and 29th Street. It's a great spot to call home. Out our windows so we can see the 1840 Folsom site. A couple of modest office buildings fronting Folsom, with an expansive parking lot in the back. Very, very rarely have even half the parking spaces been in use at the same time, and of course, the site is dead on nights and weekends. Our city has so much excessive office space and a shortage of housing, so the site plan before you tonight presents a fantastic opportunity. It would take a large, underutilized piece of land in central Boulder and add some much-needed housing in a great neighborhood. I encourage the planning board to support the proposed site and use. The proposed scale, as permitted by the City Charter, would enable the construction of much-needed housing in line with the vision of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including our sub-area Plan.

[197:11] The proposed vehicle parking strategies are well justified, given the favorable location of the development and the transportation demand management plan strategies. The extensive bicycle parking is also a great inclusion. Given how many of the residents Bull… Live. Likely be students and young professionals. While Folsom Street is not a low-stress bikeway today, it will be in the coming years. Two months ago tonight, City Council advanced the design concept for protected bike lanes and other multimodal safety improvements along our street as a part of the core arterial network. Please support the concept before you tonight. It's well designed, much needed, and would be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Alex, and if anybody else would like to speak to the…

[198:00] Public hearing for item 5B, this is your opportunity before we close. This portion of the meeting. And seeing no further raised hands, I'm gonna pass it back to you, Chair. Great, thank you. And thanks to all who, took the time, to speak tonight. We heard you all. And now is an opportunity for the applicant to, any comment on the public comments. Just really briefly, because we measured… excuse me, because we've measured it, and it's come up. So the distance between the southern wall of the tower and the proposed north side of this project is between 57 and 80 feet, depending on Because our northern side modulates, it's… there's a range, but it's 57 to 80 feet between the buildings. Great, thank you. Okay, we're going to, that closes the public hearing, and now we're going to move to… Board deliberation, and, I believe Allison has a nice… key issue slide.

[199:37] Okay. So, as we have done as of late, we'll… I propose a round of comment, about, where board members get to, speak their piece about whether This fulfills these, key issues and criteria, and, I find it most efficient if we answer all three, as we, as we go around.

[200:08] And, then we can move on into Motion making. Kurt. I have a question for staff. Can I ask that first? Sure, yeah, yeah, please. So the applicant had requested a few changes to the conditions, and one of them I want clarification on, as I understand it, they're asking with regards to the Northside Multi-Use Path. A reservation instead of a public access easement. Can you explain to me what those words mean? So… Our typical practice is to get a dedication, which is, I think, what we've asked for in the conditions of approval, if I'm not mistaken. Yep. So that's, you know, we basically get the property in fee. Like we would any other multi-use path.

[201:01] I think in this case, the applicant is asking for a reservation, which basically, is kind of the least amount of property rights you can have. It really just preserves the area from being ever further developed. And I think what they're requesting is, a… Reservation in an effort to allow a gate to be placed there at the sidewalk until… The rest of the connection is built punched through to 26th, at which time, then, an access easement would be dedicated to the city, and the gate would be removed. So I think right now, the idea is to temporarily restrict the public. From using that until, at whatever point, the property to the east redevelops, new connections are established. It's problematic for us for a number of reasons. It's really hard for us to track that sort of thing over time. That's why we ask for the, you know, usually the dedication when there's a connection that's specified on the plan. But I think that's the ask tonight.

[202:04] Okay, thank you, that was very helpful. Laura, I see you, and I've got Mason Hloquy. Okay, yeah, please, go ahead, Mason, and then we'll go to Laura. Yeah, so on that, I see what they're getting at, and it makes a lot of sense to me. But it sounds like the method doesn't feel feasible to the city, based on what you just said. What would be… An appropriate route to achieve the same ends. It's just typically not standard that we have the reservation. It's always a dedication with the public access easement, and as Charles said, we just can't track Requiring that future public access easement. You know, especially if that property doesn't redevelop for another, you know, 20 years, or… I guess maybe I didn't ask my question very clearly. Is there another way to achieve the same, and not using a reservation? To allow a gate there? To allow a gate there. No, not if there's a public access easement with a dedication there.

[203:06] Okay. So, laura, if it's okay, I'm gonna colloquy on the same… so, the issue… is… As one of the speakers mentioned. If it's open, and you are traversing west to east, and you then encounter A dead-end offense. the applicant has requested reservation, which will allow them to gate it. What other sort of treatment would we expect, or would it be the city's responsibility to treat The multi-use path, and it's a dead end. Until such time that it extends to 26th. when you say treat it, meaning signage saying dead end, something along those lines? Signage, you know, yeah. We could absolutely work with the applicant to, you know, to sign the path, you know, so that, it was clear that there's no through pedestrian traffic there at this point.

[204:12] And then, how would we go about… so the applicant has… Verbally given us some proposed changes in regard to bike charging, etc, to the conditions. Do we have… a… Well, when we get to this point, do we have a written copy of their proposed changes, and then are we… anyway, how would we… how would you suggest we deal with the difference between their proposed changes and what you… Thomas has the language. Okay, when we get to that. Okay, okay, Laura? Okay, Laura, go ahead. This… this might, need to wait until we see the language on the screen, but are there any other of the applicant's proposed changes to the conditions of approval that staff is uncomfortable with or would want to modify?

[205:13] I think there is a request to defer the financial guarantee for the Eco Pass until certificate of occupancy. That's problematic in the sense that administratively, we typically get that financial guarantee at the time of building permit issuance, because that's how our system is set up. It creates another administrative burden for us to try and track that at certificate of occupancy. It's not the end of the world, but it's something else to miss. What's the other one? And then the last one is tied to public improvements, so that's…

[206:02] Widening for bike lanes, all of the public improvements that would be required, that financial guarantee also be similarly deferred from certificate of… I'm sorry, from building permit to certificate of occupancy, and it spits the same issue for us. It's just, administratively, we're set up to do it at building permit. Okay. You know, I'll hold my comments on this until we get there, but just a quick question. Would it be an option for us, if we don't particularly have strong opinions about these matters, to simply defer them to staff to work out with the applicant, as you might have done if you had had more time? And I'm sorry, The last one we just talked about, it's not the financial guarantee for the, public improvements, it's the actual construct and complete. It's the ac… I'm sorry, it's the actual construction. Correct, yep. So it's about the timing of when those things would be constructed. Correct.

[207:03] So, I guess I'm wondering, are these things that you need a determination from Planning Board about tonight, or are these things that could get hammered out with the applicant at a later time if the board is comfortable deferring to staff on these conditions, or some of these conditions? They are conferring at the moment. I appreciate a good conference. I'm gonna bring your best for you tonight as well. Someone actually show me how it's drafted now?

[208:01] So, while you guys work through the conditions and the reconciliation of the conditions. I'm going to suggest that the board begin Their commentary in regard to the key issues, and when we get to motion-making. And, voting, then… I think we'll… staff will have had sufficient time To, present us with a… A reconciled set of, conditions We can actually address tonight. Mark, I have a question for staff, also. So, staff is, they're working through these conditions, so. Anyway, I have a question that isn't deliberation. Okay. And, anyway.

[209:03] Should I wait? Yeah, let's wait just a second. Or… Okay. What's the question? Well, we've had, we've had a bunch. I can ask. Go ahead, ML, yeah. So, it… I think it came in writing from, some comments, and it also came tonight from one of the people in public comment. So my question is, can there be a condition on the project to take responsibility for parking consequences, to Horizon West? it sounds like Horizon West might be, Incurring costs. To try to manage Parking, people trying to park. from this applicant's project over on their property, and I'm curious as to whether there's any recourse

[210:01] From that, to require The applicant's project to take responsibility for That sort of thing. Yeah, that would likely just be an enforcement issue, so if… The neighbors to the north were experiencing parking in their spaces that are not for residents, then they could reach out to our enforcement team. As far as conditions, that would be, like, an off-site condition and not something that we can typically condition. So they were concerned that they would have to put up a gate, or monitoring gate, that they would incur a cost to deter parking. Yeah, I think that would be up to the property owners and the HOA if they want to put in that gate, but if there is spillover parking from the subject. development, then they… they could reach out to our enforcement team, and they would come out and make sure that… that parking is not happening, but… We can't really control whether or not that gate is put in.

[211:02] No, what I was saying is the cost of the gate. If the cost is because of something that this applicant's… site. Create. Yeah, we can't… we can't require any, conditions that. You know, require improvements off-site. Or that would take responsibility for off-site consequences? No. That's my question. Thank you. Mason, did you have another question? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so following back on the, the bike path conversation, what I heard you say was that it's hard to track, this… this structure, but I'm… I'm having a little trouble… fully understanding how that's hard to track, because it seems to me if… It's on the transportation plan, it's my understanding, that path. The… if another site were to be developed to connect to that path, then wouldn't that, I don't know, jog the memory that this was the situation?

[212:10] Does that make sense, what I'm saying? It does, but I think that also then just revisits the off-site connect… you know, we couldn't condition, let's say, the property to the east is redeveloped, we can't… Not conditioning. Right, right. Just like, we didn't do the… the, the public right, or… I'm… I'm… The dedication, right away. The dedication. Yeah, I mean, I think… staff may recall the previous project, but it's still just not a way that we have… we don't have an administrative way to track that. It would just be… hopefully, whoever's reviewing that case knows that the subject site… But if you were to have… But if you were to check… Like, would you be able to find that information? I mean, probably, but it's just not part of our review process to make sure adjacent parcels have constructed or dedicated their easements, especially if it's, you know, 20 years from now, just…

[213:01] hypothetical, We wouldn't really have any way of tracking that. So, like, you wouldn't see, like, oh, this was built this way, here's this concrete line, what is that? Oh, it's reserved. You wouldn't be able to look that up. Yeah, it's just not standard to look at the easements on the adjacent parcels. It may… it may be caught, but it may not be, and we just don't have a way to form… formalize that review and requirement. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Okay, again, so here's, here's the plan. We're going to comment on the three key issues, and then… We hope that… We would have, A reconciled set of conditions to review when we get to, making the motion. And staff would be okay with the concept of amending the requirement for public improvements from building permit to certificate of occupancy? You are. We'd be okay with that, yeah.

[214:04] Okay. So we'll have all the Thomas to share, yeah. Okay, excellent, thanks. So, Who is ready to go? they're addressing… the addressing of the three key issues. Mason? Great. Efficient. Yep, so I'll roll through these. Point number one, is the proposed project consistent? I find that the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria under 9214HBRC 1981. The project aligns with the Buller Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Buller Plaza Sub-area Plan, advancing goals of compact, walkable, and transit-oriented development. The proposed high-density residential use supports housing diversity and efficient land use while maintaining compatibility with surrounding commercial and residential areas. The site design provides strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through multi-use path connections, detached sidewalks, and landscape buffers.

[215:04] The Transportation Demand Management Plan demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. The building design meets our standards for quality and urban character, using durable materials, articulated facades, and defined entries to create a human-scaled, active land… Streetscape. Parking is enclosed within structures, minimizing visual and environmental impact. Open space is well distributed, accessible, and programmed to meet residents' needs. Regarding height and land use intensity, the proposal qualifies for a height bonus under 9-14H6, allowing additional stories from FAR in the BR1 district. The project will be required to meet the inclusionary housing increase of 11% for bonus units. With compliance verified at the building permit stage. And I'll skip over that last bit to keep moving. Number 2, Is the proposed project consistent with use review criteria? I find the ground floor residential amenity programming, lobby co-working, residential offices, meets the use review criteria. It provides direct

[216:04] On-site services for residents reduces off-site trips, and offers a compatible transition between nearby lower-intensity residential to the west and higher intensity commercial to the east. The scale and operating characteristics are compatible with the area, infrastructure impacts are addressed with onset utility, drainage, and streetscape improvements, and the use is consistent with the character established in the Boulder Plaza Sub-Area Plan and BVRC design guidelines. Point number 3 is a proposal consistent with the vision for the area shown in BVRC guidelines and Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan. I believe the proposal is consistent with the vision for the areas described in the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines and the Boulder Plaza Subarea Plan. Both documents call for high-quality, pedestrian-oriented redevelopment that strengthens the BVRC as a cohesive and memorable place.

[217:03] The proposed residential use adds vitality and supports the mixed-use goals of the sub-area plan, while the building's placement, height transitions, and enclosed parking aligns with the BBRC's intent for compact, well-integrated urban form. Along Folsom Street, the project reinforces the transitional role of the corridor between higher-intensity commercial use to the east and lower-scale residential to the west, consistent with the Folsom transitional objectives. Great. That was thorough and complete, Mason. Thank you very much. Okay, who wants to follow that one? Kurt? I guess I'll follow that, because I can throw away all my comments. pretty much just to do it. So Kia Issue 1 is the proposed project consistent with the site review criteria? I find that it is with one exception, and that is the curb cut, the lack of a curb cut for the multi-use path at Folsom, so I will have a condition related to that.

[218:06] Due to, the site review criteria 9214H2A. For number 2, is the proposed project consistent with the use review criteria? Yeah, I agree, again, with Mason. The ground floor residential uses are… are consistent. And is it consistent with the area plans? Yes, I agree that it is. So, I'll just leave it at that. Okay, great. I'm just… Checking online to see if… Okay, no hands up online yet. Oh, ML! ML, there you go. I will go and be even briefer, whittling our comments down to, Clear and concise. So, I'm going to comment on the three issues collectively. There's a… there's potentially a good pedestrian experience in spite of the hike.

[219:04] It's unfortunate that the neighbors lose their view, which somewhat explicitly is required to be protected by the sub-area plan. I'm concerned by only 11% pervious and the heat sink that the majority of the site retains. I'm not going to condition this project, but I think it could have done better. Thank you, ML. Claudia? You ready? I'll give it a shot. Starting with question 1. My answer is yes, this project is consistent with both the BVCP land use map and policies. Supporting jobs, housing balance, compact development, infill, and walkability. I think it's further consistent with the relevant portions of the BVRC design guidelines and the Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan.

[220:03] Particularly those portions emphasizing pedestrian movement, streetscape, and building orientation. structured and screened parking, and the anticipation of additional housing and height in this area, although I will point out again that I think it is ridiculous that we are subjecting proposals to plans that have not been revised since the 1990s. I think the proposal is, with possible minor exceptions, consistent with the site design criteria. Including improvements required by the TMP, requirements for open space, and for a height bonus. In writing up these notes, I anticipated some concerns around bike parking and access and open space. It sounds like the bike issues are being addressed by others, and I'm receptive to well-crafted conditions that formalize that. I am less receptive to concerns about open space on the site.

[221:02] I think as a board, we have had some extensive discussion recently about open space requirements, and particularly whether that space is ground level and or visible from adjoining public rights-of-way. As addressed in the criteria for additional height in 9-2. dash 14H4B, little 1, 4, 7th. If I understand staff's guidance about this and the building facade lengths correctly, these are considerations and not stand-alone criteria. And I think that given that the open space on this site is Of the quality demanded by our code. I also think what the elevated courtyards here facilitate is also critical to meeting other site review criteria. Namely, that they allow the applicant to place parking under the building, thus reducing surface parking and pavement. And the many environmental and design problems that surface parking causes.

[222:02] The BVCP and other adopted plans talk so much about making a higher quality development for all members of our community, and I think the problem-solving expressed in the site and building design here makes a higher quality livable place. And sociable spaces for apartment dwellers, and these things matter. With regards to the use review. I think, yes, it meets the criteria. The ground floor residential use provides a convenience to residents of the area. It reduces adverse impacts that could be created. by vacant commercial space if we required that here. We've also had this discussion before in areas that are clearly saturated with retail and office uses, and we have provided relief. I think we should do here… do so here as well. And question 3 about the, The other design guidelines and sub-community plan I did address in my answer to the first. Great, thank you, Claudia.

[223:04] Laura, are you… Ready in here. Yes. Yeah, and I've been here the whole time. I know I said I might have to step out for a bit, but I did not have to. Understand, I just… just… Yep. I'm here, and I can go. And I am going to be a little less brief, I'm gonna be winging this a little bit, because I want to commend the applicant for Answering questions really well, and changing my mind on a few things. So I'm gonna start with the… From the bottom up, is the proposal consistent with the vision for the area as shown in the BBRC design guidelines and the Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan? I'm gonna say yes with one slight… modification that I'm going to propose as a condition. having to do with the commercial space. And I think this also goes to, number one as well, in terms of the site review criteria, one of which is consistency with the land use map. I do think that, you know, if we're going to apply

[224:10] the code that we have, the site review criteria, the land use map, having this be a general business area, I disagree that 100% residential projects are encouraged or a good thing in a general business land use category. You know, the description in the BBCP clearly states that general business consists of a mix of business uses And compatible housing will be encouraged and may be required as a transition. the area should continue to be used without expanding the strip character. I read this as encouraging adding residential to commercial uses in general business, and I 100% support that. I 100% have… support having four floors of residential above some commercial space and some parking. I think that's a really great use of the site.

[225:05] But I do think that that Folsom corridor deserves to still be general business, not 100% residential. I think, you know, I'm sensitive to the concerns about vacant retail. We definitely don't want that. I think that we hit upon a pretty elegant solution in some other projects where A resident-serving amenity space can also be shared with the public. And if the applicant is open to that, I think that that is a good solution to include some neighborhood-serving commercial uses. So, for example, people paying a membership fee or a daily use fee to use that co-working space, or whatever that resident amenity space along Folsom turns out to be. I think that encourages the social mixing, and it makes sure that this is not a space that is removed from access to the public completely. So I will be proposing that condition. And see what the rest of folks think about that, and whether that might be acceptable to the applicant.

[226:04] And that relates also to the, Boulder Plaza sub-area Plan. Folsom transitional area, I don't think that a 100% residential building provides any kind of useful transition between small-scale residential and more intense commercial. I think it's the use that needs to transition, so having even just a little bit of mixing along Folsom there, I think, would bring it into compliance with that Folsom transitional area in a way that makes me feel very comfortable supporting that it is consistent with that plan. Moving up, the use review criteria. I think it clearly meets that. And then, up to the site review criteria. Again, this relates to that general business owning. I do want to say that I had some significant concerns, as you can tell from my questions, about

[227:00] The criteria for a height bonus that relate to that open space courtyard and that 200-foot building length. And I want to say that I do object to framing those as mere suggestions that can be discarded without a lot of analysis. I think we have to do our due diligence, which is not to say that my board… fellow board members have not done a lot of analysis. or that the applicant and staff did not do analysis, but I think it behooves us, and in fact, we are required, to treat those, those design factors as more than just suggestions. And I want to… I want to quote from Carl Geiler, and some of the testimony that he gave to Council. When these site design criteria were revised to add that, ability to have a little bit more flexibility and not have to Rigidly apply these factors, right?

[228:01] So in the staff recommendation to adopt this language that said that these are factors that should be considered. Carl's slides said, these site review criteria includes criteria that are significantly more descriptive, making the expected design quality baseline very clear, so that projects will be on better footing coming in the door. And when a question was asked about this by Lauren, I think in relationship to having entryways every 50 feet. Carl's response was. We show factors as best practices. That may not be the right answer in every context. We added some language that recognizes there will be different contexts where that 50 feet, or I'm gonna… me, personally, I'm gonna say by extension, that factor as written is not going to make sense. It does not have to be rigidly applied. So it seems clear to me that these are expected best practices that show the design quality

[229:02] that we're looking for, but they don't have to be rigidly applied if they don't make sense in context. So that's what I'm looking for, and that's why I asked the questions that I did, about whether there's something about this site in particular That would make it impractical, unwise, just really undesirable to break that building down to less than a 200-foot building facade along a public right-of-way. And to have that courtyard at ground level. And I think that Bill gave very persuasive answers, about why, in this particular context. The longer building facade makes sense on this long, skinny right-of-way, and that, in this context, in this area of town, with such intensity, having that courtyard at ground level doesn't make sense on this site. I do think we're seeing a lot of projects that are making an argument that a ground-level courtyard doesn't make sense, especially for a residential building. Now, not all site review projects are residential, some of them are commercial, and so a courtyard might look different and have different uses.

[230:06] I do think that if we are finding that we're getting more exceptions than projects where it does make sense in context, we might want to revisit that criterion in the site review criteria, because it doesn't make any sense for us to have a criterion that we're making exceptions to basically with every project. But I will say that I came into this hearing not knowing which way it was going to go for me on these criteria, and I do think the applicant made a good contextual argument. So, I will be supporting the project, and I will be proposing that one condition about the commercial, potentially sharing that amenity space with, the public and making it more commercial serving. Okay, thank you, Laura. So, my response to the three key questions, I really appreciate my fellow, board members, being so thorough in, the way they've addressed these. And,

[231:13] So… the first question, I… I certainly find… The project consistent with the site review criteria. And I want to note that We have a criteria, and that criteria tries to serve the city as a whole, and… And I think sometimes we diminish or kind of forget trying to serve the residents of the project. And, that sometimes the criteria, we tend to focus on those things that are external, to the site, and how it relates to the street, etc. And I think this applicant has done a really good job taking a site and making it work for the residents while still fulfilling the broader site review criteria and how it relates, to the public right-of-way Folsom

[232:14] the multi-use path, etc. And I think, so, I appreciate that, and, And I certainly think it is consistent with the use review. Criteria, and the fact that It… this is… Anyway, it's consistent there, and I have no, desire for, some additional transition, Between the commercial uses immediately to the south and the, very dense residential use immediately to the north. I think this is, I think this whole transition argument is something that, again, as I go around the city. I see some of our most lively, interesting, activated spaces are where, residential uses, abut commercial uses, and I… you can look at West Pearl, you can look at a number of different areas, but those… those areas, we… we don't need…

[233:19] this gentle, fluffed transition. some of these… what we need are lively areas that people use and people live in. And then, finally, I want to concur with Claudia that, I… I don't give… and maybe I'll get in trouble here. I give less weight to a plan that is 35 years old, and, you know. it just, the world has… there's a lot that has changed in the world. So, while I think it's consistent with the BVRC and the Boulder Plaza sub-area plan,

[234:03] it is, I think the site review criteria and the use review criteria, should carry a much greater weight. So, and, so I will be supporting this, and I hope that we can… I… as someone who many times makes motions to condition projects, I'm going to try to minimize… I'm hoping that the, agreement between the applicant and staff for the, proposed conditions that we're going to be addressing here shortly, I'm hoping that that works for most of us, and we… I won't be, proposing, I don't think, Any changes to those conditions. So… Okay, any other comment before we go on to looking at conditions and making motions? And again, this is a site review, and so, the conditions, unlike the annexation, thing we did earlier, where we had a motion before the main motion, etc. This is a main motion, and then

[235:10] possible amendments. To that main motion. Okay, and so here we have… the main motion. and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and I think we need to… Right. Review those, and… Would… would the staff want to walk us through this? Sure, we have to. So, the first one relates to the proposed bike parking, so 20%, an additional 20% of spaces to be wired for charging. Okay? So staff is supportive of that. The second relates to the reservation rather than the dedication and public access easement, so that the applicant

[236:10] could… Install a gate on the multi-use path until it's further… developed and connects onto 26. Staff wouldn't support that, but for the board's consideration this evening, we put it up there. The next one, so Condition 5… So this relates to the timing of the financial guarantee of the EcoPass. So the applicant, again, is, requesting that it be provided at certificate of occupancy. Our typical practice, as I indicated, is that building permit. And then if you wanna… okay, so number 6 relates to the timing of the, construction and completion of the public improvements. Staff would support changing prior to issuance of building permit to prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.

[237:04] So it's 3N5, I think that… Staff would struggle to support. Mason? So, on the first one. I would like to propose a change to it, but I don't know what the appropriate method is. Well, so… it's formal. Yes. You would do it formally, and so, maybe let's just discuss it for a second, and then before… and then we can talk about logistically how to do it. What is your… I want those… 20% to be inclusive of the cargo bike spaces, not just any space.

[238:02] Does that make sense? Okay, so… And if you rem… Remember, last week, The 10x3 spaces. Are there cargo bike spaces? Those are required to be electrified. Is that… what I remember. I'm asking staff or the applicant, either one, who can clarify that. I thought it was the other way around. If you're electrified, you're required to be 10x3. No, it was the 10x3. is the 5% that was the requirement, and those were electrified, and so it would be 20% what I read this as, 20% additional spaces beyond the 5% required by the 10x3 cargo spaces would be electrified. Within the designs, those weren't listed as electrified. Yeah, and I just want to add that the applicant is supportive of having all the cargo bike spaces be electrified.

[239:00] Okay, clear that, thanks. Dream? Sorry, just to follow up on that, so you are… You are comfortable with this as stated? Okay. So… How, I know Laura has a condition she's going to propose. But… in dealing with these conditions, so we have, let's say. Can we say, with a… with a show of hands, a nod of four, if Council gets to use that, then maybe we can too, that we agree… With the things that staff agrees with. Okay? Mark. And so… Yes? Perhaps we could just make a motion to say, board recommends amending… the proposed motion with the applicant's proposed amendments as acceptable to staff, or something like that. And then that would include

[240:10] Staff's ability to reject some of these if they do… are not comfortable. Or we could just individually amend them, tack them on, the ones that staff is okay with, we could tack them on to the main motion as amendments. Or, I would suggest… let me ask… let's… let me ask the question a different way. Is the board generally supportive of staff's findings, their opposition to the two items, that we would simply support staff's position on those two items. In that case, We could… we could just… adopt staff's position, which Adopts the applicants on the three items, and adopts their own position on the two items.

[241:05] as a consequence, We'll just… We would be able to adopt this set of conditions. Was I… was I… I was unclear on that. Okay. Did you… did you follow that? Okay, go one at a time, and… Okay. We need to begin with the main motion, then. If we're gonna do this. Okay? So… Let's scroll back up. Oh, what's that? To the main motion, please. Okay. Let's, do you want it? Yeah.

[242:01] Okay, I move to approve site review application LUR2024-00077. and use review application LUR2024-00078, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I'd like to second, please. Okay, we have a motion and a second. And… I want to go right to the conditions, okay? And so what I'm gonna propose Is that we go… We make a, proposal for a condition. One at a time. And we, adopt either the applicant or staff's

[243:01] proposal on… on that. So… Okay, Kurt? So, I move that to add a condition, the… Okay. That an additional 20% of the bike parking spaces be wired for charging, but not subject to the 10 foot by 3 foot space requirement. And this would be offered above and beyond the required 5%. I'll second that. Okay, Kurt, is your motion? Would you like to speak to that? Okay. I, I… don't have anything else. Let's, Does any other board member want to speak to this motion? Okay. Mason? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Laura. Yes. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes.

[244:01] Okay. the next one. I think we just could skip this one, couldn't we, Mark? Since we are not… advocating for doing anything with this. We would just leave it to staff and the applicant to work out some signage, unless we want to propose a condition to add some signage. I… I would actually… I feel differently on this. I don't know, I have more faith in the city staff. unremembering? That this is the intended purpose of this. I don't know if other people… You're welcome to make the motion. I have a feeling it's gonna fail. But I think it's a… I'm gonna make the motion, then I can speak to it, I suppose, if I get a second. So… Is it that bottom section there? The blue.

[245:03] Yeah. I would like to propose an amendment for a reservation agreement for the northern multi-use path that contains an option for the city to convert the path to a public access amusement once the connection to 26th Street is complete. Applicant requests the ability to temporary gate the multi-use path and restrict access to residents only for safety and security reasons. Let's see if I get a second. Second. Okay, so I found… when I think about this in process. I think it's a great idea to do, just in general. There's no need for public access to this area without a connection. Having public access can lead to Safety issues, as one can probably imagine, both from a people accidentally accessing this area. And needing to turn around, or what have you, or are the folks not associated with the use of the path for transportation or for access to the building?

[246:08] being in this enclosed, semi-enclosed, at least, area. So, I'm rather persuaded that it's a good idea to put a gate here until the path is actually at its full intended use. upon the, you know, development of the buildings behind it, etc. So that I find very persuasive. I… I… I'm just not… following the… what we're hearing from staff about not forgetting that this path is for this purpose upon the development of those other purposes. So the reason that they opposed it, I don't find as convincing or persuasive as the reason for this change, if that makes sense. Thank you. Claudia, you're the second, and then I saw ML's hand up, and then Laura's hand. Okay, so I'm also very compelled by the safety arguments for restricting some access to this before it is a through-path.

[247:08] I think a lot of the safety on paths is provided by constant activity, and this could potentially be a somewhat dead zone that would basically not be defensible space for people that are using it to access the garage spaces of this development, and those folks will be on foot or on bike, which I think is, puts them in a more vulnerable position, so I am moved by the safety arguments here. Okay, ML, I saw your hand up. Yeah, so I thought that the applicant said that they would be using that access to… The primary bike access into the building that that little art Cove… and the access up into the building from there, that that was the way that… the primary way that the pedestrians and bicyclists get into the property. So, I don't know how closing off that path is going to work with that. Aren't they using that path to get over the

[248:18] to… access their… Bike and pedestrian access? It seems like it's going to be activated by the building users themselves. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought I heard the applicant saying, that that was going to be the primary access for the bike and pedestrian Into the building. Okay, thanks, ML. I'm gonna go to Laura, and then Kurt. Yeah, I have similar concerns to ML, that this is meant to be a primary bike access and pedestrian access, and if you put a gate there, even if residents have a keycard or something to get through it.

[249:04] It just puts up a barrier that means that this will be unlikely to get used, and then that would route all the bicyclists through the front door, probably in the lobby, in the co-working space, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like that's not the circulation pattern that is intended. Seems like it would deactivate that north side of the building. And that, that bike garden and art garden would get very little use. And then… oh gosh, I had another thought, but I've… I've lost it. I do think that… just putting some signage that says this is a dead end, would be sufficient to prevent the, you know, people going down there and having to U-turn. And then, oh, the other thing is that, you know, it made a very strong impression on me my first year on planning board when I… when our chair at the time, John Gerstall, strongly objected to an applicant's plan to gate some accesses. And, you know, he said, look, Boulder doesn't do gated communities.

[250:03] even if there are, you know, neighbors' concerns about, you know, who might be using or walking next to or doing other things next to their building on a multi-use path, we don't gate our access in Boulder. You know, that's not how we deal with any public safety concerns that might arise on a multi-use path. So, I'm… I will not be supporting this. Kurt. I agree with ML and Laura, I think they made good points. I also think about visitors to the site, even if it's the card-activated, for example, gate, the visitors are not going to have access, and so they wouldn't be able to use that route at all to get to, you know. To some kind of parking, bike parking, or even just as a pedestrian access to go and visit their friends or whatever. And the reality is, we have, dead-end streets all over this city. We don't gate them off. They don't go anywhere.

[251:03] I mean, they do go someplace. They go to, you know, properties, and this also goes to one property, and, so I agree that signage should be adequate, and, you know, I understand that it's probably not ideal from the… The property owner standpoint, but, This is what happens when you live in a city, and there are people around. We, we, we work with them. So I will not be supporting this. Neither will I, and so, rather than address anything else, I can count the votes, so, I'm gonna… Call a vote. Mason? No. What's that? Did you say… I did say that. You said no. Okay, alright, okay, Claudia. No. Okay, Kurt. Nope. Laura. No. ML.

[252:00] Nope. And I'm a no. Okay. I've been there. It was just last week, I had one of those, like, I'm… that was… I'm voting no, okay, all right. Let's, go to, those were the two that were… that were in dispute. Do… Can we add… no. Okay, the EcoPass, okay. Does… Does anyone want to take up the applicant's position on that. Okay. So… If we're doing this, should we just go ahead and… Move staff's position Up, and we'll just vote it. Like that. Yeah, let's do that, okay? So we're just going to…

[253:01] Thomas, we're going to, I'll… Let's do this. Do we have any other that are… the Ecopass is contested. So, let's… let's move that up. Copy staff's position up And… okay. as a condition, I move Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall construct and complete Oh, wait. No, that's the wrong one. The blue one, the blue one above. Oh, well… But I'm not taking up the applicant. You're looking for number 5, the staff number 5. We, we have, we have now taken apart staff's So, in the main motion, It says, staff's… Can I see the main motion again, please?

[254:06] and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. We have now started to take those apart. And we have 2. of those. So, we need to, if we're going to carry on with this. And we're going to adopt staff's position. that the eco passes are at… permit. Then we need to make that motion. I think that's what it already says in the recommended conditions of approval. Yeah, we, we, we voted to approve the… or, I'm sorry, we moved Okay. To approve the recommended conditions of approval. So those are wrapped into that motion. So these are motions just… Are there any bad or unjust, I think? Okay. Are there any other… Conditions of approval that we want to tweak.

[255:04] Well, there was the last one of the applicants that staff It was supportive department related to public improvements, yeah. Okay, so can we see… let's scroll back down, page 6. Okay. So, who wants to… I can do it. Okay. So I move that, a condition of approval be added. To the effect that public improvements will be completed prior to the certificate of occupancy. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Kurt? Would you speak to that?

[256:00] Nope. Okay. Laura, do you have any comment? Nope. Okay. We're going to vote. Mason? Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kurt? Yes. Laura? Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, so… Staff, you're clear, we're clear about The current state of the conditions of approval. Okay. Alright, is there any other… Does any board member have any other proposed… Laura, I see your hand up. Yes, and I just put it in the chat for Thomas to copy. Is that sufficient, Thomas, or do you need it in email? Okay, here it is. And I'm happy to take any… this is one way to do this, there might be other ways to do it, I'm happy to take any friendly amendments before we look for a second.

[257:08] But I move to amend the site review to require one or more resident amenity spaces along Folsom to be a shared amenity with the public that will be a neighborhood serving commercial use for the public. to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk. I think that's clear, and that that follows the pattern that we have seen in other projects be successful. Happy to take any friendly amendments, and I would also like to ask the applicant if a condition like this would be acceptable to them, or what they think about it. Before we have the applicant address it, I'm more curious if… If anyone, with or without any changes to the language is, going to second it. I'll second it.

[258:00] Okay. Alright, so… Laura, go ahead, and it's your motion, you can speak to it. Well, I would like to check in with the applicant to see if they have thoughts about this, not that we are necessarily bound by what they think about it, but if they have anything that they think would be useful for us to hear, I would love to hear it before I speak to it. Sure. Thanks, Chris Jacobs. I would say, adding commercial creates, several challenges for us that we would be reluctant. That seem unnecessary. Number one, I'd say financing… financing challenges in general. We already have a very low parking ratio. We have below a .9 ratio of spaces to residential units. Any lender, even though there may not be parking requirements by the City of Boulder, a lender is going to require parking spaces, which is going to further reduce our parking ratio.

[259:08] Secondarily, you're talking with lenders now that are looking at a mixed-use building instead of a residential building, given the financing climate for any commercial space. That shrinks our pool of lenders and lowers the financial feasibility of the project. Similarly with insurance, now you're insuring a mixed-use property. Same struggles with commercial, smaller pool of insurers, higher costs. And then, of course, now we are, we have commercial space that's going to be levied with commercial taxes for space that will likely not be revenue generating. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. So that leads me to a question for staff, in terms of would… having a shared residential amenity space. These are interesting questions that we haven't… haven't come up in past site reviews where this concept has been explored and adopted.

[260:06] How would that space be classified if it is a residential amenity space, but the applicant or the, you know, the operator of that property also allows members of the public to pay a fee to use that space? Is that classified as a commercial space, and taxed, and all of that accordingly, and… Yeah, we'd probably… is mixed use. Sorry, yeah, we'd probably consider that, like, a second principal use, if it's gonna be functioning as a commercial space that is open to the public. Not saying that that's not allowed, but we would consider it a second principal use. Is that what happened with the space on 30th Street? The project there? Yes, but they also already had a commercial space. It was, like, maybe a cafe or something on the corner. Right, right. And the condition was to convert the co-working space To be open to the public as well, but they already were a mixed-use building.

[261:00] Okay, alright, thank you. So I was… I'm ready to speak to my motion, but if other people want to follow up on that, I'll wait. Well, okay, have you spoken to your motion, and are you ready for other board comment or a vote? I would like to speak to my motion and say, once again, I am persuaded by considerations I did not know about, so I think this hearing has been very useful, and I think that, as Mason would say, the juice is not worth the squeeze, so I'm actually going to be voting no on this one. Okay, let's, let's head to a vote here. Okay, Mason. No. Claudia. No. Kurt. No. laura. No. ML. Nope. And I'm a no. Okay. any other… conditions.

[262:01] By any other board member. Kurt. I move that plans be revised to show a curb cut for the north side multi-use path at Folsom Street. I'll second that. Would you speak to it? Yeah, I was concerned that there was no real access, direct access, to this multi-use path from Folsom. It… as the plans currently exist, it would require someone biking to bike along the sidewalk, either from the south or from the north. The nearest curb cut from the south is right at the, the driveway there, so they'd be getting up on the driveway and then going on this sidewalk.

[263:00] the main sidewalk, and then turning onto the multi-use path. From the north, I don't know where the next curb cut is, but I think it's a long ways. I think it might be at the Horizon West building. So it just… it makes it not very usable from a bicycle standpoint. As a pedestrian, it's not so bad, but I think it just works much better to have a curb cut so that people can be coming up the… the bike lanes on Folsom, and then turn directly onto the multi-use path. That's the way most of our multi-use paths work. And it sounded like the applicant was fine with it. So, a second, I concur, and… and as I ride around town. That's my predominant mode. I am stunned at times by… we have pedestrian and cycling infrastructure that is… barricaded by a curb, or a lack of a curb cut, or the curb cut is wildly far away. And so.

[264:04] I have these little routes that I do to make a curb cut and so forth, but I also know, from my experience on TAB, that if we don't have a curb cut, actually adding curb cuts under future projects is… can be troublesome. So, anyway, I think this is good, and if the applicant supports it, I hope we all do. Any other comment or question on… this motion. Okay. Mason. Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. Laura. Yes. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes. Was that a yes from Laura? Yes. Yep. Okay. Are we… Any other… any other board member have any other condition they want to propose?

[265:01] K. Seeing none… Then we are… Back… To the main motion. And, who made that main motion? Kurt. Kate. You want to speak to that? And who seconded that? Laura, okay. I feel we've talked plenty. Okay, alright. Okay, alright. Laura, do you have anything you want to add? Yeah, I just want to say, you know, I think for those of us who are on the planning board, and we deal with the planning board's criteria that we have to apply on a regular basis, this project very clearly meets those criteria in the way that we worked through in our discussion. I know that, probably for some folks who are neighbors to the project, and this, you know, attending planning board meetings might not be their favorite or regular thing to do on a Tuesday night. It might seem pretty impenetrable. And I want to say that,

[266:06] you know, our duty as planning board members is to apply the criteria, which are based on goals and objectives for the City of Boulder, as represented in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the municipal Code, the Boulder Revised Code. And if the project meets the criteria, then we approve. And if we're going to deny a project or condition a project, we have to have a reason based in code. And, you know, in a city like ours, you know, a building going up to… next to a neighboring building. is not a cause for compensation or for denying a project, unless it meets some very specific criteria in the code, which this project did not. So, I just want to say we really appreciate every resident who came out and every person who came out to testify on this project. And, we do hear you, and,

[267:01] It's not that we're unsympathetic to the concerns. it's just that we have to apply the code as written, so, and use our best judgment about meeting the goals as exemplified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Okay, thank you, Laura. So, I'm going to read the motion. And we will vote. So, the motion before us is a motion to approve site review application number LUR2024-00077, and Use Review Application Number LUR2024-00078. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject To the recommended conditions of approval. Okay.

[268:01] Mason. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Kirk? Yes. Laura. Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. That, concludes Item 5B, congratulations to you all. Thank you for… a good application. Thank you for the… thank you for the time tonight. Okay. We are… Back to our agenda, and we… Now are matters from, the board, the director, And the city attorney. So, are there any matters items from the board? Seeing none, hearing none? Okay, how about, our planning director?

[269:04] So you guys were invited to, consider whether or not you want to craft another letter to Council, after, I think it's been a 2-year break. So we've put… we'll put that on the matters agenda for our next meeting, which is on the 28th, so we can have a conversation about whether you guys want to send a letter, and then if so, how you want to craft it, whether or not you get a subcommittee together, and how you want to do it. I think the deadline is December… Mid-December, if memory serves me, so we have a little bit of time to figure it out. Okay, and you're suggesting the October 28th, not the next meeting, which is… The 24th. Wait, 21st is canceled. Yeah, we don't have anything on the calendar on the 21st. Our next meeting is the 28th, so I'm suggesting we put it on for matters on the 21st. Okay, so we have nothing until the 28th. Okay. All right, very good.

[270:00] and Kurt. I just want to… I want to mention that, I think one topic that I like for trips… the one topic that has come up multiple times that I think would be an appropriate thing to put in the letter would be, and obviously we can discuss this. See if there's consensus on the board, but the role of area plans and how they fit into the site review criteria. Because that's something that we've run into and struggled with over the… Over the past few, items. Yes. Okay, and any matters from our city attorney? No. Okay, thank you. All right. Mason, did you have something? You were… no? Okay. All right, then, this meeting… We, we just did our little calendar check, the next meeting's… May I add a calendar check? What's that? May I add a calendar check tonight? Yes, please. The Planning Board and City Council have a…

[271:04] a joint meeting, special meeting plan in December, on December 11th, to discuss the comp plan. Okay, thank you. Yes. just wanted to make you all formally aware. Yeah, and if you can send out a, a meeting invite? Absolutely, yeah, that would be great. We will send some more information as we get it, that's reflected on our… P&DS calendar. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, hearing no further actions, then, I… I call an adjournment. Okay, thank you all.