October 28, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] recording, so… Good evening, all. Welcome to the October 28th, 2025 City of Boulder planning board meeting. As usual, we're going to begin with our call to order. We have, five planning… the five usual 5 planning board members with us tonight. Member Nordbach and Boone are, absent tonight. Our first… our second item is public participation. This is a time to… where, the public may comment on any item other than our public hearing items, which we have two of tonight. So, if you want to speak tonight, this will be your opportunity to do that, unless you want to comment on our public hearing items, and you will do that Later in the evening, when we, have those, when we open those hearings and have public comment on those items.

[1:02] So, I believe Vivian… We'll walk us through the, rules on public comment, and, then we'll open it up. Take it away, Vivian. Thank you, Mark. Good evening, all. My name is Vivian Castro-Woldridge, and I'll just run through these rules for public participation. First of all, we want our participants joining us from the community to know that the City engaged with community members in the past to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives, and we have much more information about this vision on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder Revised Code, and other guidelines that support this Productive atmosphere's vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting.

[2:05] All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation. Against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants, in open comment or later public hearing identify themselves by first and last name. Next slide, please. If you're joining us online, you can let us know that you wish to speak by clicking on the hand icon that you can find at the bottom of your screen, and you can also get there by clicking on the reactions button, and then you'll see a menu, and you can find the hand icon. So those are the rules. Thomas, is there anybody in person who has signed up to speak for open comment? We can start there.

[3:01] We don't have anyone registered in person, but if there's anyone here who would like to speak for open comment, this is your opportunity. And also, if you're joining us online, you could raise your virtual hand so that we know how many people would like to speak, if any. Don't see any hands online. None in the room, either? None here, so I believe that we can conclude the open comment. Back to you, Jay. That closes out agenda item number 2, public participation. We're going to move on to Approval of minutes. We have 3 sets of minutes to approve tonight. Item 3A, the August 26, 2025 draft planning board minutes. Do we have comment, changes, or a motion to approve?

[4:00] Laura. Thank you. I'll just note that I, did not submit any changes on this. I thought that the staff did an amazing job of capturing a very complex, conversation around the BBCP, future changes. So, thank you to staff for that. Do you want to follow that up with a… I'd like to make a motion, but I don't have my agenda up in front of me, so what's the date on these? August 26th. I move to approve the August 26, 2025 draft planning board minutes. Second. Okay, we have… A motion and a second. We'll, seeing no other comment, we'll take a vote, and I'm gonna go left to right. Mason? Abstain, I was absent. Okay, thank you. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. ML. Let's see, she… Did we lose ML?

[5:02] She was frozen a second ago, so she might have left the meeting and tried to rejoin. Okay? I'll keep an eye, I don't see her. Having rejoined yet? Okay, 1, 2… Huh. Well, I vote to approve, but that still leaves us one shy. We're going to, pause. That agenda item. And let's go to, the September 16th. And see if we have, 4 or more of us. Present for that item. Was anybody absent for that one? Then I'll just note that I did submit some edits over email to both this set of minutes and the second set, the September 30th minutes, and if those were incorporated, then I am fine to approve them. Right. so, I would move to approve the September 16th, 2025 draft planning board minutes.

[6:03] Second. Okay? Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Has ML shown up yet? Not yet. Oh, at that meeting, okay. Well, I'm a yes, so that gives us 4 for approval, so those minutes are approved. And then finally, we have, item 3C, the September 30th, 2025 draft, meeting minutes. I move to approve the September 30th, 2025 draft planning board minutes. Second. Okay. Yes. Yes. Claudia. Yes. Okay. And ML is still not there, so I'm a yes as well. I think I see her, she's just joining us. Okay. ML, can you, can you hear us?

[7:12] Okay. Email, how about one more time? We're hoping you can unmute and, weigh in on some minutes. Okay, I'm going to go on and hope that ML is able to solve any technical difficulties she has, and is it okay to just table item 3A Since we don't have, enough members to approve those for now, come back to them Later, under matters, or whatever. I'm here. Oh, okay. It keeps crashing, so… Okay. ML, great. We're glad you're back with us, and we can hear you loud and clear now. We were in the process of approving the September 30th

[8:02] 2025, draft planning board minutes. Do you have any comment, or would you like to vote to approve those? Yes. Okay. So, that takes care of the September 30th. And then, ML, we went… we, I think you were, not with us when we discussed the August 26th minutes. Laura had commented on, her, pleasure with how staff had captured that particular topic, and we had 3 votes for approval, and we were hoping you would Join us. Yes. Okay, so that, takes care of all 3 sets of minutes are approved. Okay. We move on to item, Agenda Item 4. Item 4A is a call-up item.

[9:01] This is a final plat to subdivide the property at 2114 Violet Avenue to create 3 lots. Lot 1 is 18,200 square feet. Lot 2 is 9,898 square feet. And lot 3 is 9,896 square feet. 2114 Violet Subdivision, case number TEC2024-00066. The preliminary plat was approved through case number LUR2024-00079. I may have added a zero there, but the application is subject to potential call-up on or before October 28th. 2025. Does any board member have questions for staff about this? Claudia.

[10:01] Quick question. So, in the subdivision agreement that we have here, Section E7, calls for a segment of 20th Street to be constructed between Violet and Vine, and I'm just wondering where that segment is. It doesn't seem to be immediately adjacent to the subject property on the map that we have in our packet. Do you want to respond to that, Adam? Yeah, I can. Good evening, board members. My name is Adam Moellinger, I'm a city planner here on staff. Stretch of 20th Street is one property to the west of this one. It's a part of the annexation agreement that this property was annexed under, along with the rest of the Crestview East subdivision. Where, at time of future development of the parcel north, on the north side of this plat, they would be responsible for making public improvements to the alley, Violet, and 20th Street. Okay, so it's not something that's forthcoming directly with this particular subdivision, but something that is recorded for the future? That is correct. Okay, thank you.

[11:02] Adam, before you go, could you, Tell me about that street cross-section. Since it's a new street, how wide is it? Curb, gutter, sidewalks, do you have any, information about that particular cross-section? Are you talking about Vine? 20th. 20th. The new street to be… that's a new street to be constructed, yes? Correct. A new portion. It is. I believe it's done to the basic standards of our, Local roads in the DCS. But it is… been part of all the other projects that have come through up here in Crestview East, so, This is gonna be the same standards as all the other projects that have already been subdivided along this stretch of land as well. Okay, and you don't know about sidewalk? I can double-check if you give me one second, but I don't know off the top of my head. Okay.

[12:01] I hope that there is one. Okay, that whole area is very mixed up in terms of pedestrian infrastructure, is my question. Does anyone else have any Questions for staff about this. Okay. Well, we're not gonna call it up, so I'd love to know at some point. You can… Email me if you like. Okay, hearing no desire to call that up, that closes out any call-up items. And ML, if you… if I miss you, You be sure and shout out Okay. I… I will, I'm… I'm holding off on my video because it kept… the program kept crashing, so, I will tentatively try again At a non-crucial moment. Okay. Alright. Okay, thanks.

[13:00] you just holler out, hey, Mark, and I'll… We'll acknowledge you. Okay, we move on to our first public hearing item, item 5A. is a concept plan review and comment request for proposed development of the Boulder Storage Site at 4880 and 4898 Pearl Street. With 4 residential buildings containing 281 apartment units and a new 85,000 square foot commercial storage building. So, the way this goes, just for everyone's, information, is we will, begin with a staff presentation from staff. Clarifying questions from the board to staff. Then a presenta… that… that presentation is, usually about 10 minutes. a, Then a presentation from the applicant for a maximum of 15 minutes, followed by clarifying questions from the board to the applicant.

[14:08] We will… once that has all been taken care of, we'll go to our public hearing, where the public will have a chance to comment, and then the board will deliberate and make their comments, to the applicant and staff in regard to the concept review. So, with that, we have Chandler up here as our primary staff presenter, so take it away, Chandler. All right, thank you, Mark, and good evening, Planning Board members. I will be presenting on the 4880 Pearl Street Concept Review, reviewed under LUR 2025. 00035. I'm going to try to go kind of quickly, because it's kind of complicated, and I don't have, much time. So the concept plan and purpose, with which you're all familiar, is to review a general development plan, and provide feedback to the applicant before they submit an official development review application.

[15:03] There's no formal action, on behalf of the board tonight. In terms of public notification, a written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the site. Notice was also posted on the property. Staff has not received any comments from neighboring community members to date. In terms of location, as you can see here, the approximately 7.1-acre site is located just east of Foothills Parkway, on the south side of Pearl Street and the west… and west of 49th Street. The site currently contains a self-storage business with two large one-story buildings on the northern portion, and approximately 32 one-story storage buildings dispersed across the remainder of the site. There are a few trees scattered along the boundary of the site, but otherwise the site is completely paved with no natural features. Adjacent uses are a mix of manufacturing, car sales, personal service, restaurants, gyms, and other small businesses. The southwest corner of Belmont Park sits across the Goose Creek Greenway, which runs along the northern property boundary. There are no existing residential uses within close proximity to the site, the nearest being north of Balmont and west of the railroad tracks in Boulder Junction.

[16:08] This is just another image showing a bit broader context of the site's location. In terms of the, comp plan land use, the land use designation for the site is General Industrial. Per the 2020 BVCP, the general industrial land use designation is shown where industries are located or planned. Anticipated uses consist of more intensive manufacturing, and may include outdoor storage or warehouses. The site is adjacent to community industrial and general industrial land use designations to the south, east, and west, respectively. With Goose Creek Greenway and Belmont City Park having a land use designation of Park Urban Other. Urban parks provided by… Sorry, the definition for park, urban other, includes urban parks provided by the city, including pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and city parks, as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

[17:00] The land use designation for the area across the Goose Creek Greenway to the northwest is Mixed Use Industrial, or MUI, which is intended to integrate diverse housing, commercial, and retail options into industrial areas to create vibrant, walkable, working neighborhoods that offer employees, employers, and residents a variety of local services and amenities. Existing residential is located to the north of the MUI area. These are just the land use designations, of the site and the surrounding land use designations. I put these up here Just to show, general industrial as being a fairly, limited and intensive land use designation. Also that park, urban, and other, includes lands used for a variety of active and passive recreational purposes or flood control purposes. Community industrial. Similar to general industrial, does not mention residential uses in its definition, whereas mixed-use industrial does, specifically mention residential.

[18:03] So this is a map taken from the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Which identifies the future use of this area as general industrial, consistent with the comp plan land use designation. Adoption of the… I'm gonna say EBSP, that will be the acronym for tonight, or initial, rather. Adoption of the EBSP resulted in the comp plan land use map changes for approximately 250 acres that were previously designated as light industrial. to mixed-use industrial and mixed-use transit-oriented development. These areas are identified in the EBSP as areas of change. And are intended to bring new opportunities for integrating residential, commercial, and retail workspaces and places with existing sub-community businesses and workplaces. So as you can see here, the subject site is not located within an area of change. So this also comes from the EBSP, and I'm just gonna kind of read the underlined parts, which were emphasized in the memo.

[19:04] So this is regarding areas of change, and it says that the land use plan maintains 180 acres for general industrial use. East Boulder is the only sub-community in the city with land designated for general industrial use. As other areas of the subcommunity evolve to more mixed-use environments, the value of the industrial lands and how they continue to contribute to the city becomes more precious. As the City continues to evaluate and guide change across the city, future planning efforts may utilize the mixed-use industrial land use designation to integrate priority areas for integrating Residential uses into industrial neighborhoods, while preserving community, light, and general industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial manufacturing flex and supporting service uses. In terms of the zoning, so the zoning of the site is, IG, or Industrial General. Residential uses are allowed in the Industrial General Zone District. They're allowed pursuant to a use review, and are subject to conditional use standards.

[20:07] Founded Section 963A. These standards state that in the IG zone, dwelling units may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements. The two that would, potentially apply here is, residential uses consistent with the land use plan or map in an adopted subcommunity area plan. Or, at least one-sixth contigu- at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel proposed for residential development is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zone district, or a city or county-owned park or open space. Oh, I did want to mention, so for the purposes of establishing contiguity. City staff has determined that only Valmont Park is considered a city or county-owned park or open space. The northern channel of Goose Creek is primarily a stormwater and flood conveyance channel.

[21:04] While it is under city ownership, the Goose Creek Channel is not a designated park or open space, per the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Staff, therefore, finds that it cannot be used to establish contiguity. Staff does consider that the Goose Creek Channel is a right-of-way that does not affect contiguity to the Valmont Park to the north where such contiguity exists, per the above standard. So I will jump into the proposed project. The proposed project would redevelop the existing 7.1-acre site with an arrangement of 5 buildings, containing 281 residential units and an 85,000 square foot commercial storage space. The residential buildings are organized around a central green spine, while the new storage building is along the western property line to provide a buffer to the northwest neighbor. The green spine runs north-south through the project, providing residential open space and community gathering space, as well as connecting the community to Belmont Park and the Goose Creek Greenway.

[22:01] Parking is at grade, and much of it is located inside an existing Excel easement. As you can see from the image here, the proposal is to, essentially use the, phasing plan to create contiguity, in sequence. So phase one of the proposal, would create a single lot that has the 1 6th contiguity to Balmont Park. Phase 2 would then create an additional lot, which has 1 sixth contiguity to the Phase 1 lot. And Phase 3 would then create a lot that has 16 contiguity to the, adjoining two lots. The open space for the project is shown primarily along the multi-use path and within two central plaza areas located between the residential buildings. The site plans depict a swimming pool in the southern open space plaza and seating and other amenities along the multi-use path. All of the proposed parking is surface parking, with a mix of 50 carport spaces, 63 garage spaces, and 213 uncovered surface spaces, located along the sides of the private drive, as well as in a surface parking lot on the south side of the site.

[23:10] That's a total of 326 bases shown. The application materials do not provide specific information on bike parking or TDM measures, but states that ample bike parking facilities will be provided throughout the site. And that it is possible that EcoPasses will be provided to residents to encourage them to use the bus system. These are just some renderings that were included with the application and shown in the memo as well. I'm not gonna jump, too far into building design in this. I did describe it briefly in the memorandum. The materials list is not provided, but they did provide some character images just to show the general architectural character of the structures. This diagram shows, kind of a breakdown of the proposed land uses. So as you can see here, there's, the residential buildings, which are split from studios up to 3-bedroom units, and in this rendering up here, 4 to 5 stories in height.

[24:07] And then there's the, L-shaped, commercial storage building on the northwest corner of the site. And so I'm gonna jump into the key issues for discussion. There are 3 key issues, these are the same as were in your memo packet. The first key issue is whether the proposed concept plan is consistent with the land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the BBCP. Particularly those that address the built environment. Key issue two is, is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? And key issue 3 is, does the planning board have feedback for the applicant on the proposed use and conceptual site plan? So for Key Issue 1, just a reminder that the site review criteria state. That in applying this, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion, and consider whether a particular goal or policy is intended to be applied to individual development projects, or is to guide city policy decisions, such as regulatory actions. The BVCP does not prioritize goals and policies, and no project must satisfy one particular policy or goal, or all of them.

[25:17] So, as I mentioned before, so the GI land use designation is really the most intensive of the industrial designations in the BBCP. It's also the most limited in terms of the characteristics and anticipated uses. It's worth noting there's only about 120 acres total of GI land use designated area in the city. 19.5 acres of that land is located between Pearl Parkway and the Goose Creek Path in the area immediately surrounding this site. The other area where there is a large amount of, GI land use designation is along 63rd Street to the west. Which currently contain an XL power station, the Boulder County Recycling Center, and the Western Disposal Waste Management Facility.

[26:04] So Policy 5.01 in the comp plan. Revitalizing commercial and industrial areas states, revitalization should support and enhance these areas, conserve their strengths, minimize displacement of uses, and reflect their unique characteristics and amenities of those nearby neighborhoods. It then provides an example of an industrial area that should be revitalized, which is the East Boulder Industrial Area. So Policy 2.21 in the comp plan, provides direction for light industrial areas. And supports housing and retail infill in appropriate locations, stating that housing should occur in a logical pattern and in proximity to existing and planned amenities. Including retail services and transit. Analysis will guide appropriate places for housing infill within areas zoned, Ig, not those zoned for manufacturing or service uses, that minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in close proximity to one another. Light industrial and mixed-use industrial land use designations are the only designations, the only industrial designations in the comp plan that mention residential uses in their definitions.

[27:11] So, to summarize that, the stated intent of policy 2.21. is to minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another in IG zones, and the intent of Policy 5.01 is to support and enhance industrial areas while minimizing displacement of existing uses. Because most of the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning, and is surrounded by manufacturing, light industrial, and service uses, with residential uses being prohibited in the IS1 and IS2 zoned areas to the south and west. Staff finds that the proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units is very likely unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant BVCP goals and policies. These are just for discussion later if, if we need to refer to them. These are BBCP policies that address the built environment and are intended to apply… apply to individual development projects.

[28:07] So jumping into key issue number 2, which is consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. As I mentioned before, and as shown in this map. The project site is located kind of just outside of an area of change in the, GI land use designation. IG, sorry. Nope, GI. Sorry, GI and IG are very confusing between the zoning and the land use designation, so… Bear with me. So in terms of key issue number 2, it is a GI land use designation. It is not located in an area of change. Areas where community members supported a combined residential and industrial redevelopment are identified in the sub-community plan. and the BBCP land use map with mixed-use industrial land use designation, as described on pages 33 to 34 of the sub-community plan. And just as a reminder, the site review criteria also do state, that if the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable plan and design guidelines.

[29:09] So there are several IGIS and IS2 zoned areas identified within the EBSP as areas of change. These were changed to the new MUI, or Mixed Use Industrial Land Use Designation, following adoption of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Per the EBSB, these areas are intended to indicate priority areas for integrating residential uses into industrial neighborhoods, while preserving community light and general industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial manufacturing flex and supporting service uses. In terms of the site context, and really, this is kind of where a lot of, staff's findings regarding consistency with the EBSP come from. So the surrounding, GI-designated IG-zoned parcels, which are about 12 and a half acres, not including this site, are either publicly owned, the city yards, or they're currently ineligible for residential development.

[30:04] So, staff has found that proposed development of this site with residential would open, would immediately open about 3 adjacent acres to residential development by creating contiguity. When you combine this site with the adjacent sites, that's about 50% of the total IG area between Pearl Parkway and Goose Creek Path. You know, the potential impact of residential on this site would be that approximately 16% of the total GI land area in the city could become eligible for residential development in relatively short order. And when I say the 16%, that's the entire area between Pearl Parkway and Goose Creek Path. So considering the EBSP policies and implementation measures related to housing and industrial areas, as well as the broader context of the area surrounding the site. Staff finds that because most of the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning standards, is not located within an EBSB area of change, and is surrounded by manufacturing-led industrial and service uses.

[31:03] The proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units would likely be unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant EBSP goals and policies. Key issue number 3, this is just kind of open-ended, but I will, just, mention a few zoning considerations as part of this. So this is whether the Planning Board has feedback on the proposed use and conceptual site plan. So in terms of the proposed use, and this is outlined in the memo as well, but it's just worth pointing out, so the conditional use standards in 963 A2A in the Boulder Revised Code. State that dwelling units may be constructed on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements. I read two of them before. In this case, the requirement that they're, trying… that the applicant is, trying to, comply with is the contiguity requirement. Which requires that at least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units.

[32:05] Section 963A2 includes additional standards for residential uses in the IG zone, including buffering from adjacent land uses, demonstration of environmental suitability, construction standards for noise mitigation, and declaration of use requirements. So staff's interpretation of this code section is that the intent of these standards is to allow for incremental residential development to occur on IG zone parcels with one-sixth contiguity to existing, i.e. occupied residential units, or city-owned parks or open space. Only Valmont Park is considered a city or county-owned park or open space. As I mentioned before, the Goose Creek Channel is primarily a stormwater and flood conveyance channel, and is not designated as a park or open space in the Master Plan. It does not affect contiguity to Valmont Park to the north, where such contiguity exists. So, staff finds that by allowing a site that is currently ineligible for residential development under IG zoning standards to develop a residential project in phases through site review and the subdivision process.

[33:06] The City may create a scenario where any parcel with any amount of existing contiguity is eligible for residential development, simply and only because it is eligible for site review and able to be subdivided to create additional contiguity between lots. Further, our interpretation of the conditional use standards is that a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units means an existing occupied or occupiable residential use. Therefore, staff finds that if the board does determine that a phased approach to residential development on the site is supportable through site review. At a minimum, issuing permits for construction of any buildings in Phases 2 and 3 should be contingent upon first issuing a certificate of occupancy for one or more dwelling units in the previous phase. So, next steps, following the concept review hearing, City Council may vote to call the item up for a public hearing and provide additional feedback, or they won't call it up, and there will be no additional feedback. The applicant can then either proceed with submitting a development review application, or may submit a second concept review application.

[34:03] A site review application in this case would likely require a public hearing and final decision by Planning Board, due to the request for a height modification. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chandler. That was a thorough presentation. Now comes time for clarifying questions from the board to staff. Who's got some? Mason? Just two really quick ones. As far as open space requirements go, it looks like part of the open space, if… I don't know if you can pull that slide up… was the green space behind the commercial building. Do you have a sense of what percentage that was accounting for? I do not. Yeah, I can defer to the applicant for that. Okay, great.

[35:02] And then, This area is part… in the, ESPP, it is part of the area that's for future study. Do we have a sense of when that future study would occur? I don't, but we do have comp planning staff on the call. So, we have Kathleen King and Christopher Johnson, from Comprehensive Planning on the call as well. I'm not sure if one of them would like to respond to that. Let's see if my video… there we go. There I am. Hi, y'all, this is, Kathleen King. Go for it, Kathleen. Yeah, Kathleen King from Comprehensive Planning. Yes, there's a couple of sites that are, called out in the subcommunity plan as areas for future study. Where, you know, issues of connectivity, were thought of as needing a more robust understanding. In particular, I don't think that those areas were really

[36:17] talked about in particular for land use. So, I… I think the areas for future study that you're referencing in the comp plan was more about, connections. But I will, look that up right now, and I don't know, KJ, if you had… Another thought about that. I don't have anything in, additional to that, so we will, do a little bit more digging and see if we can… Refine our response. Great, but it seems pretty clear that it's not in any immediate term. That is correct. Great, thank you, Mason Laura?

[37:01] I just have one for Kathleen and Christopher, since you're on the line. Hi, Kathleen and Christopher. Do you remember, in the East Boulder sub-community planning process, why this area that is, south of Goose Creek was not considered for an area of change, or was not decided to be an area of change? Yeah, you know, I think, over the course of the project, we looked at a couple of different areas throughout the subcommunity, and, tested different areas for change, and I think the idea of the general industrial use, South of Pearl was something that the group, the working group discussed, and staff discussed as, being something that could be valuable, in the future as these areas change. But certainly the…

[38:02] Entirety of the subcommunity was… considered, And then the working group and community and staff really honed in on the couple of areas where there was consensus about, I think a level of comfort for seeing change, particularly for introducing residential into these areas. Thank you, and then one more. So, the areas of change, that were identified, those are subject to a form-based code. And as I recall, that form-based code, you know, tries to meet the intent of the area plan in terms of mix of uses, and what's on the ground floor, and all of that kind of thing. If this parcel were to redevelop as primarily residential, would it be subject to the form-based code or any other standards beyond A general industrial parcel.

[39:02] I might be able to answer that, but it's probably Charles or Chanley. Yeah, I can answer. It's not located within the form-based code overlay, and I apologize that I didn't explicitly say that in my presentation. But… Yeah, it would be subject to site review standards, but there aren't any additional… yeah, so there, that hatched area is the, East Boulder sub-community plan, form-based code overlay area, which is just across Goose Creek. Okay, thank you. Claudia, do you have? Questions? I do have a couple here. I just want to clarify, so the staff memo is quite adamant. That you do not consider housing an appropriate use at this site, and… I just want to clarify, is that because you were saying that any housing is inappropriate at this site, according to the plans? That is to say, this is an objectively bad location for housing, or is the concern that housing will displace or otherwise impact other desired uses?

[40:08] I think it's more the former, because they are providing, a large amount of commercial space. So I think it's more the concern that, based on the context and the way the, sub-community plan talks about preserving existing industrial uses and targeting residential and other areas. That overall, kind of the, the impact of development of this site with residential, and how it could potentially, lead to adjacent parcels also becoming eligible, is just not something that we felt like… So not necessarily immediate displacement at this site, but impacts on sites surrounding it? Okay. Assuming the site were to redevelop in the near to midterm future, what would the plans hope to see on a site like this? And do we have policies in place beyond the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan land use map? In place to encourage that kind of redevelopment, as opposed to a housing redevelopment.

[41:02] So I think that the plan just… basically says that it anticipates development under IG zoning, right, for this area. I don't think the plan really anticipated or thought of, potentially subdividing and site review phasing as part of that, development, so I think… you know, the plan would anticipate just redevelopment of this site under existing IG zoning standards. And I think the only policies that we have in place that would support that are really just kind of the zoning code. Okay, so I mean, what are the range of things that we would expect to see here under IG zoning if it maintained an industrial use? So right now, it's a storage site, right? Yeah. Okay. What other kinds of things could be there? Can someone else who's not sharing a screen just look at the use table? Yeah, I mean, warehousing and manufacturing are the only ones that the comp plan talks about, but there are lots of other additional uses that are allowed.

[42:02] Yeah, I mean, there's a range of, service industrial uses, let's see here… Essential municipal services… there's some… Outdoor recreation and entertainment uses that would be permitted. Limited retail. Like I said, service uses. Some vehicle-related uses, storage distribution, wholesaling uses, commercial kitchens… Recycling facilities, light manufacturing, general manufacturing, building and landscape contracting, so kind of a range of… Okay, and at this point, we'd just be relying on the market to bring those things in. Right, and whatever exists on our use tables today that would be allowed in that zone. Okay. And then one more question,

[43:00] Just to start to talk a bit about consistency and how we review projects like this. So, earlier this year, we saw two separate concept reviews in IG zones. So, I know not GI, but IG zones. Which this is up on Airport Boulevard. And in the first of those, I don't recall that we had very much discussion about the appropriateness of housing uses, at least not with regard to proximity to industrial uses. In the second of those two concept reviews. I recall that housing in the IG zone was a significant concern called out in the staff memo. But I think this board ended up largely favorable towards housing in its comments. And now in this concept review, we are being told that housing in an IG zone is is… a big problem, right? So, I understand that concept reviews are not binding, but we are, as this board, supposed to be making consistent findings, giving consistent advice, etc, as we interpret plans and codes.

[44:02] So, I'm just trying to understand where we are here in terms of talking about housing in those IG zones. Does staff have anything to say about this? evolution of the analysis, and does the city attorney have any guidance in how we approach this kind of thing? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, the thing that this concept review really highlighted for us is that it really is… it's all about context. I don't think that we have a… it's not one position, either pro or against housing in IG. It depends on the underlying land use, because IG does have, several different potential land use designations that underlie it. And it also just depends on the surrounding context and how that fits into the sub-community planning process. So, you know, not to be, like, wishy-washy about it, but I do feel like in this case, it really is, a question of the overall context in this particular site, with all of the different factors included. Is there any legal guidance to be added on top of that, Hela?

[45:03] I… I generally agree with what Chandler said, and you are, of course, correct. You are required to apply the criteria consistently, but… but you also have to apply the facts of a specific application, the surroundings, and what's actually proposed, and underlying land use, and so forth for the area. I don't see ML's hand up just yet, and I have a follow-on question, so I'm gonna ask my question. My hand is up, but I'll wait for your… Oh, okay, alright. Now I see it, okay. Were you done? Okay. In the prior concept reviews that Claudia referred to, those were IG zones, but I… as I recall, those were not GI designations in the BBCP land use map, is that correct?

[46:02] Those were not my cases, so I'm… unfortunately, I don't know. I'd have to look, but, it was out in the airport, it was… Right. Both were in the airport. Yeah, I think they were, what is the Light industrial? Community? I'll have to look. I think one of the things that was different about those two projects is they both clearly had, contiguity. Whereas in this case, It's not clear, and I think in staff's estimation, it doesn't have the contiguity that we would ordinarily require at either an existing residential use or parkland. Okay, So, sticking to the BVCP land use map designations, we recently, Kathleen, KJ, and others gave us a fascinating presentation on proposed future changes, simplification.

[47:01] to the BBCP land use map. And I certainly was generally supportive of that. And I think we saw a kind of a draft, and again, we were cautioned that this is not a draft, like, we're proposing this, we want feedback on it now. But we took a reduced number of designations and created a draft BBCP land use map. My question is, is… was… is GI, as it's defined today. a proposed designation in a future BBCP land use map under the same restrictions, and… let me simplify it. How would a future BBCP Land use map potentially affect the ability to, develop a site like this with residential? It's a great question, and before I, defer to KJ on that one.

[48:02] the, sites that we were… you were referring to were both light industrial land uses, not GI, so thanks for giving us a second to look that up, but KJ, do you want to take that one? Yeah, happy to. Thanks, Charles. I don't believe I introduced myself earlier, so Christopher Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Thanks for the question. Planning Board Member, McIntyre, I think the… while we don't know yet, we don't have a final version of the future land use map that would ultimately be adopted within the Comprehensive plan, next summer. The current direction that we're heading is that there will be a specific industrial land use typology that would be part of the future land use framework, and that is more, I would say more related to the general industrial description as it exists today, and that it really emphasizes industrial uses, versus something like light industrial or mixed-use industrial, which incorporates residential. The residential component would likely be incorporated into a new category that tentatively is called Innovation and Production Hub.

[49:16] Okay, thank you. And my last question… Is, is there a configuration of a mix of industrial and residential uses. Let's say the whole site was developed with… Industrial slash light manufacturing slash workshop. Sort of uses on a first floor. would… residential on the second and third floor, unless it was only 3 stories. be allowed in the GI zone. And let's say it wasn't… it didn't have contiguity, but if you had… is there… there's no allowance for residential, even in a configuration like what I described, is that correct?

[50:04] I'm not sure… without contiguity? Yeah, let's just say… let's just say, because… contiguity is a real question here. Yeah. Right? Because… Of their… phasing and… kind of workarounds, but… so, let's just say it didn't have contiguity. Is there any configuration of buildings. That would allow residential, if it was industrial, on… ground floor sort of thing? No. Any residential units at all require, either consistency with the subcommunity plan or the 1-6 contiguity. Okay. Great, thank you. Those are my questions. ML, are you… Ready to go now. Yes, and I… I don't know that I really have questions as much as I am so appreciating this conversation, and thank you, staff, for the presentation and bringing up the complexity, because I was baffled.

[51:09] About the contiguity and the phasing, you know, these are clever strategies to get residential where clearly residential doesn't have the amenities to, you know, the required supporting amenities. But I don't see any, Divergence in looking at this in the light that is being looked at from the prior projects. and again, it was not general industrial, so that makes a huge difference. But in agreement with staff, it is all about context, and I think in this project. It will be critical, because you are not, supported. The site is not supported by amenities, so that's…

[52:01] I know it's not a question, and I will… and I will be done, but I just wanted to… Big thumbs up to staff for… for bringing these issues up. Okay, thank you. And again, we'll have lots of time, and I hope our comments are… recorded, and I'm sure we'll have a bunch of thoughtful comments. Laura? I just want to make the point that I know we are all eager to hear the applicant's presentation as well, and the applicant may have some counterpoints to present for us to consider, which I'm sure we will all do. Thank you. Great. Okay, any other clarifying questions for staff? Before we move on to the applicant presentation. Okay, seeing none, we're going to hear from the applicant. We're going to allow a total of 15 minutes. If you use less, that's great. I would… I know you've heard many questions, and you want to respond to those. I would encourage you to make your presentation first, and then let us ask questions after that. But if you have extra time and you want to answer our questions, fine, but

[53:11] I don't want to get into a situation where your presentation is cut short because you are busy answering questions that you would End up answering anyway. Soap. Set my timer. Oh, well, and… Let's get this set up here. Give me a second. Try to get the full screen. This is Heidi.

[54:01] Now, let's just go from here. Okay, hey, I'm Pete Weber, I'm with Corbin Architecture. here to talk about, 49th Street. I want to introduce a couple other folks that are here from the ownership team. Jarvy Worcester is with TCR, potential developer for the site. And I want to introduce Tony Kill, from the ownership team. He's going to say a few things first, and then I'll go into my, agreements with, Staff or not. Hello, thank you. Do we need to state our name? Hi, Tony Kill, I'm with the, Need Address. Hi, Tony Kill, I'm with DPC Companies. We're a Colorado-based real estate investment firm. We've been in business on the Front Range for over 35 years. Dpc has operated several properties in Boulder County, including the Foothills Industrial Park, which is not far from this site. As well as other industrial properties in Niwat and Louisville. We've seen the area grow and change, our kids have gone to college here, and I can speak firsthand about the need for more housing, especially more attainable housing.

[55:06] As we all know, the limited supply of housing drives up the cost for everyone. Prior to purchasing the self-storage property, DPC companies recognized the potential for redevelopment, given its size and proximity to downtown. As we researched, we learned that the City of Boulder had submitted this site to be considered for Federal Opportunity Zone status, citing that the community goals and potential redevelopment opportunities that the designation might support. Ultimately, the Opportunity Zone designation was granted, so it seems… seemed logical that redevelopment would be supported by the City. We evaluated several various options under the IG zoning code, which included new industrial R&D facilities, additional car storage for the auto dealers, and the multifamily residential option that we're here to talk about tonight. Due to the high cost of construction and limited size of the buildings that we could fill in the site, the economics of industrial and research development type developments, it simply does not work in this market today.

[56:11] Redeveloping the self-storage and… the existing self-storage into a new vertical structure, and combining that with, residential use… the residential multifamily proved out to be the most economically feasible. Early on, because of the changes to the IG zone for residential were somewhat recent, we were looking for clarity on how it would be applied. We attended meetings in the City of Boulder offices of Charles Fierro and Brad Mueller. At the meeting, we discussed the IG zoning, and specifically residential uses on this site. At the meeting, they explained that Council had made housing a top priority, and they agreed that assembling more sites could be beneficial to make our plan work, and we did later purchase the corner parcel at the corner of Pearl and 49th to enhance our contiguity. They noted that the review process would be lengthy, but the general feedback was positive for redevelopment for residential.

[57:07] After purchasing, we engaged Coburn Architects, specifically because of their local knowledge and familiarity with the Boulder process. We worked with Coburn to develop the multifamily plans, and had a pre-application review with planning staff. The initial feedback we got for the redevelopment concept at that time was generally positive. We exchanged several emails back and forth with Chandler to discuss the continua… Contiguity, and ultimately the phasing of the project, which he supported at the time. We're very surprised now to, for all the negative feedback we received, or the applicant received, and it's a… we feel that it's a complete flip-flop from where we were at pre-app. At no point in the pre-application notes or discussions with staff was it mentioned that this site was outside an area of change noted in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan.

[58:03] Nor that specific… nor that areas not specifically noted as an area of change were to be considered an area of no change. Which seems to be the position the staff has taken now. Further, based on our research around the adoption of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, we do not believe that was the intent. of the city officials. The East Boulder Community Plan specifically states, this plan represents a future vision for the sub-community. It is not intended in the near term to prevent property owners from improving the property or using the property in a manner consistent with the underlying zoning. It seems in this case, staff is placing the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan above our needed zoning rights. It is our position that if Planning Board believes that this is an area of no change, then they are effectively causing a down zone without notice of our land, or for our land. We're aware of Boulder's desire to preserve existing uses, specifically community services, manufacturing, research, and development. The property does not have those users or those uses on site.

[59:08] The redevelopment plan actually reincorporates the existing self-storage into a more efficient vertical manner. The staff, goes on to explain that we need to preserve industrial uses in order to limit the number of trips out of Boulder by its residents to obtain basic services. What about the environmental impact of trips by its residents? by all the employees who work in Boulder, but are forced to find housing in other communities and commute back and forth every day. I've never heard anyone state that it's difficult to find a coffee shop, a brew pub, or service their car in Boulder. What I hear is that they can't find housing. If staff is concerned about traffic and the essential needs of employees, allowing more housing in Boulder is the obvious solution. Thank you very much. I'd like to turn this over to Peter Coburn, and he'll present his vision for the redevelopment. Thank you very much.

[60:04] Thanks, Tony. If this works. I'm gonna do it this way. Alright, I'm gonna start by taking a quick step back and touch on a little bit what Tony said about, really the… housing issues that we have in Boulder. In part, we have this, jobs population imbalance that I know we've talked about ad infinitum. It has not gone away. It is still very much prevalent. Something like 50,000 in commuters into Boulder every day. Sorry. The… Part of the solutions set that the city has identified for helping with this jobs population imbalance is to address changes to the industrial zones, specifically the IG zone. Most recently in 2023, the density… residential density possible in the IG zones has increased greatly. Not quite doubling the potential, but depending on how you configure your project, increasing it quite a bit, .3 to 0.4 FAR. That's just 2 years ago.

[61:14] So we're trying, aren't we, to get more residential and industrial zones. There's been additional code changes, that Channer touched on, as a result of these polar subcommunity Plan, where the bookends of Velmont Park are being suggested for… for change. Changing that zoning to encourage more mixed-use and residential. Here's the form-based code that is now in place, identifying, again, those two bookends of Belmont Park going up to four stories, and a mixture of use possibilities. This is, how our site relates directly, you know, 100 feet across the Goose Creek Greenway. We're right there. What is so different, after all, about this site than what's across the Greenway?

[62:02] the existing conditions on the site. This is, one of the reasons that we have a little bit of a challenge with meeting the 1-6 contiguities. We have a very large perimeter due to the oddly shaped lot that we have. This little finger that goes out and touches 49th Street. It's an unusual shape that leads to a, a large perimeter, which makes it difficult for us to comply. Given the location. I also want to point out the red bar here is, the power lines that run from the baseline power station all the way through Boulder and restrict the ability to do anything on that part of the site. As mentioned, the site is currently self-storage, and I think one of the things we should talk about is what does change mean? We talk about areas of change, areas not change. Do we mean that self-storage is supposed to stay here forever? We would disagree with that position. so, talk about the site a little bit, and how we organized it. So, the…

[63:00] The project that we're envisioning was largely, formed, the way the buildings sit on the site. were placed in a way to encourage movement to and from the project back and forth to Goose Creek. And I'll talk a little bit more about Goose Creek in a minute and its importance in our city. But you can see how the buildings are organized to allow that movement through the site, without needing to cross any vehicular traffic. You can… other than Pearl Street, you can get to Goose Creek. The entirety of the site without dealing with, any vehicular traffic. more about the context, this is a largely light industrial part of town, but there are a number of uses, personal service uses here. I think Chandler pointed out some of the uses that are allowed in the industrial zones. There is a place… there are places, there are a couple of breweries, there's a cidery, there are several gyms, places to… salons and such to get your hair done. the… So here's how we organize things on the site. We do have a mixture of uses, primarily residential, admittedly, but we are planning to stack up the storage and put it in a L-shaped building on the western part of the site, which will provide a buffer from the late industrial uses to the west.

[64:14] Most of it, again, is residential, but there is also, on the corner of 49th and Pearl, a small commercial space, which could be a number of different uses, as long as we get them in under the zoning. The idea that there could be a Cafe, coffee shop, something like that. And then the yellow bar, we would like to do something like live-work. The definition of live-work is a little bit limited the way it lives today, but we would like people to be able to live and work and have a little workshop within the same space along 49th Street. Come on. Okay, so this is, how the buildings face Goose Creek. Those, potential live-work type uses are on the… along the lower left. 3- and 4-story buildings, facing Goose Creek, trying to go for an architecture that kind of utilizes some of the, the light industrial aesthetic.

[65:08] This is the self-storage building on the right, and then, the primarily residential with that little, Retail space on the lower level on the left. And the vehicular circulation through the project lives really at the perimeter. We're trying to… both we have that restriction related to the power lines where we cannot build, so we tuck the parking at the back and around the sides. One of the great benefits of this is that it frees up the center of the site make it entirely car-free. So we can have this pedestrian circulation that I talked about moving through the site. There are several, green spaces that are linked together with this path that leads us over to Goose Creek. This is the one closest to Goose Creek, a little plaza area. This is how we've depicted it. You can see the path running through it. Combination of green and hardscape.

[66:05] This is a… in the middle of the site. This particular one, has the ability… it does touch the road there, so it has the ability to act as a little bit of a mobility hub for, Uber and Lyft pick-up and drop-off. And then at the far west, to the south of the project is a pool area surrounded by this C-shaped building, and then a, green corridor That's on the right. And some images of that. This is that green corridor looking to the north, with the entrance to the pool area on the left, and here's how that might work, kind of cutting through the building. So again, the entire thing is interconnected without Dealing with vehicular traffic. Architecturally, we do plan to try to, give a nod to the kind of funkier, more light industrial aesthetic, and then the landscaping likely to be a mixture of hard and softscape. Get as much green as we can in there, but acknowledge that we may have a lot of people moving through it.

[67:05] And so here's what that resulting, site plan looks like, when we're all done. In order to be able to do this, there's a couple of hurdles that staff has, identified that we need to get over. The first being the, 1 sixth contiguity. The staff has… Just give them your notice, you've got about a minute and a half. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I'm gonna talk about Goose Creek here real quick. We believe that Goose Creek should count as city-owned park and open space. Goose Creek is a major, greenway that runs from the little marsh to the east all the way through down to Unity Church at Wholesome Belmont. It is a vibrant, green, open space. It is open. It is city-owned. Why is that not considered city open space? In addition to that, it is a… the best kind of transit corridor. There are no cars, there's no diesel fumes, there's no car accidents, there's no cars running into bikes. It is the very best place we could have people living from an alternative trans…

[68:09] transportation point of view. I ride this almost every single day as I commute to work, and it is phenomenal how quickly I can move because I don't have to deal with the traffic. I don't have stoplights, I don't have stop signs. And this is what Goose Creek looks like. It is really quite remarkable, and for those of you that don't utilize it as much as I do, you really should. It's phenomenal. It is green, it is open, and it's city-owned. It ends at this marsh, literally end, it keeps going, actually, but this beautiful, marsh open space to the east. And ultimately over to Boulder Creek. So, next piece to talk about here… I must point out that it is also supported by the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which talks specifically about improvements and the future character of the Goose Creek Greenway. And some quotes here that, I don't really have time for. East Boulder Sub Community Plan.

[69:02] there's a lot of pieces of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan we believe that we can enhance and keep going with, and I think the important thing is to talk about here is what does change mean? We believe that the sequence of things. You'll probably just have one minute mark, so this is an important piece. That… you can see the chart here on the left. It talks about the comp plan up here. Next thing is we use the comp plan to identify sub-community plans, which gives us a little more detail, and ultimately, zoning at the end of it. Zoning is the thing that is at the end, and is a result of all these other things that have happened. In this case, we have a zone, IG, that allows residential use. No change. We're not suggesting that the zoning change, because it allows what we're suggesting, as long as we go through use review and site review. And I'll leave it at that. Great. I'm sure we're gonna have a bunch of questions for you about all of the issues that you have run out of time for, so… Yes. Before we do, can I just take a second to help supplement the record regarding the initial consultations with staff prior to the Council? I think that's appropriate, yes. And I would welcome Brad if he had anything to add to this, too. You know, staff explored some technical mechanisms that may have helped allow for subdivision for residential, but

[70:16] Again, as we started learning more about the proposal and the effect of the recently adopted North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and then once, I'm sorry, East Boulder sub-community plan. And then once Chandler started doing research on open space versus the flood channel… It became clear that there were differing policy objectives confronting the site, you know, making it difficult to support residential, in a way that I think has been indicated tonight, but Brad, did you have anything to add? No, I'll just add that I've been doing this for a couple decades, and so has Charles, and We… we are very careful in pre-application meetings to not suggest that staff supports or doesn't support something, and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we support or don't support, it's what the code supports, and in a quasi-judicial

[71:03] setting, it's what, you all and Council does, so… You know, our job is to try to raise any red flags as we know them in a preliminary conversation, but also especially talk about process and answer questions, which a lot of that conversation focused on the mechanics of sequencing and some things that we You know, certainly spoke to a possibility, but that was certainly not representative of a comprehensive review. Just want to make… Make sure that that's, That distinction is understood by the board. Thank you. Sure. Laura? I just want to ask a follow-up question to staff. Just to make sure I understand the contiguity issue. If Goose Creek is not considered to be useful for contiguity purposes, and it's only the contiguity to the city park, does that Phase 1 parcel have one-sixth contiguity or not?

[72:02] To the park, yeah. Yes. I believe the Phase 1 establishes 1-6 contiguity to Belmont City Park. To just the park, okay. I wasn't clear on that, thank you. Good question, I was not clear either. Okay, so now is time for, clarifying questions to the applicant. And, who's… who's ready? And ML, I don't want to shortchange you this time, so if you're ready, I'm looking up there. I actually don't have any questions, so I'm good. Thanks. Alright, okay. Who does have questions? Okay, Laura? I have just a couple of quick ones, and I just want to thank the both presenters for coming up and speaking with us about this project. It's a complicated one, so thank you so much. The open space, I just want to clarify, I think, from what I'm seeing, all of the open space that you are proposing basically is on the ground, or is any of it elevated?

[73:08] There. There are, balconies, and a couple of roof decks, that I think we're counting towards our total. The individual balconies are required in the IG zone, so we are using those towards our count. Okay, but the major spaces, like the courtyards, the pool area, those are ground level? Yes, yes, everything I showed you is at ground level. Okay, and with the pool area, I couldn't quite see, is it open, or is it enclosed in some way? What is the… can you show us that slide again? Sure. And talk about what the pool area is like? do this. You had a rendering, and I wasn't sure exactly where the pool was in that rendering. Oh, it's beyond that view,

[74:00] Sorry. Persnickety. Right here. Okay, so the, the main circulation path is on the right there, running between the buildings, in this area here. And then it moves kind of through the building to the pool area, so the renderings I was showing you, this one is looking down that pedestrian path, and to the left is the cut-through in the building that allows you through to The pool area, so through… here, beyond your seeing the pool. I see, so this is looking from the east, looking west. Correct. Okay, thank you. Yes. That's very helpful. I have a different question about the phasing. Which of the buildings would be constructed first, or are you thinking they would all be constructed at the same time?

[75:00] Well, if we utilize staff's analysis, we would not be able to construct all the buildings at the same time, which is problematic for our developer friends. we would build only those buildings that are within Phase 1, unless we can get a different read on what would constitute establishment of the residential use. Right now, what staff indicated is that would require the ability to occupy or occupation. That would mean… Building would have to be finished. Which does not work from a development standpoint. It could work theoretically, but the way projects are financed and Jarvis could go into detail, it's kind of a non-starter. Sorry, Jarvie Wilson with Cherokee. The only thing I would add to that is, phasing that way, finishing the first phase, and building the second phase is also extremely disruptive to residents. residents would have moved in the first place, and then would have an active construction site. So, the ideal path would… and not to mention there's additional costs, mobilizing subcontractors, bringing trades in at different times, you know, that essentially gets passed along.

[76:09] It would be extremely disruptive. Okay, thank you. I'd like to just add that that's… Continuity to Goose Creek would allow us to do it in two phases. We have to work this out with staff, but we could do the back portion of it, which is only parking as a second phase, and build the rest of the buildings in a single phase. Again, details to be worked out. Thank you, that's useful to know, and I have just one more question. your amenity spaces in the residential building, like the workshops, are those intended as residential amenities only, or is there some thought that they would be public and… or public access in some way? The reason why I'm asking is because they appear to be the same color in your drawings as your commercial space, so I wasn't quite sure what the distinction Between your commercial space and your amenities space. Yeah, go ahead. we're still working through some of those details, but when you heard Pete talk about some retail areas, definitely open to the public, some of the makerspace that we've talked about.

[77:08] we've done both. We've provided, sort of, select units with A makerspace on the ground floor and the ability to live upstairs, and that would be open to the public if they chose to run a business have a practice, etc. They would have to go through licensing and all the typical things to run a business. But yes, there's flexibility in that type of use, is the point. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Great, thank you, Laura. Body? I want to circle back to something that came up tangentially here in Laura's questions, and that is, the proposed Phase 3 in your phasing, is that all parking? in that phasing diagram, yeah, it's all parking. Okay, and then a question for staff, if that's the case, My understanding is a principal parking facility is an allowed use in IG. How is this different from a principal parking use?

[78:04] Well, now that the code's been changed to not require parking, that's an interesting question. I mean, previously we would have considered it Accessory to residential, because it would have been… part of what they were building to meet the parking requirement. But I suppose it could be considered parking as a principal facility. And be totally independent. I'm just curious if that would have any bearing on the contiguity question, if they were not trying to establish a residential use in that phase. Well, because of the site size, it's required to go through site review, and because it's required to go through site review, it can't subdivide without going through site review. So they couldn't just subdivide off a little chunk and build a parking lot, and then change the contiguity. Okay, Mason? I, can you describe or characterize the market.

[79:05] for… industrial space in Boulder. Currently, with by right, Uses for this space. Tony touched on that a little, maybe have him… In the presentation, yeah. I will just point out that as architects, we have not done any… Late industrial work in… decades. There is no demand from my perspective. The only contacts I can provide, and if there's additional questions, the DPC folks can. I have a sister company that's an industrial development company, top 5 industrial developer in the country. we looked at the space emphatically when it was out on the market, and it's just not financially feasible. I believe DPC folks have entertained several other options prior to Kind of taking this multifamily approach, and there was no market for it.

[80:00] Chris, go ahead. Yeah, real quick, I'm Chris King, the President and CEO of DPC. We've owned the site now 5 years, right, 6 years involved with it. We consider very, intently to do industrial here, but… as Jarvy just said, it is not economically feasible in Boulder to do this, just with The cost of everything. Land, utilities, construction costs, labor, And then if you look at the geography, geometry of this site, we can't get contiguous buildings in there. So it just… really compounds the cost of that. So, you know, we understand the… The position that you all have on this, and we've considered it very intently. But I don't think it will ever be feasible on this site. It's just, you can't get any kind of sizable buildings here between utilities, setbacks, and everything that goes with that. Thank you. I have a question for, I think, for staff, and that is, if… the Goose Creek Greenway was…

[81:06] Considered to be… in the same… Category vein qualification as as Velmont Park, or other linear, open spaces that the city enjoys. would… The one-sixth contiguity requirement be fulfilled. Without phasing, or would it still require phasing for… development. With residential. I would probably defer to the applicant, but I believe Pete just said that it would still require two phases. two phases. Yes, two. I think I might actually have a diagram here that shows that, that I put at the back, anticipating this question.

[82:08] That's frozen. Here we go. It would look something like this. It very nearly complies, but Phase 2 would, we could build all of Phase 1 with the last phase being that little sliver along the southern boundary. as Chandler pointed out, with parking no longer being required, the parking would not be a requirement of a residential project. It would just be at the choice of the developer to decide if they want to build that piece or not. Okay. Laura? So that raises a question for me. Has staff done any kind of analysis of if greenways like Goose Creek were considered for contiguity, what that would do to the amount of industrial land that is opened up for residential development?

[83:00] Has that analysis been done? Not by me. I don't know if… yeah, I don't think so. Do you have a gut check on that, or, like, a sense of magnitude? I don't have a good sense of how many of our greenways are not also parks. Yeah, I mean, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is somewhat indicative of that, because it does have, like, some areas of greenways are shown as being part of adjacent parks, and others are not. But no, I don't have a gut check. That would… I mean, we'd have to work with, like, GIS and Long Range, I think, to come up with some numbers on that. Okay, thank you. It's a good thing we're in concept review. Okay, last call for questions for the applicant. Okay, we're gonna close that portion, and before we open the public hearing,

[84:02] someday, I'm going to remember to do this at the beginning of every public hearing. I want to ask, board members if anyone Has any, conflicts of interest, potential conflicts of interest, or ex parte communications that they would like to, divulge. Okay, seeing none, that takes care of that. We will… Okay, how many folks Let's take a look and see how many are online. Attendees… We've got… I'm… I'm gonna bet we have 3 or 4 speakers. But if we… if we… We wanna… It's… a… Convenient time, so we're going to go on a quick break.

[85:01] It is, we'll come back at 7. 33. And then we'll… We'll begin our, our public, participation. Thank you for your patience, folks. I'm sorry, I have drunk too much tea. I'm eager to hear what people have to say, and I want to be able to listen, so…

[93:28] Okay, good evening. We're gonna call our meeting back to… Order? And, we are now going to… Open the, public hearing. And, we'll begin with… Speakers in the room, and for all speakers, If you have… a financial… or business relationship. with the applicant, we would appreciate

[94:00] Knowing that. It doesn't prohibit you from speaking. We just want to understand that, so… Having said that, Thomas, do we have anyone in the room? We don't have anyone who is registered to speak in person, but if anyone's here that would like to speak in person for the public hearing, this is your opportunity to do so. And seeing no hands in the room, we can go ahead and move to… folks online, we do have one hand raised online. First up is Heather. Heather, we'll need your full name, so please begin by stating your full name before you give your comment. We'll have 3 minutes to speak. And you can go ahead when you're ready. Hello, my name is Heather Mitchell. And I do not have any association with the applicant. However, our business runs and operates at 4870 Pearl Street, which is the property adjacent to the applicant's site. We've been in business over 70 years… er, since the 70s, and it's a fun… family-run and operated business. We've been there since 2008 in this industrial area.

[95:14] The interesting thing, the things that I am concerned about by this property being developed is one big thing is the traffic and parking safety. The applicant mentioned That there are not any diesel fumes and pollution in that area. That couldn't be further from the truth. There is a massive amount of traffic on Pearl Street and 49th Street. It, because of the fact that the city facility is at the end of Pearl Street, there is nothing but heavy traffic, the city dump trucks in the winter, it's the plow trucks.

[96:00] There's nothing but, speeding cars, lack of parking, cars pulling U-turns all day long, and, We are a steel fabrication shop, so all day long, there's painting, and grinding, and welding, and semis, and forklifts, and that is why we are in an industrial area, because the noises that we make in our business are appropriate for that area. Being next to a residential building. is not… is going to cause nothing but conflict in us trying to run our business. The homeowners, or the people living there, will not enjoy the noises that we're making every day. They're not going to be enjoying all the traffic that are going to be going through there every day. And I'm… it's a really interesting concept to think that it's a quiet area, and there isn't any traffic, but it's one of the heaviest driven roads because of the city and all of the commercial vehicles that come through there. Not to mention our semis that deliver steel to us on a daily basis. And we've got a cabinet shop around the corner, and they have semis delivering their wood to them on a daily basis. So.

[97:19] Creating more housing in this area is just going to create havoc for our business and for the people in other businesses trying to earn a living in this area. And so, that's my biggest concern in the conflict that I see coming down the pike in this project. Thank you so much. Thank you, Heather, thanks for joining us tonight. I see no other raised hands online at the moment, but if anybody else would like to speak to the first public hearing item. Please go ahead and raise your hand so that we can call on you.

[98:04] And seeing no other raised hands, we can close the public comment for this item. Back to you, Chair. Okay, thank you. We, sometimes I forget this. The applicant can briefly address any, comments from the public. Yeah, just a couple of quick comments. Thanks to our neighbor, Heather. First, the comment about the diesel fumes was related to movement on Goose Creek, on my bike, not the site itself. Second, we recognize, the use next door, and the design of the project with the L-shaped building kind of cradling that use was a four-story. self-storage building placed there specifically to try to mitigate those potential impacts. John, I just want to point out those two. Okay, thank you. That, concludes the public hearing and the applicant's response. Now is time for board deliberation and comments. This is not a vote. This is not anything other than

[99:11] Us, commenting, and… I hope… shedding light, for the applicant and for staff, both about our thoughts about this project as a concept plan, and about the land uses. So, Let's, begin with whoever, has… is ready to go with their comments, and, I'm sure you're going to hear conflicting comments tonight, and that's the… that's one of the things about a concept review, is that we don't make motions, we don't work on words, we give you our feedback, and you can interpret that as you… as you can. So… Is anyone ready to go? with their comments.

[100:02] ML, do you… oh, do you have a… I'm not seeing you. I don't have my hand up yet, but thank you for looking. Okay, alright. Boy, we're reluctant, we're typically loquacious and anxious, but we seem to be reluctant tonight. Fine. I'll, I'll, I'll go, just to keep us moving along here. So, this board… has struggled at times with how we interpret the code. There's a lot of code that is objective, and there is a lot of code… parts of the code that are subjective, especially regarding area plans, and when we use words like General intent, goals, these sort of words,

[101:02] I think are part of a city that has… has a vision. People have, a way of thinking about, the future of Boulder. in a way that's very important to them. And, we are a caring, thinking bunch. And in this case, the, There is some subjectivity here in how we see, our parks and our greenways, and what is… designated as open space, and what is formally acknowledged as open space, and… and I… I have often, I ride Goose Creek a lot. And, I consider… Our greenways to be an essential and vital part of our city, on par with our parks, on par with our formally designated open space.

[102:02] But I also know that we have map designations like OSO, and that that particular designation is, you know, carries no weight in the code. What I'm… the point I'm making is that we are in an area of, I think, great subjectivity and great conflict between goals. Housing people, reducing in-commuting, And also, honoring the code as it's written, the BBCP as it's written today, And, and our goals for maintaining True industrial Not only the area, but the kinds of… The, the last, speaker. the metalworking facility next to a cabinet shop that,

[103:00] we have conflicting goals about housing and maintaining those kinds of businesses, within our community. So, I'm only carrying on here to say that this one is tough, and I, I… I do respect staff's interpretation of the GI zone in the BBCP land use map, that the definition there does not include residential without the contiguity issue. I find, so, it was clarifying for the applicant to discuss the one-sixth contiguity. If you count the Goose Creek Path and Greenway. as… as a city park and open space, and I think that, if I think about… If you ask a bunch of citizens on the street.

[104:02] Hey, is the Goose Creek Path that you commute on, that you take your kids on and stuff, is that part of our park system? Well, yeah, of course. Most people can't say, because sometimes the city doesn't even know who's really in control of our greenways. Is it open space? Is it… is it parks and rec? Is it transportation? So, anyway, there's some… there's some, Vagueness and subjectivity there. I'm no fan of storage spaces, especially single-story paved storage spaces. There is nothing more deactivated Then, a bunch of shipping containers on a Asphalt parking lot. However, that, that doesn't, In our site review process, I want to emphasize to the applicant and to the board, we actually can't take into account Prior use, or current use. And that that is not just because we don't like the current use.

[105:04] doesn't mean that that is an advantage to approving a new use that doesn't meet the code. I may really dislike storage units, but That really doesn't have an effect when it comes to site review. I have also advocated for Flexibility in code interpretation. And I think that the city is guilty Many times of putting too fine a point on uses, and where uses can go, and I have pointed repeatedly to some of our best neighborhoods are a crazy mixed-up sort of bunch of uses. And, you know, I point to West Pearl Street. Where you have offices, high-end residences. Automotive repair facilities, little grocery stores, all in a very small area.

[106:02] And, next to very high-end residential, areas. So, I am an advocate of flexibility and uses, but I am also an advocate of, you know, of adherence. to the code. So, I think you have a great risk in pursuing this, without additional clarification, maybe from Council, about the 1-6 contiguity requirement in relation to the Goose Creek path. So, that concludes my comments. Who is ready to go now? I can speak. Okay, great, ML. And again, I apologize for not putting on my video. The program kept crashing when I did, so… you will… I will just be a… A voice out there in the ether. So here… here… here are my comments. I support staff's conclusions regarding… regards to the zoning and contiguity, etc.

[107:09] That being said, I see the primary issue here being one of setting a dangerous precedent for overriding land use and circuitously trying to achieve contiguity, excuse me, in IG zoning. And thereby losing valuable industrial sites. I do not think that the idea of area of no change is to be taken literally as leaving the current use, in this case storage facility, but rather to retain the zoning for industrial use. The problem the applicant makes for there being no economy in industrial I suggest we look at the nature of industry in these small settings, as, of course, nobody's building these today, or in the last decade, because there's no money in small. Yet the services we seek, like auto repair or printing, etc, remain vital to livability.

[108:02] The purpose of BVCP and its land use map, and of EBSP. Are to propose a landscape that meets the needs of the city we want to live in. We don't want to go to Broomfield or Longmont to get basic services. We've already created an over-demand for housing that we cannot meet. To destroy any chance of keeping services local by building residential and contextually inappropriate site is not a path to meet the vision of BVCP or the intent of the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan. So I would caution this project moving forward on those bases. Thank you. Great, thank you, Amel. Laura? I can go. I just want to say first that I really appreciate all the work that has gone into this, and I understand the challenges of this site. I also want to acknowledge that I was on the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan Working Group before I was a planning board member, and so I'm pretty familiar with the conversations that were had there, and all the work that went into that.

[109:10] I do want to comment that, not being in an area of change, as ML said, doesn't mean that you cannot build something new, it just means your zoning and your underlying land use were not considered for change during that East Boulder subcommunity planning process. And that said, I do think that you have a big challenge here, in that this is an area that underwent rigorous area planning to define what are the most appropriate places for housing, and this was one of the places that was decided we want to preserve industrial. That was a big conversation that was had during the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, was how do we make sure that we do have space for those small industrial uses, like you have in this area? Which doesn't mean it can't redevelop. But to turn it over to primarily high-density residential, I think, is not what was intended in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and I think the staff rightly point out that

[110:07] If this parcel redevelops as high-density residential, it creates additional contiguity that can then cascade and turn that whole area, except for the… land uses that are public into residential, which is certainly not what was intended by the zoning, and it is certainly not what is intended by the land use, and it is certainly not what was intended by the East Boulderside Community Plan. Now, you're not responsible for the decisions of your neighbors, but we as a planning board are responsible for what do we… how do we interpret the code with regard to this parcel? And I do think that, a very high-density residential land use as Mark said, you're taking a risk, you know, we're not making a decision here tonight, but at least with the board members, if I'm still on the board when you come back with a site review, I would have a hard time approving that project on the basis of land use, on the basis of consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity plan. The contiguity in,

[111:01] issue is interesting. There is a code provision. that I want to get this right. Where there's a quote here. I'm sorry, I have too many notes. But the language is 9-6-32A, In an IG zoning, residential may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one of the requirements, and one of those is contiguity. If you have contiguity, you may be approved. It doesn't say that you will be approved if you have contiguity. We have to consider, as our legal staff and as our staff have said, the context. And is this An appropriate site for residential. And… I can see there being an argument, I can see a bunch of folks making an argument that it's on the Goose Creek Path, it's connected to Boulder Junction, where we're going to have more transit. There are a lot of fun things in this area. There's the Roots Music Project, there's distilleries, there are cafes. It's not like this is a horrible area for residential. And we do want to see some residential nearby, on the other side of Pearl Street.

[112:03] But we have to balance that with the idea of we're trying to preserve some industrial land use, specifically south of Pearl. And so is this an appropriate area where you may make the decision to include residential if you have the contiguity. And we're kind of stacking all these things up, and to have the contiguity, we kind of have to… use our subjectivity very carefully to say that. And so I, before I would even consider that, I would want to see staff's analysis of what that would do on a citywide basis if we start to consider greenways for contiguity to industrial land? Because I don't think we've even looked at that question, and we do have to be consistent in our interpretations. So what are we… what are we opening the door for, for more developers to come in and say. more of this industrial land needs to turn over because of contiguity. So I think… I think your barriers are… the land use definition, the consistency with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, even the zoning and the contiguity requirement.

[113:00] And we didn't even talk about the requirements for live-work units in the industrial zone, which is in the memo, that currently staff feel like you're not meeting, and I think the applicant sort of alluded in their presentation there are some challenges with the way the city's definition of live-work units are. So, I do think… in another context, this would be an amazing project, so I want to give credit to the designers, I love your open space, I love your green spine, I love, so much about what you have done with this project, and I think it could be a very hip, funky, industrial-themed kind of residential, project, but this particular site may not be appropriate for it. And I also, when you come back for site review, I just want to make a quick note about Diagrams that have colors that are very hard to distinguish. You have an open space diagram with 4 shades of green that I cannot always distinguish which is which. Likewise, in your building massing diagram, you have four shades of yellow, very hard to distinguish. Likewise, on page PA9, you have, two different kinds of uses that appear to both have the same shade of blue. So… so please, when you come back, if you're using colors to help us figure things out, make sure they're very distinctive.

[114:09] And I've made this comment to one other applicant. I'm fine with having diagrams or depictions that are rotated off of the north-south-east-west axis that we're used to. But please make sure if you're depicting something that we need to see for site review, you also have it in the traditional north, south, east-west format, so that we're not trying to, like, wrap our heads around a whole bunch of different angles. Thank you so much. Great, thank you, Laura. Mason, you ready? Yeah, this one's… really tough, I think, for every… every reason that… that folks have already stated. I came here with… a bunch of stuff to say, changed it while I was listening to staff, changed it again. While I was listening to the applicant, change… I'm changing my mind again as I'm listening to my… fellow board members here, and I think that I'll just say that, largely I agree with what Mark and

[115:05] Laura pointed out. But I… where I'd maybe differ a little bit as a board member is I think that… You know, a city is meant to adapt to the needs of its community. And I could see myself supporting a version of this project, That… Provides a more consistent approach, maybe a rebalancing of the proposed uses, preserving stronger industrial employment base while integrating limited, compatible residential components, particularly along that site-adjacent development park, something a little more incremental than what's been proposed today, and I know you all came with, different level expectations of what you're going to hear tonight, and it must be hard, so, I just want to iterate thank yous, and that's really all I have to add. Great, thank you, and Claudia.

[116:03] I will probably be echoing a lot of what's been said, but with a slightly different flavor, too, so thanks for bearing with me. I think as is clear by now, the fate of this proposal really does seem to turn on the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and specifically, whether its designation of mixed-use industrial areas, those areas of change are intended to designate priorities. For future change or limitations. By my reading of that plan, including the excerpts that are in the staff memo, we could actually support both interpretations in the future. The EBSP aside, I actually think this is not an objectively bad location for housing. I want to give the applicant credit for capturing what I think is a real… a very real phenomenon when describing this Goose Creek Corridor, as a sort of bike and pedestrian main street, a Greenway Main Street.

[117:00] I remember when I first applied to this board, back in 2019, it's been a while, that I actually wanted to talk about a concept like that in my application, but people advised me not to, because nobody was gonna get it. But if you travel that corridor regularly, it really does ring true. There's this kind of precious combination of both quiet and activity that comes from linking so many diverse uses without heavy car traffic. Access to retail and services and entertainment is very high. Velmont Park is going to develop to be an exceptional environmental amenity, so I really do appreciate that aspect of what you're thinking about there. I also think it's an interesting feature of this proposal that None of the existing uses at this site are actually displaced in a significant way. There's a commercial storage use that would continue if this project were constructed. Although in a more intense fashion on a portion of the site. So if the question was purely one about conserving, GI land uses, in some senses it does check the box.

[118:08] But I also do understand, staff's analysis here, an objection that putting housing in a space like this would crack open this larger industrial preserve, especially if we use that 1 sixth contiguity rule in future applications. the question that I really struggle with, and we heard some of this from the applicant too, is what future there actually is right now for what we call general industrial uses, in Boulder. Not simply what's there right now, but what is potential redevelopment there in the future. And so, what kinds of industrial uses Could we see? In this particular area south of Pearl. And then also looking forward, will these uses, if they come forward, be fundamentally incompatible with housing? And I'm not sure about that.

[119:01] And that's what makes me uncomfortable about, rejecting something like this out of hand. So I tend to lean towards flexibility when interpreting plans and codes. I think. That's been fairly clear in my comments, over the course of a lot of proposals that have come to us. But it does sound like, in this case, that staff and a significant number of my colleagues may not be leaning towards flexibility in this particular location due to the context. So, I would say that risk is for you to weigh in whether and how you decide to come back to us with this. Thanks. Okay, does anyone have any add-on comments, anything that they forgot to say that now they remember? Laura. Just real quick, we didn't mention much in our comments about staff's interpretation that for the phasing plan to work, it would have to truly be phased, and have a certificate of occupancy completed for the first phase before going on to Phase 2, which, you know.

[120:07] links up with this question of, would it be three phases or 2, and does the Goose Creek Greenway land count towards contiguity? But if it were three phases, and I think we would need to have real clarity from staff about, is that a legal requirement that staff is standing on, that the certificate of occupancy would have to be issued before Building the Phase 2. That seems like something we would need to clarify. And again, I'm glad that we're in concept review and not site review tonight. I don't know if anybody else has comments about that that they want to make, but I… we didn't… We didn't touch upon this too much, but… I would be very uncomfortable using A phasing plan where all phases are constructed simultaneously. as a way to meet contiguity, because that does feel like a workaround around the requirement to have one-sixth contiguity. And that does not appear to be, to me, what was intended by that, that piece of code.

[121:04] Great, thank you, Laura. Okay, unless someone objects, I'm going to close out our public hearing item, Agenda item 5A, and we'll move on to the next agenda item. Thank you all for attending, and… oh, oh, okay. Oh, yeah, you get it. Sure. I was just saying thank you. Okay. Appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we'll give everyone a… Second, to shuffle their seats around while I, And there's an open microphone at the podium, if somebody could, hit that before they leave. Thank you so much. Okay, I'll go ahead and, kick this off. This is while we continue to Move people around. This is Agenda Item 5B.

[122:02] a use review for 3 hotel suites in the existing carriage building, and new 1,367 square foot building at 1105 Spruce Street, totaling 6,522 square feet. Reviewed under case number LUR2025-00032. This will follow exactly the same format as our prior public hearing, and I see that those of you who sat through that, I don't need to go through that whole process. I… but I will remember To ask our board members if anyone, this is a use review, this is quasi-judicial, does anyone have any, potential or appearance of conflict of interest or ex parte communications regarding this subject? Okay, seeing none.

[123:00] We can begin, we can go to our staff presentation. Great. Well, before we get started tonight, I wanted to take a minute to introduce Adam Ollinger. He has been a planner in our office for a couple years now, but typically works on more administrative applications. He's taking on a more complex caseload, so tonight is his first in-person presentation, so have mercy on him. Okay. So I'll turn it over to Adam to make his presentation. Thanks, Charles. Let me go ahead and share my screen. Usually, I think… I think I need permission to share my screen here. Yeah, just one second. No problem. You should have that now. Perfect, thank you. Alright.

[124:00] Hey. Good evening, planning board members. It's nice to meet you. For those of you that don't know me or that weren't listening to Charles, my name is Adam Olanger, and I'm a planner here on staff. I'm here to introduce to you a use review request for 1105 Spruce Street to, allow for a hotel use on a property in the Downtown 2 zoning districts. This project did follow the public notification requirements of our code. Written notice was sent to all property owners within 600 feet of the property. A notice sign was posted on the property, and staff received 12 comments from neighboring residents, of which you can find in your packet. The project site is located at the northeast corner of 11th and Spruce. The property next door at 1111 Spruce Street was approved for a 37-room hotel in 2023, and I will touch on that a little more. Across the street from it to the south there, you can see with the yellow lettering, or yellow background lettering is the 11th and Spruce Street parking garage, just to kind of Exceptualize where that is here in town.

[125:01] The site is Zone Downtown 2, DT2, which is intended to act as a transition area between higher traffic uses along and near Pearl Street, downtown Boulder, and the surrounding residential areas. So you can see here, it's kind of at a crossroads between the couple different residential zoning districts and the downtown zoning districts. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the site as regional business, which is characterized by shopping, office, and financial uses with compatible housing. This is our most intense of the business categories, and again, you can see that divide between the crossroads of some mixed and higher residential BVCP land uses with the regional business here and across the street to the south. The applicant is proposing to operate a hotel with 3 suites on this property. The request… excuse me, the request includes a renovation of, and a 460 square foot addition to the existing principal building on the south side of the site.

[126:03] Bringing that site to 4,499 square feet total. A new 1,367 square foot structure, And renovations of the 656 square foot carriage building. The hotel will be operated in conjunction with the 37-room hotel at 1111 Spruce Street, and will share the amenities provided next door. The main building will have a tavern on the first floor, and offices for the hotel management on the second store… above. The tavern will operate by right, which means it will be less than 4,000 square feet, and it will close by 11pm. This was a change made from the original application. After holding a good neighbor meeting, the applicant decided to no longer request for a tavern used to be open till 2 AM, and instead changed the hours to operate by right. The new 1,367 square foot structure will be built as a duplex, with each suite having kitchenette and living facilities, as well as the standard sleeping and bathing facilities found in most hotel rooms.

[127:08] And then finally, the renovated carriage building will have a single hotel suite with the same amenities found in the duplex suites. If this project is approved, staff will have the applicant sign and record a declaration of use, ensuring that these suites, all three of them, will operate as hotels and not as dwelling units, by not allowing patrons to stay for longer than one month. The key issue for discussion tonight on this project, is whether or not the uses… or the proposal is consistent with the use review criteria found in, Section 9215E of the BRC. So, in that criteria, the first one is rationale, whether or not the use makes sense in this location. Staff found that per criteria, that the proposal provides a direct service to a neighborhood by providing additional hotel suites to support downtown at a density and a form compatible with the residential neighborhood.

[128:04] Number two, when it comes to compatibility, staff found that the site is nearby other hotels and commercial uses, and that the applicant's management plan includes ways to mitigate any impacts, to nearby residential and commercial uses. Number three, when it comes to infrastructure, staff found that the three hotel suites a part of this proposal are not expected to impact the infrastructure due to the relatively low utility usage of, hotel suites, and as well, the site's proximity to transit and the applicant's, rented park spaces in the parking garage across the street. And finally, character of the area, number 4, the historic character of the site will be maintained. It is a contributing property within the Mapleton Historic District. A landmark alteration certificate was obtained for the… all three buildings on site, the renovation to the principal structure of the new duplex building, and the renovation to the carriage house. And, any changes to that landmark alteration certificate would have to go before the landmarks were as well.

[129:08] So, as you see in your packet, the suggested motion language by staff is a motion to approve the use review, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of facts, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the memorandum. And with that, I'm happy to… turn myself back over to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Adam. Congratulations on your first presentation to Planning Board. Okay, clarifying questions for staff. Claudia, are you moving your mic over? Yeah, I have a couple. Thanks, Adam, for the presentation. In the submitted plans, there are actually photos that suggest that the carriage house, might have been used as a residential dwelling most recently. That's on page 115 of our packet.

[130:03] But yet the memo says no residential uses are being displaced, and so I'm just curious how long since this site has actually… how long has it been since this site has actually had an active residential use? I'd defer to the applicant on that. Staff didn't find any records of permits on this site, but considering the age of the building. Who knows what could have gone on there. Okay, I'll hold that for the applicant then. And a couple of questions, Just in response to some of the comment we received on this, So I understand we're not doing a use review on the tavern use, but what would be the process if the owners, wanted to operate the tavern for longer hours in the future? They would apply for a use review. Okay, so that would come as its own use review. And then, can you confirm that there are rules in the code that govern outdoor tavern seating when it's in close proximity to residential uses? Correct. I don't know them verbatim off the top of my head, but for all intents and purposes, it's basically, once it gets past 11pm, making sure that if you are allowed to stay open past 11pm, that the outdoor space is closed if there is any

[131:13] patios or outside seating areas that they aren't allowed to have patrons in. Okay, yeah, I'm just wondering where in the code, if people have concerns about that, where would they look for that in the code? Section 963 of the code. Okay, thank you. Great, thanks, Claudia. Anyone else? Okay, ML, just checking with you. Oh, there is your hand. I was looking for my hand. I just have a couple, I might only have one, but I'll start with one. Thank you, thank you for your presentation, and welcome, Adam. let me see… so I understand that the adjacent property will provide a certain number of the amenities that are generally considered along with the hotel, such as

[132:04] Laundry, gym, business center. concierge, etc. So, given that, am I to understand that this project, won't be built prior to that property being built and in operation? I'd have to defer to the applicant on that. They'd probably know more about their timing. So, I guess, putting it more in a staff question, can a project… Rely on a building that's not on their site to provide, services That are, Typically offered by a hotel. I believe that the one service that is not currently offered by this use review proposal that would typically be found in a hotel would be the check-in desk. Correct. However, I think that there would be ways that the applicant could potentially amend… or, make modifications through the minor modification process to the use review if this

[133:09] came into fruition where, say, 1111 Spruce Street wasn't constructed or wasn't turned into the hotel like the use review approved. That they could make the changes to operate this hotel without that. So the things that they propose that they are, including with their use. That are not actually on this property. how does that play into… I mean, we're approving this as, proposed. And right now, A lot of stuff is proposed off-site. How does that work? I think ultimately, ML, there are two separate, discrete approvals that stand alone. And the considerations that, are being made for this particular use review. rely on some of the approvals that were made next door. To Adam's point, if, for whatever reason.

[134:05] That use review expired, and that never occurred. This individual approval could continue to stand on its own. Without those amenities, so the gym, the business center. That said, there's nothing in the code that requires a hotel to have those types of amenities, so the approval tonight, our use review analysis isn't really predicated You know, on the benefits of having those, types of uses shared. Really what's before you tonight, again, is the addition of a couple, of hotel rooms in the DT zone that require a user view, so… I think you've answered my question. I appreciate it. The amenities that are being off-sided, as it were, aren't… aren't a requirement of that. That's correct. To make that use fellas. Okay. So my second question, and this again comes from some of the comments from the public,

[135:05] Is there dedicated on-street parking for this project? The applicant has been in communication with the Community Vitality Department, or I forget what their new name is, I'm sorry about that. What was formerly the Community Vitality Department, about getting some off-street parking spaces? I believe they've been successful in that endeavor, but I'll let the applicant confirm that. Okay, so could you describe what, How does… how does a entity qualify to get dedicated on-street parking in this kind of parking type? Yeah, so… Similar to that. how Hotel Boulderado operates a couple blocks to the east from here. They're gonna utilize… if they did obtain it, they're gonna utilize the spaces for valet services. they reach out to the Community Vi- or what was formerly known as the Community Vitality Department, work with them to make sure that it's in line with the Community Vitality's vision for downtown and all their standards.

[136:07] And work with them, that department, to obtain. Okay, so it's strictly for valet, parking? It aids your understanding. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Hey, thank you, ML. Okay, I don't have any questions. Last call for anyone else? Anything else you might have forgotten? Okay, great. It is now time for the applicant to make their presentation. And you'll have, 15 minutes or less. Hopefully less, right, for all of us. Good evening, Planning Board. My name is Bill Rigler. I'm a representative of the 1105 Spruce Project.

[137:00] Unfortunately, Steven Tebow and James Dixon, the CEO of Tebow Properties, couldn't be here this evening. You may know that they were the owner of the Caribou Village area up in Nederland, and so they've been working with the town and the community foundation all day to organize a benefit concert this Saturday, and I mention that so you can be aware that there's a benefit concert to help those victims on this weekend. I'm joined by members of the project team, including Nancy Blackwood of Blackwood & Company, PEH Architects, Carrie Whitman Interiors, and also Dylan Schmidt of Tebow Properties. Next slide, please. So, we're asking for your support of staff's recommendation for use review approval. We are… I just want to be very mindful, and want to make sure that you're aware that Landmarks Board has already reviewed and approved these plans in fall of 2024. We're now going for renewal, which I'll talk about in just a few minutes.

[138:01] And I really want to emphasize, and I think that ML's comments spoke to this, but a lot of the plans that we're talking about with you were very much influenced and informed by the community outreach and the neighborhood meeting that we did have. So, I'll talk about that in a second. Oh, sorry, next slide. So, as, Adam mentioned, and I didn't realize this is your first time, so congratulations. So we are talking about a regional business land use designation. And one quote that I just wanted to pull out from what Rob had, or sorry, from what Adam had shared is this last bullet about street activation and a mix of uses encouraged as the areas are refurbished. In effect, we are talking about refurbishing, reconstructing, rehabilitating, and… recreating a more active use of this corner of 11th and Spruce. Next slide, please.

[139:02] Ta-da! Next slide, please. So we're really talking about four components of the vision. Number one is leading with an adaptive reuse of an underutilized space, really focusing on a very historic structure that is the 1895-era building, and putting it to a much better and more modern use and capability. Leading to the second point of creating some boutique lodging. Much of this, of course, is tied to the prospects of increased lodging and sales tax revenues, but also giving us more hotel rooms that we're going to need for Sundance. And we'll talk about the carriage house in just a second, but in answer to your question. Planning Board Member Kaplan, the carriage house has never been used as a… as a residence. It's only ever been used as a carriage house. Oh! Planning board member theme, excuse me. Next slide, please.

[140:03] So, to the right in the giant gray massing, you can see 1111 spruce, which is not included in this presentation, but here for context. And then moving from the far left to the right, we see the refurbished carriage house. Which would essentially account for one new executive suite. Moving to the right, we have a new boutique hotel. That would essentially be a duplex with two executive suites. And then, moving to the right is the adaptive reuse of the 1895 building. Or, I'm sorry, not the adaptive reuse, but… the rehabilitation. Next slide. As looking from across the street. On spruce, facing east. So again, from left to right, we have the carriage house. The new Executive Hotel Suites. And the 1895 area building.

[141:02] Next slide. Just an aerial. Next slide. So, this would be the new building that would be, kind of. Put in between the existing 1895-era building and the carriage house. For sure, meeting all of, Boulder's codes, creating a new energy-efficient building. And more importantly, really built toward neighborhood context. Setbacks, height, for example. Next slide. These are some existing pictures of the carriage house. So, for anybody who's ever walked by… You know that it's not exactly… the, the antithesis of blight. The idea here is that, basically, working with restoration experts, and with our own team, creating instead a carriage house that could be utilized as an executive hotel suite.

[142:08] And then, of course, that'll be guided by a historic building expert to fully supervise and oversee any rehabilitation and restoration efforts. Next slide. That includes, saving and preserving some of these incredible stained glass, artworks that we have, and features, and working with, historic, window specialists to make sure that we're fully utilizing all the, all the Main components and, best practices in rehabilitation and restoration. Next slide. Just to reiterate Adam's point, we do… this project does meet all use criteria, including energy and sustainability requirements. As far as open space, it's approximately 3X of what, what is required.

[143:02] And also including, dark sky lighting and fixtures, and for the neighbors, this was a… this was an important issue. They wanted to make sure that the lighting was not going out, but rather down. Next slide. Planning Board Member Kaplan, I think you had the question on parking? Damn it. Sorry, shoot, ML, pardon me. Thank you, it's… Not enough caffeine right now. So, the good news here, and this was a key item of discussion during our neighborhood meeting, was questions about parking. The great news here is that Tebow, Properties has a… already has an arrangement with the parking garage across the street to fully lease out as many units, spaces as are required. For years, that arrangement was up, I think, up to 30 or so spots. It's been underutilized. So, we fully anticipate having all parking related to this project being at the, garage across the street, for which Tibo properties will pay.

[144:09] We also have, secure bike parking and storage, and I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that we have Cassie from Fox Tuttle on the phone as well, who's been our transportation coordinator. Next slide, please. So I shared earlier that in the lead-up to our neighborhood meeting, Which we held earlier this summer. We really wanted to make a point of connecting with community members to better understand, and more importantly, proactively reach out. To them, for their input. And so, for example, in a conversation with one community member, we learned that his two most important areas of concern were an operating tavern that would stay open until 2 AM, and parking.

[145:04] And so, we really took that, that feedback and input to heart, and so that by the time that we actually got to the point of having our neighborhood meeting, we used that opportunity to declare that we heard the neighbors, and that we were shifting the hours of operation from 2AM to, 11 p.m. I'm sorry, just need to grab a water. I just wanted to clear… Just want to thank the neighbors on behalf of the project team for that clarity, and for that feedback, and just to reiterate that we did hear you. So, thank you. I also just want to mention that in your packet, you will see both the management plan regarding the tavern, as well as the letters of support, and the emails of support that this project received. Those include from longtime community and business leaders, including Peter Waters, Bettina Swigger, Judy Automobile.

[146:08] Tatiana Hernandez, and many other downtown residents. Excuse me. Next slide. so here is just where we tie it all up. We are talking about a really, really small Parcel. And with your approval and permission. We'd like to create a really beautiful space. That can have a… thoughtful, and beneficial impact on the, on the neighborhood, and hopefully meet a key need, so… Happy to take your questions, thank you. Great, thanks, Bill. Questions for the applicant? Mason?

[147:02] I just have one. On the, closing the tavern at 11, is that just to the public, or also to the… to the tenants, I suppose? Yeah, thanks for mentioning that, and I'll ask my colleagues to jump in. I do want to address the nomenclature just for a second. You know, when we started the conversations with the neighbors, and they saw our early reference to a tavern, I think a lot of them were like, oh my god, is this gonna be the sink? Or the catacombs, and it's not, right? And so the idea that, that, Mr. Tebow and others had come up with was something far more, I would say, more of an upscale cocktail lounge, perhaps even a private member's club. But I think what we, and the vision with the site, and the lounge especially, is an amenity that could have some public… public options. I'm not sure that I necessarily see tables spilling out into the sidewalk in the way the jungle does, right? Right off of 10th and…

[148:00] Between Pearl and Walnut. But so, any other 11, I mean. So… Okay, thank you, Mason. And ML… oh, I… maybe I… do I see your hand? I do have… Okay, alright. R-M-L-A. I put it up, and then I'm gonna speak up when you start looking. Okay, alright, okay. Thank you. So I have, I have two questions. Thank you for your, for your presentation. I have a couple of questions. The staff mentioned an agreement to operate, this site as a hotel and to rent for less than 30 days. Is that your understanding as well? Yeah, thank you, Emil, that's exactly right. The… each of these three stays… er, each of these three… The executive suites would be 30 days or less. Okay, because on one of them, you also had the carriage house saying it's an extended stay. What does that mean versus…

[149:06] the other two. They're, all three suites are in the same category of extended sway… extended stay suites, 30 days or less. Okay, perfect. Second question. So, I understand if the adjacent property will provide things like on-site employees, security, kitchen, laundry, gym, business center. In the case that the adjacent property is not repurposed and functioning as a hotel, would this project still function as a boutique hotel you envision? My understanding is yes, and I'll ask the project team. I believe that the one function that would be tied to the 1111 Spruce project not included in this use review, is a hotel check-in. And registration function. Right, so that… I mean, that would be accommodated in some manner, given that it's the 21st century. We don't need…

[150:07] I just heard that in stereo, ML, that's exactly right. I… I can't… I mean, if Airbnb can do it, I… Right. Sure solutions exist. one last… One last question, and I don't have the exact… in the, transit demand management or speaking about the transit, There was, A point being made that something had been agreed upon by the adjacent property. Some form of, of transit management was in the agreement And you were relying on the agreement From the adjacent property? Is this making any sense, or do I have to go… I can go look up. We want to be helpful, it's a good question. Is it possible to loop in Cassie Slade, or…

[151:02] our, our, sure, Thomas is not in the room at the moment, but is, it's capital. Is that her? So, Cassie, I see you, and I see that you're not muted and you're talking. Was there a piece of the transit management plan that was dependent on an agreement with the adjacent property? I think, great question, Annel. I think what you're referring to is the parking And there's agreement for the parking across the street. They utilize, working, for the hotel. Right, yeah, no, that wasn't… I'll go find it and bring it up at some point, but thank you. My bad for not… for not having flagged it in the original memo. But, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Great, thank you, Amel. Okay, last chance for questions to the applicant.

[152:05] Okay. We're going to close that portion, and we're going to open our public hearing. Thank you, Bill. And Thomas, I don't know if we… we're gonna, again, start with folks in the room. Sure, yeah. Nobody signed up for this item in the room, but if anyone is in the room from the public that would like to speak to this item. Okay. This is their opportunity. And then we'll go online. …to our online participants. We do have one raised hand so far. First up is Lynn Siegel. And you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and you can go ahead and begin. No, of course. The last thing we need is to accommodate Sundance. Sundance shouldn't be here at all. It's a takings of this town. The wealth disparity in this place, along with the Trump administration, is choking this community, and we don't need more wealth disparity here. More attraction of high-end

[153:07] Things like this. another hotel. We've got plenty already that we shouldn't have here, the Limelight, the Moxie, the Millennium taken over with student housing for 930 people, you know, the dark horse, the… you know, I come to these things for how many years now, and watch you handing out subsidies, and building height amendments, and parking concessions like Tebow's got parking across the street, and viewing all of these as community benefits. This is not a benefit to me. This is raising my taxes, which raises my costs, and then I have to pass those costs along to anyone who I have renting at my place, don't I? So it raises rent. And the more high rent we have in town. The more people can't…

[154:00] keep up with their rent, and fall out of their housing, and become homeless, and then who pays for it? Because our budget is in massive deficit right now. Our open space is 300 and some million dollars in deficit. We can't handle the growth. Lay off. We don't need this. No. Just. Say. No. This is not a community benefit. I'm sorry. You know, I mean, I'm not sorry. This is just reality knocking at your door. We can't have this anymore. Or we all go down. All of us. It's just like Gaza. If we don't solve it, it's gonna eat us alive. The whole world. The whole of Boulder will be affected by something like this. Another giveaway. Another benefit to a high-end developer. No. No way.

[155:05] How can you see this as having any benefit to the City of Boulder? How can Sundance be considered any benefit? It's going to be here, unfortunately, for 10 years, and then hopefully it'll be gone. My dad moved here, there were 30,000 people here. We bought a house on Hamilton Court in Martin Acres, a new house, for $16,000. And sold it for $16,500 in 1962, when we left to go to Salt Lake City. One year. That's the kind of rent we need around here. We don't need this. See you… Thank you, Lynn, and that concludes your time. If there's anybody else online. That would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your… Virtual hand, and we will go ahead and call on you.

[156:02] Seeing no further raised hands, I'm going to pass it back to you, Mark. Thank you. All right, thank you, Thomas. That concludes the public hearing. The applicant may respond to anything the public might have said, if you want, okay? Moving on to board, deliberations and possible motion-making. Do… do we, Adam, would you put up the, key issues… Okay. So, the key issue for discussion is the proposal consistent with the use review criteria of Section 9-2-15E, BRC 1981.

[157:00] So I propose just a quick round of comments, and then we can move on to anything else, but, Anyone want to begin with any comments on the, application? Claudia? Sure, I'll be very brief. I have very little to say beyond I think it does satisfy the use review criteria in 9-2-15E. This proposal is consistent with DT2 zoning. It accomplishes a transition from high-intensity downtown to more residential uses. It is reasonably compatible with surrounding development and the character of the area. And it should have no significant impacts on existing infrastructure. That's my analysis. Thanks, Claudia. Mason, you look ready? Yep, quick add-on. I agree with everything Claudia said, and… I'll strike out those sentences. I think the addition of high-quality open space and the adaptive reuse of the carriage house further supports its fit with the neighborhood. The absence of on-site parking is appropriate, given its location within KJID and the city's updated parking standard.

[158:14] And then the hotel is all… the hotel use is also well aligned with the regional business land use designation, which anticipates visitors serving commercial activity. Overall, the project mitigates impacts, promotes walkability, and maintains public welfare, meeting all applicable review criteria. Great, thanks, Mason. Laura? So I'll just say, the reason why we're having a hearing on this tonight is because it was called up by members of the public, and we do respect that, and are glad that the neighbors had the opportunity to hear this presented in a public forum. And to know that the planning board, and we're all volunteers here, we're all appointees, has listened to the applicant, has listened to staff. has looked at the criteria, and we are doing our level best to make our decision based solely upon what we are charged to do, which is to administer this criteria. And when I look at 9-2-15E in the Boulder Revised Code, it's clear to me that this project does meet the criteria for getting this use, this hotel use.

[159:18] on the property where it is zoned, and so I would be happy to approve this project. But I do thank the neighbors for ensuring sunlight and public transparency, and I want to thank the applicant for meeting with the neighbors and making significant changes that you were not required to make, in order to, be a good neighbor to these folks, and have a project that Makes folks happy, and hopefully neighbors will be very happy and come be customers of your cocktail lounge. Okay, ML, do you have any comments? I do. So, following up on, Laura's comment. I think it's important to note that this project came before us as a call-up by the neighbors.

[160:05] Yet there were no neighbors giving testimony tonight. So, I will assume all concerns were addressed. And I believe that this project meets the use review criteria, so I will be supporting, The motion to accept this. Great, thank you, ML. I concur with my fellow planning board members that this, meets the use review criteria, and, I'll be supporting it as well. So… Anyone want to, make the motion? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry, Adam, could you bring up the… there we go. Excellent. Okay, Mason. I'd like to make a motion to approve Use Review Application LUR202500032, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum.

[161:12] Second. Okay, we have a motion, and that's been seconded. Mason, as motion maker, do you have anything you'd like to add? Nothing I haven't already said. Okay, Laura? Okay. Any other comments on the motion? Okay, we'll go to a vote, and, I'm gonna re-read the motion. We are, voting on a motion to approve Use Review Application LUR2025-00032. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, so that concludes that item. Congratulations. Thank you very much for a nice presentation, and

[162:07] Oh, what's that? They can speak to us if they want, right? Well, yeah, yeah. I… well, I… they can respond to the public comment, and I gave them that opportunity, I think, post… Okay, any… anybody want to say anything concluding? Or ask any questions. I would just say thanks. I feel like the process worked the way it's intended, with the community input and the response, and just the opportunity to have made this better, so… Thank you all, and just want to remind you again about the Netherland Fire Benefit Relief Concert on Saturday, so thank you. Okay, thank you. That concludes Agenda Item 5B. Moving on to our, matters, we have one…

[163:02] For the record, I am a neighbor. Yeah. 8 blocks away. Oh, can we mute Lynn there? Okay, so we're on to, Item 6, matter from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney, and I see Brad at the podium, ready to go. Yes, good evening, Planning Board members, Brad Mueller, Planning… and Development Services Director, so, You were fortunately without me for a couple weeks while I was gone, so, I missed you all, and regret not being able to give comments until today. But a couple months ago, I… mentioned to you and also implored you a bit to help us through the well, I can't even say next couple months, because it's going to be ongoing. To keep up with our agendas and be able to keep items, moving through, so thank you for doing that. We've gotten through the two items this evening, and we've got more to come, turns out, in the weeks and months to come.

[164:09] I do… so thank you very much, and staff appreciates that, and has noticed it, and we're… We're keeping the docket full, unless Charles tells me otherwise. Something changed. No. So, the other thing I wanted to mention, though, is just thank you for the, review comments on the minutes. We know that that takes time. We know, too, that you're trying to get those to us as soon as possible. as soon as possible is really appreciated, because Thomas needs to turn those around a little bit. We do always have the option of pushing it to another meeting, but, you know, it's nice to have those kind of in short successes, so… Not… not complaining, just thanking you for keeping those, you know, coming as early as possible, and Reminder around that. I think that's all I had, but I'm happy to answer any questions. You're gonna see a lot of Come plan things in the next couple of months here.

[165:00] Brad, when you talk about the, upcoming schedule that, is going to be dense. It seemed like November, because of the election, holidays, etc. So, and then we go into December, it's at the end of December, so are… can we anticipate, like, a wicked January or something? Absolutely. February and March. Look how quick you guys. Okay, yeah, I think we'll ramp, but we typically ramp up after the first of the year, just because we slow down over the holidays and have less meetings, but… We just have a lot of things that are gonna be ready to go after the first of the year, so it'll be busy. Okay. There you go. Okay. All right, thank you. Brad, anything else? You know, just any questions, any. Okay. Board member said. But was there something about a letter to Council that we were… that's next, okay.

[166:01] Anything else? I was gonna make a wicked joke about, like, the musical and start singing, but I will spare you. Okay. There's still time. Thank you. Okay. Let's go to the council letter discussion, and Charles, are you, leading that off? Well, so I sent out an email, a couple of weeks ago, I think it was on the 7th of October. Which, included a template, as well as some considerations for the planning board in crafting your letter to Council. The deadline is December 19th, so I think what we wanted to do tonight was talk about whether or not the board would like to send a letter to Council. And then if so, logistically, how you'd like to go about doing that? So, do you want to form a subcommittee? And then I think we had talked about coming back to have the more substantive conversation about what would be included in the letter on the 18th of November.

[167:07] So, I know there are other folks that have per… Well, anyway, have anyone else… has anyone else participated in writing a letter to Council? Okay, I have. And one… way of doing this to avoid violations of Open Meeting Act and everything else is to First, logistically, choose two folks that want to lead on drafting the letter. And so at the 18th… so we would, tonight, even as early as tonight, we could pick those two folks. And then at our meeting on the 18th, in anticipation of that, during the time between now and then, we would use that time to…

[168:01] Think about topics that, are important to you, and you would want to bring forth, and we would, discuss those, and… have little casual votes about, yeah, I think that's a great topic, or that's something that we don't think is really going to get addressed, so let's table it, etc. Once we've selected those, those, topics, understanding that The letter needs to be no longer than about 2 pages. For all sorts of reasons. But you wanna… after you spend all this time, you wanna make sure it gets red, and if it's too long, it's not gonna get red. Then we would, Select the topics, the drafters would go off between the next meeting Draft, come back with a… Pretty darn, complete draft. And then we would wordsmith in the meeting

[169:01] And then vote to approve Edit, approve. That, that final draft, and away it goes. So, that's… that's a… that's… that's, to my experience, been a methodology, for… for doing that. Mark, I have my hand up. Oh, I'm sorry, ML, go ahead. No, don't be sorry, I waited till you were done. I would like to volunteer to be one of those two people. Okay, great. I've not done this before, and I think that it would be a… A great, honor to… reel in all the things we think that are important into a, two-page note to the City Council. Okay, and I'll note that there may be more than two volunteers, and then we can discuss that as well. So, Laura? I wanted to say, I think the process that you've described sounds good to me.

[170:00] And I was actually going to suggest that we wait to select our two drafters until we know what the topics are, because there may be particular drafters that are really eager to work on a particular topic. And so, like, if we know we're gonna focus on something, for example, and Kurt is the expert, then it would make sense to have him be one of the drafters, for example. So, I don't know that there's any advantage to choosing the drafters before we know the topics, I guess is my point. Good point, and I, I appreciate that input. So… what do we think of, then, at our next meeting on the 18th, under Matters, we would each bring our, topics, and, we can come prepared with your topics, and come prepared to have your topic maybe not… Not rise to, acceptance, just… You know, not everybody's thing gets… gets discussed. Go ahead, Claudia. Question. Do we have access to past letters from this board to Council that we should look at as examples? Yeah. Yeah, if you could share some of those with us, that would be really helpful. I think Thomas probably can pull those up pretty easily.

[171:14] Okay? Great. So, it sounds like, if acceptable to ML, I don't see you online again right now, I don't see your hand. Nope. we would all come with topics at our… the November 18th meeting, and, be ready to have a brief but robust discussion selecting our topics, and then selecting our drafters. Yes, I, I agree with that. That was my hope in getting a committee started, would be to bring, to gather up the topics, so… Okay. Yes, topics need to be out there pretty soon. Yeah, and I'll just make one other comment, which is that this board can always send a letter to Council if we, as a board, vote and say that we want to do that. And we have done that in the past, when there was something timely, and it was not a topic for the end of the year letter. So we always have that option if something comes up that is very timely and urgent.

[172:17] Using the structure, using that same structure, yeah. Somebody drafts, and then we discuss it in a meeting and vote on, you know, edits, or whether even to accept it or not. Okay. Okay, any other item from our city attorney? Nothing from me tonight, thank you. Okay, and does any board member have anything else they'd like to discuss? Just a quick thank you to staff, as always, for all your wonderful preparation and keeping us on task. And I like the Indian food tonight. Yeah, well done, Thomas.

[173:00] Okay, okay, and as far as our, debrief and calendar check. Our next meeting is the 18th, and I'm sure Thomas will Get us that packet on the 11th or 12th? And, I just want to say that I thought… I came into this meeting tonight For the concept review that… I thought was really challenging, and I… I just… I was… kind of thought we might have fireworks tonight, and just all sorts of stuff, and anyway, I think it went about as well as it could, given all the factors that were wrapped into the application and staff's position. So, anyway, I thought. Given everything. That went swimmingly. Laura? I just want to respond and say I think everybody on the board did a really good job of coming with thoughts about what we might want to say, being open to having our mind changed, either by what we heard from the audience, the public, the applicant, from staff tonight, each other.

[174:06] And also being cautious that this is a concept review, we might not, you know, the composition of the board could change, the policies could change, who knows what could change, so I think we did a good job of saying, based on what we know now, here's what we're thinking. So, yeah. Agreed. Okay, unless there's anything else, did we want to give any updates on the November 25th? Meeting. So we don't currently have any items scheduled for the 25th, so I want to make sure that the board is okay to cancel that meeting, just based on the holiday week, and traveling, and… I was looking forward to it. Okay, well then we'll go ahead and take that one off the calendar. Maybe I'll just read a past packet on that. Brad did that, he did that last week. I do think we have to have a vote, since that was a… scheduled meeting on the main calendar, was it not? It is, but I don't know that we need to cancel. I thought whenever they adopted a calendar for the year.

[175:04] If one of those meetings got canceled, they had to vote on it. wait, are you saying we need to vote on… To cancel the meeting, yeah. Yeah, I don't know that there was a calendar adopted. Oh. Well, if there was no calendar, then all the… Good enough. Thanks. Okay. I'm going to, without any, objection, I'm going to adjourn our meeting. Thank you all very much, and… Not bad. 9 o'clock, I… I thought this was gonna go later. So… Good night, everybody! tonight.