April 7, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:08] Good evening, all. Welcome to the City of Boulder's, April 7th, 2026 Planning Board Meeting. I'm going to call our meeting to order, and we have some, fun and different things to, take place before we, before we get going with our regular, meetings. So… Item 1A is the, swearing-in of our new board member, Maxwell Lord. So, welcome, Max. To Planning Board, and I believe, Deshauna is going to, do that, and… If we're all ready, you may proceed. Thank you. Excuse me. Max, if I may, call you Max. Can you please begin by raising your right hand?

[1:05] Please repeat after me, I will go slowly. I'm Maxwell Lord. I'm Maxwell Lord. I'm sorry, Matt seems to have his mic on, so it's recorded. Oh, thank you. There we go. I'm Maxwell Lord. Do solemnly swear, or affirm? Do solemnly swear, or affirm. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. And of the State of Colorado. And of the State of Colorado, and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Boulder. And the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the Office… And faithfully perform the duties of the office… Of a member of the planning board which I am about to enter. As a member of the planning board which. I'm about to enter. Thank you. You are officially sworn. Thank you. Okay, welcome, Max. The next item, item 1B,

[2:05] which will be the very last official item of mine as chair, is the selection, nomination, selection, and selection of chair and vice chair, and I'm going to, Preside over the selection of both, and then once that's concluded, we have a new chair, and that new chair, whomever that may be, will take over the, and preside over the balance of the meeting. So I consulted, both our procedures and Robert's Rules of Order. In regard to this matter. So this is a nomination process. Any board member may nominate any other board members, so we're gonna do chair first. Any board member may nominate. Any other board member, that nominated board member

[3:03] may accept, or deny, or remain silent. Silence is a tacit acknowledgement that they would proceed. We may… any board member, again, it can be one nomination, it can be two, it can be three, and we vote until, Someone has 4 affirmative votes. So, I am going to… I want to make sure everyone has a chance to nominate and speak to their nomination. But I am going to actually, normally the chair goes last, and tonight, for this particular topic, I am going to, call on myself and go first. And, I am going to… Nominate Laura Kaplan, for chair.

[4:02] And before I speak to that nomination, I want to open it up to any other board member for any other nominations. Okay? I'll speak to the nomination of Laura Kaplan, and then any other board member may speak as well. And, you know, I haven't had a lot of, therapy in my life, but I've had a little bit, you know, being married for 40, 40-some years and raising kids and everything else. And one of the things you learn is that, never and always are kind of not great words to use. Well, I'm going to use them tonight. Because I can say with some certainty that, in the first matter, no matter where we stand on issues, and we have disagreed often, Laura has always had the residents of the city of Boulder at the heart

[5:02] Of whatever she's doing, her position, and the way she conducts herself. I have always learned from her. Here in the room, while chairing and facilitating, and in conversations outside of the room. And I have never been Seen her be anything but thoughtful, kind, and open with other board members, members of the public. And most importantly, she is profoundly skillful. at facilitation. So, those are my reasons for nominating Laura Kaplan. Does anyone else have any, thing to say? Claudia. So I know we don't need formal seconds for these nominations, but I also… would like to support Laura Kaplan as chair. I think all of us continuing on this board are familiar with Laura's rigorous preparation for meetings. Her extensive facilitation experience, and her commitment to clear and thorough documentation of our deliberations and actions on this board.

[6:07] I think her skills will serve us well in the Chair's role as we close out the BVCP process this year, as we get deeper into implementing recent changes in the land use code, and I also hope that with Laura as chair, that we as board members, will have a chance to deepen our skills in some of these areas, learn from her in this last year of her term on planning board? Great. Thank you, Claudia. Okay, seeing no other comments, and seeing no other nominations, then I will request a unanimous affirmative vote for Laura Kaplan to become our chair for the next year. Raise your hand. Okay. It is unanimous, and we're all seven present here. Okay. We want to… yeah, congratulations, but you're not the… you're not chair yet. Okay. We haven't switched, we haven't switched yet. Okay. We also now need to, have a new vice chair, and I'm opening up the floor to nominations for vice chair.

[7:15] Kurt. I would like to nominate Claudia Hansen Thiem. Great, thank you. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Okay, seeing none, Kurt, would you like to speak to your nomination? Sure, I don't think Claudia needs a whole lot of explanation, like Laura, but I find her to be. Resilient, and compassionate, and super organized, and dedicated. And really embodying the values of Boulder, and so I think that she will, along with Laura, they will make a really fantastic team, so I'm excited for them. Great, thank you. Kurt, any other comments?

[8:01] Okay? Okay. ML. I think it's awesome that you are… willing to be the vice chair and serve with Laura. I think it's going to be a great team, and I look forward to your leadership. Thank you. Thank you for accepting it. Great, thank you, ML. Yes, Laura? So I didn't prepare any remarks, but just off the cuff, Claudia is brilliant, and always well prepared, and I think she represents, very sort. Strong and principled viewpoints. And, we often don't agree. You know, we often do, but when there is a split decision on planning board, we often find ourselves on different sides of it. And I think that's really, really healthy for a board, to have the chair and vice chair not always agree. And I, I think we still work well together with a lot of respect, and I hope that, Claudia will call me on the carpet if I'm ever doing something inappropriate, or that does not honor other viewpoints, and I would look very much forward to working with you.

[9:05] Okay, great. All right, let's, have a, another unanimous vote in favor of Claudia Hanson theme to be our Vice Chair for the coming year. Alright, that is unanimously decided. Yeah. Oh. Okay. I'm allowed to vote for muscle. You're not? I think you are. I think you are, yeah. It's against my constitution as a Midwesterner, but I will… Thank you all. Okay. It's in our procedures that you may, so… Okay, and with that, I am going to stand up and relinquish my role as chair, and we're going to… I'm going to trade places with Laura, and away we go.

[10:14] Okay, well, well away we go, and thank you all, and I will strive to do my best to honor your trust in me, as Planning Board Chair, and if I'm doing my job, everybody feels one of seven equals, and very empowered to contribute in all the ways that you would like to contribute to all of our discussions, so… I welcome all of you, not just Claudia, to call it out if you don't feel like I'm doing my job appropriately. Okay, so… I need to adjust my chair, because Mark is very tall. And Mark, you're looking a little squatty, because you're in my chair. Alright, the next item of business is public participation, so I would like to turn it over to… is Vivian online? Vivian, hello! I am! Congratulations, Chair and Vice Chair.

[11:01] Thank you. I am here to walk, everybody through the rules of public participation. Thank you, Thomas, for sharing the slides. Good evening, everybody. Thank you, members of the public, that are joining us. I'll start out by just sharing that the City has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives, and we have a lot more information about that on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder Revised Code, if you can go back, thank you, and other guidelines that support this vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[12:01] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants in open comment and public hearings present themselves with their first and last name. And if you are joining us online, you can let us know that you would like to speak, by raising your virtual hand, so clicking on it at the bottom of the screen, or you can also go to the menu button and find the reactions button, rather, and find the raised hand, that way. And next up, we have open comment, which is for items that are not the two public hearing items on the agenda. I think it's Presbyterian, Manor, and Arapaho, and Mapleton property. So if you are here and would like to speak to the planning board. On anything not related to those two items, this would be the time. And maybe we can check in the room first? Thomas, do you know if there's anybody… Thanks, Vivian. We don't have anybody signed up for open comment in the room.

[13:03] Okay, what about, online? I see we have a couple of members of the public joining us. This would be the time you could raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak to the planning board. Each person would have 3 minutes. And… Okay, we have, Lynn Kendall Wilson, followed by Mark Fuhrer, and please go ahead and introduce yourself. Lynn, over to you. You have 3 minutes. I'm… I'm Lynne Kendall Wilson, I'm a citizen of Boulder, and I would like to speak about, the… Presbyterian Manor, the expansion of Presbyterian Manor.

[14:00] Lynn, That is one of our public hearing items, and there will be a public comment period specifically for that item, so could I ask you to hold your comments until that. Yes, of course. I'm sorry. Do you know approximately at what time? Which agenda item is that? Is that our… It's, 5A. which is probably 10 minutes from now. Soon, in about 10 minutes. Well, actually, we won't get to the public. hearing. Yeah. So the presentation will be in about 10 minutes, and then… At least, not before… not before 7 or 7.30. That's right, yes, thank you, Vivian, and thank you, others. It's… the hearing will start soon, but there will be a presentation before the public comment, and question and answer as well. Okay, next up we have Mark. Please go ahead, Mark. Alright, you can hear me? Yes. All right. All I really wanted to say was congratulations to Claudia, Laura, and Max on your new positions.

[15:03] And I hope you all do a wonderful job, because we need it. And, also, just as a public member, when I listen to these. hearings. Some of you are not as close to your mics as you could be, and it's really hard to hear, so I… would appreciate it if you can get as close to your bikes as possible. Thanks, that's it. Thank you for being here, and for your feedback. Okay, we don't have any other hands raised, so back over to you, Chair. Thank you so much, Vivian, and thank you to the members of the public who spoke. Okay, our next item of business is approval of minutes, which we don't have any this week. and call-up items, we have none this week, so we begin our first public hearing item. I will read the title of the public hearing item. The sequence of events will be, there will be a presentation from staff, followed by question and answer with the board.

[16:01] Then there will be a question… a presentation by the applicant, followed by question and answer from the board. Then we do our public hearing, just like the last one that we did, specifically on this item. Which is the concept plan review and comment on proposed redevelopment at 1050, 1004, 990, 986, and 976 Arapahoe Avenue for permanently affordable senior housing. The existing Presbyterian Manor building at 1050 Arapahoe would remain. The project would involve combining four existing lots with the larger parcel and constructing a new 60-unit, 3-story structure. This is reviewed under case number LUR2026-0001. And then after the public comment, we finish with board deliberation. Because this is a concept plan and review, there is no decision made by the board, and no formal guidance is given. We individually give our remarks to the applicant.

[17:04] Okay, we will turn it over to staff, I think, is it… Allison kicking this off? Shannon. Excuse me. Shannon. Shannon, should we do our ex parte and conflict of interest before your presentation? Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite any board member who would like to disclose any ex parte communications, or thinks they have any conflict of interest related to this item. Yeah, this is actually a funny one, but I don't really even know. Max, you would need to use the mic, yeah. Yeah, I hung shelves in one of those. units on Arapaho 4 or 5 years ago. Okay, if you have any doubt about whether you might have a conflict of interest, then you can just say that you… whether or not you think it might affect your judgment and your ability to be impartial in this manner.

[18:06] I see no reason why it would affect my ability to be impartial, but it seemed worth mentioning. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, thank you. I'll turn it over to Shannon. All right. Good evening, Board. I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder Plan. department, and I'll take you through tonight's concept plan, staff presentation. So we'll go through the purpose of a concept plan, public notification, the context and surroundings, summary of the proposal, and some key issues for discussion. So, the purpose of a concept plan review is to review the general development plan for a particular project. And help identify some key issues in advance of a more detailed site review submittal, so the applicant will receive comments and feedback from the board, staff, and community members, and no formal action is being taken on the project tonight.

[19:12] So the property was posted and noticed provided to property owners within 600 feet. Some written comments were received on a mix of topics, including support for additional senior housing, historic preservation considerations, as well as some concerns about potential future conflicts between the senior housing and the adjacent university student housing. So here you can see the property. It's about 2.5 acres. It's located just south of Arapaho, west of 11th. It includes, 5 properties currently, addressed at 1050, 1004, 990, 986, and 976 Arapaho. 1050 Arapaho, contains the existing 79… 79-unit Presbyterian Manor Affordable Senior Housing Building that was constructed in 1963. It's 11 stories tall and was built prior to the establishment of the height limit.

[20:12] The buildings along Arapahoe at 1004, 990, and 976 are detached dwelling units, and 986 has two dwelling units, and these houses front Arapahoe and were constructed in the 1920s. Here you can see the property is centrally located in Boulder, just south of the Civic area, which includes the Boulder Public Library and the West Agewell Center that provides, services to older adults in the community. To the west of the property is a 6-unit, 3-story condo building, which shares vehicular access with the subject property. Also to the west is the Boulder Fish and Game Club property. That has a fish farm and 7 fish runs established in the 1920s. To the east, across 11th, is the commercial property that formerly housed Alfalfa Alpha's grocery store, and that, Boulder Community Health uses the southern portion of currently.

[21:12] And further south, across the alley and Access Drive is a mix of residential properties serving the university student population. Here you can see the property is impacted by the 100- and 500-year floodplains, with a small bit of conveyance zone. Residential buildings in the 100-year floodplain must be elevated to or above the flood protection elevation. These properties do generally slope from the high point at their south edge down to the low point at the north. Most of the site is gently sloping with some steep slopes along the south. There are some mountain views from the property, but they're partially obstructed by nearby structures and trees, and the site's been fully developed for several decades, and it doesn't include any identified wetlands, wildlife, habitats, or any other protected areas.

[22:08] The BVCP land use designation is High Density residential, which is for areas close to the university and major corridors and services. It's supposed to consist of residential uses, such as attached dwelling units, at a density of more than 14 units per acre. And the property is zoned Residential High 2, RH2, which is for high-density residential areas. Allowed uses include attached dwelling units and ELUs, and those are permitted by right in the zoning district. In terms of transportation, the site, again, is centrally located near several multimodal corridors. The site's adjacent to an existing bike route in 11th Street, it's close to the Boulder Multi-Use Creek Path, and a designated bike route is planned in Arapahoe Avenue.

[23:03] The site's also located within walking distance to several bus stops, where you can, get on local and regional routes, providing service throughout Boulder and several nearby communities. Moving to the proposed project tonight… This proposal includes redevelopment of a portion of the property for a permanently affordable senior housing development. The existing 79-unit Presbyterian Manor Tower at 1050 Arapahoe would remain there on the corner. The project would involve removing the four existing houses along Arapahoe, and it would combine those lots with a larger parcel to construct a new 60-unit, 3-story residential structure with structured parking and an amenity office space on the ground floor. This proposal would involve a modification to allow up to 1.07 FAR floor area ratio, where a maximum of 0.67 FAR is otherwise permitted in this zoning district. Thus, it requires a site review process to make that request.

[24:12] Here are some renderings from the applicant team to help visualize the project. You can see the three-story structure oriented along Arapaho, and with the two levels of dwelling units above. The upper levels would also include additional amenity spaces and an outdoor terrace on the second level. In terms of the required review processes, the proposal requires historic preservation review for the demolition of the four 1920s-era houses along Arapahoe Avenue, because the houses are more than 50 years old. In February, the Landmarks Board considered issuance of the demolition approvals or initiation of the landmark designation process for the four houses. The Landmarks Board voted not to initiate the designation process for three of the properties.

[25:03] And the Landmarks Board voted to initiate the landmark designation process for the house at 990 Arapaho, and the board will hold a future public hearing on whether or not to recommend landmark designation for that house. If the Landmarks Board does not recommend designation, the decision is final unless appealed by the owner or called up by City Council. If the Landmarks Board recommends designation for 990 Arapahoe, the City Council would then hold a public hearing to make a final decision. Further down, you can see the proposal, again, requires a site review, because it's requesting that additional FAR. It could also request other modifications through that process, if necessary. And following the site review. The proposal would proceed into processes like a subdivision for combining the lots, a technical document review, and building permits. So, moving to key issues, staff identified these key issues for discussion, including the consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, consistency with the site review criteria, and any other key issues identified by the board.

[26:16] So, for Key Issue 1, consistency with the BBCP, overall staff found the proposed development is generally consistent with the BBCP land use of high-density residential, and the role of this area to provide high-density housing, your services, retail amenities, and transit. The proposal also supports several BBCP policies, in particular as an affordable senior housing development, it provides housing for populations with special needs, and helps provide housing for a full range of households. Staff is recommending the proposal better address other BBCP policies at the time of a site review. Local landmark designation is sought for the preservation of historic and cultural resources when a proposal subject to a discretionary development review, such as a site review.

[27:03] And we'll touch more on this policy when we get to the site review criteria under Key Issue 2. For the enhanced design of all projects, staff provided preliminary feedback on the proposal's relationship to the surrounding context and public realm, the design of parking areas, permeability and the overall building design. The proposal to place structured parking along most of the ground floor adjacent to Arapahoe is contrary to goals for parking to play a subordinate role and not impact the public realm. Since the existing houses along Arapahoe currently provide active uses, multiple entries, and visual permeability that contribute to a comfortable pedestrian experience, a revised proposal should consider how the design can contribute to an active and vibrant public realm. And given the site's proximity to downtown services and amenities, staff encourages considering how vehicle parking… how much vehicle parking is necessary, and whether a balance of parking with other community values can be achieved.

[28:08] And in regards to housing policies, the removal of the existing houses removes some existing naturally occurring affordable units and reduces the mix of housing on the site, although the proposal does retain the existing Presbyterian Manor Tower, and it does support other BBCP policy goals. Moving to Key Issue 2, this is for general feedback on the proposal's consistency with the site review criteria. Starting off, 9214H1E, Historic and Cultural Resources, states that if present, the project protects significant historic and cultural resources, and the approving authority may require application and good faith pursuit of local landmark designation. So as we discussed earlier, in February, the Landmarks Board considered issuance of the demolition approvals or initiation of landmark designation process for the four houses.

[29:07] The Landmarks Board voted not to initiate designation on 3 of the houses, and voted to initiate landmark designation process for the house at 990 Arapaho. The Landmarks Board will hold a future public hearing on whether or not to recommend that landmark designation. During the Landmark Spoard review process, information was shared by the applicant team related to on-site parking needs, floodplain, and the cost of restoration, which demonstrated that the houses could be incorporated into the redevelopment while still providing the same number of proposed dwelling units. As part of this concept plan review process, the planning board has the opportunity to consider and provide feedback on whether the project should be revised as it relates to the historic and Cultural Resources site review criteria.

[30:00] And the board has the opportunity to provide feedback on balancing community values in this proposal, such as vehicle parking, affordable housing, a high-quality design, and affordable… and, excuse me, and historic preservation. So, feedback would be helpful regarding possible changes to the site design, such as integration of eligible buildings, in particular the house at 990 Arapahoe, such as maintaining the house in its current location or relocating it within the site. And then moving to the, site design and building design criteria below, staff again recommends that vehicular circulation should be revised to avoid placing structured parking directly along the street frontage. And to work toward minimizing the amount of pavement necessary, for access and turnaround areas. And similarly, staff recommends the building design be revised so the proposal will improve upon the character of the area, promote the vibrant pedestrian experience along Arapaho, include authentic building and window designs that provide transparency and activity at the ground level.

[31:08] And we would be looking for more detailed information at the time of a site review submittal, on the building design. So for next steps, following tonight's concept plan hearing and feedback, the item will be placed on an upcoming Council agenda, where the Council could choose to call it up for an additional public hearing. Once the concept plan review feedback process is complete, a future site review application could be submitted. And the site review would be decided by the planning department with call-up consideration by the planning board. So that concludes the staff presentation, happy to take any questions. Thank you so much, Shannon. Very informative and complete, as always. Now is the time for questions for staff from planning board members, and we do try to make this questions for staff, not discussion or questions for the applicant.

[32:04] Who's got questions? Okay, see a couple of hands. I saw Mason first, and then Kurt. I have a question about the parking covenant that's on this property. Has there been any effort, to negotiate this, to change it, or is there the opportunity to? Yeah, that would be a great question for the applicant team, yeah. Cool. Let's do… And Mason, if you could lean into your mic, please. Definitely. Has there been any discussion with Parks and Rec. Or the library about a shared parking arrangement with the adjacent library lot? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. I'll ask the applicant about that as well. On the flood… and this is my final question, on the floodplain.

[33:01] You noted… the staff noted in the memo that the finished floors of the buildings, the houses, have already met floodplain elevation requirements. Does that mean that the primary floodplain constraint… For, retaining those structures is essentially resolved, beyond just filling in the basement. That's my understanding, is that for it to meet current floodplain requirements, just filling in the basement would be required. Okay. Thank you. Kurt. Hi, thank you, Shannon, for your presentation. I have just one question. The applicant in the applicant's statement raised some questions about whether this requires site review, given the exemptions for affordable housing in The code 913 and 99214. What is staff's take on this? Yeah, that's correct. So, there is an exemption in the code for affordable housing projects, if they're not requesting, like, any modifications, if it was just to go by the zoning district standards.

[34:12] So for this one, there is a proposal to ask for that additional FAR, so that's granted through the site review process. Yep, okay, got it, thank you. ML. Thank you for your presentation. I have a number of just small little questions. Regards to the FAR, what does the 1.07 FAR translate to, and how. housing units and massing? Do we know what that is gained by that additional FAR. I don't know off the top of my head. By right, it's allowed at 0.67 FAR, so there would be quite a differential there between the .67 and the… 0.0… 1.07. Right.

[35:03] Do we know how many housing units we have? I don't. how many units that would equate to, specifically. Okay. I'll ask the applicant that question. Regards to the site trees, I noticed reference to all the trees along the south. There's two significant trees on the north. Is that on anybody's radar? they're not on the… they're not on the renderings or anything, and I'm just, wondering. A tree inventory will happen, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So that's when that will be identified? And the open space is, identified as the area of mature trees on the steep slope. Does the open space need to be usable? Yeah, so as part of the open space, there's different requirements of what you can count.

[36:05] So we would be looking at, you know, overall for the open space, how it provides for usable space that people can… can congregate in, gather in spaces, and that sort of thing. And you can also typically count other areas, like, you know, more vegetated areas of the site, landscaping, and things of that nature as well. So we are looking for a mix and kind of a balance in the site review. Okay. inaccessible areas would be… would count as well. They could count. Potentially. There's a… there's a flood control easement that was, referred to. Is that a significant easement? And I didn't see it on the site. I'm just wondering what kind of impact we have from that. No, I'm not familiar with where that easement would be. We could try to look that up and see where that's located. Okay.

[37:08] So how does IH work on this site? Since it's an affordable… a fully… what… how does that work? Yeah, my understanding is that it's all… since it's all affordable, that would fulfill the requirement. Okay. Yeah. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. quickly colloquy on that. So, Shannon, my understanding with the affordable housing is we cannot require it through site review, and this applicant seems quite dedicated to providing affordable housing, but if something changed and this project were not affordable housing, the cash in the would be calculated Like any other housing project? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Alright, thank you. Okay, who else has questions? I see Mark's hand up.

[38:00] So, in regard to, calculating FAR and open space, are we… calculating because of site ownership, both the tower, the units in the tower, the FAR of the tower. And the open space. Under our current code requirements, So, the tower, built decades ago. At a… without current height restrictions. is all factored into the single 1.07 FAR. Is that correct? That's right. If it's all developed as one property, it's all together, yep. And same for open space requirements. Yes. Yep. Okay? That's my question, thank you. Claudia. Well, Mark just asked my first question, but I have a couple more smaller ones. The site plan…

[39:05] Such as we have, it shows a 25-foot setback from Arapahoe. Is that the required setback in this zoning district? I could double check, that sounds like probably the minimum. Okay. And as part of that, I'm curious if that includes city sidewalk and landscaping strip, or if that's a 25 feet from the public sidewalk. Yeah, it would be measured from the property line. Okay, and then in our code, Ken… Can any aspect of a structure be built in that setback, or is that something that an exception, a modification can be requested at the time of site review? Yeah, modification. It could be requested. Okay. Yeah. Okay, and then, do you know how long the proposed building frontage on Arapaho is? We could try to measure it real quick. I'm not sure off the top. Okay, I can also ask the applicant, they probably have a better idea. Okay, thanks.

[40:01] Thank you. Max, any questions? No. No? Okay. Okay, alright, then I have just a couple, and Claudia asked one of mine. Regarding that facade along Arapahoe, Shannon, in the staff comments, it talks about staff don't typically support false facades. Is there currently showing a false facade along Arapaho? Yeah, where you can kind of see on the ground level there toward the right side of the… of the right image, that's kind of just… the front of the building with parking directly behind, so sometimes you'll see a parking garage that's kind of designed to mimic the appearance of windows or things like that. So we really… Are looking for it to truly be an active ground floor with actual windows and actual uses right there, rather than parking.

[41:00] Okay, so we're talking about the ground floor, and it looks like the left portion of that was actually, like, offices or amenity space. Yeah. And then, kind of, just a little bit before the center to the right, that would be parking garage, kind of hidden behind a facade. Yeah. Okay, thank you. The ground-level parking, am I remembering correctly that that does not count in FAR, the parking garage? Could… double check if that's counted or not. It sounds like we think it may not count, so… I think I heard correctly. I'll say maybe that's exempt from the FAR. Okay, so that… if that parking changed to a different use, that different use would count in the FAR where the parking does not. Okay. Right, thank you. This may be a better question for the applicant. If so, tell me. Can you show us where the 990 Arapahoe Avenue building is within the footprint of the concept plan that they have shown us? Oh. I don't think I have that, so that would be a good question. Okay, I will ask the applicant.

[42:00] Yep, thank you. And… I think that's all I have. Thank you so much. Last bite at the apple, Max, and you need to bring your mic down and turn it on. Mike, please. Yeah, and I had been postponing this one for the applicant as well, but Laura already touched on it, but specifically, the language indicates a preference for glazing, for ventilation, and I just wanted some clarification on that terminology, because it appears that there's… Windows, as it were. But would the preference be for… yeah, I guess in general, different windows, more open windows, or more obscured… Yeah, so I think what that's getting at is, like, for a usual parking garage design, it would just be an open… there wouldn't be glass, it wouldn't be glassed in due to the ventilation needs of a parking structure, so we would be looking for more actual ground floor uses with, glazed windows and that sort of thing, versus a parking garage use.

[43:11] I think that that more or less sufficiently answers it. It's just, I was confused by the renderings versus the staff comments. Okay. Yes, ML. Laura, the. 990. is the second house from the east. Yes, I'm… I'm just very visual, and I want to see it on a diagram. Oh, it has proof. Oh, okay, okay. Alright, so let's, move on to the applicant presentation, then, if there are no more questions. Turning it over to the applicant team. And Mark, I know you were in the agenda meeting today. Can you remind me, how long does the applicant team have for their presentation? I… I think… It's customary for 15, unless they ask otherwise. And… And my advice from recent meetings is.

[44:01] Don't spend your time answering our questions, we'll ask them again. And to, get through your presentation. In the allotted time. Could I please have the name for who to promote for Zoom? Thank you. Thank you, and Thomas, are you able to display a 15-minute timer so that the applicant knows? the countdown? Yes, we should be able to. Okay, thank you so much. There is no swearing in. The Landmarks Board, this is quite interesting, the Landmarks Board does make people swear to tell the truth. We do not, but we hope that you tell us the truth. I think they've dispensed with that, but you do need to turn on your mic. Third. Thank you. My name is Mark Levitrau. I'm President of the board for Presbyterian Manor.

[45:04] I also wanted to introduce the two other speakers for this evening. Catherine Bean from Element Properties, who's our affordable housing consultant, and Tom Ottison from ShopWorks Architecture, who will be the architect on the project. Just like to familiarize you briefly with Presbyterian Manor. We're a non-profit owner, with a 60-plus year track record of serving Boulder's low-income seniors. And we've been driven since that time by a sole mission, and that's to provide affordable and safe, independent apartment living for qualified seniors 62 years old or older. We occupy a 79-unit senior affordable building that was renovated and preserved. It has a multi-years-long waiting list. What we're proposing is a permanently affordable home. for 60 additional low-income seniors. The average AMI would be less than 60%, and many would be below that.

[46:05] The project would consist of studios and one-bedrooms designed for aging in place, and as everyone knows, the senior population is the most rapidly growing demographic in Boulder. And then I'd like to take a moment to walk you through the timeline for this project. Presbyterian Manor was founded in the early 60s, when the tower was constructed. Starting in the 1980s, we began purchasing the four houses with the goal of providing more affordable senior housing. In 2024, We completed a successful LIHTC renovation of the tower. And last year, we started the process of the Phase 2 project, and have had 6 public meetings with Landmark's Board since. We're here today to share our concept plan and get your feedback as we continue to refine the project and prepare for a February LIHTC application.

[47:00] And as I mentioned, in October of last year, we started the landmarks process, and our goal was to simply try to provide housing for low-income seniors on the property that we own. The City of Boulder did not have a historic preservation plan until 2013, almost 25 years after we acquired the 990 Arapaho house. And during the landmarks process, we offered to support Historic Boulder in finding a new location for those four houses. We also offered to contribute the houses. and budgeted the cost of demolition to the pursuit of relocating those houses. Both of those offers still stand. However, we need certainty, and the planning board needs certainty that those houses will not be on the property. If we don't have that certainty, we cannot move forward with spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars To get through entitlements and get through a tax credit application. We need approval for the demolition of all four houses.

[48:05] We also want to give Historic Boulder as much time as possible to relocate those houses. An extended demolition approval of 2 years instead of 1 year would allow more time for that process, and would not interfere with our construction. It would be a win-win. The approval would be extended to March of 2028. And I'd like to introduce Katherine Bean now. Good evening. Alright. So, 15-minute neighborhoods, you all are familiar with these, and as you can see from this map, this location is the… is ideal for dense. affordable housing. We can see access to restaurants, to retail, to community amenities, and senior-focused resources, including the AgeWell Center and the library. And, for the amenities that are not within walking distance, residents have access to multi-use paths and bus routes. Prez Manor already has one space for a car share, and we'll explore expanding that program with the additional units.

[49:06] Our zoning is RH2, which calls for high-density, attached housing that acknowledges the existing multifamily at the tower, as well as to the west of the properties. It is neighbored by the predominantly single-family RMX1, the BC1 zone, along Broadway, and public. This project is in significant alignment, both with the current comp plan and the draft comp plan. And I won't stand here and list off the many sections of the comp plan that this project meets, but I think we can all agree that a senior affordable housing project owned by a non-profit in a great 15-minute neighborhood is generally what our community is seeking. And this project cannot be everything to everyone. It can't achieve every single goal of the comp plan. We'll show you that if the existing house or houses are preserved, it's not a one-for-one replacement. It's actually four houses and no affordable housing.

[50:08] or 1 house, and 38 fewer units of affordable housing. The trade-off is clear in our minds. I'll now hand it over to Tom. So we've prepared a number of diagrams for this meeting to help, more clearly illustrate the architectural proposal. You can see in this diagram the. 2.5-acre site with, existing 11-story Presman or tower, and the four existing, single-family homes. At the corner of 11th and Arapaho. The site is, south across the street from the Boulder Public Library, an associated, public plaza and public space, as well as the city-owned parking lot. The site access is along Arapahoe in a shared driveway with the adjacent multifamily structure. I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you raise your microphone up to your mouth as close as you can get? I'm sorry about that. Okay, that sounds a lot different.

[51:02] The site is sleepless sloping in the back quarter of the site, and is covered with mature trees, and the flat portion of the site is in the floodplain, and consists of the existing parking lot for the tower, as well as outdoor residential amenities. The shared access is maintained. This is the only location based on topography where it's technically feasible to provide vehicular access to the site. This access is then extended into trash and fire service lanes on site. The tower parking must be maintained, and we'll discuss that later. And, we've extended… we've, combined it with the small amount of proposed parking for the proposed space, too. We are proposing to screen the, parking using the office and amenity space, as well as enhanced facade along Arapahoe. The drive lane, as well as the setback, and height limits, form the building envelope.

[52:00] And we're articulating it using places for people, shared space for the community between Phase 1 and 2, as well as a private amenity deck. For the, for the Phase 2 property. We've identified, locations for the entry of the building to, across the site as a driver of the form, and we're proposing to articulate the massing, based on relationships with the public spaces across Arapaho Avenue by the library. And this diagram kind of illustrates more finished massing, just for illustration purposes. The site plan. You can identify the existing Prez Manor Tower, as well as the office and amenity spaces. We have located the, ground plane occupiable space as far east as possible on the site. based on the flood depth, the flood-proofing elevation that increases as you move west. Due to this, this fundamental fact, it's very difficult to provide any type of occupiable space to the west along Arapaho.

[53:07] And still maintain the zoning height limits. You can see the shared access, as well as the, the fire turnaround and trash service area, that then has been held back from the shared public area of the Phase 2 that we're maintaining. You can see as an overlay, the blue is the 100-year floodplain, and the orange is the 500-year floodplain. You know, because of the floodplain concerns, it's very, like I said, it's very difficult to provide occupiable space along the front elevation. Staff has correctly identified the importance of enhancing the public realm along Arapaho. We've… we're, proposing to, design the public right-of-way as a public park, a, kind of A pocket park concept that is… we're going to attempt to tie to the public spaces across the street.

[54:02] And this, diagram illustrates, kind of what this might look like, is a first pass. These floor plans show the Level 2 and Level 3. There is no, residential units at grade based on the floodplain, concerns. At Level 2, we have, shared amenity space opening onto a shared, outdoor terrace facing west to, to… for mountain views. And the footprint of the building allows all the… the majority of parking on site to be covered, for use of seniors in the community. Okay, landmarks. Before I can talk about landmarks, I have to talk about parking. And so, for the tower. As Mark mentioned, the renovation was completed under a low-income housing tax credit partnership. That partnership includes a LIHTC investor, and is governed by a more than 200-page limited partnership agreement that I will not make you read.

[55:04] That agreement includes a requirement that the tower have 73 dedicated parking spaces. We can't change that requirement. Those 73 spaces are off the table when discussing the new apartments. That's why they're gray in the chart. This is really nuanced and really important, so if you have questions, please ask. Now the new project. So… We propose 28 parking spaces, 60 units. If we keep 990 and maximize the units, we can come up with 54 units, but only 10 parking spaces. And if we keep 990, but maintain the current parking ratio of .46, or we lowered it to .45, we get only 22 units. And that's not big enough for LIHTC financing. So, when we designed the second phase, we wanted to push the parking ratio while still acknowledging the needs of the future residents. Although we all desire a future without cars, that's not reality. All the parking spaces at the tower are in use.

[56:05] If we were to have a new project with only 10 spaces for 54 units, that would essentially be unparked. Those first 10 spaces are for staff and all the services that seniors need. Meal delivery, PT, home health aides, etc. And that would leave no spaces for the residents of the new units. People are eligible to move into this project if they're 62 or older. And they're still driving. It isn't equitable to say that the residents of this new affordable housing project get no parking. It's not in line with the market or even other affordable housing projects, as noted by the market study for the tower. Parking also shows up in the form of funding awards and investor requirements. CHAFA wants to see that a project is competitive with other nearby projects, which they evaluate through that market study. We stretched to literally cut our parking ratio in half for the second phase. I also called a LIHTC investor and asked their take on a .19 parking ratio. Their professional opinion was, ugh.

[57:06] They said that such limited parking would risk a tax credit award, reduce tax credit pricing, and may present additional requirements. We'd be trading one market rate rental for 38 or even 60 units of affordable housing if we can get this project financed. Okay. Back to landmarks. So… The parking issue is really critical on our path with the four houses along Arapahoe. We looked at this project every which way, but could not fit the necessary parking on the site without removing the four houses. So we went to Landmarks first. They allowed for the demolition of three of the four houses, but chose to initiate designation on 990 Arapaho. In our litany of meetings with the staff and the Landmarks Board, they all sought feedback from Planning Board. And we're finally here. So, please give your opinions. A few key points as you cons… oh, we'll go back, sorry. A few key points as you consider this.

[58:05] A third-party analysis showed that none of the houses were significant under the National Register for Historic Places. Much of staff's analysis relied upon the collection of four houses, and now, as we saw from Historic Boulder's note, when there isn't a grouping of four, it's no longer significant. We support Historic Boulder and relocation. And since the last Landmark Board hearing, it's become apparent that the identified house may be a Sears Kit home. And if you look on the slide, you might be able to find the easter egg of 990 Arapaho. This house is in the 100-year floodplain, and it flooded in 2013. Staff identified these houses as naturally occurring affordable, but in reality, the rents are two times what the actual affordable units in the tower are. There are no covenants here. And finally, there was significant community support. There were 21 people who spoke at the last Landmarks Board hearing, and 17 of them were in favor of demolition, in favor of the senior affordable housing.

[59:04] The Landmarks Board is considering designating this house to represent workforce housing, and I find it really ironic, because we're now asking whether we can remove this one representative house in order to build 60 low-income senior units. Alright, you might ask what it will look like. So I already gave a little preview on this, and I know it's a little silly, but this is actually in a house in… You have about a minute left. And it's conceptually what we're being asked to do. It's not specifically what our project will look like, but it does demonstrate two important things. First, the IBC requires fireproofing between the two buildings, and that's why you see the concrete going up above the single-family home. And second, the house is in the middle of a block, like 990, and so it would be surrounded by this multi-family building. Alright, why does 60 units matter? It's 60 people. These are 60 seniors who want to stay in our community and need to be able to afford it. And second, CHAFA really encourages maximizing the density, which we're trying to do on this site.

[60:07] The Affordable Housing Design Review Track, this is… this was discussed earlier, but at the end of the day, it's confusing to me what the purpose of this Zoning for Affordable Housing Ordinance was, if there is no benefit. It seems that this only applies to buy-right projects, which aren't subject to site review, so I'd really like some exploration of that. Okay, and if I could ask you to just wrap it up. Quickly. Got it. Perfect timing. So here are our key considerations for you. We'll leave it at that, and we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you so much. So, we are on to questions from the Planning Board for the applicant. Who would like to start. I see Kurt reaching for his mic. Thank you, Kurt. Sure, I can start. Let's see, okay.

[61:02] But you didn't give me time to… Think about these things. First question is about the access on the west the west side, so there's the… in the plan, there's a drive there, and my… I know that the apartment building to the west takes access off of that. Does the fish hatchery also take access off of that? I believe it does. It's not totally clear if there's kind of pedestrian access on the high side, but, the fish hatchery is on the low end of the hill, and so that's… I think. Yeah, it does. Okay, it… it just didn't seem to be shown that way on your site plan, so I was just wanting to verify. Great. The next question… well, okay, just a minor detail. On… in your applicant statement, you actually said something about a four-story building, but of course all the renderings were three-story. Was that just a typo?

[62:09] Yeah, that was just a typo. We were proposing a 3-story building. Okay, that's fine. The… then getting back to the… thanks for the… the presentation about the parking and so on. So, the 28… to 60 ratio works for… from a LIHTC standpoint, you can… Chaffle will be happy with it, and you can get investors, and so on. We believe we'll be able to make it work. It's lower than what we've seen in the market studies, but given, the location of this, we think that the tax credit investors, as well as CHAFA, can get comfortable with that .46. Okay. Great.

[63:03] Okay, I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. Thank you, Kurt. Who else is ready? Mark, you don't have to wait to be last. So here I go. Okay. Can you tell me what you think your status is with the Landmarks Board. What is… what are, next steps and decision points? And… and we'll have… I know we have, Landmarks staff, online with us tonight, but I'm curious what you think your status is And when you will find out About decisions, about decision points, and also, can you expand on this offer of moving houses, I, I'd like more information about that as well. So… Give me the lowdown.

[64:05] Happy to. Landmarks board. tentatively, maybe firmly, has a hearing scheduled on May 7th, I believe is the date, it's a Wednesday. Maybe that's the 6. And, at that hearing, it is an official designation hearing. And that is the hearing at which they say. We would like to recommend this property be designated. Or maybe not. With the… the last vote, it was a 4 to 1 vote in favor of initiating designation of 990 Arapaho. I'm not an attorney, and so I… would be speaking out of my lane if I tried to say, this is exactly what would happen. I'm just telling you the votes I… I saw. It was 4 to 1.

[65:00] To recommend initiating designation. So, if in that May hearing, they vote to designate, it would then go to City Council. And I believe City Council needs to have two hearings on it, one of them being public, and would vote to either confirm… Or reject the designation of this building as historic. And so that's… that's where we are. We… we have heard from Landmarks Board repeatedly, and from staff, that they wanted Planning Board's feedback. On… on the overall project. Can you remind me what your second question was, Mark? your offer, To be… to move all four houses, some combination, some… Anyway, what is your offer that you have, and who is that offer to? Yeah, it's a. That's a great question. So, mark… and Marks, we have two Marks here, both on the Presbyterian Manor Board, and their fellow board members, offered to…

[66:06] Take the funds that they had identified as being for demolition, which would be based on an actual estimate for demolition. And donate the houses, as well as provide those funds for demolition to the process of relocating those houses to a more appropriate place, to a place that is not impeding senior affordable housing, to a place that's not in the 100-year floodplain. And we would hope that, we'd like to spend as much time as possible working, with Historic Boulder and supporting them in finding a place for relocation. And in finding a place for relocation, we actually have time. And so, our tax credit application, ideally, we can do by February 1st, 2027, depending on entitlement approval. And if we have, that awarded, it would happen in May of 2027, and so we'd actually have until the end of 2027 to find somewhere else for these properties to go, and to physically relocate them.

[67:11] But that's longer than the demolition approval. So, demolition approvals are only for one year. That means our demolition approval of the other 3 houses would expire in March of 2027. So if we can get that longer, we'd all have more time to try and find another place for these houses to go, instead of on this property. One quick follow on… Are you clear? as to… how, landmark staff and or the board found… a differing value. A substantially differing value in 990 versus the other three. Do I have the address right? 990 is the… Yes, that's correct.

[68:04] There was one planning board member who stated the architectural details were more interesting. That's… that's the extent of my recollection. I don't know if anybody else on the team Notice that. But again, none of them were eligible for National Historic Register, according to a third-party professional consultant who fills out a government form. To make sure… they're doing it correctly. Alright, thank you. I'd like to colloquy on that, if the board will indulge me. just on the question of the landmarking. So, the offer to relocate the house, that would be Historic Boulder, I assume, that you're making the offer to. Has Historic Boulder responded to your offer, or is Historic Boulder here tonight to speak, either virtually or in the room? Yes. Are you planning to speak during public comment? Okay, great. So I'll hold the question for that. Although, if you want to comment on whether they've responded, please go right ahead.

[69:00] Yeah, Tim is now in my favorites contacts list, so, we've talked, a couple of times, over the course of this process, and other members of his board of how can we help? How can we get to a solution that actually works for both of us? And that's what we found out. One last piece I want to say that Mark said it earlier, but I want to really emphasize is… We need to have the demo permits. We need to have… or the demo approvals. And if we can have those Denimo approvals, we can move forward with the project. But if we're just saying, this is landmarked, try and find a way to relocate it, it doesn't give the board the confidence that they can spend the money to go through site review and go through a tax credit application, when that, that house could wind up staying in the same spot. Okay, thank you. That's helpful, and one more colloquy on the landmarking question. My understanding is that

[70:00] initiating designation, in a designation hearing, the criteria become more stringent, and the Landmarks Board would have to find that the public interest in landmarking outweighs the private property rights of the owner. And my understanding is that Landmarks has rarely made that finding, and they're… they talk quite often about that their statistics for making that finding are quite low. Is that also your understanding of the designation process, that that's the finding that they would have to make? That… That's as far as I understand. And we would say, you know, this is actually a great opportunity to both benefit the public interest by adding 60 more units of senior affordable housing. and protecting the owners, the non-profit owner's property rights. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that colloquy. Who else has questions from the planning board for the applicant? Claudia.

[71:00] I appreciate all the questions about the preservation process. I think my questions are a little smaller in scope. How much would you need to elevate the ground floor units to comply with floodplain requirements? Like, how high do you have to get things? Above grade. They… the… Water surface elevation across the site is changing kind of continuously due to the slope. But it has to be, 2 feet above the base flood elevation at the worst case scenario of the, of the ground floor plan. And so, where we have it set right now, we're maybe 3 feet above grade, but from where we show the edge of the occupied space to the drive, the base flood elevation raises by another 4… 4 to 5 feet. So, if we put, kind of a datum of finished floor across the front elevation, we would have to raise the finished floor by

[72:05] Possibly 8 feet. Okay, so we're talking close to a story, which is what you are planning there. Correct. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, and that's for non-residential units? You'd have to elevate them possibly 8 feet above ground? for any occupied space in this building, in order to, get to a place where we can have a finished floor lower than the base flood elevation, it would have to be considered a mixed-use building, which would represent 25% of the total square footage of the building, which is a FEMA requirement, not a Boulder requirement. So that's really not an option for you. That's correct. But, The mixed-use space would basically have to be open to the public rentable space, which is not really compatible with low-income housing tax credits. Thank you. Dr. Claudia. Can I follow up on that, too? But you do show amenity space that is on the first floor.

[73:04] That's correct. And is it? We've moved it as far to the east as possible so that we can deal with the elevation difference at that point. Because the elevation of the flood is changing across the Arapahoe elevation, and the further west you go, the higher it is. Okay. Thank you. Okay, back to Claudia. Okay, second question, totally unrelated. So currently, Presbyterian Manor is owner of the bungalows, is that correct? That's correct. Are any of those bungalows ADA accessible? No. What would be required to make them so? Probably a total reconstruction of the interiors. I don't think we… there's maneuvering clearances for kitchens or bathrooms, and as well as you would have to construct accessible ramps into the building. They're between 2 to 3 feet above the street level. Okay, thank you.

[74:08] ML. I have just a couple of specific questions. So, There's a row of parking structure on the south Along the south property line. Yes, so… Is that intended to remain? There's, there's a series of garages along the south edge of the, of the property, with the south wall of the garages retaining the slope, kind of the extent of where we're showing our paving and parking lot. would be up to the edge of where that existing retaining is. Okay, so that's. Just part of the. Existing site that will be undisturbed. Yeah, we would… we would remove the structures, but it's currently, improved with a parking… with a parking… with a residential garage.

[75:05] In my understanding, you'll remove the parking structure and just leave the retaining wall? We would probably reconstruct a retaining wall in the same place. Got it, okay. Going to transportation. I didn't see anything, or maybe I didn't understand where you're proposing to cross to get over to the amenity, the open space amenity, the parks, and the library. Do you have an idea on how you'll get the population across Arapahoe? We're very close to the corner of 11th and Arapaho, currently with an accessible crossing. I think we would have to, excuse me, discuss with, with staff and, transportation if a mid-block crossing is permitted. I think there's some work that has to be done. We would like to have a mid-block crossing. So, I'm understanding you to say that you're looking into getting something that is more directly related to this building, as far as a crossing over…

[76:08] Yeah, that would be a goal, but we would have to… Correct. …get approval, for sure. Perfect. And you also mentioned that the develop… the development will be integrated with the existing, Prez Manor building. I didn't see any evidence of that on the site plan. Can you talk a little bit about that integration between the new… the proposed buildings and the existing building? Yes, I can. By focusing the, building entrance and amenities in the Phase 2 as far east as possible, it is, in close proximity to the existing kind of tower footprint and entry drop-off sequence. I think the main entrance to both these buildings can share the same, front drop-off. Could you please pull up a slide for those of us who are visual? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, that's okay. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Go… one more.

[77:00] tomorrow. Maybe if you go back to the rendering? Yeah. Okay, so… Yeah. I don't know which one, Kathleen, you cut it to. Yeah, so the… you can see that the… the… Tower entrance is fronting… the, the kind of turnaround driveway in front, and that's the main entrance to the building. The main entrance to the Phase 2, shares that same drop-off, the same entry sequence, and then, the parking under the Phase 2 is shared by both the buildings, and so there's a circulation system through the parking. That goes to the shared outdoor space that's, behind the tower, and it's all, kind of tied together to the east of the, of the drive area. So you can see behind the tower, right, kind of between it, we're showing a patio and a planting area. We have a second patio behind the tower with gardens. We have a pond, gazebo, and those would all be shared, and they're all in close proximity to kind of the main circulation areas.

[78:10] Okay, so the interstitial space will be developed, as gardens and… And that's how it's used right now. We've tried to hold, kind of, the site disturbance around the site paving and the turnaround off of, kind of. Where the current outdoor amenities are, and try and maintain those as much as possible for continuity with the community as it exists. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, ML. I see that Kurt has a hand up, but does anybody else who hasn't spoken yet want to go before? Is that okay, Kurt? Yeah, this was kind of a follow-up on this, so would it be possible to go first? Go right ahead, if it's… if it's a colloquy, and then we'll go right to you, Max. I had a question about… well, first of all, about access points. So you're requesting three access points where one is allowed, and you have this hammerhead here.

[79:04] Did you consider a design that would connect through the site, so that you would have the west entrance off Arapaho, and one of the two existing entrances, but then be able to close off one of the other accesses? Yes, we did, but we wanted to make sure that there was a… that the residential amenity outdoor spaces and the building entry sequences were separate from the vehicular circulation. If we ran that driveway along the edge of the tower. the Phase 2 and Phase 1 would be separated by vehicle drive lane and parking, which we didn't feel was appropriate. In terms of the shared access, because that's serving multiple properties using a shared access easement, we're not going to be able to close that down no matter what we do. As part of the pre-app, we got comments about the turnaround in front of the tower, and we're proposing to have a traffic study as well as letters of support to keep this turnaround open from ambulance and fire services.

[80:17] That's very well used by emergency services, and they would like to keep it, from our understanding. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Over to you, Max. Yeah, I've got a couple questions, but I'm just gonna follow up with those. So, I know we just did this, but correct me if I'm wrong, but it will not be contiguous from the story to the far west, and there will not be a full breezeway or passageway between the two buildings? No, we won't… We won't be able to connect the building based on, kind of regulatory thresholds around flood improvements, They're gonna be close, they're gonna have shared, kind of, circulation paths, but they're not gonna be directly connected, they're going to be separate structures.

[81:06] Yeah, and that was my understanding, but I guess my questions following that would be… specifically in regards to the interaction from the public realm, because from here, where the far east to the far west, that would be a contiguous 3 stories, about 100 and some odd yards. Like, yeah, so… but… where the parking, and then two stories immediately above it, would be a full wall along that… along the Arapaho, that the public would be interacting with. So then, on that ground story, now we're back to the question I asked the staff, where that facade is, that some of your renderings just show essentially pylons with a building built above them, while some of them show glazing. But I guess I was wondering if you could expand on the park structure that you're proposing. I would say the… in the visualizations, where it shows a column, columns kind of colonnade along the street, that's in the area where, there's the occupied space behind it. We had shown, in…

[82:13] Pull up the figure you're referring to. That would be the one that… Oh, these, yeah. Yeah, I suppose that one shows glazing, but see, this one, if you go back… Sid, there, if you take a look at the west side… Yes. This is kind of our latest thought that we developed, kind of after the submittal. Yeah, you can see where there's canopies and a colonnade, and that represents the extent of the occupied amenity and office space on the first floor. Once you get past it, then that's facing the parking structure. Because of the concern of staff, which we appreciate about the design of this elevation, we are trying to… understand and figure out what's the most appropriate way to deal with this. In terms of glazing versus opaque walls versus open walls.

[83:05] I think that we can accommodate them all. The parking structure is not going to require those to be open vents to achieve an open parking structure ventilation calculation, and so they can be… whatever… whatever, we think is the best thing to do, we're open to many options. The discussion around the, pocket park or the public realm. is we do have this 25-foot setback, and we do have the ability to articulate this, to potentially provide public seating areas, or public art, or enhanced materials, or art on the building. These are all options that we can look at and would be Happy to consider, and would love to do on this project. And then I suppose, has any thought been put into breaking with the patio structure more viably the visual continuity in the sake of maintaining the permeability, the visual permeability that exists with the four bungalows? Is it i.e, there's not a flat wall, there's visual permeability?

[84:13] Yeah, I mean… I think we're looking for guidance on how that works, because, There's, you know, concerns about a false front, and a desire to screen the parking, but also to open it up, and we're looking for some guidance on how much to screen or not to screen, because it's a little bit contradictory direction right now. I guess I'm more referring to on the… on the top story, not the ground one, on the… in terms of visual permeability at the top. You mean in terms of, like, more intricate, like, massing articulation? I think there is the possibility to do that. We're still working through, the exact, floor plate configuration and programming.

[85:03] This is, our… kind of… the way we have this set up is, like a tray of units with 3 feet reserved for architecture, But, I think if we… you know, as we further develop the program, there's an opportunity to do some of that. I can't speak right now about exactly what that would look like, but I think if that's something that would address the concerns around parking, we'd be happy to… to work on something like that. And then my last question, would be specifically in regards to the parking, because it was a pretty quick slide on that. But do you have hard numbers on what percentage of those… of those spaces are being used by staff, responders, etc, versus people who live within the building? Yeah, so… What's really helpful is, of the 73 parking spaces, 11 are out front. And those 11 out front are not allowed to be used by residents. So it's the 62 in the rear.

[86:07] Where we're proposing this building that are used by residents. And those are all full, and those ones out front have the car share, have staff, but more importantly, have those services that are constantly in and out of that building. Thank you very much. Other folks have questions for the applicant. Mason. I've got a… I've got a couple remaining that haven't been picked off yet. So, in the memo, staff flagged the need to show how the new three-story building relates to the existing building. Can you speak to that, how you're thinking through that currently? Yeah, I think it's, it's a little bit of a challenge with the existing building being an 11-story tower, which is not something that's permissible under contemporary Boulder zoning code.

[87:05] I think that our main, our main design, our main design concept to relate the Phase 1 and the Phase 2 has to do with the entrance location, the distribution of outdoor amenities, and the shared entry sequence, shared outdoor amenity spaces. And so those are the… those are the main, the main ways we're attempting to… to sync it up as a unified community. In terms of, the… the… massing and materials. We are proposing using brick masonry as an accent, that, we could match to the existing brick, We haven't decided if, matching is appropriate or contrast, but, if that's… That's something that we're considering. Great. We only have one more remaining, and I think we touched on this a little bit, so excuse me if this is a repeat, but, I think the current concept shows a single pedestrian entrance on the east side, is that correct?

[88:10] Yeah, we were… we showed one, facing Arapahoe and one facing the parking. There's also a stair tower that would have access to the building, and so I think we're showing a total of three access to… access points to the building. What I would point out is you're correct that what we showed in the site plan graphics as part of the submittal package is different than what we showed in the 3D diagrams that we prepared for this. meeting. Got it. So… Great, that's it. Yeah, and I want to address that directly. The reason that the original version had only one entrance is that with senior population, it's actually really important for property management staff to lay eyes on residents regularly. They watch who's coming and going, and if somebody hasn't been out in a while, there are welfare checks that are made. And so that… that was the intentionality behind it, and so we're… we're trying to balance staff feedback as well as best practices for senior housing.

[89:11] And a quick, going back to staff question, in terms of the site review and the BBCP update. Will the new BBCP apply at site review? Yeah, it would just depend on when the application is submitted. So it's the application of the segment view that… okay, cool. Great, thanks. Okay, and I have just a couple. So how… what is the length of that facade along Arapaho? We don't have the exact number for you. It's around 200, which I know is a… I think it's 385 all-in. That's including Presbyterian Manor, but just the new building? About 200. About 200 for the facade on the new building. Okay, you're scaring me, Charles. Okay, thank you. And then…

[90:05] the, So, an initial idea I had was, have you thought about relocating some of that amenity space where the parking is along Arapahoe? But it sounds like perhaps that, if I'm understanding correctly, that would be prohibitive because of the flood regulations. Correct. Yeah, as it gets more floody as we go west, we just… You would have to… More like 8 feet by the time you got to the west end. Which isn't great for that interaction with the public realm, as well as access for seniors, as well as the three stories we're. Okay, thank you, that's helpful. And then, I noticed you're not asking for a height modification, and you mentioned trying to stay under the height limit. Do you want to talk more about your logic there? Yeah, in the… excuse me, in the original conception of this, we were, trying to design within the affordable housing review parameters, which wouldn't allow us to ask for a height waiver. We are…

[91:06] gonna be pressed to stay under the 35 feet, 3 stories, with these flood proofing measures that we have to take. But we feel that we will be able to by the skin of our teeth, and so I don't… we're not anticipating asking for a story or height waiver on this project. Yeah, and that's really to do with that affordable housing design review track, and so whether that's you all, or maybe it's more appropriate for Council, I'm not sure, if we can take that track, we can get done lighter, faster, cheaper for the affordable housing, and get in sooner to get tax credits sooner, and deliver the units as soon as possible. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I do want to follow up with staff about that, but let's get through the questions for you, and then the, the public hearing. And then, My last, question, I just want to confirm. So, you are… you are contesting the landmark designation at 990, is that… is that correct?

[92:05] That's correct. Okay, thank you. Alright, any last questions before we go to the public hearing? Seeing none, can we please, open the public hearing? And Thomas, are you managing that, or is Vivian still with us? Vivian signed off first. the night, and we do have one person signed up for the public hearing in the room. We have 10 plus. Okay, thank you. We'll do in-person first, and then we'll do online. Yes, thank you. And Tim, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. And, Madam Chair, if I may, I believe the board, has a practice of asking speakers to disclose any financial, business, or other type of relationship? Thank you. So, if our public speakers tonight could disclose any financial, business, or other partnership you have with the applicant. None, although we may be moving houses with them.

[93:01] My name is, Tim Plass. I'm the Executive Director of Historic Boulder, and I'm here speaking for Historic Boulder this evening, and it's good to see some familiar faces, including Charles here, who I haven't seen in a while, but when I was on Planning Board, he was here as staff as well. So, great to see you again, Charles. So I have 3 points I want to make tonight, and I'm not sure I'm going to make it through all of my comments, but I did email you my comments as well. The first point is that given the action at the Landmarks Board, Historic Boulder recommends that all the historic bungalows be relocated. As you know, the Landmarks Board allowed demolition permits to issue for 3 of the bungalows on the parcel. On the fourth bungalow, they initiated the landmark process. Historic Boulder believes that the particular value of the bungalows was their grouping. The four together created an important and historic streetscape on Arapahoe Avenue. With only one bungalow proposed for preservation on the site. Historic Boulder believes that the process would be best served if all four were relocated.

[94:02] And I should just clarify that by saying, when we say that all four should be relocated, I think for the fourth one, that would be appropriate if the demo permit would issue as well. In regard to relocation of the bungalows, Historic Boulder will work with Presbyterian Manor, and the development team to find receiving sites for the bungalows. Historic Boulder appreciates the willingness of the applicant to take the cost of the demolition of the structures and to instead put it toward moving them. Historic Boulder also appreciates the applicant's willingness to delay the demolition to allow time for the bungalows to find a new home. In order to give the maximum time for a successful relocation effort, a possible extension of the demolition permits should be considered. And my last topic is really a process issue, and Historic Boulder has a bunch of concerns about the process when historic resources are part of a larger redevelopment that includes a discretionary review, like tonight, for example, concept and site review. The current process puts the decision about demolition of historic resources

[95:08] before the larger discussion of the project or planning board. This creates an unlevel playing field that puts historic preservation at a disadvantage It does so by requiring that the Landmarks Board initiates landmarking over an owner's objection, often, in an action that is rarely taken, and rightly so. And I would just point out that in the case of site review, the applicant is almost always asking for relief from codes and requirements to add value to the project above and beyond what is available through the buy-right path. In exchange for this relief, the city has an ability to seek community benefit. Of course, affordable housing is a community benefit, but so is preserving historically important structures. It's even part of the site review criteria. And I can see I'm going to run out of time. But we did… I will say that the Landmarks Board, we did support the staff recommendation to… to initiate landmarking on all four of the bungalows so that they could be part of the discussion here at Planning Board.

[96:02] And what we saw, it was really that 13 parking spaces stood in the way between preserving the houses, and seeing them go. So anyway, to reiterate, and I know I'm out of time, we support… Yes, if you could wrap it up, please. Yeah, I will, I'll wrap it up. So we support relocation of all four bungalows, and we stand ready to help, the applicant move them. Thank you so much. I did see there was perhaps one other person in the room that wanted to testify. So, you will need to sign up, but go ahead and give your remarks, and then give your name. his full name at the podium, and that'll be sufficient for us. Okay, and you will have… But we do ask that you sign up in the future, please. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, I was. This should be short. I think Max and the architect, touched on it. I'm… I'm sorry, can you please state your name? We can start the clock, but we need to know who you are.

[97:01] James Pollock? 30th and… Iris. Max and Architect, touch on it a bit. a little bit. I'm concerned about the… what I call the ugly vacation of Boulder. The Mac… the best example is 30th and Pearl. That looks like a stack of recycled shipping containers. And… those, buildings are popping up all over Boulder. And I'd like to see the facade of this. building. be done in brick or something that matches The Boulder Field, not the new construction. And that's it. Thank you so much. I think at this point, we have no more public comment in the room, and we will go to our online commenters, and I think Vivian will be managing that.

[98:05] Oh, no, Vivian has signed off. Thomas is managing that. Thanks, Lou. Yes, if anybody is online that would like to speak for the agenda Item 5A, this is your opportunity to go ahead and raise your hand. And could I please have somebody in the room that's over near the microphone, turn that podium microphone off, please? Thank you. And we have two raised hands so far. First up, we have Lynn Kendall Wilson. Lynn, you are up first. I'm gonna go ahead and… allow you to speak, and I'll start the clock for you. Go ahead. Good evening. I am Lynn Kendall Wilson. And I am, older, Seasoned citizen of Boulder. And understand the need for more affordable housing.

[99:01] For senior citizens. In our city. There are many people who live in Boulder and have lived in Boulder for many, many years, but are being forced out of the city because they are unable to obtain property, or to rent property. at an affordable price. And so, I would ask that the planning committee really give due consideration to caring for their older citizens, and helping them to stay in place Current research indicates that senior citizens do much better if they're able to age in place. And… have the support that they need. This seems an ideal site for me in terms of The accessibility to the library, to the senior center, to shops, to restaurants, to transportation if they cannot drive.

[100:09] And it would seem to me to be really a tragedy if this project could not go forward, and we would not be able to have an extra 60 units For our older citizens, including myself, So, I really would support what is happening, what Presbyterian Manor is trying to do, the fact, as well, that it's non-profit. It's affordable, And… It just helps our community. And it helps our community stay in place. It gives us access to our children and our grandchildren. and other people. So, thank you for your time.

[101:01] Thank you, Lynn. Next up, we have Mark Fear. Mark, you can go ahead and begin, and I'll start the clock for you. Thank you. First, I wanna say, Laura, thanks for being microphone monitor. Appreciate that, that helps. And, I love historical buildings and history. As a professional genealogist, that's a part of my… Context and job. And I really support so much of what the landmark board has done in the past. But this is kind of an exception. I just coincidentally passed by those four units, homes. This morning, as I was coming from the library, and They are homely, and I support them being moved. Or demolished. But they, to me, do not really… Represent, important historical buildings.

[102:06] So, I strongly support this project going forward. As a senior myself who lives in affordable housing, affordable senior housing, I should say, from BHP, I know the importance of having much more than we have now, and having nonprofits like the Presbyterian folks providing that. I really appreciate them doing that. And I want to see more of that. You know, I got mine, and I want to see other people get theirs. In terms of affordable housing. One last thing I want to say is, I'm wondering if… when the LIHTC might be expiring on Presbyterian Manor, and if… When it does expire, if it expires in the next few years, that would release the covenant or the agreements about parking.

[103:02] Because they've got a lot of parking there for those number of units. I know that in my particular unit building, probably half of the people don't drive. And so, we don't use all of our parking. And so I'm just… wondering if about that LIHTC restriction. That's it, thanks. Thank you, Mark. Next up, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you will have 3 minutes, and I'll go ahead and start the clock for you. Please go ahead. Yeah, I'm an elder, so to speak, 73 years old. And I commuted to Denver for 25 years in an ultrasound tech job. And I haven't spent money on a cup of coffee in 40 years, so I've saved everything, so I guess I don't always go for the fact that elders are so, you know.

[104:09] incompetent that they can't save money and have a place. I bought a house at $145,000 in Boulder as soon as I could, and now I can live in my home and, you know, on… in Mountain View on the edge of Mapleton. and age in place, whatever. Four houses go together. That one dwarfed is kind of like, on 18-something Pearl, this historic home, the Halloween house, that it was dwarfed. Also, by a big thing.

[105:00] Parking is at a premium everywhere, and better to have the affordable housing for seniors on the perimeter, where parking is not so bad. constrained is here. But my main point here is that these four houses need to be there to show the real history of Boulder, which is the distinction between the height limit being 1971 and that 1963 Presbyterian Manor. big, looming thing next to these four houses. That is something that should never be given up to show what Boulder was, and what what it could be. You know that I'm coming to every planning board, and fighting every Heiden, and every FAR, and every, you know, setback issue. And Mark has to live with that, and Laura,

[106:04] Partially, also, I'm less able to afford things myself, because I had an energy retrofit administered by the City of Boulder through the county, who was gaslighting me for exposing them for an unethical practice where they let… where they dropped one of their vendors 10 years ago when I did an energy retrofit, or tried to, a free one. now I got, a, a char- a… I mean, that one I had to pay for. This one was free, and I got sequestered from my own energy retrofit, and it's costing me a lot to fix my house up afterwards. So, no. Thank you, Len. And I'm seeing no other raised hands online at the moment, but if there is anybody else who would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity to do so. And… seeing none of those, I'm gonna pass it back to you, Chair.

[107:03] Thank you, Thomas. Okay, we will close the public hearing. At this point, all we have left is board comments, and we can discuss with each other, but we do not have to reach any decisions, and the applicant has, and staff, have pointed to a few things we may want to talk about. Before we go to our board comments, let me check in. Do people need a break? Where do you want to push through comments and then take a break? Anybody need a break now? Okay, we will do board comments. We typically do, around one bite at the apple, and then if people want a second bite, we can do that as well. who would like to go first with their commentary on this project. And I don't know, staff, if you'd like to pull up your key questions for the board? And if anybody has any last clarifications for staff before we go into our commentary, Mark does, and I have a couple as well. I appreciate that opportunity. I was like, do I really want to ask one more question?

[108:04] And this may be, best… Answered by the applicant, maybe by Historic Boulder, maybe by staff. the moving of the four houses. Is there any requirement associated with their relocation. Within city limits, within Boulder County, within the state of Colorado, is there any requirement should that be part of a negotiated Arrangement for their future location. Not that I'm aware of, but I would defer to our landmark staff that's on the call tonight. So that would be Marcy Gerwing. Hi, Marcy. Marcy. Thanks, hi, good evening, Planning Board members. So your question, to understand it, is what the requirements are for the relocation, and if there's any restrictions on where it moves. Did I get that right?

[109:09] Yes. Yes. Okay, great. Yeah, so the relocation, permit does require a receiving site be identified. In my experience, we've approved on-site relocation, off-site relocation within city limits, and then we've approved one, to Lafayette. So, they can move… houses can move, really any distance, but that's part of the approved, relocation permit. Great, thank you. Thomas? I just wanted to jump in and add that, just wanted to make a note that if we leave the key issues up during deliberation, the board won't be visible in the recording, so, just something to consider. Okay, thank you. So everybody, if you would like to take note of the key issues, I think it's better to take them down so that we can be visible in the recording. And these are our standard key issues. Is it generally consistent with the BBCP, and is there overall feedback about consistency with the site review criteria that this project will eventually be reviewed against? And then anything else you want to talk about? So we can perhaps take these down.

[110:19] All right. I did have a couple of last clarification questions, probably for staff. So, the applicant wanted to know about a 2-year demolition approval. Is that something that is issued by Planning Board, Landmarks Board, Council, staff makes that decision? How's that decision made? My understanding is that it's typically a one-year approval, and then if people want an extension, that's usually not a problem, but it sounds like the applicant needs more certainty than that, perhaps, for their funder. Thank you, I'll take this question as well. So the historic preservation demolition approval is valid for one year, and the code does not provide the ability to extend that approval. So, unless the demolition

[111:06] relocation building permit application is not applied for. Within one year, a new historic present application is required. Oh, okay, so it sounds like I'm wrong, and that that… the code will not allow you to extend the demolition approval for 2 years out of the gate. That's correct. And if there was extra delay, they'd have to reapply for demolition? Yes, for the historic preservation approval. Okay, and then that would be potentially with different Landmarks board members that might feel differently. Depending on when the future application came in, it could be a different board. Okay. Yeah, so, ML would like to colloquy, and then Kurt. Hi there. Did I understand you to say that they have a year to apply?

[112:04] For the demolition, so not actually accomplish it, just apply. That's correct. Very last minute of the first year. With the demolition, or the moving, or whatever happening. Yes, and then that demolition permit can be extended over time, and that's the time to actually take down, the building. Thanks, Marci, for the clarifications. I wanted to follow up on also this about the demolition. So, my understanding is that in the past, often, when there was a reapplication for a demolition permit, that got approved at the staff level, administratively. Is that… is my understanding correct there? If… so maybe it got called up to the board the first time, but then it's just, you know, basically they want an extra time, and so they have to reapply. And my understanding is that in the past.

[113:07] the standard practice has been that that gets approved administratively, and so I just want to confirm whether I'm imagining that. Sure, so that's not quite correct. The code, sets the level of initial review based on the date of construction of the buildings, so the initial review for pre-1940 buildings is reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. Any post-1940 buildings are reviewed administratively by staff. And so, in the past, there have been… approvals that, the first time around, an application got called up to the full board for review, but was ultimately approved. That has gotten approved at that initial level. However, it is a new application when they reapply.

[114:00] Great, thank you for the clarification. Okay, and I'm sorry, I'm a little dense, and this is a little unfamiliar to me, but just to reiterate, they would have a year from when to apply for demolition. For the three applications that have issued, they would have until March 26th of 2027 to apply for the demolition permit, and then an additional year or two to actually take the buildings down. for the house at 990 Arapaho. We don't know when… what the outcome of that review is, or when, the approval would expire a year after, It was approved, but we don't know if or when that date is. Okay, and that approval happens at the landmarks board, right? That's not the authority of the planning board, to issue a demolition approval. Correct. Okay, alright. Alright, I do want to ask the applicant, because I'm very confused by all of this.

[115:02] You were asking for an extension. for understanding the timeline of demolition so that you could try to work out relocation. Based on the conversation we just had with Marcy, do you still have concerns about the timeline? To try to get those houses relocated. I would say we still have some concerns. It's maybe, there are fewer, but when we're doing these affordable housing tax credit projects. We want to spend as little money as possible until we get to financial closing, which we can't get to until we have building permit. And so, if we can delay… Paying for a demo permit, and paying for the documentation that's been requested for these houses, then that would actually help out the nonprofit without having to put money out. I'm also not clear on exactly how long the demo permit lasts. How you have to show progress on the demo permit, and… and at what point you need to apply for an extension, and how automatic that is, and how long that extension lasts.

[116:09] Okay, it does sound like perhaps that's a conversation you need to have with Marcy and the Landmarks Board. Thank you. And then I did want to just follow up quickly with staff about this affordable housing design review track. I know this question came up earlier, but I'm still a little fuzzy. If this is intended to exempt projects from having to go through site review if they're 100% affordable, why doesn't this project qualify if the only reason why it has to go through site review is the FAR? Does it only apply to projects that are going through site review for other reasons? Yeah, so you may have to go through a site review based on the size of your property or the size of the proposal. So, in this case, if this one was not requesting any modifications, the size of the property triggers that threshold. But then it would be exempt as affordable housing project. But because it is requesting modifications, you can only get those modifications through site review.

[117:09] Okay, so the Affordable Housing Design Review Track does not apply to 100% affordable projects if they're seeking any modification, whether that's height, FAR, setbacks. That's right. Okay. I feel like that's an important clarification. Maybe not the answer the applicant wanted, but that's… that helps clear it up for me of why staff is saying that they're not eligible for that track. Okay, so it feels like that's off the table as far as the code is concerned. That's correct. Okay, alright. Hopefully that was helpful for others. Go ahead, Kurt. I just had one more question for staff about what exactly is being asked From us regarding the historic preservation question. we can't… we don't have any way of weighing in, I think, about the relocation or that sort of thing. So it really is the request…

[118:05] To us to either, endorse the issuing a demolition permit or not. Is that… is that the core of what Landmark's Board is asking of us? Sure, I, I think… so there's, the… the site review criteria does include a criteria related to historic or cultural resources, so that would be a criteria to consider as part of the site review, as well as the BBCP is looking for a balance of the policies in the BBCP, so that would be the other aspect is… Considering a balance of those community values related to the historic resources and the other aspects of the proposal.

[119:01] Okay. So, if I can just colloquy on that. the way that I'm interpreting this, and Marci or Shannon, please correct me if I'm not interpreting this correctly, we could, as a planning board, signal that, yes, we would be very interested in requiring the applicant to build around this building and preserve it on-site, or move it on-site. We could indicate that we're not interested in that, but we are supportive of Historic Boulder's proposal to issue the demolition permit and move it off-site. Or we could say. we are just fine with demolishing it, and we don't care about this historic resource in the balance of things that we are supposed to consider, because we as Planning Board, can consider a balance of values I have thoughts about this, but I will hold them to the end. Many of you know my thoughts about planning board weighing in on this question of historic value of structures, but… but that is within our purview. Per code. We could weigh in and say whether we think this historic structure

[120:05] Preservation is an important thing to protect in this particular site review, and that we would want to require the applicant to preserve this structure in some way. Yeah, and that certainly seems logical to me. That seemed to me like what the alternatives were, but we were hearing, oh, Landmark's Board wants input from us, which it seems strange, because there's not really a mechanism for that, so I just wanted clarification on that. Yeah, I think… I guess the way that I interpret it, and again, please stop me if I'm going off, I hope this is helpful. It's helpful for me in how I think about it. There's kind of two pathways to historic preservation. One is to go all the way through the landmarking process and get the landmarks board. to landmark the property. The other is that we, as planning board, could require the applicant to voluntarily submit to landmarking, right? Which removes the ability of the applicant to object to landmarking, because it's part of the negotiated deal that they're striking in site review that they must voluntarily apply. We… I think that is something Planning Board has done in the past. It is an option.

[121:13] Okay. On that note, I'm gonna shut up and ask my fellow planning board members to take it away and walk through your comments about this property that may be in response to staff's questions, maybe in response to the applicant's questions, or maybe any other thing you wish to tell the applicant about in this concept review. I think I'm seeing Claudia volunteer to go first. Thank you, Vice Chair Hansen Thiem. Thank you, Laura. I'd be happy to start here. And I will start with… comments on the consistency with the BBCP, since that's where we seem to be leaving off here. As we just discussed, the BBCP contains many competing goals and policies, and we As a board, insight reviews are asked to make determinations on the balance.

[122:03] I consider this a subjective question, and I'm going to give a subjective, but I think quite firm answer. The question that is being posed to us here in the staff memo is how to weigh the preservation Of up to 4, but maybe only one is the case, maybe… kind of everyday bungalows against creating what I see as modern, accessible, permanently affordable homes for a much larger number of senior households. We have an acute and documented need for precisely this type of housing in Boulder. And that is reflected in multiple BVCP policies. Furthermore, the current BVCP designates this particular area as high-density residential. It is zoned RH2, which includes uses such as apartments without limitation. And it is literally a block away from our transit backbone, our main public library, and one of two senior centers in the city of Boulder.

[123:08] And honestly, how amazing is it that this city, which cannot provide enough affordable housing through its own housing authority. That this unique location here is owned by an established non-profit housing provider. We don't get a lot of opportunities like that. And so, I'm actually pretty frustrated that this is a serious conversation. Talking about the trade-offs between these bungalows and this proposed housing project. I think the opportunity here And the city priorities that it supports far outweighs The benefits of retaining one or more of these bungalows. I think aesthetics certainly don't justify the trade-off, and the arguments in the staff memo about how it might reserve a mix of housing types. preserve natural affordability, embodied carbon, etc. Those feel like really weak arguments when weighed against the concept that's being presented here.

[124:07] So, as we just made clear, the planning board cannot control the land-making process. I recognize that the applicant has several substantive asks related to the landmarking process. What I can say is that I see a strong argument for a proposal that maximizes senior housing at this location. Especially if it includes affordability guarantees and sustainable design features. And given that, I would strongly oppose this board using the site review process to force a landmarking on this property. I have one other comment, but if other folks want to colloquy on that… Okay. So that's… that's my big piece on BBCP compliance. In terms of other site review criteria, I do agree with city staff that there are some serious issues related to the parking and how that interfaces with the public realm on Arapahoe that needs attention.

[125:00] I think locating parking on that ground floor on Arapahoe really detracts from street activation, and the long, uninterrupted building facade that we're seeing in these preliminary drawings. Whatever materials you're using to construct that, I think is going to exacerbate that problem. I think a majority of this board would always prefer to see conservative parking counts. Especially so if that creates opportunities for more housing or for better design. I am listening, and I understand the financial constraints that you have there with getting financing, also with the floodplain limitations. So I'm sympathetic to that. So, what I've been thinking about is if that interface with Arapaho and the building Could somehow be improved by other means, such as… Creating additional entrances, that might be accessed by stair or ramp on that north facade, adding individual or shared balconies on that side of the building.

[126:02] And some of these things might ultimately be private amenities for residents, but they could enhance the pedestrian experience there on Arapaho, as our code is going to ask of you, and create some more activation on that north side of the building. So those are really my two big things, and look forward to hearing other folks' comments. Thank you. Okay, I'm looking left and right, so ML is next. Anybody else want to get in the queue? Mason after ML. And then Kurt. Thank you. So, looking at the key question number one, So the concept of the project, central well-served location, affordable senior housing, and basically adding onto an already established and successful housing for this population, are all well aligned with our BVCP goals. However, I completely agree with and suggest you heed the comments made by staff around historic preservation and design as it relates to the public experience, which I feel are not being met at this time. So, regards to the BBCP, yes and no.

[127:07] The site review criteria related to BVCP9214HIE… If the board does not find the historic houses significant according to their criteria, I think that that doesn't mean that they are not significant in the context of the site. So that's a little bit different take than what's been focused on here, and I'll get more to that, in, in, key question number two. The second thing around the BBCP is in 9214H1GI. I'd be looking for the trees, the significant trees. along the north side. There are two, and they're right along the property line, to be retained if, if at all possible. So, those are my comments around… Key question number one. Key question number 2… My main concern is with building, siding, and design. That's 9214H3A, the public interface.

[128:09] So, this street is used to having complexity of scale and materials. Your proposal shows a generic monolithic structure. I know it's only concept review, but that's what we're seeing, so I will look for more compatibility to meet the criteria of the section at site review. I also think that the staff comments regards to these are quite detailed and valid, and should be taken into consideration as well. So, here is where the historic question comes up for me. I believe what is historically relevant Is the street cadence and the streetscape that these houses provide. I believe this can be addressed with building, siding, and design. I'm talking about architecture. This is how you address the landmark's concern and get ahead of the site review criteria 9214H3A. You make a building that has a public interface that is informed by the historic street cadence.

[129:10] Thank you. Mason. Great. So, I'm going to… On the… on the first question, emphatically agree with what Claudia said. This project is exactly what Boulder needs. We're all well aware that we're facing a, what's been termed, which I don't really like, but I'm gonna say it anyway, silver tsunami. and permanently affordable senior housing in a walkable, transit-rich location near the library, the Agewell Center, Boulder Creek Path is precisely the kind of Asian-place infrastructure that serves our community's long-term health. From a BBCP consistency standpoint, the high density residential designation, the density proposed, and the policy alignment on special needs populations and full range of households all point in the same direction.

[130:02] I believe this project belongs here, and I'm comfortable that it meets the BBCP on balance. So, speaking to the landmark, issue… again, agreeing with Claudia, let me summarize… skip a couple of this. I don't believe landmarking these structures would serve the community's interests as well as the 60 units of permanently affordable senior housing, and I appreciate the efforts of the applicant. And all the things that you've done to try to make sure that, that you're, Supporting the moving of these houses. As far as question number 2… I totally agree with what my two colleagues have already said around the design of the building. I'm looking forward to something that's more, active on the streetscape. I think there have already been some good comments around that, so I won't expand any further. I'm also looking forward to seeing the TDM plan under the new requirements. Given the intended occupants and this location's transit access, I expect the plan to be tailored specifically to the needs of senior residents.

[131:07] All this has already been said, I'll skip, and I believe that wraps it up. Thanks. Kurt. Okay, well, I will, go be fast, because mostly I'm agreeing with my colleagues. Certainly, this is really great to see a proposal for affordable senior housing. It is exactly what we need. And I appreciate very much the flexibility by Historic Boulder and by the applicant about the relocation of the buildings. You know, whether that'll actually be possible or not, I don't know. Finding receiving sites is always a challenge, but if it's possible, I think that that would be great. I certainly agree with my colleagues that the biggest challenge that you have is the design of the pedestrian-level facade on Arapaho. And I agree with ML that, you know, what is currently there

[132:06] is it's not meeting our needs from a housing standpoint, but from a design standpoint and from a pedestrian experience standpoint, it's really outstanding. So how can you… Create something that has that same level of interest, and and complexity, you know, and still achieve your needs. One of the things, that Claudia asked, or some sort of brought up, but then didn't talk about, was the possibility of reduced setback on Arapaho, which, if… it were to allow for more complexity of the pedestrian interaction there, I would be 100% supportive of, so maybe something to think about. And those are all my comments. Thank you.

[133:01] Max. Yeah, I don't even know why you guys invited me this. I already got it all. Yeah, I guess I would just quote all of you, again, that I think that it's a very good project, and I appreciate you bringing it before us, and it certainly meets a need in our changing community. But I really firmly agree with ML that part of the historical importance of those buildings is not the buildings themselves, rather the pedestrian interactions, so I think that everybody pretty much nailed that. Just to get a little bit more nitty-gritty with it. I think that the notion that… we live in a world… a change… a world where we still rely on cars. If we don't start to make active choices against that, we'll continue to. So, some of these decisions are still in the name of posterity, and to Claudia's point, one of the magnificent parts of this project is that you have such accessibility to public transport. You have a block across from the library. So, in terms of meeting market needs, although it may be unique to have less parking, it's also an…

[134:04] incredibly unique location, so this would be a really sterling opportunity to investigate setbacks, break visual continuity, and I really appreciated the input about the singular entrance. I thought that was illuminating, and answered a lot of our questions, but I would once again, along with my colleagues, encourage a little bit of creativity to create more visual breaks, move the patios towards the street face so that the public that's interacting along Arapaho is engaging with the center in a less, in a more welcoming way, perhaps. Mark. So, Many times, concept reviews are frustrating. They lean in a little bit. Yeah. They can be frustrating to the applicant, they can be frustrating to the board, they can present conundrums, and this particular concept review is

[135:01] for me, Really frustrating, because… I, I find the design that's been presented thin week, it's hard for me to weigh in, and I know that, at a concept review, the more money and the more detail you provide. the… the greater the chance that that money might be wasted, and the board says, we don't like it, or whatever, but… so, anyway, this is a… this is a… a conundrum that's always with us in concept reviews, which is not to say that we don't… we shouldn't do them, we should do them. But I find this one, especially given the context and the potential of for the applicant, To have, one Of the houses on site, potentially be landmarked, and… blow their design up. So, that's a, that's a particularly frustrating aspect to this. So while we're on the subject of the, of the…

[136:03] Of the houses and moving the houses. My preference is, sure. moot… work with Historic Boulder, and I'm very appreciative of the offer, and working with the cooperation of Historic Boulder. My preference is great, move them. That sounds great. It's an example of reuse, it's an example of all sorts of things that are good, of cooperation and collaboration amongst Different areas and people of different interests. If it… if push comes to shove. I think this project is worthy of being built, at the expense of the one house that is potentially being landmarked. So, project over the single house should If that is the unfortunate situation, I would… I would be in support of the demolition of the house in support of the project. Whether or not this… to me, this project fulfills, as people have said, almost every

[137:08] BVCP goal and policy, and as we state, no project must fulfill all BVCP policies and goals. But this one certainly ticks many, many boxes. As a, headed into my fifth year on planning board, one of the things that community members, approach me about is… gosh, you know, all these developers, they get just to pay a little bit of cash in lieu, and they build some market rate project. One, I'm a great supporter of our current, inclusionary housing ordinance, and I think we have a lot of units in Boulder, and that number is growing. But…

[138:00] This project directly contributes to the number. We have a… we have a goal that we're trying to meet as a city, a stated goal of how many units, what percentage of units, by what year, we want to see. And while adding no market rate units, this ups the number of permanently affordable units. So, it moves us faster and farther towards our goals than any other project I have seen to date. So, I'm, I'm in favor of it from, that regard. I do. So, getting onto the site review question, I do find, and again, this is the frustrating part of concept review. That the design, the massing. the full Arapahoe face, it doesn't feel… and again, I know this is an early rendering, it doesn't feel like it speaks to or contrasts with

[139:06] the existing 1050 building or the library. I think you have these two really kind of iconic buildings, right here on site, and… and I'm not saying that you have to mimic one or the other. But you do have to either acknowledge their existence and contrast them, or speak to them and use some similar materials, or whatever. Because I think these two buildings are great examples of good architecture, and it would be… a shame, To have something that is unmemorable Even though it provides 60 affordable units, if the design, doesn't enhance this area, which is a really nice area. If the design doesn't enhance this area, then that would be a real shame.

[140:02] And it has the potential of saying, well, see, we had the affordable housing exemption, look what they did, it's not great. So, anyway, I would really encourage you to fulfill the design, to really make it, An example of design excellence, both for the city and for the residents. That's it. Okay, I think I'm batting last, so thank you to all of my colleagues for your very well-considered comments. I will go through mine, and then I do want to do one kind of pulse check with everybody with a straw poll, if that is permissible, according to our City of Boulder Attorney's Office representative. Can we do that in a concept review? Straw pole a certain issue just so there's clarity for the applicant? Yes, it's not prohibited. Okay, not. prohibited, I'll take it. Okay, I'll take it and I'll run with it. Okay, so my comments before we get to the straw poll. See, I'm building suspense here, but you're gonna love it.

[141:03] You'll get to the clarity that you've asked for. Okay, so, consistency with the BBCP, I would say generally, yes, I have no issues with your consistency with the BBCP. My colleagues have very aptly explained all of the ways in which this, project fulfills a lot of our goals in the BBCP. And consistency with site review, I would say it's generally consistent. I do have a couple of comments, so I will… I will go through. So, I love that this is sponsored by Boulder Presbyterian Housing, that you are a mission-driven nonprofit, and you really want to provide this affordable senior housing for the community. We often, in site review, worry that, you know, we cannot hold an applicant to their promises to build on-site affordable housing. I'm not that worried about this with you. I think that unless some catastrophe happens, you're gonna build what you say you're gonna build. So, thank you so much for your mission-driven values. It's a wonderful thing to have here in Boulder, and I think you will broaden access to housing for historically underserved populations, as you have stated. It is a perfect location. This is the very definition of the kind of 15-minute neighborhood that we are looking to have people live in.

[142:06] So I won't go into all of the things about your walk score and your bike score and all of the amenities nearby. This is a wonderful location. I love your concept of a shared campus between the existing building and the new building. Especially the open space and amenities, and how that is going to, in your words, enhance efficiency, strengthen social connection, and further reduce transportation demand by concentrating services and amenities on site. I love it. I love it, love it, love it. And I love that you're focusing on households earning at or below 60% of AMI. We often get affordable units that are closer to 100 to 120% of AMI, so you are really doing a service here. for all of Boulder. And especially for the senior population that you serve. I love that your parking plan does decrease the overall park ratio from .94 spaces to .73, and I do appreciate the walkthrough of the LIHTC,

[143:03] Constraints that you are facing. My initial review of this, I thought, oh, the ground-level parking inside the building is a really elegant solution to try to conceal the parking rather than having surface parking, working within your FAR and elevating the residential units out of the floodplain. I do appreciate, staff's concerns about the way that the parking appears and affects the street, you know, the public along the street, so I will get to that in just a second. I appreciate the preservation of mature trees, and I appreciate ML pointing out that there are two on the north that should be looked at, as well as those ones on the southern edge of the property that you're committed to preserving. I support staff's comments about, showing, when you come back for site review, how the building will provide architectural cohesion with the existing tower. I liked Mark's comments about also considering the library architecture, perhaps, as part of your coherence with the neighborhood.

[144:00] I support staff's comment about providing additional programming about your open spaces, the terrace, and the different uses of the shared common open spaces, the, and the proposed ADA access in and into and between the areas. There was some commentary about the vehicular hammerhead, and whether that could be, interfering with the function of the open space areas. I'm sure that you will look at that with staff and see if there are any other alternatives, and try to minimize any such interference. Okay, so getting to the appearance about the ground-level parking garages lacking the activity and vibrancy that should contribute to the pedestrian realm. You know, I've objected to this on a couple of other projects that proposed ground-level parking, And, but I do appreciate the special constraint that you are facing with the floodplain. And so, I think, as Claudia mentioned, she had some good ideas of how you could make that Even if it is parking on that ground floor along Arapahoe, make it more activated. One other suggestion that I might have is, since you have to go through site review anyway.

[145:09] think about whether you can increase some of the articulation and some of the public-serving uses along Arapahoe, and if that means you have to raise some of the height, I think that that would be an acceptable trade-off, at least to me. I can't speak for my other planning board members, but I'm seeing some nodding. That that may be a solution that lets you make your building more interesting, lets you articulate the frontage, retain your unit count, maximize your FAR, and make that facade a bit more… vibrant and, interesting. And if you are doing a height modification, I would consider varying the roof lines a bit to give that… give that some interest. You know, maybe consider some parklets, some benches, some awnings, you know, make that a vibrant street front. Other projects have used murals, they've used, grand staircases that lead up to second floor open spaces. Like, there are a lot of designs of how you can make that a little bit more interesting.

[146:01] And I'm not recommending anything in particular, just throwing some ideas out there. The big thing that, I disagree with in staff's comments is the landmarking. You know, the landmarking criteria are designed to protect buildings with significant historic and cultural resources, and as has been noted, it is very rare for the Landmarks Board to find That… that landmarking value outweighs the private property rights of the property owner, if it comes to that. And… and I agree, actually, with Tim Plass, although for a different reason, from Historic Boulder, that the process needs reworking. We all know that our landmarking process is incredibly arduous for the applicants, there's a lot of uncertainty. Tim doesn't like the sequencing for one reason, I don't like it for another reason. I don't think that site review should be used as an escape valve for Landmarks Board, quite frankly, to get around making that very tough determination of do the private property rights outweigh the historic value of the building?

[147:06] If the city thinks that building is so valuable that we're going to landmark over the objection of the property owner, then we should do it, and we shouldn't look to site review to avoid making that determination, right? Because I do feel like In some respects, we're being asked to do an end run around the Landmarks Board, who is the proper authority to determine Is this building so significant that we should compel the property owner to retain it? That's not… I don't feel like I'm an expert in that, I don't feel like this board should make that determination. I understand the argument that we can consider a lot of values and make trade-offs. So I'm not going to weigh in on whether I think this building should be preserved or not. I don't think that's my purview. I think that's for Landmarks Board. But if you are asking me, am I going to, in a site review, compel… vote for compelling a property owner to quote-unquote, voluntarily apply for landmarking. I am never going to say yes to that question. I have a policy stance against it, I think that is broken in our system, and we should not be asked to do that.

[148:01] So… I will not ask you to do that. other… my fellow board members may disagree or may agree, I don't know. So… so I am very, I would also point out that I don't… I think we should think very carefully about creating up houses, up-style houses, like that movie Up, where you have the tiny little house with a big building built around it, and big walls. I think we would… That would probably not serve the interests of historic preservation very well. Or any other interest of the city. So, I do appreciate Historic Boulder's recommendation to issue the demolition permits for all four structures and relocate, and I very much think the applicant is going above and beyond by both donating the buildings as well as your potential demolition costs towards the cause of relocation, if possible. So, I hope that works out. But I'm not going to recommend landmarking through site review. So that's where I stand, and the question that I was hoping to poll… Because I wanna… I have strong feelings, but I'm one person, one of seven equals here.

[149:04] Are there folks on this board who would want to recommend, I want to test the other option, who would recommend Through site review, Asking the applicant as part of the balance of values to preserve that house. So, if you would recommend, through site review, when it comes back for site review, preserving that building on site. Please raise your hand. Okay, so I hope that provides some clarity to Landmark's Board, on where Planning Board stands on that particular issue. I would also like to straw a poll. Who… who would be supportive, it sounds like? People already talked about this, but who's supportive of the proposal to relocate the homes if it's possible.

[150:00] As ML said, it's not really our purview, but… It seems like this board likes that idea, if you can make it work. Okay, any last thoughts before we close out this item and take a break? Yes and no. Sorry, applicant, I forgot one thing. I think I mentioned it, earlier on, but… Regarding the site review criteria, I'm looking at 9214H2IV, and that's about open space and linking to the site. Your mic, sorry to interrupt. Just lean in. Open space linking to the park across the street. So I think consideration for how people will cross Arapaho should be given careful thought. I'm… I'm a walker. I walk all over the city, and there's not a day that goes by that I'm not. really run over. So, I think that it's a… it's a important concern and consideration, especially, with a population that perhaps isn't as able to sprint across Arapaho as I might be. So I… I would look for, some…

[151:07] Advancement on how you're going to get people safely across the street to enjoy all the amenities that we're all very excited about, the proximity to. Thanks. Okay, and it is customary to ask the applicant, did you get what you needed? Do you have any last questions for us? Before we close this item. No, thank you for your time. Thank you so much. We appreciate you. Okay. Alright, so we are going to take a 10-minute break by my clock. It is 8.32. Let's come back at 8.42 for our second agenda item.

[162:15] Meeting back to order. Hope everybody had a nice break. Let's see, what is next on our agenda? So, we are moving on to… We are moving on. We are moving on to the disco dance portion of the agenda, agenda, agenda. Agenda item 5B, public hearing and consideration of a site review for height modification only for a detached dwelling unit located at 1039 Mapleton Avenue. The height modification is necessary to add habitable space above the by-right height. and to document the changing low point due to a proposed building expansion. No other modifications are proposed. Reviewed under case number LUR2024.

[163:06] Excuse me, 2024-00028. So, this will follow the same pattern as our previous public hearing. First, we will have a staff presentation, followed by board Q&A, an applicant presentation, followed by board Q&A, then a public hearing. The opportunity for public comment at that hearing. Followed by board deliberation, and in this case, a decision. So a site review is a quasi-judicial process that ends in a vote. And so at this point, I would like to ask my fellow board members if anybody would like to disclose any ex parte communications or conflict of interest. ML. Yes, I, stopped by the site this, afternoon on the way here, and met the builder, and I saw the site, and it turns out… The architect was one of my former students.

[164:02] And I believe that I can be, Fair and unbiased in my deliberations tonight. Was she hard on you as a professor? Any other ex parte communications or conflicts of interest? Seeing none, I will turn it over to Allison to give the staff presentation. All right, thanks for the introduction, and good evening, everyone. My name is Allison Blaine, and I'll be presenting this next item. In tonight's presentation, I will cover the information provided in staff's memo, including the planning process to date, the existing site and surrounding context, a summary of the proposed project, a key issue for discussion, and conclude with the staff recommendation. The project was brought before the Landmarks Design Review Committee in November and December of last year, and received an LAC in January for the proposed scope of the project.

[165:01] Staff has reviewed the application for a height modification and is recommending approval before Planning Board tonight. City Council will have the option to call up Planning Board's decision, which is scheduled for next month. The project before Planning Board tonight is for a height modification only to an existing detached dwelling unit, which requires Planning Board approval. The height modification will document a changing low point and also document the existing building height of 41.9 feet. This application includes a building expansion and new roof elements that will be 41.2 feet in height, where the by-right height in an RL1 zone is 35 feet. The existing building is considered non-conforming to height as it predates the city's current height measurement method. As described in Section 975D, a site review is required to add building elements, massing, or floor area above the permitted height. The site is also uniquely impacted by grading, which qualifies the development to request a height modification per Section 9214B1E3. No other modifications to the code are requested. And lastly, the site was posted, and public notification was provided per code. Staff did not receive any comments from neighbors.

[166:07] The subject site is located on the northern side of Mapleton Ave, just west of Broadway, and the farmer's Ditch crosses diagonally across the property, as shown on this slide. The site is split-zoned, R01 to the south and west of Farmer's Ditch, and RMX1 north and east of the ditch, with an underlying land use designation of low-density residential. The site is located within the Mapleton Hill neighborhood, adjacent to other detached dwelling units varying in 1 to 2 story heights. Non-residential uses exist along Broadway and further east. The property totals .4 acres and is located within the historic district. The property contains a detached dwelling unit built between 1895 and 1896, and an accessory structure. Since its original construction, several alterations have been made to the dwelling unit. The site is heavily impacted by topography and the farmer's ditch that crosses diagonally across the property.

[167:02] The property itself sits at the, edge of the hill, and the grade across the property changes by almost 30 feet between the southwest and northeast property edges. The existing dwelling unit does currently exceed the by-right height of 35 feet, but may be approved for further building additions as part of the site review process. That brings us to the proposed project, which includes a building addition to the north, a new deck, an additional floor area within new dormers and roof elements. The total size of the building is increasing by about 800 square feet. A garage is proposed, as well as new retaining walls to address the unique impacts caused by grading. As part of the scope, the applicant is proposing to expand the building footprint approximately 4 feet to the north, as shown in the slide in the blue rectangle. This addition will span all three floors. Other additions include a new deck, approximately 380 square feet to replace the existing deck, and the extent of that deck is shown in the slide in, I guess, orangey-pinkish-red.

[168:04] The building form and size will be slightly modified by raising some ceiling heights and roof forms of the upper floor to add habitable floor area where it was previously discounted from floor area ratio calculations. These new dormer and roof elements are shown in blue on the slide on the east and west elevations. The existing roof ridge will remain unchanged, it's not increasing in height. This diagram shows the east elevation in the existing roof ridge drawn in yellow. While the drawing does include the tower, the design element meets the city's definition of a building of pertinence, and therefore is not used to calculate height. The new building elements are shown highlighted in blue, which show that the modifications will not extend past the existing roof height. The by-right height is shown with a red dashed line at 35 feet, and there is no expansion to the overall roof height. Section 975 in the City's Land Use Code states that height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the lowest point within 25 horizontal feet of the tallest side of the structure.

[169:10] It further states that the lowest point shall be calculated using the natural grade. So for the purposes of determining the low point, the outer extent of the attached deck is used for that 25-foot measurement. And as shown on the diagram, the building's low point does fall within the bottom of Farmer's Ditch. That area is shown in green. Because the low point is taken from the natural grade, as described in Section 975 and falls within the man-made ditch, a topographic exhibit, which is shown here on the left, was prepared by a surveyor to interpolate the natural grade that would exist if the man-made ditch was not present. As a result of the new building, footprint, and the replacement deck, the location of the low point is changed, although the existing roof height is maintained. The new low point is an elevation of 5423.9 feet, therefore resulting in a building height of 41.9 feet measured to the existing hipped roof edge.

[170:03] The new roof elements measure 41.2 feet in height from the same low point. Open space for the detached dwelling unit is improved, with site grading to create more usable outdoor space, as well as a new deck. Building materials include lapsiding and wood details to match the existing exterior. The building design, including the materials, were reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee and found to be consistent with the Maputon Hill Historic District guidelines. And that brings us to our one key issue for discussion. Is the project consistent with the site review criteria in Section 9214H? And staff finds that the project is consistent. The new retaining walls and deck will contribute to usable open space. The building's relationship to the public realm is not altered and remains consistent with criteria and the existing use. The building material palette is simple and considered durable. And the overall design and massing is consistent with the surrounding area and the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as determined by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. And last, the scope is consistent with the continued use as a detached dwelling unit.

[171:10] And on the slide, I have the staff recommendation for the motion to approve the site review. And I will now open it up for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Allison. Thorough, detailed, quick, I love it. Any questions for staff? Claudia? Just want a process question. So, some site reviews now come to us only as call-ups. Why does this one require a public hearing? Because it's technically a height modification. Okay, thanks. ML. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. I have a couple of, very specific questions. Is the garage a new building?

[172:02] It is. And, so it's… roof is within compliance and all that, it's not looking for… Correct. So, the question in regards to the garage is… Was there an existing garage, or no? No existing garage. Okay. Yep. Because there's a driveway existing, but there was no garage on this property. Correct. Okay, and we're looking at an added height of about 7 feet, is that… From the buy-right height of 35? Correct. Correct. Okay. Yep, those are my questions. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? Max, and then Mark. Yeah, so I just want to be clear that what triggered the height review is its… is the dormer, because the dormer is being modified, and that's above the… the red line. Yeah, there's sort of a few things going on. There's a building addition to the north, and a new deck, which is changing the low point, because the grade goes down further north. So it's sort of documenting the new low point, which is, with how the city measures height, is technically changing heights, even though the existing roof ridge is staying the same.

[173:16] And then the other piece of it is that there is additional floor area above the buy-right height, which requires a site review. That makes plenty of sense, thank you. would… Is there an allowance for a resid… for new residential construction To go through the site review process to build over 35s. 35 feet. If they meet the… Yes, there is a process if they meet the eligibility criteria for a height modification. And if that's the only thing they're requesting, they don't need to meet. the table in 9214, that's at, you know, the minimum threshold to request a site review. If it's just a height modification only, you just need to meet the eligibility requirements for the height modification itself.

[174:12] Does that… does that require site review? Yes. It does. Yep. Okay, thank you. Kurt. Usually, site review, requires bringing transportation elements up to the code consistency with the DCS, are they being required to change anything, like, with the sidewalk? Not with the sidewalk, but this was reviewed by our transportation engineering team, and they confirmed the access for the driveway meets DCS in code. Access for the driveway. The curb cut, yes. Okay, but what about the actual sidewalk on Mapleton? I don't believe there are any changes to that sidewalk. But I would have to double check.

[175:02] Oh, George might be able to answer this. Okay, but, I can wait. We can wait. Yeah, we'll get to it. Great. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Yes, ML. Can you clarify? you've said it a few times, that this is here for only a height review. Does that mean that the broader site criteria, like what Kurt was asking about the sidewalk. We can or cannot ask questions about? All the site review criteria apply. The only modification they can request to the code is building height, nothing else. Okay, thank you so much. Last call for questions for staff. Okay, we are on to the applicant presentation. You have up to 15 minutes. I don't see Thomas, but I'll go ahead and set a timer, and I'll give you a 5-minute warning.

[176:06] Oh, Thomas, if you're able to give us a 15-minute timer for the applicant? Okay, if you could give us just one minute here to get settled, and then we'll start your timer. Does the applicant need to be promoted to a panelist to be able to display his screen? Okay, great. Okay, I think we are ready with a timer whenever you're ready, but just give us the high sign when you're ready to start.

[177:41] If you continue to have trouble, you can also send me the file, and I can share it on my end, and you can just tell me when to advance the slide. In the meantime, anyone been to any good restaurants lately?

[178:01] Now, taking recommendations. What's office? Basta. Over at the Peloton. Pizza. They're good. Shout out to Basta. Sure, you could send that to me at… RimkeT at boulderColorado.gov. Extended. make exaggerations. Our newest board member would like to know if anyone would like to stand at ease and make a declaration. Stand at ease and make a declaration according to Robert's rules. He's reading through the… his gift. His gift from Mark. Very fast. Mmm! I think you've read more of that book than several of us up here.

[179:08] Come back to the whip. When it works, do a little action. Okay, I want to challenge someone at some meeting To call the question. Because that's a procedure. It can happen by any member. You call the question, debate stops then, and you vote to call the question or not, right? And then… and so there's no debate about it, and you just vote right then, and if it's affirmative, then all debate is stopped, and I just, I'd just be curious if… So, so for those following along at home. We're having some technical difficulties, and we're trying to work them out. And while staff is trying to work out our technical difficulties, the board is joking around about Robert's Rules of Order.

[180:03] Which we loosely follow up here. I don't think it's any joke. Seven wild and crazy planning board members. Just an update, we think it's due to a browser issue, so we're gonna try them on a different browser, and then see if that works out. Thank you, Thomas.

[181:21] So we are having a Roberts Rules SmackDown up here. Max is about to call the question on Mark. This actually doesn't relate to the site. The issue is that the file size is too large to send directly to me, so… and he's having difficulties on his computer, so… the file's not stored on a flash drive or anything I can plug in, so we're trying to navigate around that.

[183:55] Alright, we have a… Solution.

[184:01] Okay, we've had an entertaining break talking about mid-block crossings up here, but nothing that would violate the rules of quasi-judicial procedure. And I would like to now turn it over to the applicant for your 15-minute presentation. My name is George Watt. the architect working with Charles and. Sylvia Dow. We're on their project. I'm sorry, George, we're gonna need you to get real close to the mic. Real close. Feel free to raise it up, move it closer to you, wherever you need to do. Again, my name is George Watt. I'm the architect working with Charles and Sylvia Dauber on the 1039 Mapleton project. Apologize for the. technical difficulties, but we were able to get some PDFs of some imagery that we created for the Landmarks LDRC meeting. That shows the proposed building, and so I'll just amend some of my comments and just speak directly to the design that we've come up with for the building. Just a quick little bit of history. When the Daubers purchased the property.

[185:04] it is and was in a state of great disrepair. The foundation was crumbling, the masonry was falling off the building, we had 2 and 3 inch gaps in between some of the existing stones. The building itself was actually creeping down the hillside. You can see from this rendering, you've got a little bit of grade going down to the north, and the building was actually sliding, going downhill. Creating the cracks in the masonry, producing a 3-inch difference in floor level on a couple of the rooms. And so, one of the reasons to start the project was, not only to repair that condition, but also the Dauber saw this as an opportunity to, restore and repair the entire building at the same time. One of the things that you'll see in this image… you can go to the next one if you don't mind. Is that the living… the bedroom areas are up on the, second floor.

[186:05] And it's sort of… it's what we call living in the roof. Many rooms sort of chopped up by the roofline, lots of hip rafters coming down into the living space, creating a lot of short walls on the exterior. Where you have non-habitable space that, a little bit different than non-usable space. Non-habitable space being 6 feet or less. You know, usable space, in my mind, is about 8 feet. And so, the actual area of that second floor that's usable was minimized by the design of the roof. And so, one of the things that we… was paramount in our design brief was creating spaces up on that second floor that were usable and livable for a family that's living there in 2026 instead of when this was built, you know, 120 years ago. If you'd like to go to the next slide.

[187:01] Thank you. In this slide, you can see… Essentially, the house is three bays. On the left, where the turret is and the porch is, say that's bay one, then you've got the stone bay at the base. Sorry, you're drifting from the mic for the recording. Thank you. about that. You've got the, the three bays, the first bay being the turret, and the, porch below it, and the second bay being the stone bay with the dormer up above. And then the third bay, which is far right, that's the area that we're working in. We're creating a, a walkout basement on the first floor. We're creating a kitchen up on the second floor, and we're creating a bedroom up on the third floor. And what we tried to do with this design is minimize the visual impact Of that third floor dormer by creating hip roofs up on that floor. And creating a dormer that's facing east that is diminutive compared to the larger existing dormer that's to the left or to the south of it.

[188:08] From looking at some historic photographs, we noticed that the… porch in that bay on that second floor, did exist and had a roofline very similar to the existing front porch. Somewhere along the line, somebody tore all that out and put in kind of a storage area that, continued down from the second floor down to the basement. So we, the proposal is to take that off and create a… a roofline that continues from left to right, and then we're continuing that porch line from left to right from the existing front porch to the new Rear porch. I'm trying to stay within the same material palette of siding up on the third floor, but changing from the existing stone on the basement and first floor to a siding profile to make a distinction between the…

[189:03] Old and the new. If you could go to the next slide, thank you. This is a view… From… what are we looking? We're looking southwest, so you can see the basement on the first floor, you know, a wraparound porch up on the piano novel layer of the first floor, and then the bedrooms, up on the second floor. And as we were talking about earlier, that garage is being proposed to be set back from the rear of the house, so that it isn't terribly visible from Mapleton Avenue. In terms of the height. you know, I think Allison did a nice job of explaining what we were trying to do there, keeping the proposed roofline lower than the existing hip from where we measure height. That difference is about 11 inches. Anecdotally, if you were to measure from…

[190:00] The basement up to the top of the proposed roof. That also… that is under 35 feet, but the way we measure height in Boulder, of course, you've got to take that point from which you measure 35 feet, 25 feet away from the lowest point. There was an existing porch. In very much the same place that we're proposing to do the deck facing north. If you were to look at… Where that existing porch lands in terms of measuring the height. and you look at where we're measuring height from now, those two points are pretty coincident. They're very similar off by a couple of inches. One of the things that we'll be able to do… You can go to the next slide. Thank you. One of the things that we'll be able to do on the north elevation is marry the old and the new with the new addition and renovation on the left, and the old existing house on the right.

[191:01] One of the things that we're also able to do here, which I think is really important, is you know, we enacted an energy code in Boulder a long, long time ago. We had a Greenpoints program, and that evolved into the COBECC, and… going through all those codes over the years, we're trying to make all of our existing building stock better and better and better, so that we eventually get to, you know, a profile in Boulder that We are closer to, you know, a zero energy profile across the city. And the owners are very interested in creating this home as a zero-energy home. So, taking an old masonry building with single-pane windows and turning it into a zero-energy home is, is no easy task, and neither is the repair, but I have to applaud, you know, the owners here for… Undertaking that whole process. And then through just a really terrific co-creative process with Landmark staff and the LDRC, we were able to, you know, come up with a design that I think, I'm pleased with, Landmark's approved of, and the owners are really excited to build.

[192:17] Thank you. Thank you so much. Now is the time for questions for the applicant team. I see Kurt. Yeah, I had one question about the sidewalks you said you could address. Yes, thank you. Sorry. During the site review process, since it is focused on height modification, we haven't addressed it, but in my experience, when we go to building permit, we will be required To, level out and create a smooth transition from property line to property line, and repair the existing sidewalk. Most likely using the existing stones that are in place.

[193:04] Okay, thank you. ML. Thank you for that presentation, George. My question is about the driveway, the proposed driveway. What material Are you looking at using for that? Well, right now, it's, it's sort of a combination of gravel and concrete, and so, again, trying to, you know, create a building that sort of meets our latest criteria for sustainability, the new material that we're using is going to be a permeable paving system. Perfect. That was my question. That is one of the site design criteria, is to minimize paving, and if there isn't any paving now, let's… let's make it so in the future, and it sounds like you are. Yeah, we're actually only increasing the footprint here on the first floor by about 100 square feet. Oh, yeah. So, our stormwater calculations are going to be very similar between, you know, existing and proposed.

[194:09] is concerned about the perviousness of the driveway. Yeah, because it's. It's a long driveway, you know, going back to the garage. Right. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you so much. Any more questions for the applicant team? Seeing none… We will move on to the public hearing portion, so thank you, George. You can turn off your mic. And we will now open the public hearing to be managed by Thomas. Now is the time when any member of the public can comment about this project in particular on Mapleton Avenue. Thank you, Laura, and yes, we do have one individual signed up in person to speak. We have James Pollack. James, if you'd like to step up to the podium and give your comment. Is James still with us? Okay. Well, I believe we have no others signed up for public participation.

[195:02] Do we have any hands online? That will move to online participants. If there's anyone online joining us, please go ahead and raise your hand. And we do have one hand raised so far. First up, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes, please go ahead when you're ready. Hi, yeah, I remember you, George Watt. You're the perfect guy for energy efficiency. Because you're a what? I wish you could do my place, because I want a geothermal heat pump. And… I have a nightmare retrofit situation that I now have to get rid of. So that I can do my geothermal, because I have to pop up my attic, so I can get a roof, so I can get solar, so I can get geothermal. But this place might not have that, but to, to improve the energy.

[196:01] the way that you are is really great, and I can understand this distinction between the… with a lower the… the lower ground point not causing this to be above 35 feet. And, you know, on the very rare… George, if you were around here, you would see that I… I oppose every single project that Planning Board proposes on the height limit, you know, a height subsidy, a FAR subsidy, a setback subsidy. I oppose everything, and I should be opposing this one. But I'm not, because it's understandable. And… This is a great house in my neighborhood, and… I think you're doing… A great job, like, permeable paving. Now I've gotta get some of that. It's, like, really neat. So… I guess…

[197:05] That's it. I… I support your project. I think it's great what you're doing. And it's adding, you know, livable space But modestly in the back. With not the stone, but, you know, like, working it in. Oh, and also, The old to the new. distinction, I really liked that you pointed that out. Because that… that's always a point of opposition, is if it tries to mimic the old too much. And… Great job. And, glad to hear your name, it's been a long time. Thanks Done. Thanks for joining us tonight, Lynn. And if there's anybody else that's joining us online that would like to speak to the public hearing item, this is your opportunity to do so.

[198:04] Please go ahead and raise your hand if so. And… Seeing no others, I'll pass it back to you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, Lynn. Right. Moment of truth. Allison, could you put up the suggested motion language? We are going to have planning board deliberation. Before we move to motion making. So, you know, it is a little bit later tonight, it's about 9-18. I would encourage folks to focus on if there's anything about this project that would cause you to want to deny or condition The project. But of course, you can also compliment anything or make any other comments you want. But this is an official site review hearing, so our decision needs to be based on the site review criteria. Okay, with that said, let's do a round of comments if folks are so inclined. If you have none, that's fine too. Who would like to start?

[199:04] burning comments. If no one is moved to make comments, I will also entertain a motion. I'd be happy to make a motion. Please. So I move that we approve site review application LUR2024-00028. Adopting the staff memorandum is findings of fact. Including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Claudia, would you like to speak to your motion? Very briefly. I would say that because this proposal is not changing the historic height of this building. And it creates no significant new impacts on the public realm or neighboring properties. I see this site review as primarily a formality.

[200:04] And I think this project is largely regulated by landmarking rules and historic design, district design guidelines that the applicants have already been working through. So I'm happy to approve this without conditions and get everyone involved on their way. Thank you, Claudia. ML is the second. Would you like to speak to the project? I concur with Claudia. Let's get these people on their way. Mark, you are recognized. Thank you. I'll just simply say, This is a clear example. of… A decision-making process that could, not could, should have been A administrative or staff-level decision, and that For the applicant, for the board, for staff. It's a lot of time, a lot of hours here for this, and it's an example of something that where we place such emphasis on these minor height modifications.

[201:05] if… A different issue would not have come before us. Height has come before us and consumed a lot of time. I think your last comment might have gotten swallowed, but you were saying, you need to turn your mic on. will be supporting the motion. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Mark, any other folks moved to speak? Okay, I'll just say I concur with Claudia, ML, and Mark, and I understand that staff have certain procedures they need to live by. This one got caught in the net, but I agree that this, you know, could have been a staff-level review. Okay, with that, we have a motion and a second. I'll re-read the motion for the record, and then we will vote. Motion to approve site review application LUR 2024-00028, adopting staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

[202:02] Now I get to breathe. Okay, ready to vote? Alright, I'll start to my right with Kurt. Yes. ML? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Mark. Yes. Mason? Yes. Max? Yes. And I'm a yes, that's unanimous approval, thank you so much. It is now your option to say anything you'd like to say at the board, or if you have any questions before we let you go home. Oh, wait, we do need to ask you to go to the mic, unfortunately, I'm sorry. You are also speaking to the world audience via YouTube. Yes, the mic will light up red. Thank you. I would just say thank you to you all. The process, when we first found this house. it was a disaster, and being able to work with George, and Landmarks, and you all. have been, like, I think, in the end, the house is better, and the neighborhood's better for it, so I really appreciate the… what you're doing to keep at least Mapleton exactly what it is, so thank you, and that's it. Thank you.

[203:06] Okay, so thank you very much, that was really… that was very impressive. Hooray for a win-win. Thank you to the applicants, thank you to staff. Okay. We will move on, on our agenda tonight. We are on to matters from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney. I see our planning director approaching the mic. Yes, thank you. Good evening, thanks for your time again. Two things I wanted to share with you. One, Not to editorialize or. Or speak to the, the matter that you, discussed earlier with Presbyterian, but there does seem to be a general lack of information in the community at large that the,

[204:01] Wellness Center… what… I'm losing the name of it. AgeWell West Center is actually planned for, not being there much longer, so it's on the facilities list that's being offered up as part of the West Bookends for private development, redevelopment. Along with the East Bookend, and there's… there's information on the website that's been there for a while as part of the Civic Area. Redevelopment, so… Again, not that that would have or should have colored, you know, any of your decision making, it just was clear that some folks were not aware of that, so I thought I'd share that with everybody. And then the other thing, just looking forward to, seeing you all on Monday, you'll be getting the memo for that on Friday, just because we need to account for the county commissioners who meet on Thursday, to do the equivalent of what had been your two-body review. They weren't able to do it, jointly with the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, so their meeting is on Thursday, and we'll capture those comments, and…

[205:08] add them to the memo. The memo is not extensive. It does not try to give an accounting of the comments that we've received to date, either from the four bodies, or from the public at large. As you can imagine, that's many, and the deadline for that was just, yesterday, I believe, so… The team will continue to reconcile those comments, but we do have some themes that we'll be able to share with you, have an opportunity for the four bodies to speak both as a group and you as individual four bodies. On, some topic areas, things that maybe you found lingering from the two-body discussion. And then things that are of… of comport to the… all four bodies, which are the city-county items, those types of things. So, just know we're excited to have that conversation. This is a big, culminating event for all four of your, groups to get together, and,

[206:04] And then we're on to the hearing sequencing about a month and a half later. Thank you, Brad. Any questions or commentary about the upcoming meeting on Monday for the BBCP with the four bodies? Yes, Kurt? At some point, we'll get all of the public comments, I assume. Yes, as part of the… what will be labeled the recommendation draft, you will get that as part of a pack… as part of your packet for the hearings. It will also include A matrix of all the various input that we've gotten to the draft document. As well as summaries and, and major themes and points of, accommodation or, or… Or, or not, in some cases, of that. I have not talked to the team about this, but I know that it's been on our ongoing goal to try to get those out ahead of the normal

[207:02] You know, cycle for when you would receive packets, just given its volume and those types of things, so… I just know we'll be endeavoring to do that to the best of our ability. Very appreciated. Charles, did you want to add something? Nothing, other than congratulations to the new chair and vice chair. Thanks so much. Mark, for your service, and congratulations. Congratulations to Max on surviving your first meeting. Thank you. And was there still a question for Brad? Yes, go ahead, Emil. Brad, did I understand you to say that in advance of our Monday meeting, we will get a packet that reviews All the input that was given at the… Planning Board City Council meeting. If I heard you correctly, yes, you will not be getting that, so… Oh, we will not. Not, yeah, you will not be getting that. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you then correctly. Because we're getting, you know, many, many, many comments up until, I think, the deadline was Tuesday from the public. We'll capture main themes.

[208:06] both from the two-body review, and also from councils, or I'm sorry, the county commissioners' comments on Thursday, and, county… Planning Commission was, I want to say, last Thursday I was there, I can't remember. That was my question. So… Are we getting the, sort of the bodies, the four bodies. You'll get summaries of the four bodies, as well as, and I didn't mention this, the, Subject matter, or the boards and commissions who have also there was a whole roadshow to all those groups, so their input will be summarized as well for you. Great. That's what I was looking for. Yeah. Thank you, that's a yes. clarification. And just to confirm, the drop-dead deadline for the four bodies, if folks have additional input, is Monday, right? That's what Christopher said, was they wanted input by yesterday. Seems correct, yeah. I don't have it right at my fingertips, but that date sounds correct.

[209:02] But they will accept it through Monday. So if anybody has any last comments to get in, you still have a few days. But as soon as possible for staff, because it does put a burden on them. Any other matters from the planning director, city attorney. Nothing from the city attorney's office. Okay. Any matters from planning board members? Well, we had just been talking sort of informally with Thomas about the liaisons, and those are going to be coming up, so no changes for now. Yeah, we're working with the city manager's office right now to determine, what boards actually are required to have liaisons, and I think we're kind of doing an audit across all of the different boards that have liaisons, so we're going to bump at a couple meetings before we have that conversation. Okay. Do you think that'll happen before the end of the month? Probably not before the end of the month. Okay.

[210:00] So if you need a HAB alternate. I told them that was my last meeting last time. Okay. They've already seen. Surprise! Surprise! Yeah. Okay, thanks. Mark? I would just comment, as you, do that review with the City Manager's office. The Greenways Advisory Committee Is made up of nothing but liaisons, and Has not met for years. And is long overdue to meet. And… to, address the issue of oversight. So, that's my input as you meet with the city manager. Any other matters from the planning board members? Do we need to do a calendar check, Thomas? I believe we've covered, our… most of our upcoming calendar items, aside from the April 21st Planning Board Meeting. Okay, and we have a retreat at some point on the calendar, yeah? That's coming up in May.

[211:04] I believe, yeah. In May, so we'll look forward to that. Yeah, so we'll start. Talking about what agenda planning looks like for that. Okay. So, but that's pretty definite at this point, because it's still shown as tentative on the calendar, I believe. Yeah, that's confirmed on the 19th of May. 19th? Okay. So maybe we can remove the tentative. Mark. Do we have a meeting at the end of this month? Can you go back to you? Are you talking about our fourth Tuesday? Yes. So… meeting on the 28th. Yeah, that's 777 Broadway Site Review. Okay, I will not be. present for that. Okay. Remote. Mark is checking out for that meeting. You must have something fun planned. All right, well, I'll be with you in spirit. Anything else before we adjourn this meeting? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you all.